Infant Baptism — A Literature Review

Luke 18:15-17 (New International Version - UK)
The Little Children and Jesus
¹⁵ People were also bringing babies to Jesus to have him touch them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them.
¹⁶ But Jesus called the children to him and said, Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.
¹⁷ I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.

The Paedo-Baptist Argument

1. A Case for Infant Baptism by Rev. Scott J. Simmons
   This case mainly stands on the beliefs that (i) the New Covenant follows the same patterns as the Old Covenant and (ii) baptism is the Church's equivalent to Jewish circumcision, which is an external sign of a covenant of which the subject is already a participant. Following from these premises, it states that the credo-baptist proponents need to prove that there is a change in the covenantal structures, with respect to circumcision/baptism, between the Old Testament and the New. Simmons also provides these rebuttals for four common arguments against infant baptism:
   
   
   1. Objection: “Baptism is a sign of the faith already existing in the believer. It is an outward expression of an inward commitment. If that inward commitment is not present, the sign should not be given.”
      Such a theology of baptism is in many ways a man-centered theology. It invests the sign only with a meaning generating from an inward conversion, not God’s grace. The covenant signs are signs of the covenant of grace, not human commitment signs. As with circumcision, baptism is a sign of God’s faithfulness to His covenantal promises in Christ. He promises in the sacrament that He will save the believer. The flip side of this is that should the child never ratify the covenant with his faith, he will receive the curses of the covenant. Furthermore, covenantal signs are communal signs, not individual signs. Baptism does not symbolise one person’s commitment to God as much as it consecrates the person to God by virtue of being included within the covenant family, the family of believers.
   
   
   2. Objection: “Baptism symbolises union with Christ. This union with Christ is only achieved by faith; therefore, only believers should be baptised.”
      This is entirely correct, however, the conclusion that only believers are to be baptised does not follow from the premise. We must not confuse the sign with the thing signified. The sign symbolises union with Christ is given to the children of those who believe and have been united with Christ by faith. The children of believers are part of the covenant Christ has established with His people; therefore, the sign of the covenant is to be given to the children of believers.
   
   
   3. Objection: “In these passages, baptism symbolises purification from sins. This forgiveness and purification is only achieved by faith; therefore, only believers should be baptised.”
      Certainly it is true that baptism symbolises purification from sins (see also Tit. 3:5; Cor. 6:11), but the conclusion that only believers should be baptised is unwarranted; the sign is not to be confused with the thing signified. Children of believers are baptised in anticipation of the day when they will come to faith and receive purification from sins. Furthermore, this objection would also negate the validity of circumcision in the Old Testament. As stated before, circumcision in the Old Testament symbolised purification from sins and circumcision imagery was used to describe that inward “conversion” and consecration to serve and worship the living God. Yet circumcision was administered to infants; therefore, it is not inconsistent to baptise infants as well.
   
   
   4. Objection: “It is presupposed that those who are reading these passages were baptised as believers. Therefore, only believers should be baptised.”
      These letters were written to missionary churches, and the recipients were often the first generation of Christians in these churches, therefore, most of the leaders of these churches were baptised as adult. It is not surprising, therefore, that Paul would assume that the readers were baptised as adults. Since baptism is merely the New Testament expression of circumcision, any theological argument against baptism works equally well against circumcision. However, we have clear indication of the practice of infant circumcision. Therefore, credo-baptists ought to be extremely careful about how they question the practice of infant baptism, for many times they disallow the practice of infant circumcision on the same grounds.


2. Why We Baptize Babies (The Case for Infant Baptism) by Pastor Richard Bucher, Th.D
   Bucher makes a five-pronged argument.
   
   
   1. He considers Christ's command to baptise in Matthew 28:19 (“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” NIV) to be a command to baptise everyone, regardless of age. He appeals to the meaning of the term “all nations”.
   
   
   2. He claims that, because of inherited sin, babies are in need of forgiveness.
   
   
   3. Again, the idea that baptism is a New Testament continuation of circumcision is submitted.
   
   
   4. Bucher then argues that babies are capable of having a saving faith, and makes a logical argument from scripture that Jesus thought babies to be capable of the necessary belief. It is a miracle effected by the Holy Spirit, he says, that enables anyone—adult or infant—to believe. Bucher goes on to claim that “baptism is a special means of God's grace by which He gives faith, forgiveness, and salvation to the infant.”
   
   
   5. Finially, Bucher appeals to the practice of the early Church, explaining that the “fathers of the Church's first centuries speak of infant baptism as a universal custom.”


3. Case for Infant Baptism: The Historic Paedo-Baptist Position by R. C. Sproul
   A transcript of a radio discussion between John MacArthur and R. C. Sproul. Sproul bases his argument on the relationship between circumcision and baptism. He explains baptism as a sign and quotes Calvin: “that which a sign signifies in the Bible may be given before or after the sign is present.”
   

The Credo-Baptist Argument

1. Case for Believer's Baptism: The Credo Baptist Position by John MacArthur
   A transcript of a radio discussion between John MacArthur and R. C. Sproul. A digest of MacArthur's message follows.
   
   
   
   1. Infant baptism is not in Scripture. Scripture nowhere advocates, commands or records a single infant baptism. It is therefore impossible to directly prove or support this rite from the Bible.
   
   
   2. Infant baptism is not New Testament baptism. While the Bible is absolutely silent on the matter of infant baptism, it speaks clearly and repeatedly and precisely on the matter of adult believer’s baptism. Baptism was a ceremony in which a believer was placed into water and taken up out of that water as an outward sign of their salvation.
   
   
   3. Infant baptism is not a replacement sign for the Abrahamic sign of circumcision; scripture never makes such a connection. Nowhere does the New Testament ever say infant baptism replaces circumcision. Paedo-baptists, nonetheless, claim some inferential evidence connected to circumcision, without any specific statement of Scripture.
   
   
   4. Infant baptism is not consistent with the nature of the church. It leads confusion as to the identity of the church. Confusion stems from the failure to distinguish between the visible local church, including unbelievers, and the invisible universal church which is only believers. In fact, it is true that paedo-baptism strikes a serious blow against the doctrine of a regenerate church. Further confusion lies in the failure to differentiate clearly between what it means to be a little member of the Covenant, as a baby, and what it means to be a true child of God. Scripture teaches the true church is made up of only believers. That’s unlike Israel, so you can’t make a parallel.
   
   
   5. Infant baptism is not consistent with Reformational soteriology.
   
   
   
   


2. Infant Baptism by J. C. Bailey
   Bailey gives the following arguments:
   1. Infant baptism is not of divine origin.
   2. Infant baptism nullifies the law of God.
   3. Whole households were baptised only after the whole household believed.
   4. Luke 18:15-17 has nothing to do with baptism.
   5. Baptism is different than circumcision.