What rationale exists for the baptism of infants? After all, there is no statement in the New Testament requiring the practice. Should not everyone decide for himself? Does that not mean waiting until reaching an age when confes­sion of faith can occur? In the absence of a single recorded instance in the New Testament of an infant being bap­tized, should we not adopt believers baptism instead? These arguments are crucial to the case of those who oppose infant baptism. In the face of the apparent attrac­tiveness of such thinking, just why do we administer this sacrament to children?

Firstly, infant baptism is grounded in a canoni­cal view of Scripture. The baptistic position rests on the New Testament alone. The lack of apparent New Testament evidence for infant baptism is thereby seen as destructive of the practice. However, the history of redemption is the record of the unity of a promise reaching realization. God has one purpose of salvation, one people. His covenant promise to Abraham included his seed from one generation to the next (Gen. 17:7-8). Paul makes very clear that the Abrahamic covenant is fulfilled by Jesus Christ. It has not been set aside but brought to fruition. Not even the law at Sinai could abrogate it (Gal. 3:15-22). Therefore, just as its sacrament was applied to in­fants, so the new covenant sacrament of baptism is to be applied to the infant offspring of believers. Hence, infant baptism is based on the biblical assumption of the unity of Old and New Testaments.

Secondly, infant baptism takes seriously the central place of the family. Those of baptistic convictions stress the individual. Each person, it is claimed, must decide for himself. Faith is a personal and therefore an individual matter. However, this is to ignore that throughout the Bible the individual finds his place as part of the community. In the Old Testament, a person was not regarded as an isolated unity. He was A the son of B, the son of C. He was known and determined by his relations with others. When Achan sinned, all Israel sinned (Josh. 7:10). So too our salvation is in Christ. As we all sinned in Adam, so in Christ we receive righteousness and life (Rom. 5:12-21). Scripture views mankind in corporate totalities, with the individual finding his place within those totalities. This is not the drab suppression seen in Marxism; it is more the fulfilment of the individual that exists in team games. You could hardly get more distinctively individual than Ian Botham!

How modern this is! It was James Clerk Maxwell and Einstein who taught us of the fundamentally relational character of the universe. It is in family lines that God's covenant runs, not because there is anything special about our families, but rather because God's grace is sure, since he commits himself not only to us but to our offspring (Ex. 20:5-6; Psalm 105:8-10). His covenant is not against nature but against sin. Infant baptism points to the harmony of creation and redemption. Our salvation involved the renewal of the whole of life. The family is the basic unit God has given us (Gen. 1:26-29; 2:18-25). Far from abandoning it, Christ came to reaffirm and to redeem it. Baptistic thinking, in contrast, comes from the individualism of Renaissance humanism.

Thirdly, infant baptism testifies to the grace of God. The baptistic view is first faith, second baptism. It is man-centred, based on something present in the one baptized. Infant baptism, on the other hand, is grounded simply on the promise of God. It testifies that God has a claim on the infant, that our little ones belong to him by the pure grace of his covenant. Nothing in them warrants the sacrament. It is all of grace. We rely exclusively on his word.

Baptistic practices point instead to man. Bap­tism is often redefined as an act of obedience, a commitment of faith. There is no evidence in the Bible for that, for all who are baptized receive the sacrament at the moment they can be regarded as Christian, whether on birth (in the case of the children of believing parents) or at the moment of conversion (in a missionary situation as in Acts). It is true that in Acts there is a requirement for faith in the one baptized. However, the record is of a missionary situation. Where Paul discusses baptism at any length the significant relation is not between baptism and the faith that precedes but between baptism and the faith that follows (Rom. 6:1-11; 1 Cor. 10:10. In short, we must avoid being governed by a time sequence when we think of baptism and faith. Faith is cer­tainly present when a child of believers is baptized, for it is part of a believing household unit belonging to the covenant. The child is entrusted to the nurture and Christian instruction of family and church, there­after to be taught to confess its faith.

Finally, infant baptism demonstrates that the church includes young as well as old. Baptistic practice creates an entirely post-adolescent church from which children are excluded. Its membership is restricted to disciples. Its church is an adult church. How different from our Lord, who reaffirmed God's covenant promise to the children of the covenant community when he received them into his arms to bless them! Just as he himself experienced every stage of human life, from embryo through infancy and childhood to maturity and death, so the church includes all ages. Indeed, Jesus singled out small children as especially demonstrating the grace of God.

The case for baptizing infants rests on more than simply a superficial reading of the New Testament. Underlying the issue of who should be baptized are deep-seated differences of interpretation. At its root is the question of whether we should derive our understanding of the gospel from the individualistic thinking of the modern western world or from the teaching of scripture itself.