In the debate between whether or not we should baptize infants ("paedobaptism") or just believers ("believer's baptism"), the Infant-Baptism-types will often refer to this Scripture:
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" (Act 2:38-39)."Well," they say, "there you have it. The promise is for you and your children. So children should be baptized for the forgiveness of sins."
I'm wondering just how this argument can keep going like this. It seems to me that it requires an intentional avoidance of the clear and present text.
Here, let's look at it carefully. There is certainly a promise "for you and your children". What is that promise? "Forgiveness of your sins and ... the gift of the Holy Spirit." Good! Wonderful promise! We all want that! But note that the promise is conditional. (Everyone agrees on that.) There is something you must do to receive the promise. And that "something" is not "be baptized". No. It is "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ."
So, if we stop and say, "See? Children should be baptized because the promise is for them, too", we must also say, "Children must repent" because that is another key component, is it not? Even in the passage where Peter writes, "Baptism now saves you" (1 Peter 3:21) he specifies, "not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience." Baptism without an appeal to God for a good conscience is nothing more than removal of dirt from the body. Baptism without repentance does not alone qualify for forgiveness or the promise of the Holy Spirit.
Of course, in the final examination, we also must recognize that Peter put another key designator in his sermon in Acts 2. He said that the promise wasn't merely to those who repent or those who are baptized, but to "everyone whom the Lord our God calls to Himself." We don't get to decide who that is. We don't get to decide for our children. We don't get to decide for ourselves. It begins with God calling some to Himself and those will repent and be baptized.
It is, after all, what the text says. As such, I have to say I'm in favor of baptizing any infant who repents. Beyond that, I'm not willing to say.
3 comments:
I've grown up in a tradition that baptizes infants, and have looked at this quite a bit. For me, it's come down to this. What is the point of infant baptism. In our tradition it is a covenant between the parents and the congregation agreeing to raise the child in an environment where he/she will be nurtured and instructed in the ways of Christianity. I have no problem with this and actually find it valuable. My problem is that it is referred to as baptism. I would argue that it is clearly not baptism as the Bible portrays it. The question for me was, "Is my semantic problem enough to change my church affiliation." and so far that answer has been no. My bigger problem with this particular tradition is that the official position is one baptism is all you get. This is much more troubling, however the way we handled it at our church was to simply ignore this rule and baptize adults as believers.
I understand that there are some problematic aspects of infant baptism, I'm just not sure it's totaly worth all the controversy.
Thanks for that, Craig. I know that there are some in the "infant baptism" camp that see it quite differently. It's a "make or break" proposition. 1) Baptism saves, so if you are baptizing your infant you're saving them and if you're not you're not. 2) If you don't agree, you simply don't care about the Bible ... and are you actually a Christian?
The tradition in which I was raised included a "baby dedication" which intended the same thing you do for "infant baptism". I would have the same problem with calling it "baptism" as you do. Parting with a church that holds the view of it that yours does would be mindless to me; I've no problem with your version. It only becomes a problem for me when they take the hardline stance I've described above and to which you alluded when they say "Once and only once!" as if a second, adult, believer's baptism would nullify or eliminate the first or, worse, damn the recipient. (Note: Many in that hardline version believe in baptismal regeneration, something that is both problematic and something over which it might be necessary to divide.)
Same page.
Post a Comment