My Reasons for Embracing Paedobaptism

What follows is a listing of many of my reasons for (most likely) embracing paedobaptism - the baptism of infants of believing parents. This is not put forward as a comprehensive list of proofs or even as a defense of the position, but simply a summary of the key ideas and thoughts that have led me to this place. At some later date, perhaps, I will offer a longer explanation and defense for a number of these reasons. The list is not necessarily in order of importance or weight.

1. The biblical model is the baptism of individuals and households as soon as they profess belief in Christ, not after some lengthy period of examination of the “credibility” of the professor’s testimony. (Acts 2:41; 8:12; 8:36-38; 16:31; 19:15; 22:16; etc.) 
2. Thus, Baptism is seen as the beginning of discipleship - not some halfway house.
3. The New Testament is full of “Christian synagogues” - congregations of Jewish disciples of Christ. None are instructed to cease administering the covenant sign, circumcision, to their children. Instead, they are instructed to add the New Covenant sign of baptism - for “there is one body and one Spirit — just as you were called to one hope when you were called — one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all” (Eph. 4:4,5).
   If the Apostles did not believe that Jewish children should retain their status as full members of God’s covenant people, they would have had to command the myriads of Jewish Christians described in Acts and James to cease circumcising their sons. They did not. 
4. Restricting baptism to adult believers would be a huge exception to the pattern of the New Covenant - which in every other case has expanded the reach and message of God’s grace. What was once largely restricted to the tribes of Old Testament Israel is now offered freely to the whole world - Jews and Gentiles alike. Do we mean to say that God has rescinded His promises to children of the covenant?
5. The New Testament is clear: God’s promises to the children of believers continue. “His mercy extends to those who fear him, from generation to generation” (Luke 1:50. See also: Acts 2:38,39).
6. Circumcision was a sign of the promise to Abraham, not an ordinance of the law given through Moses. As Christians, we are children of the promise, and Abraham is our father. (See Romans 4).
7. Thus, circumcision is the Old Testament parallel to New Testament Baptism (as are the many ceremonial washings). The parallel is not “heart circumcision.” The parallel to “heart circumcision” is to be “born again.” Circumcision is the outward symbol of what should be the inward reality, the cutting off of sin. Likewise, Baptism is the outward sign of what should be the inward reality of a cleansed heart. It is the sign and seal of God’s promises to believers.
8. The Apostles recognize children in the churches to be Christians: “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, to the saints who are at Ephesus, and who are faithful in Christ Jesus - Children, obey your parents in the Lord” (Eph.1:1, 6:1).
9. Children in the New Covenant are taught that the covenant promises made at Sinai applied to them, just as it had to Israelite children from infancy on. (Eph. 6:1-3; cf. Ex. 20:12)
10. The New Testament speaks of thousands upon thousands of children being baptized. (1 Cor. 10:1-4; cf. Ex. 10:9-11,24;14:21,22,29)
11. The Church Fathers - who in many cases learned at the feet of the men who learned at the feet of the Apostles - practiced infant baptism.
    E.g. Irenaeus, only two generations removed from the Apostles, said the following: “He came to save all through himself — all, I say, who through him are reborn in God — infants and children and youths and old men.”
    Likewise Hippolytus: “Baptize first the children; and if they can speak for themselves, let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them.”
    And Augustine believed that it was a practice received directly from the Apostles.
    It is simply implausible that the practice of baptism, a sacrament of God and so central to a proper understanding of the church, would have been corrupted so fully and so quickly. 
12. Baptism “saves” and provides the “washing of regeneration” - not by mere mechanistic or magical application by a priest … but through the faith of the one baptized. (Titus 3:4-6; Eph. 5:25-27; 1 Peter 3:21; etc.) Baptism, then, is an implement of God’s saving grace.

In anticipation of credobaptistic objections to infant baptism, I offer the following points - all of which were at least as important as those points stated above in moving me towards accepting paedobaptism as being a biblical practice:

1. Rampant nominalism is just as much a problem in credobaptistic churches (those who baptize only believers with a “credible” profession of faith) as it is in paedobaptistic congregations - just look at the “Bible Belt.” The solution for both is not to bar the door by denying baptism to infants, but instead the proper exercise of church discipline and sound, biblical teaching and preaching. 
2. Nearly 2,000 years after Pentecost, there is no uniformity of thought or practice among credobaptists - and even among the small subset of “Reformed Baptists” - for when the church should recognize a child’s profession of faith as credible. On an issue so central to the life of the church, should this still be undecided?
3. And who are we to judge a child’s heart regarding the veracity of his stated faith?
4. Credobaptism is inherently subjective. Like many adherents of the unbiblical practices of the altar call and “sinners prayer” as substitutes to God-ordained baptism for commencement of Christian discipleship, doubt in one’s sincerity during their previous “believer’s baptism” leads many to be baptized again, and again, and again - because they “really mean it this time,” and they truly “understand” the faith now, where their understanding was “inadequate” before. This is a recipe for navel-gazing and chaos in the church.
5. In contrast, the practice of paedobaptism emphasizes the fact that baptism is a work of God, not an “act of obedience.” After all, what “choice” did the infant have in his baptism? He can always look back to his baptism as objective proof that God has sovereignly redeemed him and called him to faith. This is much more consistent with the Reformed understanding that we are justified by God’s grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
6. I have heard dear Baptist friends say - not with derision, but simply as a statement of what they believe to be a theological “truth” - that infant children “hate God.” How can they know this? Can they look into the heart of a child?
7. The Bible provides many clear examples of children possessing true faith from their earliest days. John the Baptist, for instance, “leapt in the womb,” at the presence of Jesus in Mary, and was filled with the Holy Spirit from birth. (Luke 1:13-15,41. See also Psalm 22:9,10; 71:5,6). 
8. Through faith, I must believe the promises of God to be true. A good Baptist friend of mine said to me recently that he “hopes” his children are disciples. Brother, they are disciples of Christ, for they are disciples of their believing parents. They are children of the covenant — and therefore Christians.
9. Disciples - even adult disciples - can be cut off from the faith. (E.g. Romans 11:20,21; 1 Corinthians 10:1-5,12; Hebrews 10:28,29, etc.). There are those who are covenantally Christians (by virtue of their baptism), and among them are eschatological Christians - those who will persevere to the end and prove themselves among the elect. We should be loathe to prematurely and excessively prune the “olive tree” by denying children entrance to the covenant family, the Church. God instructs the Church to prune dead branches only after they prove themselves to be dead through the lack of good fruit and the abundance of bad fruit unrepentantly yielded over time. Fruit is by definition observable; the heart of a child is not.

As I’ve said before (here and here), I encourage anyone interested to look at the best arguments I’ve found, both pro and con, that I have collected on my website.

I am very interested in being corrected if I am wrong, or hearing your questions. “Iron sharpens iron.” I am very aware of my fallibility, and thus count my many brothers in Christ who challenge me in all areas of faith as great blessings from God.

Sincerely,

~Eric

On Giving Right Answers by Suffering Well

Every once in a while, something is said in a sermon which really opens your eyes to Scripture in a new and amazing way. This morning was once of those times, as I listened intently to Pastor Tom Holliday of Alexandria Presbyterian Church (PCA) preach on 1 Peter 3:8-16.

The particular passage on which his remarks shed new light for me is a favorite of evangelical Christians — indeed, conservative Christians of all stripes:

Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. (v.15b)

Most of us have thought of this simply as a call to personal apologetics, and have considered this to encompass our personal witness in word (i.e. our ability to explain biblical propositions and the essentials of the Gospel) and deed (i.e. living a morally upright and loving, self-sacrificial life that commends the Gospel to others). Part of Tom’s point is that this standard application is NOT what this passage is about — at least not explicitly, given the context. Now it is true that that application IS a necessary implication of Scriptural teaching at large, but this idea does NOT flow primarily from this verse.

So, Tom’s larger point concerns the context itself, and how that context gives a more precise meaning to — and application of — this verse to our lives as Christians. And what is that context? Well, it is straight out of the Beatitudes, of which Peter is explaining what Christ meant in saying “blessed are the persecuted…” That is what immediately proceeds this verse:

Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing…. But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear what they fear; do not be frightened.” But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. (v.9,14-15a)

And in the passage that immediately follows the verse in question:

But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. (v.15c-16)

Of course, this hearkens back to the teaching in Proverbs:

If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat;
if he is thirsty, give him water to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head,
and the LORD will reward you. (Prov. 25:21-22)

(And, in God’s providence, I just happened to read this chapter of Proverbs this morning with Samuel, given that it is the 25th day of the month! But I digress.)

Therefore, given the context, the primary meaning and necessary application of the verse in question is this:
The way we give an answer to those who ask the reason for our hope is to be long-suffering and to bless our neighbors and enemies alike, when we are insulted, treated badly, or persecuted. And we do so, we explain, because of Christ, who has done just that and more for us!

As Christians, we know that to some extent or another we will suffer for our faith. More importantly, according to Peter, we are called to suffer well — and for Christ’s sake.

Clearly, Peter does not reduce the defense of the Gospel to disembodied propositions, and neither should we. Peter sees — and thus we should see — that Christianity is quintessentially a living, breathing and very public way of life that flows organically out of our hope in Christ.

~Eric

With apologies to my fundamentalist teetotaler friends…

This is so good I just had to pass it on.  Yet another proof — ;o) — in favor of wine instead of grape juice for the Lord’s Supper! It’s best if you listen to the linked mp3 file while you read along:

Just a Little Wine 
Download: JustaLittleWine.mp3

I once was lost in sin but Jesus took me in.
And then a little light from heaven Jesus sends.
I then joined Providence and I’ve been happy since
’cause I can take communion here with all my friends.

[Chorus]: Now let us have a little wine, don’t say no
‘Cause we’ll have a Cabernet or Merlot
We would have a Chardonnay but then that color, nope, no way.
So let us have a little fermentation with our Eucharistic celebration
You will find a little red wine really makes it right, makes it right.

We learned in Sunday school that beer is not for fools,
And just a little scotch can make you feel okay.
But if you want a drink that really makes you think
Have a little wine with dinner I would say.

[Chorus]

Our pastor says that wine is better you will find
Than grape juice in communion e’er could be.
We take part in a feast with Jesus our High Priest
And just a little wine is proper biblically.

[Chorus]

The Honesty of the Crook

…As in the shepherd’s crook. Here is a worthwhile look by RC Sproul,  Jr. at the high calling of pastors over and above armchair theologians.

Now, a few of my own thoughts in response to this article:

As RC Jr points out, scattered sheep are sheep that are untended. This puts those sheep in a very precarious position. Outside the fold, there is no protection. They are fat targets for the hungry wolves of hell.

This is especially true of those sheep that go it alone, seldom if ever participating in the flock, the local church. This woeful truth is not remedied by tape ministries, Christian radio, watching the 700 Club or TBN. (This is esp. so on the last two points. In fact, I will say straight up that a Christian is much better off watching EWTN at random than TBN at random, IMHO. At least with the former you have consistent teaching from thorough-going Trinitarians who hold fast to the historic creeds — those magnificent summaries of the Gospel that have been recited by millennia of Christians. This is much more than I can say about the out and out heresy of the health-wealthers and non-trinitarians running rampant at the “Trinity Broadcasting Network.”
And I say this as a thorough Calvinist who is not slow to debate the greatly problematic teachings of Rome. But I digress greatly.)

Anyway, the flip side of this is that we are therefore *not* feeding our fellow sheep if we are merely sending them tapes, no matter how good the teaching. Preaching and teaching in the Church is meant to occur in the context of community. And I say this as one who benefits greatly from the tape ministries of CHBC, White Horse Inn, 9Marks, etc.

The point, then, is these are add-ons — things whose value is realized only in concert with participation in the Body. Therefore, I state this: If sheep can’t come — due to illness, old age, etc. — and participate in the Lord’s Service with the local flock, it is much better to have the pastor present Christ to them by bringing the Holy Eucharist *to* them, then to simply send them tapes of sermons. At least in the former, they are truly participating in — and partaking
truly of — Christ’s Body. And fellowship is essential. And then — only then — do we hand them a tape. And last, but definitely not least, keep them away from that damned TBN.

My two cents.  ~Eric

Re: The New Perspective, Federal Vision, and Infant Baptism

Hi Dan! It is always good to hear from you.

Re: your questions, I have read little on the New Perspective.  However, I think the good folks are ACE are wrong, at least in the way they are going about their criticisms.  Simply put, from the little I have read, they are misrepresenting Wilson, and thus, I assume, many other acolytes of the Federal Vision.  For good stuff on this, see Wilson’s blog posts on the subject.  (Start at bottom post and read “up”).

I have not read “The Federal Vision,” but I intend to.  I have read what I assume to be much of the main thrust of that “vision” in Wilson’s Family Series of books, of which I’ve read most — great stuff!

BTW, Wilson is not 100% on board with the New Perspective, either (which is not synonymous with Federal Vision).  Not even close.  For his great article on the subject, click here.

Also — and this may be a bombshell — I am strongly considering going Presbyterian or Reformed, on paedobaptist grounds.  I will be laying out my reasons in the near future, but not until I first meet with our beloved elders at CHBC.  For now, suffice it to say that the teaching of Wilson and others like him (esp. Mark Horne) on this subject are a big reason why.   To see much of what I’ve been reading on the subject – from both sides — see this page on my website.

Please pray that I might have wisdom in this matter, of which I have been carefully considering for some time.

God bless you, my brother,
   ~ Eric

P.S.  I cc this to others of my great friends, so that they can hear it straight from the horse’s mouth — and perhaps lend their prayers, as well. 

In Praise of Discrimination

Good article:

In Praise of Discrimination
by P. Andrew Sandlin