Why We're Not Baptizing Our Children (Yet)

While on the phone with my mom a few weeks ago, she asked us again why we belonged to a Presbyterian church which baptizes infants, but we ourselves have not had our son baptized.*  I hope to explain here why I've chosen this path for our family.  I realize this is a huge issue that cannot be covered in a few paragraphs, but here's my best attempt to briefly explain it.  And I write this with great humility--I am fallible and could be wrong--and with great respect for the Reformed heritage and for my brothers and sisters in Christ at URC and City Church of Richmond.

What is the Presbyterian doctrine?

Presbyterian and Reformed churches see baptism as the equivalent of circumcision, which was applied to children to show their status within the Abrahamic covenant.  Start by reading Genesis 12, 15, and 17 to get a picture of God’s promises to Abraham.

Circumcision was the “sign of the covenant” God gave to Abraham (Genesis 17:11 ESV).  It served as a sign (visible representation) of the covenant relationship between God and Abraham and his offspring.  It was also a seal confirming the reality of this covenant relationship and God’s vow to “be God to you and to your offspring after you” (Genesis 17:7; cf. Romans 4:11).  Circumcision signified inner spiritual renewal and cleansing (Isaiah 52:1), as well as the need to live consecrated to God--or else one too would be cursed and “cut off” from life under God’s blessing (Genesis 17:14).  Through bloodshed it prefigured the bloody judgment of Christ that would ultimately earn this spiritual renewal and cleansing for God’s people.  

Ben Witherington on Baptism

"[I]t seemed unlikely that the church would get very far in its discussion of the matter unless it recognized that no one has managed to avoid adapting the New Testament teaching on baptism without certain theological aberrations" (Troubled Waters, p. 2).


"The fact is, no New Testament document addresses itself to water baptism for its own sake.  It is always mentioned as an illustration or exhortation to make some other point. ... [A]ny deductions about correct Christian practice of water baptism are drawn not from clear-cut prescriptive statements in the New Testament about how one ought to perform the rite, but from what one can conclude from various descriptive statements and theologoumena that reveal who was baptized and what it meant. ... Thus, any evaluation of the New Testament evidence must proceed cautiously, recognizing that deducing a normative practice from primarily descriptive or purely theological statements is no easy task." (pp. 7, 9)

How true.  As time and again I've returned to the Scriptures over whether or not we ought to baptize our newborn son in his infancy, I'm becoming more and more convinced that neither Baptists nor Presbyterians have it right (and they're about the closest we have to the biblical doctrine, while taking very different viewpoints).  At best, both are adaptations of what little teaching we do have about baptism, set in contexts often far different from the spread of the gospel to Jew-Gentile assemblies in the first century.  When I try to read either position back into the New Testament, both end up with significant inconsistencies, especially regarding what to do with ensuing generations born and raised within the church community--a scenario that is not explicitly addressed by the Bible.  It's like trying to read Genesis to settle arguments on how God created the world, considering that the creation accounts and all references to creation are written for polemical or ethical reasons.  What to do?

Some Notes on Household Baptisms

One of the common criteria used in debates over who should be baptized (that is, only professing believers, or also their children) is the accounts of household baptisms in the New Testament. (See my previous post.) One's "household" (Greek oikos) referred generally to their dependent family in an immediate and certain sense, but also possibly any other voluntary bondservants pledged to their care. There are five explicit household baptisms mentioned: that of Cornelius (Acts 10:44-48), Lydia (16:15), the Philippian jailer (16:31-34), Crispus (18:8 with 1 Cor. 1:14), and Stephanas (1 Cor. 1:16). Presumably the household of Gaius was also baptized, because his name is included between the two others whose households were baptized (1 Cor. 1:14-16).

Baptists try to argue that everyone who was in the household believed and professed faith, therefore giving only a pattern of "believers-only baptism" (called credobaptism, baptism upon professing a creed or statement of faith). Reformed/Presbyterian and Methodist folks use these accounts to say that the household head's faith reckoned the whole household under covenant membership, so the whole family was baptized regardless of whether or not they believed. This would include the baptism of any infants or young children if present (paedobaptism). Who's right?

You and Your Household Will Be Saved

While we wait for our child to be born any day now (seriously, kid, would you get a move on?), I'm finding particular encouragement for parenting through the "household" accounts in Acts (10:44-48; 11:12-18; 16:15, 30-34; 18:8), 1 Corinthians (1:14-16; 16:15), and 2 Timothy (1:16).

"And [Cornelius] told us how he had seen an angel stand in his house and say, 'Send to Joppa and bring Simon who is called Peter; he will declare to you a message through which you will be saved, you and all your household." (Acts 11:13-14)

"Then [the jailer] brought [Paul and Silas] out and said, 'Sirs, what must I do to be saved?' And they said, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.'" (Acts 16:30-31)

It's amazing how many households, that is, families, all came to faith in Christ in one fell swoop. The New Testament records at least five examples of this happening: the households of Cornelius (Acts 10:44-48; 11:12-18), Lydia (Acts 16:15), the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:30-34), Crispus (Acts 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:14), Stephanas (1 Cor. 1:16; 16:15), and perhaps Gaius (1 Cor. 1:14). In fact, in every NT narrative where a Gentile convert's household was present, the entire family was baptized (presumably they all trusted Christ or assented to discipleship).* (Perhaps I'll write more later about the relevance of household baptisms for present-day practice.)

What's even more stunning is that twice someone is given the explicit assurance that through the gospel message their whole family would be saved (see Acts 11:14 and 16:31 above). There is no way around these passages: the men were personally told that through belief in the gospel their households too would be saved. Not could be saved if perhaps they believed. "You will be saved, you and your household." Of course these people weren't saved apart from faith in any automatic fashion by belonging to the family of a godly person. But I'm encouraged by what Cornelius and the jailer do: They hear the offer of salvation through Jesus Christ and the assurance that the gospel would be powerful and effective for their loved ones, and then they bring the bearer of that message (Peter, or Paul and Silas) into their homes to share the good news of Christ with their families there. And lo and behold, their families believed too.

"Every baptism is an infant baptism"

Last weekend the local RUF (Reformed University Fellowship, that is, not a ministry for canines) pastor at Virginia Commonwealth University, Peter Rowan, was ordained at our worship service. It was a beautiful and moving event to see a young man step forward to commit his life to guiding people to their Savior through the Word of the gospel. Then, in his first act as an ordained pastor, Peter baptized his infant nephew. Peter started his brief explanation of baptism with this provocative phrase: "In some sense, every baptism is an infant baptism." The sign of baptism, Peter explained, shows that we, like newborn babes, live entirely dependent lives before God, living entirely on what he gives us by grace alone in Christ.

I think this really is a beautiful picture we miss often by too quickly getting on with the business of responding to our baptisms by following Jesus' call to death-and-discipleship. No matter how zealously we follow Jesus and serve his church, we must recognize that every good and every blessing come to us not on account of our faith or our energy for God, but far prior to that. Baptism reminds us that it was "while we were still weak" and powerless like a little child with no strength or skill or virtue to offer, "Christ died for the ungodly" (Romans 5:6). Brennan Manning points out in his book The Ragamuffin Gospel that children are the model citizens of God's kingdom "because they have no claim on heaven. If they are close to God, it is because they are incompetent, not because they are innocent. If they receive anything, it can only be as a gift" (p. 28).

Like a Child

Last weekend my pastor preached on Mark 10:13-16. The focus was on our necessity to receive the kingdom of God like a child, which means that we must believe our Father's goodness as our great Giver of his time, touch, and blessing (note that Jesus says we "receive" the kingdom). We must also learn to call on God as Abba, "Daddy." We don't bring our successes and achievements to the table in order to be fed. Those who are looking to their own merits or worth as a means of entering fellowship with God totally miss the point.

But, as before, this text made me think about faith. Jesus says that "the kingdom of God belongs to such as these" (10:14). He cannot mean that it belongs only to those adults or adolescents who trust God and come to him like children. It would be ludicrous to set forth children as models of faith ("I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will not enter it.") and yet preclude them from having such an exemplary faith themselves.

Mark tells us that these are "little children" (paidia). What age might these role models be? Matthew uses this term to describe toddlers and infants under two years of age (Matthew 2:8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 20, 21). So apparently even infants and toddlers can have faith and can enter the kingdom of God. Other Scripture corroborates this. John the Baptist leaped for joy over the Messiah's coming even while in his mother's womb (Luke 1:41, 44). King David testified in Psalm 22 that "From birth I was cast upon you [Lord]; from my mother's womb you have been my God" (v. 10). And if this was so in the age prior to Pentecost and the Holy Spirit's outpouring upon the church, how much more so now?

N. T. Wright illustrates this with a clever example:

I once was doing a children’s talk at a baptism. I asked two children to each blow up a balloon. I allowed the first child to only put two or three little puffs into the balloon. The second child went on puffing and puffing and puffing and blew up this enormous balloon. Then I held them up and asked the children, Which of these balloons is fuller? Of course they all said “the big one.” And I replied, “Are you sure? Both of these balloons are full. One is bigger because it has more air, but they are both full—all the space in them is used up.”

A very little person can be totally full of the love of God. Even though, of course, when she grows up and becomes a bigger person, she needs to be filled with more and more of the love of God. But that little person is not half full just because she’s a little person. I realize that this is not a great, well-argued theological justification of infant baptism. It’s simply a way of saying that I suspect that some of our Western cultural prejudices are at stake here. [You can read the full article here.]

Why does this strike or provoke me? Well, lately I have been really deliberating over (guess what?) what baptism means and who is to receive it. I'm beating a dead horse, I know, I know. I've been seeing a lot more validity to the view that while baptism still signifies and confirms participation in Christ through faith, it should only be administered to professing believers. (Gasp! Might I really become Baptist after this long?) But this text throws somewhat of a wrench in that. After all, nearly every example of believers' baptism in the New Testament is that people were baptized shortly after hearing the gospel and responding in faith. But if a child raised in the church and/or in a Christian home may very well believe at age eight months, two years, or whatever, shouldn't we immediately baptize them? What would happen to John the Baptist or to David, those who believed since birth? It seems rather abiblical to me for them to believe and live out this incipient child-faith, while adults refuse them baptism until they achieve a more mature ability to articulate and express their beliefs.

Besides that, if baptism is restricted to a credible profession of faith and regeneration, at what point does that profession really become credible enough to be considered evidence that the Holy Spirit indeed indwells a person? There were evidently plenty of professing believers in churches like Corinth who partook of church activities while nonetheless living unrepentant, "uncircumcised" lives (see 1 Corinthians 10:1-11). Similar warnings are given in Romans 11:20-22, Colossians 1:23, Hebrews 6:1-12, and 2 Peter 2:20-21.

Thoughts? Feedback?

Jesus' Baptism and Ours: A Two-Way Act?

As I've continued thinking and studying what the Scriptures say about baptism, an interesting thought occurred to me: Is there a difference between what we do and what God does in this rite? In general, the Reformation churches (i.e., Reformed, Anglican, Lutheran) and some Methodists focus on baptism as an act of God. Conversely, other evangelicals (e.g., Baptists) see baptism as an act in which repentant sinners confess their sin and "appeal to God for a good conscience" (1 Peter 3:21). Consider the oft-neglected story of Jesus' baptism:

"John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And all the country of Judea were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. . . .

"In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens opening and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, 'You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.'" (Mark 1:4-5, 9-11)

On one hand, Baptists would probably point out that in this baptism sinners who wished to repent of their sins and inaugurate a new way of life came to the river and confessed their sins as they underwent baptism (vv. 4-5). On the other hand, Reformed folk (such as I) would point out that when Jesus is baptized, the heavens open and the Father declares to Jesus the reality of his identity (vv. 9-11). Both realities are present here--and elsewhere in the Bible as well.

Baptism as a human act. Every single reference to baptism in the New Testament is a passive act. That is, converts are called to "be baptized," not to baptize themselves. It is always an act done by someone else upon the baptisand.* (If you can find an exception to this, please do point it out!) For this reason, I find it very difficult to believe that baptism is a symbolic rite in which a new convert signifies his own faith. The Scriptures never say that. What action is present upon the baptisand's part in the NT is this: Acknowledging one's sinfulness and calling on God for mercy in the name of Jesus the Messiah-Savior. (See Matthew 3:13-16; Mark 1:4-5; Luke 3:3; Acts 2:21, 36-41; 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21). Even in his own baptism, though himself sinless, Jesus identifies with sinful humanity and "repents," in order to "fulfill all righteousness" (Matthew 3:15). He acknowledged his need for cleansing and came to the waters, appealing for mercy.

Baptism as a divine act. If the baptisand is always passive, then who is the real actor? It is no less than all three persons of the Triune God in action. Here we see easily enough that God spoke to Jesus, his Word confirming to Jesus his identity as the beloved Son. He also confirmed to Jesus his calling as the Messiah who would undergo another "baptism" on the cross (John 1:31; Luke 12:50). The Spirit also descends on Jesus--and we often see the Spirit in Scripture active in bringing God's Word in light and power to our hearts (1 Corinthians 2:10-16). But above all things, Jesus is the real Baptizer in the Bible. John repeatedly testified that while he baptized with water, Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit (Mark 1:8 and parallels). So as Jesus has ascended, he (along with the Father) pours out his Spirit into men to give them new birth and to bring God's Word home to their hearts.**

In baptism believers are divinely joined to Jesus' death and raised to newness of life (Romans 6:3-4). They are ingrafted into the church, the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13). They are clothed with Christ and also identified as "sons of God" (Galatians 3:26-27). God confirms to believers in baptism the righteousness that they possess by faith (Romans 4:11) and that he is cleansed and renewed within (Acts 22:16; Titus 3:5).

Instead of signifying the convert's faith, we see in baptism the visible Word--the testimony of the Spirit--that the believer who repents and embraces Christ in faith, he is confirmed as a child of God, cleansed and washed from sin within, reborn in righteousness, joined to Jesus' body, and sealed by the Spirit for the kingdom's possession. Or, perhaps more accurately, the New Covenant promises which are "Yes" in Christ (2 Corinthians 1:20) are not only confirmed by God in general, but their reality for and upon the believer is confirmed in baptism.

The two acts together. If we put the two together, we could see God, in baptism, shaking hands on promises he has made. On one hand, from the human viewpoint baptism is an act in which a repentant believer accepts his judgment-and-cleansing in Christ and submits to live under Christ in his kingdom (Matthew 28:19; 1 Peter 3:19-21). On the other hand, from the divine viewpoint God confirms to him who believes that he truly has a new identity in Christ as "my beloved son, with whom I am well pleased." He confirms the believer's rebirth and cleansing by Spiritual union with Christ and his body. And in baptism the believer has a new destiny and calling as well--one of God-exalting, cross-bearing, Spirit-fueled discipleship and pilgrimage on the way toward future glory.

* * *

What do you think? I'm not 100% sure about this yet, but it seems biblically consistent to me right now. I'm continually astounded at the potency of salvation-realities ascribed to the baptized in the NT, which is leading me away from a Reformed covenantal view into this version of credobaptism--or at least a greater measure of ambivalence. (I say "leading away" because I'm not yet fully convinced of it.) I am having an increasingly difficult time figuring out how to apply NT texts concerning baptism's effects to those who are baptized yet don't exhibit the marks of new birth (e.g., some infants as well as those who merely profess faith but do not possess it). Yet at the same time, I'm not willing to embrace the overly subjective idea that baptism is simply a public profession of faith or a mirror of one's conversion experience. To do so would deny the way the NT points to baptism in an admonishing or encouraging manner, since faith is nothing--it's merely the hand that receives Christ and his benefits. And this distorts the point of faith anyway, that is, to look away from oneself and one's own decisions, commitments, and merits to those of Christ alone on our behalf.
_________________
*One could argue that Acts 22:16 provides a contradictory example: "And now why do you [Saul] wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name." Saul here is said to wash away his own sins--active on his part. (I'm not sure what to make of this yet or how to reconcile it with the rest of the NT.) But the point is that he is still passively baptized.

**Consider that Luke wrote his Gospel to record what Jesus "began to do and teach, until the day he was taken up" (Acts 1:1-2), implying that Jesus is everywhere active in the book of Acts by his Spirit and church.

Light for the Journey

As Olivia and I prepare for our move to Richmond, Virginia, at the end of July, we've had to reckon with the fact that we'll need to find a new church--together. Which church will be not only the place for me, but the place for us? Of course, being somewhat fearful and prone to worry, this causes me all kinds of consternation: All churches are not alike; how shall we choose? Being a matter of contention and difference (though an important and practical one, I believe), baptism has occupied a lot of my thoughts, studies, and worries lately. What does it mean? What does baptism do? How should it be conducted? Who are the proper recipients? It's enough to drive even a person crazy! And all the more for me because, as a "J" on the Myers-Briggs type inventory, I have to have closure on something conceptual before I can confidently live it out. "It is not good to have zeal without knowledge!" is often my theme (Proverbs 19:2).*

But amid all the madness, my wise wife has had the guts and grace to keep me on the right track. She lovingly reminded me that to discern God's "will of direction" for our lives--including which church to join--is simply a matter of loving God with all our hearts and minds and being obedient to what light he has clearly given us already (cf. Deuteronomy 29:29; Philippians 3:15-16).** Included in the New Covenant is the promise that because God is for us, he guides us. We will hear his Spirit saying, "This is the way; walk in it" (Isaiah 30:21). This passage in Isaiah doesn't show some magic, mystical path like a labyrinthian British garden. Rather, it's a path of wisdom and worship, that is, fear-of-the-Lord (see v. 22). To know God's direction for our lives is simply to know what it means to love and serve him and our neighbors wholeheartedly.

The tricky thing is that this walking on this "way" of discipleship requires faith. The well-worn psalm lauds God's written Word as "a lamp to my feet and a light for my path" (Psalm 119:105). Of course, walking with a lamp to my feet doesn't illuminate a whole lot. I know where to place my foot next, but that's about it. Should I be afraid of what I cannot see? of a future which is uncertain? No. For though it is unknown and uncertain to us, it is known and certain to our loving Father who holds our lives in his hands. What he desires of us is to love him and walk in obedience to what we already know; and the rest he will reveal to us and teach us in his due time as is needed. "And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you. Only let us live up to what we have already attained" (Philippians 3:15b-16).

I want to have all things certain and known; I want them comfortable. In other words, I do not want to live as a servant under God's lordship, with him in control. But as God's good pleasure and purpose is "to bring about the obedience of faith," he is fully committed to teaching his people what they need to know in order to do his will--even if he may choose to do so only on the spot, just a step ahead of time.

_______________________
*I previously wrote on this here.
**"Will of direction" is a term I heard from Kevin DeYoung. His new book Just Do Something is an excellent place to start for anyone wanting to know what it means to "find God's will for your life." I haven't read all of it, but the sermon series from which it sprang has been a big influence in my life.

A Greater Hope

In less than one short week, my beloved Olivia and I will begin the exciting journey of life together as a married couple. I cannot begin to relay how excited I am! I mean, seriously, she is such a wonderful blessing in my life. For example, only she could make me want to swallow my pride and say "I was wrong."

Someone asked recently if we had a prenuptial agreement, to which I replied: "No, there will be no prenuptial agreement. We actually trust each other and endeavor to follow Jesus Christ in love for one another, which means we'll never divorce. No divorce = no prenup. It's as simple as that. Prenup agreements are an advance warning that you don't trust the other person and/or you don't plan on being faithful to them. But that's not us."

Now, how can I be so sure of that? you might wonder. It's a question I often ask myself. How can I know that my own selfishness and pride will not foster bitterness and divisiveness between us and ultimately lead to a divorce? Current statistics, if they are to be believed, claim that over one third of "born again" Christians' marriages end in separation.

It's because I know that my hope for living in love does not depend solely on myself; my hope is in God's great promises to purify my desires and make me increasingly more loving and selfless:

"They will be my people, and I will be their God.* I will give them singleness of heart and action, so that they will always fear me for their own good and the good of their children after them. I will make an everlasting covenant with them: I will never stop doing good to them, and I will inspire them to fear me, so that they will never turn away from me. I will rejoice in doing them good and will assuredly plant them in this land with all my heart and soul." (Jeremiah 32:38-41)

"I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws." (Ezekiel 36:24-27)

"And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit." (2 Corinthians 3:18)

When by faith we have communion with Christ, we have Christ in us, "the hope of glory" (Colossians 1:27). Yes, our greatest hope, sharing in Jesus' bodily glorification and complete freedom from sin, will not be our possession until after his return. But even now we possess his Spirit and are being renewed. This is no mere wishful thinking, for if it is, then God is a liar. These promises of God have been my courage and my comfort since this past fall concerning a lasting marriage with Olivia. I have brought these promises of God's before his throne in prayer many times, claiming his faithfulness to his word and reminding him that his Name would be defaced if he doesn't hold true to this.

In short, Olivia and I, sinners that we are, can boldly go forth into marriage because God's purposes and grace are more powerful than any evil. It is the Lord Christ who is the Omega; he gets the last word in our lives and in all of history. And it is his promise that his own loving heart and fear of God will be wrought within us, bit by bit, day by day, as by faith we go under those waters of our baptism--letting our old desires and ways be put to death in Christ that a new self might be born within us.**

_________________
*I am aware that the passages from Jeremiah and Ezekiel were first spoken to Israel in her exile. But these promises are certainly not for Jews alone; they belong to the "everlasting covenant" of grace into which the entire worldwide church has been engrafted through faith in Christ and his gospel. In a nutshell, the apostolic message of the New Testament is that the promises of deliverance and kingdom given to Israel were now being fulfilled through the Messiah, and they have been opened up to all nations, that they too might share in Messiah's benefits. Hence Paul can call the Gentile Galatian church "the Israel of God" (Galatians 6:15-16; cf. Ephesians 2:12-13; 3:6).

** See Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:26-27; Colossians 2:11-13.

Taking the Name in Vain

In Bible Study Fellowship this past week, we studied Exodus 19-20: YHWH descending upon Sinai in a fiery maelstrom to deliver the Ten Words to Israel.* The third (or second, if you're Lutheran) commandment stopped me and made me think a bit. "You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold guitless anyone who misuses his name" (20:7, NIV). This makes it seem like what is forbidden is to use God's name to curse someone, or to make oaths in a cavalier fashion, or to elevate your own teaching's authority by claiming the name of God.

Older translations, however, phrase the commandment as "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain." Could this mean something different? I recalled an old podcast sermon by Jeff Oschwald about this commandment in which he said "taking God's name" was to be called by God's name--to belong to him or to identify with him. Women take their husband's names at the wedding rite. In a few months Barack Obama will take the name President Obama.


So could it be an altogether different thing than simply employing God's name in an unworthy manner? Certainly this interpretation would still make sense. But could it be that as the new nation Israel was coming under a new status as the living God's "treasured possession," his "kingdom of priests," and his "holy nation" (Exodus 19:5), that they had therein also "taken on" God's name? To them alone had Yahweh revealed himself truly; and it was Israel alone who could say they were the one people set apart by God. They had his promises and his Law by which they were to live, with all the resources of the Almighty backing them. How could they take such a name in vain--that is, to no profit--by turning back on God and forsaking his Law in culpable disbelief and rebellion?

In the same way, all of us baptized into the church have been baptized into (eis) the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We have a new name; we're called Christ-ians, those who belong to Christ and live under his kingship. Could this third commandment mean for us today not to disbelieve the God-reality, the salvation-reality, we're baptized into? To turn our backs on God, to love sin more than the Master who bought us (2 Peter 2:1), to fail to come to the obedience of faith despite all that is pledged to us?

I'm not saying that all who are baptized are necessarily "saved." First Corinthians 10 dispels that myth; many will "fall in the desert." But in the church, where we go by the name Christian, we have so many benefits that the rest of the world lacks: preaching of God's Word and the "visible word" of the sacraments, the love and prayers of the saints, the revealing of heaven in worship, the presence of the Holy Spirit, church discipline, and so on.

Anyway . . . it's just a curious thought. And how often my thoughts get me into trouble!

___________

*The ten "words" take the form of ten "covenant stipulations" by which Israel was to pledge her loyalty to her Redeemer and Sovereign, who brought them out of Egypt's slavery and delivered them from the plague of death.

Baptism VI: Baptism is Eschatological

Now that school is out for the summer and I have a little more time on my hands, I’m picking up where I left off several months ago in my discussion of the sacrament of Christian baptism.

In Titus 3 Paul tells of how God mercifully saved us “through the washing of regeneration and the renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life” (vv. 5-7).

What is this “washing of regeneration” through which God has saved us? That is, what is regeneration, and how is it a “washing”? In a word, regeneration or rebirth is the work of the “living water” of the Holy Spirit in uniting us to Jesus Christ. In union with him by faith, his Spirit not only cleanses from the stain of sin (as in our sinful nature, not just sinful deeds), but he also remakes us as God’s children for “newness of life” in Christ (cf. Rom. 6:3-4). Commenting on John 3:3-8, John Murray explains being "born of water and the Spirit” in this way, which certainly applies equally well to Titus 3:5:

Entrance into the kingdom of God could only be secured by purification from the defilement of sin. The water of purification is as it were the womb out of which must emerge the new life which gives entrance into and fits for membership in the kingdom of God. This is the purificatory aspect of regeneration. Regeneration must negate the past as well as reconstitute for the future. It must cleanse from sin as well as recreate in righteousness. (Redemption Accomplished and Applied, p. 98)

This sounds an awful lot like Noah and the flood, in which God also judged and renewed by water. He erased the old world in which sin abounded in all its ugliness and rebellion and simultaneously re-created the world, as it were, in hope and peace. Water both wiped out the old in judgment as well as birthed the new. Peter teaches this in saying that “the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and . . . by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished” (2 Pet. 3:5-6).

But Peter also explicitly says that the Noahic flood was a shadow or type that finds its fulfillment in Christian baptism. “In which [the ark] a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. And baptism, which this prefigured, 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” (1 Pet. 3:20-21, NRSV).* Baptism is an even greater saving and recreating event than the Flood ever was!

So we see that baptism involves a watery “flood” that condemns unrighteousness and recreates in righteousness and hope. Even though God will again destroy the world, he will recreate it as “new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells” (2 Pet. 3:7, 13). Interestingly, Jesus speaks of this same event in Matthew 19:28 as “the regeneration” (Greek palingenesia, “rebirth”; ESV “the new world,” NIV “the renewal of all things”). The only other NT use of palingenesia is in Titus 3:5. Our spiritual rebirth is a foretaste of the great recreation of the coming age (cf. 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15), the future reaching back into the present.

But if this regenerating salvation-flood that eradicates that old and forms the new finds its fulfillment in the waters of baptism, in what way can we link baptism with the “washing of regeneration” in Titus 3:5? Peter explicitly states that baptism does not have its efficacy in the outward washing itself (1 Pet. 3:21); the water works only by the word of God (2 Pet. 3:5). It is perhaps best, then, to understand it this way: Just as washing with water is seen and experienced visibly in baptism, so is the inner, spiritual cleansing promised in the gospel visibly offered to believe in. For all who by God’s grace repent and trust in Christ, they are not merely washed with water externally; they are also cleansed within. Thus we can call it a “washing of regeneration.” (See also Ezekiel 36:25-29a, where cleansing, rebirth, water, and the Holy Spirit are all linked in God's new covenant promises.)

God does not sport with us by unmeaning figures, but inwardly accomplishes by his power what he exhibits by the outward sign; and therefore, baptism is fitly and truly said to be “the washing of regeneration.” . . . It is therefore the Spirit who regenerates us, and makes us new creatures [not the water ritual itself]; but because his grace is invisible and hidden, a visible symbol of it is beheld in baptism. (John Calvin, Commentary on Titus)

Note also that this “washing of regeneration” is done by the Holy Spirit, who is “poured out on us richly” (Tit. 3:6). Where else do we read of the Spirit being “poured out”? Pentecost. When the apostles begin preaching of Christ in many languages, it is because God had fulfilled his promise to pour out his Spirit on all people—a promise to be fulfilled only in “the last days” (Acts 2:16-21, 33; cf. Joel 2:28-32). This outpouring sheds abroad God’s love in our hearts, marking us no longer as slaves but as his children, heirs in hope of our eternal inheritance.

Therefore we can say that baptism is eschatological. (Eschatology is the study of the “last things,” the future kingdom of God.) It’s not so important to think about the link between baptism and the future as it is to realize that the regeneration in Christ it signifies is both real and necessary for entering the kingdom. And it is a regeneration not somewhere off in the distance, but one that has happened to you if you believe in Jesus. You have a new hope and a new identity. A new power is at work within you, and sin no longer has mastery over you. The coming destruction of sin and rebirth in everlasting life and righteousness are offered and pledged in baptism to all who embrace Jesus as their Savior and Lord—and for those of us who do, we possess even now the beginnings of our great future hope.

___________

*I prefer the NRSV over the ESV here because it more clearly indicates that baptism is the antitype (Greek antitupon) of the Flood. A type is a pattern or foreshadowing that finds its deeper fulfillment in a future counterpart, its antitype. Think of the type as the mold into which a plaster sculpture is poured; it provides the shape but lacks the substance. The antitype is the plaster that fills the mold's form. This means that the events of the Flood were always meant to point toward their greater, eternally significant counterpart, baptism.

Baptism in the Reformed confessions

So far I have described baptism's function as a sign and seal of the new covenant promises. Perhaps a few relevant, if redundant, quotes from various Reformed confessions and catechisms would be helpful at this point.


From the Heidelberg Catechism:

Question 66: What are sacraments?
Sacraments are holy signs and seals for us to see. They were instituted by God so that by our use of them he might make us understand more clearly the promise of the gospel, and might put his seal on that promise. And this is God's gospel promise: to forgive us our sins and give us eternal life by grace alone because of Christ's one sacrifice finished on the cross.

Question 69: How does baptism remind you and assure you that Christ's one sacrifice on the cross is for you personally?
In this way: Christ instituted this outward washing and with it gave the promise that, as surely as water washes away the dirt from the body, so certainly his blood and his Spirit wash away my soul's impurity, in other words, all my sins.

From the Belgic Confession:

Article 33: The Sacraments
We believe that our good God, mindful of our crudeness and weakness, has ordained sacraments for us to seal his promises in us, to pledge his good will and grace toward us, and also to nourish and sustain our faith.

He has added these to the Word of the gospel to represent better to our external senses both what he enables us to understand by his Word and what he does inwardly in our hearts, confirming in us the salvation he imparts to us.

For they are visible signs and seals of something internal and invisible, by means of which God works in us through the power of the Holy Spirit. So they are not empty and hollow signs to fool and deceive us, for their truth is in Jesus Christ, without whom they would be nothing.

Article 34: The Sacrament of Baptism
. . . Having abolished circumcision, which was done with blood, [Jesus Christ] established in its place the sacrament of baptism. By it we are received into God's church and set apart from all other people and alien religions, that we may be dedicated entirely to him, bearing his mark and sign. It also witnesses to us that he will be our God forever, since he is our gracious Father. . . .

In this way [that is, water baptism] he signifies to us that just as water washes away the dirt of the body when it is poured on us and also is seen on the body of the baptized when it is sprinkled on him, so too the blood of Christ does the same thing internally, in the soul, by the Holy Spirit. It washes and cleanses it from its sins and transformed us from being the children of wrath into the children of God. . . .

So ministers, as far as their work is concerned, give us the sacraments and what is visible, but our Lord gives [to those whom he has foreknown] what the sacrament signifies--namely the invisible gifts and graces; washing, purifying, and cleansing our souls of all filth and unrighteousness; renewing our hearts and filling them with all comfort; giving us true assurance of his fatherly goodness; clothing us with the "new man" and stripping off the "old," with all its works.

From the Westminster Confession of Faith:

Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ, and his benefits; and to confirm our interest in him: as also, to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the church, and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to his Word. (27:1)

There is, in every sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other. (27:2)

The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it: but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains . . . a promise of benefit to worthy receivers. (27:3)

Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church; but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life. . . . (28:1)

Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it; or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated. (28:5)

The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time. (28:6)

Baptism V: A visible gospel "signed, sealed, and delivered" to the believer

Because these great blessings secured by Christ and offered through grace alone are signified in baptism—complete cleansing from unrighteousness, the renewal and fellowship of the Holy Spirit, access to God, and empowerment for service—we can say that baptism is a “visible gospel” illustrating the promises of God to all who believe. But this is the key point: just as OT Israel only received the promises and remained in God’s favor by faith that led to obedience, so too do only those undergo baptism receive the promises by faith. Circumcision represented a transformation of the heart that led one to love God and obey him (Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Ezek. 36:24-27). Those who received circumcision in their flesh alone were considered “uncircumcised” and rejected by God (Jer. 9:25-26; cf. Rom. 2:25-29), because this circumcision in body also pointed to the need for a circumcised heart. In the same way, we need to see baptism both pointing to our need for the renewal of our hearts and love for God, and also as a promise that he will graciously give us his Holy Spirit who will give us obedient love.

Just as the gospel message can be rejected in its verbal form—and this is certainly the fullest—it, too, can be rejected in its watery form. For those who are baptized but do not believe, baptism is a watery judgment like the flood in Noah’s day (1 Pet. 3:19-21). Likewise the Israelites were "baptized into Moses" at the Red Sea, yet many grumbled in discontent and fell into apostasy and sin and never reached the Promised Land (1 Cor. 10:1-5). This may be at root in the warnings in Hebrews 6 and 10; covenant members who were baptized and participated in the spiritual life of the church nonetheless took a path of disbelief and rejection of Christ, and so stand condemned. Like the foreskin of Israelites with uncircumcised hearts, so too unbelievers die in their own blood.

This ought to show clearly that reception of the covenant sign does not automatically ensure reception of the covenant promises; faith is always required by God. Those who trusted in their national heritage as Jews and circumcised “children of Abraham” but were filled with self-love and produced no fruit were shut out from the kingdom of heaven. So too will all baptized people who trust only in the sign of baptism and not the Person given therein will hear the words, “Away from me, you evildoers. I never knew you!”

But all that is to overlook the chief function of baptism in the NT. Peter’s main point is to emphasize the grace given to us, that “baptism now saves you . . . through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (3:21). Jesus rose from the dead and secured eternal life for all who would trust in him and repent of their sins, seeking their righteousness in his fulfilled obedience alone and their forgiveness in his atoning death alone. In this way do all who “appeal to God for a good conscience” receive eternal life in his gracious favor.

Baptism thus ought to strengthen our faith by assuring us that we are in indeed washed clean from sin and made new in Christ. When the believer looks upon his baptism, he sees the gift of God in bringing him into his people as a “child of God” instead of leaving him out in the world as a “child of wrath” where Christ is not named, and he is thus assured of God’s fellowship. The believer sees that promised love and blessings came first, even when he was still a powerless infant or perhaps a new believer still weak in faith and strong in sin. Salvation is of God’s initiative and work, especially when viewed in terms of rebirth (no one gives birth to himself). And we see in baptism God’s gracious calling, to which we rightly respond with a clean conscience and full assurance of faith, having had our bodies washed with pure water (1 Pet. 3:21; Heb. 10:19-22). In baptism the believer sees and trusts the fact that the death of Christ was not withheld from him, but that he was plunged into this death, justified from sin, and consequently raised with him. The believer is assured that he has been reborn of the Holy Spirit, and that the Spirit makes him God’s son, secures his inheritance, and enables his sanctification. He is assured in baptism that he is set apart to God for priestly service—with priestly access! And, lest we forget that warnings are also blessings, we are guided by God in baptism to a knowledge both of sin we are to avoid and the faithful, rescuing Lord which we are to cling to.

* * *

Of course, I've been continually referring to this assurance given to the believer. I'll ever stand by sola fide; and I trust you'll see the evidence of that here. The believer can know that God has given him all these blessings of purification from sin, forgiveness, access to his throne of grace, and the Counselor's fellowship and empowering for a life of love-and-holiness. How so? Because all of these are truly given to the believer. Everything pledged and portrayed in baptism is made good in the life of the believer--that is to say, in the lives of God's elect. Salvation is only for those whom he has foreknown, those who are beloved before time. (Do you get it now?) Hear these words of the Westminster Confession of Faith:

The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto [i.e., the elect], according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time. (28.6, italics added)

God does demand faith for the reception of his promises. In fact, salvation (the future sense before Christ's judgment seat) is contingent upon a faith that perseveres. But the beauty of God's grace is that everything he requires of us, this he himself provides freely, even repentance and faith. As the old song goes:

Come ye sinners, come and welcome,
God's free bounty glorify:
True belief and true repentance,
Every grace that brings you nigh.

Let us praise him for his great grace and trust in it all the more!

Baptism IV: "Circumcision in the NT"

Following on the heels of last week's post III on circumcision in the OT, I'm going to keep on fleshing out my current beliefs about the Christian rite of water baptism. As you read, please consider that I am only hoping to clarify for myself and others what I believe and understand; I am not trying to develop a comprehensive theology of anything. And I hope to do this all without being like those who, according to St. Paul, "have wandered away into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers . . . without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions" (1 Tim. 1:7).
__________________

In Part III I hoped to show that circumcision in the Old Testament was a sign and seal of the Abrahamic covenant. Receiving circumcision also marked off those belonging to Israel and set them apart to a holy life.

The New Testament speaks much the same way about baptism and indicates that it replaces circumcision under the new covenant, which is for all peoples, Gentile and Jew alike. What did new converts do as soon as they heard the gospel of the God of Abraham and followed in his footsteps of faith? They were baptized (e.g., Acts 2:38-39; 8:12-13). What was the outward event that represented consecration to the Lord and a clean heart? Baptism. When the Ethiopian worshiper of the Lord (who read the Old Testament and considered himself among Israel by traveling to Jerusalem to observe the festivals) came to faith in Christ and realized the fulfillment of the new covenant promises, what happened? He was baptized (Acts 8:36-39)! Like foreigners in the past wishing to join themselves to God’s covenant community, who received circumcision, here and in Acts 10:45-48 Gentiles instead received the sign of baptism. Both circumcision and baptism signify God’s covenants, mark inclusion into his covenant people (the church, the body of Christ; 1 Cor. 12:13), and place persons under God’s authority and ownership (this ownership and authority is likely what is meant by being baptized “in [or into] the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”; Matt. 28:19).

Why baptism with water? Why not circumcision any more? (1) Blood-shedding was now done with, finished. Jesus’ shed blood has sufficed, and no more does blood need to be shed to point us to God’s redemption. Jesus’ death was referred to as a “circumcision” (Col. 2:11; note the link between circumcision and baptism here). (2) Water is highly illustrative of new covenant realities. Water is an agent of cleansing, showing the work of Christ to purify us from our sins. Special bathing made both priests and others ritually clean to approach God. Water was used in consecration to priesthood, and we are all now a “kingdom of priests” (cf. 1 Pet. 2:9; Rev. 1:6) who all have access to God to offer works of service. Water is linked to the “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit, who creates life and renewal (Ezek. 36:24-27; Joel 2:28 [Acts 2:]; Isa. 44:3-5; Rom 5:5).

Baptism III: Cutting a covenant, entering Israel

As my friend Ryan wisely advises, “in any attempt to hammer out a theology of ‘whatever’ from the New Testament we have to listen for the Old Testament echoes.” We can’t understand what a band of Jewish men believed to be such wonderful News if we have no idea what they believed or what hope they were looking for—“hope in the promise made by God to our fathers” (Acts 26:6-7). And it must suffice for now to say that the summary of the Bible is the story of God’s covenant promise(s) to rescue a cursed and estranged world from sin and become the God of a redeemed people. Abraham received the promise that his seed would receive an inheritance and become a great nation of blessing for all nations. Being part of Israel, where God’s blessings lived and were promised (see Rom. 9:4-5; Eph. 2:12, 19; 3:6), meant being a “son of Abraham” (e.g., Luke 3:8).

Many biblical covenants between God and men have some sort of visual “sign” and “seal” accompanying them. The Noahic covenant was given the rainbow to show that God has made a promise not to curse the world through rain ever again; it is a sign pointing to a promise, and it is a seal guaranteeing its reality. It’s like God saying, “See that rainbow? I’ve put it in the sky both to remind you of my promise (sign) and to guarantee its fulfillment, because as surely as it is real and shown to you, so too is my promise real for you (a seal).”

In Genesis 17 Abraham is told to circumcise himself and his whole household: “You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you” (17:11). In other words, forgetful and fickle Abraham could look at his circumcised body and see in it God’s promise to bless him and make from his seed a great nation. In like fashion, today we give wedding rings to illustrate (as a sign) a covenant between a husband and wife. When a woman sees the ring on her finger, she is reminded of her husband’s vows that he will love her and be faithful to her at all times. Likewise, that ring is a seal in that when it’s put on the bride, the promises are not only pledged but enacted; the man now has become her husband, and the ring assures her of this.

Because this covenant was not with Abraham alone, but with all his offspring, God demanded that his whole household, including infants (Note this!) and foreigners, be circumcised (17:12). God’s promise was to bring about blessing through Abraham’s children—a blessing that would one day be for “all the families of the earth” (12:3). Even in later years, after the Exodus from slavery in Egypt, when a foreigner joined the people of Israel, he was to receive circumcision (Exod. 12:48). Circumcision was therefore both a sign of God’s covenant and a mark of inclusion into the covenant people of Israel.

But receiving the “sign of circumcision” and entering Israel also meant being consecrated to the Lord and living under his authority. It meant separating oneself from the unclean practices of the nations, trusting in the Lord’s character as the great I AM, and obediently following his Law. Belonging to God to inherit his promises also necessitated obedience; hence the circumcised people of Israel were a “covenant community” separated from the nations and sanctified unto him. They were thus called to trust in God and love him unreservedly. Because of this, cleansing and circumcision were often used synonymously (cf. Deut. 30:6), and “uncircumcised” and “unclean” were used the same way (cf. 1 Sam. 14:6; Isa. 52:1; Ezek. 44:9). Being both circumcised in heart and flesh were required of God (see Rom. 2:25-29); the former alone would not suffice. Rather, the former pointed to the need for the latter and encouraged the Israelite to live in faith.

In Romans 4:11, we also see that circumcision is also said to be a “sign” and a “seal,” guaranteeing to Abraham the reception of the promises given to him. “He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.” Paul’s point is that it isn’t circumcision or any ritual that justifies anyone; bearing the marks alone of inclusion into Israel did nothing (again an ex opera operato presumption). Rather, it was certainly faith that caused Abraham to be reckoned righteous before God (the argument of Romans 4). But he does teach that the reception of circumcision guaranteed to Abraham the righteousness credited to him on account of his faith (4:3; cf. Gen. 15:6).

________________

In the next posts, I will attempt to explain how baptism is the New Covenant replacement of circumcision, and what that means for our lives.

Baptism II: Seeing through my lenses

While not neglecting any of the educated, gracious comments from Ted, I'm going to continue with this course I've plotted:

There is a lot of what I see as misinterpretation concerning baptismal nature and efficacy stemming from what I see as widespread Modernist mistakes—though some of these antedate the Modern/Enlightenment era. Here are some of the underlying tenets that I see necessary in a biblical view of the sacraments.

(1) Baptism is an act of God, not of man. We are misled when we ask what baptism does. Baptism doesn’t do anything. Rather, it is the triune God who acts for us in the “washing of water with the word” (where it is Christ who washes his church, Eph. 5:26). “The question therefore is not what the sacraments do to us, but what God does for us with them” (Michael Horton, God of Promise, p. 153).

(2) Grace is not a substance to be mechanically channeled, but the free favor of a loving, personal God. See my previous post on this. This is where the Roman church has completely strayed and what causes many Protestant churches to balk at talk of any sort of automatic “baptismal regeneration” or anything akin to it. Any notion of the sacraments working ex opere operato ("from the deed having been performed") is completely ruled out.

(3) God works immediately through means. Christian mysticists and evangelical revivalists have tended to favor some sort of “immediate” fellowship with God apart from means. However, the Bible tells us that Christ himself speaks to people and draws near to them through the preached Word (Rom. 10). A verbal message—whether incarnate, written words or an incarnate, spoken voice—are a means that God uses to bring us into fellowship with him. The gospel message is said to call people into fellowship with God and itself create new birth (2 Thess. 2:14; James 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:23-25). God’s saving work is inseparable from physical means.

We can view the sacraments in the same fashion. As Jesus was the incarnate Word (John 1), so does he say that bread and wine are his body and blood through which his reconciling death is given for men. And in the Great Commission he commands his disciples to make more disciples by two means: baptizing them and teaching them. I could go on about this forever, but it would probably be easier to read this post.

At the same time, the “means of grace” don’t create some sort of detached intermediary between us and God. “There is [only] one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ"; and he is truly present and active in his Word and Sacraments. We can truly know him and find life in him therein; we can have immediate fellowship through means. This is because the forgiveness and life and newness offered us in baptism and the Eucharist are none other than Christ himself; salvation does not exist apart from Christ and union with him.

(4) Baptism is baptism. In all the references to baptism in the NT epistles, the Christian rite of water baptism is in view—not some separate “Spirit baptism.” The baptism of normal Christian experience must be in view, because nowhere else does Paul or other writers make any sort of distinction. When Paul writes to a body of believers about their baptism (e.g., Rom. 6:3-11; Gal. 3:26-27; Col. 2:11-12), he has to be talking about something they already knew, experienced, and had undergone. Besides this, perhaps more obvious is the fact that reception of the Holy Spirit is generally linked with water baptism (e.g., Acts 2:38; 10:47; 1 Cor. 12:13; Tit. 3:5)

(4) The body of Christ is the body of Christ—that is, the church. 1 Corinthians 12:13 says that “we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body.” It is clear from the following verses that that body is the visible church, which is “the body of Christ” (v. 27). We need to understand union with Christ in baptism as entrance into the visible church. It seems that for Paul there was no distinction between entering a renewing fellowship with the Head and entering the fellowship of his Body. This is what probably involves the greatest mystery of all regarding baptism.

(5) Rites actually change who we are. Scripture does affirm the human being as consisting of a "body," a "soul," and a "spirit". However, it's a mistake to separate what happens to the “spiritual me” from the “physical me,” as nothing ever actually happened to just me. This Greek matter-spirit dualism still exists despite being denounced and trashed and decried as heresy by the apostles and the church Fathers (see all of John’s Gospel and epistles). The Hebrew, and thus biblical, worldview knew nothing of this.

A rite involving water, or a ram’s head (ancient Near Eastern covenant acts), or a wedding ring, or signing a contract actually changes who we are. George W. Bush used to be a presidential candidate; now by virtue of his inauguration rite he is the President, with all the accompanying privileges and responsibilities. A man receives a ring upon his finger from his bride and now truly has a new identity: a husband. Sure, his infidelity to his wife may mean he’s a poor, unfaithful, reckless husband who betrays the pledge he made, but he is still a husband nonetheless. In fact, the covenant he made in his wedding vows and symbolized by wedding rings only further serves to condemn him as unfaithful.

Baptism I

At Olivia's prompting, I'm starting to put down in words what I believe about baptism (and perhaps, later, the Lord's Supper). Like all good theological expositions, the best are probably the most concise. When someone needs to use a ton of verbage, he probably doesn't know what he's talking about (enter: most philosophers). Yet being a verbal processor, I seem to lack the ability to state what I want to say in a few, well-thought words. As I strive for brevity and clarity, forgive my drifts into locquaciousness.

The Bible isn't concrete about its meaning and practice.

Until Ulrich Zwingli broke with historic church teaching and practice in the 1500s, both the Eastern and Western churches had seemingly always practiced infant baptism and viewed it as a great communication of God’s grace to sinful humans. Zwingli and the Anabaptists, with their resulting baptism only of professing believers, were a new phenomenon. But are they wholly baseless in their theology, especially in light of the Reformation’s cry, Sola scriptura? I think not. The reality is that the biblical instances of the word “baptism” and “water” and “washing” and the like are fairly ambiguous.

(1) The Acts of the Apostles shows many new converts to Christianity being baptized, with a belief-then-baptism order. Accordingly, all churches unanimously agree that adult converts who have not grown up in the “covenant community” of the church need to receive baptism when they confess their faith in the Lord Jesus. But Acts is silent about children born within the church to believing parents. Valid arguments cannot be made from silence (i.e., "because it doesn't say this, it clearly cannot say this"). We must always have positive arguments for or against something.

(2) Acts does mention explicitly the baptism of whole households (16:15, 33). However, two things are not mentioned: whether or not children were present or included in the “household”; and whether or not everyone in the household had confessed faith in Christ. The varying translations of these passages allow for varied inferences. (In the aforementioned passages the NIV leaves one thinking that personal faith of each member was involved, while the ESV gives the impression that the faith of the household’s head was the prime element, leading to others’ salvation.)

(3) Passages referring to baptism are explicitly and strongly tied to rebirth, renewal, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, faith, repentance, forgiveness, water, and washing (e.g., Acts 2:38-39; 22:16; Rom. 6:3-4; Gal. 3:26-27; Eph. 5:26; Col. 2:11-12; Tit. 3:5; 1 Pet. 3:21). It’s impossible to separate baptism from these blessings secured by Jesus' redemptive work. However, there is no explicit explanation in Scripture of whether baptism effects and confirms these things in the life of the believer, or whether baptism is the response of the believer to his previous Spiritual rebirth and ingrafting into the body of Christ. I tend to embrace the former view.

(4) Several passages using “water” and “washing” (loutron; literally, “bath”), along with “enlighten”, have traditionally been interpreted as baptismal references. (For “water” and “washing”, see John 3:5; Acts 22:16; Eph. 5:26; Tit. 3:5; Heb. 10:22; for “enlighten” see Heb. 6:4; 10:32). However, valid explanations of these apart from baptism exist that do not demand baptism as the referent. But I must agree with Dr. Michael Horton when he warns, “one bends over backwards to explain away passages in which [water] baptism is explicitly linked to regeneration and forgiveness of sins” (God of Promise, p. 153).

For these reasons I view baptismal doctrine and practice with a degree of charity, recognizing that one cannot be too dogmatic about the interpretation of these passages. Yet at the same time we’re seeking to be faithful to the God-breathed canon alone as our standard, there are two caveats to keep in mind. (1) Biblical interpretation can never be divorced from the Spirit-filled church through whom and for whom it was written, and among whom it is lived. Truth is guarded by the Spirit’s work in the church, and therefore we have creeds and confessions that guard orthodox interpretations and practices. Sola scriptura means that our beliefs are based in Scripture alone, but not in Scripture that is alone. (2) Because the goal of the Scriptures is the life of God’s people, I think we must consider the implications of our baptismal theology and what effects result in the life of the church. Where the Bible is ambiguous regarding a matter, we ought to ask, all else being equal, Does this exalt the free and sovereign grace of the holy, triune God who acts in history to redeem the world? Does it lead us to boast in him alone—or is the emphasis on our decisions, works, and resources? Sola scriptura is not without soli Deo gloria.

_____________________________

Forthcoming posts will likely follow these topics:

(1) Laying the groundwork: seeing through my lenses. (2) Baptism is the NT counterpart of OT circumcision. (3) Baptism is therefore a sign and seal of the covenant of grace. (4) Baptism not only pledges mercy but also contains a warning. (5) Baptism involves mystery. (6) Baptism is eschatological. (7) Infant baptism is not only valid, but the most fitting expression of grace. (8) Baptism of believers alone can actually serve to undermine the function of baptism (but this is not true of all credobaptism). (9) All modes of baptism (submersion, pouring, or sprinkling) are appropriate.

If and when I continue these posts, know that they are simply a way for me to express what I currently believe. I am hardly an expert on such things, and my beliefs are always open to change.

The Baptized life: between two worlds

In a recent post I wrote about the dawn of Jesus’ first coming, the new day into which we’ve been transferred (Colossians 1:12-14). “The darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining” (1 John 2:8; cf. 2:17). The tricky thing is that the darkness is not yet gone; the sun of righteousness (Malachi 4:2) has not yet reached its zenith. We still live in “this present evil age [aeon; also translated frequently as world]” (Galatians 1:4). The new age of God’s kingdom, the age of the Second Adam has begun, and its brightness shall surely reign (Revelation 11:15 ff.), but the age of the First Adam has not yet disappeared.

I feel this tension in my own life.

As a friend keenly observed, Christ’s Resurrection put an end to all powers and authorities of this age, including death, sin, and all personal and systematic evil. They no longer have mastery over the Messiah-King and those who belong to him (1 Corinthians 15:24-27; cf. Romans 6:9; 2 Timothy 1:10). For us, to hear and trustingly receiving the message of Jesus, of the manger and Calvary and the empty tomb, means to hear the message that the old aeon, the “world as we know it,” is judged and doomed. It is to be eradicated along with its ruler (Revelation 12; 20:11-15). In Jesus Christ, however, as pointed to by his miracles, something decisively new has come; the “age to come” has arrived.

In baptism and through faith, we have had the Holy Spirit poured out on us and have been joined to this New Man. We are made partakers of and participants in “the powers of the age to come” (Hebrews 6:5; cf. Romans 6:3-11). “Now to be baptized and so buried with Christ into His death is, in union with Him,” writes Richard Jungkuntz, “to have received and accepted God’s verdict of guilty and His cataclysmic judgment of death on the whole old aeon to which a sinful man belongs. Baptism therefore means the end of the old aeon” (The Gospel of Baptism, 2^nd ed., p. 62). And this death—of the old age and of the power and guilt of sin in our lives—happens nowhere else than at the Cross.

It is precisely because of the Cross that our lives look so sin-plagued and lackluster: the victory is a hidden one. Sinful men, following the reign of Satan and Religion and Rome, put Jesus to death, his “circumcision” and his “baptism” (Mark 10:39; Luke 12:50; Colossians 2:11). But it was precisely here that he put them to open shame, triumphing over the “powers” and stripping them of their sham authority (Colossians 2:15; John 12:31 f.). The victory is masked in the dying and shame, the victory that has brought this already-but-not-yet kingdom. Likewise, if the Christ-death and Christ-rising are to take place in our lives, if the kingdom is to come in us, then it must take the form of the Cross. We don’t see blazing defeat of sin left and right; but we must trust that the victory is ours.

We who are baptized, who trust in the Rescuer, live between two worlds; both are present inside us as long as we live in “this body of death” (Romans 7:24). The question is, Which reality will we choose to live in? Will we continue to believe in the powers of the old world, or will we believe that Christ as Lord has effected a radically different order, one that lasts eternally (1 John 2:17)? Now the kingdom lies hidden, and we must go to it where it is found: in dying to ourselves, embracing God’s judgment on our sinful nature, and taking those painful yet liberating steps to walk in newness of life. As Jesus died and triumphed through a shameful public death, we participate in the Cross by confession, bringing our shameful sins to the light before God and others. And so, one day soon, though our eternal life and righteousness are hidden with our Savior, “when Christ who is your life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory” (Colossians 3:3-4).

“Being dipped under the water and emerging from it indicate the power and effect of Baptism, which is simply the slaying of the old Adam and the resurrection of the new man, both of which actions must continue in us our whole life long. Thus a Christian life is nothing else than a daily baptism, once begun and ever continued.” (Luther’s Large Catechism, IV, 65)

Are the sacraments means of grace?

Stick around something other than an Anabaptist-derived church long enough, and you’ll probably hear the phrase that the sacraments—baptism and the Lord’s Supper (or the Eucharist or communion)—are “means of grace.” This thought used to trip me up a lot, as good Lutherans and Presbyterians would teach that the waters of Holy Baptism, as a means of grace, somehow miraculously channeled salvation-power to little babies and broke the stranglehold of the sinful nature.

This line of thinking sounds rather ludicrous, if not at least difficult to understand, as long we think of God’s grace as some sort of “justification juice.” But grace is not an ethereal, impersonal substance hiding between the layers of matzo your church uses for the Supper. It is rather the personal favor and benevolence of a holy God upon needy sinners. Douglas Wilson, pastor of Christ Church in Moscow, ID, clarifies this:

But how is it possible to see the sacraments as efficacious, which the Protestant fathers certainly did, but at the same time recognize that they have no magical power in themselves? We must not think of ourselves as empty receptacles and the sacraments as filled decanters, full of spiritual juice, which are then poured into us. Rather than seeing the question of the sacraments as this kind as an ontological and metaphysical question, we have to see it as a covenantal and relational question. We are persons communing with God, who is tri-personal, and we do so in the sacraments. They are therefore performative acts. A man might say the words “I do” a million times during the course of his life, but when he says them in a church in front of witnesses with his bride across from him, the words are a performative act, and they change everything.

Grace is not a fluid that can fill up a reservoir. Grace is a covenantal relationship between two persons. Now the Scriptures do tell us that grace can be both added and multiplied. “Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord” (2 Pet. 1:2; cf. 1 Pet. 1:2; Rom. 1:7). But we have to be careful not to fall prey to abstract nouns. If I pray that someone’s marital happiness will increase, I am asking that a relationship between persons will flourish and not that something will happen in their marital “tank,” something that can be checked with a dipstick.[1]

Thus the sacraments are “means of grace” in that by means of them we are offered, free of charge, all that Christ has purchased and accomplished. When we undergo baptism or later on look back upon it, we see God’s favor in including us in his covenant people and promising us remission of sins, holding out Christ’s death and resurrection to us even when we were yet too young to do anything good or bad (Romans 4:5; 5:6-8). We’re like infantile Israel, to whom while still writhing in her placental blood, the Lord said “Live!” (Ezek. 16:6). And when we receive the bread and wine, we eat what Jesus offers to sinners in and through his body and blood, broken and shed for our forgiveness (Matthew 26:26-28; John 6:53-58). Every time we partake of these sacraments, through the eyes of faith we see Christ, and in him see clearly how for us and for sinners the Triune God really is.

We may even do well so as to say that the sacraments aren’t even means of grace, that is, God’s benevolent favor, but rather we might say that they are grace themselves. They are an undeserved gift, because the whole of them bring to us the person and work of Jesus the Son as ordained and offered by the Father and understood and sealed to us by the Spirit, so that we may be brought to faith and nourished in it. “Thanks be to God for his inexpressible gift!” (2 Corinthians 9:15).

---

[1] Douglas Wilson, “Reformed” Is Not Enough: Recovering the Objectivity of the CovenantMoscow, ID: (Canon, 2002), 91-2.