I’ve been wanting to jump into this topic for a long time, but haven’t been sure just how to do it. I’ve chosen to start into the infant baptism issue, but I want to let all of you know where I’m coming from in general terms first.
First come definitions for those who may not be familiar with the range of views in baptism:
Believer’s Baptism: the belief that only those people (children and adults) who have first made a profession of faith in Christ as Savior are proper candidates for baptism. Once baptized, these believers become members of the church (and so this reflects the idea that only regenerate believers should be church members). The key here is that the recipient of baptism must believe before baptism. This form of baptism is usually practiced by those who believe complete immersion is the proper method, but it is certainly true that people can make a profession of faith and THEN receive baptism even in churches that practice infant baptism. In that case, you’d still have a believer’s baptism, but typically by sprinkling, the mode used in Reformed, Presbyterian, Anglican, or Catholic churches. Catholicism, though, thinks something is taking place at baptism that many others would not (see below).
Infant Baptism: Also known as paedobaptism / pedobaptism. This is the belief that infants, before they are able to believe in Christ, should be baptized. The method is nearly always sprinkling or pouring, though some Greek orthodox do immerse infants. The purpose (or effect) varies. In Catholicism, this rite is thought to remove original sin and brings the child into the church. In non-catholic Reformed churches (and Presbyterian) this is not the case, but it serves to usher the infant into the membership of the church (hence these churches do not believe in regenerate-only church membership). In Lutheranism the meaning varies, depending on what you read. Lutherans don’t want to adopt the catholic view, though many sound like it. It may be fair to generalize here and say that infant baptism starts the child on the road to God, so to speak, without being “too catholic” in its effect or impact. Churches that practice believer’s baptism do not practice infant baptism since infants cannot believe. In Reformed, Presbyterian, and Lutheran contexts, the baptized infant is also thought to be accepted into a “covenant relationship” with God/Christ through baptism (this is often linked to election), though the child must later believe (“confirm their baptism” and hence demonstrate their status as an elect of God).
Immersion: putting the recipient under water (once) to illustrate the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.
Triune immersion – the above, but done three times (Father, Son, Spirit)
Sprinkling – the minister / priest dips his hand into the water and sprinkles it onto the head of the recipient of baptism (adult or infant)
Pouring – just what it sounds like; the recipient gets wetter than the above.
Baptismal Regeneration: This is often thought of as the idea that baptism removes sin and means forgiveness of sin. It is actually referring to the removal or original sin, though many who embrace this idea sound like it confers salvation. A sloppy catholic will make it sound like that. A careful catholic will know the distinction, and that salvation is the result of other sacraments and holy living, mixed with faith in Christ.
So, where do various denominations get these ideas? While they would all say “the Bible,” that cannot be coherent since there is so much divergence. In reality, these ideas come about on the basis of certain presuppositions brought to various passages and (here’s where I get into trouble) sloppy thinking about the results. What I mean by the latter is that people are content to not examine where certain ideas lead, assuming (poorly) that ideas can be held in theological isolation from other parts of theology. This may sound surprising, but I personally would classify baptism as one of the most unexamined ideas in faith and practice in most, if not all, Christian denominations. It never ceases to amaze me how disconnected and incoherent the topic comes across in church / pulpit teaching AND theology books.
My views in general are:
1. The idea of infant baptism can certainly be defended biblically, given certain presuppositions about a few things, and can be argued better than it presently is (anywhere I’ve seen – sounds like an amazing claim, but just wait till you sample the confusion).
2. No view of baptism should be connected with the dispensing of saving grace, the removal of original sin, the removal of any sin, or kick-starting the infant toward Christ (see #5 below for a hint as to why). Its meaning is other.
3. Believer’s baptism is the easiest view to defend from Scripture, but it too depends on certain presuppositions.
4. Immersion vs. sprinkling or pouring depends on one’s decision about what the word picture of baptism means. Neither view is self-evident from the text only.
** 5. This one is asterisked for a reason: Paul makes *some sort* of connection between baptism and circumcision in Col. 2:10-12. Your choice here will move you toward or away from infant baptism. But regardless of the choice ** if you accept a connection, that means you cannot say something about baptism that is not true of circumcision. THIS is precisley where the worst thinking in this topic occurs, with awful results.
To be continued…
Very good timing, i’m about to discuss baptisim with my minister after reading watchman nee’s book “the normal Christian life” in wich he describes it as a union with the death of Christ and also the resurection wich in turn, without sounding to mystical or magical will give you help in the power to overcome sin, as you are now dead to the world and sin, as reflected by the baptisim. This sort of reinforces the view i once heard you speak of in a interview when the baptisim was shown to the forces of darkness as them losing another soul in the big fight (very simplified summery).
very interesting, hope to learn much from this.
p.s i was raised catholic so i have been baptised as an infant but i dont count that as amounting to much. (my view only)
Dr. Mike,
This is a perfect time for you to delve into this because I am currently working on a small group class on this topic. I have been chosen to teach it as part of my ordainment process and also because I grew up baptist and in the midst of my seminary studies became paedobaptist. Let me share with you some preliminary things from my experience:
1. You are certainly correct that infant baptism can be defended from scripture, but the baptists have good arguments also from scripture, therefore, it is apparent that the issue is not really “baptism” per se.
2. What is the issue then? I have found that the real divide between the paedobaptist and the baptist is between their theology of children, their theology of the family, and their theology of the church. Mike, you will do no justice to this issue if you leave out ecclesiology in respect to our children–it is the main debate, not the meaning of baptizo!
3. I have also found that the presuppositions also directly affect the issue, in that, it is impossible to understand paedobaptism if you do not understand covenant theology or monergistic soteriology. I do not know one paedobaptist that is dispensational–there are many synergistic paedobaptizers, but their view of the covenant is likewised affected by their synergism so that baptism is given some type of efficacy (ala Methodists, Catholic, etc.).
4. One correction to your post, you need to let your readers know that many paedobaptists (esp. the Calvinist brand) believe that babies CAN believe. Paedofaith, we believe, is demonstrated in Scripture. This faith is an immature faith, but a faith nonetheless. As Calvin said, it is a seed faith…and it is hypocrisy to assume that a child does not have faith if we are baptizing it. The very opposite is true…we baptize the baby because we believe that it does have baby faith and that it will grow into mature faith towards maturity. I encourage you to look into buying the little book by Rich Lusk called “Paedofaith.”
http://www.amazon.com/Paedofaith-Rich-Lusk/dp/0975391429/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252430055&sr=8-1
Grace be with you,
Chris
Mike,
I wanted to re-work your paragraph here:
“In Reformed, Presbyterian, and Lutheran contexts, the baptized infant is also thought to be accepted into a covenant relationship with God/Christ through baptism (this is often linked to election), though the child must later believe (confirm their baptism and hence demonstrate their status as an elect of God).”
So that it better represents the Reformed-Covenant view of infant baptism, I rework it as this:
In Reformed Covenantal contexts, the baptized infant is also thought to be entered into a covenant relationship with God in Christ through baptism (this is linked not to election, but to the covenant), the church and the parents vow to nurture the child in the faith delivered once for all to the saints and they baptize the child based on God’s covenant promises. They in essence are declaring God’s faithfulness, saying, “We believe that God is gracious and faithful to His people not simply as individuals but as families in successive generations according to His Covenant promises.” They baptize the infant in faith believing that the seed of faith in their child will come to blossoming maturity where they confirm their baptism in the future.
Remember Mike, the covenant has both covenant blessings and covenant curses. And all baptized people are subject to the curses, what for many was a cleansing laver will be a dark drowning grave for others (i.e. Simon, Acts 8:13, 22-23).
@cwmyers007: sounds good
@cwmyers007: duly noted, though I see no warrant for the idea that babies can believe. Ecclesiology will of course be part of this. I would add that infant baptism as it is overwhelmingly articulated (especially in the creeds) undermines and contradicts the reformed doctrine of perseverance. My take on this will be a bit different, but pretty much plain as day in the end. It’s just that I don’t have the disadvantage of writing about baptism with the need to respond to some historical circumstance, as all the creeds suffer from.
@Nobunaga: “reflected by” is acceptable language; “accomplished by” or “assisted by” would go beyond the scriptural teaching on baptism.
That’s another can of worms. I’m looking forward to your take on the subject. Unless I’m wrong, the oldest traditions (chruch fathers) believed that baptism erased all sins. Augustine believed that children who died before baptism went to hell (limbo was later developped as a way out of this, but it as been abolished lately). As for the mode of baptism, the Didache, which is pretty old, allows sprinkling when immersion is not possible. I’m not saying of course that antiquity means truth (I don’t like the idea of kids burning in hell).
Yes “accompished by” would seem to say the battle against sin is over once baptized wich is unfortunatly not the case we then have to go on and “know” that we are dead as seen in Romans 6:6 wich is quite a thing to get to grips with (for me at least).
For me at the moment i see baptisim as relating to Roman 6:4 wich for me would seem to indicate that the duncking is a representation of the death (going into the grave) of the participant and the reserecting to walk in the newness of life.
would i be right as i am about to try get this matter sorted, so i can actually get baptised and dont want to get my clothes wet if i dont need to (Joke !)
Wow, I am really looking forward to learning how infant baptism can be biblically defended.
@Sylvain: I’m not sure about the “all” (as you are uncertain as well), but it’s a great illustration of why I am indifferent toward Church tradition.
I’m in the tank…
Fascinating; the Comments from the P’nut gallery illustrate the Michael’s synopsis of the state of the issue.
@Cognus: yep
One of the earliest practices established for the Jews was washing:
Exodus 30:
17 ¶ And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
18 Thou shalt also make a laver of brass, and his foot also of brass, to wash withal: and thou shalt put it between the tabernacle of the congregation and the altar, and thou shalt put water therein.
19 For Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and their feet thereat:
20 When they go into the tabernacle of the congregation, they shall wash with water, that they die not; or when they come near to the altar to minister, to burn offering made by fire unto the LORD:
21 So they shall wash their hands and their feet, that they die not: and it shall be a statute for ever to them, even to him and to his seed throughout their generations.
The priests did not approach God without washing. There are various ordinances, and various practices developed in the intertestamental years under rabbinic Judaism:
Mark 7:
1 ¶ Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem.
2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.
3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.
4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.
5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
John’s Mikveh (and you should read this if you are not familiar with this):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikveh
John’s Mikveh had a new but apparently frequently adopted feature in that participation in the ritual cleansing was a rite of passage into a cult. People who were baptized became followers of the cult leader:
Acts 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto Johns baptism.
Acts 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
Matthew then says that the name that believers should be baptized into is the name of the father (God), the son (the cult leader) and the holy breath. Here is where their allegiance would be.
Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in [EIS=into] the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Paul was sensitive to the issue:
1 Cor 1:
13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in [EIS=into] the name of Paul?
14 ¶ I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
1 Corinthians 10:2 And were all baptized **unto Moses** in the cloud and in the sea;
1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all **baptized into one body**, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
If Jesus were not resurrected, then to be baptized into him would be to be baptized into a dead person, never to rise again.
1 Corinthians 15:29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?
Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Now, I am of the opinion that the NT authors consciously commandeered as many Jewish themes as they could possibly think of for the new cult. In other words, Paul was of the mindset that if Jews had an intertestamental interest in joining a cult by identification with the person who baptized them, or into a cult, then by golly Christ will be the one in who’s name, person and cult that the believers should be baptized.
In other words, Paul would co-opt this new-fangled, extra-biblical practice of his contemporaries because it was one more expedient way to harness Judaism’s appeal and structure for the new religion. It was such a popular element of the Hellenistic Jewish landscape that you see all of the writers of the NT appropriating it in various ways.
But Paul was ignorant of Matthew’s command to baptize. For him, like other religious practices of the Jews, he just wanted what he considered the nectar – he wanted them as symbols to describe “Christ.” He said:
1 Cor 1:
16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
17 ¶ For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
Matthew wanted to make “disciples” but Paul wanted to make “believers.”
I don’t think there’s any value in grouping all the infant baptisers together… they do the same ritual but mean such different things by it.
I agree with cwmyers007 that the real issue is over the covenants and over the people of God: who is in, who is out, and how to change it. I know some infant baptists who think their babies have the holy spirit. I know other adult baptists who attempt to evangelise their children as they would any other pagan.
I think the connection with the local church is more distant. Some churches, of both adult and infant baptists persuasion, connect baptism with local church membership, but I personally don’t think baptism should even be connect to local church membership.