Infant Baptism - Page 3

[Shami]

Hello All. Not sure if I should join this thread, but I just couldn't resist and had to come to make a few points.

Disclaimer: I don't consider infant baptisms evil or horrible, and I would never broach the subject in real life for fear of hurting another believer. Since this is a debate forum I would like to point out a few things, but I don't have time to go back, find whoever said it, and quote it. I really pray that my points do not hurt another believer.

1. Several have made the point that the Bible doesn't say not to baptize infants so it must be fine. This logic doesn't make sense to me. The Bible doesn't say not to _____________(fill in blank) so it must be fine. If this is how one interprets the Bible in order to come up with certain practices then we could adopt all sorts of crazy practices since the Bible doesn't say NOT to do it.

2. Along the same lines... John the Baptist was baptizing all of Judea so there must have been infants. This is an assumption and cannot be considered sound logical interpretation. Besides it says that they were repenting and confessing which infants cannot do.

3. Jesus said let the little children come to me so this must be evidence that infants can be baptized. Read the whole context to see that Jesus laid hands on the little children. If he had baptized them, I believe it would have said that. If infant baptism is so significant then why isn't there at least one account in the Bible?

4. There is no account of Jesus actually performing a water baptism. Matthew 3 says that Jesus will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire.

5. The argument that the early church was already practicing infant baptism so the apostles would have written about it in letters if it was a problem... seems a bit far reaching. Do you know for a fact that the early church, and I mean early days, during Pentecost, was practicing infant baptism? I would really like to know if this is the case. My thought is that it didn't come up in their epistles because they were not practicing it yet. Any history buffs out there that can tell me when infant baptism really began?

6. Jesus was never baptized as a baby. He was baptized as a full grown God-man. If Jesus is our pattern, then we would all be baptized as adults. Actually the significance of baptism is termination. Jesus Himself was baptized by John and then Jesus began His earthly ministry. Jesus as a man was baptized so that He could do only the Father's will and not His own will. Jesus baptism terminated His natural man so that He would express only the Father. Baptism has many more significance, but no time now.

7. Mark 16:16 "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he who does not believe shall be condemned."

Here is the footnote in my Bible:

" Here the verse does not say, "He who does not believe and is not baptized." This indicates that condemnation is related only to not believing; it is not related to not being baptized. Believing, by itself, is sufficient in order to receive salvation from condemnation; yet for the completion of one's inward salvation, believing needs baptism as an outward affirmation."

One of the links up thread stated that the second half of that verse is proof that babies can be baptized without believing. I suppose any person of any age can get baptized without actually believing. I ask you to consider the possibility of this: to the baby, this is an meaningless ritual. Infant baptism seems to be for the adults peace of mind rather than for the child. Many accounts in the Bible of adults being baptized, but no accounts for infants. I know many adults who have had a second baptism because now they believe in Jesus and that makes it meaningful to the person actually being baptized.

Even though I am not Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican, I understand holding on to church doctrine and following the church fathers. In one sense this is a protection to hold to truth. I have placed my self under the elders of my little gathering place. However, what prompted me to come and to respond was my shock at the assumptions, stretching and even twistings of the Scripture in order to make it fit the doctrine. Sorry if that is too blunt, but that is what I see happening.

And if you aren't too offended with me, I'd like to submit two more passages to go along with Mark 16.
John 1 says,
12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the authority to become children of God, to those who believe into His name,

13 Who were begotten not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

John 3 says,
1 But there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the JEWS.

2 This one came to Him by night and said to Him, Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher, for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.

3 Jesus answered and said to him, Truly, truly, I say to you, Unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4 Nicodemus said to Him, How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?

5 Jesus answered, Truly, truly, I say to you, Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7 Do not marvel that I said to you, You must be born anew.

It's been mentioned, but is worthy of repeating. Believing is an act that requires some maturity. Believe and be baptized...

[saimeiyu]

The old testament CLEARLY indicates that babies and children needed to be dedicated to God as part of the covenant-- hello Bris.
If infants are important enough to be included in the covenant in the old testament, then, IMO, they are important enough to be included in the new covenant.

Baptism is considered to be the seal of the new covenant, as circumcision was the seal of the old covenant: Colossians 2:11-13. It is considered a sign of repentance and future faith : Romans 4:11. Circumcision signifies cleansing from sin: Dt 10:16, 30:6, Jer 4:4 and etc. Same effect as baptism.

So anyhow, if God cared enough about Abraham's sons and grandsons and descendants at 8 days old to induct them into the Covenant via circumcision, I think it's safe to say He intended the rest of the world's babies to be brought to him and joined in the new covenant, as well.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by Shami

1. Several have made the point that the Bible doesn't say not to baptize infants so it must be fine. This logic doesn't make sense to me. The Bible doesn't say not to _____________(fill in blank) so it must be fine. If this is how one interprets the Bible in order to come up with certain practices then we could adopt all sorts of crazy practices since the Bible doesn't say NOT to do it.

Unusually, one could reason out that such crazy practices were not acceptable. Saying infant baptism isn't condemned in the Bible isn't meant to prove that it is ok, just that it isn't clearly forbidden.

2. Along the same lines... John the Baptist was baptizing all of Judea so there must have been infants. This is an assumption and cannot be considered sound logical interpretation. Besides it says that they were repenting and confessing which infants cannot do.

I think that the Baptizing done by John is a red herring in this discussion. There is no question that what he was doing was different than Christian baptizing.

3. Jesus said let the little children come to me so this must be evidence that infants can be baptized. Read the whole context to see that Jesus laid hands on the little children. If he had baptized them, I believe it would have said that. If infant baptism is so significant then why isn't there at least one account in the Bible?

I don't seem to recall Jesus baptizing anyone himself. It seems to be something that was to be done after he returned to the Father.

4. There is no account of Jesus actually performing a water baptism. Matthew 3 says that Jesus will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire.

Yes, this seems to go along with the idea that the HS would not come until after Pentecost. I don't see how this relates to infant baptism though?

5. The argument that the early church was already practicing infant baptism so the apostles would have written about it in letters if it was a problem... seems a bit far reaching. Do you know for a fact that the early church, and I mean early days, during Pentecost, was practicing infant baptism? I would really like to know if this is the case. My thought is that it didn't come up in their epistles because they were not practicing it yet. Any history buffs out there that can tell me when infant baptism really began?

Did you read the article I linked to on infant baptism? It covers this stuff briefly , and how they themselves understood what they were doing as similar or different I don't think anyone argued that it was necessarily an apostolic practice, though it may have been. But by the time most new Christians in some areas were indeed "new" it was pretty much universally agreed that it was appropriate and normative to baptize infants. That is significant, because the Church was not at all centralized at that time - there was no one imposing one way of doing things on people. It was also still pretty early, there was still some discussion about the canon of scripture at that point.

6. Jesus was never baptized as a baby. He was baptized as a full grown God-man. If Jesus is our pattern, then we would all be baptized as adults. Actually the significance of baptism is termination. Jesus Himself was baptized by John and then Jesus began His earthly ministry. Jesus as a man was baptized so that He could do only the Father's will and not His own will. Jesus baptism terminated His natural man so that He would express only the Father. Baptism has many more significance, but no time now.

Jesus was Jewish. He was circumcised as an infant.

7. Mark 16:16 "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he who does not believe shall be condemned."

Here is the footnote in my Bible:

" Here the verse does not say, "He who does not believe and is not baptized." This indicates that condemnation is related only to not believing; it is not related to not being baptized. Believing, by itself, is sufficient in order to receive salvation from condemnation; yet for the completion of one's inward salvation, believing needs baptism as an outward affirmation."

One of the links up thread stated that the second half of that verse is proof that babies can be baptized without believing. I suppose any person of any age can get baptized without actually believing. I ask you to consider the possibility of this: to the baby, this is an meaningless ritual. Infant baptism seems to be for the adults peace of mind rather than for the child. Many accounts in the Bible of adults being baptized, but no accounts for infants. I know many adults who have had a second baptism because now they believe in Jesus and that makes it meaningful to the person actually being baptized.

The purpose of baptism is not to feel meaningful to the individual. It is to graft them on to the Vine of Christ and be a special vehicle of Grace. It is a Sacrament.

Even though I am not Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican, I understand holding on to church doctrine and following the church fathers. In one sense this is a protection to hold to truth. I have placed my self under the elders of my little gathering place. However, what prompted me to come and to respond was my shock at the assumptions, stretching and even twistings of the Scripture in order to make it fit the doctrine. Sorry if that is too blunt, but that is what I see happening.

It isn't though just a matter of tradition supporting scripture. They support each other. Scripture can be hard to understand, it has some places where it seems unclear or even to contradict itself on really important questions. It also gives very little information on how things were done in daily worship - that tends to be preserved in Tradition. You don't need to write down what people are doing every day. Sometimes it can also be difficult to see how Tradition and Scripture fit together.

And if you aren't too offended with me, I'd like to submit two more passages to go along with Mark 16.
John 1 says,
12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the authority to become children of God, to those who believe into His name,

13 Who were begotten not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

John 3 says,
1 But there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the JEWS.

2 This one came to Him by night and said to Him, Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher, for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.

3 Jesus answered and said to him, Truly, truly, I say to you, Unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4 Nicodemus said to Him, How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?

5 Jesus answered, Truly, truly, I say to you, Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7 Do not marvel that I said to you, You must be born anew.

It's been mentioned, but is worthy of repeating. Believing is an act that requires some maturity. Believe and be baptized...

Nicodemus is an adult though - I'm not sure how this applies. No one says it is a good idea to baptize adult non-believers. (In fact, it's interesting that a lot of groups that practice only adult baptism will baptize anyone who wants to, while most of those that practice infant baptism require some instruction or evidence of real knowledge of what Christianity is about.)

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by Smokering

Well, I disagree that the apostles wouldn't have understood it, given that they explicated those doctrines in Scripture. The doctrines were lost/distorted/altered and later rediscovered, but they were present all along in the Bible, as can be determined using logic and Scripture.

I think I said the early Christians actually. I'm sure they would have understood the idea of repentance. I don't think they would have understood conversion as a simple one time event, which is an idea that has its origins in the Reformation. The ancient world tended to see conversion, and believing, as a life long process lived out daily in each moment.

The early Church though did not understand baptism simply as a seal on or symbol of a person already saved through belief - it was understood as an incorporation into the Body of Christ, as an effectual action by God.

Because God can override human weakness when it is necessary, and having a rule of faith against which the truth or falsity of doctrines can be determined was clearly necessary. Also, I see no reason to doubt the canon (aside from the deuterocanonical books). Alternative books proposed tend to be heretical, of dubious origins or factually inaccurate.

In other words, I believe the canon to be correct not because I think the council that ratified it was made of men with infallibility, but because I believe God, working through human agency, ensured His word would remain intact.

I have never heard anyone say that decisions taken by the Church were correct because of men who were somehow infallible, apart perhaps from modern Catholics.

(I find myself wondering though - on what basis do you think God would protect only his word in the form of Scripture? And how did the Church function before there was Scripture? Did God protect Tradition up until Scripture was produced and put together in final form, and then transfer his protection to it?)

What has actually been believed is that the Church is both profoundly universal and profoundly local. When differences of opinion appear on significant issues, that is someone says something heretical, or begins circulating a bad text, the issue is to be cleared up by a council, where there are no infallible men, but God, working through human agency, ensures that Truth is preserved in his Church.

But if you really think that the Church was somehow lost, and the real meaning and structure of Christianity was obscured until a 16th century lawyer figured out what it really meant, there is not much to say. But it will be interesting to wait another 1000 years and see how someone discovers that we have understood it incorrectly as well. It's too bad that Christ couldn't establish the Church correctly the first time.

[Shami]

Bluegoat, I missed your link earlier, but am now printing it off since my 2 yr old doesn't think I should have a turn on the comuptuer.

This is the first time I have ever heard of circumcision in the OT being a sort of type for baptism for infants. I will do some reading to see the significances of both and come back to that. Off the cuff, I would say that the spiritual significances are quite different. In the NT circ. is considered and ordinance from the old religions and not necessary since all of the ordinances were dealt terminated on the cross. However, baptism is considered very necessary in the NT. Need to think more on this topic...

My comment about Jesus not be baptized was to point out that if it was so important then why did God wait to baptize Jesus until He was an adult. Yes, I realize that Jesus was Jewish and cir'd as were all of the Jewish believers. Later there was discussion over whether Gentiles should be required to get cir'd. They came to the conclusion that, no, they do not have to. God or an angel could have to Mary and Joseph to baptize the baby Jesus immediately regardless of whether there was an earthly church formed yet. God could have written the Bible to say, do this as an example for things to come... See my point?


Again, I hesitated to get into this discussion because I want scripture from you. I have actually enjoyed hearing about the doctrine and it has helped me see 'where you are coming from', but... I just don't agree with doctrine that doesn't have some obvious scripture to back it up. The only scripture that I can give you any points for is the "household baptism" passages. Even that is assuming there were infants. Maybe all of the children in those households were old enough to repent and confess. Do you see the fallacy of me saying that? I have to make a leap to assume that the children in that house were older children. Likewise, it's a leap to say there were infants in the household.

One more thing-
I didn't mean to imply that infant baptism was a crazy practice. I realized later that it sounded like that, but I meant that with that kind of logic any person who wants to come up with a crazy kind of practice could say the same thing, it's not forbidden, so why not?

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by Shami

Bluegoat, I missed your link earlier, but am now printing it off since my 2 yr old doesn't think I should have a turn on the comuptuer.

Wait, is your two year old living in my house?

This is the first time I have ever heard of circumcision in the OT being a sort of type for baptism for infants. I will do some reading to see the significances of both and come back to that. Off the cuff, I would say that the spiritual significances are quite different. In the NT circ. is considered and ordinance from the old religions and not necessary since all of the ordinances were dealt terminated on the cross. However, baptism is considered very necessary in the NT. Need to think more on this topic...

I could find some examples of the Fathers on this probably - several of them link the two ideas.

My comment about Jesus not be baptized was to point out that if it was so important then why did God wait to baptize Jesus until He was an adult. Yes, I realize that Jesus was Jewish and cir'd as were all of the Jewish believers. Later there was discussion over whether Gentiles should be required to get cir'd. They came to the conclusion that, no, they do not have to. God or an angel could have to Mary and Joseph to baptize the baby Jesus immediately regardless of whether there was an earthly church formed yet. God could have written the Bible to say, do this as an example for things to come... See my point?

The thing is, it really wouldn't have been possible for Christ to be baptized as an infant, and it isn't clear to me that it would make sense for him to have a Christian baptism at all. I'm not sure that in this area we can say Christ is the model for what we are supposed to do necessarily.

Again, I hesitated to get into this discussion because I want scripture from you. I have actually enjoyed hearing about the doctrine and it has helped me see 'where you are coming from', but... I just don't agree with doctrine that doesn't have some obvious scripture to back it up. The only scripture that I can give you any points for is the "household baptism" passages. Even that is assuming there were infants. Maybe all of the children in those households were old enough to repent and confess. Do you see the fallacy of me saying that? I have to make a leap to assume that the children in that house were older children. Likewise, it's a leap to say there were infants in the household.

Sure, I don't think it's something we can prove one way or another based on Scripture - one could reasonably come to a number of conclusions.

One more thing-
I didn't mean to imply that infant baptism was a crazy practice. I realized later that it sounded like that, but I meant that with that kind of logic any person who wants to come up with a crazy kind of practice could say the same thing, it's not forbidden, so why not?

I didn't get the impression you thought it was crazy - though people justify some crazy things from Scripture at times. Snake handling is one that comes to mind.

[justKate]

Just wanted to say that I'm really enjoying the discussion. Thanks for sharing all of the links.

[Shami]

MY comments in BLUE

Originally Posted by Bluegoat

Unusually, one could reason out that such crazy practices were not acceptable. Saying infant baptism isn't condemned in the Bible isn't meant to prove that it is ok, just that it isn't clearly forbidden.

OK, but this would have to be paired with some verses or passages with strong implications toward infant baptism.

I think that the Baptizing done by John is a red herring in this discussion. There is no question that what he was doing was different than Christian baptizing.

John was radical in his day, but he had to be in order to cut off the old rituals and to bring in the Christ. John had unclean clothes and ate unclean things out in the wilderness and not in the temple. I am not sure what you mean that it wasn't christian baptism. True there was no earthly church, yet to perform baptisms. Maybe this is why your saying this? At any rate John's baptizing was good enough for Jesus. Again, I believe the main significance of John the Baptist was to make a transition from the Old Religious rituals to the new way, Christ as a Person, not a ritual.


I don't seem to recall Jesus baptizing anyone himself. It seems to be something that was to be done after he returned to the Father.

Right. Someone up thread said that when Jesus said let the little children come to me, made it a possibility for infant baptism. Actually Jesus laid His hands on them.

4. There is no account of Jesus actually performing a water baptism. Matthew 3 says that Jesus will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire.

Yes, this seems to go along with the idea that the HS would not come until after Pentecost. I don't see how this relates to infant baptism though?

I brought up the fact that there is no account of Jesus baptizing anyone because someone was making a giant leap up thread about Jesus possibly baptizing infants.





Did you read the article I linked to on infant baptism? It covers this stuff briefly , and how they themselves understood what they were doing as similar or different I don't think anyone argued that it was necessarily an apostolic practice, though it may have been. But by the time most new Christians in some areas were indeed "new" it was pretty much universally agreed that it was appropriate and normative to baptize infants. That is significant, because the Church was not at all centralized at that time - there was no one imposing one way of doing things on people. It was also still pretty early, there was still some discussion about the canon of scripture at that point.
I went back to read the link. It seems that infant baptism isn't even clear in the doctrine. There is a lack of historical facts, which is causing some confusion. The article did help me understand baptism and confirmation. Thanks.

Jesus was Jewish. He was circumcised as an infant.



The purpose of baptism is not to feel meaningful to the individual. It is to graft them on to the Vine of Christ and be a special vehicle of Grace. It is a Sacrament.
I will post a separate post with some verses which I hope will show the significance of baptism.


It isn't though just a matter of tradition supporting scripture. They support each other. Scripture can be hard to understand, it has some places where it seems unclear or even to contradict itself on really important questions. It also gives very little information on how things were done in daily worship - that tends to be preserved in Tradition. You don't need to write down what people are doing every day. Sometimes it can also be difficult to see how Tradition and Scripture fit together.



Nicodemus is an adult though - I'm not sure how this applies. No one says it is a good idea to baptize adult non-believers. (In fact, it's interesting that a lot of groups that practice only adult baptism will baptize anyone who wants to, while most of those that practice infant baptism require some instruction or evidence of real knowledge of what Christianity is about.)

Out of time, my two year old...

[Smokering]

The old testament CLEARLY indicates that babies and children needed to be dedicated to God as part of the covenant-- hello Bris.
If infants are important enough to be included in the covenant in the old testament, then, IMO, they are important enough to be included in the new covenant.

The old covenant was an external, physical, national covenant which wasn't precisely tied to salvation, but to the fate of the nation of Israel. The new covenant is an internal, spiritual, personal covenant which isn't tied to any nationality, but to a person's salvation. That's... the whole point. It's new. It's different. If it were the same, only baby boys would be baptised, for one thing. There's that whole bit in Hebrews (Hebrews? Romans?) about how even circumcision didn't make babies true (ie spiritual) chrildren of Abraham back in the day, but circumcision of the heart; so how much more must baptism be of the heart, not an external act done by another person, in order to be true baptism!

I think I said the early Christians actually. I'm sure they would have understood the idea of repentance. I don't think they would have understood conversion as a simple one time event, which is an idea that has its origins in the Reformation. The ancient world tended to see conversion, and believing, as a life long process lived out daily in each moment.

I'm more interested in what the apostles thought, as early Christianity believed all sorts of wacky things. And again, the Bible describes conversion as a dramatic event - new birth - as well as a lifelong process, so I'm sure the men who wrote said Bible knew what they were writing.

(I find myself wondering though - on what basis do you think God would protect only his word in the form of Scripture? And how did the Church function before there was Scripture? Did God protect Tradition up until Scripture was produced and put together in final form, and then transfer his protection to it?)

Sola Scriptura didn't apply while the canon was being formed, as I'm sure you know. There is no evidence that the oral teachings of the apostles were in any way different to the teachings they wrote down - they were equally authoritative whether spoken or written. Once they were written down, they existed in an unchangeable form against which other teachings could be measured - whether those teachings claimed apostolic authority or were developed in the 1600s by a lawyer. That's all Sola Scriptura means - that Scripture is the rule of faith by which all teachings and doctrines must be judged. And that's why I believe God did not protect Tradition - because Tradition, or rather the numerous contradictory Traditions that have sprung up in the last 2000 years, often contradict the plain teachings of the Word of God.

What has actually been believed is that the Church is both profoundly universal and profoundly local. When differences of opinion appear on significant issues, that is someone says something heretical, or begins circulating a bad text, the issue is to be cleared up by a council, where there are no infallible men, but God, working through human agency, ensures that Truth is preserved in his Church.

How can you believe that as an Anglican? By definition, surely you believe that the Truth was not preserved in terms of, say, doctrines concerning the Pope. But if Truth is indeed preserved, it will be able to be proven true by comparison with Scripture. If it fails that test, it is clearly not Truth and therefore not of God.

But if you really think that the Church was somehow lost, and the real meaning and structure of Christianity was obscured until a 16th century lawyer figured out what it really meant, there is not much to say. But it will be interesting to wait another 1000 years and see how someone discovers that we have understood it incorrectly as well. It's too bad that Christ couldn't establish the Church correctly the first time.

Again... you're Anglican. Do you think the Catholic Church got it right? If so, aren't you kind of in the wrong denomination?

It's perfectly possible that someone in 1000 years will discover major problems with today's understanding of Christianity. Surely you don't think the church is perfect? God promised to guide the church into all truth, and present her at the end of time as a stainless bride without blemish - He did not promise she would not err (quite the reverse, in fact), and indeed much of the New Testamnt is devoted to correcting moral and doctrinal errors that had already crept in. If you feel God failed by making that plan, that's your issue; I trust that He knows what He's doing.

[Bluegoat]

So, regarding tying circumcision to baptism, there are a few streams of thought on this, from what I can see. (I got most of this from Wiki, which I know isn't a great source, but it's where I'm starting):

Biblically, Paul makes a comparison in Colossians Chapter 2, where he says:

In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

Also, some of the ancient Churches (I believe the EO, the OO, and the ACE) have normally baptized on the eighth day, when circumcision would have occurred. I'm not sure of when this practice began - I am curious about it so I am going to try to find out.

There is also what is called Covenant Theology, which seems to be associated with Calvinism (but not the Reformed Baptists like Smokering, who are reformed Reformed.

There are a fair number of references to circumcision in relation to baptism, in a variety of contexts. Most don't seem to shed a lot of light on this discussion, but I found a large number by searching with google.

As far as actual mention of infant baptism in the Early Church: It is mentioned by Irenaeus (c. 130–202); Origen (185–c. 254); Tertullian (c. 155–230); and in The Apostolic Tradition (probably 2nd to 4th century material), and Cyprian (d. 258)

Just to compare timeframes of development, Origen was actively discussing which books were part of the canon and which were not at that point in the history of the Church, based on his travels throughout the Christian world.

Smokering, you mentioned that some of the "evidence" about early infant baptism used the word neophyte, and so probably just refers to new believers. The only controversy discussion over that word I came across relates to early Christian inscriptions. Is that what you were thinking of? The ones I saw specifically mentions the ages of the children, and although it doesn't say they were baptized, it describes them as believers, and receiving grace.

[lilyka]

The EO would not baptize on the 8th day. The mom and baby may not even come into the church until they are presented on the 40th day. You could however baptize your baby immediately following the churching. But that would be the earliest.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by Smokering

The old covenant was an external, physical, national covenant which wasn't precisely tied to salvation, but to the fate of the nation of Israel. The new covenant is an internal, spiritual, personal covenant which isn't tied to any nationality, but to a person's salvation. That's... the whole point. It's new. It's different. If it were the same, only baby boys would be baptized, for one thing. There's that whole bit in Hebrews (Hebrews? Romans?) about how even circumcision didn't make babies true (ie spiritual) chrildren of Abraham back in the day, but circumcision of the heart; so how much more must baptism be of the heart, not an external act done by another person, in order to be true baptism!

I think you mean Romans chapter 2? "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."

Clearly circumcision and baptism have striking differences. IN fact Jews actually practice baptism themselves, when people convert - including children I believe. But circumcision is understood to be a sign of the covenant - nothing is gained by just the act of removing a bit of flesh. There are many early references to the idea of baptism as a new covenant, and God clearly thinks that he can make promises even to immature individuals. Christ died to extend salvation to everyone, even infants - that is the new covenant, which is a reflection and fulfillment of all the old ones - to Abraham and his descendants, to Noah, to Cain, and to Adam and Eve.

I'm more interested in what the apostles thought, as early Christianity believed all sorts of wacky things. And again, the Bible describes conversion as a dramatic event - new birth - as well as a lifelong process, so I'm sure the men who wrote said Bible knew what they were writing.

What sort of crazy things were accepted by the whole of the Church? Conversion is sometimes a dramatic event, but not always, both in the Bible and in most Christian communities (except perhaps those that insist on dramatic conversions.)

Sola Scriptura didn't apply while the canon was being formed, as I'm sure you know. There is no evidence that the oral teachings of the apostles were in any way different to the teachings they wrote down - they were equally authoritative whether spoken or written. Once they were written down, they existed in an unchangeable form against which other teachings could be measured - whether those teachings claimed apostolic authority or were developed in the 1600s by a lawyer. That's all Sola Scriptura means - that Scripture is the rule of faith by which all teachings and doctrines must be judged. And that's why I believe God did not protect Tradition - because Tradition, or rather the numerous contradictory Traditions that have sprung up in the last 2000 years, often contradict the plain teachings of the Word of God.

I agree the oral teachings are in line with what is written down, but are you suggesting that there were no other teachings that were left behind that were not written down?

I find myself wanting to be bad and asking which plain meaning of Scripture you are referring to that contradicts Tradition? Even within groups that are strict about sola scriptura, there is quite a lot of difference - at least equal to the differences between those groups which don't.

How can you believe that as an Anglican? By definition, surely you believe that the Truth was not preserved in terms of, say, doctrines concerning the Pope. But if Truth is indeed preserved, it will be able to be proven true by comparison with Scripture. If it fails that test, it is clearly not Truth and therefore not of God.

Again... you're Anglican. Do you think the Catholic Church got it right? If so, aren't you kind of in the wrong denomination?

Well, I'm an Anglican catholic, really, and I most certainly think the Catholic Church has departed from Tradition in a number of important areas. For the moment I am agnostic about whether any one else manages to be fully catholic and orthodox. But I would say that some are clearly more so than others, and that means understanding themselves as part of one Church that has existed from the beginning.

It's perfectly possible that someone in 1000 years will discover major problems with today's understanding of Christianity. Surely you don't think the church is perfect? God promised to guide the church into all truth, and present her at the end of time as a stainless bride without blemish - He did not promise she would not err (quite the reverse, in fact), and indeed much of the New Testament is devoted to correcting moral and doctrinal errors that had already crept in. If you feel God failed by making that plan, that's your issue; I trust that He knows what He's doing.

Well, no, I don't think he failed. Nor do I think there is never error found in the Church, though I'd have something to say on what kind of error. But I find it rather hard to credit that in understanding Scripture we would take what are clearly new and different ideas over ones pretty much universally held within a generation of the apostles, or even less (I'm not necessarily thinking specifically of baptism.) Anyone who has studied history knows how easily and profoundly we can misunderstand those who lived in a different era from our own, and how very difficult it can be to understand what someone is getting at in writings from a different era.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by lilyka

The EO would not baptize on the 8th day. The mom and baby may not even come into the church until they are presented on the 40th day. You could however baptize your baby immediately following the churching. But that would be the earliest.

That's interesting. I'm trying to remember what the OT regulations were - I seem to recall that the mother had to stay secluded until she stopped bleeding? Would she not have been at the circumcision then?

[Smokering]

Clearly circumcision and baptism have striking differences. IN fact Jews actually practice baptism themselves, when people convert - including children I believe. But circumcision is understood to be a sign of the covenant - nothing is gained by just the act of removing a bit of flesh. There are many early references to the idea of baptism as a new covenant, and God clearly thinks that he can make promises even to immature individuals. Christ died to extend salvation to everyone, even infants - that is the new covenant, which is a reflection and fulfillment of all the old ones - to Abraham and his descendants, to Noah, to Cain, and to Adam and Eve.

I disagree that he extended salvation to infants as infants - it would, at the least, be a meaningless thing to do, as infants are unable to respond in the required manner (repentance and faith). Certainly God knew which infants would grow up, of course...

What sort of crazy things were accepted by the whole of the Church? Conversion is sometimes a dramatic event, but not always, both in the Bible and in most Christian communities (except perhaps those that insist on dramatic conversions.)

Theologically dramatic, not necessarily biographically dramatic. And I didn't specify "the whole of the Church". Arianism was fairly early.

I agree the oral teachings are in line with what is written down, but are you suggesting that there were no other teachings that were left behind that were not written down?

Nothing that God felt necessary to preserve in unchangeable form in the Bible, at any rate. I don't have a problem with traditions that are likely to be true (eg Peter being crucified upside-down), as long as they are relayed with a caveat - but at the very least they must not contradict the Bible.

I find myself wanting to be bad and asking which plain meaning of Scripture you are referring to that contradicts Tradition? Even within groups that are strict about sola scriptura, there is quite a lot of difference - at least equal to the differences between those groups which don't.

So? Difference of opinion does not imply that an objective truth does not exist. You know some of my own theological positions, which I have defended here in the past and am happy to defend again, because I believe them to be in accordance with the plain teachings of Scripture.

Well, I'm an Anglican catholic, really, and I most certainly think the Catholic Church has departed from Tradition in a number of important areas. For the moment I am agnostic about whether any one else manages to be fully catholic and orthodox. But I would say that some are clearly more so than others, and that means understanding themselves as part of one Church that has existed from the beginning.

As I do - the universal, fallible church of Christ, which has at times numbered very few people when the church as a political movement has distorted the gospel to an unrecognisable extent.

I've heard of the term Anglo-Catholic, but I'm not terribly familiar with it - is it simply what some people call "high Anglican"? If you don't mind explaining, I'm curious.

Well, no, I don't think he failed. Nor do I think there is never error found in the Church, though I'd have something to say on what kind of error. But I find it rather hard to credit that in understanding Scripture we would take what are clearly new and different ideas over ones pretty much universally held within a generation of the apostles, or even less (I'm not necessarily thinking specifically of baptism.) Anyone who has studied history knows how easily and profoundly we can misunderstand those who lived in a different era from our own, and how very difficult it can be to understand what someone is getting at in writings from a different era.

Well, I don't think it is "new and different", for example, to say that when Paul used the word "predestination" he was referring to predestination. Certainly hermeneutics is important as a corrective against chronological snobbery, the biases of our old worldviews and so on. But I don't see that historical continuity trumps truth, especially where there are cases where it seems blindingly obvious to me that certain doctrines cannot be rationally reconciled with Scripture.

And anyone who has studied history will also know how soon after the development of any new idea, philosophy, religion, political system etc, the original pure tenets will become corrupted and altered and subject to political machinations. So while the history of doctrines is interesting, I don't consider it definitive by any means.

[lilyka]

Originally Posted by Bluegoat

That's interesting. I'm trying to remember what the OT regulations were - I seem to recall that the mother had to stay secluded until she stopped bleeding? Would she not have been at the circumcision then?

I am under the impressions circumcisions were not done in the temple. All I know is mother and child were presented at the temple on the 40th day. That is when Simeon prophesied over Jesus and Mary. The EO are not cut off from God or the church, we just may not enter the holy temple (sanctuary). Nor are we in seclusion during the 40 days.

[Smokering]

As far as actual mention of infant baptism in the Early Church: It is mentioned by Irenaeus (c. 130–202); Origen (185–c. 254); Tertullian (c. 155–230); and in The Apostolic Tradition (probably 2nd to 4th century material), and Cyprian (d. 258)

I asked my father to drop off that book I was talking about, so I might be able to give you some more info then (although I'm not claiming the book is necessarily accurate - I just recall it being pretty compelling when I read it).

I'm not sure Irenaeus actually does talk about infant baptism per se. He believed in universal infant salvation, it seems, so he would not have felt that baptism was required to save them. I've found one reference in which he compares new Christians to new-born babes, which hardly says anything one way or another about baptism; and another in which he states that "infants and children and boys, youths and old men" are saved. In a rather dodgy passage, as he goes on to say that Jesus lived to be over 40 - so he clearly isn't an uber-reliable historian, whatever his theology may be.

If infants are saved, it follows that they may as well be baptised, but I can't find a reference in which he specifically advocates or reports the practice.

Tertullian opposes the practice of baptising "little children" (AD 200-206) - without seeing the original language, I don't know if he was referring to infants or just young children. Certainly, though, his opposition indicates that someone not too far removed from Christ's time thought in a "Protestant" way about the issue.

Right, visitors are approaching so I'll disappear and make profiteroles.

[Shami]

My last post was a little disjointed, sorry, Bluegoat. You know...the two year old thing again! I don't know how you moms do anything with multiple children, much less, post a coherent thought on mdc!

Significance of baptism is death and burial. Hopefully, I'll post verses at the end. I love this type of baptism in the Old Testament.

Back when the children of Israel (C of I) were being held captive by Pharoah in Egypt, God told them to sacrifice a perfect lamb and put the blood on the door posts so that the death angel would pass over their house sparing their first born boy children and animals.
The Passover was established and the children of Israel had the strength to leave Egypt. Moses led them out. The sea parted and the children of Israel made it safely through, but Pharoah and his armies were crushed by the sea.

The types are marvelous pictures to help us see the reality in our experience with Christ in our daily life.

Egypt signifies the world and Pharoah signifies Satan who is the god of this world. We are held captive by Satan as the C of I were held captive by Pharoah, until we receive Christ, thus making the transfer out of the world and into Christ. We transfer out of darkness into light. This is our salvation.

Colossians 1:13
13 Who delivered us out of the authority of darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of the Son of His love,

The C of Israel ate a perfect, spotless lamb. They had to inspect it as Jesus was inspected and then they put the sacrifical lamb on two sticks which were formed as a cross. They shed it's blood. They prepared it. They ate every part of the lamb. Today we eat the Word, which is God, which is Jesus. We eat Jesus for strength to withstand the world and all of it's temptations! We are in the world, but not of the world.

John 15:19

19 If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.
There is evidence they may have shared the Passover Lamb with other households. They ate it standing and with their loins girded (the hem of their garment up between their legs rather than hanging like a skirt) so that they could march as one army out of captivity. The lamb gave them strength and sustenance for their exodus. Where were they heading? To the Good land that God promised them, but to get there they had to cross the Red Sea. (They did wander in the wilderness and eventually had to cross the river Jordan, which is another type of baptism)
No problem. The waters parted and the C of I crossed through to the other side. Pharoah and his armies were pursuing them, just as satan and his army pursues us. The water came down and crushed Pharoah (Satan) and his army. In this type, satan, and the world (with all of it's temptation and trouble) were buried under the water. Death and termination.

Our baptism signifies death and burial of our old life before Christ. We are in the world but we are not of the world. The world, satan and his army can no longer hold us captive.

Baptism is a testimony to all.
Baptism is an outward show to God, to satan, to the angels, and to believers and non believers that we are dead and buried with Christ so that we will be also raised together with Christ in resurrection.

How can we apply this wonderful biblical fact in our daily life? Well, I stand on the fact that I was baptized into the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, the entire Triune God. When I feel defeated by the world, tempted by things in the world, or even when my temper flairs up, I declare that I have been buried with Christ and I am dead to all these things. Spontaneously, I experience resurrection because death and resurrection go together like two sides of one coin. When we experience the cross or death to our self, we also experience the resurrected Christ who lives within us.

Colossians 2:20

20 If you died with Christ from the elements of the world, why, as living in the world, do you subject yourselves to ordinances:

Romans 6:4

4 We have been buried therefore with Him through baptism into His death, in order that just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so also we might walk in newness of life.

Check out this amazing foot note from my study bible on "walk in newness of life":
"After baptism we become a new person in resurrection. Resurrection is not only a future state; it is also a present process. To walk in newness of life means to live today in the realm of resurrection and to reign in life. This kind of living deals with all that is of Adam in us until we are fully transformed and conformed to the image of Christ" (8:29).

1 Peter 3:21

21 Which water, as the antitype, also now saves you, that is, baptism, not a putting away of the filth of the flesh but the appeal of a good conscience unto God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Some have mentioned something to the effect of salvation is for everyone, babies too. I agree. I just don't agree that it happens for a passive little baby. I think it's wonderful to dedicate your baby, but your baby has to grow up to believe and be baptized or else it (the ritual) was all for the adults and not the little baby. I don't believe that a baby can receive true salvation simply by that ritual. Sorry, there just isn't any evidence in the scripture for infant baptism doctrine.

There are other verses that say to call on the name of the Lord and you shall be saved. Again, a person must have enough awareness to call on the name of the Lord to be saved. A child can call on the name of the Lord, but not an infant.

Receiving/believing in Christ is something a person does when they have the awareness of it and it may or may not 'feel' dramatic. Baptism follows that believing according to Mark 16:16. I still don't understand how the doctrine discounts or wiggles around these verses, and I have been listening to all of you.

[Shami]

http://online.recoveryversion.org/se...=66&ps=10&st=f

Matthew 28:19
A very clear succinct explanation according to verses and cross references for baptism. Baptism having a visible aspect by water and an invisible aspect in the Holy Spirit.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by Smokering

I asked my father to drop off that book I was talking about, so I might be able to give you some more info then (although I'm not claiming the book is necessarily accurate - I just recall it being pretty compelling when I read it).

I'm not sure Irenaeus actually does talk about infant baptism per se. He believed in universal infant salvation, it seems, so he would not have felt that baptism was required to save them. I've found one reference in which he compares new Christians to new-born babes, which hardly says anything one way or another about baptism; and another in which he states that "infants and children and boys, youths and old men" are saved. In a rather dodgy passage, as he goes on to say that Jesus lived to be over 40 - so he clearly isn't an uber-reliable historian, whatever his theology may be.

If infants are saved, it follows that they may as well be baptised, but I can't find a reference in which he specifically advocates or reports the practice.

Tertullian opposes the practice of baptising "little children" (AD 200-206) - without seeing the original language, I don't know if he was referring to infants or just young children. Certainly, though, his opposition indicates that someone not too far removed from Christ's time thought in a "Protestant" way about the issue.

Right, visitors are approaching so I'll disappear and make profiteroles.

I don't have much time today, so I can't say much now. But I think am thinking of the same passage from Ireneous that you are, where he says "For he came to save all by means of himself -- all, I say, who by him are born again to God -- infants, children, adolescents, young men, and old men. "

I think it is important to point out though that the Church hasn't necessarily said that the unbaptized are unsaved. The Orthodox Church says that unbaptized infants go to Heaven, and the Catholics say they may. And both agree that it is possible for unbaptized adults to go to Heaven. And all say that the baptized may not go to Heaven.

So baptism is not synonymous with being saved.

I don't actually identify as an Anglo Catholic, but I will write more on this later.

[Nazsmum]

I just wanted to jump in for a moment. I have been reading this mostly because my brother's wife is going to baptising ther son. (I have been telling my brother this...)

Baptism does not = salvation. Believing in Jesus does.

If you are going to church it is something that you do before the Lord. YOU are doing it. The child does not know the Lord BUT the Lord does KNOW the child. And the Lord know the parents heart and reason for doing it.

God did have LAWS about what His people should do after having a baby. BUT that was the Law. We as believers in Jesus are not under the law.

If you want baptism for your child I say do it. But like I told my brother....YOU are going to have to keep your word to the Lord to raise that baby in the knowlege and ways of the Lord.

I think that far to many parents just do it. My parents are mixed. My mom is jewish, dad not. I found the Lord at an early age. NOT because of the mom or dad. My parents never made me go to church or anything....but I still found Him.