Lecture 6: Infant Baptism

We’ve been talking about the doctrine of the church and in particular the sacraments or ordinances of the church.

Thus far we focused our attention on baptism.

We examined a case for a sacramentalist view of baptism and then last time a case for viewing baptism as an ordinance.

Today we want to take up a different question – the question of infant baptism.

Once again, I’ll want to present two competing views.

I will try to present each one as fairly and convincingly as I can, and then at the end of the day you’ll need to make up your own mind as to which view you find the most plausible.

The first view that we want to look at is called pedobaptism, or infant baptism. “Pedo” is the word for child or infant.

-

CONSISTENCY!!!!!!!!!!

Pedobaptism is practiced by both sacramentalists and nonsacramentalists.

Catholics, for example, see infant baptism as the moment at which one

receives justifying grace and becomes regenerate.

But in the Reformed church infant baptism may not be the moment at which one is saved, but rather it serves as a sign or a seal of being part of the covenant.

So there is a range of views on what baptism is as practiced by pedobaptists.

It can be seen as salvific where you actually are regenerated in baptism or it could be seen as simply a sign or a seal that shows that this infant, as the child of elect parents, is part of the covenant.

What arguments might be offered on behalf of infant baptism?

1. The advocate of infant baptism will appeal to the Jewish notion of the solidarity of the family and then household baptism in the New Testament church, where every member of a household was baptized because of the solidarity of the family unit.

The family was seen as a unit and therefore was treated together.

So if a father, in particular, turned to Christ, his entire household would be baptized and would be considered to be Christian.

-

Look for example at Acts 16:30-33.

This is the well-known story of the Philippian jailer who turns to Christ.

Acts 16:30–33 BSB

30 Then he brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then Paul and Silas spoke the word of the Lord to him and to everyone in his house. 33 At that hour of the night, the jailer took them and washed their wounds. And without delay, he and all his household were baptized.

Undoubtedly in that day and age a man like this would have children – small members of his family – and they were all presumably baptized, too.

When the head of the family made a decision for Christ, he acted on behalf of the entire family.

He was the head of the household, and the household followed him in his decision.

So when a man, like this jailer, turns to Christ and is baptized, all of his family members, it says, were baptized along with him.

That would include any children that might have been in his family.

-

2. The advocate of pedobaptism will appeal to Jesus’ own attitude toward children.

In Mark 10:13-16 we read the story of how people were bringing little children to Jesus to bless them, and how the disciples were turning them away.

The disciples didn’t want Jesus to be bothered with these little children that people were bringing to him.

In Mark 10:13-16 we read:

Mark 10:13–16 BSB

13 Now people were bringing the little children to Jesus for Him to place His hands on them, and the disciples rebuked those who brought them. 14 But when Jesus saw this, He was indignant and told them, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not hinder them! For the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 15 Truly I tell you, anyone who does not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” 16 And He took the children in His arms, placed His hands on them, and blessed them.

Here we see Jesus’ attitude toward these little children who were being brought to him for his blessing.

It was one of welcoming them, not saying they were not old enough or

“Don’t bother me with these little ones!”

Instead, he received them and blessed them and laid his hands upon them.

So the encouragement here is: bring the little children to Christ!

One might therefore do that in baptism.

-

3. The third argument for pedobaptism is one that is offered particularly by our Reformed brethren.

This is the parallelism between circumcision in the old covenant and baptism in the new covenant.

A sort of parallel exists between circumcision as the sign of the old covenant, and baptism as the sign of the new covenant.

Look at Colossians 2:11-12 –verses that we’ve read earlier but will now read again:

Colossians 2:11–12 BSB

11 In Him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of your sinful nature, with the circumcision performed by Christ and not by human hands. 12 And having been buried with Him in baptism, you were raised with Him through your faith in the power of God, who raised Him from the dead.

Here Paul draws a sort of parallel between circumcision and baptism.

He says that in Christ you were circumcised with a sort of spiritual circumcision, being buried with Christ in baptism.

Just as circumcision was a sign in the old covenant – of those who were members of the covenant – so in the New Testament baptism is a sign of the new covenant for those who were part of it.

Circumcision was obviously practiced upon infants.

Circumcision was done within a week or so after the birth of the male child, and so just as circumcision was done to infants, so baptism can also be done to infants.

Circumcision was a sign that this infant was part of the covenant family, a part of God’s elect people.

In the same way, infant baptism serves to mark that child off as a member of the covenant family in virtue of being raised in a Christian home by believing parents and brought to have this sign of the new covenant performed on him.

So circumcision and baptism are signs of being in the covenant.

Just as circumcision was practiced on infants of believing families, so baptism should be practiced upon infants who are members of believing families.

-

4. Finally, what about baptism and faith?

What is the relationship between baptism and faith?

-

On the Catholic view individual faith is not neccesery for the sacrimental effect of baptism as Catholic doctrine believes that the faith of the church acts as a “common” faith.

-

On the Reformed view, as we've seen, faith is a gift of God without our knowledge or will.

Sola Fide: By faith alone.

If you'll remember our discussion of regeneration on the Reformed view,

regeneration actually precedes, logically at least, the act of faith.

Remember a spiritually unregenerate, spiritually dead person cannot exercise faith in God on the Reformed view.

Faith can only be exercised once the work of regeneration has been wrought in a person's heart by the Holy Spirit.

So that regenerating work of the Holy Spirit takes place apart from our knowledge and will.

Therefore, if baptism of infants takes place apart from the knowledge and the will of the infant, that is simply an extension of what happens in every

case when every believer is regenerated by God and placed into the family of God.

It takes place apart from our knowledge and will, and so the infant is really no different than the rest of us on the Reformed view of salvation.

Conclusion:

So on the basis of these arguments Catholics, Reformed churches, and Lutheran churches practice infant baptism as part of their regular practice of baptism.

Next week, we’ll look at an alternative to pedobaptism – believer’s baptism. Until then, I wish you godspeed.