Aims

1. To provide an outline of the most common understandings of baptism;
2. To put forward my own understandings of what is a valid Biblical interpretation of an issue that is not crisply clear in Scripture.[1]

Background

It is only fair that I declare my own background and bias in the introduction. Hardly anyone in the Western world could come to this issue without some cultural bias arising from one’s own background and upbringing. Here is mine.

I was raised in a Christian family, in a church which practised what is known as believer’s baptism. The process was always by full bodily immersion. Babies were brought to the church for a “Dedication” service. The pastor would pray a prayer of blessing on the child and the family, as they were “dedicated” to the Lord. 

My experience from early childhood through to my early twenties was in a church which took the Bible very seriously and had what would now be called a quite fundamentalist approach to Christian faith. 

I grew up learning hundreds of Bible verses, hearing sermons at least once a week in which it was constantly declared that if the Bible didn’t say it, then one should question it. The experience of the Bereans (Acts 17:11) who questioned everything the apostles taught, and tested it against the Scriptures was always presented as the right way to deal with issues of faith. 

Infant baptism was generally regarded as a superstitious rite, which could have no real foundation in scripture. If a person came to a confession of faith and had been baptised as a child, that person would be urged to make a believer’s baptism, as a true confession of faith. Not surprisingly, I was dedicated as a baby, and baptised by immersion as a young man.

In my mid-twenties, with three young children, I began to attend a church which practised infant baptism, using small amounts of water applied to the head of the infant. Of all of the theological issues which I faced in those years, this question of infant baptism was the hardest one for me to deal with and to move away from my childhood teaching. 

When my children were aged about one, three and four years, my wife and I chose to baptise all of them. My parents never understood this decision, but graciously attended the ceremony and gave to each of them a New Testament, inscribed with the words, “On the occasion of your dedicationto the Lord”! 

My position on the issue for over twenty-five years has been to prefer an infant baptism model, but to support and to accept believer’s baptism for those who could not accept infant baptism. I have never participated in an argument or strong debate on the topic, and would never allow the issue to become divisive for a group of Christians. In writing this paper, I am writing it for the benefit of my own children, now adults, and for others who may be interested in reading it. 

My plea is that no-one will see this article or use the issue as a means of creating division, or will allow a difference of opinion to diminish or destroy the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ amongst any of his people. Over the centuries blood has been shed over this issue. Christians have killed each other and persecuted each other over a difference of opinion on this matter. It is not that important! What unites us as believers is far greater than what might divide us on a matter that is not crucial to salvation. 

This article will attempt to outline fairly the argument for both positions, while generally expressing a personal preference for one of those positions.

Believer’s[2] Baptism: the Basis

1          Baptism in the New Testament is often linked with repentance. 

Peter’s words convicted them deeply, and they said to him and to the other apostles, “Brothers, what should we do?” Peter replied, “Each of you must turn from your sins and turn to God, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.Acts (2:37-8)

2          Advocates for believer’s baptism note two key New Testament passages concerning baptism. These are:

Or have you forgotten that when we became Christians and were baptized to become one with Christ Jesus, we died with him? For we died and were buried with Christ by baptism. And just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glorious power of the Father, now we also may live new lives.

Since we have been united with him in his death, we will also be raised as he was. Our old sinful selves were crucified with Christ so that sin might lose its power in our lives. We are no longer slaves to sin. (Romans 6:3-6)

For you were buried with Christ when you were baptized. And with him you were raised to a new life because you trusted the mighty power of God, who raised Christ from the dead.(Colossians 2:12)

The idea here is that a believer undergoes a symbolic death / resurrection of his old self, rising from the water as a new person, even as Christ was crucified and rose from the dead. The recognise no sense of baptismal regeneration (the notion that the act of baptism itself constitutes the process of salvation or renewal) in this. Rather, the act of baptism is a sign of grace already received.

3          Baptism is seen as a public announcement, a declaration that the person intends to live henceforth “in newness of life”. He or she has laid aside the old life and committed the future life to Christ, who is now the Lord and master.

4          By its very nature, as outlined above, baptism can only apply to believers, i.e. adults or at least young persons who are sufficiently mature to understand what they are doing. A person must have reached “an age of accountability” to undergo believer’s baptism.[3]

5               The procedure for conducting believer’s baptism is not critical to the process. In circumstances (illness, old age, situations where water was not available in large quantities) where it was impossible or impractical for a person to be fully immersed, most practitioners of believer’s baptism would probably accept a sprinkling methodology, while generally preferring the practice of full immersion. 

This view is generally based on two things: Firstly the meaning of the Greek word baptizo, is generally argued by proponents to mean immerse, rather than sprinkle. There are hundreds of books and pamphlets written on this to argue why this is the best meaning. Secondly, the support would generally come from passages such as Acts 8: 36 – 39:

As they rode along, they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “Look! There’s some water! Why can’t I be baptized? He ordered the carriage to stop, and they went down into the water, and Philip baptized him. When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away. The eunuch never saw him again but went on his way rejoicing.

In summary, believer’s baptism is argued to be a sign of an already present faith, declaring one’s repentance and claim to new life in Christ. The process of being fully immersed in water symbolises a willingness to follow one’s Lord in the death of self, and the rising to new life in him. 

There is a credible body of Scripture to support the view, and one can easily hold to a high view of Scripture and on what constitutes salvation while supporting it.

Infant Baptism: the Basis

If believer’s baptism may be summarised as a public declaration of a private decision to follow Jesus Christ, then Infant Baptism may be summarised as a public parental acknowledgement that they have placed their trust in God for salvation, and that they believe that his grace is extended not just to them, but also to their little children until such time as they are capable of personally affirming the personal Lordship of Jesus Christ in their own lives. 

The baptism effectively applies the benefit and blessing of God’s covenant of grace to the child by virtue of two things: the parent’s faith in God, and God’s faithfulness to the parents and their offspring.

In most Protestant settings (the Roman Catholic and Orthodox perspectives are much more complex and not considered here) there is no suggestion of baptismal regeneration.[4]It is not that this child is supernaturally changed at this point (though some liturgies approach this concept and the words need to be considered carefully). Nevertheless, the child is recognised as being positioned within the covenant of grace. Baptism is the outward sign of an inward grace (a traditional definition of a sacrament).

Three key issues are to be considered in any comparison of the two methods:

1. The amount of water: immersion is an important (though not essential) part of believer’s baptism;
2. The application of a sacrament of grace to a person not aware of, and not capable of agreeing or disagreeing with the action;
3. The support for the practice of Infant Baptism, both in church history and in the Bible.

1    Sprinkling vs. Immersion

The first thing to be said about this is that it is actually not a central issue for those who know a good deal about it. There have been, and still are, people who practise full immersion of infants. There have also been, and still are, many who practise believer’s baptism by the pouring or sprinkling of water. Because it is not the most important issue, it is dealt with here very briefly and without detailed reference.

However, in the minds of the typical Western church-attending public, the predominant method of believer’s baptism is the full immersion into water symbolising death and resurrection into new life. Adherents of this view typically find it hard to comprehend how a mere sprinkling, pouring, or dabbing of water can carry the power of the symbol of resurrection to new life.

Firstly, baptizoand baptoin Greek are used with a wide range of meanings. In many of the Biblical usages, the context makes it very clear that immersion could not have been contemplated, or at least was very unlikely. Sometimes, the baptism was not even done using water, but blood[5]. In most cases, pouring from a jug, sprinkling with small drops, or even standing in a body of water perhaps up to ankles, knees or waist and having water poured over becomes the obvious or most likely meaning within the particular context. 

Each of the following Scriptures uses some form of these words baptoor baptizo, usually translated “washing” or “baptising”. Clearly, a range of the above meanings may have been most likely intended in these:

a)     It was said of Nebuchadnezzar: Let him be drenched with the dew of heaven.Daniel 4:23

b)    In Hebrews 9:10, we read: For that old system deals only with food and drink and ritual washing (baptizo) external regulations that are in effect only until their limitations can be corrected.A little later in that chapter, it becomes clear what washings were being talked about: 

For after Moses had given the people all of God’s laws, he took the blood of calves and goats, along with water, and sprinkled both the book of God’s laws and all the people, using branches of hyssop bushes and scarlet wool. Then he said, “This blood confirms the covenant God has made with you.” And in the same way, he sprinkled blood on the sacred tent and on everything used for worship. In fact, we can say that according to the law of Moses, nearly everything was purified by sprinkling with blood.  Hebrews 9:19-22

 Clearly, the baptism here involved sprinkling devices, such as leafy branches and bunches of wool. Furthermore, it is unlikely they would have immersed books or people in blood.

c)     In Mark, we read of a dispute that the Jews had with Jesus and his disciples. Again the Greek uses ‘baptising’:

One day some Pharisees and teachers of religious law arrived from Jerusalem to confront Jesus. They noticed that some of Jesus’ disciples failed to follow the usual Jewish ritual of hand washing before eating. (The Jews, especially the Pharisees, do not eat until they have poured water over their cupped hands, as required by their ancient traditions. Similarly, they eat nothing bought from the market unless they have immersed their hands in water. This is but one of many traditions they have clung to—such as their ceremony of washing cups, pitchers, and kettles.) So the Pharisees and teachers of religious law asked him, “Why don’t your disciples follow our age-old customs? For they eat without first performing the hand-washing ceremony.”  Mark 7:1-5 

d)    Even in the story of the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch which is often indicated as proof of immersion, it is unlikely, though not impossible, that there was sufficient water for immersion. Acts 8:26, and 36-39.

As for Philip, an angel of the Lord said to him, “Go south down the desert road that runs from Jerusalem to Gaza.” …

As they rode along, they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “Look! There’s some water! Why can’t I be baptized?” He ordered the carriage to stop, and they went down into the water, and Philip baptized him. When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away. 

‘Coming up out of the water’ does not necessarily imply rising bodily out of the water, but climbing back up the bank to the road. After all, the introduction ‘they went down into the water’ apparently preceded the baptism, if you read the paragraph carefully. So presumably, coming up out of the water also followed the baptism. It may well have been done standing in a small depth of water and pouring over the head using a bowl of some kind, even cupped hands, which may have been all they had.

2    The application of a sacrament of grace to a person not aware of, and not capable of agreeing or disagreeing with the action

This is the real heart of the issue of Infant Baptism. The theology of Infant Baptism is tied back to the Old Testament rite of circumcision, which itself is the defining symbol of the covenant of grace that God made with the nation of Israel. The story of Abraham is the centrepiece and the beginning.

Then the LORD brought Abram outside beneath the night sky and told him, “Look up into the heavens and count the stars if you can. Your descendants will be like that—too many to count!” And Abram believed the LORD, and the LORD declared him righteous because of his faith.Genesis 15:5-6 

“Your part of the agreement,” God told Abraham, “is to obey the terms of the covenant. You and all your descendants have this continual responsibility. This is the covenant that you and your descendants must keep: Each male among you must be circumcised; the flesh of his foreskin must be cut off. This will be a sign that you and they have accepted this covenant. Every male child must be circumcised on the eighth day after his birth. This applies not only to members of your family, but also to the servants born in your household and the foreign-born servants whom you have purchased. All must be circumcised. Your bodies will thus bear the mark of my everlasting covenant. Anyone who refuses to be circumcised will be cut off from the covenant family for violating the covenant.”   Genesis 17:5-14

In the New Testament, we see that the covenant that God made with Abraham is continued on into the New Testament era and extended beyond Jews to include Gentiles:

In the same way, “Abraham believed God, so God declared him righteous because of his faith.” The real children of Abraham, then, are all those who put their faith in God. What’s more, the Scriptures looked forward to this time when God would accept the Gentiles, too, on the basis of their faith. God promised this good news to Abraham long ago when he said, “All nations will be blessed through you.” And so it is: All who put their faith in Christ share the same blessing Abraham received because of his faith.  Galatians 3:6-9 

If we consider what a first century Jew might have expected if he became a Christian, some of our thinking about baptism becomes clearer. 

A Jew in the first century would have realised that Abraham was still his father, but now not just his physical, ancestral father, but a spiritual one also. Abraham’s faith in God was the forerunner of a Christian’s faith in God. The Jew would have known that the covenant that God made with Abraham was unable to be broken. It was permanent. (Hebrews 6:13-18)

We Gentiles are the fulfilment of God’s promises in the Old Testament, not just to Abraham but to all the Old Testament prophets. The Messiah had come, but not just to Jews and to Israel, but to the whole world. When the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost, the message was that the Kingdom of God had come to all nations. Paul taught the Galatians: The agreement God made with Abraham could not be cancelled 430 years later when God gave the law to Moses. God would be breaking his promise. (3:17)

The promise preceded the Law. It would also outlast the Law. 

This Jew would also recognise that in the Old Testament, this tremendous promise that God gave to Abraham was sealed with a physical sign. 

But how did his faith help him? Was he declared righteous only after he had been circumcised, or was it before he was circumcised? The answer is that God accepted him first, and then he was circumcised later!

The circumcision ceremony was a sign that Abraham already had faith and that God had already accepted him and declared him to be righteous—even before he was circumcised. Romans 4:10-11

It is a sign, not of individual faith, only, but of a father’s faith. It was also so in the past, and even for those in the Old Testament who were not Jews but who chose to worship God.

    “These are the regulations for the festival of Passover. No foreigners are allowed to eat the Passover lamb. But any slave who has been purchased may eat it if he has been circumcised. Hired servants and visiting foreigners may not eat it… 

     “If there are foreigners living among you who want to celebrate the LORD’S Passover, let all the males be circumcised. Then they may come and celebrate the Passover with you. They will be treated just as if they had been born among you. But an uncircumcised male may never eat of the Passover lamb. This law applies to everyone, whether a native-born Israelite or a foreigner who has settled among you.”  Exodus 12:43-49

This sign of acceptance was applied to the males and all the members of their households were then acceptable.[6]

The sign of circumcision in the Old Testament has become the sign of baptism in the New Testament. Paul seems to teach this quite clearly:

When you came to Christ, you were “circumcised,” but not by a physical procedure. It was a spiritual procedure—the cutting away of your sinful nature. For you were buried with Christ when you were baptized. And with him you were raised to a new life because you trusted the mighty power of God, who raised Christ from the dead.

You were dead because of your sins and because your sinful nature was not yet cut away. Then God made you alive with Christ. He forgave all our sins.Colossians 2:11-13

There were two great ordinances in the Old Testament: the Passover and circumcision. Christ clearly re-established the Lord’s Supper in place of the Passover, and the leaders of the Reformation understood the Scripture to teach that circumcision has been replaced by baptism. There is ample evidence that the early church understood this, too (see below). 

In the New Testament, Paul also teaches that there is no difference between male and female. 

There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female. For you are all Christians—you are one in Christ Jesus. And now that you belong to Christ, you are the true children of Abraham. You are his heirs, and now all the promises God gave to him belong to you.  Galatians 3:28-9 

Amongst everything else that this might mean, it is part of the proper regard for women which, contrary to much popular opinion, is directly attributable to the Christian faith. The sign of the covenant is now applicable equally to both genders! This answers the criticism that if baptism is the new circumcision, then why should it not apply only to males?  

Again for our first century Jew who had become a Christian, he would have logically expected that this sign and promise would have applied to his whole household, as circumcision did. And this is exactly what we see on many occasions.

Peter at Pentecost says, “The promise is to you and to your children.” The gaoler whom Paul rescued from falling on his sword was baptised with his whole household. Indeed of the seven cases of water baptism mentioned in the New Testament, three of them included whole families. This is exactly what would have been expected. 

Indeed, the fact that baptism for children of believing families is not mentioned specifically in the New Testament is more an argument for it than against it! For our New Testament Jew who had become a Christian, he would have needed some specific teaching from the apostles if the tradition of Abrahamic faith being accessible to whole families had suddenly changed.

3   The support for the practice, both in church history and in the Bible

This is the third and last area to be considered. It is a reasonable argument that if Infant Baptism were not practised by the early church, then it is likely that it is not a good practice for us, now. Although we do not have perfect records going back to the very early days of the church, we do have some very reliable records. 

Origen (born about 180 AD) was baptised as an infant, and clearly supported infant baptism as a concept. Other early church fathers supported the practice.[7]

The first ones to argue against Infant Baptism, e.g. Tertullian, did so, not because it was a new practice being brought in, but because they were wanting to initiate a new practice of delaying baptism until just before death. This was an un-Biblical position that they had adopted, and which required them to argue against historical practice.

In Summary

a)     Because God’s covenant of grace continues from Old Testament times through to the present day, we ought to expect that the sign and seal of that covenant would continue also, in some form.

b)    That covenant required parents (especially fathers) to consecrate their children, indeed their whole households.

c)     Baptism has replaced the old rite of circumcision, holds very similar meaning, and is now applied equally to male and female:

d)    Both baptism and circumcision signify the entry into the visible (though not necessarily the invisible) church. (Matthew 28: 19)

e)     Both baptism and circumcision have the relation of a seal and a sign to the covenant of grace (Romans 4: 11, Colossians 2: 11, 12)

f)      Both baptism and circumcision have a much deeper significance, namely purity of heart. This is a teaching that was central to both New and Old Testaments. (Deuteronomy 10: 16, 30: 6, Jeremiah 4: 4, Romans 2: 29 – 29)

g)     Both signs were applied to whole families.

h)    Infant Baptism does not signify a person’s decision to follow God (as believer's baptism does). Rather, it glorifies God in declaring his mercy and kindness in being willing to save sinners by his grace alone. Thus it merely requires the acknowledgement of that grace, by personal confession in adulthood to bring faith into full maturity.

Some Common Questions

1          What if a person decided to be re-baptised as an adult because he or she felt that this would be a meaningful step?

My view is that although this step is not necessary, and perhaps carries a lack of understanding of the earlier baptism, there is nothing wrong with it. Old Testament practice certainly did not limit baptism to one occasion. Circumcision was only done once, of course, but baptism was often the sign that one desired to demonstrate repentance, as in, for example, John the Baptist’s ministry.

2          What if a person were baptised as an infant by parents who really understood nothing of the meaning of baptism and who did it only out of custom, family pressure or superstition? Was that baptism genuine?

The answer to this lies in the full understanding of baptism outlined above. If baptism is seen as the recognition of God’s grace, then regardless of the state of grace of the parents, an adult who now has been brought by God into a position where they desire to serve and follow him, ought to give glory to God for that saving grace, worked out mysteriously in their life. In some ways, the effect of that infant baptism may be seen to be even more significant because it was not aided by any human or parent endeavour. It was clearly a work of grace from God.

3          What if a person, baptised in infancy, has led a very wicked life or has been away from God for a long time and then comes back to God?

This has the same answer as the previous question. If God has granted me the mercy of grace, it is still his grace, whether I acknowledged it for many years or not. My decision to ‘come back to God’ is more to do with his mercy than my clear thinking.

4          Is there any ‘magic’ or supernatural power in Infant Baptism?

No, there is no magic. But supernatural power? In the process of baptism, there are prayers offered by people who really mean them. There is a public acceptance of being part of an eternal covenant with a covenant-keeping God. The real question ought to be, ‘How could you think there would notbe any supernatural consequences of a group of people praying to God and placing a child under the promise of his care and love?’

5          If a parent fails to carry out this process, are they sinning? Are they failing their children? Are they risking their children’s future salvation?

There are many commands in scripture which do not carry the consequences in this era which they carried for the people of Israel. People died in the wilderness for worshipping idols and for complaining. Because those kinds of consequences seem to be no longer typical of today’s church, that does not make them any less important.

Baptism of my children is a great privilege, not a demand. It is my opportunity to say ‘Thank You’ to God for my family and to entrust their eternal welfare to his care. But the transaction has been done anyway. My carrying out of the ritual will not change that. 

Not bothering to take part in the Lord’s Supper will not destroy my salvation, but that is no reason to abandon the practice. If God has given me a ritual in which I may acknowledge his grace for my children whom I love when they are their most tender stage of life, who am I to reject his signs of grace?

6          Why is there no New Testament command to baptise children?

There is no command to worship on the Lord’s Day, rather than the Sabbath either. There is no command to stop observing the Passover and observe the Lord’s Supper either. There is a strong Biblical principle of acknowledging God’s grace in his salvation by a sacrament of baptism. The lack of command may be taken more as a reason to be sure of its relevance than otherwise. It was such an obvious conclusion to the early church, it didn’t seem to warrant a command.

7          What if members of a church disagree on this? Should they leave the church and go to worship somewhere else?

Why should the body of Christ be split over this or any other thing that is not essential to salvation? If someone denies the deity of Christ, or his supremacy in salvation, that is worth an argument. If someone denies the truth of scripture, that is worth strong debate. If someone takes any action to deny or diminish the holiness of God, that demands action and remonstration.

This question of baptism has divided the church for centuries. Although we may be convinced of the rightness of our own position, there will be greater glory to Christ if we can demonstrate that we can live with one another despite such differences, as long as we all declare the truth of the Bible, the supremacy of Christ, and the essential teaching of the Cross as a remedy for universal sin.

 

References

Donovan, Vincent J. Christianity Rediscovered: An Epistle from the Masai.  London: SCM Press, 1982.

Ferguson, Everett. "Baptism According to Origen."  Evangelical Quarterly78.2(2006): 117–35. http://www.martagon.org/lts/teaching/CH400/Origen/Origen on baptism.pdf.

Schaeffer, Francis. Baptism.  Wilmington, DE: Cross Publishing, 1973.

 

Footnotes:

[1]Some parts of this paper draw extensively on a small booklet: Francis Schaeffer, Baptism(Wilmington, DE: Cross Publishing, 1973). To the best of my knowledge, this booklet is now out of print. 

[2]Sometimes called Adult Baptism, but children and teenagers are often baptised as believers.  

[3]Based on this thinking, the possibility of entire communities being baptised as a recognition of faith, especially in missionary contexts, is generally not accepted by adherents of this view. For an enlightening perspective on this issue, see Vincent J. Donovan, Christianity Rediscovered: An Epistle from the Masai(London: SCM Press, 1982), 91-97.

[4]Baptismal regeneration regards the baptism as effectively undoing the fact of original sin. From this moment on, each person is responsible for their own sin, and it is this sin that must be dealt with later in life, by repentance, confession and forgiveness. Again, there is a credible Biblical case to be made from this position, though it is not one that we are considering here.

[5]These are restricted to Old Testament practices, but the standard Greek words for baptism are still used for such baptisms, in the Septuagint (Greek) version of the Old Testament.

[6]The fact that Jews never practised female circumcision, while followers of Mohammed routinely do so even up to this day, says a great deal about both faiths and their respect for women.

[7]Everett Ferguson, "Baptism According to Origen,"  Evangelical Quarterly 78.2 (2006), http://www.martagon.org/lts/teaching/CH400/Origen/Origen on baptism.pdf.