Monday, May 4, 2009

Inconsistency

Had a friendly scuffle with Tur8infan in his combox over infant baptism. The exchange can be read here. I'm writing these thoughts out in this post as I have never seen this line of thought argued in a debate.

I'm a credo-baptist, I believe that the proper subjects of baptism are those who repent and believe. That does not mean that I deny that God can, and does, regenerate infants or the infirm who cannot verbalize their faith/new birth. We, Reformed Baptists, do not exclude infants or the infirm from church or the hearing of the Gospel, but we do wait until a profession is made before we administer baptism or the Supper. We believe that both baptism and the Supper require one to be conscious of their significance.

(Note: I'm sure there are examples in Baptist churches where this is ignored, but I'm speaking firstly of self-proclaimed Reformed Baptist, or credo-baptistic churches who hold to the doctrines of grace.)

To summarize:



Reformed paedobaptists believe that the basis for baptizing infants lay in the concept of Federal Headship and, as Tur8infan states it: "The declaration of faith and repentance for baptism is either the individual's own, or (in the case of infants) that of the parent(s), just as with circumcision." Thus, because a parent believes, an infant should be baptized.

Reformed paedobaptists (who do not practice paedocommunion) claim that Scripture demands that one who partakes the Supper examine themselves and discern the body. Thus since an infant cannot do these things, they should be excluded from the meal.

Those who do practice both paedobaptism and paedocommunion claim that federal headship applies to both covenant rites and thus infants of believers so baptized and communed are true members of Christ and the New Covenant.

From my perspective, the paedocommunionists are more consistent at least with how they handle federal headship. I would argue that if baptism = circumcision then the Supper most closely resembles the Passover meal. Yet the Passover meal was provided to all who had been circumcised as long as they could partake (milk-fed infants not withstanding). They did not need to discern the body, as they most likely saw it slain.

Yet, since there is as much demand in Scripture for one to believe and repent before being baptized and afterward to walk in the newness of life, as there is for one to examine oneself and discern the body prior to partaking of the Supper, if you are to apply one standard to baptism, it must be likewise applied to the Supper.

If the faith of the parent enables one, it should enable the other. If however the command for examination and discernment is required of one, and thus prevents an infant from participating in one, it must likewise prevent the other.


My questions, for non-paedocommunionists are these:

1) Into what covenant are infants baptized?

2) Where are the stipulations of said covenant found?

3) Do infants baptized into said covenant receive all the benefits thereof as described?

4) On what basis are infants, baptized into said covenant, excluded from the one rite/object actually identified with that covenant?

5) If circumcised children/infants participated in the Passover meal why are baptized infants prevented from participating in the fulfillment of that meal?

I may think up more questions in the following days, but one other issue must be addressed.

In almost every credo/paedo debate, the paedobaptist side brings up the fact that John the Baptist leapt in his mother's womb, that Jesus told the disciples to bring children to him, that one has to have faith "like a child" etc. as some sort of argument for their position.

The problem, of course, with this is several fold. Firstly, since the paedobaptist argument lies in the fact of federal headship and the faith of the parent, not that of the child or infant, the potentiality of faith/regeneration of infants does not make a case for federal-headship-infant-baptism. Leaping babies, blessings from Jesus and faith "like a child" are emotional appeals that speak to the nature of the child and/or God's care for the child, not to the correctness of baptising them. If one is arguing for paedobaptism on the basis of federal headship, the infant's faith, or even ability to have faith, should be of no regard.

To this, Tur8in fan wrote:
The John the Baptist example demonstrates that young infants can, in theory, have faith, repentance, and a regenerate heart. (and you wonder why it keeps getting trotted out in debates ...)
But this still doesn't answer the question or explain the usage. No Reformed Baptist denies that infants can be given the gift of faith, or a regenerate heart... so the only purpose therefore in a debate is as an emotional appeal without consistent basis in the Paedobaptist's federal headship argument.

Finally, I wonder if the fact that we seem to have reduced the Supper to a rite of drinking a thimble of juice/wine and a little piece of bread alters our opinion of what is to be done. I don't believe that the 1 Cor 11 version of the Supper was merely the clinical ceremony it is today.

Galatians 3:27
For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

19 comments:

  1. Lemme start by saying I really, really, really don't want to get into this with you (mostly because I'm so rusty at this sort of thing that you'd have me KO'd within the first round).

    BUT

    You do know that there's a good case to be made against "Yet the Passover meal was provided to all who had been circumcised as long as they could partake (milk-fed infants not withstanding)", don't ya?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mate, thanks for this. As a paedo-baptist who, himself, baptises children I think you've raised some excellent points.

    Above all, I think you've noted the possible inconsistency of those who argue paedo-baptism from a strongly covenantal position. I was also struck by James White's argument vs Schisko (sp?) from Heb 8 - namely that the New Covenant membership is clearly exclusively only those who are regenerate.

    So I think the direct covenantal equivalent argument begins to fall down.

    Nevertheless (and I know it's not the point you're arguing but do indulge me) I cannot get beyond the fact that the whole household of believers were baptised. Even though a direct covenantal relationship and benefit is not argued directly in Scripture, there nevertheless appears to be something going on.

    Perhaps what would be helpful for me would be for a credobaptist to explain household baptisms. I'd love to hear some reasoning from that side of the debate.

    Thanks again for raising the issue. It's important for all of us to keep asking ourselves exactly how we understand that the gospel works itself out in these things.

    David (Cranmer)

    ReplyDelete
  3. You do know that there's a good case to be made against "Yet the Passover meal was provided to all who had been circumcised as long as they could partake (milk-fed infants not withstanding)", don't ya?Lay it down, bro!

    ReplyDelete
  4. David,

    I cannot get beyond the fact that the whole household of believers were baptised... Perhaps what would be helpful for me would be for a credobaptist to explain household baptisms. No one was baptised who did not believe in Christ.

    Unless you're going to argue that some in the household (servants, whatever) did not, there's no case.

    "Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household..." Are we assume that in other cases the whole household didn't believe?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Micah, I'm not sure what you're arguing.

    When the NT speaks of whole households being baptised, surely it means whole households. So I'm not, as you question, stating that some were not baptised.

    Most crucially, your opening statement "no one was baptised who did not believe in Christ" is an assertion which the text won't sustain one way or another.

    In the case of Crispus, of course, there's no doubt they all repented. With Lydia it strikes me as an inference.

    Now, I'm happy to concede that it's possible. I have no problem with that.

    Also, your last quote from Galatians raises another issue. I'm not at all convinced that the majority of references to "baptism" in the NT are about water baptism but, rather, simply speak to inclusion in Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  6. When the NT speaks of whole households being baptised, surely it means whole households.

    No one has ever stated otherwise... but you're implying that there were unbelievers in that household that were baptized unwillingly.

    So I'm not, as you question, stating that some were not baptised.

    I never stated that! Again, the entirety of the paedobaptist understanding of "household" requires some who did not believe to be baptized.

    Most crucially, your opening statement "no one was baptised who did not believe in Christ" is an assertion which the text won't sustain one way or another.

    Let me get this on record: Are you truly saying that the Apostles knowingly baptized those who did not believe?

    Crispus, of course, there's no doubt they all repented. With Lydia it strikes me as an inference.

    Again, the summary of your argument seems to bethat some who did not believe were knowingly baptized.

    Also, your last quote from Galatians raises another issue. I'm not at all convinced that the majority of references to "baptism" in the NT are about water baptism but, rather, simply speak to inclusion in Christ.


    Are you seriously suggesting that Paul is saying, in this passage, "you who are in Christ are in Christ"? ;) And for what reason are you saying this? Does not the fact that those who are "baptized into Christ" having "put on Christ" place some doubt on the whole concept of baptizing unbelievers?

    Seriously, that's what this all adds up to... trying to suggest that unbelievers were knowingly baptized. It really seems like grasping at straws and turning the text on its head just to claim a point that is not clearly taught by the Apostles.

    Have unbelievers "put on Christ"? Have infants "put on Christ"?

    ReplyDelete
  7. but you're implying that there were unbelievers in that household that were baptized unwillingly. Well, "unwillingly" is a new issue that you've introduced. I assume you're talking about adults. In which case my first response would be that by adults in the household I understand the servants - so I don't think "unwillingly" is understood in the same way.

    Are you truly saying that the Apostles knowingly baptized those who did not believe?Why do you sound so shocked? This is a standard paedobaptist position that we baptise those who are (in the case of children) potentially unregenerate. I realise that the credo-baptist position, in good conscience, rejects this but that should be an indication to you of different understandings of baptism, not a call to an instant sweeping rejection.

    As for Gal 3:27, what I am saying is that Paul is telling them "those of you who are included in Christ have put on Christ". That is to say that inclusion in Christ brings with it a change. That change is, of course, laid out in Galatians.

    You are, of course, aware that "baptised" is used in this way on a number of occasions in the NT. Or is that a new thought for you?

    ReplyDelete
  8. You are, of course, aware that "baptised" is used in this way on a number of occasions in the NT. Or is that a new thought for you?

    Not a new thought, but appealing to argument that for this text I find suspect.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I go with the idea that baptism is an outward expression of an internal decision. It is an act of obedience and a profession of faith. Neither of which can be ascribed to an infant. I see infant "baptism" more as an annointing, by the parents, a committment to raise their child in the Christian tradition.

    To me, believing that infant baptism is propitiary in any way puts it on the same plane as the Mormon's practice of proxy baptism. A "just in case" sort of thing, that I don't think you can really support Biblically.

    Isn't this essentially a Catholic doctrine, such that the Priest is able to impart salvation through his Church authority? A concept I don't adhere to, so it makes sense that I wouldn't support infant baptism.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I go with the idea that baptism is an outward expression of an internal decision. It is an act of obedience and a profession of faith. Neither of which can be ascribed to an infant. I see infant "baptism" more as an annointing, by the parents, a committment to raise their child in the Christian tradition.

    Steve,

    The problem is with that view is that there is good Biblical inference relating baptism to circumcision and the covenant nature of that sign. The federal headship argument, that when the head of the house is baptized, the whole household is likewise, appeals in that it fits with how God deals with people, that is, federally.

    God told Abraham to circumcise his whole house, females excluded, infants included, regardless of any expression of faith. Since baptism is tied to circumcision in the New Testament, there is good warrant to consider the application to be likewise federal.

    To me, believing that infant baptism is propitiary in any way puts it on the same plane as the Mormon's practice of proxy baptism. A "just in case" sort of thing, that I don't think you can really support Biblically.

    Let's be clear, infant baptism is in no way related to the heretical practice of proxy baptism, rather, infant baptism is, by inference of Scripture, practiced by orthodox Christian denominations which practice sola Scriptura.
    I am a baptist, but I am one who has spent a good deal of time with paedobaptists both in fellowship and worship. It is wrong to suggest that they have no Scriptural warrant for their practice what-so-ever. My questions here and elsewhere are related to the nature of the practice and my opinion of inconsistency in regards to paedocommunion.

    Isn't this essentially a Catholic doctrine, such that the Priest is able to impart salvation through his Church authority? A concept I don't adhere to, so it makes sense that I wouldn't support infant baptism.

    Uh... no. Firstly, not everything 'Roman Catholic' is wrong. We believe in the Trinity and yet it could be said that it was a 'catholic' formulation. While Roman Catholics do practice infant baptism, they see it as actually removing the stain of original sin, thus regenerating (of sorts) the infant.

    The Reformed understanding of infant baptism, however, lies in the covenantal nature of God's dealing with mankind. Just as God made a covenant with Abraham and gave him the sign of circumcision, to be applied to all his house, so too they believe we should apply the sign of the New Covenant to the household of believers. Baptism does not, in Reformed understanding, remove the stain of original sin, nor provide salvation, but rather is a sign and seal of the New Covenant.

    My concern lay with the specifics of the application. Firstly, I believe that paedobaptists improperly import part of the Old Testament laws relating to circumcision, picking and choosing which do and which do not apply. Secondly, I believe that paedobaptists are inconsistent when they argue against paedocommunion on the basis that 1 Cor 11 requires some "discernment" that infants cannot provide, since we baptists see baptism as requiring faith AND the Supper as requiring discernment. Finally, it seems, that when arguing this practice, paedobaptists appeal to passages that have an emotional appeal, rather than a foundational doctrinal one. That is, when arguing for paedobaptism they generally appeal to how much God loves children and treats them good... (as if baptists think otherwise), but their argument is that infants should be baptized on the basis of their parent's faith, not because they're cute and cuddly.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Lockheed - Concur.

    I don't think everything RC is wrong, despite some fundamental Lutherian concerns with aspects of their doctrine.

    Baptism does not, in Reformed understanding, remove the stain of original sin, nor provide salvation, but rather is a sign and seal of the New Covenant.Again, completely agree.

    I'm a lifelong evangelical protestant. Been southern baptist, presbyterian, and AOG. My wife and I "dedicated" our children at the church altar by annointing with oil. Both have since come to know the Lord in a personal decision. The Baptism will also be when they choose to follow in obedience.

    If I baptize my infant, it is because I am being obedient to the 'federal headship' idea. To me, this is a separate and distinct step from my child's personal decision to be baptized after accepting Christ.

    My son was circumsized, out of MY obedience (headship of the family). I, however, do not believe that I can make the same decision wrt his baptism or salvation experience. My leadership is to guide him towards the personal relationship, not have it for him.

    In some respects I am called to be obedient, in others, they are. Thus while my "headship" is scripturally mandated, it extends only so far in the matters of my childrens' spiritual condition.

    This is the area of departure, for me, from Catholicism, where I see the spritual headship almost exclusively placed upon the priesthood. I know there are many very strong Christian who are Catholic, but I think there are a lot of Catholics who are not, by NT doctine, Christians. To me, simply attending mass and abiding by the precepts and liturgical habits does not equate to the evangelical/protestant understanding of a personal faith decision, repentance, etc.

    Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 2 Cr 3:5-6It's that whole "indwelling of the Holy Spirit" that sort of, to me, monkeywrenches sola scriptura.

    ReplyDelete
  12. If I baptize my infant, it is because I am being obedient to the 'federal headship' idea. To me, this is a separate and distinct step from my child's personal decision to be baptized after accepting Christ.Why? Where do you see people being rebaptized in Scripture, ever? Given what baptism means, Scripturally, what warrant is there for ever baptizing someone again who was baptized in a Bible believing church?

    My son was circumsized, out of MY obedience (headship of the family). I'm not sure if you're talking hypothetically or not here, but circumcision serves no true religious purpose in the New Covenant era.

    Thus while my "headship" is scripturally mandated, it extends only so far in the matters of my childrens' spiritual condition.And paedobaptists would say that just as Abraham's mandated headship included circumcising his infant, in the New Covenant era, that would apply to Baptism.

    This is the area of departure, for me, from Catholicism, where I see the spritual headship almost exclusively placed upon the priesthood.Again, Reformed paeodbaptism is quite different from the Roman Catholic version in intent and doctrine. I find it unhelpful to point to cultic practices in arguing the points.

    It's that whole "indwelling of the Holy Spirit" that sort of, to me, monkeywrenches sola scriptura.Ah, I see... now knowing where you are coming from I can see how you can choose to believe what ever the "spirit" tells you apart from the Word of God. When Paul writes in 2 Cor 3:5-6 regarding "the letter" he is not, in fact, talking about the very writing that 2 Cor is! Rather he's talking about the law in it's purpose to bring sinners to their deaths that they might be risen to life in Christ.

    Sola Scriptura therefore is TAUGHT by 2 Cor 3, not denied by it.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I validate what the Spirit teaches me WITH the Bible, not, as some like to suggest, creating my own doctrine from the voices in my head.

    I don't believe you can truly understand the Bible WITHOUT the Holy Spirit guiding you.

    But then, I'm one of those wacky evangelical types.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I validate what the Spirit teaches me WITH the Bible, not, as some like to suggest, creating my own doctrine from the voices in my head.Great, this is, in effect, sola Scriptura. The Spirit never points to Himself, but always to the Son via the Word.

    I don't believe you can truly understand the Bible WITHOUT the Holy Spirit guiding you.Yes. One might glean general facts, but they cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor 2:14) apart from the Spirit.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hey, for what it's worth, I have realized that I made a big goof. When I said "monkey wrench in sola scriptura" earlier, I was actually speaking of the Catholic doctrine of "ex cathedra," or more specifically, the Catholic church being the sole source of doctrinal "correctness."

    Need to work on my Thesaurus a bit.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Heh... I figured since what you stated later was pretty much sola Scriptura. But previously you sounded... charismatic?

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'm a Biblical literalist, but not a young earth creationist. Figure that one out. I believe that the Scriptures are God-breathed, but that it also helps to know the cultural context of the speaker to better understand what is being said.

    I believe that the gifts of the Spirit are operative today, and didn't cease with the Apostles, however, I'm not a bark-like-a-dog, roll around on the floor kind of pentecostal charismatic.

    I don't think that any "special revelation" can contradict Scripture. I believe, as 2nd Peter 1:20-21 says,
    "knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit"

    I believe that the rending of the Temple curtain upon Christ's death means that we, as Christians, no longer need an earthly priesthood to intercede for us before the throne of God. Jesus himself does that, and we can speak to Him directly.

    Not to say that there isn't a definite need for pastors and priests, but THEY do not hold the keys to our salvation.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Have you read my piece on tongues? ;)

    Also, how would any special revelation today not be "men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" and how would that not be Scripture today, binding upon believers?

    ReplyDelete
  19. I believe that R.C. Sproul is an annointed teacher and preacher. He expounds an illuminates the scriptures in such a way that I am edified and God is glorified.

    But I don't think he is speaking Scripture. Any modern teaching, prophetic utterances, or doctrinal position must be evaluated through the lens of Scriptures. The Apostles, through there direct annointing from Christ, had a unique calling or position of authority which, to me, cannot be equaled or superceded today.

    The Catholics see the Pope as a descendant of an Apostolic lineage, and thus able to speak Scripture into being as Paul or Matthew might. I do not agree. Part of that reservation being that the Pope is selected/elected through an essentially political process. I don't see how that equates to a "road to Damascus" kind of "special revelation."

    ReplyDelete