← Defenders Podcast
Loading summary
Transcript2 lines
- [00:01]
A
Welcome to Defenders, the teaching class of Dr. William Lane Craig Today the Doctrine of the Church Part 6. For more information and resources from Dr. Craig, go to reasonablefaith.org We've been talking
- [00:17]
B
about the doctrine of the Church and in particular the sacraments or ordinances of the Church. Thus far we focused our attention on baptism. We examined a case for a sacramentalist view of baptism and then last time, a case for viewing baptism as an ordinance. Today we want to take up a different question, the question of infant baptism. Now, once again, I'll want to present two competing views and and I'll try to present each one as fairly and convincingly as I can. And then at the end of the day, you'll need to make up your own mind as to which view you find the most plausible. The first view that we want to look at is called pedo baptism or infant Baptism. Pedo is the word for child or infant. Paedobaptism is practiced by both sacramentalists and non sacramentalists. Catholics, for example, see infant Baptism at the moment at which one receives justifying grace and becomes regenerate. But in the Reformed Church, infant baptism may not be the moment at which one is saved and but rather it serves as a sign or a seal of being part of the covenant. So there is a range of views on what baptism is as practiced by Paedo Baptists. It can be seen as salvific, where you actually are regenerated in baptism. Or it could be seen simply as a sign or seal that shows that this infant as the child of elect parents is part of the covenant. So what arguments might be offered on behalf of infant baptism? Well, first of all, the advocate of infant baptism will appeal to the Jewish notion of the solidarity of the family and then household baptism in in the New Testament church where every member of a household was baptized because of the solidarity of the family unit, the family was seen as a unit and therefore was treated together. So if a father in particular turned to Christ, his entire household would be baptized and and would be considered to be Christian. Look for example at Acts 16:30, 33. This is the well known story of the Philippian jailer who turns to Christ. And in verse 30 he says to Paul and Silas, men, what must I do to be saved? And they said, believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved and you and your household. And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all that were in his house. And he took them that same hour of the night and washed their wounds. And he was baptized at once with all his family. Undoubtedly in that day and age, a man like this would have children, small members of the family, and they were all presumably baptized. When the head of a family made a decision for Christ, he acted on behalf of the entire family. He was the head of the household, and the household followed him in his decision. So when a man like this jailer turns to Christ and is baptized by all of his family members, it says, were baptized along with him, that would include any children that might have been in his family. Secondly, the advocate of paedobaptism will appeal to Jesus own attitude toward children. In Mark 10, 13, 16, we read the story of how people were bringing little children to Jesus to bless them and how the disciples were turning them away. The disciples didn't want Jesus to be bothered with these little children that the people were bringing to him. In Mark 10, 13, 16, we read, and they were bringing children to him that he might touch them. And the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, let the little children come to me. Do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it. And he took them in his arms and blessed them and laying his hands upon them. Here we see Jesus attitude toward these little children who were being brought to him for his blessing. It was one of welcoming them, not saying that they were not old enough or don't bother me with these little ones. Instead he received them and blessed them and laid his hands upon them. So the encouragement here is to bring the the little children to Christ. One might therefore do that in baptism. The third argument for paedobaptism is one that is offered particularly by our reformed brethren. This is the parallelism between circumcision in the Old Covenant and baptism in the New Covenant. A sort of parallel exists between circumcision as the sign of the Old covenant and baptism as the sign of the New Covenant. Look at Colossians, chapter 2, verses 11 and 12 verses that we've read earlier, but we'll now read again. In Him. Also, you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ. And you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. Here Paul draws a sort of parallel between circumcision and baptism. He says that in Christ you were circumcised with a sort of spiritual circumcision, being buried with Christ in baptism. Just as circumcision was a sign in the old covenant of those who were members of that covenant, so in the New Testament, baptism is a sign of the new covenant with for those who are part of it, Circumcision was obviously practiced upon infants. Circumcision was done within a week or so after the birth of the male child. And so, just as circumcision was done to infants, so baptism can also be done to infants. Circumcision was a sign that this infant was part of the covenant family, a part of God's elect people. In the same way, infant baptism serves to mark that child off as a member of the covenant family in virtue of being raised in a Christian home by believing parents and brought to have this sign of the new covenant performed on him. So circumcision and baptism are signs of being in the covenant. Just as circumcision was practiced on infants of believing families, so baptism should be practiced upon infants who are members of believing families. Fourthly, finally, what about baptism and faith? What is the relationship between. Between baptism and faith? On the Reformed view, as we've seen, faith is a gift of God without our knowledge or will. If you'll remember our discussion of regeneration, on the Reformed view, regeneration actually precedes, logically at least, the act of faith. Remember, a spiritually unregenerate, spiritually dead person cannot exercise faith in God. On the Reformed view, faith can only be exercised once the work of regeneration has been wrought in a person's heart by the Holy Spirit, so that regenerating work of the Holy Spirit takes place apart from our knowledge and will. Therefore, if baptism of infants takes place apart from the knowledge and will of the infant, that is simply an extension of what happens in every case. When every believer is regenerated by God and placed into the family of God, it takes place on apart from our knowledge and will. And so the infant is really no different than the rest of us on the Reformed view of salvation. Moreover, at least Luther and Calvin believed that the infant does in fact exercise faith. They would deny the assumption that an infant brought for baptism and has no faith. They would say the little infants do in some way exercise faith in God, and therefore it is quite appropriate for these infants to be baptized. Some time ago, Jan and I attended an Anglican baptismal service. And it was very interesting to note that in the Anglican tradition, the parents act as surrogates for the infant. So that they answer the questions posed by the priest on behalf of the infant. It is a sort of surrogate faith. Prior to the baptism, the parents and the godparents stand, and the priest says to them these those who bring children to be baptized by must affirm their allegiance to Christ and their rejection of all that is evil. It is your duty to bring up these children to fight against evil and to follow Christ. Therefore, I ask you these questions which you must answer for yourselves and for these children. So the parents are answering not only for themselves, they are answering for the children. The priest then asks them, do you turn to Christ? And the parents respond, I turn to Christ. The priest asks, do you repent of your sins? And the parents answer, I repent of my sins. The priest says, do you renounce evil? And the parents answer, I renounce evil. Then the priest performs the sign of the cross on the forehead of the infant, and the infant is baptized. So in a case like this, you can see that although the infant may not himself be able to answer the questions and repent and exercise faith, this is done for him by the parents. So on the basis of these arguments, Catholics, Reformed churches and Lutheran churches practice infant baptism as part of their regular practice of baptism. Next week, we'll look at an alternative to pedo baptism in in believers baptism. Until then, I wish you Godspeed.