Infant Baptism: The Practice of the First Century Church Part Five

                                       

                                

                                                                      Forward: 

As I approach the end of this series of posts defending infant baptism, I hope that I will at least accomplish two things: 

1. Inform Paedobaptists of some of the best Biblical arguments for infant baptism. Likewise, I hope that they will use many of the arguments that I have used for it instead of weaker ones like the alleged claim that Noah's baptism in 1 Peter 3: 21 supports infant baptism. For instance, the use of Noah's baptism in 1 Peter 3: 21 is weak because Genesis 6: 18 confirms that Noah's sons were already adults before the flood happened. Likewise, those who use the great commission in Mathew 28:19 to support infant baptism because they claim (as do some Lutherans) that baptism is inclusive of all, are inconsistent in their reasoning. If Matthew 28:19 is truly inclusive towards the baptism of every individual, then this would also encompass those who do not profess Christianity (as well as those who reject it). The only consistent way, in my view, to apply Matthew 28:19 to infant baptism is if we accept forced baptisms on those who reject it. 

2. I hope that I will encourage Credobaptists to reevaluate their rejection of infant baptism. Even if I do not, however, I hope that some of the weaker arguments that some of them propose against it (like infant baptism is wrong because it forces a baby into church membership) will be reconsidered in light of scripture. Finally, I hope that these posts will actually encourage Credobaptists to either convert to a different thought or to continue their objections against infant baptism by further searching their Biblical understanding for opposing it.  

                                                                            Introduction: 

So far, I believe that I have demonstrated Biblical evidence for infant baptism from the Old Testament, the gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and Paul the Apostle's epistle to the Colossians. Now, however, I would like to show scripture in other New Testament passages that I believe support infant baptism. Additionally, I wish to now write on the offensive against believer's baptism as the only Biblical Baptism. 

                               Lesser Well Known Texts for Infant Baptism: 1 Corinthians 10

I do believe that 1 Corinthians 10 supports infant baptism. Despite being a passage that many Paedobaptists seem to be unaware of, I believe that the text gives support to infant baptism. 

First of all, Paul says that Moses and the Israelites were baptized through the red sea (1 Corinthians 10: 2). This is quite interesting, considering that the Israelites would have included infants when they passed through the red sea (Joshua 5: 5). The idea that baptism, in this case, was just for believers, is simply not Biblical. 

The Credobaptists may rebuttal the above example, however, by insisting that the baptism of Moses and the Israelites was not of water, but of the Spirit (even though the text says ''through the red sea.'' Likewise, Psalm 77: 16-20 bears witness to the fact that the Hebrews were sprinkled by waters from the lower heavens as they passed through the red sea. 

Another objection that Credobaptists make against 1 Corinthians 10 supporting infant baptism, is their claim that the baptism that Moses and the Hebrews experienced in the book of Exodus, is not the same baptism that we have now. In regards to this objection, I would point them again to the texts (and hopefully, they would point me again towards it as well). In the passage mentioned, a type of baptism is described. Whether or not, it is the same as the New Testament baptism (or simply a foreshadowing of it) I do not believe stands a solid argument against the baptism of young children. 

Even if we concede that 1 Corinthians 10 is discussing a distinct baptism that was just for Moses and the Israelites, at the least, it is further Biblical evidence of the fact that young children in the Old Testament were as much part of God's covenantal family as their Hebrew parents. Furthermore, it also shows historically that God never commanded for young children to be withheld from His sacraments. At best, the argument for infant baptism that Paedobaptists often believe is taught in 1 Corinthians 10 supports their reasons to baptize infants. At worst, it is a different baptism than the New Testament  Church's baptism that originated formally at Pentecost (though Christ had described it before then), while also reminding us that God's extension of sacramental grace was never short to even the young Hebrew children. 

                                       Lesser Well Known Texts for Infant Baptism: Hebrews 8

Hebrews 8 does not say anything about water baptism. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that this passage gives support for infant baptism. However, in some less relevant ways, it strangely does. God ended his old covenant with Isreal as explained in Hebrews 8:13. Shortly before this, however, in Hebrews 8:8-10, the author writes about a new covenant that God has made with Isreal and Judah (Hebrews 8:8). While supplanting the old (Hebrews 8:13), God does not have a dispensational old covenant with ethnic Israel in which all of the Old Testament passages concerning circumcision (Genesis 17:10-12), and all the New Testament passages confirming a baptism in ancient Israel (1 Corinthians 10:2), are said to be relevant to the Jews only. Indeed, the church is the true ''Israel of God,'' and because of this, it inherits all the commands of the Old Testament except where the New Testament has rescinded such cases (Galatians 6: 16).   

                                                   The Credobaptst Case of Romans 8:9-11

In a world of frequent debates on social media, many appeal to essentially any verse in the scriptures to back a certain view. This is the case for many who hold the Credobaptist position and endorse Romans 8:9-11 as being about believers' baptism. The problem, however, is that baptism is not clearly articulated in the passage. Thus, I do not find my knowledge of this passage to contribute anything new to the already existing debate on whether or not we should infant baptize.  

                                               Biblical Problems with the Credobaptist Position

I have spent virtually all of this time in these posts by defending the doctrine of infant baptism as Biblical. However, I would like to turn this post in an offensive direction against those who claim that baptism can only be for believers. 

Even if one argues that the Baptism of Moses in the Old Testament was a different baptism than any in the New Testament (which it is), this does not disprove infant baptism. Indeed, even if one claims it to be only simply a picture of later baptism, this does not reduce it to nothing for the New Testament nowhere makes a distinction between its own baptism suddenly rejecting infants when the baptism of Moses had included them. Though the New Testament does distinguish itself from the Baptism of John the Baptist in that the latter was unaware of the Holy Spirit Baptism in Pentecost (Matthew 3: 1-12, Acts 2, Acts 18: 18-28), it nowhere distinguishes itself from how infants were baptized in the Red Sea (Exodus 13: 21, 1 Corinthians 10: 2). Tragically, the same Baptists who point to John the Baptist's Baptism in the Jordan River as evidence for baptism by immersion, are the same Baptists who ignore that the Israelite baptism in the Red Sea included infants. Ironically, Scripture never even writes explicitly on whether or not John the Baptist immersed believers in the Jordan River, yet Baptists assume this, then reject the explicit baptism of infants of the Hebrews passing through the Red Sea (1 Corinthians 10: 2). They point to his Baptism of repentant believers as evidence that all now must be baptized, then ignore that the Baptism of the Hebrews in 1 Corinthians 10: 2 would have included those too young to make a profession of faith. Finally, they ignore that John's Baptism of Repentance was superseded by the Baptism of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2, which never distinguished itself from either the Hebrew's Baptism in the Red Sea or the Prerequisite Rite of Circumcision for Membership in the Old Testament. Full of so many inconsistencies, the Credobaptist position relies on choosing to preach select Scriptural texts without taking all of Scripture into consideration. The hermeneutics of the Credobaptists were also unknown by the church fathers and all theologians until the Early Moden era. 

Many of the Credobaptists insist that water baptism cannot be given to infants. They assert that there are no cases of infants being baptized in the New Testament. However, even if Paedobaptists conceded to this position, there remains a major problem for the Credobaptist position. Throughout scripture, the apostles and evangelists preach to lost souls through missionary efforts (Matthew 28:19, Acts 2, etc). However, not once is there ever a case in scripture of believing parents preparing their children for baptism to come later in life. Likewise, not once is there an age of accountability discussed in the New Testament (though it is mentioned in the Old). Additionally, not once is there an example in scripture of a child repenting of their sins in a Jewish or Christian home and then being baptized as a profession for it. 

On the contrary, I have demonstrated evidence that circumcision was a common rite among Jewish boys. Even though girls did not receive physical circumcision, in the eyes of God, all of Isreal was circumcised (Joshua 5:5). Likewise, I believe that I have made a strong case that infant baptism was never rejected by Christ, likely practiced during the events recorded in the Acts of the Apostles and that baptism replaces circumcision (Colossians 2). As I've alluded to before, since circumcision was the rite in the Jewish community, since baptism replaced circumcision (Colossians 2), and since baptism confers grace (1 Peter 3:21), infants should be baptized. On the other hand, the Credobpatists are the ones burdened by a lack of scriptural passages to back their view. As will be discussed shortly, they also lack the support of early Christian history.  

This post concludes my support of infant baptism from scripture. In the following posts, I will attempt to prove historically that it was both common and accepted by many of those before the fourth century. Lest some say that I have not appealed to scripture in defense of this practice, let them read the first five posts of this series which have not mentioned a church father once. Indeed, I have backed my views from scripture. I have likewise covered objections against infant baptism by Credobpatist, and have done my best to rebuttal them. While a series of books could be written on this debate, it was my intent to write something accessible to further this discussion.