Infant Baptism

Reverend, I have a problem with infant baptism. May I ask you a few questions about this matter? Surely. Go ahead.

Someone asked me whether I could find a command in the New Testament to baptize infants. I could not come up with any, and that confused me.

I see. I have heard this before. It is true that we do not find a special command to baptize infants. It was so obvious that the church would do so that there was no need for such a command. Everyone knew that children were included in God's covenant as well as adults.

Then is it not strange that the Lord did not mention anything about this important issue?

I would not say that the Lord did not say anything about this. We see clearly that children have been baptized. But you asked whether there was an explicit command to baptize children. There is no such command because it was not necessary.

Now be honest, Reverend; is that not a weak argument? Would the Lord not have given the command if children were to be baptized?

No, I am serious. It was the custom in Israel to circumcise only males. Yet, we do not find an explicit command to baptize adult women. We find examples of women being baptized as we also find examples of children being baptized, but there is no specific directive to do so. It was so evident that women also had to be baptized that there was no need for such a decree. For the same reason we do not find an order to baptize children.

You said that we find in God's Word examples of children being baptized. Of which examples are you thinking?

There are some very clear examples of entire families being baptized. I will give you some texts:

“And I baptized also the household of Stephanas” (1 Cbrinthians 1:16).

“And when she was baptized, and her household” (Acts 16:15).

“And was baptized, he and all his, straightway” (Acts 16:33).

I have heard people say that “household” means that they and their adult servants or slaves were baptized, but not little children.

Yes, I have heard that argument before. But does it make sense?

Well, when Abraham was circumcised, he also made his servants undergo this surgery. So it makes sense that adult servants can be included.

I agree. It is well possible and even probable that adult house-servants were baptized. But where does it say that the children were excluded? If the children were too young to receive baptism, would that not have been mentioned? Would the Lord not have made that clear?

Are you sure that the word “household” means the whole family, including the children?

I am sure of that. I do not know of any text in the Old or New Testament in which children are not included in the word “house,” “household,” or “family.” Consider what it would mean if in the following words the children would not be included.

“And Joseph nourished his father and his brethren, and all his father's household with bread, according to their families” (Genesis 47:12).

“Take you a lamb according to your families” (Exodus 12:21). See also verse 3: A lamb for a house.

“They smote the city with the edge of the sword; but they let go the man and all his family” (Judges 1:25).

So you think that children were included when the households were baptized?

I do not see any valid argument that excludes them. Again, servants could have been included, although there may have been no servants. But I see no indication that children were excluded.

Reverend, we read in Mark 16:16 that he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. So believing was first, and afterwards they were baptized. And we also read of the eunuch that he first made confession of his faith and only after that would Philip baptize him. Does personal faith not need to come first?

Of course it does. If we do not belong to God's covenant yet, we first must confess our faith. Is that not what we practice also? When someone with no church background comes to our church and wishes to become a member, we first need to hear a confession of faith before that person can be baptized. That is true for all adults who come from outside the church. We often see this on the mission fields. When parents have confessed their faith, they are then baptized, with their children. Faith needs to come first.

Do you think it is a weighty issue if we disagree on baptism?

That is a difficult question. I would not say that salvation depends on it. We know of some respected children of God who really thought that infant baptism was wrong. Men like Spurgeon and John Bunyan did not agree with the opinions of Luther, Calvin, and other Reformers and Puritans. Yet, it is a dangerous matter. Defecting from biblical truth never goes unpunished.

Can you mention a few possible consequences of the rejection of infant baptism?

Well, as you will admit, those who do not baptize their children apparently have a different view of the covenant. We see our children as covenant children. We do not say that is saving to them, yet it is important. All the children of the people of Israel belonged to the privileged people, and the Lord confirmed His covenant with circumcision. So, whenever infants are baptized, our children are reminded that they are a special people, separated from the world. I have seen in the Strict Baptist churches in England how few children there were in church. Do not forget that according to the Baptist standpoint, children are not members of the congregation!

So, if I understand it correctly: the Baptists see a difference between the covenant with Israel and the covenant with the church today?

Exactly. It is remarkable that in most Baptist churches they do not sing the psalters (which are derived from the psalms), because they were intended for Israel and not for the church. They view the covenant with Israel (and the children) as of no value to us.

Can you prove that the covenant with Israel refers to the church today?

That is not difficult. In fact, John Calvin sees the unity of the covenant as the main issue for infant baptism. He has seen the remarkable fact that the New Testament often speaks of Abraham.

What do you mean? Why is it important that the New Testament often speaks of Abraham?

Well, it makes clear that nothing has substantially changed within God's covenant. The “substance” is yet the same. So why should we view our children differently than the people of Israel did?

Can you give me the texts which support that?

Here follow a few texts in which we see that the covenant with Abraham is valid for us. Realize that the consequence is that we must baptize our children.

“Many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 8:11).

“To the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law [the Jews], but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all” (Romans 4:16).

“And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3:29).

So you say that circumcision and baptism are tokens of the same matter? Is there hardly any difference then?

You are right. We see in Colossians 2 that the apostle switches from circumcision to baptism and back to circumcision. You may want to read it yourself in Colossians 2:11-13.

Reverend, are those texts not speaking of the believers who will be united with Israel? Are our children also connected to that covenant?

The Israelites who did not truly believe did not truly belong to the covenant with Abraham. They were children of the flesh and not of the promise (Romans 9:8). If the Jews were not circumcised in the heart, they were not true Israelites, either. The same is true for our children. They are only truly connected to Abraham by saving faith. However, even if they are unconverted, they belong to the seed of the covenant, although in an outward sense.

Can you prove that the Bible speaks of outward holiness?

Yes, from 1 Corinthians 7:14: “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.”

It is confirmed in baptism that the children are holy. That is an outward, yet important, holiness. It means that there is a special interest of the Lord in the children and young people of the congregation.

I remember your saying that the covenant has essentially been established with the elect.

You remember that well. The heart of the covenant is unconditional, as we see in Romans 9:8. The covenant says that God will save His people, and not only that, He also presents the gospel to sinners. Nevertheless, the covenant also has an “administration” to all the children of the congregation.

Must parents be converted in order to have their children baptized?

That is a sensitive question. Let me show you two sides of it. The Lord did not say that only the boys of converted Israelites could be circumcised. They all belonged to “God-fearing” families. Some had grandfathers or uncles and aunts who were God's children. They could all be viewed as children of the covenant. On the other hand, the old Reformed form for the administration of infant baptism makes us feel that none may remain unconverted. And I would like to stress again: we all need conversion. Not only in order to have our children baptized, but also to marry, to be a teacher, etc. I heard that Rev. Kersten has said that we need conversion for everything. That is so true! May that be bound on our hearts.

Now I would like you to answer a question. What does baptism mean to you?

Well, Ifeel I am a member of the church already, and that is important to me. And further: It stresses that I am responsible, that lam separated from the world. Also, that the Lord calls me in His Word. It shows me the possibility of salvation.

Yes, that is all so true. The Lord underlines that He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked. But there is more. You have missed the most important point.

I do not know what you mean, Reverend.

Never forget that the Lord promised that He will save His people, and that He is not dependent on us. The heart of the covenant is that God will give new hearts and make people to repent and believe. The covenant is in this way irresistible.

Can you prove that this is the heart of the covenant?

I think in particular of: “But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put My law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be My people” (Jeremiah 31:33).

Why is this so important to you?

It is the essential point of the covenant that the Lord will bless His Word. The future of the church is certain, and the Lord will rescue unwilling people to His honor and glory. That also gives me hope when I preach. The Lord of the covenant can break the hardest hearts, because the Lord also applies His Word and fulfills the promises of the covenant.

Rev. Matthew Henry's Testimony Regarding His Baptism

I cannot but take occasion to express my gratitude to God for my infant baptism; not only as it was an early admission into the visible body of Christ, but as it furnished my pious parents with a good argument (and, I trust, through grace a prevailing argument) for an early dedication of my ownself to God in my childhood. If God has wrought any good work upon my soul, I desire, with humble thankfulness, to acknowledge the moral influence of my infant baptism upon it.

From his Treatise on Baptism

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