Who Should Get Baptism

The second of two lectures given at the Free Church College, Edinburgh on 8/4/2014

2 

Who Should Get Baptism? 

In this lecture I want to speak about the subjects of baptism and if we have enough time a little about the goals of baptism. As B. B. Warfield points out, ‘the question of the Subjects of Baptism is one of that class of problems the solution of which hangs upon a previous question. According as is our doctrine of the Church, so will be our doctrine of the Subjects of Baptism.’  It is the practice of the Reformed Church to give baptism to adults who profess faith in Christ and to their children. As far as such adults are concerned, there are several biblical passages that make their involvement clear. With regard to children, the biblical evidence is claimed to be there but it has to be teased out. I want to do so from the Bible obviously, but I also want to think about it out of some pastoral experience. 

Adult Baptism 

For most professing Christians the answer to the question of who should get baptism is straightforward. Those who believe that baptism can only be given to those who make a public confession of faith don’t see how the answer can be extended beyond them. And some of those who believe in baptismal regeneration would suggest that it should be given to anyone. It is those who are not classified as belonging to those groups who have to give deeper thought to this issue. 

What is my concern about adult baptism? I think we still practice it as if we live in a Christian country where everyone knows what the Bible says and I think we practice it as if every candidate was in the same state of heart. Clearly both of these aspects have consequences. My comments may illustrate my concern. 

The requirement for adult baptism is repentance towards God and faith in Jesus Christ. I suppose many would think this requirement is easy to appreciate. Yet we must ask what kind of faith or what degree of faith is required of adults in order for them to be baptised? In order to make my point a bit clearer, here are three types of authentic faith in Jesus.  

First, there is the faith of affirmation in which an individual states his belief that everything in the gospel is true. It could be that this type of faith is only intellectual and is the outcome of the individual weighing up the information he has been given. Yet it is also the case that this type of faith can come from the person’s affections, and be an expression of strong devotion to the Saviour’s cause. How can the leadership of a church distinguish whether or not the individual has real faith? I would suggest that they cannot do so and it is not their responsibility to do so. Therefore baptism of such must be allowed. 

Second, there is the faith of adherence in which an individual is not in possession of strong faith and is unlikely to say that he is a real Christian despite giving many evidences that he has been born again. It was common in the past, and perhaps still is, for such individuals to exist in Scottish Highland Christianity. Their lack of faith usually showed itself in their reluctance to participate in the Lord’s Supper. This failure was not the consequence of wilful disobedience to Christ’s command to participate. Instead it was connected to them not possessing assurance at certain stages in their spiritual journey. Can church leadership refuse baptism to such a person because his faith is weak and his assurance absent? Can they then deprive his children of baptism because of the weakness of his faith? I would say that such leaders would have to be very careful before denying baptism to that individual.  

The Westminster divines were of the opinion that a person who doubted should participate in the Lord’s Supper because it would strengthen his faith. Yet he cannot participate if he has not been baptised or has been refused baptism for his children (a refusal is an expression of church discipline) and the decision not to give him baptism prevents him from receiving spiritual help from the other ordinance that Jesus has given to his church. Often the method is somehow to convince the individual that he is converted and lead him to profess something he is uncomfortable about and not yet ready to affirm because of the weakness of his faith. I suspect a better option is to give him baptism because he is a disciple willing to learn and then let him discover how God will bring him to assurance. 

Third, there is the faith of assurance in which a person is convinced that he has passed from death unto life. Clearly there is no difficulty in giving baptism to such a person. Nor would we as a denomination refuse to baptise the children of such. But what should we do if one parent has the faith of assurance and the other parent only has the faith of adherence, perhaps even overwhelmed by doubts at the time when the baptism is due? 

What can we say in response? 

First, we need to ask what was the practice of the apostles when they gave baptism. We observed in the previous lecture that they baptised disciples very soon after they expressed an interest and did not leave the occasion for a few weeks in order to prove whether or not there were signs of conversion. This practice obviously allowed for the presence of short-term disciples and for those who had professed without fully understanding what they were doing, such as Simon the sorcerer. Yet there was not a call for reviewing the process after his false profession and indeed Luke, in his account in Acts, follows up the story of Simon with the account of the Ethiopian treasurer who was baptised after a discussion with Philip and then left to go home. It is obvious from the apostolic practice that baptism should occur as soon as possible, a feature we see also with regard to the household of the Philippian jailor. It looks as if the apostles were prepared to live with the possibility of false professions and did not see their presence as a reason for delaying baptisms. This is bound to become a circumstance we will face as we meet conversions from non-Christian backgrounds. 

Second, it is almost impossible to imagine the apostles allowing the existence of someone who can be described as an unbaptized believer. For the apostles, baptism was the crossing of a line in a public way. The baptised no longer belonged to the world but were now connected to the church of Christ in its local grouping where they would be discipled. This too has implications for what we are liable to face in our post-Christian world. We live in a society in which individualism is promoted and where each person is free to ignore the demands and expectations of others. The church cannot allow this to happen. It must insist that new disciples are baptised quickly.  

Third, we cannot make the qualifications for baptism to be the position of those with the strongest faith. If we do so, we will compel individuals to obey us but not even from an attitude of weak faith. Instead we are to make the qualifications as low as biblically possible, and in doing so we will run the risk of false conversions. It looks to me from what took place in the Book of Acts that a person should be told about baptism as soon as he expresses an interest in Jesus and then that individual can take it from there. If he wishes to continue with his interest, he may ask for baptism. His baptism may strengthen his commitment or he may begin to withdraw a short time afterwards. I suspect the former is the more likely result because it is following the order given by Jesus in the Great Commission.

Of course, we have a problem accepting that baptism of disciples is ineffective. Yet if we take the parable of the sower and apply it to situations today, how many of those hearers would have been baptised upon profession of faith? Clearly the first responder, who forgot about the message, would not have been baptised. On the other hand, the fourth type of responder, with their marked degrees of commitment, would have been baptised and the church to which they belonged would not have a problem with them. Yet the second and third types of responder would also have been baptised because they followed the Christian way for a period of time. Because they were not genuine, they would eventually have failed to live according to their baptism. But their failure did not make baptism inappropriate.

So the decision to grant baptism to an adult can never be an infallible one as far as guaranteeing that the profession made is of a regenerate person. The individual may be a pretender, may be coerced for a variety of reasons, may be genuine but not born again, or may be regenerate. 

Infant baptism 

Esteeming one’s infant baptism 

Let’s begin by asking some questions. The first is, ‘Have others valued infant baptism highly?’ John Macdonald of Calcutta was the missionary son of the Apostle of the North of the same name. John junior valued his own baptism as an infant. As he contemplated missionary work, he wrote when he was thirty: ‘I know not what is before me; but on this do I rest, that I am the Lord’s. On this day have I renewed my dedication to the Lord — this is all I can do; and I thank Him that He has enabled me so far to prevail against the flesh, that I am enabled to do this freely. What peace is connected with such consecration! Last night, or rather this morning, when rendering up myself before going to rest, I had some sweet and almost overpowering thoughts on being with Christ as the Son of God. O for more fellowship with Him! I am just now closely shut up to Him, for none but He can judge for me or help me. O Lord! I begin this new year by yielding up all to Thee. Accept, rule, judge, defend, guide, bless, and glorify me — all, all is in Thy hands. May that Spirit, blessed Lord! which descended on Thee in thy thirtieth year, rest on me also now. Oh! as thou art calling me to a more trying and public ministry, help me that I may not dishonour Thee! Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, whose I am in baptism, and by covenant of redemption, I yield myself up to the one living and true God, for evermore. Amen.’ You are about to step on to the stage of Christian service. Have you brought your baptism into it? 

Appreciating baptism for a child 

In addition, Macdonald valued the baptism of his infant daughter. This is what he wrote on that occasion: ‘Sabbath, November 24. — This day, in the kind providence of God, have I been permitted and enabled to dedicate my little offspring to my covenant God in baptism; and for this I give thanks. O what a privilege is it! I trust I have had communion with the Lord in this deed, if ever I had it. Many encouragements have I felt, and no misgivings as to infant baptism in its faithful form. Yea, I praise God for such an ordinance. I know God’s willingness to bless infants. I know that he did of old receive them into His covenant by seal. I know also that infants are capable of enjoying the blessings of the covenant of grace — that the want of faith in those who are incapable of faith is just as applicable to salvation as to baptism, and therefore constitutes no argument against it. I believe that the seal of the covenant will be just as valid to the child when it afterwards believes, as if baptized when adult — that it is a great privilege to have it externally united with the Church, and for a parent to say, “This, my child, has been solemnly and publicly given to God — it is federally holy.” I believe that the commission of Christ included the children of believers, and that the apostles baptized such; and I know that the holiest of men in all ages have had communion with their God in this ordinance. But why enlarge? O my Lord! I bless thee for saving me from falling into the cold and forbidding doctrines of antipaedobaptism! O give me grace to improve thine ordinance! Look in mercy on my little Catharine! O Spirit of the Lord! inhabit her, regenerate her! I have given her to thee — make her thine own! Bless mother, father, and daughter. O bless us! All glory be to God!’  

What are the bases of infant baptism? 

As indicated earlier, they have to be teased out from the New Testament. Of course, teasing out something is not unusual because we have to something similar with regard to the ongoing relevance of the Sabbath or with regard to the presence of women at the Lord’s Supper as well as with several other practices about which the New Testament is not explicit. 

The first basis I would mention is the apostolic practice of household baptisms. Some are mentioned in the Book of Acts (the household of Lydia and the household of the Philippian jailor) and some are mentioned in 1 Corinthians (the household of Stephanos). It is the case that a household would also include any servants or slaves associated with it. Yet there is no hint that the baptised in a household excluded children or infants. It requires some imagination to assert that somehow the only households to which gospel grace came were ones without children. 

The second basis is the fact that children of believers were regarded as belonging to the church. We get an example of this in Ephesians 6:1-3 and Colossians 3:20, passages found in contexts in which various groups that composed the churches are mentioned (interestingly, the groups are also those that would be connected to households). It may be, of course, that all the children in the churches in Ephesus and Colosse were genuinely converted when they were young and that is how Paul was able to address them as professing Christians. Yet I suspect it is more realistic to believe that he is addressing them as such because they were baptised into the name of the Trinity and thus belonged to God and were responsible to serve him. 

The third basis is that there is not a mention in the New Testament of a child of a believer professing faith as an adult and then getting baptised. This absence is very surprising given that there were thousands of them. The absence is easily explained if they were baptised as infants or as children. I am not suggesting that those children were not converted later in life, but I am stressing that there is not an example of any of them being baptised, nor is there any reference to the possibility. So I think this is a reasonable evidence for infant baptism. 

The fourth basis is Jesus’ comment to his disciples that children belong to the kingdom of heaven. Often when we hear the phrase ‘kingdom of heaven’ we think of the place where we go when we die. Yet that is not how Jesus used that phrase. The kingdom of heaven is a title he gave to the realm he would rule over after his death and resurrection. And he informed his disciples that when it would come there would be children in it. The way by which they would come into it would be by baptism since that is how everyone else would come into it. 

A fifth basis is that children belonged to the covenant community ever since the Lord made his covenant with Abraham. Every Israelite child was born into this privileged relationship whether or not he subsequently became a worshipper of the true God. The terms of the new covenant are far wider than the blessings of the old covenant, so it would be surprising if the new covenant is narrower in extent with regard to children and have none of them within its public display until they are converted later on – and it is very surprising that there is not a passage that says children are no longer to be part of it given that their inclusion was stressed in the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants. It seems to me that Peter’s statement on the Day of Pentecost about the promise (made to Abraham) also applying to their children, and given in the context of baptism, indicates that their children should be baptised. If someone then asks why they were not baptised at Pentecost, the answer is that at that time they were back home in the various countries from which those present at Pentecost came from. 

The Goals of Infant Baptism 

A good summary is found in the PCA church manual: ‘Children born within the pale of the visible church, and dedicated to God in baptism are under the inspection and government of the church, and are to be taught to read and repeat the Catechism, the Apostle’s Creed, and the Lord’s Prayer. They are to be taught to pray, to abhor sin, to fear God, and to love and obey the Lord Jesus Christ. And when they come to years of discretion, they ought to be urgently reminded that they are members of the church by birthright, and that it is their duty and privilege personally to accept Christ, confess him before men, and seek admission to the Lord’s supper.’ Of course, we cannot say that following this process guarantees conversion. Yet it should be our aim. 

One well-known example is Matthew Henry, the author of the famous Commentary on the Bible. He also wrote a biography of his father, Philip Henry, and in it he explains how his father stressed the importance of their baptism on his children. 

‘He drew up a short form of the baptismal covenant for the use of his children. It was this:

‘I take God the Father to be my chiefest good and highest end.  

‘I take God the Son to be my Prince and Saviour. 

‘I take God the Holy Ghost to be my Sanctifier, Teacher, Guide, and Comforter.  

‘I take the word of God to be my rule in all my actions. 

‘And the people of God to be my people in all conditions.  

‘I do likewise devote and dedicate unto the Lord, my whole self, all I am, all I have, and all I can do.  

‘And this I do deliberately, sincerely, freely, and for ever.  

‘This he taught his children; and they each of them solemnly repeated it every Lord’s day in the evening, after they were catechised, he putting his Amen to it, and sometimes adding, — So say, and so do, and you are made for ever.  

‘He also took pains with them to lead them into the understanding of it, and to persuade them to a free and cheerful consent to it. And, when they grew up, he made them all write it over severally with their own hands, and very solemnly set their names to it, which he told them he would keep by him, and it should be produced as a testimony against them, in case they should afterwards depart from God, and turn from following after him.’ 

Let us thank God for baptism, one of his 'means of grace'.