Questions About Baptism in the Heidelberg Catechism – Part 5

INTRODUCTION

This is the final post in a series of five post evaluating the statements on baptism in the Heidelberg Catechism (HC) and probing the logic and coherence of those statements and their scriptural support as cited in the HC reference notes. Some statements appear inconsistent with other statements in the HC, or they cite scriptures out of context, or they lack scriptural support, or they appear problematic on other grounds. These posts do not address paedobaptist vs credobaptist arguments, but look only at the internal consistency and coherence of the arguments made in the HC. Questions as to what a sacrament is or how it functions are not addressed.

A slightly modified version of all five posts combined into one paper is available at the following link: The (In)Coherence of the Heidelberg Catechism on Baptism_bv

The teaching on baptism in the HC are contained in Question and Answer 69 through 74, in Lord’s Days 26 and 27. Each post in this series will cover one or more Question and Answer (Q&A) sets. The text of the HC Question and Answer is quoted and discussed, and the HC’s scripture citations are also quoted, using the NASB. Citations are expanded at times to provide context. The text of the HC quoted here are taken from the current Canadian Reformed Church online version.

The critiques on this blog of statements and claims in the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism are NOT directed primarily at the original authors of those documents. I believe that the original authors did their best to summarize the main Christian doctrines, based on their concerns and priorities, the extent of their knowledge, and the theological assumptions and paradigms of their time and place. What I am critiquing is the apparent failure of today’s Reformed community to review, update, revise and reform these documents to reflect the current state of knowledge in the various fields of Biblical studies (see also the ABOUT ASKING QUESTIONS page).

Question and Answer 74

74.         Question. Should infants, too, be baptized?

Answer. Yes. Infants as well as adults belong to God’s covenant and congregation.1 Through Christ’s blood the redemption from sin and the Holy Spirit, who works faith, are promised to them no less than to adults.2 Therefore, by baptism, as sign of the covenant, they must be incorporated into the Christian church and distinguished from the children of unbelievers.3 This was done in the old covenant by circumcision,4 in place of which baptism was instituted in the new covenant.5

1 Gen 17:7; Mt 19:14. 2 Ps 22:10; Is 44:1-3; Acts 2:38-39; Acts 16:31. 3 Acts 10:47; 1 Cor 7:14. 4 Gen 17:9-14. 5 Col 2: 11-13.

Answer 74 makes multiple claims in a less than lucid manner. To facilitate discussion, each statement and its scripture citations will be discussed in sequence. Note that the question of the eternal state of infants or small children who die before reaching the age of accountability is not addressed in the HC, nor in the HC cited Scriptures, nor in the Scriptures as a whole, and is thus not considered here.

Statement 1. Infants as well as adults belong to God’s covenant and congregation.1

Note 1 Scripture Citations

Genesis 17:7: “ 7  I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you…..  10 This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you. 12 And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants. 13 A servant who is born in your house or who is bought with your money shall surely be circumcised; thus shall My covenant be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.  14 But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.”.”

The HC does not identify which covenant is being referenced in the above statement. The citation of Genesis 17 shows that it is the covenant with Abraham. God promises to establish His covenant with Abraham and his physical descendants, with  the essential requirement of the covenant being circumcision of male children on the eight day. The text further specifies that any male who failed to be circumcised was thereby excluded from the covenant. Circumcision is thus of the essence of this covenant, it is not just a “mark” or “sign”.

The covenant specified in this text is the Abrahamic Covenant “in the flesh”, and applies only to the physical descendants of Abraham. Gentiles are by definition not eligible for inclusion in this covenant. Therefore there is no automatic transference or application of these terms to any one else. There is no mention in this text of a “congregation”; Abraham was promised that his descendants would become a “great nation” with their own land (Gen. 12:2, 12:7).

Matthew 19:14:  ” 13 Then some children were brought to Him so that He might lay His hands on them and pray; and the disciples rebuked them. 14 But Jesus said, “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” 15 After laying His hands on them, He departed from there. “

The Matthew text does not mention baptism. Yes, Jesus cares about children, but the instruction to not hinder children from coming to Jesus would not seem to have application to the baptism of infants. Mark’s version indicates that the children Jesus is speaking of are at least old enough to “receive the kingdom” – Mark 10:15:  “Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.”

Statement 2. Through Christ’s blood the redemption from sin and the Holy Spirit, who works faith, are promised to them no less than to adults.2

The offer of salvation is indeed extended to all, since Christ shed his blood for the whole world, which would include all adults and children. However each has to individually believe in order to avail themselves of Christ’s sacrifice: John 3:16 –  “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.“

Note 2 Scripture Citations

Psalm 22:10: “Upon You I was cast from birth; you have been my God from my mother’s womb.”

Psalm 22 is a psalm of David, and is also generally understood to be prophetic of the greater Son of David the Messiah. Any application beyond David and his greater Son cannot just be assumed and would need to be justified. Further, as direct physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, David and Jesus the Messiah were both included in the Genesis 17 covenant cited above.

Isaiah 44:1-3: “But now listen, O Jacob, My servant, and Israel, whom I have chosen: 2 Thus says the Lord who made you, and formed you from the womb, who will help you. ‘Do not fear, O Jacob My servant; and you Jeshurun whom I have chosen. 3 ‘For I will pour out water on the thirsty land and streams on the dry ground; I will pour out My Spirit on your offspring and My blessing on your descendants..”

Isaiah 44 speaks to physical Israel/Jacob. This text promises to bless Jacob’s physical descendants with the gift of the Holy Spirit – precisely what Peter explains to the House of Israel in Acts 2, which is the next citation.

Acts 2:38-39: “ 33 Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear….36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom you crucified.” 37 Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” 38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”……41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized. “

It is evident from the context that Peter’s statement in vs. 39 is made to the House of Israel: when he says “to you and your children” he is referring to the physical descendants of Israel. Peter explicitly includes the Israelite children because Abraham’s descendants were specifically included in this covenant, an inclusion that extended to the New Covenant circumcision of the heart:

    • Genesis 17:7: “ I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you.” 
    • Deuteronomy 30:6 “Moreover the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live.”

Thus, when Peter refers to the “children” of his audience he means their descendants (as per Genesis 17:7 and Deuteronomy 30:6), NOT their infant children.

Further, the “promise” referred to in Acts 2:39 was not a promise of salvation as such – Peter’s auditors were already part of the covenant people of God – rather the promise was of the gift of the Holy Spirit promised to Israel as part of the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31; Ezekiel 36:27). The promise is extended to “all who are far off”, i.e. the Gentiles (cf. Ephesians 2:13), but the promise is not extended to the Gentiles’ children (why not?).

It seems that the Gentile Church of the Reformation has seized upon the promise of the Holy Spirit given to physical Israel, expanded it to include “redemption from sin” and appropriated it for itself in a supersesssionist manner without Scriptural justification. It is noteworthy that those of the House of Israel who were baptized were those who had “received his word” (vs. 41) i.e. those who could understand and act on Peter’s message – which evidently did not include small children. Thus, even though “the promise” is for all the House of Israel –  “you and your children” – that promise still had to appropriated through individual repentance and  faith. When his hearers ask Peter what they should do he says: “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins …..” (vs. 38). Peter does NOT tell them to bring their infant children for baptism.

The next baptismal event in Acts, involving Philip’s ministry in Acts 8, also included only those who believed. Thus Acts 8:12: “But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike.”  Believing men and women are mentioned, but not their children.

Acts 16:31. “ 31 They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. 33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. 34 And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.”

By citing this scripture the HC would seem to want to imply that infants or small children must have been part of this household, and so must also have been baptized. One wonders how carefully the HC has read the text. The text states that the word of the lord was spoken “…to him together with all who were in his house…”,  implying all heard and understood; that his whole household “…believed in God…” and that all his household were baptized. If this household had any small children, they were probably asleep as it was after midnight; in any case they had no part in hearing, believing and being baptized.

Statement 3. Therefore, by baptism, as sign of the covenant, they must be incorporated into the Christian church and distinguished from the children of unbelievers.3

The preceding HC Statement 2 claims only that there is a promise made to infants. It says nothing about how that promise is realized or fulfilled. Thus the “therefore” of Statement 3 has no force because the logic is lacking. It is an example of the logical fallacy called non sequitur.

It is taken for granted that the infants discussed here are the children of believers. Three claims are made in this statement concerning such infants, each of which is problematic:

    • baptism is (the) sign of “the covenant”,
    • baptism is required to incorporate infants into the Christian church,
    • baptism is required to distinguish such infants from the children of unbelievers.

The “covenant” mentioned in the first claim is not defined, however when one reads ahead to the last statement it becomes clear that the new covenant is meant. No scripture citation is offered in support of the claim that baptism is the “sign” of the new covenant, perhaps because there is no such scripture.

The second claim gives rise to the question as to what is meant by “incorporation into the Christian church”? This is normally understood to mean becoming a member of Christ’s body. How does that work for an infant who cannot yet believe? Or does the HC’s claim here imply baptismal regeneration?

The third claim appears to have no basis in the NT scriptures. Where does one find a NT requirement that infants of believers must be “distinguished” from those of unbelievers? To distinguish one thing from another implies being able to observe a difference in one or more characteristics of the things being compared. How can baptism – a one-time external ritual that leaves no physical mark – function to establish any observable difference so as to enable a distinction to be made between the two classes of infants?    

Note 3 Scripture Citations

Acts 10:47: 43 Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.” 44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. 45 All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, 47 “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” 48 And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

The cited text speaks of water baptism being authorized for those who had been baptized in the Holy Spirit, which was taken by Peter as evidence that while he was preaching the gospel they had repented and believed in Jesus. This text says nothing that would support the claims of HC Statement 3.  

1 Corinthians 7:14: ” For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.” 

It is understood that the HC considers this text as support for infant baptism. The unstated assumption by the HC seems to be that since the children are not unclean but holy, they must have been baptized. However baptism is not mentioned in this text, and baptism is not the basis of Paul’s argument. Paul bases his argument that the children of a “mixed” marriage are holy on the fact that the unbelieving spouse is sanctified (made holy) through the believing spouse; if the unbelieving spouse were not holy then the couple’s children would not be holy. Note that the unbelieving spouse, although made holy, is not “saved” (vs. 16). Note also that in such mixed marriages, the children are not not children of “believers”, but children of one believer and one unbeliever, which makes the application of the HC’s criterion for “covenant” children to be “distinguished from the children of unbelievers” problematic.

Statement 4. …. they must be incorporated into the Christian church and distinguished from the children of unbelievers.3 This was done in the old covenant by circumcision,4 in place of which baptism was instituted in the new covenant.5

Note 4 Scripture Citation

Gen 17:9-14: 9 God said further to Abraham, “Now as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. 10 This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you. 12 And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants. 13 A servant who is born in your house or who is bought with your money shall surely be circumcised; thus shall My covenant be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.14 But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.”

Statement 4 includes repetition of the preceding phrase from Statement 3 to clarify the meaning of the initial phrase of Statement 4: “This was done in the old covenant by circumcision”. It is clear that circumcision did not “incorporate into the Christian church”, therefore the only remaining reference for “This” is to the the phrase “….distinguished from the children of unbelievers.” But under the Abrahamic covenant, as is clear from the cited text, the terminology is not that of “believer” and “unbeliever”, nor that of being a child of one or the other, but simply that of  being “circumcised” or “uncircumcised” (on the eight day), without explicit reference to the condition or status of the parents. The HC’s attempt to equate the function of baptism with circumcision on the cited basis must be evaluated as being unsuccessful.  

The Genesis 17 citation also states that not being circumcised constitutes a breaking of the covenant resulting in exclusion from the people of God. If baptism replaces circumcision, does the NT believer who delays baptism (as practiced by some in the early church including Emperor Constantine) then also experience such exclusion? Then how long can the NT believer postpone baptism before he “loses his salvation”? And would that then imply that such a “believer” was not really one of the elect?      

Note 5 Scripture Citation

Colossians 2:11-13: “ and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,”

The citation of Colossians 2:11-13 is intended by the HC to provide scriptural support for the claim that circumcision was abolished and baptism was instituted to replace it. However Colossians 2:11 describes the circumcision of Christ as being “a circumcision made without hands” effecting “the removal of the body of the flesh”. Thus the “circumcision of Christ” cannot be baptism which is an external rite performed with hands.

The circumcision of Christ would appear to be the equivalent of the “circumcision of the heart” spoken of by Moses in Deuteronomy 30:6 “Moreover the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live”, and which is reflected in the descriptions of the promised New Covenant in Jeremiah (31:33-34) and Ezekiel (36:24-28). 

Colossians 2:12 speaks of baptism as an enacted symbolic burial and resurrection whereby the believer by faith identifies with Christ in his burial and resurrection. Thus this text presents baptism as an outward sign or symbol of the inner heart circumcision.

In Colossians 2:13 Paul describes the condition of his Gentile hearers before they received the gospel as  “…. dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh….”. In other words there were two aspects involved in their being “dead” – their “transgressions” and their being “uncircumcised”. It is likely that Paul considered these two aspects as inter-related. That Paul believed circumcised Jews to have (present tense) significant advantages over uncircumcised Gentiles is demonstrated in Romans 3:1-2  “ 1Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect.” It would thus appear that Paul considered circumcision to have continuing significance, which makes the concept that circumcision was replaced problematic.   

Based on the above analysis of Colossians 2:11-13, the following conclusions can be drawn:

    • The “circumcision of Christ” is an internal spiritual work done “without hands” and cannot be the same as baptism which is an external rite done with hands.
    • There is no mention in this text or in any other NT text that the spiritual “circumcision of Christ” replaces or supersedes anything, not even physical circumcision.
    • There is no mention in this text or any other NT text that physical circumcision was abolished or superseded; rather Paul believed that it remained significant.  
    • There is no mention in this text or any other NT text that baptism supersedes or replaces anything.

The above points are consistent with the understanding that Jewish believers remained obligated to physical circumcision, whereas Gentile believers were obligated to remain uncircumcised (Acts 15; 21:17-24; 25:7-8; 28:17; Galatians 5:2).      

CONCLUSIONS

Some of the claims made by the HC in Lord’s Days 26 and 27 on water baptism appear to be unsupported by scripture; those include the following:

    • Baptism is a seal and/or pledge.
    • Baptism provides certainty of forgiveness of sins.
    • Baptism is intended to strengthen faith in the effectiveness of Jesus’ blood in washing away sins.
    • Baptism effects the the new birth.
    • Baptism is the sign of the New Covenant.
    • Baptism has replaced circumcision.

The claim that baptism has replaced circumcision is one of the central claims concerning baptism in the HC, and is used as the principle argument that infants should be baptized. Ultimately that claim rests not so much on the teaching of Scripture, but rather on the prior claim that the Church has replaced Israel. Neither claim has clear and unambiguous scriptural support.

Pro Sola Scriptura