by Richard Shin
Before we close off this series, I thought it would be important for us to understand a little why so many Reformed Christians choose to baptize infants (versus believers) and sprinkle (versus full immersion).
To understand the theology behind paedobaptism (infant baptism), we have to understand the connection the adherents make between circumcision in the Old Testament and baptism in the New. Circumcision was a seal of the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 15 & 17). We learn more clearly from Romans 2:25-29 that the circumcision of the flesh always meant to correspond with the circumcision of the heart. Furthermore, the reading of Romans 4:11-12 seems to indicate that circumcision meant more than a symbol for the nation of Israel.
The crux of the connection between circumcision and baptism comes from Colossians 2:11-13. Paedobaptists see the transition from circumcision of the OT to baptism in the NT a natural conversion that carries equal weight. We see from Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians that some Christians were practicing both, but because circumcision lost its meaning for the Christians, it lost its place in tradition. The significance of circumcision as a physical sign of the Abrahamic Covenant reached all children of national Israel, not just the OT saints. This fact is shown through Abraham’s circumcising Ishmael (Gen. 17:22-27), even though Abraham knew that Isaac would be the one with whom God would establish His covenant (Gen. 17:21). So, there were clearly children who received the blessings of the covenant and those that didn’t, but all of them went through the act of circumcision. Similarly, there are those today who would undergo the physical act of baptism who would never reap the benefits of it.
As such, paedobaptists see no reason to exclude children (whose genuine repentance and faith are yet to be determined) from the ordinance of baptism. Because Abraham and his offspring were commanded to be circumcised regardless of age, it seems appropriate that the same principle would apply for baptism today as long as the parents are part of the covenant. The practice of sprinkling (as opposed to immersion) seems to have risen as a substitute practice for infants and toddlers who wouldn’t be able to hold their breath for the brief moment they are immersed. And one can imagine baptism candidates being sprinkled for lack of a body of water big enough to be immersed as well.
Of course, we at Lighthouse hold to credobaptism. I hope the articles preceding this one provided you sufficient Scriptural background and analysis for the defense of our position. But regardless of one’s stance on baptism—its qualification or mode—the most important fact is that all true Christians are brought together by repentance of our sins and our complete faith in Christ’s finished work on the cross. Only those who have lost sight of the bigger picture of the gospel would choose to break fellowship (treat as unbelievers) with those whose views on baptism differ. That isn’t to say we wouldn’t break fellowship with those who believe baptism actually does effect salvation in a sinner’s life. Whether elements of repentance and faith are present or not, if someone were to advocate a baptismal regenerative view of salvation, we would not accommodate such heresy into our fellowship.