A Doctrinal Issue

Over the past year and a half, I have been studying theology and coming to conclusions about issues I had never previously thought much about. For example, two summers ago, after much confusion and switching back and forth between Calvinism and Arminianism I finally declared myself a firm Calvinist. More recently, I realized I believe in Covenant theology as opposed to Dispensational, meaning I believe in a basic continuity between the Old and New Testaments. (Actually I have always sort of had a Covenant theology mindset; I just never knew there was a term for it- or that there was even such a belief as Dispensationalism.) Because of these decisions, I began visiting a Presbyterian church whose views are basically the same as my own. I love the OPC and would love to become a member of one, but...there is one doctrinal issue I am having trouble with and that is infant baptism.

Growing up going to Baptist churches, I have always thought infant baptism was based solely on tradition and has no Biblical basis whatsoever. However, because of my new love for the OPC I decided to give the issue some real study. (I am trying to take it rather slowly, lest my desire to join the OPC renders me too easily won over!) I was surprised to find that infant baptism, if you believe in Covenant theology, actually makes perfect sense. In fact I find it really has as strong a Biblical basis, if not stronger, than believer's baptism, despite the fact that there is no mention in the Bible of infants being baptized. Let's briefly look at the two sides of the debate:

To the Credo-baptist, baptism is a symbol of being dead and resurrected with Christ. It is really just an outward expression of a person's faith. If this is the real meaning of baptism, then there would be no reason for baptizing infants. Obviously they are incapable of "getting saved" and it would be pointless to baptize them. Here is a verse which appears to prove this side:

"...having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through the faith in the powerful working of God, who raised Him from the dead." Colossians 2:12. (Notice I did not start at the beginning of the sentence. This is significant, which we'll see in a bit.) Another proof for believer's baptism is in the great commission, in which the apostles are told to "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Here we see they are to make disciples first, then baptize.

To the Paedo-baptist, baptism is not a symbol of faith, but is actually a covenental sign similar to the circumcision of the Old Testament. If you go through the Old Testament, you'll notice God's covenants with men always involve households, not individuals:

Genesis 17:7- "And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your offspring after you."

God also mandated that a sign should accompany the covenant. This sign, namely circumcision, was not only for Abraham but for his children. The sign marked them as being under the covenant. Hopefully the children would grow up being faithful to the covenant, and not being subject to covenant curses. Here is another verse in which God declares His covenant to be with families rather than with individuals:

Jeremiah 32:38-39- "And they shall be my people, and I will be their God. I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever, for their own good and the good of their children after them."

In the New Testament, the Covenant was the same, but the sign was changed to batism. Let's go back to that passage in Colossians and add the beginning of the sentence:

"In Him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with Him in baptism..." Here we see the Bible clearly linking circumcision with baptism.

To someone who believes in a basic continuity between the Old and New Testaments, it makes no sense that children should be given the sign of the Covenant in the Old Testament, but not in the New. You would think if children were to stop being included in the Covenant sign, the Bible would state it somewhere. (Let me just stress that infant baptism does NOT mean the child is a believer, or even that he will become a believer, only that he is being included in the Covenant and will hopefully grow up to be faithful to it.) There is much, much more to the argument than what I have written, including a strong argument from church history, but if anyone is really seeking to understand infant baptism I would highly recommend exiting this blog immediately and finding a book. "Infant Baptism and the Silence of the New Testament" by Bryan Holstrom is a quick read but very insightful.

However, at this point in my life, I would still feel very uncomfortable coming straight out and saying, "I believe in infant baptism." I have been against it for so long that to change my mind about the issue is not easy. I CAN say, though, "I understand infant baptism." I no longer think it is a pointless tradition, and I cannot condemn anyone for practicing it.