Infant Baptism

Matt Waymeyer is continuing a study @ http://www.sfpulpit.com on the topic of infant baptism. It is based on the introduction of the newly released A Biblical Critique of Infant Baptism by Matt Waymeyer (The Woodlands, Tex: Kress Christian Publications, 2008), which can be purchased either through Amazon or KCP.

* * * * *

Infant Baptism and Acts 15:1–29

According to paedobaptist Pierre Marcel:

The New Testament establishes no essential difference between circumcision and baptism; such differences as there are are only formal. Baptism has taken the place of circumcision.

"The belief that baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign of the covenant is foundational to the case for infant baptism. According to this argument, if the covenant sign of circumcision was given to infants in Israel, how can the covenant sign of baptism be denied to them in the church? Baptism is what circumcision was and therefore should be applied to infants".

One of the passages which presents a problem for this view is Acts 15:1-29.

The objection here is obvious: If baptism had replaced circumcision in the way that paedobaptism teaches, why didn’t one of them simply say, “Of course you don’t need to be circumcised, because—as we all know—baptism has replaced circumcision!”?

A related question presents a similar problem: If baptism replaced circumcision, why were the two rites practiced side-by-side in the early church? In addition, as Greg Welty asks,

why did Paul bend over backwards to accommodate the Jewish converts’ continuing practice of circumcising their children? (Acts 21:20–26) Why did he not rather challenge the practice as completely inappropriate for Christian converts, since now baptism has replaced circumcision?

He concludes this section:"In light of the fact that Timothy was circumcised “because of the Jews who were in those parts” (Acts 16:3), how can Wilson maintain that the New Testament writers “always treated circumcision as a God-ordained rite with tremendous covenantal significance”? How can he insist that “the New Testament contains no indication that the apostles downgraded circumcision from covenantal status to a mere ethnic emblem”? As Thomas Schreiner observes, “Circumcision continued to be allowed among the Jews for cultural reasons, but there is no evidence that it was practiced because of its alleged covenantal value.” If baptism played precisely the same role in the church as circumcision did in Israel, Paul would not have circumcised Timothy".

* * * * *

Infant Baptism and Divine Adoption

Matt Waymeyer continues: "In paedobaptist teaching, baptism is seen as a mark of divine ownership, a sign and seal given to those who are God’s own possession. When an infant is baptized, not only does he enter God’s covenant family, but “his parents declare that their child belongs to God” (Daniel Doriani). In this way, baptism is considered a sign of initiation by which an infant is received into the church and “reckoned among God’s children” (John Calvin). As John Murray writes, infants who are baptized “are to be received as the children of God and treated accordingly.”

"In the Old Testament, the corporate adoption of the nation of Israel was such that individual Jews were considered sons of God regardless of whether they themselves were personally saved. In Deuteronomy 14:1–2, Yahweh said to Israel":

You are the sons of the Lord your God; you shall not cut yourselves nor shave your forehead for the sake of the dead. For you are a holy people to the Lord your God; and the Lord has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth (Deut 14:1–2).

"This corporate adoption of Old Testament Israel can be seen in the New Testament as well. In Romans 9:2–4, as the apostle Paul expresses his desire to see fellow Jews come to Christ, he describes the various privileges which belong to the nation of Israel":

I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption of sons and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises (Rom 9:2–4).

"According to paedobaptists, the continuity between Old Testament Israel and the New Testament church requires us to baptize infants of believers. Regardless of their individual spiritual status, it is believed that they are children of God and therefore should be baptized as a mark of divine ownership just as infants were circumcised in the Old Testament".

"Precisely where the paedobaptist sees continuity, however, Scripture indicates discontinuity, for under the New Covenant, only those who believe in Christ are children of God (Gal 4:5). The New Testament knows nothing of a corporate, non-salvific adoption of God’s people, but instead teaches an individual adoption unto eternal salvation (Eph 1:5)".

For example, in Romans 8:15–17, the apostle Paul writes:

For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption of sons by which we cry out, “Abba! Father!” The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him (Rom 8:15–17).

In His conclusion: "Baptism is indeed a mark of divine ownership, just as paedobaptists say it is. But as such, it should only be given to those who give evidence of having been redeemed and adopted by God as His children—those who profess repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ".

Today’s article was adapted from chapter 5 of A Biblical Critique of Infant Baptism by Matt Waymeyer (The Woodlands, Tex: Kress Christian Publications, 2008), which can be purchased through Grace Books International.

A Biblical Critique of Infant Baptism

Matt Waymeyer has begun a study @ http://www.sfpulpit.com on the topic of infant baptism. It is based on the introduction of the newly released A Biblical Critique of Infant Baptism by Matt Waymeyer (The Woodlands, Tex: Kress Christian Publications, 2008), which can be purchased either through Amazon or KCP.

* * * * *

In his first argument, he deals with Infant Baptism and Acts 16:31-34

He begins: "The absence of a direct command to baptize babies would be easier to overlook if the Bible contained clear evidence that the New Testament church practiced infant baptism. After all, what we do not find mandated in Scripture, we sometimes find modeled there. In an effort to support their view, many paedobaptists point to the baptism of the jailer’s household in Acts 16:31-34 as an example of infants being baptized on the basis of their father’s faith".

As Greg Welty explains,

it would be exceeding strange if (1) the whole household heard the gospel, (2) the jailer believed the gospel but the others rejected it, and (3) the whole household rejoiced that the head of the household believed while they themselves rejected the same message! Only the Baptist view avoids such absurdity.

His summary is that "Taken at face value, Acts 16:31-34 sets forth a hearing, believing, and rejoicing household which was baptized in response to its profession of faith, and therefore this passage fits much better with believer’s baptism than infant baptism".

From chapter 3 of A Biblical Critique of Infant Baptism by Matt Waymeyer (The Woodlands, Tex: Kress Christian Publications, 2008), which can be purchased either through Amazon or KCP.

Matt Waymeyer deals with Infant Baptism and Acts 2:39

He begins: "Perhaps the most common argument for infant baptism is found in the climax of the apostle Peter’s sermon at Pentecost in Acts 2. Peter has just set forth the redemptive work of Jesus (vv. 22–35) and proclaimed that He is both Lord and Christ (v. 36), and his Jewish listeners are cut to the heart, asking, “What shall we do?” (v. 37). Peter responds in Acts 2:38–39:

Repent and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself (Acts 2:38–39).

The argument follows that "According to paedobaptists, the promise that Peter refers to in Acts 2:38–39 is the same promise that God made to Abraham and his descendants in Genesis 17:1–8. As Robert Booth explains:

This was a promise that [the Jews] would have heard of and talked about many times. Since they were now entering the new covenant era of the church, the question of their children’s relationship to the church would naturally have been on their minds. Being a Jew, Peter was certainly aware of their concern and immediately moved to address the issue. He assured them that the promise was still for them and their children. . . .

Therefore, writes Booth, “If the children of believers are embraced by the promises of the covenant, as certainly they are, then they must also be entitled to receive the initial sign of the covenant, which is baptism.”

The structure of his argument deals with:

What Is the Promise?

Who Are the Recipients of the Promise?

Who Was Baptized?

His summary notes: "In the end, the corresponding parallel that paedobaptists are looking for between Genesis 17 and Acts 2 is simply not there. Consider the differences: In Genesis 17, the covenant is “between Me and you and your descendants after you” without qualification (v. 10); but in Acts 2, the promise is for you and your children, but only for as many of you and your children as the Lord shall call to Himself (v. 39). In Genesis 17, the eight-day-old males are to be circumcised (v. 12); but in Acts 2, only those who repent are commanded to be baptized (v. 38). In Genesis 17, infants are circumcised; but in Acts 2, only those who received Peter’s word are baptized (v. 41). The account in Acts 2 actually provides better support for believer’s baptism than it does for infant baptism".

* * *

Are Paedobaptists Just Mixed Up?

Posted by Jason E. Robertson @ http://fide-o.blogspot.com

"It is illegitimate to identify and equate the Abrahamic covenant with the New covenant without noting the diverse aspects within it (national/physical, typological, spiritual) and the discontinuity that results as we move from Abraham to Christ. For example, to identify and equate the natural/special seed (Israel) with the spiritual seed (church) as well as to equate to covenant signs of circumcision and baptism is a mistake often made by paedobaptists. It not only fails to do justice to diverse aspects of the Abrahamic covenant, but also to the way that covenant is ultimately fulfilled in Christ." (Schreiner and Wright, Believer's Baptism, Sign of the New Covenant in Christ, pg. 136)

Paeodobaptists rightly argue that the Old Covenant was a mixed covenant, mixed with believers and non-believes, and they wrongly argue that the New Covenant is also a mixed covenant. Paedobaptist rightly argue that circumcision was administered to infants of whom many were to become men of faith and many more were not. But Paedobaptist wrongly argue that baptism replaces circumcision and should therefore be administered to infants just like circumcision was administered to the Jewish children. Of course they argue that infant girls should be baptized too, even though that is a departure from their argument for continuity. But I will not deal with that issue in this post.

And speaking of problems for the paedobaptist theology: the Bible no where teaches that baptism replaces circumcision. But before we deal with that big problem , first lets refresh ourselves as to what the purpose was for Old Covenant circumcision.

In the OT, circumcision had multiple meanings such as:
1. First it marked out those who had the faith of Abraham
2. Secondly it marked out the genealogical seed of the Messiah which was the male line of descent from Abraham to David to Christ,
3. Thirdly it marked out the nation of Israel and was thus incorporated into the Mosaic covenant.

Baptism only has continuity with circumcision when it comes to the first purpose, namely that it marks out those who have the faith of Abraham. Since purposes two and three are have not continuity in baptism then it is wrong to use baptism in a genealogical sense such as baptizing the infants of believers.

BLOOD KIN

In the Old Covenant, circumcision identified one with a physical family and a nation, and it typified one's relationship to the spiritual family of God. But not all who were Israel were truly of the spiritual Israel of God. In the New Covenant, however, Christ only has His spiritual family, no physical nation or physical family. Neither the visible nor invisible church of the New covenant is a family by physical descent. It is a family by spiritual birth. Membership in the church should be only for those who are of the spiritual seed of Abraham. Thus baptism should only be administered to those who are in the New covenant by God's grace through regeneration and saving faith.

COVENANT KEEPERS

Furthermore, Jeremiah 31 teaches that New covenant members are not covenant-breakers, so to teach that the warning passages in the NT teach that New covenant members are covenant-breakers, as paedobaptists do, signifies an error hermeneutically. Jeremiah 31 cannot teach the opposite of the rest of Scripture. Paedobaptist Richard Pratt, Jr. says of Jeremiah 31:34, "In this sense, 'knowing the Lord' means 'properly acknowledging and recognizing him.' This is why Jeremiah 31:34 concludes, 'For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.' In a word, to know god as Jeremiah spoke of it would be to receive eternal salvation. In the covenant of which Jeremiah spoke, salvation would come to each participant. There would be no exceptions." (Pratt, Infant Baptism and the New Covenant, pp. 159-60.)

So, Pratt properly notes that Jeremiah's prophecy of the New Covenant describes a church that is not mixed but regenerate. But Pratt goes on the argue that this is not fully fulfilled yet in the New Covenant and will not be fully realized until the 2nd Coming of Christ. But even though it is true that the New covenant is not fully consummated, it is still here. Baptism should signify the New Covenants arrival not just its future consummation. There is no "remnant" in the New Covenant. There is only those who are in it and those who try to illegitimately join it and are to be excommunicated from it. In fact, such people who received baptism on false pretenses were never one with us -- EVER! (1 John 2:19)

BY FAITH ALONE

Besides, which came first Abraham's faith or Abraham's circumcision? Abraham's faith came first. That is really the end of the discussion. In fact, that is Paul's argument in Romans 4:9-12. Paul says, "[Abraham] received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith that he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe..." both Jew and Gentile (Romans 4:11).

BELIEVERS ONLY

"In fact, one cannot find in Israel the idea that circumcision was only for "believers and their children" since many unbelieving Jews circumcised their infant boys and were still considered part of the covenant nation. The paedobaptist understanding already reads into circumcision a meaning that is not there." (Schreiner, 156) And, on top of that, no where in the New Testament will you find that circumcision has been replaced by baptism. Check out all the passages that teach that circumcision is no longer required for believers (Acts 15:1-35; Galatians 1:6-9; Galatians 2:11-16; Galatians 6:15; 1 Corinthians 7:18-19). No where will you find the teaching of Paedobaptist that baptism is the replacement for circumcision, nor will you find a passage that teaches that baptism is a sign of physical descent, nor will you find a passage that teaches that baptism is just a sign that promises something that is not already a current reality in the recipient of baptism.

THE NEW COVENANT

Jesus was truly the last one that should have received circumcision as a covenantal sign. He is the true "seed" of Abraham, He is true "Israel", and He is our faith. Then Jesus was baptized and started His public ministry revealing Himself as King of kings. Circumcision was placed upon a mass of men pointing towards the coming of kingdom, but baptism is only for those who are living in that kingdom.

Here is the New Covenant promise to remember: Acts 2:38-39 says,"Repent and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call."

Notice that the promise is not to all who heard Peter and to their children, nor was it for all who were afar off. It was for all you were called, who believed and repented. That did not include all who heard Peter or their children or people who were afar off. Even the next verse proves that only those who received Peter's words were baptized, not all hearers, not all children, and not everybody afar off.

To understand the scope of the promise one must remember that to the OT language of "you and your children" are added the distinctions of faith, repentance, the Holy Spirit's indwelling and the effectual call of God."

NEW REVELATION BRINGS NEW RESPONSIBILITY

Credobapist respect the progression of revelation in Scripture as the covenants within the Covenant of Grace each add to clearer understanding of Redemption and the nature of God's church. And with further revelation comes further responsibility. With the manifestation of the Spirit in the New Covenant we now have a responsibility to limit the scope of the visible church to those who bear fruit of the Spirit.

It is only with a credobaptist view of baptism that one can say as Paul in Galatians 3:26-27, "You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have been clothed with Christ." And only credobaptist say with Paul to the Romans that all who are baptized are dead to sin and alive to God (Romans 6:1-4) and to the Colossians that all who are baptized into the death of Jesus are currently living the realities of new life in Christ (Colossians 2:11-13).

The Case for Paedobaptism

From Justin Taylor @ http://theologica.blogspot.com

If you're a credobaptist (i.e., one who believes in seeking to baptize only believers), it can sometimes be confusing trying to understand why anyone would be a paedobaptist (i.e, one who also baptizes infants of believers). Therefore I thought it might be helpful to reproduce two summations by thoughtful paedobaptists setting forth their case.

The first (and briefer) summary is from credobaptist-turned-paedobaptist pastor Randy Booth, from his book, Children of the Promise: The Biblical Case for Infant Baptism, p. 8. He summarizes the case under five headings:

1. Covenant Theology. Throughout the bible, God relates to his people by way of a covenant of grace. Covenant theology provides the basic framework for rightly interpreting Scripture.
2. Continuity of the Covenant of Grace. The Bible teaches one and the same way of salvation in both the Old and the New Testaments, despite some different outward requirements.
3. Continuity of the People of God. Since there is one covenant of grace between God and man, there is one continuous people of God (the church) in the Old and New Testaments.
4. Continuity of the Covenant Signs. Baptism is the sign of the covenant in the New Testament, just as circumcision was the sign of the covenant in the Old Testament.
5. Continuity of Households. Whole households are included in God's redemptive covenant.

The second (fuller) summary is from Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, pp. 632-34:

1. Although the Abrahamic covenant had national aspects to it, at its heart, it was a spiritual covenant which signified spiritual realities, including its sign and seal, that is, circumcision.
   
2. The Abrahamic covenant is still in force and is essentially identical with the "new covenant" of the present dispensation. The unity and continuity of this one covenant of grace in both testaments follows from the fact that the Mediator is the same; the condition of faith is the same; and the blessings are the same, namely, regeneration, justification, spiritual gifts, and eternal life.
3. By God's appointment, infants share in the benefits of the Abrahamic covenant and therefore received circumcision as a sign and seal. Since the "new covenant" is essentially identical with the Abrahamic covenant, infants of believing parents who receive the sign of the covenant are not excluded from covenant or church membership.
4. Even though the Abrahamic covenant is essentially identical with the new covenant there are some changes that have taken place. In the new dispensation, baptism is by divine authority substituted for circumcision as the initiatory sign and seal of the covenant of grace. Baptism corresponds with circumcision in spiritual meaning so that both signs signify the washing away of sin and the need for regeneration. Furthermore, given the essential unity of the covenant across the ages, baptism, as the new sign and seal of the new covenant age, does not exclude infants of believing parents.
5. Although the NT contains no direct evidence for the practice of infant baptism in the church this is due more to the fact that the apostolic age was primarily a missionary period which focused on the baptism of adults. But, given the unity of the covenant of grace, there is also no text in the NT which specifically abrogates the demand that the covenant sign be applied to the infants of believing parents in the new covenant era. Household baptisms probably, though it cannot be established with certainty, bear witness to this fact.

In the near future, Lord willing, I'll seek to do a post summarize the case against paedobaptism, i.e., reasons credobaptists are not convinced of the above arguments