This is a spin-off of the De Facto Baby Sprinklers thread. Anyone who wants to weigh in on baptism -- paedo, credo or other -- please feel free to jump in.
Posted by Discoshaman at février 24, 2005 09:23 PM | TrackBack
(Transferred from other thread.)
Megan (and others),
If you look for evidence in the Bible for infant baptism, there is none.
The question of the status of believers' children is difficult; the Bible does not give a clear answer. Yes, I Cor 7:14 [not I Cor 17, btw--doesn't exist!] does say our children are "holy," but perhaps this should be taken in the literal sense of "set apart." (See earlier tossed clog about "dedicating" infants.)
What is our response to the silence (or whispers) of the New Testament? Since the Bible does not speak clearly to this question, Christian practice is very varied. Some sprinkle infants, some come up with an idea of "the age of accountability," some catechize....
And now for the truly open minded: (Calivinists: before reading any further, remember you were predestined to read this, so think before you get out the flaming sword ;)
The idea of the "sinner's prayer," so deeeeeeply entrenched in evangelical circles is also not scriptural. Nowhere in the Bible is a prayer associated with salvation--unless you count that last page after Revelation 22.
So, as a Christian parent, pray and consider what your guide will be. Some argue to use the Bible only, while others rely on centuries of tradition and wisdom.
Peace.
Posted by: Joe St. at février 24, 2005 10:10 PMJoe-
"If you look for evidence in the Bible for infant baptism, there is none."
This is simply not the case. But if you mean that it isn't explicitly cited, we're in agreement. Just as there is absolutely zero of such "evidence" for the children of believers growing to maturity, converting and being baptized. BOTH sides have used logical inference to reach their conclusions. The infant baptism side is just more honest about this fact.
"Yes, I Cor 7:14 [not I Cor 17, btw--doesn't exist!] does say our children are "holy," but perhaps this should be taken in the literal sense of "set apart."
That's exactly how it should be taken. And the Bible has a way of describing people whom God has set apart for Himself as His people -- it's called being in covenant with Him. What have they been "set apart" from? The World. In Paul's dichotomous theology, if someone isn't in the World, where is he?
Paul wasn't writing that passage in a vacuum, and he wasn't creating a new category of existence. This pattern of believers' children being "set apart" existed from the time of Abraham.
"And now for the truly open minded: (Calivinists: before reading any further, remember you were predestined to read this, so think before you get out the flaming sword ;)The idea of the "sinner's prayer," so deeeeeeply entrenched in evangelical circles is also not scriptural. Nowhere in the Bible is a prayer associated with salvation--unless you count that last page after Revelation 22."
I'm not sure why you're addressing this to Calvinists. We're probably the least beholden to the "sinner's prayer" of any Evangelical group. If you do some reading, you'll see that WE'RE the ones who think regeneration precedes conscious faith.
"So, as a Christian parent, pray and consider what your guide will be. Some argue to use the Bible only, while others rely on centuries of tradition and wisdom."
This is probably the lowest tactic of the opponents to covenant baptism, because of its basic dishonesty. I'm not saying this about YOU, because I'm not sure if you're including non-Protestant denominations in your statement (in which case the comment about church tradition is totally justified.) But credobaptists constantly rely on this diversion --- that they've reached their position through Sola Scriptura while the Reformed are relying on church tradition.
This is pure bunk. While church tradition overwhelmingly and almost universally supports infant baptism, that's not at all our basis for belief. It comes entirely from the Scriptures.
Posted by: Discoshaman at février 24, 2005 10:39 PMMy problem with so many baptism arguments is that they are reductionistic: one picks one dimension of our process of salvation and sanctification and focus baptism as the sacrament to celebrate that one aspect.
1. Does the Lord have a special covenant relationship with the children of believers?Yes. Should that be recognized and celebrated? Yes.
2. Should the Church give a blessing and consecrate the children of believers (a la Roman Catholic 'christening?')? Yes.
3. Should the Church celebrate and bless the children of believers and acknowledge their membership in the community of faith? Yes.
4. Are the covenant children of believers AUTOMATICALLY saved? No. Do they need to -- at some point -- accept and acknowledge Christ in their life and make public confession? Yes. Should that act be publically celebrated? Yes.
5. At some point do the children of believers need to 'come of age,' accepting the benefits and responsibilities of being a member of the community of faith? Yes.
6. Are some children who were not baptised, or baptised not in faith but in superstition by unfaithful parents, genuinely converting when they accept Christ later in life? Yes. Should the church celebrate this? Yes
7. Are some folks genuinely converted, even if there was some marginal religious influence early in their life? Yes. Should this be celebrated by the church? Yes.
I could come up with more examples. But anyone with a Reformed perspective who has ACTUALLY PASTORED in a post-christian context understands that the road of salvation and santification has many points along it.
Folks of good theology sometimes argue over which of these points the sacrament ought to be used to celebrate. We may agree that the theology of salvation and sanctification is scripturally clear, but the use of the sacrament as a sign and seal to celebrate some dimension of that salvation and sanctification is debatable because scripture is ambigious about that. Don't misunderstand me: scripture is clear about how we are saved, etc., but not about how the sacrament was used in the early church or how it is to be used today.
The reductionism comes when someone starts focusing just on some one aspect of the process human restoration and then assuming, quid pro quo that baptism should obviously be attached to that.
If I had the time and space I could tell you 100 stories -- all different and complex -- of how I struggled with when to baptize someone as a Reformed pastor working as a church planter in a liberal, secular, post-christian culture. It got real complicated.
Posted by: Greg at février 24, 2005 10:39 PMGreg-
"I could come up with more examples. But anyone with a Reformed perspective who has ACTUALLY PASTORED in a post-christian context understands that the road of salvation and santification has many points along it."
This is something we've seen really clearly in Ukraine. We see very few dramatic, one-time conversion experiences. Most of the people who have come to Christ during our time here have done so progressively, with a lot of way points along the path. That's not to say that there aren't defined moments like repentance or baptism, but the process is much less programmatic than it was in the non-denom churches of my growing up years.
Posted by: Discoshaman at février 24, 2005 10:44 PMOkay, what the heck. I'll try again. Here's my question moved over from the previous thread:
Hmmm - this is what I was asking about on Feb 8 (http://megan.navstaff.com/index.php?p=189).
The main gist of that was this: Here is my main question, and perhaps my only one - All of the arguments of children being in a “covenant” I understand and even can agree with. I do not, however, see the actual evidence of children being baptised in the Bible. So my question - why is the actual sprinkling process necessary? Can we say that since I believe all this about children of believers being in the covenant, despite the fact that our kids have not been sprinkled, that they are still in the covenant?And if not, why?
Here is the other thing I've been trying to figure out - Is it better to do something I don’t understand (have the girls baptized) and later be sorry I did it because I understand better then why I don’t believe that? Or is it better not to do something I don’t understand and later be sorry because I then do believe that and wish I had had it done for my kids.
Which I guess brings me back to my original question – it is the sprinkling that brings kids into the covenant, or is it simply fact that children of believers are in the covenant regardless of whether they are actually baptized?
Thanks...
Disco-
The plan of salvation hasn't changed since the Reformation. But some of the sacramental practices of the church have because the questions are so different.
Take some kid in a village in the Netherlands in the 17th century. He's born within a Reformed church to Reformed parents and is baptized to acknowledge that. Of course, there aren't really any alternatives... it's not like the parents are going to get divorced when the kid is four, he'll go to live with Mom and her new unbelieving boyfriend/husband, and then the kid is going to grow up basically outside the church until he goes to college, gets into all kinds of weird stuff, drops out, follows Phish, lives in the Berkshires, finally ends up getting involved in Promise Keepers through some guy at work, starts going to a local church, accepts Christ in a small group after being touched in a seeker service... and then asks to get baptized.
But thats the kind of stuff that happens now, all the time. Salvation and sanctification haven't changed, and who's to say that the seed that was planted by the Spirit at the kid's baptism didn't grow to fruition, but would you refuse him the right to be baptized on his confession in the local church just because mom and dad had him baptized under social pressure 27 years ago?
Those were the kinds of cases I dealt with all the time. I used to ask the person to reflect on this question if they were asking me to baptize them when they had been baptized as an infant:
Can you trace a work of God in your life from the faith of your parents, who baptized you, passed that faith on and raised you in a believing home, such that your desire now to accept and confess Christ is the conclusion of the work the Spirit began through your parents confessions and promises at your baptism?
In the screwed up world we live in, some folks could say yes, some couldn't. The elders and pastoral staff and I handled each case uniquely.
Posted by: Greg at février 24, 2005 11:14 PMHey all,
The inscrutable Discoshaman asked me if I could keep an eye out, and possibly keep order in (if necessary) this thread since he's pretty much time swamped at them moment.
I'll just throw out a little personal autobiography as it relates to this issue. I was raised as a baptist (independent, FWIW), baptized at the age of 11 after attending some baptism classes, and remained at the same church throughout high school. My parents are still memebrs of that church and I hold in in high esteem since I owe most of my early training in the Christian faith and in the scriptures to the good folks there.
While I was a student at Houghton College I was exposed to the writings of John Calvin and fell in with a few Calvinist oriented students. I found myself always taking the Calvinist viewpoint in discussion with other arminian students, and thus wished to find a reformed church after graduation. I'll bypass the irony of becoming a Calvinist at a Wesleyan college.
Anyhow, I ended up at a presbyterian church in the Detroit area. For some reason that church took the route of having a rather lengthy new members class where all of the foundations of the reformed faith were explored.
I was still a credo-baptist at the time I started there, and just figured I would be a quiet dissenter on that issue. However, the pastor gave me a paper he had written after he had stuggled through the same issue (he was also raised baptist) and I found that quite a number of the foundations of the credo-baptist tradition I had been taught were really not well justified (to put it as nicely as I can). Thus I changed my mind on that issue, or at least started to, during that 12 week (!) class.
Posted by: Paul Baxter at février 24, 2005 11:29 PMOne further comment. I think this is not as firmly established as I might like it to be, but anabaptist scholar John Howard Yoder has argued that many of the early anabaptists took the position they did not because they thought that one had to demonstrate knowledge and/or faith before being baptized, but because they felt that church membership necessarily entailed participating in the discernment/judgement process of the church and that young children were not capable of this.
Certainly an interesting thought, and one I would enjoy studying further someday.
Posted by: Paul Baxter at février 24, 2005 11:33 PMMegan:
The act of putting water on your baby doesn't save it. The sacraments are an outward and visible sign of invisible acts of God -- at least that's what Reformed believers think.
So you're children are in a covenant relationship with God because YOU are.
As I said in an earlier post, this is what is reductionistic: I hear you say that you don't disagree about the covenant, but wonder whether the sacrament should be used to celebrate that reality.
And no, there is no clear evidence from scripture that the sacrament must be used that way. The covenantal status of the children of believers is scriptural, as is that the church practices baptism, but there is no clear mandate to use the one as a sign and seal for the other. There is a good argument for doing so, but no clear mandate.
So if you aren't comfortable with it, I advise talking it through in your church. I believe that the sacraments are public signs and seals (why I don't take communion or baptize my kids alone at home, for example). As such they always have a context within a community of faith. It's something that your community of faith and the elders and pastor should support you on. If you're not sure, seek their advice. Doing something contrary to the conscience of your community on this might do more harm than good in that it could keep the church from joining with you in celebrating and supporting you and your children. At the baptism or dedication of children the congregation is asked to respond by promising to help your child to grow in the faith, so it's something that the community can support. So if you're kind of neutral on the issue, you may want to defer to the judgment of the church.
Anyway, for what it's worth, that the advise of one burnt-out, Reformed ex-pastor and missionary.
Posted by: Greg at février 24, 2005 11:36 PMGreg-
while the position you outline is certainly one common position within reformed thinking, it is certainly not the only one. The idea of "baptismal regeneration" was one which was not universally condemned by the early reformers. See, for instance, the fine work done by Joel Garver on this matter here.
One way the New Testament speaks of our salvation is in terms of union with Christ, which is said to be effected through baptism. Thus baptism serves to mark our actual time of entering into God's favor.
The best analogy I have seen on this is by my friend Mark who wondered whether we should consider someone truly married by merely having gone through the wedding ceremony. Conversely, one could ask whether we consider someone truly married who has NOT gone through the ceremony.
Posted by: Paul Baxter at février 25, 2005 12:17 AMGreg - Thanks for your thoughts on this. That helps. I wasn't trying to imply that I thought baptism in anyway saved anyone, but more wondered about the whole idea of "children of the covenant" and whether they just are because we are or if the actual sacrament of baptism had to take place in order for them to be considered as such (I was wondering what the reformed view of this was). I think I'm getting what you are saying.
My husband and I had a good conversation about this earlier today which I wrote about here. I think we're leaning right now towards being okay with not totally understanding this, but are considering having our kids baptized anyway because we want to submit to the authority of the church we are members with.
I mostly appreciate your answering my question. I've asked about 4 PCA pastor/pastor types in the last month and have been evaded every single time. So, thanks.
Posted by: Megan at février 25, 2005 12:37 AMWell, since one position has been outlined, I might as well offer another perspective. (Perhaps I should say, "minority perspective"?)
Megan, I think you have a valid question: since everyone agrees that "the act of putting water on your baby doesn't save it," as Greg says, why do it? I don't think you're being "reductionistic."
As far as celebrating baptism because it is "an outward and visible sign of [an] invisible act of God," you'll have no more luck finding that belief in scripture than the idea of infant baptism itself.
Would it be a valid option to pray for your child, dedicate the child to God (Hannah-style), "train up your child in the way he/she should go," and then allow the child to make a decision to "be baptized into Christ" (Galatians 3:27) when he/she decides?
I think it is a valid option. The strength of this position is that it emphasizes what, again, everybody agrees on (again quoting Greg): "Are the covenant children of believers AUTOMATICALLY saved? No. Do they need to -- at some point -- accept and acknowledge Christ in their life and make public confession? Yes. Should that act be publically celebrated? Yes." Thus, the emphasis is placed on the more important point on the continuum (the one [almost] everyone agrees is necessary, not the one [almost] everyone agrees is unnecessary).
Like I said, sounds like a valid option to me. (But I have a sneaky suspicion that some won't agree....:@)
Peace!
Posted by: Joe St at février 25, 2005 12:42 AMWell, The Inscrutable One has also asked Yours Truly to keep tabs on this thread (apparently he's calling in his vast cloud of witnesses), and in that vein there's just one thing I'd like to add to Greg's excellent comments.
Megan asks if there's any scriptural evidence for the act of infant baptism. Of course, in terms of prima facie evidence the answer is no -- nearly every Reformed believer I know would agree with that.
But there is an excellent analogue in the OT, from which both infant baptism and Covenant theology are logically inferred, and that is infant male circumcision (and male circumcision in general.)
To answer Joe St.'s concern, that was indeed "an outward and visible sign of [an] invisible act of God," namely, the inclusion of a child in his set-apart community. (Then: the nation of Israel; now: the church)
Infant baptism, while not made explicit in the Bible, I realize, is simply a NT version of the "sign of the Covenant" practiced in the OT.
Hopefully I'm remembering everything correctly from my Christian Doctrine classes with Ray Clark at Covenant College... I trust the pastoral types amongst us will correct me if not! ;->
Posted by: Reid at février 25, 2005 01:28 AMJoe--
Perhaps I was unclear, which is probably par for the course, but I was trying to point out specifically that not all reformed people DO in fact agree that "putting water on your baby does not save it." The way Calvin put it is that we should not try to distiguish too hard between the sign and the thing being signified. One text to consider on this matter, of course, is I Peter 3:21.
Another argument which might be raised more directly to the issue of the scripture speaking of infant baptism is Paul's teaching on the subject in Colossians. Here he refers to baptism as a circumcision performed by Christ (2:9 ff). Of course we know that circumcision was generally performed on the 8th day for children of Israelites. Converts, as also know, would have it done as the mark of their conversion. But interestingly, as Paul includes the whole church as among those who he considered baptized, he also addresses children in the church (3:20). This is of course nothing like a conclusive argument, but it is another piece of evidence that the NT assumes infant baptism.
Posted by: Paul Baxter at février 25, 2005 01:31 AMJoe:
Just for the record, I didn't (or didn't intend) to say that Megan was being reductionistic. What I meant was that it is reductionistic to reduce the saving or sanctifying work of God in a human life to either "we are saved because we are the children of the covenant" (and therefore baptize covenant children) or "we are saved by the sinner's prayer and willful confession of Christ" (and thus credo-baptism).
Megan asks a fair and difficult question in a pluralistic and post-christian age when there are honest differences of opinion even among faithful and intelligent believers -- like the readers of this blog ;-)
Posted by: Greg at février 25, 2005 01:31 AMDisco, et al.
I haven't seen this posted yet (although there are so many comments I may have missed it...), but I'll give a slightly different credobaptist perspective. I think this is the strongest biblical evidence for determining the constituency of the covenant community, and it's found in Jeremiah 31:31-34 [ESV]:
“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”
With regard to the previous post, you're right in that credobaptists assume that there is no spiritual fellowship with the unregenerate, but should that preclude de facto praying with and for them, and singing songs of faith? These are used by God to bring the Gospel to them.
Posted by: Jared Bridges at février 25, 2005 01:33 AMJared,
could you make this more explicit for me? Are you saying that based on the Jer. passage one needs to have a degree of knowledge of God before being allowed into the community of faith? If so, what is it that one has to know? Do you find any teaching in the NT to support that idea? Wouldn't the idea of entering as "little children" from Mark 10 argue the opposite?
Help me out here.
Posted by: Paul Baxter at février 25, 2005 01:49 AMTo those in the thread who have hinted that some Reformational thinkers have suggested that the sacrament of baptism actually regenerates us:
You're right. Some theologians in the Reformation thought that. But that doesn't make it true. There were all kinds of things said and written during the Reformation -- or during any other period in church history, including ours -- that aren't necessarily true.
Famously, Luther and Zwingli parted at Marburg over whether the sacraments were symbols or not -- after agreeing to the other 12 points on the agenda. Luther is said to have stormed out with the charge that Zwingli had "another spirit!."
Calvin had a third position. But there was and always has been a spectrum of thought on the nature of the sacraments among many who are serious and faithful and thoughtful believers. Reference to authority here is less interesting to me than references to scripture and solid argument from there, as we can toss quotations from various dead theologians around all day.
I got my M.Div. in a confessional Reformed seminary. Had to sign the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession and the Canons of Dordt in order to be ordained. Still, I guess over the years I've been uncomfortable with hyper-Calvinism on this issue of baptismal regeneration and such.
It was this metaphysical understanding of the sacraments that lead Catholics to fear that their babies would die without being baptized. It was exactly that type of "superstitian" that Calvin opposed in the Institutes and his other writings.
Posted by: Greg at février 25, 2005 02:02 AMSorry, but follow up thought:
I think we need to be a little more careful to distinguish between our theology of salvation and our theology of the sacraments.
How many times do we start disagreeing about the sacramental nature of baptism and it's proper use in the Church and end up assuming that we have different understandings of salvation? Maybe sometimes that is true, and sometimes instead we are just not listening to each other carefully?
Posted by: Greg at février 25, 2005 02:07 AMGreg--
have you read any of the articles I linked?
Posted by: Paul Baxter at février 25, 2005 03:39 AMPaul,
Sorry for the confusion--I only meant to say that knowledge of God is a trait of believers only. I can't think of a single OT or NT reference where unbelievers are said to know God. On the other hand, there are many instances where the believer is seen to know God (i.e., 1 John 5:20, John 17:3, 1 Cor 1:21--the world did not know God, Gal. 4:8-9).
Therefore, the credobaptist view is that pre-conversion children will not know God, but anyone (child or adult) post-conversion will know God. Of course, this would apply to the Mark 10 children as well. Jesus doesn't place prior knowledge of himself as a condition for entrance into the kingdom, but the aforementioned NT Scriptures indicate that only believers know God, a knowledge that Jeremiah says is common to all--from the least to the greatest--members of the New Covenant.
Posted by: Jared Bridges at février 25, 2005 03:44 AMJared,
I think I may see where you are going there, but this type of forum sometimes makes it difficult to communicate well. We'll just have to do the best we can.
So if I understand you, you are saying that knowledge of God is something which is the case for believers and not the case for those outside the faith. I'm not sure why this necessarily pushes one in one direction or the other on the infant baptism issue.
If the Spirit of God moves in the heart of an adult and they come to the pastor and say "I want to be baptized and join the church", generally the practice is to get merely a minimal confession from that person, explain that they need to live a life in outward conformity to the gospel, and go ahead and baptize them and make them members. So far as I know, that is more or less true through a broad amount of american protestantism. Then we (the church as a whole) dedicate ourselves to the futher instruction of that person in the knowledge of God and His word though the teaching and services of the church.
So, generally speaking, the knowledge is something developed over time AFTER someone joins the covenant community. Thus knowledge is still characteristic of believers. For those of us who practice infant baptism, we merely drop the requirements for the infant to having believing parents, but otherwise things are pretty much the same.
Does that make any sense?
Posted by: Paul Baxter at février 25, 2005 03:59 AMGreg,
I didn't mean to be short there. I was hoping you would read this in particular. I've gotten the impression that the understanding of baptismal regeneration was pretty widespread throughout the early reformed writers (though by no means universal or univocal). Joel has done an awful lot of investigatory work in this area.
Posted by: Paul Baxter at février 25, 2005 04:03 AMPaul,
I confess that I didn't read Joel's article before I went to bed last night, but I just did over breakfast. It doesn't seem that he's saying anything radically different than what I think most of us within this forum would agree with. I agree with much of it, but not all of it. In the early paragraphs he points out that the view he is articulating was one that did circulate among the Westminster divines, and that the actual language of the Confession was left intentionally (his word) ambigious so as to encompass the range of opinion among the delegates (or whatever you called the guys who wrote the WC).
Actually, on a couple of points I think what he says is in harmony with what I was trying to say earlier in the thread: that the work of salvation and sanctification is complex, involving a number of diemensions and processes, some of which are realized at baptism, some of which are intermittently or progressively true throughout the life of the believer and some which only come to fruition eschatologically. That was what I was trying to say about "reductionism" in arguments about paedo or credo baptism: the work of God in our lives is not binary.
Now, to Joel Garver's main point about baptismal regeneration, the way I take it he's making a sacramental argument. Like we talked about earlier in this thread, the Reformers had a range of opinion on the metaphysics of the sacraments. Take the eucharist for example: Luther thought the presence was over/under/in/beside/around the host, just not that that the host was transfigured. Zwingli was at the opposite pole, the sacrament is only a symbol. Calvin was in the middle: the bread and wine stayed bread and wine, but the Holy Spirit made it "as if" the host were the body/blood for us when we took it.
That seems to be part of Joel Garver's argument here, and to the extent that he reflects Calvin's understanding of the sacraments he's in good company. What I hear him arguing is that while the element of water or the act of washing does not regenerate(Roman Catholic sacramentalism based on Aristotlean metaphysics), the Holy Spirit "makes it so" (as Captain Picard would say) in the life of the believer. That is, Joel seems to argue, God has ordained baptism not only as a sign of grace, but as a proximate and efficient means of grace as well. He doesn't HAVE to act through baptism as a mumbo jumbo (and for infants who die without being baptized they aren't denied grace), but He CHOOSES to use the sacrament as the point at which divine grace is granted.
I respect his scholarship and I wholeheartedly agree with Joel's central point: that some Reformed thinkers and a good number of the Westminster divines (and the writers of the Canon's of Dordt, the Belgic Confession and other Reformed creeds) probably believed that.
Personally, on the continum of Reformed understanding of the sacraments I would be just a nudge left of Joel. That is, I subscribe to the Westminster Confession, but I'm glad that -- as he points out -- they left this point somewhat ambigious in order to keep everyone in the tent.
Thanks for the link. I enjoyed the article and saved it for future reference.
Posted by: Greg at février 25, 2005 01:05 PMAs a teen convert to the Christian faith (although it's a little more complicated than that phrase suggests) I spent the first 15 years of my faith life in pentecostal, charismatic, and word-of-faith (ugh) churches, while at the same time being more of a Mennonite-style anabaptist in my social thinking. Paedobaptism was one of the big boogiemen among my friends, and I was soundly persuaded of its evils. As a result, when my children were born we had them dedicated, but not baptized. Over that same time, however, I had become persuaded that Reformed social thought fit better with both the Scriptures and my experience in the struggle against apartheid. About two years after our younger daughter was born our kuyperian-calvinist friend Eric Kayayan finally prevailed and we saw that our prime conviction (God reigns) have not only cosmological and sociological implications (Jesus Christ is Lord over every square inch of created reality, and society), and soteriological implications (we had become five point Calvinists sort of in the middle of the journey), but ecclesiological and sacramental implications (including paedobaptism). I know I am offering more a story than an argument here, but that is not to say that there was not a LOT of very heated fraternal conversation about the issues!
The day my daughters were finally baptised was one of the most wonderful days of my life. And I don't just mean that in a "spiritual" sense. Perhaps it was God's particular charming (accommodating my then still lingering Word-of-faith sentiments?!), perhaps it was just the way in which the delightfulness of the world sometimes "happens," but the moment the water touched our elder daughter's forehead, there was a break in the clouds, and a shaft of sunlight shot through the church's narrow windows, illuminating the baptismal font until both our daughters were baptised, and then fading away.
Posted by: Gideon Strauss at février 25, 2005 01:44 PM(I copied from last night's post on another thread)
Greetings brothers and sisters. Discoshaman sent me the link to this discussion, and invited me to check it out. It's going to take me more than one post to do this any justice. It's even more challenging when I have a 17 month old vying for my attention as well.
I can empathize with our credo-baptist friends, because I was one of you. How did I become paedo-baptist? Great question. I went back to Genesis, and worked my way through to Revelation. That is where I became convinced. I'll give specifics in subsequent posts.
We must always remember that Scripture interprets Scripture. The New Testament must be clearly understood in light of the Old Testament. We should also remember that God has always and continues to deal with His people within the framework of a Covenant. Consider these verses:
Exodus 6:7 And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God: and ye shall know that I am the LORD your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.
Leviticus 26:12 And I will walk among you, and will be your God, and ye shall be my people.
Jeremiah 7:23 But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.
Ezekiel 36:28 And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.
As we know, the fulfillment of this Covenant is our Lord Jesus Christ.
Revelation 21:3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
I must also add that God is immutable, which is to say that He does not change. Malachi 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
Where am I going with this? There are two points that I am making. 1) God deals with His people by way of Covenant. 2) God does not change.
It's late. Let me come back to you with my next installment. I thought it was important to lay the initial Theological groundwork. When I return, I want to discuss New Covenant Baptism in light of Old Testament circumcision.
Keep in mind I have seen both sides of the issue. This is certainly not an issue that should divide Christians. Augustine taught that we should have unity in the essentials (ie. Trinity, virgin birth of Christ), liberty in the non-essentials (ie. mode of baptism, sequence of events of Christ's second coming, and church government), but in all things charity (love).
As for me, I have Baptized all of my children. It doesn't save them, but it places a watermark on them. It's a sign to all saying this is God's child. It's a reminder to me that I am to raise them as Christians. I will continue to remind them that they have obligations to live in ways that are becoming of Christians.
Have a good night. Thanks for letting me chime in.
Ciao,
Barry, from the ruins of Kelly Air Force Base, Texas.
Posted by: Barry at février 25, 2005 05:09 AM
Gideon,
Thanks for sharing your story. I think we all come to deep theological convictions through our own invidual situations, almost always social ones. Pretty much every issue I have ever been persuaded to change my mind on has come through the instrumentality of some friend in my life.
Posted by: Paul Baxter at février 25, 2005 02:08 PMGreg,
glad you liked the article. I didn't mean to rush you on it. I know we are all busy. That really isn't even a hot button issue for me, but Joel has made me sensitive to the idea that there is nothing inherently wrong with using "baptismal regenration" language, especially since Peter and Paul (in Titus) do that. Of course there are lots of things to be explained further and plenty of room for futher discussion. I kept thinking last night as I went to bed of the phrasing of the Nicene creed, "one baptism for the remission of sins". A nice concise way of putting it.
Posted by: Paul Baxter at février 25, 2005 02:14 PMBarry,
look forward to hearing how you worked through this.
Posted by: Paul Baxter at février 25, 2005 02:15 PMJoe - I meant to say thanks for your thoughts as well. I just forgot last night...
Posted by: Megan at février 25, 2005 05:33 PMHi there, all you paedobaptists.
Hmmm.... Would it be okay if I pointed out that by copying my post from another thread (which had indeed wandered off the original topic, but I was not the only one posting on the issue) and then flaming it, and then by calling in not one, not two, but three (and counting) professional baby-sprinklers to police the thread that maybe you're seeming a little *defensive*?
I understand that once in the New Testament baptism is compared to circumcision, but doesn't Colossians 2 and 3 point out as many differences between the two rites as similarities? It simply doesn't hold water (;-) to say that since circumcision was performed on infants, therefore baptism should.
Do we interpret other church ceremonies (or "sacraments") that way? Do we say that the Lord's Supper/Communion, since it is connected to the Passover meal, should be celebrated once a year, should be done in the evening after eating lamb with bitter herbs, and should have an empty pew for Elijah? (Not that I am familiar with, but there may be some church out there :)
Baptism really is connected with faith in the New Testament. Galatians 3:26-27: "For you are all children of God _through faith_ in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were _baptized_ into Christ have put on Christ." In the context of Galatians, in which Paul argues so vehemently for the primacy of the faith system versus the law system, this connection takes on added significance.
And, in the verse right after the baptism/circumcision verse in Colossians: "buried with Him [Christ] in _baptism_, in which you also were raised with Him _through faith_ in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead" (Col 2:13).
P.S. Megan, you're welcome! I was preparing my post at the same time you were preparing yours; if I had known you had come to peace with the issue and that you are a member of a church which urges paedobaptism, I might not have written....
Peace!
Posted by: Joe St at février 25, 2005 07:03 PMI still owe the readers a follow up post to last night's post. However, I do want to respond to Joe St's post with a question. If God operates Covenantally in dealing with His people, especially with families, wouldn't it follow that an immutable God would require a sign of the covenant to be applied to infants in the New Testament as in the Old Testament?
Otherwise, how would a Jew in the first century understand the words uttered by Peter at Pentecost? Acts 2:38-39 "And Peter said to them, Repent, and be baptised, each one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for remission of sins, and ye will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For to you is the promise and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God may call."
Covenantally, a first century jew would have understood the command to repent and be baptized as inclusive of his entire family.
I will post more another time. I have to get ready to go to Scout training. You raised some great points, but I want take more than just 5 minutes to respond to your points about passover as well as baptism.
My challenge to all is that we not unnecessarily run the risk of separating the Old and the New Testaments in an effort to understand the ordinances of God.
Peace be with you.
Ciao,
Barry, from the ruins of Kelly Air Force Base, Texas.
Posted by: Barry at février 25, 2005 09:02 PMBarry-
Is the promise recieved by all that it is made to?
"And Peter said to them, Repent, and be baptised, each one of you..."
It is clear that Peter is calling each individual to respond to the proclamation of the Gospel (sounds arminian to me, but let's not go there.)
"For to you is the promise and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God may call"
As I read this (without consideration of the context of all scripture, but just by itself) it seems to indicate that this promise is for everyone... the people hearing Peter preach, their children, and people that are far away from the preaching of the gospel, so long as God has called them. (OK, that's more calvinist, but like I said...)
Granted, the promise of salvation is available to all to whom God has called... But the requirement that a beliver's child be baptised is just not there.
Earlier Jared made the statement, with reference to a passage in Jeremiah, that "[T]he credobaptist view is that pre-conversion children will not know God, but anyone (child or adult) post-conversion will know God."
In a responding post, Paul Baxter said (among other things} "So, generally speaking, the knowledge is something developed over time AFTER someone joins the covenant community. Thus knowledge is still characteristic of believers. "
I haven't seen this adressed further, but I admit that I've been skimming this thread a bit. My point is that it seems Jared was not speaking of a volume of learned facts when he referred to knowing God, but rather something more akin to regeneration.
If I may pick another nit, Barry says "...wouldn't it follow that an immutable God would require a sign..."
Perhaps, so long as there is not relation between the performance of that sign and the state of the person's relationship to God through grace. The perception that many credos have (wrongly or rightly) is that baby baptisers believe the act of sprinkling a child is somehow complicit in that child's salvation. Now, If the act is not complicit in the work of salvation, and the scripture does not clearly teach that the work is a necessary act for the believer to conduct, how can we say that baptising the infant is a sign God requires? As a baptist, I can say that God requires you to abstain from drinking and gambling as a sign of your salvation, but wouldn't that be adding something that is not plainly taught?
Barry,
Thanks for your response. Let's see....
"If God operates Covenantally in dealing with His people, especially with families, wouldn't it follow that an immutable God would require a sign of the covenant to be applied to infants in the New Testament as in the Old Testament?"
Would it surprise you too much if I said, "I don't think so?" Yes, God is immutable. Yes, God is in covenant with his people in both Old and New Testaments. But it does NOT follow that certain details of the covenants must be the same. Some are, some aren't. And I don't think it's very reasonable for paedobaptists to pick this particular detail and insist on it.
Someone else pointed out in this thread or the earlier one that in the old covenant women were not circumcised. Could I ask, just as logically (paraphrasing your question), "Wouldn't it follow that an immutable God would require a sign of the covenant to be applied to men only in the New Testament as in the Old Testament?"
Thanks for bringing up Acts 2:38-39. "And Peter said to them, Repent, and be baptised, each one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for remission of sins, and ye will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For to you is the promise and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God may call." Here's an alternative perspective on it.
"you"= you Jews hearing me
"your children" = your descendants
"those who are afar off" = Gentiles
"as many as the Lord our God may call" --self-explanatory, but with an sense of "anyone, no one is excluded"
So the picture Peter presents in this verse is of ever-enlarging circles. For the idea that "children" of Jews means "descendants," rather than the little ones of those exact people, see the way the Jews refer to themselves as "children of Abraham" in the gospels. Also, the common phrase "children of Israel" means "descendants of Jacob."
By the way, one more interesting thing about this passage is that the command to "repent" goes right along with the command "be baptized for the remission of sins." I don't see those who are unable to do the first of these commmands being expected to follow (against their will) the second of these commands.
That's the way I see it, anyway.
Peace.
Posted by: Joe St at février 26, 2005 03:15 AMgaw and Joe,
I'll agree with both of you that I don't find Acts 2 to be an especially good proof text to argue for infant baptism. For those who are already convinced, it can serve as a type of coroboration (sp?), but as you say, the force of the verse is merely about the extension of the covenant.
The question I have for you, I guess, and one I thought about a lot when I was working through this, is: what is required prior to baptism, or put another way, why should infants NOT be baptized?
If you agree with us, and I'm sure you do, that God requires no "works" from us to merit forgiveness of sins, then infants are in that same boat with the rest of us as having no meritorious works.
Posted by: Paul Baxter at février 26, 2005 04:16 PMWell, I'm glad we've had the chance to have a meaningful discussion. As this thread inevitable dwindles, you have asked a very good--really _the_ meaningful--question.
Dealing with questions of the nature of salvation, Galatians is a good place to start. In that epistle Paul uses some of the strongest language in the New Testament to denounce the idea that works can lead to salvation. But with what does Paul contrast the law/works system? The faith/grace system. In the verses I partly quoted before, Paul says that "the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all children of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ."
Thus, Paul obviously does not consider faith (or baptism, for that matter) a "work"; he _contrasts_ faith/baptism with the law. It seems to me that the New Testament practice is pretty clear: a person--through the action of God--comes to faith, repents, and is baptized. Although this happens quickly in the New Testament, I think the same model works fine today, even when prolonged for several years. (In God's eyes, of course, fifteen or twenty years isn't even the blink of an eye.)
The mystery of reconciling free will with God's omnipotence and foreknowledge will not be solved by me here, but I think one of the main differences between the old covenant and the new covenant is that you are not born into it; you become a part of it. And faith is involved in that process.
Since brevity is the soul of blogging, I'll cut some of my logic and scripture references short here, and say what I think. (I can elaborate if needed.)
I don't think it is appropriate to perform the rite of baptism "on behalf of" or "to" another person. The only people who really seem to believe that act even accomplishes much are RC's (with all due respect to that great tradition--but they are outside our conversation here), so I also don't believe in performing a ritual that doesn't accomplish anything (to be blunt). For these two reasons, I would compare infant baptism to the rare (but one denomination does do it) practice of baptism for the dead. (Carry your argument to its extreme, and deadobaptism [!?!] would be okay too.)
Okay, I'm stopping now. These questions are not easy because the New Testament has no book of Leviticus to spell out ALL the answers for us. Would be nice--in one way. But God evidently wants us to wrestle with these questions.
Peace.
Posted by: Joe St at février 26, 2005 05:59 PM"You're a christian, eh?"
"Yeah, that's right."
"What Kind?"
"Baptist."
"Really? Me too!"
"Great! What kind of baptist?"
"Hunh?"
"You know, Credo, Paedo, Deado, Ana, Uno, Unitarian, Trinitarian, Sprinkled, Splashed, Wiped, Washed, Dipped, Dunked, Indoors or Outdoors?"
"Uuhh... Southern."
Posted by: gaw at février 26, 2005 10:22 PMOk. It appears that this is a site where people actually think through these issues, and know what they believe. It's likely that we may not convince each other. However, it's important that I am thorough. It may take frequent posts for me to address every nuance of the issue.
As far as Acts 2:38-39 is concerned, it is not a prooftext, in and of itself, for infant baptism. Rather, it's one of many applicable verses that speak to the issue of baptism. However, I disagree with the definition of children, as posted earlier. The Greek word is "teknon," which is the plural of a child, son, or daughter. The word does not only refer to descendents, by generation, but also children, as in offspring.
I hate to leave this post incomplete, but I will be late to church if I don't get with it. Be patient with me. If it appears that I didn't address a specific concern, just gently remind me, and I will get to it. Thanks to everyone for keeping me sharp.
I'll leave you with another question. If the covenantal sign was only to apply to believing adults, wouldn't the Scripture give a specific command against the practice of infant baptism?
Barry,
Of course the Greek word literally means "children." But the same word can be used strictly literally or loosely. When we sing "was blind, but now I see" we don't mean it literally (though the man in John 9:25 did).
If you're going to go Greek here, would you care to look into what the word [baptistheito], "be baptized," means in verse 38? I don't know if we really want to go there though!!! :)
Needless to say, the scripture does not give a specific command against any number of things that we should not do. Logically, it would make sense that those who propose any practice be able to support such a practice from Scripture, not to say that any practice is okay unless Scripture specifically forbids it.
Peace.
Posted by: Joe St at février 27, 2005 11:38 PMOk Joe, I'll bite. What DOES it mean to "be baptized." I am thinking you will answer, "To be immersed." Am I correct? We can talk about that. However, to be honest with you I am more concerned with what makes a qualified recipient, than with the mode itself.
Here's my point. For God to all of a sudden shift gears from dealing with people covenantally, through families, to dealing with people only as individuals, would be contrary to the way that God has dealt with people since the beginning of time. If profession of faith necessarily must precede baptism, then we are talking about an individual faith.
We DO personally and individually receive Christ, and we certainly must. But God works in and through families. He always has and always will. That's one reason why credo-baptism just doesn't make a lot of sense.
Here’s how circumcision fits into the equation. The covenant of circumcision was commanded by God to be an everlasting sign of His covenant relationship with man.
Genesis 17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
Everlasting means forever, doesn't it? Unless circumcision is yet another way to enter into a relationship with God (i.e. a different plan for the Hebrews, which is just not the case), we must conclude that the sign itself has changed.
Only God alone has the authority to change the way this sign is to be administered. Jesus Christ had this authority which He declared during the Great Commission.
Matthew 28:18-20 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
The command is to call all people to Christ, and obedience to His Word. We accomplish this task by evangelism, discipleship, and baptism. Baptism is a sign of cleansing from our sin, and being set apart as holy. Oh yes, children of at least one believing parent are holy; they are not just little heathens waiting for some mysterious age of accountability.
1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
In one passage we can see the parallel between the two signs of baptism and circumcision.
Colossians 2:10-12 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
In other words, to forbid infants from receiving baptism would also fly in the face of Hebrew culture, and would NEED to be addressed explicitly.
However, the Scriptures do not forbid the practice. The Bible does say that members of households were baptized.
Acts 16:15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.
1 Corinthians 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
Baptizing an infant reminds the parents and the covenant community of their responsibility to raise up the child in the fear and admonition of the Lord. I reject the Romanist doctrine of baptismal regeneration as being repugnant to the clear teaching of Scripture. Baptism does not save the child. Rather, it holds that child accountable, and operates against that child as a curse for rejection of the Gospel. That's exactly what Hebrews was talking about.
Hebrews 6:4-6 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
Gotta run. Thanks for the response.
Your Servant in Christ,
Barry, from the ruins of Kelly Air Force Base, Texas
Posted by: at mars 1, 2005 12:08 AMDear Barry,
Sorry for the delay. I hate to think that this baptism debate ran Disco off the blog. (;-)
Quoting you: Ok Joe, I'll bite. What DOES it mean to "be baptized." I am thinking you will answer, "To be immersed." Am I correct?
Well, it's not about what I answer; I was continuing the topic of literal Greek meanings, since you brought it up. _Baptidzo_ (first person singular; forgive the imprecise transliteration on a blog) means "immerse." That's just literally what it means. An ancient writer writes of a battle and says, "We ["baptized"] three of the enemy's ships." They did not pour water on the ships. The ships were sunk. Etc, etc. But surely there is no real debate about the literal meaning (and first-century practice) of baptism.
But, as you said, we were really talking about recipients, not method.
Quoting you again:
For God to all of a sudden shift gears from dealing with people covenantally, through families, to dealing with people only as individuals, would be contrary to the way that God has dealt with people since the beginning of time.
A lot of gears shifted fromt he old covenant to the new. A lot of things in the new covenant seem "contrary to" the way things were in the old. The Jews who heard Paul preaching in Asia minor and Macedonia didn't even recognize it as their religion: they ran Paul out of town and stoned him. And--AS ALL THE PEADOBAPTISTS ADMIT--(quoting you again)"We DO personally and individually receive Christ, and we certainly must." But this is not to say that God no longer works through families. You're setting up a false dichotomy. "Either infant baptism or God doesn't work through families." As I said before, why not put the emphasis on the NECESSARY step (faithful, repentant acceptance) and not on the UNNECESSARY step--lots of people are saved who never (for whatever reason) were sprinkled as infants.
Quoting you (and Genesis): and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. Everlasting means forever, doesn't it?
Yes, it's the covenenant that's everlasting, not specific elements of it. As I said before, I think paedobaptists hinge way too much of their theology on the one verse in the NT that compares circumcision to baptism. But even in that passage, it says that the baptizand is "risen with him through the faith of the operation of God." It doesn't necessarily follow that since one rite was performed on infants that the other must necessarily be. (I already addressed this question.)
Quoting you:In other words, to forbid infants from receiving baptism would also fly in the face of Hebrew culture.
So would not observing the sabbath, and not observing dietary laws, and not praying solely in Hebrew, and not using the phylactery or yamulka, and worshipping with Gentiles, and having women participate equally in assemblies, and not circumcising everyone...is that enough? And not all of these are specifically addressed in scripture. God does not seem very concerned about flying in the face of Hebrew culture. That's partly the point: salvation is for all, not just for one culture. You don't have to adopt a certain culture to be a Christian. It's "multicultural," (as everyone today should be happy to know :)
Yes, households were baptized in the New Testament. That does not necessarily mean there were infants or young children baptized. Here is one account of a household conversion from Acts 16:30-33:
[The Philippian jailer asks,] "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" So they saied, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household." Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized."
The instruction, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" is *explicitly* addressed to "you and your household." The word is preached "to all who were in his house." So the baptizands were people who heard the word and who believed.
You mention the "household of Stephanas" as baptized by Paul. At the end of I Corinthians, Paul describes them thus: "You know the household of Stephanas, that is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves to the ministry of the sants. I urge you to submit to such and to everyone who works and labors with us." Did infants "devote themselves to the ministry of the saints"? Were infants "work[ing] and labor[ing]" with Paul? Was the church troubled Corinthian church, whom Paul was trying to restore to a semblance of orthodoxy, to submit to infants?
Quoting you again: Oh yes, children of at least one believing parent are holy.
1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
Notice they are not considered holy because baptized, but holy because they have "at least one believing parent."
Would paedobaptists be willing to say, "This is our practice, based on careful thought, prayer, and tradition"? Because the scriptural case is very weak.
Does it seem likely to you that infant baptism is one of many practices inherited from the RC church? The practice of infant baptism is at least logical in that tradition, with a soteriological and sacramental understanding of baptism. It isn't really logical (as I've tried to point out) in a church which insists (as all mainline to evangelical protestants do) that "We DO personally and individually receive Christ, and we certainly must."
I Peter 3:21 (after a discussion of Noah and the flood) "There is an antitype which now saves us, namely baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God) through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
I Peter, written at least one generation after Christianity began, written to places in Asia Minor where the church was established in Paul's first missionary journey, may have been an ancient sermon preached at a baptism. It describes baptism as the response of a good conscience toward God, or the "pledge" of a good conscience toward God.
Let the conscience respond to God; to baptize an infant robs this verse of any meaning.
That's the way I see it, anyway.
Peace.
joe
Posted by: Joe St at mars 2, 2005 05:28 AMJoe,
just wanted to try one or two points here. First, you mention this:
"Does it seem likely to you that infant baptism is one of many practices inherited from the RC church? "
I was thinking about this avenue a few days ago, but have been kinda busy. My thought was this--the practice and underlying theology of paedobaptism are certainly not a distinctive of the Roman church. Luther saw absolutely no reason to make any changes to the doctrine of baptism generally, and indeed found his faith constantly bolstered by his recollection that he was indeed baptized (as an infant).
Likewise Calvin and all the other (non-radical) reformers saw no reason to oppose infant baptism. The Anglican church did not oppose it, nor did their eventual dissenters, the methodists.
There may have been various small groups from time to time who opposed infant baptism which I am not aware of, but the only group of significant size to do so was the radical reformation/anabaptist movement. And as I mentioned above, their reasons for rejecting infant baptism were not the ones you have been pushing (disregarding for the moment any virtues your arguments may have), but rather grounded their opposition, as I understand it, on the apostasy of the church (thus declaring those ealier baptisms invalid), and the idea that since baptism equals membership in the church, one must be able to fulfil membership vows to qualify for baptism.
Having said all of this, my question then becomes, if the scriptures forthightly taught that some sort of adult faith or understanding of the gospel is a prerequisite for being baptized into the church, why did no one notice until the fairly recent baptist movement?
Posted by: Paul Baxter at mars 2, 2005 06:05 PMAs far as "Baptidzo" translated to mean immerse, that's true. However, it can also mean to wash or dip. When we are baptized in the Holy Spirit, it doesn't necessarily mean that we are immersed in that sense.
You wrote: So would not observing the sabbath, and not observing dietary laws, and not praying solely in Hebrew, and not using the phylactery or yamulka, and worshipping with Gentiles, and having women participate equally in assemblies, and not circumcising everyone...is that enough? And not all of these are specifically addressed in scripture. God does not seem very concerned about flying in the face of Hebrew culture. That's partly the point: salvation is for all, not just for one culture. You don't have to adopt a certain culture to be a Christian. It's "multicultural," (as everyone today should be happy to know :)
My friend, I think you missed my point, or I may have not been clear on what I meant. Let's go back to Pentecost. There were Jews listening to Peter preach, correct? That being the case, they held certain presuppostions about the position of children in the covenant. For children to be excluded from receiving the rite of baptism, would have been contrary to the Hebrew mindset of that time. In other words, if children were to be excluded from being baptized, there would have been a command expressly forbidding the practice.
You wrote: Yes, households were baptized in the New Testament. That does not necessarily mean there were infants or young children baptized. Here is one account of a household conversion from Acts 16:30-33:
To say, "That does not necessarily mean there were infants or young children baptized." would suggest you have your own presuppositions that preclude you from considering the possibility that a household baptism would include infants or young children. I insist that a household would include family members of all ages, including infants and small children.
You wrote: Would paedobaptists be willing to say, "This is our practice, based on careful thought, prayer, and tradition"? Because the scriptural case is very weak.
This, I'm afraid, is a strawman that you are attempting to create. I would argue that the scriptural case IS quite strong, relying on the whole council of God's Word, not just the New Testament. However, I will grant that we each have our own presuppositions that we bring to the table. You would consider baptism to be an outword sign of an inward reality, or a first act of obedience. This was what I believed when I was a good ole Southern Baptist.
Now, I do see baptism as an outward sign of an inward reality, as well. Here's the difference, I am claiming the promises of God's covenant by baptizing my babies. I will raise them in the fear of the Lord. I wish for their testimony to be very much unlike mine. I was an adult convert who lived like the devil until I made a profession of faith. I had a very distinct before and after salvation experience. For my children, I want their testimony to read, "I don't ever remember a time when Jesus Christ wasn't my Lord and Savior."
Peace be with you,
Barry, from the ruins of Kelly Air Force Base, Texas.
Posted by: Barry at mars 3, 2005 02:55 AM