Transcript

And certainly, Christians do disagree on this issue.

I contend, however, and Lutheran reformers are going to contend, that Scripture actually is pretty clear.

When we talk about the clarity of Scripture on a doctrinal issue like infant baptism, what we don't need is a singular verse that just lays all of it out.

We don't have that for most doctrine.

Most doctrine is not simply a restatement of one particular verse.

Some people may have an idea of the perspicuity of Scripture or an idea of sola scriptura that says that everything that we believe in Scripture, all of our doctrine, has to have a specific proof text.

So you can go back to one strong text and say, Here's the doctrine of X; look at this verse.

But that's not how—really, that's hardly how any of our doctrine is developed.

The reason is because Scripture itself is not a doctrinal textbook.

That's not to say that doctrine is not a concern of Scripture; I think it's an eminent concern of Scripture.

I mean, it's all over the place, but it's not laid out in the way that we would lay out a systematic theology book.

It's not supposed to be laid out that way.

It's not like the Westminster Confession of Faith, where Paul said, Okay, here's the doctrine of God; here's the doctrine of Christ; here's the doctrine of man.

I mean, it's a series of prophetical books and historical books and narratives of Jesus' life and His teachings and occasional letters that are written.

So the Bible is an amalgamation of a lot of different kinds of texts.

The way that we gather theology and understand theology and use Scripture to gather our theology is not to just say we need a proof text or two proof texts, but we need to look at the entire testimony of all of Scripture.

As long as you're allowing that, we could put the pieces together pretty well in terms of baptism.

It's my contention that infant baptism is actually not that hard of a case to make from Scripture once you're willing to allow that, no, you don't have a singular verse that says, Oh, and by the way, babies should be baptized.

We don't have a single verse that says babies should be baptized, but we have a whole strong pattern of texts and implications of texts that certainly point not just in that direction, but I'd say kind of necessitate that.

Part of this, we're talking about baptism and infant baptism.

I think that for the Lutheran tradition, our case is much easier to make than is the Presbyterian case.

That's not to say I don't think Presbyterians are right in their arguments for infant baptism, but I think it's an easier case to make from our perspective.

Because if baptism is a means of grace and forgives sins, if that's the lens through which we approach baptism—if we approach baptism and say this is something God does, this is a means that God uses to forgive sins, this is a means that God uses to grant His Holy Spirit, as I'm contending it is—if that's the case, then the only thing that we really need to establish in terms of infants is whether they need forgiveness and whether they need the Holy Spirit.

So then it becomes a question of original sin, and we can look at various texts in Scripture.

In fact, actually, even those without original sin can hold to infant baptism.

Pelagius did, which seems very odd, and that was an argument that Augustine made to Pelagius: Hey, this doesn't quite make sense.

You have this whole infant baptism thing, but you're not willing to admit that infants are sinful.

If they're not sinful, why do they need baptism?

This is a pretty good argument from Augustine; it's a good question.

But if infants indeed are in need of saving and baptism is a means that saves, it's a no-brainer.

I mean, the pieces fit together right there: infants need salvation; baptism gives salvation.

Baptize those babies!

That's all you need to know.

So that's pretty clear, I think, from a Lutheran perspective.

But Scripture doesn't even just leave us there with the kind of logical connection, which would be strong in and of itself, I think.

It also has numerous examples of household baptisms, and this is what the Presbyterians will point to, or oikos baptisms, because that's just a Greek term for household.

There are three separate examples of household baptisms.

Every time we know that an individual has a household and is baptized—this is both in Acts and 1 Corinthians.

Paul mentions one family that he baptized.

Every time we know that there is a family and one person believes, usually the head of the family, the individuals in the family are baptized too—the whole household.

So there is this principle that they're baptized.

This promise is for you and your children, as St. Peter would say in the sermon on Pentecost (Acts 2:38). This promise, being the promise that is the forgiveness of sins in baptism, as it's defined in that exact text, is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, all that the Lord our God will call to Himself.

So you see that actual principle being played out.

We see that you and your children principle being played out in someone's baptized and their children are baptized, and those who are far off.

We see that fulfilled in the calling of St. Paul and the mission to the Gentiles, which takes up a large portion of the Book of Acts.

So that in and of itself is, again, a very strong argument by itself.

Then we have the connection between baptism and various Old Testament types.

It's not just circumcision.

Presbyterians just grab onto circumcision, and I think it makes their case weaker that they only hold onto circumcision because that tends to be the center of the argument.

I think there's a lot more to it than that too.

Now, circumcision's there, and that's important.

I'm not saying it's not a key, but what you do have is various Old Testament types of baptisms.

We have basically three that are explicit, and I think we have others as well that we can point to, but three are explicitly mentioned in the New Testament itself: circumcision, which is mentioned in Colossians 2, has a type of baptism.

So we do have circumcision, and then in 1 Corinthians, Paul mentions the crossing of the Red Sea, and then in 1 Peter, we see the flood—the flood being a type of baptism.

Now, if you look at all three of those great pictures of baptism, we can ask the question then: were infants included?

Okay, were infants included in those three types of baptism?

The three Old Testament pictures that God has—well, let's kind of go through them systematically.

Circumcision?

Yeah, I mean, that's pretty much just for infants, and it's just for infants or those who have newly converted to the Jewish faith and become part of the people of God.

They believe first and then are circumcised, but then from that point forward, their children receive circumcision.

They enter into God's covenant people through circumcision as infants.

There we go!

You know, we have a believer's circumcision in Abraham, just like we have examples of believers' baptisms in Acts.

Of course you do; they're the first generation of Christians.

What else do you expect?

You know, you're not going to get a time machine and go baptize them as infants.

So, of course, the first generation of those who believe and receive the promise are going to receive it as adults.

Duh!

So we know that's the case, but then the question is, well, what's the principle after that?

Well, the principle is Abraham.

Now, from this point forward, his descendants are to be circumcised.

The male descendants are to be circumcised at eight days old.

Similarly, with baptism, what do we see?

This is for you and your children, and we see that same principle reiterated for a people that was already used to considering their children as part of the covenant people of God.

Then we have the example of the crossing of the Red Sea.

Well, who was there in the Red Sea?

The entire people of Israel.

There were plenty of infant baptisms in the Red Sea.

This is a baptism into Moses; it certainly didn't exclude infants.

It was all of the people of Israel, including the infants.

Then we have the example of the ark.

Guess what?

It was Noah and his family.

So what we have is, first, we have a theology that says infants are in need of a Savior; they're in need of forgiveness.

Baptism offers forgiveness.

Okay, that's pretty strong in and of itself.

Then we have all of these Old Testament types of baptism that the New Testament explicitly connects to baptism, and in all of them, babies are included or infants, household members are included.

Then we have the explicit connection in Acts of household baptisms that's reiterated at numerous points.

Along with that, we can speak about Jesus blessing the children, saying, Of such belongs the kingdom of heaven.

If two children belong to the kingdom of heaven and Jesus connects baptism with entering into the kingdom of heaven in John chapter 3—which I'm arguing is what He's saying—so we can debate John 3. As I said, I want to do a kind of exposition of that passage, but again, clear tie; it's a done deal just there, right?

Do infants get to enter the kingdom of heaven?

Yes, according to Jesus.

Is baptism how we enter the kingdom of heaven?

Yes, according to Jesus.

Guess what?

Put the pieces together: babies should be baptized.

So I actually think that's very clear as well.

And you also have to look at the context in which the Gospels are being written.

They're being written to the Church in which there is this process of catechesis and being baptized.

So people are seeing baptisms; they're seeing this as an integral part of the Christian community's entrance into the Christian community.

At this time, we have more than just that.

When you look at the typology, we can break this down a little bit as well and just look at some general principles in Scripture, which is that the Old Covenant included infants.

All of the Old Covenant signs of baptism included infants or children.

To say that the New Covenant baptism, which is the fulfillment of what was in the Old Testament, now excludes a group that was included in the Old Testament type simply doesn't make sense.

It's not the nature of typology; it's not the nature of the New Covenant.

First of all, the movement from the Old to the New Testament—there are numerous examples of this.

I mean, this is kind of the entire argument of the Book of Romans and Galatians—is that there is this movement from exclusion to inclusion.

In other words, the New Covenant is open in ways that the Old was not.

To say then that there was a group of people under a certain age that were not to receive baptism, now that were part of the Old Covenant in the Old Testament, goes exactly precisely in the opposite direction as the rest of Scripture goes on these questions.

So it doesn't really fit the general tenor of Scripture and this principle that we see clearly laid out all over the place.

The whole point of a type is that the fulfillment is greater.

Now, the fulfillment can't be greater if the type is for all of these people and the fulfillment is now that these people are excluded.

It's exactly the opposite point of a type and its fulfillment.

So, for example, now women are included in baptism.

Women were not included in circumcision.

Women certainly were included in the crossing of the Red Sea and Noah's flood, but they were excluded from all types of baptism.

We also do have types of baptism, I think, in the priestly washings that wouldn't directly connect to infants in the same sense, though, but that also is relevant to the discussion for sure.

So it's going to be then the argument of the Lutheran reformers that this actually is clearly in Scripture.

What I find kind of odd is what you find in a lot of the polemics, and I see this today as well from Roman Catholics, is they try to minimize the clarity of Scripture on this issue and on the Trinity, especially.

It's almost as if you need the Magisterium because who would have figured out this whole Trinity thing from just the New Testament itself?

Well, certainly the terminology and things like that were developed in time as part of the Church.

I think the basic assertions of what the Trinity is and what we're talking about—the equality of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; the distinction of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; the unity of God—all of those pieces are in Scripture.

The ecumenical creeds certainly help to expound that which is already in Scripture.

Yes, using terms that aren't there in Scripture, but that's also okay.

I think using extra-biblical terminology is a fine and good thing.

I think that's one of the things that theology needs to do: use extra-biblical terminology.

It's the work of a theologian and of the Church in general to take the biblical data and systematize it, to put it together, and to be able to now explain it or confess it in unique ways, but always going back to Scripture as the origin and source of that.

So that our unique doctrinal formulations can always be tested by Scripture; it's a higher authority than our doctrinal formulations.

And I don't think we need a Magisterium to do that.

So then let's read the rest of what is said here.

Okay, so children are to be baptized, who by baptism being offered to God are received into God's favor.

So it's the conviction that in baptism, children are received into God's favor; they are considered part of God's people; they are considered Christians.

George Henry Gerberding has a great section on infant baptism in his book, The Way of Salvation in the Lutheran Church.

We've published that; it's a wonderful, wonderful book.

I recommend it so highly, and our edition has been updated with modern language.

I've changed all the translations to ESV instead of the older translation that it was.

I was going to say King James, but it's not King James.

He makes a really great argument that just in the way that the New Testament—and the Old Testament as well—but in the way that Scripture explains how you are to treat your children, it doesn't ever speak as if your children are to be considered unbelievers that you need to convert.

It just doesn't do that.

In the Old Testament, you have the corporate people of Israel singing Psalm 22 together, saying, I trusted you at my mother's breast.

This is the corporate confession of the people of Israel.

Of course, it's David's experience, but the point is that kind of language is on the lips of the people of Israel.

It's not the expectation that your children are not Christians until they get to a certain point intellectually, and then they can understand a certain amount of things.

Then it's your job as a parent to get your children to believe in Jesus and repent and become Christians at some point in time.

It's just not the way that Scripture functions at all.

So Gerberding makes a really good point about that, and I think that we have to consider it, which is very much relevant to infant baptism.

So we consider them to be Christians.

You don't consider your children not to be Christians as they are baptized; you consider them to have been received into God's favor until they start—or unless they start saying otherwise.

Then you have to worry.

But okay, then you have the condemnation at the end, which we've seen in a lot of these: here's what we positively confess, and here is—yes, we're saying yes, like you all—we also condemn these teachings.

We are not teaching what the Anabaptists are teaching.

So it says we condemn the Anabaptists who allow not the baptism of children and affirm that children are saved without baptism.

The Anabaptists would say, Well, children are just saved anyway, so yeah, you don't have to worry about the whole baptism thing.

And that maybe gets us into the question of, well, what does happen to children who weren't baptized?

And you know, I don't want to get too much into that.

You also see that Krauss has another book on baptism.

We have a volume of his that is—and I'm looking at it on my bookshelf—he has a book that’s treatises on baptism or works on baptism, and he addresses this question really well there if you want.