Big difference, Jim – Baptizing Infants

Jim asks,

What’s The Difference Between Baptizing the Dead and Baptizing Infants?

Baptizing the dead means that you are speaking for someone who has already made their choice in life and is now in death. We cannot make that choice for them.

Baptizing infants is about honoring the covenant with God made through Abraham about our families and made through Christ which enlivened this covenant. Further, it is about placing our children, just as they did in Scripture, into the covenant. Now only that, it’s Scriptural and has a solid foot in Christian Tradition.

Plus, Zwingli said it was okay in his refutation of the Anabaptists…

“…There were infants also under the cloud, yet no individual mention is made of them. All crossed the sea. Yet the infants could not have crossed. Therefore they crossed who did not, but were borne (carried) by those who did. …All were baptized unto Moses…therefore, not only adults, but infants also, were baptized unto Moses. For if they who were infants at the crossing of the Red Sea were not baptized, the apostle did not speak correctly in saying: All were baptized unto Moses, for they were, as I have just said, the fathers of their posterity.”

“The Hebrew children were all baptized in the cloud and in the sea, just as are ours. Paul, in the passage cited, tends in no other direction than to prove that they are as much initiated by our sacraments as we ourselves. It follows therefore, first, that in Paul’s time it was the custom of the apostles to baptize infants; second, if anyone contradicts it he vitiates the opinion of Paul.”

Which leads me to believe that Jim is really an Anabaptist…

Post By Joel L. Watts (10,173 Posts)

Joel L. Watts holds a Masters of Arts from United Theological Seminary with a focus in literary and rhetorical criticism of the New Testament. He is currently a Ph.D. student at the University of the Free State, analyzing Paul’s model of atonement in Galatians. He is the author of Mimetic Criticism of the Gospel of Mark: Introduction and Commentary (Wipf and Stock, 2013), a co-editor and contributor to From Fear to Faith: Stories of Hitting Spiritual Walls (Energion, 2013), and Praying in God's Theater, Meditations on the Book of Revelation (Wipf and Stock, 2014).

Website: → Unsettled Christianity

Connect

5 thoughts on “Big difference, Jim – Baptizing Infants”

  1. And yet no proponent of infant baptism can find evidence prior to CE 300 of its practice in Christianity, much less widespread usage. This compounds the problem of the lack of any NT attribution or command of the action. In fact, as baptism is referenced in the NT it is only for believers, following their conversion and always by immersion.

    The recovery of legitimate baptism by our Anabaptist predecessors was so important. :)

    1. i like how zwingli baptized the anabaptists.

      if we argue for longevity of doctrine, we may have to give up so much more – including canon; but, beyond that, the history of infant baptism is sorta based on interpretation. I mean, unless children were excluded from whole households.

Leave a Reply, Please!