Baptism: When? Who? Why?

I have recently been working through the issues surrounding the sacrament of baptism in a more deliberate fashion than I have had the opportunity to do so before, and I believe I have come to a fairly settled disposition concerning what, in my view, is right and proper practice.  I would like to briefly state my conclusions and hear your reactions.

In summary, it seems to me that the classical Christian faith (that is, the consensual voice of the Church throughout time and space) has taught, in line with the apostolic witness and the Scriptures the apostles composed, that baptism is the Christian sacrament of "initiation."  That is, properly understood and performed, baptism marks the beginning of a person's full communion within the Church (and, as a result, in a particular, local manifestation of church).  It is also the sacrament that signifies the grace received at conversion/initial salvation/whatever-else you want to call it.

As I understand it, baptism does not necessarily convey God's grace (in other words, contrary to the popular Roman Catholic understanding, I do not believe that baptism in itself secures ones salvation).  Baptism does, however, create a sort of "sacred space" in which God regularly chooses, out of his own freedom, to impart grace to the believer.

With this understanding, baptism is properly performed in either one of two cases: (1) when a confessing adult accepts God's pardon for their sin and seeks, in faith, to proclaim their conversion to the Church; and (2) when Christian parents desire to baptize their infant with the confidence that when the child has come to the "age of accountability" (whenever that may be), (s)he will choose to make his/her own profession of faith through some sort of confirmation rite.  I believe that an infant baptism without this later confirmation is an incomplete sacrament since baptism signifies saving faith--something an infant is incapable of, even while (s)he is covered by God's grace in his/her years of innocence.  (That does not mean, however, that an infant baptized but not confirmed in unsaved, since saving grace is not necessarily tied to the sacrament.  It is faith, of which the sacrament is a sign, that saves.)   

For two excellent articles--one in defense of infant baptism, the other in defense of infant dedication--see the two links at the bottom of this post.

I have found these issues confusing in the past, but have had time recently to work through them diligently and in conversation with the broad tradition of the Church.  Perhaps I've said nothing that is all that unfamiliar to you--and I honestly hope that what I have said is not innovative in the least--but I am interested in your responses.  Where do you stand on the issues involved?  What is baptism, in your view?  Who should or should not be baptized?  Why or why not?

Please join the discussion.  As always, any and all comments/questions/concerns are welcome provided they are presented in a kindly manner.  God bless!

For a well-written defense of infant baptism by ONU Professor, Dr. Mark Quanstrom, click HERE.
For a well-written defense of infant dedication over against infant baptism by ONU Professor, Dr. Carl Leth, click HERE.

Casting a New Testament Vision of "The Age to Come"

Those who have read my blogs know that I am not a big fan of the evangelistic "technique" that attempts to corner people with the question: "If you were to die in the next five minutes, do you know if you would go to heaven or hell?" I will admit, however, that I have often been critical of this technique (specifically, its implicit understanding of salvation as a "lifeboat" out of this world, and its eschatological outlook of "getting into heaven . . . which is nothing like earth"), but I have not often offered a positive reworking of this "technique." The truth is, I incline to want to dispense with the "techniques" all together, but that does not mean I want to dispense with teaching and proclaiming the truth. Moreover, there is one nugget of truth to this evangelistic "technique" that I can appreciate and affirm--that is its insistence upon calling people to decision. The truth of the matter is that the gospel proclaimed by Jesus and His Church clearly calls people to decision, but I'm fairly certain that there are better ways to articulate the truth that the Scriptures proclaim than the one encapsulated by the above-mentioned question. So here goes my meager attempt at a rearticulation of the gospel truth that calls people to decision, without resorting to the inadequate and misleading "lifeboat" soteriology and "sky-hook" eschatology:

The New Testament clearly teaches that we live "at the ends [NIV: fulfillment] of the ages." (1 Cor. 10:11) There is a "present, evil age" that is passing away (Mt. 12:32, Lk. 18:30, 20:34, Gal. 1:4, Mk. 10:30, 1 Cor 1:20, 2:6-8, 3:18; 2 Cor. 4:4; Eph. 1:21, Titus 2:12, and that a new "age to come" is just about to dawn (Mt. 12:32; Mk. 10:30; Lk. 18:30). This Messianic, golden age to come--this coming Kingdom of God--was hinted at in the Old Testament by the prophets of Israel (i.e. Isaiah 65:17-25; Dan. 2:24-48), but was only fully understood in light of Jesus Christ's inauguration of the Kingdom. (Remember Christ's message: "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is near!" [Mt. 4:17; Mk. 1:15]) Since Christ has come, the Kingdom of God has broken into our present age--and, as a result, we are assured that "the age to come" cannot be far off. The proclamation of the whole of the New Testament--from Jesus, to Paul, to Peter--is that "this world in its present form is passing away" (1 Cor. 7:31), and a new age of glory is right on its heels--an age guaranteed to come because Christ has come, died, risen, and ascended to the Father. The present age is marred by evil, sin, corruption, and disaster; the age to come will be free of all evil, sin, corruption, and disaster, and will be marked by God's unmediated presence among his people (Rev. 21).

Where does the call to decision come in, though? It comes in when we consider what the "criteria" for entrance into the age to come is, according to the New Testament. Jesus says, "I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved." (John 10:9) Much of the New Testament is concerned with fleshing out what this means, and no one fleshes it out more thoroughly than Paul, who writes to the Galatians: "Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to set us free from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be the glory forever and ever." (Gal. 1:3-5, emphasis added) It is Christ's atonement--specifically in and through his obedient death on the cross--that provides us with salvation, with a gate through which we may enter "the age to come." Thus, salvation can be spoken of not only as a present reality, but also as a future reality (Heb. 9:8: " so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him"). But while this grace has been offered to all (I reject the notion of a "limited atonement"), it is not received by all. And here is where the call to decision is to be proclaimed: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God." (Eph. 2:8) This gracious gift of God, unmerited, undeserved, requires a response of faith from us. This faith must be placed squarely in Jesus Christ, who is "the gate" into "the age to come." Apart from faith in Christ, the gate into this new age is closed off to those who stand unreconciled to God because of their sinfulness and unrepentance.

In summary, then, we live in "this present evil age." Because of Christ, however, we know that "the age to come" is about to dawn--and has, in some measure, already been inaugurated here and now, in us ("the kingdom is within/among you" [Lk. 17:21]). Christ himself is the gate into "the age to come," but this new age will be both similar to and different from this "present age." It will differ in that evil will be no more. It will be similar in that "the age to come" is not some spiritual heaven "out there," but is rather a New Creation with physical and corporeal dimension to it, right here! (Again, Rev. 21--"a new heavens and a new earth . . . the dwelling of God will be with men") Entrance into the age to come is conditional--but the condition is nothing more than faith in Christ.  He has become the gate through which we may enter the "age to come," but we will have to allow him to remove our sin from us, because sin and evil cannot be a part of the coming age.

Granted, all of this takes a bit more time to explain than asking, "If you were to die in the next five minutes, would you go to heaven or hell?"  But this fact is probably a good thing for at least a couple of reasons: (1) We really ought to take more time with people than this question allows; and (2) this question is not really in the best harmony with the New Testament soteriologically (pertaining to salvation) or eschatologically (pertaining to the age to come); it is an emaciated version of the NT's call to decision.  The fact of the matter is that truth can rarely be boiled down to simplistic formulas or mantras: such reductionism always happens at a price.  I hope that we can recover a fuller vision of the NT's teaching on the age to come, and as a result can confront people with the decisiveness of the gospel proclamation in a way that is more consistent with the New Testament itself.


As always, your thoughts, comments, responses, concerns, (but not your slander) is welcome!