Sunday, January 06, 2008

Ryle on Baptism

I thought it's worth posting the thoughts of J.C. Ryle, noted 19th century evangelical and Anglican Bishop of Liverpool on the question of infant baptism. These are taken from Knots Untied, chapter 5. I provide only an outline of his thought, and haven't changed the language where I'm quoting him directly. When he was writing, "man" was legitimately gender-inclusive.

What Baptism Is
  • Baptism is an ordinance appointed by our Lord Jesus Christ, for the continual admission of fresh members into His visible Church.
  • Baptism is an ordinance of great simplicity.
  • Baptism is an ordinance on which we may confidently expect the highest blessings, when it is rightly used (which right usage includes faith and prayer).
  • Baptism is an ordinance which is expressly named in the New Testament about 80 times.
  • Baptism is an ordinance which, according to Scripture, a man may receive, and yet get no good from it.
  • Baptism is an ordinance which in Apostolic times went together with the first beginnings of a man's religion.
  • Baptism is an ordinance which a man may never receive, and yet be a true Christian and be saved. The essential baptism is baptism of the Holy Spirit, given to the heart.
The Mode of Baptism

Ryle argues that the Bible does not come down clearly on the side of either sprinkling or immersion, and the BCP clearly allows either. He points out that there are clearly some situations where not everyone could be baptised by immersion (e.g. during a drought), but baptism should still be practiced, and hence that baptism by sprinkling is valid. He also points out that the verb baptizo is used of washing before a meal in Luke 11:38.

To whom ought baptism to be administered?

Ryle argues that both adult converts and children of Christians ought to be baptised. He gives the following arguments for children of Christians.

  • Children were admitted into the Old Testament Church by a formal ordinance.

The general tendency of the Gospel is to increase men's spiritual privileges and not to diminish them. Nothing, I believe, would astonish a Jewish convert so much as to tell him that his children could not be baptized! "If they are fit to receive circumcision," he would reply, "why are they not fit to receive baptism?" And my own firm conviction has long been that no Baptist could give him an answer... I never saw an argument against infant baptism that might not have been equally directed against infant circumcision.

  • The baptism of children is nowhere forbidden in the New Testament. Ryle points out that with so many of the early Church being Jews, they would naturally have assumed their children could be baptised unless it was commanded otherwise.
  • The baptism of households is specially mentioned in the New Testament, and children are not specifically excluded from that.
  • The behaviour of our Lord Jesus to little children, as recorded in the Gospels, is very peculiar and full of meaning.
  • Baptism of little children was a practice with which the Jews were perfectly familiar. When proselytes were received into the Jewish Church by baptism, before our Lord Jesus Christ came, their infants were received, and baptized with them, as a matter of course (ref Lightfoot).
  • Infant baptism was uniformly practiced by all the early Christians (with the single exception of perhaps Tertullian).
  • The vast majority of eminent Christians from the period of the Protestant Reformation down to the present day have maintained the rights of infants to be baptized.

Ryle then agrees that there is no specific command for infant baptism either, but in light of the above points it seems the more logical position for the early Church to hold without needing to be told. He gives the examples of admission of women to the Lord's Supper, which is nowhere commanded in the New Testament.

He then replies to the Baptist argument that only those who repent and believe should be baptized:

In reply to this argument, I ask to be shown a single text which says that nobody ought to be baptized until he repents and believes. I shall ask in vain... To assert that [the Biblical references to baptism] forbid anyone to be baptized unless he repents and believes is to put a meaning on the words that they were never meant to bear...

After all, will anyone tell us that an intelligent profession of repentance and faith is absolutely necessary to salvation? Would even the most rigid Baptist say that because infants cannot believe, all infants must be damned? ... Will any man dare to say that infants cannot receive grace and the Holy Ghost? John the Baptist, we know, was filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb (Luke 1:15). Will anyone dare to tell us that infants cannot be elect - cannot be in the covenant - cannot have new hearts - cannot be born again - cannot go to heaven when they die? ... Yet surely those who may be members of the glorious Church above, may be admitted to the Church below! ... Those who can be capable of being baptized by the Holy Ghost, may surely be baptized with water!

What position baptism ought to hold in our religion
  • Don't despise it
  • Don't make an idol of it
  • Baptism is frequently mentioned in the New Testament, but nowhere near as frequently as some other big topics. It is important, but not the main thing.
  • Baptism is spoken of with deep reverence, and in close connection with the highest privileges and blessings.

17 comments:

John said...

Just to say once again, lest there by any doubt, that it is more important to love and accept people who disagree with you over baptism than it is to be right.

Daniel Hill said...

Thanks for posting Ryle's comments, Custard: very interesting! Some brief replies:

'I never saw an argument against infant baptism that might not have been equally directed against infant circumcision.'

How about Piper's argument that there has been a change between the old covenant and the new, such that under the old covenant physical birth was the entry into God's people, and under the new covenant spiritual birth? Or, more generally, that under the old covenant God marked out a race as a special people for himself, which he doesn't do under the new covenant?

'Baptism of little children was a practice with which the Jews were perfectly familiar. When proselytes were received into the Jewish Church by baptism, before our Lord Jesus Christ came, their infants were received, and baptized with them, as a matter of course (ref Lightfoot).'

Modern scholarship casts doubt on this; we have no attested proselyte baptisms before Jesus (cf. http://www.baptism.org.uk/UFCOSOrigins.htm).

'I ask to be shown a single text which says that nobody ought to be baptized until he repents and believes. I shall ask in vain... To assert that [the Biblical references to baptism] forbid anyone to be baptized unless he repents and believes is to put a meaning on the words that they were never meant to bear...'

Well, of course, but I'm sure Ryle is happy with an argument from silence to the effect that adults should only be baptized if they profess repentance and belief, so he cannot complain that credobaptists rely on an argument from silence.

'After all, will anyone tell us that an intelligent profession of repentance and faith is absolutely necessary to salvation?'

Not a profession, but repentance and faith are necessary, yes.

'Would even the most rigid Baptist say that because infants cannot believe, all infants must be damned?'

Those infants dying in infancy that go to Heaven are regenerated at the point of death, so, yes, they do believe.

'Will any man dare to say that infants cannot receive grace and the Holy Ghost? John the Baptist, we know, was filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb (Luke 1:15).'

Sure, and if they give signs of so doing they ought to be baptized.

'Will anyone dare to tell us that infants cannot be elect - cannot be in the covenant - cannot have new hearts - cannot be born again - cannot go to heaven when they die?'

Whether they are elect is irrelevant; one wouldn't baptize an adult unbeliever just because he would later show that he was elect. They can be born again etc., and should be baptized when, and only when, they show signs that they have been.

Thanks again, Custard.

Speaker for the Dead said...

This is very interesting. I was just wondering a few things...

Doesn't the Greek word βαπτίζω (not sure that's the right one) mean "immersion"? (From what I've read, it can also be used to mean "dipping.") Obviously, droughts are one thing, but I'm not sure that's a theological argument.

Is Ryle speaking about actual infants or children? I think there is a big difference, because I can't think of a time in the Bible when baptism wasn't associated (in some way) with belief and repentance.

It is true that the Bible never says that those who are not baptized will not be saved, but I'm not sure it was a necessary point, because the Bible does not mention any believers who were not baptized. The apostles' baptisms are not specifically mentioned, but they also were pre-Cross (I'm sure there's a nice Latin term for that) converts, and Romans 6 and Colossians 2 seem to associate baptism with Jesus' death and resurrection.

John said...

To one extent, you're trying to argue with a dead guy. I just reported and summarised what he said. But what he said does answer some of your questions...

Well, of course, but I'm sure Ryle is happy with an argument from silence to the effect that adults should only be baptized if they profess repentance and belief, so he cannot complain that credobaptists rely on an argument from silence.

I think his point is rather that credobaptists cannot claim with certainty that they are right.

Those infants dying in infancy that go to Heaven are regenerated at the point of death, so, yes, they do believe.

Evidence for this? This looks like another bit of special pleading to try to make baptist theology not be as nasty as it otherwise would be.

They can be born again etc., and should be baptized when, and only when, they show signs that they have been.

So you'd deny baptism to someone who was regenerate simply because you could not see evidence for it? That doesn't sound like the policy of the apostles, who baptised people who turned out not to be regenerate.

John said...

speaker for the dead - good name. I'm a bit of an OSC fan, and Speaker for the Dead is one of the all-time great sci-fi novels.

Doesn't the Greek word βαπτίζω (not sure that's the right one) mean "immersion"? (From what I've read, it can also be used to mean "dipping.") Obviously, droughts are one thing, but I'm not sure that's a theological argument.

It's often reported as meaning "dip". Which is partly Ryle's point - that it clearly doesn't mean that in Luke 11:38.

Is Ryle speaking about actual infants or children? I think there is a big difference, because I can't think of a time in the Bible when baptism wasn't associated (in some way) with belief and repentance.

Infants. Try Simon the Sorcerer in Acts 8. He seems to believe, but not repent, and certainly doesn't seem to be "saved" by the end of the chapter.

Your argument (while valid) cuts both ways. I can't think of a single example of someone in the New Testament who was seen to be part of the visible church but was denied baptism.

In both cases it's an argument from silence.

It is true that the Bible never says that those who are not baptized will not be saved, but I'm not sure it was a necessary point, because the Bible does not mention any believers who were not baptized. The apostles' baptisms are not specifically mentioned, but they also were pre-Cross (I'm sure there's a nice Latin term for that) converts, and Romans 6 and Colossians 2 seem to associate baptism with Jesus' death and resurrection.

Ryle's example was the thief on the cross, and he was using that point to discuss groups who didn't baptise like the Quakers (who were recognisably Christian then). A modern equivalent would be the Salvation Army.

Daniel Hill said...

'I think his point is rather that credobaptists cannot claim with certainty that they are right.'

I thought Ryle was arguing that credobaptism was certainly wrong. I certainly agree that it's not certain on either side. Indeed, that's precisely why I approached you for help thinking this through.

'Those infants dying in infancy that go to Heaven are regenerated at the point of death, so, yes, they do believe.

Evidence for this? This looks like another bit of special pleading to try to make baptist theology not be as nasty as it otherwise would be.'

The evidence is that one cannot go to Heaven unless one is regenerate: 'no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again' (John 3:3); 'without faith it is impossible to please God' (Hebrews 11:6); 'unless you repent, you too will all perish' (Luke 13:3); 'I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.' (John 15:5). Do you really think that there are unregenerate, faithless, unrepentant, sinful humans not united with Christ in Heaven?

'So you'd deny baptism to someone who was regenerate simply because you could not see evidence for it?'

If there is no reason to believe a person regenerate that person shouldn't be baptized.

'That doesn't sound like the policy of the apostles, who baptised people who turned out not to be regenerate.'

Sure, but that's not the point. The apostles thought them regenerate, as they gave believable professions, even Simon Magus. I think the policy I suggest is precisely that of the apostles. Indeed, that's why I suggested it.

John said...

The evidence is that one cannot go to Heaven unless one is regenerate:

Which I accept. The special pleading I was referring to might be clearer from this:

* Either it is possible for infants to believe in a saving fashion or it is not.

* If it is possible for infants to believe in a saving fashion, we should baptise the ones who do so believe; it is more important to baptise those who do believe than to avoid baptising those who don't. Hence infant baptism.

* If it isn't possible for infants to believe, then the logical conclusion is that they go to hell if they die, unless you try some form of special pleading (such as claiming that God chooses to regenerate some at death, or the existence of Limbo, or something).

Daniel Hill said...

'If it isn't possible for infants to believe, then the logical conclusion is that they go to hell if they die, unless you try some form of special pleading'

I think that the argument in fact works the other way around.

(1) God could justly have sent to Hell all those that die in infancy.
(2) God in fact seems not to have done this (as suggested (but not proved) by 2 Samuel 12:23).
(3) Faith is necessary for salvation.
(4) Hardly any of those dying in infancy has faith before death (John the Baptist would have been an exception had he perished).
(5) Therefore, those dying in infancy must gain faith at the point of death.

Note that this argument is independent of one's views on baptism; a paedobaptist could run this same argument, and most paedobaptists would accept (1) - (3).

Now you deny (4), but this doesn't seem very plausible. Jonathan Edwards argues in favour of (4) in Miscellany 816 (cf. http://tinyurl.com/2msfjd).

For a start, I think life begins at conception, but I don't think a 2-day old zygote can believe in Jesus, and hardly any 2-day old babies can. And yet I don't think that if a 2-day old zygote died it would necessarily go to Hell. (Do you?)

Further, not many children of Christians can remember having faith at 2 days old, which is suggestive (though not probative).

The behaviour of most babies is the same whether of children or not, at least for the first year or two: they all show signs of original sin, but hardly any show signs of regeneration. And yet by their fruits shall ye know them . . . .

Thanks, as always, for your help.

Speaker for the Dead said...

Hmm...

Well, about the Greek word, I would say that the English word "bat" can mean a flying mammal or a thick stick used in baseball, but it is generally clear from context. However, "dip" and "immerse" are close enough that the context wouldn't be clear. I guess I would immerse (because it covers both meanings of "baptizos") unless there were some sort of REALLY bad drought.

What I mean when I say baptism was associated with belief and repentance (Acts 2:38, however you choose to interpret it) is that it was at least associated with the POSSIBILITY of the two. Simon (assuming some sort of free will) had the capacity to believe and repent. I think it would be difficult to argue that an infant would be capable of either.

I guess the thief on the cross would fall both under the pre-Cross (ante-crucial?) category and under the exigent circumstances (kind of hard to find a basin in which to baptize him) category.

While I would not be dogmatic at all about the standing of those who have not been baptized, I don't see many (actually, any) convincing biblical arguments not to be baptized.

It is always interesting how groups such as the Quakers, who perhaps overemphasized spirituality over religion, have (in many cases) almost completely strayed from Christianity.

Despite my using them, I do have problems with arguments from silence. They tend to involve ignoring all but direct imperative statements (I know people who argue abortion is moral because the Bible never says, "Thou shalt not murder unborn children."). But I think a lot of our confusion about baptism stems from the fact it was an "elementary teaching" (Hebrews something) to them.

The whole infant baptism thing has a lot to do with original sin. But that's a whole 'nother discussion.

I would say this, though:

1. Jesus treats children very specially in the Bible. He tells us to become like them, the millstone around the next of whoever leads a little one astray, etc. From that, it seems at least a little implied that they are not in a state of sin as we. Of course, it's not a solid argument in and of itself.

2. Discounting original sin (which I would), how exactly can an infant sin?

Now if infants are in state of sin (from original sin, at least), then you could just as easily use point 1 and say they do have some sort of faith, and if they are baptized, they should be saved.

John said...

We're mostly in agreement. I, too, would prefer baptism by immersion, (because the death and rising symbolism is more explicit). But not with babies.

My church normally baptises infants by sprinkling and adults by immersion. That seems sensible to me...

You're right about the Quakers shifting. There are still some strongly evangelical strands in the Salvation Army though (who don't do baptism either). And I can't see any arguments for not baptising people either.

As for kids and sinning, I think they're pretty obviously self-centred most of the time...

Blue, with a hint of amber said...

an interesting discussion, but to take some points made and continue the discussion.

* Children were admitted into the Old Testament Church by a formal ordinance.

Old Testament Church? It is interesting which bits of the covenants we embrace and which bits we don't.

* The baptism of children is nowhere forbidden in the New Testament.

A total non entity of an argument for me. I don't base my conscience or practice on being allowed ot do whatever the bible does not expressly forbid.

* The baptism of households is specially mentioned in the New Testament, and children are not specifically excluded from that.

See above!

* The behaviour of our Lord Jesus to little children, as recorded in the Gospels, is very peculiar and full of meaning.

and also has no reference to baptism. Unless of course because the new testament does not forbid paedobaptism we should also assume that Jesus agreed with it as he did not mention it either. There is a big difference between loving, accepting, and learning from children and baptising them.

* Baptism of little children was a practice with which the Jews were perfectly familiar.

In which case you would have thought it would have got an express mention in the NT alongside the baptism for people who had come to faith. The comparison with Jewish baptism in the NT is clear, John's baptism, later teaching, yet not one mentions children. Surely if the baptism was a clear follow on from jewish baptism the instructions would have also been a clear follow on?

* Infant baptism was uniformly practiced by all the early Christians

Not a biblical argument

* The vast majority of eminent Christians from the period of the Protestant Reformation down to the present day have maintained the rights of infants to be baptized.

Not a biblical argument


So essentially the crux of his argument is that the bible does not expressly tell us that we cannot, and that many churches always have. Neither of those sits comfortably with me.

John said...

Like I wrote earlier, you're trying to argue with a dead guy...

Old Testament Church? It is interesting which bits of the covenants we embrace and which bits we don't.

"Church" is a translation of the Greek ekklesia, which is also used of the gathered nation of Israel in the Greek translation of the OT (done before the NT was written). So the NT uses the already existing OT word - seems fine therefore to speak of the OT church.

A total non entity of an argument for me. I don't base my conscience or practice on being allowed ot do whatever the bible does not expressly forbid.

But neither do you do only what the Bible expressly permits. You have to use reason and tradition to decide...

* The baptism of households is specially mentioned in the New Testament, and children are not specifically excluded from that.

See above!


Which then in turn lends itself to ideas of corporate incorporation, which I might well write more on later.

* The behaviour of our Lord Jesus to little children, as recorded in the Gospels, is very peculiar and full of meaning.

and also has no reference to baptism. Unless of course because the new testament does not forbid paedobaptism we should also assume that Jesus agreed with it as he did not mention it either. There is a big difference between loving, accepting, and learning from children and baptising them.

Quite. But it narrows the range of attitudes to children that are permittied.

In which case you would have thought it would have got an express mention in the NT alongside the baptism for people who had come to faith. The comparison with Jewish baptism in the NT is clear, John's baptism, later teaching, yet not one mentions children. Surely if the baptism was a clear follow on from jewish baptism the instructions would have also been a clear follow on?

I think they probably were, which is incorporation of groups, households, families, etc. But probably more of that later.

* Infant baptism was uniformly practiced by all the early Christians

Not a biblical argument


Nope, but when there aren't Biblical arguments, arguments from tradition are pretty useful.

* The vast majority of eminent Christians from the period of the Protestant Reformation down to the present day have maintained the rights of infants to be baptized.

Not a biblical argument


Nope, but you've got to be either pretty arrogant or pretty stupid to ignore what all the other Christians say. They do have the Holy Spirit too...

Blue, with a hint of amber said...

Like I wrote earlier, you're trying to argue with a dead guy...

I assumed we were discussing said person. Is his current health a major issue for this blog?!!

"Church" is a translation of the Greek ekklesia, which is also used of the gathered nation of Israel in the Greek translation of the OT . So the NT uses the already existing OT word - seems fine therefore to speak of the OT church.

I take the point, but wouldn't go too much further down that line for the sake of confusing what we mean by church today.

Quite. But it narrows the range of attitudes to children that are permittied.
Absolutely

I think they probably were, which is incorporation of groups, households, families, etc. But probably more of that later.

Look forward to it. Currently unconvinced and yet willing to look at it again.

But neither do you do only what the Bible expressly permits. You have to use reason and tradition to decide...
Nope, but when there aren't Biblical arguments, arguments from tradition are pretty useful.


Yes and no. Generally people only take the arguments from tradition that support their case. I don't think you are doing that, but even so, to give it precedent allows others to do it more dangerously. You have maturity and intelligence to be completely safe, others may not.

If there aren't biblical arguments" for something I think that in itself is a massive question mark.

Nope, but you've got to be either pretty arrogant or pretty stupid to ignore what all the other Christians say. They do have the Holy Spirit too.

Given the persecution of paedobaptist movements across Europe over several hundreds years the question of "which tradition" springs up. The eminence of certain people from the reformation period could also be linked with the suppression of other people and groups who lost their potential "eminence" at the bottom of a river.

I guess it depends if you view the whole process as a restoration towards the biblical model in which movement after movement have restored different parts of NT church life into what we have today.

Are we what we are because of what the reformers achieved or despite the best efforts of the established church at the time to destroy the reformers, and of some reformers to destroy each other?

Of course we have much to learn from previous generations of christians, and church experiences, but essentially paedobaptists will pull out what they want, while others will focus on their anabaptist heroes, and none of us are any the wiser!

John said...

We could get into a long discussion at this point about the reasons for the persecution of the Anabaptists... As I recall, it was largely because they were rejecting the history of the Church and the authority of the state in a way that even the magisterial Reformers weren't. And after the Waco-like polygamistic apocalyptic cult scenario at Munster in 1533, people weren't going to take chances with the Anabaptists.

Except for the radical pacifists of course, who tended to become Mennonites or Amish, and a few refugees who ended up in London.

It's striking that in the Reformation, the people who argued for restoring the Church to the early apostolic model were by and large paedobaptists. Anabaptists tended to advocate getting rid of the whole system and starting again. That's probably something to do with the already identified fact that arguing paedobaptism from church history is a lot easier than arguing it from the Bible.

Blue, with a hint of amber said...

And after the Waco-like polygamistic apocalyptic cult scenario at Munster in 1533, people weren't going to take chances with the Anabaptists.

True - although guilt by association for any theological movement is dangerous ground, because the logical conclusion is blaming people like you and me with our fundamentalist(!) beliefs for something like the prosperity gospel...

It's striking that in the Reformation, the people who argued for restoring the Church to the early apostolic model were by and large paedobaptists.

Not striking at all, given that almost the entire church was paedobaptist! From an almost 100% majority the foundations were shaken, with the great weakness of the status quo being the lack of biblicla model for it.
Big question though - had the established church at that time had a baptist tradition would the reformers have brought in paedobaptism? Where would it have come from?

Was it one tradition too many?

That's probably something to do with the already identified fact that arguing paedobaptism from church history is a lot easier than arguing it from the Bible.

Indeed. And that is a major concern as you can see all sorts of stuff within church history which holds little place in modern day british evangelicalism.

I am always wary of anything that ultimately seems to hinge on reason and tradition, and that is probably a "guilt by association" related prejudice in me that has seen the damage those two things can do and have done in other quarters.

Where we don't have unity of faith we can have humility in faith.

Good discussion Custard, I am glad to have found your blog.

John said...

I think we have to ask the question of what faith appropriate to a child looks like.

Your mind is substantially different from your son's. Love looks different if it is you loving or your son loving. So what does faith look like for a baby?

I think that faith for a baby with Christian parents may well consist simply in wanting to be with those parents and in trusting them.

Of course babies don't have adult faith. But that doesn't mean that adult faith is the only kind. I think you have to go in the same sort of direction when talking about certain types of mentally handicapped or ill people. What does faith look like for them? Not the same as for intelligent adults.

Daniel Hill said...

Christian faith is trusting Christ. But my 3-month-old baby doesn't trust Christ. He doesn't know who Christ is. I don't think he even trusts us, as I don't think he has a concept of trust or of us, but even if he did that wouldn't mean that he trusted Christ. (Compare: I trust you, but that doesn't mean that my baby trusts you even if he trusts me.)

Of course, there are degrees of trust, and the mentally handicapped maybe cannot trust to the same degree as John Calvin, but all that is required, Jesus tells us, is faith as large as a mustard seed. But I don't see that my baby has any trust at all in Jesus.