Word of Salvation – Vol. 15 No.11 - Mar 1969

Why Do We Baptize Infants?

Sermon by Rev. T. E. Tyson, B.A., B.D. on Genesis 17:7,10

SCRIPTURE READING: Genesis 17

PSALTER HYMNAL: 114:1,2,3; 151:3 (after Law);
                                    55:1,4 (after Assurance); 333:1,4;
                                    419:1,2,3; 419:4,5 (after Benediction)

Why do we baptize infants?  Neither tradition nor sentiment will suffice!  Is it God's revealed will or not – that’s the question!

Admittedly, there is no clear-cut command in the Bible of course, for then there would be no difference of opinion on the matter, between Bible believers.  But neither is there any prohibition.  Furthermore, although it is true that there are no examples of infants being baptized (except such might be inferred from the three instances of households being baptized) in the New Testament, neither, on the other hand, do we read of children of believers being baptized upon their profession of faith – which we would expect if baptism was only for adults.

In other words, there is no decisive guidance on this matter, in the Bible, by way of either direct precept, or precedent.  However, they are not the only kind of evidence that should be regarded as sufficient.  What by good and necessary inference can be deduced from Scripture is of authority in the Church of God, as well as what is expressly set down in Scripture.  The evidence for Infant Baptism falls into this category.  It is to be found in the application of certain clear and undoubted Biblical principles to the question of just who are the proper subjects of Christian baptism.

We believe that the children of believers are included in the covenant of grace, and therefore ought to receive baptism, the sign of their union with Christ.  (See Heidelberg Catechism, Question 74).

The biblical ground for infant baptism is to be found in the following equation: two statements of fact, and a conclusion:

            There is one Church,

            Infants are members of that one Church,

            Therefore, Infants ought to be baptized.

1.  THERE IS ONE CHURCH.

See the text: "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant.  Everlasting, mind you.  And then in Gal.3:7-9 Paul tells us, "Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.  And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before, the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.  So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham."

Therefore, we see the unity of the covenant of grace, which God has established with His one Church of all the ages, in which His same blessed promise is received by His true people by faith.  This is the basic premise of the argument for Infant Baptism: that the New Testament Church is the unfolding and fulfilment of the covenant made with Abraham – therefore, there must be unity and continuity between the members of that 'covenant church' in both 'dispensations', that is, both before and after Christ.  If this is not granted, then there can be no more argument: it is basic.  For, appeal is going to be made to the Covenant which God made with Abraham, as having relevance to us today.  If that is denied, then there will be no infant baptism – granted!  But it is just this unity of the Church in both Old and New Testament ages, that cannot be denied, when the plain teaching of Scripture is acknowledged.

Look: our text says, "thy seed.... forever."  Galatians says that New Testament believers are the 'seed of Abraham’.  In Romans 4:12, we read that Abraham is "the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision but who also walk in the steps of his faith.'  What could be clearer than that?  So, the whole Church, the only one, was promised to Abraham!

But some Christians see a great division between the Old and the New Testaments.  In fact, they see two churches.  The one national, the other, international.  The one under the law, the other under grace.  The one received through sight, the other, through faith.  The one having the sign of circumcision, the other the sign of baptism.  The one including infants, the other excluding them.

But, when did this new church begin, we ask?  They tell us: with the Apostles at Jerusalem.  No, cry others: 'With Christ at the Mount of Olives.'  'No' say yet others, 'With John at Jordan,' Etc., etc.  Now, let us ask the Bible: - when, Scripture, did God's Church begin?

In Ephesians 5:25, we read, "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it."  Well, the Church existed when Christ died so it didn't start on the Day of Pentecost!  But then we read in Mat.18:15-17, that when a brother trespasses against us, we should tell him; if he doesn't hear, then we should take witnesses; and if he still doesn't hear, Jesus said, "Tell it unto the Church."  So, the Church existed even before Christ's death, when He taught His disciples!  But then Acts 7:37,38 give us Stephen's words, "This is that Moses.... this is he, that was in the church in the wilderness.”  Well – the Church was in existence way back then, too!

What Church did Jesus so love, as to redeem with His own blood?  What church were the disciples in?  What Church was in the wilderness?  Just the one sovereignly elected, graciously loved, wondrously redeemed, Church of God.  The only one.  The one that Abraham was in, and Moses, and David, and John the Baptist, and Paul, and you and I!

And there is only one Church, Brethren, just because there is only one way of salvation.  With this one Church, God has established His covenant of grace.  And that is the same for all time and for all members of that one and only Church.  And what is that covenant?  It is His contract with undeserving sinners – to be their God, and they His people – which He signed with an oath.  And it is called the covenant of grace because it is just that: and most basically – unmerited.  That is why it is called  also, the gospel, the good news – the unexpected, and undreamed-of news that there is yet a way – one way – one hope for lost men.  It is the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ – for Abraham as well as for me.  For Christ Jesus is the only Mediator between God and man.  He was the Rock in the wilderness for the Israelites, from Whom they drank the life-giving water!  His was the reproach that Moses chose over all the treasures of Egypt!  And Galatians even tells us that the covenant that was 430 years before Moses (that is the covenant spoken of in our text, unto Abraham) was confirmed in Christ!  God's covenant – with Abraham – in Christ – for the children of faith – forever!  It's the one that God talked to David, when He promised him that He would establish his seed for ever, and build up his throne to all generations.  It is the covenant which God said He "would not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of His lips.”  NOR ALTER, mind you.  Remember that!  One Church, one covenant, unalterable, and unaltered.

2.  INFANTS ARE MEMBERS OF THAT ONE CHURCH.

Now, even Baptists believe that children before the age of accountability CAN be saved.  I even read in a N.Z. Baptist magazine recently that they all WILL be saved: children of believers and unbelievers alike, that die in infancy.  (We won't go into that particular point now).  So, the question is not over the salvation of infants.  Baptists may go even further than Reformed people on that question.  The precise question at stake here is rather: does the Bible teach that infants and little children, prior to their being able to exercise repentance and faith, ARE members of God's Church, YES OR NO!??  That's the question.  And the answer to that question will be not only revealing, but demanding!

For if the answer is 'Yes', then such infants and young children will have to be treated as such, and they will of course, be entitled to bear the sign of that Church's membership, won't they?  Well, now, how is that crucial question answered by our Baptist brethren?  It is answered, 'Yes, AND, No...!'  Yes, they WERE in the Church No, they AREN'T any more.

So, you see how crucial is this whole matter of the unity of the Church!  If there are two Churches, well then, we can readily understand how that infants are to be found in one, but not in the other!  That's easy to see.  But, if there is only one Church, then we would expect a clear indication of the change, wouldn't we?  In fact, we would require it.  For God's covenant cannot be altered by man.

The inclusion of infants in the covenant which God made with Abraham is a fact beyond dispute.  See vs.10: "This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; every man child among you shall be circumcised.  Every Jewish boy received the sign of the Covenant, circumcision – and notice, it was of no purely external privilege for which circumcision stood.  It was no mere national badge, or mark of physical privilege and blessing.  Oh, no!  For our text calls circumcision after the highest terms: "This IS my covenant... circumcision."  Circumcision IS the covenant!

Now, of what WAS circumcision the sign?  Why, the covenant, of course.  "I will be your God and you shall be my people."  That's what circumcision stood for.  The sign then was no more one of external blessings than was the covenant itself one of external blessing only.  True, the Israelites were a favoured nation also physically.  They lived in a land flowing with milk and honey.  They received countless gracious victories over their enemies.  But circumcision stood for something far deeper and richer than just that.  It stood for the nation's UNION with God.  Their God... his people!  And every individual in that Covenant nation was meant to be a participant in that lofty privilege and blessing.  Yes, the children.

Therefore, they bore the mark of the Covenant from their earliest days of life, every Israelite boy did.  They were the little lambs of God!  In His sheepfold.  Their circumcision was no magic rite which mysteriously secured heavenly favour.  No, it was God's mark upon His people.  And what did one of the lambs (David) say when older?  "Thou art my God from my mother's belly.”

Now, when did God change all this?  When did He reveal to us that the covenant has been radically altered, that it was now no longer to Abraham's SEED after him in their generations?  Show me the text!  Show me the text in the Bible wherein the privilege of the children of the covenant to be included in the one only Church of God has been repealed!

But the wonderful thing is: you cannot find such a text; you will not find it because it is not there.  You will not find it because God will not alter the thing that has gone out of His lips.  He said, "I want little children in my Church, and I WILL have them there."  And of that determination, the Lord God never repented.  No, not today either!  His command is still in force, and for us to ignore or alter it would be to despise what must stand as one of the most gracious and wonderful of all God's dealings with us; that little ones, born within the covenant, may – nay, MUST – bear the sign of the righteousness of faith, the seal of the forgiveness of sins, and the stamp of God's own union with His people.  They bear it even before they are able themselves to respond in repentance and faith, though they must so respond later, when they are grown.  Even Isaac and Jacob had to believe!

And why do those children bear that sign?  Because of the hope of the parents that their children will be saved?  Because the sacrament is thought to have some secret potency itself?  No – they bear it because God wants them to, that's why!  That's all.  That’s everything.

3.  INFANTS OUGHT TO BE BAPTIZED.

Can you see the line of thought?

It leads straight to one only conclusion.  There is only one Church of God for all ages...
 – it is the Church God established with Abraham
 – it is the Church in which God included the infant children of each Israelite family
 – it is the Church in which those infant children bore the sign and seal of its membership
 – it is the Church in which today baptism is the sign of its membership
 – THEREFORE... the children of believers ought to receive that sign, since God has given no directions to the contrary!

Well then, why don't believers merely circumcise their children?  We have a direct answer to that question: baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign and seal of membership in God's Church.  We read in Col.2:11,12, "In whom ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead."

This is confirmed in the fact that both circumcision and baptism signify and seal the SAME blessing: that is, union with God and Christ.  Only baptism does so more fully, even.  It points to the death and resurrection of Christ, the Messiah, who has come.  It is applied to both male and female members of the Church.  This is understandable, since the New Testament age is the unfolding of the Old Testament, and as such will be richer and fuller.

To withhold the sacrament which points to the inclusion of God's people in His Church, from any members of that Church is ingratitude.  No, it is disobedience!  It would take a direct command to the effect that infants in the New Testament age are NOT to be baptised, for believers to be free from the solemn obligations which God laid upon every family in His Church.  But there is no such command.  There is no such repeal.  His counsel stands.

And ought we to be surprised?  Did you think that the new dispensation of the gospel the time since Jesus has fulfilled all righteousness for us – did you think that it would be more meagre than the old?  Is the Covenant less generous today than it was when Abraham received it?  Such questions cannot be lightly dismissed.  Baptism, which is the sign of the covenant under the new economy, as circumcision was under the old, bears the same meaning.  It signifies no greater blessing than did circumcision.  Shall we then say that baptism may not be administered to infants?  We shall not!

Then, the New Testament is full of texts which only support what we have seen already: "Suffer the little children to come unto me," said the Master, "and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God."  The children at Ephesus are addressed as SAINTS.  Paul calls the children of the Corinthian believers, HOLY.  And Peter preached: "The promise is to you and to your children."

The ground for infant baptism is the Divine command – and obedience to that command we give!

Amen.