Baptism 2.2 (Response)

There are some good counterarguments to those presented in my previous post on Believer’s baptism that must be mentioned. First, a response must be given to the fact that all New Testament instances of baptism are “believer’s baptism.” This labeling is not exactly fair or correct. A more correct definition is that these baptisms would be “converts” baptisms. To be brief, if the apostles held to infant baptism as a correct mode of covenant inclusion, they would not perform any different in their baptisms in Acts. The question of infant baptism is not whether all babies everywhere ought to be baptized, but whether infants from believing households out to be extended this covenant membership on account of their parents’ faith. One also must remember that the household baptism are numerous in the New Testament and, although debatable, do seem to pose a problem to the credobaptist position. Further, enough time is not normally applied to Acts 2.38-39, where Peter tactfully adds that the promise is to you “and your children” and all those who our Lord calls. It seems odd Peter would add statement if he did not hold to infant baptism, as it is not necessary if he held to credobaptism.

Credobaptists also seem to completely disregard the relationship of Baptism to circumcision, which seems to be made by Col 2.11-12, as well as Rom 4.11-14. Also, much of the arguments arising from the credobaptists against infant baptism may also be applied to the God-ordained practice of infant circumcision (Gen 17)!

Although not mentioned in my previous post, much is made of the practice of immersion in relation to Baptism. First, it must be said that, even if it is conceded that immersion is the only acceptable mode of baptism (which this author does not), this does not exclude the infant baptism position, as the Eastern Orthodox, who practice infant baptism by immersion, can attest to. Now, much of this debate is over the greek term baptizo (βαπτιζω), which many argue must mean immersion. Now, I would agree with Calvin that this is the most natural meaning of the word, but it must not be taken as the only meaning of the word. Even some New Testament usages of this word can be seen as something other than immersion. For instance, were the Israelites immersed into Moses at the parting of the Red Sea (1 Cor 10.1-5)? Were Noah and his family on the ark immersed by the flood waters (1 Peter 3.19-21)? Other examples can be seen in Mark 10.23-29 and Luke 12.50. Further, the baptism of the Holy Spirit is referred to as a baptism and a pouring (Acts 1.5, 2.17, 33; also used in Rom 5.5) and therefore cannot be taken only as immersion. It is better to define baptizo broadly as one thing being overwhelmed by another.

Baptism 2.1 (Believer's Baptism)

In this post I will post some thoughts regarding credobaptism, or as otherwise defined, believer’s baptism. To the present author, the most powerful and convincing arguments for this view can be organized into two different categories: the Biblical accounts of Baptism and the connection between baptism and regeneration.

Now to the first, we may say that all of the accounts of baptism in the New Testament are  what would be coined today as “believer’s baptism.” The accounts of the baptism of John in the gospels appear to clearly refer to those who have repented as those being baptized (ex. Mk 1). The Great Commission passage in Matt 28 seems to imply that those who are baptized are those who can be taught. The amount of passages in Acts that refer to those being baptized after having repented and come to faith are so numerous it would be arduous to do more than list them here: 2.38-39, 2.41, 8.12-13, 8.35-38, 9.18, 10.47-48, 16.14-15, 16.32-34, 18.8, 19.3-5, and 22.16. Notice that among these are the household baptisms of the Philippian Jailer (16.33), Cornelius (10.48), and Crispus (18.8). Another of these household baptisms not mentioned is that of Stephanas in 1 Cor 1.16. These texts are highly disputed and argued over by both sides and, in this author’s opinion, turn out to be inconclusive either way. There may or may not have been infants involved in these baptisms, and the answer to this question will not be found in these texts, but rather one’s overall view of this doctrine.

The second strong argument for credobaptism lies in the constant linking of Baptism with the new birth, regeneration, and union with Christ, which seems to disqualify those who are not able to believe. Romans 6.3-5 may be seen to illustrate this: “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.” Here it appears like union with Christ is a fundament part of  baptism, signifying the death of the believer with Christ’s death, that we might therefore be united into his resurrection. Colossians 2.11-12 furthers this point: “In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.” In both of these verses baptism is seen as a sign of a true spiritual reality, that is, that the recipient has been united with Christ in his death through baptism, and so will be raised in union with Christ in his resurrection. This understanding of baptism is echoed by Peter in 1 Peter 3.21: “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Baptism is a sign and seal of the true spiritual reality of being united with Christ in his death, that one might be resurrected with him in his resurrection. This leads necessarily to a “good conscience” which comes from God. All of these things seem not to be applicable to an infant.

With these two arguments, it seems a credobaptist will claim that the New Testament evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of believer’s baptism. Notice, however, that this position does not include any reference to a “public declaration of faith” by the one being baptized, although this is what is emphasized in baptism by most baptist churches. This concept appears to be altogether foreign to New Testament thought on baptism and therefore, if held, strips baptism of much of its meaning.

Baptism 1 (Introduction)

This post comes to you from 20,000 feet above the earth. I’m currently on a flight from Detroit to Denver and thought I’d write up some of my thoughts after reading the book Baptism: Three Views over the weekend. This book argues the two most prominent theories of baptism, credo- and paedobaptist, as well as a third option, the dual-practice view. This book shines not only in content, but even more so in structure. Each perspective is given a lengthy portion to present their case, followed by a response from the other two perspectives, with an concluding comment granted to the presenter. This pattern is repeated three times, once for each view. The next few posts will not be a book review of this book, but rather a series on baptism. I only the mention the book because I have found it an extremely helpful resource and would recommend it for further study in this area. I am excited for this study because I have been pondering this question for quite some time and am hoping to come out of the other end with some clarity on the issue.