Infant Baptism & New Testament Texts

[biblelighthouse]

I believe the infant baptism argument is very strong when based upon Covenant Theology, and the church’s identity with the Abrahamic covenant. However, in this paper, I took the more “baptistic” approach of just looking up the word “baptism” in multiple portions of Scripture, in order to demonstrate that every method of approach, properly done, still leads to the same Biblical truth.

Here is the article:
http://www.biblelighthouse.com/sacraments/baptism-ot.htm

Let me know your thoughts.


Thank you!

In Christ,
Joseph

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

I believe the infant baptism argument is very strong when based upon Covenant Theology, and the church’s identity with the Abrahamic covenant. However, in this paper, I took the more “baptistic” approach of just looking up the word “baptism” in multiple portions of Scripture, in order to demonstrate that every method of approach, properly done, still leads to the same Biblical truth.

Here is the article:
http://www.biblelighthouse.com/sacraments/baptism-ot.htm

Let me know your thoughts.


Thank you!

In Christ,
Joseph

Thanks I will read it tonight.

In Christ,
KEnith

 

[Defcon]

I read the article but it's not convincing. I don't believe baptism saves anyone, but I do think the Bible teaches baptism for believers. Consider

Acts 8:12
But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Acts 8:13
Simon himself believed and was baptized. And he followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw.

Acts 18:8
Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized.

Baptism is an act of believers, I don't see any spiritual reason why infants should be baptized. The above believers were able to believe outside of being "baptized" as infants - as were those uncircumcised able to come to faith without circumcision. I'm all for not ignoring the Old Testament; but I don't find the argument persuasive compared to these New Testament texts.

 

[biblelighthouse]

I read the article but it's not convincing. I don't believe baptism saves anyone, but I do think the Bible teaches baptism for believers.

I'm all for not ignoring the Old Testament; but I don't find the argument persuasive compared to these New Testament texts.

Defcon,

The passages you quoted only mention adults. And even paedobaptists agree that adults must profess faith before being baptized. So those passages prove nothing one way or the other regarding infant baptism.

It was the same way in the Old Testament. Adult Gentiles had to make professions of faith before being circumcised and becoming Israelites. They would quote the "Shema", which is the Hebrew name for the passage starting in Deuteronomy 6:5 --- "Hear O Israel, the Lord is one; you shall love the Lord your God with all of your heart . . ." --- However, once the parent(s) made a profession of faith and was circumcised, the children would be circumcised too, because they were brought into covenant with God because of their parent's faith. Then everyone, both adult and infant, would be baptized. (Contrary to what some people have been taught, baptism was performed long before the New Testament was written.)

So when we see adults professing faith in the New Testament, and then being baptized, it is basically just the same thing going on. The parents confess, and then the entire household is baptized. Look up all the baptism sections in your New Testament. In several of them, you will see not only the adult being baptized because of his profession of faith . . . you will see the entire household being baptized as well.

God included children with their parents as part of the people of God in the Old Testament. Converts to Judaism in the Old Testament were baptized as well as circumcised, including their infant children. After Christ came, circumcision was ended. So what does that leave? Baptism. And we should not believe that anything changed regarding baptism unless Scripture tells us so. But it does not tell us that anything changed. The Bible never removes infants from the kingdom of God; rather, it includes them (Luke 18:15-16). And the Bible never removes infants from baptism.

Unless you can show me a New Testament text that removes children from God's people, or a New Testament text that prohibits infants from baptism, then your argument for "believer's baptism only" is very weak.

Are there any such Scriptures that you can show me?

Thank you!

Your brother in Christ,
Joseph

 

[CoffeeSwirls]

As a creedobaptist, I am a bit surprised to hear me asking this, but is there any relation to dispensationalism and creedobaptism? We are discussing the OT and the NT as if they were two different things all together. They are two parts of a whole, though. The NT clarifies certain things from the OT, but that shouldn't allow us to exclude the OT from any of our studies.

Example: after the 40 years of wandering and before they could enter Canaan, the Israelites had to be circumcised. They had let that one go before, and now were told to perform that act before they could continue. That could imply that infants should be baptized, but that believers should also be baptized if they hadn't been baptized as infants.

Any thoughts on the matter?

 

[edie19]

As a creedobaptist, I am a bit surprised to hear me asking this, but is there any relation to dispensationalism and creedobaptism? We are discussing the OT and the NT as if they were two different things all together. They are two parts of a whole, though. The NT clarifies certain things from the OT, but that shouldn't allow us to exclude the OT from any of our studies. . . . Any thoughts on the matter?

Oh, now you're making me think really hard. I'm hardly a dispensationalist and my church doctrine is believer baptism. I think I'm going to ask my pastor about any possible relationship between the two.

 

[Defcon]

Acts 8:12 - Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized.

I am confused as to your explanation of the Baptism. You say that it took the place of circumcision in the Old Testament. Yet, Paul rebukes that whole way of thinking - Galatians 6:15 "Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation." Now if baptism is the substitute for circumcision - wouldn't Paul have mentioned it here? Instead this is going back to the Old Covenant where every Israel descendant is part of God's people - something Paul corrects in Romans 9:6 " For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel." Those who undergo baptism in the NT are symbolizing the reward of Christ. 1 Peter 3:21-22 "and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him."

Can an infant pledge good conscience?

Is the infant saved by the resurrection of Christ automatically?

I have more questions but I will wait for your response.

 

[CoffeeSwirls]

Cajun may be the best one to answer these questions, and Jon is a recent convert to paedobaptism. I'd like their thoughts.

Essentially, baptism took the place of circumcision and the Lord's Supper took the place of the passover. I can see why Paul would write about circumcision in light of the context and his eventual showdown with Peter. The passover meal was for everyone in the home, wasn't it? But the Lord's Supper is reserved for believers. There are other similarities and differences. Again, I'd like to hear from some more knowledgeable people on this.

 

[HiredGoon]

Baptism is spiritual circumcision. Baptism replaces circumcision.

Col 2:11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 2:12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Abraham had faith. Circumcision, the sign of the covenant was applied to all in his household, including his children.

Gen 17:10 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 17:11 You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. 17:12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, 17:13 both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant.

Likewise in the NT baptism was a sign of the covenant between those who had faith, and their households including their children.

Act 2:38 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. 2:39 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."

 

[Imblessed]

Now if baptism is the substitute for circumcision - wouldn't Paul have mentioned it here? Instead this is going back to the Old Covenant where every Israel descendant is part of God's people - something Paul corrects in Romans 9:6 " For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel."

I just thought of this---not all who are baptised are really christians, just as in the OT and circumcision. BUT--could you be a Jew or Isrealite without circumcision? It seems that you couldn't. The ONLY way to graft into the Isrealite nation was by being circumcised, and if you had children, them also......hmmmmm Is it the same way now, with Baptism?

Just some thoughts that came to mind as i read your post.....

I don't know. I was raised Quaker and we didn't even practice baptism so I've only just begun delving into baptism at all. Right now I'm credobaptist, but I think I finally have a handle on why pedobaptism is practiced (in the Reformed circles anyway)

coffeeswirls:As a creedobaptist, I am a bit surprised to hear me asking this, but is there any relation to dispensationalism and creedobaptism?

I think there is a huge relationship myself. In reformed circles anyway, the whole reason paedobaptism is practiced is do to Covenant Theology--at least that is what i've come to understand....
I dont' know of anyone who is dispensational that believes in paedobaptism......

 

[HiredGoon]

I just thought of this---not all who are baptised are really christians, just as in the OT and circumcision. BUT--could you be a Jew or Isrealite without circumcision? It seems that you couldn't. The ONLY way to graft into the Isrealite nation was by being circumcised, and if you had children, them also......hmmmmm Is it the same way now, with Baptism?

I believe it is. Think about how the Jews at pentacost would have thought about baptism when Peter said "For the promise is for you and for your children." I believe they would have understood this in the context of God's covenant with Abraham. Abraham had faith, his household and future children did not, but all the males in his household received the sign of the covenant due to Abraham's faith. This is the same way 1st century Jews viewed their current covenant relationship with God. The sign of the covenant had always been for children too. Why would that suddenly change? There were no explicit instructions that the sign of the covenant was no longer for children, just the mode changed, which was necessary to include women. Circumcision meant that the child was part of the covenant family, but did not guarantee faith on the part of the child. The reformed view on baptism is the same.

I think there is a huge relationship myself. In reformed circles anyway, the whole reason paedobaptism is practiced is do to Covenant Theology--at least that is what i've come to understand....
I dont' know of anyone who is dispensational that believes in paedobaptism......

Again, I agree. Credobaptism grew out of the radical reformation, before the rise of dispensationalism. But I believe the two views are closely related today in evangelical circles. Dispensationalism puts a wall between the OT and NT. Modern credobaptism pretty much ignores the OT covenental model. I was a credobaptist until recently, growing up in a Baptist church, and we never looked to the OT when studying baptism.

 

[Imblessed]

I'm still struggling with this.....


the more i understand covenantal theology, the more I understand the need for paedobaptism....

however, I'm not entirely convinced of covenantal theology......although more convinced than dispensationalism,which I've pretty much rejected....

It's tricky, as I have a 4 year old and a 6 year old. It would be easier for me to brush it all off if I didn't have kids, but since they are older now, it's harder also.

And our church is strickly credobaptist, so I don't know if our pastor would even be willing to baptise my boys if I decided to. I wouldn't want to go somewhere else.....

But they do do a thing where you can "affirm" your child. Everyone brings their children to the front, and Pastor goes through some verses, and you affirm that you will raise your child in a christain home, and the congregation agrees to help... They do this I think 2 times a year, and I've been thinking about doing it. We became members late last year, but I didn't do the affirmation because my kids were older, and usually people do it with their newborns. Hmmm, I'm going to have to talk to my pastor about this....

 

[CoffeeSwirls]

Our creedo church does the same thing. We call it a dedication where the parents affirm that they will raise the child to fear the Lord and the church will pray for the child and assist where they can.

 

[Defcon]

Our church does an affirmation too for the parents - but see, here is where I don't understand this. Imblessed you said you are worried about your kids and baptism; why? Is padeobaptism required for your children to be saved? If you don't have them baptized early, does that mean God will change his mind concerning how he predestined them? If so, then there are obvious questions that develop. If not, then what is the purpose of infant baptism and why is it so absolutely vital that it be practiced? I don't believe believer's baptism saves anyone but it seems like this padeobaptism heads down this path.

As you can tell; I'm still extremely skeptical about this - it's the new creation that matters; not some act we do (whether circumcision or baptism). If that's the case, then the point of infant is ...... what?

 

[edie19]

I don't believe believer's baptism saves anyone but it seems like this padeobaptism heads down this path.

I've had both Lutherans (actually an MDiv) and Roman Catholics tell me that infant baptism does save. I didn't understand their reasoning - but it was an on-line discussion which detracts somewhat (not as easy to ask questions as when talking face to face).

 

[AndOne]

Our church does an affirmation too for the parents - but see, here is where I don't understand this. Imblessed you said you are worried about your kids and baptism; why? Is padeobaptism required for your children to be saved? If you don't have them baptized early, does that mean God will change his mind concerning how he predestined them? If so, then there are obvious questions that develop. If not, then what is the purpose of infant baptism and why is it so absolutely vital that it be practiced? I don't believe believer's baptism saves anyone but it seems like this padeobaptism heads down this path.

As you can tell; I'm still extremely skeptical about this - it's the new creation that matters; not some act we do (whether circumcision or baptism). If that's the case, then the point of infant is ...... what?

In those Reformed Churches that practice "PB" it is most definately not a requirement in terms of salvation. In other words if infants aren't baptised - we don't believe they go to hell should they (Lord Forbid) pass away. I live in a very small town with only one church that teaches and believes in Calvinism - but is baptist. I also have a baby - yet to be baptized - and I am in no fear of her going to hell. I still believe she is blessed because of my and my wife's faith. I just can't bring myself to attend the only Presbyterian church in town which is affiliated with the PCUSA which allows homosexuals to be priests - nor allow my daughter to be baptized there.

To understand "PB" in reformed circles it is really important that you understand covenant theology. I suggest you study that for a clearer understanding as to why many of the 'reformed churches practice it. Once I personally embraced covenant theology (after much study w/ scriptual support) - then I realized that the practice of "PB" was correct.

In answer to your question above - the point of infant baptism is simply to be the visible sign of the entrance of children of believers (or new believers themselves) into the church. Many who have been baptized as infants later turned away from the faith - hence invalidating their baptism and membership within the church. It's safe to say though - that many who have adhered to and practiced "believers only" baptism have also later turned from the faith.

 

[Imblessed]

Our church does an affirmation too for the parents - but see, here is where I don't understand this. Imblessed you said you are worried about your kids and baptism; why? Is padeobaptism required for your children to be saved? If you don't have them baptized early, does that mean God will change his mind concerning how he predestined them? If so, then there are obvious questions that develop. If not, then what is the purpose of infant baptism and why is it so absolutely vital that it be practiced? I don't believe believer's baptism saves anyone but it seems like this padeobaptism heads down this path.

As you can tell; I'm still extremely skeptical about this - it's the new creation that matters; not some act we do (whether circumcision or baptism). If that's the case, then the point of infant is ...... what?

no, no, I'm not "worried" about my kids and baptism, don't get me wrong. I firmly believe that my kids are ok because of mine and my husbands faith.

BUT---IF covenant theology is the correct interpretation of how God deals with his people, then I can understand why paedobaptism would be important, simply because it would be like circumcism was in the OT. However-I cannot find where anyone says baptism replaces circumcism in the bible. It's something that has to be "read" into. Hence, why I have not imbraced it. I have read some very compelling articles that explain it all, but I still feel something is missing....

Any whoo, it's not something I just want to ignore and brush under the carpet. I want to make sure I'm doing the right thing, and understanding the bible properly.

Behe's Boy: To understand "PB" in reformed circles it is really important that you understand covenant theology. I suggest you study that for a clearer understanding as to why many of the 'reformed churches practice it. Once I personally embraced covenant theology (after much study w/ scriptual support) - then I realized that the practice of "PB" was correct.

Exactly! That is why I'm studying it, because after rejecting dispensationalism--where else do you go? Covenant theology! and with covenant theology come paedobaptism!

Oh, I just wanted to point out, that paedobaptism in Reformed circles is NOT similar to the RCC paedobaptism. They believe that it washes away original sin and frees the child from that stain......it's the introduction to grace,so to speak....

 

[biblelighthouse]

As a creedobaptist, I am a bit surprised to hear me asking this, but is there any relation to dispensationalism and creedobaptism? We are discussing the OT and the NT as if they were two different things all together. They are two parts of a whole, though. The NT clarifies certain things from the OT, but that shouldn't allow us to exclude the OT from any of our studies.

Amen! Very good observation.

Think for a moment about the core distinctive of dispensationalism. According to Charles Ryrie in his book on Dispensationalism, the key distinctive is that dispensationalists see a radical discontinuity between Israel and the Church. They say that Israel was not the church, and the Church is not Israel. According to them, they are two totally seperate peoples of God. Thus, there is a radical discontinuity between the OT and the NT. The OT was for them, while the NT is for us. And if you start with these faulty presuppositions, then you are bound to ignore the OT, and to be a credobaptist (among other things).

But the Scriptures do not make such a radical break. Jesus said that the OT speaks of Him (John 5:24). Paul said that WE Christians are the "children of Abraham" (Galatians 3:29). Paul drew a connection between circumcision and baptism (Colossians 2:11-12). Paul called the church the "Israel of God" (Galatians 6:16). Jesus said that WE Christians will sit at the same table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Matthew 8:11). The author of Hebrews quotes OT prophecy about *Israel* and says that very prophecy applies to the *church* (Hebrews 8, quoting Jeremiah 31:31). Peter quotes OT prophecy about *Israel* and says that very prophecy applies to the *church* (Acts 15, quoting from Amos 9). I could go on and on.

Yes, credobaptism is inherently dispensational. To be a credobaptist, you have to believe that God treats His people very differently now than He used to. You have to believe that He used to include believers' children in covenant with Him in the OT, but that He excludes believers' children in the NT.

Example: after the 40 years of wandering and before they could enter Canaan, the Israelites had to be circumcised. They had let that one go before, and now were told to perform that act before they could continue. That could imply that infants should be baptized, but that believers should also be baptized if they hadn't been baptized as infants.

Any thoughts on the matter?

Amen! Infants certainly should be baptized, since the children of believers are already considered to partake of the kingdom of Heaven (cf. Luke 18:15-16). But if a believe was never baptized as an infant, he should certainly be baptized now (cf. Acts 8, 10, etc.).



I love this quote from B.B. Warfield:

The argument in a nutshell is simply this: God established His Church in the days of Abraham and put children into it. They must remain there until He puts them out. He has nowhere put them out. They are still then members of His Church and as such entitled to its ordinances. Among these ordinances is baptism, which standing in similar place in the New Dispensation to circumcision in the Old, is like it to be given to children.
-B.B. Warfield

Amen!

 

[Defcon]

Ok, come on, the Luke text you presented doesn't prove infant baptism. I have also stated earlier that Paul condemned circumcision because it is about the "new creation". I'm not a follower of dispensationalism in things such as eschatology, but there is an inherent difference that I see when it comes to baptism. Acts 2:38 "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins." Note here that baptism is linked to our salvation and reliance on Christ for our righteousness. How can this be relayed to a child unless you ultimately preach the child is gaining salvation by infant baptism? The New Covenant is in Jesus' blood for the salvation of believers - to now tie this back into infants who are children of believers is not the gospel.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Ok, come on, the Luke text you presented doesn't prove infant baptism.

I did not say that there is baptism in Luke 18. Rather, I said that "the children of believers are already considered to partake of the kingdom of Heaven (cf. Luke 18:15-16)."

But the interesting question is this: If they are considered part of the kingdom of Heaven, then how can baptism be denied to them?

I have also stated earlier that Paul condemned circumcision because it is about the "new creation". I'm not a follower of dispensationalism in things such as eschatology, but there is an inherent difference that I see when it comes to baptism. Acts 2:38 "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins." Note here that baptism is linked to our salvation and reliance on Christ for our righteousness. How can this be relayed to a child unless you ultimately preach the child is gaining salvation by infant baptism? The New Covenant is in Jesus' blood for the salvation of believers - to now tie this back into infants who are children of believers is not the gospel.

I agree that baptism is linked to faith, forgiveness, etc.

But what you are missing is that circumcision, in the Old Testament, pointed to the SAME THING!

OT circumcision was also a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith (Romans 4:11).

OT circumcision was an outward sign for "heart circumcision", which is just another phrase for "regeneration". See Deuteronomy 30:6, for instance.
--- Similarly, NT water baptism is an outward sign for spirit baptism, which is something that all regenerate people have (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:13).

Nevertheless, physical circumcision was given to infant children in the OT, even though not all of them turn out to be regenerate (heart circumcised).
--- Similarly, NT water baptism is given to infant children, even though not all of them turn out to be regenerate.


Again, just to reiterate, you are correct in linking the outward rite of water baptism with the inward change of regeneration. But you are missing the fact that OT circumcision was linked to the SAME inward change. Nevertheless, it was given to infants, in anticipation and belief, even though not 100% of the infants turned out to be regenerate. Likewise, baptism should be given to infants, in anticipation and belief, even though not 100% of them will turn out to be regenerate.

Your brother in Christ,
Joseph