There is a “re” involved with baptism, but unlike the Anabaptists, it’s not a “re-do,” but a “re-turn" or a “re-member.”
Five hundred years ago today, fifteen men (who would eventually be known as the Swiss Brethren) gathered in the home of Felix Manz (or Mantz) in Zurich, Switzerland, to discuss their recent public debate over baptism which had not gone well. The men had faced their old teacher, Huldrych Zwingli, to argue against the legitimacy of infant baptism. Ultimately, the Zurich city council had sided with Zwingli on the necessity of infant baptism. They ordered the rebels to baptize their children or be expelled from the city.
It was just four days after the debate, at this gathering, when George Blaurock asked Conrad Grebel to re-baptize him as a sign of his newness of life in Christ and in rebellion to the Zurich government and Zwingli’s Swiss Reformation leadership. “When the little group of Brethren met for counsel to determine their course of action, probably on the evening of 21 January, they had no program of introducing re-baptism. In fact, such a thing had never been mentioned in the entire course of the struggle. But in a moment of inspiration by what they confidently believed was divine guidance, adult baptism was introduced.” By the end of their meeting, all of the brethren had been re-baptized, and thus began what is now known as the Anabaptist movement.
Re-baptisms are common today, particularly in Baptist or non-denominational churches in America. A few years ago, I had a conversation with a friend who was considering re-baptism. Her church membership was contingent on this. Although she had been baptised as an infant in the Roman Catholic church, she could not become a member of a large non-denominational church in Dallas without first being re-baptised as a visual and symbolic demonstration of her union with Christ.
While the practices and beliefs of 21st-century American Evangelical church may not completely parallel 16th-century Anabaptist founders, their outlook on baptism is often remarkably similar. The Anabaptists argued that the Christian faith was dependent on God’s Word alone. Therefore, the entirety of the rites and ceremonies of the Catholic Church were up for debate. They found no evidence for infant baptism in Scripture and argued that it was the pope who had established the practice. At the time of Blaurock’s re-baptism, Conrad Grebel had a two-week-old baby who, he stated, “had not yet been baptized and bathed in the Romish water bath.” For the Brethren, the fact that the state could impose such a practice upon them further established their point that the practice had nothing to do with God’s kingdom.
Yet these reasons in and of themselves do not really explain the Anabaptists’ (literally, re-baptizers) rejection of infant baptism. Instead, we must look at the Anabaptist’s understanding of faith. “For them, faith implied that one could do everything associated with faith: receive the sacrament, make confession, or know the difference between virtue and sin.” [1] This definition of faith relies not only on personal action or decision but also on a distinct role of reason or understanding. Unlike the Lutheran reformers who defined faith as primarily a passive gift given through Word and sacrament, for the Anabaptists, faith is almost – if not entirely – active, manifested through obedience, discipleship, and understanding. While Martin Luther did not pit faith against reason, he also did not equate them with one another. Yet, for the Anabaptists, it seems as if faith is reliant on reason (at the very least for verification). For Martin Luther, faith comes to us extra nos, or outside of ourselves. While for the Anabaptists, faith is first engendered inwardly by the Holy Spirit and then “sealed” by water baptism. As early Anabaptist Leonhard Schiemer wrote,
The baptism of water is a seal of faith and of the indwelling covenant with God. It is as one writes a letter. When it is finished, it is sealed. But no one will give his seal to a letter without knowing what it says. When you baptize a child, you are sealing an empty envelope…those who baptize first and teach later is like one who scrubs the barrel first and only then asks what the purpose of it is. [2]
Schiemer gives words to explain why the Anabaptists found infant baptism so offensive. It was not simply that it was ineffective, but actually could be harmful to an individual. So harmful, that as the Radical Reformation continued to evolve and eventually splinter, many were even willing to die in obstinance to infant baptism and for the practice of re-baptism. In 1537, when the Anabaptist preacher Jakob Storger was executed by drowning (an irony that was certainly not lost on his executioners), he shouted out this last memorable admonishment: “Repent, repent, you great obstinate horde, abstain from the dog’s bath, the swine’s bath and disgusting, filthy bath of child baptism; turn, convert yourselves to our small flock, for this is the right path of belief.” [3]
Baptism was useless if one could not first demonstrate right belief and right practice. Interestingly enough, I once had a well-known Baptist apologist tell a couple of other young Lutherans and me this exact thing. He considered the Lutheran practice of infant baptism as dangerous to young Christians and their later confession of faith, a temptation into false assurances of a salvation they could not prove.
“For faith doesn’t exist for the sake of baptism, but baptism for the sake of faith,” states Luther.
The Radical Reformers were drowned, burned, and persecuted for their convictions: a fact that should be lamented. I empathize with their desire to follow Scripture no matter the costs. I also fully understand the modern fear and fixation surrounding the idea extolled in James that “faith without works is dead.” Baptize babies before they know or can do anything? The what-ifs in this situation can quickly become all consuming.
What if someone walks away from the faith?
What if someone takes their baptism for granted?
What if the choices and decisions someone makes in life don’t reflect God’s good designs and good will?
But to answer these questions, we must first turn to God’s Word. And when we do so, what we see is that God’s Word does not return empty (Isa. 55:11), but instead by the Holy Spirit creates faith (Rom 10:17). As Martin Luther himself states in response to the “re-baptizers”:
We can hardly deny that the same Christ is present at baptism and in baptism, in fact is himself the baptizer, who in those days came in his mother’s womb to John. In baptism he can speak as well through the mouth of the priest, as when he spoke through his mother. Since then he is present, speaks, and baptizes, why should not his Word and baptism call forth spirit and faith in the child as then it produced faith in John? [4]
Martin Luther would be the first to tell you that faith was not antithetical to either reason or obedience. And yet he was also quite clear that neither was meant to take the place of faith. God alone is in control of creating and engendering faith in the person and work of Christ to save the individual from sin, death, and the devil. And when he tells us that he prefers to do so in the particular way of baptism, by combining his effective Word with water, we should take him at his word. And this is exactly what he says in Scripture time and time again (1 Peter 3:21, Rom. 6:1-4, Acts 22:16, Col. 2:12-13 are just a few examples). “For faith doesn’t exist for the sake of baptism, but baptism for the sake of faith,” states Luther. [5]
There is a “re” involved with baptism, but unlike the Anabaptists, it’s not a “re-do,” but a “re-turn" or a “re-member.” God's promise in our baptism remains certain even when our memory and trust fizzles out. In his lovingkindness, God has granted an objective moment in your life for you to return to again and again as you suffer, face temptations, make mistakes, and continue to turn away from him. He doesn’t need you to re-do his promise, but he does want you to remember it. He wants you to remember that whether dipped or splashed with water and word, he has covered you in his certain promise to keep you through the power of that same word. Let that tether you as you go out to live, reason, obey, and serve according to the faith he's given you.
[1] Kat Hill, Baptism, Brotherhood, and Belief in Reformation Germany: Anabaptism and Lutheranism, 1525-1585), 123.
[2] Leonhard Schiemer, “Three Kinds of Baptism in the New Testament Clearly Outlined” (1527), Early Anabaptist Spirituality: Selected Writings, trans. by Daniel Liechty (Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1994), 96.
[3] Jakob Storger quoted in Kat Hill, Baptism, Brotherhood, and Belief in Reformation Germany: Anabaptism and Lutheranism, 1525-1585 (New York: Oxford University Press, USA, 2015), 99.
[4] Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, Vol. 40: Church and Ministry II, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann, vol. 40 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999), 242–243.
[5] Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, Vol. 40: Church and Ministry II, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann, vol. 40 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999), 246.
