Infant Baptism

ALLAN M. HARMAN, B.A., B.D., M.LITT., TH.M., TH.D., Visiting Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament Studies, Hawthorn Theological Hall, Victoria, Australia. Extracted from Donald Macleod, ed., Hold Fast Your Confession: Studies in Church Principles (Edinburgh: The Knox Press [Edinburgh], 1978), 195–216.

1. The Sacraments

At the outset some remarks are apposite in regard to the term ‘sacrament’ which is used in all the Reformed confessions in reference to baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The term is not a biblical one, but rather one of ecclesiastical origin. The Latin word sacramentum was the term for the military oath by which a soldier bound himself to obey the officer placed over him. Possibly the term was transferred to Christian use to signify the obligation of a Christian to serve Christ. Another explanation of its Christian use is that it refers to the mysteries of Christianity and to the fact that the sacraments, though outward signs, yet have an inward and spiritual meaning.

Our understanding of a sacrament does not depend, however, on the derivation of the term but rather on the teaching of Scripture in regard to it. The authority behind the sacraments is divine, not human, and in this respect they are similar to other ordinances which form a part of worship. In the preaching of the Word the truth is brought home to the heart and understanding, while in the sacraments the same truth is impressed by means of visible signs. They signify the benefits of the gospel as they serve as pictorial representations of covenant promises. Even the spectator at the administration of the sacrament may learn something of the gospel message, though the sacramental benefit is confined to worthy participants.

The sacraments must be understood in a federal or covenantal context. They are (as Paul says in Rom. 4.11 of one of the sacraments of the Old Testament church) seals of the covenant and of its blessings. This covenantal connection is stated explicitly of the Lord’s Supper in the words of institution: ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is shed for you’ (Lk. 22.20). The connection of baptism with the covenant is seen primarily in the relation which baptism has to circumcision. The sacraments are scaling ordinances in that they confirm or seal God’s promises and arc perpetual witnesses to the fact that ‘he is faithful who has promised’.

As sacraments, baptism and the Lord’s Supper are means of grace. They serve to strengthen the faith of those who receive them, and are a means of upbuilding those who already possess God’s grace. In applying the benefits of the gospel they do not work automatically, but serve as channels of God’s grace in that they are among the appointed means for the advancement of spiritual life. There is no virtue in the sacraments in and of themselves, for they are entirely dependent on the operation of the Spirit of God and on the faith of the recipients. A merely physical participation in the sacraments conveys no blessing, but rather brings with it the condemnation of God.

Another fact which must be borne in mind is that the sacraments have significance as ordinances of the church. That is to say, they are not administered privately, nor do they have significance for an individual apart from his connection with the church of God. This fact explains why the administration of the sacraments falls to office-bearers of the church. In the Reformed churches the administration of the sacraments is the responsibility of the minister because of the intimate connection between the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments. Those entitled to preach the Word dispense the sacraments, and in so doing act on behalf of the church. Likewise the sacraments arc administered publicly in the presence of the congregation because they relate to congregational life, and to proceed to administer them in private is a denial of their corporate character.

2. The Unity of the Church in Old and New Testaments

Basic to a correct appreciation of the biblical doctrine of baptism is the doctrine of the church, and especially the essential unity of the church in both dispensations. The Old Testament speaks of an assembly of the covenant people gathered before the Lord as God’s own possession (Ex. 19.5; I Ki. 8.14, 22, 55, 65; 2 Ch. 6.13). Such an assembly was a permanent feature of the believing community in the Old Testament period and not just a characteristic which belonged to a passing phase of Israel’s history. The worship of the Old Testament centred on the tabernacle (see especially Ex. 29.42–46), and God promised to meet there with Israel, to dwell there and to be their God. That promise was central to the covenant theme of the Old Testament and was reiterated constantly, as well as finding its fulfilment in the New Testament.

This church of Old Testament days did not disappear with the change in dispensation at the commencement of the New Testament period. Stephen gave expression to the identification of the church in both eras when he said of Moses; ‘This is he who was in the church in the wilderness with the angel that spake to him in the mount Sinai, and with our fathers’ (Acts 7.28). Right throughout the New Testament there is the application to the New Testament church of terms and descriptions which were first applied to the Old Testament church (cf. I Pet. 2.9, 10). It is striking too how the redemptive events connected with the birth, ministry and death of Jesus are viewed as the fulfilment of the covenant made with Abraham (Lk. 1.54–55, 72–75; Gal. 3.6–29). This continuity of the church into the New Testament period is emphasized by the analogy of the olive tree which Paul uses in Romans 11.17–24. The whole point dominating Paul’s argument is that there is only one olive tree, only one church, and that the apostolic ministry did not result in the formation of a new church. The effect of that ministry was to engraft the Gentiles into the already existing tree.

It is also helpful to bear in mind the fact that the terms for the Old Testament sacraments are applied to the New Testament sacraments, and vice versa. Thus in the New Testament ‘circumcision’ and ‘the passover’ can be applied to the rites of the New Testament church. Paul can say that seeing ‘Christ our passover has been sacrificed for us, let us therefore celebrate the feast’ (I Cor. 5.7–8), while in Colossians 2.11 ff. circumcision and baptism are linked in such a way that the terms applicable to the rite of circumcision are predicated of baptism. The reverse procedure also takes place when Paul speaks of the children of Israel as having been ‘baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and all ate the same spiritual food; and all drank the same spiritual drink’ (I Cor. 10.2–4).

3. The Old Testament Background

That baptism has as its Old Testament counterpart circumcision is not now such a matter of dispute even with Baptist writers, and there is no need to re-argue the matter here. Thus Paul Jewett can say: ‘We do not deny the essential correctness of this approach (i.e. of covenant theology). Though most baptists do not believe it, it is indeed true that the NT fulfils the Old and that even the analogy between circumcision and baptism is beyond cavil’ (The Encyclopedia of Christianity I, p. 524). David Kingdon similarly recognizes the connection between the two. He comments: ‘It is my considered opinion that Baptists must recognize the analogy between circumcision and baptism. It seems to me pointless to deny the existence of this analogy, yet it is often done. One appreciates why there has been a marked reluctance to recognize its existence, namely, because of the fear that to recognize the analogy would mean the opening of the door to the practice of infant baptism, since as circumcision was applied to Abraham and his seed, baptism should be applied to believers and their seed’ (Children of Abraham, p. 28). However, neither of these writers is prepared to accept identity of meaning between baptism and circumcision such as has often been set forth by those advocating infant baptism (for a typical example see James Bannerman, The Church of Christ II, pp. 84–86).

A reassessment of the significance of the connection between circumcision and baptism is necessary though, both for Baptist and non-Baptist writers alike, because of the revision in our understanding of the nature of the Abrahamic covenant and the rite of circumcision. This revision has been the result of study setting the Abrahamic covenant over against its Near Eastern background. All of biblical revelation came in particular historical settings, and to neglect the historical and cultural background will only result in a distorted view of the particular revelatory data under consideration. In the case of the Abrahamic covenant it must be set over against the treaties or covenants which were well-known in the patriarchal period, and thus in the account in Genesis 17 all the regular features of these ancient vassal treaties appear (for a brief discussion on these treaties see The Lion Handbook of the Bible, pp. 198 f., and for the application of this background knowledge to the Abrahamic covenant consult The New Bible Commentary Revised, pp. 92–97).

The specific stipulation of the covenant in Genesis 17 is the practice of circumcision. Either circumcision was a practice already well-known, or else fuller instructions were given regarding performance of the rite, though this appears to be less likely than the former suggestion. The communal performance recorded in Genesis 17.23–27 served as the ratification of the covenant. Just as in the contemporary secular covenants, those who entered into the covenant with the Lord bound themselves by this oath to his service, and placed themselves under the curse expressed if they were unfaithful to their obligations. As was typical in covenants of that period, the knife ritual of circumcision vividly portrayed the judgment specified in the spoken oath (for secular examples see D. J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, p. 195), and for the Old Testament covenants this oath was virtually synonymous with the covenant itself (cf. Deut. 29.12).

This background setting to the covenant detailed in Genesis 17 enables an emphasis to be placed on circumcision which has often been lacking. Rather than stressing qualification or purification (which is a secondary significance of circumcision) the emphasis must fall on circumcision as a sign of God’s judgment if the stipulations of the covenant (including circumcision) were not kept. Rather than indicating primarily a new status, circumcision, when administered to a male Hebrew child, was to be a constant reminder to him of the obligations of God’s covenant, and of the fact that if he proved unfaithful to those obligations, and therefore virtually denied the covenant, he would suffer under God’s judgment. Thus in Genesis 17.4 there is a play on words in the Hebrew text, for the warning is given that breach of the covenant requirement would involve being cut off, which is an allusion to the rite of circumcision as a cutting ritual, as well as echoing the common Hebrew idiom for making a covenant (karath berith, ‘to cut a covenant’).

When the institution of circumcision is seen in its historical setting in Genesis 17, then the emphasis can rightly fall on the significance of the covenant sign, rather than on questions relating to the status of the circumcised child. Too often the subsidiary question of status in reference to circumcision (and also in reference to baptism) has been allowed to overshadow the covenant sign and seal. It is clear from Paul’s words in Romans 4.11–12 in reference to Abraham that his circumcision was subsequent to his possession of a righteous status with God, and that the circumcision he received was neither the cause of that righteous status nor did it enhance it. Circumcision, according to Paul’s argument, does not exclude us from Abraham’s descendants, nor does it contribute to our incorporation with them. It is also to be deduced from Paul’s discussion that circumcision was a sign and seal for all who received it, and therefore in the case of infants it was not such a sign and seal subsequent to their faith but prior to it.

Another point which needs to be made in connection with the idea of status is that many discussions on circumcision centre too much on the question of circumcision as a sign of nationality. To do this is misleading, for during the first half-millennium that circumcision was administered under the Abrahamic covenant, those receiving the covenant sign were not members of an earthly kingdom. Hence to equate the right to circumcision with citizenship in the Old Testament theocracy is to ignore the setting of the institution in the patriarchal period and the long elapse of time until Israel became a nation.

Although the concept of circumcision as a mark of qualification was not taught contemporaneously with its institution, yet the idea is present from the Mosaic period onwards. Moses could say that he was ‘a man of uncircumcised lips’ (Ex. 6.12–13), by which he meant that they were unfit for service. The expression an ‘uncircumcised heart’ clearly meant a heart which was stubborn or rebellious, and the command to circumcise the foreskin of the heart (Deut. 10.16) meant that the state of heart had to be brought into conformity with the outward sign of the covenant borne in the flesh. Later in the Old Testament this distinction appears in a very graphic form when the Lord through Jeremiah declares that he will punish those who are circumcised yet uncircumcised (Jer. 9.25–26). This is the Old Testament teaching which is taken up by Paul, who taught that a true Jew was one who was circumcised inwardly, with the true circumcision being that of the heart, by the Spirit (Rom. 2.25–29; cf. Rom. 4.11–12; Phil. 3.3; Acts 7.51). Here is the constant teaching of Scripture that when the consecration symbolized in circumcision is truly fulfilled it is not just an outward matter but a thing of the heart. Any who were circumcised in the flesh but not in the heart were really in a state of uncircumcision.

Another aspect of the Old Testament background which requires comment is the matter of parental authority in relation to circumcision. To state the matter in another way, it is necessary to look and see what were the principles governing covenant administration, and these principles revolve around the choice of circumcision as the covenant sign. The account of the institution of circumcision given in Genesis 17 and the fact that it was performed on the male organ of procreation suggest that it had something to do with the descendants of the person receiving circumcision. At this point another look at the secular vassal treaties is helpful, because the vassal coming into the treaty arrangement did not enter as an individual but as a ruler of the people. All under his authority were brought within the power of the superior king, and his oath pledged his servants as well as himself. Moreover, his oath committed his descendants to obedience to the covenant requirements as well. For a biblical example Deuteronomy 29.9 ff. serves to show how those entering into the covenant (which was being renewed as the children of Israel were about to enter the land of promise) included the children and the aliens (vs. 11), and observance of the requirements of God’s covenant extended to the generations to come.

In the vassal treaties there is reference to having one’s descendants cut off. For example in a treaty which the Assyrian king Esarhaddon made with Ramataia it is said: ‘May he [Ashur] never grant you fatherhood. May Sarpanitu who gives name and seed, destroy your name and seed from the land’ (D. J. Wiseman, The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon, pp. 60, 62). Biblical parallels to this occur in Deuteronomy, for among the pronounced blessings are those relating to the offspring of the body (Deut. 28.3–6), while among the curses are those which relate to the offspring (Deut. 28.16–19). The ultimate curse of having no descendants features in the biblical account, and reference can be made to the curse uttered against Jehoiachin, the last king of Judah (Jer. 22.24–30).

To return to Abraham and the covenant recorded in Genesis 17, the implication is that Abraham the patriarch was entering the covenant with all those who were under his authority. That such authority extended beyond his own children is made plain in Genesis 17 by reference to the fact that purchased slaves, those bought slaves who were then in the house, were to receive circumcision. Providing that Eliezer of Damascus, his adopted son, was still alive, then he too would have received the covenant sign. In himself being circumcised Abraham received the sign which spoke of God’s curse against him if he was unfaithful, but also there was the reminder that God would cut off his descendants if he failed to keep the covenant obligations. All his descendants were being consecrated to God in his circumcision, but yet each of those descendants would require to receive the covenant sign for themselves.

The basic principle which becomes apparent from the administration of the Abrahamic covenant is that a loyal covenant servant had the responsibility to bring all those under his authority to the Lord and also to consecrate his descendants after him. If a man failed to fulfil this obligation then he became liable to the curse of being cut off from the people. From parallel passages in the Pentateuch it is clear that this expression ‘to be cut off’ did not just refer to social exclusion from the rest of the people but rather to the execution of the death penalty (cf. Lev. 18.8, 29 with Lev. 20.11 for an example of this usage).

There is one enigmatic passage in the Old Testament which is best seen as an illustration of the judgment curse being inflicted on an unfaithful covenant servant. This is the incident recorded in Exodus 4.24–26. Moses was returning to Egypt to assume the role to which he had been called of God, and at the lodging place the Lord met him and sought to put him to death. It was only after Zipporah performed the circumcision of her son that the Lord let Moses alone, and he was allowed to go on with his appointed mission. Seemingly Moses had failed to ensure that Gershom was circumcised, and therefore the ultimate curse of the covenant (indicated by circumcision itself) was to be executed against him. There are many features about the incident which are difficult, especially Zipporah’s action and words after the circumcision. What does appear plain is that Moses was held responsible for the fact that Gershom was not circumcised, but that Zipporah’s action resulted in the threat against his life being removed. This incident reinforces the principle that a loyal covenant servant had the responsibility to see that his children bore the covenant sign, and thus it was not only an individual who made his confession of trust in the Lord but the head of a household brought that household into a relationship with the Lord as well.

4. The Institution of Christian Baptism

When we turn to the New Testament we find that in the period up to the death and resurrection of our Lord, there is the coexistence of circumcision and several forms of baptism. Thus John the Baptist was circumcised on the eighth day (Lk. 1.59) as was Jesus (Lk. 2.21), which was the current custom at that time (Jn. 7.22). But both John and Jesus’ disciples practised baptism, and while these forms of baptism did not constitute Christian baptism yet there is a relationship to that baptism which was instituted by Jesus after his resurrection. John came with his message of repentance for the remission of sins, and the baptism which he administered was a special sign for that final generation living under the Old Covenant, and clearly it was intimately connected with his message of judgment. There was greater significance in his baptism in relation to the impending judgment of God than to the thought of purification from sin.

The baptism practised by Jesus and his disciples has to be related to that of John. This becomes clear when it is realized that the cessation of the Judean baptismal ministry of Jesus (Jn. 3.22; 4.1 ff.) is linked with the imprisonment of John (Mt. 21.23 ff.; Mk. 11.22 ff.; Lk. 20.1 ff.). The final despising of that ultimatum, which John was issuing, ushers in the new era, and so when Jesus begins to minister in Galilee he can proclaim the arrival of the acceptable year of the Lord (Lk. 4.18–21). Presumably the significance of this earlier baptism of Jesus was similar to that of John’s baptism.

When we come to the institution of the distinctly Christian baptism after the resurrection (Mt. 28.19) it is impossible to disjoin this absolutely from the earlier baptism of John. As Meredith Kline has stated it: ‘Nevertheless, this new water baptism, appearing so soon after the other and still within the personal ministry of Jesus, would hardly bear a meaning altogether different from the earlier one. There would be a pronounced continuity between Christian baptism and the earlier, Johannine baptism’ (By Oath Consigned, pp. 64 f.). One does not need to follow the position completely which Kline goes on to elaborate in order to observe the line of continuity which emerges in relation to the significance of circumcision, John’s baptism, and Christian baptism. In each of them there is no thought of grace or blessing inherent in the sign itself. Rather in receiving the sign the recipient acknowledged the sovereign rule of the Lord over him, faithful submission to which would bring blessing, while rejection of it would incur God’s ultimate judgment.

For our immediate purpose there are two aspects of our Lord’s command to baptize which require emphasis. The first is the fact that baptism is subsequent to disciplining: ‘Therefore in your going make disciples of all nations, baptizing them. . . .’ The main verb is ‘make disciples’, and the method of carrying out this command is contained in the two coordinate participles which follow, ‘baptizing’ and ‘teaching’. Discipleship involves not just acceptance of a body of knowledge, but submission to the Lord and obedience to his command. Only those who abide in the truth are truly Christ’s disciples (Jn. 8.31). That acknowledgment an individual must make when he comes to seek baptism for himself and for his children, and whatever further instruction he must undergo that coming for baptism is in itself a confession of discipleship.

The second aspect, and one which reinforces the point just made, is the significance of the clause ‘into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’. By use of the singular ‘name’ emphasis is placed on the fact that it is baptism into the name of the triune God, while ‘into the name of’ has the connotation of union with someone, and also the acknowledgment of ownership. This appears so both from the analogous usage in the Old Testament (cf. Deut. 28.9; Is. 63.19) and also from our knowledge of Hellenistic Greek usage (cf. J. H. Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources, p. 451; W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, p. 575). Hence, those receiving the sign of baptism receive a mark which is indicative of union with the triune God and which is a recognition of their submission to his lordship.

5. The Administration of Infant Baptism

The remainder of our discussion must now concentrate on two specific aspects of baptism, namely, the administration of baptism to children and the significance which it has in their case. As we turn to look at the first of these matters we must note that it is not a matter which can be settled by appeal to specific texts of the New Testament which authorize the baptism of infants. There has to be the recognition that the argument for infant baptism is a cumulative one, and depends also on the position noted earlier in this discussion in relation to the unity of the church in Old and New Testament dispensations. The question of the unity of the church must be settled prior to approaching the question of baptism. The case for infant baptism is grounded in the recognition that God’s covenant is basically one in both dispensations, and that as the gospel dispensation is the unfolding of the Abrahamic covenant it is to be expected that the relation of children to the sign and seal of the covenant would be the same in both dispensations. As Professor John Murray has expressed it, in the absence of any repeal of the practice of administering the covenant sign to children ‘we conclude that the administering of the sign and seal of the covenant to the infant seed of believers is still in operation and has perpetual divine warrant. In other words, the command to administer the sign to infants has not been revoked: therefore it is still in force’ (Christian Baptism, p. 53; see also pp. 48–53 for his main discussion on the inclusion of infants). By divine command the covenant sign of circumcision was administered to male children under the Abrahamic covenant, and without any intimation of the repeal of the incorporation of children we have to proceed on the basis that the new covenant sign of baptism is for children as well as adults.

While the New Testament contains no express command regarding the baptism of children (nor for that matter any command limiting it to adults), there is other evidence which does have a distinct bearing on the matter, and which lends support to the position already indicated.

(1) The New Testament teaches that the children of believers stand in a category different from that of unbelievers. Paul says: ‘For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, and now they are holy’ (1 Cor. 7.14). Doubtless here ‘holy’ is not to be equated with ‘regenerated’, but appears to take its meaning from Old Testament contexts in which ‘holiness’ can be indicative of formal consecration to the Lord. Here then in the New Testament is the situation in which children are declared to be sanctified, not because of personal faith but because of a relationship which they bear to a believing parent. That this is Paul’s meaning here finds confirmation in his reference to the status of the descendants of covenant members in Romans 11.16, ‘And if the first piece of dough be holy, the lump is also; and if the root be holy, the branches are too’. In this passage ‘holy’ does not refer to what is morally ‘pure’ but to the consecration of the Israelites to God. Now while no argument for infant baptism rests on these passages, yet they are important in so far as they show that Old Testament ideas continue over into the New Testament and that parental authority was still viewed in the same way. The objections against this interpretation, especially with reference to the unbelieving partner also being sanctified, fail to recognize that the idea of sanctification does not necessarily have to be identical in the cases of the children and the unbelieving partner, for the implication may well be in the latter case that the marriage relationship is itself sanctified unto the service of God’s covenant.

(2) While the account in the Gospels regarding the bringing of little babes to Jesus (Mt. 19.13–15; Mk. 10.13–16; Lk. 18.15–17) affords in itself no direct justification for infant baptism (Christian baptism not having yet been instituted and no mention being made at all of baptism in connection with this incident) yet it does afford evidence both of the fact that Jesus regarded little children as members of the kingdom of God, and of our Lord’s approval of the parental authority which was exercised in bringing the children to him. That the membership of little children is in view is made plain by the context in which the words of our Lord come, and by the words themselves which must be construed to mean that Jesus was speaking expressly of little children being partakers in his kingdom. The emphasis on parental authority in the passage is important for it carries our Lord’s commendation of those parents who brought their children to him and placed them under the authority of his ministry. It is also worth pointing out that the call of Jesus was to the babes (Lk. 18.16, auta referring back to ta brephē, the babes), and that this call was realized in the bringing of the children by their parents so that the idea of covenant headship was emphatically recognized.

(3) The accounts of household baptisms (Acts 16.15, 33, 34; I Cor. 1.16) comprise one-quarter of the accounts we have in the New Testament of the actual administration of baptism. In none of the accounts is express mention made of the presence of children, but as Meredith Kline comments, ‘households are mentioned along with the central authority figures in these instances, and these households had to consist of somebody in the category of household subordinates. Even with respect to the narrower question of whether parental authority is honored in the administration of the New Covenant, it would not matter whether conclusive evidence could be adduced proving that there were no children in any of these households; for if there were no children, then surely the household consisted of servants; and if it could be shown that servants were received into the church on the basis of the authority principle, it would follow a fortiori that the continuity with Old Testament practice included infants also’ (op. cit., p. 97). When viewed alongside announcements of salvation such as that in Acts 2.38, 39, the implication is that the confession of faith of the parent involved had as its consequence the incorporation of his household in the covenant community. In one of the instances of household baptism the faith of the father is singled out for specific mention. Luke, in recording what transpired in the household of the Philippian gaoler, notes that while the rejoicing of the gaoler was accompanied by like rejoicing on the part of his family, yet in reference to faith it is the gaoler only who is singled out for mention. Many of the English translations fail to translate accurately at this point, but the RSV is to be commended for its faithful rendering: ‘And he rejoiced with all his household that he had believed in God’ (vs. 34). Though Kurt Aland and others have argued to the contrary, the Greek word for household used in these instances in Acts and I Corinthians (oikos) also points to a family group regarded as a unity. Thus Jeremias can say emphatically that ‘nowhere in the whole of Hellenistic Greek literature nor in the Jewish literature’ is the word oikos ‘restricted to the adult members of the family’ (The Origins of Infant Baptism, p. 14). It may also be true that this Greek word denotes the narrower family of parents and children as over against the word oikia which denotes household or establishment in the wider sense. This distinction was stressed by Douglas Bannerman in his book The Scripture Doctrine of the Church, pp. 76 f., 88–85, 320, 325, 504 ff., though more recently Jeremias has upheld the distinction between these two Greek words in that oikos denotes the members of the household while oikia is used when speaking of the social position of the family or of all the kin (op. cit., p. 14 n. 2). It is interesting that in the two references to the family of Stephanus in the first in I Corinthians 1.16 oikos is used, but in I Corinthians 16.15 (‘you know the household of Stephanus, that they were the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves for the ministry of the saints’) the wider word oikia appears.

(4) The authority of parents over the children is stressed by Paul when addressing Christian parents. In letters to churches he also singles out children and gives to them, as to other groups such as husbands, wives, fathers, servants, and masters, definite instructions regarding their conduct (Col. 3.20, 21; Eph. 6.1–3). The children must be regarded as belonging to the saints to whom the epistles are addressed, and the obedience which is required of them is reckoned as being given to the Lord himself (Eph. 6.1, ‘in the Lord’; 6.4, ‘in the discipline and instruction of the Lord’). Parental authority is here regarded as the extension of the covenantal authority of the Lord himself. Another striking thing about the passage in Ephesians 6 is that the link with the Old Testament is made explicit by appeal to that stipulation of the covenant of Sinai which dealt specifically with the relationship of children to parents, and Paul quotes it with the accompanying promise (Eph. 6.2, 3; cf. Exod. 20.12, Deut. 5.16). This conforms with the general impression which is gained of the New Testament teaching that the arrangements for covenantal teaching and authority seen in the Old Testament also carries over into the New Testament period.

Some comment is also required in relation to the profession necessary on the part of a parent when bringing a child for baptism. In the practice of Reformed churches since the Reformation there has been some difference in regard to the administration of infant baptism, and alongside a genuine profession of faith on the part of at least one parent, another lesser profession has come to stand as well. In the latter case no personal profession of faith on the part of the parent is required, and consequently no requirement of church membership (actual or prospective) is involved. Several points need to be made concerning this position, which cannot be defended on biblical grounds.

(1) The very nature of the covenantal authority of parents in the biblical sense presupposes a genuine profession on their part when bringing their children for baptism. Failure to make such a profession would in itself be tantamount to a rejection of the authority of the Lord and a spurning of the demands which he makes of his loyal subjects.

(2) The New Testament evidence shows that a profession of personal faith is a prerequisite for baptism either for oneself or for one’s children. The New Testament knows only baptism for believers and their children, and there is no suggestion that a profession of nominal adherence to the Christian faith can serve as a substitute for a true and living faith in Jesus Christ as redeemer and lord. The principle of nullum sacramentum sine fide (‘where there is no faith, there is no sacrament’) applies very pointedly here. (3) This position is confirmed by an appreciation of the fact that there is an identity of profession required for the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. As Professor John Murray puts it: ‘It is a great fallacy and one fraught with grave consequence to suppose that there is such a thing in the New Testament as dual confession, one entitling to baptism and another, of a higher order, entitling to communicant membership’ (op. cit., p. 83; see also the discussion by William Cunningham, The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation, pp. 268 ff.). Just as an adult seeking baptism is required to make the same profession for it as for his admission to the Lord’s Table, so no distinction can be made between the profession a parent makes in regard to his child’s baptism and his own admission as a communicant member.

(4) Nor should it be forgotten that in bringing a child for baptism the parent/parents are required to vow to bring up their child in the discipline and admonition of the Lord. To come and take that vow while refusing to make a full profession of faith results in an incongruity which should be immediately apparent. Only those who have had a personal experience of God’s saving grace can honestly vow to bring their child up in the discipline of the Lord. To come and take the vows while refusing (or unable) to make a profession of personal faith leads to a situation entirely out of accord with biblical standards both in regard to church membership and the nature of the sacrament.

6. The Significance of Infant Baptism

Whatever view we hold of baptism there has to be the recognition that the New Testament does not elucidate the doctrine of baptism with the same clarity it does the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. Hence in regard to the initiatory sacrament of the New Testament we are obliged to draw implications which necessarily depend both on a restricted number of New Testament passages and on the analogy of the initiatory rite of the Old Testament period. It is to the latter we have to turn for considerable assistance in setting forth our understanding of what is the precise significance of baptism when administered to children. Nor should we lapse into a position in which a sharp distinction is drawn between the significance of adult and infant baptism. In both it has to follow faith, in one case of the recipient himself, in the other of at least one parent. William Cunningham pointed out long ago that if we separate infant baptism from adult baptism we are led to form very defective views of the former. Cunningham also held that adult baptism is the proper fundamental type of the sacrament, but this is not a necessary consequence of asserting a close relationship between the two types of baptism (cf. Historical Theology II, pp. 145 f., The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation, pp. 245–247; see also the comments by Murray, op. cit., pp. 88–90).

It may also help to define the significance of baptism negatively first, especially in order to obviate some objections to infant baptism and also false understanding on the part of some who practise it. Firstly, it has to be stated emphatically that baptism does not regenerate. The New Testament makes this abundantly plain, for there is a case such as that of Simon Magnus, who though baptized, had the pronouncement made concerning him that his heart was not right in the sight of God and that he was still ‘in the gall of bitterness and in the bondage of iniquity’ (Acts 8.21, 23). Moreover, there are many cases recorded of regeneration and faith preceding baptism, as well as many expressions on the part of Paul and the other apostles that it was by the preaching of the Gospel and not by baptism or any other sacramental means, that men would be saved. This acknowledgment of the fact that baptism does not regenerate also flows from the basic understanding of what a sacrament really is. The sacraments as signs point to realities beyond themselves, and to suggest that baptism causes regeneration is to confuse the sign and the thing signified.

Secondly, there is no presumption of regeneration either. Baptism is not administered on the grounds that we presume the child will be regenerated, though this view has been adopted in Reformed churches and goes back at least to the First Helvetic Confession (Art. XXII). In actual practice baptizing on the ground of presumptive regeneration has little to distinguish it from the view that baptism itself regenerates. The ground upon which we act in administering baptism to children must be that we believe that it is a divine institution to give the covenant sign to children of believers.

Looking at the matter now from the positive aspect, what significance does baptism have when administered to a child of believing parents?

(1) Infant baptism is a recognition that such a child is already a part of the covenant community. This participation in the covenant community does not depend upon such baptism, but upon the fact that a child was born into a family with at least one parent a true believer. Earlier we noted the import of Paul’s teaching in I Corinthians 7 which shows that children of believers are by their relationship to a believing parent marked off from the unbelieving world. In this respect children of baptist parents are just as much part of the covenant community as children of parents who believe in and practise infant baptism, though in the former case the parents fail to mark their children with the covenant sign. Baptism is for the child the formal and outward acknowledgment of a relationship in existence by birth into a Christian family.

(2) The administration of baptism to a child (as of baptism to an adult) is a seal or assurance of God’s promises. Added to God’s verbal promises is a visible seal, which is a pledge that God’s mercies are forever sure to all who will put their trust in him. To both baptized adults and children this seal can only convey assurance of spiritual blessing providing that the recipient either now or eventually becomes a believer in the gospel. A mistaken notion sometimes arises from the brevity of definition found in the Shorter Catechism which speaks of baptism signifying and sealing spiritual blessings. However, baptism does not seal in the same sense that it signifies, for it is not a seal of regeneration to the individual but a seal of God’s covenant, confirming the word he has spoken. The seal is that of a general assurance that God will unchangeably adhere to his covenant, and that he will bestow all promised blessings on all who by faith willingly receive them.

(3) The act of baptism does not convey grace to the child in and of itself, nor should it necessarily suggest the idea only that positive spiritual benefits are in store for those who believe the gospel. Earlier note was taken of the role of circumcision in denoting God’s curse on an unfaithful servant. It is the teaching of the New Testament that the Lord’s Supper signifies more than the spiritual benefits which believers receive through feeding on Christ, for the warning is expressly given that unworthy receiving of the sacrament, so far from conveying blessing, is but an eating and drinking of judgment (1 Cor. 11.29). Here there is continuity of thought with the Old Testament in regard to breach of the covenant oath, and unfaithfulness results in the fearful judgment of God. (cf. Heb. 10.26–31 for similarity of idea, though without mention of the Lord’s Supper). It would hardly be surprising if the other New Testament sacrament also had an aspect which related to judgment or curse, especially as its Old Testament counterpart, circumcision, had such a significance. Moreover, the baptism of John was administered against the background of impending judgment (Mt. 3.7; Lk. 3.7). It served as a sign of God’s curse, in the execution of which the axe was already laid to the roots of the unfruitful trees (Mt. 3.10, Lk. 3.9). There are passages in the New Testament which relate baptism to God’s judgment in water ordeals (1 Cor. 10.1 ff., of the exodus from Egypt; I Pet. 3.19–21, of the flood), while baptism is also seen as union with Christ in the judgment he underwent in death, burial and resurrection (Rom. 6.3 ff.; Col. 2.11 ff.; cf. Lk. 12.50). In Colossians 2.11 ff. Paul understands the circumcision of Christ, not as that administered to him as a child, but as a dying or death. Hence the sequence of ideas, circumcision: burial: resurrection, is parallel to baptized into his death: burial: resurrection, found in Romans 6.3 ff. Being baptized with Christ in his death, or circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, are both descriptions of union with Christ in the judgment of God he endured. The judgment theme inherent in baptism is highlighted by the way in which Paul links baptism with the Messiah’s death, burial, and resurrection.

Those to whom baptism is administered need to be reminded of the fact that this water symbol not only depicts the positive benefits of union with Christ, but also reminds of the dreadful consequence of sin and unbelief. He who despises the gospel, though himself baptized as a child or adult, will in the end receive the due wages of sin and perish under God’s judgment. What was said of the baptised Simon Magnus will be applicable to him: ‘You have neither part or portion in this matter, for your heart is not right before God’ (Acts 8.31). Those who despise the ordinances of God and continue in unbelief will in the end know that it is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God (Heb. 10.31).

(4) In administering infant baptism the church requires certain vows from the parents. This is important because it formally recognizes the covenant obligation which rests upon parents to bring up their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord, as well as in this way reinforcing the truth that covenant privilege also involves covenant obligation. As Professor Murray puts it: ‘What needs to be stressed in this connection is that we may never divorce the faith of God’s covenant grace from the discharge of those obligations which inhere in the covenant relation. Covenant privilege always entails covenant responsibility. And this is just saying that the comfort and confidence of God’s covenant mercy may never be severed from covenant keeping’ (op. cit., pp. 90 f.). To place confidence in the efficacy of baptism, and yet continue to show no fidelity in keeping the obligations which the Lord lays on us as individuals and as parents, is to be guilty of gross presumption.

This parental covenant obligation extends to the giving of precise instruction to children regarding why they were baptized and the need for them to be baptized in heart by the Holy Spirit. As with circumcision, the believing parent by baptism consecrates his child to the service of the Lord, but that consecration must in time become a personal matter for the child, or otherwise he must be regarded as having no part in God’s kingdom. On the basis of the analogy of the initiatory ordinances of the Old and New Testaments we may apply Paul’s words in Romans 2.28, 29, to baptism. He is not a Christian who is one outwardly; neither is that baptism which is outward in the flesh of any saving purpose; but the true baptism is that of the heart, and in the spirit, and not in the letter.

As an illustration of the type of parental instruction needed reference may be made to the way in which Philip Henry, father of Matthew Henry the commentator, taught his children the significance of their baptism. He drew up a short baptismal covenant for the use of his children as follows (text in The Lives of Philip and Matthew Henry, pp. 83 f.):

I take God the Father to be my chiefest good, and highest end.
I take God the Son to be my Prince and Saviour.
I take God the Holy Ghost to be my Sanctifier, Teacher, Guide, and Comforter.
I take the word of God to be my rule in all my actions.
And the people of God to be my people in all conditions.
I do likewise devote and dedicate unto the Lord, my whole self, all I am, all I have, and all I can do.
And this I do deliberately, sincerely, freely, and forever.

This he taught his children each Lord’s Day evening, and endeavoured to lead them to a full understanding of its implications and to make their own dedication of themselves to the Lord.

(5) When a child is baptized there is the recognition that that child is part of a praying community. The Westminster Directory for Worship speaks of prayer at the time of baptism in words to this effect: ‘That the Lord, who hath not left us as strangers without the covenant of promise, but called us to the privileges of His ordinances, would graciously vouchsafe to sanctify and bless His own ordinance of baptism at this time; that He would join the inward baptism of His Spirit with the outward baptism of water, and make this baptism to the infant a seal of adoption, remission of sin, regeneration, and eternal life, and all the other promises of the covenant of grace; that the child may be planted into the likeness of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ; and that, the body of sin being destroyed in him, he may serve God in newness of life all his days’. Such prayer is not just to be prayed by the officiating minister, but the whole congregation must do so as well, for baptism is an ordinance of the church. Furthermore, the church is the broader extension of the Christian family, and God deals with us not just as individuals in an atomistic way, but as members of organic and corporate relationships. God promises to be a God to the believer and his seed after him, and he works in fulfilment of his promise through the family and the church. God’s method of working is in the lines of the generations, and he who executes judgment on the wicked to the third and fourth generation shows mercy to the thousandth generation of them that love him and keep his commandments (cf. Deut. 5.9–10 with Deut. 7.9). Not only do the parents have responsibilities to the child, but the wider Christian family to which he belongs must also fulfil its responsibilities by praying for the child, setting examples of godly living, and supplementing the home instruction with further teaching and application of biblical truths.

(6) Baptism has a teaching ministry to fulfil as well, for every time one sees baptism administered this is a fresh reminder of the significance of it. In this way baptism (as also the Lord’s Supper) appeals to our senses and functions as a pictorial representation of spiritual truth. For someone baptized in infancy this means the importance of baptism is brought home to him repeatedly as he sees it administered to others, and his own baptism takes on new significance as he is brought to profession of personal faith in Christ. By exercising such faith in Christ he shows himself to be a true heir of the promises, and the pledge of these promises given in his own baptism becomes a ground in itself for confidently relying on them. It is this benefit of baptism which the Westminister Confession has in mind when it affirms: ‘The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; but that by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will in his appointed time’ (XXVIII, 6).

It is also true that baptism and the Lord’s Supper may both serve to portray vividly the gospel to those who are unbelievers. As the sacraments are dispensed in conjunction with the preaching of the Word, they witness to gospel truths and of the need to be made true partakers in Jesus Christ. The evangelistic note should always be present when the sacraments are administered.

Home