Reformed Infant Baptism, and A Reformed Baptist Response

[Since the audio file for Brannan's interview with John won't work right now for some reason -- ahh, technology -- here's a great piece Phil's put together, hopefully with more to come along these lines in the near future.]

Although the historic Reformed churches are paedobaptist (i.e. we baptize our children into the covenant community), there is a small but hearty contingent of ‘Reformed Baptists’ who confess the central claims of the Reformed tradition about God, Christ, Scripture and salvation, even while they disagree in some key ways with the rest of us about who should be baptized and for what reasons. As important as baptism is, and as important as affirming what we believe the Bible affirms of it is, we at CreedorChaos also want to affirm that, when it comes down to it, we see eye to eye and stand arm in arm in the gospel of Christ with our Reformed Baptist brethren. So along these lines, we thought it would make for interesting and hopefully constructive discussion if Westminster Seminary California student and Reformed Baptist flag bearer Brandon Wilkins were to review and critique Rev. Daniel Hyde’s book Jesus Loves the Little Children: Why We Baptize Children which for its part explains and defends the historic Reformed understanding of baptism.

Jesus Loves the Little Children:

Why We Baptize Children

Daniel R. Hyde

(Grandville, MI: Reformed Fellowship, Inc., 2006),

reviewed by Brandon T. Wilkins

I would like to begin by thanking Phil, the rest of the CreedorChaos folk, and Pastor Hyde for keeping us Baptists in mind as they discuss Jesus Loves the Little Children: Why We Baptize Children. We are a small (but vocal!) group on campus and we appreciate the opportunity to interact with our Reformed brethren on the doctrine of baptism.

As most of my fellows students can testify, baptism isn’t a subject that I particularly enjoy talking about. I don’t like being reminded that I am in disagreement with the Reformed tradition on this point since I am so enamored by it on myriad other issues. But I do think it is important for both sides to interact with each other in hopes that our Lord might reunite our two traditions through our meager efforts. May God grant to both credobaptists and paedobaptists the humility to see their own errors and the wisdom which the other possesses.

To begin, I very much appreciate Pastor Hyde’s book because it is a clear and accessible presentation of the Reformed doctrine of paedobaptism. Furthermore, I found him to be very charitable towards his Baptist readership. I would encourage my fellows Baptists to read this book as they study the doctrine of baptism so that they know what the Reformed tradition teaches before they judge whether it is biblical or not.

Due to the brevity of this review, I insist that it be read in conjunction with reading Pastor Hyde’s book. I simply cannot summarize his arguments and offer response in such a short amount of space. I will reference the relevant pages as I interact with his argument.

With that said, as I read Pastor Hyde’s book, I perceived three major areas where our two positions would disagree. I realize I have left several matters out. I admit up front that since I don’t believe in baby dedication (pg. vi.), my own review comes from a different audience than the book is directed at. I do apologize to Pastor Hyde if this makes my interaction with his argument seem inadequate.

I. Hermeneutics

I agree with Pastor Hyde’s argument in chapter 1 that understanding presuppositions is necessary to a worthwhile discussion of this issue. I also appreciated Pastor Hyde’s discussion of good and necessary inference (pg. 2). It amazes me how much the doctrine of baptism has been guided on both sides by what strikes me as a positivist hermeneutic. On our side, this comes across as, “If the Bible doesn’t explicitly say, ‘Baptize the children of believers’ then God hasn’t commanded it.”

But I think this same positivist hermeneutic exists on the Reformed side, as well. Pastor Hyde makes the argument, “after the people of God placed the sign of the covenant upon their children for 2000 years, an explicit revoking of this practice is necessary if this practice is to end. (pg. 30) [emphasis mine]” But how is this claim any different, hermeneutically-speaking, than the Baptist claim that an explicit command is necessary to baptize infants? If a good and necessary inference is as authoritative as an explicit statement (pg. 2), then surely this must be an overstatement.

The fact that both sides operate under such a positivist hermeneutic has no doubt made it easy to talk past each other. Neither side is capable of presenting textual data that would meet the other’s criterion of proof. For my own part, I think this suggests that both sides may need to reconsider their hermeneutical assumptions. I think that the place to begin is by getting rid of this biblicist hermeneutic.

Perhaps we could, at least, agree that our two hermeneutics reflect deeper assumptions about the text? The question at root is about how to relate the two motifs of covenant and eschatology during the church’s semi-eschatological existence? The Baptist side clearly gives eschatology the last word here. Pastor Hyde may disagree, but it seems to me anyway, that the Reformed side gives covenant this place. At any rate, I agree with Pastor Hyde’s argument that presuppositions make a huge difference with this doctrine.

II. Baptism and Circumcision

I also agree with Pastor Hyde’s argument in chapter 3 for continuity between circumcision and baptism based on Col. 2:11. It seems to me that what gets lost in translation for some Baptists on this point is that the continuity between these two rites is sustained by the fact that both are covenant signs of initiation pointing to Christ’s work.

However, I’m not persuaded that this continuity means that these signs can be “equated” (pg. 19) or that one “replaces” the other (pg. 26).

1. First, it seems to me that the Reformed doctrine of paedobaptism doesn’t appreciate how much it has to prove in addition to continuity of substance in order to make its case from circumcision. Our debate isn’t about the substance of circumcision and baptism. It is about the proper administration of these rites in their respective covenants (covenantal ‘accidence’). It’s the ‘how’ question. In this light the Reformed argument seems to suggest that since there is continuity of substance between circumcision and baptism, then there is necessarily continuity of administration. This is ad hoc.

Circumcision was a typological ordinance, appropriate to the church’s infantile existence (cf. Gal. 4:1-6). It pointed to Christ in a very specific way; through a promised geo-political land, through a promised physical lineage, through membership in a national entity, through the Mosaic Law. Without these other typological entities in existence, circumcision doesn’t lead to Christ, only to condemnation. None of this is true of baptism or its administration, but all of this is relevant to properly evaluating the relationship of baptism and circumcision. There is continuity between the two, but they are not equalities. And if they are not equalities, then it is imprudent to make assumptions about the administration of one from the administration of the other.

In short, I would suggest that while the substance of circumcision and baptism is certainly Christ, their covenantal accidence is not ‘incidental’ to their relationship.

2. Second, while there is continuity between circumcision and baptism, there is also continuity between baptism and other Old Testament rites- rites that were not participated in merely on the basis of being born to covenant members. As only one example, Hebrews 10:22 draws the connection between baptism and the consecration of the Levites for priestly service to God (Ex. 29:1-4, 30:17-21; 2 Chron. 4:1-6, etc.). This washing was given on the condition of a conscious act of willing service to God.

It is at this point that the problem of arguing from OT-NT continuity manifests itself. A Reformed person goes to circumcision and identifies continuity with baptism. A Baptist goes to Old Testament purification rites and sees continuity. The New Testament identifies the accuracy of both associations (through Christ!). Whose verses should ‘win’? This dilemma should discourage trying to settle the question of the proper recipients of the sacraments on the basis of continuity with various Old Covenant rites. New Covenant sacraments should be dealt with according to New Covenant revelation.

III. The New Covenant and the Children of Believers

Finally, the “to you and to your offspring” promise. I will be considering Pastor Hyde’s argument in chapter 4. I have both positive and (constructive) negative thoughts on it. And as I have already been rather long winded (sorry, I am a Baptist!), I will have to be brief (even to a fault).

1. The negative. While Pastor Hyde argues that the Genesis ‘to you and to your offspring’ promise teaches a “covenant family” principle (pp. 38-39.), I would insist staunchly that we interpret the promise according to NT exegesis. Paul argues in Galatians 3:16 that this promise is fulfilled in Christ. Furthermore, given Paul’s eschatological strategy in Galatians, contrasting Old Covenant types with New Covenant antitypes, it seems to me that the Reformed tradition ought to tremble at least a little bit when considering how Paul exegetes this promise. “It does not say ‘And to offsprings,’ referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. (Gal. 3:16)” When type and antitype are distinguished by the apostle, the ‘family principle’ falls on the typological side, while Christ alone is confessed as the anti-typical seed (cf. Matt. 2:15). Given the apostle’s point in Galatians 3 the argument for a continuation of this principle in the New Covenant age is essentially the same kind of argument as one for the continuation of the office of priest in the church or theonomy. In fact, as annoying as this association might be to our Reformed brethren, their argument from the Abrahamic covenant is very similar to the dispensationalist argument. The only difference is that the dispensationalist focuses on the geopolitical land, while the paedobaptist focuses on the physical seed. In all this there is a confusion of type and antitype.

Also, Pastor Hyde argues (pp. 39-40) from passages such as Eph. 6:1-4 and Col. 3:20 and the language of children obeying “in the Lord” that the children of believers have a peculiar covenantal relationship to Christ. He suggests a few pages later that these phrases mean that the children of believers “belong to” Christ (pg. 42). However, this seems to be an incorrect interpretation of this language, given Paul’s statement in Romans 8:9, “Anyone who does not possess the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.” The lack of qualification given by Paul in Romans, suggests that the Reformed tradition has overstated the meaning of the apostle’s words in Ephesians and Colossians.

I will give a very brief comment to Jesus’ teaching about children, and household baptisms. First Jesus’ teaching. If children being brought to Jesus necessarily means that they should be baptized as infants, then why not baptize all infants everywhere (what in the text limits this promise to covenant children)? Furthermore, why shouldn’t they participate in the Lord’s Supper (the sacrament of fellowship with the body and blood of Christ)? Why not baptize all sick people? They were also brought to Christ. As to the issue of household baptisms, most of these (all but one) explicitly say that the house heard and/or believed the Gospel before being baptized. Pastor Hyde argues that Acts 16:30-34, says nothing about faith (pg. 45). Fair enough. It does say that the apostles preached the word to all who were in the house. Clearly, there was a different age constituency in the house than is useful to the infant baptism argument. Otherwise, the oikos formula in Acts seems to be an example of Illegitimate Totality Transfer.

2. The positive. I agree heartily with Pastor Hyde and the Reformed tradition that God is zealous for the salvation of children (of believers or not). I would root this in two doctrines, neither of which is the Covenant of Grace. First, the goodness of creation. The family is a creational institute, and it is something that God delights in. Is it that hard to believe he would be interested in the redemption of every part of it even from the time of our children’s infancy? As a result, Christian parents have a duty simply as human beings, by virtue of the law written on the heart, to teach their children who the true God is and what he has done for salvation in hopes that grace might be given to them.

The second doctrine is the well-meant offer of the Gospel. This doctrine gets far too little air-time among Calvinists, in my opinion. God is zealous to see all peoples regardless of blood-lines come to faith in Christ. In fact, he is more zealous to see the salvation of our pagan neighbor’s children than we often give him credit for. When any child hears the Gospel even at a young age, God means every word of that promise to him or her. It is the parent’s (and church’s) duty to encourage their faith, not hinder it with skepticism.

What I’m suggesting is that even while Baptists disagree with the Reformed doctrine of baptism (the recipients of it), the covenant nurture that the doctrine engenders in the family is something that Baptists could learn a great deal from. Accepting such a view would require us to temper the conversion ‘experience’ language that we immerse soteriology into. God uses ordinary creaturely means and situations for the salvation of his elect. If the wind, indeed, blows where it wishes, let us pray that he sweeps up our children and carries them into the kingdom before an ‘experience’ might be necessary for them to come to Christ. Perhaps this might lead Baptists to consider being more open to baptizing children at younger ages (i.e., before they start having to shave).

In conclusion, I realize that this has been a rather parochial review. I apologize to Pastor Hyde if he feels short-changed by this. The issues I addressed seemed to me the most pressing in the credo v. paedo issue, and Phil looked pretty worried when I said my review would be even four pages long! He was right to be concerned

At any rate, I will conclude the way I began, commending Pastor Hyde’s book as an excellent and clear presentation of the Reformed doctrine of paedobaptism. I encourage Baptists to read it carefully. However, I hope that the thoughts and critiques I have extended in this review give them confidence that they already hold the biblical doctrine of baptism: credobaptism. It may not be the Reformed doctrine, but it’s still pretty good.

Thanks, Brandon, for your thoughtful and constructive critique; as we continue to disagree in good faith, may we continue to challenge one another in the gracious way shown in this discussion (on both sides). Rev. Hyde has also just come out with another book, God With Us: Knowing the Mystery of Who Jesus Is, which looks to be very good as well.