My sister and her husband have been attending a Baptist Church in Washington state for about a year. They want to join the church, because they say they cannot find a good Reformed church, but the church won't let them join until they are baptized. Of course, both of them are baptized but were baptized as infants and the Baptist church says that this doesn't count.
They have been struggleing with this issue and she asked me to send them an email outlining the scriptural basis for infant baptism. I thought I'd share my response with TexAgs.com and get cheers from the papists, lutherans, methodists and reformed and jeers from the credo baptists.
***
OK. I'll try to be as brief as possible and not ramble.
First let me discuss what the Baptists believe and why.
As you know, the Baptists believe that only people who profess faith in Jesus should be baptized. They believe that since babies cannot profess faith that they should not be baptized. They base this understanding on passages such as Acts 8:12,36,37 and interpret that this must mean that one must have faith and receive the word before being baptized. They also base this on the fact that there is no explicit instruction in the bible that says, "Baptize babies too." Furthermore, they don't view baptism itself as being for the remission of sins (like Catholics) nor do they view it as entry into the Covenant (like the Reformed and Catholic). Baptists believe that baptism is just a symbol but a symbol that should only be applied to people old enough to literally profess faith in Jesus.
Why is this view wrong? For several reasons. First let me explain why it is logically wrong and then I'll discuss why it is biblically wrong.
It is interesting that Baptists apply such a restrictive understanding to baptism. It is interesting because if the Baptists were consistent with applying that same standard of interpretation to the rest of the bible than they would be forced to exclude babies from salvation altogether. This is because the Bible also never says, "Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation except for infants"; it simply says, "Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation." Yet Baptists must admit there is an exception for infants unless they wish to condemn instantaneously all infants to hell. So, on the one hand Baptists are willing to make an exception to the plain words of scripture and grant that babies can be saved without explicit faith in Jesus. On the other hand they reverse themselves by saying that babies cannot be baptized without explicit faith in Jesus.
If a Baptist says, "Where does the bible say that babies should be baptized?" I answer, "Where does the bible say that children not old enough to have faith in Jesus, which is necessary for salvation, go to heaven?" The point is that Baptists make the same exception to scripture that those that practice infant baptism make! So, it's a little disingenuous for them to act as if they are applying the correct interpretation of scripture.
Furthermore, what do Baptists do with mentally retarded adults? Does the mentally retarded adult child of a Baptist family never receive the outpouring of Grace in baptism because they are incapable of literally professing faith in Jesus with their mouths? That is unthinkable!
Now onto the bible itself. It is true that the bible never explicitly says, "Baptize infants." However, if one follows the covenantal narrative of the redemption story it is clear that baptism is more than just a symbol and that it applies to the entire families of the believers.
There are many passages that convey this truth but I think the strongest passage is the following:
In Acts 2:39 Peter is speaking and he says, 'The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.'
What promise is Peter talking about?
The preceding verse, Acts 2:38, explains what the promise is; 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.'
So, Peter says to be baptized 'every one of you' and 'this promise includes your children.'
The actual Greek word that is used in Acts 2:39 is 'teknon' which literally means 'infants.'
Perhaps the biggest problem with the Baptist position is that they completely miss the covenant theology that is engrained in the redemption story. This is why they reject the simple fact that circumcision applied to infants as an entry into the covenant (Gen. 17:12) and Paul says then says that baptism is the new circumcision (Col 2:11-12). Paul does not say, "but don't baptize infants like you did with circumcision." If you were reading Paul's letter in AD 60 and you were Jewish converts to the Christian Church and he said, "Baptism is the new circumcision" you would automatically assume that baptism applied to infants.
The bible never says to restrict baptism to only people old enough to make a profession. It simply doesn't. Taking that stance means that you have to completely ignore covenantal theology which is clearly biblical (Hebrews 7, 8 and 9). We know about the Old Covenant which was entered by circumcision of infants. Paul says that baptism is the new circumcision.
There are, as you know, about four examples in the bible as well were it says that entire households were baptized. Obviously, it could be that those examples simply did not have any kids but that is doubtful. Birth control wasn't very effective back then thank goodness.
Lastly, we must look at how the church has always interpreted this matter. If you accept the Baptist interpretation than you have to believe that every single Christian Church father from AD 33 – about 1650 got baptism wrong and that the Anabaptists somehow discovered the true interpretation of baptism.
Origen, for instance, wrote in the third century that "according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants" (Holilies on Leviticus, 8:3:11 A.D. 244). To put that in perspective, the canon of scripture itself was not canonized until AD 390! Over 100 years before we knew what the News Testament books were we have Church teaching that baptism applies to infants.
The Council of Carthage, in 253, condemned the opinion that baptism should be withheld from infants until the eighth day after birth. Later, Augustine taught, "The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned . . . nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 A.D. 408).
Augustine, a pillar of the Catholic Church and perhaps the most revered Church Father in the Reformed Churches says that infant baptism is from the apostles themselves!
Now, Baptists are correct when the say that adult converts should be baptized. Obviously we and the Reformed and other Protestants baptize adults who convert as well as infants.
In conclusion:
1) The restrictive interpretation they use for baptism leads them to believe that all babies go hell.
2) To fix that obvious problem they invent a completely unbiblical and out of left field doctrine called the "age of accountability."
3) There is very strong scripture that teaches that the promise of baptism applies to infants.
4) Paul says that baptism is the new circumcision and circumcision applied to infants.
5) Entire households were baptized based on the faith of the head of the household.
6) The testimony of the Christian Church has always held to infant baptism and even today the Baptist credo baptism view is the minority view.
I love Baptists but they are just wrong. Its really silly if you think about it. If Baptism is really just a symbol than what is the harm in applying it to infants?
Hope that helps.
***
The preceding is about as concise as I can be on the matter.
They have been struggleing with this issue and she asked me to send them an email outlining the scriptural basis for infant baptism. I thought I'd share my response with TexAgs.com and get cheers from the papists, lutherans, methodists and reformed and jeers from the credo baptists.
***
OK. I'll try to be as brief as possible and not ramble.
First let me discuss what the Baptists believe and why.
As you know, the Baptists believe that only people who profess faith in Jesus should be baptized. They believe that since babies cannot profess faith that they should not be baptized. They base this understanding on passages such as Acts 8:12,36,37 and interpret that this must mean that one must have faith and receive the word before being baptized. They also base this on the fact that there is no explicit instruction in the bible that says, "Baptize babies too." Furthermore, they don't view baptism itself as being for the remission of sins (like Catholics) nor do they view it as entry into the Covenant (like the Reformed and Catholic). Baptists believe that baptism is just a symbol but a symbol that should only be applied to people old enough to literally profess faith in Jesus.
Why is this view wrong? For several reasons. First let me explain why it is logically wrong and then I'll discuss why it is biblically wrong.
It is interesting that Baptists apply such a restrictive understanding to baptism. It is interesting because if the Baptists were consistent with applying that same standard of interpretation to the rest of the bible than they would be forced to exclude babies from salvation altogether. This is because the Bible also never says, "Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation except for infants"; it simply says, "Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation." Yet Baptists must admit there is an exception for infants unless they wish to condemn instantaneously all infants to hell. So, on the one hand Baptists are willing to make an exception to the plain words of scripture and grant that babies can be saved without explicit faith in Jesus. On the other hand they reverse themselves by saying that babies cannot be baptized without explicit faith in Jesus.
If a Baptist says, "Where does the bible say that babies should be baptized?" I answer, "Where does the bible say that children not old enough to have faith in Jesus, which is necessary for salvation, go to heaven?" The point is that Baptists make the same exception to scripture that those that practice infant baptism make! So, it's a little disingenuous for them to act as if they are applying the correct interpretation of scripture.
Furthermore, what do Baptists do with mentally retarded adults? Does the mentally retarded adult child of a Baptist family never receive the outpouring of Grace in baptism because they are incapable of literally professing faith in Jesus with their mouths? That is unthinkable!
Now onto the bible itself. It is true that the bible never explicitly says, "Baptize infants." However, if one follows the covenantal narrative of the redemption story it is clear that baptism is more than just a symbol and that it applies to the entire families of the believers.
There are many passages that convey this truth but I think the strongest passage is the following:
In Acts 2:39 Peter is speaking and he says, 'The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.'
What promise is Peter talking about?
The preceding verse, Acts 2:38, explains what the promise is; 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.'
So, Peter says to be baptized 'every one of you' and 'this promise includes your children.'
The actual Greek word that is used in Acts 2:39 is 'teknon' which literally means 'infants.'
Perhaps the biggest problem with the Baptist position is that they completely miss the covenant theology that is engrained in the redemption story. This is why they reject the simple fact that circumcision applied to infants as an entry into the covenant (Gen. 17:12) and Paul says then says that baptism is the new circumcision (Col 2:11-12). Paul does not say, "but don't baptize infants like you did with circumcision." If you were reading Paul's letter in AD 60 and you were Jewish converts to the Christian Church and he said, "Baptism is the new circumcision" you would automatically assume that baptism applied to infants.
The bible never says to restrict baptism to only people old enough to make a profession. It simply doesn't. Taking that stance means that you have to completely ignore covenantal theology which is clearly biblical (Hebrews 7, 8 and 9). We know about the Old Covenant which was entered by circumcision of infants. Paul says that baptism is the new circumcision.
There are, as you know, about four examples in the bible as well were it says that entire households were baptized. Obviously, it could be that those examples simply did not have any kids but that is doubtful. Birth control wasn't very effective back then thank goodness.
Lastly, we must look at how the church has always interpreted this matter. If you accept the Baptist interpretation than you have to believe that every single Christian Church father from AD 33 – about 1650 got baptism wrong and that the Anabaptists somehow discovered the true interpretation of baptism.
Origen, for instance, wrote in the third century that "according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants" (Holilies on Leviticus, 8:3:11 A.D. 244). To put that in perspective, the canon of scripture itself was not canonized until AD 390! Over 100 years before we knew what the News Testament books were we have Church teaching that baptism applies to infants.
The Council of Carthage, in 253, condemned the opinion that baptism should be withheld from infants until the eighth day after birth. Later, Augustine taught, "The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned . . . nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 A.D. 408).
Augustine, a pillar of the Catholic Church and perhaps the most revered Church Father in the Reformed Churches says that infant baptism is from the apostles themselves!
Now, Baptists are correct when the say that adult converts should be baptized. Obviously we and the Reformed and other Protestants baptize adults who convert as well as infants.
In conclusion:
1) The restrictive interpretation they use for baptism leads them to believe that all babies go hell.
2) To fix that obvious problem they invent a completely unbiblical and out of left field doctrine called the "age of accountability."
3) There is very strong scripture that teaches that the promise of baptism applies to infants.
4) Paul says that baptism is the new circumcision and circumcision applied to infants.
5) Entire households were baptized based on the faith of the head of the household.
6) The testimony of the Christian Church has always held to infant baptism and even today the Baptist credo baptism view is the minority view.
I love Baptists but they are just wrong. Its really silly if you think about it. If Baptism is really just a symbol than what is the harm in applying it to infants?
Hope that helps.
***
The preceding is about as concise as I can be on the matter.