The Polemics of Infant Baptism

The Polemics of Infant Baptism ^ | posted to FR as of October 5 2001 | Benjamin B. Warfield

[Uriel1975]

Notes

2. “Systematic Theology,” iii. 1874, pp. 546 ff.
3. 1886, pp. 534 ff.
4. P. 530.
5. ‘This interpretation of Acts x. 47 must certaintly greatly embarrass Dr. Strong when he comes to interpret the case of the Samaritans in Acts viii. For the same falling of the Holy Ghost which was poured out on Cornelius and his Mends and exhibited itself in “speaking with tongues and magnifying God” (Acts x. 46); and was made by Peter the plea why water should not be forbidden for baptizing them; not only did not precede baptism in the case of the Samaritans, but actually did not take place until a considerably later date. The Samaritans are baptized, Acts viii. 12; but the Holy Ghost had not been received by them, Acts viii. 16, and was not received until Peter and John visited them and laid their hands on them (Acts viii. 17). If the case of Cornelius proves that baptism is not administered until after the Holy Ghost is received, that of the Samaritans proves that it precedes the gift of the Holy Ghost. In truth neither passage proves the one or the other, this outpouring of the Holy Ghost referring to the charismata.
6. P. 534.
7. “Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae,” on Matt. iii. 6 (Pitman edition of his “Works,” xi. 1823, p. 58).
8. Cf. Cotton Mather, as quoted in Hodge, op. cit., iii. 1874, p. 572.

---

Reprinted from The Presbyterian Quarterly, xiii. 1899, pp. 313-334.

[Uriel1975]

Recently, Freeper “George W. Bush” posted a strong critique of the Reformed Doctrine of Infant Baptism.

Generally, I consider it unprofitable to engage in divisive arguments concerning sacramental practice when there are far graver matters of heresies against salvationist doctrine itself which have rent the unity of the protestant churches since the days of Arminius and Wesley. Nonetheless, GWB has issued a challenge against the Presbyterian practice of Infant Baptism, and so his arguments shall be answered herein.

Before I begin the formal apologia, I shall turn to “The Basis and Significance of Infant Baptism”, by David A. Sherwood, for my prefaratory remarks:

The Basis for Infant Baptism

The basis for infant baptism is neither tradition nor sentiment; it is the teaching of the Word of God. Specifically, it is the biblical teaching that the New Covenant is the continuation and fulfillment of the covenant made with Abraham; and that, consequently, the principles set forth in the Abrahamic Covenant have a distinct bearing on the New Covenant community. God first made the formal and specific announcement of his purpose to raise up a people for himself in his covenant with Abraham (Gen. 15 & 17), which was most noticeably fulfilled in the calling out of the people of Israel. Part of this covenantal arrangement was the institution of a sign--circumcision--which marked people out as belonging to the covenant community. While circumcision symbolized and represented the highest degree of spiritual blessing (Rom. 4:11), reception of the sign was no guarantee that the blessings would be received (Ishmael and Esau, to name only two). Significantly, the sign of circumcision was applied not merely to males who professed their allegiance to the covenant, but also to those who were born into the covenant family.

The Significance of Infant Baptism

Let us be clear as to what we’re not saying. We are not saying that baptism removes original sin (as would Roman Catholics). We are not saying that the baptized child is guaranteed salvation, or that he will definitely come to faith, or that somehow he doesn’t stand in need of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. To reject infant baptism on the ground that embracing it implies any of the above would be to be guilty of a gross caricature and the toppling of a straw man.

The significance of infant baptism is that it is symbolic and emblematic of one’s participation in the covenant community, the Church. It marks the child out, in the sight of man and in the sight of God, as being a person who has special privileges and special responsibilities. Indeed, great are the blessings and advantages of being raised in a Christian home and in the Church of Jesus Christ! But great are the obligations as well. In a sense, baptism is a double-edged sword: a powerful means of grace and support to those who embrace the terms of the covenant (faith and repentance) but a ground of condemnation and increased judgment for those who reject the terms of the covenant. It is in seeing this dual significance that baptism is properly understood.

Colossians 2: 10 – 25 -- And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

The Covenant is Visible and One.

My response to GWB follows hereafter.

[Uriel1975]

Calvin and the Reformers did not get everything right. The Bible indicates three simple steps uniformly: belief in Christ, baptism by immersion, communion with other believers (Lord's Supper). There are no examples of any other procedure.

There are no examples of children of believers growing up and then being baptized, either; but there are a number of household baptisms recorded. So your assertion simply assumes your own conclusion.

In fact, had the blood-letting sign of circumcision continued as the Covenant seal, the Covenantal model we would expect is precisely what we find in the New Testament – conversion of adults, followed by Covenant sealing of their households. We would not imagine that the Church – the “Community of belief” -- which had included infants in the sign of the Covenant for 2,000 years, would suddenly imagine that their children should not be included in the Covenant. And yet such a radical change in Covenantal practice would require a direct Scriptural command specifying the change – yet there is none. Scripture clearly informs us that the Covenantal sacrament has been changed from circumcision to baptism; but there is no instruction whatsoever that Covenant families are now supposed to exclude the infants which had already been included in the Covenant sacrament for some 2,000 years.

---

Steve Schlissel, Messianic Jewish Presbyter, Messiah’s Congregation, NYC --

It seems to me that the Reformed faith has been the most faithful of all traditions in fairly treating all of what the Scripture has to say on the subject of baptism. On one side stands the Roman Catholic church which believes that the sacrament is efficacious in itself, conferring the grace of salvation, the subjects being reborn by means of it. On the other side we find our Baptistic friends who believe that baptism is to be administered only after a credible profession of faith. Often unnoticed by people examining this question is the fact that Romanists and Baptists share an error in common: both assume the necessity of a one for one correspondence between the number of persons baptized and the number regenerated. The Baptists try to insure this correspondence by requiring regeneration prior to administration, Catholics by imagining that regeneration occurs during administration.

According to the Reformed view, however, the efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered. (Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXIX, paragraph VI) Moreover (and this is vital), the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Spirit to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time. (ibid)< p>Thus, our concern in the administration of baptism is not to ascertain the regenerated status of the candidate, but simply to ascertain if, according to Scripture, he is lawfully to be regarded as a member of the covenant which baptism signifies and seals.

The Scriptures indicate that those of age from non-covenanted backgrounds join the covenant people when they embrace the Christ of the gospel and acknowledge Him as Lord. This was the same standard as found for inclusion in the Older Testament community of faith (though the sign was circumcision). Abraham believed first and was then circumcised. Isaac (as far as we know) was first circumcised and later believed. Once in the covenant, our children come with us. On this point see 1 Corinthians 7:14: “The unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.” Since the children of one or two believing parents are “holy”, that is, set apart from the world unto God, they are entitled to the sign and seal of the covenant in terms of which that set-apartness has taken place. The hearts of Baptists are more covenantally oriented than their doctrine at this point. They cannot suppress the desire to bring their children to their God to receive covenant reassurance, but, since they deny the sacrament in principle to their children, they have invented the altogether unbiblical idea of “infant dedication.” The closest Scripture comes to such dedication is in the case of Hannah and Samuel. If Baptists would be consistent with that model, they should leave their children at the church after the ceremony when they go home!

Thus, we baptize infants, not because they have repented and believed, as is required of those of age, but simply because God commands us to administer the covenant sign and seal to our own. If the sheep are His, my friend, so are the lambs. Baptism means, “You belong to God.” I belong to God. My children belong to me. Therefore, my children belong to God. The family, not the individual, is the basic covenant unit. This cannot be emphasized too strongly. The powerful influence of Baptistic theology in North America has played no small part in fostering the terribly unbiblical individualism that characterizes our continent. It is this individualism that makes family baptism so offensive or, at best, puzzling to non-Reformed folk. But seeing that the promise is to us and our children, it is the most natural thing in the world for us. Remember that wicked Ham, solely in virtue of his relation to Noah, was taken on board the ark. Examples could easily be multiplied demonstrating the covenant status of children. That is why the household baptisms in the New Testament are just what we'd expect to find, on covenant principles.

I would remind you that baptism, being a covenant sign and seal, can just as well serve as a sacrament of the covenant curse as the covenant blessing. To those who were brought up in covenant homes, but who refuse to believe and obey, their baptism will be an eternal witness against them, as they will be judged in terms of it and what it suggests. Therefore, we do not raise our children in terms of presumptuousness, but rather to an organic covenant obedience. We urge them not to repent once, believe once, obey once, but to repent always, believe always, obey always. Thus they are taught to look always to God, whereas our Baptist friends not infrequently tend to comfort themselves in terms of their “decision for Christ,” which, sadly, often leaves them looking comfortlessly to themselves.

---

The Covenant is Visible and One.

[Uriel1975]

The Bible says that Christ said "suffer the little children", not "suffer the newborn infants".

No, you’re mistaken. The Bible does say “infants”. Not in Matthew 19 or Mark 10, no; but you neglected to read the parallel passage in Luke 18.

And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

"Now they were bringing even infants to him" (Proseferon de auto kai ta brephe), and following this are the same words as in Matt. 19:14. The Greek word brephe means "infants"--children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their own and who could not possibly make a conscious decision to "accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior."

An infant cannot "come" to Him any more than an infant can control his bowels.

No, but the infants may be brought to Christ for His blessing, and our Lord Jesus rebuked His disciples for trying to prevent people from doing so.

In like manner, Presbyterians might find it odd that Baptist parents would withhold the Covenantal seal from their children until they are at least some few years old; but we can, in principle, respect their parental rights over their children. But we will certainly follow Jesus’ example and rebuke our Baptistic fellow-disciples if they try and argue that Presbyterians should not bring their infants to the Lord for His blessing. Of course we should. “For of such is the kingdom of God”.

In order for your argument to work, the verse would have to read "suffer the helpless infants to be brought to Me by their parents".

In Luke 18, this is precisely what the passage says.

If they can "come" to Jesus, that is, to understand and believe on Him, then they can be baptized. Anything else is a mockery of true baptism.

Balderdash. “And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.” Covenanted parents are to bring their Covenant infants unto the Lord for His blessing, as they had for 2,000 years prior to the birth of Christ; and if there be any question of which ones truly belong to Him, they may have confidence that the Lord will know His own.

Baptism is NOT a sacrament intended for an atomistic, individual “celebration of one’s self”, any more than was circumcision. It is the sacrament by which the Church declares that it is staking its Covenantal Claim upon a soul whom the Church has Biblical reason to believe has been “set apart” unto God. We believe this of adults who make a credible profession of faith, even though some of them will turn out to be Tares; and we believe this of the Covenant children of Covenanted adults, even though some of them will turn out to be Tares.

The Bible clearly declares that Covenantal advantages extend to the children of believers (1 Corinthians 7: 14); yet the anabaptistic sacramental practice fails to recognize these advantages, and provides no Scriptural evidence whatsoever to support its claim that the Covenantal seal was suddenly withdrawn from infants who had been included therein for 2,000 years. By contrast, the Presbyterian sacramental practice acknowledges the Covenantal advantages of 1 Corinthians 7:14, recognizing that if God has ordained the Family as a covenantal unit, then it is Biblical to believe that He has included the Covenantal familial relationship in His Predestination of the Elect; the Presbyterian practice recognizes that “the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him” (Acts 2: 39); the Presbyterian practice proposes no radical alteration of Covenant theology (suddenly excluding infants who were formerly included) without any specific Scriptural command to do so; and the Presbyterian practice seamlessly incorporates the New Testamental example both of baptism by belief, and baptism by household.

For all your criticism of “baby-sprinklin’”, GWB, methinks you’ve missed the point of the sacrament in the first place. Baptism is the Church’s covenantal claim upon a soul – and the baptismal waters by which we anoint our Covenant infants, are the very waters by which we spit in Satan’s face and claim these children for our own. If the sheep belong to our King, so do the lambs.

It's just silly to "baptize" infants.

No more “silly” than circumcising infants.

And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

The Covenant is Visible and One.

[Uriel1975]

Baptism is a public and personal committment to follow Christ and his teachings. In ancient times, baptism as a public confession was a declaration of rebellion to the state which often carried the death penalty. The baptism of believers was often carried out publicly at rivers and bodies of water which were frequented by the populace. Therefore, a public baptism was an affirmation of a belief in Christ to death by execution. The ancient history of the church is pretty consistent in this matter.

Indeed it is consistent on this matter.

Unfortunately for your position, GWB, the early history of the Church is consistent with the Covenantal view of the matter.

Many commentators see an allusion to Infant Baptism in the words of St. Luke, "Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, 'Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God' (Lk 18:15-16). In the early Church this passage was understood as a command to bring the infants to Christ for Baptism. The very first time this passage shows up in Christian literature (c. 200), it is used in reference to Infant Baptism (Tertullian, De Baptismo 18:5). Even though Tertullian espoused a later baptism for children, he acknowledged that Infant Baptism was already the universal practice and does not try to avoid the interpretation of this verse's reference to Infant Baptism. The Apostolic Constitutions (c. 350) taught that children should receive baptism based on the words of Jesus, "Do not hinder them" (VI 15.7)

In the middle of the second century Infant Baptism is mentioned not as an innovation, but as a rite instituted by the apostles. Nowhere do we find it prohibited and everywhere we find it practiced. Early in the nascent Church we have St. Irenaeus (c. 130-c. 200) who provides a very early witness to Infant Baptism, based on John 3:5. Irenaeus wrote, "For He [Jesus] came to save all through means of Himself-all, I say, who through Him are born again to God,-infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men" (Against Heresies, 2, 22, 4).

Origen (AD c. 185-c. 254) who had traveled to the extents of the Roman Empire wrote with confidence, "The Church received from the Apostles the tradition [custom] of giving Baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentary on Romans 5, 9). –Infant Baptism?, Steve Ray

From the beginning of New Testament Christianity at the Feast of Pentecost (Acts 2: 38-39) to our time, unbroken and uninterrupted; the church has baptized babies. Entire households (Jewish, proselytes and Gentiles) were baptized by Christ’s original 12 Apostles (I Corinthians 1: 16; Acts 11: 14, 16: 15, 33, 18: 8) and that practice has continued with each generation.

Polycarp (69-155), a disciple of the Apostle John, was baptized as an infant. This enabled him to say at his martyrdom. "Eighty and six years have I served the Lord Christ" (Martyrdom of Polycarp 9: 3). Justin Martyr (100 - 166) of the next generation states about the year 150, "Many, both men and women, who have been Christ’s disciples since childhood, remain pure at the age of sixty or seventy years" (Apology 1: 15). Further, in his Dialog with Trypho the Jew, Justin Martyr states that Baptism is the circumcision of the New Testament. Irenaeus (130 - 200), some 35 years later in 185, writes in Against Heresies II 22: 4 that Jesus "came to save all through means of Himself - all. I say, who through him are born again to God - infants and children, boys and youth, and old men." Similar expressions are found in succeeding generations by Origen (185 - 254) and Cyprian (215 - 258) who reflect the consensus voiced at the Council of Carthage in 254. -- Infant Baptism in Early Church Historyby Dennis Kastens

The Covenant is Visible and One.

[Uriel1975]

It is fashionable, among Primitive Baptists (“calvinistic anabaptists”), knowing as they do the great antiquity of the Anabaptist Communion, to date the history of their Separation from the Hierarchical communions of Rome and Constantinople to the date of AD 253-254, the date of one of the early Councils of Carthage.

This date is not without some difficulties, as while the Anabaptist Communion is undoubtedly of very great antiquity ("The Baptists are the only body of known Christians that have never symbolized with Rome.” ~~ Sir Isaac Newton), precise dating of the “formation” of the Communion is rendered difficult by the fact that the Anabaptist Communion, wherever it has been found, has always upheld the doctrines of Independence and Separationism.

The doctrine of Local Independence has always ensured that the Elders of any particular AnaBaptist church are independent of any servitude to any “higher echelon” of Elders (though Biblically, even the local AnaBaptist church is rightly governed by a session of multiple Elders, not a single Elder – which is to say, that the proper practice of local congregational governance ought be “presbyterian”, not simply “pastoral”, in form, as much for Baptist congregations as for Presbyterian congregations); and the doctrine of Separationism has always required of AnaBaptist congregations that they “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness” (Ephesians 5: 11), and accept no communion with those who pervert the Gospel.

So assigning a precise date to the formation of the AnaBaptist Communion is rendered difficult by the fact that this Communion has always been a loose, non-hierarchical grouping of independent congregations. But if Cardinal Hosius’ (president of the Council of Trent) estimate of “twelve centuries” of AnaBaptist Persecution be accepted as accurate…

"Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers." (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113.)

This would date the existence of the AnaBaptist Communion to at least AD 350.

Nonetheless, the date of AD 253-254, of the Council of Carthage, enjoys certain historical advantages to recommend it, as Baptism was certainly among the major issues pronounced upon by the Council.

Ah, but there’s the rub… the determination of this early Council of Carthage was not upon the question of “infant” Baptism and “believer’s” Baptism, but rather upon the question between two different modes of the Infant Baptism which was the ancient and established sacramental practice of the Church, even at that early date.

Augustine said of infant baptism: "This the Church always had, always held; this she received from the faith of our ancestors; this she perseveringly guards even to the end." Cyprian wrote that "From baptism and from grace . . . must not be kept the infant." The Council of Carthage, in 253, condemned the opinion that infants should be withheld from baptism until the eighth day after birth. -- (www.catholic.com/ANSWERS/tracts/infant.htm)

The judgment of the assembled 66 bishops at Carthage in AD 253-254 was simply this: that Baptism, which required no blood-letting, did not require a delay until the eighth day after birth for the Sacrament to be performed. The propriety of baptizing the infant children of Believers into the Covenant was assumed as fact; the only question was whether or not the Levitical necessity of delay until the eighth day continued as a sacramental regulation of the seal. As no blood was shed, and thus no danger to the infant was involved, the judgment of Carthage was that no continuation of the Levitical delay was required.

The development of the AnaBaptistic practice of with-holding Baptism from Infants was not even considered among the diverse modes of Baptism found among the Churches of that day.

The Covenant is Visible and One.

[Uriel1975]

The AnaBaptistic practice, of withholding Baptism from Infants, was not even formally anathematized by the Hierarchical communions until another Council of Carthage in AD 418, nearly two centuries later – although, I hasten to add, the position of ecumenical Presbyterians such as myself and Warfield, who would gladly extend the hand of fellowship to our Baptist brethren, is that the pronouncement of this “anathema” was a horrific mistake, an un-brotherly abomination which set the stage for the demonic persecution of the AnaBaptists by the Hierarchical churches for centuries to come.

In fact, a more plausible historical case (IMHO) was that the AnaBaptistic practice of withholding Baptism from Infants developed as a reaction against the promulgation of a pernicious heresy which began to develop in the Churches at that time – the heresy of Baptismal Regeneration, a heresy which endangered the Gospel itself, as it perverted the blessed Gospel from a Pauline doctrine of pure Monergism -- Salvation effected by God alone – to a satanic doctrine of Synergism -- Salvation accomplished by God in part, but only in co-operation with the Works of Men.

From the 250 A.D. time of Cyprian onward, however, the Church Universal degenerated -- by syncretizing with paganism. More and more water now got used at baptisms. This was because of the false and new theory that the greater the quantity of water at baptisms (and the more naked the candidate), the greater the quantity and quality of sins were thereby washed away. Enter baptismal regenerationism. So, too, from 350, baptism was often deferred till death.

Fortunately, however, there was no attack against infant baptism as such. For even the romanizing Church Universal rightly regarded babies too as sinners -- all stained with Adam's original sin. Thus, paedobaptism was clearly enunciated by: Lactantius; Asterius; Basil; Gregory of Nazianze; Gregory of Nyssa; Hilary; Ambrose; Chrysostom; Jerome; and Augustine. Yet Biblical sprinkling decreased, and magical submersion increased. -- The Anabaptists and their Stepchildren, F.N. Lee

We are now approaching the development of those corrupting influences which had been at work from the Apostolic age, silently sapping the foundations of personal piety. In adverting to the language employed by Justin Martyr and Irenæus, we endeavoured to clear those authors from the imputation of unevangelical sentiments, and to interpret their expressions in a sound and safe sense. But though it may be possible to hold them guiltless, it is feared that many of their cotemporaries were fairly open to the charge of holding unscriptural opinions. A notion had grown up, that baptism actually accomplished what was professed in it. As the miraculous gifts of the Spirit were often bestowed upon believers immediately after their baptism, men began to think that it was then first that the Spirit wrought on the soul. And as the act of obedience to the Saviour in the ordinance was commonly associated with spiritual enjoyments and manifestations, and happy converts, like the eunuch, “went on their way rejoicing,” there were some who came to the conclusion that what was connected with baptism was produced by it. If the convictions that led the candidate to the baptismal water, and impelled him to the act of dedication to the Savior’s service, were greatly strengthened at his baptism, so that he then experienced a more intensely satisfying consciousness of pardon and union with Christ, results were confounded with causes, and the new believer was taught to ascribe to baptism the blessings which he had in fact enjoyed before, but which he realized more vividly when he obeyed the Lord.

This step taken, the transition to yet more perilous errors and evils was easy. When baptism was thus invested with a kind of supernatural power, the outward act was soon substituted for the spiritual qualification. -- J. M. Cramp, Baptist History

In like manner, about this time, the heresy of the State Establishment of the Church began to invade the Hierarchical communions:

The Donatists stood for liberty of conscience, and they were opposed to the persecuting power of the State Church, They were, says Neander, "the most important and influential church division which we have to mention in this period" (Neander, General History of the Christian Religion and Church, III. 258). Neander continues:
That which distinguishes the present case is, the reaction, proceeding out of the essence of the Christian church, and called forth, in this instance, by a peculiar occasion, against the confounding of the ecclesiastical end political elements; on which occasion, for the first time, the ideas which Christianity, as opposed to the papal religion of the state, had first made men distinctly conscious of, became an object of contention within the Christian church itself,—the ideas concerning universal, inalienable human rights; concerning liberty of conscience; concerning the rights of free religious conviction.

Thus the Bishop Donatus, of Carthage, in 347, rejected the imperial commissioners, Paulus and Marcarius, with the acclamation: "Quid est imperatori cum eccleaia?" (Optatus, Milev., De Schismati Donat. 1. iii. c. 3). And truly indeed the emperor should not have had anything to do with the control of the church. The Donatist Bishop Petilian, in Africa, against whom Augustine wrote, appealed to Christ and the apostles who never persecuted. "Think you," says he, "to serve God by killing us with your hand? Ye err, if ye, poor mortals, think this; God has not hangmen for priests. Christ teaches us to bear wrong, not to revenge it," The Donatist bishop Gaudentius says: "God appointed prophets and fishermen, not princes and soldiers, to spread the faith." -- A History of the Baptists, John T. Christian

Against these heretical inventions of men, the mysticism of Baptismal Regeneration and the totalitarianism of Establishmentarianism, a number of non-conformist congregations began to arise – including the AnaBaptistic communion:

The Donatists arose in Numidia, in the year 311, and they soon extended over Africa. They taught that the church should be a holy body. Crespin, a French historian, says that they held the following views:
First, for purity of church members, by asserting that none ought to be admitted into the church but such as are visibly true believers and true saints. Secondly, for purity of church discipline. Thirdly, for the independency of each church. Fourthly, they baptized again those whose first baptism they had reason to doubt. They were consequently termed rebaptizers and Anabaptists.

In his early historical writings David Benedict, the Baptist historian, wrote with much caution of the denominational character of the Donatists. He followed closely the statements of other writers in his history; but in his last days he went into the original sources and produced a remarkable book called a "History of the Donatists" (Pawtucket, 1875). In that book he recedes from his noncommittal position and classes them as Baptists. He quite freely shows from Augustine and Optatus, who were contemporaries, that the Donatists rejected infant baptism and were congregational in their form of government.

Dr. Heman Lincoln dissented from some of the conclusions of Dr. Benedict and called them fanciful. But that they held some Baptist principles he did not doubt. He says:

It is evident that the Donatists held, at some period of their history, many of the principles which are regarded as axioms by modern Baptists. In their later history, after a stern discipline of persecution, they maintained, as cardinal truths, absolute freedom of conscience, the divorce of church and state, and a regenerate church membership. These principles, in whose defense they endured martyrdom coupled with their uniform practice of immersion, bring them into close affinity with Baptists (Lincoln, The Donatists. In The Baptist Review, p. 358, July, 1880). -- A History of the Baptists, John T. Christian

As the Hierarchical communions began to impose upon the churches of Christ the twin heresies of Baptismal Regeneration and Establishmentarianism, the AnaBaptists renounced these “hangmen” with a double portion of rebuke!! They responded by withholding Baptism until after the Regeneration of the Believer was “proved” (thus demonstrating, by their sacramental practice, the distinction between Symbol and Grace), and breaking communion with all Hierarchical bishops (thus affirming, by their ecclesiological practice, the authority and independence of the local presbyters).

But in this, the AnaBaptists were hardly alone. In addition to a number of Non-Conformist paedobaptist congregations (of which the Culdee Presbyteries of Iona and Scotia were but one worthy example, deserving of an entirely separate post at another time), many of the Non-Conformist congregations commonly counted in later history as “anabaptistic” did continue the ancient and established practice of Infant Baptism amongst themselves, even as they refused communion with Rome. As merely one example, the medieval communion of the Waldensians, dating reliably back to the eleventh and twelfth century and likely before, did commonly practice the baptism of Infants – though not according to the Roman practice – in a great number of their congregations, and perhaps even as a majority practice:

Ritualistic Rome, with her rigid heresy of baptismal regenerationism, increasingly practised baptism specifically by submersion. Yet from about 1180 onward, we also encounter the protests of the proto-Protestant Waldensians.

While rejecting the various ritualistic additions to baptism, these disciples of Peter Waldo did not repudiate the validity of baptisms as such -- not even when performed in the Church of Rome. Indeed, when unable to avail themselves of the rather scarce services of their own mostly itinerant pastors -- some of them very questionably permitted their own children, rather than to remain unbaptized, to be baptized even by Romish priests. Still others, with reluctance, even delayed those baptisms (because not necessary for salvation) -- until their own Waldensian pastors were later available and able to officiate.

For "the Waldenses," as Rev. Prof. Dr. Samuel Miller rightly pointed out in his work Infant Baptism, "in their Confessions of Faith and other writings drawn up between the twelfth and sixteenth centuries...for several hundred years before the Reformation...have indeed written on the subject." However, the evidence leads to only one conclusion: "The great body of the Waldenses, were Paedobaptists."

Miller then cited from Waldensian historians themselves: "'Baptism,' say they, 'is administered in a full congregation of the faithful, to the end that he who is received into the church may be reputed and held by all as a Christian brother.... We present our children in baptism.... The things which are not necessary in baptism, are -- the exorcisms; the breathings; the sign of the cross upon the head or forehead of the infant'" and/or the adult. -- The Anabaptists and their Stepchildren - F.N. Lee

You may rest assured, my friends, that this statement most exactly illustrates the real fact with regard to the Waldenses as Paedobaptists. Twentynine parts, at least, out of thirty, of the whole of that body of witnesses for the truth, were undoubtedly Paedobaptists. The remaining thirtieth part departed from the faith of their fathers in regard to baptism, but departed on principles altogether unlike those of our modem Baptist brethren. -- INFANT BAPTISM, by Samuel Miller, D.D.

Nonetheless, while the AnaBaptistic reaction against the twin Roman heresies of Baptismal Regeneration and Establishmentarianism were understandable, and largely justifiable, renunciations of the errors and heresies of Roman doctrine, this does NOT establish AnaBaptistic sacramental practice as the original Covenantal practice of the early Jewish Church.

So the Reformers declared:

For, attending to the end for which it was instituted, we clearly perceive that it is not less applicable to children than to those of more advanced years and that therefore, they cannot be deprived of it without manifest fraud to the will of its divine Author. The assertion which they disseminate among the common people, that a long series of years elapsed after the resurrection at Christ, during which paedobaptism was unknown, is a shameful falsehood, since there is no writer, however ancient, who does not trace its origin to the days of the apostles. -- JOHN CALVIN, The Institutes of the Christian Religion

The Covenant is Visible and One.

[Uriel1975]

No child can make the decision for Christ if they can't even understand language yet.

Which is entirely irrelevant to the point.

The Sign of Baptism is NOT a sacrament intended for an atomistic, individual “celebration of one’s self”, any more than was circumcision. It is the sacrament by which the Church declares that it is staking its Covenantal Claim upon a soul whom the Church has Biblical reason to believe has been “set apart” unto God.

And if the sheep belong to our King, so do the lambs.

If you were baptized as an infant, then you are Christian because your parents decided for you. I find it rather humorous that so many Arminians are perfectly happy to hate and oppose predestination by God but rally quickly to defend the principle of predestination by parents via infant baptism.

What is difficult (if not “humorous”), rather, is imagining that Almighty God, who instituted the Covenant of the Family, did not from all Eternity providentially foreordain to include the advantages of Covenantal familial relations in His predestined plan to efficaciously draw His Elect unto Himself.

“How shall they hear, without a preacher?” And what better Preacher could God have predestined to be the earthly instrument of an Elect child’s salvation, than a Christian Father’s example, or a Christian Mother’s love?

Ah, but Scripture declares that Almighty God has included the advantages of Covenantal familial relations in His predestined plan to efficaciously draw His Elect unto Himself.. His Predestination is not only Direct and Individual unto the salvation of Elect adults, but also Providential and Covenantal unto the Salvation of Elect children.

1 Corinthians 7: 14 -- For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

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.

It's laughable, comparable to getting your child a membership card for the Republican Party when he's a month old and then saying he's a Republican. Or pretending that your child is a supporter of the Social Security system because you get her a S.S. card.

Or perhaps, no more “laughable” than treating a child of the Republic as a Citizen unless and until they prove themselves a traitor to the Republic. Wisdom enshrined in our own Constitution.

And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

The Covenant is Visible and One.

[Uriel1975]

Infant baptism is a silly superstition, unrecorded until the fifth century.

Complete pish-posh. Refuted amply above.

Those who engage in it are those who doubt God's justice and mercy if a child should die as an infant. I have no such problem and do not doubt God, whatever He intends for those who die before they reach an age of responsibility.

Infant Baptism is not properly administered on grounds of fear of death, but rather upon grounds of hope of life. While the Lord is pleased to call away some infants from life at an early age, this is not the Covenantal basis for the administration of Baptism to infant children of believers – for the vast majority of Calvinists have always taken it upon faith that the Lord is pleased to irresistibly apply His grace to all those whom He calls away from life in infancy, whether baptized or not.

Rather, the Baptism of the children of believers is grounded upon the expectation that they will live, not die, and grow in Faith as children of the Covenant.

Moreover, the practice of baby sprinklin' prevents adults in Roman churches and in others from being baptized as believers, the only examples of baptism in the New Testament.

Assumes the conclusion: that only “believer’s Baptism” is valid.

Amply refuted above.

The bible teaches that we are of one faith and one baptism. The New Testament demonstrates only the baptism of adults. Therefore, the one baptism of Jesus' disciples is the only valid one possible and refers to believers only.

Again, merely assumes the anabaptistic conclusion.

But in fact, the One Baptism of Christians is COVENANTAL Baptism.

And this Promise is to us -- and to our Children.

The church wasn't born at Pentecost. It was Bar Mitzvah'd. No small matter, this. The church had a long, albeit dotted, history by the time the Spirit in Christ's fullness fell, and a glorious, albeit difficult, future. By Pentecost, the church, because of its history, its providentially-ordained organization and the Holy Spirit's promised guidance, was well-prepared to fulfill its function in the world.

The Belgic Confession, in Article XXVII, states, "We believe and profess one catholic or universal Church...This Church has been from the beginning of the world, and will be to the end thereof..." It has not, however, always had the same form. In the Garden of Eden God identified and separated the church (then consisting of two) using the essential elements, Word and Sacrament, Promise and Token, which would be present throughout the church's history, in some form or another. Our first parents were created to understand themselves and all things else in terms of a word. They had received the defining Word of God; they had heard the anti-word of the serpent. Choosing the devil's definitions, they had broken covenant with their Creator and entered into league with the destroyer, becoming co-pretenders with him to the throne.

God was not about to forsake His purposes, or to quickly formulate a "Plan B." He graciously and forcefully took back Adam and Eve-He redeemed them-by placing hostility between them and their new master (the Antithesis), by promising in their hearing the incarnation of the conquering, suffering Messiah (the Protevangelium, first proclamation of the Gospel), and by clothing them with God-provided coverings (the "Sacrament"), indicating in the clearest terms that their fig leaves (their instinctive effort at self-atonement/covering) were wholly inadequate and unacceptable. It is God who saves. Calvinism did not originate in Geneva; it is found in Eden. God's people, the covenant line, would henceforth be the people redeemed by Him to live, once again, in terms of His Word. -- Steve Schlissel, Messianic Jewish Presbyter, Messiah’s Congregation, NYC.

The Covenant is Visible and One.

[AZPubbie]

If we believe, with the Church of Rome, that the Church is in such a sense the institute of salvation that none are united to Christ save through the instrumentality of her ordinances, then we shall inevitably determine the proper subjects of her ordinances in one way. If, on the other hand, we believe, with the Protestant bodies, that only those already united to Christ have right within His house and to its privileges, we shall inevitably determine them in another way.

I read this far and stopped. Why? Because, although I'm no theologian, there are two falsehoods in the first paragraph.

First, belief in infant baptism does not mean that one must believe in the church's "ordinances" as the instrument of salvation, but instead means that one believes that it is through G*d's grace alone that we are saved. In other words, we are all sinners and there is nothing we can do is enough to earn the gift of salvation. Since there is nothing we can do to be worthy of salvation, why wait until you're older to be baptised? I understand that some churches feel differently, but belief in infant baptism is not a belief in the primacy of the church, but in the primacy of the Lord.

Second, many protestant denominations practice infant baptism. I'm not Catholic. I was born into the the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), spent my adolescence in the Presbyterian Church, attended the Espicopalian Church regularly in college and graduate school, and am now a Lutheran. Three out of four (and maybe all 4) practice infant baptism.

It is easy to craft a compelling argument, when you get to create the premises for it from whole cloth. With such a faulty foundation, I didn't feel the need to read it all.

[George W. Bush]

GWB: Uriel, you want in on this?

Uriel1975: okay, maybe in a little while...

And 110K of text after the exchange of these two short sentences, we can see what you were doing in the meantime.

"okay, maybe in a little while..."

Talk about disingenuous! I'm going to have to ask JohnRob to implement XML <sarcasm> tags.

I'll have to sort through all this and try to formulate a response. I'm hoping it wil be under 15K. I'll be busy today but will be back to it by tonight.

[George W. Bush]

I thought some of you might enjoy Uriel's work.

[Rum Tum Tugger]

Before you guys settle the question of Infant Baptism once and for all, could you please resolve the issue regarding how many Angels fit on the head of a pin?

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

I am a reformed Presbyterian. I have baptized both my babies and deeply appreciate your posting. I would suggest, however, that the avenue of attack is to also include a discussion on the nature of the Church.

As you are well aware, the church has a visible and an invisible aspect. Look to the Westminster Confession and the Qs and As in the Larger Catechism. Baptism signals the admission of our convenant children into the visible church, in which they enjoy certain privileges and hold certain responsibilites. Baptism does not equate with admission into the visible church. On the other hand, as a firm believer in the sovereignty of God and his grace, I think it entirely possible for a newborn to be regenerated and thus made part of the visible church. The only thing is that baptism does not signal the admission of infants or adults into that invisible body, which is known only to God. This is why Christians are recommended to spend their whole lives "improving" their baptisms.

Making this distiction, in any discussion on baptism, holds dowm the important point of God's covenantal faithfulness and its perpetuity, without devolving into the unwarranted presumption that is the underlies what I believe to the be the Baptist aversion to paedobaptism.

[AlguyA]

Bump for future reading.

[arimus]

Great material. Excellent points.
Jesus loves the little children...oops...we mean their heathen until a works orientated decision can be pulled from them.
Covenant is a powerful word. Often overlooked.
Thanks for the resources.

[winslow]

Thanks for the posts I've been wanting more info on this subject for some time

[George W. Bush]

Here is a preliminary response by Walter Chantry, SBC and Calvinist. This works well as a preliminary statement for the Baptist position. Chantry's position is restrained but firm in arguing from a Reformed and Covenantal position. I've no doubt you expected me to post this one, Uriel. - GWB

BAPTISM AND COVENANT THEOLOGY

by Walter Chantry

        No Baptist begins to seek an answer to the question "Who should be baptized?" by studying the Bible’s doctrine of the covenants. Rather, he begins with New Testament texts which deal directly with the term "baptize." In a later study of Covenant Theology, he finds confirmation and undergirding of his conclusions.
        1. In the New Testament we discover the nature of baptism defined. In the definition, something must be said about the person baptized. Its central significance is that the one baptized is said to be savingly joined to Christ. We agree that the definition in the Westminster Confession of Faith is essentially biblical: "Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life (Chapter XXVIII).
        2. In every clear New Testament example, the person baptized made a credible confession of faith in Jesus Christ prior to receiving the sacrament. This has been called the Baptist’s argument from silence. But that is an unfair charge. To refrain from a practice on which the Bible is silent is not wrong. But to build a positive practice on supposed but unwritten premises is to build on silence.
Every New Testament text cited to support infant baptism appears empty apart from a strong predisposition to find such texts and presuppositions to impose upon them.
        A) Amazingly, Matthew 19:13: "Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven," has been used frequently by serious theologians to support infant baptism. We share the indignation of B. B. Warfield who said, "What has this [verse] to do with infant baptism?" Some point has been made of the related passage in Mark where Jesus is said to bless the children, and note has been taken of his placing his hands upon them. But, again, we find no solemn ceremony in this passage indicating that the children were acknowledged to be in the covenant of grace- Prayerful calling of God’s blessing upon any child would he most natural apart from such restricted signification.
        B) Acts 2:39 has also been pressed into service to support infant baptism. "For the promise is unto you and to your children , -
        Usually the sentence is not completed. But the Scripture goes on, "and to all that are afar off even as man t, as the Lord our God shall call." The context has in view specifically spiritual promises, namely remission of sins and filling with the Holy Spirit. These promises cannot be said to attach themselves to all the crowd before Peter (the "you" of the text), but only to "as many as the Lord our God shall call." They could not be said to belong to "all that are afar off’, but only to "as many as the Lord oi.tr God shall call." If that phrase qualifies the first and third parties mentioned, it must also qualify your children". The promises do not belong unto the children of believers apart from effectual calling. Only those children who receive this saving grace of God may be conceived of as being heirs of the spiriLual promises.
        C) Household baptisms are called upon, by paedobaptists, as evidence of infant baptism in the New Testament. There are four references: Cornelius (Acts 10), Lydia (Acts 16), the Philippian jailor (Acts 16), Stephanas ([Corinthians 1). None of the references say that infants were in these houses. Finding infant baptism here is built upon the dual assumption that there were infants in the houses and that household must have meant every individual in the household without exception. The last of these is a road we Calvinists have been down with the term "world" in Scripture. The first is very untenable. But the two together cannot be held; for we find in the Bible itself, the pattern of these household baptisms. All Cornelius’ house gathered to hear Peter’s preaching. The Holy Ghost fell upon all — they all received the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit. Then, all were baptized. Paul first preached to the jailor’s household. Then, all were baptized. After the baptism, all rejoiced believing in God. I learning the Word and believing upon that preaching can scarcely be attributed to infants. No doubt, the same pattern adhered to other cases of household baptisms. In Lydia’s case, there is the most doubt that a woman in business would be nursing an infant. The Bible does not tell us she had a husband, let alone children. Infant baptism can be found here only by those most anxious to do so.
        D) I Corinthians 7:14 is another favorite verse. There we are told that children are "holy". The text does not have even vague reference to church membership or baptism. it is talking about mixed marriages in which one spouse is a believer and the other is not. The question is whether such a relationship is proper, moral, or holy for those who were converted after marriage to the unbeliever. Paul reasons from the obvious to the doubtful. It is obvious that your children are not bastards. They were born in wedlock. They are holy. Therefore, it ought to be clear to you that your marriage relationship is holy. Don’t feel guilty about it or wish to be free from your obligations. If the word "holy" suggests a covenant relationship or cultic purity, making the children proper objects for baptism, then the unbelieving spouse is also a valid candidate for the sacrament. The verb "sanctify" has precisely the same root and signification as the adjective "holy." And it is the holiness of the spouse that the passage belabors.
        With such an appalling lack of New Testament evidence for infant baptism, those who support such a practice have rapidly retreated to Old Testament texts and an argument from the unity of the covenants. The practice of baptizing infants of believers is founded on Old Testament Scripture, or upon texts of the New Testament where suitability for baptizing infants is read into them with a predisposition and presupposition drawn from the Old Testament.

I. HISTORIC COVENANT THEOLOGY

AND INFANT BAPTISM

        The argument has hung upon a syllogism that goes something like this: There is a unity between the Old and New Covenants. Circumcision in the Old is parallel to baptism in the New. Infants of believers were circumcised in the Old. Therefore, infants of believers should be baptized in the New. Many tell us that this syllogism is so strong that New Testament silence is a major argument in favor of their position. The New Covenant is so like the Old, and baptism so parallel to circumcision, that unless the New Testament absolutely forbids the baptism of infants, it must be practiced.
        As B. B. Warfield said, "It is true that there is no express command to baptize infants in the New Testament, no express record of the baptism of infants and no passage so stringently implying it that we must infer from them that infants were baptized. If such warrant as this were necessary to justify the usage, we would have to leave it completely unjustified. But the lack of this express warrant is something far short of forbidding the rite; and if the continuity of the church through all ages can be made good, the warrant for infant baptism is not to be sought in the New Testament, but in the Old Testament where the church was instituted and nothing short of an actual forbidding of it in the New Testament would warrant our omitting it now."
        I. Immediately we Baptists raise our first objection. There is here a serious hermeneutical flaw. How can a distinctively New Testament ordinance have its fullest — nay, its only foundation —in Old Testament Scripture? This is contrary to any just sense of Biblical Theology and against all sound rules of interpretation. To quote Patrick Fairbairn in The Interpretation of Prophecy, "There cannot be a surer canon of interpretation, than that everything which affects the constitution and destiny of the New Testament church has its clearest determination in New Testament Scripture. This canon strikes at the root of many false conclusions and on the principle which has its grand embodiment in popery, which would send the world back to the age of comparative darkness and imperfection for the type of its normal and perfected condition." If you allow Old Testament examples to alter New Testament principles regarding the church, you have hermeneutically opened the door to Rome’s atrocities. It is upon such rules of interpretation that the priest and the mass have been justified. We must find the clearest expression, of that which is normative for the New Covenant’s ordinances, in the New Covenant relation.
        2. Beyond this, there is a theological flaw. It is nothing new for Baptists to adhere to Covenant Theology. They have done so since the Seventeenth Century. We conceive of God’s dealings with man in a covenantal structure. We believe that every covenant made with man since the Fall is unified in its essence. In all ages there has been one rule of life — God’s moral law. God’s standard of righteousness was the same before Moses received the Ten Commandments, and it is the same today. There has been but one way to salvation in all historic covenants since the Fall. The Gospel by which Adam was saved is the same as that by which we are saved- Genesis 3:15 declares a salvation that is wholly of grace through faith in Christ. The basic differences between the covenants of history in these essential matters are those of Biblical Theology. The promises of the Gospel have become more clear with each succeeding age of revelation, though the promises have been identically the same. The moral law has been more fully expounded, though never changed. So we agree about the unity of the historic covenants recorded in the Bible. But paedobaptists have been negligent in defining the diversity in the administrations of the Covenant of Grace. As dispensationalism has erred when it has failed to see the essential unity of the covenants since the Fall, many serious errors have arisen from a failure to acknowledge diversity in these historic covenants. An example may be seen in the Reformers’ failure to distinguish church and state. In the administration under Moses, the church was coextensive with the state. In the administration of Christ, the extent of church and state are not to he thought identical. In the Mosaic economy, magistrates administered the church and prophets made their authority felt in government. In the Christian administration of Grace, a strict sense of the church separate from the state must be maintained. We must define the diversity as well as the unity.
        Paedobaptists have unconsciously recognized a difference between the Old Testament and New with respect to the constitution of the church and subjects of theft ordinances. In the Old Covenant, adult sons and servants were circumcised, and thus incorporated into the visible church. Now, only the infants of believers are baptized. In the Old, children came to the Passover at a very young age. Now small children are not admitted to the Lord’s Table. Whence this change? When the principle of diversity is formulated, it will exclude infants from the sacrament of baptism. Jeremiah 31:31-34 is pivotal to expressing the diversity of covenant administrations. It is quoted in Hebrews S and again in 10 to prove that "Christ is mediator of a better covenant." There is an emphatic contrast made in verses 31 and 32. The differences are so striking and dramatic that one covenant is called "new" and it is implied that the other is old. The Jews under the Old Covenant were warned that revolutionary changes would be made. The covenant in force was inadequate except to prepare for the New. So surpassing is the glory of the New, that it should lead them to look for the demolition of the Old. The passage suggests two vital distinctions ushered in by the effusion of the Spirit. This effusion made a change in administration possible.
        The first difference is found in verse 33 of Jeremiah 31. The Old Covenant was characterized by outward formalism. The New would be marked by inward spiritual life. This is not an absolute distinction but it is a marked contrast. Of course, there was spiritual religion and heart commitment to Cod in the Old Testament. Abraham’s faith would put ours to shame. We must wonder if any but Christ Himself ever equaled the prayer life of David addressed in the Psalms. Moses spoke to Cod as face to face. Yet, these are refreshing streams in the midst of Old Testament attention to outward, formal, national religion. There is a mass of outward rules, a history of formal religion, a ponderous identification of church and nation. Relatively little attention is given to inward life. If a man is circumcised, he is counted a Jew. If he is conformed to outward practices, he is called clean and welcome at the ceremonies of worship. Paul tells us that this system of religion was like the strict tutor who tells a child what to do at every turn.
        But the New Testament church is come of age. It is, by way of contrast, inward, spiritual and personal. Certainly there is outward formality in the New Covenant, but it is minimal; and the most formal ceremony calls attention to the inward. The New Testament presses personal self-examination everywhere and constantly makes spiritual application of its truths. There is a notable shift to questioning experience of grace at every point.
     Verse 34 of Jeremiah 31 suggests the second distinction. There will be a marked contrast in the knowledge of those in the New Covenant. As the coming of the Spirit will add a new dimension of life to the church, so He will add a new dimension of light. "From me least to the greatest" in the New Covenant will know the Lord. The subject matter of their knowledge will not be shadows but the living reality of Christ. The mysteries hidden in the Old will he made known to them. The manner of instruction will shift from repetitious ceremonies, for they will all know the Lord. So then, we will expect the New Covenant Lo stand in contrast with the Old in that its members have greater life and light.
        This diversity is nowhere more evident than in the ceremonies of worship. New Testament worship presents us with a most striking contrast with Old Testament ordinances. This can be illustrated by looking at the Lord’s Supper, which finds a counterpart in the Old Testament Passover. The great spiritual truth of redemption by blood is figured in the Passover, but it is somewhat obscured beneath an outward and formal atmosphere. Then, too, the ceremony mixes the figures of personal redemption and national deliverance. Even those who had no acquaintance with spiritual redemption, observed it. This they should have done; for their national life arose from the historic event remembered. Very young children came to the Passover as participants that, by it, they might ask the significance and as they grew older, come to understand the redemption figures. (cf. Exodus 12:2427, etc.)
        In the New Testament, things are quite different. I Corinthians 11:23-30 gives instruction for the most formal ceremony of the New Covenant. Here very young children must not come. Only the "worthy" with ‘discernment" are welcome at the feast remembering our redemption. It is not marked by any of the nationalism of the Old Covenant. Each person is charged to "examine himself" before daring to partake. He must find himself "worthy’ — a personal recipient of grace. He must have "discernment" —.- [hat inward, spiritual light that peculiarly marks this covenant. Light and life are prerequisites of joining this most outward and formal act of worship.
     The same is true of the waters of baptism. This ceremony does not desert the New Covenant’s pattern to revert to the Old. It belongs to those who are "worthy" and have "discernment". Repentance and faith are everywhere demanded as prior conditions for baptism.
        To summarize: IN THE OLD COVENANT, All THAT WAS SPIRITUAL WAS IDENTIFIED WITH AN OUTWARD NATION. IN THE NEW COVENANT, ALL TI IAT IS OUTWARD IS IDENTIFIED WITH A SPIRITUAL NATION.
        3. Then, there are a number of exegetical flaws in the paedobaptist theology.
        A) Many have reasoned thus: "Infants of believers were circumcised in the Old Covenant. Therefore, infants of believers should be baptized in the New." Though in Abraham’s case faith preceded circumcision of his children, this cannot be said to be the rule of the Old Covenant rite. There were times when faith in the subjects of circumcision or in their parents was all but ignored. In the time of Joshua, an entire nation was circumcised in a day. There was no concern for personal election or personal faith. It was clearly administered as a sign of the outward privileges in belonging to the elect nation. Circumcision was never withheld because a parent had no faith. Even when the prophets denounced the Jews for being uncircumcised in heart, they did not suggest that the sons of these unconverted Jews be excluded from the rite of circumcision. To attempt to find a warrant for seeking faith in the fathers of those who are baptized in these Old Testament texts is wholly unsatisfactory.
        B) It is also said that just as baptism is a sign of heirship to the spiritual promises of grace in the New Covenant, circumcision was a sign of heirship to the same spiritual promises in the Old. This is only partially true. Baptism is a sign of spiritual blessing in Christ and only that. Circumcision, too, depicted unity with Christ in His death and heirship to spiritual blessings (cf. Colossians 2:11-13). But there was more to its significance. The distinctive aspects of the covenants cling to their signs just as surely as the common elements of the covenants do. In the Lord’s Supper and the Passover, redemption by blood is signified. Yet, they differ in this: The Old ceremony suggested the outward and national aspect of that administration. The New ceremony stresses the inward and personal aspect in its administration. So circumcision could be given to 13-year-old Ishmael, who, Abraham was assured, would not be a partaker of the spiritual blessings. But for him and other non-elect Jews, it was proper by circumcision to be identified with the outward aspects of blessing and administration. It was proper to be circumcised as the literal seed and heir of the literal land and as one by whom, according to the flesh, the Messiah would come, while not being of the spiritual seed and heir of heaven. Baptism has no merely earthly significance. There are no blessings figured in it that can be conceived of apart from an experience of grace.
        C) Much weight has been place on the formula "Thee and thy seed" in Genesis 17. Paedobaptists insist upon an outward, literal significance of the term "seed." In their scheme, the New Covenant counterpart to Abraham’s seed is the physical offspring of believers. This is done while totally ignoring the fact that the New Testament says a great deal about the Covenant with Abraham, for it is central to New Testament religion. Romans 4, Romans 9, and Galatians 3 and 4, especially Galatians 3:7, belabor the point that believers, and believers alone, are the seed of Abraham. These texts further insist that the promises which are spiritual and eternal belong to no physical seed.
        Romans 9 discusses Abraham’s immediate, physical offspring. Some were of the flesh; some of the spirit. There was a personal election within the family election. Abraham could not look upon his own immediate seed as heirs of the promises. "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." (v. 8). How can believers today lean upon the promise to Abraham which is clearly interpreted in the New Testament and find for themselves a greater expectation for their children than Abraham had a right to? The New Testament is not silent about this seed. It tells us they are believers alone!
        4. Lastly, there are practical flaws in the paedobaptist theology. Those who sprinkle infants are on the horns of a dilemma. Either they must tamper with the definition of baptism to make it signify something less than personal spiritual union with Christ as the Bible clearly teaches; or they will be driven to teach infant salvation or presumptive regeneration. If the first course is chosen, one must also corrupt the New Testament view of the church and its discipline. If some who are less than saved are properly to be considered as members of Christ’s body. there is a great deal of stress with the New Testament’s view of membership and fellowship. If the second course is chosen, one’s pedagogy [teaching] will be affected. How are parents and pastors to address the children if they are viewed as joined to Christ? Unfortunately, much paedobaptist literature written for children reflects a tendency to address them as believers, not as in need of evangelism. Note the interesting historic dispute on this subject by paedobaptist theologians J.H. Thornwell and R.L. Dabney on one hand, and Charles I lodge on the other.

II. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

        I can sympathize with students who are wrestling with the problem of baptism. I can remember when I wished to be convinced of the paedobaptist position. There would be many practical advantages. Another forceful factor is the great history of godly men who were paedobaptists, especially the Reformers and Puritans. But as history gave me the problem, so it has suggested a solution. Paedobaptism is clearly tied to sacralism in church history. After Constantine and his associates succeeded in getting across the idea that church and state are coextensive, baptism Identified a person not only as a member of Christ’s church but also as a citizen of the state. The Anabaptists in the Middle Ages were not so concerned about the subjects and mode of baptism as they were about the purity of the church. Believer’s baptism has always naturally followed the concept of a believers’ church. When Zwingli worked closely with Anabaptists (whom he later helped to condemn to death), he had a rather different view of the church from that which he adopted later. Consequently, he had a believers’ baptism view. But when he moved to the concept of a state church, he vigorously defended infant baptism.
        So, too, in England. So long as the concept of a state church reigned, there was very little interest in a baptism position. But as soon as the separatist movement arose, the Baptists emerged naturally from the paedobaptist midst. Just as the sacralist principles were drawn from the Old Testament improperly, so the retreat from national religion to family religion has rested upon Old Testament practices. Once the constitution and discipline of the New Testament church has been rightly conceived, the hangover of infant baptism must fall way.
        These are issues over which we do not wish to lose fellowship with paedobaptist brethren. Yet they are principles which we will not jettison for the sake of fellowship.

Bibliography

Booth, Abraham, Paedobaptism Examined, Abraham, Paedobaptism Examined, Gospel Mission Press, 1980. *

Carson, Herbert M., Farewell To Anglicanism, Henry E. Walter Ltd., 1969.

Dagg, J.L, Manual of Theology, second part, A Treatise on Church Order, pp.

13-73 and 144-200, (Voo Books, Harrisonburg, VA, 1982.

Davies, J.K., Babies, Believers and Baptism, Grace Publications.

Fuller, Andrew, The Practical Uses of Christian Baptism, 1802 - Works, vol. 3, pp 339-345.

Hoad, Jack, The Baptist: An Historical and Theological Study of the Baptist Identity, Grace Publications, 1986.

Jewett, Paul K., Ecclesiology: Infant Baptism and Confirmation Bulletin, Systematic Theology 433-1960, based on Masters’ Thesis for Westminster Seminary. *

Kingdom, David, Children of Abraham, Carey Publications, 1973. *

Lane, Eric, I Want To Be Baptized, Grace Publications, 1986.

Seaton, WI., An Introduction to Christian Baptism, Berea Press, 1982.

Watson, T.E., Baptism Not For Infants, Henry F- Walter Ltd., 1962.

* Works which discuss extensively the Baptist view in the light of Covenant Theology.

Source document at ReformedFaith.org

[D. Miles]

also children wise beyond their years can make the decision of baptism.