Credo Baptism: A Retraction
It may at first glance appear out of place to preface a retraction with these famous words of Martin Luther, by which he refuses to retract anything; however, I think the quotation is appropriate, because the same concern that constrained him not to retract anything, in spite of weighty pressures upon him to do so, now constrains me to make this retraction, notwithstanding several pressures that to me are weighty indeed. That is to say, I have indeed been convinced by scripture and clear reason of the error of my previous position, and my conscience now compels me to renounce the position to which I have held all my life. It is difficult for me to do so. May God help me.
It is never easy to make a retraction. One is hindered on every side by pressing concerns and anxieties. There is of course the flaring up of that innate human pride which bristles at the thought of admitting one’s error. By God’s grace I feel that this is a very minor consideration for me at this time. There is also the sudden, crushing sensation of guilt brought about by the realization that one has taught as a scriptural truth, to credulous sheep of Christ’s flock, a supposition that may not be scriptural at all. This concern, too, has been for me greatly ameliorated by the further reflections, first, that I have actually done little teaching on this specific subject; second, that the issue itself is not weighty enough to be a legitimate cause for divisiveness or separation within the body of Christ. Credo-baptists and paedo-baptists alike, when passionately striving for the sake of the Name, have in common a gospel that far outweighs any legitimate differences in the accidents of the covenant signs. In other words, this particular issue does not affect the purity of the gospel of Christ, and should not affect the intensity of love and fellowship shared by those who belong to Christ. And third, this Christian interaction, far from being a basis for guilt or gloom, should be an occasion to rejoice that Christ is still using the mutual edification of his body to cause us all to grow up into doctrinal maturity. Whether credo-baptists or paedo-baptists ultimately prove to be in the right, the loving, Christian interaction they have on the issue ought to be mutually sharpening, and mutually intensifying the love and hunger of one another for Christ, the Savior of us all. However, the last obstacle to my posting this retraction, is difficult for me indeed. That is the fear of anger or rejection by family and friends, because of this change. All my family and all those closest to me in the body of Christ are credo-baptists, and have been as long as I can remember. The thought that I may alienate many of them or do irreparable damage to our relationship by this post is very nearly paralyzing to me. But in the final analysis, all that I can say is, “Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason…I am bound by the scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God.” No matter how devastating the consequences, I cannot let any consideration other than scriptural reasoning guide my beliefs. I may be wrong in the change of position that I am about to embrace. If I am, the scriptures alone must convince me of that. Until that time, “Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise, may God help me.”
My basic reason for this change of position is simply the realization that the infant children of believers are indeed members of the church, possessors of the kingdom, partakers of the covenant – and that because of this status, it is appropriate and necessary that they be given the sign of covenant inclusion, which is, in this dispensation of the covenant, baptism. The comments of Christ in all of the synoptic gospels, on the occasion of the disciples turning away infants of believers as they were coming to Christ to be blessed, are very instructive. As perhaps the most thorough of the three accounts, we will observe Luke 18:15-17:
And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.
At the outset, we must note three things: first, it is indeed infants who are incapable of expressing faith who form the subject of this admonition by Christ. Second, it is specifically infants of adults who profess faith in Christ. They believe in him, and are therefore bringing their children to him. Third, it is said of these infants, that the kingdom of heaven is theirs. It is not logically possible to construe the statement made by Jesus as excluding them from ownership of the kingdom – the set of those who own the kingdom of heaven is positively described as containing those who are like these infants; and negatively limited to those who are like these infants: in order to say that they themselves are excluded, one would have to say that they are unlike themselves in the very point about which Christ was saying that, to be like them, is to possess the kingdom. The nature of kingdom-possession throughout the gospels is exceedingly clear: if one has entered, or owns the kingdom, he is Christ’s, the heir of the promises made to Abraham, the subject of a regenerated heart, in short, a member of the covenant community. At the least, this passage necessitates that we acknowledge a set of infant children of believers in Christ who are the heirs of the kingdom and members of the church.
The significance of this admonition of Christ, and that it was given to the disciples in particular, becomes more clear when we consider some other admonitions that Christ gave to them. The first of these admonitions that we must notice is the authority of the keys of the kingdom, given to Peter in particular in Matthew 16:18-19, and broadened to the consensus of church leadership in Matthew 18:17-18. In both of these instances, Christ is speaking specifically of the building/formation of the church. When he says to Peter that he has the keys to bind or loose someone with regard to the formation of the church, he must be speaking of the authority officially and formally to recognize someone as a church member, or to denounce him as a heathen, i.e. a non-church member. As becomes clear in Matthew 18, this authority is not only Peter’s alone, but belongs to the church leadership in general. And further, this authority is not arbitrary, but must be exercised in conjunction with prayer and the discernment of the revealed will of the father (Matthew 18:19,20). The church on earth is the formally-recognized set of those who are heirs of the kingdom, as any basic New Testament survey would show. Therefore, Christ is giving Peter and the church leadership the authority to give formal recognition to those to whom belongs the kingdom of heaven. The church leadership may wrongly give or withhold that recognition (cf. Christ’s statement in Matthew 7:22-23, that many will falsely claim to have done certain things in Christ’s name), but when truly done in Christ’s name and in genuine, prayerful discernment of his will, it is within the church’s authority to bestow that formal recognition.
But how is this actually to be done? In what way did Christ ordain that the disciples recognize the entrance of certain persons into the church, i.e. confirm them as kingdom-heirs? Matthew 28:18-20 makes this clear. Christ commands that his disciples make disciples of the nations, recognizing their entrance into the church by baptizing them into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Throughout the rest of the New Testament as well, the significance of baptism as the formal, outward recognition of status as church members and kingdom-heirs is apparent. These two additional admonitions of Christ, therefore, set his admonition against refusing to recognize infants of believers as kingdom-heirs in a new light. Christ, in effect, has said to his disciples, “I want you formally to recognize certain persons as kingdom-heirs; I want you to do so through baptism; and I forbid you to exclude the infant children of those who believe in me as kingdom-heirs. I want you to recognize them also as possessors of the kingdom.”
These initial considerations alone are compelling; and throughout the New Testament we find teachings that, although not conclusive in themselves, still fit remarkably well into this basic frame of reference. For instance, consider 1 Corinthians 7:12-14. Paul is here giving instructions concerning marriage, and he brings up the case of a marriage in which only one of the partners comes to Christ. In this case, the believing spouse should not leave the unbeliever. Paul’s reason for this command is enlightening: the presence of just one believing spouse sanctifies the home so that the children are holy. If the spouse were to leave so that the children were in a household governed by an unbelieving parent alone, then they would be unclean. There is a sense, therefore, in which God considers children of believing parents “holy”. This does not necessitate that they are to be considered covenant children and church members (and hence proper subjects of baptism), but it is by far the likeliest and most reasonable explanation.
Peter’s statement of Cornelius, in Acts 10:47, is very convincing as well, when conflated with this prior understanding from the gospels. In the Acts passage, Peter’s basic reasoning is this: “Because these persons possess covenant realities (something which it would be impossible to possess and not be a member of the church), it would be wrong to forbid them the covenant sign of baptism. If Christ said of infant children of believers that they possess covenant realities (the kingdom of heaven), then it would be likewise wrong to forbid them the covenant sign of baptism.
Another convincing line of reasoning may be derived from Paul’s teachings in Galatians 3:13-18. Here Paul reasons that the church in the New Testament (those who believe) are heirs of the Abrahamic blessings, and members in the Abrahamic covenant. The Mosaic covenant (i.e. the law) could never disannul the Abrahamic covenant which was expressly said to be eternal (e.g. Genesis 17:7). The unilateral covenant made with Abraham is still in full effect today, and the church of the New Testament is coterminous with the modern set of members in the Abrahamic covenant. Therefore, if we as the modern expression of the church are members of the Abrahamic covenant, the institution of the Abrahamic covenant has a direct bearing on our practice today. And if we look at the institution and subsequent history of the Abrahamic covenant, we see that from its inception, God dealt in family units. Hence, Abraham’s entire family was formally inaugurated into the covenant community, even members of his family who were not truly regenerate. This is the pattern throughout the rest of the Old Testament, and we see no clear indication of change in the New Testament. In fact, we see certain evidences that the family is still the basic unit of covenant inclusion in the New Testament. For instance Acts 2:38-39, in which Peter commands his audience to be baptized, for “the promise is to you and to your children,” to which he adds, “even to as many as the Lord our God shall call.” True, the offer is extended only to those whom God has called, of which it is to be presumed that the evidence of that calling is the expression of faith, but there is still the indication that the calling is still manifested in family units – the head of household indicates that he has been called when he exercises faith, so his household is baptized into the church. This is not at all conclusive, but given the prior history of covenant inclusion in basically familial units, it is quite reasonable to see this statement of Peter in continuity with the same essential model. All the more so by virtue of the fact that he was proclaiming membership in the very same covenant that had exhibited this model for so many years. The several examples of household baptisms, as well, although again not at all conclusive in themselves, at least lend added plausibility to the idea of familial solidarity in covenant inclusion. The issue is not really whether or not there were actually infants in any of those households that were baptized, but rather the reasons given for the baptism of the households. In at least some of these instances (e.g. the households of Lydia and the Philippian jailer) no indication is given of whether or not the rest of the household also believed. The general tenor of the passages would indicate that this reasoning was assumed: “Because the head of the household believed, the whole household was baptized.” Whether or not the rest of the household also professed faith is not even mentioned, as though it were irrelevant to the fact of the household baptism. Again, not conclusive, but remarkably well adapted to the frame of reference we have already established. It would perhaps be superfluous to mention 1 Corinthians 7:14 again, but it does still have some bearing on the issue.
Not only does Old Testament history show that for thousands of years God dealt with family units in formal covenant inclusion (a pattern that he has never explicitly changed); but more than that, throughout the history of the Abrahamic covenant, God has explicitly commanded that the infants of believing parents be given the sign of the covenant (e.g. Genesis 17:10). The sign of the Abrahamic covenant before Christ was circumcision. The sign of the Abrahamic covenant after Christ is baptism, as Colossians 2:11-12 makes clear. The nature of the covenant sign has changed, but the command that infants be given the sign of the covenant has certainly nowhere explicitly been repealed. It is tenuous at best to assume that the occasion of changing the nature of the covenant sign demands an explicit renewal of the delineation of the subjects of the covenant sign.
The basic syllogism that I have taken some pains to establish may be summed up thus:
MP: God has commanded that covenant members be given the covenant sign (e.g. Genesis 17:7-10; Acts 10:47; Matthew 28:18-20);
mp: The infant children of believers are covenant members (e.g. Matthew 16:18-19);
mp: Today, baptism is the covenant sign (Colossians 2:11-12);
Con. God has commanded that infant children of believers be baptized.
Scriptures and clear reason are therefore convincing my conscience of the necessity of paedo-baptism. I cannot do other than to embrace it.
Thus far, I have only given a positive case to establish the necessity of paedo-baptism. I will now briefly deal with some of the common arguments put forth in favor of credo-baptism.
The unexceptional command in the New Testament is “Repent and be baptized,” and there are no clear examples of anyone being baptized who had not first repented.
This is a historical reality, but it proves nothing. It is self-evident that the apostles, in spreading the gospel, would address their exhortations to unbelieving adults. It is further evident that all unbelieving adults would only be candidates for baptism upon profession of faith. And, although there are no clear examples of infant baptism, there are indications that the belief of the head of a household was sufficient cause to have the entire household baptized. Whether these particular households had any infants is beside the point. What matters is, whether or not any household today, of which the head believes, has any infant children.
Baptism is explicitly called an act of faith/appeal to God, and indicates an actual incorporation into Christ’s body (e.g. Colossians 2:11-12, 1 Peter 3:21, Galatians 3:26-27).
This is undeniably true, but it does not necessarily follow that baptism must come after faith/appeal to God/incorporation into the body of Christ. Romans 4:5 says just as clearly that circumcision is a sign and seal of faith, and many passages in the Old Testament, such as Deuteronomy 10:16 and 30:6 clearly indicate that circumcision is a removal of the old nature that is rebellious and does not love God; but that does not necessitate that circumcision be given only after its subject was able to express faith or give evidence of a changed heart. In fact, God commanded infants to be circumcised.
The New Covenant was prophesied as a covenant of internal genuineness, and the New Testament church is consistently viewed as a pure body of believers, unlike the Jewish nation. Just as Jews were incorporated into the external body of God’s people at physical birth, so Christians are incorporated into the internally-genuine body of God’s people at spiritual birth, i.e. the occasion of faith and repentance.
This is by far the most convincing argument for credo-baptism. It is the sole reason I remained a credo-baptist for so long. And yet it loses its force upon the observation of a few basic truths.
The newness of covenant members being internally genuine, prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31-34 and quoted in Hebrews 8:8-13, is a newness in relation to the Mosaic covenant, not the Abrahamic. In fact, Jeremiah explicitly says that the New Covenant would be, “Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt…” The covenant made on that occasion was clearly not the Abrahamic, but the Mosaic. Hence it was the Mosaic that was “made old,” and “ready to vanish away” (Hebrews 8:13). By contrast, the Abrahamic was explicitly said to be eternal (Genesis 17:7).
Of this Abrahamic covenant, it was said as explicitly as it is said of the New covenant that it was pure. Everyone that is included in it was clearly spoken of in terms that deny the possibility of impure membership, e.g. “I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee” (Genesis 17:7). However, in this pure covenant, God explicitly commanded that some who were not genuine be formally included through the covenant sign, for example Ishmael and Esau. Hence it is at least not impossible for the New Covenant to be spoken of as pure, and yet for it to be commanded that the covenant sign be given to some who are potentially not genuine.
Several passages in the New Testament indicate that some who are formally members in the New Covenant are not actually genuine. Examples include the Hebrews warning passages (Hebrews 4:1-11; 6:4-8; 10:26-29; 12:14-17), and, most tellingly, Romans 11:17-24. This passage very clearly states that, just as the Jews were formally incorporated into the covenant, and then were broken off for unbelief, so those of us today who have been incorporated into the same covenant will likewise be broken off if we exhibit unbelief. Hence it is possible for persons to be genuinely incorporated into the New Covenant, and yet not be genuine believers. The purity-of-the-church argument could be formulated in precisely the same manner with regard to the Abrahamic covenant before Sinai: and yet, God commanded the sign of the covenant to be given to infants. Therefore, it is at least not implausible that the sign of the covenant be given today.
I have not come across any reasons, scriptural or logical, to reject my positive arguments for paedo-baptism. However, none of the positive arguments I have come across for credo-baptism are at all conclusive. My conscience leaves me no choice but to accept the validity, and indeed the necessity of paedo-baptism. I hope this reality does not separate me from my beloved Baptist friends and brothers in Christ. And yet, even if it does, “it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. I cannot do otherwise, here I stand, may God help me.”
121 Responses to “Credo Baptism: A Retraction”
Leave a Reply
Search
Advertisement
- Articles
-
- 01. Christ and the Cross (11)
- 02. Hermeneutics (5)
- 03. Covenant Theology (3)
- 04. Dispensationalism (8)
- 05. Apologetics (2)
- 06. The Atonement (5)
- 07. Doctrines of Grace (3)
- 08. The Law (3)
- 09. Baptism (5)
- 10. Unity (3)
- 11. Worship (5)
- 12. Missions (6)
- 13. Eschatology (10)
- 14. Book Studies (20)
- 15. Exegetical Notes (6)
- 16. Personal & Misc. (7)
- 17. Devotional & Invitational (8)
- 18. New Testament Book Introductions (27)
- 19. New Testament Book Outlines (32)
- Site Information
- Storefront
-
- *Bookstore*
- Articles
- Dispensacionalismo (Portuguese)
- Fair Semblances
- Greatness of the Love of Christ, The
- Hidden Treasure, The
- If I Could Tell You Just One Thing
- Images of the Savior
- Images of the Savior from the Pentateuch
- Knowing Our God
- Knowing Ourselves
- Living Word, The
- Poems
- Studies in John
- Themes in Theology, vol. 1 – Christ and the Cross
- Themes in Theology, vol. 2 – The Church: Its Mission and Worship
- Themes in Theology, vol. 3 – The Word: Hermeneutics and Biblical Studies
- Themes in Theology, vol. 4 – Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology
- Understanding Isaiah
- What the Bible Says About Baptism
- What the Bible Says About the Doctrines of Grace
- What the Bible Says About the People of God
- Recommended Links
Derek, It’s Young Bok Kim. How wonderful it is that I can catch you here. Please email me since I do not have your email address. I would love to hear you brother. My email address is yands1104@hanmail.net.
Greetings All!
I am a former Methodist pastor who went from Wesleyan/Arminian to Calvinist/Reformed/Presbyterian. I read through these posts with great interest. As a UMC pastor, I baptized infants, but the Methodist position is somewhat different than the Reformed view.
Arminian paedobaptism is inconsistent. In Arminianism, one must actively choose to believe in Christ. He is given “prevenient grace” which enables him to make this decision. Prevenient grace is given to all human beings, not just to baptized infants. At best, infant baptism seems to increase one’s chance of choosing Christ. Once he chooses faith in Christ, he then is regenerated. In Arminian theology, an infant cannot be passively regenerated. He must choose for himself at some later date.
It appears that credobaptism has the same inconsistency but from the other end. Credobaptism insists upon a profession of faith while still insisting upon monergism. I find it interesting that the London Baptist Confession recognizes that infants can be regenerated. It states
Infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, Who works when, where, and how He pleases. So also are all elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
The LBC also recognizes the difference between the visible and invisible church (Chapter 26 Of The Church). Hence, a regenerated infant can belong to the invisible church but, be denied membership in the visible church by virtue of not being able to make a profession of faith. This seems very inconsistent to me.
Be that as it may, I pastor a Presbyterian church and embrace paedobaptism because I believe Covenant Theology and Calvinism are the best articulations we have of sound Biblical theology. The Biblical concepts that are important to the discussion, in my opinion, are
I know I’m saying a lot and not defending anything. However, after reading through the two different threads on Pitchford’s Ramblings, I believe these ideas were already touched upon in one degree or another.
I have some questions that are all interrelated.
What was the purpose of the baptism of Jesus Christ? Many credobaptist point to the baptism of Christ as one of their strongest arguments for credobaptism, “if it was good enough for Jesus, it is good enough for me.”
Next question. Is Jesus’ baptism the same thing as the sign given to the covenant community of the visible church? This, I think, is a very important question.
One more related question. What exactly is the baptism of John and is it the same or different than what was commanded later on in the New Testament in relation to salvation? These questions are at the heart of the many credobaptist’s arguments against paedobaptism.
In Christ,
Norman Patterson
Norman,
Thanks for your comment – you bring a new perspective to the table, as I don’t think anyone so familiar with the Arminian/Methodist understanding of paedobaptism has yet been involved in the discussion. I certainly appreciate some of your points. I would have to agree that paedobaptism is fundamentally inconsistent with Arminian theology, particularly in its tenet that faith must precede regeneration.
As far as the Baptist “inconsistency,” I think that their different understanding of the nature of baptism must account for it. They do not see baptism as a sign/seal of regeneration and inclusion in the Church, but rather as a public confession of faith. So they are not really inconsistent with their own point of view (even those among them who would admit the possibility of infant regeneration) – but the question is, do they have an adequate understanding of the meaning and significance of baptism?
I agree with you that infants may be regenerated (as John the Baptist certainly was while still in the womb, according to the explicit testimony of Luke); and furthermore, I agree that the children of believers must be acknowledged as regenerate, inasmuch as God calls them “holy” (I Corinthians 7) which they could not be if unregenerate, and in fact Jesus speaks of them as those who possess the Kingdom of Heaven, by which description he certainly qualifies them as regenerate, if one would compare other gospel passages in which the meaning of possessing the Kingdom is made clear (e.g. The discourse with Nicodemus). Of course, there remains the mystery of God’s secret will, so that, among the visible church, some tares will in fact exist until the return of Christ – whether those having grown up in the church from infancy or those having made a false profession as adults – but clearly, God has given us strong cause to consider our children as covenant-members and so to instruct them in the necessity of ongoing faith in Christ, lest they prove to be false professors in the end (in the vein of the Hebrews warning passages, etc.).
As far as your questions go:
1.I believe that Jesus was baptized, first, in proxy for all of God’s people who had been commanded to be baptized with John’s baptism, and yet could never do so with perfect enough repentance to be finally pleasing to God. Jesus undertook to win a positive righteousness by actively obeying every command that had been laid upon the people whom he came to save. As God had commanded this baptism of repentance through John, Jesus undertook to be baptized in perfect accord with God’s intention, in order to win a perfect obedience to give to his people. But secondly, Jesus was solemnly dedicating himself to passing through the waters of God’s judgment. The end and goal of his life would be to undergo the full and exhaustive judgment of God in the place of the elect, and his baptism was a solemn sign and seal of that arrangement.
2.The sign given to the church is related, I think, in that it signifies and seals a union with Christ in all of his redemptive activity, most notably his death and resurrection. So, if the baptism of Christ sealed him in his coming death, and our baptism seals us as dying with Christ, they both must point to the same reality. However, the way in which the subjects of baptism relate to that reality, Christ as actively accomplishing it, and we as receiving the benefits of it, are fundamentally different.
3.I think John’s baptism must have been different than today’s Christian baptism. After all, those disciples who had been baptized by John, when they were given the news about Jesus, were required to be baptized again. The fundamental difference must be that, in John’s time, the people were looking ahead to God’s judgment, repenting of their sins, and acknowledging their need of a future Messiah to undergo this judgment in their stead. But after Christ had already undergone God’s judgment, the perspective is one of participation in an already-accomplished event. John’s was a baptism of hoping in the promise, when God’s wrath was yet hanging over the people. Christian baptism is a baptism of participation in the fulfilled promise, and does not merely look ahead to a time when God’s wrath shall have been averted, but rejoices in that very truth.
These answers are not meant to be authoritative assertions, but thought-through suggestions, that may stand to be corrected by any more thought or insight into the subject.
Blessings from the cross, Nathan
Well I am very greatfull for this blog and will so I think we ought to thank about doing one thing when somone says somthing about the Bible that we dont agree with and that is do some reall bible hermanutics and not put your opinion into what you think the Bible says.
I use to go to Baptist church for a long time, but let me tell you, their theology is forced onto the Bible and does not come from the Bible. I find most Baptist do not have very good theology, and even the ones that do dont’ really understand alot of the Bible becuase it doesn’t fit traditional Baptist theology. I am almost upset at the fact Baptist wont change their theology becuase they fail to do Biblical hermanutics. I still love my Baptist brothers, but the Bible cleary teaches in my opinion if you will actually do Biblical hermanutics Infant baptism. Not baptising children is insulting to God and His grace.
Ken
Ken,
I agree with you that biblical hermeneutics should lead to infant baptism. But I do think that there are a great many Baptists who are excellent theologians, overall, and who are doing their best not to let their theology force their reading of the scriptures. Of course it would be best never to “put your opinion into what you think the Bible says,” but unfortunately, that’s not true with any of us 100% of the time. We all have blind spots, and we’re all striving together for a better understanding of Christ. God grant that we may be able to help each other out, whether credo- or paedo-baptistic in our current understanding!
Nathan
Brothers:
I am a former Christian Reformed member & a Presbyterian Elder here in Metro Manila, Philippines- but now embraces “believer’s baptism”. I accepted this view after wrestling first with the issue of the “Christian sabbath” and tithing. Once I see the discontinuity there-it is not hard to see the discontinuity between Abraham’s fleshly seed and his spiritual children. I also realized that most troubles plaguing reformed Christianity today and before stems from this wrong reading of Covenant theology. like why Calvin agreed that Servetus is a civil threat to the church, Halfway Covenant during Jonathan Edwards, Kuyper’s presumptive regenaration, why theonomy wants to imposed biblical law in society, why Federal Vision tries to emphasize justification by faith that works. It is because they expand the covenant to include unbelieving children. And reformed paedobaptist theology wont stop at the church! I can now safely say that when I quote John 1: 12-13 I can say it without qualifications or rationalizations. I have 4 children btw.
Ray,
While I can see your case for some of the discontinuities mentioned above, and would agree that some of those “troubles plaguing reformed Christianity” are indeed pernicious, I don’t think that those points alone can establish your case against paedo-baptism. As in any other matter, it must be argued on its own merits; and when done so properly, I think the outcome will be a hearty acceptance of it. Of course, some good theologians will disagree with me in that; and if you do as well, I will express my opinion that you are wrong on the point, but at the same time I will rejoice in the unity we have in the gospel of Christ. By the way, you can argue against credo-baptism as well, and likewise against any doctrine, by noting theological aberrations connected to it in some fashion. But those considerations are not ultimately telling.
Grace and peace from the Cross, Nathan
We are instructed by Christ to receive the kingdom as these little children. If they are young children then I take that to mean with a simple childlike faith.
If it is an infant, how does an infant receive the kingdom? To say they receive it from their family based on Abraham, how does that reconcile with Rom. 9:7? We are children of Abraham by faith Rom. 4:16 not his natural seed. That is the same problem the Jew had in understanding the gospel throughout the NT.
If circumcision profited them nothing if not accompanied with faith Rom. 2:28-29 I Cor. 7:19 how is infant baptism worth anything if not accompanied with faith?
Hi John,
First of all, in the text discussed above (Luke 18:15-17), It is not I who call them infants, it is Luke. No reliable dictionary or lexicon I am aware of suggests any translation of the term “brephos” (Luke’s term) other than “unborn child/embryo” or “infant”. Whether we like it or not, Christ is saying that these children, including infants, are possessors of the Kingdom.
Second, although in Christ’s application of the event to our faith he uses the term “paidion” (little child) which can and often does refer to an older child, that does not necessarily restrict his meaning to the case of the older child — the event preceding argues that he is using the term inclusively (as it is capable of being used), to commend to us the example of the infants and young children of their believing parents. And would it be inappropriate or impossible for Jesus to do this? He holds forth birds and lilies as examples for our faith, so why can he not do the same with infants, who rest unreservedly on their mothers’ breasts, and have no anxiety over their future? Ought we not to possess that kind of faith, if we would consider ourselves Kingdom heirs?
But in any case, the simple teaching of the text is that children, including infants, were coming to Jesus, and he was naming them and all who are like them possessors of the Kingdom.
Lee Irons has a wonderful 8-part mp3 series on this subject.
http://www.upper-register.com/mp3s.html
then scroll down to “And the God of Thy Seed”
Nathan,
I have very much enjoyed your writing, as well as the posts by all those following this issue on your blog. I am studying this issue deeply for the first time. Full disclosure, I am a Reformed Baptist. My brother-in-law is a padeobaptist. We have been having very edifying conversations as of late regarding the proper subjects of baptistm.
I have a question…
You quoted only a portion of Acts 2:39. The full quote of Acts 2:38-39 is as follows…
38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”
You made no mention of “…and for all who are far off,” in your post. What is to be done with these people? And how does this affect your position? Thank you for your response.
Rob
Hi Rob, thanks for commenting. I think the phrase, “all who are far off” signals the massive redemptive-historical advance in opening up the Kingdom to the Gentiles. Cf. Eph. 2:11-13.
Nathan
Nathan,
Grace to you in Christ! I have read with much interest both your defense of credobaptism and your retraction of the same. Based upon your understanding of padeobaptism I have one question. In Acts 2:41 Luke writes: Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day. Do you really believe that those of whom Luke writes baptized their infants, young children and teenagers assuming that these were also present?
Thanks for responding. And rich blessings be yours in the coming year!
Hi Howard,
Sorry for the delay in responding — but yes, I think it very highly likely that those who heard Peter’s sermon, and realized that the promise was to them and their children, came with their children to be baptized as households, as seems to be the predominant example in Acts whenever baptisms are actually described.
Happy New Year, and may many blessings flow to you from our Christ!
Nathan
Hi Nathan,
I want to thank you for your kind response to my last question. I wonder if I might have your thoughts on another aspect of the baptism debate. A few years ago, R.C. Sproul in a debate with John Macarthur said something like this (my paraphrase) ‘if the N.T. recorded one account of a second generation Christian being baptized as an adult (or believer) that would settle the matter.’ Not long after hearing that comment I revisited 1st Timothy 6:12 and Paul’s charge to Timothy to, “Figh the good fight of faith. Take hold of eternal life to which you were called and about which you made the confession in the presence of many witnesses.” While this is by no means a conclusive text confirming Timothy’s adult baptism, yet, given Timothy’s mother and grandmother having raised him in the faith it seemed possibly to be pointing to that event.In addition,I found it somewhat odd that not a few reformed commentators (most notably William Hendriksen) saw the verse as a reference to Timothy’s adult baptism. Just curious to know you thoughts on this. Thanks again Nathan. The Lord continue to bless you and keep you brother!
Hi again, Howard.
While I do think that the level of speculation involved in this line of argumentation makes it very tenuous and less weighty than many other arguments, both pro and con, I can still admit that I think it a legitimate possibility, at least, that Timothy’s adult baptism is in mind. However, the issue is not so clear cut as you might think, given the changing times in which the apostles lived. A person who was well-acquainted with the scriptures and truly regenerate, in the generation of which Timothy’s parents were likely a part, would have been born long before Christian baptism had even been inaugurated. Even if Timothy’s mother had been baptized by John the Baptist, that would not have been Christian baptism — remember how the disciples of John were constrained to be baptized again into Christ, in the book of Acts? It is likely that even Timothy’s grandmother and mother, although true and faithful Israelites, did not understand the need for baptism until an apostle, bringing the mystery of the gospel, appeared to them — and that may well have been the time when all three generations were baptized! It’s all speculative, but in any case, I don’t see it as a strong argument against paedo-baptism.
Nathan
Howard,
Your reference of Timothy is interesting, but the text does not make reference to baptism. I can see why a Baptist would interpret that text as possibly referencing baptism because the Baptist view is that bapism is a public profession of faith. However, the Scriptures don’t use this language to describe or define baptism. Even someone who is baptized as an infant would still need to make a public profession of faith later, as is practiced in all faithful Reformed Presbyterian churches. The baptism is a sign of God’s promise, based on the covenant, whereas the public profession is the evidence that God has kept that promise.
Jason
Nathan, you have made my year! Due to where I live, I’ve begun attending a “Reformed Baptist” church and struggled with joining since they required that I be baptized since I was baptized as an infant and that wouldn’t fit their doctrinal position for allowing membership to an individual. I did join in submission to their leadership, but explained that I am still covenantal and a paedo-baptist in doctrinal standing. They were ok with that. I move from a Presbyterian PCA church that is great. I didn’t leave it, I just moved far enough where I couldn’t attend any longer. Thank you brother for your posts.
Currently, you are my favorite author and invited another “credo-baptist” who is struggling with his position to study your writings with me. He embraced Reformed teachings and finds himself at odds with them doctrinally. Praise God for faithful teachers like yourself. I found you on my favorite website, monergism.com. Lord bless you.
Ivan,
Thanks so much for your encouraging words! May God continue to direct your heart into a deepening knowledge and love of Christ the Savior.
Nathan
I really cannot see why this would be a divisive issue in the Body of Christ, unless of course people are hell-bent on making it such. That would be sad, sad indeed. Forgive us God.