A Southern Baptist Reconsiders Paedobaptism

Author’s note: I have decided to post this article written last year (which can also be found in pdf format under “Articles” on this site), because I feel that while it is not a perfect or comprehensive article on the subject, it is a good and thoughtful article. I will be preaching on this topic this Sunday at our Seminary Chapel. I welcome all courteous comments pro or con.

 

Last March marked my thirty-ninth year as a Baptist. I have embraced the doctrines of God’s Sovereignty and grace (Augustine, Calvin and before them Paul), for about twenty-four years. In choosing to give a fair and honest consideration of paedobaptism, I have had to ask myself the following question: “What would it take to persuade me that Paedobaptism is Biblical, or in other words, that infants are the proper subjects of baptism?” For some, there is a formidable chasm that separates one from crossing over to the other side. Theologians on both sides get caught up in what the word βαπτιζω or baptism means, what the proper mode should be, whether immersion, dipping or sprinkling, and many other forms of debate that is arguably significant. For the most part, these concerns seem to lie on the periphery of what is really important in determining some type of resolution, at least, in the mind of one who has been a credobaptist for thirty-nine years.

The most compelling arguments for Paedobaptism lie in the Bible’s teaching concerning the covenants and the covenant family and in the comparison of the Abrahamic Covenant and the New Covenant as Murray indicates in his preface to Christian Baptism:

The argument for infant baptism rests upon the recognition that God’s redemptive action and revelation in this world is covenantal. In a word, redemptive action is covenant action and revelation is covenant revelation. Embedded in this covenantal action of God is the principle that the infant seed of believers are embraced with their parents in the covenant relation and provision.¹

Charles Hodge makes the clearest and most unencumbered presentation of why infants should be included in the baptismal rite. In his Systematic Theology, Hodge notes that we must first see the Church as including the children of believing parents and the best starting point seems to begin with the delineation between the visible Church and the invisible Church.² Both aspects can be seen in the two covenants. In the Abrahamic Covenant it can be clearly seen that it was a spiritual covenant³ or a covenant of faith, whereas in Genesis 15:6, “Abraham believed in the Lord and He reckoned it to him as righteousness” (NAS, emphasis mine). So there is a spiritual aspect of the Abrahamic Covenant, and while there are other aspects to be considered related to the promises that include the fatherhood of a multitude of nations (17:4-7) and land (v. 8), our interest is with the possibility that the Church, both visible and invisible, is represented in the Abrahamic Covenant – which it appears to be. That being the case, we can agree with Hodge’s first argument that the visible Church is a divine institution.⁴ The idea that the New Testament Church is a continuation from the covenant with Abraham is supported by Ladd who states that “the fellowship established by Jesus stands in direct continuity with the Old Testament Israel” and he continues to say that “the true Israel now finds its specific identity in its relationship to Jesus.”⁵

Hodge’s second argument is that the visible Church does not consist exclusively of the regenerate.⁶ This can be easily seen by considering that while Ishmael and Isaac as well as Jacob and Esau were all circumcised; only Isaac and Jacob were men of true faith in God, and as a result, were members of the invisible church. Ishmael and Esau are examples of the unregenerate in the visible Church and they show how we cannot know with any certainty who the regenerate are in the visible Church today. So this is a common problem or characteristic shared by both covenants and belief systems. In arguing against paedobaptism, Grudem actually makes the case for the visible and invisible Church more concrete by stating that “circumcision was not restricted to people who had true inward spiritual life, but rather was given to all who lived among the people of Israel.” He continues to say that “the presence or absence of inward spiritual life made no difference whatsoever in the question of whether one was circumcised” and that circumcision was applied to everyone, not just those who gave evidence of inward faith.”⁷

Hodge’s third argument that the commonwealth of Israel was the Church, follows naturally, if the second argument is true, and he points out rightly that “no man could become a member of the commonwealth of Israel who did not profess the true religion, promise obedience to the law of God as revealed in His Word, and submit to the rite of circumcision as the seal of the covenant.”⁸ The same requirements are true under the New Covenant with the substitution of baptism for circumcision as the new sign and seal of the Covenant. It should be pointed out that baptism is not the only sign and seal of the New Covenant, since it is one of two ordinances given by Jesus for the New Covenant Church to observe; the Lord’s Supper being the other.

One other characteristic that is found in both covenants is hope in Christ. The Church under the Abrahamic Covenant had this hope but it was a forward looking hope (Gal. 3:14, Eph. 1:12) while the Church of the New Covenant had a realized or backward looking hope to the cross. These two similarities reinforce the idea that Israel was the Church yesterday and today and as Hodge points out in his fourth argument, Israel is from the same olive tree as those of the New Covenant (Rom. 11:16-17) and are therefore, members of the Covenant of Grace.⁹ There are other convincing proofs of this fact which Hodge gives, but for the sake of brevity, I will not include them here.

The fifth argument made by Hodge is the terms of admission into the Church under both covenants. “Those terms were a credible profession of faith in the true religion, a promise of obedience, and submission to the appointed rite of initiation.”¹⁰ The appointed rite of initiation for the Abrahamic Covenant was obviously circumcision, and the appointed rite of initiation for the New Covenant is baptism. It is evident in many liberal churches today that the terms of credible profession of faith and the promise of obedience have been somewhat set aside. However, most churches do administer some form of baptism as the initiatory rite to entrance in the Church. Again, the distinction between the visible and invisible Church must be kept in mind with regard to what the liberal churches practice.

Hodge makes the point as his sixth argument that infants were members of the Church under the Old Testament economy. I would correct that statement by replacing the words Old Testament with Abrahamic Covenant, but I understand what he means when he points out that infants were required to be circumcised. I’ve wondered if the reason infants were required to be circumcised at an early age had something to do with sparing older children or adults the pain associated with the practice, but apparently that is not a concern from God’s perspective, as He required it of Abraham and adult males initially as well as from those who converted later. Hodge notes that, “if therefore, children were circumcised by the command of God, it was because they were included in the covenant made with their fathers.”¹¹ This has great import for baptism under the New Covenant. Does the New Covenant erase the inclusion of infant males or does it now include both sexes? The beauty of the New Covenant is that it is indeed inclusive in many ways, for females and for all nations! Much more could be said about this, but not in the confines of this work at hand. According to Hodge, “this is the turning point in the controversy concerning the Church membership of infants. Since the Church is one under both dispensations, and infants were members of the Church under the theocracy, they are members of the Church now, unless the contrary can be proved.”¹² This is addressed by the next argument.

The seventh argument by Hodge for allowing infant baptism is that nothing in the New Testament forbids it. This is significant, because even though one may try to make a case for the exclusion of infants based upon the connection of repentance or the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as evidenced in the historical accounts of the book of Acts, the fact that there is no expressed prohibition against infant baptism seems to carry more weight. This fact is monumental because surely the Holy Spirit in the inspiration of the New Testament authors would have plainly written a prohibition against paedobaptism if it had been critical or even hostile to the practices of the early Church, and He would have surely provided explicit instruction as to whom baptism should be administered if that was critical to the sacrament. Murray agrees, in asking, “does the New Testament revoke or does it provide any intimation of revoking so expressly authorized a principle as that of the inclusion of infants in the covenant and their participation in the covenant sign and seal?” He goes on to say that “we can affirm with confidence that evidence of revocation or repeal is mandatory if the practice or principle has been discontinued under the New Testament.”¹³ It is not without significance that Jesus Himself rebuked the disciples for trying to hinder the children from approaching Him (Matt. 19:14). Hodge reasons, “If members of His kingdom in heaven, why should they be excluded from His kingdom on earth?”¹⁴

Hodge’s last argument that children need and are capable of receiving the benefits of redemption, is not as forceful as what has preceded, yet the benefits of circumcision were readily apparent to the believers in Israel. Circumcision meant among other things, that a member was part of an elect group of people, a righteous people. In the same way, baptism represents certain benefits as Hendriksen points out:

Not as if the rite of baptism as such brings a person into vital union with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  But, according to Scripture the following are true:  a. circumcision was a sign and a seal of the righteousness of Christ accepted by faith (see Rom. 4:11 in its context); b. baptism took the place of circumcision (Col. 2:11, 12); c. therefore baptism, too must be regarded as a sign and a seal of the righteousness of Christ accepted by faith (emphasis his).¹⁵

However, as Murray solemnly warns “it should be understood that the mere fact of baptism in infancy does not entitle the persons thus baptized to any of the privileges of the church of Christ if, when they come to years of discretion and understanding, they show no interest in covenant responsibilities and privileges.”

Conclusion

One would think that in over thirty-nine years of credobaptist life, I would be unequivocally devoted to the belief that infants are not the subject of baptism and that it is reserved only for those who make a “credible” profession of faith. For a person committed to that system of “believer’s baptism,” in which only believers are allowed to partake and benefit from the sacrament of baptism, it would take some serious soul searching, careful analysis and thought to bring about a change in conviction. I know all too well, the arguments for credobaptism, but I also know how being a long-term believer of a particular aspect of a system of theology can proverbially cause one to “miss the forest for the trees.” The aspects of the covenant family relationship impresses, inspires and compels me to be more concerned about what goes on in my family life.

Also the linkage and continuity between the Abrahamic Covenant and the New Covenant should not be overlooked just because there may be some dissimilarities between the two. God’s covenant with Abraham is a divine and spiritual covenant just as the New Covenant is today, and although the signs and seals that represent each covenant are different, there is no Biblical warrant that explicitly states the subjects of those signs and seals of each covenant are different. In our Christian life and maturity, we must be ever so careful to avoid the traditions of men and the possibility that man-centered thinking would get in the way of our understanding that God is the originator and cause of His grace to fall upon us. Likewise, our worship should reflect that understanding. So as this credobaptist of thirty-nine years has seriously considered paedobaptism and all of its implications for a God-centered worship, I am humbled and I am finally convinced.

 

Bibliography

[1] John Murray, Christian Baptism (Phillipsburg N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1980).

[2] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Abridged ed., with study questions. (Phillipsburg N.J.: P&R Pub., 1997), 484.

[3] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, New ed. /. (Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1996), 632.

[4] Hodge,  485.

[5] George Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, Rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 108.

[6] Hodge, 485.

[7] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Inter-Varsity Press; Zondervan Pub. House, 1994), 976.

[8] Hodge, 485.

[9] Ibid., 486.

[10] Ibid., 487.

[11] Ibid., 488.

[12] Ibid., 489.

[13] Murray, Christian Baptism, 49.

[14] Hodge, 490.

[15] William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1973), 1001.