Kevin de Young – Baptising Babies

Posted by on Aug 4, 2009 in Faith | 15 Comments

I came across Kevin De Young’s blog the other day… which is cool because I’m dipping into one of his books at the moment – ‘Why we’re not Emergent…’

So one thing I didn’t know about him is that he’s a paedobaptist, and he’s written a great, simply defence of his position:

One of the best things I get to do as a pastor is to administer the sacrament of infant baptism to the covenant children in my congregation. Before each baptism, I take a few minutes to explain why we practice infant baptism in our church. My explanation usually goes something like this:

It our great privilege this morning to administer that sacrament of baptism to one of our little infants. We do not believe that there is anything magical about the water we apply to the child. The water does not wash away original sin or save the child. We do not presume that this child is regenerate (though he may be), nor do we believe that every child who gets baptized will automatically go to heaven. We baptize infants not out of superstition or tradition or because we like cute babies. We baptize infants because they are covenant children and should receive the sign of the covenant.

Read the full explanation here.

Share

15 Comments

  1. the carve
    August 4, 2009

    hmmm, that’s fair enough. but baptism isn’t primarily about the covenant is it? yes outwardly showing that you are a christian is partly making a statement about God’s faithfulness and His covenant promises, but more than that, and more importantly, baptism is an outward sign of the inward work of the Holy Spirit. “Believe and be baptised” – respond to the Spirit’s work in you, that has made you alive tho you were once dead, by displaying it publicly.

    if baptism was about covenant making then de young’s statements would be fine, but baptism is about life and death, the work of the Spirit and Christ’s death and resurrection. agree? =P

  2. Matthew
    August 4, 2009

    Circumcision was the sign of the covenant, granted. But then you get this talk about circumcised hearts – what’s that all about, if circumcision is merely outward? If baptism is the new covenant equivalent of circumcision, what’s to say it’s not relating to a “circumcised heart”, and that it doesn’t operate in the same way as outward circumcision?

    In other words, surely it’s a sign of death to sin and life in Christ, as has just been said?

    It seems to me paedobaptist arguments rely too much on early church tradition, and that clearly children are included in the covenant. Well, even if they are, that doesn’t mean they should be baptised if that’s not what baptism’s about! I was dedicated as a kid, which comes to much the same thing as paedobaptism, only it leaves the baptism to a confessing believer.

    *draws breath*

    Yeah, I’m arguing about a secondary issue again. Feel free to chastise me.

  3. Hugh
    August 4, 2009

    Ummm…

    Are children of believers part of the covenant community of God?

    In the OT, yes they are and they receive the sign of circumcision as a sign of this covenant… and we know you can be part of the covenant but not actually saved.

    What about the NT? The position of the children of believers is no different to children of believers in the OT… they belong to a covenant community (the church)… sure they may not actually be saved (belonging to ‘THE CHURCH’), but nonetheless they belong to the covenant community.

    The question then is, what sign do we have to welcome children of believers into the covenant community? …baptism?

    Yes I do believe that baptism is primarily about covenant because it’s about what God has done, is doing and will do.

  4. the carve
    August 5, 2009

    “The question then is, what sign do we have to welcome children of believers into the covenant community? …baptism?”

    that’s not the question at all!! baptism in the new testament isn’t an answer to this question. you’ve just made up this question and said baptism is the answer, but although there are similarities between God’s old and new covenants they are not the same.

    we can’t just say with the old covenant circumcision was the sign of it and now with the new covenant baptism is the sign. that’s an oversimplification. baptism and circumcision are different. though they both show that God is Sovereign and He should be glorified, baptism also is an expression of the new life in Christ experienced by the believer, therefore, only confessing born again christians should be baptised.

    where’s si-fi when you need him?! :)

  5. Hugh
    August 5, 2009

    Well that is the question if you follow my argument… if children of believers are part of the covenant community of God, then is there a ‘sign’ to express this?
    …the answer may be no, the answer may be yes, either way, it remains a legitimate question if the initial argument follows.

    Anyway…

    Isn’t Circumcision an expression of new life in Christ?

    - circumcision points to eternal life (Gen 17: 13-14)
    - circumcision is a sign of righteousness (Gen 17 again)
    - circumcision is a ‘heart thing’, it’s about dying to sin (Jer 4: 4)

    God doesn’t radically change the way he works, things are foreshadowed in the OT, and fulfilled in the NT. Circumcision points to Baptism – the links are obvious. But maybe you are right, and in the new covenant the sign should only be applied to professing believers… I disagree because of how I know God relates to his people in redemptive history.

  6. Simon
    August 5, 2009

    You both knew that my comment would appear here before too long…

    ‘Are children of believers part of the covenant community of God?
    In the OT, yes they are and they receive the sign of circumcision as a sign of this covenant… and we know you can be part of the covenant but not actually saved.
    What about the NT? The position of the children of believers is no different to children of believers in the OT… they belong to a covenant community (the church)… sure they may not actually be saved (belonging to ‘THE CHURCH’), but nonetheless they belong to the covenant community.’
    I’m not sure you can say that HB.

    I’m in agreement with you that circumcision is about the covenant- it was an outward sign of being in the people Israel, God’s covenant community. The ritual indicated nationality not spirituality. Circumcision was a mark of being in God’s national community.

    It makes sense then to say that all children of the new covenant should receive some outward blessing before professing faith unless the new covenant is a covenant where membership is dependant on being regenerate. The new covenant is such a covenant…

    Jeremiah 31:33-34
    ‘But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.’
    The implication being that the new covenant is a covenant where all the members are really Christians, all members love Jesus, all members know and enjoy God. Therefore unregenerate babies are not part of this covenant and so an outward mark of the covenant, such as baptism, is unnecessary.

    Marks of the new covenant are applied after profession of faith because faith is the only entry requirement into the new covenant.

    What do you reckon?

  7. Hugh
    August 5, 2009

    I agree. In as much as ‘full’ members of the new covenant, those who have all the blessings of the new covenant are regenerate. I would argue that regeneration, not faith is the requirement to be a ‘full member’ of the new covenant, as regeneration proceeds faith… a baby could be regenerate, many years before they can profess their faith.

    Outwardly, children of believers are part of the covenant community. They visibly belong to the church, they are taught that God is God, they are taught to obey God and their parents – outwardly they live as covenant people.

    They are partakers in the new covenant and should receive the outward sign of belonging to this new covenant community. It is a blessing for them to be part of the church and should be welcomed into the church family. We pray for God to bring regeneration and faith that they may receive the full benefits of full participation in the new covenant.

    Ps. “The ritual indicated nationality not spirituality. Circumcision was a mark of being in God’s national community.” – Circumcision has more significance than this, including spiritual implications

  8. Simon
    August 5, 2009

    ‘I agree. In as much as ‘full’ members of the new covenant, those who have all the blessings of the new covenant are regenerate.’

    Where does scripture make a distinction between full members and partial members of the NC? I see this distinction under the OC but not the new.

    ‘They visibly belong to the church, they are taught that God is God, they are taught to obey God and their parents – outwardly they live as covenant people.’

    Where in scripture does it say that these practises make someone a covenant person? Entry to the NC is limited to regeneration. If someone is not regenerate they have no right to take part in any of the NC covenant blessings.

    Looking forward to chats like this from September :-)

  9. Hugh
    August 5, 2009

    Full/partial isn’t the best language.

    OC – all who are circumcised belong to the covenant community and receive blessings from the being part of the community. only those who are circumcised inwardly receive the full blessings of the covenant.

    NC – all who belong to the covenant community (anyone part of a church family, inc children) receive blessings from being part of this community. only those who are regenerated (belong spiritually) receive the blessing of the covenant itself.

    There is clearly a distinction in the OC between covenant and covenant community… these distinctions seem to be evident in the NC, in the church too.

  10. Simon
    August 5, 2009

    Ok. My point is that Jeremiah 31 redefines entry to the NC covenant- regeneration.

    The OC entry requirements were: being born into Israel/being regenerate/both. Therefore it was permissible for OC babies to recieve the blessing of the covenant as they were members of the covenant (being part of Israel).

    Today it is not permissible for any baby to enjoy any blessings of the covenant as birth is not a prerequisite to entry into the covenant. There is now one entry requirement according to Jeremiah- regeneration.

  11. Anthony
    August 6, 2009

    Nothing like a good ol’ secondary issue to stimulate heated discussion.

    I have a few questions…

    If baptism in the New Covenant is as circumcision in the Old Covenant, then why not baptize everyone in the world? Old Covenant = God works in one nation, with the “Israel within Israel”, those who are cicrumcised in the heart. New Covenant = God works in all nations, with the “humanity within humanity”, those who are, well, baptized in the heart. Ergo, baptize everyone.

    Is there a New Covenant “partial” membership, enjoyed by children of believers only? Surely any non-Christians who regularly attend a church and/or live with Christians are in a similar position? And doesn’t the whole society benefit from having Christians living in it?

    On the other hand, what about the Lord’s Supper? Can we imagine the church in New Testament times meeting together for a meal, but sending their un-baptized children out to play and/or starve? Let’s be consistent – if children of believers are to receive one sacrament without evidence of the inward reality, then why should they not receive the other sacrament too?

    And Hugh, surely regeneration and faith go hand in hand, even if profession of that faith may only come years later?

    Take care,

    Anthony

  12. Hugh
    August 6, 2009

    “Nothing like a good ol’ secondary issue to stimulate heated discussion.” – How to get comments on a blog… spiritual gifts next!!

    Anthony,

    1) I don’t think the whole world qualifies as the covenant community as such, I think the church does.

    2) I agree that everyone in the world enjoys some blessing from the New Covenant – call it common grace if you will. Children of believers certainly receive more blessing, even if that is purely pragmatic.

    3) Some people would go for paedo-communion. Although I would say no on account of a child not being able to ‘examine’ themselves.

    4) Yes. Faith too proceeds profession of faith in that sense.

    ———

    Anyway. I suppose I come to the conclusion, all this discussion aside. That the children of believers are part of the covenant, on the basis that salvation is a gift of grace and also that the blessings of the New Covenant are given (in the case of children) on the basis of the faith of the parents… this of course raises questions like when do they cease to be, what age do they decide for themselves… answer, I don’t know, and it doesn’t matter to this argument.

    I don’t have a proof text to support this, but I would look to 2 things: first, the character of God, the way in which he has worked in redemptive history, his heart for children, and the redemptive blessings that flow through families. Second, the practise of the early church, and the evidence of household baptisms.

    Question to Christian parent… is your child saved?
    My answer – yes, because what I know about God’s character.
    Credobaptist – if you’re being consistent your answer is no, if you’re a little bit in the middle then you’d say don’t know… actually I think most would say yes, but they wouldn’t acknowledge it with Baptism…

  13. Phil
    September 7, 2010

    I have to confess I’ve only skimmed the above so am not going to engage with anything much but the end. The preface to all of this is I BELIEVE BAPTISM IS A SECONDARY ISSUE AND I LOVE MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN CHRIST WHO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW ON THIS (as long as they have actually thought about it and would defend their position from the Bible rather than from tradition etc.!)

    If you ask a paedobaptist Christian parent ‘is your child saved?’ the real answer is ‘I presume so, unless or until they demonstrate they have opted out of the covenant.’ They are not able to categorially say ‘yes’ – not even on the basis of God’s character – since though he loves to work through families, not all of the children of believers become believers (not even all of Israel is Israel!).

    If you ask a credobaptist Christian parent the same question, their answer is ‘I presume so, unless or until they demonstrate they have opted out of the covenant’. In other words – the credobaptist and paedobaptist have the same level of assurance about their children. A credobaptist should still recognise the blessings that come to their children as a result of being part of the covenant community.

    The real question is whether or not you think baptism is a sign for being ‘part of the covenant community’ or a sign for believers. I believe the latter, which is why I wouldn’t baptise a child. I would further argue that you run the risk of giving a child (or a parent) false-assurance by baptisting a child, unless you are very clear on what you are actually doing.

    Both paedobaptists and credobaptists need to be very clear about these categories of ‘in the covenant community’ and ‘in the new covenant’. The former category is a place of some spiritual blessing, but does not necessarily mean that you are saved. The latter category is the place where believers belong.

    If you take baptism as a sign of the covenant in the second, stronger sense, then the consistent paedobaptist needs to also asminister paedocommunion.

    If you take baptism as a sign of being in the covenant community in the weaker sense, then why limit it to children of believers? Why not apply it much more widely. If I had a live-in-nanny shouldn’t they be baptised? And why does the NT consistently link baptism with belief rather than simply covenant blessing?

    Just a few thoughts…

  14. Hugh
    September 7, 2010

    Ah. Sweet Phil.

    Agree with your opening statements and that the key issue is who is baptism for…

    However, I think you’re trying to be more black & white than is possible (humanly speaking) on getting a clear distinction between ‘believer’ and ‘covenant community member’… I can’t think of a NT example of a clear distinction being drawn?

    On paedocommunion, it’s a valid point, however there are surely implications on the administration of communion that require action on the part of the recipient. I wouldn’t see that p-c is a essential outworking of p-b.

    When are we sprinkling Lillian-Rose?? :-)

  15. Phil
    September 13, 2010

    Thanks for agreeing with me – if only in part!

    I agree with you that humanly speaking it is very hard to draw the distinction between believer and ‘covenant community member’ – but that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t try to exercise judgement in applying the sign. If you push that argument to its limits you once more end up baptising anyone and everyone because its too hard to do anything else!

    Re. NT examples, that is a fair point. But surely it is the testimony of the whole Bible that God’s people are to be a blessing to all they come into contact with – which is surely the idea of covenant community blessings coming to those who are not believers (and so in the strong sense covenant community members)? Gal 6:10 could be an example of that?

    And if you argue for paedo-baptism on the basis of circumcision, surely you should be looking to the OT for examples of these categories :-)

    As we said on the phone earlier, this continues to be a secondary issue. But I love the process of trying to clarify our thinking on these subjects – not least because your theology of baptism does creep into other things like your ecclesiology.

    Of course, I am in a pretty odd position there – because I would really love to be in a Baptist Presbyterian church :-)

Leave a Reply