So what is baptism for?

Over the past few months, I’ve been challenged to come up with a good reason to baptize infants. In the Reformed /Presbyterian/Lutheran/Anglican/Catholic traditions we do this regularly and many wonder why. Because as many other believers tell us, it seems odd if not downright wrong. What about personal faith and repentance? What about it indeed?

So along with a mixed group of members from my church we shifted through what the various texts about baptism reveal. Stating with two from the New Testament we discovered that God had ideas about this in the Old Testament period. 1 Peter 4 points to the Flood as a type of baptism just as  1 Corinthians 10 point to the exodus across the Red Sea.

And it seems pretty clear in these two stories that God causes people to be baptized without their prior decision or faith. I find that interesting. I also find it interesting that in the Old Testament, God includes children as a part of his people. The cut of circumcision for boys marks them as God’s own who must respond with faithful living. The girls are included simply because they are daughters, wives and mothers. That may seem chauvinistic, but the upside is that this is a pain –free inclusion without incision.

So on we went into the New Testament. Jesus’ baptism, we discovered, has little to do with anyone else’s. Jesus identifies with humanity, but he never had a faith or sin problem. Everyone else we read about gets baptized because, of course, as first generation converts to Christ they would have to be.  And what about their children? The Bible is not silent. As a continuation of God’s way of dealing with people, it seems infants and children are still included by rite. Families are baptized and children declared holy. Jesus blesses little children and after all isn’t that what we remember in their baptism? I find it highly unlikely that the first parents baptized in Jesus’ name would leave their children behind, so to speak. With over a thousand years of life with God and no clear command to leave all that behind, the first generation of Christians would not have shed their Jewish roots; what is new in Christ is the end to the sacrificial system as a means of atonement. That’s it.  God fulfills covenants, he never renders them void. Jesus mentioned the same thing at one point.

In every story we read in both testaments it’s God who acts first. God calls – implants the idea to search him out – and then enables an answer that leads to faith. That’s how it’s always been; God initiates and people respond one way or the other, but in either case they are declared his own until they opt out, if you will, by rejecting God’s love. So on I go and baptize infants; in fact I’d baptize an entire family on the basis of one member coming to faith. Why, because with that one person’s active faith we can declare that God has already called the rest into his people and will not stop inviting a response.

At the end of our discussions there were a couple of conclusions beyond what I’ve already stated. The water does nothing of course; it’s not magical. It points to what God is doing. And, by being baptized, the person has been marked by God to live the life of faith with the help of the Christian community.

That led to a great conversation about how so many believers don’t follow through on the promises they make in their baptism and profession of faith. We are to help each other raise our children and disciple each other in the training and instruction of the Lord. In my experience, we don’t do that nearly as well as we could. And this has led to many misunderstandings about God, baptism, faith and life.

The historic argument against infant baptism has usually sounded much like this. Infants can’t repent; infant shouldn’t be raised think that they are already saved. Faith demands a response and so on. And while I agree that faith demands a response, I disagree that an infant is incapable. God can touch the heart of old and young alike and whether we can see or hear the response in a way that satisfies us reveals a serious problem.

In fact I’ll just say it. The historic argument, it seems to me, rests on the notion that well-meaning believers actually think that faith can be perceived in another clearly and confidently. As if we are the gatekeepers knowing who is or isn’t loved, accepted and born again by God. As if we know where the Spirit works and how. Yes a tree is known by its fruit, but evangelical behavioral standards often get confused with the kind of godliness our Lord is looking for. The problem it seems to me is that too often we think we are in control; we aren’t.

Romans 11.33-36

³³   Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!

How unsearchable his judgments,

and his paths beyond tracing out!

³⁴    “Who has known the mind of the Lord?

Or who has been his counselor?”

³⁵    “Who has ever given to God,

that God should repay him?”

³⁶    For from him and through him and to him are all things.

To him be the glory forever! Amen.