Quick viewing(Text Mode)

Infant Baptism

Infant Baptism

A Biblical and Historical Case For Infant

Jonathan Culley

Associate Pastor Covenant Presbyterian Church, Palm Bay, FL Updated February 2008

Contents

Introduction ...... 1

Biblical Argument ...... 2

Overview of ...... 2

Who Are the People of the Covenant? ...... 3

Believers and Unbelievers Adults and Infants

What is the Sign of the Covenant? ...... 11

Baptism as Replacement for Circumcision and Baptism for Adults Circumcision and Baptism for Infants Some Objections Answered

Historical Argument ...... 20

Chronological Survey of Preicene ...... 21

Polycarp (ca. A.D. 69–155) (ca. A.D. 110–165) (ca. A.D. 120–202) (ca. A.D. 160–230) Hippolytus (ca. A.D. 170–235) (ca. A.D. 182–251) (ca. A.D. 200–258) Constitutions of the Holy Apostles (ca. A.D. 250–300)

Analysis of Historical Evidence ...... 28

Conclusion ...... 30

Bibliography ...... 32

As we survey the diversity of biblical interpretations in the modern Christian church concerning the subject of baptism, we can easily be left with the impression that there is no right answer. There is such widespread disagreement among Bible-believing evangelical Christians that we wonder just how clear the Scriptures really are about this perennially-debated topic. In the final analysis, the only hope for resolution between and infant baptists 1 is for both sides to recognize at the outset that there is , in fact, one right answer—the one that resides in

God’s Word. Since God commanded His people to be baptized,2 His Word to us must contain everything we need to obey this command properly. 3 So the issue isn’t whether there is a sufficient answer in the Word—that is established—the real issue before us is one of interpretation and application: What does God’s Word teach us about baptism, and how should we apply those teachings? We must also recognize that any investigation into this topic requires a large measure of humility, patience, and teachability. Both sides of the debate affirm the sole authority of the Scriptures, love our Lord Christ, and consider the other side to be brothers and sisters in the faith. Thus, we are urged to keep the debate within the bounds of Christian charity, and not make either view of baptism such a rigid test of orthodoxy that it is used as a scalpel to excommunicate dissidents.

Scope and Thesis . A full treatment of this topic would require an investigation into at least the following: the meaning of baptism (linguistically, culturally, historically, theologically), its proper recipients (believers, infants), its administration (liturgy, role of clergy vs. laity), and its mode (immersion, sprinkling, pouring). I am confining my thesis to what we can learn about the proper recipients of baptism. There is compelling evidence in the Bible and

1 For the purposes of this paper, “baptist” refers to those who believe that only professing adults should be baptized, and “infant baptist” refers to those who believe that both professing adults and their children are to be baptized. 2 Matt 28:19 3 2 Tim 3:16–17; 2 Pet 1:3

1 the early church that the proper recipients of baptism include the infants of professing believers.

I will begin by presenting a biblical argument, which will provide an overview of covenant theology, identify who the people of God’s covenant are, and then discuss the sign of the covenant. Then I will present a historical argument, consisting of a chronological walk-through of the pre-Nicene church fathers on the subject, and an evaluation of those findings. Some objections to infant baptism will be addressed throughout the biblical and historical arguments.

Biblical Argument

The most important question to address is whether infant baptism is truly a biblical doctrine. It is not enough to merely show that it is allowed by Scripture, as if to merely say that there are no biblical objections to it. It must go deeper, reaching all the way to the foundations of God’s covenant relationship with mankind. There must be a biblical demonstration that infant baptism is required by the Scriptures. 4 We also must set aside the most common objection to infant baptism by reaffirming in the strongest terms that infant baptism does not save the infant.

The must embrace Christ by faith alone in order to be saved. 5 If he grows up fully and finally rejecting Christ, his self-chosen condemnation is ensured, regardless of his baptism.6

Overview of Covenant Theology . In order to understand the argument for infant baptism, we must understand the idea of the covenant . In the Bible, a covenant can be defined simply as a binding relationship, initiated by God, between God and man. It is most succinctly expressed in the formula, “I will be your God and you will be my people” (Jer 7:23). 7 Such a relationship involves living our lives based on His grace, according to His rules, being subject to His rewards and punishments, all “to the praise of his glorious grace” (Eph 1:6).

4 See Wilson, To A Thousand Generations , p. 9. 5 Rom 3:28; Eph 2:8–9; Tit 3:5–7 6 2 Thess 1:8–9; Heb 10:26–31 7 See also Exod 6:7; Lev 26:12; Ruth 1:16; Jer 11:4; 30:22; Ezek 36:28; Joel 2:27; 2 Cor 6:16; Heb 8:10; Rev 21:3

2 God established covenants with mankind at several stages throughout redemptive history.

We can group the biblical covenants into two broad categories.8 The first can be called

“universal” because they are addressed to all mankind universally. This category includes the covenants made with (Gen 2–3) and Noah (Gen 6, 8, 9). The second category can be called “special” because they are addressed to God’s special, chosen people (the nation of Israel in the , and the church in the ). 9 This category includes the covenants made with Abraham (Gen 15, 17), (Exod 19–24), and (2 Sam 7), and in a broader sense, the in Christ (see Figure 1 on page 4).

There are two questions that must be explored about these covenants that will provide the necessary background for understanding infant baptism. 10 The first question is, “Who are the people of the covenant?” The second is, “What is the sign of the covenant?” Both questions address God’s covenant with man as it transcends both the Old and New Testaments.

Who are the people of the covenant? There is a common misconception in the modern evangelical church that there are basically two kinds of people: those who believe in Christ, and those who do not. The former are truly saved and the latter are not. And if that’s all we say about it, then we must heartily say “” and move on. But this two-fold distinction is sometimes erroneously linked with the biblical covenants, such that only true believers are understood to be in covenant relation with God and all the rest (unbelievers) are not in covenant relation with Him. But the Bible, while affirming that every person is ultimately either a believer or an unbeliever, presents another perspective. Biblically speaking, there are three types of people: (1) Unbelievers outside the visible covenant community; (2) Unbelievers inside the

8 Some of these descriptions of covenants are from Pratt, Why Do We Baptize Our Children? (video) 9 This spiritual connection between Israel and the church can be seen in several places, including Rom 2:28–29; 9:6– 8; 11:2–5; Gal 3:7; Heb 13:8–16; Exod 19:6 (which is applied to the church in 1 Pet 2:9) 10 Ibid. These two questions are two of the three that Pratt addresses in this video.

3 Covenants

Christ

David Moses Abraham Noah Adam

Universal Special

Old New

Figure 1 – Biblical Covenants visible covenant community; (3) True believers inside the visible covenant community. So we find in the Bible people who are in covenant relation with God , but who are not truly believers .

This is evident in every covenant of redemptive history, including the New Covenant in Christ.

The universal covenants with Adam and Noah embraced the entire human race, including believers and unbelievers. All people benefit from the covenant of life given to Adam (and his descendants) and the stable universe promised to Noah (and his descendants). Under the special national covenants given to Abraham, Moses, and David, many unbelievers were members of the visible covenant community of the people of God. But eventually, due to their lack of faith, the unbelievers incurred the covenant curses of God. It’s not that these unbelievers were considered to be out of covenant, but precisely that they were considered to be in covenant with God, and therefore received covenant curses for the lack of faith and obedience required of them.

4 For example, in describing the first generation of people whom God rescued out of

Egypt, the author of Hebrews says that they had the preached to them, but “the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard it did not combine it with faith”

(Heb 4:2). So they “did not go in [to the Promised Land], because of their disobedience”

(Heb 4:6). So although God had called them “my own people” (Exod 6:7), rescued them from

Egypt (Exod 14–15), given them His law (Exod 20–24), and graciously provided the means to worship Him (Exod 25–40), the majority of the first generation of God’s visible covenant community turned away from Him in unbelief and disobedience.

Similarly, in 1 Corinthians 10, Paul described the first-generation Israelites who were delivered out of Egypt as those who “were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.

They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ” (1 Cor 10:2–4). Who is Paul talking about in this passage? He’s talking about every Israelite man, woman, and child who was delivered out of Egypt through the Red Sea. Notice Paul’s emphasis on the “spiritual” blessings they received, and even his use of the word “baptism” to describe this great deliverance. 11 But what happened to most of those “baptized” people of God who were given so many “spiritual” benefits from Christ Himself? Paul tells us: “Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered over the desert. Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did” (1 Cor 10:5–6). So we see that in the

Old Covenant, there were many people who were in a covenant relationship with God, but were unbelievers.

11 There is some irony in this story in terms of the mode of baptism. Paul describes the Israelites’ deliverance through the Red Sea as a “baptism.” But if the Greek word for “baptism” literally means “immersion,” then Paul chose the wrong word to describe what happened to the Israelites. He should have used “baptism” to describe the Egyptian soldiers, who were the only ones who were “immersed” in the story!

5 But what about the New Covenant in Christ? Do we find both believers and unbelievers in this covenant? To answer this question, we look again at the book of Hebrews, where the author is addressing an alarming situation where the Jewish Christians were starting to revert back to Old Covenant forms of religion in order to avoid the coming persecution against

Christians. In order to stem the tide of disillusioned Jews leaving this new Christian congregation, he pleads, “Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching”

(Heb 10:25). He goes on to warn them quite sternly in verses 26–30:

If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. 28 Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” and again, “ will judge his people.”

The author is not talking here about true, Christians that lose their salvation—that’s impossible.12 He’s talking about those who have joined the visible covenant community of God

(the church) by making a profession of faith in Christ, but who are in danger of falling away. If they “deliberately keep on sinning” (v. 26), then they would be “[trampling] the Son of God under foot,” “[treating] as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him,” and

“[insulting] the Spirit of grace” (v. 29). As a result, they would be in danger of receiving

“judgment” and “raging fire,” being treated as “the enemies of God” (v. 27). If they continue in their disobedience, then they would be showing themselves to be unbelievers, and would therefore incur the covenant curses due them. 13

12 John 10:27–30; 17:11–15; Rom 8:29–39; 2 Cor 1:18–22 13 John addresses a remarkably similar situation in 1 John 2:19.

6 So we know that the author is warning unbelievers inside the church, but notice how he describes them: They are people who have already “received the knowledge of truth” (v. 26), are known as “his people” (v. 26), and who are “sanctified” by the “blood of the covenant” (v. 29).

Although these descriptions sound like they would only apply to true Christians, he is actually describing people who have been exposed to the preaching of God’s Word and have been set apart from the world by joining with Christ’s visible community. Such exposure to the blessings of the visible church under the New Covenant doesn’t guarantee their salvation any more than the blessings of the visible Israel under the Old Covenant guaranteed theirs. In addition to receiving all those covenant blessings, the members of the visible covenant community still must exhibit true repentance and genuine faith in order to be saved. However, they are treated differently than the rest of the world—they are, in fact, “sanctified,” or set apart .14

A typical objection to the claim that unbelievers can be members of the New Covenant appeals to Jeremiah 31:31–34, which looks forward to the New Covenant and describes it in such a way that it’s hard to imagine unbelievers being members of it. The writes,

“The time is coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. 32 It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD. 33 “This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,” declares the LORD. “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. 34 No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the LORD. “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”

It is quite apparent that this passage is describing the New Covenant as only comprising true believers. The members of this covenant “all know [God],” and God “will forgive their

14 For more passages supporting the concept that God’s covenant in Christ includes unbelievers, see the kingdom parables, such as the four soils (Matt 13:1–9), wheat and tares (Matt 13:24–30), and the net (Matt 13:47–50), which all include both the “good” and the “bad” within the same visible “kingdom”

7 wickedness and will remember their sins no more” (v. 34). There is no room in this description to include unbelievers in this covenant.

But when we take the whole passage into consideration, Jeremiah also says that this New

Covenant no longer requires preachers and teachers (v. 34). 15 But we know that in this present age, Jesus sent His disciples out to preach and teach, and the church is called to proclaim the

Gospel through the preached Word, to the ends of the earth. 16 So Jeremiah must be describing the New Covenant from the perspective of the glorious consummation of Christ’s kingdom.

Although there are elements of this description that are found in this present age, it can only fully apply to the time when Christ returns and ushers in the New Heavens and New Earth. So if baptists insist on using this passage to characterize the New Covenant in this present age , then, on the authority of the same passage, they need to stop preaching and teaching the Word of God.

So we conclude, then, that the New Covenant is comprised of believers and unbelievers in this present age before the return of Christ. When an unbeliever becomes a member of this visible covenant community, he receives many blessings that unchurched pagans do not receive.

But being a member doesn’t mean he is saved. He may receive covenant blessings for a time, but unless he exhibits saving faith, he will incur covenant curses, which will eventually result in eternal damnation.

Now we turn to the question concerning what age groups are to be included in these covenant relationships. In surveying the Bible, do we find only professing adults entering into covenant relationship with God? Or are their children also included? The resounding response in both the Old and New Testaments is that the children of believers are included in the visible covenant. In our individualistic American culture, it’s hard to imagine God dealing with people

15 Pratt, Why Do We Baptize Our Children? (video) 16 Acts 1:8; Rom 10:14–17

8 in terms of their parents. But we find that in the Bible, God never makes covenants with adults without also making covenants with their children .

The covenant God made with Adam affected all of his descendants. Since Adam broke covenant with God, we as his descendants fell under the covenant curses with him. Paul says that “in Adam, all die” (1 Cor 15:22). 17 When God made a covenant with Noah, it didn’t just include him. God told Noah, “I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife and your sons’ wives with you” (Gen 6:18). When God made a covenant with Abraham, it included his descendants. God said, “I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you” (Gen 17:7).

God’s covenant with Moses promised curses on the children for their fathers’ sins, but blessings for the children for their fathers’ love and obedience (Exod 20:5–6). When God established His covenant with David, He said, “One of your own descendants I will place on your throne—if your sons keep my covenant and the statutes I teach them, then their sons will sit on your throne for ever and ever” (Psa 132:11–12).

The Old Covenant pattern, then, was that the children of believing parents were included in the visible covenant community of God. 18 Again, this didn’t necessarily mean that they were saved, but it did mean that they were set apart from the world, and were required to eventually accept by faith the way of salvation handed down to them by their parents.

But what about the New Covenant? Does the New Testament teach that children are to be included in the covenant? Yes, it does! In fact, right after God poured out the on the church in a vivid display of His missional power at Pentecost (Acts 2), the very first sermon

17 See also Romans 5:12–21. 18 For more examples of God’s covenant dealings with Old Covenant families, see Gen 26:3–4; 28:13–14; Exod 2:24–25; Deut 29:9–13; Josh 5:2–9; 1 Ki 11:11–12; 2 Chr 20:13; Psa 103:17; Joel 2:15–16

9 that was preached ended with Peter calling the people to respond with repentance and baptism.

He said, “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. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call”

(Acts 2:38–39). The fact that this was the very first sermon preached in the new Spirit- empowered church is very significant. It looked back to God’s Old Covenant dealings through families and projected this pattern forward as the New Covenant plan for taking the Gospel to the

“ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8; 13:47).19 The visible church of Jesus Christ was to include the children of professing believers. These children “were the expected , though not the necessary heirs of the covenant blessings.” 20

Baptists may object that this passage does not imply that infants were to be included in this covenant. I respond in two ways. First, in the natural understanding of Peter’s words, he specifically says that the promise is for the children of believing parents. It would seem odd for

Peter to make such a sweeping statement if he really meant to exclude all infants, toddlers, and any children who couldn’t understand the Gospel. If he did mean this, we might expect him to qualify his words by saying that the promise is also for “your believing children.” Second, given the already-established way that God deals with His people (through families), we should actually expect the New Covenant to include infants. Any exclusion of infants from the visible covenant community would be an innovative teaching in the mind of a first-century Jew, in which case we would expect to see the explicit teaching that God’s dealings with people have changed—that now, only adults are to be considered a part of the visible covenant community. 21

19 Murray, Christian Baptism , pp. 67–8. 20 Pratt, Why Do We Baptize Our Children? (video) 21 It must be remembered that at this point, we’re not talking about baptism per se —we are just establishing the covenant status of infants in the households of professing believers.

10 Although there are many other passages that could be considered at this point, we will look at only one more in which Paul is addressing a concern in the Corinthian church about the covenant status of unbelieving spouses and children. The Corinthians had noticed that in many cases, especially in the beginning stages of their new church, only one of the spouses in a given household became a Christian, while the other spouse remained an unbeliever. The natural question that follows is, “What is the covenant status of the entire household when only one of the spouses is a believer?” Paul says, “The unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy” (1 Cor 7:14). Clearly, the unbelieving spouse is not saved (by definition). But not only is the unbelieving spouse considered

“sanctified,” or set apart, so are their children.22 In other words, by virtue of the believing spouse, the entire home has been set apart from the world, and will therefore be exposed to many covenant blessings of God (like the influence of God’s Word and Spirit, righteous conduct,

Christian love, etc.), that would be totally foreign to pagan households. So we see that the children of believers are not to be treated like the children of unbelievers. They, along with adult professing believers, are seen as members of the visible covenant community of God.

What is the sign of the covenant? We have established that God’s visible covenant community consists of both believers and unbelievers, both professing adults and their children, under the both the Old and New Covenants. And while membership in this covenant doesn’t guarantee salvation, it does confer many privileges not available to the outside world.

We now address what visible, external signs God has ordained to designate membership in this visible covenant community. Under the Old Covenant, God instituted the sign of circumcision, both for professing adults and their infants. But what is the sign of the covenant

22 In the Greek, the words “sanctified” and “holy” come from the same root word.

11 under the New Covenant? Paul answers this by showing the connection between Old Covenant circumcision and New Covenant baptism. In Colossians 2:11–12, he says,

In [Christ] you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

The recipients of Paul’s letter to Colosse would have included Jews, but it most likely consisted primarily of uncircumcised in the church. They were probably wondering whether they were “missing out” on God’s covenant blessings because they were not circumcised. Paul responds by saying, in effect, “No, you haven’t missed out, because the real circumcision that counts is the one done by Christ, and that work of Christ has already been symbolized outwardly when you were baptized.” The uncircumcised worshipers in Colosse had nothing to worry about in terms of their visible covenant standing—their baptism counted ! So we see that baptism is the

New Covenant replacement for the Old Covenant sign of circumcision.

Now we ask the question, “What was the significance of circumcision in the Old

Covenant as it applies to adults and infants, and how does that parallel baptism in the New

Covenant as it applies to adults and infants?” By exploring these questions, we will find that there are much stronger biblical parallels between circumcision and baptism than one might first think. It also shows that even without Colossians 2:11–12, there is still a very compelling case for seeing baptism as the fulfillment for circumcision.

Under the Old Covenant, the sign of circumcision was established first with Abraham

(Gen 17). We might expect it to be established at this point in redemptive history, because

God’s covenant with Abraham was the first time God had set apart a special people. Up to this point, all the covenants (Adam and Noah) were between God and all of humanity. Now, with

12 Abraham, God wanted circumcision to be the external sign to set him and his descendants apart from the rest of the pagan world.

God told Abraham, “You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you” (Gen 17:11). But when did Abraham receive this sign? Was it before or after his profession of faith? Paul reminds us quite emphatically that God’s righteousness was credited to Abraham by faith before he was circumcised (Rom 4:10).

Abraham’s circumcision naturally followed his profession of faith. Paul expands on the significance of Abraham’s adult circumcision when he says, “And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised”

(v. 11). So in his case, the sign of circumcision indicated the objective righteousness of Christ that had already been sealed, or applied, to him through faith. It also indicated his status as belonging to the visible covenant community of Israel.

This pattern of circumcising adult outsiders who convert to is exactly what we should expect after Abraham’s time. 23 Hypothetically speaking, if the Old Testament happened to contain accounts of massive first-generation conversions, then on the basis of that missionary activity of the people of God, we would expect to see many, many accounts of adult in the Old Testament!

So, by way of parallel, what does baptism mean for adult believers under the New

Covenant? The normal scenario that we see in the book of Acts is that when people repented and placed their faith in Christ, they were immediately baptized. Luke reports, “Those who accepted

[Peter’s] message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day”

(Acts 2:41). 24 Paul, in his testimony before the Jews, described his baptism: Right after Paul’s

23 See Gen 34; Josh 5. 24 See also Acts 8:12, 36–38; 9:18; 10:46–48; 16:14–15, 32–33; 18:8; 19:5; 22:15–16.

13 conversion, Ananias had told him, “And now, what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16). So we see that for the adult Christian convert, baptism is performed as soon as possible after profession of faith, and it represents the cleansing power of God’s saving grace that washes his sins away in Christ. It is a physical, symbolic expression of the objective work of Christ in salvation. It is the exact New Covenant parallel of Old Covenant adult circumcision.

So why do we find such a large number of adult in the New Covenant compared to such a small number of adult circumcisions in the Old Covenant? There are at least two reasons. First, in the Old Covenant, the Israelites had been commanded by God to take the

Gospel to the nations (Gen 12:1–5),25 but generally speaking, they failed. They were supposed to be evangelizing the nations, winning them to be faithful and obedient to the God of Abraham,

Isaac, and Jacob. And if they had done this, we would have seen many, many more accounts in the Old Testament of adult circumcisions as Gentiles were converted to the Jewish faith. But the vast majority of the accounts of circumcisions were of infants, because they kept the Gospel mostly within their own ranks and clans. They were right in that they evangelized their children, but they were wrong in that they didn’t also evangelize the surrounding nations.

The second reason we see this imbalance between the covenants (in terms of adult conversions) is because the New Covenant, by the nature of the case, was an “explosion” of

God’s final revelation in Christ through the church, starting in Jerusalem, and expanding outward to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8). The book of Acts captured the beginning of that explosive growth of the church, and then ended before the dust could settle. In other words, almost the entire book of Acts is comprised of first-generation Christian converts (whether from Jewish or

Gentile origins). In a sense, Acts is one big missionary report, tracing the growth of the church

25 See also Gen 18:18; 22:17–18; 26:4; 35:11; Psa 2:8; 9:11; 22:27–28; 96:3–5.

14 through the power of the Word and Spirit, and the initial establishment of church plants throughout the . It is not a record of what happened after the first-generation converts were established in church life and started having children within the visible covenant community. If it was, we should expect to see accounts of infant baptisms. So, in general, we see that both circumcision and baptism were applied to adult professing believers in first- generation conversion situations (where the Gospel penetrated into families and towns for the first time in their adult experience).26

Now that we’ve seen what it means for adults to receive the sign of the covenant, we move to the application of the sign to infants. In the Old Covenant, this was first commanded by

God to Abraham when He said,

This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised…. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household…” (Gen 17:10,12a).

So what did this mean for the infant? We know for sure that it was not a demonstration of faith in the infant! But it did represent an outward expression that the infant was a member of God’s visible covenant community, and it was intended to remind the child later in life of his need to place his faith in God. In the case of the infant, circumcision represented an outward call to demonstrate an inward change later in life. Jeremiah does this very thing when he says to the faithless Israelites, “Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, circumcise your hearts, you men of

Judah and people of Jerusalem, or my wrath will break out and burn like fire because of the evil you have done” (Jer 4:4). The Israelites had been physically circumcised as infants, but they

26 And the same is true today among infant baptists. The term “infant baptist” is unfortunate in a way, because it only emphasizes the baptism of the children of believers. But infant baptists rightly baptize adult professing believers who are first-generation converts (in other words, they were not already baptized as infants and subsequently raised in a Christian home). Personally, I would rather call it “covenant baptism,” because it emphasizes the covenantal standing of both first-generation converts and their children.

15 were not demonstrating the faith later in life that was called for by their own circumcisions. In effect, Jeremiah was calling unbelieving adults within God’s covenant community to “live up to” their infant circumcisions.

The command to circumcise the infants of professing believers was carried forward from generation to generation, within the visible covenant community of God, all the way to the time of Christ. And by that time, most Jews had come to believe (wrongly) that by virtue of their physical circumcision as an infant, they were in right standing with God. That’s why they had such a hard time accepting the fact that salvation was granted even to the Gentiles , without them being required to be circumcised first! 27 The “mystery” of the Gospel for those Jews was that

“through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus” (Eph 3:6). The Jews’ distortion of God’s original intent for infant circumcision explains why we see in the New Testament such a strong reaction against circumcision in general. Paul, especially, was reacting against widespread abuse of this doctrine, and was calling the people back to the faith of Abraham, as opposed to the mere circumcision of Abraham (Rom 4; Gal 3).

So what about the infants of believers in the New Covenant? We have already established from the New Testament that God deals covenantally with the children of professing believers.28 But was the New Covenant sign of baptism applied to these infants? There is no explicit statement anywhere in the Scriptures that infants were baptized or that they were commanded to be baptized. But there are several accounts in the New Testament where the entire households of professing adults were baptized. 29 I personally don’t rely very much on

27 Acts 10:45; 11:2ff; 15:1ff; 21:21; Rom 4; Gal 3 28 Acts 2:38–39; 1 Cor 7:14 29 At least twice in Acts (16:15, 33, 34; see 11:14; 16:31) and once in 1 Corintians (1:16).

16 those passages to defend the doctrine of infant baptism, but it does, in fact, match the pattern of what we would expect to see in God’s dealings with first-generation converts and their children.

Baptists may say that we are admitting defeat here, because we cannot actually produce examples of infant baptism or commands for its practice. They declare it an “argument from silence,” and dismiss it out of hand. But consider the fact that baptists must likewise admit that there is no command to “baptize only those who themselves make a personal profession of faith.” 30 The question is not whether adults who make a profession of faith are to be baptized— that is believed and practiced on both sides of the debate. The question is whether only adults are to be baptized, and not also their infant children. This command that baptists rely on is not found anywhere in Scripture. So they argue from silence as well.

The baptist may respond by saying, “Granted, the Bible doesn’t say that we are to baptize only believing adults—that is an assumption I’m making—but that assumption is based on the vast number of Scriptural examples where believing adults are, in fact, baptized.” 31 But it does not follow that many examples of something prove it as a principle. For example, it does not follow that to be human is to be sinful, just because billions of humans have been shown to be sinful. It just takes one exception to the rule, our sinless (and human!) Lord, to disprove that generalization. 32

Another way this objection can be expressed is by saying that the infant baptist can’t produce a chapter and verse to prove the doctrine. But this also doesn’t render the doctrine unbiblical. Baptists do the same thing with other doctrines. For example, they “believe that God is triune. However, they arrive at that correct conclusion, not by being able to quote chapter and verse—because there is not a single verse in the Bible that explicitly states that God is triune—

30 Reymond, A ew , p. 936. 31 See a similar line of argument in Grudem, Systematic Theology , p. 969. 32 Not to mention the sinlessness of pre-fall Adam and Eve and the glorified in heaven.

17 but by correct inference from the Bible’s teaching.” 33 So if baptists use the method of inference for important doctrines, then they shouldn’t deny its use by infant baptists.

The bottom line rests, in my mind, on who has the burden of proof. In this matter of whether infant baptism was to be the New Covenant replacement for Old Covenant circumcision, do infant baptists carry the burden of proof to show that infants are, in fact, considered a part of the visible covenant community of God (and should therefore receive the sign of the covenant)?

Or do baptists carry the burden of proof to show that infants are no longer a part of this visible covenant, (and should therefore not receive the sign of the covenant)?

I believe the burden rests on baptists. Just because infant baptism is not explicitly mentioned in the New Testament doesn’t mean it’s thereby false—it could be false, or it could be an assumed truth at that time in redemptive history. Baptists claim that if the New Testament writers intended for children to be baptized, then they would have told us explicitly. But why tell people something they already agree with? If there was no debate in their day that infant baptism was seen as the New Covenant fulfillment of Old Testament circumcision, then why would we expect them to clear up the debates of our day in their writings? 34 Taking it a step further, “if God would have us cease to apply the sign of salvation to our children, why did He not plainly command us in the New Testament to change from the Old Testament pattern and to stop giving the sign of the covenant to our children?” 35

One of the most ironic points in this debate is how baptists, as diligently as they try to put the burden of proof on infants baptists, actually recognize, in spite of themselves, the importance of publicly setting apart their own infants before God through what they call “baby .”

33 Crooks, Salvation’s Sign and Seal , p. 43. 34 Just for fun, imagine somebody in the Christian church today writing a detailed polemical work defending the need for preachers to wear clothes when they preach. We scoff at the absurdity, because it is a cultural assumption which requires no defense in our day. 35 Sartelle, What Christian Parents Should Know about Infant Baptism , p. 27, emphasis mine.

18 These ceremonies, as they are practiced by many baptists, are nowhere to be found in the

Scriptures. 36 Usually, when baptists perform these ceremonies, the purpose is to dedicate the child to God and charge the parents to raise the child in the “training and instruction of the Lord”

(Eph 6:4). But that’s precisely what infant baptists are doing when they baptize their infants, and it’s what the Old Covenant people of God did when they circumcised their infants! So at best, a baby is simply an “infant baptism” without water, or at worst, a “third ” that was never authorized to be practiced in the church by our Lord.

We conclude the biblical case for infant baptism by reaffirming the biblical teaching that salvation is by grace through faith, and does not depend at all on any external rituals or acts.

Although it is true that all of humanity is either saved or not saved , the Bible shows us that God enters into a special covenant with those that are a part of the visible community of faith. In the

Old Covenant, we can speak of “visible Israel” (marked by physical circumcision), and

“invisible Israel” (marked by spiritual circumcision). Likewise, in the New Covenant, we can speak of the “visible church” (marked by physical baptism), and the “invisible church” (marked by spiritual baptism). In both covenants, the sign of membership in the visible community was applied to professing adults and their children. But the only way for a person to become a member of the “invisible” covenant community was if that person exhibited true, saving faith.

36 Baptists may appeal to Luke 2:22–24, where Jesus’ parents presented him to God in the temple, but that ritual was prescribed under the Old Covenant, and was only to be done for the firstborn male (Exod 13:2).

19 Historical Argument

Having presented a biblical argument for infant baptism, we now ask what evidence there is in the early church for this doctrine. In the early church, historical evidence for infant baptism is not as pervasive as other doctrines, but this is hardly surprising when we realize that most of the writings from the early church are apologetic in nature, forged on the anvil of persecution.

Infant baptism apparently wasn’t a doctrine that needed to be defended at the time—there were more important doctrines about which to have their blood spilled. As we have seen, silence in the early church about a doctrine doesn’t indicate its absence.

But what about the historical abuses of the doctrine of infant baptism? It’s certainly true that as we trace the history of the church after New Testament times, increasingly stronger evidence for infant baptism is found alongside increasingly false doctrines, especially concerning baptismal regeneration. But we must remember to avoid two errors in this connection that commonly appear in historical discussions about baptism.

First, we need to avoid the error of guilt by association . Just because we can find all kinds of heretical teachings in the early church and in the later Roman (like baptismal regeneration) doesn’t mean that infant baptism is itself one of those heretical teachings. Just because was a Roman Catholic before he sparked the doesn’t mean that he failed to fully purge the Roman Catholic’s teaching of infant baptism from his doctrinal system. Anyone who bases their argument against infant baptism on these grounds should find safer grounds. And to be fair, just because believer’s baptism is associated with some wild theological errors among Anabaptists in the 16th Century doesn’t mean that believer’s baptism is wrong, either.

20 In addition, we need to avoid the corollary: innocence by association . Just because we can find infant baptism in the early church doesn’t mean it’s biblical. And just because we can find believer’s baptism in the early church also doesn’t make it biblical. However, a responsible avoidance of these errors does not mean that historical evidence in these matters is rendered useless. It just means that we have to assign weight that is appropriate in each case.

So what historical evidence for infant baptism do we have? In the following, I provide a chronological survey of only the most important references to baptism in the first three centuries

(pre-Nicene), followed by an analysis of those findings.

Chronological Survey . Our first witness is (ca. A.D. 69–155), who was a contemporary and disciple of the Apostle John. When Polycarp was martyred in A.D. 155, he was reported as saying, “Eighty and six years have I served the Lord Christ.” 37 Since he was born in A.D. 69, he was exactly 86 years old when he said this. The question is, in what sense did

Polycarp consider himself a servant of Christ as early as his infancy ? Although there is no direct reference to his infant baptism here, it seems that the best explanation for this statement is that he was baptized as an infant. It seems most natural to postulate that Polycarp held his own infant baptism in high enough esteem to count it as the beginning of his service to Christ.

Our second witness is Justin Martyr (ca. A.D. 110–165), who was born about 15 years after the death of the apostle John. Although Justin Martyr doesn’t explicitly mention infant baptism, he draws a significant connection between Old Testament circumcision and New

Testament baptism. He says,

And we, who have approached God through [Jesus], have received not carnal, but spiritual circumcision, which and those like him observed. And we have received

37 , 9:3, in Kastens, “Infant Baptism in Early Church History.”

21 it through baptism, since we were sinners, by God’s mercy; and all men may equally obtain it. 38

Justin Martyr considers baptism to be the conduit through which we receive spiritual circumcision. Admittedly, baptists can still say that Justin Martyr is talking about believer’s baptism, and I grant the possibility, but such a reading would require him to have some important unspoken qualifications in his mind about the significant difference between circumcision

(which is normally signified by application to infants ), and baptism (which is signified by application to professing adults ). Whatever the case, we see here a rather strong connection in his mind between circumcision and baptism.

Our third witness is Irenaeus (ca. A.D. 120–202), who wrote a significant attack against

Gnosticism in his Against Heresies . The Gnostics claimed that Jesus was divine, but not fully human—He only appeared to have a physical body. Irenaeus responded to these false teachers by pointing out the humanity of Jesus:

[Jesus] did not seem one thing while He was another, as those affirm who describe Him as being man only in appearance; but what He was, that He also appeared to be. Being a Master, therefore, He also possessed the age of a Master, not despising or evading any condition of humanity, nor setting aside in Himself that law which He had appointed for the human race, but sanctifying every age, by that period corresponding to it which belonged to Himself. For He came to save all through means of Himself—all, I say, who through Him are born again to God—infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. 39

Observe the force of Irenaeus’ argument: In his defense against the Gnostics, he appeals to the applicability of Jesus’ salvation to every age , because Jesus Himself went through every age in

His humanity. So what can we conclude about infant baptism from this passage? Although the

38 Justin Martyr, Dialogue of Justin , XLIII, in Roberts, The Anteicene Fathers . 39 Irenaeus, Against Heresies , Book II, Ch. XXII, in Roberts, The Anteicene Fathers .

22 word “baptism” is not found here, we can still ask which understanding of baptism is most consistent with what we do see. If Irenaeus did not believe in infant baptism, then in what sense did he believe that infants were “born again”? I’m not sure how this could be answered in the baptist scheme. The most natural reading of this is that, at least in Irenaeus’ mind, infant baptism is the means by which Jesus’ salvation is applied to infants. According to Berkhof, this text is

“generally regarded as the earliest [implicit] reference to infant baptism, since the early Fathers so closely associated baptism with regeneration that they used the term ‘regeneration’ for

‘baptism.’” 40 This idea seems to be confirmed when we see another portion of his writings:

For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new- born babes. 41

But, we might object, Irenaeus is clearly teaching that infant baptism is a saving ordinance . This is certainly a non-biblical doctrine, but we’ve already admitted that the early church fathers had some skewed theology, especially as relates to baptismal regeneration. This shouldn’t surprise us. My only point here is that at the very minimum, the idea of infant baptism seems to have existed in Irenaeus’ mind, even if his ideas were linked to faulty theology.

Our fourth witness is Tertullian (ca. A.D. 160–230), who wrote extensively about baptism.

Tertullian gives us the first explicit mention of infant baptism in the early church:

And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary—if (baptism itself) is not so necessary—that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfil [ sic ] their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? 42

40 Berkhof, Systematic Theology , p. 635. 41 Irenaeus, Fragments of the Lost Writings , XXXIV, in Roberts, The Anteicene Fathers . 42 Tertullian, On Baptism , XVIII, in Roberts, The Anteicene Fathers .

23 Tertullian is concerned about a disturbing trend that he sees in the church: apparently, people who have been baptized as infants are growing up rejecting their baptism (which, to Tertullian, is a rejection of their salvation). He is convinced that being baptized as an infant is not necessary , so he advocates waiting as long as possible to get baptized so that the saving grace that is conferred therein has less opportunity to be “destroyed” by a long life of sinful temptations. He is also apparently convinced that when a person squanders the salvation given him as a child, it ends up also hurting his parents, because they were the ones who professed faith in his place during the baptism ceremony. This obviously implies that the child wasn’t old enough to profess his own faith. Although Tertullian is writing against infant baptism, the important thing for our purposes is that he is admitting to its practice in the church. 43 If infant baptism was not occurring when he wrote this, then his argument against it is absolutely unintelligible—he would be writing against a non-existent problem! We also get the feeling in this passage that the doctrine of infant baptism has been around for a while—long enough for at least one generation of baptized children to grow up, squander their “salvation,” then for Tertullian to notice the problem, and for him to get fed up enough with its “dangers” to write against it.

Our fifth witness is Hippolytus (ca. A.D. 170–235), who was a contemporary of

Tertullian, and wrote what he believed was :

The children shall be baptized first. All of the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family. 44

This obvious affirmation of infant baptism corroborates the conclusions we reached in

Tertullian’s writings.

43 Reymond, Systematic Theology , p. 944. 44 Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition , 21.4, in Edgecomb, www.bombaxo.com/hippolytus.html .

24 Our sixth witness is Origen (ca. A.D. 182–251), who was also a contemporary of

Tertullian, and also explicitly links infant baptism to apostolic tradition:

For this also it was that the church had from the Apostles a tradition to give baptism even to infants. For they to whom the divine mysteries were committed knew that there is in all persons a natural pollution of sin which must be done away by water and the Spirit. 45

This is quite a bold statement. He is so convinced of its truth that he is willing to assign it to the

Apostles themselves (albeit, through “apostolic tradition,” which is questionable on other grounds). But keep in mind that Origen was one of the earliest and greatest apologists of the

Christian faith. So at least in his mind, he would have deeply appreciated the need for his writings to be as credible as possible. If this bold statement was generally known to be false in his day, then why would he risk getting egg on his face over a relatively minor doctrine, and why do we not see any major opposition to it from his contemporaries?

The baptist might object by saying that Origen also defended the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration, which we know to be unbiblical, but we don’t see opposition to that doctrine from his contemporaries. That is a good point, but I contend that it is much more understandable for the unbiblical doctrine of baptismal regeneration to emerge early in the church if the doctrine of infant baptism were true . It is much harder for the baptist to explain the emergence of the (false) doctrine of baptismal regeneration if infants were never baptized.

Therefore, it is easier to expect Origen to not receive opposition to his writings about baptismal regeneration if infant baptism were true, than if it were false, because the biblical doctrine of infant baptism is easy to misunderstand and misapply and would therefore be expected to emerge rather quickly in the early church. But we would expect to see opposition from Origen’s contemporaries if infant baptism was, in fact, a false doctrine to begin with, because such a doctrine would truly be innovative —enough to be noticed and rejected.

45 Origen, Commentary on Romans , 5:9, in Kastens, “Infant Baptism in the Early Church.”

25 To the baptist, my line of argument here may seem like a stretch, but I point out that this very thing happened with regard to the Jews and circumcision. The biblical (that is, Old

Testament) doctrine of circumcision obviously included infants. But almost immediately after

God commanded it, the Jews started misapplying the doctrine, thinking that just because they were physically circumcised as infants, they were therefore in right standing with God. So it shouldn’t be so surprising to see “circumisional regeneration” emerge rather quickly in the history of the Jews, given the true doctrine of circumcision. In the same way, we shouldn’t be surprised to see an almost immediate misapplication of baptismal regeneration in the history of the early church, if the doctrine of infant baptism were true .

Our seventh witness is Cyprian (ca. A.D. 200–258), who “asked the delegates at a church council whether they felt infant baptism should be delayed until the eighth day. The discussion of this detail was occasioned by a letter from a rural bishop, Fidus, who was of the opinion that such a delay was to be observed after the analogy of circumcision in the Old Testament

(Gen 17:12).” 46 Here is Cyprian’s response:

But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man. 47

We see that Cyprian’s disagreement with this church’s thoughts of dispensing with infant baptism is based on more than just his own opinion—this conclusion is reached within the context of a church council . In fact, Cyprian later reflects the consensus of sixty-six bishops at

46 Jewett, Infant Baptism & the Covenant of Grace , p. 18. 47 Cyprian, Epistle LVIII , para. 2, in Roberts, Anteicene Fathers .

26 the Council of Carthage in A.D. 254, which stated, “We ought not hinder any person from baptism and the grace of God . . . especially infants . . . those newly born.” 48

Our final witness is a collection of writings grouped under the title “Apostolic Teachings and Constitutions,” which consists of various sources in the third and fourth centuries. Book VI in this collection has been dated to around A.D. 250–300, and addresses several issues concerning baptism. One of its concerns is that adults who get baptized should first be thoroughly instructed: “Instruct the catechumens in the elements of religion, and then baptize them.” 49 This helps guard against nominalism (which was a legitimate danger), and highlights the solemn importance of the sacrament of baptism. The baptist could point to this as evidence in church history for the command to baptize after thorough instruction, but then we see in this very same book the answer to what was apparently another common question of the day: Should people who were baptized as infants be re -baptized as adults? The answer, according to this writing, was, “Also baptize your infants, and bring them up in the nurture and admonition of God.” 50

But how could this writing command the church to baptize their infants, if it was impossible for infants to meet the conditions of baptism, namely, catechetical instruction?

Apparently, such instruction was not the universal condition for receiving baptism. The most natural understanding of this is that in the case of adults who had not been baptized, they should not receive the sacrament until they had been thoroughly instructed (and, presumably, professed their faith). But in the case of infants , who were understood to be in an environment in which they would receive the proper catechetical instruction (namely, in the home, under their parent’s guidance), they should also be baptized. This serves as a counter-example to any baptist

48 Cyprian, Epistles of Cyprian , in Kastens, “Infant Baptism in Early Church History.” 49 Constitutions of the Holy Apostles , Book VI, in Roberts, Anteicene Fathers: Volume VII . 50 Ibid.

27 argument which says that a reference to instruction or profession of faith as a pre-condition to baptism necessarily rules out the possibility of infants being baptized.

This has tremendous implications for our understanding of the New Testament’s references to baptism. Just because the New Testament has consistent examples of people professing faith and then getting baptized does not preclude the possibility that infant baptism is also an accepted norm alongside the practice of immediately baptizing adults who profess faith in Christ. The doctrine of infant baptism thoroughly accounts for all the New Testament examples of believer’s baptism, because in a missionary situation (as with the Gospel going out to the Gentiles), we would expect to see the Gospel primarily impacting people who were not baptized as infants, resulting the vast majority of baptisms being applied to professing adults. 51

In a missionary situation, “the first subjects of baptism are always converts” 52 as opposed to covenant children. But once the Gospel has penetrated a community, where at least one parent has become a Christian, we would also expect to see references to entire households being included in the covenant community, which, incidentally, we do find in the New Testament. 53

Analysis of the Historical Evidence . So what overarching conclusions can we draw from these early witnesses? If we allow Polycarp’s reference to his service to Christ in his infancy to refer to his baptism, then we have evidence of infant baptism occurring during the time of the apostles (even before the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in A.D. 70). Within a generation of the apostles (the first half of the second century), we see a strong connection between spiritual circumcision and baptism (Justin Martyr), and by the middle of the second century, reference is made to infants being “born again” in Christ (Irenaeus).

51 Ferguson, “Baptism,” in Encyclopedia of Early , p. 162. 52 Bromily, “Believer’s Baptism,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology , p. 132. 53 Acts 16:15, 33; 1 Cor 1:16. Although we cannot “force” these Scriptures to include infants, they do reflect what we would expect to see in an environment where infant baptism is the accepted norm.

28 By the beginning of the third century, we have explicit reference to infant baptism

(Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, and Cyprian), and we have good reason to believe that it was being practiced for some time before this point in history (Tertullian). We also see infant baptism being linked strongly to apostolic tradition (Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Origen). Even if they were wrong about believing that a particular doctrine was handed down uncorrupted from the apostles, we must not minimize the weight that fact carries—at least in their minds, infant baptism was so accepted as correct doctrine, that they considered it to be direct apostolic teaching . Finally, we see that the doctrine of infant baptism is universally confirmed in A.D. 254, by a gathering of sixty-six bishops at the Council of Carthage (Cyprian).

We conclude our pre-Nicene historical analysis with a few observations and challenges to our baptist brethren. Although no airtight argument favoring infant baptists can be made on the basis of history alone , we can legitimately ask this question: Which view of baptism best accounts for what we do see in church history? I believe infant baptism is the best answer. It best accounts for why so many adult believers are baptized in the New Testament and in church history. And it also best accounts for the Old Testament cultural and religious assumptions that the children of adult believers were considered a part of the visible covenant community of God.

It best accounts for the later doctrinal abuses (i.e., baptismal regeneration) that arose from a misunderstanding of infant baptism, just as the Jews misunderstood their physical circumcision.

It best accounts for “silence” about infant baptism in both the New Testament and the early church (at least in the very early church). And it best accounts for what we find in the specific writings discussed above.

If, as baptists claim, infant baptism is not a biblical doctrine, they have a number of questions to answer: Where did the idea of infant baptism in church history originate? In other

29 words, why would the church think of it? If the church thought of it in connection with circumcision, then that bolsters the infant baptist position. But if not, what was the impetus for the doctrine? In addition, if the baptist discounts the infant baptist’s arguments from silence prima facie , then they must also discount their own arguments from silence prima facie . Finally, in light of the Old Testament covenantal ethos that pervaded New Testament times, where is the positive proof that infants should not be included in the (visible) covenant community of God? I do not believe baptists have given sufficient answers to these objections.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I believe I have shown compelling evidence from the Bible and early church history that the proper recipients of baptism should include infants of believers. As long as we are careful to be honest with the Scriptures and early church history, avoid logical fallacies, and maintain a humble spirit, we can make progress in this debate.

What’s at stake in this doctrine? The doctrine of infant baptism is very important in the quality of life in the family and the local church. Rightly administered, infant baptism protects and empowers parents to carry out their God-given mandate to raise their children in the training and instruction of the Lord (Eph 6:4). It treats the children of believers, not as unbelieving pagans, but as privileged in the sight of God. It visibly and powerfully demonstrates that God has a claim on this child . And while it does not necessarily indicate the child’s salvation, it does indicate that God’s claim is based on the objective cross-work of Christ. So given the power and depth of that sign, the parents are called to take it very seriously and do everything they can in the home to point that child toward the realization in Christ of his own baptism by water.

It can and should also be a powerful symbol in the child’s life as he grows up. The parents, at some point, should have instructed him in the fact of and reasons for his baptism. So

30 he should also have a sense that God has a claim on him, and should understand that claim as a call to embrace Christ by faith when he is able.

In terms of the health of the church, we have seen, tragically, that the doctrine of infant baptism has been abused. It has become a symbol of “inclusion” under God’s favor by mere virtue of its physical application. But its abuse only serves as an indictment of the people and churches that allow it, rather than the sacrament itself. In fact, if rightly administered, infant baptism has a very purifying effect on the church. It sets her apart from the world, not just of the professing parents, but of their children. In other words, having faithful parents matters to God !

May our treatment of our children truly reflect the attitude of Christ when He said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these” (Matt 19:14).

31 Bibliography

Adams, Jay E. The Meaning and Mode of Baptism . Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1979.

Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology . Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1941.

Bromily, G. W., “Believer’s Baptism,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology , ed. Walter A. Elwell. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001.

Coppes, Leonard J., The Baptism Debate . Thornton, CO: Providence Presbyterian Church Press, 2002.

Crooks, Roger M., Salvation’s Sign and Seal . Ross-shire, Great Britain: Christian Focus Publications, 1997.

Cyprian, Epistles of Cyprian . In Kastens, Dennis. “Infant Baptism in Early Church History.” In Issues, Etc. Journal . Spring 1997. Vol. 2. No 3. http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/journals/kastens.htm .

Ferguson, Everett, “Baptism,” in Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, Second Edition , ed. Everett Ferguson. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1997.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology . Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.

Jewett, Paul K. Infant Baptism & the Covenant of Grace . Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1978.

Hippolytus. Apostolic Tradition . Translated by Kevin P. Edgecomb. www.bombaxo.com/hippolytus.html .

Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology , Volume III. Hendrickson Publishers, Inc. edition, 2003.

Malone, Fred A. A String of Pearls Unstrung . Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 1998.

Murray, John. Christian Baptism . Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1980.

Pratt, Richard. Why Do We Baptize Our Children? (video). Orlando, FL: Third Millennium Ministries, 2000.

Reymond, Robert L. A ew Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith . Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998.

Roberts, Alexander and James Donaldson. Anteicene Fathers . Oak Harbor, WA: Research Systems, Inc., 1997.

32 Sartelle, John P. What Christian Parents Should Know About Infant Baptism . Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1985.

Schenck, Lewis Bevens. The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant . Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1940.

Spencer, Duane Edward. Holy Baptism: Word Keys Which Unlock the Covenant . Tyler, TX: Geneva Ministries, 1984.

Wilson, Douglas. To A Thousand Generations . Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 1996.

33

Top View