If it quacks like a duck, then baptize your children!
Let’s play a game: I’m thinking of something…
It has feathers, and webbed feet. It swims and flies. And it quacks.
So here’s the first question: What kind of nose/mouth does it have?
Answer: A bill.
How do you know? Because after reading the description, you know it’s a duck, and you know what a duck’s nose/mouth look like.
Now a second question: What do it’s young do when it goes swimming?
Answer: The young follow, swimming in a line.
How do you know? Because it’s a duck and we’ve all seen that this is what the ducklings do.
Let’s play again: Now I’m thinking about something in the Bible…
It’s the sign of God’s covenant with people.
It meant you were in a relationship with God
It was a sign and a seal of God’s blessings
It was a physical act, but it had real, spiritual significance.
It meant that you were washed and forgiven.
It was a seal of the righteousness of faith
It meant that you had a new heart.
So here’s the first question: What is it?
Answer: Circumcision.
Surprised? Did you think I was going to say Baptism?
Do you think that circumcision was physical, but baptism is spiritual?
Do you think that circumcision was outward, but baptism is inward?
Do you think that circumcision merely indicated that the recipient was part of national Israel, but that baptism indicated that the recipient was part of God’s family?
These thoughts are not supported by Scripture.
Many people who argue for the practice of infant baptism do so on the basis of the practice of infant circumcision in the Old Testament. Those who are opposed to the practice of infant baptism respond that you can’t compare the two because they aren’t the same. Many claim that God applied the sign of circumcision to children because it was a merely an outward, physical sign in the flesh that has no bearing on the infant’s spiritual status before God. They argue that since baptism is entirely a spiritual reality, it cannot be applied to anyone who doesn’t have their own personal relationship with God, as confirmed by their own profession of faith.
While the reasoning makes some logical sense, it is contrary to what the Bible says about circumcision. Circumcision was the sign of God’s covenant with people. It was a physical act, but it had real, spiritual significance. It meant that you were washed and forgiven. It meant that you had faith and were considered righteous in God’s sight. It meant that you had a new heart and a new self.
If these things are supported by the Bible, then it shows that God has no problem putting a “Spiritual” and an “Inward” sign on infants. If these things are supported by the Bible, then God has no problem putting a sign on infants that says they have a relationship with him even before they make their own profession of faith.
Both Circumcision and Baptism have the same eight characteristics. See the chart with the Scripture references below (you'll have to click on it to see the last column):
This is compelling. It’s new to many people who have been taught a different understanding of circumcision. If baptism and circumcision have the same significance, and if circumcision was applied to the children of believers, then baptism should be as well.
Every argument that can be made against infant baptism can also be made against infant circumcision. And the arguments against circumcision don't hold water. This is why biblically speaking circumcision and baptism both quack to the same tune.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if there was an explicit verse that equated these two signs of God’s covenants? If only there was a passage that equated these baptism and circumcision, then the connection would be even more explicit… There is!
Colossians 2:11-12 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.
These two verses shows that in the New Testament, baptism is considered a circumcision made without hands. Baptism is the New Covenant sign that replaces circumcision for God’s people.
So, let’s go back and finish the game we started…
I’m thinking about something in the Bible…
It’s the sign of God’s covenant with people.
It meant you were in a relationship with God
It was a sign and a seal of God’s blessings
It was a physical act, but it had real, spiritual significance.
It meant that you were washed and forgiven.
It was a seal of the righteousness of faith
It meant that you had a new heart.
So here’s the first question: What is it?
Answer: We can’t tell! It’s either circumcision or baptism.
How do you know? Because these are both signs of God’s covenant and this is what the Bible says that God’s signs mean.
Now a second question: What happens to the children of believers with the sign of the covenant?
Answer: The children receive the sign—they are circumcised or baptized
How do you know? Because it’s a covenant sign, and God has been putting the sign of his covenant on the children of believers from the beginning of the Bible.
So baptize those children of believers! God wants them to grow up with the sign of his covenant!
