Since relocating to Missouri, I’ve had to rethink my own denomination, and now, I’ve also had to rethink the mode of baptism.
I went by Covenant Theological Seminary, which is PCA. I had the opportunity to visit with Prof. Robert Yarbrough, formerly of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He has been at Covenant Seminary for over a year now. We had just enough time to talk about Infant Baptism.
Prof. Yarbrough was formerly ordained in the Southern Baptist Denomination. He moved his ordination to Presbyterian Church of America (PCA). As someone who does missionary work, Yarbrough now reflects with gratitude. He told me that he has been able to work with not only those who subscribe to Infant Baptism but also with those who subscribe to believer’s baptism.
My Appreciation
Prof. Yarbrough gave me the classic covenant argument for Infant Baptism. Over the years, I’ve come to appreciate this aspect of the practice. Yarbrough found himself stressing the need to understand covenant theology. In fact, he recommended three books for me to explore the matter further.
So I went to the bookstore and found a book by Doug Wilson on the subject. I began to browse through it.
And yes, I’ve come to see that immersion is not the only accepted mode of baptism in the New Testament. This is clear from how the Baptism of the Spirit is portrayed in the book of Acts (2; 10-11).
My Departure
While I appreciate Prof. Yarbrough’s passionate argument, and that of other Presbyterians that I’ve encountered in St. Louis, there’s a major point of departure that I’ve found.
I get the infant inclusion in covenant through the practice of Infant Baptism (as I said above, I’ve since come to appreciate this).
But when I discovered that a person who was baptized as an infant has no need to be baptized as an adult when he or she comes to faith in Christ because the Infant Baptism counts, my appreciation ended and my departure began.
But I will not belabor the issue here.
the archives near Emmaus 
I’ve thought about infant baptism a lot and it seems that as long as a time for confirmation is included (when the person comes to faith in Christ), it should be of equal significance. Hmmm…with baptism being an outward sign of an inward work of the Holy Spirit, Romans 4:17 might be appropriate here…. That said, I’m still leaning toward believer’s baptism.
Nancy, that conscious faith union and expression in one’s own baptism is hard to deny in the various examples we have in Scripture, not to mention those didactical texts.
@T.C. : I think Michael Bird wrote about something like a both/and of infant and believer’s baptism on his blog not to long ago. Like you, I tend to think each Christian should submit in good time to baptism as a public confession that they follow Christ as Lord even if they’re ecclesiastical tradition does a infant baptism that dedicates a child into the covenant. That being said, I don’t think it is salvific per se. If someone was baptized as a child, and they have faith in the Triune God, then my guess is that God being outside time is not limited to the order of our faith and baptism.
@Brian, I’ll have to give Prof. Bird a read.
“If someone was baptized as a child, and they have faith in the Triune God, then my guess is that God being outside time is not limited to the order of our faith and baptism.”
This is tricky. For this to stand, as I see it, we have to argue for a both/and. While baptism is not salvific, it seems to me on the basis of a text like Matthew 28:19 that the Christ follower must submit to it.
Infant baptism will then be the exception. But on what grounds?
@T.C. : Maybe in the sense that it is a way of saying, “I affirm the meaning of the baptism that I received as an infant.” rather than rejecting it?
@Brian, not to belabor the issue, but what exactly is affirmed in Infant Baptistm? Can we scripturally argue that the same thing(s) is/are being affirmed in believer’s baptism?
@TC…Ummm, tentatively I’d say yes. God sent Jesus to die for us while we were yet sinners…He was working on our behalf when we were unable to do so. While I agree with Brian that baptism isn’t salvic, I also believe that something happens at baptism that is more than mere symbolism.
On the practical (physical action) side, how many of us when being baptized as young believers “chose” it because we wanted to and understood it, instead of because we were told this is what you do next? Of course, knowing what I do now, I would choose to be baptized, but even at 14, I was kinda like…ok.
I know Christians who were baptised as infants and can never remember not being a Christian.Baptism stems from a Jewish practice and I think its worthwhile doing a back ground study of what baptism meant within a Jewish framework.
It’s interesting that within a Jewish context baptism required 3 witnesses, normally someone of significant authority; which is why John rebukes the Pharisees when they come down to the river to give their mark of approval / disapproval and is significant to note when thinking through what Jesus was saying to the Pharisees when he asked them by whose authority was John baptising them..God or man.
@T.C. I wasn’t baptized as an infant, nor do I attend (or have attended) a church that affirms the doctrine, but I assume that it affirms a more communal understanding of what it means to be followers of Christ and therefore part of the New Covenant. While it may be hard to defend from Scripture one reason for this could be very simple: Scripture addressed mostly first generation Christian converts and therefore we do not know what would have been said to second generation Christians whose parents were Christians. That isn’t water-proof, but it is plausible.
If they feel like (A) baptism is more about corporate identity with Christ, and (B) that it is more about the community’s confession that the individual (like circumcision), then all later confession does is affirm what the community declared when the person was a child much like a faithful Jew could chose to affirm or deny what their community proclaimed at their circumcision.
Unfortunately I lack the time to lay out a broader argument, but there was one question that lodged in my brain very early on in my study of paedo vs. credo baptism, and it was a question that I eventually decided I couldn’t answer as a credobaptist, so I “converted” to the paedobaptist position.
The question is basically a form of the classic argument from Acts 2: Peter, a Jew, is in Jerusalem speaking to Jews. For millennia the Jewish people understood the concept of ‘covenant succession’ (Abraham received the sign of the covenant and gave it to his son Isaac before Isaac was able to believe on his own, Isaac did the same with Jacob, and so on from generation to generation).
Why would Peter use language so similar to the language being used in the Genesis account that this promise is “for you and your children” and NOT explain himself to a Jewish audience if he didn’t think that covenant succession was still in effect? How would a Jewish audience have understood this if not in terms of covenant succession?
As I said, for me there were several other smaller lines of argumentation and thought that pushed me over the edge to embrace paedobaptism, but that question was a huge part of that process.
TC, send me an email or find me on FB and I’ll send you the section on baptism from my forthcoming systematics volume.
“Since relocating to Missouri”
Hmm, I apparently missed this great news. I need to chat with you and maybe we can get together! I’ll send you an email I think…
@Nancy, fair enough. But one not fully understand believer’s baptism as one submits to it is no apologetic for Infant baptism.
@Craig, what of Christian baptism? Or is there no such thing?
@Brian, I appreciate your communal emphasis on Infant baptism. If this is all to the meaning of baptism, the I say, yes. But there is so much more to baptism, as seen in Scripture.
@Steve, what of those “far off?” How does all this apply to them? Keep in mind it’s the “promise” that is in question here.
@Mike Bird, I’ve FB you on the matter. Thanks. 😉
@Nathan, definitely!
T.C. I think that the NT Baptism is based on the Jewish format and understanding…The apostle Paul made a point that his ministry wasn’t a baptising ministry and that baptising people wasn’t an integral to his ministry…The question needs to be asked as to why this is so?
@TC, I get what you’re driving at (I think), but it still doesn’t help with the question: why wouldn’t Peter have made it explicitly clear that covenant succession was ending when speaking to an audience that assumes covenant succession (and has for generations)?
What Peter meant by “those far off” is an important question, but in this discussion, IMO, it is not central. The central issue is, why would Peter so clearly allude to Genesis 17 to an audience that assumes covenant succession as basic if he didn’t also assume that covenant succession was to be a continued practice within the church?
It seems to me, if we’re to assume the apostles were credo-baptists, that Peter should have gone out of his way to explain to the people in Jerusalem that the covenant and its signs were now only for those who make a profession of faith and NOT their children. Instead he says, this is for you AND your children. If Peter meant that the children would have to come to faith on their own and only THEN could they receive the covenant sign, he’s being unclear at best, misleading at worst.
That said, having been raised baptist, and gone to a baptist seminary (and talked in circles and circles with the illustrious Marc Cortez about this issue) this is one of those areas that I think all Christians should think well about, and seek to understand the best of the opposing arguments, and then let’s get on with the mission of making disciples and baptizing them (I’ll just baptize their kids as well 🙂 ).
TC –
I went to Covenant Seminary and became aware of a lot of the teaching through the ecclessiology class taught by Robert Peterson. I understood and appreciated the arguments too, but I still feel they fail in the long run.
You said: And yes, I’ve come to see that immersion is not the only accepted mode of baptism in the New Testament. This is clear from how the Baptism of the Spirit is portrayed in the book of Acts (2; 10-11).
Not sure the baptism of the Spirit being described as a pouring is a great pointer to a mode of water baptism. Different issues to look at. Luke in Acts also describes the baptism of the Spirit in terms of filling. Should we now start filling people with water? 😉
Steve Hall –
TC brought up the ‘and those far off’ point, which I think you sidestepped too much.
I think it is possible that the early church community would have been aware of Matthew’s wording on Jesus’ baptismal teaching – a) go make disciples, b) baptising them in the name of…..
The general understanding is baptism as a part of those responding in discipleship, specifically following Christ.
@Craig, you’re misquoting Paul, and to really read and understand Paul’s theology, especially of the people of God in community, your commenting is certainly not weighing the evidence.
@Steve, perhaps we need to widen our understanding of “children” in this reference. (A) It could simply mean “descendants,” with no reference to “covenant succession” as you understand it. (B) I see you haven’t answer my question of “what promise” Peter was referring to. I await your reply. 😉
In seeking to establish grounds for “covenant succession,” be careful not to put words in the mouth of Peter here, what he could mean and not mean.
@Scott, good point about mode. Perhaps mode is not the best word here. 😉
Hi, for me, the issue is “how are we saved?” Baptism is the public entrance to Christianity – Romans 6 shows how we die to self, and are raised to new life in Jesus – believers baptism by immersion preaches this beautifully. We are saved by grace through faith, by turning from our sins and accepting Jesus. A baby does none of these things, it is salvation by ritual. It is not Biblical. Clearly, Jesus loves children, but he blessed them, he did not baptise them. Dedicating a child to God seems a good thing, thanking God for them, and pledging the parents and church to nurture them. But to compare a baby getting sprinkled (and usually crying at that point – this is not something they are desiring) with a young adult sharing their faith, beaming in the joy of the Lord and getting baptised – there is no comparison. Believers baptism often leads naturally to powerful chances to share the good news. It proclaims the reality of salvation. I honestly cant see sprinkling a baby doing the same thing, proclaiming repentance, forgiveness, new birth and joy in the Holy Spirit.
Colin, you’ve made some good points. Thanks.
You are welcome!
If we look in Acts, again, the sequence is clear. Repentance is a necessary pre-condition for baptism.
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, (Act 2:38 NIV)
Those who accepted his message were baptized (Act 2:41 NIV)
But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. (Act 8:12 NIV)
33 At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized.
34 The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God–he and his whole family.
(Act 16:33-34 NIV)
8 Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized. (Act 18:8 NIV)
In each case, they hear, they believe and then they are baptized.
God bless,
Colin