Water Baptism confers Grace on Believers and Infants

                                                                     

                                                                         Introduction: 

Before I return to the topic of whether or not a person can lose their salvation, I would like to write a brief post on scripture supporting the view that Baptism is more than a symbol. As I believe that baptism confers grace, this argument will also assist my view that infants should be baptized. 

Previously, I defended the Biblicity of infant baptism based on scriptural arguments concerning circumcision, household baptisms, the Old Testament examples of baptism, and early Christian evidence for this practice. Now, however, I shall attempt to defend infant baptism in a more subtle way: by showing those who are not baptized lack the grace of the Holy Spirit over those who are baptized immediately as young children. Additionally, I made scriptural arguments that show examples of infants of believers having faith in Christ (contrary to those who say that infants cannot believe). Finally, I also argued for infant baptism as I concluded that the cases of baptism explicitly mentioned in the New Testament are about missionary baptisms, not about the command that only believers can or should be baptized. 

 A core difference between many modern Baptists and most liturgical Christians is the fact that the former almost always believe baptism to be nothing more than a symbol of one's walk with Christ. Because many Baptists believe this, many of them do not believe that water baptism confers anything special power of the Holy Spirit on either a believing adult or child/infant. However, as I intended to show here, scripture actually shows that baptism is far more than a symbol. 

Baptism has always been a hallmark moment for many in Christianity. Traditionally, it has been regarded by Christians as the initiation into church membership. Throughout history, many have, however, differed on the topic of whether or not an infant should be baptized. Here, I shall demonstrate in this thesis, that an infant should be baptized to receive salvific grace on the following scriptural grounds: that no one after Pentecost ever receives the Holy Spirit as a result of belief alone according to Acts 2:38, that holiness is provided by baptism in Ephesians 5: 26, that baptism makes us heirs as God's children in Romans 8:15-17 and Galatians 4:6-7. 

                                                                  Differing Views:

Some Christians have historically differed over the specifics of how grace is conferred at baptism. Lutherans and Romans, for example, understand baptism to be regenerative. Presbyterians, historically, however, followed the thought of Cornelius Burgess, author of Presumptive Regeneration (a contributor to The Westminster Standards). By following the latter, Reformed Christians have traditionally embraced the idea that baptism is not regenerative, but rather, a conferring of grace. Unlike Lutherans and Catholics, Burgess did not believe that water baptism conferred grace on all. Because of this, he held to what is called ''presumptive regeneration.'' To Burgess, only the elect will receive efficacious grace from the sacrament of baptism. 

My intention here is not to demonstrate from scripture whether or not baptism is as Catholics and Lutherans understand it. At the least, I wish to show the Biblicity of any Christian who believes that baptisms confer grace (as most liturgical Christians believe). By insisting on this latter argument, I will then argue that infants should be baptized. 

Presbyterians generally do not believe that baptism is regenerative (except for those in the Federal Vision movement). However, they in a sense, believe that baptism is salvific, though not in a justifying way. I say that they believe that it is in a sense salvific, as they believe that baptism confers grace on God's elect (including children of elect parents). Now that I have added clarity as to this point, I will be using this word throughout this post. 

                                   The Thoughts of Baptismal Efficacy in the Early Church:

First, it must be understood that not a single church father believed baptism to be either merely memorial or symbolic. They all understood that baptism conferred grace. This was the case for even Saint Jerome, who believed that baptism only confers grace on the elect. 

If one takes the time to read The Shepherd of Hermas or the writings of Tertullian of Carthage, one will likely notice the absence of the modern Baptistic view of baptism in early Christianity. The early Christians saw baptism as very significant. Indeed, this was not just the church fathers. Every scholar in church history thought this until the Protestant Reformation (and Martin Luther never recanted this position). Even if nothing else, hopefully, paedobaptists and credobaptists will walk away from this post with the desire to treat baptism with reverence, as did those of the first centuries after Christ. 

Now, many credobaptists will not argue that the church fathers differed from them on this point. However, they will claim that nothing in scripture supports baptismal efficacy, to which, I believe otherwise. 

                                           The Credobaptists and the  Baptist Views of Symbolism 

Many present-day Baptists believe that baptism is nothing more than a symbol. However, nothing in scripture ever says this. Certainly, the beautiful picture of Romans 6 is an enlightening one on how we are raised to life through baptism, but nothing in this passage, nor any other scripture teaches that baptism is merely symbolic. 

In fact, scripture confirms in many places that baptism is connected with the concept of salvation. While receiving baptism is a work, so is repentance, and the argument that if baptism is necessary for salvation because it is a work must, is only consistent if one believes that no repentance is required of a believer either. The fact that baptism contributes to our salvation does not conflict with salvation being a free gift from God as expressed in Ephesians 2:8-9. For even in the former passage, God's grace is greater than our works, and Baptism, being a gracious sacrament from God, is something that He does for us. Actually, those who downplay the importance of baptism to salvation are the ones who are works-based as they believe that they can be legitimate persons without crediting the necessity of the Holy Spirit in baptism. 

Since the New Testament is the standard practice for Bible-believing Christians, it should be our primary source in this debate. Some have tried to debate against baptismal regeneration and baptismal efficacy by pointing to the thief on the cross. They insist that because the thief had no baptism, baptism is not essential to our walk with Christ. However, as Augustine of Hippo noted in the Retractations, we do not know whether or not the thief on the cross was baptized (many Credobaptists assume that he wasn't). Furthermore, even if the thief on the cross had died unbaptized, he received what Saint Jerome called the baptism of blood as the church father believed the thief on the cross to die as a Christian martyr. Finally, and arguably, most importantly, even if the thief on the cross died unbaptized, he lived before the Holy Spirit's baptism. The symbolic baptism of John the Baptist, which preceded the apostles was not identical to them (as I scripturally explained in prior posts). 

Indeed, scripture actually confirms the power of the Holy Spirit upon believers in water baptism. I turn to the passage of Acts 2 to confirm this.

                                                            Baptismal Efficacy in Acts 2: 

There is never a case in the New Testament Church where someone receives the Holy Spirit who scripture has noted did not receive baptism. The case of Simon Magnus (Acts 8:13) does not provide evidence against this; it simply asserts that someone that can receive the outward sign of water baptism without receiving the inward sacrament from the power of the Holy Spirit. 

In Acts 2: 38, we find Peter the Apostle preaching to both Jews and Gentiles that if they repent, they will receive the power of the Holy Spirit. By preaching this, he was not only insisting on the importance of missionary baptisms, but he was also insisting that if they had true belief and were baptized, the Spirit of God would be with them. Peter understood the grace of God to be with the sacrament of water baptism. The prince of the apostles expounded on his view in 1 Peter 3: 21 when he taught that baptism ''saves.''

Some have attempted to use Acts 10 against the sacramental understandings of the above passage. In the latter passage, Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before receiving water baptism (Acts 10:44-46). Because of this, some insist that water baptism has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit. However, I find this a faulty argument. 

Not only was Cornelius baptized immediately after he made a profession of faith, but the context of the Holy Spirit's power on his life was in the same context of him about to be water baptized. I don't see good grounds to believe that this passage speaks against either baptismal regeneration or presumptive regeneration. 

Furthermore, even if a person can receive the Holy Spirit without water baptism (which I do not believe is Biblical), Ats 2:38 confirms that those who have true faith and water baptism are guaranteed the power of the Holy Spirit in their lives. 

                                                The Holiness of Baptism in Ephesians 5: 26

Paul the Apostle is clear that Christians should be holy (1 Thessalasns 4). However, according to the apostle, how do we receive these benefits?  

In two ways, Paul describes us as receiving salvific grace in Ephesians 5: 26: ''by water'' and ''by word.'' By the ''word'' he obviously meant the scriptures. However, what did he mean by the latter? 

Water is the Biblical sign of baptism throughout the New Testament. Those who say that Ephesians 5: 26 is speaking of something else other than baptism, have quite the burden on their own hands to prove their view. As mentioned earlier, baptism was central to early Christianity. To me, a natural reading of this passage is that Paul is speaking of water baptism. 

                                We Become Children of God through Receiving Water Baptism: 

Since there is never a case in the New Testament Church (Acts on-) in which someone receives the Holy Spirit without water baptism, we should logically conclude that when both Romans 8: 15-17 and Galatians 4: 6-7 speak of the Holy Spirit make us children of the Father, that since the Holy Spirit is not imparted to us without water baptism and since it is the Holy Spirit that makes us heirs of the Father, that therefore, baptism makes us heirs of the Fathers. This logic is based on the reasoning found in scripture. 

                                                                       Conclusion:

I could say that the burden of proof is now on those who hold to the doctrine of ''symbolic baptism'' to prove their point. However, I will not do that as I believe that I have strongly provided scriptural evidence not only to back my own view but against their own. Their interpretations of the above passages to somehow be non-literal (I thought these people always took the Bible literally) are truly forced interpretations. A natural reading of these passages is that the Holy Spirit is necessary for salvation, the Holy Spirit cannot be received by anything other than water baptism, therefore, water baptism is necessary for salvation. Finally, since water baptism is necessary for salvation, infants should be baptized. 

Not a single church father embraced the idea that baptism is nothing more than a symbol of our walk. This thought was not believed by Tertullian of Carthage or anyone else in the ancient church. It arose later in church history. 

In response to all the theological and philosophical ideas I have put forth, some Credobaptists will simply respond, ''It takes a theologian to believe in infant baptism but a common man can understand the Credobaptist position that baptism is only for believers.'' In response to this criticism, I have several things to say. 

Firstly, there are some areas of theology that arguably cannot be understood by the common man. Peter the Apostle, himself was confused by Paul the Apostle's writings (2 Peter 3: 16). Not all of the apostles demonstrated the fuency in Greek philosophy that Paul knew so well. Well learned and 

Secondly, many of those who assert that all true theology is simply enough for the common many to understand, don't take into account the doctrines of the Trinity and the natures of Christ, which even the best theologians struggle to fully understand. Yet as complex as doctrines such as the Filioque are among the common man, how much more complex would such teachings be than those with no theological knowledge? 

Thirdly, those who say that only the essentials of the faith must be understood, then assume that the doctrines of the Trinity and the Natures of Christ are not essentials of the faith. Furthermore, the essentials of one person are quite different from another. To some Calvinists, for example, their views about predestination are necessary for salvation (so they say). 

Fourthly, those who reject infant baptism on the grounds that it is not simplistic for the common man to believe and understand, are often the same Christians who have no problem taking the words of Baptist Greek scholars as to what the New Testament in its original language says without themselves having ever read it. 

Fifthly, while certainly imperfect, theologians exercise a deeper understanding of topics like free will than does the common man. The Protestant Reformation never claimed that all areas of theology can be understood by the common man, but that all men should have the freedom and access to the Scriptures as they purse knowledge of the Creator. 

In conclusion, those who do not baptize infants are allowing their babies to not receive the power of the Holy Spirit. They make their children more suspectable of falling into various sins by not preparing them for the greatest gift on earth: God's salvation. While some Credobaptists baptize their children young (for which they should be commended), the younger a child is, the better it is that they receive baptism. Why would a person want to delay the power of the Holy Spirit on a young child's life? Those who trust the Holy Spirit to protect their child from heresies, sins, and temptations without giving them water baptism, make an assumption about the Spirit's role. Those who demand a certain age of faith, are adding to the teaching of Scripture. Those who insist on knowledge of repentance for baptism should look to Scripture to consider where they got this claim, as Scripture says nothing about the young children of believers having to make a profession of faith themselves in order to be baptized. Instead, Scripture teaches that Baptism confers salvation (1 Peter 3: 21, Titus 3: 5, John 3: 5, Acts 2: 38). By ''salvation'', Presbyterians understand this as non-justification grace, while Catholics and Lutherans understand it as regeneration. Regardless of which side the reader takes, Scripture articulates views on baptism contrary to the CredoBaptist thoughts on who can be baptized and on the meaning of Baptism. 

Finally, those who have read my posts are encouraged to do their own research. Hopefully, these posts will aware many CredoBaptists aware that there are Scriptural reasons why the vast majority of Christians throughout Christendom differ from them, contrary to what many of them have claimed to their congregations. Hopefully, these posts will enlighten the reader as to why theologians from Origen to Augustine, Aquinas to Luther and Calvin, Luther and Calvin, to Wesley and Edwards, held to the doctrine of Infant Baptism. Hopefully, these posts will demonstrate that theological debates are rarely proven by appeal to just one verse or so in Scripture.