Introduction
“Everyone is welcome to have their children christened in their parish church. During the christening service, your child will be baptized and with the support of the church, you and godparents, your child begins an amazing journey of faith.”[1]
I want to argue this is a departure from what the Bible, and the historic doctrine of the Church of England, believe. In examining the basis for baptising babies in the Bible, we will also discover the reasons why baptism is limited to believers and their children only.
It is also worth stating: we as Christians believe in justification by faith alone.[2] We do not earn our way to God, through good works, or the observance of ceremonies. It is worth stating this for two reasons:
- Infant baptism has been abused to a point it is viewed as a salvific event.
- Keeping this doctrine mind will help us see why baptism is only for believers and their children.
When it comes to tackling this question, we are not going to be ‘proof texting.’ That is, not going to rattle off bible verses to prove this point. Don’t be worried about that though, because that is not the only way to form a biblical argument. The methodology here will involve examining biblical data,[3] and its doctrinal implications,[4] which will then be applied to contemporary practice.
Baptism involves responding to a previously made promise, so we need to ask ourselves four questions from biblical and systematic theology:
- What kind of God makes this promise?
- What kind of promise is God making?
- Who are the beneficiaries of this promise, and do they remain the same from the Old Testament to the New?
- What is baptism?
Q1: What Kind of God makes this promise?
Answer: The perfect-promise keeper in Scripture
“The story of the Bible is the story of the relationship between God and his people based on his word. Jesus is the centre of the story.”[5]
I love this phrase, as it encapsulates for us clearly an understanding of the Bible centred around the idea of promise. A more technical term for this is ‘covenant.’ It is this phrase that we gain the implication of baptising the babies of believers, for the Bible views them as covenant members.
But before we get to the content of the covenant, we briefly must survey the covenant proposer: God. Foundational to our understanding of God (therefore our theology), is the idea that God is able to, and is willing to keep his promises perfectly. This is called perfect being theology.[6]
Within it we note that God is all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing, and limitless in His presence and holiness. While this may be hard for us to grasp in this short paragraph, it is worth knowing that the promise God makes, He is able to keep, and will keep: in a dual role as covenant keeper, and covenant maker. This brings us on to our second question.
Q2: What kind of promise is God making?
A: a covenant of grace to a people he has chosen
As we have seen, the story of scripture is framed around the promises of God.[7] These promises follow a duel pattern: a verbally proclaimed covenant promise, and a covenant sign or seal, which is a visible word that confirms the invisible work of the proclaimed covenant promise. We will see how baptism fits into this pattern.[8]
Genesis 12 is a key text. There, God chooses pagan Abram to be the one whom he makes this covenant promise threaded in the Bible. In response to humanity’s rejection of His Creator Lordship, God offers the following verbally-proclaimed covenant promise: “I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.”[9]
This familiar promise is three-fold. It promises that, through Abram, God will provide his chosen, yet rebellious people that they will be his people, in his land, under his rule and blessing. This covenant of grace[10] stretches across the whole discourse of scripture, finally realised through the work of the Lord Jesus, and culminated in the New Creation.[11]
Later in Genesis, this verbal promise is ratified through visible signs and seals.[12] The first of these comes in Genesis 15:1-20. There, God repeats his covenant promise, and it is ratified, or visibly displayed, by animals being cut in half, and God himself passing through the pieces.[13] This ‘cutting ceremony’ was an agreement, that if someone broke the promise, what happened to the animals would happen to them. But only God passes through the pieces, he’s going to keep both halves. A verbal word is confirmed by a visible word.[14]
Later in Genesis 17 we see God institutes the covenant sign and seal of circumcision. We pause here to note this promise is for believers and their children. Part of being God’s visible covenant community, was being circumcised. This aspect lasts throughout the rest of the Old Testament. It is indeed, taken seriously, given God’s response to Moses’ forgetfulness when it came to his own son.[15]
This physical act was sealing, and visualised the promises of God. It was not meant for outward acts only. A ‘circumcision of the heart’ is required.[16] Thus, the outward sign is not the bestowal of the inward covenantal grace, but a mark of God’s work, done in faith, that the circumcised baby will grow up to know and fear the LORD.[17] Already, this gives us a clue as to the defined boundaries of recipients of the covenant sign, which does not change throughout the rest of the Old Testament.
However, does circumcision translate to baptism today. Is there continuity in the covenant? After all, Acts 15 and most of Galatians is an appeal against circumcision in the new testament. Is there an end to this? Are we in a different ‘age’ or ‘epoch’ of grace?[18] Is this what is inferred by the term ‘new’ covenant? [19] Such questions lead us to our third and final area.
Q3: Who are the beneficiaries of this promise, and do they remain the same from the Old Testament to the New?
A: Believers and their children: in both testaments
We have seen the covenant promise, from the perfect-promise keeping God, is for believers and their children in the Old Testament. We know it includes children, as they are beneficiaries of the same covenant sign.[20] They are part of this visible covenant community.[21] We have also seen this promise is received by faith, outworked in loving obedience to the law. Circumcision does not save, but it does mark people as God’s, because God is dealing corporately with households, and not just individually.[22]
Can we prove though, that this pattern continues into the New Testament?[23]
Given a trend within evangelicalism to see justification in a purely forensic, individualised way, it is unsurprising we are uncomfortable with the idea of infant baptism.[24] Covenant discontinuity is prominent, but I believe this to be detrimental.
In the New Testament there are no instances where the parameters of believers and their children are altered. By Acts 2, Jesus has died, risen again, and gone back to the Father, leaving the disciples with a job to do: to tell people about Jesus to the ends of the earth, and with a helper to come: the promised Holy Spirit.
It is this Holy Spirit that enables Peter to stand up in front of a large crowd, and tell them the good news about Jesus. His words tell us that the covenant promises of God have the same parameters: “the promise is for you and for your children.”[25]
Colossians 2:11-12 highlight continuity between covenants, as well as development. For example, women can be baptised too, whereas they could not be circumcised. This covenant sign is administered to infants, based on the covenant commitment of their parents, in expectation of the inner work of regeneration and covenant obedience.[26]
If the parameters have suddenly been changed, God hasn’t kept His original promise!
Covenant Implications
From this, compiled from raw biblical data via overall biblical theology rather than proof texting, we have already made some progress into who is the right recipients of baptism. But before we make our final conclusions, we must take brief time to examine the doctrine of baptism in scripture. This is systematic theology, and is also valuable in our investigation
Question 4. What is baptism?
Answer: A covenant sign and seal of God’s inner work of regeneration, not an outward profession of faith[28]
Baptism[29] signifies a work done as part of faith-union with Christ.[30] The inward work of Christ is described as a baptism of the Spirit.[31] We are baptised into Christ himself and made his.[32] This happens in the life of every believer as they come to know Christ for themselves, whenever that occurs. This inward work guarantees they are safe in Christ, and cannot be seen from the outside. This is true admittance to the invisible church. This promise is visibly shown and sealed in baptism by water.[33]
Baptism is a sign and a seal of God’s promise to take people for Himself, make them clean by the blood of His Son, unite them to Christ, and so make them part of His people.[34] Therefore, it is an outward sign of an inward change (or done in charitable assumption of that change to come). It is a covenant sign of being marked and welcomed into God’s people: “Baptism is not only a sign of profession and mark of difference; whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not Christened; but as a sign of regeneration or new birth.”[35]
Baptism brings recipients into covenant with God, and makes them part of His visible covenant community[36]. It’s a sign showing us how in baptism, we have been united with Christ in His death.[37] As Jesus has washed away our sins, we show that inward work by an outward symbol. When we see baptism, we are reminded of God’s work.
So, baptism, as well as a sign of initiation into the covenant community of God, is also a sign of regeneration and new birth. As Calvin puts it, baptism is a: “sealed document to confirm to us that all our sins are so abolished, remitted and effaced that they can never come to his sight, be recalled, or charged against us.”[38] Baptism is a sacrament of covenant initiation. Therefore, are children entitled to receive it? We have discovered already that the answer is confidently yes. This is not saying that baptism is salvific, but instead, like circumcision, is done in faith that God will make his promises real in the heart of the child.[39]
Implications for the Church of England today
Our first implication then is perhaps slightly obvious: it is right to baptise babies. In this, as Reformed Anglicans, we agree. However, the raw biblical and systematic data we have before us takes us further. We cannot, with respect, just baptise any baby brought through the door, as has been the practice at this church. Instead, baptism, as a sacrament, is for believers and their children.
Remember we believe in justification by faith alone, because that is what the Bible tells us. Recipients of this promise are recipients through election, and with the empty hands of faith. This is consistent with baptising the children of believers. It is not however, consistent with baptising any child.
This covenant understanding of children gives us a deeper appreciation of grace, and a clear understanding of children’s inclusion in God’s visible covenant community. This means that there is a distinction between the invisible church (which is true believers who trust Jesus – which we can’t see for sure), and the visible church (those who we see on Sunday, and we don’t necessarily know if they are Christians or not).[40]
It is important to make this invisible-visible distinction,[41] because otherwise we could end up saying that everyone who is baptised is automatically a Christian, including babies. To say this would go against the Bible, and the doctrine of the Church of England.
Only God knows the members of His invisible church, the true covenant community down the ages. The visible church allows for the fact that there will be members of the visible church that are not part of the invisible, highlighted by the administration of the sacraments.
Sacraments are administered to the visible church, which, as we have seen, includes children of covenant members. We treat them based on the faith of their parents, until they are at an age where they can possess the faith they have been nurtured in for themselves.[42]
Therefore, I can’t baptise every child that comes through the door. Without parents who are believers, I can’t guarantee they will be brought up in faith, and that the parents can even make these promises in the first place.
Endnotes
[1] Taken from the public website of the church of England.
[2] There are so many places we can go to see this, but see in particular Romans 3:21-27, Galatians 3:6-8, 4:4-7.
[3] That is, biblical theology: understanding scripture as a whole in light of itself
[4] That is, systematic theology: defining our doctrine e.g what is our doctrine of baptism, in light of scriptural implications and applications.
[5] I am deeply grateful to Rev George Crowder, of St John’s Over, for this phrase, given multiple times during a Bible Overview whole church series (sermon, home group, children’s and youth groups) from April – June 2014. Found at: http://www.stjohnover.org.uk/sjo/talk-series/bible-overview/ (accessed 21/4/17).
[6] A good place to explore this is Katherin A. Rogers Perfect Being Theology. (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2000.)
[7] Michael Horton. Introducing Covenant Theology (Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker Books, 2006) 20.
[8] The Lord’s Supper fits into this too, which we can examine at another time.
[9] Genesis 12:2-3.
[10] Horton, Covenant Theology, 104-106.
[11] See particularly Rev 21-22.
[12] Horton, Covenant Theology 138.
[13] Joel R. Beeke and Mark Jones, A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012) 259-260.
[14]John Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion. (trans. Ford Lewis Battles; 2 vols; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 2001) IV.xiv.4 (Battles 2:1279).
[15] See Exodus 4.
[16] See Deuteronomy, cf Romans 2:29.
[17] See Deuteronomy 6.
[18] But see article 34 of Belgic Confession: “Having abolished circumcision, which was done with blood, he established in its place the sacrament of baptism…Baptism does…what circumcision did for the Jewish people” Quoted in “Reformed View: Baptism as a Sacrament of the Covenant” Pages 59-72 by Richard L Pratt Jr in Understanding 4 view on Baptism (edited by Paul Engle and John H Armstrong) Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2007, 66
[19] A helpful starting point in thinking through this notion of covenant continuity can be found in Jonty Rhodes, Raiding the Lost Ark: Recovering the Gospel of the Covenant King (Nottingham: IVP, 2013) 96-111.
[20] Galatians 3:7. For an overview of God’s relationship with Abrahamic descendants, see Rhodes, Raiding the Lost Ark, 65-67.
[21] This is an important distinction to make, as we will see later.
[22] It is worth remembering this in our individualised culture.
[23] See Horton, Covenant 74-5 for a fuller argument of this.
[24] For more thinking on this, see Marcus Peter Johnson One with Christ: An Evangelical Theology of Salvation (Wheaton, Il.: Crossway, 2013) 111-114.
[25] Acts 2:39.
[26] See Deut 10:16, 30:6 and Jer 4:4.
[27] John Owen’s Of Infant Baptism taken from The Works of John Owen: Volume 16 (edited by W.H. Goold) (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1968) 258 in Lee Gatiss, “From Life’s first Cry: John Owen on Infant Baptism and Infant Salvation” 325-367 in Preachers: Pastors and Ambassadors: Puritan Wisdom for Today’s Church St Antholin Lectures Volume 2:2001 – 2010 (Lee Gaitss ed) London: The Latimer Trust, 2011 (357 – 362) 358.
[28] See Article XVIII of the Thirty-Nine Articles.
[29] See the command given by Jesus to His disciples in Matt. 28:19-20, as well as the continuation of the practice throughout the book of Acts.
[30] “Lastly, our faith receives from baptism the advantage of its sure testimony to us that we are not only engrafted into the death and life of Christ, but so united to Christ himself that we become sharers in all his blessings.” Calvin, Institutes IV.xv.6 (Battles 2: 1307-1308).
[31] Mark 1:8.
[32] Romans 6:4.
[33] See the catechism in The Book of Common Prayer 1662, 294.
[34] Romans 6:4, Colossians 3:1.
[35] Article XXVII of the Thirty Nine Articles. The Book of Common Prayer, 1662.
[36] Calvin, Institutes IV:xv.1 (Battles 2:1303-1304).
[37] Romans 6:3-7.
[38] Calvin, Institutes IV:xv:1 (Battles 2:1304).
[39] Calvin, Institutes IV.vi.5 (Battles 2:1327-1328).
[40] WCF XXV I-II. We could also examine Article XIX of the Thirty-Nine Articles, yet I think the WCF holds the visible-invisible distinction more clearly.
[41]Calvin. Institutes, IV:i.7 (Battles 2:1021).
[42] See the opening exhortation in ‘The Publick Baptism of Infants’ service in the Book of Common Prayer 1662, 264.
Random Ruminations of a Rev 