Introduction:
This post is a response to the Reformed-Baptist position. In this post, I'm not planning to lay out the Reformed position in detail, as it has already been done many times before by many people. For a complete explanation, I can direct you to this video that does an excellent job at explaining the practice of covenant baptism:Why Do We Baptize Our Children?
Instead, I intend to refute some of the most common baptist counter-arguments against covenant baptism. However, before I start, I need to first lay down some foundational issues.
Firstly, I have found that some baptists use the Roman Catholic interpretation of infant baptism in order to defend their own position. I find this rather dishonest, because infant baptism means different things in different denominations. In Roman Catholic theology, the act of being baptized actually contribute to your salvation. From a protestant view - focusing on the Roman Catholic interpretation while ignoring the Reformed interpretation is to put the practice in the worst possible light, so as to make your own position appear superior. Unfortunately, this approach causes division and misunderstanding among many baptists on this issue. In short, the Reformed position sees baptism as the seal of the new covenant, just as circumcision was the seal of the old covenant. It does not contribute in any way to your salvation, but is purely an outward sign of salvation. Therefore, just like the seal of the old covenant, the seal of the new covenant is applied to first generation believers after they made a confession of faith (Abraham), as well as the infants of believers (Isaac). (See the video for an in depth explanation) For this reason, I will be talking about the practice of covenant baptism, rather than infant baptism, to distinguish the Reformed position from the Catholic position.
Secondly, it is important to note that this is a response to reformed baptists. In other words, I'm assuming that my opponent believes in the Calvinist doctrine of God's sovereign election as described in Romans 9 and other places. This is in opposition to the Arminian view that Jesus Christ paid for the sins of all humanity, and that every person is capable of choosing to accept or reject this gift of grace. The merits of Calvinism vs Arminianism requires an in depth biblical discussion which is beyond the scope of this post.
That being said, lets look at some of the counter-arguments Baptists raise against covenant Baptism
Colossians 2:11-12
"In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead."
Covenant Baptism cannot be tied down to a single passage, but rather is the result of a holistic understanding of both the Old and New Testament. However, this is probably one of the most important passages that tie it all together. In short, Paul is saying that we are "circumcised" by Christ, as symbolized by the baptism. Clearly, the meaning of circumcision in the old covenant is tied to baptism in the new covenant in this passage.
However, a popular response from my baptist brothers is: "Aha, but you're forgetting something. There are two types of circumcisions mentioned in the Bible, and this one clearly point to the circumcision of the heart, not the actual circumcision, so there is no relation in this passage between baptism and circumcision."
But is this really the case? Lets first look at the meaning of the circumcision:
Genesis 17:9-11 "Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you."
Romans 4:11 "And he received circumcision as a sign, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them."
The circumcision was the outward sign or the seal of the covenant of God. This covenant entailed that God set a people apart for himself. In other words, he made them holy, for the meaning of holy is to be "set aside for God".
Now, let's look at the passages in the Bible that make reference to "circumcision of the heart".
Deuteronomy 10:16 "Circumcise your hearts, therefore, and do not be stiff-necked any longer."
Deuteronomy 30:6 "The Lord your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live."
Jeremiah 9:25 - 26 “The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will punish all who are circumcised only in the flesh— Egypt, Judah, Edom, Ammon, Moab and all who live in the wilderness in distant places. For all these nations are really uncircumcised, and even the whole house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart.”
In Deuteronomy 10:16, the command is clear: You have received the seal of being set aside for God, now also live like people who are set aside for God. In other words, go and live the meaning of your circumcision. God could've expressed the same idea using different terminology, He could've said "Purify your hearts, therefore, and do not be stiff-necked any longer." The fact that He uses the word "circumcision" instead means that the meaning of the circumcision is intimately related to the command He has given: The outward circumcision is to be a sign of the inward purification of the heart. In Deuteronomy 30, the command is repeated as a promise, and note, the promise is extended to them and their descendants! Once again, the terminology "Circumcision of the heart" is used to unite the outward circumcision with the inward change of heart. The term "Circumcision of the heart" is therefore not a completely different and unrelated circumcision, but rather refers to the true meaning of the outward sign.
Note that for the children of believers, this outward sign was applied before they were old enough to understand what it is about. The covenant, along with its blessings and curses, is therefore not optional to these children. It is not a matter of the children accepting God's covenant and then receiving the seal of that covenant, but rather of God setting them apart for Himself from birth already.
The promise that God will fulfill the true meaning of the circumcision is repeated in Jeremiah 9:25.
It is in this background that you have to look at Colossians 2:11. Obviously, what Paul is saying is not that the Colossians were circumcised, but that Christ has changed their hearts by cutting away their slavery to sin. The question is, why does Paul invoke circumcision to get this point across, when he could have used any other terminology to the same end - as indeed he often does elsewhere? Is this invoking some unrelated "circumcision of the heart" that has nothing to do with the actual circumcision? Obviously not! He is saying that the meaning of the circumcision has achieved its full meaning in us through Christ. (Note that in Romans 4:11, he includes us, the uncircumcised, as the children of Abraham, and therefore, we are part of that covenant) So how did the circumcision - the seal of the covenant - find its full meaning in us when we did not receive the seal? "having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead."
The conclusion is quite inescapable: The seal of the old covenant has found its full meaning in us through Christ, and that is symbolized by the baptism. Baptism therefore replaced circumcision as the seal of the new covenant.
1 Corinthians 7:14
"For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy."
As explained in the video, God never makes covenants with individuals. As can be seen right through the Old Testament, He makes covenants with people and their descendants. There is no reason to think that the covenant in Christ would be any different. Even so, this passage removes any doubt there might be about the generational nature of God's covenant. The children of believers are "holy". Again, holy means set aside for God, so clearly they are in covenant with God through Jesus Christ.
Note that being born in the covenant is not a guarantee for salvation and against apostasy. However, those who were born in the covenant received special grace from God, in that knowledge of God was made available to them in abundance from a young age, and God will hold them accountable for that. That is why each covenant comes with blessings and curses. The curse of the new covenant can be found in Hebrews 10:26-31: "If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” and again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."
I have not yet heard a Baptist refutation of the argument from this passage, though I'm sure it exists.
Whole households
Acts 16:13-15 "On the Sabbath we went outside the city gate to the river, where we expected to find a place of prayer. We sat down and began to speak to the women who had gathered there. One of those listening was a woman from the city of Thyatira named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth. She was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. “If you consider me a believer in the Lord,” she said, “come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us."Acts 16:32-34 "Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized. The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole household."
1 Corinthians 1:16 "Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else."
The common objection from my Baptist brothers here is that
1) The text does not explicitly state that "the whole household" included an infant, and
2) The whole household came to faith before being baptized, thereby excluding infants.
There are several reasons why this argument is special pleading. The first objection is irrelevant, and in my opinion, borders on eisegesis: The wording is quite clear and without qualification: The whole household was baptized. Let's assume for a moment that the household did include an infant. Surely, from the baptist point of view, this would require the text to be qualified. If the apostles believed as the baptists do, surely they would've written: "Everyone in the household old enough to understand was baptized". However, if the reformed position is correct, then surely we would not expect them to write "The whole household, including an infant, was baptized". The inclusion of the infant goes without saying. It is unnecessary because the infant is already included in "the whole household". So clearly, an unbiased reading of this passage favors the Reformed position over the Baptist position.
But the objection doesn't end there. Let's assume, as baptists do, there was no infants in these households. Then the evidence is still against the Baptist position, not only in what the apostles did write, but also in what they did not write.
Firstly, and most obviously, even if these households did not include infants, it still does nothing to negate the arguments from Col 2:11-12 and 1 Cor 7:14. If anything, it adds circumstantial evidence to them.
Secondly, if we are not to baptize infants, and that baptism should necessarily be preceded by a confession of faith, that begs an obvious question: Exactly how old should a child be before he can be baptized? A two year old can say "I love Jesus", but does that mean he understands the full weight of his sinful guilt, the holiness of God, and the grace He extends to us through the atonement of Jesus Christ, which would lead him to live a life of gratitude? Surely not. So how much should he understand before he can be baptized? How old should he be? In fact, the problem runs into adulthood, for there are many adults confessing to be Christian and who underwent credobaptism, while also having a very limited understanding of the faith. And even when baptized as adults after a confession of faith, some still fall into apostasy anyway. So really: How old does a person need to be before he can qualify for baptism? Why does the apostles never addressed this blatantly obvious question? Well, maybe because it wasn't a question to them at all, and they simply assumed everyone knows the answer: If covenant baptism is correct, then clearly this question becomes mute: Instead of the fuzzy confusion of how old a person must be and how much he should know before being baptized, the question is resolved with clarity: Anyone who is born from believing parents fall within the covenant and should be baptized as soon as possible. I know of no other reason why the Apostles would not have addressed this important question in their teachings.
Church History
I noticed that on Baptist timelines of church history, infant baptism is inserted somewhere in the 2nd or 3rd century as a later invention of the church. Apparently - as I understand the argument - the claim goes that the first references to infant baptism only appear around this time, proving that it was a later invention. I would like to suggest that instead, this proves that the practice of infant baptism was an accepted and uncontroversial subject in the early church. This explanation also explain the lack of references: The church fathers were much too busy surviving persecution and refuting actual heretics and false doctrines to be writing about something that was considered common knowledge by all, and disputed by none. I looked into the matter, and I found this blog post from Origen:
Here are some quotes from Origen on infant baptism:
1. In his Homilies on Luke (XIV on 2:22a) he remarks “therefore children also are baptized”.2. In his Homilies on Leviticus (VIII 3 on 12.2) he says baptism is given “according to custom of the Church, to infants also”.3. Most famous of all, in his Commentary on Romans (V 9 on 6:5-7) he states “For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too”.
Joachim Jeremias notes “The passages quoted were written between 233 and 251, but they take us back to a considerably earlier period. For Origen maintains – as Hippolytus, shortly before and independently of him, had done in Rome – that infant baptism was a custom reaching back to apostolic times. He could hardly have expressed himself thus if he had not himself been baptized as a paidion (Origen was born in 185 in Egypt). When we note that his family, as Eusebius credibly informs us, had been Christian for several generations, we must add that he could hardly have spoken of a ‘tradition handed down from the apostles’ had he not known that at least his father and probably also his grandfather had been baptized as paidia. This means that the tradition of his family carries us back from that date of his own baptism at least to the date of his father’s – i.e. to the middle of the second century, and probably even to the baptism of his grandfather in the first half of that century.”
- quoted from Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries, pp. 65-66.
I would like to expand on this by pointing out the nature of the quote. I could be mistaken, but it appears to me that these references to infant baptism are made in passing. This is what we should expect if it was an established practice throughout the church. Had Origen written about infant baptism as a defense of a new and alien doctrine, one would expect a much more elaborate and focused discussion on his theological motivations. I am not a scholar of the early church fathers, but I would assume that had such a detailed defense of the practice existed in the writings of the early church fathers, our Baptist brothers would've been sure to point it out to us. I therefore have little reason to doubt Origen when he says the practice dates from Apostolic times.
Why does it matter?
I think most Reformed Christians and Baptist Christians would agree: being wrong on this point is not going to cost you your salvation. So the question is: Why is this important? Why does it matter?
Ultimately, I think, it matters because the Baptist position robs parents who has lost an infant of the peace and certainty of the fate of their child. Why do I say this?
If baptism is the seal/sign of our salvation, then what does it say about infants when we say they are not to be baptized? What does that say about their relationship with God, or rather, God's relationship with them?
I read a little booklet called "Heaven is for real". In the book the author mentions parents who are in distress about the fate of their unborn/infant children who died. This struck me as incredible, because a parent in the Reformed tradition with a proper understanding of the nature of God's covenant would never have such doubts. But from a baptist point of view, their doubts makes sense: by not baptizing an infant, at best we're saying we cannot know their fate, at worst it means they're to be considered lost. If you're a Baptist who believes your dying infant will be saved, on what grounds do you believe that?
Many people believe all babies are saved by default, but that would be limited universalism which is unbiblical. In Psalm 51, David writes that we are guilty before God, even before we are born. We also know that death is the result of sin, so if infants were innocent, why are they dying? Clearly, they too require a mediator, which is only available through Christ. Any other teaching would imply an alternative route to salvation, which contradict the very core of the Christian message.
What other grounds is there for their salvation? I know of no biblical grounds for such certainty other than the grace of Christ which is bestowed upon them through His covenant to which the child's parents belong to, and into which he is born. It is to be assumed that the children of believers are saved, unless apostasy later in life proves otherwise.
And if the child is in the grace of Christ from birth, why can he not receive the seal of his salvation?
God elects
Ultimately, I can't help to think that the Baptist position of credobaptism is the logical conclusion of Arminianism. I really struggle to reconcile the idea of "Reformed Baptist", because it appears to be a contradiction in terms.
If, as the Arminians believe, your salvation is dependent on you choosing to accept Christ out of your own free will, then credobaptism logically follows. An infant can't be baptized, because he is not capable of understanding the gospel, and therefore he is unable to make a choice for it. And since salvation depends on your choosing, you can't receive the seal for salvation unless you first make that choice. According to Arminianism, you are lost until you make that choice for Christ. What the Arminians believe about the fate of the dead infant, I don't know.
Covenant baptism, on the other hand, flows naturally from the Calvinist position. According this this view, Christ died only for the sins of those whom He has elected before time. He works the faith in the hearts of the elect, and he purifies them. Nothing can ever snatch them from His hand. The elect receive this grace, not because of anything in them that makes them more deserving, but based solely on the free and sovereign choice of God. Since it is God who chooses His people, and God who set up the covenant, we can therefore baptize our infants, safely assuming them to be part of the elect, unless later apostasy proves otherwise. Baptizing infants emphasize that it is God, and God alone who saves us before we were even born, before we were even capable of making a choice. The Reformed Baptist might say: "Ah, but what if the child grows up to be an apostate? Then you baptized someone who never believed and never was one of the elect." But I'd like to point out that this is equally true of the Reformed Baptist who baptized someone who made a false or shallow confession of faith. In both cases 1 John 2:19 applies: "They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us." Whether you believe in covenant baptism and whether you believe in credobaptism, neither method gives you certain knowledge of the person's election before God, that knowledge belongs to God alone. Therefore both methods will result in the baptism of unsaved people. In the case of covenant Baptism, however, a person remains under the covenant, even though he is an apostate. For such a person, the curse of Hebrews 10:26-31 applies.
Conclusion
There are many sincere and serious reformed baptists out there for whom I have the utmost of respect. Their passion for Christ and loyalty to Sola Scriptura can not be questioned. However, because of their limited understanding of baptism and the covenant, they loose an important aspect of God's love for his children: The fact that He extend his grace not just to you as an individual, but to your family as a whole. After all, the family unit was ordained by God Himself. Will He not also share His blessings according to the social structure which He Himself decreed? We see he did so throughout the old testament, why would He change it in the new and better covenant? We have Scriptural and historical evidence that infant baptism was implied by the apostles. Why should we deprive ourselfs of this God given gift?
