The Most Helpful Resource award goes to Ligonier for making the 1997 infant baptism debate between R.C. Sproul and Alistair Begg available online, for it was that more than anything which moved me into a position to understand the whole shooting match. The most helpful point in particular was that both men agreed that Baptists and Presbyterians have a radically different understanding of what baptism actually is. To the Baptist it’s the oath of allegiance to Christ as King which signifies your submission to Him, and which functions as a testimony to the truth of the gospel. To the Presbyterian baptism is the sign of entrance to the covenant community, signifying His promises are true, and functioning as a symbol for a number of related things. This difference explains almost everything.
This is why Presbyterian churches are generally much more relaxed about baptism than Baptist churches, because to them it’s something more like a secondary issue. When a Baptist places membership at a Reformed church the elders will generally welcome him as-is, “You believe adults need to be baptized right? Well that’s great! You’ve got enough of it correct that you’re welcome here.” But when the Presbyterian enters a Baptist church things are very different; the Baptist is much more likely to fence membership again him because he's misunderstood the principle of salvation. “You think we can be saved by being born into a Christian home, so we can’t let you join until you repent of that.”
Because they are working from unique presuppositions and definitions the two sides often speak past each other on the debate stage. I gave up counting how many times I saw the following argument from the credo-baptist: “Infant baptism is a positively harmful doctrine since people who were baptized as infants think they’re automatically saved.” What’s the problem here (I mean aside from how it sounds suspiciously like what the Arminians say about assurance or perseverance of the saints)? That isn't how the paedo-baptists views baptism. Even my hero Alistair Begg made this mistake when he said, “there’s a great potential for the thing to function in reverse…”
And likewise pretty much all of what Michael Horton says starts with the Presbyterian point of view and then draws faulty conclusions about the Baptist framework. Oh yeah, speaking of that, the Most Unhelpful award goes to Michael Horton.
The fact that there are two totally different ideas about what baptism is perfectly accounts for why credo-baptists think the very concept of infant baptism is bonkers crazy. You might as well speak of a square circle or a jumbo shrimp to speak of an infant voluntarily putting on the uniform of Christ. For years I couldn't account for the mistake of the doctrine apart from an irrational emotional impulse in the paedo-baptist, on par with the Catholic worship (err, veneration) of Mary or the Charismatics lying on the floor pretending to speak in tongues. John MacArthur’s idea that the Reformers just never got around to fixing all of Rome’s bad doctrine seemed reasonable to me. Similarly, the mode of pouring (rather than the proper form of immersion) seemed to be a practical compromise necessary to avoiding drowning the infants—a prudent move, but ultimately unbiblical.
This explains why a fair and honest credo using the actual paedo definition of baptism still feels no compunction to baptize infants. “If the Presbyterian defines baptism as entering into the New Covenant,” he reasons, “and that is means entering under the discipleship process and the truths of Scripture, then why do my kids need to be baptized? Are my children not already being discipled? Are they not already being taught Scripture?” They are, therefore there’s no need for baptism.
It also explains why a credo sees the paedo position as a hermeneutical construct. The credo believes infant baptism arises from adopting a curious covenantal framework which is sub-biblical and imposes its views on the text, rather than taking its views naturally from the text. To the Baptist the argument looks like a really weird and a terrifically unpersuasive argument about circumcision and Abraham.
“Just read the Bible and you’ll see that adults should be baptized.”
“Yeah, but Abraham applied the sign of the covenant to his infant son!”
“Huh? What does that have to do with anything?”
In the eyes of the credo-baptist the paedo has Christianized the Old Testament and Judiazed the New.
Finally, on a person note, this accounts for my confusion over baptism growing up in the churches of Christ. When we would baptized we’d say, “I now baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, for the remission of sins.” Needless to say this really set me adrift since John the Baptists also had a baptism for the remission of sins. Baptist theology helped me get straightened out because their commitment to the oath model was total, and therefore stronger and more air-tight. Now I see that I was initially mixed up because the churches of Christ had blended both the paedo and credo understandings together, the result was something of both models, but not as robust as either parent idea.
The Humiliation Award goes to me. No surprises there. I write the above which seems to condemn the credo-baptist position as judgmental and standoffish because I’m just expressing the inward thoughts I had for many years. I’d always simply dismissed the paedo-baptists as strange but nice, prone to apostasy and liberalism because they’d not sufficiently held to the supremacy of Christ like we did. Having an understanding of the issue now, I'm sorry I was so foolish and immature.
And now it's time to give out the award for Most Biblical.
(Return to the Index)
2 comments:
Phil:
I could have told you this - "Baptists and Presbyterians have a radically different view of what baptism actually is," and perhaps saved you some reading. :) Though, to be more specific, the "radically different view" between the two is not really over baptism - both confess it to be a "sign" (see WCF 28.1 and LBC 29.1) - but over the new covenant of which it's "a sign." That's the actual question, what's the new covenant? (Presbyterians have a harder time explaining what exactly is new about it). Since the new covenant is spiritual - not genealogical, as was the old - it's sign is only properly administered to those who may be legitimately considered members of the new covenant community, i.e., "who do actually profess repentance..." (LBC, 29.2).
To be fair, there's no problem with the oft-repeated Baptist concern: “Infant baptism is a positively harmful doctrine since infants who are baptized will think they’re saved" - I think you're missing the concern over the de facto state of many Presbyterians, not the consistency of their doctrine. Of course, there's no inconsistency with Presbyterian theological understanding of baptism, but what's the actual impact on people's lives? Many think they're saved because they were sprinkled as babies - it's the (however, unintended) inevitable fruit of a bad doctrine. It's similar, for example, to our concerns over Roman Catholicism, which does believe salvation is by faith through grace - and recoils at any suggestion that teach it's "by works." But what's the practical effect of their sacramental understanding of salvation by grace? Roman Catholics think they're saved by their works.
Paedobaptism is undeniably is a later accretion to the church - no evidence of it's practice earlier than later 2nd or 3rd centuries (look at baptismal archaeology - they're pools for immersing adults!). Of course, it became enforced practice after Christianizing Rome, a century later. There is no exegetical argument for it, which is what Luther confronted during the Reformation when opponents argued that if he carried his argument against Roman tradition to it's logical conclusion, he'd have to throw-out infant baptism, too - which would've sent European society into chaos. So, he invented the "household" argument from Acts and infant baptism has been built on that house of cards in Reformed traditions, ever since. And when you push Presbyterian historians and theologians, eventually they will admit this, "it's tradition" and it's later appearance is a sign of the church "maturing." Now, I believe in doctrinal development, but the church got baptism wrong for it's first couple hundred years?! C'mon.
So, the real key to this debate is understanding that infant baptism can only be deduced from the Bible if you assume it to be the inevitable conclusion before you actually study the Bible - it's a tradition searching for a biblical text. Sadly, people still think they've discovered some and then de-form into Presbyterians. I, however, feel sure of better things in your case, brother (Heb 6:9) - and trust the "most biblical" award goes to 1689 LBC, 29. :)
I've held the LBCF for many years now, and I think it's very good. But... without Jeremiah 31 in play or dispensationalism lending a hand I don't see there's any hope.
Post a Comment