Child / Infant baptisms?

It's true that they performed baptism on the infant. It's my understanding that Bercot disagrees with them on infant baptism because he takes issue with the idea of an infant, who is incapable of accepting the faith due to their age, being inaugurated into the faith. My humble argument in defense of infant baptism would be that just as God enforced believers to inaugurate their infants into the faith in the old covenant, likewise in the new covenant.

Remember, Moses himself was almost killed for this. When we take on an unbeliever and attempt to convert them to the faith we must make sure they're ready to take it on before we risk baptizing them. However, a child is entirely different from a stranger, a child is a chosen responsibility on the part of the parent. As a parent I am responsible for the upbringing of my child into the faith.

And if you explore the literature you'll learn the only substantial reason for Christians to reproduce is to increase the Kingdom of Heaven. Now, a foreigner has to earn his citizenship in this country, but after earning their citizenship any children they have are automatically counted as citizens. Many more arguments follow; the cripple, who didn't speak, and was brought to Christ, by his friends, was not only healed but also received forgiveness of his sins.

There are many examples in scripture of someone else's faith saving another person if you dig into it.

I understand the initial reaction to dismiss infant baptism, because they can't accept the faith, but I think if you meditate and pray and fast over it you'll come to the same rational understanding that the early Christians possessed.

Baptism of infant is done by sprinkling.

The Bible speaks of baptism as by immersion. The word for baptism in the original language (Greek) is baptizo which literally means to 'dip' or 'immerse'.

Matthew 3:6 Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him "in" the Jordan River.

Matthew 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway "out of the water": and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

Just these 2 verses show that it is ONLY by immersion that a person when being baptized has to go IN the Jordan River, and come OUT of the water.

I am slow to disregard any baptism simply because it's done by pouring, although many of us Anabaptists would do well to regard baptism as a washing and therefore requiring a thorough washing. I reject infant baptism because the clear pattern in the New Testament is of repentance and belief followed by baptism. It is true that Jesus forgave sins without the person being recorded as saying anything, but keep in mind that Jesus was able to see into their hearts and know whether they were repentant.

This simply shows that Jesus does not require an audible expression of faith before forgiving. Also, it's interesting that Jesus never said to a child that "his sins are forgiven" or something similar. It's always adults that are receiving forgiveness.

To answer Erik's original question, "Is this not a reason NOT to trust their interpretation?" I would argue that this simply shows that we can't accept their teachings as dogma, but as a fresh and early perspective. I personally will accept the teaching of modern authors on certain points even when I may disagree with various beliefs they hold. For instance, William Lane Craig does not accept Genesis as literal history or hold to nonresistance, but I can agree with him on the resurrection.

With the early church, we need to keep in mind that their views (as with those of any other human) need to be measured by Scripture, but just because they fail on one point doesn’t mean we should reject everything. The value of the early Christian writings is that they were able to interpret the New Testament in the context of the language and culture it was written in. Furthermore, they weren’t affected by the bias of centuries of Reformation theology.

To conclude, my advice is to read the early Christian writings for insights and renewed passion, but don’t accept a teaching just because the early Christians believed it. The Bible must be our ultimate authority.

Amen!

More evidence of immersion (baptizo) upon faith and repentance:

Mark 1:1-4 - the beginning of the GOSPEL of JESUS CHRIST, the Son of God - John preached the Baptism of Repentance INTO the remission of sins.

(Gal 3:26-29 - baptism, the door/entrance into the IN CHRIST relationship where there is redemption, the forgiveness of sins through Christ's blood, the blood of the covenant - Rom 3:24; Eph 1:7; Col 1:14).

John the Baptist at Aenon near Salim:

John 3:22-23 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because "there was much water there": and they came, and were baptized.

Acts 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went "down both into the water," both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

I believe you are mistaken about how infant baptisms are performed. I don't know your experience with infant baptisms, but I've only ever witnessed infant baptisms as full immersions (not sprinklings). I'm guessing you're only familiar with the Catholic practice, which I believe is simple sprinkling. However, I know the orthodox fully submerge (which is the ancient practice).

However, you should know that in the Apostolic Constitutions (which Bercot references frequently) it mentions that in times where little water is available a sprinkling can suffice. It makes it clear that full immersion is the perfect and ideal way for it to be performed, but allows exception for special rare cases.

The early Christians were split over the question of infant baptism. Many patristic scholars, however, maintain that believers' baptism was the original practice, whereas pedobaptism was a later innovation:

“The earliest explicit reference to infant baptism occurs ca. 200 in Tertullian On Baptism 18, a passage that opposes what appears to be a relatively new practice. A few years later, Origen ( Comm. Rom. 5.9) claimed infant baptism as a tradition from the apostles, and the ceremony of baptism in the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus makes provision for children (21.3-5). It and later baptismal liturgies, however, describe procedures that presuppose believers’ baptism as the norm.

Cyprian defended the validity of infant baptism ( Ep. 58), but believers’ baptism must have been frequent well into the fourth century, for the great church leaders, including those born to strong Christian parents (Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, John Chrysostom, Ephraem the Syrian, Jerome, Rufinus, Augustine), were not baptized until the end of their student days.

The inscriptions that mention the baptism of children ordinarily place that baptism in close proximity to the death of the child, indicating that infant baptism was not routine but occurred as a precaution against death. The principal impetus for the rise and spread of infant baptism may have been the desire that the child not depart life without the safeguard of baptism.”
(Everett Ferguson, Encyclopedia of Early Christianity , 2nd ed., pg. 162)

The practice of baptism by pouring mentioned by Bercot, I chanced upon the record in the Martyr's Mirror, but it was a sole, and isolated case which perhaps may be seen as an exception to the norm.

Truly, there is much we can glean, compare, and verify with the written Scripture regarding the Apostles' teachings and practices passed down to sister churches established through the first church at Jerusalem and down to other sister assemblies in Judea, Samarian, and beyond in Gentile lands. Oft repeated by Bercot is his good and wise advice that the final authority for the whole council of truth is still the written Word, and should always be.

I started out my early days as a believer of Christ in a church where both infant (sprinkling) and adult (sprinkling or immersion) is practiced. Adults have an option to choose one of the two modes 'offered'. Is this practice Biblical? I didn't know enough then.

Acts 8:35-39 - the Ethiopian eunuch and Philip

35 Then Philip began with this very Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus. 36 As they traveled along the road and came to some water, the eunuch said, “Look, here is water! What is there to prevent me from being baptized?” 37 And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may be baptized.” The eunuch replied, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” 38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot.

Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and Philip baptized him. When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, but went on his way rejoicing. 40 But Philip appeared at Azotus and traveled through that region, preaching the gospel in all the towns until he came to Caesarea.

We see a Biblical pattern/prerequisite for baptism here is to 'believe with all the heart'. Only adults can do that. In order to be consistent with the Law of First Mention, baptism truly is the baptism of "Repentance." Ref: Mark 1:1-4 - John the Baptizer, described as one sent from God (Jn 1:6,33) was preaching the very Gospel - the baptism of repentance, and was the first to administer the same to only those who had repented.

Twice, Paul when making reference to John the Baptist's baptism, described it consistently as:

the baptism of "Repentance" - Acts 13:24; 19:4.

John refused to baptize the unrepentant > Mat 3:1-10 - With the heavenly task at hand, John the Baptist began his heavenly-authorized ministry by preaching in the wilderness of Judea, the Gospel, which in essence, is the good news of Jesus Christ, and the baptism of repentance. The many who responded with genuine hearts of repentance, he baptized them. There also came to his baptism, the Pharisees and Saducees also seeking baptism.

But we see here, that he refused to baptize them as they had no fruit meet unto (befitting or having evidence) of repentance - Mat 3:7-10. Repentance over one's sin - it is a prerequisite for baptism. For babes, and children who haven't sufficiently comprehended this, would they be prepared or ready for baptism?

John's ministry is to make ready a people prepared for the Lord. This is described clearly in Luke 1:17 ~ And he will go on before the Lord in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous — to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”