Baptism and Union with Christ

In Pauline thought, baptism is closely linked with union with Christ. We are baptized into union with the Lord. We are baptized into Jesus’ death and resurrection (Rom. 6.3; Col. 2.12). As we are baptized into union with Christ, we are adopted as “sons of God through faith,” and we become “Abraham’s offspring, heirs according the the promise.” (Gal. 3.26-29)

In fact, the way Paul speaks of baptism does not leave much room for suggesting that baptism is a “mere symbol” of union with Christ; rather, baptism actually effects that which it symbolizes. In Paul, the sign and the thing signified are not to be pulled apart. So, how do we make sense of this? How does baptism bring us into union with the risen Christ?

Paul’s answer is that baptism into Christ is baptism into the whole Christ, both head and body, what St. Augustine called the Totus Christus. Baptism is the doorway into the Church, the body of Christ:

“For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body…” (1 Cor. 12.12-13)

To be in the Church, the body of Christ, is to be in Christ. Thus baptism into the Church is baptism into union with Christ.


Tragic Irony

Part of the beauty of the sacraments is that they are given for the unity of the one Body of Christ, the Church. There is one baptism” (Eph. 4) by which we are baptized into the body into Christ in the Triune Name. We all break “one bread” and drink one cup (1 Cor. 10). Through baptism we are born into the Church, and around our Lord’s table our unity is expressed and the Body nourished.

However, looking at the Church’s current situation, we get a very different picture. Sacramental division characterizes the Church on all fronts: re-baptism for those baptized in other (orthodox) traditions, the table fenced from believers who have been baptized in the Triune Name and not under church discipline. That which was given to unity the Church is and has historically been one of the deepest demonstrations of division in the body. It’s a tragic irony.

If the Church catholic is to be reunited (and I believe it will), sacramental unity must be one of the first steps. This is why we practice open communion (anyone who has received Trinitarian baptism and is not under church discipline is welcome at the Lord’s Table) in the CREC. Of course, the Eucharist was the issue that the Reformers could not come to an agreement on, but that was not okay with many of them. Calvin and Cranmer, especially, earnestly sought unity around the Supper and pursued agreement among the Reformed and Lutherans so that one Protestant church would share the Lord’s Supper together. Unfortunately, that was not achieved in their life time, and their successors failed to further the cause. But I pray (as does Jesus- Jn. 17) that the Protestant Church, and eventually the entire Church, would come together to the Lord’s Table as one body to feed on our one Lord. 

And For Your Children: On Household Baptism

The question of whether or not the children of Christians are to receive baptism has been one of much debate, sometimes heated, for years by men wiser and more godly than me on both sides. I am aware, then, that my contribution may not really be much of a contribution at all. I certainly am not saying anything new (in fact, if I were I would be worried.) This issue has been a part of a recent paradigm shift for me that is still in development; it is for that reason, then, that I write this brief explanation and defense of the practice of household baptism, both to help myself learn through writing and to explain this change.

At the outset of a consideration of the proper recipients of the sacrament of baptism, it is important to acknowledge that the New Testament gives no explicit statement saying that either “only confessing believers are to be baptized” or “the children of confessing believers are to be baptized,” (though Acts 2:39 comes close to just that.) Neither the baptist nor the paedobaptist has an explicit verse; but this does not mean that neither have a case for their practice. In this article, I will be considering how children have been regarded in biblical history, whether or not this appears to change in the New Testament and the practice of the early church, and the importance of church history in the discussion.

Throughout biblical history, God has extended His promises to the children of His covenant people. This simply has been His normal practice. From the covenant with Abraham to the covenant with Moses, His people’s offspring are considered members of the covenant. The covenant with Abraham suggests that this is an eternal pattern- through Abraham, all the families of the earth would be blessed. When we come to the New Covenant, we should expect an explicit statement regarding the exclusion of children from God’s covenant if this has changed. The people of the NT as well as the early readers would need to be thoroughly persuaded that their children are no longer part of the people of God until a “conversion experience.”

However, when we come to the New Testament, we find just the opposite. The Lord rebukes His disciples in Luke 18 when they bar infants from being brought to Him by their parents and says “Let the children come to me… for to such belongs the kingdom of God.” (Lk. 18:16-17) Jesus welcomes little children, and states that the Kingdom of God belongs to them. He does not say the Kingdom belongs to adults who exercise child-like faith, but that “…to such belongs the kingdom of God.” In the New Covenant, infants and young children are welcome in the Kingdom of God.

As we move on to the inauguration of the New Covenant church, we find similar evidence. At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit has descended to indwell God’s people, and Peter preachers to those skeptics and mockers who supposed that they were drunk “with new wine” (Acts 2:13) They ask “…what shall we do?” in response to his sermon, he instructs them “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off…” (vv. 37-39.) So, right from the start, after the Holy Spirit has descended upon Christ’s Church, the apostles establish what is new about the New Covenant- the New Covenant is characterized by the activity and presence of the Holy Spirit. One thing that remains the same is that God’s promise is “for you and for your children…” Peter made sure to state the inclusion of children in God’s promise right from the start of the church.

As the Church spreads in Acts, Luke records significant accounts of conversions and baptisms. There are nine of these accounts. Of these nine, five are said to include households. Did these households include infants? Luke does not say explicitly either way, but whether they did or not is in fact irrelevant- they were baptized on the basis of the faith of the head of the household. And this should be no shock; God’s promise is “for you and for your children..” When we look at non-household accounts, we see that these either had not children/ household, or did not have their household present, such as the 3,000 men at Pentecost, disciples of John, Samaratins, Simon the Sorcerer, Paul, and the Ethiopian eunuch. So, everyone who had a household present had their household baptized. This is certainly a strong establishment of practice for household baptism.

As we look at church history, the practice of baptizing the children of believers was virtually uncontested by those who were orthodox, although the surrounding circumstances and practices were certainly not monolithic.  It was not until about 1500 years into church history that those who were otherwise doctrinally orthodox opposed the practice. Frankly, I cannot bring myself to believer that the Holy Spirit, who guides Christ’s church, could not convince anyone of the error of infant baptism until 1500 years into the church’s history. Baptizing the children of believers has simply been what the Christian church has done. Is it simply a coincidence that the rise and popularity of the baptistic tradition has coincided with the rise and influence of individualism in Western society and the breaking down of the traditional household economy? I think not.

Children of God’s people, then, are rightly heirs to God’s promises, members of Christ’s church, and proper recipients of Christ’s sacraments. Our Lord is their Lord; His answer to the question of infant baptism is “do not forbid them.”