How Calvinistic is Infant Baptism?

[BenjaminRandall]

I'm a Baptist. I don't like the notion that so many churches on any given Sunday baptize people who are obviously non-believers. Yes, infants are non-believers who cannot confess the Lord Jesus.

Is there a connection between infant baptism and Calvinism?

 

[mlqurgw]

I too am a Baptist and I aint touching this one. I must wonder though why you would start yet another thread in which you will more than likely receive many responses and yet complain that you can't respond to all those in the other threads. You are either extremely arrogant or extremely naive.

 

[GrinningDwarf]

I'm a Reformed Baptist...and the way you phrased your poll questions along the same order as "When did you stop beating your wife?" show that:

A. You don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

B. You aren't interested at all in understanding what the other side really has to say...you just want to come in here trolling.

Try reading some Reformed works on 'covenant theology', such as Michael Horton's God of Promise or RC Sproul's What is Reformed Theology?, and then you'll be better equipped to come back and discuss the issue.

But I doubt that will happen.

 

[wnwall]

We need more options before I can vote, and I would assume might go for most of the others here.

 

[Iosias]

Is there a connection between infant baptism and Calvinism?

http://www.cprf.co.uk/quotes/infantbaptism.htm

 

[bradfordl]

Why are non-members allowed to start polls at SR?

BR, go take a flyin' leap.

Moderators, is this not trolling?

 

[BenjaminRandall]

Sorry for offending anyone by the questions in the poll. I really thought they were fair, and I don't understand how it is similar to asking if you've stopped beating your wife.

Anyway, I thought this was an intriguing issue as I have been mulling over some of our discussions.

What prompts the question is that I really wasn't impressed with Michael Horton's appeal to infant baptism in his defense of Calvinistic continuance in faith (i.e., eternal security) in his section of J. Matthew Pinson's book Four Views of Eternal Security.

Frankly, I'm listening--if someone cares to venture a reasoned discussion. Perhaps I should have posted the issue on the Ask a Calvinist forum.

 

[BenjaminRandall]

How else would you have posed the poll questions?

 

[BBAS 64]

Good day, Benjamin Randall

Here is my confession on the issue.

The London Baptist confession:

CHAPTER 29 - BAPTISM

1. BAPTISM is an ordinance of the New Testament instituted by Jesus Christ. It is intended to be, to the person baptized, a sign of his fellowship with Christ in His death and resurrection, and of his being engrafted into Christ, and of the remission of sins. It also indicates that the baptized person has given himself up to God, through Jesus Christ, so that he may live and conduct himself 'in newness of life'.
   
   Mark 1:4; Acts 22:16; Rom. 6:3-5; Gal. 3:27; Col. 2:12.
2. The only persons who can rightly submit themselves to this ordinance are those who actually profess repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, being willing to yield obedience to Him.
   
   Mark 16:16; Acts 2:41; 8:12,36,37; 18:8.
3. The outward element to be used in this ordinance is water, in which the believer is to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
   
   Matt. 28:19,20; Acts 8:38.
4. Immersion, that is to say, the dipping of the believer in water, is essential for the due administration of this ordinance.
   
   Matt. 3:16; John 3:23.

In Him,

Bill

 

[BenjaminRandall]

Thanks BBAS. I didn't realize London Confession had addressed this.

 

[heymikey80]

Sorry for offending anyone by the questions in the poll. I really thought they were fair, and I don't understand how it is similar to asking if you've stopped beating your wife.

A question: what church hasn't baptized unbelievers?

If it's "not okay", what does "not okay" mean?

When you analyze what you stated I think you'll see what the issue is with your questions.

In addition -- have you noticed that there's more qualification than "baptizing babies"? To Reformed theologians some babies are appropriate to baptize, and some are not.

It's pretty obvious from one side of the fence the lack of understanding of the position. Or the presence of trolling. Which is it? You've said you studied Calvinism. Are you prepared to say whether you're trolling or simply misunderstood the position?

 

[BenjaminRandall]

Alright, fair enough..., in Reformed, non-Baptist circles, I suppose that some would think it appropriate to baptize certain infants and not others. Is this what you're suggesting heyMikey?

So perhaps the poll could have posed the question: "Is it biblical to baptize certain infants."

As to the suggestion that all churches have been guilty of baptizing unbelievers, I wouldn't disagree. In fact, as much as I would like to think otherwise, it is possible that I myself have baptized at least one person who, despite the profession before many witnesses, might not have been a genuine believer.

But then, the question really becomes one of intentionality. Most Baptist churches would not knowingly baptize an unbeliever. This is in contrast with a number of churches which baptize infants who might possibly some day believe.

Actually, most infant baptisms with which I'm familiar are non-Calvinistic. Consequently, I was fascinated with Horton's appeal to infant baptism as he represented the Calvinistic view of eternal security in Pinson's (aforementioned) book, the intricacies of which I am not acquainted with first hand.

So, like I said, I'm all ears.

On a different note, I do find curious how offended people seem to get when non-Calvinists show up at the "Debate a Calvinist" forum! If I started my own "Debate an Arminian" forum, I would expect Calvinists to show up and to give their best argument; and I, in turn, would at least show a modicum of forebearance without such personal commentary--unless it was my intention to drive away all Calvinists!

 

[BBAS 64]

SNIP ........


On a different note, I do find curious how offended people seem to get when non-Calvinists show up at the "Debate a Calvinist" forum! If I started my own "Debate an Arminian" forum, I would expect Calvinists to show up and to give their best argument; and I, in turn, would at least show a modicum of forebearance without such personal commentary--unless it was my intention to drive away all Calvinists!

Good Day, BenjaminRandell

The issue here from what you have posted, is that much of what you have asserted to be "calvinism" flyies in the face of what historically we believe.

You have made some wild assertions and built straw to make an argument. I have asked many times where your understanding comes from, you have yet to provide any sources for your "understanding"

I get kind of crazy in this place to have to deal with "red-herrings" that are posted, some times correcting such things takes a bit of time.

Hope you can understand the inhert problem.

In Him,

Bill

 

[heymikey80]

Alright, fair enough..., in Reformed, non-Baptist circles, I suppose that some would think it appropriate to baptize certain infants and not others. Is this what you're suggesting heyMikey?

yes

So perhaps the poll could have posed the question: "Is it biblical to baptize certain infants."

That would line up the basic issue.

As to the suggestion that all churches have been guilty of baptizing unbelievers, I wouldn't disagree. In fact, as much as I would like to think otherwise, it is possible that I myself have baptized at least one person who, despite the profession before many witnesses, might not have been a genuine believer.

But then, the question really becomes one of intentionality. Most Baptist churches would not knowingly baptize an unbeliever. This is in contrast with a number of churches which baptize infants who might possibly some day believe.

In the history of God's people when was a profession of faith made the sole criterion for an individual -- especially the minor child of believing parents -- receiving a sign of faith?

On a different note, I do find curious how offended people seem to get when non-Calvinists show up at the "Debate a Calvinist" forum! If I started my own "Debate an Arminian" forum, I would expect Calvinists to show up and to give their best argument; and I, in turn, would at least show a modicum of forebearance without such personal commentary--unless it was my intention to drive away all Calvinists!

Segue.

I normally just wait for the level of personal commentary from the poster.

 

[BenjaminRandall]

So, I'm struggling with the issue as to whether I should feel a closer affinity to Reformed Baptists or to Arminian paedo-Baptists (e.g., Methodists who baptize infants).

What about this forum and its members? Obviously, Calvinistic soteriology (i.e., limited atonement, unconditional election) is highly important for most of you. Is it more important than the issue of whether or not you baptize unbelievers (i.e., infants)?

 

[BenjaminRandall]

There were Baptists either in North Carolina or Virginia as early as the late 1600s, some of whom were Arminian Baptists, while others were Calvinistic Baptists (I think the terminology was General Baptists--i.e., general atonement; and Particular Baptistists--i.e., particular atonement Baptists.

But this was in an era when the state still enforced an official religion, and Baptists were persecuted for preaching believers' baptism. For example, the anabaptists in the state had to pay a higher tax. Some ministers were imprisoned. Those were the good old days when a person thought believer's baptism was important enough to die for.

During this time, the Baptists on both sides of the atonement issue were united because they thought that infant baptism was a terrible affront to the Scriptures and to God's Church. In this context, for early Baptists in America, the extent of the atonement was secondary to the issue of Believer's baptism.

After the state lifted laws against the Baptists and persecution was lessened, the issue of the extent of the atonement came to the fore. So long as the Baptists were all being persecuted, they were able to be united despite differences on the extent of the atonement. But in a few short years after the paedo-Baptists quit persecuting the Baptists, Baptists began to divide on the issue of the atonement.

I read the minutes of an annual Baptist associational meeting sometime in the 1700s which detailed this parting of the ways. The weeklong meeting became so divisive that the two groups voted to meet separately for some time.

After the two groups separated and discussed the matter, one group sent to the other a message requesting reconciliation on the basis that they loved the other group too much to allow their differences to keep them separated. The other group also was moved by their love for the other group, and so the two groups reconvened in unity and completed their meeting.

Of course, this was short-lived...until 1911 when the newly formed Northern Baptists (well, several movements merged together a few short years earlier) merged with the original Freewill Baptists. The merger represented a decision to cooperate in ministry despite the differences between the Calvinism of many Baptists groups in the north and the Arminianism of the northern Freewill Baptists. To this day, the issue of Calvinism/Arminianism rarely separates people within what is now called American Baptists.

I suppose the same could be said of many Southern Baptists for much of the 20th century. Here in the last 20 years, however, there has been a resurgent movement of Calvinism with SBC, but I don't see the denomination breaking up over the issue.

 

[wnwall]

So, I'm struggling with the issue as to whether I should feel a closer affinity to Reformed Baptists or to Arminian paedo-Baptists (e.g., Methodists who baptize infants).

What about this forum and its members? Obviously, Calvinistic soteriology (i.e., limited atonement, unconditional election) is highly important for most of you. Is it more important than the issue of whether or not you baptize unbelievers (i.e., infants)?

Please understand that your phrasing, "baptize unbelievers," is not how the debate is centered in Reformed circles; rather it is centered around whether God's covenant people should baptize their children as a sign of the covenant God has made with them. Using better phrasing would allow us to get over some of the difficulties in discussing this, since it is unclear from your phrasing if you understand why the Reformed baptize infants (which is very different from why non-Reformed baptize infants (I am not at all familiar with Methodist paedobaptism)).

Getting on to your question, yes, Calvinistic soteriology is often a much more important point of agreement between us than whether we should baptize the children of the elect, and one key reason is because of what I have said in the preceding paragraph: because the reasons the non-Reformed baptize infants are very different from why the Reformed baptize infants, so why would Reformed paedobaptists find commonality with non-Reformed paedobaptists when their reasons for paedobaptism are completely different?

Furthermore, our understanding of soteriology has to do with our understanding of God, while our understanding of baptism only has to do with our understanding of how we can best serve God. If we disagree on how we can best serve God and still agree on who God is, we're much more closely bonded than those who agree with us on how we can best serve God but disagree with us on the character and nature of the God who we're serving.

 

[BenjaminRandall]

Thanks, Wnwall for the thoughtful reply when you wrote,

Pleaseunderstand that your phrasing, "baptize unbelievers," is not how the debate is centered in Reformed circles; rather it is centered around whether God's covenant people should baptize their children as a sign of the covenant God has made with them.

Of course, to the Baptist, the issue is exactly about whether or not we should baptize unbelievers!

But I am willing to entertain reasonable explanations. Why would God's covenant people think that they should baptize their children as a "sign of the covenant God has made with them." (Note that I'm not sure if the antecedent of the last word "them" refers to the children or to the parents.)

Of course, it is entirely logical for adult believers to be baptized since, assuming Calvinistic soteriology, their faith is evidence of their election and inclusion into the covenant. But what makes them think that their children should be so baptized. No one thinks that just because the parents are elect the children must therefore also be elect.

Even assuming Calvinistic soteriology, I really don't get it.

The theological justification for infant baptism probably even gets more difficult if you assume Arminian theology.

 

[wnwall]

Why would God's covenant people think that they should baptize their children as a "sign of the covenant God has made with them." (Note that I'm not sure if the antecedent of the last word "them" refers to the children or to the parents.)

Of course, it is entirely logical for adult believers to be baptized since, assuming Calvinistic soteriology, their faith is evidence of their election and inclusion into the covenant. But what makes them think that their children should be so baptized. No one thinks that just because the parents are elect the children must therefore also be elect.

I am currently a bit of an oddball on this issue because my understanding of baptism is covenantal but I lean toward credobaptism. But I'll give you my understanding of it, and yes it is a very complicated issue, and before you can accept the Reformed position on paedobaptism you must first have a Calvinistic soteriology and also a covenantal understanding of how God relates to his children.

So bear with me as we go back to Romans 9 and look at how God relates to his children from a Reformed perspective. I understand, as an Arminian, you will disagree with what I think Romans 9 says, but we cannot discuss Reformed paedobaptism unless we're first clear on how the Reformed understand Romans 9 and how it relates to God's covenant. Starting at the end of chapter 8:

38 For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

1 I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. 4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9 For this is what the promise said: "About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son."
​

As you well know, Paul has just finished saying at the end of chapter 8 that nothing can separate God's people from him. Then he is confronted with a gigantic problem. If nothing can separate God's people from him, why are so many Jews rejecting the Messiah? God made a promise to the Israelites to send the Messiah to redeem them. God sends the Messiah, Israel rejects the Messiah, and Paul is faced with a huge problem: Israel, rejecting the Messiah, is now accursed and cut off from God. But in chapter 8, Paul has just finished saying nothing can separate God's people from him.

This is massive. You can see in verse 6 Paul is struggling with the problem that it looks like God's word has failed. But Paul's solution to the problem is that God's word has not failed because he didn't make the promise to physical Israel but instead to spiritual Israel. "But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel. . . . it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring." God's promise does not apply to the physical offspring of Abraham but the spiritual offspring of Abraham.

This is how God works all throughout the Bible. He makes covenants with his people, his people break their end of the covenant, and God graciously upholds his end of the covenant by performing their end in his Son. "If we are faithless, he remains faithful" (2 Timothy 2:13).

So the covenants of God are massively important to us because we believe that God's covenant with us is the only assurance we have. His covenants are conditional, but he himself has performed all of the conditions, so we can be certain that nothing can separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Our understanding of baptism is that it is a sign of God's covenant with us. We do not see baptism as an outward expression of an inward faith, but instead as the exchange of covenant vows: We are baptized in water (our end of the covenant vow) and God baptizes us in the Holy Spirit (his end of the covenant vow). And the covenant we are a part of is the covenant God made with Abraham that through Jesus -- a physical descendant of Abraham -- all who are spiritual descendants of Abraham would be counted righteous.

So since we understand baptism as a sign of the covenant, and we also know that circumcision was a sign of the covenant God made with Abraham, you may be able to see why it's common for the Reformed to baptize their infants as a sign of the covenant, just as Jews circumcised their male children as a sign of the covenant.

 

[BenjaminRandall]

Yes, Wnwall, I'm trying to see this sympathetically through an eyes of a Calvinist--accepting for the sake of the argument a Calvinistic soteriology.

Thanks for your time in spelling this out. Now, I'll re-read it and respond in a forthcoming post.