Is Infant Baptism and Accretion?

[Lanman87]

Yet all of those claims appear somewhere or other in the posts of people who are criticizing "infant baptism." From where I stand, all such talk is a diversion.

I think part of the disconnect is what was alluded to earlier concerning our definitions of "Christian". To a Baptist, a Christian is a faithful follower of Christ who has the indwelling Holy Spirit and has received "Grace through Faith". To others, anyone who has been baptized is a Christian, therefore infants that were baptized are also Christians who only cease to be Christians if they, at some point, reject the Gospel. Faith is assumed because the Child has been baptized and reared in the church.

In a sense, from my perspective, those that practice infant baptism believe that Christianity is similar to Judaism, in the sense that being born into a Jewish Family makes one Jewish. That maybe somehow, being born in a Christian family makes one a Christian. And just as Jews can grow up and reject the faith so to Christians can grow up and reject the faith.

 

[Lanman87]

Where? Quote the verse that states this.

9 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:9


Notice the command is to "Baptize them" Who are the them? It is those who have been made disciples. Who are disciples and how to we "make disciples". Disciples are those who have come to believe in Jesus and seek to follow Him.

We don't make disciples by baptizing them. We make disciples and then baptize them. If they aren't disciples then they aren't part of "them" who are to be baptized.

 

[Josiah]

We are not told one way or the other with respect to the circumstances of Lydia’s household. We don’t have any idea how many people were in her household, or how old they were. We don’t know whether the members of her household were with her in the place of prayer outside the gate to the riverside, where she heard the gospel, or whether they had contact with Paul and his companions during their subsequent stay in Lydia’s home (Acts 16:12, 15). Either Paul and his companions shared the gospel with the rest of Lydia’s household leading to their faith and baptism, or the members of her household were baptized without any connection to a personal gospel response. We don’t know, and thus we should be cautious about drawing too much from this text.

@Lanman87


Thank you.

Thus you prove that the entire Anabaptist apologetic is wrong. It's all based on the (silly, rejected) rubric that we can DO only as illustrated in the Book of Acts. They read Acts and dogmatically insist, "ALL the Baptisms that happen to be recorded in the Book of Acts were DONE to those over the age of Who-Knows, all had publicly and adequately proven that they had saving faith, all were fully immersed under water. THUS, we must do the same (forget that all of them where baptized by Hebrews, that all of them happened in certain geographical area - that doesn't matter)." But you prove that's not true.

In these "Household Baptisms" we don't know the age of anyone. We don't know if ALL of them had given adequate public proof of having saving faith. We don't know if they were new converts. As you repeatedly state, we don't know if all those Anabaptist declarations (on which their new dogma is based) are true.

Not until the 5th or 6th Century

Where's the proof of this?

I thought you rejected practice.

Here's just one (and not the earliest) evidence, “Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” ( Hippolytus. The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]). Not only are children allowed (and not forbidden) but it seems they had precedence. And this is from 215, not after 400. And lest you think that the koine Greek word here for "children" can only mean "those over the age of Who-Knows," note that he mentions including those who "cannot speak for themselves" (perhaps suggests those under two?).

Can you quote a Church Father stating, "We art forbidden to baptize any under the age of Who-Knows and who hath not first publicly proven they have saving faith." Or "We canst ONLY baptize new converts and no others." Can you quote any stating, "Baptism is only an outward symbol of a personal decision and doth nothing."




Blessings!


- Josiah



PS See post 34.



.

 

[Lamb]

9 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:9


Notice the command is to "Baptize them" Who are the them? It is those who have been made disciples. Who are disciples and how to we "make disciples". Disciples are those who have come to believe in Jesus and seek to follow Him.

We don't make disciples by baptizing them. We make disciples and then baptize them. If they aren't disciples then they aren't part of "them" who are to be baptized.

Go therefore and make disciples...and then Jesus tells how that is done (baptizing and teaching). Baptizing and teaching go hand in hand. You're insisting that only teaching makes disciples and after that they can become baptized. But they go hand in hand. It's all God's work, the teaching, the baptizing.

And as for that article claiming that infant baptism didn't start until the 5th or 6th century, it's rubbish.

 

[Albion]

I think part of the disconnect is what was alluded to earlier concerning our definitions of "Christian". To a Baptist, a Christian is a faithful follower of Christ who has the indwelling Holy Spirit and has received "Grace through Faith".

The other churches use the word that way also. As I have mentioned a number of times, being baptized as a small child doesn't mean that the person doesn't have to have what is often called "a conversion experience" at some later point in time.

It's quite an error for people to sneer at infant baptism and say that baptizing a young one is pointless because he cannot believe, OR that the churches which do baptize them think that they are thereby saved, guaranteed to go to heaven, or something else in that vein.

To others, anyone who has been baptized is a Christian, therefore infants that were baptized are also Christians who only cease to be Christians if they, at some point, reject the Gospel. Faith is assumed because the Child has been baptized and reared in the church.

Baptism makes one an "official" member of Christ's church (if not a full-fledged member of the 'Rolling Hills Episcopal Church of Hoozitsville, Maryland'--if you see what I mean).

In a sense, from my perspective, those that practice infant baptism believe that Christianity is similar to Judaism, in the sense that being born into a Jewish Family makes one Jewish. That maybe somehow, being born in a Christian family makes one a Christian.

Well, that's only true in an informal sense. And I am sure that a family that's a bunch of churchgoing Baptists think of their kids as Baptists, too, and so do the neighbors think that way about them. And why wouldn't they do so? Now, though, we aren't talking theology but just what is the common, unofficial way of talking about this.

 

[Lanman87]

And as for that article claiming that infant baptism didn't start until the 5th or 6th century, it's rubbish.

It doesn't say that infant baptism didn't start until the 5th or 6th century. It says it didn't become the norm until the 5th or 6th century. Which is the scholarly consensus among historians.

Most historians I've read say that there was a wide variety of practices on baptism in the first 4 or 5 centuries and that infant baptism didn't emerge as the normative position until the 5th or 6th centuries, mainly due to the influence of Augustine.

 

[Lamb]

It doesn't say that infant baptism didn't start until the 5th or 6th century. It says it didn't become the norm until the 5th or 6th century. Which is the scholarly consensus among historians.

Most historians I've read say that there was a wide variety of practices on baptism in the first 4 or 5 centuries and that infant baptism didn't emerge as the normative position until the 5th or 6th centuries, mainly due to the influence of Augustine.

The catacombs show earlier infant baptism.

 

[Lanman87]

And I am sure that a family that's a bunch of churchgoing Baptists think of their kids as Baptists, too, and so do the neighbors think that way about them

Maybe one difference is that Baptist does see their children as "Christian" until they profess faith. We see a difference between being a Baptist and being a Christian.

 

[Lamb]

Maybe one difference is that Baptist does see their children as "Christian" until they profess faith. We see a difference between being a Baptist and being a Christian.

Then baptize those little heathens and heed God's call to make disciples! Baptizing and teaching them.

 

[Albion]

It doesn't say that infant baptism didn't start until the 5th or 6th century. It says it didn't become the norm until the 5th or 6th century. Which is the scholarly consensus among historians.

It's already been mentioned by another member who is on your side in this debate that infant baptism existed in the early church, and a variety of ancient writers make the same assertion. That being the case, it cannot be that the practice was an "accretion."

 

[Albion]

Maybe one difference is that Baptist does see their children as "Christian" until they profess faith. We see a difference between being a Baptist and being a Christian.

I don't know what your point is with that post.

 

[Lanman87]

The catacombs show earlier infant baptism.

That doesn't mean it was the norm. As I have said many times, infant baptism probably began in the mid to late 2nd century. (100 years is plenty of time for an accretion to start to grow) However, history tells us that people didn't get baptized until the were old or sick and that several of the church fathers didn't get baptized until they converted to Christianity, even if they were part of a Christian family (Who would presumably practice infant baptism if it was the norm).

It is clear that there was no uniform practice on baptism until the early medieval period which is when infant baptism became the norm.

There were two things that probably caused infant baptism to become the norm. One is the teaching of Augustine and the other is the rise of the Papacy. Many church historians consider Gregory the Great (late 6th century) as the first true Pope. Meaning that while the Bishop of Rome had been claiming authority over all the churches since the mid-third century, Gregory the Great was the first to actually have authority over all the churches, due mainly to the chaos in the Eastern churches. . Anyway, because Rome began to have authority over all the church, they started standardizing practices. So when Rome embraced Augustinian views on original sin and infant baptism they enforced the practice throughout the church. You will notice that the list of Church Fathers who were baptized as adults are all Eastern Fathers. (Gregory of Nazianzus, John Chrysostom, and Basil the Great). This is probably because the norm of infant baptism in the West was earlier than in the East.

Only in the rare cases or when a Jew or Muslim converted to Christianity were there Adult baptisms. Because the church and state were so intermixed pretty much all children were baptized. To be a good Catholic was to be a loyal subject to the King.

 

[Lanman87]

I don't know what your point is with that post.

Just to show a difference in "mindset".

 

[Albion]

Just to show a difference in "mindset".

Thanks. I "got" that much, but it seems obvious that almost every denomination thinks that there's a difference between being a Christian and being a ______ (name of denomination). If you are saying that Baptists see their unbaptized children as "Christians," well, what other people insist upon thinking of the kids as little pagans even though the parents belong to a local Christian congregation?

(or was there a word missing from the post I'm asking about?)

 

[Lanman87]

Here's just one (and not the earliest) evidence, “Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” ( Hippolytus. The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]). Not only are children allowed (and not forbidden) but it seems they had precedence. And this is from 215, not after 400. And lest you think that the koine Greek word here for "children" can only mean "those over the age of Who-Knows," note that he mentions including those who "cannot speak for themselves" (perhaps suggests those under two?).

I actually gave that quote in my first post on the subject and said that infant baptism probably started in the latter half of the 2nd century.

 

[Lanman87]

but it seems obvious that almost every denomination thinks that there's a difference between being a Christian and being a ______ (name of denomination).

Except maybe Catholics.

 

[Albion]

Except maybe Catholics.

Hmm. How so? I've never found Catholics to be unwilling to admit that, say, a Baptist or an Episcopalian, are Christians. That they belong to a religious group that is heretical, yes, but not non-Christian.

 

[Lanman87]

Hmm. How so? I've never found Catholics to be unwilling to admit that, say, a Baptist or an Episcopalian, are Christians.

The mindset I've witnessed is to be "Catholic" is to be "Christian". Whereas, Baptist (and others) differentiate between being a Christian and being a Baptist.

 

[Albion]

The mindset I've witnessed is to be "Catholic" is to be "Christian". Whereas, Baptist (and others) differentiate between being a Christian and being a Baptist.

Well, the idea persists among Catholics that theirs is the only true church of Christ, and there is a tendency to say "Catholic" when they are referring to what they consider to be "real Christianity," so you probably are right about that, at least as it describes some members of the church. I think that their numbers are declining.

 

[Lamb]

I actually gave that quote in my first post on the subject and said that infant baptism probably started in the latter half of the 2nd century.

Except that it started in biblical times with "entire households" that most likely included peoples of all ages. You can't put modern thinking into it where we have the luxury and knowledge of how to prevent pregnancy. Pregnancy was encouraged then... "multiply".