I want to try in this post and the next to give the primary arguments we would see against the practice of baptizing infants. This will in no way be exhaustive, but would simply express the issues that most often come up in our ministry and counsel.

Those embracing infant baptism from a reformed perspective always insist that to arrive at such an understanding demands a right understanding of the critical foundation of the Old Testament “speaking forward” to the New Testament.

Vincent writes:

In many ways, this is the crux of the matter, because the practice of infant baptism—and many other New Testament doctrines, such as the Trinity and justification by faith—rests squarely on an Old Testament foundation. Remove that foundation, and infant baptism collapses.

How should we view the Old Testament? Should we reject it as having nothing to say to us today? Or should we obliterate all distinctions between the two Testaments? I believe that we should avoid both extremes. The Old Testament is related to the New in the way that a bud is related to a flower and an acorn is to an oak. The people of God in the Old Testament are compared to children; in the New they have come to adulthood. (Cf. Galatians 4:1-7.) Two extremes must be avoided as we deal with the Old and New Testaments: that of an extreme kind of Dispensationalism that sees little connection and continuity between the Old and New Testaments, on the one hand, and an approach that flattens Redemptive history, on the other, as if there were no true and radical significance to the Cross. A biblical approach to the two Testaments comprehends that there is virtually nothing “new” in the New Testament, because it is all rooted in the Old Testament, but it also understands that virtually nothing from the Old Testament comes into the New without being transformed in the work of Christ.

I want to draw your attention to the phrase: In many ways, this is the crux of the matter, because the practice of infant baptism—and many other New Testament doctrines, such as the Trinity and justification by faith—rests squarely on an Old Testament foundation. Remove that foundation, and infant baptism collapses.

Vincent says that “many other New Testament doctrines”, sighting the Trinity and justification by faith as two, “rests squarely on an Old Testament foundation.” Of course the great doctrines of our faith are clearly not bound by only New Testament revelation. But it is wrong to suggest that the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of justification by faith demand an Old Testament foundation or else they would “collapse”. Both of these great doctrines are clearly taught in the New Testament with all of their revealed dynamic. It is the Old Testament that must be seen in the light of the New, not the reverse. This is a critical flaw, as I see it, in many areas of reformed theology. Paul emphatically states: “To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ, and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things; so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and authorities in heavenly places.” Ephesians 3:8-10

The New Testament “brings to light” what “has been hidden”. Without the New Testament revelation the redemptive plan of God exists in a mystery --- trapped in symbol, ritual and rite. In Christ, revealed in the New Testament, the truth is fully manifested.

Faith in the Old Testament demanded a supernatural revelation of New Testament truth in Christ. That is why Paul would write, concerning Abraham’s faith:

Galatians 3:7-9

7 Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham .

8 The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham , saying, "ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU."

9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.

Abraham, and all Old Testament saints, needed New Testament gospel to be saved by faith! This is the right order of revealed truth. The New Testament unlocks our understanding of the Old, not the other way around. To bring the Old Testament forward as the “foundation” for understanding will consistently lead to doctrinal confusion. The Judaizers of the first century church were guilty of just such an approach and the faithful practice of the church was always confused by their teaching.

Which raises the specific matter of circumcision and baptism. I will agree here with Vincent - - if you remove the supposed Old Testament foundation for baptism (he would suggest circumcision is that foundation) then the practice of infant baptism collapses. I submit that foundation simply doesn’t exist. The symbolism of baptism finds its foundation in the work of Christ; the reality that we, in faith, have been crucified with Him, buried with Him, and raised with Him to newness of life.

Romans 6:3-4

3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?

4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.

I won’t repeat what you have already read regarding circumcision and baptism being equal. Suffice it to say that I find no justification for making such a connection. The apostles and the early church had ample opportunity to draw such a connection, in the midst of very important doctrinal dealings in the early church, and never implied such. In fact, I would suggest, they insisted on just the opposite.

Consider:

At the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) the apostles were confronted with the question: should the Gentile believers be required to be circumcised?

Their answer - - no. They summarily stated: “Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God …” Acts 15:19

What we often miss in this important Council is what was NOT determined. There was no determination that circumcision should stop among the Jewish believers. As such, there was no indication that baptism was the right sign to replace the circumcision. This can be repeatedly noted in the early church. Circumcision and baptism coexisted without any single mention of the one replacing the other.

There are repeated warnings against circumcision being viewed as having any merit toward salvation - - but never is there any instruction given to cease circumcision among the Jewish believers.

Abraham’s justification, we know, was realized the same way our justification was realized - - by faith alone. It was a forward looking faith, but no less valid and no less secure in the revelation of the death of Christ as the sole means of righteousness with God.

Paul writes concerning Abraham’s righteousness:

Romans 4:10-12

10 How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised;

11 and he received the sign of circumcision , a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them,

12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised.

Again, this is Paul; this is New Testament; and this makes no connection between the sign of baptism and the sign of circumcision. It continues to insist in the absence of any need for circumcision among the Gentiles (“all who believe without being circumcised”) without making any reference to the Jewish believer’s replacing that sign with baptism (“those who are not only of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith”). Circumcision should not be limited to only a national identity for Jews, though it was that. Clearly it was also “a seal of the righteousness of the faith”. All Jews would be identified by that outward sign as being a part of the nation of Israel (women assumed under their male head), but not all Jews could claim that circumcision as a “seal of righteousness” … only those who had been justified by faith.