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.)
