Basic HTML Version
624
it may be pointed out, as has been done by some theologians (e.g. Dabney and Vos) that infant
baptism is also a means of grace for the parents who present their child for baptism. It serves to
strengthen their faith in the promises of God, to work in them the assurance that the child for
whom they stand sponsors has a right of property in the covenant of grace, and to strengthen
in them the sense of responsibility for the Christian education of their child.
e. The extension of baptism to children of unbelievers.
Naturally, only children of believers are
the proper subjects of infant baptism. In several ways, however, the circle has been enlarged.
(1) Roman Catholics and Ritualists of the Anglican Church proceed on the assumption that
baptism is absolutely essential to salvation, since it conveys a grace that can be obtained in no
other way. Hence they consider it their duty to baptize all children that come within their reach,
without inquiring as to the spiritual condition of their parents. (2) Some call attention to the
fact that the promise applies to parents and children and children’s children, even to the
thousandth generation, Ps. 105:7-10; Isa. 59:21; Acts 2:39. In view of these promises they
maintain that children whose parents have left the Church have not thereby forfeited their
privileges as children of the covenant. (3) There are those who externalize the covenant by
making it co-extensive with the State in a State-Church. An English child, has, as such, just as
much right to baptism as it has to State protection, irrespective of the question, whether the
parents are believers or not. (4) Some have taken the position that the fact that parents are
baptized, also assures their children of a title to baptism. They regard the personal relation of
the parents to the covenant as quite immaterial. Churches have occasionally acted on that
principle, and finally harbored a class of members who did not themselves assume the
responsibility of the covenant, and yet sought the seal of the covenant for their children. In
New England this was known as the half-way covenant. (5) Finally, the principle of adoption has
been applied, in order to obtain baptism for children who were not entitled to it otherwise. If
the parents were unfit or unwilling to vouch for the Christian education of their children, others
could step in to guarantee this. The main ground for this was sought in Gen. 17:12.
QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY:
What are the different meanings of the words bapto,
baptizo, and louesthai? Did John the Baptist baptize by immersion? Was the eunuch (Acts 8:38,
39) baptized in that manner? Does the New Testament anywhere emphasize the necessity of
one particular mode of baptism? Is the doctrine of infant baptism Biblical? Was its right ever
called in question before the Reformation? What accounts for the rise of the Anabaptist denial
at the time of the Reformation? What is the Baptist conception of the covenant with Abraham?
How do they explain Rom. 4:11? What do our confessional standards say as to the ground on
which children are baptized? What is Calvin’s position as to the ground on which both children
and adults are baptized? What practical dangers are connected with the doctrine of