(page 56-60: Deals with the QUESTION TWO: THE MODE OF BAPTISM) [I have not included]
THIRD QUESTION:
(page 60, beginning halfway down the page)
The third of the four questions now is: To whom should baptism be administered? This question divides in two. Should unbelievers be baptized or believers only? And, should infants be baptized or adults only.
In the New Testament, so far as adults are concerned, the practice and the teaching were to baptize on confession of faith: Repent and be baptized. The Philippian jailer and all his family were baptized straightway after he asked, "What must I do to be saved?" This is a far cry from the Romish practice of baptizing the heathen in crowds, as for example upon the conversion of Clovis, or apparently upon the conversion of no one in Buddhist lands.
At the same time, it must be noted that the apostles gave very little instruction. The Jews at Pentecost knew the Old Testament and needed only to learn that Jesus was their Messiah; but the jailer surely knew little if anything, yet he and his household were baptized after one sermon. The next day Paul left the city. Later in church history there were catechetical classes, lasting a few months or even a few years. Though this bears the
(page 61)
appearance of wisdom, it was not the practice of the apostles. Yet they certainly required a profession of faith.
The second half of this sub-question also divides into two: Should infants ever be baptized, and if so, which infants?
The basic authority for baptizing infants is found in the terms of the Abrahamic Covenant. Infants, male infants, were circumcised. Now, as the Lord's Supper grew out of and replaced the Passover meal, so baptism replaced circumcision. The most definite passage on the subject is Colossians 2:11,12 where baptism is called the circumcision of Christ. The less definite but more pervasive material concerns the continuance of the Abrahamic covenant, as found in Galatians 3:15ff.
In this connection one should note that it is not necessary to find explicit New Testament justification for every Christian doctrine. The Old Testament is a part of the Bible also. To be sure, the Mosaic ritual was a temporal expedient. To continue the sacrifice of lambs today would be to deny the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice. But while the ritual is fulfilled, the covenant of grace remains the same in all ages. A relatively minor, though for that very reason pertinent, point concerns the condemnation of incest as 1 Corinthians 5:1ff. The New Testament gives no details concerning the limits of consanguinity and affinity in marriage. They are found in Leviticus 18. See I Corinthians 1:19, 31; 2:9, 16; 3:19, 20; 6:16; 9:9, 10:7 and others, plus frequent verbal allusions that cannot be called quotations in the modern sense. In chapter five, however, Paul does not quote Leviticus but clearly Leviticus is the only place that affords Paul a basis for his condemnation. The correct principle of interpretation is not the Baptist one of discarding everything in the Old Testament not reasserted in the New; but rather the acceptance of everything in the Old not abrogated by the New Testament teaching.
(page 62)
Therefore to be more explicit, be it noted that the Old Testament church and the New Testament church are the same church. Not only does Acts 8:38 , "the church in the wilderness" so assert, but even clearer is Romans 11:17-24. There as a root; one of its branches was Israel; this branch was broken off; a Gentile branch from a wild olive tree was grafted into the good root; and God can and will at some future date graft back the natural branches into their own olive tree. The whole, as Galatians 6:16 indicates, is the Israel of God. Since, now, children were members of the ancient church, and were given the sign of the covenant, so also now.
Anyone who wishes to exclude infants from the church is under obligation to show that the New Testament alters the procedure that dates back at least to Abraham. It is the Baptist who must bear the burden of proof. He must explain how it comes about that children, who were members of the church before the time of Christ, are now excluded from the church. All other Christians aer satisfied with the household baptisms of Acts 16:15, the jailer in Acts 16:33, and the household of Stephanus in I Corinthians 1:16.
The other subdivision of the QUESTION is a more difficult one: Whose children should be baptized? It is not at all difficult to show that a child of two believing parents should be baptized, nor even that a child of only one believing parent should be. I Corinthians 7:14 is sufficient. The difficulty arises when one considers the case of a child whose parents were perhaps baptized infancy, who attend church services with some regularity, and who want their child baptized, even thought they themselves have never become communicant members. Today in the United States the very large majority who are in regular attendance are communicant members. But it so happens that regular attendants who are not communicants want their children baptized. Should the church acquiesce?
(page 63)
In Europe and in early America the children of baptized but non-communicant members were regularly baptized. Robert Ellis Thompson, in "A History of the Presbyterian Churches in the United States (1895, p.14) reports: "The absence of regularly constituted sessions for the administration of church discipline, and the refusal of baptism to the children of baptized persons who were not communicants marked the local congregation as un-Presbyterian." That is, communicant membership was not essential for the parents of infants to be baptized; and the author notes that this was the rule in all Reformed churches.
The argument was that there is a visible and an invisible Church. The members of the latter are precisely God's elect; but many members of the former are not. Ishmael and Esau were both circumcised. Furthermore, since the promise and the covenant extended to a thousand generations, the visible church today may and ought to baptize infants of unbelieving parents who want them baptized, on the basis of their ancestor's faith. Surely not every Israelite, at any period of its disappointing history, was regenerate; yet no priest would have hesitated to circumcise the children of such parents. But in New England, as was not true in Europe, an inference drawn with respect to the Lord's Supper deserves mention at his point. Like baptism, the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, came to be regarded as a sacrament of the visible church. The grandfather of Jonathan Edwards argued that regeneration is not a necessary qualification for admission to the Lord's Supper. In fact the sacrament itself is a converting ordinance. Increase Mather opposed this view; Jonathan Edwards in time came to oppose it also, for which cause he was dismissed from the pastorate he had inherited from his grandfather. Presbyterians generally followed Mather and Edwards in this regard.
(page 64)
Now, even if it be granted that baptism may properly be administered to children of non-professing parents, the inference to a similar stance on the Lord's Supper is fallacious. The two sacraments should be distinguished. The distinction is this: Admitting for the sake of argument that the covenant extends to thousands of generations, one must still remember that the apostle commanded each person to examine himself and so let him eat, on pain of eating and drinking damnation to himself. Obviously Paul did not intend the Supper to be a converting ordinance. The radical individualism of regeneration prevails.
But now, beyond admissions for the sake of argument, what must be said on the substantial question? Does the Bible require or prohibit baptisms to the thousandth generation? If it does, and if a generation is roughly thirty years, a thousand generations from the time of Christ would include just about everybody in the western world. Then the church should have baptized the child of an intensely Talmudic Jew whose ancestor in 50 B.C. was piously looking for the Messiah; Or, George Whitefield should have baptized Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and Tom Paine, as children, because one of the their ancestors played a small role in the Reformation. Strange as this may seem to many, it ought to have been done if the Bible so teaches.
Some very eminent theologians have so held. The strictest view has not been universal; it is more American than European. The view that only the children of professing parents should be baptized seems to have been the result of colonial revivalism. An historian might care to determine whether Tennant was its originator. In those days, as also in the early twentieth century, the Presbytery of New York was lax in doctrine, while the Philadelphia Presbytery was noted for orthodoxy. Gilbert Tennant, pastor in New Brunswick, New Jeresy, too vigorously
(page 65)
castigated the Philadelphia ministers for their dead orthodoxy. This led Synod to condemn Tennant on charges of slander and to exclude him with one of his associates from the Synod. Tennant eventually repented, but at the moment the New Brunswick Presbytery withdrew from the Synod and the New York Presbytery followed them. The Synod then tightened its ordination vows, which from the Adopting Act of 1729 allowed candidates for ordination to state their scruples or disagreements with the Confession. The Synod now required unconditional subscription.
There was a strange mixture of ideas in the minds of these revivalists. In theology they were more lax than the Philadelphia ministers were; but they were more strict with reference to baptism. But though strange, it is understandable. Their pietism and evangelistic zeal led them to place great emphasis on conversion as a traumatic experience. Zeal in preaching false doctrine was better than preaching truth without zeal. Let it be noted that this was not the case with Whitefield. He preached the truth with zeal. He did not, however, use a mourner's bench or a sawdust trail. Tennant, on the other hand, can be called the forerunner of Finney --- that disaster which Christianity suffered in the next century --- though of course, being a century earlier, Tennant was far more orthodox than Finney.
This emotional pietism, as it demanded a particular type of experience for regeneration, tended to view the ideal church as consisting entirely of regenerate persons sharing such an experience. The logical result is the Baptist position; but in Presbyterianism it stopped short at requiring faith of the parents who wanted their children baptized. But if it did not result in Baptist practices, it involved a change in the theology of baptism.
(page 66)
This now is the FOURTH QUESTION: What is the meaning of baptism and what does the rite accomplish? The Presbyterian position is neither Baptist, nor Anglican, and of course not Romish. The discussion of the older view, that of baptismal regeneration will come first.
One of the verses used to support baptismal regeneration is John 3:5: "Unless one is begotten of water and Spirit he cannot enter the Kingdom of God." Does this mean that the rite of baptism produces regeneration and that no one without water baptism can enter into heaven? An examination of the context can alone give the answer.
Point one: Nicodemus was a Jew, honestly seeking the truth. Therefore Jesus, in explaining the earlier phrase "unless a man is born over again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God," had to appeal to what Nicodemus already knew. i.e, the Old Testament. Jesus could not assume that Nicodemus knew something foreign to the Old Testament. This is not the surmise of a modern theologian: It is the planing meaning of verse 10: "Art though the [outstanding] teacher of Israel and knowest not these things?" Jesus was basing his teaching on the Old Testament.
Point two: Therefore the meaning of "water" must be determined by the Old Testament. In the Christian era water might suggest baptism, Christian baptism, but in the historical circumstances the preceding usage is what was meant, not something later about which Nicodemus had had no opportunity to learn. Now, the previous usage differs from the later in several respects: It was not Trinitarian; it could be repeated, even several times, whereas Christian baptism is administered just once.
Point three: In the Old Testament baptism or washing with water symbolizes cleansing from sin. In Isaiah 4:4 the Lord 'washed' away the filth of the daughters of Zion; Zechariah 13:1 mentions a 'fountain' for sin and impurity; Malachi 3:2 predicts a purification, by fire indeed, but also by 'soap', which no doubt requires water. Then further, the
(page 67)
combination of water and spirit in John has its background in many Old Testament passages. Psalm 51:2,7,10 combine the washing, a clean heart, and a right spirit. Isaiah 44:3 also.
Point four: The Kingdom of God is also something Nicodemus should have understood. It is an Old Testament idea, for God is King. The term itself does not occur in I Chronicles 29:11, but the idea is emphatic. Explicit are:
Psalm 22:28 For the kingdom is the Lord's: and he is the governor among the nations. Psalm 45:6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. Psalm 145:11 They shall speak of the glory of thy kingdom, and talk of thy power;
To these add Isaiah 24:23, Daniel 2:44 and many other references. Since such passages teach about the Kingdom, one can at least hope to find, in the Old Testament, the conditions of membership in that Kingdom. The conditions are repentance, faith, trust, sacrifice, redemption, the new heart, the Spirit --- all gospel terms. Is it then peculiar that 'water' should be there also?
The conclusion is that Jesus was teaching the Old Testament to Nicodemus, and that therefore there is no reference in John 3 to Christian baptism, and therefore again no theory of baptismal regeneration.
Another New Testament verse requires mention in this connection. Baptismal regeneration is sometimes supported by an appeal to Titus 3:5: "By the washing of regeneration and the renewing of [or,by] the Holy Spirit."
The Anglican and Romish argument is that washing regenerates. But this interpretation causes grammar to suffer. The second half of the quotation, in which 'the Holy Spirit' is in the genitive case, obviously means that the Holy Spirit renews us. The Holy Spirit is a subjunctive genitive.
(page 68)
The Holy Spirit renews us; neither we nor anything else renew the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit cannot be the objective genitive. Similarly it is regeneration that does the washing; it is not the washing that was regeneration. To get anything like baptismal regeneration out of these words, it would be necessary to rearrange them so as to say, "the regeneration of washing." This would mean that regeneration is produced by washing. But this is the reverse of what the Apostle wrote. Therefore the Reformed churches in baptizing adults assume, even if mistakenly, that they have already been regenerated. On this understanding regeneration cannot be conceived as produced by the rite of baptism.
If the preceding is a sufficient refutation of baptismal regeneration, the Baptist position will not so much require a formal refutation as a positive statement of the Presbyterian view. Baptists regard baptism as a sign of regeneration; and regeneration is to be recognized by a profession of faith. Presumably most Baptists would admit that the Holy Spirit can regenerate infants, and some no doubt concede that He does. Luke 1:44 says that the babe in the womb of Elizabeth leaped for joy when the mother of the Lord came to visit them. Contemporary murderous abortionists do not like this verse. Of course a newly born infant cannot express his faith. No matter, say Lutherans, infants can and some infants do have faith because some infants are justified and justification is by faith alone. This is an impressive argument; but Presbyterians, thinking of a theological expression of faith, allow other means of justification for the incompetent exceptions such as infants and the insane. The Baptists do not allow for faith in infants, and hence they will not bapitze them.
Some Presbyterians claim to bapitze infants on the basis of "presumptive regeneration." "Presumptive election" would be a better basis. But this is only a partial answer to the main question.
(page 69)
That baptism, the sign of washing and purification, is somehow related to regeneration should not be denied; but the Baptist view of that relationship is untenable. They rebel at the apparently empty formalism of the established churches in Europe. They observe that too many 'baptized' infants give no later evidence of regeneration or election, which is unfortunately true. But neither Tennant's ideal of regenerate ministry, much less that of a regenerate membership, is possible. If this is true of churches that baptize infants, it is equally true and equally regrettable of churches that immerse adults. There are millions of apostate Baptists, with their champion of a generation ago, Harry Emerson Fosdick. Every church, with the possible exception of a few very small congregations, has its black sheep. This was the case in the churches of the New Testament and remains true today. Therefore it is impractical to operate on the belief, and impossible to operate on an asserted fact, that all church members are regenerate. Adult baptism does not avoid the difficulty.
The problem is solved by insisting that the New Testament gospel is the same as that given to Abraham. Baptism is the circumcision of Christ. The terms of the Abrahamic covenant provide the rules for the administration of baptism. The New Testament application of the covenant cannot be more restricted that than of the Old. In fact, it is wider, for girls are now baptized. Since therefore it is wider, not narrower, and since infants were then included in the covenant, they must not be excluded now.
That some or even many remain dead in sin after receiving the sign of the covenant, is no greater an objection to infant baptism than it is to circumcision. Ishmael and Esau bore the sign of the covenant. So too did Simon Magnus and Hymenaeus, presumably unregenerate, or Diotrophes, Demas, Alexander, and others who made shipwreck of the faith.
(page 70)
In spite of the fact that they are criticizing the divine provisions of the Abrahamic covenant, so definitely said to be operative today (Galatians 3:7ff), Baptists and others will ask, "But then, what good is baptism?" Of course, one might ask in return, "What good is adult immersion?" It does not regenerate, and some of you deny it is a means of grace. What then is left?"
Now, Presbyterians can answer these questions better than Baptists can. To repeat, baptism has all the value of circumcision.
Romans 2:25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.
Romans 3:1-2 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? [2] Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
Romans 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
Doubtless this is not so much value as some might expect. But if so, these expectations are not Scriptural. Perhaps the Calvinist must say that while baptism symbolizes internal blessings, it guarantees only external.
However, this is still a means of grace, i.e. something God uses to show us his favor. For one reason, the rite, entered into sincerely, helps to fix the Word in the convert's mind. The Word is necessary. Baptism is not a magical incantation.
(page 71)
It does not exercise "physical causality," as the 'Catholic Encyclopedia' describes it, referring to Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (3a62); a physical causality such that "the sacramental rite is directly involved in the infusion of grace in a manner analogous to that in which an instrument, such as a pen or brush, is said to be the cause of an effect, the written page or picture." No, the rite of baptism though a visible performance, requires understanding, intelligence, mind.
When God made his covenant with Abraham, in Genesis 17, he explained its terms. There are approximately nine verses of explanation before circumcision is mentioned. then follow five verses explaining circumcision. to this is added the promise of a son to Sarah. Here something peculiar appears: The covenant will be established in his son Isaac, not in Ishmael; nevertheless Abraham circumcised Ishmael, along with servants who had been bought with money and were not of his family. Thus at the initation of the rite there was explanation.
In Joshua 5:2-9 where the uncircumcised second generation are circumcised, there is no explicit explanation to these people; the book explains the events to its reader; but it is almost impossible that Joshua would or could do this on a nation-wide scale without giving them an explanation. Thus the minister today must explain its significance ot those who present themselves. Even the Philippian jailer, baptized so suddenly, recieved some instruction; and what was lacking in time was more than compensated for by the preceding miracle. Baptism pictures the washing away of sin by Christ's blood. We are baptized in to his death, as the Baptists are fond of repeating. This is true; but it is incomplete: We are baptized in the name of the Trinity, not just Christ's death alone. Thus must be explained. The rite itself presents the promise of the covenant in the form of an action. As a picture of the washing away of sin, baptism is a "visible word." Now, the difference between the audible
(page 72)
and the visible Word is this: The word is preached in general terms to everyone. Baptism is administered to this one individual person here and now, showing him that the convenant is not merely some corporate arrangement in general, but showing him that God gives to him individually the promises of the covenant. This is absent when baptism is not accompanied by the Word, or where the words are Latin which th people do not understand.
The Protestant Reformation was a tremendous break with the encrusted superstitions of a thousand years. It is no derogation to the Reformers to suggest that they did not completely wipe out every last trace of so enrenched a superstition. The Second Helvetic Confession seems to retain a bit in its words, "Nam intus regeneramur---in it we are regenerate." The French Confession of 1559 is better: "parce que la nous sommes entes au corps de Christ, a fin d'etre laves et nettoyes par son sang...by it we are rafted into the body of Christ, so as to be washed and cleansed by his blood..." And then, "Ainsi nous tenons que l'eau etant un element caduc, ne laisse pas de nous testifier en verite le lavement interieur de notre ame au sang de Jesus-Christ." In English: "Thus we hold that the water, though a powerless element, nevertheless truly testifies to us the internal washing of our soul by the body of Jesus Christ."
The less important QUESTION of who may properly administer baptism can form a concluding paragraph on this subject and serve also as a transition to the discussion of the Lord's Supper.
<....he address this in his next 2 pages, concluding the issue of Baptism; then moves to the topic of the "Lord's Supper" >
0 comments:
Post a Comment