Why We Baptize Infants, a Brief Explanation?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quatchu

Quatchu

Puritan Board Sophomore
My son is going to be born here in a few weeks and I know that it will become a issue with my wife's family when he is baptized. I understand the reasons myself however my wife's family are uninterested in conversation of scripture and theology that go beyond a minute. How would you in the most accurate and clearest way possible explain infants should be baptized, in 2-3 sentences?
 
An accurate and clear summary in one long sentence:

Question 74: Are infants also to be baptized?

Answer: Yes, for since they, as well as the adult, are included in the covenant and church of God; and since redemption from sin by the blood of Christ, and the Holy Ghost, the author of faith, is promised to them no less than to the adult; they must therefore by baptism, as a sign of the covenant, be also admitted into the Christian church, and be distinguished from the children of unbelievers as was done in the old covenant or testament by circumcision, instead of which baptism is instituted in the new covenant.

(Heidelberg Catechism)
Click to expand...
 
"As a father, I will be responsible before God for how I raise my son in the faith. God has taught us through the scriptures that baptism is one of those responsibilities." Nuf said.
 
P.S. - Of course, if they won't hear Moses, the Prophets, and the Apostles on the matter, neither will they believe paedobaptism if one should rise from the dead.
Click to expand...

I have no interest in debating baptism, but you know as well as I do that this passage regards salvation through Christ and not baptism.
 
In addition to the covenant family stuff...

"I plan to disciple my son in the faith from the very start. The Bible only speaks of people being baptized first and then discipled, never of baptism coming after years of discipleship. So my son, since he will be a young disciple, should be baptized."

The matter of discipling our children is one most Baptists will agree on, and they also tend to agree on the idea of being guided by biblical example, so this might at least assure them that you, like they, are determined to raise godly kids and to be guided by the Bible. Also, if they haven't studied the issue in-depth they may think that a person who baptizes his baby must surely be a liberal who takes the Bible and personal salvation lightly. It's good to gently show them that this is not the case.
 
Quatchu said:
My son is going to be born here in a few weeks and I know that it will become a issue with my wife's family when he is baptized. I understand the reasons myself however my wife's family are uninterested in conversation of scripture and theology that go beyond a minute. How would you in the most accurate and clearest way possible explain infants should be baptized, in 2-3 sentences?
Click to expand...

I posted a short, one-paragraph explanation here once that was very similar to Jack's explanation. Here it is: http://www.puritanboard.com/f122/paedos-only-69906/#post896489.

Also, congratulations on the upcoming birth and baptism of your son!
 
The point, my friend, applies to anyone not interested "in conversation of scripture and theology that go beyond a minute," as stated in the OP, regardless of the doctrine, and was not intended to be a swipe against brethren who do not share the Reformed view of Baptism. The refusal to "hear" what the Bible says on a matter is not relegated to salvation only, but all and any of God's truth. If they'll not take the time to do that, then no perceived miracle will convince them either.
Click to expand...

Josh,

I understood your point, and I did not take it as a swipe. I just have an aversion to taking specific passages out of context and broadly applying them. Surely you are correct that all who refuse to hear the testimony of Scripture will not be convinced by other means either, however in the specific instance you mentioned the result was death and hell. Surely we are not assigning so great a value to baptism as that.
 
Please keep in mind this is the paedo forum and not a place of credo and paedo debate.

What do people think of this explanation.

We believe that children of believers should be baptized because in Genesis 17, God made a covenant with Abraham, the sign of that covenant is circumcision and was the sign placed on male children as a sign of that Covenant. Romans 4 teaches us that Abraham heirs are not his natural children, but rather those who have faith are the children of Abraham. Colossians 2:11-12 makes it clear that baptism and circumcision are linked. As circumcision was to be applied to the male children, baptism is to be applied to children of believers because as they were members of the Old Covenant they are members of the New Covenant.
 
I am not familiar with the passage that says disciple your son. Can you show me where that is in the bible. I am familiar with the passage that says to train up your children though???
 
Mt. 28:19, "...make disciples of all the nations..." Discipling is the primary verb of the sentence, expressing the end or goal of the sentence, which continues through v20; baptizing (v19) and teaching (v20) are grammatically participles of means (category description), to the accomplishment of the end.

"All the nations" is a Hebrew colloquialism, meaning (broadly speaking) "everybody," especially as there is no more dividing wall between one of the peoples (Jews) and the rest of the nations.

One's child is merely the most obvious close-referent.
 
Stratiotes said:
I am not familiar with the passage that says disciple your son. Can you show me where that is in the bible. I am familiar with the passage that says to train up your children though???
Click to expand...

You'll notice that adult individuals and families were baptised immediately on an uncontradicted and simple profession of faith in the New Testament. There wasn't time to disciple them before they were baptised or time to test the genuineness of their faith.

The case of the Lord's Supper is different.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
 
Last edited:
I like B.B. Warfield's quote:

The argument of infant baptism in a nutshell is simply this: God established his church in the days of Abraham and put children into it. They must remain there until he puts them out. He has nowhere put them out. They are still then members of his church and as such entitled to its ordinances.

-Studies in Theology
 
Bill The Baptist said:
The point, my friend, applies to anyone not interested "in conversation of scripture and theology that go beyond a minute," as stated in the OP, regardless of the doctrine, and was not intended to be a swipe against brethren who do not share the Reformed view of Baptism. The refusal to "hear" what the Bible says on a matter is not relegated to salvation only, but all and any of God's truth. If they'll not take the time to do that, then no perceived miracle will convince them either.
Click to expand...

Josh,

I understood your point, and I did not take it as a swipe. I just have an aversion to taking specific passages out of context and broadly applying them. Surely you are correct that all who refuse to hear the testimony of Scripture will not be convinced by other means either, however in the specific instance you mentioned the result was death and hell. Surely we are not assigning so great a value to baptism as that.
Click to expand...

Well yes, as Peter says the baptism that now saves, not the outward washing of the flesh but a pure conscience before God.

1 Pet 3:21 21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

He's referring to the thing that Baptism signifys. Regeneration or the New Birth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top