Infant Baptism

I was looking for feedback from people on the practice of infant baptism. I grew up baptist and now attend a Presbyterian church that believes in this practice. I am somewhat reformed, if that is possible, but the infant baptism part really bothers me as some standard bearers of the reformation embraced infant baptism, namely Augustine, Luther and Calvin. I believe that the scriptures show a pattern of believe and be baptized and in my thinking, an infant cannot believe. I know that I have my mind pretty well made up on the subject but was hoping for insight to the contrary, or am I missing the boat. This is a subject that my pastor and I have talked about a great deal. Thanks in advance for your input.

Sean

If you have spoken to your pastor about this, you are probably aware of the covenantal framework from which paedobaptists approach this topic. But, I'm just curious what you have learned about paedobsptism so far? I went to a PCA church my senior year of college and the pastor of that church is a dear friend.

Grace to you,
Taylor

Likewise my pastor is a dear friend who I have a great deal in common with, just not paedobaptism. ;-) He really uses the argument that you alluded to in the covenental framework. The argument goes that the bible is really congruent from the old testament to the new and that baptism was symbolically linked to circumcision. The thinking goes that there are several households mentioned where they believed and were baptized, although that is no guarantee that there were infants involved. I'm pretty sure that you have heard similar reasoning. Looking back on early church father quotes on the subject, it is almost as if they associate salvation with the practice which really bothers me. Thanks for the reply. I would be interested to know where you stand and if I am missing something. I have read a lot of MacArthur and Piper on the subject and they are well against it, not that they are the final authority on the subject. I just struggle to see it in the scripture.

Sean

I have never been able to get a grip on the Reformed view of Covenant Theology. Even if baptism were an equivalent of circumcision how would this play out? The descendants of Abraham were clearly identifiable and circumcision therefore could be seen as an embracing of the covenant relationship.

However, how would this work out in practice? How would you identify one of the 'elect'? and if they cannot be identified would not infant baptism be a massive presumption?

I believe they would baptize the children of church members in good standing, as those are the spiritual seed of Abraham.

In the paedobaptist view, baptism is given an emphasis of God's promises to us "and to our children" to be our God and theirs. Thus, the children are baptized into the covenant community with hope in those promises.

Thanks Taylor
although I am not much the wiser. (that's not your fault)
Isn't this making 'election' hereditary?

Philogos - the paedobaptist does not equate infant baptism with necessarily meaning that the infant is elect, yet at the same time, they do trust God for the promises to "them and their children". Therefore, they appeal to passages that warn against spurning the covenant or apostasy from the covenant (see Hebrews) as warnings to those who have been baptized into the covenant community, because there is greater condemnation for those brought up under the spiritual care and admonition of the church.

Krispy - the paedobaptist would appeal to the fact that for the majority of redemptive history, God has dealt with believers and their children. Therefore, they place the burden of proof on the credobaptist to show why God stopped including the children of believers in the covenant. Also, regarding repentance preceeding baptism. The paedobaptist would agree in the case of adults (which is who was being evangelized in the example you cited), as adult proselytes to Judaism would have had to surely repent of false religion before being circumcised.

I am not a thoroughly convinced paedobaptist myself, however, I am studying the subject and have read some on the topic.

I'm confused on the spelling...is it "paedobaptism" or "pseudobaptism"? :-P

I'm with Paul Washer when he says, "Infant baptism was the golden calf of the Reformation"

Taylor said,

"the paedobaptist would appeal to the fact that for the majority of redemptive history, God has dealt with believers and their children. Therefore, they place the burden of proof on the credobaptist to show why God stopped including the children of believers in the covenant."

The old covenant does show God dealing with Abraham and his seed. When you get to the new covenant, or testament, salvation is shown being brought to jews, greeks, romans, etc., many of whom had no part of the covenant of Abraham through circumcision. It would seem to me that when the apostles met in Acts 15 and they were dealing with the issue of circumcision and the those of the covenant, that they would have said "now we don't require you gentiles to circumcise your infants, baptize them and that will be a parallel symbol." They never said this.

I just don't understand a large group of theological thinking that place such emphasis on Sola Scriptura keeping this doctrine alive from Catholicism. Calvin and Luther after all were Catholic priests at one time.

I think that as with most doctrines, the burden of proof should be greater on finding the reasons for a doctrine (i.e. paedobaptism) than for the negative against it. When we tell others of how we are saved "by Grace through faith" we give scripture after scripture of how that is true. We don't say, we believe this and it is up to you to prove it wrong without giving them chapter and verse to back us up.

It really seems that in reformed circles, infant baptism is almost equated with infant salvation. That scares me greatly.

Sean,

I will try and respond more later.

But, just to point out something that is commonly thrown around in talking about this.

Paedobaptism is not "left over" from Catholicism. The practice was occurring very early in church history, even before the time of what we now call the "Catholic church".

Have you read Calvin's Institutes on baptism? That may help you understand what the reformers were thinking. I think it is about 30 pages long, if I remember correctly.

Regarding Brother Washer's comment about it being a golden calf of the reformation, if I understand correctly, did he equate it with the "pray a prayer" mentality of today? I think that, while I greatly respect Paul Washer, his comment is inaccurate historically. The reformers and Puritans stressed to the baptized children of believers to make their calling and election sure, which is evident in their writings. To equate it with the salvific prayer mentality of today is a stretch historically, in my opinion.

Ron,

This is something I was telling my pastor the other day. We have a group of children who grow up in the church, were baptized as infants and are part of the covenant, many who show no fruit of salvation. It does seem to make election hereditary. Are the promises to you and your children concerning salvation? Is baptism a sacrament (sign) of salvation? The covenantal child that I think of so often as a negative to the presbyterian way of thinking is Esau. "Jacob I have loved yet Esau I have hated." Wasn't Esau part of the covenant? Is the covenant a one of particular blessing to those who partake in it or one of particular salvation?

I truly am not asking these questions as if I know, only asking them to show sincere doubt about a doctrine of a church that I am active in and love.

Thanks for responding Taylor.

You are quite right about early church fathers.

Origen wrote:

"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

In his writings you can clearly see the beginnings of the belief of salvation as being related to infants.

Cyrpian Wrote:

"If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another" (ibid., 64:5).

He is relating remission of sins to being baptized as an infant.

Augustine wrote:

"By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christs] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants. . . . It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call baptism salvation and the sacrament of Christs Body nothing else than life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture, too. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration" (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412]).

He says that infants are ingrafted into Christ by this baptism. Is this supported in scripture?

Most of these men credit this doctrine as being handed down by the Apostles, yet they are so silent in the word of God on it.

Hopefully you saw what I wrote to Ron that I am not trying to argue or am I convinced. I seriously question a doctrine that is taught and believed by a church in which I am active and love dearly. I truly want to know if I am missing something.

Sean,

I want to know too! I am somewhat in the same boat as you, I am not convinced either way very strongly.

On one hand, I appreciate the covenantal, family emphasis of the paedo-baptists. And, the fact that God has made promises to "me and my seed after me" is comforting and encouraging.

However, the seeming silence regarding baptism of infants in the New Testament cannot be lightly passed over either.

I will post more if I have anymore thoughts.

Grace to you,
Taylor

Thanks. Will be in prayer.

Taylor, Brother Washer might be inaccurate "historically" but he is accurate scripturally. History, the early fathers, Augustine, Calvin, you name it, mean NOTHING. The doctrine of baptism in the New Testament is quite clear. Its only similiarity to circumcision is that it is the outward covenant sign of belonging in the covenant. In the New Covenant, that is regeneration, which doesn't take place at birth or in infancy.

Philogos - the paedobaptist does not equate infant baptism with necessarily meaning that the infant is elect, yet at the same time, they do trust God for the promises to "them and their children".

Don't trouble to explain it further... I don't want to put the thread on a tangent.

I think we should ask the question why churches perform paedobaptism.

I found that for one they are influenced by the catholic teaching that holds when and unbaptized(sprinkled) child dies it cannot go to heaven.
Secondly, paedobaptism was and is performed by Reformed state churches that cannot deny their subjects church membership and are therefore bound to perform it.

Paedobaptism causes a false view of salvation.
John the Baptist himself denied baptism to unregenerate applicants.