To: christia@asuacad.bitnet Subject: Re: Infant Baptism --text follows this line-- >What your not understanding is that infant baptism and "believer" baptism >are really two different things. Believer baptism is more of a profession >of faith. Infant baptism generally is supossed to remove at least original >sin. ... I agree that there are somewhat different ideas behind the two baptisms, but not all groups that practice infant baptism believe that it removes original sin. Minimally, both groups practice baptism simply because Jesus commanded it. I personally don't think it's necessary to have any theories on what it accomplishes beyond that. But there are a number of different things that it can be taken to signify, so I'm not sure you need to choose just one. For Paul, baptism signifies death with Christ (Rom 6:3ff, Col 2:12) and union with Christ (Gal 3:27). The directory for worship of the Presbyterian Church, USA, includes the following symbolism: the waters of creation, of the flood, of the Exodus from Egypt, and the living water offered by Jesus. As an identifying mark, it signifies - the faithfulness of God - the washing away of sin - rebirth - putting on the fresh garment of Christ - being sealed by God's Spirit - adoption into the covenant family of the church - resurrection and illumination in Christ (Although it isn't clear from the things quoted here, it is seen as the equivalent in the New Covenant of circumcision.) "Baptism enacts and seals what the Word proclaims: God's redeeming grace offered to all people. Baptism is God's gift of grace and also God's summons to respond to that grace. ... God's faithfulness signified in Baptism is constant and sure, even when human faithfulness is not. Baptism is received only once. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to the moment when it is administered, for Baptism signifies the beginning of life in Christ, not its completion. God's grace is working steadily, calling to repentance and newness of life. God's faithfulnss needs no renewal. Human faithfulness to God needs repeated renewal. Baptism calls for decision at every subsequent stage of life's way, both for those who Baptism attends their profession of faith and for those who are nutured from childhood within the family of faith." I would say that the base difference between Reformed and baptist symbolism is that in the Reformed tradition baptism tends to symbolize God's grace, whereas in baptist tradition it tends to symbolize our response. But this is an oversimplification and there's really a lot of symbolism that we hold in common. The Reformed tradition (and with us most other groups) have chosen not to interpret the difference as so large that we have to rebaptize those who were baptized as baptists. By the way, several scholars now believe that in the early church, baptism was often done in the nude. (This is shown by catacomb paintings, and implied by language in some of the NT letters.) Thus the fairly common NT language about putting off the old nature and putting on the new would be references to this ceremony. It involved taking off ones old clothing, in symbolism of repentance and "putting off the old nature", being baptized (either by immersion or pouring -- catecomb pictures sometimes show water being poured over someone), in symbolism of death and preservation through death, and then putting on the new garment of Christ in rebirth. I think this is a powerful symbolism, though I fear that nudity currently presents enough problems for Christians that this would not be a wise mode of administration. ----- On infant baptism: The most common argument against this practice is that baptism is a symbol of repentance and belief: "repent and be baptized". It's not possible for an infant to believe or repent. This is one of the areas (such as worship on Sunday) where the NT evidence is not as clear as we might like, but I think it's clear enough: 1) In Mark 10:14-15, Jesus used a child as a model for how we should receive the kingdom. Like many other things Jesus said or did, it's not entirely clear how to translate this into doctrine. But I think one conclusion is reasonable: If a child is Jesus' model of how to receive the kingdom, how can we say that the essential requirement for baptism is something that a child can't do? 2) In the NT, a number of examples are shown of baptism. In several of them the entire household is said to be baptized. (Acts 16:15, 18:8, 1 Cor 1:16). Now it's possible that all of these households happened to be childless, or that for some reason we were supposed to understand this as not including children. But I don't think that's a very convincing argument. 3) The real question is whether membership in Christ's kingdom is only via reasoned, adult belief. This is taken as obvious by the opponents of infant baptism. Passages such as Act 2:38 are cited: "repent and be baptized". But those passages are clearly addressed to adults. For an adult, we do expect a responsible decision. But let's look at the passages in the NT involving children. I've already cited Jesus' teaching. It does not suggest that children are incapable of something essential. The next one is Act 2:39. That's right, the famous "repent and be baptized", which is cited so often against infant baptism, goes on the say that its promise is "to you and to your children". Then we have 1 Cor 7:14, which says that children are made holy through their parents. Again, this passage is not all we'd like, because he doesn't say exactly what he means by "holy", or how their parents' faith is applied to the children. But it certainly seems to see children as part of the kingdom. All the arguments against infant baptism I've seen start with the assumption that baptism = salvation, and salvation is based on intellectual belief. This assumption is not documented, but is used as a lens to view the evidence on baptism. I think the cause is a misinterpretation of "justification by faith". This term is often translated to "justification because of belief". That's not what Luther meant by it. Luther, like the other Reformers, believed that we were saved because of God's decision to save us. This decision was made before anything we could do. Faith is the way we receive our justification, which is already a "done deal". Faith is an attitude that places all trust in God, not in anything we have done. It is the opposite of saying that God waits for us to give permission to save us, and that without this "decision for Christ" God can't proceed. That was the position of Erasmus, Luther's opponent. Luther saw God as responsible for everything, from childhood on. He took great comfort in his baptism as an infant. It was one of the things that held him steady when he doubted. It was a sign that God was in control of his life from the beginning.