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.
No comments:
Post a Comment