Baptism. The Bible talks about baptism a lot: water is a recurring image in the New Testament. John baptized Jesus. Pagans and Jews who converted to Christianity were publicly baptized.
Today, most churches (like the Catholics, the Orthodox, the Lutherans, the Methodists and most Calvinists) baptize little babies, not by dunking them under water but by a sprinkle on the forehead. Is this okay? I think so -- and more than that, I think it illustrates some essential truths about the nature of our salvation.
Amyann blogs about the issue here. She refers to Romans 6:
What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.Amyann asks,If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin-- because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.
I fully awknowledge the Doctrine of Original Sin, but does a re-birth not imply a knowing decision to be reborn as a new creature in Christ? Does the Spirit not first convict us of our sin so that we might repent and then be reborn? Spirit directs, we are the ones who must chose to follow.My answer is, no.
Baptism is not a sign of our choosing God; rather, it shows that God has chosen us and begun to work in us before we accepted him, before we knew about him -- even when we were little babies. Think of the very metaphor of birth. How many of us decided we were ready to leave the womb and popped out? No, we were powerless to decide, and in fact we probably wouldn't have minded staying in a cozy, warm, dark place a little while longer.
Baptism works a lot like circumcision. That was God's chosen sign to the people of Israel. He commanded that every male child be circumcised as an infant to symbolize, not that child's faith in God, but God's covenant with his people. God promised in Genesis 17 that:
I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you.So, we say, God promises to be our God, but also the God of our children and their children. We don't find a repudiation of that promise anywhere in Scripture.
An objection my friend Jehan raised is this: "Some children are baptized and raised in the church, but later turn away. Isn't it better to baptize them later, when it can be seen that they are actually choosing God?" This is a valid point, and one that I can't completely refute -- but I think that formulating baptism in this way puts too much emphasis on the act of man and not enough on that of God.
Let me draw from my own experience. I was baptized at my grandma's church, North Park Presbyterian (PC-USA), as an infant. And although I was of course an incredibly brilliant child prodigy, I have to admit that I did not at that point have the ability to decide to follow Christ.
Later, I took profession of faith at my then-church, Madison Square CRC. That's where I stood in front of a whole lot of people and publicly said that I would follow Jesus -- that I was responding to God's call on my life.
Thing is, though, I don't always live up to that ideal. A good deal of the time I'm doing things God doesn't want me to do, or (more often, I imagine) not doing things God does want me to do. Do I always seek justice and love mercy and walk humbly with God? No. Do always love my neighbo(u)r as myself? No.
And my failure extends deeper yet. Sometimes, I am not sure whether I can even believe in that whole Cross deal. What relevance does one death two thousand years ago, even a rather nasty one (and not even the worst possible, either), even one of an innocent man, have to do with me? And what if God is a liar, or not very powerful, or not even there at all?
I suspect that most people who are serious about following Christ ask themselves this. But how can I call myself a person of faith if I do not, at this specific moment or on this particularly bad day, even believe there is a God. What happens if, at a moment of unbelief, I am suddenly run over by a bus?
The answer is, my soul goes to Heaven (temporarily, but that's another post...), because what happens when I die does not depend on my skittish emotions and wavering reason, but in the mighty acts of God in Christ.
I look at my baptism and say, what happened there was not me asking to be rescued, but me beyond all hope being resurrected. On my own I am not merely drowning, but I am already sunken under the water, lungs filled with liquid.
And it is God who pulls me out. And it is God who does not merely perform CPR on my nearly-dead body, but who literally revives me, who literally breathes life into one who is dead and gone.
That is what baptism means to me. Even when I am faithless, the Bible says, He will be faithful.
Another point about infant baptism is the involvement of the community. We promise at every baptism that, God helping us, we will help to raise the child in God's ways. I think we've lost a lot of the Biblical emphasis on community in our individualistic North American culture. (saying this does not make me a socialist, Jake, does it?)
We grow up and live in a community given to us by God. This is especially evident in my life, since I'm an orphan from Calcutta, India, and my life is the story of adoption in more than one way. But all those who are Christians can point to people and places and events that lead them closer to God, and these are all evidences of the grace that God has shown us. Infant baptism makes it clear, I think, that our lives are guided by the hands of one more powerful and loving than we can fathom. And that knowledge, well, it changes everything.
Posted by Tim at April 12, 2004 08:14 PM | TrackBackOk:
1.Circumsion was about marking the child as a descendant of Abraham, since it was in this relationsip that Israel was to inherit God's blessings. Baptism is not about a national or ethnic identity. This "circumcision of the heart" is quite different, since it is based on one's own purity and devotion.
2.the new covenant reaches beyond community, to the individual who chooses to become adopted into God's family. We are not born into it, but adotped. The sign of this new covenant is not baptism, but the Lord's supper.
3.In Scripture we see that John, Jesus, and the Apostles baptized new believers after their repentence. Why should we do otherwise?
4.Infant baptism came about the early church, when infant mortality was high, and parents were concerned for the souls of their children who may not survive to a time when they can confess Christ as Lord. The baptism was more to put the parents mind at ease, than to bring them into the community.
5.In the great commission we are told to baptize new disciples. Disciples must first agree to follow.
6.The word baptize means to immerse or submerge, not to moisten, or make wet.
7.a baptized baby is not saved, just wet. See Rom. 10:9.
8."and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also- not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God." 1 Peter 3:21.
That's why Catholics (and some Protestant sects) have the Rite of Confirmation. When we are baptised as infants, it's our parents, our community and our church that are really making an agreement with God. They are saying that they will take the responsibility to raise an individual who follows the teachings in which they believe. It is not until later, until we can understand, that we confirm our faith.
Even in anabaptist sects there is the same sort of cultural ideology. The Amish, for example, don't believe in baptising infants. That doesn't mean that they don't expect their children to live by the rules and guidelines that the Amish faith perscribes. It's not until later, after Rumspringa, that an individual can really make the choice to fully accept God.
and in reply to Evghenis:
I think when we look so closely at specific Bible quotes and scriptures we fail to realize that the JudeoChristian Bible does not even claim to be the word of God (like the Qu`ran does). This Bible is very very heavily influenced by the cultural practices of the time. Things like baptism and circumcision originated long before the time of Abraham. These stories simply try to explain why they existed.
I've put Evghenis/Graham's points in bold & mine in plain text:
1.Circumsion was about marking the child as a descendant of Abraham, since it was in this relationsip that Israel was to inherit God's blessings. Baptism is not about a national or ethnic identity. This "circumcision of the heart" is quite different, since it is based on one's own purity and devotion.
No -- the circumcision of the heart is based on God's grace. He's the one who chooses us and marks us as His own. And having been chosen by Him, we in return choose Him.
2.the new covenant reaches beyond community, to the individual who chooses to become adopted into God's family. We are not born into it, but adotped. The sign of this new covenant is not baptism, but the Lord's supper.
Right, we're adopted; but again, it is God who is doing the adoption based not on our choice but on His will. The Lord's Supper is the sacrament for confessing believers only, yes -- the Bible clearly calls us to examine ourselves before partaking of it -- and that's why we don't offer it to children.
3.In Scripture we see that John, Jesus, and the Apostles baptized new believers after their repentence. Why should we do otherwise?
Converts should be baptized as adults, and there's no church that doesn't hold this. Infant baptism is for the children of believers only.
4.Infant baptism came about the early church, when infant mortality was high, and parents were concerned for the souls of their children who may not survive to a time when they can confess Christ as Lord. The baptism was more to put the parents mind at ease, than to bring them into the community.I don't see why baptizing the children would make the parents any more comfortable if there were no doctrinal basis for it.
5.In the great commission we are told to baptize new disciples. Disciples must first agree to follow.See above: adult converts are another class of people who must be baptized.
6.The word baptize means to immerse or submerge, not to moisten, or make wet.True: but the important part is not the formula or the exact method, but what the sacrament symbolizes. The Lord's Supper is celebrated much differently from the way Christ instituted it, but it is no less a means of grace for that reason.
7.a baptized baby is not saved, just wet. See Rom. 10:9.(which reads: if you confess with your mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.) We believe that baptism is a sign and a seal of God's promise to save his people -- before Christ, Abraham and his descendants; after Christ, believers and their descendants. He regenerates us and we turn to him. He regenerates our children and they turn to him.
8."and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also- not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God." 1 Peter 3:21.Fair enough: this verse seems to support your position, though I think there are other, clearer arguments for infant baptism, and I'll look for some later.
Good discussion.
Uhm... gonna have to disagree with you there tim. Especially #7. Let's not forget that Baptism symbolizes death and resurrection (see Rom. 6) "Regenerates our children and they turn to him"? No offense, but that's a pretty ridiculous claim. No child will believe because their parents had them baptized. I have met many who actually resent being baptized as a child. As for #4, well, the parents of most children were not exactly theologians. Let's not forget that access to the Scriptures was limited at the time, and quite frankly, I have yet to discover any bilical arguement for infant baptism. The only arguement I have heard is to connect it to circumcision, which is quite wrong. Read Romans 6 again Tim. Death and resurrection... accepting Christ, and declaring faith in His accomplishment. This is what baptism is about. Baptism is not a "seal" of His promise, but a personal declaration that one believes in said promise.
Posted by: Graham at April 15, 2004 12:12 AMIt is not baptism itself that regenerates. Baptism is a sign and seal of regeneration. At baptism, God marks the child as His own.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree here, though.
Posted by: Tim at April 15, 2004 06:39 PMTim, your reflection on baptism is quite moving. I especially appreciate your likening it to your own adoption. One minor correction: the Orthodox do not sprinkle; they immerse three times. They don't put the baby's head under the water, but they do pour water over it. It's the rare baby that does not cry at an Orthodox baptism.
Posted by: David T. Koyzis at April 15, 2004 06:57 PMMy major problem with that last comment of yours Tim, is this: is that child God's at baptism? How is a child who has not confessed a faith in Christ marked as God's own? Does not salvation require a confession of and true belief in Christ's Lordship, keeping in mind Rom. 10:9?
Posted by: Graham at April 15, 2004 11:27 PMThat's where we may have to agree to disagree, Graham. My understanding of Reformational theology is that we are not saved by faith in Christ, but by God's grace, and that faith, while the normal way that God has chosen to save people, is not the only way one can be saved.
I'm not advocating salvation by works here, far from it. I'm saying that, because of Christ's sacrifice, God is able to save all those for whom Christ died. If He died for the sins of a child who dies in infancy, that child's guilt is erased and he is right before God.
Posted by: Tim at April 16, 2004 03:18 PMbut Tim, by that logic faith is meaningless and everyone is saved. God offers grace to all, faith is what separates Christians from the rest. We are saved by grace, but it is "grace through faith." Our faith does not save us, it is grace which does, but it is not a one way street.
Posted by: Graham at April 16, 2004 06:47 PMEvery time I am involved in or see an argument regarding a doctrinal issue, it become more and more clear how much doctrines are intertwined. Take a discussion of baptism, and it quickly turns into one of predestination. This happens simply because one's view of baptism is rooted in one's view of God and His nature, as is predestination and a plethora of other doctrines.
Apart from that, I think it is important to remember that, as Tim said, baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant. This doesn't mean that the individual is a Christian when baptized, but rather as they grow they will either be covenant keepers or covenant breakers. Believer's baptism is a safe baptism...the individual has already decided to be part of the covenant.
Either way you look at it - believer's or infant - it is a covenant that is being made. Often people who hold to believer's baptism claim that the individual must make a conscious decision on their own in order for a covenant to be valid. So to take it a little deeper, I pose a question or two: is it against the nature of a biblical covenant for it to be made on behalf of people...even children? Further, what are the implications of this and how does it relate to baptism and salvation?
Well, Albert, I must reiterate #8 of the original comment. The nature of the new covenant is with "whosoever believes" (Jn 3:16). Baptism is statement of faith, that one believes in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I am not sure where the confusion comes from.
Posted by: Graham at April 17, 2004 08:53 AMGraham, What does Acts 16: 24-34 have to say about this issue. Especially note verse 33. As well, I think you have to remember that we work out of completely different frameworks for understanding the faith. We are both deeply immersed within two different traditions. (Also see Mr. Postma's comments) I think we need to, as Tim said, agree to disagree. Although dialoge is still good.
Tim, I thoroughly enjoyed your post.
Posted by: Andy G at April 21, 2004 11:08 AM