This is a letter by Dr. Dennis Johnson to his daughter explaining why he came to believe that baptizing infants and little children is biblical.
__________________
Infant Baptism:
How My Mind Has Changed[1]
Professor of Practical Theology
Westminster Theological Seminary in
California
In 1994 one of our daughters, while
away from home attending college, asked me to explain the rationale I saw in
God's Word for baptizing the infant children of believers. Since I was a minister in the Orthodox
Presbyterian Church when she and her siblings were born, they had all been
baptized as infants; but now she was interacting with Christian brothers and
sisters from other traditions through campus Christian ministry and other
friendships, and many of them believed that the baptism of infants is not
Christian baptism as it is established by Christ in the New Testament. In a slightly revised form, this is what I
wrote to her:
Here at last is my long-overdue letter to explain why
I believe it's consistent with the Bible to baptize the infants and children of
believers. I want to let you know what
biblical evidence changed my mind from holding a "believers' baptism"
position to the conviction that both those
who are converted as adults and the
infants and children of believers should be baptized.
You know, of course, that I don't consider this issue
one on which our trust-relationship with Jesus depends. Nor should differences on this issue disrupt
our fellowship with brothers and sisters in Christ who see things
differently. On the other hand, since we
all want to show our gratitude for God's grace by living our lives to please
him, and since we learn what pleases him in his Word, we all want to get as
clear a picture as we can of what the Word teaches.
The difference of views on infant baptism
unfortunately does affect Christians' ability to demonstrate in practice our
unity as the Body of Christ.
"Infant baptizers" can and do recognize the baptism received
by "believer baptizers" as genuine Christian baptism (although we may
think that it's administered later than it should be in the case of children of
Christian parents). But "believer
baptizers" cannot acknowledge that believers who were baptized as infants
have been baptized at all. So if
"believer baptizers" are right--if people who have received infant
baptism have not received biblical baptism at all--then there have been
hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of Christian believers who have never
obeyed the Lord's command to be baptized in his Name, believers such as
Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, J. Gresham Machen, J. I. Packer, John
Stott, R. C. Sproul, etc. On the other
hand, if "infant baptizers" are right, then it's sad that the
convictions of "believer baptizers" prevent them from recognizing the
baptism of so many other members of the Body of Christ. So our difference of understanding on this
issue does hinder our putting into practice the unity of the church.
Although this question is not a matter of salvation,
it is certainly worth our investing time and thought and study, to see whether
we can come to unity as brothers and sisters in Christ.
I Changed My Mind
First a little autobiography (I may have told you
this before): It was a major change of mind for me to come to accept infant
baptism. I was baptized as an infant in
First Covenant Church of Los Angeles, but by the time I was an early adolescent
we had a different pastor (in the same congregation!), and our new pastor
didn't believe that infant baptism was valid. My parents had not really studied
this question or taught me whether there was a biblical basis for infant
baptism, so I had no reason to question what my pastor said when he taught that
my baptism as an infant wasn't genuine Christian baptism. Therefore, after a
time of instruction in Bible doctrine (in effect, a catechism class), I
publicly confessed my faith in Christ and "joined the church," being
baptized by immersion on the basis of my personal profession of faith.[2]
(This means that, whichever view of baptism is right, I personally am covered!)
I went through high school and Westmont College assuming that only people old
enough to believe and testify to their faith should be baptized.
This
was my view even as I started my seminary studies at Westminster, although I
was puzzled that my seminary professors, who understood the Bible so much
better than I in so many areas, seemed to have missed the obvious point that in the New Testament people are
called to believe, and then they are baptized. I suppose I concluded that they
believed in infant baptism because that was what they were accustomed to. (That explanation, however, didn't fit everyone: Dr.
Strimple had remained a Baptist throughout college and his studies at
Westminster, and had taught at a Baptist Bible college in Canada for many years
before he became convinced that infant baptism is biblical.) "I'm
accustomed to this" is not a good reason for believing or doing something
as a Christian, but sometimes what we're used to does influence our faith and
our conduct. In any case, at Westminster I had to face the possibility that I was the one operating on the basis of
what I was accustomed to, dismissing infant baptism because of assumptions I
had picked up as a teenager and had reinforced through college. In particular Westminster forced me to
examine my assumptions about how to search the Bible for the answer to a
theological question like this.[3]
How Should We Expect the Bible
to Answer the Infant Baptism Question?
I had to face the question,
how should I expect the Bible to answer my question, "Should the babies of
Christians be baptized?" I was expecting the Bible to answer the question
with an explicit statement in one or more verses. I read verses like Acts 2:38
("Repent and be baptized . . . in the name of Jesus Christ for the
forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy
Spirit.") or Acts 16:31-34 ("Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will
be saved--you and your household . . . . Immediately he and all his family were
baptized . . . he had come to believe in God--he and his whole family.").
The order of things seemed so clear: first repentance/belief, then baptism.
What could be plainer and simpler?
Everybody Agrees that Adult
Converts from Judaism and Paganism Must Be Baptized.
But then someone pointed
out something to me: Throughout the Book of Acts we read about the conversion
of people who were not Christians, nor had they grown up as the children of
(New Covenant) Christians, before the Apostles preached to them--either Jews or
Gentiles. The preaching and examples of conversions in Acts all have to do with
missionary situations, in which the
Gospel is entering the lives of individuals and families and communities for
the first time. Everyone, "believer baptist" and "infant
baptist" alike, agrees that in
circumstances like these, when people have not grown up in Christian
families and the "covenant community" of the Church, those converted
as adults need to receive baptism when
they confess their faith in Jesus.
But Acts Is
Silent About Children Born to Christian Parents.
Acts
never explicitly describes a
situation that would make crystal clear how the apostles handled the situation
of children born to Christian parents. (Obviously, if Acts had spoken directly
and clearly on this point, the discussion between "believer baptist"
and "infant baptist" would have been settled long ago.) In
particular:
(1)
Acts never tells us about an adolescent or young adult who had been raised from
infancy by parents who believed in Jesus, and who then received baptism only after he or she personally expressed
his/her faith in Christ.[4]
(2)
Although Acts records the baptism of whole
households, it never explicitly states whether or not there were infants or
young children in any of these homes, or whether infants in the household were excluded from receiving baptism because
they were too young to express personal faith in Christ.
(3)
Acts and the rest of the New Testament never
record any statement by Jesus or the Apostles that the infants of believers are now to be treated differently in the
New Covenant from the way that the infants of Israelite believers were in
the Old: namely, that, whereas Israelite children were treated as part of the
covenant community, the children of Christians are to be treated as outside the covenant community that is
under Christ's Lordship. The other
changes that occurred with the coming of Christ are clearly indicated in the
New Testament: Circumcision is not to
be required of Gentiles (Galatians), but both Jews and Gentiles who come to
faith must be baptized (Acts). Animal
sacrifices are done away with because of Jesus' final sacrifice (Hebrews 10).
The kosher dietary laws no longer
apply because Jesus cleanses people from all nationalities (Mark 7; Acts
10-11). The temple in Jerusalem is
replaced by a "living temple" made up of people (1 Peter 2). But the
New Testament never hints that the relationship of believers' children to the
church community has changed: The New Testament never suggests that, although before Jesus' coming Israelite
children were "inside" the covenant community and received the
covenant sign of circumcision (the boys, that is), now since Jesus' coming the
children of believers are "outside" the community and therefore
excluded from the covenant sign of baptism.
We'll
come back to this topic of the way the New Testament views the children of
believers, but for now I simply wanted to show you how I came to recognize that
there is no New Testament text that
answers pointblank the question, "Should believers have their children
baptized?"
Starting from
Broader Themes Where the Bible Speaks Clearly
So
then, where do we go from here? We approach this question, like other, even
more important questions (the Trinity, the mystery of the Person of Jesus as
both fully God and fully man): We approach it from the perspective of broader,
bigger questions that the Bible does
answer clearly for us. Then, since God's Word is consistent from beginning
to end, we carefully draw conclusions from what we know the Bible teaches.
This
is more complicated than simply pointing to a verse or two, but it's also safer
than drawing our own conclusions from what a particular verse says or does not
say. Suppose every Christian concluded that Jesus' words in Mark 10:21 are
addressed literally to us all: "Go, sell everything you have and give to
the poor. . . . Then come, follow
me." We all need to beware of being "owned" by our possessions,
but if we all sold everything, could we also obey 1 Tim. 5:8 ("If anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he
has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever")? Would there be
anyone in the church for Timothy to instruct to use their wealth in doing good
(1 Tim. 6:17-19 )? We recognize that we have to understand Mark 10:21 in the
context of Jesus' conversation with the rich young man, and in the context of
the teaching of other passages of the Bible. We need to do the same with infant
baptism.
Circumcision Was
Administered to Infant Israelite Boys.
One clear place to start is
with the fact that circumcision was administered to infant Israelite boys at
the age of 8 days (Gen. 17:9-14). This sign of God's covenant was given to
Abraham long before the Law was given to Moses in Mt. Sinai. Apparently all of
those circumcised that day in response to God's command were older than
infancy: Abraham was 99 and Ishmael was 13; other males (including servants)
were no doubt of various ages (Gen. 17:23-27). But their age, and thus their mental/spiritual ability to respond to
God's promise in faith, was irrelevant. All were circumcised because Abraham believed God.
Circumcision Was a Sign of
Salvation Blessings that Are Received by Faith.
God calls circumcision a
"sign" of his covenant, so we can ask what circumcision
"signified," what it "pointed to" in terms of the
relationship of Abraham and his family to the Lord.
A Sign of Transformation
of Heart (New Birth by the Spirit). Later in the
Old Testament God makes it clear that external circumcision of the flesh was a
sign or symbol of a spiritual cleansing that God calls "circumcision"
of the heart: "Circumcise your hearts, therefore, and do not be
stiff-necked any longer" (Deut. 10:16). Moses prophesies that the
Israelites will disobey God and receive the judgments they deserved (especially
the Babylonian Exile). But after this God will regather them to the land
(return under Ezra and Nehemiah), and "The Lord your God will circumcise
your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with
all your heart and with all your soul, and live" (Deut. 30:6). I believe
God is referring to this promise when he says through Ezekiel: "I will gather
you from all the countries. . . . I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you
will be clean. . . . I will give you a
new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove the heart of stone and
give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to
follow my decrees. . . ." (Ezek. 36:24-27).
But Outward Circumcision Did Not Guarantee Circumcision of Heart.
Now,
receiving external circumcision did
not guarantee that an Israelite boy had received spiritual circumcision, or
would later receive spiritual circumcision. "'The days are coming,
declares the Lord, 'when I will punish all who are circumcised only in the
flesh--Egypt, Judah, Edom, Ammon, Moab--and all who live in the desert in
distant places. For all these nations are really uncircumcised, and even the whole house of Israel is uncircumcised
in heart" (Jer. 9:25-26). How
shocking for an Israelite to hear these words, to be grouped among the
uncircumcised, unclean Gentiles! But
only if they never understood that circumcision was a sign pointing to their
hearts' need for cleansing by the gracious Spirit of God!
A Sign of the Righteousness We Receive by Faith. In the light of God's teaching in the Old Testament
we can understand Paul's comments on circumcision in Romans. First Paul points
out that the "circumcision" that counts is "circumcision of the
heart, by the Spirit," and that without this spiritual cleansing the
external surgery brings no blessing or favor from God (Romans 2:25-29,
especially verses 28-29). Then he comments on God's first command to Abraham to
circumcise his household: "[Abraham] received the sign of circumcision, a
seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still
uncircumcised" (Rom. 4:11). So Paul says that Abraham is not only the
spiritual father of uncircumcised Gentile believers (4:11b), but also of
"the circumcised who not only are
circumcised but who also walk in the
footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was
circumcised" (4:12). Circumcision symbolized the righteousness that
believers (like Abraham) receive by faith, just as it symbolized cleansing and
renewal of heart by the Holy Spirit. Yet God commanded that it be administered
to Israelite baby boys at 8 days old, before
anyone could tell whether God had changed or would change their hearts by
his Spirit, whether he would enable them to trust his promises!
A Sign of Union with Christ in His Sacrificial Death. Since the blessings of the
New Birth and righteousness by faith came to Abraham and other Israelites (BC)
and come to us (AD) only as a result of Jesus' sacrifice, we could even say
that circumcision symbolized union with Christ in his death--his being
"cut off from his people" for us (Gen. 17:14; see Isaiah 53:8), even
though he didn't deserve the curse, since he was circumcised both in flesh
(Luke 2:21) and in heart. In fact, Paul pretty much says just this in
Colossians 2:11-12: "In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off
of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with
the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised
with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the
dead." Christ was cut off for us, put to death for us; so his death for
our sins is counted by God as our own death. Circumcision symbolizes this
reality of Christ suffering as our substitute, and so does baptism.
Circumcision
Was Applied Before Anyone Could Know Whether a Baby Had Received or Would
Receive the Spiritual Blessings It Symbolized.
Before
we move on to consider what baptism symbolizes, we need to reflect on the fact
that circumcision in the Old Testament symbolized the blessings that come to
believers (like Abraham) by faith in Christ: cleansing and transformation of
heart, forgiveness of sins, right standing before God, all through the
sacrifice of Jesus. This symbol was applied to adult Gentile converts when they
abandoned their idolatry and confessed faith in the God of Israel; but it was
applied to the children (well, just the sons) of Israel 8 days after they were
born--before Mom or Dad or priest or rabbi could tell whether that baby would
later receive, through his faith, the reality
symbolized in circumcision.
Baptism
Symbolizes Transformation of Heart (New Birth by the Spirit), the Righteousness
of Faith, and Union with Christ in his Death.
Water
baptism symbolizes the same spiritual blessings that circumcision symbolized:
renewal and transformation of our hearts (Titus 3:5; Ephesians 5:23; etc.) by
the power of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5), who brings us into a community of
faith, a Body (1 Cor. 12:13). Baptism speaks of being united to Christ, clothed
with Christ, right with God by faith, Abraham's seed, and heirs of God's
promises (Gal. 3:26-29). It speaks of being united with Christ in his death and
resurrection, so that his death for us is counted as our death before the justice of God (Romans 6:3; Col. 2:11-12).
Water Baptism
Doesn't Guarantee that the Person Receiving It Has Received or Will Receive the
Spiritual Blessings It Symbolizes--Even When Adults Are Baptized after
Confessing Faith!
Just
as the external act of circumcision could not guarantee that the recipient would prove to be a recipient of the
spiritual reality it symbolized, so also the external act of water baptism does
not guarantee that its recipient will prove to have received the spiritual
reality it symbolizes. Simon of Samaria was baptized, but his later attitude
toward the Holy Spirit showed that he was still "captive to sin"
(Acts 8:12-13, 20-23). Peter emphasizes that the flood waters that
"saved" Noah and his family were pointing ahead to baptism--not merely the "removal of
dirt from the body" (external water baptism) but the inner spiritual
reality it symbolizes: the pledge of a
good conscience toward God (1 Pet. 3:21). Sadly, some churches have practiced
infant baptism (and others have practiced adult "believer baptism")
under the misunderstanding that the external ceremony automatically produces the New Birth it symbolizes, or guarantees that the New Birth is bound
to follow eventually because of the outward ceremony. But the Bible shows that
the purpose of the sacraments (circumcision, Passover and other animal
sacrifices in the Old Testament; baptism and the Lord Supper in the New) is to
show us our need for the spiritual blessings
and to call us (as the Bible and preaching do) to receive these blessings by
trusting in Christ himself.
Why Apply
Circumcision/Baptism to Infants Before We "Know" Whether They Will
Become Believers?
When I was a
"Baptist", my biggest problem with infant baptism was that baptism
symbolized the spiritual benefits of union with Christ, which are received only
by faith; and parents and pastors couldn’t
know whether or not an infant had or would have this saving faith. But then
I began to see that circumcision in the Old Testament symbolized the same
blessings of union with Christ, which Old Testament believers received by faith
and which unbelievers in Israel did not receive. So we face the same question
for both the Old Testament sign and the New Testament sign: "Why apply a
symbol before we know whether or not the reality is there?" I see three main reasons:
(1) To emphasize
God's gracious initiative to us in our helplessness. Circumcision and baptism
are not events in which the recipient acts, but in which someone else acts (in
God's name) on or for us. This is true, of course, when an adult is converted
and comes for baptism: she doesn't baptize herself, but a pastor applies the
water of baptism to her. The Apostles' instruction to adults is not
"baptize yourselves" (reflexive) but "be baptized"
(passive: receive baptism from someone else). But it's even more obvious, when
infants are baptized, that baptism is "announcing" to us that God
graciously gives a change of heart that we in our spiritual death could never
produce in ourselves.
(2) To emphasize the
mysterious role of the family in the communication of God's covenant grace
down through the generations. This role really is mysterious. On the one hand, the Bible
is so clear that being born into a believing family is no guarantee of salvation: every individual is accountable to
respond to the Gospel in faith, or endure the consequences of rebellion. (And,
by the same token, to be born into an unbelieving family doesn't condemn a
person to a life of unbelief, rebellion, and condemnation. God's grace welcomes Gentiles [Pagans] and
turns them to Jesus (Acts 14:27).
I was reading Ezekiel 18 in my devotions
earlier this week, and was struck by how powerfully God makes the point that
"family tree" doesn't guarantee an individual's salvation or his
condemnation. On the other hand, God has set up the family as the context in
which his Word is to be taught and lived before children as they grow up. In
contrast to our American emphasis on individualism and democracy, God clearly
viewed Abraham as the head of his household, with the authority to command even
his servants to undergo the painful procedure of circumcision! "I have
chosen [Abraham], so that he will direct
his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by
doing what is right and just" (Genesis 18:19).
Apparently
the ancient Israelites tended to look at themselves only from the standpoint of their family connection: those in the right family (Abraham's) were in
(no matter what), and everyone else was out. In twentieth-century America we
tend to look at ourselves only from
the standpoint of our personal
individualism: we think we stand as isolated individuals before God, and
our parents' relationship to the Lord presumably has no influence on the
benefits we have received from him or the responsibilities we bear toward him.
But
God seems to view us both as members
of a family, influenced (for good or ill) by our family context and identity, and as individuals, bearing
responsibility for our own response to his Word of grace. This is God's
perspective not only in the Old Testament, when virtually all the covenant
people were of one physical family (Abraham's--although Gentiles such as Rahab,
Ruth, Uriah, and Naaman were also included); but also in the New Testament, as
the Gospel goes out to all the families of the earth (Acts 3:25). This is what
I find striking about the baptism of Lydia and
her household (Acts 16:14-15) and of the jailer and his household (Acts 16:31-34). There's no way to tell for sure
whether or not there were babies or children in those households, so both sides
in the infant baptism dialogue read these texts in light of their own
presuppositions. But what we can agree on is that in these texts the Holy
Spirit speaks of the persons involved not
as disconnected individuals but as "households," as families (or
perhaps even families with resident servants). Doesn't this suggest that in the
New Testament God does not discard the
family as a means for extending his gracious covenant-kingdom, but rather
he spreads his grace to and through more families,
to households not previously reached with his salvation?
Infant
circumcision and infant baptism in themselves emphasize the balance: they are administered
to infants not because we presume to
know or predict the infant's spiritual state, but because the child is in the
home of and under the authority of Christian parents (hence the sign belongs
not only to "birth-children" but also to adopted children). Yet the
fact that circumcision and baptism are administered to infants at all is a testimony to the fact that birth into a particular family is no
guarantee of ultimate spiritual blessing, rather that something more is needed, something that only God can do for us
through the shedding of Christ's blood and through his resurrection, applied
through the regenerating power of the Spirit, in order for us to become
children of God.
(3) To emphasize the
life-or-death consequences of our response to the Gospel of Christ. Earlier I showed the spiritual blessings that both circumcision and baptism symbolize, but that is
not the whole story. Both circumcision and baptism are double-edged. They have a
solemn side as well, because each in its own way "pictures" the judgment that our sin deserves, the
judgment that will be received some day by those who do not trust Christ.
Circumcision, which of course involved shedding of blood, symbolized the
penalty of breaking God's covenant, being "cut off" from God's presence
and God's people (Gen. 17:14). Baptism symbolizes not only cleansing,
forgiveness, and the Spirit's transforming presence, but also judgment and
death. The floodwaters that "saved" Noah were also God's instrument
of judgment on those who refused to heed Noah's preaching (1 Pet. 3:19-21).
Jesus spoke of his own death as a "baptism," a painful ordeal (Mark
10:38; Luke 12:50). So it's not surprising that Paul views both circumcision
and baptism as symbols pointing to Christ's death
(Col. 2:11-12). By symbolizing the deadly consequences of being unfaithful
to God's covenant--the shedding of blood, being cut off, being overwhelmed by
floodwaters--circumcision and baptism reinforce the message of the Word as we
read it and hear it preached: the only
place of safety for guilty rebels like us is close to Jesus, trusting in Jesus, who bore sin's guilt and penalty
for those who believe in him. So I see circumcision in the Old Testament and
baptism in the New as ongoing testimonies to children raised in Christian homes
that there are severe, eternal consequences if they turn away from the grace
offered in the Gospel. But of course these warnings are intended by the Lord to
work along with the wonderful promises of his grace to encourage us to stick
close to Jesus in living, intimate faith and love.
Circumcision
and Baptism Mark the Boundaries of the Community that Is Under Christ's
Lordship.
Now,
the fact that circumcision and baptism both symbolize spiritual blessings that
are received by faith in Christ and the fact that circumcision was administered
to infants before they could give evidence of faith doesn't prove that now, in the New Testament,
baptism should be administered to covenant children before they personally give
evidence of their faith. It suggests to me, however, that the fact that an
infant cannot express faith doesn't exclude her from receiving the sign that
points to blessings that are received by faith.
If
circumcision in the Old Testament and baptism in the New do not absolutely guarantee that the person
receiving the sign has received or will receive the spiritual reality, what is the purpose of these covenant
signs? They mark the boundaries of the
community that acknowledges
Christ's covenant Lordship and authority, the church. Since we can't infallibly
read others' hearts, the church as we see
it on a day-to-day basis may not correspond exactly to God's perfect
knowledge of his chosen ones (2 Tim. 2:17-19). Even when an adult convert is
baptized, we do it not because we have supernatural knowledge that he is born
again but because he confesses to believe in Jesus, seems to understand what
that means, and his life is beginning to bear fruit consistent with his
confession of faith. Sometimes, however, church leaders are mistaken or misled,
and a person who once seemed to be a believer will turn away from the life of
faith he had seemed to start (remember Simon of Samaria). So as an elder I have
to admit my limitations: I can't read hearts to know for certain who is "born again" from the Spirit; all that
I can do is to evaluate whether people acknowledge the Lordship of Jesus both
in their words and in the general direction of their behavior.
In the New
Testament, Are Believers' Children "Inside" This Community or
"Outside"?
I'm
leading up to this important question: In the New Testament, if parents confess
Jesus as Lord, are their children inside this
community, the church, or are they outside?
Clearly in the Old Testament the children were included in the community of
God's covenant, receiving the mark of the covenant (circumcision),
participating in the feasts of the covenant (for example, Passover, Exodus
12:25-27), being taught the Law as the guide for their grateful response to
God's redemptive grace (Deut. 6:4-9, 20-25). But what about the New Testament?
When Christ comes, is there a change in the composition of the community of
God's covenant?
The Trend in the New Testament Is to Include People Who Used to Be
"Outside." There are changes in the composition of the
covenant people as we move from Old Testament to New, but they are not in the
direction of excluding a category of
people because of their age or mental immaturity. The most obvious change is
that Gentiles, people from other
physical families than Abraham's, are welcomed in droves. As we see in
Matthew’s mention of Rahab, Ruth, and
others in the genealogy of Jesus (Matt. 1), even in the Old Testament God did
welcome a handful of Gentiles into his community; but with the death and
resurrection of Jesus and the baptism of the Spirit which he poured out on the
church, the floodgates of grace are thrown wide open to Samaritans, Greek,
Romans--even the Swedes and Scotch-Irish! Secondly, the sign of the New
Covenant, baptism, is one that can be and is applied to females as well as males (Acts 8:12), in contrast to Old Covenant
circumcision, which was only for males. Although the New Testament still speaks
of a distinction in role between men
and women in the family and the church, baptism makes clear what was implied in
Genesis 1:26-28: in terms of creation in God's image, and now new creation in
the image of Christ, and in terms of personal value and worth to God, women and
men are equal (Gal. 3:28). Hence women worship with men in Christian
congregations, not in a separate courtyard as in the Jerusalem temple or behind
a screen as in some Jewish synagogues. So now, with Gentiles welcomed in and
women more fully included by receiving the covenant sign along with males,
does God now take a very different
stance toward the children of believers, excluding them from his covenant
people as he is welcoming other groups in?
Peter at Pentecost: The Promise to Jewish Converts, Their Children, and Gentiles "Far
Off." Probably the most direct
answer to our question comes from Peter's lips on the day of Pentecost.
Pentecost is the climactic turning point of the transition between Old
Testament and New because on Pentecost the crucified, risen, ascended,
enthroned Lord Jesus baptized the church with the Holy Spirit--as John the
Baptist had prophesied (Acts 1:5). Peter's audience were Jews and Gentile
converts to Judaism from throughout the Roman world, and some of them (despite
their heritage as covenant people) had committed treason against God's Messiah,
Jesus. When they realized what they had done, Peter told them to repent and
receive baptism in Jesus' name (Acts 2:38). Then he added: "The promise is
for you and your children and for all who are far off--for all whom the Lord
our God will call" (2:39). "All who are far off" are the pagan
Gentiles.[5] This is consistent with the expansion of the
reach of God's gracious covenant that I mentioned above. But now notice this:
the children of these people who are
at the point of repentance, faith, and baptism are not bypassed as Christ's promise goes out to the pagans. The
promise of forgiveness and renewal by the Spirit is spoken specifically to the
children of Peter's listeners. As these children grow and understand the
promise and the Promise Maker, they of course bear the responsibility to
respond in personal trust (just as Peter's Pentecost audience do and the
Gentiles "far off" will). But the point is: In expanding his
community of grace to the Gentiles, God will not expel the children.
Jesus: The Kingdom Belongs to Little, "Useless" Children. This continuing inclusion of children in
Christ's community is what we would expect when we reflect on the way Jesus
rebuked his disciples' adult arrogance in trying to shield him from
"insignificant" (in their minds) children (Luke 18:15-17). In fact,
I'm convinced that it was precisely children's "insignificance" and
"uselessness" that Jesus had in mind when he said, "Anyone who
will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter
it." When some people hear these words, they think romantically of the
"innocence" or "simple trust" that they suppose children
have. But Jesus knew children better than that. His point is: Unless you come
to the kingdom without any claim that
you deserve it, you will never enter it. Apparently by Pentecost Peter had
absorbed the point that Jesus made that day: Jesus does not expel children from
his community, for his kingdom belongs to them (those left outside are those
who refuse to swallow their pride, who refuse to come as insignificant
children, unworthy in themselves but dependent on the King).
Paul Talks to Children
in the Church, Calling Them to Obey "in the Lord" without
Distinguishing Between "Insiders" (Who Have Confessed Faith and Been
Baptized) and "Outsiders" (Too Young to Be Baptized as Believers). This perspective--that children are not
excluded from the community of the King with the coming of the New
Testament--also explains why Paul can address children in his letters with
instructions that presuppose Christ's authority over them: "Children, obey
your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 'Honor your father and mother'
which is the first commandment with a promise 'that it may go well with you and
that you may enjoy long life on the earth.'" (Eph. 6:1-3; Col. 3:20:
"for this pleases the Lord.") Paul does not talk to two categories of
children: (1) children who have confessed faith and been baptized; and (2)
children who have not been baptized, and are presumed not to be believers.
Rather, he speaks to all the children present in the congregation, and he
implies that their identity "in the Lord," their trust in the
promises of God, and their desire to do what "pleases the Lord"
should motivate all these children to obey their parents. Of course, these
congregations may include some children who are not born again, not believers;
but Paul is not presuming to read individual hearts at long distance. He is
simply treating the children, as a group, as members of the King's community,
under the King's authority, and therefore responsible to the King for their
response to their parents.
What About
Infant Dedication as a Way of Symbolizing that the Children of Christian
Parents Have a Special Place and Special Responsibilities?
Now,
we could ask, couldn't a "dedication" ceremony such as that practiced
at many Baptist churches serve the same purpose as infant baptism in
recognizing that the children of believers do have some sort of special place in the community of Christ's covenant?
Well, yes and no.
Yes. Infant dedication in Baptist churches seems to reflect a
sort of Spirit-prompted "instinct" that, even though (in such
churches) they are treated as unbelievers and outsiders by being denied
baptism, the children of believers actually do have some sort of a relation to Christ and his church. It would be more
consistent, it seems to me, for churches of "believer baptism"
convictions not to replace infant baptism with dedication, but simply to wait
and see what path kids choose (faith or rebellion) as they grow up. Typically
the dedication services I have heard still imply that believing parents are
doing something in relation to the
Lord on behalf of their infant children. Wouldn't it be more consistent to wait
until children are old enough to decide
for themselves whether they want to be dedicated to God? And yet, frankly, I'm glad that Baptist churches are
inconsistent enough to have infant dedication, and that Baptist parents
bring their children to church and teach them the Gospel at home and sing
"Jesus Loves Me, This I Know" with their kids. The way I see it, in
all these ways they are acting as though their
children have a place in the community of Christ, even though Baptist parents
don't acknowledge that their children can receive the sign of inclusion in
Christ's community, baptism. And since (in my view) the Bible teaches that
believers' children have a place in the community of Christ (though that
doesn't guarantee their salvation!),
the more that Christians act in ways consistent with the Bible (even if our
understanding of its teaching is unclear), the more the Lord is glorified.
No. A Biblical Case for Infant Dedication in
the New Testament Is Far Weaker than the Case for Infant Baptism. If we are looking for a biblical
justification for how we treat the infants of believers, it seems to me that it
is far harder to make a case for dedication than for infant baptism. Consider
the biblical examples of infant dedications: There was Samuel, whom his mother
Hannah promised to return to the Lord for tabernacle service even before he was
conceived (1 Sam. 1:11, 24-28). But Hannah's dedication of Samuel did not
replace his circumcision, of course. Rather, it made him a
"Nazirite," whose uncut hair signified his special consecration as a
servant of God ( 1 Sam. 1:11; Numbers 6:1-21). Nor is it treated as an ongoing
pattern for Israelite infants in the Old Testament, let alone for the children
of believers in the New Testament. There were Samson and John the Baptist (also
Nazirites from conception), whom God had promised to barren parents and set
apart for his own special purposes even before their conception (Judges 13:3-5;
Luke 1:13-17).
Then
there is the presentation of Jesus in the temple (Luke 2:22-24) when he was
about 41 days old. (He was circumcised
at 8 days, and then 33 days later Mary could be "purified" following
her son's birth, Lev. 12:37). But we should notice that this presentation
fulfills the command that came from the Exodus from Egypt, and specifically the
night when the Passover lamb died in the place of the Israelites' firstborn:
"Every firstborn male shall be called holy to the Lord" (Exod. 13:2).
Firstborn animals were to be sacrificed as holy to the Lord (Exod. 13:12).
Firstborn sons were to be redeemed (Exod. 13:15). It is hard for me to see how
this Old Testament custom, which had
to be observed carefully for Jesus since he came to fulfill every requirement
of the Law of Moses, could be viewed as a model for Christians dedicating their
children. Christian infant dedication services don't mention the ceremonial purification of the infant's
mother after the birth; they are performed not only for firstborn sons but also for later children--of both genders! They
do not involve offering sacrifices for
the redemption of the child from death or the purification of the mother. In
all these ways Christian infant dedication services today are very different from Jesus' presentation
to the Lord at the age of a month and a half--and they should be! The Old
Testament sacrificial system, which included the redemption of Israel's
firstborn and the ceremonial cleansing of Israel's mothers, was fulfilled in
the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.
Because
I find no convincing biblical command or example that would provide a basis for
infant dedication by Christian parents today, if we have to choose between
infant dedication and infant baptism on the basis of biblical evidence, it seems clear that the weight of biblical
evidence favors infant baptism, because of the continuity between circumcision
and baptism as signs of entry into God's community.
"Dedication" Focuses More on the Parents'
Action Than on God's Promise of Grace through Faith. Finally, infant dedication as a ceremony
lacks an important element that infant baptism has: Infant baptism encourages
us and our children to trust in Christ
by symbolizing the promises of God,
achieved for us by Christ and received by faith alone. Dedication tends to
focus more on what we do than on what
Christ has done. As parents look back
on that day with their kids, they are saying, "We dedicated you to the
Lord's service when you were a baby.'' On the other hand, as "infant
baptist" parents look back on the day of their child's baptism, they say
to her, "On that day long ago, the Lord Jesus promised to you that if you
trust him he will wash away your sins and give you a heart to love and serve
him by the power of his Spirit. Just as the water 'cleansed' your baby skin, so
the Holy Spirit will make your heart clean if you trust in Jesus, because Jesus
died for the sins of everybody who trusts in him." You can see the
difference. Both sets of parents are calling their kids to respond in faith and
both sets do so by teaching the Gospel about what Jesus did for us in his
sacrifice on the cross, but children baptized as infants have received a sign/symbol that points directly to that gift of God's grace.
So I would say that infant
dedication is better than nothing (since it is a way of recognizing that the
children of believers have the privileges and responsibilities of being
included in the Lord's community), but it seems to me that infant baptism has
much stronger biblical support than
does infant dedication in the New Testament church.
Fatherly Encouragement:
Study the Scriptures. Pray. Think. Ask
Since I've walked the road
between "believer baptism" and "infant baptism," I
appreciate the fact that you want to re-examine childhood assumptions in the
light of what God's Word teaches. Go to it! I also sympathize with you, since
we both realize that this issue is not as "cut-and-dried" as whether
Jehovah or Baal is God, or whether we are saved by faith in Jesus or by our own
obedience to the Law. The biblical answers to those questions are plain and
clear. But sincere believers who love the Lord and want to follow his Word have
drawn very different conclusions on this question of infant baptism. So I would
just encourage you to study the Bible's teaching, not only in individual verses that contain the word
"baptism" but also in passages that explain the symbolism of circumcision and
baptism, that show how God treats children
in the Old Testament in the New, that show us who belongs to the community of Christ on earth (both ancient
Israel and the Church today), and that explain ideas like "covenant" and the role of the family/household in God’s plan for his covenant
people. I would encourage you to think and pray over what you have read. No
doubt I haven't covered in this letter all the questions you may have, so
please feel free to ask them and I'll do my best to give you answers that are
faithful to God's Word.
Love,
Dad
RPM , Volume 3, Number 24, June
11 to June 17, 2001
[1]
© 1998 Dennis E. Johnson. Corrected
2003. This is not a polished, published document yet, but I reserve the right
to turn it into one in the future. It is
circulated for the benefit and discussion of students at Westminster
Theological Seminary in California and, with permission, to other Christians
who may be helped by it. To contact the
author, see regular and e-mail addresses at the end.
[2]My pastor also believed that
immersion (Romans 6:4) is the only right
mode by which to apply the water of
baptism. He would not recognize sprinkling (Hebrews 9:13-14; 1 Peter 1:2;
Ezekiel 36:25) or pouring (Acts 1:5; 2:17-18, 33: "You will be baptized
with Spirit" = "I will pour out my Spirit"; see Titus 3:5-6),
even though these methods of applying cleansing liquid (water/blood) are used
repeatedly in Scripture, and sometimes tied directly to the language of baptism
(as in Acts 1-2). The verses above suggest that baptism symbolizes not only
death, burial, and resurrection with Christ, but also cleansing from sin's
uncleanness (sprinkling) and the gift of the Spirit (pouring). Therefore it
seems that any of these modes is appropriate, since each mode points to some
aspect of the spiritual reality of which baptism is a sign.
[3]Over Labor Day weekend I was
preaching in Portland, OR, and spent the afternoon with a couple in the church
there. We were talking about infant baptism and I learned that the husband had
come to faith in a Baptist church and had then come to believe that infant
baptism is biblical while he was studying at Western Conservative Baptist Seminary. I asked him what had
changed his mind, and he mentioned especially coming to see that circumcision
in the Old Testament was a sign of "the righteousness of faith"
(Romans 4:11), and yet Abraham was commanded to circumcise infants who were too
young to demonstrate faith. If that was so in the Old Testament, he concluded,
it could also be true of baptism in the New. I'll pick up this idea below, but
I thought you would be interested to learn of this brother's experience of
coming to believe in the appropriateness of infant baptism not in an
"infant baptist" seminary like Westminster but in a "believer
baptist" seminary like Western.
[4]Timothy is the only
individual whose "childhood history" we know much about, but it's
likely that both he and his mother were, so to speak, "Old Testament
believers" until Paul arrived in Lystra, bringing the news that God's Old
Testament promises had been fulfilled in Jesus the Messiah (Acts 16:13; 2 Tim.
1:5; 3:10, 15). Since Timothy's mother taught him the Scriptures "from
infancy," apparently she would have had him circumcised as an infant as
the Law commanded, were it not for the fact that his Gentile father forbade it.
Paul circumcised him as a young adult not because circumcision is a
sacrament/sign still applied to believers under the New Covenant, but simply to
remove a potential obstacle to the effectiveness of Timothy's ministry among
Jews. Anyway, we don't ever read about when Timothy was baptized.
[5]The expression is from Isa.
57:19 and is applied to Gentiles in Acts 22:21; Eph. 2:13, 17.
