Fridays with the Heidelberg

Lord’s Day 27

72. Q. DOES THIS OUTWARD WASHING WITH WATER ITSELF WASH AWAY SINS?

A. No, only Jesus Christ’s blood and the Holy Spirit cleanse us from all sins.

73. Q. WHY THEN DOES THE HOLY SPIRIT CALL BAPTISM THE WASHING OF REBIRTH AND THE WASHING AWAY OF SINS?

A. God has good reason for these words. He wants to teach us that the blood and Spirit of Christ wash away sins just as water washes away dirt from our bodies. But more important, He wants to assure us, by this divine pledge and sign, that the washing away of our sins spiritually is as real as physical washing with water.

74. Q. SHOULD INFANTS, TOO, BE BAPTIZED?

A. Yes. Infants as well as adults are in God’s covenant and are His people. They, no less than adults, are promised the forgiveness of sin through Christ’s blood and the Holy Spirit who produces faith. Therefore, by baptism, the mark of covenant, infants should be received into the Christian church and should be distinguished from the children of unbelievers. This was done in the Old Testament by circumcision, which was replaced in the New Testament by baptism.

Ben was kind enough to cover for me these past few weeks while I was away. His comments regarding the importance of both communion and baptism will be fundamentally helpful this week as we consider a controversial issue.

The writers of the Heidelberg affirmed “infant baptism.” The answer to Q. 74 can be summarized in three points; 1) infants should be baptized, 2)that through such “baptism” these infants should be received into the church, and 3)that circumcision in the Old Testament was replaced by baptism in the New Testament.

I disagree with all three of these points. First, nowhere in Scripture do you find any instruction or reference to infant baptism. Scripture communicates that baptism is for those who profess faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. While adherents of infant baptism, Paedobaptists, acknowledge that there is no reference to infant baptism in Scripture, they point out that nowhere in Scripture is it forbidden. I once heard John MacArthur point out how dangerous this type of interpretation is, for you would be able to bring in all sorts of errors.

Secondly, the New Testament identifies the church as the called out ones, the body of Christ, saints, believers, etc. The Heidelberg already described the church as “a community chosen for eternal life and united in true faith.” Paedobaptists confuse this greatly by receiving infants into the church.

Thirdly, does baptism represent in the N.T. what circumcision did in the O.T.? Acts 15:1-29 will help us arrive at an answer. In this text, you have Paul and Barnabas debating some false teachers who are adding works to the gospel. They were saying that circumcision was necessary for salvation. Through various speeches and a letter from the apostles, they address the issue of circumcision, and nothing is mentioned of baptism. Matt Waymeyer, in his book A Biblical Critique of Infant Baptism points out that this would be a great place to communicate to the church how baptism replaces circumcision, but like everywhere else in the New Testament, nothing is said in regards to such a replacement.

There are other arguments for and against infant baptism, but my goal has been to keep these posts rather brief. So I will close with what Ben previously reminded us, with one additional word in light of this week’s discussion. Believers “baptism is important! The waters of baptism remind the believer, and testify to the non-believer, that salvation is by faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.”