Dear Theology Table Participants,
There is sufficient interest and several previous posts touching on the subject of Baptism to prompt us to open up a second Theology Table dedicated to this topic. I will extract, post, and back-reference to the Poster to begin this thread.
9 comments:
CANNY SCOT SAID
===============
Is baptism necessary for salvation (except in the case of impossibility, such as the thief on the cross)?
What is, in fact, required for salvation?
As Phil has already raised the point, should children be baptized? You asked about confirmation-confirmation is an unnecessary ritual unless you are practicing infant baptism.
Baptists do not baptize children until they have reached an age that they can make a conscious profession of faith, there is no confirmation in Baptist practice. I could go on for a while........
As for baptism, it appears to me, in Anglican practice (as opposed to theory?), baptism is necessary to salvation (again, with an exception for impossibility).
I do not see how you can practice infant baptism unless you hold this to be true. If you do, infant baptism makes perfect sense.
As a Baptist, I would have choked on this. Now, I am not so sure.
Assuming no impossibility, can you really have saving faith and refuse Christ's first commandment (which doesn't speak to infant baptism, obviously, but infant baptism becomes a logical extension with the innocence of the child replacing a profession of faith)?
That being said, you can not become a part of the community of God unless you have entered through the door of baptism (again, absent impossibility).
If you are not part of the community, how can you participate in Communion in any meaningful way?
The Episcopalians want to dump the baptism requirement because they have so expanded their definition of the word "community" so as to render it entirely meaningless.
They are in the process of turning the sacrament into a species of 1960's love-in.
On the subject of infant baptism, I must say that, when all is said and done, I still do not think it is appropriate, even if I am up against the early church practice.
I do not see anything in the Scriptures about infant baptism, the story of the Philippian jailer notwithstanding.
That is an argument from silence at best. There is no way to know if the jailer's household included children or not, and if it did, it could just as easily be a collective reference to all of the household capable of believing.
Christ said, "Suffer the little children to come unto Me", but does that refer to baptism? Not necessarily.
Having been baptized as a teenager, I can say that I would have missed something I would not give up for anything had I been baptized as an infant. It is a far different thing to experience the baptism of new life when old enough to know what is happening than to do so as an infant. It is a radical, shattering change.
Had I any children, I would not want them baptized until old enough to decide for themselves and make their own profession of faith.
I believe that, if God is willing to save children too young to make a profession of faith at all, He will do it without baptism also. If God can make an exception for those who find it impossible to be baptized, why not for children?
For that matter, if someone is baptized as a child and, when he or she comes to age, refuses confirmation and walks away from the faith, where does Hebrews 10:26-31 come into play?
Is that person, who may never have had any faith to begin with, forever lost because of a ritual that took place when he or she was an infant?
If not, is infant baptism really baptism? Is the infant left in some sort of limbo, half way home, until confirmation? If so, then should children take Communion and what Scriptural justification do we have for this limbo state? What is the meaning of those verses in relation to infant baptism? Do we gut those verses of meaning because we do not like the implications like the reappraisers?
PHIL JAMES SAID
===============
Those who deny the biblical nature of paedobaptism are a very small minority (if we allow the dead a vote) in Christ’s church.
Surely someone thought it was biblical. There are whole books on the topic, if you are interested. I’d be glad to recommend some from my limited experience.
I say this because I don’t believe we’ll have the time to cover all the bases here, but I do believe they’ve been covered, and there’s no question what the catholic and Anglican (because catholic) position is........
I'll try to unpack my understanding (misunderstanding?), but I'll still have to paint in the broadest of strokes. The church practices infant baptism because .... this is what the church of Christ does - and has always done........
We know that God has always worked through families. The promise that he "would be our God and we would be his people" - the very heart of what we proclaim- was made "to you and to your children."
Because of this the seal of righteousness that comes by faith (see Paul in Romans) was given to the male children of believers.
God was their God by virtue of the covenant he had made to them, and so they were marked with the covenant seal. For those coming from outside the covenant community, God stipulated “Believer’s Circumcision”, but once the relationship was entered into, “Infant Circumcision” became the norm.
At Pentecost Peter explained that the covenant promise that was first made to Abraham was now agressively extending towards the gentiles, and lest anyone thought that God’s new covenant was going to leave the children out, Peter added “And to your children.” The old Covenant seal of our faith was replaced with a non-bloody one. We are told this explicitly in Colossians 2. We were circumcised by being baptized in Christ.
The argument is straightforward. Children were part of God’s covenant people and so received the sign of his covenant. Children are still part of his people and receive the new sign of his covenant
The burden is on those who teach that children are now, under a more gracious covenant, excluded. That's the case a Baptist must make from the biblical direction, then they have to explain the historical problem.
I can’t speak to your experience of baptism, and I don’t want to question the incredible significance of it.
I'm thankful for it, but I would put it up against that of my children who know that before they even knew who God was, he took them in his arms, called them by name and committed himself to them - as individuals. Powerful stuff, that. No wonder Luther would fight doubts by telling himself “I’m a baptized Christian.” But I know you’ll agree that subjective experience isn’t the standard.
Something to think about, one of the greatest hurdles to my “Baptist formed mind” to coming to the historic understanding of Baptism was my conception of baptism as a profession of faith.
(Where is that taught in the bible?)
The rest of the church has understood it to be God’s act, not mine. This is the difference between a Baptist’s infant dedication and a Christian infant baptism.
Dedications are from man upward.
Baptism is from God downward.
In dedication we speak.
In baptism God speaks to us.
These two different conceptions lead to very different practices.
CANNY SCOT SAID
===============
I wouldn't argue with you that the church or "Tradition" is a source of aurhority. I agree.
It is, however, as you yourself pointed out, a fallible one. It doesn't always get it right-or Anglicanism wouldn't exist and we would all still be Eastern Orthodox.
That said, I greatly respect the tradition and practice of the church over the centuries.
However, when dealing with the major doctrines of the faith (and, however you may define that, I think we can agree that baptism qualifies) I tend to start looking for something in the Scriptures to justify what Tradition has done with that doctrine - and choke when I can't find it.
I have to disagree with the aptness of your legal analogy. In the first place, our government is a representative democracy. God's kingdom is an absolute monarchy. The governing principles are totally different. Having studied constitutional law extensively in school, I would argue that, for the most part, the Constitution is self-explanatory. If you study the Supreme Court, it was not until the Depression era New Deal legislation that constitutional decisions became at all frequent and we didn't get what is called the "activist" Court until after WWII.
You may not be aware of this, but the Founding Fathers came within a hairsbreadth of creating no federal judiciary at all.
I happen to believe, if, the Founding Fathers were alive today, they would see our current governmental mess as a call to arms. They would be planning the Second American Revolution. I also believe that the current role of the Supreme Court results more from the spinelessness of the other branches of government, particularly Congressional unwillingness to use the proper amendment process. Someone taking on what an old attorney I knew called "the Supreme Joke" would be no bad thing in my opinion.
Yes, we do submit to the authority of the Church-or do we? In fact, each of us, especially if coming from a non-Episcopal background, have placed what the Church (in this case the Anglican Church) believes and practices against what we believe - and have decided for ourselves.
If it ever does not stack up, we try to change it-or leave. Have we then truly submitted to the authority of the Church?
By your view, logically extended, no one should be leaving the Episcopal church, no matter how apostate it becomes. Everyone should submit to the authority of the Church-even though that authority is entirely wrong.
One thing needs to stated up-front ... the Anglican Mission in America position is that Infant Baptism as a young child and Believer Baptism as an adult is theologically supported by Scripture, Tradition, and Spirit-Filled Reason.
I suspect that several other theological "heavy hitters" will weigh in on the Scriptural aspect.
The reality of the situation with respect to Scriture is that there is not a single Biblical reference to the "age of accountability", nor is there specific Biblical reference or commands to baptize infants. There is plenty of implied reference.
In the Great Commission, Jesus commands "Go Ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." All nations would seem to include All People.
Phil alludes to the Old Testament Rite of Circumcision, and the implied symmetry between Circumcision and Baptism, implying a Family-Community aspect to all this.
TRADITION
=========
Martin Luther took a close look at the Sacrament of Baptism as practiced through the ages, and took the position that the Lord God Creator of the Universe would not allow 1500 Years of invalid baptisms to take place if infant baptism was in fact an improper theological practice.
This entire topic took on extremely bloody consequences along the Swiss border in the 16th Century, where Catholic-Lutheran townships were periodically taken over by Anabaptist authorities. The Catholic-Lutheran Baptisms were declared null and void, and whole townships were required to be Re-Baptized in the proper form (immersion) at the proper age (adult). The German-speaking peoples referred to them as
"Weiderteuffers", (pronounced "VEE'-DER-TOYF'-ERS", meaning "Re-baptizers." Needless to say, the Catholic/Lutheran authorities, while fighting like cats and dogs among themselves, were mutually ten times as aggravated at the "Weiderteuffers", who succinctly had declared the Catholic/Lutheran baptisms as null and void.
CAN THE CONFLICT BE RESOLVED ?
==============================
In 1983, my wife Sharon and I had our youngest child, Jon, baptized in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod.
I had a very good work friend who was a life-long Baptist, and we had some very interesting discussions on the very topic we are discussing now.
After many bouts of going back and forth, we arrived at the "Unified Field Theory of Baptism", which, at least to us, seemed to resolve the seemingly unresolvable conflict.
I will describe this in my next post.
THE UNIFIED FIELD THEORY OF BAPTISM
===================================
This came about as a result of a series of conversations between a Baptist and a then-Lutheran, neither of which had much of any qualifications !! (lol).
TRUTH
=====
The Truth is:
1. Either the Lutherans are right =
Infant Baptism is correct.
2. Or the Baptists are right = only
Adult Believer/Age-of-Accountability Baptism is correct.
IF THE LUTHERANS ARE RIGHT
Lutherans
1. Infant Baptism is correct.
2. Confirmation is the formal affirmation of Faith at an age of "Understanding"
Baptists
1. Baptists catch up with the Lutherans at a later age.
2. Baptist Baptism (if the Lutherans are right !!) would be totally valid, as Lutherans (and Anglicans) also support Believer Baptism. Note that at Lutheran Confirmation, a Believer Affirmation of Faith is required.
3. Baptist children who die unbaptized (say, age 2), fall under God's Mercy the same way that a still-born Lutheran Child would likewise fall under God's Mercy.
4. The unifying principal in #3 is that in both cases, Baptism was the ultimate desire, and God would certainly be aware of this. The Thief on the Cross, the unbaptized new believer by himself in the Sahara, the Stillborn child, and the Baptist 2-year old who dies, all would have been baptized save for circumstances or honest theological belief, and a merciful God would take this into account.
NOW, LETS SAY THE BAPTISTS ARE RIGHT.
Baptists
1. Between the time of birth and Baptism, the Mercy of God Rules, the same as 3 and 4 above.
(I choose not to bring in the principal of Original Sin !!!!)
2. At an Age when the person can decide for himself/herself, he or she is baptized, obeying the Biblical principal to Believe and Be Baptized.
Lutherans
1. The child is baptized as an infant.
2. The Parents and Church understand this as a valid baptism, and that there is no need for any further Baptismal rite during that person's lifetime.
3. At a later age, the Baptized person studies the elements of the Faith and makes a personal affirmation and "confirmation" of that Faith.
4. If the Lutheran had known that he or she should have waited for adult baptism, he or she would have certainly done so, and the omniscient God of Mercy would also certainly know this. Many of the essential elements of a Believer Baptism are met in a Sincere Confirmation.
5. If a Lutheran child dies prior to Baptism or between Baptism and Confirmation (this is assuming the Baptist understanding is correct !!), then this places the Lutheran Child in the exact same condition as the Baptist Child, pre-age-of-accountability.
SUMMARY
=======
1. In both cases, there is a Sincere desire for Baptism, though different ages and conditions.
2. In both cases, if the person lives long enough, they "catch up"
with one another (Baptist = Baptism, Lutheran = Confirmation)
2. In both cases, if the person dies at an early age, God looks into the heart of all to see what is there and would take this into account as He enfolds all His children in His loving arms.
NOTE: The preceding text has no authority whatsoever and constitutes the theological ramblings of two Computer Systems people down at the Provident in 1983.
NOTE2: This theory places a much higher value on Confirmation, especially if the Baptists are right !
NOTE3: The Roman Catholics call a situation where a person who dies unbaptized, but clearly would have wanted to be baptized had they lived longer, as the "Baptism of Desire."
Dick, I appreciate you pointing out that for the Anglican Church under our bishops (and up until after the commencement of the Reformation, the entirely of Christendom) there is no conflict in regards to the proper recipients of Baptism.
That conflict arises between those brothers and sisters who are part of a tradition that reinterpreted both the nature of the church and baptism- for this is what the disagreement is really about: the nature of the church. That conflict is resolved by accepting the catholic faith.
However, there is a second level of conflict, and I don’t think it will ever be resolved. The practice of the church and the major road signs of the narrative it professes (“We believe in God the…) are constant and clear. They just are. But how we (Anglicans included) understand the significance of those practices and major plotlines vary.
We all agree about which bus we need to catch. But then we sit and argue about what makes it run. For example, we all affirm that Christ was crucified under Pontius Pilate, but we’ve disagreed about the mechanics of how that crucifixion worked our redemption.
The thing to remember, it seems to me, is that all systematizations are the product of human effort, and as human artifacts the one thing we know for sure about them is that they’re flawed somewhere. The problem is we don’t know where. We can’t open the hood and take a look.
This doesn’t mean that our theories are unimportant. One particular understanding of “the bus’ power train” might cause us to believe we need to stop at every gas station we pass. Can’t make good time that way. Another might lead us to try “floating” through that river. Probably end up wet. The theories matter, but the most important thing is to maintain the bus we’ve been given and make sure we’re along for the ride.
The church affirms that the children of believers should be baptized and that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins. They’ve disagreed about the mechanics of how that works. Take these nine different Anglican Divines who lived between 1504 and 1707: William Perkins, Richard Hooker, Lancelot Andrewes, George Herbert, John Bramhall, Jeremy Taylor, Richard Baxter, Simon Patrick and Herbert Thorndike all understood the mechanics of the one universal practice in a different (sometimes radically different) way.
Fr. Ray once told me that the Anglican tradition is a creedal one, not a confessional one. There is room for Catholic and Evangelical interpretations of the one catholic faith and practice. This seems very desirable to me.
By the way, I once read a Reformed theologian named Marcel who summarized the "necessity of baptism" position that’s been advocated by saying, “It’s not the privation of baptism that condemns; rather it’s the contempt of baptism that condemns.”
I'm in general agreement with your analysis in so far as we know our God to be a merciful God. But I'll try to interact in a little more detail, but I'm sure it will be tommorrow- probably late.
Out of time, need to get back to work. This coming week has some really dificult things in store for me. I'd appreciate everyone's prayers that my decisions would honor our God.
Dick, I think that your analysis is very helpful in regards to an individual’s final fate, and if that were the only thing with which God was interested, Baptism would be a matter of some indifference- although whoever is wrong had better be wrong out of ignorance and not indifference.
If I make a deal with you and then you refuse to shake on it, it’s not simply my hand that you are rejecting. If, however, I make a deal with someone unfamiliar with European culture- a Chinese businessman, for example- and they start to bow when I stick out my hand, he doesn’t mean to reject me. He’s simply confused…and perhaps a bit rude.
But the gospel is about entering into the kingdom of God. That does not mean going to “heaven when you die.” Although it’s constantly read in this way. That’s certainly not what a person in first century Judea would have heard, when Christ or his cousin wandered into the village saying “the Kingodm of God was at hand.”
The thing God has called us to is “very earthy.” This is the case now and for eternity. The earthly enfleshment of that calling is extremely important. Specifically, it takes the form of a distinct and called out people. Salvation is not about a person here and a person there. That individualism is modern, baptistic and must be argued for- not simply assumed. (I’m not meaning to say that this is your assumption. We may agree here)
God is saving a people, a bride. The God who has existed for eternity as community is restoring human community- a new humanity and a new Israel. The question of “who is part of that people” is central to the question of salvation because salvation is much more than what happens to you at the final judgment. It has a dimension now, and that dimension (both now and for eternity) has everything to do with the formation of a new community.
I’d also want to strengthen your assertion that if the Baptists are right, then this would make confirmation more important. The only way Baptist’s are right, is if the church is made up of individuals who have grown to a specific level of mature faith. This
by definition cuts off those who are capable of nothing but childlikeness. Children and the mentally disabled are not part of God’s redeemed people. If, however, we look to scripture to provide us with a definition of faith we can find an infant’s capabilities as being particularly characteristic of faith. That’s what Christ explicitly said. We should be careful about becoming so rigorous, that only the mature are welcomed into our body. This has disastrous pastoral ramifications. Those with childlike maturity need to grow, not be excluded.
We should be thankful of the faith we find- regardless of its level of maturity. I know two year olds who can communicate that they are committed Vol’s fans, through the influence of their parents. Are they?
My children expressed trust and confidence in Sandi and me from the day they were born. They reached for us, snuggled and smiled the best they knew how. This expression of love changed as they grew older. Is it not proper to expect an infant response from an infant, a child’ response from a child, and an adult’s response from an adult without questioning whether my two year old “truly” loved me just because she couldn’t compose a sonnet in my honor?
Hey ya’ll. I realize some of you know me better than others; I forget that and often assume that everyone knows where I’m coming from. I just want to make sure that I’ve not left the impression that I consider my Baptist brothers and sisters are anything less than true and sincere brothers and sisters. Rereading some of what I’ve written, well… I wish I would have stated things differently until everyone knew the level of respect I have for this tradition. Its not that I think that “they” (or that part of “us”, I should say) are less than admirable, I just think they are wrong and that the error, like all errors, has hurtful consequences.
But I also understand that erroneous interpretations and applications of the catholic position have hurtful consequences, too. Error is cruel, period. That is why we need each other. I believe that the current denominationalism is the result of God’s judgment, and like all of God’s judgments in redemptive history, it is a severe mercy. I think there is something that is being preserved and emphasized within the dissenting traditions that needs to be learned. Likewise for the Catholic position. I have no doubt that God will bring us back when the lessons are truly received.
One of my favorite Bloggers, Alastair Roberts, makes this point with the issue at hand- paedobaptism. I’d encourage you to take a look.
This is the last in a series of four. I hope you go back and read them all. The links are in the post
One of the key points that must be settled (and is often treated as being self-evident by both sides) is whether baptism is a “public profession of faith” or “God’s message to me". Who is the intended audience at a baptism- the world or the one being baptized.
Robert Rayburn- evangelical Presbyterian professor at Covenant Seminary- illustrates the classical view in this powerful call to a proper "improvement of our baptism":
“Christ will act in the body of his people through those who have been appointed to speak and act on his behalf. The reason why no else baptizes someone in our churches but the minister is so that it is absolutely clear that baptism is not our act. It is Christ’s act…Suppose we were to have an infant baptism here next Lord’s day; and suppose on this moment alone of all the moments in the history of the church since the ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ this was a sacrament by sight and not by faith: Just as the minister was prepared to begin, with a loud, tearing sound the roof of the building parted; and lo and behold, the Lord Christ himself descended to where I am standing right now. There were seraphim hovering above his shoulder. We were all on our faces before the glory of God, but He told us to arise. He took the baby in his arms and He pronounced the Divine Triune Name over the child and made the promise of His gospel and covenant to this child by name and then by name summoned him or her to the life of faith and godliness and consecration. He then spoke a word to this child’s parents about the sacred stewardship He was now entrusting to them and how they would answer to Him for this child’s faith and this child’s life on the Great Day. Then he spoke a word to the congregation about your responsibility and then a word to the minister about his. Then he blessed the child and poured water on it’s head and ascended back into heaven and with a loud crash the ceiling came back to where it was before and everything wad as it was.
Let me tell you a few things that would inevitably be true. One is that that child, though he or she would be to young to have any personal recollection of that moment, would remember his Baptism forever and better than he would remember any other event in his life because scarcely a day would pass without his parents telling him what happened in the church when he was three weeks old and what the Lord Christ said and demanded and promised. He would live as he grew up- at 3, at 4, at 6, at 8, at 12, at 18, at 26- he would live under the specter and the mercy, the glory of Baptism. His whole life would be colored and shaped and formed by it. That’s what baptism is. That’s exactly what happens in a Baptism of a child or an adult when it happens in this church. The only difference is that it is by faith that you see it and not by sight. But how is it that the Lord embodies that truth and reminds us that it is so, that He is the actor in this drama? By insisting that no one has a right to perform this act except those He has set apart precisely to act on his behalf in the church.”
Post a Comment