The Polemics of Infant Baptism

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

[FITZ]

The pastor said that this baptism was an expression of the parents' desire to dedicate their child's life to God.

It's a lot like raising a child to speak a certain language or have certain cultural values or even citizenship. A baby is given citizenship in a country but later can change that by choosing another country.

[Uriel1975]

Boy, this is certainly a "no win" situation. On the one hand, I find myself at variance with a brother-in-Christ (you), while on the other I find myself on the same side of this issue with a wolf in sheep's clothing (GWB). Yes, I am a Baptist, yes I believe in the practice of "believer's baptism" by immersion administered only to those who have already professed faith in Christ. However, the fact that a "fellow" Baptist would bring this up and use it as a tool for divisive schism is troubling. What is interesting is the fact that you see very little Baptist condemnation of paedobaptists. This is primarily due to the fact that Baptists do not see baptism as essential to salvation, but view it as a symbolic remembrance of what has already occured in the believer's life. To try to use this issue as a stumbling block between Christians is an abomination. You will excuse me if I choose not to participate in this discussion. 26 Posted on 10/06/2001 07:27:14 PDT by Jerry_M

I completely agree.

As I said in another post (above), I generally don't get into this fight, as my own Orthodox Presbyterian teaching elder is pleased to, several times a year, leave his flock under the care of a Reformed Baptist pastor when he is travelling. And, as this pastor is a duly-ordained presbyter of the church of Jesus Christ (albeit one with a slightly different view of sacramental practice), the congregation treats him with all the respect and consideration which is rightly due an Elder. We even feed him 'n stuff.

I generally do not address the matter unless Presbyterian sacamental practice is termed a "silly superstition". In that instance, I respond.

However, Jerry, I'm going to use your post as an opportunity to make a few points:

I think that any believer who wants to argue theology has to decide which battles he is going to fight. There is a reason why the_doc, for example, believes in a great measure of ecumenical unity among people of Reformed Faith, whether anabaptistic or presbyterian in sacramental practice. The Gospel of Salvation itself -- the monergistic doctrine that God Alone saves -- is under attack outside of Reformed circles. Is there such a danger to Salvationist Gospel itself within the Reformed Camp? No, there is not.

Consider baptistic sacramental practice:

When a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox believer claims that Infant Baptism itself regenerates the subject, then Bible Christians (whether Baptists or Presbyterians) certainly ought to attack that -- they have made Salvation a matter of Works. Likewise, when an anabaptistic "Disciples of Christ" believer claims that Believer's Baptism itself regenerates the subject, Bible Christians (whether Baptists or Presbyterians) certainly ought to attack that -- they, too, have made Salvation a matter of Works.

But both the Orthodox Presbyterian and the Refromed Baptist would agree as to the symbolic character of their own Baptisms, and each would deny any regenerative efficacy in the act itself. So their differences over ecclesiological practice ought to be subordinated to their common ground over Salvationist doctrine, as salvationist doctrine (heresies against which are spiritually fatal) is by far the more critical ground under attack in the modern, all-too-apostate Church.

The same goes for modest expressions of "charismaticism".

If we find claims, as we find in extreme Charismatic circles, that one must be "sealed" by "speaking in tongues" to know that one is *truly* saved, Bible Christians (whether Baptists or Presbyterians) certainly ought to attack that -- they, too, have made Salvation a matter of Works. Likewise, if we find claims, as we find in extreme Charismatic circles, that the Spirit is introducing new Revelevation, then Bible Christians (whether Baptists or Presbyterians) certainly ought to attack that -- they have rendered the very Scriptures themselves vulnerable to alteration and perversion.

But if one merely maintains the possibility of gaining illumination from private "visions" or dreams, and holds a strictly orthodox and Biblical doctrine of Salvation, and acknowledges that any illumination of understanding ought be tested against the bar of unchanging Scripture, he's hardly a "charismatic" at all, at least in the modern sense. At best, he's a "continuationist" or Non-Cessationist -- and while most Reformed Baptists and Orthodox Presbyterians today are cessationists, there have been several important saints in Baptist and Presbyterian history who have allowed for the "continuing" (post-apostolic) validity of private visions and illuminating dreams. One was the greatest of Baptist preachers, Charles Spurgeon. Another was the founder of the Presbyterian denomination, John Knox.

IMHO, to rebuke a duly-ordained Elder for suggesting that these subjects are not proper grounds for theological warfare....
....is simply fractious.

1 Timothy 5:1 -- Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;

[aruanan]

Let's just cut to the chase: the practice of infant baptism came from the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church that the church had displaced Israel as the people of G-d. As male babies were brought into the covenant via circumcision, so infant baptism was used as the means to bring the newborn into the Church.

[RnMomof7]

This has been a funny day..I have finally had an opportunuty to read Uriel's post and the first of GWB's (yep I got the Romans9 reference;) I do want to read the Piper article..but at this point I see how the lines are drawn and the basic doctrinal outlook expressed by both sides..

I just want to say that the Church of Jesus Christ,being made of men ,somtimes have honest disagreements.

I come to this with a natural bias toward a believers baptism. Uriel I do see the reformed position.

One of the notes hit me...It observed that although Ishmael was not an "elect" child he was circumcised as a mark of his family...and that does cause one to think of the fact that many very evil non elect Jews wore the mark of a covenant Jew. But I also note that inspite of the fact that Ishmael was not an elect Jew and a part of the covenant between God and Abraham..God honored the "mark" of the family relationship and made a promise to Hagar for her son,based on his being of Abrahams seed,and Abrahams neglect of his paternal role..

But I do have to look at the fact that Israel had a specific covenant with God..and the church ,through the blood of Christ has a "New" one.So I have a difficult time transfering the Old Covenant to the New one.

I do not believe that the time of baptism,or indeed even being baptised is a salvation issue,but I think it is really important to understand the foundation of the sacramental practice of other faiths..

The RC Church sees baptism as necessary for salvation..they see the "work" of the sacrament as removing sin.That is something I can not accept

But if a brother sees the baptism of his child as a mark of the covenant he has with Christ,I do not have a problem with it. I can celebrate it as I did with my Catholic grandchildren as a dedication,a promise..and a mark of the covenant.But with that goes a prayer to my God that the child will one day repent and be baptised..

I do want to observe GW that the point is well taken that no one ,except God knows the truth of the repentance and salvation of an adult being baptised..that in fact we take that on faith as much as an infant baptism..

Thanks to both of you..Uriel you need to quit your day job...and teach full time,you have a gift :>) Thanks for the Baptist perspective GW..guess I still lean in that direction..but I do now understand the reform position..

[Uriel1975]

Let's just cut to the chase: the practice of infant baptism came from the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church that the church had displaced Israel as the people of G-d. As male babies were brought into the covenant via circumcision, so infant baptism was used as the means to bring the newborn into the Church.

This presumes that Infant Baptism was not practiced until the rise of Papal Supremacy.

As (Messianic Jewish) Presbyter Steve Schlissel points out, this is not the case. In fact, Schlissel argues that if the children had been included in the Sign of the Covenant for 2,000 years, a specific commandment demanding their exclusion from the Sign of the Covenant would have been expected by the Jewish Church, if the children were now to be excluded from the Sign of the Covenant.

Yet no such command of exclusion exists in the New Testament.

Down to cases. If a person who presupposes discontinuity goes to the New Testament for guidance on the subject of infant baptism, he will be looking for a specific commandment to baptize infants. Not finding any, he will conclude that it is contrary to God's will. When a Reformed person, that is, one who presupposes a basic continuity between the covenants, goes to the New Testament for guidance on this question, he knows that for two thousand years before Christ, covenant infants had been the recipients of the sign and seal of covenant entrance by Divine decree. Thus, the very silence which convinced Mr. Discontinuity that it is inappro­priate to administer the covenant sign and seal to infants, that very silence proves that it remains God's will for covenant babies to receive that sign.

Furthermore, he will see in Peter's Pentecost sermon the confirmation of his presupposition of continuity: "Repent and be baptized...The promise is for you and your children (Acts 2:38,39)." The household baptisms hold no problem for him, whether there are infants or not. (See Acts 10:48 (cf.11:14); 16:15, 33; 1 Cor. 1:16) Mr. Continuity will understand that if, after two thousand years of having their children included in the covenant, the fulfillment of that Covenant in Christ now meant the exclusion of their children from the covenant (for if they are in fact members of the covenant, to withhold baptism would be to exalt the sign above the reality signified), if they were now excluded, that would not only be regarded as covenant regression, it seems reasonable to assume that quite a ruckus would be raised over that very point and would have needed to be addressed in the early church. So again, silence is what Mr. Continuous expects and finds.

The Covenant is Visible and One.

[Uriel1975]

Thanks to both of you..Uriel you need to quit your day job...and teach full time,you have a gift

(LOL!!) People keep telling me this.

Actually, this essay would have been up a lot sooner yesterday, except that I had to visit a branch office out of town yesterday afternoon... darn day job....

[Campion]

When a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox believer claims that Infant Baptism itself regenerates the subject, then Bible Christians (whether Baptists or Presbyterians) certainly ought to attack that -- they have made Salvation a matter of Works.

What utter garbage.

No Catholic or Orthodox believes anything remotely like this. If you would stop believing what your Protestant teachers say about us, and actually READ what Catholics and Orthodox believe IN THEIR OWN WORDS, you would do yourselves an immense service.

Fact: It is Catholic dogma that Christ is the priest in every Sacrament. The ordained minister is there as his visible representative, but it is Christ the High Priest who sanctifies through the human priest, and the form and matter of the sacrament.

Fact: It is Catholic dogma that it is God's grace -- the Divine Life of the Trinity -- which regenerates, not "infant baptism itself".

Fact: It is Catholic dogma that God is perfectly free to act outside the sacraments. He is free to declare anyone, anywhere, regenerated and justified at his sovereign pleasure.

Fact: Scripture directly calls baptism "the washing of regeneration" (Titus 3:5) and says that all who are baptized into Christ have put on Christ (Gal 3:27). If that doesn't mean that baptism regenerates, not "by itself," but as an invocation, by the Church of Christ, of the mercy of God upon the baptizand, I don't know what it means.

You guys must think Catholics are absolutely stupid and Biblically illiterate as well, to seriously post garbage like this. Au contraire, mon frere!

[Chemnitz]

Good point, except I think you saw an infant dedication rather than baptism. The Baptists have tacitly conceded that infant baptism is good, proper, and Scriptural. However, they do dry baptisms and call them dedications.

The apostolic church baptized infants. The Christian Church baptized infants until Zwingli's followers decided to submit God's Word to their thick-headed human reason. The Anabaptists (re-baptizers) decided that children cannot believe. However, Jesus said, "Unless you believe as a child..." How can adults believe as children do if children do not believe. Thus they are at war with the Lord on this one. Also, infants joined in praising Christ at His royal entry into Jerusalem. How can they praise without faith?

The power of Holy Baptism is the Word of God. The Word grants faith to the child. Many throw this gift away, but God gives this gift of faith only through the Word.

[RnMomof7]

But this is a secondary argument. Uriel's points make the convenant argument well enough. Baptism can become works. You cannot tell true elected saints from those that are not. So baptism becomes the sign of our covenant with Christ. My children bear that name. If they prove to be covenant breakers later, their punishment is worse. Why? Because they bear the name of Christ already. Not less because they were never really christians. Like Noah, I bring my children into the ark. I consider and treat them as covenant members till they prove themselves disobedient. Even then they will be disobedient covenant members, not heathen.

AHHHHHH HAAAAAA..thanks for the insite..

[RnMomof7]

I really do like Piper,the more I read him the more I like him..

[RnMomof7]

But if one merely maintains the possibility of gaining illumination from private "visions" or dreams, and holds a strictly orthodox and Biblical doctrine of Salvation, and acknowledges that any illumination of understanding ought be tested against the bar of unchanging Scripture, he's hardly a "charismatic" at all, at least in the modern sense. At best, he's a "continuationist" or Non-Cessationist -- and while most Reformed Baptists and Orthodox Presbyterians today are cessationists, there have been several important saints in Baptist and Presbyterian history who have allowed for the "continuing" (post-apostolic) validity of private visions and illuminating dreams. One was the greatest of Baptist preachers, Charles Spurgeon. Another was the founder of the Presbyterian denomination, John Knox.

I find this of interest as most Charasmatic churches would tend to be free will and synergistic in belief system.

I would be interested in the Charismatic history of Knox and Spurgeon..is there a site ?

[CCWoody]

True to form, Bush! While you have obviously pouring over commentaries, I've been reading nearly every single verse and then a great deal of then some.

Uriel, I have some questions in private I've been preparing. I'll shoot them too you when I have some time.

[D. Miles]

It is not for me to say who may and may not be baptized, nor am I able to say that mentally challenged should or should not be, I was simply stating that to accept Christ is not always made by adult minds, but with the simple understanding and believes of a child.

[11bravo]

Since when did Christianity have the equivalent of the "5 Pillars"? Christs message was that salvation was not achieved through observance of laws and ritual, but through what is in our hearts. If the parents of an infant want to share their commitment with their community through a tradition of baptism what is the harm? The modern day Pharasees and Sagesees make me sick.

[Uriel1975]

Since you're not interested in picking a fight with Presbyterians (an attitude I personally commend), you might note Campion's #49 as an opportunity to uphold a crucial Baptist distinctive -- the rejection of "baptismal regenerationist" theology.

If you don't want to, I suppose I can... but I thought I'd offer you the opportunity to go at it.

[Chemnitz]

I covered all this in my book. The chapter about the sacraments is located here:

http://thystrongword.0catch.com/chap08visibleword2.htm.

[invoman]

Interesting read...by the way, was the thief on the Cross, next to Jesus, Baptized?

Just wondering..

[Uriel1975]

Interesting read...by the way, was the thief on the Cross, next to Jesus, Baptized? Just wondering..

With water? No.