Indefensible and unscriptural…has to have a number of assumptions in place to even come up with it…it was born from the 3rd century. If infant baptism is true then adults must be saved also by baptism.

The historical argument is that it parallels circumcision as a sign of belonging to the covenant community. But clearly circumcision saves no one (especially the girls). If it is just a symbol then why have the discussion? Why not just dedicate the kids?

It comes straight out of Constantine’s strategy to not get baptized until the very end of … See Morehis life so he could make sure he would be saved. In reverse…we must baptize the kids so that they are in a ‘saved’ state until they get old enough to get lost / or add works.

1 Corinthians 1 makes it clear that baptism is NOT the gospel. It is just an old debate that was drug over from Catholicism (and Anglicanism…which is Catholicism in rebellion because of the King / divorce issue)…the Reformers picked it up…the Baptists converted it …and we still have discussions because of Chronological Snobbery (old ideas are better / right).

It is clearly not a scriptural notion or emphasis…

Of course, I could be wrong…just my opinion 🙂

Fred Lybrand

P.S. Sorry if I sound grumpy…challenging day today!

IF…and it’s a stretch for argument’s sake…you make the analogy between circumcision and baptism…one entered the house of Israel by physical birth, followed by baptism. The proper analogy would be that since you enter the family of God by spiritual birth, baptism should follow that (belief).

Nice Jack!

Discussing Scripture with Philip, and seeing water (a stream? river?), the Ethiopian asked Philip, “Look, here is water. Why shouldn’t I be baptized?” Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart . . .” Belief always preceded baptism. Later, the “church” began baptizing babies – it’s not a Scriptural model.

Do you treat your children like heathens or believers or are they in limbo?

PS: Do you let your kids take communion before or after baptism? Which one has warnings about judgment attached?

I would let me kids take communion after they got saved. Not before that. Baptism has nothing to do with whether they should take communion, but when they do become saved, they should want to be baptized. Baptism is a meaningless ritual if it’s not a public profession of one’s faith.

To Mark…good questions all parents struggle with…

I came to a place of asking, “Why would I treat my child as a believer when he/she is not a believer?”

“How do I treat heathens?” is another valuable one here…. See More

I treated them as the children I loved with an eye toward their becoming believers in Jesus Christ. I was gracious and evangelistic and loving and pleading…respecting their own coming to faith in the matter. Well, more accurately, all of this what I tried to aim toward.

I certainly don’t think a non-believer should be taking communion (in fact sometimes believers shouldn’t either!)…so, we never let our kids take communion until after they had acknowledged faith in Christ and His finished work. We also found it a good practice to let them take communion after their baptism. It just seemed to make the steps practical and clear for their young minds.

1) Faith…Salvation/Justification

2) Baptism…declaration of salvation and identification with the company of saints

3) Communion…an ongoing reminder of the unity of the saints and the kindness of the Lord’s sacrifice…to remember/keep remembering until He returns.

Fred, that’s pretty much how my parents raised me, though I took communion for years before I was baptized because the latter was simply, my parents believed, a public confession of my faith. I “prayed the prayer” when I was about 3 years old. My parents treated me like a believer after that, though my Dad had a number of “let’s make sure you … See Moreunderstand” kind of talks over the years, and they decided a public confession would have more meaning to me and the community if I made it later (which I did on my 12th birthday). I am eternally grateful for my upbringing. My parents raised me in the love of Christ, and I imagine that’s about the best you can hope for as a parent. Which is not to say I entirely agree with their ideas about baptism.

I bring up the heathen question because there are distinct differences in the way we are instructed to treat believers and non-believers. 1 Corinthians 5 is the most stark example, in my opinion, where Paul says that when he commanded them not to associate with groups of sinners (idolaters, etc.), he did not mean that to apply to unbelievers, meaning that we are called to rebuke fellow believers but not to judge those outside the church. I imagine this is because (a) the particular sins of a person living outside the grace of God are irrelevant and (b) it’s none of our business.

What does this mean in raising children? Well, if you think that your children are outside the church prior to verbally and mentally assenting to Christ, then you are on tenuous ground when you rebuke bad behavior. If you think they are inside the church, then you have no grounds not to baptize them (or refuse them communion). If you believe in an age of accountability, then I suppose the kids are in limbo, hanging out with Dante’s unbaptized infants… although most people find it more convenient to just assume the pre-accountability kids go to heaven because, why not? But then are they in the church or not?

From my own personal experience, I find the “mental assent” concept more than a little bizarre. Do I remember “being saved”? Well, I have images of my older brother leading me in the prayer behind our family sofa, but I tend to think those are not really my own memories so much as the images that the telling of the story have implanted in my mind.

Did I truly assent? Did I truly have faith? I have never been certain, and between the ages of 10 and 12 I must have “prayed the prayer” (privately) a zillion times, just to make sure. When I was 11 a guest speaker at our church said that if you *ever* have *any* doubt about your salvation, it means you aren’t saved and you should get saved, which resulted in about two hundred prayers over the next month until I realized that particular preacher was an idiot. At what point are we mentally able?

If we’re relying on some sort of intellectual independence of mind, we might be in trouble. The concept of individual preparedness is heavily rooted in a concept of individualism that arose in the Modern Age. It should not then be surprising–though it ought to be at least slightly troubling–that only the non-liturgical Protestant churches which sprang into existence in the Modern Age (and are thus somewhat dependent on certain brands of modern philosophy) reject infant baptism. On the other hand, every incarnation of the church that claims a real continuity with the historical church over the past two millennia practices paedobaptism: Roman Catholics, all the various eastern Orthodox churches, Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians.

Beyond that, I was never–even as a fire-breathing Armenian individualist libertarian–quite convinced that the household baptisms throughout the New Testament really fit into the individualist model. Even if you just assume that none of the households included infants, it is troubling from an individualist mindset to think of the household servants following the household leader’s model and believing like the good rank-and-file that they were.

Naturally the “fourth century death of pure Christianity” argument pops up, even though infant baptism, at the very latest, shows up in the second century (see Origen, Hippolytus), well before ole Constantine came and ruined everyone’s fun. So essentially the credobaptists are throwing out fifteen-hundred years of Christian belief because of a modern individualist notion of belief… which should at least give us pause.

If it started in the second century, why didn’t it start with the apostles? That gives me more pause. Also, the age of accountability notion is supported in the Bible – who was able to enter the promised land of those who were alive when the Jews entered the wilderness?

I find it unlikely that none of the baptisms of households performed by apostles throughout the NT included children. So I happen to believe it started with the apostles, but we know that at the *latest* it started in the 2nd century.

The reason we *know* it was happening in the second century is the same reason we *know* Christians were using … See MoreTrinitarian formulations to explain God by the third century. We know these things because an argument about it popped up. The 2nd-century fathers who talked about it are addressing arguments about when to baptize. They mention that paedobaptism is traditional and customary (even as a couple of them do argue against it), which suggests though does not necessarily conclusively prove that infant baptism was the standard up to the point in time when a conversation about whether it was ideal began. What is conclusive is how that conversation was ended, at least for the following 1500 years.

The passage you mention could certainly be evidence for an age of accountability. It could also, though, simply prove who happened to be accountable in this particular instance. It might just mean they were kids, and since kids don’t get to decide what happens in their household they cannot rightly be held responsible for those decisions.

What seems to happen is that in those days due to the father having all the power over the family, if the father was a christian, the family was christian. Of course, if the son had no relationship with God, was he really saved? I don’t think so. It was the same way when Christianity was introduced to Japan – if your liege lord said you were … See MoreChristian, you were, if he said you weren’t, you weren’t. Whether anyone was actually saved there is definitely in question. But if your father, in that culture, said you were getting baptized, you were baptized, whether you believed or not. If he said you believed, then you believed, whether you believed or not. At least outwardly. It’s hard to comprehend nowadays.

I can agree with that, but we should note that it appears that the apostles accepted this to some extent or another.

Mark,

While I appreciate the case you make, it still feels like it is still built on conjecture rather than scripture. I know this isn’t your aim, but it is a bit of a question about methods. In my method / hermeneutic…I’d sure feel better about a verse that says…baptize infants.

You said, “I find it unlikely that none of the baptisms of households performed by apostles throughout the NT included children.”… See More

Which really goes to the point. We actually don’t know what they did. Why build doctrines and practices on the unknowns? Of course, none of us believer’s baptism types actually care about baptizing children if it is just a symbol (though it can mislead a child about his own future choices). What we care about is thinking that using water on a person saves the person (or puts them in any special state)…whether child or adult.

I don’t find a theological motive for paedobaptism except in traditions that have at their core a connection between baptism and salvation.

I have personally had people tell me that they are saved because they were baptized as an infant. Why risk that on a conjecture? Why not simply not baptize babies and really small children?

Specifically, what is the harm in not baptizing infants, etc., if there is no scripture directing us to do so…and if there is potential harm from misleading one about their own future faith?

Thanks,

Fred

P.S. Jason, where are you in all of this?

You don’t think there is a connection between baptism and salvation? It may not be a causal connection, but surely “baptism for the remission of sins” makes the two seem pretty connected.

As you sort of indicate, essentially our positions reflect a different attitude towards tradition and the history of the Church. You say, “we don’t know that … See Morethey did, and there’s no direct Scriptural mandate, so why would we risk it?” I would say, “There is (non-conclusive) evidence that says they probably did, but beyond that the universal Church (that is, the body of Christ) from Moscow to Alexandria to Rome to London practiced it for fifteen-hundred years, so we’d better have really, really good reasons for assuming that 1500-years-worth of Christians and Christianity were dead wrong about it, but now we have figured it out.”

I am not Roman Catholic and I do not believe that tradition has a kind of concurrent authority with Holy Scripture. I do, however, believe that the two-thousand-year history of the Church offers much more promising guidance in understanding the teachings of Christ than our own personal insight or the latest Bible study.

Mark,

No, there is no connection between salvation and baptism. Of course, I’m referring to water baptism (not spirit / into Christ aspects) and water baptism alone. You don’t have to get baptized to get saved…or…because you are saved. It is wise and good and obedient…but it isn’t a sine qua non of salvation (justification).

Paul clearly… See More says that the gospel by which we are saved does not included baptism because he, as an apostle, was GLAD he had not baptized many folks (see 1 Cor 1:17-18) because he was instead called to preach the gospel. The gospel therefore clearly does not include getting baptized.

While I do respect tradition, it is not infallible. The latest bible study is not wrong because it is ‘latest’…nor is an ancient notion wrong because it is older. There are fallible folks on both sides.

The Roman Catholic Church is the one who brought indulgences and Mary worship (with the immaculate conception…against the fact Jesus had brothers and sisters). These teachings are clearly unsupportable from the Word of God. Moreover, the Council of Trent (old) fully condemned any notion of be saved by faith alone in Christ alone.

The notion of ‘older is better’ is used by everyone…Reform guys say Dispensational guys are wrong because they are an ‘older view’…and the Roman Catholics say the same toward the Reformed guys (parts of the Eastern Church say the same thing to the Western Church).

We can invert it and commit Chronological Snobbery (C.S. Lewis)—asserting new ideas are better than old notions. All of this is all-but-irrelevant.

The Word of God is the authority, so if we have a view it should be easy enough to defend from the Bible without having to appeal to history. History is valuable as a information, but it is not authoritative.

Frankly, the Rabbis have been teaching their stuff longer than the Roman Catholics…but, of course, Jesus slammed the traditions pretty severely (Matt 23).

I can show a myriad of verses that say we are saved by faith in Christ and His finished work…I can’t show any verses that say children must be water-baptized to be saved. If the verse is there, I’ve just missed it over the past 30 years…but I’m ready to repent even now.

Grace,

Fred

No one (here) is disputing that Scripture is the authority. The only question is how you go about properly interpreting Scripture. And I happen to think history is an unavoidable part of that interpretive process. Scripture was written at certain times in certain places by certain people, and the events described happened at certain times in … See Morecertain places and involved certain people.

Beyond that, we have the entire body of Christ for fifteen-hundred years saying and affirming that Scripture teaches a certain way. If we’re going to reject that (and reject the majority of Christians even after those 1500 years), I suggest that you need indisputably clear Scripture. I’ll also suggest that indisputably clear Scripture is unlikely to exist in such instances… because if it did exist, the entire Church wouldn’t have been blind to it for 1500 years.

(All your examples of “bad tradition” are late-arriving [Trent’s not old–it’s counter-reformation. Practically yesterday! ;)] Roman Catholic teachings that were never accepted outside the *Roman* Catholic church)

Speaking of clarity, you say “Paul clearly says that the gospel by which we are saved does not included baptism.” I’m not sure Paul does say that, but I am quite certain he doesn’t “clearly” say it. To 1 Corinthians:

“…each one of you is saying, ‘I am of Paul,’ and ‘I of Apollos,’ and ‘I of Cephas,’ and ‘I of Christ.’ Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.”

Paul was glad he had not baptized them personally because he did not want people to be confused about in whose name they were baptized. Paul says preaching the gospel does not involve the act of baptizing.

A hypothetical: Bear Bryant says, “Alabama did not hire me to tackle people but to coach football.” Would you assume that football therefore did not involve tackling people? Or would it be that coaching football didn’t include tackling people, and might you not then assume that Bear Bryant was saying, ‘We all have roles. I do the coaching. Someone else does the tackling.”

I’m not sure how Paul’s audience would have taken it if, while he preached, he ran around trying to baptize them. What seems quite clear is that Paul is saying, “My role is to preach the gospel. Someone else does the baptizing.” It does not mean that there is no connection between baptism and salvation.

You say, “of course, I’m referring to water baptism (not spirit / into Christ aspects.” It’s a fair clarification to make, so long as we remember that most of the time its used in Scripture, whoever was speaking or writing does not bother to explain exactly which one they are talking about. Might it be possible that one might, however tenuously, be connected with the other? Or am I just crazy to think that baptism is connected to baptism?

I’m glad you mentioned Lewis. In Mere Christianity, I believe, he argues that we kneeling while praying is a good thing because there is often a stronger connection between what we do physically and what we’re doing spiritually than we are willing to believe.

Seriously Jason, way to drop a cigarette into a forest and walk away 🙂

Act 2:38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

40With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” 41Those who accepted his message were baptized, and … See Moreabout three thousand were added to their number that day.

Act 8:12But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13Simon himself believed and was baptized. And he followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw.

Act 10:47″Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.”

So we see from the beginning of Acts that it seems like belief/acceptance of the message/repentance/receiving the Holy Spirit comes first, then baptism.

Later in Acts they start the household baptisms. But it does not specifically state in the affirmative or negative whether infants were baptized. And it often says the whole household BELIEVED and were baptized. My problem is that a little baby cannot believe, or express that belief meaningfully. So you’re getting it out of scriptural order when you baptize first. I mean, this isn’t a specific mandate here but it’s showing through the pattern the proper order, I believe. What am I missing?

Well you are missing Acts 2:39, which naturally falls between 38 and 40-41: “For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.” That’s not directly related to infant baptism per se, but it (along with household baptisms which as often are not do *not* state any belief outside… See More of the household leader) certainly suggests some problems for the individualist model.

I certainly agree that when you are evangelizing you do not go baptizing people who don’t want or are unwilling to be baptized. The question is do those believers baptize their kids? Again, I’m concerned about relying on the intellectual capacity of people as the litmus test for whether someone’s “in” the body.

I’m concerned about relying on my parent’s salvation as the litmus test for whether I’m in the body. Especially since I’m a lot less sure about that than I am about mine. Or should I be worried, Mark? Maybe my salvation is lost because my parents are lost?

I think you’re attacking a straw man, since no one here ever said or implied in any way that your parents’ lack of salvation would somehow impede yours.

I didn’t even suggest that your parents’ salvation covers you. Although now that you mention it, I suppose Peter could be saying something like that in the aforementioned Acts 2:39 quote. The “for… See More” use as a preposition and then a conjunction interest me, that Peter tells them all to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ “for” the forgiveness of Christ . . . “For (because?) the promise if for you and your children…” as if repentance and baptism somehow involves your children in the promise. You bring up a good point, though I wouldn’t bet the ranch on it.

And since you’ve brought it up, Moses also has something to say about that in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 7 after conversing with the Lord on Mt. Sinai. Interestingly, where Peter doesn’t say anything about their lack of baptism somehow cursing their children (and I don’t think in our above discussion there’s even a whiff of a suggestion to that effect), Moses says that the Lord is a jealous God, “visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.”

I imagine “visiting iniquity” has to do with patterns of sins through the generations, but maybe not! Maybe you should be concerned!

Mark,

I’m sorry to say, but you feel like a pretty difficult person to have a conversation with because you tend to bounce around and not stay on topic. I hope this isn’t offensive, but you actually don’t seem to be reading what Jay is saying and why he is saying it. His points are spot on…and there ARE people saying (in effect) what he is … See Moreconcerned about.

You are claiming that history is important in hermeneutics (yes of course), but you have tied biblical history to Catholic history. The history of the Christian Church is decidedly NOT a hermeneutic in interpreting scripture. Those who interpreted (post New Testament) were ‘intellectuals’ too…who offered their views in a largely not-broadly-discussed context (few had Bibles and few were literate). They were right or wrong, just as we are right or wrong. The arguments were based on interpretations, logic, and appeal to authorities…just like now.

I don’t exactly know what you believe. That would be the most helpful to tell us. All I know is that you think we should defer to trends in history because they were smarter and more godly (at least collectively).

Jason’s question is straightforward.

I’m against paedobaptism. I’ve been clear that I believe baptism is for believers, and that the infant-baptism view is all-but-impossible to defend biblically.

What do you believe and why?

Thanks,

Fred

Well, to be fair, it is Facebook, and frankly I tend not to take conversations on Facebook too seriously, even when they are about serious matters. I do think I’m staying on topic… See More–it’s simply that the topic of paedobaptism is pretty broad-ranging. Jason’s question was not terribly straightforward, as I have lots of “thoughts on paedobaptism.”

I am reading and listening, though perhaps what I am picking out as noteworthy are not always the points you or Jay would like to emphasize. And I can’t say I’m surprised you find his points spot on. I’m sure if you were Lutheran, Anglican, Orthodox, Presbyterian, Catholic, etc. you would feel otherwise.

Who decided that “the history of the Christian Church is decidedly NOT a hermeneutic in interpreting scripture,” and when? You? Now?

I think this idea that each individual, regardless of mental abilities or inclinations, is individually responsible for sorting out the entirety of Scripture on his own, divorced from any outside guidance, is a little, well, crazy!

Why, after fifteen-hundred years of agreement to the contrary, did a minority of Christians suddenly realize what no one else in the previous millennium and a half had: that paedobaptism was anti-Scriptural! If the foundation for that rejection were Biblical, how did everyone miss it for so long? You can dismiss fifteen-hundred years of unquestioned universal church doctrine as a “trend,” if you like, but it does not really answer that question.

I submit that the foundation for that rejection is not Biblical but is instead rooted in the philosophical individualism that arose five centuries ago and has been dying out for the last century. Instead of looking to, yes, the millions of Christians who have sorted out how to live in Christian community in this world for thousands of years as a guide for Biblical interpretation, we’re looking to individualism as a foundation to reject that guidance.

One reason I resist being pinned down here is that I am an Anglican, and we tend to be a little unsystematic with our theology. We do practice paedobaptism, though. Obviously we have different ideas about the nature of the body of Christ. I think that paedobaptism is in line with Biblical ideas about that body and the way that we are bound together. I think it’s impossible to explain household baptisms, the passages I referred to above, or God’s dealings with communities in both Old and New Testaments inside the individualist perspective.

Lastly, I think the three of us are in danger of running around in ever-shrinking and, perhaps, increasingly frustrated concentric circles if we continue the discussion.

Well, when was the printing press invented? In the kind of hierarchic church, who rises to power, the most godly, or the best politician? Do those in power make decision for God or for themselves? If the Bible is not available to the layman, who does he listen to? Who does the Priest get his teaching from? Where does it all start? It should … See Morestart from the Bible, but if nobody else has a Bible, who can say? It seems as soon as there was readily available Bibles, the people in the church broke off into a reformed church.

I believe for 1500 years we suffered from a certain syndrome of “That’s how it’s always been done” and now we’re suffering from the opposite – question everything, and if there’s no Biblical basis, throw it out. The problem is that a lot of things seem to be getting thrown out even with a Biblical basis these days.

Regardless, I don’t care whether you baptize your babies or not, but I know mine aren’t lost just because they’re not baptized as infants. And that yours still will be, if they reach the age of accountability and don’t make the decision for Christ. I’m pretty sure about that, but then again, that’s just an individual talking.

Lastly, I think the three of us are already running around in circles, but some people like NASCAR so why stop? 🙂

Mark,

I’ll let you have the last word…say what you’d like after this..I’m pulling off the track. Honestly, your Anglican premise and re-directed points (celibacy vs. marriage; Catholic vs. Roman Catholic…etc.) all go in the same direction.

You affirm scripture’s authority but deny interpretational legitimacy without the stamp of history (… See Moremore to the point…history tells you what Scripture means, if it agrees with Anglicanism). The Anglican Church’s history shows being under Papal Authority until Henry VIII and his marriage issue(s). Your very premises also defeat your own church’s stance…but, with your allegiance, there is really no position you can take. I know you are very young and perhaps in time you will reconsider some of these views you’ve embraced over the past few years. I know I am old, and perhaps I will consider something new in time.

You are for paedobaptism, but insist no one can know when anyone is saved…yet make the case for paedobaptism anyway. The baptism of infants has always had salvific overtones, implications, and assertions; yet you deny having any opinion because of the inability to know when God gives faith. This kind of reasoning probably affirms your view to yourself and I wish you well.

The trip you are on, if you stay on board, is to become Roman Catholic (not that Anglicanism has been far off anyway), as N.T. Wright’s influence is no doubt taking so many…and will in the days ahead (a prophecy).

God bless you. I have written extensively on this issue of justification by faith alone  that Wright abandoned for Trent. If you are interested, I give a talk on the point via video or audio at https://www.backtofaith.com