What’s the Deal with Infant Baptism?
by Steve Ray
My past tradition — Fundamentalist Baptist — rejected Infant Baptism. In fact, the Baptist tradition originated during the “Reformation” when they broke from Rome (and Luther) and promoted “ana-baptism” which means — baptized again.
The infant baptism taught by the Catholic Church was utterly rejected and they “re-baptized” their converts. Baptists misunderstood Scripture and rejected the monolithic witness of the early Church.
(Note: the baby in the picture is my grandson Joshua Thomas Ray, son of Jesse and Anna Ray. Deacon Dan Foley is baptizing Joshua. Click on the image for a larger picture.)
So, why was I a Baptist? Good question. I think it was because I was born with a pair of Baptist glasses strapped to my head — glasses which focused my vision from Day One.
By the way, there are many types of “glasses” available and we all wear one kind or another — Baptist, Muslim, Jewish, atheists, secularist, Lutheran, Catholic, Hindu, etc. We see the world through the lenses of our accepted (or ingrained) tradition. Everything is interpreted through the pair of glasses we have accepted.
But back to Baptism: Is baptism for adults only? Is it correct to limit it to “believers’ baptism”? How does the Jewish background influence our view of baptism? Is baptism necessary for salvation? How is one “born again”? How does circumcision fit in? What did the early Church teach and practice.