- The London Baptist Confession 1689 sticks out like a sore thumb by claiming immersion is the only valid administration of baptism. Baptism, as a sign and seal of the New Covenant, is meant, analogous to circumcision, to reflect the the cleansing of Christ's blood and the washing of regeneration. Imagery of these significations in both the Old and New Testaments include, in contrast to "immersion," both sprinkling and pouring (e.g. Ezekiel 36:25, Luke 22:20, Titus 3:6, 1 Peter 1:2).
- The Reformers were awesome. Fesko covers, in brief, the beliefs regarding the nature of the sacraments and [infant] baptism of the following Reformers and Reformed Catechisms: Calvin, Polanus, Wollebius, Ames, Turretin, Witsius, The Thirty-Nine Articles, the Irish Articles, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession, and the Westminster Confession. I hadn't even heard of some of these giants, but I believe that out of all of them, I shall be revisiting Witsius the soonest.
- The Abrahamic covenant received brief attention, and though I expect it will be treated later in the book, I cannot help drawing attention to the fact of covenant continuity and its implications. A standard point of difference between Baptists and Presbyterians is the extent to which each see a covenant continuity. I will not post an extensive defense of infant baptism here, as I expect it will be treated by Fesko in Part II or III, wherein he considers baptism from the perspectives of biblical and systematic theology, respectively. However, the cumulative force of several of the following [paraphrased] observations made by the aforementioned Reformers necessitate the practice of infant baptism:
1) Circumcision no longer functions as the sign and seal of the Abrahamic covenant, a covenant which has not been abrogated (cf. Galatians 3-4).
2) In order for it to be true that the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant extend to Abraham's descendants and throughout their generations (Genesis 17:7), it must be the case that we have a correlative sign and seal by which we may claim, as could Abraham, that we have a covenant in our flesh for an everlasting covenant (Genesis 17:13).
3) Although it may be imprecise to call baptism a replacement for circumcision, since there are differences which shall, in due time, be pointed out, it is undeniable that baptism signifies the same soteric activity as did circumcision (Colossians 2:11-12). It is the sign and seal of the God's eternal covenant with Abraham (Galatians 3:27ff.).
4) Moreover, infants were regarded as members of the OT covenant community, as is evident from the fact that the sign and seal of the Abrahamic covenant was applied to them at the command of God (Genesis 17:12).
5) Baptists sometimes complain that there is no explicit Scriptural command to baptize infants. I believe I will from now on complain that Baptists cannot point in Scripture wherein infants born after the institution of baptism are said to be cut off from the Abrahamic covenant. That is indeed what Baptists must argue, for there is no other reason to deny a member of the covenant the sign and seal of that covenant, given that the parallel sacrament from the OT (circumcision) was applied indiscriminately (cf. Matthew 19:13, Acts 2:39, 1 Corinthians 7:14, et. al.).
- One final observation, and I believe it is the most interesting: Fesko mentions in his section on Luther that Luther wavered between the idea that infant baptism implies infants possess faith and the idea that infant baptism is based on the faith of another (fides aliena). While Luther ultimately defended the former, the contrast compelled me to examine the Roman Catholic belief, for what reason I shall make clear in a moment.
Augustine, upon whom Fesko argues Rome grounded their baptismal practice, wrote in Book I of his A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants:
Chapter 25. Infants are Described as Believers and as Penitents. Sins Alone Separate Between God and Men.
“Some one will say: How then are mere infants called to repentance? How can such as they repent of anything? The answer to this is: If they must not be called penitents because they have not the sense of repenting, neither must they be called believers, because they likewise have not the sense of believing. But if they are rightly called believers, because they in a certain sense profess faith by the words of their parents, why are they not also held to be before that penitents when they are shown to renounce the devil and this world by the profession again of the same parents?”
Now it is clear that Augustine held to fides aliena, and predicated the validity of infant baptism upon the faith of the parents. The sense in which infants are said to be believers is not due to intrinsic faith, but is rather coventantal or relational: viz. the infant was to be regarded a believer due to the faith of his or her parents. It would appear, at least, that Rome has followed suit, as its Catechism, while qualifying that the fides aliena is a reference to the church, nevertheless teaches fides aliena:
1282 Since the earliest times, Baptism has been administered to children, for it is a grace and a gift of God that does not presuppose any human merit; children are baptized in the faith of the Church. Entry into Christian life gives access to true freedom.
However, if infants are regarded by God as believers on the basis of the faith of another, this undercuts the ontological charge of "legal fiction" so commonly put forth against the Protestant teaching on justification. It seems to me that the closer Rome gets to covenant theology, the less they are able to wield these types of arguments.
16 comments:
Ryan, I'll try to lay out in a nutshell what I have come to call "The Paedobaptist Dilemma," or why paedobaptists need the covenant of grace in infant baptism in order to avoid pure symbolism, yet it causes them a major problem.
Paedobaptist's criticize Baptist's for holding to a purely symbolic view of baptism, while affirming themselves a divine intervention of some kind. Now, either God intervenes in baptism, or He does not? If He does, then it is either in a saving way, or it is not? If it is in a saving way, it either involves faith (such as The Church Of Christ Churches), or it does not (such as the Catholic Church)? If God intervenes in a non-saving way, it is either an intervention in a believers life through sanctification (the Baptist view), or it is an intervention in an infants life in a non-sanctified way (the paedobaptist view)? The paedobaptist view is actually worse than the symbolic, for at least with the symbolic view you have the person being baptized knowing what the symbol means. Such is not the case with an infant: no symbolic meaning, and no spiritual communion. Only a declaration to all the ones not being baptized of the infant becoming a member of the church; unless the covenant of grace is in view, which then would impart to the infant what the covenant of grace effects - which is saving grace? Sanctifying grace? So is the covenant of grace involved, or the covenant of Abraham?
The point I am making is this, that since paedobaptists do not believe baptism saves, and do not believe it is an act of sanctification on the part of the recipient being baptized; then it must impart something upon the infant before salvation and sanctification takes place that makes the infant a member of the church. So, instead of a pure symbol, it renders the infant a status within the community that is suppose to identify them as what? Christians? Non-Christian Church members? Baptists, on the other hand, express their salvation experience in Christ through the sanctified act of being baptized! For them it is a far greater experience of intimate relations with the new found Saviour during baptism than what an infant could experience. Yet we are the ones who are being accused of pure symbolism?
Infants couldn't know the meaning of circumcision either. Knowledge is not necessary for symbolism, nor for entrance into the visible church or external covenant community. In fact, one might argue that it is normally the case that knowledge proceeds from having entered into and learned from said community. The only way to argue that the symbolism of baptism has no meaning when applied to infants is to smuggle in an assumption that baptism signifies [the profession of] faith itself rather than the rightouesness which is possessed by faith. But infants can be righteous: of such is the kingdom of heaven.
That was the point I was making Ryan: that paedobaptism cannot go beyond pure symbolism (for there is nothing spiritually experienced by the one being baptized). And the meaning of one becoming a member of a local church? Why would church membership without knowing Christ matter for anything? Baptism symbolizes our union with Christ! Now, I realize that some will be baptized that did not really become saved, but it isn't the purpose of the ordinance to produce unbelievers as circumcision did - because circumcision had nothing to do with believer/unbeliever meanings in it. Yet the Baptist's, who are often accused of pure symbolism, are the ones who are experiencing the spiritual communion with their Lord during baptism - which is more than pure symbolism.
But I don't see what argument I or Fesko made that prompted that point. Is there a reason you think "pure symbolism" isn't compatible with paedobaptism?
"And the meaning of one becoming a member of a local church? Why would church membership without knowing Christ matter for anything?"
You are underestimating the value of being raised in a Christian community.
"...circumcision had nothing to do with believer/unbeliever meanings in it."
Sure it did: Romans 4.
Nothing was mentioned with regards to the point I was making, only an implication drawn from the observations you and Fesko were making. There was no intention to bring forth a great debate with this either, I'm sure we both have other things we would rather be working on right now :) I merely brought it up to see how you would respond to it, is all. I guess you could say, I've been bored lately. So what do you do when you are bored? You go to Ryan's bogs :) lol. I'm ready to give this thing a rest for know. It is your blog though, so you may have the final word :)
You said: "You are underestimating the value of being raised in a Christian community."
I don't know if election depends on that, though the means of coming to Christ could involve that.
You said: "Sure it did: Romans 4."
With Abraham, yes. With infants, no.
*now
Well, it's not like I mind the comment. I just don't understand the point of it, since it doesn't seem to have anything to do with what I've argued.
"I don't know if election depends on that, though the means of coming to Christ could involve that."
Right.
"With Abraham, yes. With infants, no."
Where do you get the idea that the sign of the covenant is symbolic in a particular way for only certain recipients?
I was going to walk away from this, but I decided to see how you would respond to the seemingly unrelated arguments of mine.
Since paedobaptism is FOR the infant, yet its meaning can only be understood by those who can understand it, how does that rite matter for anything? A title of membership only? Who cares about that? Christians (Israelites?)? Or more savable Israelites? If it is just purely symbolic, what is that to a child growing up under good teaching more than a child growing up in a Baptist church under good teaching? But I think what you are really meaning by the symbol, is, more savability; which involves a supernatural demarcation of some kind based on the ordinance itself. So, is the unconditionality of election for the first paedobaptist parents only? Or how do you explain the conditional save-ability of those who were sprinkled that never will believe? Did it make them more savable but overridden by their pre-nonelection? Or their wills?
God's promises pertain to children as well as adults. Infants may not understand that, but the idea that the rite as applied to children is therefore without a point implies a radically individualistic view of the sacraments. Baptism and the Lord's Supper have communal implications as well.
"But I think what you are really meaning by the symbol, is, more savability..."
Not at all.
Being an Israelite through circumcision mattered for something back then, for there was only non-circumcised people to distinguish it from. But how is that distinction? We have non-paedobaptist churches today who distinguish themselves from the rest of the world based upon the reality of what baptism represents. And in that "world" category, I will include paedobaptist children who need to be saved and baptized, and unsaved Baptist's who need to be saved and baptized as well. Paedobaptist churches make becoming covenant children matter for something - A distinction from what? - Being an unbelieving Baptist child? - Why would that distinction matter for anything? Unless there was something more to it than mere membership. We view genuine believing paedobaptist Christians as having never been truly baptized. They view genuine believing Baptist Christians who were immersed as having been truly baptized (because they know its right!) - until they want to defend an old Catholic doctrine.
"God's promises pertain to children as well as adults."
Promises? Don't you believe that one of those promises pertained to salvation (the covenant of grace)? Would that mean every Jew who was circumcised will be saved? No. Would some be saved? Yes. Wouldn't that mean that salvation was less likely back then to come to those who received NOT the sign of the covenant (like the heathen nations)? Then wouldn't that make covenant children more "savable" than the rest of the world back then? But you said "no" to more savability. Interesting. This is the problem you get into when you give baptism an Old Testament meaning.
"We have non-paedobaptist churches today who distinguish themselves from the rest of the world based upon the reality of what baptism represents. And in that "world" category, I will include paedobaptist children who need to be saved and baptized, and unsaved Baptist's who need to be saved and baptized as well."
Are you talking about the visible or invisible church? I don't think any paedobaptist would disagree that the mark of distinction between the latter and the world is the reality which baptism represents. But just as the reality which circumcision represented did not preclude its application to those who are not, in fact, saved, paedobaptists see a continuity in a distinction between the visible and invisible church. And an implication of proper infant baptism is that the infant will be brought up in the word of God within the rest of the covenant community. Does that not count for anything?
Now, to anticipate another line of reasoning, there will be some who abuse the rite (e.g. Roman Catholics), but then there are some unsaved individuals who abuse the rite anyway, even on the credobaptist schema. And there will be Baptist children who go unbaptized and yet in most other respects receive an upbringing becoming of Christian parents, just as there are saved individuals who could, though the never obey the command to be baptized, otherwise obey God's commandments. All of these and similar such hypotheticals are not relevant to whether we ought to baptize infants.
"Wouldn't that mean that salvation was less likely back then to come to those who received NOT the sign of the covenant (like the heathen nations)? Then wouldn't that make covenant children more "savable" than the rest of the world back then? But you said "no" to more savability."
Circumcision didn't make anyone more savable either. Nothing that is done to us makes us more savable if election is unconditional. So what are you talking about?
"Are you talking about the visible or invisible church?"
The invisible church. And that only pertains to those who are capable of believing (by God's grace of course). And the true meaning of baptism is FOR them (trusting their genuinity). Circumcision, on the other hand, was not for believers (and don't say for the parents, it was for the infant, even baptism was never for the one doing the baptizing). Both were for public display though, but only because they were FOR the recipient. The one for the declaration of a visible reality (Israelites who needed to be saved), the other for the declaration of an invisible reality (church people who were saved).
"And an implication of proper infant baptism is that the infant will be brought up in the word of God within the rest of the covenant community. Does that not count for anything?"
So are children of the Baptist church brought up under the Word. How would they count for anything less by not receiving a rite that no longer applies?
"there will be some who abuse the rite (e.g. Roman Catholics), but then there are some unsaved individuals who abuse the rite anyway, even on the credobaptist schema."
I already answered that one, but will repeat it for emphasis. "I realize that some will be baptized that did not really become saved, but it isn't the PURPOSE of the ordinance to produce unbelievers as circumcision did..." (emphasis this time).
"Circumcision didn't make anyone more savable either. Nothing that is done to us makes us more savable if election is unconditional. So what are you talking about?"
That is the dilemma I was trying to bring out to you from the very beginning. When you throw the covenant of grace into the equation of promises to the ones who were set apart by circumcision from the rest of the world, their salvation becomes more sure (from their view points). Such meaning is carried forth into baptism. So paedobaptist children stand a better chance (from our perspective) of becoming saved than credobaptist children (because of the covenant of grace promise built into the sign and seal of this covenant community status they now supposedly have). What do you think about this?
A correction on my part: when I said "it isn't the PURPOSE of the ordinance to produce unbelievers as circumcision did," I meant it wasn't the PURPOSE of the ordinance to [baptize] unbelievers as circumcision did." Hopefully you understood what I meant :)
"The invisible church."
I repeat, then that "I don't think any paedobaptist would disagree that the mark of distinction between the latter and the world is the reality which baptism represents."
"Circumcision, on the other hand, was not for believers (and don't say for the parents, it was for the infant, even baptism was never for the one doing the baptizing)."
Abraham wasn't a believer at the time of his circumcision? Also, while circumcision was for the infant, is there not an element of federal headship involved?
"So are children of the Baptist church brought up under the Word. How would they count for anything less by not receiving a rite that no longer applies?"
Baptism isn't about who counts for more or less. It's a visible sign signifying an invisible reality applied to those who can properly be admitted in the community of true believers. Infants can. Professing believers can. Unbelievers can't. Baptists don't apply this sign to infants but usually them in their community. Paedobaptists view that as a contradiction.
"I realize that some will be baptized that did not really become saved, but it isn't the PURPOSE of the ordinance to produce unbelievers as circumcision did..."
What? Circumcision did not produce unbelievers.
That is the dilemma I was trying to bring out to you from the very beginning. When you throw the covenant of grace into the equation of promises to the ones who were set apart by circumcision from the rest of the world, their salvation becomes more sure (from their view points). Such meaning is carried forth into baptism.
"What do you think about this?"
If "more savable" is meant as a loose expression as to what group of people we would expect are more likely to be saved - with the recognition that God's election is unconditional - then of course I would say that the children of [professing] believers are more likely to be saved. That includes children of Baptists as well as paedobaptists. That's a belief based on experience: someone who is more exposed to God's grace is himself more likely to be impacted by it.
But the idea that we have to demarcate between children of Baptists and paedobaptists as well doesn't follow. That Baptists parents don't avail their children of baptism does not impact the fact that Baptist children are as "savable" as paedobaptist children, for 1) Baptists are believers and 2) baptism is only a symbol for salvation, not a prerequisite for it. God's promises apply to believers, not just paedobaptists - even if the latter more strictly follow God's precepts :)
"I repeat, then that 'I don't think any paedobaptist would disagree that the mark of distinction between the latter and the world is the reality which baptism represents.'"
We see the purpose of baptism as representing what that reality has already done for us. Paedobaptist's apply the sign of that reality to someone who may never experience it; in other words, ascribing a major Christian out working of the Spirit (a mark of a Christian) to a non-Christian (intentionally), whereas we ascribe it to professed believers (unbelievers unintentionally).
"Abraham wasn't a believer at the time of his circumcision? Also, while circumcision was for the infant, is there not an element of federal headship involved?"
I was only referring to paedobaptism - infants! Federal headship? Explain.
"Baptism isn't about who counts for more or less."
You missed my point. I see no difference between the benefits of being a paedobaptist child growing up under the Word and a Baptist child growing up under the Word, except that a paedobaptist child would be mistaught about baptism:) Unless paedobaptist's feel there is something more to their covenantal baptism than mere symbolism.
"Baptists don't apply this sign to infants but usually them in their community. Paedobaptists view that as a contradiction."
Particular Baptist's or other 5 point Calvinist Baptist's (I don't care about what Arminian Baptist's may believe or do on this), ONLY baptize professing believers as the proper subjects for baptism. That excludes infants and non-testifying workers of iniquity in the community.
"What? Circumcision did not produce unbelievers."
I sent you a correction on this, but you probably didn't get it in time. I meant to say: It isn't the PURPOSE of the ordinance to baptize unbelievers as the Israelites purposefully circumcised children that were non-believers. Anyway, I have a tendency to say things is such a concise way, that it gets me in trouble sometimes.
I would say that the children of [professing] believers are more likely to be saved. That includes children of Baptists as well as paedobaptists."
I agree. So then, besides the equal benefits of parental and church upbringings under the Word, don't you believe something more than pure symbolism meant for the paedobaptist child? Don't you believe there is some kind of supernatural intervention in baptism? (See first comment above.)
Post a Comment