Infant
Baptism
by: Colby
Braden
Now they were
bringing even infants to him that he might touch them. And when the
disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him,
saying, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for
to such belongs the kingdom of God. (Luke
18:15-16 ESV)
Infant Baptism is an issue that has divided Christians
and split churches for centuries. It is a hotly debated topic among
those of us who hold to Covenant and Reformed Theology. It is also a
subject that has cause me much personal anguish as I try to find a
church for my family and follow what God commands me to do for my
son. My wife and I have talked, prayed and searched the Scriptures
for an answer to the question of infant baptism. There have been
times it depended on what day you asked me if I agreed with infant
baptism or not. The arguments and passion on both sides of the issue
are compelling. What follows is my defense of infant baptism based on
biblical texts and Covenant Theology, I will also cover some common
objections raised by Baptists. It is far from comprehensive but shows
my thinking and study on the matter. My thought is, to be consistent
with Covenant Theology, children are admitted into the covenant
church and thus it is proper to baptize them as a sign of that
covenant.
Paul, in talking with church members in Corinth,
mentions the status of believer's children. In 1st Corinthians 7:14
Paul makes a distinction between the children of unbelievers versus
the children of believers. Paul says that if at least one parent is a
believer their child is "holy". Paul is using a
familial covenantal approach to holiness, showing that whole families
are in covenant with God. Just like in the Old Testament the children
of Israelites where considered holy and set apart by circumcision,
New Testament children of believers are set apart as holy and thus
should receive the new covenant sign of baptism. This verse is deadly
to the Baptist position by showing that indeed children are part of
the visible covenant church, and considered covenantally holy. This
would be why Cornelius (Acts 10), Lydia (Acts 16:15), the Philippian
jailer (Acts 16:33), and Stephanus (1 Cor. 1:16) baptized every
member of their household upon conversion.
In Colossians 3:20 Paul is admonishing children as
members of the church to “obey your parents” because it
“pleases the Lord”. Back in chapter 2, Paul is reminding
these church members that they were given the “circumcision of
Christ” (v. 11) by being “buried with him in baptism”
(v. 12). Since the children where members of the visible church
in Colossae, then Paul would have been addressing them as well. In
other words, these children would have been baptized. Paul was
telling these children and adults to remember their baptism and to
remain in the church and in the faith that was promised to them.
There is no argument from Colossians 2:11-12 to disprove infant
baptism. Even in Colossians 2:12, Paul said these church members “had
been” baptized then raised in faith. In other words, it
is not necessary to profess faith before being baptized in the
case of infants. The sign of baptism is given to the church and since
the children of believers are members of the church they are required
to receive the sign. Baptism is strongly linked to the sign of
circumcision in Colossians 2:11-12 and thus linked back to the
Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 17).
In Ephesians 6:1-4 Paul is again addressing children
that are members of the church (remember Colossians and Ephesians are
letters to church members). These children are to obey their parents
"..in the Lord" (Eph. 6:1). Back in Ephesians 1:1
Paul shows that he is addressing the "saints". These
children of believers would have been considered part of the visible
church thus, like in Colossians, would have been baptized. The church
of the New Testament is identical to the church in the Old Testament.
Since believers and their children where circumcised in the OT, it
stands to reason that believers and their children should be baptized
in the NT. There is no explicit command to change how the sign of the
covenant was to be administered. Church history itself bears record
that believer's and their children where included in the church and
received baptism.
Presbyterians quote Acts 2:39 quite a bit to prove
infant baptism. Unfortunately most leave out an important part of
that verse and Baptists have seized on that to disprove its use as a
proof-text for infant baptism. When quoting Acts 2:38-39
Presbyterians will stop at "For the promise is for you and
your children..." the rest of the verse continues with
"...and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our
God calls to
himself." The Baptist will take this opportunity to show
that it states "...whom the Lord our God calls
to himself..." and use this to say that it is only those
whom the Lord calls into profession of faith should be baptized. The
major problem with the Baptist's interpretation is failing to link
this back to what Peter is alluding to. Peter is making a direct
reference to the Abrahamic Covenant and it's promises. Back in
Genesis 17:1-14 the same promise is made to Abraham. Genesis 17:7 has
nearly identical language "And I will establish my covenant
between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their
generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your
offspring after you." Abraham is then commanded to
circumcise his children as a sign of the covenant. Since there is no
abrogation of this practice ever mentioned in the NT, then the
converted Jews that Peter was talking to would have baptized their
children. We as Christians firmly believe that God is calling
our children to Him, just as Abraham was given that promise in
Genesis 17. Thus this verse is a huge problem for the Baptist and
still provides a great text for infant baptism. Presbyterians need to
learn to quote the whole verse and link it back to the promise of
Abraham. The key is linking the New Covenant with the Abrahamic
Covenant.
Hebrews
chapter
8
is speaking of the New Covenant. Hebrews 8:8-12 is a direct quotation
of Jeremiah 31:31-34 and is talking about the nature of the New
Covenant. Baptists
will usually take these as proof-text
showing
that the New Covenant is different than
the Abrahamic Covenant
and thus invalidating infant baptism. The major problem with the
Baptist's position is failing to realize that Hebrews 8 and Jeremiah
31 are speaking of a replacement of the Mosaic covenant not the
Abrahamic covenant. It was the covenant with Moses that is in view
here since it is talking about how they were brought
“out of the land of Egypt”(Heb.
8:9, Jer. 31:32) and broke that
covenant (viz.
the covenant of Moses).
The Abrahamic covenant is identical to the Covenant
of Grace (Gal. 3:8, Rom. 4:11-12), thus the sign of the covenant is
to be administered in the same way “for
you and for your children”
(Acts
2:39).
Nowhere in the NT is this pattern abrogated, but it is confirmed in
many places (viz. the recorded household baptisms). Such
a radical departure from the Old Testament covenant surely would have
spurred controversy from the Jews, but no controversy is ever
recorded.
A Baptist may object and say that in Hebrews 8 and
Jeremiah 31 it is stated that those in the New Covenant will "know
the Lord" and thus conclude that infants cannot do this and
are excluded from the New Covenant. There are serious problems the
Baptist must face in taking this view. First, denying infant faith is
refuted in Psalm 8:2, 22:9-10, 71:5-6, Jeremiah 1:5 and Luke 1:39-45.
Second, since the only way to heaven is faith in Christ (Acts 4:12 et
al.) and all are under condemnation due to the fall (Romans 5:12-21)
denying infant faith would necessarily mean that infants are doomed.
We can have confidence as Christians that our children, whom God has
chosen to take out this world in their infancy, are in the loving
arms of our Savior (Luke 18:15-16). We can also raise our children
with the assumption that that God is calling them to Himself (Acts
2:38-39). It is the parent and church's responsibility to raise these
children in the faith (Deut. 6:7, Prov. 22:6, Eph 6:4). We can
emphatically agree with Article 17 of the Canons of Dordt: "Since
we must make judgments about God's will from his Word, which
testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature but
by virtue of the gracious covenant in which they together with their
parents are included, godly parents ought not to doubt the election
and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in
infancy."
A Baptist may ask what about those baptized children of
believers that grow up and deny the faith? Has God broken His
covenant with them? Here is where the distinction between the visible
and invisible church is helpful. Not all those in the visible
covenant church are actually elect and regenerate (Matt. 7:21-23).
This is why in Hebrews chapter 6 you see people that have “tasted
the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have
tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to
come” (Heb. 6:4-5) and yet fall away. The people in
Hebrews 6:1-8 are not true elect, regenerate Christians yet they are
part of the covenant church and enjoying some of the benefits of it.
The writer of Hebrews says it is “impossible” (v. 4) for
these outward professing Christian to “restore them again to
repentance” (v. 6) once they fall away. They have forfeited
Salvation. But you read that true elect Christians inherit Salvation
(v. 9). Hebrews chapter 10 has a similar warning that sheds light on
this problem. Hebrews 10:26-31 says that those that “after
receiving the knowledge of the truth” (v. 26) but then “spurned
the Son of God” (v. 29) will receive a “worse punishment”
and “there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins” (v.
26). You will noticed in 10:29 they where “sanctified”
(set apart) by the “covenant”. This mean they were members
(outwardly) of the covenant church community. True elect believers do
not “shrink back and are destroyed” but rather they “have
faith and preserve their souls” (v. 39). Our children are part
of the visible outward church and thus sanctified outwardly by being
members of the church. These warning are for our covenant children as
well as those that profess faith and yet are not truly regenerate and
fall away. They will receive a harsher punishment then those that
have never known the faith. The Apostle John says that they have
committed the "sin unto death" (1 John 5:16) and
have shown themselves to be false believers in the church (1 John
2:19). Even in the New Testament we have those that have partaken of
believers baptism and yet still fall away like Simon the Sorcerer
(Acts 8:13; 20-23). Just like the Baptist baptizes an individual with
the assumption they are elect, Presbyterians do the same with their
children. Baptism symbolizes faith but it does not guarantee faith in
either infants or professing Christians. Similar to the way Old
Testament circumcision did not guarantee that the circumcised Jew
would be faithful.
Another argument I have seen used by Baptists is
concerning Luke 12:51-53. They will argue that this text shows a new
household principle in the New Testament. It is stated that
households “will be divided, father against son and son against
father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother,
mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against
mother-in-law.” (v. 53). This, to the Baptist, shows that a
new household principle is now in effect and invalidates the Old
Testament view of covenantal household holiness. This is simply not
the case and is refuted by the fact that this is a quote from an Old
Testament text (Micah 7:6). Even in the Old Testament the gospel
divided households. Cain slaying Able divided Adam's household.
Jacob's house was divided when the brother's of Joseph sold him into
slavery. And of course the prophet Micah in the Old Testaments admits
“the son treats the father with contempt, the daughter rises up
against her mother, the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; a
man's enemies are the men of his own house” (Micah 7:6). The
fact that a household can be divided over the faith does not
invalidate the covenant relationship of that family. If the head of
the household is faithful, his family has entered into the visible
church. As I have proven earlier it does not guarantee that each
individual in the household is an elect, regenerate Christian.
This paper would not be complete if I didn't include
the most popular objection to infant baptism that Baptist raise: “The
Scripture always declares believe and then be baptized”. This
of course is true in places where the Gospel was preached to adult
unbelievers. Unfortunately by saying this somehow invalidates infant
baptism, the Baptist runs into the problem of these early Christians
baptizing their whole households after conversion (Acts 16:15; 33, 1
Cor. 1:16). Just like in the Old Testament those that were converted
where to be circumcised (along with their children) the same is shown
in the New Testament with baptism. Also one must make distinction
between the sign and the thing signified. In the Old Testament those
that were circumcised in the flesh were called to be circumcised in
the heart as well (Deut. 30:6). Just like in the New Testament
believer's are called to be baptized with the Holy Spirit as well
(Titus 3:5). Even in Acts 19 those that were baptized first
(via John's baptism) where given the Holy Spirit later. The
simple fact is that the arguments used against infant baptism in the
New Testament could have been used against infant circumcision in the
Old Testament. God has always separated the sign (circumcision,
baptism) with the thing signified (changed heart) and the temporal
order can and does vary. Just like baptism, circumcision was also a
sign of repentance (Jer.4:4; 9:25; Deut.10:16; 30:6). That sign of
repentance was given to infants before they could profess repentance
(Gen. 17). Since our unchanging God has used the formula for
believers and their children receiving circumcision in the OT, then
one could not argue that it would be improper for God to
continue this pattern in the NT. It would actually be quite odd for
God to change the administration of the covenant sign without
specifically mentioning the change.
Those of us that believe in Covenant Theology see great
continuity in the Old and New Testaments, not discontinuity. Our
sovereign God has always worked in covenants in his dealings with
mankind, and we are under the same Covenant of Grace
that saved the Old Testament saints (Rom 4:13, Gal. 3:8). Since God
has not changed or repealed how that covenant works, then we have to
assume that the sign of the covenant is to be administered similarly.
God did not exclude the children of believers in the Old Testament,
but commanded they be included (Gen 17). In fact all the covenants
that God has made (viz. Adamic, Mosaic, Abrahamic, Davidic) included
the children of the covenanters. Therefore, to be consistent with our
Covenant Theology hermeneutic, we must administer baptism to our
children since they are the children of the New Covenant.
The universal practice of the early church has included
infant baptism until the Anabaptist movement of the late 16th century. Has
Christ's church of nearly 1600 years had it wrong? Granted lots of
erroneous doctrines were perpetuated rather early in church history
but there have always been controversies and writings showing how
those errors sprang up. No early church controversy exists over
infant baptism. It would be highly suspect that the church would
depart from apostolic tradition so quickly without somebody raising a
fuss over the matter. It is true that church history is not an
infallible authority, but when the universal church was in agreement
with infant baptism for so long it cannot be ignored. Infant baptism
has prevailed uninterrupted from the apostolic age, through ancient
church history, and all the way through to the Protestant
Reformation, and is still practiced today. The testimony of church
history and the early church fathers (Irenaeus, Justin Martyr,
Tertullian, Origen, Cyperian, Augustine, et al.) is against the
modern Baptist practice of believer's only baptism (which began in
the 16th and 17th century).
Can infant baptism be abused? Yes. There have been some
that have abused the doctrine of infant baptism and turned it into
something dreadful (Roman Catholics). The same thing plagues the
Baptist world by those that believe in baptismal regeneration, the
heresies of early Anabaptists, and the problems of modern Baptist’s
Dispensational Theology. Abuse of a doctrine does not invalidate it.
Some Jews put their faith in their circumcision but it didn't mean
they were saved. Anybody that puts their faith in baptism and not in
Christ alone is putting their soul in danger of hell.
In conclusion I'd like to point out that Jesus himself
has identified infants as belonging to the Kingdom of God (Luke 18:15-16) and we are not to hinder children from coming to Christ
(Matt. 19:14). Why are we hindering them from receiving the sign of
initiation in the Kingdom and membership in Christ Church? Are we to
defy Christ by not baptizing our children?
We must therefore agree with Question 74 of the
Heidelberg Catechism:
Are infants also to be baptized?
Yes, for since they, as well as the adult, are
included in the covenant and church of God; and since redemption from
sin by the blood of Christ is promised to them no less than to the
adult; they must therefore by baptism, as a sign of the covenant, be
also admitted into the Christian church.
To the Glory of God,
Colby Braden
