A Wesleyan Theology Of Baptism

Arguing from tradition, apostolic practice, and a theology of covenant, John Wesley insisted on infant baptism as the ordinary means of salvation consisting of both outer sacrament and inner regeneration. To adults, however, he also preached the possibility of a conscious conversion, an experience of inward regeneration that may not necessarily be tied to the sacrament. Wesley's understanding of baptism not only formed the basis for the Methodist movement, but also contributed to a variety of Holiness denominations, which, in turn, contributed to the early twentieth-century Pentecostal movement.

John Wesley (1703–1791) believed baptism to be the ordinary means of salvation. By baptism we enter into covenant with God, are admitted into the church, and are made children of God. To be sure, Wesley distinguished between baptism and the new birth. Not the mere outward washing, but the inward grace added thereto makes baptism a means of saving grace (Works of John Wesley, vol. 6 [reprint; Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1978], 73–74). This applied to infants as well as to adults, and in the case of the former, he believed that "?all who are baptized in their infancy are at the same time born again?" (Works, 9:316). However, he also insisted that in adults a conscious evangelical experience of regeneration is possible that may not necessarily be tied to the sacramental rite. Perhaps unique to Wesley was the balance he maintained between his ingrained love for corporate things and the sacramental on the one hand, and his fervent and intensely personal evangelical faith on the other. This balance has sometimes been mistaken for an inconsistency. In his treatise on baptism (Works, vol. 10), he argues for infant baptism on five levels: (1) Infants are proper subjects of baptism because of the sin of Adam in which all participate. For this disease, Christ has provided a remedy. The benefit of this remedy is to be received through baptism, which is the ordinary means he has appointed for that purpose (Works, 10:193). (2) Baptism is proper for infants because of the continuity between the covenant of grace God made with Abraham and the new covenant established by Christ. Both covenants were gospel covenants, with the same condition (faith), the same benefits ("?I will be their God?"), and the same mediator (Gal. 3:16). As circumcision was the seal of the former, baptism is the seal of the latter. Baptism is now the "?circumcision of Christ?" (Col. 2:11–12). Infants under the new covenant are capable of entering into the covenant with God, just as they were under the old, and are thus entitled to baptism. (3) On the basis of Matthew 19:13–14 and Luke 18:15, where children were brought to Christ and received by him, Wesley argues that children are therefore capable of being embraced by the church. Baptism is the divinely given sign of their inclusion in the new covenant. (4) Wesley appeals to the practice of the apostles in baptizing entire households in the book of Acts. Although he knows the New Testament does not specifically state that these households included infants, he believes it to be a valid inference. The Jews baptized all infant proselytes, and the apostles probably did the same, since the Lord did not forbid it when he commanded baptism in the Great Commission. Wesley mentions the three thousand and five thousand, who were baptized by the apostles on separate days, and appeals to Peter's Pentecost sermon, which concludes with the words, "?Be baptized … for the promise is for you and your children?" (Acts 2:38–39). Wesley knows that the New Testament does not divide persons into three groups—believers, unbelievers, and children. There are only two groups—believers and unbelievers. Nowhere does the New Testament classify children as unbelievers. (5) Finally, he appeals to the authority of tradition and finds support for infant baptism in the church "?in all ages and in all places.?" Citing several church Fathers, he asserts that no instance can be found in all antiquity of any orthodox Christian, who denied baptism to children when they were brought to be baptized (Works, 10:198). Since infant baptism has been the uninterrupted practice of the church throughout the centuries, Wesley concludes that "?it was handed down from the Apostles, who best knew the mind of Christ?" (Works, 10:198). Not all Wesley's followers have adhered strictly to the baptismal views of their mentor. This is the case both in mainline Methodism and in the Wesleyan/Holiness tradition which grew out of the nineteenth-century revival of Wesley's teachings on scriptural holiness. Many people from various Anabaptist backgrounds embraced Wesleyan soteriology and joined Holiness denominations; however, they brought their baptismal views with them. Wesley had made a distinction between baptism and the new birth, but insisted they should be held together as a unity. But many of his followers turned the distinction into a separation, viewing the new birth as the important thing and allowing baptism to be seen more and more as a mere human witness to personal faith and less and less as a means of receiving present grace. Naturally, with such a development, infant baptism, in many instances, was allowed to sink into disfavor. Wesley's views on baptism were quite clear, but in Wesleyanism today the significance of this sacrament remains a bit clouded.