Is Infant Baptism and Accretion?

[Lanman87]

This was asked of me in the thread on Accretions in the church. Instead of getting that thread off topic I'll post my opinion here.

As someone who believes that credo-baptism is what the Bible both teaches and demonstrates then my answer would be yes, Infant Baptism was an accretion.

However, because we are save by Faith, through grace, by Christ then I do not see infant baptism or credo-baptism being a "hill to die on". There are plenty, maybe even most, people who were baptized as infants who came to a saving/living faith in Christ as a child, teenager, or adult. They are indwelled by the Holy Spirit and partakers of the Gifts of God, and are members of the universal/catholic church of all who are "in Christ".

I'm also sure that there are those who were baptized on a profession of faith, who didn't really have faith. Maybe they made a profession of faith in order to please a parent, sibling, girlfriend/boyfriend or spouse and went through the motions of baptism without having their hearts changed from a heart of stone to a heart of flesh.

Having said that, If you read church history, there were a lot of things about baptism that changed from the descriptions in the Bible to how baptism was practiced in the first several centuries.

We know from the Bible that the earliest Baptisms were held in rivers and bodies of water. This indicated either full immersion or that the person being baptized at least waded out into the water. Over the next several centuries Christians would be baptized, not only in rivers/lakes but also in bath houses and fountains of private homes. When the church started acquiring property then the early church buildings had baptistry pools and it seems that immersion was the normative form of baptism, with pouring being aloud when there was no access to a pool of large amount of water. At some point the normative way of baptizing someone became pouring/sprinkling of water with entering a pool/immersion being less universally practiced. This probably had more to do with trouble/expense of providing water than any great theological reason.

The second thing we notice that is different from the Biblical narrative is that in the Bible baptisms take place very quickly after someone makes some sort of profession/evidence of faith. In the 2nd Century the church started delaying baptism until a new convert went through a period of Catechesis, or religious instruction, which could last up to three years. So baptism went from being something that is a part of initial conversion to a confirmation of conversion and admittance into the full fellowship of the church. It was only after baptism that someone could take the Eucharist and being fulling involved in the administration/ministry of the church.

The third change we find is the Baptism of Infants who are "to young to speak for themselves." From what I can tell from the the little documentation available, this change seems to have started, in some places, in the 2nd half of the 2nd century. The first instruction I have found recorded is the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome, written around 215 or so.

21. ¹At cockcrow prayer shall be made over the water. ²The stream shall flow through the baptismal tank or pour into it from above when there is no scarcity of water; but if there is a scarcity, whether constant or sudden, then use whatever water you can find.

³They shall remove their clothing. ⁴And first baptize the little ones; if they can speak for themselves, they shall do so; if not, their parents or other relatives shall speak for them. ⁵Then baptize the men, and last of all the women; they must first loosen their hair and put aside any gold or silver ornaments that they were wearing: let no one take any alien thing down to the water with them.

It is also of note that one belief about baptism in the 2nd and 3rd centuries was that baptism washed away our sin but if you sinned after baptism then it could never be washed away. So we had many people delaying baptism until they got old or sick for fear that they would get baptized and then commit adultery or some other sin that would send them to hell.

So while infant baptism did happen by the beginning of the 3rd Century it didn't really become the norm until the 4th or 5th century. Many of the later great theologians (including Augustine) who had Christian parent/parents weren't baptized until they had a conversion experience. In Augustine's great book "Confessions" we read a story of one of Augustine's friends who had Christian parents. His friend became ill and was on his death bead and the friends parents were about to have him baptized, but the friend got better. Non of this makes much sense if infant baptism is the normative practice in the 4th century.

Historically, infant baptism didn't becomes the norm until after Augustine's great works on original sin became the dominate theology of the church. Since, according to Augustine, baptism washed away original and actual sin, it become the norm for parents to have their infant baptized so it would go to heaven if it died. In an era of very high infant mortality I can certainly understand that concern.

So we see a change from the Biblical testimony of converts being baptized quickly after or even as part of initial conversion in a river/lake or pool of water. To converts being baptized after a lengthy time of instruction. We also see some baptizing infants and some withholding baptism until old age/illness. And some being baptized at conversion. In the 2nd-4th centuries the practice of baptism was all over the place. Then, because of the influence of the doctrine of original sin, we see infant baptism become the norm in the 5th-6th centuries.

As a Baptist, after all of this study about the historical church and baptism, my question has always been, why didn't they just do what they did in the Book of Acts?

Just a side note, whenever this topic is brought up someone always says that the "Households" in Acts had to include infants or children to young to believe.

Please consider that all the accounts of "households" except Lydias, make it clear that the entire household believed.

34 And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household. Acts 16:34 NASB

Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized. Acts 18:8 NASB

So the jailers "whole household" believed and Crispus's "whole household" believed. Why would we think any different of Lydia's "whole household"?

 

[Josiah]

@Lanman87

Here's an expensive response. Six points, plus Scriptures and Early Church Fathers.

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

It requires some time, but I invite you to consider the points.


Blessings!


Josiah



.

 

[Joelightening]

If an infant does not express faith in Jesus or evidence of being baptized in the Spirit, then they should not be baptized in the water. There is no case written in the scriptures about an infant being baptized. Just another item the peddlers sell to the false Christians.

 

[Josiah]

As a Baptist, after all of this study about the historical church and baptism, my question has always been, why didn't they just do what they did in the Book of Acts?

See the thread above for a more complete discussion of this point.

But fundamentally, I disagree that the church today must do exactly as the church in Acts did. Nothing other. It is not the TRADITION we read ibn Acts that is normative, but the TEACHING of Scripture that is. Sola Scriptura, not Solo Traditio.

And I'm certain you agree. If I were to visit your church on a Sunday morning, I'm guessing 95% of what I see and what is done is not exactly as documented in the Book of Acts. Where does Acts show Christian worship in a big auditorium? With powerpoint and screens? With Commuion celebrated 4 times a year by passing around a plate with little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread and little plastic cups of Welch's Grape Juice? I could go on, but you get my point. In Acts, there are no youth groups and youth pastors, no ladies groups, no Sunday School, no passing around an offering plate, no baptism tanks behind a curtain, no song leader, no websites. You get my point.

Just a side note, whenever this topic is brought up someone always says that the "Households" in Acts had to include infants or children to young to believe.

I think the "problem" here is the opposite. Anabaptists make the point that "EVERY Baptism that happens to be recorded in the Book of Acts is of a believing adult." But they can't show that in these "... and his household" baptisms. Their premise (very flawed anyway) simply isn't true; we don't know the age of anyone baptized in Acts and we don't know if all of them had previously made a public profession of faith or not.







.

 

[Albion]

Having said that, If you read church history, there were a lot of things about baptism that changed from the descriptions in the Bible to how baptism was practiced in the first several centuries.

I believe I made that point in my earlier reply, but there is a problem. The mode and manner of administering this sacrament was unsettled in the early years in a number of different ways, and we do not know if there was some standard way in the beginning.

It appears not. This means that even if we all admit to there being some unanswerable questions about early baptisms, this matter really doesn't count as an "accretion," a change from the authentic to one or more inauthentic alternatives in later times.

We know from the Bible that the earliest Baptisms were held in rivers and bodies of water.

But were they the only places?

This indicated either full immersion or that the person being baptized at least waded out into the water.

Quite a difference there, though. Who among the majority of churches objects to the person standing in shallow water while being baptized by having water poured over his head? It's uncommon these days but there's nothing about it that would invalidate the baptism.

But on the other hand, today's Baptists and fundamentalists, etc. would object, saying that immersion is necessary, so that what you are describing would be invalid according to them.

The second thing we notice that is different from the Biblical narrative is that in the Bible baptisms take place very quickly after someone makes some sort of profession/evidence of faith. In the 2nd Century the church started delaying baptism until a new convert went through a period of Catechesis, or religious instruction, which could last up to three years. So baptism went from being something that is a part of initial conversion to a confirmation of conversion and admittance into the full fellowship of the church.

That's a point worth making as far as the evolution of the administration of the sacrament is concerned, but all sorts of church practices have changes somewhat over the centuries. Hardly any of it is on the par with what you first raised as a topic for discussion. I'm referring to doctrinal changes of significance--creation of the Papacy or Transubstantiation or Purgatory or Saint worship, for example. The adding of a period of instruction prior to the administration of baptism hardly seems to be in that category.

The third change we find is the Baptism of Infants who are "to young to speak for themselves." From what I can tell from the the little documentation available, this change seems to have started, in some places, in the 2nd half of the 2nd century.

But it's indicated in the New Testament, which far precedes the "2nd half of the 2nd century."

As a Baptist, after all of this study about the historical church and baptism, my question has always been, why didn't they just do what they did in the Book of Acts?

If "going by the book" is the make-or-break decider, baptism of "whole households" has to be the deciding factor. And they almost certainly included children in those days and in that part of the world.

Please consider that all the accounts of "households" except Lydias, make it clear that the entire household believed.

The following verses refer to children when speaking of households, the latter term being another way of saying "famiily." They contrast with the argument from reason that Credobaptists favor, which holds that the households must have been made up of adult servants or adult family members exclusively--

Gen. 18:19, 31:41, 36:6, 47:12; Num. 18:11; 1 Chron. 10:6; and 1 Tim. 3:12.

In addition, Paul teaches that baptism is the Christian equivalent of the Jewish practice of circumcision, which was administered to newborns. That's not in doubt.

 

[Albion]

If an infant does not express faith in Jesus or evidence of being baptized in the Spirit, then they should not be baptized in the water.

That would be your own opinion, then, and that of 20% or so of the world's Christians.

Elsewhere here, the discussion has concerned the facts which bear upon the two different views, and the Scriptural evidence supports the practice of baptizing without an age requirement.

There is no case written in the scriptures about an infant being baptized. Just another item the peddlers sell to the false Christians.

There is also no case written in the scriptures about a blonde or a German being baptized.

 

[Lanman87]

The following verses refer to children when speaking of households, the latter term being another way of saying "famiily." They contrast with the argument from reason that Credobaptists favor, which holds that the households must have been made up of adult servants or adult family members exclusively--

Gen. 18:19, 31:41, 36:6, 47:12; Num. 18:11; 1 Chron. 10:6; and 1 Tim. 3:12.

Just a couple of thoughts.

There is a difference between Children and infants. My brand of Credo-baptist believes that children can have a saving faith but infants cannot. Therefore, if the household included children that came to believe and be baptized then it doesn't go against my tradition.

Also, just because "households" can included infants, it doesn't mean is does. We don't know the exact ages of the children (if any) in the households mentioned. We do know that in the jailers household his entire household believed and where baptized, so any children were old enough to believe. We know the entire household of Crispus believed, which indicates that any children in the household were old enough to believe.

To say that it Lydia's household included infants that were to young to believe is pure speculation. To say this includes infants is an argument from silence. It doesn't say one way or another. But we know for sure that the Jailers household either was all adults or included children old enough to believe and be baptized.

In addition, Paul teaches that baptism is the Christian equivalent of the Jewish practice of circumcision, which was administered to newborns. That's not in doubt.

Paul also says:

In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, Col 2:11 ESV

The NIV puts it this way:

In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ,

and the NLT this way:

When you came to Christ, you were “circumcised,” but not by a physical procedure. Christ performed a spiritual circumcision—the cutting away of your sinful nature.

And Romans 2:29 says that true circumcision is "of the heart" and "by the Spirit".

The Circumcision of Christ to a believer is a Spiritual Circumcision. Not one done with "hands", such as water baptism.

However, in a certain way, baptism does replace circumcision. Circumcision was the sign someone was born under the old covenant. Baptism is the sign that someone has been "born again" or "born from above" under the New Covenant. However, we aren't born under the new covenant until we are spiritually "born from above" or "born again" which occurs when (or maybe a second before) someone comes to faith. Which is another reason to practice believers baptism. If someone "believes" then they are now under the New Covenant and have been spiritually "circumcised" by Christ and therefore should received the sign of the New Covenant, which is baptism.

 

[Joelightening]

That would be your own opinion, then, and that of 20% or so of the world's Christians.

Elsewhere here, the discussion has concerned the facts which bear upon the two different views, and the Scriptural evidence supports the practice of baptizing without an age requirement.


There is also no case written in the scriptures about a blonde or a German being baptized.

I will not baptized any person, regardless of age, unless they express faith in Jesus Christ. That should simplify things.

 

[Lamb]

I will not baptized any person, regardless of age, unless they express faith in Jesus Christ. That should simplify things.

You demand that someone be able to profess to you what God might already know? So you're interfering with God?

You see even John the Baptist in the womb expressed faith in the Lord Jesus who was in Mary's womb.

 

[Josiah]

There is a difference between Children and infants. My brand of Credo-baptist believes that children can have a saving faith but infants cannot.

@Lanman87


Some thoughts...


1. No one can give themself saving faith. 1 Corinthians 2:14, 1 Corinthians 12:3.

2. The appropriate question is not can self give self faith but can God give faith? Is there something about humans under the age of Who-Knows that renders God impotent?

3. John the Baptist had faith before he was even born. He not only had faith but gave objective evidence of such. Luke 1:44. So humans before birth can be given faith but not after birth? At birth, God is rendered impotent until the human attained the age of Who-Knows and then God has the ability again?

4. Matthew 18:6, "If anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin..." Mark 10:13-15, "People were bringing little children to Jesus to have Him touch them, but he disciples rebuked them. When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, "Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." Acts 2:38-39, "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 Holy Spirit. This promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off for all whom the Lord our God will call."

just because "households" can included infants, it doesn't mean is does. We don't know the exact ages of the children (if any) in the households mentioned.

Exactly! So the Anabaptist claim that all the baptisms that happen to be recorded in the Book of Acts were of adult believers is a point unsubstantiated. We have not one example of someone being denied baptism because they had not yet attained that age of Who-Knows or had not yet proven they had the divine gift of faith. Their new denial is nowhere shown or taught in the Book of Acts.

We do know that in the jailers household his entire household believed and where baptized, so any children were old enough to believe.

Where does Scripture (or anything before the 16th Century) state that God is impotent to give faith to those under the age of Who-Knows?

Where does Scripture (or anything before the 16th Century) state that a human must attain the age of Who-Knows before they can have faith?

To say that it Lydia's household included infants that were to young to believe is pure speculation. To say this includes infants is an argument from silence.

The argument (indeed, foundational claim!) that everyone in Lydia's household was a believe who had attained the age of Who-Knows is pure speculation.

To insist that every baptism that happened in the First Century is recorded in the Book of Acts and that every one was of those over the age of Who-Knows and had proven they had been giving faith is pure speculation. There's nothing that confirms this claim. And of course, since Anabaptists do NOT limit what they do to what is done in the Book of Acts, the point is entirely irrelevant - they don't limit things to what was done there.

Where is the Scripture (or Church Father for that matter) who states we are forbidden to baptize those under the age of Who-Knows?
Where is the Scripture (or Church Father for that matter) that states we are forbidden to baptize any who has not proven the Holy Spirit gave them faith?



See https://www.christianityhaven.com/threads/lutheran-perspective-on-baptism.6945/




.

 

[Lanman87]

2. The appropriate question is not can self give self faith but can God give faith? Is there something about humans under the age of Who-Knows that renders God impotent?

3. John the Baptist had faith before he was even born. He not only had faith but gave objective evidence of such. Luke 1:44. So humans before birth can be given faith but not after birth? At birth, God is rendered impotent until the human attained the age of Who-Knows and then God has the ability again?

Even if God gives infants faith, short of divine revelation, we don't know which infants he has given faith and which he hasn't. It is presumptuous to baptize and infant as a believer. At best, infant baptism is a hope of future evidence of a saving faith. And if a child baptized as an infant is never given a saving faith, then the baptism didn't really do anything Spiritually, except maybe give the parents peace that if something should happen to the child he/she would die in a state of grace. Which comes from Augustine's theology about original sin.

 

[Josiah]

Even if God gives infants faith, short of divine revelation, we don't know which infants he has given faith and which he hasn't. It is presumptuous to baptize and infant as a believer.

@Lanman87


1. Luke 1:44 seems to prove that infants EVEN STILL IN THE WOMB can be given faith. Thus, the claim that God is impotent to give faith to those under the age of Who-Knows is contrary to Scripture (unless that age is the First Trimester of pregnancy). In Psalm 22:9 David states he had been given faith while still "at my mother's breast." In Psalm 71:6, David says he had been given faith while still in his mother's womb. And there are more. The foundational claim of Anabaptists that infants CANNOT be given faith (God is impotent to give faith to those under the age of Who-Knows) is simply unbiblical; NEVER is that taught in Scripture but the opposite is stated.


2. You have not documented that we are forbidden by Scripture to baptize those who had not first been given faith. Of course, we should avoid circular reasoning. Your comment here seems to presume some mandate on "faith first" (even proof of faith first); there's nothing in Scripture (or the first 1500 years of Christianity) that states that.


See https://www.christianityhaven.com/threads/lutheran-perspective-on-baptism.6945/




.

 

[Albion]

Even if God gives infants faith, short of divine revelation, we don't know which infants he has given faith and which he hasn't. It is presumptuous to baptize and infant as a believer. At best, infant baptism is a hope of future evidence of a saving faith.

Maybe so. However, there still is no reason to deny baptism to children. Not just because, in the case of an adult seeking to be baptized, a confession of faith is expected.

And, as I'm sure you know, any infant who is baptized has parents and sponsors who are believers and, also, promise to raise the child in the faith (religion).

And if a child baptized as an infant is never given a saving faith, then the baptism didn't really do anything

...which would be the same as baptizing an adult who falls away from the faith or didn't take the ceremony very seriously in the first place.

By the way, that is one reason why churches which allow or encourage members to get "rebaptized" every time they have a change or heart, turn over a new leaf, or otherwise decide to start living right for a change, are misusing the sacrament.

 

[Lanman87]

You have not documented that we are forbidden by Scripture to baptize those who had not first been given faith. We should avoid circular reasoning.

Yes, it is not explicitly forbidden, neither is it commanded or explicitly demonstrated. The lack of "Thou shalt not" doesn't mean "Thou shalt". When there is neither a "thou shalt" or a "thou shalt not" we have to look at the principles handed down in scripture and examples given.

All the explicit examples in scripture are people making a demonstration of faith by either expressing belief or repentance and then being baptized. Maybe God does give infants faith and I hope He does. But we have know way of knowing until such a time as they are able to demonstrate that faith.

The argument (indeed, foundational claim!) that everyone in Lydia's household was a believe who had attained the age of Who-Knows is pure speculation.

It is speculation either way. I don't think we should create/hold beliefs based on speculation. However, if Lydia's household did include infants that were baptized then it is something different than the explicit examples of Baptism in the New Testament.

One real issue with infant baptism (less so, but still an issue, with credo-baptism) is that infant baptism gives false hope to individuals or family members. I have heard plenty of people say they were a Christian because they were baptized as a baby. At least with credo-baptism the person being baptized gives a testimony of faith. Ultimately, they may end up as seed that fell on rocky ground or among thorns but that is true of anyone, regardless of when they were baptized.

Being baptized does not make one a Christian. Having your heart changed by God through the indwelling Holy Spirit, so that you repent of sins, have new and better affections, seek His Kingdom and His righteousness, and are a "New Creation" in Christ is what makes one a Christian.

A person can be baptized, sing in the choir, take communion, and have read the Bible cover to cover 10 times, and still not be a Christian. They have experienced Christian culture and teachings, taken part in the life of the church, and have intellectual knowledge. But yet, if the Holy Spirit doesn't do a work in their heart and change them, they are not a Christian.

 

[Lamb]

Yes, it is not explicitly forbidden, neither is it commanded or explicitly demonstrated. The lack of "Thou shalt not" doesn't mean "Thou shalt". When there is neither a "thou shalt" or a "thou shalt not" we have to look at the principles handed down in scripture and examples given.

All the explicit examples in scripture are people making a demonstration of faith by either expressing belief or repentance and then being baptized. Maybe God does give infants faith and I hope He does. But we have know way of knowing until such a time as they are able to demonstrate that faith.


It is speculation either way. I don't think we should create/hold beliefs based on speculation. However, if Lydia's household did include infants that were baptized then it is something different than the explicit examples of Baptism in the New Testament.

One real issue with infant baptism (less so, but still an issue, with credo-baptism) is that infant baptism gives false hope to individuals or family members. I have heard plenty of people say they were a Christian because they were baptized as a baby. At least with credo-baptism the person being baptized gives a testimony of faith. Ultimately, they may end up as seed that fell on rocky ground or among thorns but that is true of anyone, regardless of when they were baptized.

Being baptized does not make one a Christian. Having your heart changed by God through the indwelling Holy Spirit, so that you repent of sins, have new and better affections, seek His Kingdom and His righteousness, and are a "New Creation" in Christ is what makes one a Christian.

A person can be baptized, sing in the choir, take communion, and have read the Bible cover to cover 10 times, and still not be a Christian. They have experienced Christian culture and teachings, taken part in the life of the church, and have intellectual knowledge. But yet, if the Holy Spirit doesn't do a work in their heart and change them, they are not a Christian.

Baptism is God's work in those babies. Just because a person might fall away from the faith doesn't mean God did it wrong in the first place when He baptized them. I'm not sure why you insist that God doesn't do the work in baptism?

 

[Albion]

One real issue with infant baptism (less so, but still an issue, with credo-baptism) is that infant baptism gives false hope to individuals or family members. I have heard plenty of people say they were a Christian because they were baptized as a baby.

But being "a Christian" doesn't mean you're saved! It's a reference to one's choice of religion at the least and/or is meant to say that the person belongs to a Christian church. It doesn't say that they consider themselves saved simply for having been baptized. And if the person DOES think it means that he's been guaranteed salvation, he's poorly educated in his faith.

We, of course, know better than to judge any doctrine on the basis of what somebody who didn't get properly instructed might say about it!

At least with credo-baptism the person being baptized gives a testimony of faith. Ultimately, they may end up as seed that fell on rocky ground or among thorns but that is true of anyone, regardless of when they were baptized.

Naturally, we'd expect an adult to make a profession of faith. Otherwise, why would any church baptize him? But this doesn't have anything in particular to do with children too young to make such a profession (and that's to say nothing about the Christian sponsors who make the vows on the chid's behalf).

Being baptized does not make one a Christian. Having your heart changed by God through the indwelling Holy Spirit, so that you repent of sins, have new and better affections, seek His Kingdom and His righteousness, and are a "New Creation" in Christ is what makes one a Christian.

How do you know that being baptized does not impart the Holy Spirit and that this has a positive effect upon the child, helping him to grow in the faith until he is old enough to make a personal commitment to the Lord (at which time, some churches administer Confirmation)?

A person can be baptized, sing in the choir, take communion, and have read the Bible cover to cover 10 times, and still not be a Christian.

...and of course that applies to adults who have been baptized and also to children who have been baptized. So what's the point?

 

[Lanman87]

I'm not sure why you insist that God doesn't do the work in baptism?

What work does God do in Baptism?

Does it impart faith? The Bible says faith comes by hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17)
Does it impart the Spirit? The Bible says we receive the Spirit at belief or by "hearing with faith" (Gal 3:2)and we are sealed with the Spirit when we heard the gospel and believed (Eph 1:13)
Are we justified by baptism? As Lutheran I'm sure you would agree that we are justified by faith alone.
Are we saved by baptism? The Bible says we are saved by Grace through Faith and not of own on doing. (Eph 2:8)

I"m not being flippant or dismissive. I've often heard Catholics and Lutherans and Anglicans say that God does the work in Baptism. But when I read my Bible is says and shows God working through the preaching/teaching of the Gospel and baptism is always a response to that work of God through preaching/hearing of the Gospel. So if God works through the preaching/teaching/sharing of the Gospel to bring people to faith and then/at the same time indwells them with the Spirit? Then what "work" is God doing in the baptismal waters?

You could say forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38) but I would counter that if someone is justified by faith then that means they already have forgiveness of sins. Plus we would have to get into what is "original sin" and that would be an entirely new thread

But being "a Christian" doesn't mean you're saved!

Cultural Christianity is false Christianity and one we should do everything to combat. Plenty of people appropriate the trappings of Christianity without coming to a saving faith in Christ. I once heard a Baptist Preacher say that the hardest people to reach with the Gospel is those who have been in church their entire life, are moral people, and know how to "be Christian" without ever actually having come to faith in Christ.

Say what you want about American Evangelicals or even American Fundamentalist. But the people in the pews hear week after week the need for a personal faith in Christ in order to be a Christian. Some of the other things may be wacky or legalistic or whatever, but the emphasis on a personal faith/trust in Christ is the core teaching of American Evangelicalism.

 

[Lanman87]

How do you know that being baptized does not impart the Holy Spirit and that this has a positive effect upon the child, helping him to grow in the faith until he is old enough to make a personal commitment to the Lord (at which time, some churches administer Confirmation)?

Well, I've shown in another response that the Bible says the Holy Spirit is imparted at belief. Gal 3;2 and Eph 1:13. That is how I know the Holy Spirit is imparted at belief/conversion.

How do you know the Holy Spirit is imparted to infants at baptism?

 

[Lamb]

What work does God do in Baptism?

Does it impart faith? The Bible says faith comes by hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17)
Does it impart the Spirit? The Bible says we receive the Spirit at belief or by "hearing with faith" (Gal 3:2)and we are sealed with the Spirit when we heard the gospel and believed (Eph 1:13)
Are we justified by baptism? As Lutheran I'm sure you would agree that we are justified by faith alone.
Are we saved by baptism? The Bible says we are saved by Grace through Faith and not of own on doing. (Eph 2:8)

I"m not being flippant or dismissive. I've often heard Catholics and Lutherans and Anglicans say that God does the work in Baptism. But when I read my Bible is says and shows God working through the preaching/teaching of the Gospel and baptism is always a response to that work of God through preaching/hearing of the Gospel. So if God works through the preaching/teaching/sharing of the Gospel to bring people to faith and then/at the same time indwells them with the Spirit? Then what "work" is God doing in the baptismal waters?

You could say forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38) but I would counter that if someone is justified by faith then that means they already have forgiveness of sins. Plus we would have to get into what is "original sin" and that would be an entirely new thread

Cultural Christianity is false Christianity and one we should do everything to combat. Plenty of people appropriate the trappings of Christianity without coming to a saving faith in Christ. I once heard a Baptist Preacher say that the hardest people to reach with the Gospel is those who have been in church their entire life, are moral people, and know how to "be Christian" without ever actually having come to faith in Christ.

Say what you want about American Evangelicals or even American Fundamentalist. But the people in the pews hear week after week the need for a personal faith in Christ in order to be a Christian. Some of the other things may be wacky or legalistic or whatever, but the emphasis on a personal faith/trust in Christ is the core teaching of American Evangelicalism.

WHAT BLESSINGS DO WE RECEIVE FROM GOD IN BAPTISM?

1 Peter 3:20-21. … in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it a few people, eight in all, were saved through water — and this water symbolizes Baptism that now saves you also.

Colossians 2:11-12. In Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with Him in Baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

Romans 6:3-10. Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through Baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him. For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.

* Note: These passages from Colossians and Romans are summarized well by Dr. Lowell Green: “Baptism is the retroactive participation in the work of Good Friday and Easter Sunday — even better, it is incorporation into the body of the risen and ascended Savior ...”

Galatians 3:27. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

Eph. 5:26. Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word.

Titus 3:5. He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit.

Corinthians 12:13. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.

1 Corinthians 6:11. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Acts 22:16. And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.

Acts 2:37-39. Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" And Peter said to them, "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. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."

Mark 16:16. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

 

[Josiah]

Yes, it is not explicitly forbidden, neither is it commanded or explicitly demonstrated.

Right, @Lanman87

1. The Anabaptist dogma (first taught 500 years ago) that those under the age of Who-Knows cannot have faith is wrong. . We have specific stated cases in the Bible where infants - even those still in the womb - have faith. And there is nothing - not a word - in Scripture (or anywhere before 1500) that states that God is impotent to give faith until the person reaches the age of Who-Knows. The new Anabaptist dogma is without any biblical substantiation, indeed it is contradicted by Scripture;.

2. And the Anabaptist dogma (first taught 500 years ago) that FIRST the person must document and/or illustrate saving faith BEFORE some prohibition on baptism is lifted is also nowhere found in Scripture (or anywhere before 1500). Sure, we have examples of such among the very few baptisms that happen to be recorded in the Book of Acts but examples are not normative (or we could not be posting on the internet) What we do NOT have in Scripture (or anywhere for the first 1500 years of Christianity) is someone being forbidden from Baptism because they had not yet proven their faith in Christ. Nowhere is the Anbabaptist prohibition stated or demonstrated.

So what is neither taught or demonstrated in Scripture are the two new Anabaptist dogmas here: One must first attain the age of Who-Knows and give some proof of faith BEFORE the (supposed) prohibition from Baptist is lifted. Those dogmas are entirely missing in the Bible (and from Christianity until about 500 years ago).

All the explicit examples in scripture are people making a demonstration of faith by either expressing belief or repentance and then being baptized.

1. Prove that all the persons in the household were over the age of Who-Knows and had made some public proof of their faith. Good luck.

2. I doubt that you hold that we can only do what is illustrated as done in the Book of Acts. The very reality that you are posting on the internet shows to me you don't hold to that rubric. And again, I suspect that if I visited your church on a Sunday morning, very little of what is done could be shown to have been done in the Book of Acts. And (likely) all the Baptisms in Acts were done by Hebrew males.... in the middle east... and very probably of Caucasians. Does your church thus forbid baptisms done by Gentiles and in the USA? Does it forbid the baptisms of Blacks or Asians? Of course not. So, since you don't hold that EXAMPLES in Acts are normative, then ... well.... there goes that whole argument.

3. There were likely thousands of baptisms in the First Century. How many of those are recorded in the Book of Acts? Even if you could prove that EVERY one recorded in Acts are of persons over the age of Who-Knows and who had given public proof of their faith, that says little as to what was done in the Early Church. Polycarp indicates that he was baptized as an infant (that would have been in 69 AD if memory serves me - roughly the same time as the Book of Acts was penned. Perhaps not all baptisms are recorded in Acts?

4. In my thread on "The Lutheran Perspective on Baptism" I share a goodly number of ECF speaking very positively of Infant Baptism. There are none who state the Anabaptist dogmas - that we are prohibited from baptizing those under the age of Who-Knows and those who have not first, previously, given proof of their saving faith. The Anabaptist prohibitions are taught nowhere in Scripture and seem entirely unknown until the 16th Century... and yes, seem based on pure speculation, speculation that seems to fly in the face of Scriptures that speak of infants with faith.

However, if Lydia's household did include infants that were baptized then it is something different than the explicit examples of Baptism in the New Testament.

Friend, again, it is not the traditionalists who argue that we cannot do otherwise than as was done in the Book of Acts. That's the Anabaptist rubric (that, it seems, none of them actually accepts). My welcome of infants has nothing to do with Lydia's household.... we bring up the 'household baptisms" only to show that the Anabaptist foundational argument of "ALL Baptisms that happen to be recorded in the Book of Acts where of folks over the age of Who-Knows and who previously proved they had saving faith." That's pure speculation (and rather irrelevant anyway since Anabaptists don't limit all they do to examples found in the Book of Acts).




.