Yesterday someone commented on one of the BigSocialMedia platforms that the Heidelcast series, “I Will Be A God To You And To Your Children” helped them to understand and accept infant baptism (paedobaptism) as the biblical position. Someone else objected, in effect, that any position that requires such an extensive defense is probably not true. In North America (and perhaps in other contexts) it does take some time to explain and defend the biblical and historic Reformed theology, piety, and practice of infant baptism. The Heidelcast series is in fifteen parts. Why does it take so long to explain and defend infant baptism? If it is true, should we not be able to explain and defend it more briefly?

In fact, the biblical and Reformed view can be stated quite simply:

God promised to be a God to believers and to their children. He gave a sign to Abraham to illustrate that promise and he repeated the promise in the New Testament and gave a new sign to illustrate that promise.

That is fifty-two words. Why then did it take fifteen-podcast episodes to explain it? We should ask those who have listened to the series two and three times. Why was it necessary for them to hear repeatedly such a simple view explained? Because most evangelical Christians in North America (especially in the USA) come from a background which does not accept the premise that the promise God made to Abraham in Genesis 17:7 is still in effect and that therefore the signs that God gave (circumcision and baptism) illustrate the same promise. They have been taught a completely different story and way to understand the Scriptures.

The Discontinuity  Stories

Many Christians have been taught that there were seven different dispensations in the history of salvation. Some who have been taught that have even been taught there were different ways of salvation under each dispensation. Others have been taught that the Old Testament and the Old Covenant are the same thing, that Moses and Abraham are essentially identical periods in every respect so that when the Mosaic types and shadows were fulfilled at the cross and done away with so too all the promises given to Abraham expired as well. In short, most American evangelicals have been taught that the Old Testament was entirely then and the New Testament is now and the two have very little to do with each other. A fair percentage of those evangelicals are likely unaware that God made a promise to Abraham to be a God to believers and to their children nor are they aware that the Apostle Peter repeated that promise in Acts 2:39. They are mostly unaware that the Apostle Paul teaches explicitly in Romans 4 that New Testament believers are Abraham’s children (even though they may have sung the Sunday School song, “Father Abraham had many sons”).

Getting A New Prescription

In short, most American evangelicals have been taught to read the Bible through a set of lenses. They are mostly unaware that they use lenses to read the Bible. They have been taught and they think of themselves simply as following the plain teaching of Scripture. It takes some time to explain to such a person that he wears such lenses and that there is, in fact, Bible-believing, faithful way to read Scripture that reaches entirely different conclusions on the relations between New Testament believers and Abraham and thus entirely different views of baptism.

Faithful Disagreement

A person coming from the predominantly Baptistic American world may well have been taught that all faithful Christians read the Bible exactly as they do and that anyone who practices infant baptism is hostage to leftover ideas from Roman Catholicism or is a liberal (i.e., does not really believe the Bible or is being unfaithful to Scripture). Thus, in order to explain infant baptism to someone from that world, it is necessary to explain that infant baptism is not a holdover from Roman Catholicism, that not only did the Apostles practice infant baptism (e.g., Acts 16) but that God himself baptized infants in the Old Testament (see 1 Cor 10:1–4). Indeed, it was Jesus himself who led the Old Covenant church out of Egypt (Jude 5). In short, part of the problem is a poor understanding of the history of the church after the New Testament. For many American evangelicals the period between the Apostles and now is large, empty parenthesis.

Getting Beyond The Bubble

Then there is the problem of experience. It is entirely possible that someone from this world has never seen an infant baptism and certainly not in a faithful, confessional Reformed church. Such a person has probably never met a Bible-believing Reformed Christian, who practices infant baptism, or has never read anything like the fifty-two word account of infant baptism given above.

Putting The Pieces Back Together

There are two other reasons why it takes so long to explain infant baptism, first is that everyone’s view of baptism is part of a larger set of views about how the Bible fits together. If someone has been taught some version of the Dispensational view of Scripture or even a Baptistic view of Scripture, which that person has been taught is the only faithful way to read Scripture, the whole emphasis is on the disunity of Scripture. To help such a person see the unity of Scripture is difficult. It takes time to learn how to re-read Scripture from a different point of view.

Five Hundred Years Of Objections

Second, those who teach the Baptistic view have been objecting to infant baptism for about five-hundred years. That is enough time to generate a large number of objections. They confessional Reformed churches have been answering those objections all along but it does take some time to do so. It is certainly not fair for our Baptistic friends to issue a seemingly endless list of objections and then complain that it takes a bit to answer them.

Considered in itself, the Reformed view of baptism is not complex but explaining it to other Christians, who hold opposite views, who are opposed to the inherently simple (and even elegant) Reformed view, or who are entirely unaware that there is another view, may be done easily or quickly. Sometimes it does go quickly. I have seen cases where, once a Christian gave a bit of consideration to Abraham, to what Paul says about him in Romans 4 and in Galatians chapters 3 and 4, he accepted infant baptism readily. When someone knows, before he ever gets to Romans 4 or Galatians 3 and 4 that infant baptism is impossible, then we have a bigger job to do.

If you are interested in learning more about our connections to Abraham, in checking your prescription, in getting beyond the bubble, in putting the pieces back together, and in seeing the responses to the many objections see this resource page or listen to this series (or both).

© R. Scott Clark. All Rights Reserved.

Resources

• How To Subscribe To Heidelmedia
• How to support Heidelmedia: use the donate button below
• HB Resource Page
• Heidelmedia Archive
• Heidelcast Series: I Will Be A God To You And To Your Children
• A Curriculum For Those Wrestling Through Covenant Theology And Infant Baptism
• Resources For Those Beginning To Study Covenant Theology
• Resources For Those Discovering The Reformed Confession
• Subscribe to the Heidelcast series on baptism in your podcast app.