Complying with a request, and because of the importance of the matter, THE OUTLOOK is publishing a series of three articles on Baptism in general and Infant Baptism particularly. To appreciate the meaning and importance of Infant Baptism, it is of the utmost importance to know the basis for it in Scripture. Accordingly, in this final article in his series, Rev. Henry Vanden Heuvel, pastor of the Bethel Christian Reformed Church of Sioux Center, Iowa, addresses himself to this matter. In the previous articles, I attempted to show the meaning and significance of baptism. The Bible teaches that the significance of baptism is especially along three lines. First it signifies our union with Christ. Second it signifies forgiveness of sins. And third it means our spiritual renewal, that is regeneration and sanctification. It is crucial to a proper understanding of the biblical basis for infant baptism to remind ourselves of these three emphases regarding the meaning and significance of baptism. The reason will become plain, I think, when we see how closely the Old and New Testaments arc related, especially as they concern the matter of the covenant of grace. Perhaps the best way of approaching the subject of infant baptism itself is to consider the arguments that have been alleged against it. These arguments have been marshalled primarily by our brethren in the Baptist churches who maintain that only believers in Christ are entitled to baptism, and that only those who give credible evidence of faith in Him should be baptized. To point out the biblical basis for infant baptism requires that we consider these arguments against it, and then bring out the teaching of Scripture on baptism. I am convinced that we of the Reformed persuasion are able to answer the arguments against infant baptism, and also to prove conclusively from Scripture that infant baptism is taught and required by Scripture. THE RELATION BETWEEN THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS The first argument that is alleged against the practice of infant baptism is based upon the relation between the Old and New Testaments. This argument attacks the position of the Reformed churches that the covenant of grace is the central and most important basis for infant baptism. The covenant of grace, of course, was instituted by God with Abraham in Genesis 17. The key verse in this chapter is verse 7 where God says, “I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee throughout their generations, to be a God unto thee and thy seed after thee.” The position of the Baptist is that the covenant was merely a political and national object by which God was speaking to Abraham of the establishment of the nation of Israel in which both he and all his descendents would be a part. This view of the covenant is followed by the view of the sign of circumcision which God instituted in Genesis 17:11, “And ye shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of a covenant betwixt me and you.” The Baptist alleges that circumcision is merely a sign of membership in the nation of Israel, then it would be impossible to relate the practice of Christian baptism to circumcision. It would further be impossible to relate the practice of Christian baptisl11 to circumcision. It would further be impossible to relate the covenant with Abraham to the Christian era of the New Testament as the basis for baptism. The argument of the Baptist is not only that the covenant of grace and circumcision as its sign is purely political in meaning, but also that circumcision in the Old Testament was only administered to male children. Therefore. it is alleged, circumcision can hardly be used as the Old Testament equivalent to baptism, since it is obviously restricted to males. How can we answer this argument which is based upon the relationship between the Old and New Testaments? Turning to the Bible we find that this argument simply does not carry weight. The Bible insists upon the unity of the two Testaments, and thus also the unity of the covenant. The covenant made with Abraham is the same in both the Old and New Testament, and the sacrament of circumcision is thus also basically the same as the sacrament of baptism. For the sign of circumcision is based upon the covenant made with Abraham, which covenant is in the New Testament the basis for Christian baptism. Thus it follows that circumcision and baptism are essentially the same. But does the Bible teach and affirm that? First of all I maintain that the Bible teaches that the covenant of grace is the same in both the Old Testament and in the New Testament. This is seen in several ways. It is seen by the fact that the great central promise of the covenant of grace is the same in both testaments. That promise is the forgiveness of sins, salvation through Jesus Christ. Listen to Galatians 3:29, “And if ye are Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, heirs according to promise.” Paul is speaking of the benefits of the law in this part of Galatians 3. He says that the law was like a tutor that teaches the children. In this case, the law leads us to faith in Christ by pointing out our sin so that we will go to Christ for forgiveness of sins and salvation through Him. Now that we have come to faith, he says (vs. 26), we are all sons of God through faith in Jesus Christ. What is it to be sons of God through faith in Christ? It is to be of Abraham’s seed, and heir of the promise of that salvation promised to him in the covenant of grace so long ago. Paul unites our present faith in Jesus Christ with the promise which was given to Abraham in the covenant, which promise also concerned salvation through the Savior who was to come. Another Scripture reference which speaks of the unity of the covenant of grace is found in Romans 11:17, 18, “But if some of the branches were broken off, and thou being a wild olive, was grafted in among them, and didst become partaker with them of the root of the fatness of the olive tree; glory not over the branches; but if thou gloriest, it is not thou that bearest the root, but the root thee.” Paul is speaking here of the Gentiles and the Jews. The Gentiles, he says, were grafted into the olive tree which of course refers to the Jews, the original benefactors of the promise of salvation. Now Paul speaks of only one olive tree, not two trees. There is only one tree into which Gentiles who believe are grafted along with the jews. This one tree which carries with it the promise and fulfillment of salvation, is the covenant of grace. Through Abraham the Jews were the original members of the covenant of grace. The life which they received came through the roots of that tree. But now in the New Testament, Gentiles also are brought into the covenant of grace, and become recipients of the promise. God does not start a new tree for them, however. They are simply grafted into the same tree to which the jews belonged through Abraham. Therefore, there are not two covenants, one for the Old Testament jews, and one for the New Testament Gentiles. There is only one covenant for all who believe. For, as Paul says in Galatians 3:29 again, “If you are Christ’s then are ye Abraham’s seed, heirs according to the promise.” A third passage of Scripture that clearly points to the unity of the Old and New Testaments is Ephesians 2:19, 20, “So then ye arc no more strangers and sojourners, but ye are fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God, being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the chief cornerstone.” Gentile believers are not strangers to the covenant promise of salvation through the forgiveness of sins, but that they arc fellow citizens with the saints. This involves them in the household of God, which they share as members with the Old Testament saints as well. This entire household in which both Old Testament saints and New Testament believers all are members is built upon one single foundation. What is that foundation? It is the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself the chief cornerstone. The apostles represent the New Testament and the prophets the Old Testament. It is clear then that Paul is maintaining the unity of the Scriptures, the unity of the promise of the Scriptures, and also therefore the unity of the covenant of grace. Christ Jesus, the Mediator of the covenant, is the chief cornerstone of the one foundation, composed of both the Old and the New Testament. THE RELATION BETWEEN CIRCUMCISION AND BAPTISM Closely related to the argument based upon the relation between the Old and New Testament is the relationship between circumcision and baptism. It is alleged by our Baptist brethren that circumcision does not mean the same as baptism does, because circumcision was merely a national sign that the child was a member of the nation of Israel. And of course, baptism means a great deal more than that. What of this argument? Does the Bible agree with the allegation that circumcision was only a sign of membership in the nation of Israel? When we turn to the Bible we find that, in fact, quite the opposite is stated. The Bible says that circumcision stands for spiritual fellowship with God, first of all. The Lord commanded Abraham in Genesis 17:11, “And ye shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of a covenant between me and you.” Thus the Bible makes clear that circumcision is a sign of the covenant which God had made with Abraham, a covenant which, as we saw above, speaks of the very salvation and forgiveness of sins that God had promised to His people. The Bible says secondly that circumcision signified and sealed spiritual renewal and sanctification. Deuteronomy 10:16 says, “Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.” Here the Bible calls for circumcision in its spiritual meaning of removing the old nature from one’s heart, and walking obediently before God. The physical rite of circumcision was the removal of that which was unclean. But God never intended the mere external act to be the very spiritual renewal itself, unless it was followed by the “circumcision of the heart.” That is why Deuteronomy 10:16 speaks as it does of a spiritual “circumcision.” Moreover, circumcision, according to Scripture, stood for justification, for the forgiveness of sins. Paul says in Romans 4: 11, “And he [Abraham] received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while he was in uncircumcision that he might be the father of all them that believed.” Notice that circumcision is said to be the seal of the righteousness of faith. Now the righteousness of faith is the result of justification. For when we are justified by faith, we receive the r1ghteousness of Christ by which we may stand before God. So Paul says that circumcision was a sign and seal of that justification, which Abraham also received by faith in God. When we see what the Bible says about the meaning and significance of circumcision, we find that the meaning and significance of baptism is exactly the same. In the previous article I pointed out that the Bible teaches that baptism signifies and seals spiritual renewal and sanctification, the forgiveness of sins through the righteousness of Christ, and our union with Christ. Now when we see what the Bible says about the meaning and the significance of circumcision, we see that the two sacraments coincide almost perfectly. What therefore circumcision was to the Old Testament, that baptism is in the New Testament. In fact, the Bible states this close relationship in Colossians 2:11, 12 where Paul states, “In whom ye were also circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism.” This is the argument that Paul is using here: You Gentiles, he says, were no!” circumcised with a circumcision made with hands. But you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands. How was this? In the putting off of the body of the flesh; that is, in putting off of the old nature.