Do Anabaptists still object to infant baptism?

[barnhart]

My reformed friend argues that we treat children like they are saved, that is we disciple them in the Lord etc, so in essence, even if we dont baptize our babies, we act just as we would if we did. So therefore, baptize.

Interesting thought. Most of the things I do to encourage the faith of my children, I also do in one way or another with people who don't believe, offer to pray with them, talk about things I am learning from the scriptures and how they apply to my life. Maybe he is right, I do believe children are safe in God's mercy.

But the reason Anabaptists exist is because the scriptures say, "Believe, call on the Lord, repent, receive His word, confess Jesus as Lord, and be baptized. Then walk in newness of life." No matter how you frame it, those who stick with the text don't know how to get around this clear teaching. Rationalizations did not work for them in the 1500's and they still don't today for most Anabaptists, on this particular topic.

I agree. Where I might differ from the reformed folk is the definition of "saved". That's why I substituted the word safe.

[Neto]

Interesting thought. Most of the things I do to encourage the faith of my children, I also do in one way or another with people who don't believe, offer to pray with them, talk about things I am learning from the scriptures and how they apply to my life. Maybe he is right, I do believe children are safe in God's mercy.

But the reason Anabaptists exist is because the scriptures say, "Believe, call on the Lord, repent, receive His word, confess Jesus as Lord, and be baptized. Then walk in newness of life." No matter how you frame it, those who stick with the text don't know how to get around this clear teaching. Rationalizations did not work for them in the 1500's and they still don't today for most Anabaptists, on this particular topic.

I agree. Where I might differ from the reformed folk is the definition of "saved". That's why I substituted the word safe.

They are 'safe' because they are not 'of the age of accountability'. [See the Romans passage where Paul contrasts 'the first Adam' (Adam himself) and 'the second Adam' (Christ). All are doomed to death through the first Adam, and all are saved through the second Adam. Not everyone understands him this way, but I suspect he is talking about the sin/condemnation that came upon every descendant of Adam; that the death of Christ 'before the foundation of the world', then physically fulfilled on earth at his crucifixion takes care of that 'death sentence', so that no one suffers condemnation for the sin of someone else.]

[ken_sylvania]

What do you consider adulthood?

In the 20 range. (By Father I mean God).

If they go against me and be baptized clearly they are ready to forsake father and mother and be baptized so I wouldn't fight them. I advise them only. From my perspective it made the baptism of my son a more thoughtful and meaningful experience than was mine as low teenager who went to instruction class with all the other boys in the church my age, even though I was sincere.

I was baptized in the Pacific Ocean at age 15. My sister was 12. I know we went from darkness to light and had the understanding clear. She stayed the course, went on to lead others to Christ, was working on a suicide prevention hotline at 17 then went on to be a missionary in Amsterdam. I had some backslidden years myself nonetheless our baptism and what it meant to us changed our lives. I respect your reasons I just see it all differently. If in Acts it’s reported that whole households got baptized, I’m not believing the households were all adults.

Yes, I'm sure the babies believed with all their hearts.....

[Southerner]

What do you consider adulthood?

In the 20 range. (By Father I mean God).

If they go against me and be baptized clearly they are ready to forsake father and mother and be baptized so I wouldn't fight them. I advise them only. From my perspective it made the baptism of my son a more thoughtful and meaningful experience than was mine as low teenager who went to instruction class with all the other boys in the church my age, even though I was sincere.

She stayed the course, went on to lead others to Christ, was working on a suicide prevention hotline at 17 then went on to be a missionary in Amsterdam.

I would not want any of my children doing either at that age. Amsterdam...a very wicked place! The suicide line is noble but not at 17.

[JohnH]

I would not want any of my children doing either at that age. Amsterdam...a very wicked place! The suicide line is noble but not at 17.

That was in a prior era (1970s I'm guessing), back before we infantilized people who are age 17 and treated them like children.

My grandpa was busy working full time by the time he was 12. Got married at 18 and my grandma was 16, in the middle of the Depression. Somehow they managed to do just fine with very grown up responsibilities.

[singitagain]

Would it be unreasonable to consider the possibility that, in the accounts where a household was baptized, even if infants were present, that the baptism was applied to those who were able to believe in their hearts? We may speak of a people group, such as a state, or an ethnicity, doing something when we do not necessarily mean every last individual. How small can the people group be before we must take it in a woodenly literal sense?

[Neto]

Would it be unreasonable to consider the possibility that, in the accounts where a household was baptized, even if infants were present, that the baptism was applied to those who were able to believe in their hearts? We may speak of a people group, such as a state, or an ethnicity, doing something when we do not necessarily mean every last individual. How small can the people group be before we must take it in a woodenly literal sense?

This generalization is, in fact, very common in the New Testament. For example, many times the Gospel writes say "The Jews" did so-and-so, or replied to Jesus, saying ..., when in fact, Jesus was ALSO a Jew, as were his disciples. So obviously not ALL of the Jews were doing or saying this. (Plus, there were many other Jews, some who may have felt the same way, but were NOT included, because they weren't even there!)

[Valerie]

In the 20 range. (By Father I mean God).

If they go against me and be baptized clearly they are ready to forsake father and mother and be baptized so I wouldn't fight them. I advise them only. From my perspective it made the baptism of my son a more thoughtful and meaningful experience than was mine as low teenager who went to instruction class with all the other boys in the church my age, even though I was sincere.

I was baptized in the Pacific Ocean at age 15. My sister was 12. I know we went from darkness to light and had the understanding clear. She stayed the course, went on to lead others to Christ, was working on a suicide prevention hotline at 17 then went on to be a missionary in Amsterdam. I had some backslidden years myself nonetheless our baptism and what it meant to us changed our lives. I respect your reasons I just see it all differently. If in Acts it’s reported that whole households got baptized, I’m not believing the households were all adults.

Yes, I'm sure the babies believed with all their hearts.....

What does this passage mean? psalm 8:2:
New King James Version
Out of the mouth of babes and nursing infants You have ordained strength, Because of Your enemies, That You may silence the enemy and the avenger.
Jesus used the faith of Children as an example. I can’t say I know all the reasons why the early church baptized, their infants, but there seems to be evidence in the belief that they did. My first 40 years of being a Christian it was dead said against in baptism. I’ve learned a lot of things later in life that made me see I may not have been taught everything correctly. I didn’t realize 2 Thessalonians 2:15 meant there were “oral” teachings, not everything was written down when the early church was started, but you can find quotes from early church writers and fathers of the faith who give you a window into the practice of the early church. So I’m gonna be careful in assuming here.

I just know Scripture teaches whole households were baptized, AND Jesus view of the faith of little ones seems clear.

I do know, wherever the Apistles took the Gospel in the world and started Churches, infant baptism was “the norm”. Whether in the east (which we know as Eastern Orthodox) or the West (as in Roman Catholic) babies of Christian parents were baptized and added to the church.
You can read early Church fathers writings about it and Origen said “the Apostles TAUGHT this. They didn’t make it up later, which is why all Churches started by the Apostles to this day practice this.

[Valerie]

I would not want any of my children doing either at that age. Amsterdam...a very wicked place! The suicide line is noble but not at 17.

That was in a prior era (1970s I'm guessing), back before we infantilized people who are age 17 and treated them like children.

My grandpa was busy working full time by the time he was 12. Got married at 18 and my grandma was 16, in the middle of the Depression. Somehow they managed to do just fine with very grown up responsibilities.

Yes absolutely true. God gave my sister maturity and wisdom very young & so she was able to handle both callings. After she came back from Amsterdam she went to college to get her degree as an ESL teacher to then go to Northern Africa as a missionary which was a dangerous area- however she married.

I agree people “used to be” more mature at 17 than these days. My mom shares the responsibilities she had as a child and I am amazed.

Think about this: Mary is said to have been in her teens when she gave birth to Jesus-we are in the Advent season-
Read Mary’s words in Luke 1.

[barnhart]

What does this passage mean? psalm 8:2:
New King James Version
Out of the mouth of babes and nursing infants You have ordained strength, Because of Your enemies, That You may silence the enemy and the avenger.
Jesus used the faith of Children as an example. I can’t say I know all the reasons why the early church baptized, their infants, but there seems to be evidence in the belief that they did.

Psalm eight seems to suggests that young children who can talk are capable of praising God which is the meaning Jesus took from it as well. The Anabaptist argument for believers baptism does not contest this point, either way it is referring to children old enough to speak intelligently.

I didn’t realize 2 Thessalonians 2:15 meant there were “oral” teachings, not everything was written down when the early church was started, but you can find quotes from early church writers and fathers of the faith who give you a window into the practice of the early church. So I’m gonna be careful in assuming here.

This is a good approach, especially the last sentence. The early church was not unified in everything so you can find stray quotes that appear to support infant baptism, but you can also find quotes to make a case against it.

I do know, wherever the Apistles took the Gospel in the world and started Churches, infant baptism was “the norm”. Whether in the east (which we know as Eastern Orthodox) or the West (as in Roman Catholic) babies of Christian parents were baptized and added to the church.

I think this statement is true if you skip all the evidence that suggests believers baptism was commonly practiced in the first several centuries and skip the centuries when the church was a minority in society and had no official sanction and skip ahead to the point where church authority had been mixed with the power of imperial Rome, then yes infant baptism was a common practice of the church states to solidify the bond between church membership and secular citizenship.

You can read early Church fathers writings about it and Origen said “the Apostles TAUGHT this. They didn’t make it up later, which is why all Churches started by the Apostles to this day practice this.

This is interesting. I would like to know more. Can you direct me to where I can find this in its context?