Why I Baptized Our Babies
Monday, December 7th, 2009
I have been involved in a number of conversations recently concerning infant Baptism. This kind of thing is a never ending cycle on the internet and instead of rehashing everything on several different forums, I thought it might be helpful to put down in writing a defense of infant Baptism addressing several points that proponents of adult believer’s baptism bring up.
The two things that I hear most often are:
1. Baptism is an outward sign of an inward work or action. Its main purpose is as a testimony.
2. Infants can’t have faith and/or repent, therefore they cannot be baptized.
Many refutations of these two points often fail, not because they are not true, but because they resort to a kind of theological shorthand that leaves out several important distinctions and foundational assumptions and results in the two sides talking past each other.
Proponents of believers-only baptism usually argue from the Book of Acts and the Gospels, taking their cues from how they see baptism being used in the Scriptures.
This is correct insofar as it goes. However, in the view of those who champion infant baptism, it does not go far enough.
The Lutherans and other paedobaptists (those who baptize their infants) go further. They look to see what the scriptures say baptism is and does. This is a huge difference. Think about it for a moment.
Our believers-only baptism friends rightly point out that the majority of people people baptized in the Bible have believed and repented before they were baptized. (We would say that the believing centurion and the Philippian jailer probably had children that were baptized with the household.) This is then set in stone as it were, and considered to be the final word on the subject.
The Lutheran way is to ask “What is baptism and what does it do?” and consequently “Given what the scriptures say, how is it properly used and on whom is it used?”
Let’s take a quick tour of the pertinent passages and what they say.
Romans 6:3-5 Baptism into Christ’s death and burial with Him. Unites us to His death and resurrection.
Colossians 2:11-12 Putting off of the sinful nature by the circumcision done by Christ through baptism.
Ephesian 5:26 What else is a “washing with water through word” but baptism?
1 Peter 3:21 Baptism now saves us… Cut it any way you like, but baptism somehow saves.
Because this is what the scriptures say baptism is, then how then is it properly used?
Matthew 28:18-29 Make disciples by baptizing and teaching. (We baptize our infants into teaching and teach adults into baptism.)
See the various instances in the Book of Acts. Note especially the Philippian Jailer (Acts 16:33) whose whole household was baptized.
This is what baptism is and what it does. The crux of the paedobaptist arguments lie primarily in the substance of baptism as scripture defines it, and only secondarily in the examples of its application we see in the Book of Acts. That is why we so often are talking past each other.
So then if baptism joins us to Christ, what about our children, how do we bring them to Jesus? Is it proper to do so?
Mark 10:13-16 Jesus rebukes the disciples who were preventing parents from bringing their infants to Him.
Baptism is the way we bring our children to Him. The New Testament says nothing about infant dedication. Neither does the early Church.
The Scriptures never speak of baptism as a testimony to others. The Ethiopian eunuch and the Philippian jailer and his household were in situations in which there weren’t many witnesses to testify. The scriptures also never speak of baptism as an outward sign of an inward work.
It seems a bit ironic to us that groups that assign to baptism a symbolic or signatory value often become hyper-literal concerning the mode of baptism. So baptism is for them an outward sign of an inward work, and a testimony to others about your relationship with the Lord, but unless you are entirely immersed in the water the baptism is not valid. If the water does nothing, then why is it important to immerse rather than sprinkle?
The second objection we often hear is “Infants can’t have faith and/or repent, therefore they cannot be baptized.”
This second objection makes ‘understanding’ as we define it the one necessary work on our part to be saved. If they are unable to comprehend then the Lord is incapable of granting that infant (or mentally handicapped adult for that matter) the gift of faith.
Ephesians 2:8-9 tells us that faith is a gift given by the Lord. We are loathe to say that the Lord cannot do something; especially when it comes to granting someone saving faith. You end up with a situation in which God is unable to communicate with some part of His creation.
Psalm 22 :9-10 This passage shows that God does indeed grant the gift of faith to infants despite the objections that babies cannot ‘make a decision’ or ‘understand.’
In the book of Jonah, God commands a fish and a vine to do his bidding. In Genesis 9:5 there is that strange passage where the Lord says he will demand an accounting for our lifeblood from every animal that kills a human. So God will hold animals morally accountable for killing humans. There seem to be a lot of things going on behind the scenes between God and His creation that we are not privy to. If He can communicate with fish and vines and hold animals accountable for killing us, I think He is capable of granting the gift of faith to my children through the appointed means of baptism. It is His action towards us.
When someone is baptized, it is not the Pastor that buries someone into the death of Christ and raises them to new life in Christ, but God Himself makes the baptism efficacious. I brought my children to the baptismal font so that they could be buried in Christ’s death and raised to new life in Him. I am confident that God is faithful to His word.
So here, briefly, I have summed up a couple of quick points that I hope will shed some light on why those of us who baptize our children believe that it is scriptural and right. For those interested in a deeper discussion, you can click on the links below for further resources.
Scriptural Baptism by Uuraas Saarnivaara – A very thorough treatment of the subject.
Did My Baptism Count? – Luther on the subject of re-baptism.
The Baptism of Your Child – A great resource for families who are going to baptize their baby. Well put together and informative.
By Pat K
Thanks for these thoughts. I have most definitely been raised in a “believers only” baptism tradition, rooted in the great points that you highlight. But I have also been aware that 1) the other 2/3 of the Church can’t be completely off, 2) that there are some interestingly valid points made in the paedobaptist tradition, and 3) the idea of infant “dedication” has seemed increasingly ridiculous to me since it originated only as a way to be NON-Catholic and isn’t really linked to scripture or church history prior to the reformation. Hmmm. At any rate, I appreciate your points and your attitude in sharing. Thanks for adding to the dialogue.
[...] Why I Baptized Our Babies [...]
Being unpersuaded by these arguments is precisely why I left the Lutheran church and did not enter the Presbyterian.
But they are more palatable now than when I came to know Christ and blamed these doctrines for hindering me from knowing him.
At least you are clear. For I am thankful. And yet unpersuaded still so I remain a steadfast believer baptizer. And yes the whole matter resides over the issue of regeneration and faith. Peace to you.
I am always surprised that there are so many people that do not know the Bible well enough to know that the Philippian jailer had only three adult sons and no wife or daughters. So when he and his son’s believed on Jesus they were baptized.
1 Corinthians 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
Paul must have not have known as much as the Lutherans about baptism.
I’m waylate to the discussion and hence doubt that anyone will read this, but onward nonetheless.
Considering that baptism replaces circumcision (performed on the 8th day);
and considering that baptism is referred to as “rebirth” (did any of us have a conscious effort, mental or physical, in our first birth?);
and considering that Christ mandates that ALL nations be baptized (not “all nations over the imaginary age of accountability”, or “all nations who have the mental capacity to choose Jesus”);
how can baptism NOT be intended for infants?
I have been considering two unique points concerning baptism of late, some being from my own observations, and other being directly from Luther’s writings:
1. This goes to the question of the efficacy of Baptism over and against the believer’s ordinance/good work theory: A major hangup in modernity is the idea that God does not like to work efficacy into signs/symbols, as there exists a secret wall of separation between language, science, and spiritual matters. For instance, “Babylon’s Dread” (BD) has used the term “believer’s baptism,” as a distinction from paedobaptism (as if entry into the Church is uniformly about age). Yet, we can’t HELP but utilize symbols per our language capacity to talk about real spiritual activity (even while we reject others for doing the same thing). For instance, I have no doubt BD would have no problem saying “Jesus lives in my heart” or ask “Have you accepted Jesus into your heart?” What does this mean? Does He REALLY live IN your heart? If I opened your heart up, would I find a literal Jesus living there? How does Jesus GET in your heart anyway? Many often sacramentalize modern expressions of Arminianist traditions without even realizing it. In the heart example, we clearly have a symbol working out a spiritual benefit (as Baptism and Communion are clearly explained in scripture). Surely Jesus living in your heart isn’t a good work that you do?…is it?
2. The nature of man and the definition of belief: OK, not quite unique, but still important. When you fall asleep, do you cease to believe in God? If you are a life-long believer, and you fall ill to a terrible disease that takes away memory or alters your personality dramatically, are you in danger of hell-fire? If Billy Graham says he can’t remember a time when he wasn’t a Christian, since he grew up in the faith to know Jesus and believing the gospel (no doubt “from infancy” like Timothy), does that mean he has an unexamined faith? Similarly, if you were to be married to someone whom you weren’t sure you loved, but grew to love over time within marriage, would you have to divorce and be remarried to make it genuine? All these questions point directly to the scripturally clear teaching that sinners require unilateral grace from a loving God, and that he can work both through the intellect and apart from it, both from within a Christian family, and without it. To discriminate based on age, intelligence, ethnicity, gender, health or any other fabricated differential (all are one in Christ…who said that?) is to limit the very work of God in our midst.