Friday, November 23, 2018

If You Don't Like That I Baptize My Infant, Stop Being Christian (or) You Say "Believer's Baptism" But Clearly Don't Know What Either Word Means

Ah, a favorite target of the radical reformed protestant: infant baptism.

(Following clear passages of Scripture is sooooo cool!)

Much like with the words of institution ("this is my body... this is my blood..."), members of churches that aren't labeled Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, or Anglican tend to like attacking clear Biblical teachings.  (There are some in those groups that attack as well, but official stance precludes such stupidity.)

(And I'm looking at you, ELCA, when I say that.)

A while back I read an article posted about how Christians should give up Lent for Lent.  Overall, its clear the author didn't get why people do give up something in the first place.  But I'm focusing on how they used the historic practice of infant baptism as a reason why people should reject giving up something for Lent.

(And, no, I'm not going to provide the link.  Mostly because the article was dumb.)

I'll admit, I don't give up stuff for Lent.  Mostly because I don't have the willpower and stamina to see it through, and I probably won't give up something substantial anyway.  Besides, it's not something "necessary," unlike how Christ died for our sins, which is the point of Lent.

What does that have to do with infant baptism?  Nothing.  At all.

Except for the undeniable fact that through baptism we are joined to Christ's death, and that this baptism is for all people of all races and all ages - including infants.

Nowhere in Scripture does it teach that baptism is an outward sign of one's faith.  Or a symbol.  Or an act of obedience.  Or that there are different versions.  Or that you, the dead man, can choose it.

(Warning!  This blog post, and this blog in general, is dangerous to the followers of the heterodox teachings of Arminius and Calvin.)

What Scripture does teach, with clear and understandable words, is that baptism saves you, regardless of your age, gender, race, nationality, political affiliation, job, tax bracket, hair style, language, music preference, or shoe size.  An infant being brought to baptism in the Triune name of God receives the exact same baptism received by the people at Pentecost, by the Ethiopian eunuch, and by Cornelius.

If you are one of those who find yourself antagonistic to this historic and undeniably biblical practice and currently find yourself feeling a bit more like an irate Dr. Bruce Banner, I'm not sorry.

And why should I be?  Why should I be sorry for proclaiming the Good News of Jesus Christ?  Why should I be sorry for reading Scripture and believing it means exactly what it says?  Why should I be sorry for wanting to provide my children with the same saving faith I was raised in?  Why should I be sorry for not rejecting my Lord's command but following it to the letter?

It's the antagonists to this time-honored and biblical practice that should be sorry***.


Don't believe me?  That's fine.  I'll stop using my words, and simply use the words of God.  Here are some passages about baptism.  (And, in reality, opponents of this using the line "you have your passages that support you're belief and we have ours" are dumb.  Because we Lutherans have all the passages supporting us.  This is just the quick list for those who do not have the time for a full-bore exegetical study.)
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  1 Peter 3:21
Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."  Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?"  Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.  That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.  Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'  The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."  John 3:3-8
"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."  Mark 16:16
And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.  For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."  Acts 2:38-39
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, 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.  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.  Colossians 2:11-13
There is one body and one Spirit--just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call-- one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.  Ephesians 4:4-6
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her, that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that He might present the church to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.  Ephesians 5:25-27
And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.  1 Corinthians 6:11
And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on His name.  Acts 22:16
On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.  And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying.  Acts 19:5-6
The Spirit and the Bride say, "Come." And let the one who hears say, "Come." And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price.  Revelation 22:17
I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you.  And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.  And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.  Ezekiel 36:25-27
Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.  Hebrews 10:22
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?  By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?  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.  Romans 6:1-4
For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.  And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.  Galatians 3:27-29
He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to His own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by His grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.  Titus 3:5-7
"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. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."  Matthew 28:19-20
For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.  If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that he has borne concerning his Son.  1 John 5:7-9
For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.  1 Corinthians 10:1-4
To be honest, this list alone should be enough, without any explanation, context, or defense.  And yet, there are "Christians" who make it necessary to stand up for the biblical and historic practices of the Church Catholic.

(And before anyone gets their big kid skivvies in a twist, I did not say "Roman Catholic Church."  The RCC is a specific denomination within the Church Catholic.  The word "catholic" means "universal."  Its a descriptor for how the Church transcends human labels and organizations.  Call it the "True Church" or "Unified Church" if you'd rather.)

I don't get why people are so opposed to the practice of baptizing infants.  (Okay, so that's a lie, I do get it, hence why I'm writing about it.)  Especially groups like the Anabaptists and the Baptists.  For crying out loud, guys, the term "baptism" is in your groups' names.  How is it you don't get it?

(On the left we have the "believer's baptism."  On the right we have the traditional practice of baptism, including infant baptism.)

I'm assuming the people who oppose it "don't get it" instead of "reject it" under the assumption found in Walther's XX thesis, which basically says "don't assume heresy when ignorance is an option."  Basically, I'm calling y'all just dumb enough to not see what's obvious.

And in this sort of apologetic duel, that's being mighty generous.  (Especially since a fair number of those who don't "get it" are, in fact, flat out rejecting it because it doesn't fit in their narrow, twisted, egotistical view of what the Bible means.)

Enough munching on appetizers, how about the main course?  Where to start, though?  Remaining consistently with my standard operating procedure, I'll start with as a foundation and standard the words of my Lord, so as to not inadvertently call Him a moron.

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

"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. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."  Matthew 28:19-20

*mic drop


Seriously, what more do we need?

How about some context?  Both Mark 16 and Matthew 28 are describing the last commands of Jesus to the disciples before His ascension.  Jesus commands us to baptize "all nation."  The implication here is "everyone," meaning from the littlest babies to cantankerous old dudes.

I've heard it argued that the word order is important.  "Think about it.  In Mark it clearly says 'believes and is baptized.'  You've gotta believe first, then be baptized."

Sure.  If word order mattered then in the same way it does now.

It didn't in the original Greek.  And even more damning, notice that in Matthew it says to baptize before teaching the newly baptized believer to observe all Jesus taught.  Which totally blows out of the water the notion that you have to choose to be baptized after coming to faith.

Don't get mad at me.  Those are the words of Jesus Christ blowing holes in the notion of the believer's "baptism."

So word order doesn't matter (unless context supports it), since both verses describe the exact same event in history.  Jesus was instructing His disciples on how to grow the church.  The Mark text explains what baptism does, while Matthew prescribes what to do as part of evangelism.

And it should be noted that Mark 16:9-20 are not in the earliest of manuscripts.  The earliest we see this section referenced is in the writings of Justin Martyr in the mid second century.  That doesn't mean it wasn't written by Mark, or that it shouldn't be in the Bible, or that it isn't Scripture.  What that presents is an interesting conundrum for the proponent of the believer's "baptism."  Justin Martyr notes it in a work dating from around the AD 160.  Assuming Mark was first written no later than AD 70, that's 100 years without a Scriptural reference telling the Church that people are supposed to believe before they are baptized.

(I think I need a second mic to drop.)

Let's move on, then, to the next in line, chronologically.  And the one that most synergists prefer.

And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.  For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."  Acts 2:38-39

Isn't it great to see an oaf become eloquent?

A few verses later Luke notes that around 3000 are added to the faith.  He specifically says "souls."  Not "men," not "people," not "adults."  Souls.  A word that is feminine, and in the plural form in this usage.  No age denoted, nor any other qualifier.  So, using an argument from silence, how do we know that there weren't children included in that initial 3000 addition?

And, yes, St. Peter says "repent and be baptized" in response to the question of "what should we do."  Which makes sense.  He's speaking to adults, specifically the heads of households who would have brought their families with them to Jerusalem to celebrate one of the major holy days.  And who are the heads of households back in the day?  Men.  So we could argue that only 3000 men were baptized.  Only later verses make it clear that when the head of the household was baptized, the whole house (women, children, servants) was with him.  And Luke would have noted it, just as it is noted at the mass feeding.  "5000 men, not counting women and children."

It makes sense to say "repent and be baptized" to an adult, who has been brought to contrition by the preaching of the Law.  That's SOP.  Peter just noted how everyone's gonna die and go to hell, and they killed Jesus, the Messiah.  Their reaction makes sense.

Don't miss the last sentence, though.  "For the promise is for you and for your children..."  The Greek word there for children is τεκνον ("teknon" plural form).  Its the generic word for "kids," from newborn to teenager; basically anyone who isn't an adult.  This promise, which either means baptism, the forgiveness of sins, or the gift of the Holy Spirit, (or, more accurately, both) is for everyone.

If the promise St. Peter notes is baptisms, why is anyone opposing infant baptism?

If the promise St. Peter notes is the forgiveness of sins, then we're assuming children are sinless, which contradicts clear passages of Scripture that make it painfully obvious that all have sinned, due to being tainted by Original Sin.

If the promise St. Peter notes is the gift of the Holy Spirit, which is necessary for faith in Christ, then why bother teaching children about Jesus at all?

I'm gonna stick in Acts for a moment, before tackling the words of Peter himself.  But, first, a note of caution to any who are not of an exegetical background.  The book of Acts is not a prescriptive book.  That is, Acts was not written to give us instructions on how to do, but rather an account of what was done.  It is descriptive.  "This happened, and then this happened, and then..."  Much like the books of history in the Old Testament, Acts tells us the history of the faithful.

The next two passages are in Acts and therefore descriptive.  After that, all the rest on the list are prescriptive.

And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on His name.  Acts 22:16

On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.  And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying.  Acts 19:5-6

In chapter 22, Paul is recounting his own conversion, citing the words of Ananias.  According to this, the early Believers thought that baptism washed away sins.  It wasn't seen as some symbol of dedication, but as an action that accomplished something.

In chapter 19, St. Paul baptized a group who had not yet been baptized.  Now, if you read just a few verses earlier, you'll see that they were baptized in the manner of John.  Which Paul basically says is nothing but a confession and absolution.  It doesn't count as an actual baptism - a baptism of the Holy Spirit.  Does that mean that St. Paul and the rest of the early Church did not use immersion in baptism?

I bet they didn't, since Luke does not note the seeking of a large enough water supply to dunk 3000 people.  Nor does it say anything about the size of the water supply available to Philip.  Just that there was water.  And if they were on a desert road, I'm willing to bet it was an oasis or a well, which means it was extremely valuable, and neither man would have dared to contaminate it by standing waist deep in the water.

Before we get to the descriptive texts, I'm going to do a "drive-by" word study on the term "baptism."  Because usually after a statement like the previous paragraph, the proponent of the believer's "baptism" will say something like "the word 'baptism' means washing by immersion in Greek."  Perhaps in ancient Greek, like what Leonidas spoke.  But in Koine Greek the verb βαπτιζω ("baptizo") does not imply immersion.  Especially in the context of Jewish ritual washing.  Now, consider, the ritual washing required flowing water.  Water doesn't flow if it is sitting in a bowl or basin for something to be dipped in.  Water must be poured over.  The word baptism in Koine Greek is the same as the word "wash" in English today.  I wash my hands, I wash my car, I wash my clothes.  Same verb, very different methods.

(Baptism VBS style?)

Now, on to St. Peter.

Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  1 Peter 3:21

Sounds like Pete was remembering his "Psalms by David" album growing up.  "Appeal to God for a good conscience" sounds like an echo of "create in me a clean heart."

Most of us who use this as a proof text simply focus on the phrase "now saves you."  And it is true that it's the operative part of the sentence.  Remember, Peter's comparing the action of baptism to the account of Noah and the flood.  We are saved from death through water.  Its not a ritual washing, like what the Jews would do, which only cleans the outside of a person, "white washing" the tomb they are, but a "renewal of a right spirit within."  This only matters in connection to the resurrection of Christ.

But St. Peter isn't the heavyweight writer of the New Testament, that would be St. Paul.  A man who was without parallel in the early Church leadership.  This guy was a leading official in the Jewish religion.  He had entire books of the Bible memorized.  That's why he was so well equipped for ministry, and for writing.  All that symbolism, all that history.  All for us to understand.

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, 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.  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.  Colossians 2:11-13

Paul knew his symbolisms well.  He knew that circumcision was a mark of God's salvation, both as an outward (if momentarily painful and embarrassing) sign and as a marking of a covenant with God.  And like a good teacher, he started with what his students already were familiar with and built from there.

Circumcision was a sign of God's covenant with the people of Israel, marking them as set apart to be a sojourning holy nation among the pagans.  Likewise, baptism sets us apart as the people of God, a priesthood of all believers sojourning among the nations.  However, circumcision was only a mere sign.  It was a type and shadow of a greater thing to come.  That thing was death.  Specifically the death of Christ, which paid for our sins.  St. Paul notes that via the waters and the Word of baptism  we are connected to the atoning sacrifice.  And not just that, but the resurrection as well.  That what baptism does.

And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.  1 Corinthians 6:11

Paul also connected the act of baptism with the ritual washings that Jews, or even Gentiles, would have known.  Remember the washing of the disciple's feet?  That sort of thing is what St. Paul was using as imagery.  Read through what Jesus says to Peter when our favorite oaf objects to his Lord stooping to wash his muddy feet.  See the parallel with baptism?  This verse is what baptism does.  It washes, sanctifies (makes us holy), and justifies (makes us righteous) through the name of our Triune God.

Is there any question that baptism saves?  Sanctified and justified are the operative words, and while they go together, they are different.  Sanctification is being made holy, while justification is being made right according to the law.  You can't have one without the other.  Think of it this way: Sanctification makes us right with God, justification with our neighbor.  There is more to it than that, but thats the soundbite version.

But this is extremely straight forward.  We were baptized into Christ.

For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.  And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.  Galatians 3:27-29

"Aha!  See, 'there is no male and female.'  That means-"


I'm not tackling the can-o'-worms that is women's ordination.  Some other day.

But the naysayers would love to use Galatians as a "gotcha."  And at face value that makes sense.  Paul listed a bunch of stuff that we are not.  His list makes it seem like there isn't a requirement for what it takes to be a Christian.

Oh, wait, don't the opponents of infant baptism say that there are requirements a believer must achieve before being baptized?  Like being able to make a public profession of their faith during the "altar call?"

(Running out of mics here.)

The Galatians text is the "proof" that baptism is a means of grace, a Sacrament.  We are, through baptism, connected to Christ's death and resurrection.  And what does it take to be baptized?

Only men?  Nope, women get baptized too.

Gotta be Jewish first?  Nope, Gentiles welcome too.

Only free men?  Tell that to Onesimus.

Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.  Hebrews 10:22

Oh, look, a "bazinga" text.  "With our hearts sprinkled clean..."  Yep, that's right, it says sprinkled.

(Well, too bad, you can't have any.)

No, not that kind of sprinkles.  The word in Greek is from ραντιζω (rhantizo), which means to sprinkle, to cleanse by sprinkling, hence to purify, cleanse [definitions are from Blue Letter Bible website, though my Nestle-Aland lexicon agrees].

This word is used to describe the sprinkling of blood from a sacrifice on the altar.  So the author to the Hebrews used that term, insufficient as the shadow was, to describe baptism.  Not pour, not dunk, sprinkle.  Does that mean one is preferred?  Not really.  Though sprinkling does require the least amount of water.  Efficiency for the win.

For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.  1 Corinthians 10:1-4

Okay, back to St. Paul (unless you hold to the idea that Paul wrote Hebrews).  Paul's not even trying to be sneaky here.  He's straight up saying that the parting of the Red Sea was baptism.  And incredibly, there's a reference to the Lord's Supper in this passage too.  Hmm, sacraments go hand-in-hand.  Who would have thought?

Regardless of what symbol is being used, it should be clear what they are all connected to: Christ.  Without Christ, there is no baptism.  All theology is christology, after all.

He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to His own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by His grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.  Titus 3:5-7

How 'bout I drop the other shoe first, just for variety.  We are not saved by works.

Psst!  Infant baptism naysayers... the "believer's baptism" would be a work.

And here's another convoluted discussion that, while very worthwhile, there is not time for at the moment.  Especially since works are not "pointless," nor are they "necessary."  This, along with passages from James and Ephesians, leads to some contention (<- understatement), especially regarding a minor squabble during the 1500s in Germany.

For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.  If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that He has borne concerning His Son.  1 John 5:7-9

It's not just mere water, this baptism, as some who oppose it claim.  They even go so far as to claim infant baptism is a "work of man" not in the Bible.  If we are honest, the argument is which teaching is Biblical and which is an invention of man.  Often this is where people appeal to various early Church teachers.  Though, if we're honest, not a single Church Father prior to the Councils was opposed to infant baptism.  And the few who seem to be were not orthodox.  The only reason their position is noted is because they were heretics being written against, not a majority position.

But the vast majority of teachings against infant baptism originate from the time period between the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment.  "Testimony of men," indeed.  Everything in the Scriptures has pointed to baptism connecting to Christ's death.  So what is to be believed?  The Scriptures, or a testimony of men?

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?  By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?  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.  Romans 6:1-4

This is more of "what baptism does" than "who is to be baptized."  But it is something to be contended with.  If we believe that the Bible is to be taken "at its word," then isn't the phrase "baptized into His death" literal?

Most who oppose infant baptism do so by making baptism nothing more than a "symbol of obedience."  They claim it hasn't any "special power" or is even necessary for salvation.

And, yet, clearly St. Paul thinks that the act of baptism directly connects a believer to the crucifixion, burial, and resurrection of Christ.  Logically, it would follow, that without baptism, we cannot be raised from the dead.

I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you.  And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.  And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.  Ezekiel 36:25-27

God, speaking through the prophet Ezekiel, is making it clear that He uses water to cleans people from their sin.  The Children of Israel experienced this when they crossed the Red Sea and the Jordan River.  Notice, the word used is "sprinkle."  Not "dunk," not "immerse."  Does that prove that sprinkling is the only way?  No.  But it is interesting.

The Spirit and the Bride say, "Come." And let the one who hears say, "Come." And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price.  Revelation 22:17

Revelation is full of symbol and metaphor, but most of the verbiage used has some connection back to something previously said.  When else have we heard of the "water of life?"

Back in John chapter 4, when Jesus was speaking to the Samaritan woman at the well.  The Messiah is described as the "water of life."  If baptism is what we believe it is (a means of grace for the forgiveness of sins), then we are literally receiving Christ through it.

There is one body and one Spirit--just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call-- one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.  Ephesians 4:4-6

There are some who think that there are "different baptisms."  And, in a way, there is.  There is a true baptism, and a false baptism.  Many who claim to be theologians will say that if a believer hasn't had a "baptism of the spirit" or if they were baptized by a Catholic/Lutheran/Orthodox/(anything not Non-demon) has not had a "proper baptism."

St. Paul would disagree.

So long as the baptism performed is the same baptism taught by Christ to the Apostles, then it is a baptism.  If the words "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" are spoken, it is a true baptism.  Anything else is not a gift of God, but an attempted work of self-righteousness.

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her, that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that He might present the church to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.  Ephesians 5:25-27

The operative words when baptism is "by the washing of water and the word."  You have to have both.  Not because the water is anything special, other than it was the material Christ chose.  But you must have both.

Without the water, it is not a baptism.

Without the words of Christ, it is not a baptism.

You cannot be baptized only in the name of Christ, or in the name of the "mother, daughter, and the spirit," or some other nonsense.

Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."  Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?"  Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.  That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.  Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'  The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."  John 3:3-8

And last, but never least, is the most well known word on baptism.  Straight from the Savior's mouth.  Nicodemus is right to question how someone can be born again.  It is physically impossible.  And since it is physically impossible, the God of the Universe established an alternative method.

Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."  Taken at face value, it is clear that Jesus is saying that without baptism it is impossible for anyone to be in Heaven.  You must be baptized, it is a requirement.

"But what about the thief on the cross," you may ask.  Again, notice "born of water and the Spirit."  What is the "water?"  Mere dihydrogen monoxide (or, more scientifically, H2O)?  Or is it the Living Water?  Both?  Because the thief on the cross received a direct promise from the Word of God Himself that he would be in paradise that very day.

And that is probably why some in Lutheran circles consider the "thief on the cross" argument to be a red herring.  Not because it isn't a worthwhile discussion, but because it questions the majesty of God.  How?  Simply, the person who is saying that the thief on the cross is proof that infant baptism is not where faith starts is saying, ultimately, that God cannot do something.

Let that sink in.  People who deny infant baptism are placing limits on God.  We used to call that heresy.

Does that mean that God cannot save someone without baptism?  Not at all.  Because God is all-powerful.  If He wills it, it is.  And none of us are in position to question His will.  However, we are bound by what has been revealed.  He has told us that the manner of conversion is through baptism.  Why they do we say "oh, that's not how it works, we can do it this way instead."

Baptism has always been understood as grace.  Why would you deny anyone grace?  Think of it like a seat belt in a car.  If you know that it will protect you in the event of a crash, why wouldn't you wear it?  And if you know that it will protect you in the event of a crash, and you are wearing one, why are you saying children should not wear one?  Not just "they don't need to wear one," but "it is unethical for a child to wear one."

Let the truth behind the metaphor sink in a moment.

...

For those of you who are opposed to infant baptism, yes, I'm unapologetically calling you heretics and unchristian.  Why?  Because you are unilaterally declaring by authority you do not possess that some are to be barred from a gift of grace promised by God.  And this declaration has no basis in Scripture, reason, or even common sense.

In the words of Lutheran Satire, the position of the anabaptists, arminians, and others who deny children the gift of God are "incredibly stupid."


I'll leave you with the words of Jesus on the matter, as encouragement for those who believe in the promise of God, and as a rebuke for those who deny the words of the Savior.  (Please note, it was commonly thought of in the ancient world to consider the sea to be the gateway to hell.)

People were also bringing babies to Jesus for Him to place His hands on them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them.  But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.  Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”  Luke 18:15-17

“Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."  Matthew 18:5-6

---
(FYI: I started work on this post early Lent, 2018.  My first exegetical paper at Seminary was on the baptism of Christ, and got me digging into the language and grammar of baptism in Scripture.  At some point, I'll put together a, hopefully, coherent post with those thoughts.  Until then, I'll merely post this, as is.  Most of the work was done prior to the move to seminary, so, pardon the dust.)

No comments: