Calvin's Geneva Catechism: On Baptism

Photo courtesy of pixabay.com

John Calvin, the great Reformer of Geneva and Strasbourg, developed an extensive catechism in the mid-16th century for use in training the children and untaught citizens of Geneva in the Christian faith. This Genevan Catechism was written a century before the Westminster Confession and Catechisms and roughly two decades before the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism. Calvin expounds Faith, the Law, Prayer, and the Sacraments in four main sections and 373 questions and answers. You can read a brief introduction to the Genevan Catechism here (or download it as an ebook or read it online).

The following is an excerpt of the Genevan Catechism’s questions on baptism that may be of help and interest in thinking through a Reformed understanding of the significance and efficacy of the sacrament of initiation. --JME

310. What is a Sacrament?

An outward attestation of the grace of God which, by a visible sign, represents spiritual things to imprint the promises of God more firmly in our hearts, and to make us more sure of them.

311. What? Does a visible and natural sign have this power to assure the conscience?

No, not of itself, but in so far as it is ordained of God for this end.

312. Seeing it is the proper office of the Holy Spirit to seal the promises of God in our hearts, how do you attribute this to the Sacraments?

There is a great difference between the one and the other. The Spirit of God in very truth is the only One who can touch and move our hearts, enlighten our minds, and assure our consciences; so that all this ought to be judged as His own work, that praise may be ascribed to Him alone. Nevertheless, the Lord Himself makes use of the Sacraments as inferior instruments according as it seems good to Him, without in any way detracting from the power of the Holy Spirit.

313. You think, then, that the efficacy of the Sacraments does not consist in the outward element, but proceeds entirely from the Spirit of God?

Yes; for the Lord is pleased to work by these instruments which He has instituted: without detracting from His own power.

314. And what moves God to do that?

For the alleviation of our weaknesses. If we were spiritual by nature, like the angels, we could behold God and His graces. But as we are bound up with our bodies, it is needful for us that God should make use of figures to represent to us spiritual and heavenly things, for otherwise we could not comprehend them. At the same time, it is expedient for us to have all our senses exercised in His Holy promises, in order to confirm us in them.

315. Since God has introduced the Sacraments to meet our need, it would be arrogance and presumption to think that we could dispense with them.

Certainly: hence he who voluntarily abstains from using them thinks that he has no need of them, condemns Jesus Christ, rejects His grace, and quenches His Holy Spirit.

316. But what assurance of grace can the Sacraments give, seeing that good and bad both receive them?

Although the unbelievers and the wicked make of none effect the grace offered them through the Sacraments, yet it does not follow that the proper nature of the Sacraments is also made of non effect.

317. How, then, and when do the Sacraments produce this effect?

When we receive them in faith, seeking Jesus Christ alone and His grace in them.

318. Why do you say that we must seek Jesus Christ in them?

I mean that we are not to be taken up with the earthly sign so as to seek our salvation in it, nor are we to imagine that it has a peculiar power enclosed within it. On the contrary, we are to employ the sign as a help, to lead us directly to the Lord Jesus, that we may find in Him our salvation and all our well-being.

319. Seeing that faith is required, why do you say that they are given to confirm us in faith, to assure us of the promises of God?

It is not sufficient for faith once to be generated in us. It must be nourished and sustained, that it may grow day by day and be increased within us. To nourish, strengthen, and increase it, God gives us the Sacraments. This is what Paul indicates when he says that they are used to seal the promises of God in our hearts (Rom. 4:11).

320. But is it not a sign of unbelief when the promises of God are not firm enough for us, without support?

It is a sign of the smallness and weakness of faith, and such is indeed the faith of the children of God, who do not, however, cease to be faithful, although their faith is still imperfect. As long as we live in this world some elements of unfaithfulness remain in our flesh, and therefore we must always advance and grow in faith.

…

324. That the meaning may be more clear to us, let us treat of them separately. First, what is the meaning of Baptism?

It consists of two parts. The Lord represents to us in it, first, the forgiveness of our sins (Eph. 5:26, 27) and, secondly, our regeneration or spiritual renewal (Rom. 6:4).

325. What resemblance has water with these things in order to represent them?

The forgiveness of sins is a kind of washing, by which our souls are cleansed from their defilements, just as the stains of the body are washed away by water.

326. What about the other part?

The beginning of our regeneration and its end is our becoming new creatures, through the Spirit of God. Therefore the water is poured on the head as a sign of death, but in such a way that our resurrection is also represented, for instead of being drowned in water, what happens to us is only for a moment.

327. You do not mean that the water is a washing of the soul.

By no means, for that pertains to the blood of Christ alone, which was shed in order to wipe away all our stains and render us pure and unpolluted before God (I John 1:7; I Peter 1:19). This is fulfilled in us when our consciences are sprinkled by the Holy Spirit. But by the Sacrament that is sealed to us.

328. Do you think that the water is only a figure to us?

It is such a figure that the reality is conjoined with it, for God does not promise us anything in vain. Accordingly it is certain that in Baptism the forgiveness of sins is offered to us and we receive it.

329. Is this grace fulfilled indiscriminately in all?

No, for some make it of no effect by their perversity. Nevertheless, the Sacrament loses nothing of its nature, although none but believers feel its efficacy.

330. From what does regeneration get its power?

From the death and resurrection of Christ. His death has had this effect, that through it our old Adam is crucified, and our evil nature is, as it were, buried, so that it no longer has the strength to rule over us. And the renewal of our life, in obedience to the righteousness of God, derives from the resurrection of Christ.

331. How is this grace applied to us in Baptism?

In it we are clothed with Jesus Christ, and receive His Spirit, provided that we do not make ourselves unworthy of the promises given to us in it.

332. What is the proper use of Baptism on our part?

It consists in faith and in repentance. That is, assurance that we have our spiritual purity in Christ, and in feeling within us, and declaring to our neighbours by our works, that His Spirit dwells in us to mortify our natural desires and bring us to follow the Will of God.

333. If this is required, how is it that we baptize infants?

It is not said that faith and repentance should always precede the reception of the Sacrament, but they are only required from those who are capable of them. It is sufficient, then, if infants produce and manifest the fruit of their Baptism after they come to the age of discretion.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Related Links -- Calvin's Institutes: On Baptism (Feb. 2021)

1 Corinthians 5:6-8 and Kinds of Communion Bread

It is quite common to hear 1 Corinthians 5:6-8 cited in discussions about communion bread. Many sincere Christians think eucharistic bread must be unleavened, and they will sometimes use these verses to prove it. But this is a mistake, both because the position is wrong--Scripture does not require the bread used for the holy Supper to be unleavened--and because the prooftext is invalid. A person may prefer that unleavened bread be used in communion, but this passage has nothing to say about it.

There is no doubt Jesus used unleavened bread when instituting the Lord’s Supper since he did so during the Passover feast and all leavened bread would have been removed from the house. But the Greek language distinguishes common (leavened) bread (ἄρτος) from unleavened [bread] (ἄζυμος), and all of the passages describing or directing observance of the Supper use the word for ordinary (leavened) bread. The Church used leavened bread throughout her early history, but after a Roman bishop introduced the use of unleavened bread, the question of which kind of bread to use became a point of controversy which continues to divide the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox communions to this day.

The Reformed have traditionally treated the kind of bread as a matter of indifference:

“ … whether the bread is to be leavened or unleavened, and the wine to be red or white, is of no consequence. These things are indifferent, and left free to the Church….” --Calvin, Institutes IV.17.43 

“As the Lord’s Supper was originally instituted in connection with the Passover, there is no doubt that unleavened bread was used on that occasion. It is evident, however, from the apostolic history, that the Apostles used whatever kind of bread was at hand. There is no significancy either in the kind of bread or in the form of the loaf. It is enough that it is bread. This makes it the proper emblem of Him who declared Himself to be the true bread which came down from heaven.” --Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology III.615

If anything, Reformed Christians seem to have generally preferred the use of leavened bread in communion which would be broken and distributed to the congregation as a symbol of the unity of the Body of Christ.

“We do not deny that the use of fermented bread seems to us the more suitable, both because it is more in accordance with the design of Christ (which was to use common and ordinary bread, which is everywhere to be found); and because it is more appropriate to sustain the sacramental analogy (which consists in signifying our communion with Christ by the similitude of bodily nourishment); and because the necessity of unleavened bread belongs to Jewish ceremonies (which are abrogated and cannot be retained without a certain affectation [kakozelia] of Judaism); and because in the whole ancient church no traces appear of the common use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist before the ninth or tenth century…. The example of Christ neither can nor ought to be made an objection here, because as we have said there was a peculiar reason which impelled him to the use of unleavened bread (which no longer exists). Therefore, his example binds us as to the essence of the thing itself, that we should do whatever he did (take, bless, and break the bread and other acts of this kind mentioned by the sacred writers); but not forthwith as to the particular circumstances, which do not belong to the thing.” --Turretin, Institutes III.430

The historic practice of the Church and the specific language of the NT favor the use of leavened bread. So too does the symbolism explained in 1 Corinthians 10:17: For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.[1] But unleavened bread is acceptable since nothing requires the presence of leaven in communion.[2] There are many symbolic rationales that can be given for one or the other type of bread, but neither can be required from the text of Scripture. So if you are tempted to use 1 Corinthians 5:6-8 to prove why churches must use unleavened communion bread… don’t. --JME

[1] It is theoretically possible for a congregation to partake of one unleavened piece of bread, but in most cases it will be impracticable.

[2] A comparison between modes of baptism is appropriate. A symbolic rationale can be offered for sprinkling, pouring, or immersion, but Scripture does not require any particular one of these three.

Calvin on Baptism

I am edified every time I read Book IV Chapter 15 in Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion. It is the first of two chapters in the Institutes in which Calvin expounds the doctrine of baptism. It is a chapter that could have corrected many misunderstandings I had of the sacrament in my youth and early ministry. It continues to instruct, enlighten, and encourage me as I seek to grow in understanding, consistency, and biblical fidelity with regard to the rite.

Calvin was a prolific author, preacher, and commentator, so no single chapter, in the Institutes or anywhere else in Calvin’s body of work, can be thought to be the sum of his perspective and teaching on any given topic. But his treatise on baptism in Institutes IV.15 is exceedingly helpful in grasping the logic, unity, and theology of baptism he sees in Scripture.

As I reread the chapter this week in preparation for preaching on baptism this Lord’s Day, I was struck, yet again, by a sense of my own inadequacy in handling this (and every other) Christian doctrine. I am tempted simply to read the relevant Scripture references, then Calvin’s comments, and then close with prayer. I have no ambition to add to what Calvin already said so well, and I find very little room for its improvement.

Nevertheless, God called me to be a preacher and not merely a reader, so I will not be substituting Calvin’s words for my own exposition. But in commending the chapter to you, let me highlight several portions that are particularly insightful, helpful, and sweet to the soul of those who trust in the Christ whose Name was placed upon them in baptism.

(All of the following quotations are from Beveridge’s translation of the Institutes that is in the public domain. My apologies to all who prefer Battles. This one is easier to copy and paste.)

Baptism is the initiatory sign by which we are admitted to the fellowship of the Church, that being ingrafted into Christ we may be accounted children of God. (15.1)

We ought to consider that at whatever time we are baptised, we are washed and purified once for the whole of life. Wherefore, as often as we fall, we must recall the remembrance of our baptism, and thus fortify our minds, so as to feel certain and secure of the remission of sins. For though, when once administered, it seems to have passed, it is not abolished by subsequent sins. For the purity of Christ was therein offered to us, always is in force, and is not destroyed by any stain: it wipes and washes away all our defilements. (15.3)

Christ by baptism has made us partakers of his death, ingrafting us into it. (15.5)

For in this way also he promises us in baptism, and shows by a given sign that we are led by his might, and delivered from the captivity of Egypt, that is, from the bondage of sin, that our Pharaoh is drowned; in other words, the devil, although he ceases not to try and harass us…. The cloud was a symbol of purification (Num. 9:18). For as the Lord then covered them by an opposite cloud, and kept them cool, that they might not faint or pine away under the burning rays of the sun; so in baptism we perceive that we are covered and protected by the blood of Christ, lest the wrath of God, which is truly an intolerable flame, should lie upon us. (15.9)

Believers become assured by baptism, that this condemnation is entirely withdrawn from them, since (as has been said) the Lord by this sign promises that a full and entire remission has been made, both of the guilt which was imputed to us, and the penalty incurred by the guilt. They also apprehend righteousness, but such righteousness as the people of God can obtain in this life—viz. by imputation only, God, in his mercy, regarding them as righteous and innocent. (15.10)

Baptism, indeed, tells us that our Pharaoh is drowned and sin mortified; not so, however, as no longer to exist, or give no trouble, but only so as not to have dominion. For as long as we live shut up in this prison of the body, the remains of sin dwell in us, but if we faithfully hold the promise which God has given us in baptism, they will neither rule nor reign. (15.11)

We ought to hold that we are baptised for the mortification of our flesh, which is begun in baptism, is prosecuted every day, and will be finished when we depart from this life to go to the Lord. (15.11)

Hence he teaches that those whom the Lord has once admitted into favour, and ingrafted into communion with Christ, and received into the fellowship of the Church by baptism, are freed from guilt and condemnation while they persevere in the faith of Christ, though they may be beset by sin and thus bear sin about with them. (15.12)

Baptism serves as our confession before men, inasmuch as it is a mark by which we openly declare that we wish to be ranked among the people of God, by which we testify that we concur with all Christians in the worship of one God, and in one religion; by which, in short, we publicly assert our faith, so that not only do our hearts breathe, but our tongues also, and all the members of our body, in every way they can, proclaim the praise of God. (15.13)

For inasmuch as it is appointed to elevate, nourish, and confirm our faith, we are to receive it as from the hand of its author, being firmly persuaded that it is himself who speaks to us by means of the sign; that it is himself who washes and purifies us, and effaces the remembrance of our faults; that it is himself who makes us the partakers of his death, destroys the kingdom of Satan, subdues the power of concupiscence, nay, makes us one with himself, that being clothed with him we may be accounted the children of God. (15.14)

But from this sacrament, as from all others, we gain nothing, unless in so far as we receive in faith. (15.15)

God in baptism promises the remission of sins, and will undoubtedly perform what he has promised to all believers. That promise was offered to us in baptism, let us therefore embrace it in faith. In regard to us, indeed, it was long buried on account of unbelief; now, therefore, let us with faith receive it. Wherefore, when the Lord invites the Jewish people to repentance, he gives no injunction concerning another circumcision, though (as we have said) they were circumcised by a wicked and sacrilegious hand, and had long lived in the same impiety. All he urges is conversion of heart. For how much soever the covenant might have been violated by them, the symbol of the covenant always remained, according to the appointment of the Lord, firm and inviolable. Solely, therefore, on the condition of repentance, were they restored to the covenant which God had once made with them in circumcision, though this which they had received at the hand of a covenant-breaking priest, they had themselves as much as in them lay polluted and extinguished. (15.17)

Our children, before they are born, God declares that he adopts for his own when he promises that he will be a God to us, and to our seed after us. In this promise their salvation is included. None will dare to offer such an insult to God as to deny that he is able to give effect to his promise. (15.20)

Hence it follows, that the children of believers are not baptised, in order that though formerly aliens from the Church, they may then, for the first time, become children of God, but rather are received into the Church by a formal sign, because, in virtue of the promise, they previously belonged to the body of Christ. (15.22)

There are two places in the chapter where I take issue with Calvin’s analysis, and I freely admit my dissent may be due to my own ignorance rather than the author’s error. Nevertheless, Calvin was an uninspired man, even if very inspiring, and so is subject to biblical critique and correction the same as any exegete or expositor today. I remain unconvinced by his handling of Acts 19:1-7 and continue to believe these disciples were baptized (a second time) with water. It seems to me Calvin’s historical context may have prevented him from admitting this due to the debates surrounding re-baptism of those who had first received the sacrament from Rome. I also am unpersuaded by his comment in IV.15.19 that “the term baptize means to immerse, and that this was the form used by the primitive church.” The word certainly can mean that and does in certain passages from antiquity. Immersion was practiced by some in the ancient church, not all, but whatever the earliest mode may have been is not ultimately authoritative for the Church’s practice today. Calvin is not arguing that immersion is essential to the proper administration of baptism as most Baptists do. But his comment is based upon a failure to distinguish between the meaning of a term and the semantic range of a word. Immersion is certainly encompassed in the latter with regard to the various Greek words related to baptism. Whether it is properly identified as the former depends entirely on the context in which it appears. --JME

The Ordained Ministry of Teaching and the Sacraments

We celebrate the Lord’s Supper every Lord’s Day in our congregation. Though weekly observance is not commanded in the Scriptures, it seems evident this was the practice of the early church (Acts 2:42; 20:7; 1Cor. 11:17-34; cf. 16:1-2) and that frequent observance is desirable even if not required (Luke 22:19-20; 1Cor. 11:26, 33). The frequency of communion is not mandated by the OPC, so different intervals (including weekly observance) are found in different congregations within the denomination. But so long as circumstances permit, our local church will continue to observe the Lord’s Supper weekly in one of our Lord’s Day services.

In 2015 when our elders began studying the Westminster Confession together, one of the issues that had to be considered was the proper administration of the sacraments. Many of us had been in churches before where the Lord’s Supper and baptism were observed very casually. In modern times it is common for non-ordained persons to administer both sacraments and even for them to be observed privately away from the gathered Church. This is largely a modern practice and result of individualism in western culture. The Reformed tradition in general and the Westminster Confession of Faith in particular take a very different, far more historical view of the sacraments.

There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained. (WCF 27.4, emp. added)

The OPC’s Book of Church Order describes the proper administration of the sacraments:

4. The Sacraments

a. The sacraments, baptism and the Lord's Supper, as visible signs and seals of the Word of the covenant, are important elements of public worship. They represent Christ and his benefits, confirm his people's participation in him, visibly mark off from the world those who belong to his church, and solemnly bind them to covenant faith and loyalty.

b. Because the sacraments are ordinances of Christ for the benefit of the visible church, they are to be administered only under the oversight of the government of the church. Moreover, in ordinary circumstances they are properly administered only in a gathering of the congregation for the public worship of God, baptism being a sacrament whereby the parties baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible church, and the Lord's Supper signifying and sealing the communion of believers with Christ and with each other as members of his mystical body. Nevertheless, if a session judges that circumstances require otherwise, the sacraments may be administered elsewhere; but, in any event, the church must be represented in the service.

c. Although the efficacy of the sacraments does not depend upon the piety or intention of the person administering them, they are not to be administered by any private person, but only by a minister of the Word. (Directory of Public Worship II.a.4)

Why have the Church in general and Reformed Christians in particular only allowed ordained teachers to administer the sacraments? It is not because of a misguided tradition left-over from Roman Catholicism, nor is it because we believe the effectiveness of the sacraments depends upon the person administering them. As a general rule, we regard a person who is baptized in a Trinitarian context whether by an ordained minister or not as truly baptized. We would regard baptisms by a non-ordained person as irregular, though not invalid, because we believe it is not only historical but biblical under ordinary circumstances to limit administration of the sacraments to ordained ministers. What follows are four reasons for this conviction.

1) Ministers of the Word are stewards of the mysteries of God (1Cor. 4:1). A steward is a servant, but much more than a servant. A steward has special responsibility (cf. Luke 16:1-2) and thus a higher degree of accountability to his master (1Cor. 4:2; cf. Jas. 3:1). Every Christian is a servant of Jesus Christ, but not every believer is a steward of the mysteries of God. Teaching ministers are. What is this mystery committed to their care? It is the gospel of Jesus Christ, the message which brings life and death to those in the world (2Cor. 2:15-16). Ministers are specially “commissioned by God” to administer this mystery of grace (2Cor. 2:17); the sacraments are an intrinsic part of it.

2) The gospel and the sacraments belong together (Matt. 28:18-20; Acts 2:36-42). The sacraments are only valid when coupled with the gospel message. There is no spiritual power or value in getting a person wet or eating bread and wine, but when these rituals are combined with the gospel message, the water becomes a sign of the “washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit” (Tit. 3:4-5; cf. John 3:3, 5). The bread becomes Christ’s body and the wine becomes His blood, not literally and metaphysically but spiritually and symbolically (1Cor. 11:23-25). When the Church celebrates the sacraments it confesses its faith in Christ (1Cor. 11:26). The gospel, the sacraments, and the gathered Church belong together (Acts 2:41-42; 20:7; 1Cor. 11:33). Though some may be baptized outside of the gathered Church in unusual circumstances, there is no biblical evidence of the Supper ever being eaten apart from the assembled local church. The unity of the gospel, sacraments, and local church strongly support the administration of those sacraments by an ordained minister of the word (cf. Heb. 13:7, 17).

3) Pastors and teachers are given by God to the church to edify it (Eph. 4:11-12). This is a special function, ordained by God. How is the Church edified? By meeting Christ in the Word and sacraments (Acts 2:42; 20:28; 1Pet. 5:1-5). The local church is not a democratically determined association. Shepherds and teachers are given by God to the Church for its up-building and welfare. Since the sacraments are central to the local church’s faith, worship, and practice, it makes sense their administration would belong to the stewards given to them by the Lord.

4) The administration of the sacraments has historically been limited to teaching ministers and elders since the earliest days of the Church. Evidence from Justin Martyr and Tertullian demonstrates this as well as the later, codified instructions in The Apostolic Constitutions. In fact, it is hard to imagine this issue even being debated—unless among some heretical sect—until the Reformation during the revolutionary movement led by the Anabaptists. In western culture we take individual liberties to such an extreme that we almost imagine any distinction of functions to be unchristian, but we should recognize that there are different roles in the Church without any difference in personal value (e.g. 1Tim. 2:11-3:13). Though we are all equal in Christ, not all Christians are elders, and not all who are elders are devoted or appointed by God for the ministry of the Word (1Tim. 5:17). The sacerdotal errors of the Roman Catholic Church with an exaggerated clergy-laity distinction and a diminishing or denying of the priesthood of all believers is clearly wrong, but denying this error does not mean opening the sacraments and pulpit to anyone and everyone who professes the name of Christ. There is a biblical and historical balance to be found between those two extremes.

This is why we agree with the Westminster Confession that baptism and the Lord’s Supper should only be administered by a lawfully ordained minister, one recognized, called, and confirmed by the Church, not one who made himself a minister by starting a church in his living room. The sacraments belong with the teaching ministry of the Church, the preached Word, and that ministry belongs to those whom God has gifted, called, and set apart for that work and purpose.

There are consequences of this conviction. On the rare occasions when our congregation is without an ordained teaching minister on the Lord’s Day, the Lord’s Supper will not be celebrated. For example, the elders might invite a licentiate to preach on those days, but because he has only been licensed to preach and not formally ordained, the congregation would not observe the Lord’s Supper on those Sundays. This is unusual when a church has become accustomed to weekly observance, but it is important that we understand why we abstain on those Lord’s Days. Eating the Lord’s Supper is a privilege of God’s people, but when circumstances do not permit its proper observance, there is no fault in abstaining from its celebration. Just as we would not permit private observance of the Supper if a family simply decided to stay at home on the Lord’s Day, neither should we provide the Supper without the proper context for its celebration under the ordained ministry of the Word. –JME (September 2016)

Staying Ahead of the Pain

Anyone who has ever had to take prescription pain medicine after surgery has probably heard the expression stay ahead of the pain. Usually this refers to taking pain medicine on a schedule, before you need it, in order to keep the pain at a manageable level. If you wait until you are hurting to take the medicine, the pain may become overwhelming, and the medicine may be unable to overcome it or take longer to do so.

During Elijah’s recent hospitalization, Kirstie and I have been reminded of God’s palliatives for the soul: Scripture, prayer, and the worship of the saints (including the preached word and sacraments). The word of God sustains us in times of trouble (Psa. 119:71, 92, 114), prayer reminds us our Father knows and cares (Php. 4:6-7; 1Pet. 5:6-7; 1Jn. 5:14-15), and the worship and fellowship of the Church reaffirms the Lord’s promises and that we are not alone in waiting and watching for His return (Psa. 122; 1Cor. 11:26; Heb. 10:19-25). Stress and trouble is always easier to bear when we avail ourselves of the means of grace. Trials are not easy, but God’s grace makes them bearable and sanctifying.

It is especially important in seasons of trial to be diligent in using God’s means of grace to sustain our souls and strengthen our faith. We can easily be distracted by the urgent concerns troubling our hearts at such times. Daily Bible reading is certainly less urgent than physical crisis. Prayer may not seem imminently practical. And so we focus more on what is pressing than on what is important. We neglect the word and prayer and the worship of the saints, and we find ourselves increasingly overwhelmed by the emotional pain of the moment.

We must learn to stay ahead of the pain, to apply God’s medicine for the soul before the distress has become urgent, before our sorrows are so great they obscure the brilliance of God’s glory shining above and around us. We must discipline ourselves before the trial comes, and even as we walk through the trial, meeting God in His word, seeking His blessing in prayer, worshiping His holy name and being reminded of what is true, what is real, what will last, and what will not. Do not wait until the pain is so great you can no longer focus on Scripture. Do not wait until you have no words left to pray. Be diligent each day to feed and nurture your soul using the means God has provided. Stay ahead of the pain, and watch God use your pain for His good purposes. –JME

Baptizing Baby Saints

Why would anyone baptize an infant? That is ridiculous! You never see an infant baptized in the Bible. It is a practice invented by the Roman Catholic Church. Those kinds of remarks are very familiar to me. I said things like that in the past. But recently I baptized five little boys as “covenant children,” without a profession of personal faith, based on the faith and covenant membership of their parents, and Sunday, August 2^nd, I am baptizing (sprinkling!) three young children, including an actual infant. Why would I ever do such a thing? Why did my convictions change? How could anyone ever think it is right to baptize an infant

There is a lot that can be said about the biblical basis for infant baptism as a sign of the covenant of grace, and I will have a lot more to say about it in the coming months. The change in my convictions did not happen suddenly, recently, or without significant study and much thought and prayer. But in this article, originally prepared for our church bulletin, I want to point out something most of you already know that supports the baptism of infants born into the covenant.

We work from grace, not for it. We obey the Lord because we are saved, not in order to be. The Bible is clear that salvation is by grace, through faith, not of works (Eph. 2:8-9; Rom. 3:28). So why are believers baptized? After all, the thief on the cross was not baptized, but he was saved. Believers are baptized to be obedient to Christ their Lord (Matt. 28:19-20). They are baptized to visibly demonstrate their union with Christ and participate in the covenant of grace (Rom. 6:3-4; Gal. 3:27). Believers are baptized because they are set apart as holy, because they belong to God’s covenant of grace (Acts 10:46-48; 16:30-34). And that is why the children of believers are to be baptized too.

The NT says it explicitly: the children of believers are holy (1Cor. 7:14). The Greek word hagios used in this verse is translated saint throughout the NT epistles. This does not mean a believer’s children are automatically saved. Each of them much trust in Christ and repent of their sins. They must personally choose to serve the Lord. They are not saved by their parents’ faith. But because their parents are Christians, they already belong to the Church. They are visibly, outwardly connected to Christ. They are part of the covenant community. They are set apart as holy to God. The Bible says so. And that is why (among many reasons) we now baptize our children. –JME

Baptism is Not Always Immersion

I grew up in churches that practiced baptism by immersion. We did not recognize sprinkling or pouring water on a person’s head as baptism. In fact, we considered sprinkling or pouring to not be baptism at all. Those baptized by sprinkling or pouring had never been baptized, in our judgment, and needed to be baptized for the first time by being dipped in water.

Baptist preachers are quick to point out that Greek lexicons (dictionaries) define baptizo as to immerse, dip or submerge. That is true, but it is not the final word on how baptism ought to be practiced. When we look at how the Greek words for baptism are actually used in the New Testament, we learn some remarkable things. For example, the Israelites were baptized in the Red Sea crossing (1Cor. 10:1-4). But it was not the Israelites who were immersed in the Red Sea. They walked on dry land between two walls of water. The Egyptians, on the other hand, were immersed, but that “baptism” did not save them; it killed them. Similarly in Hebrews baptism (baptismos) is used to describe Old Testament rituals of purification that were administered by sprinkling, not immersion (Heb. 9:6-22). The writer uses baptismos to describe “the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer” (9:13; cf. Num. 19) as well as the time when Moses “took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people” (9:19; cf. Exod. 24:5-8) and when “in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship” (9:21; cf. Exod. 40:1-16). This “baptism” was not immersion but a symbolic purifying and setting apart of sacred things by sprinkling them with blood and water. The Gospel of Mark informs us the Jews had a tradition of baptizing their hands, dishes, and dining couches before eating (Mark. 7:4). Just as in Hebrews the Greek word for sprinkling or cleansing (rhantizo) appears in Mark 7:4 alongside the word for baptism or washing to describe these rites of purification and consecration to God.

The Bible does not mandate a specific mode of baptism, whether sprinkling, pouring, or immersion. What is important is not the way one is baptized but the reason for and name in which he is baptized (Matt. 28:19; Acts 19:3-5). We are symbolically washed, purified, and set apart in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in baptism, however it is performed. The importance is the meaning, not the specific method. –JME

See also:

The Proper Mode of Baptism

The One Baptism