Explaining Paedo-Baptism

[zsmcd]

I have been talking with an old pastor of mine about paedo-baptism (he is a Baptist) and he asked me a pretty interesting question. I would be interested to hear what everyone's answer would be.

"Say you were the Apostle Paul and you evangelized a gentile couple (with a baby) that had no biblical background at all. They believe in Christ for their salvation and you baptize them. How would you then methodically show them from the scriptures that they now were commanded to baptize their baby?"

 

[Deleted member 7239]

I would think that it is the same biblical explanation we would give people today. I'm sure Paul would be better at it though.

 

[Rom]

Not sure what the Apostle Paul has to do with this. We have the totality of Scripture at our disposal, so it strikes me as a rather fanciful question. The Apostle Paul was far more godly and brilliant than I, so I wouldn't try to argue the way he would, but he has left his own writings in Scripture for us.

The Apostle himself writes that the children of believers are holy and set apart -- 1 Corinthians 7:14. Jesus also commands us to baptize His disciples. As our children are to be raised in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, they are Christ's disciples.

Ask a Baptist sometime what faith their child belongs to -- they will say that their children are Christians. If the Baptist refuses to answer this way, ask his child what faith they are! And so, if they identify as disciples of the Lord, they are to be baptized as per our Lord's Command in the Great Commission. And if the parents do not intend to raise their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, then they are behaving wickedly. I believe Presbyterians and Baptists both agree on that much.

Then take them through the Bible and show them that Faithful Abraham circumcised his household (including Ishmael the child not of the promise). Circumcision being the covenant sign in the Old Covenant, as Baptism is the covenant sign of the New Covenant.

Following Abraham's example, Paul baptized households in the book of Acts. Paul also directly addresses children in the epistles (Ephesians 6, Colossians 3) showing that they were part of the covenant community and are to receive baptism, the sign of membership in the visible church. On and on and on. The Scripture is pretty clear.

 

[BGF]

It's impossible to evangelize with no biblical background. Paul would provide it. Your pastor friend is ignoring the first problem to get to the second. In Paul's day the Scriptures were what we call the Old Testament. There was no New Testament. So what's the OT rationale for the parents' baptism?

I do agree with Jesse. If the gentile parents would question it, the appeal would be to the sign of the covenant, which was circumcision in the OT, but now, by Christ's command, is baptism. The sign is applied to God's people and their children.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I take the question charitably, as offered in good faith. Instead of a "generic" Gentile couple, let us assign (for the sake of offering an answer) the identities of the Philippian Jailer, with his wife and child. I'm not asking the Baptist to accept a priori my take on the events of Act.16; but merely to put the hypothetical into something better than a purely imaginary scenario.

If, indeed, what happened that night was right in line with the hypothetical, we do not need (on one hand) to wonder what relevant matters were spoken, which led to such obedience as household baptism, including an infant. The text contains "the minimum" required.

*************************
But, perhaps we can imagine additional requests for reasoning from the Holy (OT) Scriptures--as has been mentioned they are the only Bible in existence--the way Paul might have explained himself.

Father Abraham--who according to Paul's gospel is the father of ALL the faithful, of Jews and of Gentiles--he was the first to be directed to mark as God's ownership his whole household (the ones who were capable of wearing the mark). "I will be God to you, and to your seed after you" (Gen.17:17).

We know the apostolic preaching--of which we have several epitomes in Acts--included references to the ancient promise (Act.13:32), phrasing that encompasses fully all the particulars of promise as they came to one patriarch and one OT saint after another across the sacred record. Peter in the first case of apostolic preaching makes explicit connection of the present conditions to the Abrahamic promise, Act.2:38-39.

The promise included the calling of the Gentiles, Gen.12:3; 17:4; Paul's preaching included references to such, as Act.13:47; cf. Is.49:6. Remember now, this is not replacement theology; but rather inclusion theology. The Gentiles are to be offered seats in the kingdom feast beside Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; see Mt.8:11-12. These are branches grafted on the Vine, Rom.11:17. The promise is given to believers, without respect (intrinsically) to heritage.

"The promise is to you, and to your children...," declares Peter in the NT context, echoing the original OT wording (and to the Gentiles "afar off"). And if Abraham's infant sons should also receive that sign, of the faith they should also exercise themselves (if they would be true sons); then so much more the sons--and daughters--capable of wearing the mark should wear it in the NT age. Since God had put such in his visible kingdom from the beginning, and nowhere ordained their exclusion or removal, then the same remain in his visible kingdom.

So far is the logic of infant-inclusion. Isaiah, in reference to the days of the New Covenant writes, 59:20-21, "And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the Lord. As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever;" and two vv along, 60:3, "And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising." It is hard to escape the observation that the OT envisions the future Spirit-age as including even "nursing daughters," v4.

*************************
Does Christ, by means of his servants, supervise a visible manifestation of his kingdom in this world? Does the NT age continue an administration of the Covenant of Grace by way of this-worldly signs and exercises? I know many Baptists refuse this admission. They say no, but only the Holy Spirit administers the (new) covenant by invisible workings. So, at this juncture I'm not sure if there is an appeal to the OT Scriptures, or the NT, that will persuade the convinced Baptist that the church is the embassy of the "far country" (Lk.20:9), a visible exhibit of the kingdom of God and its administration for saints on the way.

Baptism, we teach, says essentially the same thing that circumcision once declared; the differences though real are of a second-order. The sign is initiation into the life of discipleship. Neither sign has ever been effectual apart from faith in what is signified. Again, in distinction from the primary sense of (most) Baptists, we do not think of baptism first of all as man's witness unto God and man of his personal faith; but that baptism happens to a man, it is symbolically monergistic though it elicits the public witness in response, it is God's declaration: "I will save even this one, who believes in me."

Amen, so let it be.

 

[zsmcd]

This was my response:

Let me first tweak your example because I think 'pretending' to be Paul would create all sorts of different questions, i.e. he is able to write inspired Scripture.

But lets say that I was an elder at Timothy's church and this gentile family came to the faith with no biblical background, so Timothy is wanting me to educate and baptize them into the Church. There are numerous ways you could explain it to them, just as there are numerous ways to explain the Gospel. But I suppose I would first start off by telling them that "all Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness." That of course includes for us the NT , but Paul is specifically referring to the "sacred writings" that Timothy was taught from childhood - the Old Testament - and how those writings are sufficient for leading to salvation and training in righteousness. I could than show them how the OT anticipates the same covenantal standing of the children of believers in the coming New Testament era that has just broken through, with God continuing to be a God to our children.

I may than walk the family through redemptive history and show the way in which God had always promised his covenant people to be a God to them and their children. I'd talk about how this is a promise with a responsibility because it comes with the command for children to obey their parents in the Lord and the command for parents to pass on the faith to their children in humble expectation that God will write it on their hearts. I'd probably emphasis those things as being of first importance, and the application of water being secondary. I'd than show how Abraham was commanded to give the sign of circumcision (righteousness by faith, Romans 4) to his children and how those who have been baptized into Christ have been circumcised (Col 2). I would tell them of how Christ commanded his apostles to disciple all nations by baptizing and teaching them his commandments. I'd explain to them that by virtue of their child being under their federal headship (a saint and clean, 1 Cor 7), they have a duty to disciple them by baptizing them and teaching them to obey all that Christ has commanded. I'd explain to them how this sign brings with it the responsibility of faith on the part of the child and parents and how it outwardly ratifies their place in the covenant community, the Church.

Honestly though, I don't see any reason why someone with zero biblical knowledge (besides the very basic Gospel message that may have converted them) would feel any more 'uncomfortable' about having their children baptized than they would feel about being baptized themselves. In our own culture, baptism is weird and so is the idea of teaching your children that any religion is explicitly true. The only experience I have had with someone saying "why would you baptize your child, that doesn't make sense" is from those who have a Baptist background where they already have presuppositions that would make infant baptism nonsense to them. So if someone comes to the faith with absolutely no understanding of the bible, you are basically starting from scratch.

 

[Dachaser]

I have been talking with an old pastor of mine about paedo-baptism (he is a Baptist) and he asked me a pretty interesting question. I would be interested to hear what everyone's answer would be.

"Say you were the Apostle Paul and you evangelized a gentile couple (with a baby) that had no biblical background at all. They believe in Christ for their salvation and you baptize them. How would you then methodically show them from the scriptures that they now were commanded to baptize their baby?"

What would be the NT only justification for them to do such then?

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Honestly though, I don't see any reason why someone with zero biblical knowledge (besides the very basic Gospel message that may have converted them) would feel any more 'uncomfortable' about having their children baptized than they would feel about being baptized themselves. In our own culture, baptism is weird and so is the idea of teaching your children that any religion is explicitly true. The only experience I have had with someone saying "why would you baptize your child, that doesn't make sense" is from those who have a Baptist background where they already have presuppositions that would make infant baptism nonsense to them. So if someone comes to the faith with absolutely no understanding of the bible, you are basically starting from scratch.

I think this sounds about right. If as a brand new believer, with no credo baptistic assumptions, I read through the Pentateuch and then through the gospels and Acts I think I'd assume that the children of believers are to be baptized- a whole household is a whole household, there are no qualifiers in the accounts.

 

[Gforce9]

What would be the NT only justification for them to do such then?

David,
While we all agree that the ushering in of the New Covenant (revealed in word in the "New Testament") ushered in some change(s) (discontinuity), I think it would be an error to exclude the inspired, inerrant, and infallible Old Testament to help our understanding. In other words, the "New" is not in a vacuum. It is the fulfillment/further unveiling/revealing the "Old" and an understanding of the history of Redemption did not start in the "New". The Reformed witness the sign change, but that sign became more inclusive (women/girls), not less inclusive (removing children/babies).

To look only to the New Testament for all kinds of things, we would miss out on hundreds of years of God's self-revelation and His dealings with the saints of old and with the wicked.....all "God-breathed"......

 

[Dachaser]

David,
While we all agree that the ushering in of the New Covenant (revealed in word in the "New Testament") ushered in some change(s) (discontinuity), I think it would be an error to exclude the inspired, inerrant, and infallible Old Testament to help our understanding. In other words, the "New" is not in a vacuum. It is the fulfillment/further unveiling/revealing the "Old" and an understanding of the history of Redemption did not start in the "New". The Reformed witness the sign change, but that sign became more inclusive (women/girls), not less inclusive (removing children/babies).

To look only to the New Testament for all kinds of things, we would miss out on hundreds of years of God's self-revelation and His dealings with the saints of old and with the wicked.....all "God-breathed"......

I totally agree with you, as Paul stated that ALL scripture is inspired by God, so that would indeed have both testaments , but as a baptist, was just trying to see how you would answer the question posted by the fellow Baptist from just the NT scriptures themselves?

NOT saying anything regarding right/wrong way to Baptize, just how to answer from NT only?

 

[Deleted member 7239]

Paul wouldn't have had the completed pocket new testament canon at his disposal. And the truly inspired KJV bible didn't start printing until much later (just kidding) --

But seriously, Baptist or not, having to only use the New Testament is not really possible since it refers Old Testament concepts in practically every paragraph, especially when discussing covenant. For example, how would you explain this following verse without the use of the Old Testament, or why would you want to try?

"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. Col. 2 (ESV)

 

[MW]

What would be the NT only justification for them to do such then?

Household baptisms and the fact that every reference to children supposes their inclusion as part of the church.

Infants must be saved as well as adults, and baptism is a sign of salvation. Those who exclude infants must suppose they do not require salvation or are saved irrespective of means or that baptism itself is meaningless.

 

[zsmcd]

I totally agree with you, as Paul stated that ALL scripture is inspired by God, so that would indeed have both testaments , but as a baptist, was just trying to see how you would answere the question posted by the fellow Baptist from just the NT scriptures themselves?

NOT saying anything regarding right/wrong way to Baptize, just how to answer from NT only?

I think my friend was asking the opposite. If you were Paul and didn't have the NT canon at your disposal how would you show someone that their children should be baptized with them?

 

[BG]

Both sides of the argument should have to prove their point from the Old Testament.

Both sides should recognize that the old testament placed strict regulations upon what a prophet or even the Messiah could say.

Both sides should recognize the first century context in which these events took place.

When John the Baptist came on the scene the first thing a dedicated believer would Demand of John is that he justify this new ritual that he is asking them to participate in.
If John could not justify his actions from scripture he would be viewed as a false prophet and rightly so.
John could not simply ask the people to just take his word for it that the things he was preaching and teaching were true just because he claimed to be a profit.

A sharp gentile during the time of the apostles would ask the question what do the scriptures of the old testament say.

If the New Testament taught a radical disunity and discontinuity from the old testament no one in the early church would have accepted it.

Christ and the apostles had to prove their case from the Scriptures of the Old Testament. The New Testament writers labor long and hard to prove that there is not discontinuity between the two Testaments.

Gentiles during this time period would examine the Apostles teaching in light of the Old Testament Scriptures if they did not line up they would be rejected.


The baptism issue should always be viewed through the eyes of the recipients of the apostles teaching not through a modern context.

 

[Dachaser]

Household baptisms and the fact that every reference to children supposes their inclusion as part of the church.

Infants must be saved as well as adults, and baptism is a sign of salvation. Those who exclude infants must suppose they do not require salvation or are saved irrespective of means or that baptism itself is meaningless.

Would say that we would regard water Baptism as the sign that one has now become part of the body of Christ, the community of faith, but infants to us until they have reached the Age of Accountability would be seen as being under the Grace provided by God towards them at the Cross...

We would use that ordinance to support ones whom have official acknowledged that the Lord has saved them and granted them now eternal life.

I am still trying to understand why the infant is baptized, is that saying before the assembly that they are part of the church, and that still needs to be confirmed by them later on?

is that similar to when others have Confirmation done?

 

[Dachaser]

Paul wouldn't have had the completed pocket new testament canon at his disposal. And the truly inspired KJV bible didn't start printing until much later (just kidding) --

But seriously, Baptist or not, having to only use the New Testament is not really possible since it refers Old Testament concepts in practically every paragraph, especially when discussing covenant. For example, how would you explain this following verse without the use of the Old Testament, or why would you want to try?

"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. Col. 2 (ESV)

Would that be referring though to to water baptism, or to when the Holy Spirit baptizes us into the Body of Christ at conversion?

 

[BG]

If Christ and the apostles taught that children were no longer to be included in the covenant community of the new covenant they are contradicting the old testament and therefore should be viewed as false prophets.
Jesus did not come to throw the children out of the visible church.

The old testament very explicitly taught that in the new covenant children would be members. See Bruce's post for one example.

 

[BG]

Where in the Bible does it teach an age of accountability ?

 

[Dachaser]

Both sides of the argument should have to prove their point from the Old Testament.

Both sides should recognize that the old testament placed strict regulations upon what a prophet or even the Messiah could say.

Both sides should recognize the first century context in which these events took place.

When John the Baptist came on the scene the first thing a dedicated believer would Demand of John is that he justify this new ritual that he is asking them to participate in.
If John could not justify his actions from scripture he would be viewed as a false prophet and rightly so.
John could not simply ask the people to just take his word for it that the things he was preaching and teaching were true just because he claimed to be a profit.

A sharp gentile during the time of the apostles would ask the question what do the scriptures of the old testament say.

If the New Testament taught a radical disunity and discontinuity from the old testament no one in the early church would have accepted it.

Christ and the apostles had to prove their case from the Scriptures of the Old Testament. The New Testament writers labor long and hard to prove that there is not discontinuity between the two Testaments.

Gentiles during this time period would examine the Apostles teaching in light of the Old Testament Scriptures if they did not line up they would be rejected.


The baptism issue should always be viewed through the eyes of the recipients of the apostles teaching not through a modern context.

Ido not see this as being an argument, but more like a discussion among family!

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Would say that we would regard water Baptism as the sign that one has now become part of the body of Christ, the community of faith, but infants to us until they have reached the Age of Accountability would be seen as being under the Grace provided by God towards them at the Cross...

We would use that ordinance to support ones whom have official acknowledged that the Lord has saved them and granted them now eternal life.

I am still trying to understand why the infant is baptized, is that saying before the assembly that they are part of the church, and that still needs to be confirmed by them later on?

is that similar to when others have Confirmation done?

Moderator Note:
Please remember the stated rule of this particular paedo-baptism forum:
A place where only paedobaptists may answer questions posed to clarify the Confessional understanding of the Sacrament of Baptism.

If you want to advocate contrary to paedo-baptism please visit this forum:
https://www.puritanboard.com/forums/credo-baptism-answers.123/

Where the rule therein is:
A place where only Credo-Baptists may answer questions posed regarding the Confessional understanding of the Ordinance of Baptism.

Both forums are safe havens for answers to questions about their respective topics, not for debate of the topics. You have been given an answer. Do not take an answer given from a paedo-baptist and then obliquely argue to the contrary, e.g., "infants to us...etc". In other words, please carefully construct your questions such that they are not engendering debate when participating in either of these forums.

General discussions and debate concerning both views—according to the stated principles here—are permitted in the Baptism forum:
https://www.puritanboard.com/forums/baptism.57

Carry on.

 

[Deleted member 7239]

I think this sounds about right. If as a brand new believer, with no credo baptistic assumptions, I read through the Pentateuch and then through the gospels and Acts I think I'd assume that the children of believers are to be baptized- a whole household is a whole household, there are no qualifiers in the accounts.

I think she hit the nail on the head with this thought. If you only had the old testament at your disposal, realizing that the people of God were expanding from the people and place of Israel, it wouldn't make sense that children of believers would be excluded.

 

[Deleted member 7239]

Would that be referring though to to water baptism, or to when the Holy Spirit baptizes us into the Body of Christ at conversion?

"There is, in every sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other"

 

[Dachaser]

Moderator Note:
Please remember the stated rule of this particular paedo-baptism forum:
A place where only paedobaptists may answer questions posed to clarify the Confessional understanding of the Sacrament of Baptism.

If you want to advocate contrary to paedo-baptism please visit this forum:
https://www.puritanboard.com/forums/credo-baptism-answers.123/
Sorry about that, is it still permissable to ask questions as to how and why those holding to infant baptism would see that in the scriptures?
Where the rule therein is:
A place where only Credo-Baptists may answer questions posed regarding the Confessional understanding of the Ordinance of Baptism.

Both forums are safe havens for answers to questions about their respective topics, not for debate of the topics. You have been given an answer. Do not take an answer given from a paedo-baptist and then obliquely argue to the contrary, e.g., "infants to us...etc". In other words, please carefully construct your questions such that they are not engendering debate when participating in either of these forums.

General discussions and debate concerning both views—according to the stated principles here—are permitted in the Baptism forum:
https://www.puritanboard.com/forums/baptism.57

Carry on.

Sorry about that, as I did not not see that there was a separate board for both sides to discuss this issue!

 

[brendanchatt]

If anyone becomes a Christian I think they'd care about their kids being saved. I'd say this is how God shows he cares about that.
I would use many of the scriptures referenced in the thread.

I don't see why a grateful couple would oppose their child's promised covenant participation. In fact, they'd probably tell all their unbelieving friends how great it is.

 

[zsmcd]

If Christ and the apostles taught that children were no longer to be included in the covenant community of the new covenant they are contradicting the old testament and therefore should be viewed as false prophets.

Not pulling any punches, huh?