Baptism has been a point of contention among Christians for
centuries. Who should be baptized? Should it be limited to those with a
credible profession of faith? Or are children of believing parents proper
canidates also? And how much water should or must be used? For some, full
immersion is essential for authentic baptism. But since the early centuries
of the Church, baptism has been administered through sprinkling and pouring as
well. The line is typically drawn between paedobaptists (who sprinkle infants) and
credobaptists (who immerse upon a credible profession of faith). Both groups
have exchanged strong words more than a few times. Could there be a middle way?
New Testament scholar Mike Bird has written two
thought-provoking posts with precisely this aim of finding a middle way (part
1, part
2). Bird helpfully points out that both credo and paedo baptism have
roots in early Christian history, and that both have something to teach us. He
also reminds us that it is very difficult to get a very clear picture of how
children of believers were regarded when it came to baptism in the New
Testament period. I particularly appreciate his language of "gospel
baptism" as an effort to get beyond the standard debate and a call to
various demoninations to recognize one another's baptisms. I also appreciate Bird's
irenic tone and his desire to urge the Church towards unity with regard to our
chief initiatory rite.
There is one point I'd like to press a little, and it is a
point that Bird touched on briefly in the first post. Bird points out that
paedobaptism helpfully points us to God's prevening grace while credobaptism
reminds us of the importance of a personal experience of God and warns us
against nominal belief. The difference between paedos and credos is much
deeper, though. Paedobaptists see baptism as primarily a sign of God's gracious
covenant while (if I understand correctly) credobaptists see baptism as
primarily a badge or sign of personal faith. For the paedobaptist, baptism is
something God does through his Church; for the credobaptist, baptism is something
the person does. There is a fundamental difference here that could be spoken of
in terms of the direction of the action. For the paedobaptist, God acts towards
the baptized person; for the credobaptist, the baptized person acts in faith
towards God. I'm not sure it is simply a matter of emphasis; it seems to me to
be a fundamentally different view of baptism. I'm with Bird on searching for
common ground and unity on this issue, and I'm curious how he would respond to
this apparent point of contradiction in our common endeavor for middle way.
For the sake of clarity, let me add that when paedobaptists
(like myself) baptize adults after they become believers, we are not actually
practicing believer's baptism. Our understanding of baptism does not change
depending on the age the candidate. When I baptize an adult, I explain to them
that this is a sign of God's covenant bestowed on them out of his grace. It is,
of course, recieved in faith, but it is not primarily a sign of faith. We are
not both paedo and credobaptists. We are paedobaptists who understand that
baptism is a sign of the covenant and rightly belongs to all who are
participants in that covenant, whether they are our children or newly believing
adult brothers and sisters.
What do you think? Is there a middle way in the
baptism debate? Or is there a fundamental and irreconcilable contradiction?
_____
Image: seaskylab
/ FreeDigitalPhotos.net
11 comments:
Thank you for these links to Mr. Bird's thoughts. An important issue, to be sure. The optimistic part of me thinks more conversation and looking for common ground would be helpful, but the realist part of me doubts there's much common ground to be found in the end.
I like your last paragraph.
In a recent discussion, my thinking was this: Among the Jews, there were two ways to become a Jew. Be born of Jewish parents and be marked as one of the covenant people (if male) or convert and go through a set of prescribed rituals. They had ways for babies and adults to enter the people of God.
So do we. Both are valid. In the NT we see more adult baptism than infant because this was a case of missionary conversions to adults. We have zero evidence about what happened even in Acts when a baby was born. Since infant baptism was attested to very early in the church, it seems credible to be that infant baptism was always practiced.
I don't know if this is a "middle" way or not. It is the one that makes sense to me (and I was baptized as an adult).
Thanks for the comments, guys.
Larry, I too am doubtful that much commonality will be found on the issue. And paedobaptists already recognize the baptisms of credobaptists anyway. So, there's not much more room for compromise unless we give up our paedo theology altogether, which isn't going to happen.
John, I agree with your reasoning from the missionary situation in the NT. I've had similar thoughts before.
Thanks for reading.
Hey Matt,
You knew I would chime in, didn't you? I think it may be reductionistic to say, "credobaptists see baptism as primarily a badge or sign of personal faith," and, "for the credobaptist, baptism is something the person does." The response of faith is certainly a critical aspect of the credobaptist position. But in the credobaptist view, there are three actors involved in the drama of baptism. God is the primary actor because it is he who unites the believer to Christ in his death, burial and resurrection (Rom. 6). The believer is also an actor, in that baptism is a public profession of his faith. But there is a sense in which he is merely a passive actor. He submits himself to be plunged under water and is at the mercy of another to pull him from the waters of death. Which brings us to the third actor: the church. Baptism is a church ordinance; it is not merely an individual statement. The church also is professing that this indivudal, though worthy of God's judgment, has been rescued from judgment by virtue of their union with Christ. Perhaps baptists can do a better job of articulating all this, but it seems to me that the baptist position best preserves the importance of all three actors in baptism: God, the believer, and the church. The covenantal aspect is also not missing; it's just that, in the baptist view, the New Covenant is established only with believers, not believers and their as-yet unregenerate children (Jer. 31:34).
Hope you're doing well.
Hi Luke,
Thanks for your comment. I did figure that you might jump in, and I expected a little criticism on just the point you raised. It's good to hear you articulate a more nuanced view of baptism than what I'm used to hearing from my credo friends. However, I wonder whether the view you've articulated is really understood by most credobaptists. Far be it from me to tell you what baptists believe, but I've never actually heard a baptist explain baptism the way that you have here. The sign of faith aspect is usually chief.
We are well here. Hope you are as well.
Matt
Luke, I meant to ask whether you read Bird's two posts and what you thought about them.
Matt
I did read Bird's posts. I think his via media tends to downplay the significance of baptism for the sake of unity. A church is either going "baptize" babies or it isn't. A church is either going to allow people at the Lord's Table who haven't been baptized (as believers) or they aren't. It seems to me that in a fallen world, in which we cannot reach agreement on this issue, denominations become necessary in order for each group to practice ecclesiology as their consciences see fit. We can still share Christian fellowship outside the structures of our churches, but we probably can't mesh the two under a single roof without diminishing the importance of the debate.
My sentiments were similar. Also, Bird's desire basically shows up already in paedobaptist denominations where adult baptisms from other denominations and by various modes are typically recognized. In Bird's proposal, the only ones who would really have to give up anything would be the credobaptists.
Another element of this debate that gets missed is God's view of authority. If God vested the authority in a man to represent his family, He vested the right for a father to represent his family before God. Thus, the status of the 'whole family' WRT to baptism was set by the father and husband of that family and not by individuals themselves, until at least they possessed authority unto themselves.
Thus if the father of a family was baptised (as head of the house [Num 1:2-4]), it meant the whole family was also baptised (see [Acts 16:31-33] for example). It was only once children left and formed families of their own through marriage that the children had any influence of their own.
This model for baptism was based upon the preceding model for circumcision. One's status as baptised (or circumcised) was covered by the status of the head of the house in whom authority for the house was vested; until such time an adult child would depart to form a family for themselves and assume authority for themselves. (One could carry forward their previous status through continued faith.)
In our individualistic culture, where every person has a 'vote' so-to-speak, we fail to see that baptism (or circumcision) was not normally the individualistic thing it has become, instead it reflected a property of the family in which one was raised.
Thus paedo-baptism is perfectly legitimate for those under the age of consent, just as credo-baptism is perfectly legitimate for those over. Does this mean we need two baptisms?
No! There is only one Lord, one faith and one baptism [Eph 4:5] whether or not one was baptised under the authority of one's household (paedo) continued on in faith, or under one's own authority as the head of a house (credo). Both expressions we discuss here are legitimate.
Both types of baptism represent our death to the power of sin [Rom 6:4][Col 2:12]. Once baptised, we are resurrected unto Christ (and indeed this is our first resurrection) [1 Peter 3:18-22][Col 2:12][Rom 6:4]. Thus, credo and paedo baptism are clearly complimentary expressions of faith, rather than contradictory ones as so often portrayed.
Matt, this is why with paedo-baptism, baptism is covenantial; because in paedo-baptism God is honouring his covenantial promise to the father towards the father's children, whereas in credo-baptism one is experiencing that promise directly.
It continues to amaze, how we take an issue like this, and turn it into a doctrinal fight. This is yet another product of the individualist (humanistic) lens by which we view our world, and show us how much more we need to grow in our faiths.
I'm late to this discussion. However, I find Luke's comments about the three actors, etc. to be a new idea. That is, like Matt, I have never heard this.
What I have always heard (from Baptists and those within my own denomnination who argue against infant baptism) is that baptism is primarily, if not exclusively, the individuals action (giving some room for the role of the church). - It is not that God does not act in salvation. That is certainly the case, but that is seen as what happened when the persons "got saved." Baptism, itself, is a sign and symbol of what God has done and of that person's faith/acceptance. However, God is not seen as active IN baptism, itself (God already acted in their getting saved).
Baptism is seen, thus, as an ordinance, but not a sacrament (a means of receiving God's grace; God at work in and through the sacrament).
In other words, it may be a "sign" of what God has done, but God is not "doing it" in the act of baptism itself. Those who baptize babies tend to believe that God is at work in the baptism.
Am I wrong about this, Luke?
Todd+
http://wesleyananglican.blogspot.com
I would say that there is no single "Baptist view." There is diversity in the Baptist tradition. But historically, the Particular Baptist tradition (that is, the Reformed Baptist tradition) has been closer to the Calvinist view on the meaning of the ordinances. See chapters 28-30 in the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith. Note especially the more Calvinistic understanding of the Lord's Supper in chapter 30, para 1. Since baptism comes after conversion in the Baptist view, baptism serves in much the same way as the Lord's Supper. God is active in the ordinances in that he confirms "the faith of believers in all the benefits" of Christ's death. I admit that my idea of the "three actors" in baptism was inspired by reading the Reformed theologian Herman Bavinck. But I still think this idea fits best in the Baptist view. Paedobaptist views tend to downplay the signficance of the baptized person. Many baptistic (as opposed to Baptist) evangelicals tend to downplay the significance of God and the church. I think that the Particular Baptist tradition best preserves the significance of all three actors. For a helpful treatment of baptism from a Baptist perspective check out this sermon by Russell Moore: http://www.sbts.edu/resources/chapel/spring-2006/the-incomparable-glory-of-fish-vomit-baptism-the-great-commission-and-the-end-of-the-age/
Post a Comment