Why I Am A Presbyterian: Part IV (Covenant Baptism)

After tremendous anticipation (not really, I’m just making fun of myself), I’m finally picking back up the “Why I Am a Presbyterian” series that I started over a year ago. This is perhaps the issue that makes people uncomfortable about Presbyterianism. The following argument is fairly thorough, coming from much thought and study for my Sunday school class on the means of grace this fall. This is what I now believe on baptism, and I believe it is important, though I do not think that one’s view on this issue should be a cause for church division. It is not a matter of salvation (to those who believe this, I would point them to numerous significant discussions in the New Testament of what it means to be justified by faith, in which the idea of baptism is entirely absent). Baptism is a secondary issue at best, but still important because it should point to Christ and does affect how we view our salvation.

The consistent commands in the New Testament are "repent, believe and be baptized." This is not necessarily the order, for surely belief must precede repentance. If the first two imperatives are not in chronological order, one cannot argue that the last follows chronologically either.

The Biblical command to baptize is clear (Matt. 28:19). However, per Luther (and I agree) the Bible does not specify who, how, where or when to baptize. (This understanding assumes a descriptive reading of Acts, not a prescriptive reading. Acts is a narrative that describes the practices of the early Church; it is not meant to prescribe or dictate Church practice for all of history. In Acts, for example, we witness communal sharing of property and unpaid pastors. As cultures and economic systems have changed, these practices have changed. A descriptive reading allows Christianity to adapt to all cultures and eras. as it is meant to be.)

Since the Bible does not specify who, how, where or when, then we must ask why?

According to Westminster, baptism is a Sacrament. This means it is a visible expression of the means of grace. A means of grace is simply how God communicates grace to his people. Grace is available to people by the death and resurrection of Christ alone, but he communicates his grace through the Word, the Sacraments and prayer (Westminster’s tri-fold means of grace).

So the Sacraments (baptism and the Lord’s Supper) are ways that God’s grace in Christ is communicated to God’s people in a way that visibly communicates/demonstrates the gospel. Every part of a worship service should have the gospel as its center. The preaching should be Christ-centered, as well as the hymns, the liturgy, the prayers and the Sacraments. If this is the case, then the gospel of Christ is communicated to everyone there in varied ways.

The gospel is Christ coming to us as helplessly dependent persons, washing away our sins, wholly outside of what we’ve done, wholly outside of our own merit. What represents this helpless dependence more than a tiny, helpless infant? An infant can’t do anything for himself, can’t circumcise himself, can’t baptize himself, can’t wash away his own sins. He is helplessly dependent on another to do all of these things for him.

Baptism is a visible picture that the promise of salvation in Christ is offered to this child. It does not save the child, but is a picture of salvation for all present to see. This is another important point. One should stop thinking about baptism as "doing something" for the child. Baptism is practiced because it has been instituted in God's Word and because it is a visible expression of the Gospel. Also, this view of baptism envelops everything meant at baby dedications, which seem to be growing in popularity. At the infant's baptism, his parents promise to raise him up with instruction in the gospel. The congregation promises to help in any way possible. These are also important elements of the baptism of an infant.

Most everything in the New Testament is a fulfillment of Old Testament practices. Jesus is the true tabernacle, the true sacrificial lamb, the true prophet, priest and king. On the eve of Passover, he instituted the Lord’s Supper to be the New Covenant expression of Passover (“This is the new covenant in my blood”). In Genesis 17:7, 13, circumcision is called an “everlasting covenant.” So it must have some New Covenant expression. Baptism in the New Covenant corresponds to circumcision in the Old Testament. The link is made between the two in Colossians 2:11-12. Also, see the similar language in Genesis 17:10-13 and Acts 2:39. The promise of salvation, represented by circumcision and baptism, respectively, is for “you and your offspring/children.”

It is wrongly believed that Presbyterians are paedobaptists (paedo=infant), but we really believe in covenant baptism. All those who enter into the covenant people of God should be baptized. When Abram first entered into the covenant, he circumcised himself as an old man and his entire household. In the New Testament, the promise is extended outside of ethnic Israel, so it is now shown by baptism, not circumcision. Therefore, everyone in Acts is baptized (Jew and Gentile), along with their households (Acts 16:14-15; 16:33). The first generation to receive the promise of the covenant (that promise being that forgiveness of sins is available to all who believe) should be baptized, and children within believing housholds should also be baptized. At my church, a Jewish man came to believe the gospel, and he was baptized as an adult, along with his wife and children.

There are records of the second generation following the death of Christ baptizing infants, the most notable record is of John (the disciple/apostle) himself baptizing the infant Polycarp, who was famously martyred in the late second century. Numerous views of baptism existed in the early Church, from infant and covenant baptism to believer's baptism to get-baptized-on-your-death-bed-in-case-you-sin-again baptism. But St. Augustine records that the true view of baptism passed down from the apostles is infant baptism. Beginning with Augustine, for the next 1000 years +, this was the 99% practice of all believers. The Lutheran, Reformed and Anglican traditions that came out of the Reformation still continued to baptize infants (though with different understandings and emphases). Church history doesn't necessarily prove anything, but it does help to think that probably 90% of believers in history, those who were also guided by the Holy Spirit and many of whom (especially after the Reformation) also read God's Word.

In closing, just as the old covenant expressions of worship were to point forward to Christ, so the new covenant expressions should point back to Christ. am not critical of credo-baptism (believer's baptism) as long as it points to Christ, and not to the individual being baptized. Yet, the picture of a helplessly dependent person having their sins washed away is the most accurate depiction of the gospel, that which Christ has done for us.