A Study of Baptism in Scripture, Part 1
The investigation of historical evidence for believer’s baptism1 has been less profitable than one might wish. It did little to persuade my paedo-baptist friends to convert to credo-baptism. And the ensuing discussion made me a little concerned about whether they are still my friends. Before going forward with the last part of the discussion, let’s look at biblical evidence for infant and believer’s baptism.
Apostolic practice
First, what do the Scriptures say was done under the supervision of the apostles? The book of Acts tells of new believers who were baptized and welcomed into the church. The baptism of believing adults was part of the missionary endeavor of the church. Jesus commanded it in the Great Commission.
In Acts 8:36-38, Philip finishes explaining the gospel to an Ethiopian eunuch.
And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he replied, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”2 And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.
Baptists sometimes point to v. 37 as a clear statement about what it takes to be baptized: faith. But a closer look will show that it doesn’t logically exclude infant baptism. The eunuch asks, “What prevents me from baptism?” Peter answers: faith. “Me” in this question is an adult. What prevents an adult from being baptized? Faith. Reformed paedo-baptists would give the same answer today. Like Philip, they refuse to baptize an adult who does not give a credible profession of faith. But the eunuch only asked about himself. He didn’t ask about infants.
Household baptism
Paedo-baptists also believe that the oikos formula (“and his/her household”) indicates infant baptism.3 The book of Acts mentions several households that were baptized. Paedo-baptists argue that a “household” in this day was a large multi-generational group, which surely included infants. So, if households were baptized, we should assume that infants were baptized. Acts 16 offers an example:
One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us. (ESV, Acts 16:13-16)
But if the use of oikos for baptisms proves infant baptism, it must also prove other things, such as infants fearing God (Acts 10:2), infants rejoicing (Acts 16:34) and infants believing (Acts 18:8).
The answer of a good conscience
The foyer of my childhood Lutheran church had a small tract about infant baptism. As I remember, it read, “The Apostle says, ‘baptism now saves us.’” I thought, “Wow, that would seem to settle it—is that really in the Bible?” It was.
There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (NKJV, 1 Pet. 3:21)
Despite its use by my Lutheran church to defend baptismal regeneration, this passage may be read differently. Jamieson, Fausset & Brown describe the word “answer”:
answer—Greek, “interrogation”; referring to the questions asked of candidates for baptism; eliciting a confession of faith “toward God” and a renunciation of Satan ([AUGUSTINE, The Creed, 4.1]; [CYPRIAN, Epistles, 7, To Rogatianus]), which, when flowing from “a good conscience,” assure one of being “saved.” Literally, “a good conscience’s interrogation (including the satisfactory answer) toward God.”4
In other words, accepting baptism is the answer that comes from a person whose conscience has been made right—regenerated. The early church conflated baptism with regeneration in much the same way that some modern Baptists have conflated praying a sinner’s prayer with regeneration. Many modern Christians speak as though (and even believe) that praying a prayer saves us. We would not have prayed for salvation if we didn’t believe. For us, a prayer was the response of the regenerated sinner. For the first century Christian, baptism was the response. And it “saved them” in the same sense that the sinner’s prayer “saves.”
Others read this as “an appeal to God for a good conscience” (e.g., ESV). The appeal could include either a new believer asking God for forgiveness or perhaps parents appealing to God, by means of baptism, for the future regeneration of their child.
1 Corinthians 7:14 tells us that the children are made holy by believing parents. But that doesn’t answer the question of whether the rite of baptism is a means of that sanctification. There is a sense of expectant waiting in this verse regarding unbelieving spouses. Similarly, we should expectantly await the regeneration of our children. The question of whether to baptize them in anticipation of this or to wait for signs of faith is not addressed in this passage.
Buried with Him in baptism
In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. (ESV, Col. 2:11-12)
Both sides use this passage. It is possible that this refers primarily to spiritual baptism into Christ. It is said to be a circumcision “without hands.” And it does say, “through faith.” Paul is saying that the baptism he has in mind works through faith. There are objections from paedo-baptists: First, whose faith is in view? Some see the faith of the parents or of the church. Second, at what point in time does the faith work? Can faith follow the baptism, but still work through the knowledge of the event? Can baptism help us understand that we are in God’s family, even though it happened to us long before we were regenerated? After all, the old covenant believer was “cut off” from the world to God long before he was able to demonstrate faith. And circumcision was to remind him later in life that he was “cut off.” This brings up the question of the similarity of, or difference between, the covenants. This will be discussed in Part 2.
This study has not been exhaustive, but to my knowledge, there is no clear direct Scriptural evidence for or against either form of baptism. What one side holds as clearly supporting their view the other side simply views another way.
Notes
1 Baptism in Church History, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.
2 There are textual challenges to the last half of verse 36. Trends towards baptismal regeneration and infant baptism would seem to incline editors to remove rather than to add this statement. If it was added, it is more likely to have been added by a believer in believer’s baptism.
3 For an extended discussion, see: Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries, Joachim Jeremias, Wipf & Stock Publishers, Eugene, Oregon, 1960, pp. 76-78.
4 Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, Commentary on 1 Peter 3, available online: http://www.blueletterbible.org/commentaries/comm_view.cfm?AuthorID=7&con…. Square bracketed content original.
Dan Miller Bio
Dan Miller is an ophthalmologist in Cedar Falls, Iowa. He is a husband, father, and part-time student.
- 56 views
A huge factor in determining what constitutes clear evidence is what your starting point is when you look at the evidence. In this case, it’s better method to look at the nature of salvation first. With that as a theological foundation, we come to baptism texts with the understanding that the burden of proof lies on those who want to give baptism some effectual relationship to grace.
But I think there’s another historical area worth digging into as well: what was the Jewish view of baptism prior to Christian baptism or even the baptism of John? Since baptisms of one sort or another were already known, there would be insight there as to what the apostles mean. They would not need to state what was already assumed by their hearers/readers.
I don’t know what the answer to that is, but I suspect that baptizing infants was not routine. So we are really not coming to these texts on level ground. We’re coming from a history in which babies were not baptized. The result is that the texts would need to pretty explicitly specify that it’s for infants. Silence on that specific point doesn’t have equal significance for both options.
The old counterargument is that there is a connection to circumcision in the OT. But again, baptism is distinct from circumcision in John’s day as well as Jesus’ (people did both separately). We would need some very clear teaching to get the idea that the two are becoming one somehow.
The Col. 2 passage can be read as teaching circumcision->baptism, but certainly doesn’t have to be. And other options are at least equally good. (If you start with a sola fide understanding of salvation, other options are far better: i.e., the passage isn’t about water baptism. How did the Reformers manage to miss this? It has much to do with customs that had already developed in an environment in which sola fide was not in focus.) On that, see http://sharperiron.org/article/reformers-defense-of-infant-baptism] The Reformer’s Defense of Infant Baptism
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
End of story, paedo are sinning.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
So the real issue is not paedobaptism as much as it is covenant theology. However, an issue with directly challenging covenant theology itself is that it seems that the primary contemporary alternative to covenant theology is premillennial dispensationalism, and in particular Arminian (or to be honest, “Calmanian”, as few actual Remonstrants and Wesleyans exist outside of Methodism) premillennial dispensationalism. Perhaps the Reformed “New Covenant Theology” sorts would be the ones best suited to taking on the paedobaptism issue. The problem is that there is no single or normative “new covenant theology”, and also I am not aware if there has been a widely known scholarly - i.e. systematic theology - treatment of NCT.
Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura http://healtheland.wordpress.com
[DavidO] I think you mean Philip, not Peter.Yes. Typo there. I’m sure it was because somebody was using Micro$oft Word instead of Libre Office or Open Office!
Will fix shortly.
(Edit: OK fixed. In Acts 8:36-38,
[JamesK]This is where I switch sides and argue for paedo baptism! Not really, but I’m going to play advocate for the view because I think there is no long term advantage (and significant disadvantage) to understating their case.
The great commission
Jesus said who was to be baptized: disciples.
End of story, paedo are sinning.
As far as the Great Commission goes, there is a command there to do something to disciples but there is no command to refrain from doing something to their babies. So if we really were starting with a theological blank slate (kind of how Dan is approaching it in the article), the GC would offer nothing in support of exclusive baptism of disciples.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
My study of baptism started with pulling up every verse that had the word baptism in it, and ended with a study of Covenant Theology. In my study, CT had the best answers to I Corinthians 7:14 and John 15:6. I came to the place where I thought the preponderance of the evidence came down on the side of Household Baptisms. I am not 100% sure I’m right…probably closer to 65%. In my study, CT had the best answers to I Corinthians 7:14 and John 15:6.
A question for James K…what verse are you specifically referring to, please?
Thanks,
Bill
[JobK] Perhaps the Reformed “New Covenant Theology” sorts would be the ones best suited to taking on the paedobaptism issue. The problem is that there is no single or normative “new covenant theology”, and also I am not aware if there has been a widely known scholarly - i.e. systematic theology - treatment of NCT.I was baptistic all my life, but not a convinced credobaptist until I read Fred Malone’s defense from the Reformed Baptist perspective. He argues for baptism of disciples alone based on the nature of the New Covenant in contradistinction to the Old Covenant: the New Covenant actually gives people new hearts, actually puts the law of God on their hearts, unlike the Old Covenant. Only those with a credible confession of faith should be considered New Covenant beneficiaries.
Michael Osborne
Philadelphia, PA
I am not 100% sure I’m right…probably closer to 65%. In my study, CT had the best answers to I Corinthians 7:14 and John 15:6.I appreciate your openness about that. I’m about 88% sure you’re wrong. ;)
I think James K’s argument has some unstated premises. There are a couple that would make the argument work and several that fail.
One that fails…
1. Jesus commands us to baptize disciples
2. Everything Jesus commands to be done to one sort of person, He forbids to be done to another sort
3. So, the command to baptize disciples is a prohibition against baptizing anyone else
The second premise is clearly a problem.
One that might work a little better, but still not great… (2nd premise still pretty weak)
1. Jesus commanded us to baptize disciples
2. If He had wanted us to baptize anyone else He would have said so
3. So He doesn’t want us to baptize anyone else
I’d have to do more thinking than I have time for right now to make a strong argument from the Great Commission passage. It can only be done if you have a really strong second premise that you derive from one or more other passages and/or some historical context.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
“the New Covenant actually gives people new hearts, actually puts the law of God on their hearts, unlike the Old Covenant”
Michael, are you saying that the law of God is not written on the hearts of the Gentiles, or hasn’t always been there? If so, do you get that from Jer 31:33? Also, what do you understand Romans 2:15 to teach in regards to the law of God being written on the hearts of unbelievers?
Thanks,
Bill
How does one know who the disciples are? I think we all can agree that everyone baptizes people that will not be in heaven. I know some Baptists who will baptize on just a profession(like 3000 in one day in Acts, or Philip and the eunuch by the water) and others who say that their must be fruit(some period of time to pass.)
As it applies to baptism, is it really our job to go around and determine who the disciples are and aren’t? It would seem more consistent that we consider the children of believers holy(I Cor 7:14) simply by virtue of their birth, until they prove themselves to be unholy(apostatize.) Holy obviously doesn’t mean “saved,” but it does mean set apart unto God. Like Israel was, but “not all Israel is Israel.”
Does that make sense?
BTW, I really am trying to continue to learn here so that I can bump my 65% up to 88% or down to 45%. I committed a long time ago to not run to my corner in these Baptism discussions and have an attitude of I’m right and I’ll show the world. I want to learn. I want to keep Reforming. God help me.
1. I think one key to the relat. of Gentiles to the NC is the grafted in language of Rom. 9-11
2. On Rom.2.15… when I studied through Romans for the 2nd or 3rd time recently, I came to the conclusion that much of what Paul says about “law” doesn’t make sense read as “The Law” (as in, the stipulations of the Mosaic Covenant). It seems to me that what’s gong on 2.15 is P. is explaining that even unbelievers and non-Jews carry “law” within them in one sense: they have a conscience-based knowledge of some basics of right and wrong (which they go ahead and violate anyway…. just like religious people do). So the overall arg. there is that people who officially have law and people who officially do not have law, both really do.
But the Jer. New Covenant reference to law written in hearts has a different sense I believe. The context includes some comprehensive language about the knowledge of God as the waters cover the sea (or it’s in some parallel prophecies if not Jer.). This is a true knowledge of God (as in, “Hey, I know you. We met at…” vs. “I read about you in….”).
But I look forward to see Mike’s answers.
On who the disciples are…
I have to make some assumptions here. Jesus does not seem to think the disciples He is speaking to there will have any trouble knowing who future disciples are, even though they will lack the ability to see their hearts.
So the fact that Jesus commands disc. to be baptized there indicates we are able to tell “well enough.” I suggest Acts 2 clarifies the standard: those who accepted the gospel there were considered disciples and baptized.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Bill Roach]I would say that Romans 2:15 and Jeremiah 31:33 address different issues.
Michael, are you saying that the law of God is not written on the hearts of the Gentiles, or hasn’t always been there? If so, do you get that from Jer 31:33? Also, what do you understand Romans 2:15 to teach in regards to the law of God being written on the hearts of unbelievers?
Yes, those without special revelation (specifically in Romans 2, Gentiles) have a God-given faculty that helps them know what’s right and wrong. In this sense they know the law, what God expects of them.
I think in the full context of the passages that describe the New Covenant, the law written on people’s hearts means that they are given the ability to obey, something that the law written on stone could never do. This covenant involves:
- The law written on hearts (Jer. 31:33)
- People actually knowing God relationally (Jer. 31:34)
- Full forgiveness of sins (Jer. 31:34)
- Spiritual cleansing (Ezek. 36:25)
- The Holy Spirit (Ezek. 36:27) who causes them to obey God (this is parallel to the internalization of the law)
- True repentance (Ezek. 36:31)
- The abolition of Old Covenant ceremonies (Heb. 10:15-18)
But when I studied the New Covenant, I realized that not treating children as part of the covenant is actually a step forward, because the New Covenant actually effects spiritual transformation. I agree with the paedobaptists that what circumcision was to the Old Covenant, baptism is to the New. Where I disagree with the paedobaptists is that you cannot call children of believers New Covenant beneficiaries until the New Covenant actually transforms their hearts.
Somehow thinking of this through a Dispensationalist grid never helped me. Thinking of the OT/NT transition as a transition from one people/institution (Israel) to another (the church) simply didn’t have explicit Scriptural support. But the transition that the NT authors did labor to explain is this transition from Old Covenant shadows to New Covenant realities. At this point in my studies, I’ve re-thought the whole future-of-Israel question, and while I think the NT does teach the ongoing and future salvation of physical Israelites, I also see that they will never approach God on an Old Covenant basis again.
Hopefully this makes sense…
Grace and peace,
Mike
Michael Osborne
Philadelphia, PA
It is true that paedobaptism leans heavily upon some form of CT, and is difficult to sustain without CT, but it does not follow that everyone who espouses CT also espouses infant baptism. Historically, there has been a strong lineage of baptists who are calvinists and covenant theology, but emphatically not paedobaptists.
I would not want someone to get the impression from previous posts that covenant theology leads one to paedobaptism. It does not, or at least, it does not necessarily.
The previous post that references New Covanent Theology is helpful. As one who embraces many elements of CT, but also some elements of NCT, it appears to me that this is really no more or less than historic baptist theology, at least as it existed in the history of baptists in the United States.
Cordially,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
Aaron, contrary to the point you are trying to make, that somehow the lack of an exclusion could somehow allow for it, one simply needs to reread it.
Matthew 28:18-20
18 “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you.
The only command Jesus gave to baptize was this.
1. Make disciples
2. Baptize them
3. Teach them
In that passage, Jesus didn’t forbid baptizing dogs, bicycle tires, peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, or Florida Gator football memorabilia. You throw the Gator stuff in the trash.
Further, many covenantists love to point out how many times “all” refers to a fraction of something bigger. “All the city…” doesn’t really mean every person in the city came to see Jesus, etc. Yet with “households”, we are to pretend they are bigger than what they demand.
So the paedo is in the impossible position of:
1. Successfully convincing those not entrenched in covenantism that infants can be disciples.
2. Successfully arguing from silence.
3. Successfully proving that the household included infants. Even if it did, the statement does not demand that the infants were baptized.
No, what paedos really need is to be in charge of the government again to they can legislate credos out of practice again. Luther and Zwingli were both cowards on this point by giving in to secular powers over God’s word.
James
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
“Also, what do you understand Romans 2:15 to teach in regards to the law of God being written on the hearts of unbelievers?”
If Rom 2:15 refers to the law of God, ie, the Torah, being written on the hearts of unbelievers, the promise of Jer 31 is moot and worthless. I hope that helps.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
Discussion