 |
Taking Every Thought Captive |
 Got Life? Our Ministry Our Beliefs Our Staff Articles What's New? Contact Us Resources Bookstore Search Links
|
AN EXAMINATION OF THE RATIONALE BEHIND
PAEDOBAPTISM By
Jay Wegter CONTENTS
1. PURPOSE FOR THE STUDY
2. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
3. AN EXPLANATION OF THE PAEDOBAPTIST ARGUMENT FROM THE COVENANT 4.
PAEDOBAPTISM IN LIGHT OF
THE
NEW TESTAMENT MEANING OF BAPTISM
Inconsistencies in Paedobaptist
Practice 5.
PRACTICAL
IMPLICATIONS OF PAEDOBAPTISM 6.
CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY PURPOSE FOR THE STUDY The purpose of this examination is to
determine the integrity of the rationale employed by Paedobaptists to support
infant baptism. Since Paedobaptists
acknowledge that there is no clear New Testament command to baptize infants,
their rationale for doing so is drawn from the Old Testament. B. B. Warfield states that “The warrant for
infant baptism is not to be sought in the New Testament but the Old Testament.”
[1] The objective of this paper is to
provide an evaluation of the hermeneutic applied by Paedobaptists to the key
biblical texts used in support of their position. IS PAEDOBAPTISM FOUND IN THE SCRIPTURES? The Paedobaptist position held by
evangelicals may be distinguished from the view held by those who affirm
baptismal regeneration (sacramentalist).
“Sacramentalists include Catholics, Lutherans, and Anglicans, while
anti-sacramentalists have included those in the Reformed tradition, Baptists
and Anabaptists.” [2] Following the Protestant Reformation,
anti-sacramentalists comprised two major groups: the Baptists who opposed
infant baptism and the Paedobaptists who supported it. Paedobaptists who emerged from the
Reformation rejected the Roman Catholic doctrine of baptismal regeneration and
the authority of tradition. Samuel
Waldron notes that these Paedobaptists “were forced to construct a biblical
rationale for infant baptism.” [3] The problem to be addressed in this paper
constitutes a debate between anti-sacramentalists. [4]
The fundamental issue in this debate may be phrased as a series of
questions. “How tenable is the
rationale for infant baptism? Are
infants legitimate candidates for baptism?
Does the Paedobaptist rationale for infant baptism establish a solid
hermeneutical basis for making infants the subjects of baptism?” Due to the limited scope of this paper,
the major thrust of the critique will focus upon the theological arguments
posed by Paedobaptists. Therefore this
study will not offer a comprehensive examination of the key texts used to
support infant baptism. The procedure of study will begin with a
survey of the Paedobaptist argument derived from the covenant of grace. Special attention will be given to the task
of uncovering assumptions that are inconsistent with biblical theology. The second phase of the study will probe
into the Paedobaptist position in light of dogmatic theology. A critical analysis of the Paedobaptist
administration of baptism will be carried out in order to determine any
inconsistencies between the practice of baptism and the New Testament nature of
baptism. [5] The final portion of the study will be
devoted to the practical implications of Paedobaptism for the church. AN
EXAMINATION OF THE PAEDOBAPTIST ARGUMENT
FROM THE COVENANT Erich Dinkler observes that the “baptism
of infants cannot be historically grounded in the New Testament; it must be
‘theologically inferred.’ ” [6] This theological inference is drawn
primarily from an understanding of unity of
the covenant of grace in all ages.
Paedobaptists stress the inner
continuity of the various administrations of the covenant of grace. The unity or continuity of redemptive
history is pressed to such a degree that external
discontinuities which exist in the administration of the covenant are all
but ignored.[7] John Murray’s summary statement
exemplifies this argument. “The
argument for infant baptism rests upon the recognition that God’s redemptive
action and revelation in the world are covenantal . . . .” [8] Murray regards redemptive revelation to
be covenantal action on the part of God.
Inherent in this covenantal action is the principle that the infant seed
of believers are included in both covenant relation and provision. Murray urges that the above principle of the
inclusion of infants is inseparable from the manner in which God administrates
grace in the world, both in the Old Testament and the New Testament. Therefore, God’s method of the
administration of grace is the ground of infant baptism. [9]
Kingdon offers a useful summary of
Murray’s argument. 1.
The
covenant of grace belongs not to believers only, but also to their children. 2.
The
covenant sign in the Old Testament was circumcision which
was applied to children, as well as in certain cases to adults. 3.
The
covenant sign in the New Testament is baptism, which has replaced
circumcision and should be applied to both believers and their children. [10] The plausibility of this argument is at
first blush quite compelling to
those who subscribe to covenant theology.
For they hold in general consensus the following points. First, God’s acts of grace in man’s
redemption are in fulfillment of covenant promises and engagements. Second, it follows that there is one people
of God who are saved and united to God by faith. Third, there is One Mediator of the covenant and one destiny for
all saints, Mount Zion or the City of God.
To this list, Paedobaptists would annex the principle that circumcision
as the seal and sign of the covenant as originally ministered is essentially
like the sacrament of baptism as now administered in Christ. [11]
The Paedobaptist rationale discounts the
principle of historic development The argument that baptism replaces
circumcision hangs upon the assumption that God’s promise “to Abraham and his
descendants is the promise ratified in Christ to all believers.” [12] Baptists respond by emphasizing that
an understanding of the unity or affinity between the Old and the New
requires a counterbalance of appropriate emphasis upon the diversity that exists between the two. When Paedobaptists frame their argument from circumcision, “they
have failed to keep [the principle] . . . of historical development in clear
focus.” [13] The Paedobaptist understanding of
the unity of the covenant of grace
wrongly neglects the “various external
discontinuities which exist between those administrations [of the covenant
of grace].” [14] John Murray, who represents the
Paedobaptist position, pushes for a continuity that suppresses any diversity of
administration. “The basic premise of
the argument for infant baptism is that the New Testament economy is the
unfolding and fulfillment of the new covenant made with Abraham and that the
necessary implication is the unity and continuity of the Church.” [15] This stress on the unity of
redemptive history ignores the progressive character of redemptive
revelation. God’s redemptive purposes
in history unfold in a cumulative manner.
Without these points in view, biblical theology is shut out of
hermeneutics. The relationship between
the testaments is distorted in the process. [16] Jewett notes that such a wholesale
neglect of biblical theology leads Paedobaptists to read the Old Testament as
if it were the New. He adds that the
distortion goes both ways, the New is “Judaized” or read as if it were the
Old. The proper hermeneutic is to read
the Old in light of the New, not as if it is the New. [17] “Christianizing” the Old Testament
creates serious hermeneutical problems By “Christianizing” the Old
Testament, Paedobaptists construct an incomplete definition of
circumcision. Its meaning is reduced to
purely spiritual promises and blessings.
The national, earthly and generational aspects are left out entirely. [18] In their attempts to establish
infant baptism from the Old Testament, Paedobaptists find a direct equivalence
between circumcision in the Old Testament and baptism in the New. A. A. Hodge remarks, “Circumcision signified
and bound to precisely what Baptism does; and since baptism has taken precisely
the place of circumcision – it follows that the church membership of the
children of professors should be recognized now as it was then and that they
should be baptized.” [19] The Paedobaptist argument assumes that
baptism in the New Covenant and circumcision in the Old Covenant share the same
unity and identity. [20] The theology of infant baptism
postulates that the unity between circumcision and baptism is so complete that
an equal sign could be placed between them.
Granted, there are parallels between circumcision and baptism. Both
rites are symbols of induction into the covenant people. Both symbolize renewal and cleansing of heart. But this does not mean that they should be
regarded as equivalent. There are
certain obvious differences between them.
The ordinances have different subjects.
Only males were circumcised, yet both males and females are baptized. [21] In their attempt to equate
circumcision with baptism, Paedobaptists cite Colossians 2:11, 12 as a key
text. The New Testament clearly defines
spiritual circumcision G. R. Beasley-Murray in his article on
Colossians 2 gives contextual evidence that Paul is setting up a contrast
between physical circumcision and spiritual circumcision. In the former, a small piece of flesh was
removed. In the latter the whole body
of flesh was circumcised by the circumcision of Christ. Spirit baptism then is a fitting symbol of
spiritual circumcision. For the
Christian shares so fully in the work of Christ, “it is as if he himself had
suffered that appalling bloody death.” [22] In this text, Paul strikes at the
heart of the Gnostic Judaizer’s error of spirituality through ceremonial
exclusion (circumcision). The occasion
for the writing of the epistle (i.e. the Colossian heresy) lends credence to
Beasley-Murray’s understanding of Colossians 2:11, 12. When seen in this light, the passage would not be teaching equivalency between the
ordinances. Paul’s assertion is that
the believer’s involvement in Christ’s death, burial and resurrection is known
experimentally in baptism through faith.
“Baptism then exalts the saving acts of Christ – His dying and rising –
and also objectif[ies] the repentance and faith of the believer . . .” [23] Instead of the early church seeing baptism
as the replacement of circumcision, the greater likelihood is that they
“regarded baptism [as] the fulfillment of that spiritual circumcision for which
the prophets looked.” [24] The Old and New Covenants differ in their
membership Waldron notes that the classic passage
which speaks of the relationship between the Old and New Covenants is found in
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The Jeremiah passage
emphasizes not the similarity, but the great difference between the two
covenants. If the New Covenant stands
in such stark contrast to the Old, then it cannot be accurate to state that
baptism is identical with circumcision. [25]
It is the specified difference
between the covenants “that prohibits the continuation of infant membership in
the New Covenant.” The great difference
as promised in Jeremiah is that “the people of God in the New Covenant will not
break the covenant as Israel did . . . .”
All the New Covenant people will know the Lord (Jeremiah 31:34). Baptism as the sign of the New Covenant
belongs only to the spiritually circumcised.
For they alone qualify as having a right to the sign (Philippians 3:3). [26] Under the New Covenant in this
present age, there is no longer a physical covenant nation but a spiritual
covenant nation [Matthew 21:43). “Hence
physical bloodlines do not give membership in this nation or permit
participation in its covenant signs!” [27] Baptism rather than being equivalent
to circumcision, professes to be in possession of what circumcision
demanded. “Circumcision demanded a new
heart, indeed, but it did not profess a new heart.” [28] The Paedobaptist argument that finds direct
equivalence between circumcision and baptism is an overdrawn analogy that fails
to offer accuracy when used as a hermeneutic. Jeremiah 31 infers that the Old
Covenant was inadequate, serving only to prepare for the New. Once the New arrived, its surpassing glory
would dissolve the Old. The vast
superiority of the New over the Old would be accomplished by that outpouring of
the Spirit. “This effusion made a
change in administration possible.” [29] The New Covenant is characterized by
inward distinctives In contrast to the outward formalism
of the Old Covenant, the New Covenant would be characterized by inward
spiritual life. The contrast is not
absolute. Heart religion and true
spirituality existed under the Old evidenced by Abraham, David and others. But the outward, formal, national religion
of Israel was marked by a plethora of external rules and formal ceremonies.
“Relatively little attention is given to inward life.” [30] Circumcision permitted a man to be
counted as a Jew. When he observed
practices, he was regarded as clean and was permitted to participate in worship
ceremonies. In Galatians, Paul compares
this system of worship to a “strict tutor who tells a child what to do at every
turn.” [31] Israel’s habitual apostasy and
breaking of the Covenant (Deuteronomy 29:19-25, Jeremiah 31:32) would only be
overcome by the inauguration of the New Covenant. The New Covenant is an unbreakable
covenant. This unbreakable quality
is an important discontinuity that is overlooked by Paedobaptists. In addition, the New Covenant is made with believers only. This is the primary reason why the New
Covenant is unbreakable. Believers will
by the Spirit’s enablement persevere to the end without breaking the
covenant. They will not become apostate
by rejecting the faith. These New
Covenant distinctives are true only of regenerate persons. For the New Covenant is an internal covenant
made with the elect only. [32] The New Testament abolished “covenantal”
holiness “Paedobaptists forget that the entire
concept of ‘covenantal’ holiness has been abolished in the New Testament.” Peter’s vision in Acts 10 erased the
distinctions peculiar to the Old Testament.
External covenantal holiness was based upon external membership in a
covenant community. Peter learned from
the vision he was no longer to call any man impure
or unclean because of their birth
outside the covenant community. [33]
Membership in the Old Testament covenant community was not
congruent with personal salvation. This
fact constitutes a marked discontinuity between the Old and New Covenant. Under the Old, one could be a child of God
by virtue of the “external covenant” with God and yet be on the way to hell. “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and
out of Egypt I called my son” (Hosea 11:1).
Jesus Christ came unto those who were “His own” by natural descent, but his own did not receive Him (John 1:11-13). People who were God’s own, or God’s children
under the terms of the Old Covenant rejected their Messiah. [34] Under the Old Covenant (Romans
9:2-4), one could be adopted by God and
yet in dire need of salvation. “This
parallels the Paedobaptist
understanding of ‘covenant children’ being in an ‘external covenant.’ ” A very
perplexing issue germinates from this error.
Namely Paedobaptists are confronted with a high percentage of apostate
children. “In the New Covenant era, only the elect
can be properly considered children of God.”
The concepts of adoption (Romans
8:15) and sonship (Galatians 4:5-7)
have been transformed under the New Covenant to apply only to those who are in
vital, saving union with the Son of God. [35] The
assumption of continuity between the covenants erodes hermeneutics In order to justify the baptizing of
infants, Paedobaptists must assume total continuity in the administration of
the Old and New Covenant. Without New
Testament support for infant baptism, continuity between the covenants is sought,
but at a very, high price. The diversity
of administration is distorted and suppressed. [36] The Old Testament is thus “Christianized”
and the New is “Judaized.” [In the process,] Paedobaptists
import Old Testament concepts of “covenantal holiness,” “external
holiness,” “external members of the
covenant,” “external union to God,” “Covenant children,” etc., into the New
Testament, even though these distinctions are entirely abolished by the New
Testament and completely foreign to its teaching. [37] In seeking to establish a rationale
for infant baptism, Paedobaptists have taken a legitimate analogy between circumcision and baptism and made it into an identity. When viewed
through the lens of this hermeneutic, Israel and the church became synonymous
and undifferentiated. In that scheme
the progressive quality of redemptive history is flattened into a plane that
allows “movement in two directions.”
“The sacraments of circumcision and baptism became identical in every
respect – save their outward form – to be administered for the same reasons, to
the same persons.” [38] In order to defend infant baptism on
the basis of infant circumcision, “The Old Testament [is] read as though it
were the New, . . . [and] the New Testament is read as though it were the
Old.” Such a wholesale setting aside of
biblical theology gives license to the Paedobaptist to equate the ordinances in
such a way that Old Covenant significance is given to baptism and New Covenant
significance is attributed to circumcision.
As Jewett notes, “circumcision is given an inward, spiritual reference exclusively, answering to that of
baptism, so baptism (in the case of infants) is said to seal a merely outward visible external privilege
answering to that of circumcision.” [39]
Both ordinances have their meaning
distorted by this approach.
Paedobaptist literature concentrates its energies upon elaboration of
the theory of infant baptism. The
theory turns upon the assumption that infant baptism faithfully models the
external covenant privilege of the Old Testament. [40] But Old Testament covenant privilege is by
no means essential Christianity. New Covenant Christianity required
an entirely new ordinance that demonstrated that the recipient was indeed a
partaker of spiritual blessings. “Baptism has no merely earthly
significance. There are no blessings in
it that can be conceived of apart from an experience of grace.” [41] The Old ceremony of circumcision had
an outward, national aspect. As a
literal seed and heir of a literal land, it was proper to be circumcised. But under the Old Covenant an outward/inward dichotomy was recognized
as well. Jehovah called for an internal
change upon a people that bore only an outward mark of the covenant
(Deuteronomy 10:16, Romans 2:25-29).
The New Covenant completely removed this external/internal distinction.
“All shall know Me,” for every New Covenant member is elect, is indwelt
by the Spirit and is forgiven (Jeremiah 31:31-34).[42] The New Covenant required a new
ordinance that adequately pictured the inward
administration of the Spirit.
[Believer’s] baptism is a sign of spiritual blessing in Christ and only
that.” [43] The Paedobaptist argument from the
covenant is fraught with errors in biblical theology. From these errors issue consequences that impact the definition
and practice of baptism. These
deviations from the New Testament practice of baptism will be examined in light
of dogmatic theology in the next portion of the study. [44] PAEDOBAPTISM IN LIGHT OF THE NEW
TESTAMENT MEANING OF BAPTISM The next focus of study looks at the
practice of infant baptism from the vantage point of the significance of
baptism. This section of the paper will
seek to prove that the New Testament meaning of baptism contains guidelines
that govern its administration. It is
the premise of Baptists that the symbolism intended by Christian baptism is
only maintained when the subjects of baptism are already partakers of the
manifold blessings of the New Covenant. [45]
As Jewett observes, the question, “Shall
infants be baptized?” ought to be subordinated to the greater question, “What
is the meaning of baptism?” [46] The nature and
meaning of baptism Christian baptism “is an ordinance
appointed by the Lord Jesus, by which a believer in Him by his immersion in
water, outwardly and symbolically expresses to those who witness it, his faith
in and identification with Christ, in His death, burial and resurrection on his
behalf.” [47] Walter Chantry stresses that the nature of baptism as defined in the New
Testament has as its central significance the idea that the one baptized is savingly
joined to Christ. In other words,
baptism speaks volumes not only about the work of Christ, but also about the
person being baptized. [48] In Christian baptism, the focus belongs
upon the party being baptized. Baptism
is a testimony to the world and the church, but “its primary significance is
for the one being baptized.” The reason
for this stems from baptism’s significance as a covenantal transaction or
ceremony between God and the believer.
The New Testament makes it clear that baptism was commonly practiced in
a private setting (Acts 8:36; 9:17-19; 10:47-48; 16:31-34). It was not required that baptism take place
before a church. “Baptism is an
individual ordinance where as the Lord’s Supper is a corporate Ordinance.” [49] Baptism has an “I, Thou” thrust. It signifies a specific message to the party being baptized. And, it says something about the party being baptized.
To the party being baptized, it signifies identification with Christ
(Romans 6:35; Colossians 2:12; Galatians 3:27); washing from sin (Acts 22:16;
Hebrews 10:22; Acts 2:38); the believer’s death to old life and his
resurrection as a new creation (Colossians 2:12); and identification with the
church (1 Corinthians 12:12; Romans 12:4-5).[50] Baptism also declares a message about the party being baptized. “It says that he or she is in union with
Christ, is forgiven and has a cleansed heart.” [51]
Therefore, every candidate who receives
Christian baptism professes that he or she enjoys hope and salvation through
the merits of Christ’s death. By his
own baptism, the believer declares his own death to sin and his newness of life
in Christ. The ordinance says about the
candidate that he has received the washing of regeneration and the renewing of
the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5). [52]
Thus when infants are baptized, it is
proclaimed to them and about them that they are in union with Christ, forgiven
and have pure hearts. Waldron avers,
“While many Paedobaptists would be horrified by such an implication, only this
implication is consistent with the biblical meaning of baptism.” [53] It ought to be apparent then that baptism
not only symbolizes the blessings of the gospel, but also the believer’s saving
response to the gospel message (1 Peter 3:21; Mark 1:4; Acts 2:38; Matthew
3:6-8, 11). Baptism signifies that the
party baptized has complied with the demands of the gospel.” Therefore to baptize those who profess no
such response is wrong and tends to leave impressions that are contrary to the
gospel.” [54] Robert H. Stein documents the fact that
in the New Testament conversion involved five components that are integrally
related. Those aspects or components
usually all took place at the same time and usually on the same day. The components are “repentance, faith and
confession by the individual, regeneration, or the giving of the Holy Spirit by
God, and baptism by the representatives of the Christian community.” [55] Stein suggests that numerous New
Testament passages join two or more aspects from the list of five (Acts
2:37-38; Acts 16:31; Acts 22:16; Romans 4:3-8; Romans 10:9-10). A comprehensive list of passages
collectively demonstrates lines of connection between all five of the
components so as to allow for no temporal gap between them. The closeness of these associations is seen
in Mark 16:16. “Unless you are
baptized, you can not be saved” was another way of stating that, “Unless you
believe, you cannot be saved.” [56] Infant baptism fragments what the New
Testament presents as a unit The practice of Paedobaptism is performed
with the hope of future regeneration, faith, repentance and confession. There is no guarantee that these essential
components of conversion will ever take place.
Infant baptism flagrantly errs in separating what the New Testament
presents as a unit. [57] J. L. Dagg demonstrates how the rationale
for Paedobaptism collides with the thought of the apostle Paul. He notes that the baptizing of infants “into
the covenant” is often argued based upon an Abrahamic identity of the olive
tree in Romans 11. The olive tree
underwent a substantial change when the natural branches were broken off. Branches were grafted in from a wild olive
tree. Paedobaptists regard the branches
that have been grafted in to be the visible church in this age. They affirm that just as Abraham’s children
were given the sign and seal of the covenant so also should theirs. Infant membership is argued, but not in
accordance with Paul’s argument. For
the apostle asserts that all the changes in the branches are made upon one
principle; the substitution of faith for natural descent. Faith is the bond of connection between the
branches and the root. The rationale
for infant baptism depends upon natural descent. “By taking away natural descent, . . . infant membership . . .
hang[s] on nothing.” [58] Paul’s point is plain enough. Only believers are grafted into the olive
tree. Their connection to the root is
solely a function of faith (Romans 11:20). Paul also emphasizes in Romans 9:7-8
that there are children after the flesh who are not the children of God. Paedobaptists contend that God reckons
children of believers to be His.
“Therefore as Abraham circumcised all his children after the flesh, we
should baptize all our children after the flesh.” However, Paul’s thought again destroys this syllogism. Circumcision belonged both to Isaac and
Ishmael. But it was through Isaac that
the seed was called (Romans 9:7), not through Ishmael (Galatians 4:30). Baptism belongs to “everyone who the Lord
our God calls to Himself” (Acts 2:38-39) and only to those.
[59] For these individuals alone possess the
faith, repentance and forgiveness that baptism symbolizes. The New Testament is void of any sound
arguments for infant baptism Paedobaptists know that the New
Testament does not furnish them with sound arguments for infant baptism. The rationale they have constructed is taken
from the Old Testament. This
questionable exegesis presents Paedobaptists with a logical problem. “How does one prove that the Old Testament
is normative for the administration of a New Covenant ordinance.” Traditionally that answer has been sought in
seeking to prove the unity and continuity of the covenant of grace. The problem still remains. One cannot draw primarily from the Old
Testament to determine the nature of baptism and its administration without
doing violence to a number of New Testament texts. By contrast, Baptists show the
greater consistency in recognizing that it is the New Testament that fully
expounds the “better covenant” (Hebrews 8:6).
It is in the New that the saints find the clearest expressions of the
New Covenant and “that which is normative for the New Covenant’s
ordinances.” The “better promises” of
the New Covenant (Hebrews 8:6) encompass human-divine relations that are vastly
superior to the Old Covenant. Within the
New Testament context are the normative guidelines for Christian baptism. [60] When Paedobaptist theologians are on
New Testament ground, they often generate valuable and exegetically sound
expositions of the symbolism behind baptism.
Perplexity enters when Paedobaptists seek to theologically justify an
administration of baptism that terminates upon infants. At that juncture, some redefining of baptism
takes place. For Paedobaptists dare not
affirm that their infants are in spiritual union with the risen Christ lest
they be charged with the error of baptismal regeneration. In order to construct a rationale,
Paedobaptists must redefine baptism Paedobaptist theologians “tamper
with the definition of baptism to make it signify something less than personal
spiritual union with Christ as the Bible clearly teaches . . . .” Apart from redefinition, Paedobaptists are
faced with the options of teaching either infant salvation or preemptive
regeneration. The first option corrupts
“the New Testament view of the Church and its discipline.” The second option negatively impacts the
evangelism of baptized children since they are regarded as joined to Christ. [61] It is a serious error to define
baptism as the sacrament of repentance and faith and then insist that it applies
to infants who cannot repent or believe the gospel. The hermeneutical error which supports infant baptism is a
foundation with numerous cracks and fissures.
Due to the faulty hermeneutic, a host of inconsistencies necessarily
find their way into Paedobaptist practice.
[62]
Welty throws into vivid relief the reason why Paedobaptist practice is
plagued by inconsistencies. The
Paedobaptist theory of baptism tends to rest upon “a strict principle of Old
Testament continuity . . . .” This
unity or continuity is pressed so as to diminish any discontinuity between the
covenants. When the discontinuities
evident in biblical theology are denied, a host of insoluble difficulties
manifest themselves in the practice of infant baptism. [63]
Welty rightly observes that in
practice, Paedobaptists violate their own hermeneutic of continuity. “Discontinuities not warranted by the text
of Scripture,” are “smuggled in” in order to circumnavigate the New Testament
message of baptism. For no evangelical
would affirm that a baptized infant has believed and repented, has been
regenerated and enjoys the merits of Christ’s death by virtue of vital union
with Him. This dilemma of Paedobaptism
is to be expected, “for once the teaching of the Word of God is misinterpreted
as to our duty, inconsistencies are bound to be revealed in our practice.” [64] Inconsistencies in Paedobaptist Practice 1.) Paedobaptists look for a warrant of faith in
the parents of infants to be baptized. “Paedobaptists claim that that their
practice is mandated by the command given to Abraham in Genesis 17.” But, in the Old Testament, a warrant of
faith was never required of the parents of children to be circumcised. Every physical descendant of Abraham was to
be circumcised. No right or option existed
to refuse this command. “Any attempt to
read the Old Testament as if a profession of faith in the parent were required
for the circumcision of their offspring is clearly a species of
‘Christianizing’ eisegesis, a reading of the Old as if it were the New.” [65] “Paedobaptists justify the practice of infant baptism with respect
to the Abrahamic (not the Mosaic) covenant.”
The following, they suggest, is evidence for implicit faith in parents.
From the patriarchs to Moses, parents lived outwardly moral lives and
were not cut off from the covenant community.
But this statement neither refutes the existence of apostasy nor proves
the existence of saving faith. During
the centuries between Abraham and the Law, parents could not have been
evaluated by the yet future dictates of the Mosaic Covenant. No law of “excommunication” yet
existed. The effort to find a
prerequisite of faith in the parents of those circumcised is an exegetically
unsound endeavor. The one criterion for
circumcision was physical descent from Abraham, not parental faith. [66] “When the people of God crossed the
Jordan River under Joshua, an entire
nation was circumcised in a day (Joshua 5:2-3).” At that time in Israel’s history as well as during Israel’s
national apostasy under the judges and kings, circumcision took place without
the faith of parents as a requirement. [67] 2.) Paedobaptists do not bring their little
children to the Lord’s Supper. Though Paedobaptists ostensibly defend
continuity, they do acknowledge “a difference between the Old Testament and New
with respect to the constitution of the church and subjects of their
ordinances.” Under the Old, servants
and adult sons were circumcised and incorporated into the covenant community. Now, only the infants of believers receive baptism. In the Old, weaned children ate the Passover
meal. Now, small children are not given
the Lord’s supper. Why the change? Baptists respond that there is Paedobaptist
recognition of the substantial diversity that exists between the recipients of the
ordinances in the Old and New Covenants. [68] The Lord’s Supper is not given to
baptized children, even though it is clearly a sign of the New Covenant (1
Corinthians 11:25). Paedobaptists
require a personal confession of faith before children may come to the Lord’s
Table. “In other words, they require
exactly what Baptists require for participation in baptism! . . . In the Old Testament, all those who were
circumcised were commanded to eat of the Lord’s Passover (Exodus 12:3-6, 21-28,
42-49).” Yet Paedobaptists do not
permit participation in the Lord’s Supper without a “personal, intelligent,
confession of faith.” [69] In the Old Testament every circumcised
youngster was commanded to eat of the covenant (Passover) meal, yet in
practice, Paedobaptists restrict the Lord’s Supper to believers only. Waldron highlights the reason for this
inconsistency. Paedobaptist theologians
and pastors know that to abandon believer’s communion would destroy the visible
church. To make unconverted, children
the subject of both ordinances would bring the loss of “any outward symbolic,
visible expression” of true conversion.
“Church membership would become a purely external, unspiritual matter.” [70] 3.) Paedobaptists do not baptize entire
households. The refusal to do so demonstrates an
inconsistent application of their “oikos formula.” The Paedobaptist formula for interpreting household baptisms in
Acts views “entire households being baptized indiscriminately upon the
conversion of he head of the household.”
Paedobaptists do not baptize spouses, servants or children upon
conversion of a head of household. The
reason cited is that the New Covenant is of greater
spirituality. But, is this not a
tacit admission of discontinuity between the covenants? “Greater spirituality” is not exhibited in
the baptism of infants and in the exclusion of spouses and older children. [71] 4.)
Paedobaptists do not practice the “halfway covenant.” The
“halfway covenant” was instituted by American Puritans in an effort to preserve
a Christian commonwealth in the New World.
The measure was an attempt to solve a problem endemic to
Paedobaptism. Shall baptized
individuals who reach adulthood without a profession of faith be permitted to
have their own infants baptized? The
Puritan leaders were desirous of both keeping church members and maintaining a
body of professing believers. The
halfway covenant was their solution. It
allowed the infants of unbelieving parents to be baptized. It permitted a “halfway” membership to
second and third generation children but forbade communion and other full
membership privileges until a profession of faith took place. [72] A similar dilemma faces modern
Paedobaptists. Are not the descendants
(second and third generation) of covenant members also in the covenant? “Why not baptize the children of covenant
children, even if those covenant children have never made a profession of
saving faith? To do so was the practice
with regard to circumcision under the Old Covenant.” If the principle of strict continuity is applied, Paedobaptists
ought to baptize all descendants of a covenant member. The “halfway covenant” of New England grew
out of a deep practical crisis. Welty
notes that the controversy raised among New England Puritans (1634-1828)
developed due to “a fundamental practical absurdity that their Paedobaptist
theology raised.” [73] There was not absurdity under the Old
Covenant. For it read “every male among
you shall be circumcised . . . throughout your generations,” period (Genesis
17:12-14). Under the New Covenant,
there is no absurdity or contradiction if the covenant signs are restricted to
believers. [74] PRACTICAL
IMPLICATIONS OF PAEDOBAPTISM 1.) Infant baptism is an incomplete ordinance as
evidenced by the need for confirmation. Baptism signifies
both the salvation provided in Christ and the response of faith of the person
to be baptized. “Both the human and
divine acts symbolized are realities which cannot be true in those incapable of
faith.” The significance of New
Testament baptism is bound up in the union of the thing signified and the
experience of salvation. When infants
are baptized there is a separation of baptism from saving faith. [75] Paedobaptists seek to link what they have
separated by practicing confirmation.
As an additional concept, confirmation is seen as the event when
profession of faith is made. For
Paedobaptists, confirmation is necessary in order to make the symbolism of
baptism real. By its very nature as a
wholly separate act, confirmation attests to the fact “that infant baptism is
incomplete and must be consummated in a later act.” [76] Jewett points out that confirmation as “a
distinct rite makes baptism in two parts, of which division the New Testament
knows nothing . . .” [77] 2.) Infant baptism misrepresents the intended symbolism
of New Testament baptism. “Baptism is the sign and seal of this most
inward, most subjective grace of the new birth, . . .” Yet evangelical Paedobaptists purport that
covenant children “are not presumed to be ‘actually inwardly holy persons’. . .
[nor do they possess a] ‘regeneration of character.’ ” [78] Such sweeping redefinitions of baptism do
not constitute a benign error. “[They]
strike at the heart of God’s present covenantal dealings with His people, . .
.” Both Old and New Testament bear witness
to the fact that “God’s New Covenant people actually know the Lord, have their
sins forgiven, and have the Law of God written on their hearts.” [79] Baptism symbolizes one’s partaking in the
New Covenant. Yet Paedobaptists teach
that baptism is to be given to their infants.
In order to justify such a practice, infants are described as having a
“federal,” “relative,” “collective,” or “legal holiness,” . . . “but not that
true inward renewal and purity of life wrought by the Holy Spirit and signified
in baptism.” [80] Jewett reasons that “The defense of
infant baptism along Old Testament lives of outward holiness by birth stands in
stark contradiction to the meaning of baptism as enunciated in the classic
Paedobaptist confessions.” The
arguments which arise “from external covenant privilege . . .[have] no
theological connection [to the New Covenant] . . . .” [81] 3.) Infant baptism weakens the church by
amalgamating it with the world. “All Paedobaptists agree that infants are
proper subjects for church membership, . . .”
By this policy, infant baptism tends directly to form a mixture of the
church and the world. Scripture is
clear, the unconverted are depraved and part of the world (Ephesians
2:1-3). John Adams exhorts protestant
Paedobaptists to desist from the false teachings of Rome. He reminds his readers that “through the
christening of children, . . . whole nations [have been made] nominally
Christian . . . .” [82] The ramifications of Paedobaptism when
carried out in church life can send the message that those baptized in infancy
are regenerated. As a result, the sense
of urgency to come to Christ for personal salvation is dulled. “Over a period of years, this tendency is
likely to result in more and more unconverted members of the ‘covenant community’
– members who are not truly members of Christ’s church.” From the unregenerate sector of such a
“mixed multitude” comes the tendency toward liberal doctrine, fighting and
other kinds of unbelief. [83] Infant baptism compromises both the
nature of the church’s constitution and the ability of the church to carry out
discipline. Believer’s baptism is
intended to show the “unity of the faith, and the fellowship of the true people
of God, who in the one baptism, profess their trust in the one Lord, and their
acceptance of the one faith (1 Corinthians 12:13).” This New Covenant unity is radically diluted by the baptism of
unregenerate souls. [84] The New Testament “conception of the
church and its membership must be maintained and pursued. To do otherwise, to embrace confusion on so
vital a point, will bring . . . an increase in spiritual deception among those
who profess the name of Christ.” [85] CONCLUSION Paedobaptism
is often considered to be a feature inseparable from covenant theology. Although the argument from the covenant of
grace is used to support Paedobaptism, covenant theology does not demand
Paedobaptism as a logical conclusion.
Waldron brings out the fact that, “historically speaking, there is a
powerful stream of Baptist apologetic which while it issues from Reformed
theology, exposes the weaknesses of the convenantal argument for infant baptism
. . . .” Luminaries such as John
Bunyan, John Gill, Abraham Booth, Alexander Carson and C. H. Spurgeon all
represent a Baptist tradition which is consistent with a version of covenant
theology. [86] Calvinistic Baptists recognize a certain
continuity in biblical revelation and in God’s covenantal dealings with His
people. They also understand that there
are substantial discontinuities between the Old and the New with regard to the
nature and administration of the covenants. [87] By contrast, Paedobaptists exhibit an
insensitivity “to the movement of revelation from the broader dimension of Old
Testament externalism to the deeper dimension of New Testament inwardness.” To fabricate an argument from the Old
Testament that infants should be baptized church members radically diminishes
the depth of New Testament covenant privilege. [88] Christian baptism signifies New Covenant
privilege. To give an ordinance to
infants that is designed to communicate the putting on of Christ (Galatians
3:27) is to obliterate it’s symbolism. Support for infant baptism rests upon
tradition, not Scripture Paedobaptist theologians acknowledge that
there is “no express precept” respecting infant baptism in Scripture. “Tradition is the basis on which infant
sprinkling rests.” [89] Tradition becomes destructive when it is
contrary to Scripture. Church history
is filled with sad examples of oppression that can be traced to the subjugation
of God’s Word to tradition. Adams in
citing Underhill notes that the Protestant reformers labored under a
church-state mentality. They had framed
no creed or confession which removed from “the magistrate a coercive power in
religion and almost every one, at that same time curses the resisting
Baptist.” Baptists were persecuted for
rejecting “secular interference in the church of God . . . .” Baptists practically stood alone as “defenders
of conscience.” They were severally
persecuted for their adherence to believer’s baptism. [90] “Paedobaptism is clearly tied to
sacralism in church history.” During
the Constantinian era, church and state were regarded as coextensive. “.
. . Baptism identified a person not only as a member of Christ’s church, but
also a citizen of the state.” At the
time of the Protestant Reformation, it was the Anabaptists that emphasized a
New Testament understanding of the mode of baptism and the subjects of baptism. Their concern was for the purity of the
church. The concept of a church made up
of believers only was anchored in believer’s baptism. [91] Zwingli typifies the crass pragmatism of those who forsook believer’s baptism for political reasons. Infant baptism served the interests of those desirous of establishing a church state form of government. When it became law, it cost the lives of many Baptists. |
