Question about believers baptism?

Question

I've been reading about the sacrament of baptism a lot lately, and I have some questions about the historical tradition of how baptism has been performed.

As I understand it Biblically, baptisms were performed on believers, and potentially on the children of believers (as indicated by Paul saying that "entire households" were baptised. But I've been under the impression (possibly incorrectly) that the practice of infant baptism developed early in the history of the church, and gradually (at what point?) became the standard practice of the church until the 1600's at some point, when the Reformation more or less introduced "older, believer-only baptism".

Is this correct? Is it safe to say that the standard for roughly the first 1000 years of the church was infant baptism?

I continue to research the issue, so I'm not completely sure about this, but I'd be interested in hearing some answers, with maybe a link or two.

Serious answers only please. Thanks

Answer 1

Jesus said to go & make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit. Teaching them all things Jesus said.

Churches started baptizing babies because they thought they would go to hell if they didn't. Now the Pope today said that this isn't true not too long ago. And in the bible in 1John, it writes that everyone born into this world has seen the True Light. And Jesus said that the children are an example of the Kingdom of God. (Their trust & love to Jesus & His Word.)

So? I consider baby baptism as just dedicating ones child to the Lords care. Like a public dedication. In my Church, we dedicate our children to the Lord & the Pastor & Church pray blessing on the children & their family. Jesus said to not forsake the little children from coming to Him. Jesus loves the little children. All the children of the world.

Also, when we are born into this world (of water) we are a body, soul & conscience. I believe our Guardian Angels direct our path through our conscience. (A recent brain study showed that a light acivity happens in the front of our forhead when we act from our conscience. Like if we type a bad letter, then we decide to not send it at the last moment. A light is activated between our eyebrows.) I believe this is how children are likened to the Kingdom of God. But when the sin nature kicks in, hardened conscience (spiritual blindness/death) kicks in & person needs to be born again. Jesus said that to see the Kingdom of God you must be like these children & be born again (born spiritually).

Answer 2

The idea of infant baptism is related to the mistaken idea that babies are born with the guilt of inherited sin. If a baby is guilty of sin, the thought is that they should be baptized to wash away that sin.

The Bible however teaches that "sin is the transgression of the law." (1 John 3:4) If a baby is guilty of sin, what law have they transgressed? A baby is not capable of transgressing, or even understanding, any law.

But, what about inherited sin (guilt)?

This idea goes against many verses, including Ezekiel 18:20.

"The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."

This verse clearly teaches that children do not inherit the guilt of sin.

Those who teach infant baptism many times point to the households that were baptized in the New Testament. They assume these households had infants and those young children were included in the baptism.

This, however is just an assumption. It is risky to base your doctrine on a guess that cannot be proven from the Scriptures!

In fact, the context of many of these scriptures DISPROVE infant baptism. Notice for example the household of the keeper of the prison in Acts 16.

He was baptized with his household (verse 33). But notice also, all his household was taught ( verse 32), and they all believed (verse 34). An infant cannot be taught, and an infant cannot believe. Therefore, "household" here does not include any infants.

In fact, to be baptized one must first believe and repent, therefore, baptism is not for infants. (Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38)

Notice the eunuch in Acts 8. He asked, "What hinders me from being baptized?” (verse 36) "Then Philip said, 'If you believe with all your heart, you may.'" (verse 37)

A baby cannot believe, therefore a baby would not meet this requirement for one to be baptized.

I hope this information helps!

Answer 3

Actually the practice of infant Baptism is something that the Roman Catholic Church had/has right (They can't be wrong about *everything*.)! Witholding Holy Baptism from infants is indeed a corruption that became popular during the time of the Reformation, by Anabaptists.

Ever seen the movie, "Luther" that was released a couple years ago? Do you remember when he was locked away for sometime & many of those who had originally been followers after his lead, went completely overboard? Upon returning he regretfully learned that people had gotten violent towards the Roman Catholic Church even killing those who had quite innocently been led astray. This is representative of what was going on theologically as well--violence towards God's Word even by those outside of the Roman Catholic Church. Many of these Protestant groups completely threw out the baby (sanctity of the God given Sacraments which are derived from Scripture) with the dirty bathwater (the corruptions/errors of the Roman Catholic Church).

If you really want a good understanding of what was going on during that time, the Lutheran Confessions are a great historical account of those controversies. They can be found for free online at (http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=522). However, I highly recommend the new Reader's Edition titled: Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions (http://www.cph.org/cphstore/product.asp?part%5Fno=531154&promo=LCF). It includes more of the historical context for the reader than the online version.

To guide you in your quest for information about Baptism here are the places you will find that topic in the Confessions:
In "The Three Ecumenical Creeds" the Third Article of the Nicene Creed;
in "The Augsburg Confession" (AC), Article IX Of Baptism & Article XIII Of the Use of the Sacraments, (when "they" is used in these articles it refers to the "Lutheran leadership & pastors" although they weren't referred to as Lutheran during that time);
in "The Apology [Defense] of the Augsburg Confession" (Ap), Article IX Of Baptism & Article XIII (VII) Of the Number and Use of the Sacraments;
in "The Large Catechism" (LC) Part Fourth, Of Baptism (& Infant Baptism);
in "The Small Catechism" (SC), The Sacrament of Holy Baptism;
in "The Smalcald Articles" (SA) V Of Baptism;
in "The Epitome of the Formula of Concord" (Ep) Other Sects: Anabaptists.

Back to the "Luther" movie. At the end when some of the princes come to Luther & Katie on horses exclaiming that Emperor Charles & his council had accepted the Augsburg Confession...same Confession as above. It is historical & useful to you even if you aren't Lutheran.

I'm afraid that if you want the whole truth about the history of practice of Baptism, you will have to at least consult these works, but also what some of the Church Fathers said about it. An LCMS pastor would be a good resource in that case (http://www.lcms.org/locators/nchurches/church.asp).

Below I've attached a couple links concerning Holy Baptism from the LCMS, that may be shorter if that's what you're after.

Answer 4

There are five references in the New Testament to the Baptism of entire households. Peter baptized the household of Cornelius (Acts 11: 14). In Philippi, Paul baptized the household of Lydia and the household of the jailer (Acts 16: 15, 33). He also baptized the household of Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue in Corinth. In his first epistle to the Corinthians, he speaks of baptizing the household of Stephanas (1: 16). The Greek word for household is oikon and refers to all the inhabitants of the house including slaves, servants, infants and children.

Can anyone seriously suggest that within the households of Cornelius, Lydia, the Jailer, Crispus and Stephanas there were no children or infants present?

Answer 5

I'd say that's correct, infant baptism was not an issue for at least those 1000 years. And I don't think it was ever wrong to continue infant baptism. To say that there isn't any specific verse that advocates it, does not mean that it should be denied to infants. To say we must believe first" raises questions about automatic tickets to heaven, abortion in lieu of a "chance" later in life, the thief on the cross and the lack of necessity for it, vs. the command of Christ, etc.

Answer 6

to think of that because of the fact something isn't extremely suggested in scripture, it incredibly is subsequently invalid, is a defective premise. at the beginning, the Bible says that each and every thing isn't written down. We in no way examine that Jesus advised all of us "whats up write this down" however he did say "bypass and carry forth." So then entire new Christian Church grew to become into evangelized, formed and taught by way of sacred oral custom. all of us understand that between those sacred oral traditions, is toddler baptism. history shows the from the earliest days of Christianity toddlers have been baptized. Early Christian whitings help this certainty. the actual question is why would you exclude your toddlers? Why would God exclude them? some say they should not be baptized till the age of reason...yet whilst is that? The Bible does not specify an age wherein a guy or woman must be baptized, nor does it say that a guy or woman of a definite age can't be baptized. from time to time what isn't stated is as significant as what's asserted. each and every of the Synoptic Gospels are basically custom, considering the fact that there have been not written by skill of the adult males whom they are named for. they are theory to be written an prolonged time later by skill of adult males tutored by skill of the Apostles. this would make the Gospels "sacred oral custom" as nicely. Sacred oral custom, and sacred written custom (Bible) are one and the comparable in thought and authority.

Answer 7

I saved a post on this subject from a forum I wrote years ago...

Q. 74. Are infants also to be baptized?
A. 74. Yes, for since they, as well as their parents, belong to the covenant and people of God,[1] and through the blood of Christ [2] both redemption from sin and the Holy Ghost, who works faith, are promised to them no less than to their parents,[3] they are also by Baptism, as a sign of the covenant, to be ingrafted into the Christian Church, and distinguished from the children of unbelievers,[4] as was done in the Old Testament by circumcision,[5] in place of which in the New Testament Baptism is appointed.[6]

1. Gen. 17:7 - And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.

2. Matt. 19:14 - but Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven."


3. Luke 1:14-15- 14And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth, 15for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb.; Psa. 22:10 - On you was I cast from my birth,
and from my mother's womb you have been my God.; Acts 2:39 - For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.

4. Acts 10:47 - "Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"

5. Gen. 17:14 - Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.

6. Col. 2:11-13 - In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,

========================

This was actually pretty good. But there are 2 problems with this.

1. Is the issue of building a doctrine on Old Testament shadows and covenants.

If you do this then you are responsible before God in accepting ALL doctrines built in this method. This would be the rapture, or any other doctrine you may oppose, or your denomination opposes. Such a doctrine is built upon OT theology and scriptures with a New Testemnt interpretation. Thus this is a private interpretation, and this is forbidden:

2Pt:1:20: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

You see, this is why there are so many disagreements on these types of doctrines, because it is not solidified in the New Testament. Did not Jesus ask us to build the house on the rock? we don't want it to wash away.

Paul was I think ordained by God to get revelations out of the Old Testement for New Testament theology. But God inspired him and visited him. Thus his writings are now New Testament. This infant baptism is similar to what Paul did, but you do not have the apostolic authority to create scripture as he did.

2. this doctrine based upon OT theology now has OT meaning.

You have completely changed the meaning of this baptism to the OT covenant understanding.

Now if you wanna dedicate yourselves and little ones to God in a covenant, this may be appropriate, or not (that is another discussion I will discuss below), but that is not what water baptism is.

Water baptism is a confesion, that infants cannot do.

1 Pet 3: NKJV
21 There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Romans 6:
2 Let it not be! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?
3 Do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death?
4 Therefore we were buried with Him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father; even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Acts 8:
35 Then Philip opened his mouth and began at the same Scripture and preached the gospel of Jesus to him.
36 And as they passed along the way, they came on some water. And the eunuch said, See, here is water, what hinders me from being baptized?
37 Philip said, If you believe with all your heart, it is lawful. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still. And they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch. And he baptized him.

Water baptism is a representation of what Christ has done for us. Just as the eunuch did with Philip. Being put into water represents we died with Christ. Coming out of the water represents we have been raised with Christ into newness of life.

So you are not representing this baptism, therefore honesty is needed, or a change of names.

Now onto the problem of covenants...

Mt:5:37: But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

We need to be careful about such things, it may not be a doctrine, for wasn't it Paul who made a covenant and then had to shave his head?

I am not saying that such a thing is wrong, for I myself dedicated my children before God. I also made a covenant when I got married. I don't want to mix this issues. Hence, I think it's okay you do this, but the use of sprinkling water on a baby is unscriptural and is not water baptism...