Baptism and the Age of Accountability

Christian ethics and theology with an Anabaptist perspective
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Baptism and the Age of Accountability

Post by Valerie »

ohio jones wrote:
Valerie wrote:But now I would probably have my child baptized ASAP- Apostle Paul compared it to circumcision, I can see the ties he was making with that.
I don't see this passage, which must be the one you're referring to, comparing circumcision to baptism; it's comparing circumcision to being delivered from sin ("putting off"), which is then followed by baptism.

[bible]col 2,11-12[/bible]
Here's a parallel passage without the metaphors:

[bible]eph 4,22-24[/bible]
Paul certainly wouldn't tell people to remain unbaptized, as he told them to remain uncircumcised:

[bible]1 cor 7,18[/bible]
The Colassians one you gave is what I have seen in relation to it- there was controversy among the early church writers & fathers as to how many days old and infant should be when they baptized the baby- 8 days was a suggestion, comparing it to circumcision probably by that passage.
I have read 2 early church writers who stated that the Apostles are the ones who taught it- not something that was added later. They probably had a lot to say about this which they didn't write down but the tradition was started apparently by the Apostles- for something they must have understood and probably why some Reformers didn't feel comfortable discarding it. Even some early Anabapists, from what I read, struggled with being 'sure' about stopping the practice. It could be why some people, although being supporting & helping Anabaptists during their persecution, still couldn't discard the practice which was by that time approx 1500 years old. Personally I thought it strange until really studying about it and then reading early church writers. Orthodox will baptize infants just like adults, full immersion, 3x-
It still messes with my 40 plus years of being in the Protestant category, understanding. However an infant in the church baptized is then immediately a member of the church and able to receive communion as they can-
0 x
ken_sylvania
Posts: 3971
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 12:46 pm
Affiliation: CM

Re: Baptism and the Age of Accountability

Post by ken_sylvania »

If we let the "early church fathers" over-ride what the Bible actually says, and if we are willing to argue away what the Bible says by saying it only applied to a specific time and culture, we can pretty much discard the entire Bible. Then what is the point of Christianity?
0 x
MattY
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 5:36 pm
Location: Ohio
Affiliation: Beachy
Contact:

Re: Baptism and the Age of Accountability

Post by MattY »

Josh wrote:
cmbl wrote:I believe that "baptism should be given to those who have learned repentance and the amendment of life" and am not in favor of reducing the age of baptism in CA circles.

That said, can someone shed some light on the concept of "age of accountability?" Is this a concept defined somewhere in the NT with reference to the OT? Or is it cobbled together from OT sources as people systematize freewill theology?
It's not something really detailed in scripture, but it is definitely assumed in a few places; nobody holds an infant responsible for their choices, but everyone holds someone who is well past adolescence and is of sane mind to be responsible for their choices. The culture Jesus was in had a general perspective that at the age of 13, someone was an adult and needed to be responsible to know how to worship and obey God properly, and from then on had an obligation to do so.

I think some things are so obvious that it seems a bit of a stretch to say scripture must say them - for example - the Bible doesn't lay out in detail what a man is and what a woman is. It just says "man" and "woman". Likewise it talks about children and it talks about full grown adults.
Right, I agree. It's not explicitly stated anywhere, OT or NT, but is assumed or implied.

If you think about the scope of the atonement, we believe, according to 1 John 2:2, that it is sufficient for everyone. Of course it is not effective for unbelievers - only believers. But for those who were never capable of believing because they are children or mentally handicapped, the fact that the atonement is sufficient for the whole world allows the possibility of God applying it to them.

According to the age of accountability, children are not innocent in the sense of being sinless, but in the sense that they are held unaccountable for their wrongs. In agreement with this, the Old Testament refers to children as "innocent" a number of times, in the sense of being found "not guilty" in court. (For example, when it speaks of "innocents" being sacrificed to Moloch).

In 2 Samuel 12:21–23, David had been grieving and praying for his child, after Nathan the prophet told him that the child would die. But after the child died, David stopped mourning, and said, "I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me."

In the NT, there are verses like Matthew 18:10 and Matthew 19:14.

What are the alternatives? We have these options:

1) All children are automatically forgiven for their sins and saved by the grace of God. At some point though, they must pass from the previous state of being covered by God's mercy to being accountable and needing to believe in Christ. This is the "age of accountability" position.

2) All children are automatically lost (or at least they go to "limbo" if they die), unless something else happens - i.e., infant baptism. So according to this, children have to be baptized to be saved, and it doesn't matter whether the parents are believers or unbelievers - children still receive grace & forgiveness through baptism. Quote from Augustine: "When children are presented to be given spiritual grace, it is not so much those holding them in their arms who present them—although, if these people are good Christians, they are included among those who present the children—as the whole company of saints and faithful Christians." So the parents' faith is not a factor - just the baptism.

3) Or, some are automatically lost and some are automatically saved. There are actually two positions under this one:

3a) Household salvation - children are automatically saved by being born to Christian parents. This is usually connected closely to infant baptism, as the parents are expected to have the children baptized as the sign that they are in the covenant; this is actually similar to (2), but the difference is that they are saved not so much by baptism itself, as by the faith of their parents.

3b) Some children are unconditionally predestined for salvation, and some for damnation. I think most people who hold this position don't hold it very strongly, saying it could be like this, and rejecting other positions by saying we can't know for sure. It's a Calvinist position, but a lot of Calvinists would hold to one of the other positions instead.

Unless you want to be some kind of Calvinist-Anabaptist, the only option for the Anabaptist is (1). Scripturally, that's the only option.

I think Calvinist Baptists usually accept the age of accountability - see MacArthur or Mohler. And some who baptize infants still believe in the age of accountability anyway.
0 x
Almighty, most holy God
Faithful through the ages
Almighty, most holy Lord
Glorious, almighty God
Soloist
Posts: 5495
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 4:49 pm
Affiliation: CM Seeker

Re: Baptism and the Age of Accountability

Post by Soloist »

buckeyematt2 wrote:
Josh wrote:
cmbl wrote:I believe that "baptism should be given to those who have learned repentance and the amendment of life" and am not in favor of reducing the age of baptism in CA circles.

That said, can someone shed some light on the concept of "age of accountability?" Is this a concept defined somewhere in the NT with reference to the OT? Or is it cobbled together from OT sources as people systematize freewill theology?
It's not something really detailed in scripture, but it is definitely assumed in a few places; nobody holds an infant responsible for their choices, but everyone holds someone who is well past adolescence and is of sane mind to be responsible for their choices. The culture Jesus was in had a general perspective that at the age of 13, someone was an adult and needed to be responsible to know how to worship and obey God properly, and from then on had an obligation to do so.

I think some things are so obvious that it seems a bit of a stretch to say scripture must say them - for example - the Bible doesn't lay out in detail what a man is and what a woman is. It just says "man" and "woman". Likewise it talks about children and it talks about full grown adults.
Right, I agree. It's not explicitly stated anywhere, OT or NT, but is assumed or implied.

If you think about the scope of the atonement, we believe, according to 1 John 2:2, that it is sufficient for everyone. Of course it is not effective for unbelievers - only believers. But for those who were never capable of believing because they are children or mentally handicapped, the fact that the atonement is sufficient for the whole world allows the possibility of God applying it to them.

According to the age of accountability, children are not innocent in the sense of being sinless, but in the sense that they are held unaccountable for their wrongs. In agreement with this, the Old Testament refers to children as "innocent" a number of times, in the sense of being found "not guilty" in court. (For example, when it speaks of "innocents" being sacrificed to Moloch).

In 2 Samuel 12:21–23, David had been grieving and praying for his child, after Nathan the prophet told him that the child would die. But after the child died, David stopped mourning, and said, "I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me."

In the NT, there are verses like Matthew 18:10 and Matthew 19:14.

What are the alternatives? We have these options:

1) All children are automatically forgiven for their sins and saved by the grace of God. At some point though, they must pass from the previous state of being covered by God's mercy to being accountable and needing to believe in Christ. This is the "age of accountability" position.

2) All children are automatically lost (or at least they go to "limbo" if they die), unless something else happens - i.e., infant baptism. So according to this, children have to be baptized to be saved, and it doesn't matter whether the parents are believers or unbelievers - children still receive grace & forgiveness through baptism. Quote from Augustine: "When children are presented to be given spiritual grace, it is not so much those holding them in their arms who present them—although, if these people are good Christians, they are included among those who present the children—as the whole company of saints and faithful Christians." So the parents' faith is not a factor - just the baptism.

3) Or, some are automatically lost and some are automatically saved. There are actually two positions under this one:

3a) Household salvation - children are automatically saved by being born to Christian parents. This is usually connected closely to infant baptism, as the parents are expected to have the children baptized as the sign that they are in the covenant; this is actually similar to (2), but the difference is that they are saved not so much by baptism itself, as by the faith of their parents.

3b) Some children are unconditionally predestined for salvation, and some for damnation. I think most people who hold this position don't hold it very strongly, saying it could be like this, and rejecting other positions by saying we can't know for sure. It's a Calvinist position, but a lot of Calvinists would hold to one of the other positions instead.

Unless you want to be some kind of Calvinist-Anabaptist, the only option for the Anabaptist is (1). Scripturally, that's the only option.

I think Calvinist Baptists usually accept the age of accountability - see MacArthur or Mohler. And some who baptize infants still believe in the age of accountability anyway.
There would actually be another view as well, that children of saved parents/parent is sanctified. A blending of sorts with number 1 but conditional on the parents.
0 x
Soloist, but I hate singing alone
Soloist, but my wife posts with me
Soloist, but I believe in community
Soloist, but I want God in the pilot seat
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23823
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Baptism and the Age of Accountability

Post by Josh »

One is certainly baffled to understand how infants and stillborns of non-believing parents go to hell but those of believing parents go to heaven.

What about adoptions? Or unknown paternity?
0 x
Soloist
Posts: 5495
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 4:49 pm
Affiliation: CM Seeker

Re: Baptism and the Age of Accountability

Post by Soloist »

Josh wrote:One is certainly baffled to understand how infants and stillborns of non-believing parents go to hell but those of believing parents go to heaven.

What about adoptions? Or unknown paternity?
1 Cor 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
Take it for what you will, but this is partly why I would wonder. That being said, I don't know either way
0 x
Soloist, but I hate singing alone
Soloist, but my wife posts with me
Soloist, but I believe in community
Soloist, but I want God in the pilot seat
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Baptism and the Age of Accountability

Post by Valerie »

ken_sylvania wrote:If we let the "early church fathers" over-ride what the Bible actually says, and if we are willing to argue away what the Bible says by saying it only applied to a specific time and culture, we can pretty much discard the entire Bible. Then what is the point of Christianity?
Youre assuming the apostles wrote every detail about baptism down. But the Apostle Paul explicitly stated there were oral & written traditions. If Scripture alone was clear, I wouldnt see so much variety about baptism among Anabaptists and this thread probably wouldnt have been necessary if it was so clear by Scripture alone. If whole households were baptized at once, and it didnt say except infants & children, thenpeople assume these various passages were whole households full of adults
0 x
MattY
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 5:36 pm
Location: Ohio
Affiliation: Beachy
Contact:

Re: Baptism and the Age of Accountability

Post by MattY »

ken_sylvania wrote:If we let the "early church fathers" over-ride what the Bible actually says, and if we are willing to argue away what the Bible says by saying it only applied to a specific time and culture, we can pretty much discard the entire Bible. Then what is the point of Christianity?
I agree. Actually, if I just went by the argument from history alone, I'd probably support infant baptism. The transition to infant baptism appears to have happened shockingly early (Origen, born to Christian parents around 185 and taught by them, was probably baptized as an infant and said that it was an apostolic teaching; taking him to be an honest man, the shift must have happened earlier and been mostly complete by then) and with little opposition that we have record of - certainly no vehement opposition on the level of the Anabaptists. It was probably brought on by an even earlier shift to baptismal regeneration, which can be seen in mid-second century writings like Justin Martyr (and there were hints of it earlier in the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas, but not clearly). People who thought of baptism that way probably didn't see a big problem with baptizing little children, so that could explain the lack of resistance.

But I disagree with infant baptism because of biblical teaching about baptism.
0 x
Almighty, most holy God
Faithful through the ages
Almighty, most holy Lord
Glorious, almighty God
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23823
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Baptism and the Age of Accountability

Post by Josh »

Valerie wrote:
ken_sylvania wrote:If we let the "early church fathers" over-ride what the Bible actually says, and if we are willing to argue away what the Bible says by saying it only applied to a specific time and culture, we can pretty much discard the entire Bible. Then what is the point of Christianity?
Youre assuming the apostles wrote every detail about baptism down. But the Apostle Paul explicitly stated there were oral & written traditions. If Scripture alone was clear, I wouldnt see so much variety about baptism among Anabaptists and this thread probably wouldnt have been necessary if it was so clear by Scripture alone. If whole households were baptized at once, and it didnt say except infants & children, thenpeople assume these various passages were whole households full of adults
So if the scripture isn't our authority than what is?
0 x
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Baptism and the Age of Accountability

Post by Valerie »

Josh wrote:
Valerie wrote:
ken_sylvania wrote:If we let the "early church fathers" over-ride what the Bible actually says, and if we are willing to argue away what the Bible says by saying it only applied to a specific time and culture, we can pretty much discard the entire Bible. Then what is the point of Christianity?
Youre assuming the apostles wrote every detail about baptism down. But the Apostle Paul explicitly stated there were oral & written traditions. If Scripture alone was clear, I wouldnt see so much variety about baptism among Anabaptists and this thread probably wouldnt have been necessary if it was so clear by Scripture alone. If whole households were baptized at once, and it didnt say except infants & children, thenpeople assume these various passages were whole households full of adults
So if the scripture isn't our authority than what is?
There were oral & written traditions passed down- and the Church had the authority given to the Apostles, by Jesus-
But Scripture doesn't teach against infant baptism, or children of a baptized parent, being baptized- to those who believe in infant baptism, they have scriptures that they support it with- but since we have no documented evidence of someone rising up all of a sudden in the Church and advising to baptize infants, & we see it being talked about early on in Church history- and we read that these were not someone's idea- but their statements were that the Apostles taught it- then it seems to me from having trying to gain more understanding about all this- is that the burden of proof, if that is necessary, lies with those to say it was not done- because clearly it was the tradition of the Church- and did the Church have authority at that time? If the Apostles were the ones who taught to do this? Even if they didn't realize the Lord would tarry, and tarry so long that in the 15th century people depending on Scripture alone would need to 'read' proof of this?
If Children of saved parents were considered 'holy' that may have been because they were baptized and prayed to receive the Holy Spirit, became part of the Church instead of 'outside' then raised and nurtured in the fear of the Lord to remain in the faith.

1 Timothy 3:15King James Version (KJV)

15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
0 x
Post Reply