Hebrews affirms this as well. In fact, Peter thinks this representational work of Noah is precisely what baptism is all about. And corresponding to that baptism now saves you not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ emphasis added. If children were not baptized, one would expect that the New Testament would instruct children to come to baptism when they came to the place where they made profession of faith.
Or one would at least expect that there would be a reference to a child who had grown up in a Christian home being baptized upon profession of faith. On the contrary, during the forty-year period that the New Testament was written, there is not the slightest whisper of a hint of children of believing parents being baptized after profession of faith.
Jews were used to having their children included in the church. If that were no longer the case, we would expect that the Jews would have raised a controversy over it. They certainly raised a big controversy over every other change that was made: they quibbled over meat, drink, impurity, circumcision, sacrifices and a host of other rituals, but we never see even a hint of controversy about the removal of children from the covenant!
That was because children were never removed! When one understands the abundance of positive evidence for infant baptism that has been presented in this paper, this silence of the Jews is really a deafening silence! It is unexplainable if infants were excluded from the covenant.
We are having a baptism today at a building dedication service. And I think that is such a great reminder to us that though physical buildings are important, they are not nearly as important as the spiritual temple of Christ - a glorious building made of living stones - men, women and children. And it should be our desire that this physical edifice around us would be used to the glory of God and the building up of the bride of Christ.
But before I baptize [the baby], let me explain why Scripture includes not just adults in the spiritual building-stones, but also the children of believers.
When we admit adults into the church, we also bring in families. And I love the way the Bible treats families. God takes the families as a unit. He makes promises to families. When Zacchaeus believed, salvation grace invaded his whole house. And that is why the Old Testament had entire families circumcised and why in the New Testament entire families were baptized. Baptism replaces circumcision as the sign of the covenant, and over and over again baptism is tied to the Abrahamic covenant. If Baptism is the sign of the covenant, then we have no choice but to baptize infants because God has mandated that the sign of the covenant be applied to the children of believers.
No - God has always dealt with families in the covenant. Praise God for His covenant with the family. Those words are strewn throughout Scripture. Seven of the baptisms mentioned in the New Testament are household baptisms. The others were not simply because there were no children. Christ was not married, nor was Paul. The Ethiopian Eunuch could not have children. The overwhelming evidence is for family baptism. And it is a beautiful symbol of the fact that salvation is by grace alone and not by works.
Christ said we come into the kingdom like little children. We are born through no choice of our own. But baptism by sprinkling symbolizes the same thing. And so this evening you too will be covenanting not only with [the parents] but also with [the baby]. Baptism is a sign of what God has promised to the family - that He would be a God to us and to our children after us, and it is a seal or pledge of those promises. As the parents claim that promise in faith, God will fulfill the same. Raise up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.
Why would I read a passage on the circumcision of Abraham and his children at an event like Baptism? Let me give you five reasons:. First, because the New Testament says that New Testament believers are in the Abrahamic covenant, and it refers to that fact over 50 times. Including children in the covenant was an essential feature of being in the Abrahamic covenant. If the Abrahamic covenant in its essence includes children, how can we exclude children today? Turn with me to Galatians For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. No one questions the fact that verse 28 lists the baptized members cf. But it is important that you not stop reading in verse It is not just believers that are heirs. Their children are too. A child continues to be part of the Abrahamic covenant because that feature is at the essence of the Abrahamic covenant.
That child must be nurtured and led to faith. But our children are not to be treated as in the world. The family feature of the Abrahamic covenant continues into New Testament times. And that is why [parents] are bringing their children. So the first reason Genesis 17 is very relevant on this occasion is that the New Testament says that we are in the Abrahamic covenant and essential to that covenant is children.
A second reason why this passage is relevant is that Colossians among other passages says that baptism corresponds to circumcision and replaces circumcision.
Now to the Jews that would not have seemed like an odd thing since baptism had acted as a substitute for circumcision for thousands of years in the case of women or of excommunicated men. From the time of Moses on, males were circumcised and baptized on the eighth day; females were baptized on the 16th day and their baptism was treated as a circumcision. When Israelites were excommunicated from the community they were treated as Gentiles.
So if baptism replaces circumcision as the New Testament indicates, then we ought to look to this chapter to see to whom it applies. It applies not just to adult believers, but also to children. And this theme of tying baptism to Abraham is common. John the Baptist tied his baptism in with the Abrahamic covenant.
The discussion of baptism in Acts 2 is tied in with the covenants of promise. So the second reason this passage is relevant is that baptism replaces circumcision and just as circumcision is applied to infants and households, baptism must be also. A third reason why this passage is relevant is because the New Testament keeps appealing to the promise made to Abraham applying to us and to our children.
If you examine every promise made from Genesis you will see that they are all made to both Abraham and his descendants. And he makes that promise something that can never be superceded by later revelation because this is an everlasting covenant. And Paul makes a big point in Galatians that the covenant under Moses which came years later, cannot annul the covenant made with Abraham that it should make the promise of no effect. Genesis 17 continues to apply. Why does Galatians include children as being heirs even before they come to faith?
Children are heirs of the promise just as believing adults are. And we see a similar Abrahamic pattern with the baptism of five other households. The New Testament applies the promise to Abraham and his children to believers and their children today. This promise is also explicitly tied to baptism.
So we have seen three reasons why Genesis 17 is so relevant to what is happening this morning: first, that we are under the Abrahamic covenant and its requirements; secondly, baptism replaces circumcision, and thirdly that the promise to Abraham applies today because it is an everlasting promise which cannot be annulled - a promise to believers and their children.
The fourth reason why Genesis 17 is so relevant is that when you go back to the foundations of a doctrine, you can often correct major errors.
There are those who say that when the sign of the covenant is applied to children, they are regenerated. Roman Catholics say this and Lutherans say this.
We Presbyterians vigorously disagree. And I think there can be no better example than Ishmael to prove that the sign of the covenant does not regenerate children. He said that there was much value in circumcision in the Old Testament, but regenerating was not one of them.
Many Lutherans insist that 1 Corinthians teaches that when a child is outwardly cleansed by water, it is also made inwardly holy. The unbelieving spouse is also sanctified outwardly to salvation, but only the child is sanctified and cleansed. Fifth, this passage shows the seriousness of excluding our children from baptism. I believe it is a serious thing to forbid children from coming to Christ when He has commanded us to welcome them.
There are many who have objections to infant baptism, but as John Calvin said long ago, every argument that could be brought against the wisdom of infant baptism could be equally brought against the wisdom of infant circumcision. As the [parents] come forward at this time to present [their baby] to the Lord, I want to encourage every parent to lay claim to the promise given to Abraham - that He will be a God to you and to your descendants after you.
Please turn to Joel This is a familiar passage and one that was applied to baptism by Peter in Acts 2. In this passage, it is God who pours the Spirit upon people and He does it when and where He wills. John the Baptist recognized this. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
Second, the Spiritual baptism God gives is by pouring. Over and over in the book of Acts this baptism is said to be poured out upon people, or shed forth or to come upon a person. So even though we allow for immersion, we believe that pouring or sprinkling best symbolizes the baptism of the Spirit. Certainly God used pouring as His method in Acts. Third, households receive the promise.
Verses describe a Middle Eastern household. Not only are sons and daughters, old men and young, household menservants and maidservants receivers of the Spirit, but all flesh. Joel prophecies a new pouring out of the heavens, but instead of all flesh being destroyed men, women, and children , they receive life.
Peter in Acts 3 applies this even to teknois - little children. Each of those described, including the nursing infant, had God as his God, and thus was brought before the Lord on that day of repentance by his parents. They were all part of the congregation. And we can be encouraged that God claims our children for himself as well. For of such is the kingdom of heaven. So this passage reminds us first, that water baptism is not all that is needed.
Christ said that we must be born of water and the Spirit. Look to the Lord who alone can give the Spirit. Second, water baptism should symbolize the way God baptizes - by pouring. And so we baptize by pouring. Third, God has chosen to pour out His Spirit on entire households. And since water baptism symbolizes that, you find the consistent pattern in the New Testament of water baptism being given to entire households. Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved; you and your household.
Let us bring our children in faith. Hebrews tells us that before we can go on to understand more Christian doctrine, and certainly before we can be teachers, we need to understand the fundamentals. There is some way in which the doctrine of baptisms in the Old Testament is foundational to the church. He expected the church to understand it, and connected Old Testament baptisms Heb. Paul and Peter also expected their hearers to understand Old Testament baptism in such passages as 1 Corinthians , 1 Corinthians and 1 Peter An explanation that is not mentioned by Thiselton, and has none of the weaknesses mentioned, was provided by R.
Dabney in his Lectures in Systematic Theology. He says that this is simply a reference to the Old Testament baptism of those who have touched a dead body and are thereby unclean Numbers And a clean person shall take hyssop, and shall dip it in the water, and shall sprinkle it upon the tent, and upon all the vessels, and upon the persons that were there, and upon him that touched the bone, or the slain, or the dead, or the grave.
However, it was not just the physically dead who were treated as dead. You shall put out both male and female; you shall put them outside the camp, that they may not defile their camps in the midst of which I dwell emphasis added. That was a covenantal death; a covenantal separation from the people of God.
Thus the word nidah is used in connection with. This infant baptism was in addition to circumcision for males and was treated as if it were circumcision for females see principle 5 in the main body of this book. This translation takes the Greek as a temporal participle. The instrumental participle is also a possibility.
Whatever may have been intended by the details of the passage it is an unavoidable fact that baptism and circumcision are identified as the same. Baptism is the New Testament counterpart to circumcision. And many Baptists have recently admitted that this passage does teach a definite correspondence between baptism and circumcision. After an examination of Colossians , Paul K. Thus circumcision may fairly be said to be the Old Testament counterpart of Christian baptism.
So far, the Reformed argument, in our judgment, is biblical. That last statement by Kingdon is the common attempt to avoid the conclusion of infant baptism. These Baptists insist that there is a movement in redemptive history from external to internal, from visible to invisible, from earthly to heavenly, from fleshly to spiritual and from corporate to individual and personal.
It is by way of contrast, inward, spiritual, and personal. Baptism is received. It is administered by the church in the name of God. Therefore infants baptists see baptism as an act of God in which He gives His promises to the person being baptized. Of course, God can give his promises to children as well as to adults.
All Christians hopefully teach their children to observe all that Jesus has commanded. Infant baptists believe that they should keep to the order that Jesus gave: baptize first, then teaching more about what life with Jesus means. Register now for free and receive a new devotional every day to grow closer to God. Home » Christian Life » Baptism. What does the Bible say about infant baptism? Last updated on June 29, We are either members or not. Jesus is saying that children are in, and there is to be no argument about it.
There is absolutely no room here to make an argument that children must wait until some magical age before they too can be included with full rights into the Church and at the altar table. Jesus was once an infant Himself. But the Orthodox Church has always declared that He united God and man from the moment of His conception, and the Orthodox believe that His Kingdom belongs to children.
Not only because the covenant is with the whole household; not only because a distinction of age was never introduced into the practice of baptism; not only because such a distinction would not have matched the Old Testament covenants which served as the prophetic model for the New Covenant; but because Christ Himself became incarnate as an infant child.
In Him all ages, like all humanity, are sewn into the perfect union expressed in the eucharistic supper of the New Israel, which we join only through baptism. Christ makes both childhood and adulthood fully capable of expressing and participating in the Kingdom of Heaven. Preachers Institute. Asceties of Piety.
Is Infant Baptism Biblical? Believe me—I have lead tour groups here for five years now. You only have to be able to see these miracles. All true Christians see baptism as a sign of sins being washed away and of being united with Christ's death and resurrection. All true Christians see baptism as a seal of God's grace for sinners, not of our own goodness. All true Christians see baptism as a mark by which God claims a person and requires faith, love, and obedience.
All true Christians believe that an unbaptized person who has grown up outside a Christian setting, without faith in Christ, must turn to Jesus in repentance and personal faith before being baptized. Not all Christians agree on whether babies born to believing parents should be baptized, but Christians do agree that it's a huge privilege and responsibility when a child is born into a Christian family. Even many who don't support infant baptism still have ceremonies of dedication in which they celebrate God's goodness and promise to lead their little one in God's ways.
Not all Christians agree on whether a personal, public commitment to Christ is necessary before a child from a Christian family is baptized, but Christians do agree that such a personal, public commitment is necessary at some point. Even those who support infant baptism still insist that those who are baptized as babies must later respond with a public profession of personal faith in Christ as Lord and Savior, and must live for him.
Christians may have differences, but let's never forget the common ground and the unity that Christians share. Keeping this in mind, let's address the question, "Should babies be baptized? Let's begin by clearing away some clutter that confuses the issue. What do I mean by clutter? I mean mistaken ideas and flawed reasons that have piled up on both sides of this matter. Some supporters of infant baptism believe that baptism has almost magical power to save and that a baby who dies unbaptized cannot go to heaven.
They think the water itself washes away the original sin a baby is born with and causes a baby to be born again into new life. This view, called baptismal regeneration, is not biblical.
If you support infant baptism because you believe in baptismal regeneration, you need a sounder basis than that. By the same token, if you oppose infant baptism because you oppose the idea of baptismal regeneration, you need a better reason for opposing it. After all, millions of Christians believe in infant baptism without believing in baptismal regeneration at all. They don't believe God's saving power is bound to the water or to a church official applying the water.
They have a better, more biblical case for baptizing babies, and you must consider that stronger case before you decide against infant baptism. Baptismal regeneration is one piece of clutter that needs to be cleared away in order to get at the real meaning of baptism and decide whether it should ever be applied to babies.
Here's a second piece of clutter: using Jesus' baptism as an adult as proof that baptism isn't for babies. Jesus was baptized at age 30 Luke , and some folks claim that this disproves infant baptism. Sound convincing? Well, if Jesus' baptism at age 30 proves that babies shouldn't be baptized, it also proves that teenagers shouldn't be baptized, that twenty-somethings shouldn't be baptized, that anyone under 30 shouldn't be baptized.
Even opponents of infant baptism know it can't mean that. They baptize committed Christian youth many years before they reach the age at which Jesus was baptized. In their view, baptism must be applied as soon as an individual makes a personal commitment to the Lord, and not before then. But they would never say Jesus waited till age 30 because he was not committed to his heavenly Father before that point.
As Bible-believing Christians, they know there was not a moment of Jesus' life when he was not God's Son, fully committed to his Father.
That was different from the kind of baptism Jesus established. The Bible makes this clear. Therefore, the timing of Jesus' adult baptism by John has nothing to do with the timing of Christian baptism in the era after Jesus ascended to heaven and poured out his Holy Spirit.
To say otherwise is confusing clutter. A third kind of clutter is reasoning from silence, trying to score points on the basis of what the Bible doesn't say. If you oppose infant baptism, you might point out, "Nowhere does the Bible command infant baptism, and nowhere does the Bible mention a particular baby being baptized. Suppose we were asking not about whether babies should be baptized but about whether Christian women should take part in the Lord's Supper. Nowhere does the Bible command, "Women shall eat the bread and drink the wine.
Christians know full well that women belong at the Lord's table. Because of what the Bible says about the status of women who trust Jesus Christ. They are saved through his body and blood; therefore, they belong at the Lord's table. It would be clutter to point out that the Bible doesn't speak of women at the Lord's Supper. The real issue is what the Bible says about the status of Christian women and how their status relates to what the Bible says about the Supper. Likewise, it's clutter to point out that the Bible doesn't command that babies be baptized or not baptized.
The real issue is what the Bible says about the status of babies born to godly parents, and how that status relates to what the Bible says about baptism. Baptism is a sign and seal of entering the community of Christ, the community bought with Jesus' blood and given life by his Holy Spirit.
What's the status of babies born to Christian families?
0コメント