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 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
Dr. White, excellent points! One particular point that would be hard to refute is the point you made regarding infant girls being baptized. If those holding to a covenant theology equate baptism with circumcision then where do girls fit in?
Also, the fact that is that baptism signifies belief in Christ. How logical (never mind the lack of biblical examples) is it that one who is completely unable to believe is symbolizing their belief? Also, baptism follows salvation – there are no exceptions. Baptism does not come before salvation (faith and repentance).
In reading the above comments, I like the connection you make with infant baptism and the “baby dedication”. If one is using baptism as a way of dedicating a baby to the Lord, it does parallel to our dedication service version nicely. However, that defeats the whole idea of baptism being a sign for believers as babies cannot believe. We must rest in the grace of our Father to save an infant in the tragic case of death as they do not posses the ability to understand the propitiation on their lives by Jesus. It makes God all the greater by realizing that He is gracious in this way.
Dr. White, seems as though you have caused a little bit of a fuss above; i like this. it is however interesting coming at this with a simple rational mindset to know that if Baptism stands for and represents being alive to Christ then how is it that an infant in which doesn’t even understand how to control its own bowels can possibly understand the Gospel. They cannot so then if the baptism doesn’t save them (which it doesn’t) how will they be saved. I believe in infant accountability in that God is not going to Damn infantile minds to hell because they cannot understand. So parents rest assure that even if you do Baptize your infant, they are not saved for it is not the water that saves, but rather Christ. Grow them up with the word and let them come the the knowledge of Christ themselves. They can do it. Great Post.
Justin, I very much enjoyed reading your comment. Along with all the other comments you’ve posted. But i completely agree with your statement about building them up with the word while they are young and letting them come to the knowledge of Christ themselves. There is really no need to baptize them at all when they are young, when the purpose is for them to believe and then be baptized. They shouldn’t be baptized twice. Instead of baptizing them, just make a promise that as a parent to prepare them with God’s word and teach them about the gospel!
My wife was Presbyterian until she was a young adult in her early twenties. She came to Christ through a neighbors testimony and witnessing. In her youth she went through classes and confirmation at the age of 9 or 10 and was baptized as a conclusion of the classes. In a similar vein I believe that in this case that baptism was definitely not treated biblically but as a tradition of men. Is baptism of anyone without recognition of Christ’s sacrifice, death and resurrection biblical? It does not matter why we do it or if it serves any purpose, but is it biblical. Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved…and immediately they were baptized Acts 16:31 pictures salvation and baptism was the public alignment of the believer with Jesus. I am not trying to discount anyone’s thinking except that it must align with scripture. Also baptism carries so many more pictures of the believers change of allegiance, it would be hard for these pictures to be fulfilled in infant baptism.
I enjoyed reading this post and the above comments. I do disagree with infants baptisms and sprinkling or anything similar really. Baptism should be strictly limited to after the individual has believed personally, and made their own decision to do so. This is so that they are publicly committing themselves to Christ and following after Christ example, not because someone decided to make them do it without personally believing.
Baptism is an act of obedience after conversion to faith in Christ. The Bible clearly states this fact, according to passages like Matthew 28, Acts 2, and Acts 16. Baptism follows belief in Christ. The fact that it must follow conversion rules out the idea of infant baptism. Infants are not to be baptized because it is to be a sacrament that follows belief in Christ, and since infants are unable to believe, they must not be baptized. Baptism must be the choice of believer. Infants do not have a choice in baptism…it is not an act of their will, as baptism–an act of obedience–must be. Obedience must be a choice. Therefore, baptism must be a choice. Hence, infants are not to be baptized.
I was baptized as an infant in a Methodist church and believe that God would accept that as my baptism. I was brought up in a Christian, accepted Christ as my Savior, repented of my sins and have lived a life praying and worshiping my Father in Heaven. I had to be immersed as an adult in order to enter into the Baptist church. I do love the notion and feeling that I felt upon receiving my believer’s baptism as an adult, but can anyone really explain to me or honestly tell me that God would not accept my baptism that I received as a child if I followed the same path that I did after being baptized as an adult?
Interesting arguments above. However, without being offensive to anyone, I believe that baptism (by immersion) is specific to those who have repented, believed, and have trusted Christ for salvation. No where in scripture is it presented as practice for the sake of showing anything other than that a person is born-again. Further, I believe that baptism is the one of the first signs of obedience for the believer who has just entered into a relatiosnhip with Christ by the true baptism of the Holy Spirit. I understand that infant baptism is apractice of a lot of well-meaning churches, but it does not make the baptizing of infants bibilical. If anyone has read and studied the history of the Ana Baptists, I believe this sheds light on the subject.
I had both of my children baptized, why, well for one reason I was brought up Catholic (and that’s what you do) the other reason was for the symbolism (and know I was not a Baptist at the time why Children were baptized).
I now look back at their baptism as a dedication, giving them to God for the work of the kingdom. I wanted them to be a part, a member, of a society that would love them and nurture them with Christian love. Being a part of a Christian society or upbringing is important if your goal is for your children to live a Christian life.
I simply think that there is no biblical basis for infant baptism. Nobody in the Bible was baptized as an infant, and it is not stated as a requirement for salvation. The belief that infants must be baptized to be safeguarded from hell is simply a tradition of men and is definitely not from the Bible.
Even as an unbeliever, I never understood infant baptism. I always asked, “What is this for? The baby has no idea what is going on, yet it is for them?” Baby dedications are completely different because that is for the parents and the church to commit to raising that child in godliness and to pursue righteousness.