Baptists are distinguished by their conviction that in the New Testament, and therefore in the Church of the apostolic age, the rite of baptism is always related to believers.
The existence of a group holding such a belief inevitably is a potential source of irritation to other churches. It seems presumptuous for a single confessional group to call into question the practice of almost the entire Church of the ages. The Church’s theologians have largely accepted the validity of infant baptism; the few who challenge them must surely be ignorant, or incapable of perceiving the obvious. Worse still, a denial of the validity of infant baptism passes a grave judgment on the rest of the churches, for baptism is generally regarded as the door to the Church. If the churches have the wrong door, what have their members entered? Baptists never raise that question; but churches that attach serious meaning to infant baptism do, and they resent the implications. In the Reformation the Anabaptists were viewed as fanatics, fit for drowning or burning. The stench of Munster has never really been forgotten in Europe. Even now, in the most tolerant ecumenical groups, it is possible for a Baptist to create an uproar if he has the temerity to express plainly his views on Christian initiation.
Of course, I speak of ecclesiastical circles and of dogmatic theologians. But among New Testament students a remarkable change has taken place in this century. For the views of the simple believers, formerly scorned as fanatics, concerning the practice (I will not say interpretation) of baptism are generally regarded by New Testament interpreters as established. It is no less remarkable that this revolution in the judgment of the experts on Christian origins has largely been ignored by the churches’ theologians, with one or two notable exceptions. There is, in fact, a great gulf fixed between New Testament exegesis and the works of dogmatic theology. True, there has been a tendency to shift the apologetic for infant baptism from exegetical to theological grounds, but the churches are hardly affected by this. Most members of the great churches are still under the impression that the sacramental practice of their communions is determined by the New Testament; they have not the faintest idea that hardly a major commentary on the New Testament text gives support to the mode of Christian initiation practiced in their midst.
Doubtless the advent of Cullmann and Jeremias has afforded immense relief to the clergy, but again it must be insisted that this enthusiasm is not shared by the New Testament scholars. I ungrudgingly affirm my admiration for these two men and testify to the help I have gained from their writings. I constantly send my students to Cullmann’s works; but I say without hesitation that I regard his book on baptism as the worst thing he ever wrote and quite unworthy of his scholarship, and I am not alone in that judgment.
The contributions of Jeremias on this subject are of a different order, and are characteristic of his meticulous scholarship. Nevertheless, after careful examination of what Jeremias has written, as well as of a fair amount of the literature on baptism written in the present century, I am compelled to the view that every attempt to provide apostolic sanction to infant baptism is misguided, and that no sound theological reason has yet been adduced to justify the change from the apostolic practice to that which has become customary in the churches.
The Old In The New
In reality, the modern apologetic for infant baptism is simply the old, dressed up in modern theological terminology. For example, the belief that household baptisms recorded in Acts include the baptism of infants is strengthened by Stauffer’s “oikos-formula”; the language concerning the “holy children” of First Corinthians 7:14 is said to reflect the terminology of Jewish proselyte baptism, and it is inferred that customs pertaining to Jewish proselyte baptism obtained also in the Christian Church; the saying of Jesus concerning little children and the kingdom of heaven is given a form-critical evaluation—the story is said to reflect the Sitz im Leben of a church seeking the answer to the question, “Should we baptize our children?,” and an alleged liturgical fragment is believed to show that the answer intended was, “Yes, bring them to baptism as people once brought them to Jesus.” The Reformed view of the one covenant with its continuing sacraments, stressing the close relations of circumcision and baptism, has gained weight, largely because Calvinism, both classical and “Neo-,” has enjoyed a revival.
It is impossible to do justice to these arguments within the limits of this article. Let one example suffice. Much attention is currently being paid to the household baptisms of Acts. Jeremias emphasizes three points in connection with them: (1) Luke says repeatedly that an entire household was baptized (cf. “all your household,” Acts 11:14; “all that belonged to him,” 16:33; “his whole house,” 18:8); hence no member of these families was excepted from the baptisms; (2) the term oikos, house, had acquired in Judaism a technical meaning in religious contexts, so that it not only included young children but had special reference to them (cf. Gen. 17:22 f., 24:27; Exod. 12:27); (3) in ancient society the role of the head of the house was decisive for the whole; hence the Philippian jailor is told, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved and your house” (Acts 16:31). The argument sounds plausible, but the text of Acts just does not permit it. Consider Acts 11:14: it reports the word to Cornelius, “He will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household,” and Peter adds, “As I began to speak the Holy Spirit fell on them, just as on us at the beginning.” Now look back to Acts 10:44 f.: “The Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from the circumcision were amazed, for they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God.… And he commanded them to be baptized.” On Jeremias’s principle, the meaning of this is plain: All the house of Cornelius heard the word, all received the Spirit, all spoke with tongues, all were baptized—including the infants!
The “oikos-formula” fares equally badly in the texts concerned. Jeremias, in his most recent work, has taken immense pains to show that Stauffer is right in maintaining that in Jewish texts oikos has special reference to children; but alas, his evidence is irrelevant to the five passages in the New Testament where it is pertinent. For example, the only instance of the “formula” in Paul is First Corinthians 1:16: “I baptized also the house (oikos) of Stephanas.” Who were these people? In First Corinthians 16:15 f. we read, “The household (oikia) of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia; they have devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints; I urge you to be subject to such and to every fellow worker and laborer.” The only way Jeremias can extricate himself from a patent absurdity here (i.e., of exceedingly precocious infants) is to maintain that oikia in the latter passage has a different meaning from oikos in the first; but this will not do, for the terms are used with identical meaning in the narrative of the Philippian jailor (Acts 16:31, 32). And as to the words to the jailor, Alford long ago rightly interpreted them (and Haenchen has recently confirmed it): “Believe … and you will be saved, and let your house do the same”; for this reason the Word of the Lord was spoken to “all who were in his house”—that all might hear and believe with him.
Accordingly, this latest version of an old attempt to demonstrate the existence of infant baptism in the New Testament Church suffers the same fate as all others: it disintegrates under examination.
Some Grave Implications
Let me freely admit, however, that this by no means settles the baptismal controversy. The New Testament scholars, to whom I referred as acknowledging that the New Testament Church did not practice infant baptism, have no intention of abandoning infant baptism in their own churches (note especially Kurt Aland’s outright rejection of Jeremias’s defense of infant baptism from the New Testament, but equally strong endorsement of Luther’s arguments as to its necessity). The major problem of the baptismal dispute, as I see it, is the continued insistence by the churches that infant baptism be given the same significance as the baptism of a believer. The formularies employed in the administration of baptism and the theological expositions of its meaning are based on the theological interpretation of baptism found in the New Testament. This is where the confusion arises and why Baptists feel bound to adhere to their protest against the misuse of the rite when applied to infants, for the implications for the doctrine of salvation, as well as of the Church, are very serious.
If we turn to the New Testament, what do we find? In First Peter 3:21 baptism is defined as “an appeal to God for a clear conscience,” or “an answer to God proceeding from a clear conscience” (the interpretation is uncertain). Such a definition clearly has in view the convert’s making a prayer or pledge of faith; it could never have been framed with the baptism of an eight-day-old infant in mind. We should be honest enough to recognize that here is one aspect of New Testament baptism that is inapplicable to infant baptism. I raise the simple question: Is there any theological statement about baptism in the New Testament of which the same does not hold? I cannot find any.
In the sixth chapter of Romans, baptism as a dying with Christ and rising with him to righteousness implies that the believer (1) was with the Lord on Golgotha, (2) has ended his old life of God-estrangement and begun a life in Christ, (3) has renounced sin and risen to a new life of obedience. Owing to the ethical interest in the passage, the emphasis is on the last aspect: “We were buried with him through baptism to death that … we might walk in newness of life” (v. 4). That statement could never have been framed with infants in view. This is shown by Colossians 2:12, which is the one authentic commentary we possess on Romans 6: “Buried with him in baptism, in which also you were raised through faith in the working of the God who raised him from the dead.” Now this dying and rising with Christ includes the idea of incorporation in Christ, forgiveness and justification, and new life in the Spirit, which is existence in the new age. Every reader of this article knows that all these blessings of salvation are conjoined by the apostolic writers in their various writings with faith. Is the fact that the Church has for centuries applied this language to subjects incapable of faith sufficient excuse for continuing to do so?
The obvious solution to our difficulties would be a return to believer’s baptism. Of this there is no prospect, though I have no doubt that the next generation is going to witness some major upheavals in the thought and administration of baptism in Protestantism. But for ourselves, is it really impossible for the clergy to face this issue and cease to put an interpretation on infant baptism for which it is not suited? And could not more encouragement be given for baptisms to which a more biblical meaning could be given? If infant baptism were accorded a more moderate significance, there would be a more obvious need for a rite of entry to full membership of the Church; this might well be met by a wider application of confirmation—with a careful appraisal of its meaning. The so-called “rebaptism” of a person of mature years, who wanted to receive baptism as a believer, would also not appear so blasphemous as it does to many paedobaptists now. And if the churches were to revise their mode of administering baptism, particularly in Europe with its state churches, it is not impossible that a modus vivendi could be brought about between Baptist churches and the other churches on Christian initiation, though we have a long way to go before that can be envisaged on a universal scale.
The most urgent need in all the churches is a readiness to examine with fearless candor our traditional ideas and practice of baptism and to reform both where needed. From this necessity Baptists themselves cannot be excepted, for we are as confused a body as any on this issue. Baptism is a gift of God for his whole Church, and its misuse is unfitting for the Church. We should permit ourselves a holy unrest till we can use it properly. If that means taking it afresh from the hands of God in penitence, let us be ready for self-humiliation. Such a posture befits the Body of the Servant of the Lord.
