When to Baptize Your Kids
April 18th, 2008
Here at Grace Community Church, we are firmly committed to believers’ baptism — meaning that we do not see Scriptural precedent for the baptism of unbelievers, including infants. (We would agree with John Piper that if our covenantal brethren applied their reformed view of baptism/circumcision consistently, they too would abandon the practice of infant baptism. But that’s for another post — like the earlier series by Matt Waymeyer. Those who want to think through the baptism issue are also encouraged to listen to this debate, between John MacArthur and R.C. Sproul.)
As baptists, our church continually faces the question reflected in the title of this post: How old must a child be before he or she is ready to be baptized? This very question was asked in the comments section a couple days back, and it is an important one.
The Bible does not put an age requirement on baptism. But it does describe water baptism as a post-conversion act of identification with Christ. In Acts 2:38, Peter emphasized repentance as a corollary to baptism. In verse 41 of that same chapter, Luke records that it was “those who had received his word” that were baptized. Acts 16:34 indicates that the Philippian Jailer’s household believed before they were baptized. Colossians 2:11-12, 1 Peter 3:18-21, and other passages associate baptism with saving faith; and even the order of the Great Commission puts “making disciples” before “baptizing them” (Matt. 28:19).
Thus, without putting an age-requirement on baptism, the Bible indicates that a person must understand the gospel, repent of his or her sin, and savingly trust in Christ before being baptized. If water baptism is an external sign of genuine conversion, then genuine conversion must take place first.
At what point, then, is a child capable of understanding the gospel, repenting from sin, and savingly trusting in Christ? Again, Scripture gives no specific age limit. In our experience, however, we have found that most children do not really begin to objectively evaluate their own thoughts until they reach junior high. Before then, they usually feel little concern over the contradictory values to which they cling. Seldom during elementary years do they conscientiously think about and spiritually evaluate life’s demands independently of their parents.
This does not mean that all young children are incapable of committing the rest of their lives to Christ and being indwelt by the Holy Spirit. However, prior to adolescence, few children truly appreciate the significance of their separation from God, and few have sufficient mental sophistication to project far enough into the future to commit “the rest of their lives” to anything.
Although we do baptize eleven or twelve year olds from time to time at Grace Church, our children’s pastor spends enough time in conversation with them beforehand to settle any doubts he may have in two areas: (1) has the child actually rejected a worldly set of values in making his commitment to Christ? (2) can he project far enough into the future to make a lifelong commitment?
If these issues are resolved, we proceed to evaluate whether or not the child has an understanding of salvation by grace apart from works, and we seek verification from others that he or she demonstrates the fruit of the Spirit in everyday life. We believe a child who can meet these qualifications is ready to identify with Christ and His church through believer’s baptism.
The temptation for many parents is to rush their child’s baptism. Our elders here at Grace Church believe it is better to wait, and be absolutely convinced of a child’s conversion, than to baptize the child prematurely — and thereby potentially give an unsaved child a false sense of assurance.
What role does “examining ourselves” throughout our lives play in determining child baptism? If a child understands how to do this, and is encouraged to examine her/himself thoroughly prior to each time s/he takes communion, then perhaps the believing in the act instead of in Jesus can be avoided?
I think that Lisa bringing up communion adds a whole new dimension to thinking about when young believers should be baptized. If children usually do not “conscientiously think about and spiritually evaluate life’s demands independently of their parents,” what enables them to rightly judge themselves before communion? We are all familiar with Paul telling the Corinthians that some of them are sick and have died because they have not rightly judged themselves before communion. If a child is not able to be baptized because of their neurologic and mental development should they be allowed to partake in communion? Or asked another way, if a child is allowed to partake in communion, should they not be allowed to be baptized? After all, communion is meant only for believers.
Changing the subject slightly, I feel that the debate about how you can a believer be baptized is an artificial debate specific to this day and age. If we, as a church, faced the same persecution (i.e. torture and death) that they early church faced for naming the name of Christ, I don’t think that anyone would be baptized prematurely.
Good Post!
Luke 3:8 seems to establish a precedent that there should be evidence of conversion, and you have made the point that elders need to do what is reasonably and humanly possible to establish the fruits of conversion prior to performing anyone’s baptism. Could you (at some time) discuss the correlation between baptism and church membership? In some traditions, baptism (and even the Lord’s Supper) is disconnected from Church membership. How are the ordinances related to local church membership? FYI – I am writing from a Credo-Baptist/Covenantal perspective.
Great post. I really appreciate the links to Piper’s stuff and the debate between MacArthur and Sproul. About that, though… I’ve actually contacted the folks at Ligonier and asked them if they could make that debate available for mp3 download. No one really has a tape player anymore and mp3 downloads would probably lower the price and perhaps therefore increase demand. As I said, I’ve already tried. Do you guys think you might be able to drop them a line and put in a good word for that?
Thanks.
This seems logical and makes sense. However, there is no biblical precedent for it.
There is no biblical precedent for baptism being withheld until some proof of conversion occurred. The litmus test was outward belief.
When we withhold baptism, I wonder if what we are really saying is that faith is not enough, you must do something else, like conform externally. Thus, baptism becomes not something that seals God’s sovereign work of grace, but something we earn not with faith but with fruits of faith.
I could be wrong, and I recognize that. Yet, I see no precedent in the New Testament for a trial period of faith before baptism is administered.
We should just do what the Church did for 1500 years – have the parents speak for children in their home and baptize them as infants. This is an artifical problem created when one does not follow a biblical theology of baptism as the “circumcision of Christ” (Col 2:11) done in accordance with circumcision of the OT (Gen 17:8-12) that is renewed in the NT as a sign for believers “and their children” (Acts 2:39). The NT does not prohibit the waters of baptism from believer’s children and neither should any church.
If you withhold baptism in order not to give false assurance, aren’t you somehow indicating that for assurance we look to baptism?
It seems to me that the nature of this sacrament as baptism “into” Christ points us for assurance not to the sign and seal but to the things signed and sealed.
Whether it’s an 11 year old, a 16 year old, or a 70 year old, shouldn’t we be pointing them to Christ crucified, dead, and risen; God’s covenant faithfulness and power; the gift of the Holy Spirit whose role in our salvation it is to effect Romans 8. Baptism understood Biblically does these, and no one who looks to those things for assurance does so falsely!
This doesn’t just function for the converted, either. Even an unconverted six year old can be taught this by his baptism, perhaps becoming a converted six year old, but as the article said, that’s a point for another time and place
. I hope that all those who are putting it off to a later age, whether by conscience or for prudence, are yet continually teaching their littlest ones the significance of their prospective baptisms.
Steven,
I beg to differ; the litmus test has never been “outward belief” but inward conversion; each instance of NT baptism is predicated upon the conversion of the one being baptized. It must be remembered that in the NT accounts, it is God who is making the claim that the baptizee is a believer not the baptizee themselves or even the baptizer. Today we cannot know the condition of someone’s heart until the passage of time cf. Mt 13:18-23; MT 15: 11-18; therefore, the withholding of baptism for a group who may not, and in fact by and large do not, have the cognitive ability to understand their actions is appropriate for the very reasons stated in the article.
I also think your use of “outward belief” highlights the issue at hand in that “outward belief” is no belief at all and cannot exist. For a belief to be a belief it must be internalized else we become Pharisaical and hypocritically go through motions that are alien to the condition of the heart.
baptism as the “circumcision of Christ” (Col 2:11)
… Except the rest of the passage says, “having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God.” No faith, no baptism.
that is renewed in the NT as a sign for believers “and their children” (Acts 2:39).
… Except the rest of the verse says, “…and all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.” So, if we’re consistent with what you’ve just said, and we read the rest of the verse, we should just baptize everyone.
I’m not pretending that both sides don’t have good arguments and good rebuttals for each of these texts. The fact is, if they didn’t, there wouldn’t be the disagreement that there is over the issue. But let’s not pretend it is so black and white when we need to leave out verses in passages to make it seem that way.
Anyway, like the moderator said at the top of the post, the debate on the the meaning and mode of baptism isn’t the topic. See Matt’s series for that.
So people have to prove what’s in their hearts?
Who gets to judge who is really sincere? Doesn’t seem biblical at all. If someone says they trust Christ, and wants to be baptized, there should be no further discussion on the matter. The baptism is proof of their faith, not something to be withheld until they have convinced other people they really, truly, without a doubt, mean it.
I, along with Calvin and Warfield, find it curious that one can be “absolutely convinced” of anyone’s regeneration other than their own. You seem to be saying that we can know 100% beyond the shadow of a doubt who truly in their heart belongs to Christ. Am I missing something or is this simply semantics?
You said,
I guess my mentally retarded child would never be baptized in your church. Too bad. Thats ok though. He was baptized as a child in my PCA church when I finally and happily left the ranks of the credo-baptists.
My 4 other children were baptized as infants and I point them to their baptism to remind them that they have been set apart by God and belong to him.
Scott
Question: The Lord’s Supper is a post baptism thing correct? So children prior to that shouldn’t partake?
Any chance there are some resources on this part:
“(1) has the child actually rejected a worldly set of values in making his commitment to Christ? (2) can he project far enough into the future to make a lifelong commitment?”
I think this hits the nail on the head, but I think it is easier to say than to know how exactly to gain this knowledge. Just wondering if there are some books or links that have some good questions or thoughts.
In Gonazalez’s Story of Christianity, he says that in the NT churches new believers were sometimes taught for up to 2 years before being allowed to be baptized. That is really checking for “true” conversion. Imagine that done now… But I guess then you couldn’t sell millions of books to all of your new “converts.”
Thanks for the article Pulpit!
I was baptized as an infant into the Roman Catholic Church. I did not become a believer until I was 24 and then I choose to be baptized. I always have concerns when I see five to ten year olds being baptized who have to be told what to say as the Pastor asks them if they have repented and accepted Christ as Lord and Savior. How many people walking around today think they are saved because they were baptized as a child without repenting and receiving Christ as Lord and Savior? I was in Law enforcement for 29 years. I never put handcuffs on anybody under the age of ten or took them to jail for committing a crime. Why? Because every parent knows that a young child cannot fully comprehend the severity of the consequences of their actions. Why would that same child be able to understand their total depravity and a need for a Savior?
I have posted a lengthy response at
http://twosons.blogspot.com/2008/04/when-to-baptize-your-kids-response.html
Another element I think that is often overlooked in this debate is the relationship between Baptism and church membership, as well as baptism and church discipline. When a person is baptized, there should be no other roadblocks to them becoming members, and then also there should be no hesitation in the church discipline process.
In many other countries, especially Eastern Europe, many Baptist church’s won’t baptize someone until they are 18 for those exact reasons. They don’t want younger members (especially in congregational churches) and they don’t want to end up disciplining out a 10 year old.
I grant that their practice is not a model, but I do think it raises the point. Do parents who baptize their 8 year-olds realize they are exposing them discipline? Do churches that baptize 8-year-olds open them up to membership?
Jesse
Andy,
to frame the same question in perhaps pedo-baptist terms: if pedo-baptists only baptize believing adults (as opposed to non-believing adults) at what age would you refuse baptism to a child who does not express faith? Would you baptize a 10-year-old who was not professing faith, if his parents did? A 12-year-old? A 17-year-old?
Thanks,
Jesse
“The temptation for many parents is to rush their child’s baptism. Our elders here at Grace Church believe it is better to wait, and be absolutely convinced of a child’s conversion, than to baptize the child prematurely — and thereby potentially give an unsaved child a false sense of assurance.”
If I am not mistaken, according to reformed doctrine, each and every unsaved child was declared elect or non-elect in eternity past. So if any of them are baptized at the “wrong” time, the elect ones will still be in heaven and the non-elect ones will not be in heaven, right?
If I am not mistaken, an elect child having a false sense of assurance until he/she DOES in fact receive the new birth is still going to wind up safely in Heaven come what may, right?
Similarly, a non elect child who receives a false sense of assurance suffers no ill effect because there was
never even the slightest chance that this child would ever receive the new birth and believe, right?
Determinists believe that each and every person’s salvation or damnation was finally settled in eternity past. Do they not? This being true, it is a textbook example of cognitive dissonance for determinists to wring their hands over any non-elect person having or not having any kind of assurance false or otherwise because his non-electness is the overriding consideration.
I am not ashamed to say to any person at any time that Jesus suffered and died so that every person (them included)can see thier need to repent and savingly believe in Him.
That is the Gospel according to the scriptures. Jesus, Himself, said he came to save the world.
The determinist’s gospel, plainly stated, is:
Jesus died for relatively few people.
God picked these people in eternity past.
These people are going to believe and be saved REGARDLESS.
The overwhelming majority of mankind was not chosen to salvation by God in eternity past.
The not chosen ones can never place thier faith and trust in God for forgiveness and reconciliation.
In fact, God has chosen to withhold from them the ability to chose His mercy.
Jesus did not even die for thier sins.
They will certainly face God’s wrath for eternity.
Heaven or Hell was fixed for you long before you took your first little breath!
No wonder they are ashamed to just plainly admit that’s what they believe and immediately dive off into never ending rhetoric and prose that no plain thinking man can ever hope to find his way through.
You know, if that was my gospel, I think i’d go out and learn how to write reams and reams of circularly reasoned material to mask the heart of what I believed, too!
I have found that determinists, I guess for obivious reasons, shun a plain explanation of their beliefs by a simple example or statement.
Without exception, every determinist I talk with seriously recoils from their OWN gospel. That never ceases to amaze me. It’s exactly like politely showing a catholic the problems with the catholic doctrine of “The Superabundant Satisfaction of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Saints” and having the catholic person say, “OH! They don’t teach THAT at OUR church!” Sadly, they really do. And, sadly, the determinist’s “gospel” is only a “gospel” for a very, very few people. For the “passed over”, its a one way, non-cancellable ticket to eternal hell fire.
Determinists can not honestly say to anyone they meet, (even thier own children!) “Jesus died so that your sins can be forgiven and you can receive the gift of eternal life from God.”
May the day never come when I cannot tell a person (or my own child), “Jesus willingly sacrificed His life so you can be reconciled to your Maker and live eternally with Him!”
I honestly am sorry that determinists cannot. Even more bizarre, determinists loudly and at awesome length castigate all other Christians for adulterating the Gospel. Go figure.
Alan
My understanding (And I totally support the Elders at Grace Communit Church) is this:
1. Allow the child to “make a commitment” that they do not fully understand, then (Like what I did) they fall away from the Faith. They start to wonder if they actually ever where saved, then they question the validityof John 10 and subsequently the truth of Scripture. And I add, I am glad that the Spirit witheld me from “Believers” baptism as a 8-9 year old. Seen as I only came to true repentance and salvation by grace at age 26-27.
2. Protect and Shepherd the individual child sufficiently protecting them from making a false commitment of Faith. Leading them in the fear of the LORD and then “working out their salvation with fear and trembling”. After all the LORD knows that person who IS saved in their heart, and if it is a 10 year old who is “protected by his/her Elders” from commiting an error or sinning in partaking in the LORD’s Table, I am sure that the LORD will protect that Child and Elder. Yet, should we not be “erring on the side of caution” very litterally in these instances, would we not be tempting the LORD and giving occasion to the Devil to deceive the Child in relation to their salvation? Would we whose “heart is desperately wicked and deceiptful” be wise in our own opinions? Or would we trust the LORD and commit to Him in what He is able to safeguard the Child and Elder who walk in His fear?
I would sooner that my child be TRULY convicted by the Spirit of sin, God’s righteousness and th coming judgment, than allow them to be self deceived and fall away from the Faith. Yet, partaking of the LORD’s Table is a solemn act of reverence and worship in Close Communion and Baptism is a Public Declaration and an act of Solemn worship, where the Fear and Reverance of the LORD is to be displayed. It is NEVER to be done lightly and we would do well to protect ourselves and our children from “Taking the name of the LORD in vain” by doing anything based on emotions or impulse.
After all the LORD taught us to calculate like a King at war and like a Builder before construction the COST of Following after Him. (Luke 14:25-35)
We are REQUIRED to ensure we have made an informed calculated LIFE Commitment to Forsake ALL to follow after Christ, THIS IS THE SINGLE MOST SOLEMN act of our or our children’s lives which then flows out into Baptism and Communion aswell as Membership.
It does not need to EXCLUDE the person from Worship, Service and receiving MINISTRY, but it does regard the relationship between LORD and the person with immense responsibilities.
Though we have seen evidence of Christ in our teen boys (they made a profession of faith at ages 5 and 6), the day they make the decision to be baptized is the day they will take their first communion. That is our preference because we feel, even though they have professed to know God with their lips and there is evidence in their life, they must first take the steps to be baptized (a public profession of repentance and faith) before they partake of the seriousness of the Lord’s Supper wherein they have a faith that confesses, discerns, remembers, and proclaims the body of Christ while partaking. All of these things boil down to obedience and submission to God’s command out of love for the one who mercifully and willingly not only sacrificed His life but rose again.
Good topic. I’d offer a few more thoughts on this tough issue–
First, it seems evident that parents ought to teach their children to be baptized and not merely wait for a spontaneous movement on their part. Baptism is the Lord’s command, and children shouldn’t think being a Christian is an option.
Second, I’m concerned about the parent who passes the cup in front of their professing child and tells them to wait year after year for baptism. They tell them not to worry, because, after all, “It doesn’t do anything.” It seems their parents shouldn’t be surprised when they find out it actually doesn’t do anything for their children. And what are you telling your kids if you continually pass the cup in front of them because “something bad might happen, and we must protect you.” Protect them from communion? That’s just not right. I’m pretty sure Paul meant to get the church practicing communion aright in 1 Cor by referring to judgment. He was not trying to discourage the partaking of it by sections of the church.
Now some say that children cannot rightly partake of communion because they can’t discern the body. But I think holy things were practiced among God’s people and their children before communion. Did all the children in Israel understand the full significance of the feasts? If some slouch was performing the feast in an ungodly manner, does that mean the children necessarily would be too?
Third, I just want to respond to Jesse who mentioned “exposing discipline and membership” to children. You made it sound a bit like discipline and membership are something only adults can handle. Discipline is a good thing for kids, is it not? Kids are goofy, but not necessarily unrepentant. I’m trust you didn’t mean this, but that’s the way it came across.
I appreciate your raising this important topic. Thanks.
After reading all the comments I’m surprised no one has mentioned the purity of the church. It is the responsibility of the elders of the church to maintain purity in the church. Therefore to recklessly baptize and admit people into membership who are not truly saved (as far as any human can tell) would be to disregard this vital role of eldership.
Someone pointed out that this discussion is pertinent in our day, and wouldn’t have been in the 1st century because no one in that day would have subjected themselves to baptism because of the forthcoming persecution. This is one of the main issues that I think often gets overlooked.
Our American “church” is filled with, shall we say, Half-Way Covenant type believers. People who are associated to Christianity by the faith of their parents, grandparents, family, friends, etc. Thanks to the church growth movement, it is even more filled with masses of people who are unconverted, but are going to church to have their needs met according to the surveys they filled out. Therefore when the rare church that wants to actually teach and follow Scripture is baptizing and admitting members, there is a need for more scrutiny because of the massive sense of false “believers” that sit in the sanctuary.
We all know of the Barna surveys that show a huge percentage of people claiming to be Christian, but the clear evidence by their responses to other questions that they have no idea what Christianity is. Simple belief in Jesus in our culture doesn’t mean anything. We must be more discerning and careful, lest we dilute the Body of Christ with unbelievers.
To the few of you speaking of infant baptism, go read the series from a week or two ago on that subject. No need to hash it all out again here.
Alan, you said:
“May the day never come when I cannot tell a person (or my own child), “Jesus willingly sacrificed His life so you can be reconciled to your Maker and live eternally with Him!””
Where does this type of gospel presentation appear in Scripture? Wouldn’t it be better to model our call to salvation after the apostles who never used such terms, but instead demanded repentence for their sin? Your presentation is based on an emotional appeal (He did this, so you must do this), which is far different than You’re a sinner and under the wrath of God. You need to repent and be reconciled to God, which is only possible because of the blood Jesus shed to save sinners. Indeed response to the gospel should at some level be emotional, but it should be remorse over sin, not simply a “love” response to what Jesus did (though that does indeed play a part).
By the way, “be absolutely convinced of a child’s conversion” does not mean that we, as humans, can know the true heart of others with regard to their spiritual state. However, in the same way that we can be convinced of the salvation of others like Pastor John, John Piper, others that we know intimately, there is a measure of certainty that we can have of a child’s conversion.
Parents especially know their children better than anyone. As parents we see the good, bad, and ugly of our children and when there is marked change… it doesn’t go unnoticed. I have seen my three year old son change dramatically from being utterly rebellious, throwing unbelievable fits, etc., to being much more obedient (though not perfect) and more responsive to us as parents. In this case it was our parenting and discipline strategy that made the difference.
But if we can detect drastic change in outward behavior (while still seeing the inward heart appear on a daily basis), surely at some point, Lord willing, we will be able to detect a heart transformation, however imperfectly.
No one here would say that we can ever know with divine certainty, but we can examine fruit and use that criteria that Jesus gave to help us sift through the chaff.
I appreciated this statement: “Here at Grace Community Church, we are firmly committed to believers’ baptism — meaning that we do not see Scriptural precedent for the baptism of unbelievers, including infants.” What a clear description of padeobaptism, which really amounts to the baptism of unbelievers.
Jared,
You might wish to examine what the church did for 1500 years… A careful reading of church history shows that it was not unusual for so-called novices to be catechized for as many as three years before being admitted into the church through visible water baptism. Whether we agree with such a lengthy “baptism class” or not, it would seem to militate against your broad brush assumption and eisegetical (as opposed to exegetical) labors that this was the case. Also, one notes that so many of the ancient churches has baptism pools.
You would do well to listen to the MacArthur-Sproul debate because John MacArthur asks R.C. Sproul to make his case only from Scripture, which R.C. acknowledges is not possible. The verses you have pulled from context and parsed do not apply as you have attempted to apply them.
Infant baptism is a hang-over from Romanism. Luther and Calvin started the Reformation, lets finish.
Well, if having FAITH is the determinant for baptism, whence comes faith? Is it not the free gift of God, unearned in any way by us who may/n’t have it? And at what point in my life do I get this faith? MY bible tells me I’ve been given it since before the world was made. To be sure, there was a point in time when I, in my foolishness, realised I’d been given this gift, my name having been writ in the Lamb’s Book before this earth was formed. Now, had I been baptised before that point in time I realised this, or after, what matters the timing? Have any of you ever known someone to be baptised as an adult “believer” then later turn and forsake following after Chrust? Sorry, we are promised there will be tares sown amongst the wheat, and not to fuss over it. Not in our job description, but that of the Lord of the Harvest. I am never to judge whether any other person is/n’t “in the faith”. However, I can, and must, deal with what is obviously sin in myself and my bretheren.
One thought struck me solidly as I read the post, and many of the responses: this entire set of premises being put forward here hangs upon a principle of the individual determining for himself (though at times with the “help” of parents/elders) whether he is “worthy” to receive baptism, a decidedly individualistic situation. This sort of distinctive, that of a strong individualist view, is also foundational to baptistic thinking and theology. However, when one begins to study seriously the implicatioins of COVENANT, that individualism tends to fade away in favour of the larger family/community model. At which point the foundations of our two sacraments found in the older testament take on rather a different meaning, depth, and impact. No longer is the emphasis on whether the children UNDERSTAND the significance of the sacrificial lamb, slavery to sin, er, excuse me, Egypt, being baptised in the Red Sea and brought into the Promised Land. The determinant factor is now in WHOSE HOUSEHOLD one presently is. The practice, outlined to Moses, was that the ENTIRE HOUSEHOLD (visitors from foreign lands, distant relatives, servants/slaves, overnight guests, children of any and all of the above people, were to partake in the covanant meal, the Seder. When was Abraham circumcised relative to his believing, and who else was circumcised at that same time? Was Ishmael circumcised, and did he persist in walking uprightly as the Seed of Abraham? Do we know for certain that EVERYONE else besides Abraham circumcised as part of his household continued on in the covenant? When one considers the place that both circumcision and the Lord’s Table held in Jewish life at the time of Jesus and the first century church, had these two, as they changed into the two sacraments observed by the church, now suddenly EXCLUDED children, rest assured there would have been VERY SPECIFIC instructions in this regard, with explanation. The Jews had enough trouble with the twin concepts of believers NOT being required to suffer circumsicion, and with gentiles being brought in in large numbers. Had they also been required to withhold these two covenant signs from their CHILDREN, it surely wouuld have been a major issue, dealt with by the apostles. Instead, we see total silence.
And as to the idea of a long term of cetechesis, can anyone show how long the three thousand that heard Peter preach on Pentecost were catechised before their baptism? OR those in the house of Cornelius, who had alraedy received the Spirit? You lot go far to imagine things into the texts we have, and thence bring conclusions based upon your imaginings. You claim the lack of clear record of specific infants being baptised as “proof” it was never done. I will put forth the claim that the lack of specific record infants were NOT baptised is proof things continued as they had for four thousand years, and that children were INCLUDED in the covenant from the earliest days of the church. It was not until much later the long catechetical sessions, delayed baptisms, the practice (far from universal) of exclluding children, came along. Some claim infant baptism to be a Romish concept. Simply not so. Eastern Orthodox, coptic, syrochaldean, Byzantine (none of which are “of Rome”, all of which trace direct “apostolic succession”) have held to infant baptism from earliest times.
You lot tend to play the burly guard at the gate, carefully inspecting everyone desiring to enter, and often (just like our TSA at the airports) upon rather unsound premises). Let them in. Let them taste and see, up close and personal, that the Lord is indeed good. But, please, maintain a sufficient staff of burly bouncers inside the gates, so that dangerous and unruly sorts will be removed when appropriate. The work of the pastors and teachers is to rightly handle the word, thus feeding the flock of God under them. Far less “fruit inspecting” is needed. For such to take upon themselves the role of deciding who is “in” and who is “out”, and upon what basis, is to take upon themselves more than they ought. Who was it said “allow the little children to come unto Me”?
Alan, thanks for summing up so nicely why this debate about what age to baptize children is so confusing. I am, however, what you would label a determinist. I don’t recoil from any of what you listed, because Scripture plainly teaches election.
But you are right about one thing. The age at which God’s elect become baptized is irrelevant if you believe that nothing can prevent their salvation. And similarly, it is of no consequence if a non-elect child receives baptism, except perhaps to bring harsher judgment on him or her come judgment day. Now, if that is the argument being made against baptizing a child before adolescence, I would agree wholeheartedly.
But if you believe in election, then I have a hard time understanding why there should be any concern about baptizing an elect child “before the proper age.”
Keith,
I think if you go back to that debate you will NOT hear Sproul tell you that infant baptism is not in Scripure. That’s a little over the top, to say the least.
Andy,
If you read Keith’s comment carefully, you’ll see that he said, “MacArthur asks R.C. Sproul to make his case only from Scripture, which R.C. acknowledges is not possible.”
What that means is you have to use a theological system to tie things from Scripture together to get at infant baptism. Of course Scripture is used to defend that system, but not Scripture alone… you have to use a particular system of theology that associates baptism with circumcision which Scripture does not do.
Gabriel,
Thanks for the clarification. In other words, the hermeneutics we practice that give us doctrines like the Trinity and the two natures of Christ are the same ones that give us infant baptism!
Or perhaps I should note that someone like Keith, and perhaps yourself, use a theological system when interpreting scripture that severs God’s work in the New Testament from God’s work in the OT. I am not against the notion that I make use of a theological system to arrive at infant baptism as long as my baptist brothers will admit that they do the exact same thing.
Andy,
Actually, that’s not correct. Doctrines such as the Trinity and two natures of Christ are arrived at from Scripture alone.
It’s one thing to say “the Bible attributes deity to God, Father, Jesus, and Holy Spirit”… perhaps there is a correlation” and “the Bible says Jesus is God, and it also says Jesus is a man… hmmmm”.
It’s a completely different thing to say, “God told Abraham and his descendents to circumsize baby boys on the eigth day. Jesus told his disciples to make disciples, baptizing them [after they are a disciple], etc. What Jesus really meant was baptize the babies of believers and make them disciples when they are old enough.”
I realize that is an over simplification, so forgive me for that… but do you not see a difference?
As far as theological systems, yes, we all have them. But our goal should be to confirm the system through studying Scripture, not confirm doctrine through the system-filtered study of Scripture.
Of course we all are guilty of doing this at one point or another, so we ought always be open to re-examining what we believe based on Scripture alone, not a system, and be willing to adjust our system if it doesn’t fit with the explicit teaching of Scripture.
I think we should do it when the Bible says to do it…that seems logical to me! Here is a link from a former Baptist I found interesting on this subject. http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/MyRetraction.htm
Ok, so if MacArthur asks Sproul to make a case from Scripture alone for infant baptism, let’s turn the table. Make a case from Scripture alone that says you can’t baptize someone under the age of 12 or whatever age limit you put on it. There is no evidence scripturally speaking to this end.
I love the believer’s baptism proponent that says infant baptism isn’t scriptural, but then they put non-scriptural limitations on who gets baptized. ironic, isn’t it?? What God has not forbidden, we must not either.
How can you really tell someone is truly converted anyways? Seriously, we have our questions we ask, but can you ever really know? how many questions was Cornelius asked about his faith before baptism? those in his household? Inevitably baptists baptized just as many reprobates as presbyterians do, but in the presby view of things, that’s how it’s suppose to work. The wheat and tares will grow up together and be separated at the end.
George you may want to avoid using the wheat and tares concept… the tares are sown by the enemy.
That aside, surely you see the difference between the baptismal doctrine debate and this article. Grace is not intending to establish dogma on the appropriate age for baptism. They simply are trying to use wisdom and discernment in how to practice the of believer’s baptism with children who, in today’s churches, are so often self-deceived at an early age.
I’m guessing you haven’t read the previous comments about our determination of others’ conversion. If you haven’t yet, read through the comments.
Hadassah,
You said, “But if you believe in election, then I have a hard time understanding why there should be any concern about baptizing an elect child “before the proper age.””
Baptism does not effect whether or not one is saved or will be saved. Baptism is an act of obedience to Christ’s command. As such, an elect child should not be baptized for any other reason than as a profession of the faith that that child has in Christ. It is not a matter of age. There is no age at which a person should be baptized. When we are saved we are baptized as an act of obedience to Christ. Therefore, baptism should not be administered upon anyone who does not have that purpose.
George,
You said, “Make a case from Scripture alone that says you can’t baptize someone under the age of 12 or whatever age limit you put on it.”
I think your argument borders on being a strawman. No one hear (to my understanding) has said that baptism cannot be administered “until a certain age.” Age is not the precondition, salvation is the precondition.
After reading Alan’s comment posted earlier, I think it is necessary to point out the differences between determinism and the reformed doctrine of election and limited atonement. I will not give my own opinion on this issue, but here are some words on this issue from Wayne Grudem’s “Systematic Theology” that pretty much state what I believe.
“It would be helpful first to list the points on which both sides (reformed and non-reformed) agree:
1. Not all will be saved.
2. A free offer of the gospel can rightly be made to every person ever born. It is completely true that “whoever will” may come to Christ for salvation, and no one who comes to him will be turned away. This free offer of the gospel is extended in good faith to every person.
3. All agree that Christ’s death in itself, because he is the infinite Son of God, has infinite merit and is in itself sufficient to pay the penalty of the sins of as many or as few as the Father and the Son decreed. The question is not about the intrinsic merits of Christ’s sufferings and death, but about the number of people for whom the Father and the Son thought Christ’s death to be sufficient payment at the time Christ died.
Beyond these points of agreement, however, a difference remains concerning the following question: “When Christ died, did he actually pay the penalty only for the sins of those who would believe in him, or for the sins of every person who ever lived?” On this question it seems that those who hold to particular redemption have stronger arguments on their side. First, an important point that is not generally answered by advocates of the general redemption view is that people who are eternally condemned to hell suffer the penalty for all of their own sins, and therefore their penalty could not have been fully taken by Christ. Those who hold the general redemption view sometimes answer that people suffer in hell because of the sin of rejecting Christ, even though their other sins were paid for. But this is hardly a satisfactory position, for (1) some have never rejected Christ because they have never heard of him, and (2) the emphasis of Scripture when it speaks of eternal punishment is not on the fact that the people suffer because they have rejected Christ, but on the fact that they suffer because of their own sins in this life (see Rom. 5:6-8, 13-16, et al.).
Another significant point in favor of particular redemption is the fact that Christ completely earned our salvation, paying the penalty for all our sins. He did not just redeem us potentially, but actually redeemed us as individuals whom he loved.
The statement “Christ died for his people only” can be understood to mean that “Christ died to actually pay the penalty for all the sins of his people only.” In that sense it is true. But when non-Reformed people hear the sentence “Christ died for his people only,” they often hear in it, “Christ died so that he could make the gospel available only to a chosen few,” and they are troubled over what they see as a real threat to the free offer of the gospel to every person…On the other hand, the sentence, “Christ died for all people,” is true if it means, “Christ died to make salvation available to all people” or if it means, “Christ died to bring the free offer of the gospel to all people.” In fact, this is the kind of language Scripture itself uses in passages like John 6:51; 1 Tim. 2:6; and 1 John 2:2.”
So we see from Grudem that the free offer of the gospel is available to all people, but only some have had their sins taken by Christ.
Daniel Chasey,
I just want to take issue with one point you made. You dismissed the wheat and the tares argument out of hand. It’s true that the enemy sows the tares, but I believe the parable was being used to illustrate how difficult it is to discern true saving faith from a non-saving faith. And then you said the condition of baptism at Grace is salvation. That sounds nice, but wouldn’t it be more accurate to say a credible profession is what is required. My brother-in-law was baptized at Grace, and there was very little investigation done regarding his life. They took him at his word. I certainly wouldn’t have characterized the requirement as “salvation.” I am sure the person who interviewed him had never met him before.
It just seems that the language Baptists should be using is something like “credible profession” instead of “regeneration” or “true conversion.” It means that we want to make sure the person isn’t getting baptized to impress their girlfriend, but they really want to be a Christian. To suggest that the churches use regeneration, or salvation, as a test of baptism doesn’t reflect (to my knowledge) the practice of Grace, my own baptistic church, or any baptistic church I’ve been a part of.
Someone pointed out that the early church had a lengthy period of catechism before the person was typically baptized. I would argue that this had more to do with the concern that the person didn’t truly understand the gospel worldview, not that they were requiring a probation period. I think this is the very same dynamic New Tribes has attempted to address in their missions work. Missionaries were coming into town, converting many people, but the work was superficial because the “converts” weren’t really converted. They kept 90% of their paganism. To respond to this, the missionaries labored with the people for some time, instructing them to make sure they knew what the Christian worldview really was. Most of the immediate converts early in Acts are already Jewish, or committed to the Jewish worldview.
Devin,
I think you are confusing someone else’s comment with mine. I agree that there is really no way that we can know for sure if someone else is saved. We can have a reasonable assumption, but we cannot know for sure. So in that sense yes, baptism is based upon a believable profession of faith. Someone who does not profess faith should most certainly not be baptized because the lack of a profession would show a lack of faith. A profession can be a false profession, but no profession is a sure sign of no faith.
Sorry Daniel. You’re right. Gabriel made the comment about the wheat and the tares. Blessings.
I understand the logical, rational, human concern over validating a child’s faith before baptism; however, if we teach that:
* baptism is an act of obedience to faith in Christ
* baptism is commanded
* baptism always followed repentence in the Scriptures (there were no delays of months or years; there were no pastoral committees to determine whether someone’s faith was genuine; there were no other prerequisites)
* baptism is an outward SIGN of the inward conversion and has no saving power in and of itself
* baptism is an identification with Christ
…then why do we then teach children – after having understood the gospel clearly enough to repent from sin and embrace Christ as their Savior – that they must wait to obey the very one they just submitted their lives to? Why do we impose additional, legalistic, “logical, rational, humanistic,” unbiblical requirements? Don’t we contradict ourselves by such actions? If we have confirmed that their minds and their hearts understand the gospel, then why do we want to set them on a course of delayed obedience? Why do we want them to NOT identify themselves with Christ after having just admitting to crucifying themselves with Christ? Why do we want to observe fruit in their lives (aka obedience to the word of God) before we want them to obey in baptism? Isn’t baptism the first logical fruit to be observed? If they deny Christ before others and choose not to be baptized, then perhaps their “salvation” wasn’t genuine to begin with, in which case we go back and continue to present the gospel to them until they make a clear profession and choose to be identified with Christ in baptism. In other words, baptism itself is the first fruit of obedience; it is the clear public confession of their sin and their need and acceptance of a Savior!
I’m all for ensuring that the child (or believer of any age) makes a confession on their own (not coerced) based on their knowledge of God, Christ, man, sin, heaven, hell, etc. and based on the Spirit’s conviction of their hearts. Let’s not let them make a profession that is lacking clarity and then proceed to baptism – that’s clearly the time to delineate any uncertainties! But I can’t find any scriptural justification for encouraging a true believer of any age to delay obedience to God’s commands. Instead, I find dire warnings for anyone who wants to ignore or interfere with God’s commands – either personally or in the lives of others! Just as clearly as we teach children the gospel, so we should also teach them (and continue to teach them) that the waters of baptism don’t save them. So also should we teach them of the perseverence of the saints. These doctrines should help them understand as they grow in the Lord that baptism is not to be understood as an assurance of salvation, but that salvation along with sanctification will prove one’s faith.