From the Baptist perspective, we should baptize believers of any age upon a credible profession of faith. The emphasis in these posts is that we should not put a minimum age on baptismal candidates. And the obvious reason is because the Bible never does. Let me speak to the fairly obvious inclusion of children in baptism:
Mark 10.14: “Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God.” Paedobaptists wrongly use this verse to argue for infant baptism. Baptists wrongly respond that this passage says nothing about baptism. Yes, it does not say anything explicit about baptism. But it is commanding us to allow children to come to Christ! So the question is “can a child desire to be a follower of Christ?” And if the answer is ‘yes,’ which it is, then we must think about how to help a child rightly respond to that faith.
Acts 2.38-39: “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” Paedobaptists wrongly use this verse to argue for infant baptism. Modern Baptists appear to ignore this verse: instead of “repent and be baptized,” in most Baptist churches it is “pray this prayer” or “walk this aisle.” So sad. The historic Baptist use of this verse seems right: if you or your child or anyone in the world hears the gospel, and desires forgiveness and eternal life, what should they do? Repent and be baptized. It does not get much simpler than that.
Acts 16.31-33: And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household”…and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.” Paedobaptists have then wrongly used all the “household”-type baptisms to assume that infants were included. Baptists have wrongly responded that we cannot assume infants are in these households. But if our understanding of Acts 2 is correct, then every “household”-type baptism in the NT should be understood as ‘everyone in the household who believes in Jesus repents and is baptized.’ It is a fairly simple hermeneutic. The command need not apply to infants, but to anyone who can hear and understand the gospel, including children of many ages.
Granted, much of the way we read these texts is based on our presuppositions and hermeneutics. But that is pretty much always the case. However, the above way of understanding these passages appears to not have to “force infants in” or “force children out” of any of the texts. Our only concern should be “what should a human being do when they hear the gospel and they want to respond in faith?” The biblical answer is ‘repent and be baptized.’
I hope these texts show a rightness to baptizing every believer with a credible profession of faith. Next time let’s look at the urgency of doing so.
This is a post that assumes the Baptist position on baptism. If you are someone who has never understood why some traditions baptize infants, you should read up on that first. I don’t believe you have really understood baptism until you have first wrestled with whether or not you should sprinkle your newborn. Perhaps start here
In my circles, because we believe God commands believers to be baptized, we wrestle with when is the appropriate time to encourage our kids toward baptism. Often our children ask to be baptized, and we are left telling them, “not now.”
Mark Dever, who I consider a virtual mentor, is on record many times as teaching that we should not baptize young children. It is not that he does not think they could become Christians; he believes it is too difficult for the local church to discern real conversion in young children. He has also seen too many times people come to his church, having been “baptized” earlier in life, then realize they only now believe the gospel, and then having to “re”-baptize them.
I TOTALLY understand his concerns. We have members in our church who are extremely mature in the faith who basically have the same approach. But over the next few posts I want to walk through our decision to allow our 8 year old to get baptized last summer. She had just turned 8 at the time. She is the youngest person we have ever baptized at our church. And I am totally open to her not being the youngest ever.
I believe we should baptize believers of any age upon a credible profession of faith.
But because of where we are in church history, there are so many different factors to think through regarding this. But one thing I want to be clear from this first post: Baptists do not believe that only adults should be baptized. If you know a Baptist who speaks like that, they are speaking wrongly about the Baptist position. We do not believe only adults or older children should be baptized. We do not see a minimum age in the Bible. We believe only believers should be baptize, and that all believers should be baptized (Matthew 28.19). It is the implications of “only” and “all” that are very complex in our day and age, but it at least gives us a direction to walk towards. In the next post, let’s first think about some of the biblical data.
The Lord seemed to use this sermon in particular from a couple weeks back. We are going through the Proverbs at Kailua Baptist right now. I’ve chosen to preach through chapters 10-30 topically, trying to highlight themes that God seems to highlight in those chapters. This sermon theme was on the tongue. Hope it blesses you:
I am all for upholding distinctions within Christian theology between primary and secondary, and even tertiary issues. That kind of clear thinking leads to clear teaching and are great helps in sanctification.
However, I would caution you about making too much of the distinctions in our day. A secondary issue (and for that matter a tertiary issue, but for the rest of this post I will refer to anything that is not primary as secondary) becomes a primary issue if the real issue is submission to God’s Word. A secondary issue becomes a primary issue if the real issue is submission to God’s Word.
I will give you three examples to illustrate what I am talking about:
- About 5 years ago our church began discussions about changing our leadership structure from single-elder to plural-elder leadership. It caused lots of conflict. Many people left over the issue. I tried the whole time to say “church polity is a secondary issue.” And because I was clear about that, a member asked me, “if it is secondary, and if it is causing people to leave, why not drop it?” My answer: It would be one thing to be patient and have more discussions, but if God’s Word says we should have plural elders, we do what God says. You do not “drop” anything that God says. Yes, I might be wrong in my interpretation, but let God sort that out later; or let’s have more bible discussions about it to see what the Bible really says. But we do not have the option to ignore anything God says, just because an issue might be secondary in our minds.
- I have known good Christians who have gone to churches with women pastors. Some of them have told me they do not really think the Bible allows women pastors, but these women are godly and close friends and there are all kinds of things to commend about these women. In their minds, women in ministry is a secondary issue, not something to divide over. My response: women in ministry is secondary to the gospel. But Lordship of Christ is not! And if Jesus says “women should not be pastors” then you submit to Jesus. Case closed.
- My wife was once asked to work at an Arminian school. They told her “you can teach anything you want as long as you don’t teach ‘once saved, always saved.'” So she respectfully declined. Why? Because we believe God wants us to preach the gospel in such a way that the believer understands Christ’s finished work secures them for all eternity. Can someone be saved without believing in eternal security? Yes. John Wesley is in heaven! But if I think God says to preach the gospel one way, and I deliberately preach it another way, all of a sudden, my submission to the Lordship of Christ is called into question.
So uphold the centrality of the gospel of our Lord Jesus– the crucified, dead, buried, and risen Savior, the one in Whom all who trust in Him will be saved. Uphold the centrality of the Trinity– one God, three Persons; the Father who plans, the Son who accomplishes, and the Spirit who applies redemption. Uphold the primary doctrines as primary. And then submit to the God of those doctrines in all things primary and secondary (Matthew 28.20).
The more I have thought about this, the more I realize that discussions about applications and questions and objections could go on forever. So this is my LAST post on Sabbath stuff…for now.
The 1689 Confession says on the Sabbath, Christians should “give themselves over to the public and private acts of worship for the whole time, and to carrying out duties of necessity and mercy.”
On “public and private acts of worship,” I have heard pastors and Christians say Sunday is the least restful day for them, because of all that goes in to the Sunday morning gathering. I want to challenge that notion. I never heard an Israelite priest complain about Saturday. I think any stress on Sunday flows from a wrong view of “rest” and fear of man:
- Sabbath rest is not physical rest (see Genesis seventh day!!!). It is spiritual reflection on who God is and what He has done. It does not matter how much you have to do on Sunday, that is great refuge for your soul.
- I wonder how much stress on Sunday comes because of a fear of man- having to put on a good face, having to sing, pray, read Scripture, or preach/teach in front of others, or just having to manage your kids in front of others. What causes stress, Christian?
- As far as private acts of worship- I think if your church does not have a Sunday night service (which ours does not), you should try to make a habit of having a second “quiet time” or adding more to the normal family worship, or something of that nature. Make it a habit. It is awesome.
On “carrying out duties of necessity and mercy”:
- God does give us a lot of freedom with Jesus’ interpretation of the Sabbath in Matthew 12- it is of great help to us. One principle is: use common sense! If your sheep falls in a ditch, get it out. If your child has to go to the emergency room, take them!
- If your job “requires” you to work, it is a work of necessity. But if your job does not “require” you (picture me pointing a finger at your face) to work on Sundays, it is NOT a work of necessity.
- “Mercy” really is a broad category with lots of freedom- this would be similar to the fruit of the Spirit: “against such things there is no law” (Gal 5.23). You do not have to worry about “should I be doing this on the Sabbath or not”– against such mercy, love, and good works, there is no Law.
Remember that Sabbath is mainly about worship for the Christian, spiritually reflecting on who God is and what He has done for us in Christ. So as I have held to for years now, guarding the Lord’s Day worship gathering is prime and central to guarding the Sabbath. I just heard Lig Duncan preach on how the Pharisees made the Ceremonial Law more important than the Moral Law, and that they should have heeded “obedience (Moral) is better than sacrifice (Ceremonial)”. I fear Christians in our day have chucked obedience to the 4th Commandment in favor of looking for some excuse to sacrifice the Lord’s Day–even some seeing that as virtuous. God help us.
Should Christians ever work on Sundays or not? The best answer is “they should do all they can to avoid it.” You can quibble and nitpick all you want with that answer, but I will go to the grave with that answer. I used to say that before I was officially Sabbatarian. I am pretty sure most New Covenant Theologians and Dispensationalists would say that too, anyone who values the Lord’s Day.
One caution: I believe the Pharisees had a tendency to focus on “thou shalt nots” as opposed to “thou shalls.” So thinking too long upon this question can turn you into a Pharisee.
However, God gave 8 of the 10 Commandments in the form of “thou shalt nots” so as to help us, make it very easy to fulfill whatever He positively calls us to. For instance, one way to make sure you worship God and God alone is to make sure you never bow down to any other god! And one way to make sure you value the sanctity of human life is to never take a life!
By God’s grace, He gave two of the 10 Commandments in positive form: “Remember the Sabbath” and “honor your father and your mother.” With the Sabbath commandment, He then gives us a lot of help to fulfill that. One of the helps is “six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work…” Therefore the 1689 Confession states that we should refrain from “worldly employments” on the Sabbath.
The complex factor in the New Covenant is that we are not a Theocratic society, as Israel was. In other words there is a God-ordained separation between church and state. Israel was both Church and State, in so many words. And so back then, it was necessary that “Church-State” workers worked on the Sabbath (priests and Levites). That is why it is absolutely necessary for Church “workers” to work on the Sabbath today. It is also why I think any government workers that are required by their employers to work on Sundays is still a good thing ordained by God (don’t forget, though, that statement I will go to the grave with).
Lots more we could say there, but my contention is the differences between the Old Covenant and New Covenant make for slight differences in application today. We will tackle more Sabbath-job questions in the next post.
I hope we can all agree the Sabbath Commandment is about rest. So what are we to rest from? The simple answer is we are to rest from work: “Six days you shall labor and do all your work. But the seventh day is a Sabbath…” Clearly, that Sabbath day is a day where you rest from the work you had been doing the other six days.
A couple thoughts of clarification come to mind:
- This may be obvious, but we are not called to rest from being awake. In other words, the Sabbath command is not a call to sleep. No matter how busy you get, 8 hours of sleep a night is PLENTY sleep. That has little or nothing to do with Sabbath observance (not saying at all you should not sleep on Sunday afternoons; I do it all the time; that is simply not what the Sabbath rest is calling you to)
- This is more than a call to rest from your 40/hr a week job. In other words, Christians should attempt to not work their “job” on Sundays, but it is resting from more than that. In response to my brother’s comment on the last post, we are not called to positively work six days at a secular job.
So what are we truly “resting” from? What is the “work” that the Lord is calling us to rest from? I think this is where we have to broaden our categories for work. I think of “be fruitful and multiply” and “have dominion” as the work God had given Adam and Eve. I also think of “do all things for the glory of God” as the continual work He has given us.
That applies to all things we do throughout the week: jobs, chores, and recreation. It’s all the “regular” stuff we do for the glory of God, and I would say it’s all the stuff that are not 24-7 realities (like being a parent or husband). Our “work” days should be full of doing and serving and accomplishing and playing (even hobbies are a kind of practicing dominion over the earth).
So the 1689 Confession says Christians should rest on the Sabbath “from their own works, words and thoughts, about their worldly employment and recreations.” When it says “worldly” it does not mean “sinful”. It just means your “secular” job. Well, that raises a lot of questions about whether a Christian should ever work their secular job on Sunday. And what about “recreations”? Can we watch football on Sunday or not!? (that’s really what this whole blog series is about, isn’t it? Not really, but it is the kind of question that is impossible to avoid). Please give me a few seven-day cycles to ponder…