On Baptism Part II
11In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12having 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 ESV).
I've read many arguments for infant baptism recently, and to be honest, I have found many of them to be compelling. One of my favorites is the argument from church history: If infant baptism was not an apostolic practice, but rather one that developed later, than how come there is no real debate over the matter until the time of the Reformation? Examples of infant baptism can be traced to the second and third centuries, however no true argument against the practice in and of itself occurs in the writings of the church fathers. The fathers combated just about every other heresy of the day - from the humanity and deity of Christ to the freedom and falleness of man - but the subject of infant baptism is nowhere to be found. It's off the scope! Now granted, it is an argument from silence, but hey, it's a pretty good argument don't you think?
So here's the deal: what about Colossians 2? If infant baptism is an apostolic reality, then paedobaptists need to deal realistically with this text. I've tried and I've tried to be objective on the subject of baptism (a difficult thing to do considering the fact that I'm a Baptist Deacon). I'm am at the point where I feel sympathetic toward Covenant Baptism (the baptism of infants for a sign of the covenant as opposed to baptismal regeneration for salvation). In fact, if it weren't for Colossians 2:11, 12, I might even change my personal position on the baptism of infants.
Here's the issue: in Colossians 2:12 Paul tells the christians at Colosse that the circumcision of heart, done by Christ, is identified with their burial with Christ in baptism (that is burial in Christ's tomb not the baptismal waters), and that their identification with his resurrection is through their faith in the working of God. Notice that they were buried with Christ in baptism and raised through faith! If the baptism of infants is to be considered apostolic, then how does one get past the fact that Paul here links baptism with faith?
I'd really love to hear your opinions. In fact, I really, really want to hear your opinions. That being said, I have to be honest, I have a thought or two of my own:
(1.) Notice that Paul is speaking to Christians. It is implied here that they are Christians that can actually hear, comprehend, or read what he has written. In other words, Paul is addressing adults here not infants. That being the case, it is completely logical to assume that Paul could converse about faith and baptism in the same breath because everyone who would be hearing this letter read would already have Christian faith. Thus the argument that this text teaches that faith has to be present in order for a baptism to be valid may be moot considering the fact that Paul was speaking to adults who would have already had faith and would have already been baptized. Consider this: if Paul could have addressed the infants in the crowd - a hypothetical of course - perhaps he would not have brought up the issue of faith.
(2.) Unfortunately, argument #1 is rather weak. However, I present to you argument #2: perhaps the picture baptism provides is only of burial with Christ and not of resurrection with Christ. Pehaps baptism is meant to picture the fact that God has placed us into the tomb with Christ - our old man is dead and our sins are washed away because of his death. Then our personal faith would be a picture of our resurrection with Christ - the coming forth of the new man. Thus the baptism of an infant would picture what God will one day do through Christ in circumcising away the sin nature, and the faith Paul speaks of, when he says that we were raised with him from the dead through faith, is what will come later in a child's life when God does the heart-circumcision and the child expresses personal trust in Christ for salvation.
So what are your thoughts? Any? To be honest, I am still unconvinced, though I find the above to be interesting thoughts. I don't want to sound proud of myself, but you've got to admit this is pretty progressive thinking for a Baptist. After all, we don't change! :-) D.J.M.
I've read many arguments for infant baptism recently, and to be honest, I have found many of them to be compelling. One of my favorites is the argument from church history: If infant baptism was not an apostolic practice, but rather one that developed later, than how come there is no real debate over the matter until the time of the Reformation? Examples of infant baptism can be traced to the second and third centuries, however no true argument against the practice in and of itself occurs in the writings of the church fathers. The fathers combated just about every other heresy of the day - from the humanity and deity of Christ to the freedom and falleness of man - but the subject of infant baptism is nowhere to be found. It's off the scope! Now granted, it is an argument from silence, but hey, it's a pretty good argument don't you think?
So here's the deal: what about Colossians 2? If infant baptism is an apostolic reality, then paedobaptists need to deal realistically with this text. I've tried and I've tried to be objective on the subject of baptism (a difficult thing to do considering the fact that I'm a Baptist Deacon). I'm am at the point where I feel sympathetic toward Covenant Baptism (the baptism of infants for a sign of the covenant as opposed to baptismal regeneration for salvation). In fact, if it weren't for Colossians 2:11, 12, I might even change my personal position on the baptism of infants.
Here's the issue: in Colossians 2:12 Paul tells the christians at Colosse that the circumcision of heart, done by Christ, is identified with their burial with Christ in baptism (that is burial in Christ's tomb not the baptismal waters), and that their identification with his resurrection is through their faith in the working of God. Notice that they were buried with Christ in baptism and raised through faith! If the baptism of infants is to be considered apostolic, then how does one get past the fact that Paul here links baptism with faith?
I'd really love to hear your opinions. In fact, I really, really want to hear your opinions. That being said, I have to be honest, I have a thought or two of my own:
(1.) Notice that Paul is speaking to Christians. It is implied here that they are Christians that can actually hear, comprehend, or read what he has written. In other words, Paul is addressing adults here not infants. That being the case, it is completely logical to assume that Paul could converse about faith and baptism in the same breath because everyone who would be hearing this letter read would already have Christian faith. Thus the argument that this text teaches that faith has to be present in order for a baptism to be valid may be moot considering the fact that Paul was speaking to adults who would have already had faith and would have already been baptized. Consider this: if Paul could have addressed the infants in the crowd - a hypothetical of course - perhaps he would not have brought up the issue of faith.
(2.) Unfortunately, argument #1 is rather weak. However, I present to you argument #2: perhaps the picture baptism provides is only of burial with Christ and not of resurrection with Christ. Pehaps baptism is meant to picture the fact that God has placed us into the tomb with Christ - our old man is dead and our sins are washed away because of his death. Then our personal faith would be a picture of our resurrection with Christ - the coming forth of the new man. Thus the baptism of an infant would picture what God will one day do through Christ in circumcising away the sin nature, and the faith Paul speaks of, when he says that we were raised with him from the dead through faith, is what will come later in a child's life when God does the heart-circumcision and the child expresses personal trust in Christ for salvation.
So what are your thoughts? Any? To be honest, I am still unconvinced, though I find the above to be interesting thoughts. I don't want to sound proud of myself, but you've got to admit this is pretty progressive thinking for a Baptist. After all, we don't change! :-) D.J.M.
posted by bigdaddydave at 6:39 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home