Customer Reviews

What Christian Parents Should Know About Infant Baptism

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Sartelle's work is geared toward conservative evangelicals presenting the Reformed (Calvinist) view of infant baptism from Scripture. This work is brief but manages to address the typical objections made by evangelicals against infant baptism. The author argues from a continuity of the Old Covenant to the New Covenant with respect to circumcision and baptism. Both rituals being a sign and seal of salvation. A much fuller account of the Reformed view can be found in John Murray's "Christian Baptism." Those looking for a presentation of the case for baptismal regeneration in the Lutheran, Anglo-Catholic, Roman Catholic or Orthodox traditions will have to look elsewhere. (See Darwell Stone, Holy Baptism) This little booklet is a good start though for those wishing to inroduce their evangelical family members or friends to the topic of infant baptism in general.

Sartelle's explanation not only provided a helpful overview of baptism for our family, it also helped me learn to articulate many convictions I already held.

Whenever I encounter someone with questions about the Reformed view of Baptism (which includes infant baptism) I give them a copy of this book. As you can imagine I give out quite a few of them since most people I encounter are generally of a different opinion about the topic. As a pastor, what I am looking for is a non-technical explanation introducing people to what it means to be in covenant with a covenant-keeping God, who sets apart a covenant people for Himself, and distinguishes them by a covenant sign.

Sartelle does this very well. If a person disagrees with the idea of Covenant Baptism then they will still find in this little book a clear statement of the manner in which it is understood in Reformed circles. Sartelle does not demean those who think differently, he simply offers up a clear explanation of what he (and I) believe to be most cogent manner in which the whole range of Biblical data can be understood. As I mentioned, I go through a lot of these little books and I highly recommend them

Adding to what John Cox wrote in his review: Not only does Mr. Sartelle assume Lydia's household included children and a husband, IF there was a husband Mr. Sartelle claims he'd have had to state his belief before being baptized. There is no statement of this in the Bible passage either. He also ignores the ramification (to his thesis)of the fact that in the Old Testament the covenant with the Jewish people included adult male servants of the believing member of the family. Whether or not that male servant was a believer is not addressed in the OT - but he still was Circumcised. If the OT covenant was totally shifted to the NT covenant the adult male servant would've had to state his belief.

John P. Sartelle asks: "If we interviewed all the couples in America who had their babies baptized in the past year, how many could open their Bibles and explain what that meant?" Not many, he answers.

The author's purpose in his book is to show that infant baptism is not an empty ritual. It is, rather, a meaningful practice with biblical support. Parents who baptize their infants, in order for it to have any meaning, ought to understand what they are doing. And those who disagree with the practice should understand before they criticize.

The discussion between paedobaptists and credo-baptists moves beyond baptism. It is rooted in how one views the Old Testament. Believers of the reformed tradition see more continuity between the Old and the New. There is one family of covenant believers. The Old Testament covenant and promises are not replaced by the New; instead, they are fulfilled.

Abraham was saved by grace through faith, just as we are today (Romans 4). After Abraham was justified, God commanded him to be circumcised. Circumcision became the outward sign of the covenant relationship between believers and their God. It was the sign of covenant membership, faith, belief, salvation, and cleansing. It was a sign of being set apart to a holy life.

In the Old Testament, when adults from outside Israel (the visible covenant family) became believers, they were circumcised. But every male child born into a covenant family was also circumcised (Genesis 17).

Just as circumcision was the outward sign of covenant membership in the Old Testament, baptism became the outward sign of covenant membership in the New Testament. "Every New Testament teaching has its roots in the Old Testament."

When hearers of the Apostles' preaching were converted, they were commanded to be baptized. Baptism is, like circumcision, the sign of faith, belief, salvation, cleansing, and being set apart to a holy life. In his letter to the Colossians, Paul explains to converted Gentiles that they had, in a sense, been circumcised through their baptism: "In Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands...having been buried with Him in baptism" (Col. 1:11-12).

Sartelle says that the gospel message "was no less gracious and encompassing than the message of salvation to Abraham." If there is continuity from the Old Testament to the New, then the covenant promises extend to believers and their families, just as they did in Israel. Evidence of this is found in 1 Cor. 7:14, where Paul says that children of believers are "set apart."

Mr. Sartelle believes that there is New Testament evidence that the children of believers were baptized. Acts 16:15 tells us that Lydia and her household were baptized, and then we read the same of the Philippian jailor (Acts 16:33). Paul also tells us in 1 Cor. 1:16 that he baptized the household of Stephanas.

Sartelle makes it very clear that neither circumcision nor baptism saves, nor are they required for salvation. Does baptism guarantee that a child will grow into faith? The answer, of course, is no. One could ask whether believer's baptism guarantees that the adult recipient has faith, and the answer is also no. But infant baptism is a symbol of God's grace and His covenant promises. Do those promises extend to the family? If so, then the symbol of the promise should also extend to the family. Just as believer's baptism symbolizes God's mercy and grace, so does infant baptism. It is the outward sign of membership to God's covenant family. It is also a pledge, made by the parents, that the child will be raised to love and follow the Lord. Without the influence of the church, faithful parents, and Scripture and prayer in the home, it becomes meaningless. But with these, it has great meaning.

This very short book (27 pages) is written for the "person in the pew." It is simple and straightforward, and will be helpful to those wanting to better understand the paedo-baptist view.

This is a great book for the non-scholar. It offers a background and history of the Reformed/Covenant understanding of paedo-baptism. I think it is a must read for parents.

I was introduced to this book by a relative. She gave it to me because the discussion of infant baptism was brought up, and she was curious as to what I believed about it. I told her, and she offered this book to me to read. So, I read it, and all I can say about this little book is that it is completely unbiblical.

Sartelle makes alot of assumptions, and does a great job at pulling Scripture out of its context. For isntance, he uses the age old reasoning that when the word household is used with Lydia for instance in the book of Acts, that this meant her entire family, including her children. Yet, scripture never tells us that Lydia was married or if she had kidd. Again, a great assumption, but completely unbiblical.

He then makes the comment at the end of the book, that he would rather be a pagan kid, then a child who has been infant baptized because the wrath of God is against the kid who has been infant baptized, and yet has not followed after God. Again, a completely unbiblical idea and concept not found in scripture.

So, if you are looking for an explanation, or an argument for infant baptism, there may be other books that do a better job, but this book will do nothing but lead you away from Scripture, and give you a completely unbiblical concept. And the only reason that there is even a star up there is because they make me put one. Otherwise, this book is useless.