Paedobaptism Defended, Part 5

Today we conclude our short five part evaluation of the standard anti-paedobaptist objections. I say "short" because anyone familiar with the subject and the vast amount of biblical and doctrinal ramifications,  will know that waaaaaay more could easily have been said. I did save the best for last, however. It seemed logical to me to demonstrate how the Scripture very plainly deals with all of the other objections first. By doing that we have already cleared the way for the bulk of what could be said here. Plus we have shown that Scripture does indeed speak to the subject. So without further ado:

5. Infant baptism is not in Scripture.

By this, the objector usually means that we have no clear-cut, explicit command or example in the New Testament to baptize our children. What these objectors are asking for is a verse that flatly says, "Thou shalt baptize thy newborn offspring." Yet if everything we noted yesterday is true (and it is true), then we DO have clear Bible warrant, both in precept and by example to baptize our children. If, as we demonstrated yesterday, baptism is the New Testament form of circumcision (and circumcision was explicitly commanded to be applied to infants), then we actually have very explicit Biblical command to baptize our children.

Baptists frequently overlook the fact that they have biases and these biases color how they view things. If they don't acknowledge this, they are simply naive. The same force of logic and appeal to Scripture which a Baptist uses to argue for the Trinity is what I use to argue for paedobaptism. It is simply impossible that their rejection of the continuity of the covenant of grace in the Old and New Testaments should not affect their doctrine of the Church and therefore their doctrine of the Church's sacraments.

God instituted the family and purposes to save not only individuals, but families as well. This is not only true in the Old Testament. It is taught and exemplified in the New. Paul said to the Philippian jailer: “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved - you and your household” (Acts 16:31). This is why circumcision was done not only to those who professed faith, but on their descendants as well. This is why we read in the New Testament of households being baptized, not just individuals. Thus we find that Scripture reporting that not only the Philippian jailer was baptized, but also his entire family (Acts 16:33). Of Lydia we read, “When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home” (Acts 16:15). Paul remembers the family of Stephanas. He says, “Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else” (1 Corinthians 1:16). Since we have seen that Scripture teaches that circumcision and baptism are essentially the same sacrament, how can anyone claim that there were no infants present in these households?

Moreover, the VERY FIRST TIME that baptism in Christ's name was ever administered, Peter explicitly says, "The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off - for all whom the Lord our God will call" (Acts 2:39). Every Jew present that day would have instinctively known that God's covenant is with him and his children. Had children been barred from baptism, there would have been an uproar. The absence of any mention of the issue here actually argues for the paedobaptist position.

So what does it mean to put the mark of God's ownership upon a child? Does it mean that he is automatically a Christian? Does it mean that he is magically regenerated? No, it means that we believe that God has promised to call His people from among our descendants. We express faith in God’s promise by presenting our children for baptism.

God commanded Abraham to circumcise both Ishmael and Isaac in Genesis 17, yet Ishmael remained a reprobate. It was with Isaac that God established his covenant (Genesis 17:19). Isaac had two sons, Jacob and Esau. Both of them were circumcised, yet only Jacob was elect.

Think of what Paul says about this. He writes, "Rebecca’s children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that Gods purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, 'The older will serve the younger.' Just as it is written: 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated'" (Romans 9:18).

Although God made His covenant with Abraham and his descendants, ultimately the covenant was made with the Lord Jesus Christ. “The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say ‘and to seeds,’ meaning many people, but ‘and to your seed,’ meaning one person, who is Christ” (Galatians 3:16). That is why those who are elect believers in Christ are called Abraham's children by faith. 'There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3:28, 29). “Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all” (Romans 4:16).

So it is that we present all our children for baptism, because God himself has commanded it. Not all who are baptized are elect, not all will be believers. Even in the Old Testament, not everyone who was circumcised was a believer. We place the mark of God’s ownership on them, because we are to dedicate ourselves and all that is ours to the Lord of the Covenant. We place no trust in the outward sign. Rather, we prayerfully look to our gracious Father that he may, in his own good time, save our children.

Something should also be said about the Church's historic practice. There is no doubt that the Church in her earliest days baptized children. There are clear indications of the practice in the writings of Irenaeus. It was not until the Anabaptists of the 1500's that anyone who claimed to be within the pale of Christianity ever rejected the practice. Moreover, credo-baptists should chew on this: Are we to believe that God forsook His entire Church to error for over 1500 years? He has promised that He will never leave us or forsake us. Yet that is what must have happened if the Baptist position is true. Ever greater is this problem: No one has ever questioned that for baptism to be valid, it has to be administered by one who was, in turn, validly baptized as well. Yet if the Baptist assertion is true, that there was no valid baptism in the Church for over 1500 years, then no one is validly baptized today.

The five objections we replied to were:

1. Infant baptism is a remnant of Popery.

2.Infant baptism does not accurately reflect the nature of the Church.

3.Infant baptism is inconsistent with the message of the Gospel.

4.Infant baptism is not a replacement sign for the Abrahamic sign of circumcision.

5. Infant baptism is not taught in Scripture.

In conclusion, let me say this: The doctrine of baptism may not be, under normal circumstances, an issue to break fellowship over. But that does not mean that it is not important. The same may be said of the several eschatological schemes believed by devout men and women of God throughout the ages. This, again, does not mean that the doctrines are not important. I am more and more convinced that nearly all of the division in the Church today, in doctrine and practice, is a result of brushing off theology as nonessential and divisive. The Church has always been united by Word and Sacrament. Once these are neglected for other things, no matter how appealing or apparently edifying, we all suffer. And no one suffers more than our children. On any given Sunday in pulpits around the world, one will hear congregations exhorted to train their children "in the way that they should go" so that "when they are old they will not depart." Yet the tried and true practices of baptizing and catechizing children are neglected with reckless abandon. Baptists always insist on "believe and be baptized" in that order. Yet when Christ told His Apostles to disciple the nations, He told them that this was to be done by "baptizing them and teaching them" in that order. Baptizing our children is part of obedience to the Great Commission.

Paedobaptism Defended, Part 4

As we continue to evaluate the arguments of the anti-paedobaptists, we move on to the fourth objection.

4. Baptism is not the replacement sign for the Abrahamic sign of circumcision.

In reply to this objection, I reply: WRONG!!!

In many ways, this is the heart, because the practice of infant baptism - like many other New Testament doctrines, such as the Trinity and justification by faith alone - rests squarely on an Old Testament foundation. Remove that foundation, and infant baptism collapses.

How should we view the Old Testament? Should we reject it as having nothing to say to us today? Or should we obliterate all distinctions between the two Testaments? Two extremes must be avoided as we deal with the Old and New Testaments: that of the Dispensationalist who sees little connection and continuity between the Old and New Testaments, on the one hand, and an approach that flattens redemptive history as if there were no true significance to the Cross. A biblical approach to the two Testaments comprehends that there is virtually nothing “new” in the New Testament, because it is all rooted in the Old Testament, but it also understands that almost nothing from the Old Testament comes into the New without being transformed in some way by the work of Christ.

As with other New Testament institutions, baptism does not exist simply as a New Testament phenomenon; it is the Spiritually enriched, outwardly modified continuation of an Old Testament ordinance, circumcision.

When God made the covenant with Abraham, God Himself passed through the severed parts of the slaughtered animal, thereby signifying that He would take the punishment and be "cut" the same way if He broke the covenant by not fulfilling His promises to Abraham. That is the significance of circumcision. The cutting is a sign and a seal of the covenant. When a Jew refused to be circumcised, he was to be "cut off" from Israel. He was essentially rejecting God as His mediator and saying, "No thanks; I'll do it alone." Refusal to submit to circumcision was to reject God and His gracious covenant. God's promise to Abraham came to fruition when Christ was "cut off" (Daniel 9:26). He was circumcised for us by being "cut off" for us.

God gave Israel an outward sign and seal of this covenant: “Every male among you shall be circumcised” (Genesis 17:10). They cut off the foreskin to remind the people of the blessings and obligations of the contract. It was a symbolic way of saying, “May I be cut off in damnation, if I do not live up to this covenant.” Christ took the brunt of this cutting when He bore the sins of the elect.

Christ was circumcised in His crucifixion. But this is what the New Testament sacrament of baptism signifies. Jesus asks James and John, "Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?" (Mark 10:38). As Christ our Lord and Covenant Head hung on the cross, He was baptized with the judgment of God against human sin. He was also circumcised by the divine justice as His life was cut off.

Paul equates circumcision and baptism in Colossians 2:11 & 12. He says, “In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead” (Colossians 2:11, 12). In other words, the circumcision not done by hands, the circumcision of the heart (a spiritual image found frequently in the Old Testament), is the circumcision of Christ - which is BAPTISM. All believers were circumcised with Christ in His death upon the cross. This is why in the New Testament, not only males receive the sign. Just as circumcision was a sign of God's covenant in the Old Testament, baptism is the sign of God's covenant in the New Testament. The sign has changed because the bloody "cutting off" was fulfilled in Christ's death. This is why Paul equates religious circumcision with a rejection of God's grace in Christ.

Circumcision was much more than a sign of national identification for the nation of Israel. It was a spiritual act full of spiritual meaning. If you were inclined to imagine that most of the Bible's references to circumcision are in the Old Testament, you'd be mistaken. Most of the Bible's teaching about it is actually in the New Testament. Perhaps the fullest treatment on the subject is found in Romans. Paul tells us here that “A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code” (Romans 2:28, 29). The meaning of circumcision, then, is not some outward thing. It, in fact, points to the work of the Holy Spirit in giving a new heart. Circumcision reminds us of the need for regeneration.

Moreover, Paul tells us that circumcision is a sign of being justified by faith. He reminds us that Abraham “received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised” (Romans 4:11). In other words, Abraham believed, he was justified by faith, and then he received God’s sign and seal of this in circumcision. Sometimes people are married and cannot afford wedding rings. Years down the road, they can afford them, buy them and start wearing them. They are no more married now than they were before. They simply have the outward sign as symbol of their true state. Abraham was right with God the moment he put his trust in him. He was no more saved before circumcision than he was after it. Regeneration and justification by faith are the spiritual realities to which circumcision points.

To be circumcised was to wear a sign that said, “I am a believer; God accepts me as righteous with His righteousness. He has established his covenant promises with me.” It was to bear the seal of God’s ownership. Circumcision was the Old Testament way of saying that Christ would die for your sins and to confess that you were united to Him as He is offered in the gospel. After all, the same gospel was preached to Abraham (Galatians 3:3). Abraham was circumcised because he looked forward to the day of Christ (John 8:56).

It should be obvious by now that everything we have said about circumcision can be equally said of baptism. This is because baptism is New Testament circumcision. Under the New Covenant the Gospel extends to all nations. It is more inclusive, which is why females also receive the seal of faith alongside males today. Circumcision, like the other great symbol of the Old Testament, the Passover, required bloodshed. However, the death of Christ has fulfilled the shedding of blood once for all. The outward form of circumcision is different from that of baptism, but the inward meaning is the same. This is why the form of the sacrament changes from the Old Testament to the New Testament.

Any objection that can be made to infant baptism could, with equal force, be made against infant circumcision. Why would God require Abraham to put the seal upon his children which symbolized that they were believers who were justified by faith? Yet that is exactly what God commanded him to do in Genesis 17:9-14. And it was Moses’ failure to carry out this commandment which so angered God that he sought to kill him before he entered Egypt (Exodus 4:24 ff.). 

God told Abraham to place the mark of divine ownership on his household because it was God’s purpose for them to belong to him: “I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you” (Genesis 17:7). The Bible brings the same idea out hundreds later, on the plains of Moab, as God’s people were about to enter the promised land: “The Lord your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live” (Deuteronomy 30:6). Deuteronomy 30:6 had both a present and a future meaning for Moses’ hearers.

God has always included the children of believers in the company of His Covenant people. It is extremely strange therefore when someone insists that the Gospel is so much most extensive and inclusive than the Old Testament, yet he simultaneously excommunicates all the infant children who would have been included under the old economy. Scripture explicitly teaches that the New Testament is the very same covenant which God made with Abraham. This is why even people who reject Covenant Theology along with its sacrament of baptism teach songs to their children like "Father Abraham." If Abraham's Old Testament children were to be admitted to the Covenant by the sacrament of circumcision, why then are his New Testament children not brought into the Covenant by baptism?

Paedobaptism Defended, Part 3

We now move on to the third of the anti-paedobaptist arguments.

3. Infant baptism is not consistent with the Gospel

Define the Gospel. It is God saving sinners. Are infants not sinners? If nothing else were said this is sufficient. Does God save sinners by baptism? Of course not. No Reformed person has ever said so. However, the hallmark of Reformed theology is its emphasis on the Covenant. Baptism is the Sacrament whereby one is admitted into the Covenant people of God: the Church. If, as we noted yesterday, covenant is not coextensive with election, then there is no viable reason why our infant children would not be admitted into the Covenant people. Throughout redemptive history the children of believers were always included in the covenant.

What does baptism mean to the infant. James Usher wrote:

“But what is to be thought of the effect of Baptism in those elect infants whom God hath appointed to live in yeers of discretion?

“In them we have no warrant to promise constantly an extraordinary work to whom God intends to afford ordinary means. For though God do sometimes sanctify from the womb, as in Jeremy and John Baptist, sometime in Baptism, as he pleaseth; yet it is hard to affirm (as some do). that every elect Infant doth ordinarily before or in baptism receive initial regeneration and the seed of faith and grace . . . .. But we may rather deem, and judge that baptism is not actually effectual to justifie and sanctifie, until the party do believe and embrace the promises.”

James Usher, A Body of Divinitie, or the Summe and Substance of Christian Religion . . . ( London, 1658), p. 417.

Christ uses an infant as an example of who gains entrance into the Kingdom. An infant brings nothing to the table. An infant is utterly helpless and dependant. An adult is not brought into the Covenant people of God by an act of his own (such as faith) any more so than an infant is. There is no way around the force of Christ's words

Therefore saying that the practice of paedobaptism is somehow inconsistent with the Gospel, is itself inconsistent with the Gospel, and we have the authority of Christ Himself for such a statement. Baptism doesn't guarantee salvation. If a child is baptized and then later in life proves to not be elect, his infant baptism will serve to be a judgment against him. The same could be said for one baptized as an adult.

Neither we nor our children are to base our hope of salvation on anything apart from faith in Christ's finished work. Careful self-examination which strong, soul-searching preaching should lead us to, is certainly in order. We must encourage our children to look to the Lord Jesus, to turn to him daily from their sins with godly sorrow, and to believe that their sins are forgiven for Jesus’ sake. Yet we must press them to self-examination and remind them that it is only those who have the positive fruit of faith and repentance who should regard themselves as Christians. Their baptism lays on them, as circumcision did in the Old Testament as the obligation to make our “calling and election sure” (2 Peter 1:10).

We do not base the assurance of our salvation on our baptism, our joining the church, nor our coming to the Lord’s Table. Our assurance of salvation comes from the Holy Spirit bearing witness in our hearts, not because we were baptized on the basis of our parents’ faith (Cf. Romans 8:9-17, especially verse 16 and Galatians 5:22-24).

Baptizing an infant, thus admitting them to the Covenant community, is in no way inconsistent with the Gospel. In fact, it actually demonstrates the message of the Gospel: everyone, including the newest born baby, stands in need of the washing of Christ's blood for his or her sins. Insisting upon a "credible confession" of faith before baptism smacks of Arminianism anyway. Someone has called it Sacramental Pelagianism. It places way too much emphasis upon the personal decision. If decisional regeneration is erroneous, then why isn't decisional baptism equally wrong? Why should my admittance into the Covenant hinge upon my personal decision of faith when I deny that my salvation hinges upon this decision? It makes no sense.

Paedobaptism Defended, Part 2

Today we continue and respond to the second of the anti-paedobaptists arguments.

2. Infant baptism is not consistent with the nature of the Church.

In an earlier post, I dealt with the relation between our view of the Church and our view of the sacraments. This objection to the practice of paedobaptism is a perfect demonstration of that point. As we noted in that earlier post, there are two basic views of the Church. One the one hand there are those who view the Church in a strict sense and are therefore exclusive when it comes to membership. They confuse the Visible Church for the Invisible Church. The result of this view is a strict process of membership, at least, and a stricter process of admission to the sacraments. As an aside, it is interesting to me that the ones who fight so fiercely for absolute guarantees of regeneration before admission to the sacraments are also the ones who usually reject the term "sacrament" and its inherent theological meaning in favor of the watered down "ordinance."

Back to the point. Baptism is, among other things, the rite of admission into the Church. If we view the Church as a community of no-doubt-about-it regenerate believers - which must be proven to be so before admission to membership, then our doctrine of baptism will follow suit, and the only live option is believer's baptism. However, if we view the Church as the Covenant community then our admission to membership is based on covenant, not election. No matter what any Baptist tells you, the minister always baptizes upon presumption. No one but God can see the heart of the person being baptized, hence there are no 100% guarantees that the one being baptized will not apostatize later on, demonstrating that he/she was never elect in the first place. Requiring a regenerate membership violates the Word of God. In the Parable of the Wheat and Tares, the tares are sown “among the wheat” (Matthew 13:25). The field where this all happens is the world, (Matthew 13:38) but the tares are actually in the Kingdom. The angels are commanded to weed OUT of the KINGDOM everything that causes sin and all who do evil (Matthew 13:41). The Baptist in his zeal for a "pure church" would pull up weak believers along with the tares. To which plan Christ replies, "No. You may pull up some wheat while you attempt to remove the tares. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn” (Matthew 13:28-30).

"What about the Church that is without spot or blemish?" you ask. That is God's prerogative. Paul said that not all Israel was Israel. Membership in the Church does not indicate, nor does it guarantee election. Covenant is not coextensive with election. We are not to deny access to the covenant because we cannot ascertain one's election. Not only is this presumptuous to the Nth degree, but it requires insight into men's hearts that no one but the Omnipotent God possesses. We may frequently be mistaken about men's hearts and the people we admit to membership. Paul warned of "wolves" (Acts 20:29, 30). His solution was not hoops of fire to jump through, but prayerful vigilance (Acts 20:28). Corinth is a case in point. They had a righteous remnant, despite the fact that there were those who drunks, adulterers and some who even denied the resurrection of the body.

This does not negate the need nor the practice of church discipline as 1 Corinthians 5 clearly demonstrates. People who deny the faith by rejecting clear biblical truth or by an unrepentant way of life, and continue as such must be put out of the Church. But the Church may not exclude others; her doors must be open to all.

How then do we maintain the purity of the Church? By affirming that the sacraments are means of grace. Word and Sacrament - that's how. These two ordinances (I use the term with utmost caution), i.e., Word and Sacrament are a means of grace to the elect and they are simultaneously purgative to the reprobates.

In the Lord's Table true believers receive the Lord Jesus, really and truly. Those however, who rebel against God receive his curse, which may include sickness and death (1 Corinthians 11:39). The preaching of the Word creates faith in Jesus Christ, but it also repels hypocrites. Paul claimed that it was the odor of life or of death (2 Corinthians 2:15, 16). Those who are being saved will smell the sweet fragrance of life in the preaching of the Word. Those who are perishing (not the present progressive tense) will smell nothing but the death of their own rotting corpses.

Formal church discipline is likely to be rarely necessary in a congregation where the whole council of God is preached. Sound preaching of the Word drives out the self-righteous who know nothing of the grace of God. For the reprobate Word and Sacrament function as a curse and a condemnation. John Calvin comments on 2 Corinthians 2:12-17:

He, accordingly, replies, that faithful and upright ministers of the gospel have a sweet odor before God, not merely when they quicken souls by a wholesome savior, but also, when they bring destruction to unbelievers. Hence the gospel ought not to be less esteemed on that account. “Both odors,” says he, “are grateful to God—that by which the elect are refreshed unto salvation, and that from which the wicked receive a deadly shock.”

. . . for God is glorified even in this, that the Gospel becomes an occasion of ruin to the wicked, nay, it must turn out so. . . . it does not become us to be offended, if the preaching of the Gospel is not salutary to all; but on the contrary, let us reckon, that it is quite enough, if it advance the glory of God by bringing just condemnation upon the wicked.

Faith comes by hearing the Word of God. It is under preaching that people are truly won to Christ. Protecting the Church from hypocrisy is certainly a noble desire, but it often overlooks the fact that God's people have always been a "mixed crowd." Whether or not the Church is full of hypocrites is a matter of debate. What is certain however, is that the Church is always full of sinners. It isn't as though only paedobaptist churches are the only ones churning out sex scandals, divorces and frauds, as the televangelist world amply demonstrates.

Paedobaptism Defended, Part 1

There are a variety of arguments used by opponents of paedobaptism, all of which boil down to one of five basic heads. Our intention is to treat these five objections.

Definitions first. By paedobaptism, we refer to the Reformed practice of baptizing the infant children of believers. Reformed believers have always held that this practice is in accord with the message of the Gospel, it is clearly taught in principle through the Scripture as a sign and seal of God's everlasting covenant with His people. Because the elect are God covenant people, infant baptism perfectly demonstrates the nature of the covenant of grace, the nature of the Church and the message of the Gospel.

The five objections usually submitted by opponents of our Reformed Covenant theology are:

1. Infant baptism is a remnant of Popery.

2. Infant baptism does not accurately reflect the nature of the Church.

3. Infant baptism is inconsistent with the message of the Gospel.

4. Infant baptism is not a replacement sign for the Abrahamic sign of circumcision.

5. Infant baptism is not taught in Scripture.

1. Infant baptism is a remnant of Popery.

I consider this to be the weakest of all arguments posed by opponents of paedobaptism. It is little more than a cheap parlor trick. Saying that the Catholic Church believes something, or at least professes to believe something, is irrelevant to the point at hand. I do not deny that family is important in God's eyes simply because Mormons profess to believe this also. No self-respecting Christian rejects the doctrine of the Trinity simply because the Roman Catholic Church professes belief in it.

While the Catholic view of the sacrament of baptism is faulty, that does not argue against its practice nor against the antiquity of it practice. The Catholic view of baptism is that it is salvific; in other words, you are regenerated by being baptized. We Reformed folk usually refer to this false view as "baptismal regeneration."

Anyone familiar with the doctrinal integrity of the Reformers has to be almost intentional in assuming that they somehow overlooked this aspect of theology. Even a cursory reading of Luther and Calvin would dispel that myth. Neither Reformer, nor any Reformer after them simply took a doctrine for granted because this is what they had been handed by Rome. It is an insult to the Reformers and an indicator of almost unpardonable ignorance to make such an assertion. Familiarity with the explicit treatments of baptism in Calvin's Institutes and his commentaries, the defenses of paedobaptism by the likes of Flavel, Owen, Witsius, Ursinus renders the "Infant baptism is a remnant of Catholicism" argument truly laughable. I have always told folks that if they do not want to be convinced that paedobaptism is truly Christian because it is truly Biblical, then do not read the defense of it by John Owen.

The mode of baptism also usually comes into question as well. Those of the credobaptist persuasion typically insist that nothing but full-body immersion is true Christian baptism. An appeal is usually made to an original, literal meaning of the Greek word BAPTIZO. It is said that this meant dipping or immersing something. Hence anything less than full immersion is not Christian baptism. This theory fails on several counts, but the important thing is this: Whatever BAPTIZO originally meant, it became the New Testament's technical term for the initiatory rite of entrance into the covenant people. Literalistic interpretation of words based on their original meaning is always fraught with danger. Jesus condemns the Pharisees because they love (AGAPAO) the chief seats in the synagogues. No one in his right mind would insist that this means that the Pharisees had God's unconditional love for the chairs. The English word "nice" originates from a Latin word equivalent to our modern use of the word "idiot." None of us takes offence, nor intends insult by the use of the word "nice" today. BAPTIZO may mean immersion, but Scripture is clear that Jesus truly and literally baptized the Church with the Holy Spirit - and the mode of baptism was pouring:

“For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1:5; cf. Matthew 3:11; Mark 3:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:25-33).

“In the last days, God says, ‘I will pour out my Spirit on all people.’ . . . God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear” (Acts 2:17, 32, 33).

Immersion, no doubt paints a beautiful picture of our union with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection (Romans 6:1-10; Colossians 2:9-12), but pouring more accurately depicts the means whereby we are united with Christ, which is the work of the out-poured the Holy Spirit. And another mode: SPRINKLING signifies how this is made legally possible: our hearts have been sprinkled by the blood of the Jesus.

“Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God’s elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance” (1 Peter 1:1, 2).

“Let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water” (Hebrews 10:21, 22).

Baptism has, no doubt, been administered in different ways. One cannot ask immersion of people in desert regions where water is scarce to begin with. Nor can it be expected in the frigid north where the water exists mainly in the solid form, ice. Frankly, I am not really bothered by the person who believes that BAPTIZO always means immersion. I worry about the one who refuses to see that equally godly, sincere and sound students of Scripture disagree with this for reasons that are equally sound to them. I have no use for people who brush off those of opposing opinions without the slightest attempt to understand them fairly or to even attempt a fair presentation of their views. If you wish to reject the validity of paedobaptism - fine. But realize that if you simply brush it off without a fair hearing, you are ignoring the scholarly work of men like Calvin, Owen and Ursinus.