Ever since the reformation, the issue of baptism has been a
prevalent and divisive point in church praxis. With the church and state still
closely intertwined during the period of the reformation, the rebaptism of
individuals was originally a form of protest against the political
establishment.[1]
As the radical reformers gained traction, they were able to find a biblical
argument for why infants should not be baptized. Along with the reformation
came a resurgence of interest and concern for biblical authority. The argument
against infant baptism is all too often oversimplified, since we cannot find an
example of infant baptism in the New Testament(NT), we will not do it.
Currently, comprehension regarding baptismal issues is foggy at best and
ignorant at worst. Many protestants will reject infant baptism on the grounds
of its association with Catholicism. This paper is an exploration of the
various exegetical discrepancies present in Scripture regarding baptism. We are
specifically interested in what prompts certain traditions to endorse either infant
baptism or believer baptism. Finally, we will look at my own church tradition
to gain perspective of how the Evangelical Covenant Church has dealt with the
issue. First, we will attempt an understanding of what baptism actually is,
what it does, what precludes it, and why is it a sacrament of the church. We
will then approach the biblical arguments followed by the theological
discrepancies that are in favor and support of adult baptism, or credobaptism,
as we will refer to it. We will then do the exact same thing for infant, or
paedobaptism. We will conclude with the Covenant denomination's decision on the
matter and my own thoughts regarding their verdict.
Our first task is to
understand the Scripture that is behind the theology which is not exactly easy.
The question, ‘what is baptism?’ is not outright answered in Scripture. Much of
what we do have are only examples. Our first interaction with the term and the
action are found in the gospels. All of the gospels have near their beginning
an account of John the Baptist(Matthew 3, Mark 1, John 1). In Luke 3:2-3 for
instance we read, “the word of God came to John, the son of Zacharias, in the
wilderness. 3 And he came into all the district around the Jordan,
preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.”[2]
All of the gospels present John the Baptist’s baptism as going hand in hand
with repentance. However, the text is not clear regarding the order of events.
All we know is that his baptism involved water and people coming to him and it
involved repentance and forgiveness of sins.
We know that Jesus however, did not baptize with water. John
4:2 is quite specific that it was Jesus’ disciples not Jesus Himself who were
baptizing, at least with water. Although, later in Acts 1 Jesus does promise a
baptism of the Holy Spirit. “5 For John baptized with water, but you
will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” Unfortunately
there is again a certain amount of ambiguity when the writer describes
pentecost, the baptism of the Holy Spirit, in chapter 2. “2 And
suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent rushing wind, and it
filled the whole house where they were sitting.” The result of this baptism of
the Spirit, at least in this account, is the descension of tongues of fire and
the ability to speak in different earthly languages. The same thing happens in
chapter 10 when Peter is called to the house of Cornelius to tell those
gentiles about Jesus. The only difference with the house of Cornelius is that
there are no burning tongues coming down from heaven and the gentiles receive
the baptism of the Spirit prior to being baptized with water. This of course
assumes that the disciples were baptized at some point, although there is no
evidence in Scripture of such an occurrence.
Roman 6, Colossians 2, and 1 Peter 3 all stress the
importance of our baptism uniting us to the death and resurrection of Christ.
Just as Christ died and was resurrected, so through our baptism we die and are
resurrected that we might walk in newness of life. Finally, there are a number
of instances where Paul appeals to the baptism of the early church as a uniting
factor(Gal 3:23-29, 1 Cor 1). In 1 Corinthians 12:12-13 Paul explains to us that
just as there are many gifts of the Spirit, there is only one Spirit who unites
us together through our baptism.
What we know concerning what baptism is leaves a drastic
sense of lacking considering that baptism is one of only two sacraments within
the church that is universally acknowledged. all that we are told about baptism
is usually found within an argument for something else such as we have seen in
1 Corinthians 12 pertaining to spiritual gifts. What we can gather from these
limited references is this: baptism usually involved water, baptism involved
the Spirit, and baptism is what unites the church so that there is no longer
Jew or Gentile, man or woman, slave or free, only our baptism. As far as we
know baptism is what we see here. However, there should be a distinction made
between the baptism of water and the baptism of the Spirit. For some reason,
there is a difference and separation between the two, in Acts 1 but the
distinction is not explicitly stated.
Although most protestants would wholly object to the notion
of salvation through baptism, in the extended ending of Mark 16:16 it says that
“He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has
disbelieved shall be condemned.” This is perhaps one of those texts that should
be treated with a grain of salt because it is not found in all of the texts,
because it is the only instance where such a connection with salvation is so
adamantly contended, and not least of all because no one agrees about the
legitimacy of the passage that the verse is found in.
Finally, and probably the most confusing aspect of the
sacrament, the Bible does not tell us where the act of baptism originates.
Baptism is not established in the NT like the Eucharist. Baptism predates the
NT so we have no understanding of the
origins of baptism except through extra sources. The fact that there is no
continuity regarding the practice or any reference in the Old Testament(OT)
regarding its possible beginnings can be concerning. However, there are
references to the OT that the NT writers make when referring to baptism. 1
Corinthians 10:1-5, 1 Peter 3:18-22, and Galatians 3:23-29 all refer to OT
stories and allude some sort of connection with them. Just as Noah travelled
through the flood, and Moses journeyed through the sea our baptism connects us
to the promises made to Abraham. This continuity between first and second
testament is unfortunately only picked up by those, as we will see later, who
would argue for paedobaptism.
Credobaptism on the other hand utilizes mostly the texts
from the New Testament. The simplified form of the credobaptism argument is
summarized in three primary arguments; First, that since the only explicit
examples of baptism in the NT are examples of baptisms involving adults, that
we should only be practicing the baptism of adults. Second, as we see is the
case in the baptisms done by John the Baptist, there necessitates a response
from the individual of repentance. Third, Jesus was baptized therefore we
should be too. Our primary texts therefore will be the book of Acts, because
our only reiterations of the baptism of people into the church are in Acts and
the early chapters of the Gospels where Jesus is baptized by John the Baptist.
Unfortunately, the first argument that the credobaptists use
is a mirrored argument of the paedobatists and is really a mute point, but
still worth mentioning. In Acts, we are provided with eight instances of people
being baptized(Acts 2:41, 8:38, 9:18, 10:48, 16:15, 16:33, 18:8, 19:5). In all
of these instances, there is absolutely no mention of any infants being
involved in these baptisms. Not even in those passages where entire households
are baptized at the same time because the head of the household is
converted(10:48 Cornelius, 16:15 Lydia, 16:33 the jailer, 18:8 Crispus). The
reasoning concludes that since there is no example of such a thing happening in
Scripture, there is no reason why such a thing should be allowed in church
praxis. As we will see later, the paedobaptists will argue something similar,
that because there is no direction in Scripture telling us to do otherwise, why
would we not baptize our children? Thus, this argument as presented by either
side convinces no one of anything.
The more convincing aspects of the credobaptist position is
found in the combination of the Gospels and Acts. In all of the accounts of
John the Baptist there is a connection established between baptism, repentance,
and belief whether explicit, as seem in the synoptics(Matt 3:6, Mark 1:4, Luke
3:3) or implicit, as seen in John(John 1:23). There are also instances in Acts
where belief and baptism go hand in hand but repentance is not evident. In the
stories of Simon the magician(8:38), The Philippian jailer(16:33), and Crispus
the ruler of the synagogue in Corinth(18:8) the correlation with their baptism
and belief are blatant. But not in all of the instances in Acts do belief and
baptism go together. For example, in Acts 10 where we read of the baptism of
Cornelius’ household the text is not concerned with the gentiles and their
belief in what was being told to them, only that the Spirit fell on them and
they were baptized. However, this can be accounted for earlier in the chapter
in verse 2 where we read that Cornelius was “a devout man who feared God with
all his household...” His baptism then is just a response to hearing
specifically about Jesus.
Finally, and perhaps most convincing of all the arguments
for any type of baptism, Jesus was baptized. Matthew 3:7, Mark 1:9, Luke 3:23,
and John 1:33 all relate of Jesus’ baptism. As we are followers of Jesus, we
want to be following in his example. However, we need to acknowledge that if
this is the peg we hang our hat on, there is no connection with being baptized
after Jesus’ example and repentance.
For the credobaptist,
there are three central theological propositions that convey a defense of
credobaptism. First, for the credobaptist, baptism is understood as a public
declaration of their faith in God. It is an outward act done in the presence of
other believers to signify the extent to which the person is willing to follow
God. In this case, credobaptism is understood to be fulfilling the aspect of
the sacrament that conveys a sacred oath.[3]
It is secondly a choice that is made by an individual. For someone to be able
to make a decision like this, the individual needs to be of a certain age of
reason to profess such an oath. Thus, while this could still occur at a young
age, where the individual is able to express or convey the way in which they
understand their faith, there is no place for the professing infant who cannot
feed themselves or form words let alone understand abstract cognitive concepts.
Finally, faith is a prerequisite upon which baptism depends. One must display
some evidence of an active faith. In this sense, baptism is a response to what
God has done. After hearing the word of God they respond through faith and
evidence that faith through the act of baptism. Again there is the necessity for
a cognitive response to what God has done.
The biblical arguments made for the case of paedobaptism are
not nearly as obvious as the case for credobaptism, although some would argue
that they are more robust than those made in favour of credobaptism. At its
fundamental roots, the biblical support for infant baptism is that it is a
continuation of the sign of the covenant and therefore represents a continuity
from Old to New Testaments. The paedobaptists, as we have pointed out already,
will also argue that there are ambiguities in certain texts that mention of
whole households being baptized because the heads of the houses were baptized.
As was earlier mentioned, the gentiles were first introduced
to the completed Gospel by Peter when he was told to go to the house of
Cornelius in Acts 10. After Peter tells them about Jesus' death and
resurrection Peter witnesses the gentiles speaking in tongues as the Holy
Spirit falls on them. Afterwards, Peter commands them all to be baptized. In
this instance there is no mention of infants, it just says that Peter commanded
them to be baptized. This could allow for a possibility of paedobaptism.
Likewise, we read in Acts 16:11-15 of the conversion of Lydia. Here God opened
her heart to respond to the gospel, after which we read in verse 15, "she
and her household had been baptized..." Again there remains an ambiguity
that leaves much to be discerned. Who did her household consist of? Were there
children or even infants? Were there men or were they all women? Simply put, we
do not know. But there is also no direct reason to assume that there were no
children. The same can be said for the conversion of the Philippian jailer and
his family(Acts 16:33), and the conversion of Crispus(Acts 18:8). This aspect
of the paedobaptist argument is admittedly weak. Many credobaptists simply
point out that there is still no mention of infants. The 'could be' argument is
just not enough to base a robust theological argument upon.
The other argument that paedobaptists have lies in the ancient
right and sign of the covenant. As such, we begin the biblical research all the
way back in Genesis with the Abram and the promises. God promises Abraham that
He will make a great nation out of him(12:2), and that He will bless Abram with
a multitude of descendants(15:5), and land(15:18-21). God then establishes the
covenant with Abram(15:17) and gives Abram the sign of the covenant which is
circumcision(17:10). God gives Abram the sign of the covenant that Yahweh has
already entered into in chapter 15, first by renaming him Abraham then by
saying that the sign of the covenant will be circumcision. God says that all of
Abraham's descendants and servants, whether they be bought and brought into his
house or whether they are born into his house shall be circumcised. Those who
are born into Abraham's house are to be circumcised on the eighth day. Those
who are not circumcised shall not receive Yahweh's covenant, they will be cut
off from the fulfillment of the promises. By doing this, their bodies will bear
the mark of Yahweh's covenant with them.[4]
To be circumcised is to be tied to the promises made to Abraham. This is a
literal physical sign of Yahweh's covenant, one that will be impossible to undo
even if the child were to grow up and decide he no longer wished to be included
in God's promises.
In other areas of the OT there are references to a
circumcision of the heart rather than of the flesh meaning an inward posturing
of the heart or an inward repentance. We see such a thing in Deuteronomy 10 and
Jeremiah 4. In Deuteronomy 10:16, Moses exhorts Israel to circumcise their
hearts and to stop stiffening their necks before they enter the land God is
giving them. Moses wants the Israelites to legitimately deserve the blessings
that God is bestowing upon them. Moses wants the Israelites to live into their
circumcisions, to not only be showing the outward sign of the covenant, but the
inward sign as well. In Jeremiah 4:4, Jeremiah also begs Israel to repent and
to circumcise their hearts before God, or else God's wrath will burn throughout
the land. Obviously these OT passages cannot be taken too far out of context.
Jeremiah and Moses are still good Jews, they do not think that the circumcision
of the heart somehow replaces the act of physical circumcision. But as they are
circumcised, their hearts should be reflecting the sign of Abraham's promises.
This major theme of circumcision is carried through to the
NT when the Jewish Christians in Acts 15 demand that the new gentile Christians
be circumcised and follow the law of Moses. After Peter witnesses the
bequeathing of the Holy Spirit to the gentiles and commands them to be
baptized, he goes back to the church in Jerusalem to discuss whether or not
they should have to fulfill any other right of initiation into the church.
Peter ultimately argues that the presence of the Spirit in their lives is
enough. Thus ending the continuation of circumcision being that which is the
sign of God's covenant with Abraham. In Galatians 3:26-29 Paul argues along the
same lines, “26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ
Jesus. 27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed
yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is
neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all
one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are
Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.” In this way, Paul comes to
understand how to treat this issue of circumcision. We are now all baptized,
there is no longer any need to circumcise for the sake of blessing or inclusion
in the community to inherit the promises given to Abraham. Even women can now
have the sign of the covenant. Although, Paul does deal more thoroughly with
the issue in Romans.
In Romans 2, 3, 4, and 6 Paul makes a sweeping argument for
the church in Rome for how Jews and Gentiles should be conducting themselves as
the community of believers. In chapter 2 he argues that for the Jews, holding
to their sign of Abraham’s inheritance only stands if they also continue to
abide by the law. This is perhaps the marrying of the concept of the
circumcision of the heart. Paul says that you need to live your inheritance as
much as you have done nothing to inherit it. Circumcision is supposed to be an
outward sign of an inward truth. He continues on in chapter 3 that regardless
of whether a person is circumcised or not, “There is none righteous, not even
one.”(Psalm 14) Paul says that there is no benefit to being a Jew. Whether
circumcised or uncircumcised, God justifies all through His righteousness not
our own, for we have none. He presses on in chapter 4 where he furthers this
argument saying that before Abraham was circumcised he was counted as righteous
and only then was he given the sign of Yahweh’s covenant. Abraham also did not
have the law, so it was not through the adherence to the law that he was made
righteous, but through faith in God's promises was righteousness credited to
him. So it shall be for us who have faith in Christ who was raised from the
dead. Chapter 6 is where he makes his conclusion that through baptism we are
united to Abraham’s promises by the new sign as established in the new
covenant. “4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism
into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the
Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have
become united with Him in the likeness of His death certainly we shall also be
in the likeness of His resurrection.” For Paul and for Peter it seems as though
baptism is that which replaces this act of circumcision because this new
covenant does not require a physical representation.
This perspective on baptism is the strongest that the
paedobaptists have. If circumcision was to be done on an infant eight days out
of the womb, then surely baptism should be performed in similar fashion. But
the theological developments have gone passed the Scriptural arguments and have
adopted aspects of reason and tradition to support their claim as well. From my
perspective there are four primary theological arguments in favour of
paedobaptism.
First, there is a heavy emphasis placed upon the theme of
community in this position. There is a call for the community to welcome the
infant into the believing community on no part of their own, only through the
unity of the Spirit. The community is then charged with the task of encouraging
and nurturing the infant to pursue the faith as they grow up. Second is a
predominant dependence upon the doctrine of justification by grace through
faith alone. If we truly do nothing in order to gain our salvation, what better
way to evidence such a statement than to attribute this infant who can do
literally nothing, let alone anything to earn their salvation, and have this infant
committed into the community of the church which shares in the blessings of the
new covenant? Third, this model is most consistent with the majority of church
tradition throughout the centuries. The development of the sacrament was
originally considered a pledge of allegiance hence the Latin term sacramentum translates as sacred oath.[5]
However, Paedobaptism has been the normative practice of the church somewhere
around the second or third century and was not seriously undertaken as a subject
for the church fathers until the Christological controversies were concluded.
Some of the earliest proponents of paedobaptism were Origen and Augustine.[6]
The last and strongest theological proposition in favour of paedobaptism is that
there is thorough grounding in the continuity of the Abrahamic covenant. We who
are gentiles are not cut off from the promises of Yahweh anymore, we are
blessed through Abraham and can count ourselves as one of his descendants.
Although
there can seem to be a lot of contention between the two perspectives, it is
interesting that a tradition like the Evangelical Covenant Church can take a
stance on the issue such as it does. In the official Covenant Book of Worship,
the point is laid out quite directly:
Just
how these biblical themes are expressed in the practice of baptism is not a
matter of uniform understanding in Covenant churches. This church has striven
to be an ecclesial home for both the practice of infant baptism and that of
believer baptism. Its pastors are required to serve persons of either
persuasion in one congregation... In word and sacrament God’s redemptive
promises are confirmed and conveyed.[7]
The statement goes on to express the tradition’s
understanding of both practices. The Covenant Church understands paedobaptism
to be predominantly initiated by the divine aspect. God “uses both word and
sign to call forth and confirm the faith required to be a disciple of Jesus.”[8]
As such, the initiative, faith, and sign are provided by God just as we see
with Abraham in Genesis 15 and 17. The Covenant tradition would then understand
credobaptism to be mostly on the initiative of the individual and therefore
recognize more of a separation between word and sign. “Persons hear the word of
God, repent, believe it, and are baptized. The position of believer baptism
does not deny the prevenient work of God in opening the human heart to the
gospel; but this position does not see the sign as intrinsic to the
communication of God’s grace.”[9]
For the credobaptist, there is no intrinsic value to the actual sign of
baptism, it is only important in the way that it is responding to God’s word of
grace. Regardless of the specific method which is practiced, the Covenant Book
of Worship stresses the important role that the community has to play in the
sacrament. “The community of believers is intrinsic to the onset and
development of both faith in the saving grace provided in Jesus Christ and
faithfulness in discipleship. Baptism is not an act apart from community, but
in and toward community.”[10]
Personally,
I could not agree more with the position that the Covenant Church has taken on
the issue of baptism. I greatly appreciate the attempt to avoid turning these
necessary and exciting issues into points of division. It confuses me that
there are such churches who develop into splits simply because they cannot
agree on when the person is dunked or the method by which people are welcomed
into the church. Especially considering all of the passages we have covered
that speak so adamantly about the unifying aspect of baptism and how we are all
united by the Spirit in our baptism. I personally would side with the
paedobaptist position if only because I have a very deeply rooted concern for
tradition and the continuity of the church through the centuries. That
statement might be a contradiction in and of itself because I am a Protestant
and my current tradition is derived from the Lutheran church, but never the
less I am very concerned for the continuation of tradition.
In conclusion, we have approached the topic of baptism from both biblical and theological perspectives and found a firm basis for arguments in both positions. We have seen the arguments made for believer, or credobaptism regarding the necessity of response to hearing what God has done. We have also seen the the case made for paedobaptism, that it is primarily rooted in the continuation of a sign of the covenant established with Abraham and now offered to the gentiles and women. We understand that for the Evangelical Covenant Church, there is an earnest striving to maintain the Spirit of unity that is involved in baptism and that regardless of the particular practice that is chosen and followed, baptism in the Covenant tradition will continue to be a unifying act and unifying sign of the Spirit in the Covenant church. Perhaps, in time, other church traditions might come to appreciate the benefit of unity in this manner regarding the question of baptism. Until then, we will have to rely on the overpowering ability of the Spirit to unite us regardless of our squabbling. Hallelujah! What a saviour!
In conclusion, we have approached the topic of baptism from both biblical and theological perspectives and found a firm basis for arguments in both positions. We have seen the arguments made for believer, or credobaptism regarding the necessity of response to hearing what God has done. We have also seen the the case made for paedobaptism, that it is primarily rooted in the continuation of a sign of the covenant established with Abraham and now offered to the gentiles and women. We understand that for the Evangelical Covenant Church, there is an earnest striving to maintain the Spirit of unity that is involved in baptism and that regardless of the particular practice that is chosen and followed, baptism in the Covenant tradition will continue to be a unifying act and unifying sign of the Spirit in the Covenant church. Perhaps, in time, other church traditions might come to appreciate the benefit of unity in this manner regarding the question of baptism. Until then, we will have to rely on the overpowering ability of the Spirit to unite us regardless of our squabbling. Hallelujah! What a saviour!
Opere
Citato
The Covenant Book of Worship.
Chicago: Covenant Publications, 2003.
McGrath, Allister E. Christian Theology: An Introduction, 5th ed. West Sussex: John
Wiley & Sons, LTD., 2010.
[1] Allister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, 5th ed.
(West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, LTD.,
[1]2010), 48.
[2] All Scripture
references will be NASB unless otherwise stated.
[3] McGrath, 402.
[4] Even Ishmael was
circumcised, though the covenant was not extended to him.
[5] McGrath, 402.
[6] McGrath, 421.
[7] The Covenant Book of Worship (Chicago: Covenant Publications,
2003), 125.
[8] CBW, 125.
[9] CBW, 125.
[10] CBW, 126.
No comments:
Post a Comment