Board index ‹ Baptism
2 posts
• Page 1 of 1
How did infant baptism originate?
by Rudy&Karen » Sun May 17, 2015 4:06 pm
How did infant baptism originate? Is it true that the Bible does not record one instance of infant baptism and that the only biblical baptisms are of people who knowingly accepted Jesus as their Savior? Additionally, is it true that baptism is only an outward sign of what has transpired inside…and that it has NO redeeming powers?
- Rudy&Karen
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Sun May 17, 2015 3:45 pm
Re: How did infant baptism originate?
by jimwalton » Mon May 18, 2015 11:42 am
It is true that the Bible does not record one instance of infant baptism. The only possible place is in a text like Acts 16.33 where the Philippian jailer and "all the others in his house" were baptized. It is said, "Well, there COULD have been babies there!"
I'll offer this quote from Bernard Eller: Incontestably, every person named or identified in the NT as being a recipient of baptism was an adult believer. We have no way of knowing that there were children in these families, but there is no need even to argue the point. These notices tell us nothing at all unless we know beforehand whether or not the church of that day practiced infant baptism. For instance, I, having grown up in a church that practices nothing except believer’s baptism could and would communicate perfectly with a fellow member in telling him that a whole family had been baptized—even though we both knew that the family included some children who were not. Obviously, on our lips the phrase means 'all of the family who were baptizable were baptized.'
"There is no notice that can be interpreted as a positive proof of the practice of infant baptism until more than a century of the NT period."
Baptism in the NT was ALWAYS a response to a knowing decision to "accept Jesus as Savior." Baptism is never offered to people with no knowledge of what was going on or the meaning incumbent in it.
When did infant baptism begin? Tertullian mentions it in AD 220, but church historians are in solid agreement that during the first three centuries, and even in the age of Constantine, adult baptism was the rule, and that the actual conversion of the candidate was required as a condition before administering baptism.
Now, is baptism an outward sign only with no redeeming powers? That's right. In the OT Judaism is notoriously anti-sacramental. Even though there were priests, temple, and sacrifices, the OT makes quite clear that these were all mediators, but only God could convey blessing, atonement, or redemption. There is no THING or action that possesses power. Even when the ancient Israelites tried to make that the case (let's take the Ark of the Covenant into battle with us and we're sure to win!), God didn't play along. They were to relate to GOD, not to things. Holiness was in him, not in the sacrifices or cultic elements at the temple. This gets proven when the temple is destroyed and the priesthood exiled, the sacrifices ceased and the people dispersed, Judaism kept right on ticking as if nothing had happened. These things were expressions, but unnecessary for them to relate to God.
When the Church was instituted, Christianity was even LESS sacramental, if that was even possible. There was NO priesthood, NO temple, NO sacrifices. Things are merely things, but God is God. God was the one true holy. Doing something couldn't make you holy; only God could make you holy. In this context, Jesus instituted baptism and the Lord's Supper, and in the NT and Christianity it's inconceivable that they should be called "sacraments", namely that ordinary bread and wine could be transformed into something divine and obligate God towards you. This was smashed when the apostles ruled that Gentiles didn't need to do anything sacramental to be welcomed into the faith, and there is no trace that their practice of the Lord's supper carried any sacramental overtones. "Sacraments" don't fit the historical context of original Christianity, nor do they fit the theological context of original Christianity. If so, then God's grace and favor, his will and power, to some degree or other have come under the control of man, his religious actions, and his institutions.
Instead, baptism is a ceremony where we identify with the death and resurrection of Christ (Rom. 6.1-4). It has no redeeming powers.
I'll offer this quote from Bernard Eller: Incontestably, every person named or identified in the NT as being a recipient of baptism was an adult believer. We have no way of knowing that there were children in these families, but there is no need even to argue the point. These notices tell us nothing at all unless we know beforehand whether or not the church of that day practiced infant baptism. For instance, I, having grown up in a church that practices nothing except believer’s baptism could and would communicate perfectly with a fellow member in telling him that a whole family had been baptized—even though we both knew that the family included some children who were not. Obviously, on our lips the phrase means 'all of the family who were baptizable were baptized.'
"There is no notice that can be interpreted as a positive proof of the practice of infant baptism until more than a century of the NT period."
Baptism in the NT was ALWAYS a response to a knowing decision to "accept Jesus as Savior." Baptism is never offered to people with no knowledge of what was going on or the meaning incumbent in it.
When did infant baptism begin? Tertullian mentions it in AD 220, but church historians are in solid agreement that during the first three centuries, and even in the age of Constantine, adult baptism was the rule, and that the actual conversion of the candidate was required as a condition before administering baptism.
Now, is baptism an outward sign only with no redeeming powers? That's right. In the OT Judaism is notoriously anti-sacramental. Even though there were priests, temple, and sacrifices, the OT makes quite clear that these were all mediators, but only God could convey blessing, atonement, or redemption. There is no THING or action that possesses power. Even when the ancient Israelites tried to make that the case (let's take the Ark of the Covenant into battle with us and we're sure to win!), God didn't play along. They were to relate to GOD, not to things. Holiness was in him, not in the sacrifices or cultic elements at the temple. This gets proven when the temple is destroyed and the priesthood exiled, the sacrifices ceased and the people dispersed, Judaism kept right on ticking as if nothing had happened. These things were expressions, but unnecessary for them to relate to God.
When the Church was instituted, Christianity was even LESS sacramental, if that was even possible. There was NO priesthood, NO temple, NO sacrifices. Things are merely things, but God is God. God was the one true holy. Doing something couldn't make you holy; only God could make you holy. In this context, Jesus instituted baptism and the Lord's Supper, and in the NT and Christianity it's inconceivable that they should be called "sacraments", namely that ordinary bread and wine could be transformed into something divine and obligate God towards you. This was smashed when the apostles ruled that Gentiles didn't need to do anything sacramental to be welcomed into the faith, and there is no trace that their practice of the Lord's supper carried any sacramental overtones. "Sacraments" don't fit the historical context of original Christianity, nor do they fit the theological context of original Christianity. If so, then God's grace and favor, his will and power, to some degree or other have come under the control of man, his religious actions, and his institutions.
Instead, baptism is a ceremony where we identify with the death and resurrection of Christ (Rom. 6.1-4). It has no redeeming powers.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
2 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest