Chapter V: Sacrament of Baptism
Before going into more detail, there
are three points that I want to mention.
First, the Catholic Church is not the only Christian institution to
recognize the seven sacraments.[1] Second, a contemporary Catholic would find
the idea of oil and salt at the celebration of Baptism to be foreign practice.[2] Third, even if Helen was not Baptized, the
Catholic Church would still hold her to be a “child of God,” in the sense that
God is the “creator” of all human beings, and she would be “one of his
children” (Genesis 1:26-28; 2:7, 18-23).
In
any case, there are two points here that Chick seems to attack. One is the idea of Baptism being seen as a
form of “rebirth,” or being “born again.”
And the other is the practice of infant baptism. Let me tackle each point individually.
Baptism as a form of “rebirth”
Traditionally,
Baptism is seen as a “form of rebirth,” or being “born again.” This theological understanding comes from an
interpretation of the Gospel of John (John 3:3-5). Not only does the Catholic
Church hold this interpretation, so do many other churches.[3] While Chick may disagree with this
understanding of Baptism, he can no more prove it wrong, than somebody who does
agree with it, can prove it right.[4]
Infant Baptism
Chick
condemns the ritual of infant baptism, which is practiced by Catholics, the
Orthodox, Anglicans, and the majority of Protestants.[5] He attempts to argue in favor of his position
by citing one passage from the Letter to the Romans and two passages from the
Book of Acts. There are, however,
a number of problems with Chick’s argument.
In
the case with Peter (Acts 2:14-41) and Phillip (Acts 8:27-38), they are
speaking to adults about a brand new religion, so, obviously, these adults
would be baptized as adults. As for the
passage with Paul (Romans 6:3-10), he discussing what Baptism is supposed to
do, not the age in which someone can be baptized.[6] And the fact that Paul does not mention the
age of Baptism is one of the biggest critiques of those who argue against
infant baptism.
There
is not one passage in the canonical New Testament, which states that
children and infants cannot be baptized.
In fact, a stronger argument can be made within the canonical New
Testament, which favors infant baptism.
The
Book of Acts refers to household baptisms (Acts 16:14-15, 25-33). Paul also mentions a household baptism
(First Corinthians 1:16). The chances
are very good that these households contained either infants or young children,
and the apostles would have had no problems baptizing them for two reasons.
First,
Christianity’s most important individual, Jesus of Nazareth, did not forbid
young children from “coming to him” (Mark 10:13-16, Matthew 19:13-15, Luke
18:15-17). Second, Christianity is a
religion, which comes out of Judaism. In
Judaism, the male child was circumcised eight days after birth to bring him
into the covenant with the God of Abraham (Genesis 17:9-14). In early Christianity, Baptism was seen as a
replacement to circumcision—that is to say, Baptism would now bring one into
the covenant with Abraham’s God (Colossians 2:11-12). Therefore, it would make sense that infants
and young children would be baptized just like adults.[7] While Chick—and others, who come out of the
Anabaptist tradition—may disagree with this particular theology, they can no
more prove it wrong, than somebody, who does agree with it, can prove it right.
[1]The Orthodox Church and the Church of England also recognize the
seven sacraments. Protestants,
generally, recognize two sacraments (Baptism and the Eucharist/Holy Communion).
[2]These practices were done away with by the Second Vatican Council
(1962-65), as they were not fundamental to the celebration of Baptism. What is considered fundamental is water,
belief in the Trinity, and the Trinitarian formula.
[4]It should be noted that Chick’s idea of being “born again,” which
relates to a profession of faith, is an idea that has its origins in what was
known as “The First Great Awakening” in America during the 1730s-40s.
[5]The only Protestants, who disagree with infant baptism, are those
that come out of, or agree, with the Anabaptist movement of the 16th
century.
[6]And, in many respects, the passage from Paul helps emphasize the
theology that Baptism is a form of “rebirth.”
[7]This is explicitly mentioned in The Apostolic Tradition, an
early Christian document from the early third century. See Hippolytus of Rome, “The Apostolic
Tradition” in The Faith of the Early Fathers, ed. and trans. William A.
Jurgens (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1970), 1:169, section
394i.
Comments
Post a Comment