Baptism of infants?

Noticing that a new edition of the Clarion had arrived, I skimmed through it this afternoon after arriving home from school. Looking through the article "Celebrating and Conserving the Treasure" by J.J.D. Baas (in typical Canadian Reformed fashion the article is translated from Dutch).

Anyways, while looking through the article I decided to take a look at all the proof texts given for infant baptism, and they are as follows:

  • Genesis 17:7 - I will establish my covenant between me and you and your seed after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God to you and to your seed after you.
  • Matthew 28:19 - Go, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
  • Acts 2:39 - For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all who are far off, even as many as the Lord our God will call to himself.
  • 1 Corinthians 7:4 - The wife doesn’t have authority over her own body, but the husband. Likewise also the husband doesn’t have authority over his own body, but the wife.

Anyways, starting with the first of these texts, I think that we can all agree that the first did apply on a lineage basis in the Old Testament (and to slaves, etc. too). At the same time, it's a little unclear how and to what extent circumcision in the New Testament is replaced by baptism. The sign referenced in Genesis 17 is of circumcision, not baptism.

Secondly, Matthew 28 does not directly reference children. You could even fashion an argument that the definition of disciple excludes infants in this context, as it makes reference to baptizing disciples.

Acts 2:39 considered alone sounds like it might lend something to the argument, but things become a little less clear to me upon adding in the preceding verse:

Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Is the promise referred to in Acts 2:39 that of receiving the Holy Spirit upon repentance (what the previous verse references), to the children of Theophilus - to whom the letter was written, to the physical children of Israel, or in reference to infants of all believers? If we are to take the final of these options, then how do you fit the "all who are far off" referenced in 2:39 into your argument?

I'm also wondering how best to incorporate the following text into the general argument:

Don’t think to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father,’ for I tell you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. - Matthew 3:9

I was also thinking of the model of being grafted onto Christ, as described in Romans 11, but I'm not totally sure that this would include infants either. To extend this agricultural analogy further, consider the following statement about growing apples:

The difficulty is that an apple tree grown from an apple seed will not produce a tree (or fruit) like the one the apple(seed) came from. For example, a seed from a McIntosh apple will not grow into a McIntosh tree ... To make all of the apple trees in their orchards be of known varieties, apple growers use one of two processes - budding and grafting.

In the agricultural model it's not enough simply to graft a tree and then use its seeds to produce similar children. Instead, each successive generation must be individually grafted.

One scripture quote that I recall from reading The Science of God was Numbers 32:11 which the author, Gerhard Schroeder, saw as something perhaps conceptually similar to the age of majority in Canadian society (the age of majority simply extends responsibility for acts, so perhaps a better analogy would be for those offenders below the age of 12 or so that get off scot-free).

At the moment, I can't say that I find sufficient scriptural justification for a belief in infant baptism nor adult baptism, but at the same time I can't really say the opposite either.

(All scripture quotations come from the World English Bible to avoid copyright issues with the NIV)

Comments

First of all, you ARE allowed to quote NIV.

Genesis 17:7 - God establishes his covenant to all descendants. The covenant applies immediately, even before they are born. Granted this is the old covenant and Christ established a new covenant, but I see no reason to believe that the terms and conditions have changed.

Matthew 28:19 - It also doesn't directly reference adults either, so I don't think your argument holds up. Take the modern day example of Canadian citizenship. You were a Canadian citizen since you were born; not being able to vote until a certain age doesn't make you a non-citizen.

Acts 2:39 - Children in this context may mean descendants in general, though that doesn't change anything since a person is always a descendant of their ancestors regardless of age. All who are far off also can include the children of those who are far off, since their children are just as far off as their parents. The last clause includes anyone that God has chosen to be elect, and we know that he chose the elect before the creation of the world (sorry no text reference since I'm at work, but check the three forms of unity).

1 Corinthians 7:4 - I'm not sure how this applies.

Gerhard Schroeder has some interesting ideas, but not much to back them up with. In my humble opinion, he isn't very good at researching or he would have found texts that clearly disprove some of his arguments.

And now for my conclusion. My memory is a little rusty on the details, but as I recall Peter and John were in prison and there was an earthquake that caused all the cell doors to open. The jailer was going to kill himself because he thought everybody would have escaped, but Peter told him that everyone was still in their cells. The jailer and all his household were baptized.

First of all, you ARE allowed to quote NIV.

You should try reading through the terms of use at some point in time. Basically, they allow individuals to quote up to 50 verses (my blurb meeting that requirement) with the proviso that the quotations constitute no more than the 5% of the total length of the writing (in my case 25.9% of the post was made up of Bible verses so this requirement was not met), and I also fail the slightly looser usage restrictions listed at bible.gospelcom.net I would also be required as a part of such use to display the notice in section 4 of the terms of usage agreement on that page. Outside of this restrictions, I'd only be able to appeal to the research exemption specified in Canadian Copyright Act to justify my quotations from the NIV translation of the Bible. If what I write can be considered research, it would be research more on the contents of the Bible rather than a specific translation, and I so I find it a little bit difficult to justify to myself the usage of this exemption.

As a result of the International Bible Society's view on the usage of their translation in print, while I may use the NIV for study purposes, I try to explicitly NOT use the NIV in any relevant document that I write. The World English Bible, which I'll readily agree is not perfect but generally find "good enough", is public domain. Thus, I can freely quote an arbitrary number of verses making up an arbitrary percentage of my post without violating any terms of use without possibility of penalty.

I'll respond to the rest of your comment separately.

I knew there was a limit, but didn't realize it was that bad.

Genesis 17:7 - Granted this is the old covenant and Christ established a new covenant, but I see no reason to believe that the terms and conditions have changed.

Why not? Paul is sent to preach to the Gentiles. Right now Jonah is about the only exception that readily comes to mind of people outside Israel who were sent a prophet with a warning to repent in the Old Testament. Statements such as Matthew 3:9 speak up against a transmission of salvation through one's ancestry, although you could easily take that to be a comment on violating the old covenant versus the establishment of the new.

Matthew 28:19 - It also doesn't directly reference adults either, so I don't think your argument holds up. Take the modern day example of Canadian citizenship. You were a Canadian citizen since you were born; not being able to vote until a certain age doesn't make you a non-citizen.

While it doesn't directly reference adults, it does reference discipleship. Every definition of disciple that I can find at Dictionary.com seems to require some level of active commitment. (Here may not be a bad time for a reminder that "adult baptism" does not mean only baptizing people who are physically adult, but rather all active adherents of the faith).

That would be an analogy to citizenship in a kingdom of Earth, but we're not talking about the kingdom of heaven. While such analogies may be useful, it's difficult to draw definite conclusions regarding them. In my original post I noted that extending Paul's grafting analogy would seen to imply that children not be included.

(As an aside: I did a little Googling about Roman citizenship. There I found that in Paul's day, a child would be a citizen by birth only if BOTH his father and mother were citizens. Else the child would receive the mother's status. Paul speaks of situations in which only one of husband and wife were believers. What sort of statement would you make about their children if using the citizenship analogy as it was in that day and age?)

Acts 2:39

While I also brought up the issue of children here, for me the primary question relating to this verse was what "the promise" referenced. To me there seems to be a promise in the previous verse, and I don't find it to be a stretch to suggest that the promise of verse 38 is the one being referenced in verse 39.

1 Corinthians 7:4 - I'm not sure how this applies.

Ah - that might be because I accidentally copied the wrong verse (1 Corinthians 7:14 was what that should have been). Anyways, here's verse 14, which seems somewhat more relevant to the topic at hand:

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.

There's no reference to baptism in this verse.

Interesting. Does this verse imply that the faith of only one of the husband and wife will actually save both? I think that I've heard the first part of the verse argued as suggesting that the fruits of the faith of the husband/wife as being used by God to lead their spouse to faith... so perhaps the same could be suggested to apply to the latter half as well? I'm somewhat hesitant to suggest this, but the interpretation that I've heard of the first part of the verse seems to open the path to such an interpretation of the second half.

Gerhard Schroeder has some interesting ideas, but not much to back them up with. In my humble opinion, he isn't very good at researching or he would have found texts that clearly disprove some of his arguments.

Some of his arguments I didn't agree with, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate all of them. What's your personal interpretation of Numbers 32:11?

My memory is a little rusty on the details, but as I recall Peter and John were in prison and there was an earthquake that caused all the cell doors to open. The jailer was going to kill himself because he thought everybody would have escaped, but Peter told him that everyone was still in their cells. The jailer and all his household were baptized.

That would be Acts 16:16-40. Verse 31 leads me to the same question - does a person's faith save an unbelieving spouse - as in 1 Corinthians 7:14. To hold that verse 33 calls for infant baptism requires that the jailer had children who were as of yet unable to believe. (Recalling once again that those favouring adult baptism are concerned less with physical maturity than with spiritual maturity).

To say that being able to affirm your belief is a requirement would mean that children who die as infants were not mature enough to be included in the covenant. That hits pretty close to home for you.

Ok so the citizenship analogy was perhaps not a great one. Though if you combine the Roman citizenship with the sancitification via spouse, the end result would seem to be the same.

I wonder, would it be possible to be sanctified but not saved? That would certainly open up a can of worms.

Indeed just because some of Gerhard Schroeder's arguments were weak doesn't mean all of them are. I'm still quite intrigued by his hypothesis in the first chapter where he connects Creation and Relativity.

Numbers 32:11 was the punishment which led to another 40 years in the desert. It is certainly interesting that 20 is given as the age of spiritual maturity. Consider though that at the time, there was no Bible to study from. We have a tremendous advantage today. Look at the apostles in their early days; they seem to be quite clueless at times. I'm not sure that 20 years old is a universal constant.

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at in your response to Acts 16, but in response to your statement about children being unable to believe I refer to the incident where Christ rebuked the disciples for trying to send the children away. This has led to the catch-phrase "child-like faith". Obviously this is not exactly the same as a mature faith, because the child does not fully understand what they are believing, but still...

Maybe it's just me, but I think we need to clarify a few things. Baptism is by no means a statement of faith, since an infant is not capable of making such a statement; that is why we have Profession of Faith. Baptism is merely a sign/symbol/seal of the covenant. This in itself is interesting, because Profession of Faith is not a sacrament. Of course, when adult baptism takes place, it is combined almost seamlessly with profession of faith, and as I recall the accounts of baptism in the New Testament are not quite explicit enough to say that no public profession of faith took place.

One more thing I'd like to toss into the discussion: salvation is by faith alone, so in theory you could be saved without ever having been baptized or making a public profession of your faith. I could be confused here, but I seem to recall that baptism and profession of faith are more of an upbuilding/to the benefit of the congregation thing.

To say that being able to affirm your belief is a requirement would mean that children who die as infants were not mature enough to be included in the covenant. That hits pretty close to home for you.

On the other hand, while God is just, he is also merciful. One of the other proof texts used in the Heidelberg Catechism regarding infant baptism is Matthew 19:13-15:

Then little children were brought to him, that he should lay his hands on them and pray; and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, “Allow the little children, and don’t forbid them to come to me; for the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to ones like these.” He laid his hands on them, and departed from there.

(This here speaks of a laying on of hands and some sort of prayer - a prayer of blessing I suspect. It doesn't say anything about baptizing though.)

I'd be interested in reading a book on baptism - covering as much as we can dig out of the Bible, views on it throughout history, and also the views towards infants of those who believe in adult baptism. Unfortunately I've yet to find such a book.

Ok so the citizenship analogy was perhaps not a great one. Though if you combine the Roman citizenship with the sancitification via spouse, the end result would seem to be the same.

I wonder, would it be possible to be sanctified but not saved? That would certainly open up a can of worms.

I'm still a little confused as to how to address 1 Corinthians 7:14. Matthew Henry's Commentary on 1 Corinthians 7 suggests something along the lines of it being the marriage relationship that is sanctified rather than the other individual. It still seems like there's something missing though.

Indeed just because some of Gerhard Schroeder's arguments were weak doesn't mean all of them are. I'm still quite intrigued by his hypothesis in the first chapter where he connects Creation and Relativity.

Ditto.

Consider though that at the time, there was no Bible to study from. We have a tremendous advantage today. Look at the apostles in their early days; they seem to be quite clueless at times.

They did have the Old Testament. Is having a complete Bible really an advantage over having Jesus physically incarnate and teaching and conversing directly with you?

I'm not sure that 20 years old is a universal constant.

Ditto.

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at in your response to Acts 16, but in response to your statement about children being unable to believe I refer to the incident where Christ rebuked the disciples for trying to send the children away. This has led to the catch-phrase "child-like faith". Obviously this is not exactly the same as a mature faith, because the child does not fully understand what they are believing, but still...

I brought up the scene that you referenced earlier in my reply (it's covered in Matthew 19). The comment from which the catch-phrase you referred to comes from though is a chapter before - Matthew 18:3 - so it's part of a different scene.

In the general vicinity of this comment you have Matthew 18:6 which speaks of "these little ones who believe in me", which might in fact imply that it is an active belief which these little children have.

There's Matthew 11:25 to consider:

At that time, Jesus answered, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you hid these things from the wise and understanding, and revealed them to infants.

Is this a reference to a child-like faith in something, or to a special relevation given to some children in that times? (we're looking at an age of signs and wonders after all)

I'll get to rest of your comments later, as I think that I need to head upstairs to await my ride to Bible Study.

As I recall, Jesus either didn't baptize anyone, or baptized only one person. Can't remember which it was. The text goes to show though, that infants can be members of the Kingdom of Heaven without being baptized, since as I mentioned before baptism is only a sign and a seal.

Children are definitely much more willing to accept what they are told than an adult who already has an opinion of their own.

Baptism is by no means a statement of faith, since an infant is not capable of making such a statement; that is why we have Profession of Faith. Baptism is merely a sign/symbol/seal of the covenant.

Would you agree with the statement that a (sincere) desire for baptism is a sign of faith?

An advocate of adult baptism might take some offense to your initial statement, as the reasoning for it "since an infant..." assumes the view on the subject that the Canadian Reformed Churches have adopted.

and as I recall the accounts of baptism in the New Testament are not quite explicit enough to say that no public profession of faith took place.

I'm a little confused as to what position you're taking with your statement. In general I find that they do suggest that a profession of faith of some sort took place.

I could be confused here, but I seem to recall that baptism and profession of faith are more of an upbuilding/to the benefit of the congregation thing.

The liturgical forms used in the Can RC do tend to have those words in them, but I'm don't really think that that's the primary purpose of them.

Rather than as a formal agreement with some document, which is basically what the current setup is, perhaps instead we should view public profession of faith as the testimony that one makes through one's words and actions. If we wish to celebrate such a formal acknowledgement of a person in whom faith becomes aware, perhaps baptism is how the occasion should be marked, rather than in the current manner with this formal agreement.

A sincere desire for baptism is definitely a sign of faith, since we know that baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant, and much emphasis is placed on signs and seals of covenants in both Testaments. Note however that, in the case of adults, this faith exists even before being baptized.

The first part of my statement, advocates of adult baptism might actually agree with: the fact that infants aren't capable of making a statement of faith. I've never seen what other church's adult baptisms are like, but I suspect it would be similar to either our adult baptism by itself or our combined adult baptism and profession of faith.

Seems to me the question here is what is the purpose of baptism? We have confirmed already that children are part of God's covenant and kingdom (or at least sufficiently to convince me, let me know if you're not convinced yet).

Returning back to the sincere desire discussion, a sincere desire for baptism can be not only for oneself, but also for one's children.

Indeed there's more to baptism that upbuilding of the congregation. The Ethopian eunuch was baptized in the middle of nowhere, so there's definitely some personal "benefit".

In closing, I would like to put forth that those who were baptized as adults in the New Testament did not have the opportunity to be baptized as infants. It is indeed curious that the baptism of an infant is not explicitly mentioned, though implicitly there is still the baptism of the jailer and his household. Based on what we know about the enormous size of households back then, the probability of there being no children is very low.

It does appear that children are in some fashion included, but at the same time this does not necessarily necessitate that they be baptized.

It is indeed curious that the baptism of an infant is not explicitly mentioned, though implicitly there is still the baptism of the jailer and his household. Based on what we know about the enormous size of households back then, the probability of there being no children is very low.

It's a little tough to draw a definite conclusion from this all.

It is possible that there were children in the household, but it is also possible that there were no children in the household. There might have been infertility problems; I'd expect a comparatively high rate of infant mortality; the jailer might be too young for children or too old; what children there may have been might also have been given faith.

How do you fit in Acts 18:8, for example, where it says that Crispus's entire household believed?

These were also special times - just think of the story in Acts 20 where Eutychus is raised from the dead. Does Matthew 11:25 suggest that some of the miracles during Jesus's ministry - and perhaps carrying on as well throughout the apostles' ministry - were of faith offered to children?

It does appear that children are in some fashion included, but at the same time this does not necessarily necessitate that they be baptized.

Can you give a reason why they shouldn't be baptized? Unless you disagree that baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant, infants should definitely be baptized.

How do you fit in Acts 18:8, for example, where it says that Crispus's entire household believed?

Any children in his household believed, and most households had children. Although infant mortality was higher in those days, some survived or they would have died out.

Does Matthew 11:25 suggest that some of the miracles during Jesus's ministry - and perhaps carrying on as well throughout the apostles' ministry - were of faith offered to children?

I'm not even sure you can say that faith is something offered.

Can you give a reason why they shouldn't be baptized? Unless you disagree that baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant, infants should definitely be baptized.

I'm not too sure what exactly it does signify. I just wonder if trying to interprete baptism as a sign and seal of the covenant is too much of a stretch back to the circumcision of Old Testament times. Could baptism instead be something to follow repentance / public profession of faith? I can't see any reason not to adopt the second interpretation, and the more and more I think about it, the more and more I tend to the latter interpretation.

No command is recorded anywhere in the New Testament to baptize infants. The baptism of the jailer and his household is used as implicit evidence for infant baptism, but Acts 18:8 seems to negate some of that possibility.