10 Baptism and Infants
Baptism and Infants
One of the church’s unhappy divisions concerns the subject of baptism.
Nobody defends baptizing all infants as such, but most denominations baptize the children of the baptized. Baptists, however, see this as either non-baptism (because infants cannot make the required confession of faith) or as irregular baptism (because, they say, it is not clearly apostolic, nor pastorally wise). Some hold that by not actually commanding infant baptism God in Scripture forbids it; all urge that to postpone baptism till faith is conscious is always in practice best. (Note that when I speak of “Baptists” here, I am referring to a whole range of Christians—members of Baptist and baptistic denominations, along with some charismatics, independents, and other evangelicals—for whom believer-baptism is the standard practice.)
On the other side, some have deduced from covenant theology that God commands the baptism of believers’ babies after all. Many more maintain that this practice, though fixed by the church, has better theological, historical, and pastoral warrant than the alternative has, and so should be thought of as “most agreeable with the institution of Christ.”1
How should we view the issue? Weigh these points.
Over-Arguing
First: many on both sides of the question seem to over-argue. Scripture neither commands nor forbids infant baptism, and we may not assume that the divine Author who guided the human writers meant to do either.
Male infant circumcision by God’s command under the old covenant, linked with Paul’s insistence that under the new covenant a believer’s children are “holy” (dedicated to God and accepted by him) along with their parent(s) (see Genesis 17:9-14; 1 Corinthians 7:14), make infant baptism look right to many Bible-believing Christians. If parent-and-child solidarity under God’s covenant is an unchanging fact, on which was based God’s former command of circumcision (the then covenant sign for baby boys), how can it be proper to deny baptism (the new covenant sign) to babies now?
Moreover, infant baptism was pretty certainly apostolic practice. The “houses” (that is, households, which were extended families) of Lydia, the Philippian jailer, and Stephanas were baptized, the second within hours of the jailer’s conversion (Acts 16:15, 33; 1 Corinthians 1:16). It seems only natural to infer that this was standard practice when any head of a home was converted, and that these extended families contained infants. Luke and Paul would hardly have said “house” without qualification if they had meant us to gather that on principle babies were excluded.
It must be conceded that theological propriety and apparent precedent, though surely justifying infant baptism today, add up to less than a divine command.
At the same time, however, arguments against infant baptism cannot be made conclusively. For example:
(1) It is urged that a confession of faith is part of the definition of baptism. But the New Testament nowhere says that; it is a question-begging inference from the fact that in the New Testament, as in later practice, adults are not baptized without such a confession.
(2) It is urged that baptized infants will never be required to confess personal faith at all. But parents and godparents sponsoring infants at baptism commit those infants to genuine personal repentance and faith, compelling them to make their own genuine confession of repentance and faith at age, and in confirmation and all equivalent rites of reception into adult church membership, the requirement of personal confession is central. In other words, infant baptism demands adult conversion.
(3) It is urged that infant baptism prompts presumption, being thought to regenerate and save without need for faith. Baptists shake their heads over the Anglican Prayer Book’s declaration after baptism, “Seeing now this child is regenerate,” and the statement in the Catechism that “in my baptism . . . I was made a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven.” But these phrases denote only the ceremonial making over to us of spiritual rights and privileges, which if it is ever to be effectual must be confirmed by faith in Christ. As Archbishop Usher wrote long ago, I only “have the profit and benefit of them (these promises of grace), when I come to understand what grant God in Baptism hath sealed unto me, and actually lay hold on it by faith.”
Pastoral
Baptists, anxious to express the God-taught concept of the church as believers only, dedicate infants (a “dry baptism,” from the infant-baptist standpoint) and baptize with water at age. Other Protestants, anxious also to express the Biblical solidarity of the family in the covenant, baptize infants and confirm at age (a “dry baptism,” from the Baptist standpoint). For infant-baptist and adult-baptist groups to work together in mutual respect should never be hard, because biblically and pastorally the two practices are (thank God!) parallel in their meaning.
Note:
Further Bible Study
God’s grace in children:
1 Samuel 3
Luke 2:5-25
Ephesians 6:1-4
Questions for Thought and Discussion
What similarities are noted between circumcision and baptism? How far do they justify infant baptism? How would you argue your view against those who judge differently?
What should be required of adults being baptized that cannot be expected of infants?
Will baptized babies necessarily receive the spiritual benefits symbolized by the rite? Why or why not?