Infant Baptism - Prolegomena

The subject of infant baptism has suddenly become hot on several blogs.

Dead Man Blogging did a post on assurance of salvation that bled into a discussion on infant baptism in the comments.

Jared is wrestling with the issue at Mysterium Tremendum.

Discoshaman posts about the subject here.

The residents of Half-Pint House are frustrated with the whole subject.

And Adrian Warnock has thrown down a gauntlet to us baby-sprinklers.

Well, far be it from me to allow a thrown gauntlet to go un-seized.  Looks like this will be a good chance for me and my buddy Adrian to get into another one of our debates.

Before tackling the subject head-on I want to look at the process by which the doctrine of infant baptism has been derived.  And, I want to emphasize that I am stating the Presbyterian position on infant baptism.  I can't speak for others who practice infant baptism, because there are others who practice it for different reasons than we presies do and who got to their beliefes via a different road.

An apology for our methodology

At the outset I will admit that our practice of infant baptism is a theologically derived doctrine that is justified as a deduction that is a "good and necessary consequence" from Scripture.  The Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 1, paragraph 6 says:

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture:

This admission, in and of itself, will be enough for many to damn the doctrine.  Since I admit that there is no explicit passage of Scripture that enjoins our practice  of infant baptism, that will settle the case for many.  Adrian quoted a guy who practices infant baptism yet admits that it can not be proven from the New Testament.  This gentleman quotes some famous people who have practiced infant baptism and Adrian responds:

As much as I love the men of God cited, if its not in the bible its not for me.

If that's the case I'm wasting my breath and we presbyterians have, for hundreds of years, engaged in a practice which is unnecessary at best and harmful at worst. 

Yet I submit for your consideration that the same arguments can be raised for basically any doctrine we believe.  Those who practice believers baptism only will argue that the New Testament is so explicit in arguing for believers baptism that no amount of "good and necessary consequence," can overcome that which is "expressly set down in Scripture."

But these folks are not consistent.  Using the same rationale, the Muslims conclude that Christians are polytheists because the New Testament explicitly states that the Father is God, Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God.  We demur on this because Deuteronomy 6:4 explicitly says that God is one.  So, through a proces of deduction we collate all of the Scriptures on this matter and arrive at a good and necessary consequence we call the Trinity. 

By the way, in the whole infant baptism debate we paedobaptists are often faulted for relying so heavily on the Old Testament, but we rely pretty heavily on the Old Testament in our formulation of the Trinity also.  It is true that the New Testament affirms that God is one, but usually when this phrase is used in the New Testament, it is simply a quotation of the Old.   Thus, I think we ought to be careful about faulting those who rely heavily on the Old Testament in formulating their theology.

Similarly, the New Testament is quite explicit in stating that salvation is "not by faith alone" (James 2:24).  Yet,  I am quite sure that neither Adrian, nor any Baptist is going to allow that one verse of Scripture, no matter how explicit and clear it is, to stand alone when they begin to talk about the doctrine of justification. 

As my old prof Richard Pratt once said, if you go before the presbytery and they ask you what you believe about the doctrine of justification of faith, you can say "I believe that we are saved by works, and not by faith alone."  If you do so, you will be quoting a Scripture verse, but you will not be accurately summarizing the biblical teaching on justification.  And if you quote such a thing at presbytery, a trap door will open and you will descend into Hades amidst great weeping and gnashing of teeth.

We protestants, who place doctrines like the Trinity and justification by grace at the center of our faith, derive those central doctrines through a process of good and necessary consequence.  And often, our doctrinal statements sound contrary to particular statements of Scripture.  Yet, I am arguing that this is a good thing - it is the process by which we use the whole of Scripture to derive any particular element of doctrine.

So, my point in all of this is that the doctrine of infant baptism is often ruled out of order because of the methodology by which it is derived.  Because it is not expressly set down in the New Testament, it is ruled out of order.  Yet, if infant baptism is to be denied solely on those grounds, then there are many other doctrines which ought to be denied.  Further, the fact that the doctrine of infant baptism depends largely on the Old Testament for its justification does not weaken it.

Of course it may be the case that the doctrine of infant baptism is an imaginary consequence which is neither a good nor a necessary deduction from the Scriptures.  And it is to to this matter that I will turn in my next post.

Comments

[Mike]

David:

I am neither Reformed nor a baby baptizer, so I really don't have a dog in this fight. But, of course, that's never stopped me in the past from saying something and won't now, either.

Re the practice itself: I've read several Reformed theologies and defenses of infant baptism (exegetical papers in sem on the ordinances of the church). I don't agree with the need for it, but I understand the reasoning behind it. I certainly don't see any harm in it when a church also teaches (as Reformed churches do) that personal salvation remains necessary when the child is older.

Re reliance on the OT: the church would do well to rely on the OT more. Although Marcion was declared a heretic, his rejection of the OT and Judaism still affects us. The OT was the Bible Jesus and Paul read, knew, and loved; as Young notes, they were both Jewish theologians. So a dependence - even a heavy dependence - on the OT is not significant at all. The NT does not do away with the OT; the NT properly interprets the OT and thus fulfills it.

I'm looking forward to your posts.

[David Mobley]

(Caveat: I'm on Adrian's side of this one).
I have an objection to your analogy about the Trinity. You point out we know that the Bible doesn't teach polytheism because the Old Testament says "God is one"; taken together with the New Testament, which talks about the three persons of God, we know that God is one in being, yet three persons.
I don't think that's a fair analogy (or at least, you need to prove that it is). Here's why: Both passages speak explicitly about God. From Deuteronomy, we learn that God is one; from the New Testament, we learn about his three persons.
On the other hand, I don't think the same thing holds true for baptism. The passages in the OT which are often cited in its support deal with circumcision; if you want to say they apply to baptism, it seems to me you need to show from Scripture that indeed they do (if you want to win the debate).

Let me put this another way: I don't think Adrian is suggesting that we throw out anything that is not explicitly stated in a single verse of Scripture -- just that doctrines which are not taught by Scripture (taken as a whole) aren't things he's interested in. And I'm sure you'd agree with this.

Back to the analogy: The doctrine of our triune God, while not stated explicitly in a single verse, is something all of us in the reformed tradition agree on, because it's something taught clearly by Scripture, and we all know that. If anyone disagrees, we can prove him/her wrong from Scripture. I think what Adrian's saying -- and I'd certainly agree -- is that if you can prove to us from Scripture that infant baptism is the way to go, we'll believe it. But I don't see any Biblical warrant for it, New or Old Testament. I think that's what he meant by his remark about "if its not in the bible its not for me".

Suppose I started going around telling people, "Christians must take a vow to never again watch a movie in order to be part of the church..." Surely you would disagree, and precisely for the same reason as Adrian: There's no such prescription in the Bible, and while it may be true that some Christians ought not to go see movies, my statement is certainly going too far.

[Stephen]

David,
When I read your heading "An apology..." I was looking forward to a robust defence of the doctrine. Instead you seems to be apologising for it! Can I suggest a couple of things?

1) First, that you read the interesting articles by C. Matthew McMahon at A Puritan's Mind (http://www.apuritansmind.com/) beginning with his retraction (http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/MyRetraction.htm) of his Baptist convictions. As an ardent defender of the Baptist view he has undergone a pretty root-and-branch conversion to paedobaptist position. He has a whole string of connected articles where he argues against his own previous position! In doing so he has also highlighted that fact that paedobaptists' arguments are weak because they assume that they are "by good and necessary inference" and not exegetical. It has been a real eye-opener for me to my own weak arguments and is well worth investigating. I fear your post has fallen into this same trap.

2) As McMahon does, you should begin with Covenant Theology, understand it (and I mean exegetically - it will be a long process!) and then ask the question, "Given that every other adminstration of the Covenant of Grace included infants, what is the warrant for the change to the exclusion of children in this administration, the "new" covenant?" The trick for the Baptist is to answer this without subtly importing dispensationalist thinking.

FWIW!

S.

[David Wayne]

Stephen - thanks for the links - I'll be sure and highlight them in an upcoming post.
Don't forget that this first post was an apology for the methodology used to derive the doctrine, not an apology for the doctrine itself.
What I was hoping to do, albeit I may have done so badly, was to show that the process of deduction by which we arrive at the good and necessary consequence of infant baptism is a valid process. This was designed to address those arguments that say "infant baptism isn't explicitly taught in the NT."
I already have a nearly completed post on the covenantal underpinnings of infant baptism that may be up tonight or at least by tomorrow.

[anselm]

What a gracious opening! I have found few who note upfront what you do in regards to the issue, that infant baptism is a derived doctrine. This makes it much easier to listen to your arguements. Much of Theology (all perhaps) is this way. While I do not think the Trinity is an equivalent example, I think it adequate to understand the point.

Personally, my problem with infant baptism is not so much the practice of it per se, but the false sense of salvation it might impart. When words accompany the baptism to the effect that the infant is now part of the family of God I see a big problem. When asked about this a battle of semantics usually follows. But the normal understanding of being a member of the family of God is surely that this person is now regenerate.

[Chuck Sowers]

Did Martin Luther have it wrong on Infant baptism? Was Catholicism holding on to him? DID YOU KNOW? Martin Luther seems to have never shaken the grave clothes of infant baptism (Opinion of course) He even wrote a small book entitled The Small Baptismal Book, aptly named. He wrote it in 1526, and at an infant baptism, this is the prayer that he designed to be prayed…You bring your baby to be baptized and this is the prayer: Oh Lord Almighty, """""I invoke Thee concerning this child, thy servant who asks for the gift of thy baptism and desires thy grace through the spiritual new birth""""" All of a sudden, this child is a servant of God who desires grace and new birth, even though this is a totally unconscious infant in the sense of knowing anything at all about anything. Receive him, """""O Lord, and thus extend, now, the good to him who knocks, that he may obtain the eternal blessing of this heavenly bath, and receive the promise kingdom of thy gift, through Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen.""""" And then, in Luther’s ceremony, the infant is asked, """"""Doest thou renounce the devil and all his works and nature?" The parents answer, "Yes." "Doest thou believe in God the Father, in Jesus Christ, His Son, in the Holy Spirit, and the one Christian Church?" These were asked of the infant—the parents say, "Yes."""""" The child is then baptized, and then the concluding prayer: """""The Almighty God hath begotten thee anew, through water and the Holy Spirit, and has forgiven thee all thy sins. Amen.""""" ALERT! That sounds to me like Infant salvation, through water? Something doesnt match up here. ---------------------------------------------------The Major Question Is infant baptism scriptural? ------------------------------------------------ The answer is “NO,” but some might debate [you think?]. 1.There are many places in the Bible that say that an entire “household” believed and was baptized. The key is that the Bible says that the families believed and then were baptized. 2.Colossians 2:11 distinguishes between the two types of circumcision,“In him, you were also circumcised, with the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men, but with the circumcision done by Christ...” The next verse describes that once a believer is regenerate, or spiritually circumcised, they will be baptized. This does not support being baptized as an infant by any means. In fact, it says that baptism comes after belief (Look at both Vs 12 and 13). ------------------------------------------------ PS - not EVERY Theologian and/or Puritan agrees (or agreed) on that passage interpretation. The reformation pulled itself away from Catholicism but some things were tougher to shed than others as evidenced by Luther himself. Chuck Sowers