In the Old Testament the people of Israel were God's chosen people. To be in that category -- "God's chosen people" -- you had to be born into it. If you were born a Jew, you were in that category. It didn't have anything to do with faith; it was blood, it was birth, it was lineage. The distinction, mind you, was not "saved," but "part of the covenant with God." Prior to the Abrahamic Covenant, people were certainly saved. But to be part of the covenant God had with the Jewish people, you had to become Jewish. That was by birth primarily. Abraham was the first. Paul makes a point of it when he points to Abraham as saved by faith (Rom 4:9-12). When was he saved by faith? "While uncircumcised" (Rom 4:10). He was then circumcised as "a seal of the righteousness of the faith" (Rom 4:11). Under that covenant, the sign of circumcision was the sign of being in the covenant, a condition you obtained by being born into it.
That was then; this is now. We now have a new covenant. Jesus said so at the Last Supper. "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me" (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25). We are not part of this new covenant by being physically born into it. This one is joined by faith. We are justified by faith (Rom 3:28). We are made righteous by faith (Rom 9:30). We are adopted by faith (Gal 4:5; Eph 1:5). We aren't physically born into it, but we are born into it -- born again (John 3:3; 1 Peter 1:3). And if circumcision was the seal of the first covenant, baptism is the seal of the new covenant (Col 2:11-12). Now, be careful here. When were the children of Israel marked by circumcision? After birth. So when are the children of the new covenant to be marked? After birth. Baptism is the sign that testifies that we have been born again and the seal of righteousness bestowed by faith.
The question of baptizing infants has lived on in the Church for millennia. "It's the same as circumcision," they've argued, "and circumcision was always based on lineage, not faith." This has led some to conclude that there is no connection between the two. I think that Scripture says otherwise. But I also see a fundamental difference between the two. The first covenant was with the people of Israel. The new covenant is with the people of faith. Thus, the sign of the covenant would be similar -- both mark those who are in the covenant -- but different, because entry into the two covenants is different. I take baptism as "an appeal to God for a good conscience" (1 Peter 3:21), something that an infant cannot do. But, just as God took the sign of circumcision seriously (e.g., Exo 4:24-25), I think baptism is serious ... as a sign of being born again, of being part of the new covenant. Circumcision didn't save anyone and neither, functionally, does baptism. Insofar as it accurately expresses faith, it demonstrates salvation for the recipient, and that is not a minor thing.
3 comments:
Our church has the tradition of baptizing infants, we present it as a covenant between God, the parents, and The Church, to raise the child in the Faith. Then there's a place for baptism as a believer. I think that the infant ceremony is a good thing, I don't like it being called baptism. Unfortunately, tradition sometimes wins out.
Most of the churches I've seen dedicate infants for the purpose you describe rather than baptizing them. Most churches that baptize infants consider it a sin to rebaptize them after coming to faith. Yours is unusual.
Yes it is. Our apostate denomination disapproved of second baptism. My old church did it anyway. My current church (ex PCUSA) still uses the term baptism, but is clear about the point of the act.
In general, I like the idea of this sort of marking moment where that parents and The Church make promises to the child, I think it's a good thing. I just don't like the fact that it's still called baptism.
Post a Comment