In this blog post, I aim to offer a short defence of why we ought to baptize infants, albeit in a different way to how many evangelical presbyterians have chosen to argue. Instead, my own argument attempts to be more in line with how the early church fathers sought to support the doctrine of infant baptism, and thus have the advantage of historical unity behind it.
My defence begins with an examination of the nature of circumcision, in which I hope to show that circumcision had a dual purpose. The first purpose was to distinguish the Jews as God’s special people that God had set aside with a promised land and from whom God had promised the Messiah would come. The second purpose was to act as a sign and seal of the righteousness that is given by the Gospel offered through Christ. Next, we will then examine to see what link or similarity the old sacrament of circumcision has with the new sacrament of baptism. In doing this, we can shed greater light on the purpose of baptism and upon whom it is to be applied.
That circumcision had a purpose of setting the Jews apart as God’s special people from whom the Messiah would come is clear in the Scriptures. In Genesis 17, God makes a covenant with Abraham and his seed regarding the land of Canaan. In this covenant, God promises to provide the Jews with a land and be a God to them so long as they keep faithful to Him. And this covenant was to last as long as their generations existed, which is until the destruction of the temple and the Jewish dispersion in AD 70. Until this time, we find God patiently and mercifully being a God towards the Jews, providing types and shadows of the coming Messiah, and prophets, such as Isaiah, who foretold of Christ’s coming.
Yet, there is also a spiritual side to the sign of circumcision. We know this because of how St Paul expounds and explains the promise made to Abraham and the significance of his circumcision. In the fourth chapter of his epistle to the Romans, St Paul writes that circumcision was ‘a seal of the righteousness of [Abraham’s] faith’, and that Abraham had this righteousness because he believed on the promise of God (Rom. 4.3). The promise that St Paul is referring to is to be found in the twelfth chapter of Genesis where God promises that all families of the earth will be blessed through Abraham (Gen. 12.3). What is evident is that this promise is not fulfilled purely through Abraham’s natural prosperity as not all nations were descended from him, although many were; rather this promise is fulfilled through faith in Christ, who is descended from Abraham. Circumcision’s spiritual element is thus that it pointed to Christ and the righteousness that He provided. And this nothing but the promise of the Gospel. Indeed, this is confirmed by the Scriptures which state that through circumcision God promised to circumcise the hearts of his children, which is to say to make them righteous (Deut. 30.6; Jer. 4.4).
Since the spiritual element of circumcision was a Gospel promise, it had to be accepted by faith in order to be counted as effectual. If it was not accepted by faith, then as declared by St Paul in the fourth chapter of Romans, circumcision would be counted as ineffectual and count for nothing. It is for this reason St Paul rebukes the Jews who relied on their physical circumcision without faith in the spiritual side. Circumcision, then, was a means by which God offered the promise of the Gospel, which had to be accepted by faith; to reject this sacrament meant to reject the promise.
One at this point may argue that Abraham was circumcised posterior to his faith in the promise, so ask how can circumcision be the offer of God’s Gospel promise? Indeed, it was true that Abraham was circumcised posterior to his faith in the promise, but this was done so as to set an example to the children of Abraham and to declare that circumcision was indeed the sign of the promise. A parallel can be drawn here with the baptism of Christ. The reason Christ was baptized was not because He needed it but rather to set an example to all those who follow Him.
We can see then the clear dual nature of circumcision, there being a physical aspect and a more spiritual aspect. And that it was through the spiritual aspect that the grace of the Gospel was offered. So, what similarity does circumcision have with baptism? We are told by St Paul that baptism is the new circumcision of the heart. St Paul writes, ‘In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: having been buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.’ (Col. 2.11-12) Hence, whereas with the Old Covenant circumcision of the heart and all that which is signified by it is offered through circumcision, in the New Testament we find that it signified by baptism.
That baptism offers the promise of salvation in a similar way that circumcision did is further attested by Scripture in numerous places. We find St Peter attesting in the second chapter of Acts that repentance and baptism are the means by which remission of sins and the gift of the Holy ghost is given. St Peter says, ‘Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.’ (Acts 2.38) And this is said in response to a question asked by the crowd present on how one is to be saved. If baptism did not save, can we suppose that the Apostle would have answered thus? Would we answer the same if we did not think baptism gave the remission of sins? Elsewhere, we find St Paul being exhorted by Ananias to wash away his sins through baptism (Acts 22.16). And in the third chapter of St Paul’s letter to the Galatians, St Paul argues that it is by baptism that we put on Christ (Gal. 3.27). It would do violence to this text to argue that St Paul here refers to another baptism, for he makes no such qualification. Besides, the Apostle writes similarly in the 6th chapter of his epistle to the Romans, where he states that through baptism we are buried with Christ. And there is no doubt that this refers to water baptism.
However, this is not to say that it is the mere act of baptism that saves; but like circumcision, baptism saves by believing the promise that is attached to it. St Peter makes this abundantly clear in his first epistle. After comparing the saving efficacy of baptism to Noah and the ark, St Peter clarifies his statement by stating that it is not the mere washing away of filth that saves us but an answer of good conscience towards God, which is made possible by Christ’s resurrection. (1 Pet. 3.20f)
What we can see, then, is that just like circumcision, baptism is a promise of God that is offered to us, and that this offer ought to be accepted by us through faith. Now, if baptism is a promise that God offers to us, and not something that we do, then it should not matter who God offers it to, whether they are infants or adults. Our lack of faith, or anything we could do, does not make invalid the promise that God offers. Of course, God would not offer His promise to those who are incapable of receiving the promise He offers. Yet, there is no reason to think that infants cannot accept the promise that God offers through baptism. Rather, the Scriptures makes clear that quite the opposite is true, which can be easily demonstrated.
First, we told by the Scriptures that infants are in need of forgiveness of sins and the pardon of God just as much as everyone else. This is made clear by the Psalmist, who writes in the 51st Psalm that we are born sinful (Pslam 51.5). And all those who are sinful are in need of the pardoning grace that we have shown is connected to the sacrament of baptism. And, as John Owen states, if God denies the sign of baptism to infants, then infants cannot be saved. For those whom God denies His sign to, denies what is signified by that sign. Yet, since we know that infants can be saved, it follows that they ought to receive the sign through which God promises salvation.
Second, we see countless examples of infants who express faith, and the expectation that infants can have faith. We see John the Baptist leaping in the womb of his mother, Elizabeth. We see the Psalmist write about infants whom have faith (Ps. 22.9-10, 71.5-6). Additionally, there are many statements by our Lord exalting the faith of children: He writes that we are to have childlike faith (Lk. 18.15ff), and that out of the mouth of infants God has prepared praise (Matt. 21.16); He tells us that we are to suffer the little children to come to Him and that to them belongs the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 19.13ff); He tells us that those who cause the little ones that believe in Him to stumble ought to have a millstone hung around their neck and be cast into the sea; and when speaking on the subject of repentance, Christ states that He has hidden it from the wise and given it to little children (Matt. 11.25). Moreover, we find St Paul speaking of St Timothy who knew the Holy Scriptures from a youth (2. Tim. 3.14-15), and giving exhortations to the children in his pastoral letters, which demonstrates that he considers them to be part of the church. (Eph 6.1-2; Col. 3.20)
If this is not enough to convince one that infants are capable of faith, then let us turn to how St Paul states in his epistle to the Philippians that faith is a gift from God and not something we provide (Phil. 1.29). For if faith is purely a gift from God, then why would he grant it only to adults and not to infants. What warrant do we have to state such a thing?
Since, then, it should be abundantly clear that infants are capable of faith, we lose all reason why we should not provide infants the promise of baptism which faith is meant to grasp on to. And that this should be the case in the New Covenant makes all the more sense once we consider the unchanging and loving nature of God. If infants are to be included in the Old Covenant, then we should expect that they would be included in the new, for the New Covenant is more inclusive than the old; it cannot be said that it shrinks to exclude those formerly included, without strong Scriptural warrant. But this is inconceivable, that God would move to exclude infants from His new covenant, when they were formally included in the old.
This is why, since the time of the Apostles, who baptized whole households, to the present day, the church in large has always considered it good and pleasing to God to baptize infants.
No comments:
Post a Comment