The New Testament is unclear on this subject. New believers were baptized, sometimes along with their entire household. Speculation is that this included children, perhaps even infants, although there is no concrete evidence one way or the other. However, it soon became the practice of the church to baptize the children of believers, justifying this with Paul's statement that the children of believers are holy (1 Cor. 7:14).
Our Children Are Part of the Church
Those who baptize infants tend to equate baptism with Old Testament circumcision, a sign that marked all male Jewish children as part of the covenant community on the eighth day after their birth. These groups view baptized children as part of the church long before they are able to understand the gospel and profess their own faith.
Infant baptism became a sacrament, and it was widely believed that the children of believers are saved through baptism. The major reformers - Martin Luther and John Calvin - broke with the Roman Catholic church in some areas, but they retained the sacrament of infant baptism. In all of these traditions, there is also a later ritual known as confirmation or profession of faith when a baptized child acknowledges his or her own personal faith.
Believe and Then Be Baptized
Even before the Protestant Reformation, there were dissenters who believed that the New Testament does not teach infant baptism, but instead that people should believe and then be baptized. They especially point to Acts 2:38, where St. Peter says, "Repent and be baptized", arguing that infants cannot repent and thus should not be baptized.
However, it's important to take this in context. Peter was addressing a crowd and giving an altar call on Pentecost, which is widely considered the birthday of the church. 3,000 people received the message and were baptized that day.
Then there's Matthew 28:19, where Jesus gives the Great Commission: "Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Here the implications is that Christ's disciples will be making disciples and then baptizing them.
Another verse supporting believer's baptism is Mark 16:16, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." Again, there is the sequence of faith first, followed by baptism.
In the story of Philip and the eunuch (Acts 8), Philip shared the gospel, the eunuch expressed his faith, and then he was baptized. This is the pattern that repeats itself time after time in the New Testament: believe and then be baptized.
Two Meanings for Baptism
Both sides in the baptism debate see the sacrament as the mark of membership in the church, but each side sees baptism as something different.
For those who baptize infants, this is God's mark on their lives as well as a mark of membership in a covenant community. It has nothing to do with the child's faith; the child is the recipient of the sacrament. (In most traditions, one or both parents must be members of the church.)
Infant baptism is not a promise of salvation, it simply marks the child as a member of the covenant community - just as circumcision did in the Old Testament. It is usually accompanied by promises that the parents will raise the child in the faith, and there is generally an expectation that when the child reaches a certain age, he or she will accept the gift of salvation and become a confessing member of the church.
Believer's baptism is a profession of faith, a public acceptance of the gift of salvation, just as it is in the Book of Acts and the New Testament Epistles. They believe and are then baptized, and the sacrament marks them as God's children.
In these traditions, infants are dedicated, an acknowledgement that the children of believers are holy, and at this time the parents promise to raise their children in the faith.
Holy Children?
1 Corinthians 7:14 states: "For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
What does it mean to be sanctified or holy?
The Geek word translated sanctified is ἡγίασται. It is defined as to make holy, consecrate, sanctify. It is closely related to ἅγιος, which means sacred or holy. At the end of the verse, the children of a believing parent are called ἅγια, holy.
The word holy means something set apart, something separated from the everyday. It is almost always used for something set apart for religious purposes, dedicated to deity, reserved for God. Thus we have the holy Bible, the holy catholic (universal) church, and the Holy Spirit.
The children of believers are holy, set apart from the everyday, dedicated for religious purposes. They are special in God's sight, and most Christians believe that should they die in infancy, God will receive them into his eternal kingdom. What holy doesn't imply is that they are necessarily saved - we all know people who were baptized and now live unholy lives, having turned their backs on God.
The children of believers are holy, set apart from the sinful world and brought up in Christian homes. They are taught the gospel, and they are expected to embrace faith, but we cannot presume that they will be saved. Holiness is an outgrowth of faith, but not everything that is holy has faith. Items, such as the Ark of the Covenant, can be considered holy, and I don't believe that Paul was teaching in 1 Cor. 7:14 that the unbelieving spouse of a Christian or the young child of a Christian is in the state of salvation because of their believing spouse or parent.
Baptism Replaces Circumcision
Abraham believed and was circumcized, along with his entire household. He was instructed to cicumcise all males born into his household on the eight day. This marked them as holy, set apart as God's people.
By analogy, it is argued that believers and their children should be baptized. They are holy, set apart as God's people.
However, we have the same problem in both cases: Just because one is circumcised or baptized does not mean that they have faith - or ever will have faith. What was originally a mark of faith turns into a mark of membership in a community.
For those who believe that baptism replaces circumcision, infant baptism is a given. But it begs the question: Does baptism replace circumcision, or is it something different?
In Jesus' day, baptism was a sign of repentance, of turning from sin, of turning toward God. Those who were baptized by John had long ago received the sign of circumcision. Baptism was something different, a statement of faith. It is used this way throughout the New Testament.
I believe that while we can make all sorts of logical arguments for infant baptism, none of them are as compelling as the New Testamant model of believe and then be baptized. I believe that infant baptism has been misunderstood as a means of salvation, creating a dangerous complacency in traditions that maintain it.
A Suggestion
I grew up in an infant baptism tradition, and from my college days I have been debating the baptism issue, finally concluding that infant baptism and believer's baptism are different things.
Infant baptism is a sign that this child is a member of the church community, while believer's baptism is a sign that the person being baptized acknowledges faith in God. Although they are both called baptism and both use water, they signify different things. And that is the basis for my proposal.
Baptism symbolizes our death and new life in Christ and the washing away of sin. It is right and fitting that believers be immersed in the waters to mark their faith and their full status as members of the church.
Yet the children of believers are holy, and they deserve to be marked as members of the covenant community, just as circumcision marked Israel. My modest suggestion is that we stop calling this baptism. It does not acknowledge the child's faith, their death and resurrection in Christ, or repentance and the washing away of sin. It marks them as holy, set apart to grow in an environment of faith, children known and loved by God.
The children of believers should be marked as holy, and my suggestion is that they be dedicated and sprinkled with water - perhaps even water from a baptistry - as a symbol of their incorporation into the church community. The water would symbolize God's mark on their lives as well - and foreshadow the day when they will come to faith and receive a full baptism by immersion.
We could eliminate a lot of theological gymnastics used to justify infant baptism by recognizing that the two baptisms that church has fought over for centuries are two different things: one is a sign of membership in a religious community, the other a sign of faith.
My Story
I grew up in the church, was marked by baptism as an infant, professed a fledgling faith at age 16, and struggled to understand that faith for 30 years. Then I found myself in the pit of emptiness, hollow and angry, desperately in need of God's love. God did not let me down. In fact, he raised me up, and nothing has been the same since then.
As a testimony to that renewing faith, I was baptized by immersion. What a powerful experience!
I never denied my infant baptism. God had marked me, I had tried to walk in faith mostly by my own understanding and will, and now it was finally completely real to me. Baptism seemed an appropriate response to the new life God has given me.
No comments:
Post a Comment