The Why Behind the What

     This post was written 1/2/17

     In the last four years, I've had more questions about why I believe in and am part of a church that practices paedo-baptism (infant baptism) than questions about why I'm a Christian. This post isn't to start an argument or debate. It is simply a biblical defense of why I believe what I believe. Just to make this clear, I don't consider this an issue of salvation or anything to break relations over. This is just to answer the curious questions I've received (unspoken or not).
     My pastor wrote an article a few years back that eloquently and succinctly sums up the reasons. He puts it much better than I ever could, so I'm sharing it with you.

Reformed? Part IV Infant Baptism

by David Inks

   "This is the last installment of a four part series on what makes Reformed theology distinctive from mainstream evangelicalism. That distinction could be simply stated as two things: (1) that salvation is granted as a gracious bestowal, by way of God's sovereign will or simply "sovereign grace"  (2) Covenant theology. This second distinction has provided the grist for the milling out three articles: the contrast between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, the rejection of dispensationalism and now this article, infant baptism. (I may add a little trailer article on church government).
   Many Bible believing Christians see the doctrine of infant baptism as a compromise with either liberalism or Roman Catholicism. But those of us in the Reformed camp believe it simply and solely because we find it in Scripture. When we ask certain questions of the Bible regarding infants and baptism what we hear the Word of God saying is, "the infants of the covenant community are in the covenant and therefore wear the badge (baptism) of those in that community". I will give what I perceive to be the true and best ground for the practice. That ground is the covenant of grace.
   Let's begin by laying some basic beams in this house of infant baptism. Man's relationship to God is constituted a covenant. The covenant entails not just individuals but a community of people. We see this in Noah and his family. Gen. 6:18 Later we see the covenant with Abraham was not just with himself but with his seed after him. Gen. 17:7 Israel was a covenant community as constituted on Mt. Sinai. They were the seed of Abraham. Now a very simple question is: Who was in this covenant community? The answer is all the adults who desired to be so identified and their children. I don't think anyone would want to contest this obvious construction. The big difference comes with the advent of the New Covenant. This is where the Baptist persuasion argues that while in prior days the community was a merely physical body now it is a spiritual body constituted by those who can articulate the Gospel and its impact on their lives, making them new creations in Christ. Children are mere physical seed and can't "believe" therefore they are not in the covenant community and should not be baptized. The administration of the covenant prior to Christ is seen to be set in a radical disjuncture from its administration after Christ. The question then that must be answered is this: are infants, due to their birth and place within a covenant home therefore within the covenant community? The universal agreement of both parties is that baptism marks those who belong to the covenant community. Therefore, the question is not who should receive baptism, on that we are agreed; all those who belong to the covenant community. The question is this: are infants members of the covenant community? Howard Long used to ask, "Who kicked the babies out of the church?" This is an excellent question! If the New Covenant called for a sudden expulsion of infants from the covenant community do you think the early Jewish Christian church would have meekly said, "OK"? Look what happened over circumcision, a major uproar! But not a squeak regarding their children being excluded from the New Covenant community? Such silence is difficult to imagine. For centuries the covenant community included their children in the community, and they taught them to stay true to their covenant God. To suddenly disenfranchise infants and write them off as outsiders would first require a clear, positive statement for such a radical change and then would have created an uproar of at least the same decibel level as the circumcision issue. Where the slightest indication that with the New Covenant infants are now excluded? There isn't a peep! Who kicked the babies out of the church? On the other hand, there are a number of indicators that the children of adult community members were included along with them in the church. Let me list these.
   First, is the fact that the New Covenant is seen to be a fulfillment and continuation, not an "end", of the Abrahamic covenant, which included the children. (Romans 11 and Galatians 3 demonstrate this). It is true that circumcision is replaced by baptism. However, no comment is made that now in the New Covenant the boundaries are tighter so as to exclude children. The continuity between these covenants favors the Reformed view that infants are within the covenant, just like they had always been.
   Second, Peter on the day of Pentecost, when the New Covenant community was formed, proclaimed that "the promise is for you and your children". 2:39 He employed a familiar phrase to his hearers' ears regarding the fact that their children, just like the Abrahamic covenant taught, are embraced along with them in the arms of the covenant Lord.
   Third, Jesus "blessed" infants in the Gospels. The blessing of the covenant could only come through the Abrahamic covenant, since our sin under the Mosaic meant cursing. Jesus placed this blessing on infants. This meant that He had to include them within the Abrahamic covenant that He would Himself secure through the New Covenant with His blood and resurrection. Jesus blessed and thus included the infants in the covenant.
   Fourth, the Apostle Paul said that the infants of believers were "holy and clean"; such terms are descriptive of those within the covenant community. 1 Cor. 7:14. In Ephesians, a letter addressed to "saints" Paul without hesitation includes children within that designation in 6:1-3 ad he reminds them of their covenant obligations to their parents. Terms distinctive of covenant membership were applied to the children.
   Since the New Testament does not indicate the exclusion of children under the new administration but rather their ongoing inclusion in the covenant, just like it had always been....then, who kicked the babies out of the church? Not Abraham, not Jesus, not Peter, and not Paul.
   For this reason the Reformed insist that since infants are members of the covenant community, the church, they should be identified by wearing the badge of membership, baptism. The specific example needed for withholding or administering baptism to infants is nowhere supplied. What is supplied is the rationale in its favor!!
   At the very least you can see why Reformed Christians have tended to take seriously the task of teaching God's works and Words to their children. The unity of the covenant means that Gen. 18:19 and Deuteronomy 6:7 are not to be left to an old era but carried on in faithful covenantal obedience to the Lord. It certainly increases the wonderment at God's covenant blessing. It should also increase the weight of warning to children that are tempted to imitate that other covenant child, Esau, who having loved this present world and despised the heavenly gift, came under judgment. Not everyone will agree with this argument. However, it should be evident, our commitment is sola Scriptura."

     Even if you disagree, I hope that was enlightening. :)