Tuesday, February 03, 2004
Why Paedobaptism?
Every gospel doctrine has its roots in the Old Testament. The same is with baptism. God saved Abraham by grace through faith. He then made a covenant with Abraham a mere human being. Circumcision became the sign of the covenant. (Genesis 17:11). Circumcision is a sign of outward cleanliness which denotes inward spiritual cleansing. (Deuteronomy 30:6). Circumcision did not save just like baptism does not save. The most remarkable thing about circumcision is the fact that it was also to be administered to the infants of the household. (Genesis 17:12)
Jesus told his disciples to baptise those who turn to him. (Matthew 28:19) Baptism is to be applied with water. In biblical baptism the water is applied in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Like circumcision baptism is a sign of inward spiritual reality. It also means being set apart for a holy life. It does not mean that we are saved by baptism. Our sins our cleansed by the blood of Christ alone and our lives are made holy by being born again.
Looking at baptism in this way it appears that believer’s baptism is the only way. But to say peado baptism is unbiblical is not really true. Look at the instances of families not only individuals being baptised. Lydia was baptised by Paul but also her family. (Acts 16:15) The writer goes out of his way to talk about her household being baptised. You can’t just say that he doesn’t mean the children also. Lydia was the only one saved so why were the whole family baptised? The same can be said for the unknown Philippian jailor. (Acts 16:33-34) You can’t really say that Paul made a mistake there. It would have said so because all scripture is useful. If Paul had made a mistake then in being useful scripture would have said that Paul was wrong in doing so. Paul even goes on to write about the baptising of Stephanas household in 1 Corinthians 1:16.
Circumcision is fulfilled by baptism. God always finishes what he begins. Looking at the life of Jesus we see him completing and fulfilling many vows and promises in the Old Testament. The sacrifices were fulfilled by Christ’s death on the cross. The examples I could use are numerous. The same is for baptism. It fulfils circumcision.
Throughout the Old Testament we see the regard God has for the children of his people. We are told that Noah found favour in the eyes of the Lord and yet his sons came on with him. Yet again, we can look to the covenant made with Abraham and how God includes his children. Look at 1 Kings 11:11-12 where we see even though Solomon sinned God waited until after Solomon died to divide the kingdom, not because of any good in him but rather because he was David’s son. Another example would be the conclusion of the second commandment… “for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.” Psalm 103:17 also shows us that God loves the infants of believers. You may say all these are examples of the children of parents in the Old Testament and you are right but God is the same God and the New Testament is just as full of God showing love to the children of infants. Matthew 9:18-26 shows us Jairuses daughter being brought back from the dead. Jesus did not do this because of her faith but rather because of the faith of her Father. Other examples like this can be found in… Matthew 17:14-18, Luke 7:11-17, John 4:46-54. Look at the account of Zaccheus. He showed faith in Christ and made all those excellent promises. What did Jesus say to him? “Today salvation has come to this house.” Jesus could have said “Today salvation has come to Zaccheus” but he particularly mentions the household.
When Peter says believe and be baptised he goes on to talk of how the promise is for their Children as well. (Acts 2:39)
Words which to me are most striking are those in 1 Corinthians 7:14…. “For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.”
In those words sanctified obviously does not mean saved. Rather sanctified means “set apart”. The wife is viewed in a special way by God because of her husband’s faith. So why then, if we can use these words to say that infants of one believer should be baptised why do we not baptise the unbelieving wife? As an adult, she is responsible for her own profession before the Lord. The infant stands in his father’s faith, unable to make his own profession, but bearing the mark of his father’s faith upon him, which calls him to his Lord in his earliest years.
So if God is the same God in both testaments then why should his promise and sign of covenant faithfulness change? Baptism replaces the sign of circumcision but God’s promise of covenant faithfulness remains the same. Why then shouldn’t baptism be applied to the infants of believers just as circumcision was?
This leads us onto thinking about the covenant home. We know that baptism doesn’t save and to have your child baptised does not mean you can sit back and relax. “For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing what is right and just, so that the LORD will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.”(Genesis 18:19) This verse speaks not of the insurance that God would automatically save Abraham’s son but rather circumcision was a sign of a covenant that Abraham would raise his son in the Lord, and that God would have regard for him.
When parents baptise their children they answer this question….
Do you now unreservedly dedicate your child to God, and promise in humble reliance upon divine grace, that you will endeavour to set before him a godly example, that you will pray with and for him, that you will teach him the doctrines of our holy faith, and that you will strive, by all the means of God’s appointment, to bring him up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord?
When parents remember the sign of salvation applied to their children, it is a call to raise them as God directed.
I have been baptised obviously as an infant. When I think of it, I look on it as a sign of my parent’s faith. It is a call and a command to me to repent of sin and follow Jesus.
So to conclude why I think baptism is to be administered to the infants of believers (I am not trying to convince any of you just trying to show you the reasoning behind paedobaptistic thinking.
It is our belief that the Bible teaches that the sign of salvation is to be applied to the children of believing parents. In the old testament, circumcision was the sign. In the New Testament baptism is the sign. The baptism of infants of believers shows that they are set apart in the eyes of God.
Now obviously there are a number of objections raised by Baptists and here I will explain a little what is thought about the objections.
You may say that infant baptism is not biblical. The thing is, it is not expressly said in the bible that paedobaptism is wrong and should not take place. Also there are three accounts in the New Testament of whole families being baptised. It is reasonable to suggest that infants in the household were included and that indeed there were infants.
It is objected that infants cannot understand the meaning of that which is dispensed. Of course they cannot but that is not to say that they derive no blessing from it. The same objection would apply to circumcision in the Old Testament. To be in the channel of Gods grace is of deepest consequence and infants are put into that when they are baptised.
It is a weighty argument that there are those infants who are baptised and do not come into a saving relationship with Christ. That is sadly true. However, the same objection could be raised with believer’s baptism. There are many people who are baptised and yet show no signs of being a Christian.
You may claim that the difference between circumcision and baptism is great. After all baptism is for both genders whereas circumcision was just for males. But baptism has replaced circumcision as a divine institution and the argument still remains that Gods covenant of salvation did not change.
Why are not infants who have been baptised not allowed to the Lords table?
Baptism signifies and seals what lies at the basis and inception of a state of salvation, union with Christ, cleansing from the pollution of sin and cleansing from the guilt of sin. It signifies what infants may possess and must possess in order to be in a state of salvation.
The Lords Supper signifies something that is consequent upon the state of salvation. The notions of the Lords supper such as remembrance, communion and the recognition of Christ as our saviour are of such a nature that they involve conscious intelligent understanding.
Baptism is not repeated. The Lords supper represents what is repeated daily in the life of a believer.
Well, that’s a little about the subject of paedobaptism. I must say however, that baptism although an issue of importance should not bring the church at loggerheads with each other. We are one and have to aim to bring about Gods glory. Arguing about baptism is not doing that….
Thank you for reading so attentively….(or not as the case may be)
Jesus told his disciples to baptise those who turn to him. (Matthew 28:19) Baptism is to be applied with water. In biblical baptism the water is applied in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Like circumcision baptism is a sign of inward spiritual reality. It also means being set apart for a holy life. It does not mean that we are saved by baptism. Our sins our cleansed by the blood of Christ alone and our lives are made holy by being born again.
Looking at baptism in this way it appears that believer’s baptism is the only way. But to say peado baptism is unbiblical is not really true. Look at the instances of families not only individuals being baptised. Lydia was baptised by Paul but also her family. (Acts 16:15) The writer goes out of his way to talk about her household being baptised. You can’t just say that he doesn’t mean the children also. Lydia was the only one saved so why were the whole family baptised? The same can be said for the unknown Philippian jailor. (Acts 16:33-34) You can’t really say that Paul made a mistake there. It would have said so because all scripture is useful. If Paul had made a mistake then in being useful scripture would have said that Paul was wrong in doing so. Paul even goes on to write about the baptising of Stephanas household in 1 Corinthians 1:16.
Circumcision is fulfilled by baptism. God always finishes what he begins. Looking at the life of Jesus we see him completing and fulfilling many vows and promises in the Old Testament. The sacrifices were fulfilled by Christ’s death on the cross. The examples I could use are numerous. The same is for baptism. It fulfils circumcision.
Throughout the Old Testament we see the regard God has for the children of his people. We are told that Noah found favour in the eyes of the Lord and yet his sons came on with him. Yet again, we can look to the covenant made with Abraham and how God includes his children. Look at 1 Kings 11:11-12 where we see even though Solomon sinned God waited until after Solomon died to divide the kingdom, not because of any good in him but rather because he was David’s son. Another example would be the conclusion of the second commandment… “for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.” Psalm 103:17 also shows us that God loves the infants of believers. You may say all these are examples of the children of parents in the Old Testament and you are right but God is the same God and the New Testament is just as full of God showing love to the children of infants. Matthew 9:18-26 shows us Jairuses daughter being brought back from the dead. Jesus did not do this because of her faith but rather because of the faith of her Father. Other examples like this can be found in… Matthew 17:14-18, Luke 7:11-17, John 4:46-54. Look at the account of Zaccheus. He showed faith in Christ and made all those excellent promises. What did Jesus say to him? “Today salvation has come to this house.” Jesus could have said “Today salvation has come to Zaccheus” but he particularly mentions the household.
When Peter says believe and be baptised he goes on to talk of how the promise is for their Children as well. (Acts 2:39)
Words which to me are most striking are those in 1 Corinthians 7:14…. “For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.”
In those words sanctified obviously does not mean saved. Rather sanctified means “set apart”. The wife is viewed in a special way by God because of her husband’s faith. So why then, if we can use these words to say that infants of one believer should be baptised why do we not baptise the unbelieving wife? As an adult, she is responsible for her own profession before the Lord. The infant stands in his father’s faith, unable to make his own profession, but bearing the mark of his father’s faith upon him, which calls him to his Lord in his earliest years.
So if God is the same God in both testaments then why should his promise and sign of covenant faithfulness change? Baptism replaces the sign of circumcision but God’s promise of covenant faithfulness remains the same. Why then shouldn’t baptism be applied to the infants of believers just as circumcision was?
This leads us onto thinking about the covenant home. We know that baptism doesn’t save and to have your child baptised does not mean you can sit back and relax. “For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing what is right and just, so that the LORD will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.”(Genesis 18:19) This verse speaks not of the insurance that God would automatically save Abraham’s son but rather circumcision was a sign of a covenant that Abraham would raise his son in the Lord, and that God would have regard for him.
When parents baptise their children they answer this question….
Do you now unreservedly dedicate your child to God, and promise in humble reliance upon divine grace, that you will endeavour to set before him a godly example, that you will pray with and for him, that you will teach him the doctrines of our holy faith, and that you will strive, by all the means of God’s appointment, to bring him up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord?
When parents remember the sign of salvation applied to their children, it is a call to raise them as God directed.
I have been baptised obviously as an infant. When I think of it, I look on it as a sign of my parent’s faith. It is a call and a command to me to repent of sin and follow Jesus.
So to conclude why I think baptism is to be administered to the infants of believers (I am not trying to convince any of you just trying to show you the reasoning behind paedobaptistic thinking.
It is our belief that the Bible teaches that the sign of salvation is to be applied to the children of believing parents. In the old testament, circumcision was the sign. In the New Testament baptism is the sign. The baptism of infants of believers shows that they are set apart in the eyes of God.
Now obviously there are a number of objections raised by Baptists and here I will explain a little what is thought about the objections.
You may say that infant baptism is not biblical. The thing is, it is not expressly said in the bible that paedobaptism is wrong and should not take place. Also there are three accounts in the New Testament of whole families being baptised. It is reasonable to suggest that infants in the household were included and that indeed there were infants.
It is objected that infants cannot understand the meaning of that which is dispensed. Of course they cannot but that is not to say that they derive no blessing from it. The same objection would apply to circumcision in the Old Testament. To be in the channel of Gods grace is of deepest consequence and infants are put into that when they are baptised.
It is a weighty argument that there are those infants who are baptised and do not come into a saving relationship with Christ. That is sadly true. However, the same objection could be raised with believer’s baptism. There are many people who are baptised and yet show no signs of being a Christian.
You may claim that the difference between circumcision and baptism is great. After all baptism is for both genders whereas circumcision was just for males. But baptism has replaced circumcision as a divine institution and the argument still remains that Gods covenant of salvation did not change.
Why are not infants who have been baptised not allowed to the Lords table?
Baptism signifies and seals what lies at the basis and inception of a state of salvation, union with Christ, cleansing from the pollution of sin and cleansing from the guilt of sin. It signifies what infants may possess and must possess in order to be in a state of salvation.
The Lords Supper signifies something that is consequent upon the state of salvation. The notions of the Lords supper such as remembrance, communion and the recognition of Christ as our saviour are of such a nature that they involve conscious intelligent understanding.
Baptism is not repeated. The Lords supper represents what is repeated daily in the life of a believer.
Well, that’s a little about the subject of paedobaptism. I must say however, that baptism although an issue of importance should not bring the church at loggerheads with each other. We are one and have to aim to bring about Gods glory. Arguing about baptism is not doing that….
Thank you for reading so attentively….(or not as the case may be)
Comments:
Post a Comment
