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.