 |
Why does the United Methodist Church baptize infants?
by Rev. Jeff French
The following is some information on infant baptism. It would be much easier if there were one "silver bullet" verse in the Bible that put it all to rest, but there is not one.
Even though there is not one explicit verse that proves or disproves the practice of infant baptism, there is a considerable basis for the practice. By in large, approximately 65-70% of Christians practice infant baptism (Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Greek Orthodox, Catholics) while 30-35% do not (Baptist, Pentecostal, Charismatic, Nazarene, Wesleyan, & Assembly of God). It is improbable that this rift will be satisfied on this side of heaven, but the following lays out what infant baptism means in the Methodist Church.
First, it is a symbol of the parents’ desires to raise the child in the church so they will choose Jesus as their Savior and Lord for themselves. This part of is much akin to the practice of infant dedication in the Baptist Church.
Second, it is a symbol of God's love, grace, and acceptance of the child. It does not signify salvation in our understanding, but it signifies God's love and grace. As Baptist's believe, we also believe that salvation comes only when someone repents and believes for himself or herself. It is also significant to note that we do not believe unbaptized children will go to hell but this is a common fear and misconception for some.
The best comparison to grasp the meaning of infant baptism is the Old Testament practice of circumcision. It was a symbol of participating in the covenant community. However, the choice was made by parents on behalf of the children. Even though the child was told that he was a “Jew”, he still had to accept his father’s God upon reaching the age of accountability. But his identity was established by circumcision: he was to be a Jew. In the same way, infant baptism does acknowledge that this child is a member of the Christian family, even though one day he/she will have to accept for themselves their parents’ God.
The big question is what does the Bible say? It doesn't say anything directly. A person would be hard pressed to pull a verse that clearly disproves the practice. If it were that clear Biblically, 65-70% of Christians would not practice it. More importantly, our church certainly wouldn't practice it if that were the case.
So on what basis do we support infant baptism?
Here are a few reasons—not in any particular order.
1. The O.T. practice of circumcision and the connections it would hold to N.T. infant baptism mentioned above.
2. The five New Testament passages that refer to the Baptism of entire households. (Acts 11:14, Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33, Acts 18:8, & 1 Corinthians 1:16) These passages show the man of the house making the decision and the whole house being baptized. However, these passages do not explicitly say infants were baptized, but it does make it fairly probable.
3. Peter's sermon in Acts 2.
"And Peter said to them, 'Repent and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far off as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself " (Acts 2:38,39).
4. There is no Scripture passage that forbids the practice.
5. The are numerous citations of first and second century church fathers supporting the practice. Polycarp 186 AD, Polycrates 189 AD, Justyn Martyr 150 AD, Hipplolytus 215 AD, Ireneaus 188 AD, & Origen 170-236 AD (life dates shown since the date of writing unknown). This evidence should not be placed above Scripture. However, it may reveal what was actually going on in the Scripture.
In all the heresies put down in the early church, the practice of infant baptism was never brought to question. In 306 AD Cyprian called an ecumenical synod of 66 early church leaders to discuss doctrines including the earliest date an infant could be baptized. In all the discussion, there is no mention of infant baptism being questioned.
It is also interesting to note that there only one written instance I know (from the first three centuries) of the practice being opposed in Christianity. That came from Tertullian because he thought it was almost unforgivable to sin after being baptized and wanted to protect children from that possibility.
Although several examples exist from the third century of the children of Christians being baptized as infants, in all of the literature and collections of inscriptions from that century there is not a single example of Christian parents delaying the baptism of their children.
6. The two primary reformers, Martin Luther and John Calvin, from which the Protestant faith began not only allowed the practice but fought for its centrality to the Christian faith.
7. The practice of infant baptism was not significantly questioned until 1525 by the Anabaptist movement.
