The Meaning of Baptism - Part 1
I want to begin by answering the question, "What's the big deal?" One side says we should not baptize infants, the other side says we should. The side that won't baptize infants will not accept the baptism of the other side. And the side that does baptize their infants teaches that the other side is guilty of great error, so much so that they do not have fraternal relations with the other side.
Added to this is the fact that both sides stand against the Roman error of attributing salvation to the sacrament of baptism. Both Baptists and Presbyterians deny that grace is given through the water itself. So it would be easy to wonder, "what's the big deal?"
Historically, the church baptized infants born to Christian parents from the beginning. Our earliest letters from the second century show that infant baptism was commonplace. Many of these letters were written by men who where only one generation removed from the Apostles. When the Reformation splintered the Protestants and Catholics, the Protestants continued the practice of infant baptism, until a group called the Anabaptists arose. Ana means again, named because these men would not accept the Protestant's infant baptism. Since they consider that baptism invalid, they rebaptized.
The Anabaptists were considered radicals for denying what the orthodox church had always believed; that the sign of the covenant belonged to our children. And of course up until the present time Presbyterians have considered the denial of infant baptism a serious error that is worthy of strong rebuke.
I should pause here and say that we as a church do not seek to coerce or use pressure to believe. Our only sword is the Word of God. We do not want anybody to believe what he or she does not see the Scriptures teaching.
We, and as "we" I mean the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, we seek to persuade by the Word. If you do not yet see it yourselves we want you to be honest and free to be convinced by the Bible's teaching alone.
Now why is this question so important? You see the real question is not only whether infants should receive the sign of baptism. The crucial question is whether there is such thing as the visible church. Or if I may put it another way, "Has the Lord given us a means to know who is in the family of God?"
After all, the Bible is very clear that we are to treat our brothers in Christ differently than we treat those outside of Christ. Think of the many commands as to how to treat those in the family of God. At the same time, our Lord told His disciples that some they were to treat as tax-collectors. So who is our brother? How can we obey these commands?
One might say my brother is the one who confesses that he believes in Christ. Well, that is about ¼ of all Americans. Another may say, my brother is the one who not only understands the gospel, but has experienced a relationship with Christ, one who has a personal testimony. But Jesus said many would have experiences of joy, but not be true believers. Others might say brothers are those who evidence the fruit of the Spirit. But who is to judge that? What measure of fruit must one evidence before he is accepted as a brother? What if two Christians disagree as to whom is a real brother?
Is the matter left up to the subjective guess of each individual Christian? Is there no objective standard as to who is or is not our brother? Did our Lord command us how to treat our brother, yet leave it entirely in the subjective hands of each individual as to who his brother is?
Baptism is the mark of entrance into the visible church. Our confession defines the visible church as the kingdom of God on earth. The kingdom of God is not only invisible, that is, the power of grace manifested within each individual heart. The kingdom of God is visible.
Baptism is the objective mark that answers the question, "Who is my brother?" Now God has chosen not to share his infallible knowledge of the heart with us.
While we know that not everyone baptized into the church is a true Christian, nevertheless for those in the church, it is not for us as individuals to decide who really is or is not a Christian.
You see, if baptism is only a sign of those who truly belong to the invisible church, baptism is meaningless in answering the question, "Who is my brother?" How do we really know if that person has been converted? When we reject baptism as an objective sign from God, but only think of it in terms of a personal testimony, we destroy the doctrine of the visible church.
Throughout the Bible the church always had a visible aspect. We may think of the kingdom of Israel. The Law of Moses commanded the Israelites to treat their fellow Israelites differently from the alien. Who was their fellow Israelite? Those who have entered into Israel through the mark of circumcision, the men of course representing the women in the Old Testament.
Could an Israelite refuse to treat a fellow Israelite as a brother because he felt that that Israelite "really" didn't believe? No, if they received the sign, they were fellow brothers. If they were cast out of Israel, then they were treated as unbelievers.
In Matt 18 Jesus says we only treat brothers as tax-collectors when the elders of the visible church excommunicate them. This is why the question is so serious. To deny the visible church is to promote anarchy, and in anarchy the light of the gospel will be extinguished.
In our day we are prone to think only in individualistic terms. But in the Bible there are two categories of a relationship with God. To understand the meaning of baptism you must understand both categories.
Of course you know that God deals with each person individually. No one is justified unless they personally place their faith in Christ. And each man is responsible for his own sins. But we also see from the Scriptures that God establishes relationships on a corporate level. Noah was righteous, yet his whole household was included in God's salvation from the flood. Noah's household was included in the promise to Noah.
Israel as a nation was called into a covenant relationship with God. They as a whole were called the people of the Lord. From the beginning God has revealed Himself as a God who extends relationships not only with individuals, but also with households, and in the case of Israel, with a whole nation.
Now we must consider the unity of the Bible. If God has always revealed Himself the God of households, not only individuals, we must take that very seriously. The Bible builds upon itself as it is unveiled. Hebrews 3 teaches us that the house in which Moses was a servant was the same house that Christ is now Lord over. Israel was the OT church, and we are the fulfillment of Israel. We belong to the same house.
This brings us to Gen. 17, if you would turn there. Here we have the origins of the nation Israel. In Genesis 17 God makes a promise to Abraham. The promise extends not only to Abraham, but also to his descendants. In v. 4 God promises to make Abraham a father to many nations. In v. 8 God promises to give Abraham and his descendants the land of Canaan as an everlasting possession. Then in vv. 10-14 God instructs Abraham to perform the sign of this covenant. All the males in this covenant, both adult and infants, were to be circumcised. How seriously did God take a failure to perform this? V. 14 - the uncircumcised male was excommunicated.
Now the New Testament is clear on the nature of this covenant God made with Abraham. This is the covenant of grace; the gospel. Gal 3:8 says that the gospel was preached to Abraham. Heb 11 informs us that when Abraham was promised the land of Canaan, he understood that Canaan was typological of the new heavens and earth; thus Abraham looked for that city not made with hands, whose architect and builder is God.
What then was the meaning of circumcision? Circumcision was a sign of separation. It was a sign of being cut off from sin and separated unto God. But it was a bloody sign, a sign of death. The blood pointed to the need for a sacrifice for sin. And the sacrifice in the sign of circumcision came from their own bodies. Circumcision pictured the promise to the sons of Israel that God would raise up from them a man to take on the death due to their sins. Circumcision pointed to Jesus Christ and His gospel, nothing less.
Now turn in your Bibles to Rom chapter 4 v. 11. In Romans 4:11 the Apostle instructs the church as to the meaning of OT circumcision.
"And he, (that is, Abraham), received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised"
Circumcision was a sign and seal of the righteousness that comes through faith in Christ.
Do you see the point? Circumcision was the sign of the gospel of grace, a sign of the work of Christ. Circumcision had spiritual meaning. But if circumcision had spiritual meaning, why not simply wait until the children were old enough to understand the meaning, then they could be circumcised like Abraham. An eight-day-old child could not understand the meaning of circumcision. Why then do they receive the sign?
In other words, any objection to infant baptism today should be leveled at God for requiring infants to be circumcised in the OT. Circumcision was a spiritual sign of the gospel, yet the infants of Israel were considered partakers of that gospel promise with their parents.
In Israel there were two ways of entering into the visible church. For the adult converts from other nations they needed to profess their faith and be circumcised. Adults who received circumcision were then given the privileges of an Israelite. But the other way of entering into the OT church was being born to parents in the church. Infants were also given the sign and included in the covenant.
Throughout the OT all babies of Israel were in a special relationship with God. Turn to Ezek chapter 16. In Ezek 16 the Lord is accusing Israel of idol worship, which included burning their children in the fire. In v. 20 the Lord says, "You took your sons and daughters, whom you bore to Me, and these you sacrificed to them to be devoured." V. 21 - "You have slain My children and offered them up by passing them through the fire."
Even though the adults had become idolaters, the Lord called these Israelite babies "His children." He never calls the Egyptian or Philistine children "His children." God had a special relationship with all the children of adults in the visible church, whether they personally believed or not.
Throughout the Bible, whenever the Lord makes a covenant with an adult, their children are included in that covenant. Did this change in the NT with the coming of Christ? We would think that such an important change would be clearly spelled out. But we find quite the opposite. God continues to reveal that He is the God of the children of professing parents in the church.
Turn to Luke 18:15. You are all familiar with this story. The adults of Israel began to bring their babies to Jesus so that He would lay His hands on them. The word in v. 15 is infants, not children, as if we might conclude these were all older children. They were infants.
The disciples rebuked the parents for bringing their babies, but Jesus turns around and rebukes his disciples. "Let the little children come unto Me, and do not forbid them, for of such is the kingdom of God."
Now what does it mean that Jesus laid His hands on them? In the OT, for God to lay His hands on someone was to place His name on them. Jesus was continuing the principle that the children of believers are His. They have entered into a covenant relationship with God based upon the profession of their parents.
Notice that to keep the infants from Christ resulted in a very serious rebuke from our Lord. Jesus even says that the kingdom of God belongs to infants such as these. Certainly Jesus did not come to change this long-standing principle, but rather He establishes it!
Turn now to Acts 16. The principle of household inclusion is seen with Lydia. In v. 14 Lydia becomes a believer in Christ. In v. 15 both she and her household are baptized. Now one could argue that Lydia only had older children who later that same day all were taught the gospel, believed, and were baptized. But that certainly is not the natural reading of the verse. The term "household" has an OT context which speaks of all those under her authority.
That is why the church from her inception has given the sign of the covenant of grace to their infants. Consider the oldest hymn in our hymnbook, "Shepherd of Tender Youth." This was written around 200 AD. Look at verse 5. "So now and till we die, sound we your praises high, and joyful sing; infants and the glad throng who to your church belong, unite to swell the song to Christ our King."
With the coming of Christ, circumcision was replaced by baptism. Both accomplish the same purpose. They are objective marks signifying who belongs to God. Both carry the same meaning. They picture the work of Christ in the gospel.
But the form of the sign has now changed. It is not a bloody sign anymore, for the blood has already been shed. The sign outwardly is much more pleasant. And it is given to both men and women, to male and female children, for in Christ there is no Jew or Greek, male or female.
This sign is not first and foremost a commitment we are making to God, or a public statement about our faith, though that is included as we will see next week. In this sign God is the one speaking. God is making a declaration.
Turn with me to one last verse, I Cor 10:1. Here in I Cor 10 we see how the Apostle speaks of baptism. Let's begin with v. 1. "Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all of our Fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea."
As with circumcision, baptism is a sign of being separated unto God. The Israelites were baptized into Moses, meaning they identified with Moses as their prophet, priest and king. Moses was a type of Christ. So baptism is being identified as a follower of Christ. The baptism through the Red Sea sealed the people of Israel as God's own possession, separated them from Egypt. Notice that it is God who is doing the baptizing. The Israelites were only receivers of God's action.
The waters that Israel was baptized through were waters of judgment to the Egyptians. The water we see in baptism signifies the waters of judgment Christ underwent so that we could be His. But what was judgment to Christ becomes water of washing to us.
All of Israel was included in this baptism, including the children. And in this baptism the water didn't even touch Israel. Much is made of the mode of baptism, whether immersion or sprinkling, but that misses the point. Either mode is legitimate.
And so our gracious God gives us the gospel, and then makes a promise to our children that they are His also. They are not outsiders and considered God's enemies until they grow up and actively believe. They are already God's children and He is their Father. Baptism is the sign that God owns us; we are in his family and have a right to all the privileges of the people of God.
Now of course the most obvious objection is that some of those children who are baptized never become believers, so how does that baptism mean anything? We will deal with that also next Lord's Day.
But you see God deals with His people not just invisibly and individually, but visibly and corporately. Our children are covenant children; God has placed His name on them. He is their God and Savior; the promises are theirs as the promises are their parents'.
As we witness these baptisms, both adult and children's, we are renewed in the covenant of grace. You children are to remember that you were set apart to serve God, to cling to His gospel of grace. You are reminded as you watch that God is your God, and that He loves you.
All of us see the gospel in a living picture and are reassured by God that we have been set apart, washed clean by the power of the Holy Spirit, all because Christ took on the waters of judgment in our place.
Baptism is a gift of God to strengthen our weak faith with a visible sign, again assuring us that our sins our truly forgiven, and that the righteous requirements of the Law have been met in Christ. The Lord must know how badly we need constant assurance.
And as with Abraham the sacrament reminds us that this world is not our home; that we have been promised an everlasting inheritance in the new heavens and earth. Amen