Please Click here for a Printer-Friendly PDF Version

The Biblical View of Baptism  (With Special Consideration of Infant Baptism) 

Kevin Twit   12/94 

 

I.  Preliminary Thoughts 

 A.  There are two presuppositions, deeply ingrained in our modern culture, that make it particularly difficult to consider the biblical view of baptism.  As with any theological question, we do not consider the evidence in a neutral manner and in the case of baptism, two ideas often lead people to fail to sufficiently consider the biblical evidence.   

 The first problem is the self-centeredness of our culture.  This causes many to evaluate truth by their experience rather than submit to God's word.  With regard to baptism then, the issue becomes how can baptism be the most meaningful to a person.  Many parents were baptized as teenagers or adults and it was a moving experience for them.  They desire a similar experience for their own children and thus are prejudiced against the biblical idea of infant baptism before they even consider the evidence.  In doing this they have replaced God's word as the test of doctrine, with their view of how we can achieve the most meaningful experience.  Such a practice, while well intentioned, must be rejected.  We are not concerned with which view of baptism seems the most meaningful to the person being baptized, rather we must be concerned with what the Bible has to say.  As we will discover, the Biblical view is the most meaningful, in the proper sense, because it emphasizes God's grace instead of man's autonomy.  But that is not why we hold to it. 

 The second presupposition relative to baptism is the relativism that pervades our culture (and much of the Church as well).  Because of this, many people can't see the "big picture" of scripture (i.e.: the covenant), and are deeply suspicious of any methodology that looks for themes in scripture rather than just looking for proof-texts.  The Biblical view of baptism is not to be discovered from a single proof-text, but this does not mean it is unproven.  It is clearly established from good and necessary inference.  Unfortunately many people reject this methodology of proof before we even begin the discussion.  Both of these presuppositions must be identified and resisted if we hope to come to a belief in the Biblical view of baptism. 

 B.  While this subject is important, agreement with the Presbyterian view of baptism is not required for one to be considered a Christian or to be a member of a Presbyterian church.  However there are implications to misunderstanding any doctrine of scripture and thus I will attempt to persuade you in this paper to what I believe is the Biblical position.   

 C.  Before we begin we need to dispel one of the greatest misunderstandings there is with regard to baptism.  Regardless of what you have seen in the movies, or on TV, baptism does not equal immersion.  In fact there are several passages where the word "baptizo" cannot refer to immersion (Mk 7:4, Lk 11:38, Heb 9:10,13,19,21, and 1Cor 10:12 when compared with Ex 14:22).  Therefore any attempt to prove that we can determine the Biblical view of baptism from a word-study is doomed to failure.  The word translated "baptize" has several possible meanings and, as these passages show, it is a serious error to equate baptism with immersion.  I will even be so bold to say that the NT never says (in an unambiguous manner) that a person was immersed.  Most of the passages appealed to prove immersion read the mode of immersion into the text.  In addition the Old Testament language regarding the Spirit's baptism speaks not of immersion but of pouring out, shedding forth, and sprinkling (Is 32:15, Joel 2:28, Prov 1:23, and Ezek 36:25-7).  But let me also say that immersion is a Biblical mode, it just shouldn't be considered the only proper mode. 

 

II.  So, What Is It? 

 A.  Sacraments:  Baptism is one of two NT sacraments (the other being the Lord's Supper).  A sacrament is both a sign and a seal of the covenant.  Now a sign is something that makes something else known and a seal is something that authenticates something else.  Thus baptism both makes something known, and it authenticates something else.  The covenant is what baptism is a sign and seal of.  A covenant is basically a relationship under certain sanctions1, it is the way the Bible expresses the relationship God has initiated with His people.  In the covenant, God pledges to be our God, and He requires us to obey His commands.  We can best understand the concept of the covenant if we distinguish between its unconditional and conditional aspects.  With regard to merit, the covenant of God is unconditional.  It is totally of God's free grace that we are made partakers of the covenant, that we are brought into relationship with Him.  Yet this relationship requires our obedience in order for us to be blessed in it.  This is the conditional aspect of the covenant, our obedience is the instrument that God uses to bless His people.   

                                                           

 B.  OT Background:  In the Old Testament we see that God relates to His people in terms of this covenant.  In Gen 17:7-8 God establishes a covenant with Abraham and his descendants and gives a sign of this covenant to Abraham in the form of circumcision.   In Romans 4:11 we find that the seal of this covenant made with Abraham is also circumcision.  So we see that clearly God's covenant with His people in the OT has both a sign and a seal which is circumcision.  And we must notice that this sign and seal of the covenant was to be given to both believers and their children.  In fact in Ex 4:24-26 we find out how serious God is about this covenant sign and seal being given to believer's children.  The Lord almost kills Moses for failing to apply circumcision to his children!  It's often difficult for Christians to understand how seriously God takes His covenant because we are so unfamiliar with the concept of the covenant (and the OT in general.)  But let us at least understand one key principle.  In the OT, God's relationship with His people is expressed in terms of the covenant and the sign and seal of the covenant in circumcision. 

 C.  NT Usage:  In the New Testament we find that Christians are regarded as the true circumcision (Phil 3:3) because we are partakers of the same covenant as OT believers (and their descendants).  But in the NT, the sign and seal is different.  Now baptism takes the place of circumcision.  Yet both of them signify the same thing, union with Christ (Col 2:11-12).2  Baptism signifies union with Christ.  This is what it means to be baptized into His name (Mt 28:19, Rom 6:3-4, Gal 3:27, 1Cor 12:13).  There are a number of parallels between circumcision and baptism.  For example both are administered only once, and both are a picture of our passiveness in grace (they are both done to us not by us). 3 However there is one huge difference, baptism is for both males and females.  Thus we see an expansion of the administration of the sign of the covenant in the NT.  Those who would restrict the NT covenant sign (baptism) to the descendants of believers (as was done in the OT) must account for why when everything else seems to be expanded, we are to restrict who receives the sign of the covenant in the NT.   

 

III.  What It Is Not 

 A.  Baptism in no way saves a person.  Though in different ways, some groups like the Lutherans, Catholics, and Churches of Christ teach a type of baptismal regeneration where baptism can save a person (though interestingly all of these groups believe that this salvation can be lost!)  Though baptism is commanded (Mt 28:18-20, Acts 2:38), it does not save us.  Only Christ can save us.  Baptism does not cause or guarantee saving grace.  It is part of Christian obedience, not the means by which we are saved. 

 B.  Baptism is also not merely an outward sign of an inward change.  This is the typical Baptist view.  Baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant, and thus it signifies what God does, not what we've done.  We are baptized, we don't do anything in the act of baptism.  Baptism signifies that, from our perspective, the person is a recipient of the covenant relationship with God, either because the person has professed faith in Christ or one or both parents have professed faith.  Of course the profession of faith may not be genuine, and in the case of an infant he or she may prove to be an apostate, but we baptize in the judgment of charity, not because we can make infallible judgments about one's spiritual state.  While we believe that professed Christians should be baptized, we believe that God's covenant has always been made with families and not just with individuals.  In our extremely individualistic culture, this is a difficult concept for many people to grasp. 

 

IV.  So, Who Should Be Baptized? 

 Those who are judged to be partakers of the covenant.  This includes 1) those who profess faith in Christ, and 2) the children of one or two believing parents.  Why children?  Because God commanded the sign and seal of the covenant to be applied to the children of believers (Gen 17) and this command has not been revoked in the NT.  The burden of proof is on those who would deny the covenant sign to children.  The NT gives no evidence that there is such a restriction.  On Pentecost, Peter told his audience of Jews (who had been applying the covenant sign to their children for 6,000 years) that the promise was for them and their children (Acts 2:39).  It strains credulity to try to avoid the implication that the baptism of that day would have also been applied to the children of these believers.  If the covenant sign was now to be kept from the children of believers (partakers of the covenant) we should expect some sort of explanation.  We search the New Testament in vain for such an explanation.  It seems clear that God has not changed His program of giving the covenant sign and seal to believers and their children. 

 

V.  Supporting Evidence 

While the main argument is that derived from the continuity of the covenant between the OT and the NT, there is some supporting evidence for the contention that baptizing infants is the scriptural position. 

 A.  1Cor 7:14   This passage is a little difficult to understand fully (for instance what is meant by sanctified?) but one thing is clear.  Paul takes for granted that the children of one or more believing parents are in a special class, even calling them holy!  What's more Paul assumes that the Corinthians agree with him in this view.  While this passage doesn't prove infant baptism it is best accounted for by the position taken by this paper. 

 B.  Luke 18:15 (cf. Mt 19:14)   In this passage Jesus says that infants are included in the kingdom.  One can legitimately ask, then shouldn't they be given the sign (which in the NT is baptism)? 

 C.  Household Baptisms:   While it is not stated in any of the household baptisms mentioned in the NT that infants are included, the implication is that children would make up a household.  While this is an argument from silence I think that the burden of proof is on those who would exclude children from a household baptism, especially when we see the basic continuity of the OT and the NT. 

 D.  Church History:  While this cannot be considered on the same level as scripture, the testimony from church history is helpful in attempting to ascertain the practice of the apostles.4  Some important points are: 

 1.  Origen was born in 180 AD and was baptized as an infant.  He claims that the practice was handed down from the apostles.  Now remember he was born only 90 years after John's death, had a great memory, and was very well-read (having one of the greatest libraries of his day.)  Yet he doesn't know of any change in the apostolic practice, which he claims was to baptize infants. 

 2.  There is no record of any debate in the early church with regard to this foundational issue.  Tertullian in the early 3rd century is the first to attack the practice of infant baptism that we know of.  However he does this not because he doesn't think infant baptism is apostolic but because he thinks it's better to be baptized on your deathbed. 

 3.  Even Pelagius (early 5th century) says he's never heard of anyone so heretical as to deny infant baptism, and he's horrified by Augustine's charge that his views will lead to denying infant baptism! 

 4.  Basically we see the universal practice of infant baptism in the early church.  It is very difficult to conceive of this being the case if it was not the apostle's practice.  How else did something so important develop in such a short amount of time with no record of controversy about it?  If some charismatic individual was able to change the practice of the whole church, and wipe out the memory of believer's-only baptism, why do we have no record of that fact?  Again the burden of proof must be upon those who would deny that infant baptism was the apostolic practice.  I've yet to see a convincing case made for the early church practicing only believer's baptism.  It is simply not true to claim that this was a practice introduced by the Roman Catholic Church. 

 

VI  Practical Implications 

 A.  Take advantage of the blessing available for you and your children.  If you haven't been baptized and you're a Christian, then do it.  And then avail yourself of the privilege you have to apply the covenant sign to your children too. 

 

 B.  Realize that the covenant calls you to live a life worthy of the gospel.  When you witness a baptism in church, use it as a time to recommit yourself in your heart to live a life pleasing to God by His grace. When you vow to help the child being baptized grow in the faith, take it seriously!  Do what you can to help, don't just make an empty pledge. 

 C.  See baptism as God's grace pictured in a visible, non-verbal form.  Thank Him for it, and let it overwhelm you with security (remember it is a seal not just a sign) and joy. 

 

For Further Reading: 

1.  Westminster Confession of Faith  (chapters 25 & 26) 

2.  John Murray   "Christian Baptism" 

3.  Francis Schaeffer  "Baptism"  (a short pamphlet) 

4.  Booth  "Children of the Promise" 

 

1 Meredith Kline,  By Oath Consigned: A Reinterpretation of the Covenant Signs of Circumcision and Baptism  (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975) 16. 

                                                          

2 John Murray, Christian Baptism (Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1974) 6. 

3 G. I. Williamson, The Westminster Confession of Faith (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed, 205.)

                                                         

4 James W. Alexander, The Life of Archibald Alexander D.D. (1854; Harrisonburg: Sprinkle 1991) 206-224.