Silence in NT of infants being baptized

[nwink]

I see no problem, based on the underlying clear theology of baptism, to believe in the baptism of infants based on good and necessary consequence. Further, I do not believe the "silence" of the NT on any example/command of an infant being baptized supports the Baptist but rather can still support the Presbyterian, I believe.

What is the best way to understand this "silence" in the NT?

 

[irresistible_grace]

Is the NT silent?

 

[hammondjones]

The "silence" is interpreted by me to mean that it was so obvious to the first readers that it needed no explicit ink to be spent on it.

 

[Frosty]

I think generally it's explained that if the sign of the covenant was NOT to be administered to infants in the New Covenant as it was in the Old, then we would have a clear directive on that.

One's view on the matter probably comes back to this question: how new is the New Covenant?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

To be crass for a moment, I've heard people say that the NT Scriptures are silent about some heinous sins as an argument of support of the same.

What if, for example, early Christians naturally assumed that when Luke recorded that "the entire household" was baptized that they didn't have a Baptistic view of children?

What if the reminder: "Oh, and make sure you baptize your kids," would be the equivalent of Paul telling the Churches: "Oh, and when you baptize, make sure you use water." In other words, what if the explicit reminder to baptize kids was so obvious it would be on the level of the reminder to use water in baptism?

Of course, to my reading of the Scriptures the baptism of children is that obvious. It's the reason we see the widespread practice of the baptism of infants with no major controversy.

 

[Scott1]

Probably the best way to understand it is to begin with the assumption that circumcision is replaced by baptism, that is, baptism is a continuation of circumcision.

It is without question that God's covenant people in the Old Testament, marked out by circumcision included infants.

The covenant people continue in the New Testament by baptism.

(One has to have Scripture speaking as a whole to discern covenant theology rightly. Not everyone in the covenant community was (is) saved, but yet they were marked out by promise, etc.)

 

[markkoller]

When the entirety of God's Word is considered as a whole, there is no "silence". The desire to have the New Testament speak independent from the Old is the reason covenant baptism is rejected. The New Testament was never intended to be considered alart from the Old. I was raised as a Baptist, so at least that is how I would explain why I once rejected infant baptism.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

There is a deafening silence in Colossians 2.

Paul there is arguing every proper change of covenantal administration from Old to New Testament. He is arguing against the Judaizers, against those who would enforce ceremonial laws on the church, clearly marking the changes from an old to a new economy. It is in that context that he argues that fleshly circumcision is passe, having been replaced by the circumcision of Christ, which is, baptism into Christ. Baptism as an outward sign has replaced circumcision as the mark of initiation into the covenant community.

Paul knows that all his readers knew that circumcision is to be performed on male infants. It's not that Israel was the only nation that circumcised; others in the ANE did it, but as a rite of passage into manhood (in other words, circumcision was at puberty--still is in places today, viz., Africa). Paul, knowing that all his auditors knew full well that Israel circumcised eight-day old males, still proceeds to note that circumcision has been replaced by baptism, recall, in a context where he is pointing out every change of covenantal administration.

Here's the point: if the subjects of baptism are to be different than the subjects of circumcision (only adults and not infants), Paul would have been bound--and he simply would have--in this context to point that out, as a difference between Old and New. But Paul, speaking to Gentiles, is bold to analogize baptism to circumcision, knowing full well what his auditors will conclude about the subjects of such: infants in the old; infants in the new. Adults who are outside were circumcised and similarly will continue to be baptized.

BTW, if the objection is raised that this excludes women, no, Galatians 3:28 makes it clear that there is neither male nor female in Christ and Paul, by example, shows us that women are included in the sacrament of initiation (Paul baptized Lydia).

Peace,
Alan

 

[Marrow Man]

If that is the argument, then one would have to say that the NT is also "silent" on women taking the Lord's Supper.

 

[jandrusk]

Didn't this view become controversial in the 17th century with the formation of "Baptist" beliefs that were linked to the English separatist movement? Is there any plausible data that can be provided between the 1st and 16th century?

 

[Andres]

When the entirety of God's Word is considered as a whole, there is no "silence". The desire to have the New Testament speak independent from the Old is the reason covenant baptism is rejected. The New Testament was never intended to be considered alart from the Old. I was raised as a Baptist, so at least that is how I would explain why I once rejected infant baptism.

 

[MW]

What is the best way to understand this "silence" in the NT?

To counter it with the "silence" of the NT with respect to infants being baptised on profession of faith.

 

[chuckd]

What are the reasons withholding the Lord's supper from those in covenant who have not professed?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

What are the reasons withholding the Lord's supper from those in covenant who have not professed?

These are not "THE" reasons, but they are some reasons.

Because Baptism and Communion are not the same sacrament, or two halves of a whole other unnamed thing.

Because the biblical requirements for one sacrament are not identical to the requirements of the other.

Because Scripture explicitly states that discernment is prerequisite to receiving the Lord's Supper.

Because under the OT, mere circumcision was a necessary, but not-sufficient, criteria for Passover participation (which also required discernment).​

 

[chuckd]

What are the reasons withholding the Lord's supper from those in covenant who have not professed?

These are not "THE" reasons, but they are some reasons.

Because Baptism and Communion are not the same sacrament, or two halves of a whole other unnamed thing.

Because the biblical requirements for one sacrament are not identical to the requirements of the other.

Because Scripture explicitly states that discernment is prerequisite to receiving the Lord's Supper.

Because under the OT, mere circumcision was a necessary, but not-sufficient, criteria for Passover participation (which also required discernment).​

Thanks!

 

[R Harris]

What silence?

Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea. - 1 Cor. 10
​

Where is a New Testament example of younger children believing and then being baptized based on that profession? Should we not baptize, then, younger children who believe and are not part of a covenant family already?

The Baptism of Ancient Israel

This is always my immediate retort when presented with the "silence" argument and no example of an infant being baptized. There is also no example or case in the NT of someone having been born to Christian parents, growing up, and then being baptized. Sooooooo, what do either of these statements prove? Nothing.

Of the 12 baptisms recorded in the NT, all of them are first generation baptisms. This is a highly significant point. Also, of the 12 baptisms recorded, 3 (1 out of every 4) is a baptism of the entire household. Given that more people and more households were baptized in the period AD 30 - 70 than just those recorded in the NT, the anti-paedobaptist quickly finds himself in a precarious corner and having to frankly examine his presuppositions. Sadly, very few ever do that.

Another silence argument that Rich touched upon is the one of bestiality never being condemned in the NT. So, in the NT age, is bestiality now allowed? No. The OT clearly condemns it; it was not an issue in the NT communities; so, it is never brought up.

J.G. Vos made that very important point when discussing these issues. It is important to never neglect the occasional nature of the epistles. It was never the intent of any of the authors of the epistles to re-hash every single command and instruction of the OT; they addressed what they, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, needed to address with their audience.