1. All of us that claim to be Christians can trace our doctrinal heritage to the undivided early church. Much of what a Baptist or Lutheran or Catholic believes about the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, the Incarnation, and grace, were decided by the Church Fathers over the course of the first few hundred years of Christianity, with a lot of debate and consensus.
2. No doctrine came to us complete and perfect. The Bible itself was a work of committees (inspired or not, we'll leave that for another time), and doctrine comes not only from those texts, but the practices (traditions) that preserve and interpret them.[1]
All doctrine is a collection of accumulated interpretations and applications. Unless you are reading and interpreting the Bible by yourself and only yourself, you are learning from those that considered these matters before you, from the footnotes to the Fathers.
3. The early church baptized new converts and their entire families, and so undoubtedly baptized children, as well as servants and slaves that probably made only nominal professions of faith.
4. Nowhere does the Bible indicate children should not be baptized. You'd think that if entire households were being baptized, at some point someone would clarify, "Oh, except the kids."
5. John the Baptist certainly immersed his followers and Jesus,[2] but the Bible doesn't state that is the only acceptable method of Baptism. (I know, not related to infant baptism per se, but interesting to me.)
6. The Bible presents baptism as coincident (if not a participant) with salvation. Jesus said in Mark 16:16: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned" (NKJV).[4]
7. Many Protestant denominations to this day perform infant Baptism.
8. The undivided church (prior to the Reformation) accepted infant baptism. Here are some quotes from Church Fathers (yours and mine):[3]
"For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too." Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).
"Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous." Origen, Homily on Leviticus, 8:3 (post A.D. 244)."But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day...And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism...we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons…" Cyprian, To Fidus, Epistle 58(64):2, 6 (A.D. 251).
"It shows no crease when infants put it on [the baptismal garment], it is not too scanty for young men, it fits women without alteration." Optatus of Mileve, Against Parmenium, 5:10(A.D. 365).
"Have you an infant child? Do not let sin get any opportunity, but let him be sanctified from his childhood; from his very tenderest age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Fearest thou the Seal on account of the weakness of nature?" Gregory Nazianzen, Oration on Holy Baptism, 40:17 (A.D. 381).
"Be it so, some will say, in the case of those who ask for Baptism; what have you to say about those who are still children, and conscious neither of the loss nor of the grace? Are we to baptize them too? Certainly, if any danger presses. For it is better that they should be unconsciously sanctified than that they should depart unsealed and uninitiated." Gregory Nazianzen, Oration on Holy Baptism, 40:28 (A.D. 381)."'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.' No one is expected: not the infant, not the one prevented by necessity." Ambrose, Abraham, 2,11:79 (A.D. 387).
"We do baptize infants, although they are not guilty of any sins." John Chrysostom, Ad Neophytos (A.D. 388).
c0
If baptism is only symbolic, it wouldn't seem to matter. If it's a channel of grace and participates in salvation, it would seem to matter a lot.
c0
What do I believe?
I believe that baptism is a channel of grace at any age, and that, if the biblical accounts of Jesus can be trusted, the faith of some can extend to the redemptions of others, including children.
Read Mark 2:1-4. The faith of the group led Jesus to absolve the individual (paralytic). Interesting note: in Young's Literal Translation, the paralytic is a child.[5]
c0
[1]
Any Christian that says they appeal only to the Bible and not tradition is in error.
Question for Baptists: Would you consider any Baptist saved that did not pray a prayer of salvation?
There is no prayer of salvation in the Bible. It's an extra-biblical church tradition. Your church tradition. (And mine.)
[2]
Some denominations refer to John the Baptist as "John the Baptizer," presumably to avoid anyone thinking John was a Baptist in the denominational sense. Heaven forbid.
[3]
I drew these from a forum post. See this thread for others having this debate.
[4]
Some early manuscripts omit the last few verses of Mark, including this one.
[5]
Some will say, "Well, Jesus was God, and God can do whatever he likes, can't he? You can't build a doctrine around exceptions."
Perhaps, but if you can figure out where the exceptions are, you're a better man than I.
c0
This blog was posted at 12:12am on 12/12/12. I think that like, tips the Internet or something.
c0
Started: 2012-12-06
Excellent blog, thank you for a thought provoking discussion. Question: why do you suppose God chose baptism (of all things) as a channel for his grace? Andrea, why not clearly define for the good of us all the preferred method of administration?
ReplyDeleteHello Anonymous, I don't know why God chose baptism as a channel of grace. I can speculate, if that has any value. (Baptism was a Jewish purification rite; John was preaching baptism for repentance. As I understand it, Jewish baptism was a repeatable activity, not a once-in-a-lifetime event.)
ReplyDeleteI can see that possibly, just as Jesus was sacrificed once and for all (when sacrifice was previously a repeatable Jewish custom), so water baptism was borrowed from Jewish custom and given a new interpretation.
I don't know Andrea, but will respond to your second question: If by "administration" you are referring to the difference immersion and sprinkling, I don't regard it as important. We have the biblical example and the early church practice to learn from. There are exceptions even today for someone who is unable to be immersed (surgery or hospitalization etc). Also, although the bible says that Jesus "went up straightway out of the water," it doesn't say he was fully immersed while in the water, only, presumably, that he was standing in it.
If full emersion had been a critical element, I think the Church Fathers would have insisted on it.
--c0