And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying,
All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I
am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen (Matt. 28:18-20).
BAPTIST ARGUMENT:
“Jesus placed ‘baptizing’ people after ‘teaching’
them … An infant doesn’t have the capacity of being taught. Therefore he is not
a candidate for baptism.”
(I)
Rev. Ronald
Hanko
[Source:
Sprinkling, Infant Baptism and the Bible]
There
is here one paedobaptist argument that is never addressed by the Baptists—the
fact that this commission concerns nations
(which always include infants), not individuals. Indeed, nothing is said about individuals.
What
is more, Matthew 28:19, is the obvious fulfilment of Isaiah’s prophecy in
chapter 52:15: “So shall he sprinkle many nations.” You may argue that Isaiah refers to the “reality”
of baptism, and not the sign; that is true, but even then the reality is a “sprinkling”
and is a sprinkling of the “nations”—and, as we have seen in Part I, chapter
12, the reality of the sign should mirror the thing signified. Not only that, but when these nations are
saved, they are described in the book of Isaiah as bringing with them their
sons and daughters, and as being gathered in with their children, even nursing
children (e.g., 49:22; 60:4). Indeed, it
is impossible to disciple and baptize nations without also discipling and
baptizing the children who belong to that nation.
The
argument that this passage speaks of “nations” would be of no weight, however,
if the passages established a temporal order between teaching and baptism or
faith and baptism. The reference to
nations would not affect a command that required first teaching, then faith,
then baptism. But there is no temporal order established in the
passage.
The
Baptist argument, therefore, is that these passages do establish a temporal order—first
discipling (teaching) then baptizing.
The passage, however, establishes no
temporal order at all.
Consider:
1.
The word “then” is not found in the verse, though the Baptists explicitly or
implicitly read it in there. If the passage
used the word “then” there would be no question that the Baptists are correct,
but the word is not there, though every Baptist automatically reads it into the
verse.
2.
Not every list of things in Scripture lists things in their temporal order (cf.
II Pet. 1:10, a very good example—“calling” does not precede “election” either
temporally or logically, but the order there is the order of experience). There are many different ways one can list
things as well, and it is not uncommon to list them in order of importance, as
we believe the Word of God does here (cf. Rev. 7:5, for example, where Judah is
listed first because it is first in importance).
3.
We have already seen that, in the case of John’s baptism, faith in Christ did
not precede baptism but followed it, so that unless the baptism of John
is not a New Testament baptism, the passage cannot be establishing a necessary and inviolable temporal order.
4.
With respect to Matthew 28:19, it is very clear from the grammar that there is no
temporal sequence in the verse. The two
things—teaching and baptism—take place concurrently. “Baptizing” is a present participle which
always denotes contemporaneous time. In
other words, Matthew 28:19 literally says: “teach all nations, while baptizing them,” or, “... when
baptizing them”—the two events taking place side-by-side, not one after the
other. If Jesus had wanted to indicate a
temporal order here, He would either have had to use the temporal adverb “then”
or an aorist participle and a different order.
This follows from the fact that the passage is talking about nations,
not individuals.
In
the case of new disciples who are converted under missionary preaching, we have
no quarrel with the fact that disciples
are first made and then baptized. That
is the only way things can be done in their case. That, however, proves nothing about the children
or families of disciples. The Baptist argument from passages such as
this runs something like this:
(1)
Adults who are baptized must first be discipled.
(2)
Infants are not adults (and cannot be discipled).
(3)
Therefore, infants should not be baptized.
Apart
from the fact that it is not true that infants cannot be discipled and taught,
this argument is fallacious. Those who
have difficulty seeing the fallacy of this argument should think about the
similar argument:
(1)
Adults who are punished should first be found responsible for wrong-doing.
(2)
Infants are not adults.
(3)
Therefore, infants should not be punished.
The
argument assumes what needs to be proved—i.e., that because in some cases
Scripture speaks of disciples being baptized, that therefore only disciples can be baptized. To put it in other words, even if the passage
is speaking principally of adult believers, it speaks only of them and not of
children. To say what must happen in the
case of adults implies nothing about children.
To use a little different example, to prove that believing adults are
saved does not prove that infants are lost—though they are incapable of
conscious, clearly-professed faith.
What
is more, disciples are followers and learners, something that does not exclude
children but rather includes them. The
passage, therefore, does not teach what the Baptists want it to say: “Go,
therefore, and convert people, and when they are able to give a credible
profession of their own conversion, then baptize them,” but says rather: “Go to
all nations and make disciples of these nations, while at the same time baptizing
them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” The passage says nothing about the order in
which these events are to take place, it allows no assumptions about the
subjects of baptism, and certainly does not forbid infant baptism.
---------------------------------------------
(II)
More to come! (DV)
No comments:
Post a Comment