Home Forums Blogs Articles Photos Videos Contact FAQ

Infant baptism - Theology

Infant baptism - Theology: Encyclopedia II - Infant baptism - Theology

The theology underlying and surrounding infant baptism is complex because it differs between denominations. The general consensus is that baptism is the New Testament form of circumcision. All male converts to Judaism and male infants born to Jewish parents were circumcised as rite of initiation into the Jewish community (Genesis 17:10-11). Pedobaptists contend that baptism has replaced circumcision and is the rite of initiation into the Christian community. Beyond this, very little is agreed on the subject among Christian denominations. Infant bapti ...

Infant baptism: Encyclopedia II - Infant baptism - Theology

Infant baptism - Theology

Infant baptism - Differences among pedobaptists

Pedobaptists disagree about the precise significance of infant baptism and the exact justification for it. These differences generally revolve around the following issues:

What baptism does, if anything
What spiritual effect baptism has on the infant being baptized
The extent of the effect of baptism beyond a symbolic expression

This disagreement is rooted in the interpretation of more fundamental areas of theology, such as the doctrine of salvation and the doctrine of the sacraments.

Christian groups who practice infant baptism divide approximately into four groups of opinion:

The Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglican churches
Lutherans
Methodists
The Presbyterian and Continental Reformed churches

These three Christian disciplines contend that infant baptism is not a mere symbol but that it actually conveys grace. They further contend that the grace conveyed in baptism is an essential first step in the process of justification. They view baptism as a "tool" or "instrument" of God's justifying grace because it directly causes initial justification. They see it as God's drowning of the sinful nature resulting in the recreation of spiritual life in the soul.

Lutherans baptize children because they believe that God commands it, based on such Bible verses as Matthew 28:19, Mark 10:13-15, Acts 2:38-39, Ephesians 6:4. Baptism, they believe, is one of the Means of Grace through which God creates and/or strengthens the gift of faith. Although Lutherans do not claim to understand how this happens or how it is possible, they believe that when an infant is baptized God creates faith in the heart of that infant. This faith cannot yet, of course, be expressed or articulated, yet they assert that is real and present all the same [1].

Methodists contend that infant baptism has spiritual value for the infant. John Wesley, the founder of Methodism maintained the Anglican view that baptism regenerates the infant. He listed several ways that infants benefit from baptism:

The guilt of Original Sin is removed.
They gain admission into the Church.
Their standing before God is changed from one under condemnation to a child of God.

Infant baptism is particularly illustrative of the Methodist doctrine of prevenient grace. The principle is that The Fall of Man ruined the human soul to such an extent that nobody wants a relationship with God. In order for humans to even want to be able to choose God, God must therefore take care of their innate dislike of spiritual matters, which he does by means of prevenient grace. This involves God taking the very first step in salvation, preceding any human effort or decision. Methodists justify infant baptism by this principle, and also use it symbolically, as an illustration of God approaching the helpless. They see the ceremony additionally as a celebration of God's prevenient grace.

Presbyterian and Reformed Christians contend that baptism is not a mere symbol but actually conveys grace. The grace it conveys, however, is not justifying grace. It may convey sanctifying grace or some other kind of grace. Baptism, according to this tradition, does not produce Christians but it may produce better Christians.

They see infant baptism as the New Testament form of circumcision in the Jewish covenant (Joshua 24:15). Circumcision did not create faith in the 8 day-old Jewish boy. It merely marked him as a member of God’s covenant people the church. Likewise, baptism doesn’t create faith it is a sign of entrance into the church.

Presbyterian and Reformed pedobaptists accept the children of believers as members of the church. Credobaptists, by contrast, treat their infants and toddlers as unbelievers or inquirers. This acceptance implies that membership in the church is not just a matter of intellectual understanding, assent, or even faith. Some pedobaptists contend that it is much easier for churches that practice pedobaptism to include people who are mentally impaired and may never be capable of intellectually understanding the intricacies of the faith, but nevertheless participate in the church as they are able.

Infant baptism - Pedobaptism versus Credobaptism

The main question which separates pedobaptists and credobaptists is this:

Who should be baptized?

The pedobaptists answer is: adult converts and the children of believers. The credobaptists answer is: only adult converts.

The two different answers to this question do not, by themselves, shed much light on the nature of the dispute between pedobaptists and credobaptists. To fully grasp the disagreement over infant baptism one needs to understand the roots of the disagreement.

The disagreement about infant baptism is grounded in differing theological views at a more basic level. Christians disagree about infant baptism because they disagree about the role of baptism, the means of salvation, the nature of grace, and the function of the sacraments. Pedobaptism and credobaptism are positions which bubble up from theological views at a more fundamental level of one’s theological system.

Christians answer the question: who should be baptized differently because they give different answers to the more fundamental questions which lie beneath it. These more basic questions include:

Why do Christians baptize anyone at all (i.e. what is the point of baptism)?
Who are members of God’s covenant community or church?
What does baptism signify and/or symbolize?
Is baptism merely a symbol or is it a channel through which God conveys grace (i.e. spiritual power, unmerited favor, spiritual blessing)?
If baptism conveys grace, does it convey justifying grace (grace that makes one a Christian) or sanctifying grace (grace which makes one a better Christian)?

Credobaptists answer these foundational questions this way:

Baptism is a public profession of faith. It is a non-verbal or symbolic way of publicly telling the world one is a Christian.
Only those who have faith in Christ are members of God’s covenant community (or church).
Baptism symbolizes that the individual has been washed and cleansed from his sin by the blood of Jesus.
Baptism is merely a symbol. It does not convey grace.
Baptism does not convey grace of any kind.

These answers entail, or at least imply, credobaptism. If, for example, the whole point of baptism is to publicly declare that an individual is a believer in Christ, then newborns should not be baptized because they do not, as far as we can tell, believe in Christ (or anything else for that matter).

Pedobaptists answer these foundational questions quite differently. There is widespread disagreement among pedobaptists, but they typically give the following sorts of answers:

Baptism is a sign that a person is a member of God’s covenant community.
Believers and the children of believers are members of God’s covenant community (or church).
Baptism symbolizes cleansing and washing.
Baptism is not merely a symbol. It conveys grace.
Pedobaptists disagree on the answer to this question. Some argue baptism conveys justifying grace, others sanctifying grace, still other that it conveys both kinds of grace.

If one answers these fundamental questions this way, then the practice of infant baptism looks differently.

If baptism is a sign that a person is a member of God’s covenant and if the children of believers are members of that community, then, pedobaptists contend, it follows that the children of believers should receive the sign that they are members of God’s covenant community by being baptized. If baptism is like a passport, i.e. a sign that you are a member of a particular country and if an infant is a member of that country, he should be permitted a passport.

Why do pedobaptists and credobaptists give different answers to foundational question surrounding baptism? They differ because their reading and interpretation of the Bible and their view about the sources of theology differ.

Infant baptism - Arguments for infant baptism

As was mentioned above, pedobaptists do not completely agree on the reasons for baptizing infants. Consequently, pedobaptists offer different but related cases for infant baptism. What follows is a lowest common denominator argument for infant baptism. It reflects the less robust view of the effects of baptism, but is entirely consistent with the stronger views of infant baptism. Pedobaptists, like Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, might think it is incomplete but not mistaken. They would agree with it as far as it goes, but just think it does not go far enough.

One argument for infant baptism runs as follows:

Premise #1: Circumcision is the sign of the covenant God made with Abraham and should be received by all the members of his covenant (Gen. 17:10-11).

Premise #2: The children of members of Abraham's covenant are themselves members of Abraham's covenant (Gen 17:7, Dt. 7:9, 30:6, 1Ch 16:15, Psa 103:17, 105:8).

Premise #3: Christians are members of Abraham's covenant (Galatians 3:6-9 & Galatians 3:26-29; Romans 11.17-24; Rom. 4:16; Eph. 2:11-13; Eph. 3:3-6; Rom 2:28-29; 1 Peter 2:9; Gal. 6:16; Phil 3:2-3).

Premise #4: Therefore, the children of Christians are members of Abraham's covenant (follows logically and necessarily from 2 & 3; 1 Cor. 7:14; Acts 2:38).

Premise #5: Baptism is the New Testament form of circumcision (Col. 2:11-12 cf. Eph 2:11-12; Galatians 3:26-29 cf. 1 Cor. 12:13 & Col. 3:11).

Conclusion: Therefore, the children of Christians should receive the sign of the covenant by being baptized (logically and necessarily from 1, 4, & 5).

Presbyterian and Reformed Christians base their case for infant baptism on Covenant theology. Covenant theology is a broad interpretative framework used to understand the Bible. Reformed Baptists are Reformed yet, as their name suggests, adhere to Believers Baptism.

According to Covenant theology God makes two basic covenants, or agreements, with humans. The first one, the Covenant of Works is an agreement that bases man’s relationship with God on human obedience and morality. The covenant was made with Adam in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve broke this covenant so God replaced it with a second more durable covenant--- the Covenant of Grace. The Covenant of Grace is an agreement that bases man’s relationship with God on God’s grace and generosity. The Covenant of Works failed because it was based on human performance. The Covenant of Grace is durable because it is based on God’s performance.

All the covenants that God makes with humans after the Fall, (e.g. with Abraham, Moses, and David) are really just different forms of the Covenant of Grace. They may appear to be different but are fundamentally the same covenant. The underlying Covenant of Grace stays the same even though the external forms changes. Consequently, Covenant theologians see in Old Testament Israel the people of God (the church) before Christ was born. For the Covenant theologian, therefore, there is only one people of God - the church.

According to Presbyterian and Reformed Christians, this theological framework is important to the Biblical case for infant baptism because it provides a reason for thinking there is strong continuity between the Old and New Testaments. It provides a bridge linking the two Testaments together.

Covenant Theologians claim that the New Testament book of Hebrews demonstrates that much of Israel's cultic worship has been replaced by the person and work of Christ. The result is that some important forms of worship in the Old Testament have New Testament equivalents. The Passover festival, for example, was replaced by the Lord's Supper (or Eucharist).

It is across the bridge of Covenant Theology that the sign of Abraham’s covenant, circumcision, walks into the New Testament. The sign of the Covenant changes its external form to reflect new spiritual realties. It was a bloody sign in the Old Testament but because Christ has shed his blood, it has been transformed into a bloodless sign, i.e. washing with water. Passover was a bloody form of Old Testament worship and also transitions into the New Testament in the bloodless form of bread and wine.

Covenant theologians point out that the external sign of the covenant in the Old Testament was circumcision. Circumcision was performed upon the male children of Israelites to signify their external membership in God's people, not as a guarantee of true faith; the Old Testament records many Israelites who turned from God and were punished, showing that their hearts were not truly set on serving God. So while all male Israelites had the sign of the covenant performed on them in a once off ceremony soon after birth, such a signifier was external only and not a true indicator of whether or not they would later exhibit true faith in Yahweh.

In the New Testament, circumcision is no longer seen as mandatory for God's people. However there is compelling evidence to suggest that the Old Testament circumcision rite has been replaced by baptism. For instance: "In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism." (Colossians 2:11-12a)

Some pedobaptists, then, think the analogy of baptism to circumcision correctly point to children, since the historic Israelite application of circumcision was to infants, not to adult converts, of which there were few. Covenant theology, then, identifies baptism less as statement of faith as an assumption of identity; that is to say that infant baptism is a sign of covenantal inclusion.

Pedobaptists point to a number of passages in the New Testament which seem to corroborate the above argument.

In the Old Testament, if the head of a household converted to Judaism, all the males in the house, even the infants, were circumcised. Pedobaptists argue this pattern continues into the New Testament. Reference is made, for example, to baptizing a person and their whole household – the households of Lydia, Crispus, and Stephanas are mentioned by name Acts 16:14-15, 18:8; 1 Cor 1:16.

Pedobaptists challenge credobaptists on this point: Why would a whole household be baptized just because the head of the house had faith? Shouldn’t they baptize each member of the family as they come to individual faith? Household baptism implies that the rules for membership in Abraham's covenant has continued into the New Testament, the main difference is the sign of the covenant. Baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign of membership in God covenant community. These household baptisms fit nicely with the argument for infant baptism and, so, are evidence for it. Household baptisms fit poorly with the credobaptists view of baptism as a sign of individual faith, and so, is evidence against it.

Pedobaptists also point to Psalm 51, which reads, in part, "surely I was sinful from birth," as indication that infants are sinful (vid. original sin) and are thus in need of forgiveness that they too might have salvation. Credobaptists would admit that infants are in need of salvation but pedobaptists push the point a step further by arguing that it makes no theological sense for infants to need salvation but for God to make no provision for them to be saved.

Infant baptism - Arguments against Infant Baptism

Opponents of pedobaptism point to Biblical passages emphasizing individual conscience, seeing baptism as something which is for those who already believe --- thus it is for those who are able to state their belief, and infants clearly cannot do such a thing. Repentance (Acts 2:38 -- "repent and be baptized") is often seen as a prerequisite, which requires a mature understanding of sin and a decision to turn away from sin. Some point to Deuteronomy 24:16 or 1 Peter 3:21 as evidence that each individual must make a mature decision regarding baptism.

Some who oppose infant baptism view baptism as a point of conversion; others view it as largely symbolic, an "outward sign of inward grace". But all opponents agree that a person must understand baptism and make his or her own decision.

Baptists and some other denominations (see below) do not accept infant baptism as valid, and Christians who transfer membership from pedobaptist churches to denominations that practice believers' baptism are generally required to be "rebaptized". Pedobaptism is also opposed by some because the child is baptized into the church without its consent. There is wide disparity (even within most denominations) regarding what age a child becomes mature enough to make this decision.