Over the next two weeks, we’ll be looking at When Should Baptism Be Done? or The Case for Infant Baptism, Part 1 & 2. [Btw, the picture above is of my son, Timothy, and my granddaughter, Iris. He and his wife, Sarah, braved church for the first time last week! Crazy times…]
When Should Baptism Be Done & The Case for Infant Baptism, Part 1:
Should infants be baptized or only adults? Does one need to reach a certain “age of accountability?” The Christian Church worldwide is divided almost in half on this question. Certainly, for those who come to faith as teenagers or adults, they should give a believable profession of faith and then be baptized. In agreement with Calvin, baptism is first a confirmation of our faith to ourselves and secondly a confession before others. Christianity is a way of life involving adult decision. Baptism then, for many, is a symbol of beginning that way of life and identifying with Christ (e.g. Acts 2:41; 8:12; 10:44-48). The first hundred years of the church were missionary years with a lot of new converts who would naturally be the first subjects of baptism.
What about infants though? Is it proper that they should be baptized? Some would give a resounding “no” to this question, stating that there is no clear command in the New Testament to baptize infants. There is, however, no clear command not to. Furthermore, there is no evidence of children of Christians being baptized on profession of faith, a fact that is often overlooked or ignored. Although there is genuine uncertainty regarding the historical origins of the practice of infant baptism (the earliest clear evidence comes from the early third century)[1], it’s the opinion of this author that the practice is valid and has strong support in the Bible. Here are the reasons I’ve found compelling (although I have noted some valid points made by folks on the “believers only” side of this question):
- Churches on both sides of this issue have an established practice for recognizing the place of children in the church: Infant baptism and infant dedication. Infant baptism takes its defense from OT circumcision (where children were included in the covenant). Infant dedication lacks a similar scriptural and historical defense. Sinclair Ferguson, notes that “infant dedications are pre-Pentecost realities (and interestingly, additional to circumcision!).”[2] It’s almost as if the practice of infant dedication rose up to satisfy the intuitive need many (who don’t accept the practice of infant baptism) feel to include children in the church in some way.
- The practice of infant baptism shows greater respect to the continuity of the purposes of God reflected in both the old and new covenants. Some deny that the practices of circumcision and baptism should be connected; however, Col. 2:11-12 is one passage that clearly connects them:
In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith[3] in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.[4] (ESV)
Note that here baptism is referred to as “the circumcision of Christ,” making a clear connection between the old and new covenant ways of inclusion into God’s family. In both cases, the outward sign was to point to the inward reality (Rom. 4:11). If baptism is the NT counterpart to circumcision, this suggests that the parallel may extend in its application to infants. Zwingli has argued that in this parallel the new covenant was more gentle and inclusive than the old: “The more inclusive character of Christianity was affirmed by the baptism of both male and female infants; Judaism, in contrast, recognized only the marking of male infants. The more gentle character of the gospel was publicly demonstrated by the absence of pain or shedding of blood in the sacrament. Christ suffered-—in being circumcised himself in addition to his death on the cross— in order that his people need not suffer in this manner.”[5]
- Peter makes a statement on the day of Pentecost that his Jewish audience (Acts 2:5,14) steeped in the theology and heritage of the OT would have understood as including their children:
Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” [6]
Oscar Cullman makes the following point on this: “The Jewish audience at Pentecost must have understood this reference to the Promise to them and their children in terms of the Abrahamic Covenant of Genesis 17:7. The very fact that no issue was ever made about the exclusion of children from the New Covenant implies that they were included.”[7]
On this point, another scholar comments, “From Abraham onwards, for a period of twenty centuries, children were expressly received into the Church from the time of their birth if they were born of Jewish parents, or as minors, if they belonged to families of which the father had been converted to Judaism. Through twenty centuries not only tradition and ritual, but religious and theological thought fashioned by the promises and prescriptions of the covenant of grace, which is the foundation doctrine of the Old Testament, confirmed in all points in the New, owed their organic character to this covenant… In reality, the silence of the New Testament regarding the baptism of children militates in favour of rather than against this practice… Had our Lord wished the reception of children into this ever valid covenant to be discontinued he would have said so in order that no one might be in any doubt.”[8]
Next week, in this in-depth series on Baptism & Its Significance, we’ll look at Part 2 of The Case for Infant Baptism.
[1] Alister McGrath. Christian Theology: An Introduction. (Oxford: Blackwell) 2001, 528.
[2] Baptism: Three Views (Downers Grove: IVP Academic) 2009, 184.
[3] Reformed Baptist, John Piper, would argue that the expression “through faith” here indicates faith on the part of the one being baptized and is evidence against the paedo-baptist position. His argument may be countered allowing that “through faith” can be on the part of the parent(s) in anticipation of the child coming to faith at the appropriate time. One might also point out that Paul’s words are written in a missionary setting where adults are the primary audience being converted and baptized.
[4]The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Col 2:11-12). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
[5] Alister McGrath. Christian Theology: An Introduction. (Oxford: Blackwell) 2001, 530.
[6]The Holy Bible: English standard version. 2001 (Ac 2:37-39). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
[7] Baptism in the New Testament (Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1950), 26.
[8] Pierre ch. Marcel, The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism (London: James Clarke & Co. Ltd., 1953), 190–191.