The statements from Jesus about Children are the strongest statements about infant baptism as any as far as speaking to not just my mind, but to my heart.

I find it a tragedy when baptistic preachers make the statement that these texts are not about children (heard it again just three days ago), particularly the situation of “child-like faith”. This pastor said even the warning against causing a little one to fall is about adults.

In order to make a comparison to the faith of a child as being good, the faith of the child must first be considered good. No way around this. You cannot use this to say something about adults and then back it out against children.

Jesus strengthens the stathement with a stern warning against those who may cause these little ones to stumble. In other words, if a child believes, don’t say anything to convince him/her otherwise, or say something to cause doubt.

I say this to highlight another fault I find with baptistic thinking. My five year old talks about the Bible and Jesus frequently. He understands the message of salvation. If I were to ask some preachers to baptize him, they would refuse becuase their policy is to wait until they are at least 12. I know not every Baptist church does this and I am thankful for that, but I know of many examples that will not baptize him.

Given what we know about faith of a child from Jesus, and given what we know about not causing a little one to stumble (telling him that he needs to first mature in his faith to “make sure”), how is this even Biblical?

Credobaptist want to strongly hold the line regarding recipients of baptism based on explicit examples they see of adults in Acts. However, it appears that inferances (against words of Jesus) are taken when making judgement calls on young children.

Twitter: @AaronRedeemed

I’m not Adam, but I don’t know if he’ll come across this, so I’ll throw out a quick response to your two points, if I may.

I think it may help address your second point, on Colossians 2, to remember that the first circumcision, “made with hands” was likewise intended from the beginning to confirm participation in an inner circumcision of the heart. I’ll skip the OT passages dealing with heart circumcision and just jump to Romans 4 — Abraham, the prototypical circumcisee, received circumcision as a sign and seal of his faith and the alien righteousness which it laid hold of by imputation; and it was this same first circumcision that was given by command to all those who sprang from him. Therefore, the fact that they were circumcised while as yet unable to evince the faith that their believing father had does not give warrant to eviscerate the sign of the spiritual meaning which it both signifies and seals. On the contrary, Moses and the prophets saw in their possession of the sign good warrant to call them all to the life of faith which it expected and demanded of them. Now, when Paul says that those who are baptized have received the spiritual reality it signifies, and goes on throughout the epistle to exhort them to live out the faith that sign demands, he is really doing nothing but what Moses and the prophets did before him. If he means that anyone who has undergone orthodox, trinitarian baptism certainly possesses true regeneration and is without exception an heir of eternal life, that would mean that no baptized Christian has ever been a false brother or apostate — all without exception will be heirs of eternal life. But that conclusion contradicts the NT prophecies of false believers, apostates, etc. It’s simply untenable. Therefore, I think it only reasonable to suppose that Paul is speaking of the sign of baptism as something that truly signifies and seals spiritual circumcision (just as OT circumcision did); and that it is therefore an appropriate practice to speak to baptized persons as presumed Christians, and to exhort them to trust in the promises that God’s Word and sacrament have sealed to them, and to live a life in accordance with those gospel truths. What that means for baptized covenant children is that we raise them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, exhorting them to a life of repentance from sin, growth in holiness, and faith in God’s promises as being particularly for them. In other words, we do not presume that they are pagans in need of conversion to Christianity; we presume that they are covenant children who, if they continue steadfast in the faith, may trust on the basis of divine promise that they are heirs of the circumcision not made with hands — that they have indeed been united with Christ. This is not to say that we presume they will be heirs of eternal life apart from regeneration and faith — without that, no one will see eternal life, and there are doubtless some who grew up in a true, orthodox church who have fallen away and never come to a living and abiding faith, just as there are some adult converts who fall away from their baptism vows. But I think it means that we have divine warrant to think of them and treat them as heirs of the promises, providing they do not turn aside from the living faith which was taught them from childhood, and to firmly but humbly expect God’s regenerating and preserving grace in their lives.

I addressed this second point first, because I think the themes it raised speak to your first text, as well. The reality that there are some impostors in the church, whether they grew up as covenant children or were converted as adults, cannot eviscerate the truth that the sacrament both signifies and seals an essential reality of being clothed with Christ. That clothing with Christ, the laying hold of his righteousness by imputation, was precisely what Abraham’s circumcision signified, and the subsequent paedocircumcision of his heirs cannot overturn the sealing reality of the righteousness through faith that it holds forth. But if paedocircumcision could not just signify, but also seal something that can logically be predicated only of an adult (a conscious believing in God’s promises, of which Abraham was the exemplar); then it must be possible, by divine power, for paedo-baptism likewise to signify and seal something logically predicable only of adults. This in itself is not an argument necessitating paedo-baptism, but I think it decisively overturns any argument against it on those grounds. Any such stroke of logic that would overturn paedobaptism would necessarily overturn paedocircumcision, but the arguments for the validity of the latter, at least, are indisputable.

I hope that doesn’t just muddy the waters; and whatever the outcome of your search, I extend to you love in Christ and in fellowship in the one faith, once for all delivered to the saints.

Nathan

I’m in exactly the same position, and if you ever read this, I’d love to know how you resolved it. I have accepted Reformed covenantal paedobaptism for several years, but by wife was raised in a credobaptist EFCA church. She accepts paedobaptism as not necessarily sinning or contrary to Scripture, but she doesn’t personally accept it under her conscience. We are currently members of a PCA congregation, and our first child is due in a few weeks. (Praise God!) I’ve been studying God’s Word a lot on this issue, and while I was for a short time more comfortable with Baptist ecclesiology and a version of credobaptism, I’m really 50-50 right now and pretty torn over it.

I think the Reformed position seems theology stronger in general (esp. in ecclesiology), but the Baptist position in terms of explicit texts referring to baptism. My main beefs with paedobaptism right now:

1) Galatians 3:26-27 says that “For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” I see two inconsistencies with paedobaptism: (a) Paul writes that all who were baptized (into Christ — if this qualifier means anything) have definitively been united to Christ and have faith in him. That sort of inclusiveness (“all”/”as many of you”) seems inconsistent with baptism of children who may not in fact grow up to faith. Baptism and election are not 1:1. (b) The middle voice is used of union with Christ. Those baptized have “put on Christ” or “clothed themselves with Christ” (NIV). This indicates a self-aware, volitional nature to baptism–a choosing to put off the old nature and to put on the new.

2) Colossians 2:11-12. Paul explicitly states that the type of circumcision received by believers was not a physical one, but a spiritual one “made without hands.” In other words, it seems the only way circumcision and baptism are connected is that they portray and point to the same reality: the circumcision of Christ (in his death on the cross, 1:22; cf. Isa. 53:8). But in telling the Colossians they had been circumcised, Paul says that it is the spiritual reality they had received, as evidenced by their baptism. But reception of such means they had faith and were already united with Christ, water baptism being merely the sign and confirmation of this to their consciences. Is it enough to say that just because they point to the same realities–the death of Christ that strips away our old sin nature–that circumcision and baptism are to be administered in the same way?

That’s a question that will take much wisdom and discernment — pray James 1:5 with ardent faith! I don’t think a temporary postponement while gently guiding/explaining all your reasons would be a bad thing, but perhaps with an understood limit to it (e.g., we’ll put the baptism off until after we’ve worked through this whole list of scriptures together.) I would also advise you to seek counsel from the ordained elder/pastor who would presumably be doing the baptism. I think it’s always good to work through/in submission to God’s ordained officers of the Church, whenever possible.

In Christ, Nathan

What advice would you give to someone who, like yourself, was once a convinced baptist, but now sees paedobaptism as being more faithful to Scripture–(now here’s the kicker)–but whose wife is not convinced? Granted, she will ultimately submit to the will of her husband (and have her four small children baptized), but does not believe it is truly biblical. Should one postpone the change, gently guiding her through the Bible and pray the idea becomes more palatable to her?

Not sure if you have experienced this situation, but was wondering if you could provide some insight.

Blessings, Adam

Sorry it’s taken a few days to respond. On your first point, I would only suggest that even if what you’re saying is true (and that is something that we cannot know for sure anyway, but only Jesus, who “knows what is in the heart of man” [John 2], and who approved of the actions of these parents and accepted their children) — then it only serves to strengthen my argument, not to weaken it. If, in other words, Jesus labels as kingdom-possessors the children of those who are only outwardly believing in him, then a fortiori, how much more certainly will he label as kingdom-possessors those children who are brought to him by genuine believers. If it is as you suggest, then it only serves to validate even those baptisms of infants whose parents later apostasize.

On your second point: I think if you do any serious study you’ll find that the pronoun “toioutos” includes both the actual referent and others who are like him on a specified point. In any case, it is logically impossible to exclude the actual referent(s), because then you’d be saying two contrary things at the same time: this person does have the quality that makes one a kingdom-possessor (because all those persons who are like him on that point possess the kingdom); but at the same time, this person does not have the quality that makes one a kingdom-possessor (because he does not possess the kingdom, which all who have that quality do possess). So at one and the same time, these children both have and do not have that which makes one a kingdom-possessor (an absurd contradiction). That is the only way you can say that it is not these children whom our Lord said possess the Kingdom, but only others who are like them. I think the Lord’s point is abundantly clear that, in inviting these infants to himself, and using them as examples of who are heirs of the kingdom, he was approving of them as kingdom heirs.

I hope that helps. God’s blessings to you on your journey.

Nathan

A couple of points about your interpretation of Luke 18:15-17.

Firstly, I don’t think it is certain that the adults who brought their children to Jesus for a blessing were true believers. Many people came to Jesus for a blessing who were not committed disciples but were eager for any good thing they could get. Thousands of people received from Jesus a miraculous cure for their medical ailments or a free supper of bread & fish, but after the crucifixion there were only 120 disciples.

Secondly, Jesus said that the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these. I don’t think it is plain that this necessarily includes the particular infants whom Jesus was blessing at that moment. It seems to me that those words need not mean anything more than that infants just like these particular ones in question are capable of being members of the kingdom of heaven, but Jesus was not stipulating about the status of these particular infants. The context seems to suggest that Jesus was approving of the dependent & trusting spirit that children in general are noted for, but which is not actually true of every individual child without exception.

I am open to being shown my error if I’m wrong about this. I pray God will enlighten me. Thank you.

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

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

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

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!

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

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!

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

http://www.upper-register.com/mp3s.html

then scroll down to “And the God of Thy Seed”