Highlands Reformed Church

Introduction

Baptism is one of those perennial theological debates in which Christians have been engaged since the 16th century. Sincere believers honestly come to the same Scriptures yet often reach radically different conclusions. All Christians acknowledge that Baptism was instituted by the Lord Jesus as an abiding sign of admission to His church; but the questions of what does it mean, to whom does it apply and how should it be administered continues to divide the faithful. While it is unlikely that we will satisfactorily resolve these questions in one small essay, we can at least explain the Reformed position for those who are new to the faith.

What Do We Mean by Reformed?

The adjective Reformed refers to those Christians who accept the understanding of Scripture hammered out during the Great Reformation of the 16th and 17th centuries (summarized in such comprehensive creedal statements as the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms). By the 16th century, many people within the Western Catholic (meaning “universal”) church recognized that something had to be done. Various attempts had been made for years (e.g., Hus and Wycliff,) to steer the church back to a more biblical foundation but the ecclesiastical structure often suppressed, persecuted or even killed those who wanted to change the church from the inside.

While all admitted the Church was suffering from corruption, confused doctrine, incompetent priests and superstitious laymen, at the heart of the controversy was the issue of authority; who or what on earth is the ultimate source of authority for Christians? The Roman church insisted that she, through her Popes, councils and ecclesiastical structure had divine authority. The Reformers on the other hand insisted that authority MUST reside in something other than fallible men or contradictory councils and declared that it was found in the Word of God, the Bible.

Eventually this issue of authority came to a head when Martin Luther, a professor of theology, posted his now famous 95 thesis for discussion (1517). His original intention was NOT to separate from the Roman church, but rather engage in an academic debate concerning certain beliefs and practices. Rather than debate these issues, the Roman hierarchy instead attempted to assassinate him and so the Reformation was born.

Eventually, three distinct groups arose during the Reformation; the Lutherans, the Reformed and the Anabaptists. The Lutherans (in Germany and Scandinavia) essentially tried to correct the worst excesses of the Roman church but still retained many of the previous practices. The Anabaptist movement radically disassociated itself with anything to do with the historic church and wanted to return to a “pure” and “primitive” Christianity. The most distinguishing mark of the Anabaptists was the belief that Roman baptisms were invalid and that a person had to be baptized again (hence the name). The Reformed group, most influenced by the writing and leadership of John Calvin, Martin Bucer and John Knox, recognized their historic continuity with the ancient church but wanted to remove the many man-made rituals and traditions that had no Biblical support. Essentially they attempted to build a comprehensive Christian worldview based on the Scriptures.

The Westminster Confession of Faith and Baptism

By 1647, the Reformation had spread throughout all of Northern Europe despite persecution, religious wars and hostility. Scottish and English delegates met together at the Westminster Assembly during the English civil war to draft a comprehensive doctrinal statement based on all the work of the previous reformers. Many scholars believe that this assembly represented the best theological minds of a great era. Committed, conscientious and pious Christian men, who had suffered terribly and paid a high price for their faith, met together to discuss the Scriptures. The resulting documents (the Westminster Confession, Catechisms, Form of Government and Directory of Worship) are widely regarded even today as representing the finest attempt yet to faithfully explain the basic teachings of Scripture and their application to Christ’s church.

The doctrine of Baptism is found in chapter 28 and begins by stating that it is a sacrament ordained by the Lord Jesus Himself. The Reformers used the word “sacrament” to refer to Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, a Latin term that meant “oath” of allegiance” and originally referred to the solemn vow a soldier took when joining the Roman legions. This word is rightly applied to Baptism since it is the means of “solemn admission” into the visible church. The church is the body of Christ here on earth commanded and empowered by the Lord Jesus to do His work in the world (Matt 28:19-20). Baptism is the visible sign that a person belongs to Christ and His church; it is the New Testament replacement for circumcision (Col 2:11-12; see attached essay).

But the Reformers also saw baptism as a visible “sign” and “seal” of the grace God gave to His people by Jesus dying in our place, bringing our dead hearts to spiritual life so that we could believe in Him, forgiving our sins and the power to walk in that newness of life. In other words, Baptism is a visible sign and oath from God to us that He will save us from our sins and it is a visible sign and oath from us to God that we will trust in His Son Jesus and live accordingly. In some sense it is also a “seal” of the grace that God has promised; in other words, God’s promises are so true and certain that the “picture” can be taken as a reality-if God said He will save us, He WILL save us!

Our Baptist brothers make much of the Greek word “baptidzo” which they insist means “to dip” and thus they immerse (or “dunk”) candidates for baptism. Reformed scholars however have demonstrated that the word actually is better understood as “wash” and was used in the Old Testament to refer to various “sprinklings” or “washings” when water was poured over a person. Baptism symbolizes (i.e., is a “sign” of) the total work of the Holy Spirit bringing a person to spiritual life. John the Baptizer prophesized that he could only baptize with water but the coming Messiah would baptize with the Holy Spirit. His prophecy was fulfilled when the Holy Spirit came down from above and alighted over the heads of the Apostles. This visible act was a demonstration of the Spirit regenerating God’s people, washing them clean from their sins by aoolying to them the merits of Christ’s sacrifice. Since the Holy Spirit descended from above, and water baptism is a picture of Spirit baptism, the Reformed view is that the “best” mode is to pour or sprinkle water over the head. Immersion is not necessary.

Perhaps even more controversial than the mode of Baptism is the Reformed view of “covenant” or “infant” baptism. Baptists insist that baptism may be lawfully applied only to those who make a profession of faith in Christ; the Reformers however believed that the children of believers could and should be baptized. This is based on several lines of Biblical evidence: if “New” Testament baptism replaces “Old” Testament circumcision as a sign of inclusion into the visible covenant community, then logically, the same people who were circumcised in the Old Testament should be baptized in the New. Since, in the Old Testament, all male babies were required to be circumcised, therefore, at least in the New Testament era, all male babies should be baptized. Simply because an Israelite was circumcised did NOT mean that he personally had saving faith; the entire history of the “Old” Testament is replete with examples of circumcised Israelites who worshipped idols and were condemned by God. But circumcision DID mark of God’s people from the pagan world and was a sign that they were the special recipients of His grace and mercy.

In the “New” Testament, women were also baptized which means that God now wants His covenant sign to be given to women as well as men. Logically then, female babies should now receive the covenant sign as well as male babies.

The second line of evidence for giving baptism to the children of professing parents is found in Acts 2:38-39 wherein the Apostles CLEARLY state that the promise of regeneration, forgiveness and baptism are given to “you AND your children.” The Reformers believed that salvation was a sovereign act of God and that He has promised (generally speaking) to save the children of believing parents (1 Cor 7:14). Thus baptizing one’s children is an act of faith on the part of Christian parents, claiming the promises of God to save their children. It also brings the children into the visible expression of the household of God, marking them off from the world.

The Reformers however rejected any “magical” element of baptism; they did not believe that simply because they performed a certain ritual that either they or their children were automatically saved (the view called “baptismal regeneration”). They acknowledged that while baptism was a command that we ought to obey, there might be unusual situations or circumstances where a person might well be saved, but never baptized (WCF 28:5). Baptism is an outward sign that one belongs to God; yet there might well be those who truly belong to Christ who have never been baptized; and there are many who are baptized who NEVER come to saving faith.

The Reformers also noted that though baptism was a sign and seal of the grace of God in Christ, washing away our sins and purifying our hearts that we might accept Him as our Lord, the “efficacy” was not tied to the timing. In other words, baptism MAY precede faith in Christ as in the case of little children who cannot yet express faith. Salvation is always a sovereign act of God spiritually cleansing a wicked heart. Thus for example, a child might well be baptized, but that child’s heart may not yet have been regenerated by God. At the same time, a child, even from its mother’s womb COULD have a heart regenerated by God (as in the case of John the Baptizer). Our faith is a gift from God: a gift He can lawfully give whenever HE wills (Eph 2:8-9). A child might be given faith years before he is able to express that faith intelligently; how else do we explain the spiritual status of those whose natural intelligence is handicapped? On the other hand, it might be years before the promise contained in the baptism is fulfilled by God and a person comes to saving faith that Jesus Christ is Lord. But when God does fulfill that promise the baptism is still effective irrespective of when that baptism took place; the person does not have to be baptized again. The “sign” has now become a reality.

Baptized children (for that matter ALL baptized persons) have many benefits; they are treated as Christians and held accountable to the divine Law. They are to receive instruction and catechism in the Faith, they are to live like Christians and are blessed by seeing examples of godliness and grace every day. If they neglect the faith implicit in their baptism, then they are held doubly accountable for spurning the great gifts of God.

CONCLUSION

Baptism is a visible sign and a spiritual seal of an invisible process; according to His own will and timing, God sends His Holy Spirit to apply the grace of God in Christ to His people that we might be saved from our sins. Baptism is an oath from God to us that He will forgive us and unite us to Him through His son Jesus. And it is an oath from us to Him that we will turn from our wicked ways, trust in Christ alone for our salvation and walk in obedience to Him. It is a visible symbol that we are distinct or separate (the meaning of the Biblical word “holy”) from the world and belong to Christ. Clearly, to refuse Baptism is to refuse Christ by refusing the sign that He has given His church to identify those who belong to Him.

Thus Baptism is important as an oath, a sign and a seal of what Christ has done: perfectly fulfilling all the righteous requirements of God’s Holy Law and dying for all our transgressions of it. Through Baptism, we confess the spiritual reality that for those whom God foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to Christ (Rms 8:29). Thus every person who confesses that Jesus is Lord, believes that He rose from the dead, and trusts that He has perfectly fulfilled all the holy demands of God on our part should be baptized and offer their children to God in baptism as an act of faith and hope.

APPENDIX: IS BAPTISM A REPLACEMENT FOR CIRCUMCISION?

An Analysis of Colossians 2:11-12 (September, 1992)

God’s revelation of Himself is a wondrous complexity of awesome mystery and intricacy. Each of us tries to fit the pieces of the puzzle together the best we can. Sometimes our understanding may be quite close to the mark; at other times, we may be totally wrong. Sometimes, once we get an idea in our heads, it can terribly difficult to shake out, no matter how wrong-headed it may be. Psychologists have noticed that human beings tend to see just what they expect to see. In one experiment, subjects were given random patterns of dots and told to look for hidden pictures. Even though in reality there were no pictures, most people still thought they found some. Even more surprisingly, a significant number of people continued to see the pictures, even when they were told no such picture existed! It is very difficult to shake free from preconceived ideas.

This trait of seeing only what we expect to see can be quite serious when it comes to Bible study. Some people are so convinced that they already KNOW what the Bible says on an issue that it can never tell them anything new. There is a tendency to read into passages exactly those meanings we expect to find (and being sinful human beings this usually means an interpretation that conveniently lets us off the hook). But if we want to grow in our faith and learn how to please and serve our Lord better, we must allow the Scriptures to speak for themselves. We must learn to submit even our preconceived ideas to the authority of God’s Word.

One example of how difficult this struggle can be was my own failure to adequately interpret certain passages on baptism. For years, since I already KNEW what these passages had to mean, I simply interpreted them according to my own presuppositions. I never did ask myself whether those presuppositions were correct. I just started with my own theology and then read that theology into the passage. It was only when forced to reexamine those passages from a completely different perspective that I saw things that I had never before seen. And as a result, I had to make some very big changes in not only my understanding of baptism, but my practice as well.

I was studying Colossians 2:11-12 in my personal devotions: “And in Him, you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without human hands, in the removal of the body of flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Christ in baptism, in which you which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, Who raised Him from the dead…” Several things seem to leap out at me from the text. First, circumcision is here used as a symbol of regeneration. The “removal of the body of flesh” refers to the death of our old nature and the creation of our new one (see 2 Cor 5:17). The circumcision of Christ was His being “cut off” at His crucifixion. He died in our place. We are spiritually circumcised when the benefits of His death are applied to us through the death of our old nature (see Rms 6:1ff).

Now here is where the text begins to get interesting. If you leave out the qualifying material and connect the main thoughts from both verses, the passage seems to equate baptism with circumcision; i.e., “you were also circumcised… having been buried with Christ in baptism.” Thus, our circumcision occurred at baptism. But for a Baptist, this was a little hard to swallow. If this baptism refers to water baptism then one would only experience regeneration when one received water baptism. Thus, salvation would not be of grace, but would also require a work (i.e., baptism). In fact, this is exactly what baptismal regeneration teaches; that one is not saved unless one is baptized.

But since salvation is not a result of works, but according to God’s grace, the baptism here cannot refer to water baptism. It must refer to some other baptism. What other baptism is there? Ah ha! The only other baptism is Spirit baptism. Charismatics and Pentecostals make Spirit baptism an unusual event that some, but not all believers experience. But Spirit baptism is simply another way of figuratively speaking about regeneration. We are baptized into Christ (Rms 6:3) when we become Christians. Thus Spirit baptism and circumcision are both figurative ways of speaking about the same event; regeneration.

Now it begins to get sticky. If water baptism is a symbol of Holy Spirit baptism and both are symbols of regeneration then that would lend support to the Covenant theology doctrine that equates Old Testament circumcision with New Testament Baptism. The Old Testament was the shadow, the New Testament the fulfillment. Circumcision foreshadowed the penalty of sin (i.e., being cut off, death) and the willingness of the Messiah to bear that penalty for us. Now that the Messiah has come and has borne that penalty, it is no longer appropriate for us to bear the sign of the old covenant.

For example, the Old Testament obliges God’s people to celebrate Passover in remembrance of the Lord’s deliverance from the tyranny of Egypt. Yet Passover itself is but a shadow of the Lord’s own first-born Lamb suffering and dying for His people. Now that Christ has come, we no longer celebrate Passover but the Lord’s Supper instead. The simple meal of wine and bread is the new symbol of the Lord’s deliverance of His people.

Thus in the same way, now that the Messiah has come, it is no longer proper to use circumcision as a symbol of entrance into the covenant. We have a new symbol, baptism. In the Old Testament, the promise of the fullness of the Spirit was yet future. Now it is a reality. When the Spirit was poured out at Pentecost, He entered into human hearts, converting dead fleshly beings into spiritually alive new creations (2 Cor 5:17). Thus, water baptism is a replacement for circumcision.

Now if this is true, then the question arises, to whom then should this symbol be applied? Covenant theology insists that God deals with peoples, not just individuals. Covenantal theology teaches that God is pleased to work within families. Peter said on the day of Pentecost that the promise of regeneration and participation in God’s divine family were “for you and your children and for… as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself… (Acts 2:39).”

In the Old Covenant, the symbol of participation in the covenant (i.e., circumcision) was applied to every male child on the eighth day. This did not mean that every individual Hebrew child was saved, only that the child was included in the covenant community. If the child grew up and rejected the covenant, he was “cut off” and the symbol of blessing became a symbol of cursing. Jesus said, “To whom much is given, much is expected.” The Jews paid a heavy price for their apostasy and rebellion. The mark of the Covenant could either be a blessing or a curse depending upon whether it was followed up by faith.

Thus, I came to see that in the same way, Baptism as a symbol should be applied to the children of believing members of the church. God’s covenant is not just for individuals, but for families as well. The sign of the covenant is a promise by God that He will remain faithful to His Word. No, it does not mean that every baptized infant is saved (just as no Baptist would ever say that every person who professes faith and is baptized is necessarily saved).

The significance of this came home to me when I was pastoring a Baptist church some years ago. When Baptist children hit their early teen years, usually some sort of “revival” breaks out in the youth group and most of the teens will get “saved” in a fairly short period of time. They then come forward for baptism. In this case, as a number of young people were baptized, one teenage girl from a believing family also came forward. The girl though sweet in spirit suffered from emotional and learning difficulties. We worked with her for weeks, catechizing and instructing and going over the plan of salvation. No matter how hard we tried, she was never able to verbalize an unprompted, coherent confession of faith. Without that confession, though, as a conscientious Baptist Pastor, I was unable to baptize her, which caused her, her family and a number of others in the church a great deal of heartburn. Couldn’t I just bend the rules a little bit?

No, I could not. But the dilemma she faced would not go away. What was her status before God? Is she always to be excluded from the blessings of the Covenant because she had learning disabilities? What about all those people who lack the mental or physical capacity to profess faith? Are they God’s rejects? What is their relationship to the Church? I didn’t have an answer then.

Now though I see that God works in families. That young girl did have a portion in the Covenant and should have been baptized as a child. It is good, right and proper that the children of believing parents be given the sign of blessing. Now 1 Corinthians 7:14 makes sense: “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.” This verse is very hard to understand from a Baptist’s perspective, but makes perfect sense to those who hold to Covenant baptism. The children of even one believing parent are holy; not that they are not sinners by nature, but rather holy in the sense of being under the blessings of the Covenant. Covenant children have believing parents who teach them God’s law and commandments and provide models of Christ-like love and character. They are under the care of a Christian church that helps nurture and encourage them. They grow up hearing the gospel as a normal part of their lives.

Does this mean that all Covenant children are saved? Not necessarily, their baptism is to be a constant reminder that they have been given great blessings. But God must still work in their hearts, granting repentance, regenerating their hearts and giving them saving faith. If they turn away and reject these blessings, their condemnation, if possible, is worse than that of a heathen child.

“For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace. For we know Him who said, ‘Vengeance is Mine, I will repay.’ And, ‘The Lord will judge His people.’ It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God… (Hebs 10:26ff)”

These verses were very difficult to understand to one steeped in the doctrines of eternal security. But when I realized that they probably refer to Covenant children who reject their Lord, they make perfect sense. Now this is both a promise and a dire warning of taking the blessings of the Covenant too lightly.

Thus, baptism replaces circumcision as the sign of participation in the New Covenant and my children have a portion in God’s great and wondrous salvation! I have a responsibility to teach, train, disciple and nurture my children. By God’s grace, I can expect my children to come to saving faith at a very young age. I can expect to see the results of a regenerate heart even in toddlers. While all children are conceived in iniquity and have a sinful nature, I expect our gracious Lord to remember His covenant, grant them repentance and give them saving faith. Thus I treat my children as believers who need to be loved and taught our holy religion, not as pagan interlopers in my home. And, as each of my children has come to the age of reason, each has been able to give a credible testimony of saving faith in Christ and evidence of a regenerate heart. God keeps His Covenant!

Of course, there is much more to Covenant baptism than what this one essay can detail. But it lays down the foundation for learning to see things in Scripture that our experiences have blinded us to. God is sovereign. He has made a covenant with His people. Baptism is the sign of that covenant and replaces circumcision. Our children have a portion in that covenant. And therefore, they have the right of baptism.

You might also be interested in these articles:

• Is Baptism A Replacement for Circumcision?