Sep 23
17
Baptist Catechism 98-99
Q. 98. To whom is baptism to be administered?
A. Baptism is to be administered to all those who actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ; and to none other. (Acts 2:38; Matt. 3:6; Mark 16:16; Acts 8:12,36; Acts 10:47,48)
Q. 99. Are the infants of such as are professing believers to be baptized?
A. The infants of such as are professing believers are not to be baptized; because there is neither command nor example in the Holy Scriptures, or certain consequence from them, to baptize such. (Proverbs 30:6; Luke 3:7,8)
Scripture Reading: Acts 2:36–41
“‘Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.’ Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, ‘Brothers, what shall we do?’ And Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.’ And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, ‘Save yourselves from this crooked generation.’ So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls” (Acts 2:36–41, ESV).
*****
Please excuse any typos and misspellings within this manuscript. It has been published online for the benefit of the saints of Emmaus Reformed Baptist Church but without the benefit of proofreading.
*****
As I’m sure you know, the Baptist Catechism and the Westminister Shorter Catechism (the Catechism used by many who are Reformed Presbyterians) are very, very similar. The same thing can be said of our confessions of faith – the Second London Confession and the Westminster Confession are very similar documents. The similarities are important and encouraging. They remind us that we have a lot in common with our Reformed Presbyterian brothers and sisters. This should encourage Christian unity and love.
Now obviously, there are differences between these standards. The primary difference is our answer to the question, to whom is baptism to be administered?
On the one hand, I do not want to over-emphasize the importance of this question. Indeed, there are other doctrines more foundational to the faith than the doctrine of baptism. To be a Christian one must hold to orthodox views regarding God, Scripture, the fall of man into sin, and salvation through faith in Christ, for these doctrines are foundational to the faith. They carry much greater weight, therefore, than questions about baptism. Stated differently, I do believe that it is possible for Christians to differ over the question of who should be baptized and to regard one another as true and dear brothers and sisters in Christ, their unity being rooted in Christ, and in their agreement on the foundational doctrines just mentioned. There is something to be said for the approach of majoring on the majors and minoring on the minors.
But on the other hand, I do not think it is wise to dismiss this question as unimportant. Baptism is very important, brothers and sisters, for Christ has ordained it. He has commanded that disciples be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Furthermore, baptism is connected to other things. Maybe you have heard me say that all theology hangs together. The meaning is that errors in one area will lead to errors in other areas. Errors in foundational doctrines (like the doctrines of God, Scripture, Man, Sin, and Salvation in Christ) are potentially catastrophic. And errors made in less foundational points of doctrine, though they might not disturb the foundation of the faith, will have a ripple effect on other doctrines too. Our understanding of baptism will impact, in some way, our understanding of the church. It will impact our understanding of the nature of the New Covenant. Who are members of the New Covenant? Is the New Covenant breakable? These are a few related questions that come quickly to mind.
Question 95 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism asks, “To whom is Baptism to be administered?” Their answer is, “Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him; but the infants of such as are members of the
visible church are to be baptized.”
Contrast this with question 98 of the Baptist Catechism: To whom is baptism to be administered? Answer: Baptism is to be administered to all those who actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ; and to none other. (Acts 2:38; Matt. 3:6; Mark 16:16; Acts 8:12,36; Acts 10:47,48)
This is the clear teaching of the New Testament.
Firstly, we should remember what the NT says that Baptism signifies. We considered the symbolism of baptism last week with the help of Baptists Catechism 97: What is Baptism? Answer. Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament instituted by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized a sign of his fellowship with Him, in His death, burial, and resurrection; of his being engrafted into Him; of remissions of sins; and of his giving up himself unto God through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.” If it is true that baptism signifies, union with Christ in his death and resurrection, new birth, cleansing from sin, and a resolve to walk in a new way, then it is most reasonable to think that this sign is for those of whom these things are true! Baptism is for those who have been united to Christ by faith, cleansed by his blood, who have died to their old self, and raised to new life.
Secondly, we should remember what we say through the waters of baptism. It is through baptism that we profess our faith. It is through baptism that we say, Jesus is Lord! Yes, we say that Jesus is Lord with our lips. But that profession is to be made through baptism. To be baptized is to say, I believe. To be baptized is to say, I have been forgiven. To be baptized is to say, I have died to my old self and raised to a newness of life. Through baptism, we make a profession and a commitment. Baptism is for those of whom this is true.
Thirdly, we should remember what God says to us in baptism. In baptism, God’s name is placed on his people (we are to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit). In baptism, God says, through Christ you are forgiven and adopted as my own. Again I say, baptism is for those of whom this is true.
In fact, a careful study of the New Testament Scriptures reveals that it is only those who make a credible profession of repentance and faith who are to be baptized.
Perhaps the most important text is the one we call the Great Commission: “And Jesus came and said [to his disciples], ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:18–20, ESV, emphasis added).
When baptisms are described in the New Testament we see that it is those who believe who are baptized. Sometimes those who believe in infant baptism will point to the household baptisms found in the Book of Acts and say, there must have been infants in these households! Two things can be said in response. One, it is not wise to build doctrines on the foundation of assumptions and speculations. Two, most of these passages where “households” are mentioned suggest that those in these households heard the word and believed – something infants and small children cannot do (i.e. Acts 11:13-18, 16:29-32).
I think it is very safe to say that not one text in the New Testament clearly teaches us to baptize infants. But we are not biblicists. We reject the idea that in order for something to be true there must be a verse that says it. No, we are not biblicists. We agree that some doctrines are to be believed because they are taught by way of necessary consequence. This means that the whole of what the bible says on a subject is to be taken into consideration when forming our doctrines. The most famous example of this is the doctrine of the Trinity. The Bible in some places teaches that God is one. In other places, the Bible teaches that God is three. No one verse can be found that teaches that God is three in one but when all is carefully considered, we are moved by the testimony of the totality of Scripture to confess that God is Triune.
Never does the New Testament command infant baptism – only the baptism of those who profess faith and repentance.
Never does the New Testament describe infant baptism – only the baptism of those who profess faith and repentance.
But do the Scriptures require us to believe in infant baptism by way of necessary or certain consequence? In other words, does a theological reading of Scripture require us to baptize the children of believers? Stated one more way, is infant baptism taught in a similar way to how the Trinity is taught in the Scriptures – no one verse of Scripture teaches it, but when the whole Bible is considered on the subject, we are bound to believe that babies are to be baptized?
If we are to be consistent in our interpretation of the Scriptures we must be open to the possibility (for we are not biblicists!), but the answer is no.
Listen to Baptist Catechism 99 and afterward, I will explain why. Question 99: Are the infants of such as are professing believers to be baptized? Answer: The infants of such as are professing believers are not to be baptized; because there is neither command nor example in the Holy Scriptures, or certain consequence from them, to baptize such.
So why are we to baptize those who make a credible profession of repentance and faith in Christ only, and not the infants of those who make such a profession?
- The Scriptures nowhere command infant baptism.
- The Scriptures nowhere describe infant baptism.
- A careful, theological, covenantal, redemptive-historical study of the totality of the Scriptures – Old Testament and New – does not necessitate the practice of infant baptism. To the contrary, a careful examination of the Old Testament Scriptures agrees with the teaching of the New Testament, that baptism is for those who profess faith in Christ alone.
Those familiar with the debate between Reformed paedobaptists (paedo means child) and Reformed credobaptists (credo refers to a profession of faith) will know that the Reformed paedobaptists do not argue for their practice of infant baptism from the New Testament but from the Old.
They argue like this:
- The sign of circumcision was applied to infants under the Old Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants.
- The Old Covenant was a particular external administration of the Covenant of Grace, and the New Covenant is a particular external administration of the Covenant of Grace.
- Given that the sign of admission into the Old Covenant (circumcision) was applied to the infants of covenant members, it must necessarily be that the sign of admission into the New Covenant (baptism) be applied to the infants of covenant members, namely, of those who believe.
So you can see that the Reformed paedobaptists do not typically argue for their position by pointing to this verse or that in the New Testament. They argue from the Old Testament by reasoning that if circumcision was applied to infants under the Old Covenant, then it must be that baptism is to be given to infants under the New Covenant, even though the New Testament never says so.
With all due respect to our Reformed paedobaptsit brethren (many of whom we esteem very highly), we reject this reasoning.
One, we do not agree that the Old Covenant was a particular external administration of the Covenant of Grace. The Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants were mixed. They were covenants of works that could be broken (and they were). But they carried within them promises, prophesies, types, and shadows that pointed forward to Christ, his kingdom and the covenant that he mediates – the New Covenant, which is the Covenant of Grace. The Abrahamic and Mosaic anticipated and pointed forward to the Covenant of Grace, but they were not the Covenant of Grace, properly speaking, for they did not have Christ as head and mediator. We could talk about this for hours. And we have before in other studies. For now, let me say that our particular articulation of covenant theology, which differs from the typical paedobaptists’ articulation of that doctrine in important respects, leaves no room for the argument from infant circumcision to infant baptism that the paedobaptists are so fond of making. Do circumcision and baptism share something in common? Yes! They are both signs of their respective covenants, Old and New. But it does not necessarily follow that because one was applied to infants, then the other must be applied to infants also. The two covenants, though certainly interrelated, differ substantially from each other. It should be no surprise, therefore, that the signs of the covenants also differ substantially.
Two, (and this point deserves much more time and attention than what we can give to it today) while we agree that it is appropriate to argue from necessary consequence in many matters of theology, it is not an appropriate thing to do with the positive laws which God added to the various covenants that he has entered into with man, which are sacramental in nature. The signs that God attached to the various covenants he made with man – trees, the rainbow, circumcision, and baptism – are arbitrary. By that I mean, they are simply based on God’s choice. We cannot necessarily reason from one to the other to figure out what they are and how they are to be applied. With positive laws, we are completely dependent on God express command. And this is why we look to Christ, his words, and to the New Testament to know what baptism is, what it signifies, how and to whom it is to be given. We are not biblicists. We acknowledge the validity of the interpretive principle of necessary consequence (Trinity). But we deny that it is appropriate to use with positive laws and sacramental things, for it is impossible to reason from one sign to the other.
Now, I suppose we are right to expect that signs will be attached to Covenants, for this is God’s established way. And of course, we should expect that the sign of the covenant will agree in its symbolism with the substance of the given covenant. It makes perfect sense that the sign of the Covenant of Works made with Adam in the garden would be two trees representing two choices – but God could have chosen a different sign. And it makes sense that the sign given to Abraham in the covenant that he made with him and all his physical descendants would be applied to the male reproductive organ, that it would involve the removal of something, thus symbolizing the threat of being cut off from the covenant (a covenant of works!) through disobedience, and that it would be bloody, signifying the crosswork of Christ who would be cut off for his people. This Christ was promised to Abraham and his children. He is the promised seed of the woman, the offspring of Abraham and David. Circumcision fit the Old Abrahamic Covenant, and it made perfect sense that it was to be applied to all of the male children of Abraham at eight days old irrespective of faith, for the Old Abrahamic covenant was made with them by virtue of the birth. For what it’s worth, it seems to me that circumcision was an excellent choice for the sign of the Old Abrahamic covenant, for it agreed with the substance of that covenant.
But the sign of circumcision does not fit the substance of the New Covenant, which is the Covenant of Grace. Think of it. The New Covenant is not made with an ethnic group. It is made with God’s elect. It is made with all who are born again and believe. It is those who have the faith of Abrham, not the DNA of Abrham, who are members of the New Covenant. And there is no threat of being cut off from the New Covenant. All who are true members of it will be preserved. And Christ, the seed of Abraham and David has come. He was cut off for us on the cross. He shed his blood to atone for sin. For all of these reasons, circumcision has been fulfilled and taken away, and baptism has been given as the sign of the New Covenant instead.
And baptism agrees with the substance of the New Covenant and thus serves as a fitting sign. Baptism signifies many things – union with Christ in his death and resurrection, the washing away of our sin, death to our old self, and new birth. This sign is to be given to those of whom these things are true.
The point is this: our Reformed and paedobaptist brethren error when they look to the sign of the Old Covenant to figure out to whom the sign of the New Covenant is to be applied. These are two different covenants made with two different groups of people (though there is some overlap, thanks be to God). We cannot reason from the one to the other, therefore. To know the answer to the question, to whom is baptism to be administered? To Christ and the New Testament we must go, for there this positive law is revealed.
*****
Conclusion
Q. 98. To whom is baptism to be administered?
A. Baptism is to be administered to all those who actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ; and to none other. (Acts 2:38; Matt. 3:6; Mark 16:16; Acts 8:12,36; Acts 10:47,48)
Q. 99. Are the infants of such as are professing believers to be baptized?
A. The infants of such as are professing believers are not to be baptized; because there is neither command nor example in the Holy Scriptures, or certain consequence from them, to baptize such. (Proverbs 30:6; Luke 3:7,8)
