Infant Baptism is Biblical?

The following comes from a pamphlet asking if Infant Baptism is Biblical.  There are many Baptists today who question the practice of infant baptism because they can't find a specific command or example in the Bible.  This pamphlet attempts to answer those who question the biblical doctrine of infant baptism.

Infant Baptism Is It Scriptural? by William Hendriksen

Answer This Question for Yourself on the Basis of Scripture

1. Does the Bible really teach that infants of believers should be baptized?

Answer: "And he that is EIGHT DAYS OLD shall be circumcized among you" (Genesis 17:12).

2. But that text says "circumcized," not "baptized." Hence, that passage fails to prove the point, unless baptism is Christian circumcision. Is it?

Answer: "In whom also ye are circumcized with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 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" (Colossians 2:11, 12).

3. Is it true then that God has done away with circumcision, as having no longer any spiritual meaning, and has commanded baptism in its stead?

Answer: "Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye receive circumcision, Christ will profit you nothing" (Galatians 5:12).

"Go ye, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19).

4. So, then, the Bible teaches that since baptism has replaced circumcision, and since children eight days old were circumcized, therefore small children should be baptized. Is there any other passage which clearly implies this?

Answer: "And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For to you is the promise and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call unto him" (Acts 2:38, 39).

5. Do you really believe then that Jesus would not forbid little children to be baptized?

Answer: "And they were bringing unto him little children, that he should touch them: and the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw it, he was moved with indignation, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me; forbid them not: for to such belongeth the kingdom of God" (Mark 10:13, 14; Matthew 19:13-14).

6. But why were the bloody sacraments of circumcision and passover replaced by the unbloody sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper?

Answer: "Christ through his own blood entered in once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption" (Hebrews 9:11, 12).

7. But is it not true that some persons who were baptized in their infancy are lost for eternity? Then, why baptize infants?--No, you do not have to answer that one, for on second thought I see that the objection is foolish, for it would hold just as well against adult baptism. Besides, we surely would not banish all wedding rings because some people fail to keep the pledge which is represented by them.

8. But another problem arises in my mind. It is this, What good does infant baptism do the child, seeing that he does not understand what is happening to him?

Answer: "And he that is eight days old shall be circumcized among you" (Genesis 17:12).

Oh, I see your line of reasoning now. My objection would hold just as well against circumcision, yet God commanded a little one, eight days old, to be circumcized. And if God commands it, we must do it. But though I must admit that there is not much left of my objection, I still cannot understand what good baptism will do the little one... unless it should be that the parents who present it for baptism will be more apt to keep a solemn promise which they have made in public before the eyes of God and all his people. Do you think that there is something to that?

Answer: "I will pay my vows unto Jehovah, Yea, in the presence of all his people" (Psalm 116:14).

Moreover, if even wicked people are more ready to do a wicked thing because they have solemnly promised to do it, will not God's people be more ready to do a good thing because they have promised to do it?

Herod was a wicked king who had made a wicked promise. Yet we read, "And the king was exceeding sorry; but for the sake of his oaths, and of them that sat at meat, he would not reject her" (Mark 6:26).

9. I can see now that Infant Baptism is good for the child in a twofold way: 

1. because of the promise which the parents make, namely, to nurture the child in the fear of the Lord; and 
2. because of the fact that if the child has been baptized as an infant, then when later on he hears about this wonderful, sovereign, love, it becomes a powerful incentive for him to love and trust the Lord in return. He will then say, "How wonderful, that it is exactly INFANT BAPTISM that has shown me that God loved me ere I knew him. Seeing, then, that at baptism, he said to me: "My son [or "my daughter"], give me thy heart" (Proverbs 23:26), I will, by means of making public profession of my faith, and by means of adorning that confession with a godly life, say to him:

Take my life, and let me be
Consecrated, Lord, to thee;
Take my hands and let them move
At the impulse of they love.

Take my love, my God, I pour
At thy feet its treasure store;
Take myself, and I will be
Ever, only, all for thee.

10. But why does God present that wonderful gospel of his love to our eyes by means of the sacraments (baptism, the Lord's Supper) as well as to our ears (in the preaching of the Word)? Does that twofold presentation make the gospel more effective?

Answer: "I had heard of thee by the hearing of the ear; but now mine eye seeth thee: wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes" (Job 42:5).

11. Is it true that the water of baptism points to the cleansing blood and Spirit of Christ?

Answer: "In that day there shall be a fountain opened... for sin and for uncleanness" (Zechariah 13:1).

"The blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin" (1 John 1:7).

"Except one be born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John 3:5).

12. I am now strongly inclined to believe in Infant Baptism, I can see that it is a wonderful sign and seal of God's love, and that once rightly understood by the child, it will be able to exert a might influence for good upon his spiritual life in its development. But, if you don't mind, I want to know how to answer three additional objections that are sometimes advanced against this doctrine. The first is this: Does not Mark 16:16 indicate that a person should first believe before he can be baptized?

Answer: See for yourself by reading the text in its own context. It means, of course, that those to whom the gospel is preached (verse 15) must first confess their faith before they can be baptized. Hence, before an adult is baptized he must first confess his faith. The passage, therefore, has nothing whatever to do with infant baptism.

13. Yes, I can see that now clearly. The next objection I want to be able to answer is this one: some people say that infants cannot be admitted to baptism because nowhere do we read in so many words (literally), "Go and baptize infants."

Answer: And where do you read in so many words (literally), "Women can be admitted to the Lord's Supper"? (Remember that when Christ instituted this sacrament men only were present.) Where do we read in so many words, "Go to church on Sunday instead of on Saturday"? You say, "But these are safe and warranted inferences." Exactly, so is Infant Baptism, as you have seen. Furthermore, shouldn't we expect a command, not to baptize infants, if the Lord wanted the New Testament Church to have a different attitude and practice than was present in the Old Testament?

14. The final objection which people sometimes advance is this: Infant Baptism is a late invention. The early church did not know anything about it.

Answer: One of the greatest authorities on Church History, Philip Schaff, has this to say about that objection:

"Among the fathers... there is not a single voice against the lawfulness and the apostolic origin of infant baptism."

Sola Scriptura: Do We Live Like We Believe This Doctrine?

In the Cambridge Declaration, which is a declaration by the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, the first thesis states the following on Sola Scriptura:

Thesis One: Sola Scriptura
We affirm the inerrant Scripture to be the sole source of written divine revelation, which alone can bind the conscience. The Bible alone teaches all that is necessary for our salvation from sin and is the standard by which all Christian behavior must be measured.

We deny that any creed, council or individual may bind a Christian's conscience, that the Holy Spirit speaks independently of or contrary to what is set forth in the Bible, or that personal spiritual experience can ever be a vehicle of revelation.

This is a pretty good representation of the Reformation doctrine of Sola Scriptura. But the question that we need to ask is, "Do we really live according to this doctrine?"  Doctrine should always lead to practice or practical living.  For example, the grace and love of Christ that we see in Scripture demands that we live in a certain way.  In Romans, chapters 1-11 are usually looked as the doctrine portion of the book and how does chapter 12 begin?  With how should we now live in view of these doctrines?

"Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect." 

So do we really live in accordance with the Scripture's doctrine of Sola Scriptura?  Let me just pose some thoughts and let you answer this question yourself.  When you discipline your children, I would hope you tell them what they have done wrong, teaching them with correction.  But when they have done wrong, do you communicate to your children that they have done wrong based on your authority or Scripture's authority?  In other words, do you communicate to them what God says about what they have done or do you communicate to them what you think they have done wrong?  When you discipline them do you communicate that God commands you to discipline them or do you communicate to them that you have to discipline them because you have to?  Do you see the difference?  One way of disciplining is based on Scripture and God alone being Lord of the conscience, whereas the other way of disciplining is based on individuals or something outside of Scripture binding the conscience.

I really want to investigate this, look what it says in the thesis above.  No creed, council, or individual may bind the conscience.  You can't bind another's conscience, you can't bind your own conscience, only the Lord can bind the conscience.  So where do you attempt to bind another's conscience, where do you try to bind your own conscience by your logic or by your experience?  It can't be this way, the sole source that can bind the conscience is the Lord and He does so through the Scriptures.  If we are going to preach the Word as Pastors, we have to preach Scripture.  If we are going to evangelize, you can try all your fancy methods of evangelism, but only the Word can bind the conscience.  Are you living in accordance with this doctrine?

The Mystery of Children's Church

A good post by Dr. R. Scott Clark can be found over at The Heidelblog on the subject of Children's Church.  Below is the text from that post.

 

I can understand why evangelicals and others, who do not have a covenantal theology, would exile their children during public worship but I do not understand why so many ostensibly Reformed congregations have adopted the practice of dismissing their covenant children from the service to “children’s church” (or whatever more clever name it may have). From what I see this appears to be a common practice. Sometimes the bulletin explains that the children are sent out of public worship in order to “prepare them to worship.” Really? This seems like sending one’s child from the dinner table in order to prepare them to eat.

I understand the practical problem. At least some of the same congregations that have this practice also do not set aside time outside of the worship service for Christian instruction or catechism. So, it seems, they’re holding catechism during the worship service. I guess that the reason that there’s no additional time for catechism is that the parents won’t make time and the church won’t make them make time. So, congregations are making due.

It’s hard to know where to start with this complex of problems. Obviously there is a misunderstanding of the nature of the Sabbath. There’s a misunderstanding of the nature of worship. There’s a misunderstanding of the nature of baptismal vows and church membership. There’s a misunderstanding of Christian nurture and there’s a misunderstanding of the nature of Christian parenting. Other than these things, as they say, “it’s all good.”

In such a case, the act of sending children out of the the stated service for instruction sends a more powerful message than the instruction is likely to send. It sends the message to the children that they are not really members of the covenant community. It sends the message that the gathering for public worship may be marginalized if something else is deemed more important. It sends the message that it’s acceptable to arrange one’s priorities during the week so as to require this ad hoc solution, that church is something we do but not something we are.

Underneath all of this there is another series of misunderstandings: Of what we are, who Jesus is, what he did, and what the implications are for those who would follow him.

We may look like happy, upwardly mobile suburbanites but we’re not. We’re wretched, horrible people by nature. That manicured lawn covers over a multitude of hell-deserving sins. We’re gossips, murderers, adulterers, and God-haters. If the children’s church-sending parents understood that, if they really believed that about themselves and their children, they would find time during the week to see that their children are instructed. They would be catechizing their children, praying with and for them. Then it wouldn’t be a matter of squeezing a little instructional time into the Sabbath. They would be pleading with the minister to teach their children.

If we saw ourselves for what, but for the grace of God, we really are then we would understand the grace of God. If we understood the grace of God, we would more and more embrace the consequences of following Jesus. Death to self entails death to the successful suburban lifestyle where that lifestyle marginalizes Christ and his church. Jesus didn’t come to facilitate a happy, upwardly-mobile lifestyle and discipleship calls us to die to the mall and live to Christ.

Yes, having children in church means that it will be slightly less entertaining and possibly less moving emotionally. It’s a little harder to be enraptured by the latest chorus when your child is fidgeting next to you or someone else’s is wailing in your left ear. That’s okay. You might not have the same emotional “high” this week as you did when their was children’s church. That’s okay. Worship isn’t about your experience of religious ecstasy. It’s about hearing God and responding appropriately, according to his Word.

God doesn’t mind that your emotional experience is less intense. He takes the long view. Your children will grow up not segregated from public worship and the means of grace. They’ll grow up a part of the community of the redeemed and watching baptisms (so they can see what happened to them). They’ll see the supper administered and they ‘ll ask, “When can I have it?” They’ll hear the Law and the Gospel (Dv) and they’ll grow up knowing that this is their identity, that it’s really true, that God said, “I will be your God and your children’s God.”

Church leaders don’t want to challenge parents and parents don’t want to be challenged. The cycle has to end somewhere. It should start with pastors and elders. That’s why they call it leadership. A leader goes first. A leader takes the risk. Elders and pastors need to get over their desire to be popular, to be liked, to be “successful.” Perhaps the reason that parents don’t see any contradiction between their definition of “success” and the Christian life is because their pastors and elders haven’t shown it to them?

Children’s church is a problem but it’s not the problem. It’s a symptom of much larger problems. It’s not too late, because it’s never too late to repent. Grace is free for everyone, pastors and parents alike. God bless those noisy congregations with fidgeting and fussy children. Let the noise of children inhabit all our congregations.