Question Fourteen: Is infant baptism taught in God’s Word?
Covenant theologian Robert Murray advocated the necessity and salvic merit of infant baptism. Robert L. Saucy pointed out "the difficulty involved in trying to distinguish the efficacy of baptism as it applies to adults and infants is noted by Reformed theologian John Murray. His attempt to maintain the same significance for both in the following quotation appears to contradict the clear biblical principle of salvation by faith.”[1]
Robert Murray’s view on Infant Baptism
Murray wrote: The possession of the grace signified by baptism does not presuppose in the case of infants the exercise of intelligent faith and repentance; they are not yet psychologically capable of such. And the church cannot require intelligent and credible profession on their part. The accompaniments for the grace signified by baptism and the prerequisites for its administration differ in the respective cases. But it is a mistake to think that the import or signification differs. Baptism signifies union with Christ and membership in His body. It means this for both adults and infants. And so, in respect of efficacy, baptism is for infants precisely what it is for adults, namely, the divine testimony to their union with Christ and the divine certification and authentication of this great truth."[2]
Charles Ryrie’s Refutation
Covenant theologians also believe that infants must be baptized because Old Testament infants were circumcised. Their argument says that since circumcision and baptism are closely linked in Colossians 2:11-12 infants must be baptized. Charles Ryrie argued: “The argument rests on the covenant theology concept of a single covenant of grace which involved an initiatory rite into that covenant, the rite being circumcision membership in the covenant, not necessarily personal faith.”[3] Paul is clearly not talking about a physical circumcision but spiritual circumcision in Colossians 2:11: “the circumcision made without hands.” Neither is Paul talking about physical but spiritual baptism in Colossians 2:12. Ryrie added: “Baptism is the initiatory rite into a believing community, the church; therefore, it should only be performed on believers. By contrast, circumcision initiated people (including infants) into a theocracy which did have unbelievers in it.”[4]
Hoyle Bowman’s Refutation
My theology teacher, Dr. Hoyle Bowman stated: “There is no Biblical parallel for circumcision was a sign of the Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 17:9-4); whereas, baptism in the New Testament identifies with the local church. If the two were parallel, then covenant theologians cannot explain why infant girls are baptized.”[5]
The Biblical order is that baptism follows faith in Jesus Christ (Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:37-38) and infants cannot believe. In order for the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20 to be fulfilled, the baptized must be taught to observe what Jesus taught which is impossible for infants. In the case of household salvation and baptism, only those old enough to believe were baptized (Acts 16:15 and 31-34).
[1] Robert L. Saucy. The Church in God's Program. 202-203.
[2] John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans. The New International Commentary on the New Testament, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1ca965, 90.[2]
[3] Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology, 423.
[4] Ibid., 423.
[5] Hoyle Bowman, Advanced Ecclesiology, 38.