Baptism should not be repeated any more than circumcision.
—
Jesus is the Word. He’s the Preacher. He’s also the Baptizer.
—
“….so shall he sprinkle many nations….”
– Isaiah 52:15
“…..make disciples of all nations, baptizing them…..”
– Matthew 28:19
It’s pretty easy to figure out the proper mode of baptism if we read the Bible carefully and comprehensively, making obvious connections.
—
In the OT, circumcision was a seal of the righteousness that comes by faith (Romans 4:11). In other words, circumcision was a seal of justification by faith.
But the link between circumcision and faith did not preclude its application to infants. Why? Because infants were always regarded as believers in the old covenant. See, for example, Psalm 22:9-10, where David expresses the faith he had even in infancy. David had a relationship with God from the womb. This was normative; every Israelite sang about it when he sang Psalm 22.
The same can be said of baptism in the new covenant. Yes, baptism is linked to faith, just as circumcision was linked to faith. But this does not mean baptism should not be given to our children. Jesus treated covenant children as believers (Matt. 18:3-6; note Jesus not only calls attention to the humility of these children, but their faith as well). Paul says Timothy was a believer from infancy (2 Tim. 3:15). Paul commands us to sing psalms – including Psalm 22. Covenant children are to be raised in the Lord, according to Ephesians 6, which makes no sense unless they actually in the Lord. There are still “natural” branches (children) growing on the tree of the covenant (Rom. 11). And so on.
The is just what we would expect, given the prophecies of the new covenant. The promise of the new covenant in Jeremiah indicates the covenant will still be with “houses,”not just individuals (Jer. 31:31). The house of Israel would be expanded to include Gentiles in God’s Israel. But it would not exclude children; indeed, houses always include children. We also know explicitly children would continue to be included since the covenant is with “the least of them” (31:34). Jesus was blessing “the least of these” with the blessings of the new covenant in Matthew 19.
Paedocircumcision and paedofaith went together in the old covenant. Paedobaptism and paedofaith continue to go together in the new covenant.
—
All Israelite children received a Levitical washing at birth
That washing, like the other water rituals, river and sea crossings, etc., of the old covenant were typological foreshadowing of baptism
The Bible is not just a collection of prooftexts, it’s the unfolding story of God’s redemptive plan – we must learn to read the story
Then you’ll have all the prooftexts you need for infant baptism, baptism as covenant sign, etc.
Old covenant infant washings/baptisms are obvious from Leviticus, especially when read in conjunction with Hebrews
Under Levitical law, a woman becomes unclean any time she gives birth or menstruates, and when she is unclean, everyone she touches becomes unclean too
That uncleanness is dealt with by a washing, per Leviticus 15
The book of Hebrews calls all the Levitical washings “baptisms” (and note that NONE of those washings were performed by immersion)
You can probably figure it out from there
By the time new covenant baptism in the Triune name was established, God’s people had been washing babies with Levitical baptisms for centuries
—
The book of Hebrews makes it clear that for biblical authors, “baptismos” is most certainly not immersion
There were many old covenant baptisms
None were by immersion
—
The Israelites were baptized as they crossed through the Red Sea
Like all baptisms in Scripture, the water came from above
The glory cloud poured out water upon them
Interestingly, the Egyptians were not the ones baptized but they did get immersed
Psalm 77:17
[17] The clouds poured out water;
the skies gave forth thunder;
your arrows flashed on every side.
—
The answer to nominalism is church discipline
—
Where I live there are plenty of nominal Baptists
Rejecting paedobaptism did not purify the church
—
Why would I baptize babies if I thought they were not sinful?
Infant baptism presupposes original sin and makes no sense without it
—
Do you think all children who die in the womb go to hell? On Baptist principles, why not?
—
Baptism is God’s gift and God’s work
—
Infant baptisms under the old covenant are an obvious implication of the uncleanness system. Infants would receive Levitical washings (e.g., Lev. 15).
Ezekiel 16:4 would be an example of this.
The many Levitical washings for uncleanness are all fulfilled in the one washing of Christian baptism.
—
On Turretin and paedofaith:
I interacted with Turretin a bit in my book. My disagreement with him is not sharp — we have plenty of overlap with each other — though I think (like many scholastics), he parses things a bit too finely. I appreciate what he says about infant regeneration, but I do not think he does full justice to either the Lutheran position or even Calvin’s position. It’s noteworthy that Turretin’s discussion does not take up Psalm 22 — a problematic oversight. Also, I think he’s wrong about the meaning of “brephos.” The term refers specifically to unborn or newly born infants.
Ursinus, in his commentary on the Heidelberg, gives a slightly different take:
“And should any one reply, and say that infants do not desire the Holy Ghost, and yet receive him, so that he must be given to more than those who ask and desire, we answer that the Holy Ghost is not given to any except such as desire him, which is to say, to adults who are capable of asking and seeking him. And yet even infants desire the Holy Ghost after their manner, in that they have in possibility an inclination to seek him just as they according to their manner believe, or have an inclination to faith. “Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength.” (Ps. 8:2.)
Thomas Manton on infant faith:
“As they are called rational before they had use of reason, so we have found that infants may, must, have a principle of faith, from whence they may be said to be believers..It remains therefore that they have the seed of faith, or some principle of grace conveyed into their souls by the hidden operation of the Spirit of God, which gives them an interest in Christ…..[Their faith is] not altogether without act, though it be such an act as is proper to their age.”
And so on.
No one is arguing infants have the same faith as adults, which we would expect to be more fully formed and mature. But they still have faith. And if we say that infants cannot have faith because they lack reason, what do we say about adults who get Alzheimer’s or dementia? Do we have to say they apostatized because they lose the power of reason and can no longer understand or assent to doctrines and facts? No, of course not. The ability to profess and articulate faith is not identical to the possession of faith.
It’s from one of Manton’s (many) sermon on Hebrews 11. See p. 86 here:https://digitalpuritan.net/Digital%20Puritan%20Resources/Manton%2C%20Thomas/%5BTM%5D%20The%20Complete%20Works%20of%20Thomas%20Manton%20%28vol.14%29.pdfAnd for Ursinus, go here — there are no page numbers, but you can search a phrase or you can look for the section “Why Prayer Is Necessary for Christians”:https://monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/ursinus/Commentary%20on%20the%20Heidelberg%20Ca%20-%20Zacharias%20Ursinus.pdf
—
“And should any one reply, and say that infants do not desire the Holy Ghost, and yet receive him, so that he must be given to more than those who ask and desire, we answer that the Holy Ghost is not given to any except such as desire him, which is to say, to adults who are capable of asking and seeking him. And yet even infants desire the Holy Ghost after their manner, in that they have in possibility an inclination to seek him just as they according to their manner believe, or have an inclination to faith. “Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength.” (Ps. 8:2.)
— Ursinus on infant faith in his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism
—
John Calvin: “Christ enjoins that those who have submitted to the gospel, and professed to be his disciples, shall be baptized; partly that their baptism may be a pledge of eternal life before God, and partly that it may be an outward sign of faith before men.” (Harmony of the Evangelists, vol. iii, p. 385.)
Since Calvin holds to paedobaptism, when children are baptized they become paedo-disciples and profess their paedofaith
—
The professor’s view of baptism in which every individual makes their own decision about which G/god to serve is at war with the patriarchal structure of the biblical household. In the professor’s view of baptism, there is no God of the household – unless everyone in the household happens to make the same decision. In the professor’s view of baptism, there can be no household baptisms (contrary to Acts) because even if every individual in the household converts at the same time, they are still being baptized as individuals, not as a household; Baptists do not believe God covenants with households as households – again, contrary to how baptism is described in Acts. In the professor’s view of baptism, there can be no, “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” because every individual has to speak for himself. In the professor’s view of baptism, there are no promises made to heads of households (“I will be a God to you and your children after you”), with the result that parents are unnecessarily anxious about the salvation of their children.
The professor’s view of baptism is just modern liberalism and modern individualism brought into the ecclesial realm. My hunch is that as culture swings back towards a greater appreciation of corporate realities and modern liberalism dies out, the Baptists will also. The next Christendom will be just as paedobaptistic as the last Christendom. The debate over baptism is important not just because what we do with our children matters; it’s important because it is deeply connected to political realities. Different views of baptism comport with different political theologies. The professor’s view of baptism meshed well with a liberal order and Baptists experienced unprecedented success under liberalism, but that order is fading away.
—
Paedofaith is normative inside the covenant community. Every Israelite grew up singing Psalm 22. If churches sang psalms, paedofaith would be obvious to everyone. Abandoning the psalms has come at great cost….
—
Baptism = wedding
Lord’s Supper = consummation of the wedding
Excommunication for idolatry = divorce for adultery
—
The Bible never says baptism is a symbol or picture. It consistently speaks of baptism as effective.
Take Romans 6 as a test case. Paul simply says we are baptized into Christ – and therefore into his death, burial, and resurrection. Saying baptism “symbolizes” union with Christ is like saying a wedding “symbolizes” a marriage. Apparently, for some Christians, wedding ceremonies are more efficacious than baptismal ceremonies – weddings effect a union but baptism merely symbolizes one. The problems with this should be obvious.
If we read “picture” or “symbolize” language into all the NT passages about baptism, we end up creating two baptisms – an inner and outer, or a spiritual and a physical. But that’s not a legitimate exegetical move. There is one baptism. Period. And that baptism is effective. It is not a picture or symbol, it is a work and gift of God.
Consider these texts – in baptism,
• We are united (or married) to the crucified, buried, and risen Christ (Rom. 6:1ff)
• We are forgiven (Acts 2:38, 22:16; cf. the Nicene Creed)
• We receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38)
• We are cleansed (Eph. 5:26)
• We are regenerated and renewed (Titus 3:5)
• We are buried and resurrected with Christ (Col. 2:11-12)
• We are circumcised in heart (Col. 2:11-12)
• We are joined to the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13)
• We are clothed with Christ (Gal. 3:27)
• We are justified and sanctified (1 Cor. 6:11)
• We are saved (1 Pt. 3:20-21)
• We are ordained as priests with access to the heavenly sanctuary (Heb. 10:19-22)
For more explanation: http://hornes.org/theologia/rich-lusk/baptismal-efficacy-the-reformed-tradition-past-present-future
—
Paul K. Jewett, in his work: Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace, wrote:
“The use of the aorist passive throughout the passage makes it evident that to experience the circumcision of Christ, in the putting off of the body of the flesh, is the same thing as being buried and raised with him in baptism through faith. If this be true, the only conclusion we can reach is that the two signs, as outward rites, symbolize the same inner reality in Paul’s thinking. Thus circumcision may fairly be said to be the Old Testament counterpart of Christian baptism. So far the Reformed argument, in our judgment, is biblical. In this sense, “baptism,” to quote the Heidelberg Catechism, “occupies the place of circumcision in the New Testament.”
—
Baptism does not picture union with Christ. Baptism effects union with Christ. To say baptism “pictures” the union is like saying a wedding “pictures” a marriage.
We cannot insert the word “picture” or “symbolize” every time the Bible speaks of the efficacy of baptism. This is eisegesis.
Nor can we spiritualize passages about baptism as if the “real” baptism happened externally and baptism with water is just a symbol of that. There is only one baptism; this two baptism model is an illegitimate way of reading the NT baptismal texts.
—
Paedofaith undercuts every anti-paedobaptism argument
Faith can be present without being professed
The household baptisms were believers’ baptism because the covenant claims them
Are all infants dying in infancy are damned? Are they an exception to the normal Ordo Salutis?
Paedobaptism is not driven by parental fear
In reality it is, or should, be driven by faith in the covenant promises
It’s the antidote to parental fear
Baptists typically insert the word “picture” or “symbolize” into their reading of Romans 6 – but this turns one baptism into two – it creates a dualism so there are inner and outer or spiritual and physical baptisms
The language about baptism in the NT is consistently efficacious but Baptists use eisegesis to negate it
Saying baptism “symbolizes” union with Christ is like saying a wedding “symbolizes” a marriage. No, if wedding ceremonies are efficacious, how much more baptismal ceremonies?
—
In the OT, circumcision was a seal of the righteousness that comes by faith (Romans 4:11). In other words, circumcision was a seal of justification by faith.
But the link between circumcision and faith did not preclude its application to infants. Why? Because infants were always regarded as believers in the old covenant. See, for example, Psalm 22:9-10, where David expresses the faith he had even in infancy. David had a relationship with God from the womb. This was normative; every Israelite sang about it when he sang Psalm 22.
The same can be said of baptism in the new covenant. Yes, baptism is linked to faith, just as circumcision was linked to faith. But this does not mean baptism should not be given to our children. Jesus treated covenant children as believers (Matt. 18:3-6; note Jesus not only calls attention to the humility of these children, but their faith as well). Paul says Timothy was a believer from infancy (2 Tim. 3:15). Paul commands us to sing psalms – including Psalm 22. Covenant children are to be raised in the Lord, according to Ephesians 6, which makes no sense unless they actually in the Lord. There are still “natural” branches (children) growing on the tree of the covenant (Rom. 11). And so on.
The is just what we would expect, given the prophecies of the new covenant. The promise of the new covenant in Jeremiah indicates the covenant will still be with “houses,”not just individuals (Jer. 31:31). The house of Israel would be expanded to include Gentiles in God’s Israel. But it would not exclude children; indeed, houses always include children. We also know explicitly children would continue to be included since the covenant is with “the least of them” (31:34). Jesus was blessing “the least of these” with the blessings of the new covenant in Matthew 19.
Paedocircumcision and paedofaith went together in the old covenant. Paedobaptism and paedofaith continue to go together in the new covenant.
in baptism we are united with Christ in all facets of his work, including death, burial, and resurrection. But immersion pictures none of those.
Baptism does not picture most of the things it is said to do in the NT. And besides that, immersion certainly does not picture a crucifixion, or the way in which Jesus was buried.
The ordination ritual of Leviticus 8 is most certainly a type of Christian baptism, a point picked up on in Galatians 3, Hebrews 10, and elsewhere.
immersion does not picture a crucifixion. Nor does it picture the way Jesus was buried.
The mode of baptism is a secondary or tertiary issue in itself – but discussion of it exposes a lot in terms of how people read the Bible, how they relate old and new covenants, how they understand typology, etc. It’s a good test case for many things.
The language does not indicate the mode. The key is to note that (a) Jesus was baptized at 30 years old, the same age at which Levites were ordained to the priesthood, and that ordination ritual included a washing with water according to Leviticus 8; and (b) Jesus’ baptism was to fulfill all righteousness, which, given the way Matthew uses “fulfillment” language, means it must be rooted in OT precursors, virtually none of which were by immersion.
Jesus’s baptism is his ordination to the priesthood, which is why he begins his ministry immediately afterwards. His baptism actually has parallels to Ezekiel’s priestly ordination age 30 in the River Chebar when heaven opened to him (Ezekiel 1).
In his baptism, the Spirit was poured out upon him, fulfilling a wide variety of OT prophecies about the outpouring of the Spirit upon the True Israel.
For more details:
Jesus’ Baptism: The Fount of Life
—
“Baptism is only for disciples”
We agree baptism is for disciples – my children became disciples in their infancy because I wanted to obey Paul’s commandment to raise them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord and I wanted them to be like Timothy (2 Tim. 3:14-15)
But not a single baptism in the Bible is by immersion:
None of the various washings of the law were by immersion (Heb. 9:10)
Not the flood (1 Peter)
Not the Red Sea crossing (Psalm 77:17 + 1 Cor. 10)
Not the baptism of couches or tables (Mark 7:4)
TPC Pastor's Page 