I have written this post in response to an article that was sent to me about infant baptism, a practice that I do not believe in, because it is not biblical. But more to the point the article was referred as a way to understand infant baptism and its biblical roots.
As I read the article I found it to be rather disturbing. So I started to do what I would suggest any Christian do that reads something that claims to be biblical, I researched it with my bible and some well known commentaries.
I want to make it clear; I have not read any of the books written by the author of the article. In fact I had never heard of this person until I read the article in question. In accordance with the rules for using the article I will not quote the article in its entirety, however I will make a link to it, and all quotes will be unedited and clearly distinguished from my own comments.
The article is entitled God’s Grandchildren “The Biblical Basis for Infant Baptism” By: Michael S. Horton, the article may be found in its entirety here. I cannot however link to the article on the Modern Reformation site because to read the article there you have to subscribe.
In a few places in the article Horton does imply that baptism does not grant salvation, which is true baptism does not convey salvation. However, in some spots Horton does imply that it does impart salvation either by design or by error I am unsure.
“To be sure, there are dangers in the paedobaptist position. Nevertheless, there are also dangers in the Baptist view.”
I totally agree, baptism without faith is worthless, and children that are baptized and not raised properly are at an even grater risk.
“First, it is just as easy for men and women to place their faith in the extrabiblical rite of “making a decision” or responding to the invitation during an “altar call.” Human nature is forever looking for ladders to climb into God’s presence and favor, and unbiblical “sacraments” are no less prone to this use than are biblical ones.”
Ok, this is a little off topic but I have to address this dig at the Baptist denomination. First, “making a decision” for Christ or responding to an “alter call” are not extra biblical rites or sacraments. They are phrases used to describe something that happens in the life of an unbeliever. Can they be faked, mis used, or twisted? Yes they can, just like baptism. Now on the the rest of the article.
“Abram fell face down, and God said to him, “As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations. No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations. . . . I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you” (Gn 17:3-5, 7).”
“Not long after, God solemnized this covenant with Abraham and his descendants in the sacrament of circumcision:”
The following is taken from the MacArthur study Bible; (not exact quote) “Although circumcision was not new at this time, it was not until now that the special religious, and theocratic significance had been applied to the practice of cutting away the male foreskin, which now identified the circumcised as belonging to the lineage of Abraham. The symbolism had to do with the need to cut away sin and be cleansed.”
What the article left out of the quote of Genesis is the part about the covenant itself; (underlined by me)
6“I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make nations of you, and kings will come forth from you. 7“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. 8“I will give to you and to your descendants after you, the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.” 9God said further to Abraham, “Now as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. 10“This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised. 11“And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you.
The act of circumcision was sign or outward symbol of the giving of the fruitfulness and the giving of the land of Canaan, and the dedication of the descendants of Abraham as belonging to God. It was not the covenant itself.
“In Genesis 17, God changes Abram’s name and institutes the sacrament of circumcision. “This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you” (Gn 17:911). Someone might say, But Abraham was circumcised after he believed, a point that Paul is anxious to affirm in Romans 4, and that is correct. Paul underscores the fact that Abraham was justified by grace alone through faith alone, not by circumcision. And yet, what did Abraham do with his children? They were circumcised on the eighth day. Why? Because they were heirs of the promise, children of the covenant.”
Romans 4:9 Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, “FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.” 10How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; 11and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, 12and 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.
13For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Yes the covenant of righteousness was passed on through Abraham and yes he (Abraham) circumcised his children. Not because it was the only way to pass on the covenant, but because God told him to, as we see in verse 11 -13 their righteousness came by faith not by circumcision, because circumcision was the sign not the covenant.
“However, if the accent falls on continuity (Old Testament promise, New Testament fulfillment), there would be no reason why the apostles should take great pains to argue for a covenantal theology that incorporates whole families rather than simply individuals.”
The best example of continuity is in Jesus himself. The Old Testament prophesy and the New Testament fulfillment. It is about salvation and how God now deals with us as individuals not as groups or families. Our salvation or the lack thereof is our own individual relationship with Jesus. No longer are we condemed or spared as a people or nation.
“But, of course, that is an argument from silence. In actual fact, the book of Acts provides us with explicit declarations of continuity. On the steps of the temple at Pentecost, Peter proclaimed, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far off-for all whom the Lord our God will call” (Acts 2:38,39)”
The call for repentance then baptism is clear in this passage, and how do you repent? You must admit sin and consciously turn away from it and to the saving grace of Jesus. How can you repent if you are unaware and unable to comprehend your sin as an infant. The simple answer is, you can’t.
“In spite of the fact that most candidates for baptism would have been adult converts (as would be the case in any place in which missionaries had just brought the Gospel), there are examples of “household baptisms.” In Acts 11:14, Peter tells how an angel had appeared to some men from Caesarea and announced to them that he would bring them the Good News: “He will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved.””
Here is where it get unfortunate, as scripture is chopped up and distorted.
Acts 11:11 “And behold, at that moment three men appeared at the house in which we were staying, having been sent to me from Caesarea. 12“The Spirit told me to go with them without misgivings. These six brethren also went with me and we entered the man’s house. 13“And he reported to us how he had seen the angel standing in his house, and saying, ‘Send to Joppa and have Simon, who is also called Peter, brought here; 14and he will 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 will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17“Therefore if God 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?” 18When 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.”
They were told to send for Peter so he could deliver the Gospel so that they might be saved after hearing and believing, as the following quote better demonstrates.
Permission to Quote: From Matthew Henry’s commentary.
Send for Peter, and he shall speak to thee, he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do (ch. 10:6, 32); but here it is, “He shall tell thee words whereby thou and thy house shall be saved (v. 14), and therefore it is of vast concern to thee, and will be of unspeakable advantage, to send for him.” Note, [1.] The words of the gospel are words whereby we may be saved, eternally saved; not merely by hearing them and reading them, but by believing and obeying them.
They set the salvation before us, and show us what it is; they open the way of salvation to us, and, if we follow the method prescribed us by them, we shall certainly be saved from wrath and the curse, and be for ever happy. [2.] Those that embrace the gospel of Christ will have salvation brought by it to their families: “Thou and all thy house shall be saved; thou and thy children shall be taken into covenant, and have the means of salvation; thy house shall be as welcome to the benefit of the salvation, upon their believing, as thou thyself, even the meanest servant thou hast. This day is salvation come to this house,”
As far as household baptisms are concerned you have to read the entire verse to understand what happened.
In Acts 16:3133 Paul and Silas are asked by their jailer “What must I do to be saved?” They reply, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved-you and your household.” As a result, “immediately he and all his family were baptized.”
You see the text in the article implies that all in the house were saved merely by the father hearing and being saved but that is not what is meant or what should be implied. As is the case with the next verse, the underlined parts were left out to get you to think that the father hears and everyone is saved and baptized, but when you read the entire verse you see that everyone was present at the presentation of the Gospel and all believed and were then taken and baptized.
Acts16:31 They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. 33And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household.
Matthew Henry even deals with the infants saying that they were put into a “fair way for salvation” they would be surrounded by believers and raised with believers so that they would have the opportunity to be saved when they would believe.
Permission to Quote: From Matthew Henry’s commentary.
Those of thy house that are infants shall be admitted into the “visible church” with thee, and thereby put into a “fair way” for salvation; those that are grown up shall have the means of salvation brought to them, and, be they ever so many, let them believe in Jesus Christ and they shall be saved; they are all welcome to Christ upon the same terms.”
Even in MacArthur’s commentary(exact quote) on Acts 16:31 and I quote “all of his family, servants, and guests who could comprehend the gospel and believe, heard the gospel and believed (see note on 11:14). This does not include infants.”
The note on 11:14 refers to those who were under Cornelius’ authority and care who could comprehend the gospel and believe. Again this does not include infants.
“But the New Testament has the same message. Paul assured the Corinthians that one believing parent sanctified the children: “Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy” (1 Cor 7:14).”
The previous passage is taken totally out of context, and is in fact only the last part of the verse. The verse is referring to marriage not salvation, the saved person should not leave and let the children be raised by the unbeliever. One believeing parent did sanctify the children but sanctification is not salvation.
1 Corinthians7:13 And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away. 14For 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.
“Those who deny infant baptism do not have a way of interpreting such passages, it seems to me, since the New Testament no less than the Old distinguishes between children of believers and the children of unbelievers.”
Sure it does, the covenant sign of circumcision was for Jewish males at birth as a symbol that they belonged to God. Baptism is for those who profess a faith in Jesus, as stated in scripture.
“Once one acknowledges this, the only question left is, “Why should we withhold from the children of believers the sacrament ordained by God in the New Testament if they received the corresponding sacrament in the Old?”
Because the children are not of the understanding of sin and repentance, and the Old Testament children did not have to make that distinction, circumcision was a sign not a profession.
“If our children are unregenerate pagans and must be treated as such until they “make a decision” or a public profession of faith, then surely they ought not to be given such a great mark of divine ownership.”
If you believe the bible you won’t impose that mark until they are aware of their sin and are able to repent.
“But if there is a difference between the “house of the wicked” and the “house of the righteous”-that is, between those who are unbelievers and those who wear the righteousness of Christ-then the sacrament no less applies to our children than it did to Abraham’s.”
Sure it does, it is a different sacrament with a different meaning.
Romans 2:25 For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law? 28For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.
Circumcision like Baptism is only of effect if you practice what you have outwardly shown.
“Nevertheless, for those who take it lightly or do not combine it with faith, there are inherent dangers in being baptized.
This is very true
1 Corinthians 7: 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.
Circumcision in the Old Testament like infant Baptism today can give a false sense of entitlement to the grace of salvation. If you were circumcised and did not follow the law you were doomed. If you are Baptized as a child and never get a real grasp on salvation you are equally as doomed.
Covenant children are more responsible than unbelievers, since they are heirs of the promise.
Children are unbelievers until they can understand repentance and sin, babies cannot do this.
In the covenant of grace, they are hidden from God’s wrath because the blood is on the doorpost and Christ’s righteousness covers their unrighteousness.
The blood is not on the door post of the unrepentant.
But if a covenant member spurns that blood and rejects the promise, he or she is no longer “under the blood” and will surely be swept away with all unbelievers in the day of God’s fury.
I believe this sounds like you can lose your salvation, which you can not.
Therefore, all baptized children of grace would do well to consider whether they have themselves turned from their own works as well as sins in order to be clothed and ruled by Christ’s righteousness.”
Again this is very true.
MacArthur’s commentary(exact quote) on Acts 16:31 and I quote “all of his family, servants, and guests who could comprehend the gospel and believe, heard the gospel and believed (see note on 11:14). This does not include infants.”
I want to stress that I am not against a child that understands what is happening being baptized, provided that child has been counseled by a pastor. Because to administer the sacrament of baptism without a fair understanding that the child is truly repentant is to drive home a sense of salvation that may not be there.
My Opinion 
Leave a comment