AN EVANGELICAL CASE FOR INFANT BAPTISM

Transcription

1 AN EVANGELICAL CASE FOR INFANT BAPTISM Mike Starkey, St Mark s Kennington, Oct 2010 The last words of Jesus in Matthew s Gospel are: Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matt 28:19). Peter tells the crowds in Jerusalem: Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38). From the earliest times, baptism has been understood as a vital part of the Christian life. It is clear from the New Testament that the normal process of an adult coming to faith involves putting their faith and trust in Jesus Christ, and this conversion being sealed in baptism. But should the children of Christian parents be baptized? The Bible doesn t give a clear, one-verse answer either way, although it does give clues and pointers. The answer given by many Christians today (including Baptists, as well as most Pentecostal and independent charismatic churches) is no: true baptism should be believer s baptism by full immersion, a step taken by an adult who has made an explicit faith commitment. Clearly, babies and young children are unable to do that, so it is argued that they may be dedicated to God, but baptism must wait until they can make a profession of adult faith. Many evangelicals today assume believer s baptism is the only evangelical approach to baptism. In recent decades Baptist, Pentecostal and independent charismatic churches have generally been the most energetic and fastest growing. Their rise and dominance of the evangelical scene, particularly in the USA, has posed a direct challenge to the practice of infant baptism in the historic churches. But limiting baptism to adult believers is not the historic evangelical position. The early Church Fathers believed in infant baptism. So did all the leading figures of the Reformation. So did the great majority of 17th century Puritans. So did the leaders of the 18th century Revival. And so do many prominent evangelicals of the present day and recent past (including JI Packer, John Stott, Francis Schaeffer, Tim Keller, Eugene Peterson, Tom Wright, Michael Green, Alister McGrath). The historic Christian position has always been to baptize children, and remains so in most churches. The historical evidence points to infant baptism being practised back to the very earliest days of the church. Augustine (4th century) said infant baptism was the universal practice of the church, and always had been: This doctrine is held by the whole church, not instituted by councils, but always retained. The Church Father Origen was born around 180 AD, only 80 years or less after the death of the Apostle John, and we know for certain that he was baptized as an infant. So what case can be made in favour of infant baptism, beyond the fact that it is the historic Christian and evangelical position? Indiscriminate baptism of children whose parents have no faith commitment is indefensible on biblical and evangelical grounds. But is there is a case to be made for the baptism of believers children? I am convinced there is a strong case for infant baptism. A few pointers: 1) Children were a full part of the Old Testament people of God. The mark of the Old Covenant was circumcision, carried out long before a child could make any personal response to God. Abraham circumcised Isaac at eight days old (Genesis 21:4). God s in-

2 structions about circumcising male infants are found in Genesis 17: This passage says clearly that babies born into a believing home have the right to the mark of belonging, and that the faith of the parents is significant for the whole household. It even says refusal to give the sign of the Covenant to babies is a serious matter, which amounts to a breaking of the Covenant. The Bible views Old Testament Israel and the New Testament Church as one body of Covenant people. In other words, God has one Covenant throughout history, which is renewed at different times and is broadened in scope by the coming of Jesus. Paul uses the image of the people of God, Jews and Gentiles, as an olive tree. There is one olive tree, spanning two Testaments, not two trees. As Christians, we are a shoot grafted in to the one tree (Rom 11:17, 18). So it is wise to assume continuity between Old and New Covenant (for example, in what age people are considered to be part of the Covenant), unless we find explicit biblical reasons not to. A number of biblical passages put baptism clearly in a context of Covenant. Paul says those who have been clothed in Christ through faith and baptism are Abraham s seed and heirs according to the promise (Gal 3:26-29). This is strong Covenant language. Again, he says Christians are circumcised by Christ (the sign of the Covenant) through faith and baptism (Col 2:11-13). He is saying circumcision and baptism represent the same spiritual realities, that those who are baptized are circumcised spiritually. Can we seriously claim that children are suddenly to be excluded from God s Covenant with the coming of Jesus? Especially since this is the same Jesus who received the sign of the Covenant himself as a baby, and holds up a child too young to respond in faith as a role-model for believers (see point 4 below). On the day of Pentecost, Peter challenges his hearers to be baptized as a sign of the Covenant, and explicitly says The promise is for you and your children (Acts 2:39). This echoes God s Covenant promise to Abraham in Genesis 17:7, which refers not only to Abraham s future descendants, but his actual children too. Of course, the fact that Old Testament Jews received the sign of the Covenant did not automatically mean that all necessarily continued in active faith. But, importantly, it does mean that children born to believing parents were counted as being in until they chose to be out, rather than the other way round. This is the context in which baptism came as the sign of the New Covenant. The New Testament s relative silence on whether infants should be baptized is telling. All the key figures in the early church were Jews, like Jesus himself, and used to having the outward sign of faith applied to their children. It is almost impossible to imagine converted Jews assuming that the sign of the New Covenant, baptism, would not apply to their children. If the Covenant principle had suddenly been revoked in Jesus, indignant questions would have been asked about it in hundreds of meetings in the early churches. In their Epistles Paul, Peter and John would have been forced to address the issue of why the Covenant sign was suddenly being withheld from children, a practice God had clearly commanded since the time of Abraham, and restricted it to consenting adults. The only possible reason why the issue does not appear in the New Testament is that the problem did not exist. The early church took it for granted that they were to baptize babies in the same way as they had formerly circumcised them.

3 2) Whole families and households were baptized in the New Testament, including those of Lydia (Acts 16:5), Cornelius (11:14), the Philippian jailer (16:33), and Stephanas (1 Cor 1:16). Today we live in an individualistic society, where we value autonomy and standing on our own two feet. It is no coincidence that the culture which has produced the most vigorous advocacy of believer s baptism is the most individualistic culture in history: modern-day America. But the culture of the entire biblical era assumed family solidarity in a way most people today find hard to grasp. When the head of the family acted, he acted for the whole family. When we are told the Philippian jailer was baptized with all his family, it takes an extraordinary effort to imagine this did not include children. 3) Whole families were baptized when they converted to Judaism. Christian baptism was strongly influenced by the earlier rite of baptism or washing when a family came into Judaism from paganism. Converts were baptized as a family, and rabbis used the language of washing away the old life, and new birth, applying this to the whole family. 4) Jesus s understanding of infants. Crowds of people bring young children to Jesus for him to bless them. His disciples object to this, but Jesus responds by saying such tiny children should come to him, he blesses them, and says the Kingdom of God belongs to them (Luke 18:15-17, Mark 10:2-16). The Greek word in Luke s gospel is brephos, which originally meant embryo and came to mean tiny infant. Jesus holds up a young child too young to respond in faith as a role-model for believers. On another occasion, Jesus listens to his disciples arguing about who was the greatest while at a house in Capernaum. Jesus takes a little child from the house of his host in his arms, and say, Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me (Mark 9:36, 37). The Greek word for little child is paidion, a diminutive of pais, child. In other words, this is a young child. There is a double-meaning here. On the one hand, Jesus is showing his love for young children, and saying our inclusion of young children equals the inclusion of Jesus himself. But there is another message too. In Aramaic, the language of Jesus and his disciples, the word for child and servant is the same word. Jesus is underlining that his disciples need to identify with young children - not least, in having no pretensions to greatness. Again, Jesus is using a young child as a role-model for adults. Far from excluding infants from the Covenant of Grace, Jesus appears to show by his words and actions that they have pride of place in it. 5) The Psalmist, Jeremiah, John the Baptist (and Jesus again). The psalmist worships God, saying From the lips of children and infants you have ordained praise (Psalm 8:2). This same verse is quoted with approval by Jesus (Matthew 21:16). In both cases, the word infant means a child so young it is still breast-feeding. In context, the Psalmist is saying God evokes the praise of children and tiny infants, and this acts as a testimony in the face of the sceptics and the dark powers of the universe. Jesus cites these words when religious teachers in the Temple attempt to silence the noise of children shouting hosannas to Jesus. The psalmist, and Jesus, are saying that God loves the praises of infants too young to think rationally about faith, contrasting them with the reticence of adults, including religious professionals. This presupposes a Covenant understanding that children raised in faith are in as opposed to out. More than that,

4 they have pride of place in the Kingdom of God and their inarticulate praises are specially valued by God. We are told John the Baptist leaped in the womb at being in the presence of the unborn Jesus (Luke1:41). God tells Jeremiah he knew him while he was still in the womb, that before birth he was set apart and called to be a prophet (Jer 1:4). These are not passages about baptism, but the implications are inescapable: even before birth, babies are known by God, may respond in faith in some way, and are caught up in God s purposes. 6) Baptism is more than a public witness to faith. People who advocate believer s baptism tend to see baptism mainly as a public profession of faith. But this is less than a biblical understanding of baptism. Biblically, baptism is seen more as something God does for us, rather than something we do for God. And, biblically, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that baptism actually does something (or, more accurately, God does something through it), rather than merely symbolizing something being done. Paul assumes baptism is a vital part of becoming a Christian, not just a testimony to an inner conversion experience. He says more than once: We were buried with him through baptism (Romans 6:4, Col 2:12), and that all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourself with Christ (Galatians 3:27). In Titus (3:5-7) Paul says Jesus saved us through the washing of rebirth, which biblical scholars (including the leading Baptist author on baptism, GR Beasley-Murray) agree is a reference to baptism. Similarly, Ananias had told Paul at his conversion: Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away (Acts 22:16). This is all strongly instrumental language: Paul is saying baptism is an essential part of the thing itself, not just a witness to it. Peter even goes so far as to say baptism now saves you (1 Peter 3:21). We shouldn t understand Peter to be saying that baptism alone, without faith, brings salvation (there are too many other passages which link faith and baptism and show that both are essential). But, at the very least, Peter is claiming that baptism is a vital part of becoming a Christian. Those opposed to infant baptism have to go through extraordinary contortions to avoid the implications of such passages. In their commentaries, their exegesis usually begins: Of course, this passage cannot possibly mean that the mere external act of baptism makes any difference to whether somebody is a Christian, so what it must mean is... But this is not what the texts actually say. This approach is more a case of eisegesis (reading your views into a passage) than exegesis (deriving them from the text itself). The plain implication of such passages is that baptism does make a difference. It is a God-given part of becoming a Christian, not just a human testimony to it. This is why, historically, the Church has seen baptism not primarily as a personal witness to faith, but a sacrament, a physical sign which represents and also conveys God s grace or blessing. The classic evangelical understanding, from the Reformation on, is that there are two sacraments: Baptism and Holy Communion; both convey grace as well as symbolizing it. In Covenant terms, Baptism replaces circumcision and Holy Communion replaces Passover. Some evangelicals are nervous about sacramental language, partly because in some sacramental churches it has been used to imply the automatic efficacy of a sacrament, irrespective of faith commitment (ie the idea that baptism alone makes you a Christian). But anti-sacramentalists tend to go to the other extreme, denying that there is anything in-

5 strumental about baptism at all. This contradicts the witness of scripture and much evangelical tradition. It is true that sacrament is not a biblical word. But neither is Trinity! The Reformers clearly felt that the sacramental principle, like the trinitarian formula, is biblically rooted. The Bible affirms the importance of baptism strongly and positively. Baptism is a key part of the Christian life. It is the start of the journey of faith. And if it is something God does for us, rather than something we do for God, it is surely legitimate to bless a child with the outward sign of grace and church membership while its parents and church do all they can to help the child grow in faith. That is simply a continuation of the Covenant pattern begun with Abraham. 7) Christian parents instinctively act as if their children are in rather than out. Most practising Christian parents in reality treat their own child as if he/she were part of God s family. From the earliest age, they teach their child to pray to God as a loving Father, to hear Bible stories and be part of the worshipping community. In other words, we treat our young children as if they are in rather than out, as if having committed Christian parents and being raised as a Christian in a Christian home does make a difference. It seems odd for such parents to count their children as part of the Covenant by their attitude and actions, while denying them the biblical sign and sacrament of Covenant membership and Christian initiation. Isn t the implication of making the child wait until its teenage years for baptism that up to that point they are little pagans, or at very least in some way pre-christian? Otherwise, why withhold the sign of Covenant and Church membership? It is rightly said that children are not simply the church of tomorrow, they are the church of today. But if we believe that, why deny them the biblical sign of church membership? Question: Peter tells the crowds to repent and be baptized. Isn t this a timeless summary of how to become a Christian, saying what is always needed is active repentance as an adult, followed by adult baptism? In other words, doesn t faith have to come first? Answer: Peter was speaking to adults who wanted to become Christians. His advice applies to adults today who want to come to faith. But Peter s words say nothing about the baptism of the children of believers, which wasn t an issue on the day of Pentecost. And the baptism of believers children clearly has to be a special case, as we see from the inclusion of children in the Covenant with Israel, the baptism of families when they converted to Judaism, and the baptism of families and households in New Testament times. Not to mention Jesus s own approach to children too young to respond in faith. It is hard to imagine that the same Peter who was raised to see children as full Covenant members, who received the sign of the Covenant himself, who says to the crowd of Jews on the day of Pentecost (using the language of Covenant) The promise is for you and your children, and who states that baptism saves us, would have denied children the sign of New Covenant membership. The biblical approach to the faith of young children centres on the idea of Covenant. Children born to believing parents should be given the sign of Covenant, which not only represents God s grace, it helps convey it. Parents and church must do all they can to help

6 the child grow in faith as the years go by, since the normal New Testament definition of a Christian is somebody who has both been baptized and has an active faith in Jesus Christ. Doesn t it matter that, in the case of children, the outward sign of faith comes well before the mature expression of faith? Apparently not. Biblically, this is seen as the normal pattern for children of believers.