Posts
Since the early days of Christianity there have been three modes of baptism.
Aspersion (sprinkling) is alluded to in Ezekiel : "I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean." The method of affusion was used on the Day of Pentecost. When Jesus baptized the church with the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost. Peter said it was to fulfill Joel's words, "I will pour out my Spirit on all people" (Acts 2.17). The mode of immersion was also used. Romans 6 speaks of baptism as a 'burial and resurrection.' The word 'baptism' usually means to 'dunk.' But it also has the generic meaning of 'washing.'
The Scriptural words about baptism were spoken to adults. But infants were included in the baptismal actions. In 1 Corinthians 7 Paul speaks of the implicit solidarity of the family living under God's covenant. He writes, "For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy." (1 Cor 7.14) This indicates that children could be baptized because parents had chosen baptism. The children belong to the covenant community through their parents' faith, and can therefore receive the sign of entrance into the covenant--baptism. (There are 'household' baptisms in the book of Acts; we can assume that the households included children.) Another passage that relates to this 'proxy' faith is Mark 2. The paralyzed man's friends go through the roof to bring him to Jesus. It says that Jesus healed him because of 'their' faith. The idea of 'lending' a child our faith until the time when the child can 'own' it for themself is part of Christian tradition. We lend children our brains, our reason, our strength, our confidence, etc. We also lend faith.
Paul teaches the covenant understanding of baptism in Colossians 2.11-12 where he says that Christian baptism is analogous to Jewish circumcision. Both are signs of the covenant; both are given to children who are not old enough the rationally understand the implications. Baptism does not have to be understood to be received. It is a sign of God's promise.
We remember how Jesus said, "Don't try to prohibit the children from coming to me." He is not explicitly discussing baptism, but the attitude of inclusion of children is clear in his ministry.
Of course there are passages that speak about the need to repent and believe in relation to baptism. Those were spoken to adults who could repent, not to children who couldn't. Jesus himself was baptized, but didn't repent. He didn't need to. Perhaps children don't need to either. Are they conscious sinners?
Martin Luther responded to this objection by saying that children/infants have always been baptized by the church, yet faith is a requirement; therefore, the only conclusion to reach is that children must be able to have their own kind of faith, otherwise Jesus wouldn't have required something that children couldn't do.
Is there a 'seed' of faith in infants that grows as they are nurtured in the church? There most certainly is.
N.T. Wright, Bishop of Durham, England (Anglican Church) has written about the baptism of infants. When asked how old a child has to be before he or she can actually know anything about God, he answered, "About three minutes old." He goes on to say that the natural focal point of a newborn's eyes is the distance between the breast and the mother's eyes, so that the natural thing that the child does is to establish eye contact with Mom while feeding at the breast. There's an extraordinary sense of 'knowing' that passes between parent and child. If that is so between a human parent and the child, it is reasonable to believe that the creator of all living things can establish contact with a lovely little creature who bears his image at the earliest point of development. Little children 'know' in different ways that adults do. They have the ability to trust. (from an article in Reformed Worship)
Different denominations differ in their emphasis regarding baptism. Some see baptism as a purely human act--the human response to God's grace. Others see baptism as God's act: God effects something through this divinely instituted action. Paul says we are baptized 'into Christ.' (Ro. 6) In other words, baptism does something: it relocates us into the sphere of grace.
Is baptism a human promise or a divine promise? Baptism has to be a response to a divine promise. Without the promise, baptism means nothing. Presbyterians believe that baptism is the seal of the divine promise. There is no greater sign of God's unconditional love and grace than to witness the baptism of an infant. The helpless infant reminds us that "while we were yet helpless, Christ died for us." (Ro. 5.6) There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism (Eph 4). That one baptism has different modes and takes place at different ages and receives different theological explanations; but it's the one baptism that places us 'in Christ.'
Jesus told the church to go into the world and make disciples and baptize them. We are baptizing the little disciples-in-the-making. The baptism itself is part of the way we make disciples. First comes the nurture in the faith; then comes the understanding.
Having said all of that, I don't pretend to understand baptism. It's a mystery to me. I could be all wet.
