Scriptorium Daily
Although I am a Calvinist, I disagree with John Calvin on paedobaptism. Even my favorite preacher, John Piper, is a huge follower of Jonathan Edwards and agrees with him on everything except his paedobaptism as well. So clearly, one can be very much in agreement with someone while objecting to a few points. That, I think, shows true discernment and thinking, not just wholesale, uncritical acceptance of another person’s thoughts. I am not a credobaptist by virtue of my Calvinism; in fact, quite the opposite — so I must have a good reason to hold my position. Throughout church history, most people have been paedobaptists, so I (and others like me) hold a historically “unpopular” position, despite the prevalence of credobaptism in the United States. People who practiced believers’ baptism were often disparagingly called Anabaptists (those who “baptized again”), or simply Nonconformists. The Magisterial Reformers (like Luther, Calvin, Zwingli) were persecuted by the Catholics, but they in turn persecuted the Radical Reformers (like the Anabaptists). The Radical Reformers, for their part, thought that the Magisterial Reformers were still too Catholic and didn’t take the Reformation far enough. The famous British pastor Charles Spurgeon (nicknamed the “Prince of Preachers”) recognized that credobaptists have to stick to our guns and not be swayed by what others think about us, but rather be faithful to Scripture:
“If I thought it wrong to be a Baptist, I should give it up and become what I believe to be right… If we could find infant baptism in the word of God, we would adopt it. It would help us out of a great difficulty, for it would take away from us that reproach which is attached to us — that we are odd and do not as other people do. But we have looked well through the Bible and cannot find it, and do not believe it is there; nor do we believe that others can find infant baptism in the Scriptures, unless they themselves first put it there.”
Lest I misrepresent my own position, let me also clarify that credobaptism is not a new thing; it is found all over Scripture, and the first historical reference to paedobaptism was not until 206 A.D. (mentioned by Tertullian). Credobaptism fell out of favor for much of church history, but I am thankful that it has been restored as a viable position to hold. And being Calvinist and Baptist is also not an untenable position, as people like Spurgeon, Andrew Fuller, William Carey, John Bunyan, Benjamin Keach, Roger Williams (briefly), John Piper, Al Mohler, Mark Dever, and others are Reformed theologians who hold to believers’ baptism.
Abraham Lincoln grew up a Baptist, Jimmy Carter is a Baptist, and William Carey (the father of Modern Missions), Adoniram Judson (the first missionary from America), A.J. Gordon & Russell Conwell (the founders of Gordon-Conwell Seminary), Carl F.H. Henry (the greatest evangelical theologian of the 20th century), Kenneth Scott Latourette (the greatest church historian of the 20th century), Martin Luther King Jr., Billy Graham, Timothy George, and Rick Warren are all Baptists. We are in good company!
I should also give two notes of clarification: first of all, credobaptism means “believers’ baptism,” it is not adult baptism we’re talking about here! As long as you are old enough to believe in your heart and confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord (e.g. you can be a teenager), that’s good enough. Secondly, even paedobaptists believe in credobaptism. Clearly, if someone is evangelized as an adult, and becomes a Christian, he or she must have believers’ baptism done to them. So paedobaptists are people who accept both infant and believers’ baptism, it’s just that if, given the choice, they default toward infant baptism.
Now let me lay out why I am a credobaptist:
1) Infant baptism is found nowhere in Scripture. Not one example of it exists. In the Bible, baptism always, always, follows repentance and faith (e.g. Acts 2:37-38, 41), and only adults can turn from their sin and profess allegiance to Christ. Of course, paedobaptists would counter with “the entire household” being baptized and saved (e.g. Acts 11:14; 16:15,31-34; 18:8). However, this is an argument from silence. Do you really want to hang your hat on the argument that “there might have been infants in the household”? That’s putting a lot of weight on something that may or may not be there. Adoniram Judson, when he set sail from Boston in 1812 to become the first American missionary, left as a (paedobaptist) Congregationalist. Along the sea voyage to Burma, he read his Bible over and over, and realized that there was nothing about infant baptism in all of Scripture. So, without the influence of anyone else, just by reading his Bible, he became a credobaptist. Judson landed in Asia and sent word back to his mission board that he was now a Baptist, much to their surprise!
2) The word baptizo, in Greek, originally was a pagan word that means to soak, wash, dip, submerge. In the ancient world, it was often used in reference to dying cloth, or a ship sinking into the ocean. Would you do that to an infant? Highly unlikely. When I was in seminary, two of my seminary professors (one a credobaptist and one a paedobaptist) went to Israel and saw the ancient Israelite miqvahs (Jewish baptismal tanks) which were about four feet deep. The credobaptist professor turned to his paedobaptist colleague and said, “I’d like to see you try to baptize an infant in that!” Of course, Jewish baptism wasn’t the same as Christian baptism, but it was a precursor to it. Based on the usage of baptizo in the ancient world, and the size of the baptismal tanks, sprinkling/pouring is definitely not the right mode of baptism, and is only allowed for (see The Didache) in the case of insufficient volume of water. Not submerging the baptized person is a concession, not the norm. Of course the mode of baptism isn’t the same as determining who you baptize, but it certainly seems to rule out the possibility of infants.
3) If you baptize an infant, it’s like flipping a coin. Who knows if this child will become a Christian? It is just as likely that you’ve just baptized a future non-Christian as a future Christian—and at that point, what does baptism mean anymore? It seems kind of cheapened because it doesn’t seem dependent on faith but rather on being born into the “right” family. Now, I understand that the parents and the church will all have a hand in raising this child in the faith until adulthood, and this increases the likelihood that the person will be a Christian. But I’ve seen far too many instances of people who grow up culturally/nominally Christian, or rebellious to the ways of their family, that it just seems like such a crapshoot. If the person confesses with their own mouth and believes in their own heart that Jesus is Lord, and chooses of their own accord to make this public with their baptism—yes it is true that there is the possibility of backsliding, but overall it is far more likely that the person is a genuine Christian and will stick to it. Plus, what a wonderful evangelistic testimony to the grace of God that is!
4) I think that confirmation is basically paedobaptists admitting that they are unsure about the salvation of their baptized infants! Confirmation is done when the child reaches a stage where they are mature enough to understand and articulate their faith, but why is that necessary if the salvation of the person is sure? Or, I could also ask, why not just wait for the person to be baptized at the same time as confirmation, instead of jumping the gun on baptism when the person is an infant? However, to be fair, on the flip side, paedobaptists would argue that infant dedication is what credobaptists do to imitate the covenant community. So maybe this argument is a quid pro quo, showing that both sides are more alike than either would care to admit—paedobaptists do confirmation (which resembles believers’ baptism), and credobaptists do infant dedication (which resembles infant baptism).
5) The two sacraments, baptism and communion, represent the first two parts of salvation: justification and sanctification, respectively (the third and final part is glorification which doesn’t happen until we get to heaven). This is why baptism is only done once, but the Lord’s Supper is taken over and over again. However, if we are justified by faith alone, then why practice infant baptism when the child has no ability to have faith? It seems premature, because the paedobaptism is not matching up chronologically with the faith of the believer, and the two are meant to correspond. Also, why don’t paedobaptists give their infant children the Lord’s Supper? If they are already baptized, then they should not be denied communion, right? It seems inconsistent.
6) Probably the strongest argument for infant baptism, I think, is the theory that baptism is the New Testament form of circumcision (this view is promoted strongly by Presbyterians). This is based on passages such as Acts 15:1-2, 21:21 and Col. 2:11-12 which seem to equate the two, which further implies baptism as being a sign and seal of the Covenant and thus God’s grace. According to the Belgic Confession (sec. 33), sacraments are “visible signs and seals of an inward and invisible thing, by means whereof God works in us by the power of the Holy Spirit.” Therefore, baptism is seen both as the means of initiation into the covenant, and a sign of salvation. Millard Erickson writes, “For adults, those benefits are absolute, but the salvation of infants is conditional upon future continuance in the vows made.” This Covenant, which goes back to Abraham, seems to encompass children as Gen. 17:7 makes a reference to Abraham and his “seed.” Ex. 2:24 and Lev. 26:42 open the Covenant to other generations beyond Abraham, and passages such as Acts 2:39, Rom. 4:13-18, Gal. 3:13-18, and Heb. 6:13-18, further seem to extend the promises of the Covenant to New Testament Christians.
Baptists, especially Calvinist Baptists, do not deny everything that Presbyterians believe. Much of the above holds true in the minds of Baptists (in fact, you might be surprised to hear me say that I do think baptism and circumcision are parallel—but I don’t think that the former replaces the latter!), but where Baptists differ is in the trajectory and conclusion of the data. Is baptism representative of merely purification, or death & resurrection (which includes the idea of purification but is so much more)? All Old Testament forms of ablution—immersion, pouring, sprinkling—represent purification, which needs to be repeated time and again (thus, the Lord’s Supper is more akin to OT baptism than NT baptism is). The New Testament form is death & resurrection, as seen in passages like Rom. 2:29, 6:1-11. In other words, baptism is an assurance of God’s promises, and it is given not to heirs of physical descent but to those who have been spiritually transformed (John 1:12 makes this clear). And how does one become a spiritual heir as opposed to a physical heir? By faith. And infants can’t have faith! To contrast this with circumcision, the Apostle Paul dismisses it as nothing in passages like Gal. 5:2-6; 6:12-13,15. Why would we continue a practice which the Apostle Paul calls “worthless” if indeed that baptism and circumcision are the same thing? Millard Erickson, himself a Baptist, observes that, “While faith is possible without baptism, baptism is a natural accompaniment and the completion of faith.” This cannot happen with infants since “Baptism of infants rests on either the view that baptism is a means of saving grace or the view that baptism, like OT circumcision, is a sign and seal of entrance into the covenant.”
Two final objections to the Presbyterian paedobaptist view: first, if baptism is the New Testament form of circumcision, then it should follow that only males should be baptized since only males were circumcised. Second, clearly baptism didn’t replace circumcision, because both occurred in the early church.
I’m not saying that infant baptism is a bad idea through and through. There are actually some things I really like about the Presbyterian view. For example, there is something powerful about the covenant community, because truly “it takes a village to raise a child.” Also, a community vitiates against excessive Western individualism which is rampant in our society today. But, despite these attractions, the arguments for paedobaptism are still not convincing enough to me compared to the compelling evidence on the other side.
7) And finally: Jesus was baptized as an adult, and if that was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me!
Let me end with this: though I may have come across strongly in this blog (why take a side if you can’t defend it, or feel passionately about it?), let me now extend the hand of fellowship to paedobaptists as my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. Baptism is not a salvation issue. It is not a heresy issue. It is a command of Christ, and all Christians do it. So in that sense, it should bind us more than tear us apart. It is a sign upon us that we belong to Christ. So, to my friends and colleagues who are paedobaptists (and/or complementarians and/or Arminians), Soli Deo Gloria. That is what is most important.
