Do Anabaptists still object to infant baptism?

[Praxis+Theodicy]

Speaking as someone who was baptized at 10 and at 38 years old, baptism is still mostly a secondary issue for me. I could see myself communing with infant baptizers. I understand their theology and the conclusions they come to. My objection is mostly based on the results of infant baptism practiced on a large scale. It creates a meaningless church that stands for nothing. But if I'm being honest, a lot of things (potentially) do the same thing, and that doesn't make me want to get rid of them; it makes me want to practice them with more care, sobriety, and intentionality.

I care a lot more about how someone sees Jesus and His commandments and the implications of them for the Christian life, than I do about mode or subject of baptism.

At core, I think baptism is an action the church takes; and the church ought to carefully consider how it administers this action. But lots of churches do some things "wrong". I don't think their lamps are necessarily going to be put out because they sprinkled instead of poured, or they misjudged a person's conversion and baptized an unregenerate person, or because they read the Bible and concluded that the gift of entrance into the Kingdom through baptism is for believers "and your children". I also don't think such a person who is baptized in a covenantal Christian family setting is just shy of achieving salvation either. I think God honors our efforts more than our achievements. Our attempts are more important than whether or not we "get it right" or make mistakes.

My personal practice of baptism, and one I would try to influence in my church, is that the church should administer baptism to someone who has changed their allegiance from sin, self, and the powers and principalities of the world, to allegiance in Jesus Christ and his eternal Kingdom. But my larger perspective, my theological perspective, is that household baptism (read: infant baptism) is "improper but not invalid".

[Praxis+Theodicy]

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.

Hard disagree (with the phrase I added emphasis to). But I don't think this psalm is a proper weapon for either side of this argument in any case.

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?

This somewhat-recent video by Religion for Breakfast is a fairly unbiased source for examining the evidence of baptism subjects in the early church. By "unbiased", be warned that RFB is not a Christian scholar, but an unbiased academic scholar who does not have a theological or hermetutical outlook to drive his conclusions.

[Valerie]

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?

If you google “Early Church Fathers saying the Apostles taught infant baptism” you can pull some links up that has quotes like Origen- then you can read more on it from there.
I first read in my Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs by David Bercot comments that made me realize it was at least practiced in the first centuries. It seems they didn’t need to write much about it but it definitely was not something that all of a sudden started after the 3rd century and then a memo went out to all churches worldwide to start doing this.
I “understand” why they do, if they are those born to Believers- and they are immediately added to the church, and brought up as Christians. I don’t think Origen lied that the Apostles taught it- but since he lived between 184 & 253 AD when the statement was made, apparently it was passed down to him-

[Ernie]

My personal practice of baptism, and one I would try to influence in my church, is that the church should administer baptism to someone who has changed their allegiance from sin, self, and the powers and principalities of the world, to allegiance in Jesus Christ and his eternal Kingdom. But my larger perspective, my theological perspective, is that household baptism (read: infant baptism) is "improper but not invalid".

I still object to infant baptism as the OP questions asks.
I believe that forced infant baptism, teaching that infant baptism is a necessary or legitimate baptism, or pressuring parents to baptize their infants is an abomination.
If infant baptism is done in ignorance, I am not certain it is an abomination. I believe it is both improper and invalid, as I believe that it is necessary that those baptized as infants must be rebaptized as believers. Which makes me... well... I guess... a rebaptizer or an Anabaptist.

[Valerie]

My personal practice of baptism, and one I would try to influence in my church, is that the church should administer baptism to someone who has changed their allegiance from sin, self, and the powers and principalities of the world, to allegiance in Jesus Christ and his eternal Kingdom. But my larger perspective, my theological perspective, is that household baptism (read: infant baptism) is "improper but not invalid".

I still object to infant baptism as the OP questions asks.
I believe that forced infant baptism, teaching that infant baptism is a necessary or legitimate baptism, or pressuring parents to baptize their infants is an abomination.
If infant baptism is done in ignorance, I am not certain it is an abomination. I believe it is both improper and invalid, as I believe that it is necessary that those baptized as infants must be rebaptized as believers. Which makes me... well... I guess... a rebaptizer or an Anabaptist.

As are most Protestants- I think the exceptions would be Presbyterians, Lutherans, not sure of others. I’ve seen debates (friendly) between Presbyterians and other Protestants (which I guess would be Anabaptist going by that definition). I went to church since I was 15 with many that were re-baptized having come from Catholic Chuch. My husband was RE baptized having been baptized as an infant.

I will say one of the most beautiful services I’ve been to was at an Orthodox Church where an infant was baptized. Fully submerged, didn’t even cry, and then prayed over to receive the Grace of Holy Spirit. I watched this family grow and their children amazed me- however I also knew plenty who were baptized as infants and did not stay the course I’ve seen both cases having been involved with many people from the Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox Church. Kind of like circumcision in the Jewish tradition because one was circumcised as a baby, and therefore part of the elect from the beginning, that did not mean they stayed faithful.

[JohnH]

In New Testament times, baptism was also known as miqvah, part of a Jewish purification ceremony which involved washing of the body, or else ritually having water poured on one's self. This was typically started at age 12, the traditional Jewish age of adulthood. (This is still practiced today in many Jewish communities and known as bar mitzvah.)

It would have been eminently reasonable for a person who appears such as a prophet - someone like John the Baptist - calling people to repentance and to being "baptized", that is, re-purified. This was not something infants would have done, but rather something undertaken by adults (again, keeping in mind age 12 and up were considered adults.)

Jesus appeared and first sought the baptism of John, teaching us the importance of a "baptism of repentance". But then he taught us we should baptize one another, and the apostles today teach us this in Acts 2:

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".

So we learn that:

- We should baptise in the name of Jesus. (This can be said as "the name of the Son", or also said as "in the name of Jesus". It is Christian tradition to also say "the name of the Father" and "the name of the Holy Ghost".)
- It says "for the forgiveness of sins". When we are baptised, we are assured Jesus has forgiven us of our sins. An infant baby hasn't sinned and doesn't need forgiven of anything.
- Then the promise appears: "you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit". There is no need to worry anymore whether a believer has the Holy Spirit or not. It is a promise granted to every baptised believer.

But all of what I typed above is nonsensical if applied to infants.

[Ernie]

- We should baptise in the name of Jesus. (This can be said as "the name of the Son", or also said as "in the name of Jesus". It is Christian tradition to also say "the name of the Father" and "the name of the Holy Ghost".)

It is way more than Christian tradition.

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,

[JohnH]

- We should baptise in the name of Jesus. (This can be said as "the name of the Son", or also said as "in the name of Jesus". It is Christian tradition to also say "the name of the Father" and "the name of the Holy Ghost".)

It is way more than Christian tradition.

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,

Yes. However Paul also said to baptize in Jesus’ name . So either is acceptable.

[barnhart]

My objection is mostly based on the results of infant baptism practiced on a large scale. It creates a meaningless church that stands for nothing. But if I'm being honest, a lot of things (potentially) do the same thing, and that doesn't make me want to get rid of them; it makes me want to practice them with more care, sobriety, and intentionality.

I agree. Another practice that Anabaptists are often more comfortable with but I would put in the same category is utilizing social pressure to push people into the church.

I care a lot more about how someone sees Jesus and His commandments and the implications of them for the Christian life, than I do about mode or subject of baptism....

At core, I think baptism is an action the church takes; and the church ought to carefully consider how it administers this action. But lots of churches do some things "wrong". I don't think their lamps are necessarily going to be put out because they sprinkled instead of poured, or they misjudged a person's conversion and baptized an unregenerate person, or because they read the Bible and concluded that the gift of entrance into the Kingdom through baptism is for believers "and your children". I also don't think such a person who is baptized in a covenantal Christian family setting is just shy of achieving salvation either...

My personal practice of baptism, and one I would try to influence in my church, is that the church should administer baptism to someone who has changed their allegiance from sin, self, and the powers and principalities of the world, to allegiance in Jesus Christ and his eternal Kingdom...

I agree with this. My experience is that people who were baptized as infants and later become followers of Jesus naturally ask for believers baptism. I've never faced a case where they felt no need.

[Neto]

I see something rather more "mysterious" in baptism than to say that "an individual chooses to accept it, and the church does it, i.e., performs the actual deeper event". I think that it is something that a repentant person acknowledges the need for (based on the commands of Jesus, and the Scripture), and that God Himself does (with the cooperation, i.e., obedience of the candidate and the congregation). But then I am one who readily accepts the existence of mystery in many areas of Christian faith. (Perhaps somewhat of a 'mystic', to the extent that I do all I can to avoid adding to Scriptural teaching in order to 'systematize' true doctrine, or to humanly speaking 'make it make sense'.)