Category: Baptism

The Argument for Infant Baptism and Sprinkling

1/27/2018

If you don't want to have to read this in parts and click through all the links below, you can download the whole file here.

the_argument_for_infant_baptism_and_sprinkling.pdf
File Size:	309 kb
File Type:	pdf

the_argument_for_infant_baptism_and_sprinkling.docx
File Size:	56 kb
File Type:	docx

Part 1: Circumcision and Baptism - Introduction, importance, and the connection of baptism's symbolism and application between the Old and New Testaments

Part 2: Sprinkling and Consecration - The connection between the mode of consecration in the Old and New Testaments as well as the identification of the person of the godhead responsible for cleansing and consecration, the Spirit.

Part 3: The Family and Federal Headship - Explores how God has deemed the children of believers holy, and how representation through federal headship is a beautiful aspect of God's grace to us as seen particularly through God's view of our holiness via Christ. This provides a framework for how we, in our independent, decisional culture can baptize individuals before their own faith in view of their parent's faith.

Part 4: Contextual Evidence - Addresses some of the problematic logistics of immersion, specific baptism events in the NT, and some of the "problem passages" for sprinkling as the mode of baptism (e.g. Jesus's baptism and the Eunuch's baptism)

Part 5: Church History - Church Father quotes from (approximately) the first 350 years of church history following the writing of the first NT books. I also very briefly address a few key archaeological points.

Part 6: Counter-Rebuttals - I very briefly address what I believe to be some of the most common and/or strongest counters to the case I laid out (Israel vs. the church, one verse zingers, Greek word baptizo, circumcision practiced alongside baptism, and "just because").

Part 7: Conclusion and Resources - Self-explanatory

The Argument for Infant Baptism and Sprinkling (2): Sprinkling and Consecration

12/29/2017

God's Mark on His People Under the New Covenant: The main argument for the baptism of infants, then, is that we are simply continuing in the directive and symbolism that God has instituted and never expressly retracted. Though that concept is vital to discussing the argument for infant baptism, I now want to move into the mode of baptism, which I argue is done by having the element (water) come upon the object (individual being baptized). Paedobaptists (those who baptize infants) will argue that just as we can assume a continued directive as to the objects of God's mark, so we can find a continued directive as to the mode of God's mark. Since the bloody mark of circumcision seems to be done away with (Galatians 5:2, Acts 10, Acts 15, I Corinthians 7), I will argue that the mark of water is a continued symbol from the OT by exploring how water or other elements were used to mark in the OT, as well as what those markings represented.

The Argument for Infant Baptism and Sprinkling (6): Counter-Rebuttals

12/29/2017

Possible Rebuttals:
- I see several ways one can try to avoid the great weight of the cumulative case I have laid out above. The first is to argue that Israel and the church are different entities. This is how John Piper argues. I think the multitude of passages that call us Abraham's offspring, the true Israel, etc, should be weighty enough to determine that there is at least a huge similarity which warrants a continuation of such an important directive as that of marking the visible covenant community. In fact, we know there is. Even if baptism isn't a direct continuation of circumcision but rather a new way of marking God's people, both ideas are still accomplishing the same type of thing. Even if the church is distinct in some ways from the covenant community of Israel, I don't see how we escape the similarity of the requirement to mark community members, and I don't see how we can mark members in a way that is less inclusive than before. The marking of the covenant community now includes women and anyone who professes faith. The gospel expands, not contracts the scope for inclusion. How sad for the covenant community of Christ to expel those whom God formerly included in his community - infants and children - from the markings of the visible community.

The Argument for Infant Baptism and Sprinkling (3): A Family Set Apart

12/29/2017

Why Children of Believing Parents Can Receive the Sign of the Spirit: If the sign of baptism is immersion and given based on our profession alone, then infants should not be baptized. But if, as I have made the case above, the sign of baptism is moreso a sign of what God is to do to us and for us through his Spirit, then it seems quite appropriate to baptize the children of believers. Children of believers have been given the mark of God before faith since the time of Abraham, but they were only ever given the mark because of faith - the faith of their parents. The Psalmist discusses in several places his connection to God from childhood or before his birth. Paul says that he was set apart by God even before he was born (Galatians 1), and says that all believers were chosen in God before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1). The idea of God's covenant with us and his salvation unto us as being done at a moment in time is true from a particular perspective, but God's promise and his call on us, while not effected until later in our lives, is placed upon us from even before our birth. It makes sense, as with circumcision, to mark the children of believers - children for whom God's covenant holds true, and for whom their faith should be anticipated and expected. In their own right, children of believers are set apart because they join in the visible community of God, at least for a time, even if they eventually apostatize or never come to true faith.

The Argument for Infant Baptism and Sprinkling (4): Contextual Evidence

12/29/2017

Contextual Evidence Shedding Light on Baptism: Contextual evidence is, in my mind, the weakest of all the arguments I will put forward. In and of itself, context of the distant past often involves a bit of conjecture. We have to fill in the gaps with what we think we know of the time, place, and people, as details of the text are often too sparse to paint a whole picture. However, when you add contextual evidence to the rest of the cumulative case, it tends to be the glue that holds everything together. If you can interpret a passage two different ways, then you get a story that applies some of the concepts in a real life example, that story can sometimes provide the context to shed light on unclear passages. The passages where we see baptism applied can help to shed light on what is actually said in the unclear passages, as we get to see what the authors of the NT actually did (or may have done). I provide several instances below that hit on both the mode and the object.

The Argument for Infant Baptism and Sprinkling (5): Church History

12/29/2017

Church History: When looking at church history it's important to note that just because a respected church father wrote something about a topic and just because something was common practice early on doesn't mean it was right. The theology of the trinity is a great example, as it wasn't fully fleshed out until several centuries after the Apostles. There were many who held some strange views early on as they wrestled through difficult doctrine. That being said, there are a few important ideas we can draw from the church history about baptism that we see below.

The Argument for Infant Baptism and Sprinkling (1): Circumcision and Baptism

12/29/2017

I wrote an article several months ago about infant baptism. Having just had our church's first infant baptism, and understanding that many who know us have never thought much about infant baptism (also called paedobaptism), I decided to share some of what I found beautiful about it as opposed to the baptism only of new converts (known as believer's baptism or credobaptism). I did not at all intend for my former article to be an exhaustive defense of infant baptism, but rather an expression of ideas to get the wheels turning for people - to be exposed to what may be a new idea for some, and for others, to help them think through what they may have just assumed is the case due to their upbringing. But while that post served its purpose, I have felt the need to lay out a more exhaustive case for infant baptism, particularly as we look to baptize our son here in the near future.

The Argument for Infant Baptism and Sprinkling (7): Conclusion and Resources

12/29/2017

Conclusion:
God's covenant has always been for his people and their children. He has always incorporated even newborns in the visible community. At the same time, he has always been clear that it is faith that is required to be his true people, not any outward symbolism. Despite God's requirement for our individual faith, he expressly views the children of his people as distinct. The outward symbolism is then not something we do for God, but a recognition of God's promise towards us and our children. Just as the circumcised Israelite's blood was shed and flesh removed, so a savior's blood would one day be shed to put our flesh to death and to circumcise our hearts. Infant baptism is in keeping with this beautiful theme of including the children of believers in the covenant promise of what God must do for them to be saved, and what God has promised to do should those with the outward sign seek to be in true relationship with him through personal faith.

Why We Baptize Infants

11/18/2017

Today was an exciting day for us here in Codlea, as we had the first ever infant baptism in our church. While Catalina and I have experienced many other infant baptismal ceremonies, including the ceremonies of our two children, this one was unlike any we had seen before. Sure, it was in Romanian. That was a first. But the truly unique aspect was that it was a ceremony unto itself. It wasn't a five minute ceremony sandwiched in the middle of a church service. It was its own event. The baptism took place on a Saturday, much of the church and many friends and family from outside the church attended, we had corporate worship, and then we all ate together. It was the the most weighty and celebratory baptism we had ever been to.

While we wanted to share this awesome news with everyone, we do understand that we have supporters from various denominations. Some may be taken aback that the first baptism in our church was an infant baptism. Rather than keeping such an exciting event to ourselves, we thought it would be a great opportunity to share our heart, our research, and our thoughts on baptism as we seek to edify the church universal and not just recede into our own denomination. While I'm sure some won't agree with our stance as I explain it, I hope everyone will have the opportunity to learn about some differing views from fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.