Consider also that Scripture says St. John the Baptist "lept for joy in his mother's womb" (Luke 1:44).

It is the clear teaching of the Church Fathers that St. John was filled with the Holy Spirit even from conception.
Karl Thienes | Homepage | 02.17.04 - 11:38 am | #

What faith can a child have? Does not faith require knowledge, assent and trust? Is an infant capable of knowledge of faith? Assent? Trust?

I do believe that a child can be regenerated before birth since regeneration precedes faith (at least in a Reformed understanding), but I don't understand how you can say this child was saved by faith.
Tim | Homepage | 02.17.04 - 12:12 pm | #

Does faith require knowledge, assent, and trust? Does a child at his mother's breast know, assent, and trust that he will be nourished by this provision? Does he formulate this as knowledge, assent, and trust? doubtful, but it is so. And who truly provides? The child's mother? Nay, the Lord is the provider of all good things.

Does the Lord deny those who are unable to articulate their faith with a spelled-out understanding of knowledge, assent, and trust?

The Lord chooses who he chooses, who are we to say he cannot give an infant faith in Christ alone?
dawn | Homepage | 02.17.04 - 12:34 pm | #

Tim?

How are the children saved, if not by faith? And if you believe faith is a gift, why is one that cannot be given to an infant?

Also, the "types of faith" that Reformed theologians like to talk about: notia, assensus and fiducia are useful but derived pedagogical devices to help distinguish between a simple and a saving faith. Scripture seems to make even simpler distinctions, namely between dead and live faith. And, Jesus, of course, tells us to have childlike faith.
David Heddle | Homepage | 02.17.04 - 12:35 pm | #

Why have you been thinking alot about
Baptism lately,I know you don't believe that Baptism saves anyone so what difference does it make when you are Baptized.......just curious why you started thinking about it.
Bob | 02.17.04 - 1:51 pm | #

I sometimes wonder why the Bible is just so unclear on things. I am sure that it is clear to those who walk more closely to the Spirit.

Anyway, my mind tells me believer's baptism is best, but my heart tells me infant baptism is good and acceptable in God's sight. I don't know. Maybe baptise infants and if they grow up and want a baptism that they are aware of then don't resist them.

Matt
Anonymous | 02.17.04 - 1:53 pm | #

Excuse me, that is, the Bible seems unclear on *some things.* Certainly not all things. Sorry.
Anonymous | 02.17.04 - 1:53 pm | #

A Greek term that was used in a general sense took on a special meaning because of its close association with what was happening. That's how the term baptism took on its religious connotations. Those who saw what was happening associated the word baptize with it, and it wasn't long before baptism became the word to define the event or process. This understanding is extremely important because it allows us to isolate the form of baptism. In the case of baptism or baptize, the word is the form. Baptize, as we determined earlier, means to "dip," "plunge," "submerge," or "immerse." Many who advocate another form of baptism admit that the original form of baptism was immersion. And there is evidence from Scripture. In Acts 8:38, we read, "He commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him." Matthew 3:16 describes this scene: "When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened." Baptism was a public observance whereby a person was immersed for the sake of a religious decision. Again, because of its original meaning, the form of baptism is defined by the word itself.
The next question concerns the meaning or significance of baptism. Why should a person be baptized? From the very beginning, baptism represented the ideas of identification and allegiance. Remember how the Gentiles were changing their identity? Once they baptized themselves, they were no longer Gentiles; they were Jews. People who were baptized by John were identifying with John's teaching for repentance. That is why Jesus allowed Himself to be baptized by John. The identity factor is underscored in Acts where we find that those who were baptized to identify with John were rebaptized in the name of Jesus in order to identify with Him. Therefore, one reason for baptism is that we publicly identify with Jesus' teachings.
Second, baptism is a picture that carries the weight of cleansing and resurrection and allegiance. The visual picture of baptism represents:


cleansing from the sin of the old life;
dying to the old life and being born to a new life; and
a sign of commitment or allegiance to a new Master or way of life.
This visual picture of an inward decision is best summed up in the sentence "I am not ashamed." Baptism is the believer's declaration to the world that Christ is the standard by which he or she intends to live.


Another reason a believer should be baptized is that Jesus commanded us to be baptized, and following in obedience should be a part of every believer's life. In the Scripture reference at the beginning of this chapter, known as the Great Commission, Jesus instructed the remaining eleven disciples to "go therefore and make disciples...baptizing them." The disciples were instructed to lead people to know Jesus as Savior and then to baptize them as a sign of their allegiance and identification wi
Ed Yong | 02.17.04 - 5:18 pm | #

I got cut off...here is the rest of it.

Another reason a believer should be baptized is that Jesus commanded us to be baptized, and following in obedience should be a part of every believer's life. In the Scripture reference at the beginning of this chapter, known as the Great Commission, Jesus instructed the remaining eleven disciples to "go therefore and make disciples...baptizing them." The disciples were instructed to lead people to know Jesus as Savior and then to baptize them as a sign of their allegiance and identification with Him. As obedient children, we must consider baptism as the next step after salvation, one that should be taken without delay.
Many people express one last concern about baptism and its connection to salvation. Baptism is an act of obedience whereby the believer identifies with Christ. Believing in Christ comes first, then baptizing. Think about the thief on the cross. He believed in the moments just prior to his death on the cross. There was no time for baptism; yet Jesus assured him that they would meet in paradise that day. Were baptism required for salvation, the thief would have missed out. It is clear from Jesus' words that the thief was saved the moment he believed. Paul says, "For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel" (1 Corinthians 1:17).
Baptism should be a part of every believer's experience, but it is not a requirement for salvation. Since obedience is an integral part of becoming a mature follower of Christ, baptism is something that every believer should participate in. It is called "believer's baptism" to underscore the connection between believing and baptism.

Baptism is not merely about being immersed, making a commitment, or joining a particular denomination or church. None of these things convey the real meaning of baptism. Baptism is about publicly identifying with Christ. It is an act of obedience. Baptism is an outward expression of an inward decision to align oneself with Christ and what He lived and died for.
If you were sprinkled as a child or christened, you have not been scripturally baptized. If you were immersed as an adult but had no intention of following Christ, you were not scripturally baptized. If you were sprinkled and have followed Christ since that time, you have not been scripturally baptized. If you were immersed and became a Christian later, you have not been scripturally baptized. Does that mean that Christ does not accept you or loves you less? Absolutely not. Does it mean that you are not saved if you haven't been baptized? No. It means that as a believer, you need to be obedient and be scripturally baptized.

If you struggle with the issue of baptism, find a church that teaches the scriptural truth about baptism, and seek the counsel of someone who can help you resolve your struggle. If you have come to understand that you were not scripturally baptized, I encourage you to take the steps to follow in obed
Ed Yong | 02.17.04 - 5:19 pm | #

Got cut off again...last time

If you struggle with the issue of baptism, find a church that teaches the scriptural truth about baptism, and seek the counsel of someone who can help you resolve your struggle. If you have come to understand that you were not scripturally baptized, I encourage you to take the steps to follow in obedience to Christ's command. Finally, if you are struggling with a part of your religious heritage that taught something different from what you now understand to be true concerning baptism, ask God to renew your mind through His Word and through prayer. Hanging on to the past just because it's a part of your upbringing is not a reason for resisting obedience to God. Ask for willingness to release the part of your heritage that prevents you from being obedient. Allow the Holy Spirit to guide you into the truth of Scripture. God will answer your prayers and enable you to move forward as you seek to be obedient to Him.
Ed Yong | 02.17.04 - 5:20 pm | #

Some background...

I. THE GREEK WORDS FOR "BAPTIZE" AND "BAPTISM"

A. THE WORDS ARE "BAPTIZO" AND "BAPTISMA"...
1. Note that the words "baptize" and "baptism" are not actually
TRANSLATIONS of the Greek words
2. They are TRANSLITERATIONS (where Greek letters in a word are
simply given their English equivalents)
3. To confirm the actual meaning, we must go to authorities on
the Greek language

B. THE FOLLOWING GREEK LEXICONS DEFINE "BAPTIZE" AS "TO IMMERSE, TO
PLUNGE, TO DIP"...
1. Greek-English Lexicon Of The N.T. (THAYER)
2. Greek-English Lexicon, 7th Edition (LIDDEL & SCOTT)
3. Greek Lexicon Of The Roman And Byzantine Periods (SOPHOCLES)
4. Biblio-Theological Lexicon Of N.T. Words (CREMER)
5. To quote VINE'S EXPOSITORY DICTIONARY OF N.T. WORDS: "baptism,
consisting of the processes of immersion, submersion and
emergence"

C. NOT ONE STANDARD GREEK LEXICON DEFINES "BAPTIZO" AS "SPRINKLE" OR
"POUR"...
1. In fact, there are completely different words in Greek for
"pouring" (CHENO) and "sprinkling" (RAINO)
2. It is important to keep in mind concerning "baptize" and
"baptism":
a. That they are simply "transliterations"
b. That they were transliterated instead of translated in our
Bibles to avoid offending those who practice pouring or
sprinkling
c. But when translated into English, they can only mean "to
immerse" and "immersion"!
Ed Yong | 02.17.04 - 5:20 pm | #

Now that we have a background on baptism, is it necessary for infants? No. No matter how much it is rationalized, it is not biblical. Does it hurt anyone? Only if the person mistakes being baptized as an infant to being saved.

When King David's infant son was taken from him by death, he cried out in his grief, "Can I bring him back again? I will go to him" (2 Samuel 12:23). He knew that one day he would die -- but when he did, he would be with his son. Perhaps that experience encouraged David to write those familiar words in Psalm 23: "Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil ... and I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever" (Psalm 23:4,6).
Ed Yong | 02.17.04 - 5:31 pm | #

At the moment I am giving an extensive review of Dr. Fred Malone's book, The Baptism of Disciples Alone on my blog. I have read a lot of material (20+ books and counting) on the Baptism debate and am a convinced paedobaptist.

I must admit, I am not entirely comfortable with your argument. The possibility that infants may have faith does not provide a sufficient basis, IMHO, for admitting them to Baptism. I believe that we should understand faith in terms of trusting God and entrusting oneself to Him.

The baptized infant is entrusted to God and is to live a life of trust in Him. As they are born to Christian parents they belong in a special way to God, who claims them for Himself. Christian parents, in entrusting themselves to God, must entrust their families also.

A further problem we have is that we have reduced the concept of 'faith' to the faith of the individual. We need to broaden the concept. If faith is primarily understood in relational terms rather than cognitive terms we would not have the same problem. We tend to confuse believing that with believing in.

Both paedobaptists and Baptists wish for true 'communities of faith'. However, Baptists confuse this with voluntary communities — a different thing entirely. If the church is a 'voluntary society' it poses no real challenge to modern society, it becomes akin to the various clubs and social groups of the world and looks less and less like a new humanity and culture.

Of course, a society that is not a voluntary society need not be a coerced society. A 'coerced' community of faith is a ridiculous concept.

Baptists tend to be very individualistic in their approach. Consequently I do not believe that they give enough weight to the fact that personal identity is formed by relationships. The child born to Christian parents does not have some sort of autonomous existence apart from them. His identity is first worked out within the matrix of relationships that exist within the family. His identity cannot be separated from the identity of his parents. His parents belong entirely to Jesus Christ and, as a result, so does he.
Al | Homepage | 02.17.04 - 7:12 pm | #

The question remains - what faith can a child have? I presume from re-reading your post that your answer is that God gives faith (standard Reformed position) so that a child does not need to be capable of expressing or even understanding that faith? If that child were to live longer he would eventually come to understand and express that faith?

I am going to have to do some more thinking about that one!
Tim | Homepage | 02.17.04 - 11:06 pm | #

Great observation, though the subtleties can be easily missed.
Nevertheless, with our limited human insight, I think we need to wait for a confession of faith (whether in front of a crowd or one person) before baptising anyone. Baptising anyone and everyone on the chance they may be a believer begins to look similar to a belief that Baptism has some saving power of its own, or at least is more crucial than scripture would seem to say.
Families (including infants or not) allegedly adhered to the practices and beliefs of the head of the household a lot closer then, than they do today, so it made sense that a whole household should be baptised if the head was.
The other big argument for infant baptism though, comes from a supposed link with old testament circumcision. A theory proposed and debunked by many theological experts on both sides.
It's interesting to note too that Calvin's defence of paedobaptism may have been influenced by his opposition to the Anabaptists, who while advocating credobaptism were straying from the truth in a lot of other areas.
My own thinking is that paedobaptism does no harm, but the theories surrounding it may -- you can always get baptised again.
DavidC | 02.19.04 - 12:56 am | #

Heddle, please please please don't flip out on me here.
Josh S | 02.20.04 - 1:17 pm | #

Tim, so you don't believe in justification by faith? It sounds like you believe in justification by regeneration, which is definitely unbiblical.
Josh S | 02.20.04 - 1:17 pm | #

Ed, I have a great idea: If you have 26 pages of somethign to post, start your own blog, then link your new blog post. Sorry for posting 3 times, David.
Josh S | 02.20.04 - 1:20 pm | #

Great idea, Josh. I just don't consistently come up with a lot of words to warrant my own blog. I admit I got carried away with the long post, but those don't come very often.
Ed Yong | 02.20.04 - 5:06 pm | #

E tu, David?

I come back after not reading for a while, and you have turned over to the dark side...
Mike Graham | 02.21.04 - 4:37 pm | #

Mark 16:16 reads, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

This isn't a command to people to "believe and be baptized": it's a promise, a proclamation of the good news that salvation comes to those who believe and are baptised. This isn't prescribing "steps to salvation" ("Want to get saved? Here's what you need to do" - i.e. neologianism), it's describing those who are saved.

A prescribed sequence of events has to be read into these words: I cannot see how it can be read out of it. Though misquoting a promise (applying to anyone "who believes and is baptised")as a command (to "believe and be baptised) certainly helps.
John H | Homepage | 02.23.04 - 4:55 am | #

Also, turning Mark 16:16 into a sequence of events causes almost as many problems for credobaptists as it does for paedobaptists.

Think of the teenager who (despite not really believing a word of it) gets baptised "because that's what people do" in his church, and who then falls away, and later on repents and returns to faith. Should he be re-baptised? After all, it says "He who believes and is baptised": so (in this view) baptism that precedes faith is invalid and must be re-applied - or risk forfeiting one's salvation. Perhaps people should be re-baptised on a regular basis, just to be on the safe side.

(And the one thing our text doesn't say is, "He who makes a credible profession of faith and is baptised...").

Oh, but of course, actually it doesn't matter, does it? "He who believes and is baptised will be saved" - in that order - so as long as you believed beforehand, what happens after you're baptised is irrelevant. "Once saved, always saved".

Finally, would those who see Mark 16:16 as prescribing an order of events say the same thing about Romans 10:9:

...if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Presumably this is adding another step to the list of things to do to "get saved": first confess, then believe, then get baptised.
John H | Homepage | 02.23.04 - 5:09 am | #