Infant Baptism

Major precept: all members of the visible church must be baptized. (Baptists and Presbyterians agree here)

            Minor precept: children of one or more believing parents are members of the visible church. (here Presbyterians and Baptists disagree)

            Conclusion: children of one or more believing parents must be baptized (Presbyterian)

There is a very important clarification that I made, children are considered members of the visible church, we do not begin to ponder the election of a child until they have professed faith and born the fruit of the Spirit, and given other signs of true conversion.  Therefore, the distinction I have made between the visible and invisible church is important to me.  In the name of being thorough “visible church” is defined as all “professing” believers and their children.

Before I proceed, further allow me to address an inference you have made that you may not realize.  Acts 2:47 reads “praising God and having favor with all the people.  And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved.”  The verse is explicitly stating that certain humans are members of the invisible church because they are elect (by definition).  This verse also says that these elected persons are being added to the visible church by the work of God, to bring them to faith and repentance.  There is a potential implication that un-elect persons are not added to the church, but it is not a necessary conclusion that can be drawn from this text. 

Moreover, to contend your inference I would point you to Romans 11:16-24, wherein Paul asserts that some Jews were cut out of the “tree” of the church so that gentiles could be grafted in.  He then warns the Romans against pride, because they can be cut out of the tree again.  Paul attributes this work of cutting and grafting to God in verses 21, 22, and 23.  Understanding this teaching in light of the perseverance of the saints, we know that persons are not cut out of or grafted into the invisible church; ergo but reason of deduction we find that Paul is speaking of cutting and grafting in the visible church.  Further still, we know that the elect are not cut from the visible church, and we must conclude that these gentiles who have been grafted in by God may be cut out again.  A proper understanding of this passage in light of the teachings of the entire Bible leads us to conclude that God does in fact add to the visible church (at least for a time) persons who are not saved.  It is important to understand that the Lamb’s book of life or the roster of the invisible church is eternal and immutable, because we are elected from eternity past and our election is based on God’s unchanging decree.

Now, pressing forward to Biblically develop the premise that children of one or more believing parents are considered members of the visible church.  I would begin with 1Cor. 7:9-16 particularly v. 14.  Paul has made an affirmation here that the children of one or more believing parents are holy (it reminds me of God claiming all the Levite children).  What does holy mean but that they are separated to God, and how else might we treat them as holy but to baptize them, raise them in the fear and admonition of the Lord, and count them members of the visible church until they prove themselves otherwise.  Surely this is a reasonable course of action based solely on Paul’s use of the word “holy,” because he calls precious little holy. 

Moreover, I would argue that one of Paul’s intentions in writing this chapter is to designate the children as belonging to God, because he uses “for otherwise” or “therefore” in v.14 indicating this is the purpose statement or the application of the fact that one sanctifies an unbelieving spouse.  The surrounding verses tell you how to live with an unbelieving spouse, v.14 and 16 tell you the theological significance of having and unbelieving spouse.  So Paul argues, you sanctify your spouse, therefore your children are holy.  This is a necessary conclusion to draw, because if we believe the opposite, that the children are unclean; we must assume that the unbelieving spouse pollutes the believer.  I am not here suggesting that being married to a believer or being the child of a believer justifies a person.  I am saying that being the spouse or child of a believer draws you into the covenant community or visible church.

This interpretation of 1Cor. 7 mind you is supported by the household principle as it is found throughout scripture.  In fact, I challenge you to find for me in the Bible, any one of God’s covenants that is not built on the household principle, which does not have ramifications to the offspring of those persons with whom God initiates it.  Remember God raised up Abraham so that he would teach his offspring (gen. 18:19).  He gave circumcision as the sign of an everlasting covenant (gen. 17:9-14 and 17:19).  God gave the land of Canaan to Abraham’s offspring.  God promised to deliver mankind through the seed of the woman.  The Hebrews were commanded to teach and explain and bear witness to their children of the faithfulness of God.  Malachi says that God ordained marriage in Genesis because He desired Godly seed.  Children are addressed in the Ten Commandments, in Ephesians, and in Colossians, because they are a component of the Biblical family/ household structure.

In further support of the household principle of scripture, and that children of believers are members of the visible church I will remind you that in Acts 2:38-39 Peter says “this promise is to your children,” what might he mean but that they are to be treated as members of the visible church.

I will chase a rabbit while it is on my mind; it is a rabbit in that it does not further the argument for children being members of the visible church.  God says that His covenant with Abraham is an eternal covenant, meaning it cannot pass away it is forever.  This is often called the covenant of circumcision but I believe this to be a misnomer because circumcision is not the substance of the covenant, it is the sign/sacrament of the covenant.  Sacramental language is a common Biblical practice where the sign is spoken of as though it were the covenant.  Eg. “You are saved by baptism” (1Peter), “This is My body… this is the blood of the covenant.”  The substance of the covenant is not circumcision. The substance is that God would give Abraham many descendants (the visible church).  Would give him the land of Canaan (we learn from Hebrews this is heaven because Abraham sought a city whose foundations could not be shaken and whose founder and builder was God), and to bless the whole world through his offspring (Christ blessing the global church as it is composed of every tribe, nation, people, language, and tongue). 

We see the substance of the covenant persisting in the New Testament era as redemptive history unfolds.  We are Abraham’s children (see Galatians), Heaven (the greater Canaan) has been promised to us, and we are seeing the global unfolding of Christ’s blessing.  The sign of the covenant is different however.  In both testaments the members of the visible church are marked in their flesh as being in covenant with Jehovah (and the false prophet will pervert this mark in the end of days). 

Before Christ, the mark is bloody and painful and looks forward to Christ being “cut off” from His people, while in blessing it symbolizes the exposure of the sensitive portions of the heart to God.  After the coming of Christ, we understand more and have a greater vision God’s plan in redemptive history.  The sacrament He has now given us reflects that more complete knowledge.  Our sign is bloodless and painless, it symbolizes the cleaning of Ezekiel 36, and it looks backward to the cross, which Christ referred to as His “baptism.”  (The circumcision could only be performed on males, but in Christ/baptism there is neither man nor woman, slave nor free, Jew nor Greek, barbarian nor Scythian, but Christ is all and in all).  Therefore, the covenant is the same in substance and the same persons bear its mark, just the mark has changed.  Matt. 28:19, Col. 2:11-12, and Rom. 4:11-12 explicitly link circumcision and baptism in the way I have here.

I will return now to my main point, that children are members of the visible church.  Christ speaks of children and infants in this way “But Jesus said, “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these”” Matt. 19:14 (Luke 18:16, Mark 10:14,).  We know quite clearly that Christ does not mean to include all children in the invisible church because David says that “the wicked go astray from the womb, they go forth speaking lies” and Genesis says, “The thoughts and intentions of the hearts of man are only evil from his infancy.”  If the kingdom of God belongs to them but they are not necessarily part of the invisible church, it logically follows that He must be referring to their membership in the visible church.  Please note that Orville Nave, author of Nave’s topical Bible ascribes to this view because he places these verses in the section “Church: membership in” in the topical Bible.

Finally I will remind you of the numerous household baptisms in the Bible

Cornelius’ household Acts 10:16-18

Lydia’s household Acts 16

The Jailer’s household Acts 16

Crispus’ household Acts 18

Stephanus’ Household 1Cor. 1 (note the Crispus of acts 18 is mentioned here representing his whole house, it is then logical to assume that Gaius’ household was also baptized.  How many other places, we might then wonder, is the baptism of the head mentioned to represent the baptism of the whole house?)

All Israel as they passed through the sea (including children) 1Cor. 10

I think it unreasonable to assume that all of these instances of household baptism exclude young children and infants; and we know that the nation of Israel contained such persons, when they were baptized into Moses.

I hope brother that you find this discussion of God’s word thorough and helpful, and that He blesses your study of these things.  Please look up all the scripture references and read the context as it is very important