Scriptural basis for paedo-baptism

[jciz75]

I would like to know where in the NT there is any reference that a person was baptized without giving a profession of faith first. Also, please do not attempt to apply eisegesis to the instance where it says the household was Baptized. I know of numerous households that contain no infants, my included as my childered are 16 and 21, both of which are ages where a person is fully capable of making their own profession of faith. When appying proper exegesis to those passages and letting scripture interpret scripture, there is full basis to believe that all parties that were baptized in the homes had made professions of faith.

 

[Zach]

The key is not finding a proof text and marking it down in an "AHA!" manner, but interpreting the Scriptures in all the fullness of what they teach. This is what the Westminster Confession teaches about how to interpret Scripture:

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.

The baptism of infants does not have its roots in eisegesis but in deducing it from Scripture by good and necessary consequence. If you're looking for a proof text that says, "Infant X was baptized," you won't find it. But, if you diligently think through the arguments in favor of the baptism of children of the covenant, I think you might be persuaded. I was.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Two quotes from the NT about persons being baptized:

For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,
(1 Corinthians 10:1-2, ESV)

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.
(1 Peter 3:18-22, ESV)

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Why does it have to be New Testament? This appears less like a genuine question, and more like an attempt to make a perceived point, but appearances can be deceiving, so forgive my initial suspicion.

I would agree with Joshua that you seem to be less interested in finding the answer to your question than in simply making a point, which has been well made by many others. If you have a genuine interest in this topic, I would advise that you research it on your own first, and then if you have a genuine and specific question, you can then come back and ask away.

 

[jciz75]

I would like to know where in the NT there is any reference that a person was baptized without giving a profession of faith first. Also, please do not attempt to apply eisegesis to the instance where it says the household was Baptized. I know of numerous households that contain no infants, my included as my childered are 16 and 21, both of which are ages where a person is fully capable of making their own profession of faith. When appying proper exegesis to those passages and letting scripture interpret scripture, there is full basis to believe that all parties that were baptized in the homes had made professions of faith.

Can you give me an example where a child or 'teenager' or non-adult ever gave a profession of faith and was baptized in the New Testament? And please do not attempt to apply eisegesis to the instance where it says the household was Baptized. Oh, wait, that's right. We cannot prove who all was, or who all was NOT in the household, only that the whole household partook in the application of the sign. This does not "prove" infant baptism, but it does give us the example of household application of the sign of the Covenant which wasn't foreign to Abraham, the father of our faith. When did that principle get rescinded?

Unfortunately, you just furhter my case. While I cannot give any account of a child, teen, or adult getting baptized without first making a confession of faith, I can tell you that. How would you explain this?

36 And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?”, 37 And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he replied, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” 38 And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.

 

[jciz75]

Two quotes from the NT about persons being baptized:

For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,
(1 Corinthians 10:1-2, ESV)

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.
(1 Peter 3:18-22, ESV)

Semper Fidelis

Thank you, your scripture references are interesting. I will have to taks some time to research the orignal languages, context, audience, and prupose for the mentioned passages. In tihs case, there is strong scriptural bassis for infant baptism in that there is direct mention of the children, both young and old, being included in the Exodus from Egypt. If this is indeed proven to the the seat typological scripture the NT authors, as well as Jesus, would have had in mind when instituting Baptism then you may have a case in point.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

jciz75,

I was surprised to see your astute observation to Semper Fidelis (Rich), mentioning “the seat typological scripture” Jesus and the NT authors had in mind with regard to baptism. That is, in fact, the key: the typological covenant administration of circumcision in the OT, replaced by the realized circumcision of the heart of which baptism is the outward sign and seal:

Colossians 2:11-13 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses.​

Consider also Peter’s words to the crowd of Jews he preached to on the day of Pentecost:

Acts 2:37-39 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.​

These men were there with their families, and his words gave them warrant to submit their children as well as themselves to the New Covenant administration of the same covenant of grace God instituted with their father Abraham in Genesis 17. Remember, without this token of the covenant – just as in Abraham’s day – there was no inclusion into God’s people.

For further consideration, here is a thread interacting with a Reformed Baptist on these and related issues: http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/john-1-12-13-baptism-revisited-38633/. And here’s another helpful view of the issues.

Welcome to PB!

 

[Andres]

I would like to know where in the NT there is any reference that a person was baptized without giving a profession of faith first. Also, please do not attempt to apply eisegesis to the instance where it says the household was Baptized. I know of numerous households that contain no infants, my included as my childered are 16 and 21, both of which are ages where a person is fully capable of making their own profession of faith. When appying proper exegesis to those passages and letting scripture interpret scripture, there is full basis to believe that all parties that were baptized in the homes had made professions of faith.

I already shared this in another recent thread asking a similar question to yours. I believe it's still an appropriate answer, so I am sharing it again:

A question most often asked by those unfamiliar with infant baptism is “where does the bible command children to be baptized?” and the short answer is that it never does explicitly. But in reality the question isn’t a very good one simply because it assumes that which scripture does not. Asking where the bible commands children to be baptized first assumes that children were no longer to receive a covenant sign.
Another way to think of it is, instead of asking where Scripture explicitly teaches infant baptism, instead ask the question, “Where does the bible reverse God's command to Abraham to administer the covenant sign and seal to children of believing parents?”

jciz75, how would you answer my last question?

 

[Rom]

In addition to the good answers provided above - I would also challenge the OP to consider what Paul might be saying about Covenant Children in 1 Corinthians 7:14 -
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.

The children of believers are holy and set apart by God. They are quite different from the children of two unregenerate parents. And as such, they should receive the sign and seal of the covenant as they are part of the visible church. I also am not a fan of the terminology "infant baptism", as I believe that entire households should be baptized. My son was 7 when he was baptized not with a profession of faith, but rather under my headship (it was only a couple of years ago when I was convinced of the "paedo-baptist" position).

We don't believe them being declared to be "set apart" makes them regenerate by the way. Just as someone who had received circumcision in the Old Covenant wasn't necessarily saved. A good example of this is actually Ishmael. God declares in Genesis 17 definitively that the line of promise shall not come from Ishmael but rather Isaac. But after receiving this news he then proceeds to circumcise Ishmael as a member of his house anyway - along with everyone else. It is through this framework that a paedo-baptist looks at passages in Acts when entire households are baptized.

NOTE: Circumcision is not so different from baptism. Obviously in Col 2:11-12 the apostle identifies the two very strongly. And in the Old Testament we often see that the sign of the covenant by cutting the foreskin was nothing without regeneration as well, circumcision was a sign of something else. See how God describes regeneration as circumcision of the heart just as we would say in the New Covenant.

Dt 10:16 - Therefore circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and be stiff-necked no longer. See also Deut. 30:6 - And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.

At some point we do have to ask ourselves as Andrew does above - when did God reverse all of this to our children?

Our children have every spiritual advantage that children of unbelievers do not have. They are asked to read the Holy Scriptures, they are hearing the Word of God preached, they are seeing the sacraments administered (a visible form of the gospel), they are praying to the Triune God, they are the recipients of prayers for them to the Triune God by their parents and by others in the Church. They see what it means to live in fellowship with God's people, they see Church Discipline.

These children are soaked in the Means of Grace! If a child goes apostate after that, I believe that they are in worse shape than that of an unbeliever's child. They are in the same boat as other unregenerate members of the visible Church (Hebrews 6).

Our children are also being brought up as disciples of Christ - are they not? Do we not ask them to pray? Do we not ask them to study the scriptures and catechism? Do we put them in the corner of a room when we start Family Worship? We do not. And what does Christ Himself say?

Make disciples - baptizing and teaching them. If my child is a disciple of Christ, then he or she will receive the covenant sign:
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.


Keep in mind that for many of us (such as myself) we came to this position after months (perhaps years) of searching the Scriptures, looking at the Whole Counsel of God, and understanding Covenant theology. Brother, lots of us came from strong Baptist or Baptistic backgrounds and shaking what was ingrained into us about what the Scriptures teach took a very long time. Do not be surprised if it takes a very long time to come to this position, but be encouraged and also be a little awed by how our God considers our children. And what the eternal consequences of us shirking our duty to raise our children in the fear and admonition of the Lord.

 

[ProtestantBankie]

The key is not finding a proof text and marking it down in an "AHA!" manner, but interpreting the Scriptures in all the fullness of what they teach. This is what the Westminster Confession teaches about how to interpret Scripture:

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.

The baptism of infants does not have its roots in eisegesis but in deducing it from Scripture by good and necessary consequence. If you're looking for a proof text that says, "Infant X was baptized," you won't find it. But, if you diligently think through the arguments in favor of the baptism of children of the covenant, I think you might be persuaded. I was.

These words are not in the Baptist Confession, therefore I suppose the discussion is whether this is agreed to with our CB friends?

So while a Westminster person can say "We conclude that infant baptism can be valid" - The problem is that "good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture" is not an acceptable thing for most Reformed Baptists.

Compare the confessions on this point. But this is another discussion and I fear I will be reprimanded for going off topic.

 

[ProtestantBankie]

WCF 1.4 The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:[and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.

LBC 1.6: The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture, to which nothing is to be added at any time, either by new revelation of the Spirit, or by the traditions of men.
Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word.
There are some circumstances concerning the worship of God and church government which are common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word which are always to be observed.

 

[Jack K]

Many good points already about covenant inclusion and how to use the Scriptures. Allow me to add yet another idea...

Where in the New Testament does it say discipleship should come before baptism? What I mean is: Do you plan to train a child from a young age in how he should live as a believer and then, at some point down the road, baptize him later on? Isn't that backwards of what the Scripture teaches in every example of Christian baptism in the New Testament? In every case, baptism comes at the beginning, as a prelude to discipleship.

Given the lack of any direct New Testament instruction or examples of what we ought to do regarding the covenant sign for children born into believing households, we must go with what we do have clear mandate to do. We have clear instruction to disciple our children, and we have clear instruction to baptize disciples.

 

[Peairtach]

The Baptist schema takes the covenant sign and seal from boys, but gives it to women; and also takes the covenant status from both boys and girls. This in a dispensation of fuller grace.

The Baptists strictly demand explicit examples of children being baptised, but can provide no explicit examples of women taking the Lord's Supper; something that is accepted by good and necessary consequence by them.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Andres]

WCF 1.4 The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:[and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.

LBC 1.6: The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture, to which nothing is to be added at any time, either by new revelation of the Spirit, or by the traditions of men.
Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word.
There are some circumstances concerning the worship of God and church government which are common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word which are always to be observed.

I think the WCF and LBC are essentially stating the same thing here, just in different terms. Both are acknowledging that there are two ways to learn something from Scripture: 1) expressly set down in scripture 2) or necessarily deduced from scripture.
The only difference is whereas the WCF states "by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture" the LBC reads "necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture". They mean the same thing.

If you are going to argue that everything we know about the bible can only come from that expressly, or definitely, stated in scripture, then what do you do about the doctrine of the Trinity?

 

[sevenzedek]

I have come to view the household baptisms of scripture as denoting family solidarity. This is significant because the thing that made infants fitted for the sign of the covenant of grace (COG) under the old administration was their familial relationship to the head of the household. These were circumcised.

Paedo-baptists insist on the continuity of the covenant of grace from the time of Abraham to the time of Jesus; with the dual aspects of the covenant—legal and vital. For instance, Jacob and Easau. Jacob was a vital member of the COG while Esau was only a legal member. This legal/vital relationship does not disappear when Christ brings the new covenant. It can be seen in Hebrews 10:29-30

Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. And again, “The Lord will judge His people.”

Many of the baptists I know will agree that this passage is dealing with apostasy. The thing that strikes me about this passage is in verse 30, "The Lord will judge His people." Who are among His people? Those who have apostatized are among His people. For my part, this passage addresses the issue of family solidarity that has continued from the old administration to the new.

The household baptisms are not a proof text for baptizing infants. They are supporting scriptures that give evidence of the continuity of the COG. They would be nothing without other supporting scriptures. We don't take our cues from this text alone. We take them from the breadth of scripture on the matter; just like we do with the doctrine of the trinity.

 

[irresistible_grace]

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations..."

How exactly?

"...baptizing them in name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you"

What? Hold up! Jesus, I think you messed up when you said baptizing before teaching. That sounds like paedo-Baptism!


But Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven."

 

[Peairtach]

The Presbyterian position is more coherent on this: in that OT individuals without families, and individuals with families, were engrafted into the covenant people. Now we're told by the Baptists that in this more spiritual and individualistic era, only individuals are engrafted.

I don't really see what's more spiritual about families being left outside the visible church and covenant, in an era in which we still have families and iin which there is meant to be a greater fulness of grace.

Our salvation isn't only spiritual, anyway, but includes our bodies and - we hope.- our nearest and dearest. If not, that is God's secret will.

The Baptist position is arbitrary, incongruous, unexpected, and doesn't comport with the flow of redemptive history, including God's dealings with "Israel after the flesh", as the Apostle calls them, in relation to the Church, in Romans 9-11.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[sevenzedek]

I am a fly on the wall right now.

 

[Gforce9]

I am a fly on the wall right now.

"Little fly on the wall;
With no clothes on a'tall..."

-Curly Howard

 

[ProtestantBankie]

I was reading a quotation by Francis Roberts which looked at the Ark (Noah's) and how Ham was included within it. That Ham was engrafted into. He was a corrupt root and branch. Bringing forth corrupt fruit. "How dangerous" he adds, it is to act ourselves to exclude people for the sign of the new covenant because God very specifically has allowed it to be given out.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Let's focus upon the point of how "Scriptural Proof" works, consider Jesus' rebuke of the Sadducees:

But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for all live to him.” Then some of the scribes answered, “Teacher, you have spoken well.” For they no longer dared to ask him any question. (Luke 20:37-40, ESV)

Find a verse in the Old Testament that states unequivocally: The dead are raised on the last day.

Clearly, the belief in the resurrection of the dead is a much more fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith than the subjects of baptism. Yet, the Sadducees, those who denied the resurrection, were silenced by the necessary consequence of the Scriptures that our Lord presented from the book of Exodus and these were rebels of their Lord.

How much more must believers in Christ understand that they will be rebuked by our Lord if they deny the same proper use of ordinary means of interpretation, which our Savior Himself employed.

In other words, go back to your original post and show me that the Lord Himself would be able to satisfy your demand for "proof" if He employed the same method of adducing the Truth that He employed to silence the Sadducees.

 

[au5t1n]

Excellent point about Christ's defense of the resurrection. As others have noted, the original poster could not prove the validity of female communion by the same standard of proof he expects for infant baptism.

 

[Goodcheer68]

If you are going to argue that everything we know about the bible can only come from that expressly, or definitely, stated in scripture, then what do you do about the doctrine of the Trinity?

Ditto!