If you are in need of a solid, basic web site for your business, church, or organization, check out my web design services at 
Subscribe
The Sign is Only for Those the Lord Calls to Himself
Posted by Brian Thornton on September 6, 2007
With all the theological powerhouses already having weighed in on the issue of baptism over the last few weeks, there quite simply is probably nothing at all I can add to the discussion. I am an amateur reformational theologian with no letters after my name, and no descriptors in front of it either (like ‘pastor’ or ‘reverend’). This issue, however, is hitting very close to home right now (no details needed), and so I thought I would provide just a brief thought concerning one of the passages used to support paedo-baptism by someone I deeply respect, Ligon Duncan.
In a recent post, Ligon made the following statement:
God, in both the Old and New Testaments, explicitly attaches specific signs, respectively, circumcision [Genesis 17:10] and baptism [Acts 2:38, cf. Colossians 2:11-12], to this promise that he gives to believers and their children.
He then cites a verse in Acts and a passage in Colossians to support his position of infant baptism. The Colossians passages mentions nothing with respect to unbelieving children being baptized, and in fact references faith. It is what is said in Acts that I would like to address here. Ligon cites Acts 2:38, but the mention of children is actually in verse 39, so I will quote both verses here for context.
And Peter said to them, Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.
I believe that a very simple examination of this statement by Peter will clearly show that the baptism of unbelieving children is no where in view here. Let’s look at it briefly. Peter says,
- the promise is for ‘you’
- the promise is for ‘your children’
- the promise is for ‘all who are far off’
Now Ligon, in his interpretation of this passage, appears to automatically place the promise (and therefore the sign of baptism) onto the children of those who repent even if they (the children) do not have faith. However, Peter no where in this passage instructs anyone who has not repented to be baptized. The other thing Ligon seems to do is to ignore the other statement by Peter that the promise is also for ‘all who are far off’. Surely he doesn’t think that everyone far off is also to be baptized apart from faith? I know he doesn’t, because he is probably applying the very last part of verse 39 (as many as the Lord our God calls to himself) only to those who are far off.
It appears that what he and others are doing with this passage is saying that the qualifier for the promise for children is their believing parents who have repented and been baptized, and the qualifier for the promise for those who are far off is whether or not the Lord has called them to Himself. I don’t know if they have said as much (they may have), but that is the only way to read the verses in question and remain consistent with the paedo-baptist position.
Reading this passage in its proper context, however (without coming to it with any preconceived notions about paedo or credo baptism), should bring us to a much different interpretation of the text. Peter says, “the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, as many as [everyone whom] the Lord our God will call to himself”.
A proper, consistent, reading of this text clearly shows that the qualifier of this ‘promise’ – as many as the Lord will call – applies to ‘you’, ‘your children’, AND ‘those who are far off’. In other words, it remains consistent with what Peter says regarding baptism in verse 38, ‘Repent and be baptized’.
Baptism follows repentance which follows being called by God:
- for you – who repent who have been called
- for your children – who repent who have been called
- for those who are far off – who repent who have been called
Quite simply, the promise – and the resulting outward sign of baptism – is only for those who repent…whom the Lord our God calls to Himself.
Derick Harper said
I find this to be a very interesting topic. Even though I grew up Baptist & currently attend a Southern Baptist Church, I really don’t have a dog in this fight. I reallhy can see the logic behind the arguments of both credo-baptists as well as paedo-baptists. But in recent years despite my Baptist affiliation & upbringing I have to admit I’ve perhaps started to sympathise with the paedo-baptists.
I my change of opinion started when I really understood that faith as well as grace are gifts of God (Eph. 2:8 & 9). If that is the case then why can’t God give faith to an infant? Are they really that much more removed from God than an adult that He cannot give them this gift as well? I understand that the cognitive abilities of an infant are not fully developed, but are they also beyond the pail of God’s ability to grant faith? Cannot the almighty God help an infant express “God help me!”
One of the best arguments I’ve heard for paedo-baptism is the anaology of “the dog that didn’t bark,” referring to a famous Sherlock Holmes story. What that means is that considering the fact that God clearly called application of the sign of the Covenant (infant circumcision) in the Old Testament, wouldn’t it make sense that he would clearly state that the application of the New Tesatament equivalent should stop for children of stated Believers? As far as I can tell the Bible makes no such clear statement. Lacking that clarity shouldn’t application of the sign remain constant?
Of course, probably the biggest objection to my line of reasoning is that even if one concedes that God could give faith to an infant, how do we distinguish between those He saves & those He doesn’t? I guess my response would be that we don’t need to. Yes, an adult can at least verbally acknowledge their faith (whether they really have it or not), but does that matter? I’m sure we’ve all seen lots of folks that professed faith, got baptized, & then fell away dramtically!
I personally believe that a real Christian parent should follow the commands of Scripture in raising children (Deut. 6, etc.) as well as set a good example in raising their children appropriately. If they do so, while there certainly are no guarantees, it seems that Scripture promises that it is a virtual lock that those children will follow the parents & be Believers too. After allGod shows love to a thousand generations of those who keep His commandments (Ex. 20:6).
Additionally, if we really are reformed shouldn’t we have confidence in letting God be God to do what He intends to do, & in response confer the sign of the Covenent to our children in cofidence that the Lord will save our children? In my opinion, the opposite is the Arminianism of the Amish where they turn their children over to the world in their teen years. Yes, some do come back, but the very act seems to scream a lack of faith in the promises of the Lord.
I know he can be a bit of a lightining rod in some circles, but Douglas Wilson has some terrrific insights regarding this. While he may get outrageous at times, I commend to anyone his book, “Standing On the Promises.” I developed a lot of my thoughts based on the contents of that book.
Brian Thornton said
Derick, can you give me one explicit example from Scripture of an unbeliever being baptized?
Why are females baptized?
Brian Thornton said
Additionally, on such a vital topic as baptism (I’m quite surprised that you, as a believer, don’t “have a dog in this hunt”), why would the apostles, NT writers and even Jesus not give any instruction to the church to practice infant baptism?
What we have instead is explicit instructions from them (and from Christ Himself) to baptize those who profess faith.
As the lady used to ask on the Wendy’s commercials…
“WHERE’S THE BEEF?!?!”
Derick Harper said
The reason I used the expression that I don’t have a dog in this fight is because I can honestly see why both sides believe what they do and I think each can be strongly defended. It is definitely important & as their parent I think it is vital that my children are baptised (whether as an infant, a child, a teen, or an adult). But I don’t think Scripture is clear enough that we can be dogmatic about it which is absolutely correct. I’ll respect the personal decision of a credo-baptist or a paedo-baptist as long as baptism fits in there somewhere.
That being said, & trying to answer your question of a non-believer in Scripture being baptised, I honestly can’t name a specific one. However, I can give you a non-Believer who received the sign of the Covenant in the Old Testament; Esau. Isaac circumcised both his sons but Scripture tells us that the Lord loved Jacob while He hated Esau. God instructed the patriarchs to give the sign to all their children. While admittedly the application of that specific sign did end with the advent of the New Covenant, let me turn the tables & ask you where in the New Testament does God tells his people to change the way the sign (whatever form it was) is applied? Sure, you do have examples of adults being baptised, but that doesn’t help you since you have examples of converts to Judaism receiving the Old Testament sign.
Thanks for the provocative thoughts and the friendly repartee.
Brian Thornton said
Derick,
You still didn’t answer the question of why females are baptized. IF baptism is nothing more than a 1:1 continuation of circumcision, then why baptize females today?
where in the New Testament does God tells his people to change the way the sign (whatever form it was) is applied?
Everywhere baptism is referenced in the NT, it is in the context of being applied to those who have repented and expressed faith.
“repent and be baptized”…”go and make disciples, baptizing them…”, etc.
Paul also places baptism in the context of repentance in Acts 19.
I would still like to hear why females are baptized, if baptism is nothing more than a continuation of circumcision, which involved only males.
Derick Harper said
As you claim to be, so am I an amateur theologian & at this time I don’t have a pat answer to your question about why females are baptised when they weren’t circumcised under the Old Covenant. The best answer I can give you right now is because the New Testament specifically shows us the baptism of females who were new converts. And that backs up my point! There was a dog that barker! Where does the New Testament show or tell us to stop giving the sign to children? The patriarchs were specfically told to give their sons the sign of the Covenant as they were also to do to converts (Credo-Circumcists?). I will think on it awhile longer & let you know if the old noodle percolates up something better.
And in the spirit of what’s good for the goose, you still haven’t answered my question(s) either. Specifically, what about Esau being a non-believer but being circumcised. I’ve done my best (however pitiful that may be) to answer at least two questions for you now. You can answer at least a couple for me now.
While it’s certainly possible I hope I haven’t been so obtuse as to claim the circumcision was the same thing as baptism. I don’t think that’s what I was saying as I don’t believe there is a 1:1 comparison. If I unitentionally implied that I apologize. However, there is a very strong connection between the two and I think one can learn a lot about each from the other. As with other issues in Scripture I think one can make a very good case that where one Testament is silent about an aspect of an issue, you can get really good guidance from the other Testament. That’s what I was trying to do in referring to circumcision.
I think that many times silence can be more deafening than the loudest thunder. And in this case the fact that God did not speak about changing the application of the sign to the children of Believers is that defeaning silence. It’s hard to imagine God not stating clearly “stop giving the sign to babies like you’ve done for generations,” if that’s what he wanted.
All of the foregoing said, I understand where you’re coming from brother & that’s the reason I’m not picking a dog. I may cheer one on though.
Thanks for helping me stretch the noodle. I think the elastic is starting to wear thin though!
Brian Thornton said
Your question about no instruction to stop giving the sign to children seems moot in light of the fact that we have explicit instructions to baptize those who repent.
What is deafening is the absence of any instruction to baptize infants!
There IS explicit instruction to baptize those who repent, and NO instruction at all to baptize anyone who has not expressed repentance and faith.
Talk about deafening!
Derick Harper said
Come on now Brian. You’re not playing fair. You aren’t answering fair questions but only throwing up new objections. Would you please answer what I’ve asked? You’re obviously an intelligent & well-read individual & I honestly would enjoy your analysis of my questions.
The fact is that you are right that there isn’t any specific instruction to baptize infants, but neither is their a command to refrain from it when it is the new sign of the Covenant & until that point in redemptive history God had commanded Believers to give the sign of the Covenant to their infant children. Should they stop until given a specific command to do so?
I’ve read a little church history & while I’m no expert on it my impression is that paedo-baptism was not uncommon (along with credo-baptism for those not raised in the faith) durin the first couple of hundred years after Jesus. Assuming that is the case & if it was indeed wrong to do it don’t you think it would have been written about in a loud & clear fashion in the balance of the New Testament that discusses Christian living & heresies? That would be the barking dog I’ve been talking about.
Again, I’ve enjoyed the repartee. Despite our disagreement I feel we probably have a lot more in common than not. But important discussions like this can get a little heated sometimes when real world examples aren’t included into the equasion though. I do take the topic seriously but I also discuss it with the intent of expressing my opinions in Christian love. I hope you feel the same way.
It sounds like we’re to the point where we may have to agree to disagree. Can we start talking about something more unifying like eschatology? That’s obviously meant to be a joke.
Brian Thornton said
until that point in redemptive history God had commanded Believers to give the sign of the Covenant to their infant children.
This is where I think you err in your supposition. Circumcision was an OUTWARD sign of in OUTWARD comittment (proselyte)…of an OUTWARD connection (being an Israelite).
Baptism is an OUTWARD sign of an INWARD change…an OUTWARD sign of being circumcised of the heart.
Your barking dog example actually turns around and bites your own point, because the barking dog, as you put it, are the explicit instructions in the NT to baptize those who have repented and believed.
Essentially, what you are saying is, since there is no explicit instruction NOT to baptize infants, then it is okay (and even the correct mode) to do so. That is an argument from silence…yet, it really isn’t since we have so much explicit teaching and commanding in the NT to baptize those who are of faith.
But now that FAITH HAS COME, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God THROUGH FAITH in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. – Gal. 3:25-27
How does an infant clothe himself with Christ? He can’t, because it is through faith, which is why those who are of faith are the ones who are baptized…in obedience to the command to repent and be baptized.
It is an outward sign of an inward change. Paedo-baptists, against the clear teaching of Scripture, make baptism an outward sign of an outward affiliation…just like circumcision.
As my pastor has said, “Circumcision was a sign of an ethnic covenant. Baptism is a sign of a saving covenant.”
John Alread said
In answer to your question of a non-believer being baptized, could one say that Simon Magus was baptized, but not truly a believer? He may have expressed faith, but Peter rebuked him because his heart was not right with God.
Brian Thornton said
Hi John,
My point was not that there are no unbelievers who get baptized…I am quite certain that a great number of those who have been baptized are not believers.
Simon very well may have not been a believer, but he was not knowingly baptized as anything but a repentant professor in Christ.
John Alread said
Good point. Only God can see the heart.
Derick Harper said
Well it looks like we’re going in circles. I started off pointing out that a sovereign God can certainly give faith to a helpless infant as easily as he can any other unregenerate sinner. The only difference is that an adult can outwardly affirm that they have faith, whether it turns out to be genuine or not. I’m nowhere claiming the infant doesn’t have faith. It’s kind of like credo-baptism for babies. And yes there is a chance that the child will not grow up to be a Believer, but if I was a wagering man I would be more likely to put money on that if the child is raised in a genuine Christian home than that he will turn out to be a Believer than I would a grown convert who doesn’t have good discipleship.
Also as I started out saying, I think you make very good points. However, as one raised a credo-baptist I think most of my fellow credo-baptists too easily reject paedo-baptism for whatever reason and often without real reason. I used to think hjust like you do, but then I opened my mind to some of my good reformed brothers of the Presbyterian persuasion. Maybe it just seems too papist to us populist protestants? I do once again recommend to you Douglas Wilson’s “Standing on the Promises.” After all this back & forth I do plan on re-reading it to sharpen my points. I hope you will consider looking at it too. I’m sure Rev. Wilson will do a much better job of communicating these points than I have.
As I stated before there is not a 1:1 relationship between circumcision & baptism. However, it is one example of many Old Testament forerunners to New Testament practices. Others include the Passover & the Lord’s Supper (As one claiming to be reformed have you seen John Calvin’s teaching on this? If not I think you would be shocked!) and several prophets serving as “types” of Christs. No, the Old Testament forerunners are not perfect analogies to their New Testament counterparts but we can learn lots from them and the fact is the the sign of the Covenant in the Old Testament was specifically commanded to be delivered to the newborn sons of Believers.
You are correct that you find no direct mentions of infant baptisms in the New Testament, but why is that? Because people had not been raised as members of the New Covenant to that point precisely because it was New. But when a new convert came to the faith not only was he baptised, but in many cases so were his whole household which could easily include both infants & slaves.
However, at this point I’m just re-tilling old ground here again & it doesn’t appear that either of us is making any headway, so once again I think we’re just going to have to agree to disagree about this. I guess the only other thing I could ask is that you approach this subject with the same openess of mind that you apparently do end-times theology.
On, & I’m still waiting on answers to my questions.
Brian Thornton said
I’m sorry, Derick, I got so lost in all of your circular reasoning that I guess I forgot what some of your questions were.
I nust say you have some interesting ideas, bordering on bizarre…such as infants possessing saving faith.
I have made my case from the source which I believe should be the point of reference when considering baptism…the New Testament.
I haven’t seen you appeal to NT Scripture yet, except for the purely assumptive statement that when households were baptized they included infants. You have absolutely no direct, explicit examples to prove that ever happened. It is nothing but assumption.
When it comes to something as important as baptism, I prefer to go with the clear teaching and practices of the NT. You seem to be content to base your position on…what exactly do you base your position on??? It certainly isn’t based on what we see practiced in the NT.
Thanks for the willingness to dialogue.
Derick Harper said
It sounds like things are winding down and in that spirit I don’t plan on throwing any new tender on the fire as I think I’ve said everything that needs to be said. I’m just sorry I wasn’t more convincing. I also must object however to the ad hominem argument that my reasoning was circular. In what way?
I still would like to hear what you think about Esau though.
Brian Thornton said
Saying that your reasoning is circular is not ad-hominem (I have never attacked you personally). Your position is circular – in my opinion – because you provide no Scriptural basis for your position, but rather just more philosophical human logic and reasoning to support your initial human logic and reasoning. The position of infant-baptism does not originate anywhere in Scripture.
Esau was hated by God.
Circumcision was an outward sign of an ethnic covenant…baptism is an outward sign of a saving covenant…a covenant of faith, not a covenant of affiliation.
If you think you’ve said all that needs to be said regarding paedo-baptism, then it is indeed – as I have always held – quite a weak position from Scripture.
Thanks again for your willingness to discuss this.
dvdf said
the reason for circumcision was as a type and shadow to the people that the only sacrifice that would satisfy the covenant of promise was a sacrifice of human blood. Which was JESUS, not water. God knew the people would continue to doubt so He gave them a SIGN they would recognize for a long time to come, circumcision was human blood being shed as an imperfect type and shadow of the future perfect sacrifice, it was a sign and it did NOT save. Then,to the NT, Jesus told Nicodemus you MUST be born a second time by the Spirit. As a way of proclaiming what God had done, we are then baptized, Romans 6:1-4 must be understood (by the person being baptized) or the baptism is pointless,since it does not save. The type and shadow pointed,therefore,to the CROSS not the water sprinkled on a newborn head, though God may save an infant through the preaching of the word it is not a requirement to baptize it for the work of salvation to be complete. Having said this I would then put forth that the completion of the life of Jesus does tell us “IT IS FINISHED” stop administering the type and shadow to ALL those who do not profess Jesus as their Savior including baptism.
I recognize this is very condensed and could be, forgive the crude pun, never mind, “expanded upon” as well as put together in a more cohesive point, I’m still being polished.
my 2 cents… anybody got change for a dime
dvdf