IFECHUKWU U. IBEME
PRISCAQUILA
PUBLISHING
ENUGU
MAIDUGURI
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM
© Copyright 2001 - Ifechukwu U. Ibeme
ISBN: 978-36090-0-9.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
All Scripture quotations are from The New King James Version of the Bible
by Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, 1983.
Typeset by Priscaquila Publishing,
P.O.Box 2322, Enugu.
Printed by
The
Revd. (Dr) I.U. Ibeme was not only one of our Tent- Maker Ordinands, but a
friend - long before my Consecration (as Bishop). My acquaintance with some of
his younger ones as my members then at Bida gives me insight to their Christian
conviction.
He
has experienced Christianity as a Theological Student, as a Medical
Practitioner and as a Senior Parish Priest. These experiences culminated in the
writing of this book. His is not an uninformed write-up as we witness all over
the place.
Christians
of all Denominations and non-believes who seek to understand this universal
"Christian Baptism" can definitely get unadulterated biblical
and spiritual understanding from this simple spiritual book. A remarkable book
that, does not only give the etymology of the important words and phrases, but
also relates their contemporary usage and examples.
I
recommend the book to all and sundry who wish to cast away the thick cloud of
ignorance and heresy surrounding Christian Baptism.
Rt.
Rev. Dan Yisa,
(Bishop
of Damaturu) Trinity 2001.
In memory
of my late mother,
Mrs.
Gloria Uduoyibo Ibeme,
Who got me
Baptized on my fourteenth day,
Whereby I
was initiated into the
New
Covenant of Christ.
INTRODUCTION 6
....................................
..................................
.................... Page
6
1. THE WORD, "BAPTISM"
8 .................. .................................. .................... Page 7
Baptizo in the Scripture: A Word
Usage Study 8 ......................
................... Page
7
Bapto, Baptizo and Baptisma:
A Word Meaning Study. 12 ......
.................. Page
9
2. THE RITE, "CHRISTIAN
BAPTISM" 16 .................................... .................. Page 12
The Matter in Christian Baptism: Not
Mode But Effect 16 ........
.................. Page
12
Christian Baptism: An Initiation Rite 18
.....................................
.................. Page
13
Baptism and Dedication 22
.....................
...................................
.................. Page
16
Types of Christian Baptism 23
...............
...................................
.................. Page
16
By What Mode then Should We Baptise? 26
.............................
................... Page
18
A Resume 29 ........ ................................. ................................... ................... Page 20
3. CANDIDATES FOR BAPTISM 32
........
..................................
.................. Page
22
Who Should We Baptise? 32
..................
.................................
.................... Page
22
The Error of Anabaptist Baptism 33
......
.................................
.................... Page
23
The Place of Children Baptism in the
Church 39 .....................
................... Page
26
Value of Infant Baptism 41
.....................
.................................
.................... Page
27
Why We Should Baptise Believers With
their Children 44 ....
.................... Page
29
CONCLUSION 49
.....................................
.................................
................... Page
32
BIBLIOGRAPHY. 52
................................
.................................
.................... Page
34
Christian Baptism, in the last 500 years, has been one of the most
controversial and confusing issues in the Church. The first 1500 years of
Church history had upheld Christian Baptism as a symbol of unity because at
Baptism all Churches agree, including Western Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Syriac
Orthodox, African Coptic, etc. They all used the same Matthew 28 baptismal
formula, demanded similar Apostles' Creed and ministered baptism to believers
and all their children, whether minor or mature. This was the unanimous stand
during the 16th century Protestant Reformation. All the leading
Reformers like Luther, Calvin, Crammer and the Presbyterians all criticised a
small radical group called the Anabaptists as unscriptural and unapostolic. The
Anabaptists however refused to give heed to the Reformers. Since then, the
historic baptismal unity of the Church has become jeopardised.
The Anabaptist movement was born out of an over-reaction to the developments in
the Church during the Middle Ages. With the adoption of Christianity as state
religion in Europe, state laws gave every child the right to baptism
irrespective of the faith of the parents; and the Church acquiesced to such a
grave error! Again because it is more convenient to baptise by the modes of
affusion (i.e. Sprinkling) and effusion (i.e. Pouring), the Church gave the
impression that these were the only acceptable modes. While opposing these
developments, the Anabaptists unfortunately, also rejected the apostolic
practice of baptising believers and their households.
In the course of this, the Anabaptists redefined the Church to exclude all
children, even those born of Christian parents. They also gave Christian
Baptism a new interpretation: controverted its formula, its mode and its
object, and altered its requirement, its significance and its subject. The
Church has had to live with this controversy and anomaly with many well-meaning
Christians finding themselves on either side of the divide. Yet the Anabaptist
contention may not be merely a matter of controversy. It is apparently a matter
of life and death, a matter of divine indignation and personal danger.
This brief write-up (deliberately made short for easy reading and
affordability) aims to look at Baptism from its apostolic traditional roots
with the hope of clearing the confusing issues, recapturing its original
meaning and highlighting the scriptural, apostolic practice. It is my prayer
that this scanty effort would serve a useful purpose to the Church of Jesus
Christ.
"Consider
what I say, and may the Lord give you understanding in all things." (2
Tim. 2:7).
A. BAPTIZO IN THE SCRIPTURE: A WORD USAGE
STUDY
Christian
Baptism has encountered several controversies, misconceptions and misuse over
the years. This has been mainly because the common thinking about and usage
of the word "BAPTISM" in recent times is not the same with that of
the Scriptures. For instance, most arguments, theories, doctrines, practices
and traditions about Christian Baptism are based on man-made but UN- BIBLICAL
issues which are:
(1) By
what mode must one be baptised INTO WATER?
(2)
What must be the FIRST EVIDENCE of one baptised INTO THE HOLY SPIRIT?
These concepts
take root from our worldly minds and certainly not from the inspired writings
of the Bible. Christ was interested in covenanting souls into His Name and Body
eternally, but the world is concerned about temporary immersion into the water
element. Christ's focus was on the eternal purpose of the Holy Spirit Baptism,
but the world is splitting hairs on what the first temporary evidence must be.
As Christians supposedly guided by the Scripture, we must strive to abandon our
mundane Gentile ways of thinking and learn to think like the Scripture in order
to avoid being in error. Let us now get our thought and usage right.
First,
the Bible does not talk about Baptism INTO ("eis" Greek) Water! Are
you surprised about this? Rather the Bible talks about Baptism WITH or BY
("en" Greek) Water!
Second,
the Scripture does not talk about Baptism INTO ("eis" Greek) the Holy
Spirit, rather it speaks of using the Holy Spirit to do Baptism i.e.
Baptism WITH or BY ("en" Greek) the Holy Spirit.
Thirdly,
the Scripture always talks about Christian Baptism as a baptism:
1. (a)
INTO ("eis" Greek) THE NAME of the Three-One God (Matt. 28:
19).
(b)
FOR/INTO ("eis" Greek) REMISSION of sins (Acts 2:38).
(c)
INTO ("eis" Greek) THE NAME of the Lord Jesus (Acts 8:16;19:5).
All
the above refer to Water Baptism or Ritual cleansing Regeneration.
(i.e. INITIATION).
2. (a)
INTO ("eis" Greek) Christ (Jesus) (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27).
(b)
INTO ("eis" Greek) (Christ's) Death (Rom 6:3-4).
(c)
INTO ("eis" Greek) (Christ's) Body (1 Cor.12:13)
All
these refer to Spirit Baptism or Spiritual renewing
Regeneration. (i.e. INCORPORATION).
Note
that the Greek preposition `eis' is always consistent in its use
relative to Baptism in the N.T.. However the English translators are not always
consistent in their renderings of the word, hence the variations. Consistency
in renderings is generally maintained more in the Revised Version, American
Standard Version and J. N. Darby's Version
Fourthly,
the Word of God distinguishes Christian Baptism from other baptisms such as:
INTO Moses (1Cor. 10:2) and INTO THE NAME of Paul (1 Cor. 1:13,15) and INTO
John (Acts 19:3), though the usage is still with the same "eis".
Fifthly,
the inspired writings speak about Baptism taking place at (not into) the
Wilderness (Mk.1:4), at (not into) Bethany (Jn.1:28), at (not into) Jordan
(Matt.3:6), at (not into) Cornelius' House (Acts 10), at (not into) Jerusalem
(Acts 2), at (not into) Philippian Jail (Acts 16), at (not into) Samaria (Acts
8).
By now
I believe it has become a bit clear to us that many of us are mistaken about
the use and meaning of BAPTISM and BAPTISE. Following the Scriptural sense and
usage of the word, Baptism is done:
(i) AT
a place (Bethany, Jordan, Wilderness etc) not into these
(ii)
WITH or BY an agent or instrument (Water, Holy Spirit, Fire, Sea,
Cloud, Blood), not into these, and
(iii)
INTO a recipient subject (the Lord or the Lord's name, Moses, John,
Paul's name).
Again
whenever Baptism is mentioned in the Bible, the key question is not WHAT MODE
or WHERE or WHEN but usually INTO ("eis" Greek) WHOM was the
Baptism done? (Acts.19:3). May God help us to think in Scriptural terms to
avoid error as Jesus put it in Matt. 22:29:
"You
are in error because you do not know the Scriptures."
You
may have observed from the foregoing that we have two aspects to Christian
Baptism:
1.
Baptism into the Lord's NAME (with Water) - Ritual Initiation - relating to our
being covenanted unto ritual temporal safety out of the destructive claims of
Satan into the gracious claims of the Name of Christ and
2.
Baptism into the Lord HIMSELF (with the Holy Spirit) - Spiritual Incorporation
- relating to our being converted unto eternal salvation out of the depraved
nature into the divine nature in Christ.
We
could therefore raise the proper scriptural matters which are: How should
water, fire and the Holy Spirit (i.e. the Agent) be applied to the person (i.e
Object) who is being baptised INTO the Lord or the Lord's name (i.e. the
Recipient/Subject)? Should the water, fire, and the Spirit be poured on,
sprinkled on or fall upon the baptised object; or should he/she be made to
drink or be dipped in (and out) of the water and the Spirit? Which mode is Scriptural?
We shall look at these later. But what then does BAPTIZO mean in the
Scriptures?
B. BAPTO, BAPTIZO AND BAPTISMA: A WORD
MEANING STUDY
Apart
from using the Greek word `baptizo' with unscriptural prepositions,
another aspect of the Baptism discussion over the years is giving unscriptural
meaning to the word "baptizo"
First,
"bapto" is known very well to have two meanings:
(1) to
dip momentarily into something, and
(2) to
dye (a fabric) into a new or particular colour whether by dipping, smearing,
sprinkling, pouring, dabbing etc.
However
Christians of the Anabaptist descent have chosen to stick to giving baptizo
the same meaning with bapto in relation to only momentary dipping,
though they add that this dipping must be immersion until covered completely by
the water INTO which one is baptized. Surprisingly the Scripture never
used bapto to describe the baptismal process nor used baptizo to describe a
dipping anywhere in both Old and New Testaments. Neither does the
Scripture anywhere talk about baptism INTO water but WITH water.
If baptizo
were to mean dipping, it could not be momentary dipping INTO water, but
permanent dipping INTO Christ. On the other hand if it were to mean dyeing, it
could not be with water but certainly with the nature (i.e. colour) of Christ.
This is the only way baptizo could make any contextual sense as used in
the Scripture where Baptism is always INTO Christ or INTO Christ's Name.
In
classical secular Greek literature, baptizo conveys the sense of an
"overwhelming influence" by the receptive element into which an
object is baptised. For example:
1. A sunken
ship is said to be baptised into the sea.
2. A drowned
man is said to be baptised into the river
3. A drugged
man is said to be baptised into the opiate drug.
4. A drunken
man is said to be baptised into wine.
The
import of baptizo in all these is "overwhelm" not
"whelm over", "overpower" not "cover
over". Even when the overwhelming substance is put into the man (e.g.
opiates and wine), the man is still said to be baptised into the substance
without necessarily meaning dipping or immersion. Paul tended to imply this in
1Cor. 12:13:
"We
were all baptised by one Spirit into one body ... given the one Spirit to drink."
In the
Scripture, there are two figures of baptism:
(1) The
Baptism of Noah: in which Noah and his household sailed on the flood
and may have been sprinkled by the rain and were saved due to Noah's righteousness
(Gen. 7:1). It was those who were immersed into the flood that perished! (1
Pet. 3:20-21; 2 Pet. 3:6; Gen.7:11-23). Also note that it was specifically
because of Noah's faith and righteousness that he and his household were saved
(Gen. 7:1; Heb. 11:7).
(2) The
Exodus Baptism into Moses: in which the Israelites (including infants)
walked on the seabed of the Red Sea following the pillar of cloud and fire in
front of them and were delivered. Again, it was the Egyptians who were
immersed into the Red Sea that perished! (1 Cor. 10:1-2; Exd. 14:28-29).
Also note that Moses was once delivered as an infant by being put on (not into)
the same Red Sea (Gen. 2:1-10).
Again
the Scripture refers to Jewish water cleansing rituals with the
words `baptisma' and `baptizo' as in washing of hands and
feet as well as utensils (Mark 7:4), washing of hands before meals (Luke
11:38) and other washing rituals (Heb. 9:10).These washings were called
baptisms because they were meant to cleanse and purify. When Jesus turned water
into wine in Cana, this was with pots used to store water for such Jewish
purifications/baptisms (Jn. 2:6).
Therefore
Baptism does not consist in immersion but in experiencing a transforming and
purifying influence. Is
it any wonder then that the Scripture speaks of Baptism INTO Christ (and not
into Water). So it is a process whereby one is subjected to the overwhelming
purifying influence of Christ (not water influence!), whereby one is dedicated
to Christ (not to water!). Besides, the foregoing tends to show that
water immersion in the Scripture means perishing rather than cleansing or
covenanting. We can therefore confidently say that water immersion,
sprinkling, pouring, washing or even drinking are of no consequence as regards
the meaning, efficacy or validity of Christian Baptism (1 Peter 3:21).
We
conclude then that one is NOT baptised into water nor into the Holy Spirit,
rather Baptism into Christ's Name is done with water symbolising rebirth
(John 3:5; Tit.3:5) whereby we are washed, cleansed and purified
from our defilements and sins. By baptism into the Name of Christ, we are added
to the Church (Acts 2:41; 5:14; 11:21, 24) by the authority (and on the merits)
of Christ, which He has bestowed on the Church. This initiates us into
the New Covenant community: consecrating us to Christ and translating
us unto covenant temporal safety. We have neglected this ritual power of
Water Baptism to our peril. (In the Middle Ages they had magnified the
ritual to overtake the Spiritual.)
The
Scripture also says we are sanctified, regenerated and born anew with the Holy
Spirit (not only with water and the Word), by Whom we are incorporated into
Christ's Body (I Cor. 12:13); this obviously refers to Spirit Baptism done by
Christ Himself. This is the inward counterpart of Water Baptism. It renews us
unto eternal salvation (i.e. reconciled to God and being conformed to be
like Christ both now and in coming glory).
A. THE MATTER IN CHRISTIAN BAPTISM: NOT MODE BUT
EFFECT
From
our discussion in Chapter 1 on the contextual use of Baptism in the Scriptures,
we can now understand why St. Paul speaks of Baptism as a:
(1)
Washing of water with the Word (Eph. 5:26)
(2) Washing
of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit (Tit. 3:5)
(3)
Incorporation into Christ's Body by drinking of the Spirit (I Cor. 12:13);
and
St. Peter added the description:
(4)
Pledging of good conscience towards God (not merely the washing of bodily dirt)
(1 Pet. 3:21);
(5)
Likened to being saved from the flood into `The Ark' (i.e. `The Risen Christ').
1Pet. 3:20-21.
and
from St. Luke we understand Baptism as:
(6)
Means whereby believers were added to the Church (Acts 2:41; 5:14).
(7)
Washing sins away by calling on God's name (Acts 22:16).
The
teachings of the Scripture, on the whole, show that Water Baptism has the
powerful effect of cleansing and initiation to enable participation in, and identification
with the New Covenant community of Christ.
On the
other hand, Spirit Baptism has the effect of recreating and renewing the inner
man to be in Christ and like Christ.
Christian
Baptism therefore does not imply a mode but an effect or grace for which it
serves as means, sign and seal. Under the Scriptural meaning and usage of Baptism,
all our theories and arguments about our choice mode for baptism crumble into
utter emptiness, if not foolishness! May God help us.
The
symbolic meanings of Christian Baptism are several in the Scriptures and none
of these seems to respect much of our dramatic modal concepts of Baptism as
commonly peddled today. For instance, the Scripture talks of Baptism as
symbolising the following:
(1)
Death (to sin), burial (with Christ) and resurrection (to new life) Col.
2:12-13; Rom. 6:3,6.
(2)
Circumcision without bands. Col. 2:11-12
(3)
Putting-off of the old man Col. 2:11-12
(4)
Quickening with the Spirit. Col. 2:13.
(5)
Putting-on of Christ. Gal. 3:27.
(6)
Regeneration (New Birth) with water and the Sprit Jn. 3:5; Tit. 3:5.
(7)
Pledge of good conscience towards God. 1 Pet. 3:21; Acts 26:18.
Note
that all these meanings are to be reckoned and appropriated inwardly and
spiritually by faith, not acted out dramatically in Baptismal modes.
Baptism
is a MEANS OF GRACE (i.e. means of ministering, appreciating and appropriating
God's redeeming grace). In the Scripture, God promises and pledges certain
graces in Baptism, such as: Remission of Sins and Giving of the Holy
Spirit (Acts 2:38). However, these promised graces are on the condition
that those coming to Baptism also come with promises and pledges of Repentance
(Acts 2:38), Faith (Acts 20:21) and Good Conscience (I Pet.
3:21).
B. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM: AN INITIATION RITE
Ordinarily
Christian Baptism is the initiation sign and seal of the New Covenant in
Christ. It replaces every other initiation sign and seal of any other covenant
including circumcision (Rom. 4:11; Gal. 5:6; 6:15). The Christian faith and
community are covenant faith and community, and so need initiation for
admission or entrance. We therefore conclude that:
1.
Baptism certainly connotes permanent (not momentary) new change (i.e. regeneration,
transformation, translation) in its meaning and purpose. Baptism confers a new
status, authority and right to the baptised, who thereby becomes sanctified (or
consecrated) and adopted in Christ both ritually and really, symbolically and
spiritually.
2.
Baptism certainly means washing (Acts 23:16), cleansing and sanctifying (Eph.
5:26), regeneration and renewal (Tit. 3:5) and sprinkling clean (Heb. 10:22;
Ezek. 36:25).
3. As
the Sign of the New Covenant, Baptism symbolises both God's
pledge and ours for which it also serves as a reminder as in the case of
the rainbow sign:
. "The
rainbow shall be in the cloud, and I will look on it to remember the
everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh
that is on the earth. This is the sign of the covenant..."
(Gen. 9:16,17).
It is
also the Deposit of claims and Seal of ownership upon our lives - body
and soul (Eph. 1:13,14; 2Cor. 1:21,22), guaranteeing the promises by God and
us, which are made on either side through Christ (Acts 2:8; I Pet. 3:21). This
is why Ritual outward Baptism is called a Sacrament (i.e. "holy
sign" or "solemn pledge symbol") of the New Covenant of Christ.
4.
Baptism is the valid Christian rite of initiation INTO the Name of Christ (by
water) and incorporation (I Cor. 12:13) INTO the Body of Christ (by the
Spirit). By Baptism the baptisand is added (Act 2:41), introduced,
assimilated, involved, engrafted, included (Eph. 1:13) INTO the Name and
Body of Christ. By baptism, we are made to be IN Christ, IN UNION
WITH (Rom. 6:5) or HAVE PART WITH (John 13:8) Christ. By
Baptism then we are subjected unto the permanent transforming influence of
Christ who is the author of a perfect and eternal salvation.
5. As
an initiation rite, there is only ONE Baptism, just as there is only one
regeneration, one newbirth, one Church, one Christ and one Spirit (Eph. 4:4-6).
Therefore, to rebaptise a second time, someone who has earlier been baptised
INTO Christ's Name is grave error. This is the error of ANA-BAPTISM.
Christian Baptism like circumcision can only be ONCE FOR ALL. Could you imagine
one circumcised as a child being recircumcised later as an adult? Except if
complete emasculation would be done (Gal. 5:12)!
6.
Baptism therefore represents the Christian rite of passage from death to life,
from darkness to light, from damnation to salvation in Christ. Baptism marks
the conception (not the perfection) of the New Life. Baptism serves to initiate
(not to consummate) the Christian life.
To be
saved or to be Christian is not only being morally converted to
Christ but also entering formally into the New Covenant
relationship with God through Christ. This New Covenant is so powerful
that it supersedes and nullifies every other covenant whether Jewish or Gentile
(Heb. 8:13; Col. 2:13-15) and brings everyone into union with Christ
(Eph. 2:15-17). The New Covenant of salvation in Christ is holy, so Baptism
both initiates and sanctifies us unto this New, Holy, and Saving Covenant of
Christ.
7. Whether
in the Scripture or outside the Scripture we know that covenant initiations
have no age barrier for children of covenant-parents anywhere. Age barrier
is only necessary when one is born to a non-covenant household. Adult
Baptism therefore, could only be meant for converts who are not born to
Christian parents.
Regenerate
Faith (not intellectual
faith) is necessary for the Baptismal Rite, but for the minors their
faith or `regenerateness' is discerned by, ascertained in, or based on the
power of their parent's faith - so did Christ declare the children of
believers as "little ones who believe in Him" (Matt.
18:6). Likewise, Christ severally demonstrated that, based on the
faith of their parents, children of believers have faith to be healed
(Matt. 8:5-13; 9:18-25; 15:28; 17:14-18; Jn. 4:49-53). In addition, Apostle
Paul was so persuaded about Timothy (2Tim. 1:5) and other children of
believers:
"For
the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is
sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now
they are holy." (1Cor. 7:14).
It is
so strange that those who do Child Blessing and Child Dedication, (which are in
fact partial forms of Infant Baptism without water i.e. Dry
Infant Baptism), also depend on the power of the parents' faith, yet they
deny such power from their children for the New Covenant initiation.
Believers, who do not recognise the necessity, validity and power of full
baptismal initiation for their little children, thereby reject Christ's
instituted provision for their households. Such a wilful violation of the New
Covenant would certainly give the Devil the advantage to cause `woeful'
havoc against such households and lay claim on their `cut-off' children,
(See pp. 43, 44 & 49). But for how long would believers allow this
dangerous blunder to continue?
1.
Baptism cannot be substituted nor be preceded by any dedication because
Christian Baptism is the only true and valid DEDICATION in the New Covenant.
The Apostolic Church apart from Baptism practiced no other form of Dedication,
Blessing or Naming Ceremony. These non-baptismal or dry-baptismal ceremonies
are modern man-made innovations, which serve no effectual purpose, except to
sooth the guilt produced by the refusal to baptise children.
It is
important to note that all firstborn males were usually the only ones presented
before the Lord as dedicated in the Old Testament (Exd. 13:2, 12 - 15; Num. 3:
44 -51; Luke. 2:23; I Sam. 1: 24). Yet, none of such firstborn males could be
so presented except he was first circumcised into the Old Covenant (Gen. 17:14).
Therefore, no child of a Christian home could be duly dedicated except he/she was
first baptised into the New Covenant. Without first being covenanted
there is no sense whatsoever in being dedicated. To belong to either the Old
or New Covenant Community, whether as a child or an adult, one must first be
ritually initiated (Gen. 17:11-14; Acts 2:41), not only by claims of birth or
faith. Without being baptised first, no one could ever duly belong to the
Christian covenant community merely by dedication, by naming or by blessing.
2.
Dedication is not a sufficient rite for children of
believers. They deserve full initiation into their parents' covenant - into
covenant safety, sanctity and participation. Full Christian initiation
is only by Baptism. In any case, if Baptism is not acceptable for children,
why dedicate them to a covenant into which they cannot be initiated?
D. TYPES OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM:
There
are two types of the one and same Christian Baptism (John 3:5; Tit.3:5):
1. Real
Baptism: into the Body of Christ, which is done by Christ Himself on
the believer through the agency of the Holy Spirit. This is an inward
experience converting one to the Lord and into the invisible
Church (i.e. the organismic Body of Christ), cleansing the
conscience from the guilt of sin (Heb.9:14; Ps. 51:10; Isa. 1:16b; Ezk.36:26).
This is the Newbirth of the Spirit and is an inward consciousness.
It is Spiritual Regeneration with the Holy Spirit - a renewal (and
Incorporation) into Christ. This is an Anointing seal (2Cor.1: 21,22). This
Baptism effects not only our safety but also our salvation (1Pet.
3:21c); it not only translates but also transforms inwardly Spiritual
Baptism borders on the moral, the real and spiritual nature.
2. Ritual
Baptism into the Name of Christ, which is done by the Church (called
by Christ's Name) on the believer through the agency of water. This is
an outward sacrament covenanting and consecrating one to the Lord
and into the visible Church (i.e. the organisational Body of
Christ), cleansing the body from the defilements of sin (Acts 22:16; Heb. 9:13;
Ps. 51:7; Isa. 1:16a; Ezek. 36:25). This is the Newbirth of water and is
an outward ceremony. It is Ritual `Regeneration' with Water (and
The Word) - a washing (and Initiation) into Christ's Name and the visible
Church called by His Name. This is a Cleansing seal. (Heb. 10:22b). This
Baptism does not effect our `salvation' but our safety (1Pet.
3:21a); it does not transform but translates. As a covenant ritual,
Water Baptism borders on the formal, the symbolic and spiritual status.
It is
important to note that being ritually initiated into a divine covenant, though
quite beneficial (i.e. for temporal covenant safety), does not guarantee
ultimate security (i.e. eternal salvation) - either for adults or for
infants. This is true both with the Old Testament circumcision
or baptism into Moses (Josh. 5:5-6; 1 Cor. 10:1-6) and the New Testament
Water Baptism (Acts 8:13,16-23; Jude 1:4-5). Only Spiritual Regeneration of
the heart (when it accompanies Ritual Initiation) brings and guarantees
eternal salvation.
Ritual
Baptism and Spiritual Baptism are not interchangeable but complementary. The two should not be confused but be
distinguished for clearer understanding. Often Ritual Baptism, which has been
the subject of theology and doctrinal controversy over the centuries, has been
interpreted either sacramentally (i.e. in terms of Spiritual Baptism) or
modally (i.e. in terms of method of water application). This has lead to
complications, confusion and difficulties in theology and doctrine - having
obliterated spiritual baptism without making water baptism plain either. This
ought not to have been so. How could the mode swallow up the purpose? Or the
means of grace swallow up the grace itself? The truth is that Water Baptism
does not only symbolise Spirit Baptism but also initiates into
the New Covenant (not into water).
Real (Experiential)
and Ritual (Sacramental) Baptisms in the New Testament could be likened
to the Old Testament circumcision of the heart (Deut. 10:16) and circumcision
of the flesh (Gen. 17:11 - 12) respectively. The basis for Christian
Baptism is the "Blood Baptism" (i.e. Death) of Christ on the Cross-,
which is appropriated by faith, ministered by rite and applied
by grace.
There
are also two ways in which the name of Christ is applied in relation to
Baptism, which we must again distinguish:
1. Baptism
INTO the Name of Christ: "INTO"("eis" Greek)
refers to the EFFECT of Baptism on the baptised. This indicates entering into
relationship with Christ and is a usage peculiar to Baptism.
2. Baptism
AT or IN the Name of Christ: "AT or IN"("en"
Greek) refers to the AUTHORITY with which the Church could do anything
including Baptism. Hence, while the Church baptises people INTO ("eis"
Greek) Christ's Name, the Church also baptises with the authority, which it has
AT or IN ("en" Greek) Christ's Name (Acts 2:38; 3:6; 4:10).
This is the same sense the Bible talks about preaching IN (en) the Name
Luke. 24:47), or asking IN (en) the Name (Jn.14:13-14), or healing IN (en)
the Name (Acts 3:6), or even bowing AT or IN (en) the Name (Phil. 2:10).
E. BY WHAT MODE THEN SHOULD WE BAPTISE?
We
know that water was used for Ritual Sacramental Baptism (Acts 8:36; 10:47;
Matt. 3:6; Jn. 3:23; I Pet. 3:20 - 21) but nowhere in the Scriptures are we
told exactly how this water was or must be applied. Attempts to use bapto
and baptizo to establish this are futile as the Scripture is not helpful
in this direction. The closest, most detailed description of baptism in
Scripture is Acts 8:36. But the going down into the water by both Philip
and the Ethiopian Eunuch was clearly distinguished from the baptism
of only the Eunuch subsequently. The going up from water by both men was
clearly after the baptism had finished. Same was the case of Christ, who
after being baptised came out of the water and was praying, at which time the
Holy Spirit then descended on Him. (Mark 1:10; Luke 3:21).
Nevertheless,
there are ample instances where the Scripture refers to various modes of
applying water for baptismal and similar ritual purposes. These include the
following:
1. DRINKING
(a)
Used when referring to Christ's Baptism into suffering, blood and death. Matt.
26:39, 42; Mark 10:38, 39; Lk. 12:50.
(b)
Used in describing the Baptism with the Holy Spirit. John 4:10, 13:13; 7:37 -
39; I Cor. 12:13.
2. SPRINKLING:
(a)
Commanded in the Law (Num. 19:13 - 18)
(b)
Predicted by the Prophets (Ezek. 36:25)
(c)
Fulfilled in Christ (Heb. 9:13,14)
(d)
Preached by the Apostles (Heb. 10:22)
3. WASHING
(OF PART OF THE BODY)
(a) As
done in other ceremonial purification (John 3:22-26; Exd. 30:18-20; Lev. 8:6;
Ps. 51:7; John 13:5-11)
(b)
With water in a river (John 1:26-28)
(c)
With water from a water pot (John 2:6)
(d)
With water from other containers (Exd. 30:17-21)
(e) A
very common descriptive word for baptism used in the Scriptures (Acts 22:16;
Eph. 5:26; Tit. 3:5; Heb. 10:22).
4. POURING:
(a) Used
by God in the Holy Spirit Baptism (Ezek. 36:27; Acts 2:17; 10:45; I Cor.
12:13).
(b)
Most likely mode used at house baptisms (Acts 9:18; 10:47, 48; 16:33; 19:5) and
at mass baptisms (Acts 2:41; and 4:4).
(c)
Seems to be similar to FALLING by the Holy Spirit UPON the believer at Spirit
Baptism (Acts 1:8; 2:3; 10:44).
5. IMMERSION:
(a)
Derived from the meaning of the Greek root-word "bapto" which
means "to dip momentarily" as well as "to dye into a new
colour"
But we
have already seen that the Scripture never used bapto to describe
Baptism, nor used baptizo as being INTO water, rather it used baptizo
as being INTO Christ or His Name.
(b)
Appears to be probably figured in Rom. 6:4 and Col.2: 12 (However see 1 Cor.
10:1,2; I Pet. 3:20; Mk. 7:4 where baptizo could never mean immersion).
(c) A
likely mode at river baptisms (Acts 8:36-38)
(d)
Often practiced by the early Church.
Purification
and incorporation into Christ with water does not depend on the amount of water
or extent of its application (John 13:8-10), but on our attitude towards God
and the efficacy of Christ's work before God (I Pet.3: 21-22). As the power of
the anointing oil does not depend on its quantity, so it is with the baptismal
water.
In the
Anglican Church from its ancient beginnings in the 1st and 2nd
Century AD as with other ancient churches and at the Reformation together with
Lutheran, Reformed, Presbyterian (and later Methodist) denominations, we have
always baptised either by immersion or by pouring (or even by sprinkling)
depending on circumstance and convenience.
NOTE: Those who, like the Anabaptists insist
on immersion could only be excusable inasmuch as they recognise that Christian
Baptism is not into water but into Christ; also that immersion is merely one of
the (not the only) valid modes of water baptism
So far
we have now understood that Ritual Sacramental Baptism done by the Church is
right and valid if ministered:
1. AT
or IN the Name of Christ (i.e. on the authority of Christ);
2.
WITH water by any Scriptural mode; and
3.
INTO the Name of the Trinity or INTO the Name of Christ. This is how the
Scripture thinks and talks about Baptism.
We
must endeavour to imbibe these in order to avoid error and confusion.
We
have also seen that the Scripture does not speak of Baptism or "baptizo
"INTO water but usually INTO the Lord and His Name. Baptism should
therefore be understood to mean:
= To
be made a part of Christ (not of water);
= To
be made to look like Christ (not like water);
= To
be made subject to Christ (not to water);
= To
be put into Christ (not into water);
= To
sign/seal our initiation into the New Covenant with Christ (not with water) as
Christ commanded and instituted.
Water
is only the element that serves as agent; it is not the subject of baptism.
This is the context in which the Scripture speaks of Baptism. When we depart
from this and pervert the subject of baptism from Christ to water, we cease to
enjoy the support of the Scripture.
We
have agreed that Baptism is the covenant symbol or sign, initiation ceremony,
cleansing ritual as well as a necessity for proper Church membership and
Christian discipleship. From Matt. 28: 19-20 we could clearly see the process
of disciple making:
1.
EVANGELISE - Preach the Gospel of Christ to all nations.
2.
BAPTISE- Initiate the believing INTO the Name of the Lord.
3.
CATECHISE - Teach the baptised to observe all that Christ has commanded.
In
recent times this sequence of the discipling process has been disregarded under
the pretension of spirituality and ecclesiastical caution which is actually a
defiance of the Great Commission. Many now baptize only after they have done all
catechising. But how could the unbaptised outsider be taught the
mysteries meant for initiated insiders. Moreover, who could ever finish
catechising the Gospel mystery? Who could? And how long would this take anyway?
Baptism is not congratulatory or consummatory but initiatory. Who then should
we baptize with this manner of Baptism
According
to the Scriptures the Church should baptise:
1. Citizens
of all nations without distinction, to whom the Gospel has been preached (Matt
28:19; Mark 16:15,16; Acts 20:21).
2.
Those who give regenerate response to the Gospel i.e. repentance, faith and
coming for baptism (Acts: 2:31-41).
3.
These citizens of all nations who respond to the Gospel may be INDIVIDUALS or
HOUSEHOLDS (Acts 16:14-15; 1Cor. 1:14-16).
Baptism
is a necessary accompaniment of faith for all believers and their dependent
households as soon as possible (Act 2:38 - 41; 16:14-15, 30-34). By faith
one is converted or committed to Christ, but by Baptism one is regenerated or
covenanted unto Christ and His Church. Christian Covenant Baptism, as a
Sacramental Ritual, ought to be received by all Christians in order:
= To
be admitted/initiated into or added to the Church of the New Covenant (Acts
2:41).
= To
receive the New Testament graces of sin- removal and Spirit-bestowal
(Acts 2:38,39)
= To
seal the Newbirth (Acts 3:5' 10:47- 48).
= To
symbolise what the Holy Spirit has actualised. (I Cor. 12:13; Acts 10:47)
= To
fulfil the Great Commission as instituted by Christ Himself (Matt.
28: 18 -20 Luke. 24: 44 - 43).
B. THE ERROR OF ANABAPTIST BAPTISM
Since
the Anabaptists of the 16th Century Reformation, the issue of the
propriety of households of believers being baptised as in the Scriptures and as
practiced by the Apostles has been a matter of controversy. The Anabaptists
question the baptism of minors (i.e. infants and children) who have not reached
the age of discretion and as a rule rebaptise such persons when they reach
adulthood. In fact, the Anabaptist founding fathers outrightly rejected the
membership of children in the Church. This was based on a redefinition of
the Church.
The
Anabaptists rejected the age-old scriptural concept of the Church as a Covenant
Community. To them the Church could only be a Discretional Adult Cult, which is
a Gentile gnostic concept. With this redefinition of the Church, the
Anabaptists, despite warnings from Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Crammer, and other
Reformers, set out to exclude children from the Church and from the rites of
the Church. To them there is nothing like a Christian Home but only a Christian
Adult Believer. However, when this position was found to be wrong, the
later descendants of the Anabaptists modified the definition of the Church to
vaguely include children. Then they innovated a form of Dry Infant
Baptism called `Dedication', thereby making their adult
"Believers' Baptism" a form of Wet Confirmation.
Now
this is a very problematic position as the fundamental question still remains
unanswered. What is the Visible Church? Moreover, how does one become admitted
to its membership? And who are those qualified for such admission? Are
dedicated children admitted to the Church? If not, to what then are they
dedicated? And if so why are they later baptised again in adulthood? Or what
then is Baptism? Until these questions are clearly answered on scriptural
grounds, the Anabaptist view must be rejected as erroneous and unsafe.
But
the Anabaptists' contention is not plausible on scriptural grounds. The first
error of the Anabaptists is that of re-baptism (ana-baptism) for those
who have already been baptised (as infants or by non-immersion modes). With
their descendants, they have diverted the purpose and meaning of baptism:
(1)
from INTO Christ to INTO water;
(2)
from cleansing (washing) to dipping (immersion);
(3)
from covenant initiation symbol to congratulatory maturation symbol;
(4)
from baptizo to bapto;
(5)
from means of God's grace to means of man's witness.
(6)
from seal of regeneration (for adults and children) to seal of confession
(for adults only).
Further
than these, they have denied the humanity of childhood! According to divine
wisdom, revealed in the Scripture infants are numbered among the images of God,
among humans and among citizens of nations, who as sinners need Christ as
Saviour. Can anyone deny these facts? Discretion is a social measurement
but the Divine Lord measures spiritually.
Is it
not strange that the Anabaptists deny infants the right of full humanity
because they are judged as lacking the ability to understand the adults? Yet,
the adults are not denied their humanity for not understanding the infants! The
concept that children are spiritually sub-human is of Gentile origin and led to
idolatrous child-sacrifice, infanticide and abortion over the ages before the
Christian era. The Church fought these concepts and practices until these were
out-lawed. Is it not surprising that after the Anabaptists denied the full
humanity of infants, abortion again began to be legalised in some `Christian'
nations!
Gentile
cultures, since before the time of Abraham till today, usually reserve
circumcision until puberty and adolescence as a sign of maturity and licence to
participate in sex and marriage. But for Abraham, God gave INFANT CIRCUMCISION
as a covenant sign (Gen. 17:11-14), and as a sign and seal of righteousness
by faith (Rom. 4:11a). The `Anabaptist' Gentiles of Abraham's time must
have disagreed with Abraham and would have re-circumcised (ana-circumcised)
Abraham's children at puberty, probably by outright mutilation (concision)
(Phip.3: 2) or emasculation (cutting off) (Gal. 5:12) as St Paul said!
In
fact, there was such opposition to INFANT CIRCUMCISION by Moses' Gentile wife,
Zipporah, who would have preferred ADULT CIRCUMCISION for Moses' children.
However, when God wanted to kill Moses for succumbing to such popular mundane
ideas, Zipporah had to do an emergency INFANT CIRCUMCISION by herself, against
the wish of her unscriptural, Gentile mind! (Exd. 4:24 - 26). In the New
Testament, Jesus likewise pronounced a woe against any person through whom the
offence of despitefully excluding children of believers from the matters of His
Kingdom shall come (Matt. 18:5- 7,14). In fact, Christ was very angry with
the disciples when they stopped little children from "coming"
(i.e. being brought) to Him (Mark 10:14-16).
Who
really told the Anabaptists and their followers that God (who is not a mere
man) cannot communicate to minors? Or that infants and children cannot be
regenerate (Lk. 1:15), believe (Matt. 18:6a) and take covenant responsibility
(Gen 17:14). In their scrupulous but unscriptural thinking they have erred from
the revealed truth; verily, they have erred like Zipporah in Exodus 4;
yea, like the Disciples in Mark 10, thereby provoking divine
indignation. They have limited their God with social discretion! And
many have followed after their error! Such despising of covenant children,
which in fact despises the God of the Covenant, was met with divine
rejection in Gen. 17:14 and divine condemnation in
Matt.18:6-7.
There
was no loss of communication between God the Father and Christ when He was an
infant. No wonder Jesus taught us that Angels of little ones behold the face of
the Father always, so we should not despise them (Matt. 18:10); also that
the little ones born to believers, as such believe (Matt 18:6); that the
Kingdom of God is also for them (Matt.18: 3; Mk. 10:14); that they should be allowed
to come (be brought) to Jesus (Mark 10:14) and be received
in His name - by baptism? (Matt 18:5). Where on earth did
the Anabaptists get their doctrine from? And why are some still continuing in
and defending their error?
If it
is true that minors cannot receive the covenant sign with their households,
then they cannot be part of the covenant fellowship to which their households belong
nor partake of the blessings of such covenants. But the God of covenant, the
originator of household has never worked (and will never work) that way, with
His covenant people (Gen 17:10 - 15, Matt 18:14). Refusal to baptise minor
offsprings of Christian parents means that such infants and children have no
portion in the Church and so no portion in Christ (Gen 17:14). When a
covenant infant fails to be initiated, it is guilty of breaking the covenant
and obviously becomes vulnerable to the dangerous influence and claims of other
covenants. God's way is thus:
"All
of you stand today before the LORD your God: your leaders and your tribes and
your elders and your officers, all the men of Israel, your little ones and
your wives - also the stranger who is in your camp,...that you may enter
into covenant with the LORD your God, and into His oath,... just as He
has spoken to you, and just as He has sworn to your fathers, to
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I make this covenant and this oath, not with you
alone, but also with him who stands here with us today before the LORD our God,
as well as with him who is not here with us today." (Deut. 29:10-15).
Another
erroneous Anabaptist teaching is their so called "believers' baptism"
by which they mean that baptism is therefore a sacrament of belief no
longer a sacrament of regeneration, it is a washing of belief not
a washing of regeneration (Tit. 3:5), it is a believing of water
not a newbirth of water (Jon. 3:5). Now this is absurd, but beyond that,
it is entirely unscriptural. The Anabaptists agree with the Bible that
regeneration is not produced by the will of man, nor merited by faith and
repentance, rather we repent and believe unto salvation after God has already
regenerated us by grace: i.e. quickened us (Eph.2:4-8), and opened our hearts
to respond to the Gospel (Luke. 24:45; Acts 2:38; 16:14). More emphasis should
be on "regenerates' baptism", rather than on "believers'
baptism", thus stressing our dependence on God's grace
not on Man's works.
The
conclusion of the matter is that the Anabaptists were over-reacting against the
medieval practice of indiscriminate baptism of children, whether their
parents were Christians or not. But the Anabaptist's solution is equally unscriptural
and unapostolic. They even excluded children entirely from Church membership
initially. The proper scriptural response should have been to insist on covenant
household baptism of believers and their children.
C. THE PLACE OF CHILDREN BAPTISM IN THE CHURCH:
From
the Apostolic times whole households of believing parents have always been
baptized irrespective of age, like the households of Cornelius (Acts 10), of
Lydia (Acts 16:15), of the Philippian Jailor (Acts 16:33) and of Stephanus (I
Cor. 1:16). None of these references excluded children, women and servants, all
of which are known from the Scriptures to make up the biblical covenant
household (Acts 2:39; Gen. 17:10-14; Deut. 29:10-15). It is in fact against
God's will to exclude children (Mark 10:14).
"But
whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it
would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were
drowned in the depth of the sea.... Take heed that you do not despise one of
these little ones... Even so it is not the will of your Father who is in
heaven that one of these little ones should perish." (Matt. 18:6, 10 and 14).
Christ
passed through infancy and childhood (instead of just coming as a full adult
man as Adam and Eve at creation and as Christ would come at end-time), in order
to show us that His grace and Gospel have definite place for infants and
children. No one has the right to declare infants and children as sub-human and
excluded from entering into divine covenant together with their fellow human
adults. Or was Jesus less than Saviour and Son of God when He was an infant?
The Angels would have said so to the shepherd (Luke 2:10 -16).
About
230 AD a Church Father called Origen wrote: "THE CHURCH HAS RECEIVED A
TRADITION FROM THE APOSTLES TO GIVE BAPTISM EVEN TO LITTLE CHILDREN".
Origen was baptized as an infant about 185AD. So were his parents (who were
also born to Christian parents) baptized in about 150AD. Bishop Polycarp of
Smyrna in AD 156 declared that he had been a Christian from infancy. He was
born about 69AD to Christian parents. So infant baptism is as old as the New
Testament. The evidence for this is still found in church denominations with
antiquity dating back to 1st and 2nd Century AD such as
the Greek, Roman, Anglican, and Coptic Churches who have always known no other
than household baptism from ancient times.
The
recent and strange claim that Infant Baptism was not practiced in the apostolic
times has no basis either in the Scripture or in the traditions of the Early
Church.
It is
a false and deceitful claim. The Apostles and the Fathers could not have so
soon defied Christ's warning in Matt. 18:1-7,10,14 and rebuke in Mark 10:14.
Despite
these warnings by Christ, the Anabaptists and their followers
still claim that there is no clear specific teaching of the Scripture insisting
that infants of believers must be baptised! But they forget that there
is no clear specific scriptural teaching that these children must not be
baptised either. After all, women's participation in Holy Communion has no
clear specific mention in the Scripture, yet we know they should.
Christians
who keep their children away from Baptism, for whatever reason, keep such
children away from Christ and His New Covenant. Such children ought to be kept
away from the Church because, despite their tenderness and helplessness, God
puts them under condemnation (see Gem 17:14). He who rejects the means of grace
is not fit for the reality of the same grace. This is what the opposers of
infant baptism mean (as some Anabaptist founders of the 16th Century taught),
though they may not always be aware of this. But thanks be to God for the
authoritative witness of Origen and the Church Fathers from whom we also
learned authoritatively that the New Testament was actually written by the
Apostles.
The historic
practice of baptising infants who belong to believing households has much value
such as:
1. Dedication
to God: Infant Baptism affords us the means to dedicate infants to the
Name of Christ by an ordinance instituted by Christ Himself, making the child
ritually clean and holy as Saint Paul says in I Cor. 7:14. Any other dedication
before baptism and apart from it is certainly a "Strange fire" (Lev.
10:1-2) and has little or no meaning.
2. Possession
of Covenant Privileges: In divine covenants, those who have the
covenant sign on them are those who enjoy its privileges. (Gen. 17:14)
3. Initiation
into Church Membership: Baptism is the only valid and true symbol of
initiation into Church membership instituted by Christ in the New Testament.
4. Acknowledgment
of Childhood as from God: Rejection of children at baptism is rejection
of the Boy Jesus and a rejection of legitimate procreation and infancy as gifts
from God. The Saviour who was once an infant could not have come to save only
adults. No, He couldn't have.
5. Witness
to the Grace of God: Infant baptism shows us that God is gracious to us
in our helplessness. All we have in Jesus are by grace, not of works so that no
one will boast (Eph. 2:9).
6. Acceptance
of the Full Humanity of Infants: Infant baptism portrays the fact that
children are bona fide members of humankind for whom Christ died and to
whom salvation is offered in Christ. As such, the Kingdom of God and the Church
of Christ are for them also (Mk. 10:14). This also assures us that Christians
who lose their sense of discretion, as when they grow senile from aging or when
insane or unconscious, do not by such lose their faith, their baptism and their
hope of the Kingdom
7. Confirmation
of the Covenant Solidarity of the Household: The unity of the family or
household is ordained and respected by God in all covenant matters (Exd. 20:6).
The New Covenant of Christ adopts us into God's own household, even when we are
just born again as spiritual babies. We should not be surprised therefore, that
it involves even infant members of our households and upholds the unity of the
household.
8. Testimony
to the Extent of the Power of the New Covenant: Both in its binding and
blessings, the New Covenant is not limited to individuals and adults, but
extends to households under them including their infant offsprings. Every
child in this world is conceived and born under the laws, curses or blessings
of his/her parents' covenants (Ps. 51:5; Gal 4:4). Therefore, he/she
qualifies (and is bound) to bear the sign of such covenants. Covenant
initiation signs are symbols and marks/seals of claim on the life of the
initiated.
This
is consistent with all divine covenants in the Bible and the Christian New
Covenant could not have been meant to be an exception without explicit teaching
to that effect.
9. Avoidance
of the Offence of Covenant Violation: Preventing the children of
covenant homes from being initiated into the divine covenants, to which their parents
belong, is a serious offence that gravely provokes divine indignation leading
to severe punishment. This applies to the household of Abraham (Gen. 17:12-14),
of Moses (Exd. 4:24-26), and of Christ's disciples (Matt. 18:5-7; Mk. 10:13-16)
and so, of all Christian parents.
E. WHY WE SHOULD BAPTISE BELIEVERS WITH THEIR
CHILDREN:
1. GOD'S
NATURE WARRANTS NO OTHER WAY.
God
described Himself as the God who blesses or punishes parents with their children
(Exd. 20:5,6). This God does not change (Mal 3:6) from Old to New Testaments
till End - time.
2. THE
CALL OF GOD PROMISES SO.
The
Old Covenant initiatory sign of circumcision was the seal of incorporation into
Israel and justification by faith (Rom 4:11). It was limited to
males of Israel with age minimum of eight days ( (Gen 17:10-14). Females
depended on the covenants of their fathers or husbands (Num 30).
The
New Covenant initiatory sign of Baptism is the seal of regeneration into Christ
and justification by faith (Tit. 3:5; Rom. 4:11a). It is open to
both males and females of all nations without age minimum mentioned anywhere
(Matt 28:19). The New Covenant promises salvation for "you and your
household" (Acts 16:31) or "you and your children"
(Acts 2:38,39).
3. GOD'S
COVENANTS DEMAND SO.
Both
the Old and New Covenants include children as members of the household, so that
children usually share with their parents in all covenant commands (Exd. 20:10,
Duet. 29:11-13; 30:2), promises (Duet. 30:6; Acts 2:39; 16:31), blessings (Exd.
20:6, Acts 11:14; 1Cor. 7:14) and allegiance (Jos. 24:15; 2Tim. 1:5): except
such children renounce or break their parents' covenant (Gen 17:14; 2 Chron
7:20-22). Such is the magnitude of the covenant power of parents over their
children.
While
the Church disregards this parental covenant power, Satan and his demons who
know this covenant rule, exploit it in possessing and tormenting children of
demonised households. Such children could only be free when they renounce or
break such covenants (Col.3: 6-10; Eph.2:1-2) through deliverance and covenant
breaking ministrations.
Strange
enough those who doubt the power of the New Covenant initiation (i.e. Baptism)
on infants are usually quick to believe the power of demonic covenant
initiation on the same infants, especially in Africa: they would organise
deliverance for such affected persons even after conversion to Christ. How we
demean God's power in our presumed devotion to Him! May the Lord have mercy.
In relation
to God's redemptive reach towards man, the Scripture is replete with three
covenant principles:
* that
of solidarity of the covenant household,
* that
of covenant signs as seals of covenant grace and promises, and
* that
of covenant initiation for individuals as well as for households (including
infants).
4. GOD'S
KINGDOM ALLOWS IT. Participation in the New Covenant sign and grace or in
God's Kingdom has no age barrier for believing households (Luke. 15:17) because
God is able to relate with all, both adults and children (Luke. 1:15; Matt.
21:15,16; Rom. 3:21-23).
5. CHRIST'S
GOSPEL TEACHES SO. Matt. 18:1-10,14 and Mark 10:13-16 teach us that if any
Church does not consider believers' children as fit for admission into the New
Covenant community as with their parents and other adults, such a Church
offends Christ and provokes His wrath and indignation. Moreover, there cannot
be any valid church admission without the sign of Baptism. Dedication, Blessing
or Naming Ceremony cannot admit any one into the Church validly.
6. TRUE
CHURCH TRADITION HAS ALWAYS BEEN SO.
We
have no biblical example of New Testament believers who did not baptize
their children because they were too small for the Kingdom. Nor does
the Bible ever teach believers within the church to withhold their
children's baptism till they cone of age. Instead, we find believers
with their children among Christ's disciples (Matt 18:2) and as members of the
Apostolic Church (Acts 21:5; I Tim 3:4,5).
In
agreement with the Scripture and the Apostles, early Church Fathers (like
Origen and Irenaeus) and Reformers (like Luther, Calvin and Crammer) all
preached and practiced household covenant baptism including infants. This
should be our conviction also, if we believe the Scripture.
7. THE
WHOLE SCRIPTURE SUPPORTS NO OTHER WAY.
It is
certainly against the teaching of Christ and the tradition of the Apostles to
despise children of believers as unfit for the New Testament signs and grace.
Apart from the ideas and scruples of the Anabaptists and their descendants,
there is no scriptural basis in the Old and New Testaments to question
baptismal initiation of believers' children into the New Covenant of Christ.
If household
covenant baptism (including infants) satisfies the above seven tests of
Christian truth, we must therefore TAKE HEED not to despise children (Matt.
18:10), but rather, do God's will concerning them (Matt. 18:5,6,14). In this
way we and our little ones shall escape the inevitable offence and the woe (Matt.
18:7). BELIEVERS WHO FAIL TO INITIATE THEIR CHILDREN (THROUGH BAPTISM) HAVE
DISCLAIMED SUCH CHILDREN SPIRITUALLY. If indeed, we deny this TRUTH that
the faith of parents avails for their little children, we expose our households
to grave danger, both of God's fiery wrath and Satan's fiery
darts! May God help us.
Finally,
is it not time for the Church to take heed and do the right thing? Is it not
time to stop exposing ourselves and our children to the risk and danger of the
Anabaptists' error? The Anabaptists' doctrine may appeal to our Gentile
`cultic' thinking; but should we continue to condone it despite the fact that,
as a reactionary innovation, it is obviously unscriptural, unapostolic,
anti-covenant, pro-Gnostic, based on works rather than grace, against family
solidarity and in fact unrealistic and untenable? If the Church must be
Christian, then its doctrine and practice, especially of baptismal initiation,
must be Christian not mundane, scriptural not popular.
Christian
Ritual Baptism is a baptism with water, into Christ's Name (not into water). It
is also the initiation rite into the New Covenant in Christ. It was instituted
and commanded by Christ and has been practiced from the Apostles down through
the ages, for all believers and their dependent households.
If
however there is an event of one deciding to refuse baptism for a child from a
believer's household (as has come to be, since 16th Century), then
two horrible consequences are inevitable:
1.
First is a woe by Christ, on the adults through whom the offences has
come (Matt. 18: 5-7,10,14). Similar to the case of infant circumcision, this
woe could lead to death (Exd. 4:24-26).
2.
Second is cutting-off by God, of the unbaptised (i.e. uninitiated) child
from his/her parents' covenant with God, which the child is thereby, accounted
guilty of breaking (Gen. 17:12-14).
This
is probably why there is an instinctive guilt when children are not baptised. This
guilt, terror and vacuum is usually assuaged with innovative ceremonies like
Dedication, Blessing, Church Naming - all of which have no apostolic
examples as initiatory rites nor could such ceremonies be of any validity
without prior baptismal initiation.
In
accordance with God’s eternal purpose and will (Matt 18:14) therefore, children
of believers should be baptized by any biblical mode into the Name of Christ (as
members of their believing or covenant households). Thereafter, God expects
that they should be trained up in the faith (Eph. 6:4; Gen. 18:19) amongst the
faithful (as initiated members of the visible Church). Their baptism with
water (as with the adults) is an outward and initiatory means of grace -
the Newbirth of Water and the Washing of Regeneration: cleansing,
dedicating and certifying them fit to partake in the SAFETY and SANCTITY of the
New Covenant community and benefit from other means of grace. Such a child,
according to God's promise (Prov. 22:6) usually grows up BELIEVING Christ as
the Son of God, Lord and Saviour (John 20:31; 2Tim. 3:15, 16). Such a child
therefore is by right a believer in that sense (2Tim 1:5; Matt. 18:6), though
the child could gather other sinful beliefs and practices also.
Nevertheless,
as the child comes to the age of discretion, he/she needs to be made to realise
that to have been baptised means to have put on Christ and died with Him and so
be bound to inevitably obey Him and not live in sin (Rom. 6:1-4,11-14). This would specially encourage the child
to consciously renounce all sinfulness of the world and of the flesh and pledge
allegiance or commitment to Christ alone in a decisive manner (I John 5:13 and
2:12,15). This, in itself, is CONVERSION (i.e. Repentance/Renunciation). Though
it does not have to correspond necessarily to the time of Newbirth, conversion
or godly sorrow (2 Cor. 7:9-11) is however the SUREST PROOF (not the means) of
the Newbirth of the Spirit (I John 2:29; 3:10) or Spirit Baptism, which is the
inward reality of grace.
This
is the relevance of the practice of delayed Confirmation (Acts 8:14-17) and
Renewal of Baptismal Vows in all historic denominations. Confirmation
is simply a special altar-call done before a Bishop, usually accompanied
with ratification of baptismal vows and the laying on of hands for
spiritual strengthening and fullness (Acts. 9:17; 14:21-23; 19:6; Heb.
6:2).
It is
pertinent to note here that delaying confirmation was not common in the
apostolic times; it came to be practiced due to logistic and administrative
constraints on Bishops of large dioceses and later support by pastoral
arguments. Withholding communion till after confirmation was introduced in 1281
by Archbishop Peckham as incentive for parishioners to seek confirmation, which
was then being neglected. Since then this decision has been supported by other
arguments based on the need to avoid taking Holy Communion except one examines
oneself and truly discerns the Lord's body, as the Apostle Paul
cautioned the Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:27-30).
BERKHOF
Louis. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1939.
COLQUHOUN,
Frank. Your Child's Baptism. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1954.
CROWE,
Philip. Christian Baptism. London: Mowbray, 1980.
DALE,
James, W. Christian Baptism and Patristic Baptism. Philipsburg:
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1995. (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board
of Publication, 1874.)
DOHERTY,
Sam. The Biblical Basis of Child Evangelism. Langenbruck: European Child
Evangelism Fellowship, 1982.
GORRIE,
Richard. Into Membership: Preparing for Confirmation. London: Falcon,
1968.
GREEN,
Michael. Baptism: Its Purpose, Practice and Power. London: Hodder and
Stoughton, 1987.
GRUDEM,
Wayne. Systematic Theology. Liecester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.
KUHRT,
Gordon. Believing in Baptism. London: Mowbray, 1987.
LANE,
Eric. I Want to Be Baptised. London: Grace Publications, 1986.
MACDONALD,
William. Buried by Baptism. Dubuque: Emaus Correspondence School, 1985.
OBAJE,
Yusuf Amen. Have You Received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit? Ogbomosho:
Adebayo Calvary Printers, 1986.
OSUIGWE,
C.O.N. Baptism Umu-Ntakiri: E ma o bu e-e. Ekwulobia: Aguata Printing
Press, 1981.
PACKER,
J. I. Concise Theology. Wheaton:
Tyndale House Publishers, 1993.
PERRY,
Michael. Crisis for Confirmation. London: SCM Press, 1967.
REID,
Gavin. To Be Confirmed. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1977.
SORTELLE,
John, P. Infant Baptism: What Christian Parents Should Know.
Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1985.
STOTT,
John R.W. Baptism and Fullness. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press,
1975.
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM I. U. Ibeme PRISCAQUILA
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Ifechukwu U. Ibeme, MB.BS., Dip. Th., is a Principal Medical
Officer and a senior Anglican Priest. He has been involved in teaching, and
preaching in the Lord's vineyard since 1985. His pastoral ministry began in
1993 when he was ordained. His desire is for all Christians to be thoroughly
scriptural in their faith and life, and for the hearts of all to be turned
after God. He is married to Ogochukwu, and they are blessed with four children
- Davidson, Victor, Shirley and Noella.
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM
IFECHUKWU U. IBEME
"The Revd (Dr.) I.U. Ibeme's book, "Christian
Baptism" is handy, explicit and educative for both the Laity and
Clergy.... His evangelical and medical experiences make it practical"
Rt. Rev. Dan Yisa (JP), Bishop of Damaturu.
"Historical, Biblical, Theological, Doctrinal and Ethical Scholarships
would love to have this book as a source material.... this fine research
work... would go a long way in strengthening what we believe about Christian
Baptism." The Rt. Rev. B. J. E. Ogu, Bishop of Mbaise.
"The content of this booklet is most valuable and the
approach very fascinating. A painstaking effort was made to trace baptism from
the Apostolic roots.... It is a MUST for anybody or group that
wants to know the truth and have an unbiased knowledge about Baptism."
Rt. Revd. Dr. Godwin I. N. Okpala (JP), Anglican Bishop of
Nnewi.
OTHER
TITLES BY SAME AUTHOR
1.
The Basic Doctrine of Christ
2.
Studies on Christian Basics
Last Updated January 13, 2005
By The Revd Dr. I. U. Ibeme
Copyright © PriscAquila Publishing, Maiduguri,
Nigeria.
Click Here For
PriscAquila Christian Resource Centre