"your children would be unclean, but now they
are holy"
1 Corinthians
7:14b
All Scripture quotations taken from the New King James Version.
The purpose of this paper is to explain to anyone who is interested the reasons for my decision to baptize my child. I am not attempting to win anyone else to my point of view or to cause division among believers. I do not plan to actively promote this paper, only to make it available to friends and family who would like to understand the reasons for my actions. This paper is posted in Christian love and I ask that it be received in Christian love with prayerfulness, gentleness, and respect.
The thesis of this paper is that it is right and proper to baptize the children of believers. In this paper I present a positive case for infant baptism, and then defend the practice against common objections. Because I have become convinced that it is right and proper to baptize the children of believers, it is appropriate that I would act on this conviction and baptism my own child.
For many years after becoming a born-again believer, I assumed that baptism was a privilege reserved for adult believers. This has been the belief and practice of every church of which I have been a member. When I first became aware of the evangelical case for infant baptism, I resisted it on principle. However, after prayerfully considering and studying this doctrine for many months, I have come to the conclusion that God extends the privilege of baptism even to the children of believers.
To show why it is right and proper to baptize the children of believers, it is first necessary to explain what baptism is. I believe that the Scriptures teach that baptism is 1) the signification of membership in the Body Christ and 2) the signification of the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart.
The command to baptize is given in Matthew 28:19: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". What does it mean to be baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity? A passage that helps explain this is 1 Corinthians 10:1-4:
"Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink."
The people who were baptized into Moses were the people who followed him, served with him, ate with him, and drank with him. To be baptized into Moses was to be a member of the people of God under his leadership. By analogy, to be baptized into the Holy Trinity is to be a member of the people of God in this dispensation, i.e., the Body of Christ.
This concept is also illustrated in Galatians 3:27, 28:
"For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
Those who are one in Christ Jesus are those who are members of the Body of Christ. These members of the Body of Christ are those who are to be baptized.
Note that baptism does not make someone a member of the Body of Christ. Rather, one is baptized after he has joined with Christ. Baptism is an outward signification of a prior spiritual reality. This ordering illustrated in Acts 10:47, 48a:
"'Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?' And [Peter] commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord."
Note also that in practice, sometimes adults are baptized who are not actually members of the Body of Christ. Some profess to be believers, and are perceived as such by the elders of the local church. They are then baptized in good conscience by the elders, even though the spiritual reality has never occurred.
The rite of baptism is a washing with water. This is a fitting symbol for a spiritual cleansing by the Holy Spirit. When the Holy Spirit has cleansed a man, he should be baptized:
"There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 3:21)
All are born with a propensity toward sin. But when the Holy Spirit gives a man a good conscience toward God, the fitting answer or response is to be baptized. Baptism does not give the person a good conscience, nor make him a believer. Rather, it is the proper action to signify such a spiritual reality.
The natural man is separated from God and is captive to a life of death:
"The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God." (Romans 8:7, 8)
But the Holy Spirit can work in a man's heart so that he has a new life. When this has happened, that man should be baptized:
"Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." (Romans 6:3, 4)
Regrettably, however, some people appear to have been born again by the Spirit, when in reality they are still in their sins. Unfortunately, these professing believers are at times baptized. The evidence of the Spirit of God in the heart is ultimately not whether a man was baptized, but whether his life today adorns the gospel: "By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments." (1 John 5:2)
During Jesus' earthly ministry, some devoted believers in Christ wanted Him to bless their children. Christ assured these believing parents that their children were members of His body. The passage reads as follows:
"Then they also brought infants to Him that He might touch them; but when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to Him and said, 'Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God.'" (Luke 18:15, 16)
The Lord said that "of such is the kingdom of God". What is the referent of "such"? The referent in this sentence without doubt or figure "the little children". He did not say, "of people like these is the kingdom of God"; rather He said, "of such is the kingdom of God". This declaration assures believers that their children are members of God's kingdom. We have the Lord's assurance in the clearest words.
When Peter proclaimed the promise of God to the body of Christ, he pointed out that the blessing extends to the children of believers:
"Then Peter said to them, 'Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.'"
Union with Christ extends to the children of believers as much as it extends to all who are afar of who are called by the Lord.
In Paul's discourse on mixed marriages, he cites as supporting evidence a basic doctrine apparently self-evident to his audience:
"But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy." (1 Corinthians 7:12-14)
In the plainest terms, Paul here shows that there are two types of children in the world: children who are unclean, and children who are holy. Furthermore, Paul explains what determines which class a child falls into: a child with one or more believing parents is holy, whereas a child of unbelievers is unclean.
If Paul wanted to show that the children of believers merely have the benefit of Christian instruction in the home, he likely would have phrased this differently. In fact, if this is the only benefit given to the children of believers, then children of mixed marriages actually have a reduced blessing. For while these children have some Christian instruction, they also have the negative example of an unbelieving parent. But in this passage there are only two types of children: unclean and holy. They are holy not because they have a parent to teach them, but because the Spirit of God has set them apart for His work.
Believing fathers are commanded to teach their children: "And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord." (Ephesians 6:4). But the natural man is incapable of receiving this teaching:
"The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:14)
Does God condemn fathers with the fruitless task of teaching their children that which they cannot learn? Or does the Spirit of God work in the hearts of their children so that they can understand the teaching of their parents?
"No one can say, 'Jesus is Lord,' except by the Holy Spirit." (1 Corinthians 12:3b) We see our children call unto Jesus in the utmost sincerity and innocence. Is it the sinful mind in them (which is hostile to God) that cries unto Jesus as Lord? Absolutely not. It is the Holy Spirit of God which enables the child of a believer to learn from his father and to pray to his Lord.
Please note that I am not saying that our children are sinless; we as adults are not sinless either. Nor am I saying that a child of unbelievers cannot become holy through faith in Christ; they can receive God through faith just as adults can.
If baptism signifies union with Christ and the cleansing of the Holy Spirit, and if the children of believers are united with Him and cleansed by the Spirit of God, then it logically follows that the children of believers should be baptized.
If the simple logic presented above is correct, then it would follow that this statement would withstand the many objections that are raised to infant baptism. The remainder of this paper attempts to answer some of these common objections.
In other words, can an infant who has little understanding still be a member of the Body of Christ? Indeed, infants were explicitly named as members of God's people in the Old Covenant:
"All of you stand today before the LORD your God: your leaders and your tribes and your elders and your officers, all the men of Israel, your little ones and your wives—also the stranger who is in your camp, from the one who cuts your wood to the one who draws your water—that you may enter into covenant with the LORD your God, and into His oath, which the LORD your God makes with you today, that He may establish you today as a people for Himself, and that He may be God to you, just as He has spoken to you, and just as He has sworn to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. (Deuteronomy 29:10-13)
The "little ones" are as much bound by the "covenant" and members of God's "people" as their parents. If the children of believers were members of God's people in the Old Covenant, there is no reason to doubt that the children of believers are members of the Church, the Body of Christ, today.
In other words, can an infant who has little understanding still be cleansed by the Spirit of God? One man who was cleansed by the Spirit of God is Abraham. Abraham received circumcision as a signification of this spiritual work in his heart:
"And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them." (Romans 4:11)
The context shows that Abraham was saved by his faith, not by the dead works of the natural man. In this verse, circumcision is defined as a seal or signification of this gift of righteousness by faith.
And yet Abraham was commanded to circumcise his infant children: "For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised" (Genesis 17:12). But if circumcision is the seal of righteousness by faith, why should an infant be circumcised? Does an infant understand faith and the Spirit that enables faith? No, but nevertheless God has brought this infant into His covenant.
The analogy of circumcision to baptism is made by Scripture itself:
"In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead." (Colossians 2:11,12)
John Calvin defends infant baptism against the challenge as follows:
"For it is very clear from many testimonies of Scripture that circumcision was also a sign of repentance. Then Paul calls it the seal of the righteousness of faith. Therefore, let a reason be required of God himself why he commanded it to be impressed on the bodies of infants. For since baptism and circumcision are in the same case, our opponents cannot give anything to one without conceding it to the other... [S]ince God communicated circumcision to infants as a sacrament of repentance and of faith, it does not seem absurd if they are now made participants in baptism.
"God's command concerning circumcision of infants was either lawful and not to be trifled with, or it was deserving of censure. If there was in it nothing incongruous or absurd, neither can anything absurd be found in the observance of infant baptism." (Calvin, Institutes, 2:1342-44)
First, it may be asked whether all classes of people eligible for a sacrament must be explicitly enumerated by Scripture, or whether some classes of eligibility may be inferred. If the former, then women should not participate in Communion, because there is no express command or example in Scripture of women participating in the Lord's Supper. But if the latter, then it must only be shown that the eligibility of infants for baptism is inferred as much as the eligibility of women for Communion.
Second, it should be noted that Scripture provides only twelve examples of Christian baptism (Acts 2:41; 8:12, 13, 38; 9:18; 10:48; 16:15, 33; 18:8; 19:5, 1 Corinthians 1:14, 16). Of these, three make explicit mention of the baptism of the entire household (family):
"When [Lydia] and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home." (Acts 16:15a)
"At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized. The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole family." (Acts 16:33, 34)
"Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else." (1 Corinthians 16:16)
In Scripture, 25% of the recorded baptisms were explicitly stated to be of the entire household. If this is an accurate statistical sample, then at least 25% of all baptism in the apostolic era were of entire households.
The first question to ask is whether either of Lydia, the jailer, or Stephanus had at least one child under the age of accountability. If so then according to Scripture that child was baptized. But the next question to ask is, if 25% of all baptisms in the apostolic era were household baptisms, did not at least one of these households contain an infant?
The rite of baptism was not invented by Christians. It was a practice familiar to Jews. In fact:
"The Jews constantly baptized as well as circumcised all infant proselytes... That the Jews admitted proselytes by baptism as well as by circumcision, even whole families together, parents and children, we have the unanimous testimony of their most ancient, learned, and authentic writers. The males they received by baptism and circumcision; the women by baptism only. Consequently, the Apostles, unless our Lord had expressly forbidden it, would of course do the same thing." (John Wesley, Works of Wesley, X:196)
If the apostles intended to make a break with Jewish custom and restrict baptism to adults, it seems fair to assume that they would have stated this somewhere in their teachings. In the three accounts of household baptisms, it is an eminently reasonable inference that a young child was present at least once. If the apostles intended to forbid infant baptism, it reasonable to suppose that they would have included at least a small disclaimer or clarification for the benefit of their first Jewish audience.
God's counsel is not concealed in obscurity. His Word is meant to be understood. Given the context and culture, it is legitimate to infer that infants were baptized in the apostolic era. So let our women partake of Communion, and let our children be washed with water.
One might grant that infant baptism is not prohibited, but might still ask what positive purpose it serves. In other words, what is the point of going through this exercise?
But first the question might be asked, what is the purpose of baptizing an adult?
If the purpose of baptism is to signify unity with Christ and cleansing by the Holy Spirit, what value is gained by this signification?
I would suggest that there are at least two benefits to be gained from baptizing an adult:
For point #2, what I mean is that only baptized believers should be admitted to membership in the local church. "By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments" (1 John 5:2). God commands that the believer be baptized. But if a believer has opportunity to be baptized and yet refuses, then he is disobeying God's command. If a man willfully and consistently refuses to obey a simple command of God, then we do not have assurance that this man is a child of God, and hence he should not be admitted to membership in the local church.
So if these benefits are gained by the baptism of adults, what benefit is gained by baptizing the children of believers?
Or, what if the infant child of a true believer is baptized, but then later denies Christ by profession and behavior? Doesn't this show that the infant should not have been baptized?
To answer this objection, we must first ask the same question of an adult: What if an adult believer is baptized, then later denies Christ by profession and behavior?
This can happen in only one of two circumstances:
For circumstance #2, I believe that salvation is conditional:
"And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight—if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister." (Colossians 1:21-23)
This passage clearly teaches that a true believer ("once ... alienated ... now ... reconciled") can fall from grace if he does not "continue in the faith." I realize that most people reading this paper will disagree with me on this point in favor of the doctrine of Eternal Security. If you believe in Eternal Security, then you may perceive this section as a weakness in my case. But recognize that the purpose of this paper is to explain why I wish to baptize my child, therefore this perceived weakness does not affect my conviction.
Now, if a baptized infant later denies Christ by profession and behavior, can it be explained by the same two circumstances as the adult? I would say that circumstance #1 cannot apply to the baptized infant of a true believer because of the difference between a) the baptized infant of a true believer and b) an adult who falsely professes faith: The false professor is never a member of Christ's body nor does the Spirit work in his heart. He is "unclean". On the other hand, the child of a true believer is a member of the Kingdom of God (Luke 18:15, 16) and is "holy" (1 Corinthians 7:14).
So that leaves only circumstance #2. The infant child of a true believer is baptized because he is in fact "grafted in" to the "olive tree" of God's people (Romans 11:17). But as that child grows up, he should:
"...not be haughty, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off." (Romans 11:20b-22)
But if he denies Christ by profession and lifestyle, and is cut of from the olive tree, but then recognizes the error of his way and repents and returns to Christ, he should take comfort that:
"...if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again" (Romans 11:23b)
When he is grafted in again, he need not be re-baptized, even as the adult who is baptized and then backslides does not need to be re-baptized when he returns.
Yes, we should only baptize disciples of Christ. But what is a disciple of Christ? It is someone who learns from Christ and follows him. What do the children of true believers do? Their parents pass on to them daily the teachings of Christ. In the fullest sense of the word, the children of believers are disciples, learning daily at the feet of Christ.
Suppose the child of a true believer is baptized. Then as a teenager he experiences the new birth. He becomes born again, feeling firsthand the assurance of salvation and the zeal for God. Shouldn't we reserve baptism for this moment? Or at least re-baptize the teenager when this happens?
To answer this I offer two considerations. First is the example of my wife. When she was interviewed for membership in our church, she was asked when she came to faith in Christ. Her answer was that she "always believed". Her interviewer probed her more closely, seeking to find some point in time where her heart turned to God. But she repeated again that she has always trusted Christ.
Recently I asked her when she was born again. She said that at the age of five she invited Christ into her heart, and at that time she was born again. While I do not want in any way to belittle the significance of that event, I hesitate to say that at the age of five she first became indwelt with the Spirit of God, while at age four the Spirit was absent. Though my wife has inherited a sin nature the same as every descendant of Adam, I see her as one who received the gift of God as an infant and has been preserved since then by God's blessed hand.
The second consideration I offer is this. Suppose an adult comes to faith in Christ. He duly makes profession before the church, and is properly baptized. Then, a few months later, he goes to a retreat and has a life-changing experience with God. He sees God by faith in a way he never did before. He feels the assurance of salvation by the Spirit itself in his heart. 1) Was this man just now saved, and was his original profession a false one? 2) Should he now be baptized again to signify this religious experience?
Let me suggest the possibility that this man was saved at the time of his first profession. Let me also raise the concern that the practice of re-baptism could easily lead to a man receiving baptism as often as he receives the Lord's supper. Rather, let a man be baptized only once by the Church of God.
If baptism is the Christian man's badge of profession, shouldn't baptism be withheld until the child is old enough to make a public profession? But baptism is not the man's badge of profession, a gift from man to God. Baptism is a gift from God to man. Baptism is God's badge of love, given to those in His covenant, to remind them and assure them of His watchful care.
Consider these statements from our Church Fathers:
Origen, Greek father of the third century:
"According to the usage of the church, baptism is given even to infants; when if there were nothing in infants which needed forgiveness and mercy, the grace of baptism would seem to be superfluous." (Homil. VII. in Levit. ch. 12)
"And Origen for the Greek, born in the second century; both declaring not only that the whole Church of Christ did then baptize infants, but likewise that they received this practice from the Apostles themselves." (August. de Genesi, 1. 10, c. 23; Orig. in Rom. vi., quoted by John Wesley)
Cyprian, Latin father of the third century:
"Cyprian and the rest of the Bishops who were present in the Council, sixty-six in number, to Fidus, our brother, greeting:
"As to the case of Infants,—whereas you judge that they must not be baptized within two or three days after they are born, and that the rule of circumcision is to be observed, that no one should be baptized and sanctified before the eighth day after he is born; we were all in the Council of a very different opinion. As for what you thought proper to be done, no one was of your mind; but we all rather judged that the mercy and grace of God is to be denied to no human being that is born. This, therefore, dear brother, was our opinion in the Council; that we ought not to hinder any person from baptism, and the grace of God, who is merciful and kind to us all. And this rule, as it holds for all, we think more especially to be observed in reference to infants, even to those newly born." (Cyprian, Epist. 66)
Chrysostom, Greek father of the fourth century:
"But our circumcision, I mean the grace of baptism, gives cure without pain, and procures to us a thousand benefits, and fills us with the grace of the Spirit; and it has no determinate time, as that had; but one that is in the very beginning of his age, or one that is in the middle of it, or one that is in his old age, may receive this circumcision made without hands" (Homil. 40. in Genesin.)
Pelagius, heretic who denied original sin:
"I never heard of any, not even the most impious heretic, who denied baptism to infants."
Augustine, in debate with Pelagius:
"Since they grant that infants must be baptized, as not being able to resist the authority of the whole church, which was doubtless delivered by our Lord and his Apostles..."
Remarkably, "Origen's parents had him baptized as an infant in c. 185, less than one hundred years after the apostles." (Robert R. Booth, Children of the Promise, p. 151)
If infant baptism is a false practice, and Origen's parents baptized him in 185 AD, and infant baptism was affirmed by a string of fathers up to Augustine, who stated that the authority for infant baptism was delivered by our Lord and his Apostles, then when did this false practice creep into the church? There was not much time before AD 185 for the church to wrongly transplant the Jewish custom of infant baptism into the church in defiance of apostolic authority.
But though even heretics such as Pelagius defended infant baptism, no church father defended the modern notion of adult-only baptism. In fact:
"It is an undoubted fact, that the people known in ecclesiastical history under the name of the Anabaptists, who arose in Germany, in the year 1522, were the very first body of people, in the whole Christian world, who rejected the baptism of infants, on the principles now adopted by the Antipoedobaptist body." (Samuel Miller, Infant Baptism Scriptural and Reasonable)
How could the entire church of God be wrong about baptism for 15 centuries? Baptism is not a theoretical and obscure branch of theology such as eschatology. This is a fundamental practice that affects every single believer. This is not a highly sophisticated doctrine that would require the church 15 centuries to sort out; rather, this sacrament is the first public act of the believer's life.
We defend ourselves from cults by appealing to the "historic Christian faith". Our interpretation of the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, and the authority of the Word of God are confirmed by the solid record of our church fathers. But these are the same men who unanimously affirm the propriety of infant baptism.
It may be granted that the early church practiced infant baptism. But there have been false practices in the church. And we find our identity in the Reformation, where the church returned to Scripture and cast off many false practices such as the worship of the Virgin Mary. Could it be that infant baptism is one such false practice, corrected by the Reformation?
But who are the great fathers of the Reformation? Martin Luther affirmed infant baptism. He is the one who called us to Scripture alone and faith alone. But he found nothing incompatible between these and infant baptism.
John Calvin affirmed infant baptism. Many believers in association with me build their soteriology on the foundation laid by John Calvin (although I do not). Those who cherish Unconditional Election and Eternal Security have the vast body of Calvin's writings for support. Did Calvin see any incompatibility between Election, Perseverance, and infant baptism? No, he earnestly defended the practice.
But what of John Wesley? This man is arguably the father of modern evangelicalism. In 18th century England he proclaimed the gospel in the field and street, to the common man and the worker. He insisted that the sinner be born again, and he insisted on salvation by grace through faith. Like our missionaries today, he crossed the ocean to bring the gospel to the natives in America. Did John Wesley see an incompatibility between evangelism, the new birth, and infant baptism? No, rather, he said:
"On the whole, therefore, it is not only lawful and innocent, but meet, right, and our bounden duty, in conformity to the uninterrupted practice of the whole Church of Christ from the earliest ages, to consecrate our children to God by baptism, as the Jewish Church were commanded to do by circumcision." (John Wesley, Works of Wesley, X:201)
Here indeed is a "great cloud of witnesses". How many other Christian practices can we find that are defended by all of these men: Origen, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Pelagius, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Wesley? The burden of proof rests on those who would deny infant baptism. If the Scriptures were to forbid the practice, then that surely would override the wisdom of these mighty men of God. But as we see the Scriptures themselves laying the very groundwork for this wonderful doctrine, I for one plan to baptize my son since "now [he is] holy" (1 Corinthians 7:14b).
[Home] [Class] [Homeschool] [Theology] [World War II] [Gallery] [Downloads]