Infant Baptism

[Bono]

My defense of Infant Baptism can be easily summed up in six points:

1st God entered into a covenant with Abraham. This covenant was the Covenant of Grace. In it, God established a visible, discernable, body of people that would be his peculiar possession (Genesis 17).

2nd This body of people, the nation of Israel, was in fact the Church in Old Testament times.

3rd In those times, the sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace was circumcision. This ceremonial rite was administered as a rite of initiation into the membership of the Church (Genesis 17:10, 11). This outward circumcision of the flesh was symbolic of spiritual circumcision of the heart, or regeneration.

4th The Church was explicitly commanded to administer this rite of initiation to their infants.

5th In New Testament times, God having removed the shedding of blood from our worship, has replaced circumcision as the sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace with baptism. This outward washing speaks of inward cleansing and renewing of the Spirit, in short, regeneration. Both credo- and paedo-baptists agree that this is now the ceremonial rite of initiation into Church membership.

6th Throughout Old Testament times, the Church was required to administer the sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace to their infants, and thus receive them into Church membership. And so, unless it can be shown from scripture that our Lord or his Apostles purged the Church of infants, or barred Church membership to Gentile babies that had long been granted to Jewish babies, we must assume that the obligation to receive them through the rite of initiation still exists. For, just as we cannot add to the command of the Lord, neither can we diminish from it.

Thus, we should Baptize children of believing parents. I think these six points make that conclusion inescapable. If anyone wants to challenge any of them, I'm up.

[Ebowed]

The real question is whether it is ethical to assume that the infant would like to have the same religion as his parents.

Raising the child in a religion is different than putting him through ceremonies which, depending on his views, might have eternal consequences.

[afleitch]

My parents defence of infant baptism was that I was close to death when I was born. That was back of course before 'limbo' was formally abolished by the Church (of course the Church was still infallible despite changing it's mind ) It was also habitual, as most infant baptisms are. My concern is with confirmation. I was confirmed at 11, which is far too young to formally make the choice whether or not you wish to remain Catholic.

[J. J.]

I regard sacraments as a gift.  We can get gifts without asking.

[Bono]

I regard sacraments as a gift.  We can get gifts without asking.

According to this loogic, we might as well start whipping out paedocommunion...

[J. J.]

I regard sacraments as a gift.  We can get gifts without asking.

According to this loogic, we might as well start whipping out paedocommunion...

It sounds reasonable to me.  I would support many of the sacramental rights for infants.

[Alcon]

Out of curiosity, are there any religions that reject the baptized?

Not that I'd dare make a remotely relativist arugment in the presence of Vasco.  ()

[J. J.]

Out of curiosity, are there any religions that reject the baptized?

Not that I'd dare make a remotely relativist arugment in the presence of Vasco.  ()

Some insist on adult Baptism and some consider immersion the only valid form.

[Alcon]

Out of curiosity, are there any religions that reject the baptized?

Not that I'd dare make a remotely relativist arugment in the presence of Vasco.  ()

Some insist on adult Baptism and some consider immersion the only valid form.

No, I'm asking if there are religions who will reject the baptized upfront.  That is, believe that they cannot be "saved."

As much as I'm not a fan of the concept of claiming or marking someone as a member of a religion before the age of rationality, I don't see any real argument against it if the answer is "no."

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The real question is whether it is ethical to assume that the infant would like to have the same religion as his parents.

No more than raising the infant to speak a particular language.

[minionofmidas]

Out of curiosity, are there any religions that reject the baptized?

Not that I'd dare make a remotely relativist arugment in the presence of Vasco.  ()

Some insist on adult Baptism and some consider immersion the only valid form.

No, I'm asking if there are religions who will reject the baptized upfront.  That is, believe that they cannot be "saved."

Wouldn't that be fairly absurd? I mean, on what grounds? Certainly anyone rejecting infant rites of initiation does so mostly because he views them for absurd?

[Alcon]

Wouldn't that be fairly absurd? I mean, on what grounds? Certainly anyone rejecting infant rites of initiation does so mostly because he views them for absurd?

I'd think so, but I was just checking.

Outside of that, I agree with Al's analogy.  Besides, it's not as if the baptism itself (as opposed to being raised in the religion) has the primary effect on the child.

[J. J.]

Wouldn't that be fairly absurd? I mean, on what grounds? Certainly anyone rejecting infant rites of initiation does so mostly because he views them for absurd?

I'd think so, but I was just checking.

Outside of that, I agree with Al's analogy.  Besides, it's not as if the baptism itself (as opposed to being raised in the religion) has the primary effect on the child.

It is the baptism itself that, as a sacrament, has the effect.  It is the inward "grace" that is given.

[Alcon]

It is the baptism itself that, as a sacrament, has the effect.  It is the inward "grace" that is given.

I really do understand the concept of Baptism.  I was speaking for the secular standpoint to which Porce is alluding.  I understand that you believe the "internal grace" bit, but I was talking about the effect on the child's eventual, conscious choice of religion.  I don't really find anything interesting in speaking to "internal grace" because that's immeasurable, and assumes your foundation is theological, at which point the question becomes moot.  Or at least it becomes boring to me.  As I said, Bono presents an apparently irrefutable argument from his own fundamental belief.

[Josh/Devilman88]

You should only get baptized after you are saved. Therefore Infant Baptism to me is a waste of time.  Baptism is an out ward showing of what happen in your heart.

[Bono]

You should only get baptized after you are saved. Therefore Infant Baptism to me is a waste of time.  Baptism is an out ward showing of what happen in your heart.

Circumcision also was just symbolic of regeneration; and yet it was applied to infants.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Circumcision also was just symbolic of regeneration; and yet it was applied to infants.

there was regeneration in the old testament?  How so?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

My defense of Infant Baptism can be easily summed up in six points:

1st God entered into a covenant with Abraham. This covenant was the Covenant of Grace. In it, God established a visible, discernable, body of people that would be his peculiar possession (Genesis 17).

Actually, it was the Covenant of Circumcision, and the promises were given to Abraham and to his seed, which is Christ.

---

2nd This body of people, the nation of Israel, was in fact the Church in Old Testament times.

and how does that fact directly tie to infant baptism and not to faith?

---

3rd In those times, the sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace was circumcision. This ceremonial rite was administered as a rite of initiation into the membership of the Church (Genesis 17:10, 11). This outward circumcision of the flesh was symbolic of spiritual circumcision of the heart, or regeneration.

the New Testament explains that circumcision was symbolic of Holy Spirit's circumcision of the heart.  Therefore we have a link between circumcision and the work of the Holy Spirit.

---

4th The Church was explicitly commanded to administer this rite of initiation to their infants.

Which the New Testament says that is now carried out without human hands, which means it is the work of the Holy Spirit.

---

5th In New Testament times, God having removed the shedding of blood from our worship, has replaced circumcision as the sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace with baptism.

please cite book chapter and verse

---

This outward washing speaks of inward cleansing and renewing of the Spirit

actually, the new testament speaks of baptism in the context of a pledge of a good conscience towards God...something an infant can't do.

---

6th Throughout Old Testament times, the Church was required to administer the sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace to their infants, and thus receive them into Church membership. And so, unless it can be shown from scripture that our Lord or his Apostles purged the Church of infants, or barred Church membership to Gentile babies that had long been granted to Jewish babies, we must assume that the obligation to receive them through the rite of initiation still exists. For, just as we cannot add to the command of the Lord, neither can we diminish from it.

what?  the church didn't even ban unbelievers, much less those who had yet to be baptized!  they only banned those who claimed to be believers yet refused to repent.

[Bono]

My defense of Infant Baptism can be easily summed up in six points:

1st God entered into a covenant with Abraham. This covenant was the Covenant of Grace. In it, God established a visible, discernable, body of people that would be his peculiar possession (Genesis 17).

Actually, it was the Covenant of Circumcision, and the promises were given to Abraham and to his seed, which is Christ.

The sign of the covenant was circumcision, of course, but it was a graceful covenant. In Romans 4:16-17 Paul writes, “Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, As it is written, ‘I have made thee a father of many nations…’”  Here, the promise of the Abrahamic Covenant is salvation by grace thru faith. Paul repeats this thought in Galatians 3:8. “And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.” According to Paul, the Abrahamic Covenant was the gospel preached beforehand to Abraham. The fulfillment of the covenant promise, “In thee shall all nations be blessed,” is the justifying of the heathen by grace thru faith.


---

2nd This body of people, the nation of Israel, was in fact the Church in Old Testament times.

and how does that fact directly tie to infant baptism and not to faith?

Because if Israel was the CHurch of OT times, and if they admited infants to the Church through circumcision, then there is a clear argument that the NT church should accept them through baptism.

---

3rd In those times, the sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace was circumcision. This ceremonial rite was administered as a rite of initiation into the membership of the Church (Genesis 17:10, 11). This outward circumcision of the flesh was symbolic of spiritual circumcision of the heart, or regeneration.

the New Testament explains that circumcision was symbolic of Holy Spirit's circumcision of the heart.  Therefore we have a link between circumcision and the work of the Holy Spirit.

That's what I'm saying...

---

4th The Church was explicitly commanded to administer this rite of initiation to their infants.

Which the New Testament says that is now carried out without human hands, which means it is the work of the Holy Spirit.

You're confusing the symbol with the thing signified. Circumcision was symbolic of the work of the Holy Spirit in effecting regeneration, like Baptism is, but that doesn't mean circumcision effected regeration. It simply market entrance into the covenant community, the visible Church.

---

5th In New Testament times, God having removed the shedding of blood from our worship, has replaced circumcision as the sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace with baptism.

please cite book chapter and verse

Circumcision represents circumcision of the heart. A circumcised heart was a clean heart. Circumcised lips were pure lips. It speaks of faith, repentance and sanctification, in short regeneration. Paul said of Abraham’s circumcision, “… he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe… (Romans 4:11).” Now this sign which carried so much meaning and represented so many spiritual truths was to be given to infants at the age of eight days old. Isn't this the same Baptism does? I think the clearest link is established in Colossians 2:11-14 11  and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.13 And when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

The outward acts of circumcision and baptism are not the issue here. But Paul shows that they both relate to an inner change by which we are identified with Christ as our Sin-bearer. This atonement and its application to the believer is what the physical signs and seals represented in both eras.

There are many clear references in the New Testament showing that membership in the church after the time of Christ was a continuation of the same covenant and promises made to Abraham (see Acts 2:38-39; Romans 3:21; 11:16-17; Galatians 3:14,16,29; Acts 26:6,7; etc.).

---

This outward washing speaks of inward cleansing and renewing of the Spirit

actually, the new testament speaks of baptism in the context of a pledge of a good conscience towards God...something an infant can't do.

What do you think enables people to do such a pledge? Surely it is the Holy Spirit... Regardless, infants in Israel in OT times couldn't also make any such pledges, and they were circumcized, in account of their fathers'.

---

6th Throughout Old Testament times, the Church was required to administer the sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace to their infants, and thus receive them into Church membership. And so, unless it can be shown from scripture that our Lord or his Apostles purged the Church of infants, or barred Church membership to Gentile babies that had long been granted to Jewish babies, we must assume that the obligation to receive them through the rite of initiation still exists. For, just as we cannot add to the command of the Lord, neither can we diminish from it.

what?  the church didn't even ban unbelievers, much less those who had yet to be baptized!  they only banned those who claimed to be believers yet refused to repent.

So?

[Bono]

Circumcision also was just symbolic of regeneration; and yet it was applied to infants.

there was regeneration in the old testament?  How so?

Well, unless no one was saved in the OT times, I don't know how there could not be...

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The sign of the covenant was circumcision, of course, but it was a graceful covenant. In Romans 4:16-17 Paul writes

doesn't quoting Rom ch4 defeat your argument, since verse 11 observes:

11And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them.

Therefore, Abraham's faith preceded his circumcision.  Therefore, since you are substituting circumcision with baptism, faith would precede baptism.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Circumcision also was just symbolic of regeneration; and yet it was applied to infants.

there was regeneration in the old testament?  How so?

Well, unless no one was saved in the OT times, I don't know how there could not be...

who ever said that people in the OT had to be regenerated in order to be saved?

[Bono]

The sign of the covenant was circumcision, of course, but it was a graceful covenant. In Romans 4:16-17 Paul writes

doesn't quoting Rom ch4 defeat your argument, since verse 11 observes:

11And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them.

Therefore, Abraham's faith preceded his circumcision.  Therefore, since you are substituting circumcision with baptism, faith would precede baptism.

Not at all. I agree that Abraham's faith preceded his circumcision, however iIsaac was still circumcized; just like when when parent's are given faith and are baptized, their children should be baptized with them. It's a perfectly analogous situation...

[Bono]

Circumcision also was just symbolic of regeneration; and yet it was applied to infants.

there was regeneration in the old testament?  How so?

Well, unless no one was saved in the OT times, I don't know how there could not be...

who ever said that people in the OT had to be regenerated in order to be saved?

Where did they get their faith from? Or are you arguing that they were saved by works?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Not at all. I agree that Abraham's faith preceded his circumcision, however Isaac was still circumcized; just like when when parent's are given faith and are baptized, their children should be baptized with them. It's a perfectly analogous situation...

perfect analogy?  then what about Ishmael who was also circumcised, before Isaac was even born, yet wasn't a member of the OT church?  Are you going to argue that those outside of the church should also be baptized?

The NT uses OT circumcision as an analogy of the work the Holy Spirit does on the heart of a NT christian filled with the Holy Spirit.