In Defense of Paedobaptism
This brief work will cover reasons
why I feel infant baptisms are valid. By valid, I mean they are
Scriptually-based and actually do something to the recipient in the God’s eyes.
This topic has been the cause of a great divide within the Body of Christ, even
if it exists silently in the background away from the sensitivities of those
who differ. Therefore, the goal of this endeavor is not only to show why infant
baptisms are valid, but also serves as an attempt at unifying the Church on
this particular point. I pray that God opens the hearts and minds of those who are
separated on this issue, and that we may continue to show love for one another
despite these differences.
The framework of this essay is as
follows: First, I will lay out, to the best of my ability, the
anti-paedobaptist (credobaptist) view and their arguments against
paedobaptists. Second, I will offer some critiques and refutations of their
arguments. Following this, I will offer arguments in favor of paedobaptism
while anticipating objections to them.
Paedobaptism - The practice of baptizing infants and small children.
Reasons Against Paedobaptism
Those who disagree with
paedobaptism emphasize the fact that infants (including very young children) cannot
have faith in Jesus. They base this on what they claim is the pattern of
conversion found in the New Testament: Person X hears the Good News, believes
it, and then gets baptized. Since infants cannot fulfill that criteria, they
shouldn’t be baptized. According to credobaptists, belief must come prior to
baptism. As a result of this, or perhaps
existing presuppositionally, they interpret Mark 16:16 as a formula:
“Whoever
believes and [then] is baptized will
be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.”
Furthermore, the Great Commission
can only be fulfilled by adults, which is another reason why they claim that
credobaptism is consistent with the New Testament. Does it really make sense to
let little children, who possess no faith, into the New Covenant when they can
do nothing to further the kingdom of God? Is there really a difference between
baptizing an infant and baptizing someone who doesn’t believe in Christ?
Credobaptists will often claim that this reveals the hypocrisy on the part of
paedobaptists. If you wouldn’t forcibly baptized an unbelieving pagan, then why
would you forcibly baptize an unbelieving child?
Objections to their Reasons
However, not all is what it seems. Although
credobaptism is by no means a baseless doctrine, it remains fueled by
presuppositions that exist prior to reading the text and which are fed into their
interpretations. For example, in Mark 16:16 the credobaptist interprets this as
a formula by inserting “then” into the verse (mentally, of course). Under this
rendering it is clear that one should have belief prior to getting baptized.
However, Mark 16:16 doesn’t say that at all. No English translation I can think
of includes “then” in between believe
and baptized. The reason for this is
simply because the Greek doesn’t include it.
I submit that Mark 16:16 is a
criteria rather than a formula. However, I acknowledge that there are times that we can use
phrases with identical wording to express either formulas or criteria, I think
it isn’t so in this case. For example, I might say “I am going to the store and
to the bank” and mean it as a criteria for a completed morning errand. Perhaps I was
simply stating a goal that I wanted to complete, rather than expressing a
specific order. Contrarily, I could also use that exact phrase and mean it to
express a formula, as if the store took priority over the bank or was closer in proximity to the starting point. However, absence
of context or clarification, it’s hard to say which is more accurate. If
anything, this shows that the credobaptist’s usage of this verse as proof is
dubious at best. They must be assuming more than this if their case is to be
valid.
What’s left for them to use is
merely to point out the general pattern of conversion found in the New
Testament. After Pentecost, when the disciples received the gifts of the Holy
Spirit for the first time, it’s clear that adults who came to the faith
believed first and then received baptism. There’s no disputing this. However,
this alone is not enough to validate their position. First, it’s an appeal to
ignorance to suggest that because no infant is explicitly mentioned by name as
having received baptism, that therefore only adults should be baptized (i.e.
it’s fallacious to say ‘–p has not been
proven true à p
is true’). Another way of stating it is to say that the absence of explicit
verses promoting paedobaptism is not evidence that only credobaptism is de facto valid. Since paedobaptism
doesn’t simply operate on a ‘faith with baptism’ model, then obviously their
appeal to ignorance (which also begs the question) doesn’t work. Paedobaptism
is concerned with God’s covenant dealings with His children, while credobaptism
is concerned with the faith of the individual receiving it. These aren’t
dichotomies. Therefore, it simply won’t work to point to adults receiving
baptism as proof that infants shouldn’t receive it. There are no verses which
explicitly state “Only baptize adults”, but it would be fallacious of me to claim
that therefore infants can be baptized in light of this.
The important thing to grasp here is that a
context can be given which would explain why only adults are explicitly
mentioned as receiving baptisms. Obviously only adults can utilize the gifts of
the Holy Spirit and be used as instruments in bringing forth God’s Kingdom on
Earth. Only adults can bear witness to the love and power of Jesus Christ, or
at least communicate it effectively. Therefore, it’s no surprise why adults are
preached to throughout the land and also why they are mentioned receiving
baptism. Moreover, an infant’s identity is contingent upon their parents, and
very rarely are infants mentioned by name in the Bible (unless it is a brief
history of a Biblical character like Isaac). It’s obvious that the first fruits
of the faith would be adults. Adults can "do" things meaningful in a narrative-focused way.
Arguments in Favor of Paedobaptism
So the credobaptist’s two main
points are dubious at best and certainly don’t stand as explicit proof that
only confessing adults should be baptized. But where does that leave infant
baptism? Are there verses that support this practice? The following are reasons
why I think paedobaptisms are valid:
First and foremost, baptism is
directly compared to Old Covenant circumcision. As the Apostle Paul wrote in
Colossians 2:11-12:
“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.”
This is significant because Abraham was circumcised along
with his household (children). His children certainly didn’t believe in the
tenants of Judaism, but they were circumcised regardless. This was the sign
that one was in the covenant, and it most certainly extended to unbelieving
infants (Gen. 17:12). This was the fabric of Jewish belief for nearly 2,000
years before the birth of Christ.
The
implications are powerful in light of this. If unbelieving children were
circumcised in the Old Covenant, and baptism is directly compared to
circumcision, then it seems reasonable to conclude that infants were also
expected to be baptized. The burden of proof rests with the credobaptists. They
need to show that the Old Covenant command to circumcise infants is now
abrogated in baptism.
Such a
radical change from (Old Covenant) paedo-circumcision to (New Covenant) ‘only-those-capable-of-expressing-faith’
baptism requires explicit textual support. However, no explicit textual support
is ever offered. Although there is no direct verse commanding paedobaptism, one
must remember that it is credobaptists, not paedobaptists, that have the burden
of proof. Therefore, the New Testament’s silence on the issue stands in favor
of paedobaptists, for we assume (absent of evidence to the contrary) that the
New Covenant sign of membership extends to infants like it did in the Old
Covenant.
To
illustrate this point, which will also serves as the crux of my entire
argument, I will offer a plausible scenario:
As a young Jewish man hearing the
Gospel in Jerusalem, you become convinced that Jesus is Lord. Your pregnant
wife also embraces Jesus as her Lord and Savior. However, before you can
receive your baptism, your wife goes into labor. After a few tense hours, you become
a father of a baby boy. Filled with joy, you proclaim the good news to your new
Christian friends. A few days after the birth of your son, you head to the
local Christian body to discuss your baptism and your son’s circumcision. Your
wife, carrying your son, walks with you. Upon arriving, you are stunned to
learn that circumcision is no longer a part of the New Covenant. The discussion
between you and the Christian leader now turns to baptism…
This
brief illustration leaves off suddenly in order to prove a point. This scenario
probably went on often in Jerusalem. Lifelong Jews had to get used to a New
Covenant in Christ despite remaining fresh in their Judaism. Circumcision was
the one of the most central practices in the Jewish community, as it symbolized
their very identity. With that in mind, the point I wish to make is simple: If
infant baptism was heretical then where is the early condemnation from the
Apostles? Are paedobaptists expected to believe that this issue never came up
once in the Jerusalem church? As central a practice that circumcision was to
the Jews, especially its being applied to infant boys, it becomes historically
certain that it would have been discussed. Are we to believe that rogue
Christians (which would later become the majority) baptized infants of
believing parents secretly for a hundred or so years away from the view of
God-inspired Apostles? To think that this secrecy took place is to entertain a
silly and unsubstantiated conspiracy theory. Therefore, without documented
condemnation from the Apostles and the high historical probability that the
topic would have come up in the Jerusalem church, paedobaptists can reasonably
assume that the Old Covenant promise to infants has not been abrogated in the New
Covenant.
The
paedobaptist view also makes sense of the various household baptisms found in
the New Testament. I believe the usage of the word ‘household’ is not an
accident, but rather referring to the Old Covenant promise of household
circumcision. Why include these household references otherwise? For example, in
Acts 16:15 it is interesting to notice that it is only Lydia’s faith that is
mentioned. She is baptized along with her household. Similarly, Abraham
believed and he, followed by his household, were circumcised. This is Old
Covenant terminology at play in the New Testament. If paedobaptism (household
baptism) was abrogated, then why mention households at all if it could be
interpreted as Old Covenant terminology? Again, Scripture’s silence on the
issue stands in favor of paedobaptism.
How
does one make sense of Jesus’ words in Mark 10:14, Luke 18:16, Matthew 19:14?
Moreover, how does one make sense of Matthew 18:1-6? Isn’t Jesus using the
faith of a little child as a model for adults? Jesus speaks highly of children
in all passages in which they are mentioned --- “For to such belongs the
kingdom of heaven.” If children aren’t in the New Covenant, then none of Jesus’
words seem to make sense. If they are in the New Covenant, even if only some, then
shouldn’t they receive the sign of the covenant? Much more could be said here,
but it isn’t my aim to exhaust every example found in Scripture.
Objections
There are various objections
to my arguments that are offered by the opposing camp. One objection in particular
comes from Wayne Grudem in his Systematic
Theology:
“We should not be
surprised that there was a change from the way the covenant community was
entered in the Old Testament (physical birth) to the way the church is entered
in the New Testament (spiritual birth). . . In all these contrasts we see the
truth of the distinction that Paul emphasized between the old and the new
covenant. The physical elements and activities of the old covenant were ‘only a
shadow of things to come’, but the true reality, the ‘substance’, is found in
the new covenant relationship which we have in Christ (Col. 2:17).”
He goes on:
“Therefore it is
consistent with this change of systems that infant (male) children would
automatically be circumcised in the old covenant, since their physical descent
and physical presence in the community of Jewish people meant that they were
members of that community in which faith was not an entrance requirement. But
in the new covenant it is appropriate that infants not be baptized, and that
baptism only be given to those who gave evidence of genuine saving faith,
because membership in the church is based on an internal spiritual reality, not
on physical descent.” (pg 977-78)
Although
it’s true than many things in the Old Testament receive their fulfilment in
Christ (New Testament), and that there is a ‘physical/spiritual’ dichotomy
present, ultimately it is irrelevant to my argument. First, it should be noted
that all examples of this dichotomy are explained as being fulfilled in the New
Testament. However, this is not the case with circumcision and baptism. No
verse explains this drastic transition that credobaptists assume is in the text.
Moreover, I find it interesting that the author prefers to use the terms ‘old
testament’ and ‘new testament’, rather than ‘old covenant’ and ‘new covenant’.
Although seemingly trivial, it helps point us back to the real issue:
Circumcision and baptism are the ‘signs’ of the covenants. Therefore, as signs,
they are much different than the ‘physical/spiritual’ dichotomies Grudem
mentions.
Following
Grudem’s example, James White (a respectable and successful apologist) builds
upon this objection when he debated Pastor Shisko. He states that circumcision
was only for male members of the family whereas baptism included women. Moreover, he claims that circumcision
included land rights within the family while the same concept is abrogated in
the New Covenant. White, like Grudem, expresses this idea that circumcision and
baptism actually share more differences than they do similarities. Therefore, according
to them, we shouldn’t be surprised if infants aren’t included under baptism.
Nevertheless,
White’s argument is structurally invalid. Again, all the differences between
circumcision and baptism are either abrogated, continued, or expanded. Either
way, all of them are clearly listed in Scripture. Yes, only men were
circumcised in the Old Covenant. However, in Acts we see women receiving
baptism. As for land rights existing alongside of circumcision, baptism comes
with the promise of the entire world! It’s expanded and explained in Scripture.
As was said before, no verse claims that infants are not to receive the sign of
the covenant. Therefore, the paedobaptist assumption is more reasonable than a
credobaptist interpretation. If infant baptism was never supposed to be a
thing, then why not say so in Scripture? Why the silence?
Final
Remarks
Excluding
Roman Catholic doctrine, I believe that infants who are baptized are not automatically
saved, as if baptism is enough for that end. As Mark 16:16 states, there must
be baptism and belief. We differ from credobaptists in that we don’t make
belief a prerequisite to baptism. We are merely claiming that after an infant
baptism, parents must instruct their children in the Lord so that, by the grace
of God, sincere faith in Christ will come.
Although
sincere belief is necessary for salvation, one cannot look into the heart of
another with absolute certainty. There areadult Christians who really do
not believe in Christ when they walk up to receive their baptism. Yes, they
might have happy feelings toward Christ and recite a simple creed for the
pastor before baptism, but this doesn’t mean they are regenerate,
sincerely-believing, Christians. What if these insincere Christians later
repent and develop saving faith; shall they be re-baptized because their former
baptism was done in weak or no faith at all? A paedobaptist will say no, since we claim that
their original baptism is still valid. This leads me to my last point.
Baptism
is something that others do to the participant. The pastor (or priest) baptizes
in the name of the Trinity and with water. More importantly, God counts that
person into the Body as a member of the New Covenant. Contrarily, credobaptism
is egocentric. It’s about ‘me’, ‘my faith’, and ‘my external show of faith to
others’. This isn’t wrong per say, but it misses the mark and the entire point
of baptism in the first place. It’s not my faulty faith that makes my baptism
valid, it’s God. Unless man has authority over God, then it isn’t faith that makes
baptism valid.
Furthermore,
paedobaptism is in keeping with the Gospel message. Christ died for us, and
salvation is therefore something that we don’t earn ourselves. Baptism is also
something that is done to us, and not something we do to ourselves. We should
rely on the spoken Word and water, and not hold it hostage to our faith.
Paedobaptism is also more harmonious than
credobaptism. Paedobaptists still baptize adults and have no problem
re-baptizing someone who is unsure of whether they were baptized as an infant.
Credobaptists reject infant baptism and will require adults to be re-baptized
regardless. I, as a paedobaptist, can disagree with ‘belief only’ baptisms, but
still look at those who practice them as brothers and sisters in Christ.
Credobaptists may not be as eager to return the favor because they might see
those who received an infant baptism as existing outside the New Covenant.
Finally,
we cannot ignore the praise our Lord has for children and infants. Using a
child’s faith as a model for adults isn’t a trivial thing. The Lord explicitly
says, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs
the kingdom of God” (Luke 18:16). He isn’t saying, “Let the children who
believe come to me” or “Let the children who have displayed adequate faith, and
have recited the proper creed, come to me.” Therefore, we shouldn’t be like the
disciples in that scene and try to get in between young children and Jesus.
To
conclude, I have shown why infant baptism is valid. It does justice to all of
Scripture and makes sense of early church history. The opposing view, in
arguing for their position, begs the question by assuming that faith is a
prerequisite to baptism when it is nowhere taught in Scripture. I have shown
that the burden of proof is on the credobaptist to show a verse abrogating the
old covenant promise to children and infants. Without this verse, their case is
impotent and circular. It is my sincere hope that we get this correct and allow
the little ones among us to receive the sign of the New Covenant, “for to such
belongs the kingdom of God.”