Thank you Relative's Father for your question about infant Baptism. Because it is a big question I have moved it to a separate post, but if anyone is interested in the topic of Baptism see my original post on Baptism of December 27th. I again believe the Lutheran position on infant Baptism is the best position. I also support the Lutheran position on Infant Baptism for three reasons: It best accomplishes Jesus' Command in the Great Commission, it ties in well with the Old Testament use of Circumcision, and infant baptism is best supported by NT Scriptures, especially as shown in the Book of Acts. Let's Go!:
1). Jesus' Great Commission. In Matthew 28:19 Jesus commanded His Disciples to Go and make other Disciples and baptizing them in the name of the Triune God. And so, Christians have traditionally followed this instruction by having their children both instructed in God's Word and baptized as infants to comply with Jesus' Command.
The problem that is dealt with by infant Baptism is original sin. The Scriptures are clear that no one can enter the Kingdom of God without faith in Jesus Christ. And sprinkled through the Bible are examples of parents' faith acting on behalf of their children. See as examples, Genesis 9:9 and 17:10. And so, baptism may best be understood as the parents' faith in Jesus Christ being accounted to their young children until they reach an age of accountability. The Baptism is at least partly for the washing away of a person's sin (see Acts 22:16 and Titus 3:5).
2). Circumcision. There is a connection between the OT covenantal use of Circumcision of infants 8 days after they are born and the NT Church's use of Baptism. I do not know enough about this to write anything more, other than to make sure that it is raised.
3). Infant Baptism in the Book of Acts. But this is where the topic gets real fun to look at. There are a total of nine (9) baptisms of new converts described in the Book of Acts as a response to hearing the Gospel. In at least three (3) of these Baptisms described in Acts, the entire household of the New Christian is baptized along with them. Here is an example of this type of Household Baptism in the story of Lydia:
Acts 16:14-15 - One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. 15 And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, "If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay." And she prevailed upon us.
Here are the three main examples of families being baptized along with a New Christian:
Acts 16:15 Lydia of Thyatira, above;
Acts 16:33 Philippian Jailer;
Acts 18:8 Crispus, and as long as we are discussing family Baptisms, take a look at:
1 Cor. 1:16 Stephanus.
And so, infant Baptism started in the Church of Christ because of these descriptions of "household" baptisms shown in the Book of Acts.
And finally, let me add what Martin Luther said about infant Baptisms:
We do the same in infant Baptism. We bring the child with the purpose and hope that he may believe, and we pray God to grant him faith. But we do not baptize him on that account, but solely on the command of God…
Finally, we must know what Baptism signifies and why God ordained just this sign and external observance for the sacrament by which we are first received into the Christian church…These two parts, being dipped under the water and emerging from it, indicate the power and effect of Baptism, which is simply the slaying of the old Adam and the resurrection of the new man, both of which actions must continue in us our whole life long. Thus Christian life is nothing else than a daily Baptism, once begun and ever continued… (Luther's Large Catechism, Baptism, pp. 88-89).
So here is my quick summary on why infant Baptism makes sense and is properly a Biblical Sacrament. Baptism signifies the washing away of sins, it is Commanded by Jesus in His Great Commission and so should be obeyed by all Christians, and the early Church started the practice of baptizing those too young to have a saving faith as shown by the "household" baptisms performed in the Book of Acts. But most importantly, all Christians should be undergoing as Luther described a "daily Baptism", where we put to death our old Adam sinful nature with the resurrection of the new person we are in Christ.
I hope this helps - /s/Tom.
5 comments:
*This is rather long so I suggest you copy and paste the text into a Word document.
For those of you just tuning in, I also posted a response to the previous post entitled, “Baptism”
Alright, let me continue in the format I used in the previous post in answering your points.
Section 1: While through the bulk of Christian history Christians have baptized their children as infants, it was actually very different in the early church. Archeologically speaking, baptismals were large enough for adults (sometimes even multiple adults) in the first few centuries of the Church, indicating that it was used primarily for new converts to be immersed in. This doesn’t prove anything since most ancient baptisms occurred in “living water” (or “moving water,” such as streams, rivers, etc.), but it does at least point to adults being primarily baptized. Also, in the works of the early church fathers almost always baptism is equated with adults. In fact, it is not until 3rd century that we can start to see hints of movement to infant baptism.
In regards to baptism doing away with our guilt in original sin, it certainly is convenient to have baptism there to take care of it! Would you be willing to say that any child not baptized is in Hell? Or that any child that died before or at birth is in Hell? What about David’s hope of seeing his unborn, uncircumcised, unbaptized child in 2 Samuel 12?
The passing on of a parent’s faith to their children was about the continuation of a covenant. Abraham expected his son Isaac to continue the covenant, Isaac expected his son Jacob to continue the covenant, and so on and so forth. That was the point of the passing on of a parent’s faith, not that the children were saved by their parent’s faith. Moreover, there is no NT witness to this idea of passing on of a parent’s faith, so the evidence for baptism having to do with original sin is merely theological-happenstance, not exegetical conclusion.
Finally, with the Great Commission, there is only one imperatival command in the Greek, and that is to the command to make disciples, and “going,” “baptizing,” and “teaching” are all participles. The “going” precedes the command of “making disciples,” and “baptizing and teaching” are after it. Therefore there is one command, and that is that having gone, make disciples! Salvation is presupposed to the ideas of “baptizing” and “teaching”. In other words, there are not 3 (or 4) commands in this verse, there is only one, and that is to make disciples. Baptism is seen as the first act of a new disciple, followed by teaching.
Section 2: Circumcision is, in my opinion, the strongest argument for infant baptism. It is key for the Reformed/Presbyterian understanding of the issue. What it comes down to is a discussion regarding continuity and discontinuity. The discussion of how much is the New Testament faith akin to the Old Testament faith. In the end I don’t think this argument holds water, but nothing more is needed to be said since you only raised it for sake of raising it.
Section 3: This is an argument grasping for something to hold on to. There is no clear example of infant baptism in the NT, so those who hold to infant baptism are left to cling to examples of households being baptized.
First, regarding the term “household”. “Household” in the Bible does not have to refer to an entire household, though it could. For example in 1 Samuel 1:21 Elkanah “went up with all his household,” but in verse 22 we learn that the “all” did not include his wife, Hannah. So there, “household” does not refer to the entire household. Also, there is no clear evidence that infants were included in the “household” examples you listed. For instance, you highlight Lydia and her household – with everything we know about her and the culture of her day, she was actually probably a single woman with no husband or children. The household would have referred then to other relatives or servants of hers. I can’t be dogmatic on that, but neither can one be dogmatic on the existence of infants in those households.
What’s more, the picture drawn in these passages is not of parent’s being converted and then entire households being baptized. Rather, it is of entire households being converted and being baptized. That is the NT pattern. Faith/conversion, and then baptism. All of those examples in Acts, except for Lydia’s, either explicitly or implicitly show that the entire household believed before they were baptized. The argument about households is just too vague really for either side to use with much weight.
Finally, with regards to the “daily baptism,” I say amen. We need to daily remember where we were and what God did to bring about salvation in and for us. The act of baptism symbolizes that reality, and every Christian ought to daily think upon what baptism symbolizes.
Again, I appreciate this discussion Tom. Just as you try to call me back to my Lutheran roots, let me call you back to your Baptist roots – weren’t you attending a Baptist church for a little while? I want to be clear that the reason I hold to believer’s baptism is not because of some sort of spiritual/religious rebellion. Instead, I hold to believer’s baptism because it is clear to me that the Bible teaches it! Remember, my default was the position of infant baptism, but the Bible convinced me otherwise. Let a careful reading of Scripture point you to the right position (which just happens to be mine!).
bry
Hey Bryan,
Ditto to my previous expressed appreciation to you for the time and thought you have provided on this topic.
Bryan asks: Would you be willing to say that any child not baptized is in Hell?
Salvation for those under the age of understanding was thankfully left unclear. If it was made clear by Jesus that children were automatically provided with salvation, Can you imagine what some Christians would have done to children growing up in pagan socities?
But, of course, we can trust in God's perfect justice and mercy in dealing with unbaptised children. And as I have tried to draw out in my posts is that Baptism is for the adult believer, as an expression of their FAITH, in obedience to Jesus' instruction for us to make disciples and to baptize all nations. So in this case rather than rendering unto Caesar what is Caesars, let me say that we can give over to God what is God's. And clearly children and their salvation are God's responsibility.
So, if baptism is for adults, what exactly does it accomplish for the infant since all infants are already God’s? Are you saying that the expression of adult faith is not in being baptized yourself but in baptizing others? If so you and I, and every other lay person are very disobedient!
It is entirely possible to make a biblical case for infant-salvation from the Bible without mentioning baptism. The problem here Tom is that you wrongly define baptism. Until we agree upon a definition we are, in a sense, talking about two different baptisms. Mine just happens to be the biblical one (lol)!
I don’t want to put words in your mouth so I will leave it to you to put forth your complete definition of baptism, but let me try to at least try to form one for me. For a short definition I would simply say that baptism is an outward act that represents the inward reality of God’s grace received. If you pressed me for a longer definition, I think I would focus on these points: Baptism is…
(1) A picture of Jesus’ death and resurrection (Rom. 6:1ff; Col. 2:12ff)
(2) A picture of death to sin and new spiritual life (ibid.)
(3) A proof to the church of the new believer’s commitment to Christ (Gal. 3:26ff; Eph. 4:4ff)
What would you add to that?
bry
any news coming ?
я думаю: прелестно... а82ч
Post a Comment