About two months ago, something spectacular happened in our family (I’m still wondering how I failed to record this moment).
On March 25, 2018, our son Abhi was baptised into the Church (Body) of our Lord Jesus Christ.
That’s it? You may wonder. You call this spectacular? Ah, but wait. We know lots of things that happen behind veiled curtains when baptisms occur. When someone gets baptised, Jesus is right there, putting a seal over the one baptised exclaiming, “Mine!” (Ps 87: 5-6, Rom 4:10-12)
As the waters of baptism were poured over his head by one of our dear pastor friends, there were many who enjoined the scene with tears streaming down their cheeks. After the service, Abhi cut a special cake and everyone shouted, “Welcome to Anugraha Abhi!” It sort of reminded us of Abhi’s welcome party which happened on Jan 6, 2018, when everyone of our friends resounded, “Welcome home, Abhi!” His baptism was nothing short of a warm welcome into Christ’s visible family. It was also a season in life where we wrestled much about his baptism, and were questioned about the validity of infant baptism from various quarters (totally unconnected and random incidents, btw).
Abhi cutting his cake on his baptism
We had no doubt that covenant children needed to be baptised (I’ll explain that in a minute) but we were wondering about the validity of having one baptised at an age when discernment started to grow. Abhi is eight on paper, but really just three of four in his intellectual grasp (mentally though, he is way beyond his league! Sometime, drop in home to taste of the wisdom of this child). So, he couldn’t articulate his beliefs. But he never denied loving Jesus either. Yet, for all that, the most important reason we wanted to see him baptised was to bring his adoption a full circle. He is truly a child on the outside who is being brought into the Church. He is now coming in, not because of the regenerating work of the Spirit, but because of the Fatherly, Providential care which God has always been exercising with him, now being brought to fulfilment in his having a loving Christian family. He is brought into the Covenant through believing parents. When a child of believing parents sits in the church, God does not treat the child differently than he does the rest of the congregation. He does not “cast out” one who has been brought to him. The little children who were brought to Jesus exercised no will, except on the part of those who loved and cared for them. Jesus welcomed the weaklings, and baptism was the sign of their entrance into this precious covenant (Matt 19:13-15)
I’m writing this memoir for two reasons. First, to have a record of Abhi’s baptism and to remind him over and again, of what those waters that drenched him mean, and beckon him to the reality of that act within his little heart. I’m writing this for our family history and instruction. Second, I want to leave a reply for those who have questions. Some are verbal, some poke fun, and many are just silent. I’d rather not be silent but leave an informed biblical response. However, it is not meant to be a treatise. If you wish to get a more robust understanding of this doctrine, you may as well pick up the Westminster Confession of Faith (Chapter 28), Calvin’s Institutes (Chapters 15,16) or Word, Water and Spirit by J.V. Fesko.
First off, there are some basic assumptions.
Tota Scriptura (2 Tim 3:16)
To understand the biblical validity of infant baptism, one has to affirm that the Bible consists of the Old and New Testament, both having equal validity and authority for the church of Jesus Christ. The New Testament does not supersede in authority over the Old Testament but rather clarifies it, and where the New Testament clarifies, it’s intent is upheld. That my friend, is the essence of the latin phrase tota Scriptura. The Old Testament (OT) is not just the archaic history of the Jewish people, but the Word of the Living God for the church.
Israel was the Old Testament Church (conversely, the church is the true Israel of God ~ Gal 6:15-16)
Second, one needs to affirm that OT is the history of the church before Christ, and NT is the history of the church after Christ. Plain and simple. The division then is not Israel-church but rather Pre-and Post- Christ. Much like the division of any secular history. How do we know that? The word church in greek is the word ecclesia which means “called out ones” or “separated ones”. It is also commonly called the “assembly” in the OT, referring to the people of God (Ex 12:6,Deut 23, Ex 16:3, Ex 20:2). So, the church is not merely a NT word coined for NT usage.
Old Testament and New Testament are not disparate but continuous
Now, there are some crucial differences between the Old and New Testaments but it has to do with the degree of revelation and not the substance of revelation. I’ve made a map to illustrate this point.
Redemptive history and Progressive revelation
In both the Old Testament and New Testament, believers were saved by grace through faith in the Gospel of redemption through the Triune God (Gal 3:8, Rom 4:3-4,11-12). Moses considered the reproach of Christ of greater worth than all of Egypt’s wealth (Heb 11:26). Abraham saw Christ’s day and he rejoiced (John 8:56). These men knew Christ in much the same way that we know Christ, just that their light was dimmer.
I remember, several years ago, driving towards the great Rocky mountains. The view was breathtaking all the way through. We could clearly see the mountains, their breadth, their form, their majesty. But it wasn’t until we inched closer to the foot that we could truly see its magnificence, its details. It was awe-inspiring, I could touch it and feel so small in its aged ruggedness. But it was the same mountain that I saw from the distance. It had the same glory, the same majesty. I just experienced it differently later. The Bible is a bit like that. Saints in the Old Testament saw Christ from the distance and welcomed him with joy and saving faith. We now welcome him with that same joy and saving faith, but only looking backward. Our object of faith was and is and always will be Christ.
Now, some may object to this in this way: Paul distinguished the old and new starkly, so did Jesus in the parable about old and new wineskins. So aren’t the Old and New Testaments fundamentally different?
Paul was not distinguishing the Old and New Testaments. For crying out loud, in his time there were no two testaments! There was only Scripture and that was the Old Testament. The Spirit was illuminating the Old so that Paul and the prophets could really understand the same in the fuller light of Christ, as it really was. Paul was using the terms such as old and new covenants to distinguish those under the law versus those under grace. And by that he was not referring to those who lived in that era, rather to those who bound themselves to the Mosaic law for salvation (as most Jews did during Paul’s time). Abraham lived under grace (as Gal 3:8, Rom 4 indicates), and so did everyone who believed in the One to come. Jesus was using the parable of the wineskins to refer to the exact same thing – those who try to fit a square peg into a round hole. Those who thought salvation came by obeying the law (old covenant) instead of by faith in Christ (new covenant). So, the difference between the two was not the Old and New Testaments but the Old and New way (the new really wasn’t new and that was Paul’s main point in introducing Abraham, and the old is not meant to be erased as Jesus put it in Matt 5:17). Theologians have, through systematic study of the entire Scriptures, used some easier terminologies to explain this distinction – those under the Old way are under what is called the Covenant of Works and those under the New way are under the Covenant of Grace. This terminology is very helpful to assess the case of the “old vs new” throughout the Scriptures without dividing them across the eras (which is often the temptation).
So, this makes the case that there is more continuity between the Testaments than discontinuity.
Now, with these presuppositions , let me get onto the case for infant baptism.
Circumcision and Baptism were both signs or marks on those called out by God
In both the Testaments, redemption by God was marked by a sign upon the covenant people, and this sign was to signify the greater reality of the heart change that God wrought in His people. Under the old covenant, the sign that marked out the people of God was circumcision (Gen 17:10-13), and anyone who did not have this sign was circumcised (literally “cut-off”) from God and His people (Gen 17:14). Note that this sign was not a marker for ethnicity but for a covenant relationship, and Jews and non-Jews could enter into the covenant through this sign (we see an example of this in the incident concerning Dinah and the Hivites in Gen 34 as well as the Passover being permitted for strangers who circumcised themselves ~ Ex 12:44-48). Similarly, under the new covenant, the sign that marked out the people of God is baptism (Acts 2:41), and both Jews and Gentiles were welcomed into a covenant relationship with God through this sign (Acts 2:37-39).
Both circumcision and baptism signified regeneration (Deut 10:16, Deut 30:6, Jer 4:4, Mark 1:4, 1 Pet 3:21). Both were external signs on the body pointing to realities within the heart. The signs themselves did not imprint salvation on the individual but they were to mark out God’s visible church throughout every generation. Under the old covenant, children and infants were included in the covenant people through the sign of circumcision (Gen 17:25, 21:4). Under the new covenant this same pattern of continuity was assumed in the many household baptisms performed by Paul and Peter (Acts 16:15, 1 Cor 1:16, Act 16:31-34). Note that not everyone in the household is mentioned as those who “believed”, only the head of the household believed in most cases. The concept of familio solidarity was very strong in ancient near-eastern cultures and covenants drawn up with the male heads more often than not included their entire household (think about your ration card for a minute). If anything, the new covenant was a more inclusive covenant: the Spirt of God was poured out on all flesh, and a huge number of Gentiles came into the family of God, Women had the sign of the covenant too, which was not the case in the Old covenant. So, if all things remained constant, why then would children be excluded? This idea is completely foreign to near-eastern cultures. Moreover, God threatened to kill Moses when he did not have his firstborn circumcised (Ex 4:24-26). This child was “cut-off” from the covenant of God, and God was about to cut off the firstborn of Egypt, of those who were uncircumcised. God cared deeply about the infants of His people!
As you can see, there is hardly any difference between these two covenant signs. They are essentially the same, differing only in their place in redemptive history and in administration. I believe, that is the reason why the sign had to change: to mark the completion of redemption. Jesus had to be circumcised from God. The Holy Spirit had to baptise all flesh (i.e. the inclusion of Gentiles into the covenant). These two monumental events marked the change in covenant signs. But that is all there is to it.
Now, someone may object thus: isn’t baptism more convergent in redemptive history, and does it not mark out spiritual realities than circumcision did not? Was not Abraham’s family a type of Christ’s church, and therefore his circumcision merely a type of the reality of baptism?
To this I reply, let us suppose that baptism is indeed inclusive of the spiritual family of God whereas Abraham’s was merely the type. What then of those like Simon the magician and Nicolas (after whom is named the sect Nicolaitans who left the faith), who were all baptised into Christ? What then of Ananias and Sapphire who both were baptised and included in the church but were wicked in their hearts? If baptism was merely for the spiritually regenerate, why then the weeds in the church? If we cannot then discern the heart of the individual before we baptise, then why handcuff those who for the same reason baptise infants whose hearts no one knows but God? And why do we presume that God cannot regenerate the infants? Why, John was filled with the Spirit in his mother’s womb! When should his baptism have occurred? Until those around him waited for him to be “born-again”? There are umpteen examples of little children in my own church context who all come to Jesus, always believing and trusting Him and having been regenerated without the “crash-boom-bang” of a typical Gentile conversion (like the one I had!). What would happen if we all waited for them to be “spiritually regenerate” to be included? We will force alter calls and coerce charismatic, upper room retreats on these poor souls to prove to us that indeed they are regenerate. And by these very means, the weeds enter the church, who have all the external experiences but have had no heart change. And if Abraham and his family were only a type of Christ’s church, then by that token they are not part of the substance of Christ’s church, i.e., they are a shadow, and not part of the reality. This argument goes squarely against the biblical data provided by Paul in Galatians and Romans.
So, there you have it. A summary of by statement of faith on baptism. Once again, this article is not to debate the position held by my Baptist brothers and sisters, for I love them dearly. Since my position and beliefs have come under attack from known quarters, I have simply provided a reasoned, biblical position for my own belief. I also share this so that my son’s baptism may not be held in derision or doubt from loved ones but that they may know that what we do, we do so on the basis of Scripture alone and what accords with the doctrine of the historical church throughout the ages.
To end, here’s some lighter news to share. Abhi is now through to catechism question 40 in the children’s catechism. He is slowly growing in wisdom and stature, and is having a growing sense of sin, and desire for Jesus. He longs to go to heaven. He understands suffering. He knows Jesus will often be weighed on his balance of the world and he needs to keep trusting in Jesus for everything. More than his red cars and helicopters, Jesus is beautiful and desirable. I see a holy spark in his heart that needs to be fanned into flame so that the invisible work of the Holy Spirit may become more visible int he days an years to come.
Welcome home, dear Abhi.