Infant baptism, such a hot topic!?

Not to disappoint, we hit another point of reflection that is found on the "top ten list" on many Christian minds. It is amazing how polarized the people of God can be on any one topic, but all too often this happens, as we have seen in prior topics (such as creation, etc.). What a grand place heaven will be as we enter into all truth, no longer looking through a glass darkly, but having our minds renewed into all truth by our Savior and Lord. Praise be to Him as we look forward to real unity in faith in heaven.

But as for now, we struggle with God's Word and its intended meaning for us. Just to scratch the surface, we must consider things like hermeneutics and genre of Scripture (most would agree that one would understand vocabulary and sentence meaning differently if coming from a narrative than coming from poetry or another genre of literature). The intended meaning of the author in his place in history as well as the inspiration factor are other examples of information that may help us better understand what God wishes to communicate. All this to say, with over 6,000 Christian denominations worldwide, John 17 and the prayer for unity Christ prayed for his followers (us) is put into quite a concerning discussion. Even more so, the reason Christ prayed for our unity was for...

ESV John 17:20 "I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

...for our witness to the world! 6,000 arguments, not much of a witness for Christ. And sometimes our "discussions" take on more demonic tone than one of Christian love. As people who now we see...

ESV 1 Corinthians 13:12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.

...darkly, we will probably not agree whole-heartedly, but we could at least disagree in love. What happened to the Scriptures saying...

NIV 1 Peter 3:15 But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16 keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.

and

ESV 2 Timothy 2:24 And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, 25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, 26 and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

...to correct in loving ways. Recently, I am again reminded of those who are openly critical...no, hostile...to practices of Christ's church for the entire 2,000 years. I am thinking of the topic of infant baptism specifically, but many more could follow. However, we will take some time to consider the work of many who have gone before for such a topic, including apostles, church fathers, reformers and God's men today. May these compilations, of which the names of the works are included, be a blessing in at least proposing the efficacy and biblical idealogy concerning this ancient practice of God's work through baptism to save ALL people and all nations, including the infant. Come to think of it, in some ways the infant has an advantage over me...he doesn't have years and years of worldly indoctrination in his reasoning that could directly effect and work against God's revealed Word and His power. Maybe that's what Jesus meant when he spoke of faith as a little child? May this bless your efforts to become one in Christ and His Church and His Truth.

From the "Why Baptize Children" (LCMS) pamphlet by John Theodore Mueller, Th. D.:

1. All historical churches baptize infants, only the Baptists and other denominations influenced by them do not.
2. Tertullian, born in North Africa about 150, was opposed to the Baptism of infants, just as he departed from the teachings of the church in many other ways; nevertheless he witnesses to the fact that at his time the Baptism of babies was in universal use.
3. The learned church father Origen, born in the year 185, says that the Baptism of infants was an "apostolic tradition."
4. Augustine, born in 354, wrote learned books against the heretics who disapproved of the Baptism of children.
5. The Lutheran Cyclopedia states: "From the apostolic age to the rise of Anabaptism in the sixteenth century the doctrine of infant Baptism was undisputed." This is correct. The erring Anabaptists could indeed dispute infant Baptism, but they could not break the sacred tradition not put a stop to the Baptism of babies, since that is Scriptural.
6. The apostles baptized entire families: 1 Cor. 1:16; Acts 16:15, 33; Acts 10:48. Households commonly include children. (I don't know of anyone who doesn't count a child for tax purposes!)
7. Baptism takes the place of circumcision. See Colossians 2:11-12. In v. 11 St. Paul speaks of a circumcision made without hands, and then in v. 12 he tells us that what he means is Holy Baptism. In his Epistle to the Colossians, the apostle argues mainly against Jewish defenders of the Old Testament ceremonial laws. Oh, no, he tells his readers, warning them against such false teachers: in the New Testament we have no longer any circumcision, but we have Holy Baptism as the Sacrament instituted by Christ. And with that we are spiritually circumcised. To understand the apostle's argument, we must remember that there is a certain similarity between circumcision and Holy Baptism. Both Sacraments have certain outward signs, and both have the promise of God's grace. Holy Baptism has the promise: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mark 16:16). Circumcision had the promise: "This is my covenant [of grace: "I will be their God," v. 8]...Every male among you shall be circumcised" (Gen. 17:10). Here, then, we find the reason why in the days of the apostles not only the believing heads of the families were baptized, but also their households, or families. They wanted to secure for all their loved ones God's covenant of grace in Christ Jesus, mediated to them by Holy Baptism. (Plus, we must remember that circumcision took place on the 8th day...infancy)
8. Babies belong to "all nations" (Matthew 28:19). (I know of no census that doesn't count infants in their studies...similar to "dependants" for tax purposes)
9. All are sinners. Original sin is a doctrine that all church fathers, as well as apostles, taught and readily accepted. NIV Psalm 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
10. Babies CAN believe. See Matthew 18:6; Matt. 21:16 (Jesus is following the OT in Psalm 8:2) ESV Matthew 21:16 and they said to him, "Do you hear what these are saying?" And Jesus said to them, "Yes; have you never read, "' Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies you have prepared praise'?"
11. If the objection is raised that little children cannot believe because they are not yet conscious of the Christian faith, how about adult believers when they sleep or adult believers when they are in a coma? Sleep does not destroy a believer's faith, not does a coma. Baptized babies can believe even though they cannot recite the Lrod's Prayer or the Apostles' Creed. Let us honestly believe our precious Savior when He says that the little ones can believe.
12. Mark 10:13-16 tells us to bring our little ones to Jesus. (The greek word used here is also understood as "infant" or "young child". Friberg Lexicon, Thayer's Greek Lexicon, etc.)
13. NIV John 3:6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. Why would we keep our children from the blessing God promises through baptism?

Another quick reference from "Martin Luther's Arguments for Infant Baptism" by Paul H. Zietlow (this ran first in Concordia Journal/April 1994):
Table 1
Martin Luther's Biblical Arguments for Infant Baptism

1. All nations argument: Children and infants are included among the "all people" that God wishes to save (Matt. 28:16). Baptism confers many blessings; infants receive these as much as adults (Acts 2:39).
2. Infants can have faith argument: Infants receive the Holy Spirit during Baptism, enabling them to believe the promises of God offered in Baptism. As John the Baptist was born with faith even in the womb (Luke 1:41-45), infants can have faith. This is further proven by the fruits of the Holy Spirit which follow Baptism. In the Baptism service, God's Word does not return void (Is. 55:11). The Holy Spirit is ablt to work faith in the child perhaps easier than in adults.
3. Progressive Sanctification Argument: Infants should be baptized so that God's Spirit can begin to fight against the Old Adam. In Baptism, the Holy Spirit is received (Acts 2:28); God's Spiritual battle for one's soul is initiated (Rom. 6:3-7). Baptism announces, begins, produces, and promotes the new sanctified life in Christ. Without Baptism, God's powerful Spirit does not enter into a child's life, regenerate that life, and begin to bring out the new man. (This one seems to be needing further explanation since we would affirm that it's the Holy Spirit's work for someone to 'receive' Christ and be baptized, and he also works through the Lord's Supper and His Word)
4. Christ's Invitation argument: Christ commanded the church to bring little children to Him, and stated that the kingdom of God belongs to them (Matt. 19:14; Mark 10:14). He invited "little" children to heaven.
5. Original sin argument: Since all descendants of Adam are born guilty of original sin, both infants and adults need Baptism (Psalm 51:5; Eph. 2:30). All people need forgiveness, cleansing, and salvation; these things are conferred in Baptism (Acts 2:38-39; Titus 3:5).
6. Whole Households argument: The disciples baptized whole households (Acts 16:15, 16:33) these households must have included infants and children.
7. Circumcision argument: Abraham's circumcised children were accepted by God at the age of eight days old and were called God's people (Gen. 17:7). Therefore, God certainly accepts baptized infants.

Table 2
Martin Luther's Theological Arguments for Infant Baptism

1. Unconditional Gift argument: Baptism is an act of God. God offers His gifts unconditionally, whether faith is present or not (1 Cor. 10:2). While faith is needed to grasp the promises offered in this way, Baptism is done in obedience to God's command to baptize, and with God's Word conveying rich blessings to the recipient. Even if infants did not have faith, their Baptism would be valid.
2. Vicarious Faith argument: The vicarious faith of those who present infants for Baptism is of great help, for it makes possible the creation of faith in the infant. Both the Word of God and the prayers of the church are powerful enough to create fiath in the infant and to miraculously regenerate, cleanse, and renew the infant (Mark 9:23).
3. Satan's Power argument: God ordained Baptism for infants at a time when they are incapable of superstition and actual sin. Children can be initiated into faith and more easily than adults, who have been deceived by Satan and implanted with doubt. Reason is an enemy of God. Few adults would be sanctified if Baptism was postponed.
4. Veiled Faith argument: If evidence of faith were a condition for Baptism, no human could ever be baptized; only God can see the heart (1 Kings 8:39). Faith can be pretended, and no one can be trusted (Psalm 116:11). To withhold Baptism from infants because evidence of faith is lacking would mean that Baptism should be withheld from everyone.
5. Good Conscience argument: The withholding of Baptism from infants could mean the loss of their salvation. To baptize them mistakenly, if it were an error, would have less serious consequences. God would forgive anyone who baptized infants in ignorance but with good motives.
6. Scriptural Silence argument: Nowhere does the Bible forbid baptizing infants, nor does it command Baptism of adults or specify age in any way. If this were something God found objectionable, He would have prohibited it clearly, for He clearly reveals His will in His Word.

Table 3
Martin Luther's Historical Arguments for Infant Baptism

1. Fruitful Church argument: The presence in the world of millions of fruitful witnesses who were baptized as infants is proof that God approves of infant Baptism and works favorably and powerfully through it. If He opposed infant Baptism, the church would be accursed and unfruitful, for God opposes that which is not of truth. The present strength of the visible church is thus proof that infant Baptism bestows the gift of the Holy Spirit to its recipients (Acts 2:28), and they are then made fruitful by the Spirit's work.
2. Tradition argument: Infant Baptism has been the practice of the church since its inception, according to St. Augustine and other early church fathers. There is no reason to think that infants were not baptized in good faith by the apostles. Only if Scripture opposed a church practice could it be overturned, and this can not be done.
3. Heresy Suppression argument: All church heresies have been confronted very soon after introduction. Paul mentions the heresies of Jannes and Jambres; these were immediately challenged and overruled by church theologians (2 Tim. 3:8-9). The lack of any such challenge to infant Baptism until the 1520's is circumstantial proof that no error existed.
4. Absent Church argument: The church can not exist without Baptism; without it the church would have ceased. If infant Baptism was invalid, then the church did not baptize anyone for more than one thousand years. This would imply that no church existed for over a millennium. Such a notion is clearly false.