Monday, August 26, 2013
Baptism
A friend of mine goes to a community church. It is basically a Baptist church in its form and doctrine. Upon perusing its beliefs I always, if it is reformed check out what they believe about baptism. What they believe about baptism always tells me whether they are Baptist or Presbyterian in their doctrine. With that in mind, I copied and pasted from their site what they believe about baptism:
"Baptism is a visual representation of the spiritual reality of the believer’s union with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection (Romans 6:3-5, 1 Peter 3:20-21). As the professing believer is taken down into the waters of baptism, there is a beautiful picture of the old self descending into the grave with Christ. As the believer is raised out of the water, the picture is that of the believer’s new self rising with Christ to live in resurrection power."
There is nothing wrong with this. But a little further I find my problem:
"Scripture does not specify any particular age of baptism. Therefore we will accept any candidate for baptism who can independently articulate the substance of his repentance and faith in Christ and can be examined for evidence of such faith (Acts 10:46-48)."
The problem lies in here: "we will accept any candidate for baptism who can independently articulate the substance of his repentance and faith in Christ". The reason is that implicit in this statement is the exclusion of those who cannot articulate their faith even though their parents can.
It is fairly straightforward that adults must be able to profess their faith in Jesus Christ in order that they be a fitting subject for Baptism. No one would disagree here. The Church ought to require such a profession before Baptising adults. Upon receiving such profession the Church cannot make further inquiries into whether the profession was genuine or not. This is not in her province but God's. But the Presbyterians would strongly reject the implication and accept the children and infants of believers who have professed their faith. There is good reason for accepting infant baptism of which I will go into shortly in following posts. But suffice it to say that most of my information will come from Louis Berkhof's book entitled "Systematic Theology". The second on infant baptism is most enlightening and can be found on page 632-643. I will take excerpts from it to show why the Baptists fail here. In conclusion the Baptist needs to be able to seriously ponder how they can can accept reformed theological conclusions but exempt infants of believing adults from God's covenantal promises. Unless they reject covenant theology altogether. We both admit that without God's grace we are lost and that this is not contingent on our performance. Yet somehow regarding infants, they must prove, individually, that they belong. So performance is front and center with infants and children under some arbitrary age but grace alone with adults who have successfully professed their faith. But we understand, as reformed Christians, that even our faith is not our own but God's. Faith is not what saves us but Christ saves us. Hebrews states that Jesus Christ alone is the maintainer of our faith. There is a very real contradiction in how the Baptists work out this doctrine - to allow some but disallow others on the basis of some evidence visible to them. I read that God knew me in my mother's womb - no human prying eyes knew that God had set me apart for his service. But as believing parents God's covenant to keep me strong to the end must overflow to my children and I am confident that they are his as I am since Christ has chosen me for reasons beyond my understanding, I can be confident that he has chosen my newborn son or daughter in just the same way as he chose me - not based on any merit but by his mercy and love. There is no difference. Confirmation or our "profession of faith" classes help us as human beings understand that God did in fact choose them from birth and set them apart. This is not some random, worry some thing. I can be confident that God has accepted them because his blessing is freely bestowed on me and my wife. It would be a cruel thing indeed if God was not pleased with the fruit of our love by also blessing our children of which we have covenanted with God to raise in the fear of the Lord. We could not satisfy this command if God was not instructing us on how this should be done. Their faith is not their own. It is God's and he will do it!
-Joe
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Hey Joe, thanks for your post. I have been on both sides of the baptism issue -- currently on the confessor's baptism. I also consider myself to be reformed (at least in my soteriology). I look forward to your future posts and some discussion.
Two of my primary arguments for currently holding a baptistic view are these:
1. My understanding of the change involved in the New Covenant (NC). What I mean is this: the Old Covenant (OC) intentionally included those of a household who were unbelievers (not just children, but slaves/employees as well), and thus the covenant community was mixed and could be broken. When I read in Jer 31:31-34 about the NC it says that it will not be a mixed community like the OC. Rather, it will consist only of believers, who have the Spirit, and are thus "caused" to walk in God's ways, thereby resulting in the fact that it cannot be broken (31:32). Thus, it is a believers only community, and if you hold baptism to be the symbol of belonging to that community, I would refrain from giving it to any who do not confess that faith.
2. Paul does not seem to see baptism as the replacement for circumcision, particularly in the letter to the Galatians. The Galatian heresy had something to do with covenant community membership, and the false teachers were advocating getting it by circumcision. IF circumcision were replaced by baptism, his argument would have been very easy and say, "Don't you know that you are members of God's family by baptism, not by circumcision?!" But, actually, his response was that membership in the family was based on faith and the presence of the Holy Spirit. This is to me a very telling silence, though admittedly a silence. But, if baptism is a symbol of covenant membership, why do reformed churches deny children the covenant meal -- the Lord's supper?? This seems to indicate that there is actually an understanding that these non-confessing children are actually not part of the community. That's probably not an entirely fair statement, but since you know me, you can take it with a grain (or two) of salt and grace :)
Anyhow, if in your reading of Berkhof you see responses to these kinds of objections, I'd welcome them.
Thanks again for your post!
-Kevin
In addressing your first point Kevin, my first reaction is to point out that the OC was applicable to all who belonged to Israel. All within the physical borders who agreed to abide by the laws of God no matter whether they were from Israel or were aliens coming in from outside. But God has done a new thing in that true believers worship God from the heart not merely from obeying the law. You know all of this. If anything the blessings of the New Covenant are more universal as they speak to our new found freedoms in the body of Christ. Why would it be difficult to accept that if the NC excludes unbelievers except those who profess faith in Christ how can you suggest that children of believing parents are excluded when all you have is an assumption that God has not chosen them? As the NC points to the heart, and only God knows those who are his, I would rather believe that God has chosen them and that one day they will in fact confirm this in their confession. Not only so but I would make sure of their Baptism as it clearly communicates faith that they belong to the community of believers.
Sproul mentions that the real issue between Baptists and Presbyterians is in how they see God way in defining the church. I see him including children and infants into the covenant whereas the Baptist do not. To me this is a travesty as it speaks to much greater issues than infant baptism. It speaks to God's sovereignty in matters of salvation.
-Joe
Post a Comment