Infant Baptism, Further Implications, 4

4. We see how grave and how solemn the situation is of those young people who have been dedicated to God in their infancy by holy baptism.

This is an often neglected point. Generally speaking, ministers do not neglect to remind the parents that they are brought under the weighty obligation of training up their children in the ways of the Lord when they present these children to God in baptism. But one must wonder how effectively the obligation to walk with the Lord is impressed on the mind of that child as he or she grows up. In the children's catechism that my wife and I use, there are the following questions: 

Q. 129. Who are to be baptized?
A. Believers and their children.

Q. 130. Why should infants be baptized?
A. Because they have a sinful nature and need a Savior.

Q. 131. Does Christ care for little children?
A. Yes; for he says, "Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the Kingdom of God."

Q. 132. To what does your baptism bind you?
A. To be a true follower of Christ.

This is a point often neglected by young people. They fail to realize that their early reception of the seal of God’s covenant, in consequence of their parents’ faith, places them in circumstances of the most grave and solemn nature. Because we do not treat them as true members of the church, which we profess to believe and ratify in their baptism, they are all too apt to imagine that they are not members of the church until some later date when they decide to make a public profession of faith. They falsely imagine that the making the profession or not making it is simply a matter of choice which they can do or not do. They are left to toy with the idea that the only danger they face is that of making a false, or rather insincere profession. This view, while incredibly common, nevertheless is incredibly criminal. The children of professing Christians are already in the church; they were born members of it. The reason they receive the seal of the covenant is because they were already in the covenant by virtue of their birth. Hence, it is not a question of whether those baptized young people will be members of the church or not; it is a question of whether they will value their birthright or apostatize from the family of faith. This is the only question and it is a serious question! There is a fine line that must be walked here. On one hand, we should never encourage the false profession, but neither should we encourage the refusal to make any profession at all.

Infant Baptism, Further Implications, 3

3. Those of us who adhere to the practice of infant baptism are irresponsible and derelict in our covenant duties when we do not understand the scriptural basis for our practice and defend it as such.

It is frequently asserted that since there are well-meaning, devout Christians on both sides of the aisle with regard to this subject, then it must surely be an insignificant issue, not worthy of defending. I would like to submit to you that this is a coward's way of handling theological controversies. The truth is the truth and should be sought and defended by all who claim to love the Lord. The fact that Christians with opposing views can consider each other brothers and respect each other's devotion, loyalty, and commitment to Christ, does not preclude them from analyzing each other's positions and finding in them serious theological problems. Though we may be agreed that baptism is a secondary issue, we can never agree that it is not worth understanding and practicing aright. Consider the alternatives. The only way for this to not be an issue is if we reject the objective value of doctrine altogether. There is just no other way. Very few Christians are willing to go that far, at least on paper. If we are willing to say, as some ignorantly do, “It doesn't matter what you believe as long as you love Jesus,” then we have no business rejecting the errors of Mormons, Hindus, Buddhists or Muslims. Once you cease to say what is right, you lose the ability to say what is wrong.

Infant Baptism, Further Implications, 1 & 2

I would be remiss if I did not draw forth a number of important practical inferences or ramifications from all that we have previously said.

1. The error of our Baptist friends rejecting the church membership and baptism of infants is a serious error. It is not merely a mistake about some disputed point of speculative theology. It is an error that contravenes the spirit of the whole Bible. All of God’s covenants have within them this fundamental feature of the inclusion of the infant children of the believers. This is the very first point we labored to establish when we presented the defenses for our position.

This may appear to some to be a rather uncharitable thing to say. But what is the alternative? Is it any more charitable to leave error unchecked, unchallenged or unquestioned? Do I love my brothers more by ignoring their false beliefs, especially when it comes to the eternal truth of God’s Word?

2. The baptism of our children is intensely meaningful and involves us (the parents and the congregation) in an obligation of the utmost seriousness. We are not claiming that baptism is identical with regeneration, nor are we espousing the “magical” view of Rome with regard to the sacrament of baptism, as if we believed it had an inherent power in itself to effect that which it signifies. As strongly as we may assert that depriving our children of baptism is a sin against God and against them, it is equally sinful to deprive them of catechesis. We can all appreciate the notion that it is irresponsible to hire a man to do a complex, detailed job, and to require proficient performance from him without ever having trained him. This, I feel, is an apt analogy to what is done to countless “church kids.” How much effort is exerted in both infant baptizing churches and non-infant baptizing churches toward the doctrinal training of our children? I do not dispute or deny the existence of multitudinous Sunday school programs or summer Daily Vacation Bible School programs. But anyone who has even casually perused much of that material will know that it largely consists of practical moral lessons completely divorced from the theological basis which gives meaning to the practical application. This is nothing else but Law in place of the Gospel. If all we do in the training of our children is to provide them with a long list of acceptable and unacceptable behaviors, reinforced with Bible stories about lions, floods, and tumbling walls, we are merely preparing the next generation for disillusionment with the faith. Nothing is more deadly than legalism with regard to our children. By the time they reach high school or college they will strike out on their own and turn their backs on Christianity. And yet, it will not be Christianity that they have turned their backs on, but rather the misrepresentation of it that consisted merely in do’s and don’ts.

Infant Baptism, Objection Answered, 11

11. The final objection I wish to consider is this. Our opponents say, “If baptism takes the place of circumcision, and if the church is the same in substance now as it was when circumcision was its initiating zeal, then why isn’t baptism as universal in the New Testament church is circumcision was in the Old Testament church? Why isn’t every child under the light of the gospel baptized as every Israelite child was circumcised?”

All I can say in response to this objection is that this undoubtedly should be the case. All parents wherever the gospel prospers ought to be true believers, and therefore ought to be true members of the church of Christ themselves. Hence, they ought to dedicate their children to God in baptism. God’s command requires it, and if the parents were what they ought to be they would be only too happy and prepared to do what they should.

Under the Old Testament administration of the covenant of grace, all those who belonged to the covenant people were obliged to be holy. This was signified, first and foremost by submission to the rite of circumcision. Anyone who refused was to be cut off from their people. The obligation was universal and the penalty was universal. There is no doubt that many parents who presented their children to God in the sacrament of circumcision, did so without true faith; yet they attended to all the requirements of ceremonial cleanness and this rendered the circumcision authorized and regular, i.e., valid. The same is true in the New Testament church. Like Old Testament Israel, the Church is a body called out from the rest of mankind. Within this spiritual community baptism ought to be as universal as circumcision was in Israel. Parents who profess faith in Christ, in obedience to Him, ought to present their children in baptism. There is, no doubt, reason to fear that many adult members may present their children to God in the sacrament of baptism without true faith. But just like in the case of the Jewish parent who lacked true faith, because the parents attend to all the external requirements of church membership, their children’s baptism is to be considered authorized and regular, i.e., valid.

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.