Infant Baptism: The Advantage to the Child
A question often asked of those who argue for infant baptism is, “What good does it do the infant?” Those who ask this question generally think they have nailed the defender, as there is no obvious benefit to the infant. The infant hardly seems to be aware of what is transpiring, let alone being aware of any benefit. Many who were baptized as infants, coming to faith as adults, desire to be baptized as adults, rationalizing that their baptism didn’t mean anything to them.
Such an approach to baptism, however, fails to recognize the true character of baptism, and fails also to recognize the real benefit of the rite to the infant. As to its true character, baptism (infant or adult) is not a public profession of a faith in Christ already acted upon. This view of baptism is readily drawn from a mistaken examination of Acts 2, which is then imposed on other texts having to do with baptism. The main problems with this understanding of Acts 2 are that first, it makes the mistake of drawing doctrinal conclusions from narrative texts; and second, it fails to recognize the transitional character of the situation in Acts 2.
Baptism rather is a sign of the covenant. That baptism is a covenant sign follows from the identification of circumcision and baptism (
If baptism is the New Testament equivalent of circumcision, and thus a covenant sign, we must look to the Old Testament and its discussion of covenant signs in order to determine what the advantage there is for the infant who is baptized.
The first covenant sign mentioned in the Old Testament is the rainbow (Gen 9:8-17). In this passage, we learn that the covenant sign is not for man only. Certainly it is understood that man benefits from seeing the rainbow, and remembering that God has established this as a sign that he will not again destroy the earth by a flood. But the emphasis of the text itself is on the importance to God of the sign. “When I bring the clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds, I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh” (Gen
God takes the covenant sign seriously. Thus a child, who would otherwise be a member of the covenant people, God considers him to be no part of the covenant people if he does not have the sign of the covenant. So a child of believing parents who is not baptized is considered by God to be none of his. It matters not how much care the parents may lavish on the child, or how much they may teach him the Bible. They have disobeyed God on one point, and their children are cut off.
The advantage to the child is thus two-fold. First, God considers that child a member of the visible church. Thus, according to his promise, he blesses all the parents’ efforts on behalf of the child. This is not to say that God may not bless the efforts of parents who are disobedient in the matter of the covenant sign. But such parents have no promise from God that he will bless in their labors.
[Just as an aside, it is curious to me that Presbyterians actually make more out of baptism than Baptists do. Baptists apparently, for example, see no problem with repeated baptisms, as long as the subject of the repeated baptism considers that he wasn’t really converted when he was first baptized. Second, Presbyterians talk about improving our baptism (LC Q 167), making everyone’s baptism important to us, whereas the Baptist sees baptism as of real importance only for the professing believer being baptized.]
6 comments:
Thanks for a very helpful article on baptism.
Dr. Shaw,
Thanks for this article. Would you then say that it is sinful for a Christian to withhold baptism from their child?
Thanks for following FatherDaughter on Twitter. I've just landed here due to your patronising that Twitter feed.
Having been infant baptised myself, I find this of real interest. I've just finished consuming Adonaram Judson's biography by his son. So you can imagine the thoughts on my mind right now...
Thank you for your work.
FatherDaughterEvents.com
Twitter.com/FatherDaughter
DomesticDigest.com
So based on your line of reasoning, someone who is elect but not baptized by their believing parents is not part of the covenant community but someone who is not elect and will spend eternity in hell is part of the covenant community because their parents sprinkled them with water as an infant?
Thanls Dr Shaw. A helpful article indeed! I am keen to hear your response to Lane Bruant's question...
In response to Arthur Sido's comment: yes, I think it is as you say. Here we see the importance of not seeing the covenant (Israel and the church) as synonymous with the elect: "For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel" (Rom. 9:6).
This is interesting! I do have some questions though - put in this perspective, isn't it no better than than saying that, just by being baptised, you will be saved? Wouldn't baptism become simply a ritual then, and not a covenant? After all, a covenant is a promise shared between two agreeing parties, not a one sided affair.
In Luke 11:37-44, Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for cleaning the outside of the cup and leaving the inside 'dirty'. I interpreted this passage as being a Christian by deed, instead of it coming from the heart. Similarly, in the case of infant baptism, if the babe goes through the ritual but does not mean it, doesn't it count as naught? (Please correct me if I'm wrong!)
Post a Comment