Book Review: What is Baptism

What Is Baptism? by R.C. Sproul
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

A solid, but brief introduction to baptism with short sections on the covenant, the meaning of baptism, the mode, and infant baptism. Typical Sproul, clear without being too specific, gets his point across without being mean to those who disagree. A good little booklet to hand out to new believers.

View all my reviews

Book Review: Why Do We Baptize Infants?

Why Do We Baptize Infants? by Bryan Chapell
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

A short, but clear introduction to infant baptism that shows the covenant background to the sacrament and why the New Testament does not deviate from that the Old Testament as regards children and their status. A good little pamphlet to hand out to new Christians or to those new to Reformed theology.

View all my reviews

Gratitude is Fuel for Obedience

Here is the closing paragraph of Calvin's defense of infant baptism. (I split it into two paragraphs for easier reading.)  I love these two paragraphs. They breathe pastoral warmth and gratitude to God. They bring us to the objective grace of God shown to us in adopting our children via baptism. They glorify God as our Heavenly Father. Here also we see a theme which runs through Calvin's writings: Seeing our Father's kindness and grace leads to thankfulness which then leads to practical holiness/obedience. Therefore to obscure God's grace inevitably leads to ingratitude which will lead to either legalism (man's laws obeyed in the flesh) or antinomianism (rejection of obedience all together). The fire which burns underneath all our obedience is gratitude to God for his grace.  The fuel which burns in us to teach our children about God and his ways is the kindness our Father has shown by bringing them into the church.

Now I think no sober person will be in doubt how rashly they stir up Christ's church with their altercations and contentions over infant baptism. But it behooves us to note what Satan is attempting with this great subtlety of his. He is trying to take away from us the singular fruit of assurance and spiritual joy which is to be gathered from it, and also to diminish somewhat the glory of the divine goodness. For how sweet it is to godly minds to be assured, not only by word, but by sight, that they obtain so much favor with the Heavenly Father that their offspring are within his care? For here we can see how he takes on toward us the role of a most provident Father, who even after our death maintains his care for us, providing for and looking after our children. Should we not, following David's example, rejoice with all our heart in thanksgiving, that his name may be hallowed by such an example of his goodness [Psalm 48:10]? 

It is precisely this which Satan is attempting in assailing infant baptism with such an army: that, once this testimony of God's grace is taken away from us, the promise which, through it, is put before our eyes may vanish little by little. From this would grow up not only impious ungratefulness toward God's mercy but a certain negligence about instructing our children in piety.  For when we consider that immediately from birth God takes and acknowledges them as his children, we feel a strong stimulus to instruct them in an earnest fear of God and observance of the law. Accordingly, unless we wish spitefully to obscure God's goodness, let us offer our infants to him for he gives them a place among those of his family and household, that is, the members of the church. 

Calvin on Titus 3:5

"The efficacy and use of the sacraments will be properly understood by him who shall connect the sign and the thing signified, in such a manner as not to make the sign unmeaning and inefficacious, and who nevertheless shall not, for the sake of adorning the sign, take away from the Holy Spirit what belongs to him. Although by baptism wicked men are neither washed nor renewed, yet it retains that power, so far as it relates to God, because, although they reject the grace of God, still it is offered to them. But here [in Titus 3:5] Paul addresses believers, in whom baptism is always efficacious and in whom, therefore it is properly connected with its truth and efficacy. But by this mode of expression we are reminded that, if we do not wish to annihilate holy baptism we must prove its efficacy by newness of life." (John Calvin on Titus 3:5)

Here is a classic statement of the reformed view of the Sacraments, even if current reformed people do not know it. Let me make a couple of points about what Calvin says.

1. All efficacy in the sign is to be assigned to the Spirit, but this does not mean we substitute Spirit baptism for water baptism. The Spirit works through the sign. The Spirit doesn't work outside of the sign. Thus we cannot disconnect baptism with water and baptism by the Spirit.

2. Baptism is always efficacious for the believer. Here is quote from the Westminster Shorter Catechism saying the same thing as Calvin:

"Q88: What are the outward means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption?
A88: The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption, are his ordinances, especially the Word, sacraments, and prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for salvation."

3. Baptism, like the preaching of the Gospel, is an offer of the grace of God.

4. Baptism, like the preaching of the Gospel, can be rejected by the hardness of men's hearts.

5. The proof that someone has accepted their baptism is newness of life.

Calvin, Baptism, and Election

Here is quote by Calvin, which lays out nicely his view of the sacraments. In this section he is refuting Pighius. I am quoting directly from Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God. I have added paragraph breaks. Brackets and bold are mine. Everything else was in the book.

Paul represents (Romans 2:29) circumcision as of letter and spirit. We must think similarly of baptism. Some carry in their bodies the mere sign, but are far from possessing the reality. For Peter also, teaching that salvation follows our baptism, immediately adds as though in correction that the mere external washing of the flesh is not enough unless there is added also the answer of a good conscience (I Peter 3:21).

Thus Scripture, in dealing with the sacraments, customarily speaks  of them in a twofold sense. When dealing with hypocrites who glory in the sign and neglect the reality, in order to prostrate [throw down] their confidence, it separates the reality from the signs, in contrast to their perverse understanding. Thus Paul (I Cor 10:3-13) reminds his readers that it did not profit the ancient people to have been baptized in their passage through the Red Sea and to have with us the same spiritual food in the desert (meaning, that is, that they participated with us in the same external signs of the spiritual gifts).

But addressing the faithful he describes the use of the sacraments as legitimate, efficacious and corresponding to the divine institution. It is here that phrases apply: to have put on Christ, engrafted into His body, buried together with him, who have been baptized in His name (Rom. 6:4, Col 2:12, Gal. 3:27, I Cor. 12:27). From [these passages] Pighius concludes that all sprinkled with the visible element of water are truly regenerated by the Spirit and incorporated into the body of Christ so as to live to God and in His righteousness...

But a little later, as if drawing in his wings, Pighius remarks that many fall away from Christ who had been truly engrafted into His body; for he makes out  that those committed to Christ and received into His faithful care are saved by Him in such a way that their salvation is dependent on their own free will. To many, he says, the protecting grace of Christ is not wanting, but they are wanting in themselves. Certainly the stupidity and ingratitude of those who withdraw themselves from the help of God can never be sufficiently condemned. But it is a quite intolerable insult to Christ to say that the elect are saved by Him, provided they look after themselves. This is to render doubtful the protection of Christ which He affirms is invincible against the devil and all the machinations of hell. Christ promised to give eternal life to all give Him by the Father (John 17:2). He testifies that He is a faithful custodian of them all, so that none perishes except the son of perdition (John 17:12)... 

If eternal life is certain to all the elect, if  no one can pluck them from Him, if no violence nor any assault can tear them from Him, if their salvation stands in the invincible power of God, what impudence for Pighius to shake so fixed a certitude. Though Christ casts none out, he says, yet many depart from Him, and those who once were children of God do not continue so. But Pighius is a bad and perverse interpreter, not acknowledging  that whatever is given him by the Father is retained in the hand of Christ, so that it remains safe to the end; for those that fall away, John declares to be not of His flock. 

This lengthy quote is worth reading carefully for several reasons. It shows that certain lines from Calvin, such as "yet many depart from Him, and those who once were children of God do not continue so" can be interpreted out of context to mean something they do not mean. This line, by itself, sounds like Calvin believes true Christians can fall away. However, throughout the passage and the book he draws a clear line between the elect and the non-elect while still agreeing that "many things are found alike in the reprobate and the children of God. But, however they shine in appearance of righteousness, it is certain they are not possessed of the Spirit of adoption, so that their owners may truly invoke God as Father." (This quote is two pages after the one above.) While there are some similarities with the elect, those who fall away are never part of the elect in the fullest sense. They are not adopted and God is not their Father. 

This passage also shows that the relationship between election and the sacraments has long been an issue. Pighius argued that the elect were saved at baptism, but the rest was left up to them. They were "regenerated by the Spirit." They have been truly grafted into Christ's body, but they must keep themselves there. Calvin says God gives all to his elect, including the promise that Christ is the "faithful custodian of them." Those given to Christ by the Father are kept by Christ unto the end. There are none lost (John 6:39). 

Calvin gives the classic understanding of how the sacraments are to be understood. There is the sign (baptism/communion/the Word) and there is the reality, Jesus Christ received by faith. Hypocrites need to have the two distinguished so they do not glory in the sign while not having the reality. The faithful need to have the two wedded together so they do not despair, but know that Jesus really feeds them through these signs.

Finally, he makes clear that Christ's power and glory are at stake in any debate about election. Predestination debates are not primarily about man's free will, but about the power of Christ to save and redeem. When we say man can and does slip from Christ's grasp the primary problem is not that we grant man a completely free will, but that we deny the efficacy of Christ's work.

Book Review: The Meaning and Mode of Baptism

The Meaning and Mode of Baptism by Jay E. Adams
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

A good solid defense of pouring/sprinkling as the Biblical mode of baptism. I appreciated that he took the mode seriously. So many Presbyterians argue that mode is irrelevant. His exegesis of John's baptism, Jesus' baptism,and Pentecost are excellent. He also forces you to look to the Old Testament to provide some warrant for what John did. I did not agree with him that Romans 6:3 and I Corinthians 12:12-13 could not refer to water baptism. But this mistake has really no effect upon the immersionist vs. pouring/sprinkling argument. My trek towards pouring as the primary mode continues.

View all my reviews

Tim Challies on Baptizing Children

Here is an interesting article by Tim Challies on when credo baptists should baptize their children. He is gracious with those who believe that young children can believe and be baptized, but he suggests that we should wait until children are older, particularly later teen years. This position is similar to Mark Dever's.   There are several points I want to make about this article.

First, Pastor Challies' definition of "credible profession of faith" is not found in the book of Acts. He argues from Acts that someone must have knowledge and maturity in order to have a credible profession of faith. But almost every baptism in Acts immediately follows a response to the preaching of the Word. There is no delay to determine whether or not someone has knowledge or is mature enough to receive baptism. In Acts 2:41 3,000 people are baptized the very day that Peter preaches to them. In Acts 8:12 we see that Philip baptized people who heard him preach the same day. At the end of the same chapter Philip baptizes the Ethiopian eunuch. There are numerous other examples in Acts (10:48, 16:15, 16:33, 18:8) of baptisms quickly following a profession of faith. There does not appear to be any biblical reason to delay baptism following a profession of faith. Certainly in some of these cases, like Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch, there could have been discussion about the faith. But in most cases there is nothing other than preaching and response. And certainly with the 3,000 on Pentecost there would not have been time to evaluate the participants knowledge and maturity. May be he is pulling his definition of credible profession of faith from another book of the Bible. If he is, he does not say so.

Second, Pastor Challies does not mention a single passage that talks about children. The New Testament mentions children numerous times. It would seem odd to develop a thesis about baptizing children without at least referencing passages on children.

Third, he seems to think the only problem is baptizing children too early. But what if a child really does profess faith in Christ and we refuse to baptize him? Doesn't that create doubt in his mind about his own conversion? What if credo-baptists imply to their children that "your profession is not good enough?" Maybe we create doubt by making them wait and then they fulfill our prophecy by acting unregenerate. His example of a child responding to questions is a straw man.  My three year old can answer his questions just fine. Once a child talks why should we not take their profession seriously? Why would the profession of a three year old not be valid, but that of a 23 year old is?

Fourth, it sounds like he is arguing that we cannot know if someone is truly saved until they leave their parents' instruction behind.  They must decide for themselves. Again, give me Scriptural proof of this particular point. No where in the Bible are children seen as needing to decide for themselves. Parents are told to instruct them in the faith and the ways of Christ. If a parent does this well then Christ will be present in the child's life from the moment they are born. An obedient child is one who listens to their parents and obeys their commands. This would include the command to trust in Christ.

Fifth, it is not inevitable, but there is a danger that his perspective leads to baptism by works. If you stay faithful after you leave your parents then we will know you are really saved. If you show enough theological knowledge then we will know you really believe. If you show enough maturity then we will know your trust in Christ is true. Under this view baptism is no longer an entrance into the Christian life. It becomes a sign of spiritual maturity. Maybe this is because we have differing definitions of baptism. But it is still problematic.

Book Review: Jesus Loves the Little Children

Jesus Loves the Little Children: Why We Baptize Children by Daniel R. Hyde
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

The best brief introduction to infant baptism I have read. Hyde is long enough to cover the basics, but short enough to be of use to any believer. There were several things I enjoyed about the book.

1. Hyde is gracious, but firm. His understands that good Christians differ on this issue. But he believes the Bible is firmly on his side. I liked this approach.

2. He emphasized the covenant of grace.

3. He discussed the status of children in the NT. I think this particular angle has been overlooked by both paedo and credo baptists.

4. He showed how the mode was irrelevant.

5. He used church history as a secondary source, but clearly put the Scriptures above it.

This will become my go to book for new parents or people looking into infant baptism.

View all my reviews

Thoroughly Consistent

"Another matter which should be equally clear from this study is that the position of the Reformers in regard to infant baptism was an integral part of their whole theology. It is not as though baptizing very young children was a strange inconsistency which was perpetuated out of habit.  It is not as though here was a place where the Reformers strangely neglected to apply their usual principles of reform...The baptism of infants was a logical corollary of sola gratia, for it clearly demonstrated prevenient grace...Far from being a failure to carry through their reforming principles to their logical conclusions, the Reformers' position on infant baptism was thoroughly consistent with their whole program of reform" (Shaping the Reformed Baptismal Rite, Hughes Oliphant Old, p. 143-144)

Washing With the Water of the Word

I found the statement below by Charles Hodge to be fascinating for two reasons. First, he thinks Ephesians 5:26 refers to baptism. But second, and perhaps more surprising, is his view of church history. I agree with him on both accounts.

"Commentators, however, almost without exception, understand the expression in the text to refer to baptism.  The great majority of them, with Calvin and the other Reformers,  do not even discuss the question, or seem to admit any other interpretation to be possible.  The same view is taken by all the  modern exegetical writers.  This unanimity of opinion is itself almost decisive.  Nothing short of  a stringent necessity can justify any one in setting forth an interpretation opposed to this common consent of Christians. No such necessity exists.  Baptism is a washing with water.  It is the washing with which Paul's readers as Christians were familiar, and which could not fail to occur to them as the washing intended. Besides, nothing more is here attributed to baptism than is attributed  to it in many passages of the Word of God. Compare particularly Acts 22:16.  There can be little doubt, therefore, that by 'the washing with water' the apostle meant baptism." Charles Hodge Commentary on Ephesians, p. 233. Italics are his.

The Primacy of Grace

"At the very heart of the Protestant Reformation was the revival of Augustinian theology with its strong emphasis on the primacy of grace.  The Reformers believed that God took the initiative for humankind's salvation. In light of such a strong doctrine of grace the baptism of infants was quite understandable.  In fact,  the baptism of infants demonstrated very powerfully that our salvation rests not on any knowledge or work or experience or decision of our own, but entirely on the grace of God." (Hughes Old, Reformed Baptismal Rite, p. 139)

Bucer on the Old Testament Sacraments

"One notices with great interest that Bucer has a very high understanding of the spiritual value of the Old Testament sacraments. They are not merely outward forms or ceremonies. They were ordained of God as signs of an inward and spiritual reality.  Bucer did not reject the Old Testament ceremonies on the same principle that he rejected many of the medieval ceremonies of the Church.  He did not consider them empty, meaningless ceremonies of merely human invention. The sacraments of the Old Testament were truly sacraments because they were divinely given.  For Bucer, the problem with the medieval ceremonies was that they were not commanded by God." (Hughes Old, The Shaping of the Reformed Baptismal Rite in the 16th Century, p. 127-128

Swatting Flies: Credo-Baptism and Young Children

I am a paedo-baptist. That means I believe that children of believing parents are born into the Covenant and therefore have a right to the covenant sign, baptism. However, I know many of you at Christ Church are Baptist and disagree with me on this particular point. Earlier this week Tim Challies posted a list of when baptist churches allow a child to baptized. I encourage you to read the post here. As I read the quotes from various churches questions began to buzz in my mind like so many flies.  So here is my attempt to swat at those flies. By the way, I love my Baptist brothers. This is not an attempt to start a fight, but rather I am trying to help you think more Biblically about your position. 

First and foremost, what is the biblical basis for putting off baptism until well after a profession of faith? Most churches on the list said they would not baptize a child solely on his profession of faith. (Ted Christman's was the exception. My guess is that Christman's church is not the norm in Baptist circles.) There must be a period of time until the child matures. Mark Dever's church in Washington D.C. implied that baptism should be put off until a child is out from underneath their parents' authority. Both John MacArthur's and John Piper's church said that a child must be eleven or twelve until they are baptized, no matter when they make a profession of faith.  My question is: Do they have a Bible verse for that? In the Bible as soon as a profession of faith is made the person is baptized. There is no waiting period for anyone. Peter and Paul were apparently not worried that a man's profession of faith might not be real. (See Acts 2:41, 8:12, 8:38, 16:15, 16:33, 18:8) Even Paul's baptism was only a few days past his conversion. (Acts 9:1-9 and 18) So again, why wait?

A Church Free from Sin

"For the circle of Conrad Grebel [An Anabaptist leader], as for Muntzer, believer's baptism was the one key reform for the Church. If only those who gave evidence of a firm and mature faith were baptized, then the Church would be free from all kinds of impurities. Believer's baptism would be the effective sword used to separate the true Christian from Christendom." (Hughes Oliphant Old, The Shaping of the Reformed Baptismal Rite in the 16^th Century, p. 91)

Whose Work Is It?

For Conrad Grebel, another leading Anabaptist, "one notices that [baptism] is not a sign of what God will do in the life of the baptized, as Zwingli had understood it, but rather a sign of what the baptized has done already and will do in the future. It would appear that for Grebel baptism is not so much an act of God as an act of the one baptized.  It is his or her confession of faith." (Hughes Oliphant Old, The Shaping of the Reformed Baptismal Rite in the 16th Century, p. 91)

Justification by Imitation

"Above all we should notice this fact: this call for a the radical reform of the rite of baptism [by Thomas Muntzer, a leading Anabaptist PJ] is found in a work which looks for the reform of the Church not in the direction of justification by faith, nor in a rediscovery of the authority of Scripture, nor in a renewed appreciation of the sovereignty of grace, but rather in a book which sees the reform of the Church in terms of medieval German mysticism. For Muntzer salvation is not through faith, but through the imitation of Christ." (Hughes Oliphant Old, The Shaping of the Reformed Baptismal Rite in the 16^th Century, p. 83)

A Church for the Elite and Fast Movers

In the quotes below Hughes Oliphant Old is discussing Anabaptism in the 16th century.

"At issue in this question of believers' baptism was an attempt to found a new church for the spiritually elite." (Hughes Oliphant Old, The Shaping of the Reformed Baptismal Rite, p. 77)


"In Zurich, too, there was a circle of proto-Anabaptists. As in Wittenberg and Strasbourg, the circle was made up of those who were impatient with the slowness and the caution of those who were leading the Reformation...They wanted to move out and form a new church made up of those who were fully committed Christians." (Hughes Oliphant Old, The Shaping of the Reformed Baptismal Rite, p. 87)

Whose Work Is It?

"The baptismal rite of Basel makes one thing clear above all: baptism is in the end a work of God. The minister, as the apostles before him, administers the sign of washing, but it is God who through his Holy Spirit cleanses the heart. One might say that the service underlines the epicletic nature of baptism.  Having begun the service with the affirmation that our salvation is in the power of God alone, "Our help is in the name of the Lord," the minister calls the church to prayer.  We are reminded that our part is to pray for the salvation of the child.  It is God's part to give the child faith and by the inner baptism of the Holy Spirit to regenerate him. The power to save remains with God, who works when and where and how he pleases.  The power is not in our hands.  It resides not in the proper performing of liturigical rites.  This was one of the essential insights of Reformed theologians.  Our part is to administer obediently the sign God has given, to proclaim the rich promises of grace, to call on God to fulfill these promises, and to trust that he will fufill them...If it is true that God's Spirit works when and where and how he pleases, it is equally true that God works where he has promised to work.  That was the heart of the theology of the covenant." (Hughes Oliphant Old, The Shaping of the Reformed Baptismal Rite, p. 72-73)

Not Magic, But a Sign

"We have taught that those baptized in the Lord Jesus are made one body with him in his death, and through baptism they die with him and are buried with him and in his Resurrection they rise to new life.  Therefore, the true use or observance of baptism is that we regularly die to the old Adam and this kind of dying we must do as long as life shall last." (Wolfgang Capito, A reformer who worked alongside Martin Bucer in Strasbourg)

"Capito makes a point here which is essential to understanding the further development of the Reformed rite of baptism.  Baptism is not a ritual which saves one as if by magic at a particular time or occasion. It is not as though before one is baptized one is lost and after baptism one is saved. Baptism is far more a sign under which the Christian lives out the whole of life. It is a sign of continual washing from sins and a continual renewal in new life. It is not so much the ritual of a once-and-for-all crisis experience as it is a prophetic promise of what is and always will be the character of the Christian life." (Hughes Oliphant Old, commenting on the above quote in The Shaping of the Reformed Baptismal Rite, p. 52)

Baptism Belongs at the Beginning

"In the fourth century one had to prove one's faith before being baptized.  One had to undergo a long and often rigorous scrutiny.  Few people were baptized at the beginning of their Christian life.  That was very different from the practice of the New Testament Church." (Hughes Oliphant Old, The Shaping of the Reformed Baptismal Rite in the Sixteenth Century, p. 31)