Infant Baptism, Objections Answered, 10

10. Yet another objection raised by those who reject infant baptism is that those of us who practice it are not consistent with ourselves in that we do not treat our children as if they were members of the church. They point out that despite all our claims for the validity of infant church membership, we seldom see churches treating their baptized children as church members, that is, instructing and discipling them in the same way that is done for adult members.

We cannot deny that many churches do act inconsistently in this matter. But we must hasten to point out that logical inconsistency in a person's practice says nothing about the logical consistency of the system he professes to believe. Indeed, the same thing can be said of Baptists. If they were consistent with their own system, they would not teach their children to pray, they would not teach their children to read the Bible, nor would they teach their children to do anything consistent with what could be called a Christian lifestyle. It is not an indictment against the doctrine of infant church membership when a church is profligate in her duties.

This neglect has a long history. The very beginning of the book of Judges informs us that the generation under consideration in the following narrative had not been taught by their parents. Scripture not only informs us that this generation did not know God, but it further points out that they were unaware of the rich spiritual history of their nation. This means they had not been taught the principles of life in the covenant. In 17th century England, it appears that the same was the case. Thomas Manton, in his preface to the Westminster Standards, pointed out that in what was considered a Christian nation there was a perpetual complaint about “bad children.” Manton put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the parents. In fact, the Westminster Standards were written to address this very issue. Through the means of the Shorter and Larger Catechisms parents could train up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. God has always enjoined upon parents the duty of catechizing their children. This idea comes up 3 or 4 times in the book of Deuteronomy. If we are consistent with our belief in the doctrine of infant church membership, and we demonstrate this belief by the logically consistent practice of infant baptism, then we are wholly without excuse and infinitely culpable when we do not disciple our children after we have acknowledged their church membership by administering covenant baptism.

Infant Baptism, Objections Answered, 9

9. This objection goes back to the point made in the previous one. It is argued that if we hold to infant membership in baptism that we must also allow that all children, regardless of age, who feel disposed to do so, may come to the Lord’s Table without inquiry or permission from anyone.

This is not as formidable an objection as it is made to appear. For even those who reject our principle of identity with regard to circumcision and baptism, do affirm the identity of the Passover and the Lord’s Supper. This is the key to answering this objection.

But before we get ahead of ourselves, let us make an important observation. Every child is a citizen of the country in which he or she was born. Citizenship is plenary. There is no such thing as halfway citizenship. Nonetheless, he or she does not have free access to all the rights and privileges of citizenship until he or she attains a certain age. One cannot get a driver’s license before his 16^th birthday, and even then he must have completed Driver’s Ed. One cannot even vote until he is 18. Generally speaking, no one finds anything objectionable in this scheme.

Now to return to my previous comments about the identity of the Passover and the Lord’s Supper: Every child of Jewish parents, though full church members by virtue of their birth and recognized as such by virtue of their circumcision, were still not allowed to partake of the Passover until they came to a certain age. This age was not specifically stipulated. Calvin notes that “the Passover, which has now been succeeded by the sacred supper, did not admit guests of all descriptions promiscuously; but was rightly eaten only by those who were of sufficient age to be able to inquire into its signification.” This is why the law did not stipulate a particular age. What was important was that the child had attained a level of intellectual acumen sufficient for understanding the significance of the Passover. The parents knew that the child was ready when the child began to ask the right questions. When a Christian child, one that has been baptized, begins to ask the right questions about the significance of the Lord’s Supper, and has the necessary intellectual capacity to understand the answers, then that child is ready to partake of the sacrament.

This objection then, has no force. Better yet, what it alleges and then deprecates, doesn’t even exist. It is not part of the paedobaptist system. Our system has advantages with regard to this matter that no one else has. We solemnly bind the church and the parents to faithfully train up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord while simultaneously recognizing that the church possesses and must exercise the power of guarding her communion table from anyone who approaches it profanely, even her own children.

Infant Baptism, Objections Answered, 8

8. Another objection often raised by the opponents of infant baptism is that we have the same historical evidence for infant communion as we have for infant baptism. It is asserted that the evidence of infant communion in the history of the early church invalidates the historical testimony we find in favor of infant baptism.

In answering this objection, I will freely grant that the practice of administering communion to children, and sometimes even to infants, has been practiced in various parts of the Christian church from a very early period. It is still practiced to this day in some circles.

Its history run briefly as follows: About the middle of the 3^rd century we encounter it in the practice of some of the African churches. They had misconstrued Christ's words, “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” They erroneously held that a participation in the Lord's Supper was essential to salvation. But it is a great injustice to the cause of infant baptism to represent it as resting on no better ground than infant communion. There are three notable differences between the two. 

A. Infant baptism has solid and decisive scriptural support. Infant communion does not.

B. The historical testimony to infant communion is greatly inferior to that which we possess in favor of infant baptism.

There is no historical record of anyone practicing infant communion before the time of Cyprian. On the other hand, we find Justin Martyr referring to people in his day who were baptized as infants during the apostolic era.

C. Infant communion does not possess anything like the general and universal acceptance infant baptism has had throughout church history.

Infant Baptism, Objections Answered, 7

7. Since we assert that baptism is a symbol of regeneration, our opponents object that sense many who are baptized never partake of the grace and regeneration, our system corrupts the church by filling it with unconverted people.

There is much to take issue with in this objection. Even if it could be proven, and even if it were conceded that a majority of those who are baptized never partake of the grace of regeneration that is signified by baptism, this says nothing about the significance or efficacy of the sacrament.

Let me ask a question: How many people read the Bible without profit? How many people attend church without profit? How many people read Christian books without profit? How many people listen to Christian radio, attend Christian conferences, attend regular Bible studies, or partake in any other number of church-based activities without benefiting from them? By the above logic urged against infant baptism we would be forced to discard all of these things. Should we jettison reading of the Bible because some people don't profit from reading it? Again, the same objection could be made about circumcision. Circumcision, as well as baptism, was a symbol of regeneration and spiritual cleansing. But how many received it without receiving the spiritual benefit? In fact the same objection can be raised against everything God has instituted. Surely if God has instituted anything, it is richly significant and spiritually meaningful simply by virtue of the fact it was God who instituted it. But because the influence of said institutions is moral, the influence may be defeated by unbelief. We are not Roman Catholics who hold the ex opere operato view of the sacraments. The sacraments do not exert physical power, or save by inherent energy, and for that reason and that reason alone, it is possible for someone to receive their administration without receiving the benefit it was intended to convey. They are signs and seals of God's promise.

Let's take a short diversion to illustrate my point. While Adam remained sinless, the Tree of Life was a sacrament to him. It signified God's promise of eternal life, and it sealed this promise to him. But as soon as he fell, God forbade him the use of this tree because he was no longer eligible to receive God's covenant promise of eternal life by the covenant of works. Adam could've eaten from the tree, but it would not have had the earlier pre-Fall effect. Scripture does not intend to imply that the fruit of the tree was magical and that therefore Adam would never have died had he eaten of it after the Fall. God's point is that Adam had no right to lay claim to God's covenant promise because he had broken the covenant . That is precisely what we're saying here in reference to the sacraments of the New Testament. The only ones who have reason to expect God's covenant to be signified and sealed to them in the sacraments are those who use them as God instituted. 

Back to the matter at hand. The fact of the matter is, our children are placed in very favorable circumstances when they are baptized. Because baptism is a symbol of regeneration, it binds Christian parents to teach this important spiritual truth their children as soon as they are capable of understanding and receiving instruction. The covenant children of the church are placed in the best of all possible schools for learning practically and doctrinally the things of God. Besides, we are all aware of the fact that many children who grow up in Christian homes return to fellowship with her after a brief time of temporary wandering. I do not see how anyone can say that infant baptism seldom realizes its meaning. There seems to me to be no objective way to quantify such a statement especially in the light of the biblical promise of Proverbs 22:6.

Infant Baptism, Objections Answered, 6

6. It is often objected that baptism can do infants no good.

“What good can a little sprinkling with water do a tiny, unconscious baby?” My chief response to this is: what good did circumcision do an 8-day-old Jewish baby? To even ask this question is to impugn the wisdom of God. It is for that reason a most impious objection. When the opponents of the apostle Paul asked the question, “What profit is there in circumcision?” he answered, “Much in every way” (Rom. 3:1-2). Baptism, like circumcision, is a sign of many important truths and a seal of many important covenant blessings. Can anyone possibly assert that there is no advantage in the practice of that which holds up to our view, in a significant way, several of those fundamental doctrines of the gospel which are of deep personal interest to us and our children? Can we not profit by attending on a sacrament which signifies to us our fallen, depraved nature, and the way God has appointed in his wisdom and love to recover us by the atoning blood and cleansing Spirit of Jesus Christ our Savior? In baptism, we are dedicating our children to God by a rite of His own institution.

It is for this reason that those who share our paedobaptist conviction have always asserted that those who refuse or neglect to baptize their children sin against Christ by disobeying his solemn command, and they sin against their children and themselves by depriving them of the great benefits of the covenant. They can pretend that this is a disputed point if they want to, but is this not an attempt to be wiser than God? Those may sound like rather harsh words, but let me hasten to say two things. The words of the Belgic Confession are much harsher as are Ursinus' words in the commentary on his own Heidelberg Catechism. Moreover, John MacArthur, in a sermon against infant baptism, used harsher words than I have when he call the practice of infant baptism "devilish." Whatever my personal views are on the doctrine of the Baptists and their erroneous view of the sacraments, you have never read the words "devilish" in any of my articles on the subject.

Back to the subject at hand. I don't pretend to be able to make a list which comprehensively includes anything or everything which may be of benefit to the infant who is presented for baptism. But I do know this, that Christ has appointed it as a sign of precious truths and the seal of His blessings to His covenant people and their infant offspring.

I am prepared to go even farther. This objection is founded on a mindset that is diametrically opposed to the spirit of the Gospel. It is equally opposed to the religious education of children, and if held consistently, would militate against all the instructions which the Word of God enjoins on parents. Indeed, we would have to assert that it is wrong to preoccupy the minds of our children with an abhorrence of lying, theft, murder, lust, drunkenness, and malice, lest we should fill their minds with prejudices that would be unfriendly to free inquiry later in life. Wouldn't it be deceiving our children into thinking that they belong to God when in fact they don't? Wouldn't it instilling in them a false sense of security that they belong to God if we train them in the faith before we have any indication of regeneration? But that is exactly what the Baptist position, if held consistently, entails.  Baptist churches, like Reformed paedobaptist ones, have programs for children. Which means that even while denying the sacrament of baptism to his covenant children, the Baptist views his children as being in the covenant. And the Baptist practice of baby  dedications is a tacit admission of the truth of what I have just asserted.

One of the great purposes for which the church was established was to watch over and train up its children in the knowledge and fear of God. Any system of religion that does not embrace children in its covenant engagements is gravely defective. (see Malachi 2:15)