I think the key is the unanimous exegesis of the passage in the early Church and the word pure or clean. Unfortunately our living sacrifices are not always pure.

So to get back on topic ... what is the theology behind baptizing infants?

Robert ian Williams - 20 July 2008 09:48 AM

I think the key is the unanimous exegesis of the passage in the early Church and the word pure or clean. Unfortunately our living sacrifices are not always pure.

Then I would suppose that “pure” in Mal. 1:11 is to be defined in contrast to the defective and hypocritical sacrifices denounced in the previous verses.  A broader point re. ourselves is that whatever “spiritual sacrifices” we offer are declared to be rendered “acceptable to God by Jesus Christ”.  This I take to compensate for their shortcomings even when made sincerely.

PS how many of the Fathers exegete this verse of Malachi?

But as Adam says, we’re off-topic, as I realised after my last post.  Back to the thread itself....

Adam Olive - 20 July 2008 09:59 AM

So to get back on topic ... what is the theology behind baptizing infants?

A fundamental argument in its favour is simply the right kind of argument from silence.  In any realm, a standing law remains in force until amended or repealed.  On the understanding that the NT church is organically continuous with OT Israel, the fact that believers’ children were born into covenant with God constitutes just such a law.  Then the burden of proof is to show that this law is changed under the NT.  Is it?

If baptism is an expression of repentance and faith occurring in the context of conversion then how can it apply to infants? Is baptism then not an expression of faith and repentance of the one baptised but rather a sign of inclusion?

Adam Olive - 20 July 2008 10:55 AM

If baptism is an expression of repentance and faith occurring in the context of conversion then how can it apply to infants? Is baptism then not an expression of faith and repentance of the one baptised but rather a sign of inclusion?

The key is that it doesn’t represent either repentance or faith, but regeneration which is applicable to persons of all ages.  Vislble repentance and faith are fruits of that change of heart.

Hi all,
Take a look at Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians - verse 14-17.  Paul baptised Stephanas and his family.  I don’t think this means future generations.

Indeed it doesn’t!  And it’s instructive to note the entirely federal/collectivist language Paul uses.  If he meant to say that each member of the family had individually professed faith and been baptised on their own score, why didn’t he say, “I also baptised Stephanas, Stephana, Stephanolus and Stephaniana”?

Donna Green - 20 July 2008 12:20 PM

Hi all,
Take a look at Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians - verse 14-17.  Paul baptised Stephanas and his family.  I don’t think this means future generations.

The word ‘household’ obviously doesn’t mean future generations ! But the word ‘children’ is regularly used to refer to generations. The meaning of the word children in Acts 2:39 cannot be determined by the use of the word household in 1 Corinthians 16:15 !!!

I removed this post because I thought it might go off topic.

Being strongly influenced by covenant theology I’m inclined toward accepting the validity of infant baptism for the children of believers. But I haven’t been pushed over the fence on the subject. I need more substantial arguments that references to households in Acts and claiming what was true for circumcision in the OT must be true for baptism in the NT. Perhaps these can be supporting arguments but the case needs to be made on the meaning of baptism (I’m repeating myself here).

Does anyone have an argument other than the ones Dan and Donna are presenting (no offense intended). Genuinely willing to change positions if a better argument is put forward.

Like I have said in earlier posts ... if baptism is a sign of inclusion then infant baptism makes sense but if baptism is an expression of appealing to God in repentance and faith and calling on his name then its application to infants seems more doubtful.

Adam
I’m working on a more thorough explanation.  I know what I have said is inadequate.  I’m knew to these forums so I’m just watching to see what others have to say as well.  I’m glad you mentioned covenant.  That is where I will probably begin my argument.  In Catholic theology, covenant is translated as not a contract (as is the case in protestant circles) but an oath or a sacred family bond.
I’ll get back to you.  I hope there are others out there that can do a better job than me.

Hi Adam
All Christians are faced with continuity and discontinuity between the covenants and between the Old and New Testaments.

Some Christians emphasise the continuity [such as covenant theologians] and others emphasise the discontinuity [such as Dispensationalists and New Covenant Theologians].

Those who believe in infant baptism argue from continuity between the covenants to support this view, whereas those who baptise believers only do not see baptism in the NT as the equivalent of circumcision in the Old.

I was brought up a Baptist and cannot see infant baptism anywhere in the NT. But I suppose those who grew up with infant baptism either see it there, or see it as being compatible with the NT’s teaching on baptism.

For me, the most persuasive argument for things like episcopalianism and infant baptism is the church history one, because although I can’t see either in the NT, they undoubtedly have a long history. If this is the way the church has governed itself and administered baptism for hundreds of years, hasn’t God guided her to do things this way? I’m not persuaded by the argument, but it is the most persuasive one for me.

Arguments from the Bible are not at all persuasive because they seem to involve reading things into the text that don’t seem to be there.

Historically, infant baptism clearly has been seen to be baptismal regeneration for a large part of the church’s history and would seem to be the original justification for it. This is one reason why I can’t understand why evangelicals would embrace infant baptism but not baptismal regeneration.

Hi David,

There are a couple of articles that I found rather helpful on the issue in the Westminster Theological Journal by Vern Poythress:

Indifferentism and Rigorism in the Church with Implications for Baptizing Small Children, WTJ 59 (1997), pp 13-29

and

Linking Small Children with Infants in the Theology of Baptizing, WTJ 59 (1997), pp143-158.

I can photocopy my photocopies and send you a copy if you like. :-)

Thanks for the references Kristen.

Indifferentism and Rigorism in the Church with Implications for Baptizing Small Children, WTJ 59 (1997), pp 13-29

http://www.frame-poythress.org/poythress_articles/1997Indifferentism.htm

and

Linking Small Children with Infants in the Theology of Baptizing, WTJ 59 (1997), pp143-158.

http://www.frame-poythress.org/poythress_articles/1997Linking.htm