More on baptism…

but not from me. I’ve been intrigued at the in-house debate of whether or not a credobaptist can use the  word ‘reformed’ to describe himself or herself. Richard Muller and R. Scott Clark would be two of the leading voices prohibiting the use of this word in this way. If you’ve listened to James Dolezal’s defence of credobaptism, he says he is credobaptist because he is reformed. Anyhow, here is a helpful article by Michael Haykin on this from an historical point of view.

Berkhof on sacraments

The sacraments do not originate faith but presuppose it, and are administered where faith is assumed.

 

More thoughts on baptism

I’ve read most of Baptism: Three Views now (I don’t think I’m going to read the section by Tony Lane arguing for a mixed practice. Unless you redefine baptism for infants it won’t work. If it was redefined, I don’t know that I’d have a problem with infant baptism). Here are a few thoughts on it, in conjunction also with listening to this defence of baptism by my friend James Dolezal.

It is with certain fear and trepidation that I say the following things. If there is any contemporary preacher/writing that I have benefited from (and continue to) it is Sinclair Ferguson. That being said, I find a number of problems with infant baptism. Also, as important as baptism is, it is secondary, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1 – God did not send him to baptise, but to preach the gospel.

To start, I thought Bruce Ware’s chapter was fantastic. Between the two (Sinclair Feguson writing on infant baptism) it seemed more reliant and tied to the text of scripture. He deals fairly extensively with the challenge of house baptisms (principally looking at Bryan Chapell’s wee booklet on infant baptism by P & R), which I found helpful and quite compelling.

If infant baptisers redefined baptism I don’t know that I’d have a problem with it. Ferguson writes, “It is a symbol of regeneration, cleansing, and repentance in Christ (e.g., Acts 2.38; 22.16; Eph 5.26; Col 2.12; Tit 3.5-7; Heb 10.22).” He states on the next page, “Baptism is a sign and seal of the union with Christ and fellowship with the Father given by the Spirit and received by us through faith.” Now I know most paedobaptists don’t think this is much of an argument, but how in the world can those explanations of what baptism is be true in regards to infants? The only response I’ve seen, which Ferguson also gives, is that the “efficacy of baptism is not tied to the moment of its administration.” He also spends some time explaining that it is not a sign and seal OF faith, but a sign and seal TO faith (and this in the context of a discussion on Rom 4.11 which speaks, in Abraham’s case, of it being a sign and seal OF faith).

There is also an inconsistency in understanding household baptisms, along with Acts 2.39. Even if you grant household baptisms, it would not only involve infants, but adults (who, presumably, did not have faith). Also, Acts 2.39 is leaned upon quite heavily (though it says nothing about baptism, just promise). It does say “for you and for your children” which the paedobaptist uses to endorse infant baptism, but what about the next phrase “and for all who are far off”? If we are consistent this would not prohibit baptism from anyone. Indeed, shouldn’t everyone be baptised then?

One aspect that was completely absent from Ferguson’s chapter, but quite central in James argument, is that of typology. Some people rashly say that a credobaptist has a different covenant theology than a paedobaptist. This is unhelpful and untrue (listen to James and read Ferguson if you want an example). It is an issue of continuity with the old covenant. It seems that aspects of the type and shadow are being retained when the reality has come and the shadow disappeared.

Well, much more could be said, and said much better than I have, but I’ll cut things off here for now.

Miscellanies

It’s been a while and I know my myriad of readers are pining for a new post. Here’s a smorgasbord of things from the past week or so.

Bruce Ware gives a talk on a philosophy of teaching, particularly related to teaching your children. Personally, I think this would be helpful for anyone to listen to, not just parents. As I listened to it, I kept thinking to myself, “Everyone should hear this.” One thing he said in talking about trying to get from the head to the heart was that people don’t do what they know, they do what they love. It’s not enough to know the truth, you must love it. He also had a brief rant about The Shack and the reason it is so popular is because it presents God as we’d like him to be, not the way he truly is.

My good friend James Dolezal defends the credobaptist position. I haven’t listened to it yet (hope to this week), but I’m sure to be stimulated and helped. I’ll be teaching on baptism in a few weeks and am also planning on going through the new three views book on baptistm, with Sinclair Ferguson defending paedobaptism.

If you are in the UK, the BBC is showing a 6 part series on the history of Christianity by Diarmaid MacCulloch. You can watch the episodes on the BBC iPlayer. This has also been released as a book by MacCulloch, which if his book on Cranmer or the Reformation are anything to go by, it will be excellent.

Tim Keller’s book Counterfeit Gods is one of the best things on idolatry that I have read. The chapter on success was particularly convicting. Read it.

Trace Bundy (check him out on youtube) will be playing a concert at Carrubbers this Saturday night. If you are near Edinburgh it would be well worth your time to come to it. He’ll do things on the guitar they you’d never imagine or believe. Good stuff.

Just when you thought you were safe, something else comes your way.

Lastly, a quote from D A Carson, “Perhaps the greatest benefit of democracy is that it provides a peaceful way of turning blighters out every few years, and selecting others.”

Some thoughts on Baptism

Here are a few of my initial thoughts on baptism, particularly thinking about the continuity it has (or doesn’t have) with circumcision:

– circumcision identified people with the visible people of God  – it was not a sign of circumcision of the heart (salvation from sin)

– baptism IS a sign of being baptized with Christ into his death and resurrection – identifying not merely with the visible church, but pointing to the reality, the salvation from Christ that makes one a part of the invisible church

– circumcision was a sign of the redeemed from Egypt, not the redeemed from sin

– baptism is a sign of the redeemed from sin

Baptism views

Baptism: Three Views just arrived from Amazon yesterday. I’ve been looking forward to this for some time. I had a friend tell me some years ago that I would change my view if I sat in on Sinclair Ferguson’s lectures on baptism. He presents the paedobaptist view in this book, which I guess is as close as I’ll get to his lectures. Entering in to this debate I appreciate the quote from Rabbi Duncan that Ferguson gives at the beginning of his chapter, “I am first a Christian, next a Catholic, then a Calvinist, fourth a Paedobaptist and finally a Presbyterian.” As much as I respect and have continuously benefited from Ferguson, I don’t imagine being persuaded. Some months back I read R. Scott Clark’s series of posts on paedobaptism and didn’t find them convincing. I hesitate to enter into debate on the subject. It is surely important, though secondary. Perhaps I’ll post some thoughts on baptism in the days ahead.