The Polemics of Infant Baptism

The question of the Subjects of Baptism is one of that class of problems the solution of which hangs upon a previous question. According as is our doctrine of the Church, so will be our doctrine of the Subjects of Baptism. If we believe, with the Church of Rome, that the Church is in such a sense the institute of salvation that none are united to Christ save through the instrumentality of her ordinances, then we shall inevitably determine the proper subjects of her ordinances in one way. If, on the other hand, we believe, with the Protestant bodies, that only those already united to Christ have right within His house and to its privileges, we shall inevitably determine them in another way. All Protestants should easily agree that only Christ’s children have a right to the ordinance of baptism. The cleavage in their ranks enters in only when we inquire how the external Church is to hold itself relatively to the recognition of the children of Christ. If we say that its attitude should be as exclusive as possible, and that it must receive as the children of Christ only those whom it is forced to recognize as such, then we shall inevitably narrow the circle of the subjects of baptism to the lowest limits. If, on the other hand, we say that its attitude should be as inclusive as possible, and that it should receive as the children of Christ all whom, in the judgment of charity, it may fairly recognize as such, then we shall naturally widen the circle of the subjects of baptism to far more ample limits. The former represents, broadly speaking, the Puritan idea of the Church, the latter the general Protestant doctrine. It is on the basis of the Puritan conception of the Church that the Baptists are led to exclude infants from baptism. For, if we are to demand anything like demonstrative evidence of actual participation in Christ before we baptize, no infant, who by reason of years is incapable of affording signs of his union with Christ, can be thought a proper subject of the rite.

The vice of this system, however, is that it attempts the impossible. No man can read the heart. As a consequence, it follows that no one, however rich his manifestation of Christian graces, is baptized on the basis of infallible knowledge of his relation to Christ. All baptism is inevitably administered on the basis not of knowledge but of presumption. And if we must baptize on presumption, the whole principle is yielded; and it would seem that we must baptize all whom we may fairly presume to be members of Christ’s body. In this state of the case, it is surely impracticable to assert that there can be but one ground on which a fair presumption of inclusion in Christ’s body can be erected, namely, personal profession of faith. Assuredly a human profession is no more solid basis to build upon than a divine promise. So soon, therefore, as it is fairly apprehended that we baptize on presumption and not on knowledge, it is inevitable that we shall baptize all those for whom we may, on any grounds, fairly cherish a good presumption that they belong to God’s people — and this surely includes the infant children of believers, concerning the favor of God to whom there exist many precious promises on which pious parents, Baptists as fully as others, rest in devout faith.

To this solid proof of the rightful inclusion of the infant children of believers among the subjects of baptism, is added the unavoidable implication of the continuity of the Church of God, as it is taught in the Scriptures, from its beginning to its consummation; and of the undeniable inclusion within the bounds of this Church, in its pre-Christian form, as participants of its privileges, inclusive of the parallel rite of circumcision, of the infant children of the flock, with no subsequent hint of their exclusion. To this is added further the historical evidence of the prevalence in the Christian Church of the custom of baptizing the infant children of believers, from the earliest Christian ages down to to-day. The manner in which it is dealt with by Augustine and the Pelagians in their controversy, by Cyprian in his letter to Fidus, by Tertullian in his treatise on baptism, leaves no room for doubt that it was, at the time when each of these writers wrote, as universal and unquestioned a practice among Christians at large as it is to-day — while, wherever it was objected to, the objection seems to have rested on one or the other of two contrary errors, either on an overestimate of the effects of baptism or on an underestimate of the need of salvation for infants.

On such lines as these a convincing positive argument is capable of being set forth for infant baptism, to the support of which whatever obscure allusions to it may be found in the New Testament itself may then be summoned. And on these lines the argument has ordinarily been very successfully conducted, as may be seen by consulting the treatment of the subject in any of our standard works on systematic theology, as for example Dr. Charles Hodge’s.² It has occurred to me that additional support might be brought to the conclusions thus positively attained by observing the insufficiency of the case against infant baptism as argued by the best furnished opponents of that practice. There would seem no better way to exhibit this insufficiency than to subject the presentation of the arguments against infant baptism, as set forth by some confessedly important representative of its opponents, to a running analysis. I have selected for the purpose the statement given in Dr. A. H. Strong’s “Systematic Theology.”³ What that eminently well-informed and judicious writer does not urge against infant baptism may well be believed to be confessedly of small comparative weight as an argument against the doctrine and practice. So that if we do not find the arguments he urges conclusive, we may well be content with the position we already occupy.

Dr. Strong opens the topic, “The Subjects of Baptism,”⁴ with the statement that “the proper subjects of baptism are those only who give credible evidence that they have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit, — or, in other words, have entered by faith into the communion of Christ’s death and resurrection “— a statement which if, like the ordinary language of the Scriptures, it is intended to have reference only to the adults to whom it is addressed, would be sufficiently unexceptionable; but which the “only” advertises us to suspect to be more inclusive in its purpose. This statement is followed at once by the organized “proof that only persons giving evidence of being regenerated are proper subjects of baptism.” This proof is derived:

Each of these items is supported by Scripture texts, though some of them are no doubt sufficiently inapposite. As, for example, when only John iii. 5 and Rom. vi. 13— neither of which has anything to do with the visible Church — are quoted to prove that the visible Church (of which baptism is an ordinance) is “a company of regenerate persons”; or as when Matt. xxviii. 19 is quoted to prove that baptism took place after the discipling, as if the words ran maqhteujsante" baptijzete, whereas the passage, actually standing maqhteujsate baptijzonte", merely demands that the discipling shall be consummated in, shall be performed by means of baptism; or as when Acts x. 47, where the fact that the extraordinary power of the Holy Spirit had come upon Cornelius is pleaded as reason why baptism should not be withheld from him,⁵and Rom. vi. 2—5, which only develops the spiritual implication of baptism, are made to serve as proofs that the symbolism of the ordinance declares always and constantly a “previous” spiritual change. Apart from the Scriptural evidence actually brought forward, moreover, the propositions, in the extreme form in which they are stated, cannot be supported by Scripture. The Scriptures do not teach that the external Church is a company of regenerate persons — the parable of the tares for example declares the opposite: though they represent that Church as the company of those who are presumably regenerate. They do not declare that baptism demonstrates a “previous” change — the case of Simon Magus, Acts viii. 13, is enough to exhibit the contrary: though they represent the rite as symbolical of the inner cleansing presumed to be already present, and consequently as administered only on profession of faith.

The main difficulty with Dr. Strong’s argument, however, is the illegitimate use it makes of the occasional character of the New Testament declarations. He is writing a “Systematic Theology” and is therefore striving to embrace the whole truth in his statements: he says therefore with conscious reference to infants, whose case he is soon to treat, “Those only are to be baptized who have previously repented and believed,” and the like. But the passages he quotes in support of this position are not drawn from a “Systematic Theology” but from direct practical appeals to quite definite audiences, consisting only of adults; or from narratives of what took place as the result of such appeals. Because Peter told the men that stood about him at Pentecost, “Repent ye and be baptized,” it does not follow that baptism might not have been administered by the same Peter to the infants of those repentant sinners previous to the infants’ own repentance. Because Philip baptized the converts of Samaria only after they had believed, it does not follow that he would not baptize their infants until they had grown old enough to repeat their parents’ faith, that they might, like them, receive its sign.

The assertion contained in the first proof is, therefore, a non sequitur from the texts offered in support of it. There is a suppressed premise necessary to be supplied before the assumed conclusion follows from them, and that premise is that the visible Church consists of believers only without inclusion of their children — that Peter meant nothing on that day of Pentecost when he added to the words which Dr. Strong quotes: “Repent ye and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins” — those other words which Dr. Strong does not quote: “For to you is the promise and to your children” (Acts ii. 38, 39). This suppressed premise Dr. Strong adjoins in the second item of proof which he adduces; but we must observe that it is not a second item, but a necessary element in the first item which without it is invalid. In a word, when we correct the Scripture he adduces and the illegitimate use he makes of Scripture, Dr. Strong’s whole argument reduces to the one item of the “nature of the Church, as a company of regenerate persons.” It is only on the ground that this is the true idea of the Church that the passages quoted to prove that baptism is to be administered “only” to such as have previously repented and believed, and those quoted to prove that the symbolism of the ordinance declares a “previous” spiritual change in him who submits to it, will justify the “only “ and “previous” in which lies their point. The validity of the proof he offers thus depends on the truth of the assertion that the Church consists of regenerate persons; and whether this be true or not we need not here stay to examine: certainly the texts he adduces in proof of it, as already intimated, make no approach to establishing it. We rest securely in the result that according to Dr. Strong’s argument as well as our own conviction, the subjects of baptism are the members of the visible Church: and who those are, will certainly be determined by our theory of the nature of the Church.

A page or two further on⁶ he takes up the question of “Infant Baptism” ex professo. This “we reject and reprehend,” he tells us, and that for the following reasons, viz.:

(a) When we ask after a direct Scriptural warrant for infant baptism, in the sense which Dr. Strong has in mind in the first of these arguments, we, of course, have the New Testament in view, seeing that it is only in the new dispensation that this rite has been ordained. In this sense of the words, we may admit his first declaration — that there is no express command that infants should be baptized; and with it also his second — that there is in Scripture no clear example of the baptism of infants, that is, if we understand by this that there is no express record, reciting in so many words, that infants were baptized. When he adds to these, however, a third contention, that “the passages held to imply infant baptism contain, when fairly interpreted, no reference to such a practice,” we begin to recalcitrate. If it were only asserted that these passages contain no such stringent proof that infants were baptized as would satisfy us on the point in the absence of other evidence, we might yield this point also. But it is too much to ask us to believe that they contain “no reference to the practice” if “ fairly interpreted.” What is a “fair” interpretation? Is it not an interpretation which takes the passages as they stand, without desire to make undue capital of them one way or the other? Well, a fair interpretation of these passages, in this sense, might prevent paedobaptists from claiming them as a demonstrative proof of infant baptism, and it would also certainly prevent anti-paedobaptists from asserting that they have “no reference to such a practice.” It should lead both parties to agree that the passages have a possible but not a necessary reference to infant baptism — that they are neutral passages, in a word, which apparently imply infant baptism, but which may be explained without involving that implication if we otherwise know that infant baptism did not exist in that day. Fairly viewed, in other words, they are passages which will support any other indications of infant baptism which may be brought forward, but which will scarcely suffice to prove it against evidence to the contrary, or to do more than raise a presumption in its favor in the absence of other evidence for it. For what are these passages? The important ones are Acts xvi. 15, which declares that Lydia was “baptized and her household,” and Acts xvi. 33, which declares that the jailer was “baptized and all his,” together with I Cor. i. 16, “And I baptized also the household of Stephanas.” Certainly at first blush we would think that the repeated baptism of households without further description, would imply the baptism of the infants connected with them. It may be a “fair” response to this that we do not know that there were any infants in these households — which is true enough, but not sufficient to remove the suspicion that there may have been. It may be a still “fairer” reply to say that whether the infants of these families (if there were infants in them) were baptized or not, would depend on the practice of the apostles; and whatever that practice was would be readily understood by the first readers of the Acts. But this would only amount to asking that infant baptism should not be founded solely on these passages alone; and this we have already granted.

Neither of these lines of argument is adduced by Dr. Strong. They would not justify his position — which is not that the baptism of infants cannot be proved by these passages, but much more than this — that a fair interpretation of them definitely excludes all reference to it by them. Let us see what Dr. Strong means by a “ fair” interpretation. To the case of Lydia he appends “cf. 40,” which tells us when Paul and Silas were loosed from prison “they entered into the house of Lydia, and when they had seen the brethren they comforted them and departed” — from which, apparently, he would have us make two inferences, (1) that these “brethren” constituted the household of Lydia that was baptized, and (2) that these “brethren” were all adults. In like manner to the case of the jailer he appends the mystic “cf. 34,” which tells us that the saved jailer brought his former prisoners up into his house and set meat before them and “rejoiced greatly, having believed, with all his house, on God “ — from which he would apparently have us infer that there was no member of the household, baptized by Paul, who was too young to exercise personal faith. So he says with reference to I Cor. i. 16, that “I Cor. xvi. 15 shows that the whole family of Stephanas, baptized by Paul, were adults.” Nevertheless, when we look at I Cor. xvi. 15, we read merely that the house of Stephanas were the first fruits of Achaia and that they had set themselves to minister unto the saints — which leaves the question whether they are all adults or not just where it was before, that is, absolutely undetermined.

Nor is this all. To these passages Dr. Strong appends two others, one properly enough, I Cor. vii. 14, where Paul admonishes the Christian not to desert the unbelieving husband or wife, “for the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother; else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.” This is doubtless a passage similar to the others; a passage certainly which does not explicitly teach infant baptism, but equally certainly which is not inconsistent with it — which would, indeed, find a ready explanation from such a custom if such a custom existed, and therefore stands as one of the passages which raise at least a suspicion that infant baptism underlies the form of expression — since the holiness of the children is taken for granted in it and the sanctification of the unbelieving partner inferred from it — but is yet no doubt capable of an explanation on the supposition that that practice did not exist and is therefore scarcely a sure foundation for a doctrine asserting it. Dr. Strong is, however, not satisfied with showing that no stringent inference can be drawn from it in favor of infant baptism. He claims it as a “sure testimony,” a “plain proof” against infant baptism, on the grounds that the infants and the unbelieving parent are put by it in the same category, and (quoting Jacobi) that if children had been baptized, Paul would certainly have referred to their baptism as a proof of their holiness. And this in the face of the obvious fact that the holiness of the children is assumed as beyond dispute and in no need of proof, doubt as to which would be too horrible to contemplate, and the sanctification of the husband or wife inferred from it. Of course, it is the sanctity or holiness of external connection and privilege that is referred to, both with reference to the children and the parent; but that of the one is taken for granted, that of the other is argued; hence it lies close to infer that the one may have had churchly recognition and the other not. Whether that was true or not, however, the passage cannot positively decide for us; it only raises a suspicion. But this suspicion ought to be frankly recognized.

The other passage which is adjoined to these is strangely found in their company, although it, too, is one of the “neutral texts.” It is Matt. xix. 14: “Suffer the little children and forbid them not to come unto me; for to such belongeth the kingdom of heaven.” What has this to do with baptism? Certainly nothing directly; only if it be held indirectly to show that infants were received by Christ as members of His Kingdom on earth, that is, of His Church, can it bear on the controversy. But notice Dr. Strong’s comment: “None would have ‘forbidden,’ if Jesus and his disciples had been in the habit of baptizing infants.” Does he really think this touches the matter that is raised by this quotation? Nobody supposes that “Jesus and his disciples” were in the habit of baptizing infants; nobody supposes that at the time these words were spoken, Christian baptism had been so much as yet instituted. Dr. Strong would have to show, not that infant baptism was not practised before baptism was instituted, but that the children were not designated by Christ as members of His “Kingdom,” before the presumption for infant baptism would be extruded from this text. It is his unmeasured zeal to make all texts which have been appealed to by paedobaptists — not merely fail to teach paedobaptism — but teach that children were not baptized, that has led him so far astray here.

We cannot profess to admire, then, the “fair” interpretations which Dr. Strong makes of these texts. No one starting out without a foregone conclusion could venture to say that, when “fairly interpreted,” they certainly make no reference to baptism of infants. Nevertheless, I freely allow that they do not suffice, taken by themselves, to prove that infants were baptized by the apostles — they only suggest this supposition and raise a presumption for it. And, therefore, I am prepared to allow in general the validity of Dr. Strong’s first argument — when thus softened to reasonable proportions. It is true that there is no express command to baptize infants in the New Testament, no express record of the baptism of infants, and no passages so stringently implying it that we must infer from them that infants were baptized. If such warrant as this were necessary to justify the usage we should have to leave it incompletely justified. But the lack of this express warrant is something far short of forbidding the rite; and if the continuity of the Church through all ages can be made good, the warrant for infant baptism is not to be sought in the New Testament but in the Old Testament, when the Church was instituted, and nothing short of an actual forbidding of it in the New Testament would warrant our omitting it now. As Lightfoot expressed it long ago, “It is not forbidden” in the New Testament to “baptize infants, — therefore, they are to be baptized.⁷ Dr. Strong commits his first logical error in demanding express warrant for the continuance of a long- settled institution, instead of asking for warrant for setting it aside.

(b) If thus the first argument is irrelevant as a whole as well as not very judiciously put in its details, is not its failure well atoned for in the second one? His second argument undertakes to show that “infant baptism is expressly contradicted” by Scriptural teaching. Here, at length, we have the promise of what was needed. But if we expect stringent reason here for the alteration of the children-including covenant, we shall be sadly disappointed. Dr. Strong offers four items. First, infant baptism is contradicted “by the Scriptural prerequisites of faith and repentance, as signs of regeneration,” which is valid only on the suppressed assumption that baptism is permissible only in the case of those who prove a previous regeneration — which is the very point in dispute. Secondly, “by the Scriptural symbolism of the ordinance.” “As we should not bury a person before his death, so we should not symbolically bury a person by baptism until he has in spirit died to sin.” Here not only that the symbolism of baptism is burial is gratuitously assumed, but also that this act, whatever be its symbolism, could be the symbol only of an already completed process in the heart of the recipient — which again is the very point in dispute. Thirdly, “by the Scriptural constitution of the church “— where again the whole validity of the argument depends on the assumption that infants are not members of the Church — the very point in dispute. These three arguments must therefore be thrown at once out of court. If the Scriptures teach that personal faith and repentance are prerequisites to baptism, if they teach that one must have previously died to sin before he is baptized, if they teach that the visible Church consists of regenerate adults only — why, on any of these three identical propositions, each of which implies all the others, of course infants may not be baptized — for this again is but an identical proposition with any of the three. But it is hardly sound argumentation simply to repeat the matter in dispute in other words and plead it as proof.

The fourth item is more reasonable — “ By the Scriptural prerequisites for participation in the Lord’s Supper. Participation in the Lord’s Supper is the right only of those who can ‘discern the Lord’s body’ (I Cor. xi. 29). No reason can be assigned for restricting to intelligent communicants the ordinance of the Supper, which would not equally restrict to intelligent believers the ordinance of Baptism.” Hence Dr. Strong thinks the Greek Church more consistent in administering the Lord’s Supper to infants. It seems, however, a sufficient answer to this to point to the passage quoted: the express declaration of Scripture, that those who are admitted to the Lord’s Supper — a declaration made to those who were already baptized Christians — should be restricted to those who discern the Lord’s body, is a sufficient Scriptural reason for restricting participation in the Lord’s Supper to intelligent communicants; while the absence of that Scripture restriction in its case is a sufficient Scriptural reason for refusing to apply it to baptism. If we must support this Scriptural reason with a purely rational one, it may be enough to add that the fact that baptism is the initiatory rite of the Church supplies us with such a reason. The ordinances of the Church belong to the members of it; but each in its own appointed time. The initiatory ordinance belongs to the members on becoming members, other ordinances become their right as the appointed seasons for enjoying them roll around. We might as well argue that a citizen of the United States has no right to the protection of the police until he can exercise the franchise. The rights all belong to him: but the exercise of each comes in its own season. It is easily seen by the help of such examples that the possession of a right to the initiatory ordinance of the Church need not carry with it the right to the immediate enjoyment of all church privileges: and thus the challenge is answered to show cause why the right to baptism does not carry with it the right to communion in the Lord’s Supper.⁸ With this challenge the second argument of Dr. Strong is answered, too.

(c) The third argument is really an attempt to get rid of the pressure of the historical argument for infant baptism. Is it argued that the Christian Church from the earliest traceable date baptized infants? — that this is possibly hinted in Justin Martyr, assumed apparently in Irenaeus, and openly proclaimed as apostolical by Origen and Cyprian while it was vainly opposed by Tertullian? In answer it is replied that all these writers taught baptismal regeneration and that infant baptism was an invention coming in on the heels of baptismal regeneration and continued in existence by State Churches. There is much that is plausible in this contention. The early Church did come to believe that baptism was necessary to salvation; this doctrine forms a natural reason for the extension of baptism to infants, lest dying unbaptized they should fail of salvation. Nevertheless, the contention does not seem to be the true explanation of the line of development. First, it confuses a question of testimony to fact with a question of doctrine. The two — baptismal regeneration and infant baptism — do not stand or fall together, in the testimony of the Fathers. Their unconscious testimony to a current practice proves its currency in their day; but their witness to a doctrine does not prove its truth. We may or may not agree with them in their doctrine of baptismal regeneration. But we cannot doubt the truth of their testimony to the prevalence of infant baptism in their day. We admit that their day is not the apostles’ day. We could well wish that we had earlier witness. We may be sure from the witness of Origen and Cyprian that they were baptized in their infancy — that is, that infant baptism was the usual practice in the age of Irenaeus — a conclusion which is at once strengthened by and strengthens the witness of Irenaeuus. But the practice of the latter half of the second century need not have been the practice of the apostles. A presumption is raised, however — even though so weak a one that it would not stand against adverse evidence. But where is the adverse evidence? Secondly, Dr. Strong’s view reverses the historical testimony. As a matter of history it was not the inauguration of the practice of infant baptism which the doctrine of baptismal regeneration secured, but the endangering of it. It was because baptism washed away all sin and after that there remained no more layer for regeneration, that baptism was postponed. It is for this reason that Tertullian proposes its postponement. Lastly, though the historical evidence may not be conclusive for the apostolicity of infant baptism, it is in that direction and is all that we have. There is no evidence from primitive church history against infant baptism, except the ambiguous evidence of Tertullian; so that our choice is to follow history and baptize infants or to reconstruct by a priori methods a history for which we have no evidence.

(d) Dr. Strong’s fourth item is intended as a refutal of the reasoning by which the advocates of paedobaptism support their contention. As such it naturally takes up the reasoning from every kind of sources and it is not strange that some of the reasoning adduced in it is as distasteful to us as it is to him. We should heartily unite with him in refusing to allow the existence of any power in the Church to modify or abrogate any command of Christ. Nor could we find any greater acceptability than he does in the notion of an “organic connection” between the parent and the child, such as he quotes Dr. Bushnell as advocating. Nevertheless we can believe in a parent acting as representative of the child of his loins, whose nurture is committed to him; and we can believe that the status of the parent determines the status of the child — in the Church of the God whose promise is “to you and your children,” as well as, for example, in the State. And we can believe that the Church includes the minor children of its members for whom they must as parents act, without believing that it is thereby made a hereditary body. I do not purpose here to go over again the proofs, which Dr. lodge so cogently urges, that go to prove the continuity of the Church through the Old and New dispensations — remaining under whatever change of dispensation the same Church, with the same laws of entrance and the same constituents. The antithesis which Dr. Strong adduces — that “the Christian Church is either a natural, hereditary body, or it was merely typified by the Jewish people “— is a false antithesis. The Christian Church is not a natural, hereditary body and yet it is not merely the antitype of Israel. It is, the apostles being witnesses, the veritable Israel itself. It carried over into itself all that was essentially Israelitish — all that went to make up the body of God’s people. Paul’s figures of the olive tree in Romans and of the breaking down of the middle wall of partition in Ephesians, suffice to demonstrate this; and besides these figures he repeatedly asserts it in the plainest language.

So fully did the first Christians — the apostles — realize the continuity of the Church, that they were more inclined to retain parts of the outward garments of the Church than to discard too much. Hence circumcision itself was retained; and for a considerable period all initiates into the Church were circumcised Jews and received baptism additionally. We do not doubt that children born into the Church during this age were both circumcised and baptized. The change from baptism superinduced upon circumcision to baptism substituted for circumcision was slow, and never came until it was forced by the actual pressure of circumstances. The instrument for making this change and so — who can doubt it? — for giving the rite of baptism its right place as the substitute for circumcision, was the Apostle Paul. We see the change formally constituted at the so-called Council of Jerusalem, in Acts xv. Paul had preached the gospel to Gentiles and had received them into the Church by baptism alone, thus recognizing it alone as the initiatory rite, in the place of circumcision, instead of treating as heretofore the two together as the initiatory rites into the Christian Church. But certain teachers from Jerusalem, coming down to Antioch, taught the brethren “except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses ye cannot be saved.” Paul took the matter before the Church of Jerusalem from which these new teachers professed to emanate; and its formal decision was that to those who believed and were baptized circumcision was not necessary.

How fully Paul believed that baptism and circumcision were but two symbols of the same change of heart, and that one was instead of the other, may be gathered from Col. ii. 11, when, speaking to a Christian audience of the Church, he declares that “in Christ ye were also circumcised “— but how? — “with a circumcision not made with hands, in putting off the body of the flesh,” — that is, in the circumcision of Christ. But what was this Christ-ordained circumcision? The Apostle continues: “Having been buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.” Hence in baptism they were buried with Christ, and this burial with Christ was the circumcision which Christ ordained, in the partaking of which they became the true circumcision. This falls little, if any, short of a direct assertion that the Christian Church is Israel, and has Israel’s circumcision, though now in the form of baptism. Does the view of Paul, now, contradict the New Testament idea of the Church, or only the Baptist idea of the Church? No doubt a large number of the members of the primitive Church did insist, as Dr. Strong truly says, that those who were baptized should also be circumcised: and no doubt, this proves that in their view baptism did not take the place of circumcision. But this was an erroneous view: is represented in the New Testament as erroneous; and it is this exact view against which Paul protested to the Church of Jerusalem and which the Church of Jerusalem condemned in Acts xv. Thus the Baptist denial of the substitution of baptism for circumcision leads them into the error of this fanatical, pharisaical church-party! Let us take our places in opposition, along with Paul and all the apostles.

Whether, then, that the family is the unit of society is a relic of barbarism or not, it is the New Testament basis of the Church of God. God does make man the head of the woman — does enjoin the wife to be in subjection to her husband — and does make the parents act on behalf of their minor children. He does, indeed, require individual faith for salvation; but He organizes His people in families first; and then into churches, recognizing in their very warp and woof the family constitution. His promises are all the more precious that they are to us and our children. And though this may not fit in with the growing individualism of the day, it is God’s ordinance.

(e) Dr. Strong’s fifth argument is drawn from the divergent modes in which paedobaptists defend their position and from the decline among them of the practice of the rite. Let us confess that we do not all argue alike or aright. But is not this a proof rather of the firm establishment in our hearts of the practice? We all practise alike; and it is the propriety of the practice, not the propriety of our defense of it, that is, after all, at stake. But the practice is declining, it is said. Perhaps this is true. Dr. Vedder’s statistics seem to show it. But if so, does the decline show the practice to be wrong, or Christians to be unfaithful? It is among paedobaptists that the decline is taking place — those who still defend the practice. Perhaps it is the silent influence of Baptist neighbors; perhaps it is unfaithfulness in parents; perhaps the spread of a Quakerish sentiment of undervaluation of ordinances. Many reasons may enter into the account of it. But how does it show the practice to be wrong? According to the Baptist reconstruction of history, the Church began by not baptizing infants. But this primitive and godly practice declined — rapidly declined — until in the second century all infants were baptized and Tertullian raised a solitary and ineffectual voice crying a return to the older purity in the third. Did that decline of a prevalent usage prove it to be a wrong usage? By what logic can the decline in the second century be made an evidence in favor of the earlier usage, and that of the nineteenth an evidence against it?

(f) We must pass on, however, to the final string of arguments, which would fain point out the evil effects of infant baptism. First, it forestalls the act of the child and so prevents him from ever obeying Christ’s command to be baptized — which is simply begging the question. We say it obeys Christ’s command by giving the child early baptism and so marking him as the Lord’s. Secondly, it is said to induce superstitious confidence in an outward rite, as if it possessed regenerating efficacy; and we are pointed to frantic mothers seeking baptism for their dying children. Undoubtedly the evil does occur and needs careful guarding against. But it is an evil not confined to this rite, but apt to attach itself to all rites — which need not, therefore, be all abolished. We may remark, in passing, on the unfairness of bringing together here illustrative instances from French Catholic peasants and High Church Episcopalians, as if these were of the same order with Protestants. Thirdly, it is said to tend to corrupt Christian truth as to the sufficiency of Scripture, the connection of the ordinances, and the inconsistency of an impenitent life with church membership, as if infant baptism necessarily argued sacramentarianism, or as if the churches of other Protestant bodies were as a matter of fact more full of “impenitent members” than those of the Baptists. This last remark is in place also, in reply to the fourth point made, wherein it is charged that the practice of infant baptism destroys the Church as a spiritual body by merging it in the nation and in the world. It is yet to be shown that the Baptist churches are purer than the paedobaptist. Dr. Strong seems to think that infant baptism is responsible for the Unitarian defection in New England. I am afraid the cause lay much deeper. Nor is it a valid argument against infant baptism, that the churches do not always fulfill their duty to their baptized members. This, and not the practice of infant baptism, is the fertile cause of incongruities and evils innumerable.

Lastly, it is urged that infant baptism puts “into the place of Christ’s command a commandment of men, and so admit[s] . . . the essential principle of all heresy, schism, and false religion” — a good, round, railing charge to bring against one’s brethren: but as an argument against infant baptism, drawn from its effects, somewhat of a petitio principii. If true, it is serious enough. But Dr. Strong has omitted to give the chapter and verse where Christ’s command not to baptize infants is to be found. One or the other of us is wrong, no doubt; but do we not break an undoubted command of Christ when we speak thus harshly of our brethren, His children, whom we should love? Were it not better to judge, each the other mistaken, and recognize, each the other’s desire to please Christ and follow His commandments? Certainly I believe that our Baptist brethren omit to fulfill an ordinance of Christ’s house, sufficiently plainly revealed as His will, when they exclude the infant children of believers from baptism. But I know they do this unwittingly in ignorance; and I cannot refuse them the right hand of fellowship on that account.

But now, having run through these various arguments, to what conclusion do we come? Are they sufficient to set aside our reasoned conviction, derived from some such argument as Dr. Hodge’s, that infants are to be baptized? A thousand times no. So long as it remains true that Paul represents the Church of the Living God to be one, founded on one covenant (which the law could not set aside) from Abraham to to-day, so long it remains true that the promise is to us and our children and that the members of the visible Church consist of believers and their children — all of whom have a right to all the ordinances of the visible Church, each in its appointed season. The argument in a nutshell is simply this: God established His Church in the days of Abraham and put children into it. They must remain there until He puts them out. He has nowhere put them out. They are still then members of His Church and as such entitled to its ordinances. Among these ordinances is baptism, which standing in similar place in the New Dispensation to circumcision in the Old, is like it to be given to children.

Here is a preliminary response by Walter Chantry, SBC and Calvinist. This works well as a preliminary statement for the Baptist position. Chantry's position is restrained but firm in arguing from a Reformed and Covenantal position. I've no doubt you expected me to post this one, Uriel. No Baptist begins to seek an answer to the question "Who should be baptized?" by studying the Bible’s doctrine of the covenants. Rather, he begins with New Testament texts which deal directly with the term "baptize." In a later study of Covenant Theology, he finds confirmation and undergirding of his conclusions.

The trouble with this sentiment is that New Testament texts themselves which deal directly with the subject of Baptism, discuss the Sacrament in terms of its Covenantal grounding. Paul calls Baptism, “The Circumcision of Christ”.

Colossians 2: 11 - 12 -- In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

This in and of itself necessitates a consideration of Baptism within the context of Covenantal Continuity.

1. In the New Testament we discover the nature of baptism defined. In the definition, something must be said about the person baptized. Its central significance is that the one baptized is said to be savingly joined to Christ…

Yet as presbyter Steve Schlissel points out, it is incorrect to demand an absolute equivalence of Substance with Symbol. Were this equivalence to be granted, then on what grounds could the Baptists deny the baptismal regenerationism of the otherwise-anabaptistic Disciples of Christ, who maintain that only through the act of Baptism is one “savingly joined to Christ”?

It seems to me that the Reformed faith has been the most faithful of all traditions in fairly treating all of what the Scripture has to say on the subject of baptism. On one side stands the Roman Catholic church which believes that the sacrament is efficacious in itself, conferring the grace of salvation, the subjects being reborn by means of it. On the other side we find our Baptistic friends who believe that baptism is to be administered only after a credible profession of faith. Often unnoticed by people examining this question is the fact that Romanists and Baptists share an error in common: both assume the necessity of a one for one correspondence between the number of persons baptized and the number regenerated. The Baptists try to insure this correspondence by requiring regeneration prior to administration, Catholics by imagining that regeneration occurs during administration.

According to the Reformed view, however, the efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered. (Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXIX, paragraph VI) Moreover (and this is vital), the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Spirit to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time. (ibid)

Thus, our concern in the administration of baptism is not to ascertain the regenerated status of the candidate, but simply to ascertain if, according to Scripture, he is lawfully to be regarded as a member of the covenant which baptism signifies and seals.

2. In every clear New Testament example, the person baptized made a credible confession of faith in Jesus Christ prior to receiving the sacrament….

Chantry is not even addressing here the critical “silence” issue which the “Baptist argument from silence” must address: The fact that infant inclusion within the Sign of the Covenant had already existed as a Covenantal ordinance for two millenia. If Jewish believers, who had already included their children in the Sign of the Covenant for 2,000 years, were now expected to exclude their children from the Sign of the Covenant, one would expect a specific commandment indicating that this change in sacramental practice was being instituted.

And yet no such commandment is found in the New Testament. Schlissel again:

Down to cases. If a person who presupposes discontinuity goes to the New Testament for guidance on the subject of infant baptism, he will be looking for a specific commandment to baptize infants. Not finding any, he will conclude that it is contrary to God's will. When a Reformed person, that is, one who presupposes a basic continuity between the covenants, goes to the New Testament for guidance on this question, he knows that for two thousand years before Christ, covenant infants had been the recipients of the sign and seal of covenant entrance by Divine decree. Thus, the very silence which convinced Mr. Discontinuity that it is inappropriate to administer the covenant sign and seal to infants, that very silence proves that it remains God's will for covenant babies to receive that sign.

Furthermore, he will see in Peter's Pentecost sermon the confirmation of his presupposition of continuity: "Repent and be baptized...The promise is for you and your children (Acts 2:38,39)." The household baptisms hold no problem for him, whether there are infants or not. (See Acts 10:48 (cf.11:14); 16:15, 33; 1 Cor. 1:16) Mr. Continuity will understand that if, after two thousand years of having their children included in the covenant, the fulfillment of that Covenant in Christ now meant the exclusion of their children from the covenant (for if they are in fact members of the covenant, to withhold baptism would be to exalt the sign above the reality signified), if they were now excluded, that would not only be regarded as covenant regression, it seems reasonable to assume that quite a ruckus would be raised over that very point and would have needed to be addressed in the early church. So again, silence is what Mr. Continuous expects and finds.

The Covenant is Visible and One.

Amazingly, Matthew 19:13: "Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven," has been used frequently by serious theologians to support infant baptism….

As noted, the parallel passage in Luke includes infants in the blessing. And one of the critical points here, is the fact that Jesus said that these infants were already “of the Kingdom of God” – already Citizens of the Kingdom.

Jesus enjoyed the advantage of already knowing His Own, having perfect confidence in who was Elect, and who was not. We do not enjoy this advantage; but we certainly pray it to be true of our children, and do not hesitate to bring them to our King for His blessing.

B) Acts 2:39 has also been pressed into service to support infant baptism. "For the promise is unto you and to your children” ,….The promises do not belong unto the children of believers apart from effectual calling. Only those children who receive this saving grace of God may be conceived of as being heirs of the spiritual promises.

True -- And irrelevant to the case.

The fact that many Israelites grew up to be Idolaters in adult life, did not change the sacramental ordinance of their inclusion as infants in the Sign of the Covenant.

C) Household baptisms are called upon, by paedobaptists, as evidence of infant baptism in the New Testament. There are four references: Cornelius (Acts 10), Lydia (Acts 16), the Philippian jailor (Acts 16), Stephanas ([Corinthians 1). None of the references say that infants were in these houses….Infant baptism can be found here only by those most anxious to do so….

More to the point, these passages do not affirm the presumption that Baptism must necessarily follow an individual profession of belief. The anabaptist has, after all, staked his claim upon he ground that this is the unanimous example of the New Testament – and represents a discontinuity of sacramental practice from the Old Testament.

But as Schlissel has demonstrated, no such commandment of discontinuity is found in the new Testament – whereas a common practice which is found (household baptisms) conforms easily to the Covenantal model, but only with the inclusion of certain implicit assumptions does it conform to the anabaptistic case.

D) I Corinthians 7:14 is another favorite verse. There we are told that children are "holy". The text does not have even vague reference to church membership or baptism. it is talking about mixed marriages in which one spouse is a believer and the other is not. The question is whether such a relationship is proper, moral, or holy for those who were converted after marriage to the unbeliever. Paul reasons from the obvious to the doubtful. It is obvious that your children are not bastards. They were born in wedlock. They are holy. Therefore, it ought to be clear to you that your marriage relationship is holy. Don’t feel guilty about it or wish to be free from your obligations. If the word "holy" suggests a covenant relationship or cultic purity, making the children proper objects for baptism, then the unbelieving spouse is also a valid candidate for the sacrament. The verb "sanctify" has precisely the same root and signification as the adjective "holy." And it is the holiness of the spouse that the passage belabors.

Chantry protests too much. The fact of the matter is, Paul says that the unbelieving spouse is entitled to certain Covenantal advantages in regard to his marriage. While the unbelieving spouse might abandon or divorce the Christian for non-Covenantal reasons, the Christian must treat his/her unbelieving spouse with Covenantal respect, and must not abandon or divorce that spouse for non-Covenantal reasons.

However, this does not speak to the matter of Covenantal observance. In the case of an adult convert to Covenantal observance under the Law, the adult convert was required first to profess adherence to the Torah, and then would be granted the sacramental seal of the Covenant sign.

Once someone has converted to Judaism they have the full status of Jews. They are Jews in every way, and, just like any other Jew, they can never cease to be Jews.... There is a special mitzva to love and to be kind to converts even more than ordinary Jews, like it says in the Torah, Devarim [Deuteronomy] 10:19, "You shall love the convert, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt." (This is saying that, since we were once strangers in Egypt, we should understand how difficult it is for someone to adjust to a new world and we should be kind to him.) The Torah also has a special mitzva not to be unkind to a convert in Shemos [Exodus] 22:20, "Do not hurt the feelings of a convert or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt." and also in Shemos 23:9, "Do not oppress a convert, you know how it feels to be a stranger because you were strangers in the land of Egypt." And in VaYikra [Leviticus] 19:33-34, "When a convert comes to live in your land, do not hurt his feelings. The convert should be to you exactly like a born Jew and you shall love him like yourself, for you were strangers in Egypt - I am HaShem, your God." -- Eliezer C. Abrahamson

The specific requirements for conversion and their order need to be discussed with a rabbi. One requirement for males who wish to be converted by an Orthodox or Conservative rabbi is circumcision, or brit milah. -- Lawrence J. Epstein, Conversion to Judaism

However, once an adult convert professed adherence to the Torah and received the Covenant Sign, their children were to be raised as full members of the Covenant, and granted the Covenant Sign as infants.

No commandment specifying a change in the Covenantal order is found in the New Testament.

The argument has hung upon a syllogism that goes something like this: There is a unity between the Old and New Covenants. Circumcision in the Old is parallel to baptism in the New. Infants of believers were circumcised in the Old. Therefore, infants of believers should be baptized in the New…. Immediately we Baptists raise our first objection. There is here a serious hermeneutical flaw. How can a distinctively New Testament ordinance have its fullest — nay, its only foundation — in Old Testament Scripture?

Chantry merely presumes sacramental discontinuity here. But presumption is not argument. The fact is, Paul specifically called Baptism “the Circumcision of Christ”, and as Benjamin B. Warfield points out, in like manner the Lord’s Supper is rightly regarded as Christian Passover:

The bread and wine of which we partake at the Lord's table are in like manner, according to our Lord's precise declaration, the representations of his body and blood -- his body given, his blood poured out for us What is done in the two feasts is therefore precisely the same thing: Jesus Christ is symbolically fed upon in both. This close similarity between the two feasts again certainly cannot be looked upon as accidental. We must assuredly judge that our Lord, in instituting the Supper, meant to make it to the full extent to which these similarities point, a replica of the Passover. In this sense at least the Lord's Supper is the Christian Passover Meal. It takes, and was intended to take, in the Christian Church, the place which the Passover occupied in the Jewish Church. It is the Christian substitute for the Passover.

The Biblical model, then, is Covenantal continuity, not discontinuity.

The Covenant is Visible and One.

Beyond this, there is a theological flaw. It is nothing new for Baptists to adhere to Covenant Theology…. But paedobaptists have been negligent in defining the diversity in the administrations of the Covenant of Grace…. In the Old Covenant, adult sons and servants were circumcised, and thus incorporated into the visible church. Now, only the infants of believers are baptized. In the Old, children came to the Passover at a very young age. Now small children are not admitted to the Lord’s Table. Whence this change?

What change, Mr. Chantry?

Under the Ancient Covenant, the Covenant Sign was administered unto the infants, but the Covenant Supper was reserved unto the elder children.

Chantry is faulting presbyterians for our Covenantal consistency. I hope he’ll understand if we regard “criticisms” like that as a compliment, and a badge of honor.

When the principle of diversity is formulated, it will exclude infants from the sacrament of baptism. Jeremiah 31:31-34 is pivotal to expressing the diversity of covenant administrations. It is quoted in Hebrews S and again in 10 to prove that "Christ is mediator of a better covenant." There is an emphatic contrast made in verses 31 and 32. The differences are so striking and dramatic that one covenant is called "new" and it is implied that the other is old. The Jews under the Old Covenant were warned that revolutionary changes would be made. The covenant in force was inadequate except to prepare for the New. So surpassing is the glory of the New, that it should lead them to look for the demolition of the Old. The passage suggests two vital distinctions ushered in by the effusion of the Spirit. This effusion made a change in administration possible.

But Mr. Chantry… what if your entire exigesis of the passage above fails upon a misreading of one little word?

The Covenant is not a discontinuous matter of Old, and New.
It is a continuous Covenant of Ancient Covenant… and Renewed Covenant:

B'RIT CHADASHA
The Re-Newed Covenant

There are two words to say "new" in Greek: neos and kainen; neos is what we usually understand as "new"; kainen, however, means "renewed"; for instance, the "new" moon which appears every month is not actually a new moon, but the same, albeit a renewed moon. This is the meaning of the word which appears every time the Renewed Covenant has been translated as "New Testament," i.e., the Renewed Covenant; ditto with the Renewed Jerusalem/"the new Jerusalem," the renewed man/"the new man" of Eph. 2:15, etc. The Hebrew word from which this originally derives, Hadashah, with its feminine ending, also means "renewed," thus: Brit Ha Hadashah, the Renewed Covenant of which Jer. 31:31 speaks about. -- MessianicYisrael.Com

The Covenant is Visible and One.

This diversity is nowhere more evident than in the ceremonies of worship. New Testament worship presents us with a most striking contrast with Old Testament ordinances. This can be illustrated by looking at the Lord’s Supper, which finds a counterpart in the Old Testament Passover. The great spiritual truth of redemption by blood is figured in the Passover, but it is somewhat obscured beneath an outward and formal atmosphere. Then, too, the ceremony mixes the figures of personal redemption and national deliverance. Even those who had no acquaintance with spiritual redemption, observed it. This they should have done; for their national life arose from the historic event remembered. Very young children came to the Passover as participants that, by it, they might ask the significance and as they grew older, come to understand the redemption figures. (cf. Exodus 12:2427, etc.) In the New Testament, things are quite different. I Corinthians 11:23-30 gives instruction for the most formal ceremony of the New Covenant. Here very young children must not come.

Here Chantry’s contentions are not mistaken, but simply wrong.

A passover meal would include roast lamb, bitter herbs, and unleavened bread (Ex 12:8)-- hardly Gerber's baby food. And the children would be taught the meaning of the sacrament from the earliest days. At each observance, the head of the family would explain to the children the significance of the meal, of Yahweh's deliverance of His covenant people (Ex. 12:26ff.). By the time a child would be old enough to take full part in the act, such children would have the knowledge to discern the meaning of the sacrament, even if at a still young age. Children of all ages participated in the passover by listening and learning, but full participation was only for older covenant children. Even in the old covenant, the sacrament of spiritual nourishment was not given for some time after the initiatory sacrament, and then only with teaching. -- Why Paedocommunion is a Bad Idea: Expanding a Blessing or Bringing down a Curse? Gregory Johnson

Under the Renewed Covenant, a child is raised as a Covenant child, and taught the meaning of Christian Passover before they partake thereof. Just as under the Ancient Covenant, the children were raised as Covenant children, and taught the meaning of Pesach before they partook thereof.

Again, Chantry is faulting Presbyterians for our Covenantal consistency. He ends up giving us an unintended compliment.

The Covenant is Visible and One.

Then, there are a number of exegetical flaws in the paedobaptist theology. Many have reasoned thus: "Infants of believers were circumcised in the Old Covenant. Therefore, infants of believers should be baptized in the New." Though in Abraham’s case faith preceded circumcision of his children, this cannot be said to be the rule of the Old Covenant rite. There were times when faith in the subjects of circumcision or in their parents was all but ignored. In the time of Joshua, an entire nation was circumcised in a day. There was no concern for personal election or personal faith.

Likewise, in the Visible Church, there has been many an age in which it could realistically be argued that there were more Tares, than Wheat. So what?

God will know His Own.

It is also said that just as baptism is a sign of heirship to the spiritual promises of grace in the New Covenant, circumcision was a sign of heirship to the same spiritual promises in the Old. This is only partially true. Baptism is a sign of spiritual blessing in Christ and only that…. Baptism has no merely earthly significance. There are no blessings figured in it that can be conceived of apart from an experience of grace…. Romans 9 discusses Abraham’s immediate, physical offspring. Some were of the flesh; some of the spirit. There was a personal election within the family election. Abraham could not look upon his own immediate seed as heirs of the promises. "They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." (v. 8). How can believers today lean upon the promise to Abraham which is clearly interpreted in the New Testament and find for themselves a greater expectation for their children than Abraham had a right to? The New Testament is not silent about this seed. It tells us they are believers alone!

And this is as true of adults, as of children. There are indubitably millions throughout history, baptized as adults, who enjoy no spiritual union with Christ.

But again…. So what? God will know His Own. Schlissel again:

The Covenant is Visible and One.

Lastly, there are practical flaws in the paedobaptist theology. Those who sprinkle infants are on the horns of a dilemma. Either they must tamper with the definition of baptism to make it signify something less than personal spiritual union with Christ as the Bible clearly teaches; or they will be driven to teach infant salvation or presumptive regeneration. If the first course is chosen, one must also corrupt the New Testament view of the church and its discipline. If some who are less than saved are properly to be considered as members of Christ’s body.

Here Chantry simply identifies in Presbyterian churches, a problem common to all churches – the problem of Tares and Wheat.

Is the fact that some, who participate in “believer’s baptism”, fall away from the Church and thereby prove their own lack of regeneration, an indictment of the propriety of baptizing new adult converts into the Church? No, it is not.

All churches teach “presumptive” regeneration to at least some extent, for while God looks on the heart, Man looks on the outward appearance. Chantry’s argument here really has no particular and unique applicability to paedobaptism at all.

I can sympathize with students who are wrestling with the problem of baptism. I can remember when I wished to be convinced of the paedobaptist position. There would be many practical advantages. Another forceful factor is the great history of godly men who were paedobaptists, especially the Reformers and Puritans. But as history gave me the problem, so it has suggested a solution…. Once the constitution and discipline of the New Testament church has been rightly conceived, the hangover of infant baptism must fall way.

Again, Chantry assumes his own conclusion.

At a fundamental level, Chantry is arguing a discontinuity of Covenant… for which he simply does not have the Scriptural support he requires. “If, after two thousand years of having their children included in the covenant, the fulfillment of that Covenant in Christ now meant the exclusion of their children from the covenant (for if they are in fact members of the covenant, to withhold baptism would be to exalt the sign above the reality signified), if they were now excluded, that would not only be regarded as covenant regression, it seems reasonable to assume that quite a ruckus would be raised over that very point and would have needed to be addressed in the early church…” (Schlissel). Yet there is no instruction of Covenantal exclusion whatsoever.

The Covenant is Visible and One.

These are issues over which we do not wish to lose fellowship with paedobaptist brethren. Yet they are principles which we will not jettison for the sake of fellowship.

I have no desire to break fellowship with Mr. Chantry over this matter.
Rather, I leave the ball in his court.

Having dispensed with Chantry, we move now to Piper. I suspect that Chemnitz will take an interest in this discussion.

Piper himself acknowledges the first two-thirds of his essay…

First I saw that every baptism recorded in the Bible was the baptism of an adult…
…the order of Peter's command was "Repent, and be baptized"…
Of course Romans 6:1-11 came to mind….
Colossians 2:12 and 1 Peter 3:21 seemed to me….

To be uncompelling arguments.

But I gradually came to see that these observations were only suggestive, not compelling. That no infant baptism are recorded does not prove there weren't any. And that Peter said, "Repent, and be baptized," to an adult audience does not rule out the possibility of his saying something different about infants…. Since then I have been shown by a long succession of arguments in my membership classes that even these texts leave open the [remote!] possibility that an infant can be baptized on the strength of its parents' faith and in hope of its own eventual "confirmation." It is just as possible that these passages have relevance only for the missionary setting where adults are being converted and baptized. If Paul and Peter had addressed the issue of new infants in Christian homes, maybe they would have come off as good Presbyterians.

So there’s little need for me to address arguments upon which Piper himself is unwilling to stand. The arguments he raises (only to dismiss as uncompelling) are already countered by Warfield and Schlissel above, anyway.

Hence, we move on to his main argument... (to be continued)

Continuing...

There is in fact an important continuity between the signs of circumcision and baptism, but the Presbyterian representatives of Reformed theology have undervalued the discontinuity. This is the root difference between Baptists and Presbyterians on baptism. I am a Baptist because I believe that on this score we honor both the continuity and discontinuity between Israel and the church and between their respective covenant signs.... John the Baptist inaugurated this change and introduced the new sign of baptism. By calling all Jews to repent and be baptized, John declared powerfully and offensively that physical descent does not make one part of God's family and that circumcision, which signifies a physical relationship, will now be replaced by baptism, which signifies a spiritual relationship... The beneficiaries of the blessings of Abraham are those who have the faith of Abraham. These are the ones who belong to the covenant community. And these are the ones who should receive the sign of the covenant: believer baptism.

Piper’s selection of John the Baptizer as his cardinal argument here is interesting.

Has he overlooked the fact that Martin Luther held that the Biblical example of John the Baptizer was the cardinal argument which established and proved the Reformed Doctrine of Covenantal continuity? For the Anabaptist argument has ever been that only those who have entered the community of believers should be Baptized – yet Luther answered and said, “Yes… but John the Baptizer was a Believer -- even from his mother’s womb.” (“and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb” – Luke 1:15 ). The God of Election is the Giver of Faith. The God of Baptism is the God of Covenant and of Predestination. “He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” In Luther’s view, Faith is accounted to the children of Believers from the moment of their conception – for it is on account of their Faith that the Elect are accounted Righteous; and the same God who has Elected them unto Himself, has already given them the Faith which will be manifested by outward profession in due time. The Promise is to us and to our children. Some, it is true, will turn out to be Tares; but this is NOT how believers are to treat their Children – “for of such is the kingdom of God”. We account them, not as heathen, but as little John the Baptists, unless and until they demonstrate themselves to be Tares.

From Dr. Francis N. Lee, again --

According to Scripture, it is the Spirit-empowered Word which regenerates. James 1:18. According to the Anabaptists, the Spirit alone regenerates -- unmonitorable by the Word. Rome, however, said that regeneration is effected by baptism -- and that baptism then produces faith.

Rome thus held that infants could not believe savingly until after and because they had been baptized. The Anabaptists held that infants cannot believe (nor even profess belief), so that infants should not be baptized -- but that adults could receive baptism (yet only after professing their faith). The Protestant Reformation objected first to Rome and then to the Anabaptists. Instead, it pointed both of them -- back to the Bible.

Probably even before his formal break with Rome, Luther had realized -- through studying Holy Scripture -- that baptism presupposes faith within the baptizee himself. From the Bible alone, Luther was led to deny the Romish error (and the later Anabaptist heresy) that unbaptized infants cannot believe -- and to demonstrate the contrary. On this, see Francis Nigel Lee: Revealed to Babies (Confederate Series, Commonwealth Publishing, Rowlett, Texas, 1987).

To Luther, Genesis 17:7 teaches that the Triune God is the Lord not only of adult believers but also of their seed. Himself the seed of believing parents, John the baptizer believed while yet in his mother's womb. Luke 1:41.

Luther also saw that Matthew 18:6f refers to little ones who believe in Jesus. Indeed, in Matthew 19:14 -- Jesus even declares that only those adults are fit for the kingdom of heaven, who believe like such infants.

Thus Luther rightly realized that John the baptizer -- as when a baby born to believing parents -- was himself already a believer in Christ, even before John's own birth. Luke 1:36-44. That was prior to any possible circumcision and/or baptism John may have received either in infancy or thereafter.

Referring to Christ's blessing of the children in Mark 10:14f, Luther insisted that infant faith is present "before or certainly in the baptism.... If any baptism is certain of success, the baptism of children is most certain... In adults there may be deception, because of their mature reason. But in children there can be no deception, because of their slumbering reason." And if such infants indeed have a "slumbering reason" -- then why not also: a slumbering faith?

Now what exactly is this 'slumbering' reason? Luther explains: "Tell me, is the Christian deprived of his reason when he is asleep? Certainly, then, his faith and God's grace do not leave him! If faith remains with the sleeping Christian while his reason is not conscious of the faith -- why should there not be faith [with]in children, before reason is aware of it? A similar situation obtains, when a Christian is engaged in strenuous labour and is not [then] conscious of his faith and reason. Will you say that, on account of this, his faith has come to an end?" Of course not!

Luther later told the Anabaptists that Mark (16:16) does not say 'he who confesses he has faith and is baptized, shall be saved.' For Mark says instead that 'he who believes and is baptized, shall be saved.'

Explained Luther: "It is true that a man should believe, for baptism.... But his faith, you do not know.... Because all men are liars, and only God knows the heart.... I do not get baptized because I am sure of faith, but because God has commanded it.... Who then can exclude the little children? ... We have a command to offer every one the universal gospel and the universal baptism. The children must also be included. We plant and water; and leave God to give the increase."

The Covenant is Visible and One.

Is there a specfic command that changes the covenantal order from Passover to the Lord's Supper?

Well, Luke tells us to observe Christian Passover in remembrance of Christ's sacrifice:

Luke 18: 17-20 -- And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

And Scripture establishes for us that the Church is to partake of the Supper frequently:

Acts 2: 46 - 47 -- And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

Acts 20: 6-7, 11 -- And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days; where we abode seven days. And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight....When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.

And, in that vein, some Covenant Theologians have suggested that our modern observance of the Supper is lacking the inclusion of the Fellowship Meal which was certainly part of the Early's Church's observance of the Lord's Supper.

(Jewish Christian) Presbyter Steve Schlissel, again --

A big difference between the Seder and the Supper is that the Seder has an actual supper and our Supper doesn't! One prominent Jewish missionary tells the story of how, after his conversion, he was invited to have the Lord's Supper at a local church. When he was handed a tiny bit of bread and a thimble-sized cup, he was amazed. "This is a supper? And they call Jews cheap?" While you might have to be Jewish to appreciate his humor, you don't have to be Jewish to appreciate the point. We have not done well to so thoroughly abstract the bread and wine from an actual meal. In Jewish homes today, the elements which correspond to the Supper of the Lord, the bread and the cup which were sanctified by our Messiah, these same elements form the climax of the Seder meal. In fact, the bread, which had been specially set aside, is brought forth after the meal at the third cup of wine (the Seder calls for four) which is still known as "the cup of blessing." (See 1 Cor. 10:16.) As I watch my father break the matzoh and distribute it to all the celebrants, I silently cry out with the Apostle, "My heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved!"

While the Jews have the meal yet miss the full truth of the elements, we retain the elements but have done away with the meal. Yet, throughout Scripture, the entire drama of redemption climaxes again and again in redeemed man eating and drinking with God. In Exodus 24, the closing section of what is known as the "Book of the Covenant," we read of Moses and seventy-three other representatives of Israel: "They saw God, and they ate and drank." In the appointed offerings, the sin offering was followed by the burnt offering, but the goal was the "shalom" offering. This peace (or, fellowship) offering signified and sealed the full covenant restoration of the worshiper and was completed in a meal. Consider also the many meals Christ ate with His disciples in His post-resurrection appearances (Luke 24:30-43; John 21:1-14; Acts 1:4 and 10:41). Similarly, the fellowship meal preceding the breaking of bread and drinking of the cup formed a part of the Lord's Supper in the New Testament. Might we not do well to occasionally unite the elements of the Supper with a festive but orderly meal? How about each fourteenth of Nisan?

The next time we celebrate the Supper, let's not restrict our examination to self. Let us consider the contexts which help us to see this bread and wine as the richest possible fare. Take. Eat. Take. Drink. Christ has set us free.

Yours and His,
Steve Schlissel

You may count me among the adherents to Steve Schlissel's argument that the Fellowship Meal should be restored to its proper place preceding the breaking of the bread and the passing of the wine. As there is no specific command warranting the exclusion of the Fellowship Meal, it should be restored to its proper place within the celebration of Christian Passover, the Lord's Supper. This would be, IMHO, the Covenantal thing to do.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.