The Basic Argument for Infant Baptism
To Baptize means to wash, dip, sprinkle, or immerse in water. Christian Baptism is God’s New Testament “Covenant sign” of His promise that all who accept Christ as Savior and Lord will have their sins washed away. Baptism replaces God’s O.T. covenant sign of circumcision, because no “blood signs” are appropriate after the Cross (Colossians 2:11-14). He or she who accepts Jesus has joined the family of God and is united with Jesus in dying to the penalty of sin having been “justified” (Romans 6:7) and rising to a new life, having been baptized by the Holy Spirit. Christian baptism is much more than the baptisms of the Old Covenant, such as the Baptism of John the Baptist, which were merely baptizms of repentance. (Matt. 3:11)
Let me explain: The matter comes down to one’s method of interpreting the Bible. If you see the Bible essentially as one book including The Old and New Testaments with one theme, one message of the history of redemtion, and one central person, Jesus Christ, then you will believe that the principles of the Old Testament carry over into the New Testament unless specifically changed. If on the other hand you are a “dispensationalist” then you will believe that there is a great divide between the Old and New Testaments and that everything in the O.T. has passed away unless specfically re-confirmed by the N.T. I disagree with the dispensationalist view. Therefore it is inevitable that my “hermaneutic” or method of interpretation will lead me to see clearly that the Bible does indeed clearly teach infant baptism.
God makes two basic covenants, or agreements, with humans. The first one, the Covenant of Works is an agreement that bases man’s relationship with God on human obedience and morality. The covenant was made with Adam in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve broke this covenant so God replaced it with a second more durable covenant— the Covenant of Grace. The Covenant of Grace is an agreement that bases man’s relationship with God on God’s grace and generosity. The Covenant of Works failed because it was based on human performance. The Covenant of Grace is durable because it is based on God’s performance (at the cross) and the benefits of the covenant are received by faith alone in God’s provision.
All the covenants that God makes with humans after the Fall, (e.g. with Abraham, Moses, and David, and even the New Covenant, set out in Jeremiah 31:33ff which looks forward to the cross, the resurrection and to Pentecost) are really just different forms of the Covenant of Grace. They may appear to be different but are fundamentally the same covenant. Consequently, we can see in Old Testament Israel the people of God (the equivalent of the church) before Christ was born. For there is a clear difference between spiritual Israel and ethinic/national Israel. “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel” (Romans 9:6b). Similarly the New Testament church, although different in many respects, remains essentially the same as the covenant people of God (spiritual Israel) in the O.T. In terms of the visible church, not all church members are saved and in this sense there is also a church within a church. Moreover God’s way and means of salvaion remains the same both in the O.T and also under the New Covenant. Even though there are important differences between the Old Covenant and the New covenant, the New Covenant is also the same Covenant of Grace.
The most significant difference between the Old and New Covenants is that there is no baptism of the Holy Spirit before Pentecost, when the New Covenant’s baptism of the Spirit was inaugurated. All New Covenant believers have the benefit of the permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit and a much higher standard of holiness and service is required of us. It is for this reason that Jesus could state that the “least” in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than John the Baptist, who was considered the greatest man of the Old Covenant because of his honored postion as forerunner of Christ.
The issue of baptism and the Lord’s supper should be understood in the context of the continuity between the Old and the New Covenants.
Here is how the argument in favor of Infant baptism is best presented in my view:
(1) Circumcision is the sign of the covenant God made with Abraham (the Covenant of Grace) and in O.T. times should be received by all the members of his covenant (Gen. 17:10-11). In other words circumcision was originally intended primarily NOT as a sign of a national or ethinic covenant for Jews, but was intended primarily as a sign for people who believe and their children. We know this from Romans 4, which explains in detail that Abraham was circumcised becaused he believed. . Moreover, as stated above, the Apostle Paul tells us that there is a clear difference between spiritual Israel and ethinic/national Israel. “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel” (Romans 9:6b). In other words there have always been an Israel within Israel – a spiritual Israel (an O.T. church) within an Ethnic/National Israel and the sign of such O.T. church membership was circumcision. One of the essential elements of a “covenant” is that it always has a covenant sign. The covenant sign of the old Covenant of Grace was circumcision and later the Passover meal was added as another sacrament of grace.
(2) The children of Old Testament believers are themselves members of the Covenant of Grace as made with Abraham, and are to have the sign of the covenant and to be members of the covenant community. (Gen 17:7, Dt. 7:9, 30:6, 1Ch 16:15, Psa 103:17, 105:8). Although with the passage of time circumcision became automatic and national and ethnic in prictice, theologians, including the apostle Paul, understood that believers and their children were the only true covenant people of God. (Romans 9:6). Moreover Romans 4 makes it clear that even in O.T. times personal faith was necessary for salvation. Circumcision was performed upon the male children of Israelites to signify their external membership in God’s people, not as a guarantee of true faith. The Old Testament records many Israelites who turned from God and were punished, even expelled from the covenant community, showing that their hearts were not truly set on serving God. So while all male Israelites had the sign of the covenant performed on them in a once off ceremony soon after birth, such a signifier was external only and not a true indicator of whether or not they would later exhibit true saving faith in Yahweh. Salvation requries personal faith, which Paul calls a “circumcision of the heart”.
(3) Christians are members/heirs of this same covenant of grace made with Abraham. (Galatians 3:6-9 & Galatians 3:26-29; Romans 11.17-24; Rom. 4:16; Eph. 2:11-13; Eph. 3:3-6; Rom 2:28-29; 1 Peter 2:9; Gal. 6:16; Phil 3:2-3).
(4) Therefore, the children of Christians (believers) are members of Abraham’s covenant (this follows logically and necessarily from 2 & 3; See 1 Cor. 7:14; Acts 2:38). However, what is the covenant sign of the New Covenant? It is important to recognize that every covenant must have a sign.
(5) Baptism is the New Testament form of circumcision: “In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism.” (Colossians 2:11-12a) In the same way, the Lord’s supper is the New Testament form of the Passover. In both cases the signs which were originally blood signs have been replaced with water, bread and wine. Blood signs are no more appropiate since the blood has now been shed on the cross. This is explained by the book of Hebrews. If you look at the meaning and significance of circumcision as set out in Romans 4, it has exactly the same meaning and significance as Christian baptism. The same is true of the Passover and the Lord’s supper. They have the same significance but their external observance has been changed to a bloodless form.
Conclusion: Therefore, the children of Christians should receive the sign of the covenant by being baptized (logically and necessarily from (1), (4), & (5).
NOTE:
• The Bible does not explicitly mention infant baptism, but there are many things that the Bible does not mention that Christians rightly believe. Perhaps the most obvious of such doctrines are those regarding the Trinity (God exists in three persons and one essence) and the hypostatic union (Christ is one person with two natures, being fully human and fully divine). We believe that infant baptism is another such doctrine that the Bible does not state explicitly, but which the Bible assumes to be true and valid.
• Baptism does not produce Christians, but it identifies the child as a member of the covenant community. Being a member of the covenant community does not guarantee salvation; however, it does provide the child with the benefit of that particular congregation consenting to assist in the raising of that child in “the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it”. (Proverbs 22:6)
• The theological framework of understanding the covenants is important to the Biblical case for infant baptism because it provides a reason for thinking there is strong continuity between the Old and New Testaments. It provides a bridge linking the two Testaments together.
• The book of Hebrews demonstrates that much of Israel’s ceremonial worship under the Old Covenant has been replaced by the person and work of Christ. The result is that some important forms of worship in the Old Testament have New Testament equivalents. This is the case with baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
• In the New Testament, circumcision is no longer seen as mandatory for God’s people. The Old Testament circumcision rite has been replaced by baptism (Colossians 2:11-12a).
• The analogy of baptism to circumcision correctly points to children, since the historic Israelite application of circumcision was to infants, not only to adult converts, of which there were few. That is to say that infant baptism is a sign of covenantal inclusion.
Corroborating Evidence
Pedobaptists (those who believe in infant baptism) point to a number of passages in the New Testament which seem to corroborate the above argument.
Household Baptisms –
In the Old Testament, if the head of a household converted to Judaism, all the males in the house, even the infants, were circumcised. Pedobaptists argue this pattern continues into the New Testament. Reference is made, for example, to baptizing a person and their whole household – the households of Lydia, Crispus, and Stephanas are mentioned by name Acts 16:14-15, 18:8; 1 Cor 1:16.
Why would a whole household be baptized just because the head of the house had faith? Shouldn’t they baptize each member of the family as they come to individual faith? Household baptism implies that the rules for membership in Abraham’s covenant has continued into the New Testament, the main difference is the sign of the covenant. Baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign of membership in God covenant community. These household baptisms fit nicely with the argument for infant baptism and, so, are evidence for it.
Luke gives us some interesting insight into the minds of the early Christians when he writes about the baptism of Lydia’s household in Acts 16:14-15. There he says that Lydia believed, and that her household was baptized. This does not mean that there were necessarily infants in Lydia’s household. What is significant is that Luke mentions the baptism of the household without reference to the household’s faith. That is, his assumption seems to have been that Lydia’s faith was sufficient reason to justify baptizing everyone in her household, whether or not they also believed. Her belief, as head of her household, brought her entire household into covenant with God, and therefore it was appropriate to apply the sign of the covenant to the household. It is on this basis that we believe infants should be baptized.
In summary, I believe that the Bible teaches that baptism is the New Testament sign of God’s covenant with his people, just as circumcision was the sign of his covenant with his people in the Old Testament (Col. 2:11-12). Circumcision was to be applied to visible community of God’s people in the Old Testament, (Gen. 17:12-14). Because of the nature of circumcision, the sign was only administered to males, but the administration of the sign to the males constituted application of the sign to the entire community (Gen. 7:11). In the same way, baptism is to be applied to every member of the covenant community. The baptizing of infants brings the infant under the benefits and blessings of the covenant community but does not guarantee salvation of the infant in any way. On the contrary, if the infant never comes to personal faith in Christ, such a person will be under the curses of the covenant.
Should an infant die in infancy such child will immediately go to heaven if such child is elect. (This would also be true on the death of an elect mentally retarded person who does not have the capacity for personal faith). This is entirely up to God and we do not know who is elect from who is not. However is does appear that there may be some grounds for believing/hoping that the infants of believers who die in infancy are elect based on the death of David’s son (2 Samuel 12:14-31). The Bible does not teach anything about “age of accountability” nor about “confirmation”.
No one can go to heaven unless they are elect and if they are regenerate their election will eventually show forth in a personal conversion and a personal faith in the finished work of Our Lord Jesus Christ on the cross.
The idea that if an infant dies before the “age of accountability” it will go to heaven is simply a man-made doctrine and has no Biblical basis. Similarly the teaching that through the rite of confirmation one receives the Holy Spirit is spurious. The biblical basis for the laying on of hands is specifically for “ordination” that is the setting apart of an individual for a particular ministry and has nothing to do with salvation.
The practice for those who believe only in “believer’s baptism” of “blessing” infants has no Biblical basis. Moreover, it is a shame to deny an infant membership of the church and the benefits of the covenant community.
I do NOT believe in “baptismal regeneration” which is the belief that baptism imparts saving grace to its recipients, as this would contradict the entire book of Romans, John’s Gospel, and the rest of the Bible as well. Yet baptismal regeneration is widely believed by the Roman Catholic Church, and the Church of Christ denominations.
To see the official PCA position on infant baptism, have a look at the Westminster Confession of Faith. I have a link to this on my website at the bottom of the page entitled “Our Beliefs”. See: www.seivright.com “our Beliefs”. Also see: WCF:Baptism
I agree with the PCA that baptism should be performed by the elders of the church, particularly the teaching elders, as the Biblical basis for baptism should be explained whenever it is performed.
Dave Seivright
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
