You Can't Do the Work of a Theologian Without the Worship of a Theologian

Not everyone is ready to do the work of a theologian. This tends to offend modern sensibilities. Thanks to the advent of the internet, we all like to imagine that we can be the experts of any field we’d like.

• Do meteorologists get to be an authority on weather? Or does my weather app make me proficient enough?

• Does my doctor get to be an authority on health and medication or does WebMD allow me to offer my own second opinion?

• Should I hire an electrician or just watch a YouTube video?

It’s easy enough to see how the internet has shaped and blurred the lines of “authority” or expertise.

Our society’s lack of trust in pastors/clergy stemming from high profile moral failings, child sex abuse scandals, prosperity gospel televangelists, and an overall growing disinterest in all things “religious” also means people are more likely to consider themselves equally equipped to do the work of a theologian.

Nonetheless, I’d rather hear theology from my pastor and dental advice from my dentist than dental advice and vice versa.

Not Formal Education

Scripture is quick to make one thing clear: one’s level of education, one’s degrees, or one’s body of published works does not make one more or less equipped to do the work of a theologian. Christianity was led by both camps - the working class poor and undereducated (fishermen and tradesmen) as well as the “intelligentsia” like the Apostle Paul who was a “Pharisee of Pharisees” and sat at the feet of a well-known Rabbi, Gamaliel. Also later, Justin Martyr, who was well-known for donning his philosopher’s robes.

3 Crucial Marks of a Theologian:

Devotion

That God is best known through devotion is a long-standing refrain of the early church. Because God is known through His self-revelation rather than through a process of scientific discovery, one must first have the right posture towards God.

Although at first, such a statement seems open to being criticized as “circular reasoning” it’s actually quite intuitive and “internally consistent” which is often misunderstood as “circular.”

It’s internally consistent because God is a Triune God and therefore He’s incomparably personal. It makes sense therefore that an incomparably personal God would be best known through personal relationship. It’s also God’s nature to be “Holy” or “Other” or “Transcendent” and so it’s logical that when we acknowledge the “Incomprehensibility” of God, He’d have to reveal Himself to us.

We also referred to it as intuitive. Why should God’s self-revelation not be discovered through the scientific process?

There are many different ways of exercising reason. Aristotle long ago articulated one of the cardinal principles of clear thinking: that one studies a thing according to the nature of the thing being studied. If we want to understand a type of rock, we might use a rock hammer or submit it to a chemical process. If we want to understand a butterfly we had better come up with a different mode of investigation, or we will learn little except that butterflies are destroyed by hammers and killed by chemicals.

(Prime Matters)

Beyond this, we also intuitively understand that it’s through relationship (and loving relationship) that you and I are best known. You cannot truly know me simply by reading my writings or looking at my social media posts. The people who best know me are those who are closest to me.

Psalm 111:10 puts it this way: Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

Humility

James 4:6 tells us that God opposes the proud and gives grace to the humble. Humility gives us a teachable posture before God and others. Humility allows us to see ourselves more clearly and more accurately. It is only through humility that we are able to follow Paul’s counsel in Romans 12:3,

“For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you.”

This posture of humility is seen clearly in the Beatitudes as well as in Jesus’ parable of the pharisee and the tax collector. True humility does not equate to self-abasement or self-loathing such attitudes/dispositions still belong to those whose focus is on themselves. Rather, true humility is the ability to focus our attention on God and see ourselves through His light.

A great litmus test for humility to ask yourself how you feel when you perceive arrogance in someone else. Those who despise arrogance or who are quite sensitive to arrogance are usually that way because they can’t stand someone thinking they’re better than them. In other words, the more sensitive you are to arrogance, the less humility you have. Why? A humble person would rarely notice arrogance or care because their focus is elsewhere and they don’t need to worry or concern themselves when someone in the room feels superior to them.

Holiness

Jesus makes it clear that loving him means obeying him and when we do, He’ll be showing Himself to us. Consider John 14:15-21

15 “If you love me, keep my commands. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19 Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20 On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. 21 Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.”

Such qualifications for teachers/elders/theologians is completely biblical:

7 In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness 8 and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us.

(Titus 2:7-8)

And so we see a simple, scriptural, and intuitive argument for an unpopular truth: not everyone is equally equipped for doing the work of a theologian. That’s not to say that not everyone can be.

The Problem With "Chew the Meat, Spit Out the Bones" Preaching

The Problem With “Chew the Meat, Spit Out the Bones” Preaching

In some circles within the church, this expression is commonplace: “Chew the meat, spit out the bones.” Maybe you’ve heard it before. I remember being impressed the first time I saw someone use it - it sounds like good advice, at least, on the surface it does.

What’s it all mean?

If you’ve never heard it before, here’s what people generally mean when they say it: Distinguish the good teaching from the bad teaching and hold onto what’s good while discarding what’s bad. In fact, it’s usually meant to encourage people in having a generous attitude towards the preacher or teacher.

In one case, a pastor from Bethel shared a sermon in which he says that Jesus asked him for forgiveness.

One person responding to this said:

as a mature Christian you "chew up the meat and spit out the bones." But for new believers this is very dangerous!

Another person shared this sage advice:

A lot of Bad Theology and Doctrine Floating Around on FB. Stay Grounded in The Word.
Chew On the Meat and Spit Out the Bones

Where is this coming from?

To be fair, there’s SOME biblical grounds for this! In fact, I think this saying gets its inspiration from 1 Thessalonians 5:20-21.

“Don’t despise prophecies, but test all things. Hold on to what is good.”

Sounds like they’re pretty much saying the same thing, right? So what’s the issue?

The issue is - Paul, in his letter to the Thessalonians, is trying to teach Christians how to handle prophecy properly. Instead of going to two possible extremes: despising prophecy or blindly embracing it, he’s telling the Christians to be open but cautious and critical.

What’s the problem?

Prophecy and preaching are two different concepts. A prophet, prophecies in part (1 Corinthians 13:9). He or she is usually only given a piece of the puzzle and often times the interpretation or the direct meaning of that prophecy can be veiled. Add on top of this the fact that growing in a spiritual gift often means training and trying out that gift - it’s natural for people to “get it wrong” and good for believers to be generous in how they respond.

Preaching on the other hand, is a whole different ball game.

Consider James 3:1

“Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.”

Or look at Paul’s instruction to Timothy in 2 Timothy 2:22

And what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

A few verses before this, Paul tells Timothy in 2:15 to rightly handle the word of truth.

Paul wants his teachings (which others can attest to) to be entrusted to mean who are faithful and trustworthy who will then use those teachings to teach others in an able or apt way. Paul doesn’t want his churches to have to “chew meat and spit out bones.” Teachers ought to be the ones doing that work for them. In fact, scripture gives two options and neither of them have bones in them. The one is milk (elementary teachings for new Christians) and the other is solid food (Hebrews 5:14, 1 Corinthians 3:2).

In fact, look what Paul says to Titus in Titus 2:7-8

In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us.

I have one more philosophical beef with this. Not only is it scripturally wrong for teachers/preachers to constantly have poor theology but USUALLY when Christians use “Chew the meat, spit out the bones” it happens because they know they’re sharing content that is only somewhat correct. My problem with that is that that’s exactly how Satan deceives us: half-truths. That’s what makes it so appealing and what makes others so susceptible. I know I just kicked things up a notch by referencing Satan but it’s true - what makes lies so powerful isn’t the falsehood but the bit of truth that they’re grounded in.

Let’s pump the brakes for a moment. It’s possible for a pastor to preach something that can…

a) be taken the wrong way

b) be said accidentally

b) imply the wrong idea

c) be blatantly wrong

Some issues are clearly more important than others for pastors to get right, that’s for sure. All pastors are fallible though, right? And none of us have God completely figured out and each of us probably has a few notions about God that are just plain wrong. So, what’s the appropriate response for us?

Here’s where I land…

If you listen to a preacher or a teacher who routinely requires you to spit out the bones - don’t. Why? He or she doesn’t meet the biblical standards of a preacher. Furthermore, if you listen to a preacher or a teacher and their content is filled with bones to be spit out - don’t share it on social media or give them more influence or a bigger platform than they already have.

Remember Romans 12:2?

Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will.

That’s hard to do if the teaching/preaching that you’re receiving needs to be constantly sifted, why? Because it means that some of the stuff you’re hearing isn’t helping you, but rather, it’s hurting you.

Where do you land?

What is Baptism?

Why do Christians dunk each other in water? If I'm a Christian - do I need to get baptized? If so... what should I know about it? Those are all great questions and hopefully this article sheds some light. If you're interested in the early Jewish roots of baptism, check out this article.

It’s Elementary

A lot of Christians get baptized and they don’t know what baptism is or why they’re doing it – they just know that they’re supposed to. Jesus expected his followers to be baptized and most of the time, that’s good enough for us. It should be. That’s not the whole story though. Often, a richer understanding of any activity will give us a greater appreciation for it – so shouldn’t we want to know all we can about Baptism?

The author of Hebrews considered our understanding of Baptism to be foundational to our faith. If we want to take scripture seriously than it’s a responsibility of all Christians to seek to understand baptism.

Therefore let us move beyond the elementary teachings about Christ and be taken forward to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, 2 instruction about cleansing rites, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3 And God permitting, we will do so. (Hebrews 6:1)

I love that passage because for most Christians, those topics seem anything but “elementary.” At the very least that should tell us that we’ve got work to do. So let’s get to it. What’s Baptism? Why did Jesus ask His followers to do it?

It’s a Sacrament

Sacrament? There’s a lot of information packed into that word and to make matters worse – it means different things for different people. For Catholics it usually means “An outward sign of an inward grace, instituted by Christ for our sanctification.” For Protestants, it usually means, “An outward sign of an inward grace, instituted by Christ for our sanctification, mandated for all Christians.” It’s that last bit – “mandated for all Christians” where the difference comes into play. As a result, Catholics have 7 sacraments and Protestants have two. It’s not that we disagree, it’s moreso that we use that word differently. So let’s breakdown this Protestant understanding (it’ll be worth it).

1. An outward sign

Sacraments always have elements. For Baptism, the element is water. For Communion, the elements are bread and wine. They’re more than just elements, there’s actions and words and each component creates the ritual. These rituals have deep symbolic meaning. “Ritual” is a scary word for some people but you could replace that word with “reminder” or “drama.” In Baptism we act out a spiritual reality in the physical world. Some (not all) symbols within baptism change depending on how far Christians want to take it but here are a few historical symbols:

• Death & Resurrection

Colossians 2:12 and Romans 6:4 both reference Baptism as a sign that we’ve died to self and to sin (as we go down into the water) and to rising again in new life in Christ.

• Three Days in the grave

This is an older symbol but some Christians baptized by submersion into the water three different times. Once in the name of the Father, again in the name of the Son, and again in the name of the Holy Spirit. These three “dips” are done in a row and all three symbolize Christ’s three days in the grave.

Augustine once wrote (As noted by Thomas Aquinas)

"Rightly were you dipped three times, since you were baptized in the name of the Trinity. Rightly were you dipped three times, because you were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, Who on the third day rose again from the dead. For that thrice repeated immersion reproduces the burial of the Lord by which you were buried with Christ in Baptism."

Most Christians aren’t baptized by being immersed three times and that’s okay too. Thomas Aquinas goes on to say that being baptized by single immersion symbolizes the unity of the Godhead and being baptized by triple immersion symbolizes the Trinity.

• Vulnerability & Innocence

There was a short period of time (and not the earliest practice either) when Christians would baptized naked. This may have been done with undergarments on, in the dark, and with only one gender present but nonetheless we have writings from several Church Fathers that speak of naked baptism.

“Having stripped yourselves, ye were naked; in this also imitating Christ, who was stripped naked on the Cross, and by His nakedness put off from Himself the principalities and powers, and openly triumphed over them on the tree.”

Cyril will go on to discuss how, in that nakedness, they also symbolized “putting off the old garment” and returning to the likeness of Adam and Eve in the garden in which they were naked and felt no shame. It’s a powerful practice and symbol but perhaps not appropriate for most cultures (we can understand why this fell out of popularity, at least).

• The Holy Spirit & Forgiveness

Water, often seen as a symbol of the Holy Spirit, is essential to Baptism. It was water which cleansed “unclean” objects in the Old Testament that couldn’t be cleansed through fire without risk of being burned. For an in-depth look at water in this regard, you can click here. But water has always been a “washing” agent and Baptism is a sign that we’ve been washed of our past sins and made clean by the Holy Spirit through the work of Christ’s death and resurrection.

2. An inward grace

Baptism is not just a sign that takes place after one receives grace but baptism itself is a means of grace. Baptism is a ritual that we perform in which we receive grace from God. In other words, baptism is an opportunity for God to be at work in our lives. Theologically speaking, some Protestants begin to find some disagreement here. Some prefer to refer to Baptism and Communion as “ordinances” which are seen as reenactments that we’re commanded to observe. It should be noted that this view is outside of what the majority of the Church has always believed.

Today, we’re often satisfied with what some refer to as “The sinner’s prayer” as the main act that makes us a Christian but when we read the New Testament we see that often times Baptism was the sinner’s prayer. The authors of the New Testament felt completely comfortable attributing Baptism to the washing away of our sins. Of course, for many, perhaps that sounds too “catholic” or too “magical” but there’s good reason for us to consider taking the New Testament literally when it comes to what we read in Acts 2:38, 22:16; Rom. 6:1–4; 1 Cor. 6:11, 12:13; Gal. 3:26–27; Eph. 5:25-27; Col. 2:11–12; Titus 3:5; 1 Pet. 3:18–22.

Of course, the sheer number of verses as well as our commitment to scriptural authority ought to be good enough but there’s another line of reasoning that I find to be helpful. Christianity has always valued the physical world – we recognize that it’s fallen but we don’t consider it to be bad or evil. In fact, God made the world and He called it “good.”

On the other hand there was a religious cult or philosophy at the time of the early church called Gnosticism. Gnosticism taught that the physical world was evil and the spiritual world was good. This line of reasoning would result in two different responses. Either adherents would reject physical pleasure as evil and try their best to abstain from any physical desires OR they would gratify all physical desire because they believed that what happened in the physical realm didn’t really matter.

Why do I say this? Simply because we tend to be gnostic too. We value the spiritual realm over the physical realm. We downplay the importance of physical baptism and instead we focus on the importance of an invisible (and often silent) prayer. We “connect” on social media and texting rather than going to someone’s house and speaking face to face. We even attend church on a livestream or watch a pastor preach on a screen from a satellite campus. Some churches have begun to experiment with virtual reality small groups. We’re becoming more and more detached and it’s not wonder that we struggle to value the physical.

Here’s the last thing I’ll say about this – is it hard for you to imagine that reading your Bible is a means of grace? Is it hard for you to imagine that reading God’s word is an opportunity for you to receive grace? That’s a physical act, right? Why should baptism be different?

Once you’ve accepted that Baptism is a means of grace, it only becomes natural for us to view God as the primary actor in Baptism. God is the one that draws us to Baptism. God (in Christ) is the one that commanded Baptism. God (in Christ) is the one the empowers and authorizes the Church to Baptize. It’s God’s triune name through which Baptism happens. It’s God who enables us to repent and to accept Him as our Lord and Savior and it’s God’s grace at work that makes baptism worthwhile.

3. Instituted by Christ for all Christians

It was Jesus’ last words to the Church:

18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-20)

First of all – we all know that our last words are important. If you have limited time, you’re only going to say the most important message you can think of. That’s what Christ does here. Before he ascends to heaven He reminds His Church of His mission. Secondly, look at how Christ prefaces His command – he reminds the Church that He speaks with complete and total authority. Why? Because He wants us to make sure we’re listening. He wants us to be aware that this is a divine command. This is of utmost importance.

What’s the command? To Go and make disciples and to baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and to teach them to obey everything that He’s commanded. Baptism was instituted by Christ for all Christians.

So far we’ve shown that Baptism is Elementary and we’ve explained what we mean when we say that it’s a Sacrament. I know we’ve said a lot already but we need to press on. Remember – this is foundational stuff. Don’t neglect it.

It’s an Initiation

We’ve mentioned that Baptism was a ritual but it’s not a ritual that we do multiple times. In fact, it’s supposed to only happen once in a believer’s life. Why? Because it’s an initiation ritual. It’s an act which symbolizes your entrance into the community of believers.

1 Corinthians 12:13 says

13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

Under the Old Covenant, it was circumcision which signaled one’s initiation into the people of God. Under the New Covenant, a new ritual was needed. New wineskins for new wine. This idea, of connecting circumcision with baptism isn’t new and wasn’t lost on the early church.

We read about it in Colossians:

11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

It’s Unifying

I love that verse from 1 Corinthians 12:13. We were baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body. Often times when we think about baptism we think of it as our initiation into a local church and while it’s celebrated by our local church – it’s the church universal that we join (mediated through the local congregation).

Churches can sometimes be guilty of missing this vital truth. Some churches require leaders or members to be baptized by their particular local congregation (even if that person has already been baptized at a separate church). While this is a good and necessary practice in the case of cults – it demeans the unifying effect of baptism when we rebaptize Christians from legitimate faith backgrounds.

It’s a Big Deal 

Consider all that we’ve discussed so far and it should be obvious that baptism is a big deal! So here’s a few implications that come of this:

Baptism isn’t something we do primarily for fun. It’s not uncommon for Christians to participate in “tourism baptism” where they might travel to the middle east and then get baptized in the Jordan because they want the experience of it. This might seem nitpicky but I would caution against trivializing baptism.

In the same vein, baptism isn’t something we do more than once. I had a student at my last youth ministry ask if I would baptize them. The trouble was, they had already been baptized multiple times. When I asked why they wanted to get baptized again they told me that a spiritual mentor had once encouraged them to get baptized often because: “You can’t have too much of a good thing.” That sentence itself is actually Biblically untrue (Proverbs 25:16).

Lastly, we should check our motives for baptizing and for being baptized. This mostly applies to churches. Do we want to put on a show? Increase statistics? Gain momentum? Or are we baptizing out of a desire to honor Christ and glorify God?

There ya have it: Baptism is elementary, it's sacramental, it's an initiation, it's unifying, and it's a big deal. 

Where Does Baptism Come From?

View fullsize

It only takes a couple pages of reading into the New Testament to see that Baptism isn’t a new concept for the original audience. The gospel writers talk as if we should know all about it. There’s even someone called “John The Baptist.” So where’d this concept come from and why don’t we see it in the Old Testament? Was it, as some say, a product of pagan mystery religions that was adopted into Christianity? 

Apparently a lot happened in the 400 years between the Old and New Testament. Who would’ve thought? Two things are clear:

1. This is a Jewish practice (even the Pharisees seem to be “cool” with it)

2. The roots of this practice can be traced back to the Old Testament

Let’s examine point 2 real quick!

1. Baptism is foreshadowed by the Jordan River

In Joshua 1:2 the Israelites are to cross the Jordan to get to the promised land

“Moses my servant is dead. Now therefore arise, go over this Jordan, you and all this people, into the land that I am giving to them, to the people of Israel.

This is an early analogy to baptism – we pass through the water to go to the place God has for us.

In 2 Kings 5:10-12 Elisha ordered Naaman to be washed 7 times in the Jordan river.

So Naaman came with his horses and chariots and stood at the door of Elisha's house. And Elisha sent a messenger to him, saying, “Go and wash in the Jordan seven times, and your flesh shall be restored, and you shall be clean.” But Naaman was angry and went away, saying, “Behold, I thought that he would surely come out to me and stand and call upon the name of the Lord his God, and wave his hand over the place and cure the leper. Are not Abana and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? Could I not wash in them and be clean?” So he turned and went away in a rage.

What’s happening here? Elisha is asking Naaman to submit to an act of faith – of course it’s not the water that heals but it’s God’s power working through the waters as Naaman submits in faith that brings that healing.

So it’s no surprise that when John the Baptist is baptizing in order to prepare the way for the Messiah – he chooses to do so at the very same Jordan River.

2. Baptism is foreshadowed by ritual washing.

In Numbers 31:23 The Israelites purified with water that which could not survive being purified by fire.

everything that can stand the fire, you shall pass through the fire, and it shall be clean. Nevertheless, it shall also be purified with the water for impurity. And whatever cannot stand the fire, you shall pass through the water.

What are humans? We are that which "cannot stand the fire." And so how are we to be purified? We’re to be purified by water and this ritual washing was extended not just to objects but also to humans AND it wasn’t considered an outer cleansing only but was seen and understood as a spiritual, inner cleansing.

In Exodus 40:30-32 Aaron and his sons washed in the bronze basin before going into the Tabernacle so they wouldn’t die. Solomon’s temple also had a “sea” and 10 basins for ceremonial washing.

He set the basin between the tent of meeting and the altar, and put water in it for washing, with which Moses and Aaron and his sons washed their hands and their feet. When they went into the tent of meeting, and when they approached the altar, they washed, as the Lord commanded Moses.

In Numbers 8:7-11 The Levites are sprinkled with the water of purification – this was part of a “wave” offering in which the Levites were being given to God – they were set aside to be used by God for God’s purposes.

To purify them, do this: Sprinkle the water of cleansing on them; then have them shave their whole bodies and wash their clothes. And so they will purify themselves. Have them take a young bull with its grain offering of the finest flour mixed with olive oil; then you are to take a second young bull for a sin offering. Bring the Levites to the front of the tent of meeting and assemble the whole Israelite community. You are to bring the Levites before the Lord, and the Israelites are to lay their hands on them. Aaron is to present the Levites before the Lord as a wave offering from the Israelites, so that they may be ready to do the work of the Lord.

In the same way, when we’re baptized we confess that same thing – that we’ve been purchased by God, that we are no longer our own, that we’re dead to self, and that we’re set aside (a holy priesthood) for God’s purposes.

In Psalm 51:2 We see David ask for forgiveness and what he alludes to is the need to be “washed” of his sin.

Wash away all my iniquity
    and cleanse me from my sin.

3. Baptism is foreshadowed by The Flood

In 1 Peter 3:20-21 we’re told that the flood was a type of baptism.

to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ..

In the “flood baptism”, the world is cleansed from sin and only a few are saved by the “wood” (Noah’s ark). But in Christian Baptism, Jesus is killed by the wood (the cross) and all who pass through these waters are saved.

4. Baptism is foreshadowed by The Red Sea

In 1 Corinthians 10:1-2 Paul makes it clear that the Israelites became “baptized” as followers of Moses by following the cloud and passing through the Sea:

I don’t want you to forget, dear brothers and sisters, about our ancestors in the wilderness long ago. All of them were guided by a cloud that moved ahead of them, and all of them walked through the sea on dry ground. In the cloud and in the sea, all of them were baptized as followers of Moses.

In the same way, when we “pass” through the waters of baptism we are signifying our desire to follow Jesus to freedom.

5. Christian Baptism is prophesied about in Ezekiel

In Ezekiel 36:24-27 we’re given a description of something that sounds a lot like Christian Baptism.

“‘For I will take you out of the nations; I will gather you from all the countries and bring you back into your own land. I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.

At first it may seem as if this text is talking about a future baptism that has yet to come (even for us) OR perhaps it is speaking metaphorically when it uses the term "sprinkle". All of this is possible but if we remind ourselves that God’s kingdom is a spiritual one then we begin to understand this passage differently. Remember, the reason the disciples AND the would-be followers of Jesus had such a hard time with Jesus’ ministry was that many expected a political messiah.

It turned out that God had something much more in mind. And so "bringing us back to our own land" may have more to do with bringing us together as a people (more than it has to do with a physical land here on earth. Furthermore, have we not been called out of the nations? Paul says that true Israelites are those that have circumcised the heart – are we not then, true Israelites? Have we been cleansed from our sins and our idols and have we been sprinkled with clean water? Have we been given a new heart? Has a new Spirit been put in us? Has not (as verse 27 says) God’s Spirit been put in us?

An online article from “Jews for Jesus” make this claim:

“The roots of baptism rest deeply and permanently in the soil of these Jewish scriptures and traditions. That is, both baptism and mikveh depict by an outward act the inward transaction of faith; and both declare that only the Holy One has the power to cleanse men’s hearts and lives.”

Baptism appears to come out of nowhere when we begin reading the New Testament but the truth is – it did not catch Jewish people by surprise – nor was a it a pagan practice that Christianity adopted but rather it was rooted in and grew out of the Old Testament.

Infant Baptism? A Holistic View

View fullsize

There's usually two main arguments against infant Baptism that I hear from people:

1. It's not in the Bible

2. You have to believe in order to be baptized

I think both of those arguments sound convincing - they're clear, simple, and easily understood. Paired together they seem to be totally effective at destroying any doubts. So why is infant baptism so pervasive in the Church? Why has it been a practice for so long? Are theologians really so dense? Maybe! First, let's consider these two reasons against infant baptism and afterwards, let's look at reasons for infant baptism.

It's not in the Bible.

That's true. There are no infants explicitly baptized in the Bible. There's a whole host of things that Christians do and believe in that aren't in the Bible. The Trinity isn't explicitly (key word) in the Bible. Accountability partners aren't "in the Bible." Prayer walks aren't in the Bible. Of course just because something isn't in the Bible doesn't make it wrong. If you asked your kids to come home by 10PM and they said, "But that's not in the Bible!" you'd never let that line of reasoning stand. There are all sorts of things that we do and that we promote that aren't in Scripture. So why are we so content with this line of thinking?

I was talking to a small groups pastor the other day and he told of a time when he wouldn't allow someone to lead a small group because they had been baptized as infants but not as an adult. His reasoning?

"Keith, we want our faith to reflect what we see in Scripture and we don't see infant baptism in Scripture."

I responded, "You don't see rebaptism in scripture either but I bet you do that all the time, don't you?"

He did.

While it might be "convenient" to use the "It's not in the Bible" argument - it's a near impossible principle to use if you want to be consistent.

You have to believe in order to be baptized.

I agree. The Bible requires belief for adult baptism. I don't think there's any doubt about that. The question is - does scripture require belief for infant baptism?

We said before that "infant baptism" isn't in the Bible, right? So there's no evidence in scripture that says that infants need to exercise faith in order to be baptized. How could they? And why would we expect infants to be held to the same standards as ourselves? Isn't it Jesus that spells out this divine law: "From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded."

But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked. (Luke 12:48)

And can't we easily infer that the opposite is true: Whoever has been given little, little will be demanded. How can faith be required from someone who does not have the faculties for it? In fact, most theologians agree that those who don't have the capacity for knowing and believing in God aren't required to know and believe in Him in order to be saved.

Consider this: Why should we expect the requirements for infant baptism to be the same as adult baptism when infants can't do what adults can do and scripture (and church tradition) doesn't expect them to?

Does this idea not now seem a bit contradictory: Many church traditions that affirm the idea of "age of accountability" are the same ones that would deny infants from being baptized. In the one hand you're saying: belief isn't required of children and in the other hand you're saying: children have to believe if they're to be part of the faith.

I agree - adult baptism (the only baptism we see explicitly in scripture) requires faith. I disagree that scripture requires faith for infant baptism and there's no reason for me to assume that the very same qualifications would apply especially if it's impossible for infants to meet those qualifications.

Perhaps you don't consider my rebuttals to be very compelling. Before you make a decision - consider the arguments for infant baptism. One of which will have some very strong overlap with this idea.

1. Infant Baptism is ancient

An early church theologian - St Vincent of Lerins laid down a rule for determining Orthodox faith. There were three guidelines: Universality, Antiquity, and Consent. Antiquity basically meant that we should prefer older teachings and be wary of novel ideas. In this case an ancient practice demonstrates that it's more in keeping with the faith that's handed down from the Apostles rather than a new practice that was not handed down by the Apostles. The earliest known reference to infant baptism happens in 185 AD from Church Father Irenaeus. Note that this is only a few generations after the last book of the Bible was written. Irenaeus writes,

"He came to save all through means of Himself—all … who through Him are born again to God—infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men." (Against Heresies II:22:4)

Irenaeus uses the words "born again" which would've been a reference to baptism (Romans 6:3-4), although we use it a bit differently today). So we see evidence that it was common for the early church to talk about infant baptism.

Tertullian makes the next reference to the practice sometime between 200-206AD and while he's against infant baptism (it's not for the reason that you might think):

"According to everyone’s condition and disposition, and also his age, the delaying of baptism is more profitable, especially in the case of little children." (de baptismo, ch. xviii)

Tertullian makes this argument because he feels it's safer to baptize someone right before their death so there's no chance of them recanting. Notice nonetheless that infant baptism was a thing for his time and he's not against the theology behind it - he just prefers to baptize people as late as possible.

Origen (around 248AD) claims that this teaching was passed down by the Apostles, "The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants." (Commentaries on Romans 5:9)

And Augustine (358AD) makes a similar argument: "This doctrine is held by the whole church, not instituted by councils, but always retained."

In fact there are no writings from the early church in which infant baptism is rejected. Tertullian thinks it's wiser to wait but not because it's invalid.

2. Infant Baptism is ecumenical

St. Vincent of Lerins had two other guidelines: Universality and Consent (or Consensus) and he was basically asking: Does this apply to all Christians in every geographic location and does the Church generally agree upon it?

It wasn't until 1525 that Anabaptists came onto the scene and began to question the validity and practice of infant baptism. In other words The Church has practiced infant baptism for the first 1500 years (or so) of it's life in near full agreement. The major leaders of the Reformation (Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli also believed in infant baptism). Today, infant baptism is still practiced by Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, United Methodists, Wesleyans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Nazarenes, and some Reformed. I assume I'm missing some but this makes up the vast majority of Christianity not just today but throughout the ages as well.

The majority of the church baptizes infants. You may not think this is significant but scripture calls the Church the pillar of truth (1 Timothy 3:15) and Jesus Himself tells us that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church in all truth (John 16:13).

3. Infant Baptism is covenantal

Most Christians would agree that all infants and children and even adults without the ability to comprehend and confess Christ are welcomed into God's covenant family. Wesley once suggested that Christ's work on the cross removed the guilt of original sin so that infants would be saved. Catholics believe that infants are saved based on what they would call "Baptism of desire" (that is, the Church desires for them to be baptized even if they aren't) and most protestants would say that infants are saved simply because they haven't grown to the "age of accountability." The majority of Christianity believes that those born in this world start out saved and faith is not yet required of them - every soul, every infant, begins life as part of the Church.

If Baptism is a ritual of initiation into the Church - why should it be withheld from infants who clearly are part of the Church? Especially so if their parents are believers who are raising those children in the Church.

Furthermore, the Jewish people had a covenantal ritual of initiation - circumcision. This ritual was to be administered to infants. Baptism - the sign of entering into the new covenant has replaced the old sign of the old covenant as suggested by Colossians 2:11-12. If the covenantal ritual of circumcision was appropriate for children of God's chosen people according to the old covenant why should the covenantal ritual of baptism be considered inappropriate for the children of God's people according to the new covenant? Don't forget - these children are part of the Church.

While infant baptism is not explicitly in scripture it does appear to exist implicitly in scripture. Consider these verses:

(Acts 16:15) When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. “If you consider me a believer in the Lord,” she said, “come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us.

(Acts 16:33) At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized.

(1 Corinthians 1:16) (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.)

Is it difficult to believe that these households included children? Roman households were sometimes large and could've included servants - especially the household of Lydia from Acts 16 who was a dealer of expensive cloth and eventually hosted a house church.

Remember too that eventually the early Church would gain a reputation for rescuing infants that were abandoned outside to die alone. If the church continued the scriptural and cultural practice of baptizing households than is it a stretch of the imagination to say that a good many of these babies were baptized?

4. Infant Baptism is sacramental

Protestants and Catholics use the word "sacrament" differently and so we have a different number of "sacraments." For most protestants a sacrament is a ritual that was instituted by Jesus, expected of all believers, and finally a ritual in which grace is communicated. Most would ask the question - what grace is administered to infants? Are we suggesting that infant baptism saves? Are those who practice infant baptism suggesting that infants that aren't baptized are going to Hell?

First of all - don't forget that most believers don't think that baptism saves. We're saved by grace through faith. Yet Baptism remains a means of grace for believers - even if it's not salvific grace. So what happens to believers in baptism? What grace do they receive? Some have incredible stories of baptism in which they rise up from the waters completely changed. I know of one Christian who saw the face of Jesus reflecting in the water that he had just been baptized in. In a sense, God's grace during baptism seems to vary from person to person. He knows what we need.

So what happens in infant baptism? Well, we can't say for sure - just like we can't say what happens in adult baptism. We can trust that God is at work. Wesley believed that grace was stored up potentially in infant baptism so that when the infant came into sincere belief the grace of baptism would be applied.

Perhaps none of these arguments alone could persuade you to believe in infant baptism. What about when you consider them altogether? I agree - there's no proof one way or another. We have to weigh the evidence. When you consider the evidence and the arguments, where do you land?

“Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”