Introduction
So, bottom line, should we baptize babies
of a believing parent or only baptize believing adults? How do we use the Bible appropriately to
answer this question? Frankly, does the
Bible answer this question?
This post is at the request of a friend,
and he has caught me at a busy time right at the beginning of the
semester. So, without the care I’d like
to give the subject, here are a few thoughts on a very, very old debate. Nobody should be under the impression that
this is an exhaustive or detailed discussion!
Why place this on a 'Bible and Mission' blog site? The issue arises acutely in a post-Christian context for Western nations. Baptism is a Christian practice that speaks to the mission concerns of the relationship between Church and society, evangelism and initiation into the Church, and the witness of believers.
This essay is meant as an Evangelical
discussion, and certain assumptions are made from the start. Baptism does not save us. Scripture is God’s Word and authoritative in
our lives. It does speak to the issue to
some degree. Good Christians hold to
different practices—differences of perspective should not divide the
Evangelical movement.
Some
Exegetical Issues
First,
the New Testament links baptism to participation in the death and resurrection
of Jesus Christ, and it is our faith in
the person and work of Christ that saves us. Two key passages are from Paul:
Romans 6:3-5 Do you not know that all of us who have been
baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we have been buried
with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the
dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united with
him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection
like his.
Colossians 2:11-12 In him also you were circumcised
with a spiritual circumcision, by putting off the body of the flesh in the
circumcision of Christ; 12
when you were buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with him through
faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.
Second, baptism is an ‘entry-point’ into the faith. For the author of Hebrews, it is beginning
stuff for young believers:
Hebrews 6:1-2 Therefore
let us go on toward perfection, leaving behind the basic teaching about Christ,
and not laying again the foundation: repentance from dead works and faith
toward God, 2 instruction
about baptisms, laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead, and eternal
judgment.
Paul says,
Galatians 3:27 As many of you as were baptized into Christ
have clothed yourselves with Christ.
Third, according to Paul, it is a practice that everyone
undergoes so that it is a symbol of unity.
1 Corinthians 12:13 For in the one Spirit we were all
baptized into one body-- Jews or Greeks, slaves or free-- and we were all made
to drink of one Spirit.
Ephesians 4:4-6 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you
were called to the one hope of your calling,
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all, who
is above all and through all and in all.
This is why, in 1
Corinthians 1.13-17, Paul emphasizes that he did not baptism many of the
Corinthians—lest they use this as a way to divide among themselves. If baptism is a symbol of unity, far be it
for Paul to let believers take pride over others because they were baptized by
the apostle.
Fourth, baptism is linked symbolically, like Jewish ritual
baths[1] and John the Baptist’s
baptism, to moral purity. This is
already clear from the passages already cited in Romans 6 and Colossians
2. (Note that the correspondence in Col. 2 is between circumcision of the heart and baptism, not between circumcision and baptism, as has far too often been stated. The activity is also not, as with circumcision, the human act as a sign of covenant commitment but Christ's act of dying and our participation in His death.) We might add what Peter says in 1
Peter 3:
1 Peter 3:21 And
baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you-- not as a removal of dirt from
the body, but as an appeal to God for[2] a good conscience, through the
resurrection of Jesus Christ….
One can see the
connection between a ritual activity involving water and the theological truth
of spiritual cleansing through the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit in a
passage that does not even mention the word ‘baptism’:
1 Corinthians 6:11 And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were
sanctified, you were justified[3] in the name of the Lord Jesus
Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
John the Baptist’s
baptism was a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (e.g., Mk.
1.4). As such, it was a practice of a
people already related to God in the covenant who were preparing for the coming
of God’s kingdom. It was a ritual
cleansing symbolizing repentance before God, the Judge of the whole universe,
comes. The Christian theology of baptism
drew this practice around Christ, as we have already seen. The cleansing, Christians believed, was only
something that Christ could accomplish, and he did so on the cross. As John says, ‘the blood of Jesus his [God’s]
Son cleanses us from all sin’ (1 John 1.7).
The focus on the work of Christ on the cross for us introduces the
element of faith into our understanding of baptism: baptism is an outward
expression of the faith that we have in Jesus Christ, the one who cleanses us
from all our sin.
Fifth, baptism has the danger of being treated as more than a
symbol. It functions to symbolize the
washing and purity of the transformed life and salvation in Christ. The passage just cited from 1 Peter 3.21
makes this distinction. Similarly, the
passage already cited from Colossians 2 is careful to interpret baptism with
reference to spiritual circumcision, not physical circumcision. Physical circumcision, Paul emphasizes
throughout his ministry, accomplishes nothing toward salvation (e.g., Ephesians
2.11, and this is a major thesis in Galatians).
Similarly, baptism could be mistaken as another outward act that
accomplishes something spiritual rather than being an outward symbol of a work
that Christ accomplishes. The author of Hebrews even uses the word ‘baptisms’
for Jewish practices associated with an outward religion of sacrifices, food
regulations, and certain practices to do with the body (Hebrews 9.10).
This
error—associating the outward symbol too closely with the actual work of
salvation that Christ accomplishes through his shed blood—is one of the reasons
for the Reformation. Whether it was an
offering to get a friend or relative sprung from Purgatory, a ritualistic
approach to the faith in church attendance and confession of sins, or baptism,
the Church by the 16th century had come to confuse the work of
Christ too much with the outward works of human beings.
Sixth, the New Testament gives us no example of the practice
of baptism apart from believers. Some
persons in the history of the Church have attempted to find the practice of
infant baptism in Scripture. Paul’s
jailer in Philippi came to faith, and ‘he and his entire family were baptized
without delay’ (Acts 16.33). The
assumption some make is that the family had an infant or two that was baptized
as well. Note that the next verse also
has an ‘entire household’ statement. The
NRSV simply mistranslates the end of the verse: ‘and he and his entire
household rejoiced that he had become a believer in God’ (v. 34; similarly the
ESV). The NIV captures the meaning
better on this occasion: ‘he was filled with joy because he had come to believe
in God-- he and his whole family.’ The
point is that baptism is associated with newly found faith in God. If we want to argue that there were babies being
baptized, we might as well argue that the babies also came to faith. Seriously, however, Luke has earlier used the
language of a household, its faith in a message about Jesus, and
salvation. Peter is sent by God to Joppa
to speak to the Gentile centurion and his household about Jesus: the text says
that he ‘will give you a message by which you and your entire household will be
saved’ (Acts. 11.14). Moreover, we read,
‘Then God has given even to the Gentiles the repentance that leads to life’
(Acts 11.18). For John the Baptist, baptism symbolizes the repentance that leads to eternal life, and the early Church added that this salvation from sin and judgement comes through belief 'in the Lord Jesus Christ’ (v. 17). Later in Acts, Crispus, the synagogue leader
in Corinth, ‘became a believer in the Lord, together with all his household’
(Acts 18.8). Households in these passages
are believing households.
Summary
of Findings Thus Far
From these six points, we might gather the
following points. Christian baptism,
whatever its form or practice,
1.
points to the work of Jesus Christ that saves us.
2.
is an initiation, an entry-point into the faith.
3.
symbolizes Christian unity in Christ and the Holy Spirit.
4.
symbolizes repentance, cleansing, and moral purity accomplished by Christ and
the
Spirit.
5.
only symbolizes and does not itself accomplish what Christ accomplishes.
6.
is never associated with children, only believers, in the New Testament.
All the Biblical references to baptism are with respect to believers' baptism. This may lead some to believe in believers' baptism only. Yet it did not lead most of the Church to this view until the Reformation's focus on salvation by grace through faith--the 'through faith' is not something that could be applied to infants. The result was that some Reformers reformed Catholic teaching on baptism to remove the notion of baptismal regeneration, whereas some other Reformers insisted on adult (or children with an understanding of the faith) baptism.
Baptism
and Speech-Act Theory
In Speech-Act Theory, the notion of speech functioning as 'acts' is introduced. Just speech is 'locution,' performing an act through speech is 'illocution', and the result of the speech-act is called 'perlocution'.
We might explore this understanding for marriage and baptism. When someone says, ‘I
do’ in response to a minister’s question, ‘Do you take this man to be your
lawfully wedded husband?’, the woman’s words are not just words. Nor are they simply symbolic. They are, in the language of Speech-Act Theory, an illocutionary act (what was done in action when the words were spoken). What was the act? A vow. Also in reference to this theory, they are a perlocutionary act (what was the result of uttering the words): marriage. The ring that is often exchanged in marriage is the symbol.
With this example, we might apply Speech-Act Theory to baptism. The actual baptism is, like the ring, a symbol. It symbolizes cleansing (water), and it symbolizes (especially in immersion) dying and rising with Christ. Words are spoken during baptism, and they may be analyzed with regard to a liturgical service such as the Anglican Church's baptism of youthful or adult converts. First, there are three illocutionary acts of renunciation (1) of the devil and all spiritual forces of wickedness that rebel against God; (2) of all empty promises and deadly deceits of this world that corrupt and destroy the creatures of God; and (3) of all sinful desires of the flesh that draw one from the love of God. Then there are three illocutionary acts that are vows: (1) a vow to turn to Jesus Christ and confess him as Lord and Saviour; (2) a vow to receive the Christian faith with joy as revealed in Scripture; and (3) a vow to keep God's holy will and commandments in obedience and walk in them throughout life. The congregation then vows to support the baptizand in this. A third illocutionary act is proclamation of the faith, using the Apostle's Creed. The final illocutionary act is at the end of the service, when the church speaks words of welcome into the body. The perlocutionary act is summed up in saying that the person is now 'baptized'.
As with marriage, without the action of baptism, the person would not be married or baptized. Baptism is, then, more than a symbolic act, just as marriage is more than an exchange of rings. Through the illocutionary acts of the service, certain actions are done (renouncing, vowing, proclaiming, and welcoming) take place. These also affirm the faith of the baptizand, with witnesses present. The resultant act of all this is that the person is welcomed as a believer into the church.
In all this, Protestants have been right to
insist that baptism is not itself salvific—we do not believe in baptismal
regeneration. This would be the equivalent of someone saying marriage vows on one's behalf without one's knowledge. The illocutionary acts are required for the act to have meaning and for the perlocutionary act (that one is married) to be fact. The logic seems clear.
Some Further Considerations
However, there are some further theological perspectives to raise further consideration in the matter. First, the New Testament does not offer anything about the children of believers for baptism or at the Lord's Table. Second, Jesus said to let the little children come to him (Matthew 19.14). To the extent that baptism is an act of inclusion into the community of faith, there is some overlap with such a text. An exclusion of children from baptism and/or the Lord's Supper needs to be thought through with respect to how children might be included in Christian community, not as second class citizens but as children are in a family. They are full participants, even if they have certain restrictions put on them.
Third, while our focus on individual salvation should not be undermined in any respect, we perhaps need to think more seriously about communal dimensions of our faith. Certainly ancient Israel did, such as in the punishment of Achan's family for Achan's sin (Joshua 7) or the suffering of the servant of Isaiah 53 on behalf of the people. A similar logic of inclusion in someone else's sin is literally, not just figuratively, found in Romans 5.12-21, where humanity experiences the resultant condition of Adam's transgression and sin.
Fourth, there is some Biblical consideration of the extension of holiness to children on the part of a believing parent. In a logic that is already found in Genesis 18, Paul allows that a household is made holy when there is only one believing spouse. This includes the children (1 Cor. 7.14). Practitioners of infant baptism extend this logic to infants; while not holy in any sense of practicing righteousness themselves, they are covered by the believing parent's identity as holy--set apart to God. In Genesis 18, the presence of a few righteous in Sodom would have protected the city from God's wrath. If one presses this logic for infant baptism, then one might claim that the baptism extends inclusion in the holy community without conferring salvation to the child. Such baptism is not the same as that of a believing adult, and it will later require confirmation of faith upon a profession of faith after catechetical instruction. This is the practice of Protestants who have revised Catholic baptism in light of moving from a works to a faith righteousness.
Fifth, there is some recognition of different practices concerning baptism. For example, the Didache (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) offers an alternative for how one is baptized. Baptism in running water is best, but alternatives are possible: running or still water, deep water or sprinkling. Various denominations continue to practice baptism in different ways. This introduces the possibility of variety in some respects and also consideration of practical matters. While a different matter, to be sure, might one not in some ways consider the baptism of an infant in an extenuating circumstance, as when the baby is about to die? Most Christians entertain the hope that, if their babies or young children die, they will enter heaven. The Baptist who has this hope has moved more into the region of a paedobaptist's logic than into the strict logic he requires around baptism, insisting on adult profession of faith. Evidence from gravestones in the later church suggests that children were baptized at various ages, and this might suggest that the practice of baptizing a dying child existed. This logic does not work only in one direction. One may well ask if a country from 'Christian Europe' where the state Churches practice infant baptism are not doing the Church a disservice as they move to a largely post-Christian society and yet people continue to baptize infants. Surely the need for distinctive identity from the culture is critical. Baptism must not become a cultural practice of nominal Christians. While there may have been an argument for children of new believers in St. Patrick's conversion of much of Ireland in the 5th century, today the practice of baptism of infants may undermine faith more than anything else as European countries and the state Church's in them are largely post-Christian. A similar problem arises when baptized children grow up to reject the faith.
Sixth, we actually have a simple fact to consider from Church history. We do, to be sure, lack sufficient access to records regarding the practice of baptism in the second century. All we can say is that, whenever the subject of infant baptism is mentioned, as in Tertullian's On Baptism, we note that there are different practices. Tertullian himself argues for waiting to baptize children, but in doing so he identifies that there are different practices at his time. It is possible that the early Church did not itself resolve the issue.
Conclusion
The thrust of this argument is toward
believer’s baptism. However, it also
suggests that there might be different practices and performances, even if some
are better than others. There can be a 'good practice' of infant baptism and a 'bad practice' of it (as when it is thought to entail regeneration without personal faith). There can be a 'bad practice' of believers' baptism (as when it is delayed too long). Just what the
limits of good practices are, and which are better than others, would need more space to
explore, and a process of discernment rather than a single decision is the more
likely outcome. (It may be, as argued, that the practice of infant baptism made sense when whole societies came to faith but not when state Churches are largely nominal and post-Christian.) The greatest challenge
for believer’s baptism is when children have believed in Jesus since their
early years and have held off on baptism too long. The greatest challenge for infant baptism is
when the children grow up to deny the faith.
The best practice of any sort of baptism is in the extent to which it
captures the meaning of baptism and retains a right theology of salvation by grace through faith. Just here, the comparison with marriage breaks down. One can tie the marriage ceremony to marriage, but faith arises before baptism, or baptism occurs before faith. Therein lies the challenge, and yet, by identifying it, various practices can address the issue in ways to prioritize the theology of salvation by grace through faith.
[1] I am not here coming down on one
side or the other about whether Christian baptism is more linked to Jewish
ritual baths (mikvoth) or proselyte
baptism (Gentiles joining the Jewish synagogue). I think the point is overly debated: both
symbolize moral purity, whether practiced as an entry point or as a
recommitment.
[2] The Greek can read ‘from’—an
appeal from a good conscience to God (reading the Genitive as carrying the idea
of the source of something). The NIV has
‘the pledge of a good conscience toward God,’ reading the Genitive as objective
by translating ‘eperōtēma not as
‘appeal’ but as ‘pledge.’ It might also
be translated as ‘request.’
Unfortunately, there is not much else to say to resolve the matter: we
simply have an ambiguous text.
[3]
This word might be translated, ‘made righteous,’ despite the preference of
English translations (wrongly, in my view) for ‘justified.’