In recent weeks, I’ve been watching our own Pat Kyle and a few other Lutherans in a rehashing of the baptism debate with some Baptist folks. It’s been very interesting, and even a little heated in a few places.

But I think this brings about an excellent opportunity to highlight a source that we Lutherans often refer to in this debate, and which is something that we also offer here at New Reformation Press. Hey, we are working only to make the best educational stuff available and this is no exception.

Uuras Saarnivaara wrote Scriptural Baptism: A Dialogue between John Bapstead and Martin Childfont in 1953, and it remains a very solid text which covers an amazing amount of ground regarding this debate in a very short space.

First, here is a little bit about Dr. Saarnivaara’s origins:

Dr. Uuras Saarnivaara, son of a Lutheran minister, was born in Nurmijarvi, Finland, in 1908. He studied in the Theological Department of the University of Helsinki from 1926 to 1930 and was ordained a minister in 1930 for the Lutheran Church of Finland. He served several parishes in Finland and did graduate work at the University of Helsinki, receiving his M.A. degree in 1936 and his Candidate of Theology (now called Licentiate of Theology) in 1939. From 1936 to 1937 he studied in the London College of Divinity. In 1939, he was called to the chair of theology at Suomi Theological Seminary, Hancock, Michigan. He did graduate work in historical theology at the Divinity School of the University of Chicago from 1943 to 1945, receiving his Ph.D. degree in 1945. In 1948 he returned to Finland and received the degree of Th.D. from the University of Helsinki. Among his other books is Luther Discovers the Gospel.

Now, without quoting the entire text, I would like to highlight a particular section which discusses a very interesting point regarding infant baptism. (The debate in which Pat and the other Lutherans are involved originally started with a discussion on infant baptism and now is focused on a smaller point in 1 Peter 3:21, trying to clarify this part before returning to the original discussion on infant baptism.)

For your consideration, this first from the introduction so that you can understand who is arguing which point:

Martin Childfont and John Bapstead were neighbors in the city of Zion. The former was a member of a church that practice infant baptism. The latter belonged to a church that taught that baptism is the immersion or dipping of a person in water, on confession of faith in Christ, administered in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit. [1]

Martin and John had originally been members of the same church, and both of them had been baptized as infants. But John had become converted to the faith of those who opposed infant baptism, whereas Martin had come to a personal faith and knowledge of Christ as his Savior in his own church. For a while he too had struggled with doubt about infant baptism; but his study of the Scriptures and literature on baptism had led him to the conviction that the baptism that he had received in his infancy was a Biblical baptism, and that he did not need to be baptized anew.

John and Martin had occasionally exchanged opinions on baptism. But one night they decided to discuss the subject more thoroughly. Although the conversation lasted several hours they were unable to reach a conclusion and agreed to continue it the next day. John starts the actual discussion.

And now a little further on in the infant baptism discussion:

Martin: Abraham was the first man ever to be circumcised. Don’t you think that his circumcision was the pattern of the significance of that rite?

John: I think you are right there. I had never thought of it from that point of view.

Martin: You admit, then, that circumcision, too, was an external sign of an inward spiritual grace. This is obvious also from the fact that circumcision was the sign of the covenant which included the promise “to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee.” [7] The profit of the circumcision was, as Paul says, that “they were entrusted with the oracles of God.” [8] God’s promise to be their God and His word certainly meant much more than a mere external union with a national congregation.

I am sure you have read how Moses emphasized that mere external circumcision was not enough. A circumcision of the heart was needed in order that the Israelites be true people of God. “Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your hearts, and be not stiffnecked.” [9] Another time Moses promised, “The Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord, thy God, with all thine heart.” [10] Jeremiah [11] and Apostle Paul [12] also speak of the circumcision of the heart as the spiritual meaning and fulfillment of the rite of circumcision. Don’t you see, brother John, that the entire Bible teaches circumcision as an external sign of an internal grace?

John: Well, I must again concede that you are right and that I haven’t been careful enough in studying and considering this matter.

Martin: The inward spiritual grace that circumcision signified was a renewal of the heart to faith, love to God, and willing obedience to Him. When Paul deals with the question of circumcision he shows that although it required faith, and some people were faithless, the covenant remained in force on God’s side. It was broken only on the part of men. “For what if some were without faith? Shall their want of faith make of none effect the faithfulness of God?” [13]

The words show that God’s covenant and his faithfulness to it were unchanging and objectively valid realities, but men could enjoy the blessings of the covenant only through a personal faith and obedience. Its subjective blessings depended on faith. In the case of Abraham the personal prerequisite, namely, faith, preceded the rite, but otherwise the inward circumcision or renewal to faith and obedience followed afterward.

John: I must admit again that your explanation seems to follow the statements of the Bible.

Martin: You admitted some time ago that circumcision and baptism are analogous, since Paul calls baptism the circumcision of Christ, or Christian circumcision. In the case of Abraham, circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith that he had before this rite. It corresponds to the baptism of people who are converted before baptism, as Cornelius and his household were, and as often happens even in our time. But most Israelites received circumcision as infants; when they reached the age of discretion they had to appropriate its blessings and fulfill its requirements afterward, although the majority of them never did so. Here circumcision is analogous to infant baptism. Isn’t it, brother John?

John: I cannot deny that it is. But a mere analogy doesn’t suffice to establish a Christian doctrine.

Martin: You are right; a mere analogy is not enough here. But I wish to add one more thought on the relationship between circumcision and baptism. Paul calls baptism the circumcision of Christ, and an undeniable fact is that, according to the plan of God, the use of circumcision was to cease when the use of baptism started in its full Christian sense after Pentecost. You deny that baptism took the place of circumcision. Nevertheless, in my view that thought is implied in the two facts that I mentioned. I cannot, of course, force you to follow my line of thought, but in my view this logic is inescapable.

John: I see now that the idea of baptism in the place of circumcision can be defended with the Bible. I can no longer oppose it categorically, as I did at the outset.

There is much more covered in the rest of the text of the book, but this is a gleaming nugget in the midst of it all. This is not a quick discussion and certainly is not likely to be hammered out in the small space of a blog entry and the following comments.

Since this is such a hot topic to so many and you may find yourself having more and more questions in your own studies, if you have not yet read Dr. Saarnivaara’s book, we highly recommend you pick it up. It probably won’t answer all your questions, but it is simply a tour-de-force on the subject.

As the discussion between the Lutherans and the Baptists continues, I may post an update to this here as well.

Either way, enjoy and I hope you find this as stimulating as we do!

By Ted R

Posted in General