Replies

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.

The Covenant is Visible and One.

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.