Is Infant Baptism and Accretion?

[Albion]

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".

That's true. By the 2nd century there is a record of it happening, but because the Bible testifies to the practice, it has to have existed prior to that.

Of course, during this discussion we have already been made aware of evidence which dates from the 1st century, not the late 2nd.

 

[Josiah]

Except that it started in biblical times with "entire households" that most likely included peoples of all ages.

@Lamb


1. Only Anabaptists use the apologetic that we can DO only what is illustrated as done in the Book of Acts. We don't embrace that rubric (and neither do they; they DO lots and lots of things not once demonstrated as done in Acts).

2. The Anabaptist defense of their new prohibitions on Baptism are all based on this assumption: 'ALL (every one) of the Baptisms that just happen to be recorded in the Book of Acts are of ADULT BELIEVERS (some even add recent converts), THEREFORE we can only do the very same thing and no other." But as you correctly note, they can't show that's true. We bring up the Household Baptisms only to show their claim can't be substantiated as true.

3. They not only don't accept their own rule here (doing LOTS of things never done in Acts) but they aren't even consistent with the single topic of Baptism. It is very likely all the Baptisms done in Acts were performed by Hebrews, but do that prohibit Gentiles from administering baptism? Nope. It is very likely all the Baptisms done in Acts were done in a very small geographical area but do they prohibit baptisms elsewhere? Nope. It is likely all the recepients of Baptisms were Caucasians but do they forbid the Baptism of Blacks and Asians? Nope. So, a FEW of the aspects of Baptism that just happen to be recorded in Acts are mandated and the rest just ignored.



.

 

[Josiah]

As for the "accretion" issue....


1. Some Baptists claim that infant baptism never existed until the 4th or 5th Century.... and this proves it is prohibited. Where is their proof of this? Not one verse is quoted as stating "No one under the age of Who-Knows is permitted to be baptized." Or even "No one under the age of Who-Knows was baptized." And they have not one Early Church Father (not one Christian for over 1500 years!) stating "No one under the age of Who-Knows is permitted to be Baptized" or "All baptisms are of those over the age of Who-Knows." NOTHING. Absolutely NOTHING to support their claim. They rebuke traditional Christians for holding they happened (and they DO have quotes from Christians to that effect) because they can't prove most were.... while they have NOTHING AT ALL to show most weren't.


2, The position is if it didn't exist in the First Century (and perhaps stated in the Book of Acts) then it must be rejected and prohibited.... nothing newer than the Book of Acts (written perhaps in the 60's). No "accretions." Well, then they have to reject the Bible itself. In the 60's, there was no official position on what was and was not canonical Scripture.... and much of the NT hadn't even been written yet. And not one Book of the Bible is named in the Book of Acts. No one in acts quotes from Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, any of Paul's 13 epistles or those of Peter or John, from James or the Book of Revelation. Some of those didn't even exist yet. So by their mandate, we can't accept the Bible. And what about the Trinity, that doctrine (as we know it) was developed in the 4th Century and never stated in Acts, so there it goes too. And what about all their Baptism prohibitions? NONE allowed for those under the age of Who-Knows, NONE allowed except to those who prove they have saving faith.... zero evidence in Acts or anywhere of those prohibitions (indeed for over 1500 years). It's a silly rubric. One even they don't accept.

It's a silly rubric.... one they insist upon but don't embrace.


.

 

[Lanman87]

Since this thread is slowing down I will put my final post on the subject. This is a summary of the CredoBaptist position.

1. Christ established an order in the Great Commission. Go make disciples, baptize and teach. We see this order demonstrated throughout the New Testament as people come to faith (are made disciples), they are baptized and then continued to be taught by the Apostles/Leaders of the church. Therefore, baptism is for those who are "made disciples". Just as teaching is for those who are made disciples. If someone isn't a believer and sits under teaching it may lead them to faith, as the Holy Spirit uses the Teaching to give them understanding, but at the same time "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him," 1 Cor 2:14

2. Believers receive the Holy Spirit at belief. Gal 3:2 Eph 1:13. Apparently, this became the norm after Cornelius's Household came to faith. Before we see the Holy Spirit given in other ways. By Baptism and by the laying on of hands. But those baptized or had the laying on of hands were already believers. Nobody under the New Covenant where give the Holy Spirit except believers. The idea that the Holy Spirit is ever given apart from a personal conversion is foreign to the New Testament.

3. In the New Testament baptism is consistently shown as the final act of the conversion experience.

4. The only Biblical evidence given of the Bible indicating infant baptism was practiced is that some "households" were baptized. The idea of "households" containing infants goes beyond the text and requires an assumption that isn't in the text. We know that of all the "households" mentioned in the New Testament only one is ambiguous on if all the people in the household believed. For the others, it is clear that whoever was in the "household", they all believed.

5. Historical evidence of infant baptism outside of the Bible in the 1st Century doesn't exist. It isn't mentioned in the earliest non-scriptural documents. Perhaps the earliest documented evidence of church activity, the Didache, instructs both those who are baptizing and those who are being baptized to fast one or two days. This seems to indicated that the person being baptized was old enough to fast without complications. I think we can all agree that it would be cruel and dangerous for a newborn baby to fast for "one or two days".

The only other, so called, first century evidence that infant baptism exist from the testimony of Polycarp, who indicated that the he been faithful for 86 years. This can be explained in a number of ways and is conjecture that Polycarp was indicating he was baptized as an infant.

6. The earliest historical evidence for infant baptism comes from late 2nd century and early 3rd century sources. This indicates that sometime between the end of the 1st century and the end of the 2nd century, some people started baptizing infants.

7. In the period between the 2nd Century and the 5th Century, there was a wide variety of practice in the church concerning baptism. Some waiting to be baptized due to an erroneous belief that their sins couldn't be forgiven after they were baptized (which is clearly an accretion that was eventually expelled from the church). Some were baptized as believers, even those from a Christian family. And some parents had their babies baptized as infants. Some waited until their children were three years old. It seems that there was wide latitude on the practice of baptism as there was little opposition to any of the forms mentioned.

8. The consensus among historians is that infant baptism became the norm around the 5th or 6th century. Mainly, due to the influence of Augustine and the rise of the Roman Catholic church.

With the lack of direct command to baptize infants in the New Testament, with lack of evidence that it was taught or performed by the Apostles or the first century church, and with the practice of baptism being so muddled in the following centuries, Credobaptist believe it is best to go to the order and pattern established in Scripture.

However, Credobaptist do not believe that the waters of baptism save. Baptism is a type or symbol of salvation. It outwardly expresses an inward "appeal to God".

Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Pastor John Piper puts it this way

Now the problem with this is that Peter seems very aware that his words are open to dangerous misuse. This is why, as soon as they are out of his mouth, as it were, he qualifies them lest we take them the wrong way. In verse 21 he does say, "Baptism now saves you" - that sounds like the water has a saving effect in and of itself apart from faith. He knows that is what it sounds like and so he adds immediately, "Not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience - through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." (Or your version might have: "the pledge of a good conscience toward God").

But the point seems to be this: When I speak of baptism saving, Peter says, I don't mean that the water, immersing the body and cleansing the flesh, is of any saving effect; what I mean is that, insofar as baptism is "an appeal to God for a good conscience," (or is "a pledge of a good conscience toward God"), it saves. Paul said in Romans 10:13, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord - everyone who appeals to the Lord - will be saved." Paul does not mean that faith alone fails to save. He means that faith calls on God. That's what faith does. Now Peter is saying, "Baptism is the God-ordained, symbolic expression of that call to God. It is an appeal to God - either in the form of repentance or in the form of commitment...

What is baptism? Baptism is a symbolic expression of the heart's "appeal to God." Baptism is a calling on God. It is a way of saying to God with our whole body, "I trust you to take me into Christ like Noah was taken into the ark, and to make Jesus the substitute for my sins and to bring me through these waters of death and judgment into new and everlasting life through the resurrection of Jesus my Lord."

This is what God is calling you to do. You do not save yourself. God saves you through the work of Christ. But you receive that salvation through calling on the name of the Lord, by trusting him. And it is God's will all over the world and in every culture - no matter how simple or how sophisticated - that this appeal to God be expressed in baptism. "Lord, I am entering the ark of Christ! Save me as I pass through the waters of death!" Amen.

 

[Albion]

Since this thread is slowing down I will put my final post on the subject. This is a summary of the CredoBaptist position.

And those of us here who hold to the traditional understanding of baptism have stated our reasons, too, and have referred to the Scriptural and historic evidence that supports it.

Therefore, I do welcome the suggestion of us all considering this topic exhausted rather than engaging in even one more recitation of that which has already been posted.

 

[Josiah]

Since this thread is slowing down I will put my final post on the subject. This is a summary of the CredoBaptist position.

1. Christ established an order in the Great Commission. Go make disciples, baptize and teach.

@Lanman87 No

The verse says "Go and make disciples baptizing and teaching." The word is "kai". The word means "and." It is the most generic, most general connective word in koine Greek. It does NOT imply or mandate sequence, it does not mean "after that" or "then." There are koine Greek words that do imply and others that even mandate sequence but none of those appear in any verse that speaks of baptism.

We see this order demonstrated throughout the New Testament

I disagree with your presumption that we can do only as is illustrated in the NT and can do no other. You don't accept your premise either or you would not be posting on the internet, you'd be condemning churches using electricity, having youth pastors and women's groups, baptizing in a tank behind a curtain, celebrating Communion with little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread and little plastic cups of Welch's Grape Juice, using powerpoint, even using the New Testament. None of those things are demonstrated anywhere in the NT.

2. Believers receive the Holy Spirit at belief. Gal 3:2 Eph 1:13. Apparently, this became the norm after Cornelius's Household came to faith. Before we see the Holy Spirit given in other ways. By Baptism and by the laying on of hands. But those baptized or had the laying on of hands were already believers. Nobody under the New Covenant where give the Holy Spirit except believers. The idea that the Holy Spirit is ever given apart from a personal conversion is foreign to the New Testament.

We BECOME believers by the Holy Spirit. So, the Spirit is not rendered impotent by non-belief.

But I fail to see how this point proves the Anabaptist invention:
1. We are forbidden to baptize any until they attain the age of Who-Knows.
2. We are forbidden to baptize any until they adequately and publicly prove they have saving faith.
3. We must submerge every cell of the body under water or the baptism is invalid.
4. Baptism is ONLY a symbol, an outward sign of an inner personal decision.

3. In the New Testament baptism is consistently shown as the final act of the conversion experience.

Again, you seem to be confusing what is (sometimes) DONE with what is TAUGHT and BELIEVED. I disagree with your rubric that we can only DO what is clearly demonstrated as DONE in the NT. I think you do, too. After all, I'll guess that you have no problem with Gentiles administering Baptism, with baptizing Blacks and Asians, by baptizing in a tank behind a curtain at the front of an auditorium And so on.

4. The only Biblical evidence given of the Bible indicating infant baptism was practiced is that some "households" were baptized. The idea of "households" containing infants goes beyond the text and requires an assumption that isn't in the text. We know that of all the "households" mentioned in the New Testament only one is ambiguous on if all the people in the household believed. For the others, it is clear that whoever was in the "household", they all believed.

1. There is ZERO evidence of anyone in the Bible being refused baptism because they had not yet attained the age of Who-Knows (anti-Paedobaptism) or because they had not adequately and publicly proven they had saving faith (Credobaptism). So what is missing in the Bible are the Anabaptist inventions.

2. It doesn't matter if these households had people in them under the age of Who-Knows or who had not adequately and publicly proven they had saving faith. We bring those up only to show that the whole premise of the Anabaptist prohibitions ("ALL the Baptisms that just happen to be recorded in the Book of Acts are of ADULT BELIEVERS and therefore we are restricted to baptize only new adult converts") is simply not provable. The whole Anabaptist dogma rests on an assumption about who was in these households, an assumption that has zero substantiation. Sure, we can't prove who they were but it doesn't matter to us, we're not saying we are restricted to how things were DONE in the Book of Acts. But you can't prove it either and your whole dogma rests on this.

5. Historical evidence of infant baptism outside of the Bible in the 1st Century doesn't exist.

Friend, you have this BACKWARDS.

While there is solid evidence of infant baptism in the Early Church, there is nothing - not a word - from ANY Church Father or ANY Christian upholding the Anabaptist dogmas: 1) We are forbidden to baptize any until they attain the age of Who-Knows, 2) We are forbidden to baptize any until they have adequately and publicly proven that they have saving faith, 3) Every cell of the body must be completely submerged under water, 4) Baptism is ONLY a symbol that does nothing, it is ONLY an outward sign of an inner personal decision.

6. The earliest historical evidence for infant baptism comes from late 2nd century and early 3rd century sources. This indicates that sometime between the end of the 1st century and the end of the 2nd century, some people started baptizing infants.

And the earliest evidence we have for forbidding those under the age of Who-Knows and who have not adequately and publicly given proof of their saving faith comes from the 16th Century.

With the lack of direct command to baptize infants in the New Testament

With the lack of any direct command to baptize only those over the age of Who-Knows and who have adequately and publicly proven they have saving faith.....

Sure, we have no examples of Blacks or Asians being baptize in the Book of Acts... no examples of Gentiles administering Baptism....

, with lack of evidence that it was taught

A complete, absolute lack of evidence that the Anabaptists dogma was taught before the 16th Century.



Blessings


- Josiah

.