On Infant Baptism
by Terry Wane Benton
An Orthodox Church member writes:
"Infant baptism is the new circumcision. We find its parallel to circumcision in the Old Covenant. Infants were circumcised as a sign of being part of the Old Covenant so infants should be baptized as a sign of being part of the New Covenant."
In the Old Covenant of Israel, it was a law that all male children be circumcised on the 8th day after birth. Jeremiah prophesied that the New Covenant would be very different (Jeremiah 31:31f). In the old you were circumcised and later taught to “know the Lord.” In the New, knowing the Lord would come first before entering the covenant. So, there is no parallel between the two covenants in how to become a part of either covenant. You had forced entrance in the Old and voluntary entrance after coming to “know the Lord” first in the second covenant.
Secondly, the scriptures don’t say or imply that “infant baptism is the new circumcision.” That is made up whole-cloth out of desire and imagination rather than by revelation. We are called to “cast down imaginations” (II Corinthians 10:4-6). Baptism in the scriptures is always for someone who first comes to know God and is ready to repent, confess Jesus, and bury the old person of sin behind in baptism. Infants don’t know God, and are not ready to repent, confess, or bury their past sinful life in baptism (Romans 10:9-10; Acts 2:38; Mark 16:15-16; Romans 6:3-6). They do not “rise to walk in newness of life” and therefore have not buried the sinful self behind in this transformation. So, there is no decision on their end to be “baptized as a sign of being part of the New Covenant.” This argument is wholly contrived and does not stand the test of Scripture.
"We will all be judged based on our degrees of faithfulness. This includes those who would be faithless and deny infants their baptism" [Orthodox Church member].
We know of no one who “denies” infants their baptism. No infant has ever come to me wanting to be baptized, wanting to confess Jesus, wanting to begin transforming their sinful lives. Nor have I ever witnessed a single infant being either faithful or unfaithful. So, there is no judgment about their “faithfulness.” This too is a wholly contrived argument from Lance Conley. Where does scripture demand that we baptize any but penitent, confessing, believers? If a bank robber comes to me for baptism but refuses to confess faith in Jesus, and refuses to quit his thievery, I won’t baptize him because he brings no fruit of repentance. But, if he brings forth fruit worthy of repentance, I will gladly baptize him. Same with babies. Only babies are innocent and can’t bring forth the fruit of repentance. So, the second argument is shown to be false.
"Circumcision was a sign and seal of God’s covenant promises to Abraham and his offspring (Genesis 17:7-14; Romans 4:11). Likewise, baptism is a sign and seal of God’s covenant promises to believers and their children (Acts 2:38-39; Colossians 2:11-12)" [Orthodox Church member].
The only comparison that baptism and circumcision have in these scriptures is that a “cutting off” takes place in both. In circumcision, there is the cutting off of the male foreskin using human hands in the process to get the job done. In contrast, in baptism, there is also a “cutting off” of something. Colossians 2:11-13 reads,
"In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead."
The Christian has faith in the “working of God” that He will do this circumcision (cutting away) of sins. Babies have no such faith that God will do this when someone manhandles them and forces them into water. They are innocent of sins and have no knowledge or understanding of what these people are doing to them or why. The only comparison to circumcision is that a cutting off is in both, but the contrast is that in the circumcision of the flesh, there does not have to be any ‘faith” in the why or any understanding of God. Males were to be circumcised on the 8th day and did not have to consent or understand anything. In the case of baptism, there is first an understanding of what God will do in His operation. We understand that He will cut away our sins when we are buried with Christ in baptism. If there is no such understanding, then the baptism or immersion is not “in the name of Jesus Christ.” Jesus authorizes that “believers” be baptized to be saved (Mark 16:15-16). Peter, by the Spirit, said that “repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ” results in “remission of sins” (cutting off sins which is the circumcision God does without hands). So, if there is no conviction of sin, and no determination to repent of sins, then there is no baptism in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:36-41).
When I was 8 and my brother was 11, we would wrestle around in the lake. He would say he was baptizing me and then force me against my will down under the water. Did God then cut my sins away? Of course not! The mere act of being dunked against one’s will is not baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.” It takes a conscious understanding that I need my sins removed, a conscious and willing decision to do whatever God commands to get them removed, and then a submission to Jesus and His instructions on when He will cut my sins off, and a faith that when I am baptized into union with Christ, God will do this circumcision. None of that understanding and determination was involved when my brother forced me under the water, and none of that understanding is involved in the infant that some grown-up forces under the water.
Therefore, the preliminaries (hearing God’s word, understanding it, believing, and then being baptized (Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:36-41) have to first be in place before this circumcision takes place. A baby could be physically circumcised with no personal will involved when it comes to the Law of Moses, but Jeremiah 31:31f shows that entrance into the New Covenant involves a very different process. One must first “know God” before entering into a covenant relationship where sins are remembered no more. So, the argument that we can force people into the New Covenant by dipping them against their understanding and knowledge is simply not so.
The argument that Acts 2:38-39 says the promise is “to their children” is a desperate misuse of the term. It means their descendants who also “gladly receive the word” (Acts 2:41) and would seek to “be saved from this perverse generation.” We are always “children” of our parents no matter how old we are, but the people the promise is talking to are any future descendants who also “call on the name of the Lord” in their repentance and baptism. Babies are not calling and repenting. When they come to first “know the Lord” and become convicted in heart about their sinful and lost condition, they will want the circumcision of God, and will voluntarily ask to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. They enter the New Covenant after first “knowing the Lord.” In the Old Covenant, you were circumcised at 8 days old and later taught to know the Lord. So, the above argument is just another contrived argument to try to justify forcing babies into an act that adults impose on them with no knowledge of God in their hearts, and that is not the will of God.
