Infant Baptism

In our crisis years our church rejected me and my wife as our views were no longer considered Reformed.  By placing us under church discipline, the church pronounced that “in our doctrine and life” we were showing to be “unbelieving and ungodly” (Heidelberg Catechism, Q, A 82).  If they had not kept us from God’s grace in His Holy Supper, they believed (as shown by their actions) that God’s wrath would come upon the church!  Unless I would repent, I would certainly go to Hell!  (Most of the leaders did not actually believe this; they just used church discipline as a tool to enforce their status and to protect their own views.) 

By critically questioning the biblical foundations to infant baptism, I was deemed Baptistic, and thus “not Reformed”.  By attending a Baptistic seminary, the leadership concluded, that I gave “further evidence that I was unrepentant and hardening myself in sin.”  Yet, at the seminary where I studied I was seen as too Reformed to be a Baptist.  Although I had classmates from other Reformed denominations, who were or would be in leadership in their own churches, I was the only one to challenge our professors regarding infant baptism.  Here are some examples.

1              During a summer course on Church Planting, we had a guest speaker, who had been a missionary.  He told us that we must understand the culture we are working in.  In a Middle-Eastern family, it is the patriarch who rules.  The father makes decisions for the family, and the family follows.  Therefore, he argued, when the father decides to follow Christ, we must be prepared to baptize the whole family!  When I heard this, I asked him, “Were not the first Christians people from the same tradition?  Would they not have baptized their little children when the father decided to follow Christ?”

2              The Greek professor analyzed for us the Great Commission.  He explained its meaning as: “We are called to make disciples for Christ, by (first) baptizing them and (then) discipling them: teaching them to obey the teaching of Jesus Christ.”  I asked him, “If the baptizing comes before the teaching, is it not right to do the same with the (young) children of believers?”

3              As assignment for another course, I was told to study David Kingdon’s book “Children of Abraham”.  Kingdon is a Reformed Baptist, who adheres to covenant theology and emphasizes the grace of God.  I was to give an objective summary of his views, and then to find and study any books or articles written in response to Kingdon’s book.  I was to write objective summaries and evaluations of these as well.  It was an excellent exercise, which helped me understand the issues better.  Even though I did not accept all the arguments by the Reformed respondents, I nevertheless could not reject infant baptism.  Apparently the (Reformed Baptist) professor concluded that I had been fair in my analysis, for I received a very high mark on my research paper.

4              Since I was declared “a heretic” by our own elders, we felt alienated and rejected in our own community.  I was concerned about my children never hearing a call to make a decision for Christ (since “they had already received Christ and all his benefits in their baptism”) As our children felt totally uncomfortable in the hostile environment of “the communion of saints”, we decided to worship in the mornings at a Reformed Baptist church, while in the afternoon we faithfully attended the church where we still had our membership.  In the Baptist church they had two Sunday school programs.  Interestingly, they were called “Kids of the Kingdom” and “Young disciples’ youth group”.  After some time I asked an elder: “If they are kids of the kingdom, why should they not be baptized?” and “If they are young disciples of Christ, why should they not receive the badge of discipleship?”

Two of my three sisters have been rebaptized (or: ‘immersed as believers upon their profession of faith’).  Although I would do the same if it would significantly facilitate my ministry (similar to Paul’s approach to circumcision?) I have never rejected the proper use of infant baptism. 

1              Belonging to the flock: The (NT) people of God have been portrayed as the sheep that follow the Good Shepherd.  If that is so, it would seem very natural that the young children also belong to this flock, for they too follow the Good Shepherd.  Indeed, I have regularly used this image to encourage, lovingly yet sternly, the believing parents of a newborn child.  ‘This child belongs to the Good Shepherd.  Therefore, it is your obligation to model God’s love and teach your child to respect and obey the Lord.’  Of course, we cannot apply the same reasoning to an older child, which must have a personal input in such a decision.

2              The Red Sea as a picture of baptism.  1 Corinthians 10: 1 – 2, 5: “Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.”  “Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.”  Paul warns the church not to take their salvation for granted.  All of Israel was saved (!) from slavery in Egypt, from the dominion of the Red Dragon (Rev. 12: 1 – 6 ).  Nevertheless, almost all of them perished in the desert; they never entered Canaan, even though they had received the promise.  This analogy suggests that baptism is an event that refers to the start of someone’s journey with God.  It cannot be used as guarantee that they will complete this journey to its intended destiny.

3              Salvation is not a one-time event.  During my crisis years I used the story of a family, stranded on a lonely island.  Once they realize they are stuck and destined for certain death, they desperately look for any sign of hope of deliverance.  So, when the father sees a ship that is clearly heading for the island, he may well say, “We are saved!”  They may celebrate their rescue, even though the final outcome is not sure.  One or more family members may refuse to go aboard the ship or even jump off after leaving the island.  This is consistent with biblical language, where followers of Christ may be described as “already saved by the blood of Christ”, as “being saved”, and as “will be saved on the Day of Judgment”.

4              Doug Wilson’s argument (in “To a Thousand Generations”): In this book Wilson argues from the perspective of the first Jewish Christians.  If they had always seen their (young) children as belonging to God’s covenant people, how would they have responded if (in the New Covenant) this suddenly had changed?  If there was so much debate about changes, such as circumcision and Sabbath keeping, it seems inconceivable that none of the NT epistles had to explain why children of believers should not be baptized.

Yet, I have some concerns regarding the theology and practice of infant baptism.  In the first place, I believe that a number of arguments used to defend the baptism of infants cannot be upheld.  In the Old Testament, one could claim to belong to God’s people because they belonged to Abraham’s seed.  Abraham might have been their father many generations back, but this would not make a difference, for this covenant was with the Hebrews: Abraham’s seed.  But obviously this is not the same today, for nobody can claim to belong to God’s people merely on the basis of the faith of some distant ancestor.  Therefore the term “Abraham and his seed” cannot be translated for the new covenant people as “believers and their seed”.

Secondly, we have been taught, “Our children must be baptized, because they (too) have the promise.”  “Having the promise” refers to Peter’s words at Pentecost.  He tells Jews and God-fearers, “For the promise is for us and our children, and for all those far off who (will be) called.” The second part was not emphasized in our churches, but the first part was used as proof text for infant baptism.  Yet, since we are not Jews by birth, it is not the first but the second part that refers to us, “and for all those (far off) who will be called”.  When we were called, we received the Promise!  Peter does not say: “The promise is for believers (or members of the true church) and their children”; he says: “The Promise is for Jews and Gentiles.”  The Promise was for Abraham and his seed, but now the promise is for all who hear the Gospel.  What is this promise?  The Heidelberg Catechism answers this question: “the redemption from sin and the Holy Spirit, who works faith, are promised to them” (Q, A 74).  Sure, everyone who hears the Gospel proclamation receives this promise.  That’s why it is called “Good News”!  Accept it in faith, and you too (like the believing Jews) will receive the Holy Spirit!  Strictly speaking then, we could offer baptism to anybody who shows enough interest to listen to the Gospel.  Is this not what the Great Commission teaches us?  Make disciples by (first) baptizing people and then teaching them (how) to follow Christ.  (Yet, Peter’s words were spoken on the day of Pentecost, and Acts 2 shows us that (only) those who accepted his teaching were baptized and added to the church.)

In the third place, the terminology and teaching easily leads to false assurance.  For what is the promise that we (who are baptized in the genuine church of God) received?  In some church it was taught that it is the unconditional promise of salvation.  But, if you would continue to probe long enough, this obviously could not be sustained, for that would make it impossible for a baptized person to reject God and go to Hell.  The Dutch (Reformed) liturgical forms were translated for use in the North American Reformed churches.  They state that, “When we are baptized into the Name of the Holy Spirit, God the Holy Spirit assures us by this sacrament that He will dwell in us and make us living members of Christ, imparting to us what we have in Christ, namely, the cleansing from our sins and the daily renewal of our lives, till we shall finally be presented without blemish among the assembly of God's elect in life eternal. (underlining is mine)”  Now, this sounds quite heretical, and indeed I have witnessed many church members, and even preachers, who took these words at face value, as if salvation was guaranteed for those baptized in the true church. 

In my crisis years I tried to discuss this with my elders and leaders, but I never got any clear answers.  If God the Holy Spirit assures each baptized child that He will live in them to work faith and sanctification, how can any of them not get to heaven? If God’s grace is irresistible, as we were taught, how could anyone baptized (in the true church) eventually fall away and perish?  Interestingly, the Dutch form gives the following wording, “Als wij gedoopt worden in de naam van de Heilige Geest, verzekert ons de Heilige Geest door dit heilig sacrament, dat Hij in ons wonen wil om ons tot lidmaten van Christus te heiligen. Zo wil Hij ons toeëigenen wat wij in Christus hebben, namelijk de afwassing van onze zonden en de dagelijkse vernieuwing van ons leven, totdat wij eenmaal in de gemeente van de uitverkorenen in het eeuwige leven smetteloos een plaats zullen ontvangen. (underlining is mine)”  Rather than the assurance that the Holy Spirit will live in the baptized person, we find the assurance that He wills (or: wants to, seeks to) dwell in him!  Here is another instance* where, in over-reaction to Arminianism, all emphasis is placed on God’s objective promise for us all (as members of the genuine church), while “faith” is more seen as a gift included in the promise rather than the required means by which we must attain that which is promised.

Although I have been privileged to baptize many people, I have not yet been asked to baptize one baby or young child of a believer.  Although I have, at suitable times, explained my rationale in favor of infant baptism, I have been careful not to force the issue upon those who were not (yet) prepared to take this step.  Neither have I risked the breaking of the communion of saints over this difficult issue.

(*I found other instances in the translation of the definition of faith, mentioned in an earlier blog, “Do we have to accept Christ?”)