Infant Baptism
Our good friend Jake Copper sent me this link as a justification for infant baptism. I'll make several observations about the article.
First, the title ("Church history supports long tradition of infant baptism") is enough for me to almost dismiss the rest of the article. I don't fall completely within the sola scriptura camp, but I'm pretty close. The Bible is verifiable, it's definitive, and it's accountable. Church tradition isn't.
In the case of infant baptism in particular, I feel very strongly that passages in the Bible like Luke 3 suggest that baptism in Christ's time was a choice that was being made. People were coming, of their own volition, to be baptised by request. They did it of their own free will, and did not have it subjected upon them.
The article that Jacob referenced to is, quite frankly, not very convincing, and makes assertions that the evidence provided can't back up. Here are a couple of examples.
"Earliest biblical records" should be rephrased as "the Bible". What this sentence says is that all the Bible ever talks about is adults being baptised; there is no mention whatsoever of infant baptism. The claim "we can't be sure of that" is an empty disclaimer; we can't be sure that the world isn't filled with gummy worms, but we're also given no indication whatsoever to believe that it is; in the same way, the Bible gives us no indication whatsoever that infant baptism was practiced during Jesus' time, so we have no reason to believe that it was.
I'll admit, the quotes (without much context behind them, I must note) from Origen, Polycarp, and Augustine are compelling; however, just because these respected church forefathers accepted something as common doesn't mean that it was orthodox, particularly when there's no mention of it in the Bible.
Excuse my harsh language, but I don't give a damn what the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church says. There are a lot of things that the New Testament never suggests; that doesn't make their opposites true. The New Testament never suggests that the Red Sox are the world's best baseball team; does that mean that the Yankees are? There is no indication in the New Testament that infants were being baptised by the Apostles, no matter what the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church says it hints at. The Bible is scripture, the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church is interpretation, and it appears to be baseless interpretation.
How the author of this article, Father John Dietzen, can derive a claim of "overwhelming support" right after acknowledging "lacking evidence for infant baptism" is beyond me. None of the so-called "evidence" Father Dietzen provides demonstrates a biblical justification for infant baptism. None of the passages in the Bible describing baptism demonstrate it to have occurred during or after the time of Christ in any other context but consenting adults seeking it out. Jesus did it not when he was commencing his ministry, around the age of thirty; I don't think we all need to wait to the age of thirty to be baptised, but the implication as far as I'm concerned is that it requires a cognizant mind.
Now, as far as I'm concerned, baptism is a ceremonial practice only; I don't think it has any bearing on salvation, just like I don't think that taking the Eucharist has any bearing on salvation. The Eucharist is a personal reminder of the covenant we enter with Christ upon accepting His sacrifice; baptism is a public display of our pledge to live our lives in faith upon acceptance of that sacrifice. I don't mean to downplay the importance of these things, but let's be realistic: they're symbolic. If these things saved us, we'd have no need for the crucifixion. It's as simple as that.
For what it's worth, I'll give my own history. My mother's family have been Presbyterians for a long time, and Presbyterians practice infant baptism. When I was a little baby, I was "baptised" by sprinkling. After I was "born again" or "saved" or whatever my freshman year of high school, I considered being re-baptised, but decided against it; I even called into a local Christian talk radio call-in show and asked them about it. Eventually, shortly after I turned sixteen, I felt an overwhelming need to do it, and that evening I met a couple of friends and had one of them, a friend a few years older than me who was at a Christian college at the time, baptise me. I didn't seek out a priest or a pastor, I didn't feel the need to do it formally; we did it in a local river, by immersion (I think sprinkling is a cop-out, but whatever), and that was that. So, basically, I felt the need to be "re"-baptised because as far as I'm concerned, my original "baptism" was a meaningless gesture by my family, made with good intentions, but devoid of any spiritual or personal value.
If people want to have ceremonies for infants, I think that's great; call it a dedication, call it whatever you want, but it's not baptism. Baptism is something that a Christian seeks for themself in order to publically acknowledge their faith in Christ. That's the position that the Bible leads me to take, and no matter how much stock I want to put in church tradition and history, if it's not supported by the Bible, I can't accept it as orthodox.
Post your thoughts. I'll try to do another post about salvation for infants and children in the next few days.
First, the title ("Church history supports long tradition of infant baptism") is enough for me to almost dismiss the rest of the article. I don't fall completely within the sola scriptura camp, but I'm pretty close. The Bible is verifiable, it's definitive, and it's accountable. Church tradition isn't.
In the case of infant baptism in particular, I feel very strongly that passages in the Bible like Luke 3 suggest that baptism in Christ's time was a choice that was being made. People were coming, of their own volition, to be baptised by request. They did it of their own free will, and did not have it subjected upon them.
The article that Jacob referenced to is, quite frankly, not very convincing, and makes assertions that the evidence provided can't back up. Here are a couple of examples.
>It is true that, according to our earliest biblical records (as in Acts 2, for example), perhaps only adults were baptized, though we can’t be sure of that.
"Earliest biblical records" should be rephrased as "the Bible". What this sentence says is that all the Bible ever talks about is adults being baptised; there is no mention whatsoever of infant baptism. The claim "we can't be sure of that" is an empty disclaimer; we can't be sure that the world isn't filled with gummy worms, but we're also given no indication whatsoever to believe that it is; in the same way, the Bible gives us no indication whatsoever that infant baptism was practiced during Jesus' time, so we have no reason to believe that it was.
I'll admit, the quotes (without much context behind them, I must note) from Origen, Polycarp, and Augustine are compelling; however, just because these respected church forefathers accepted something as common doesn't mean that it was orthodox, particularly when there's no mention of it in the Bible.
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church notes that the New Testament never suggests that children will need to seek baptism later. It positively hints, in fact, that infant baptism was the practice even in the time of the apostles.
Excuse my harsh language, but I don't give a damn what the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church says. There are a lot of things that the New Testament never suggests; that doesn't make their opposites true. The New Testament never suggests that the Red Sox are the world's best baseball team; does that mean that the Yankees are? There is no indication in the New Testament that infants were being baptised by the Apostles, no matter what the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church says it hints at. The Bible is scripture, the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church is interpretation, and it appears to be baseless interpretation.
Beyond this, evidence is lacking for infant baptism. The lack of evidence is not surprising, however, the Oxford reference says, since the New Testament is concerned mainly with the expansion of the church into the non-Christian world and hardly at all with the natural growth of membership among persons of Christian parents and upbringing.
There is, in other words, overwhelming support for the ancient Christian practice of baptizing infant children.
How the author of this article, Father John Dietzen, can derive a claim of "overwhelming support" right after acknowledging "lacking evidence for infant baptism" is beyond me. None of the so-called "evidence" Father Dietzen provides demonstrates a biblical justification for infant baptism. None of the passages in the Bible describing baptism demonstrate it to have occurred during or after the time of Christ in any other context but consenting adults seeking it out. Jesus did it not when he was commencing his ministry, around the age of thirty; I don't think we all need to wait to the age of thirty to be baptised, but the implication as far as I'm concerned is that it requires a cognizant mind.
Now, as far as I'm concerned, baptism is a ceremonial practice only; I don't think it has any bearing on salvation, just like I don't think that taking the Eucharist has any bearing on salvation. The Eucharist is a personal reminder of the covenant we enter with Christ upon accepting His sacrifice; baptism is a public display of our pledge to live our lives in faith upon acceptance of that sacrifice. I don't mean to downplay the importance of these things, but let's be realistic: they're symbolic. If these things saved us, we'd have no need for the crucifixion. It's as simple as that.
For what it's worth, I'll give my own history. My mother's family have been Presbyterians for a long time, and Presbyterians practice infant baptism. When I was a little baby, I was "baptised" by sprinkling. After I was "born again" or "saved" or whatever my freshman year of high school, I considered being re-baptised, but decided against it; I even called into a local Christian talk radio call-in show and asked them about it. Eventually, shortly after I turned sixteen, I felt an overwhelming need to do it, and that evening I met a couple of friends and had one of them, a friend a few years older than me who was at a Christian college at the time, baptise me. I didn't seek out a priest or a pastor, I didn't feel the need to do it formally; we did it in a local river, by immersion (I think sprinkling is a cop-out, but whatever), and that was that. So, basically, I felt the need to be "re"-baptised because as far as I'm concerned, my original "baptism" was a meaningless gesture by my family, made with good intentions, but devoid of any spiritual or personal value.
If people want to have ceremonies for infants, I think that's great; call it a dedication, call it whatever you want, but it's not baptism. Baptism is something that a Christian seeks for themself in order to publically acknowledge their faith in Christ. That's the position that the Bible leads me to take, and no matter how much stock I want to put in church tradition and history, if it's not supported by the Bible, I can't accept it as orthodox.
Post your thoughts. I'll try to do another post about salvation for infants and children in the next few days.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home