The Great Baptism Debate!
Though we Southern Baptists don't baptize our babies, it's plain to see that we're really big on "baby dedications". Ironically, J.I. Packer has written that these dedications could be viewed as "dry baptisms".
Southern Baptists may decry paedobaptism as administering the ordinance of baptism to the unregenerate -and I agree. However, I also think the fact that the SBC has 10 million missing members should help us to realize that we have been busy baptizing our fair share of unbelievers too!
One paedobaptist theologian I enjoy reading is R.L. Dabney. Dabney was a committed paedobaptist. In his Systematic Theology, he writes at length on the issue. He had something interesting to say about us "Immersionists" and our "inconsistencies" on this subject. When I first read the following quote, I had to smile and chuckle a bit:
"The Immersionist says that our communion is only saved from utter corruption by our own inconsistency; that while our constitution calls our children Church members, we fortunately treat them, as they do, as not Church members. Whereas the Immersionist charges us with a wicked inconsistency, I will retort upon him the charge of a pious one: Those of them who are truly good people, while they say their children are not Church members, fortunately treat them as though they were. They diligently bring them under the instructions, restraints, and prayers of the Church and pastor. Happily, the instincts and influences of the Christian family are so deeply founded and so powerful, that a perverse and unscriptural theory cannot arrest them. These Christians discard the Bible conception of the visible Church, as an organized body whose integers are Christian "houses," and adopt the unscriptural and impracticable theory of a visible Church organized of regenerate individuals. But, blessed be God! the light and love of a sanctified parent’s heart are too strong to be wholly perverted by this theory; they still bring the family, as a whole, virtually within the Church. And this is the reason that true religion is perpetuated among them." (R. L. Dabney, Systematic Theology p. 795)
I can see that though we disagree on what constitutes the visible Church, as well as the mode and subjects to be baptized, there is at least one similarity between paedo and credo Baptists.
Whether we have baptisms or dedications, it seems that what's consistent about true Christian people is that we believe there is a need to have our children presented to the Lord with a promise to rear them to fear and honor Him -and I believe this is a good thing.
Even though I don't agree with their practice, I am thankful for my paedobaptist brethren and their commitment to rearing "covenant children." Perhaps I'm a bad Baptist, but I simply will not anathematize someone over this issue.
Some of you who've read my blog for a while know that I'm not often so charitable. So why do I have such an irenic spirit toward paedobaptists you ask?
Well, I happen to love one in particular with all my heart...
That's right.
I love my wife!
You see, there's very little my wife and I disagree about theologically, however, we do differ on the subject of infant baptism. She believes babies born to Christian parents should be baptized as "covenant children". I disagree with her based upon the absence of a didactic Scriptural foundation for the practice.
With a new baby on the way, this topic has started to be debated around the house once again...
When it comes to theological disputes, she's one tough cookie and she won't cut me any slack. She's even jokingly threatened to have a Presbyterian minister come baptize the new baby in the hospital when I'm not there!
Please pray for me during these trying times!
(photo: Infant baptism from Wikipedia and my eldest son just before his credobaptism earlier this year.)
8 comments:
Hey brother,
First, let me apologize that I haven't been as active in commenting as I used too.
Second, some of my best friends are paedobaptists, so I know exactly where you are coming from. In fact, if it weren't for presbyterians, I wouldn't have half of my library!
Good luck with the approaching intra-house debate with the new one on the way! :)
Bryan
http://thisblogchoseyou.wordpress.com
Rhett, the thing that finally got me to "sprinkle my babies" was that I like to pray with my kids. Yep... not some fancy argument or didactic passage (which the credos lack as well, in my opinion), but something more along the lines of what Dabney had to say.
If people are truly totally depraved and need some sort of experiential conversion experience that they can articulate in propositional form, then why would I sit down to pray with a child who hates God and loves his sin? Instead, my natural paternal instinct as a Christian is to pray with my children, to teach them the things of God, and to watch for signs of faith to be cultivated into greater faith (Calvin's acorn vs. the oak tree argument).
That last part is what gets most Baptists. Rather than looking for a one time, point-on-the-map conversion I look for increasing faith and covenant-keeping. I assume that you also look for continuing faithfulness, but only after a conversion experience. So, we're really not that far off I don't think. You would say (I believe) that a child has to have a profession of faith before said faith can grow. I would say that ...you will be saved, you and your household, which is the "conversion point" that Baptists look for.
I won't fill your whole comments section, so here's a link to a post on my blog from awhile back explaining to our family members (lots o' Baptists) why we were having our two kids (one was 3 yrs. the other was 1 yr.) baptized.
Oh, and congratulations on your newly found compassion for heretics such as myself! (kidding... kidding...)
Bryan,
No worries man. I've not been able to browse the blogosphere much myself. I'm glad you can relate to my situation.
Mike,
Thanks for the link. I'm sure it will give my wife some more ammo! ;)
Really though, I have to admit that there's quite a bit to the paedobaptist position in which I find rather attractive.
Didn't Billy Graham catch alot of flack for having his babies baptized? (I thought I heard that once)
Scribe...devout credobaptist.
Rhett, what are you daft;don't you know that your wife is an accomplished debater? Have a blessed one my brother!
Scribe,
Yeah, no doubt... You'd think that after 11 years of marriage I might have figured that out by now!
Later bro.
Rhett,
Peace be with you, my soon-to-be-Presbyterian brother.
I don't say that as concession to a "loss" on the Baptist side, but as a guy who's been married twice as long as you have, and knows that God sometimes sends us certain influences upon our theology that cannot be traced to purely scholarly pursuits (if'n you know what I mean, wink, wink.)
Worse things have transpired, and will, than that one of us would cross back over that line. I came from their side, and the world didn't end, after all.
Just, once you do make it official, come back and explain Jeremiah 31:31-33 to us. LOL.
Just remember Rhett, you don't believe in paedobaptism, you're not really reformed. Riddlebarger says so. ;)
Seriously, I'm with you on that issue. My favorite argument employed by paedobaptists is trying to make baptism into the new circumcision. Though if they'll note, circumcision was the sign of a fleshly covenant, performed after one was born according to the flesh; baptism is the sign of the spiritual new covenant, performed after reasonable evidence that one has been born from above. Also, if the two were strictly analogous, then we presumably wouldn't have to baptize baby girls.
Dabney's argument was funny. Going by his logic, since the smallest unit within the church is a Christian household and not a sanctified individual, then an unbelieving spouse should also be counted within the visible church (being sanctified by the believing spouse and all), and should presumably also be baptized.
I don't know your wife, but having just had my seventh anniversary, I can already conjecture that there's one argument that even I'd be scared to get into. Have a blessed (and hopefully peaceful) new year!
J.C.
"Just remember Rhett, you don't believe in paedobaptism, you're not really reformed. Riddlebarger says so. ;)"
LOL! That's funny. James R White would argue just the opposite. In fact, I think he did during his baptism debate with G. Strawbridge. White did a great job on that debate.
You can listen to the debate here:
http://www.aomin.org/index.php?itemid=2354
Happy New Year to you as well!
Post a Comment