You write:—
"The very bottom line? Infant baptism states: Thank you God that your promise is for my child too. (If you think that is not significant, imagine for a moment the despair of parenthood were it not true). Believer's baptism states: I have made a decision for Christ."

I beg to differ. Baptism of a person of any age is not primarily about us saying anything (whether thanking God for His promises, or saying that we believe in Him). The point of Baptism, IMHO, is more along the lines of God saying over the person baptized into Christ: 'This is My beloved son, in whom I am well pleased!'
Al | Homepage | 07.08.04 - 11:54 am | #

David,

Great posts!! I agree with you completely and hope I can find these posts again to refer to others when I find myself drawn into a baptism discussion. Thank you so much for your insightful blogs!
Renee | 07.08.04 - 5:21 pm | #

David, do you sometimes think that we on the Protestant side of things have divorced the water too much from the Spirit. I mean, putting aside the ex-opere-operato concern for a moment, consider how the Spirit descends upon Jesus after John puts him in the water. Or think about Peter saying to be baptized and the receive the Holy Spirit.

Does it seem to you that we have drifted into baptisms of 'dry water'?

much peace,
Matt
Matt | 07.08.04 - 7:43 pm | #

I'm sorry, I'm still not clear on your position. At the bottom of your post you say that infant baptism isn't a guarantee of salvation, but somehow it provides reassurance to you as a parent. (I can understand this from the perspective of believer's baptism and baby "dedications" and the hope that gives a lot of parents, but not from the infant baptism position.) You state that they are not saved until God gives them faith so why does the infant baptism matter as more than a symbol? (I'm not saying baptism is unimportant, I still fail to see why it is necessary for infants).
Matt | 07.08.04 - 9:23 pm | #

Your two most recent posts on baptism in general and infant baptism in particular are intriguing for me from an ecumenical point of view.

When you wrote in your first post that infant baptism "recognizes God's work, not the work of the person being baptized", I was immediately reminded of a similar statement on the topic from the Catechism of the Catholic Church: The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism.

When considering the common criticism of the Catholic Church's view on baptism (one, by the way, shared by many other Christians) levelled at it by many evangelicals, the irony seems thick to me.

On the one hand, the Catholic view of baptism is often shown as evidence of a works theology. Yet such a charge does not address the argument from the Catechism that infant baptism shows just the opposite--the "sheer gratitousness of the grace of salvation."

On the other hand, evangelical Christians commonly recognize, rightly, that the grace of salvation is not earned through works but given solely by God. But their testimonies of their conversion, usually ending with their acceptance of Christ as Lord and often their public demonstration of this through a believer's baptism, seems to focus so much more on what they did in the midst of their conversion experience.

"I was going down the wrong path. With the help of other Christians, I realized the error of my ways. I cried to God for help. I received Christ as my Savior. I made an altar call and asked to be baptized."

Is this a caricature? Perhaps. But I still hold that there is as much if not often more of a focus on the believer in an evangelical conversion testimony than on God.

Who is doing the work here?
Sean Gallagher | Homepage | 07.08.04 - 10:42 pm | #

David, I'm glad you're bringing up the importance of God's corporate relationship with his church. Too many Christians view that as secondary to His personal relationship with each of us. An interesting and potentially dicey area of study is where Christianity and US patriotism come into conflict. US ideals are formed around rugged individualism, while Christ asks us to offer self-emptying love to our neighbor. But I'm getting off topic here...

I'm glad you're offering a sound justification of infant baptism from a corporate standpoint. However, I wish you wouldn't denigrate believer's baptism in the process. I've been moved to tears witnessing believer's baptism before, ones that give the glory to God. And I've wished I could remember my own baptism. Maybe I should go ahead and ask for a baptism - then I'd have the best of both worlds. After all, is there anywhere in the bible that states only one baptism per customer? I believe the concept of baptism that predated John the Baptist was a regularly performed ritual. I do realize that sacrifices were regularly performed before Christ and the parallels here. That's one of the main things that keeps me from a second baptism.
Greg | 07.09.04 - 10:45 am | #

There is absolute nothing wrong with baptizing believers when the theology is right. However, the problem is that the theology is almost invariably wrong. Baptists tend to view Baptism in terms of their action and not God's. As a result the significance of their Baptisms becomes increasingly dependent upon their word (of confession), rather than God's Word of promise.

Baptists almost invariably deny that Christ brings us to Himself through the waters of Baptism, seeing it as nothing more than their act of obedience. Were someone to tell you that preaching doesn't have any efficacy but is merely our bare act of obedience — we just do it because God told us to do it — you would be appalled. You would insist that God's Spirit saves people through the preaching of the Word.

There are many of us who feel exactly the same way about Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Denying the efficacy of the sacraments is no small error and it is important that Baptists realize that there are many who feel this way.

I have witnessed dozens of believers being baptized and have found all of these Baptisms very moving. However, the emphasis almost invariably rested upon the act of the individual who was being baptized. The baptizands (among whom I count myself) spoke about how God had worked in their lives and how they had finally come to 'ask Him into their hearts.'

One thing that always troubled me was the fact that Baptist doctrine tended to subtly change 'confession of faith' from a declaration of faith in Jesus Christ (something like the Apostles' Creed) to a narrative of your own spiritual experience.

Hearing these spiritual experiences recounted was moving, but I and many others found out that past spiritual experiences simply weren't enough when it came to the tough times. I have met countless Baptists with deep assurance problems who can take no comfort from their Baptisms because their Baptisms were founded upon their own spiritual experience and not upon Jesus Christ.

Martin Luther appreciated the root problem with believers' Baptism: it tends to convert faith into a work. Faith is cast back upon itself, rather than upon Christ. When one denies the objective act of Christ in Baptism and the presence of Christ in the Supper you will have to find Christ elsewhere. This attempt often ends up in tortured introspectionism — I know, I've been there.
Al | Homepage | 07.09.04 - 12:33 pm | #

Hello all,

I just found this site, and look forward to reading some of the back-articles here.

I'm at work right now and don't have time to post anything at length, but I just wanted to suggest that it is perhaps unwise to base one's understanding of faith on the articles or "confessions of faith" by others. While these can certainly be illuminating, our understanding of faith should always be tested against Scripture itself.

I hope to post more on this tonight.

Thanks.
Scott S. | 07.09.04 - 3:01 pm | #

It is interesting to me to read some of the criticisms of Believer's baptism as being about our work rather than God's.

That is because in my church we are encouraged to make some sort of confession. Usually is is the pastor asking pointed questions about what we believe about Christ. My pastor didn't ask me anything specific, probably because he knows me well and didn't have any doubts as to why I was getting baptized.

As I was preparing for my baptism, I tried to write a script about my conversion and the events leading up to it. The evening of the baptism, it hit me - or, rather the Spirit spoke to me - that this wasn't about me. It was about God. So, when I got up to be baptized, I said I had written a lot about what I wanted to say about me. Then I said that it wasn't about me...

So, in some sense, without even realizing it, my Believer's baptism was an explicit denounciation of MY work and an illumination of HIS work.

I regard my own infant baptism as meaningless. Neither of my parents was a believer. Baptism was just something you did in our social circle. In fact, my dad told me once that the reason he wanted me to know about church was so that I could avoid a cult like the Moonies or something. It was almost as if he was saying that "This cult-Christianity-was socially accptable and didn't involve mass weddings or suicides, and so it was my defense against getting really radical and freaking out.

Hmm...
Steve | 07.09.04 - 6:34 pm | #

What do you think of this situation? What does it say about how some congregations views on the believer's baptism?

I know of various people who, as adults, professed their belief in Christ in one church, were baptized, and later joined a different congregation.

That new congregation, or at least its leader, required that this person profess belief again and be baptized again.

Why wasn't the first profession of belief and the first baptism of these people valid enough for the new congregation?

To me, this seems like an act of disrespect toward these Christians.
Sean Gallagher | 07.10.04 - 10:32 am | #

What about the following situation?

There is a significant party within the Church of Christ in the present day who refuse to recognize the validity of the Baptisms of most of their brethren within the Church.

They insist that their brothers get rebaptized, despite the fact that God sealed His covenant with them as they were baptized in the Triune name.

Not to put too fine a point on it, this seems like an act of disrespect to God (who has to repeat Himself) and to their brethren (who are declared to be unbaptized).

Now we all know that Baptists are well-intentioned and are seeking to be faithful to Scripture. However, this does not do away with the serious nature of their error.
Al | Homepage | 07.10.04 - 11:25 am | #

Sean G. Some fair comments. I take it you are Catholic? (I am Evangelical and visit Masses).

I actually believe that we as Christians have much to learn, digest and 'drink' concerning baptism. At times, I think we have separated the Spirit to much from the water.

Just random thinking.

Matt
Anonymous | 07.10.04 - 5:49 pm | #

Yes, I am a Catholic. But I think that it is important to note that the Catholic Church accepts as valid any baptism that is done with water, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and with the ordinary intention that is ordinarily connected with baptism.

Therefore the Catholic Church accepts as Christian anyone baptized in just about any congregation out there.

When a person from such a congregation seeks to enter into full communion in the Catholic Church, that person is not 're-baptized' (there really is no such thing), even if he or she would like to.
Sean Gallagher | 07.11.04 - 8:05 pm | #

Allow me to clarify one thing.

In saying that the Catholic Church accepts as Christian anyone baptized in just about any Christian congregation out there, I am not therefore saying that all of these Christians, as well as many within the Catholic Church, are not in need of a profound continuing conversion.

However, I hold that this continuing conversion is distinct from one initially becoming a Christian.
Sean Gallagher | Homepage | 07.11.04 - 8:11 pm | #

David: "Of course, just like the fact that not all Jews were saved, not all who are covenant members are saved."

Jeremiah: " ... And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying 'Know the LORD:' for they shall all know Me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."
Henry IX | 07.12.04 - 1:10 pm | #

should the old testament be taken literally?
sidewinder | 07.12.04 - 1:50 pm | #

sidewinder: "should the old testament be taken literally?"

The author of Hebrews seems to have thought so.
Henry IX | 07.12.04 - 4:40 pm | #

As a physicist, you should be familiar with entropy and so may find this enlightening:

http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~tom...~toms/paper/ev/
Tom Schneider | Homepage | 09.05.04 - 11:53 pm | #

God's love is more boundless
than space.. only time separates
those saved now from those who
will be
-------
Remind Christians of Christ's Words Against Violence
Remind Bush Supporters Who Call Themselves Christian..of the words of Jesus and Abba the Father-------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------


quotes never passed on by pseudoChristians


Isaiah's
TURN THEIR WEAPONS INTO PLOWSHARES
BREAK NOT THE BRUISED REED
THEY SHALL NOT HURT NOR DESTROY IN ALL MY HOLY MOUNTAIN

Jesus'
LOVE YOUR ENEMIES
DO GOOD TO THOSE WHO HATEYOU
TURN THE OTHER CHEEK
IF A MAN SUE THEE FOR THY CLOAK GIVE HIM THY COAT ALSO



GOD'S
THOU SHALT NOT KILL (not asterisked with exceptions)
REVENGE IS MINE SAITH THE LORD (not ours)
si | Homepage | 09.06.04 - 11:01 am | #