Should Infants Be Baptized? History and Scripture
Saturday, May 28, 2011 Posted by Pastor Fred Wolfe
My argument for Believers Baptism as it stands at present comes from evidence in history, the form and function of the observance throughout Biblical precedence:
While infant baptism was widely practiced in the late second century, there is evidence that the widespread practice of the Church was to baptize adults in the apostolic era. While this practice is not explicit, it is suggested in the earliest records of the Didache that believers should fast for two days in preparation for baptism. While infants may be deprived of food, infants cannot legitimately fast without willful neglect of food. Infants also cannot “prepare” to do anything. This requires the cognitive ability to make decisions, much as is required for repentance and faith.
We know that baptism of infants was practiced, but was argued against by Tertullian as early as 200 A.D. (“On Baptism.” in Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 7). While paedo-bapitsts are correct in recalling the history of the second century, there is a complete lack of evidence regarding this practice in the first century. Many false teachings can spring up in one hundred years, and while infant baptism is not heresy, I believe it can be shown to have diverted from the scriptural intent for baptism.
One must only read the writings of Clement to see that these historical practices of infant baptism did not have pure motives in relating the covenant of Abraham to the New Covenant in Christ. Clement observed that baptism of infants served the function of expelling demons that were ingested in meat sacrificed to idols. This practiced evolved into the Catholic teaching that the baptism of infants served the function of removing original sin, and insured the salvation of the infant should he die before receiving the sacraments. (“Recognitions of Clement.”in Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 8) this belief was alluded to in the writings of both Augustine ( “On Continence.” in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Vol. 3) and Martin Luther. (Louis Berkof, Systematic Theology, p. 627)
These examples are to point out that though the paedo-Baptists may claim a long heritage and history of infant baptism in the Church, for many centuries of that history, it was tied to heresy and not to the derivative doctrine we have today. I submit we are on equal ground when it comes to historical proof, and must rely heavily on scripture rather than history to solve the dilemma.
2. Form and Function
- History
While infant baptism was widely practiced in the late second century, there is evidence that the widespread practice of the Church was to baptize adults in the apostolic era. While this practice is not explicit, it is suggested in the earliest records of the Didache that believers should fast for two days in preparation for baptism. While infants may be deprived of food, infants cannot legitimately fast without willful neglect of food. Infants also cannot “prepare” to do anything. This requires the cognitive ability to make decisions, much as is required for repentance and faith.
We know that baptism of infants was practiced, but was argued against by Tertullian as early as 200 A.D. (“On Baptism.” in Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 7). While paedo-bapitsts are correct in recalling the history of the second century, there is a complete lack of evidence regarding this practice in the first century. Many false teachings can spring up in one hundred years, and while infant baptism is not heresy, I believe it can be shown to have diverted from the scriptural intent for baptism.
One must only read the writings of Clement to see that these historical practices of infant baptism did not have pure motives in relating the covenant of Abraham to the New Covenant in Christ. Clement observed that baptism of infants served the function of expelling demons that were ingested in meat sacrificed to idols. This practiced evolved into the Catholic teaching that the baptism of infants served the function of removing original sin, and insured the salvation of the infant should he die before receiving the sacraments. (“Recognitions of Clement.”in Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 8) this belief was alluded to in the writings of both Augustine ( “On Continence.” in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Vol. 3) and Martin Luther. (Louis Berkof, Systematic Theology, p. 627)
These examples are to point out that though the paedo-Baptists may claim a long heritage and history of infant baptism in the Church, for many centuries of that history, it was tied to heresy and not to the derivative doctrine we have today. I submit we are on equal ground when it comes to historical proof, and must rely heavily on scripture rather than history to solve the dilemma.
2. Form and Function
A. Baptism is a sign of the New Covenant. From the time of Abraham, the sign of God’s covenant was the circumcision of males on the eighth day of their birth. The circumcision of flesh did not signify salvation, but a sign of participation in God’s chosen nation. This was a serious matter however, as death was the consequence for not obeying this sign. But is this covenant exactly the same as the New Covenant? I answer this question with an, “Obviously not”. Jeremiah speaks clearly to this:
"Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."
How is this covenant different from the Abrahamic covenant? First, it must be understood that the covenant with Abraham, as much of the Old Testament, is a picture of the Christ and the New Covenant. It is not altogether contrary, but it is not yet reached it’s fullness that will be found in Christ and the New Covenant. Moses was given tablets with which to write down the laws of God. Christ did not come to abolish these laws, but to fulfill them (Matt. 5:17), and as the previously quoted verse from Jeremiah suggests, to write the law on the hearts of those in the New Covenant. Therefore the New Covenant requires something even deeper and more abiding than the Old Covenant required. Circumcision was given after physical birth, as a sign of covenant of laws written on tablets of stone, but baptism is the sign of spiritual birth, with the law of God written on the heart. As the Jesus taught Nicodemus, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” And He also taught, “That which is born of flesh is flesh, that which is born of spirit is spirit.”(John 3:6) The New Covenant is the fulfillment of the picture of the Old Covenant.
- Baptism is preceded by conversion. The verse often cited by paedo Baptists in Acts 2:38-39 to infer that infants were baptized: “And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." But this verse is easily dealt with in that Peter commands them to repent. Repentance is impossible for infants, and therefore could not have been inferring infants. There are so many proof texts for conversion preceding baptism that I will not labor to list them all, but here are a few: All eight conversion narratives in Acts, Romans 4:10, Mark 1:15.
- Baptism was never explicitly administered to infants anywhere in scripture, so the only hope to set precedence is to equate baptism with circumcision. Colossians 2:11 Shows how baptism and circumcision are related. “In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism…” If we left it there, the paedo Baptists might have more of a leg to stand on. But, in reading the next verse, it clearly states that the circumcision of Christ by baptism requires faith. “…in which you were also raised with him through faith…”
- The apostle Peter, in his first letter, defined baptism this way, ". . . not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 3:21). Baptism is "an appeal to God for a good conscience." It is an outward act and expression of inner confession and prayer to God for cleansing, that the one being baptized does, not his parents.
- When the New Testament church debated in Acts 15 whether circumcision should still be required of believers as part of becoming a Christian, it is astonishing that not once in that entire debate did anyone say anything about baptism standing in the place of circumcision. If baptism is the simple replacement of circumcision as a sign of the new covenant, and thus valid for children as well as for adults, as circumcision was, surely this would have been the time to develop the argument and so show that circumcision was no longer necessary. But it is not even mentioned.
- The implications of βαπτίζω does not lend itself to infants. The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (baptô) into boiling water and then 'baptized' (baptizô) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptizing the vegetable, produces a permanent change through the infusion, or engrafting, if you will, of vinegar. This does not imply that baptism is salvific, but gives the understanding that physical acts cannot be divorced from spiritual implications. In the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper, the scriptures warn us not to eat it unprepared, else we eat and drink wrath upon ourselves. If the emblems were simple reminders, with no spiritual implications, this kind of a warning would be excessive. Baptism, in like manner, has spiritual implications to the physical act. Romans 6:3 says, “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ have been baptized into His death?” And in Galatians 3:27, “7For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” These verses illustrate the association with Christ a believer enjoys when they are truly baptized (infused, engrafted) in Christ. Again, the plunging into water is as important as circumcision was, but it goes even deeper, and requires a lifetime commitment of slavery to Christ that can only be wrought from an effectual move of God in the life of a believer. Christ gave the Church two physical ordinances that give us a sign of our spiritual unity with Christ: Lord’s Supper and Baptism. Since we are then associated with the death burial and resurrection of Christ, His victory over sin and death becomes our victory over sin and death.
- God calls his covenant people in a different way than in the Old Testament. Romans 4:11 teaches that circumcision was the sign and seal of the faith of Abraham, and then it was commanded to be extended to infants eight days old. This seems to be a great argument for infant baptism. But an examination of Romans 9:22-28 give us clarification as to how that relates to the New Covenant: “But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "through Isaac your descendants will be named." That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.” So, even those who were circumcised on the eighth day were not necessarily partakers in effectual grace. It was those whose hearts were changed by faith that were saved. God’s spiritual Israel are now children of Abraham, and are sent by Christ to baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and teach (impossible to do with an eight day old) everything He commands.
To summarize
- The Covenant of Abraham was a sign and seal of his faith.
- God made a picture out of Israel in the giving of the law, and the covenant of circumcision.
- Christ came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it.
- The fulfillment of the Old Covenant was to have the law of God written on the hearts of men in the New Covenant.
- The ordinance of Baptism and Communion were given as signs of a greater spiritual reality in Christ.
- Baptism, then, is an outward act, which is done in obedience, by faith and which symbolizes the association of the believer in the burial and resurrection of Christ.
- Having been buried with Christ, the believer is raised to walk in new life.
- These greater spiritual meanings cannot be fulfilled by infants and therefore must be understood in the context of effectually called men and women.
July 26, 2011 10:29 AM
Not sure if you have listened to the CD series that Bill Einwechter did called The Great Debate over Baptism and the Covenant (http://www.visionforum.com/browse/product/great-debate-over-baptism-and-the-covenant/?search=baptism&sortby=0)but it is very good.