Introduction
This essay is intended
to set forth a biblical and
coherent case for infant baptism, beginning with an understanding of roots
in the Old Testament practice of circumcision and its parallels with a
theology of baptism. This issue is
not an issue for which proof-texts can be cited and then the issue
decided. In many ways, the debate
rests on (1) the matter of burden of proof and (2) which underlying
theology best explains all Biblical passages. It will be argued that the theology
behind infant baptism best expresses the Biblical passages that address the
subject. Furthermore, it will be
argued that the issue of “burden of proof” ought to rest on
those who would seek to overturn the structures of the Old Covenant. It is my opinion that there is enough
evidence in the New Testament for the Church to practice infant baptism.
Old Testament Background
The Structure of Old Testament Covenants
Old
Testament covenants follow a pattern that is very similar to treaty
documents and royal annals found in the Ancient Near East in the second
millennium B.C. When a suzerain
(king) captured or threatened to capture another state, the suzerain would
many times offer a treaty to the king of that state. If the treaty was accepted, that state
would become a vassal to the suzerain.
In this case, stipulations would be given as to how the vassal state
would serve the suzerain. Usually,
there was a tribute and loyalty to be given to the suzerain in exchange for
protection from enemies. A list of
sanctions would be given to determine what would happen in the case of
covenant fidelity or infidelity. If
the vassal state was loyal to the suzerain and the stipulations of the
covenant, that state would receive blessings, including protection from
enemies, etc. If the vassal state
was disloyal to the suzerain and the stipulations of the covenant, that
state would receive curses, including the possibility of invasion and
destruction of the vassal state.
In
Ancient Israel, Yahweh was the great Suzerain and Israel was the vassal state. After God redeemed her from slavery in Egypt, Israel became a vassal state to
Yahweh (Deut. 5:6ff). Stipulations
were therefore given to set out exactly how Israel was to loyal to her
suzerain (Deut. 5—26).
Sanctions were also set down to explain the blessings and curses
that Israel would receive for her
covenant fidelity or infidelity (Deut. 27—30). If Israel obeyed the stipulations of
the covenant, she would be allowed to remain in the land of Israel and would be protected
from her enemies (Deut. 30:15-16, 18-20).
If Israel disobeyed, she would
eventually be exiled from the land of Israel (Deut. 30:1-2,
17-18). All this is not to say that
in the Old Testament the Israelites received salvation because of their
works. On the contrary, salvation
was a promise given to them to be accepted by faith (Gen. 12:1-3;
15:1-6). Rather, the Mosaic covenant
had to do with whether or not the Israelites would keep the privilege of
living in the land of Israel, not whether or not they
were saved.
One dynamic that is consistent
throughout all the Old Testament covenants (as well as the treaty documents
and royal annals of the ancient near east) is that these covenants extended to the
children of believers. This can be
demonstrated by a brief perusal of the passages dealing with the various
covenants of the Old Testament:
·
Adam: In Genesis 1:28, God commanded Adam,
“be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it…” Part of the way God structured the
covenant with Adam was the command for Adam to produce offspring. Also, in Rom. 5:12-21, Paul contrasts
Adam and Christ. Sin and death
entered the world through Adam, salvation and life come through
Christ. What is implicit in this
passage (particularly in verse 12) is that it is the descendents of Adam were effected by his disobedience.
·
Noah: In Genesis 9:1, God reiterated the same
command He had previously given to Adam in Gen. 1:28, “Be fruitful
and multiply, and fill the earth.”
Also, in Gen. 9:8-9, God clearly states that He is going to
establish a covenant with Noah and his descendents.
·
Abraham: In Gen. 15:18, God says that it is to
Abraham’s descendents that he has given the land. In Gen. 17:1-4, God says that part of the
covenant between God and Abraham was that He would multiply Abraham
exceedingly. In Gen. 17:7, God
explicitly states that the covenant is an everlasting covenant between God,
Abraham, and his descendents.
·
Moses: In Deut. 29:10-15, God states that the
covenant extends to the “little ones,” and
“wives.” Deut. 29:29
states that “the things revealed belong to us and to our sons
forever.”
·
David: In 2 Sam. 7:12-16, God clearly tells
David that the benefits of the covenant with David will be extended to his
children. Furthermore, Ps. 89:3-4
says that God will establish David’s seed forever.
These
verses, to name a few, demonstrate the fact that within the Old Testament
framework, children were to be considered members of the covenant. Children were thus to receive the covenantal
sign of circumcision, since they were covenant members.
The Nature of Circumcision
In
order to properly understand baptism, it is imperative to first understand
the nature of circumcision in the Old Testament.
Sign of
the Covenant
When
God established His covenant with Abraham, He mandated that His covenant be
accompanied by a sign (Gen. 17:9-14).
In verse 11, God says, “And you shall be circumcised in the
flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me
and you.” In verses 10 and 12,
God also says that Abraham’s descendents were to be circumcised as
well. What is important is that
circumcision was considered to be a sign of the covenant God had
established with Abraham. This
covenant consists of God’s promise to Abraham that He would bring him
and his descendants into the land of Canaan. Thus circumcision was a sign of the
promise God had made to Abraham and his descendents. It was God’s pledge to His
covenanted people that He would fulfill the promise He had given to Abraham.
As
a consequence to being a sign of the covenant, circumcision was also a sign
of the blessings and curses of the covenant. As
Meredith Kline explains, circumcision in the Old Testament symbolized an
oath of allegiance to Yahweh. The cutting of the foreskin was only a token
cutting. Should the covenant-child
grow up and become a covenant breaker, he would receive the curses of the
covenant. He was to be “cut
off”—that is, circumcised—from his people by death (Gen.
17:14; Ex. 4:24-6; Num. 15:30; Eze. 14:6-8).
Of course, the hope was that the child would be faithful to the
covenant. As such, the circumcision
oath was also an act of consecration.
This fact is evident in the “circumcision of the heart”
passages in the Old Testament (Lev. 26:41; Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4; 6:10; 9:24; c.f. Rom. 2:29). Jeremiah exclaims in an
effort to spare the people of Judah from judgment, “Circumcise yourselves to
the LORD; circumcise your hearts!” (Jer.
4:4).
This is ultimately fulfilled in
Christ, for Christ was “circumcised” on our behalf by His death
on the cross (Col. 2:11-12). Here
the phrase “circumcision of Christ” ought to be seen as an
“objective genitive”—that is, the circumcision done to
Christ when he was crucified on our behalf.
Note Paul’s use of
the phrase “body of death” in Col. 1:22 and 2:11. In Col.
1:22, it is by Christ’s “body of flesh through death”
that God reconciled us. In parallel
fashion, in Col. 2:11, it is by “stripping away [Christ’s] body
of flesh” in His circumcision (i.e., crucifixion) that we are
“circumcised” to Him.
Meredith Kline calls it “the mystery of a divine
circumcision—the circumcision of God in the crucifixion of his only
begotten.” It is also worth noting the verbal
parallels when Paul’s baptismal expression in Col. 2:11-12 is
compared to Rom. 6:3-4. Here, the individual is to identify with Christ in
His death, burial and resurrection.
Likewise, in Col. 2, the believer is identified with Christ in His
burial and resurrection, with “the circumcision of Christ” functioning
in a parallel manner to Christ’s death in Rom. 6.
By His death on the cross, Christ
took upon Himself the curses of the covenant for His own (Gal. 4:10-13) so that we might receive the blessings
of the covenant—eternal life with Him in the promise of the Spirit
(Gal. 4:14). In
the present age, those who are circumcised are seeking to be justified by
works of the law instead of by faith in Christ. Therefore, Paul says they are bound to
keep the whole law (Gal. 5:3).
However, no one can perfectly keep the law, so those who seek
justification through the law rather than by faith receive the
curse—i.e., they are “cut off” (i.e.,
“circumcised”) from Christ (Gal. 5:4).
Sign of
Faith
Not only is circumcision a sign of
the covenant, but it is a sign of faith.
Romans 4:11 states that Abraham “received the
sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, that he
might be the father of all who believe without being
circumcised.” Paul describes
circumcision as a sign of faith.
This concept is quite consistent with the Old Testament
understanding of circumcision. In
the Old Testament, circumcision symbolized purification from defilement.
Furthermore, the Old Testament routinely makes use of circumcision
imagery to describe a change in the attitude of the heart towards serving
and worshipping the living God. In
Deut. 10:16, God’s covenanted people are commanded, “Circumcise
your heart and stiffen your neck once more.” Jer. 4:4
exclaims, “Circumcise yourselves to the Lord and remove the foreskins
of your heart” (see also Lev. 26:41; Deut. 30:6; Jer.
9:26; Eze. 44:7, 9;
Acts 7:51; Rom. 2:28-29).
As mentioned before, the outward sign of circumcision was a symbol
of an inward “conversion” and consecration to serve the living
God. The true Israelite in the Old
Testament was the one who had circumcised his heart as well as having been
circumcised in the flesh (Rom. 2:28-29).
This
concept is wonderfully illustrated by Paul in the New Testament. In Romans 9:6-8, Paul claims that not all
of Abraham’s physical children are his true descendents. Rather, he claims “it is not the
natural children who are God’s children, but it is the children of
promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.” In Gal. 3:7-8 Paul claims that it is
really “those who believe who are children of Abraham.” These statements do not reflect a truth
that had just become true in the New Testament. Rather, they reflect a dynamic that has
been operative throughout the Old Testament. This is precisely Paul’s argument
in Galatians. Those who seek
justification through the law are not even being faithful to their Old
Testament Scriptures (let alone to Christ), for the promise of salvation
was given to Abraham apart from works (Rom. 4:11) and was received by faith
(Gen. 15:6; Gal. 3:6), and the giving of the Law under Moses did not do
away with that promise (Gal. 3:17).
It was only those who had faith who would receive the promised
salvation. Because of this, the
children of Abraham by natural birth were circumcised in the flesh in
anticipation of the time when those children would circumcise their hearts
to become children of Abraham by faith.
The following diagram illustrates this principle.
New Testament Baptism
The Question of Burden of Proof
There
are no explicit passages in the New or Old Testament which either affirm or
deny the practice of infant baptism in the New Testament. Therefore, the question of infant
baptism, in many ways, boils down to one of burden of proof. The credo-baptist
(one who believes in believer’s baptism) says that the burden of
proof is on the paedo-baptist (one who believes
in infant baptism), because there is no explicit warrant in the New
Testament for baptizing infants. The
paedo-baptist, on the other hand, claims that the
credo-baptist needs to find warrant from the New
Testament to overturn the structures of the covenantal structures in the
Old Testament.
One thing that must be understood
when discussion baptism in the New Testament s that the New Covenant
extends to children of believers.
This is prophesied in Jer. 32:38-40 and
indicated by Acts 2:39—“The promise is for your and for your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the
Lord our God shall call to Himself.”
This concept is entirely consistent with the covenants of the Old
Testament. In all the covenants
described in the Bible, there is an explicit statement that the covenant
extends to the children of believers.
This is also inferred in 1 Cor. 7:14,
where the children of one believing parent are called
“holy”—that is, we must infer, set apart from the world
by the child’s relationship to the church by virtue of the believing
parent.
Another thing that must be understood
is that baptism in the New Testament serves the same function as
circumcision in the Old Testament.
In the same way that the Lord ’s Supper is the New Testament
expression of the Passover meal, baptism is the New Testament expression of
circumcision. Intuitively, this is
seen to be true, for in the book of Acts, new converts are not told to be
circumcised as they would have been in the Old Testament. Instead they are told to be baptized
(Acts 2:38).
Furthermore, Col. 2:11-12 makes this connection clear: “and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made
without hands, in the
removal of the body of flesh by the circumcision
of Christ; having 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.” In this passage, circumcision
and baptism are clearly linked—baptism is considered the New
Testament expression of circumcision.
These two considerations make one
thing clear: the New Testament believers would have presumed that they should baptized their children
unless there was a change effected in the New Covenant which would reverse the structures of the Old Covenant. In other words, the burden of proof is
actually on the credo-baptist, not on the paedo-baptist.
If the structure of the New Covenant is the same as the Old such
that the covenant extends to the children of believers, and baptism serves
the same function that circumcision once held, then the subjects of baptism
should be considered the same unless explicitly told otherwise in the New
Testament. This truth can be stated
another way. It was a good thing
that infants were circumcised in the Old Testament. The sign of circumcision was given to
those who were in the Old Covenant, and it was a good thing to be in the
covenant. In fact, it was a gracious thing to be in the covenant
and receive the covenant sign. Why
would this gracious thing be taken away in the New
Testament? Why would grace diminish
under the New Covenant? The credo-baptist ought to justify how it is that children are
now excluded from the covenant and therefore no longer suitable recipients
of the covenant sign.
Continuity and Discontinuity in the Book of Acts
There
are three areas in which one might expect either continuity or
discontinuity in the book of Acts regarding the practice of baptism. These are: (1) the baptism of both males and
females, (2) the baptism of Jews and Gentiles, and (3) the baptism of
believers and their children. On the
first two, we have explicit statements of discontinuity with the Old
Testament. On the third, we have
none.
Baptism
of Both Males and Females
In
Acts 2:17,18, Peter quotes a passage from Joel in which it is prophesied
that in the New Testament times, God would pour out His Spirit on men and
women alike (baptismal language) and both sons and daughters will
prophesy. Furthermore, in Acts 8:12 we find that it was the
common practice to baptize “men and women alike.” In Acts 16:15, we are told that Paul and
his companions baptized a Philippian woman named Lydia, along with all those in
her household. Under the Old
Covenant only male children were circumcised; therefore, Luke explicitly
makes known this discontinuity between the Old and New Covnenants. Under the Old Covenant only males were
circumcised, while in the New Covenant, both men and women are to be
baptized.
Baptism
of Jews and Gentiles
In
Acts 2:38-39, Peter states that the promise is not only
for Jews and their children, but “for all who are far off” as
well. Gentiles were to be baptized
along with Jews upon conversion to Christ.
This was the practice of the Apostles throughout the book of Acts,
though not without some controversy.
In Acts 8:38, Phillip baptized an Ethiopian eunuch. In Acts 10:44-48, Luke records how it
became the policy of the apostles to baptized Gentile converts along with
Jews, for the Spirit had been given to them as well as to the Jews. Under the Old Covenant, male, Gentile
converts to Judaism were to be circumcised; however, circumcision still
remained a large barrier between Jews and Gentiles (Eph. 2:11-18). Under the New Covenant, however, this
barrier was taken out of the way.
Both Jews and Gentiles can and should be baptized together. Luke was careful to make clear the nature
of this discontinuity between the Old and New Covenants.
Baptism
of Believers and their Children
When it come to the question of
whether or not the children of believers are to be baptized, however, we
find no hint from Luke that there is any discontinuity between the Old and
New Covenants. In stead, Luke
records Peter’s words in Acts 2:39: “The promise is for you and for your children.”
Certainly there are many accounts of new believers being baptized as
adult converts, yet this is to be expected when missionary activity is
taking place. Paedo-baptists
believe that adult converts ought to be baptized, since they are now
included in the covenant. What
is striking in the book of Acts is that Luke records several accounts of
“household baptisms.” For
instance, in Acts 16:15, Lydia and all those in her household were
baptized. In Acts 16:33, Paul
baptized the Philippian jailor along with
everyone in his household. In
neither of these instances is there any record that anyone in the
households of these believers were converted before being baptized. Nor is there any statement that anyone
preached the gospel to those in the household before they were
baptized. In fact, in Acts 16:33,
Luke records that in the very hour the Philippian
jailer was converted, he washed their wounds and then immediately he was baptized along with his household. It does not appear that anyone even had
time to preach the gospel to the household. It
seems that the family did come to believe, but we are not given any clear
indication that they believed before they were baptized.
Nevertheless, it is certainly possible that the households of these believers
contained no infants and were converted before being baptized. Therefore, there is no ironclad proof of
the practice of infant baptism in these passages. However, this is more than an argument
from silence. Luke has been careful
to delineate areas of discontinuity between the Old and New Covenants with
regard to the practice of baptizing women and Gentiles. Yet when it comes to the practice of
baptizing the children of believers, Luke has not delineated any areas of
discontinuity. In fact, if Luke was
not a paedo-baptist, then he was somewhat
careless when he wrote about these household baptisms. These passages in Acts 16 would have
provided him with a perfect opportunity to make known any discontinuity on
the practice of infant baptism. Luke
could have written, “and when the household of Lydia [or the Philippian
jailor] believed in the Lord Jesus, they were baptized along with Lydia [or the Philippian
jailor].” Since there is no
indication of any discontinuity in the practice of infant baptism, and
since we have evidence of household baptisms in the book of Acts, it would
certainly seem more likely that Luke understood that there was continuity
between the Old and New Covenants on the practice of infant baptism. After reading the book of Acts, we are
left to conclude that the subjects of baptism include the children of
believers, in continuity with the practice of circumcision in the Old
Testament.
Objections to Infant Baptism
Baptism
is a sign of Faith
Some
object to infant baptism on the basis of passages such as Rom. 6:3-4, 1 Cor. 12:13, Gal. 3:27-28 and Col. 2:11-12. These objections usually center around
the idea that baptism is closely linked with the faith of believers, so
that only believers are the proper recipients of this sign of faith. This objection may take one of four
forms:
Objection
#1—“Baptism is a sign of the faith already
existing in the believer. It is an
outward expression of an inward commitment. If that inward commitment is not
present, the sign should not be given.” Such a theology of baptism is in many
ways a man-centered theology. It
invests the sign only with a meaning generating from an inward conversion,
not God’s grace. In fact, as
we have already noted, the covenant signs are signs of the covenant of
grace. They are gracious signs, not human
commitment signs. As with
circumcision (see above), baptism is a sign of God’s faithfulness to
His covenantal promises in Christ.
He promises in the sacrament that He will save the believer. The flip side of this reality is that
should the child never ratify the covenant with his faith, he will receive
the curses of the covenant.
Furthermore, covenantal signs are communal signs, not individual
signs. Baptism does not symbolize
one person’s commitment to God as much as it consecrates the person
to God by virtue of being included within the covenant family, the family
of believers. Paedo-baptism
is thus a much-needed correction to the rampant individualism that has
influenced American churches.
Objection
#2—“Baptism symbolizes union with Christ. This union with Christ is only achieved
by faith; therefore, only believers should be baptized.” It is certainly true that baptism
symbolizes union with Christ; this is entirely correct. In fact, the Westminster Confession of
Faith teaches and affirms this fact.
However, the conclusion that only believers are to be baptized does
not follow from the premise. We must
not confuse the sign with the thing signified. The sign symbolizes union with Christ is
given to the children of those who believe and have been united with Christ
by faith. The children of believers
are part of the covenant Christ has established with His people; therefore,
the sign of the covenant is to be given to the children of believers.
Objection
#3—“In these passages, baptism symbolizes
purification from sins. This
forgiveness and purification is only achieved by faith; therefore, only
believers should be baptized.”
Certainly it is also true that baptism symbolizes purification from
sins (see also Tit. 3:5; Cor. 6:11).
Yet once again, the conclusion that only believers should be
baptized is unwarranted, for again, the sign is not to be confused with the
thing signified. Children of believers
are baptized in anticipation of the day when they will come to faith and
receive purification from sins.
Furthermore, this objection would also negate the validity of
circumcision in the Old Testament.
As stated before, circumcision in the Old Testament symbolized
purification from sins and circumcision imagery was used to describe that
inward “conversion” and consecration to serve and worship the
living God. Yet circumcision was
administered to infants; therefore, it is not inconsistent to baptize
infants as well.
Objection
#4—“It is presupposed that those who are reading
these passages were baptized as believers.
Therefore, only believers should be baptized.” For the sake of argument, let us assume
that this is true. Even if this is
the case, it is to be expected that the original recipients of these
letters were baptized as adults. We
must remember that these letters were written to missionary churches, and
the recipients of these letters were often the first generation of
Christians in these churches.
Certainly, therefore, most of the leaders of these churches were
baptized as adult converts. It is
not surprising, therefore, that Paul would assume that the readers were
baptized as adults.
Ultimately,
since baptism is merely the New Testament expression of circumcision, any
theological argument against baptism works equally well against
circumcision. However, we have clear
indication of the practice of infant circumcision. Therefore, credo-baptists
ought to be extremely careful about how they question the practice of
infant baptism, for many times they disallow the practice of infant
circumcision on the same grounds.
The Mode
of Baptism
Some argue that the Greek word baptizō (βαπτίζω) meaning “baptize” actually
means “immerse” and therefore baptism ought to be given only to
those who are believers. However, Greek dictionaries give many meanings
for the word βαπτίζω, and while some do include
the meaning “immerse” or “dip,” they also include
other meanings. The Baur-Arndt-Gingrich lexicon, for instance, notes that
it can be used “of Jewish
ritual washings” (Mk 7:4; Lk 11:38). Similarly, the Louw-Nida
lexicon writes that the word means “to wash (in some contexts,
possibly by dipping into water), with a view to making objects ritually
acceptable—‘to wash, to purify, washing,
purification,’”[13] clearly implying that
other contexts involved washing without dipping in water. In Acts
8:38, we are told that both Phillip and the Ethiopian Eunuch “went
down in the water” but this does not appear to be a statement about
the mode of baptism, for Phillip went down in the water with the
Ethiopian. The phrase simply means
that they both walked into the water so that Phillip could baptize him;
they didn’t perform the baptism at the shoreline. In other words, βαπτίζω in the New Testament simply means
“baptize” pure and simple—it does not convey a mode of
baptism.
Beyond this, many passages use the
word βαπτίζω in a way that conveys a mode other than
immersion. In 1 Cor.
10:2 and 1 Peter 3:20-21, βαπτίζω is used, but in neither case is the baptism
by immersion. In 1 Cor. 10, the baptism was by the glory cloud and the
sea, and the Israelites were not immersed in either. In 1 Peter 3, Noah and his family were
baptized in the ark precisely because they were not immersed in the flood
waters. Romans 6:1-4 describes our
baptism in terms of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, but Jesus
was not immersed in the ground; he was placed in a tomb above ground. In John 3:23, John describes the location
(Aenon near Salim)
where John the Baptist chose to baptize as a place with “plenty of
water” (literally, “many waters”). This location cannot be identified with
certainty, but it is likely to be a place about “seven miles south of
Besian,” where there are “seven springs
within a radius of a quarter of a mile.” If
this is the case, the phrase “many waters” refers to the seven
springs found there. These springs
are not deep enough to immerse a person.
However, there is plenty of water there to baptize by sprinkling or
pouring. It is therefore impossible,
if the location of John’s baptism has been identified correctly, that
John baptized by immersion.
Col. 2 and Rom. 6
teaches us that the bloodless rite of baptism in the New Testament era
symbolized the Christian’s union with Christ in His death, burial and
resurrection and served in the place of physical circumcision. This identification is not made
superficially by the mode of baptism, being somehow immersed in and raised out
of water. The reason for this identification
is that water itself is indicative of judgment and death. Noah was baptized and saved though the
waters of judgment surrounding him (1 Pet. 3:20-22).
Moses was baptized and saved by crossing through the waters of
judgment in the Red Sea (1 Cor. 10:1-5). In neither of these examples were those
saved immersed in water; the waters surrounded them, bringing death as
judgment on others, though God’s people were saved. Just as the Israelites were baptized
“into Moses” as he led them through the waters (1 Cor. 10:2), so we are baptized “into
Christ” and spared the judgment of eternal death (Rom. 6:3; Col. 2:12). Our baptism “into Him” thus
consecrates us to Him (like circumcision of old) as the One who is
sufficient to lead us through the waters of death into eternal
salvation. It expresses the union
between Christ and His covenanted community.
There
is no instance in the Bible where a mode of baptism is prescribed for
us. While immersion is a
possibility, so is sprinkling and pouring.
For instance, in Ezekiel 36:26-28, God speaks of what the New
Covenant times will be like. He
says, “I will sprinkle clean water on you and you will be
clean.” In Hebrews 10:22, we are told, “let
us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our
hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with
pure water.” For pouring,
there is a connection in the Gospels between the “baptism of the Holy
Spirit” and the “outpouring of the Holy Spirit” (Jn. 1:33; Lk.
3:16; Acts 2:17; Tit. 3:6). While possible examples of sprinkling and
pouring can be found in the Bible, none of these passages provide us with a
prescribed or commanded mode of baptism.
There simply is no mode of baptism commanded in the Bible. All three forms—immersion,
sprinkling, and pouring, therefore appear to be acceptable modes of
baptism.
The
mode of baptism cannot be used as a case against infant baptism. A strong case can be made for modes other
than immersion and it is entirely possible to immerse infants.
Conclusion
Certainly
there is no proof-text for the practice of infant baptism that would
produce an iron-clad case for the practice.
If there were, there would be no debate. Yet I believe that a coherent and
biblical case for infant baptism can be made. The burden of proof in this debate
appears to be on the credo-baptist who seeks to
deny that the children of believers are worthy recipients of the covenant
sign any longer and introduce a discontinuity between the Old and New
Covenants. However, credo-baptists appear to be unable to demonstrate this
discontinuity. Paedo-baptists
believe that there is continuity with the Old Covenant in the baptism of
infants. There are no passages which
teach any discontinuity in this area and there is some confirming evidence
that infant baptism was practiced in the book of Acts. Therefore, the practice of infant baptism
in the Church today appears to be warranted by Scripture.
This
argument for infant baptism is not a Roman Catholic argument. Presbyterians do not believe in baptismal
regeneration or that baptism in any sense saves. Presbyterians and Reformed Christians
believe that baptism is a sign to be given to those who are part of the
covenant of grace. A person is not
part of the covenant because of baptism; baptism is a sign given to those
who are part of the covenant. Those
who are part of the covenant are not necessarily saved; rather, children
are brought up in the covenant so that they might be raised in the context
of the family of believers, so that the church may provide the child with a
“climate of plausibility” that would make the Christian faith
seem real and vibrant and true.
Baptism is administered in anticipation of that time when they will
come to faith and receive the forgiveness of their sins and be normal,
communing members of Christ’s church.
SJS
|
