Why Some Churches Practice Infant Baptism and others do not.

[ken_sylvania]

For the record, I never said believers baptism was a later invention. Neither does Rome. Neither does Eastern Orthodox. The Ancient Churches have always believed in both believers baptism of converts, and also, baptizing children and infants of believers. It's not either or- it's been both.

The claim that the Church has always believed in baptizing infants is wholly without proof. There is not one scintilla of evidence within the regularly accepted canon of Scripture to prove that the early Church baptized infants.

The Roman Catholic Church does not practice Believers Baptism. They sometimes baptize believers, but that is not the same as practicing Believers Baptism.

There is also no biblical proof in the 'canon of Scripture' of anyone being baptised in water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. There is, however, scriptural evidence that people were baptised in Jesus name. Just saying, various practises have become a norm that are not literally backed up by them occuring in scripture.

Regarding baptism of infants I have often heard this text used - Acts 16:33 - And he took them the same hour of the night and bathed [them because of their bloody] wounds, and he was baptized immediately and all [the members of] his [household]. AMP. Some believe this leaves the door open for children in the household to have been baptised. Pretty weak support in my opinion.

Yes, that argument is used. But then those same people don't want to talk about Acts 10:2 (Cornelius, along with his whole household, feared God), or Acts 18:8 (Crispus believed in the Lord together with his entire household).

[Sudsy]

The claim that the Church has always believed in baptizing infants is wholly without proof. There is not one scintilla of evidence within the regularly accepted canon of Scripture to prove that the early Church baptized infants.

The Roman Catholic Church does not practice Believers Baptism. They sometimes baptize believers, but that is not the same as practicing Believers Baptism.

There is also no biblical proof in the 'canon of Scripture' of anyone being baptised in water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. There is, however, scriptural evidence that people were baptised in Jesus name. Just saying, various practises have become a norm that are not literally backed up by them occuring in scripture.

Regarding baptism of infants I have often heard this text used - Acts 16:33 - And he took them the same hour of the night and bathed [them because of their bloody] wounds, and he was baptized immediately and all [the members of] his [household]. AMP. Some believe this leaves the door open for children in the household to have been baptised. Pretty weak support in my opinion.

Yes, that argument is used. But then those same people don't want to talk about Acts 10:2 (Cornelius, along with his whole household, feared God), or Acts 18:8 (Crispus believed in the Lord together with his entire household).

Here is a Catholic site with more scriptures they use regarding 'extending grace' to others and why babies need to be baptised. I found this interesting -
https://www.simplycatholic.com/why-bapt ... s%20behalf.

[Valerie]

It's one thing to promote a church that did evil things in the past but does not do evil today. I can see why a person might do this even though it is still very wrong.

It is quite another thing to promote a church that is currently doing evil. There is no excuse for this at all and it is abominable.

I might understand promoting Orthodoxy for other attributes, like scholarship or charity but holding them up as an example of unity while they are killing each other in the name of Jesus is beyond reason.

I am not promoting Orthodoxy. The challenge was to discuss modes of baptism and Catholicism has been attacked a lot lately. My support for what their earliest practices are have nothing to do with whatever evil has crept in. That does not dismiss the fact that wherever the Church was started by the Apostles, infant baptism was the norm an is 2000 years later. It also does not dismiss the fact that early Church writers said the Apostles taught to do so. If you cannot trust the Church that canonized the Bible you study you obviously think it fell from the sky or something.

God gave the Jews the Old Covenant, commandments, ordinances. Yet through the centuries evil kings and atrocities took place but they still are the ,"root" of our Christian faith. I was like all of you not believing in infant baptism but I can't help now but to believe in both that and believers baptism.

I honestly don't understand how Scripturally you've arrived at "pouring" as a mode but it is your "tradition" as well as Trinitarian. Menno Simmons had some theology you don't agree with.
Try not to get so angry.

[Valerie]

I appreciate the honesty of the Orthodox commentary when they use the word "presumably" in their defense of infant baptism.

And circumcision not analogous, because only boys are circumcised.

I am waiting for the contention that the EO church had not split. They have, and I have examples.

The point of Paul was not about gender, it was about baptism compared to circumcision if you read the passage- so for the Apostles they naturally included infants and children to be baptized. Not leave them out.

The Church dis not start out with a new testament, it was going strong before the New Testament was compiled. The Scripture they read was all Old Testament.

[Josh]

Why doesn’t the NT say a peep about infant baptism then?

[Bootstrap]

Why doesn’t the NT say a peep about infant baptism then?

Didn't need to. Why didn't it say a peep about pouring?

FWIW, I'm not terribly comfortable with pouring either. Or sprinkling. But I do believe there are solid Christians who disagree with me on all these things.

As Josh notes, there's no mention of infant baptism in the NT. To see if NT baptism could be applied to infants anyway, I think it's helpful to look at the reasons the NT gives for baptism. Which of these reasons makes sense for infants? This summary was created with ChatGPT, feel free to point out where it got anything wrong, it looks good to me at first blush.

1. For the forgiveness of sins:
- Acts 2:38 - "Peter replied, '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.'"
This verse links baptism with repentance and the forgiveness of sins, suggesting that baptism is a step towards being cleansed of sin.

2. To follow Jesus' example:
- Matthew 3:13-17 - "Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. But John tried to deter him, saying, 'I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?' Jesus replied, 'Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.' Then John consented."
Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist serves as a model for believers to follow, demonstrating obedience and righteousness.

3. As a public declaration of faith:
- Romans 6:3-4 - "Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life."
Baptism is symbolically associated with dying to one's old self and rising to a new life in Christ, signifying the believer's faith in Jesus' death and resurrection.

4. To receive the Holy Spirit:
- Acts 19:4-6 - "Paul said, 'John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.' On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied."
This passage highlights that baptism in Jesus' name is linked with receiving the Holy Spirit, marking the believer's full inclusion into the Christian community.

5. As an act of obedience to Jesus' command:
- Matthew 28:19-20 - "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
Baptism is part of the Great Commission, where Jesus commands His followers to baptize disciples, underscoring it as an act of obedience to His teachings.

6. To belong to the body of Christ (the Church):
- 1 Corinthians 12:13 - "For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink."
This verse emphasizes the unifying aspect of baptism, where believers are spiritually joined into one body, the Church, regardless of their background.

[Bootstrap]

As for the history of infant baptism, I think the following is true:

1. The NT does not mention infant baptism. The reasons given for baptism do not seem to apply to infants.
2. The Apostolic Fathers do not mention infant baptism.
3. Infant baptism is first mentioned around 180 AD.

I don't consider the early fathers authoritative, I see them as a way to see how views evolved over time. For those who do, I think Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, and the Council of Carthage are authorities before Constantine and Nicea who support infant baptism. I think it's inconsistent to consider these writings authoritative for practices Anabaptists affirm but not for practices we do not affirm.

A quick GPT summary ...

1. Irenaeus (c. 130–202): In his work "Against Heresies" (c. 180 AD), Irenaeus mentions that Jesus came to save all through himself; all, he says, who through him are born again to God—infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. This passage is often interpreted as implying the practice of infant baptism, although it does not explicitly mention baptism.

2. Tertullian (c. 155–240): Tertullian, writing in "On Baptism" around 200 AD, is the first Christian writer to explicitly discuss infant baptism. He advises against the practice, which indicates that it was occurring in his time. Tertullian's opposition suggests that the practice of baptizing infants was known and debated in the early Christian community.

3. Origen (c. 185–254): Origen, in his commentaries written in the early 3rd century, provides some of the clearest early references to infant baptism. In his Commentary on Romans, he mentions that the practice of baptizing infants was inherited from the Apostles. Origen's writings indicate that by his time, infant baptism was a well-established practice in at least some parts of the Christian world.

4. The Council of Carthage (253 AD): A council held in Carthage in 253 AD addressed the question of how soon after birth a child could be baptized. This council, which involved more than 60 bishops, did not question whether infants could be baptized but rather when, specifically how soon after birth. The existence of this discussion suggests that infant baptism was widely practiced by this time.

5. Cyprian (c. 200–258): The decision of the Council of Carthage was supported by Cyprian, the Bishop of Carthage, who advocated for infant baptism to be performed as soon as possible after birth. His letters indicate that the practice was accepted among his colleagues and the Christian communities in his area.

[Bootstrap]

FWIW, I think the ancient church is the church of the New Testament, that is where we can read about it.

Later Fathers had significant disagreement about many things. The later church considered some of their teaching heretical after Nicea. But no real church considers the New Testament heretical.

There were real changes in the time of Nicea at the command of Constantine.

[barnhart]

It's one thing to promote a church that did evil things in the past but does not do evil today. I can see why a person might do this even though it is still very wrong.

It is quite another thing to promote a church that is currently doing evil. There is no excuse for this at all and it is abominable.

I might understand promoting Orthodoxy for other attributes, like scholarship or charity but holding them up as an example of unity while they are killing each other in the name of Jesus is beyond reason.

I am not promoting Orthodoxy. The challenge was to discuss modes of baptism and Catholicism has been attacked a lot lately. My support for what their earliest practices are have nothing to do with whatever evil has crept in. That does not dismiss the fact that wherever the Church was started by the Apostles, infant baptism was the norm an is 2000 years later. It also does not dismiss the fact that early Church writers said the Apostles taught to do so. If you cannot trust the Church that canonized the Bible you study you obviously think it fell from the sky or something.

God gave the Jews the Old Covenant, commandments, ordinances. Yet through the centuries evil kings and atrocities took place but they still are the ,"root" of our Christian faith. I was like all of you not believing in infant baptism but I can't help now but to believe in both that and believers baptism.

I honestly don't understand how Scripturally you've arrived at "pouring" as a mode but it is your "tradition" as well as Trinitarian. Menno Simmons had some theology you don't agree with.
Try not to get so angry.

I feel shame that you find me to be angry and I truly apologize for that.

[Ernie]

A thread to discuss...

Why some churches practice infant baptism and others do not.