There are some groups that believe infant baptism is necessary for salvation. Roman Catholic Church believes that the sacrament of baptism is necessary for salvation and therefore unbaptized infants go to Limbus Infantium. Augustine believed in the eternal damnation of unbaptized infants. (Bowman, Infant Salvation, page 1.)
John Calvin and The Westminster Confession advocate only baptized infants of elect parents are saved. Covenant reformed theologians today believe, such as Warfield and Charles Hodge, that infants go to heaven at death.
Covenant theologians also believe that infants must be baptized because Old Testament infants were circumcised. Their argument says that since circumcision and baptism are closely linked in Colossians 2:11-12 infants must be baptized. “The argument rests on the covenant theology concept of a single covenant of grace which involved an initiatory rite into that covenant, the rite being circumcision membership in the covenant, not necessarily personal faith” (Ryrie, Basic Theology, page 423). Paul is clearly not talking about a physical circumcision but spiritual circumcision in Colossians 2:11 but “the circumcision made without hands.” Neither is Paul talking about physical but spiritual baptism in Colossians 2:12.
“Baptism is the initiatory rite into a believing community, the church; therefore it should only be performed on believers. By contrast, circumcision initiated people (including infants) into a theocracy which did have unbelievers in it” (Ryrie, page 423). “There is no Biblical parallel for circumcision was a sign of the Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 17:9-4); whereas, baptism in the New Testament identifies with the local church. If the two were parallel then covenant theologians cannot explain why infant girls are baptized” (Bowman, Advanced Ecclesiology, page 38).
The Biblical order is that baptism follows faith in Jesus Christ (Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:37-38) and infants cannot believe. In order for the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20 to be fulfilled, the baptized must be taught to observe what Jesus taught which is impossible for infants. In case of household salvation and baptism only those old enough to believe were baptized (Acts 16:15 and 31-34).
Robert L. Saucy points out “the difficulty involved in trying to distinguish the efficacy of baptism as it applies to adults and infants is noted by Reformed theologian John Murray. His attempt to maintain the same significance for both in the following quotation appears to contradict the clear biblical principle of salvation by faith:
The possession of the grace signified by baptism does not presuppose in the case of infants the exercise of intelligent faith and repentance; they are not yet psychologically capable of such. And the church cannot reqiure intelligent and credible profession on their part. The accompaniments for the grace signified by baptism and the prerequisites for its administration differ in the respective cases. But it is a mistake to think that the import or signification differs. Baptism signifies union with Christ and membership in His body. It means this for both adults and infants. And so, in respect of efficacy, baptism is for infants precisely what it is for adults, namely, the divine testimony to their union with Christ and the divine certification and authentication of this great truth” (Robert L. Saucy. The Church in God’s Program. 202-203.)
I real’t don’t get this. No place in scripture do we find a case of infant baptism. Each instance of baptism in the New Testament is preceded by repentance. I am raising 2 intelligent boys, neither of which could have understood repentance straight out of the womb. Once again, the Catholics have simply added something to scripture that somehow made sense to them. Calvinist have decided they know someone will be saved before they can even talk to repent. Nonsense.
I see what you are saying. My children have made their decisions in different ways but they were able to do it in their own way and timing. They had to articulate it themselves and then got baptized. My youngest is at that point but she embarrasses easy and is scared of baptism. We are working on it…
My children were the same way. Part of the reason for that was because we had to baptize in the North Sea, which was freezing cold and often quite active! Although we wanted them to understand that baptism is the first step of obedience after salvation, we knew that – if we forced the issue -they could later think back on their entire salvation experience and wonder how much of it was parent-led?
Again, if infant baptism was “worth” anything then what Jesus did on the cross was pointless. Why would God send His only Son to go through what He did and to die the way He did if He was going to allow baptizing infants to be the way to Heaven?? A person MUST come to the point of seeing themselves as a sinner and ask for help—a baby cries for food and when they have a dirty bottom, I have never seen one that said “man, I am a terrible person, I can’t get to Heaven on my own”….
I thought this post was very thorough and presented/defended clearly the fact that infant baptism does nothing for the infant and its practice only leads to confusion and a false sense of security. This truth seems to be laid out pretty clearly in Scripture, I wonder if people have merely developed this idea because of fear of what could happen to their children when they die who have not yet reached a point of understanding of the gospel.
I’m not sure how it started, but I know why many continue this practice. In Belgium (a predominantly Catholic country) our neighbors explained that it’s just part of being a good parent. They wanted to provide them food, clothing, education, and salvation. Not only do they hold to the fact that salvation comes by something they can do…they also know that their children could very likely wander from “the church”, and therefore, they must secue their salvation early. In the same way, they will pray, pay, and light candles after a loved one dies as well, so that loved one will make it to heaven…again, it’s all about what THEY can do to attain salvation.
This was a helpful read. It helps demonstrate the theological difficulty faced by many evangelicals who practice paedobaptism. We as credo-baptists should be careful that our own practices do not imply similar ideas. How many churches practice “baby” dedications? On what basis can we dedicate a child to God? Do we know its disposition toward God beforehand? In fact, Scripture speaks of that disposition quite negatively. I am all for “Parent” dedications, but we should not be naive about the realities of depravity within our children. Likewise, we should not confer some vague, Baptisty blessing on babies – a practice which finds no precedent in the New Testament.
Those who connect infant baptism with circumcision should be aware that infant baptism leads to the same false assurances that circumcision did for the Jews. This is a dangerous doctrine because it gives the false assurance of salvation. Baptism does not save. It is only meaningful for those who believe of their own volition.
Wayne Moore, above, stated this in precisely the same way I was going to. Neither the circumcision nor baptism save, and both are useless without faith. Abraham was circumcised after he placed his faith in God. Baptism also should come after one places faith in God. I do not equate these two as parallels to each other as the covenant theologists do, but wanted to show that both need first salvation by faith to be of any meaning or significance.
Infant baptism leads to a false assurance of salvation. I think that a child should be able to tell of their salvation with their own words and memories. A parent should not have to explain to a child when they were saved or baptized for that matter.
Jesus submitted Himself to the ordinance, not as a baby, but as a young man of about 30 years old or so. (MT 3:13-17, Mark 1: 9-11). Infant baptism is hard to believe. It does not save you, How can an infant make a conscience decision, something as serious as to where you’ll spend eternity? They can’t. It is preposterousness.
I would not be a proponnet infant baptism. If we rely on Covenant Theology(infants must be baptized because Old Testament infants were circumcised) would that not be saying the same thing as one should go to heaven because a family relation was a preacher or saved. Salvation is an individual decision (aided by the Holy Spirit); an infant is unable to chose or reject Christ. If one is not of Christ, that one certainly ought not be baptized. My mother once told me that I had been baptized but in reality all I got was wet. I was not saved till later in life.
The question of where babies go when they die is such a sad and controversial issue. I am not able to anwer this question, but I do know that Baptism does not save anyone, including infants. Becuase this is such an emotional issue I can see why people are to strongly opinionated on the matter. This was a great post with some good information.
Infant baptism is pointless…if baptism symbolizes death and resurrection then why would you baptize a child who is not a christian! if people would read the Bible they would know what to do! but tragically people claim to be “christians” but the bible has not significance in their life.
Baptism (like anything else) is not an act worthy of salvation. To say that an infant can be saved through Baptism is to say salvation is in the hands of the baptizer or the parents. This is obviously wrong. I believe those without the ability of understanding the facts of the Gospel are cared for and loved by God. I just cannot see the God of the Bible sending these ones with no understanding to hell.
I am a proponent of infant baptism, and many of the comments on this page misunderstand the position. No Presbyterian believes that baptism saves. Christ saves, by grace through faith. And no presbyterian rests his assurance in his baptism. Does a baptist rest his assurance in his baptism? I hope not.
While there are no explicit examples of infants being baptized, there are also no explicit examples of infant children of believers waiting to be baptized. And since in the transition between Old Covenant and New Covenant we should expect continuity of practice unless discontinuity is made explicit, applying the new covenant’s sign and seal to children makes more sense than withholding it.
Presbyterians believe that baptism marks entrance into the visible church. There are unbelievers in the visible new testament congregation, just as there were unbelievers in the old covenant congregation. Consider the wheat and tares parable, for instance. And just as belonging to visible Israel through circumcision didn’t constitute one a true Jew (Romans 2), so being baptized doesn’t make one a member of the invisible church. It makes one a member of the visible church.
My children were born to a Christian home, where our Lord is loved and worshipped and served. I teach my children to call God “Father”, and I expect them to repent, believe & obey. I believe that they are set apart in a way that my Hindu neighbors’ children are not. That’s the sense in which they are holy (1 Cor. 7), and that’s the sense in which they are saints (cf. Eph 1:1 with Eph 6:1).
You may not agree with the Presbyterian position, but you should try to understand it before you dismiss it flippantly with erroneous information.
Clark,
Thanks for reading and commenting. I know all Presbyterians do not believe that infant baptism is salvific. For some that I have talked to infant baptism is similar to our baby dedication. That is why I started my post stating “There are some groups that believe infant baptism is necessary for salvation.” Specifically I mention Roman Catholics.
John Murray is Presbyterian and his belief that infant baptism puts infants in union with Christ sounds salvific: “in respect of efficacy, baptism is for infants precisely what it is for adults, namely, the divine testimony to their union with Christ and the divine certification and authentication of this great truth.”
Yes, I can see where that language is striking. But if you bear in mind that, for a Presbyterian, a sacrament is God’s picture and pledge of His covenant of grace, a visible preaching of the gospel message, and that, as with any sermon, benefit is only had through faith, Murray’s language should become less offensive to you.
When an adult is baptized, we regard that person as a believer, unless and until such time as their profession of faith becomes incredible. It’s a charitable judgment, to be sure, but we regard them as united to Christ. The Presbyterian would say the same of a baptized child. We have high spiritual expectations of that child. We don’t treat them as pagans or seekers. We treat them as members of the covenant community.
While the baptized-as-an-adult believer might look back to his baptism, there is no assurance in the baptism itself. The question is not whether he once believed and obeyed. The question is whether he trusts (present tense) and obeys (present tense). The same could be said of the person baptized as an infant. In fact, I would suggest that, in comparison, the person baptized as an infant and reflecting on that fact, has his reflection on the work of God in his life, rather than on his own actions. And I’d say that is a good place to focus. It is a great comfort to me to know that God is holding on to me, not the other way around. But the benefits of any sacrament are had through faith. Believing baptism to be a sign (pointing to union with Christ, cleansing, etc) and a seal (wherein we are marked as related to the covenant in a special way … in the language of Ephesians 2, no longer “strangers to the covenants of promise,”) means that my children are taught that God has made a claim on their lives. To whom much is given, much is required. They are urged all the more fervently to respond in repentance and faith.
I recognize that I am the guest in this forum, and will not belabor the point any further. I merely wanted to correct the comments of some who clearly misunderstand the Presbyterian position, with a larger goal of encouraging the recognition that we are “members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.” We faithfully love, worship, and serve the same God according to the understanding that He has given us of his word.
Thanks for your kindness and patience. It contributes to the unity we should all pursue.
-Clark