Why
Not Infant Baptism?
 CWRC
does not believe that the Bible teaches either explicitly
or implicitly the practice of baptizing infants.
The Roman Catholic religion makes it very clear
that their infant baptism is for the forgiveness
of sin. We view Rome’s practice of ‘baptismal
regeneration’ applied to infants as heretical
teaching destructive of the Gospel.
However, there are many mainstream
Protestant religions that baptize infants as well.
They do so for a variety of reasons. These reasons
bring them to the threshold of Roman Catholic baptismal
regeneration without the so-called ‘knock-out’
punch.
What is striking is that Protestant
devotees to infant baptism use the same identical
arguments as Rome to prove the validity of the practice
of infant baptism albeit most fall short of Rome’s
meaning.
The following is a debate of
sorts between a Protestant Infant Baptist minister
and a Protestant Believer Only Baptist minister.
Protestant Infant Baptists do not deny Believer
baptism. They do however deny that believers are
the only ones that should be baptized.
We offer this discussion because
we wish to move people away from the practice of
Infant Baptism regardless of their reasons for performing
the act. Roman Catholicism builds an entire apostate
religion on her chief pillar that is the Sacrament
of Infant Baptism. Christians should learn to avoid
this practice and stay entirely clear of Rome’s
ongoing error.
Beginning arguments for Infant Baptism
Introduction: The assumption of those
who reject infant baptism is that those who hold to
it do so strictly out of custom or superstition. The
charge is that those who baptize the infants of believers
somehow ignore the scriptures or, even worse, suppress
them. In the following, I hope to show that although
you may disagree with the correct Biblical interpretation
of the passages I forward here in defense of infant
baptism, nevertheless, those who practice infant baptism,
such as me, have Biblical grounds for doing so and
are not simply perpetuating a non-biblical tradition.
One of the greatest dangers facing
Biblical interpretation today is the inevitable tendency
to interpret the Bible anachronistically.
An anachronism is when I take current circumstances
or issues and projects them back into the Bible as
though they were part of the original Biblical record,
thus distorting the message of the Biblical text.
Old Testament ablutions were practiced
extensively both as part of daily piety as well as
part of the Temple rites and rituals. Something that
was contaminated by the unclean was susceptible to
cleansing; this cleansing was achieved by washing
with water. As a result of the washing with water,
the object was clean,
John the Baptist was not the only
baptizer present and active in the years leading up
to Jesus ministry. He was, in fact, one of several
that we know of in first century Israel. In each of
these movements, the underlying symbolism was the
same. Baptism, or washing with water, cleansed its
recipients and set them apart from the rest of the
Israelite people who had become contaminated in their
life and worship. This is an extension of the Old
Testament system of purity.
It is not certain that this is an
antecedent since there is no positive evidence that
later forms of proselyte baptism were actually practiced
in the first century, but this ancient practice does
shed light on how water baptisms were understood in
third century Judaism. Proselyte baptism was practiced
was applied to Gentile converts to Judaism. The water
was understood to cleanse these non-Jewish believers
for participation in the people of God. It was applied
to all converting persons. Circumcision was required
for males but water baptism only for females. Males
born to converts were required to be circumcised but
females were subjected to no further rites. They were
considered to be clean.
John’s baptism was a water
baptism of repentance, preparing the way for the coming
of Messiah. Understood in terms of its Old Testament
background and New Testament context, it was a separation
of a people who showed genuine repentance and accepted
the need to be cleansed in order to receive the Messiah.
This cleansing was in preparation for the holiness
with which the Messiah would baptize, associated by
John with fire.
Contra Infant Baptism
The baptism of John was administered
to those who came with a heart of repentance. It was
a “believer’s baptism.” John did
not baptize infants. His baptism was more than cleansing.
His was a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness
of sins as well as an inauguration of the time of
Messiah.
MAR 1:4 John the Baptist appeared
in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance
for the forgiveness of sins.
Argument for Infant Baptism
Jesus did not himself baptize in
this lifetime, but his disciples apparently practiced
a baptism of preparation analogous to that of John.
This baptism was similarly viewed as separating a
people apart who were cleansed to receive the holiness
of the Messiah. Like that of John, this baptism required
repentance and was viewed as a cleansing in preparation
for holiness.
Contra Infant Baptism
The disciples of Jesus were baptizing
those who came. It was a believer’s baptism.
There is no evidence that they baptized infants.
Argument for Infant Baptism
Unlike baptism prior to this point,
the baptism of Pentecost was the fulfillment of the
promise of baptism with fire. This was the Messianic
baptism for which water baptism, up to this point,
was a preparation. Now, as of Pentecost, water baptism
and the reception of the Holy Spirit were practiced
simultaneously, water baptism sometimes preceding,
sometimes following, the reception of the Holy Spirit.
Contra Infant Baptism
All of the baptisms recorded in the
New Testament are recorded as believer baptisms.
Faith, Repentance and Turning are
all required to receive this baptism.
The Spirit may come without water,
before water, during water or after water but the
Spirit never comes to reside without faith/repentance.
Note: All of the passages listed
here refer to the Believer’s union with
Christ on the basis of faith/repentance...
a. Romans 6:4 – baptism into
Christ’s death. ROM 6:3 Or do you not know
that all of us who have been baptized into Christ
Jesus have been baptized into His death? ROM 6:4
Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism
into death, in order that as Christ was raised from
the dead through the glory of the Father, so we
too might walk in newness of life. ROM 6:5 For if
we have become united with Him in the likeness of
Hid death, certainly we shall be also in the likeness
of His resurrection. ROM 6:6 knowing this, that
our old self was crucified with Him, that our body
of sin might be done away with, that we should no
longer be slaves to sin;
b. 1 Corinthians 6:11 – washing
with sanctification and justification. 1CO 6:11
And such were some of you; but you were washed,
but you were sanctified, but you were justified
in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the
Spirit of our God.
c. Galatians 3:27 – clothing
with Christ. GAL 3:26 For you are all sons of God
through faith in Christ Jesus.
GAL 3:27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ
have clothed yourselves with Christ.
d. Ephesians 5:26 – sanctification
by washing with water in the word. EPH 5:25 Husbands,
love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church
and gave Himself up for her;
EPH 5:26 that He might sanctify her, having cleansed
her by the washing of water with the word,
e. Colossians 2:11 – circumcision
without hand, putting off of the body of flesh,
circumcision of Christ. COL 2:11 and in Him you
were also circumcised with a circumcision made without
hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by
the circumcision of Christ; COL 2:12 having been
buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also
raised up with Him through faith in the working
of God, who raised Him from the dead.
Note: This circumcision is made without
hands and is upon the heart. This is a New Covenant
expression of regeneration. The baptism here is believer’s
baptism. The recipient is pictured as being buried
with Christ in baptism (no infant is buried with Christ
in baptism) and raised up with Him through faith.
f. Titus 3:5 – vehicle of
mercy through the washing of regeneration and the
renewal of the Holy Spirit. TIT 3:5 He saved us,
not on the basis of deeds which we have done in
righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the
washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy
Spirit,
g. Hebrews 10:22 – washing
with hearts sprinkled clean from a bad conscience.
HEB 10:22 let us draw near with a sincere heart
in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled
clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed
with pure water.
h. 1 Peter 3:21 – not the
removal of the filth of the flesh but the request
of a conscience reconciled with God.
Argument for Infant Baptism
Up until this point, we probably
all agree, in general, on the meaning of these passages.
There are two remaining points of Biblical interpretation
on which we differ in varying degrees which progressively
widen the rift between those who practice adult baptism
only and those who practice infant baptism as well
as adult baptism.
The first of these two points is
the relation of baptism and the new covenant. It must
be noted that there is no explicit language
identifying baptism as the sign of the new covenant.
Although such identification may seem obvious, there
is no specific language in the New Testament identifying
it as such. The questions remains then, how does baptism
relate to the new covenant?
Contra Infant Baptism
We would argue strongly that there
is explicit language identifying baptism as the sign
given to believers in the New Covenant. The biblical
evidence is overwhelming. Baptism is not only commanded
of all believers but is fully illustrated in the life
of all New Covenant believers including the apostles.
Sign of Baptism in the New
Covenant:
MAT 28:19 “Go therefore and
make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them
in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy
Spirit,
ACT 2:38 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 received the gift of the
Holy Spirit.
ACT 2:41 So than, those who had
received his word were baptized; and there were
added that day about three thousand soles.
ACT 8:36 And as they went along
the road they came to some water; and the eunuch
said, “Look! Water! What prevents me from
being baptized?”
ACT 8:37 [And Philip said, “If you believe
with all your heart, you may.” And he answered
and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is
the Son of God.”]
ACT 8:38 And he ordered the chariot to stop; and
they both went down into the water, Philip as well
as the eunuch; and he baptized him.
ACT 10:47 “Surely no one
can refuse the water for these to be baptized who
have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can
he?”
ACT 10:48 And he ordered them to be baptized in
the name of Jesus Christ. They asked him to stay
on for a few days.
ACT 16:15 And when she and her
household had been baptized, she urged us, saying,
“If you have judged me to be faithful to the
Lord, come into my house and stay.” And she
prevailed upon us.
ACT 19:3 And he said, “Into
what then were you baptized?” And they said,
“Into John’s baptism.”
ACT 19:4 And Paul said, “John baptized with
the baptism of repentance, telling the people to
believe in Him who was coming after him, that is,
in Jesus.”
ACT 19”5 And when they heard this, they were
baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Argument for Infant Baptism
New Testament references to the new
covenant do not explicitly relate baptism
to the new covenant. However, as these references
who, these passages place the new covenant within
the context of the broader redemptive events accomplished
in Jesus Christ of which baptism is, arguably a sign.
Contra Infant Baptism
The New Testament references the
“New Covenant” as being in Jesus Christ.
To be in Christ and to be in the New Covenant is the
same thing. The only way to be in Christ is by Faith/Repentance.
No one can be in Christ or in the New Covenant via
baptism.
HEB 8:7 For if that first covenant
had been faultless, there would have been no occasion
sought for a second.
HEB 8:8 For finding fault with them, He says, “Behold,
days are coming, says the Lords, When I will effect
a new covenant with the house of Israel and with
the house of Judah;
HEB 8:9 Not like the covenant which I made with
their fathers on the day when I took them by the
hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; for
they did not continue in My covenant, And I did
not care for them, says the Lord.
HEB 8:10 “For this is the covenant that I
will make with the house of Israel after those days,
says the Lord: I will put My laws into their minds,
and I will write them upon their hearts. And I will
be their God, and they shall be My people.
HEB 8:11 “And they shall not teach everyone
his fellow citizen, And everyone his brother, saying,
‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know
Me, from the least to the greatest of them.
HEB8:12 “For I will be merciful to their iniquities,
and I will remember their sins no more.”
HEB 8:13 When He said, “A new covenant,”
He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is
becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.
2CO 3:5 Not that we are adequate
in ourselves to consider anything as coming from
ourselves, but our adequacy is from God.
2CO 3:6 who also made us adequate as servants of
a new covenant, not of the letter, but of the Spirit;
for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
- Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke
22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25
- 2 Corinthians 3:6
- Hebrews 8 – 10
Argument for Infant Baptism
There are suggested links between
baptism and the new covenant present in the New Testament.
Let us examine two passages. The first is Colossians
2:11-13. The second is Hebrews 10-15-23.
COL 2:9 For in Him all the fulness
of Deity dwells in bodily form, COL 2:10 and in Him
you have been made complete, and He is the head over
all rule and authority; COL 2:11 and in Him you were
also circumcised with a circumcision made without
hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by
the circumcision of Christ; COL 2:12 having been buried
with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised
up with Him through faith in the working of God, who
raised Him from the dead. COL 2:13 And when you were
dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision
of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him,
having forgiven us all our transgressions,
This passage suggests that
baptism parallels and most probably replaces circumcision
as the sign of entrance into the new covenant.
Contra Infant Baptism
At this juncture the Infant Baptist
is simply wrong. Baptism does not replace circumcision
as a sign of entrance into the New Covenant. Circumcision
was never a sign of entrance into the New Covenant.
How can baptism replace a sign that did not sign the
same thing? Baptism stands alone as the sign given
to believers who have entered the New Covenant in
Christ. A closer look at Colossians 2:11-13 informs
us that the comparison presented by the Apostle Paul
is between the spiritual circumcision on the heart
of a believer and the believer’s baptism. To
be in Christ is to have the unclean flesh removed
in a spiritual circumcision. The Apostle draws upon
the picture of believer’s baptism as identification
with the death of Christ through faith. Old Covenant
infant baptism, into the nation of Israel, is not
even present in the passage. Of what infant could
it be said that: “you were also circumcised
with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal
of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;
COL 2:12 having been buried with Him in baptism?”
Argument for Infant Baptism
Hebrews 10:15-23 suggests that baptism
is that means by which we are cleansed in the new
covenant.
HEB 10:15 And the Holy Spirit also
bears witness to us; for after saying, HEB 10:16
"This is the covenant that I will make with
them After those days, says the Lord: I will put
My laws upon their heart, And upon their mind I
will write them," He then says, HEB 10:17 "And
their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember
no more." HEB 10:18 Now where there is forgiveness
of these things, there is no longer any offering
for sin. HEB 10:19 Since therefore, brethren, we
have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood
of Jesus, HEB 10:20 by a new and living way which
He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is,
His flesh, HEB 10:21 and since we have a great priest
over the house of God, HEB 10:22 let us draw near
with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith,
having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience
and our bodies washed with pure water. HEB 10:23
Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without
wavering, for He who promised is faithful;
In conclusion, although there is
no specific identification of baptism as the rite
of entrance into the new covenant, I think many
of us would agree that baptism is that sign by which
one is ushered into the new covenant.
Contra Infant Baptism
This passage says nothing of the
sort. The heart sprinkled clean is a heart sprinkled
by the blood of Jesus. The pure water is the cleansing
only Jesus can give by faith. This passage does not
teach that baptism either puts us in the New Covenant
or cleanses us from our sins. However, if the author
of the book of Hebrews had in mind that the “washed
with pure water” of verse 22 was a reference
to baptism, it does not fit Infant Baptism. Protestant
Infant Baptists generally do not teach that baptized
infants are washed clean and have their hearts “sprinkled
clean from an evil conscience.” This is the
position of Rome. However, Protestant Infant Baptist
creeds are, unfortunately, in line with Rome though
very few Protestant Infant Baptists teach their own
creeds without equivocation.
Also, Baptism nowhere “ushers
one into the new covenant.” It is a sign of
a believer’s identification with the death –
burial – resurrection of Jesus Christ. The sign
does not bring about the reality. The sign indicates
that the reality is present.
[EZE 36:24 “For I will take
you from the nations, gather you from all the lands,
and bring you into your own land.
EZE 36:25 “Then I will sprinkle
clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will
cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all
your idols.
EZE 36:26 “Moreover, I will give you a new
heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will
remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give
you a heart of flesh.
EZE 36:27 “And I will but My Spirit within
you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you
will be careful to observe My ordinances.
EZE 36:28 “And you will live in the land that
I gave to your forefathers; so you will be My people,
and I will be your God.
EZE 36:29 “Moreover, I will save you from
all your uncleanness; and I will call for the grain
and multiply it, and I will not bring a famine on
you.]
HEB 10:15 And the Holy Spirit also
bears witness to u; for after saying,
HEB 10:16 “This is the covenant that I will
make with them after those days, says the Lord:
I will put My laws upon their heart, and upon their
mind I will write them,” He then says,
HEB 10:17 “And their sins are their lawless
deeds I will remember no more.” HEB 10:18
Now where there is forgiveness of these things,
there is no longer any offer for sin.
HEB 10:19 Since therefore, brethren, we have confidence
to enter the holy place b the blood of Jesus,
HEB 10:20 by a new and living way which He inaugurated
for us through the veil, that is, His flesh,
HEB 10:21 and since we have a great priest over
the house of God,
HEB 10:22 let us draw near with a sincere heart
in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled
clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed
with purse water.
HEB 10:23 Let us hold fast the confession of our
hope without wavering, for He we promised is faithful;
Argument for Infant Baptism
This brings us to our third point,
the one at which those who practice infant
baptism diverge from those who practice adult baptism
only. It has to do with the nature of covenants
in general and the relation of the new covenant to
other Biblical covenants.
Contra Infant Baptism
We have arrived at a critical point
in our dramatic differences with Infant Baptists.
Infant Baptists put forward the argument that baptism
in the New Covenant must follow the design, practice
and order of circumcision in the Old Testament. It
is readily apparent that circumcision was a sign given
to all males born into or captured into the house
of Israel. All males attached to the nation of Israel
were given the sign of circumcision. It signified
that they were a part of the nation. The sign of circumcision
was not dependent upon the faith of the parent insofar
as eternal life was concerned. All parents were expected
to obey the law of circumcision or forfeit their rights
to the benefits of the community. The promises given
to Abraham at the institution of circumcision were
land and wealth promises based upon God’s promise
to raise up a mighty nation. However typical these
promises may have been, leading to the ultimate fulfillment
in Christ in a new heaven and new earth, they were
nonetheless earthly, temporal and the sign that signified
a male as a part of this nation was circumcision.
Given the Old Testament backdrop
of circumcision, Infant Baptists begin to design and
define New Testament baptism with the same set of
guidelines. The Body of Christ becomes the Nation
of Israel. The promises given to Abraham and his seed
are now transferred over as the model of the promises
given to Jesus Christ and His seed. Hence, just as
infants were circumcised in the Abraham and Moses
Covenants, so infants should be baptized in the New
Covenant.
So convinced are Infant Baptists
that they have the formula correct that they begin
to re-define circumcision with terms reserved for
baptism and re-define baptism with terms reserved
for circumcision. From this premise comes a hodgepodge
of Infant Baptist confusion that is utterly baffling.
In the Old Testament circumcised
infants could grow up and walk away from the nation
of Israel. They could walk the covenant. Also, in
the Old Testament circumcised infants could grow up
and be good citizens of the nation but be spiritually
dead. They could enjoy the benefits of being in the
nation of Israel but simply not believers in God.
They could be apostate yet still Israelites.
Given this Old Testament premise,
Infant Baptists seek to apply the same scenario to
their baptized infants. They say that their infants
have been given the sign of the New Covenant but they
can walk the covenant. Or, they can be citizens in
the Body of Christ and not be believers. They could
bear the sign but be spiritually dead. Hence, baptism
and circumcision are the equivalent of each other.
They both are signs of being in a Covenant ordained
by God. They both are to be given to infants. They
both do not insure salvation. They both can be walked.
The ruination of all this forced
comparison begins with the realization that the Old
Testament Covenants are not the same as the New Covenant
in Christ. Infant Baptists have inflicted severe damage
upon the New Covenant with their insistence that it
is inaugurated upon the same model as the Old Covenants
in design and covenant sign. It is not. It is far
from it.
In the first place, one cannot be
born into the New Covenant. Whereas all infants in
Israel were born into the Abraham and Mosaic Covenant,
no one is born into the New Covenant. In the second
place, no one receives the sign of the New Covenant
unless one is in the New Covenant. Whereas all male
infants in Israel received the sign of the Old Covenant;
no one is signed in the New Covenant without faith
and repentance. Thirdly, no one who is in Christ and
thus in the New Covenant can walk the covenant. Whereas
the Old Covenant was earthly and the promises of a
temporal nature that could be walked; the New Covenant
is eternal and heavenly and cannot be walked.
The thing signified in the circumcision
of Israel was a national identity. It was automatically
given by birthright. The thing signified by baptism
in the New Covenant is life in Christ, eternal salvation
and all the promises of God given to those in Christ.
It is given by faith and is not automatically given
by birthright.
Infant Baptists are signifying something
that is simply not a reality when they baptize their
infants. The granting of the sign of being in Christ
to those who are not in Christ is foolishness. Sensing
this to be the case, many Protestant Infant Baptists
speak out of both sides of their mouths. On the one
hand they may say, “God has promised to save
our infants and children and this is why we give them
the sign of salvation.” On the other hand, they
may say, “God has His elect and they alone will
be saved. We baptize our infants in the hope that
God will save them.” Either answer is outside
of the biblical strictures placed upon baptism.
As we shall read, Infant Baptists
also equivocate. Children of believers are said to
be put in a special relationship with the Lord based
upon the faith of at least one parent. Or, because
of the household blessing bestowed upon the faith
of the head of the house, children are susceptible
to blessings from God. All of these kinds of statements
fall short of baptismal regeneration. But they are
indicative of the willingness of Infant Baptists to
allow the framework of Old Covenant blessings dictate
to them the meaning of the New Covenant and baptism.
Argument for Infant Baptism
Covenants, as related in the Old
Testament, were pacts made with representative heads
of people groups and, by extension, to their descendants.
Reception of the covenant made them and their descendants
susceptible to both blessings and curses as a result
of their special relation with God. The covenant extended
to the community as a whole although the realization
of the blessings of the covenant depended on the response
of the individual.
The covenant extended to Noah included
his sons and their wives. The inclusion of the sons
in the blessings of the covenant (rescue from the
flood) depended on their entrance into the ark together
with Noah.
Contra Infant Baptism
The promises given in the covenant
with Noah were given to those who entered the Ark.
It was a believer’s affair. Also, this was physical
deliverance and not a covenant for eternal salvation.
In addition to what has been said about Infant Baptism
and the Old Testament covenants there is emerging
from the Infant Baptist argument a formula that equates
the “obedience” required to benefit from
the blessings offered in Old Testament Covenants with
the “faith” that is required to receive
the benefits of the New Covenant in Christ. The idea
is this. In the Old Covenant the covenant blessings
came to the obedient. However, they already had the
sign of circumcision. Likewise, in the New Covenant,
the blessing comes to those who, having already been
given the sign of the New Covenant, now need to exercise
faith to keep it. This “you are in the Covenant
if you keep yourself in it” mentality flies
in the faith of the absolute unilateral, monergistic
electing love of God. It also re-defines the New Covenant
as consisting of parents and their baptized babies.
This is something the New Testament is quite unwilling
to do.
In essence, Infant Baptists would
have us believe that their baptized babies are signed
as though they are in Christ and are to be treated
according to the reality behind the sign until they
reject the reality. This is putting the cart before
the horse to say the least.
We observe further that there is
no point of comparison between Noah’s sons entering
the Ark upon hearing the Gospel and infants gaining
an interest in the New Covenant via baptism.
Argument for Infant Baptism
Abraham and his descendants, Moses
and the people of Israel, Eleazer and his descendants,
the covenant with David and his descendants, in each
of these instances introduction into the potential
blessings and curses of the covenant was extended
to the children of the recipients of the covenant.
The extension of the promise to the children into
the covenant did not signal the reception of the promise
that reception depended on meeting the stipulations
of the covenant. The promises remained latent until
they were realized by the compliance with the terms
of the covenant.
Contra Infant Baptism
In the Infant Baptist argument there
is a forced point of continuity between local covenants
given to specific tribes, nations and kingdoms and
the New Covenant in Christ. In the case of Israel,
as has been noted, the sign of the nation was mandatory
for all male infants. The New Covenant in Christ is
altogether different. The sign of the New Covenant
is not mandatory for infants. It is only mandatory
for those who believe and repent. When once we see
that the sign of circumcision was for a different
set of purposes, it is easier to separate it from
New Covenant baptism. In the life of Israel, circumcision
was commanded by God for male infants. However, the
sign of baptism, given in the New Covenant, comes
after the reality of faith and repentance. It is a
different Covenant with a different sign and different
model for the sign.
Argument for Infant Baptism
Most of those who oppose infant baptism
would not contest this view of Old Testament covenants.
The difference of opinion lies, however, in whether
the new covenant is structured like Old Testament
covenants and whether the same or similar principles
of initiation would be applied under the new covenant.
In what follows I will explore some those Biblical
passages that seem to indicate that the new covenant
operates on the same principles of initiation as the
Old Testament covenants.
Contra Infant Baptism
As we have argued above, the New
Covenant is not structured like the Old Testament
Covenants. It is not similar in principles of initiation.
The purposes of the Old Testament Covenants are different.
The New Covenant is new and unique. The purposes,
signing and content of the signification, including
candidates, are well developed within the New Testament.
Infants Baptists miss the point as they foist the
Old Testament structures and signs onto the New Covenant.
Argument for Infant Baptism
In Acts 2:39, this passage, introducing
the baptism of the crowds at Pentecost, seems to use
the language of Old Testament covenants: “The
promise is to you and to your children and to all
who are far away – as many as the Lord will
call.” This passage is important not because
it commands the baptism of infants (which it does
not) but, rather, because it reveals that the same
structure of covenant community seems to be in place
in this explanation of the new covenant.
If this is, indeed, structured along
Old Testament lines, then the promise, communicated
in baptism, lays out before the participants in baptism
the blessings and curses of the new covenant. In the
case of the believer, these promises are realized
immediately in baptism. In the case of the children
of believers, these promises are latent, remaining
to be actualized throughout their life. As with all
covenant promises, the actualization of the latent
promise is contingent upon keeping the conditions
of the covenant. In this case repentance.
Contra Infant Baptism
Here we see the sign of baptism split
as to meaning. Infant Baptists are forced to admit
that, ‘upon faith and repentance’ the
sign of baptism is given. At the same time they insist
on asserting that baptism is to be given ‘in
anticipation of faith and repentance’ expressed
at some future point. But the text does not yield
such a conclusion. The promise of forgiveness and
the gift of the Holy Spirit are dependent upon confession
in the waters of baptism and the calling of the Lord.
Only a repentant confessing infant called of God can
qualify for the sign of baptism.
Everything is dependent upon the
Lord who will call. The promise is not restricted
to only the immediate audience. It has a far flung
range to it. The infants of believers have no advantage
over anyone who is far off. Some view the ‘call’
here as the outward call of the gospel. If this is
so, given the reasoning of Infant Baptists, why not
baptize all those who are called outwardly by the
Lord? Should they be baptized because they have heard
the message? More than likely this ‘call’
is the inward call of efficacious grace. If it is
the inward call then it is for the elect only and
baptizing babies without this knowledge of God’s
elect is completely without warrant.
Argument for Infant Baptism
Let us now consider Acts 11:14; Acts
16:15; Acts 16:31, 34; Acts 18:8; 1 Corinthians 1:16.
In each of these passages, reference is made to the
baptism of entire households. In some instances there
is mention of belief in conjunction with the baptism
but, in other, no mention is made of the disposition
of the other members of the household. Those who oppose
infant baptism argue one of three things regarding
these passages: 1) there were no infants present in
these household. 2) When the Bible says households,
it means only those members of the household who believed.
3) The term household does not include children. Number
one is speculation based on circular reasoning (i.e.,
there were no infants because infants would not have
been baptized and the absence of infants support the
argument that infants were not baptized.) Number two
may be true in those passages where the belief of
individuals seems to be indicated but is once again
speculative when it comes to those instances where
the disposition of the individuals is not indicated
(Acts 11:14 promises salvation to Cornelius and his
house before Peter arrives at his home; Acts 16:15
only mentions the faith of Lydia; Acts 16:31 offers
salvation to the Philippian jailor and his household
based on his belief not that of his household). Number
three is simply wrong. The term “household”
or “house” both in legal terminology and
in common parlance, referred to all members of the
household, including slaves.
Contra Infant Baptism
The speculation is on the part of
those who say that there were infants in the household
and that they were baptized. The text says neither.
It is difficult to run with the Infant Baptist here.
He argues from complete silence. He maintains, “Since
there is no mention of infants, there were probably
infants present.”
Here is the baptism of the house
of Cornelius:
ACT 11:14 and he shall speak words
to you by which you will be saved, you and all your
household.'
ACT 11:15 “And as I began to speak, the Holy
Spirit fell upon them, just as He did upon us at
the beginning.
ACT 11:16 “And I remembered the word of the
Lord, how He used to say, ‘John baptized with
water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.
ACT 11:17 “If God therefore gave to them the
same gift as He gave to us also after believing
in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could
stand in God’s way?
Here is the baptism of the household
of the Philippian jailer:
ACT 16:30 and after he brought
them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to
be saved?”
ACT 16:31 Andy they said, “Believe in the
Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your
household.”
ACT 16:32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to
him together with all who were in his house.
ACT 16:33 And he took them that very hour of the
night and washed their wounds, and immediately he
was baptized, he and all his household.
ACT 16:34 And he brought them into his house and
set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having
believed in God with his whole household.
The word household does not have
to refer to children or infants. It is general term
that means the members of the household. It could
include aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters. The specific
mention of infants is absent.
Argument for Infant Baptism
If we are correct in assuming that
the structure of Old Testament covenants is preserved
in the new covenants, then the communal nature of
the promise revealed in these household passages is
exactly what we would expect. This is more than just
coincidence. This is an insight into the way the covenant
functions. When salvation comes to the head of a group,
the promise of salvation is extended to those under
the representative authority of that group. Remember
Joshua’s affirmations: as for me and my house,
we will serve the Lord. Joshua, as a representative
head of the household placed not only himself, not
only those who agreed to the transaction, but all
those who were members of his household under the
banner of faith. Covenants build on the existing structural
authority present in the household to extend the promise
into future generations.
Contra Infant Baptism
We would strongly disagree that the
structure of the Old Testament covenants is preserved
in the New Covenant. There is no call in the New Testament
to baptize infants in hopes that they will obey the
stipulations of the New Covenant. There is no special
assurance given by God that infants baptized by their
parents will be saved. We need to keep in mind that
the Infant Baptist does not mean certainty of salvation
when he says, “the promise of salvation is extended
to those under the representative authority of that
group.” When asked if God really promises salvation
to infants of believers the answer is “yes”
provided they come to Christ. But in so saying, he
reiterates what all Christians, who do not baptize
their infants, know already. The promise of salvation
is for all who come to Christ from families of believers
or unbelievers.
Perhaps at this point we need to
review exactly what the New Covenant means. The New
Covenant is the Covenant in the blood of Jesus Christ
whereby God has forgiven all of the sins of His people
forever based upon the blood of Christ. This Covenant
between God and Christ and Christ and his people includes
eternal life, eternal security, eternal redemption,
eternal justification and eternal salvation with attendant
definitions of reconciliation and propitiation. Those
in Christ are God’s elect. They are eternally
in Christ by His choosing. They are regenerated by
the Holy Spirit. To be in Christ is to be in the New
Covenant. To be in the New Covenant is to be in Christ.
It is unbreakable. It is new. It is secure. The only
entry is through faith and repentance. There is no
other way of being in Christ. Infants cannot be in
the New Covenant. If they are then they cannot get
out. They are secure. Unlike the O.C. that could be
walked, the New cannot be walked.
Argument for Infant Baptism
Finally, let us consider 1 Corinthians
7:14. This enigmatic passage mentions the sanctification
of the husband of the believer and the resulting holiness
of the children of these unions. In this passage Paul
borrows from covenantal language to describe how the
faith of the parent is passed on to the child. There
are two separate influences here. First, the husband
is “sanctified” by the wife. This is a
reference to the way in which vessels, which in and
of themselves are incapable of retaining holiness,
are sanctified for the temple rituals. By being sanctified,
they thus can be used without fear of contaminating
other elements of the ritual. So also the spouses
of the believer are “neutralized” in their
relationship with their believing spouses through
sanctification. This sanctification is external rather
than internal and makes possible the resulting holiness
of the children. Unlike unbelieving spouses who are
“sanctified,” the children of such unions
are holy. They are not only susceptible of bearing
holiness but actually acquire the trait of holiness
through the believing parent.
Contra Infant Baptism
Here is the passage in question:
1CO 7:13 And a woman who has an
unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with
her, let her not send her husband away.
1CO7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified
through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified
through her believing husband; for otherwise your
children are unclean, but now they are holy.
1CO 7:15 Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let
him leave; the brother or the sister is not under
bondage in such cases, but God has called us to
peace.
1CO 7:16 For how do you know, O wife, whether you
will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband,
whether you will save your wife?
The Bible uses the same Greek root
here for the sanctification of the wife/husband and
the holiness of the children. There is no difference.
If the unbelieving husband/wife is sanctified by the
believer then he/she should receive the covenant sign
as is expected for the hagios [sanctified-holy] child
in this passage. The child no more takes upon himself
the faith of the believing parent than the unbelieving
spouse does.
Argument for Infant Baptism
This statement may seem shocking
to these who tend to think of the individual as the
basic unit of faith. But, like Old Testament covenants,
Paul considers the family as the most basic unit of
faith. Paul is taking into account here the unique
nature of the relationship of parents and children.
To ignore the role of children in the spiritual formation
of children is deny the obvious. Children inherit
their spiritual orientation from their parents. They
actually, inevitably participate in their parent's
faith unless and until they decide to reject that
faith.
Contra Infant Baptism
This is salvation by association.
To participate in their parent’s faith is to
say that they are in Christ. It is to say that they
are elect. It is to say that they are saved until
they are lost. Some Reformed Confessions say as much.
They are in gross error.
Argument for Infant Baptism
Other advantages of this position
are that it is more in accord with how faith is formed
in children. Faith is hereditary. All things being
equal, the children of Hindus grow up to be Hindus,
the children of Muslims will grow up to be Muslims
and the children of Christians will grow up to be
believers in Jesus Christ. This is the way that faith
is communicated and formed. Children born to Christian
parents are at a tremendous advantage. They will inherit
a belief structure which is based on the truth in
Jesus Christ. This inherited faith is not in any inauthentic
unless the object of that faith itself is inauthentic.
Infant baptism recognizes the legitimacy of this process
and claims this advantage. Children who are born in
a Christian home will begin, at the very earliest
ages, to express repentance for their sins. They will
begin to express faith in Jesus Christ as their savior
and Lord. In effect, even from the very earliest age,
all the elements required by adult baptizers as signs
of authentic faith are already present.
Contra Infant Baptism
Faith is not hereditary. Faith is
not passed on from one person to another. Faith is
the first fruit of regeneration. Faith is not a process.
One must be born again by the Spirit of God. With
this the Westminster Confession heartily agrees.
[All those whom God hath predestinated
unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed
time, effectually to call,1
by His Word and Spirit,2 out
of that state of sin and death, in which they are
by nature to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ;3
enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly
to understand the things of God4
taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto
them an heart of flesh;5 renewing
their wills, and, by His almighty power, determining
them to that which is good,6
and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ;7
yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing
by His grace. 8
The grace of faith, whereby the elect
are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls,1
is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts,2
and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word,3
by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments,
and prayer, it is increased and strengthened.4
]
Argument for Infant Baptism
Children who are born in a Christian
home will begin, at the very earliest ages, to express
repentance for their sins. They will begin to express
faith in Jesus Christ as their Savior and Lord. In
effect, even from the very earliest age, all the elements
required by adult baptizers as signs of authentic
faith are already present in the children of believers
yet without the benefit of baptism. In fact, this
faith begins at such an early age that it is impossible
to pinpoint when it begins.
Adult baptizers put themselves in
the awkward position of contending that the early
expressions of faith in their children are somehow
unacceptable or inauthentic. Jesus took a child and
placed it in the middle of his disciples and said,
“Unless you turn and become
like children, you will not enter the Kingdom of heaven.”
Those who reject the faith of children seem to reverse
this order: unless you children become like these
adults, you will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
If children should not be baptized until they believe
in Jesus Christ, the question is, who do the children
of believers believe in before they believe in Jesus
– Buddha, Vishnu, Allah? No, it is obvious to
any Christian parent that there is no answer to this
question except one: Jesus. Your children believe
in Jesus. Why does this not merit inclusion I the
church of Jesus Christ.
Contra Infant Baptism
Children often times believe only
what their parents believe. It is not their own faith.
Also, infant baptizers baptize infants not believing
children, Jesus did not set an infant in their midst
and say, “unless you have the faith of this
infant.”
Arguments for Infant Baptism
Identity is shaped I the very earliest
of ages. Expectations are based on identity. When
we communicate to our children that they are not believers
in Jesus or not yet believers in Jesus, we erode or
diminish the power of their identity in Christ.
Contra Infant Baptism
This is the very worst danger of
this inherited faith position. The assumption of salvation
is taught at the expense of evangelizing our own children.
There is no such thing as a biblical identity in Christ
apart from being born again. It is nonsense to say
that a child is in Christ if that child has not come
to faith and repentance through the conviction of
the Holy Spirit.
Arguments for Infant Baptism
Generation after generation of believers
who were baptized as infants have grown up into faithful
service to Jesus Christ. Imagine if we were to exclude
from authentic Christian faith all those who were
baptized as infants. We would have to exclude Huss,
Tyndale, Luther, Calvin, Knox, Edwards, Wesley, and
Whitefield, not to mention many, many, many generations
of lesser lights. By delaying Christian identity until
later childhood or even adulthood, we delay the opportunity
of the child to pursue his or her calling in Jesus
Christ from the earliest ages.
Contra Infant Baptism
In the first place, there is no denial
of true faith. All of the men listed exhibited true
faith as adults or as young men who understood the
gospel for themselves. They were not Christianized
as infants! Secondly, for every one of the above there
are countless men and women raised in Christian homes
who are totally lost. Were they in and then out? Did
they lose their election? Did they lose their security
of being in Christ?
Final Comments in favor of
Infant Baptism
In conclusion, although we may disagree
on the interpretation of certain New Testament texts,
it is simply wrong to argue that infant baptizers
do no believe or respect the Bible. There are strong
Biblical grounds for the inclusion of children in
the community of grace and many, many advantages to
recognizing the legitimacy of the faith expressed
by our children from the earliest ages.
Final Comments in opposition
to Infant Baptism
Recognizing the faith of children,
coming on their own at an early age to request baptism,
is altogether different from the practice of Infant
Baptism. Often times in conversation with Infant Baptists
there is a shift away from baptism of infants [which
is wrong] to baptizing children who have come to faith
and repentance [which is right]. Arguments for baptizing
believing children are not arguments for baptizing
infants.
In summary, Infant Baptists cannot
marshal one single verse in the Bible that gives an
example of or teaches by way of logical deduction
or necessary inference Infant Baptism. Their arguments
do not center upon what the Bible has to say. Rather
they argue strictly from a forced comparison between
circumcisions in the nation of Israel or the Abrahamic
Covenant and the New Covenant sign of baptism.
Protestant Infant Baptists come very,
very close to declaring that God is obligated to save
their children. They also confuse basic theological
distinctions. Signifying something as ‘really
there’ that is not there at all is dangerous
business. Soon the ‘sign’ loses all meaning.
Infant Baptists further muddy the waters of God’s
free electing grace by putting baptized infants in
a ‘more favorable’ position for salvation.
Though falling short of baptismal regeneration, the
Infant Baptist is left with some regrettable conclusions
stemming from a portion his reformation heritage.
Here are the sobering words of John Calvin and the
Augsburg Confession.
“God pronounces that he adopts
our infants as his children before they are born,
when he promises that he will be a God to us and to
our seed after us. This promise includes their salvation.
Now will any dare to offer such an insult to God as
to deny the sufficiency of his promise to insure its
own accomplishment?”
Book 4, Chapter 15, line 20. (emphasis mine)
Augsburg Confession: 1530
Of baptism they teach that it is
necessary to salvation, and that by Baptism the grace
of God is offered, and that children are to be
baptized, who by Baptism, being offered to God, are
received into God’s favor. They condemn
the Anabaptists who allow no the Baptism of children,
and affirm that children are saved without Baptism.
(emphasis mine)
Westminster Confession of
Faith on Justification
I. Those whom God effectually calls,
He also freely justifies;(1) not by infusing righteousness
into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting
and accepting their persons as righteous; not for
any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for
Christ’s sake along; nor by imputing faith itself,
the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience
to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the
obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, (2)
they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness
by faith; which faith they have not of themselves,
it is the gift of God. (3)
II. Faith, thus receiving and resting
on Christ and His righteousness, is the along instrument
of justifications: (4) yet is it not alone in the
person justified, but is ever accompanied with all
other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works
by love (5)
III. Christ, by His obedience and
death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that
are thus justified, and did make a proper, real and
full satisfaction to His Father’s justice in
their behalf.(6) Yet, in as much as He was given by
the Father from them:(7) and His obedience and satisfaction
accepted in their stead;(8) and both, freely, not
for any thing in them; their justification is only
of free grace;(9) that both the exact justice, and
rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification
of sinners.(10)
IV. God did, from all eternity, decree
to justify all the elect,(11) and Christ did, in the
fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again
for the justification:(12) nevertheless, they are
not justified, until the Holy Spirit does, in due
time, actually apply Christ unto them.(13)
V. God does continue to forgive the
sins of those that are justified;(14) and although
they can never fall from the sate of justification,(15)
yet they may, by their sins, fall under God’s
fatherly displeasure, and not have the light of His
countenance restored unto them, until they humble
themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew
their faith and repentance.(16)
VI. The justification of believers
under the Old Testament was, in all these respects,
one and the same with the justification of believers
under the New Testament. (17) |
