Scottsville Community Church

The Bible presents to us one continuous story that began in the Garden of Eden. In  both the Old and New Testament people gain a right standing with God through faith  alone. In the Old Testament, people had to believe in the promises given to Abraham.  As part of this faith, they had to circumcise their new-born sons on the 8th day. This is  how a son and his descendents became part of the covenant God had with Abraham. The  son would obviously be too young to place his trust in God at the circumcision. That  followed later. The child was thus accepted into the covenant on account of the faith  of the parent. He was helpless at the time and could not be saved by any of his works.  God commanded circumcision and almost killed Moses for not circumcising his son.  This act was therefore binding. The non-Israelite was also circumcised when he  pledged his allegiance to the God of the Israelite. In the New Testament we note that the apostles of  Jesus, though Jewish, did not circumcise anyone. We also know that baptism has replaced circumcision (Colossians 2;11-14). It is equally interesting too that, while baptism has replaced circumcision, there is no explanation given as to why circumcision is no  longer required. This silence speaks. In 1 Cor 7:14, a more compelling  reason for infant baptism emerges. The children of believers are said to be clean.  This term ‘clean’ has everything to do with covenant language. In  essence, Paul is saying children of believers are in the covenant. If baptism is sign of the covenant,  which has replaced circumcision, why should it be withheld from children? The requirement for infant baptism, according to this  verse, would be that one of the parents must be born-again.

 It is equally interesting  that the early church, post the apostolic era, met on several times (seven to be precise)  to discuss issues of major disagreement. The council of Nicaea is a case in point.  Infant baptism was never challenged. In fact, as (the late) theologian RC Sproul observes, there is no shred of protest, not even a  line, where the early church refuted infant baptism. It must have been common  practice! 

What does infant baptism do and doesn’t do for the infant? It doesn’t save. Baptism  also doesn’t save adults. It simply affirms the grace of God already at work in the  child/adult. It is also a promise to a child that when s/he comes of age and aligns himself  with Jesus’ finished work on the cross, repenting from his/her sin, Jesus will forgive him/her as he has done to  the child’s parents. In Africa, it is also necessary to explain that baptism is not some  kind of ‘ukuqiniswa’ or a spiritual immunisation. The child will not necessarily be free from misfortune, sickness or  even death because of baptism. It is simply a promise that God will treat the child with  favour when the child professes the faith of the parent in due course.