Infant Baptism: The Practice of the First Century Part Four

  

                                                                       

                                                                       Introduction: 

So far, I have discussed that circumcision was a common practice for young children born into the Hebrew families during the Old Testament era. Likewise, I have shared evidence that Gentile adults who converted to Judaism, had to be circumcised in order to join the covenantal family. While all of this was discussed in my first post of this series, I then discussed the relationship of Jesus to young children in the second, and then I affirmed the likelihood that baptism was a common practice among the early Christian community during the events described in the Acts of the Apostles. Now, however, I would like to build on arguments already discussed in the first post. 

Circumcision had been a sign of obedience to Abraham and his offspring as recorded in Genesis. Later, the Israelites throughout the Old Testament continued the practice of circumcision for their sons. By the time of early Christianity, though, water baptism had become a greater symbol of faith in God than physical circumcision. In the previous post, I argued that baptism began to gradually replace circumcision in Acts 2. It was my argument in the prior post, that while baptism now replaced circumcision in the new rising church, the relationship between children and their believing parents was no different than it had been before the Old Testament. Indeed, Peter's preaching in Acts that the promise was for the believers and their children was never rescinded by anything in the New Testament. Likewise, the writings of the New Testament, I argue, never teach that such a promise was ever done away. As I intend to now defend, Peter's preaching of the promise for the believers and their children is supported by Paul's letter to the Colossians. Certainly, I believe that what I'm about to discuss, is one of the greatest arguments for infant baptism to be found in Paul's writings. 

                                                                   Historical Context: 

The Colossians were mostly comprised of Greeks. However, there were some Jews also among them. Paul's letter to the Colossian Church may have been around 54 A. D. It has been traditionally asserted that the blessed apostle wrote the epistle to Philimon. Although some have suggested that Paul wrote to the Colossians in order to correct them from a perceived heresy, no scholars have found proven evidence of this. In general, much of the context of Colossians is Paul encouraging believers to not fall astray to the teaching of the Judaizers. 

In the early parts of the epistle, Paul warned believers of Jewish mysticism (2:6-23). Likewise, he extorted Christians to have obedient lives to God (3:1-17). It was primarily in the second chapter, however, that Paul focused his discussion on the relation of New Testament baptism, which was ignited by the Holy Spirit, to the circumcision that had once defined the Israelites as God's chosen people. 

                                                      The Picture of Baptism in Romans 6

The Bible teaches that baptism into Christ is taking on Christ (Romans 6: 3-4). Although some appeal to Romans 6: 4 as evidence against infant baptism, I believe that it has nothing directly concerned with the doctrine itself. Some Credobaptists believe that Romans 6: 4 teaches baptism by immersion, and since baptism is by immersion, infants who are baptized by any other mode are invalidly baptized. In these series of posts, I will not be debating much (or at all) about the mode of baptism, however. Indeed, I do not feel the need to debate the mode of baptism in these posts as I do not directly tie it to the debate on infant baptism. The reason for this is that many Christians through the ages have actually baptized infants by immersion. Thomas Aquinas, for example, described in his writings the immersing baptism of infants. Likewise, some of the earliest forms of Anglican liturgy describe infants as having been baptized by immersion. Even today, the Eastern Orthodox Church baptizes its infants through immersion. In short then, even if I conceded that Biblical Baptism is immersion only, this would in no way prove the invalidity of infant baptism. 

                                                  Baptism and Circumcision in Colossians 2: 

With the context of Romans 6 explained, I do not believe that Colossians 2: 12 speaks anything against infant baptism when it teaches, ''For you were buried with Christ when you were baptized. And with him, you were raised to new life through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead (Colossians 2: 12).'' With the knowledge that infant baptism can actually be performed by immersion, I hope to now dow discuss the relationship between the old covenant's circumcision and the new covenant's baptism. 

In Colossians 2: 11-12, Paul relates baptism to circumcision. Recognized as one of the greater arguments for infant baptism, Credobaptists challenge the Paedobaptist position by insisting that the distinction between the circumcision of the heart and the circumcision made of hands is definitely distinct. To most Credobaptists, infant baptism does not replace physical circumcision. 

Evangelical scholar, Norman Geisler, argued that because only male children were circumcised in the old covenant, that even if infant baptism were true, only male babes should be baptized in the new (1168). The problem with this reasoning, however, is that it's simply not Biblical. Circumcision was for the males only in the Old Testament but by the first century, baptism, which is the replacement of circumcision (Colossians 2), now includes both males and females (Galatians 3: 28, Ephesians 2: 11-22). Furthermore, by the reasoning proposed by Geisler, even if paedobaptists were Biblically wrong to baptize female babes, then Credobaptists who accept baptism as the replacement for circumcision (which Geisle doesn't) would also be wrong to not baptize male babes. Two wrongs don't make one right. Likewise, for those Credobaptists who simply claim that the Paedobaptists are being inconsistent on the application of baptism to both boys and girls while believing that circumcision was just for males, I encourage them to read the following post. Later, I will be explaining scripturally, that circumcision in the Old Testament actually included females (though it was not a physical act). 

I would like to now return to the comparison of baptism and circumcision in Colossians 2.  Presbyterian theologian R. C. Sproul explains how this passage supports infant baptism: 

''Baptism is not identical to circumcision, but it corresponds to it in essence (Romans 4:11), pointing to the same spiritual benefits and has replaced it as the sign of the covenant. Given the association between circumcision and baptism, 2:11 is important evidence for the practice of infant baptism. If infant children of old covenant believers were circumcised, and if baptism replaces circumcision under the new covenant, then there is a strong argument that infant children of new covenant believers should be baptized. They should receive the sign of covenant initiation just as children who lived before the coming of Christ did. Moreover, as was true of circumcision, baptism avails nothing for its recipient apart from the recipient's faith in the promises of God (Romans 2:25-29, 1 Peter 3:18-25).''

-Reformation Study Bible, (1800).

The logic, in my view, backs Sproul's reasoning. Under the old covenant, male children were given circumcision as their initiation into the Hebrew community. Since baptism replaces circumcision (Colossians 2), since baptism now includes male and female (Galatians 3:28, Ephesians 2: 11-22), and since the New Testament never rescinded this promise for the children of believers (Acts 2), I believe that in light of the relationship between baptism and circumcision, that infant baptism is quite Biblical. Certainly, Colossians 2 is not the only reason that I believe in infant baptism. However, it was the study of this passage's discussion of baptism that helped me to see the Biblicity of baptizing babies. 

Now, some Credobaptists will point to the mention of faith (13-14) in Colossians 2. To them, this means that baptism is only for believers. While some Paedobaptists may attempt to refute this claim by insisting that the letter was to Gentile believers only, it is quite likely that there were Jews in the church of Colossae. However, I don't find the mention of faith in this chapter to be proof against infant baptism. 

It should be remembered that many Credobaptists believe that baptism is only for those who can profess the faith. Typically, many of them believe that the scriptures do not support the idea that an infant can have a belief. However, is this really what scripture teaches? 

Scripture does not let us know whether or not all infants believe in Christ. However, John the Baptist leaped for joy for Jesus in Luke 1:41. As far as I'm aware, the only case in scripture that speaks of a child having or not having faith is this one. Thus, there is more Biblical evidence to believe that infants, especially infants of Christian parents, may well believe in Christ from the time that they are in their mother's womb. Scripture certainly teaches that children of Christian parents receive a unique grace that children of unbelievers do not (1 Corinthians 7:14). 

Nevertheless, even if an infant child could not have faith, does the passage in Colossians 2 benefit the Credobaptist position? I believe that it doesn't. 

The Credobaptists wrongly that those who hold to an evangelical view of covenantal theology don't assume that infant baptism doesn't contribute, or even align with some sort of faith in the child. On what grounds, do they make such an assumption? Obviously, young male infants received circumcision as a sign of their membership into the covenantal community before ever making a profession of faith? Why do Credobaptists believe that the standard is different for children of the New Testament era? Furthermore, the passage chronologically speaks of baptism before faith. For the majority of Credobaptists, this does not advantage of their position that baptism follows a profession of faith. 

                                                                 A Bridge Too Far? 

Some Credobaptists may argue that Colossians 2 makes an interesting connection between the old and the new covenants. Some of them will likely even agree that the continuity or parallelism between circumcision and baptism is fascinating. Ultimately, however, they typically insist that scripture does not support baptism having replaced circumcision. To them, paedobaptists are reading something into the passage that is irrelevant to its context. 

Perhaps I am missing something from Colossians 2 that my Credobaptist friends believe backs their view. To me, though, their argument about the passage's teaching of circumcision made without hands has nothing to oppose concerning infant baptism. Indeed, baptism is a work of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:11, Acts 2: 38). Indeed, while many Credobaptists will insist that the baptism of water in the New Testament is distinct from the moment in which they claim that we are justified, I am afraid that no such passage in scripture affirms their view. On the contrary, scripture actually teaches that Baptism is connected to our salvation (Titus 3: 5, 1 Peter 3:21). While Paedobaptist Christians will have different interpretations about the meaning of ''saved'' in 1 Peter 3:21, even those who do not believe that baptism is required for our justification still generally see it in some sort of way as connected to our spiritual growth. The concept that many of the Credobaptists argue for, on the other hand, which is that Paul only means our spiritual regeneration in Colossians 2, is simply not Biblical. Throughout the New Testament, especially after Pentecost, baptism is invariably tied with salvation. 

For many Credobaptists, Colossians 2 is only speaking of spiritual circumcision. thus, they conclude that this does include infant baptism as the latter is a physical act. However, this is somewhat of a forced interpretation. Rather, I affirm that Paul is simply downplaying the physical circumcision while affirming that Gentile Christians do not need to be circumcized to receive God's blessings. 

In conclusion on this point, a natural reading of this passage (along with applying logic to connect the thoughts of the Biblical authors), is perfectly in line with infant baptism. Nowhere in the epistle to the Colossians, does Paul ever claim that spiritual regeneration is somehow distinct from water baptism, nowhere does he claim that the new covenant is for believers only, and nowhere does he speak against infant baptism. Indeed, Paul actually makes another strong case for infant baptism in a different New Testament epistle which I shall discuss soon. 

Further Sources: 

Sproul, R. C. Reformation Study Bible. (2017). Reformation Trust Publishing. 

Geisler, Norman L. Systematic Theology.