The Confession of Faith (45)

As we again write about baptism, there is one statement which we made last time that we would like to repeat, and that is that the ground of infant baptism lies in the covenant and promises of God.

The opponents of infant baptism always asks us to show them a text in defense of our doctrine, a text where the Lord clearly commands the baptism of children. It is true that we cannot point to a text in one of the books of the New Testament, since we do not have an express command regarding it, but we have a counter-question. Where do you find the command that adults only be baptized? This they do not have either. Does this mean that we and the Baptists are on an equal footing as touching New Testament evidence, since neither part seems to be able to prove it from God’s Word?

No, to this we do not agree. We have said several times that the ground of infant baptism lies in the covenant and promises of God. We believe that the covenant signs have changed, but the covenant administration has not changed. The eternal God made a covenant which is the same under both the Old and the New Testament. However, under the ceremonies of the Old Testament everything was under a cover and in bonds, whereas under the New Testament these things became broader and clearer. For example, in former days only the men were circumcised because the women were counted in the men; now both men and women are baptized. There is nobody that makes objection because women are baptized. We have no express command of Christ regarding the change of the Sabbath to Sunday (although it is according to God’s Word), but we all go to church on Sunday. Then when infant baptism is mentioned, they would suddenly make the covenant more limited under the New Testament; the children are to be excluded and only adults may be baptized.

Infant baptism came in place of circumcision, which was to take place on the eighth day. Therefore, we may baptize infants because the God of the covenant is unchangeable. If this had not been the will of God, He would have made it known to His church. When Israel left the Lord and rejected Him, He still called the children to come unto Him. The same view was taken by the apostles. On the day of Pentecost, Peter spoke of the old covenant dispensation as it was foretold by the prophet Joel and now fulfilled. The multitude was as a net full of good and bad fish, but Peter said unto them, “The promise is unto you and to your children.” This is according to Genesis 17:7. Boston said of the multitude that their hands were unclean from the blood of Christ, and still the promise comes to them and to their children. It is because of the covenant relation which the Lord had made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Although they have rejected Christ, the covenant is still there. In 1 Corinthians 7:14 we read that the children of believing parents are to be viewed as sanctified, meaning separated from the world, and this is also emphasized in the form of baptism.

The real error in the doctrine of the Anabaptists is that they hold their view and confession higher than God’s Word. The words “he that believeth and is baptized…” are read by them out of context, and they forget the unity of the covenant, which is confirmed by the attitude of Christ (Mark 10:13), and the words of Peter (Acts 2:39) and of Paul (1 Corinthians 7:14).

One of the many proofs for the legality of infant baptism is also the so-called “family” texts. These speak of whole families, including not only the father, the mother and the children, but also relatives and servants or slaves which belonged to the family. Only a day laborer was not considered as belonging to the family since he had his own home. “He and his house” is a real Old Testamental expression for the entire family. Pharaoh gave permission for Jacob and his house to move to Egypt, which meant men, women, and children. Noah was commanded that he and his house should go into the ark. Abraham and his house were circumcised, which included also the servants and slaves.

The Jewish concept is that the father represents the entire family and that there is unity in the family, also in a religious sense. In Acts 16, we read that the jailor and his house believed. The father was converted, and the entire family was then baptized. This carries through the Old Testament thought that the father represented the whole family. We read also of Lydia and her house, of Cryspus and his house, and of the family of Stephanus. The apostles always acted according to God’s commandment—the promise is unto you and to your children. All these New Testament texts give strong proof that children should be baptized. Even Karl Barth, who so strongly opposed infant baptism, had to admit that the texts which spoke of whole families being baptized were against the Anabaptists.

As we review the history of the New Testament church, what do we find? During the first century infant baptism was practiced in all the churches. The church father, Irenaeus, who lived in the second century, said expressly that infant baptism was the custom among the apostles. Tertullian lived in the same time and also confirmed the baptism of children. He was the first who made objection against it, but it was not because he doubted the lawfulness of it. He was against a custom of those days, which was that when the head of a family, for example, a grandfather, became a Christian and was baptized, his grown-up children with their families were also baptized at the same time. He thought this went too far, and in this he was right. His children who had become adults had to make confession themselves before they and their children could be baptized.

Origenes, born in 185, was baptized as a child, and he confirmed that the baptism of children was the institution of Christ and was followed by the apostles. Sixty-six clergymen were present at a synod in Africa in the year 254. On a question asked by Bishop Fidus, their unanimous answer was that, at the request of the parents, the children should be baptized soon after their birth. In 274 Ambrose wrote that infant baptism had been the custom from the time of the apostles. The same was said by Chrysostom in the fifth century. Augustine wrote that he never heard of a Christian who confessed the truth and did not have his children baptized.

Are not all these things which we have mentioned, both from God’s Word and from church history, convincing proofs of infant baptism? There is yet a text in Colossians 2:11-12 which we would mention, “In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised Him from the dead.” Not in baptism, but in regeneration we receive the grace of cleansing. This grace is given to small and great, and is a personal experience. Great are the benefits which the Lord has given from our very youth on, but also great is the responsibility. We may not rest in the external signs but should ask the Lord to give the application to us out of free grace.

Deze tekst is geautomatiseerd gemaakt en kan nog fouten bevatten. Digibron werkt voortdurend aan correctie. Klik voor het origineel door naar de pdf. Voor opmerkingen, vragen, informatie: contact.

Op Digibron -en alle daarin opgenomen content- is het databankrecht van toepassing. Gebruiksvoorwaarden. Data protection law applies to Digibron and the content of this database. Terms of use.

Printen