The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Question regarding infant baptism

I'm new here and just read a number of postings to get myself up to speed. Seemed like a good number of them had to do with infant baptism.

I have always been on the Baptist side of the issue. This is mostly due to the fruit I've seen from the practice of infant baptism. Adults I know who were baptized as infants tend to fall into two camps. They either come away from it with a view I believe is called baptismal regeneration, that the ritual itself imparted something to them, physically or spiritually, which made them Christians. Or, they come to think of baptism by itself as the whole definition of Christianity, and their parent's action on their behalf as an infant made them one. The sheer luck of being born to Christian parents made them Christians. The thinking seems to be similar to the error the Jews fell into, thinking that being a genetic descendant of Abraham made them right with God.

However I would prefer to have a view that's actually based on scripture, not just on what I observe around me.

So this is my question:

In articles I have read on the subject, both tonight and in the past several years, I've seen this argument made: Baptism is a sign of the New Covenant, much like circumcision was a sign of the Old Covenant, so we should baptize our children while they're young, similar to how circumcision was performed at 8 days of age. If this is the reasoning, then why baptize baby girls? I'm assuming they were not circumsized under the old covenant. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Dee

In the new administration of God’s covenant we see: John the Baptist [bridging the covenants] baptized women as well as men (Luke 3:21), the great commission of Matthew 28:19-20 includes men and women, Acts 8:12 states men and woman were baptized (cf. Acts 16:15, 33, household baptisms), and of course Paul’s inclusion that “all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:27-28).

Children have always been included in the covenant. This is seen in the administration of the OC (Gen. 9:9; 17:7; Ex. 20:5-6; Deut. 29:10-13, etc.). This did not change in the NC. Peter states that the promises of the covenant were not only to those who heard his sermon and understood it, but also for their children (Acts 2:38-39). It is biblical to baptize children of a believer. Even OT Israel itself at times misunderstood the sign of the covenant to mean more than what it really did – and God took care of that (Exile, etc.). Just because people today misinterpret the sign (baptismal regeneration, etc.) is not reason to disobey the teaching of Scripture of an issue, but all the more reason to clarify the teaching more.

Dee,

I hear ya! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" /> Even in a couple of recent threads on this subject of Infant Baptism, I have expressed my rejection of ANY form of presumption of salvation in regard to baptized infants, yet . . . I hold to infant baptism. J_Edwards has already given you a very brief synopsis of the warrant to baptize infants so I won't spend any time dealing with that part of it. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Historically, there have been two groups or views held by paedobaptists; 1) Those who believe that infants of believers are to be presumed elect, or regenerate, or should be deemed Christians and who at baptism are united to Christ and share in all the blessings associated with Him. and 2) Those who believe that baptism is rightly the N.T. sign of the covenant which replaces the O.T. sign of circumcision. The blessings expressed in baptism truly belong to all who believe, i.e., those who have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit and who by faith have been united to Christ. However, infants are not to be deemed an exception but rather the blessings ONLY belong to those who have faith. Thus, baptism does not primarily signify the recipients spiritual state but rather it is a general proclamation of the Gospel, i.e., all those who repent of their sins and believe on Christ are washed in His blood, justified and are promised eternal life. Whether these salvific blessings actually belong to the one baptized is another matter and cannot be automatically presumed.

Of course, baptism signifies many other things but again they only apply to those who have actually been born of the Spirit, e.g., regeneration, ingrafting into Christ, accepted into the covenant of grace in a salvific sense (internal relationship), etc.

You can find some good reading material here: Ecclesiology - The Doctrine of the Church. Just scroll down to the "Sacraments" section.

In His grace,

My problem with the whole issue is that neither side seems to have a chapter and verse that explicity speaks to infants and baptism. Both sides have arguments that are mostly deduced from scripture.

On the "pro" side, there are 2 major arguments I see. There's the baptism-replaces-circumcision-in-the-NT argument I mentioned previously. The other recounts New Testament baptisms and points out that believers were baptized along with "their house". And then assumes that infants must have been a part of at least one of these New Testament household baptisms. I don't want to argue the validity of that assumption, I just want to point out that it's an assumption, because scripture never states if infants lived in these households or not.

On the "con" side, I see mainly one argument. They point to scriptures like "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved", and tie belief and baptism together. To believe something, you must be in possession of certain information, and also understand it. You can't communicate with an infant, they don't have the capability to talk or to understand any verbal language, so we assume they believe nothing. So we wait until they're older and we can converse with them, and then get some sort of idea that they understand what baptism is before we do it.

Anyways... I tend to lean towards the Baptist side simply because I did have a scripture I could quote for the "con" side. However, I was raised by "heathen" parents and wasn't baptized as an infant, so there's the possibility I'm leaning this way simply to justify my own experience. So I'm still trying to understand the Reformed position. Apart from all the charismatic nuts I know, who couldn't care less about "doctrine", the only other Christians I know are Lutherans. And in speaking to them, their salvation equation looks something like this:

Baptism + Confirmation = Saved

The concept of

Grace + 0 = Saved

flies straight over their heads. Show them Ephesians 2:8-9, and they're stumped. I fear they have way too much trust in the ritual of baptism and virtually none in the work of Christ. But I'm digressing!

I have only recently started studying this whole matter of biblical covenants. What exactly did circumcision signify in the old days... Abraham's covenant or Moses' covenant? Please keep in mind I'm a computer programmer, not a theology student, and I'm also new to a lot of this. Please use twenty-five 2-cent words instead of 50-cent words when you can. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

First, it is one covenant with different administrators. Though circumcision in Christianity began with the Abrahamic Covenant it continued on (Acts 3:13) as a covenant sign and seal in another form (baptism - final administration) that one (including the family) was in the covenant of God.

Second, has this continued on into the NC? Paul wrote to the church, saying, “If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Gal 3:29; Acts 3:25; Acts 7:1 ff). As you can see the church is Abraham’s seed and amazingly just prior to this Paul says,

Third, this sign and seal of circumcision/baptism signified what? Again Paul answers saying,

As one may plainly see, Paul sees the connection: (1) between the covenants, old and new (compare Col. 2:11-12), (2) that the covenant sign in the OC was circumcision and baptism in the new (Gal 3:27 ff), (3) that faith for Abram came before his circumcision (compare Gal 3:6 ff), and (4) though only Abraham believed EVERY male in his family (Israel) was to be circumcised, etc.

It is very important to note that Abraham had “the same” Gospel preached to him as is preached to us – faith! As Paul writes, “And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all the nations be blessed” (Gal. 3:8).

Fourth, is everyone that is circumcised/baptized a Christian? Of course not! Paul answers again, saying, “For as many as are of the works of the law are under a curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one who continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law, to do them” (Gal. 3:10). But for the elect Paul says, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: that upon the Gentiles might come the blessing of Abraham in Christ Jesus; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith” (Gal. 3 13-14).

Fifth, Abraham’s covenant is still in effect and cannot be annulled. Again, as Paul states,

If the covenant is still in effect and the same Gospel is being preached, then though the sign and seal have changed, (because we are under a new administration – Christ’s (Gal. 3:27-28)), the covenant sign and seals are still administered similarly. Children should be baptized. Baptist's should not try to annul this!

That is about as uncomplicated as I can make it. BTW anyone who has been here for any length of time can attest that I was (1) once a Baptist (preacher), and (2) adamantly posted believer’s baptism. I knew the Baptist arguments inside out and then the lights went on concerning the continuity of the covenants and a few 1000 other things and now the truth concerning this doctrine reigns in my life.

BTW I used pennies from heaven <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/my2cents.gif" alt="" />

In my opinion if a reformed couple, knowing the true meaning of Romans 9:6-13 train their child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord and view them as elect, this is not presumption but faith in the covenant.

[color:"0000FF"]6 ¶ Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.
10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.[/color]

William

Strange indeed, since you don't know if your child is Esau (Heb. 12:16), a child of flesh, not of Israel, whom God hates or Jacob, the called of God, and of Israel? Whom did Isaac love? Since the covenant gives two options -- elect and non-elect -- how can you with these verses ONLY pick "elect"? How do YOU know the purpose of God in election? The text says "neither ... are they all children" of God! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />

Loved this post. This, plus the other reading I've been doing today, really shows how similar in nature baptism & circumcision are. (Am I spelling that right?) Baptism is a great thing when everyone involved understands it's a sign of salvation and not the actual means of salvation. I think the problem is that in this day and age, we don't really talk about doctrine anymore, and very few people have an interest in learning, so people come up with their own imaginative ideas as to what baptism means.

So now my question is... do you think the Lord intended for baptism to be performed on infants? Circumcision was mandated to be done at 8 days of age, but as far as I can see there's no mention of age for baptism in scripture. I ask because if I were to have kids any time soon, with my husband in the state he's in I'm 99% positive he will put his foot down about the child being baptized. Not on doctrinal grounds, but because he's against religion of all forms. And I know the Lutheran contingent in my life will raise a roar about it. Would I actually be sinning by not having any child of mine baptized at birth?

William... I unfortunately think that the very scripture you quoted goes against what you are saying. Jacob and Esau were both grandchildren of Abraham, yet one was elect and one was not.

We all want our family members to be saved, especially the kids, but I've been thru the Bible several times now and I don't see anything promising us that the Lord will save the families of the elect. I even have a theory that our desire to see our family members saved is how the practice of infant baptism came about. If your theology gets to a point where you believe water baptism will save your soul, then you can ensure your kid's salvation by having it done when they're small and can't object to it. I was reading earlier that infant baptism hasn't been the case since the very beginning of the church. At one point in early church history, the custom was actually the opposite; people waited until they were near death to be baptized. The reasoning was, baptism washes away all your sins, so you don't want to ruin it by having a lot of time and opportunity to sin afterwards.

I'm not pointing this out to be mean, but I personally have tried looking in scripture for something guaranteeing my spouse will eventually be saved, and I'm coming to the conclusion there's no such promise. The Lord is sovereign in salvation, not us.

By faith in the covenant of particular election knowing that whatsoever God does is right, not presuming their salvation but raising them as if they were the Lords. The other option is to raise them believing that they are heathen.

Most definitely I believe God meant for us to perform baptism on infants. If there is continuity in the covenants here then I would not expect to see specific instruction in the Bible in this area. Think about the argument from silence: What Jew would desire to be in a “new” and “better” covenant (Heb. 8:6) that was worse then their former covenant – not including their children. There would have been an uproar – a Circumcision Council if you please – had such a situation arisen. I also note that in 1 Cor 7:14 a child is considered to be holy (not saved, but set apart) because they are in the covenant. If in the covenant what is their sign and seal – baptism.

Baptism was foreseen as the covenant sign in the OT. Its meaning was developed throughout the OC. Our first parent was brought forth from so-called covenantal waters (Gen. 2:6-7; all the earth is under God’s law), Noah’s family (both lost and saved) was baptized (1 Pet. 3:20-21), and all Israel in the exodus (both lost and saved) was baptized (1 Cor. 10:1-2). We could go with more OT studies and see the "sign" developed in Naaman's baptism (2 Kings 5:14, dipped, symbolizing purity in the Lord), Isaiah’s baptism (Isa. 21:3-4; see the LXX (baptizo) – experiencing the final judgment of God upon Babylon and its sin, Isaiah says 'he was baptized in horror.' He was utterly overwhelmed by the sense of God's righteous judgment upon sin, but even in the midst of this there is glimmer of hope represented in the picture of the travail that will break forth), and Ezekiel's baptism (Ezek 23:15; see the LXX – dyed, baptism and union – dye makes union with cloth and thus symbolizing something old becoming something new – symbolizing born again). Christ, the second man Adam, introduced his ministry at his baptism (Matt. 3). Thus, we see that circumcision was only meant to be a temporary sign (long one, but still temporary) leading to the permanent sign (baptism in the final administration of God’s covenant).

As far as it being sin – yes it is sin. – Exodus 4:24 ff. You will have to approach this issue cautiously but justly with your husband – in much prayer. (compare 1 Cor. 7).

William,

Until a child gives evidence of salvation then we are to treat them as lost: (1) we understand that they are lost (Psa 51:5) for there are “none righteous, no not one” (Rom. 3:10-12), (2) we pray for their conversion for salvation belongeth unto the Lord (Psa 3:8; 53:6; etc.), and (3) continue to explain the cross evangelistically, (Psa. 40:10; Rom. 1:16; 10:9-10), “for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12), etc. Even Timothy was not presumed as a seed of the woman but was instructed in the Lord so he may be “wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 3:15). There is not a need of these things for the saved as they are suppose to mature on from the first principles of Christ, or as some put it, “improve upon their baptism.”

presumptive regeneration, baptismal regeneration, presumed election, et. al. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/3stooges.gif" alt="" />

William,

I am not familiar with "the covenant of particular election". Could you explain what this is and where in the Scriptures it is taught?

Secondly, I do not see how you can say on the one hand that you aren't "presuming their salvation", which would mean you are presuming their non-salvation, but on the other hand you say parents should be "raising them as if they were the Lords". I fail to see what the difference is between not presuming their salvation but presuming they are of the Lord. In my understanding, if one "belongs to the Lord", then they are of necessity saved. The unsaved don't "belong to the Lord" other than He is their sovereign Creator and Judge.

Thirdly, it would appear that you have some aversion to believing that children of believers are heathen. Why is that? Was not the entire population of the nation of Israel considered to be "covenant children"? The majority of Israel perished in unbelief as covenant children. Did not John the Baptist preach repentance toward God and faith in Christ to the covenant children of his day? Were not those who opposed the Lord Christ most vehemently covenant children? What does Paul say about the spiritual condition of everyone who is born into this world?

I cannot but believe that Paul was making a statement about everyone's natural condition; Jews and Gentiles alike and that this spiritually dead condition is inherited at conception. (cf. Rom 5:12-18) And, it seems clear to me that salvation is not something to be presumed but is evidenced by repentance and faith, those being the fruit of regeneration; aka: being made alive.

Thus, again, it seems to me that ALL children are born spiritually dead, are under the wrath of God and need to hear the Gospel no less than any other "heathen" from the nature of the case since they are born "heathen". And one last point of interest, NPP/FV teaches covenantal presumption too, i.e., those born into the covenant are presumed to be of the Lord's until they openly repudiate Christ. So, I cannot accept what you have proposed as being a valid argument in regard to either how one is to deem covenant children nor in the manner in which they are to be raised. If nothing else, my experience, which is certainly not to carry any monumental weight compared to the teaching of God's inspired Word, but in my experience the vast majority of "covenant children" exhibit a more sinful behavior when apart from family and church; at the hockey rink, etc., than do many non-covenant children.

In His grace,

Pilgrim



I used particular to emphasize particular redempion.

These verses refer to the elect.
Genesis 17:7 ¶ And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
Acts 2;39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.


You can not know one way or the other but they with eventually manifest what seed they are by their fruits

You said: Quote Thus, again, it seems to me that ALL children are born spiritually dead, are under the wrath of God and need to hear the Gospel



Does not God elect infants and convert young children? Are not God's promises of faith and santification, God's work of salvation? God also commands that they repent, obey, believe and the elect seed does so from a new heart.

William

William,

No, God does NOT elect "infants". Election occurred in eternity, not when someone is an infant. We all come into this world as "infants" but our election or reprobation is again from eternity. Infants are NOT "special" to God. Infants were not looked upon as "endearing" and thus given a special place in God's choice of election; man looks upon infants as "innocent" little darlings. But Paul tells us that they are "children of wrath" even as others. David was born in sin although he was elect.

Yes, faith and sanctification are indisputably the work of God in salvation. But they are NOT promised to covenant infants and children as a special class. Again, covenant children are born "children of wrath", dead in trespasses and sins and it is through the means of grace that any are brought to Christ. Teaching a child that he belongs to God is to instill in that child a false assurance of his/her spiritual condition. Nowhere in Scripture do we find a believing parent telling a child that they are "one in Christ" because they are a covenant child. (cf. Jh 1:12, 13)

Since the Bible is replete with statements and examples of how depraved ALL mankind is, the only presumption one may have about an infant or child is that they are in dire need of hearing the Gospel. And until that child responds with an evangelical repentance and faith toward God in Christ, they cannot be rightly presumed to be "elect", "regenerate", "Christian", "in Christ", etc. A covenant child is "holy" due to the faith of its parents to be sure. But this simply and only means that the child is "set apart" (Grk: hagios); privileged over children born to unbelieving parents because to them are given the "means of grace" through which they may be called to Christ.

You quoted Acts 2:39 - "For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, <span style="background-color:yellow">even as many as the Lord our God shall call</span>." Notice that God's promise of remission of sins, aka: salvation belongs STRICTLY to "as many as the Lord shall call." Here the "call" is not that outward call of which all hear in the preaching of the Gospel, but rather it is referring to that inward call, aka: irresistible grace, that comes in conjunction with regeneration and leads infallibly by way of conviction of sin to repentance and faith in Christ. We have no warrant whatsoever to presume upon that promise since it belongs to God to sovereignly call whosoever HE chooses. Like the new birth, we only know after it occurs and never beforehand. To presume that covenant children have any part of salvation prior too their conversion is to contradict Unconditional Election. . . UNLESS of course, you can make a case that covenant children as a group were part of that election. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,