Regional Synod of Canada - Reformed Church in America

Pioneer Christian Monthly

Date - Sept/73

Contributor - John J. Opmeer

Title - On baptism

Topic - Baptism

BY THIS TIME I have noticed that some of our Reformed people are beginning to be a little nervous about what I am writing on the subject of baptism, hoping perhaps that I will stop before I will make them feel really uncomfortable. Have no fear, brothers, I have said basically what I wanted to say. And in the process, I have made enemies on two sides : Those who feel that I was not strong enough in defense of infant baptism, and those who feel that I should have come out rejecting infant baptism.

Well, really it isn't all that bad. Some thanked me for the articles and that is a small miracle not often performed ! It is more natural to expect that those who write feel critical. I will print some of these comments, which came in personal letters. Next time I would like to comment on some of the literature that was sent to me.

First, a review I have affirmed my conviction that infant baptism is biblical;

I have expressed the need for a more open practice of baptism in our churches allowing believers' baptism and baptism by immersion:

I see no need for strong measures against those who had themselves re-baptized. I refuse to treat as sin a conviction that is held high by millions of born again, Bible believing brothers and sisters in the Body of Christ.

Now as to some comments.

A sister in Ilderton, Ont., writes: "We can go through all kinds of rituals and ceremonies as the Jews did, and still be unclean if we don't recognize the power of the blood of Christ, cleansing us from all our sins and His gift of the Holy Spirit, given only to those who give up their old lives and are truly born again .... I see the outward form of "baptism" being used by the devil to separate us. When we have true unity in the Spirit, there can be no anger or resentment, only perfect peace. Our emphasis should not be so much on the "outward baptism", but on the "spiritual baptism". What is the result ? - not: what is the correct way." Amen, sister, I agree with every word you wrote so far. If baptism is a ritual, with its effectiveness depending on the correct way of administration, The devil can indeed laugh. There is cleansing power only in the blood of Jesus Christ, and of this the outward baptism is the, sign and seal.

The same writer goes on: "I was baptized in the- Reformed Church as an infant .... Yet it isn't until just recently that I Have been truly baptized in the Spirit, I have no desire to be baptized over again. It's not going to change things. Christ lives in me now, that's all I need. I do recommend that you who are in authority in our Reformed Church would seriously go back to God's Word. In the new covenant with Christ Jesus you will find baptism comes after believing on Jesus. Even then it can only really take place as we wholly submit ourselves to the Lord, body, soul and spirit".

It is good to hear from someone who can testify: Christ lives in me! Praise the Lord! I am also glad that this sister has decided that re-baptism was not the Lord's will. I can also assure her that if I am going to change in my convictions it will have to come from God's Word, for to the best of my knowledge that's where my present convictions rest on. But being in the Reformed Church I should be willing at any time to be 'reformed' by the Word of God. The difference between the "baptist' tradition and the 'reformed' tradition is certainly not caused by a different respect for the Bible as Gods Word. It's a different way of interpreting the infallible Word of God. Certain passages can be read exclusively. That means: if it supports believers' baptism, it is interpreted to mean that infant baptism is out. I read them inclusively: there was believers' baptism and there also was infant baptism. Both are biblical. Both, taken separately, have their weak and their strong points. Both apply to different situations. Unfortunately, each of these situations can be seized upon to be made the one and only situation allowed in the baptism practice. As a result, the two baptist traditions, each taken separately, are in danger of leaving out vital elements of God's gracious ways of dealing with man in Jesus Christ.

A sister in Guelph, Ont. writes: "Jesus says in Mark 16 :16, 'He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved'. Do you think Jesus said it in the wrong order?" My answer is: No, He said it in the right order, and He was talking about those coming to saving faith. He was not talking about those already belonging to Him before they were grown up. My children all belong to the Lord Jesus Christ. They all believe in Him, at times exercising greater trust in Him than their father. Why should we wait with baptism till they are 16, or 12, or 8, or even 6 ? Why not claim God's promises right from the start ? Doesn't God's Word teach us that faith is the assurance of things hoped for (Hebr. 11 : 1) ?

I realize that this is not a complete answer. But perhaps it does point out why those who accept infant baptism are not at all embarrassed by such texts as Mark 16 : 16. They believe that it refers to a different category of people, namely those who have grown Up as unbelievers. But let me quote a little more from the letter, for it continues to ask the vital question: "What does baptism stand for?" And it gives the answer: "Peter says, 'Get baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins' (Acts 2 :30).

I think that most of the trouble with regard to different baptism traditions starts right here: "what does baptism stand for?" Baptism is indeed for the remission of sins. But it is more than that. It is the sign of spiritual rebirth (John 3 : 5 - 8, Titus 3 : 5, I Peter 3 : 21), of engrafting into Christ (Col. 2 : 11, 12; 3 : 5 - 17), of union with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection (Romans 6 : 3 - 5; I Cor. 12 : 13; Gal. 3 : 27, 28), of inclusion in God's covenant of grace (Acts 2 :38,39; Romans 4: 11). Not all the things signified by baptism must precede it in the experience of the one baptized, because the fruits of baptism are always described as fruits for those already baptized (Romans 6 :3 1 1 with 6 : lf; Gal. 3 : 27 with 3 : 1 - 7, and Col. 2 : 11 with 2 :8, 20 - 23). So, baptism, in its rich variety of meaning, always stands for what God does and has done for us in Christ. It stands for all the benefits of Christ applied to us. It does not stand for what the church does or what the believer (child or adult) does.

And who may receive this baptism ? The answer of the whole Bible is: believers, together with their children. No difficulty is presented by believers' baptism, but how about the children of believers ? We do not read of a command to baptize children in the New Testament. Was one needed ? Children were included in the people of God in the Old Testament. Do we read of a command in the New Testament which makes the church of the New Testament narrower and more individualistic than that of the Old Testament ?

The prominent feature of New Testament baptism is believers' baptism. That is not because there was no infant baptism, but because we deal with the first generation of Christian believers. There is no difference between the Anabaptist and the Reformed tradition when it comes to people converted at a later age. We both practice believers' baptism. The difference comes into view only when we deal with the children of born-again believers. Baptists, etc. do not baptize them. But how many cases are found in the New Testament of the baptism of adults born of parents already Christian and brought up by them? None at all! And yet, that's what

Baptists do all the time! This alone shows how unwise it is to insist on texts commanding infant baptism

I would like to write much more on what the Bible says about this subject, but this is long enough already. Let me conclude by calling your attention to some other matter. Without quoting now from letters received, I report my observation based on these letters that according to the writers the experience of being baptized in the Spirit results in one's eyes being opened to the unbiblical nature of infant baptism. This is indeed a most unfortunate impression)!

It makes those who doubt the 'baptism in the Spirit' doubly cautious, because they understand wrongly - that to become baptized in the Spirit means you have to reject infant baptism. Nothing is farther from the truth! Rather the opposite. The charismatic renewal - if I may use this term for a moment - is strongest in the 'infant-baptism' churches: the Roman Catholic, the Episcopal/Anglican, and the Lutheran churches. Very few in those traditions who claim to have, been baptized in the Spirit have rejected infant baptism. Outstanding leaders in the charismatic movement, such as Dennis Bennett (Episcopal) and Rodman Williams (Presbyterian) ARE STRONG DEFENDERS OF INFANT BAPTISM. Therefore we come right back to the beginning: the difference in points of view is NOT a matter of spiritual life, but of interpretation of Scripture.

It is therefore most unfortunate that certain people in our churches who have been blessed by he charismatic renewal movement have also been rejecting infant baptism, thereby creating division in the one Body of Christ. Why not praise the Lord for having been granted a deeper spiritual life ?

That will never create division. And let us simply recognize that Christians also Spirit-filled Christians don't agree yet on the matter of who should be baptized. That matter can only be settled by the Holy Spirit as we stay in fellowship with one another.

Please click the "Back" button of your browser to return to previous page.