This post is in response to a couple of remarks made about Baptism on facebook. The first was a quote from Mark Driscoll that was nonsensical and funny. This sparked a small back and forth that showed that I didn’t really understand the theology relating to baptism. The second was having done some reading and making a decision in favour of believers baptism (credobaptism) instead of infant baptism (paedobaptism). Before the start of the week I held to the latter, I now hold to the former having read and considered the issue. Some people will cry ‘but you haven’t given it enough consideration’ or ‘what about this part of scripture’. I don’t claim to have written a doctrinal thesis on the matter so please feel free to respond and put your case forward. I have though considered what Wayne Grudum and Louis Berkhof have to say in their systematic theologies. I’ve also read what John Calvin has to say in his Institutes of the Christian Religion.
The first consideration is to define, positively, what is meant by Baptism. It is a sacrament, or ordinance if you prefer that term, that symbolises the death of a believer in Jesus and subsequently being raised to new life. It is an outward sign of an inward work of God to change a persons life.
Some of you may note that I placed in the term ‘believer’ there. Having done that am I not ruling out infant baptism by definition? No. Paedobaptists believe that baptism of an infant to a covenant believing family is a sign of the future promise that God may bring about the salvation of the subject of the baptism.
So what does the Bible say about the symbolism of baptism? The passages I want to highlight are Romans 6:3-4 and Colossians 2:12. They clearly talk about how those are baptised are baptised into Christ’s death and resurrection. There is further the promise, in baptism, of being raised to new life in Jesus. Baptism shows the joyful reality of salvation in Jesus Christ alone. It is something to rejoice in. Though baptism doesn’t save. It is Jesus that saves. He is the one who died for our sins and rose again. Baptism is the symbolisation of that reality.
The contentious issue is that of who should be the recipients of baptism. Though I advocate believers baptism I by no means say that those who hold to infant baptism are heretical or reprobate. I was baptised as an infant myself and even confirmed. Both occurred without holding a sound understanding of the Gospel, though in God’s grace he did bring about a saving faith in the finished work of his son Jesus who is the Christ.
This issue of the recipients of baptism is best answered by looking at what the Bible records for us about the administration of the sacrament of Baptism. The first occurrence is found in Acts 2:41 which shows us that those who received the word were baptised. Acts 8:12 shows that those who were baptised had believed Philip who preached the good news about the Kingdom of God. In Acts 8:36 the Ethiopian Eunuch asks what prevents him from being Baptised having just listened to Philip explain how Jesus is the one referred to in Isaiah 53. There are several more cases of those who believe being baptised such as Cornelius and those of his household in Acts 10, Lydia in Acts 16:14-15 and the Philippian Jailer in Acts 16:32-33. Now these later occurrences do mention whole households coming to faith, though are silent on the issue of whether children were baptised as part of that. What they do mention is that Baptism was done in response to having heard and believed.
So, if baptism is a symbolism of being united with Christ in his death and resurrection, it makes us members of a community. That community is often referred to as the covenant community. In the Old Testament it was circumcision that symbolised membership. In the New Testament it is Baptism. Circumcision showed that you were born into a community and gained access as such. Baptism shows that you are granted access having faith in Jesus. In Galatians 3:29 it is clear that we are members of the covenant community (Abraham’s heirs) through faith in Jesus. Romans 4:11-12 backs this up showing that Abraham, through faith, is the father of the uncircumcised as well as the circumcised. Colossians 2:17 shows that circumcision is a shadow of the things to come but the substance belongs to Jesus. It is clear that Baptism is the sign of membership instead of circumcision. Though do the same rules apply? Are we to baptise our infants so that they are members of the covenant community? No, as the criteria for membership is different from the Old Testament to the New Testament. The Old Testament had the criteria of being born into the community. The New Testament has criteria of being the recipient of saving faith. Yes, it is true that receiving saving faith is being born from above but that is still no reason say that the same rules apply.
Now, some may come back and say that not all who were circumcised in the old covenant were saved. That is true, Jews were saved by their faith in the promise of a messiah to come. Christians are likewise saved in the faith of a messiah, Jesus, who has come. Being circumcised doesn’t save and likewise baptism doesn’t save. It is faith that saves, though that doesn’t mean infants should be baptised.
I’ve ranted long enough and know that there will probably be a long comment thread. You will need to register to comment and even then I will need to approve the comment before it appears. Don’t be disheartened if this takes a bit of time to appear.
My parting words are hold fast to the faith you have in Jesus Christ, it is him alone that saves. He is the author and perfecter of your faith and of mine as well. We are brothers and sisters in Christ, though may disagree on some issues.
God bless,
Matt.