The First Argument

Well…what about circumcision? You see that there are examples of circumcision as infants right? Baptism is connected to circumcision–not the same but directly connected to it. Then you have the statement to baptize and well, infants are a part of all nations. Jesus doesn't say "baptize adults."

Make sense? Or are you still unlearned?

For me as a Lutheran, the biblical basis for baptism is God’s means of grace or the promises of God in baptism. From God’s promise in Acts 2:38-39, to Lydia’s whole household (contextually adults, children and servants) in Acts 16:14-15. Acts 22:16 describes baptism as washing away sins and Galatians 3:26-27 how baptism clothes us with Christ.

There is also the command of Jesus regarding children found in Matthew 19:13-15: “Then little children were being brought to him in order that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples spoke sternly to those who brought them; but Jesus said, ‘Let the little children come to me, and do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of heaven belongs.’ And he laid his hands on them and went on his way.”

Finally in Acts 2:38-39 Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you, for your children, and for all who are far away, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to him.”

(more to follow….)

If you see baptism as about us and our faith and our decision, then infant baptism makes no sense. If you see it as what God does and how God makes the first move to adopt us in our family, then it makes perfect sense. Although scripture may not speak specifically of infant baptism, it certainly speaks of everything we do being only a response to what God has first done for us. Infant baptism then becomes a beautiful sacrament illustrating how God adopts and forgives and accepts us out of sheer grace on God's part, not in response to our "decision".

There is always the danger of making faith a "work". But if we are saved because we have been able to muster up some faith or "make a decision for Christ" on our own, then we become responsible for our own salvation. And if we are responsible for our own salvation, then we are doomed.

Part 2:

Is there clear evidence of infants being baptized in the New Testament? The evidence is that of entire households being baptized, and the talk of baptism being a sign of the New Covenant, as circumcision on the eight day (or as an adult) was the sign of the Old Covenant. If one only studied the few biblical passages dealing directly with the style and age of baptism, it could be possible to conclude that “adult believer’s” baptism was the only practice of the early church. But when other sources are considered in light of scripture, the practice of infant baptism becomes clear. Historical writings do not supersede the biblical witness, but they can be helpful in understanding the thinking of the early church leaders, the very ones who codified the New Testament.

"And both men and women, who have been Christ's disciples since infancy, remain pure, and at the age of sixty or seventy years…" (Justin Martyr, First Apology,15:6 – AD 110-165) Martyr also wrote around 150 AD in his “Dialog with Trypho, the Jew,” that baptism is the circumcision of the New Testament.

Part 3:

"And they shall baptize the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family." (Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition,21(c. A.D. 215), in AT,33)

"Therefore children are also baptized." (Origen, Homily on Luke, XIV (A.D. 233), in JER, 65)

"For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too. Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous." (Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244), in JER,65 and Homily on Leviticus, 8:3 (post A.D. 244), in JUR, I:208)

Part 4:

In 253 AD Cyprian and the Council of Carthage along with 65 other bishops:

"But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, because the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified until the eighth day…And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism…we think it is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons.." (Cyprian,To Fidus, Epistle 58(64):2,6 (A.D. 251), in ANF,5:353-354)

Ahh… as expected, the Covenantal argument. I wasn't trying to bait anyone into it, but I intentionally failed to mention it and figured it would show up on its own. And here it is! With the very first comment!

There weren't just *examples* of infant circumcision, it was expressly demanded and clearly explained. Even the age of the child was identified in the requirement. If we're drawing comparisons between baptism and circumcision, then where is the time of baptism expressly demanded?

Moreover, how does Galations 3 fit in? Or Hebrews 8?

I've done some reading on this so I don't think I'd count myself as *completely* "unlearned", although I still do have much to learn. Personally, I feel that infant baptism came more from the church's stance on original sin than from a position of Covenantal doctrine. The Covenantal argument seems to have cropped up later on (2nd or 3rd century). To me, the earliest accounts of baptism seem to be based on faith or belief, rather than the need for a symbol of the new covenant.

Uh, I was just pointing out that Paul connects baptism and circumcision in Colossians. I'm not trying to import an entire argument into the discussion. Nor do I know what the "Covenantal argument" is. But I'm happy to play into your trap, you sinister spider you!

The connection of baptism to circumcision is done to demonstrate the point of cirmcumcision: salvation did not come when a person reached some age of consent or understanding. Why would you have something for infants in the OT, but then shift and have something for only adults in the NT? New is indeed new…but not that way.

So we baptize infants.

And we do not circumcize any more–which is why we have Galatians. Circumcision means nothing now, because of Christ.

Which is why the very way that children are brought into Christ now is for boy and girl alike.

I agree wholeheartedly with your last points. We cannot be responsible for our own salvation. Our salvation is through Christ, and Christ alone.

I'm also not arguing with the beauty of the sacrament. I can definitely see beauty in the sacrament of baptism whether it's of an infant or an adult, and for the very reasons you explain. It's a brilliant illustration of God bringing us into fullness of life with Him.

You seem to be saying that belief or faith on our part is not required. "If we are saved because we have been able to muster up some faith or 'make a decision for Christ' on our own…" I'm not trying to twist your words but this is a confusing argument. There seems to be a pretty clear need for belief tied to salvation. Can you explain what you mean here?

Vicar Bill, I'll need some time to digest all of this. I'm not ignoring you!

Sinister spider, eh? *evil grin*

Good points here! The Old Covenant required action on our part in order to fulfill it. Circumcision on the eighth day is just one example of many requirements mandated by this Covenant. You ask why the OT would have something for infants, then shift to being only for adults in the NT? My personal answer would be that Christ has brought a New Covenant and that belief is a requirement to maintain this Covenant. In the OT, it wasn't belief that maintained the Covenant, but rather adherence to the law, which included circumcision.

I'm just replying to this first section of your comment, as I've not yet consumed the rest.

I'm glad that you mention Acts 2:38-39. Peter says to repent and be baptized. Can a child repent? Does a child need to repent? Does a child need to be baptized to receive this promise? 1 Corinthians 7:14 comes to mind here, where it appears that children are made holy through a believing (baptized?) parent. If you take 1 Corinthians 7 and look at it in light of Acts 2, I would assume that the act of repentance and baptism on the part of parents would enable their children to receive the promises of God. Is this not accurate?

Still haven't completely consumed your comments, but this one seems a bit ominous. No one should be hindered from baptism?

While we're on the subject of old texts, what's the story behind Acts 8:37? I remember my grandparents quoting this passage and now it's not in my NIV Bible, stating that it was removed because there is debate surrounding the verse's authenticity. I'd throw this verse in the mix as an example of someone being hindered from baptism (pending belief), but now this verse is apparently suspect. I wonder why. You seem to have a lot of information about old texts, can you shed some light on this?

This is a question that I'm often asked by my brothers and sisters from ana-baptist traditions. It really all comes down to the question: "What is a sacrament?"

For Luther, holy baptism and holy communion were the only "two" sacraments of the church. This understanding focuses the action away from us and put it squarely on God. It becomes a "means of grace" that requires nothing more from us than a simple trust that what God has indeed promised is, in fact, "true."

You are quite correct that most of the examples that we have in scripture are of adults who professed a faith in God and were baptized. These baptisms were often a baptism of repentance (a public display of contrition for sins that had been committed). In the very beginning of the church, baptism took on a new role – becoming the entry point into the Christian faith. Those who were the heads of households were asked to profess their faith in Christ and be baptized (along with their entire family, which also included children/slaves/servants). Later on the Season of Lent became the time in the church year when adults would go through instruction before being baptized on Easter Sunday morning. However, it really wasn't until around Middle Ages that infants were rushed to the baptismal font, often because of a shortened life expectancy (Black Plague) and the Roman Catholic creation of a limbo place called purgatory (where unbaptized babies and other sinners went). It's kind of unfortunate that many folks today still want to understand baptism as some kind of "life insurance policy" for their kids, rather than as the entry point into the Christian Church and connection with a faith community.

I know that this is a pretty cursory accounting of history (my apology) which doesn't really answer your question. Again, it all comes down to: "What is a sacrament?"

Luther, I think, would probably have put it this way: Is there any clearer understanding of a sacrament than infant baptism? After all, what can a baby do to deserve such a gift? Can a baby profess their faith in God? Can a baby promise to live a righteous life? No, of course not. And yet, because this is(first and foremost) a sacrament, God is the one doing the action. God is the one offering this gift of grace. All we are, all we can ever be, are mere recipients of this awesome gift. We cannot prove our worthiness to God. We cannot claim some kind of entitlement to this gift. All we can do is graciously receive it.

Thanks for coming back oldlutheran!

It's interesting that you bring up problem of the "life insurance policy". Back when I was a baptist, I actually went on a mission trip to, of all places, Connecticut. Now, I'd been on plenty of mission trips by that point, to lots of places all over the globe. I couldn't understand why a random town in Connecticut would be a target of our missions team.

Only when we began talking to the town's occupants did we realize: the vast majority of them had no Biblical understanding of grace or faith in Christ. And yet, the vast majority believed they were saved. They had been baptized as an infant in the local Catholic church.

I'm not trying to further divide the church with a comment like this, or point fingers, I'm simply describing a scenario that I can attest to first-hand. There are people out there who have been baptized as an infant and truly believe that getting wet as a baby took care of the matter in God's eyes.

Another example I have are some old friends who never attend church and make no effort to nurture their children in the faith, yet invited us to the baptism of their infant daughter in a Lutheran church. It was my first Lutheran baptism, and was the first time that questions like this surfaced for me. They requested a private baptism in the evening, from a pastor they barely knew and at a church they never attended. When they had no intent of nurturing the child in the faith, what was the purpose of this baptism?

I have an appreciation for the confirmation process in the Lutheran church (and others). I do believe that infant baptism, when combined with belief and faith nurtured by parents and the church, sufficiently meets the intent of the scriptures. I still believe, however, that a danger exists for some to misunderstand what happens at baptism and, more importantly, what does NOT happen at baptism.

As always, thanks for your comments.

I think that you bring up a very valid point, which is that there are indeed shortcomings in all of our faith traditions – especially when it comes to following through on the promises we make to God.

My friends, who ascribe to a "believer's baptism," will still bring their infant children to church and have them "dedicated" at a worship service. There, before the entire congregation, they will promise to raise their children in the Christian faith and teach them the important things they need to know about their own faith tradition. The congregation will also promise to help the parents do this. Then (hopefully) at an age of accountability, those children will accept Jesus as their "personal Lord and Savior" and ask to be baptized. Of course, this sounds very similar to what we call baptism and confirmation (affirmation of baptism) in our tradition.

I've always thought that it might make for an interesting study (if it hasn't been already done) to look at a group of folks at (let's say) age 50, half who were baptized as infants and half who were baptized as young adults, and see how many of them have maintained a solid relationship with God and the Church. I would almost venture a guess that the stats would be very similar between these two groups.

What I truly believe is that parents who take seriously the promises that they make at their child's baptism (or dedication), and a young person who truly desires to continue in a relationship with God that was nurtured by those parents and that congregation to the point of confirmation (baptism), will ultimately witness a solid life of faith that will further grow and flourish.

Well…you say "The Old Covenant required action on our part in order to fulfill it." How exactly is circumcision an example of that? That child has nothing to do with being circumcized. They don't take any action on this behalf. They are entirely passive when it comes to their entrance into the covenant.

So, too with baptism, the child is passive. There is no action that they take to bring themselves into the family of God–rather, it is done for them.

Does that have your spidey sense tingling?

I recall the parent/baby dedications in my church growing up. This topic came up during my first conversation with a Lutheran pastor about infant baptism. I mentioned to him that I saw the two events as being somewhat similar. I see it as less about the soul of the baby and more about the parents professing a dedication to help their children grow up spiritually.

One difference for me, from the perspective of someone who was baptized later on, is that I can remember my baptism. There has been talk in some of these comments about baptism being a beautiful illustration of the grace of God, and I agree. Imagine if you could remember that beautiful illustration happening to you personally. Imagine if viewing future baptisms brought up a clear memory of that same event occurring in your own life.

I'm not entirely sure I agree that the stats would be similar between the two groups you mention. From my experience, it seems like churches that believe in baptizing later in life baptize fewer members than churches who believe in infant baptism. As a former baptist, I know there were more parent/baby dedication ceremonies than there were baptisms. I'd imagine the same would hold true for infant baptisms vs. confirmations (the affirmation of those baptisms) in Lutheran churches. If half your group was baptized as young adults, they did this as a conscious choice (granted, at times they are persuaded to do so by their parents, but still) whereas the half that was baptized as infants made no such choice. Perhaps a better comparison would be limiting the half who were baptized as infants to those who were both baptized as infants and later confirmed. I imagine if you took baptized and confirmed 50 year olds and compared them with 50 year olds who were baptized later in life, you'd have a pretty even comparison.

"Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ."

Hehe! Totally tingling… good comments!

True, the child had no choice in the matter. I guess what I meant is that people, in general, were required to act in order to enter into the covenant. The child is passive, yes, but the child's parents were not.

I really only say this to demonstrate that all of this, including baptism, requires human interaction. Others have commented on here to say that it's not man doing it, but God. And yet, it doesn't happen automatically. It requires people to say: "yes, this child should enter into the New Covenant" and take action accordingly. I look at verses like those in 1 Corinthians 7 and it leads me to believe that children are made holy through the belief of the parent and not necessarily through any particular act (such as baptism). I mentioned this in a response to Vicar Bill a couple of comments down this page. Verses like this make me think that salvation hinges not on adherence to Covenantal rules or "requirements", but on belief and faith.

"I imagine if you took baptized and confirmed 50 year olds and compared them with 50 year olds who were baptized later in life, you'd have a pretty even comparison."

Actually, that's what I meant. Sorry about the confusion. What I was getting at is that when parents have their infant children baptized and don't follow through with their promises to bring the child up in the Christian faith, its makes it very difficult for that child to ever claim those baptismal promises for themselves later on in life. Likewise, a person who makes the decision to be baptized later in life, may or may not end up following through with his/her commitment to continue in any real relationship with Jesus and fall away. In either case, does this make their baptism somehow null and void? My argument is that in both cases, they are still children of God, claimed by the Holy Spirit and marked with the cross of Christ forever. Because, it's not about us.

BTW – I do agree with you that it's very important to find ways to "remember" and celebrate our baptism. There certainly is something nice about being old enough to have that special memory that you can carry around with you. However, as a parent and baptismal sponsor for a number of my nieces, I have found ways to celebrate their baptismal anniversaries with them that can evoke memories. On each of those anniversary days, I have given them a special gift and when I've been able to be with them, we have lighted their baptismal candle, look at pictures and share stories about that special day. Now, one of the things that our church tries to do is also give the parents and sponsors a DVD of the service and encourage them to show it to their children on their baptismal anniversary day as a part of the celebration. So as they grow older, their baptism becomes more real and meaningful to them.

Christ said go, baptize, and make disciples… Baptism is a free gift from God to us. Why does it matter if the person is 1, 10, 20, 30, or 130… It is a free gift to be shared by all. We humans like to get hung up in the minutia of things and not accept a free gift. God loves us all so why not share it with an infant or the elderly. I do not understand why you need to go in to grave detail and need so many answers on why we baptize infants. Instead I challenge you to use this energy rather in searching for the answers around infant baptism but to use your energy to live out your baptismal calling as a child of God.

"I do not understand why you need to go in to grave detail and need so many answers on why we baptize infants."

My need to understand stems from growing up with one understanding of baptism, then being thrust into another. The age of baptism isn't really my issue, it's the state of the heart of the person being baptised. I was raised believing that a baptism is an expression of faith… a proclamation of conversion that has already occured. Infant baptism places the baptism event well before faith can ever take place.

Lutherans baptise infants because it is biblical they are included in christs command to baptize all nation's . If we excluded infants we also would have to exclude other age groups such as teen agers since they also are not mentioned in the bible or oldsters .
are germans and norwegians mentioned perhaps not but lutheran baptize them to.

its a means of grace

you should talk to your pastor about all this rather than crypto baptist's or denominational baptist's who are really enamies of Christ AND his gospel meassage presented in holy baptism

I think you need to remeber what it was like 200 years ago and even closer to now. infant mortality was huge. families would lose their little ones before the age of 8 from all sorts of diseases, infections, etc. so many things are now not here or are immunised for. so i believe the concept of baptizing infants is to ensure their safe travel and place in heaven. there are stories of utter fear from parents who didnt have their child baptized soon enough. so the practice i beleive became one of necessity. to wait to an older age was allowing the opportunity for a child to miss out on being baptised altogether. polio, small pox, german measles, measles, whooping cough, birthing complications, just to name a few. not uncommon for families to have 3 small gravesites or more. my great grandparents 9 children with only 2 reaching past 7yrs. so my though is that infant baptism became an obvious option. why chance a little child to miss out altogether. “bring the children to me” . says it all