the meaning of Baptism

[MennoSota]

2. Baptism Expresses Union with Christ

Second, baptism “expresses union with Christ in His death and resurrection.” The clearest teaching on this is Romans 6:3-4.

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by* the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
In the wider context of Romans, I think it would be a mistake to say that water-baptism is the means of our being united to Christ. In Romans, faith is the means by which we are united to Christ and justified. But we show this faith—we say this faith and signify this faith and symbolize this faith—with the act of baptism. Faith unites to Christ; baptism symbolizes the union.

An analogy would be saying, “With this ring I thee wed.” When we say that we don’t mean that the ring or the putting of the ring on the finger is what makes us married. No, it shows the covenant and symbolizes the covenant, but the covenant-making vows make the marriage. So it is with faith and baptism.

So similarly Paul is saying, “With this baptism you are united to Christ.” And the point we are focusing on here is that we are united to him in his death and burial and resurrection. “We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.” So the imagery of baptism is death, burial, and resurrection. Christ was buried and raised to new life.

In baptism, by faith, we are united with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection. Baptism dramatically portrays what happened spiritually when you received Christ: Your old self of unbelief and rebellion and idolatry died, and a new you of faith and submission and treasuring Christ came into being. That’s what you confess to the world and to heaven when you are baptized.

 

[Josiah]

Even Luther said it lol.

https://www.gospelway.com/salvation/baptism_action.php

Luther urged, in opposition to the standard practice of pouring, that baptism should be by immersion. He pointed out that the word in the Greek language means 'To plunge something entirely into the water, so that the water closes over it,' and urged that immersion should be the mode of baptism. Today, however, the general practice of the Lutheran Church is to administer baptism by pouring, although immersion is also permitted" - A Compend of Luther's Theology, p. 167, via Handbook of Religious Quotations, p. 11.

I think you have RADICALLY over-stated the situation....

Yes, Luther once commented that he liked the SYMBOLISM of immersion, but he NEVER, EVER, REMOTELY stated that in his opinion this is the mandated mode and all other ways are forbidden and not valid. And when NO Lutherans immersed anyone, he had no problem with that - defrocking NO ONE over this question, not even correcting any.

I agree with Luther. I rather like the SYMBOLISM too - but that's a far cry from saying it's manditory and if done otherwise, it's invalid. I like the SYMBOLISM of all coming up in groups around the altar for Communion, I like the SYMOLISM of having one large "pizza" of unleaven bread from which a piece is broken off, I like the SYMBOLISM of a common chalice.... but that's light years different than saying that's the only PERMISSIBLE way, the ONLY way the Bible states we can do it, all other ways are invalid..... and that it's all a waste of time and of "no spiritual value" anyway so why bother.

 

[MennoSota]

3. Baptism Is Immersion in Water

Third, we believe this expression of union with Christ in death and resurrection happens “by being immersed in water.” The clearest evidence for this are the words of Romans 6:3-4 which describe the act of baptism as burial and rising from the dead. This is most naturally understood to mean that you are buried under water and then come out of from the water to signify rising from the grave.

The word baptism in Greek means dip or immerse. And most scholars agree that this is the way the early church practiced baptism. Only much later does the practice of sprinkling or pouring emerge, as far as we can tell from the evidence.

There are a few other pointers to immersion besides the meaning of the word and the imagery of death and burial. In Acts 8:37-38, the Ethiopian eunuch comes to faith while riding with Philip in his chariot and says, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” Philip agrees and it says, “He commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.”

That they “went down into the water” makes most sense if they were going down to immerse him, not to sprinkle him. Similarly it says in John 3:23, “John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because water was plentiful there.” You don’t need plentiful water if you are simply sprinkling. You just need a jar.

So there is really very little dispute that this was the way the early church baptized. They did it by immersing the new believer in water to signify his burial and resurrection with Jesus.

 

[MennoSota]

4. Baptism Is in the Trinitarian Name

Fourth, baptism means doing this immersing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That’s what Jesus said in Matthew 28:19: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” This means that not just any immersing is baptism. There is a holy appeal to God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit to be present in this act and make it true and real in what it says about their work in redemption. There is no salvation without the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. When we call on their name, we depend upon them and honor them and say that this act is because of them and by them and for them.

 

[MennoSota]

5. Baptism Is for Believers Only

Fifth, baptism is an expression of faith and therefore only for believers. The key sentence in the Bethlehem Elder Affirmation says, “We believe that baptism is an ordinance of the Lord by which those who have repented and come to faith express their union with Christ in His death and resurrection.” So our understanding of the New Testament is that the meaning of baptism includes the fact that it is an expression of the faith of the one being baptized. It is not something that an unbeliever can do. It is not something than an infant can do. That is why we don’t baptize infants.

There are several passages that have had the greatest influence on me over the years in persuading me of the Baptist view. One of the most important is Colossians 2:11-12.

In him [Christ] also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ [so Paul speaks of circumcision in “made-without-hands” terms. Circumcision today has meaning for the Christian, not as a physical act, but as a spiritual act of Christ in which he cuts away the old sinful body and makes us new. It is virtually synonymous with the new birth. Then he speaks of baptism], 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.
So the image of spiritual circumcision is closely connected with the image of baptism: “You were circumcised . . . having been baptized . . .” The old “body of flesh” was cut away in conversion; you died and rose again in baptism.

 

[MennoSota]

rose again in baptism.

The Argument for Infant Baptism

It’s probably right, therefore, to say that baptism has replaced circumcision as the mark of being part of the people of God. In the Old Testament men were circumcised to signify membership in the old-covenant people of God, and in the New Testament men and women are baptized to signify membership in the new-covenant people of God.

That has led many Christians to assume that, since circumcision was given to the male children of the people of the old covenant, therefore baptism should be given to the male and female children of the people of the new covenant. That’s the gist of the argument.

Why It Does Not Work

But textually and covenantally, it doesn’t work. Look carefully at Colossians 2:12: “. . . having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith . . .” The words through faith are all important on this issue. Paul says that when you come up out of the water signifying being raised with Christ this is happening through faith. Verse 12: “. . . in which [baptism] you were also raised with him through faith.”

Baptism as a drama of death and resurrection with Christ gets its meaning from the faith that it expresses. In baptism you are “raised with him through faith.”

 

[Albion]

Luther urged, in opposition to the standard practice of pouring, that baptism should be by immersion.

But that's because of the symbolism involved, a point that almost all of the churches that baptize by pouring will tell you.

Immersion involves good symbolism but that doesn't make other modes wrong, unBiblical, or meaningless.

That's different from the claims made by people from churches that follow the "Believers' Baptism" POV. They almost always insist that immersion is absolutely the only valid way to baptize and they further insist, wrongly, that the Bible indicates that immersion is the only way it was done in the NT church.

 

[MennoSota]

Through Faith!

Paul shows the same way of thinking about baptism and faith in Galatians 3:26-27: “In Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” We become sons of God through faith and no other way. Then he says, “for”—connecting this way of becoming sons of God with baptism—“for as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”

That explanation with the word for only makes sense if baptism is understood as an acting out of faith. “In Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” Or to turn it around: Since you were baptized into Christ, therefore we know that in Christ you are all sons of God through faith. Why? Because that is what baptism means: You were baptized into Christ by faith. Baptism without faith was inconceivable to Paul.

 

[MennoSota]

New-Covenant Membership by Spiritual Birth

So when the shift happened in redemptive history from the old covenant to the new covenant and from circumcision to baptism, there was a shift from an ethnic focus on Israel and only males being given the sign of membership in the people, to a spiritual focus on the church of all nations with both male and female being given the sign of membership in the people, namely, baptism.

Membership in the new-covenant people of God is not by physical birth, but by spiritual birth. That new birth happens by the word of God, the gospel (1 Peter 1:23-25). Therefore, the church should be composed not of the believers and their infants, but believers only. And the sign of membership in the new covenant people is not a sign for infants but a sign for believers.

 

[MennoSota]

Membership in the Local Church

So we can see how the meaning of baptism is woven together with membership in the people of God. And since the local church is an expression of that people, baptism is closely connected to membership in the local church. In the New Testament, being a Christian, being baptized, belonging to the new-covenant people of God, and being a member of a local church were linked together. If you tried to pull one of those out (not a Christian, or not baptized, or not in the new-covenant people, or not a member of local church), it would have made no sense. They belonged together.

So baptism is important.

It was uncompromisingly commanded by the Lord Jesus.
It was universally administered to Christians entering the early church.
It was uniquely connected to conversion as an unrepeatable expression of saving faith.

 

[MennoSota]

It was uniquely connected to conversion as an unrepeatable expression of saving faith.
May God Grant Us Wisdom

So now after two sermons, we have two things that are important. Baptism is important. And the nature of the local church as a sacred expression of the universal body of Christ is important.

Failing to be baptized is serious.* Excluding genuine believers from the local church is serious.

There are godly, Bible-believing, Christ-exalting, God-centered followers of Jesus who fail to see the dreadfulness of not being baptized as a believer. And there are godly, Bible-believing, Christ-exalting, God-centered followers of Jesus who fail to see the dreadfulness of excluding such people from church membership.

The question we should ask is not only hard to answer, but it is hard to formulate. Perhaps the Lord in his mercy will show us how to do both in a way that will cut this knot for his glory. May the Lord grant a wisdom like Solomon’s or, even better, a wisdom like the One who is greater than Solomon.

Amen.

 

[Lamb]

1. Baptism Is an Ordinance of the Lord

First, “We believe that baptism is an ordinance of the Lord . . .” What we mean by this is that the Lord Jesus commanded it—he ordained it—in a way that would make it an ongoing practice of the church. We find this most explicitly in Matthew 28:19-20: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.”

“Make disciples” is the main verb: “Having gone, make disciples of all nations.” The defining participles are “baptizing them” and “teaching” them. So the church is commanded to do this for all disciples. Making disciples of all nations includes baptizing them.

And the time frame is defined by the promise of Christ’s help in verse 20: “And behold,* I am with you always, to* the end of the age.” The promise of help is for as long as this age lasts. So the command he promises to help us with is as long as this age lasts.
So baptism is a command, and ordinance, of the Lord Jesus to be performed in making disciples until Christ returns at the end of the age.

That seems to contradict what you stated here:

Baptism comes after going and making disciples, no matter how you slice it.

It backs up what I was saying to you.

 

[Josiah]

Thing is..... While a denomination for the past 500 years has been saying it, Scripture NEVER states, "Thou canst NOT baptized before they hath attained the age of X and hath previously documented and proven that they are born again, believe and art saved." That prohibition never appears in Scripture. It comes form a denomination founded in the 16th Century, not from Scripture (or anything before it came along).

 

[MennoSota]

Reformed theologians with a robust doctrine of the sacraments have viewed sola fide and baptismal regeneration as incompatible. For example, James Bannerman readily admits to his Baptist opponent that “if Sacraments are regarded as the causes or the means of justification, they are utterly inconsistent with the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone.”4 Furthermore, he asserts that it is legalistic to make the sacraments “instruments of justification and the source of faith.”5

 

[MennoSota]

Friedrich Schleiermacher, the German theologian wrote, “All traces of infant baptism which are asserted to be found in the New Testament must first be inserted there.” And he would come from a Lutheran tradition, but affirm…you would have to put it into the Bible because it isn’t there. The host of German and front-rank theologians and scholars of the Church of England have united to affirm not only the absence of infant baptism from the New Testament, but the absence from apostolic and post-apostolic writers. This is the Anglican Church, the Church of England that does infant baptism. This is the Lutheran Church that affirms and does infant baptism saying it’s not in the Bible.

It arose, first of all, started appearing in the second and third century, became normalized in the fourth century. B. B. Warfield who was a noted Presbyterian, Presbyterians do infant baptism, affirmed that infant baptism does not appear in the Scripture. We might think that if this is true that the Calvinistic regulative principle might be applied, the regulative principle of the Reformation said if Scripture doesn’t command it, it is forbidden. If Scripture doesn’t command it, it is forbidden, that was called the regulative principle.

 

[MennoSota]

You know, it saddens the heart of a Protestant, let alone a Baptist like me, by conviction to read such judgments from the pen of a Catholic historian. But truth must be honored. So the sixteenth century church as we know it, the Reformed Church that we love for its soteriology, knew no tolerance for rebaptizers. Infant baptism was required as the only baptism and defended by fire, water and the sword.

You would have thought that if one of the great hallmarks of the Reformation was sola scriptura, that if they really believed that everything had to come from the Scripture, they would have set aside infant baptism since it wasn’t anywhere in the Bible. But in spite of its absence in Scripture, they defended it and practiced it as if it was biblical and the pressure was that the Catholics had these unified states that were unified both by political and military power, but also unified by religious power and everybody was a Catholic because you were baptized a Catholic. And so you were under the tyranny of the church and that way they controlled their populations which made them powerful forces. And the Protestant states that they didn’t do that would be weakened by disparity and diversion and they had to make sure that all their people were also part of everything and there was absolute solidarity so they could defend themselves against the Catholic nations. So they held on to something that I am convinced that even Martin Luther knew wasn’t in the Bible and wasn’t really right.
https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/80-369/is-infant-baptism-biblical

 

[MennoSota]

But what is sad is that the Reformed Church never really filled up the Reformation. And when you debate this sometimes with them, they say, “Well, history tells us that the Reformers accepted that.” And when I hear that, I always say, “History is not a hermeneutic. History is not a principle of interpretation. It doesn’t matter what happened in history. A lot of things happen in history that can’t be viewed as the Revelation of God. Only honest hermeneutics, honest exegesis in the Scripture can yield the true meaning of Scripture. You can’t read habits into Scripture, you can’t read traditions into Scripture. History is no hermeneutic. History does not contribute to the true interpretation of Scripture. They will come back with this, “Well the Scripture doesn’t forbid infant baptism. The Scripture doesn’t forbid it.” That is really a very, very fragile argument. Are we supposed to affirm the reality of all kinds of things Scripture doesn’t forbid to justify that sprinkling babies as an act of Christian baptism is done because it’s not forbidden in Scripture and to standardize it, and imprint it with divine authority, though it’s a ceremony invented by men for the worst of political reasons is then to open the way to any ritual, any behavior, any ceremonial, any teaching or anything else that isn’t strictly forbidden by Scripture.

I go back to the regulative principle. If it’s not in the scripture, you can’t do it. Luther started out with his revolt against the Roman Catholic Church, drawing a line in the sand, he said this, “The Church needs to rid itself of all false glories that torture Scripture by inserting personal conceits into the Scripture. No…he said…Scripture, Scripture, Scripture for me constrain, press, compel me with God’s Word.” That’s a quote from Luther. But there are no scriptures.

Well, they say, “What about Matthew 18 where it says, ‘Except you become a little child, you can’t enter the Kingdom of Heaven.’” I don’t read anything about baptism there. All that’s saying is childlike faith is necessary to come into the Kingdom.

Well what about Matthew 19:14, Mark 10:14, Luke 18:16, “Let the little children come to Me for such is the Kingdom of Heaven.” I don’t see any baptism there. Our Lord is simply saying that God has a special care for children, not the children of believing parents and not baptized children. Jesus never baptized any children, nobody in the Bible ever baptized any children. Nobody was ever told to baptize children. All children were precious. The children that He held in His hand and blessed were not necessarily the children of believing parents and there is no baptism in any way…in any case anyway.

Well, searching for another Scripture, they come to Acts and 1 Corinthians. Wait a minute, five times in Acts and 1 Corinthians it talks about households being baptized, households being baptized. Some of them say that this is the act of solidarity in which a whole household is baptized…the father serves as a surrogate for the faith of the children, and so the father is baptized and then the mother and the others in the household, and the little ones are brought in and they’re baptized too under the Rubric or the protective umbrella of the faith of the father who is the surrogate for them and thus they’re baptized.

Well in those five places where it talks about households being baptized, it never mentions children ever. The first one is in the house of Cornelius and it says this, “All in his house heard the Word. The Spirit fell on all and all were baptized.” So the ones who were baptized were the ones who received the Holy Spirit because they heard the Word and believed. And the next time you have a household is in the sixteenth chapter of Acts in the jailor’s house, all heard the gospel and all were baptized. The ones who were baptized were the ones who heard the gospel and believed.

The next one, the eighteenth chapter, in the house of Crispus, all heard, all believed, all were baptized. Those who were baptized were those who believed because they heard. In the account of Lydia and Stephanas, the same thing would be true as in those very explicit texts. All hear the gospel, all believe the gospel, all receive the Holy Spirit, all are baptized. That’s what’s going on in the book of Acts. And there’s never a mention of a child.

In the Stephanas household of 1 Corinthians, all who were baptized, it says, 1 Corinthians 1, all who were baptized were devoted to the ministry of the saints. Compare that in the fifteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians. They were all helping in the spiritual work of the church, 1 Corinthians 1:16. They were baptized. They were devoted to the ministry of the saints. They were helping in the spiritual work of the church. Therefore they weren’t infants.

In the case of Lydia in Acts 16, her heart was opened in response to hearing the gospel and she believed and those who heard with her in her house believed. There are no children mentioned. In fact, there’s no husband mentioned, and if there’s no husband mentioned, very possible she didn’t have any children.

You have another reference to this in John 4:53, he himself believed and his whole household, referring to the noble man whose son Jesus healed. He himself believed and his whole household. It doesn’t say anything about being baptized, it says about believing, the household believed. That’s the model…you hear, you believe, you’re baptized.

Acts 2:38 says, “Repent, be baptized for the remission of sins.” And then people point out that in the next verse which is verse 39, they might be talking about infant baptism, for the promises of you and your children. Oh come on. “Your children” is referring to the next generation of Jews because it also says, “For your children and for all who are afar off.” Who are those that are afar off? Gentiles. The reference is to…the promise is for you and your children, that is generation after generation of Jews and to the Gentiles, the ones who are far off. This isn’t about Baptism…not about baptism at all, it’s about the promise of salvation to future generations of Jews and Gentiles.

So those would be the touchstone texts that people would use to defend infant baptism. You can’t find an infant in any of them and you certainly can’t find a baptism of any infant. One other one is 1 Corinthians chapter 7 and I’m just touching these because this is how people try to defend what isn’t in the Bible as if it were. “If a brother has a wife who is an unbeliever,” 1 Corinthians 7:12, “she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her.” Don’t just divorce your unbelieving wife because she’s not a believer. Verse 13 turns it the other way, “A woman has an unbelieving husband and he consents to live with her, she shouldn’t send her husband away.” That was the question in the early church. People coming to Christ, do I dump my unbelieving spouse? No…no. Verse 14, “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife. The unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband, otherwise your children are unclean and now they are holy, or separated.”

What is that saying? That is simply saying not that your husband should be baptized and your children should be baptized, though unconverted, but rather that if you as a believer are living with a husband and children that are non-believers, the blessings that flow to you will spill over to them. There is no mention of baptism whatsoever.

So the bottom line is those would be the passages people would go to to try to defend the infant baptism biblically, and they just don’t work...just don’t work at all. The full counsel of God is either expressly set forth in Scripture, explicitly set forth in Scripture, or the full counsel of God can be necessarily compellingly and validly deduced by good and logical consequence. But it has to be necessary, compelling, inescapable, good, and logical consequence like the fact that though the Bible doesn’t mention the Trinity, that is clearly what the Bible teaches that God is a Trinity. There are no arguments for infant baptism explicitly and there are no arguments that are necessary, inescapable, clear and compelling from Scripture…none whatsoever.

So the first point to make is that infant baptism is not in the Bible. It’s not in the Bible. Infant baptism is not biblical.

 

[MennoSota]

Point two, infant baptism is not baptism…it’s not New Testament baptism. This may surprise you, it’s nothing, it’s totally meaningless. Well you might have got emotional when you took your little child in there ‘cause you love your little child and you hope the best for him, or her. But as far as the spiritual condition of that child, it had absolutely no effect whatsoever. Infant baptism is not in the Bible, it is not New Testament baptism. And this is an uncontestable fact because when you do go in to the Bible in the New Testament and you talk about baptism and you study baptism, it is absolutely crystal clear what baptism is. The only people who are ever baptized in the New Testament are people who have come to faith in Christ. And baptism is always immersing them in water, it is never sprinkling water on their heads from a tiny little fountain.

Two verbs express this reality, bapto and baptidzo. Those two verbs are used when baptism is referred to. They mean to immerse, to dip down. The noun, baptisma is always used in Acts to refer to a believer being immersed in the water. Sprinkling is a completely different word, rhantismos, completely different word, never used to describe a believer’s baptism in the New Testament, never. Even Calvin who baptized babies wrote, “The word baptize means to immerse. It is certain that immersion was the practice of the early church,” end quote.

This ordinance was so designed by God and conveyed by the correct, inspired words to fit the symbolism of the ordinance. Immersion is commanded of every believer as a picture, as an object lesson, as a symbol, as a visual analogy of a spiritual reality. It is the way that God designed to publicly declare the truth of personal salvation. What does it symbolize when a person is immersed, submerged? Clearly unmistakably throughout the New Testament, Christian baptism is a picture of the union of a believer in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. That is clear from Romans 6, Galatians 2, Galatians 3, Colossians 2.

When you come to faith in Christ, you are placed into union with Christ. You are immersed into Him and therefore you are in Him in His death, His burial and His resurrection. Romans 6 makes that clear. “We were crucified with Him, buried with Him and we’ve risen with Him to walk in newness of life.” This is spiritually symbolized in water baptism. Immersion into water was and is the inseparable outward sign of a believer’s union with Jesus Christ. That’s why you go into all the world to preach the gospel to everybody, baptizing them…that’s the public confession of their union with Christ in a beautiful dramatic way. The only other ordinance ever given to the church is the Lord’s table. We can love the Lord, we can go to the cross, we can celebrate His death, we can rejoice in His death, we can seek forgiveness of sins, repent, confess without the Lord’s table but He’s told us to do that as a public declaration, a public proclamation, a visual remembrance of the cross. When we take that bread it’s His body, we drink that cup as a symbol of His blood, we understand that symbolism. That is true with baptism. You can make a confession of Christ, you can be a true believer and not be baptized. But you are being disobedient at that point, just as you are if you absent yourself from the Lord’s table because that is a way that the Lord has ordained for you to openly declare the union between yourself and Him in the great reality of His death, burial and resurrection.

Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are the two solemn acts which the Lord has appointed for His church and the church has the sacred duty to persevere and administer these precious institutions throughout its life. How horrible is it to imagine that people who believe in the true gospel would execute people for being baptized in the way they’re commanded to be baptized in Scripture. Horrible.

The significance of Baptism is unmistakably clear. In our day, an open solemn confession of the crucified risen Lord is necessary. All who experience the reality of the power of the risen Savior should give this public testimony to His glory as an act of obedience. In biblical Baptism in the New Testament manner, believers not only give testimony to their union with Christ…listen to this…they give testimony to their thoughtful, careful, submissive obedience to the holy Scripture in which nothing could be treated as unimportant.

Furthermore, in biblical Baptism, believers testify to a redeemed church. I’ll say more about that. We testify to a redeemed church, a church being made up only of those who have made that open and public confession because they are truly in union with Christ. By biblical Baptism, believers give fundamental rejection of all human regulations through which clear biblical teaching has been obscured or curtailed or supplanted. By biblical Baptism, the church signifies a public renunciation of the nominal and mass Christianity of these massive institutions. By biblical Baptism, the church calls for the reintroduction and practice of biblical New Testament church order and discipline.

This is very, very important. Every expression in the New Testament concerning Baptism assumes that the convert receives Christ, renounces former life, embraces Him as Lord and is willing and eager to make that public confession. That’s the true believer, and that leads to an understanding of the true church.

In every case of New Testament Baptism, true saving faith, personal salvation is presupposed. It can’t function in the case of infants. It is nothing more than a bizarre fabrication.

 

[MennoSota]

Thirdly, infant Baptism is not in the Scripture, it’s not New Testament Baptism, and it is not, please, a replacement sign for the Abrahamic mark of circumcision. One of the other things that Reformed people say is that infant Baptism takes the place of circumcision. I’ve heard that argument for years. So my response is, what verse says that? Where is it? Show me the verse. Where in the Bible does it say, by the way, Baptism is a replacement of circumcision? Where does it say that? It doesn’t say that anywhere. That is a fairly large assumption. There are no cases of infant Baptism. There is no description of infant Baptism. There is no call for infant Baptism. And now you’re telling me we have to do it, it is mandated and this is what it means. And you’re telling me that it means something the Bible doesn’t say it means. How could the Bible say it means anything when the Bible doesn’t say anything about it?

These baby baptizers or paedo-Baptists as they’re often called, nonetheless, without scriptural support are left to some kind of inferential evidence based on supposed covenantal considerations. They say, “Well it replaces circumcision in the Old Testament. You know, it’s almost hard to argue against that because it’s just so totally off the wall. Since there’s nothing in the Bible that says that, why would they even conclude that?

Let me help you with circumcision for just…in a brief way. We don’t have time to talk a lot about it. Every Jewish baby boy was circumcised, every one of them. It was a sign that they belonged to the people called the Jews. It was a sign that they belonged to the nation Israel. It was not a sign of salvation. Right? Not a sign of salvation. What did Paul say in Romans 9? “Not all Israel is Israel.” He even said in Romans 9, “Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated.” Most Jews are under divine judgment. They were in the past, they were a rebellious, apostate, idolatrous, unfaithful, disloyal nation. And among that entire nation of circumcised people, there was a small remnant that believed. Now follow me.

If you make infant Baptism the substitute sign for circumcision, does that mean then that we now have a church that is a false church, or a rebellious church, or an unbelieving church, or an apostate church but it’s still a church and somewhere in the middle there’s a remnant of true believers? You see, circumcision was only a sign that people belonged to an ethnic group, a group called Jews, a nation called Israel. It said nothing about their spiritual condition. Baptism is always tied to salvation. There’s no parallel. There’s no connection.

Circumcision didn’t apply to girls. Circumcision was really a gift from God to protect Jewish women from forms of infection, to protect and preserve the nation. Say at all about their spiritual condition. If Baptism was a substitute for that, why didn’t Paul make his life so much easier by saying to all the Judaizers who were running all over everywhere demanding people to be circumcised, “Wait a minute. You guys don’t get it. Baptism replaces that.” That would have ended the argument. Then the Judaizers would have been satisfied. It never says that.

But that is exactly what people believe who baptize babies. That in the same way every Jewish boy, and this doesn’t answer the question of what about the girls, was circumcised, every baby should be baptized as circumcised boys were then in the covenant community of Israel, circumcised boys are in the covenant of Israel, baptized babies enter into the covenant community of the church. And when I ask them, “What do you mean by that?” It gets really strange.

They don’t want to say, “Well, it just means you get external membership and rights and privileges, it’s like being in Israel ‘cause there is no such national identity, there’s no ethnic identity.” The only Baptism that the New Testament knows anything about is the Baptism of people who put their faith in Christ. And since infants haven’t done that, what does this mean?

Well, there are people who believe that it saves them. It saves them. And so they serve their babies paedo-communion. They put the bread in a cup in a blender and feed it to their infant. It’s called presumptive regeneration. That’s the viewpoint that if your baby has been baptized, your baby must be presumed to be regenerate. I’m regenerate. My wife, Patricia, is regenerate and I will promise you with our four children, it was easy to presume that they were not regenerate, from the very beginning. It would have been a well-nigh impossible to make the presumption that our children were regenerate and shirk the responsibility to bring them to the true knowledge of Christ.

There is no connection in the New Testament whatsoever in any way, shape or form between circumcision as a physical mark identifying an ethnic people, a kind act on God’s part to protect them for the sake of pro-generation. And also to demonstrate their depravity and their sinfulness. That is one thing and it ceased.

Paul even went so far as to say, “If you’re circumcised, grace is no more grace. You’ve abandoned Christ.” Circumcision never transfers itself into Baptism at all…at all. And if we say that all these baptized babies form a covenant community, then we’ve got a strange kind of hybrid in the church…follow this…we’ve got some kind of a church made up of baptized people who aren’t really converted. And that’s what I said at the very beginning. The world is full of millions of these baptized people. Where do they belong?

 

[MennoSota]

Let me tell you something. This gets really difficult for people in the Anglican Church, people in the Episcopalian Church, people in these denominations, even Protestant denominations do this…what state are these people in? Are they all going to go to heaven?

I was locked up in a room for seven hours as one of the most well-known Reformed theologians on the face of the earth. At the end of seven hours, they said okay. What do you have to believe to be a Christian? You say, “If you’re in the church, you’re in the community of faith and you’re okay. What do you have to believe to be a true Christian, to which he replied, “That’s a good question,” and wouldn’t give me an answer. That comes right out of that kind of concept. There’s this idea that they’re sort of federally included. It gets to the point where salvation is a collected thing and you get into the collected saved group by infant Baptism.

How this could survive in a Reformed community where people hold on to the doctrine of justification by faith and all the solas is hard to understand. But eventually what it will do, it will eat away at the doctrine of justification and the people who are now coming out bold and strong for this kind of collective salvation, N.T. Wright and others, all the way down to many others in many forms. There’s sort of this collective community of believing people brought in by Baptism will eventually jettison the true doctrine of justification by faith and individual personal salvation.

It does matter what you believe about this. It matters a lot because it confounds, and this is the fourth thing I want to say, it confounds the nature of the church. Infant Baptism is not in the Scripture, it is not New Testament baptism, it is not the New Testament equivalent to circumcision. And infant Baptism is not consistent with the nature of the church. Infant Baptism confuses hopelessly the church. You can’t distinguish between believer and non-believer. The local church becomes the true church. The baptized become the church. Paedo-Baptism, to say it another way, destroys the reality of a regenerate church.

You’d be amazed how many people who are clear-minded on the doctrine of justification have an ecclesiology that’s completely confused. Who’s a Christian? A baptized person? Is that a true child of God? Is that a true church? Is that a true church but a weak true church? And are we who are true believers sort of the pure in the midst of the impure, but all a part of the church. Again, the world is full of baptized people who are indifferent, blasphemous, haters of Christianity, not in the church at all, no interest in it.

What are we to think of them? What are they? To be in the church, you must put your trust in Christ. At the beginning, when Luther sort of led the Reformation, he had a lofty idealism, some writers say. He was contending for Christianity that would embrace freedom and renounce force and live only by the Word of God and by the Spirit of God. To him, in the early days, as to us, the Scripture was the only standard for all issues of personal life, including the issue of Baptism. Let me quote Luther.

“I say that God wants no compulsory service. I say it a hundred-thousand times. God wants no compulsory service, no one can or ought to be compelled to believe for the soul of a man is an eternal thing, above all that is temporal. Therefore only by an eternal word must it be governed and grasped for it is simply insulting to govern in God’s presence with human law and custom, neither the Pope nor a Bishop nor any other man has the right to decree a single syllable concerning a Christian, apart from his consent. All that comes to pass otherwise comes to pass in the spirit of tyranny,” end quote.

You can’t force anything on any one, superimpose on them some required religious duty, not in Scripture. That’s how Luther started. However, by 1527 he turned back to the state church because he was afraid he needed to maintain oneness of doctrine in order to maintain solidarity and power, political military power. So as it had through the Dark Ages from the fourth century on, the church became buried in the state church and essentially the state church extinguished the true church.

It didn’t take long for the true church in Europe to just disappear altogether. Infant Baptism served the state power and eventually obliterated the true church. The only way you know what the true church is, is by personal faith in Christ. The testimony to that is given in Baptism.

Oh I could say more about that, but our time is gone. So I think I have one more here and I’ll just make this brief. Infant Baptism is not consistent with Reformation soteriology…not consistent with Reformation soteriology. What do I mean by that?

The Reformers rediscovered the doctrine of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone…the doctrine of justification. The doctrine of imputation, that our sins are placed on Christ in His death, and His righteousness is given to us. This is imputation. This is the great doctrine. Faith alone is the condition by which salvation is received, faith alone…faith alone.

Here is the Reformed Heidelberg Catechism, seventy-fourth question, “Shall one baptize young children also? Yes, for they, as well as the old people, appertain to the covenant of God in His church and in the blood of Christ the redemption from sins and the Holy Spirit who works faith has promised not less than to the older.” Baptize them because they’re promised salvation in the Holy Spirit.

“Therefore shall they also through Baptism as the sign of the Covenant be incorporated in the Christian church and be distinguished from the children of unbelievers as in the Old Testament took place by circumcision.” See, they’ve got this confounding connection to circumcision. “And now they’re placing them in the Christian church, bringing them under the blood of Christ, the redemption from sin, the work of the Spirit who produces faith and it’s promised to them in the same way that it’s promised to older people.”

That’s Lutheran. That’s out of the heritage of Luther. Luther finally wound up having to defend the fact that infants have faith. He said, “The Anabaptists are right, the Baptism without faith profits nothing, and that thus in fact children ought not to be baptized if they have no faith.” We agree with that. Luther said, “The Lord says most decidedly, ‘He who believes not shall be damned. But the assertion of the Anabaptists is false, the children cannot believe. If children are to be baptized, they must be able to believe, they must have faith,” end quote.