Okay folks, so sorry if there are already 1,000 “infant baptism threads” which I as a newbie know nothing about.  (However there’s certainly been none such of late in the Hot Topics section at least....)

I thought I’d start this one as David McKay was introducing the topic several times in the current “Dean Jensen” thread.

Could we therefore all make this a thread to discuss this subject quite narrowly?  I.e. NOT going into any of the following matters:

- baptismal regeneration
- modes of baptism
- opinions of past Christian leaders
- distinctive practices of specific modern denominations

My intention is that while anyone may post regardless of what they think of the above questions, they should stick to discussing purely what the Bible says relating to IB.

Off you go!

Dan
See Acts 2:38-39 -.....be baptised every one of you....This promise is for you and your children and for all those far away....

Acts 16:15.  ...she was baptised with all her household.
A household would most definitely included children.

Acts 16:33.  We are told here that”.....he and all his were baptised.
All his would surely mean his family i.e. children.

The question should more importantly be “where in the bible is infant baptism excluded?” Since baptism replaces circumcision, baptism must be for children also.

Origen wrote in the third centruy that “the Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism also to infants”.

I don’t think you will find anywhere in the New Testament the idea that baptism replaced circumcision.  As I understand, John the Baptist was baptising while circumcision was still in practice it is not a replacement.  As circumcision is the sign of a covenant, then the replacement is ‘The Lord’s Supper’ which is the sign of the ‘new covenant’.

Circumcision is a pledge to live a new life, baptism is the sign of sins washed away by the judgement that fell upon Jesus on the cross.  Baptism is not a pledge, though the modern church often treats it as one, no, the Lord’s Supper is the pledge.

As a parent, I am happy to have my children baptised because I’m certain that their sin is washed away by the blood of Jesus, otherwise they would be unclean, but as it is they are holy (1 Corinthians 7:14).

Craig,
See Col 2:11-12 - this refers to baptism being the new circumcision.
Regards

Hi Donna
A careful read of Colossians 2 reveals that Paul is comparing baptism with spiritual circumcision, not with physical circumcision.

David,
Where in the bible is spiritual circumcision mentioned.  I think this might be an “invention” of yours.

Donna Green - 18 July 2008 11:38 PM

See Col 2:11-12 - this refers to baptism being the new circumcision.

Hi Donna. Firstly a personal welcome to these forums. I certainly value hearing your Roman Catholic perspective. Often, perhaps too often, I read a caricature of Catholic beliefs here so it’s good to see this in some perspective.
Anyhow, even protestant commentaries support your point that baptism and circumcision perform a similar function:

biblegateway.com
Paul’s reference to God’s power provides the setting for him to speak of the believer’s baptism as the rite of passage into Christ, since this is where God’s power is found. He continues to contrast Judaism and Christianity by showing that Christian baptism and Jewish circumcision (2:11) have a similar purpose: marking the covenant of a people who belong to God rather than to the powers and authorities (2:15). Paul is concerned that in Colosse certain liturgies have been vested with divine power and have become substitutes for trust in Christ’s work. For this reason, and without denying the more formal and sacramental meaning of baptism, he emphasizes its spiritual significance for Christians. In fact, he says, circumcision has a similar meaning. Thus, the “true Jew” is the believer whose identity is fashioned by the Spirit’s “circumcision of the heart” rather than by Judaism’s “circumcision of the flesh” (Rom 2:28-29). In this view the Spirit, not formal religion, is the agent of God’s covenanting grace. Likewise, for Paul the “true Christian” is the believer who is baptized by the Spirit into the redemptive results of Jesus’ death and resurrection (see Rom 6:4; 1 Cor 12:13).

Donna, read the text, please

Colossians 2:11-12 In him also you were circumcised with a spiritual circumcision, by putting off the body of the flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12 when you were buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.
New Revised Standard Version

Colossians 2:11-12 In him you have been circumcised, with a circumcision performed, not by human hand, but by the complete stripping of your natural self. This is circumcision according to Christ.  12 You have been buried with him by your baptism; by which, too, you have been raised up with him through your belief in the power of God who raised him from the dead.
New Jerusalem Bible

Colossians 2:11-12 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand, by stripping off the carnal body, with the circumcision of Christ.  12 You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. New American Bible

Spiritual circumcision? See

Romans 2:28-29 One is not a Jew outwardly. True circumcision is not outward, in the flesh.  29 Rather, one is a Jew inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart, in the spirit, not the letter; his praise is not from human beings but from God. New American Bible

Col 2:11
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; [cutting off of Christ i.e. the cross]
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.

Sounds like a spiritual circumcision to me!

The comparison is between human circumcision (done by the hands of men) - that is, the putting off/removal/cutting off of the foreskin and the the putting off/removal/cutting off of flesh (sinful nature).

How was this circumcision performed? By the circumcision (cutting off) of Christ on the Cross.

So the contrast is not between circumcision and baptism but rather between physical circumcision of the foreskin and the spiritual circumcision of the flesh (achieved by Christ’s circumcision).

The baptism in the next verse illustrates the relationship between the spiritual circumcision of the believer and the circumcision of Christ.

OT circumcision = NT baptism is not right. If it were it would have featured in Paul’s repeated discussions on the issues of circumcision for the Gentiles as it would have been far more significant in these discussions.

I would think Infant Baptism is best defended by considering how the concept of corporate solidarity through a representative person functions in the Bible.

eg

In most cultures, including the culture of the Bible, the connection between individuals and groups is more closely connected than is the case in our western European culture today.

A person cannot be defined without reference to their being a part of a group.
i.e. a person is understood within the context of their social relationships.

An individual may represent a group when:

1.  he is the originator of the group (father e.g. Adam, Levi)

2.  he is the authoritative-leader of the group (king / father)

3.  his actions affect the character of the group (high priest – making holy
covenant-breaker – making herem)
4.  he is the subject of divine will
to bless or curse through him
i.e. he is a divinely ordained representative (e.g. Abraham, David)

Thus when kings and fathers sin, nations and families are usually decreed to be guilty as well.

Among people groups where the family is considered to be a primary unit (of corporate solidarity) under a representative person (i.e. a father), it would be appropriate to baptise the following members of a pagan family accepting the gospel:

(1) the representative person making the profession of faith
(2) persons associated with the representative person who likewise profess faith
(3) persons associated with the representative person yet incapable of making a profession of faith

It would be inappropriate to baptise someone who although associated with the representative person refused to profess faith although capable of doing so.

It would also be inappropriate to baptise someone incapable of making a profession of faith and whose representative person had not made a profession of faith.

If the pagan family accepting the gospel had other children join their household then presumably these also could be baptised even though separated by time from their parent’s own initial profession and baptism.

Hi Angus
Thanks for the welcome.  It is refreshing when someone is willing to hear what the other has to say instead of constantly attacking.  These forums are good, however, I feel they are a little inadequate as it is very difficult to do justice to some objections raised.  I guess this is so for everyone.

I wonder why only my comment on baptism/circumcision received so much attention.  Yet I quoted other scripture supporting infant baptism and nothing much has been said.  I take it you all agree with me.

Hi All

Two comments on infant baptism:

1) In answer to a question David M asked on another thread, no, I don’t agree that infant baptism “has been added to the original teaching”.  It seems to me that knowing the way ancient cultures thought corporately (see Adam’s post) and Jewish culture in particular, the onus of proof is on those who want to say that infant baptism was NOT practised during the NT era or for some time after that.  Donna’s comment re households is quite right, and requires rebuttal based on what would be expected AT THE TIME rather than from our 21st C Western individualistic paradigm.  [And please accept my welcome to the forum also Donna :-)]

2) While I agree that in Colossians 2:11 the circumcision in view is spiritual, it seems to me that Paul’s argument is based on a parallel between circumcision and baptism, i.e., the spiritual process which was signified by circumcision in the Old Covenant is exactly the same process that is signified by baptism in the New Covenant.  So, again, if children of families who are within the covenant are to be excluded from baptism, sound exegetical reasons need to be given as to why.

Bob

See Acts 2:38-39 -.....be baptised every one of you....This promise is for you and your children and for all those far away....

Acts 16:15.  ...she was baptised with all her household.
A household would most definitely included children.

Acts 16:33.  We are told here that”.....he and all his were baptised.
All his would surely mean his family i.e. children.

Donna, you have left out a key element in Acts 2:38-39. Peter says Repent and be baptised. He then goes on to say that the promise of salvation to those who repent and are baptised is for the people he is speaking to [Jews], for their children who repent and are baptised and even for those who are afar off [Gentiles?] who repent and are baptised.

In Acts and in 1 Corinthians we read about households of people coming to faith, including the household of the Philippian gaoler. It is worth noticing what Paul says and does in this connection.

Acts 16:31-34 “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you and your household will be saved.” 32 So they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to everyone in his house.  33 He took them in at that hour of the night and bathed their wounds; then he and all his family were baptized at once.  34 He brought them up into his house and provided a meal and with his household rejoiced at having come to faith in God. New American Bible

Evangelicals need to note that we cannot divorce verse 31 from the rest. They often quote this verse as proof that all that is needed for salvation is belief. But the following verses show that Paul instructed the gaoler and his household and then baptised those he had instructed and then the gaoler and his whole household rejoiced at having come to faith in God.

The passage makes clear that these folk were capable of being instructed and exercising faith.

In every other instance of household salvation in the New Testament, save the one cited from the earlier part of Acts, it is explicitly shown that those baptised were believers. From this, we would be drawing a long bow to make much of the case of Lydia and her household as an example of infant baptism.

The New Testament uniformly presents baptism as being for those who repent and believe.

Donna wrote

I wonder why only my comment on baptism/circumcision received so much attention.  Yet I quoted other scripture supporting infant baptism and nothing much has been said.  I take it you all agree with me.

The only act of baptism that irrefutably includes infants is;

1 Corinthians 10
1For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. 2They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.

The infant Hebrews were saved from slavery in Egypt through the baptism of going through the Red Sea.  This was because of the group they belonged to, and reflected the faith of their parents.

What about the wonderful prophecy of baptism in Ezekiel 36...with the whole house of israel not just with the adults.

Be baptized for the remission of sins and the promise is to you and your children

Baptists would love that to read...be baptized as an acknwledgement and seal that your sins have been forgiven, and the promuise is to you the believer.