Infant Baptism

padredurand,

Presbyterians and some Baptist's denominations are Calvinists and yet disagree on your chosen topic of infant baptism. Usually Presbyterians believe in infant baptism while Reformed Baptists, for example, believe in adult immersion baptism.

Lest someone correct me, there are Baptists who lean more toward Arminian theology.

Berrian, Th.D.

 

Why would you expect this to be a problem for a 4 or 5 pt Calvinist?

Indeed I would expect Calvinists to find far more satisfying ways to incorporate infant Baptism since it is in perfect harmony with their Calvinism. Arminians have a much more difficult time doing that with Arminianism.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,

Do you even understand the differences between infant baptism in a Presbyterian church and a Catholic Church?

Baptism is a completely different piece of theology. TULIP or as I prefer the acrynym RUPIP, is just Calvinist soteriology.

Infant baptism practiced by Catholics has to do with a theology of infusion of grace. Calvinists of all stripes reject infusion. To say that infant baptism somehow fits Calvinism (probably said because many of you somehow think that Calvinism is Catholic) is waaay off base.

Presybyterians affirm that infant baptism is a means of signifying inclusion in the benefits of the New Covenant. There is a long theology about community within Calvinism. The relationship to the soteriological portion is minimal. The only relevance that it has to the soteriology of Calvinism is the idea that we are saved into a community of believers. Presbyterians do not believe in infusion of grace. There between Presbyterians and Reformed Jews than between Presbyterians and Catholics with respect to infant baptism.

We Baptists often dedicate babies for the same reasons that Presbyterians practice infant baptism. Nothing more, nothing less.

Evangelical Presbyterians do not reject believer's baptism at all anymore. In fact, some PCA churches actually do practice both forms of baptism. Many evangelical Anglicans also practice baptism by immersion. It is a complete myth that Presbyterians and evangelical Anglicans reject believers baptism.

Calvinism generally doesn't differentiate between the seven dispensations that some dispensationalists see. On the other hand many Calvinists do differentiate in such a manner.

The point is that the overall framework of Scripture is the Old Coveant and the New Covenant. When Protestants practice infant baptism, they do so as a sign that they intend for their children to be included in the general blessings of the New Covenant. Infant baptism carries no saving merit, as that is the specific merit of the New Covenant that comes only by grace through faith.

 

Are you asking for the a history of infant baptism and how it came about that Knox and others brought it from Catholicism to the Presbyterian churches?

Actually this is not because I think Calvinism or Presbyterians are Catholic. Rather I think Calvinists (4 and 5 pt specifically) jump on this because "choice" has nothing to do with salvation in their view. In that case - an infant is "as equally dead as an adult".

What better model for "God is Sovereign" and "it is all of God and none of man" than the case of infant baptism?

As for Catholics -- their view of original sin led them to see infants as "missing out on heaven" if they died before accepting Christ. Then they introduced the idea of magic-sacraments -- and priests "with the powers" to administer them.

(Note a test case example of that above is the fact that they view excommunicated priests as "still having the power to turn bread into the body of Christ". In their view the laity have no such "powers".)

But I digress.

The Catholic reason - rests on powers of the priest and infants missing heaven.

The Calvinist reason - rests on man doing nothing, choosing nothing, being capable of nothing. An infant serves that model as well as an adult.

Indeed. Saved under the New Covenant - vs lost under the old Covenant.

It is the same theme. Salvation that does not need the "choice" of the human to be real.

Indeed. That is also the tradition of my church.

I am simply arguing that infant baptism is not the great challenge to Calvinists that it would be to Arminians.

Catholics get around that problem by appeals to "magic powers".

Calvinists can simply appeal to "calvinism" that needs NO choice, no act on the part of the human for salvation to be "all of God and none of man".

I assume this is why the subject of infant baptism appears on a Calvinist vs Arminian debate board.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Are you asking for the a history of infant baptism and how it came about that Knox and others brought it from Catholicism to the Presbyterian churches?

Actually this is not because I think Calvinism or Presbyterians are Catholic. Rather I think Calvinists (4 and 5 pt specifically) jump on this because "choice" has nothing to do with salvation in their view. In that case - an infant is "as equally dead as an adult".

What better model for "God is Sovereign" and "it is all of God and none of man" than the case of infant baptism?

As for Catholics -- their view of original sin led them to see infants as "missing out on heaven" if they died before accepting Christ. Then they introduced the idea of magic-sacraments -- and priests "with the powers" to administer them.

(Note a test case example of that above is the fact that they view excommunicated priests as "still having the power to turn bread into the body of Christ". In their view the laity have no such "powers".)

But I digress.

The Catholic reason - rests on powers of the priest and infants missing heaven.

The Calvinist reason - rests on man doing nothing, choosing nothing, being capable of nothing. An infant serves that model as well as an adult.

Indeed. Saved under the New Covenant - vs lost under the old Covenant.

It is the same theme. Salvation that does not need the "choice" of the human to be real.

Indeed. That is also the tradition of my church.

I am simply arguing that infant baptism is not the great challenge to Calvinists that it would be to Arminians.

Catholics get around that problem by appeals to "magic powers".

Calvinists can simply appeal to "calvinism" that needs NO choice, no act on the part of the human for salvation to be "all of God and none of man".

I assume this is why the subject of infant baptism appears on a Calvinist vs Arminian debate board.

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Bob,

Calvinists believe in choice...again, you show you do not understand what Calvinists believe. The affirm natural ability. They do not affirm moral ability. Regeneration restores the moral ability. Faith results, main chooses to believe, and he is saved. You do not understand "irresistible grace" properly.

 

Indeed. for 4 and 5 pt calvinists - the new birth, the new creation, the "saint" comes BEFORE choosing to accept Christ.

Hence - the ease with which they can embrace infant baptism. Baptism that fully and completely replaces believer's baptism such that there is NO believer's baptism after infant baptism.

It is pretty obvious. I fail to see how this can be confusing.

In Christ,

Bob

 

We have Calvinism in its fully confused form. In the above Thursday quote -- Selection based on family tree, selection based on "who your parents are" (or in this case selection based on your parent 1000 generations ago) -- is not the full complete and arbitrary selection that Calvinism normally proclaims on Sundays.

How will you "have it both ways"?

But more pointedly, the seal, the confirmation, the fullness of INWARD BAPTISM is taking place for the non-believing, unrepentant -- infant according to the text above. They are CONFIRMED as members of the New Covenant kingdom of God.

What more needsd to be said? The case of infant baptism fits PERFECTLY with the saved-before-choice model of 4 and 5 pt calvinists.

How can this be confusing to you?

In Christ,

Bob

 

We have Calvinism in its fully confused form. In the above Thursday quote -- Selection based on family tree, selection based on "who your parents are" (or in this case selection based on your parent 1000 generations ago) -- is not the full complete and arbitrary selection that Calvinism normally proclaims on Sundays.

How will you "have it both ways"?

But more pointedly, the seal, the confirmation, the fullness of INWARD BAPTISM is taking place for the non-believing, unrepentant -- infant according to the text above. They are CONFIRMED as members of the New Covenant kingdom of God.

What more needsd to be said? The case of infant baptism fits PERFECTLY with the saved-before-choice model of 4 and 5 pt calvinists.

How can this be confusing to you?

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Non-sequitar fallacy of logic, Bob. It is a conclusion that flows illogically from the premise. Guilt by association as well. You assume that because Calvinist soteriology is what it is, that Presyberian and Anglican practices of infant baptism flow from it. Astounding.

I have already explained the premises of those denominations views.

You are grasping at straw men. I could just as easily use the same logic as you and say that it is illogical for Arminians not to hold to baptismal regeneration of believers. (I would point out that many Arminians do believe that).

 

No, Calvinists that practice believers baptism DO NOT BELIEVE ELECTION IS GROUNDED BAPTISM NOR IS THERE ANY SAVING GRACE OR MERIT IN BAPTISM ITSELF.
Those that say this are using straw men arguments.

Here is a paper from a Presbyterian that affirms infant baptism. I would note that this person is now a Baptist. Matt is an acquaintance of mine. He also affims and practices believers baptism for the same reason that the rest of us Baptists affirm it.

Occasionally Christians will discuss baptism and confidently proclaim that infant baptism isn't a biblically valid concept. This may or may not be the case, but what concerns me most about the topic is not so much whether a person believes or disbelieves in infant baptism. The concern is that those who condemn it often do so in such a way as to show little grace and in their condemnation they inadvertently aid in bringing division in the body of Christ by encouraging a subliminal or even deliberate negative reaction against infant baptism and those Christians who hold to it.
Those who say that they know infant baptism is not true because it is not recorded in the Bible, have made a potentially fundamental error in biblical examination. The doctrine of the Trinity, as an example, is not explicitly laid out in the Scriptures, yet Christians believe in it. Why? because it is systematically arrived at. Now, let's look at the possibility of infant baptism. But first understand that I am not trying to convince anyone in this paper that infant baptism is a biblical truth. What I'm trying to do is convince you, if you don't believe in it, that there is a sound reason for accepting infant baptism (not for salvation but as a covenant sign). I am concerned more with a person understanding the argument, and if they disagree, fine. But, they should outright reject it without first hearing a defense of it. This is important because it helps bring unity in the body of Christ when we see that others we disagree with have rational reasons for their beliefs. Furthermore, this opens us up to the possibility of being wrong ourselves on a position and encourages us to be more gracious with those who disagree with us.
I have produced an outline laying out an argument for infant baptism. If you want to understand the argument quickly, than just read the points in bold.


God works covenantally.
A covenant is a pact or agreement between two or more parties. God undoubtedly works covenantal. A quick computer Bible search in the NASB shows that there are 300 verses that have the word covenant in them. By contrast, dispensation(al, ism, s) occurs a total of one time in Zech. 7:9. obviously, God works covenantally.
God's covenants have covenant signs.
The covenant with Adam had the covenant sign of the tree.: "And the LORD God commanded the man, ‘You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die,’" (Gen. 2:16-17).
The covenant with Noah had the sign of the rainbow, (Gen. 9:9-17).
The Covenant with Abraham had the sign of circumcision: "And I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed,” (Gen. 12:7).
There are other covenants and covenant signs..
The Abrahamic Covenant included infants and the sign of their entrance into that covenant was circumcision.
The fact is that infant males were included in the Abrahamic covenant via the sign of circumcision.
Females were included in the covenant via federal headship, the doctrine that the male head of the family represents his descendents. Heb. 7:7-10 is a good example of this.
"The federal headship view considers Adam, the first man, as the representative of the human race that generated from him. As the representative of all humans, Adam’s act of sin was considered by God to be the act of all people and his penalty of death was judicially made the penalty of everybody."1
The Abrahamic Covenant is called the gospel in Gal. 3:8
"And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the nations shall be blessed in you.”
Therefore, the Abrahamic Covenant is still in effect.
Since the covenant is that in Abraham all the nations shall be blessed and that is called the gospel by Paul, then the Abrahamic covenant is still in effect.
To say the Abrahamic covenant is not in effect now, is to contradict what Paul said when he called it the gospel. Remember, God's covenant promise was to bless all nations in Abraham. This is a reference to the coming Messiah in whom we have redemption.
Infants were included in the Abrahamic Covenant which is still in effect.
Whether or not infants understood what was occurring in their participation of the covenant sign is immaterial since it was God who ordered that the infants be included in the Abrahamic covenant.
Since the Abrahamic covenant is still in effect -- by being equated with the gospel - infants should still be included in that same covenant.
Where is the biblical admonition to exclude infants from the same Abrahamic covenant that is still in effect?
There is no command at all to exclude infants from the same covenant that is still in effect.
Baptism is the New Testament covenant sign and is to be applied to infants.
Since the normal biblical pattern is to include infants in the Abrahamic covenant, doesn't it make sense to continue to include them in that same covenant? Yes. The new covenant sign is now baptism which is why Paul equates baptism and circumcision.
"and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead," (Col. 2:11-12).
Questions answered
Then why are then no accounts of infants being baptized in the New Testament?
Actually, there are.
Acts 16:15, "and when she and her household had been baptized,"
Acts 16:31, "he was baptized, he and all his household."
The term household does not necessary mean infants are included.
If this is so, do you think that in all the households that were being baptized in Israel that none of them had infants? (Remember, covenant Jews were commanded to have children - see Gen. 2-3).
What is the natural thinking of a Jew regarding infants and God's covenant? The natural thinking is that they were included in God's covenant system. Would you have us now believe that the Jew who became a Christian would then say something to the effect of, "Now that the promised Messiah has come and God's covenant of promise in Abraham has been realized, I now understand that I am to exclude my infants from God's covenant work and promise." Of course not. This is why it says in Acts 2:38-39, "And Peter said to them, “Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 “For the promise is for you and your children..." Notice that Peter includes children in that fulfilled promise of God...and baptism is part of the subject.
Where is the command in scripture to exclude infants from the very same covenant that is still in effect; namely, the Abrahamic Covenant which is called the gospel by Paul in Gal. 3:8? If you cannot find a command to restrict them, then don't do it.
Infants are not circumcised now. Why?
Because the covenant sign is now baptism, Col. 2:11-12. "and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead." Since the blood of Christ was shed, the blood-sign-of-circumcision has been fulfilled in the Federal Head known as Christ. This means that Christ represented us on the cross. Covenant blood-shed is no longer necessary. Now, the covenant sign is baptism which is why Paul equates the two in Col. 2:11-12
In Acts we only see people get baptized who have first believed.
This is true only if you assume that of all the households in Israel that were baptized, none included infants. This is an assumption that is without substance especially since we know that good Jews were to obey God's command to multiply and replenish the earth.
Also, remember that the context in Acts is mass conversions and of course you'd see the great majority of accounts of baptism after belief. But this does not mean that God's covenant system of including infants is negated.
Finally, many epistles were written to correct error. Why do none of the epistles include a restriction of infants being included in God's covenant via baptism? Why? Because theologically, infants were included in the covenant of God and since the Abrahamic covenant is equated with the gospel,
Doesn't this then mean that infants were saved if they are baptized?
No. Infants in the Abrahamic covenant in Old Testament times were not guaranteed salvation anymore than infants baptized into the same covenant today are promised salvation.
It is the error of the Roman Catholic church and some cults that teaches that baptism saves.
Conclusion

The primary reason for writing this article is not convince anyone that covenant infant baptism is biblical. The primary reason I wrote it is to try and convince people to be more gracious in their opposition to this doctrine. It is perfectly fair for someone to examine the argument and not accept it. But it would be better if once the argument is rejected, that the person who does so sees that there is a reason that people have for believing this teaching and that when disagreeing with the position, that graciousness and humility would be combined with a disagreement of it.
Finally, I would suggest anyone who disagrees with the argument to provide an answer as to why we should now exclude infants from the same Abrahamic covenant, that is still in effect per Gal. 3:8. Remember, God commanded that infants be included in this covenant. What justifies anyone from changing God's command on this?

Copyright by Matthew J. Slick, B.A., M. Div., 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004
I welcome your comments via E-mail at [email protected]

 

I don't think it's a like-for-like issue. There is scriptural support for adult baptism. There is also some scriptural support for baptizm of non-adults in a believer's household (which would, presumably) include infants. We baptists have decided abandon the "household" implication in favor of the more well-documented adult believer's baptism. Hence, what Calvin believed in regards to baptism is of no issue to Baptists.

 

Hello GeneMBridges.

It's a good argument isn't it? But I think when a person has to rely on assumptions then he is heading for a fall.

I come from another slant entirely. I do not believe the Church has been left with a replacement for circumcision. Physical circumcision was a type of the reality. The reality takes place in the heart. Where does it say that an outward sign is needed for anything anymore? The Abrahamic covenant has been changed, at least in respect of the type. Circumcision never did have a value but as a type. Why continue a type when we have the reality?

Baptism has always bothered me. Such importance is attached to it but nobody knows, or agrees, the meaning of it.

Circumcision is a removing of a harder outer shell to reveal a sensitive inner part. This happens when God softens a man's heart regenerating him. Eze 11:19 ...I will remove from them their heart of stone and give them a heart of flesh.

Baptism is a reenactment of Jesus being buried and being resurrected.

These two things are two different things. I believe they have different meanings. I think they should be delinked because there is no scripture linking them in the first place.

I think this baptism/circumcision was arrived at first and then systematically fitted in.

It fails. Females get baptised but not circumcised. If they were under a federal headship women would not be baptised. Logically then they are baptised twice.

This is what I believe. I believe that baptism is a show put on to reveal God's glory enacted by His children who imitate the death and resurrection of His Son, our Brother. We get the chance to reenact His exploits. This is not only for our benefit but to show the fallen angels over and over again how they failed and remind them of their final end.
I see no reason for an outward sign. Outward signs do not really become us.

This is not my understanding. I thought we were conceived as sinners because our source was dead in their sins. I plead not guilty to taking the apple, just guilty of everything else.

It is still an assumption. Too much is resting on an assumption. But it does not matter that the Jews had or hadn't loads of kids, which households were baptised? The households of childless couples? It does not say.
Paul also said that he wished all stayed unmarried thus breaking your rule about having children. 1 Cor 7:8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am.

How's that?

johnp.

 

just enabling e-mail notification.

 

This whole issue hinges on one thing - is baptism of any sort effectual? That is, does it actually DO something for the one being baptized? Does it magically wash away sins that otherwise would not be forgiven? If not, which is a Baptist tenent, then the how and to whom is a secondary debate in the realm of obedience rather than the life and death of the soul.

 

I see it as a matter of obedience.
It has a spiritual effect I know from experience but it does nothing to wash sins away.

I think it is an important secondary issue.
God could have told us if there were any children involved but He did not. I think He did not because He wants us to discuss it between ourselves and come to some sort of learning to be one with each other.

As it is an outward sign I think that it should be easy to have our minds changed concerning it and our understanding of it. I can't see me taking a last stand over the issue as it does not impact salvation at all.

johnp.

 

Hello padredurand.

Heavy guns. But he has the problem as you have, that women are baptised twice? Once in the federal head and once in the water.

Col 2:11-12 In him 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,

This is the reality but you were speaking about the type, no? The outward sign.

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.

Dunno. A spiritual baptism?

johnp.