Infant Baptism and Divine Adoption
April 1st, 2008
(By Matt Waymeyer)
In paedobaptist teaching, baptism is seen as a mark of divine ownership, a sign and seal given to those who are God’s own possession. When an infant is baptized, not only does he enter God’s covenant family, but “his parents declare that their child belongs to God” (Daniel Doriani). In this way, baptism is considered a sign of initiation by which an infant is received into the church and “reckoned among God’s children” (John Calvin). As John Murray writes, infants who are baptized “are to be received as the children of God and treated accordingly.”
This idea that children of believers are automatically children of God provides part of the rationale for infant baptism. According to one paedobaptist, “The children of Christians are no less the sons of God than the parents, just as in the Old Testament,” and since “they are sons of God, who will forbid them baptism?” In this view, just as “the adoption of sons” belonged to infants in Old Testament Israel (Rom 9:4), it now belongs to infants in the New Testament Church, and therefore the latter should be baptized just as the former were circumcised.
Although it is true that baptism is a mark of divine ownership which should be given to those who are children of God, the practice of baptizing infants betrays a misunderstanding of the doctrine of divine adoption. Specifically, it ignores a significant point of discontinuity between corporate adoption in Old Testament Israel and individual adoption in the New Testament church.
In the Old Testament, the corporate adoption of the nation of Israel was such that individual Jews were considered sons of God regardless of whether they themselves were personally saved. In Deuteronomy 14:1–2, Yahweh said to Israel:
You are the sons of the Lord your God; you shall not cut yourselves nor shave your forehead for the sake of the dead. For you are a holy people to the Lord your God; and the Lord has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth (Deut 14:1–2).
God chose Israel, set His love upon her, and redeemed her out of slavery (Deut 7:6–8), and as a result He was a Father to her (Deut 32:6; cf. Exod 4:22; Mal 2:10). But not all Jews who were part of this adoption were in a right relationship with God. In fact, throughout the history of Old Testament Israel, most were not, but nonetheless they were still children of God in a corporate and non-salvific sense.
This corporate adoption of Old Testament Israel can be seen in the New Testament as well. In Romans 9:2–4, as the apostle Paul expresses his desire to see fellow Jews come to Christ, he describes the various privileges which belong to the nation of Israel:
I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption of sons and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises (Rom 9:2–4).
According to this passage, Israel enjoyed the status of being adopted as Yahweh’s children even though the nation was largely unbelieving. Under the Old Covenant, then, a Jew who was part of the covenant community could be considered a child of God even though he himself was unsaved and on his way to hell, in need of the very gospel that Paul proclaimed.
According to paedobaptists, the continuity between Old Testament Israel and the New Testament church requires us to baptize infants of believers. Regardless of their individual spiritual status, it is believed that they are children of God and therefore should be baptized as a mark of divine ownership just as infants were circumcised in the Old Testament.
Precisely where the paedobaptist sees continuity, however, Scripture indicates discontinuity, for under the New Covenant, only those who believe in Christ are children of God (Gal 4:5). The New Testament knows nothing of a corporate, non-salvific adoption of God’s people, but instead teaches an individual adoption unto eternal salvation (Eph 1:5).
For example, in Romans 8:15–17, the apostle Paul writes:
For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption of sons by which we cry out, “Abba! Father!” The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him (Rom 8:15–17).
As Greg Welty notes, in Old Testament Israel, adoption belonged even to those who were destined for condemnation (Rom 9:2–4), but under the New Covenant it belongs only to those are destined for glory (Rom 8:15–17).
This can also be seen in John 1:11–13, where the apostle John describes how the nation of Israel rejected her Messiah:
He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God (John 1:11–13).
According to this passage, nobody starts out as a child of God, regardless of his ancestry. An individual becomes a child of God not when he is born to Christian parents but rather when he believes in the name of Christ and is born again by the Holy Spirit. For this reason, unlike with the Old Covenant, everyone who is a child of God under the New Covenant has a right standing before Him and is eternally secure in Christ.
Baptism is indeed a mark of divine ownership, just as paedobaptists say it is. But as such, it should only be given to those who give evidence of having been redeemed and adopted by God as His children—those who profess repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Today’s article was adapted from chapter 5 of A Biblical Critique of Infant Baptism by Matt Waymeyer (The Woodlands, Tex: Kress Christian Publications, 2008), which can be purchased through Grace Books International.
We should not neglect, nor deny the corporate salvation of a people unto God under the New Testament. He is saving individuals, but those individuals comprise a glorious host who belong corporately to the entire Body of Christ. Yet, as NT believers, we should seek to strive for the purity and unity of the Church by being more discriminating in our Church membership, doing what we humanly can to imperfectly reflect Christ’s perfect Church.
I believe this strikes at the foundation of the peadobaptist fear of Divine company, or their perceived lack thereof SHOULD a child not be infant baptised. I was born into a Dutch Reformed home and it pleased the LORD by His Word through the Scriptures to convict my parents at my Infant Baptism to the fact that Baptism is a sign of an Individual who already professes themselves to Identifywith the death of self and the resurrection of the dead through Jesus the Christ. They then believed that the grace of God is extended to Infants and those who are unable to EXERCISE Faith in repentance, not by Human Works, but by the LORD Himself alone. As is exampled in the deaths of both of David’s sons in the Hebrew Scriptures, where David morned for his unrepentant older teenage son and yet praise dth eLORD and was relieved when his Infant baby boy passed on, who was born out of adultery.
I am personally convicted that this magnifies the grace and mercy of the Almighty, when we by prayer Trust Him unreservedly without adding any human works for the salvation of Infants and the Mentally Incapacitated. John MacArthur has written an excellent exposition of Scripture which is supprted by the Scripture and experiences of parents who have lost Infants, which I would recommed for us all to keep in stock to share with those who have been smitten in this area of sufering. Long may the saints procliam with the patriach Job:
Job 13:15
“Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him.”
My father has lost two sons and I can see what the LORD has done by giving him the comfort by the promise of His grace for one, but as to the elder son, I will not in this live know if he repented and trusted our Saviour. It is my hope that he had, yet, the LORD is just and righteouss and I will also trust in Him.
By Grace alone through Faith alone.
Safe in the Arms of God by John MacArthur
http://www.gty.org.uk/Products/Books/451146
Matt, I’m wondering if you think the determinant in this discussion is ecclesiological. That is, if we can all agree that the church is distinct from Israel, we should all be credobaptists. If we all agree that the church is the fulfillment of Israel, then we should all be paedobaptists.
Would you agree?
Mike,
Just to interject a question here. When you say “That is, if we can all agree that the church is distinct from Israel, we should all be credobaptists. If we all agree that the church is the fulfillment of Israel, then we should all be paedobaptists.”
Is what you meant, …the elect are distinct from national Israel… vs…the elect are the fulfillment of national Israel…
or
…the elect in the NT are distinct from the elect in the NT…vs…the elect in the NT are the fulfillment of the elect in the OT…
or
something else I’m not getting
or
am I complicating this too much??
Just wondering, the whole concept s you put it can be confusing for a mind like mine.
LoL… I think I mean option #2.
Basically, I’m asking if it’s true that (ecclesiological) dispensationalists should be baptists and (ecclesiological) covenentalists should be presbyterians.
Because if the church is distinct from Israel, more than just a passage from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant took place, so more than just a change in signs of the covenants took place. If the church is distinct from Israel, then the idea that “since the sign of circumcision was given to babies, the sign of baptism should be given to babies” isn’t logically necessary.
If, however, the church is Israel, or the fulfillment of Israel, then that argument holds a little water. At the very least, one would want to ask why it was done differently in the OT than it is in the NT, if it’s the same essence with a different form.
Any clearer?
Mike,
Yup, I think so.
I’ve never really reached a disp vs. cov. conclusion you might say.
Seems to me that if we are descendants of the promise (vis a vis Galatians) that is, Abraham descendants, then we’re sort of a fulfillment of the OT elect. (Does God have one elect or two?)
Seems to me also that some of the OT promises were directed to national Israel and some to the OT elect. (As in “not all Israel are Israel”)
I suppose the question would be, do cov. theologians call nation Israel the elect? or the elect among national Israel,the elect. Certainly we’re not the fulfillment of national Israel, and how can we be a separate group from the OT elect? (Hebrews hall of fame and all, seems to connect us)
By my understanding we’re all saved by the same sacrifice, some looking ahead, us looking back…ohhhhhhh Nellie, I should look into this more closely I guess…
In any case, since the Old Covenant really set up the new, I think it makes more sense to have a spiritual equivalent in the new, not a physical. (ie circumcision = circumcision of the heart) After all, pretty much all the other OT physical stuff was replaced with a spiritual reality. Correct?
(Just thinking out loud)
AHA!!! Hence…if national Israel just turned into the visible church, the whole thing seems to make sense. Get ‘em all marked and see how it all shakes out. On the other hand, if only the elect bits make the jump from OT to NT…keep the initiation for the real elect (as far as we are able to determine).
I think I get it…a little.
Thanks Mike.
As one who is trying to understand this elect business …
I think the Reformed folks believe the elect are individuals, pre-NT.
I’m seeing something written above that makes me think the Reformed folks maybe believe the OT elect were corporate, not individual? The nation of Israel as a group of people, not individuals?
So - a question: When did the elect vs. non-elect, regenerate vs. unregenerate - on an individual basis - start? After the death of Christ? With Adam and Eve, post fall? Pre-fall? Is there some disagreement on the answer to this within Reformed circles?
Oops.
Said: I think the Reformed folks believe the elect are individuals, pre-NT.
Meant: post-NT (from Christ’s death to the present).
Let me rephrase Rick’s question, or even change it a bit. Does infant baptism, with it’s focus on a rite of entry into the covenant which does not accompany actual regeneration, in effect diminish the concept of election, by making it a more corporate concept? Or, does circumcision cause confusion about what it means to be elect—leading to the eventual assumption that all Israel is indeed Israel?
I maintain that Israel the nation was elect, but not unto salvation. At the same time, true Israel in the OT was elect, and saved. I think Rick’s question is valid: in the case of pedo baptism, is the Reformed position that infants in the NT are elect in the same way that national Israel was elect in the OT? If so, what are they elected to? I’m looking for a pedo-baptist answer to that question.
Thanks,
Jesse
Richard,
I think the distinction is here:
The OT elect and the NT elect are basically the same, all saved by the work of Christ, them looking ahead, us looking back.
What happens with national Israel is that it’s equivalent becomes the visible church. So the claim is that the visible church is all the baptized people, some believers, some not, just as all Israel was circumcised and some believed and were saved, and some didn’t.
I don’t think there’s biblical grounds to say that the new covenant is made with non-believers and believers alike but others disagree. That’s in part how they justify infant baptism, just as the children of Jews in the OT we circumcised and therefore part of the covenant whether they believed or not, so the kids of Christian parents are baptized and therefore part of the covenant whether they believe or not…
Thanks for the response.
The OT elect and the NT elect are basically the same, all saved by the work of Christ, them looking ahead, us looking back.
I assume this means that OT elect were individuals, just as NT and post-NT elect are individuals. If this assumption is correct, then is it the Reformed position that Noah and Adam and Eve could be part of the elect (not “are they?”, but “could they be?”). Does the Reformed doctrine/theology allow this possibility?
Richard,
I’m relatively new to the reformed scene but from where I sit, since all are condemned via Adam’s sin, anyone saved must be saved because God has elected them to salvation…ergo, yes, if they are in heaven it’s because they are among the elect.
(And, for the record, I’d also say that yes, they are)
I think Jesse’s second paragraph answers Richard’s question.
All who will ever be saved were individually elected unto that salvation sovereignly by God before the foundation of the world.
But the distinction is that national Israel was God’s chosen (elect) people, but, as Jesse, said, not unto salvation. God elected to give to them the covenants, the adoption as sons, the giving of the Law, and the honor of being the nation by whom the Christ would come (according to the flesh) (see Rom 9:1ff). All of YHWH’s works throughout the OT were primarily done before Israel. So even if not every single one of them were saved (which is demonstrably the case), they still enjoyed the blessing of interacting with the God of the universe. So their non-salvific election as God’s people brought benefits in one sense. We must remember, though, that their condemnation for unbelief was only that much more just, as they had the revelation but refused to submit and believe.
The point I’m getting at is that there were promises made to Israel as a nation. So when much of the nation is unbelieving — especially now — how do we understand those promises? Do we decide that they just get transferred to the church? Or do we allegorize the entire Bible and say that they were always promised to the Church because when the OT said Israel it only meant true Israel (i.e., the elect unto salvation), and the Church is included in true Israel?
My position is that those promises made to national Israel will be fulfilled to national Israel via a mass conversion of Jews after the fullness of the Gentiles have come in (Rom 11) and through the establishment of Christ’s millennial kingdom for His people.
If my position is the right one, the covenant sign for national Israel (given to those who weren’t really part of the true Israel too) isn’t as linked to the new covenant sign for the church as the paedobaptists want to say it is. That is, there’s no logical necessity that says, “Since infants were circumcised, infants should be baptized.”
If, however, I’m wrong, and the church has been the intended recipients of the promises to true Israel all along, and it can be properly said that Abraham and Isaac and Jacob were in the Church, then we’ve all been the same people since the beginning. Then it would only make sense that our covenant signs be administered in similar fashion (i.e., to infants) without clear instruction to change the administration.
What do you think? Especially Matt and Jesse and Nate. Does ecclesiological dispensationalism necessarily require credobaptism? And does ecclesiological covenentalism necessarily require paedobaptism?
“If, however, I’m wrong, and the church has been the intended recipients of the promises to true Israel all along, and it can be properly said that Abraham and Isaac and Jacob were in the Church, then we’ve all been the same people since the beginning. Then it would only make sense that our covenant signs be administered in similar fashion (i.e., to infants) without clear instruction to change the administration.”
Mike, it may be worth reading an article on the OPC’s website regarding the nature of the church.
http://opc.org/cce/tracts/WhyInfantBaptism.html
This is from his first point:
Step #1. The church of the Old Testament and the church of the New Testament are, in essence, the same church. Kind of like a caterpillar and a butterfly, they’re very different in form, but they’re the same in essence.
Both have the same way of salvation. Romans 4:13—”It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith.”
Both look to the same Savior. Romans 3:20-26—”But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify…. in his forbearance [God] had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.” In Old Testament times, people were saved by trusting in the redeeming work that God would provide in Christ. Today, people are saved by trusting in the redeeming work that God has provided in Christ.
When Old Testament believers brought sacrifices in faith, they were trusting in the sacrifice that God would one day provide. Hebrews 10:1-14—”The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship…. it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins…. we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all…. when this priest [Jesus] had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God.”
Both are under the same covenant relationship. Galatians 3:7-29—”Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: ‘All nations will be blessed through you.’ So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith…. [Christ] redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit…. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”
Both are members of the same body. Ephesians 2:11-19�”Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves ‘the circumcision’ (that done in the body by the hands of men)—remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ…. Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household.”
Both are “branches” in the same olive tree, Romans 11:17-26. The apostle Paul declares that Israel as a whole was not disinherited, but that the unbelieving Jews were cut off from their own olive tree, and the Gentile branches grafted in their place; and he predicts a time when God will convert many Jews and graft them back into the same tree with the believing Gentiles.
Because the church of the Old Testament and the church of the New Testament are, in essence, the same church, they sometimes swap names.
On the one hand, the Bible calls Old Testament Israel “the church.” “Church” [ecclesia] is the New Testament Greek word for the Old Testament Hebrew “congregation” [qahal]. Compare Psalm 22:22 with Hebrews 2:12. Thus Stephen called the congregation of Israel at Mount Sinai “the church in the wilderness,” Acts 7:38.
On the other hand, the Bible calls the New Testament church “Israel,” Galatians 6:16. The apostle Peter applies rich Old Testament Israel terms to the New Testament church. 1 Peter 2:9—”you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession.” The apostle Paul describes all who rest in Christ alone as “the true circumcision,” Philippians 3:3. James calls a local church a “synagogue,” James 2:2. The “elders” of the New Testament Church are identical in name and function with those of the Old Testament synagogue.
So, the church of the Old Testament and the church of the New Testament are in essence the same church.
Mike,
I agree with you. There is no compelling reason for a someone who is premillinial to believe in infant baptism, although I have known some who try. I agree that the logic which leads to pedeo-baptism sets you up to see the Church and Israel as the same, and then to see the church at the recipients of Israel’s promises. Daniel’s quotes are helpful in crystallizing that.
I am still wondering though: in pedeo-baptism, what are baptized infants elected to? If Israel was elected to the promises, and then some were elected unto salvation, and the parallel is in the church/NT, what are baptized infants who never come to faith elected to? Does it in anyway parallel OT election?
Thanks,
Jesse
Jesse,
Thanks for answering.
You ask a good question. I’m not sure I can answer it, because I’m a futuristic premillennial credo-baptist who sees the church as distinct from Israel.
But I guess what they might say is that the same way unbelieving national Israel was privileged to be around the miracles of God, His revealing Himself, His working His grace in those who actually were his people, NT kids of believers enjoy the same good things in being around the church of God, etc.
However, then there’s an arbitrary line drawn between believers’ kids and people in general… since all people in our age interact with the Church of the living God, and see Him graciously work and reveal His glory. So yeah… I don’t know.
“However, then there’s an arbitrary line drawn between believers’ kids and people in general… since all people in our age interact with the Church of the living God, and see Him graciously work and reveal His glory. So yeah… I don’t know.”
I’m not sure you can make the statement “…all people in our age…see Him graciously work and reveal His glory.”
There are many parts in the U.S. where people have never heard the Gospel or have any interaction w/ the church, or have not seen any “fruit” or “work” of God through the church.
Also, your argument proves too much. If “in our age” people interact with the church in a way that no one else has in ages past, than how could the Apostle Paul then say:
As it is written: “God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.” (Romans 2:24). Surely, the Gentiles must have had quite some interaction to come to the point of blasphemy. But still, the children had greater privlidges than the people outside of the covenant did.
Just some thoughts.
Cordially,
Daniel
Ok… so maybe I should have said “All people in our age THAT interact with the church of God…” That certainly includes more than the children of believers.
And of course God’s name will be blasphemed. Just because His glory is revealed in His church among the nations doesn’t mean unbelievers see that for what it is. Not being able to truly appreciate God doesn’t undermine the fact that God reveals Himself clearly among men, and that’s an act of mercy — even if the people are blind.
Anyway… do you actually have an answer to Jesse’s question?
“Just because His glory is revealed in His church among the nations doesn’t mean unbelievers see that for what it is.”
Yes and no. The verse in Romans 2 is in the context of Gentiles blaspheming God BECAUSE of the Jews, not because God was doing great things through the Jews and the Gentiles just rejected what God was doing and saw it in a different light.
As far as Jesse’s question, they are in a special covenant relationship with God through their parents. This is not equated to being saved, but they are set apart and are “holy” (1 Cor. 7:14) and experience great blessings, just as the OT non-elect Jews did.