# Thoughts on Infant Baptism



## Kaalvenist (Sep 1, 2006)

I just posted this on my blog today... thought I might get some good feedback here.


I leave you with a couple thoughts on the subject of infant baptism, which I have been examining for the last couple months.

1. The first concerns Acts 2:38, 39: "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."

(a.) Against the claims of Reformed Baptists, I cannot help but consider this passage to be a virtual republication of the covenant made with Abraham: that the promise, or covenant, "is unto you, and to your children" (corresponding to Genesis 17:7, "And I will establish my covenant *with thee and thy seed after thee* in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God *unto thee, and to thy seed after thee*"); "and to all that are afar off" (corresponding to Genesis 12:3, "And in thee shall *all families of the earth* be blessed"; cf. Genesis 17:4, "As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be *a father of many nations*").

(b.) Reformed Baptists usually maintain that the last phrase refers to effectual calling, and is therefore a limitation placed upon the preceding categories of people; and that therefore it does not respect the children of the hearers, in their capacity as children, but only as they are effectually called (which would be demonstrated by a credible profession of faith). This construction of the passage seems to be forced, for the following reasons: (1.) Verse 39 is presented as an argument or motive why Peter's hearers should repent and be baptized. What kind of argument is it to tell people that they should repent, because only the elect and regenerate will do so? How does the one naturally and logically follow from the other? (2.) It seems more natural to suppose that this refers to the outward call of the gospel: that "the promise (that is, the gospel offer) is unto you (to whom it is preached, and to whom it was just preached in Peter's preceding sermon), and (in you) to your children (whom you represent), and to all that are afar off (when the gospel will be preached to them as well), even as many as the Lord our God shall call (outwardly by the preaching of the gospel)."

(c.) Here we have Peter preaching the very first apostolic, New Covenant sermon ever preached. When the Jews begged of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" he responded, "Repent, and be baptized... For the promise is unto you, and to your children." We tend to think of these words in terms of modern-day, twenty-first century Reformed polemics; consider his audience for just a moment. He was addressing a large company of Jews and Jewish proselytes (Acts 2:8-11) -- men who were actually in the Abrahamic covenant, togther with their children. The men to whom he spoke these words had their children in covenant with God at that very moment; although some may question whether the particular "household baptisms" mentioned in the New Testament included infants, I hope that no one will suggest that not one person in an assembly of Jews that produced three thousand converts (Acts 2:41) had any infant children. So Peter says to them, "The promise is unto you, and to your children." What would they think? How would they understand such terminology? Is it not highly suggestive of continuing the practice of the covenant inclusion of children in which they were presently engaged? Again, this is the first New Covenant sermon, where Reformed Baptists posit a vast change in the constitution of the church, or the members of the covenant. If Peter was, by these words, trying to tell these Jews and Jewish proselytes that the New Covenant is only open to believers, and that their children are positively excluded and cast out of the covenant; then all I can say is that he used some very funny language to express it.

2. The second concerns the idea of the inclusion of children in covenants in general, and not just in the covenant of grace particularly (or in the Abrahamic or New Covenant expressions of the covenant of grace even more particularly). Because we are getting more general in our examination, it is necessary that we get a little more general in our definitions; so I will define the more basic or general position as "covenanters and their children or seed" (rather than the more particular "believers and their infant children or seed"). In this case, by "covenanters" I mean those that knowingly and consciously enter into covenant with God.

(a.) As Reformed believers, we maintain the abiding validity of the Sabbath (and no, I'm not getting off-topic; trust me on this). Par of our argument for this rests in the fact that the Sabbath is a creation ordinance, dating from Genesis 2:1-3. But the real argument is not just the idea that it is a creation ordinance; it is the fact that, because it is a creation ordinance, the Sabbath was given to man *prior to his fall.* Because ceremonial laws were only given after the fall of man into sin, in order to typify redemption, and point the way to Christ, this means that the Sabbath cannot be intrinsically ceremonial; it must be essentially moral, and part of the moral and perpetual law of God, although certain aspects of it may become ceremonial (such as its association with the seventh day of the week).

(b.) But I assert that two covenants existed prior to the fall, and both were made with "covenanters and their children or seed."

(1.) The more well-known of these is the covenant of works, made by God with Adam and his children or seed (that is, all of humanity). In this covenant, Adam was the one who properly covenanted with God; and by doing so, he represented all humanity. Had he kept the covenant of works, his seed would have reaped the benefit and received the blessing with him; but because of his sin, his seed inherited the curse together with him. This covenant was plainly before the fall (indeed, it is the breach of this already-established covenant which we call the fall), and therefore prior to all ceremonies, all types of redemption by Christ; so that the principle of "covenanters and their children or seed" is not typical, and could not have been done away with or abrogated under the New Testament.

(2.) The other covenant preceding the covenant of grace, the fall of man, and all types and ceremonies, is what is commonly known as the covenant of redemption. This covenant was made in eternity past between God the Father and God the Son, considered as the Mediator or God-Man, in which the Father gave the elect to the Son, for Him to work out their perfect and full redemption. The covenant of grace is the external outworking or application of the covenant of redemption, in actual space and time; as God has His elect who are brought to faith by the Spirit using the preaching of the Word, so also God has established a covenant of grace for the elect, and they are brought to experience that salvation by the external means of grace in the covenant of grace.

This covenant of redemption is recognized by Reformed Baptists in the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689): "This covenant (the covenant of grace) is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by father steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament; *and it is founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect;* and it is alone by the grace of this covenant that all the posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and blessed immortality, man being now utterly incapable of acceptance with God upon those terms on which Adam stood in his state of innocency" (Second London Baptist Confession, 7:3).

As was indicated before, in this covenant Christ represented the elect. The interesting thing is that Scripture frequently refers to the elect in this capacity as His children or seed. As the Westminster Larger Catechism says (Q. 31), "The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed." It should be noted that here, by "the covenant of grace," is understood the covenant of grace in its eternal aspect (which theologians usually call the covenant of redemption). Hebrews 2:12 represents Christ as saying, "Behold, I and the children which God hath given me" (cf. Isa. 8:18). In perhaps the most well-known prophecy of the person and sufferings of Christ occurring in the Old Testament, Isaiah 53, we read concerning those for whom He died, "When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand" (v. 10). Probably the most extended treatment of this comes in Psalm 89:28-37. Reading through verses 19-27 makes it very clear that this Person is quite more than merely "David" (v. 20), but must in fact be the Son of David, our Lord. "Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth. My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him. His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven" (vs. 27-29). Note also how this last passage explicitly ties the concept of Christ's "seed" who He represents to His covenant with the Father. These passages make it quite clear that, when Christ entered into covenant with His Father in eternity past, representing His elect people, that they are properly called His "children" or "seed."

This actually presents a much stronger argument than the argument from the covenant of works. The covenant of works was established before the covenant of grace and the ceremonies and types, but it was still established in time. But the covenant of redemption was established in eternity past, before there was a creation. In other words, the principle of "covenanters and their children or seed" being in covenant is not only prior to the types and ceremonies of the old dispensation of the covenant of grace; it is a principle which has, very literally, *ALWAYS* existed; which means that there is no reason to suppose that it will not continue to *ALWAYS* exist.


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 1, 2006)

Sean, I'll try to give your post some time tomorrow. I'll post my thoughts. 

I'll leave you with this. I believe I have both bases covered. I was baptized Roman Catholic when I was an infant and then I got baptized when I was born again as an adult.


----------



## Kaalvenist (Sep 4, 2006)

Anybody planning on responding? Brian?


----------



## SRoper (Sep 4, 2006)

I like point 1, especially point 1c. Point 2 is too technical for me to comment on.


----------



## Arch2k (Sep 4, 2006)

[Moderator] Thread split to stay on topic. See new thread entitled How are women included in the old covenant under circumcision?. [/Moderator]


----------



## Larry Hughes (Sep 4, 2006)

Technically speaking, Brian, one's second baptism would be utterly false because there is no second baptism. Again a crucial point that reformed and lutherans differ from R. baptist on.

In order to "validate it" you must:

1. Admit first that baptism is based upon "faith" itself, the receiving instrument of the Gospel.
2. It points, signifies, to faith and not Christ and His Cross, the Gospel.
2. That it is not based upon the Gospel and Promise of God.
3. Baptism is man's work and not God's.

Else one NEVER has a valid reason for "rebaptizing".

Technically speaking a church could accept a Roman Catholic baptism because it is still rooted in the Trinity, the name of God and so given, while a second or rebaptism is always invalid because it is in that view throwing off the Gospel of the first real and only baptism.

Baptism given in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is never to be repeated. This is why Paul says "one baptism, one faith and one Lord".

L


----------



## Larry Hughes (Sep 6, 2006)

Brian,

It struck me upon reflection driving to go out of town yesterday that my post could have perhaps been taken wrong by yourself (I dealt with this issue with my wife, multiple baptisms). The LAST thing I want to do is burden your conscience with more legal items. My goal was to set for the Gospel to you in your baptism and strengthen your faith, NOT hinder it. Forgive me if I failed. 

What you should see a be strengthened by is that God acted EVEN through the Roman church when you were an infant and baptized you. THAT should strengthen your faith, hence the second baptism would be "œfalse".

It is very revealing, often times, the way we speak. For example when you said "œI´m covered either way". It reveals that we still think of baptism as our work rather than God´s, that´s why we say such things. E.g. I use to think when I was wrestling with this issue regarding baptism (infants and such), I use to tell my wife, "œWell, the Baptist can never say anything about my own baptism because I was immersed as an adult, even if I switch over to Reformed or Lutheran." But that revealed an error still in my own concept of baptism, being my or man´s work, "œthe getting it right syndrome". In the case of my wife it was 3 rebaptisms.

But once we did switch and have our children baptized my wife had finally asked me, "œWhich baptism of mine was correct?" She had 4 total starting at 8 years of age, all immersions in various Baptist/S. Baptist churches. I explained to her that her first one was because it was God´s work. If given in the name of the Holy Trinity, then it was God´s grace upon her and her "œfaith" being present or "œfruit" was irrelevant. That she should repent of the last ones, Gospel repentance NOT legal repentance, and joyously thank God for His generous grace and faithfulness to His own sign and seal.

The point being when we say something or think something of the form, "œDid I get it right (all of this assumes a Trinitarian baptism, the name of God)" we are manifestly revealing how we think of baptism, as a work. That´s why some RE do it, after all if its man´s or emphasizing man´s faith and so forth "œOne has to get the work right." It reveals its "œlegal" view even if denied explicitly "“ as James says our works reveal the type of faith we have. The work of rebaptism reveals that the faith behind it is works-righteousness even if explicitly denied.

Thus, if we´ve had "œrebaptisms" we should, once understood how gracious God was to us, look back at the baptism that was HIS work and be thankful. Thus, you will NEVER have to listen to Satan threaten you again and can say, "œNO, Satan you are a liar, I am baptized and God has promised to deliver me from you, myself and the world "“ even if in my sin a struggle greatly THIS day."

When one views baptism, against Scripture, primarily as one´s own work or one´s own possession of faith or pointing to faith itself some how assessed by imperfect secondary causes (works/evidence), then one will always have doubts. It may not be until much later when one sins so great as to shock even one´s self (maybe king David or Peter) such that one says, "œhow can a reborn/elect Christian do such a thing", the Devil will ride you conscience. Sometimes to the point of yet another false baptism. Therein lay the difference in the baptistic view: the reformed/Lutheran would then appeal to their baptism, not as their work, but as God´s work and God´s promise in THE FACE of one´s sin and struggle, in the face of the Devil´s accusations and the worlds. Baptism to them is a Sword of the Spirit to them because it goes back to God´s promise, the Gospel, FOR ME"¦NOT my work but God´s. There´s the difference. So, that when they appeal to their baptism they are not saying, "œBecause I´ve done this work of baptism I´ve done a meritorious thing that saves me." Rather because God has promised and given His Gospel to me in my specific baptism and I TRUST IN HIM, in spite of myself, the Devil and the world. THAT is the very definition of saving faith and it is linked back through one´s own baptism. Note how the Apostle Paul is not afraid to encourage the people´s faith NUMEROUS times in his letters by linking it back through their physical baptisms. That´s very very different than the Baptist who would NEVER trust in his baptism unless he could link it to some "œevidence" or "œexperience" first. Evidences and experiences are at best secondary causes and can all be faked and all be poisoned by the sin nature such that they can NEVER be fully trusted in. This is why the faith must find its certain assurance IN the objective Cross, the Gospel and FOR ME, the Gospel in Baptism and the Holy Supper. That´s the whole purpose for a sacrament, its OUTSIDE of me, just like the entire Gospel, objective to me but FOR ME so that I can be ASSURED of the promise of God.

The Baptist thinks wrongly when he assesses that the Reformed or Lutherans trust in their baptism "œbecause they did it". Oh no, we can trust in it because God has done it "“ and such trusting in God doing it IS saving faith. If you trust the promise of God, the Gospel both directly and through the sacraments FOR YOU then THAT IS saving faith. No one is trusting in the work itself or some "œmagic" in the water during the ceremony, but the promise linked to it. Like a promissory note, a check that I right you "“ its based on my ability to deliver not your faith to receive it!

One can see show this in part of the Baptist view of the Lord´s Table. Baptist paradigm would agree with reformed paradigm that a person can eat and drink the Lord´s Supper unto condemnation. How is that so? Because the Lord´s Table is not based upon the real possession of faith to BE the Lord´s Table. It feeds the faith of the faithful and condemns the hypocrite because it is REAL either way and by either one taking it. If it were based upon faith to "œBE REAL", much like the baptistic understanding of baptism, then it (the Lord´s Supper) could never condemn a hypocrite. Because if one took it without faith, then it simply would be invalid to THAT faithless receiver. This is a divide between the two sacraments that baptistic paradigm has. Its always a real Lord´s Supper regardless of who takes it, yet baptism is only really real the first time when faith really pre-exists it, thus rebaptisms (the Baptist would call "œrebaptisms" first baptisms because of this idea).

But I had hoped to strengthen your faith in your first and only real baptism because it was from God. As Luther once said, "œOne can receive the bread and wine from the devil´s steaming claw", so powerful is God´s sacraments empowered by His Word of Gospel.

Grace and peace in Christ alone,

Ldh


----------

