So, I was baptized twice. So were all my siblings, though none of us as infants (sorry, Christina, you two weren't either, otherwise I suppose you could each count three baptisms). We each had a baby dedication, too. Now really, this doesn't make much sense. I don't regret this, but I think it actually belittles the meaning and the effect of the Sacrament of Baptism.
I've always heard that baptism doesn't actually "save" you (I recall my family leaving the church of my childhood and citing an "incorrect" teaching on this as one of the reasons) and that it's essential for a person to experience it when they're old enough to understand what's going on. And when we moved to the South, I often heard preached that it actually has to be baptism by immersion in a pool of water for it to count. So, none of that sprinkling crap. I obviously needed to be baptized again, this time the right way. So my brother and I got baptized together by immersion in Tennessee in 2007, and it was really cool and I liked it.
So it kinda blew my mind to realize that "real Christians" who were sincere about their faith (i.e. my new friends) could be content with baby baptism. My good man was very patient with my outbursts of skepticism and incredulity while I processed this. How could they treat their children's salvation so thoughtlessly? I wondered. The problems of nominalism arise when people claim to be Catholic because they were baptized as infants but they really aren't believers and aren't living holy lives at all. That's a valid concern.
However. I did change my mind on this, for several good reasons.
Firstly, the types of good Christian parents I know always agree that it's important to have some sort of rite of dedication of a new child to God. I think this is so important that I'd like it to be an official Sacrament. Regarding salvation... God saves people by grace. A Sacrament is an outward sign of an inward reality. Sacraments actually have an effect, and they're an important way that God gives grace to us. That's why 1 Peter 3:21 is true: "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (ESV).
One nice thing is that the Catholic Church acknowledges the reality of my baptism (one or the other, I suppose). Which is interesting, since the Southern Baptist church that baptized me thought that it was "just a symbol" and wasn't doing a bit of good to "save" me.
Another thing that changed my mind is simply an analogy. Before Jesus established the New Covenant, God's people showed that they belonged to him by circumcising themselves and their children. Their babies. At eight days old, actually, so it sounds like most people didn't have much choice in the matter. Then baptism replaced the circumcision of the Old Covenant. 1 Colossians 2:11-12 says, "In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made 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."
Infant baptism makes a lot more sense to me in this light. If it was right and good for the Israelites to circumcise their infants, I can see how it would be right and good to baptize them now, even if they don't understand what's going on.
Actually, about that... I'd just like to say that I still don't understand the full significance of my baptism. I learn more about it all the time as the Holy Spirit awakens me to new meanings of it. So, I understand it a lot more now than I did when I was immersed at age eighteen, and exponentially more than when I got sprinkled at age nine. So, should I get baptized again because it is more meaningful now? Definitely not. Because baptism actually does something. It matters.
As a side note, I do think it's lovely to have a Sacrament that the Christian chooses only after the appropriate "age of reason," and Confirmation seems like an excellent venue for that all-important "public profession" that the Baptists celebrate with their immersions. It's important to acknowledge some sort of initiation to Christianity when people begin to understand their religion and take it to heart. And yes, believer's baptism is important and worthy of celebration.
Anyhow, the Church claims that infant baptism was the norm from the Acts of the Apostles up until the Reformation. There's good reason to believe that when "entire households" were baptized, that included children and infants (e.g. Acts 16:15, 1 Corinthians 1:16). Though I think historical evidence of this custom surfaces in the second century at the earliest. Still, that's pretty early, y'all.
The Catholic Rite of Baptism is very beautiful and full of scriptural analogies. It's even better than the best baby dedication. If you're curious, you can read it here.
I'll conclude with this neat image of Mary and Joseph presenting baby Jesus at the Temple (Luke 2:21)
 |
| Presentation of Christ at the Temple, Giotto di Bondone |
No comments:
Post a Comment