The Christianity Explored DVD, presented by the Revd Rico Tice, is an excellent tool in preparing parents bringing children for baptism - cc usually shows one of the programmes from the 2005 version.
The problem cc has encountered in baptism preparation is the postmodern mindset. Despite the clarity of Mr Tice's presentation of the Christian message and its rebuttal of the 'my truth, your truth' mentality, the postmodern mind somehow or other manages to construct a firewall of uncertainty against the gospel: "Fine if you want to believe that, and I sort of do, but in a more balanced, tolerant way."
However, that mental firewall finds it much more difficult to stand up against the baptismal promises of the liturgy. They are so personal and unequivocal and the parent is about to get up and say them in public:
I renounce the deceit and corruption of evil; I reject the devil and all rebellion against God; I repent of the sins that separate us from God and neighbour; I turn to Christ as Saviour; I submit to Christ as Lord; I come to Christ the way, the truth and the life.
These fuller promises in the Common Worship liturgy, particularly the one about Jesus being the only way to God, are a vast improvement on the Alternative Service Book. They enable the minister to explain to parents what it is Jesus saves us from and the entailment in baptism to renounce any other putative path to salvation
A new orthodox Anglican venture in the UK would be well advised to adopt the Common Worship promises in its prayer book. It is to be hoped that it will have a standard liturgy, based largely though not exclusively on the Book of Common Prayer rendered in modern English.
Your curate has found biblically faithful liturgy to be a powerful weapon for the gospel.
This piece - Jesus & the GCSE generation - appeared on ConservativeHome.
I find it helpful to modify slightly (!)
ReplyDeletethese statements:
I turn to Christ as Saviour;
I submit to Christ as Lord;
to
I turn to Christ as my Saviour;
I submit to Christ as my Lord;
both in baptism prep and in the service
It does help breach the post-modernist blockade
The preparation of the parents for an infant baptism is an extremely important time for them in which to re-examine their faith in the light of maturity before they commit to raising a child in Christ.
ReplyDelete"Your curate has found biblically faithful liturgy to be a powerful weapon for the gospel."
ReplyDeleteCome on Julian, talk about missing the elephant in the room... infant baptism can hardly be described as biblically faithful.
I just looked at the Common Worship Baptism liturgy:
"baptism as the sign and seal of this new birth" - new birth comes from repentance and faith, which a baby is incapable of.
"Here we are washed by the Holy Spirit and made clean" - baptismal regeneration - we are forgiven when we trust in Jesus, not when we are baptised.
"you give to your faithful people new life in the water of baptism" - baptismal regeneration again - new life comes from repentance and faith, not baptism
"In baptism the Lord is adding to our number
those whom he is calling" - surely that presupposes the baby is one of the elect!!
"Now sanctify this water that, by the power of your Holy Spirit, they may be cleansed from sin and born again." - almost certainly again implies baptismal regeneration
How, as a good evangelical, can you recite any of those words? They are not biblically faithful.
I am being a bit provocative, but the question has to be asked. It seems that evangelical anglicans are unwilling to submit infant baptism to biblical scrutiny.
"new birth comes from repentance and faith, which a baby is incapable of"
ReplyDeleteSame with salvation then? Your argument proves too much.
Plus, your post confuses infant baptism with baptismal regeneration. In the 4th century belief in BR actually caused people to delay their own baptism!
Dan
The last two posters comment on the asssumption that it is infant baptism that is referred to.
ReplyDeletePresumably when you say:
"is an excellent tool in preparing parents bringing children for baptism " the "children" referred to are infants?
Is this the case, or are we speaking of children who have become believers in Christ and the Christian Gospel and consequently are presented for baptism?
The need for clarity is crucial here.
If the former, then I agree with Ian S and Anon in that there is no case for infant baptism in Scripture.
It was one of the knots which even the good Bishop Ryle was unable to untie, as also for a succession of evangelical Anglican and Presbyterian apologists for the practice.
Further, the baptismal confession of believing parents - "about to get up and say them in public - I renounce the deceit and corruption of evil.. " & etc cannot be spoken by proxy as a substitute for real faith in Christ can they?
As often said in that context 'grace does not run in the bloodstream'.
Graham, the context was definitely baby / infant baptism. If it was older children who had become believers, then they would be making the promises, not the parents.
ReplyDeleteIs Julian going to respond?
Thank you for these comments - yes it is parish baptisms of babies. We have seen people converted through coming into contact with our church through baptism though clearly there have been a number of people who have made the promises but not followed them up.
ReplyDeleteSo Julian, do you think that the Common Worship baptism liturgy is Biblically faithful, in the case when a baby is being baptised? Are you in full agreement with it, particularly those lines that I quoted earlier?
ReplyDeleteI agree with infant baptism for the children of believers - & as I said think the promises in the Common Worship are an improvement on the ASB. Some of the other CW liturgy is I agree unhelpful.
DeleteRyle himself certainly didn't think he'd fail to untie the supposed "knot" of infant baptism. To quote him:
ReplyDelete"I have often been surprised to see how ignorant some Churchmen are of the grounds on which infant baptism may be defended. If I have done anything to show Churchmen the
strength of their own position, I feel that I shall not have written in vain."
The point of the liturgical statements is to assume in charity that God has begun his saving work in the child concerned, unless/until evidence to the contrary appears.
Would either Graham or Ian like to respond to the logic of my previous post - that, if faith is necessary for baptism, it's necessary for salvation too, so if infants can't have one they can never have the other either?
Dan
Dan, in simple terms, yes, faith is necessary for salvation. However, real theology isn't that simple.
DeleteThe underlying question is how does God treat people who haven't heard the gospel, or are incapable of hearing (which requires understanding) due to infancy or disability? I believe He will treat them with mercy, but I'm very reluctant to say that with absolute certainty, because I am not God, and I don't think the Bible is clear on the subject.
So I don't take the view that conscious faith in Jesus is always necessary for salvation.
My concerns about infant baptism are that it assumes (as you said) that the baby is not just saved, but also regenerate, and the liturgy seems to suggest that the ritual has some salvific and regenerative efficacy. The latter is nothing less than Roman Catholic sacramentalism which we reject.
Put it this way - if a child tragically dies at the age of, say, 12 months, will God treat them differently according to whether or not they were baptised?
To Dan. Most certainly. As a baptist (not a denominational Baptist) then of course I believe in the sufficiency of the biblical doctrine of baptism which is predicated on repentance and faith in Christ alone.
ReplyDeleteThere is not a single instance in the whole NT of any other basis for baptism in terms of doctrine or practice.
As William Cunningham a well known Scottish Reformed Presbyterian replied to the question - 'What profit is there in baptism'?(infant), he replied: "I cannot say, the Scripture is silent"
As we know therefore no doctrine, least of all one as important as Christian baptism should be established on the 'silence' of Scripture.
Thank you Ian and Graham for your comeback - we're into several interesting areas here aren't we!
ReplyDeleteIan, your questions about what happens to those other categories of people are important ones, although not necessarily related to the main one of this thread ;) NB the practice of IB tends to assume that the subject is already regenerated (as with adults), not that the rite regenerates them. Therefore the answer to your final question is no. The idea is that Christians' children are materially part of Christ's church from birth, and enter it formally upon baptism.
Graham, it occurs to me that the question Cunningham put could just as well be put re. ALL baptism. Does the NT clearly explain why we need the watery rite?
It's indeed true that no doctrine should be based on a Scriptural 'silence' (although some pro-WO arguments take that very tack!) - with one exception, namely that once a law has been promulgated, subsequent silence regarding it does nothing to undermine it - only an explicit amendment or appeal can. And this is the nub of a key argument for NT infant church membership as the basis for their baptism.
As for the strong universal negative you state, perhaps I could put it to the test?
We all agree from Matt. 28:18-19 that all disciples of Christ may and should be baptised, and they alone. But - the Bible shows in several ways that Christians' children are reckoned among His disciples too. Here are three:
(1) In Acts 15:10 Peter warns against burdening the "disciples" with the "yoke" of circumcision which we know was always administered mainly to infants.
(2) In Luke 19:37 the "disciples" follow Jesus with a great noise of praise, and in verse 39 the Pharisees tell him to rebuke his "disciples". But turning to Matthew's account (21:15), we find these disciples called "children" (paidas). To cap it all, just in case anyone should say these must have been children above the 'age of conscience', in verse 16 Jesus quotes Psalm 8:2 to refer to these "disciples" as "babes and sucklings"!
(3) Again, comparing Matthew 9:14 with Mark 2:18 shows that the disciples of the Pharisees were themselves counted as Pharisees. By the same token, since Christian parents disciple their children from the start (and if they don't, who does?), those children can also legitimately be called Christians (disciples of Christ), and as such are therefore baptisable.
Dan
Dan
ReplyDeleteAs we know the 'baptismal' ground is strewn with the symbolic skeletons of the ages, and it could be asked - why raise the issue yet again? I think the answer to that is important, namely that each generation of Christians is called upon to often re-defend that which was already established in former years, for the sake of the Gospel to be confirmed and its truth reiterated afresh for a new generation. I will try to be brief to answer your points interspersed below.
"Graham, it occurs to me that the question Cunningham put could just as well be put re. ALL baptism. Does the NT clearly explain why we need the watery rite?"
GW. The simple answer IMO is primarily because Christ himself specifically taught his disciples that 'the watery rite' is needful. That is confirmed directly in terms of doctrine in the rest of the NT and in practice mainly as recorded in the Acts.
Is that not enough?
Actually the baptism of believers in the NT is a big and substantial one in terms of doctrine, and not lacking for a moment in clarity. By contrast a doctrine of 'infant baptism is non existent in terms of actual texts or records, and the best that can (and has!) been attempted by way of proof is only by way of very doubtful inferences from texts which teach something other than infant baptism! More on that below.
It is for this reason therefore that Cunningham's reply cannot be applied to believer's baptism. So in effect Dan you asking for justification for the doctrine of baptism - i.e. what is its basic meaning?
I think it is clear enough. Summarised, it is the outward visible sign and seal, symbolic of an inner cleansing from sin experienced through repentance and faith in Christ alone, and of the new birth. John the Baptist's ministry was already exercising that which was familiar to his Jewish listeners from the many example of OT practice associated with cleansing through washing.
But in the NT Christian baptism was confined exclusively to those who publicly expressed faith in Christ and was specifically a sign of that in the new birth. Thus John 1 :12 speaks of this, as opposed to the claims of many (Jews) based solely on their standing as Israelites and physical descendents of Abraham ("We have Abraham to our father..etc). In the view of Christ and the Apostles therefore heredity was not a factor for entering the Kingdom.
This comes to expression in the words of the great Commission (Mark 16:15,16) which is a mandatory commandment given by Christ only to baptise those who 'believe'. It could not be clearer, and the added caution is given that those who will not (or infants who cannot) believe are not proper subjects for Christian baptism. (further reply below)
Dan
ReplyDelete"It's indeed true that no doctrine should be based on a Scriptural 'silence' (although some pro-WO arguments take that very tack!) - with one exception, namely that once a law has been promulgated, subsequent silence regarding it does nothing to undermine it - only an explicit amendment or appeal can. And this is the nub of a key argument for NT infant church membership as the basis for their baptism."
GW The explicit amendment is I suggest in the actual terms of the Commission, and copnsequently by definition must exclude infants. To speak of "infant church membership" is muddled language and confusing, and certainly is far from clear NT language about the basis for baptism via faith in Christ alone. So we affirm that the Apostles had no warrant to baptise any except believers, and then IN (Gk = into) the name of the triune God - an important proviso.
"As for the strong universal negative you state, perhaps I could put it to the test?
We all agree from Matt. 28:18-19 that all disciples of Christ may and should be baptised, and they alone. But - the Bible shows in several ways that Christians' children are reckoned among His disciples too. Here are three:" (as cited above)
GW. This passage has primary reference to Apostlic and early church discussion about not bringing Gentiles under the yoke of the Mosaic law, not about baptism. The issue of circumcision was central, but not as related to infants but to believers as the context indicates, as the rite placed all circumcised males as subject to obedience to the totality of the law (of Moses). But Paul argues in Gal. 3 of the incompatibility of such a doctrine with the status of believers under the freedom of the Gospel.
GW. Re Point 2. Neither passge bears any relation to infant baptism! They merely recount that children were amongst those who joined the crowds shouting 'Hosanna'!
GW. Point 3: Not so, and the inference cannot be drawn that the 'children of Pharisees were "disciples". Some (adult) Pharisees were, many were not.
We know that Jesus told a leading Pharisee (Nicodemus) that he had to be 'born again, and John the Baptist addressed many Pharisees (Matt.3:7), but his message called on them to first "bring forth fruits to repentance". Of necessity not possible for infants.
Dan. My last post was not very clear and where I state in the fourth para. "This passage has primary reference to Apostlic and early church discussion about not bringing Gentiles under the yoke of the Mosaic law, not about baptism.", it refers of course to your quotation from Acts 15.
ReplyDeleteGraham
Ian S wrote:
ReplyDelete""baptism as the sign and seal of this new birth" - new birth comes from repentance and faith, which a baby is incapable of."
Which is why the service says that baptism is a sign and seal of the new birth. It doesn't say that baptism IS the new birth. Sometimes a little bit of attention to detail goes a long way, Ian.
""Here we are washed by the Holy Spirit and made clean" - baptismal regeneration - we are forgiven when we trust in Jesus, not when we are baptised.... etc"
Again, its a sign and a seal. You need to read what is actually there, not what you think is there.
""In baptism the Lord is adding to our number those whom he is calling" - surely that presupposes the baby is one of the elect!!"
Surely it doesn't. From where did you get the idea that "those whom he is calling" means the elect? If it said "those whom he has effectually called" I could understand your confusion. But these words clearly cannot mean the elect.
"How, as a good evangelical, can you recite any of those words? They are not biblically faithful."
They are indeed biblically faithful, and you need to read and think a bit more, before jumping to conclusions about other Christians.
"It seems that evangelical anglicans are unwilling to submit infant baptism to biblical scrutiny."
And on what do you base such an accusation?
"And on what do you base such an accusation?"
ReplyDeletePossibly the fact that my reply to Graham (set before Michael's post above) somehow failed to upload. So here goes again:
Thanks for your response(s) Graham - my notes on your main points follow:
I shall challenge your presented contrast between "believers' baptism" and infant baptism. Several Biblical texts show that there is a sense in which Christians' young children are counted among "believers".
For example, Titus 1:6 says that a bishop/presbyter must have, literally, "believer children" (tekna pista). Now: does anyone think that a pastor must resign as soon as his wife gives birth?
As I say, there are other places, but I'll pass by them here as the reply would get too long for now.
When you say that baptism "is the outward visible sign and seal, symbolic of an inner cleansing from sin experienced through repentance and faith in Christ alone, and of the new birth", are you saying that the cleansing comes as a result of repentance and faith, or is it rather the case that we can only repent and believe once we have a new heart able to do so?
The point I'm making is that baptism symbolises the new birth and not its fruits of repentance and faith, and therefore (as far as this argument goes) cannot be made absolutely conditional upon the latter.
I think that your paragraph re. John 1:12 confuses outward covenantal status with inward spiritual rebirth. Therefore, the fact that heredity is no guarantor of the latter is not necessarily a bar to its influence upon the former - which I think is the point at issue in our discussion.
Again, "the great Commission (Mark 16:15,16) which is a mandatory commandment given by Christ only to baptise those who 'believe'". Graham, it is nothing of the kind. There is no logical pathway to go from
(A & B) -> C
to
B -> A
as you claim there.
Again, "the added caution is given that those who will not (or infants who cannot) believe are not proper subjects for Christian baptism." No, it is not. Please read the text again. It says that those who don't believe will be damned; and since in your view infants come into the category of non-believers, this brings you straight to the conclusion I mentioned far back in this thread, and which has yet to receive a satisfying resolution from a Baptist perspective.
Thus, the Commission (in Mark) provides no basis for an amendment to the previous rule that Christians' children are in covenant together with them, and the argument from silence stands.
"To speak of "infant church membership" is muddled language and confusing"
Why? I find it to be a concept understood perfectly well both by Christians who accept it and by others who don't.
"clear NT language about the basis for baptism via faith in Christ alone." There is no such place in the NT. What can be said is that a credible profession of faith in Christ is generally adequate grounds for baptism. That is not to say that it's the only possible grounds.
Dan
contd.
ReplyDelete"The issue of circumcision was central, but not as related to infants but to believers as the context indicates" - but the law of circumcision required the rite to be done to baby boys, and Peter calls them disciples. I fail to see what Galatians 3 has to do with this apostolic identification which is the point I was making.
"Neither passge bears any relation to infant baptism! They merely recount that children were amongst those who joined the crowds shouting 'Hosanna'!" One Gospel identifies them as children, even very young ones; the other calls them disciples. How did you miss this very simple point?
"the inference cannot be drawn that the 'children of Pharisees were "disciples"." I never drew this inference. I said that if Pharisees' disciples are called Pharisees, then by analogy Christians' disciples (including their young children) can be called Christians rather than pagans.
"his message called on them to first "bring forth fruits to repentance". Of necessity not possible for infants." And not required of them either, because as explained above, baptism stands for spiritual rebirth not its fruits. The fruits are therefore a legitimate occasion for deciding to baptise, but that in itself is no reason to conclude that they are the only possible reason. Cue the other arguments I've referred to, and more besides.
Dan
Thank-you Dan. Once again I must disagree that the texts you have chosen relate to infant baptism! Do you agree the basic and accepted principle of biblical interpretation that a doctrine should be established by clear and explicit passages/texts of scripture?
ReplyDeleteThe doctrine of believers baptism is a prominent example.
" Several Biblical texts show that there is a sense in which Christians' young children are counted among "believers". For example, Titus 1:6 ......."
GW. But such texts are conspicuous by their absence! Titus 1: 6 is but one, and it does indeed refer to a Christian child, but not to infants, or baptism! The context is all about fitness for eldership and the demeanour of a Christian household, including respectful conduct by children.
(My own daughter became a Christian aged 6, and was baptised later as a believing child)
"As I say, there are other places, but I'll pass by them ..."
GW. I submit that there is not a single one - please quote the texts you have in mind.
"When you say that baptism..... we can only repent and believe once we have a new heart able to do so? The point I'm making is that baptism symbolises the new birth and not its fruits of repentance and faith..........", & etc as above.
GW This is to introduce an entirely different argument, and again, irrelevant to infant baptism. Leaving aside any connection between repentance, the new birth, and faith, the plain fact is that an infant is incapable of exercising these. Scripture is silent on any theory of infants experiencing the new birth. Where Scripture is silent so then must we be also.
"I think that your paragraph re. John 1:12 confuses outward covenantal status ....."
GW John 1:12 does not mention "covenant status" . The whole point of Jesus' explanation of the New birth to Nicodemus in John 3 was that being a child of the covenant was not enough for salvation! But to return to 1:12. Clearly infants cannot exercise the ability to "receive him (Christ), or "to "believe on his name".
I quoted it to make the point that the New birth is, according to Christ here an absolute prerequisite to salvation, and which the Holy Spirit alone can give. (see v.13)
Again, "the great Commission (Mark 16:15,16) it is nothing of the kind...... There is no logical pathway to go from"
ReplyDeleteGW This text and its parallells are IMO so substantially clear that I cannot see how their meaning can be misunderstood. I can only repeat that the Apostles were only authorised by Christ in unambiguous and specific terms to baptise those who exercised
faith in him. As a result this was exclusively the Apostle's common practice and there is not a dissenting passage or text throughout the record in Acts describing baptisms. Not once do they refer to infants as we all know. I am baffled therefore by your comment
" When you say therefore Graham, it is nothing of the kind. There is no logical pathway to go from" How does that relate to the passage in question, and what is the explanation of 16:16 - i.e. he that believes"? The passage is entirely consistent with a doctrine of believer's baptism we meet with throughout the NT.
Again, "the added caution is given that those who will not (or infants who cannot) believe are not proper subjects for Christian baptism." No, it is not.....
GW You say: "since in your view infants come into the category of non-believers. But I have not said that or discussed at all the status of infants, and would not do so from Mark 16 as it is irrelevant.
Of necessity common sense tells us that infants per se cannot exercise mental or spiritual faculties so the argument is a red herring. Once again, and as always, it is the context which indicates the meaning of the texts and once again infants are not in the picture.
." There is no such place in the NT. What can be said is that a credible profession of faith in Christ is generally adequate grounds for baptism. That is not to say that it's the only possible grounds.
GW Well here Dan I partly agree with you, for a "credible profession of faith" is indeed an adequate ground for baptism. Only the Lord knows the heart and whether the "credible profession" is real or not.
But that, again, is clearly not possible for infants to exercise is it?.
Dan. I did not have time, or space, to make one more important point, and in the form of a question - what is the objective of infant baptism? Put differently, what does it actually do for the infant?
ReplyDeleteNo paedobaptist to my knowledge has ever been able to posit an answer to that question.
However, the Prayer Book Service for the Baptism of Infants DOES proffer an answer which is as absurd as it is illogical and delusional. The familiar words are:
"Seeing now dearly beloved that this child is regenerate".... and later ""We yield thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father that it hat pleased thee to regenerate this infant.....".
This raises a further question: How can anybody presume to know the mind of the Holy Spirit, or explain his regenerating work?
John 3:5-13 provides Jesus' answer to that.
To summarise: infant baptism and believer's baptism are mutually exclusive and incompatible. One is a myth based largely on ecclesiastical tradition, the other has full and direct biblical sanction, and above all else, the specific command of the Lord Jesus Christ
Graham,
ReplyDeleteI have read over your posts, and it is not clear at all to me what your problem with infant baptism is. I appreciate you've cited a lot of scripture, but I don't follow the logical process by where you say it helps your case.
Why shouldn't the children of believers be baptised? They are members of the people of God, the same as their parents.
Michael, Sydney
Hallo Michael. I would have thought it was obvious from my posts on this blog re IB that I assert, in company with all baptists, that it is simply unbiblical.
ReplyDeleteIf you have evidence from the NT to assume otherwise - then please say on.
But, an excellent summary of the biblical mandate remains in say, Mark 16:15,16, amongst other passages. What do you not understand about its message?
The principle set out was followed to the letter by the Apostles throughout the record in Acts. Is that not enough for you?
Graham
"Hallo Michael. I would have thought it was obvious from my posts on this blog re IB that I assert, in company with all baptists, that it is simply unbiblical."
ReplyDeleteGood for you. I would have thought it was obvious from the fact that I am an Anglican that I am happy that it is biblical. But then, we down here in Sydney are said to be a strange lot...!
"But, an excellent summary of the biblical mandate remains in say, Mark 16:15,16, amongst other passages. What do you not understand about its message?"
Okay, Mark 16:15,16, let's see - distinguishes between baptism and belief. Sounds good to me.
"The principle set out was followed to the letter by the Apostles throughout the record in Acts."
Okay, Acts, let's see:
"Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off —for all whom the Lord our God will call”." [Acts 2:38-39]
"When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. “If you consider me a believer in the Lord,” she said, “come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us." [Acts 16:15]
"They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved —you and your household.” ... At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized." [Acts 16:31,33]
Acts, yes, great book. Many thanks.
But then why stop at Acts. Let's look at another book:
"For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea." [1 Corinthians 10:1,2]
Do you know how people were saved in the Old Testament?
"Okay, Mark 16:15,16, let's see - distinguishes between baptism and belief. Sounds good to me."
ReplyDeleteMichael. Without splitting hairs 'distinction' is not really what the text refers to, but rather that baptism follows belief of the Gospel and is to be an act of obdeience to it.
There is not so much distinction therefore as connection - i.e. faith and baptism are always linked together. As often stated, not a possibility for infants.
Your selected quotations from Acts confirm my point in that the baptisms mentioned were, like all the other examples in Acts, predicated by faith in the Gospel preached.
These texts are not exceptional.
Re Acts 2:38/39 which you quote. Once again there is no mention of infants! The subject of the passage is the pouring out of the Holy Spirit without distinction and the promise that a general Gospel call would now be extended to all - by implication even to believing children. Nothing more.
You ask: "Do you know how people were saved in the Old Testament". The answer, as always in Scripture, is of course through "faith".
Hebrews 11 is the chapter to read and understand in this respect as I'm sure you know - all the saints cited lived in the OT era.
Graham
Hi Graham,
ReplyDeleteFirst a preliminary comment, which I hope you take in the spirit intended. My position is that I believe scripture teaches that the baptist position is wrong - not even an option. In other words, I believe that scripture requires that we MUST baptise the children of believers. Now, I appreciate that you disagree with me on that, but just bear with me for a moment:
One thing I don't do is go on to Baptist blogs and start arguments about it. Its not that I'm not allowed to do so, or morally constrained from doing so. Its just that it wouldn't accomplish anything worthwhile - there are umpteen million baptists in the world. Indeed there are thousands of them in reasonable spitting distance from my house. Who knows, if I turned all my efforts to this issue, I might convince a few of them to stop being Baptist and become superior and Anglican like me.... :) In the process, I wouldn't have added anyone to the Kingdom (their churches at least in Sydney are generally strongly bible-based, like we Anglicans).
The fact is, that while I think the Baptists are wrong on this particular point, I am very glad that their churches are doing what they do - being a great witness for the Lord, winning souls, discipling believers, and (just incidentally) providing an added pool of potential future Christian partners to the young people of our church (fathers of teenagers tend to think this way).
Now, you might consider that there are 80 million Anglicans in the world today and the vast majority of them follow Scripture as their supreme authority. I know it may not seem that way when we look at many bishops of the Church of England, or the antics of TEC in America, but they are only a tiny minority of Anglicans, who are mostly evangelical. If you turn all your efforts to convincing those 80 million Anglicans, yes you might "convert" some, but its unlikely you will add anyone to the kingdom. And what will you have achieved?
In my next post, I will explain why I hold the position that I do, but very briefly, because my aim is not change your mind so that you become Anglican and start talking through your nose or anything like that.
Hi Graham,
ReplyDeleteIn this second post, I want to cover very briefly why I think Scripture *requires* that we baptise infant children of parents who are members of the church.
As you correctly responded, the basis of salvation is the same in the Old Testament as in the new: only faith in Christ can save. This applied to the Israelites who left Egypt: Although they were all members of God's chosen people, only some were saved by faith. But all of them were baptised:
"For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered in the wilderness." [1 Corinthians 10:1-5]
Note: Paul doesn't tell us that the cloud and the sea were *like* baptism. Rather, he says that the Israelites *were* baptised. And he emphasises that ALL were baptised. There is no doubt that children of all ages were baptised in this way including those who were not old enough to "believe". Paul does not distinguish between baptism in the Old Testament and baptism in the New Testament. When he tells us that ALL the Israelites were baptised, that means that ALL the church must be baptised. To exclude children means we have missed the point of Paul's lesson about the real meaning of baptism.
Baptism is not salvation. It is the sign or seal (or sacrament) of God's salvation. Like any sign/seal/sacrament in scripture, it is only effective to a person if and when that person has saving faith. Its the same as with the other great sacrament, Holy Communion: everyone who bears the name of Christian can partake of it, but only when they get saving faith do they derive real benefit from it. In the same way, some 600,000 Israelites were baptised in the cloud and the sea, but only those who had true faith (at that time or later) gained the real spiritual benefit from it.
This should not surprise us, because the Bible nowhere says that we must believe in order to be baptised. Rather, it says we must (i) be baptised, and (ii) believe, in order to be saved. The difference is crucial.
Knowing this, we are not in the least surprised when we read several times about "households" being baptised - it is exactly what we should expect. Or when Peter tells the crowd at Pentecost: "“Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off —for all whom the Lord our God will call”." [Acts 2:38-39] It is exactly what we would expect him to say. The sign of baptism is for all who turn to Christ - children with their parents. But it won't be effective for them unless and until they have saving faith.
Thank you Michael for your further comments. As you anticipate, I thoroughly disagree with the deduction you draw from the OT Scipture passage quoted.
ReplyDeleteThe NT speaks only of Christian baptism which as you correctly summarise in my words:
"the basis of salvation is the same in the Old Testament as in the new: only faith in Christ can save."
Repeatedly I have pointed out the obvious, namely that of necessity infants are unable to exercise such faith.
To date you have not addressed that!
I suggest that a doctrine of Christian baptism cannot in any event be drawn from the OT, least of all from the passage which Paul quotes in 1 Cor.101-5. This has nothing to do with Christian baptism - let alone infants!
The "baptism" spoken of is one "into Moses" (not even water!).
What does it refer to? Clearly Paul is stating one simple truth evident from the context that all, male, female and also including unbelieving Israelites were incorporated into Moses - that is under obligation to the Mosaic law (as set out particularly in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers & Deut.) "Moses" therefore is synonymous with both Mosaic law and the whole national life of Israel of which every Israelite was a part. In other words, it was a national sign about which there was no choice, and its leading features of this economy under the Old Covenant were twofold, namely circumcision, and the Sabbath.
There is no OT 'version' of Christian baptism here, and therefore to use this Scripture as justification for infant baptism is to wrench it out of its obvious context and is therefore irrelevant to the subject of Christian baptism which is fully revealed in the NT.
You say (rightly) "Like any sign/seal/sacrament in scripture, it (baptism) is only effective to a person if and when that person has saving faith."
Please therefore give any example of an infant exercising such a faith.
You say further: "This should not surprise us, because the Bible nowhere says that we must believe in order to be baptised. Rather, it says we must (i) be baptised, and (ii) believe, in order to be saved. The difference is crucial."
Well we have already fully covered this ground, and as I pointed out the NT always connects, not separates, faith and baptism together without a single exception.
I think therefore you are confused about the simple NT order, examples of which are too numerous to warrant quotation.
It is firstly repentance towards God, and then, secondly faith in Jesus Christ (Acts 20:21) followd by third, Christian baptism.
Of necessity no infants there!
Any concordance reference will confirm the unchanging pattern.
As for the much quoted examples of "household baptisms".
Again of necessity we are not told of children present in any single instance, and on the basis of the instruction by Christ to the Apostles only to baptise those that believe, then clearly any such children would have been Christian believers. (final comment in next post)
Many paedobaptists have acknowledged the inconsistency of their position in relation to the clear teaching about baptism in the NT.
ReplyDelete(I could quote many!) Take one: Charles Hodge a renowned 'reformed' commentator:
"The difficulty on this subject is that baptism from its very nature involves a profession of faith. It is the way in which by the ordinance of Christ, He is to be confessed before men: but infants are incapable of making such a profession, therefore they are not the proper subjects of baptism"
I think this should conclude our discussion on this subject, unless you have substantial scriptural proof to support your view of infant baptism.
Graham
"As you anticipate, I thoroughly disagree with the deduction you draw from the OT Scipture passage quoted."
ReplyDeleteNo, I didn't actually anticipate that. I simply said that I accepted that at the present time you disagreed with my position that the Scriptures require infant baptism.
I did so for the purpose of asking you to step back and think about this at a higher level, i.e. why you had started this discussion in the first place, and what purpose it served for the Kingdom. I thought that may have made an impression, but clearly I misjudged you - my mistake.
Michael, Sydney
"The NT speaks only of Christian baptism"
ReplyDelete1 Corinthians 10:2 (which is in the New Testament) states plainly that baptism occurred on at least one occasion in the Old Testament.
"Repeatedly I have pointed out the obvious, namely that of necessity infants are unable to exercise such faith. To date you have not addressed that!"
On the contrary, I have addressed that and explicitly agreed with it. The whole point of my post above was that infants are unable to exercise such faith, yet they were still baptised in the sea and the cloud.
"The "baptism" spoken of is one "into Moses" (not even water!).
What does it refer to? Clearly Paul is stating one simple truth evident from the context that all, male, female and also including unbelieving Israelites were incorporated into Moses - that is under obligation to the Mosaic law"
Firstly, there is no need to put baptism in inverted commas - because Paul did not. He stated that the people were baptised, and he used exactly the same word as he uses for Christian baptism. He says plainly that the Israelites in Exodus underwent the same sign or seal that Christians undergo.
Secondly, they were in fact baptised in water (the sea and the cloud). If you don't like that usage, argue with the apostle Paul, not with me - they are his words.
Thirdly, yes they were baptised into Moses - that doesn't change the fact that they were baptised.
Fourthly, the Israelites were not ONLY baptised into Moses (as though one can arbitrarily separate the Old and New Covenants in this way). What does Paul tell us? "They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ". [1 Corinthians 10:2-4]
"There is no OT 'version' of Christian baptism here"
Of course not - Paul made no reference to "version", he simply states that they were baptised.
"therefore to use this Scripture as justification for infant baptism is to wrench it out of its obvious context and is therefore irrelevant to the subject of Christian baptism which is fully revealed in the NT"
On the contrary, I am putting it squarely in its context, whereas you are ignoring the context. It is precisely on point - baptism is to be administered to all members of God's people on earth. It is related to faith, certainly, but it is not the same thing as faith.
To be cont. ...
Continued:
ReplyDelete"Please therefore give any example of an infant exercising such a faith."
Please read what I actually wrote! I will write it again: "Like any sign/seal/sacrament in scripture, it (baptism) is only effective to a person if and when that person has saving faith."
It doesn't matter whether a person is an infant or an unbelieving adult (plenty of whom get baptised). It is only when the baptised person has saving faith that their baptism becomes effective to them. Until then, it is a sign or seal of something yet to come.
"Well we have already fully covered this ground, and as I pointed out the NT always connects, not separates, faith and baptism together without a single exception."
Exactly, it *connects* them, because both are necessary for salvation. What it does not do is say that one is necessary for the other; rather it says that each is necessary for salvation. Thus Peter proclaims:
“Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins" [Acts 2:38]
He does not say "Repent and get forgiveness of sins in order that you may be baptised" (which is your position).
"It is firstly repentance towards God, and then, secondly faith in Jesus Christ (Acts 20:21) followd by third, Christian baptism."
Acts 20:21 says nothing whatsoever about baptism (check it, if you don't believe me), whereas Peter in Acts 2:38 spoke very clearly about repentence and baptism leading to forgiveness of sins.
"Any concordance reference will confirm the unchanging pattern."
Rather than motherhood statements, I suggest we debate what scripture actually says.
In regard to "household baptisms" I hope it is clear that I regard these passages as simply consistent with what Paul teaches us in 1 Corinthians 10:1-5: i.e. all ages are to be baptised.
"Many paedobaptists have acknowledged the inconsistency of their position in relation to the clear teaching about baptism in the NT. ... Take one: Charles Hodge a renowned 'reformed' commentator:"
I thought your authority was Scripture? I am not in the least interested in what Charles Hodge opined, but I want to apply what Christ and his Apostles taught.
"I think this should conclude our discussion on this subject, unless you have substantial scriptural proof to support your view of infant baptism."
I have already given it. I am happy to consider any substantial response.
Well Michael. We clearly disagree as to what Scripture teaches about Christian baptism, and are going round in circles.
ReplyDeleteI make two further points in response to your post above.
1.You say: "It is only when the baptised person has saving faith that their baptism becomes effective to them. Until then, it is a sign or seal of something yet to come.".
From your previous posts I assume you are applying this principle to infants? In which case are you saying that infants should be baptised on the implied assumption that it may be followed in later years by saving faith, and then it becomes, as you put it "effective".
But where does such an arrangement appear anywhere in the New Testament? How does it fit in with the clear instruction of Mark 16:15-16 we have been discussing?
2.You say above "I believe that scripture requires that we MUST baptise the children of believers." Linked to this is the question I raise again as historically it intrigues Baptists, and to my knowledge the question has never been answered.
If as you claim believers "must" baptise their infant children the obvious question arises - why? Also why the imperative since all agree, baptists and paedobaptists alike, that there is not a single NT Scripture instance of infants being baptised?
Further, as already mentioned. the apostles were authorised only to baptise believers and no others. What then do such baptisms actually do for the infants?
Michael. A last comment from me which I meant to add to my last post.
ReplyDeletePerhaps you (or your vicar?) could define the status of a newly baptised infant.
In the light of Paul's comment in 1 Cor. 15:21 - is it still "in Adam", or now "in Christ"? Or both?
"Well Michael. We clearly disagree as to what Scripture teaches about Christian baptism, and are going round in circles."
ReplyDeleteI think we understand each other's position better than we did before, which is no bad thing. Christians are allowed to disagree!
"1.You say: "It is only when the baptised person has saving faith that their baptism becomes effective to them. Until then, it is a sign or seal of something yet to come." From your previous posts I assume you are applying this principle to infants?"
And to adults. An adult person who is baptized does not necessarily have saving faith. They are required to make a *profession* of faith, but that is not the same thing. A baptist/pentecostal person who undergoes baptism in their church because they feel social pressure to do so, and then later undergoes conversion, is in the same position as a person who was baptised as an infant and then later undergoes conversion - in each case, their baptism is only a sign or seal of regeneration until the time when true faith comes.
That is the reason why the vast majority of baptist groups (at least in Australia) never re-baptise their own. If a baptist comes to their pastor and says, "I know now that I was not a Christian when I was baptised, I had not truly repented of my sins. But now I have. Should I be baptised again?" The pastor replies, "No, you have been baptised and now you believe. Just be thankful that now you are truly saved". The baptist pastor acknowledges the biblical truth that baptism and belief do not have to occur at the same time, or in a particular order, to be effective for salvation.
"In which case are you saying that infants should be baptised on the implied assumption that it may be followed in later years by saving faith, and then it becomes, as you put it "effective"."
Precisely. The same applies to the adult who makes a profession of faith before baptism but has not really repented and therefore does not have saving faith at the time of baptism.
"But where does such an arrangement appear anywhere in the New Testament?"
Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 10:2 that baptism is for all the people of God. There are frequent references to baptising households. On the day of pentecost, Peter says that the promise of baptism is "and to your children".
The converse is also true: The New Testament never tells us that baptism is the same thing as belief, nor does it say that baptism and belief must happen at the same time. It just says that Christians must do both.
"How does it fit in with the clear instruction of Mark 16:15-16 we have been discussing?"
This passage means what it says: If you are baptised but do not believe, your baptism will not save you. But note: it does not say "profess belief", but "believe". You can have the best A-Grade adult baptism certified by the President of the Baptist Union, or if you prefer, a child baptism in Westminster Abbey conducted by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Neither will give you salvation unless and until joined with true faith.
"2. ... If as you claim believers "must" baptise their infant children the obvious question arises - why?"
ReplyDeleteWe baptise children for exactly the same reason that we baptise adults - because we are commanded to do so. Even if a christian does not understand why God commands them to baptise, that doesn't change the fact that he has commanded them to do so.
Mind you, Scripture does actually give a lot of indications as to what baptism is, and what it does for us. It is a badge of membership in the church, a visible sacrament of the promises of the gospel, a sign of adoption, the NT equivalent of circumcision etc etc. But that doesn't change the fact that we do it primarily because we are told to.
"Also why the imperative since all agree, baptists and paedobaptists alike, that there is not a single NT Scripture instance of infants being baptised?"
Firstly, because Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 10:1-5 does not leave us any other option. Secondly, because the nature of it requires it - it is a sign or seal like circumcision, it is not belief or faith. Thirdly because we are regularly told that households were baptised (which is the whole point - we don't go around grabbing unknown kids off the street to baptise them; children are baptised because they belong to the earthly church through their parents).
"Further, as already mentioned. the apostles were authorised only to baptise believers and no others."
For greater caution I have just done a concordance search of the New Testament at biblegateway.com, and I cannot see a single verse that says so.
"What then do such baptisms actually do for the infants?"
Exactly what it does for adults. It is a sign or seal of their membership in the church of God, just as circumcision was for the Jew. And exactly like circumcision, it remains no more than a sign or seal until it is joined with faith.
"Perhaps you (or your vicar?) could define the status of a newly baptised infant. In the light of Paul's comment in 1 Cor. 15:21 - is it still "in Adam", or now "in Christ"? Or both?"
I think you mean 1 Cor 15:22. And I think your question misses the mark - everyone is "in Adam", even Christians, because we will all undergo physical death (unless Christ comes sooner). Those who are "in Christ" will be resurrected after they undergo physical death. All humans are "in Adam" but only christians are "in Christ". The answer for baptised infants is the same for baptised adults - they will be saved, i.e. be "in Christ", when they have saving faith. Their baptism is a seal or sign of their salvation, but it is not the salvation itself. The same applied to the Israelites who were baptised in the sea and the cloud - they all received the sign or seal of God's salvation, but only those who had faith (then or later) received the actual salvation.
One more thing which I forgot earlier, when Peter says in Acts 2:39, "The promise is for you and your children", the word for children is "teknois" (nom. sing. "teknon"). This noun comes from the verb "teknow", meaning to beget or give birth. "Teknon" can mean an older child, but its primary meaning is a new-born baby.
ReplyDelete