Should we baptize our infants? This question has
been around a few years, and is right up there with politics on the list of
conversations not to have over Thanksgiving. Sadly, many talks and debates over
this issue never really get beyond Philippian jailors or the historical record,
and just go around in circles, only increasing the tension between the two
views. To answer this question properly we need to dig down to the heart of the
issue, and do our best to refrain from talking about secondary matters. There
are two main points that credobaptists hold to that, if shown to be false, will
inevitably lead to the conclusion that paedobaptism is indeed true.
First, credobaptists say that the way God
operates in the New Testament is fundamentally different. John Piper says this
explicitly when talking on baptism: “…circumcision
and baptism don't have the same role to play in the covenant people of God
because the way God constituted his people in the Old Testament and the way he
is constituting the Church today are fundamentally different.”[1] No longer is there an ethnic people of God united
with an outward sign, circumcision, there is a spiritual people of God, united
through baptism. Just as the outward sign changed, they reason, so the actual
meaning itself changed. In the Old Covenant, circumcision was a sign that you
belonged to the nation of Israel, which did not necessarily correlate with
actually being one of the elect. Now, however, baptism is a sign that you
belong to the spiritual people of God, and are a part of the elect. Since the
meaning has changed, it follows that the practices of inclusion used in the Old
Covenant should not be used in the New. It is hardly feasible that every last
child born into a Christian home will be of Christ, and therefore, they cannot
be baptized as infants. The only problem with their line of reasoning is that
the New Covenant is most definitely a continuation of the Old, with only the
outward visible sign being changed. Paul says in Galatians 3:17(ESV): “This is
what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant
previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the
inheritance comes by the law, it is no longer comes by promise; but God gave it
to Abraham by a promise.” We can see here that inheritance comes by the
promise. For, as Paul said, if the inheritance came by the law, then it cannot
come by the promise, which is exactly how God gave it to Abraham. Applying this
to the New Covenant, we still see that central to the acquirement of the
inheritance is the promise. Therefore, the previous covenants are not made
void, but rather are upheld by the New; there is continuity between them. We
are not living in fear that God may once again flood the earth, for His covenant
remains sure and has not been changed by the introduction of later covenants;
His promise remains sure.
How exactly is baptism the replacement of
circumcision? For starters, let me point out to you that both play the same
role, officially bringing in a person to the covenant. We see in Gen. 17:7-10
that circumcision brings you into the promise, and Galatians 3:29 tells us the
same thing about baptism: “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have
put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free,
there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you
are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the
promise.” Baptism is the putting on of Christ, the turning into Abraham’s
offspring, becoming heirs of the promise. As we can see, both circumcision and
baptism play the same roles in relationship to the covenant. What is the
circumcision of Christ, of the New Covenant? It is the circumcision made
without hands, through being buried with Christ in baptism. Baptism circumcises your heart, which is what God has
always ultimately cared about.[2]
Now, however, baptism replaces the need for outward circumcision. We find in
Colossians 2:11-12, “In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made
without hands, by putting off the body of flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,
having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him
through faith in the powerful working of God who raised him from the dead.” Therefore,
in the New Covenant, baptism is the official initiation into the covenant of
God. “If that is so,” credobaptists will say, “why should the customs of
circumcision carry over to baptism?” For this simple reason: it is still
‘circumcision’, only not outward of the flesh, but a circumcision of the heart.
Calvin says, “We therefore conclude that, apart from the difference in the
visible ceremony, whatever belongs to circumcision pertains likewise to
baptism.”[3]
The only thing that has changed is the outward appearance of the rite.
The second thing that credobaptists erroneously
believe is that faith is necessary to have before baptism. John Piper says: “In every New Testament command and
instance of baptism the requirement of faith precedes baptism. So infants
incapable of faith are not to be baptized.”[4] Baptism is the outward sign of an inward reality,
and since there is no way to know whether an infant believes in Christ or not,
there is no way he can be baptized. They
think this way because they view baptism as only a sign of their faith, and not
as both a sign and seal. Although the examples of baptism in the New Testament
are preceded by believing, this does not necessarily apply in the same way to
infants. John Calvin aptly says, “If any man subtly reasons that infants ought
to be denied food on the pretext that the apostle allows only those who labor
to eat [II Thess. 3:10], does not such a man deserve to be spat upon by all?”[5]
After looking at Thessalonians through Calvin’s eyes, it is obvious that this
verse must be applied differently in regards to different people. So too it is
with baptism. God works through families in both the Old and New Testaments. In
Acts Paul tells us in Acts 2:39, “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.” This sounds an awful lot like the language used in Deut. 7:9 and Ps.
103:17-18, among others. When Paul uses this language, first century Jews would
have immediately been reminded of God’s promise to His people. In the Old
Testament, the Israelites were commanded to circumcise their children on the
eighth day.[6]
From what we see here, inclusion in the covenant isn’t about your faith, it’s
about all that God has done for you. You take and eat the bread and wine, but
you are baptized. Vander Zee had it
right: “Baptism is a sign and seal of what God is doing and has done in Christ
and to the baptized individual, not a sign of that individual’s faith.”[7]
Certainly, not all who are baptized are ultimately going to be of Christ.[8]
However, this is not a strong point to make against paedobaptism, as Israelites
in the Old Testament are constantly abandoning Yahweh. Since we have already shown
the continuity between the Testaments, this poses no setbacks for our
understanding of baptism.
From here it is plain to see that infants should
be included in the promise, since they are included in the promise in the Old
Testament. Therefore, they ought also to receive the sign of that promise, baptism.
God doesn’t want us to raise cute little heathens and then try to convert them
when they are old enough to think for themselves. Rather, we should raise them
in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. They should be able to pray from a
young age, “Our Father, who art in
heaven…”[9]
(Emphasis added.) and we should teach them how to live properly.[10]
This means we should act as though our children are already of the promise,
baptize them, and expect them to show the fruit of that promise. Let us boldly stand
with Joshua and say, “But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.”[11]
Bibliography
Calvin,
John, Institutes of the Christian
Religion, Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Lewisville, KY:
Westminster
John Knox Press, 2011.
Piper,
John, http://www.desiringgod.org/messages/how-do-circumcision-and-baptism-correspond,
accessed December 1, 2016.
Vander
Zee, Leonard J., Christ, Baptism and the
Lord’s Supper: Recovering the Sacraments for Evangelical
Worship.
Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004.
Well written and said.
ReplyDeleteI might add that as I was looking into Ps. 127 in depth, the part where it says "children are a heritage of the Lord", I found that this actually means that when God gives us children He is giving us His children. Since the definition for heritage is ‘a property that descends to an heir from a predecessor’ this would mean the children are already God’s He is just giving them to us to care for. So saying, our children, who are already God’s, should be baptized, showing that they are not their own person, but belong to God.