Why Didn't God Just Tell Us?

I was recently reading an article in favor of infant baptism. For the record, I do not believe that baptizing our children before they are aware of what is going on is the most faithful practice to the biblical text. I am a part of a denomination that does not affirm infant baptism but rather child dedication with the hopes and prayers that the child will choose salvation and thus baptism for themselves at a later time. But this article I read, in addition to arguments I have heard before (and will return to in a moment) gave me something new to think about.

Baptism is the New Testament replacement or fulfillment of circumcision as the covenant sign. (In this, the article and I are in agreement.) But the argument was drawn out that since circumcision was a covenant sign given to believers and their children, baptism ought to function in the same way. Hmmm. I must admit I had never thought about this before. I don’t know that I have a strong argument against this point other than to say, yes, circumcision was performed on children…but only male children. Can we not agree that circumcision and baptism are not identical? Furthermore, the fact that circumcision was performed on those who were not truly circumcised of heart (Romans 2:29) seems to imply to me that it was not a fully effective sign and thus another (baptism) was required. I am much more comfortable linking true circumcision (of the heart) and true baptism (with Christ; see Romans 6:3ff.) then trying to make the external signs line up identically.

But back to the “traditional” arguments, because it is these that I really want to discuss. I have heard on numerous occasions that the biblical argument for infant baptism is found in Acts 10 and 16. In both of these chapters we find “entire families” being baptized. In Acts 10 we are dealing with Cornelius the Gentile, and his family. Peter comes to them, preaches the gospel, and the Holy Spirit falls on all who hear the word. All of these (whoever they are) begin to speak in tongues and are baptized. While no children of Cornelius are mentioned it is safe to assume (leaving aside their ages for a moment) that Cornelius had children and that they are baptized at this time.

Acts 16 then deals with the Philippian jailer. Paul and Silas do not take advantage of an earthquake to break out of jail (it’s a crazy story, if you don’t know it, check it out!) thus giving them the opportunity to share the gospel with their jailer…and his family. All are saved (that is to say the jailer and his family – presumably including his kids) and all are baptized. Again age is not mentioned. Now I have heard the argument (and it’s actually a pretty good one) that a jailer in Roman society was a pretty prestigious position. Romans were not graduating college and going right to the warden’s office, they had to work their way up. That is to say, it took awhile, and it is safe to assume that the Philippian jailer was on the older side and probably would have had grown kids if he had kids at all. So do Acts 10 and 16 really teach infant baptism? No! I’ll take it a step further, they don’t even mention it…which also means that they do not speak against it. And this is what I find most interesting. Let me explain.

I almost guarantee you that at some point during the early days of the church a new mother brought her infant to Peter requesting that he or she be baptized. Now at that point either one of two things happened. Either Peter said, “Sure, we baptize infants all the time, after all infants were circumcised!” Or he said, “Nope, sorry, we don’t believe in that.” But here’s the amazing thing! Whatever Peter said, Luke did not record it! God in his infinite wisdom did not deem it necessary for you and me and every other reader of scripture down through the centuries to know how this conversation turned out.

Can a biblical argument be made for infant circumcision? I have to admit, yes. It’s a weak argument (in my view) but I suppose there is something there. But what I also have to admit is that the biblical argument against infant baptism is an argument mostly from silence. As much as I would have liked for God to have come out and said very clearly, “Thou shalt not baptize thine infants” (that’s how God talks, you know) he didn’t. And so I have to be ok with that. Furthermore I have to be ok and all of us have to be ok – more than ok – we must rejoice to worship with brothers and sisters with whom we may not see eye to eye on this issue.