Infant Baptism

I grew up reformed and have been baptized as an infant but I'be been lately challenged on this issue by a book from Dr. James Dunn - UNITY AND DIVERSITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. A passage from the book:"For it has to be recognized that infant baptism can find no real support in the theology of baptim which any NT writer can be shown to espouse. And the more we recognize that a primary function of baptism throughout the first decades of Christianity was to serve as a means of expressing the initiate's faith and commitment, the less justified in term of Christian beginnings would the practice of infant baptism appear to be." (Dunn, 1997 : 160)Any insight into this with scripture verses being used in context (sound interpretation) would be appreciated.Brother in ChristHolywarrior

And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey.Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: Matt 3:4-8I understand this is John baptizing people but I belive that this same standard should be held today when someone is baptized. They should have already of confessed their sins and shown fruits worthy of repentance(Luke 3:8). Can an infant do that?

HiI had a similar feeling when I accepted Jesus as Lord and Saiour at the age of forty. Did my infant baptism, and subsequent confirmation have any meaning. Jesus commands his followers to disciple and baptise all peoples in his name. This discipling and baptising are human acts, but there is a working of God in them. Baptism is a sacrament - a time when the gap between heaven and earth becomes thin - and God acts on the subject. This is an event similar to Holy Communion, which may be celebrated regularly ( I leave it to you to decide how often).Peter on the day of Pentecost told the crowd who asked 'what should we do?' to repent and be baptised.Later at Cornelius house, the hearers were baptised in the Spirit and Peter then baptised the whole household with water - presumably including children and slaves.So I don't think that scripture gives us a hard and fast rule, but allows for a variety of baptism events - after all it's God's work not ours.Personally I wish I had not been baptised as a baby - but I would probably have been baptised as a teenager and later regretted that I had not waited until I was 40. As it is I do not desire further baptism in water, but require the baptism in the Spirit to be a continual event - I need to be constantly topped up, just as Jesus was regularly ministered to by the Holy Spirit during his life on earth strengthening him to allow his mission to be completed.On the baptism of other peoples babies - I am glad to say that a blessing service is becoming more popular and allows for adult baptism as believers to be a much more dramatic event.Lots to think about though - child baptism became popular when infant deaths were very common. More questions than answers.There is a book called 'Baptise every baby' (Clifford Owen) which describes a ministers struggle to come up with a sound policy and rehearses the arguments for and against.Only you yourself know what God has done for you and when. Is any further response required? Grace and PeaceDave

I grew up reformed and have been baptized as an infant but I'be been lately challenged on this issue by a book from Dr. James Dunn - UNITY AND DIVERSITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. A passage from the book:James Dunn is a brilliant UK academic with charismatic leanings. I have read several of his books including the one mentioned above. Although I agree with this statement on baptism his views on the canon and the inspiration of scripture are certainly not classical evangelical.As you read the book you will find that his real core of revelation truth becomes smaller and smaller. A writer to be read with extreme caution.

There is good excerpt about baptism in A.W. Tozer "The Voice of the Spirit" The part that he talks about baptism is at 19:30 to 21:00 min

Later at Cornelius house, the hearers were baptised in the Spirit and Peter then baptised the whole household with water - presumably including children and slaves.I think this is an unwarranted 'presumption'; ;-) using your own word. A careful reading of Acts 10:44-48 will show that Peter asked 'can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized'. The 'these' refers to those who had heard the word and upon whom the HOly Spirit had 'fallen'. 'these' also spoke with tongues.There is no reference in this account to the mass baptism of Cornelius' household. I think you are thinking of other Acts households; eg Acts 16:15 & 31.

Hi PhilologosThank you for this insight on Dr. James Dunn. It helps me to evaluate him in a better perpsective.Thanks you also everyone who has responded on my post. It helps me to deal with the issue and think about it objectively.GreeintingsBrother in ChristHolywarrior

I think the root question is something along the lines of "Are the children of Christians members of the New Covenant?"If yes, then they should be baptized, and there's a good shot that they should be given communion too.If no, they're short heathen, however cute, and should be regarded thus.

I think the root question is something along the lines of "Are the children of Christians members of the New Covenant?"Is there any other way into the New Covenant than by regeneration?

1Cor7:13-14 Infant baptism isn't nessary but after the children reach an age of accountability they have a personal responsibility to know Jesus as messiah and Lord for them selves.Up until that point it can be argued that they are the benefactors of thier parent(s) committment to Christ.

1Cor7:13-14 Infant baptism isn't nessary but after the children reach an age of accountability they have a personal responsibility to know Jesus as messiah and Lord for them selves.Up until that point it can be argued that they are the benefactors of thier parent(s) committment to Christ.The 1 Cor 7:13-14 are difficult verses to expound, but in that it follows the 'putting away verses' it seems to imply that the continued presence of the Christian in a mixed-union as a 'contagious' effect upon both the unbelieving spouse and the children. In each case it seems to be the presence of the believer in the home that causes the 'sanctifying', of the spouse or the children.In this sense the whole family is 'benefactor' of the believing parent's faith and continuing presence in the family. It is an interesting reversion of the OT position where an unclean person would pollute a clean person. Here we seem to have a clean person whose 'believing' is impacting the whole family.I still don't really know what this 'sanctifying' implies in this verse.

I've never made that connection between the the OT and NT with the change in relation to clean and unclean. Ill need to look into that a little closer. I believe the santifying effect here could be something like what happened to Lot, he was spared because of Abraham , that might be a poor example but wouldn't it be somewhat accurate to say that in the same manner that the Bible says because of my servant David of for my servant David's sake ect.... I'll do this or that.?Or judgement was withheld because of the relationship between thoughs who should be judged and the servant of God?? Just a thought.

I believe the santifying effect here could be something like what happened to Lot, he was spared because of Abraham , that might be a poor example but wouldn't it be somewhat accurate to say that in the same manner that the Bible says because of my servant David of for my servant David's sake ect....I think both of these are excellent. I particularly like 'for David's sake'; one of my favourite thoughts. But what do you think the 'unbelieving spouse or child' is spared from? That is, what 'judgments' do other families come under that are spared to the family with a believer in its midst?

But what do you think the 'unbelieving spouse or child' is spared from? That is, what 'judgments' do other families come under that are spared to the family with a believer in its midst?I think that its along the lines of how many gates are left open in the city through which the enemy can come.

ZekeO posted: I think that its along the lines of how many gates are left open in the city through which the enemy can come.Where does this leave us with else were your children unclean; but now are they holy?children, in this verse, are either 'not-clean' or 'holy'. How would a believer in the family transform 'not clean' children into 'holy' children?

I think the root question is something along the lines of "Are the children of Christians members of the New Covenant?"I once heard someone say "God has no grandchildren", I think that is true.

philologos wrote:children, in this verse, are either 'not-clean' or 'holy'. How would a believer in the family transform 'not clean' children into 'holy' children? Well seeing as we are into theological mathematics. One could logically deduce that one of the parents would have to be born again. ;-)

philologos wrote:

I think the root question is something along the lines of "Are the children of Christians members of the New Covenant?"Is there any other way into the New Covenant than by regeneration?

philologos wrote: children, in this verse, are either 'not-clean' or 'holy'. How would a believer in the family transform 'not clean' children into 'holy' children?ZekeO posted: Well seeing as we are into theological mathematics. One could logically deduce that one of the parents would have to be born again.

Allow me to respond with another pair of questions: Wow Keith, these are some questions! Are we still on the same topic?