Throughout Scripture we see God working His grace and judgment through families.
— John Sartelle
I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.
— Exodus 20
Jesus said, Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.
— Matthew 19
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.
—Acts 2
Why do we baptize? and what does it signify? Before we look into the question of who we baptize, these questions are necessary to give context to the discussion and frame it.
Baptism is revealed as a command in Scripture. In the great commission found at the end of the Gospel of Matthew we hear Jesus calling us to make disciples and to baptize them in the Triune Name of God. In the Acts of the Apostles and apostolic letters we read of the Word of God being preached and people believing and having their households be baptized.
To determine what baptism signifies, we remember that baptism, like many Christian doctrines, finds its root in the Old Testament. Genesis 15 reveals the covenant God made with Abraham when God alone (pictured as a smoking pot and flaming torch) passed through the torn animals. In Genesis 17 God gave Abram a new name and the sign of the covenant: circumcision. Circumcision was to be given to every man of Abraham’s household and male infants were to be circumcised. Yet we know from examples given in Scripture (such as Esau) that not all who were given the sign of the covenant remained in the covenant, that is, not all of the visible community of faith are of the elect.
Baptism signifies our introduction in the covenant of grace. Not only is it a symbol of this introduction but it seals us in this community. The (Ana)Baptists err on two counts, viz., that baptism is a token of our profession of faith, and that there is no spiritual reality corresponding with the sign. Baptism is no mere token of faith! We cheapen the sign (and thereby grace) when we say it merely symbolizes grace without saying that baptism conveys (or is a means of) grace. Let us be clear, it is not justifying grace that baptism conveys, that is, we are not saved by baptism. However baptism marks the recipient as a member of the church, a people on whom God has bestowed his especial blessing. Baptism does not confer benefits solely at the moment when one is baptized but throughout the life of the Christian. Christians are encouraged to remember their baptism; we recognize that we live as we began, by the grace of God alone.
With this in mind we can begin to answer the question: who do we baptize? We baptize those who are heirs of the covenant of grace. Which of course leads to the question, who are heirs to the covenant? Remembering the Bible is one book — not two — we see that in covenants made with Old Testament figures, the covenant included the figures’ descendants. While Noah was noted as righteous, his children entered the ark as well. God promised with Abraham and his children received the sign of the covenant. Job offered sacrifices not only for himself but his household, etc. Examining the new covenant we see it is greatly expanded; the gospel is for all nations instead of primarily Jews, women are baptized instead of men only being circumcised. Children were included in the old covenants are they to be excluded in the new? (Remember, these covenants are outworkings of the same covenant of grace whereby Jesus secures redemption for his people and takes the wrath due them.) Wouldn’t there be an obvious command forbidding the baptism of our children? Instead of seeing this, we see that God is faithful to households. ‘What must I do to be saved?’ asks the Philippian jailer, Paul and Silas answer, ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, you and your household.’ Consequently, the jailer and his household are baptized.
Are children of believers the same as those of non-believers? Μη γενοιτο! May it never be! The Apostle Paul advises that even the children of a marriage with one believer are considered holy and set apart. We see throughout history God is delighted to work in families; by the grace of God the children of believers are included in the covenant and normally grow up to be believers themselves, exercising faith in God. Growing up in antipædobaptistic churches, I was ‘dedicated’ as a child to the Lord, and saw many such ‘dedications’ while growing up. Yet we nowhere in Scripture read of child dedication ceremonies. Even these churches realize there was something fundamentally different about Christian children. How great is God’s grace. Let us then give our children the sign of the covenant to which they were born (or adopted); they have ‘a right to the rite’ (Strawbridge).
A final word (Reader, I do not entice you with this phrase only to have you read several more paragraphs.) on the subject concerns the benefits of infant covenantal baptism. Baptism is effectual not only at the time of baptism but throughout life. When parents vow the oaths of baptism they commit themselves to raising the child in accordance with the grace of God. The child is to be immersed in Scripture and the ways of God, and sprinkled by appropriate discipline. The parents cannot presume on God’s grace but grasp hold of his promise and faithfulness to families. The children are reminded of their baptism when they see others being baptized into the household of God. Moreover, stressing the communal aspect of God’s great salvation, the congregation vows to assist in raising the child into his baptism. Praise be to God for allowing such a structure and that he did not call us to be alone but brought us into a community, a household of faith.
I leave you with the words of Calvin:
For how sweet is it to godly minds to be assured, not only by word, but by sight, that they obtain so much favour with the Heavenly Father that their offspring are within his care? … Should we not … rejoice with all our heart in thanksgiving, that his name may be hallowed by such an example of his goodness?
—Institutes 4.16.32
References:
Baptism in the Bible and Infant Baptism: Gregg Strawbridge — a pamphlet from paedobaptism.com
Institutes of the Christian Religion: Jean Calvin — particularly 4.15-16
Systematic Theology: Louis Berkhof — 5.4.F
What Christian Parents Should Know about Infant Baptism: John Sartelle — a booklet
Putting Amazing Back into Grace: Michael Horton — Chapter 8: Two Keys to Spiritual Growth
Well, okay. But two qualms.
(1) If you say that baptism initiates infants into the Church (and I assume the capital was intentional there), but deny that it has salvific efficacy, you’re saying that not everyone in the Church will be saved. Depending how you cut the Church/church pie, that could either be a serious problem or a mere cheapening of what a church is.
(2) It’s problematic to arbitrarily select aspects of the Old Covenant for continuance under the New Covenant. For instance, why couldn’t this sentence, “Remembering the Bible is one book — not two — we see that in covenants made with Old Testament figures, the covenant included the figures’ descendants,” be finished instead, “Remembering the Bible is one book — not two — we see that in covenants made with Old Testament figures, the covenant…. involved circumcision” or “…required righteous works on behalf of the human party” (the latter of which would reach across all covenants, circumcision not being present in all of them). Applying that line of reasoning to New Covenant theology consistently would create problems, but applying it selectively seems to give the theologian a way to bring any aspect of the Old that he happens to find appealing.
(1) Adam, regarding my statement, ‘[B]aptism marks the recipient as a member of the church,’ church is not capitalized, perhaps you mean ‘I assume the capital was [intended] there.’ Now, I was finishing up writing at 2:30 this morning (I figured 4 days was long enough to write a few paragraphs), so I’m not sure what I was intending (and think the whole thing is probably edited very unevenly), but even so, I hardly ever think the capitalization of a word should matter and am inclined to agree with Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently’s Holistic Detective Agency ‘The door was the way to… to… The Door was The Way. Good. Capital letters were always the best way of dealing with things you didn’t have a good answer to.’ And taking RC Sproul’s maxim, ‘good theology lies in distinctions’ we come to the various uses of church. This is a bit outside of the scope of the entry but, (i) local (visible) church — a local gathering of the visible church; (ii) visible (universal) church — the entirety of those profess belief in Christ, together with their children; and lastly (iii) the church invisible — all of God’s elect who have been, are, or shall be gathered into unity under the head Christ, quite obviously this group in known to God alone. (Thus baptism is entrance into the church visible, but for those who believe signifies entrance into the church invisible. For if we neglect such a great salvation, and such a great heritage, it’d be far better for us to be a denizen of Sodom than a baptized reprobate.) However, I wonder Friend why you (or at least the Society you keep) disallow baptism at all.
(2) Likewise, it’s problematic to arbitrarily select aspects of the Old Covenant for termination under the New Covenant. We recognise that God has but one people, and one plan of salvation. While outward forms of covenants differ, God-given faith in any age is sole prerequisite for salvation on the part of men. (Except for the special case of the covenant of works, in which the first man failed and cast himself and his descendants into misery.) The righteous works required subsequent manifestations of the covenant of grace were performed by Jesus Christ as fully human/fully divine. Although differences between dispensationalism and covenant theology are certainly not outside of the scope (the sacraments, like the roof of a house, lie upon many layers of structure beneath) of the discussion, I have probably written enough for now.
(1) Yeah, the uppercase/lowercase distinction was intended to distinguish visible/universal. It’s just peculiar that baptism (and therefore church membership) would signify not salvation, and not even personal commitment, but the intention of one’s parents. I just don’t even know what that means.
And far from disallowing baptism, Quakers acknowledge the true baptism (Eph. 4:5, as distinct from water baptism. Mark 1:8, Acts 19) — which actually has a salvific interpretation (Rom. 8:9).
(2) That’s a good point, but I would be inclined to acknowledge the whole of the Old as having been completed, and not carry anything forward in a strict sense (there are obviously typological and/or allegorical continuities), rather than assume anything is continued that has not been explicitly continued.
Speaking of editing, it’s quite well written. I wasn’t sure at first if you weren’t just quoting from a published theologian….
(1) It was hard not to include a Douglas Adams quote, especially in as unlikely a conversation as this. Baptism does not signify the intention of one’s parents, but God’s faithfulness as the covenant-keeper.
(2) Thus the difference between covenant theology and dispensationalism, if these walls are different then the roof (sacraments) shall be as well.