Word of Salvation – Vol. 30 No. 24 – Jun 1985

 

Infant Baptism

 

Sermon by Rev. S. Voorwinde on Col. 2:11,12, 1Cor. 7:14

Scriptures: 1Cor. 7: 8-16; Col. 2: 8-15

(Belg. Conf. Art. 34)

Suggested hymns: 209:1,4,5; 415; BoW 502; 419; 310

 

Brothers & sisters in Christ,

With regard to baptism there are various controversial questions: How do we baptise?  This morning/evening we deal with this controversial question:

Whom do we baptise?

We know that baptism by sprinkling is a proper Biblical approach to baptism.  Baptism symbolises cleansing, and sprinkling in the Bible is a method of cleansing.  Therefore baptism by sprinkling very adequately expresses what is signified by the sacrament of baptism – namely cleansing.  So there is nothing unbiblical in baptism by sprinkling but can the same now be said of the practice of infant baptism?  Is infant baptism Biblical?  Or is this practice purely a matter of tradition?  The answers given to these questions have divided Christians perhaps more than almost any other issue.  Infant baptism or believers' baptism, which one is Biblical?  As we answer this question we need to have a close look at what the Bible says and we also need to have a clear understanding of what the Bible means.

First of all, let me say that when I defend our church's practice of infant baptism, I can't point you to any particular verse.  I can't say: "Here's a text that proves it.”  Our answer to this question depends on our view of Scripture as a whole.  I believe that the Old Testament and the New Testament form one Book.  I believe that God deals in the same way with His people in both testaments.  The Gospel is the same.  The way of salvation is the same.  It's like having two photographs of the same person.  In one of the photos he's a child, in the other he is a grown man.  Some of the features may have changed, but it's still the same person.  The photos are not of two different people, not even of two closely related people – father and son, or two brothers.  They are two photos of the same person one as a child and one as a mature man.

So it is with the Old Testament and the New Testament.  In the Old Testament we see the Gospel in its infancy and in its childhood.  In the New Testament we see it come to full bloom.  In the Old Testament we see faith in the promise that the Messiah will come.  In the New Testament we see faith in the Messiah who has come.  The Old Testament looked forward.  We look back.  Likewise the covenant is also essentially the same: "I will be your God and you will be my people."  The covenant is still the same but some of its features have changed.  As in the two photographs you still recognise that it is the same person, so in the Old Testament and the New Testament you still recognise that it is the same covenant, but some of the features have changed.  In the Old Testament the covenant was with Israel, now it is with worldwide church.  In the Old Testament the covenant feast was the Passover, now it is the Lord's Supper.  In the Old Testament the rite of initiation into the covenant was circumcision, now it is baptism.  Under the New Testament therefore Israel became the Church, the Passover became the Lord's Supper, circumcision became baptism.

So when we defend the practice of infant baptism then our view of Scripture must be taken into account.  There is continuity between the Old Testament and New Testament, not a break.  The Old Testament grows into the New Testament.  But if this is so, if circumcision has become baptism, we may not find a proof-text, but we will find that this assumption is reflected in the language of the New Testament.  We will find that certain things could not be said unless this were the case.  So let's look at our text first at 1Cor.7:14, secondly at Col.2:11,12 and then thirdly at how this teaching applies to us today.

1Cor.7:14:-

"For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy."

This is a difficult verse so we have to know something of the background.  These people at Corinth were fairly new to Christianity.  Some were already married when they were converted.  Now what are they going to do?  One partner has become Christian, the other still remains a pagan.  Should the Christian break up the marriage?  No, not at all!  If the unbelieving partner is happy to continue the marriage, then so be it.  In our text Paul gives the reasons:

(i) The unbelieving partner is sanctified through the believing partner,

(ii) the children are holy.

Now obviously the sanctification meant here is not the sanctification of someone who is born again.  Nor is the holiness necessarily the holiness of someone who is born again.  Then what is it?  How can an unbelieving partner be sanctified and how can a child of such a marriage be holy?

First of all, what does the word "sanctify" mean?  Most often the word means "to cleanse" or to "make morally pure".  It is a moral act and refers to people.  That's one meaning, but it can also have another meaning to consecrate, to set apart.  In this sense it need not necessarily refer to people.  Days can be holy.  The temple is holy.  Sacrifices are holy.  The gold in the temple is holy.  So if you take gold and set it aside for use in the temple you have sanctified it.  It used to be just plain gold.  Now it is special and holy.  It has been sanctified.

It is in this way that the unbelieving partner in a marriage is sanctified.  Nothing happens to that person morally.  He or she still remains a pagan.  Yet that person has now become associated with the kingdom of God.  In this sense he or she is sanctified.  Charles Hodge writes: "he assumed a new relation; he was set apart to the service of God, as the guardian of one of God's chosen ones, and as the parent of children who, in virtue of their believing mother, were children of the covenant."  So in that sense the unbelieving partner is sanctified.  He is set apart to look after and care for some of God's children.

From here Paul can easily take the next step.  If the parents are holy then the children are holy.  Again we are not talking about a moral quality.  We are not talking about purity or Christ-likeness.  We are saying that this child is set apart, is consecrated, is sacred.  It is holiness of status and not holiness of character.  It is a holiness of connection privilege.  To quote again from Charles Hodge:

“...This passage recognises the great scriptural principle that the children of believers are holy.  They were holy in the same sense in which the Jews were holy.  They are included in the Church and have a right to be so regarded.  The child of a Jewish parent had a right to circumcision, and to all the privileges of the theocracy.  So the child of a Christian parent has a right to baptism and to all the privileges of the Church, so long as he is represented by his parent; that is, until he arrives at the period of life when he is entitled and bound to act for himself.  Then his relation to the church depends on his own act."

A child of a Christian parent then is holy, is set apart, from the moment of birth – or possibly even earlier.  He is baptised, not to make him holy, but because he is holy.  The Jewish child was circumcised because he was a Jew and not to make him one.

I am sure at this point that every Christian would say that a child of Christian parents is someone special, not just to the parents, but in God's sight.  I think Christians feel this almost instinctively, even Christians who don't baptise infants.  The Baptists have dedication services for babies.  Some Pentecostal groups allow their children to partake of the Lord's Supper.  Children of believers are special people.  The Bible says they are holy, they are in the covenant and from this we conclude that they ought to be baptised.

Now, at this point let me draw a very clear line.  A child is baptised because he is holy and because he is in the covenant.  But please, let us say no more than this.  If we say more than this, we are confusing the issue.  We don't presume that the child is regenerate.  We don't assume that he is going to be born again.  We don't say that he has "baby faith", as some have said.  Even a man like Abraham Kuyper and other Reformed people held to the view of "presumed regeneration": you assume that the baptised child is born again until proven other- wise.  But this is dangerous and wrong.

Jesus never made assumptions like this.  Nicodemus was a member of the covenant and Jesus said: "You must be born again." John the Baptist never made assumptions like this.  Those who came to the Jordan were God's covenant people, but he still said: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

If people are in the covenant you can't therefore assume that they have been born again; you can't assume that they have repented.  Yet the covenant is as it were the river-bed through which God channels His streams of blessing.  When babies are baptised God is opening a channel for His grace into those tiny lives.  The benefits of Christ are flowing to them.

So, then, from this verse we learn that children of believers are holy, set apart by God.  In the Old Testament Jewish children were holy and they were circumcised.  Now children of believers are holy in the same way.  Shouldn't they therefore be baptised?

Secondly, we move to our text, Colossians 2:11 & 12:

"In Him (in Christ) you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead."

Here Paul is obviously not speaking about physical baptism and physical circumcision.  He is speaking about the baptism of the Spirit and the circumcision of the baptism of the heart.  He is not talking about something outward, but something inward.  But he is talking about only one inward experience and this can be referred to as both baptism and circumcision.  If baptism and circumcision have the same meaning in the spiritual sense, then surely the circumcision of the flesh and water baptism have the same significance.  They are outward signs of the same inward reality.  But let's go a little deeper into these verses.  In Colossians 2 Paul warns against people falling back into Judaism.  False teachers had been telling these Gentile Christians that they had to be circumcised.  Paul says: "Don't!  You have already been circumcised, not physically, but spiritually."  And, as he warns them he gives some of the characteristics of spiritual circumcision in contrast to the physical:

(i)  It involves the putting off of the sinful nature, or in the words of another translation it was "the removal of the body of flesh."  Physical circumcision was no more than the removal of excess foreskin.  However, both were a form of cleansing.

(ii)  It was not a circumcision done by the hands of men.  It was not a manual operation (minor surgery!) but it was the circumcision done by Christ.  It was the work of the Holy Spirit.

(iii)  And therefore it was inward and not outward, a circumcision of the heart and not of the flesh.

Now all that can be said of the circumcision of the heart can also be said of the baptism of the Spirit, of the new birth:

(i)  It involves cleansing or the putting off of the sinful nature.

(ii)  it is the work of the Holy Spirit.

(iii)  It is inward and not outward.

Therefore spiritual baptism and spiritual circumcision mean the same.  Baptism and circumcision point to the same inward reality.  So doesn't it follow that the circumcision of the flesh in the Old Testament should lead to water baptism in the New?  If the children of Jews were circumcised, then shouldn't the children of Christians be baptised?  Shouldn't there be a parallel between what happened to Abraham in the Old Testament and what happened to the early Christians in the New?

That's exactly what you do find.  Think of the household baptisms that took place in the life of the early church.  In Acts 16, Lydia and her household are baptised.  The Philippian gaoler and his household are baptised.  Paul tells the Corinthians that when he was in their city.  he baptised the household of Stephanas.  Of course you can debate all the ins and outs of whether there were children in these households.  There probably were.  But what is more significant is how this reflects the institution of circumcision in Genesis 17.  There God commanded Abraham to circumcise every male, whether he be a son or a slave.  Every male in the household was to be circumcised.  This same notion is then carried over into the New Testament.  If the head of the household was baptised then the whole household was baptised as well.  Abraham and the males in his household were circumcised.  Lydia and the Philippian gaoler and their households were baptised.  There is an unmistakable parallel.

This brings us now to our third point where I would like to apply this teaching, first of all positively and then also negatively.  On the positive side what are the benefits of baptism?  What good did it do you that you were baptised as a baby; or whenever you were baptised?  Well of course, baptism is a sign, it is a sign of the covenant.  But it is not an empty sign.  It is not a hollow symbol.  This ring on my finger is the sign that I am married.  Perhaps to you that's all that this particular ring means.  But to me it means far more; it reminds me of my wife's love and of our wedding day so many years ago.

So our baptism is not just a sign that we have a covenant with God.  It is more than that.  It is a means of grace.  Together with Bible reading and Lord's Supper it is a way that God has ordained for the strengthening of our faith.

Now, how is baptism a means of grace?  How does it strengthen our faith?  Well let me give you an illustration from history.  Luther was going through some intense spiritual struggles.  How did he know that he was in God's favour?  How could he be sure of anything?  How could he be certain that he was going to heaven?  In the midst of these inward agonies he got up and wrote on the blackboard of the room where he was studying: "AT LEAST I HAVE BEEN BAPTISED!"

What was so special about that?  It is that here we come face to face with the grace of God!  In baptism, especially in infant baptism, we so clearly see the grace of God.  He takes the first step in our lives.  He makes the first move.  Little children are so helpless, they have no understanding and no ability.  And yet already then God is touching those young lives.  He is giving them something invaluable.  Baptism is not something they do for Him; it is His gift to them.  Baptism is the watery expression of the unfathomable depths of the grace of God.  Before we could do anything, He was already doing something in our lives.

Let me ask you, how do you cope with a spiritual crisis?

What do you do when you're feeling spiritually low?  When you just don't know anymore?  What do you do then?  Many tend to look back at their conversion, but when they are in a spiritual low they will question even the validity of that.  You may look back to some personal experience, but how do you know that was genuine?  How beautiful then that you can look back to your baptism which is not something subjective, but something objective; not something you did but something God did.  It is something that is eloquent of God's grace; not of our personal experience.  Yes, you have a covenant with God, He has put His sign and seal and mark on you.  He has made promises to you that He will never break.  Therefore even in times of crisis and difficulty you can still say with Luther: "At least I have been baptised!"

That's the assurance, the comfort that baptism gives.  That's true whenever it was in life that you were baptised.  But there's also another side to it, the negative side, the warnings.  As it says in our form for infant baptism: "Since God makes us partners with Him in the covenant of grace, He demands of us that we choose His service and seek first His kingdom.  He solemnly warns His people not to break the covenant; for se who do are doubly guilty.”

There is a real sense in which the sacrament of Holy Baptism is "charged with power".  It's like electricity.  It can give you warmth and comfort, but it can also electrocute you.  A Dutch theologian used to say that under the ministry of the Word and Sacraments we and our children are under the high tension power cables of the Holy Spirit.  Here in church things are happening that have eternal consequences.  When a baby is baptised, when parents make promises, when the Word is preached.  Baptism may give a lot of reassurance and encouragement to those who are struggling with their faith, but it does nothing of the kind for those who turn their back on God and give Him the cold shoulder.  It can only mean bad news for those who ignore their responsibilities, whether they be parents or children.  If you've been brought up in a Christian home and you're thinking of tossing it all in, you'd better think again.  Your baptism isn't some good luck charm you can pull out on the day of judgement.  It's not some kind of magic wand you can wave when all else fails; not at all.

You know, in the Bible the letter to the Hebrews was written to a group of people who were thinking of throwing in the towel as far as Christianity was concerned.  And what does the writer do?  First he reminds them of the covenant they have with God and then he issues a warning: "If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgement and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God...  It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." (Heb.10:26,27,31).

If you've been baptised you have a covenant with God.  Are you keeping that covenant or are you breaking or ignoring it?  Those high voltage power lines of the Holy Spirit under which we live will they bring you light and warmth or will they bring you death?  "It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."  What was true in the Old Testament is still true today; covenant-keepers are blessed, coven- ant breakers are cursed.

In the Old Testament the covenant sign was circumcision.  In the New Testament it is baptism.  Both point to the same inward reality: the putting off of the sinful nature or the washing away of sin.  Each is a symbol of cleansing.

Why then was circumcision changed to baptism if they both mean the same?  It was because the blood of Jesus Christ was shed on the cross.  The bloody sacrament now becomes the bloodless sacrament.  The Passover becomes the Lord's Supper and circumcision becomes Holy Baptism.

So whenever the believer looks back on his baptism, he also looks back to the cross and remembers that it was there that Christ cleansed him; his sinful nature was put off and his sins were washed away.  Water may cleanse his body for a moment, but the blood of Christ cleanses his soul for all eternity.

Amen.