Wednesday, June 06, 2007

Buried Dead

…having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God
(Colossians 2:12 – ESV)


We baptize on profession of faith, not assurance of salvation or for assurance of salvation. In Acts 2:38 Peter was telling them to be baptized because of the forgiveness of sins not in order to be forgiven. It is identification with Christ, having repented (Galatians 3:26 / Romans 6:4-6). In considering 1 Peter 3:21 consider this; God wasn’t using the water to save them He was using the ark! Baptism is an outward expression of inward confession; it represents the call on God, while not actually being it (Romans 10:13).

Clearly there is both continuity and discontinuity between Old Testament circumcision and New Testament baptism. It is linked as we clearly see here but it is different, not an exact parallel. New Testament baptism corresponds with the Old Testament circumcision of the heart, not the Old Testament circumcision of the hands. Still, though, baptism is done with hands, and in that way it does correspond with Old Testament circumcision, but we still believe infants are not to participate in it. There is a new sign of the new covenant because the covenant people are being constituted in a new way: by spiritual birth, not physical birth. It is a new and living way through His flesh, not our flesh (Hebrews 10:20).

If baptism were merely a parallel of the Old Testament rite of circumcision it would not have to happen "through faith" since infants did not take on circumcision "through faith." The reason the New Testament ordinance of baptism must be "through faith" is that it represents not the Old Testament external ritual, but the New Testament, internal, spiritual experience of circumcision "without hands." Infants do not exercise faith when being circumcised, and so this rules out paedobaptism, it would seem. However, we must also deal with Romans 4:11.

Romans 4:11 does talk about circumcision being a matter of faith, an outward sign of an inward reality, and so it would seem to correspond, and also since it was given to infants it would appear that baptism should also be given to infants of believing parents. If circumcision and baptism signify the same thing, genuine faith, then you can't use this meaning of baptism by itself as an argument against baptizing infants, because circumcision was given to infants. In other words, you can't simply say, “Baptism is an expression and sign of faith; infants can't have faith; therefore don't baptize infants”. You can't say this, because Romans 4:11 says that circumcision means the same thing, a sign of faith, and it was given to infants. Of course we can begin to again realize the discontinuity because circumcision was not given to females and baptism most certainly is to be given to females. So lets take a further look.

In addressing this, let’s look at Romans 9:6-8 – there is a physical and also a spiritual Israel. The people of the covenant in the Old Testament were made up of Israel according to the flesh – an ethnic, national, religious people containing "children of the flesh" and some of those were also the "children of God." If the parents were in the covenant, so, too, were the children. Therefore it was fitting that then sign of circumcision was given to all the children of the flesh.

However, the Church is not a continuation of the covenant community as portrayed by physical Israel, but a continuation of the remnant community as portrayed by the spiritual Israel. The Church isn’t based on any ethnic, national distinctives but on the reality of faith alone, by grace alone in the power of the Holy Spirit (Galatians 3:7). The Church is not a continuation of Israel as a whole; it is a continuation of the true Israel, the remnant – not the children of the flesh, but the children of promise (Galatians 4:22-28). Also, the spiritual status of your parents does not determine your membership in the covenant community. Therefore, it is not fitting that the children born merely according to the flesh receive the sign of the covenant, baptism.

The Church is not a repeat of Israel, it is a new model altogether. To continue as Israel did by baptizing infants is a mistake, a misunderstanding of the spiritual community of the Church.

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

Did the early church understand this dinction? And if so, why are infants still baptized today?

More questions to follow........if that's OK?

Anonymous said...

“We baptize on profession of faith, not assurance of salvation or for assurance of salvation.”

JD, thanks for this confirmation of the reality of my baptism.

A little background: I was saved in ’84 in a small Baptist church were I was subsequently baptized & attended for two years. A couple of years after I left, the pastor who baptized & taught me was caught in an adulterous affair with a church member. Instead of repenting, they both divorced their spouses & left the church. I began to doubt my salvation (for other reasons, also). Though I had never been taught that water baptism was integral to salvation, somehow that had crept into my doctrine. I began to doubt my salvation, for this man who had both baptized & taught me for the first two years of my walk was an apparent apostate (though I doubted my salvation for other reasons, also). For several years after this I thought I should get “re-baptized” by a “real” pastor; until I began to mature (in the past ten years) & understand that it wasn’t a matter of the reality of his faith, but mine. Thus, in my mind, the experience went from Baptism- an essential act performed by one qualified, to baptism- an obedient act undergone by one broken.

JD, thanks again.

Even So... said...

Thanks Steve...

Chris,

1. Early church - you must define that, early as in 1st century, or 3-4 centuries, etc.

2. Just because the early (let's say 3+) church did it, doesn't mean it is right; that is the first step back to Rome...

3. The writings of the early church fathers and authors do not supercede Scripture.

4. From about the thrid century onward, infant baptism was the predominant practice, but usually thought of in the regenerative sense. This to me shows its flaw.

The Reformation cry "ad fontes", which basically means to the source, is the belief that the Bible must be the place to look when formualting doctrine. Was the doctrine of the Trinty within the pages of the Bible before it was fleshed out and codified at the early church councils? Yes, but it took a while for the need for it to be spelled out to arise (in order to refute heresy)...The Bible is a finished work, but our study of it is not.

5. I do not advocate the practice that if you were baptized as an infant that you MUST be rebaptized...

6. It was a practice that crept in becasue of a misunderstanding of scripture, and continued to be held, in different forms, even with the Reformation fathers such as Calvin.

I guess I could say a lot more, but there are men more suited to answer your question whom have printed material. If you are at church tonight, I will give you a paper from Greg Welty titled "from circumcision to baptism" that should help a ilttle more...

Even So... said...

Oh, I forgot to say...

The historical evidence suggests that infant baptism was a post-apostolic development.

A wide variety of views existed on this subject in early church times.

Some people objected to the practice even during that time when infant baptism "reigned".

Anonymous said...

Whew, a lot to think on!

With respect to #5- Why not? Can a baby profess faith?

Shouldn't scriptural example be the ultimate authority? If the 1st century Christians did or did not practice something, shouldn't that be good enough? See, I still struggle with this idea that doctrine/practices need to "develop". Gracious, look what a lot of church practices have "developed" into!

OK, maybe I just need to ask this question--is baptism an option?

Hope I'm not irritating you? :)

Even So... said...

Chris, no I'm not bothered, it is generally a good thing to ask questions...

As to #5, I might like the person to be rebaptized, but I wouldn't demand it for church membership, communion, etc.

Baptism is not an option in that to refuse to do it at all is to be in open rebellion, and this would call into question the person's faith...what possible reason could they have, unless they were professing faith, had been baptized as an infant, bore fruit attesting to the faith, and then were refusing to be rebaptized...I could go with that, but I might think they would want to go to a good Presbyterian church anyway...

Off to court I go, I'll have to visit this later, in the meantime, everyone else, carry on...

donsands said...

"Baptism is not an option ..."

Amen to that mi hermano.

This was a good study. I agree with you, and yet people like Charles Hodge & Jay Adams sure make their points well.

Even So... said...

Yes Don, smarter men than you or I are on the "other" side of this issue, but we have quite a few "over here" as well...

sola scriptura!

BTW, we will have another day of this with tomorrow's post...

Anonymous said...

I think (know) I'm a little confused about your "take" on infant baptism. Is it OK/valid/scriptual/ordained.....is infant baptism really baptism at all?

Even So... said...

Not in the NT sense...

Even So... said...

I never use the words "not valid" when discussing this item, and I shudder when others, who are credobaptists (don't baptize infants) or paedobaptists (those who do) use those words, becasue that just point back to baptism having some regenerative property...

"Not valid" implies that "valid" has some non-negotiable saving faith thingy attched to it...

Baptism is an outward sign depicting an inward reality, and of course not everyone who takes baptism upon profession of faith is truly regenerate, but at least it is them saying they have called on Christ for mercy...

Anonymous said...

Great 2 post so far JD. A tad over my head though ( I think). The only thing I can offer is this. I know when you humble yourself before God, repent, and accept Christ into your heart, you are to be baptised soon after or as steve put it, an obedeint act undergone by someone who has been broken. Sorry it's on anony, still figure out how log in by my blog account. :) Heavenly Soldier

jazzycat said...

J.D.
As a member of PCA Presbyterian Church that baptizes infants, I have heard the best arguments in support of the practice and I find them unconvincing.

Thanks for giving yet another reason I disagree with it. My pastor and I have a great relationship and he understands my view. BTW, I got your book in the mail today.
wayne

Even So... said...

Jazzy, I'm glad you are a Presby, are a creedo, and still have a great relationship with your pastor...that makes you solid in my book, brother...you see, I like it all the more, because even though I think that baptizing babies is a BIG mistake, to say that it isn't a deal breaker for us creedos helps rob the ordinance of some of its supposedly sacramental power...if that makes any sesne....

jazzycat said...

Uh, I think so.... I am just glad that I don't have a small child which would force me to confront the issue head on. There is not but one Reformed Baptist Church in my area (too far away) and since I have a greater problem with Armininianism than padeobaptism, I will stay with the PCA for now....

Even So... said...

I think it is a good thing, Wayne...