Do we understand water baptism?

You’ve been baptized. But do you understand what it means?

All Christians use water to baptize. But the sacrament that is meant to unite us is often a spring of division instead. Peter Leithart reunifies a church divided by baptism. He recovers the baptismal imagination of the Bible, explaining how baptism works according to Scripture. Then, in conversation with Christian tradition, he shows why baptism is something worth recovering and worth agreeing on.

All Christians use water to baptize. All invoke the triune name. Beyond that, there’s little consensus. Talk about baptism and you’re immediately plunged into arguments. Whom should we baptize? What does baptism do? Why even do it at all?

Is water baptism necessary for conversion or salvation? This question arises because baptism in water features in every initiation story, at least after the Pentecostal coming of the Spirit on the one hundred and twenty. This apparent lacuna we explained was probably because Luke is describing the situation of the apostles and first followers of Jesus as unique and preparatory for what was ahead in his narrative. Yet, from Luke’s perspective, it seems baptism is thereafter necessary for conversion. This is not because baptism alone saves but because, on the one hand, it was the action to which a person was able to submit indicating a faith response. On the other hand, we noted that ‘be baptized’ (baptisthētō) is in the passive so that in baptism a person was submitting to acceptance by the existing community of followers of Jesus. Thus, for Luke, baptism is necessary in that belonging to the group of followers of Jesus or Christians is fundamental to becoming and being a Christian.

Luke’s views can probably be summarized by saying that, whereas once the water baptism of John had been a symbol of a person’s repentance since Pentecost the coming or baptism of the Holy Spirit is evidence of repentance and trust. In turn, water baptism in the name of Jesus symbolized both repentance, as well as integration into the Church.

On whether or not children below responsible age should be baptized there have been centuries of long, painful and divisive debates. Of course, in constructing a contemporary theology of baptism there will be sources to consider besides Luke-Acts. Nevertheless, in Luke’s four stories involving the baptism of households, we have found no direct evidence to help decide whether or not he would have thought this included baptizing babies.

However, an indirect approach probably allows us to draw a reasonably secure conclusion. To begin with, it is probable Luke held the long-standing view, widely shared across the Hellenistic world, that children were marginal to society and did not ‘count’ so that he would not have taken them into consideration even when describing a ‘complete’ (holos, Acts 18:8) household. Also, Paul, a hero of Luke’s, is unlikely to have baptized children, for in 1 Corinthians 7:14 Paul assumes the cleanliness of the believer’s children is determined by the parent, an unlikely statement if the children had been baptized. Further, it is not until the turn of the second and third centuries that we have the first clear reference to the baptism of babies.36 Added to these points, moreover, the aspects or ‘events’ of initiation (repentance, belief, baptism in water and baptism in the Spirit) are so closely related in Luke’s understanding—with his consistent emphasis on believing—that the baptism of babies would probably be incomprehensible for him.

Author: Twelftree, G. H. (2009). People of the Spirit: Exploring Luke’s View of the Church (p. 100). London; Grand Rapids, MI: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; Baker Academic.