Since I’m leaving for Africa on Saturday, I don’t have a lot of time to post this blog. However, I wanted to put up something that might be helpful for those who read it regularly. What follows is my response to a question from my friend, “C,” a Baptist attending a Presbyterian church, who asked me how I made the transition from Reformed Baptist to Presbyterian – especially in regard to the issue of infant baptism. My answer might be seen as somewhat controversial, but that is not my intention. Nor is it my desire to offend my Baptist brethren, some of whom I know read this blog. As I say in the response, I don’t consider one’s views on baptism to be something central to Christian fellowship. (I couldn’t minister in Africa if I did!) Also, I understand that Baptists view baptism as one’s public profession of faith, not as a covenantal sign. Neither the email nor this post is intended to be a comprehensive theological discussion of the issue of baptism. Theologians from both perspectives have done that and done it well. Rather, I am writing to convey my own history – the Biblical passages and personal questions that caused me to change my views on the issue. I’m posting it because this kind of personal approach may be helpful for someone. And it is my hope that God will use it to bring about a greater appreciation for the paedobaptist position.
Dear C,
Responding to your question has been on my list for some time, but I've been thinking about how best to reply. I'm honored that you would ask me this question, and I certainly don't want to give the wrong impression because, to my mind, baptism is not an issue that is central to fellowship. I also don't want to offend you - and some of what I write may sound offensive. Please forgive me, if it is, and know that my only intention is to answer your question as honestly as I can. I don't expect to be able to convince you one way or the other - that's the Lord's business. That said, I'll relate my own experience.
It took a series of very serious spiritual shocks, but the Lord brought me to the point in the early 90's where I began to question some of what I had been taught in Baptist circles. Like you, I looked at my bookshelves and realized that most of the men whose theology and Biblical exposition I respected held a paedobaptist position. Since I was serving as the Principle of a Christian School at the time, I took my first step toward the paedobaptist view when I began to consider what the Bible teaches about the children of believers - both in the OT and the NT. I began to develop a theology of children, drawing on OT passages (like Ps.127,128 and Is.44:1-5; 54:13), Christ's teaching (...Don't hinder...of such is the Kingdom...), His actions (laying on of hands and blessing), and Paul's direct addresses to children (obey...in the Lord). In the process, I began to perceive a unity of perspective moving from the OT into the NT. In the OT, children are specifically included in the covenantal community, and in the NT, children are treated and exhorted as members of the covenantal community.
I began to see that the Baptist view of the church tends to be atomistic (i.e. radically individualistic) - the church is essentially a collection of individuals who voluntarily associate (and disassociate) as they please. This view is antithetical to what I believe Scripture teaches about the unity in Christ of God's covenant people - a unity that is spiritual, and is to be expressed outwardly in church life. And as time went on, I came to believe that this unbiblical atomism is most visibly expressed in the Baptist view of the sacrament of baptism. This view reinforces atomism by making entrance into the covenantal community dependent upon the choice/action of the individual. Even if you grant that salvation is all of God (as I know you do, along with many Baptists), one who is saved by God's grace is still does not become a member of the covenantal community (the church) until they present themselves for baptism. Granted, they are members of the invisible church and are saved, but they are denied access to the Lord's Supper and have no essential role in the church until they publicly declare their faith by presenting themselves for baptism. In contrast, infant baptism displays a clear picture of the sovereignty of God in salvation: the infant is brought into the covenantal community through no effort or choice of its own, just as we are saved by God's action from outside ourselves. (No, baptism is not salvation, and a public profession is still required before partaking in the Lord's Supper - but I'm assuming you know that line of reasoning.)
I was still not a paedobaptist, but by this point I was considering the possibility that it could be a legitimate view. Its legitimacy was further reinforced by the fact that I already believed in the essential unity between the OT and the NT. Later on, I realized that this hermeneutical question lies at the heart of the issue. Reformed writers – regardless of their view on baptism - assert the continuing between the testaments. But the Baptist view MUST make a strong distinction between OT and NT in regard to the relationship of circumcision to baptism, in order to explain its radical restriction (vis-à-vis the OT) in the membership of the covenantal community. Yet, all agree that the OTHER sacrament, the Lord's Supper, is a direct-line development from the OT sacrament of Passover. What Biblical line of reasoning (I asked myself) allows us to disassociate baptism from its OT roots? And by what right, absent any clear Biblical statement, do we have to bar children from the covenantal community (and, by implication, from the sign of the covenant) when their INCLUSION is so central to the identity of the people of God in the OT?
It was at this point that I asked a simple question: What would have been the expectation of a new Jewish believer in the early days of the church in Acts? Clearly, they would have expected that their children would also be part of this community of faith, which they saw (correctly) as the fulfillment of OT promises. They would also have expected that the sign of inclusion - whatever that was - would be given at least to their male offspring. Suddenly, I found the shoe was on the other foot. I had been used to "shutting up" paedobaptists by asking them where the NT taught us to baptize our children. But now I realized that the silence of the NT may actually be a clear indication that these Jewish believers ALREADY UNDERSTOOD the rules of covenantal inclusion. They were essentially the same rules as had applied since the time of Abraham. IF THE RULES HAD CHANGED, then the NT would have had to state the new guidelines in unequivocal terms. And there was only silence. Could it be that the only essential change had been in the nature of the covenantal sign - a change that had been heralded by John and by Jesus from the very beginning of their ministries? Could it be that this was part of the reason why Paul, in his ministry to the Gentiles, insisted so strongly that circumcision not be required of them - because it had become a purely ethnic thing, having been superseded by the covenant sign of baptism? Was baptism the NT form of circumcision, retaining its meaning as a rite of cleansing, but removing the shedding of blood because Christ's blood had now been shed? Apparently, the Council of Jerusalem agreed with Paul since it allowed that there was no imperative for the Gentiles to be circumcised, even though they were clearly seen as "the brethren in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia who are from the Gentiles." For although the Gentiles had once been "excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise," they were now "brought near by the blood of Christ." "So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household." Eph. 2:12,13,19. For "in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham [came] to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." "For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ....And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise." Gal. 3:27,29
With that, I crossed the line. This all happened while driving home from a Ligonier Conference in Florida. I started the drive as a Reformed Baptist and arrived home a Presbyterian. As I began to think back through the relevant texts, things began to realign into a new pattern. Now, BOTH sacraments were expansions upon OT roots - they carried the same meanings but had taken on different expressions. Just as in the OT, inclusion in the covenantal community did not constitute salvation - a work of God's grace in the heart was still required. But also, as promised, the New Covenant was better, including in the covenantal community (and in its sign of baptism) not only men but also women, not only boys but also girls, not only Jews but also Gentiles. And the passages bore this out: "The promise is for you AND FOR YOUR CHILDREN AND FOR ALL WHO ARE FAR OFF, as many as the Lord shall call to Himself." So also the household baptism passages in Acts 16; Paul's exhortations to children to obey their covenant Lord (Eph. 6:1); and his clear equation of circumcision and baptism in Col. 2:11,12.
I had a place for children and an answer to the atomism: covenant. It is not just believer's baptism (although adult believers do receive covenant baptism in Acts, usually accompanied by the baptism of the entire household); it is covenant baptism - a sign of God's promise to bless His people and their children. It brings the entire family into a relationship with God: for the believer, the full relationship of saving faith; for the infant, a relationship of blessing and instruction that looks forward to the day when, by God's grace, the child will embrace his birthright and trust in Christ alone. This perspective of being "God's household," carried from the family into the church, becomes the paradigm for both biblical submission and the exercise of divinely delegated authority. One does not simply choose to associate, one is called by God, marked out as belonging to Him and sovereignly placed within His household, under His rule. The Kingdom is far more, and far more important, than its constituent individual members.
Now, there are many other issues that impinge upon this one - mode of baptism, eschatology (at least in its dispensational form), ecclesiology, etc. Maybe we can talk about some of these when we get together later. May the Lord give you wisdom as you consider these things. They are not written as clearly as I would like, but perhaps this will do for a start.
Grace and peace,
Dan.
0 comments:
Post a Comment