Baptism

Before explaining what baptism is, it is very important to note two things that it is not:

Not John the Baptist’s

Firstly, baptism into Jesus Christ—the baptism that most assume they are practicing—is very distinct from John the Baptist's baptism:

And he said to them, 'Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?' And they said, 'No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.' And he said, 'Into what then were you baptized?' They said, 'Into John’s baptism.' And Paul said, 'John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.' On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (Acts 19:2-5)

Baptism is not just a singular activity; there was the baptism of John and the baptism of Jesus, Jesus' being the superseding baptism.

A man named Apollos illuminates this problem:

Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him and explained to him the way of God more accurately. (Acts 18:24-26)

Apollos was lacking accuracy and, specifically in this case, only knew of the baptism of John.

Not Only for New Converts

Secondly, new-convertists all-too-often think that referring to events where people believed and were baptized also gives credence to "believer's" baptism. Obviously, a new believer should be baptized, but this does not at all address already-believing lineages. A few examples I've been shown that presumably support "believer's" baptism:

Acts 8:9-13: But there was a man named Simon, who had previously practiced magic in the city and amazed the people of Samaria, saying that he himself was somebody great. They all paid attention to him, from the least to the greatest, saying, 'This man is the power of God that is called Great.' And they paid attention to him because for a long time he had amazed them with his magic. But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip.

People who turn to belief in God are being baptized. This is appropriate and good. However, if a new-convertist insists on following this format, they are, in effect, considering themselves as heathens. It is, of course, an option to be a heathen, but it is not wise or advantageous, and it is not at all appropriate for Christian parents to raise their children as if their children were heathens.

Acts 8:26-38: Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, 'Rise and go toward the south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.' This is a desert place. And he rose and went. And there was an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure. He had come to Jerusalem to worship and was returning, seated in his chariot, and he was reading the prophet Isaiah. And the Spirit said to Philip, 'Go over and join this chariot.' So Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, 'Do you understand what you are reading?' And he said, 'How can I, unless someone guides me?' And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. Now the passage of the Scripture that he was reading was this: 'Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter and like a lamb before its shearer is silent, so he opens not his mouth. In his humiliation justice was denied him. Who can describe his generation? For his life is taken away from the earth.' And the eunuch said to Philip, 'About whom, I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?' Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus. And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, 'See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?' And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.

This veers a bit closer to what new-convertists assume: a pious man's spirituality is formalized in baptism. However, the Ethiopian man is still a new convert despite his pre-existing piety: though he was reading the prophet Isaiah of his own volition, Paul still had to introduce him to the good news of Jesus.

Acts 9:10-19: Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Ananias. The Lord said to him in a vision, 'Ananias.' And he said, 'Here I am, Lord.' And the Lord said to him, 'Rise and go to the street called Straight, and at the house of Judas look for a man of Tarsus named Saul, for behold, he is praying, and he has seen in a vision a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him so that he might regain his sight.' But Ananias answered, 'Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much evil he has done to your saints at Jerusalem. And here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on your name.' But the Lord said to him, 'Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel. For I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name.' So Ananias departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, 'Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.' And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized; and taking food, he was strengthened.

Saul's conversion was just that: a conversion. He was most definitely a new convert, which, again, does not at all address what to do with the children of Christian parents.

Acts 18:5-8: When Silas and Timothy arrived from Macedonia, Paul was occupied with the word, testifying to the Jews that the Christ was Jesus. And when they opposed and reviled him, he shook out his garments and said to them, "Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent. From now on I will go to the Gentiles." And he left there and went to the house of a man named Titius Justus, a worshiper of God. His house was next door to the synagogue. Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.

Besides the fact that those baptized in the passage are new converts (which means this does not at all address believer's children), Crispus' household (households tend to include children) was described as believing.

Summarily:

• Baptism—the baptism meant to bind people to Christ – is not the same as John the Baptist's baptism (a baptism that new-convertists often cite when trying to justify excluding children).
• New converts—the other set of passages most new-convertists rely on—do not account for the children of believers.

In conclusion, new-convertists "[know] only the baptism of John," or they simply ignore what should be done about believers' children — or both.

Now, onto what baptism is:

Dependent on the Old Testament

The Old Testament is not old because it's outdated; the Old Testament is old because it is the history and foundation of Christianity. That being said, many people — new-convertists included — like simply to chop out stuff from the Old Testament. However, they pick-and-choose what to keep; there is no integrity in this. It's made quite clear that people aren't to modify or abridge the Bible:

You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you. (Deuteronomy 4:2)

Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it. (Deuteronomy 12:32)

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. (Revelation 22:18-19)

Somehow, the Old Testament must still be in effect. The way people often explain this away is by insisting that Jesus canceled things. Jesus made it very clear that this was not how he operates:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:17-19)

Congruent to Circumcision

One of the realities in the Old Testament that often goes unmentioned is circumcision:

Then God said to Abraham, "As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner – those who are not your offspring. Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant." (Genesis 17:9-14)

We (should) already know that parts of the Old Testament aren't ever to be excluded or discounted, but what should be done with circumcision? It was an enormously big deal back then; it can't simply have been dropped. The following citation establishes, through Jesus, a connection between circumcision and baptism:

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. 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. 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. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him. (Colossians 2:9-12)

Note how the passage blurs the distinction between circumcision and baptism into Christ.

For Whole Families

Furthermore, it is even explained that baptism is for children:

Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself. (Acts 2:38-39)

Additionally, there are numerous examples of families being baptized:

Acts 16:15: And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, "If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay."

1st Corinthians 1:16: I did baptize also the household of Stephanas.

God's Work in Our Lives (not our work in His)

Besides new-convertists avoiding biblical history, it also places the responsibility on the believer as opposed to God, whereas covenantal baptism leaves the responsibility with God and His promises (as delineated in circumcision). Another problem new-convertists tend to have with God-based baptism is the fact that it is up to God to bless those whom He loves whether they know about it or not. New-convertists think it is up to them to choose God. God's blessing does not come through people choosing Him; God's blessing comes through God. There are many examples of when God blesses people just because He blesses them (Obed-edom for example, found in 2 Samuel 6). One exceptionally pertinent example is that of believing spouses married to unbelieving spouses:

To the rest I say that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. (1st Corinthian 7:12-14)

Holiness is applied to both the unbelieving spouse and the children through the believing parent.

One thing that new-convertists often fail to realize is the difference between salvation and holiness. Baptizing children is not about saving them (though it sure helps toward that goal); it is about pulling them into the covenant that God has commanded and pulling them into a stream of holiness that comes from following God's commands. I have also heard the inept retort that, if children are going to be made holy through their believing parents, why baptize them for the sake of holiness? Absurd! No part of holiness should be forgone just because there is another source of holiness. If one wants to abridge the holiness of their children, such an argument may be germane. However, no self-respecting Christian should choose only one source of holiness instead of two.

Summarily:

• Circumcision was for children.
• Baptism is the new circumcision.

In conclusion, there is not much left over for new-convertists. For the most part, the only way it holds its ground is by existing as its own, separate, little parcel, disconnected from the Old Testament. If one actually wants to be grafted into God’s covenants, one should be aware of biblical history. Biblical history is found in the Old Testament.

The Old Testament insists on grafting children into the covenants.