Jul
28
2009
Why I Baptize Babies
Update: Recommended resources at the end
One of the best things I get to do as a pastor is to administer the sacrament of infant baptism to the covenant children in my congregation. Before each baptism, I take a few minutes to explain why we practice infant baptism in our church. My explanation usually goes something like this:
It our great privilege this morning to administer that sacrament of baptism to one of our little infants. We do not believe that there is anything magical about the water we apply to the child. The water does not wash away original sin or save the child. We do not presume that this child is regenerate (though he may be), nor do we believe that every child who gets baptized will automatically go to heaven. We baptize infants not out of superstition or tradition or because we like cute babies. We baptize infants because they are covenant children and should receive the sign of the covenant.
In Genesis 15 God made a covenant with Abraham. This covenant was sealed with the sign of circumcision in Genesis 17. God promised to bless Abraham. For Abraham this meant two things in particular, offspring and land. But at the heart of the covenant was God’s promise that he would be a God to Abraham and his children (Gen. 17:7, 8).
Circumcision was not just a physical thing, marking out ethnic Jews. Circumcision was full of spiritual meaning. The circumcision of the flesh was always meant to correspond with circumcision of the heart (Rom. 2:25-29). It pointed to humility, new birth, and a new way of life (Lev. 26:40-42; Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4; 6:10; 9:25). In short, circumcision was a sign of justification. Paul says in Romans 4:11 that Abraham “received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.” God’s own interpretation of circumcision is that it was much more than just a physical sign for national Israel.
Remarkably, though, this deeply spiritual sign was given to Ishmael as well as Isaac, even though only Isaac was the continuation of the promised line. The spiritual sign was not just for those who already embraced the spiritual reality. It was to be administered to Abraham and his sons. Circumcision was not a simple equation. It didn’t automatically mean the recipient of the sign was in possession of the thing signified. Circumcision, like baptism, also pointed to belonging, discipleship, covenant obligations, and allowed for future faith that would take hold of the realities symbolized. Just as there were some in Paul’s day who were circumcised but not really circumcised (Rom. 2:25-29), some children of Abraham who were not truly children of Abraham (Rom. 9:6-8), so in our day there are some who are baptized who are not truly baptized. Children should be marked as belonging to the covenant, but unless they exercise saving faith, they will not grab hold of the covenant blessings.
Children today are baptized based on this same covenant with Abraham. Paul makes clear in Galatians 3 what Peter strongly suggests in Acts 2, namely that the Abrahamic covenant has not been annulled. It is still operational. In fact, we see the basic promise of the Abrahamic covenant running throughout the whole Bible, right up to the new heaven and new earth in Revelation 21.
Because sons were part of the Abrahamic covenant in the Old Testament and were circumcised, we see no reason why children should be excluded in the New Testament sign of baptism. Admittedly, there is no text that says “Hear ye, hear ye, circumcision replaces baptism.” But we know from Colossians 2:11-12 that baptism and circumcision carried the same spiritual import. The transition from one to the other was probably organic. As the Jews practiced proselyte baptism, that sign came to be seen as marking inclusion in the covenant people. For awhile circumcision existed along baptism, but as the early church became more Gentile, many of Jewish rites were rendered unnecessary, and sometimes even detrimental to the faith. Thus, baptism eclipsed circumcision as the sign renewal, rebirth, and covenant membership.
Although not conclusive all by themselves, there are several other arguments that corroborate a paedobaptist reading of the New Testament.
One, the burden of proof rests on those who would deny children a sign they had received for thousands of years. If children were suddenly outside the covenant, and were disallowed from receiving any “sacramental” sign, surely such a massive change, and the controversy that would have ensued, would been recorded in the New Testament. Moreover, it would be strange for children to be excluded from the covenant, when everything else moves in the direction of more inclusion from the Old Covenant to the New.
Two, the existence of household baptisms is evidence that God still deals with households as a unit and welcomes whole families into the church to come under the Lordship of Christ together (Acts 16:13-15; 32-34; 1 Cor. 1:16; cf. Joshua 24:15).
Three, children are told to obey their parents in the Lord (Eph. 6:1). Children in the church are not treated as little pagans to be evangelized, but members of the covenant who owe their allegiance to Christ.
Four, within two centuries of the Apostles we have clear evidence that the church was practicing infant baptism. If this had been a change to long-standing tradition, we would have some record of the church arguing over this new practice. It wasn’t until the 16th century that Christians began to question the legitimacy of infant baptism.
So we come to administer the sacrament of baptism to this child today with the weight of church history to encourage us and the example of redemptive history to confirm our practice. We baptize in obedience to Christ’s command. The sacrament we are about to administer is a sign of inclusion in the covenant community as circumcision was, and the water we are about to sprinkle is a sign of cleansing from sin as the sprinkled blood of bulls and goats in the Old Testament was. We pray that this little one will take advantage of all his covenant privileges, acknowledge his Lord all the days of his life, and by faith make these promises his own.
*****
I hope it goes without saying that I have great respect for the credobaptist position and count many, many baptists as my friends and heroes. I imagine some of them may make counterpoints in the comments suggestion or recommend books on the other side. I have no problem with this.
What resources would I recommend?
The best short defense of infant baptism I’ve read is from Dennis Johnson (Westminster West). We use this paper in our new member’s class. You can read it here. See also:
John Murray. Christian Baptism.
The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, edited by Gregg Strawbridge.
Joachim Jeremias. Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries and The Origins of Infant Baptism.
I haven’t read Understanding Four Views on Baptism but I imagine it is also helpful.
39 Comments
Thanks Kevin. Your clear articulation of the paedobaptist position is very helpful. As with communion, it seems to me that baptism is much more about what God has done and promises to do, than about what we do. Just as an aside, in order to try and clear up a common misconception, in our church we no longer speak about infant baptism. That gives the impression that baptising infants is all we are about. We prefer to speak about believing in the baptism of believers and their children.
Thanks for this informative explanation! I've been stuck between the views of RC Sproul & John Piper for several years now: I grew up RCA in Hudsonville but never really learned what it meant to be Reformed, then went off to college & am surrounded by baptistic views & charismatic theology, but then after a year or so I returned to the "Calvinistic way" after being awestruck by the sovreignty of God (Chosen By God and Desiring God did it for me!) – but now I'm still unsure about baptism…)
Can you recommend any further resources on the subject? It's hard for a "Piper-ite" like me to accept that John Piper is wrong about something… I was almost convinced about infant baptism, but then I heard Piper exposit Colossians 2:8-15! (OK really, I realize he's not God or anything, but Piper has been extremely influential in my life…)
If you are interested in some of the Baptist responses to the reasons you put forth for infant baptism, I highly recommend Believer's Baptism by Schreiner and Wright, especially the essay, "Baptism in the Patristic Writings" by Steve McKinion. He asks some good questions, like why Tertullian was so adamantly opposed to infant baptism, or why a synod had to meet to require it in 253, or why Origen felt he needed to mount such a strong apologetic for infant baptism if indeed it was the normal practice of the church.
Stephen Wellum's chapter on the relationship between the covenants is terrific too, and I have yet to find a response that deals adequately with the Scriptural and historical work in this essay.
Another book that I haven't gotten into, but am looking forward to is the massive volume, Baptism in the Early Church. I don't know if it's from a Baptist perspective or not, but I'm excited about reading it one of these days.
From a Baptist brother,
let me start by saying i appreciate, as a credobaptist, your informative, non-confrontational tone. i hope my comment is in keeping with that.
let me also affirm what you began with. baptism is symbolic. it is not salvific. it is not magical, it does not save, regenerate, or anything along those lines. here we stand as one.
while i don't have the time to give a full rebuttal, allow me to present a few credobaptist arguments on some of your points:
-i think any argument based on "household baptisms" is by necessity eisegesis, reading into the text, and is bad hermeneutics. it is completely possible that all the household baptisms mentioned had no children who were too young to be believers as they were baptized. so the mention of household baptisms is a moot point, since either way it's arguing from assumption.
-no texts in the NT explicitly mentions baptism of infants, and almost every text on baptism includes a reference to faith. the refrain in conversion stories in Acts is "they believed and were baptized", over and over and over again. belief in Jesus and baptism are almost always paired, and in that order.
and not only in Acts, but also the Colossians passage that you cite, it says that they have "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." this text once again links the faith of the believer and their baptism, so that it doesn't make sense to baptize one who gives no evidence of regeneration.
-you say the burden of proof rests on the credobaptist, because it was a monumental shift in practice from judaism to Christinaity. what of switching the day of worship from saturday to sunday? there is very little mention of this, yet it is clear that this change occured during the time of the apostles. there is no necessity of cataclysmic debate from this change.
in addition, the change is completely in keeping with the discontinuation from the old covenant under the law to the new covenant under Christ. circumcision was originally applied shortly after physical birth in the family of abraham. now baptism is applied shortly after new birth into the family of God in Christ. baptism is the sign of the new covenant, but it is no longer physical birth by which one enters the covenant, but spiritual new birth by which one becomes a son.
-as you say, there is no evidence to affirm paedobaptism under over a hundred years after the writings of the NT. sprinkling infants could easily have been a change in practice, because even during the time of the apostles, men were debating doctrines much more central to the faith, and incorrect teaching abounded. the fact that this practice (a change in a significantly more secondary issue than heresies of the judaizers and the gnostics, both of which appear long before we hear mention of infant sprinkling) took hold, but is not apostolic, takes no stretch of the imagination.
-an honest question: how do you, as a paedobaptist, deal with the fact that baptizw, when translated instead of transliterated, mean "immersion"? and the fact that in practically every instance we have of a baptism narrative, both in the gospels and in acts, the requirement of a significant amount of water was necessary, rather than the few drops necessary to sprinkle someone?
i wish i had more time to discuss this. as i said before, i hope you hear this in the tone of honest dialogue between Christian brothers, not merely as contrarian bickering. thank you for helping me to better understand your position, and i hope i have helped you better understand mine. grace and peace from Dad.
I have to agree with Walt, both is stating that I valued this post so much because I finally now have an idea of why some traditions baptize infants, and by stating that I respectfully disagree. The funny thing is, I didn't even know this is what you believed. I've been a subscriber for a week or so and this is the first thing I've read that I didn't agree with.
I do have a question, if anyone from this tradition can assist me. Do you "re-baptize" someone after they accept Christ? I baptized a young man this weekend who thought he was already good to go because he had been baptized as a Catholic as a baby. He accepted Christ in his adulthood, but didn't think he needed a second baptism until he read the scriptures.
Just a question, I don't mean to be offensive.
Thank you for your post concerning paedobaptism. I found it to be helpful in understanding the broad Scriptural argument for your position.
In looking for resources to argue for credobaptism, you may want to check out Fred Malone's book, The Baptism of Disciples Alone published by Founders Press. He is a former Presbyterian, who is now reformed baptist. I found it helpful.
Good job, Kevin. I know that most people regard baptism as a secondary doctrinal issue (or at least they ought to). However they seem to argue their own conviction as to mode and timing as of primary doctrinal importance. Glad to see that the comments (at least as I am typing these) have been civil in their disagreement with you so far.
My preference would be to regard baptism as a tertiary doctrinal concern, as no matter how long the matter is debated between its paedo/credo proponents, minds are virtually never (or maybe better said, seldom) changed. I have to wonder if Walt and Dan think they are going to change your mind?
I so much want to agree with infant baptism for all the reasons you listed. I adamantly believe we should ceremonially bring our children into covenant life in the church. I can see the relationship of Old Cov circimcision and New Cov baptism. It is all wonderful…but,
1. Do you ever baptize new believing adults who were not infant baptized? If you do, isn't this a very different baptism than infant baptism? If you do not, isn't this the example of baptism in the NT?
2. Does it miss the point, or is it wrong, or unnecessary, or does it negate, etc… if you baptize infants for all the reasons you list but also baptize believers for all the reasons they list?
What about baptism as it existed before Jesus instituted the New Covenant? Does that mean baptism is not defined simply by one covenant or the other?
Kevin, I respect you alot and enjoy reading your blog and your books, but I have to disagree on a few points that you may be able to clarify for me. The first is in Jer. 31:31-34 the discription of the "new covenant", the members of this covenant know the Lord, is seems that this text indicates members of this covenant are regenerate. How can you call infants covenant members when there is no indication of the new birth? The other question I have pertains to what baptism actually is, and accomplishes. The best New Testament definition I know for baptism is found in 1 Peter 3:21, it says "Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience-through the resurrection of Jesus Christ," (NASB) From this text baptism should be applied to people appealing to God for a good conscience. How does this apply when baptizing infants? Any answers would be most appreciated. Thanks
chuck,
as a former-cessationist-arminian-turned-carismatic-calvinist, my prayer is always that, in any argument over theology, whatever is true may be found out and believed by those who pursue the truth in Christ, among whom i believe kevin and i are.
will we change each others minds? perhaps, perhaps not. at the very least, i hope we can understand each other more, as i know at least i have learned from this.
my comment was not for kevin's benefit alone, but also for others who would read the post, that they would have a slightly more balanced perspective on the debate, hopefully being able to see both sides of the argument, no matter where they themselves might land.
darren,
to answer your last question: if memory serves, there are at least 3 different baptisms mentioned in the NT (john's baptism of repentance, Jesus's baptism by john, and Christian baptism). there has been mention of jewish proselyte baptism. there may be others. so there are many different "baptisms". we are here dealing with Christian baptism – that is, symbolic baptism of unity with Christ into His death and resurrection. (cf. Rom. 6:3-4, Col. 2:11-12)
Thanks for this explanation, Kevin! As an Anabaptist/Wesleyan-Armenian who is attending a CRC church now that I very much love, this has been the main issue of concrete practical application that my husband and I have been grappling with (the subject of predestination is a whole other story!). I appreciate your explanations, and I'm very grateful that the Reformed tradition in general is careful to point out that the baptism of infants is not a salvific act. However, I still find myself agreeing more with the perspective laid out by Walt. I wish I didn't for the sake of my commitment to this particular church I'm attending!
Also, I would like to add a personal and emotional reason I'm struggling with the issue, which goes along with Walt's emphasis on baptism and faith being inextricably linked: that of my own baptism experience. When I was 11, I decided to be baptized after thoughtful and prayerful consideration, as well as much teaching on the sacrament by the elders of my church. It was a very moving experience for me where I literally felt the hand of God on my life in a different way. That's not to say that the water was magical or anything, but I believe that my conscious decision and obedience to give an outward sign of God's grace on my life made that grace even more real to me. My son is 3 years old right now (he has not been baptized because he was born before we started attending this CRC church), and the thought of him missing out on that kind of experience by being baptized before he's aware of what's happening makes me sad. I'd much rather it be because he has true faith in Christ. In the meantime, he's been dedicated to God to be raised to love and honor Him while he's under our rule and care, so that at such a time that he's ready, he can celebrate his "new birth" into the spiritual kingdom of God.
wrong wrong wrong! YOUR SO WRONG!
kidding.
As many have said, I will echo, I love you man! and consider you one of the best pastors I've ever had, but I think Paedobaptism requires serious twisting of scripture to make it fit. Gal 3:27, which you suggest solidifies continuity between the covenants, in my opinion, makes clear reference to credobaptism.
I'm glad you don't make serious claims about applying baptism to babies with respect to salvaation, etc; but sadly this is the limitation, because the symbolism of identifying w/ Christ's death, burial and ressurection to new life is so important for believers entering the waters of baptism.
Anyhow, i'm not picking any fights, I've done way too much of that over this issue in the past and its LAME.
God bless you brother!!
I recently heard a Presbyterian minister talking about a dead guy, stalwart of the faith, John Calvin, and he said “ I was preaching on the life of Calvin in a friend’s Baptist church when I said to him it is almost enough to bring you over isn’t it? The Baptist minister quickly replied ‘I’ll come over if you come under’” Baptism is a personal thing and is to be determined by each individual. Thank you Kevin & Walt.
Thanks for your article Kevin, as with Walt I enjoyed its non-confrontational tone (as well as the following comments). I have spent most of my life in churches which practice paedobaptism and have only recently begun to consider the issue, weigh up the arguments of those far wiser than myself and search the Scriptures.
I have found the arguments in favour of paedobaptism uncompelling (except perhaps that it appears to have been an early church practice). I'm uncomfortable with the notion of "inclusion in covenant membership" applying to those who we "do not presume to be regenerate". I take it then that "covenant membership" is different to "christian" or "the church", in which case, what is it and what is its value? I cannot escape the NT teaching that baptism signifies something that has happened to the baptised, namely burial and ressurection with Christ, repentance, new birth. I cannot see where baptism is ever conducted based on parents' faith or in some future hope of faith or God's election.
(I addressed the question of whether infants were baptized in the NT in my blog a couple of months ago http://evangelicalchristian.blogspot.com/2009/06/baptism-were-infants-baptized-in-new.html. Warning: this is the work of an amateur theologian :-p )
Although I am a credobaptist, it disappoints me that baptism is such a divisive issue. I for one would not break fellowship with paedobaptists (unless they began teaching that baptism saves or other such heresies). I disagree with your view Kevin, but I can live with it. Unfortunately, many people elevate the issue far beyond where it ought to sit.
I knew we would disagree eventually, but as someone has said, you're still one of my favorite baby-sprinklers.
Baptism in the New Testament was preceded by faith and repentance (Acts 2). It marked the end of an old life without Christ and the beginning of a new life of following Christ (Romans 6). (I especially like the way Eugene Peterson translates or paraphrases Romans 6. He captures its spirit beautifully.)
A couple of months ago, I was asked by a co-worker why I had not baptized my son when he was born. It's because I see baptism as being prompted by the individual's faith and repentance. It will become a very meaningful moment for my son when his faith and repentance lead him to baptism.
Looking over these comments, I have to wonder…
Does Kevin have any paedobaptist readers?
I'd never heard cicumcision compared to baptism before. I agree that there should be an inclusion of children in the covenant life (hey that's the name of my church), but just as Paul argued that there were those who were circumcised in a physical sense only, so too baptism without a conversion is powerless to achieve anything on its own. In Romans 6 there seems to be an implication that our baptism is meant to depict a conversion that has already happened. How can Paul exhort people not to "live in [sin] any longer" if sin still holds sway over them?
Yeah, Trevin, my thoughts exactly. Apparently all the paedobaptists must read JT or Challies (two fine non-paedobaptists!). Thanks to everyone who commented with a question, challenge, or objection. I'm sorry that I don't have time to interact with these thoughtful arguments. Rest assured, I have responses that seem convincing to me and no doubt would not seem convincing to all of you! I look forward to that great lecture hall in the sky where we will find out which of our heroes in the faith got baptized at the wrong time.
Kevin, I know you're a busy guy, but I just wonder why you don't respond on your blog to questions people post? While you probably respond via email (I hope), why do you not respond in the same venue in which you inspire people to ask you questions? You can't be so busy that you can post an article but not a reply to a question/comment, can you? Thanks, Michael.
Michael, I know it is disappointing to some and perhaps not in keeping with the spirit of blogdom, but I rarely interact with comments. Sometimes I will comment to correct an egregious misconception or answer a simple question, but I really don't have the time to go back and forth on most issues. I'm sorry about that. If people in my congregation wanted to talk to me about baptism I would try to make time for them. But I don't feel the same obligation to engage with everyone who reads my blog. I don't mean to be rude, I just have to draw the line somewhere. Thanks for understanding.
Kevin, I am still lost. Where is infant baptism in the Bible again?
The only thing that got me to scratch my head is when you said that children are not to be treated as pagans but owe their alligiance to Christ.
Yet Romans 3:10-12 makes it obviously clear that my son is not good, does not understand God and does not seek after Him. Are you saying I should not teach and proclaim the gospel of God to my son when I know no one is born with theology or understanding of God?
I will try to add a few comments related to some of the questions posed from the credobaptist standpoint.
1) Baby-sprinklers (I am a paedobaptist)do not tend to see a need to rebaptize people who were baptized as children. Regardless of which of these two positions you hold on baptism we all agree that you only need to be baptized once. Paedobaptists do not think that you should bapitze someone again because "it didn't take" as a child. In fact, we would see the fact that they are expressing faith as an adult to be a wonderful fulfillment of their baptism as a baby. Though it has taken some time, the person now loves and knows Christ.
2) The argument that baptism should be done when it is meaningful to someone is a little problematic. It is emotionally appealing, to be sure (which means that this answer will NOT be emotionally satisfying)to wait until someone understands better what they are professing, but God is at work to convert us when we do not understand what the gospel is. When an infant is being baptized we are reminded that we are like that child, helpless to save ourselves outside of God's work in our lives. The argument that it needs to be meaningful is interesting but not that strong–God doesn't do everythign in the way that we think it is most meaningful. He has means he has ordained that are for his glory and for our good that we might not have chosen.
3) We also do not think that we should not proclaim the gospel to our children. We believe just the opposite, of course. We know the sinfulness of our children shows that they need to gospel, just like anyone else. But there is a difference in how I talk to my child who has grown up experiencing the blessings of the church and praying with me every day than the way I would take to a pagan on the street about faith. I do not simply see my children as smaller heathen who are related to me, but as children in the visible church who are set apart in some way. 1 Corinthians 7:13-14 are difficult to understand, but children of believers are somehow sanctified (think "set apart" rather than "experientially or positionally holy in all ways"). Again, the Ishmael and Isaac comments from Kevin's post are helpful here. There is always a visible church which does not correspond perfectly with those in the invisible church. The distinction does help make sense of some of the questions.
4) As for baptizing the unregenerate I certainly admit that we are baptizing some who will not be regenerate. I don't think this actually needs to factor that largely into the argument about which position on baptism is the right one. Both sides are baptizing people who are not, or were not, or never will be regenerate. I am sure we can all admit that. Again, I used to be a credobaptist and sympathize with the desire to have faith precede baptism. The Romans 6 example doesn't settle anything because it seems Paul is referring to the "real" spiritual baptism that Kevin mentions. Saving faith is definitely connected to real, Holy Spirit baptism. Unless one believes in baptismal regeneration, we all see that water baptism is a symbol for the real inner work of the Spirit, which can take place whenever God pleases and doesn't have to be temporally tied to water baptism.
5)Because it is rare to change positions because another egghead like me makes a blogpost, Kevin's comment about drawing the line at not responding to all questions is a wise and instructive one. It reminds us that we all have work that God has called us to–back to work for me. Hope these comments helped a hair.
Kevin,
As a credobaptist, I am so thankful for your well-reasoned and irenic post on this topic (and your comments as well!). As a pastor myself, I totally understand why you cannot interact with all of us on this topic. Go minister to your flock, my friend.
Again, thank you for taking the time to help us understand this doctrine from a paedobaptist perspective.
Chris
Kevin and Jeff,
Thank you so much for taking time out to post and answer follow up questions.
Do I understand why you baptist babies? No. But it isn't going to keep me from working with you as my brothers and sisters in Christ.
Even though I don't know you, I love you only because God loved me first.
Thank you for helping me.
I love your writings, Kevin, but just like the misinformed doctrine of amillenialism, I cannot follow you on the Reformed doctrine of infant baptism. I have read your article as well as the article by Dennis Johnson and it sounds a whole lot like eisegesis than exegesis. In further reading I understand that Infant baptism is too steeped in Coventant theology that replaces Covenant Israel (God's people) with the church (non-covenant people). That belief is based nowhere is the text of Scripture and therefore we depart on that path. I will stick with the Biblical view that Christians are to come to faith in Christ and THEN are baptized.
I am with you on everything else Reformed, so I guess you could call me (as MacArthur has said), a "Leaky Reformist".
I look forward to more blogging! Blessings!
Well said, Pastor! From one of your paedobaptist readers
For what it's worth here's a little something I wrote on the eve of my son's baptism last April:
http://frightfullypleased.blogspot.com/2009/04/letter-to-samuel-on-your-baptism.html
Kevin,
A very helpful treatment on this topic. As a fellow paedobaptist, let me offer a couple other points which I usually bring up, and seem to me to be relevant to some of the comments.
1) On the experience of the baptized-one. First of all, the experience of the person is not our highest aim, rather showing the gospel and promises of God.
Even so, some people (Lisa Joy for example) look back to their baptism as a spiritual high point. That's great, praise the Lord. However, I've known many other kids raised in credobaptist churches who are confused by all of it. They never have a "shazam" moment when "it all makes sense" because it has always made sense to them. So they are either baptized because they are supposed to, or aren't because they are "too young" or didn't have that "shazam" moment.
Can an infant's baptism be a deep and meaningful experience? Certainly. It is for the parents, and should be for anyone who's present. We attend a small church with very few children, so the opportunities are rare for us. But when our youngest was baptized, I explained what was happening to his older brothers, in language they could understand, and with pictures of their own baptisms. They loved it, and I intend to keep telling them about it. We can raise our children this way and make infant baptism meaningful to them.
2) An interesting exercise: Look up every biblical reference to children and read it in its context. (there are two parts of the issue: the meaning of baptism and the status of children). I did this when exploring the paedocommunion issue (rather not get into that here!). Wow! This was my conclusion: One who reads all the passages mentioning baptism may lean toward credobaptism, but one who reads all the passages mentioning children will most likely be convinced of paedobaptism.
I have a desire to leave some super long comment, but I don't think it would help change anyone's mind. I do have to say that I keep coming across the reality in every example of scripture where belief in Jesus as the son of God is inextricably bound to baptism. I have not seen anything that would suggest a true baptism is possible without a coinciding or preceeding effectual faith.
I'm rather bummed that Acts 8:37 is not considered reliable (at least according to the scholars that have translated the verse for me) because it seems to make a clear statement that you must believe before being baptized.
For now I guess I'll be content knowing we can all agree that the Bible does support in the most explicit terms adult baptisms.
abu'm – good point (your second one). To you and to your children, etc. etc. The Gentiles who were grafted into the covenant were given the sign and seal of the covenant (baptism) upon faith, since they were outside the covenant prior to that. Once they were in the covenant through repentance, faith, and baptism, what about their children? Were the kids outside of the covenant even though their parent(s) weren't?
Sure, the "household" issue isn't explicit, but in Acts 16, for example, it doesn't say that each one of the household had faith and was baptized. It is only one person's faith, and the "household" (in Lydia's case) or "all his family" (in the jailer's case) was baptized. We aren't told if the whole household had faith before being baptized.
I'm still confused about this concept of "being in the covenant". The way it is being described clearly distinguishes it from being a Christian / being saved. In which case, what does "being in the covenant" mean? Do children move in and out of "the covenant" depending on their parents' faith?
Joel, I don't understand your first paragraph. You seem to be saying that Gentiles were baptised for different reasons to Jews? If so, then why were Jews baptised?
Regarding households, Lydia's case is more ambiguous, but the jailer's is more revealing: (quoting my blog here)
Let's examine what the text describes the "household" or "family" as doing:
(i) the word of the Lord was spoken to them;
(ii) they were baptized; and
(iii) they rejoiced (or believed, depending on the translation).
As with Cornelius' household, either there are no infants present, or "household" does not literally mean everyone in the household/family. For how can we conclude that "the word of the Lord" was spoken to infants or that infants "rejoiced" (or "believed")?
Some argue that the jailer was the only one who believed, but that all in his household were baptized. As with the household of Lydia, it would be a strange thing for his household to be baptized without believing the "word of the Lord" that "was spoken to them". The other problem is the presence, in v34, of the Greek word πανοικί (panoiki), meaning "with the whole family" or "with all his house". The whole family either rejoiced or believed (or both). Why would the family rejoice if it didn't believe? Would it not be strange for the family to rejoice and be baptized having rejected the word that was spoken to them?
Kevin, if you are feeling lonely, check the box for "paedobaptist" next to my name. (and I do read Challies and Taylor also)
As I mentioned in my earlier comment, the argumentation for the opposing view is being done at the level of "primary doctrinal importance" as I suspected it would, although it is still being done with civility. It seems that the passions are always the highest on the side of credobaptists. I can't recall ever seeing a similar post on "Why I dunk believers" where the paedobaptists rise to any similar level, to rebut. I'm sure I stand to be proven wrong, but it seems that the paedobaptists are much more irenic when it comes to this issue. That has been my experience by observation in the blogoshere, and in personal, face-to-face conversations on the subject.
why not just say "we like to follow traditions" instead of turning the Word on its ear to tell a rather lengthy convoluted tale of justification?
I am all for dedicating my life & all of my gifts and talents to the Lord and I do so. My sons are a wonderful gift. Proverbs Promise: If I love, discipline & teach them they will learn to honor God & as it is "they are born holy" (1Cor7:14). God trusts me. I trust God (1Cor13) What is left to dedicate? I am washed by the water. Will He not bless my children as adults?Its a feel-good tradition. I am not judging anyone or any one tradition. Let them do as they please. A birth is always a cause for celebration.
It has been extremely disappointing following these comments, seeing it go from 'you believe in paedobaptism' basically to 'you twist scripture and put tradition over God's word'…
Can we not give the benefit of the doubt to him and the majority of historical church fathers that have also held this view, that they have carefully studied the scriptures to reach such a conclusion on baptism & covenant theology? I assert that you can at least recognize and respect their opinion, even if you disagree with it, even on the most fundamental level.
Even if this were a close-handed issue (i.e. no room in orthodoxy for alternative views, such as substitutionary atonement), aren't we still to respond with grace, not just truth?
I am very wary of statements like "I don't follow traditions – I follow the Bible!" – I think it is arrogant to spend 15 minutes (or years) studying scripture, and lightly shrug off the past 15 centuries of thoughtful study & tradition.
However, Sola scriptura! Even the most established traditions of the church are not authoritative – doctrine should be questioned, and if found wrong, opposed (hence the reformation!), but this should not be done lightly. But I digress… I'm only 22 – what do I know?
tyler and chuck (among others),
i agree with you guys. i was so glad that for once, it seemed, we could discuss this as brothers in Christ, debating "secondary" doctrine as family, for understanding each other as much as (or more than) trying to change each other's minds. i think we all agree that this issue is important, but graceless berating is what i was hoping to avoid.
after reading through my own comment again, i apologize for not being more irenic myself, and i apologize on behalf of my credobaptist brethren, as we often elevate this issue too high and with far too little grace.
chuckthomas,
I haven't really gained the impression from the comments on this blog that anyone is arguing that baptism is of primary doctrinal importance.
On a global level though, this is largely true. What disappoints me is the hard line many credobaptists take in relation to membership. For example, the church pastored by Mark Dever (who I respect greatly) excludes people from participating in communion unless they are baptised as a believer, by full immersion. I find this appalling.
However, to their credit, some credobaptists such as John Piper have given thought to the idea that the local church ought to be an expression of the universal church.
I hope that groups like The Gospel Coalition will be useful in reinforcing the importance of the things that unite us as evangelicals and the relative unimportance of secondary matters.
Bible_Reader,
Agreed. I don't hear people arguing that one mode of baptism is of primary doctrinal importance, but by drawing lines of church membership (even Piper's church disagreed with him), and status as an "evangelical", and NAMING THEIR CHURCHES after this "secondary" issue, one starts to wonder.
I'd like credo-baptists to answer these questions (if anyone is still following this thread).
Give me an example from the New Testament of a person who accepted Christ, was baptized, and who had a household and they were NOT baptized.
The wording of the New Testament is that "households" were baptized. Not "all the individuals of the household believed and were baptized" Rather, "he was baptized, he and all his family."
Second, find for me an example in the New Testament of someone who grew up in a Christian home, and was not baptized until after a credible profession of faith.
Please stop slinging the accusation that we paedobaptists are only following traditions. Listen to Kevin's words, and you'll know it's not true.
-Abu Tulip
Thanks Kevin for the clear explanation! It was very informative! To check for baptismal gifts that are inspiring, please visit:
http://greatisthelord.net
Christian Gifts