Infant Baptism, Objections Answered, 5

5. Infants are incapable of faith, repentance, or any other spiritual act requisite for the lawful reception of baptism.

The opponents of infant baptism never tire of reminding us that the order of words in the New Testament is “repent, and be baptized.” The waste no opportunity to remind us of Paul's words, “If you believe with all your heart, you may be baptized.” They revel in drawing our attention to the fact that infants are incapable of repenting and exercising faith, therefore they are not suitable candidates for baptism. 

The first remark I would make in answer this objection is that all of the New Testament admonitions to faith and repentance are addressed to adults. Whenever we, who adhere to the doctrine of infant baptism, address adults who have never been baptized we always address them in exactly the same way the apostles did.

The opponent of infant baptism is not likely to be convinced by this argument, so we must press on. He will waste no time in reminding us with us, often with a sneer and no small amount of ridicule, that infants are incapable of repentance and faith. It never ceases to amaze me how someone can make this charge while simultaneously maintaining that it was appropriate for 8-day-old infants to receive the synonymous sacrament of circumcision. The apostle Paul expressly calls circumcision a “seal of the righteousness of faith.” Those 8-day-old infants who rightly received the sign of circumcision were no more capable of faith and repentance than any infant child of believing parents who submit them for baptism. Indeed, every single solitary objection that can be made against the doctrine and practice of infant baptism, if the Baptists wish to remain logically consistent with their own system, should be made against infant circumcision. Are they prepared to charge God with foolishness and absurdity in commanding infants, who of course, could not exercise faith to be presented as fit recipients of the seal of the righteousness of faith?

The whole weight of this objection is founded on a neglecting of the main principle of the paedobaptist system. The objectors forget that in every case of infant baptism faith is required, and if the parents are sincere, faith is actually exercised. This is the same principle which was at work in the Old Testament administration of the covenant of grace. The pious Jewish believer, in the exercise of his faith in God's covenant promises, brought his 8-day-old infant to God to be circumcised as a sign of God's promise and sealing of it unto that child. When it is objected that we must act on a principle of presumption with regard to the faith of the parents, we reply that every minister acts on presumption even in the case of an adult who presents himself for baptism upon a credible profession of faith. We must take that person at his word. Ergo, we must presume that he is not lying when he makes his profession of faith. The hypocritical profession only harms the recipient; it does not impugn the sacrament.

Just as an aside, let me also say that the question of whether infants can have faith is a debated question. Scriptures such as Psalm 22:9-10; Psalm 71:6; Isa 44:2, 24; Jer. 1:5; Joel 2:16; Mat. 11:25; 18:3; 21:16; Luke 1:14, 41-45; Gal. 1:5; 2 Timothy 1:5 & 3:14-15, would seem to answer in the affirmative.

Infant Baptism, Objections Answered, 4

4. The next objection is yet another variation on the first: Christ himself wasn't baptized until He was 30 years old.

I don't need to tell you how unimpressive this objection is. It falls short on two counts. 

First, Jesus was baptized by John. John's baptism was not Christian baptism. Acts 19 clearly proves this point. Moreover, considering all the thousands of Jews John must have baptized, if his baptism were identical to Christian baptism, we would be forced to believe that Christ-rejecting Judea was filled with Christians. 

Further, under the Old Testament arrangement, when the High Priest began his work, he was solemnly washed with water and anointed with oil (a symbol of the Holy Spirit). The High Priests then began their ministry only when they were about the age of 30. When Christ began His high priestly work, He inaugurated it with the same ceremonial washing at the age of 30. Besides, the baptism of Christ has no reference to this controversy; hence, it cannot be made to speak for or against our practice in regard to this sacrament. 

Secondly, if Baptists wish to remain true to their principles, they should prohibit anyone being baptized until they are 30 years old. I have personally witnessed Baptist baptisms of children as young as 10 or 12 who have made a “profession of faith.” I was baptized myself at the age of 10 by a church who was baptistic in their doctrine of the sacraments. I don't remember a single objection to the fact that I and several other children were being baptized before the age of 30. But this begs the question. If Christ's baptism at the age of 30 is to be an example to us, what right has anyone to tamper with the formula and baptize anyone before their 30th birthday? To make the assertion is to refute it.

Infant Baptism, Objections Answered, 3

3. Another variation of this objection is that if infant baptism were the prevailing practice of the early church, we should expect to find at least one clear example of it taking place in the pages of the New Testament. Again, our response to the first objection nullifies this.

The primary objective of the recorded history in the New Testament is to give an account of the spread of the Gospel. It narrates several notable conversions of Jews and pagans. Because this is the focus not much is said, as we should expect, about what was going on in the life of the Church.

But even if we ignore this, there is another issue that is quite unfriendly to the Baptist cause. It is not particularly noteworthy (for the reasons we have just given) that no account of an infant baptism is found in the New Testament. What is more amazing, and detrimental to the Baptist cause is that we find no account of an adult baptism of one who was born to Christian parents. Surely we have as must warrant to expect one as the other. In the entire 60-year period covered by the New Testament, we have no hint of the baptism of any adult born of Christian parents.

Infant Baptism, Objections Answered, 2

2. Admitting the force of our first answer, the previous objection is modified slightly. It is admitted that we can infer many important doctrinal things, particularly moral duties, from scriptural statements. However, when it comes to positive institutions, we must have an actual direct and positive warrant. In other words, the inferential reason of our first rebuttal is not to be allowed in the case of a positive institution.

This objection fares no better than the first one. For one these grounds, women should never partake of the Lord’ Supper, for we have no explicit and direct commandment that they should. No Baptist I have ever met is willing to live by his principles in this regard. To avoid sounding uncharitable, I will not adduce any other of the multitudinous examples which could be marshaled in to show the falsity of such a position. 

Of course, it is proper practice that women, as well as men, partake of the Lord’s Supper. But on what basis can we make such an assertion. Clearly it is on the strength of the same type of inferential reasoning we used to refute the objection that there is no New Testament warrant or command for infant baptism.

And before I continue any farther, let me interject something here. Where does anyone get off jettisoning the Old Testament when it comes to doctrinal matters? This is clearly the result of a Marcionic view of the Bible. Marcion was a 2nd century heretic who rejected the Old Testament because it didn’t line up with what he believed to be the message of the New. To him we owe the false idea that the Old Testament shows a God of wrath, but the New Testament shows a God of love. Marcion was the proto-Dispensationalist, in a way. He drove a wedge between the two Testaments so far as to reject the Old. Every doctrine and principle we encounter in the New Testament appears in the Old. One need only to read Paul’s Epistles to have this fact verified.

Infant Baptism, Objections Answered, 1

We will now turn our attention to the various objections raised against infant baptism. We will deal with much of what has been handled before on this blog, but upon deeper reflection, there is much more that I see which can, should, and must be said in response to the various objections. In the final analysis many of the objections are simply permutations of the first one, but since they are raised individually, I will attempt to handle them individually.

1. The old, trusty rusty stand-by of those who reject the doctrine of infant baptism is the dog-eared, “There is no New Testament command for infant baptism.” This objection has been raised a million times – and utterly refuted each time too, yet this has not dampened the spirits of its adherents.

Let it be borne in mind that we do not feel compelled to find New Testament warrant for every Christian practice. This is the cornerstone principle of interpretation that undergirds our position: For nearly 2,000 years, believers were constantly assured through the covenant sign of circumcision of the inclusion of their infant children in the Church of God. Why should we even expect this principle to be reasserted? If this privilege were intended by God to continue, there was no need to reiterate that which was known and treasured by His people for millennia. Nothing substantial is said in the New Testament about the covenant standing of the children of believers because no substantial change occurred. To inform the 1^st century Jewish believers that their children were included in the New Testament administration of the covenant of grace, when they had known this for 2,000 years, would be to light a candle in the sun. In short, assuming paedobaptist principles, we find exactly what we would expect to find.

But upon Baptist principles, we are left with an unsolvable enigma. Why, we must ask, is nothing said to these first Christians, who would naturally expect the inclusion of their infant children, to the effect that the covenant economy was so substantially changed that their offspring were cast out?

It is we paedobaptists who have the right to demand evidence from our Baptist friends as an explanation of the monumental change in the administration of the covenant that their position presupposes. If it be, as they say, that the New Testament is silent on the subject, this very silence is enough to undermine their cause, and to establish ours. It affords proof positive that no such change as that which is alleged, ever occurred. If you can believe that such a drastic change occurred without a whisper of an explanation, then you can believe anything.

But there is actually a flaw in the Baptist argument that there is no New Testament warrant for infant baptism. If the Scriptures were silent on this subject, that silence itself would be detrimental to their cause, as we have repeatedly shown. But beyond that, we have already shown much of the New Testament’s teaching which presupposes the church-membership of the infant children of believers. Christ Himself declares that the kingdom of God belongs to them. Peter, inspired by the Holy Spirit, declares, “The promise is to us and our children.” We repeatedly see the apostles baptizing whole families. And in this regard we must remember that this must’ve been how they understood the Great Commission. To complain of a lack of New Testament warrant, on these grounds, seems ludicrous.