Infant Baptism and the Promise of God

Rev. Ronald Hanko

Rev. Hanko is a minister in the Protestant Reformed Churches in America and has authored a number of books, including (among others) the following: Doctrine According to Godliness: A Primer on Reformed Doctrine (2004), The Coming of Zion’s Redeemer: Commentary on Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi (2015). He was also the joint author of Saved by Grace: A Study of the Five Points of Calvinism (1995) and its accompanying study guide (all of which can be purchased at http://www.cprc.co.uk and http://www.rfpa.org).

*          *          *          *          *          *

[Previous section: “Infant Baptism and Sovereign Grace”]

The relation between baptism and the promise of God is of critical importance.  Not only, as we shall see, does the Baptist fail to take the promise of God regarding His covenant seriously, but the Baptist does not even see that baptism marks and seals that promise.  Watson, whose book we have already quoted, explicitly rejects the idea that baptism is “the sign of an objective promise, and has no reference to the character and condition of the person baptized,”[1] and therefore also the idea that baptism is a seal of anything.[2]

      

Not only do paedobaptists see baptism as a seal of God’s objective promise, but object strenuously to the Baptist idea that baptism somehow marks the spiritual condition of the person baptized.  Where in Scripture is the support for the idea that baptism somehow shows the spiritual character of the person baptized?  Indeed, no Baptist can consistently maintain that baptism marks the spiritual condition of the person baptized unless he is willing to say that every baptized person is saved.  Even he knows better.  He will say he baptizes fewer unsaved persons, but that is to concede the whole point, even if what he says is true (it is, of course, unprovable).  Admitting that they baptize even one unsaved person, is the same as admitting that baptism does not mark, sign, seal, or embody the spiritual condition of the person baptized.  It cannot.  It can only mark, sign, seal, embody something objective—the sure and unchangeable promise of God.

      

Watson closes his case for believer’s baptism by saying, “Not that any church of professing believers will be entirely free from occasions of stumbling, alas.  But it will be much purer than the corresponding paedobaptist church, and will thereby bring more glory to the name of the Saviour.”[3]  Somehow, the Baptist case always seems to come down to this utterly unprovable assumption.  Yet even if it were proved, it only shows that the Baptist does not believe his own objections to paedobaptism.  He says that paedobaptism is wrong because individuals who do not have faith are baptized and then admits that he has the same problem while trying to cover himself by saying that he has “less” of a problem.

      

Insofar as baptism marks the objective promise of God, it is exactly like circumcision, which is called a seal of the righteousness which is by faith, in Romans 4:11:

And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also.

It is true, of course, that circumcision did not guarantee that the person circumcised was justified in the sight of God, but neither does baptism.  Circumcision guaranteed the objective promise of God to justify His people.  It sealed that promise only to the elect, but to them it was sure; and insofar as it was applied to their children, it also guaranteed the rest of God’s promise that He would have His elect and justified people among their children.

We say, then, that baptism seals something to those baptized—though only to the elect; that is, the sure promise of God to be the God of His people and of their children.  We add, however, that it is also a seal to the whole church of that promise of God to the elect and their elect children—a kind of visible gospel promise; but with this, we will deal in more detail in chapter 17.

What has been said about God’s promise leads us to two passages from His Word:

Acts 2:39

The text reads:

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.

Though there is no mention of infants being baptized on Pentecost, nor any proof that there were such, the case for infant baptism does not rest on proving the unprovable.  It rests, rather, on what God says in Acts 2:39.  This verse, however, gives the reason for what is stated in the previous verse, as the word “for” indicates.  In the two verses, Peter is saying to the adults there, “Repent and be baptized because the promise is unto you.”  Notice that Peter does not say “Repent, and then be baptized because you have repented.” Those present were not baptized on account of their repentance, even though the baptism in this case must have followed the repentance, but on the basis of the promise of God.  That promise, Peter says, is not only to them, but also to their children.  It is on that basis that we baptize infants—the promise is to them also.

That promise can be the basis of infant baptism because it is a promise of God, sure and immutable.  Hebrews 6:13-20 tells us this:

For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself, saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee.  And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise.  For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.  Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: that by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us: which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which entereth into that within the veil; whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

This, of course, gets us into the whole question of whether or not the promises of God are conditional to all or particular and unconditional to the elect only.  Let us simply state that, on the basis of Hebrews 6:13-20 and other passages, we believe firmly in an unconditional and particular promise and find in that the only possible ground of infant baptism.  To teach a conditional and general promise is to overthrow the sure ground of infant baptism in Scripture.

Those paedobaptists who believe in a conditional promise have denied the basis of infant baptism.  This, we believe, is one reason why many Baptists put so little stock in paedobaptist arguments and find them unconvincing.

A Baptist asks his paedobaptist acquaintance, “Why do you baptize infants?”  The paedobaptist says, “Because of God’s promise to save believers and their children.”  The Baptist says, “But not all of those children are saved!  How can you baptize them all?”  To which the paedobaptist replies with a long explanation of the fact that the promise is for all children of believers conditionally but depends for its fulfilment on their later response.

The Baptist sees immediately that such a promise is really no promise at all and, therefore, no basis for infant baptism.  Indeed, he could justly respond, “In that case you would be better off as a Baptist and wait for that response on which the fulfilment of God’s promise and the child’s salvation depend.”

If the promise of God is to be the basis of infant baptism then that promise must be sure, unconditional and particular; that is, only for the elect.  Such a promise provides a firm foundation for infant baptism in that it guarantees absolutely the salvation of the (elect) infants of believers.

That promise is the basis of infant baptism, also because it promises salvation to believers and their children and promises it unconditionally (God’s promises never depend on us).  That salvation promised is the salvation symbolized in baptism.

Nor will the argument of the Baptists overthrow this, that some infants of those adults to whom the promise comes do not have the promise, either as it comes promising or as it is surely fulfilled. 

Scripture makes it very clear:   

1. The unbelief of some does not void the promise or make it of none effect. Romans 9:6 says: “Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel” (cf. also 4:16);

2. Neither natural descent nor coming under the preaching of the promise guarantee a share in the promise.  That is the teaching of Romans 9:7-8: “Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.  That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed (cf. also 10:16ff); and

3. The promise is its own guarantee, in that it is the sovereign, efficacious, and immutable Word of God, and, as such, brings about the spiritual rebirth of those to whom it belongs, so that they very really can be called “children of the promise” (Rom. 9:8).

To put it in terms of Acts 2, the fact that the immutable and unconditional promise of God is to “believers” and “their children,” though not to all their children, neither voids the promise itself nor its sureness, but rather insures the salvation of some.  On that basis (that some—the elect—will receive the salvation promised) we baptize all.

No Baptist can guarantee that all who receive the sign of baptism receive the reality.  In that light, we baptize on a better basis than the Baptist, for the Baptist baptizes some on the basis of what they have done in repenting and believing, without any assurance that it is genuine—while we baptize on the basis of the promise of God, believing that it will be fulfilled, even if only to some of our children.

No Baptist we have ever met takes that promise to heart.  Though it is the promise of God, who cannot lie and who does not change, the Baptist always puts a big “maybe” in front of it—an act of unbelief and stumbling at the Word of God.  We confess our faith in that promise by having our children baptized, even while we understand that the promise never has and never will guarantee the salvation of all of our natural descendants.  If even a remnant is saved according to that promise, the promise has not failed:

Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace (Rom. 11:5).

              

We insist, therefore, that the promise must be received as a promise that God will have His elect among our natural descendants when we believe.  It is in this confidence that we baptize our children, believing that God will use even that to separate the wheat from the chaff.  We will have more to say about this later, but the point is that the unbelief of some does not void the promise, and that baptism, like the preaching of the Word, is a two-edged sword, used both for the salvation of some and the condemnation of the rest.  For those reasons, we are not afraid to baptize, knowing that some will be baptized who are neither saved nor elect.

The rejection of this argument by the Baptists on the basis of the last part of verse 39, “even as many as the Lord our God shall call,” will not do.  They insist that this means that those who have the promise and are baptized must also be able to understand and respond to the call.  But this ignores the grammar of the sentence.  They want to read the sentence: “The promise is [now] unto you, and [will be] to your children and to all who are afar off, even as many [of them] as the Lord our God shall call.”  But that reading does not make sense either in Greek or English.  Try to read the verse that way without the words in parentheses!

The verb, “shall call,” with its future tense can only refer syntactically to “those who are afar off.”  The first part of the verse must, therefore, be read as a whole: “The promise is to you and your children.”

The grammar of the text puts “us and our children” together and separates “those who are afar off.”  If children were lumped with “those who are afar off,” then the text would read, “... to you, and to your children and all who are afar off.”  In other words, the promise belongs to those who believe at the moment of their believing.  They have, then, God’s own guarantee of the salvation of their children.

In the end, however, the argument makes little difference, for even with respect to those who are afar off, the Word of God in Acts 2:39 indicates that the promise already belongs to them also!  It is worth noticing, too, that the promise belongs to them, not because they will repent and believe, but because God will call them.  We see here again, how the Baptist is forced to put man’s activity to the front as the reason and ground for baptism, while the Reformed consistently emphasize God’s work and sure promise as the ground and reason for baptism.

Another way of putting it is to say that the Reformed baptize in the assurance that God will fulfil His promises, do the work He has spoken of and save His elect—while the Baptist always baptizes merely on the basis of a person’s own profession and in the hope that the person baptized will not turn out a hypocrite.

One more thing concerning this verse.  Baptists always insist, in their defense of believer’s baptism, that Acts 2:39 has nothing in particular to do with believers and their children, but is only the general call of the gospel to all who hear, including the promise that those who repent will be saved.  But this promise is not addressed to all and sundry.  It is a promise that God makes in the church and to the church.  As Hooper puts it:

We should understand first that it is a promise God has given to His church.  No such promise has been made to the ungodly and their children.  The promise of Acts 2:38 and 39, with the hope and comfort it conveys, is no more for the children of the world than the promise of Genesis 17:7 and 8 was for the Egyptians, Philistines, Hivites or Girgashites and their children.  This sets the children of believers apart from all other children and has implications for every area of their life, whether in home, school or church.[4]

Acts 16:29-34

Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, and brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?  And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.  And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.  And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.  And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.

              

This passage confirms what we have said about Acts 2:39. Paul promised the salvation of the jailer’s house, without even knowing who was in the house, when the jailer himself inquired concerning salvation.  Paul did that knowing the sovereignty of God in salvation and the certainty of God’s promise to save the households of those who believe.

No Baptist we have spoken to is able to understand this as a promise.  The Baptists always want to make this just a pious wish on Paul’s part, or simply a statement that if others in the man’s house believed, then they too would be saved.  But the verse does not say that.  It says as emphatically as possible: “You believe, and you and your house will be saved!”

That promise, Scripture teaches, belongs both in the Old Testament and in the New to all God’s people.  It was on that basis that Old Testament people of God circumcised their children, and it is on the basis of that promise that New Testament believers baptize theirs.

[Next section: “Family Baptism”]

==========

FOOTNOTES:

1. Watson, Baptism not for Infants, p. 80.

2. Watson, Baptism not for Infants, p. 82.

3. Watson, Baptism not for Infants, p. 101.

4. Hooper, Believers, their Children, and the Gospel of Sovereign Grace, p. 12.