Infant Baptism

• • 40 Comments

5-1-05One of my commenters, Milly said, "I personally don’t believe in it nor does my husband, however, both my children were for my in-laws. I just can’t find it in the Bible. Being COC if it isn’t in don’t add it. I also think that when John was Baptizing he might have Baptized children. It just doesn’t say it."

The more I read and study, the more I'm coming to realize that if we read the New Testament in isolation, we miss the roots that New Testament theology is grounded in.

If you consider the convenant relationship that God has with His people and how God has commanded that the covenant sign be applied to His people, then you may be asking the wrong question.

You ask, "where does the Bible say that we should baptize infants?"
I ask, "where does the Bible say to stop applying the sign and seal of the covenant to infants?"

How do we arrive at that question? Here are more questions:

In the Old Testament, who was the covenant (promise) for? (Gen 17:10)

In the New Testament, who was the covenant (promise) for? (Acts 2:39)

In the Old Testament, who was responsible for applying the sign and who was it applied to? (Gen 17:13 tells us that Abraham -head of household- was and that every male in the household was to have the sign applied)

In the New Testament, who was responsible for applying the sign and who was it applied to? (Acts 16:140-15 tells us that Lydia believed and her household was baptized)

Who are we seeds of? (Gal 3:29)

Many of the early Christians were Jews. They had a rich history of a covenant with God, that included applying the sign and seal of the covenant to their children. How would a believing Jew head of household have felt - seeing Lydia's household baptised, while his own children were being excluded from having the sing applied to them, as the sign and the seal of the covenant of Abraham had been applied to him when he was eight days old?

Where would he have found the command in Scripture to stop applying the sign and seal to his children - as Jews had done for 2,000 years?


Share Button

40 thoughts on “Infant Baptism”

  1. Anonymous

    Silly... you can't even find infants and water in the same chapter! Duh! Case closed. I bet if you find babies and wine in the same chapter you'll start making them drink of the wicked vine, too... damning their souls forever! Sheesh.

    - GuessWho 😉

  3.

    I personally don’t believe in it nor does my husband, however, both my children were for my
    in-laws. I just can’t find it in the Bible. Being COC if it isn’t in don’t add it. I also think that when John was Baptizing he might have Baptized children. It just doesn’t say it.

  5.

    ellen,
    I'm going to research more so that I can give you an answer as to why we believe what we do.
    (I don’t want to miss represent)
    With that I will say that I personally hated it when my first born was. I was told that now if something happens he will go to Heaven. What? He was without sin he was incapable of sin at that age. I turn a deaf ear to it with my daughter. Still for both ceremonies I refused to participate. The priest was fine with that and was very nice about it. When I talk to my son about Baptism he tells me he feels that he isn’t ready. I personally like the fact that it was my decision to get into the water full in just as Jesus did. That could be the answer right there what was good enough for him is grand for me.

    Now I know that man has drawn lines in the sand that must make God shake his head. This is one of them. What is in your heart is what God wants. We are so blessed to be able to talk about this stuff. Thanks.

  6.

    ellen,
    I was surfing and came onto wade hodges site interesting one on Baptism.

    Even if baptisms aren’t rising in numbers, they’re on the rise in significance, McLaren says.

    Baptism is “a commitment to a lifelong spiritual practice, a discipleship, not a one-time event.”

    http://www.wadehodges

    It's an interesting read.

  7.

    How can something that God instituted from the beginning be becoming more important than when God instituted it?

    Baptism is “a commitment to a lifelong spiritual practice, a discipleship, not a one-time event.”

    Milly, you also said that if it isn't in the Bible, don't add it. The Bible tells us what baptism is - the new circumcism.

    (Is this Brian McLaren?)

  8.

    Milly, a Roman Catholic would tell you that baptism saves. If we accept baptism as a sign of the covenant, it does not save, any more than circumcism did.

    Here's another question: was every boy that was circumcised saved?

    God told Abraham that the covenant would be through the line of Isaac. Still, Abraham obeyed God and circumcised Ishmael, who was not of the line of Isaac.

  9.

    "This particular passage leads into the second issue: infant baptism. Even though the Bible does not directly address the issue of infant baptism, it does record the baptisms of three different families. As quoted above all of the jailer's family were baptized (Acts 16:33). Also the family of Lydia (Acts 16:15) and the family of Stephanas (1 Cor 1:16) were baptized. Typically a family includes children. These three passages infer infant baptism, even though they may not explicitly indicate the baptism of children. There are no indications that only adults were involved. Now it is possible that a family may be childless; however, the chance that these three families had at least one young child is greater than the chance that all three had no children. A Christian, who objects to infant baptism, must interpret these three Bible passages with the assumption that each family had no young children."

  10.

    (Is this Brian McLaren?) Is this a question?

    I realize that you believe differently than I do. I will say that I am not one to toss out scripture lightly. I feel that I need time to explain. However I also see that this could become ugly quickly. With that I will step out of this. We believe how we believe. I don't believe in argueing that's for others.

  11.

    I'm thinking that things undone on this will make me a crazy person. I'm going to put something together and post it on my blog soon. (I hope, work and kids takes my time as you know) This is always an interesting subject and I am happy to learn. I'll let you know when I post.

    Have a good day.

  12.

    Milly, I don't actually have a general problem with McLaren, I just wanted to make sure I knew who you were talking about. I'm not one of the "emergents are all things evil" crowd.

    As far as baptism goes, I'd better be able to not get nasty about it, since I'm the only one in my family that believes this way.

    After having this same talk with my dad (and asking him these same questions), he has now said that he would not disapprove of the baptism of a baby.

    😉

  14.

    1) Milly said that the "priest" told her...

    2) it's not an "offhanded remark", it's Roman doctrine.

    Catechism par.1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin.[65] In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam's sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.

  15.

    Hey Ellen,

    Just taking a break from studying. Actually, I am writing a paper and I've been at it for hours, so a break is welcomed. I have been reading the comments on infant baptism and I find it all a very interesting discussion.

    I was not raised in a church that practiced infant baptism. However, since I have become Presbyterian, this is common practice. Like you, I was unsure about it when I started attending my church. But, the more I consider the arguments for and against, I am definitely leaning toward the pro side rather than the con.

    I look forward to the continued debate.

  17.

    Just to be clear though Ellen, it is not Catholic doctrine that all who are Baptized will necessarily be saved. I think that is what Moonshadow is getting at. I'm glad you're reading the catechism, but it needs to be understood as a complete work.

  20.

    I'm glad you're reading the catechism, but it needs to be understood as a complete work.

    Thank you, Elena. As with Sacred Scripture, the use of prooftexts from the Catholic Catechism misrepresents its overall teaching.

    Things seem to be under control here, so I'll go back to lurking. Sorry for the intrusion. I can't help myself sometimes. 🙂

  21.

    1) Milly said that the "priest" told her...

    Actually the priest told me that immersion was the best way. I ask ed him why don’t they do that then he smiled at me and went to a new subject.

    My in-laws told me that my child could now go to Heaven.

    BTW, I wasn't worried about you getting angry. I know how important this issue is.

  22.

    Ellen, thanks for stopping by my blog!

    At our church, we practice believer's baptism (as immersion). Do you have a "confirmation" process or something like that when they come of age and want to make their decision to follow Christ? Just curious. 🙂

  23.

    Milly, of my six children, only one was baptized by immersion. It's just a little more trouble and all, and with diaperless babies, you're just taking your chances! It's more a matter of personal preference than doctrinal correctness.

    No one really knows what happens to unbaptized babies who die in innocense but with original sin. Limbo was a theory of some theologians that helped to answer that question. More recently the church commends these children to the mercy of Divine mercy of God, which gave me comfort when I lost my own child before birth.

    Ellen,
    We baptize babies because Jesus told us to baptize. It also erases original sin and it is a sign of initiation into the Christian church for starters.

    Orthodox as well as Catholics believe that salvation can be lost. That's 2/3 of Christianity.

    It is also scriptural. For example St. Paul who wanted to run the good race until the very end.

  24.

    Elena, some orthodox Christians - I grew up in a baptist church that did not believe salvation could be lost.

    I asked two Roman Catholics this morning if baptism saved their babies. They both said "yes".

    I asked my brother-in-law (an ex-Roman Catholic) and he said, "well...duh...yes"

    We baptize babies because Jesus told us to baptize.

    That is why we baptize - out of obedience.

    It also erases original sin

    Then you are saying that baptism does save, at least until a person sins and loses it. And then gets it and loses it and...

    Dena, most Reformed churches have a "profession of faith" in which the person makes a public confession of Christ's work in their life.

    Milly... 😉

  25.

    Umm... I was referring to Orthodox Christans, large O. The second branch of Christianity.

    I believe that baptism saves my babies as well. But the church does not teach that it's a slam dunk into heaven for the rest of their life simply because they are baptized. Free will and all of that.

  26.

    "I just took my last exam...summer class starts monday..."

    You are so lucky. I am soooooooooooo tired. HA

  27.

    "Orthodox as well as Catholics believe that salvation can be lost. That's 2/3 of Christianity.

    It is also scriptural. For example St. Paul who wanted to run the good race until the very end. "

    Oh no. Not this dead horse again! Oh, Elena, you aren't going to change Ellen's mind. Or vice verse, I am afraid! But, you are more than welcome to try. It is at the very least, entertaining to me. But, then again, I haven't slept in days!

  28.

    elena,
    Jesus died and took the original sin away I guess because we aren't born with sin. My children weren't nor are any of them.

  29.

    Umm... I was referring to Orthodox Christans, large O. The second branch of Christianity.

    Ah...it was at the beginning of the sentence so I missed the "O". If you had said "Greek Orthodox" or "Eastern Orthodox" I would have gotten it. At any rate, perseverance of the saints is another topic, is it not?

    The church in Rome teaches that baptism saves, but it is not an effective salvation, it can be lost.

    The Reformed church teaches that covenental baptism is the sign and seal of the covenant of God and His people - it does not save - like circumcism did not save.

  30.

    Oh, Elena, you aren't going to change Ellen's mind.

    Well on this issue, Ellen and I are in agreement. I support infant baptism too! : )

    Milly, you are confusing the doctrines of "original sin" and "actual sin."

  31.

    elena,
    My babies have no sin until they know sin. Case closed for me. The little ones who die before they are born or right after know no sin.

  33. Atlantic

    Elena, Milly said she was COC. I believe that this stands for Church of Christ, which does in fact disbelieve in original sin. They seem to define it as "total hereditary depravity" which might mean that they are most acquainted with Calvinist definitions of original sin, but it's clear that they do understand it as a hereditary condition, not actual sin.

  36.

    Ezekiel 18:20

    20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.

  37.

    Romans 5:19. For as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners: so also by the obedience of one, many shall be made just.

  39.

    thanks - I have to give credit to Rich Lusk and his book, "Paedofaith". His description of the richness of the covenant gave me a different insight into baptism.

  40.

    Milly, the verse you cite is directly related to the "generational curse" that is taught by Neil Anderson. In the Ten Commandments worshiping idols is punished "to the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me."

    The release from the generational curse could not have been referring to Adam's sin (since your belief is that Jesus released humans from that sin) - Ezekiel was written many, many years before Jesus could have done that but it is written in present tense.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments links could be nofollow free.