Infant Baptism Split

Infant Baptism The Biblical Case for Baptizing Infants and Young Children

Rev. Nate Atwood

Baptism

All rights reserved. No portion of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or any other—except for brief quotations in printed reviews, without the prior written permission of the publisher.

Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION ®. NIV ®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by the International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Bible Publishers. All rights reserved.

Nate Atwood is the pastor of St. Giles Presbyterian Church, Charlotte, NC. To learn more, go to www.stgilesepc.org

Foreword

When I was a new Christian I believed that only someone who had come to personal faith in Christ should be baptized. That was the practice of the church that led me to Christ and so Infant Baptism seemed to me just a church tradition that had little to do with the Bible. However, as I began to earnestly study the Bible for myself I was surprised to learn that a strong case could be made for baptizing infants and very young children. Maybe you’re like I was and you’re trying to figure out this baptism business. Perhaps you have children or grandchildren and you are sincerely asking the question as to whether or not baptizing infants is Biblical or not. Perhaps you’ve already baptized your children when they were infants but you’re not sure of the Scriptural basis for having done so. Or, perhaps, you’re a part of St. Giles and you wonder why we baptize infants and whether we do so simply because of “church tradition” or because of Scriptural conviction. This booklet makes the case that a fully Biblical view of baptism embraces infant baptism (or “covenantal” baptism), as well as believer’s baptism. It’s important to understand that at St. Giles, we do nothing out of mere “church tradition” but rather seek to conform our lives to the pattern and teaching of Scripture. This comes from our deeply held conviction that at the very foundation of our faith is the principle of “Scripture alone” (or, sola Scriptura). It’s also important to say that while we joyfully baptize infants because of our Scriptural convictions, at the same time we affirm the right of conscience and recognize that not all Christians believe as we do. Within St. Giles, sincere and devoted believers have chosen a different path for their children and we seek to diligently support all Christian parents whose heart’s desire is to raise their children in “the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Ephesians 6). One more thing. While certainly not a long read this is more of a booklet than a pamphlet. Because baptism is “the sign of the covenant,” a real conversation about baptism means that we’ll step still more deeply into the amazing “covenant of grace” we have in Christ. When the early Protestants were defending their new statement of faith to the governing powers they began by saying, “But since this controversy deals with the most important topic of Christian teaching … we ask His Imperial Majesty to kindly hear us out on this matter.” In other words, some subjects are weighty enough that they require more than a five-minute conversation. If you’ll take the time to thoughtfully read through what follows I

4 believe you’ll not only grow in your understanding of baptism, your grasp on the covenant of grace which baptism represents may well become still deeper.

Rev. Nate Atwood

INFANT BAPTISM

Topline Summary

In this booklet you’ll learn the following:

Ø There is meaningful Scriptural support for those who support Believer’s Baptism only, as well as for those who support both Believer’s Baptism and Infant Baptism. Both positions are considered to be in the mainstream of Protestant Christianity. Ø Both Infant Baptism and Believer’s Baptism have been abused at differing points in church history. We should make our decisions based on Scriptural doctrine, not on errant church practice. Ø St. Giles’ position on Infant Baptism is significantly different than Catholic doctrine and practice. Ø Unlike the doctrine of Believer’s Baptism only (what’s known as the “Anabaptist” position) which draws its Scriptural support from just the New Testament, the doctrine of Infant Baptism draws its support

6 from both the New and Old Testaments. As we will see, including the Old Testament considerably changes the conversation. Ø While the constitutional doctrine of St. Giles is Reformed and Presbyterian and therefore includes the practice of infant baptism, we allow for personal liberty of conscience in this matter. Ø A copy of the Westminster Confession of Faith’s chapter on baptism is at the back of this booklet. This is the doctrinal position of St. Giles and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church.

The Power of Family

When I first came to faith in Jesus Christ I was baptized. Having grown up in a secular home, my faith in Christ began when I was 20 years old. Prior to then, I had never even heard the Name of Jesus Christ in any meaningful way. I suspect every Bible believing Christian would agree that my baptism was appropriate. I was born again through faith in Christ and so I was baptized. Easy peasy. Yet, while all Biblically faithful Christians affirm “believer’s baptism” such as I experienced as a young man, not all agree that infants or very young children should be baptized. Should an infant be baptized or not? That’s the “hot” question which this booklet is meant to address. How can Christians who hold a high view of Scripture take such differing positions on this question? I want to begin by setting some terminology. While baptism for those who have come to personal faith in Christ is known as “believer’s baptism,” the practice of baptizing infants or young children is known as “infant baptism” or “covenantal baptism.” The proper term for “infant” “Covenantal” baptism is a preferable baptism is actually “covenantal” term for two reasons. First of all, this baptism. This is the term that I will entire understanding of baptism is be using. built around the conviction that young children born to believers are “in the covenant” until such time as they are able to make their own decision for Christ. More about that shortly. Secondly, those who baptize infants also baptize young children and so the term “infant” baptism is not entirely accurate. From this point on I’ll use the term “covenantal baptism” rather than “infant baptism.” Let me set you at ease. Covenantal baptism is not an essential of the faith. Yes, we at St. Giles practice covenantal baptism and you may have been in a service wherein we have done so. My goal, in the next few pages is to help you understand the Biblical reasoning behind covenantal baptism. If, however, after reading this you still end up holding a different set of convictions, that’s okay. Well-meaning Christians have disagreed about this for centuries. Furthermore, if at an earlier season in your life you dedicated your children and are now beginning to wonder if you did the right thing, that’s okay too. You 7 can be sure that God saw your heart – as He does now. You intended to ask God into your family and committed to Him to raise your children in the Lord. There’s much there to celebrate in what you’ve done though I would add that if you want to re-think this I’d love to spend some time with you. Remember, we can always share a cup of coffee, pray together, and study the Scriptures. I love being with the people of St. Giles.

The Case for Believer’s Baptism Alone

Historically, the “Believer’s Baptism”-only position is known as the “Anabaptist” doctrine. The appeal of this classic “Baptist” position is its simplicity. Given that baptism is largely a New Testament practice, Baptists (or, “Anabaptists”) and those who support them build their theology solely out of the New Testament. In addition to Romans 6, there are numerous passages they point to which connect baptism to being born again including Acts 8:12, 9:18, 16:15, 19:5 and 1 Peter 3:21. Jesus himself was baptized (Matthew 3:13-16) as an adult, modeling for us the essence of the baptism’s expression. Perhaps the prototypical Baptist passage would be Acts 8, wherein the Ethiopian eunuch is baptized immediately upon trusting Christ his savior: Acts 8:35-38 Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus. As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?” And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.

8 Additionally, those who hold this belief rightly point out that there is no clear record of an infant or young child being baptized in the New Testament. Yes, there are records of entire households being baptized after the father comes to Christ (Acts 10, Acts 16), but the The Baptist – or “anabaptist” - Bible does not specifically state that the children of those households position is beautiful in its simplicity. were baptized apart from personal Baptists point out that baptism is repentance and faith in Christ. almost exclusively a New Testament I get it. I like the directness of the practice and so we should build our Baptist position. I too am committed understanding of it out of the New to the belief that we should be careful to never go beyond Scripture. I also Testament alone. They rightly point fully understand how brothers and out that the New Testament links sisters in Christ point out that infant baptism to personal salvation and baptism can easily be (mis)interpreted to suggest that a that the New Testament lacks any person is saved because they are clear-cut record of an infant or young baptized, rather than the other way child being baptized. around. I most especially affirm the Baptist criticism of the Catholic belief in “baptismal regeneration,” or the belief that it’s the actual act of baptism that causes a person to be regenerated and thus born again. The Protestant in me immediately rises up against such a practice as either mere formalism and thus empty ritual or lodging the power of the sacraments in mere “act of the Church” rather than personal faith. While meaning no disrespect, I could never be a Catholic. Like I said, I was essentially a Baptist for a number of years. I both love and respect my Baptist brothers and sisters. And, it’s important to understand that Reformed and Presbyterian people such as myself fully affirm and practice believer’s baptism. The question is not whether we baptize adults who were not baptized as infants and who have subsequently come to personal faith in Christ. All Bible believing Christians affirm this practice. The question is whether or not the Bible teaches us to baptize the infants or young children of believing parents.

Biblical Foundations for Covenantal Baptism

9 If the strength of the “believer’s baptism only” position is its simplicity, you might also say that it’s this same principle of simplicity which is its weakness. You may have noticed that from the Scripture references above – ones commonly cited by those who hold to believer’s baptism alone – there is not a single I had become unsettled with regard to Old Testament reference. This should immediately catch our eye. baptism. I had friends on both sides Doesn’t it make sense that in building of this issue whose Biblical integrity I Biblical doctrine one of our basic respected. How could sincere, cornerstones must be to look to the whole of Scripture, both New intelligent, and Biblically faithful Testament and Old? believers come to such different As a seminary student I had conclusions on something as basic as become unsettled with regard to baptism? The issue, I came to see, baptism. I had friends on both sides was the Old Testament and what of this issue whose Biblical integrity I respected. I wondered, how could part it should play. sincere, intelligent, and Biblically faithful believers come to such different conclusions on something as basic as baptism? The issue, I came to see, was the Old Testament and what part it should play. Let me tell you my story. One day, as I was devotionally reading the letter to the Colossians, I was arrested by what I saw in Colossians 2:11-12... Colossians 2:11-12 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. For the first time I saw a direct link between the Old and New Testaments on this subject of baptism. Did you see it in the verses above? “…by the circumcision of Christ, buried with him in baptism, …” I bet that somewhere along the line you walked into a movie a bit late, only to learn from your friends that the first ten minutes set the entire direction of the story. As the movie unfolds you always have the sense that there is some vital piece of information that you’re missing. Without fully realizing it, this is where I was with regard to baptism. I was missing a vital link. You’re probably aware that all that we believe has its roots in the Old Testament as well as its fulfillment in the New. The doctrine of Christ, The Atonement, The Trinity, and the doctrine of Scripture itself are thoroughly grounded in the Old Testament, as are all the major doctrines of our faith. The bottom line is that to fully understand Scripture and its message we must read Moses as well as Jesus, Abraham, and the prophets as well as the apostles. Paul the Apostle declared to the Ephesian elders that he had been faithful to declare to them “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). Indeed, how can we possibly 10 hope to lay hold of the “whole counsel of God” without laying hold of the whole of the Bible?1 Colossians 2:11-12 and its clear connection between baptism and circumcision, the New Testament and the Old, opened up an entirely new horizon for me. I now realized that I had missed the first part of the movie. Considering these things, I saw a very simple truth... in leaving out the Old Testament I had been leaving out almost 2/3’s of the Bible. No wonder my Presbyterian and Reformed friends were gently suggesting to me that I had yet to get a still larger picture. “Baptism is the new circumcision.” In essence this is the truth that impacted me out of Colossians 2:11-12. Therefore, much like building a house, to fully understand baptism I needed to start with what Scripture itself established as its Old Testament foundation... circumcision. My task was now clear. It was time to rewind the tapes and watch the first part of the movie. Before I could fully grasp baptism, I had to completely get my head around circumcision. I voraciously dove into the Old Testament.

Circumcision

The Old Testament introduces circumcision to us as God was speaking with Abraham, sometime after he had been justified by faith in God’s promise. Genesis 15 records a crucial moment in Abraham’s life, when he was wondering what would happen to him and his posterity, God gave him a great promise of a future son, land, and great generational influence. The promised land would be Israel, and the promised son would be Isaac. The Bible makes it clear that Isaac’s greatest significance was that he foreshadowed the ultimate promised son, Christ Himself. Surrounding this exchange was a covenant ceremony in which God sealed His promise to Abraham by virtue of a blood sacrifice. What’s crucial to see, and what Paul uncovered in Romans 4 as he wrote about Abraham and true faith, is that Genesis 15 was simply an Old Testament “shadow” in which we find Christ himself, the promised Son and the blood sacrifice.2 (You can read about this in depth in the letter to the Hebrews, most especially Hebrews 9:20, 10:16, 13:20). Abraham was just as saved as we are. Having trusted God’s promise which was sworn by blood in Genesis 15, God then gives Abraham a sign of blood covenant to be carried in his own body in Genesis 17. That sign, of course, was circumcision. The connection between the blood of the animal sacrifice and the blood shed by Abraham’s body by

1 One of the important contributions of the Presbyterian and Reformed faith is a strong commitment to the Old Testament. Unlike “New Testament” churches which de- emphasize the Old Testament, Biblically committed Presbyterians view the Old Testament as Jesus and Paul did... as fully the Word of God. 2 A helpful analogy is that of the caterpillar and the butterfly. Abraham had the caterpillar of salvation (its “early form”) and we have the butterfly of faith (its “completion”)... though different in form they are the same in essence. Though he did not know the name “Jesus,” Abraham put his faith in a promised Son and the blood covenant of grace. 11 circumcision is crucial to grasp. Atonement was at the very heart of what transpired. With Abraham’s saving faith in mind, let’s do as we did with Colossians 2:11-12 and read Genesis 17:10-12 carefully: Genesis 17:10-12 And God said to Abraham, “As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Do you see that in the verses above, two kinds of people were supposed to be circumcised... infant boys and adult men? The infant boy part is obvious... “He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised.” But notice the adult man part... “and you shall be circumcised.” This is a fascinating, and truly significant, chain of events. On the one hand the New Testament unmistakably tells us that baptism has its roots in circumcision. And, notice that here in the Old Testament, circumcision is to be applied not only to adults who put their faith in the blood covenant, but also to their children. This is the beginning of the Reformed and Presbyterian understanding of covenantal baptism. At the very least, a significant question has been raised. If the Old Testament sign of the covenant was to be applied, by direct command of God, to the children of Old Testament saints, then why would we not do the same with the children of New Testament saints? Indeed, couldn’t we describe Abraham’s post- conversion circumcision as a kind of “believer’s circumcision,” and therefore Isaac’s circumcision a kind of “infant or covenantal circumcision”? The pattern is obvious, if there was believer’s and infant/covenantal circumcision in the Old

12 Testament, why would we not expect believers and infant/covenantal baptism in the New? Let’s run the clock forward and make this a New Testament discussion. Had Abraham lived 2,000 years later, after Christ came, and had he trusted not the seed of the Gospel as he did in Genesis 15, but the Gospel itself, The Bible makes it clear that what would we have done? Abraham was just as saved as we Obviously, we would have baptized him. Now, let us assume, that are. Having put his faith in the Abraham the New Testament blood covenant of grace in Genesis believer was fully aware of Abraham 15, Abraham was then given a sign the Old Testament saint. What do you think his first instinct would have to picture that covenant of grace in been, having been baptized himself? Genesis 17 – circumcision. Thus, As a Jew who had come to faith in Abraham believed in the “shadow” Christ, with roots in the Old of Christ’s atoning death and was Testament and with keen awareness of Genesis 17, wouldn’t it only be given the sign of circumcision. We logical to Abraham to proceed believe in the fulfillment of that directly to the baptism of his children? “shadow,” Christ Himself, and so (Let’s assume Abraham read what Paul had to say in Colossians 2:11-12, have been given the subsequent sign linking baptism and circumcision.) of baptism. What is crucial to grasp And, even more to the point, is this is that atonement – the blood not exactly how the apostles – who were all Jews – would have covenant of grace – is at the heart of instinctually understood baptism and both. These two signs, one a shadow its application? Steeped in the Old and the other a fulfillment, are two Testament, and seeing the linkage between circumcision and baptism, different ways of picturing the same would not they baptize infants and covenant. young children as certainly as they would have circumcised baby boys? If we can shed our 21st century Gentile way of looking at things, I think it highly likely that we conclude that applying the sign of the covenant to the children of believers would have their instinct.3

Household Baptisms Having returned to the Old Testament and begun to build our theology of baptism on a more complete foundation, this gives us entirely new perspective on

3 This issue of perspective is terribly important. If we’re honest, each of us comes to our faith with certain biases and experiences. The task of the committed student of the Bible is to shed our own assumptions and to take the Bible simply on its own terms. Without question, the first century Jew who had come to faith in Christ would not approach the Bible in precisely the same way we do. Our goal is to become “ancient people” and to understand the Bible in the setting in which it was written. 13 the household baptisms recorded in the New Testament. Let’s take a look at one of them, the conversion of the Philippian jailor:

Acts 16:30-33 Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. One way of looking at this passage is that there is no direct evidence of babies being present, much less baptized. The point is a fair one and certainly logical... if one were to leave circumcision and the Old Testament out of the On the one hand the New Testament conversation. Another way of looking at Acts 16 is with the direct unmistakably tells us that baptism link between baptism and has its roots in circumcision circumcision very much in mind. (Colossians 2:11-12). And, notice Doing so, it’s clear that the “household” baptism of Acts 16 that in the Old Testament, precisely mirrors what God told circumcision is to be applied not only Abraham. Remember, not only was to adults who put their faith in the he to be circumcised, and his sons... but also his entire male household blood covenant, but also to their (Genesis 17:10-13). What I can tell children (Genesis 17). This is the you with complete confidence is beginning of the Reformed and this... as Gentiles we come to the Presbyterian understanding of conversation with a fairly weak understanding of circumcision. covenantal baptism. At its very What I can also tell you is that from inception, the sign of the blood a Jewish perspective – and the covenant of grace was to be applied apostles were all Jews – “the sign of the covenant” would be applied not both to believers and their children. only to those who had put their faith in the blood covenant of grace (in other words, in Christ) but also to their entire household. I do think that if all we had to go on was the household baptism of Acts 16 and the Philippian jailor we could legitimately write the story off as unclear or as

14 some kind of exception. Yet, there are other household baptisms in the New Testament: • “I also baptized the household of Stephanas” (1 Corinthians 1:16). • “When she (Lydia) and the members of her household were baptized” (Acts 16:15). • Acts 10 (the household of Cornelius) and Acts 18 (the household of Crispus) are also possible household baptism, though they are less clear cut. What can we say with confidence? First of all, the New Testament clearly links baptism and circumcision. Secondly, we should always endeavor to build our doctrine out of the whole of the Bible. Thirdly, there are three clear cut cases of household baptism in the New Testament, and perhaps two more. Really, this comes down to which pair of “glasses” you wear. If you view baptism only through the lens of the New Testament, you will invariably conclude that baptism is for believers only and that only those who choose Christ in these various households were baptized. If, however, you view baptism through both the Old and New Testaments, then you will invariably conclude that both believers and their children should be baptized. It’s that simple. My own story – and perhaps yours - mirrors the Abrahamic model in that I grew up apart from faith and when I was a young adult came to faith in Christ. I had my own Genesis 15:6 moment wherein I “believed God” and I too was “counted as righteous” in God’s sight. Not long after, I was baptized. Just as you might call Abraham’s experience Really this comes down to which of the sign of the covenant, pair of “glasses” you wear. If you “believer’s circumcision,” so my view baptism only through the lens experience of the sign of the of the New Testament, you will invariably conclude that baptism is covenant was “believer’s baptism.” for believer’s only and that only And, when the time came for Helen those who chose Christ in these and myself to consider baptism in our various households were baptized. If, own family – and when you have however, you view baptism through seven kids you think about this a lot! both the Old and New Testaments, – we practiced “covenantal baptism” in the life of our kids just as Abraham then you will invariably conclude practiced “covenantal circumcision” that both believer’s and their in the life of Isaac. children should be baptized. It’s that simple. I know that this immediately raises still more questions. Circumcision was applied only to baby boys in the Old Testament, how does that impact this discussion? If we are to baptize children, and yet if they clearly are incapable of choosing Christ, what exactly does baptism mean in their instance? If we baptize them as infants, should we baptize them again when they (hopefully) trust Christ as their Savior? Does covenantal baptism insure salvation? Is this different than the Catholic position of “baptismal regeneration”? (It is.) We’ll talk about all of that, as well as other questions, in just a bit. I get that for some of you this is an entirely new framework for 15 considering baptism. Yet, is this not precisely what many of us had to come to terms with when we first experienced the outpouring of the gifts of the Spirit on our lives? Many of us had been taught differently and believed that the gifts had passed away. We believed that this is what the Bible taught. But, as we took a fresh approach to the Scriptures we saw that the gifts were active in both the Old Testament and the New, and that the accepted belief that the gifts had ceased, missed some key components of the Bible. Aren’t we all on a lifelong journey to study and learn the Scriptures? Isn’t it a good thing to be willing to rethink what we believe as our grasp of Scripture grows still more throughout our lives? After all, my understanding of a wide variety of Biblical Truths is now much deeper given my decades of devotedly studying the Bible. I bet the same is true for you. There was also a deeply personal component to all of this theology. I began to realize that as much as my conversion and subsequent baptism were Scriptural and real, I could unwittingly be guilty of assuming that my baptism story would have to be my children’s story. After all, I had grown up and been converted... and then baptized. But could I really assume that it would be the same for my children? It wasn’t for Abraham and Isaac. Abraham, like me, was converted as an adult and then circumcised. Isaac was circumcised as a child and then later converted. Maybe there was more than one story, more than one path regarding baptism. Maybe I still had more studying of the Scriptures – and more thinking – yet to do.

So, Do Babies go to Heaven?

Years ago, I conducted the funeral of a three-month old child. A twin, born with several birth defects, I remember the profound grief we all felt. I can still see the mother’s face at the graveside and the pain etched into her expression. The only comfort we had was our absolute conviction that the little boy’s spirit was in Paradise with Jesus. When Helen miscarried and we, like so many believing parents, lost a child we too were assured that we would see our baby in heaven. Do you believe the same thing? Do you believe that babies, or young children, born to Christian parents, go to heaven if they die? I know of no What does it mean to put “the sign Christian denomination which teaches anything different than this. of the covenant” on a little baby? Sure, as kids age and enter into the The answer is simple. It means that mysterious “age of accountability” we are publicly recognizing that if they become responsible for their own decisions with regard to Christ. But, this child dies he or she goes to for the vast majority of us it’s simply a heaven.

16 settled truth that the babies or young children of believers, should they die, go to heaven. This is an eye-catching affirmation of belief. In the footnote below4 I’ve given a brief description of the Biblical basis for believing that little ones born to believers go to heaven, but for the moment I want you to think this through... and what it means. Let’s begin by stating clearly that little children do not go to heaven because they are sinless. The doctrine of original sin makes it absolutely clear that the entirety of mankind – young and old, man and woman, black and white – are entirely bound up in The Fall. As the Bible succinctly tells us, “As in Adam, all die” (1 Corinthians 15:22). Because of this, Biblically faithful Christians know that little children go to heaven only because of the atoning death of Christ on their behalf. Does this mean that all babies go to heaven? All I can say is that in 1 Corinthians 7 (see footnote #4), the Bible makes it clear that it is the faith of the parent that establishes a baby’s place “in the covenant.” I’d like for you to consider two things. First of all, let’s make sure we understand what we mean by the “blood covenant of grace.” The “blood covenant of grace” is a “covenant” because God promised it, it’s a “blood” covenant because Christ died to put it into effect, and it is “grace” because it’s only God’s grace that would ever do such a thing. This is what both circumcision and baptism signify. Secondly, in Genesis 17:11 we are introduced to the phrase

4While a complete discussion of the children and heaven is outside the subject in this booklet, let’s take a moment and be sure of our facts. The near universal Christian conviction about the children of believers going to heaven has Scriptural support. For example, when King David was grieving the death of his young son, he declared to those around him, “But now he is dead. Why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.” (2 Samuel 12:23) The Bible gives us further insight in 1 Corinthians 7:14. While speaking to marriage between a believer and a non-believer, Paul the Apostle writes:

14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. The word “unclean” is Old Testament language referring to worship in the Temple. To come before God’s Presence, one must be “made clean” by blood sacrifice. The implication here is clear, the children of a believing parent are “made clean” by virtue of their parent’s faith and therefore are accepted by God. Historically, both Baptists and Presbyterians have understood these passages, when taken in with other passages such as Jesus welcoming the little children to himself (Luke 18:15-16), to assure Christians that our children go to heaven should they die at an early age. God does accept them, not because they are sinless – the doctrine of original sin prevents this. Rather, our children are “made clean” until such time as they are able to make their own choices. Unlike what some seem to believe, children are not innocent or sinless. They need the atoning death of Christ as certainly as we do.

17 “sign of the covenant.” By this, the Bible means to tell us that circumcision was the “sign” of the blood covenant of grace. As I said earlier, the blood Abraham shed in circumcision was a sign of the blood of the sacrifice in Genesis 17. Those who hold the conviction of No doubt, it was memorable stuff for Abraham... and intensely “covenantal” baptism often begin by meaningful. asking a significant question. “If we Now let’s return to the link believe that infants and young between circumcision and baptism. children born to believers who die go Both of them mean the same thing... to heaven,” they ask, “aren’t we the blood covenant of grace. And both of them are the sign of the same saying that we believe that our babies thing... circumcision in the Old and and young children are ‘in the baptism in the New. This is where we covenant’? And, if we believe that find the answer to a question which has troubled many a believer who has they are ‘in the covenant’, then why sought to understand covenantal wouldn’t we place ‘the sign of the baptism. If in the case of an infant or covenant’ on them?” young child, baptism does not mean having decided to trust Christ, what then does it mean? What does it mean to put “the sign of the covenant” on a little baby? The answer is simple. It means that we are publicly recognizing that if this child dies he or she goes to heaven. We are placing the sign of the covenant upon them for a very simple reason... we already believe they are in the covenant. And... if they are in the covenant... why would we not put the sign of the covenant upon them? Unmistakably this is what God was saying to Abraham in Genesis 17. By telling him to put the same sign of the blood covenant of grace upon his The entire controversy surrounding baby boy Isaac, he was telling baptism comes down to a very basic Abraham that Isaac was in the same covenant. Sure, he would grow up. question, “What does baptism He would have to decide for himself. mean?” Baptist doctrine states that But until then, his baby boy was in baptized means to have decided to the covenant. As Helen and I pressed deeper into the question of baptism trust Christ. Reformed and and children, we saw that by Presbyterian doctrine, while affirming sacramental act we could place the believer’s baptism, believe that at its sign of the blood covenant of grace, accomplished by Christ Himself, core that baptism is about something upon our children and so formally still larger. At its deepest Scriptural declare each of them to be a “child of level, Reformed and Presbyterian the covenant.” For Helen and myself, we wondered how we could doctrine states that baptism is “the do any less. sign of the covenant.”

This is why I baptized baby Elijah minutes after his birth. We had no idea how long we would have. Would it be hours? Days? It turned out to be three months. What we wanted to do was to place upon him the sign of that which we intensely believed to be true. Elijah was no mere child. He was a “child of the covenant.” Born to believing parents 18 and on the basis of Colossians 2:11-12, Genesis 17, 1 Corinthians 7, and Acts 16 (as well as many other Scriptures), we baptized Elijah. We didn’t baptize in order that he might go to heaven. We didn’t baptize him with the belief that somehow the water itself regenerated him or that he was even remotely capable of a decision for Christ. We baptized him because we believed that the blood covenant of grace, by God’s grace, extended to him in his infancy. We baptized him because we believed that, if and when he died, he would go to heaven. We baptized him in a covenant ceremony, involving vows because we saw that God had clearly already made a covenant with little Elijah and if God had made a covenant with him then it was only right for his parents to covenant with God in return to raise him in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Ephesians 6:1- 4) until the Lord took him home. We baptized him because we believed God gave us both the privilege – and the calling – to do just this. We baptized him because we were making a statement to the church and to the world that God is faithful to little children. We baptized him to further reveal the grace, goodness, and glory of God. And, we baptized him because we believed that it would be a loss to all not to do so.5

What Does Baptism Mean?

If you’ve only been exposed to the practice or teaching surrounding and supporting believer’s baptism, perhaps now you’re starting to see If baptism, at its Scriptural core, is things from a new vantage point and “the sign of the covenant,” then it asking some follow up questions. We’ll ask and answer some of those should be applied to all who are in questions shortly but here’s a great that covenant. Scripturally, both opportunity to make an important believers and their children are in the point: the whole disagreement about baptism comes down to this essential blood covenant of grace. question, “What does baptism mean?” Baptists say it means a personal decision for Christ and so they understandably ask, “How can you baptize infants?” People like me think baptism means something slightly different. We think the Bible unambiguously teaches us that baptism – because it is rooted in circumcision - is “the sign of the covenant.” If baptism means only a personal decision for Christ then, by all means, only those who trusted Christ as their Savior should be baptized. If, however, at its very core baptism is “the sign of the blood covenant of grace” then it should be applied to

5 With great interest I noted that those in our church who did not believe in infant baptism instinctually agreed that it was important to baptize baby Elijah and were glad I honored my Presbyterian and Reformed ordination vows and did so. They were beginning to grasp the sign of the covenant and the deep value in clearly declaring those who were in the covenant of grace. Elijah was teaching us much. 19 all who are in that covenant. Scripturally, both believers and their children are in the covenant of grace. This is where the essence of the debate lies. What’s particularly tragic is to see people – on either side of the debate – question the Biblical integrity of their brothers and sisters in Christ while failing to grasp where the other person is coming from. In fact, to be really honest, there are many on both sides of this debate who neither fully understand their own beliefs nor the convictions of those who differ. And, to be still more honest, there are many attending churches that they love deeply but whose doctrine they do not fully understand. Hopefully, as you have been reading this booklet, your understanding of baptism has been growing.

A Few Reasonable Questions

Okay, I know some of you have headaches already. You’re saying, “What about, what about, what about...?” Friends, this debate has been going on for hundreds of years. It’s likely that no one could answer every question in one article. But, let’s try to take on at least a few of the most essential questions.

Isn’t There a Fundamental Reality We All Agree On? Absolutely! First of all, any Christian parent intends the same thing whether they baptize or dedicate. We are committing ourselves and our children to God for His help, His watch-care, and sincerely committing our families to Christ. It’s essential that we affirm and embrace one another even though we may have an honest disagreement on the proper understanding of Scripture. As far as the big picture is concerned, we all believe and desire the same things! Christian families who have practiced dedication have been a great support and blessing to our family despite our disagreement on this point of doctrine, and I hope that we have been the same to them. Love is essential to our life together – even more essential than these varying perspectives on baptism. Furthermore, I have no doubt that from the standpoint of the heart of God that He is pleased with a family that sincerely and in faith dedicates their children... and that He is troubled by a family that would baptize their children but do so only out of some vague sense of church ceremony and societal propriety. What I love about an honest and open exchange with my Baptist brothers and sisters is that all we do is talk about the Bible and what it means. While we may cite the particular doctrines of our respective churches, our exchange is carried out within Scriptural boundaries. We both seek to answer the question, “What does the Bible actually teach?” While we divide on the question of baptism, we are united on the infallibility of Scripture, the Person of Christ, the Atonement purchased on the Cross... in other words, we broadly agree on the vast majority of Christian doctrine. I love my brothers in Christ, and the whole of the Church that truly looks to Him for their salvation.

20 What about Hannah in the Old Testament? The Bible tells us that she dedicated Samuel to the Lord. Doesn’t that tell us that we should dedicate our children rather than baptize them? This is a very good question. You are right that in 1 Samuel 1 we read about Hannah “dedicating” Samuel and it is a wonderful story containing powerful truths. However, before Samuel was dedicated he was circumcised. And, while dedication was the posture of her heart, her practice would have been application of the sign of the covenant as they had been given... circumcision. Given that the sign of the covenant would have already been placed on Samuel, the question then becomes what dedication in this instance means. The answer, based on a simple and direct reading of 1 Samuel and the chapters that follow, is that Samuel was dedicated to the service of the Lord in a particular prophetic role. This was consecration to ministry, not a general commitment of a child to God. The act of general commitment, and the statement of God’s grace in Samuel’s young life based on the blood covenant, would have happened in circumcision. In fact, to be truly Scriptural, dedication of a child to the Lord in the Baptist sense of things is difficult to find in the Bible. You will look in vain for such a ceremony in the New Testament – there are no such ceremonies to be found - and circumcision is what you will find in the Old. This may be a bit of a jolt to you – it was to me when I first realized it. That said, I have become used to the Bible challenging me time and again. Now, let’s be clear about this. As I’ve said earlier, there is no question about the intent of the heart for parents who truly love the Lord and are committed to Scripture. For sincere Christians, those who have dedicated their children and those who have baptized them all intended the same thing. God sees the heart and responds accordingly.

What about the fact that there isn’t a single recorded infant baptism in the New Testament? That’s a great question... and one that I’ve largely addressed already. The “Reformed Presbyterian” answer is that while we don’t have any specific record of the baptism of an individual infant or younger child, we have the record of entire households being baptized. Again, it comes down to whether or not one makes the link between baptism and circumcision, between the New Testament and the Old, between Paul and Abraham. If those links are Scripturally sound, then we would not even expect to find a specific record of an infant being baptized. From a Jewish perspective – and the Apostles were all Jews – what we would expect to find is simply the record of both individual baptisms modeling Abraham’s “believer’s circumcision” and household baptisms modeling God’s direction to Abraham to extend the sign of the covenant to the next generation. In some ways it comes down to an honest recognition that we tend to read the New Testament with 21st century “Gentile” eyes, rather than with 1st century Jewish-Christian eyes. Once you put on those Jewish glasses the doctrine of

21 baptism begins to look very different and almost necessarily includes the next generation.

But Jesus was Baptized...

Yes, he was. But first Jesus was circumcised, and the Bible is faithful to record that event (Luke 2:22-38). The question to ask is, “How we are to understand this ‘double sign’ of the covenant in the life of Jesus – both circumcision and baptism?” As Messiah, Jesus was the fulfillment of that which was in the Old and the beginning of New. Those who argue for Believer’s Baptism see in Jesus’ baptism the institution of an entirely new sacrament. They look to the fact that this happened in His adulthood and on the basis of a decision on His part. Those who hold a Reformed and Presbyterian position point out that Jesus – literally in His own body! – connected circumcision and baptism. In fact, if you were looking for still more evidence to connect baptism with circumcision Jesus’ own body would be that proof!

The real question is what was the meaning of Jesus’ baptism? It could not be conversion for the Son of God was sinless and His life on earth was nothing but a continuation of the eternal covenant binding Father and Son together. Jesus wasn’t born again... He was and is The Life!

Was Jesus’ baptism merely an example to those who have made a decision to follow after Jesus? That seems right to many but here we have to ask another question. If baptism, at its foundation, is “the sign of the covenant” and therefore administered to the children of believers as well as converted adults, how can an infant make such a decision? This is a crucial question requiring a serious answer. One of the realities of Jesus’ baptism is that the sign of the covenant is changed in His body. No longer would it be circumcision but now it would be baptism. In a section below I talk about why circumcision passed away in more detail, but for the moment I want you to think about this moment of Christ’s arrival. He was no mere baby and this was no mere baptism. In this moment, as well as in Christ’s arrival, God was signaling the turning of the ages. The Old Testament had drawn to a close and this was the beginning of the New. To call attention to the gravity of Christ’s arrival God had already sent a virgin, angels, wise men, and the star. Prophecy after prophecy had already been fulfilled. All who were a part of Christ’s arrival knew that God was at work. John the Baptist had begun his ministry of proclamation and preparation. And now, in the baptism of Christ, God Himself makes one more gigantic statement. This “new” thing was so “new” that the sign of God’s covenant of grace itself 22 would be changed. Do you see it? The baptism of Jesus was about something infinitely larger than an example – though it was an example – as the new sign of the covenant people should be baptized. This was a statement by God that the times had changed, the age had turned, and that “all righteousness was now being fulfilled.” Unsurprisingly, Jesus’ baptism was about something much larger than human response. Jesus’ baptism was about God now changing how He would deal with mankind and thus the fulfillment of all that He had promised. Do you see it? Jesus’ baptism wasn’t ultimately about us. It was about God and His work in the world. An Announcement of epic proportion was being made, one that most especially would have grabbed the attention of the Jewish world.

Does St. Giles Believe in the Catholic doctrine of “Baptismal Regeneration”?

No. We do not. In fact, we utterly reject it, as do all Protestants. You might say that because we do not believe in mere ceremonial baptism, neither do we believe in “Baptismal Regeneration.” What is baptismal regeneration? It is the traditionally Catholic doctrine stating that God’s saving power is wrapped up in the sacraments. That is, when somebody is baptized they are born again regardless of their personal faith (or that of their parents) but simply because baptism itself “confers” regeneration (or, being made alive in Christ) upon the person. How is that possible you ask? Simply put, what’s behind baptismal regeneration is the belief that the sacrament of baptism itself contains the power to save. Thus, if a baby is baptized they are in fact “regenerated.” Protestants absolutely reject this. We believe we’re saved – or regenerated – by faith. Believer’s baptism is “real” only when the person being baptized has trusted Christ as their Savior and baptism merely confirms or represents what has already happened in their lives. When it comes to covenantal baptism, we are not stating a doctrine that children are somehow “regenerated” by the act of baptism. Rather, our doctrinal position is that babies or young children of believers are baptized just as 8-day- old boys were circumcised in the Old Testament as the “sign of the covenant.” In other words, covenantal baptism is decidedly not believer’s baptism and therefore does not represent regeneration. Rather, we believe that in both Old and New Testaments the sign of the covenant was applied to children as a visible sign of God’s magnificent love... that the children of believers are indeed “in the covenant” until they become responsible for their own spiritual choices. At that point, when our children trust Christ personally, they are regenerated. When and how does that happen? The answer is that it is different for every child. Of our seven children, some have simply grown into their faith and cannot remember a time when Christ was not real to them. Others had decisive personal encounters. Of those personal encounters, some happened when they were younger and with others a bit older. God works personally with each of them,

23 revealing Himself to them as He chooses and when He chooses. We praise God for the mystery of His work and His timing in that work.

What happens when my child is born again if they have already been baptized as an infant? ... to begin with we do not “All right, all right,” I hear you saying, rebaptize. To do so would suggest “You’re messing with my head. Maybe that their initial baptism was there is something to this covenantal baptism thing after all. But what happens somehow illegitimate. In fact, when they’re 8 years old (or whenever) rebaptism for adults or children and they trust Christ? What do we do opens up a host of questions which then? They’ve already been baptized! We don’t rebaptize them... or do we?” quickly begin to undermine some of the most basic tenants of our Great question. The answer is this: to begin with we do not rebaptize anyone faith. And, to cut to the chase, who has previously been baptized. To do just as there is no such thing as so would suggest that their initial baptism “re-circumcision,” the Bible has was somehow illegitimate. In fact, rebaptism for those who have trusted no record of rebaptism. We look Christ and been baptized at an earlier time in vain for a single Biblical in their lives opens up a host of questions account of re-baptism. which quickly begin to undermine some of the most basic tenants of our faith. If we do so we then suggest that it is possible to lose one’s salvation and yet Jesus said, “I will lose none of those that the Father has given me.” (John 6:39). While there will always be “tares among the wheat” (Matthew 13:24-30), at the center of the Reformed understanding of the Bible is that those who have been truly born again can never fully and finally turn away from Christ (Philippians 1:6; 2:13). Thank God that we are fully and finally in the grip of Christ. And, to cut to the chase, just as there is no such thing as “re- circumcision, the Bible has no record of re-baptism. I’d be more than happy to meet with you and talk about this in person if you’d so desire. Rebaptizing someone baptized as an infant is also filled with doctrinal problems. Let’s start with that which is most basic... baptism is the New Testament sign which takes the place of circumcision. Obviously, circumcision is a one-time event. Could you imagine Isaac being re-circumcised after he came to a personal commitment of faith to the God of his father Abraham? Weird. Confusing. Unnecessary. The reality in Isaac’s life was that his personal commitment of faith grew out of the fact that he was declared “a child of the covenant” from birth. Re-applying the sign of the covenant – circumcision in his case, baptism in the case of our children – would only muddy the water. This would be one of many reasons that Paul the Apostle declared in Ephesians 4 that there is only “one baptism.” Our need when they trust Christ personally is to clearly state – sacramentally – that our child has had a momentous moment in their life. In their case, it worked! Growing up in the covenant, they grew into the covenant. How would 24 we acknowledge such a moment without undermining the original sign of the covenant or confusing it? May I suggest that what we really need is another sign. This is the moment for First Communion. Let me explain. Communion is about fellowship or relationship (“common union”). We eat with our family members and friends. We eat with those we know and love. Thus, the Communion meal pictures those who have personal relationship with their Savior. They know Him—and they are able to enjoy personal relationship because of what is in the meal... the body and the blood of the Lord. In other words, we’re in fellowship with Jesus Christ because of what He did in the cross. When a baptized child trusts Christ, they’re now ready for the Communion Table. They are in fellowship with Jesus, and they have grasped the cross. The way this is supposed to work is that we keep our baptized children away from the Communion Table until they have been born again. Yes, they’re baptized. Yes, God is their God. Yes, God is always at work in their lives. Yes, we have the comfort and assurance of knowing that, as young children, they are “in the covenant” and all that comes with that. That said, the Communion Table is about personally knowing Jesus Christ through His work on the cross. Communion symbolizes a saving relationship. When our baptized child comes to the place where things spiritually “click” - they’ve been born again - then it’s time for First Communion. They’re now in fellowship with Jesus Christ, right? They’ve entered into the reality of what the Communion Table symbolizes, and thus they should come to the Table. After all, if you have the reality, you should partake of the symbol. When your child has personally trusted Christ, I recommend you find an elder or pastor and let them talk with you and your child—in order to confirm that your child has truly trusted Christ. Sometimes we parents can be a bit eager. Then when an elder or pastor has said, “Yes, I’ve listened with my own ears and heard faith in that voice. This child has become a Christian,” it’s time for First Communion. First Communion should be a big deal. Wear your special clothes to church that day, or perhaps buy your child a new outfit. Write your child a card or a letter. If she’s a girl, get her flowers. Have a special Sunday dinner afterwards. Take pictures. Make it memorable. Make it important. Build a family tradition. Tell us at the church so that on that day we can gather around your family and celebrate the moment. Invite friends. In other words, treat First Communion the way families who dedicate their children treat their child’s baptism day. Make it a day to remember. Kill the fatted calf!

Does covenantal baptism mean that my child is guaranteed to one day trust Christ at some point in their lives?

The short answer is, “No.” Scripture offers a clear picture as to the possibilities for a child on whom the sign of the covenant is placed. The Old Testament Kings - David, Ahab, and Manasseh - would all have been circumcised or placed in covenant as infants. Yet, over the course of their lives they took radically different directions. David grew up with a heart for God and never knew a day 25 when he didn’t love the Lord. Ahab grew up in the covenant but it’s clear that as a young man and adult he turned away from the Lord. Manasseh grew up distant from God and was a complete rebel yet when he was an adult he repented fully and turned to the Lord. Covenantal baptism is no guarantee of the future just as covenantal circumcision was not. Rather, covenantal circumcision was the recognition and beginning of a unique God-given status. Each of these Old Testament Kings experienced from childhood the immediacy of God in their lives because of the covenant. They were positioned for faith in ways that their pagan counterparts in foreign lands could never have known. But, despite the blessings and childhood protections they experienced and the lifelong pursuit of God in their lives, they still chose their own destinies. This is the tension which infant circumcision acknowledged in the Old Testament and which infant or covenantal baptism does in the New. Parents are given the wonderful and gracious opportunity to proclaim the covenant over their children and to celebrate God’s keeping grace in the power of even our littlest ones. And, parents can and should make covenant with God to raise their children in the Lord. Those covenants are potent and important. And yet, the ultimate choice of faith as a child grows is between him and the Lord.

If circumcision is so important, why did it pass away? Let’s begin by affirming how significant circumcision really was in relation to the blood covenant God established with Abraham. In Genesis 17:14 the Bible tells us, “Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.” Those who would dismiss circumcision as an insignificant detail obviously haven’t come to terms with the verse we just read. Failure to be circumcised meant loss of the covenant. Wow. This, of course, brings us to the question at hand. If circumcision was this important, why was it not continued into the New Testament era? There are two answers for this. First of all, the Incarnation, Atoning Death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ ushered in a fundamentally new era in God’s dealings with mankind. For all the continuity there is with the Old Testament, the arrival of Jesus still meant that history had shifted in a monumental sense. Therefore, in order to clearly declare the new thing He had done in Jesus Christ, God changed the sign of the covenant from circumcision to baptism. (Note my booklet on believer’s baptism which further unpacks both circumcision and baptism as “the sign and seal of the covenant.”) Secondly, the New Testament tells us that there is “neither male nor female in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). In other words, men and women stand equally before God in their own right. I don’t know if you’ve put two and two together on this or not but... boys are circumcised and girls are not. Given the reality that in Christ men and women stand equally before God, the sign of the covenant had to be something that men and women, boys and girls could participate in. That “something” is baptism. Here we can return again to the question of Jesus’ baptism and what it meant. In circumcising Jesus (Luke 2:22-38), the mark of that which would become baptism was placed upon Him as an 8-day-old boy. Jesus modeled what it was to 26 be a child growing up in a believing family... the sign of the covenant was placed on Him as an infant. And Jesus was baptized as an adult signifying the change of the eras and that circumcision was passing away with baptism as the replacement (Luke 2:21-40; Luke 3:21). Jesus himself, in His own body, models and marks that change of epochs in that he was both circumcised and baptized.

The Privilege and Power of Covenant Throughout the Bible God makes and keeps covenants. It is essential to His nature. The very act of covenantal baptism is yet another expression of this covenantal nature of God in that we, as God’s people, make covenant ourselves. When parents baptize a child, they step upon the high and holy ground of establishing a new and personal covenant. Think about what happens. Parents take vows, promising to raise the child in the Lord, and we ask God to be faithful to the parents and to the child. Scripturally speaking, whenever we make vows we establish a covenant. In the context of those vows we recognize that our child is “a child of the covenant” and is kept in the blood covenant of grace until such a time as they are accountable before God to make their own choices regarding faith in Christ. At the center of this is a deep reality... by this covenantal act we are asking God to be that child’s God. And, amazingly, God is willing for this to happen because if we know anything from Scripture we know this... God is a covenant making and a covenant keeping God. What happens? First of all, we have forever changed this child’s life. They may or may not respond to many proffers of grace that will come their way, but a child by oath consigned to God has a very different life. I saw this clearly in very personal terms. My parents loved me and gave me much in life that was good but ours was not a believing home. Thus, I know first-hand what it is to grow up outside of the covenant. The scary reality was that I could do whatever I wanted and get away with it. There were no covenantal boundaries such as we read in Leviticus 26 or Deuteronomy 28 wherein consequences would drive me back towards sobriety of thought and ultimately towards God Himself. By the absence of a covenant, I know in very personal terms the power of a covenant in a child’s life. I was truly and completely on my own. Conversely, I’ve heard adults who grew up in believing homes talk about the reality of some kind of a “bubble” around their lives that always seemed to protect them and direct them back towards God. Whether they were baptized or dedicated, their parents committed them and their home to God in such a way that there was always a Presence. God never seemed too far away and, in His grace, wrong-doing bought real consequences. The differing stories – my own without covenant as opposed to believing friends who grew up within covenant – impress upon me the reality that, when we make covenant with God on behalf of our kids, He takes it very seriously. Children consigned by oath to God live a very different life. The miracle is that God is always willing to be placed in such a relationship with children because He wants to be their God. In fact, if we learn anything from the Bible it is that God is a covenant-making, covenant keeping God. He wants to draw our children to Himself and He especially delights to work through 27 the faith and spiritual authority of believing parents. And, those of you who believe in prayer will instinctively understand this next statement... He desires to be God to our children, He’s just waiting to be asked. And, miracle of miracles, He is willing to delegate the authority to ask - to begin such a relationship - into the hands of those who gave the child life in the first place. When considered through this lens of covenant ceremony, the baptism of a child begins to make even more sense.

The Sign of the Covenant and the Covenant Community One of the consequential differences between my high school friends and me was that they grew up in Bible believing churches. As I’ve already indicated, that difference was huge. An essential part of the ongoing story of their lives was that, from birth, they were part of “the covenant community” of those who loved the Lord. What I could see – perhaps even more than they could – was that the impact of this was huge. When we baptize children and place on them the sign of the covenant we are doing even more than stating their position in the covenant of grace, we are also recognizing that they are in “the covenant community.” Sure. This isn’t the same thing as having personally trusted Christ but it is a statement of an essential difference... a grand privilege granted by grace. Circumcision said, among other things, that Isaac was different. He was like his dad... and like all others who bore the same mark. They were not just individuals, but a people who were distinctly different. (So different that a mark in their body was required to make the point.). Covenantal baptism – like covenantal circumcision – recognizes not only the covenant of grace individually in a child’s life but it also recognizes what we in America have grasped less and less... the power of being in a distinct community raised in a manner surrounded by the things of God and the people of God. Take it from someone who never experienced this as a child, this is no small thing.

Ceremonies Have Meaning I think to truly understand this we have to stop thinking like modern people. Here’s the way we 21st century people think: We don’t believe ceremonies amount to much. At most, we consider them as nice, polite acts formalizing a reality that is already in place. The Bible begs to differ. From the Biblical perspective, ceremonies conducted in the name of God and with sincere faith are moments when entirely new realities are created. In order to grasp this, you have to understand the power of words. An everyday example of this is at the end of the marriage ceremony when the preacher says, “I now pronounce you husband and wife.” Let me tell you something... the preacher’s not lying. It is at that point that the man and the woman become husband and wife. The marriage is not the relationship that existed before the couple walked the aisle. The marriage is not the marriage bed that will come later. It’s then... in that moment... when an entirely new spiritual reality is created... a marriage. God does a miracle. He joins the spirits of the

28 bride and groom as they say their vows, and they will spend the rest of their lives working out what God did in a moment. How does this happen? What “creates” this institution—this spiritual reality—of marriage in just a few moments spent on a platform? The answer is words—specifically, vows spoken with faith and in the Name of God. You see, people are created in God’s image. We’re like God in many ways (and in many ways we’re not), and God creates by speaking (“... let there be light and there was light”). We do the same thing. Words are in fact spiritual agents. The bride and groom create a household, a marriage, a family, a spiritual reality, and an institution just by speaking vows. This is the power of a covenant ceremony. Salvation works the same way. How are we born again? It’s by our words, for the Scriptures tell us, “If we confess with our lips... and believe in our hearts... we shall be saved” (Romans 10). Here, words said in faith create the ultimate reality... eternal life. When we speak in prayer, making a Christian confession for the first time as we ask Christ into our lives, we instantaneously become new creations. We are changed from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light—from the dominion of Satan to the dominion of God. Indeed, words said in faith and in agreement with God’s Word are astoundingly powerful and creative. Covenantal baptism is based upon this foundational truth. Notice the ingredients are the same as in a marriage ceremony. There is faith on the platform (covenantal baptism demands at least one believing parent or someone who has the place of parent in a child’s life). It involves words, vows... solemn promises made in the Name of God. As a result, a new reality is created in the covenant ceremony of infant baptism. Just like a bride and groom, who speak their marriage covenant into existence, parents invoke the power of vow and speak lifelong relationships between their children and God into existence. Forever, from that point on, God will be the child’s God. He will never abandon the child. He will bless their good deeds. He will chastise their disobedience. He will woo the child to Himself. Yes, in the final analysis, they will have to decide whether to accept this God as their own. They will have to decide whether or not to trust Christ as their Savior and so be saved. They may reject this God of mercy. Many circumcised children of Israel did that. They may accept Him. Many circumcised children of Israel did that as well. But the game is changed in those few moments when the Name of God is invoked. They are no longer like other children on the street – left to their own devices and cast adrift into the sea of mere chance. God has now become “their God” and He will pursue them faithfully and even relentlessly.

Okay, Okay... But Is Covenantal Baptism Our Only Choice? Some of you may still be at the place of, “I’m still not convinced.” Your conscience nags at you, still suggesting that baptism is not for infants. Yet, you still desire to set your child apart for God. Your conviction is that you do this through dedication. Do we dedicate children here at St. Giles? We are a Presbyterian Church and therefore our twig is bent in the direction of covenantal baptism when it comes to children. And yet, it is always appropriate to pray over our children and their 29 parents. While my conviction is covenantal baptism, I am always happy to recognize the birth of any child and the desire of parents to commit both themselves and their children to the Lord. I would be happy to meet with you and plan a time during a Sunday morning worship service wherein we might all rejoice at the gift of your new child and pray over both that child and you as parents. Of course, we want to commit every child and every parent to the Lord. Regardless of personal convictions, the birth of your child is an enormous moment for you, your family, and our church as a whole. It is important that we set these moments, your child, and your household apart unto the Lord. I understand that people differ on this matter, and the conviction of many of our young parents is to baptize as infants. For some it’s to baptize children when they’re born again. There is liberty in this, and we respect your conscience. We know you love your children and seek to set them apart for God. We support every Christian family.

What’s the history of the Church regarding Covenantal Baptism?

Viewed from the standpoint of the centuries, covenantal baptism is the historic Christian practice! In his book Outlines of Theology, the great theologian A. A. Hodge sums it up like this: "The practice of infant baptism is an institution which exists as a fact, and prevails throughout the universal church, with the exception of the modern Baptists, whose origin can be definitely traced to the anabaptists of Germany, about A.D. 1537...." As proof of his statement Hodge cites Irenaeus (who was born before the death of the apostle John), Justin Martyr (138 A.D.), Tertullian (born 160 A.D.), Cyprian (253 A.D.), and Augustine (born 354 A.D.). Hodge concludes: "...infant baptism has prevailed (a) from the apostolic age, (b) in all sections of the ancient church, (c) uninterruptedly to the present time, (d) in every one of the great historical churches of the Reformation, while its impugners date since the Reformation." Now this is interesting and worthy of note, still the basis for our practice is neither church history or tradition but in our understanding of Scripture itself.

What if we dedicated our children but are rethinking things?

Let me say this to those who are beginning to think differently about infant baptism and you’ve already dedicated your children—maybe they’re even taking communion and you’re tempted to feel like you’ve missed the boat. The critical issue is that they come to faith in Christ and that you love them toward their own faith in the Lord. If that’s happening in your house, then you can’t be too far off track! If you’d like to come in and talk to me as your pastor about this, I’d be happy to chat with you. Maybe I can give you some personal guidance on these matters based upon where your family is right now in their growth in grace. But please don’t get down on yourself. I know you. You love the Lord and you love your 30 children. There are good things happening in your households—and even better things yet to come. None of us have ever walked in perfect theology. The simple reality is that you can present your children for covenantal baptism at any age. I’ve baptized parents who have come to Christ and in the same ceremony baptized both a newborn baby and a couple of preschoolers. Again, Scripture is clear about applying the sign of the covenant to entire households in the Old Testament and it appears to be modeled in the New. I’d suggest that if your children are still young, baptizing them would be more than appropriate. If they are older, then we should spend some time together and talk about it. If your child has been born again and they were not baptized as an infant, then let’s talk about believer’s baptism. After all, if they’ve received salvation shouldn’t they receive the sacrament which pictures that salvation? And, if they are receiving communion then it would be an important thing to go ahead and plan your child’s baptism. Communion, in part, pictures relationship with God through the body and blood of Jesus. Baptism has always been seen as the initiating sacrament and communion as the second. In fact, if your child has trusted Christ, is not yet baptized, and is already taking communion then we need to talk. Given that believer’s baptism is the “initiating” sacrament which pictures being in the covenant of grace, it’s confusing for anyone – including children – to take communion apart from being baptized. At the risk of trivializing things, it’s a bit like going to second base without touching first base. Or, to put it more thoughtfully, it’s inconsistent for a child (or adult) to celebrate the sacrament which represents saving relationship with Jesus Christ while not having participated in the sacrament which, in the case of believer’s baptism, represents the beginning of that relationship. If we hold off baptism while still celebrating communion, we’re unwittingly suggesting that baptism means something different than being in the covenant of grace, such as joining the church or “coming of age.” If we suggest that we hold off on baptism until we are sure of that child’s commitment, then why would we allow a child of uncertain commitment to take communion? After all, to take communion apart from a proper understanding of the covenant of grace is spiritually dangerous (1 Corinthians 11). Really, it’s just a matter of being consistent with the sacraments so that we insure that their meaning is never confused or that they are celebrated in a manner devoid of Biblical integrity. To be really honest about it, in many churches there has been a history of inconsistency and incomplete teaching with regard to both baptism and communion, leaving many a bit confused or unsure.

Why Does the Westminster Confession of Faith Matter?

The Bible tells us plainly in 1 Peter 1:20, “Knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation.” In other words, while we are called to study the Scriptures we also must do so with awareness that we too easily can misinterpret Scripture. Those who have devoted their lives to the study of Scripture know that the Bible is bigger than they are. No single person can get his head around it or hope 31 to fully understand it even if he or she had a dozen lives to do so. Furthermore, our frailties tell us that we cannot fully trust ourselves. Too easily we bend the Scriptures in directions we would prefer to line up with our own experience. It is with this in mind that Christians have taken the time to collectively write their faith down in comprehensive fashion. We call these statements “confessions of faith.” Those confessions are not foolproof, but they can be a great help. Those which have stood the test of time, like the Westminster Confession, have done so because they have been able to withstand the scrutiny of centuries. You might put it this way... St. Giles did not come up with our statement of faith in the last 20 minutes. We didn’t work it out after dinner one night, scribbling a few thoughts on some napkins. We are grateful that we can rely on others as well as our own study of Scripture, knowing that we have the “guardrails” of one of the truly great historic Christian confessions of faith to help keep us on track. Thus, we hold firmly to the belief that Scripture is not “of private interpretation,” but rather the witness of the Church through the centuries helps to guide us with regard to our basic doctrinal convictions. What a gift! It’s also important – especially in a charismatic community – to honestly acknowledge that our feelings can betray us. In fact, to be still more honest, the drift of the modern world is away from settled, authoritative, and absolute truth towards that which “our heart tells us.” (Indeed, this is what is driving “Progressive Christianity”). While the heart matters, it can also be deceptive. And, truthfully, our hearts can lead us to believe the Bible is telling us things which it simply isn’t. (I can tell you a few stories about myself along these lines. J). This is where the gift of a document like the Westminster Confession helps us greatly. It gives us a reference point, outside of ourselves and our own time, as to what the greats of the faith have agreed that Scripture teaches. Certainly, this is no substitute for the Bible itself, but church history is littered with those who have chosen a path of “private interpretation” and who have shipwrecked their faith. The doctrine of St. Giles is not changing, developing, or morphing in some way. We do not believe that Truth is evolutionary in nature and therefore “growing” or “changing” over time. The doctrine of St. Giles today is what it will be 20 years from now. This is a needed consistency which we can both build our lives and our church upon.

The Power of Family

So where does all this theological stuff leave us? Is it all esoteric and sacramental? Is there truth of an even more practical and down-to-earth nature? I think there is. When I consider covenantal baptism and the reality that parents can consign their children by oath to God—forever changing their lives by virtue of establishing a covenant, I come to this conclusion: parents are huge. God told Abraham straight up that he needed to circumcise his kids. In other words, God was telling Abraham that he had the authority to initially connect The Almighty to his kids through covenant and that He would enter into that covenant in powerful ways. Parents, we have the privilege of connecting our kids to God.

32 Why wouldn’t we play such a crucial role? The truth of the matter is that our parents largely define our lives. Many years ago my oldest brother Wayne wrote a Father’s Day email to our dad, which, I think, captures some of this thought in real life... I’m not one given to overly maudlin sentiment (but I’m taking the gloves off). You’ve been my padre for close to half a century, and you’ve done a great job. You’ve been more than there for me in good times and times that were simply challenging. Your belief in me is an integral part of how I learned to believe in myself and ultimately to believe in God. I’ve always loved you despite the fact that you wouldn’t let me win at checkers (even at six years old). Despite having been triple jumped and watching your kings leapfrog my last remaining man, I still loved you and tried to hold back my stinging tears. I still remember that game of checkers in our apartment at Sidwell Friends School. I remember wrestling. I remember naming my first son after you. I remember how to succeed in business by really trying. I remember almost dying... more than once. The common thread was a lesson you began to teach me over that simple game of checkers... to never quit... to always persist. You see, in more ways than one, I owe you my life. I hear myself laugh sometimes, and it reminds me of you. To simply thank you sounds hollow and trite. You gave me the great lessons that you learned on the beach at Iwo Jima. That has framed and defined the essence of my being. Enough said... Wayne P.S. Should we try another round of checkers?

Notice my brother’s perspective. Our father was so influential that he altered the course of our lives even in something as small as a game of checkers. This is part of what takes away any nervousness I might have about baptizing infants. Not only do I feel it is Biblically consistent based upon the connection between the Old and New Testaments, I also believe that this is just the way life is. Individualism is dramatically overstated. Our parents “pre-set” much of our lives even before we are born. They determine where we live and grow up, what opportunities we will have, what many of our likes and dislikes will be... the list goes on and on. Actually, parents determine whether we have life in the first place. Doesn’t covenantal baptism accurately picture life? Isn’t it true that all parents—for better or worse—profoundly shape their child’s lives? Since, as parents, you and I are so influential, why wouldn’t we lay hold of that God-ordained reality in life and do the strongest thing we could do for our children? Let’s take that profound position we have and use it in the best way imaginable by placing them in a lifelong covenant with God. To be sure, I cannot take away the right of my children to make their decision as to whether or not they will live under the blessing of that covenant or under the hard side of it. Theirs is the choice as to whether or not to accept Christ. But, because of His grace and commitment to the family, I can weight the game heavily in the favor of God’s Presence in their lives. To begin with, by sacramental act I can recognize 33 the amazing reality that our children are in the covenant of grace from conception onwards, until such time as they are accountable for their own choices regarding Christ. Still further, I can formally ask God to take them as His own for all of their days. And, given that I have an opportunity to do such a thing, and given that all I want for my child is every head start available, why wouldn’t I do so?

34 The Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 28 Baptism 1. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ. By baptism a person is solemnly admitted into the visible church. Baptism is also a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of the believer’s engrafting into Christ, of rebirth, of remission of sins, and of the believer’s yielding to God through Jesus Christ to walk in newness of life. By Christ’s own direction this sacrament is to be continued in his church until the end of the world. (Mt 28.19, Mk 16.16, 1 Cor 12.13, Gal 3.27-28, Acts 2.41, 10.47, Rom 4.11, Col 2.11-12, Gal 3.29, Gal 3.27, Rom 6.3-5, 1 Ti 3.5, Mk 1.4, Acts 2.38, 22.16, Rom 6.3-4, Mt 28.19-20)

2. The physical substance to be used in this sacrament is water. The person is to be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit ordinarily by a lawfully called minister of the gospel. (Mt 3.11, Jn 1.33, Mt 28.19-20, Acts 8.36,38, 10.47, Eph 4.11-13)

3. Dipping the person into the water is not necessary. Baptism is correctly administered by pouring or sprinkling water on the person. (Heb 9.10,19-22, Acts 2.41, 16.33, Mk 7.4, Acts 1.5, 2.3-4,17, 11.15-16, 10.46-47, 1 Cor 10.2)

4. Not only those who actually profess faith in and obedience to Christ are to be baptized but also the infants of one or both believing parents. (Mk 16.15-16, Acts 8.37-38; see citations under Section 1 above, Acts 9.18. 13. Gn 17.7,9-10, Gal 3.9,14, Col 2.11-12, Acts 2.38-39, Rom 4.11- 12, 1 Cor 7.14, Mt 28.19, Mk 10.13-16, Lk 18.15-16, Acts 16.14-15,33.

5. Although it is a great sin to condemn or neglect this sacrament, baptism is not inseparably connected with God’s grace and salvation. One can be saved and reborn without baptism, and, on the other hand, everyone who is baptized is not therefore unquestionably reborn. (Lk 7.30, Ex 4.24-26, Genesis 17.14, Dt 28.9. 15. Rom 4.11, Acts 10.2, 4, 22, 31, 45-47, Lk 23.40-43. 16. Acts 8.13,23)

6. The effectiveness of baptism is not tied to that moment in time in which it is administered. However, by the correct use of this sacrament the grace promised in it is not only offered but actually embodied and conferred by the Holy Spirit to everyone (adult or infant) to whom that grace is given, according to the purpose of God’s own will and in his appointed time. (Jn 3.5,8, Rom 4.11. 18. Gal 3.27, Ti 3.5, Eph 5.25-26, Acts 2.38-41, Eph 1.4-5, Acts 16.31,33)

7. The sacrament of baptism should be administered only once to a person. (Titus 3:5; there is no command, and no adequate example for the repetition of baptism.)

Baptism

In this book and its companion book, “Believer’s Baptism,” Nate covers topics such as immersion vs. sprinkling, re-baptism, infant baptism, and the connection between baptism and communion. Perhaps you are a long-time believer who still has questions, a brand-new follower of Christ who wants to be baptized, a parent who seeks to understand the distinctions between dedication and infant baptism, or a seeker who is trying to learn still more about the Christian faith. “Believer’s Baptism” and “Infant Baptism” are practical guides to the meaning of baptism and its practice in the life of the Church.

REV. NATE ATWOOD As an author and a pastor, Nate Atwood weaves together knowledge of the Bible with everyday life. In ministry for more than 35 years, he is ordained by the Evangelical Presbyterian Church and has served in the church’s highest office, Moderator of the General Assembly. He has served as a Senior Pastor for almost 25 years and is currently the pastor of St. Giles Presbyterian Church in Charlotte, NC. He and his wife Helen have seven children, eleven grandchildren, and live in Matthews, NC.

St. Giles Prebyterian Church, 2027 Emerywood Drive, Charlotte, NC. 28210