Baptism and Rebaptism (3)

Rev. J.M.D. de Heer, Middleburg, the Netherlands

Translated from De Saambinder

Young people and adults who belong to the Reformed churches may easily feel cornered when they engage in a conversation with a Baptist. The latter does not need many words to clarify his viewpoint. “Does the Bible not state it in a simple way: you must first believe before you can be baptized?” Texts which have been learned in our catechism classes are often quoted: “Go ye into the whole world, and teach all nations, baptizing them...” (Matthew 28:19a). “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved...” (Mark 16:16a). “Isn’t that clear?” the Baptist may ask. “If Jesus said this at the time when baptism was instituted, why did you folks devise infant baptism? Have you ever heard that babies are able to believe?”

Early church and Reformation

Before we will listen to the arguments used by the Baptists, we first want to make a statement in order to place the discussion regarding baptism in an historical perspective. A booklet written by Rev. A.J. Mensink, member of the Reformed Association within the Protestant Church of the Netherlands, bears the title, “Genade als erfgoed; Het bijbels recht van de kinderdoop” (“Grace as an Inherited Portion; The Biblical Validity of Infant Baptism”). In this booklet he writes, “After the first Christian congregations had come into existence, infant baptism became current practice in the entire Christian church.” There were only very few exceptions to this general rule. In the early church the thought arose that baptism itself was able to wash away sin. It was emphasized more and more that only the sins committed before the administration of baptism were forgiven. Consequently, many decided to postpone baptism as long as they could.

In the time of the Reformation, infant baptism was undermined and attacked from a totally different side. According to the Anabaptists, infant baptism—just like many other customs—was part of the Roman leaven of which the church had to be purged. Infant baptism was said to set people at ease in a wrongful manner. Believing their sins to be forgiven, they became slothful Christians.

Infant baptism should therefore carry the blame for the spiritual and moral decline of the church. The Anabaptists themselves vigorously strove to establish pure congregations consisting of only converted people. They vehemently opposed infant baptism, which they used to call “a ceremony of the antichrist.” This striving towards a congregation of only born-again Christians can still be found, for example, in the Brethren Assemblies. The Dutch designation for this church, Vergadering der gelovigen (Assembly of Believers), goes a long way to prove this point.

England and our present age

Since the seventeenth century, the Baptist way of thinking was revived in England and exported to other countries. It is not difficult to understand why this happened. The Anglican Church turned infant baptism more and more into a ritual with hardly any content. This was the reason that such a well-known minister as Rev. Joseph Charles Philpot had himself rebaptized. It is a step which we still regret even though we feel much respect for Mr. Philpot’s godliness and sermons. Another preacher, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, who was granted to see much fruit upon his labors, also belonged to the Baptists. Although John Bunyan was Baptist, he presented his own children for infant baptism. All in all, the Baptist movement in England remained marginal within the wider spectrum of church life. Numerous faithful ministers, who shared the objections to the formalist religion of the Anglican Church, nevertheless, remained advocates of infant baptism.

Since the emergence of the Pentecostal churches and other evangelical movements, infant baptism is once again under attack. Due to the strong growth of the evangelical movement, the opponents of infant baptism experience a numerical increase. Many of them are active—sometimes quite aggressively—in spreading their doctrines. For that reason their arguments are pervading many nooks and corners in a powerful way. Precisely then, it appears that a deep gap exists between the doctrine of the Reformation, not only in respect to the point of baptism but also in respect to the entire doctrine of faith. On the other side, we already mentioned the movement of Reformed Baptists who, as their name indicates, want to stand in the tradition of the Reformation and yet reject infant baptism.

In the periphery of the church

When we look at the overall picture of church history, we come to the conclusion that the rejection of infant baptism had a place in the periphery of church life. That, as such, is not decisive. Sometimes the pure proclamation of the Word was preserved in little groups. However, it is significant that the Reformation rejected the doctrine of the Baptists in a most radical way. As soon as the light began to shine from the candlestick, pure light was also shed upon the sacraments. Although the true meaning of the Lord’s Supper was still a contentious issue for quite some time, there was unity in regard to the issue of baptism. It was the firm conviction of all Reformers that children ought to be baptized.

The answer of faith

Let us listen, for a moment, to the voice of a Baptist. To that end we use especially the booklet “Dopen wat mondig is” (“Baptizing what is able to voice out”), written by Jelle Horjus. We quote: “In baptism, the first to work is God, the One who forgives and washes away our sins in Jesus Christ and who redeems and renews our lives.... What has been done by God on Calvary and on the morning of Jesus’ resurrection is applied to us and portrayed in baptism.” Thus, there is something that happens in baptism: God’s mercy becomes visible and is given to man. However, the person to be baptized must receive this in faith. That is the reason that a confession of faith needs to precede baptism. In this manner the covenant, initiated by God, is confirmed and reinforced by man. “Thus the person who is immersed at the time of his baptism experiences the richness of God’s redemptive work as a gracious, merciful, and loving intervention of God on his behalf.”

The answer of faith expressed by man appears to be an indispensable condition for the administration of baptism. Without this answer the covenant is not reciprocal and baptism has no real value. When children have been baptized, these children have not been baptized with a real baptism. Having undergone an unbiblical ritual, these children have not been baptized. This, at least, is the conviction of most Baptists. Consequently, they will never use the term “rebaptizing” when somebody from one of the Reformed churches receives baptism within their circle. When someone has not been baptized with a real baptism, he or she is not rebaptized but simply baptized.

Our form for baptism tells us that baptism has replaced circumcision. That is a biblical statement, is it not? “It is not,” Baptists will answer. They emphasize the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament. Horjus, and others with him, states that in the Old Testament one entered into God’s covenant by virtue of birth. In the New Testament this has changed radically. Now the issue at stake is whether one believes in Jesus as the Savior. Someone enters into the new covenant “by faith, by giving a personal and conscious answer to the call of Jesus.” God now opens His covenant to all people, but that requires an answer. In fact, baptism is “a public acceptation of the accomplished atonement in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Through baptism someone is publicly incorporated into the people of God.

Seed of Abraham

Also among the Reformed Baptists the distinction between the Old and New Testaments is emphasized. In an article on the Internet, Mr. C.G. Van Kralingen gives a clear explanation of this view. Whereas the church of the Old Testament consisted of the physical seed of Abraham, the church of the New Testament consists of the spiritual seed of Abraham or, to say it with different words, of born-again Christians. He who baptizes children acts as if he is still living in the days of the Old Testament when children received circumcision. That is what Mr. Van Kralingen states.

What is the meaning of baptism for Reformed Baptists? “By baptism we express in a visible way that we have already begun by faith to partake of the body of Christ, the Church.” To have yourself baptized is a public confession of faith. This view brings Mr. Van Kralingen in close proximity to the view of the Baptist Horjus.

Mr. Van Kralingen, too, links a radical consequence with his view. As infant baptism is not biblical, baptized children are not really baptized. “For that reason we cannot speak of rebaptizing but merely of baptizing.” In other words, tens of millions of Christians all over the world imagine already for many centuries that they have been baptized, but their belief is mistaken. Calvin? He died without having been baptized! Voetius? He was never truly baptized! Boston? By grace he celebrated the Lord’s Supper many times, but no, he was not baptized! When these people were still infants, their heads were sprinkled with a few drops of water and the name of the Triune God was pronounced over them, but all of this was a vain delusion. They were grossly mistaken, none of them excluded. Was Luther, in his assaults and afflictions, comforted by his baptism? It was comfort without a foundation because nothing scriptural could be found in what had taken place with him.

Would Baptists never be startled and shrink back from such conclusions implied by what they teach concerning baptism and by their far-reaching statements about infant baptism?

Let evangelical leaders also consider and give account of all the grief that is caused within families when someone takes the step to be rebaptized. It is true that the person himself or herself has chosen this step, but it is the elders who admit him to baptism, and it is the pastor who administers baptism. At the moment when the candidate for baptism disappears under water, the church is glad and enthusiastic, but members of his or her family are in sackcloth and ashes. Is it a sign of love to deal with fellow Christians in this way?

Disciple

We have carefully tried to listen to the views of the Baptists in order to get to know them. Within the wide spectrum of the evangelical movement one can also hear different voices. For Dr. Ouweneel baptism is not so much a public confession of the choice which someone has made in faith.

In his view baptism is the entrance into a holy life and an obligation to live for God. It is, as it were, an entrance exam for discipleship. In his or her baptism someone shows that he will be “a disciple of Jesus.”

How do these theological viewpoints play out in everyday life? How do Baptists experience adult baptism? On the Internet one can read the following testimony, which could be supplemented with many more: “We like to tell you that yesterday we had ourselves baptized. A few years ago, we have been touched by God, by His love, His faithfulness, and His omnipotence in an awesome way. Since then, much has been changed in us and for us. We cannot but give our lives unto Him, and that is what we have been given to confess yesterday. We have descended into the water basin just as Jesus has commanded us to do. We belong to Him.”

— To be continued —

Editor’s note: Some concern has been voiced that in the first two articles of this series there appears to be a “joining together” of the beliefs and practices of the Gospel Standard Strict Baptist Churches in Great Britain and the current theology of the liberal Baptists and the Evangelical movement. This is not the case. Even though we differ from the Strict Baptists in our view of baptism, we have much respect and regard for them as a denomination as can be noted by articles from their preachers appearing in The Banner of Truth from time to time. We are sorry for any misconceptions these articles on baptism may have raised.

Deze tekst is geautomatiseerd gemaakt en kan nog fouten bevatten. Digibron werkt voortdurend aan correctie. Klik voor het origineel door naar de pdf. Voor opmerkingen, vragen, informatie: contact.

Op Digibron -en alle daarin opgenomen content- is het databankrecht van toepassing. Gebruiksvoorwaarden. Data protection law applies to Digibron and the content of this database. Terms of use.

Printen