This is quite possibly the first time I have written about this, so here goes. It seems that the most controversial view that I have held onto since arriving in Oxford concerns the issue of baptism. I have become rather widely know as a credobaptist (that is the belief that baptism should be conducted in adulthood post-conversion). The majority of my peers, not to mention the leaders whose teaching I sit under, believe in paedobaptism (otherwise known as infant baptism). Hence, much conversation has been exchanged to convince me of the error of my ways. I have thus far resisted - nearly six years now and counting.
My defence of my belief has always pointed to the simple reading of the New Testament. It suggests from the flow of the narrative is that apostles called for conversion, and baptism was administered in response to that. That would seem to suggest this to be normative, and it also seemed to be common sense. I do now realise that there are a few of problems with this approach. Firstly, the situation in Acts does not allow much insight into how infants were treated - the situation was that the gospel was going out for the first time and so we read of conversions of adults, and so it is rather likely that the examples we read of in Acts are shaped massively by the temporal setting of the activities. Another reason for not considering this argument to be a sure foundation is that it demonstrates a fallacy of treating a specific example as normative. An example of this approach elsewhere would be to take Daniel’s model for prayer in Daniel 6 and insist that proper prayer must be conducted three times a day and directed towards Jerusalem. To make such an application would be to read too much into the specific example, and in fact may lead to miss the teaching point of a passage. Basically, to make a sure conviction about an issue, we must base it on much surer theology than being backed up by examples.
It is in the spirit of searching for this surer theology that I may consider writing a little more about my present conviction on baptism. I shall give away the present state of affairs - I am still a credobaptist, and am as yet unaware of an argument to convince me otherwise. I am at the same time aware that my being a credobaptist has become a bit of a cherished distinction that I hold on to, and it may not be for entirely biblical reasons. Luther famously commented that “Ecclesia Reformata est semper Reformanda”, that is the reformed church is every reforming, and it is in this spirit that I do intend to carefully consider this issue.
I encourage my paedobaptist brethren not to start their celebrations yet though, they could well be premature. Expect further ramblings on this in due course...
My defence of my belief has always pointed to the simple reading of the New Testament. It suggests from the flow of the narrative is that apostles called for conversion, and baptism was administered in response to that. That would seem to suggest this to be normative, and it also seemed to be common sense. I do now realise that there are a few of problems with this approach. Firstly, the situation in Acts does not allow much insight into how infants were treated - the situation was that the gospel was going out for the first time and so we read of conversions of adults, and so it is rather likely that the examples we read of in Acts are shaped massively by the temporal setting of the activities. Another reason for not considering this argument to be a sure foundation is that it demonstrates a fallacy of treating a specific example as normative. An example of this approach elsewhere would be to take Daniel’s model for prayer in Daniel 6 and insist that proper prayer must be conducted three times a day and directed towards Jerusalem. To make such an application would be to read too much into the specific example, and in fact may lead to miss the teaching point of a passage. Basically, to make a sure conviction about an issue, we must base it on much surer theology than being backed up by examples.
It is in the spirit of searching for this surer theology that I may consider writing a little more about my present conviction on baptism. I shall give away the present state of affairs - I am still a credobaptist, and am as yet unaware of an argument to convince me otherwise. I am at the same time aware that my being a credobaptist has become a bit of a cherished distinction that I hold on to, and it may not be for entirely biblical reasons. Luther famously commented that “Ecclesia Reformata est semper Reformanda”, that is the reformed church is every reforming, and it is in this spirit that I do intend to carefully consider this issue.
I encourage my paedobaptist brethren not to start their celebrations yet though, they could well be premature. Expect further ramblings on this in due course...
4 comments:
Bless your heart.
I understand the scriptural proof to be Genesis 17.10 ff. (cf. Col. 2.11 f.). But you might not find that convincing!
Single verses plus cross-reference are unlikely to be the tipping point, although I do see the push of what you are saying. I shall likely do a bit of posting on this, maybe on a roundabout route as I take time to jump on to a few hobby horses on the way. Watch this space, I suppose.
I tend to agree with you, Mark, although it's more from a position that baptism, like conversion, should only happen when people have the faintest idea what they're doing. That's not often the case when the most joined-up thinking they can do is "hungry. I scream now."
That said, it's not so much of an issue that I want to go and get baptised again (I got splashed when I was a baby), nor am I going to confront Christian families about it if they're having their babies baptised. Not sure whether that makes me easy-going or unsound...
I would tend to agree, at least I would at the moment. Saying that, the issue I need to deal with is what do we do with children of believers? Do we treat them as non-Christians? Well, personally, I wouldn't, I'd bring them up to know and, God willing, love the Lord. So then do I treat them as Christians? Well, I suppose I would. Then why do I with-hold from them the commanded sign of being a Christian? I'm realising that this is probably not as trivial a question as I once thought.
As for your other comments, I wouldn't ever accuse you of being unsound or easy-going, I do think this issue of mode of baptism is very much a secondary issue - the command is clear to be baptised, less so how (hence the split in opinion). It's fair to say that part of my motivations for thinking through these things anew is a consideration towards what I might be doing in a few years time, as well as a concern that I'm not quite as considered as I once thought on this issue.
Post a Comment