-
The Historic Connection between Easter and Baptism
Easter is one of the most significant celebrations for the Christian, marking the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. This celebration of Christ’s resurrection is arguably the centerpiece of the Christian life. After all, if Christ has not been raised, our faith is futile and we are still in our sins (1 Cor 15:17). It is no wonder that Easter is one of the most joyous occasions of the Christian life! A lesser-known part of the Easter celebration is its historic connection to baptism. Traditionally, Easter was recognized as a prime time for the baptism of new coverts. The association between a believer’s baptism and Christ’s resurrection was viewed as central. But, it was not an issue that was without differing opinions. The Easter Baptism Debate in the Early Church Leo I was bishop of Rome from 440 to 461 AD. Also known as Leo the Great, Leo exercised…
-
Does Baptism Save You? Looking at Acts 2:38
There are a few texts that seem to indicate that baptism saves an individual. A few churches even teach that baptism is the timing and place one receives God’s grace, meaning that without baptism, one cannot be saved. However, Christians recognize Ephesians 2:8-9 and that salvation is not dependent on works. This puts us in a bit of a quandry. Does baptism actually save us? Does everyone need to be saved to be baptized? In order to work through the apparent contradiction in Scripture, many will cross reference other texts to explain away the passages which speak of the link between baptism and salvation. Although a noble effort, I have mentioned in the past that we need to be careful reading one passage over another. There is potential danger in cross-referencing. It can be helpful and should be utilized. But the key to understanding Scripture is identifying authorial intent. The…
-
The Baptism Debate: Understanding and Evaluating Reformed Infant Baptism
The majority of those who identify as Christians believe in infant baptism (also known as paedobaptism). Infant baptism is a major doctrinal belief for Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, and Reformed churches, such as Presbyterians. Yet, there is a strong contingent of Christians who reject infant baptism, arguing that only those who believe in Christ should be baptized (a position known as credobaptism). Given the fact that baptism is a core command within the church, this is an essential issue on which to have an opinion! This debate about baptism can sometimes get messy and confusing. Christians on both sides of the issue often do not understand their own position, let alone the opposing arguments. I wrote The Baptism Debate to help believers understand what baptism is and why infant baptism does not actually fulfill the biblical definition of baptism. Because Catholics and Lutherans have their own reasons for baptizing infants, I…
-
Immersion in the Early Church Baptismal Practice
Those who argue for infant baptism often appeal to church history as evidence that infant baptism was a regular church practice. Although infant baptism was indeed practiced by the time we get to the end of the 3rd century, prior to that time there are significant questions regarding the regularity of the practice. Furthermore, although modern paedobaptists will often appeal to church history for defense of paedobaptism, they often ignore the early church testimony on the regularity of immersion. In other words, the early church sources are clear that immersion was the regular mode of baptism for those in the church, and deviations from that practice were viewed as exceptional. Immersion in the Didache One of the earliest sources we have on baptism is from the Didache (7:1–4). Although a lot could be said about the Didache, here I want to emphasize that this early church source emphasizes immersion. Consider…
-
Are the Household Baptisms an Argument for Infant Baptism?
Does the mention of household baptisms in Acts provide biblical evidence of infant baptism? Many theologians have argued just that. When arguing for infant baptism, paedobaptists of all kinds (Catholics, Lutherans, and Reformed) will often appeal to the household baptisms in Acts and 1 Corinthians as examples of when infants might have been baptized (cf. Acts 10:1-2; 16:13-15; 16:32-34; 18:8; 1 Cor 1:14-16). In the words of one Catholic paedobaptist: Catholics (and other advocates of infant baptism) do not claim that these verses prove that the Bible teaches infant baptism. However, a straightforward reading of them suggests that children were likely baptized along with the household or family of which they were a part. Thus, these verses pose a difficulty for Protestants who oppose infant baptism and must be explained differently. The Household Argument for Infant Baptism Explained The argument is that when the Bible talks about a household—especially when…
-
Where did Baptism Come from?
When we read through the Bible from the Old to New Testament, a few things jump out when we get to the New Testament. One major surprise is the prevalence of baptism. Where did baptism come from? There doesn’t seem to be any indication of baptism in the Old Testament. However, the New Testament puts a significant priority and importance on baptism. What is the background to the baptism process? It seems unlikely that John the Baptist invented baptism. There is no indication that the Pharisees or Sadducees asked John what he was doing. Instead, the New Testament paints the picture that people were familiar with baptism. Scholars have attempted to explain why people were already familiar with the process. There are typically four possible options that scholars put forward as the historical background for New Testament baptism. The first two are not really valid options. There is no evidence…
-
Zwingli’s Separation of Faith from Baptism
Prior to the Reformation, faith was always associated with baptism. This obviously raised issues for infant baptism, since it is difficult to see how infants can exercise faith. To deal with this difficulty, Augustine taught the concept of fides aliena, an alien faith that belonged to others was applied on behalf of the infant. Usually, this was the parent’s faith, but sometimes the church’s. However, many theologians viewed this as an unsatisfactory answer. So, the Catholic church developed the idea of fides infusa baptisme, faith or power which was “infused” to the infant through baptism. It was into the world of fides aliena and fides infusa that Martin Luther was born. Although Luther broke away from the Roman Catholic church in many key areas (one such area being justification by faith alone),[1] he largely embraced Rome’s view of infant baptism. One major difference was that Luther saw no problem with…
-
Paedobaptism and Problem of the New Covenant
Reformed paedobaptists view the new covenant as an extension of the old covenant, not its replacement. Specifically, reformed paedobaptists view the new covenant as an extension of the Abrahamic covenant. In Reformed paedobaptist theology, the newness of the new covenant is usually thought to refer to external aspects only. For example, Jeffrey Niell notes, “The newness of the new covenant pertains to the external aspects, the outward administration, of the covenant of grace. The new covenant is not new in its nature of membership.”[1] In other words, “The transition from the old covenant to the new covenant is a smooth unfolding of God’s redemptive plan, because the two covenants are organically connected—they are essentially one covenant of grace.”[2] I have argued in a previous post that the new covenant replaces the Mosaic covenant, not the Abrahamic. In this post, I will discuss the qualitative difference of the new covenant in…
-
Paedobaptists and the Problem of New Covenant Regeneration
Reformed paedobaptists view the new covenant as an extension of the old covenant, not as its replacement,[1] although as I argued before, the new covenant is discussed in terms of replacing the Mosaic covenant. However, in Reformed paedobaptist thought the newness of the new covenant is usually thought to refer to external aspects only. For example, Jeffrey Niell notes, “The newness of the new covenant pertains to the external aspects, the outward administration, of the covenant of grace. The new covenant is not new in its nature of membership.”[2] In other words, “The transition from the old covenant to the new covenant is a smooth unfolding of God’s redemptive plan, because the two covenants are organically connected—they are essentially one covenant of grace.”[3] However, an examination of the texts concerning the new covenant leads one to observe there are significant qualitative differences between the old and new covenants.[4] Although there…
-
Infant Baptism and the Connection to the Abrahamic Covenant
As we have noted before, for the Reformed paedobaptist, the covenant of grace is the foundational argument for paedobaptism. Within the covenantal system, the specific covenants mentioned in Scripture are just various manifestations of that singular covenant. Specifically, however, for the Reformed paedobaptists, the New Testament discussion of the “old covenant” is the Abrahamic covenantal manifestation of the covenant of grace. In contrast, the Bible’s mention of a new covenant is not not “new” in the sense of something that has not been seen before, but rather, a renewed version of that Abrahamic covenant which already existed. Note, for example, renown Berkhof’s explanation. “The covenant made with Abraham was primarily a spiritual covenant, though it also had a national aspect, and of this spiritual covenant circumcision was a sign and seal…. This covenant is still in force and is essentially identical with the “new covenant” of the present dispensation. The…