Infant Baptism: Does the Bible Teach It?
Dr. Gregg Strawbridge

Does the Bible teach that the infant children of Christians are to be baptized? Or, was baptism only to be given to "believers" who consciously profess allegiance to Christ? In this short study I hope to defend that the Bible does indeed teach that the infant children of Christians are to be baptized.(1)

--Let us reason together according to the Scriptures--

Where I am on the Map

The view of baptism I will be defending is that which flows from Reformed theology as expressed in the great evangelical creeds and confessions in the 16th and 17th Centuries. I hold to those doctrines of grace which are expressed in the great Reformation confessions (Genevan, Helvetic, Belgic, Westminster, etc.) and catechisms (Heidelberg, Westminster Larger & Shorter). Many of the greatest minds of the Christian church have written and defended these confessions, including John Calvin, Francis Turretin, Samuel Rutherford, Thomas Goodwin, John Owen, Richard Baxter, Jonathan Edwards, Archibald Alexander, Charles Hodge, Robert L. Dabney, Benjamin B. Warfield, J. Gresham Machen and many, many others to this very day. I find my place here on the theological map, too. Surely, it need not be said that these confessional statements and the great defenders of them stand in opposition to Roman Catholicism's understanding and practice of baptism.(2) These documents and their writers and defenders teach that according to the Scriptures salvation is by the grace of God, through faith alone, in Christ alone, for the glory of God alone--sola Scriptura, sola gratia, sola fide, solo Christo, soli Deo gloria!

Just like Romanism, there are some baptistic churches (e.g., the "Church of Christ") which deny sola fide and sola gratia by teaching baptismal regeneration. Though there are those who believe this error, it would be most unfair for evangelical paedobaptists to associate evangelical baptists with ("believer") baptismal regeneration. It would be a violation of the ninth commandment to imply that the reason why baptists require believers' baptism is because they really, deep down, believe in baptismal regeneration. In the same way, it is most unfair (and fallacious) when baptists assault Reformed paedobaptists with the Romanism charge. For example, one thinks of works like John Gill's, "Infant-Baptism: A Part and Pillar Of Popery," or John Q. Adam's, "Baptists the Only Thorough Religious Reformers," in which it is said that infant baptism is "human invention" and that it is one of the traditions which the Protestant Reformers brought from Rome. On the contrary, the Reformed faith repudiates Romanism's errors, that's precisely why it's "Reformed" and "Protestant."
 

When it is urged that infant baptism puts “into the place of Christ’s command a commandment of men, [which is] the essential principle of all heresy, schism, and false religion”—a good, round, railing charge to bring against one’s brethren: but as an argument against infant baptism, drawn from its effects, somewhat of a petitio principii [assuming what is to be proven]. If true, it is serious enough. . .One or the other of us is wrong, no doubt; but do we not break an undoubted command of Christ when we speak thus harshly of our brethren, His children, whom we should love? Were it not better to judge, each the other mistaken, and recognize, each the other’s desire to please Christ and follow His commandments? Certainly I believe that our Baptist brethren omit to fulfill an ordinance of Christ’s house, sufficiently plainly revealed as His will, when they exclude the infant children of believers from baptism. But I know they do this unwittingly in ignorance; and I cannot refuse them the right hand of fellowship on that account.—Benjamin B. Warfield, The Polemics of Infant Baptism (in his Works, 9:408)

Before considering the Biblical information on baptism, it will be important to remember that one's view of baptism, whether one holds the baptist or the Reformed infant baptism position, is not an essential doctrine or a cardinal belief. Among evangelical and Reformed believers, this discussion is an "intermural debate." Or to use the language of Paul, baptism is not listed as a doctrine of "first importance" (protos) (1Co 15:3; cf. 1:13). C.S. Lewis' insightful metaphor is instructive. He writes of mere Christianity,

It [essential Christianity] is more like a hall out of which doors open into several rooms. If I can bring anyone into that hall I shall have done what I attempted. But it is in the rooms, not in the hall, that there are fires and chairs and meals. . . .even in the hall, you must begin trying to obey the rules which are common to the whole house. And above all you must be asking which door is the true one; not which pleases you best by its paint and paneling. In plain language, the question should never be: "Do I like that kind of service?" but "Are these doctrines true: Is holiness here? Does my conscience move me towards this? Is my reluctance to knock at this door due to my pride, or my mere taste, or my personal dislike of this particular door-keeper?" When you have reached your own room, be kind to those who have chosen different doors and to those who are still in the hall. If they are wrong they need your prayers all the more; and if they are your enemies, then you are under orders to pray for them. That is one of the rules common to the whole house.(3)
I have observed that there are also doors between certain of the rooms. It would seem that between the various Reformed churches it is this way. As Lewis implies, and the Bible prescribes, it is the duty of every Christian to be diligent in study and charitable to those who cannot see it as we do. We should move to another room only when we believe it is the truer one. May the peace of God reign in truth.
 

Where is Infant Baptism in the Bible?

One baptist writer, surely representative of many more such writers, says that "baptizing babies is an unscriptural and anti-scriptural innovation, and an abomination of untold enormity."(4) Well, I do not have any trouble admitting that in the Bible the words "infant" and "baptism" are not found together. But, that is a long way from accepting the claim that such a practice is "unscriptural and anti-scriptural innovation, and an abomination of untold enormity."

There is no explicit statement about the "infant baptism" of a Christian's child. But neither is there an explicit case of a Christian's child who grows up and is baptized as a believer. In both cases we must think beyond a surface scan of the words of the Bible. I would not want to limit the authority of the Word of God to only its explicit declarations. Is abortion permissible because the word "abortion" is not in the text of the Bible? Of course not. The God-breathed Word is fully authoritative "for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness" both explicitly and implicitly (2Ti 3:16). If the Scripture was given "for teaching," the question should be whether the Word teaches that the children of believers are to be baptized by virtue of their covenantal relationship to a believing parent. (When the term "infant baptism" is used it is just shorthand to express this.) It is true that there is no statement of "infant baptism" in just those terms. However, let us ask another question of the text of Bible: Is there any evidence of believers' households being baptized because of the faith of the head of the household?--Considering this question, the Bible student is forced to conclude that there are clear statements about households being baptized. What do these passages teach?
 

Examples of Baptism in the New Testament

Those who deny the validity of infant baptism are usually quick to cite the examples of baptism (often selected examples) in the New Testament to support the contention that "only believers were baptized." Let's consider all of the examples of Christian baptism recorded throughout the apostolic history of the church, beginning in Acts. Does it teach that only self-conscious, professing believers are to be baptized or does it teach that the households of believers are to be baptized because of the head of household's faith? The outline of the book of Acts is indicated in the first chapter, that the gospel of Messiah Jesus was to expand from Jerusalem to the remotest part of the earth (1:8). As we will see, the patterns of baptism are quite similar to this expansion because the Great Commission of Christ is that in Him "all the families of the earth shall be blessed" (3:25).(5)

First, we find that the initial occasion of baptism in Acts was the Jews at Pentecost in Jerusalem. We are told that this festival gathering was of "devout men" (2:5), "men of Judea" (2:14), "men of Israel" (2:22), etc. Hence, it appears that only men were baptized on this occasion--"So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and there were added that day about three thousand souls" (Acts 2:41).(6) This event was in fulfillment of the promised coming of the Spirit of God. Such a promise was given "for you and your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself" (2:39).

Second, we find that the gospel crossed into Samaria, following the pattern of expansion (1:8). Philip was "preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ" and "they were being baptized, men and women alike" (8:12). This is the first passage in which the baptism of women is explicitly mentioned. Luke seems to emphasize that not only men were being baptized, but women, too. Perhaps this emphasis is because only men were baptized at the first new covenant baptism event at the Jewish Pentecostal feast. The Samaritan passage, however, is focused on the evil intent of Simon the Sorcerer who offered the apostles money to receive the miraculous powers they had by the Holy Spirit. The text says that "even Simon himself believed; and after being baptized, he continued on with Philip" (8:13). According to Justin Martyr, Simon became a great heretic and an opponent of Christianity.(7)

Third, the next person connected to baptism is a (Jewish) proselyte eunuch from Ethiopia who had "come to Jerusalem to worship" (8:27). He was reading the passage around Isaiah 53:7, "Like a lamb that is led to slaughter . . ." "Beginning from this Scripture he [Philip] preached Jesus to him" (8:35). The eunuch said, "'Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?'" (8:36). Perhaps the eunuch's emphatic request is because Philip explained the new covenant sign--a sign, not only for all nations, but for eunuchs, too. Only a few verses before the text Philip explained, we read, "Thus He will sprinkle many nations, Kings will shut their mouths on account of Him" (Isa 52:15). And only a few chapters later we read a new covenant prophecy, "Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD say, 'The LORD will surely separate me from His people.' Neither let the eunuch say, 'Behold, I am a dry tree'" (Isa 56:3). This entire baptismal episode takes on more significance when it is remembered that eunuchs were shut out of the old covenant assembly (Deu 23:1) and in many cases may not have received the sign of covenant inclusion, circumcision.

Fourth, in chapter nine we are told of the conversion of the Apostle to the Gentiles. Paul, after falling to the ground and being temporarily blinded, "arose and was baptized" (9:18). The Lord told the timid Ananias, the one who apparently baptized Paul, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name's sake" (9:15-16).

Fifth, the gospel first crossed to pure Gentile territory with the episode regarding Cornelius in chapter ten. The household of Cornelius was baptized (10:48). The text of Acts tells us regarding the God-fearer Cornelius, "you will be saved, you and all your household" (11:14). The emphasis of the text is that the Gentiles could be saved, just as the Jews. The "unclean" people could receive the Holy Spirit and also be saved by Messiah Jesus. Remember that because of Peter's prejudice, God provided him with a vivid object lesson--an unclean buffet--to orient him to accept Gentile believers. The very voice of the Lord declared, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy" (10:15).

Sixth, "Lydia, from the city of Thyatira," was saved by the grace of God, as "the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul" (16:14). Verse 15 tells us that "she and her household had been baptized."

Seventh, in the same chapter, the Philippian Jailer's household was baptized. "He was baptized, he and all his household" (16:33). We are told that Paul and Silas were brought into the house of the Jailer to eat and the Jailer "rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household" (16:34).

Eighth, we find that many Corinthians were baptized. Acts 18:8 tells us that "Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized." In Acts we are not informed of any person's name who was baptized. But in 1 Corinthians, Paul says that he baptized Crispus, Gauis (1:14), and "the household of Stephanas" (1Co 1:16). In Acts we find that Crispus "believed in the Lord with all his household" and since we learn that Crispus was baptized in 1 Corinthians, it seems valid to infer that his household was baptized with him.

Ninth, and finally, we learn that there was a group of disciples acquainted with John's baptism, but not with the fulness of his message. These "disciples of John" were made up of "about twelve men" (19:7) in Ephesus who lacked an understanding of the coming of the Holy Spirit. These "were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus" (19:5) after being instructed by Paul.

In summary we find the following: (1) At Pentecost it seems that only men were present, thus only men were baptized, some 3000 of them. Still, the new covenant promise was "to you and your children" (2:39). (2) In Samaria "men and women alike" (8:12) were baptized, including Simon (the apostate Sorcerer). (3) The eunuch (who had no household) was baptized (Acts 8:38). (4) Paul (who had no household) was baptized (9:18). (5) Cornelius' household was baptized (10:48, 11:14). (6) Lydia's household was baptized (16:15). (7)The Philippian Jailer's household was baptized (16:33). (8) Many Corinthians were baptized, including Crispus' household, Stephanas' household, and Gaius (18:8, 1Co 1:14, 16). (9) The disciples of John (adult men) were baptized (19:5).

These are the facts about those baptized. From this we learn that of the nine narrative passages on baptism, four are household baptisms, four other cases consisted of only adult men (Pentecost, eunuch, Paul, twelve disciples of John), and the other case is of Simon and the "men and women alike" in Samaria. In this case, consider carefully the phrase used by Luke in 8:12, "men and women alike" (andres te kai gunaikes). This is the first case in which females are explicitly said to be baptized. Hence, it is important for Luke to emphasize that "both men and women" were baptized (KJV, NKJ, ASV, RSV, NRS).(8)

Considering the nine individuals singled-out in the baptism narratives--five had their households baptized (Cornelius, the Jailer, Lydia, Crispus, Stephanas), two had no household for obvious reasons (eunuch & Paul). That leaves Simon, who actually turned out to be an unbeliever and Gaius, whom Paul baptized (1Co 1:14). As for Simon, I think it is reasonable to conclude that he was an atypical case and was not a likely head of household. Certainly, his case would be a less than ideal basis for the baptist view. As for Gaius, in Romans 16:23 we read that "Gaius [is] host to me and to the whole church." This implies that he was a man of some means. As such, he may have had at least household servants, if not a familial household. Gaius is mentioned with Crispus, who was a household head. Crispus , "believed in the Lord with all his household," thus it was undoubtedly baptized with him (Acts 18:8). Yet Paul said in no uncertain terms, "I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius" (1Co 1:14). Paul could name Crispus as head of the baptized household, just as he could have with Gaius. As would be perfectly intelligible to any first century Jew, it seems that Paul simply spoke of Crispus as representing the household in the administration of baptism. Therefore, if Gaius had a household, it is quite reasonable to believe that it was baptized, just like Crispus' household.

So, it is not an overstatement to say that virtually every person who had a household had it baptized! And in the non-household baptism cases, we can validly infer that the recipients did not have households (the eunuch, Paul) or the households were not present (in the case of Pentecost men, the twelve men in Ephesus). The exception turns out to be the Samaritans. The "both men and women" and perhaps Simon the Sorcerer, if one wants to press the issue. Still, I suppose that some baptists are happy to make the first explicit case of female baptism ("both men and women") and the unbeliever Simon the rule rather than the exception to the pattern of the household baptism--but I am not.
 

Non-Household Baptisms

Household Baptisms

3000 (men) at Pentecost (no household present)

Cornelius and household

Samaritans: ("both men and women")
Simon the Sorcerer

Lydia and household 

Ethiopian Eunuch (no household)

Philippian Jailer and household

Paul (no household)

Corinthians: 
Crispus (and household)
Stephanas and household

Disciples of John (12 men) (no household present)

Gaius (and household?)

The Baptist Response to the Household Baptisms

These important Biblical facts regarding the household baptisms are often dismissed by those denying infant/household baptism. Recently, in pointing out these facts to a defender of "believer's baptism," he responded, "Since the New Testament teaches only believer's baptism the only logical conclusion is that the people in these households were all believers."(9) I would not fault the logic here; only the method. He is undoubtedly correct--if the New Testament teaches only believers are to be baptized. However, a better method would be to consider the Biblical facts about who was baptized before determining what the New Testament teaches! According to the above believer's baptism defender, "the Bible does not teach . . . household baptism."(10)

This is a quite predictable response--that everyone in these households must have believed (i.e., since we already know that only believers were baptized). But think for a moment what this response requires us to believe--that in the individual baptism narratives, their writers (Luke & Paul) intentionally include more irregular and anomalous cases of baptism (households), than "regular" cases. So, it just so happened that all these "believers" were in the same households. And it just so happened that every individual in these homes was not a little child. And it just so happened that in the non-household baptisms (excepting the Samaritans), there were only men present (Pentecost, eunuch, Paul, twelve disciples of John).

Now this "just so" story might be more convincing if the larger context of Acts were not considered. Remember the outline of Acts--the gospel was to go to Jerusalem, all of Judea, Samaria, and the remotest part of the earth. Surely Luke is instructing his readers about what Jesus continued doing in His church of all nations (Acts 1:1). When the gospel crossed to Gentile territory, beginning with Cornelius, every baptism passage is a household baptism passage--except where we are expressly told that those present were "twelve men," who were Jews after all (Acts 19:7). The Gentile households of Cornelius, Lydia, the Jailer, Stephanas, and possibly Gaius (see the previous discussion) were all baptized.

Those who deny the validity of household/infant baptism do not usually take seriously these facts. We must ask whether the impressive number of household baptisms, concentrated in the period of Gentile expansion was an unrepeatable oddity of apostolic Christianity? Was it coincidence that virtually all of the newly reached Gentile households were baptized? Acts is a selective history of thousands of examples of baptism over the first few decades of the church. It would be incredible to believe that Luke recorded the only household baptisms in the entire apostolic period! On the contrary, Luke does not present these household baptisms as though they were extraordinary just because they were household baptisms. Rather, this was the routine practice of the apostolic church as the gospel went to Gentile families. The gospel and its outward sign went to families because it was families that were to be saved. Most evangelicals know the answer to the Biblical question, "What must I do to be saved?"--"Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved." But that's not the answer in the Bible, rather, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household" (Act 16:31). Contrary to this, consider the individualistic practice of baptism in baptistic churches today. Those who deny the baptism of the children of believers simply do not conform their practice to the facts of apostolic Christianity.

Considering the pattern of household baptisms, the presumption of an individualistic baptist perspective is seriously called into question. The pattern is recognizable to the reader of the Scripture, if one begins with Genesis and moves forward. It might be easier to dismiss if this was the only information about households in the Bible. Baptist responses treat these cases as mere isolated "proof texts" for which the paedobaptist grasps as straws in the wind--when in reality, Luke simply adds one more thread to the tapestry of God's covenant redemption. The pattern of Gentile household baptisms, especially as it relates to Luke's purpose in showing the expansion of the gospel, should not be so quickly dismissed by baptists. It is not as though we have a hundred cases of baptism and there are these exceptional, anomalous few household cases. We have nine individuals identified; five clearly have their households baptized; two do not have households (eunuch, Saul); one is dubious (Simon); and Gaius is left (1Co 1:14, see the above discussion). This is not a promising set of statistics for the baptists.

The oft-repeated reply, "but every member of the household believed," will not be persuasive to one who considers the exegetical particulars of the two cases which include statements about the households believing (the Jailer 16:31-34 & Crispus 18:8). We should ask whether the exegetical nuances of these texts support the individualist (baptist) thesis (every member believed) or the covenant family thesis (household members followed the leader according to their capacity).

In the Philippian Jailer passage (16:31-34) and the Corinthian passage with Crispus (18:8), the Greek texts use singular verbs, not the plural verbs, to describe the action of believing. These texts do not say, the Jailer (or Crispus) "and (kai)" his household "believed" (with a plural verb). This would be one way Luke could have nuanced the text to indicate the equal action of each member in believing. This is something Luke surely would have said if he was seeking to correct the covenantal household concept established in the previous millennia of Biblical history. Instead, these texts teach what any Old Testament believer might have expected: the Jailer, the household head, "rejoiced (singular verb) greatly, with all his house (panoikei, an adverb), having believed (pepisteukos, participle, singular) in God" (16:34, ASV); and Crispus, the household head, "believed (episteusen, verb, singular) in the Lord with (sun) all his household" (18:8). However, observe Luke's careful language indicating that baptism is administered to each member of the Jailer's household: "he was baptized, he and (kai) all his household" (16:33).
 

Biblical Signs

It is not only true that the book of Acts supports the claim that all those in the home of a believer are to be baptized, but the nature of Biblical signs and symbols foundationally supports this belief and practice. Since the Bible is one book and not two, we must ask whether the symbol of baptism as an outward ritual is similar to other rituals in the older portion of Scripture. Rituals which involve a symbolic act, such as baptism, are connected to Biblical covenants between God and man. Invirtually every case Biblical covenants include signs which visibly represent the realities behind the covenant promises.

 In the covenant with Adam, sometimes called the covenant of works, or covenant of life, or covenant of creation, the tree of life is the visible sign of the invisible reality (Gen 3:22). In the Noahic covenant, the rainbow is the "sign of a covenant between Me and the earth" (Gen 9:13). In the Abrahamic covenant, circumcision "shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you" (Gen 17:11) and for the believer Abraham it was "a seal of the righteousness of the faith he had while uncircumcised" (Rom 4:11). In the Mosaic administration of the covenant, the sacrifices and festival days are carefully defined and the covenant meal is given. In the institution of the covenant meal, Passover, the Lord said, "the blood shall be a sign for you on the houses where you live" (Exo 12:13). In the new covenant, baptism and the Lord's Supper signify its meaning. Baptism is a sign of entrance into the covenant (Mat 28:19-20; Acts 2:38-39). In baptism one is visibly identified with the true God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with His people, and with His kingdom. The Lord's Supper is a sign of communing in the covenant (Mat 26:28). It is a "sharing [koinonia]in the blood of Christ" and a "sharing in the body of Christ" (1Co 10:16).
 

THE TREE OF LIFE

What else can be deduced from this than that it was a sacrament, that is, a sign and seal of life?”– Wilhelmus à Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service (I:362)

“We should not think of the fruit of this tree as magically or medically working immortality in Adam’s frame. Yet it was in some way connected with the gift of life . . . . So the words of Genesis 3:22 must be understood sacramentally”– Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (p. 217)

The Bible often speaks of the signs interchangeably with the reality signified. For example, fallen Adam is not to eat of the tree of life "lest he eat from it and live forever" (Gen 3:22).(11) Jehovah "will look upon [the rainbow], to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature" (Gen 9:16). The Lord told Abraham that circumcision "is My covenant" (Gen 17:10). Of the Passover blood the Lord says, "when I see the blood I will pass over you" (Exo 12:13). Jesus, in the Lord's Supper, said the cup "is the new covenant" (1Co 11:25). Peter says, "baptism now saves you" (1Pe 3:21). Please understand that these God-ordained ritual acts are not magical, but they are sacramental. They are visible promises of God's redemptive purposes to save and sanctify a people, His church (Eph 5:25-27).
 
 

THE SIGN AND REALITY

The Westminster Confession (27:2) says, “There is, in every sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.” (Gen 17:10; Mat 26:27,28; Tit 3:5)

To realize the full blessings of such salvific promises, an individual must be saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone (Eph 2:8-9, 1Pe 3:21, Tit 3:5, 1Co 11:28-29). One must receive the reality behind the signs and seals, Christ. Of course, we know from Biblical and church history that not every person who partakes of such covenant signs also has the reality signified in the symbol.

Perhaps one of the best illustrations of this truth is the passage which follows (1Co 10:1-4):


Christ is the Reality Behind the Signs --Even in the Old Testament
For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and all ate the same spiritual food; and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ. (1Co 10:1-4)

In the argument of the apostle, this is a powerful admonition against those in the Corinthian church who think they are "spiritual" (pneumatikos) and have "knowledge" (gnosis) (1Co 2:15, 8:1). First, it might be observed that Paul indicates the continuity of the faith from its Old Testament expression through the new covenant expression by referring to even this perverse generation of Israel as "our fathers." Then, he illustrates their continuity with new covenant signs by singling out that they too were baptized and had spiritual communion. In fact, they ate of the "same spiritual food" and drank of the "same spiritual drink." It is "the same" because it originates from the same source, Christ. Just as Christ is the reality in Passover (1Co 5:7), and He Himself said, "I am the living bread that came down out of heaven" (Joh 6:51)--the source of the water was Christ (1Co 10:4; cf. Joh 4:14).

If some among the Corinthians claimed spiritual superiority, how much more could these Israelites. They were not baptized with mundane water, but in a visible cloud of God's presence and the very Red Sea which parted before them! They didn't have a mere Paul or Apollos as their leader, but the more-than-legendary, miracle-working Moses whose very face had the residue of God's glory! In this sacramental type, these Israelites did not partake of ordinary food and drink. No, no, they ate of bread that descended from heaven itself and drank from a rock in a desert! What's more, the rock was Christ! All of this and much more, but most were "laid low in the wilderness" (10:5). Could these "spiritual" Corinthians even approach this visible, demonstrable, miraculous spirituality? Yet, the punch-line is that, as superior in spirituality as these Israelites were, "twenty-three thousand fell in one day" and others were killed by "serpents" and still others were "destroyed by the destroyer" (10:8-10)!

Who's In?
The above discussion of the apostolic practice of baptism concludes that virtually every person who had a household had it baptized and in almost every case of non-household baptism, there were only men present. Are other visible signs and symbols of God's covenant redemption administered to households? Do other covenant administrations include a principle of "you and your children"?

Reviewing the Biblical teaching, we find that the covenant with Adam involved all of the children of Adam. "As in Adam all die" (1Co 15:22, Rom 5:12). The covenant with Noah included the "salvation of his household" (Heb 11:7). The sacrifices of the patriarchs (including Noah, Job, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) were for the whole family. Job offered "burnt offerings according to the number of them all" (Job 1:5). Similarly, "Jacob offered a sacrifice on the mountain, and called his kinsmen to the meal" (Gen 31:54). Circumcision was given to Abraham as a sign of God's covenant for "you and your descendants after you throughout their generations" (Gen 17:9). Under Moses the Israelites were commanded to put the blood of the Passover lamb on their doors to preserve the firstborn in the household. Israel was to observe Passover "as an ordinance for you and your children forever" (Exo 12:24). Even in the promise to David, the Lord said, "I have made a covenant with My chosen; I have sworn to David My servant, I will establish your seed forever, and build up your throne to all generations" (Psa 89:3-4).
 

Covenant (Administration)

Visible Sign

Descendants Included

Creation/Adamic

Tree of Life

YES

Noahic

Rainbow

YES

Abrahamic 

(Other Patriarchs)

Circumcision

Sacrifices/Meals

YES

YES

Mosaic

Passover (blood, then meal)

YES

Davidic

***

YES

New Covenant

Baptism (entrance)

Lord's Supper (continuance) 

?

Therefore, the pattern of covenant administration includes a principle of family inclusion and successive generations in both covenant content and covenant recipients of the signs. The visible portrayal of covenant promises in signs and seals have a household administration--the question now is whether the visible sign of entrance into the new covenant (baptism) is to be administered to the household of a believer. If this is true, then just as in circumcision, those who come into that household by birth or adoption would also have a right to the rite. I have come to be convinced that there is much evidence for the continuity of this pattern. From the very beginning the visible symbols and pledges were administered in a covenantally corporate and familial way. As has been demonstrated, baptism also follows this pattern (five of the nine cases of the individuals identified are household baptisms).

Now it would be exceedingly unlikely in the "large-family-friendly" culture of the ancient world to find five households which did not included small children-- and remember, the five cases of household baptism in the New Testament surely stand for thousands more (unless we suppose Luke and Paul give us the anomalies as the rule). However, it would be a mistake to think that the above argumentation rests on whether infants were in these five households. The importance of the household baptism line of argument does not depend so much on whether infants were in these households--as it does on whether households, as households, are to be baptized because of the believing head of a household. This pattern we have--which should not be lightly dismissed, considering the small number of baptisms expressly recorded and the lack of households in the others cases--stands on the shoulders of the whole of the prior Biblical revelation.
 

The New Covenant Also Includes the Children

Perhaps someone might say that the new covenant is different from previous covenants in just this sense. Does the promise of the new covenant include successive generations, our children, as did the previous covenant administrations? Are the children of believers included in the new covenant promises? One important writer, defending a baptist perspective says, "I would argue then that the principle of believers and their seed no longer has covenantal significance, precisely because the age of fulfillment has arrived." He goes on to say, "Nowhere in the content of the new covenant is the principle 'thee and thy seed' mentioned."(12) If this were true, such a change in covenant membership and covenant content could hardly be more drastic! Covenant membership has always and ever included "you and your children" and covenant content is most fundamentally that the Lord is "God to you and your descendants" (Gen 17:7, Deu 7:9, 30:6, 1Ch 16:15, Psa 103:17, 105:8).

Consider these prophecies regarding the new covenant. Let the reader decide whether the children of believers are included in the new covenant promises--
 

In the very first word about the new covenant was in Deuteronomy 30:6:

Jeremiah alludes to the above Deuteronomy passage throughout his prophecy. He emphasizes the inclusion of children in the new covenant promise. Notice verse 36 of the classic text of the new covenant, the offspring of covenant participants are explicitly included. Other Old Testament prophecies about the coming age of the new covenant are equally clear that the children of believers are included.


In the New Testament, the apostles repeatedly included the principle of "you and your seed."

These texts provide overwhelming, compelling, and unmistakable Biblical support for the belief that the children of believers are included in the promised new covenant. How many more texts are required to convince one that the new covenant includes the children of believers? Certainly no one can produce even one text which explicitly excludes them. There are dozens and dozens which explicitly include the children of believers. If baptism is the sign of entrance into that covenant, why are not the children of believers to be baptized? If they are promised its blessings no less than adults, then why are they not to receive the visible portrayal of the promise? The objection that "the principle of believers and their seed no longer has covenantal significance" or "nowhere in the content of the new covenant is the principle 'thee and thy seed' mentioned"--simply will not stand against the overwhelming refutation of the above passages.(13) The very same language of the inclusion of believers' children permeates both the old covenant administrations, as well as the new covenant.

The above texts are not a mere "proof-texting" against this objection, they indicate a deep Biblical and theological theme which undergirds the entire mission of the Savior and His Commission to the church.

Baptism and the Great Commission

Before our Lord ascended to reign at the right hand of the Father, He commanded the discipling of the nations. He predicted the advance of His good news "in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth" (Acts 1:8). He said to His disciples, "Go ye therefore, and teach [disciple, or make disciples of] all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Mat 28:19 KJV). From this text there are those who claim that Jesus' command excludes anyone from baptism who is not a self-conscious disciple. Hence, such interpreters claim that this Commission commands the discipling of "individuals from all nations, not the national entities" and the individual baptism of only "those who were made disciples."(14) However, the grammar of this command does not support the individualistic thesis. Rather, the direct command (mathãteusate panta ta ethnã baptizontes autous) simply translates, Disciple all the nations and baptize them (nations). The pronoun "them" (autous), grammatically refers to "nations" (ethnã), not "disciples" since "make disciples" (from mathãteuõ) is a verb.(15)

If one thinks about the Commission both grammatically and culturally, a Jewish Rabbi of the First Century or before would not have been troubled if it had said, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, circumcising them in the name of Jehovah, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you." A Rabbi would not have thought this was a Commission to abandon infant circumcision for exclusive adult circumcision. In fact, this was precisely the practice of proselytism in the New Testament era. To illustrate, in the events of Acts 15:3ff, we read there of "the conversion of the Gentiles" (v 3) and that some of "the Pharisees who had believed" demanded that "it is necessary to circumcise them" (v 5). Surely these Pharisees were not insisting on exclusive adult "believer circumcision" by demanding that those "converted" be circumcised. When the Pharisees made a proselyte (Mat 23:15) they considered their children to be proselytes. They considered "them" collectively to be "converts." And as the children grew, they were to mature into a self-conscious ownership of their faith. If they grew up to be a reprobate, they were "put out of the synagogue" (Joh 9:22).

Why did Jesus command baptism in the first place? Are there any hints in the Old Testament that the Messiah would baptize? When one studies carefully the Old Testament predictions of the Messiah, we see that the Word includes allusions to a cleansing rite administered to a corporate entity, nations. "He will sprinkle many nations" (Isa 52:15). Ezekiel 36:24ff, records a new covenant promise to the nation Israel says, "I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean . . . I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh . . . you will be My people, and I will be your God." In these foretastes of Messiah, it is "nations" or "peoples" that are cleansed. Predictably, then, the Commission to baptize is to baptize the corporate "nations."

The Great Commission, in biblio-theological development, is the predictable Messianic restatement of multitudes of Old Testament commissions and promises and prayers for all the nations to be made disciple-nations--

--These and about 100 other passages declare that all nations (and not merely some individuals from them) are to be disciple-worshipers! The Commission on earth and Song of Heaven are the same, [and they sang] "Great and marvelous are Thy works, O Lord God, the Almighty; Righteous and true are Thy ways, Thou King of the nations. Who will not fear, O Lord, and glorify Thy name? For Thou alone art holy; for all the nations will come and worship before Thee, for Thy righteous acts have been revealed" (Rev 15:3-4).

Further, the Commission to disciple and baptize nations, in the Biblical thematic development makes sense of the apostolic practice of household discipleship and household baptism. If one puts himself in the place of the (Jewish-Christian) apostles, is it credible to think that they saw the Commission as including making disciples of families or households? I believe that it is for the following reasons: (1) In Biblical usage, the term "nations" is equal to "all the families of the earth" (Gen 12:3, 28:14, Act 3:25; cf. Psa 22:14). (2) In a Biblical survey of the term "nations," the terms "family" and "house" or "household" are explicitly and organically connected. For example, in the book that defines the beginning of family and nation, Genesis, "nations" is equal to "families." "From these the coastlands of the nations were separated into their lands, every one according to his language, according to their families, into their nations" (10:5). In Genesis 10:32, the terms "families" or "households" are semantically identical to nations: "These are the families of the sons of Noah, according to their genealogies, by their nations; and out of these the nations were separated on the earth after the flood." These family-nations were further divided at Babel when separate languages came into existence. Add to that the interchangeableness of "nation of Israel," "house of Israel" and in the New Testament, the "household of God," and "a holy nation" (1Pe 4:17, 2:9). (3) Therefore, if the command had been, "Make disciples of all families, baptizing them . . ."--would this not be warrant for the baptism of households under the leadership of a believing head of household? Perhaps the reader can see that "families of the earth" in Biblical-theological development from Genesis on, quite explicitly does have reference to "families" or "households." Perhaps this is why the apostles baptized them!
 

Genesis 9-12: The Origin of the Nations

Noah's Household Saved in the Ark (Gen 9) 
Table of Nations from Noah's Family (Gen 10)
Division of Languages/Nations at Babel (Gen 11)
Blessing to "All the Families of the Earth" (through Abraham)(Gen 12)

The Great Commission: The Salvation of the Nations

Blessing to "All the Families of the Earth" (through Christ, the "Seed")
Pentecost "Undoes" Babel and Empowers the Disciples
Expansion of Gospel to "All Nations"
Gentile Households Baptized

So, from the flood to Babel the division was made. But from Pentecost to the end of the age, the Kingdom advances with the power to undo the confusion of the nations by the Spirit's power through the gospel. The language of the Great Commission emphasizes first generation contact with the "families of the earth," as would be expected after a study of a Biblical theology of missions. But the Great Commission's purposes are not limited to adults and neither are its grammatical categories. To divide parents from the little children for whom they are responsible is completely foreign to the Biblical concepts of family, headship, covenant, and even salvation ("you will be saved, you and all your household," Acts 11:14, 16:31). The command is to disciple nations and discipled nations include little children. It follows strictly, does it not, that Christ's Commission to baptize thus includes children?

The Father of Missions

The purpose of God in converting the nations (in missions) is part of God's covenantal promise to Abraham. Abraham is truly the father of the missionary movement. Peter preached to the Jews, "It is you who are the sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, 'and in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed'" (Acts 3:25). The promise of the gospel is that "the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (Eph 3:6). Whereas Gentiles were "separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world"--"Now," writes the apostle, "in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ" (Eph 2:12-13). Gentiles may now participate as receivers of the "covenants of promise." We have become Abraham's children too! To understand this, one must stand in the sandals of that earnest God-fearing Gentile of Paul's day who longed for acceptance in a world of religio-cultural exclusivism.(16)

Amazingly, Gentiles may become "Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise" (Gal 3:29). Paul teaches us that through faith the promise to Abraham "may be certain to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all (as it is written, 'a father of many nations have I made you')" (Rom 4:16-17). In other words, the promise is to "all the descendants" of both believing Jews and Gentiles, because Abraham is the "father of many nations" and in him all the "families of the earth shall be blessed" (Acts 3:25, Gen 12:3). A Cornelius, or a Lydia, or a Philippian Jailer, or a Stephanas, could now be like any of Abraham's children. The repeated and amazing contrast between the new covenant and the previous administrations of the covenant is that now one does not need to enter the Jewish nation to realize fully the covenant blessings.

If one reads the book of Romans backwards, we see that all of the doctrinal instruction on equal condemnation (chapters 1-3), justification (chs. 4-5), sanctification (chs. 6-8), the covenant history in its relation to the Jews (chs. 9-11), application to believers (chs. 12-13), leads to the same theme--the joint-heir relationship of Gentiles and Jews and the principles of their new life together (chs. 14-15) and Paul's mission to the Gentiles (16:15-21).

The Promises Confirmed, The Promises Applied
Wherefore, accept one another, just as Christ also accepted us to the glory of God. For I say that Christ has become a servant to the circumcision on behalf of the truth of God to confirm the promises given to the fathers, and for the Gentiles to glorify God for His mercy; as it is written, "THEREFORE I WILL GIVE PRAISE TO THEE AMONG THE GENTILES, AND I WILL SING TO THY NAME." And again he says, "REJOICE, O GENTILES, WITH HIS PEOPLE." And again, "PRAISE THE LORD ALL YOU GENTILES, AND LET ALL THE PEOPLES PRAISE HIM." And again Isaiah says, "THERE SHALL COME THE ROOT OF JESSE, AND HE WHO ARISES TO RULE OVER THE GENTILES, IN HIM SHALL THE GENTILES HOPE." (Rom 15:7-12 [All caps are OT quotations])

In fulfillment of the above passage, did "His people" (Jews who believed) with whom the "Gentiles" were to "rejoice" (Rom 15:10), include their little children? Certainly if only Gentile children were excluded, it would have been most contrary to the principles of equality and acceptance of Paul's previous chapter (14).

Gentile Inclusion or Infant Exclusion?

Perhaps it will be evident how very different the baptist understanding is than what is above. As I see it, the consistent emphasis of the apostles is that Gentiles have been grafted in and have become true heirs of the (originally Jewish) covenant promises and realities. This was very clearly predicted, though the religious and cultural pride of the Jews conflicted with the gospel fulfillment of this. In other words, just as the fulness of the promises belong to the Jews and their children, so too, the same promises predict the inclusion of the Gentiles and their children. Paul's refrain throughout the epistles was Gentiles are equal heirs with Jews. For the apostles, the demonstrable proof of this was that uncircumcised (unproselytized) Gentiles (as households) received the Spirit just as the Jews did.(17) In their words, God "cleansing their hearts" gave them "the circumcision of Christ" which is "of the heart, by the Spirit" and is the "true circumcision" (Acts 15:6, Col 2:11, Rom 2:29, Phi 3:2). We also know that these Gentiles were baptized, and in every explicit case of their baptism, it was of their households. Every Gentile baptism expressly recorded, is a household baptism!(18)

On the other hand, the baptistic view sees that the real emphasis of the New Testament is not so much Gentile inclusion as it is infant exclusion. "The age of fulness," in their view, demands that only individuals who are capable of self-conscious faith are permitted to be heirs of these promises. As Jewett says, "...the temporal, earthly, typical elements of the old dispensation were dropped from the great house of salvation as scaffolding from the finished edifice."(19) Among the ruins of the scaffolding lies the fruit of the womb, which was so jealously included in past eras. To the consistent baptist interpreter, a theology of the New Testament yields the conclusion that both Jews and Gentiles no longer should consider their children members of the covenant. At the heart of the baptist contention is the noble desire to protect future generations from a carnal and unbelieving church membership composed of only "children of the flesh." The reasoning behind this, however, proceeds in a most unBiblical fashion: by excluding the infant seed, can we protect the church from carnality. On the contrary, to the Biblical mind, it is by the inclusion of the children in the covenant promises, which usher forth in parental and congregational responsibilities, that the blessings of God's promised Word come about. Thus, it is my conviction that this view is not only out of sorts with the thematic emphasis of the New Testament, but also with the heartbeat of the entire Biblical revelation of redemption.

John's Baptism and Jesus' Baptism

Someone might ask, Aren't we supposed to "follow Jesus in baptism"?--Wasn't He baptized as an adult? Actually, we are never told in the Bible that we must imitate Christ in His baptism. In fact, we are told that Christ's baptism was "to fulfill (plãroõ) all righteousness" (Mat 3:15). I hope that no one else will claim that their baptism was for this purpose. Especially since Matthew uses "fulfill"(plãroõ)16 times. Except for the two cases in which it means "fill" in a quantitative sense (13:48 "full" & 23:32 "fill"), every other usage refers to "fulfilled" Scripure.(20) I will argue that in this case (3:15) it also refers to fulfilled Scripture, though it is an entire range of Scriptural typology, not a specific text.

The baptism of John was for a temporary and specific purpose (Luk 1:17, Act 13:35). John was a Levitical priest, as was his father (Luk 1:5). He was six months older than Jesus, and Jesus was baptized at the age of thirty (Luk 1:36, 3:23). This means that John began baptizing when he was thirty years old, the appointed age for a Levite to serve as a priest and perform ceremonial ritual washings (Num 4:3). The prophetic purpose of John was to "go as a forerunner before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, 'To turn the hearts of the fathers back to the children,' and the disobedient to the attitude of the righteous; so as to make ready a people prepared for the Lord" (Luk 1:17, Mal 4:6). John tells us very specifically his purpose for the baptisms: "in order that He might be manifested to Israel, I came baptizing in water" (Joh 1:31). How would John know who the Christ (the anointed one) was? "He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, 'He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the one who baptizes in the Holy Spirit' (Joh 1:33).

Thus, John's baptism of Jesus involved a cleansing ritual for the purpose of recognizing the one anointed of the Holy Spirit. In the Old Testament typology, Levitical priests underwent a ritual washing for their cleansing ("sprinkle purifying water on them," Num 8:7). These ceremonial instructions for priests also speak over and over of "the priest who is anointed [with oil] and ordained to serve as priest" (Lev 16:32, Exo 28:41, Num 3:3, etc.). The writer of Hebrews tells us, "For the Law appoints men as high priests who are weak, but the word of the oath, which came after the Law, appoints a Son, made perfect forever" (Heb 7:28). This means that the fulfillment of the oath of God's Messianic promise comes in the "appointing" of a perfect high priest, who is of course, Christ (Heb 8:5). The term "appoint" (kathistemi) is the same term used of ordaining elders (Tit 1:5) and deacons (Act 6:3), as well as the Levitical High priest, "every high priest taken from among men is ordained . . ." (Heb 5:1 KJV).

Christ was thus ordained and "designated by God as a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek" (Heb 5:10). But when was He "designated" as this?--When He received, not the symbolic anointing oil of the Spirit, but the reality of the Spirit, at His baptism. Christ said of Himself, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He anointed me to preach the gospel . . ." (Luk 4:18). When was anointed? At His baptism, when the Spirit descended upon Him (Luk 3:21). Hence, the final and transitional Levitical priest, John, ordained the greater Melchizedekian High priest, Jesus. Suffice it to say, then, the adult baptism of a Christian believer is not "following the Lord in believer's baptism."

Because John's baptism was "to make ready a people prepared for the Lord," Israel was to receive their anointed Messiah and were accountable to be identified with the Messianic kingdom of God (Luk 1:17, Mat 3:2). However, many in that generation rejected Christ and His kingdom. "But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God's purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John" (Luk 7:30). For this they would receive the most severe judgment (Mat 23:36-39), ultimately the complete destruction of their Christless Judaism and its chief symbol, Jerusalem and its temple (70 Anno Domini). "Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!" (Mat 23:38).

Hence, John's baptism was temporary ("John was completing his course," Act 13:25). However, Jesus promises His presence in the baptism mandate "to the end of the age" (Mat 28:19). This implies what the Westminster Confession says, that Christian baptism is, "by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world" (28.1). Therefore, the baptism of the Great Commission is different than that of John's in purpose (preparation for Messiah), audience (for that generation of Israel), and even the duration (overlapping the time of Christ's earthly ministry). Jesus' Commission to baptize, then, follows through with John's teaching: "[John said] I baptized you with water; but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."

Baptism and Circumcision

It is just because of the initial teaching that Jesus' baptism relates to the Spirit, that we are led to see that in meaning and signification, the perpetual ordinance of baptism is very similar to circumcision. It is a symbol of a covenant promise and is an entrance sign. Baptism and circumcision symbolize the same reality, the work of the Spirit, essentially, spiritual regeneration.

Let me try to convince the reader of this in three points: (1) Circumcision represented the work of the Holy Spirit which is the circumcision of the heart. Stephen drew upon a very deep stream of the Biblical waters when he said to his persecutors, "You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did" (Acts 7:51). This teaching regarding the meaning of circumcision is very evident in many Old Testament passages (Lev 26:41, Jer 9:26, Eze 44:7, 44:9, Deu 10:16, 30:6, Jer 4:4). The very promise of the new covenant included this metaphor, "the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants" (Deu 30:6). Paul, who held the cloaks of those who stoned Stephen, learned this too (perhaps from Stephen). It permeates virtually all of his epistles (Rom 2:29, 4:11, 1Co 7:19, Gal 5:6, 6:15, Eph 2:11-12, Phi 3:3, Col 2:11-12, 3:11). The reality behind physical circumcision is circumcision "which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter" (Rom 2:29).

(2) Baptism represents the work of the Spirit in regeneration, also. The very first words we read about baptism in the New Testament say this. John said, "I baptized you with water; but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit" (Mar 1:8). Peter connects baptism with "the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). He says of Cornelius' household, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" (Acts 10:47). Paul alludes to the image of baptism in Titus 3:5 when he says "He saved us . . . by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit."

(3) The reality represented in circumcision and baptism is explicitly connected in Colossians 2:11-12. In Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

Paul is speaking of the true meaning of both circumcision and baptism when he speaks of a "circumcision made without hands" and a "baptism in which you were also raised up with Him through faith." A person who has been heart-circumcised has been Spirit-baptized and a person who has been Spirit-baptized has been heart-circumcised. What can this teach if not that these two ritual acts signify the same reality? Other doctrinal passages affirm this meaning for baptism. Romans 6:3-4 teaches that by work of regeneration those "baptized into Christ Jesus" "have become united with Him in the likeness of His death" and "His resurrection." Galatians 3:27 tells us that those "baptized into Christ have clothed [themselves] with Christ." First Corinthians 12:13 likewise indicates the work of the Spirit is the reality behind baptism, "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit." These passages affirm that baptism symbolizes the work of God's Spirit in our spiritual union with Christ which takes place through regeneration. Peter teaches us that baptism is the antitype of the salvation of the household of Noah, as well as the symbol of a clean conscience. "There is also an antitype (antitypos) 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" (1Pe 3:21 NKJ).

So then, baptism is surely a sign, an antitype (1Pe 3:21). Baptism is most certainly representative of the work of the Spirit (Col 2:11-12, Mar 1:8, Acts 10:47, Tit 3:5). It is commissioned to be a ritual which identifies one with the truine God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (Mat 28:19-20, Acts 10:48). Its meaning is unmistakably the Spirit's work in cleansing us and thereby uniting us with Christ and His body (Rom 6:3, Gal 3:27, Col 2:11-12, 1Co 12:13).

The argument against this is stated in this way, regeneration (not baptism) is the antitype to circumcision. David Kingdon says:

These New Testament texts demonstrate that circumcision in the Old Testament is the type of which inward circumcision, i.e., regeneration, is the antitype. If this is so, how can it be argued that baptism is equivalent in meaning to circumcision, when circumcision is clearly related to regeneration? No NT proof can be found for the contention that baptism and circumcision are identical, and we are therefore precluded from inferring that baptism should be applied to infants. If we put circumcision in parallel with baptism are we not ignoring the fulfillment of circumcision in regeneration?(21)
Having argued the case as it is (above), the answer to this is obvious. The meaning of baptism is regeneration, even as it is with circumcision. The very first word on the subject says this: "I baptized you with water; but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit" (Mar 1:8). To pose such a question as how "baptism is equivalent in meaning to circumcision, when circumcision is clearly related to regeneration?" -- is just to set oneself up for unmistakable refutation. Circumcision means regeneration; baptism means regeneration. Baptism is the new covenant replacement of circumcision as an entrance sign.

Are circumcision and baptism identical? It is rather obvious that the rituals of circumcision and baptism are very different, though they both have reference to purification. The reality or meaning of these rituals is essentially the same--the work of the Spirit in regeneration. The recipients of circumcision were primarily the households of ethnic Israel (males only, in the nature of the case). The recipients of baptism, in the New Testament, are believing households within every nation. Surely it need not be repeated that going through the ritual of either is not the same as possessing the reality signified by the rite. This is true for adults, no less than little children. Baptism is a (visible) sign and seal of entrance into the visible covenant community, a community not of one nation (Israel), but made from all nations. Therefore, it functionally replaces the Abrahamic rite of circumcision, and is thus its sacramental equivalent.
 

Circumcision

Baptism

Ritual

cut flesh

cleanse flesh

Reality

circumcision of Christ 
circumcise the heart
cut off "flesh"

baptism by the Spirit 
cleanse the heart
wash the conscience

Recipients

Jewish nation
All in the household (males)

Every nation
All in the household (males and females)

The temptation for baptists is to assume that since the reality signified in baptism is only true in regenerate people, that it is only proper to give this sign to those who demonstrate their regeneration. Reasoning this way, one entirely overlooks what has just been Biblically proven, that circumcision fundamentally signifies the same reality as baptism.(22) As Calvin says, "For what will they bring forward to impugn infant baptism that may not be turned back against circumcision?"(23) Please let no one say that salvation was different in the Old Testament. The Abrahamic covenant is Paul's proof-text for justification by faith alone (Rom 4:3, Gen 15:6)! Moreover, Abraham's circumcision was the sign and seal of his justification by faith. He "received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised" (Rom 4:11). But Isaac, who possessed the same Spirit-wrought reality, was circumcised as an infant. So then, the sign of an internal spiritual reality can be received when one is conscious of the reality, like Abraham. Or, it can be received before one is conscious of the reality, like Isaac, and every other believing Jew. Baptism can be received with understanding (in the case of an adult) or it can be "remembered" with understanding (as in the case of an infant). In both cases, it represents the inward work of the Spirit which we hope to be true in both. Baptists often argue that it is more certainly true of the "believer" (professing faith) than the infant (even when raised in the discipline and admonition of the Lord). This is a very unconvincing point to me, having grown up around baptistic churches which regularly practice repeat-baptism two or three times on their own members.

It is not that I don't sympathize with the noble motives at the heart of the baptist contention for a pure church. Baptists wish to protect the church from an unregenerate and ungodly membership. But it is difficult to see how putting out the most trusting, malleable, and teachable group (little children) "purifies" God's people. It has been my experience that the adults are the ones who cause all the trouble. To purify the church, shouldn't we rather exercise Biblical discipline on "professing" adults who are unrepentant, according to Christ's own command (Mat 18:15-20)?

As it stands even today, baptism, in fact, replaces circumcision. Baptism is the entrance sign, and before the new covenant, it wasn't the entrance sign, circumcision was. Therefore, it is really unreasonable to deny that baptism is the functional equivalent of circumcision.

Objections to this line of reasoning should be considered. On what basis can the position that baptism is the functional equivalent of circumcision be denied?

(1) Can the view above be refuted on the basis of the meaning of circumcision? Was circumcision intended to mean something other than circumcision of the heart by the Spirit? I believe that the above material is compelling as an answer. When one insists that the meaning of circumcision is “carnal” or “not spiritual,” etc., so as to prove that the reality signified in circumcision and baptism is radically different, the above Biblical information has not been adequately considered. Those who object to the parallelism of circumcision and baptism seem to ignore the pervasive Biblical teaching regarding the circumcision of the heart and its equation with the work of God's Spirit (Rom 2:29, 4:11, 1Co 7:19, Gal 5:6, 6:15, Eph 2:11-12, Phi 3:3, Col 2:11-12, 3:11, above et al). It will be important for us to get our view of circumcision from what Scripture teaches it to be. It's meaning is expressly stated to be spiritual ("a seal of the righteousness of faith," Rom 4:12).

(2) Perhaps someone will object that circumcision was a nationalistic sign (i.e., whereas baptism is a non-national, spiritual sign). (Observe that this objection must first overcome the above material on the essential spiritual meaning of circumcision, regardless of its national overtones.) This objection rests on the false presumption that Israel was a mere nation and that the multi-ethnic church of the new covenant is not a "nation" in any sense. Both of these assumptions are false. Those who were shut out of the "commonwealth of Israel" were "separate from Christ" (Eph 2:12); hence the nation was no mere ethnic political entity. To Israel belonged “the promises” (Rom 9:4). Secondly, the new covenant people of God are "a holy nation" (1Pe 2:9). In fact, Jesus teaches us that "the kingdom of God will be taken away from you [collective unbelieving Israel], and be given to a nation [multi-ethnic spiritual Israel] producing the fruit of it" (Mat 21:43).

Even from the Biblical account of who was circumcised, we find a compelling response to the above ojections. We are told that "In the very same day Abraham was circumcised, and Ishmael his son" (Gen 17:26). The thirteen-year old Ishmael was certainly not in the nation Israel, yet he was circumcised because of God's very command on the very day that Abraham himself was circumcised. It would be strikingly inconsistent if the very same ritual act, administered the very same day was "a seal of the righteousness of the faith" (Rom 4:12) for Abraham, but for teenageIshmael it was a mere sign of being a physical, albeit virtually bastardly, descendant of Abraham. Imagine what Abraham would have said in performing circumcision on Ishmael or other non-Israelite offspring. Considering what circumcision meant to Abraham, could he have said or thought anything like what follows?
 

Child of my flesh and not of any spiritual relation, this rite of circumcision is performed on you only and exclusively and arbitrarily because you are my physical offspring. Do not mistake that there is any spiritual significance to this act whatsoever; it calleth you not to any spiritual obligation; it calleth you not to any recognition of the covenantally faithful God who only relates to man by way of covenant; think not that by it you are being called upon to believe in a God who circumcises hearts or saves the fallen sons of Adam from natural heart-uncircumcision; nay, nay, it calleth you not to keep the way of the Lord; think not that I am declaring that you are the Lord's; you are my mere flesh and blood, without a relation to the God who has granted me justification by faith.(24)
Further, we find that the New Testament indicates that circumcision was given to proselytes from other nations on the basis of their reception of the Biblical faith (in the pre-new covenant form). Therefore, not only the express teaching about the meaning of circumcision, but even considering who was circumcised is a clear refutation of the nationalistic objection.

(3) Another important objection which has become fairly popular is what I will call the Judaizer Objection. It is an objection to the sacramental equivalence of circumcision and baptism and is stated succinctly by Carl B. Hoch, Jr., a Baptist professor, in his interesting book, All Things New: The Significance of Newness for Biblical Theology. In a discussion of Colossians 2:11, he says, "That baptism has not replaced circumcision can be easily seen from the fact that Paul did not attempt to refute the Judaizers' demand that Gentiles be circumcised with the statement, 'They have no need of circumcision; they have been baptized! You all know that baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign of the covenant!" (p. 290). This objection is convincing to many, and has begun to appear in recent infant baptism debates, as well (e.g., Sproul-MacArthur).

What can be said in response to this argument? First, let us observe that this is an argument (a) based on something believed about the Judaizers, that they required circumcision for salvation. And (b) that if (hypothetically), the apostles, especially Paul, had responded to the Judaizers by saying, "You all know that baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign of the covenant!"--that such an answer would have been taking as a sufficient refutation. This argument is an argument from silence. That is, it rests upon the silence of what isn't stated in the text. This is not to dismiss the value of such reasoning. Such considerations are very valuable. But for it to be compelling, it must take into consideration, as much as possible, th known beliefs of those involved and what actually was said, touching upon the issues disputed.

Let us consider this as fully as possible. In Acts 15:1-2 we read,

And some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." 2 And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue.
The Judaizers, in insisting on Gentile circumcision, presumed that circumcision as a God-authorized covenant sign (Gen 17) was not ritually replaceable or salvifically negotiable. (Remember that this "custom of Moses" was not exclusive adult circumcision; it was of infant males, if any were involved.) The answer that was stated to the Judaizers was that these Gentiles had received, not merely a symbol and sign of cleansing their uncleanness, but the reality. Consider carefully the words of Peter to the Council, "And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith" (15:8-9). That baptism signified the Holy Spirit's work is clear from the episode of Cornelius' household baptism (10:48), as recalled by Peter (consider carefully):
And he shall speak words to you by which you will be saved, you and all your household. ' 15 "And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, just as He did upon us at the beginning. 16 "And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, 'John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' 17 "If God therefore gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way?" 18 And when they heard this, they quieted down, and glorified God, saying, "Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life."
Peter had said, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" (10:47) Notice the emphasis on "the same gift" and "the Gentiles also" and "just as we did." In the fullest consideration, the apostles refuted the Judaizers with a twofold argument. First, the Gentiles possess what we Jews possess, even apart from the external sign. Therefore, the sign is unnecessary, for receiving what is of more infinitely more value, the reality.

Second, the apostolic apologetic takes into consideration prophetic fulfillment which comes to pass in the new covenant. James speaks to this point,

Simeon [Peter] has related how God first concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name. 15 "And with this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written, 16 'AFTER THESE THINGS I will return, AND I WILL REBUILD THE TABERNACLE OF DAVID WHICH HAS FALLEN, AND I WILL REBUILD ITS RUINS, AND I WILL RESTORE IT, 17 IN ORDER THAT THE REST OF MANKIND MAY SEEK THE LORD, AND ALL THE GENTILES WHO ARE CALLED BY MY NAME.
This is just to say that in the new covenant era, the Gentiles, apart from becoming ritual Jews, will be part of the "tabernacle of David" or the true temple of God, the people of God. Now, the Gentiles, remaining Gentiles in terms of ceremony, will "rejoice with His people" (Rom 15:10). Because, after all, Abraham is "father of all who believe without being circumcised [Gentiles like Cornelius' household], that righteousness might be reckoned to them, and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised [that is Jews who believe]" (Rom 4:11-12).

Upon further consideration, then, the apostles, especially Peter in this case, actually did teach that these converts were not in need of circumcision precisely because they were truly baptized. Their "Gentile uncleanness" had been removed by the reality, not the ritual, a reality portrayed in circumcision and baptism. The reason why it was not stated in the words Dr. Hoch did--"You all know that baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign of the covenant"--is because to simply assert this would have been begging the question. The great "dispute" was whether the Spirit-baptized Gentiles, who had what circumcision signified, needed to have ritual circumcision too. This was evaluated in light of (first) the demonstrable way that God provided the Spirit to Gentile households, like Cornelius'. Such cases demonstrated that the ritual of circumcision, in fact, was unnecessary to receive the fulness of salvation and the observable manifestations of the Holy Spirit. And secondly, the apostles appealed to the Scriptural promises of the inclusion of the Gentiles. The Messianic new covenant, with its expansion beyond Jerusalem to the remotest part of the earth (Act 1:8), predicted the inclusion of the uncircumcised Gentiles. (Remember Paul's argument that Abraham is the father of the circumcized and the uncircumcized Rom 4:11-12).

The Judaizers did not see that "circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit" (Rom 2:29) and that the reality symbolized is more important than the external sign (Gal 5:6, 5:16, 1Co 7:19). They were not objecting to Gentiles' baptism (and that of even households as in the case of Cornelius), but to their mere baptism. They wanted them to be cleansed and cut, even as the believing Jews were both circumcised and had received the new sign of Messiah. After Peter's rather vivid object lesson (of eating that which is "unclean" 10:15), and the decisive Acts 15 Council, the apostles (especially Paul) argued that the converted Gentiles were not in need of flesh circumcision because they had what is truly greater, a circumcised heart.

Therefore, baptism was, in its essential qualities the ritual replacement of circumcision for the newly reached Gentiles. But, it is not an exact replacement of circumcision for the Jew, in that transitional time. With the temple standing and the expansion of the gospel in Jerusalem and Judea, the apostolic work to reach the Jews necessarily involved the continuity, for a time at least, of old covenant forms. They worshiped in the temple (Act 2:4). Paul even took a ceremonial vow in which a sacrifice was offered (21:26). But all of this was before the demonstrable refutation of Christless, Messiah-rejecting, Judaism by God's hand of judgment in the year, Anno Domini 70. During this transitional generation, it was certainly permissible for Jews and proselytes to be both circumcised and baptized (Act 16:3). The heart of the apostle is evident, "And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews" (1Co 9:20). On the other hand, the Judaizers' view was both a misunderstanding of the nature and requirements of salvation in the Old Testament, and the transitional era in the new covenant. It was a challenge to the heart of the Great Commission gospel for baptized Gentiles to be required to be circumcised. Why? Because what circumcision did for the Jew and those who became ritual Jews (proselytes), baptism now does for all nations.

Therefore, regarding the Judaistic objection, I believe that (a) above is true, but that (b) is false. It is true that (a) the Judaizers required circumcision for salvation; but it is not the case that if the apostles had said, "You all know that baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign of the covenant!"--(b) such an answer would have been taking as a refutation by the Judaizers. For an argument from silence to be compelling, it must take into consideration what actually was said and the known beliefs of those involved. What I have argued thus far is that this objection does not adequately consider what was said in response to the Judaizers. Namely, the Gentiles have the reality that circumcision and baptism signified.

Moreover, Judaizer objection does not adequately account for their known beliefs.

Given the known beliefs of the Judaizers, if the situation had really been (as the baptist must argue) that in the new covenant there was no covenant sign of inclusion for children whatsoever, it is a much louder silence that the Judaizers did not protest even more! If they protested against Gentile adults (and children) not having to be circumcised (a sign of inclusion for the whole household), how much more would they have protested that their own children were no longer considered in covenant with God!

If we stand in the sandals of the First Century Jewish (and proselyte) followers of Jesus, it is incredible (truly unbelievable) to think that a believer's little children would not to be considered part of the people of God. Imagine the shock of Crispus, the synagogue leader (Acts 18:8), who believes (on Friday, let's say) that his children are in covenant with God, part of the people of God, and members of the synagogue of God. Then, on the Sabbath after Paul preaches, he finds out that--in the fulfillment of the promised seed of the women, through the covenant promises, in the fullness of time, in the era of great David's greater Son, in the Messianic kingdom and the light to the Gentiles and the glory of His people Israel--now his little children have no part in the people of God!

Or imagine the new proselyte family who have recently undergone the painful passage to covenant membership only to discover upon hearing of Messiah that in the new covenant his children are afforded less of a place than they were in the shadows of Judaism. From the original audience's mindset, this view of new covenant, Messianic-synagogue membership would be more than disappointing. It would be inconceivable. And more so when the First Century Palestinian religious practices are considered. It appears from history that Jewish proselytism involved the practice of proselyte household baptism. After a family had committed to be Jewish proselytes, the males of the household were circumcised and the final act which "cleansed" their Gentile uncleanness was a ritual washing, a baptism of the entire household, including infants. Thus, if such a practice were common, the baptist case requies a double discontinuity of both the inclusion of their children in the covenant membership and their inclusion in the common practice of Gentile (proselyte) baptism. To add, imagine the overwhelming status of inferiority that Gentiles would have felt if the Jews' children were considered members of the Christian synagogue (Jam 2:2) and part of the "household of God," while Gentile children had neither sign nor membership.

It should be admitted that both Dr. Hoch's argument and my argument are from silence. The reader must weigh which argument is most convincing based on the mind-set of the original audience. What must be decisive, though, is their mindset, not our biases. Which silence is loudest, given what we know? With the clearly stated objections of the Judaizers, their known beliefs, and what we know of their frame of mind, if the apostolic practice and teaching excluded the infant children of Jews (and Gentiles), it is very remarkable that no hint of this discussion arises in the pages of the New Testament.

Entrance Sign of the Covenant, Church, and Kingdom

To settle the question of whether the infant children of believers are to receive baptism, we must ask whether they are Biblically designated as part of what baptism signifies membership in. Very simply, baptism signifies that one has entered the (1) covenant, (2) the church, and (3) the kingdom. We must ask then whether the children of believers are considered as part of the covenant, church, and kingdom, in the Bible.

(1) The children of believers are surely promised to be part of the covenant generally and the new covenant specifically. When God revealed the covenant to Abraham He said in Genesis 17:7, "And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you." Lest someone say--"But that was the Old Testament"--Paul interprets this in the New Testament when he teaches that the promise was made "certain to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all (as it is written, 'a father of many nations have I made you')" (Rom 4:16-17).

The new covenant certainly includes believers' children in its promises, in the very same language of the Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic covenant. How can baptists credibly maintain that the new covenant does not include the children of believers in light of the numerous explicit statements to the contrary?(25) The Covenant Lord promises to "circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants" (Deu 30:6); that "the offspring of Israel also shall [not] cease from being a nation before Me forever" (Jer 31:36-37); that the covenant is "for the good of their children after them" (Jer 32:39); that He will not "reject the descendants of Jacob" (Jer 32:26); that "their children will see it and be glad, their heart will rejoice in the LORD . . . they with their children will live and come back (Zec 10:6-9); that His Spirit shall not depart "from the mouth of your offspring, nor from the mouth of your offspring's offspring" (Isa 59:21); that "He will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers" (Mal 4:6); that His mercy continues to be "upon generation after generation toward those who fear him" (Luk 2:50)--because "the promise is for you and your children" (Acts 2:39)!

(2) The children of believers are addressed as part of the (visible) church, just as baptized adults are. Paul begins his letter to the Colossians, "To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are at Colossae" (v 2). Later he addresses "wives" (3:18), "husbands" (3:19), "children" (3:20), "fathers" (3:21), "slaves" (3:22), and "masters" (4:1). In the same way he addresses "the saints who are at Ephesus, and who are faithful in Christ Jesus" (Eph 1:1). In chapter five he addresses "wives" (5:22), "husbands" (5:25), "children" (6:1), "fathers" (6:4), "slaves" (6:5), and "masters" (6:9). It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Paul addressed the children of believers as part of "the saints and faithful brethren" (Col 1:2).

Someone might respond, "But how can (unregenerate) little children be "saints"--"called ones"? To this I ask, "How unregenerate adults be saints?" In the same epistles addressed to the "church" of "saints," there are repeated calls for self-examination. "Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves" (2Co 13:5).(26) In the epistles, church members collectively are addressed without stipulating, "Oh, and some of you are probably lost." Or, in more theologically precise language we might say visible church members are addressed. Visible saints are addressed.

Just as visible members are addressed in the epistles, Paul teaches that the child of even one believer is not "unclean," but "saintly"--"holy." In dealing with the problem of mixed marriages (1Co 7:12-16), he writes, "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, but now they are holy" (1Co 7:14). When this Greek term for "holy" (hagios) is used of people, its regular and consistent rendering is "saint."(27)
 
 

“The argument in a nutshell is simply this: God established His Church in the days of Abraham and put children into it. They must remain there until He puts them out. He has nowhere put them out. They are still then members of His Church and as such entitled to its ordinances. Among these ordinances is baptism, which standing in similar place in the New Dispensation to circumcision in the Old, is like it to be given to children.”– Benjamin B. Warfield, The Polemics of Infant Baptism (in his Works, 9:408)

In the baptism debate, baptists have been virtually inoculated against the use of this verse (1Co 7:14). The usual vaccine is that it means a believer's child is legitimate, rather than illegitimate. The "legitimacy" position fails to be convincing, at least to me, for several reasons. Two unbelievers can have both a "legitimate" marriage and "legitimate" children. Paul's statement, however, is that "otherwise" (epei ara)--an emphatic contrast (i.e., if one of the parents was not a believer)--"your children would be unclean (akatharta), but now they are holy" (1Co 7:14).

It is even more unconvincing when baptists appeal to rabbinic, Jewish sources regarding the "marriage covenant" to prove that the children of believers do not occupy the place of covenant members (as in the Old Testament and Judaism).(28) Or, when it is argued that "Paul is here employing the concept of ritual holiness found in the Old Testament," though the children are not covenantally set apart.(29) These appeals are made as though the Jews saw Gentile children from a "legitimate" marriage as being "clean" or "holy" (!). It is extremely unlikely that this former Rabbi, Paul here teaches a "ritual holiness" of the Old Testament or Judaism, but that such a child is not covenantally set apart. On the contrary, the New Testament makes it clear that Jews considered Gentile households as unclean (akatharta), regardless of the legitimacy of the Gentile marriage. Peter had to be instructed both by a vision and by the demonstrable salvation of Cornelius' household that "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy" (Act 10:15). "God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean (akatharta)" (Act 10:28).

Looking at the entire subject of the status of children, if we stand in the sandals of the First Century Jewish (and proselyte) followers of Jesus, it is incredible (truly unbelievable) to think that a believer's little children would not to be considered part of the people of God. Imagine the shock of Crispus, the synagogue leader (Acts 18:8), who believes (on Friday, let's say) that his children are in covenant with God, part of the people of God, and members of the synagogue of God. Then, on the Sabbath after Paul preaches, he finds out that--in the fulfillment of the promised seed of the women, through the covenant promises, in the fullness of time, in the era of great David's greater Son, in the Messianic kingdom and the light to the Gentiles and the glory of His people Israel--now his little children have no part in the people of God!

Or imagine the new proselyte family who have recently undergone the painful passage to covenant membership only to discover upon hearing of Messiah that in the new covenant his children are afforded less of a place than they were in the shadows of Judaism. From the original audience's mindset, this view of new covenant, Messianic-synagogue membership would be more than disappointing. It would be inconceivable. And more so when the First Century Palestinian religious practices are considered. Everyone acquainted with the Jewish synagogue would have been familiar with the practice of proselyte household baptism.(30) After a family had committed to be Jewish proselytes, the males of the household were circumcised and the final act which "cleansed" their Gentile uncleanness was a ritual washing, a baptism of the entire household, including infants.(31)

(3) The children of believers are included in the kingdom of God. One baptist defender states, "Therefore, based on Jeremiah 31:31-34 and its description of regeneration in the new covenant participants, and in light of Christ's definition of the entrance requirements to the kingdom (Joh 3:5, 6) and church (Mat 16:16-18), I cannot say that children of believers are 'in' the new covenant or church or kingdom or 'God's people' until they show, by outward confession, evidence of regeneration."(32) Would it not be a more reliable method to develop one's conclusions regarding the status of children fundamentally from passages which actually address the status of children? The above writer has built his case on inferences (though he denies that paedobaptists are to use inferences for their position). He is inferring that the children of believers are to be put out from texts which do not even address the status of children. He selects part of Jeremiah's prophecy--notice that the other eight passages in Jeremiah where children are included have been omitted, and only one line down, in verses 31:36-37, the "offspring" are emphatically included, twice. Jesus' dialogue with an adult Pharisee (in John 3) and the adult apostolic confession of Peter (Mat 16:16) are pressed into service. Please consider that the method used here will yield unwarranted conclusions, to say the least. For example, "If anyone will not work, neither let him eat" (2Th 3:10)--Are little children to work for their food, too?

Rather, let us discover what the text says about children in the places where the status of children is actually addressed! First consider the explicit inclusion of children in Christ's kingdom, made explicit by the King Himself.

And they were bringing even their babies (brephos) to Him so that He might touch them, but when the disciples saw it, they began rebuking them. 16 But Jesus called for them, saying, "Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such (toiouton) as these. 17 Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it at all."(33) (Luke 18:15-17)
The single most important grammatical detail is the "such" (toiouton)--Does it include the children or not? Is Jesus saying the kingdom belongs to those who have childlike attributes, or is He saying that it belongs to these children and others with these childlike attributes? Paul K. Jewett (baptistic), in one of the most scholarly and convincing defenses of the baptistic position, deals fairly with the "such" in this passage. He writes,
The Greek (toiouton) by no means implies the exclusion, but rather the inclusion, of the ones mentioned. When the Jews cried out against Paul (Acts 22:22), 'Away with such a one (toiouton)!' they could hardly have meant, Away with someone like this man Paul. Rather, they meant, Away with Paul and everyone of his kind! By the same rule, when Jesus bade little children to come to him, 'for such is the kingdom of heaven,' he most likely meant, 'The kingdom belongs to these children and all others who are like them in that they have a childlike faith.' The truth that the kingdom belongs to the childlike should not prejudice the affirmation that it also belongs to children."(34) It might be added that when Christ says, "whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it at all" (Luk 18:17)--He is saying that children do, in fact, "receive the kingdom."
It was the Covenant Lord Himself who set a (literal, not a figurative) child before His disciples and said,
And whoever receives one such (toiouto) child in My name receives Me; but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it is better for him that a heavy millstone be hung around his neck, and that he be drowned in the depth of the sea. ... See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you, that their angels in heaven continually behold the face of My Father who is in heaven. (Mat 18:2-10)
Is not Jesus in a position to know who is in His church and kingdom and who is protected by the holy angels? One and the same Covenant Lord put the infant seed of believers in His visible church in Abraham's day. They have not been put out--they have not been put out by God, that is.

The Internal and Legal Dimensions of the Covenant

Some of the confusion of who is "in" the covenant, church, and kingdom is alleviated when we properly define the covenant and distinguish between its internal and external or legal dimensions. A covenant proper is the treaty words or stipulations of God's relationship to His people--"the words of the covenant" (dabar berith) (Exo 3:28, Deu 29:1, Isa 59:21, Jer 11:3, 11:8). When one speaks of being "in" the covenant, a non-Biblical phrase is introduced. While Scripture speaks of entering "into the covenant" (Deu 29:12, 2Ki 23:3, 2Ch 15:12, Jer 34:10), the Bible (in the original or English translations) does not speak of a person or group being "in the covenant." The reason for this is that the covenant, technically speaking, is the treaty words. The point here is not to be super-scrupulous. There's nothing wrong with using "in the covenant" as shorthand to mean "under the stipulations of the covenant." Often however, a subtle shift takes place when one speaks of being "in the new covenant." It goes like this, the new covenant promises the regenerating work of the Spirit, so how can someone be "in the new covenant" and not be regenerate? This question presupposes a view of the covenant which limits the terms of the covenant to only one of its chief components, while ignoring the other stipulations.

It is not only those who are Reformed paedobaptists who believe that the new covenant involves stipulations beyond the promise of regeneration. Dr. Carl B. Hoch, Jr., a Baptist professor, in his interesting book, All Things New: The Significance of Newness for Biblical Theology, argues that "it would appear reasonable to assume that the new covenant is also a suzerainty-vassal covenant [like the Mosaic covenant in structure and form]. One would expect the new covenant to have a preamble, historical prologue, stipulations, and cursings and blessings formulae like the old covenant."(35) The original codification of the covenant with Moses included such stipulations. But to discover all the information on the new covenant, one must gather it from an inductive study of the redemptive plan in both testaments. As Dr. Hoch says, "Unlike the old covenant, you cannot point to a passage in the New Testament and say, 'This is the new covenant in its entirety.' This requires a hypothetical reconstruction of the new covenant form along the lines of the reconstruction of the old covenant form from the Old Testament materials."(36)

What is the relationship between the church, covenant, and kingdom?

The New Testament indicates that the visible church, which is the covenant community, consists of both regenerate and unregenerate members. This is hardly controversial. But beyond this, many passages indicate that the new covenant has stipulations for judgment--"The Lord will judge his people" (Heb 10:30, Mat 16:19, 1Co 11:29-30, 34, 1Pe 4:17). Such stipulations for judgment are directed to visible covenant community members--who are yet unregenerate. Also, many passages teach that the kingdom (in its present administration) includes both regenerate and unregenerate individuals (Mat 8:12, 13:24-31, 41, 47-50, 21:43, 25:1-13, Luk 13:28, Rev 11:15). Jesus says this in rather plain language: in the judgment, "The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, and will cast them into the furnace of fire; in that place therhall be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Mat 13:41-42).

What can be said to our baptistic brethren who have a covenant community (the church) with both regenerate and unregenerate; but a covenant membership of only regenerate individuals (?)--a kingdom rule of Christ over wheat and tares, but wheat alone are addressed in the new covenant stipulations (?)--an ecclesiology (study of the church) which admits visible and invisible realities, but a (covenant) theology which admits only regenerate membership? Such a view is incoherent, as well as unable to account for all the Biblical information about the covenant, church, and kingdom.

Now if the new covenant prophecies include "the offspring"--and if their restatements and quotations in the New Testament also expressly say the promise is "for you and your children"--and if the apostolic writers address believers' children as part of the saints and church--and if Jesus own explicit and direct statements grammatically and exegetically include children in His kingdom--On what grounds may we deny them the entrance sign to the visible, covenant community of God's people?

Covenant Responsibilities: Family Worship

When the first Gentile households were given the sign of covenant membership, they, just like Abraham, were commanded to bring their children "up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord" (Eph 6:4). An elder in the church, as well as the spiritually mature person, is one who "manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity" (1Ti 3:4). A ritual act, even though it be ordained of God, is of no use if the spiritual reality is not foundational to the sign. What is the spiritual reality behind the sign of entrance into the covenant? For Abraham, the Lord says, "For I have chosen him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice; in order that the LORD may bring upon Abraham what He has spoken about him" (Gen 18:19). Yes, this is the Old Testament--but oh how practical it is this very day! We must heed that ancient command, "You shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up" (Deu 6:7). Do you command your children to keep the way of the Lord? Do you teach them diligently to love the Lord their God (Deu 6:4)? Without the reality of leading one's home to Christ, in Christ, and for Christ, the water of baptism is worse than useless, it is condemnatory.
 

“. . . Infant baptism does not relieve parents or guardians, as the case may be, of that solemn responsibility to instruct, warn, exhort, direct and protect the infant members of the Christian church committed to their care. . . .The encouragement derived from a divine promise must never be divorced from the discharge of the obligations involved. It is only in the atmosphere of obligation discharged, in a word, in the atmosphere of obedience to divine commandments, that faith in the divine promise can live and grow. Faith divorced from obedience is mockery and presumption.”–John Murray, Why We Baptize Infants (in The Presbyterian Guardian, Vol. 5 1938).

 The Scripture declares that, "All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the LORD, and all the families of the nations will worship before Thee" (Psa 22:27). Joshua nobly said, "As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD" (24:15). A baptized child should be a child being brought up in the discipline and admonition of the Lord, whose parents vow, "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."

Every person that grows up in a Christian home should be taught God's Word from their earliest times. Just like Timothy, each Christian child should be exhorted to "continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them; and that from childhood (brephos) you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus" (2Ti 3:14-15).

I surely pray that regarding family worship, baptists, as well as those who baptize their children, will take this practice to heart and home. However, I must point out the radical inconsistency of teaching a noncovenant member, nonchurch member, nonkingdom member, nonChristian, to praise, confess, follow, and pray to Christ as their Savior! In other words, in reality the children of sincere believers, seeking to obey Ephesians 6:4, are treated and required to act as visible members of the church. It makes perfect sense to educate them as Christians, to think the thoughts of God, to confess the holy faith, to walk with Christ all the days of their life--but this only makes sense if they are counted as part of God's people. It is contrary to nature and Scripture for a believer to treat one's little children as though they are excluded from Christ as unbelieving pagans. The sign which demonstrates that they are part of God's visible people is baptism.

Certainly, one could seek to carry out family worship in a way consistent with the baptist view of the children of believers, except that it would not be family worship, it would be family evangelism, exclusively so. On the other hand, the paedobaptist has family worship which is inclusive of evangelism in the deepest sense, it is discipleship from daylight til dawn. Just as worship in the congregation has an evangelistic component, calling all to self-examination (those within and without of the visible church). Family worship, just as congregational worship, calls the "worshipers" to be sure one has the reality behind the water.
 

"The close and endearing connection between parents and children affords a strong argument in favour of the church-membership of the infant seed of believers. The voice of nature is lifted up, and pleads most powerfully in behalf of our cause. The thought of severing parents from their offspring, in regard to the most interesting relations in which it has pleased God in his adorable providence to place them, is equally repugnant to Christian feeling, and to natural law. Can it be, my friends, that when the stem is in the church, the branch is out of it? Can it be that when the parent is within the visible kingdom of the Redeemer, his offspring, bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh, have no connection with it?" — Samuel Miller, Infant Baptism: Discourse 1 (Presbyterian Board of Publication, from a sermon in 1834])

The Objective and Subjective Dimensions of Baptism

Of course by the children's inclusion into the visible church one should not presume that they are regenerate; and certainly by baptism, regeneration is not to be presumed. (Again) This is true with adults, no less than with children. What baptist would say that because someone was baptized in their church, that they are (somehow by that) regenerated? But many baptists would quickly say or insinuate that the Reformed paedobaptists believe that infant baptism saves the infant (!).

The problem here is that of the relationship of baptism to the life of a Christian. The baptist view sees the significance of baptism as primarily a testimony of one's (past) personal experience of salvation. So the value of an infant's baptism is completely dismissed--since they weren't saved then, and even if they were, it was not a testimony of their experience in salvation. They didn't "decide to follow the Lord in believers' baptism" and stand in the water and tell those enthusiastically on-looking that "well I used to be...but now I'm saved." Of what value could the baptism of a helpless, unreasoning, decision-less, infant be--an infant in need of grace, but utterly unable to even ask for it or make the smallest contribution to salvation? --Perhaps the reader can see now, infant baptism actually affords a very accurate picture of that salvation which is by grace alone. According to the Reformed faith, faith is a response to the prior grace of God, is it not?

On the other hand, the paedobaptist sees baptism in a much more objective relationship to the Christian life. For the professing convert, he certainly must profess; but that's only the beginning. Such a person is to vow to bring all their life in conformity with whom they have vocally and visibly identified, the Triune God. Baptism testifies of that. Baptism testifies of what God has done in His gracious covenant to bring salvation. And to whom is this salvation brought? As a parent, he is to "Believe in the Lord Jesus," trusting God for the blessed result, "and you shall be saved, you and your household" (Act 16:31, 10:14).

In the case of an infant who is baptized and then raised in God-consciousness, with vibrant family discipleship, vital community fellowship, and vigorous public worship--baptism is the simple symbol of that life to be manifested in heart, home, and church. It is to be recalled and invoked by father, mother, brothers, sisters, and pastors, "child you are 'engaged to be the Lords.'"(37) Just as the preachers of the Bible (Old and New Testaments) called for those who were circumcised in flesh to be circumcised of heart; so it is that we are to call those baptized (whether our children or ourselves or others) to live out the realities behind the cleansing emblem.

This means self-examination (2Co 13:5, 1Pe 4:17). It is not those who have the sign of the kingdom that inherit it (regardless of when they received it); it is those who have the King that inherit it! (1Co 6:9-11, Gal 5:21). Paul, in systematically explaining the gospel, called Christians to live out the reality behind their baptisms (Rom 6:3-7). Paul says, "knowing this [our union with Christ's work, which is sacramentalized in baptism] . . . we should no longer be slaves to sin" (Rom 6:6-7).

What is sacramentalized in baptism is that precious spiritual union accomplished through our Savior's unique baptism (Mat 10:38-39). He drank of the cup of the wrath of God for us and was united and completely identified with our sin: "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" (2Co 5:21). Baptism is a testimony, not so much of the our salvation experience, though we pray this be increasingly so--rather it is a testimony of our Savior's experience. He became vile so that we could be purified. He was contaminated so that we could be washed. He shed drops of blood so that we might feel water. He was cut so that we might only be cleansed. He became sin so that we could be saints. He said "My God, My God why hast thou forsaken Me" so that we might hear, "I will