Baptism Correspondence

Based on an earlier post: http://endued.wordpress.com/2009/07/22/my-baptismal-sabbatical-bibliography-say-that-5-times-fast

Joel and I have corresponded and I thought that posting my response in a blog post would interest some readers. Here it is:

joelmartin said

July 23, 2009 at 7:14 am e

I actually embrace infant baptism based on the authority of the Church and the idea that she can decide things for me that I don’t have to decide.

I’m curious as to what you make of circumcision, its function and what it accomplished? IOW, did one have to profess faith to join the OT church? Did their infants?

You might like this:

http://www.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/a_pdfs/cc_1.pdf

Rick Hogaboam said

July 23, 2009 at 12:00 pm e

I can actually respect deference to the Church on the issue of baptism. As a pastor, however, one needs to actually represent the Church and do so in hopefully good conscious…therein my responsibility in studying this issue while preparing for pastoral ministry.

As for circumcision, I think that John Reisinger’s book “Abraham’s Four Seeds” sums up fairly well what I believe about circumcision…essentially that it had a multifaceted function under the Old Covenant:

- it represented God’s promises to an ethnic people (natural seed) and was thus annulled in Christ, who is the true circumcision.
- it represented the internal covenant of grace in pointing to Abraham’s faith, which was a necessary requisite for inclusion in the “Israel within an Israel”. God also commanded His people to circumcise their hearts, showing that the external sign really pointed to the need for faith.
- there are some more nuances to what I have explained, but time permits me to condense it all.

Jesus, as the true circumcision, HAD to be a Jew, from the lineage of Abraham…thus fulfilling the ethnic (promise to Abraham’s physical seed) aspect of the Abrahamic Covenant. He is also the truly righteous one, whose heart was perfect in every way, whose faith surpassed that of Abraham, etc., thus truly being what circumcision pointed too: faith.

John the Baptist, who was a forerunner to Christ, and the last prophet of the OT, was purposed by God to do two things: call for repentance and baptize. God was signaling that His people would soon be regarded by faith and no longer by ethnic descent from Abraham. Repentance was a necessary, and had always been a necessary requisite to become part of the “true Israel”. A new sign was introduced, baptism. This new sign would now mark God’s “true Israel”, the Israel of faith.

As such, God constitutes His people today based on faith alone. He is no longer fulfilling promises to a particular ethnic people. Repentance and Baptism was necessary under John and so also under Peter on Pentecost. I would go on more on this point, but will stop for now.

As for children and whether profession of faith was necessary to become part of the “OT church”, well, if you mean by “OT church” the Israel within Israel of faith and heart circumcision, then one truly had to bear such fruit. Ultimately, my soteriology would point to God as the one doing the heart circumcision, but this would inevitable lead to faith. In fact, John the Baptist was urging the people to bear fruit in keeping with repentance. Children in the OT could be circumsized, taught everything, etc. but show a hardness towards God and bear no fruit in their lives, thus evidencing that they really don’t belong to God and never did in an internal fashion as part of his eternally elected Church.

There was no confirmation or public profession of faith per se to examine whether one had truly repented…not until John the Baptist, which is significant to understanding the transition of the Covenant in God’s redemptive purposes. I don’t believe that infants were baptized under John’s ministry, nor do I think infants were baptized on Pentecost, nor the household baptisms recorded in Acts. As such, holding loosely to the regulative principle, I only do what is clearly commanded or inferred. In my case, I need more clear proof for the practice of infant baptism as well as a theology of it that I don’t see articulated in the NT.

For others, an assumption is made that God has constituted His people in much the same way from Abraham to us…if children were included then, then why not now? For them, the burden would be to show where children are excluded in the NT Church and they don’t see convincing proof.

I agree with both camps to a degree. What we are left with is “good and necessary inferences” (quoting John Murray). He lands on one side, while I land on the other. I have told people that my ‘credo-Baptist’ position is less like a slam-dunk and more like a 60-40 victory in a presidential election. The other side got many votes, but there is one president who must rule. Therefore I minister within a ‘credo’ paradigm, but am gracious to the opposing views.

My Baptismal Sabbatical Bibliography (say that 5 times fast)

Okay, some folks have wondered what I have actually read on the topic of Baptism…perhaps suspecting that what I consider a worthy examination was something short of it. Such may be the case…that’s for you to decide, but these are some of the main works that I referenced in my reasearch:

There are other books I read like:

Baptism: Sacrament of the covenant of grace by Pierre Charles Marcel…and others, but suffice it to say that it is Scripture which is the final arbiter on this issue and Christians have long disagreed. I don’t have time to delve into all of the lines of argumentation from all camps, but I would say that I am a generous and charitable ‘credo-baptist’. I will say that it was Jewett’s book which argued for ‘credo-baptism’ as a more faithful practice within a Covenantal framework. I am Covenantal, my theology of Children is much similar to my Reformed friends than that of Baptists, I encourage early baptism and communion, am Sacramental in that I believe God confers grace in Baptism, believe that ‘credo-baptism’ is what binds the beleiver to Christ and the Church, and I catechize my young girls (3 & 5) in the children’s version of the shorter catechism. I teach my girls that Jesus DID die for them from a presuppositional and propositional framework, viewing them as recipients of increasing grace through the means of the Word and Prayer. I see God’s grace operational in Kira (5) and am starting to think, “What forbids her to be baptized?”. She is growing in her understanding of the Lord’s Table and is starting to show a desire to receive Christ in that sacred meal. I do weigh heavily in my heart whether I am keeping her from Christ much like His disciples’ did. She is close to coming to the waters and making an appeal from her heart for a clean conscience and to be sealed by the Holy Spirit and brought fully in Christ’s Church (NOT by her relation to myself and my wife as believing parents, nor of the will of man, but by the will of God). Her baptism will attest to God’s saving, adopting, free grace in her. She will be bound to the Church community, to love her brothers and sisters, to care for them, to submit to the teaching of the Word and admonition of the elders. She will be bound to these duties as a full member in Christ’s Church, who by His grace decided to put her into His Body through faith and by faith and unto faith.

Cody, who is 15, has been baptized. For those of you who don’t know…he has downs syndrome and operates at a 5-8 year old level in some things like logic, etc, but he can hit a baseball like an 18 year-old!!! His ‘5′ year old comprehension of the Gospel is not despised, but wholly sufficient to enter the waters of baptism and receive His Supper. He loves the Gospel and is captive to it.

BTW, I need to wrap this up, but I think that the early Church required a profession of faith for baptism and even when they practicied infant baptism, they required a “sponsor” to make a profession on behalf of the one being baptized. I think that this was the exception and allowed for infants in fear that their death without baptism would result in damnation. I know that the views of the early church are much disputed. I think that an allowance would also be made for a severely handicapped individual to be received into the Church, even if they are unable to give profession of faith. Some might not like such a practice, but it would be an inferred practice that accomodates extenuating circumstances. There were also early Church fathers who grew into adulthood unbaptized as the Church thought that one should maximinze the cleansing of sin just prior to death.  The history of baptism is a tragic comedy of sorts as there is hardly a uniform theology behind its practice. I failed to mention that adult converts would be baptized naked after prolonged fasting and demonic deliverance. I know of none who are contending for that pratice today, but it actually started fairly early in the Church. Where does this all lead us? Back to Scripture where we do the best we can with the material given on this issue.

Book Review of “Understanding Four Views on Baptism”

First off, I want to say that I am fairly convinced of ‘believer’s baptism’, having taken a sabbatical leave in my past to study the issue, after having even studied it pretty intensely prior to that. I only say that as a disclaimer so you knwo where i am coming from.

I read this couterpoint book not neccesarily as ongoing investigation so much as to keep up with the line of reasoning that is represented by those who continune to articulate their position.

This book is too brief for my likes and doesn’t allow the sort of exhaustive dialogue I would prefer on this issue. Dr. Nettles presents a familiar case for ‘beleiver’s baptism’ and Dr. Pratt (who I like a lot…Third Millenium Ministries) presents a familiar case for Baptism as a Sacrament of the Covenant and thus given rightly to infants of beleivers.

The other views represented were: Lutheran (God’s Baptismal act as regerative) and Church of Christ (Beleivers’ Baptism as the Biblical occasion of salvation). I didn’t spend too much time investigating the merits of these views in my previous study because it didn’t have sufficient weight to even be tried in the court of my opinion. The one thing that I do agree with in both of the views represented by the Lutherans and Church of Christ folks is that they ’something’ happening in baptism. It is not just symbolic, but also an act in which God conveys something. As you can tell, I am a bit sacramental. I beleive in both symbol and the conveying of God’s grace.

Alright, this isn’t much of a review, but suffice it to say that if you aren’t familiar with the Lutheran and Church of Christ views on baptism, this is worth your money. If you are looking for substantial debate from the traditional Baptist and Reformed camp, I would reccomend you reading two books:

This is the strongest book I have ever read in favor of ‘pedo-baptism’ within a Covenantal structure. It actually refined my theology of Covenant and it did influence my theology of children a great deal. I essentially understand the child’s relation to covenant in a very similar (almost identical) strain with my Presbyterian and Reformed friends, but I still think that Baptism is a Sacrament that confirms a person’s full immersion into the body of Christ, evidencing their consent to the terms of the Covenant of Grace, namely repentance and faith. I could go on and on but I will do so another time in a future post…maybe. Suffice it to say, I would whole-heartedly reccomend this book to all who are looking into this issue…it will refine you one way or another.

This book is a substantial offering in favor of Believer’s Baptism rooted historically, Biblicaly, and Theologically. it also dialogues with more recent scholarship favoring the ‘pedo-baptist’position.

Can One Be a Credo-Baptist and Still Hold to a Nuanced Reformed-Covenantal View of Children?

Greetings blog-readers!!! I have not touched on a subject that is very dear to my heart, children. A couple of years ago I took a sabbatical to research the theology of both baptism and children. I came away more intrigued in developing a theology of Children that was faithful to Scripture…albeit a convinced Covenantal Credo-Baptist.

Suffice it to say that some of my colleagues have stated that my theology of children and passion to nurture them in the faith seems more zealous than their pastoral colleagues within their Reformed Paedo-Baptist denominations. What puzzles them most is that I am still a Credo-Baptist though I speak Covenantal language with regards to children of believers.

Anyhow, I continue to research and grow in my understanding of Scripture on the issue of children on relation to Covenant parents. I hope to discuss this issue further in future entries. I want to share my thoughts one tid-bit at a time.

For this first entry, I want to state that the ideal conversion of children should be stated, like the Psalmist: “For thou, O Lord, art my hope; my trust, O Lord, from my youth” (71:5). As such, I believe that God’s grace operates preveniently through the loving nurture and instruction of the parents to child. Though affirming the doctrine of original sin, I would also state that it would be difficult to resist such grace in its 24/7 ethos of the home. I would also affirm that God’s grace is extended through the Church to the child, binding them to God’s Word, promising great blessing upon their trust in the Savior. I would also state that the Church has jurisdiction over the entire household, where believing parents are present. Now some are asking the question, “Why then would you withhold baptism from these children?”. I will answer that question at another time, but will minimally state that though God’s grace is operative towards the child through both parents and church, it is no guarantee of an inward working unless such instruction is received in faith. I believe that my 2 and 4 year old daughters have shown signs of faith that is comparable with their age…I don’t minimize or disdain their childlike faith. Such was commended by our Lord. I’m not waiting for some radical conversion experience before bestowing the sign of baptism, but rather confirming fruits of what I already suspect to be present within their hearts. I acknowledge the tension in defining what that burden of proof should be before admitting one to baptism…am I looking for 2 year old faith, 6 year old faith, 10 year old faith? I also struggle with the other sacrament of communion. To be honest, speaking from my gut (which isn’t the final arbiter in truth, thank goodness), I want my little girls to receive the supper because it feels right to include them in this symbol of the Body of Christ, and His saving benefits to all who believe. The words of Jesus, “Suffer not the children come to me”, may be relevant on this issue…I want them to understand that they do in fact belong to Jesus, even if their faith is at 2 and 4 year old levels. After all, Kira and Lexi are encouraged to pray during our family prayer times and often lead out in prayers that I must presume are being heard by our Savior and mediated by Him. I have no good reason to say that their prayers are deficient. True they pray for candy at times, etc, but they have shown heartfelt concern in praying for the health and wellbeing of certain family members when sick, etc. They are also leading us in prayer through the Lord’s Prayer daily now. Perhaps Kira should soon be baptized, perhaps we should wait. She doesn’t want to be baptized though because it looks scary to her and she has stated that “older people get baptized”. Her faith isn’t being damaged by withholding the sign, so I am content to wait till she is eager for it and hungry for the Supper.

Anyhow, I just want to be honest about the tension I feel in these areas. I am trying to reconcile my theology of children and the sacraments and acknowledge it isn’t easy. I am not alone. Most of my Presbyterian-Reformed friends are also struggling with these very same issues and

Robert Strimple vs. Fred Malone Baptism Debate

http://inthylight.wordpress.com/2008/08/08/paedo-credo-baptism-debate-dr-robert-strimple-and-dr-fred-malone/

Another audio resource for you seekers on the issue of baptism. I must admit that I am partial to Dr. Malone’s understanding of credo (believer) baptism within a Covenantal Hermeneutic. Paul Jewett’s book, http://www.amazon.com/Infant-Baptism-Covenant-Grace-Circumcised/dp/0802817130, also contends for Believer’s baptism within a Covenantal framework.

James White vs. Bill Shishko Baptism Debate

For those of you who are working through the issue of baptism, whether it should be for believers only or for infants of believers, here is a link to a debate between James White and Bill Shishko: http://inthylight.wordpress.com/2006/12/08/james-white-and-bill-shishko-infant-baptism-debate-mp3s/