Ought infants be baptized?
I thought I might list out my (decidely and proudly Lutheran) views on baptism, with a special emphasis on baby baptism...
1. Baptism is a sacrament sealing God's ownership on you and your relationship with Him. It is the mark of the covenant (more on this later) and not merely a 'symbol'. It's something like a wedding service - it represents a 'bridge' or the signing of a 'contract' which establishes and actualises a reality.
2. Baptism is a one-time event (Eph 4:5, "...one Lord, one faith, one baptism"). There is scant Biblical reason to be re-baptised. Like being married, we don't need to have multiple wedding ceremonies, or not with the same spouse anyway(!).
3. The mode of baptism is secondary; sprinkling, immersion, etc. i.e. it doesn't determine or affect the VALIDITY of your baptism (it doesn't even necessarily have to be water - beer or saliva[!!] may suffice if extreme conditions abound, but of course these weird stuff shouldn't be emphasized). You might think of this as the elements of the wedding ring - gold or silver or bronze, is it important? It could be, but it surely can't be DETERMINATIVE of anything, right?
And now we've reached our main event:
4. Infant baptism is valid and encouraged. Here is where New Testament baptism supercedes and replaces Old Testament circumcision as the mark of the covenant.
The basic theological argument here is that if week-old Hebrew boys (Lev 12:13, Lk 1:59) were commanded to be circumcised under the old covenant, it is only natural that infants from Christian families be given baptism under the NEW covenant. If a Jewish family under Yahweh was commanded to mark the divine ownership of their infant son by circumcision, there seems no reason that a Christian family under Jesus Christ should not baptise their child and thus marking him as belonging to God.
There is thus historical continuity and progressiveness in God's workings
with Man. Furthermore, the New Testament records the baptism of entire
HOUSEHOLDS (Acts 16:15, 1Cor 1:16). The word translated 'household' is
'oikos' which refers to, "...a patrilocal residential unit, headed by the
eldest male of the lineage...and included unmarried children, sons and their
wives and children..." (Eerdsman Bible Dictionary).
Another point is summarized again by Eerdsman:
"Many early accounts attest to the baptism of infants as general practice in Asia Minor, France, Italy, North Africa, Egypt and Palestine (as early as A.D. 200). No accounts have survived indicating debates over the issue as could be expected if the early Church had invented the rite (of infant baptism)...rather than having received the tradition from the apostles." (emphasis mine)
This basically means that the historical LACK of debate over such a widespread practice (in an era where heresies and doctrinal protests were intense and abundant) strongly suggests that the early church, which were led by the church fathers who immediately succeeded the apostles, never had a problem with it at all. This speaks very strongly for its doctrinal acceptance among the earliest of church leaders and (thus probably) the apostles themselves.
Questions/Objections:
i. But what about the FAITH of the infant?
Kids DO have faith. It's just not as cognitively developed as an adult's (but how 'developed' is the average Christian adult's doctrines, anyway??)
ii. But what about the CHOICE of the infant whether or not to be baptised?
This is, as regards the parents' decision to baptise their child, irrelevant. Parents have a duty to bring the kid up as a child of God and to encourage the kid to choose God's ways and truths. Parents thus choose ON BEHALF of the child to be in the covenant of God (just like they choose on his behalf which clothes to wear, what food to eat, which school to attend, etc.). This does not mean that the kid won't have to confirm his personal decision for Christ later on, but that doesn't remove the need for the parents to usher the child into Christian covenant prior to the kid's intellectual and volitional development.
iii. But the Bible does NOT specifically say that infants can/should be baptised - how now, brown cow?!
If Scripture already stated clearly that Jewish infant boys must be circumcised under the NEW Covenant, then surely it DOESN'T NEED to mention that baptism under the NEW covenant applies to them as well as infant girls. It CANNOT be that the new covenant is LESS inclusive of family members than the old! In this sense the silence of the New Testament serves to denote its assumed adoption during the time of its writing.
AL