Until very recently I have been firmly non-committal on the matter of whether is is right or appropriate for believing parents to have their children baptised as infants. Events, however, have forced me to come off the fence.
When approaching a subject like this we can't help but acknowledge that there have been very eminent, wise and godly people on both sides of the debate down the centuries. John Calvin, for instance, was a fervant paedo-baptist. Thus I offer these thoughts in a spirit of humility, in no way wishing to be dogmatic, and in no way wanting to prescribe to other new parents what they should do with their children.
Given that we are neither explicitly told to baptise infants in the New Testament, nor do we clearly see infant baptism being practised, it seems to me that the burden is on those who support infant baptism to make a good case for it. There seem to be four main arguments made by those in favour of infant baptism.
Argument 1. Baptism is to the New Covenant what circumcision was to the Old. Colossians 211,12 makes the connection explicit, In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.
However, we also baptise girls.
More seriously, God's New Covenant is with believers, whereas his Old Covenant was with a nation. It is those who are born again who are under the New Covenant and who therefore have had their hearts circumcised[1] (the outward display of which is baptism), not those who are simply born. Far from strengthening the paedo-baptist case this argument actually seems to be an argument in favour of baptising believers only. The text itself links baptism with faith in God.
Argument 2. A number of scriptural references are made to whole households being baptised. This implicitly includes the children.
1. Acts 1614,15 concerns Lydia's household, One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshipper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message. When she and the members of her household were baptised, she invited us to her home.
This is far from conclusive: it does not mention the "whole" household, and in any case what we know of Lydia does not suggest she was a mother of young children
2. Acts 1631-33 describes the conversion of the jailer, They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved--you and your household." Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptised.
However, if we look at verse 34, The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God--he and his whole family, it is clear that they were all baptised because they had all come to believe. Infants are not mentioned.
3. In 1 Corinthians 116 Paul remarks, I also baptised the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptised anyone else.
However, if we look at 1 Corinthians 1615, You know that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints, it seems that the whole household was baptised because the whole household had come to believe. Again, infants are not mentioned.
These few, imprecise references to "households" would seem to be a very poor foundation on which to build a doctrine of infant baptism, especially since the context rather seems to suggest that whole households were baptised simply because whole households believed, actually weakening the paedo-baptists' case.
Argument 3. Baptising the children of believers is an act of faith that one day they will come to believe. It exemplifies God's willingness to save even before the object of his mercy has come to faith.
Maybe so, but imagine if we went around doing applying this thinking to adults rather than children. If I tried to baptise my unbelieving colleagues at work as a similar act of faith I don't think I would keep my job very long. The only reason we can get away with doing this to infants is that they can't answer back. Do we not believe in dignity of our children? The Mormons have a practice of baptising on behalf of dead ancestors, perhaps because they can't answer back either.
Of course parents make many decisions on behalf of their children, for their own good, but baptism is a decision it doesn't seem to be necessary to make yet as it is difficult to see how the infant benefits from it. The child will, God willing, one day be able to make that decision for himself or herself, and scripture seems to suggest it would be better to let it do so: we are each responsible for our own faith.
My wife and I are both disappointed that we did not have the opportunity to make for ourselves the decision to be baptised after we had come to believe.
Argument 4. Believing parents will be treating their children for all intents and purposes as believers until they decide otherwise for themselves. Therefore it is appropriate for them to be baptised.
I confess that I find this the most attractive of the arguments, although it is perhaps the most lacking in scriptural evidence. (1 Corintians 714 doesn't help because no-one knows what it means, and in any case no-one is suggesting that we baptise the unbelieving spouses of believers[2].) We will indeed be treating Hannah as a Christian as she grows up: we will pray with her; we will take her to church; we will teach her the Bible and godliness as best we can. But, I think, we will not be baptising her just yet, because the necessity of getting it done so soon has not been demonstrated by any of these arguments: it simply seems more sensible and more scriptural to wait until Hannah can decide for herself.
My conclusion is that baptism is too significant a symbol to be
done to someone who has no idea what's happening, and the classic
Church of England fudge of "confirming" believers at a later date is
just a pale shadow of the Real Thing. The arguments presented above
just don't present a compelling reason to baptise sooner rather than
later; a reason not to wait until Hannah has decided for herself.
Unless we argue, that is, that baptism has some kind of magical effect
on those who receive it, and we evangelicals don't believe that at
all, do we? ;^)
[1] For the strange imagery of "circumcision of hearts" see, for example, Deuteronomy 306, Jeremiah 44. These remind us that God is much more concerned about real inner change in our lives than outward symbols. This has a bearing on what we believe baptism is and does.
[2] 1 Corinthians 714, For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
| © Copyright 2002, Ben Edgington. | Home |