THE ISSUE OF INFANT BAPTISM

Baptism is the initiatory rite for Christians. This is clearly seen in words of the Great Commission where Jesus told His disciples to go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). The question that has assailed the church within the last few hundred years involves who is to be the recipient of this baptism. Is it for believers only? Or do the Scriptures command, urge or allow an infant to be baptized?

If we are looking for a specific command or prohibition to specific infant baptism, then both sides must conclude that the Scriptures are relatively silent to the issue. Nowhere in Scripture do we have a specific statement that infants are or are not to be the recipients of baptism. Yet we do have Scriptural principles that can be applied that will lead us to a Biblical practice.

Baptism was used by John the Baptist as a sign of repentance and readiness for the coming Messiah. Jesus Himself was baptized by John, not because He was in need of repentance or cleansing, but to identify Himself as being the One of whom John prophesied and as an anointing sign that He was set apart by God to do a special work.

Christian baptism signifies a rite of initiation and identification. By the outward symbolism of water, the recipients are identified with Christ. The apostles associated baptism with the washing away of our sins. Paul recalled his own calling: "Be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16).

Baptism is to the New Covenant what circumcision was to the old covenant. Both were a sign of faith. Both were rites of initiation into the covenant. The two are brought together in Colossians 2.

Both the outward physical rite of circumcision and the outward physical rite of baptism are symbols of the salvation that we have in Christ. Those outward rituals are meant to reflect an inward spiritual reality into which we have entered through faith.

• Circumcision was the sign of the covenant of union and communion with God: And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you (Genesis 17:7). Notice that the ramifications of the covenant was that God was seen to be God both to Abraham and to His descendants. The sign of this covenant relationship is described in verse 11. And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you (Genesis 17:11).

• Circumcision was a sign of the removal of defilement. It represented the cutting away of the old life so that a new relationship could take place. This is confirmed by God’s repeatedly calling upon his people to "circumcise their hearts" (Deuteronomy 10:16; 30:6; Isaiah 52:1; Jeremiah 4:4; 6:10; 9:25-26; Ezekiel 44:7-9).

• Circumcision was the seal of the righteousness of faith. Paul clearly teaches this truth in Romans 4:11 when he describes how Abraham received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be reckoned to them.

The point is that outward circumcision does not save; it is the inward circumcision that brings salvation. The same could be said of baptism. The outward ritual of water does not save; rather it is the inward washing that saves. The outward washing is merely representative of the inward washing.

If it is true that baptism is the New Covenant counterpart to Old Covenant circumcision, then we must ask where the Scriptures teach that the recipients of the covenant sign are said to have changed? Under the Old Covenant, infants were to be circumcised, not as a sign of their own faith, but as a sign of the determination of the parents to raise up the child as a child of the covenant.

In both cases, the child comes to the event as a result of being born into a covenant community, not as a result of his/her own volitional choice. Let me be quick to point out that baptism doesn't insure salvation anymore that circumcision did in the Old Testament. It was merely an outward symbol. As we can tell by an even cursory reading of the Scriptures, there were plenty of outwardly circumcised people who hated Christ. By the same token, there are plenty of sprinkled, poured, and, yes, even immersed people today who hate Christ.

It could be argued that baptism is not exact in its correlation to circumcision. After all, only male children were circumcised. In this regard, circumcision was less inclusive than is baptism. Baptism is more inclusive because it includes women as well as men. But this is really an argument in favor of infant baptism because the New Covenant is always WIDER in its scope than the old covenant. In the New Covenant there is there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28).

All three of the Synoptic Gospels tell of the incident when the disciples attempted to stop children from being brought to Jesus. We can imagine their thinking: "This is not appropriate; these children need to wait until their are old enough to make a verbal commitment of faith." Jesus had other ideas.

We can make several observations from this passage:

• The little children were brought to him by others. They did not come on their own initiative. Lest we miss this point, Luke is specific to say they were bringing even their babies to Him (Luke 18:15).

• Jesus went so far as to bless these children laying His hands on them (Matthew 19:15). He thought it appropriate to invoke a ritual of blessing upon these children. This was not merely a cute but meaningless ceremony. The laying on of hands was a deeply significant religious action. It was used in the ordaining of deacons to office (Acts 6:6), in the bestowing of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:17), in the setting apart of men for missionary activity (Acts 13:3), and even in the imparting of spiritual gifts (1 Timothy 4:14 with 2 Timothy 1:6).

In light of the words of Jesus, it is small wonder that the early church recognized the propriety of bringing children and infants to be baptized. Such a stance is confirmed by the promise that was made by Peter on the day of Pentecost.

The promise given by Peter is not merely for isolated individuals. It is made for families. He says that it is for you and your children.

Given the fact that these words were spoken to an all-Jewish audience who were themselves steeped in 1500 years of infant circumcision, it would be obvious to them that the sign of this covenantal promise was both for them and for their children.

This is not to say that all children of believers are necessarily saved. But it does mean that the children of believers are set apart for a special blessing. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy (1 Corinthians 7:14).

On three different occasions, we read in the New Testaments where a person believed and his/her entire household was baptized.

In none of these instances do we read that the entire household believed the message. Yet Luke shows himself perfectly capable of making such an assertion when he tells us in Acts 18:8 that Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household. What we do not read in the New Testament is of an instance in which the head of the household was baptized while children or infants were left unbaptized.

The writings of the early church fathers seem to make it quite clear that the church regularly practiced infant baptism.

• Origen (185-254 A.D.), Homilies on Leviticus: According to the usage of the church, baptism is given even to infants... If there were nothing in infants which needed forgiveness and mercy, the grace of baptism would seem to be superfluous.

• Cyprian (251 A.D.) Letter to Fisus: As to what pertains to infants, you said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judged that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born.

Infant baptism was never questioned by any of the Reformers, even though the practice had been abused in view of infused versus imputed righteousness which was the centerpiece of the split with the Roman Catholic church. The continuance and defense of the practice by Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and the rest of the Reformers is certainly not a mark against the practice.

By baptizing their infant children, parents are affirming the New Covenant and are themselves covenanting to raise up their children as believing children and members of the household of God. This is in complete contrast to the popular folk religion of the day that says, "I will allow my children to make up their own mind about God and spiritual things when they are older." Christians are called to raise up their children in the way they should go so that when they are older they will not depart from it.

Parents put a pen in the hand of their infant child and sign a contract. It is a covenant. The child cannot sign it himself. He will grow into it. But for the time being, his parents enroll them as members of the church and make a determination to bring them up as citizens of the kingdom.