I just thought, Hebrews 7:9 can be a good reference for it.
One might even say that the infant was baptized through the father. For the infant was still in the father's "loin" when the father was baptized.
Calendar
Categories
Recent Comments
- timlyg on Journal of the Week
- timlyg on Timeline of the Bible
- timlyg on Bible Study: Hebrews
- timlyg on Bible Study: Hebrews
- timlyg on Bible Study: Hebrews
Meta
Something from Abraham Cho (of Redeemer)'s Facebook post today (and some comments for it):
How I changed my mind from adult only baptism to infant baptism:
1. The NT describes the first generation of Christianity. Every Christian was necessarily an adult convert.
2. Therefore all baptisms in the NT had to have been administered after conversion and profession of faith. It could not have been any other way.
3. The crucial question is what these new converts did with their children.
4. In its earliest days Christianity was still self-consciously a sect of Judaism—Jesus was Israel's Messiah.
5. Given its continuity with Judaism, converts needed clear teaching that the sign of the new covenant was now baptism not circumcision. The NT texts are filled with this teaching.
6. To be credobaptist, they would also have needed equally clear teaching that this new sign was no longer to be administered to children after 1000s of years of practice. This teaching is stunningly absent.
7. The earliest Jewish converts would've had profound cultural and theological instincts that would have been shocked at the notion that their children might be excluded from God's covenant promises. In the absence of clear teaching to withhold the covenant sign from their children, we must conclude that children were also baptized.
8. The "household texts" of Acts take on greater weight and confirm this practice.
Therefore, baptize your babies!
From Allen Yeh:
I appreciate your convictions. I have to confess I am a credobaptist. Let me ask you this (in all gentleness and respect--which means I will never call someone who disagrees with me on this issue a "sinner" or "heretic" or break fellowship with them):
1) if baptism is the NT form of circumcision, then shouldn't only males be baptized since only males were circumcised?;
2) the early church practiced both circumcision and baptism, so it doesn't look like one replaced the other?;
3) I've been to Israel and seen Jewish miqvahs (those deep baptismal tanks with stairs leading down into them)--seems like those were built for adults given how deep they are?
4) The Greek word "baptizo" was a pre-Christian pagan word meaning to dunk, to immerse (used for a ship sinking, or cloth being dyed). I think that that would probably drown a baby! Which is why sprinkling took over. But full immersion seems like it's just for adults. Historical note: the translators of the KJV didn't want to piss off King James who was intent on keeping paedobaptism as the official stance of the Anglican Church, so they decided to transliterate (rather than translate) "baptizo" as "baptize" rather than "dunk" (out of fear, for political reasons). But it means dunk.
5) For sacraments (not just baptism, but also communion, and footwashing), Jesus not only commands it to be done but also does it himself to give us an example. Our Lord chose to be baptized as an adult (obviously he did not need cleansing from sin). So why was he baptized? My theory is, he did it at an adult age to give us an example of when/how to do it. (Btw I do think your arguments #1 and #2 above are good points).
From Richard Dobson
It is an interesting line of reasoning, but is exegetically completely inadequate in handling so many biblical references that clearly teaches that immersion baptism is to follow personal faith in Christ specifically as a symbol of personal regeneration that an infant cannot achieve.
Richard Dobson's argument is easily refuted, for baptism is never a symbol nor conformation of personal regeneration. Baptism confirms God's grace upon His elects.
Now to deal with Allen Yeh's:
1. Male was the head of the household, so the concept of head, representative, must be learned first.
2. No they didn't, some tried, read Paul.
3. Miqvahs are not of Biblical origin. Depth of it has nothing to do with age of a person, moreover, we're not talking about the depth of the WATER.
4. Baptizo indeed means immerse. However, it has been used for various washing rituals not immersion. i.e. "Egypt Baptism". Many words evolve or adapt more than one meaning, it's not uncommon.
5. Justification by work, not a Christian doctrine.