Introduction
Virtually every Christian church is
agreed that baptism is a prerequisite for local church membership. In the New
Testament baptism is the starting point of the visible Christian life, and
fellowship within the visible church always presupposes it (Acts 2:41-42,
46-47; 16:14-15). There is “one baptism” just as there is “one Lord and one
faith” (Eph. 4:5). But not all Christians agree on the definition of that one
baptism. Whereas infant baptism was for almost a millennia and a half the
dominant if not exclusive form of baptism practiced in the churches, the
Reformation gave rise to Anabaptist and Baptist views that challenged that
practice and argued for a redefinition of baptism as it relates to church
membership. Whether infant baptism is right or wrong is not the subject of this
essay. What is at issue is whether those who disagree about infant baptism can
worship as members in the same churches. This essay will argue that churches
which practice believer-only baptism should receive those who were baptized as
infants and who now walk by faith in Christ without requiring another baptism.
Three Major Views on Christian Baptism
There are many different views of
Christian baptism affirmed and practiced in the various churches, but we can
summarize them broadly under three major headings: the Roman/Lutheran view, the
Reformed view, and the Baptist view.[1] The
Roman/Lutheran view considers baptism to actually remove original sin and is
applied to both adult believers and infants. The Reformed view considers baptism
to be the sign of the New Covenant symbolizing regeneration and the saving work
of Christ and is applied to both adult believers and to the children of
believers. The Baptist view considers baptism to be a sign of saving faith in a
person already regenerated and is only applied to confessing believers.[2]
It is very important to rightly
distinguish the different views of baptism and the different theologies that
underlie them. Reformed churches baptize infants, but their practice is not
based on Roman Catholic tradition or a belief in baptismal regeneration.
Baptist churches baptize believers, but the Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and
Reformed churches do too. It is too simplistic to say there are two views of
baptism: infant baptism and believer baptism. Every church that practices
infant baptism also practices believer baptism, and not all of the churches
that baptize infants do so for the same reasons or in the same way.[3]
The Significance of Baptism and Its Relation to the
Gospel
The basic difference between infant
baptism and believer-only baptism concerns the proper significance of the rite.
Is baptism to be understood primarily as a sign of the recipient’s faith or as
a sign of the promise of God through the work of Christ? There is no question
the baptism of converts manifests their faith in Christ and desire to be
identified with Him (Acts 2:36-41; 8:35-38). Peter describes baptism as an
outward sign of an inward “appeal to God for a good conscience” (1Pet. 3:21).
But is this outward sign of an inward, subjective experience of grace the
primary significance of baptism?
The question we must answer is whether
baptism’s significance is primarily
subjective or objective. That is, is baptism primarily about me and my faith in
Jesus or is it primarily about Christ and the promise made to all who believe
in Him? How we answer this question does not necessarily determine whether we
baptize infants or believers-only, but it will determine how we regard those
who have been baptized in Christian traditions other than our own.
The New Testament repeatedly connects
baptism and Christ. Baptism in the name of the Triune God is the initiation
into discipleship (Matt. 28:19-20). It identifies people with the message of
Christ crucified (Acts 2:36-41). It is the proper response to the gospel
message (Acts 8:12, 35-38; 9:18). It signifies the setting apart of those who
belong to God in Christ (Acts 10:47-48; 16:15, 33-34). Baptism visibly
represents the invisible reality of baptism in the Holy Spirit (1Cor. 12:13).
It demonstrates union with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection (Rom.
6:3-4). It externally clothes one with Christ (Gal. 3:27), pointing to the
internal application of Christ’s righteousness received by faith (cf. Rom.
4:11). It outwardly represents the inward circumcision of Christ (Col.
2:11-12). Just as the Lord’s Supper is a physical rite pointing to the
spiritual work of Christ, so too baptism points us to Christ’s washing and
cleansing His bride, the Church (Acts 22:16; Eph. 5:26-27; Tit. 3:5; Heb.
10:22). Thus Peter can say, “Baptism now saves you” but quickly clarify it is
not the physical act of washing in water that justifies but faith in the
resurrected Christ of which baptism is a symbol (1Pet. 3:21).
Baptism points us to the reality of
Christ, not to the reality of faith in our hearts. This is not to deny that the
baptism of true believers does make visible their faith in Christ, but it is to
affirm baptism’s significance is more than the demonstration of a subjective
reality. Not all who are baptized are true believers (Acts 8:13-23; Gal. 2:4;
3John 9-10), and many of those who once confessed Christ and were baptized will
fall away (Matt. 7:21-23; Heb. 10:26-31; 2Pet. 2:20-22). Does the hypocrisy and
apostasy of some who were baptized make their baptism of no significance? Not
at all. On the contrary, those who were once visibly identified with Christ and
outwardly sanctified by His blood but fall away are under greater condemnation
because they were associated with the covenant (John 15:2, 6; Heb. 6:4-8; 2Pet.
2:1-3).[4]
Their baptism does not save them, nor can we say they were once saved and are
now lost. But their baptism did visibly, externally identify them with Christ.
They shared in the outward sanctification of God’s people being part of the
visible church. But outward signs of the covenant merely point to inward,
spiritual realities (Rom. 2:28-29; 4:11; 9:6). If the outward sign is present
and the inward reality is not, the one baptized is under greater condemnation
because he stands under the curse of failing to keep covenant with God (1Cor.
10:1-12). This can only be the case if baptism’s primary significance is in
pointing to Christ, not in pointing to the faith of the recipient.
Absence of Re-Baptism in the NT and Evidence Against
It
The New Testament knows nothing of
re-baptism, a fact which is undisputed by scholars on all sides of the baptism
issue but which many modern evangelicals overlook.[5]
There is “one baptism” just as there is “one Spirit,” “one Lord,” “one faith,”
and “one God and Father of all” (Eph. 4:4-6). Despite this many evangelicals
are baptized multiple times, sometimes due to a lack of confidence in their
earlier baptism but sometimes for reasons without any biblical basis at all.[6]
Evangelicals who practice believer-only baptism insist infant baptism is no
baptism at all and so deny that baptizing such people again is an act of
re-baptism. But the question is more complex than this.
If we conclude those previously baptized
as infants in the name of the Triune God in Christian churches must be baptized
again, we set up a standard for baptism that will be impossible to consistently
apply. For example, most Baptist churches require those who were baptized as
infants to be immersed as believers before receiving them into membership. They
believe baptism is only for believers and that a person must be regenerated
(born again) before they are baptized. But what of those who confessed Christ
and were immersed but only came to true saving faith later in life? Will these
same churches require them to be baptized again? Rarely, if ever.[7]
What of those who came to faith and were baptized without a clear grasp of the
gospel? What level of theological understanding is necessary for a person’s
baptism to be valid? At what point do errors in one’s understanding of the
gospel invalidate their baptism? If a person believes in Jesus and is baptized
without clearly understanding the symbolism involved, have they been baptized?
If they respond to a gospel invitation believing they will be saved when they
confess their faith and are baptized, must they be baptized again after further
instruction? If we decide baptism is only valid when a person properly understands
and confesses the gospel, we create a system in which we can never be sure if
anyone has been properly baptized.
Paul’s letter to the Galatians is
particularly helpful in discerning the objective significance of baptism apart
from the subjective confession of the pure gospel. The Galatian churches were
being threatened by the work of Judaizing teachers. These men taught that
Gentile converts had to be circumcised as well as baptized in order to be
partakers of the Abrahamic covenant and its promises. In essence their message
was that Christ was necessary but not enough. Something more was needed,
specifically, identification with ethnic Israel and participation in the ethnic
markers of that community (e.g. circumcision). Some Christians were in danger
of being led astray by this doctrine, others had begun embracing it, and still
others were actively promoting it. Since Paul’s letter was addressed to saints
in multiple churches – not all of whom had the same relationship to the
Judaizing doctrine – his correction had to be broadly applicable. What is most
instructive in terms of the baptismal question is the apostle’s statement in
3:27: “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” He
does not say, “As many of you as were baptized into Christ having a clear
understanding of the gospel have put on Christ.” Likewise he did not say, “As
many of you as were baptized into Christ before the Judaizers arrived and apart
from their influence have put on Christ.” The Galatians’ baptism was
objectively significant because it was into
Christ. Thus even though some who were baptized were undoubtedly affected
by the false teaching of the Judaizers – a doctrine closely akin to the
doctrinal errors of the Churches of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church – Paul
could still point to their baptism into Christ as a symbol of the gospel which
they were now abandoning. Baptism testified to the sufficiency of Christ for
salvation. The Galatians who may have come to faith and been baptized by Judaizing
teachers did not need to be baptized again by a teacher who taught the gospel
without the Judaizing errors. They needed to repent and confess the sufficiency
of Christ which their baptism made visible. They needed to live in light of
their baptism.
There is considerable biblical evidence
against re-baptism, even when one comes to saving faith after receiving the
covenant sign. Simon Magus was baptized by Philip but remained “in the bond of
iniquity” (Acts 8:13-23). This is hardly the description of a regenerate man,
but Peter did not command him to be baptized again but to repent and pray. In
the Old Testament circumcision was the covenant sign of God’s people, and like
baptism it pointed to an objective promise to all who would believe (Gen. 17:1-2;
Deut. 30:15-20; Rom. 2:28-29; 4:11-12). During the period of the Divided
Kingdom, the circumcision of Israelites in the northern kingdom was considered
valid despite their defection from the true religion of Yahweh. This does not
mean the Israelites in the north were saved by their circumcision or their
idolatry was overlooked. They could only be saved by faith in Yahweh. But when
King Hezekiah called them to repentance, he invited them to participate in the
Passover as penitent covenant members (2Chr. 30:6-12). He did not regard them
as uncircumcised Gentiles but as erring members of the visible covenant. Though
it is impossible to re-circumcise a man but not to re-baptize him, theological
considerations appear to argue against receiving either rite more than once.
If a person concludes that their baptism
received as an infant or by sprinkling or pouring was inadequate and their
conscience is thereby troubled, they should not be barred from receiving
baptism. But what of those conscientious believers who were baptized as infants
because their parents believed it was right to do so? Should these believers be
barred from membership in the local church or required to undergo a second
baptism in order to be accepted by the congregation? There is a big difference
between practicing infant baptism and acknowledging those who have received it
and are now walking by faith in Christ. We may or may not conclude their
baptism was proper and biblical, but should we exclude them from membership
when their lives display a real relationship with Christ and the fruit of the
Spirit (John 8:31; Gal. 5:22-23)?[8]
A Proposed Compromise for Respecting Differing
Convictions
Churches should practice the form of
baptism they believe is consistent with the Scriptures, but they should be
willing to accept and recognize believers who have been baptized in the name of
the Triune God in a manner different than the congregation’s own practice. This
does not mean anything and everything termed baptism should be recognized as valid and biblical. Mormon baptism
is clearly sub-Christian being based on a corrupt view of the Trinity and an
anti-Christ doctrine of God the Son. Similarly Oneness Pentecostals baptize
based on a heretical view of the Trinity and a defective doctrine of Christ. But
this is not the case with the aforementioned three major views of Christian
baptism. Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, and Baptists
all confess the same orthodox views of the Trinity as summarized in the Nicene,
Constantinopolitan, Chalcedonian, and Apostles’ Creeds. These churches do not
have the same understanding of the gospel, but they do share the Trinitarian
unity expressed by Paul when he affirmed the “one baptism” (Eph. 4:4-6).
If a proper understanding of the gospel
is necessary for a valid baptism, then we might as well declare the various
Christian churches separate religions and refuse to accept anyone else’s
baptism. Arminians can never accept Calvinists, Calvinists can never accept
Arminians, and neither group can accept Pelagians or Lutherans because they all
disagree about important aspects of the gospel. On the other hand, recognizing
Trinitarian baptism in other Christian churches does not obligate us to accept
or endorse what we believe to be their errors. Paul certainly did not accept
the errors of the Judaizers, but neither did he reject their baptism. On the
contrary, he exhorted the Galatians to repent in light of what their baptism
signified (Gal. 3:26-27). We can recognize the significance of Christian
baptism while at the same time objecting to and correcting the errors we
perceive in its practice or underlying theology.
The decision to acknowledge Trinitarian
baptisms administered by other Christian churches using forms (whether
sprinkling or to infants) different from one’s own may seem to undermine
congregational convictions regarding the practice of baptism, but this is not
necessarily the case. In fact, such was the view of the Reformers and has been
the policy of Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and most Reformed churches for hundreds
of years. The question of re-baptism goes back to the early church when
Augustine and others argued against re-baptizing those who had received
Trinitarian baptism from heretical sects. The judgment of both Augustine and
the later Reformers was that re-baptism was not necessary in such cases. Only
repentance of specific doctrinal errors was required. The only churches to
require another baptism are almost always those that teach believer-baptism
and/or immersion-only baptism.[9]
This proposal, if adopted, sends an
important message to current and prospective members of the congregation. There
are many people in any given church who have been baptized more than once,
perhaps first as a Roman Catholic and later as an evangelical or once as an
infant and later as a mature believer. This proposal would not invalidate the
commendable desire those Christians had to be certain of their obeying the
Lord’s command to be baptized. We should never discourage the sincere desire to
obey God. But we are affirming that it is not our act of baptism that secures
salvation but Christ’s work to which baptism points that we receive by faith.
Baptism is an important part of man’s response to the gospel (Acts 2:41), but
it is not the gospel (1Co. 1:17). We must be careful of not placing our
confidence of salvation in a particular administration of baptism rather than
in the administration of grace to which baptism points.
Conclusion
If we refuse to acknowledge and
receive into membership believers who in good conscience think their
Trinitarian baptism as an infant or by sprinkling or pouring is adequate, we
divide the Body of Christ and exclude those from the local church whose lives
and confession testify to their regeneration and salvation. Not only that, but
we deny the vast majority of Christians through three-fourths of the Church’s
history and many faithful, godly Christians today have never been baptized at
all. The Jews misunderstood the true significance and function of their
circumcision, but that did not change the objective reality of it. Paul Jewett
was a Baptist scholar who wrote against infant baptism. His book Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace
is considered among if not the very best argument for believer-only baptism
from a Reformed perspective. Yet as strong as Jewett’s convictions against
infant baptism were, he regarded those who had been baptized as infants as
brothers in Christ and argued in favor of their inclusion.
Finally, I have personally found the
task of framing an answer to the question of infant baptism difficult because I
cannot persuade myself that the truth is all on the Baptist side. Not only has
the Baptist argument against infant baptism sometimes been plagued with
quackery and puffery, but Baptist practice is sometimes marred by a narrow
exclusivism. …the practice of closed membership is still widely insisted on in
Baptist circles. This, to me, is very unfortunate; for though the defense of
infant baptism may not be a good cause, it does not follow that the people who
make this defense are not good Christians and worthy members of the Christian
church. To have the conviction that baptism should not be administered to
infants is quite different from the intolerance that excludes all dissent from
the fellowship of the church. Polemical theology that would serve a good
purpose must be irenic, not divisive.[10]
There
can be a workable solution to this issue. May God give us the grace to find it.
[1] In fairness the first category
should be divided and the Roman Catholic and Lutheran perspectives discussed
separately. Likewise the third category includes significant diversity
including Anabaptists, Dispensationalists, and Reformed Baptists. But for the
sake of simplicity and because we are only speaking generally, these three
categories will suffice.
[2] Some Baptists will baptize young
children provided they affirm faith in Christ while others wait for evidence of
regeneration as the child matures. Most Baptists also define baptism as always
and only immersion.
[3] The Eastern Orthodox Church
baptizes infants but does so by triple immersion.
[4] An analogy may be helpful at
this point. A wedding ring should symbolize the love and commitment of a person
to his/her spouse, but its primary significance is objective and covenantal,
not subjective and personal. In other words, a wedding ring on a husband who
loves his wife is a symbol of both his love and of the covenant commitment he
has made to her, but the same ring on a man who does not love his bride
nevertheless signifies the legal covenant he has made, even if he is unfaithful
to it. The primary significance of the ring is the objective reality of the
marriage covenant, not the subjective experience of love for another person.
[5] Some may view Acts 19:1-7 as an
exception to the statement the NT knows nothing of re-baptism, but the case of
the twelve disciples in Ephesus is very different. Upon questioning those
disciples Paul discovered their baptism was not performed in the name of Jesus
and apart from a recognition of the Holy Spirit (probably ignorance of the
Spirit’s relation to baptism rather than ignorance of the Spirit entirely).
Thus the twelve had obviously not received baptism “in the name of the Father
and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19) and were almost certainly
second or third generation disciples of a corrupted, early version of John’s
ministry. Had they been actual disciples of John or properly taught by those
who heard him, they would have recognized the significance of baptism in
pointing to the coming Christ (Matt. 3:11-12; 11:1-6; John 1:36). The
experience of these men is nothing like the question of Trinitarian baptism
performed in different Christian churches.
[6] For example, baptisms performed
in the Jordan River when Christians visit the Holy Land, as if baptism is more
special or meaningful in the land where Jesus and the apostles once walked.
Baptism is also sometimes performed as an act of rededicating one’s life to
Christ after a period of disobedience. In such cases repentance is the biblical
means of spiritual renewal, not re-baptism (Acts 8:22-23; 1John 1:9).
[7] Some Reformed Baptist churches
require it, but consistency in application is difficult if not impossible.
[8] Another analogy may be helpful.
Suppose an immigrant couple join the church and it is discovered their marriage
was legally contracted by their families when they were infants. Their marriage
was not solemnized in a typical Western ceremony with vows and a license, but
they are, nevertheless, legally married and living in covenant relationship as
husband and wife. Should the church require them to be re-married to satisfy
the norms of western culture which objects to arranged marriages and
prioritizes individual decision in choosing a mate?
[9] Southern Presbyterians are a
partial exception to this. They recognize the baptism of most churches but
reject Roman Catholic baptism.
[10] Paul K. Jewett, Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 5.
