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.
- 46 views
[G. N. Barkman] Good discussion. I trust you will keep it going. I would like to point out that Fred Malone, who makes a very strong case for credobaptism, also espouses covenant theology, which comes out very clearly in his excellent book, referenced above, BAPTISM OF DICIPLES ALONE.Yes…I’m always amused at those who think that if you believe XYZ from covenant theology, you have to be a paedobaptist. For myself, I went toward covenant theology and toward a firmer credobaptism at the same time, for the same reasons.
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’d love to call myself Reformed Baptist…but then guys like Charlie would tell me I don’t exist. :)
Michael Osborne
Philadelphia, PA
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.
Job, neither covenant theology nor the state church can explain pedobaptism. Infant baptism is universally accepted as theologically valid by the 3rd century, at the very latest. Constantine is 100 years later. Also, the Reformers didn’t accept infant baptism as a function of a state religion. They affirmed it through theological argumentation and with reference to the spiritual, not political, community. Their views of infant baptism do not depend on a prior theology of church-state relations. A cursory reading of their own writings will confirm this. (I suggest Willem Balke’s Calvin and the Anabaptist Radicals as a good secondary source on Calvin.)
To several, on the issue of baptism and disciples, I think there is a misunderstanding. Covenantal pedobaptists do not do not say disciples AND children should be baptized. Rather, they affirm that children are disciples. The Bible teaches parents to raise them “in the Lord.” New Testament texts are addressed to children. So, we would affirm the order of baptize then disciple. Since our children are necessarily our disciples, they ought to be baptized.
Regarding the household (οικος), it is not analogous to a contemporary nuclear family. The point isn’t whether the specific households mentioned in the NT had infants in them. The point is that the conversion of the head of the household places everyone in the household into a new relation, regardless of who might be in those households. (This was true in the OT and intertestamental periods as well.) Most scholars will say that οικος has special reference to children in the family (Stauffer, Jeremias). The reference to 1 Cor. 7:14, the “holy children,” of course isn’t directly about baptism. But it makes sense only within a theological framework that acknowledges that the faith of one person (particularly a parent or “head” in some sense) can somehow affect the spiritual status of others in that person’s sphere.
On the Reformed Baptist question … whatever. I think Baptists who use covenant theology to support antipedobaptism should be heard. It’s a legitimate theological move. I found Malone to be very disappointing, and that when I was still Baptist. But there are others such as Jewett who do a better job.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Aaron, on the historical situation, all my research has suggested or asserted that Jewish proselyte baptism was in fact of the entire household.That would be because the Old Covenant was made with a nation. Everyone born into a Jewish home was part of that covenant. The New Covenant just doesn’t work that way by any biblical text.
If unbelieving Children are disciples, then Jesus’ command is pointless. Making disciples follows going into the world, ie, those outside the faith and seeing their conversion. The disciples to be baptized are disciples of Christ, not the parents.
It is entirely possible that by the 3rd century paedobaptism was valid. However, in the 1st century, it wasn’t.
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.
On the other hand, Charlie’s claim that the early Christians would have assumed whole-household position in the covenant (new) because of the Jewish history and the norms of proselyte baptism—and that we should expect the NT to explicitly clear this up—can’t be dismissed out hand.
Maybe Mike’s CT anti-paedobaptist sources have an answer for that one?
Personally, I do see a marked shift in emphasis from OT to NT in the level of individuality. You have a couple of references to households in Acts but so much individual faith in both Acts and the gospels. …. like to say more about this but have to run.
There is a reason we do not allow today that kings or presidents can declare their entire nations converted and line them up to be sprinkled. The NC does not work that way.
I’d argue it doesn’t work that way for families either.
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.
[James K] Jesus said who was to be baptized: disciples.Uhm… yeah, this is the question I am eventually driving towards…
End of story, paedo are sinning.
–=-=-=-=-===-=-=-=-=–
Arguments based on the relationship of the covenants is the subject of Scripture in Baptism-Part 2. The question is who was intended to be in the covenant and should therefore receive its sign?
[Charlie] …Also, it’s beyond dispute that Jews in general considered their children to be part of the covenant, with all the attached blessings. If the NT in fact excludes these children from the covenant community and attendent blessings, I would think there would have been a huge outcry and much explicit teaching.1. I have to agree with Charlie on this aspect of burden of proof. The believing community (OT) was accustomed to treating their children as part of the covenant community. This would seem to place the burden of proof on believer-baptists.
Job, neither covenant theology nor the state church can explain pedobaptism. Infant baptism is universally accepted as theologically valid by the 3rd century, at the very latest. Constantine is 100 years later. Also, the Reformers didn’t accept infant baptism as a function of a state religion. They affirmed it through theological argumentation and with reference to the spiritual, not political, community. Their views of infant baptism do not depend on a prior theology of church-state relations. A cursory reading of their own writings will confirm this. (I suggest Willem Balke’s Calvin and the Anabaptist Radicals as a good secondary source on Calvin.)
To several, on the issue of baptism and disciples, I think there is a misunderstanding. Covenantal pedobaptists do not do not say disciples AND children should be baptized. Rather, they affirm that children are disciples. The Bible teaches parents to raise them “in the Lord.” New Testament texts are addressed to children. So, we would affirm the order of baptize then disciple. Since our children are necessarily our disciples, they ought to be baptized.
Regarding the household (οικος), it is not analogous to a contemporary nuclear family. The point isn’t whether the specific households mentioned in the NT had infants in them. The point is that the conversion of the head of the household places everyone in the household into a new relation, regardless of who might be in those households. (This was true in the OT and intertestamental periods as well.) Most scholars will say that οικος has special reference to children in the family (Stauffer, Jeremias). …
2. It is very possible in Acts that entire households were actually converted in belief.
3. http://sharperiron.org/article/baptism-history-part-1] Aristides seems to describe a Christian community that did not consider it’s children or servants to be Christians, but in need of persuasion.
[charlie] …The reference to 1 Cor. 7:14, the “holy children,” of course isn’t directly about baptism. But it makes sense only within a theological framework that acknowledges that the faith of one person (particularly a parent or “head” in some sense) can somehow affect the spiritual status of others in that person’s sphere.Underline mine. Charlie, I think that your argument is valid, but I don’t think it helps with infant baptism. Credobaptists also trust their teaching and discipling will result in faith on the part of their children.
1 Corinthians 7 speaks of unbelieving spouses with the same language of children. We influence those around us with the Gospel and if we are genuine and let the gospel change our lives, those close to us will not be able to deny its power for long. Yet there is no call by anyone to baptize unbelieving spouses because we have an expectation that they will come to faith.
So it seems to me that both groups can expect their children to come to faith on the basis of 1 Corinthians 7, regardless of baptismal status. Therefore, the verse carries its meaning very well in both theological systems.
[Aaron Blumer] On the other hand, Charlie’s claim that the early Christians would have assumed whole-household position in the covenant (new) because of the Jewish history and the norms of proselyte baptism—and that we should expect the NT to explicitly clear this up—can’t be dismissed out hand.I agree with Charlie about the default assumption for early Christians, that if this was the default assumption, that it would require a big adjustment in perspective. Since I’m heading out to a men’s retreat later today, I probably won’t be able to collect some Scripture…but I find it chiefly in the passages that contrast outward and inward Jewishness: these passages both made me suspect the future of physical Israel as described by Dispensationalists, and also suspect the paedobaptist view that believers’ children are part of the covenant. I do think the apostles dealt with and corrected that assumption. Sorry for the lack of substance…my break time is only so long.
Maybe Mike’s CT anti-paedobaptist sources have an answer for that one?
Michael Osborne
Philadelphia, PA
But is it also automatically assumed when He says, ‘do ALL I have commanded…’ such things as selling all and giving to the poor, own no more than one coat, and the many, many other commands he gave His apostles - those somehow have no bearing in 2011, or at least is not AS important than being dunked.
Eph 3 says there is ONE baptism. Which one? Water? Spirit? Moses? Fire? The Bible mentions at least 12 baptisms, more than 3 of those in the N.T.
I have seen words here like this: refusal to be baptized (in water) is a sign that one may not be a true believer. So baptism by water is the 11th commandment, but only in the Christian age?
My point is, water baptism has become the protestant, reformed, whatever, version of a Roman Catholic tradition, but has caused more spiritual bloodshed among believers than any R.C. tradition other than the popes. And you have only gotten started with part 1. Maybe that’s why the word was transliterated…
Did Jesus command everyone to sell everything and give to the poor? Nope. Neither did the Apostles throughout Acts or in their letters.
Baptism isn’t a tradition, it is a command of Christ. The bloodshed by the way, was spilled on account of the paedos, not vice versa.
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.
[James K] SNIP
Baptism isn’t a tradition, it is a command of Christ. The bloodshed by the way, was spilled on account of the paedos, not vice versa.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
However, Jesus DID tell the young man of Matt. 19 to keep the commandments to obtain life. He lists 6 of The 10.
The young man says he has done all that, from his youth.
If (first class conditional) you want life, Jesus says, sell all you have and give to the poor.
I see this as a command of Christ.
~~~~~However…
There is no water in Eph. 4:5 or I Cor. 12:13. There is One God…and only one baptism. No water involved for infants or adults. It’s a tradition that not many agree upon as to its purpose or what it accomplishes. I submit that is because it belongs to the kingdom yet to come, and the apostles were told to look for and preach/teach about. Then came that unique Apostle Paul. He does not repeat a command to baptize or be baptized in water. Peter, for example, had to swallow hard (pun intended) the changes. The Messiah’s return would be delayed. God had a secret (Deu. 29:29).
Real Baptism is done at the moment of salvation whether a believer opts for it or not. Nothing to do, everything is done.
I admit getting rid of this water tradition would start a major conflict in most local churches, but if you are honest you will see water baptism is not for today, the church age.
Thanks for reading.
Perhaps we can be excused for thinking that water baptism, as commanded by Christ, is for this age, when we notice that this is what the disciples of Christ practiced after Christ returned to heaven. Not just once or twice, but repeatedly and regularly throughout the recorded history of Acts. And to top it off, there are enough references to water baptism in the epistles to clarify and reinforce what we read in Acts.
How did we somehow miss the astonishing revelation that water baptism is not for this age?
Sincerely,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
I already answered your question - “How did we miss…?
Because it is a tradition of men.
How do YOU miss scripture that says there is ONE baptism? If Spirit baptism is the one, then all other practices are traditions.
The book of Acts is a transition. What references in the epistles refer to water baptism other than Paul being thankful he did NOT baptize many at Corinth?
I do not nor did I claim to have received revelation, astonishing or otherwise. I quoted scripture. I assume you are making fun of me with your sarcasm. You signed ‘sincerely’ but I doubt that. Your logic is that so many have been baptized it absolutely HAS to be the one baptism. You also point out the disciples did baptize, as they were told. Yes, and they had all things in common, had no more than one coat (unless they were disobedient to Christ) and taught others to sell their houses and land and pool their money (Acts 4:34, 35), to the end that Paul YEARS later urged congregations to send an offering to Jerusalem so they could buy food. Why do we (you) not follow these commands of Christ as they did? (Believe me, I am not advocating a social gospel, merely pointing out that if you argue the disciples were obeying the command to baptize, therefore we must also obey this command, you must also accept ALL He commanded them to do - Matt. 28:20.)
To your last point, however, it has been discussed here (SI) many times how the universal church ‘missed’ doctrine such as the Rapture, for many hundreds of years, because Israel did not exist or was spiritualized out of the picture - and possibly for other reasons. “How did we miss the astonishing revelation that” the rapture IS for this age?
Cheers,
jt
JT, I do not disagree with the Scripture, I disagree with your hyperdispensationalist take on the the Scripture.
Eph 3 lists those things that unite us together. The baptism of the Spirit, which happens at conversion, unites all believers together in Christ. Water baptism is an answer to God of a good conscience because of the spiritual cleansing already performed. Water baptism does not provide actual cleansing, so in the sense Paul was referring to in THAT text, it isn’t baptism. However, it is still a church requirement as demonstrated by Paul’s other statements and the record of the church in Acts.
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.
[James K] Rob, I think I worded that wrong. I was saying that the blood spilled was the blood of baptists because of the persecution of the paedos.
SNIP
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
Discussion