In the past, many individuals have shown an interest in joining our local church body who have previously been baptized in accordance with the requirements of their former denominational affiliation. Sometimes the mode or timing of their baptism is in conflict with our church's current practice. This creates questions concerning our corporate ability to open our arms to these candidates for membership. Should we allow them to become members even if they haven't been baptized according to our church's traditional beliefs? Or should we demand that they be rebaptized before they will be accepted as members?

In our day of rampant individualism, we should applaud any person's desire to unite to a local body of believers in accordance with Christ's commands, for his stated mission was not "I will seek to have a personal relationship with you as Lord and Savior" but rather, "I will build my church." Our Lord's mission is corporate and our faith is lived in corporate identity with fellow believers both in the present and in the past. Our faith is not of our own devising, but rather, involves our incorporation into the running dialogue of the ages that is known as church history and tradition. In other words, our faith is not "Christian" in the proper sense of the word unless it corresponds to the beliefs of those who have preserved and perpetuated the Christian faith before us.

As we wrestle with the issue of accepting individuals as members of our local church who have been baptized by different modes (sprinkling or pouring) or at different times (whether at birth or after adult profession), it is vital that we recognize the importance of continued dialogue with the historical tradition that precedes us, which is our shared heritage as participants in the mystery of the Christian faith.

The Historical Backdrop to the Current Controversy

Ultimately, all differences concerning baptism arise from the Protestant rejection of the binding authority of Christian tradition. Prior to the Reformation, the church was generally unified in its testimony to the acceptable modes and times of baptism. (This fact will be demonstrated by the historic readings in the next section.)

Luther's unique doctrine of Sola Scriptura (the belief that Scripture is the sole binding authority in the life of the believer) was the death--knell to any authoritative role for church tradition or church leadership. This new perspective in church history unleashed a chaotic stream of fragmentation and division that still remains with us to this very day.

Undoubtedly, the issues Luther sought to address were of utmost significance and in need of correction. However, his proposed means for implementing this corrective was far too radical. Subsequent generations of believers would use his doctrine of Sola Scriptura to support their own conclusions, even if their conclusions were radically different from Luther's teaching, or even worse, from the general stream of church teaching that preceded them. And who or what was in a position to dispute their conclusions? According to their foundational belief in Sola Scriptura, the only binding authority was Scripture and thus, in good conscience, they could propagate their views regardless of their agreement with the past witness of church history and in spite of the opposition of ordained church leaders.

Disagreement after disagreement arose in this shifting historical context. However, after the dust had settled, each individual's interpretation of the Scripture was as equally valid as anyone else's interpretation, leaving only one solution--separation from one another in light of one's own theological distinctives. Thus, Luther's main engine for correction--Sola Scriptura--became the foundation for endless splinter groups, so that we now live in a time where over 20,000 different denominations claim to be the sole adherents to the undiluted truth.

As a result of this doctrine, a subtle shift occurred in what or who held the highest place of authority in the believer's life. Even though Scripture was touted as the only binding authority, Scripture was not really binding unless its teaching in any respective area could be demonstrated to be true to each person's individual conscience. Therefore, the highest authority became the individual's conscience--no church council, tradition, or leader held a place higher than this. Indeed, we hear this clearly stated in Luther's claim before the Diet of Worms, "Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason -- I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other -- my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen." Those who disagreed with Luther's teachings would use his very own reasoning process to support their own stance--no matter how novel or unique their interpretation of Scripture. After all, if it was good for Luther, then it is good for all.

Luther's example would shape doctrinal debates for centuries to come. In light of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, each individual's interpretation of Scripture was equally as valid as anyone else's interpretation--for who or what is a higher authority to tell them different. Because of this, each person's individual conscience was elevated to the position of highest authority. No longer was it necessary to engage with the great dialogue that had preceded in the form of church tradition. Furthermore, any pronouncements of church leadership were ultimately inconsequential to the development of one's own theological positions. In this way, church tradition and church authority were subordinated to a lesser position, and the individual and his or her interpretation and conscience were elevated to the highest position of authority.

What this ultimately meant was that one's individual conscience was raised above the collective conscience of the past and the ordained authority of the church. Everyone became their own interpreter--all doing what was right in their own eyes. The primacy of private interpretation had begun. Whether Luther realized it or not, the foundations for rampant individualism were solidly laid through his doctrine of Sola Scriptura. (It must be noted in passing, that this would have been impossible prior to the invention of the printing press in 1450, when the Scriptures were made available to a greater degree than previously possible to the common man. Also, this would have been impossible before the contemporary rise in literacy, for throughout human history the mass of humankind has been illiterate.)

However, Luther, perhaps unconscious of this internal inconsistency in light of his view of Sola Scriptura, still held church tradition in high esteem. Calvin also possessed a great appreciation for church tradition--quoting the Church Fathers over 800 times in his Institutes of the Christian Religion. Yet, in light of the new doctrine of Sola Scriptura both interpreters possessed freedom to discard whatever aspects of church tradition that didn't seem to fit within their own private interpretations. In short, they appreciated and esteemed tradition, but ultimately felt free to reject it, if necessary.

The Radical Reformation (from which our own tradition is a product) did not possess such esteem for the past. From their perspective, Luther and Calvin had not gone far enough in discarding all the remnants of their former beliefs. Completely rejecting tradition and seeking to remain consistent with Sola Scriptura, the radical reformers jettisoned everything that was not clearly taught in Scripture alone. This move resulted in further fragmentation and the proliferation of church bodies that considered themselves the sole voice for undiluted truth. In short, each individual could readily confess their "rightness" and everyone else's "wrongness." To this day, we experience the devastating and divisive consequences of this bold move.

An argument could be made that the complete rejection of all of the collective wisdom of the past was a formula for anarchy. Theology must always take place in light of a running dialogue with those who have gone before us; we are not the first ones to grapple with the mysteries of faith and godliness. The Scriptures were not handed to us in a vacuum, but in the context of a developing tradition from which we still currently benefit. How tragic it would be if every generation had to develop anew the complex doctrine of the Trinity or the profoundly mysterious doctrine of the hypostatic union of Christ. If one rejected tradition, one could easily argue against the Trinity or for the subordination of Christ as one "like" God, but not one who himself "is" God. Many of our cherished beliefs are held in light of the work of those who have gone before. To reject these voices is a formula for chaos and anarchy.

Jesus promised he would build his church. The church did not begin with the Evangelical movement, nor did it begin with the First Great Awakening or even the Protestant Reformation. The church began with the Apostles and we are those who share in the overarching story of Jesus' mission being worked out in human history. If we believe that Jesus is faithful to his promise to build his church, then we must be willing to listen attentively to those who have gone before us in the faith.

Our current controversy over admitting members into our church body who have been baptized by a different mode or at a different time than our current practice is a clear case where the need for dialogue with tradition is evident. We must frankly admit that both positions--infant baptism and believer's baptism--can be argued from Scripture. Using Scripture alone, we could find support for infant baptism in the passages referring to God's promise of salvation to "you and your children" (Acts 2:38), and the many passages that speak of whole households being baptized in the book of Acts (Acts 11:14; 16:31, 33--34; 18:8). Furthermore, it never seems that children of believers are treated as individuals outside God's covenant, but as those within the covenant who must live in light of its demands (Ephesians 5:1--3; Colossians 3:20). Indeed, these children are witnessed as sharing in particular privileges because of the faith of their parents (1 Corinthians 7:14). Likewise, using Scripture alone, we could argue that baptism occurred only for adult believers who made professions of faith.

Therefore, it is not fair, loving, or even civil to argue with rhetoric such as, "Our position is more biblical" or "The Bible clearly teaches believer's baptism." These statements are neither defensible nor charitable. Furthermore, they preclude any real dialogue because the immediate assumption is that "we are right and they are wrong."

In light of the importance of dialoguing with history, I submit a sampling of historic passages dealing with the subject of baptism from early church tradition. You will notice a unified voice, indeed, a general consensus. To discount this witness is to suggest that no one in the early church "got baptism right" until the Radical Reformation. Furthermore, it is to daringly affirm that Jesus' promise to build his church was empty of any real efficacy.

Baptism in Early Church Tradition

The Didache (The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) is an early document dated anywhere from A.D. 50 to A.D. 150. There is good reason to date it around A.D. 70, give or take a decade or so.[1] Regardless of the details, the document is early in origin and reflects the practice of the early church in regard to the details of baptism.

Now concerning baptism, baptize as follows: Having reviewed all these things [with those who are about to be baptized], baptize "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" in living [running] water. But if you have no living water, then baptize in some other water; and if you are not able to baptize in cold water, then do so in warm. But if you have neither, then pour water on the head three times "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." And before the baptism, let the one baptizing and the one who is baptized fast, as well as any others who are able. Also, you must instruct the one who is to be baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand. (Didache 7:1--4)

It is important to note the centrality of the Trinitarian formula in baptism. It is also important to note the priority, yet flexibility, of different modes of baptism. The first choice is running water (a flowing river or stream), but if that is not available, any body of water will do, but cold water is preferable to warm. Ultimately, however, if no body of water is available (and it must always be kept in mind that water was a precious commodity, nowhere near as accessible to the ancients as it is for us--the idea of a special pool for baptisms would have been completely unthinkable), then pouring water on the initiate's head will suffice for his or her baptism. Finally, it is interesting to note the extreme importance of baptism highlighted by the special care and preparation preceding it.

In the Letter of Barnabas (ca. A.D. 70/79 or 117/132), the purpose of descending into living [running] water was to wash one's sins away: "In this way He says that we descend into the water full of sins and foulness, and we come up bearing fruit in our heart, having fear and hope in Jesus in the spirit" (Letter of Barnabas 11:10). Hermas, the author of The Shepherd (ca. A.D. 140/155) considers the waters of baptism a seal and the act of baptism a symbol of death and resurrection: "The seal, therefore, is the water. They go down into the water dead, and come out of it alive" (The Shepherd of Hermas, 9, 16, 4)

Hippolytus' work on The Apostolic Tradition (ca. A. D. 215) is an important work concerning early church practice. In this document Hippolytus gives an extended treatment on a baptismal service:

At dawn a prayer shall be offered over the water. Where there is no scarcity of water the stream shall flow through the baptismal font or pour into it from above; but if water is scarce, whether as a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available. Let them remove their clothing. Baptize first the children; and if they can speak for themselves, let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them. Next, baptize the men, and last of all the women. The latter must first let down their hair and put aside any gold or silver ornaments they may be wearing. Let no one take any foreign object into the water with him. (Apostolic Tradition, 21)

After this, different oils are used to renounce Satan and his works. The ritual then proceeds:

After all these things have been done, let him be given over to the bishop or presbyter who will baptize. Let them stand naked in the water, a deacon going down with them likewise. (Apostolic Tradition, 21)

Following this, the candidate professes faith in creedal form, is baptized, anointed with oil, and then shares in the eucharist.

Again, the formal structure allows for some flexibility in regard to the availability of water. Infants participate as well as adults. And surprisingly (try envisioning this in your average Baptist church!), all baptismal candidates are naked, perhaps symbolizing their renouncement of all things for Christ.

As represented in the quote above, the baptism of infants has a long-standing place in the development of church doctrine. Irenaeus (ca. A. D. 140 - 202) writes: "He [Jesus] came to save all through Himself, -- all, I say, who through Him are reborn in God, -- infants, and children, and youths and old men. Therefore He passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children…" (Against Heresies, 2, 22, 4).

Origen (ca. A. D. 185 - 253/254) also represents this tradition: "Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants" (Homilies on Leviticus, 8, 3). "The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants" (Commentaries on Romans, 5, 9).

Finally, Augustine (A. D. 354 -- 430) heartily endorses this tradition: "The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except Apostolic" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis, 10, 23, 39).

Further quotes could be compiled. The purpose of this small collection is not to argue for the ultimate validity of any of these practices. Rather, the purpose is to readily show that the early church embraced a diversity of mode in baptism and also had no trouble accepting the practice of infant baptism. Thus, diverse modes of baptism as well as baptism of infants in addition to the baptism of professing believers both share a long and rich history in the common tradition of our Christian faith.

Strange Observation

A number of further issues must be brought up in light of the current controversy. I find it strangely interesting that those who are most vocal concerning the exclusive nature of adult believer's baptism are usually the ones who generally view baptism as a relatively inconsequential act. One need merely note how many people are quick to say that baptism has no "real" part in our salvation. Even using the principle of Sola Scriptura alone, this perspective can be shown to be reductionistic and faulty.

According to the Scriptures, baptism is important and necessary to salvation. This is not to suggest that baptism saves us, but it is meant to affirm that baptism is a vital element in the life of salvation. Indeed, it was the very point of initiation. (The modern Baptist equivalent is usually the altar call or sinner's prayer--neither of which has any clear Scriptural precedent, yet this does not seem to hinder the use of these things.) In short, an unbaptized believer would be unthinkable in light of the teaching of the Scriptures.

Notice the following passages and allow them to bear their full weight rather than toning them down in light of a few favorite passages:

"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit…" (Matt 28:19)

At the heart of Christ's message is the command to make disciples. At the heart of making disciples is the necessity of initiating them into the covenant community through baptism in the Trinitarian name of God. To suggest that baptism is unimportant or not necessary to the life of salvation is to perform exegetical feats on this text that go beyond my ability to fathom!

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

No original Christian reader would have heard this apart from recognizing the vital importance of baptism as an initiation into God's new covenant community.

"Peter said to them, "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself." (Acts 2:38 - 39)

Although we jump through numerous hoops in order to deny the full import of this first proclamation of the gospel invitation, the simple reading of the text highlights the importance of baptism as the first step of initiation into God's new covenant community. Also, there is no break in the invitation between those who hear and their children--the children are invited to participate in this call as well.

"And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 3:21)

Contrary to popular understanding, this verse does not undermine the importance of the physical act of baptism. Peter's point is not to suggest that washing by water is not the real issue. His point is that something far more profound happens in baptism than merely the washing of the flesh. In other words, the washing is important, but it is merely the means of something far greater. This is not to undermine the physical act of washing; it is to ascribe to it a profundity that is often lacking if we view the act as "merely" representing something and not actually affecting something.[2]

God has always worked in and through means. His economy under the new covenant is no different. The act of baptism is vital to the life of salvation. This is not to suggest that we are "saved" by baptism, but it is to suggest that, except in rare cases, there is no salvation apart from it. In passing, it must be noted that the example of the thief on the cross sheds no light on this conclusion. The thief lived and died before the inauguration of Christ's baptism (Acts 1:4-5).[3] His salvation is an example of great grace in extreme conditions, not a model of how to live the Christian life in normal circumstances. Furthermore, exceptions never define the rules. Should we all wait until the end of our lives to respond to Christ also, as the thief did?

Salvation is unmerited, but it is conditional; conditions must be met in order to be saved. The Scriptures clearly teach that baptism is an important and necessary condition to salvation. Sure, Christ alone saves by grace alone through faith, but he does not save apart from means. In other words, salvation is not just something that goes on in the mind and has no relation to physical reality or actions.

Some may worry that we are treading too close to salvation by works. However, this is to misunderstand Paul's teaching on this great subject. The predominant error Paul opposes in his letters is the error of ethnic superiority expressed by certain Jewish Christians. For them, the works of the law--all the Jewish cultic rites such as circumcision, food laws, the priesthood, temple worship, festivals and feast days, etc.--are the boundary lines that determine and define the identity of the covenant people of God. But in light of Christ's new covenant, the old works of the law are no longer necessary. The new boundary lines defining God's covenant community now revolve around faith in Christ as expressed through baptism and participation in the eucharist.

Because of the centrality of baptism as initiation into the covenant community, the authors of Scripture constantly refer to it as something believers need to often remember in order to live out the Christian life (e.g., Romans 6:1--4; Colossians 2:9--12). In light of this it is interesting to note that every early formalized church creed is structured after the Trinitarian baptismal formula: "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Certainly, baptism was vitally important to the identity of the early Christians. It should be the same for us.

The Hinge

We must keep in mind that our Baptist belief in a regenerate membership will always stack the deck in favor of believer's baptism, and immediately lead to the rejection of infant baptism. This is not necessarily bad--it is just a Baptist distinctive. Even though this is rarely recognized, no one doctrine stands alone--all doctrines influence other doctrines. This is unavoidable (and indeed, beneficial for integrative coherence is a human desire--we like things to make sense and fit together into a reasonable package). But we must recognize this in order to understand how this belief results in an immediate knee--jerk reaction against even the possibility of infant baptism.

However, I submit this as something to break the mortar a bit: Although we theologically affirm a regenerate membership, practically, we live otherwise. All of us raise our children as if they are members of the covenant community. We expect "Christian" behavior from them. We expect them to hold to "Christian" beliefs. We do not expect these things from unbelievers or those outside our covenant community, but we do expect them from our children. Why is this? Because in practice we affirm something that in theory we deny--our children benefit from covenant privileges in some way and are expected to live as believers.

Perhaps it would help to elaborate on how I intend to raise my children. I intend to raise Carmen and Owen as believers. This will be their identity: they are Christians, living in a Christian household, and part of a Christian community, with shared Christian beliefs and practices. I believe that they share in special privileges that other children of unbelievers do not. I have reason to believe this from Scripture. I have been promised that God's salvation promise is "for me and my household" (Acts 2:38 - 39) and that because of my faith my "children are holy and not unclean" (1 Cor. 7:14). One day they will embrace the faith completely as their own or reject it altogether (much like the intention of the practice of confirmation). If they ultimately embrace the faith as their own, their understanding will be stronger because of their heritage. If they reject the faith, their judgment will be more devastating because they have been given so much.

The reason I have chosen this route is based primarily on two things: (1) the testimony of Scripture and, (2) the simple fact of my overwhelming influence as a parent in their early formative years. In regard to the testimony of Scripture, I have the promises listed in the paragraph above. In regard to my influence, I realize that it would be very easy to try to get my children to "convert." What child is going to reject his or her parent's faith in early formative years? I could put the pressure on them to convert, and I can assure you that they would. However, in the end, they may end up worse off, trusting in a childhood decision that bears no adult fruit. I find it much more consistent to raise them with the identity of my household--which is Christian--realizing that in the end they will either fully embrace or completely reject our corporate identity as Christians.

Whether one views my way of doing things as helpful or not, the fact remains that all of us expect our children to think and act like Christians--something we would never expect from unregenerate people. So, whether we like it or not, our children are not on our membership roll because of our belief in regenerate membership, but they are on every other "roll" in regard to our expectations and acceptance.

Conclusion

I would argue that this issue is not primarily a "debatable matter" and thus an aspect of Christian liberty. Instead, at the heart of this issue is our need to respect the historic tradition that has gone before us. Baptism itself is not a debatable matter. It is important and necessary to the life of salvation. We have no fellowship, nor does the historic church, with those who would deny such a clear command of our Lord Jesus Christ. In accepting individuals who have been baptized as infants we are not rejecting baptism. We clearly believe that baptism is important--we are simply allowing disagreement over the "how" and "when" of baptism, but not the "why."

We do not have to embrace infant baptism to embrace believer's who have been baptized as infants into our church membership. Our practice can remain the same. However, in humility, we must acknowledge that our practice is neither the only "biblical" option nor the only "historical" option available to committed believers. Indeed, if we are honest, we will recognize that our way of doing things is--historical speaking--relatively new.

We are not heading for a "slippery slope" in light of this issue (a horribly overused argument, for everything is a slippery slope to those afraid of change). We are affirming the importance and necessity of baptism. We will never deny this. We are simply entering into the ancient dialogue and humbly admitting that our way is one option among many. In my opinion, this is the way of love and unity, of humility and peacemaking.

We must open our arms to the baptized. The logical alternative is to close our arms to the baptized and that seems to be completely at odds with Jesus' command to "accept one another as God in Christ has accepted us" (Romans 15:7). It does no good to say that we accept other Christians as brothers but then refuse to accept them as church members. This kind of argument is not only ridiculous, it is offensive. Furthermore, it continues to send the message to a watching world that we are more interested in minutiae than love, acceptance, forgiveness, and grace. If we can't accept fellow Christians with whom we have much in common into our church membership, what reason do unbelievers have to think we would accept them?

[1] Michael W. Holmes, editor, The Apostolic Fathers: Second Edition, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989), p. 146.

[2] In light of this, Luther clearly taught that baptism confers grace, brings regeneration, and saves: "Little children… are free in every way, secure and saved solely through the glory of their baptism" (The Babylonian Captivity of the Church). "Expressed in the simplest form, the power, the effect, the benefit, the fruit and the purpose of baptism is to save" (Luther's Large Catechism, section 223). Likewise, the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles state that "Baptism is… also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth" (Article 27)

[3] John the Baptist clearly taught that his baptism was distinct from Christ's baptism: "As for me, I baptize you with water; but One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to untie the thong of His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire" (Luke 3:16). Jesus brought this prophecy to fulfillment with the inauguration of his baptism in the book of Acts (Acts 1:4-5, 2:1ff.). Therefore, it makes no sense to argue for rebaptism in light of the disciples of John being "rebaptized" into the baptism of Christ in Acts 19:1-7. Technically, these disciples are not experiencing Christian baptism again. Instead, they are finally being baptized for the first time in the name of Christ. If anything, this narrative proves that the baptism of John and the baptism of Jesus are two distinct baptisms.

© Richard J. Vincent, September 11, 2001