Some thoughts on infant baptism

Kenora, Ontario (photo from trekearth.com)

A few weeks ago after church outside in the park, a friendly debate took place concerning the merits of infant baptism, also known as paedobaptism. I have never been convinced that it is the standard Biblical practice of baptism, and was taught at Columbia Bible College (Mennonite), and Canadian Baptist Seminary at Trinity Western University that believer’s baptism was the standard Biblical practice. This is complex subject, and one that I admit I am not a scholar, although in this article I will provide some information in an academic and scholarly manner. This will not be an overly long, exhaustive article, as those types of articles do not work well in a blog context! Having become a member of the Presbyterian Church in America (North America) I do admit that infant baptism does have theological strengths even if I suppose that believer’s baptism has a stronger case. Frankly, I reason that this is an important issue, but, and I say this humbly, I think that there are far more important issues for Christians to be debating, such as free will and sovereignty theodicy!

On a personal note, I was baptized/christened as an infant in the United Church of Canada, and as an adult in the Mennonite Brethren Church with full immersion. I view the United Church as very liberal and my initial experience as questionable. Comments for this article, as always, are appreciated.

G.W. Bromiley, who as of 1996 was Senior Professor of Church History and Historical Theology at Fuller Theological Seminary, explains that in early church history those such as Irenaeus and Origen, who were close to the apostles, were involved in baptizing children of professing believers. Bromiley (1996: 116). Infant Baptism was performed somewhat on Scriptural grounds, although there is no direct Biblical command to baptize infants. Bromiley (1996: 116). Bromiley reasons that although in Acts there were household baptisms, there are no clear-cut instances of child baptism. Bromiley (1996: 116). Bromiley thinks Biblically and theologically that there is evidence that infant baptism should be the normal practice in families where the gospel has taken hold, although there is no guarantee that children shall be believers. Bromiley (1996: 116).

Bromiley writes that many view believer’s baptism as the only legitimate New Testament form of baptism, although not necessarily immersion. Bromiley (1996: 114). He explains that many tie in Christ’s call to baptize with the idea of making disciples, and nothing was said about infants. Bromiley (1996: 114). The question arises if infants are disciples, and I would think not, although they certainly can be disciples in waiting. Bromiley notes that from Paul’s writings that tie belief and repentance with baptism it does not make sense to baptize infants that cannot hear the gospel or make a response of belief. Christ’s love for children is evident, but there is no direct Biblical command to include them in the baptism process, and there is no Biblical warrant to suppose that baptism should definitely precede belief and repentance. Bromiley (1996: 115). Bromiley admits that the households in Acts may have included infants, but even if there were, there is no indication that they were baptized and states that it would be hazardous inference to use these verses to support infant baptism. Bromiley (1996: 115). Bromiley writes that the need for faith is correctly found in infant baptism, but that the personal confession found in Believer’s baptism is stronger. Bromiley (1996: 115).

Reading Bromiley, it seems he reasons that it is good for infants within a Christian family to receive baptism, but that it would be even better for them to have believer’s baptism at a later date.

To conclude, here are some thoughts on Colossians 2:11-12 which is a section of the New Testament often used to support infant baptism.

Roman Catholic support of the idea from Robert H. Brom.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Infant_Baptism.asp

In Place of Circumcision

Furthermore, Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ" and "the circumcision made without hands." Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.

This comparison between who could receive baptism and circumcision is an appropriate one. In the Old Testament, if a man wanted to become a Jew, he had to believe in the God of Israel and be circumcised. In the New Testament, if one wants to become a Christian, one must believe in God and Jesus and be baptized. In the Old Testament, those born into Jewish households could be circumcised in anticipation of the Jewish faith in which they would be raised. Thus in the New Testament, those born in Christian households can be baptized in anticipation of the Christian faith in which they will be raised. The pattern is the same: If one is an adult, one must have faith before receiving the rite of membership; if one is a child too young to have faith, one may be given the rite of membership in the knowledge that one will be raised in the faith. This is the basis of Paul’s reference to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ"—that is, the Christian equivalent of circumcision.

Support for the concept from R. Scott Clark of Westminster Theological Seminary

http://public.csusm.edu/guests/rsclark/Infant_Baptism.html

What is the Connection Between Circumcision and Baptism?
The connection between baptism and circumcision is quite clear in Colossians 2:11-12. The connection is not direct, but indirect and the point of contact between them is Christ and baptism is the sign and seal of that circumcision. In v.11 Paul says "in him [i.e. in Christ] you were also circumcised with the circumcision done by Christ" and in v.12 he says exactly how it is that we were circumcised in and by Christ: "having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith...." For Paul, in the New covenant, our union with Christ is our circumcision. In baptism, we are identified with Christ's baptism/circumcision, as it were, on the cross. Neither baptism nor circumcision effects this union (ex opere operato), rather God the Spirit unites us to Christ, makes us alive and gives us faith.

The point not to be missed is that, in Paul's mind, baptism and circumcision are both signs and seals of Christ's baptism/circumcision on the cross for us. By faith, we are united to Christ's circumcision and by union with Christ we become participants in his circumcision/baptism. Because circumcision pointed forward to Christ's death and baptism looks back to Christ's death, they are closely linked in Paul's mind and almost interchangeable. Paul's point here is to teach us about our union with Christ, but along the way we see how he thinks about baptism and circumcision and his thinking should inform ours.

One of the reasons that Paul so strongly opposed the imposition of circumcision upon Christians by the Judaizers is that, by faith, we have already been circumcised in Christ, of which baptism is the sign and seal. We were already identified as belonging to God and we have undergone the curse in Christ. So actual physical circumcision is, in the new covenant, unnecessary. Paul tells those who wish to circumcise themselves, to go the whole way and emasculate themselves.

Acts 2.38,39 equates circumcision and baptism. In Acts 2.38 the Apostle Peter calls for repentance, faith in Christ and baptism by Jews who are hearing his preaching. In v.39 he gives the reason for this action: "the promise is to you and to your children, and all who are far off...." The Apostle Peter consciously uses the same formula in his preaching as the LORD himself used when he instituted the sign of circumcision in Genesis 17, which the Jews listening understood precisely.

Richard C. Barcellos explains the view that spiritual circumcision and not baptism, replaces physical circumcision.

http://www.reformedreader.org/RBTRII.1.Col.2.Barcellos.RPM.doc

Baptism does not replace circumcision as the sign and seal of the covenant. We have seen clearly that spiritual circumcision, not baptism, replaces physical circumcision. Baptism in Col. 2:12 (i.e., vital union with Christ) is a result of spiritual circumcision. Burial and resurrection with Christ is not equivalent to but causally subsequent to spiritual circumcision. Physical circumcision has been replaced by spiritual circumcision under the New Covenant. The correspondence between the two, however, is not one-to-one. Paul tells us this by saying that New Covenant circumcision is “a circumcision made without hands.” Though physical circumcision and spiritual circumcision are related they are not equivalent. One is physical and does not affect the heart; the other is spiritual and does not affect the body. Both are indications of covenant membership. But only the circumcision of the heart guarantees one’s eternal destiny, for all the regenerate express faith and “are protected by the power of God through faith” (1 Pet. 1:5).

We must take issue with those who argue from this text that baptism replaces circumcision. The Lutheran scholar Eduard Lohse asserts, “Baptism is called circumcision here… The circumcision of Christ which every member of the community has experienced is nothing other than being baptized into the death and resurrection of Christ.” We have seen, however, that the only replacement motif in this text is between physical circumcision and spiritual circumcision. Spiritual circumcision is not equivalent to baptism. Baptism (i.e. union with Christ) is the sphere in which burial and resurrection with Christ occurs, which is effected through faith, and a result of spiritual circumcision.

The Reformed commentator William Hendriksen says:

Evidently Paul in this entire paragraph magnifies Christian baptism as much as he, by clear implication, disapproves of the continuation of the rite of circumcision if viewed as having anything to do with salvation. The definite implication, therefore, is that baptism has taken the place of circumcision. Hence, what is said with reference to circumcision in Rom. 4:11, as being a sign and a seal, holds also for baptism. In the Colossian context baptism is specifically a sign and seal of having been buried with Christ and of having been raised with him [emphasis Hendriksen’s].

We take issue with Hendriksen’s view on several fronts. First, Paul is not magnifying Christian baptism in this text. He is magnifying Christian circumcision. This is evident by the fact that “you were also circumcised” is the regulating verb to which the rest of vv. 11 and 12 are subordinate. Second, there is not a “definite implication …that baptism has taken the place of circumcision.” Our exegesis has shown us this clearly. Third, it is not true that “what is said with reference to circumcision in Rom. 4:11, as being a sign and a seal, holds also for baptism.” This is so because Paul is not arguing for a replacement theology between physical circumcision and water baptism and because the seal of the New Covenant is the Holy Spirit (Eph. 1:13; 4:30). Fourth, Paul says nothing in Col. 2:11-12 about baptism being “a sign and seal of having been buried with Christ and of having been raised with him.” He does say that the subsequent, spiritual concomitant of spiritual circumcision is spiritual burial and resurrection with Christ in baptism effected through faith. There is no hint of baptism being a sign and seal as argued by Hendriksen. It is of interest to note one of Hendriksen’s footnotes to these statements. Notice the concession he makes.

I am speaking here about a clear implication. The surface contrast is that between literal circumcision and circumcision without hands, namely, the circumcision of the heart, as explained. But the implication also is clear. Hence, the following statement is correct: “Since, then, baptism has come in the place of circumcision (Col. 2:11-13), the children should be baptized as heirs of the kingdom of God and of his covenant” (Form for the Baptism of Infants in Psalter Hymnal of the Christian Reformed Church, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1959, p. 86). When God made his covenant with Abraham the children were included (Gen. 17:1-14). This covenant, in its spiritual aspects, was continued in the present dispensation (Acts 2:38, 29; Rom. 4:9-12; Gal. 3:7, 8, 29). Therefore the children are still included and should still receive the sign, which in the present dispensation, as Paul makes clear in Col. 2:11, 12, is baptism [emphases Hendriksen’s].

Hendriksen’s concession that “The surface contrast is that between literal circumcision and circumcision without hands” surely sheds doubt over his initial claim of “speaking here about a clear implication.” Again, we have seen that Paul is not arguing that water baptism replaces physical circumcision as a sign and seal of the covenant. It does not follow, then, that “the children should be baptized as heirs of the kingdom of God and of his covenant.” Paul does not say or imply that the sign of the covenant is baptism. Instead, the sign of the covenant is regeneration. All who are spiritually circumcised are immediately buried and raised with Christ in baptism, effected through faith. Colossians 2:11-12 is about the application of redemption to elect souls and does not imply infant baptism, some of which are not elect. If it implies anything about water baptism, it implies that it ought to be administered to those who have been circumcised of heart and vitally united to Christ through faith as a symbol of these spiritual blessings.

All who are circumcised of heart are buried and raised with Christ through faith immediately subsequent to their heart circumcision. Regeneration cannot be abstracted from its immediate fruits. All regenerate souls are immediately untied to Christ through faith. This is what Col. 2:11-12 clearly teaches. Our exegesis argues for an ordo salutus as follows: regeneration, then union with Christ through faith. And this experience is that of all the regenerate and has nothing to do with the act of water baptism in itself.

This text neither teaches baptismal regeneration nor implies infant baptism. In context, it is displaying the completeness believers have in Christ. It does not apply to unbelievers or to all who are baptized by any mode and by properly recognized ecclesiastical administrators. It has to do with the spiritual realities that come to souls who are Christ’s sheep. It has to do with the application of redemption to elect sinners. It has to do with regeneration, faith, and experiential union with Christ. These are the aspects of completeness in Christ Paul highlights here. We should gain much encouragement from these things. They were revealed to fortify believers against error. They were written to strengthen saints already in Christ. They were not revealed as proof for the subjects of baptism. They were not revealed to teach us that water baptism replaces physical circumcision as the sign and seal of the covenant. God gave us Col. 2:11-12 to display this fact: When you have Jesus, you have all you need!

BARCELLOS, RICHARD C. (2007) An Exegetical Appraisal of Colossians 2:11-12, Escondido, California, The Reformed Reader.
http://www.reformedreader.org/RBTRII.1.Col.2.Barcellos.RPM.doc

BROM, ROBERT H. (2005) Infant Baptism, El Cajon, California, Catholic Answers.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Infant_Baptism.asp

BROMILEY, G.W. (1996) ‘Baptism, Infant', in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

CLARK, R. SCOTT (2005) A Contemporary Reformed Defense of Infant Baptism, Escondido, California, Westminster Theological Seminary.
http://public.csusm.edu/guests/rsclark/Infant_Baptism.html