United Free Church of Scotland
|Home|
General Assembly|
Congregations online|
Church Directory|
History|
Press Releases|
Special Features|
Statement of Faith|
Stedfast Magazine|
Email|
GENERAL ASSEMBLY
2001 Panel on Doctrine
Report
Baptism
Our starting point should be to
recognisethat there is no direct evidence in the New Testament for or against
the baptism of children. The New Testament is silent on the matter. Some
have concluded from the silence that only adults were baptised and not children.
It goeswithout saying that the United Free Church of Scotland together with
all thechurches of the Reformation has always subscribed to and practised
the baptismof adult converts, i.e. converts not previously baptised.
Given the circumstances of the early church and the large numbers
of menand women turning from paganism to Christ it is hardly surprising that
adultswere baptised in large numbers. GW Bromiley has pointed out that
"wheneverthe church has seriously discharged its ministry of evangelism,
it has baptisedthe adults who constitute the first generation of Christian
converts".Children of Promise
, Wipf and Stock Publishers 1998, p 2.
Bearing in mind the increasing secularisation of our society, the
declineof the church in the west, and the ever-increasing number of families
whosee no necessity for baptism at all, we ourselves face the situation whereby
any significant turning back to God will inevitably see again a significant
increase in the baptism of adults. That is something for which we should
pray and work. We are wholly for the baptism of adult converts. The question we have to face is whether
it iscorrect to conclude from the silence of the New Testament that only
adultswere baptised and not children. It would be equally valid to conclude
fromthe silence that the baptism of children is simply taken for granted.
Indeed,given the pattern of belief and practice both in the Old Testament
and incontemporary Judaism it is difficult to conceive of children being
excluded.The lack of any explicit statement in support of the baptism of
children is far from conclusive. There are other elements of Christian faith
and practicewhich lack explicit statements in support. Our belief in the
Trinity is one.Another, directly related to the sacraments, is the inclusion
of women atthe Lord's table. The only occasion when Jesus administered
the Lord's Supperand instructed those present to "Do this in remembrance
of me" was in thepresence of twelve men. There is no explicit text for the
inclusion of womenand no explicit statement that women were present at any
celebration of theLord's Supper in the New Testament era. The inclusion of
women however ison the ground of, what Bromiley calls, "legitimate inference".
Taking intoaccount other statements in the New Testament it is inconceivable
that womenshould not be included. If the argument at this point seems trivial
it allthe more emphasises the futility of arguments from silence and the
problemof requiring an explicit statement (a proof text) in support of the
baptismof children. The inclusion of children may be determined on other
grounds,as may the inclusion of women at the Lord's table. Is there any evidence at all in the New
Testamentfor the conclusion that the early Christians would have taken for
grantedthe baptism of their children? The words of Jesus most frequently
quotedin connection with the baptism of children are those from Mark 10.14:
"Letthe little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom
ofGod belongs to such as these." They are to be found in most paedobaptist
service manuals and on most baptismal fonts. They seem, for some, to offer
the finalauthoritative word for the practice of infant baptism.
Forbid Them Not, SPCK 1972. See also O Cullmann, Baptism
in the New Testament, SCM pp 77ff. Cullmann concludes, "this story -without
being related to Baptism - was fixed in such a way that a baptismal formula
of the first century gleams through it" (p 78). The truth is, of course,
that they do no such thing. The argument that because Jesus invited children
to come to him we should baptise them is false. It would be more convincing
if Jesus himself had baptised the children. He didn't. Neither did he dedicate
them. He blessed them, but even with the blessing of the children there is
no indication whatsoever that he was instituting an ordinance for his church.
Baptism in theNew Testament, pp 71ff, and A Richardson,
An Introductionto the Theology of the New Testament, pp 360f.
The fact that Jesus' words here may not
be usedas a command to baptise children does not mean that they are irrelevant
tothe baptism of children. We are in danger of being so concerned to point
out what Jesus does not say that we fail to notice what he does say, i.e.
that "the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these". The following should
be noted. (a) The children brought to Jesus included
"babies".Matthew and Mark have "little children", Luke has "even babies"
(kai brephç). Luke is the only evangelist to use
brephos. Inaddition to the passage under consideration he uses
it twice of a baby stillin the womb (1.41,44; Jesus and John) and twice of
a newly born baby (2.12,16;Jesus). He also uses it when referring to the
exposure of newborn babies by Pharaoh in Acts 7.19. (b) The blessing of the children took
place on Jewish territory in the region of "Judea beyond Jordan", i.e. in
Peraea. Peraea was occupied by Jews, ruled by Herod Antipas, and formed part
of the Jewish route from Galilee to Judea, by-passing the territory of the
Samaritans. Those who brought their children were members of the Jewish community
within the Jewish covenant. (c) There was nothing unusual in Jewish
parentstaking their children to a rabbi for them to receive the rabbi's blessing.
The Expositor's Bible Commentary Vol 8 Matthew to Luke (Ed
FE Gaebelein), Zondervan 1984, p 420; SB Ferguson, Mark, Banner of
Truth 1999, p 160. We know that such a practice was associated with
the Day of Atonement. RT France observes: "It was a Jewish custom to bring
a child to the elders on the evening of the Day of Atonement 'to bless him
and pray for him' (Mishnah Sopherim 18.5)."Matthew
, IVP 1985, p 283. See also IH Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, Paternoster
1978, p 682. Jeremias has argued that the incident "must have happened
on the evening of a Day of Atonement".Infant Baptism in the First
Four Centuries, SCM 1958, p 49. (d) While it is often popularly assumed
thatthose who brought their children to Jesus on this occasion were women
thetext does not tell us that. Matthew simply tells us that children were
broughtto Jesus; Mark and Luke tell us that they brought the children
to Jesus.In each of the Gospels, however, we are told that the disciples
rebuked "them"(autois, v 13). In view of the Greek masculine pronoun
here it is notunreasonable to conclude that the children were brought by
parents, i.e. fathersand mothers. It adds weight to the idea that the bringing
of the childrento Jesus was a planned rather than a spontaneous happening
and supports, therefore,the Jewish custom referred to under (c). (e) Jesus insisted that the children be
broughtto him for the simple reason that "of such is the kingdom of God"
or, as most translations have it, "to such belongs the kingdom of God". The
term such (toioutôn) refers to a class of people. As DE
Nineham puts it,it may mean these and other (literal) children, or these
and others who sharethe characteristics of children. St Mark
,Penguin 1963,p 267. See also C Brown, article on 'Child', Dictionaryof
New TestamentTheology, Paternoster 1975. John Murray prefers the
first option,Christian Baptism, Presbyterian andReformed
1980, p 61. IH Marshall the second.The Gospel of Luke
, Paternoster1978, p 681 (commenting on the Lucan parallel). Either
way the kingdombelongs to the children brought to Jesus. They are included
in the kingdom.Sinclair Ferguson helpfully comments, "Sometimes this statement
has been readas though Jesus had said, 'The characteristics of these children
have a spiritualparallel. If that spiritual parallel is present in your life,
then the kingdomof God belongs to you.' But that is not what Jesus is saying
in verse 14.It is what he says in the next verse (v 15). In verse 14, Jesus
is saying,'I am the King in the kingdom of God. I belong to these children
and all thosewho are like them.' These children should not be held back from
him preciselybecause Jesus and his kingdom belong to them!"Let's
Study Mark, Banner of Truth 1999, p 161. As Ferguson observes we have often misinterpreted
and devalued Jesus' words here because we fear one possible implication of
taking them at face value, i.e. that children are guaranteed salvation just
because they are children, irrespective of personal faith in Christ, irrespective
of the operation of God's grace in their lives, and irrespective of their
relationship with and their attitude towards God in subsequent years. The
truth is that we are all by nature dead in trespasses and sins and children
of God's wrath and we all by nature follow the course of this world and the
prince of the power of the air (Eph 2.1-3). How then do we square, on the
one hand, Jesus' inclusion of little children, even babies, in the
kingdomof God with, on the other hand, the fallen condition of every living
personwith its accompanying necessity of grace on the part of God and of
personalfaith and commitment on the part of the person? One thing is sure,
not bydenying either. The message of the Bible is full of such tensions and
we do no justice to its message by taking it upon ourselves to remove the
tensions.We must live with them and seek understanding for them, but we must
not removethem. To do that is to distort the message. There is one way of coming to terms with
thisparticular tension in Mark 10.14 which flies in the face of the excessive
individualism characteristic of our modern western culture but which is thoroughly
biblical. It involves taking on board something we have already touched on
under Old Testament Background, i.e. the role of the family in Jewish
life and the importance of the family in God's covenantal dealings with his
people. In God's economy the children of God's people were included in the
household of faith until they excluded themselves. The reverse, i.e. that
they were excluded until they included themselves, was not the case. Hence
the approach of Jesus on this occasion, which Hendriksen describes as "this
distinctly positive approach".Matthew, Banner of Truth
1974, p 722. Hendriksen also observes that "in principle all
blessings of salvation belong even now to these little ones, a fact which
has to be realised progressively here on earth and perfectly in the hereafter".
Matthew, Banner of Truth 1974, p 720. The modern preference
of waiting until children are "old enough to decide for themselves" would
simply not have made sense to Jews in Jesus' day. Indeed, it would have been
an abrogation of their responsibility both to God and to their children.One
of the major concerns that the Church should face today is the failure on
the part of professing Christians to take seriously their responsibility
under God for the upbringing of their children, children of the covenant,
in the"nurture and admonition of the Lord". Nowadays such responsibilities
are leftlargely to others, e.g. the church or school. (f) We may legitimately ask, "Why is it
thatthe kingdom belongs to such as those brought to Jesus by their parents?"It
cannot be because of subjective or spiritual qualities in the children. That
would result in salvation being dependent on inherent qualities in us, i.e.
salvation by works. The Biblical Doctrine of Baptism
, Saint Andrew Press 1958, pp 48f (a study document produced by the Church
of Scotland's Special Commission on Baptism. It must be because God
in his love and mercy has determined to give his kingdom to those who have
no claim upon it and make no claim upon it. As Cranfield puts it, it has
to do with "their objective littleness and helplessness".St Mark
, Cambridge 1959, p 324. Inclusion in the kingdom is a gift of grace,
not a reward for character. That is the consistent testimony of Scripture
both in the Old and New Testaments. The words of Jesus to Nicodemus are relevant
here.ibid.; C Brown writes, "The saying is paralleled
in John 3 by the discourse with Nicodemus comparing entry into the kingdom
with rebirth", article on "Child", Dictionary of NT Theology, Paternoster
1975. Nicodemus' personal qualities would not gain him admission into
the kingdom of God. He had to be "born again", he had to become as a little
child. (g) When the disciples attempted to keep
the children from Jesus he was indignant and insisted that the children be
allowed to cometo him. He told his disciples, "Do not hinder (kôluete
) them." The use of the verb kôluein is interesting because
it has associations with baptism both in the New Testament and in the post-apostolic
Church. The following are examples in the New Testament.St Mark
, Cambridge 1959, pp 323f. The question is often asked, "How can we
baptisechildren who are not able to express their own personal faith in Jesus
Christ?"That is to put the emphasis in the wrong place. The more relevant
questionis this, "How can we refuse baptism for those children whom Christ
has indicatedare in his kingdom.?" Or, "How can we refuse baptism for those
children whoare within God's covenant?"The Biblical Doctrine of Baptism
, The Saint Andrew Press 1958, p 49 (Church of Scotland's Special Commission,
study document). After Peter had preached his sermon
on the Day of Pentecost those listening cried out in great anguish, "What
shallwe do?" Peter's response is relevant to our discussion and is given
here infull (vv 38f): "Repent and be baptised, every one of you, in the name
of JesusChrist for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the
gift ofthe Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for
all whoare far off – for all whom the Lord our God will call."
That the promise is "for you
and for your children" raises a numberof questions. (a)
Are the children referred to the actual children of thoseadults whom Peter
is addressing, i.e. to you and to the children already yours?(b) Or does
the word 'children' refer to future generations? (c) If it refersto future
generations, does it refer exclusively to adults of future generations or
does it include children of future generations? (d) If it refers to orat
least includes children (whether current or future) are the children only
those capable of making responsible choices or may the children be infants?
(1) There is evidence that the
early Christians lived in expectation of anearly return of Christ, a return
which would bring the present age to an end.They expected it in their life-time.
It was an expectation that was particularly strong in the earliest days.
1 & 2 Thessalonians, Nelson, p 99). Guthrie concurs, "as
Paul grew older he would realise that the possibility of his being alive
at the parousia was diminishing" (p 810). That being the case there
is at least a question as to whether a promise for "future generations" would
have had much meaning for them. The Study Document of the Church of Scotland
puts this rather more firmly, "If the Early Church held widely the expectation
of an early Parousia ending the present age…, the only descendants
to whom this promise would appear to be relevant would be those who were
actually children on the Day of Pentecost."
The Biblical Doctrine of Baptism (convener, TF Torrance),St
Andrew's Press1958, p 48.
(2) It is difficult to imagine
that parents listening to Peter would not assume the inclusion of their children.
Baptism, Cross Publishing 1973, pp 12-18: "…let us
place ourselves in the position of a Jew who has been saved in the early
Christian era. He is a Jew, and now he has put his faith in the Lord Jesus
Christ. Hismind has not changed overnight, and certain great truths which
his peoplehave known and believed for two thousand years are much in his
thinking…First of all, a Jew saved in the early Christian era would
realise that evenas he had been justified by faith alone, so also Abraham
had been justifiedby faith alone two thousand years before. Romans 4.1-3
makes this abundantlyclear… Secondly, the Jew saved in the early Christian
days would realisethat the Covenant made with Abraham is immutable, that
is, unchangeable. Hebrews6.13-18 is very definite that, first, the Covenant
made with Abraham is unchangeable,and that, second, it includes us who are
saved in this dispensation." Romans4.13 tells us definitely that God is here
speaking of the promise to Abraham,and yet verse 16 is equally clear that
we, the Gentiles saved in this presentera, are the fulfilment of that promise
(cf. Galatians 3,7,8,13,14,25)…The Jew living in the early New Testament
days would know something further.He would know that in the Old Testament
there were two great ordinances –the Passover and Circumcision. 1 Corinthians
5.7,8, as well as the fact thatChrist instituted the Lord's Supper at the
time of the Passover meal, makesit plain that the Lord's Supper took the
place of the Passover. Colossians2.11,12 and the other facts which we have
considered make it evident thatbaptism took the place of circumcision. These
things all being so, it wouldbe impossible for the saved Jew not to expect
that, as in the Old Testamentthe Covenant sign was applied to the believer's
child, so also the sign ofhis faith, baptism, should likewise be applied
to his child. Why should heexpect less in this dispensation of fullness than
he would have possessedin the Old Testament era?" Why should they not
assume their inclusion?No restriction is indicated. Most commentators, in
whatever way they interpret'children', are agreed that the reference to those
"far off" is to those living away from Palestine, i.e. it has to do with
geography rather than time. In other words
for the people listening to Peter on the Day of Pentecostit had to do with
the present and the immediate future. It is at least reasonableto assume
that the same was true with respect to "your children".
(3) No distinction is made between children who are and who are not capable
of an intelligent and genuine repentance. If it is argued that the context
of Peter's response requires such a distinction, e.g. the command to repent,
surely that is to beg the question, namely, "Are children included with their
parents in the covenant which God has established?"
(4) In Jerusalem, for the celebration
of Pentecost, and listening to Peter'ssermon were God-fearing Jews from all
over "the Graeco-Roman world situatedround the Mediterranean basin, indeed
(from) every nation in which there were Jews"
The Message of Acts, IVP1990, p 63.
(Acts 2.5-11). These Godfearing Jews included proselytes (v 11). While we
cannot be sure when proselyte baptismbeganJewish Proselyte Baptisms
,under "The Originsof Water Baptism. we do know that the children (including
infants) ofthose converting to Judaism were baptised along with their parents.
If baptisminto Judaism included children would proselytes have expected less
when baptisedinto Christ?A Case for Infant Baptism
, Grove Books1973, p 21.
To answer the questions raised
abovewe must turn not only to the immediate context of Peter's response but
tothe context of the covenant established by God with Abraham in Gen 17.7
andconfirmed by Moses in Deut 10.10-13: "I will establish my covenant as
an everlasting covenant between me and your descendants after you…to
be your God andthe God of your descendants." As Calvin observes, commenting
on Acts 2.39,"The addition of their children derives from the word of promise
(found inGen 17.7)." It would be difficult
to improve on John Murray's succinct statement with respect to the significance
and relevance of the Abrahamic covenant for our understanding of Acts 2.39:
"We are not in a position
to appreciate the significance of this (that thepromise is to the children
as well as to the parents) unless we bear in mindthe covenant relationship
established by God and clearly revealed in the Old Testament. It is in the
light of Gen 17.7…that this word of Peter is to be understood. It
is this principle, institution, or arrangement alonethat gives meaning to
Peter's appeal… What does this imply? It demonstratesthat Peter, in
the illumination and the power of the Spirit of Pentecost,recognised that
there was no suspension or abrogation of that divine administrationwhereby
children are embraced with their parents in God's covenant promise.It is
simply this and nothing less that Acts 2.39 evinces… Nothingcould
advertise more conspicuously and conclusively that this principle ofGod's
gracious government, by which children along with their parents arethe possessors
of God's covenant promise, is fully operative in the New Testamentas well
as in the Old than this simple fact that on the occasion of PentecostPeter
took up the refrain of the old covenant and said, 'The promise is toyou and
to your children.' It is the certification of the Holy Spirit to us that
this method of the administration of the covenant of grace is not suspended.
It is because there is such evidence of the perpetual operation of this gracious
principle in the administration of God's covenant that we baptise infants.
It is for that reason alone that we continue to baptise them. It is the divine
institution, not, indeed, commended by human wisdom and not palatable to
thosewho are influenced by the dictates of human wisdom, yet commended by
the wisdomof God. It is the seal to us of His marvellous goodness that He
is not onlya God to His people but also to their (children)…"
Christian Baptism, Presbyterian and Reformed 1980, p 68.
(1) The number of actual instances
of Christian baptism recorded throughoutthe New Testament is itself small.
There are eleven in total. It is significant
that in three out of the eleven there is an explicit referenceto the baptism
of households and, as G Bromiley points out, there is no reasonto believe
that these three were exceptional.Children of Promise
, Wipf and Stock Publishers 1998 (Eerdmans), p 6. Three out of eleven
is more significant when we take into account that in two of the eleven baptisms
personal circumstances ruled out the possibility of household baptisms, i.e.
those of the Ethiopian eunuch travelling alone on official business and of
Saul at the home of Ananias after he had been led there blind by his fellow
persecutors. In the remaining instances there is nothing to rule out the
baptism of families. (2) There are references in the New Testament
where the household or family clearly includes children, e.g.
1 Tim 3.4-5,12; 5.4).The Message of Acts, IVP 1990,
p 263.
(3) It is useful to bear in mind that
oikos is used much more frequently in theNew Testament in its literal
and original sense of 'a house'. The fact thatit is also used in a metaphorical
and derivative sense of the people who livein the house has some relevance
to our theme. When we are told that Lydia "and the members of her household"
were baptised and that the jailer" and all his family" (literally, all
his) were baptised, it is unnaturalto exclude children on the basis that
they were not of an age to exercisepersonal faith. That is especially so
in the cases of both Lydia and the Philippian jailer where there is no indication
that members of the household, apart fromthe head of the household, exercised
personal faith. It is much more likelythat children would be included as
they were in Jewish families under theOld Covenant.
(4) To claim,a priori, that there
would necessarily be no children present in thefamilies baptised, either
of the head of the house or of servantsis a claim too far. It does
not reflect the reality of family life among the people in that part of the
world at that time and, more particularly, the reality of family life among
the people of a covenanting God. It can neither be proven nor justified.
On the contrary, as the Church of Scotland's Special Commission states, "It
is in accordance with Biblical usage to speak of householdsas including children
(Gen 17.12ff; Exodus 12.16-27; 1 Samuel1.21ff; John4.53)…"
The Biblical Doctrine of Baptism, astudy document issued by
the Special Commission on Baptism of the Church of Scotland (Convener, Prof
TF Torrance), The Saint Andrew Press 1958, p46. The same Report
further observes, "they would be most unusual householdsfor the Levant if
none of their members had young children."Op. cit.
p46. While we cannot prove conclusively that
therewere infants in the households referred to above, we concur with the
conclusionof J Murray: "Every consideration would point to the conclusion
that householdbaptism was a frequent occurrence in the practice of the church
in the apostolicdays. If so, it would be practically impossible to believe
that in none ofthese households were there any infants. It would be unreasonable
to believeso. The infants in the households belonged to the households and
would bebaptised. Presumption is, therefore, of the strongest kind, even
though wedo not have an overt and proven instance of infant baptism".
ChristianBaptism, Presbyterian and Reformed 1980, p 65f).
The response of those who hold to a contrary
position is, very often, to take each instance of a household baptism and
seek to provethat children were not baptised. Such is to attempt the impossible.
Moreover,the approach is wrong. We begin not with the examples of household
baptism in the Book of Acts but with the inclusion of children within the
covenant.As C Buchanan points out, "The occurrence of household baptisms
is exactlywhat we would have expected from our survey of both the antecedents
of Christianbaptism and the New Testament theological matters. And, sure
enough, herethey are – we ought to feel like the astronomers who discovered
Neptune first of all by plotting it from the statistics of its 'pull' on
Uranus, andsecondly by turning their telescope to the part of the sky the
calculations indicated. The two fitted – the object they found could
not but be thenew planet. So with us – the case is strong even before
we look forthe actual phenomenon, it is vastly increased when we find it
where we wouldcalculate it should be."A Case for Infant Baptism
,Grove Books 1973, p 20.
(1) The case of Lydia and
her household (ho oikos autçs);Acts 16.14-15. A significant
emphasis in this account is that of God's initiativewith respect to Lydia's
conversion. As IH Marshall has it, "Her conversionis attributed to the fact
that the Lord opened her heart… Lukeunderlines that conversion
is due to the action of God who opens hearts…This view of things is
exactly the same as we find in Paul who says that people do not believe because
their minds have been darkened by the god of this world(2 Cor 4.4), but that
they are converted when the gospel comes to them…inpower and in the
Holy Spirit… (1 Thes 1.6)."
The Acts of the Apostles, IVP 1980, p 267.
Interestingly there is no pre-requisite for a confession of faith.
The factthat Lydia was subsequently regarded as a believer does not negate
this point.We are simply told that after the Lord opened her heart
"she and themembers of her household were baptised" following which she invited
Paul and his companions to stay with her at her own house. The fact that
she was the head of the house does not mean that she had not married and
that she did not have children. She may well have been a widow and a mother,
or even a grandmother with children and grandchildren.The Acts of
the Apostles IVP 1980, p 268; GW Bromiley, Children
of Promise, Wipf and StockPublishers 1998 (Eerdmans), p 7; FF Bruce,
The Book of Acts, Marshall,Morgan and Scott 1968, p 331; C Buchanan,
A Case for Infant Baptism, Grove Books 1973, p 20.
(2) Thecase of the Philippian jailer and
'all his' (hoi autou); Acts 16.31-34.In this account the jailer is
directed to believe in the Lord Jesus, the consequence of which would be
that he and his household (all his)will be saved. Immediately
after the wounds of Paul and Silas had been bathed thejailer and his family
were baptised. There seems to be little time here forevery member of the
jailer's household to be personally evangelised or counselledor instructed.
According to the NIV Luke's account concludes with the statementthat the
jailer "was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God–
he and his whole family." In fact the NIV is misleading because, asJeremias
and others have pointed out, the text does not lend itself to thattranslation.
Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries (tran. David
Cairns), SCM 1960, pp 22f. That every single member ofthe jailer's
household personally believed is an assumption. Longenecker has to say, "
To judge by their actions, the jailer and his family believed in Christ…"
The Expositor's Bible Commentary Vol 9 John-Acts, (Ed.
FE Gaebelein), Zondervan 1981, p 465. (italicsadded). A better translation
is that of the RSV, "the jailer rejoiced withall his household that he had
believed in God." The verbs translated "rejoiced"and "believed" are both
in the singular. We may concur with Francis Schaefferwhen he writes, "No
matter what interpretation we, individually, may holdconcerning this passage,
certainly God here does show that He deals with families not only in the
Old Testament but in the New Testament as well."Baptism
, Cross Publishing 1973, p 19.
(3) Thecase of Cornelius; Acts 10.44-48.
Again the emphasis here is on God's initiative(v 44): "While Peter was still
speaking these words, the Holy Spirit cameon all who heard the message."
Moreover, as with Lydia there is no pre-requisiteof faith. It is not faith
that enables grace but rather grace that enablesfaith. Even faith is a gift
of God's grace otherwise salvation would be "ofworks" and those exercising
it would be able to boast (Eph 2.8). Baptismisprimarily the sign of
God's intervening and saving grace, not of our personal faith. As Bromiley
observes, "What calls for attention is the endowment with the Holy
Spirit. This, of course, would bring faith into it but plainlydid not lie
within the range of human possibilities, whether infant or adult.It was miraculous
in character – a mighty act of God."Childrenof Promise
, Wipf and Stock Publishers 1998 (Eerdmans),p 6. Although there
is no mention of Cornelius' household in the Acts10 narrativeJohn Stott clearly
regards this as the first " household baptism"The Message of Acts
, IVP 1990, p 263. He describes the baptismof Lydia as the 'second household
baptism". In a footnote he lists Acts 10.33as the first. and not without
reason. When Peter subsequently explainedhis actions to the church in Jerusalem
he related how an angel had appearedto Cornelius declaring that he and all
his house would be saved through Peter'smessage (Acts 11.14). The Baptist
theologian Kurt Aland in his response toJeremias' Infant Baptism in the
First Four Centuries and opposing the baptism of children wrote: "If
Acts 11.14 speaks of the salvation of the oikos, this salvation,
so far as the slaves belonging to the houseor children are included,
is understood indirectly; the conversion of Corneliuswill have the effect
of making theirs to follow, or even embraces theirs:the 'house' is saved
when the head of the house is saved".Did theEarly Church Baptize
Infants?, SCM 1961, p 91. Ina footnoteAland acknowledges the
same pattern as applying to the conversion of the PhilippianJailer.
If the salvation of Cornelius in some sense "embraces" the salvationof his
household, and if in some sense "the 'house' is saved' when the headof the
house is saved" why should the household not be baptised? Is this notexactly
the position which pertained under the Old Testament covenant andwhich is
"filled out" in the New Testament covenant? Throughout our consideration of
infantbaptism our approach has been that it is impossible to prove conclusively
from the New Testament either that children were baptised or that they were
not baptised in the New Testament era. It certainly cannot be decided solely
from a consideration of household baptisms. In any case that is not the correct
starting place. We have stated previously the necessity of taking into account
the evidence of the whole Bible, Old and New Testaments; the importance of
circumstantial evidence; the meaning and significance of baptism; that the
case for the baptism of children is of a cumulative nature; and that the
evidence has to be presented as a consistent whole. Before commencing our
study ofhousehold baptisms we considered the Old Testament background, the
idea ofcovenant and of family solidarity, the teaching of Jesus, and the
significant connection made by Peter on the Day of Pentecost between the
promise of theold covenant and the fulfilment of the new. We have taken issue
with the excessiveindividualism that has developed in this part of the world
and with the failureto give sufficient weight to the all-pervading, all-prevailing
reality ofsolidarity in the ancient world. In this respect we agree with
Michael Greenwhen he says, "We have become so infatuated with individualism
that we findthis hard to appreciate… The solidarity of the family
in baptism, asin all else, is the decisive factor."
Baptism, Hodder and Stoughton 1987, p 70.
It is in the light of all this that we should have expected the baptism
of entire households and that the baptism of these households would have
included the baptism of children. Adults brought from darkness to light,
whose heartsthe Lord opened, on whom the Spirit of Christ descended, would
have takenit for granted that their children would be included and would
have been nonplussedby their exclusion. So should we! In fact what we ought
to have anticipatedis what we find in the household baptisms in the Book
of Acts and in 1 Corinthians1. Moreover there is nothing in the New Testament
to suggest that our anticipationwas false or that the children of disciples
should not be baptised. ©
United Free Church of Scotland 2001
|
