First Session: Argument taken from the Philippian Jailer
Is it too much to ask that a parallel be made between circumcision and baptism? Is it too difficult to join the two and admit that they are to be equated in the life of the believer and infants? We seem to have little difficulty reading Paul’s language relating the physical act of circumcision as a sign of spiritual significance. Why? Probably because Paul wants us to make this connection; and he draws the connection for us. But if the drawing is not clearly defined then we want to have license to reject it outright as something man has made up. Is it suggested, then, that the things that scripture merely imply are not to be taken seriously simply because the apostle did not specify instruction in a clear, direct way? God forbid! The scriptures imply a lot of things we take as His Word. The doctrine of the Trinity, for instance, is embraced as truth, regarding the character of God by the Christian church, even though no word of it appears in the scriptures. We read in the Genesis account that the Spirit of God hovered over the waters. We read God having conversation with Himself, "let us make...". We deduce from these passages that God is more sophisticated that we might have thought before. Jesus talks about sending the Comforter. He prays to His heavenly Father regarding the keeping of those whom He has given to Christ. Putting these together we get a better understanding of the character of God as revealed by Him in His Word. Another example is of the submission to authorities described in Romans 13. Libertarians would add a disclaimer that this text applies only to legitimate authority. But a careful reading of the text does not imply any such conclusion. In fact the only implication found in this text is the command to obey - and that is not an implication, it is directly stated. There is no qualifier the Libertarians seem to imagine. Or another example regards predestination: If God chooses us from the foundation of the world to serve Him, the implication is that my salvation is secure no matter what I have done in the past; or presently do; or will do in the future. God's choosing me has nothing whatsoever to do with any decision to on my part that would make God award me with saving grace. My point is that we use what God has given us to make right decisions about what God has revealed to us as human beings. We are called to properly divide the Word of God discerning truth from error (Romans 12:2) and this issue of paedobaptism is one such example where we need to look a little deeper and consider implications.
There are examples throughout the Acts - specifically when we read accounts of whole families being saved and baptized. The Philippian jailer is one that immediately comes to mind. In this account we read about the jailer asking Peter, “What must I do to be saved?” Peter’s answer accounts for the salvation of his whole family not just for the jailer’s salvation (Acts 16:30-31). How can Peter say this; for he is facing the jailer alone? Perhaps the jailer’s family was present with him when he fell down at Peter’s feet and asked the question. Or perhaps Peter could discern that all members in the jailer’s family would readily consent to Peter’s statement regarding their salvation too. I don't know; but one thing I do know, Peter was addressing the head of the family. He was speaking directly to him; the jailer - the one responsible for leading his family properly. So when the leader begged for instruction in leading his family properly; it was appropriate for Peter to address the jailer in this way. For a leader must lead and unity inhabits the family unit when everyone works together for a common goal; to be sure, a leader, the head of the family, cannot properly discharge his duty unless his whole family is included in the process. This point aside, we get to the focus of this paper or post, that is, that there is nothing to imply those included in Peter’s answer were not just adults but perhaps even infants. There is nothing to suggest that infants were not included nor is there anything to suggest they were. But there is a greater chance, in my mind, that present and included they were. Why? Simply because I see the family unit differently than how I observe family life in our modern era. I have Brazilian friends who helped me to understand just how valuable the family unit is in their native land. Very rarely do we see the extended family spread all over the country as we do in America. It is not unlikely that four generations live within the same city limits and regularly entertain one another. Probably in biblical times older members of the family would be taken care of by younger members and so the biblical principle would be obeyed (1 Timothy 5:4). All this to say that there really is nothing to suggest that there were not some infants in most families. So here we read Peter saying, “you and your household.” Immediately, as the account reads, the jailer’s entire household was baptized. What we have here is a case of paedobaptism taking place by the Apostle! Am I suggesting too much this possibility? What I don’t want you to say is that the apostle made a distinction between adults and infants – No! You must not make this distinction because the passage clearly does not imply such a conclusion. The implication would be unwarranted and unsubstantiated. It would be a conclusion based on mere opinion. Other scripture passages (1 Corinthians 1:16) show that baptisms of whole families seemed to be normative practice in the early church. What does seem interesting to me, based on this biblical evidence, why some denominations desire to draw distinctions between the young and the mature when it is not shown or implied anywhere, that I can tell, that these distinctions should be drawn. I am not saying that certain distinctions ought not be made, say for instance, regarding the Lord’s Supper (this being a topic for another time!). But certainly not baptism! For by it we (as the reformed of the Lord) embrace the covenants of God of old that were never rescinded, only renewed through the Gospel of Grace.
It is at this juncture I now can speak about the covenant of grace as expressed in circumcision and (what I believe) has superceded it in the ordinance of baptism and why it is so pertinent for children to be included in it.
Second Session next post: The Argument that there are Parallels between Circumcision and Baptism
2 comments:
In my opinion, if infant baptism is true baptism then baptism is a complete waste of time and a farce. There are hundreds of thousands of babies who have been baptized over the last several decades. A portion (I would say a large portion) are adults fully engaged in the world and it’s passions and have no regard for God, Jesus, Salvation, Heaven, Satan, and would willingly admit that they do not believe in God or Jesus or heaven. (I know a bunch). So, since they are ‘saved’ they are part of the holy church, called out, set aside, sanctified and heaven bound. We should be discipling them, having holy communion with them and fellowshiping with them. They won’t have any part of it though.
Looking back at history, Infant baptism began as a government regulation (I think under Constantine) when he made Christianity the state religion. His structure was to make a unified religion and then act on it as a governmental force so Christianity and government were no different from the leaders the perspective. By baptizing infants, there was no one left out of the governmental control.
An aside: I do believe that there is an age of accountability but it is not defined by a numerical value. Infants sin but not willingly. Children sin, but not willingly. Then one day, there is a change and knowingly willful sin against God occurs. (not simple disobedience to mom or dad. Proverbs say raise your children.....and when they are old they will not depart. My belief is that there will always be a period that a child becomes an adult, they realize their frailties and depravity then, since us parents trained them, they choose God and forgiveness and salvation. In the event that the parent failed, the Church is reaching out, praying, and opening its’ doors for “sinners”.
Matt
Hi Matt,
First of all infant baptism encapsulates covenant theology. What this means in short is that the infant and child belonging to believing parents share in the blessings and promises of God. This idea can be read in 1 Corinthians 7:14. Here we are talking about children being sanctified because of the believing spouse. Again I don't think it is fair to say that in saying children you don't mean infants too. In normal everyday language when I say I have nine children I obviously mean my little one as well. It would be a bit silly to say "I have 8 children, and oh yes, one infant!"
Actually to the contrary. Infant baptism was a common practice from what I read. Origen once said this: "The church has received the tradition from the apostles to give baptism to little children". Where the abuse comes is when the practice of infant regeneration is believed. This is obviously unscriptural. Oh so much more to say and so little time! We'll "argue" in person if we can. It will be fun. Theological debates like these require so much mind power that work comes to a halt. I'll try to save it for the lunch break!
-Joe
Post a Comment