Amy and I went out to dinner last weekend, enjoying a nice “night off” from being parents (Zoë was spending the night with Amy’s mom). At some point during our conversation, I said “sooooo, what would you say if I told you that I’ve been thinking about having Z baptized?” She asked why, and I went into the best basic explanation of covenant theology that I could muster with half a glass of wine in me (it might’ve actually been better than it would’ve been without the wine). After I was done, I asked what she thought. She paused, and then to my utter shock, she said “I think that we should do it”. I’m not even convinced yet, but I suppose my explanation was fair, since it at least helped to convince her. The fact that we both grew up in churches that were predominately dispensational in their theology — standing in direct contrast to covenantal thinking — it’s a pretty big leap for either of us to even consider infant (or in this case, toddler) baptism. A firm decision still hasn’t been made, but the fact that Amy’s already on board has made me feel better about things.
A few days later, she mentioned to her mom and grandparents that we’re thinking (just thinking) about it. The idea was met with some expected eyebrow-raising and skeptical questions, but her grandma gave us some real gems . . .
“Why would you wanna do that? That’s stupid!”
(Okay, guess you’re not coming if we decide to do this.)
“She won’t remember it! What about when her friends at your mother’s church are being baptized ‘for real’? She’ll want to do it then.”
(Sorry, I don’t think that we’d approve of her going through something as weighty and sacred as baptism just because “everybody’s doing it”.)
“Well, that’s okay. We’ll have her baptized ‘for real’ at our church when she’s old enough to decide for herself.”
(HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! *ahem* Sorry. . . sorry. Now, as I was saying . . . HAHAHAHAHA!!!! *pointing*)
Gotta love the respect we’re shown for our parental decision-making.
Anyway . . . like I said, there’s been no firm decision made yet. I need to be honest with myself about this whole thing. Will we be doing this because we really believe that we’re obeying Scripture by doing so, or will it be just because we’re members of a Presbyterian church now, and well . . . “everybody’s doing it”? How much of this is motivated by the fact that I want to be an elder in this church in a few months (which, by the way, I think is a legitimate motivation . . . just not a legitimate primary motivation)? How much is now wanting to annoy my grandmother-in-law?!
Pray for us.
14 comments ↓
In the Assemblies of God, we believe in dedicating the baby to the upbringing of the child in the knowledge of God and then when once the child (mature person at this point) receives Jesus as their Lord and Saviour, then they are baptized in obedience to the Word.
It is viewed as the child can not make the choice since they aren’t mature enough. Baptism has to do with obedience to Christ and is symbolic of our death in Christ. Not something we do as a “right of passage” or to do so because everyone else is.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Four points:
1. Circumcision is also had to do with obedience to Christ and was symbolic of the person’s death with him and it was even a sign of FAITH just like baptism and yet Old Covenant believers rightly circumcised infants.
Identify the principial difference between circumcision and baptism which leads believers to apply the former to infants but not the latter. If you can do that, then don’t baptize your babies. If you cannot… well then i guess you’ve gotta.
2. As for “rite of passage”… that’s EXACTLY what baptism (and circumcisions for that matter) have ALWAYS been. It is a right signifying our passage through the waters of death with Christ (and Moses & Israel at the Exodus and Noah and his family in the flood! and all Israel in passing through the Jordan into the promised land…). Notice these are all passages through the waters of death as a COVENANT COMMUNITY- children explicitly included!
If it’s not a rite of passage, then it’s just water.
3. Under the Old Covenant, the children of the faithful were included in recieving the sign of the sign of the covenant. The promises of the covenant were explicity extended to the children of the faithful. In the book of Hebrews we are told that the Covenant we are now under (the (re)New(ed) Covenant) is bigger, better, broader and more inclusive than the last. It is more gracious and more merciful and more glorious.
Somebody explain to me how a New Covenant which excludes my children is bigger, better, broader and more gracious, merciful and glorious than the Old Covenant in which the children of the faithful were included. Let me get this straight… Abraham’s sons were in… but mine are out? How is that better? Better yet, I’d like to hear someone try to explain it to the family whose 3 month old son I baptized on December 23rd at a children’s hospital. He was dying. They lost him on the morning of the 31st. Explain to them that the Covenant of Christ excludes thier son, but the Covenant of Moses would have included him.
4. Also, we ARE baptized because “everyone else” is doing it. It is only in a culture as highly indiviudalistic as ours that such a statement can even be made. Look at the book of acts. Look at all the household baptisms. The point was precisely that “everyone else” in teh household was doing it. Now one will say “but everyone in the household believed!” To which I will answer “Right on! That’s the point! Covenant promises at work!” Our faith is not exercised in isolation from the community of faith and the sign of the covenant is not given in isolation from the community of the covenant!
(by the way, these exclamation points indicate enthusiasm for the gospel and not anger…. I comment on blogs like I preach I guess…)
5. Most christians who don’t baptize thier children hold to some kind of “age of accountability” theology. And where is this found in scripture? (chirp- chirp) And then of course there is in the wonderfully ironic practice of infant dedication. Basically a dry-run baptism. Where do these Christians find the biblical command to dedicate their infants? (chirp- chirp).
Infant dedication is evidence that even those who reject the theology of covenant inclusion for their children, know intuitively that their children have a standing in the covenant and a claim to the promises God makes in his covenant, and that this unspoken inclusion ought to be marked by a ceremony within the community of faith that child is a member of!
Hello! (tap tap- is) This thing on?
Peace.
I can’t count. Point 5 is free of charge.
I’m glad you are thinking about it…but of course it means next to nothing for the child…it does not provide salvation.
It is however for us as parents. So I say go for it…
For calling themselves by the name of the sacrament (sorry… “ordinance”) I find it ironic that “Baptists” are always the one’s most ready to assert that “baptism” doesn’t actually DO anything and that no one is actually SAVED by it. Which is odd. Since scripture continually links baptism to the forgiveness of sins. And since Peter says baptism actually DOES save.
My next favorite irony is sure to follow. That those who purport to have the highest possible view of scripture, are always quick to point out that what scripture says (especially as pertains to baptism) is most assuredly NOT what scripture actually means. On those verses, scripture actually means something… well something pretty close to the opposite of what it says.
Ok. I’m done. This is going to give me a stroke.
Breathe, Gregory.
My comments on the comments, especially (but not intentionally) covenant theology.
—-
Introduction:
I’m trying to apply logic and scripture here… I’m not intimately tied to any position in my own personal theology, and I don’t think one should get too angry over it, unless it’s something clearly outside of scripture (for example, polygamy or denial of the Trinity). It is, however, good and fun to think about (but for me, so is matrix theory, and the programming language Intercal, and Greek, calculus, and French, and Latin, and Music, and chess, and Sudoku, and Family dynamics, and psychology, and the Church, and Jesus. Jesus, the Church, and Theology are the most important of these, but I’m just saying that I usually enjoy this as fun, and not as war.).
——
First, “This is going to give me a stroke.” Well, it seems to me that your tone is a bit adversarial to some Christian brothers… Why so intent on having a brain clot?
[So I guess - after going over this thing for a bit - that *I* might give you a stroke, actually... Sorry 'bout that...]
——
Next,
“Infant dedication is evidence that even those who reject the theology of covenant inclusion for their children, know intuitively that their children have a standing in the covenant and a claim to the promises God makes in his covenant, and that this unspoken inclusion ought to be marked by a ceremony within the community of faith that child is a member of!”
[time for Arron's Grammer Hammer:
on ending a sentance with a preposition: "That is the sort of behavior up with which I will not put!" -Sir Winston Churchill]
sooooooooo…..
What do we say about those Presbyterians/Lutherans/Catholics that grow up to live a life contrary to scripture? They were baptized, so they’re saved, even if they give God the finger and reject their faith? Did God make a mistake by allowing them to be baptized? Dedication and baptism seem to serve as a way to ask God for the salvation of a child, but (as later life of many baptized infants shows) not as a guarentee of salvation. Is that what you would say? Also: One can’t tie it to confirmation class, either. There are many atheist confirmed presbyterians, Lutherans (see the TV show “Bones”), etc. running around these days… It has to be a matter of the heart and God’s relation to the heart of a perticular man, woman, or child…
AND:
“intuitively?” As in the Freudian unconcious? ‘cuz my mom would be surprised that she dedicated me and that saved me…. Pardon me for being rude… What do you mean??
—-
Next:
“In the book of Hebrews we are told that the Covenant we are now under (the (re)New(ed) Covenant) is bigger, better, broader and more inclusive than the last. It is more gracious and more merciful and more glorious.
Somebody explain to me how a New Covenant which excludes my children is bigger, better, broader and more gracious, merciful and glorious than the Old Covenant in which the children of the faithful were included.”
Well, what about the Gentiles being “grafted in” over the Old Covenant? It’s bigger and more inclusive because the whole world, not just one nation, is invited to the Party. And what about those whose families aren’t Christians? Are they just outta luck with this whole covenant thing? Do they even have a chance at salvation, or is it just “Sorry – God didn’t die for your sins because you aren’t my flesh and blood child…”
Which brings to mind John 1:
“But to all who have received him – those who believe in his name – he has given the right to become God’s children – children not born by human parents or by human desire or a husband’s decision, but by God.” (v. 12-13, NET translation)
If you say that infant baptism saves people, how are you not saying that the will of the parent (a “human desire”) saves people? I’ll deal with the special case you mention later.
—
Next:
“For calling themselves by the name of the sacrament (sorry… “ordinanceâ€) I find it ironic that “Baptists†are always the one’s most ready to assert that “baptism†doesn’t actually DO anything and that no one is actually SAVED by it. Which is odd. Since scripture continually links baptism to the forgiveness of sins. And since Peter says baptism actually DOES save.”
And Paul, in turn, says “confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe with your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” without mention of baptism. Are you then saying that baptism is NECESSARY for salvation? i know I sound a little rude, here, but I’m not trying to: I honestly just don’t understand the position.
Plus,
———–
Number next:
“Better yet, I’d like to hear someone try to explain it to the family whose 3 month old son I baptized on December 23rd at a children’s hospital. He was dying. They lost him on the morning of the 31st. Explain to them that the Covenant of Christ excludes their son [notice me playing nice and correcting the typo
], but the Covenant of Moses would have included him.”
So, you’re a minister, and you’re taking this adversarial tone towards your brothers and sisters in Christ?… (Now I begin to speak foolishly and get highly annoyed at the fact that ministers are human…) Apologies for being impertinant and irreverent, though: Blogging makes one braver…
["(by the way, these exclamation points indicate enthusiasm for the gospel and not anger…. I comment on blogs like I preach I guess…)"
my mistake... Really... Didn't see that note at all the first time... Why not edit them out if you think they might cause confusion on your tone, then?]
But really, my point is this: Maybe we’re supposed to trust the Character of God in situations like this. I would certainly NOT exclude the child from heaven on ANY basis – baptism, age of accountability, or anything else.
But as a good elder named Russ has said many times (and might I add, Russ is a Calvinist, so at least *that* might commend him to you if the titles “elder,” or “Christian” _don’t_[!]):
“Salvation is God’s province, not man’s.” It is He that decides to save us, and not we who decide to save ourselves. Salvation is ALWAYS God’s work. Obviously, man bears some role in that, but it is a mistake to hold up baptism as the primary means of salvation without looking at the other things needful to be saved: James talks about faith through works. Hebrews says without faith, it’s impossible to please God. Paul says confession is necessary for salvation and forgiveness of sins (in Acts), as does 1 John 1:9. Clearly, one can’t just hold up baptism as the primary means of salvation.
—
Other things:
The baptism of a dying child is a special circumstance, not the general caase, and sometimes, things true on a special basis are not true on a general basis. Would the death of the child two days earlier have excluded him from Heaven, as the logic seems to indicate? And if so, should we go to the medieval extreme of baptising babies in utero?
—
Number next:
“Peace”
Don’t say it if you don’t mean it…
—-
And then there’s this:
“1. Circumcision is also had to do with obedience to Christ and was symbolic of the person’s death with him and it was even a sign of FAITH just like baptism and yet Old Covenant believers rightly circumcised infants.”
If you’re gonna tie circumcision and baptism together ( and I don’t see why not…), then you hafta remember when paul says to the Galatians “Circumcision is nothing, Uncircumcision is nothing.” What really counts is a ircumcision of the *heart*. In the same way, I would posit that the true believers are those who are baptized in the heart…
Anyway, I apologize for being cutting above… I assure the folks reading, especially Greg, that I am not out to get them personally (though I soon will be if the lack of good manners continues and I see it), just to understand their position a little better (and to make fun of their grammar a tiny bit – a la Strong Bad… Feel free to make fun of mine.).
I do mean to poke you slightly with pins, but not to stab you with daggers. If you poke back, I will find it enjoyable.
I sign this note,
Sincerely,
Arron Powell,
Senior at Union University, Jackson, TN.,
Member of Northbrook Chruch, Three Way, TN.,
Main teaching pastor: Chuck Maxwell,
Small group leader: Russ Pflasterer.
If I’ve been rude, don’t blame them…
And Rae, if you’d e-mail me with an explanation of this (covenant theology, especially with regards to infant baptism) (if you have one that’s easy for you to deal with), I’d appreciate it. Don’t sweat if you don’t have a time to do it: I’ll just google “Covenant theology” if I don’t hear from you in awhile…
Greg (or whomever), here’s my e-mail address:
arron_powell@mac.com . Feel free to rant (politely) at me there for having a slightly less covanental perspective. It’d be fun for me to hear your position, since I really am not that sure about mine…
I have a spam filter, so I’m not afraid to post on here…
I should also say I’ve taken some of this to logical extremes, maybe past the point of good taste, to try and make points. Especially, this is the case at “Do they even have a chance at salvation, or is it just ‘Sorry – God didn’t die for your sins because you aren’t my flesh and blood child…’ ” Obviously, that’s rediculous, and I recant. However, you (the commenter) do seem to be a bit exclusive in terms of family… Am I reading wrong? And How? I don’t know the Presbyterian position on this at ALL, I’m only trying to figure out logically what’s going on. Think of me as a somewhat blank slate…
And my spelling of “rediculous” is also “ridiculous”…
PS: Acts 10:44-48 (Peter with Cornelius – and my first experiment with html italics to set off a quote):
“While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all those who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had accompanied Peter were greatly astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles, for they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, “No one can withhold the water for these people to be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” So he gave orders to have them baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay for several days.”
FIRST the Holy Spirit, THEN the water. NOT the other way around. Peter did not (at least in this instance) command baptism for salvation, but after the salvation was already given through the Holy Spirit.
CAUTION: This comment may contain trace amounts of humor & sarcasm. Readers with humor & sarcasm allergies should refrain from reading at this time. Or else your head may swell up like a marshmallow in a microwave and explode all over your monitor. Or you might just get really bad gas.
_______________________________________
I am not intentionally adversarial towards people. I do strive to communicate with humor and expressiveness. Thus the “stroke” comment- (I assure you I was at no time in actual danger of physical harm- but rather made the comment as a self depricating jab at my own passion regarding the issue. It’s what some call a “joke” and this one at my own expense). But thanks for your concern. (this too is a joke- you see, I’m pretending to believe that you are actually concerned for my medical condition when actually I realize you understand the comment hyperbolically).
I also wonder if you intentionally used the “cutting” remark following the discussion of circumcision as a pun. A pun is also a specific category of “joke” based on the use of polyvalent terminology. If so… I found it to be brilliant. If not, then perhaps it was a freudian slip which itself would be a sort of unintentional and subtle “pun” by implication, a subconscious reference to the earlier use of freud’s name in your comment. If this is the case… I find it to be even more brilliant! A pun without the pun! i love it!
However, I am deeply offended nonetheless by your apology for being “cutting”. An apology implies regret & repentance. Had you sincerely regretted your cutting remarks at the time when you typed the apology, you would have exercised the option of removing the remarks for which you apologized before posting the comments thus eliminating the need for the apology and demonstrating true repentance. Thus your apology strikes me as an insincere demonstration of false piety. You’ve found a way to issue an apology for an offense while preserving the injury of the offensive. However, recognizing that a refusal to accept your apology would reveal me to be vindictive and ungracious of spirit, I shall pretend to accept your apology- all the while harboring a deep inner bitterness. I am very emotionally fragile. Now you’ve made me cry. Please wait while I pray imprecatory psalms against you…
Amen. I’m back. I’m going to email you my phone number so you can call me sometime and we can talk about baptism if you are really interested (and you sound like it). Because I don’t have the time to respond to all you’ve written in a comment. Talking is faster and easier. And plus I want to be able to hear you gasp in horror after I explain why you’re probably going straight to hell for not seing the brilliance of my theological perspectives. This is what I’ve intended to communicate in my above posts, but I fear I’ve not made my self clear enough in this respect.
The comments here are making this post almost as epic as the fabled Joel Osteen post of one year and two days ago.
Arron – Greg will be able to give a much better primer on covenant theology than I would, as he’s my pastor (shh!) He’s partially responsible for my growing sympathy for paedobaptism and also partially responsible for my conversion to being a Mac user. If someone would have told me five years ago that I’d possibly be a paedobaptist, I’d be skeptical. If someone would have told me that I’d possibly be a paedobaptist and a Mac user, I’d have said that they were crazy and possibly an agent of Satan.
Comments on the comments on the comments (now with Italics to make me feel technologically literate – hope I have permission to be a little more ridiculous… If not, I ask forgiveness…):
“(this too is a joke- you see, I’m pretending to believe that you are actually concerned for my medical condition when actually I realize you understand the comment hyperbolically).”
If you were going to have a stroke, I would definitely be concerned… I really would. However, I would rather understand comments parabolically (y=x^2) than with hyperbole (hyperbola? – (x^2)/(a^20) – y^2/b^2) = 1 ). It gives them more focus than a hyperbolic concern could ever hope to have… Even better is understanding comments sinusoidally (y=sin(x) ), but that understanding oscillates back and forth so much that it’s mot difficult to get a focus on the point of interest.
Also: I’m sometimes dense with jokes… You notice?
” ‘cutting’ ”
….yeah… sometimes I let remarks stand as a monument to how I felt at the time…
“I shall pretend to accept your apology- all the while harboring a deep inner bitterness.”
the dichotomy makes you quite complex… Write a book… Seriously – write a book… Or at least a one-panel comic strip…
and lastly:
“circumcision as a pun” …sadly, no… I would’ve done so if I had noticed…
He e-maileth me to that effect without the “pastor” note… (suddenly feeling smaller…) He saith unto me “I look forward to talking to you.”
I agree-eth..
As for mac,
Yay for native keyboard shortcuts to ácçéñtêd chåräctërs. Makes my life as a music major with foreign language lyric transcription much better.
Besides which i get to post on people’s blogs wth all sorts of funny characters. Like this one: ß
Nothing substantive to add, but these recent comments have amused me greatly.
Leave a Comment