The Theology of Menno Simons



The Baptismal Theology of Menno Simons

By Jordan Pickering

2009

Menno Simons began as a Catholic parish priest, thoroughly ignorant of the scriptures and reluctant to correct that, apparently because he thought that scripture would mislead him (Estep, 1996:161)! Two events gradually turned that on its head, and drove him to earnest study of scripture and radical devotion to the Word of the Lord.

He was first caused to study the scriptures on account of growing doubts over the doctrine of transubstantiation. He writes that he found in him the nagging thought the elements of the Mass were not actually the flesh and blood of the Lord (Estep, 1996:161). Next, he heard about the beheading of an Anabaptist leader for the crime of being rebaptised, and this theological conflict jarred him into serious consideration of the foundation of baptismal theology. He examined the scriptures diligently to see whether they provided support for infant baptism, and found none. He also found no help from his peers, from study of the Fathers, or the Reformers, and concluded that infant baptism is an unsubstantiated deception. This led him away from Catholic faith, and towards the heavily persecuted sect of Anabaptism.

While he is perhaps better known for a theological novelty concerning the incarnation, I have chosen to examine his views on baptism[1], as they appear in his best known book on Christian foundations, largely because baptism was instrumental in his conversion, because he wrote extensively on the subject, and because he was influential upon the birth and theology of the modern Baptist church as a formal institution.

Menno’s chapter on baptism is arranged into three parts, the first being a general argument against infant baptism, the second being a response to common counter arguments, and the third being a final appeal to infant baptisers to repent and obey the scriptures.

The Argument Against Infant Baptism

Menno’s argument is somewhat unsystematic, and so the following is an attempted arrangement of his argument into its more important themes.

Only what scripture commands, not what it doesn’t forbid

An early presupposition that emerges from his writing is that Christians are only free to worship in ways that are sanctioned by direct permission of scripture. We are not able to engage in practices not commanded simply because scripture is silent.

In his Reply to Gellius Faber, he puts it plainly:

“…the Scriptures teach us not to do that which we see proper, but that which is commanded us, Deut. 4:2; 12:32.” (2007b:Web)

Similarly in his Foundations, he says

“Thus has the Lord commanded and ordered; therefore, let no other be taught, or practiced forever” (2007a:Web).

It is beyond the scope of this paper to decide whether worship is restricted in this way or not. It must suffice to say that there is significant doubt that such limitations are warranted, particularly under the New Covenant where the priesthood has been fulfilled, and other rigid forms of obedience (such as the food laws) have served their typological function, giving way to greater freedom in the Spirit.

The meaning of baptism

The next serious matter to arise out of this paper is the question of the meaning of baptism. Menno supplies a variegated interpretation of the sign, but he seems to believe that baptism primarily signifies a public confession of personal faith and obedience. He seems not to realise that this is a debatable supposition that is not explicit in scripture, and he doesn’t give a developed defence of the point, even though his entire thesis rests on it.

The following are some of his statements about the meaning of baptism:

“…we submissively covenant with the Lord, through the outward sign of baptism… that we will no longer live according to the evil, unclean lusts of the flesh, but walk according to the witness of a good conscience before him.” (2007a:Web)

“…baptism is a sign of obedience, commanded of Christ, by which we testify, when we receive it; that we believe the word of the Lord, that we are sorry for, and repent of our former life and conduct; that we desire to rise with Christ unto a new life; and that we believe in the forgiveness of sin through Jesus Christ.” (2007a:Web)

“…for the intent of baptism is to bury sin, and to rise with Christ into a new life, which can by no means be the case with infants.” (2007a:Web)

The trouble that I have with this assessment of baptism is that it makes the sacrament exclusively a sign of the human component of salvation. In fact, at one point, Simons blankly denies that baptism is a sign of grace, because, in his view, Christ alone is the sign of grace[2], and baptism a sign of obedience. In all of these things he exceeds scripture, as scripture makes none of this explicit and certainly not exclusive. Scripture conjoins baptism and repentance, but it does not indicate that the former is merely the sign of the latter.

The very nature of the sign (i.e. washing[3]) suggests divine effort, because the subject passively receives cleansing. It would be heretical to suggest that we are in any measure responsible for our cleansing; that we co-operate with Christ in our rebirth. Furthermore, there is no way in which cleansing with water is illustrative of ‘obedience’, unless one considers it sufficient that there is a participant[4]. So, any element of human obedience is surely secondary to the message communicated by the form of the sign itself, i.e. that we have been cleansed by Christ and made acceptable to God[5].

So, baptism is surely primarily a sign of grace, and not merely a sign of personal repentance. That scripture says ‘repent and be baptised’ indicates that it is proper that receipt of grace is accompanied by an act of repentance, but the sign indicates what God promises the repentant person. It does not merely reiterate that the person is repentant.

No one contests that the sign, when applied to adults, must be accompanied by profession of repentance and faith. The big question, though, is whether the children of covenant believers are excluded from the church and the covenant until they’re of age, or included. If God’s grace includes children (at least of believers) within the church and the covenant, there is no reason why they should not receive the sign of grace and acceptance, which is baptism.

In 1Peter 3:21, we are told that the rite itself does not save, but that salvation is by means of inner baptism. Infant baptism does not invalidate this. Spiritual baptism must still occur as the child gains the capacity to keep good conscience before God, just as Israel’s circumcised nation needed to be circumcised at heart, despite having received its sign in infancy.

Baptising infants recognises God’s grace in counting the children of believers as holy (not necessarily regenerate) on account of their parents’ preceding repentance and faith, as was the case under circumcision (perhaps reflected in 1Cor. 7:14). It recognises that God’s covenant offers cleansing to whole households (Gen. 17:12-13; Josh. 24:15; Acts 16:31).

Moreover, if we agree that baptism is a sign of God’s grace, baptising the helpless is in fact a perfect sign of salvation that God pours out upon his enemies, the ‘dead’ and undeserving.

The recipients of baptism

The baptism debate centres on the question of who is qualified to receive the sacrament. I found it most surprising that Menno (and Anabaptist theology in general) does not contest that infants are saved and accepted and included within the covenant[6]. Menno and others are even more unequivocal and universal about it than I’m willing to be. So, the Anabaptists did not disagree markedly with the Reformers about what was spiritually true of infants, but simply whether the sign of baptism should be extended to them. It seems a strange thing over which to have fought to the death.

Menno begins with the Great Commission as the defining command about baptism. He makes much of the order of events suggested by the Commission, i.e. preaching[7], which must precede believing, which must precede being baptised, although there is no such stress evident in the texts themselves[8].

John Calvin takes issue with this rigid order, pointing out that it may well reflect the common way by which God calls people to himself, but not that it prescribes for him an ‘unvarying rule so that he may use no other way’. Calvin points out that many have been saved by inward illumination of the Spirit, for example, and apart from preaching[9]. It is, he says, an unsafe argument that takes away from the Lord the power to make himself known through other means (Balke, 1981:106).

Menno uses this order as though it were a strict and exclusive command of God, and so insists that infants are thereby excluded. He says that ‘young children are without understanding and cannot be taught’, and that the New Testament only addresses those who are able to hear and respond, and not infants. In support he quotes Acts 2:38: “Thus Peter said, ‘Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost’” (2007a:Web). Oddly, he leaves off the very next line of the verse, which may well address the young[10]: ‘The promise is for you and your children’. I don’t contest that this might merely mean that the promise, as with the promise to Abraham, is extended to subsequent generations (this is unambiguously said six times in Gen. 17:7-12[11]), but even if Peter is using language reminiscent of the Abrahamic covenant, his hearers would naturally have expected the new covenant sign to be applied to children as the old did. Certainly, we would expect an explicit warning to the contrary if it were not.

Because Simons viewed baptism as a confession of faith, he insisted that baptism may only be offered to those who have reached what he calls ‘the years of understanding’. This leads credobaptists therefore to demand demonstrations of true faith before baptism takes place, which then drives them, I think, beyond the scriptures. Certainly scripture never speaks of any minimal age for baptism, and it never demands any tests for fitness. It seems as though The Apostles baptised any who desired to be baptised. They freely baptised extended households (admittedly after preaching to them) without seeming to require any extra qualification[12]. Outward baptism seems to have been administered generously to any who expressed the desire to be washed and adopted by God. Inward baptism was left his grace.

It’s also worth considering that children of believers often cannot identify a moment at which they changed from a state of bad faith toward God to a good state, but always believed. Children are capable of genuine faith that is appropriate to their understanding long before they are able to articulate a sufficiently complete doctrine of sin and salvation. Adult baptism introduces an arbitrary ‘age of accountability’ at which a child supposedly becomes responsible, and it inevitably demands that baptism is offered only upon an arbitrarily defined level of competency. None of this is scriptural.

Infant Baptism is unscriptural

The final pervasive argument is that infant baptism is unscriptural. Menno makes this point often, and frequently without much tact:

“Since we have not a single command in the Scriptures that infants are to be baptized, or that the apostles did practice it; we modestly confess, with a good conscience, that infant baptism is but human invention; a selfish notion; a perversion of the ordinance of Christ; a manifest abomination[13], standing in the holy place, where it ought, properly, not to be, Matt. 24:15”.

“As often as the question is put to us, Why shall infants not be baptized, since they are in the church of God, and partakers of his grace, covenant and promise? We answer: Because the Lord neither taught nor commanded it.” (2007a:Web)

For Menno, the absence of command concerning infant baptism is effectively a command not to practice it. But, of course, there is no such command against the baptism of infants, and it is a dangerous game to consign fellow Christians to abomination and anti-Christ on the basis of an argument from silence.

He goes on to complain that infant baptisers engage in idolatry, because they call baptised infants Christians (and even ‘elect’), and also he rails against all of the other unbiblical baptismal rituals directed at exorcism, such as spitting and chanting and so on. Here he will find no disagreement from me, except to say that it is a shame that he could not distinguish between these abuses and valid infant baptism. Perhaps he had no models of legitimate practice[14]. The shame is more with the modern debate, in which many credobaptists still regard infant baptism as heresy though it is frequently practiced without idolatrous additions, and many paedobaptists still fail to teach the practice in a lucid and uncomplicated manner.

Counter arguments

The second part concerns common counter arguments employed against his position.

‘Baptism washes away original sin’

The first argument is that all children are born in Adam’s sin, and therefore baptism is needed to wash away original sin.

Simons correctly counters that remission of sins of any kind cannot come about by any other means than the blood of Christ. Baptism itself cannot wash away anything. He then shows through various examples that remissions of sins is by faith, not ceremony.

Because Christ received the little children and promised that the Kingdom is of such (Mark 10:14), the Anabaptists considered children to be acceptable to God apart from faith, on account of Christ’s work and God’s grace. Many believed that Christ’s death nullified the guilt of Original Sin, and so children were considered innocent until they were capable of understanding and wilfully transgressing. So, for example, Menno says,

“For Jesus' sake, sin is not imputed to infants that are innocent, and incapable of understanding. Life is promised, not through any one ceremony, but out of pure grace, through the blood of the Lord… he commanded that adults should be baptized upon their faith; but concerning infants he gave no such command. He took them into his arms, laid his hands upon them and blessed them; promised them the kingdom, and dismissed them; but did not baptize them.[15]” (2007a:Web)

Baptism runs parallel to the rite of circumcision

Simons deals next with what is surely the key defence of infant baptism:

“In the second place, they teach that the children of Israel under the Old Testament were admitted into God's covenant and church through circumcision; but now, our children are admitted through baptism.” (2007a:Web)

He devotes most of his time to opposing the idea that the rite itself achieved entry into the covenant, rather than merely signifying it. He points out that females were within the Old Covenant, though they could not be circumcised. Children in both covenants were already accepted[16], he says, and that by grace. The ceremony itself does not produce acceptance; children were included from birth by divine choice[17].

With this view most evangelical paedobaptists would probably agree, and Simons even reiterates that children are accepted into the covenant as if to stress this agreement[18]. The disagreement (or so he thinks) is simply, ‘but by no means, through any external sign’. Yet even with this, many paedobaptists would agree. Calvin, for example, chastises those who neglect concern for piety and care only about ceremony, those ‘who in baptism look for nothing but water’ (Balke quoting Calvin, 1981:105). Having revealed the division to be over what is surely a relatively minor point, Menno once more leaps to extremes, saying, ‘the baptism of believers is of God and his word, and infant baptism of the dragon and the beast’[19].

Having annoyed his reader with idle accusations, he does actually attempt to engage in proper argument about the circumcision connection. Simons argues earlier in his chapter that the connection of baptism and circumcision ‘can in no wise be sustained by Scripture’, but now he attempts to refute one clear claim to a Biblical link between the two, namely Colossians 2:11. He says,

“We also well know how they apply circumcision as a figure of baptism, and adduce the saying of Paul in proof thereof, namely, ‘In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands’, &c., Col. 2:11. He that will attempt to prove by this passage that infant baptism is right does violence to holy Paul, and falsely perverts his testimony. For he does not teach that external circumcision is a figure of baptism, but alludes to inward circumcision.” (2007a:Web)

His refutation, I believe, does not hold. Paul is warning the Colossians against a heresy of Jewish origin[20], in which circumcision is seemingly being offered to Gentile Christians as an essential feature of true worship. In reply, Paul is saying that they have no need of external circumcision, because true circumcision has already been given to them in the rite of baptism: ‘In him you were also circumcised… having been buried with him in baptism’ (Col. 2:11-12). There is no need for the Colossians to be circumcised to attain fullness, because the reality underlying the sign of circumcision has been fulfilled by the reality underlying baptism (i.e. baptism into Christ). Without any doubt, then, Paul claims that baptism signifies in the New Covenant what circumcision did in the Old, otherwise how else could baptism outwardly symbolise the reality of inward circumcision?

Elsewhere, Menno claims that one of the serious differences between circumcision and baptism is that Abraham was promised a literal kingdom and land, and many descendants, whereas baptism signifies death to this world (Klaasen, 1981:188-9).

This is a clear mistake[21]. Circumcision was given to Abraham as a sign of God’s promises to him, promises that Paul says are ours as New Covenant believers and that Hebrews says were heavenly[22], and so are in no wise to be viewed as merely ‘literal’ or temporal promises. It was a physical sign representing the spiritual reality of covenant with God: the putting off of the flesh[23] and the death of the ‘old man’, as well as being a sign in the flesh that marked one off as belonging to God. Baptism is also a physical[24] sign representing the same spiritual reality. In Acts 2:38-39, Peter makes it abundantly clear that baptism is also connected to promise. In baptism, the promise is the Holy Spirit, which in terms of Jewish prophetic expectation[25] makes it the equivalent of the promises to Abraham.

There are other parallels too:

• Circumcision was meaningless if it was not accompanied by inward regeneration (cf. Romans 9), which is Menno’s big contention regarding baptism.

• Adult converts from other nations who wished to belong to the family of God would have been circumcised. In the New Testament, gentiles such as the Ethiopian eunuch were baptised when entering the church, but not circumcised.

• Whole households were circumcised when the head of the family converted. In the New Testament, whole households were baptised.

Given that the Abrahamic Covenant was clearly one of God’s grace; that it was to be applied to all those who claimed faith in God (by living in his kingdom); that it was to be applied to converts who repented of their idols, turned to God, and wished to make confession of their faith[26]; and that its sign (circumcision) was intended to illustrate cleanliness by the putting off of the flesh, it should surely be subject to all the same objections that Menno invokes against baptism. One should not be able to apply such a sign to children who cannot repent, who cannot have faith, and who cannot make public profession. And yet, circumcision was applied in this way.

Therefore, baptism cannot be invalidated merely on those grounds. The bare assertion of a child’s inability to make personal confession of faith doesn’t disqualify infant baptism any more than it disqualifies infant circumcision. If these unrelenting similarities exist between the two rites, it needs to be shown why the application of the sign to infants should not be a basic assumption in the New Testament. When one considers the likelihood that baptism is intended as the sign of the New Covenant (and not primarily as confession of personal faith), and adds the concessions by both sides that infants are included with the covenant, then there is every reason to consider infant baptism orthodox.

Other counter arguments

The remaining counter arguments include the idea that children are regenerated by baptism; that baptism indicates that children are accepted within the church; and that the Apostles baptised whole households that surely must have included children. These objections are either dealt with above or of relative unimportance[27].

Final Things

The final part of his chapter, called ‘Admonition to Scorners’ is an impassioned plea for readers to obey scripture, to renounce their idolatrous baptisms and to be baptised in obedience to scripture. While his sincerity is admirable, this plea rings hollow and patronising.

This lack of persuasiveness is because his argument is found to rest entirely on some very doubtful propositions, namely, that Christians are free only to do what is commanded (and that baptism of infants has no explicit basis in scripture); and that baptism signifies personal confession of faith. These are themselves not propositions that are explicitly taught by scripture, and he makes no compelling case for their acceptance.

Furthermore, to his great discredit, he fails to appreciate the complexity of scripture in the matters that he discusses; he fails to properly appreciate the strengths of his opponents’ arguments, choosing rather to damn all by their weakest proponents; and he spends significant time goading and reviling infant baptisers with the harshest of spiritual judgments, courting the kind of persecution that he so frequently laments in his writings.

Bibliography

Balke, W. 1981. Calvin and the Anabaptist Radicals. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Estep, WR. 1996. The Anabaptist story. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Klaasen, W. 1981. Anabaptism in Outline. Scottdale, PA: Herald

Simons, M. 2007a. Concerning Baptism (In A Foundation and Plain Instruction of the Saving Doctrine of Our Lord Jesus Christ). [Web:] [Date of access: 15 July 2009].

Simons, M. 2007b. Concerning Baptism (In A Reply to a Publication of Gellius Faber). [Web:]

[Date of access: 22 July 2009].

-----------------------

[1] His book Christian Baptism of 1539 was not available to me, so I have assessed the lengthy chapter on baptism in his book A Foundation and Plain Instruction of the Saving Doctrine of Our Lord Jesus Christ written in 1539-40.

[2] This seems to me to be illegitimate. Christ is surely more than merely the sign that God is gracious? He is both the God who is gracious and the means by which grace is given. Even if Christ were a sign of grace, would that prevent us from having further signs since his departure? I don’t wish to unnecessarily cast aspersions upon Menno’s integrity, but I can’t help but feel that he would happily advocate baptism as a sign of grace if it served his argument.

[3] On the strength of 1Peter 3:21, Menno acknowledges that baptism is clearly symbolic of washing, although he regards true, inward baptism as being the washing, and the rite as being a subsequent promise of obedience.

[4] However, if mere participation is enough to indicate that the rite is about human action, then what would this say about the Lord’s Supper, for example, or the work of salvation itself? We participate in those events to at least the same degree as passive receipt of baptismal water.

[5] John’s baptism communicated the same thing, with the difference being that Christ had not yet come, and so the sign pointed forward in anticipation. It expressed the desire to be cleansed from apostasy and to be found acceptable when the Messiah arrived.

[6] See the first of the ‘Counter Arguments’ below.

[7] One wonders whether, on the same grounds, he would have forbidden baptism for someone who didn’t come to faith as a result of preaching per se.

[8] Matthew 28 merely says, ‘teach all nations, baptizing them…’. Even the disputed version in Mark 16 from which Menno derives strongest support says, ‘he that believes and is baptised shall be saved’, which is actually true of those baptised as infants too.

[9] Perhaps Abraham and Paul serve as notable scriptural examples.

[10] As it does, for example, in Lev. 10:14; On the other hand, credobaptists point out that paedobaptists leave off the line after that, i.e. that the promise is ‘for all who are far off’.

[11] cf. Deut. 4:9; 4:40; 6:2 etc. for further examples of the use of ‘children’ to mean ‘future generations’.

[12] The offer of baptism to households sounds very much like the circumcision command; cf. Gen. 17:12-13 and Acts 16:31-33.

[13] In case he was unclear in calling infant baptism the abomination that causes desolation, he goes on to say that it is anti-Christ, and of the same ilk as the strange fire of Nadab and Abihu, Saul’s mercy upon Agag that was the cause of his rejection, and Manasseh’s child sacrifice in the fire.

[14] Calvin’s Institutes presents the theology without any of these heretical and superstitious addenda, although the 1536 edition paid scant attention to infant baptism. He only published a decent treatment in his 1539 edition, which is a close enough date of publication to Simons’ work to suppose that Menno probably would not have read it (assuming they shared a common language at all). Nevertheless, I find it hard to believe that, after Bucer and others, there was no evangelical theologian besides Calvin who avoided these pitfalls.

[15] I find it thoroughly mystifying that the Reformers and the Anabaptists stood largely in agreement as to the status of children within the covenant, disagreeing merely over whether to apply the sign, and yet saw fit to accuse one another of apostasy and even to kill. This should certainly be a warning to us to be quick to listen and slow to get angry. Mindless accusations and insults that polarise discussions, and the arrogance of assuming that our position alone carries the divine sanction are sins that we should be eager to avoid.

[16] This doesn’t acknowledge the very severe warning in Genesis 17 that those not circumcised are cut off from their people. That there is such importance given to the rite doesn’t necessarily contradict what he’s saying, but it at least provides room for sympathy to the view that there is (divinely given) power in the sacrament itself.

[17] He says, “From which it is evident, that the children of Israel were not in the Lord’s covenant, on account of circumcision, as paedobaptists assert, but through the divine choice of grace.”

[18] “Again, Children are entitled to the kingdom of heaven, and are under the promise of the grace of God, through Christ; as has been said; and therefore we truly believe, that they are blessed, holy and pure, acceptable to God; are under the covenant, and in his church…”

[19] Not content with this, he continues: “Since Christ has commanded that believers should be baptized, and not infants,” [although of course this is incorrect; Christ doesn’t command us not to baptise infants, he does not command us to baptise infants], “… all reasonable-minded men must admit, that infant baptism … is nothing less than a ceremony of anti-christ, open blasphemy, an enchanting sin, a molten calf; yea, abomination and idolatry.” Subtle… conciliatory…

[20] Albeit of a mystical sort. See Dunn, JDG. 1996. NIGTC: The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI; and Francis, FO & Meeks, WA. 1975. Conflict at Colossae. Missoula, MO: Scholars Press.

[21] It is a failure, firstly, to compare like with like. Here he holds together the content of the Old Covenant promise with the meaning of the New Covenant sign.

[22] Romans 4; Romans 9:6-18; Hebrews 11:13-16

[23] Colossians 2:11

[24] Those who make the physical / spiritual contrast between testaments are often guilty of implying that circumcision is physical and baptism spiritual, when in fact baptism is clearly still a physical sign requiring spiritual fulfilment, as circumcision was.

[25] Cf. Jeremiah 31:31-34; Ezekiel 36:24ff. Note that Ezekiel 36:25-27 says, ‘I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.’ After this clearly New-Covenant promise, containing perhaps even the inspiration of the baptism symbol (v25), Ezekiel proceeds to state the promises in Abrahamic terms. Once more, it is clear that any hard division between the supposedly ‘literal’ promises to Abraham and the Spiritual promises of the New Covenant is artificial.

[26] As far as I’m aware, circumcision was performed by religious leaders, and thus had clear overtones of public profession. How else could one prove one’s circumcision without being indecent?

[27] Given the excessive length of this paper.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download