Baptism of the Infants of Baptized Christians according to the mind and institution of Christ

Peter Toon

The only hint in the Anglican Formularies that the practice of Infant Baptism was being rejected by anyone in the mid-sixteenth century is the sentence at the end of Article XXVII. This states: “The Baptism of young children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.” In the earlier version of this Article the wording was: “The custom of the Church to christen young children is to be commended, and in any wise retained in the Church.” This sentence appeared because of the existence of a very small group of radical reformers called “Anabaptists,” who insisted on re-baptizing those already baptized as infants, because they held that baptizing infants, who did not profess faith, was wrong.

Everywhere else in the Formularies the practice and custom of baptizing infants is taken for granted, especially in specific services for baptizing children in church and, in emergency, in houses. So let us place ourselves in the sixteenth century, within the mindset of the English Reformers, and ask how it was that they could say that Infant Baptism is “most agreeable with the institution of Christ,” that is, his commission in Matthew 28:19-20 to make disciples, baptize and teach.

What to hold in mind

The first thing that we need to bear in mind is that they looked at the Bible as One Canon in Two Testaments, not as two separate Testaments joined into one Canon. Today where we start from is different. In a University Faculty or Seminary there is a department of Old and another of New Testament Studies, usually with little contact between them, and each looks to its own professional groupings and societies. Thus modern reading of the Bible tends to move from treating the Testaments separately and then perhaps seeing connections between the two.

So while the distinction between the Hebrew Bible and the Greek New Testament was very clear to the Reformers, their first thought was not the difference and distinction but the unity of the two, because both are inspired by God—“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). The first homily in the First Book of Homilies (1547) of the Church of England, “A Fruitful Exhortation to the Reading of Holy Scripture,” moves from Old to New Testament and back again with a freedom that moderns would find hard to emulate.

The second thing to bear in mind is that they understood the unity of Scripture, not only in that each part and the whole are inspired by the Holy Spirit, but also in that both Testaments declare and explain the one covenant of grace, established and given to mankind by the Holy Trinity. This covenant was made known originally to Abraham (see Genesis 17) and, as St Paul explained in his Epistle to Galatia, was then focused via the Mosaic covenant between God and the tribes of Israel until the birth of the Messiah, and then it reached its primary expression in the “new covenant” established by the Lord Jesus Christ (see the Epistle to the Hebrews). Jesus came to fulfill not to destroy the Law and the Prophets of the Mosaic Covenant. So in the Lectionary the Reformers read and meditated upon the One Bible, using both the Old and New Testaments at both Morning and Evening Prayer and they did so on the old doctrine that “The New is in the Old concealed; the Old is by the New revealed.” So, for example, the “Man” of Psalm 1 is in the first place the righteous, godly Hebrew husband and father, but in the whole scope of Scripture, he is the new Adam, the Son of Man, the Messiah, who, for all men, Jew and Gentile, obeyed the law of the Lord and made atonement for mankind’s sin.

The third thing to bear in mind is that the Reformers were very much influenced by the Fathers of the Early Church in the way they read the Old Testament and this meant that they used what we call typology naturally and often. One only has to read the two Books of Homilies to be made aware of how much they read and depended upon the commentaries and sermons on the Bible by the Fathers, notably Chrysostom and Augustine. And one only has to look at the Service of Public Baptism for Infants in The Book of Common Prayer to see their commitment to typology as a way of reading the whole Bible as One Canon. In the first sentence of the first prayer the Minister prays:

Almighty and everlasting God, who of thy great mercy didst save Noah and his family in the Ark from perishing by water; and also didst safely lead the children of Israel thy people through the Red Sea, figuring thereby thy holy Baptism…

“Figuring” may be rendered “representing” or “typifying.”

The fourth thing to hold in mind that what we know and experience in contemporary western society as individualism did not exist then. The American experience, especially, has been to exalt individualism (it is central to the Constitution and legal system of the U.S.A.), and having this fundamental mindset modern readers of the Bible are worlds apart from the Early Fathers and the sixteenth-century Reformers as they read the Bible. Put simply, the normal way for an American in 2007 to read the Bible is from the perspective of each human being as “an individual.” In contrast, in other societies both in the present and very much so in the past, the Bible is/was read by “a person in relation to others, to the created order and to God.” Certainly it was read and heard personally by individual persons, but those persons did not consider themselves as “individuals” with only self-chosen connections with others, but as a necessarily connected person, defined by having relatives and belonging to others. There is no individualism in the classic Anglican Formularies (The Book of Common Prayer, The Thirty-Nine Articles and The Ordinal) or in The [Two Books of] Homilies of the Church of England. In contrast, the literature, preaching and context of the emerging and growing “Baptist” churches over the last century and more in America, especially, cannot be explained without the rising presence of individualism in culture and society. The local church is a community of individuals and Baptism is the self-chosen act of an individual who claims to believe.

One effect of the conditioning factors described above is that the early Fathers and the Reformers took it for certain that Jesus, his disciples, and Gentiles who came into the Church after being Jewish proselytes, naturally thought of the infant children of both Jews and Christians as rightful heirs of God’s covenant of grace. This did not remove the duty of all human persons—man, woman and children—to be faithful servants of the LORD God, but it did declare with certainty their standing in terms of the Covenant. God had chosen them and they were to respond appropriately!

From this perspective the Baptism of infant children of those already in the covenant of grace was “most agreeable with the institution of Christ.” And it was also, from this perspective, clearly seen as assumed or presented in the whole Canon of Scripture, even though there is not a simple command anywhere which says, ‘Baptize infants,” or a simple description anywhere of the actual Baptism of an infant.

The fact of the matter is that what exactly one sees— either in the words of a document or the faces of a crowd of people— much depends on the spectacles one wears as one looks and the mindset or mental frame of reference one employs as one thinks. Using the lens of modern individualism, one can only see the baptism of the self-conscious “individual” who has decided for himself/herself to be baptized, and, on these terms, to baptize an infant is nonsense, although to dedicate an infant to God does make sense as an act of free people.

Biblical Evidence

Within the approach of the Early Fathers and Reformers to the whole Bible one sees the appropriateness, rightfulness and evidence of/for Infant Baptism in the following:

1. The death of Jesus upon the Cross at Calvary which was “a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world.” As the Second Adam, the New Man and New Israel, Jesus represented all mankind and died not for his own sins but as the Representative and Substitute of sinful mankind, including all new born infants. Thus we may say that all children belong to Christ, for he has redeemed them, and so they are, in the right context and under the right conditions, the appropriate recipients of the sign and seal of that redemption, which is Baptism.

2. Children have a divinely-given and divine-required place in the Abrahamic covenant of grace. This is made clear by the word of the Lord God heard by Abram in Genesis 17:9-14, after a series of encounters recorded in Genesis 15 and 16, where God establishes his covenant of grace with Abram and his offspring. The Lord told Abraham:

You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised… Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from my people; he has broken my covenant.

In the person of Abraham circumcision was the sign and seal of an existing faith in the Lord God (see Paul’s comment in Romans 4:11); but with respect to infant boys it is the pledge and seal of the covenant status and blessings promised to them. Though administered by man, it presents the movement of God to man, the bringing of the very young man into covenant relation. But what of the status of women and girls for whom there was in their flesh no specific sign and seal of covenant membership given? The covenant which requires male circumcision operates on the principle of the unity of the head of the household/family with its members and so the family is included in the head, which is the male, who is the husband and father. Thus females are certainly in the covenant of grace and are required, along with males, to trust, love, obey and serve the LORD God, walking in his ways and keeping his commandments (see the account of the covenant ceremony in Deuteronomy 29 where the presence of children is recorded in verses 10-12). What circumcision points to, prefigures and typifies, as a sign and seal of the Abrahamic covenant of grace, is Baptism in the “new covenant” administered to adults and infants, but now also both to males and females, because this final, complete and everlasting phase of the historical administration of the covenant of grace is the clearest and richest, and so the covenant blessings are made over specifically and really to all the elect of God.

In Colossians 2:11-14, St Paul makes an explicit connection between spiritual circumcision and Christian baptism. In the Old Testament circumcision had been spiritualized as circumcision of the heart and the equivalent of both repentance by man (Leviticus 26:41; Deuteronomy 10:16; Jeremiah 4:4 & 9:26; Ezekiel 44:7,9) and cleansing of the heart by God (Deuteronomy 30:6). It is the latter, God regenerating the heart of man, which texts in the New Testament link to Christian Baptism (see John 3:5 & Titus 3:5). The apostle connects spiritual circumcision and Baptism when he writes to Colossae:

In Christ you were circumcised with a circumcision without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands.

While this specific teaching of the Apostle to the Gentiles does not prove the existence of baptized infants in the Church at Colossae, it does underline the connections within the One Covenant of Grace in terms of admission and the work of God in the hearts of those admitted.

3. Before the ministry of John the Baptist, and during the period of the Ministry of Jesus of Nazareth, Gentiles who wished to become God-fearers, members of the Jewish synagogue and eventually fully-initiated Jews, began their conversion by going through a ceremony of cleansing by water, in order to wash away all the ceremonial uncleanness accrued by living as a Gentile outside the Torah. This proselyte baptism was administered to all members of the household, the father and husband, the wife and mother, and all the children of both sexes, for the simple reason that all had lived in the Gentile world and were ceremonially unclean. After Baptism only the males were circumcised. However, the existence and knowledge of these household baptisms of Gentiles may well have influenced the way in which the families of heads of households were baptized along with the head himself (see below No 6).

4. The attitude and words of Jesus in relation to children support and underline their place in the covenant of grace. In the Service of Baptism for Infants in The Book of Common Prayer, the Gospel reading is Mark 10: 13-16. We read these words of Jesus: “Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God.” Then we learn that “he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands on them.” Following this Gospel-reading there is a very short exhortation upon it by the Minister. In this he declares: “Doubt ye not, therefore, but earnestly believe that Christ will likewise favorably receive this Infant; that he will embrace him with the arms of his mercy; that he will give unto him the blessing of eternal life, and make him partaker of his everlasting kingdom.” Little children are certainly capable of receiving the blessings of the covenant of grace. Perhaps it is appropriate to add that Christ’s words about, and blessing of, children do not prove that he had their Baptism in view; but it does prove that he has a unique love for little children, and it pleased him greatly that they were brought to him in every way possible during his itinerant Ministry. And, we may add, that Baptism is the unique way, and in the case of infants the only way, in which they can be visibly brought to him now for his new covenant blessings.

5. It is most likely that in one or more or all of the baptisms of the members of a household recorded in the New Testament small children were included (as they were in Baptism of Gentile families becoming Jews). There is first of all the baptism of the God-fearer Cornelius in Acts 10: 12, 46-48 & 11.14. Then in Acts 16: 14-15 is the record of the Baptism of Lydia and her household, and in verses 25-34 is the account of the jailor in Philippi being baptized, “he and all his family.” Acts 18:8 refers to the Jew Crispus and his family being baptized and St Paul states: “I baptized the household of Stephanus” (1 Corinthians 1:16). With the head of the household are baptized all its members. It is difficult to believe that there was not one small child in their number! And it is difficult to image the infants and small children left in their cradles while everyone else, servants and all, were baptized.

6. The way that St Paul writes to children in his Epistles assumes that they are members of the household of God, “in Christ” and thus baptized. In Colossians 3:20-21 he addresses both children and their parents, presuming both are in church membership. “Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord. Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged.” Then in Ephesians 6:1-4 he writes: “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. Honor your father and mother (this is the first commandment with a promise), that you may live long in the land. Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.”

Those who want absolutely clear proof of “beyond all reasonable doubt”, that is, of the kind needed in a modern American court in a criminal trial, that Infant Baptism took place in the apostolic age, will never find it. For such proof they need to wait until the late second century, when specific references to it begin to appear. Then, for example, we find Tertullian (160-225) of Carthage in North Africa testifying to Infant Baptism as a well established practice (On Baptism, 18 & On the Soul, chap.39) in the Church he knew. And from circa 200 onwards there is abundant proof of the administration of Infant Baptism in the Church of East and West. However, it should be sufficient for us that the Early Church did baptize infants from Christian homes and did so because the Bible they read daily proclaimed to them loud and clear that to such belongs the kingdom of God, not by right but by sovereign grace.

[For serious discussion of the evidence from the Early Church see Joachim Jeremias, Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries (1960), the response by Kurt Aland, Did the Early Church Baptize Infants (1963) and the reply from Jeremias, The Origins of Infant Baptism (1965).]

Please respond to Peter Toon at drpetertoon@yahoo.com with any comments or helpful criticism. thanks

Baptism—Regeneration. How related? A meditation starter!

What is very clear to any student of The Book of Common Prayer in any of its official English editions is that it assumes, presents and teaches a most intimate relation of Baptism (Infant and Adult) and Regeneration. That is God works the spiritual miracle of regeneration in, at, or closely related to Water Baptism, so that Baptism becomes Baptism in Water and the Spirit of the Lord. In this assumption and teaching, it is at one with the Baptismal Rites of East and West that we have from the Early Church and also with the Baptismal Texts from the New Testament.

When modern American or Western Protestant Christians are told, or learn of, this intimate relation of Baptism and Regeneration, they are usually shocked by, or disbelieving of, it. The usual reason for their reaction is because it is so contrary to what they have learned from the general ethos of Evangelical teaching and practice which more often than not tend to equate “being born again” with “conversion to Jesus Christ” or “making a decision for Christ.” They do not make a conceptual or practical distinction between birth—an entry and a beginning—and the growing and maturing of new life. For them “new birth” is the U-turn itself not the origin or start of the U-turn. Thus regeneration is both new birth and renovation, both the beginning and the turn to go in the new direction; and, significantly, it has nothing much to do with Baptism, except perhaps that Adult Believers Baptism can offer in it the human witness and testimony to being already born again.

One thing that has fed the Protestant Evangelical rejection of the intimate relation of Baptism and Regeneration in Scripture and Tradition has been a strong reaction to the doctrine of “Baptismal Regeneration” as taught by Roman Catholics and Anglo-Catholics. This teaching claims that if the Rite itself is properly conducted, and if the infant or older person offers no internal resistance, the act of Baptism itself will be the sure means used by God the Father through the presence of the Holy Spirit, to make the baptized person into a child of God, really and truly, with a new nature, and thus made into a Christian who is placed in the process of being made righteous. Here repentance and faith, though not denied, are not prominent.

What Protestants have reacted unfavorably against in this sacramental approach is (a) the apparent lack of any direct connection between Baptism and saving faith in the recipient, and (b) the idea that the administering of the Sacrament, in and of itself, achieves regeneration of the recipient.

Regrettably, many of these same evangelical Protestants have assumed that the Services of Baptism in The Book of Common Prayer teach the same doctrine of “Baptismal Regeneration” as they think is taught by Catholics (see the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent and the recent Catholic Catechism). And, worse still, not a few who belong to The Anglican Way assume that Baptismal Regeneration as taught in the Anglican Formularies is a “Catholic” bad thing and to be avoided.

I suggest that concerning the Services of Baptism within The Book of Common Prayer, the following needs to be understood:

1. They were created by devout and learned Reformers—Thomas Cranmer and Martin Bucer, for example—who knew what they were doing, as they sought to be true to Scripture, learn from the Early Church and reform the Baptismal Liturgies from the medieval Church.
2. These Reformers thought of the Bible as One Canon with Two Testaments, not as we tend to do, Two Testaments making One Canon. This meant that they took the Old Testament both more seriously and differently than we do.
3. Also these Reformers—as their contemporaries—know nothing of “expressive individualism” that is so common in the West today; but they thought of the individual human being as “a person in relation to God and relatives;” further, they had a strong sense of the One Covenant of Grace, with its two different administrations, the Mosaic and the New Covenant in Christ, and so they held that the children of covenant members were also by divine appointment also to be considered covenant members as well. [Thus while we look for specific examples of infant baptism in the Text of the New Testament, they assumed that infants were in the Covenant and thus baptized in households.]
4. They thought of Sacraments as primarily God’s work and gift administered in God’s name by a Minister of Christ. Only in a very secondary way were Sacraments actions of men offered to God. Nevertheless, the action of God was not seen as unrelated to the state of human beings; rather God acted in blessing when there was a measure of repentance and faith in the recipient.
5. Infant children of baptized Christians were themselves baptized because God had required Abraham to circumcise infant boys as a sign of their being admitted as members of the Covenant of grace – and also Gentiles, males and females, old and young, became Jewish converts/proselytes by being “washed” (baptized). And had not Jesus welcomed children warmly and substantially into his arms, Mark 10?
6. In Infant Baptism, repentance and faith are operative (not as yet in the Infant himself) but in those who stand in God’s Name in his place, the Godmothers and Godfathers. Their duty before God and in the church is to make sure that the Infant actually comes to personal consciousness of his relation to Jesus Christ and thus repents personally of sin and believes in his Name.
7. Baptismal regeneration is the act of God in the Sacrament where the Father, for the sake of the Son and by the Holy Spirit, makes the baptized person a member of the covenant of grace, causes him to be born into the kingdom of God, and adopts him as a child into his Family and Household. It is thus the very beginning of the possibility of true Christian life within the fellowship of the Church and the warmth of the Family of God. Necessarily it also includes the forgiveness of original sin and actual sin.
8. Baptism in Water is the outward and visible sign and seal of God’s gracious work of causing new birth/regeneration in the person baptized. By it, his relation to Christ is declared and his status before God is made known.
9. In the case of Infants, they are to be raised and treated as Christians and given every possible help to make their own the Faith which is theirs by membership of the Covenant; in the case of Adults they are to be encouraged to live daily as baptized Christians, mortifying sin and practicing righteousness, and embodying the grace of the Covenant in their lives.
10. The Baptismal Service for Infants is NOT a service of dedication of an infant to God (man addressing God) but is a Sacrament (God addressing man).

It seems to me that modern Bible-reading and Bible-believing people will continue to have difficulty with Infant Baptism (except as making it Infant Dedication) as long as they read the Bible as a modern “individual” out of the experience of expressive individualism. Only by entering into the Early Church approach to and use of the Bible as One Canon with Two Testaments, united by One Covenant, will they begin to see the orders of relation that God has imprinted in both the created order and in the covenant of grace and thus accept Infant Baptism on the same terms as the Anglican Reformers of the sixteenth century.

END

The Revd Dr Peter Toon January 11, 2007

Infant Baptism in The Catechism of The Book of Common Prayer (1662)

The admittance of the child of baptized Christians into the full communion of the Church has four steps—Baptism, nurture and instruction, Confirmation and First Communion. Baptism is by the local Priest; the nurture is provided by Godparents, parents and the local church, while instruction, given in home and church, is summarized in The Catechism; Confirmation is by the Bishop and First Communion follows this.

Let us focus on The Catechism to see what it assumes and teaches about Infant Baptism.

The first question asks the catechumen for his Name and the second asks who gave it to him/her. Here is the answer to the second:

My Godfathers and Godmothers in my Baptism; wherein I was made a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven.

The meaning here seems reasonably clear. “I was made” points to action by someone other than the infant and that Someone is obviously (from the whole context) God the Father, though the words do not actually clearly say so. To be “a member of Christ” is to be in “The Body of Christ;” to be “the child of God” is to be adopted by God the Father into his Family and Household; and to be “an inheritor of the kingdom of God” is to have the promise of everlasting life and be present in the heavenly Jerusalem.

The natural meaning of “I was made” here is that which is found in such a statement as, “I was made a Captain” pointing to a new rank, status and membership. So it points to the Infant being given a new status, that of an adopted child of God through Jesus Christ. It could also be taken to mean “I was made anew” as a child of God.

However, in Anglican expositions of baptismal doctrine the expression, “I was made,” has been understood, generally speaking, in three ways.

(1) “I became” suggesting, “I did not resist and God infused into my soul his grace by his Spirit and I was born again really and truly then and there into the kingdom of God even though I could not exercise repentance for sin and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; and I shall remain regenerate.”
(2) “I was considered” suggesting, “Since the conditions of repentance and faith were present (through my Godparents) and since Baptism conveys the gift of God, God began to reckon me as his Child and, as soon as I am mature and able, I must personally repent and believe the Gospel promises, in order for the gifts and grace of God truly to be mine for ever.”
(3) “I was put into a new relation to Jesus Christ” suggesting, “Since the conditions of repentance and faith were present (through my Godparents) I was born into the new sphere of God’s covenant of grace and thus into the beginnings of the enjoyment of all the blessings of the covenant.”

Of these the content of numbers 2 and 3 seem to be more in line with the other place in The Catechism where the Sacraments are defined and the necessity of faith in relation to them by the receiver is emphasized. Baptismal Regeneration was not an expression used by the first Reformed Catholics but they did accept that regeneration occurred at Baptism, but only because of the Gospel from God received by the faith of the sinner. For them the Rite rightly performed did not in and of itself automatically produce spiritual regeneration (as in the medieval opus operatum theory and as in (1) above); rather the Rite/Sacrament as God’s ordinance caused regeneration where there was active repentance for sin and belief in the Gospel as in adults, or subsitutionary repentance and faith as for infants until they can exercise these personally and consciously. [Note that since the nineteenth century “baptismal regeneration” has carried the Roman Catholic and strong Anglo-Catholic meaning that Baptism rightly performed automatically causes regeneration, unless the recipient actively resists it. In contrast to this, the Reformed Catholic understanding of “baptismal regeneration” is emphatically related God’s action and gift in Baptism on the one side, and man’s reception by faith on the other.]

The third question asks what the Godparents did for the Infant at his Baptism. The answer is clear:

They did promise and vow three things in my name.

First, that I should renounce the devil the devil and all his works, the pomps and vanity of this wicked world, and all the sinful lusts of the flesh.

Secondly, that I should believe all the articles of the Christian faith.

And thirdly, that I should keep God’s holy will and commandments, and walk in the same all the days of my life.

So in and on behalf of the child, who is not yet able to act for himself, the Godparents solemnly promised to God (a) renunciation of the devil, evil world and sinful desires; (b) belief of the doctrines in the Creed, and (c) living daily in faithful obedience to God. The form and tense of the verb used of the commitment to be made by the infant is important—“that I should renounce…believe…keep…” The “I should” is just the grammatically correct subjunctive in speech reporting a promise. The subjunctive was/is ordinarily used for uncertainties, but not here. Perhaps the nearest equivalent in modern English would be "must". The “should” points to a promise leading to obligation and duty, and as coming into effect from the very first moment in the future when the child is able to respond to God as his Father through Jesus Christ—a response which is his duty and privilege as a baptized person, by divine promise and covenant.

So, from the moment of his Baptism, the infant child of Christian parents is reckoned to be, and is to be treated as, a child of God, with all appropriate nurture, instruction and discipline, so that what God has made over to him he comes to see is his only by grace through faith. This places great responsibility upon the parents, Godparents and local church as the ministers of heaven to this growing child, even as it also celebrates the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ revealed in the covenant of grace in its New Testament administration through this Sacrament, instituted by Jesus the Christ.

Note on Covenant

In what sense, if at all, is there a Baptismal Covenant, that is, a covenant offered or made in Baptism between God and the person baptized?

We recall that Jesus himself established the new covenant by his atoning sacrifice on the Cross. “In my place condemned he stood, sealed my pardon with his blood.” The new covenant (contrast is with the Mosaic or old covenant) is made between God the Father and his Incarnate Son, with the latter acting as Representative Man, the new Adam, and thus God the Father made it with Christ on behalf of all who were (in Israel) and would be (through the preaching of the Gospel) united to Christ, “in Christ,” for everlasting salvation and life.

This new covenant, the covenant of grace, is the essential background for the preaching of the Gospel, the Administration of the Gospel Sacraments, and the response of repentant, believing sinners to the Gospel message. In Baptism, God the Father acts in the Name of Christ and by the Holy Spirit to regenerate sinners, that is to place them within the covenant of grace and thus name them as his children. As with the response to the preaching of the Gospel, so in the Sacrament, the covenant Lord God graciously and freely gives his salvation, but he only gives where there is readiness to receive, and such readiness is only possible and present where there is repentance for sin and belief in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Saviour.

So it may be said that there are conditions for entry into the covenant, the covenant which is already established and complete in itself through, in and with Christ its mediator and guarantor. And these conditions are faith and repentance. However, divinely-required conditions for entry are not conditions which actually constitute the human side of a contract or covenant between the human person and the Lord God. We may say that the kingdom of God, the heavenly Jerusalem, exists with all its covenant blessings and that only the repentant and believing sinner is allowed to enter and, in entering, is warmly welcomed. So by repenting and believing (or by doing anything else) none of us are entering into, making or closing a personal covenant with God, but rather we are being made a member of Christ and thus in, through and with him we are placed in an eternal relation within the covenant of grace with the Father, energized by the Holy Spirit.

There are great spiritual dangers in thinking and teaching that there is a Baptismal Covenant which is different from the New Covenant itself. (And nowhere is this more evident in the life of The Episcopal Church since the 1960s!) God does not make a covenant with me and I do not make a covenant with God in holy Baptism. By grace and by grace alone, I enter through Christ the Mediator into the New Covenant, which is corporate in nature and therein I am, again by grace alone, one of the elect of God, and a child of God. In Baptism I make promises and vows to God but I do not thereby seal a covenant with God for only Christ, the God-Man, can (and has done) that! I may recall from time to time these promises and vows but in so doing I am not renewing any covenant. I am simply remembering the promises and vows I made as God in Christ by the Holy Spirit regenerated me!

January 10, 2007
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)

Explaining INFANT BAPTISM through the legal analogy of ESCROW

Lawyers use the word escrow often and many of us are not sure what they mean. Escrow is a noun (from escroe, a scroll) meaning a bond, deed or deposit gifted by one party to another and kept in the custody of a third party, taking effect and made available only when specified condition has been fulfilled (e.g., a person conveys a million dollars to another person and requires that before that person receives it he be 2 years of age).

Now to Baptism.

An adult who is baptized is one who is repenting of his sin and believing the Gospel of the Father concerning the Lord Jesus Christ. Without repentance and faith, a person is not a proper subject of Christian Baptism, which is the Sacrament of Regeneration (that is, being born into the family of God and made a child of God and inheritor of the kingdom of heaven of the age to come). An infant is baptized not because of his own repentance and faith but because those who stand with him and in his place (godparents) show repentance and faith and are intent on caring for the infant in God’s Name until he also shows repentance for sin and faith in the Lord Jesus, and thus personally and consciously embraces the reality and benefits of Regeneration.

Here is one way of explaining Infant Baptism by means of the analogy of escrow from the pen of Dr. H.C.G. Moule, Bishop of Durham (1899-1922), a brilliant scholar and a leading Evangelical Churchman of his time:

“Christian Baptism is an ordinance of the New Covenant. It is an ordinance of entrance into Covenant. It initiates the receiver of it into the new, better, and everlasting Covenant. It does this after the manner of a rite. It does it formally—ceremonially. It gives new birth, new life, forgiveness, the Spirit, grace and glory. But it gives as a deed gives—not as an electric wire gives. It gives a title. It conveys to the right recipient such possession as now after conveyance only demands his actual entering in and using to be complete.

There are legal documents called escrows. These are deeds of conveyance which speak in the present tense, and do a present act of gift and transfer, but they carry with them a condition to be fulfilled before the effect is actualized. Till than condition is fulfilled the present giving does not become actual possession. The receiver of the title-deed does not actually enter on the property given in it. He has it in title, but he has it not yet in act and use. He has something at once. He received a beneficial title, right and pledge, the possession of which conceivably at once entitles him to special care, attention, and privileges.

So Baptism, at once and literally, in the sense of title, makes an infant a member of the Church—a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the Kingdom of Heaven. In the sense of title, he is at once regenerate. He receives at once in that respect the acceptance of an adopted child of God in Christ, and the new life, which is wrought in man by the Holy Ghost. But in the ordinary law of God’s working revealed in His Word, these precious things, in their possession, await the humble claim of repentance and faith. So the infant who in Sacramental title is born again, still needs to be born again. He is baptismally regenerated, but he needs subsequently to be actually regenerated by Faith and Repentance.”

This explanation proclaims that in the Sacrament God has freely given everything needful for both eternal salvation and sanctification to the Infant Child of Christian believers; it also assumes that (a) Godparents will do their holy work of making sure that the growing child is given Christian nurture and instruction; (b) the child is surrounded by the worship, prayer and means of grace of the Church of God; and (c) the maturing child, as a young person, will personally embrace the Gospel in repentance and faith and enjoy that which has been his by divine gift from the beginning. It also assumes that the baptized person would be most foolish to reject what is rightly his but in trust; yet it does actually allow for him to reject or not take up what is truly his by divine gift.

Advantages of this kind of explanation include (a) that the words of the Service of Infant Baptism in The Book of Common Prayer can be taken seriously and literally; (b) that Baptism of Infants as the work of God is made to appear reasonable and meaningful; (c) that the Service of Confirmation of young persons who have made the Faith their own, makes good sense, and (d) that a means of explanation is at hand to explain why some persons, baptized as infants, do not become practicing Christians—they choose not to take up the title and benefits.

Disadvantages include (a) some may find the concept of escrow odd or difficult to grasp; (b) the benefits for the “period of escrow” (from Baptism to conscious, personal faith) can be seen to be primarily external—the moral and spiritual influences of family, God-parents and church worship; and (c) there is, it appears, in this approach a very heavy and continued responsibility of the family, God-parents and church as to whether or not the child comes to personal faith; it seems to be too much dependent upon their constancy and faithfulness—in that their example may harm and hinder the baptized child (i.e., very much more responsibility than the third party in escrow!).

This explanation, with its strengths and weaknesses, was advanced by Dr. Moule because as a NT scholar and a faithful Bishop he knew that the Gospel of salvation calls for repentance and faith in the human being as a sinner, and so he had to find a way of keeping repentance and faith in the story and doctrine of Infant Baptism. And in this motivation he was surely right for without faith it is impossible to please God, the God of the covenant of grace.

Dr Moule’s approach may be preferred to the notion seemingly held by many of the existence of a personal, baptismal covenant wherein God makes over his covenanted blessings to the infant, who is then expected in due time to fulfill his terms of the covenant, which may take a long of short time. If he does not then the covenant is not operative and the blessings of the New Covenant are not made over to him. This idea of a covenant can be read in terms of a Senior partner and a junior partner in contractual arrangements, which is impossible to square with the Biblical presentation of the covenant of grace as being wholly established by God the Holy Trinity himself, with Christ Jesus, the Incarnate Son of the Father, wholly fulfilling the human side. The Baptismal Services in The Book of Common Prayer do not use the word covenant of the baptismal relation of God to the baptized and do not suggest a personalized covenant.

END

The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)

The Anglican doctrine of Baptism?

A starter…

The Reformed Catholic Doctrine of the Church of England and of The Anglican Way concerning Baptism is stated in (a) The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion; (b) The Baptismal Services within The Book of Common Prayer of 1662, and (c) The Catechism, found also within the Prayer Book. It is also assumed in other places, e.g., the Collect for Christmas.

Let us begin with The Articles.

First of all, here is the general statement made concerning Sacraments in Article 25:

The Sacraments

The sacraments prescribed by Christ are badges and tokens of our profession as Christians, and, more particularly, they are trustworthy witnesses and effectual signs of God’s grace and good will to us. By them God works invisibly in us, both arousing and also strengthening and confirming our faith in him.

Christ our Lord has ordained two gospel sacraments, namely baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

In the second place here is what is said specifically concerning Baptism in Article 27:

Baptism

Baptism is a sign of the faith we profess and a mark that differentiates Christian persons from those who are unbaptized; and it is also a sign of regeneration or new birth by which, as by an instrument, those who receive baptism rightly are grafted into the Church, the promises of forgiveness of sin and of our adoption to be the sons of God are visibly signified and sealed, and faith is confirmed and grace increased by virtue of prayer to God. The baptism of young children is under all circumstances to be retained in the Church as a practice fully agreeable with the institution of Christ.

Later we shall notice what is stated in Article 16 concerning sin after Baptism. Let us now itemize what is clearly stated in Articles 25 and 27 concerning the Sacrament of Baptism as it applies in the first place to adults, and secondly to infants.

1. God the Father works invisibly and truly by the Holy Spirit in those receiving Baptism, which is a Sacrament instituted and ordained by Christ the Lord, the Incarnate Son of God.
2. Baptism is an outward and visible declaration and badge of belonging to God in Christ the Lord and is thus a means of separating the children of God from others.
3. Baptism points to spiritual regeneration or new birth and is the means by which God the Father by the Holy Spirit and for Christ’s sake declares his good will, places the baptized in his Church, grants the forgiveness of sin, adopts them as his sons/children, communicates his grace, and strengthens their faith in him.
4. Baptism is not only to be administered to adults who believe the Gospel, but also to young children/infants as well, for this is the will of the Lord Jesus Christ as known from Holy Scripture.

Article 16 teaches that there is the possibility and availability of forgiveness of sin by God after the washing and cleansing of Baptism, if, and only if, the baptized sinner is repentant and seeks God’s forgiveness.

If we turn to The Catechism we learn that there are two parts in a Sacrament, the outward visible sign, and the inward spiritual grace. The outward visible sign is Water and the inward and spiritual grace is: “A death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness; for being by nature born in sin, and the children of wrath, we are hereby made the children of grace.” So there is a birth into the kingdom of God and the family of God at Baptism, and the cancellation of the guilt of original sin.

Then in answer to the question what is required of adults before they are baptized, it is said: “Repentance, whereby they forsake sin: and faith, whereby they steadfastly believe the promises of God, made to them in the Sacrament.” So Baptism assumes and requires that the person being baptized is turning from sin and believing the Gospel promises of salvation from the New Testament. It assumes also that he is not yet regenerate but will be so after Baptism.

While Article 27 declares that Infant Baptism is both right and good, The Catechism tells us why. The question is posed: “Why then are infants baptized when, by reason of their tender age, they cannot either repent of sins or believe the Gospel promises?” And this is the answer: “Because they promise them both [repentance and faith] by their sureties [godparents]; which promise, when they come to age [as young adults] they themselves are bound to perform.” The nature and effects of the Sacrament are therefore identical for believing adults and their infant children, except that, in the latter case, godparents stand in the place of the children representing them, until the children are sufficiently mature consciously to believe the Gospel personally. Thus as with adults, the Catechism teaches that recently-born infants are born again, this time into the kingdom of God and the family of God. And so baptized infants are Christians and it is the profound responsibility of the parents and godparents to ensure that the Christian child is brought up as a Christian in the nurture and admonition of the Lord [see the most serious exhortation given by the Priest to the godparents at the end of the Service of Infant Baptism in the Prayer Book].

Baptism whether of adults or children is a once, and once only, Sacrament. There is no repeating of it. What is required of baptized adults and children, male and female, is that they live lives in conformity with the status given them in Baptism, that is as true followers of Jesus Christ, rejecting sin and following righteousness. The Collect for The Nativity of our Lord has this petition: “Grant that we being regenerate, and made thy children by adoption and grace [= what God does in Baptism], may daily be renewed by thy Holy Spirit [living daily truly as the Baptized]…” And the exhortation to the newly baptized adult persons, requires the Priest to address them as “you who have now by Baptism put on Christ” and say:

It is your part and duty, being made the children of God and of the Light by faith in Jesus Christ, to walk answerably to your Christian calling, and as becomes the children of light; remembering always, that Baptism represents unto us our profession; which is, to follow the example of our Saviour Christ, and to be made like unto him; that as he died and rose again for us, so should we, who are baptized, die from sin and rise again unto righteousness, continually mortifying all our evil and corrupt affections, and daily proceeding in all virtue and godliness of living.

In conclusion, this can be claimed. The doctrine of Baptism within the BCP and Articles of the Anglican Way is firmly based upon the teaching and practice of the early Fathers of the Primitive Church in the conviction that they rightly read and understood Scripture concerning the Sacraments and that they rightly discerned the mind of the Lord for his Church in this important matter. It associates, as do plain texts of the N.T., Baptism with Regeneration, and the two are never prized apart. To maintain this Anglican doctrine today requires not only an ancient way of reading the Bible but also a disciplined pastoral practice which upholds it, and such are extremely difficult to achieve and maintain in modern America be it in The Network, the AMiA or the Continuing Churches.

Today many of us think of Sacraments in the tradition of expressive individualism endemic in Western culture and also as heirs of the Evangelical Revivals wherein spiritual regeneration was effectively disconnected from the Sacrament of Baptism and made to equate with conversion. And we read the Bible not with the Fathers (who established the Canon of the New Testament) but rather with the mind of sophisticated or popular Evangelicalism and often in a version of the Bible created by dynamic equivalency from within this mindset. Thus the doctrine that was so clear and biblical and patristic to our Anglican forbears seems to many of modern Anglican clergy to be imbalanced and impractical. And so we prefer the much-changed and dumbed-down doctrine in the Baptismal Text of the 1979 Prayer Book of The Episcopal Church. Or, using the classic text from the historic BCP we simply ignore those parts of it that do not easily fit into our modern situations.

The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)

Baptism, views of regeneration thereat and therein

A discussion starter from Dr Peter Toon

In the Service of Holy Baptism for both Infants and Adults in the classic editions of The Book of Common Prayer, the assumption that regeneration occurs in relation to Baptism and is an act of God the Father by His Spirit in the Name of Jesus Christ is, to my mind, absolutely clear.

Therefore, the question arises: What is understood by “spiritual regeneration” and its synonyms, which appear in the Services to be:—born anew of Water and the Holy Spirit, baptized with water and the Holy Spirit, washed with the Holy Spirit, partaker of God’s everlasting kingdom, heir of everlasting salvation, becoming a member of God’s faithful and elect children, & being grafted into the Body of Christ, and so on.

The plain common sense meaning seems to me to be that the Holy Trinity through the act of Baptism in Water makes the person who is baptized into his adopted child, a member of his covenant of grace, and heir to all the gifts and blessings of the kingdom of heaven. Thus he is born again, that is born into the family of God and the Body of the Lord Jesus Christ. Birth is a start and normally with nurturing and care leads on to maturity of a person; but birth is the beginning, not the middle or the end of the journey of grace with the Lord Jesus Christ unto the heavenly Jerusalem. Thus spiritual birth is not conversion in its fullness or completeness; it is as the planting of a seed not the reaping of a harvest, and it is as a potential rather than a realization.

Now to Evangelicals and the way they have addressed the relation of spiritual regeneration to Baptism, especially Infant Baptism.

I think it is fair to say that no group of Evangelicals has addressed this topic with more learning or urgency than those of the Church of England during the first fifty years of the reign of Queen Victoria. [See my book Evangelical Theology 1833-1856, 1979, chaps 3 & 6).They were the heirs of the Evangelical Revival inside the National Church and thus they were very familiar with the assumed and innovatory doctrine of many in and after the Revival—that spiritual regeneration, and being born again, are synonyms for conversion and renewal, and further that there is no real connection in practice of spiritual regeneration to Baptism. But also, the Evangelicals had to face the very different and strong Anglo-Catholic claim that the very administration of the Sacrament by a real priest using the right service/words guaranteed spiritual regeneration of the person baptized (this was expressed, they claimed, in the Tracts for the Times and it became a national controversy in the Gorham Case in the late 1840s; it had also been taught by Bishop Mant in his Tracts on Baptism from the SPCK back in 1815).

We may notice four views expressed by Evangelicals in the nineteenth century as to the meaning and timing of regeneration—as regeneration is expressed in the BCP services. All of them—with the BCP itself— take the reality of “original sin” present in each infant born into the world as a given (and in this of course they differ with most modern liturgists and western, Anglican clergy). Then they all want to make clear that we are saved by God himself by receiving and believing the Gospel. Further, all of them sought to dismiss the Anglo-Catholic view that full spiritual regeneration always (and inevitably) occurs when the Sacrament is rightly administered.

A minority position was stated by Bishop Henry Ryder, the first Evangelical Bishop in the C. of E. He made a distinction between ecclesiastical regeneration and spiritual regeneration. In Infant Baptism, he claimed that what was certainly given was ecclesiastical regeneration—that is, a birth into the visible church and all its means of grace, with a covenanted title to the pardon and peace of the Gospel, when received by faith later at an age of maturity. Here it is assumed that ecclesiastical regeneration will lead in God’s providence to full spiritual regeneration and conversion, as the infant matures and comes to believe.

A majority position—much affected by the Evangelical Revival—held that the biblical meaning of regeneration is closely related to personal repentance for sin, saving faith and conversion. To this they added a strong doctrine of the covenant of grace that placed the children of baptized Christians in a special relation to God. In the Baptism of Infants, therefore, they held that the promises of salvation from sin and into the kingdom of God were declared and a sign and seal of them given to infants because of the covenant promise declared in Acts 2:39. Original sin was forgiven and washed away. However, there was not any immediate spiritual change in the heart of the infant through the gift of the Holy Spirit but rather the sure promise of God that he would work spiritual regeneration and conversion when the child on reaching maturity believed the Gospel. Of course, in the case of the adult they held that the declaration of spiritual regeneration in the Service, after the Baptism, was wholly true then and there because the person had saving faith. In the case of the infant it was a declaration and promise of what would be.

Another minority position worked with both the doctrine of the covenant and also that of predestination unto everlasting life (see Article XVII). Here the child of baptized Christians who is himself also of the elect of God, is baptized and is thereby made a full member of the covenant of grace by Baptism in that he is forgiven, adopted as God’s child, and given the gift of the Holy Spirit and of eternal life. The proof of his election will be that as an adult he actually comes to and professes conversion and commitment to Jesus Christ.

Another minority position was that which assumed that the infant of baptized Christians came to the service un-regenerate but was regenerated (sin forgiven and adopted into the family of God) by God in response to the fervent prayers of the officiating priest and people present. Thus Baptism when it occurred later in the service was truly a full sign of spiritual birth into the kingdom of heaven and seal of God’s promises of full salvation.

One may close with a historical footnote. I wrote in 1979 these words and I still think what I said is true:

“It would appear that because of the intensity of feeling raised by the Gorham controversy there developed in [Anglican] Evangelicalism such a fear of baptismal regeneration ex opera operato that gradually all views involving full baptismal regeneration were given up and thus part of evangelical belief at the end of the nineteenth century was the denial of baptismal regeneration.” And what was true in 1900 seems to be true also in 2007!

Position 2 above, linked to indiscriminate Baptism of infants and dumbed down in doctrine, seems to rule and in doing so it has undermined all church life, including discipline and the Administration of Holy Communion.
* * *
For those who wish to read my book, Evangelical Theology, 1833-1856 or another serious book on Regeneration entitled Born Again (Baker Books 1987) and cannot get used copies, they may read on line at: http://www.anglicanbooksrevitalized.us/Peter_Toons_Books_Online/Doctrine/anglicanway.htm

Evangelists and Infant Baptism

A discussion starter from Dr Peter Toon, Feast of the Epiphany, 2007

Many celebrate the Evangelical Revival in Great Britain and the Great Awakening in the American Colonies of Great Britain in the eighteenth century, and recall such names as John Wesley, George Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards with warm affection. The zeal and preaching of the evangelists and the heightened spiritual experience of thousands of people of all ages is often recounted—sometimes with a longing for the recovery of such things in our time.

However, in terms of right understanding and use of the Dominical Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, it may be said that the Revival and Awakening set the Churches back a long way (maybe too far)—especially with Baptism.

In the main, the evangelists preached to nominal and committed Christians, that is, to persons who had been baptized as infants and who went to church even if irregularly. Now the baptismal service of the Church of England particularly, and of other Churches generally, contained an assumption that there is a close relation between being born again (regeneration) and water Baptism. And being born again meant being placed by God the Father in the covenant of grace and thus born into his Family as his adopted child. To say the least it meant that the person baptized, infant, child or adult was in some sense a Christian in reality or in potential. And over the centuries the Church in West and West had treated the baptized as Christians and exhorted them to live daily as such. Baptism is a Sacrament that is never repeated. So the baptized of any age were not to be evangelized for they were not the heathen but they certainly had to be called to consecration and commitment to the Lord.

Instead of taking their model for their preaching from the Prophets of Israel who called the people of Israel as God’s people back to the LORD from their apostasy and faithlessness, the evangelists preached to the “Christians” as if they were heathen, as if they were not baptized in the Triune Name. Thus frequently they preached, “Ye must be born again,” and equated the new birth, regeneration, with both an internal renewal and an outward conversion, available there and then. They assumed that the people were not regenerate but needed to be born again in the extended sense of full conversion, and this meant that –without necessarily thinking about it— they actively denied the doctrine of the Baptismal Services. They separated the grace and mercy of God in regeneration from the Sacrament of Baptism and made Baptism to be merely and only an outward sign. And thereby they set in motion what has become a massive pastoral and doctrinal problem for those majority of Churches which baptize the Infants of baptized Church members.

In later periods of British and American revivalist preaching, “ye must be born again,” was heard often as a command from God to be obeyed at once—and it meant “make a decision for Christ and thus be born into his people/family.” In contemporary America this kind of preaching and practice is commonplace and thus any attempt—by traditional Anglican or Presbyterian or Lutheran— to relate regeneration to sacrament is a huge task for there are so many layers of explanation and understanding required to set the context for and to teach the historic doctrine of Baptism as God’s Sign and Seal of the Covenant of Grace .

Where we are in 2007 and what are our problems in America stand in stark contrast to evangelization in the Early Church where evangelism led people to desire to become a child of God and disciple of Jesus, but this was not seen as fully realized until, after instruction and exorcism, Baptism was administered. Here, it was proclaimed, regeneration took place (as the believer was adopted by God into his covenant and family) and afterwards the new Christian, as a family members, for the first time prayed, “Our Father…” When they had children, they were also baptized and admitted thereby into the new covenant, the family of God.

As in ancient Israel where boys of 8 days were circumcised, and as converts to Judaism be they male or female, old or young, were “washed” (baptized), so in the administration of the new covenant, inaugurated by the sacrifice of Jesus himself, God places male and female, old and young, through Baptism into that covenant, which makes all the baptized the children of God. They are born into a new and everlasting Family. Once within this covenant of grace they are called to live as “God’s elect,” true followers of the Lord Jesus Christ.

This said, to hold the right doctrine of, and to administer rightly, Infant Baptism in local churches in the land, where many claim to be “born again” and see not the slightest relation of this to Baptism, are difficult, if not impossible today!

Many of us take the easy way out and reduce Infant Baptism to a service of dedication or suchlike and make no assumption that the one baptized is actually and really a Christian, to be nurtured and instructed as such until he is sufficiently mature to recognize and accept to whom he belongs! Rather, we assume that the baptized, as the un-baptized, is to be evangelized whenever possible and is to be encouraged to make a decision for Christ so that he may then be “born again.” And in all this we ditch the pastoral mind and practice of the Church over many centuries!

INFANT BAPTISM TODAY – CONFUSION IF NOT CHAOS IN ANGLICAN WAY

In the U.S.A., the greatest obstacle to receiving not only to the meaning of infant baptism as clearly provided in the classic Formularies of the Anglican Way, but also to the practice itself, is the very widespread association of “being born again” and “conversion to Jesus Christ” in popular American religion.

Often “born again” and “conversion” are identified and treated as two expressions for the same thing, that is for “a decision for Christ,” or “becoming a committed Christian.” Here the Sacrament of Baptism is very much placed in the background or made to be of little consequence. For, if both those who were baptized as infants and those who were not both absolutely need to be “born again” then infant baptism is marginalized, to say the least. It certainly has no connection with being “born again.” And also, if it is only the “born again” who should be baptized as adults then “new birth” is not necessarily or intimately connected with adult baptism either. In both cases the connection of regeneration to Baptism is non-existent as a real factor.

To say all this is to say nothing that is surprising to most American Evangelical and Charismatic Christians—even to most evangelical Episcopalians and Anglicans! In fact it is commonplace.

This very common mindset explains why it is that converts from evangelicalism to the Anglican Way resist the wording in the classic Anglican services for infants and adults in the editions of the Book of Common Prayer (beginning in 1552 and stretching through 1662 to the Canadian of 1962 and the American of 1928). In these services there is a clear, explicit and unavoidable doctrine of a necessary connection between what is called “regeneration” and the act of Baptism in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Further, regeneration is also called being “born again.” They find this necessary connection to be unacceptable and either reject it, find ways around it, or turn to use modern services (e.g., that in the Episcopal 1979 Prayer Book) wherein this connection is less obvious and where also the embarrassing doctrine of original sin (so prominent in the classic services) is absent. Anther attractive feature for them of the modern American and Canadian Anglican services is the emphasis they put upon human free will and decision, so as to allow the idea that the one being baptized is making a personal contract (covenant) with God.

Indeed, the situation is such that in evangelical Anglicanism in North America, what is deemed to be “orthodoxy” (e.g., by the average clergyperson in The Anglican Communion Network, the AMiA etc.) is the doctrine that there is no specific connection between regeneration by the Holy Spirit and Baptism in Water in the Threefold Name. The Reformed Catholic doctrine (which may truly claim to be Patristically-guided Biblical teaching) so clearly set forth in the Anglican Formularies—the BCP and Thirty-Nine Articles—is seen as old-fashioned, wrong, erroneous, and even heretical. This judgment is made because the Bible is read through the spectacles of both the doctrines of popular modern Evangelicalism and also of contemporary expressive individualism. And thus the Bible is said to associate being born again with conversion, not with Baptism.

Further, to adopt the classic Anglican doctrine of Baptism and Regeneration means for most evangelical Anglicans major changes in both evangelization and pastoral policies and methods. You cannot use the modern church growth methods in their raw state. Changes to common practice include baptizing only the infants of baptized believers, of nurturing these children in church and home as Christians (not as potential Christians), that is as members of the covenant of grace by Divine adoption; and of clearly distinguishing conceptually in preaching and teaching regeneration from conversion, and recognizing the clear, biblical, covenantal relation between regeneration and Baptism.

Here Infant Baptism is not to be treated as “Infant dedication” and used as a means of getting people to come to church and to be converted! Rather it is to be highly prized as the first Sacrament of the Covenant of Grace— the eternal covenant made originally with Abraham and his seed, and then made universal in availability and application as the new covenant established by Jesus Christ. And this covenant from the very beginning was for both adult men and infant boys, and, importantly, because of the doctrine of the headship of the male, also for all women in relation to them (relatives—wife and daughters). At the end of the O T period, when Gentiles were admitted into the Israel of God all converts male and female, adults and children, were baptized in water but only the male circumcised. From apostolic times, likewise, all adults converts to Christianity and their children were baptized, as the sign and seal of their being placed by God himself in the covenant of grace, in his Family through Jesus Christ.

Below is the Service from the BCP 1928 rendered into a modern form of English, addressing the Deity as You.

---

Holy Baptism

It is the duty of the Minister in each parish to urge Christian parents not to postpone the Baptism of their infant children. Likewise it is his duty to urge adults who seek commitment to Jesus Christ to prepare for Baptism.

Baptism should normally be within Public Worship on the Lord’s Day or a Holy Day, and follow either immediately after the Second Lesson at Morning or Evening Prayer, or be included within The Order for Holy Communion at a suitable place.

For each male-child there should normally be two Godfathers and one Godmother, and for each female-child two Godmothers and one Godfather.

Before any Adult is baptized, he should be examined beforehand to make sure that he truly believes in our Lord Jesus Christ and is sufficiently instructed in the principles of the Christian Faith. Further, he should be urged to prepare for receiving the Sacrament with prayer and fasting. At the time of Baptism, he should be presented by at least two witnesses/sponsors.

In the text below he and him may be changed to she and her and also made plural as they and them etc. Likewise this child and this your servant may be made plural when occasion requires.

This Service has five basic parts: (1) the Preparation; (2) the Promises of the candidates and their Sponsors; (3) the Blessing of the Water in the Font; (4) the actual Baptism; and (5) final prayer and thanksgiving.

---

At the Font, filled with pure water, the Minister shall say the following, as all stand.

Has this Child (Person) already been baptized?

If they answer, No; then the Minister proceeds as follows, as the People stand:

Dearly beloved, the Sacrament of Baptism is offered because our Lord Jesus Christ taught us that we cannot enter the kingdom of God unless we are born anew of water and the Holy Spirit. Therefore, I urge you to call upon God the Father, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that in his bounteous mercy he will give to this Child (this Person) a new nature that is not his by birth; that he may be baptized with water and the Holy Spirit, and received into Christ’s holy Church to be made a living member thereof.

Then shall the Minister say,

Let us pray.

Almighty and immortal God, giver of aid to the needy, strength to the helpless, and everlasting life to those who believe, we pray for this Child (this your Servant) who is coming to your holy Baptism, that he may receive forgiveness of his sins by spiritual regeneration. Receive him, as you have promised by your well-beloved Son in the Gospel, saying, Ask, and you shall have; seek and you shall find; knock and the door will be opened to you. Therefore, Lord, give us what we now ask; let us find what we seek; open the door to us as we knock; and make this Child (this your Servant) to come, through the blessing of your heavenly washing, to the eternal kingdom, which you have promised by Christ our Lord. Amen

Then the Minister shall from the RSV or the ESV read the one of the following: Mark 10:13 - 16 ; or John 3:1- 8 ; or Matthew 28: 18 - 20, as the Gospel, introducing it as follows:

Hear the words of the Gospel according to St. …, in the … chapter, beginning at the … verse.

The Gospel ended, the Minister shall say,

And now, having learned the good will of our heavenly Father toward this Child (this Person), declared by his Son Jesus Christ, let us faithfully and devoutly give thanks to him, as we say together,

Almighty and everlasting God, heavenly Father, we give you humble thanks because you have called us to the knowledge of your grace and to faith in you. Increase this knowledge, and confirm this faith in us this and every day. Give your Holy Spirit to this Child (this your Servant), that he may be born again, and made an heir of everlasting salvation; through our Lord Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns with you and the same Holy Spirit, now and for ever. Amen.

When infants are to be baptized the Minister shall address the Godparents as follows.

Beloved in Christ, you have brought this Child here to be baptized; you have prayed that our Lord Jesus Christ would be pleased to receive him, to break the power of sin over him, to sanctify him with the Holy Spirit, and to make him an heir of the kingdom of heaven and everlasting life.

Do you, therefore, in the name of this Child renounce the devil and all his works, the vain attractions and glory of this evil world, with all its covetousness, and the sinful desires of fallen human nature, so that you will not follow, nor be led, by them?

Answer: I renounce them all, and by God’s help, intend not to follow, nor be led by them.

Do you believe the whole content of the Christian Faith, as contained in the Apostles’ Creed?

Answer: I do.

Is it your intention to be baptized in this Faith?

Answer: That is my desire.

Will you then obediently keep God’s holy will and commandments, and walk in them all the days of your life?

Answer: I will, by God’s help.

Having now, in the name of this Child, made these promises, will you also on your part ensure that this Child learn the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Ten Commandments, and all other things which a Christian ought to know and believe for his salvation?

Answer: I will, by God’s help.

Will you also ensure that this Child, after sufficient instruction, is brought to the Bishop to be confirmed by him?

Answer: I will, by God’s help.

When Adults are to be baptized, the Minister shall address them as follows, with those to be baptized answering for themselves.


Beloved in Christ, you have come here desiring to receive holy Baptism. We have prayed that our Lord Jesus Christ would graciously receive you, to release you from sin, to sanctify you with the Holy Spirit, to give you the kingdom of heaven, and everlasting life.

Do you renounce the devil and all his works, the vain attractions and glory of this evil world, with all the its covetousness, and the sinful desires of fallen human nature, so that you will not follow, nor be led by, them?

Answer: I renounce them all, and by God’s help, intend not to follow, or be led by, them.

Do you believe in Jesus the Christ, the Son of the Living God?

Answer: I do.

Do you accept him, and desire to follow him as your Savior and Lord?

Answer: I do.

Do you believe the whole content of the Christian Faith, as contained in the Apostles’ Creed?

Answer: I do.

Do you wish to be baptized in this Faith?

Answer: That is my desire.

Will you also obediently keep God’s holy will and commandments, and walk in them all the days of your life?

Answer: I will, by God’s help.

Then shall the Minister make the following supplications for all candidates:

Merciful God, grant that like as Christ died and rose again, so this Child (this your Servant) may die to sin, and rise to newness of life. Amen.

Grant that all sinful desires may die in him, and that all things belonging to the Spirit may live and grow in him. Amen.

Grant that he may have power and strength by faith to have victory and to triumph, against the devil, the world and sinful human nature. Amen.

Grant that whoever is here dedicated at this time to you by my office and ministry may also be given heavenly virtues, and your everlasting reward, through your mercy, Blessed Lord God, who live and govern all things, for ever and ever. Amen.

The Lord be with you

Answer: And with your spirit.

Lift up your hearts.

Answer: We lift them up to the Lord.

Let us give thanks to the Lord our God.

Answer: It is fitting and right to do so

It is very fitting, right, our obligation and duty, that we should always and everywhere give thanks and praise to you, Lord, holy Father, Almighty, Everlasting God, because your most dearly beloved Son, for the forgiveness of our sins, shed from his most precious side at the Cross both water and blood; and later gave commandment to his disciples, that they should go teach all nations and baptize them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Hear, we humbly ask, the prayer of your people; sanctify this water to the mystical washing away of sin; and grant, that this Child (this your Servant), now to be baptized in it, may receive the fullness of your grace, and ever remain in the number of your faithful children; through Jesus Christ our Lord, to whom with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit, be all honor and glory, now and for ever. Amen.

The Minister takes the child into his arms, or by the hand, and says to the godparents,

Name this Child.

If the person to be baptized is an adult, he shall ask the witnesses his Name.

Then the minister shall proceed to the Baptism saying for each candidate, as he dips him in the Water or pours Water upon him:

N I baptize you in the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Then the Minister shall say the following and make the sign of the Cross upon the forehead.

We receive this Child (this Person) into membership of Christ’s flock, and sign him with the sign of the Cross, symbolizing that from this time forward he shall not be ashamed to proclaim the faith of Christ crucified and courageously to fight under his banner against sin, the world and the devil; and to continue Christ’s faithful soldier and servant to the end of his life. Amen.

Then the Minister shall say,

Beloved in Christ, now that this Child (this Person) has been born anew and has been received into the family of Christ’s Church, let us give thanks unto Almighty God for these blessings; and with one mind pray to him, that this Child (this Person) may lead the rest of his life according to the promises made on his behalf (by him) today.

All join together in the Lord’s Prayer, in the traditional or modern version,

(a) Our Father who art in heaven, …
(b) Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name….

Then the Minister shall say,

Most merciful Father, we offer you sincere thanks, that it has pleased you to grant this Child (this your Servant) new birth by your Holy Spirit, to receive him as your own Child, and to make him a member of your holy Church. We humbly ask you to grant that he, being dead to sin, may live unto righteousness, and being buried with Christ in his death, may also share in his resurrection; so that finally, within your holy Church, he may be an inheritor of your everlasting kingdom through Christ our Lord. Amen.

Then the Minister shall also say,

Almighty God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, strengthen you internally with power by his Spirit, that Christ dwelling in your heart by faith, you may be filled with all the fullness of God. Amen.

It is proper that every baptized Adult should be confirmed by the Bishop as soon after his Baptism as is possible, and that immediately afterwards he will be admitted to Holy Communion.

---

[In the 1662 edition of The Book of Common Prayer, the service begins with an Exhortation which is different from that in 1928 and then has a long prayer, filled with biblical typology, which is not used by 1928. Here is the Exhortation and the Prayer in a modern form.]

Dearly beloved in Christ, the Sacrament of Baptism is offered because our Lord Jesus Christ taught us that we cannot enter the kingdom of God unless we are born anew of Water and the Holy Spirit. This new birth is necessary because all human beings have both a disposition towards evil and are also sinners. Therefore, I ask you to call upon God the Father, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that in his great mercy he will grant new birth to this child; that he may be baptized with water and the Holy Spirit, and received into Christ’s holy Church and be made a living member thereof.

Almighty and everlasting God, who in mercy saved Noah and his family in the Ark when the great flood came, who safely led the children of Israel through the Red Sea, symbolizing thereby holy Baptism; and who by the Baptism in the river Jordan of your Son, Jesus Christ, sanctified water to the mystical washing away of sin; in your infinite mercy look on this child, wash and sanctify him by the Holy Spirit, we pray, in order that, being delivered from your wrath, he may be received into the Ark of Christ’s Church. Make him to be steadfast in faith, joyful through hope, and rooted in love, so that passing through the dangers and anxieties caused by the world, he may finally come to the land of everlasting life, there to reign with you forever; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

END

The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)

Should we abandon INFANT BAPTISM? Part Two: On Regeneration

For the biblically-minded and biblically based, traditional Reformed Catholic Christian of the Anglican Way (living in the West and particularly in the U.S.A.) the commendation of the wonderful Sacrament of Baptism—particularly as administered to infants—presents several major problems or difficulties in today’s religious context.

Let us focus on two of them—the biblical basis/authorization (already done in Part One), and the connection with regeneration (Part Two) to be done here.

In this essay, what was stated in the first is assumed, especially the covenantal and familial relations of the human being as a person-in-relation.

Those familiar with the traditional Anglican Services of Baptism for Infants and Adults in the various editions of the classic Book of Common Prayer (e.g., in the English 1662, the American 1928 and the Canadian 1962 editions) have heard the verb, to regenerate (and its equivalents), and the associated noun many times. For example in the 1662 Service for Infants words related to regenerate occur more than ten times and in significant contexts. Prayer is offered to God for the regeneration of the child before the Baptism; and then thanksgiving is made to God after the Baptism for the regeneration of the infant. This act of God by his Holy Spirit in and upon the infant in answer to the prayer of the assembled church (and other prayers offered elsewhere) is obviously understood to be internal and not external, within the soul not in the flesh, and invisible not visible in its arrival, action and immediate effects. Further, it is presupposed that the fruit of this divine action will grow and be seen later.

What is regeneration?

Regeneration is not to be identified with repentance or saving faith which are human activities (prompted by God) which normally presuppose regeneration; further it is not to be identified with conversion which again is a human activity of turning around to face and be with God (again energized by God and presuming regeneration). To be born again, to be regenerated, to become regenerate, to be spiritually washed, is wholly and completely, from beginning to end, a secret, invisible action by God the Holy Spirit in and upon the soul/heart of a human being. Further, it is a sovereign action of God in that only he, as the LORD, decides to do and can do it. At the same time, it is a covenantal action of the LORD God who has created the covenant of grace to relate to his (sinful creatures) as his adopted, forgiven children. So regeneration is the action of the Covenant LORD in and upon the one whom he is calling into his covenant, to be of his elect, a member of his Household and an adopted child. And Baptism, instituted by the Lord Jesus, is the sign and seal of this covenant; it is an outward and visible sign of an internal and invisible grace, and the first part of this grace (gracious action of God) is being born again by the Holy Spirit.

Normally on earth one is born into this world and into a family. Likewise one is born again by the Holy Spirit into the kingdom of heaven and the Family of God. As an infant, one is probably not conscious of this internal regeneration during one’s first months, even years. In this period, the human response to, and outworking of regeneration, is impossible to discern and to see accurately. But, the Christian family and local church have the privilege and duty of nurturing the infant member of the Family of God, treating him as a very young Christian, instructing and supporting him, and praying for him and with him. It is for the child himself to appropriate, to make his own, to absorb, by faith in the Lord Jesus what God has given to him and made him to be by regeneration. The result will be a self-conscious, believing Christian young person. Because of the mystery of human freedom, God looks for and requires the willing and ready commitment of the growing child (which normally in the church setting will be given publicly at Confirmation). However, the presence of free-will and the every present work of the devil means that there is always the possibility that the child will use his freedom to resist what God has given to him—and this resistance will be the more probable where the nurturing in the Christian Faith has been absent or weak in family and church. There will always be those who seem to fall away or actually do so.

[Much popular evangelical thinking—in part encouraged by popular evangelists—has tended to identify regeneration or new birth with conversion. Thus the text in the KJV in John 3, “Ye must be born again” has been taken as a command for man to do something, rather than a statement of divine necessity (It is necessary that you be born again…). To be born again is wholly, completely and absolutely the work of God, in which man has no part as such—even as the human infant had no active part in his conception and birth from the mother’s womb.]

As to the Christian status of baptized infants, there is the universal belief and practice of the Church to give to any who die in infancy or childhood, Christian burial.

Biblical basis

Can the belief in the new birth of the infant, that is being born into the kingdom of heaven while remaining of a child of earth, be justified by reference to the Bible?

Yes, but only (as was emphasized in the first part) if the Bible is read not as if it were a modern book deeply affected by expressive individualism; but rather as a book in two testaments of the covenant of grace, where people of any age are persons-in-relation and the elect of God.

First of all, there is an abundance of teaching in the New Testament about the secret and supernatural work of the Holy Spirit in the soul of man which is both necessary and preliminary before man can repent of sin and believe the Gospel. There is no reason—in the light of the covenant of grace—to restrict this to adults. In fact we have scriptural references to the work of the Holy Spirit in infants and children, of whom John the Baptist is a well-known example.

Secondly, there is explicit connection of new birth, regeneration, to “washing” which usually means Baptism—see e.g., John 3 & Titus 3:5. Again, though the references are to adults the covenant background means that they apply also to the infant children of believers.

Thirdly, there is the very warm welcome that Jesus gave to children from Jewish homes (Mark 10). He did not forbid them at all to come to him, and he warmly embraced them as God’s children, as within the Israel of God.

Fourthly, there is the analogy of ancient Israel and membership therein of infant children as the elect people of God, and there is the NT assumption that children of believers are within the covenant of grace unless they deliberately and knowingly step outside of it—“the promise is unto you and to your children…”.

Finally, in relation to the “timing” of regeneration in relation to Infant Baptism. Since God’s “time” is not our “time” we cannot dogmatically say precisely when the new birth occurs, but we presume that it is in direct connection to the Baptism, for Baptism is a Dominical Institution and Sacrament. But there is no need to speculate as to precisely when; rather, it is better to affirm that God does regenerate within or in relation to this Sacrament.

Modern problems—a few!

The doctrine and discipline within the classic BCP Rite for Baptism presuppose that only the infant children of baptized believers are to be baptized. And the only way that Infant Baptism makes sense is on covenantal terms and that those baptized are from Christian families. Within this situation of the presence of the covenant of grace then regeneration occurs.

In the West there has been over the centuries a massive amount of what we may call “nominal Christian profession” based upon what we may call “indiscriminate infant Baptism.” This has led to all kinds of pastoral problems for devout pastors and parents, not the least of which has been the absence of committed Christianity appearing in the lives of the baptized when they have reached maturity as young people and adults. One solution to this is to make the claim that Baptism as a Sacrament always and without exception is accompanied by regeneration, and therefore all these nominal Christians are in the kingdom of God and on their way to heaven—even if because of their lack of dedication they will have a long routing through purgatorial cleansing. Another is to decry or devalue Infant Baptism altogether and discount all connection between regeneration and baptism, as we hear some evangelicals saying today.

Let us admit that to administer Infant Baptism on covenantal principles in modern America is difficult, perhaps nearly impossible, especially if one desires to see one’s church grow in both numbers and maturity. Expressive individualism and the general inability to exercise church discipline in the American situation contribute to make the task enormously difficult. No wonder pastors and churches (not least ECUSA priests and parishes) go for indiscriminate infant baptism upon modern communitarian principles. But a parish church doing so can never aspire to be holy unto the Lord for it has forsaken that holiness in its misuse of the first of the two Dominical Sacraments. (And when this is followed by indiscriminate giving of Holy Communion, the problem is much compounded.)

It is easier to pass through the eye of needle than to enter the kingdom of heaven today in western, secular society. But so it was also in Jerusalem in A.D. 30! The Christian Way remains that of the tiny entrance (gate) and the narrow road which happily goes directly to the gates of the heavenly Jerusalem.

The Revd Dr Peter Toon, December 29, 2006.

Should we abandon INFANT BAPTISM?

Peter Toon

For the biblically-minded and biblically based, traditional Reformed Catholic Christian of the Anglican Way (living in the West and particularly in the U.S.A.) the commendation of the wonderful Sacrament of Baptism—particularly as administered to infants—presents several major problems or difficulties in today’s religious context.

Let us focus on two of them—the biblical basis/authorization (Part One) here, and the connection with regeneration (Part Two) in a later essay.

In the modern context where, in a massive variety of translations and paraphrases, the Bible is read by people from within their own cultural and personal contexts—not least the reality of expressive individualism—the finding of “proof-texts” for justifying infant baptism is virtually impossible. One can argue from the requirement of circumcision in the Old Covenant, but here one faces the charges of irrelevance and sexism for circumcision was only administered to infant boys (including Jesus!). One can argue from the baptism of households mentioned in the New Testament (see e.g., Acts 16:33) claiming that small children were probably included, but here one is arguing a probability or possibility not a sure fact and the argument is quickly dismissed. And one can argue from silence claiming that this practice was taken for granted because infants were always seen as within the kingdom of God (cf. the words of Jesus in Mark 10:13-16), but, here again, the argument is not compelling to someone living within western society where “family” is not the same as in biblical times. Further, one can appeal to reason and claim that the Christian Church for centuries has administered Baptism to infants and therefore there must be good reasons for it or the Church would not have done it. This approach fails because “tradition” does not have authority for people today as it did a century or more ago.

So where can one begin in discussion with a modern person who holds an open Bible ( say the NIV) in his hand and wants to hear a biblical basis for infant Baptism? It would appear that there is not one way, for people are different in all kinds of ways.

Here is one possible approach.

1) The Church of God in the period after the apostles had the solemn and high duty and privilege of collecting the books that were to become the Canon of the New Testament. This was a process of discernment and authorization took a century or more. In this period the Church saw itself as under the authority of the Lord Jesus and of his Word as found in Scripture and so they collected and authorized the Canon with great care. During the time that this was going on, and when it was completed, the Church was both baptizing adult converts and the infants of baptized church members. Thus it is clear that the Church did not see anything in the Word of God written, or in the experienced Lordship of Christ, forbidding infant baptism. In fact the opposite is true—they surely would not have done it, if they did not see it as required by the Word of God written and according to the mind of Christ.

2) The Church of God in what we call the patristic era read the Bible in a very different way to what we do. Our general approach, because of our being westerners, secularized and individualistic in mindset, is to see things primarily from our own personal, individual perspective—my relationship with God. (After all, the USA has a Constitution and a Legal System which is based on the doctrine—from Locke and others—that each of us is an individual, and this has overflowed into culture generally.) The approach of the early Church, while not neglecting the personal dimension, began from the corporate, the covenantal and the “we” rather than from the individualistic and the “I”. So there was one Family of God, the Household of God, the Body of Christ—the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. And a Christian family was a unity—man and wife one flesh in procreation—and thus the children born of the union were “holy to the Lord” and within the covenant of grace. Thus, as with boys only in the old covenant, so with girls and boys in the new covenant, the sign and seal of belonging, Baptism was administered as a sacrament.

3) Infant Baptism as a Sacrament authorized by the Lord Jesus cannot be justified on biblical grounds unless the Bible is read—as the Church read it—before the arrival of expressive individualism from the Enlightenment onwards (and even from the late Renaissance onwards in some ways). That is, the Bible has to be read on its own terms and its own doctrine of the nature of man as God’s creature, made in his image and after his likeness. In other words, there has to be in place the doctrine of the unity of the family and the reality of the covenant of grace wherein “the promise is to you and to your children” (Acts 2:39). Here the obvious and moral thing to do is to baptize the infant so that God makes him not only a potential but also a real member of his elect family. And everything in the Bible seems to point in this direction for the Bible is covenantal in that God makes the covenant of grace and calls his sinful creatures into it in order to save and sanctify them for glory.


4) It is significant that the Baptist movement, wherein Baptism is usually seen as a personal witness and confession of faith by adults, only really took off when individualism had been absorbed into the mindset of the West, from the eighteenth century onwards. We recall that the Anabaptists were a very small minority in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. However, in today’s western culture, only Baptism as the free act of a convinced individual seems to make sense and also seems to be what the Bible itself, read as a contemporary book (especially if translated according to dynamic equivalency principles), presents.

5) So only in a church where (a) an attempt is made to read the Bible on its own terms and in the way the Church has read and heard it, and (b) worship, preaching and teaching avoid the expressive individualism of our time and instead focus on the person-in-relation in covenant, fellowship and family, will Infant Baptism makes sense. Here also there will be the commitment to nurturing the baptized infants so that they do grow up as Christians.


We may note in closing that for liberal progressive Christians in the mainline denominations like The Episcopal Church, Infant Baptism is basically severed from all traditional and meaningful Biblical ties and is usually seen in cultural and communitarian terms, where the infant is made a part of the church community (which is a free association of individuals). In Roman Catholicism, the doctrine that the Church teaches and, if necessary, the Bible proves, is in place, and so the questioning about the biblical justification for infant baptism is either absent or not so intense as in American Evangelical Protestantism generally—and even here the cultural and communitarian context is often present.

Part Two on Regeneration to follow.

[For the way the Early Church read the Bible see J.J. O’Keefe & R.R.Reno, Sanctified Vision: An Introduction to Early Christian Interpretation of the Bible, John Hopkins Univ Press, 2006; and for the powerful presence of individualism in the U.S.A., see Mary Ann Glendon. “Looking for ‘Persons’ in the Law”, First Things, December 2006 and P.A. Lawler, Stuck with Virtue. The American Individual and our Biotechnological Future, ISI Books, 2005]