Infant Baptism Defended, Argument 1

We are going to take up again the subject of infant baptism. The form this series will take, Lord willing, is as follows: We will present a detailed, multi-point defense of the practice of infant baptism. In this part of the presentation, we will appeal to the historical practice of the Christian Church in a very limited way. While I believe that this is a legitimate argument, I will attempt to limit this aspect and appeal much more to scriptural arguments. Then we will present and reply to eleven objections, which was all I could come up with from my research into the subject. Granted many of these objections are simply variations on the first one (that infant baptism isn’t taught in the New Testament). Finally, we will deduce a few practical ramifications from both the arguments in favor and the refutations of objections. 

Lets us begin with the positive arguments.

1. All of God’s dealings with his people have always been covenant based in which the infant children of believers are included.

No one disputes that this was the case with Adam. Had Adam not sinned, his offspring would have automatically inherited his sinless nature. We know this to be true because Scripture explicitly teaches that all men sinned in the transgression of Adam. Since Adam stood as the federal head of all mankind, he acted for us all and we all acted in him. This is the nature of covenant in general and the Covenant of Works in particular.

The covenant God made with Noah after the flood, as far as this point goes, was of the exactly the same nature. God said, “Behold, I establish my covenant with you and your seed” (Gen. 9:9). The covenant God made with Abraham was equally comprehensive. God said to Abraham, “Behold, my covenant is with you and your seed after you” (Gen 17:9). The covenants of Sinai and Moab also included the children of the immediate participators. The language is clear in attaching to them as well as to their offspring the promises and the threats of those covenants respectively. Therefore, when Moses was about to leave the people he addressed them in the words of Deuteronomy 29:10 – 12, “standing before the Lord their God with their little ones, and their wives, to enter into covenant with the Lord their God.”

When we come to the New Testament administration of the covenant of grace we still find this same interesting feature, not only retained but more conspicuously displayed. On the day of Pentecost, Peter addresses the crowd with a promise strikingly reminiscent of God’s promise to Abraham in Genesis 17, when he says, “The promise is to you and your children, as many as the Lord our God shall call.”

This has been a most noticeable feature of God’s continuing covenant of grace with his people. Are we to assume then that the New Testament, or Christian covenant, which is the same in substance with what preceded it, and excels the Old Testament administration in all the benefits, privileges, and glory of its promises, lacks this notable feature? The idea is absurd.

Creeds and Confessions, Practical Implications, Part 5

We conclude this series discussing the usefulness of creeds and confession by looking at the final two practical inferences which are derived from our defense of creeds and confessions and our refutation of objections.

In short, the final two inferences are these:

A. It is a duty of great importance for all members, but especially the ministers, to study and to spread the knowledge of their church's creeds and confessions of faith. We pointed out before the creeds and confessions of faith lend themselves to a serious study of scriptural doctrine. Happy is the church which has the backbone and the fortitude to require their minister to believe and preach what he has subscribed to. And happy is the minister who has a doctrinally literate congregation.

And secondly,

B. It is a sad mistake to think that by abandoning creeds and confessions we are rendering the Church any essential service. Ever since the days of the apostles, the Church has found it necessary to adopt formal statements of doctrine as a test of orthodoxy for both members and ministers. What service can one possibly render to the Church by removing her ability to delineate between truth and error?

 

Creeds and Confessions, Practical Implications, Part 4

Our defense of the use and utility of creeds and confessions leads us to a fourth practical implication. 

From all we have established so far, it is easy to see how a single imprudent or unsound minister can do extensive and irreparable mischief in the church. If this minister be a man of talents and influence he can with great ease by addressing popular feeling and availing popular prejudices, do more harm in a short time then he could do good in a long time by a faithful and diligent application of all of his talents and skills. Think of the widespread havoc that has been wreaked upon the entire body of Protestant evangelicalism at the hands of a single man: Jacob Arminius. The progress and fruitfulness of the Reformation was hampered and hindered as a result of this one talented man's obstinate adherence to error. The history of the church abounds with examples of similar import: Marcion, Mane, Nestorius, Eutychus, Sabellius, Arius, Pelagius, Valentinius, the list could go on and on. In some cases, the church is still reeling from the wounds inflicted by these men.

Large portions of 'respectable' Evangelicalism arre infected with the Gnosticism of Mane. Marcion's bifurcation of the covenant of grace survives to this day from the low esteem in which the Old Testament is held by countless Christians to the radical discontinuity of the covenant exhibited in Dispensationalism. Why would we refuse to use a useful tool to stymie and quell the negative influence of false teachers?

Creeds and Confessions, Practical Implications, Part 3

A third practical inference from our foregoing defense of creeds and confessions is this:

We may determine how an honest man should act after subscribing to a public creed and confession. Once a man has subscribed publicly to confession of faith in order to attain a position of leadership in that church's ministry, he will feel it to be his duty to adhere sincerely and faithfully to that creed and confession publicly and privately. If at any time he should alter his views concerning any part of that creed or confession it is incumbent upon him to inquire whether the points in question are of such a nature is that he can conscientiously be silent about them and give no offense to the body to which he belongs. If this is possible, in other words, if he can reconcile this with enlightened sense of duty, then he may remain in place. If he can keep it to himself and perform his ministerial duties conscientiously, then he should shut and do his work. But if the points concerning which his views have changed are of so much importance in his estimation that he cannot be silent, and that he must propagate them, then he should quietly withdraw and join some other branch of the visible church where he can walk in a harmonious way. He has no right to insist on remaining and being permitted to publicly oppose what he has solemnly vowed to receive and support.

Someone might object that every man is under obligation to obey the great Head of the Church and that this obligation trumps anything which may bind him by ecclesiastical engagement to obey the church. In other words, he must obey God rather than men. But in this case, this is no objection at all. It has nothing to do with the subject under consideration. A man cannot bind himself always to believe as he now believes, but he can certainly promise that he will be a regular and orderly member of that body as long as he remains part of it. The moment he ceases to be able to do this, without sinning against God, if he be an honest man, he will silently withdraw.

Creeds and Confessions, Practical Implications, Part 2

Another implication or inference from all of our foregoing arguments is this:

Subscribing to a creed or confession is not a mere formality. It is a very solemn transaction, full of meaning, and inferring the most serious obligation. It ought to be entered upon the deep deliberation on prayer. Is there any sin more egregious than lying to the Holy Spirit? In other words, it is dishonesty and insincerity in the highest degree to seek membership in the church, or admission to her ministry, by knowingly harboring doctrines which are diametrically opposed to the doctrine to the church which is admitting you to membership ordaining you to ministry.

In all the forms of subscription used by churches that require it of their ministers, there are two parts. There is an affirmation that the minister will believe and affirm the doctrines contained in that church's confession of faith. But there is also a second part. The minister must also affirm that he will not oppose the doctrines contained in the church's confession of faith. In many cases, it seems that only the second part of the subscription has any force. I think it is clear though, that if we were to take this principle to the test of reason, to the test of Scripture, and the test of the original design of the confessions, it is horribly deficient. How can it be adequate to simply not teach error? How can it be acceptable and sufficient to simply not oppose one's own creed and confession of faith? If that minister were to practice this form of reasoning in a court of law, he would be deemed guilty of perjury. It is not enough to simply not speak against truth; a minister must proclaim the truth of the gospel as he sees it. In a minister must have the decency to relinquish his position of leadership in the church when the attaining and maintaining of that leadership hinges upon subscription to that church's articles of faith.