Infant Baptism

[Arial]

In the majority of Protestant churches the teaching on baptism is that it belongs to converted adult believers and not infants. Personally, I have never considered it a red flag issue that would cause me to avoid a church one way or the other, though have never understood the purpose of infant baptism. That is a direct result of the Catholic statement on infant baptism as being salvational, and therefore I viewed all infant baptism in that light.

In Reformed theology there are Reformed Baptists and Reformed positions that follow either that of the Baptist or i.e. Reformed Presbyterian, and the differences between the two are minor and have to do with baptism and sometimes eschatology. It is very difficult to pin the differences down to being this or that, eschatologically, as they vary. Not all Reformed Baptists are dispensational, there are many different forms of dispensationalism, and not all Reformed churches adhere to covenant theology. Those of covenant theology are more likely to practice infant baptism.

I have come to understand the meaning behind the practice of infant baptism and will attempt here to present it, in hopes of removing misconceptions and why it is an acceptable practice within the Protestant community.

Within Covenant Reformed Theology, infant baptism does not relate to salvation, but to the covenant community---the New Covenant. Infants and children of believers--even if only one parent is a believer (1 Cor 7:14)--- are a part of the covenant community, not outside of it. In this, it is related to the Old Covenant in which Jewish male infants were circumcised, identifying them as covenant members by the sign of circumcision. The covenant community is now called the church, with the coming of Christ. The claim is that it is a principle of parent-child solidarity in the Old Covenant and that it still stands in the New Covenant. Infants are deemed as members of the visible covenant community and as such it is fitting to give them the sign of covenant status.

An argument presented against this practice states that the sign of circumcision was a primarily a sign of ethnic (Jewish) identity, so there is no parallel between circumcision. To this I would argue that it is not so as to circumcision being an ethnic sign, as pagans were allowed into the Old Covenant community but required to be circumcised, no matter their age. And circumcision never guaranteed eternal life through faith, but was rather a sign of being in the covenant community. This parallels remarkably with Protestant infant baptism, for even in this, it is affirmed that the baptism does not save and adult church members must personally profess faith before the church, and this is done through confirmations or the equivalent. This is also the practice in Baptist churches for children who are brought up in Christian homes.

 

[Josheb]

In the majority of Protestant churches the teaching on baptism is that it belongs to converted adult believers and not infants. Personally, I have never considered it a red flag issue that would cause me to avoid a church one way or the other, though have never understood the purpose of infant baptism. That is a direct result of the Catholic statement on infant baptism as being salvational, and therefore I viewed all infant baptism in that light.

In Reformed theology there are Reformed Baptists and Reformed positions that follow either that of the Baptist or i.e. Reformed Presbyterian, and the differences between the two are minor and have to do with baptism and sometimes eschatology. It is very difficult to pin the differences down to being this or that, eschatologically, as they vary. Not all Reformed Baptists are dispensational, there are many different forms of dispensationalism, and not all Reformed churches adhere to covenant theology. Those of covenant theology are more likely to practice infant baptism.

I have come to understand the meaning behind the practice of infant baptism and will attempt here to present it, in hopes of removing misconceptions and why it is an acceptable practice within the Protestant community.

Within Covenant Reformed Theology, infant baptism does not relate to salvation, but to the covenant community---the New Covenant. Infants and children of believers--even if only one parent is a believer (1 Cor 7:14)--- are a part of the covenant community, not outside of it. In this, it is related to the Old Covenant in which Jewish male infants were circumcised, identifying them as covenant members by the sign of circumcision. The covenant community is now called the church, with the coming of Christ. The claim is that it is a principle of parent-child solidarity in the Old Covenant and that it still stands in the New Covenant. Infants are deemed as members of the visible covenant community and as such it is fitting to give them the sign of covenant status.

An argument presented against this practice states that the sign of circumcision was a primarily a sign of ethnic (Jewish) identity, so there is no parallel between circumcision. To this I would argue that it is not so as to circumcision being an ethnic sign, as pagans were allowed into the Old Covenant community but required to be circumcised, no matter their age. And circumcision never guaranteed eternal life through faith, but was rather a sign of being in the covenant community. This parallels remarkably with Protestant infant baptism, for even in this, it is affirmed that the baptism does not save and adult church members must personally profess faith before the church, and this is done through confirmations or the equivalent. This is also the practice in Baptist churches for children who are brought up in Christian homes.

Five initial thoughts....

My first thought is that most Reformed denoms, sects, congregations define baptism differently than the rest of Christendom and it is, therefore important to know and note the distinctions when discussing the matter with those outside the Reformed arena. Simply put, in contrast to how others use the term baptism is not baptism. On the Catholic side of things baptism is a sacrament and the sacrament is salvific. Calvin himself wrote on more than one occasion that childhood baptism saved, and he personally attributed his own salvation to his infant baptism. The Evangelical (Baptists, AoG's, Pentecostals, etc.) reject infant baptism in favor of a baptism occurring at the time of confession or shortly thereafter. They too consider baptism salvific. So when someone from the Reformed perspective and someone not coming from the Reformed pov try to discuss the matter they invariably discuss, debate, argue a false equivalence. The exact same label is used but with two different sets of definition. It's like when a JW or an LDS discuss Jesus with an orthodox Christian. The word "Jesus" means three entirely different things to those three groups but it sounds like they are all talking about the exact same thing when they are not. "Baptism" in most Reformed circles is not salvific. It is simply a pledge or a sign of promise, one asserted predominantly as part of the covenant relationship between God and parent and no one even remotely believes the (non-verbal) infant is consciously and conscientiously confessing anything salvific. This is usually explained to the participating parents long before the ritual is performed.

The second thought that this has always been a place where I part ways wholly with Calvin and mostly with modern doctrines. I have always thought it best to either use a different label (like "dedication") or perform the ritual twice; once as a dedication ritual when the child is newborn and again at the instigation of the person when they make a conscious, conscientious profession of faith in Jesus. Rarely, however, have I been in a Reformed congregation (and I'll include the Lutherans and Episcopalians here) that allowed both. I was told my infant baptism was "retroactive" despite the fact I cannot find any such thing in scripture. They'll baptize a previously unbaptized adult upon conversion, but they won't "double-baptize." I understand their reasoning. I disagree.

Third, I do not think anyone gets baptism wholly correct and various legalisms creep into most views somewhere. The New Testament standard was baptism at the time of conversion and the regeneration and indwelling all co-occurred with the person usually reported to experience some form of glossolalia at that time. I might parse through scripture to provide many explanations for that but to put it simply, that is not the standard or commonly occurring practice today. People do not get baptized immediately on the spot where they make their profession, or if delayed they are not baptized ASAP and we don't observe/hear tongues and prophecies. Either a lot of people are not saved even though professing AND baptized or these are not rigid requirements of God.

Fourth, anyone who wants to really dive into the subject of Baptism should try to find James Dale's series on baptism. They used to be very hard to find but the paperback versions are available and affordable. The newer revisions are more expensive. Technical and somewhat esoteric so they can be tough reading unless you're into the historical analysis. His area of emphasis is on Johannic baptism, and he has a book that surveys the matter in relationship to the OT patristic precedent(s). I have only two of these books so I don't know all he wrote but what I have read is recommendable to those with an interest and a willingness to commit to Dale's detailed exposition. A much more accessible (and shorter) alternative is the Zondervan Counterpoints Series book, "Understanding Four Views on Baptism." For anyone who has read first their Bible, that book will help anyone agree with my first point and understand my third .

Lastly, if God showed up while you were dying in the middle of the Saharan, Mohave, Gobi or any other desert, told you the gospel, and saved you He would either do so without baptizing you or miraculously creating water to do so. In all likelihood you'd make it through the pearly gates just fine sans baptism.

 

[Arial]

My first thought is that most Reformed denoms, sects, congregations define baptism differently than the rest of Christendom and it is, therefore important to know and note the distinctions when discussing the matter with those outside the Reformed arena. Simply put, in contrast to how others use the term baptism is not baptism. On the Catholic side of things baptism is a sacrament and the sacrament is salvific. Calvin himself wrote on more than one occasion that childhood baptism saved, and he personally attributed his own salvation to his infant baptism.

I agree it is very hard to pin down. Individual churches and denominations and non-denominations tend to teach on it at random. I have for years (though not persistently but occasionally) by asking those who defend infant baptism what it does. I have never run across any who said it did save, other than Catholics, but the could not say what it did do. Answers were vague and unsatisfactory. I came across a rather extensive note on it in my Reformation Study Bible and having read it wondered why that was so hard for people to articulate.

In it, it gave the reasoning I reiterated in the OP, and that I can see as at least solid reasoning within scripture. For me, I considered it a sign of being in the covenant community, though of course before I knew of Reformed theology or any of its doctrines, I did not see it in those terms. It was something a believer did after their immersion in Christ Himself through the Holy Spirit. A sign of union so to speak, and I was not baptized until after I had been born again and placed in Him for quite a few years---and then it was on a summer day in a lake, in Nebraska.

I did not know that about Calvin and find it hard to fathom, considering his abilities of exegesis and his legal mind etc. However, he was raised a Catholic and it is sometimes difficult for even the best of us to let go of everything.

The second thought that this has always been a place where I part ways wholly with Calvin and mostly with modern doctrines. I have always thought it best to either use a different label (like "dedication") or perform the ritual twice; once as a dedication ritual when the child is newborn and again at the instigation of the person when they make a conscious, conscientious profession of faith in Jesus. Rarely, however, have I been in a Reformed congregation (and I'll include the Lutherans and Episcopalians here) that allowed both. I was told my infant baptism was "retroactive" despite the fact I cannot find any such thing in scripture. They'll baptize a previously unbaptized adult upon conversion, but they won't "double-baptize." I understand their reasoning. I disagree.

In the olden days, before altar calls, and sound doctrine was thrown out the window as unnecessary, and when confessions were the norm, and children were instructed, and had been baptised as infants, at a certain age were confirmed in the faith if it was clear that they understood and believed those things necessary for salvation. That effectively would take away the need for a second baptism.

The New Testament standard was baptism at the time of conversion and the regeneration and indwelling all co-occurred with the person usually reported to experience some form of glossolalia at that time.

Here I have to note that it was adults who first heard the gospel, so baptism of adults would be expected. There is an incident of an entire household being saved and often this is used to prop up infant baptism. In order to use it that way one would have to assume there were infants present and that is not enough to convince me. Many churches do have dedication ceremonies ceremonies instead of baptism, and I have come to understand (for myself) that the Protestant infant baptism is equal in intent and meaning as that, except that it extends it a bit deeper as being a part of the covenant community under the believing parents.

As for glossolalia, that happened at Pentecost and was not a water baptism, but a baptism by the Holy Spirit as John the Baptist had predicted that would come from Christ. And interesting to ascertaining its purpose, with a converted Gentile at baptism, and it is evidenced as being in the church in Corinthians. Other than that it is not mentioned. So my view of that is that it was serving a specific purpose, as witness of a new covenant at Pentecost, as the same visible sign with Cornelius that the same salvation went to Gentiles as well as Jews, and because the gospel was being spread through a wide area with many different languages and dialects.

Lastly, if God showed up while you were dying in the middle of the Saharan, Mohave, Gobi or any other desert, told you the gospel, and saved you He would either do so without baptizing you or miraculously creating water to do so. In all likelihood you'd make it through the pearly gates just fine sans baptism.

 

[Mr GLee]

I would offer. Mankind does not look to the foundation of a teaching. In that way David said. What can born again believers do if mankind does destroy the foundation of a doctrine ( Psalm 11:3 )

The foundation is used in a ceremonial law (Shadow )as a sign to the world not to those who perform it whenever a person had a desire to be part of the priesthood of believers.

Aaron the Levi His two sons on the first day were baptized with water to represent the work of unseen Holy Spirit. They violated the law and added what is called strange fire " I did it, it proves it" as if it pointed to their dying flesh.

Jesus from the tribe of Judah changed the priesthood of believers to all the nations of the world.

The same ceremonial law as a shadow today applies just as with Aaron two sons. Not a sign to oneself (strange fire) but to the whole unbelieving world, Getting wet changes nothing. A person must be born again of the hearing of the gospel. Not the hearing of a waterfall or a leaky faucet

 

[GoKart Mozart]

..it is related to the Old Covenant in which Jewish male infants were circumcised, identifying them as covenant members by the sign of circumcision. The covenant community is now called the church, with the coming of Christ. The claim is that it is a principle of parent-child solidarity in the Old Covenant and that it still stands in the New Covenant. Infants are deemed as members of the visible covenant community and as such it is fitting to give them the sign of covenant status..

I agree with the quote above in principle.
Baptism in Christianity parallels the circumcision of Judaism and is a means of bringing the child into the Body of Christ, and the life of the Church.

Another aspect, also mentioned, is the role of "Original Sin" in infant baptism. "In countering Pelagius, Augustine was led to state that infants who die without Baptism are consigned to hell.. Anselm of Canterbury believed that little children who die without Baptism are damned on account of original sin and in keeping with God's justice."
source
Infant baptism is seen as a means of solving this problem within Catholicism and some Reformed communities.

 

[Mr GLee]

I agree with the quote above in principle.
Baptism in Christianity parallels the circumcision of Judaism and is a means of bringing the child into the Body of Christ, and the life of the Church.

Another aspect, also mentioned, is the role of "Original Sin" in infant baptism. "In countering Pelagius, Augustine was led to state that infants who die without Baptism are consigned to hell.. Anselm of Canterbury believed that little children who die without Baptism are damned on account of original sin and in keeping with God's justice."
source
Infant baptism is seen as a means of solving this problem within Catholicism and some Reformed communities

No such thing as "original sin". A Catholic oral traditions of the dying fathers. Again simply as a oral traditions of dying mankind called a law of the dying father's. A way for some to divide sin into two categories. mortal and venial making it manageable for those who do violate the eternal word.

There is no such thing a counterfeit sin compared to original .All sin leads to death.

Ceremonial laws is not a means of bringing a child into the body of Christ .It is not a sign of self edification but agin a sign to the unbelieving world Believer have prophecy sealed with 7 seals till the end of time . It's a evil generation that seeks after the temporal corrupted thing seen shadow of the eternal

Baptism like circumcision are shadows of the unseen eternal.

We walk by faith (Christ's faith in us not of us.) the unseen eternal things of God.

 

[Josheb]

Baptism in Christianity parallels the circumcision of Judaism...

Yep.

Baptism was updated for life in Christ . Circumcision could be performed only on males but both males and females can be baptized. Circumcision was done with Jewish infants to signify inclusion into the Abrahamic covenant. Adult Gentile converts had to be both baptized (washed) and snipped!

Galatians 3:26-29
For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.

No males or females . Now everyone is washed and even after the "update" it still carries symbolic significance.

1 Peter 3:18-22
For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that he might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which also he went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you — not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience —through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.

Anyone up for a (ontologically) good conscience?

No such thing as "original sin".

That depends on how OS is defined. Read the posts HERE and HERE. for a case supporting the premise of original sin.

 

[Mr GLee]

That depends on how OS is defined. Read the posts HERE and HERE. for a case supporting the premise of original sin.

Original sin is a Catholic oral tradition of men that split wage of sin into in two categories. To make room for their limbo and queen of heaven doctrine. Mortal and venial No such thing. All sin leads to eternal damnation.

When we sin, it does not make us sinners it proves we are forgiven sinners.

 

[GoKart Mozart]

Original sin is a Catholic oral tradition of men that split wage of sin into in two categories. To make room for their limbo and queen of heaven doctrine. Mortal and venial No such thing. All sin leads to eternal damnation.

Partially agree, it's a later written tradition originating with Augstine in the early 5th century. Augustine coined the phrase, so to speak. .The spurious doctrines like Immaculate Conception came after (not before) because of the challenges it creates, particulary the problems with the Incarnation (as example).
In principle, I agree the Catholic/Latin west doctrine of Original Sin is extra-Biblical and not taught in early Christianity.

 

[Mr GLee]

Partially agree, it's a later written tradition originating with Augstine in the early 5th century. Augustine coined the phrase, so to speak. .The spurious doctrines like Immaculate Conception came after (not before) because of the challenges it creates, particulary the problems with the Incarnation (as example).
In principle, I agree the Catholic/Latin west doctrine of Original Sin is extra-Biblical and not taught in early Christianity.

Agustine served a law of the father's . . .oral tradition dying mankind. Making all things written in the law and prophets to no effect. Why would we seek his understanding? He is not here to defend himself even though some say he made the patron saint status as disemobied workers with familiar spirit gods.

Again, they like the unbelieving Jew as a law of the fathers' "oral traditions of dying mankind" have need to divide the one wage of sin (eternally dead) making really dead manageable. Forgivable by a sinner that sits in a confessional both. Venerable sinner.

The wage of the venial sin 10 hail Maries 3 our fathers "the Popes" etc.. . as oral traditions of dying mankind No pecking order in the family of God. They call no man on earth Holy Father, Holy See, the supreme leader of Apostles, the Vicar Christ, the crown Jewel of Rome etc

Men venerating dying mankind and not our one Holy Father in heaven. He along forgives sin. (the eternal wage)

 

[Josheb]

Original sin is a Catholic oral tradition of men that split wage of sin into in two categories. To make room for their limbo and queen of heaven doctrine. Mortal and venial No such thing. All sin leads to eternal damnation.

When we sin, it does not make us sinners it proves we are forgiven sinners.

Did you read my post?

 

[Mr GLee]

Did you read my post?

Yes, I would offer no such thing as original sin and it has nothing to do with the DNA of our bodies.

There are no cells that say one is a sinner. They were created with temporal bodies subject to the letter of the law "death". When they died their bodies returned to dust and the temporal living spirit given under the letter death returns to the father of all spirit life. Believers receive a uncorruptible new spirit that will never die not made after the rudiments of this corrupted world. . all things die.

Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

 

[Josheb]

Yes, I would offer no such thing as original sin and it has nothing to do with the DNA of our bodies.

Then you would be wrong.

There are no cells that say one is a sinner.

That is incorrect.

Every cell in our body unequivocally states we are sinners. Really dumb thing to say. God made Adam (and Eve) 1) good, 2) unashamed, and 3) sinless. Now, every single cell in our body not only contains evidence of Adam's disobedience and the resulting trauma, but every cell in our body functions differently than it was originally designed to work. Every single one of them. The ways our cells go awry is almost infinite (I say that because the list probably does have a finite number, but it is so great no one has ever bothered to list all the ways our cells go wrong. All the known and unknown diseases are one such example. Adam was not made with disease within. Adam was given power and authority over all the creatures in Eden - and that means he had power and authority over all the microorganisms in the garden.

So I would like you right now, right here and now, to take a moment and command all the predatory diseases out of your body.

People get this wrong because they incorrectly define sin. Sin is defined several ways in scripture and most people say sin is ONLY behavioral. They appeal to 1 John 3:4 and they insert and "only" in that verse.

1 John 3:4
Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.

They either unwittingly or willfully argue sin is ONLY lawlessness when that is not what that verse states and it is not what the whole of scripture states. Instead, scripture provides several definitions of sin and one of them is missing the target, and another one of them is perfection. That means even the completely lawfully-obedient person can be sinful if there is any imperfection in him/her.

Every single human who has ever lived has been imperfect and that imperfection is NOT measured by the law alone. There are three measures: God, Christ, and the sinless Adam.

They were created with temporal bodies subject to the letter of the law "death".

Which has absolutely nothing to do with anything I posted. That entire line of dissent is a red herring. You have to rethink the entire paradigm. Radical changes in thought are required because of centuries of theological consideration that did not know what we now know and failed to give it any consideration. Stop thinking like Augustine. Stop thinking anti-Augustine. Those ancient guys have nothing to do with what I posted. (Technically, they were on the right track but working in ignorance of knowledge garnered over the last two millennia). Not only is this dissent a red herring but you are going to end up arguing apples and oranges (false equivalence and false dichotomy) because the ECF theological argument is not the argument I have posted.

When they died their bodies returned to dust and the temporal living spirit given under the letter death returns to the father of all spirit life. Believers receive a uncorruptible new spirit that will never die not made after the rudiments of this corrupted world. . all things die.

Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

All of that is post-disobedient conditions. It is another red herring. It has absolutely nothing to do with the pre-disobedient-post-disobedient contrasts (differences). Every single word of that is proof of imperfection AND a trans-generational condition that resulted from Adam's first act of disobedience. You're arguing FOR original sin, not against it.

 

[donadams]

Acts 2:38-39 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Promise is to you’re children! Vs 39

This promise made in ez 36
A promise from God is a sacred oath, and a sacred oath is a sacrament!

Ez 36:25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

Jn 3:5 born again by water and the spirit.

Acts 16:15 entire household baptized! Does not say adults only or except infants!

Ez 36:25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness.

(It does not say adults only or except infants!)
(Scripture does not say anywhere “do not baptized infants”)

Baptism is the Christian initiation sacrament of the new covenant for all men. Matt 28:19 Jn 1:29 Jn 3:16

1 Corinthians 12:13
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (It does not say except infants!) (but it does say “all”)!

Lk 1:10-11 all people including infants

Thee faith is required for adult baptism.
Mk 16:16 acts 8:36-38

If it’s not possible (as in the case of infants) it’s not required.

But the promise of the parents to raise and educate the child in the faith is required, then the child is confirmed in thee faith at the age of reason.

Repentance is required for adult baptism. Acts 2:38

If there is no personal sin to repent of (as in the case of infants) then it’s not required.

For two thousand years the church founded by Christ on Peter and the apostles has always baptized infants!

Acts 1:8
Witness of Augustine!

It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated . . . when that INFANT is brought to baptism; and it is through this one Spirit that the infant so presented is reborn. For it is not written, "Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents" or "by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him," but, "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit." The water, therefore, manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace, and the Spirit effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who was generated in Adam (Letters 98:2 [A.D. 408]).

“The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration” (ibid., 2:27:43).

“Baptism washes away all, absolutely all, our sins, whether of deed, word, or thought, whether sins original or added, whether knowingly or unknowingly contracted” (Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 3:3:5 [A.D. 420]).

“This is the meaning of the great sacrament of baptism, which is celebrated among us: all who attain to this grace die thereby to sin—as he himself [Jesus] is said to have died to sin because he died in the flesh (that is, ‘in the likeness of sin’)—and they are thereby alive by being reborn in the baptismal font, just as he rose again from the sepulcher. This is the case no matter what the age of the body. For whether it be a newborn infant or a decrepit old man—since no one should be barred from baptism—just so, there is no one who does not die to sin in baptism. Infants die to original sin only; adults, to all those sins which they have added, through their evil living, to the burden they brought with them at birth” (Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Love 13[41] [A.D. 421]).