Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!agate!shelby!rutgers!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: stevep@cadence.com (Steve Peterson) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Infant Baptism Message-ID: Date: 29 Nov 90 05:19:50 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 86 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu I liked the comment that the moderator made on this subject of infant baptism. He mentioned that the explicit doctrine of baptising or not baptising infants isn't really mentioned in the Bible, but is determined by pulling in other Scriptural quotes and then based on those principles, the question is answered. I tend to agree with this. My earlier brief post on this subject was to show some of these other Scriptural quotes that would lead me to believe that infant baptism wasn't practiced in the first century. Personally, I look at the example of the apostles and the Scriptures to answer docrinal questions rather than counsels of men or even the quotes that I provided from Religious historian Augustus Neander. But, I do understand that other people look to the rulings of the counsels of the early Catholic Church. Is infant baptism bad or harmful? No, I don't think so. Is it of value? Some feel that it is in that it puts them "right with God" or admits them to the church. I think that Jehovah is looking for more than for a dip into water. A coming to a knowlege of one's sins, a turning around/repentence, and a dedication of ones life to doing His will. This is symbolized in an outwardly fashion by undergoing water baptism. In view of the fact that 'hearing the word,' 'embracing the word heartily' and repenting' precedes water baptism (Acts 2:14, 22, 38, 41) and that baptism requires the individual to make a solemn decision, it is apparent that one must at leat be of age to hear, to believe and to make this decision. An argument is made by some in favor of infant baptism. They refer to the instances where 'households' were baptized, such as the households of Cornelius, Lydia, the Philippian jailer, Crispus and Stephanas. (Acts 10:48; 11:14; 16:14, 32-34; 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:16) They believe that this implies that small babies in those families were also baptized. But, in the case of Cornelius, those who were baptized were those who had heard the word and received the holy spirit., and they spoke in tongues and glorified God; these things could not apply to infants. (Acts 10:44-46) Lydia was "a worshiper of God, ... and the Lord opened her heart wide to pay attention to the things spoken by Paul." (Acts 16:14) The Philippian jailer had to "believe on the Lord Jesus," and this implies that the others in his family also had to believe in order to be baptized. (Acts 16:31-34) Of Crispus and "all his household," it is stated that they 'became *believers* in the Lord.' (Acts 18:8) All this demonstrates that associated with baptism were such things as hearing, believing and glorifying God, things that infants cannot do. At Samaria when they heard and believed "the good new of the kingdom of God and of the name of Jesus Christ, they proceeded to be baptized." Here the Scriptural record specifies that the ones baptized were, not infants, but "men and women." (Acts 8:12) The statement made by the apostle Paul to the Corinthians that children were "holy" by reason of a believing parent is no proof that infants were baptized; rather, it implies that oppostie. Minor children below the age of reason and ability to make such a decision would come under a form of merit because of the believing parent, not because of any so-called "sacramental" baptism, imparting independent merit. If infants could properly be baptized, they would not need to have the merit of the believing parent extended to them. (1 Cor. 7:14) It is true that Jesus saied: "Stop hindering [the young children] from coming to me, for the kingdom of the heavens belongs to suchlike ones." (Matt. 19:13-15; Mark 10:13-16) But Jesus did not baptize them; he blessed them, and there is nothing to indicate that his laying his hands upon them was a religious ceremony. He further showed that the reason 'the kingdom of God belongs to such' was not becuase they were baptized but because they were teachable and trusting. Christians are commanded to be "babes as to badness," yet "full-grown in powers of understanding." (Matt. 18:4; Luke 18:16, 17; 1 Cor. 14:20) Regarding the practice of infant baptism, The Encyclopedia Britannica, Vo. III, ed. of 1946 p. 84, states: "The whole early period knows baptism only for adults who join themselves of their own resolve to the Christian community. Infant baptism appears sporadically towards the end of the second century and was indeed practised also during the following centuries, yet on as an exception." Religious historian Augustus Neander wrote: "Faith and baptism were always connected with one another; and thus it is in the highest degree probable... that the practice of infant baptism was unknown at this period... That not till so late a period as (at least certainly not earlier than Irenaeus [140-204 C.E.], a trace of infant baptism appears, and that it first became recognised as an apostolic tradition in the course of the third century, is evidence rather *against* than *for* the admission of its apostolic origin." History of the Planting and Training of the Christian Church by the Apostles (New York 1864), p. 162 Best Regards...... Steve Peterson ---- stevep@cadence.com or ...!uunet!cadence!stevep