Preacher Ko Lingkang

Infant Baptism

On the last day of our Annual Church Camp this year, we had a question and answer session with our Pastor, Rev Quek. The response was overwhelming, and time did not allow for all the questions to be answered during that one session. We will therefore do our best to try to answer the remaining questions (almost 70 of them), categorised into a few broad topics that will be addressed one by one. The first that will be addressed is with regards to the doctrine and practice of Infant Baptism.

1. What is the significance and meaning of infant baptism which our church practises?

In order to understand the significance and meaning of the practice of infant baptism, we must first examine its doctrinal basis. As a reformed church, we hold firmly to the system of theology known as Covenant Theology. In it, we see the continuity between the Old and New Testament, and that the theme of God’s sovereign grace to man runs throughout both Testaments. Central to this is the figure of the Lord Jesus Christ, to which all look to for salvation. In the Old Testament, the various types and figures all foreshadowed the coming of Christ. The sign of circumcision was given to Abraham and his descendants as a confirmation of this covenant (Gen 17:7). In Genesis 17, God instructed Abraham to make sure that every man child amongst them must be circumcised, in order to be included in the promise of His covenant. As we come to the New Testament, we see that baptism has replaced the rite of circumcision (Col 2:11-12). It is now no longer a bloody ritual, for Christ’s blood has already been shed. Instead we have water, to symbolise the cleansing that we have when we come to Christ. The parallels between the two are clear. When a Jew was circumcised in the Old Testament, it was a public declaration of the fact that he is part of the commonwealth of Israel. Likewise when one is baptised in the New Testament, he publicly declares his faith and is welcome as part of God’s church.

Thus in bringing their children for infant baptism, parents are acknowledging the fact that God cares particularly for their children, as they are children of believers. Just as Jewish babies in the Old Testament were circumcised as infants, we likewise in the New Testament would bring our children for infant baptism as soon as possible. In so doing, we see a wonderful picture of God’s covenantal promise not just to the individual, but also to his household. This is consistent with the testimony of Scripture, for we see throughout the Bible that when God saves an individual, he also cares for his whole family. We see this through the example of men like Noah (Gen 7), Abraham (Gen 12-25), and Lot (Gen 19). Likewise in the New Testament, we see that when the gospel was preached, it was not just individuals but also the whole family that was saved. Examples would be that of Cornelius and his family (Acts 10-11), Lydia and his family (Acts 16:14-15), and also the Philippian jailor and his family (Acts 16:31-33). In each of these New Testament examples, we see that after the gospel was preached, the whole household (likely involving also children and infants) were baptised.

Note of course that this does not mean that all infants who are baptised will definitely be saved. Neither do we adopt the view of baptismal regeneration, which says that baptism is necessary for one’s salvation (which is what the Roman Catholics ascribe to). Instead one can also view the practice of infant baptism also as a promise that the parents make, that they will endeavour to fulfil their human responsibility and to bring up their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. They have taken the step of faith in bringing their children for baptism, and acknowledge that God has a covenantal relationship with their family. They have the duty of bringing up their children in a godly Christian home, and will share the gospel with them at the earliest possibly opportunity. When we prayerfully and faithfully do our part, surely God will honour our desires for our children's salvation.

2. Which bible verses support the doctrine of infant baptism?

There are various proof texts that we can use to support the doctrine of infant baptism:

God instructed Abraham to circumcise every male child amongst them as a confirmation that they were part of God’s covenantal promise to them:

Genesis 17:7,9-10 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

NOTE: Abraham was circumcised as an adult whereas his son Isaac was circumcised as an infant. There is infant circumcision as well as adult circumcision.

Paul draws a clear parallel between circumcision and baptism:

Colossians 2:11-12 "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead."

Peter affirms that the promise of salvation is not just to those who believed, but to their children as well, and so instruction was given that they be baptized:

Acts 2:38-39 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

God cares for the unbelieving family members of a Christian, and that would include the children as well:

1Corinthians 7:14 "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy."

Christ welcomed children and told his disciples not to forbid these little children to come to him. They certainly have a place in the kingdom of God – the visible church on earth.

Mark 10:13-16 And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. 14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. 15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. 16 And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them.

3. Why is there a need to baptize an infant who doesn’t understand the doctrine of salvation? Shouldn’t we just call it ‘consecration’ instead of baptism?

As mentioned earlier, the purpose of baptism is not just to represent the fact that one has believed. This may be true of adult’s baptism like adult circumcision, but not so of infant baptism like infant circumcision. There is certainly a need to baptise an infant, for in so doing the parents are bringing the child before the Lord, and causing him to be a part of the covenantal promises of God. In the words of Buswell: "In the New Testament background, for people who understood the family covenant signified by circumcision, and who understood that baptism was Christian circumcision, the idea that the children were not to be baptized when the family became a Christian family as a whole, is quite unthinkable". Likewise for families that are already believers, it would be a most natural thing to want to bring their infants for baptism at the earliest opportunity possible.

Just a ‘dedication’ or ‘consecration’ would most certainly not suffice, for nowhere in the Bible are we taught of any special dedication or consecration. It is always water baptism, for that is the pattern set down by God.

4. Would it be considered acceptable behaviour if a member rejects infant baptism doctrine but accept all other doctrines like VPP, VPI etc, yet continue to worship and serve in our church?

If a person rejects the doctrine of infant baptism at the time of membership, then he cannot be a member of our church, for this doctrine is clearly stated in our constitution. Article 7.1 in the constitution states it as such: "7.1 BAPTISM: The observance of the Baptism of believers is by sprinkling on personal confession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Infants of one or both the believing parents are to be baptised (Matt 28:19-20; Acts 2:38-42; 8:35-38; 10:44-48; 1 Cor 7:14)." As shown earlier in the article, this is a biblical position and not just one of personal conviction or opinion. Therefore if he rejects Infant Baptism, then he will be unable to answer the questions posed during baptism or transfer of membership in the affirmative, and cannot in good conscience become a member of the church.

It does not matter what other doctrines he accepts. If he rejects one, then he cannot become a member of this church. All doctrines in the Bible are intertwined and one erroneous doctrine will affect others. Thus as a non-member, he is certainly allowed to continue to worship with us, but he will not be allowed to serve. This is necessary in order safeguard the doctrinal integrity of our church.

If the person is already a member and subsequently changes his mind regarding the doctrine of infant baptism. He is allowed to serve in a diminish capacity but not in teaching as his doctrinal differences would be too great. Disunity can set in. He is also expected not to tell others not to believe in infant baptism as that would be sowing seeds of discord which is a transgression of his oath which includes not bringing in any divisive doctrine into the church.