|
| Baptism: No Simple Refutations | | Date Created: Dec 11, 2004, 10:04 AM |
Questions about baptism are among the most frequently asked by visitors and new members in our Reformed Presbyterian churches. Why do we sprinkle? Doesn't the word baptize (Greek: baptizo) mean "to immerse"? Surely the New Testament church immersed its converts? What about infant baptism? Is it biblical? Can I dedicate my child instead? Isn't infant baptism just a left over from Roman Catholicism?
When I encounter people with questions like this I know it will be impossible to deal exhaustively with the Baptist arguments against infant baptism or with the immersionists case against sprinkling. Nor do I ever really get the chance to present thoroughly the biblical and theological argument for infant baptism. I can only introduce people to the biblical rationale for infant baptism and sprinkling without distorting or presenting a caricature of the Baptist position.
Unfortunately, the prevailing American Evangelical culture is overwhelmingly Baptist and independent. In my experience, most Christians are oblivious to the biblical case for infant baptism and sprinkling. When I was an independent and quite convinced of immersion and believer's baptism, I would argue with other Christians without ever having read the other side! I assumed that reading books defending my own position was sufficient. I was a fool, according Proverbs: "He who answers before listening—that is his folly and his shame"(Prov. 18:13). It wasn't until I picked up a few books written by Reformed Presbyterians and gave them an honest and open-minded reading that I began to see the arrogance of my ignorance. Wisdom demands an open-minded investigation of one's beliefs. "The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him" (Prov. 18:17).
When we are dealing with such foundational questions as these, it is important to recognize that it is nearly impossible to provide simple refutations. Quoting a few proof-texts is not sufficient, nor will it be persuasive. Looking up the meaning of a word or two will hardly be adequate. For one thing, people have emotional investments in these issues. The obvious, but sometimes invisible emotional barrier is the prospect of confessing one's error. It is never easy to say you were wrong. And often when we are confronted with an argument against a cherished belief we will resist simply becuase we have too much to lose. Add to that years and years of adherence to a mistaken belief, and the forces arrayed against that person ever honestly submitting such a belief to critical scrutiny—let alone admitting his error—are mighty indeed.
For example, to admit that one could be wrong on this question may mean confessing to the possibility of having erred in teaching one's children. Or it may mean conceding that one's parents were mistaken in their denominational commitments. If one has older children that have not been baptized, even entertaining the possibility of infant baptism implies entertaining the anticipated practical consequences of a shift in one's convictions—baptizing all of the children! These are just a few examples of the kinds of emotional investments that people have in the baptism question. This is one reason why simple Bible-quoting arguments are often inadequate.
There is another significant reason why simple refutations are not helpful. Baptism is a world-view issue. A person's view of the entire Bible, even of how God relates to the human race (as individuals only or as families) is connected to his views on infant baptism. (I don't think the issue of the mode of baptism [sprinkling or immersion] has the same kind of global significance as the controversy surrounding baptism's meaning and recipients.)
Whether one accepts the connection between circumcision and baptism or between the Red Sea crossing and baptism depends on one's conception of the relationship between the Old and New Testaments as well as the question of how Israel and the Church are related!
One's sacramental theology is also involved. Is baptism primarily an expression of the faith and experience of the one baptized, a way of professing one's faith? Or is baptism a means of grace, a means and emblem of God's work?
One's concept of the church and church membership are also involved? Are the children of believers members of the church or must they wait until they have a conversion experience? I hope you can see, then, that embracing either infant or believer's baptism involves more than just one's interpretation of a few Bible verses! Behind both positions there exists a whole array of interlocking theological presuppositions and ecclesiastical practices that must be uncovered and examined, making simple refutations impossible.
This is why it often takes a long time and a good deal of careful thought for people to come to the point of understanding and confessing paedobaptism. I remember having an extended series of discussions with a man in one of my former churches. He was a member of the church, but remained Baptist in his convictions. We spent many long hours together. He gave me articles and books to read, and I did likewise. It's hard to forget the day he told me about his new convictions. I was standing at the water fountain and he came up behind me all excited. "Jeff, I see it now," he said. "And I understand now how it all fits together. The whole Bible has taken on a new meaning for me. I am seeing passages that I never noticed before, and understanding passages that have always been a problem for me."
I had the same experience. Accepting infant baptism involves a paradigm shift in the one's understanding of biblical theology as a whole. This is why it is so important to study the issue carefully and objectively—mentally to put yourself in the place of your "opponent" and honestly try to understand his position. It means you are going to have to read and think, two difficult activities for modern people.
Let me conclude by answering a few popular misconceptions. These also make simple refutations very difficult. There are many misconceptions about why Presbyterians baptize babies, but the following two are very common.
First of all, infant Baptism is not a vestige of Roman Catholicism. As Bible-believing Presbyterians we understand infant baptism to be a Christian duty firmly rooted in Scriptural precept and principle. Far from being a leftover of Roman Catholicism that the Reformers somehow missed, infant baptism is eminently biblical and we perform it self-consciously out of obedience to the Word of God. Reformed Presbyterians are not "crypto-Papists"!
Second, the practice of infant baptism is not rooted in sentimental feelings about babies. Every child is born with an Adamic nature and is under condemnation for the guilt of Adam's sin. As cute and as lovable as these children are who are brought to the baptismal font, unless we have abandoned the biblical faith, we must confess that they are dead in trespasses and sins, and deserve eternal death. They are not to be paraded around the sanctuary before they are baptized (as some churches do) as if baptism were some sentimental ceremony. If our babies are saved, it will be because of God's grace alone, not because of any inherent innocence or goodness they may possess. According to the Scriptures, they (along with us) possess nothing that commends them to a holy God.
Let me say again, Presbyterians practice infant baptism because we believe it is our biblical duty to bring our children to the font to be baptized into the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:12-30) and to begin their discipleship as Christians (Matt. 28:18-20). The iimplications of this are enormous and touch upon almost every area of church life. Maybe I'll have more time to write about that later. |
|
