It is a divide in the western church as deep as they come. Baptize infants or not? We all know that there are no scriptures which explicitly prescribe baptism for infants. We also know that there are no scriptures which expressly forbid baptizing them. Hence the divide. We all know there are no narrations of infant baptism in the scriptures. We also know that there are no narrations in which infants were obviously excluded from baptism of households. Hence the divide. We know that Jesus freely welcomes the children into his midst in contrast to his culture. And yet he welcomed them to bless them not to baptize them. Hence the divide.
And while I am convinced that a proper understanding of the theology of man, baptism, and grace indeed make clear that God desires to give all even infants the gifts of his kingdom, I wish to argue from a different perspective for the same conclusion. And this argument rests on scripture and common reason.
The Old Testament makes clear that one was welcomed into the covenant relationship between God and Israel through the rite of circumcision. (Genesis 17:10-14) And this rite was to be carry out on the eighth day of life to every male child. And so it was. We see this tradition still practiced in the New Testament with John the baptist and Jesus himself. Yes a child was welcomed into the first covenant at eighth days of age.
It is clear also in the New Testament that Baptism is the rite through which one enters the New Covenant. Would it have not been absolutely odd to those first Jewish believers to withhold entrance into the covenant to their children. Would they not have assumed unless specifically directed otherwise to baptize their children in infancy, even on the eighth day.
There is some evidence that exactly this question was on the minds of early Christians. Several of the fathers had to address it seems the question of if Christian Baptism had to occur on the eighth day.
And lest we doubt that early Christians connected Baptism and Circumcision so closely as to assume that baptism would also occur in infancy, Colossians 2 makes clear that they did. Against those still arguing for necessity of the rites of the old covenant, Paul argues that Baptism is true circumcision, circumcision of the heart.
Colossians 2:11-14 11 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, 12 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. 13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.
It seems to me absurd to assume that Christians early in the church would have denied the blessings of the new covenant to their infants who always received the blessings of the old in infancy.
Oh, Phil, this is why I like you so much.
First, your first paragraph is so refreshing. As baptism is something I’ve struggled with in the past, I really value your honesty and straightforwardness in discussing exactly what the scriptures do and do not tell us.
And in all my struggling and studying, I’ve never looked at the topic from the angle you present in the following paragraphs. It’s fascinating and makes a ton of sense to me. Thanks for sharing!
Jaime,
Most of the wise things I say I stole from someone else. But I must admit that I happened upon this thought myself, well with the help of God I should say. I had not seen it discussed in other material until just recently, I noticed that it is mentioned briefly in the newest Colossians commentary by CPH. In fact, seeing it there made me write this entry.
Phil,
Sorry my post is so late on this. First, I really appreciate your thoughts. Your tradition is a great reminder to me of the importance of baptism. It is not just some side event but central to much of the teaching of the NT. And yet I do have some disagreements…mixed in with not truly and comprehensively understanding the Lutheran position concerning infant baptism. I don’t mean that in a negative way…it’s i just really don’t know all the ‘in’s and out’s’ of your position.
Maybe I am drawing a distinction that you didn’t present (so forgive me if i have)….but is one intitated into the new covenant through baptism or through faith? It seems that the NT also makes it clear that Abraham and the other guys (how’s that for sounding biblically literate?!?), as important as rites and sacrifices and such were in the OT were found to be a part of the faith community not through those things but by and through their faith. So i guess part of my question revolves around this: was circumsion in the OT the way into the blessings or was it an extremely important identification marker? And so I struggle with the idea that anything other than simple faith in Jesus is what places us into the new covenant (though I think if one has a love for the Iowa Hawkeyes they could be in on that fact alone).
To me it seems that baptism is highly symbolic of things such as death, resurrection and yes, forgiveness of sins and eternal life…but forgiveness and eternal life are only granted through faith in the finished work of Jesus.
I am probably totally misreading the Lutheran point here but it seems elevate baptism to a place where this is how one enters into the new covenant…while I would hold that faith is (and has always been the only way one enters) and that baptism identifies and symbolizes an inward reality that has already happened through faith in Jesus.
Though again, I would lean to an understanding that says such things as baptism and communion convey a little more than what my tradition normally assigns to them. So I thank you for highlighting and being a good reminder of the seriousness (and joyousness) of baptism that can get lost in my tradition.
Tom-
I believe that to a large extent, the distinction between faith and baptism is a modern construction. I think of Pentecost day as the prime example. Those who heard Peter’s word were told, “Repent and be baptized.” In other words, admit sin and receive grace. The result of which was faith. Faith is,according to my biblical understanding, in this sense a gift to be receive and not an action to do. No doubt it acts out once you have it. But it is first given, not done.
That is why I think your wording is correct, Abraham were found to be part of the covenant by their faithful actions. But they were placed there by God’s grace in circumcision.
If we are saved by our act of believing, how is that any different that the heresy of works righteousness that the Roman Catholic Church teaches.
For it to be grace, is has to be all God, all gift.
In modern times, we have separated coming to faith and baptism against the biblical example and narrative. And in so doing we have created all sorts of question about the relation between the two, including which comes first and what happens if one is present without the other. Why not leave those questions behind and return to biblical way where coming to faith and baptism was one event and not two.
Looking forward to your response, turn off CBS and get to it.
Phil,
Okay…i admit…i was watching CBS…seeing Duke lose makes this discussion seem almost irrelevant. well, maybe not…but Duke losing is a beautiful thing.
To me it seems that you are assuming more than what Scriptures actually are saying themselves when you state, “leave those questions behind and return to the biblical way where coming to faith and baptism was one event and not two.”
Doesn’t scripture also say, “if you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart…you will be saved.” If the biblical norm, narrative, or way were ‘repent and recieve grace (through baptism)’ wouldn’t this have been a perfect place to demonstrate that idea? Yet, baptism is not even mentioned or linked here.
I whole-heartedly agree with you that faith is a complete gift from God. If I have faith..it is from God. “My” faith that allows me to believe in and trust in God…i have only as a gift from God….so there is no disagreement there with you. I guess I would follow the reformers here (at least some) who say that one must have faith before one repents…for how can one repent unless they have had a change of heart. But that faith comes only by the grace of God.
To me, it seems, when you say: If we are saved by our act of believing, how is that any different that the heresy of works righteousness that the Roman Catholic Church teaches. That seems to be a double edged sword. Because I would ask you the same question but only in this way: if we are saved by repenting and recieving grace through an action (this time, not through faith, but through baptism) how is that any different than works righteousness?
Again, to me where it says repent and be baptized I think that it does show a huge connection between coming to faith in Jesus and the necessity of baptism. However, it seems telling that you use this verse to highlight the point of your main post. Infant baptism. How does an infant repent? If an infant can’t repent how do they receive grace through baptism? It seems that when ‘repent and be baptized’ is used it is directed towards the idea that ‘repent and be baptized’ is something that each person had to “do.” Isn’t it pretty much conjecture to assume that infants were forgiven, or whatnot, through the faith of their parents or someone else?
Infants being baptized as part of a household isn’t directly discussed in scripture. Your theology of grace, man, etc. leads you to believe that they were, my understanding of grace, man, etc. leads me in a different direction. In part, I struggle with infant baptism because it seems that any case for it tends to be made more from logical reasoning (which isn’t a bad thing by any means) rather than overwhelming scriptural evidence or support.
But I would love to hear more of your thoughts!
Tom,
Allow me to respond to your comments in order.
Agreed, although the rest of the tourney had been a sleeper. But maybe that means good games from here on out.
First, this quote in from Romans, perhaps the most baptismally saturated book in the bible. But this quote is from chapter 10 where Paul has gone on from speaking of conversion to exhorting faithful living. He is now speaking to the saved, the baptized, and not to those needing conversion. And in that context, he is assuming his arguments in Romans 6 of baptism. He is now saying that one who is baptized will quite naturally confess and believe and be saved. Particularly he is here trying to make the point that the oneness of the faith is not only seen in the act of baptism, but also the effects of baptism. There is neither Jew nor Greek he argues here on the basis of the effects of baptism. But no doubt he understand ultimately that this oneness is a direct result of came from baptism as he states clearly here:
1 Corinthians 12:13 13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body- Jews or Greeks, slaves or free- and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
If faith is a gift, cannot God give it to an infant and therefore allow them to repent and receive? We do not attribute the efficacy of baptism to the faith of the family, but rather the faith that God works in baptism in the infant themselves.
Baptism is not done so much as received. In your tradition, baptism is done to mark an inward change in my understanding, therefore it is a work. In our tradition, one does not baptize themselves, but is baptized, it is (as is the Greek for baptize) always passive. There is to the eyes the appearance to doing something in baptism, but in reality, the baptized does nothing except receive. That is why infant baptism is a beautiful picture. Many argue, a baby cannot do that. And we say exactly, that is why God is at work and not the baby. Baptism is not a work of man, but God and therefore does not leads to works righteousness. Although I will admit many Lutherans misunderstand this teaching and look at baptism as something to be done, and not received.
Faith, repentance, etc are all works of God. And he gives to all he wants, regardless of age or mental might. He does not give his gifts to those who are worthy of them, but to those who are not. The scripture teach than infants can believe strictly because it is not theirs to do, but God.
I started my post with admitting this silence. But I want to ask you to respond to the main argument of this post. While there is some reason involved, it is based on the scriptural narrative. Circumcision was given to infants and certainly thought of as very similar to baptism in the new testament (even if both did only serve as symbols as your tradition asserts). So why not give it to them just as as a symbol if nothing else. Why create things like dedication of infants which has no scriptural support at all when baptism is there to be offered. Shoot back…
Phil,
Thanks for your response. And yes, I have been watching even more basketball. And your prophetic skills are good indeed…you said we would have better games.
Let me respond a little bit to your responses
and then go back and try and answer the question you posed to me.
I can’t thank you enough for, again, reminding me and others of the importance of baptism. Those of us who lean away from a sacramental understanding of communion and baptism run the risk of losing their significance and place of importance within Scripture.
You write, “First, this quote in Romans, perhaps the most baptismally saturated book in the bible. But this quote is from chapter 10 where Paul has gone on from speaking of conversion to exhorting faithful living. He is now speaking to the saved, the baptized, and not to those needing conversion. And in that context, he is assuming his arguments in Romans 6 of baptism.”
I think you are seeing more in Romans that what might be there. All the way up to chapter 10 (and including the verse that i mentioned) Paul is arguing about the only thing that one needs to be saved: belief (again a gift), regardless of whether that person is saved or has yet to be saved. Your linking it back to chapter six, while understandable, is giving your argument a load that i don’t think it can bear. Again up to this point Paul is highlighting personal decision of faith (gift) as the only means by which we are able to have a relationship with God and in chapter 6 baptism is mentioned, but only in passing. Even Paul says in I Cor. 1:17 that, “Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel-not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of it’s power.” Baptism itself didn’t seem to be the most prominent element of Paul’s ministry.
I will answer your question if you answer this one (maybe more later on 🙂 ). How does an infant repent? If part of the equation is still: repent and be baptized, it seems you still face a problem of how does an infant actively repent?
When you say that baptism for us marks an inward change. That is correct. When you say that because of that it is a work. Obviously I would disagree. Here is why. For my tradition, baptism is not a means of grace. One is not receiving grace, or receiving eternal life through the act of baptism. It reflects the inward work that God has already done in our lives through his gifts of faith and repentance. Nobody is baptized to be in or keep their relationship with God. Like I said before, we would look at your view of baptism and say, ‘that is awfully close to works righteousness.’ Because you are saying that it is faith through baptism. Whereas Paul’s argument seems to be it is only faith that is necessary. Of course you see that faith and baptism are one event and not two…so the real question seems to be exactly that…is it one event or two?
I would say two events (though closely linked). You mention that Abraham and the others were placed in the old covenant by God’s grace found in circumcision…yet, Romans 4:9-14 tells us that Abraham was considered righteous not after his circumcision, nor because of it, but rather before his circumcision. And his circumcision was a sign of the righteousness that he had before he was circumcised. It goes on to say, “The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised and who thus have righteousness reckoned to them, and likewise the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but also follow the example of the faith which our father Abraham had before he was circumcised. The promise…did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. If it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise void.” So if you are relating baptism to circumcision than it seems that one can enter the old covenant without circumcision through faith only and one can enter the new covenant through faith only without baptism. This is why I would look at your view as being close to a works righteousness. I will admit though, I think the flow of Scripture would indicate that if one asked Paul this question: can one be an unbaptized believer? he would answer: yeah, but why in the world isn’t he/she baptized..that’s crazy.
If scripturally one could have been in the old covenant through faith without circumcision and Paul’s theology is personal faith (gift) as what places us into the new covenant without tying that faith to the necessity (for salvation, or eternal life, etc) of baptism…why the need to baptize infants? It seems you are adding baptism to the process of faith which Paul doesn’t seem to add and then turning around and saying that my tradition is guilty of works righteousness. We are guilty of a lot of things to be sure! And at times I think we all try to work for God’s grace (in big and small ways, in intentional and unintentional ways) but I’m not convinced we are guilty of that with the concept of baptism.
To your question (finally!!! sorry so long!): granted dedication is not something one finds in scripture. Dedication in our tradition really is there for three reasons: 1. it asks God to just continue to give his general grace to the child as he or she grows and that the child through the faithful witness of his/her parents would come to know, through faith and repentance, God. 2. it is a time when we commit this christian couple to God and ask God to bless them as they raise their child and that he would give them wisdom and grace. 3. it is a charge to the community of faith that we are a family and that we all have all have a responsibility before God and each other to be faithful witnesses and to give help and encouragement to this family and child. We don’t give them the symbol of baptism as an infant because we don’t feel that baptism conveys belief, eternal life, etc.
How about I meet you half-way and say that I would feel comfortable with infant baptism if it is understood in the Reformed tradition. Because, actually I do feel comfortable with that understanding. But that is another post.
SORRY THIS IS SO LONG!!! I am anxious to hear your thoughts. Thanks for ours…they always make me think about and rethink what I think.
By the way…my last paragraph..where it says, “thanks for ours.” Should be thanks for your thoughts….
I will write more soon, but isn’t it interesting that Paul, who had no doubt the most unique conversion experience ever, still received the Spirit through baptism:
And isn’t amazing that when talking about coming to Christ, he rarely mentioned his awesome meeting with Jesus, but looked to his baptism. Would any evangelical mention their baptism if their conversion was as spectacular as Paul? I have heard many testimonies and still not sure even once heard about Baptism.  I will write more later…hope you will also…
Since this is a three year old conversation, it might be looked upon as a little late to jump in but I would disagree since our Savior has not yet returned and believers continue to struggle against false teaching which work to lead each of us away from the Cross.
The first point(maybe the most important;-) is the truth about all Iowa Hawkeye fans being in heaven. I think its in the book of Fry or Kinnick. I think it also mentions something about Oklahoma fans and being eternally warm but I can’t remember where that is.
Now to be serious.
I am Lutheran and went to school with Phil so I am definitely in accordance with his position. I would just like to add a few things. Faith and all of God’s gifts come from God, which it seems we all agree on and He has made it pretty clear in the Scriptures that he does it through three ways and three ways only(sorry to those of you who think you can sit around a campfire, sip latte’s, talk about nonesense and see God, it’s just not true). The Holy Spirit works exclusively through His Word, Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper. All of these require human acts to perform reading and listening, distribution of the Body and Blood, declaration of God’s Word with anointing of water. None of them have any power without the Holy Spirit being present. So as Lutherans we rightly state that we bring nothing and God brings everything including dragging us to the table or pew or wherever the Word is preached and taught in Truth and Purity.
I think Tom has a point that faith can happen before baptism. Look at John the Baptist, he leapt in his mother’s womb so we know he was neither baptized or was circumcised but had faith. So without adding or taking away from scripture I think we have to accept that his faith was given to him by God through the hearing of His Word.(**Note I think this fact should encourage those woman that are pregnant or might be in the future that it is important to allow their unborn child to hear the Word of God before birth in case any unfortunate circumstances should happen) So is it possible to have faith before being baptized, I think the answer is an obvious yes. Take for example, the Ethiopian and Phillip. He was led by the Holy Spirit to question, “Look, here is water. Why shouldn’t I be baptized?” Surely he had faith moments before his baptism. His faith came from hearing God’s Word which led him to being baptized but his understanding of the Word at that point was no greater than an infants. Tom, you asked how an infant can repent. I would ask, how can any of us truly repent without God’s grace. The answer is we can’t unless the Holy Spirit dwells with in us. By asking how the infant repents you put the focus back on the infant and not on Christ. Trying not to sound too self righteous but that is why we Lutheran’s hold that your understanding of Baptism is works righteousness.
I think the more important question is why would you deny an infant to be killed with Christ in Holy Baptism. I think the answer is clear and probably harsh, because you are not being led by the Holy Spirit but by Satan. It is the only logical or scriptural reason for this denial. Christ commands us to Baptize in the name of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit so that we can receive God’s gifts not so we can declare ourselves believers.
What you need to ask yourself when it comes to God’s Gifts and yours or our understanding is who does the verbs?
You Stated:
“To your question (finally!!! sorry so long!): granted dedication is not something one finds in scripture. Dedication in our tradition really is there for three reasons: 1. it asks God to just continue to give his general grace to the child as he or she grows and that the child through the faithful witness of his/her parents would come to know, through faith and repentance, God. 2. it is a time when we commit this christian couple to God and ask God to bless them as they raise their child and that he would give them wisdom and grace. 3. it is a charge to the community of faith that we are a family and that we all have all have a responsibility before God and each other to be faithful witnesses and to give help and encouragement to this family and child. We don’t give them the symbol of baptism as an infant because we don’t feel that baptism conveys belief, eternal life, etc.”
Who is doing the verbs? 1) The dedication asks God… So the dedication(individual(s)) is(are) doing the work. 2)…we commit this christian… again “we” does all the work. 3)…we all have the responsibility… “we” yet again.
In Baptism “we” have no responsibility accept to receive the gift of Jesus Christ that God gives us.
If you’re still around Tom, I would be interested in hearing if in 3 years you still hold the same position and/or what your thoughts were on my input.
May the Lord Bless both of us in our continued struggles.
Phil,
Something you wrote in this post tripped an idea in me that has no direct bearing on the totality of your post.
You wrote: “And… I am convinced that a proper understanding of the theology of man, baptism, and grace indeed make clear that God desires to give all even infants the gifts of his kingdom…”
I have an honest question and it is one that I have never been given a satisfactory answer to. If you believe as you write that even infants should be given the gifts of the kingdom, then why is the Eucharist delayed to them for fourteen or fifteen years? If even infants can be baptized into Christ and have put on Christ, then why not let them partake of the Lord’s Immaculate Body and Precious Blood? I figure you’d probably come back with the passage in 1 Corinthians, I believe, where St. Paul exhorts communicants to be examined before partaking and such is good. I think that even in the Apostolic Age, there was a similar requirement of examination and catechesis of those wanting baptism until that question was largely settled after the Donatist and Pelagian schisms in the west. So, why give baptism to infants and not the eucharist? Is one more important than the other? As you say with baptism, there is no direct prescription from our Lord as to whether infants are somehow exempted from “do this in remembrance of me.”
I know I’ve strayed from the topic, but I would like an honest answer.