Infant Baptism and the Silence of the New Testament

Top Highlights

“Any Reformed Christian who knows Scripture and is honest about it, has to admit that there is no explicit instruction concerning the baptism of infants to be found in the New Testament. On the other hand, it is also true that this silence cuts both ways, for the Baptist would also have to admit that there is no explicit injunction against baptizing infants.” (Page 20)

“He does, however, go on to define a covenant as ‘a bond in blood, sovereignly administered.’^{3” (Page 23)}

“The bottom line is this: though the sign changes with the coming of the new covenant, the Abrahamic covenant continues unabated, until the last of those for whom Christ gave His life is welcomed into the Kingdom. It is, after all, an everlasting covenant.” (Page 33)

“This passage demonstrates the essential continuity and progression of the covenant signs, circumcision and baptism. Paul’s message to the Colossians that they did not need to undergo physical circumcision because they had received the spiritual reality of it, which was confirmed and sealed at their baptism, presents baptism as the sign to which circumcision was ultimately pointing.” (Page 38)

“I eventually came to a startling conclusion—the lack of an explicit biblical command regarding the baptism of infants was a problem not for the Reformed Christian, but for the Baptist! I came to see that there was actually a positive scriptural case to be made for the practice, and came to believe it to be the more biblically faithful and convincing of the two positions.” (Page 21)