Inspired-Writing.com

Why Does the Orthodox Presbyterian Church Baptize Infantes? 

For Larry Wilson

______________________________________________________________________

Does he surprise to you that although we are Presbyterian, we are also baptists? The truth, the fact is that we yes baptize. Our descuerdo with our brothers “baptists“, is not if we must baptize; it is whom we must baptize. We baptize believers profesantes and to his children. Why do we baptize his children?

Of step, allow me to say to him that we are not alone. It is a fact that the infantile baptism is a historical practice of the Christianity. In his book Sketches of Theology, A.A: Hodge it sums up this way: "The practice of the infantile baptism is an institution that exists like a fact, and prevails across the universal church, with the exception of the modern Baptists, whose origin can be planned up to the anabautistas of Germany, close to 1537 d. C...” Then, how does it try, there quotes Ireneo (who was born before the death of apostle Juan), Justino Mártir (138 A.D.), Tertuliano (born in 160 A.D.), Cipriano (253 A.D.), and Agustín (born in 354 A.D.). Hodge concludes:“ the infantile baptism has prevailed (a) from the apostolic age, (b) in all the sections of the parents of the church, (c) uninterruptedly up to the present time, (d) in each of the big historical churches of the Reform, while his objectors go back from the Reform. Now, this is interesting. This cheers us up. But, not that's why we baptize infantes.

At the end of account, in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, we baptize the believers' children because we believe firmly: that the God's Word says it to us! To answer correctly the question: “Have we to it baptizes Infantes?”, you have to do the God's Word as his guide of authority. You have to ask: Is the infantile baptism Biblical?

Having said that, you have still to face the question of how approaching correctly the Bible to understand it correctly. The believers treat commonly topics as the baptism looking for disconnected Biblical texts or in particular; for example: "What versículo in the Bible teaches explicitly the infantile baptism?”. You begin to see a serious problem with this way of proceeding, because, if you observe it, this is the same approach that the sects use to deny other doctrines (for example: ”What versículo of the Bible does it teach explicitly that the "Sabbath" was changed of the seventh day to the first one of the week?”) In fact, this is exactly the same approach as the cults they use to deny the essential of the faith, (: “What versículo in the Bible teaches explicitly the Trinidad?”).

A better way is to stop that the Writing interprets to the Writing - this is, to interpret the text in view of his immediate context, in view of his widest mediate context, in view of the entire system of the truth taught in the God's Word. This second approach is better because, to understand correctly the texts, you need to interpret them in his context. And, when you choose to use this form of interpretation, you think that there are clear Biblical guarantees to baptize both the believers and his children.

I would like inviting him to consider it in view of the following five explanatory steps:

1. The church of the Ancient Testament and the church of the New Testament are, essentially, the same church;

2. God includes the children of the believers like members of this church;

3. In the age of the Ancient Testament, because the children of the believers were members of the church, there was given them the sign (mark) of the circumcision;

4. In the age of the New Testament, God took the sign or mark of the circumcision and changed it into the baptism;

5. Therefore, in the age of the New Testament, to the children of the believers, because they are members of the church, they the sign of the baptism has to be given.

We are going to give him a glance nearer to this.

I happen #1. The church of the Ancient Testament and the church of the New Testament are, essentially, the same church. Likewise a caterpillar and a butterfly, they are different in form, but the same ones essentially.

Both are volleys of the same form. Romans 4:13: "In effect, it was not by means of the law like Abraham and his descent received the promise that he would be a heir of the world, but by means of the faith, which took him into consideration like justice.”

Both look towards the same Salvador. Romans 3:20-26 – “Therefore, nobody will be justified in the presence of God for doing the works that the law demands; rather, by means of the law we receive conscience of the sin. But now, without the mediation of the law, there has been evident the God's justice, of which they give testimony the law and the prophets. This God's justice comes, by means of the faith in Jesus Christ, to all those who believe. In fact, there is no distinction, since they all have sinned and are deprived of the God's glory, but by his grace they are justified free by means of the redemption that Christ Jesus carried out. God offered it like a sacrifice of atonement, which is got for the faith in his blood, for himself to demonstrate his justice. Previously, in his patience, God had spent for high the sins; but in the present time it has offered Jesus Christ to show his justice. This way God is just and, simultaneously, the one that it justifies to those who have faith in Jesus.”

When the believers of the Ancient Testament were bringing his sacrifices in faith, they were trusting in the sacrifice that God would provide some day. Hebrews 10:1-14 – “The law is an only one shade of the future goods, and does not attend it the same of these realities. That's why it can never, by means of the same sacrifices that are offered incessantly year after year, to make perfect those that they adore... is impossible that the blood of the bulls and the goatish males removes the sins... we are sanctified by means of the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ, offered once and forever... this priest, after offering for the sins only one sacrifice forever, it sat down to the right of God.”

Both are under the same relation pactual. Gálatas 3:7-29 – “Knows that Abraham's progeny is that that they live for the faith. In effect, the Writing, having foreseen that God would justify for the faith to the nations, announced in advance the gospel to Abraham: "By means of you there will be bendecidas all the nations.” This way, that, which live for the faith are bless you together with Abraham, the man of faith. Christ rescued us... so that, by means of Jesus, Abraham's blessing was coming to the nations, and so that for the faith we were getting the Spirit as the promise... And if you belong to Christ, there are the descent of Abraham and heirs according to the promise.”

Both are members of the same body. Efesios 2:11-19 – Therefore, remembers that you the birth gentiles – those who are called “uncircumcised“ by those that are called “the circumcision”, which is done in the body by human hand - should remember that in that one then you were separated from Christ, excluded from the citizenship of Israel and foreign to the agreements of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus, to you who earlier were far, God has brought it over by means of Christ's blood... Therefore, you are already neither strange nor foreign, but fellow citizens of the saints and members of the God's family.”

Both are “branches“ of the same olive tree, Romans 11:17-26. Apostle Pablo declares that Israel like everything was not disinherited, but the incredulous Jews were torn off of their own olive tree, and that the kind branches were grafted on his place; and he predicts a time when God will turn many Jews and will graft them again on the same tree with the kind believers.

Because the church of the Ancient Testament and the church of the New Testament are, essentially, the same church, sometimes names are exchanged.

On the one hand, the Bible calls the Israel of the Ancient Testament “the church”. “Church or assembly” [ecclessia] is the Greek word in the New Testament used in the Hebrew of the Ancient Testament: “gathering“ [qahal]. Compare the Psalm 22:22 with Hebrews 2:12. For this reason Esteban called to the gathering of Israel in the Mount Sinai “the church in the desert”, Done 7:38.

On the other hand, the Bible calls to the Church of the New Testament “Israel“,-Gálatas 6:16. Apostle Pedro grants him extensively terms corresponding to Israel, to the church of the New Testament. 1 Pedro 2:9: "You are a select lineage, real priesthood, holy nation, people that belongs to God.” Apostle Pablo describes to all those who rest in Christ only like “the real circumcision”-Filipenses 3:3. Santiago calls to the local church “synagog“, Santiago 2:2. The "elders" of the New Testament are identical in name and function to those of the synagog of the Ancient Testament.

Therefore, the church of the Ancient Testament and the church of the New Testament are essentially the same church.

I happen #2. God includes children of the believers like members of his church., sometimes it surprises our brothers “baptists“ why we consider the children of the believers to be members of the church. The reason is this...

The same living God received the children of the believers like members of his church. Genesis 17:7 – “I will Establish my agreement with you and with your descent, like perpetual agreement, for all the generations. I will be your God, and the God of your progeny.”

Also, God in no place annuls this beginning of which the children of the believers are members of the church. This is well significant. To support his position, those that are opposed to the infantile baptism have to prove that he annulled this beginning. Where does the Bible teach that? This is a question that demands an answer.

Matthew Henry puts it this way:

“Our opponents claim to us that we prove for specific Writing that the infantes are in the agreement; but certainly, having proved and still demonstrated that they were in the agreement, it relapses on them to demonstrate where and when they were excluded from the agreement; which they will never be able to try; no, not without at least abiding by the consequences of his steps. It is clearer than the sun to the noon, that the seed of the believers they have the right to the stamp of beginning of the agreement; and: how have they come to lose this right?

If the seed of the believers who were included in the agreement, and they have the right to the beginning stamp under the Ancient Testament, they are going to be, now, put out of the agreement, and they deprived of this right, of that time the times of the law were fuller of grace that the times of the gospel; which is absurd. Is it possible to be imagined that the gentiles are, with regard to his children, in the worse state of what they were in the Ancient Testament? Then, if a gentile was becoming a proselyte and included in the agreement, his children were included with; and is it this privilege denied now? Is it that the seed of Abraham's faith is in worse condition than the carnal seed of Abraham?

You see already, the point of view “baptist“ is constructed in this assumption - the assumption of which, in the New Testament, the children of the believers, are not any more members of the church.

But when you read the New Testament find everything opposite! The New Testament lines up with the Ancient Testament in keeping on assuming that the children of the believers are included in the church.

Our Mister Jesus Christ assumed that the children of the believers are a part of his church. Lucas 18:15-16 – “Also small children were taking him to Jesus so that it was touching them. On having seen this, the disciples were re-lighting those who were taking them. Pero Jesus called the children and said: "Leave that the children avenge to me, and they it should not prevent, because the God's kingdom belongs to those who are like they.”

Apostle Pedro also assumes that the children of the believers were included in the church. Facts 2:39 – “In effect, the promise is for you, for his children...:” Shades of Genesis 17:7! Pedro was speaking to the Jews – the people who was soaked of the Ancient Testament. If he was trying to teach them that God had annulled the beginning of membership in the church of the children of the agreement, then: he could not have chosen a more erroneous language!

“A moment!”, someone might object.: “Pedro is not speaking about the promise to Abraham! He is speaking about the promise of the Holy Spirit (Facts 2:38): is not it like that?” Well, let's look again in Gálatas 3:14, “This way it happened, so that, by means of Christ Jesus, the blessing promised to Abraham was coming to the nations, and so that for the faith we were getting the Holy Spirit as the promise.” So: Pedro is saying that the promise to Abraham is for you and his children, now in the age of the New Testament!

Of the same way, apostle Pablo assumes that the believers' children were included in the church. If he was trying to teach that God was not already including children of the agreement in the church, the usó exactly the words mistaken in Facts 16:31: - “He Believes [singularly] in Mister Jesus; this way [singular] you and your family [plural] they will be safe.”

Again, in 1 Corinthian 7:14, Pablo assumes that God includes children in the community of the agreement, the church – “Because not believing husband has been sanctified by the union with his wife, and not believing wife has been sanctified by the union with his believing husband. If this way it was not, his children would be impure, while, in fact, they are holy.” The word “saint“ is a word pactual. It means "separated". The children, are still "holy" to only one believer, paragraphs in a special way for God.

Again, in Efesios 1:1 Pablo says that he wrote his epistle “to the saints in Éfeso.” Then, in Efesios 6:1, Pablo speaks straight to some of these saints who were part of the church of Éfeso: "Children, obey in
Gentleman to his parents, because this is just”.

You see, the children of the believers are a part of the church. God himself included them to them like members in the Ancient Testament, and God never removed this beginning “you and your children”. On the contrary, the New Testament confirms it and carries it in him.

I happen #3 In the age of the Ancient Testament, because the children of the believers were members of the church, there was given them the sign (mark) of the circumcision. Many believers agree in this point, that's why we are going to see only one he quotes of the Writing: Genesis 17:10-13 - “And this is the agreement that I establish with you and with your descent, and that they all will have to fulfill: "All the males between you will have to be circumcised... All the males of every generation will have to be circumcised to the eighth day... This way my agreement will stay like an indelible mark in your meat, like a perpetual agreement.”

I spend # 4 In the age of the New Testament, God took the sign or mark of the circumcision and changed it into the baptism. How do you see this?

First, our Mister Jesus put the baptism in the place of the circumcision like rite of entry in the visible church.

In the Ancient Testament, when someone was turned, he had to be circumcised like rite of entry in the church.

But when Jesus gave the Big Commission, it ordered his disciples to go all over the world and do disciples of all the nations, he said to his church that they should baptize the turned ones instead of circumcising them. This way, Jesus put the baptism in the place of the circumcision. Mateo 28:19

Second, the God's Word teaches that the circumcision and the baptism share basically the same spiritual meaning. Our brothers “baptists“ say that the circumcision was a national sign, while, on the contrary, the baptism is a spiritual sign. But: What is what the God's Word says?

Deuteronomy 30:6 – “The Gentleman your God will remove will (circumcise) the pagan thing that exists in your heart and in that of your progeny, so that you love it with all your heart and with all your soul, and this way you have life.” In other words, the circumcision symbolized regeneration: the new birth!

Sniveller 4:4 says to us that it was also a conversion sign - repentance and faith. “Mark his heart with the sign of the agreement; be circumcised to honor the Gentleman, do not be that for the nastiness of his works my fury ignites like the fire, and squirrel without nobody c extinguish it.”

In Romans 2:28-29, we read, “The exterior thing neither makes anybody Jewish, the circumcision nor consists of a sign in the body. The real Jew it is internally; and the circumcision is that of the heart, which realizes the Spirit, not the written order. To the one that is a Jew like that, God and not the people praise it.” Again, the circumcision was a sign of the regeneration – the new birth. To do it did not save automatically. The personal faith in the God's salvation was needed in the Ancient Testament, likewise in the New one.

Speaking about Abraham, Romanos 4:11 says, “Moreover, when it was not circumcised yet, it received the sign of the circumcision as stamp of the justice that had taken him into consideration for the faith.” Here we see that the circumcision was a sign and stamp of the salvation - justification for faith only.

Due to this, Pablo writes in Filipenses 3:3 - “Because the circumcision are we, that by means of the God's Spirit we adore, we are proud in Christ Jesus and do not put our confidence in human efforts.” Those who are resting in Christ like his Salvador have the reality that was symbolized by the circumcision, so they could only be considered to be the real circumcision, now when the age of the New Testament has begun.

So, the first, our Gentleman put the circumcision as rite of entry to the church. Second, the Bible teaches that the circumcision and the baptism share the same basic spiritual meaning. Third, the New Testament, explicitly, puts at the same level the circumcision and the baptism... inclusive: it uses them intercambiadamente! For example, Colosenses 2:11-12 links so hard the circumcision and the baptism, which identifies one with other - in him [Christ] they were circumcised, not for human hand but with the circumcision that consists of undressing the sinful body. Christ carried this circumcision out. You received it on having been buried by him in the baptism.”

In other words, his baptism was his “Christian circumcision”. The New Testament joins inseparably the circumcision and the baptism. And what God has joined, the man does not separate it.

To what this comes down it is, to that the baptism is for the New Testament what the circumcision for the Ancient Testament. This means that the same objections as our brothers baptists often raise against the infantile baptism, also they apply against the infantes' circumcision. And, nevertheless: God ordered the infantile circumcision!

I happen #5

• Because the church of the Ancient Testament and the church of the New Testament are, essentially, the same church;
• Because God includes the children of the believers like members of this church;
• Because in the age of the Ancient Testament, because the children of the believers were members of the church, there was given them the sign (mark) of the circumcision;
• Because in the age of the New Testament, God took the sign or mark of the circumcision and changed it into the baptism;

Therefore, in the age of the New Testament, to the children of the believers, because they are members of the church, they the sign of the baptism has to be given.

“All this seems to have sense”, someone might say, “except: does not our Mister Jesus Christ annul this, clearly, in Frames 16:16 (“the one that will believe and be baptized, will be safe”)? Does not he teach that the faith has to come before the baptism? Do not we have to conclude that because the children cannot believe, then, they must not be baptized?”

How do we answer to this?

Well, first, notice that this objection also would have to apply to the infantile circumcision. In effect, God said to Abraham that he should believe and should circumcise. The personal faith was so necessary for the salvation in the Ancient Testament as it it is in the New Testament. An adult converted to the Judaism, had to believe first, and then be circumcised.

Second, you can see that this objection is mistaken because it tries too much. If you apply the same logic to the rest of the versículo, you are forced to conclude, that because the infantes cannot believe, they, they cannot be safe either. This objection, not only it supports the infantes out of the baptism, but also it supports them out of the sky.

Third, you can see that this objection is mistaken because it is pelagiana in his fund. Doing that the baptism depends on a human skill, it is assumed that the saving faith is a result of the meat, and not a work of the sovereign grace of God. But, the Bible insists that nobody, not even one – he is an infante or adult - is still qualified to believe in Christ until the Holy Spirit, sobrenaturalmente, enables it (Efesios 2:1ss). Thanks to God, he is not tied by our inability, or: we all would be without hope! But what is impossible for the man, it is possible for God! The Sovereign God can still work the faith in an infante (Psalm 22:9 – “you made Me rest entrusted in the lap of my mother”). The Sovereign God can, the same way, work the faith in a child who has not been born. (Who was born again before being born? Juan the Baptist! See Lucas 1:41). And this is a part of what the baptism declares:“ You did not choose me to me, but I chose you (Juan 15:16).

Quarter, you can see the deceit of this objection, if you apply the same logic to other versículos. Look for 2 Tesalonicenses 3:10 – “Because, even, when we were with you, we arrange them: "”The one that does not want to work, who does not eat either.” If this logic is valid, of that time, you have to admit that the infantes cannot work, for what they cannot eat. But, I hoped a moment. To apply

2 Tesalonicenses 3:10 that way, it is clear to an infante that it has to extract it of context. And this is exactly the case with Frames 16:16! Frames 16:16: it is an order to evangelize adults without baptizing, and this is our practice. An adult without baptizing has to profess his faith before it could be baptized. This is true in the Ancient Testament with the circumcision, and it is true in the New Testament with the baptism.

Others can object: "But, there is no direct or explicit versículo in the Bible that it is in charge to baptize the children of the believers.”

Very well, that is true. But, nevertheless, since we have seen, the God's beginning “you and your children” sounds highly and clearly. They proclaim an indirect or implicit order to baptize the children of the believers. If the children of the believers do not have to be baptized, what really we need to find is the instruction from which the children will not receive any more the sign of the agreement. There is none!

On the contrary, since we have seen, the New Testament assumes the beginning of “you and your children”. In view of this assumption consider these examples of baptisms in the New Testament:

· Facts 16:15 – “it was baptized by his family.”

· Facts 16:33 – “he and all his family were baptized.”

· 1 Corinthian 1:16 – “also I baptized the Estefanía family.”

How might the first Christians – Jews protected in the Writing of the Ancient Testament - to have interpreted mainly these texts? The God's Word in no place says that children did not include these families. In fact, a Jewish mind, immediately it would assume that were included. If the children of the agreement, would not receive any more the sign of the agreement: would not a tremendous confusion cause this in the primitive church? Would not the first believers have need of being instructed otherwise, how did they do with other problems? Then: why are you trying it? This has no sense...: at least, that God at present continues with his way of being related to both, the believers and his children!

Finally – and this is significant, also - there is no only one example in the whole New Testament of “believers' baptism”, of anybody who grew in a Christian hearth. In the assumption “baptist“ there have to be hundreds of these cases before the Writing of the New Testament was completed. But, still: they do not produce only one example of that! There is not even a pinch of education on this matter. Why not? This has not also sense – at least, that God continues with his way of being related to the believers and his children.

You see, the arguments “baptists“ generally try to take us at the edge of the abyss to the paedobautistas. They are supported saying to us: "Show me an explicit order or an example of infantile baptism in the New Testament.” Nevertheless, when you confront this matter in view of the finished system of the truth taught in the God's Word, you see that the limitation of the test is in the Baptist. The es the one that goes completely against the design of the way revealed by God to be related to his people. It is the one that has still to try that God has annulled the beginning of “you and your children” established in Genesis and reaffirmed across the Bible. He has still to try where the Bible teaches that God does not treat already any more with the two, individuals and families, as he has always done it. And, this, this is precisely what they cannot do.

Conclusion

In view of the accumulative evidence of comparing Writing with Writing, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church is persuaded - as it the historical Christianity is - that the answer to the question: “Is the infantile baptism Biblical?”, it is a thunderous one "Yes".

God reveals that he wants to extend his church in both forms: space (for the pagans' conversion) and time (for the nutrition of the children of the agreement, of such a way, that generation after generation grows the confidence and the service to the Gentleman).

God treats with individuals, as well as with families. This does not mean that the conversions are automatic, not that the baptism is slightly magic. The baptism does not guarantee the salvation any more than the circumcision was doing it. The salvation is for grace, only by means of the faith in Christ. You can, according to the law, paraphrase Romans 2:28-29, “you are not Christian, if it it is alone outwardly, neither if the baptism is only external and physical. No, you are Christian if you it are internally; and if the baptism is of heart, for the Spirit, not for a written code”.

Christian parents, this means that you have that pro - actively to nourish his children in the Christian faith. You must not treat his children as "neutral" until “they have the sufficient age to do its own decision”. In the baptism, God has claimed his son. That's why, you have to train to (instruct) his son to answer with faith and obedience to Christ of the agreement.

On the other hand, children of the agreement, this means that you have to answer with faith and obedience to Christ of the agreement. You have to trust personally in Jesus like your Salvador. If you do not do it, then, you will go to the hell. And, allow me to warn you: The Bible teaches that the warmest part of the hell is reserved for those that pleased the celestial gift and separated from him. But, I wait for better things of you. In your baptism, the Gentleman says to you: "My son, you me belong. Give me your heart.” Insure of answering him: "Gentleman, I deliver to you my heart, arranged and sincerely.”

God has initiated, God has planned, and God has established the salvation for his children. By means of his Word and Spirit it is building his Church. And God has given the baptism as a sign, a stamp, and a way of assertion of his promises of the Gospel. It is a privilege for both, for you and his children. God, in his grace, has committed himself with the promises of his Word. And he calls you, you and your children, to keep his agreement and to enjoy his blessings from generation to generation.

We are deeply interested in surrendering to the educations of the Bible. Please, sit down at large of writing each other for more information. We consider a privilege to be able to serve to him as much as we could. Larry Wilson is the minister of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

The translation to Spanish is a Presbyterian responsibility of Milton Villanueva, Pastor de la Primera Iglesia Ortodoxa in San Juan, Puerto Rico.