Acts 2:38-39

[Lanman87]

Baptist insistence on submersion and adulthood are not biblical.

Baptist don't insist on adulthood. They insist on a personal faith that comes from hearing the gospel. Children as young as four or five years old are capable of hearing the gospel and having an elementary understanding of their need for forgiveness, the need to trust in Christ, and the need to turn from sin.

Most baptisms in Baptist churches occurs when children are between 6 and 14 years old. Those are the ages when children, under the conviction of the Holy Spirit, become personally aware of their sinfulness and need for a savior.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Baptist don't insist on adulthood. They insist on a personal faith that comes from hearing the gospel. Children as young as four or five years old are capable of hearing the gospel and having an elementary understanding of their need for forgiveness, the need to trust in Christ, and the need to turn from sin.

Most baptisms in Baptist churches occurs when children are between 6 and 14 years old. Those are the ages when children, under the conviction of the Holy Spirit, become personally aware of their sinfulness and need for a savior.

Aged 6 to 14 you write, under the law of the land children in that age range are not mature enough to enter into a legally binding agreement yet you treat their baptism as valid according to credo-Baptist standards. So, Baptists are willing to treat a child's profession of faith as credible, yet Baptists regard infant baptism as contrary to scripture even though there is no scripture passage that demands a credible profession of faith prior to receiving baptism. If, as your post reasons, a child of 6 can make a credible profession why do you preclude an infant from making one? Is it because you cannot hear them speak in a language that you can understand?

 

[Lanman87]

Aged 6 to 14 you write, under the law of the land children in that age range are not mature enough to enter into a legally binding agreement yet you treat their baptism as valid according to credo-Baptist standards

Faith isn't a legally binding agreement. It is a gift of God and the work of the Holy Spirit. So yes, children as young as 5 or 6 can have faith. It is a childlike faith that may not be fully formed, but it is faith nonetheless. Baptism is a marker in the faith journey that takes place at the beginning of the journey.

If, as your post reasons, a child of 6 can make a credible profession why do you preclude an infant from making one? Is it because you cannot hear them speak in a language that you can understand?

It is because they do not have the intellectual capacity to even have a childlike understanding of the Gospel and therefore cannot have a personal faith.

Here is how most baptisms of children play out.

A child is raised in church and exposed to the gospel/Bible repeatedly.

At some point, the child will start asking questions about Jesus, sin, and salvation. Many times at this point the parent will bring in a Pastor or counselor to answer the child's questions. This process can happen over weeks, months, even years. Sometimes the questions are answered and the child goes "Okay" and never says anything else about it. If that happens the parent/pastor keep praying for the child to come to faith.

Sometimes the child will tell his parents/pastor that they believe/want to be forgiven/want to trust Jesus. At this point the parents will take the child to a pastor (if it has not already happened) and the Pastor will talk with the child and attempt to ascertain the credibility of the child's profession. If both the Pastor and Parents are in agreement that the child's faith in genuine then they will discuss baptism. Oftentimes, they will decide to wait on baptism in order to further discern if the child has come to faith or is just wanting to please his/her parents or because he thinks it would be fun to be baptized. If it is obvious that the child really believes (to the best of his/her ability) then baptism will be scheduled. If at any point the child says "I don't want to be baptized" then they are not.

Oftentimes, when children get older and start questioning their faith the ability to remember being baptized can be a powerful reminder to how they personally experienced God's transformative grace.

 

[Lanman87]

So, Baptists are willing to treat a child's profession of faith as credible, yet Baptists regard infant baptism as contrary to scripture even though there is no scripture passage that demands a credible profession of faith prior to receiving baptism.

It depends on which translation of the Bible you read. American Evangelicalism's roots are in the KJV, which up until 30 years or so ago was the dominate Bible in Baptist churches.

If you read Acts 8:36-38 in the KJV it says:

36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

The ESV leaves out verse 37

36 And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” 38 And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him

And gives this note:

Some manuscripts add all or most of verse 37: And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he replied, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

 

[Lanman87]

One final note on all this. Up until a few years ago I had never heard that Baptist churches restricted Baptism until adulthood or a certain age. I had to google it to find out that yes, there are baptist churches that will only baptize adults or children over 12 years old.

From my personal experience in the Baptist church, and other churches that practice believers baptism, I will say that age requirements are the exception and not the norm. At this point in my life I've witnessed hundreds of children being baptized. My two sons were both baptized while they were first graders in school. My two nephews were baptized in the Assembly of God when they were in elementary school.

I believe, and most Baptist agree, that if a child is old enough to have an elementary understanding of sin and forgiveness through Jesus then they are old enough to have a credible profession of faith and be baptized.

 

[Albion]

Baptist don't insist on adulthood. They insist on a personal faith that comes from hearing the gospel.

In my post, I made mention of the fact that Baptist congregations will baptize young teens, and children as young as 8, so I agreed that they do not insist upon actual adulthood.

Children as young as four or five years old are capable of hearing the gospel and having an elementary understanding of their need for forgiveness, the need to trust in Christ, and the need to turn from sin.

That is a convenient excuse for baptizing children, and it's not credible. The concepts of guilt, the Incarnation of Christ, the sacrifice of the Cross, and everything else relevant is reduced to
"Yes, Jesus loves me" for these kids who most likely also believe in Santa Claus. Their "affirmation" is nothing more than a regurgitation of some lines that their parents gave them.

If these are eligible for baptism, there's no reason not to baptize infants on the promises of parents and witnesses to raise the child in the faith.

And isn't it interesting that these Baptist-type congregations, having denied baptism to young children (including four and five year olds most of the time, not just infants), have had to invent "dedication" ceremonies for newborns, a ceremony that has absolutely no Scriptural warrant whatsoever!?

 

[Lanman87]

That is a convenient excuse for baptizing children, and it's not credible

We will have to agree to disagree. I came to faith as a young child and while I didn't have a full intellectual understanding, I did understand that I was a sinner and Jesus Came to forgive me and the way to access that forgiveness was to believe and trust in Him. That faith has grown as my understanding has grown.

Faith doesn't have to be a firm grasp of complicated doctrines. Faith can be a simple trusting in Jesus.

I've witnessed to many children come to faith then go on to grow in knowledge and eventually become faithful adults and even Pastors and Teachers to dismiss the work of God in the hearts of Children as the same thing as "believing in Santa Claus". I have my own personal experience of coming to faith as a young child and sometimes struggling with my faith and sometimes growing in my faith, but always having faith.

Telling me that a 6 year old can't come to faith doesn't work with me because it was around that age that I first felt conviction of my sin and responded the gospel message of believe and repent. I remember lying in bed and praying to Jesus to forgive me. It is part of my story as a Christian. I know what my relationship with Christ has been like. I know that I've believed in Jesus since a very young age.

You telling me that children can't come to faith is the same as telling me that my experience is false, that I didn't really believe as a young child. But I was there, I know what I experienced. I know my heart was broken. I know that I knew I needed forgiveness.

You can scoff all you want, but I know young children can be "saved" because I was "saved" as a young child.

 

[Albion]

We will have to agree to disagree. I came to faith as a young child and while I didn't have a full intellectual understanding, I did understand that I was a sinner and Jesus Came to forgive me and the way to access that forgiveness was to believe and trust in Him. That faith has grown as my understanding has grown.

...which is what happens with young children who are baptized in all of the historic Christian churches. It's what happened to me.

Faith doesn't have to be a firm grasp of complicated doctrines.

No, and I didn't mean to convey that meaning in my comments. But no second-grader (for instance) can make a profession of faith that rivals that of a teen or adult. And while I don't want to argue the point unnecessarily, to think that Jesus was a nice man who forgave us our transgressions (which at that age, amounts to not picking up the toys from the bedroom floor or having made Mommy and Daddy angry with you!) is not to profess a belief in the Son or God and his redemptive work.

I've witnessed to many children come to faith then go on to grow in knowledge and eventually become faithful adults

So baptize them when they start on that journey. As I explained, that is exactly what's involved with the vows of parents and sponsors made at the baptism of an infant.

Telling me that a 6 year old can't come to faith doesn't work with me because it was around that age that I first felt conviction of my sin and responded the gospel message of believe and repent.

Just for my curiosity's sake, what do you say to all those Baptist and similar congregations that see the matter of infant baptism as you do but would absolutely refuse to baptize you at that age? It's a confused and contradictory system, that's for sure, and it certainly is not based on Scripture (which no doubt explains some of the confusion).

You can scoff all you want, but I know young children can be "saved" because I was "saved" as a young child.

There's no reason to put it that way. I simply adhere to the Biblical and traditional understanding of the matter as it has been for almost two millennia now.

 

[Lanman87]

Just for my curiosity's sake, what do you say to all those Baptist and similar congregations that see the matter of infant baptism as you do but would absolutely refuse to baptize you at that age?

I understand their reasoning, which is basically the same as yours. It is that a young child can't have a firm grasp of "faith" and therefore baptism should wait until they are old enough to have a better understanding of what faith is and means.

However, I would tell them that I disagree with them. First of all, Faith is a gift of God and if God chooses to give that gift to an six year old then who am I to argue? Second, faith doesn't have to be fully formed to be a saving faith. Third, remembering being baptized as a child can be a powerful anchor to faith when one gets older and their faith is challenged.

 

[MoreCoffee]

In my post, I made mention of the fact that Baptist congregations will baptize young teens, and children as young as 8, so I agreed that they do not insist upon actual adulthood.

You replied to something that is attributed to me but I did not write it.

It comes from this source

Baptist don't insist on adulthood. They insist on a personal faith that comes from hearing the gospel.

 

[MoreCoffee]

If you read Acts 8:36-38 in the KJV it says:

The ESV has good manuscript evidence for the absence of verse 37. Is it your intention to build a doctrine from a disputed verse?

 

[Josiah]

There are two dogmas associated with the Anabaptist view of Baptism.

Anti-Paedobaptism

This is sometimes called "Adult Only Baptism." This is the view that child baptism is forbidden. But while baptizing children is often disallowed, there's no agreement about exactly WHAT AGE that prohibition is lifted, declarations about that vary widely - and some try to evade this altogether. The issue here is AGE.

Credobaptism

This is sometimes called "Believer Only Baptism." This is more common today than is Anti-Paedobaptism. This view insists that some clear, public declaration of faith is required before Baptism can be granted; the prohibition on Baptism is only lifted by such outward declaration of faith. Views differ widely as to what is an adequate/sufficient declaration. The issue here is FAITH (and whether it can be present or not, and if it is proven or not).


IMO, both of these dogmas are quite new (going back about 500 years) and are entirely without support from Scripture or history.



For the Lutheran view on Baptism, see the first 10 posts (all 10 together) here:

Lutheran Perspective on Baptism

There are several points, they are to be taken TOGETHER, they will mean several posts (since post length here is restricted). I share NOT with the goal of changing anyone's mind on this but to share the perspective of Lutherans on this. Let me make clear too that there are several issues here...

www.christianityhaven.com

.

 

[Lanman87]

Is it your intention to build a doctrine from a disputed verse?

No, it is my intent to show that up until 40 years or so ago very few people understood that this verse is a textual variant. People reading the KJV when credo-baptism took off would certainly have understood this verse to be part of scripture. And it would have contributed to the belief that faith is necessary for Baptism.

I'm not attempting to prove credo-baptism I'm attempting to show the roots of why people believe credo-baptism.

My intention is adding to this thread is not to defend credo-baptism. I've done that plenty in other places. But to point out that an "age restriction" is not the norm in Baptist churches. It does occur, mostly in reformed(ish) baptist churches. But the majority of baptist churches will baptize anyone with (what they believe) is a credible profession of faith. Be it a six year old or a sixty year old.

I understand those of you from non-baptist/American Evangelical churches will disagree with credo-baptism.

I was simply trying to point out that factually, the majority of baptist do not restrict baptism based on a predetermined age limitations. Which is a charge against Baptist that I often run across from non-baptist.

 

[Josiah]

No, it is my intent to show that up until 40 years or so ago very few people understood that this verse is a textual variant. People reading the KJV when credo-baptism took off would certainly have understood this verse to be part of scripture. And it would have contributed to the belief that faith is necessary for Baptism.

I'm not attempting to prove credo-baptism I'm attempting to show the roots of why people believe credo-baptism.

My intention is adding to this thread is not to defend credo-baptism. I've done that plenty in other places. But to point out that an "age restriction" is not the norm in Baptist churches. It does occur, mostly in reformed(ish) baptist churches. But the majority of baptist churches will baptize anyone with (what they believe) is a credible profession of faith. Be it a six year old or a sixty year old.

I understand those of you from non-baptist/American Evangelical churches will disagree with credo-baptism.

I was simply trying to point out that factually, the majority of baptist do not restrict baptism based on a predetermined age limitations. Which is a charge against Baptist that I often run across from non-baptist.

While we likely disagree on the topic, I respect and appreciate not only your contribution to the discussion but the spirit in which it is shared.

Thank you.


.

 

[Albion]

I was simply trying to point out that factually, the majority of baptist do not restrict baptism based on a predetermined age limitations. Which is a charge against Baptist that I often run across from non-baptist.

But you just explained that they DO, not that they don't.

All that you clarified was that the age requirement was broader than some people might think.

However, I assume that everyone who has posted on this thread has been aware that there is no 'magic age' like 18 or 21 or 15, but that: A) it can vary from congregation to congregation and depend in part on the congregation's perception of the readiness of the candidate, plus also B) it never allows the younger children and infants to be baptized. So, there is an age restriction or requirement.

But to point out that an "age restriction" is not the norm in Baptist churches. It does occur, mostly in reformed(ish) baptist churches. But the majority of baptist churches will baptize anyone with (what they believe) is a credible profession of faith. Be it a six year old or a sixty year old.