I’ve just been reading an article titled “Why do ‘sound people’s baptise babies?”* It is addressing the premise that paedobaptism is perceived as unsound and yet people who are solid on everything else are willing to baptise infants. It’s meant to lead to the punchline that sound people baptise babies because it is actually a very sound thing to do. Unfortunately, the author, Darren Moore manages to give a very different answer.
Let’s have a look at his argument
- Headship
Darren’s first argument is that there is covenant headship. So, people were in covenant relationship with God in Abraham, Jacob, Moses and David. Then, there is continuity so our federal head is Jesus. We are in the covenant in him. So far, so good and so what. This doesn’t seem to be making a paedobaptist argument. However, Moore goes on to argue that we are also within the covenant as parts of units, nations, churches and families. Yet, this is not something that the Bible says anywhere. It’s just made up. I am specifically in the covenant because I am in Christ, not because I’m British.
Further, this kind of tiered, inditect relationship isn’t found elsewhere. We are directly “in Adam”, not through our nation or our family. Jeez saw themselves directly as children of Abraham. The responsibility on parents was to teach and tell their children, not to provide a kind of genetic covenant covering.
Finally, Moore’s argument here rips across Romans 9-11. The previous covenant was not to do with genetic inheritance either.
2. Covenant Expansion
Moore argues that the New Covenant continues and expands the previous one by now including gentiles and also extending the sign to girls. Not baptising babies would be to restrict it and so go against the flow.
Yet, this again misses the point. Romans 9-11 makes it clear that they never were in the covenant, with or without the sign because the covenant was always about faith.
In fact, the actual sign of baptism reinforces this. It’s the means by which people acknowledged that until now they had not been part of the covenant. A new birth is needed, “you must be born again”. Israel had to be reborn, a new baptism to replace the Red Sea and Jordan crossings.
3. Children are in the family of faith
Moore then offers us three verses: Deuteronomy 7:9, Malachi 2:15 and 1 Corinthians 7:14. I’ve dealt with 1 Corinthians 7:14 previously. It is part of teaching that’s about unbelieving spouses so does not tell us anything about whether children are included in “the family of faith” given that the unbelieving husband or wife is not included.
In terms of Malachi and Deuteronomy, these verses simply offer a restatement that children are to be discipled and that God’s promise of a people for himself applies down the generations. They need to be ready in context.
4. Household baptisms
There are a number of mentions of households being baptized in Acts. Does this mean that we should assume that infants were baptized? Possibly although this relies on prior assumptions. There is nothing in the text to suggest that there are. We might just as well debate whether or not an unbelieving spouse is included noting that some of those involved may have been widowed, divorced or never married (which itself has implications). There is nothing here to suggest that there were small babies involved. Households would also have included slaves. We’re they counted as part of God’s kingdom as a result of the master’s decision? What implications should we then draw today. Should grandma’s carers and the au pair be included? What about employees in a small family business?
The key point of course is that baptism is framed throughout the New Testament as being paired with repentance. The implication then is that we see households repenting together and being baptised together.
5. Baptism and circumcision
Moore argues that everything circumcision represents in the Old Testament is represented by baptism in the New Testament.
I’ve dealt with this previously but it’s a common error to attempt to pair up circumcision and baptism. Rather, what we see is that the moment is from external circumcision to heart circumcision and Red Sea/Jordan crossings from death and slavery in Egypt to life and freedom in the land to death/slavery in Satan and life/freedom in Christ marked by baptism.
6. Children are invited
Yes, yes, children are invited. That’s why we tell our children the Gospel. It’s why we run holiday clubs and beach missions. It’s why as a five year old I was able to put my trust in Jesus.
However, that’s very different to taking a small bit of Acts 2 out of context and making it say something different to what it does. Acts 2:39 in context is not an exclusive guarantee to believers that their children get to be included but confirmation that the wonderful promise of the Holy Spirit is for all who repent and believe including children, grandchildren and so on but also, crucially including those who are far off. The result of a right reading if Acts 2 should be motivation to preach the Gospel, not assume it.
7. Baptism parallels OT salvation
Yes it does. However baptism of believers therefore best reflects the emphasis that the big salvation promise that those mini physical salvations were always meant to point towards, not for physical descendants but those who have faith in the promise.
Conclusion
Moore fails to offer sound hermeneutics, exegesis or reasoning for his position. He doesn’t prove that some sound people opt for infant baptism because the basis is sound. What he shows is that it is possible to sound on some things and unsound on others because you use unsound methods. In fact, it may be that even sound conclusions have been inherited but not processed by sound means. Further, and more concerning, the unsound theology required to build this case for paedobaptisnm is likely to touch on a range of other matters. We may want to revisit the conclusions of paedobaptists on those too.
—
*I actually first read this when first published and thought I’d written something at the time but couldn’t find it. Darren re-shared this in a recent public conversation where somewhen else had commented that they find that they are disagreeing with people on baptism who seem “sound” and in fact better at articulating other evangelical positions.
Faithroots 