On the important Baptism of Infants

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,456
5,832
49
The Wild West
✟490,381.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Of late, my friend @Ain't Zwinglian has posted a number of interesting and important threads defending the practice of the infants and children against the attacks of the credobaptists who believe that only “Believer’s Baptism” of adults, and in some cases, older children or adolescents, is admissable.

Now despite one of my ancestors being among the first Baptist pilgrims in the New World, I reject wholeheartedly the Baptist position that only “Believer’s Baptism” is admisable.

I wanted to post a thread in concordance with the threads posted by my friend @Ain't Zwinglian and also certain interesting and correct posts by my friend @ViaCrucis to address the baptism of children and infants from a Patristic and Oriental perspective, that is to say, from the consensus existing between early writings of the Greek and Syrian Fathers, and the contemporary baptismal praxis of the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East and Ancient Church of the East, as well as the related and usually identical practices of most of the sui juris Eastern Catholic churches, as well as what I can assume to be, or at least to have been at one time, the praxis of traditional Protestant churches operating in the Middle East and in South India.

It is specifically the case that the Orthodox practice the baptism of infants, children and adults alike using three-fold immersions, with the energumen (catechumen ready to be baptized) being baptized in this manner: by being fully immersed, or in the case of infants, at least thoroughly splashed (although a safe technique does exist for full immersion without a risk of drowning through aspiration of water in the font, but this is taught in seminaries and I would not encourage anyone to do this except with a trained Orthodox parish priest who has children of their own and is experienced in this baptismal technique either conducting the baptism or concelebrating the baptism and supervising a younger priest; monastic clergy in some cases do a number of baptisms and in other cases have little or no experience, and it is a combination of training and experience in either conducting such baptisms or in supervising them that ensures their safety. To my knowledge, in the United States, the Orthodox churches have a perfect safety record. The only mishap I am aware of involving the immersion of an infant occured in Moldova in 2009 and was considered and prosecuted as the equivalent of first degree murder, for it was intentional malpractice, but unfortunately it did not occur to the family that the young clergyman conducting the service was mishandling the infant by holding them submerged under the water until the infant had in fact drowned, in a regrettable case of homicide, which it should also be noted that one of the two Eastern Orthodox churches operating in Moldova may be schismatic and irregular, and the area is canonically disputed between the Romanians, the Ukrainians and the Russians and so is something of an ecclesiastical minefield, and the sort of area where if such a dreadful mishap were most likely to occur.

It is generally possible to perform the threefold immersion of infants however without actually submerging their face, and in this manner it is done properly, and this can be done for example by seating the infant in the font and splashing them from behind.

In my observations, infants and young children enjoy being baptized, particularly if the water in the font is not excessively cold, and usually are happy to be blessed in this manner.

If an impediment exists which creates an aspiration hazard, for example, if the child has a tracheotomy, other alternative techniques can be used. I have heard that the Serbian Orthodox Church in particular is known for making frequent use of baptism by affusion (pouring) which might also be done perhaps in drought conditions if access to a suitable font or baptismal location is not easily obtained.

My main point in sharing this is to dispel what I believe is a common misconception among some proponents of Believer’s Baptism, that being that full immersion and the baptism of infants or young children are mutually exclusive. They are not, and this is why infants are normally baptized in the same manner as adults in the Orthodox churches.

I was not received by baptism but by Chrismation, and as a matter of fact my baptism was by aspersion, or sprinkling, most likely using a device using an aspergilium, which is also used in Roman Catholic and Anglican churches to bless the laity by splashing them with Holy Water. For the latter purpose, one can also use hyssop, or other plant matter (as in the case of the Syriac Orthodox Church, which I believe uses thoroughly inundated palm fronds, or similar large leaves, in their Kneeling Service on Pentecost Sunday).

Thus this post should not be regarded as proscriptive of non-immersive baptism but rather as prescriptive of the baptism of infants, however it is to be done, because it is the most ancient practice of the church in the Levant, Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, Ethiopia and Eastern Europe, basically the territory of the surviving Orthodox and Assyrian churches, to baptize infants and children through three-fold triple immersion, as adult converts who are to be received by baptism are also baptized. Because the Nicene Creed includes a confession of one baptism, it is generally regarded as improper to rebaptize converts.
 

Ain't Zwinglian

Well-Known Member
Feb 23, 2020
794
437
Oregon
✟110,118.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
to baptize infants and children through three-fold triple immersion,
I think the Western church calls this unofficially DRENCHING. Which I think is a good term. The Officiant plunges the child in and out of the water very fast. Sort of a lightening fast immersion. I have never heard the word "drenching" from an Eastern source.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,456
5,832
49
The Wild West
✟490,381.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
I think the Western church calls this unofficially DRENCHING. Which I think is a good term. The Officiant plunges the child in and out of the water very fast. Sort of a lightening fast immersion. I have never heard the word "drenching" from an Eastern source.

No, I think it sounds entirely too Germanic and not sufficiently Hellenic or Syriac or Slavonic to appear in an Eastern source, which does not make it wrong by any means. Indeed I could not deny the considerable sitzfleisch of German theologians.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,587
10,756
Georgia
✟926,518.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Of late, my friend @Ain't Zwinglian has posted a number of interesting and important threads defending the practice of the infants and children against the attacks of the credobaptists who believe that only “Believer’s Baptism” of adults, and in some cases, older children or adolescents, is admissable.
MacArthur debated R.C. Sproul on this same topic (both appear to be good friends during the debate) and Sproul began by admitting outright that infant baptism is NOT something that you see in the NT text.

That speaks volumes all by itself. "He who BELIEVES and his baptized - will be saved" according to Christ. Mark 16:16.

IT is very difficult to set that aside.
Now despite one of my ancestors being among the first Baptist pilgrims in the New World, I reject wholeheartedly the Baptist position that only “Believer’s Baptism” is admisable.
How about "despite Mark 16;16 and John 3:16 Acts 2"??
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ain't Zwinglian

Well-Known Member
Feb 23, 2020
794
437
Oregon
✟110,118.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
MacArthur debated R.C. Sproul on this same topic (both appear to be good friends during the debate) and Sproul began by admitting outright that infant baptism is NOT something that you see in the NT text.
This is an argument from authority....which I reject.

We go to the NT texts that teach about baptism and who is allowed to be baptized.

Mt 28:19 states all nations are to be baptized. Infants are apart of all nations
  • Jesus neither instituted adult nor infant baptism just simply baptism--baptism for all. All Human souls are intended for baptism.
  • Christians are authorized to baptize all who compose a nation, men, women and children & infants.
  • In the Great Commission there is no age or intellectual developmental requirement given for baptism. No mental tooling necessary.
Another text that teaches about baptism who is allowed to be baptized is Acts 2:39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off,

My main problem with credobaptists is they go to texts in the NT that teach NOTHING ABOUT BATPISM to prove what baptism is or is not, or who to baptize and who not to baptize. Truely a bizarre hermenuetic! And they don't even know they are doing it.

If I were to try to understand the Doctrine of Election I would go to Eph 1 & 2 and Romans 7-9. I would not go to the Sermon on the Mount or study the parables to try to understand the Doctrine of Election.

It seems to me, the sedes Doctrinae for most Credobaptist understanding of who can be baptized comes from Romans 10....which of course doesn't even mention baptism....such is the way of the Credos.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,587
10,756
Georgia
✟926,518.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
BobRyan said:

MacArthur debated R.C. Sproul on this same topic (both appear to be good friends during the debate) and Sproul began by admitting outright that infant baptism is NOT something that you see in the NT text.
This is an argument from authority....which I reject.
Not an argument from authority ... rather an argument that it is NOT just those who affirm the Bible teaching on believer's baptism that admit to this one specific detail.

There is a certain level of "objectivity" in noticing that people on both sides of the debate can be found agreeing on that one significant detail. It is a degree of objectivity distinctly missing from the argument that says "I view the opposing side as the one that notices that the NT has no examples of infant baptism".

When you admit that people on BOTH sides admit to this key Bible detail - it significantly undercuts the strength of support for the argument you would like to make.
We go to the NT texts that teach about baptism and who is allowed to be baptized.
Which is the problem with infant baptism in texts like Mark 16:16, Acts 2 and John 3:16
Mt 28:19 states all nations are to be baptized
True but that would happen without also having infant baptism -- unless of course infants are their own "nation".
. Infants are apart of all nations
  • Jesus neither instituted adult nor infant baptism just simply baptism--baptism for all.
The NT gospels point out that Jesus had people baptized but when Jesus makes the case "suffer the little children to come unto Me" -- not one mention of them needing to be baptized , or being baptized.
  • Christians are authorized to baptize all who compose a nation, men, women and children & infants.
Not true. Christians are authorized to baptize those who believe -- Mark 16:16 (which you are not addressing)
The "whosoever believes on Him might not perish - but have everlasting life" John 3:16.

You are moving that goal post to "regardless if they believe or not"
  • In the Great Commission there is no age or intellectual developmental requirement given for baptism. No mental tooling necessary.
Not true.

the Matt 28 great commission says that they must first make the people disciples, teaching them.... only then are they to be baptized.

Not possible with infants.
Another text that teaches about baptism who is allowed to be baptized is Acts 2:39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off,
those who teach believer's baptism also baptize children,. That is not any kind of "distinctive" for infant baptism.
My main problem with credobaptists is they go to texts in the NT that teach NOTHING ABOUT BATPISM
So then starting with the ones that do talk about baptism -- rather than ignoring them.

Mark 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

There is no warrant for "he who does not believe but is baptized will be ..."
Romans 10....which of course doesn't even mention baptism....such is the way of the Credos.
Rom 10 affirms "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God"

baptism apart from faith - results in a kind of salvation apart from faith - which is very hard to defend.

Rom 10: 9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”

Your argument then is either that :

1. you can be saved "some other way" than the one we see in John 3:16, Mark 16:16 and Rom 10:9-11

2.Or else you are arguing that infants that are baptized are not saved.
 
Upvote 0

Ain't Zwinglian

Well-Known Member
Feb 23, 2020
794
437
Oregon
✟110,118.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
  • Baptism is a Divine institution. It is an express and direct command of Christ directing that it be observed for all time.
  • “ Divine commission is to "baptize the nations"—there never was a nation without infants.”
  • Jesus tells us to baptize everyone (Matthew 29:19), so the lack of any special instructions for infants is to argue for infant baptism rather than against it.
  • We are not to exclude what Jesus has included.
  • Infants are a significant portion of nations.
  • The flow is from baptism to teaching. So there is nothing in the command that says a certain minimum level of teaching must have been carried out before baptism. All it says is that at the end of the process a well discipled person will have been both baptised and trained up in the faith. The order is irrelevant. To baptize a child and then teach that child "all that Jesus has commanded" is precisely in accord with this text.
  • Whatever way you read it – the object of baptize and of teach is “nations/gentiles”. Not “disciples.”
  • In removing infants from the great commission you're the one attempting to form a pool of exclusion where there is none.


not one mention of them needing to be baptized , or being baptized.
Jesus didn't institute baptism UNTIL after the resurrection but before his ascension. It is impossible for children to be baptized during Jesus' three year ministry. IMPOSSIBLE.

Not an argument from authority
Of course it is an argument from an human authority figure. Duh!

Which is the problem with infant baptism in texts like Mark 16:16, Acts 2 and John 3:16
John 3:16 contextually nothing to do with baptism. I suppose next you will quote the sermon on the Mount (which has nothing to do with baptism either). I go to the texts that teach baptism....credos just love to go to text that don't teach baptism.

Acts 2:39 "for you and your children." Duh!

Mark 16:16 implies that it is not the absence of baptism that condemns a person but the absence of faith...John the baptist and Jeremiah were regenerated in the womb...they had faith...John even leap with joy! Ps. 22:16 states God made David TRUST Him upon his mothers breast. Jesus always said Adults are to become like children; Credos reverse this and state Children must become like adults. A perversion of the text.

Mark 16:16 implies that it is not the absence of baptism that condemns a person but the absence of faith, Jeremiah, John and David didn't have absence of faith.

Faith is a gift from God....Credo's only believe this gift is only given people past the age of accountibility. Paedo believe God can give this gift of believing to anyone regardless of age.
baptism apart from faith - results in a kind of salvation apart from faith - which is very hard to defend.

1. you can be saved "some other way" than the one we see in John 3:16, Mark 16:16 and Rom 10:9-11
All ready discussed....you are appealing to text absent from the Biblical topic of baptism.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,587
10,756
Georgia
✟926,518.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
  • Baptism is a Divine institution. It is an express and direct command of Christ
Agreed -- but that is not a teaching rejected by the Bible teaching on believer's baptism
  • “ Divine commission is to "baptize the nations"
There is no "go and baptize nations" statement in all of scripture.
  • —there never was a nation without infants.”
Nations without infants or horses or birds etc is not the question.
The question is whether we can blatantly ignore the John 3:16, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38 , Rom 10:9-11 - teaching on baptism , faith and salvation that all demand believer's baptism alone as the solution.

And since you are pretty determined not to touch those verses - I will quote them for the readers.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Acts 2:
38 Then Peter said to them, “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..

Jesus speaking:
Mark 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Rom 10:9 ... if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”

Matt 28:
19 Go therefore and
  • 1. make disciples of all the nations,
  • 2. baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
  • 3. 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you
First we make students/disciples of them -- and when they have learned about the gospel the next step is
second - baptize
third - teach them all things that Christ commanded
  • Jesus tells us to baptize everyone (Matthew 29:19),
Consider an actual quote to see where your rework of the text differs from the actual text.
  • so the lack of any special instructions for infants is to argue for infant baptism
And so even you admit that although the NT gives many examples of believer's baptism -- it has not one for infant baptism.
How nice that the very point Sproul affirmed - you now affirm .

  • Infants are a significant portion of nations.
No doubt.
Jesus didn't institute baptism UNTIL after the resurrection
Also not true.

John 3:22 “Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized.”

22 After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He remained with them and baptized.

23 Now John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there. And they came and were baptized.
John 3:16 contextually nothing to do with baptism.
It is the teaching of scripture regarding the ONLY way to be saved -- (so unless you are teaching that infants that are baptized are not saved -- or do not have everlasting life -- you need to pay attention to what you now say you are not looking at in much depth)

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

I go to the texts that teach baptism...
Then this would be a good time to stop ignoring Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38
Mark 16:16 implies that it is not the absence of baptism that condemns a person but the absence of faith
Mark 16 -- (that you are careful not to quote) says this about baptism ...showing that infants are not the ones being baptized.

Jesus speaking:
Mark 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

...John the baptist and Jeremiah were regenerated in the womb...they had faith...John even leap with joy!
John was not a "believer" in the womb -- nor was Jeremiah.

Infants do not read scripture and cannot be "preached to"
Nor does the text say "John had faith while in the womb".
Infants can have emotions however - but scripture does not say "be happy and be baptized" or "The one who is happy should be baptized"
Ps. 22:16 states God made David TRUST Him upon his mothers breast.
that is ripture as they say. It does not mean that as an infant David was reading scripture or preached to about the Messiah as a believer in something.
Jesus always said Adults are to become like children;
That we all agree with . And those adults read the gospels - read those words and then "chose" to follow.
Infants were not doing that - even in Jesus' day.
Credos reverse this and state Children must become like adults.
none that I know of
Mark 16:16 implies that it is not the absence of baptism that condemns a person
You are seeking for what it "implies" while ignoring the direct quote of what is says...

Jesus speaking:
Mark 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

And now we can all see why you find the quote of the text to be inconvenient
 
Upvote 0

Ain't Zwinglian

Well-Known Member
Feb 23, 2020
794
437
Oregon
✟110,118.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
There is no "go and baptize nations" statement in all of scripture.
WRONG. Jesus said in the clearest language possible....
Also not true.

John 3:22 “Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized.”

John 3:22 “Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized.”

22 After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He remained with them and baptized.

Acts 2:
38 Then Peter said to them, “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..
You conventionally didn't quote "to you and your children" in Acts 2:39. You are contextually incapable of exegesis. I have no time for you. I am hereby accessing your account, hitting your "ignore button" and banning you from this channel.
 
Upvote 0