Infant Baptism
With respect to the issue of infant versus believer’s baptism, it should be noted there is a lot of silence with this issue in the New Testament. There is no direct call to baptize infants, although many people infer that when households were baptized, this in all probability included infants. Others would say that the command, “believe and be baptized” constitutes a rather direct command that baptism was to come after belief. However, others would note that this command was being given to those who were currently outside of the faith, and thus the context does not rule out infant baptism. There is no explicit command to not baptize infants. Other larger issues of Biblical interpretation resolve the issue of infant versus believer’s baptism. Below are some brief notes to consider in favor of infant baptism.
People in Old Testament times were saved in much the same way as they are after Christ, by God's grace through faith in Christ. In Old Testament times, Christ was seen through signs and shadows. When Christ came, those shadows were replaced by the reality of Christ.
There is considerable continuity from the Old Testament into the New Testament and now. The principle of interpretation in Scripture is to note there is continuity. Practice that was followed in the Old Testament is to continue into the New Testament, unless explicitly stated otherwise. For example, the sacrificial system was forbidden in the New Testament, the dietary and cleansing laws were also eliminated in the New Testament.
In the Old Testament, circumcision was performed on all who entered into the visible community of God. Circumcision was applied to infants of families who were in good standing in the visible community of God. Circumcision was also applied to those who converted into the community of God. It should be noted that entire households were circumcised.
Abraham received circumcision that was a sign and seal of his faith:
(Romans 4:11 NIV) And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them.
In the New Testament, there is an explicit replacement of circumcision with baptism:
(Colossians 2:11-12 NIV) In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, {12} having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.
Because of the principle of continuity, and baptism is the replacement of circumcision; the practices of circumcision also apply to baptism unless there are explicit instructions otherwise.
There are other issues to explore, but this is start on the topic.
People in Old Testament times were saved in much the same way as they are after Christ, by God's grace through faith in Christ. In Old Testament times, Christ was seen through signs and shadows. When Christ came, those shadows were replaced by the reality of Christ.
There is considerable continuity from the Old Testament into the New Testament and now. The principle of interpretation in Scripture is to note there is continuity. Practice that was followed in the Old Testament is to continue into the New Testament, unless explicitly stated otherwise. For example, the sacrificial system was forbidden in the New Testament, the dietary and cleansing laws were also eliminated in the New Testament.
In the Old Testament, circumcision was performed on all who entered into the visible community of God. Circumcision was applied to infants of families who were in good standing in the visible community of God. Circumcision was also applied to those who converted into the community of God. It should be noted that entire households were circumcised.
Abraham received circumcision that was a sign and seal of his faith:
(Romans 4:11 NIV) And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them.
In the New Testament, there is an explicit replacement of circumcision with baptism:
(Colossians 2:11-12 NIV) In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, {12} having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.
Because of the principle of continuity, and baptism is the replacement of circumcision; the practices of circumcision also apply to baptism unless there are explicit instructions otherwise.
There are other issues to explore, but this is start on the topic.
posted by Earl Flask | 8:48 PM
10 Comments:
Colossians 2:11-12 is clearly referring to a person who has excercised saving faith.
This is a good short introduction to the Covenant-baptist position.
My Dispensational convictions make it impossivl efor me to follow this line of arguement-
-Though there have been well-known paedo-baptist Dispensationalists, most notably John Nelson Darby.
The argument from silence is a silent argument.If you can infer infants being baptized in the households you can also infer people of age being baptized without faith, unless you see that most of those passages refer to the 'households' hearing, believing, rejoicing'etc.Infants do not do those things.We interpret the unclear passages with the clear.The W.C.F. states that baptism is an istitution of the New Test.ordained by Jesus etc.If you read the O.T. into the New you end up with Theonomy, Infant communion, etc.Look at Johns Baptism of repentence and Jesus'Baptism. No repent no baptize.The command to believe and be baptized was also given to physical seed of Abraham. The question you did not ask was -are infants outside of the faith.?-what does baptism mean?
In the OT. People were saved the same basic way.In the old the types included circ.Could the people who were to be included be a type?The new covenant is about the fulfillment of all that OT stuff.It is unbreakable and fulfilled in realities. Who are the children of Abraham? Those that are in Christ.The cicumcision in col 2 is one not done with human hands.This would seem to indicate that baptism (again ) is for those with a new heart.What most paedobaptists want to do is stress the unity of the Bible without seeing the diversity.I have a ton more to say but not now.
Hey, I discovered people were commenting on this. I just turned on email notification for this blog. I'll respond to these when I get the chance.
Thanks!
datalore...you miss the implication and the significance of the continual covenant with Israel throughout the Scriptures, and this being the foundational concept surrounding infant baptism.
Paul states that all of those who were physically Israel were not spiritually Israel(). Jesus states that He came not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it().
With this in mind, along with the concept of the covenant as set forht in the Old Testament, it is reasonable to accept that baptism is to the Covenant under grace what circumcision was to the Covenant under the Law. Make sense?
Since Jesus did not envoke a new covenant, but rather 'realigned' the original to it sproper course, there is no need to assume that the covenant has ceased. Since those brought under the covenant in the Old Testament were done so under the sign of circumcision, and that all of those bearing this sign were not neccesiarily part of spiritual Israel, it is reasonable to tranfer the gracious covenantal sign of baptism under the 'reformed' covenant as the sign of the covenant to placed upon all of those under the care of the Church, with the recognition that all of those given the sign, that is those who are baptized, are not necessarily saved.
Now, don't take all of this as negating what the New Testament most assuredly says concerning people who are converted and do in fact possess a saving knowledge and such. Instead, you should recognize that those people were the beginning of the covenant under grace and therefore had no opportunity to be brought under the covenant by any other method. Just as a convert to Judaism in the Old Testament would have taken the sign of the covenant, that is circumcision, a convert to Christianity would take the sign of the covenant, that is baptism.
Does any of that make sense?
Soli Deo Gloria!
You state of the continual covenant with Israel throughout scripture.The new covenant is with believers not Israel.Yes all who were physically related to Abraham were in the Abrahamic covenant and Jesus came to fulfill the Law but I fail to see the connection. (where is the land we were promised?)
Jesus is the "head" of the New covenant and all those who are included are His offspring -i.e.believers.(heb 8+9)
Since my Bible says that we are in a new covenant(with the old being obsolete)I have to go with new,not realigned? The new is defined as unbreakable and its members have the Law written on their hearts, receive the forgiveness of sins, and know the Lord.Sounds like believers to me.see Rom 9 esp v 8.
O.T.circumcision (a type and shadow) has been replaced with the reality of the inward circumcision of the heart which is faith.when we see faith than we baptize-i.e.repent and believe and be baptized.When properly understood then all of the examples of baptism in the N,T,. fit right in and the lack of any recorded infant baptisms does not have to be explained away.
Good morrow dudes and dudettes,
Peace and grace to all from a reformed Baptist. I think datalore touched on what I think is one of the more significant issues with infant baptism, but didn't stress the point. What does baptism accomplish? Obviously those of us who adhere to the doctrines of grace would reject the notion that baptism accomplishes anything BUT the fulfillment of a command by Christ as witness to what was accomplished by regeneration - baptism is only a picture of what has really taken place. Nothing special happens when we come up out of the water. In this sense, infant baptism would be moot - infants cannot say, "I want to be baptized in order to proclaim to the world what God has done for me." On the other hand, I guess we could dunk infants each week and nothing would happen. So the question is, "Does infant baptism accomplish any 'protective' work?" Similarly, are some infants elect and some not? Are all infants elect? Does baptism confirm those who are elect?
I must admit my prejudices toward this issue as I was raised Baptist, however, I truly am trying to study the issue with an open and honest mind.
Thanks so much,
PTL
posttinebraelux, welcome to the discussion.
What does baptism accomplish? The question can also be applied to circumcision, which is the Old Testament corresponing ordinance. It was applied to infants and all new converts to those entering the covenant community. We can recast your argument on baptism to circumcision:
For converts, circumcision was an act of obedience resulting from their conversion - circumcision is only a picture of what has really taken place. Nothing "special" happens when they they have their foreskin cut. That act did not save them. In this sense, infant circumcision would be moot - infants cannot say, "I want to be circumcised in order to proclaim to the world what God has done for me." On the other hand, I guess we could circumcise infants each week and nothing would happen. So the question is, "Does infant circumcision accomplish any 'protective' work?" Similarly, are some infants elect and some not? Are all infants elect? Does circumcision confirm those who are elect?
I think when we look at the form of the argument when applied to circumcision, we can begin to see that argument does not really apply to circumcision -- because the Old Testament ordered that infants of covenant households were to be circumcised. This gives us some understanding of circumcision and that the purpose of circumcision and the application of circumcision does not fit in the way the rhetorical questions and arguments were used for baptism. With this observation, I wold suggest that since Paul identifies baptism as the New Testament replacement of circumcision, then the previous argument about bapstism is just as deficient as the argument is recast in terms of circumcision.
Ok .In the O.T. circumcision was also a type and shadow as was the covenant with Abraham.In the N.T. Outward circumcision is fulfilled in true heart circimcision which than qualifies the person for entrance into the New covenant who's head is no longer a physical one but a spiritual one who is Christ our Lord.
To try to work backwards and read the N.T. into the Old will cause misunderstanding.
As far as circucision in the O.T. it was for males infant or grown who wanted to be a part of physical Israel.Because of the faith of Abraham (which he had before he was circumcised).
to be cont....
Hi Brother, you have articulated your view so well that I may have to quote from you rather than Hodge and Berkhof.
John, I am honored that you would say such a thing, willing to quote me over St. Louis (Berkof) and St. Charles (Hodge). They are much better than me. I was a believer's baptist until only a few years ago. I had a real struggle with infant covenant baptism. It took a while before I transitioned into my current view.
Post a Comment
<< Home