About a month ago, I was able to participate in a forum on Baptism with a local Reformed Baptist pastor. You can find the unedited video of the forum here. I want to open with some kindness.  I view Reformed Baptists as brothers and am willing to work shoulder to shoulder with them where possible.  That does not take away from the seriousness of their error in refraining from giving their children baptism.

Pastor Jared Hiebert argued that we should only baptize believers.  I argued that we should baptize their children as well.  We both spoke for a 1/2 hour.  Half an hour is not a long time to fill out a full defense of infant baptism, much less to point out the problems with believer’s baptism.   Reflecting on the forum resulted in a number of other thoughts on the subject.  Particularly, I noticed some deeper structures of thought that went unnoticed and some red herrings that were not addressed.

  1.  Grace perfects nature:  I find it interesting that the Baptist position does not take into account the way grace interacts with nature.  They might agree with the phrase “Grace perfects nature,” but that does not work out in their vision of the church.  Now, this may not be immediately apparent in our context.  We need to begin by thinking about what the grace of Christ’s salvation is.  Salvation is restoring the community God had with man in the Garden.  Salvation results in a new creation.  This truth is evident by the number of NT references to “new creation” and “holy people.”  God is restoring creation in Jesus Christ.  All types of people, including children, are part of that new creation.  The practice of infant baptism confirms that.  Young babies also need to be brought into the new kingdom of Christ. The Baptist position, on the other hand, makes the new creation a new creation of the mature. Only the mature can have the formal relationship with God which is marked by baptism.  The church becomes a body of those who have freely chosen the kingdom of Christ, an explicitly voluntary kingdom, rather than a kingdom that includes the types of people God’s original plan in the garden would have freely welcomed as members of God’s people  Thus the grace of God undermines and changes nature, rather than confirming and perfecting it.
  2. You flatten the covenant!  You break up the covenant!  A common refrain in the debates over baptism is “you flatten the covenant” from the Baptist side and “you break up the covenant” from the reformed side.  I really don’t find these accusations that useful.  Rather we need to determine the precise way in which Christ changed things.  This is not immediately evident and takes study.  Many paedo-baptists emphasize the radical changes Christ brought about without taking a single thing away from the force of the arguments for paedo-baptism.  In the same way, many Baptists may emphasize certain continuities, without contradicting their teaching of credo-baptism.   This is why the debate must stay at the level of “What changes?” rather than arguing about who properly understands covenant succession.
  3. That doesn’t take away from the fact that the continuity of the covenants is the key to this debate.  The Baptist understanding does break up the picture scripture gives of the covenant.  That is not primarily because he is breaking up the covenant, but because the Baptist neither understands the teaching of scripture on covenant nor baptism.  They assume that God radically changes the way he deals with families and groups of people without showing how the cross caused that radical change.  The cross brought God closer to people according to the book of Hebrews.  Why did it remove God from a relationship with small children, who cannot fully understand?  The Reformed Baptist, in particular, tends to equate covenant and election.  It is only when he understands the nature of baptism and its relation to the covenant that he will be able to see that he improperly breaks up the covenant. On the other hand, I believe that the Classical Reformed position can fully account for what Christ did on the cross.
  4. Baptism replaces circumcision:  Another contentious part of the baptism debate is the question of the relationship between circumcision and baptism.  I appreciate the words of the Belgic Confession “baptism replaces circumcision.”  In the debate, I said that I could see that baptism fulfills circumcision, but I would not defend that position any longer.  Christ fulfills circumcision.  Through his death and resurrection, Christ radically breaks from the dispensation of the law (If you don’t think so read the book of Hebrews).  Following the resurrection, everything is truly new.  But that doesn’t all of a sudden change how covenants work or, for that matter, covenant signs.  Covenant is now connected to Christ rather than the law. The signs of the covenant function in the same way.  Baptism functions like circumcision did in the OT.  It is a seal of righteousness and it marks one as a member of God’s kingdom.  The kingdom is different and the way in which they seal righteousness are different, but their function is very similar. That being said circumcision binds one to the law; baptism binds one to Christ.
  5. You rely on inferences:  One common phrase I heard that evening was the argument that we baptize children based on inferences to children.  I’m not sure how this is much of an argument.  After all, the Baptist refrains from baptizing children based on inferences from scripture. Instead of accusing one another of relying on inferences, we need to work out our covenantal and baptismal theology as best we can from scripture.  The question is not one of inference, but which inference is justified.
  6. Catholicity and Ecumenicity:  The classical reformed position is much more conducive to small-c catholicity.  We accept all baptisms done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  We recognize such people as formal members of God’s Kingdom unless they deny it by their actions or confession.  The consistent Reformed Baptist, however, must reject all baptisms that are not done upon a viable profession of faith.  Therefore, at a doctrinal level, they bring division into the church of Christ. They deny the formal membership of over half of Christendom in the kingdom of Christ. In this way, they imitate Roman Catholics who consider anybody who has not subjected himself to the Pope of Rome separated brethren, saved through the hierarchy of Rome, even if they do not fully enjoy the benefits of membership in Rome.  If they deny such a charge or in contradiction to their own teaching invite those baptized as infants as full members into their church, one wonders why they baptize at all.
  7. That being said, I truly do consider Baptists as brothers in Christ. They demonstrate a desire to submit to and serve our Lord Jesus Christ. I only hope that with an open Bible before us we can truly continue to grow in the knowledge and the love of Christ.