Pick your own theology of baptism!

If baptism is an "an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace" (BCP), then we can ask three questions, from which I think you can identify different theologies of baptism.

Who makes the sign?

• God through the baptiser;
• The baptiser; or
• The baptised.

Is the grace

• already present;
• given by the act; or
• anticipated in the act?

What is the grace signified?

• A new status;
• A new nature; or
• Both.

I think most credo-baptists believe that the baptised makes the sign of an already present new status and new nature. The Reformed essentially believe that God through the baptiser makes the sign of an already present new status (although the sign is also of the new nature that may be either already present, given by the act, or anticipated in the act). The RC and the Lutherans seem to believe that God through the baptiser makes the sign of a new status and new nature which are given by the act.

I think I would say that God through the baptiser makes the sign (because the baptised is always described as passive in the NT), the grace is given in the act (because the NT seems to see baptism as achieving something), the grace signified is the new status (because that seems to fit the NT texts when interpreted in the light of wider theological convictions and experience - namely the once for all nature of the new birth and the reality that many baptised people do not believe). However I'd also say, with the Reformed, that the new nature may be either already present, given by the act, or anticipated in the act.

How would you answer the three questions?

NB I wouldn't usually chose to use the word grace in the way it is used in this standard definition. It makes grace sound like a 'thing'. Maybe we could use the word 'reality'.

The treasure of baptism

Listening to: Andrew Bird: Noble Beast

Do you realise the value of the gift you have been given in baptism?

Do you even realise it is a gift?

Do you make use of your gift, coming back to it again and again to draw from its depths?

Baptism... is not our work but God’s... God’s works, however, are salutary and necessary for salvation, and they do not exclude but rather demand faith, for without faith they could not be grasped. Just by allowing the water to be poured over you, you do not receive Baptism in such a manner that it does you any good. But it becomes beneficial to you if you accept it as God’s command and ordinance, so that, baptized in the name of God, you may receive in the water the promised salvation. This the hand cannot do, nor the body, but the heart must believe it.

Thus you see plainly that Baptism is not a work which we do but is a treasure which God gives us and faith grasps, just as the Lord Christ upon the cross is not a work but a treasure comprehended and offered to us in the Word and received by faith. Therefore they are unfair when they cry out against us as though we preach against faith. Actually, we insist on faith alone as so necessary that without it nothing can be received or enjoyed...

To appreciate and use Baptism aright, we must draw strength and comfort from it when our sins or conscience oppress us, and we must retort, “But I am baptized! And if I am baptized, I have the promise that I shall be saved and have eternal life, both in soul and body.”

(pp.460-461, Martin Luther, “The Large Catechism,” in The Book of Concord, ed. Robert Kolb and Timothy Wengert (Minneapolis: Fortress, Press, 2000)

Why I am an infant baptist

1. Who is active in baptism? Baptism is primarily an act done to the baptised by God through the minister, not an act done by the baptised. In your baptism you are primarily a receiver and not a giver.
2. What is the act? It is the visible, physical and verbal promise declared to the baptised that Jesus Christ died and rose for the forgiveness of their sins so they now have a new identity in Christ.
3. When should someone be baptised? The promise in baptism must be received by faith to be of any benefit but that faith may come later. Faith is always preceded and created by the declared promise, so it is natural for infants to be baptised even if they do not yet believe. Because the declared promise is the cause of faith, it actually is more logical for baptism to precede first faith.

Q: How does baptism relate to preaching? A: Both are declarations of the word of promise, but baptism has a unique role as the distinctly personalised and embodied promise. We need the concreteness that baptism and the Lord's Supper provide and preaching doesn't.

Q: Why do adults have faith before being baptised? A: Faith may be present in the baptised beforehand, but only because they received the promise in a purely verbal form earlier (e.g. through preaching). Faith is not a prerequisite of baptism so as soon as someone is willing to be baptised then baptise them straight away without question. No need to test their fruits, because the promise is how those fruits are created.

I think, adult-only baptism is a symptom of getting the who? and what? questions wrong. I'm sorry for the lack of proof texts, but a quick look through the NT texts on baptism should make the first two answers clear, and the third then just follows from that.

Gift giving

I have just received a package from Amazon containing a book I have bought for a friend. In intention this book is for my friend, but nobody knows that yet. I didn't tell Amazon, I haven't told anyone else and there is no indication on the book itself that it is for my friend.

Does the book belong to me or is it my friend's book? I think you could argue both ways at the moment.

However, when I wrap it up and give it to my friend saying 'this is for you,' then it will be clear that it is now his book. The act of giving, with the words accompanying it, achieve something. It is a speech-act which acomplishes what it says.

Jesus' death and resurrection can be like this. He died and was raised for us, but the event itself does not tell us that.

Jesus' own words and the Bible as a whole interpret the meaning of the event, but it becomes deeply personal when, as Christ's ambassadors Christians say 'you are forgiven,' and just that thing occurs. Forgiveness actually happens in that moment. It has already happened in the cruxifiction and resurrection of Christ, but it is applied in the declaration of absolution that Christians make on their Lord's behalf. Modern evangelicals may baulk at the weight of Jesus' instructions to his disciples, "if you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld" (John 20:23), but there is no more fundamental part of Gospel-ministry.

Under English law I cannot give a house to someone with only spoken words. It is considered that land is such an important asset that for it to be given away additional formalities have to be observed. So land can only be legally given by way of deed. A deed is written document signed by both parties, which until recently had also to be sealed (e.g. with impressed wax). This deed gives certainty to all the parties that the gift really happened and was not just empty words.

Baptism corresponds to this. It is a binding, visible promise of God that we have died and been raised with Christ and it achieves what it promises. If later in life we have doubts about our true identity or whether we have been forgiven, we point to the cross and resurrection of Jesus but through the word and sacrament that we have already received as a personal address to us. This is what Paul does in Romans 6, and what Luther did when he responded to the devil's acqusations by crying out "I am baptized!"

I may have been given a beautiful house but it is another thing to receive it and live in it.

There are a number of different ways I can respond to the gift:

(i) If I believe that this house is now both mine and more beautiful and solid than the house I currently live in I will joyfully move in all my possessions, explore every room, make myself at home and invite others to share in my joy by inviting them to stay.

(ii) But while I may believe that this house is mine I may doubt that it is really that nice a house. My heart may remain in my old house, and I may want to live there most of the time. When the floods come then I will finally realise that this house I have been given is the best, but in the meantime wise friends will warn me of the dangers of living in my old house, and extol the beauty and security that the new house offers. They won't spend time persuading me that the house is mine, but they will spend time persuading me that the house is a uniquely wonderful place to live.

(iii) Sadly, I may love the house but even with the deed in my hands not believe that it is really mine. Perhaps I think that past or present sins disqualify me from such a gift. I might feel I need to earn the house and start sending the giver cheques out of my wages - even though he never asked for them. To this person wise friends will point to the promise; the words and the title deeds. 'This house is yours, enjoy it!' 'You have been baptised, the promise is yours free of charge, live out that reality!'

(iv) Finally, I may doubt that the house exists at all and the house I live in is the only house there is. I may have heard the promise and been given the deeds but concluded that they are worthless pieces of paper. Wise friends will explain how they have seen the house, how it is attested by reliable witnesses and fits with the rest of our experience. To this person you may give Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ.

Who adminsters baptism?

Probably one of the biggest questions to ask about baptism is:

• Is baptism primarily an act of, or upon, the person baptised?

Interesting to hear what a Baptist scholar may say about that based on the evidence...

Some Jewish groups practised 'proselyte baptism', i.e. proselytes were baptized in the process of converting to Judaism. In the monastic community at Qumram, members invoked passages such as Ezekiel 36:25 to justify their daily baptism... But in both instances baptism was self-administered. Candidates baptized themselves... One of the things that characterized the baptism of John the Baptist is that he himself administered it. It may even be that the authority implicit in such an innovative step triggered the assumption in the minds of at least some Pharisees that John's baptism was an end-time rite administered by an end-time figure with great authority.

(italics original, p.145, DA Carson, The Gospel According to John)

Carson notices that if baptism is primarily something done by one with authority to the person baptised there is a secondary question of who has such authority. John Calvin suggests an answer in commenting on John 4:2 where the Evangelist says that Jesus baptised, and yet also clarifies that it was only his disciples who did the action:

He gives the designation of Christ’s Baptism to that which he conferred by the hands of other, in order to inform us that Baptism ought not to be estimated by the person of the minister, but that its power depends entirely on its Author, in whose name, and by whose authority, it is conferred. Hence we derive a remarkable consolation, when we know that our baptism has no less efficacy to wash and renew us, than if it had been given by the hand of the Son of God.

PS I am sorry. I know that Christmas Eve is probably not the time to riding one of my hobby-horses.

Another post on the sacraments

Listening to: Kris Drever: Black Water

[To a friend who asked "Are the sacraments means of grace or signs of grace?" By no means the last word on the subject.]

I think there are two good angles to approach this issue from.

Firstly, the conviction that the sacraments are not primarily something we do but primarily something done to us. More specifically it is not something we offer to God, but something that God offers to us. The direction is down more than it is up. I think that this reflects the language the Bible uses to speak about the sacraments. It also reflects that the Gospel is a Gospel of grace, apart from works. God always takes the initiative. This means that, for example, while baptism is a declaration of our faith to the world, it is more importantly a declaration of God that he promises life in Christ to all those who die with Christ - and particularly to that person being baptised.

Secondly, the comparison of the sacraments with less theologically charged topics, which share similar characteristics. Healing miracles, and the Bible are good examples and I think help to throw light on how we should understand the sacraments.

Coming from these two angles (all at once!) we can then see that the sacraments, in common with healing miracles and the Bible, are signs pointing away from themselves to grace, means by which that grace comes, and even the grace itself.

1. Sign of grace

The healing miracles of Jesus were described by John as signs because they pointed away from themselves. They pointed to Jesus, his authority, and the nature of that authority as life-giving. To neglect this is to make the mistake of the Jews in John 6:26 and love the gift to the neglect of the giver.

The Bible also points away from itself to the acts of God in history, and through them to God himself. To neglect this is to commit bibliolatry which evangelicals are occasionally criticised for.

Similarly, the sacraments point away from themselves. They point firstly to the Holy Spirit's work of new-birth (in Baptism) and nourishment (in the Lord's Supper), but they point through that to Christ's death and resurrection which is the source of both, and the eschaton when both will be consummated. If we neglect this then we think of the sacraments as having some magical power inherent to them, and barriers to real personal relationship with God. We also are in danger of forgetting that we live a life of hope, looking forward to Jesus' second coming.

2. Means of grace

The healing miracles were used by Jesus as means by which people were brought to faith. They were a channel through which God sent his Holy Spirit to bring people to living relationship with Jesus who was behind the miracle. If we neglect this aspect then we can think that they are just signs, and so are unnecessary or even distractions from the reality, or that they are the whole reality and there is nothing more, and we are just left with the physical healing and no spiritual relationship.

The Bible also brings us to faith and is a way in which God strengthens, rebukes and encourages his people. We believe that God speaks through his Word to bring us life (i.e. grace). Again, if we neglect this then the bible could be seen as of no significance to knowing God, or even a hindrance to personal relationship ('the dead letter').

The sacraments also are used by God to bring us life. They speak of Jesus Christ and the promise that he is to us. Therefore, if we believe the promise they speak (of life through death to self in baptism, or life through the death of Christ in the Lord's Supper - among other things) then we will be blessed by God, i.e. through them we will receive grace. If we neglect this, we will have no real understanding of why Jesus instituted these rituals and seek other means by which to be blessed by God (e.g. works).

3. The grace itself

The miracles were actually a gift of Jesus, not just a sign of another gift, or a means to receive it. They were a taste of the complete salvation we wait for in the New Creation, but they were still part of that same dish. If we neglect this we may think that the miracles were not instances where the Kingdom of God was breaking into our present reality, because the Kingdom of God is non-corporeal rather than gloriously physical.

A famine of the Word of God (Amos 8:11) is actually a famine of fellowship with God. God the Father may be speaking about himself in his Son by his Spirit in the Bible, but if he stops speaking to us about himself then we have ceased to have fellowship with him. Speaking to someone over the phone may not be a relationship with that person in all it's fullness, but the speaking is part of the relationship. If we neglect this we may be tempted to think that communication is not what a relationship with our Father is all about, and instead think that some kind of 'mystical union' where words are somehow unnecessary - but that is to loose the personal nature of our relationship.

Finally, and sacraments too are the grace they signify and are means towards. They are not the full enjoyment of the grace, but they are a taste. Jesus is really present in the Lord's Supper (as he is whenever Christian's gather and he is testified too), so we are actually in that life of fellowship with him that the Lord's Supper points us to in its fulfilment in the marriage supper of the Lamb in the New Creation. When received in faith it also really is the life-giving food of Jesus' sacrifice for our sins. Similarly, when received in faith, baptism really does put to death our sinful old nature, and bring to birth new Christ-like life. It is only ever a taste, and the fullness will only be experienced when we fully die and are then raised again on the last day. But it is the same action breaking into our life now, by faith.

Water and the Spirit in the Gospel of John

"for this purpose I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel...I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, 'He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.'" (1:31-33)

"When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, 'They have no wine.' ... Now there were six stone water jars there for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons. Jesus said to the servants, 'Fill the jars with water.' And they filled them up to the brim. And he said to them, 'Now draw some out and take it to the master of the feast.' So they took it. When the master of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom and said to him, 'Everyone serves the good wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then the poor wine. But you have kept the good wine until now.'" (2:3-10)

"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (3:5)

"A woman from Samaria came to draw water. Jesus said to her, 'Give me a drink.' ... The Samaritan woman said to him, 'How is it that you, a Jew, ask for a drink from me, a woman of Samaria?' (For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.) Jesus answered her, 'If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, "Give me a drink," you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.' The woman said to him, 'Sir, you have nothing to draw water with, and the well is deep. Where do you get that living water? Are you greater than our father Jacob? He gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did his sons and his livestock.' Jesus said to her, 'Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.' The woman said to him, 'Sir, give me this water, so that I will not be thirsty or have to come here to draw water.'... God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." (4:7-24)

"Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, in Aramaic called Bethesda, which has five roofed colonnades. In these lay a multitude of invalids—blind, lame, and paralyzed. One man was there who had been an invalid for thirty-eight years. When Jesus saw him lying there and knew that he had already been there a long time, he said to him, 'Do you want to be healed?' The sick man answered him, 'Sir, I have no one to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up, and while I am going another steps down before me.” Jesus said to him, 'Get up, take up your bed, and walk.' And at once the man was healed, and he took up his bed and walked." (5:2-8)

"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him....It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." (6:53-63)

"On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, 'If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, "Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water."' Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified." (7:37-39)

"[Jesus] anointed the man's eyes with the mud and said to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam” (which means Sent). So he went and washed and came back seeing." (9:6-7)

"He laid aside his outer garments, and taking a towel, tied it around his waist. Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples' feet and to wipe them with the towel that was wrapped around him. He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, 'Lord, do you wash my feet?' Jesus answered him, 'What I am doing you do not understand now, but afterward you will understand.' Peter said to him, 'You shall never wash my feet.' Jesus answered him, 'If I do not wash you, you have no share with me.' Simon Peter said to him, 'Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head!' Jesus said to him, 'The one who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but is completely clean. And you are clean, but not every one of you.'"(13:4-11)

“If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth (14:15-17)

"After this, Jesus, knowing that all was now finished, said (to fulfill the Scripture), 'I thirst.' A jar full of sour wine stood there, so they put a sponge full of the sour wine on a hyssop branch and held it to his mouth. When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, 'It is finished,' and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit... one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water." (19:28-34)

"Jesus said to them again, 'Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.' And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit.'" (20:21-22)

A few things to notice:

• The connection between water, wine, blood, thirsting and washing with Spirit and life.
• Jesus gave up his Spirit and his life in order to give us both. He became thirsty so that we may never have to thirst again. He gave up his Spirit so he could baptise us with it.

"There is a fountain filled with blood drawn from Emmanuel's veins..." (Cowper)

The external and the internal

Baptism (the sign) and thing thing signified are inseparable, and must be held closely together in our thought, so closely in fact that we can attribute the effect of one to the other.

'There is, in every sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.' (The Westminster Confession of Faith 27.2)

This isn't some pseudo-Catholic theology carried over by the writers of the WCF. The NT writers also saw the two as inseparable; consider:

• Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved (Mark 16:16)
• 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 (Acts 2:38)
• In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead (Colossians 2:11-12)
• let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water (Hebrews 10:22)

Hebrews 10:22 is particularly helpful to think about:

'That phrase, which does not set up an antithesis between the internal and the external bur rather in a positive "rhetorical parallelism" joins the inner and the outer in "one indivisible reality".' (p. 110, G Wainwright, "Baptism III: Acts, Hebrews, General Epistles, Revelation" in IVP Dictionary of the NT)

In the Reformation there was a great conflict in which there was really three parties. The Roman Catholics who held that external actions were all that mattered, the Anabaptists and other radicals who held that the only the internal ('spiritual') things mattered, and finally the Magisterial Reformers who refused to separate the two. The external actions condemned us if they were not mirrored by internal reality. Our internal faith had to rest on external things (the Word and the Sacraments both of which the Radicals rejected) and could not exist apart from them. Luther saw the need for both better than most (Calvin sometimes almost seemed to view the external things as only accommodations to our weakness and not theoretically necessary):

new spirits assert that faith alone saves, and that works and external things avail nothing, we answer: It is true, indeed, that nothing in us is of any avail but faith, as we shall hear still further. But these blind guides are unwilling to see this, namely, that faith must have something which it believes, that is, of which it takes hold, and upon which it stands and rests. Thus faith clings to the water, and believes that it is Baptism, in which there is pure salvation and life; not through the water (as we have sufficiently stated), but through the fact that it is embodied in the Word and institution of God, and the name of God inheres in it. Now, if I believe this, what else is it than believing in God as in Him who has given and planted His Word into this ordinance, and proposes to us this external thing wherein we may apprehend such a treasure?

(Baptism, The Large Catechism)

But, and this is important, Luther recognised that the order of external and internal things was of huge importance, and had to be got right:

Now when God sends forth his holy gospel he deals with us in a twofold manner, first outwardly, then inwardly. Outwardly he deals with us through the oral word of the gospel and through material signs, that is baptism and the sacrament of the altar. Inwardly he deals with us through the Holy Spirit, faith and other gifts. But whatever their measure or order the outward factors should and must precede. The inward experience follow and is effected by the outward. God has determined to give the inward to no one except through the outward. For he wants to give no one the Spirit or faith outside of the outward Word and sign instituted by him [...]

Observe carefully, my brother, this order, for everything depends on it.

(p.224, Martin Luther, Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments (1925), in Selected Writings of Martin Luther ed. T.G. Tappert)

For you, even if you do not know it

These words from the French Reformed Baptisimal liturgy are beautiful:

Little child, for you Jesus Christ has come, he has fought, he has suffered. For you he entered the shadow of Gethsemane and the horror of Calvary. For you he uttered the cry "It is finished!" For you he rose from the dead and ascended into heaven and there intercedes - for you, little child, even though you do not know it. But in this way the word of the Gospel becomes true. "We love him, because he first loved us."

That describes the foundation of my belief that it is right to baptise infants. As James Torrance expands:

The work of salvation is from beginning to end the work of God. Baptism is the sign of what the triune God does. God forgives, God cleanses, God regenerates, God adopts, God sends the Spirit of his Son into our hearts whereby we cry "Abba, Father." Our response to this is to say amen in faith- our passive recipient response. There is nothing more passive than dying, being buried, being baptised.

[...]

Two things are important here: (a) Christ did not die for adults only! He died for adults and children..."Little child for you..." (b) God's grace is not conditioned by anything in us, not even by our faith! Nevertheless, baptism must always be an act of faith in the Christ who died for us and for our children. It is not a sign of our faith, but of the Christ in whom we believe [...] "...for you, little child, even though you do not know it..."

(pp. 76-80, James B Torrance, Worship, Community and the Triune God of Grace)

More thoughts on the 'one body'

From an email to the friend I am thinking this through with (see my previous post for less developed thoughts).

On reflection I can think of several inter-related reasons why we are 'one body' in Paul's eyes.

We all share:

• 'one bread' (1 Corinthians 10:17)
• 'one baptism' (Ephesians 4:4-6; 1Corinthians 12:13)
• 'one faith' (Ephesians 4:4-6)
• 'one hope' (Ephesians 4:4-6)
• 'one God and Father' (Ephesians 4:4-6)
• 'one Lord' (Ephesians 4:4-6)
• 'one Spirit' (Ephesians 4:4-6; 1Corinthians 12:13)

So for Paul the ultimate cause of us being 'one body' is the Trinity (isn't great how Paul refers to all 3 persons in Ephesians 4:4-6?). The promise of the Trinity is communicated (not just mentally) to us by the sacraments, and we embrace the promise contained in the sacraments by faith. The sacraments are promises that we can share in the death of Christ (Romans 6; Ephesians 2:16) but then also share in the same Spirit (a Spirit of life, John 6:63, Romans 8) by which he was raised (Romans 8:11; cf. 1 Corinthians 15:44; Mark 1:8; 1 Corinthians 12:13).

I like your observation that 'one body' has a corporal dimension. 'Body' for Paul is closely associated with 'flesh' and death. There is only one death which leads to life and that is Christ's death. His is the only cursed flesh where salvation can still be found. So he is also the 'body' which we need to find ourselves in. However for Paul 'body' is not as negative as 'flesh'/'death' and he is able to talk happily about our 'spiritual body' too (1 Corinthians 15:44).

However returning to our original discussion about where the term originated I think there are only two options:

1. The institution of the Lord's Supper.
2. The OT concept of marriage between God and Israel which Paul picks up and applies to Christ and the Church ('one flesh' is a small step away from 'one body', cf. 1 Corinthians 6:16).

It is interesting how it is difficult to imagine any closer union than either consuming something (food) or sexual union, and this is how the NT so often describes our relationship to Christ. We eat him, and we marry him! Incredible condescension to miserable sinners! He doesn't give gifts from on high, but comes down to us and gives us himself.

Protestants, baptism and the covenants (Part 2)

More sweeping generalisations which may not be true. Perhaps I should call them hypotheses for testing.

• For Lutherans the sacraments are the covenant/promise with the individual ("This cup is the new covenant in my blood").
• For the Reformed the sacraments are the sign of a covenant/promise which existed before hand with the individual ("He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.").
• For Baptists the sacraments are reminders of the covenant/promise that was made before hand and has no necessary connection with the individual ("Do this in remembrance of me").

Please disprove my hypothesis.

A command to baptism "pertaining to all"

Passages from Luther suggesting he thought the Baptism should be universal (indiscriminate) because the New Covenant included all:

If [inclusion in the kingdom, justification] was brought about with the Jews in the Old Testament through the medium of circumcision, why would God not do the same thing with the Gentiles through the medium of the new covenant (novo pacto) of baptism? The command pertains to all (praeceptum universale est): "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptising them …" Hence whereas circumcision was commanded only to the descendants of Abraham, baptism is commanded to all the nations, with the promise of salvation if they believe.

(WA 42,622,19-25 = LW3,104 on Gen 17:3-6 cited in Baptism in the Theology of Martin Luther By Jonathan D. Trigg, p.105)

Our baptism, thus, is a strong and sure foundation, affirming that God has made a covenant with all the world to be a God of the heathen in all the world, as the gospel says. Also that Christ has commanded the gospel to be preached in all the world, as also the prophets have declared in many ways. As a sign of this covenant he has insituted baptism, commanded and enjoined upon all heathen, as Matt. declares: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father," etc.

(Martin Luther, pp. 257-258, Concerning Rebaptism in Martin Luther's Basic Theological Writings)

Protestants, baptism and the covenants

I'm not sure that this is right but it is seeming from my reading that:

• Luther thought that the New Covenant is with every individual. It may be rejected by unbelief but the promise of the New Covenant is for all.
• Reformed theology seems to see the New Covenant as being with believers and their children (unless they reject it). However, I may be wrong here as while it is clear that they see believer's children as in the 'covenant community' I'm not sure that it is the same thing as thinking they are in the covenant.
• Credobaptists believe that the New Covenant is with believers only.

If this is a true summary then the different beliefs about baptism are simple to explain. However, I am 90% sure that my sweeping generalisation is wrong. But I'm trying to get things right in my head as I go.

Please, please, please correct me where I'm wrong.

God's word and infant baptism

Assume that the first baptism is without faith. Tell me which is the greater and the more important in the second baptism, the Word of God or faith? Is it not true that the Word of God is greater and more important than faith, since faith builds and is founded on the Word of God rather than God's Word on faith? Furthermore faith may waver and change but God's Word remains forever. Then too, tell me, if one of these two should be otherwise, which should it rather be: the immutable Word or the changeable faith? Would it not more reasonably be the faith that should be subject to change rather than the Word of God? It is fairer to assume that the Word of God would change faith, if a right one were lacking, than that faith would change the Word of God.

(Concerning Rebaptism, pp. 257-258 of Basic Theological Writings)

I guess credobaptists realise this and so that is why they don't accept that baptism is primarily an arrow down.

Cullmann on Baptism

I have been re-reading Oscar Cullmann's brilliant Baptism in the New Testament again. He concludes his little, but influential, book like this:

In the New Testament it is certainly proved that Baptism is applied to adult Jews and heathen who come over to Christianity. Proof of infant Baptism is at best indirectly demonstrable from observable indications. On the other hand, infant Baptism is in every detail congruous with the doctrine of Baptism, in the following ways:

1. in so far as Christ in his death and resurrection procures for all men and independent of them a general Baptism [i.e. judgment overcome with new life];
2. in so far as God in the entirely sovereign act of grace of Church Baptism permits the person baptised, through an incorporation into the fellowship of the Body of Christ at a specific place, to take part in that once-for-all saving event;
3. in so far as faith as response to this grace is decisive;
4. in so far as Baptism in its nature is the completion of circumcision and of the proselyte baptism connected, with it.

From these final conclusions, both adult and infant Baptism are to be regarded as equally biblical. (p.70)

Wonderfully this book is now on the internet here (pdf). Go read it if you can.