‘Let’s not treat our children as little pagans until they have a conversion experience’
It was these words from a recent sermon at Duke St that set the tectonic plates of my theology of baptism a-shifting. Having grown up in a Church which taught that Baptism is only for professing believers and should only ever be a full immersion, this is a tremor-heavy shift for me. I’ve not made up my mind entirely, but I hope to blog my journey as I read and mull over the issue of whether children of believing parents should be baptised before making a confession/profession of faith.
Yesterday I read the little booklet ‘Why do we baptise infants’ by Bryan Chapell (president of Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis Missouri).
Here are a number of clarifying points which the Chapell makes:
- Infant Baptism should not be done out of tradition or sentimentality
- It is the children of believing parents who should be baptised
- This Baptism need not be a full immersion and therefore is not dangerous for babies!
- Baptising a child does not mean that child is saved or necessarily will be saved
And here are some biblical/theological arguments for infant baptism (in brief!!!)
– Under the old covenant, believers were justified by faith alone (Romans 4). However, male children of believing parents received the sign of the covenant (circumcision) before they could make a profession of faith. Circumcision is no longer a requirement for believers (read Galatians), and we have baptism as an outward sign of the covenant; why should the sign of the covenant be given to infants under the old and not the new?
- Colossians 2:11-12 for the link between circumcision + baptism ‘In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead’
- Household baptisms in Acts:
‘One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. And after she was baptized, AND HER HOUSEHOLD AS WELL, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.’ (Emphasis added, obviously)
‘Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.’
- Also 1 Corinthians 1:16 ‘ (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)
- 1 Corinthians 7:4 seems to imply that God honours the families in his covenant faithfulness ‘For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy’
- Acts 2:38-39 ‘And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself’
Phew. That’s enough for now. Next stop the reformed theologian Louis Berkhof’s ‘Systematic Theology’ for a reformed infant-baptist. Then good old Wayne Grudem for the reformed baptist response!
But before I sign off – this issue is not a gospel issue. For too long Christians have divided over adult/infant baptism, but I really believe that it is a secondary issue. This does not mean that our theology of baptism doesn’t matter – but it is not a primary issue ( like the Sovereignty of God, the Trinity, penal substitutionary atonement, the resurrection, authority of scripture).
