Baptism Question

[KJCalvin]

Hi All,

It is not my habit to pull one verse from Scripture in order to build doctrinal arguments and I am not about to start now, however; I would like to see if anyone from the paedo-baptism side of theology might help me understand this passage with respect to who should be baptized. Perhaps this is a passage already been discussed but being new to the board, I thought I might try to generate some conversation.



"Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,"

(1 Peter 3:21 ESV)

So the question is, if baptism is an answer of a good conscience to God, how can one who is not yet able to consider the truths of God and respond to them be baptized? To be fair, I am not coming to the thread with the answer or even a particular position. I am coming with large ears to hear (or maybe I should say large eyes to read) in order to be taught

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Moderating point: please update your signature, see the blue notice in mine below for guidance

The passage doesn't appear directly to address the question of the proper subjects of baptism.

v21 (which belongs to a wider contextual discussion) is descriptive of what baptism is intended to mean or symbolize. There is nothing to speak of regarding an "order" of events. Furthermore, the description is meant to be just as true long, long after the moment even of an adult-convert baptism. That is to say, even with baptism far in the rear-view mirror (as it were), today it should be my appeal to God for a "clean heart and a right spirit," Ps.51:10.

If the objective meaning of baptism (really, just a single aspect discussed here) is fixed by divine intention, then it is truth meant for grasping not only once on or about the occasion of one's baptism; but once it is grasped, held onto forever, and revisited. Baptism isn't simply a testimony concerning faith's initial expression, but about faith-right-now, which begins someplace and continues on through the present until it becomes sight.

Theologically speaking, baptism done but once, should yet be a Christian's every-morning ablution.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Hi All,

It is not my habit to pull one verse from Scripture in order to build doctrinal arguments and I am not about to start now, however; I would like to see if anyone from the paedo-baptism side of theology might help me understand this passage with respect to who should be baptized. Perhaps this is a passage already been discussed but being new to the board, I thought I might try to generate some conversation.

"Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,"

(1 Peter 3:21 ESV)

So the question is, if baptism is an answer of a good conscience to God, how can one who is not yet able to consider the truths of God and respond to them be baptized? To be fair, I am not coming to the thread with the answer or even a particular position. I am coming with large ears to hear (or maybe I should say large eyes to read) in order to be taught

A few items to consider:
1) Does Baptism 'save'?
2) How is it that you take the position that an infant is not conscious?
3) Where in the commission is it said that one must be able to understand the gospel prior to having the sign placed upon them?
4) How many people, over the ages, have had the sign placed on them and subsequently fall away?

 

[KJCalvin]

Hi Scott,

Thanks for the reply. I will attempt to answer the questions and await your reply for direction.

1. I would suggest that baptism does not save.
2. An infant is certainly conscious but this passage is speaking of an appeal of a good conscious (speaking of one who delights in the LORD and desires to follow His ways. Someone who claims Christ as their Savior)
3. I don't believe this is speaking of understanding baptism
4. I am not sure I understand this point- Please help me understand

 

[KJCalvin]

Rev Buchanan

Thank you for your reply- I have read your reply a few times and am trying to understand your point. I appreciate your answer and agree that everyday we are to appeal to God. While I agree that we are called to live out our baptism and as the Westminster states, improve it, however, my question remains the same without respect to order. How can someone incapable of communicating (perhaps because they are too young to reason) their belief in Christ appeal to God as a good conscience?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Hi Scott,

Thanks for the reply. I will attempt to answer the questions and await your reply for direction.

1. I would suggest that baptism does not save.
2. An infant is certainly conscious but this passage is speaking of an appeal of a good conscious (speaking of one who delights in the LORD and desires to follow His ways. Someone who claims Christ as their Savior)
3. I don't believe this is speaking of understanding baptism
4. I am not sure I understand this point- Please help me understand

So, based on your answer, baptism is a sign, right? The sign and the thing signified are not one and the same. In this, how would this passage exclude infants? You might say, 'Because the infant cannot, in a right conscience, ascend to the fact that Christ has risen, right?' How can anyone know that about an infant? If the Holy Spirit makes it so, it can be. As well, not every passage in scripture is devoted universally to all age groups. This passage can be referring to men or woman of age; people who are able to express their understanding of the resurrection. This in no way excludes the idea that God has commanded that the sign be placed on our infants nor does it exclude the idea that infants can and are regenerated and converted as God wills.

"Where in the commission is it said that one must be able to understand the concept of baptism prior to having the sign placed upon them?"

My bad. I meant to say, Where in the commission is it said that one must be able to understand the *gospel* prior to having the sign placed upon them?

"How many people, over the ages, have had the sign placed on them and subsequently fall away?"

My point in raising this is to only show that plenty of people over the ages have been 'conscious' and have submitted to having the sign placed on them and yet, after a season, they fall away. Having said that, does being conscious guarantee anything?

 

[MW]

So the question is, if baptism is an answer of a good conscience to God, how can one who is not yet able to consider the truths of God and respond to them be baptized?

If baptism saves, "how can one who is not yet able to consider the truths of God and respond" be saved? Even though we qualify that baptism does not save in and of itself but is a sign and seal of salvation, the correspondence indicates that salvation and baptism belong to the same people. If infants are saved, who can forbid baptism? We must leave it with the Lord to grant the spiritual grace signified by baptism according as His infinite wisdom is able to reach people of any capacity.

 

[jwithnell]

How can someone incapable of communicating (perhaps because they are too young to reason) their belief in Christ appeal to God as a good conscience?

Just how well does someone have to communicate his belief? What happens to the person who has a cognitive disability? Is he unable to be seen as part of the church, though part of a covenant home? I'm not raising this as an exception to prove the rule. How one answers will determine a great deal about how one views the effect of the fall on man and how much a person's belief comes from his own abilities and efforts. I'd venture to say that we are all, as a result of the fall, closer to the capabilities of those who are severely disabled. This 1 Peter passage isn't teaching about the recipient's capabilities, it teaches about the blessings and the cursing of baptism -- the waters upon which Noah was saved vs. 20) , were the same waters that God used to judge the unrighteous. The same is true of those undergoing a water baptism. This is a sober consideration for us as parents as we bring our children. The only way we can have a good conscience toward God (vs. 21) is through though the resurrected power of Jesus who has subjected all earthly and angelic power (vs.22).

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Rev Buchanan

Thank you for your reply- I have read your reply a few times and am trying to understand your point. I appreciate your answer and agree that everyday we are to appeal to God. While I agree that we are called to live out our baptism and as the Westminster states, improve it, however, my question remains the same without respect to order. How can someone incapable of communicating (perhaps because they are too young to reason) their belief in Christ appeal to God as a good conscience?

Unlike Scott's answer (and I respect the point he's seeking to make), I am fine granting that that someone too young, or too feeble--either as mentally challenged, or as an old dementia patient--is not able to make such a propositional appeal. The mental horsepower isn't there. And? Is Peter making the point: that without this sine qua non for a prior condition a baptism is improperly applied? No, he isn't remotely discussing that point. At most, someone with a prior commitment to a credo-baptism-only position may infer that Peter's expression is consistent with such a stipulation.

In my post, I claim that Peter expects the baptized person to make this appeal, sometime; actually many, many times as a believer in Jesus Christ. But where does it say that first a person must make such an appeal, followed by his baptism? Is there anything in this text prohibitive of a person's receiving baptism, followed by such an appeal? The point I made is that IN FACT the appeal follows many times over a man's baptism, regardless of whatever condition of mind he possessed when he was baptized.

It obtains, if the person was frankly being sly when (as a grown man in his right mind) he presented himself for baptism; but only came genuinely to saving faith the following day, or following year. It obtains if the baptized was an adult convert. It obtains if the baptized was a child, even an infant. The issue (and Peter's concern) is:what does baptism mean? It means something objective, it points to theological truth; and it does so whether or not a baptized person appreciates its significance or not. Baptism for a classic covenant theologian, as opposed to the traditional Baptist, is first and foremost an objective witness and declaration rather than a subjective (personal) and subsidiary witness.

Furthermore, it obtains even if the baptized loses his mental acuity over time. Baptism doesn't cease to signal his appeal, once he falters and is incapable of making use of it. The sign of baptism wasn't grounded upon his appeal; his appeal was grounded in his baptism, which is a more sure and certain word from God than it is a witness to man's self-understanding.

I hope these thoughts clarify.