Infant
Baptism
by Chad Shaffer and
Mike Stine
Intro
Infant Baptism
Believer's
Baptism
Three Modes of Baptism
Our
Conclusions
Infant
baptism is a topic of debate that has raged for centuries within
the church. Numerous
churches hold to this practice. Some of these include, Roman Catholics, Lutherans,
Presbyterians, and other churches from a Reformed background.
Proponents
of infant baptism count history on their side as mentioning infant
baptism. By the time
of Origen infant baptism was supposedly widely used. Origen records in 244 that “according to the usage of the
Church, baptism is given even to infants.” (Holilies on Leviticus, 8:3:11)
It
is also argued that in Acts 16:15, 33 the entire household was
baptized. Those who
hold to infant baptism argue that this would include infants and
children from the household. Also
used is 1 Corinthians 7:14 that states children are sanctified
through a believing parent. This
is also used as an argument for infant baptism.
Thirdly,
Mark 10:13-16 records Jesus’ dealings with little children. He blesses them and tells his disciples to let them come to
him. Those for infant
baptism cite Jesus’ dealing with this issue would allow it.
Finally,
the strongest argument for infant baptism stems from God’s
covenant with His people. In
the Old Testament, the covenant of Genesis 17:7 was passed on
through the rite of circumcision. This was on the eighth day, while they were still infants. Those who hold to infant baptism see baptism as simply
being in place of circumcision. Through baptism, the new covenant is passed on, they argue.
Those
who do not believe that infant baptism is a valid form of baptism
also cite numerous reasons for believing as they do. The first argument that is used is that there is no
scriptural support for infant baptism. In the numerous references to baptism, there is no mention
of infants ever being baptized in the Bible. In passages referencing the entire household being saved,
there is no indication that these households included infants. Indeed even if they did, a reference to the entire
household may not actually include infants. The entire household is also recorded as to have heard the
gospel and believed as well as rejoiced at the news, neither of
which infants could do.
History,
or its silence, also attests to having only a believer’s
baptism. Despite many
references to baptism by earliest of church fathers, there is no
mention of infants being baptized. Origen, more than 200 years removed from the time of
Christ, is the first to mention infant baptism.
Those
who hold to a believer’s only baptism will refute the idea of
circumcision being passed on. The argument is made that circumcision is a requirement of
the ceremonial law only and that there is no need for it to be
continued. Indeed this
controversy is addressed numerous times in the New Testament in
Acts and in the Epistles. In
Acts 15 at the Jerusalem Council it was agreed upon that there was
no need for Gentile Christians to be circumcised. Just as circumcision was eliminated, those against infant
baptism argue that there is no need for it because it is simply
another circumcision which is unneeded.
Next Section -
Believer's
Baptism
To top of
page |
