AND FINALLY, BAPTISM

I was saved in my 20’s at a very sound, evangelical Baptist church. The church was healthy. The pastor was a gentle shepherd and a man of God. Their doctrine of salvation, or soteriology, was orthodox. They read and recommended good books. Because I was new in the faith I simply assumed that their view of baptism was equally sound. I was baptized two months after my conversion and like most good Baptists the event was accompanied by my testimony. I’m not sure what baptism meant to me at the time, but I am sure that a major component was that I was making some kind of commitment to the Lord to be faithful to Him all the days of my Christian life. Through the years I held to a view of baptism as an act of obedience in proclaiming my faith publicly before many witnesses. In short I believed baptism was something I DID, a public, personal commitment to God.

But there was always an uneasiness in my soul thinking of baptism that way. As a Calvinist I had always believed that everything in the Christian life begins with God and ends with God. He is, as John writes, the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last. By His divine choice God saved me. By His divine condescension, He sent Jesus into the world to save me. By His love for humanity He gave the inspired Scriptures to mankind so that I could know the way of salvation. God was always previous as Tozer wrote. Yet my view of baptism (and communion) seemed contrary to my overall understanding of salvation. In baptism I was doing something for God, promising to serve Him all my days. Unbeknownst to me I was laying on my shoulders a responsibility that I knew I couldn’t uphold.

Reformation teaching through conduits like the The White Horse Inn, Ligonier, and more recently, Theocast, and 1517, reminded me over and over that baptism was not my promise to God but God’s promise to me. Understanding baptism as God’s promise to me took a great weight off my shoulders. No longer did I view my Christian life as my having to maintain a fervor for God all my days but that God was working in me to ‘will and to do of is good pleasure’ (Phil 2:13). In other words I realized that my Christian life was continuous pouring forth of God’s grace in my life which alone was the basis of my continued faith and assurance. The only thing the Bible asked me to do was to trust in Jesus Christ and receive His offer of the gospel. But even in this I realized it was God’s gift. He did it all, and that truth brought me indescribably comfort. What a change this perspective wrought in my heart! I now realized that everything I was and would be fell under the determined will of God. No longer was salvation my responsibility, in fact, I couldn’t even cooperate with God in my salvation. That didn’t mean that my will was negated. But it did mean that my will could only operate in obedience if it was energized by God’s grace. I had to agree with Jonah in the belly of the great fish, ‘salvation is of the Lord.’

This change in perspective caused me to address my view of baptism. I began to consider the merits of baptizing babies and why so many men I respected believed it. I learned quickly that the strength of this position, called pedobaptism, was that it preserved God’s initiative in every spiritual work. And if God initiates the work then why can’t He work in babies? The baptism of babies was the ultimate admission that all spiritual initiative belongs to God. This sounded reasonable to me but I found myself bumping into another wall. I believed that God initiates all things but I also held to the Reformation mantra of sola fide, that is, salvation can come only by the sinner exercising faith. The obvious question then was, ‘how could a baby exercise faith”? Well, he couldn’t. Thus God must be doing something other than saving the child in baptism. Growing up as a Roman Catholic I was told that baptism justified the baby and washed away his original sin. But as a Christian I knew this could not be true. Justification by one’s faith was a truth I saw everywhere in the Bible. There must be something else God does in the baptism of infants that I had not yet grasped.

As I wrestled with baptism I realized I didn’t really hadn’t understood all its complexities. I was also confused why credobaptists (baptizing only those who have exercised faith) and pedobaptists continued to argue about this issue after two thousand years. To get closer to the truth I first had to rule out things I knew baptism could not be. That might help me get closer to the truth. What were those things? First, I knew baptism had to be a work of God and not of man. Thus I could rule out any baptism that was merely an act of human obedience. Just as God gave us the word and communicates grace through that word, so I realized that God can communicate grace through water as well. In other words spiritual realities could be communicated through physical means. Christians were not Gnostics. Thus, if God gave baptism to the church and the bible seemed to indicate that something special was happening at baptism then it must actually be communicating grace to the soul. But what exactly did it do? The second principle I could not violate was that of faith. If baptism was a gift, then it must be received by faith if it were to bring any benefit. Again I compared baptism to the word of God. The word of God was God’s gift from heaven to us and had power (Heb 4:12). But the word only had power as it was received by the open hand of faith. Did that mean all modes of pedobaptism were unbiblical? Not necessarily. Just as circumcision could in time benefit the circumcised child wasn’t it possible that baptism might do the same? As a seed can remain dormant in the ground for months and germinate months later, wasn’t it possible that baptism of a child could communicate its benefits long after the water was first administered? This I pondered.

I began to see that perhaps, depending on the context, both adult and infant baptism could be acceptable to God. In the midst of this struggle I happed upon Romans chapter 4:11-12, a text I had read many times.

‘And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised.’

This chapter is Paul’s most compelling argument that salvation comes by faith alone. To prove his point he invites his readers to think about the covenant mark of circumcision given to Abraham in Genesis chapter 17. Many have tried to tie the Old Covenant rite of circumcision to New Covenant baptism. And while there is some connection between the two they are not the same. One is the sign of a national covenant tied to a legal code that separates one nation unto God and separates her from all the rest. The other is a mystical covenant that separates a disparate people from every nation unto their Lord, not on a legal basis but on a gracious and personal one. Nevertheless I saw a parallel between the two. Paul’s point in this section in Romans 4 was to prove that the sign of circumcision was not salvific but a sign of covenant membership to those born into the covenant, but that spiritual circumcision was afforded to pagans coming to faith and was an emblem of salvation. Abraham was a peculiar example of this. He was saved by faith (Gen 15:6) but was not circumcised until years later. But the bible did not therefore dismiss circumcision as nothing. Rather after Abraham’s conversion all who were part of his covenant family were to be circumcised even though they didn’t believe. In Paul;s mind circumcision has a role to play both in the salvation of a pagan and in the salvation of those born into the covenant family. To this point Paul says that Abraham is both the father to the uncircumcised and the father to the circumcised. I found this insight intriguing. Both the uncircumcised group who were circumcised on account of faith and the circumcised group who came to faith later on found their identity in Abraham. What seems to be the key of understanding Paul’s thinking is to grasp the idea that circumcision has a slightly different application in each group. To pagans or gentiles circumcision was the ‘sign’ of what they had already done the day they trusted Christ. To the Jews, circumcision was a ‘seal’ that kept them in the covenant community where they were likely to believe the gospel later on. Circumcision had a role to play in both groups.

Thinking this through I now turned my mind to baptism. If a person is brought up in a pagan environment (or is baptized in a church that does not see baptism as entrance into the covenant community as in Roman Catholicism and many mainline Evangelical churches), and he then comes to Christ, he should be baptized. The great commission written to the evangelist-Apostles makes this clear. Go out to the nations, teach them and when there is conversion, baptize them. This baptism was not merely testimonial nor was it an act of commitment to God. It was a sacrament that actually communicated grace to the recipient and served as an ongoing, efficacious sign of their faith. How exactly the baptism communicates grace to an adult who comes to faith is clear. What is clear is that something happens in the water. Perhaps we can compare baptism to the mystical work of the word of God as it goes forth. Everyone believes that the word of God has an intrinsic power, whether that be the power to save or the power to sanctify. But how it works it shrouded in divine mystery. May we not then also say the same of baptism, which is dramatic picture of the gospel? Though baptism does not save in conversion, it does work manifestly in the life of the one receiving the water. So baptism given to one coming out of a pagan background is important in that it provides a further means of grace to help the newly converted person in his life of faith. It works in them the continual cleansing from sin and communicates forgiveness in ways that strengthen their souls. It is ongoing communication of grace by God to the baptized one.

But what of a child born into a family of parents who are in covenant relationship to God? Then the baptism takes on a whole new role. Like circumcision, this baptism places the child into the visible covenant community, thereby placing that child in an advantageous position of believing as compared to his heathen neighbor. Such a child is brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord and is reminded repeatedly about God, the Savior and God’s salvation. He is instructed in the ways of salvation and is brought up in the womb of truth. Here baptism serves as the entryway into the community of believers whereby the child is privileged to soak in all the gospel promises. This often leads to faith and conversion later in life. And one of the great instruments God uses in their future conversion is their baptism. This is why in covenant churches the baptized ones are repeatedly encouraged to look back at the baptism for in doing that they are receiving a fresh supply of God’s saving work.

Baptism then finds an important role in the lives of those coming out of pagan environments and those born into covenant environments. Seen in this way we find a warrant for baptism for children as well as adults, depending, of course, on the context. And seeing baptism this way allows for a more meaningful conversation between the proponents of pedo and credo baptism.

Is this the final answer to the mystery of baptism? Is this the answer to bring the differing views of baptism together? Hardly. The issue still remains a knotty one. Many questions are yet to be answered. We must still deal with groups that say baptism is salvific or regenerative and who use Acts 2:38, and 1 Peter 3:21 as their prooftexts. We must still deal with some Lutherans who connect baptism with forgiveness of sins, using Titus 3:5 to support their claim. We must also ask about children who are brought up in churches that practice baptism but do not administer it as a means of grace nor as one’s entrance into the covenant community. We must still deal with churches that do not take the sacraments seriously. So for now the best we can do is draw the larger boundaries where baptism is acceptable and leave the delicate details for others to study.

So what can we say for sure about baptism? First, the sacrament of baptism was given to the church by her Head, Jesus Christ, as another means to strengthen her, and one of the gospel proclamations that works in conjunction with the word of God. Thus, it is wrong to view baptism as a work that man does in obedience to God. We don’t volunteer for God’s army, He recruits us by sovereign grace and then equips us for the long fight ahead. Baptism is one of the ways God equips His soldiers. In addition baptism must never interfere with the core doctrine of Christianity, which is justification by faith alone, or sola fide. We cannot subscribe to any system that equates baptism with actual salvation, or that finds some special magical quality in water ex opere operato (in the very working of it). Baptism can be administered to bring one into the orbit of the covenant community but cannot save them. Faith alone does that. Also, baptism may also be given to adult believers who have come out of pagan environment who have believed. This does not save them but works as a sign of their salvation and communicates grace to their souls. Within these boundaries there remains room for friendly debate. Perhaps in another generation better answers will be given. We can therefore join hands with those who may see baptism in a different light than us so long as we agree on the gospel. Truly baptism is important. God instituted it. But it is not the door of salvation, which belongs to faith alone, but is the happy servant that helps those who enter the door to live in accordance with God’s will.

In summary, this article does not in any way intend to clear up all the baptism debates. What it hopes to accomplish is to lower the temperature in the baptism debate. What I have aimed to show is that baptism can be administered in different modes depending on the church community in which a child is born. Let us review. If we view people as pagans who dwell outside the covenant of God (Eph 2:11-12) then baptism will be administered when they believe. If a child, however, is born into the covenant community of a faithful church, then they may be baptized into that community to formally attach them to the body of Christ. Being in that community, the hope is that they will come to full realization of their baptism by trusting in the Savior. What unites these two views is that both preserve the truth of salvation by faith alone, which, so I have heard, is the doctrine upon which the church stands or falls.