"Where in the New Testament are we told that children should be bap­tized?" Many parents are asked that question sooner or later. That the ques­tion is asked is a very good sign. Often young people ask that question because they openly spoke about their faith and then they were challenged on this point by someone who comes from an "adult only baptism" church.

When this question is asked, it is im­portant that it be dealt with thoroughly. This will mean that parents cannot an­swer it in a hurry but should take the time to sit down with their son or daughter, preferably bringing out the Bible. The discussion about baptism is, in essence, a discussion about how we are saved. The question that needs to be answered is: are we saved by the sovereign God who graciously makes us alive, or by our own sovereign action, our own free will, whereby we decide to accept God's grace? To answer this involves more than referring to one or two texts about baptism. It is necessary first of all to talk about the very basics of the gospel of salvation.

What is the basic gospel message? It is this, that God gra­ciously comes to save sinners. God takes the initiative. We see this al­ready in the garden of Eden when God graciously made his promise of salva­tion (Genesis 3:15). We see it so dearly in the choice of Abraham as God called Abraham and separated him from his people, establishing the covenant with Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3).

When we reflect further on how God established his covenant with Abraham, we see that God not only ini­tiated this covenant but also deter­mined who would be included it. We read in Genesis 17:7, "And l 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."

As a sign of this covenant the LORD com­manded that the males be circumcised when they were eight days old. We read in Genesis 17:12, 13: "He that is eight days old among you shall be circumcised; every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house, or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, both he that is born in your house and he that is bought with your money, shall be cir­cumcised..." Notice how the LORD God decides who shall receive the sign of the covenant. Even slaves were to re­ceive it!

The special relationship which the descendants of Abraham had with the LORD was not because of anything special within them. It was not any­thing they might have done, but the gra­cious act of God to an undeserving peo­ple (e.g. Deuteronomy 7:6-8).

This same emphasis on God's sover­eign grace is heard in the New Testa­ment. In Ephesians 1:4, 5 Paul writes that "...He chose us in Him [Christ] before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. He destined us in love to be his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will." Further he writes in Ephesians 2:1, 4, 5: "And you He made alive, when you were dead through the trespasses and sins... But God who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)." We can also find a testimony to this sovereign grace of God in saving sinners in Titus 3:4-7.

Take note then of God's sovereign grace in establishing a covenant with unworthy sinners. That truth was signified in circumcision, which was a sign of the covenant. Note again that God decided who would be the recipients. Circumcision, performed on little boys merely eight days old, proclaimed: I, the LORD God am promising to you the benefits of my grace.

With this renewed understanding on the sovereign grace of God in saving sinners, we can tackle the question about the sign of the covenant in New Testament times. Circumcision involved bloodshed. Christ, by his sacrifice has put an end to all the ceremonial blood­shed of the Old Testament. The New Testament Church understood that well and thus did not demand that the hea­then converts receive the Old Testa­ment sign of circumcision (Acts 15). In the New Testament we see that there was a change in the sign, from one in­volving blood to one that was blood­less, namely, baptism. We read this very clearly in Colossians 2:11, 12: "In Him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were buried with Him in baptism…" Notice how Paul uses the term "circumcision of Christ" as a description of baptism! You could say that baptism is the New Testament version of circumcision.

We should note though, that while there is a clear change in the outward symbol, there is no indication anywhere that God made changes concerning the recipients of this "circumcision of Christ." This might seem questionable in light of Matthew 28:19 and Mark 16:16. But what do we read there? In Mark 16:16 we read: "he who believes and is baptized will be saved." Does this not teach that believing must precede bap­tism? When you study this text care­fully, you will note that baptism is only mentioned in passing. The context is the risen Lord mandating his disciples to preach his resurrection not just in Israel but the whole world. In the process He answers the question: how is it pos­sible for the world, the Gentiles, to share in Him? The answer is: through faith! They don't have to become Jews, for sal­vation is not through the flesh but through faith. Furthermore, by speaking of baptism, there is a contrast to cir­cumcision. Here is the new, international sign of the covenant, both for Jews and Gentiles. The point of the passage, as well as the parallel passage in Matthew 28 is not whether children should be included in baptism but that the Gentiles were to be included in the covenant! This was according to the promise made to Abraham that in him all the nations of the earth would be blessed (Genesis 12:3).

Of course the question lingers: What about the children? There is no explicit command. The question that should be raised however, is this: Why do we expect an explicit command? As a matter of fact, is the lack of an ex­plicit command not very telling? Does it not suggest that the matter is so obvi­ous there simply was no need to spell it out? Obviously people knew exactly what to do, namely, also give the new sign to the children of believers? This is exactly what we find in the New Testa­ment. You will see it in Acts 16 where we read about the conversion of Lydia. It says in v. 15, "And when she was baptized, with her household..." A little further, in v. 33, where it speaks about the Philippian jailer, we read that "he was baptized at once, with all his fam­ily." Does this not bear a striking re­semblance to what we read in Genesis 17:12, 13? Abraham had to circumcise his whole household, slaves included!

In the household baptisms of Lydia and the Philippian jailer we see that very same practice. God may have changed the sign, from blood to water, but he did not change whom were to receive the sign, namely, believers and their chil­dren, their household.

When the question is raised, "Where in the New Testament are we told that children should be baptized?" take the time to speak with your son or daughter about God's sovereign grace in establishing his covenant. Speak about the fact that God himself decided who should receive the sign of the covenant, namely, believers and their children. In the New Testament the sign has changed, but not those who are to re­ceive it. For the gospel remains the same: God sovereignly comes to us and our children, saying, "You are mine!"

When you have talked about this with your children, marvel together at God's grace in saving dead sinners. In light of Paul's words (Colossians 3:16), why not get out the Psalm Book and sing Psalm 105, stanzas 1-4?