Category Archives: baptism

In Systematic Theology, Dr. Wayne Grudem covers baptism, including the different views on baptism, in chapter 49. I will discuss his response to the Protestant paedobaptist view in this post. See my last post for an explanation of the paedobaptist position.

Dr. Grudem first addresses the paedobaptist belief that New Testament baptism corresponds to Old Testament circumcision. In the Old Testament, the covenant community consisted of believers and non-believers. The outward act of circumcision was applied without regard to whether one had faith or not. This is evident when we consider that all men in Israel, including slaves who were not born into a covenant family, were commanded to be circumcised (Genesis 17:10-13).

The outward act of circumcision pointed to an inward, spiritual condition. Paul says that true circumcision is inward, “of the heart,” and, “by the Spirit” (Romans 2:29). And both there and in Romans 9:6, Paul says that true Jews are those that are Jews inwardly: “Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel.”

In the New Testament, says Grudem, the only covenant community is the church, which is made up of the redeemed of God. One becomes a member of this community through the new birth rather than a natural birth. Baptism is the sign of membership, but it should only be administered to those who already show evidence of membership in the church. The evidence of membership, or the new birth, is faith in Jesus Christ. Those who do not have faith are not members.

Grudem says: “We should not be surprised that there was a change from the way the covenant community was entered in the Old Testament (physical birth) to the way the church is entered in the New Testament (spiritual birth).” He then gives other examples of the change from physical to spiritual. The old covenant had a physical temple, but believers are built up as a spiritual temple (1 Peter 2:5). Old covenant believers offered animal sacrifices, but New Testament believers offer spiritual sacrifices (1 Peter 2:5). National Israel received land, but believers receive a heavenly country (Hebrews 11:16). The old covenant family was made up of Abraham’s natural descendants, but the church is made up of his spiritual descendants (Gal. 3:29, Rom. 4:11-12). Examples like this can be multiplied. To summarize, Grudem says that the physical elements of the old covenant were a shadow of what is to come, “but the substance is found or fulfilled in the new covenant relationship with Jesus Christ” (Col. 2:17).

Next, Dr. Grudem addresses the household baptisms in the New Testament. Before the Philippian jailor’s household was baptized, Paul preached the gospel to them (Acts 16:32). In verse 34, we are told that they all “rejoiced.” So, Grudem says, we can assume that all were old enough to understand and believe. Regarding the house of Stephanas, Paul calls them the “first converts in Achaia, and they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints” (1 Cor. 16:15). So there is evidence that they too were converted and believed. This leaves only the household of Lydia. The text does not give any evidence of whether there were infants or not, and so it is inconclusive.

At Pentecost, Peter says that “the promise is to you and your children.” This verse is often used in defense of the paedobaptist position. But Peter goes on: “…to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him” (Acts 2:39). So the promise, ultimately, is to those who believe and their believing children. A few verses later, in Acts 2:41, we are told that “Those who received his word were baptized.”

Dr. Grudem gives other arguments, but since they do not relate to my previous post I will not summarize them. I do want to mention his final point. Dr. Grudem says that the practice of infant baptism may lead to a false sense of security. Those who are baptized as infants may trust in their baptism, and therefore not realize their need for Christ. This will lead to churches full of unbelievers, and ultimately to liberalism.

What is my response? I find Dr. Grudem’s first arguments compelling. Believers on both sides of the issue will agree that many of the physical aspects of Old Testament worship represented greater, spiritual truths that were and are fulfilled in Christ. Regarding household baptisms, I agree that the passages are not decisive. I would not, at this point, make any definite assertion. But Dr. Grudem’s points are enough to at least cause a “reasonable doubt” as to whether infants were baptized.

Dr. Grudem’s last argument is weak. Though infant baptism may lead to a false sense of security, the same can be said about believer’s baptism. In main-line (non-reformed) Baptist churches, young children are commonly pressed to make a profession of faith, baptized, assured that they are saved, and rebuked if they ever express doubt. False security is related more to the accuracy and fullness of the gospel presentation than the mode of baptism.

While in other areas of doctrine, worship, and church administration I am most comfortable being in a reformed Presbyterian church, I am still not convinced on the baptism issue. I say that I am not convinced, though I do find their view persuasive. Regardless, I would rather disagree on baptism but agree on the gospel than have it the other way around.

Dr. Grudem says that this is not an issue that should divide. By the way, he graduated from Westminster Theological Seminary, and his son is the pastor of a Presbyterian church in the PCA.