INFANT BAPTISM
Daniel Ivey
United Methodist Theology
DO 670
Dr. Robert G. Tuttle
PREFACE
As I began the task of searching out the topic of infant baptism, I had no idea how large and extensive the issue was. Now that I sit down to write my paper on Infant Baptism, I begin it very humbly. I still am not sure that I have grasped all the facets of this issue, in fact I am sure that I have not. For who can know the fullness of the blessed sacrament of baptism that Christ Jesus ordained for His church. My reason for picking this topic is that I am on track to be an ordained Elder in the United Methodist Church which is for infant baptism, but up to this point, I have felt uneasy about the idea of personally baptizing an infant, and not a repentant believer who can answer for her or his self. I was born into a family who has a history in the Southern Baptist church. This goes back at least four generations. So I was led to believe that the only true baptism was that of someone who could answer for themselves the claims of the Gospel for their lives. I was also raised to believe that the proper way to baptize was by immersion in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So, I entered into this task for my own sake, to reevaluate the claims I had accepted all of my life. I now have a much greater understanding of the issue, but wish that I had years to study it out, rather than a semester with three other competing classes, a job, and a family. I studied the issue of infant baptism from a Scriptural, Historical, Methodist-Wesleyan point of view. I humbly offer to you my findings and my personal conclusion, as a former Southern Baptist, Charismatic, Pentecostal, now turned United Methodist believer in the Lord Jesus Christ.
INFANT BAPTISM
Infant Baptism or paedo-baptism is a topic of much discussion in this modern age. However it has not been a topic of discussion throughout much of the historical age of the Church. Questions as to the legitimacy of Infant Baptism did not come up in large until the 1700’s. Up until that point, it was a widely accepted practice of the Church universal to practice paedo-baptism. In fact at times it was a requirement by the church. In Scripture, there is no explicit example of infants being baptized, however there are inferences and instances which would lead one to believe that it must have taken place such as Peter’s address to the large crowd in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:38-39 to “let every one of you be baptized” and that “the promise is to you and to your children”. Other often cited examples of probable infant baptism are those of whole households being baptized. There is also much socio-historical evidence that the baptizing of infants was common practice in that day, and the ages past with the Law of Moses. However, Scripture is not clear on any restrictions as to an age limit for who could be baptized or of how it was supposed to happen. Many assume that all New Testament baptisms including that of John’s were by immersion, yet many others pose the large crowds and the often times lack of water to point to baptism by sprinkling or pouring. Historically, there is debate as to whether or not the apostles and early church fathers baptized infants. No scholars doubt that it was common practice in the church worldwide by the fourth century, but prior to that there is some debate. However such early writers as Origen, Tertullian, and Justin Martyr state that infant baptism was common practice in the first few centuries, even originating with the apostles. The United Methodist Church, as started by John Wesley is strong on the argument for infant baptism and has practiced it from their beginnings.
In this paper, I will present my findings on the topic of infant baptism from a Scriptural, Historical, and Wesleyan point of view. As a former Southern Baptist, born and raised, now turned United Methodist, I believe that I have been converted on the issue and debate of believer’s baptism and infant baptism. After doing the research for this paper, I believe I have come to conclude the infant baptism is Scriptural, historically proven to have been carried out by the apostles and all the early church fathers even to this day, and that it is what all Christ followers should ascribe to, especially United Methodists.
WHAT DOES SCRIPTURE SAY?
In the Great Commission found in Matthew 28:18-20, Jesus says, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Let if first be stated that baptism is a command that was given to the Church by the Lord Jesus Christ. Baptism was ordained by Christ to be administered to all believers in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This along with the Lord’s Supper or Communion, are the two sacraments that the Lord ordained to be done throughout all the ages until the Lord returns. Even Jesus subjected Himself to the Baptism of John, in which He was confirmed by the voice of God and empowered by the Holy Spirit who descended upon Him in the form of a dove. Scripturally, baptism did not start with Jesus, nor with John, but goes back into the Old Testament with the many baptisms and washings that were required by God in the Law of Moses. I believe that this is what Hebrews 6:2 is referring to when it talks about the doctrine of baptisms in the plural. Even Jesus caught grief from the Pharisees during his ministry for not adhering to the baptisms or washings of the fathers, because His disciples did not wash their hands in Matthew 15:2. One only needs to read through the book of Leviticus to find several different baptisms or washings. Sacrifices were to be washed, instruments were to be washed, hands and feet were to be washed, and even household furniture was to be cleansed by water. The issue of water purifying and washing things clean is throughout the whole of Scripture. But here in the New Testament, and for the topic of this paper, I am talking about the outward sign of the inward grace of the water washing a person clean, not from outward dirt, but from the sin that stains us from within.
That we all have sin that stains us within is clearly laid out in Scripture. Romans 3:23, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”. And in Romans 3:10, “There is none righteous, no not one”. And all who have sin have need of being purged of their sin. We are cleansed by the blood of Jesus, which He shed for us on the cross, where He died and three days later rose again. Everyone is in need of being saved and being born again, and all who will be born again are commanded by the Lord and the Apostles to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Peter states clearly to the crowd who were cut to the heart, when they asked, “Men and brethren, what shall we do (to be saved)?” to “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Yet he went on to clarify, “For this promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” (Acts 2:37-39 NKJV) Peter states to repent and be baptized. Yes it was probably adults who were screaming out for answers, but Peter addressed all of them. In fact, Peter clarified that this promise was also to their children!
There are also instances of whole households being saved and baptized. (Acts 16:15, 16:33, 18:8) It was common for households to have young children if not infants in the house. And if we do not feel safe to assume that there may have been young children or infants in the houses of the above mentioned instances, then we can also turn our attention to crowd of 3,000 and crowd of 5,000 that were baptized in Acts 3:41 and Acts 4:4. Surely there had to have been young children or infants in the crowds. Yet if one would say that only those who responded would have been baptized, and young children and infants would not have been able to respond, I point to the practice of the faith that they inherited and were a part of. In the Old Testament, it was commanded of Israel to circumcise all foreigners who would convert to the God of Israel. This included every male in the household, no matter what age. They also would baptize them with water before circumcising. “The Jews constantly baptized as well as circumcised all infant proselytes.” (Outler, JW 326)
Jesus had a great affinity for little children, and even infants. In Luke 18:16, Jesus says, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them, for of such is the kingdom of God.” The Greek word for little children, paidia, literally means infants! Now is my point of Jesus having great affinity for little children and infants my basis for my argument, no. Jesus had great affinity for all, for He was of His Father who “loved the world so much, that He gave His only begotten Son”. (John 3:16) But Jesus is saying in a larger sense, include even the little ones, and do not separate them from being a part of me, for so they are. If Jesus was the express image of the Father, and His Kingdom, and the infants were likened to those of His Kingdom, then it is fair to say that they are in the eyes of Jesus included in His Kingdom. Therefore, why would it be considered to forbid them, in any way from partaking of the things of the Kingdom. For if one is a child of the King, then they are heirs of all that the King has, even though they are not able to handle such things yet, they are entitled to them. In fact, God saw it fit to include the young children and infants in the promise and covenant that He gave to Abraham. (Genesis 17:9-24) And I remind you that this promise and covenant was given to Abraham in accordance to his faith. Yet even those of the age of 8 days old and above were included in this faith covenant that was given to Abraham. We the Church are also recipients of this faith covenant that was given to Abraham, and now more so the covenant fulfilled, the seed of Abraham, Jesus Christ, through whom all nations of the earth are blessed. If God started a pattern of including the infants in the covenant of Abraham, and continued it in the covenant with Moses, why would He not continue it with the Covenant through His very Son Jesus? Being that there was a pattern set of including infants in the covenant, and that there were many hundreds of years of practicing the including of infants, wouldn’t it have been necessary for the Lord to have expressly stated that He did not want to include infants in the covenant if we were not supposed to baptize infants?
“For if it was the custom of the Jews, when they gathered proselytes out of all nations, to admit children into the church by circumcision though they could not actually believe the law or obey it, then the apostles, making proselytes to Christianity by baptism, could never think of excluding children whom the Jews always admitted ( the reason for their admission being the same) unless our Lord had expressly forbidden it. It follows the apostles baptize infants. Therefore, they are proper subjects of baptism.” (Outler, JW 327)
We see from Scripture that circumcision was the initiating rite by which anyone (a sign to males only at the time) was brought into the covenant of God through Abraham and Moses. We also know from the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, that circumcision is no longer required for those who come into the new covenant of Jesus Christ. We see that baptism has now taken its place as evidenced by Colossians 2:11-14, Galatians 3:27, and I Corinthians 12:13, as the initiating rite, as our mode of entry into the Church, the Body of Christ. Being that the old covenants were extended to infants of believing parents, and that Christ did not give express objection to this long held practice in the new covenant, I see it fit that we should continue in this God given practice of initiating the young into the covenant, and that through baptism.
One last example from Scripture that must point to infant baptism, is that of the commentary from I Corinthians 10:1-4. In verse two, it states that “all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea”. This is referring to the Exodus of the Israelites out of Egypt, being led by the cloud of God, and all passing through the Red Sea. If one wants to argue that there may not have been infants in the whole households that were saved and baptized, and one still wants to argue that there were not children and infants included in the baptizing of the crowds of 3,000 and 5,000, then one must be open to possibility of infants being present in the Exodus out of the whole people of Israel, of which some estimate a population of as high as 2,000,000! And the New Testament Scripture says that they were “all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea”.
What Does History Say?
I absolutely believe the Holy Bible to be a true and historic document, but as stated above, there is not one explicit statement or historical account of an infant being baptized in the New Testament. So we turn elsewhere. I was somewhat shocked to find out, that just as there is a schism in the Body of Christ over the issue of paedo-baptism versus believer’s baptism, there is also a divide between historical theologians as to whether or not there is sufficient historical evidence in the first four centuries of the church as to whether or not infants were baptized. In matters of a tradition, it always most important that the tradition actually started with the starters of the group at hand, being the Church. That the Church worldwide has practiced infant baptism for several centuries, specifically from the fourth century until the eighteenth century , uncontested is a very significant historical finding. What would be even more significant would be that it happened in the even earlier centuries. And what would be most significant, is if it can be proved that the original Apostles practiced it. But sadly, there was no video tape at that time, nor were there any writings in the day the apostles lived that specifically state that the apostles were baptizing infants. However, there are writings about the practices of infant baptisms that were produced in the early centuries.
Joachim Jeremias and Kurt Aland have been the two biggest heavy weights of this century when it comes to the historical evidence of infant baptism in the first few centuries of the church. They both are highly trained scholars, and have done extensive research on this issue, but the problem is, that the two do not agree on the matter. Jeremias wrote a book entitled “Infant baptism in the First Four Centuries” which dealt with the very matter. Again, no scholars contend on whether or not infant baptism was common practice from the fourth century on, which went uncontested until the 1700’s. So Jeremias studies the period’s literature, as well as artifacts of tombstones of infants. The tombstones which date back to the year 200 and onward are those of infants that expressly state that they were believers, where in one instance it says that “The phrase…of the Zosimus inscription and implies that this is a case of baptized children of Christian parents. He also quotes such early writers as Origin, Tertullian, John Chrysostom, Polycrates, Hippolytus, and Iranaeus, as either explicitly or implicitly making mention of the practice of infant baptism being common, and taken with much seriousness. Aland also traces over the same documents, but argues against it. However, Aland does not seem to take the documents at their face value. Aland is skeptical of any infant baptizing being common practice before the year 200. Jeremias wrote a reply to Aland in the book “The Origins of Infant Baptism” where he critiqued Aland’s critique. However I side with the arguments from history of Jeremias.
“Origen, a Greek, born A.D. 185, whose father, grandfather and great-grandfather were Christians, extending back to the time of the apostles, says they received the custom of baptizing children from the apostles and that it was a universal custom among the churches. He says: “According to the usages of the church, baptism is given even to infants.” He record that he himself was a baptized child.” (Swift 34) “Justin Martyr, born in Palestine at Shechem, who very likely saw the Apostle John, wrote in A.D. 138 that there were then “Christian persons of both sexes, some sixty, some seventy years old, who had been made disciples from their infancy.” What did he mean by being “made disciples from their infancy”? Simply that they were baptized in infancy. He says further: “We are circumcised by baptism with Christ’s circumcision.””(35) “Irenaeus, born A.D. 97, a pupil of Polycarp, who was a convert of the Apostle John, says: “The church learned from the apostles to give baptism to infants.” He says again: “For He (Christ) came to save all persons by Himself---all, I mean, who are regenerated (baptized) unto God: infants and little ones and children and youth and elder persons.””(35-36) There are many other such quotes from early church fathers and early writers, and they all agree that infant baptism was a common practice, and as some state explicitly, that it also came directly from the apostles. This seems to me to be sufficient historical evidence to believe that infant baptism is not something that was created later by church leaders who were misled, but that they acted upon infant baptism because they were correctly led, and that by the Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ!
What Does John Wesley Say?
John Wesley states about baptism in Outler’s “John Wesley”, that “It is the initiatory sacrament which enters us into covenant with God. It was instituted by Christ, who alone has power to institute a proper sacrament, a sign, seal, pledge and means of grace, perpetually obligatory on all Christians….And it was instituted in the room of circumcision. For as that was a sign and seal of God’s covenant, so is this.” (319) Wesley also states, that the first benefit of this blessed sacrament “is the washing away the guilt of original sin by the application of the merits of Christ’s death.” (321) Wesley also had a view of baptism in which three things to it were essential to Christian baptism: 1. An Episcopal administrator; 2. The application of water; 3. That it be administered in the Name of the Trinity. Wesley held great disdain and contention with the Anabaptists and the way that the administered Christian baptism. He even went so far as to discredit their baptisms altogether, for they were lacking true episcopal administrators, due to their leaving the church. In fact, we see in his practice, that he did not allow his evangelists to baptize either for the same reason. While some hold that the Great Commission was delivered to all in Matthew 28, Wesley believes that it was only delivered to the Apostles. Therefore, it would only be those whom the Apostles had ordained, that could truly administer the sacrament of baptism. He also had a big problem with the idea of their “dipping” or immersion baptisms, for Wesley believed strongly that the correct mode of baptism, both Scripturally and traditionally was by sprinkling or pouring. While he admits that the New Testament is not explicit on the mode of baptism, he found it very hard to believe that 5,000 would have every been immersed one by one. However he also says, “Baptism is performed by “washing”, “dipping”, or “sprinkling” the person , “in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost,” who is thereby devoted to the ever-blessed Trinity. I say, by “washing, dipping, or sprinkling,” because it is not determined in Scripture in which of these ways it shall be done, neither by any express precept nor by any such example as clearly proves it; nor by the force of meaning of the word “baptize.” (319) Wesley was a man of one book. Although he was an avid reader of many books, he only held full allegiance to the Bible, and he weighed all subsequent truth in light of the truth of the Bible. Now being an Anglican priest, of course he held to the Book of Common Prayer as well as to the 39 articles. While he too would concede that the Scriptures never explicitly gave instruction or instance of infant baptism, he was sure that it was God’s will to do so. His arguments are incredible toward infant baptism. It was really in the reading of Wesley that I started being convinced that this is the right way, and that God does bless the baptizing of infants.
Now to change course a bit with Wesley, I would like to give another quote, that will seem to be in contradiction to my next points about Wesley. Wesley said about “baptism, the ordinary instrument of our justification.” (321) Wesley knew very well that Justification was saving Grace. Justification was being made right with God, with God’s imputed righteousness. So it seems that Wesley is saying here that baptism is the instrument of our salvation, or the element that brings it about. Again, Wesley is a staunch supporter of infant baptism. Yet I take you to his preaching in the two sermons “The Means of Grace” and “The New Birth”, both found in Outler’s “John Wesley’s Sermons: An Anthology”. In “The Means of Grace”, Wesley says, “By ‘means of grace’ I understand outward signs, words, or actions ordained of God, and appointed for this end- to be the ordinary channels whereby he might convey to men preventing, justifying, or sanctifying grace.” (160) The above statement almost makes it sound as though Wesley believed that there was something special in and of itself to baptism. However here he is saying that it is more about God operating through this “ordinary channel”. But then he clarifies yet even stronger his view of the interplay of baptism and salvation when he says, “We allow likewise that all outward means whatever, if separate from the Spirit of God, cannot profit at all, cannot conduce in any degree either to the knowledge or love of God….Whosoever imagines there is any intrinsic power in any means whatsoever does greatly err, not knowing the Scriptures, neither the power of God.” Wow! Amen! I think that even the believer’s baptism only crowd can say Amen to that statement.
In his sermon, “The New Birth”, Wesley goes on further to comment how important faith is in Salvation. I believe that Wesley does a marvelous job at balancing the whole cannon of Scripture, and chiefly Ephesians 2:8-9, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.”, with Christ’s command to administer the sacrament of baptism in Matthew 28:19. He recognized that what God wanted was faith and the changing of the heart through repentance and belief, but yet that God also still wanted this outward sign through which He would perform an inward grace. “And, first, it follows that baptism is not the new birth: they are not one and the same thing….as the new birth is not the same thing with baptism, so it does not always accompany baptism; they do not constantly go together. A man may possibly be ‘born of water’, and yet not be ‘born of the Spirit’.” (342) It may be helpful to note here, that in the case of John 3, of being born or water and the Spirit, Wesley viewed the reference to water as that of Baptism, not of the difference from a natural and spiritual birth as many interpret.
It is as if I hear the believer’s baptism only people rejoicing at this last statement, but then Wesley says, “There may sometimes be the outward sign where there is not the inward grace. I do not now speak with regard to infants: it is certain, our Church supposes that all who are baptized in their infancy are at the same time born again.” (342) But how could this be? Wesley believes that infants are born with original sin, but that they have not yet committed any actual sin. And Wesley believes that baptism washes the infant clean of the original sin. So, if one is baptized as an infant, does Wesley believe that they need not do anything further as they grow up and are able to speak for themselves and reason? What about if the baptized infant grows up and starts living a life contrary to love of God, and shows no interest in following Christ? Do you still say that infant baptized person is a Christian?! The plain answer to this question, as to what becomes of a person as they grow old enough to understand who were baptized as an infant, whether they become a hell raiser, or live a very devout and honorable life, is that which Jesus told Nicodemus in John 3:3, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” To the hell raiser, Wesley would say, “Whenever therefore you give place to him (Satan) again, whenever you do any of the works of the devil, then you deny your baptism.” (344) You must be born again. And to the one who at least supposedly lives a righteous life, I believe that Wesley would remind that one of the truth of Ephesians 2:8-9, that it is not our good works that get us saved, but only by the grace of God through faith, therefore you too must be born again. This is where Wesley truly comes down in his doctrine and theology about salvation and baptism. If one argues that it is not right to baptize infants because there is no guarantee that they will live for Christ the rest of their life, Wesley would agree, and would point out that neither is there a guarantee that an adult believer who is baptized will continue to live for Christ. For Wesley what really mattered, was how it is with one’s soul now. To give a paraphrase of a quote I have heard that he said in regards to the faith, Wesley said something to the effect, “Don’t tell me what you was, tell what you is (or are now)”. Wesley was also one who believed in the assurance of one’s salvation, but not in the way that you were eternally secure once you believed, but in the way that you could have the witness of the Spirit of God bearing witness with your spirit that you are a child of God. He also held the belief that God was serious when He says to endure to the end. For Wesley, one could fall out of grace, and walk away and deny the glorious grace of God which was able to save their soul. So in matters of baptism, he took the sacrament as serious as any, but he held it in its rightful place, of being a one-time event in someone’s life, which must be mixed with faith and lived out, ever increasing in the love of God.
To summarize Wesley’s arguments for infant baptism, he says that since infants are able to be saved as well as adults, and baptism is the normal means of grace and initiatory rite into the Church, and the Lord commands to not forbid the infants but to let them come to Him, and if infants in the Old Testament and infants in other societies are capable of entering into covenant by way of others, and since they were included in the covenant with Abraham and Moses, and since this was the norm and Christ did not expressly forbid it to His apostles since they would naturally continue what was their religious tradition, and since it is highly probable that infants were involved in the crowds of 3 and 5 thousand as well as the households who were baptized, and since it has been the uncontested way in the church since the apostles to the 1700’s, and lastly that with baptism comes the inestimable benefits of having the guilt of original sin washed away and being engrafted into Christ’s body making us members of His Church and thereby giving us access to all the blessings of the Gospel, then it follows that infants may and even ought to be baptized and that none ought to forbid them. (328-9)
I therefore conclude that infant baptism is a legitimate form of baptism, and I now believe it has been in practice since the Lord Jesus ordained it. Just as in believer’s baptism, the walk with Christ still has to be lived out, and faith must be mixed in with the sacrament for it to have any inward effect. I still have many questions about infant baptism, but at this point, I think I would baptize my own children when they are infants. I believe that it is proven Scripturally once you understand the history and practices of the Bible, and it is proven historically by the early witnesses to an acceptable level, and that John Wesley is a great defender of the faith.
Bibliography:
Aland, Kurt. Did the Early Church Baptize Infants? The Westminster Press. Philadelphia. 1963
Armstrong & Engle. Understanding Four Views on Baptism. Zondervan. Grand Rapids, MI. 2007
Benedict, Daniel. Come to the Waters: Baptism and Our Ministry of Welcoming Seekers and Making Disciples. Discipleship Resources. Nashville. 2002
Bridge & Phypers. The Water that Divides: The Baptism Debate. Intervarsity Press. Illinois. 1977
Dixon, Neil. Troubled Waters. Epworth Press. London. 1979
Goode, William. The Doctrine of the Church of England as to the Effects of Baptism in the case of Infants: With an Appendix Containing The Baptismal Services of Luther and the Nuremberg and Cologne Liturgies. Protestant Episcopal Society For The Promotion OF Evangelical Knowledge. New York. 1853
Jeremias, Joachim. Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries. SCM Press LTD. London. 1960
Jeremias, Joachim. The Origins of Infant Baptism: Studies in Historical Theology. SCM Press LTD. London. 1963
Olson, Harriet J. The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church 2004. The United Methodist Publishing House. Nashville, TN. 2004
Outler, Albert. John Wesley. Oxford University Press. New York. 1964
Outler, Albert. John Wesley’s Sermons: An Anthology. Abingdon Press. Nashville. 1991
Parris, John. John Wesley’s Doctrine of the Sacraments. The Epworth Press. London. 1963
Pohl, Keith. The Best of the Circuit Rider’s First Decade. Circuit Rider. The United Methodist Publishing House. Nashville, TN. 1987
Swift, W.A. Why Baptize By Pouring and Baptize Babies. Rev. W. A. Swift or Methodist Publishing House. Monteagle, TN. 1967?
Wright, David F. What has Infant Baptism done to Baptism?: An enquiry at the end of Christendom. Didsbury Lectures, 2003. Paternoster. Milton Keynes, UK. 2005
Wright, David F. Studies in Christian History and Thought: Infant Baptism in Historical Perspective; Collected Studies. Praternoste
No comments:
Post a Comment