Baptism thoughts
Recently, I had a conversation with my pastor about baptism. Brooklynne and I have started attending a Presbyterian (USA) church, and besides that they practice infant baptism, we knew nothing about what the church taught about that sacrament. Our pastor directed me to an article by Francis Schaeffer that he said mostly outlined his beliefs on the topic. I googled Schaeffer and found the article so you can read it by clicking the link below.
BAPTISM, by Francis A. Schaeffer
Before I tell you what I think about the article, let me give you some background about where I'm coming from.
I've always kind of held that infant baptism and believer's baptism are two different things, both with discrete, equally valid and useful purposes in our faith. Because of their different meanings/purposes, I've always secretly felt open to the idea that a person could experience both without invalidating or discrediting the other, and I'm often annoyed when people tell me either that people who were baptized as infants need to be baptized again (because the first one didn't count) or that people who were baptized as infants should not be baptized as adults (because it degrades the significance of the first one). I was baptized as an infant and I have often debated within myself about being baptized again, but I've resisted because I feel like a vast majority of people would not understand what I was doing due to these widely-held perceptions.
When I expressed this to my pastor, he quoted the line that "there is one baptism," and concluded that you have to have it one way or the other. I KNOW this was not what he meant and that he would NEVER even imply this, but my gut reaction was to think that comment was vaguely akin to saying there's only one faith, so a person shouldn't see the validity and enjoy worshiping through several different theological/church traditions. So still not convinced, I've determined to think and pray open-mindedly about baptism during the next month or so, and see if I find any reason why I should change my take on this practice.
So after reading the Schaeffer article, here's my take:
1) I'm glad someone is making a good, strong argument in favor of infant baptism (not to mention offering a much welcome rebuttal to the argument that immersion is the only proper method).
2) Still, the article fails to connect infant baptism with what is often called John's baptism (with water), which is explicitly intended for repentance and the forgiveness of sins.
3) I hate the idea of separate dispensations of signs, and I must have missed the memo stating that circumcision is no longer a sign of God's special relationship with Israel.
4) If circumcision of the heart is emphasized throughout the Bible as superseding literal circumcision, then wouldn't this reinforce the argument in favor of believer's baptism (Schaeffer incredibly seems to think otherwise)?
5) Is there any reason to believe that infants were not baptized in the early church (as Schaeffer argues that they were)? If they were, then it seems very convincing that the topic would have been addressed in the epistles, unless it was indeed a reasonable and expected extension of God's grace to the children in the Church.
Conclusion: my position remains unchanged for now, but I have a fresh set of questions to consider in the next couple of weeks.
I welcome any thoughts and comments, although please only post and read the comments if you can be kind and mature, and thick-skinned about people disagreeing with your ideas.
Miles -- I find this very interesting. And I will keep my personal feelings about circumcision out of this!! That is a very heated and separate topic.
I was baptized as a small child (not an infant) as my mother was Lutheran & that's what you did after you became a member of the church. Fast-forward about 10 years. I made my own decision to be baptized after I became saved. It was my way of saying, "Here I am, I profess Jesus and want to do so publicly."
I don't see it as a black & white thing. We didn't have Daniel baptized but we did dedicate him to the Lord. I think that's what infant baptism symbolizes to a lot of people, although I can't back it up with hard statistics. For people who are Catholic in Mexico, infants have to be baptized or they supposedly won't go to heaven when they die. (I don't know where the Bible says that...)
I do believe, however that if it's possible after you get saved, you should be baptized. Even if it's in your kitchen sink and you only have a couple witnesses. Or even if you don't have ANY. It's a Biblical command, as is having a Lord's Supper. It seems to me, however, that God's grace being what it is, He is not going to lock Heaven's gate for those who are saved but not baptized. That would be salvation based on a work, wouldn't it?
I really love William Willimon's small book on this (about 100 pages if you skip the first chapter, which is skippable) -- "Remember Who You Are." Our children are baptized and I say to them often that they belong to Christ and are part of his church. Kate (3 next month) and I were talking about church last week and this conversation took place.
Kristen - "You know, you belong to Christ. You are part of His church."
Kate - "Yeah, because I've got His water on me."
Kristen - "What?"
Kate [a little exasperated] - "I've got His water on my head. I'm in His church!"
Kristen - "That's right, you were baptized!"
Kate - "When I was a baby, I was baptized. Now I'm in the church."
She knows that she belongs. And that is a good thing, I think. The church is hers and its people are her people and its teachings are hers, too.
Well, Miles, since you asked... I was sprinkled as a baby, and then in college I was rebaptized in the Jordan (Jordan Lake). Interestingly, the impetous to rebaptized was conversations with Mormon missionaries - they emphasized baptism into the Mormon church so much, that I began to study baptism myself. At that time I came to the conclusion that baptism was a profession (publicly) of faith, and also an identification with Jesus in His death and resurrection. It was a powerful symbol to go under the water, into "death" and be raised again. While taking Systematic Theology 3, I became convicted that maybe that had not been the completely right choice of action - while it was not a bad choice, per se to be rebaptized, but I gained such a respect for the covenant side of infant baptism, and I saw that God did indeed make good on His end of the covenant that my parents entered into when I was a baby. Diane and I considered having our kids baptized, but I just didn't want to get into it with my father-in-law, who does not think it is Biblical. I disagree with the pastor who says "One baptism" means "one time." I certainly have not studied it as much as he has, but I think one baptism means one name into which we are baptized, the name of Jesus Christ.
I am not sure I agree with your friend above when she says that kids who are baptized as infants belong to Christ, if that implies that they are saved. I think we belong to Christ when we receive Him.
Our church allows for either baptism or dedication, and I would summarize our view here as saying infant baptism is a covenantal sign that is not effectual for salvation, and I imagine we would encourage those children to be rebaptized when they made a profession of faith, that they might identify with Jesus' death and resurrection.
John's baptism is for the forgiveness of sins, but Jesus' baptism is with the Holy Spirit, which brings about transformation. It seems that baptism today is less about repentance, and more about proclaiming that we have repented and that we are identifying and submitting to Jesus as Lord and Savior.
I don't think that this is a black and white issue, and I think that people who try to make it so or nail it down to one specific way that is the right way can bring confusion and dissension. I think that both baptisms are fine and each can be supported by Scripture. Keeping the main thing the main thing is the main thing.
I'm with Marshall on this: "I think one baptism means one name into which we are baptized, the name of Jesus Christ." And other things he said, but I think that point is very important.
I took my Systematic Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary before going to Trinity. A book I read on infant baptism helped me to understand (and dare I say appreciate) it better, but I was not convinced. I also have an appreciation for covenant theology, but I don't see the crossover between circumcision and baptism explicit enough. I also think that in order to be consistent (because the infant baptism stance seems *to me* to be based on a "logical" inference), one who believed in infant baptism ought to do infant communion as well.
In any case, let me say that I have studied it quite a bit (not necessarily more than any of you), and can firmly say with Marshall this: "I think one baptism means one name into which we are baptized, the name of Jesus Christ.") Otherwise, I think it is important to think through and process and come to ones own decision.
As an aside, let me say that some of my favorite theologians/preachers are Presbyterrians - so sometimes I wished I believed in infant baptism, because I think it's "hipper" than believer/baptisitic baptism. I just try not to make my theological decisions on what's "hipper."
Are you at Blacknoll? Whenever people go to Durham, I tell them to go try Blacknoll even though I've never been there myself. Hopefully I'm not leading them astray - except in regards to infant baptism (!;o)). David Fink and his wife go there - I went to elementary school and seminary with him ... okay, now I'm way off topic ...
Marshall,
You've got to read Willimon's book and you'll get what I am saying. It's not an apologetic for infant baptism, it's about what baptism means, whenever it is administered (to children of believers, to believers, whatever your flavor.)
I don't believe that baptism saves more than whatever the implications of I Peter 3:21 are (which I don't think is baptismal regeneration at all) but I do believe that baptism is primarily a sacrament of identity. Our "emerging" PCA church usually likens it to a tattoo -- a big fat JESUS on a baby's forehead. It doesn't make you a Christian, but it does make you a member of the visible church and it's a reminder of your covenant identity. Do we expect most baptized babies to believe? Absolutely. What's the point of the covenant if they don't? Will some turn away from the faith they've been offered? Yes. The tattoo analogy works here too: you can remove a tattoo, but it takes a lot of work. Being in the covenant has benefits to children, and we are just raising ours to always affirm the faith, and to never remember a time they didn't believe.