I wrote recently about a specific problem with infant or paedobaptism. I thought it might be helpful to say a little more about baptism and why I believe that believers’ baptism matters. It’s worth saying at the start that we are talking about believers’ baptism, not “adult baptism” as is sometimes is assumed. To all intents and purposes, there isn’t an arbitrary age requirement for when you get baptised.
Believers’ baptism means that a person is baptised, usually by full immersion into water upon profession of faith in Jesus. Baptism acts as an outward sign and seal of what has happened in the believers’ heart. It is my view that this should mark the person’s public entry into the life of the church and so as a member of their local church.
Now, I think that when you look carefully at Scripture and think about what is involved, then the positive reasons for believers’ baptism stand in their own right. The positive case is enough so that in one sense we don’t even need to consider the alternatives. However, given that significant numbers of people, including many mature, godly, thoughtful Christians do hold to another view, paedobaptism it is worth understanding that alternative position, considering the strongest arguments for it and evaluating why in the end they are not convincing.
Paedobaptism -the argument
Paedobaptists believe that babies should be baptised as soon as possible. Now, sometimes, as I mentioned before, this is little more than a wet thanksgiving/dedication. In such cases, the baptism is where parents make promises to bring up their children to know and love the Gospel message in the hope that they will put their faith in Jesus. However, covenantal paedobaptism says a little more than that. It is the belief that the child is themselves part of God’s covenant people, that they are elect. They therefore are part of the church and hence baptism marks this as a sign and seal.
Now, again, there are differences, some paedobaptists will say that this does not mean that the child is regenerate. They will distinguish between the visible and invisible church here. The child has been included in the visible church but may not now, if ever, be part of the invisible church. Time, will tell. This does leave some question marks. Should the child fully participate and benefit in all aspects of church life? For example, should they take communion. It also leaves the impression that they have a foot in both camps, they have two covenant heads, Christ and Adam.
So, on that basis, other paedobaptists have leaned harder into the possibility that the child, as the offspring of a believer, if they have been recognised as elect and part of the covenant, then we must take the promises of God seriously, so they would believe that the child definitely will be saved, that they will be -or we might even say already are, in some sense regenerate. This seems to be the leaning of some within the Federal Vision movement and the logical consequence of this is that paedobaptism should be followed by paedo-communion.
The basis for paedobaptism can be described as follows. First, that we have over-emphasised the distinction between the old and the new covenant. There is in fact one overarching covenant. The promises made to Abraham continue into the new covenant. This means that just as Abraham’s descendants were included in the promises, at least externally, that this must be true for the descendants of believers. So, just as the Jews circumcised their children as a sign and seal that they were in the covenant, there would be an expectation that the children of believers should be included and so, believers would expect their children to receive an appropriate sign and seal. Baptism is the replacement for circumcision and if parents were not allowed to give their children the sign and seal of the covenant you would have expected evidence of controversy in Acts or the epistles over this matter.
Secondly, that whenever baptisms are recorded in the New Testament, there is usually mention of whole households being baptised together such as with Cornelius and the Philippian jailor. If a whole household was baptised, then this must have included children and infants. It seems then that the household were included within the faith commitment of the head of the house.
Thirdly, in Acts 2, Peter preaches and announces that the promise fulfilled at Pentecost is “for you and for your children.” This confirms that children of believers benefit from the covenant and are included in it. Alongside this, Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 when addressing spouses of unbelievers, assures them that their spouse is considered holy, not unclean. Why? Well because their offspring have also been classed as holy and are not unclean.
The Paedobaptist argument therefore is that their position gives best expression to the practices recorded in Scripture, to the overall theology of redemption and to specific scriptures. It is important therefore that we evaluate these arguments.
Responding to the paedobaptist argument
Let’s take each of those points in turn. First have a look at the descriptions of baptisms. In Acts 10:44-48, it is clear that those who are baptised are those who have heard Peter’s message and on whom the Holy Spirit has fallen. Baptism is done in response to what those bringing the Gospel can see happening in the lives of others.
In Acts 16:29-34, the Philippian jailer asks “what must I do to be saved?” He is told ““Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” It is following this, that he and his household are baptised. Now, it is possible to read the text so that the focus is on he jailer’s faith and that there are those who are included on the basis of his response. Under this reading, Paul and Silas are saying that if the jailer believes, then his whole household, his wife, children, servants and slaves benefit and are brought into God’s people. This would mean that there isn’t just household baptism but household salvation. Some people have argued for such an approach.
If this is the case, then I don’t think the interpretation fits with what many paedobaptists believe. Certainly, it doesn’t fit with the view that a child could be in the visible church but not yet regenerate. It might fit with the Federal Vision view. However, given that the household would have included other adults and given what has happened elsewhere, it seems far more likely that Paul is inviting all of the jailer’s household to respond by repenting and believing. There is nothing to suggest that the household including babies. Indeed, even a reference to a household may not indicate that each person without exception joined in. Consider how John refers to “All Jerusalem” going to see John the Baptist.
One of the issues I have with paedobaptist arguments, is the tendency to take incomplete statements and strip them from their context. Yes, Peter does describe a promise that is “for you and your children.” However, look again at the full statement in context.
37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”
38 Peter replied, “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 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”[1]
The context is that the people are convicted of sin, they ask Peter what they need to do to receive salvation. Peter’s answer is that they need to “repent and be baptised.” Secondly, this means that a specific promise has been made, it’s forgiveness of sin and the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is that those who benefit from the promise will be regenerate, not might be but will be. Finally notice that there is a tendency to chop off the quote after “your children” but in fact Peter goes on to say two further things. First, he includes “all who are far off” then he clarifies that the promise is for “all whom our Lord will call.” This isn’t a special generational promise to the ethnic descendants of believers, it’s a restatement of the glorious extent of the Gospel, that God will call people to himself from all future generations and all parts of the world.
One passage used to support paedobaptism is 1 Corinthians 7:14 where the children of a believing parent are described as holy rather than unclean, even if one of their parents is an unbeliever. The problem is that the unbelieving spouse is described in the same way. Does this mean that we treat them as part of the covenant community as well? This is the problem with taking a Bible verse intended to deal with another pastoral question and trying to force it to answer our question. Paul’s concern in this passage isn’t with the spiritual state of spouse and children – are they saved, are they elect? Rather its to do with can a Christian live with them, be united to them or will they risk being contaminated by that level of intimate contact.
As I indicated, the other day, one of the often missed but biggest problems with paedobaptist rhetoric is that it sets up an additional mediator. God’s grace to me is mediated not through Christ alone but through my parents as well. This also throws up some other fascinating questions. What about children from a second marriage or those who have been fostered or adopted? Are they included within the covenant? Should they now be baptised? Are the promises for them too? Or do the promises only apply to blood relatives?
Key to the paedobaptist argument is that there has been continuity of covenant, that the covenant in Christ is in effect fulfilment of the covenant with Abraham. Baptism then replaces circumcision as the seal of the covenant. It is worth observing a few things here. First, that whilst some baptists have emphasised the distinction between the covenants, it is true that there is continuity between old and new. I agree that the promises to Abraham continue. We are ingrafted into God’s people. However, a read of Galatians or of Romans 9-11 helps us to see something really important. Paul’s point in those letters was never about physical/ethnic descent but always about faith.
Furthermore, whilst much has been made of baptism as a replacement for circumcision, this isn’t the move that the New Testament writers make. Instead, they choose to emphasise that circumcision of the flesh has been replaced by circumcision of the heart. Baptism if anything is a continuation of the experience of God’s people of going through the Red Sea and the Jordan as part of the Exodus experience.
For these reasons I’m afraid that I find the paedobaptist argument unsatisfactory. There isn’t a strong argument for it. Fascinatingly, some resort to an argument from silence in the end, the argument that there would have been controversy if parents could not give a sign to their children. It is worth noting that there was controversy in the early church but specifically over circumcision and the response is never “don’t worry, you can get baptised instead” but rather “it’s faith that matters.”
Positively baptistic
As I said above, in my opinion, the positive case for believers’ baptism is so strong that there isn’t really much need for us to entertain the alternatives. The New Testament clearly presents baptism as something that follows on from repentance, something that those who have put their faith in Jesus are commanded to do.
[1] Acts 2:37-39.
Faithroots 