When To Baptize Infants?

Status
Not open for further replies.
sevenzedek

sevenzedek

Puritan Board Junior
I had a difficult time finding anything on this matter.

My undisciplined conclusion is that our baby should be baptized on the eighth day because that is when the sign of the covenant was applied under the old administration. Does anyone have anything to say from the bible on this important matter?

Thanks.
 
There's no biblical stipulation. And although baptism fulfills circumcision in several respects, it needn't and shouldn't follow it in every respect. So there's no need for eighth day baptisms.

Baptisms are a church event. They ought to be performed in a scheduled worship service that the baby and both parents can attend. The first few weeks of a child's life are often best spent apart from germ-filled crowds, and moms are still recovering, so there's no reason to rush a newborn and mom into the environment of a church service until both are ready for it. In addition, it's nice to allow grandparents and others who're close to the child and might need to make travel plans to attend so long as this doesn't detract from the church nature of the baptism. Larger churches may also find it practical to set aside a particular Sunday of the month for multiple baptisms. All of this is okay as long as you aren't neglecting baptism. There's no need to hurry, nor to create a rule where there just isn't one.
 
:lol::lol:I will have to tell Pastor Bryan Wheeler about this when he visits our church again. Just kidding.
 
Jack K said:
There's no biblical stipulation. And although baptism fulfills circumcision in several respects, it needn't and shouldn't follow it in every respect. So there's no need for eighth day baptisms.

Baptisms are a church event. They ought to be performed in a scheduled worship service that the baby and both parents can attend. The first few weeks of a child's life are often best spent apart from germ-filled crowds, and moms are still recovering, so there's no reason to rush a newborn and mom into the environment of a church service until both are ready for it. In addition, it's nice to allow grandparents and others who're close to the child and might need to make travel plans to attend so long as this doesn't detract from the church nature of the baptism. Larger churches may also find it practical to set aside a particular Sunday of the month for multiple baptisms. All of this is okay as long as you aren't neglecting baptism. There's no need to hurry, nor to create a rule where there just isn't one.
Click to expand...

I hear what you are saying about families and germs and travel plans and other conveniences. The closest thing we have for biblical warrant IS the eighth day. If the bible is so silent about WHEN to baptize a child, then who is to say that it is wrong to wait until the child is one or two years old? See what I mean?
 
Is there a "rule" as to how soon after a profession of faith a grown man should be baptized? One baptist church I knew of insisted on a two-year proving period--just to be sure--and then baptism. That may be "extreme" (I guess most of our PB Baptists would think so); but it speaks to the fact that there isn't any acknowledged "law" on this question.

Don't unduly neglect baptism. Exercising judgment is an "adult" thing, Gal.4:1-5.
 
Good thread and good points from all. :D I also do like the example of the 8th day but agree it doesn't need to be held fast. But if you were going to pick a day of significance, at least the 8th day has some symbolism in it. I like it.

So I must ask, if we hold to infant baptism, then should baptism be a private thing between child and God or family and God or should it be a public celebration where all the family is invited. I kind of feel like the whole point is between God and child and family and I'm concerned about the adult baptism reason of "showing/proving faith before man" creeping in. Is this a concern? Or do you think there is a biblical reason that grandparents, relatives, friends should be invited? In the Bible, I saw them being baptized IMMEDIATELY and no one ever waited for family to come, correct? It was between man and God. Thanks for any clarification you guys can offer. :)
 
We had our third and fourth daughters baptized the first week they attended church. Thinking back on it we probably hit around the eighth day without thinking about it. We didn't see a need to wait, and we didn't. My oldest two were baptized at four and a year and a half. That had more to do with being new to the reformed faith.
 
I was always under the impression that because we baptize under the belief that the child is already in the covenant, there is no need to rush as if the waters of baptism magically confer something. The baptism is a church event and should be a glorious recognition of what God is doing in our midst. As Rev Buchanan said earlier the language of our confession is just that we do not unduly neglect it.
 
sevenzedek said:
Jack K said:
There's no biblical stipulation. And although baptism fulfills circumcision in several respects, it needn't and shouldn't follow it in every respect. So there's no need for eighth day baptisms.

Baptisms are a church event. They ought to be performed in a scheduled worship service that the baby and both parents can attend. The first few weeks of a child's life are often best spent apart from germ-filled crowds, and moms are still recovering, so there's no reason to rush a newborn and mom into the environment of a church service until both are ready for it. In addition, it's nice to allow grandparents and others who're close to the child and might need to make travel plans to attend so long as this doesn't detract from the church nature of the baptism. Larger churches may also find it practical to set aside a particular Sunday of the month for multiple baptisms. All of this is okay as long as you aren't neglecting baptism. There's no need to hurry, nor to create a rule where there just isn't one.
Click to expand...

I hear what you are saying about families and germs and travel plans and other conveniences. The closest thing we have for biblical warrant IS the eighth day. If the bible is so silent about WHEN to baptize a child, then who is to say that it is wrong to wait until the child is one or two years old? See what I mean?
Click to expand...

I appreciate your desire to be biblical, but being biblical includes remaining silent where Scripture is silent. If we don't have biblical warrant, we shouldn't poke around looking for some "closest thing" just because we maybe feel uncomfortable not having more rules to follow or because we feel people will take advantage of what freedom God allows. Rather than feeling good that we're following an eighth day principle that isn't actually in the Bible, perhaps we ought to rejoice that God in his wisdom gave us no such principle so that nothing might distract us from focusing on the elements he did command.

Jackie Kaulitz said:
But if you were going to pick a day of significance, at least the 8th day has some symbolism in it. I like it.
Click to expand...

If I were a pastor and you were a parent seeking baptism for your child, that comment would probably make me just a tad uncomfortable. Yes, an eighth day baptism might feel sentimental, but that rule belongs to one of the shadows (circumcision) that is fulfilled in Christ. I would be gently urging you to find meaning, joy and significance in the fact that your child was being baptized into Christ rather than in the fact that it was happening on the eighth day.
 
Jackie Kaulitz said:
...should baptism be a private thing between child and God or family and God or should it be a public celebration where all the family is invited. I kind of feel like the whole point is between God and child and family and I'm concerned about the adult baptism reason of "showing/proving faith before man" creeping in. Is this a concern? Or do you think there is a biblical reason that grandparents, relatives, friends should be invited...
Click to expand...

It is not my goal to divert the thread. But I do not mind the opportunity to take my new found convictions for a test-drive. These matters are new to me. However, I don't think the baptist reason of "showing/proving faith before man" creeping in is a concern here. I think a good "covenantal" reason for inviting family is for the purpose of witnessing God's promise being applied to the child. The witnesses bear testimony to the fact that God has made a promise to the child. This being so, they also bear witness to the child of the promise made to them when they were too young to remember it happening. In addition to all this, inviting others provides an opportunity to improve one's baptism and renewing and remembering God's covenant promise to themselves. The bible does not require relative participation, but the ceremony is most certainly a community event; especially since they become visible members of the church at that time.
 
We started attending a Presbyterian church when our oldest was around 18 months old. In the denomination we are in, there are both credo and paedo baptists, and when we came to the denomination we were of the credo baptist belief. We eventually were persuaded of paedo baptism and asked our Pastor to baptize our children. At the time, our children were 9, 7, 5, 3 and 1, and I was pregnant with our sixth child. The older five children were all baptized together and later our sixth child was baptized at around seven weeks old. He couldn't have been baptized at the eighth day, because he was still in the hospital with pneumonia, and I believe that eighth day was actually a Friday, so it would have been a little out of the ordinary to have his baptism on that day. It's hard to get a Pastor, in our denomination, to perform a baptism any earlier than about six weeks. Not all of the Pastor's will perform an infant baptism(because of their credo beliefs), and sometimes it has to be arranged for another Pastor to come from a different congregation to perform the baptism.
 
Jack K said:
I appreciate your desire to be biblical, but being biblical includes remaining silent where Scripture is silent. If we don't have biblical warrant, we shouldn't poke around looking for some "closest thing" just because we maybe feel uncomfortable not having more rules to follow or because we feel people will take advantage of what freedom God allows. Rather than feeling good that we're following an eighth day principle that isn't actually in the Bible, perhaps we ought to rejoice that God in his wisdom gave us no such principle so that nothing might distract us from focusing on the elements he did command.
Click to expand...

Please bear with my particular brand of scruples here. I have to poke until I find rest.

The way I see it, we have biblical warrant for applying the sign of the covenant on the eighth day, though it be circumcision. I thought we took our cues from the old administration of the sign and only applied additional constituents as the New Testament gives warrant (e.g. females are now baptized).

One argument I have heard is that the command to apply the sign to infants still stands until God says "stop." Following the same logic; would it also be true to assert that the command to apply the sign on the eighth day still stands until God says "stop?"

What if we just decide to go with the logic you suggested; that the bible is silent on this matter? That being so, we do not apply the sign to infants anymore because the bible is silent. Well, wait a minute. If we do this, then what about the biblical warrant in the OT?

Here is what I am saying. If circumcision is enough biblical warrant to argue against the silence of the NT, then how can it be that the eighth day is not enough biblical warrant argue against the same silence of the NT. I don't want to split hairs. I want to understand. But the logic is inconsistent.

The dilemma I present is the reason I started the thread. I really think that the people I look up to have a better reason than the one that is failing me right now. And I am here to find this out if the Lord wills it.
 
sevenzedek said:
Here is what I am saying. If circumcision is enough biblical warrant to argue against the silence of the NT, then how can it be that the eighth day is not enough biblical warrant argue against the same silence of the NT. I don't want to split hairs. I want to understand. But the logic is inconsistent.
Click to expand...

If circumcision were the only reason we baptize infants, then the case would be pretty flimsy. It tends to be the most often cited argument, but the case for infant baptism is built on much more than circumcision alone. Not to get into that entire case here, but that's where I would suggest your idea doesn't quite hold together. There nothing wrong with searching the Bible to determine when to baptize a baby. It's a commendable exercise. I just think the answer doesn't get more specific than to not neglect it unduly.
 
Thanks, Jack. I appreciate your patience and attention. It is looking like this will have to be one of those "back burner" issues.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top