Over at Vons Takes there has been a cross-blog debate about baptism ... or, more specifically, infant baptism. Eric defended it; Von opposed it. What's new?
It is my suspicion that the majority of those who oppose infant baptism have never actually examined the reasons for the position. It is my suspicion that if they bothered to examine the arguments, they wouldn't be so stunningly opposed to it. You see, there are biblical reasons for the belief. Over at Biblia Theologica, Professor Caneday offers the following maxim: "Be wary of attempting to persuade individuals with reasoned arguments out of views or beliefs that they embraced devoid of reasoned arguments." I suspect that many who affirm believer's baptism over infant baptism do so without having been persuaded by reasoned argument. Thus, the reasoned arguments for infant baptism are of little value. Too many of us hold positions for reasons other than "It is the most reasonable." Too often it's other things, and defying such a belief would put them at odds with their favorite pastor or their mother or father or their upbringing ... things too awful to face.
I'm not here to defend infant baptism. I have examined the arguments, and while I find them compelling, I don't find them convincing. But neither do I think that those who hold to that view are nuts for their position. I can see it. Let's see ... some of the arguments ... well, there are more than one. For one, there is the fact that it appears to be the historic position of the Church. Then there is Peter's words in Acts 2:38-39. "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." There is the somewhat odd statement from Paul in 1 Cor. 7. "The unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy" (1 Cor. 7:14). Of course, they really like the comment in Acts 16:33, where it says about the Philippian jailer "he was baptized at once, he and all his family."
One of the most compelling arguments seems to be completely ignored by the believer's baptism crowd. "No, that doesn't mean that." What argument? In Col. 2, Paul writes, "In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead" (Col. 2:11-12). Paul seems to draw a very clear parallel here between New Testament baptism and Old Testament circumcision. Now, who was circumcised in the Old Testament? It was all 8-day-old male children. Did circumcision mean that they were saved? No, not at all. It meant that they were part of the community of the God's chosen people, but not that they were saved. "So," the paedobaptist argues, "infant baptism parallels circumcision. It doesn't save the infant. It simply puts them in the community of those who are set apart."
The believer's baptism folks will deny it. "No, no, that's not what that passage means." Why I don't know. I suspect they deny it because, well, it's too hard to argue against if it is true. So the best approach is just to deny it. Bad approach if you ask me. (Yeah? Who asked you?) Denying an argument isn't the same as answering it. So ... if we leave that as an actual parallel between circumcision and baptism, can we still hold to believer's baptism? I think so.
Look again. When were the children of Israel circumcised? They were circumcised immediately after birth. It served to mark them as members of the chosen people of God. So, I ask you, when are we in the New Testament born? We are born into the "chosen people of God" when we are "born again", not when we are first born. Thus, it would seem to me that to parallel the Old Testament practice of circumcision, we would need to be baptized after we are born again. And this baptism would not actually confer salvation, but would serve as a mark of being a part of God's chosen people.
It is for this reason that I still hold to believer's baptism. I think it most clearly parallels circumcision only by referencing the spiritual birth. So I'm still an adherent of believer's baptism. I think you can also see that I'm not a staunch opponent of infant baptism. When I need to I can even defend it. If you believe in paedobaptism, I can understand why. Maybe, just maybe, we ought to examine ourselves before we come to the argument table. Have we looked at all the arguments, or are we holding to a position because giving it up would be too emotionally costly? That is not a good reason to argue a position.
15 comments:
Yo, dude, tell me when you post something and I will respond... assuming I have time :)
Are you attempting to label me as 'an opponent of infant baptism' per se.? Need to read the posts a little more carefully.
I am perfectly willing to deal with the circumcision passage... i ndeed in our discussion it was me, not Eric, who brought up the passage! And it was he who objected. To bad he left the discussion... perhaps someone else would like to join in?
No, Von, I wasn't attempting to label you at all. Your dialog with Eric just reminded me of other dialogs and I had this circumcision thing to address. Your dialog was simply my springboard.
As always, Stan, you are the master of the "soft answer."
The reason I objected when Von raised the issue of circumcision in our previous discussion was that he raised it in a preemptive manner. I had not used the analogy of circumcision to baptism as a reason for baptizing infants, and yet he still argued that the circumcision of infants is not a sufficient reason to baptize infants. I happen to agree, and I didn't want to give him a dragon to slay when he was already very happily employed with the windmills.
I gave Von one and only one reason for baptizing infants (although I may have sometimes responded to his arguments along other lines). Jesus said make disciples of all nations by baptizing them and teaching them. I haven't found a reason to exclude infants from that commission -- even before they are born. In our family I was teaching my son the things of God well before he was baptized on the 53rd day after his birth.
Eric,
I wish to remain the master of the "soft answer", and it's difficult to debate a hot topic while remaining such, but I do need to point out that Jesus's command to "make disciples of all nations" does not say that it is accomplished by baptizing them. If that were the case, it would simply be in the best interest of God and the world that we do as Constantine did and forceably baptize anyone we can find. "Poof! You're a disciple." It seems, instead, that He says that disciples are baptized and taught, not that baptizing and teaching cause disciples. I suppose it would depend on who the "them" refers to in "baptizing them" -- "all nations" or "disciples".
In the text, I believe "them" refers to "disciples of all nations."
Maybe you are right... maybe baptizing and teaching contribute nothing to the making of disciples, but instead they adorn discipleship after the fact. How does Matthew 28:19,20 lead us to that conclusion?
"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" (Matt. 28:19-20).
I would guess that "contribute nothing to the making of disciples" was intended as humorous. The question is does baptizing someone make them a disciple?
I would read the command this way. What are we commanded to do? "Go and make disciples." Where are we commanded to go to make disciples? "All nations." And what do we do with them when we make them? "Baptize them and teach them to observe all that I have commanded you."
Inversely, if "baptize and teach" are what make disciples, then we can set aside all this "come by faith" stuff and just traveling about with super soakers, making followers of Christ with our water pistols. I know it sounds flippant, but you can see the problem, right?
No... I can't see the problem. How does making disciples by baptizing and teaching set aside faith?
In your prior post you wanted to change the text to mean, "make disciples, baptized and taught." Now you want it to say, "make disciples, baptize and teach." The only reason given here is that if we take the verse to mean that baptizing and teaching are instrumental in making disciples, then we are stuck with the absurd conclusion that baptizing might actually contribute something to the making of a disciple. (You don't seem to find any fault with teaching contributing something to the making of a disciple -- and how could we -- since meaning of the word "disciple" is essentially "student.") A contribution by baptism somehow cuts faith out the equation? No... I can't see how it does.
"A contribution by baptism somehow cuts faith out the equation? No ... I can't see how it does."
My problem arises with the concept here. Constantine made Christianity the state religion. To insure this, he marched his army through the river to baptize them. As ridiculous as this might sound to most, if baptism makes disciples, then Constantine was right.
I don't have a problem with baptizing and teaching disciples. That doesn't make disciples. It simply seems as if they must have first become students before they are baptized and taught.
Hey, no fair, the baptism discussion was supposed to be on MY blog :)
I wonder if I will get a response to the 'two baptisms' problem that I raised.
As to the 'make disciples' phrase, the original greek says something like discipling: baptizing and teach. Stan, did your read my five points? I said the pattern (from Matthew twenty eight) was:
1) God acts in power.
2) We, his disciples, go into all the world.
3) We preach repentance and Baptism for the remission of sins.
4) Those to whom we go repent of their sins, turn to Christ for salvation, and come for baptism.
5) We then teach them to observe all that the Lord has commanded us. Which they do, and go forth into the world on their own in obedience.
I suppose I don't have any fundamental problems with your 5 points ... in a vaccuum. However, To derive your 5 points directly from the passage becomes problematic.
Specifically: "We preach repentance and Baptism for the remission of sins [and] those to whom we go repent of their sins, turn to Christ for salvation, and come for baptism." I don't find "preach repentance and baptism for the remission of sins" in the passage (of course, it's elsewhere, which is why I don't have a problem with your five points). I think the conditional concept of "baptize and teach disciples, not just everyone" is implied.
I think that Eric can make a case for his view, but I don't know that he can substantially support it from this particular passage.
Stan,
My problem arises with the concept here.
So, no matter how well my interpretation of Matthew 28 conforms to ordinary rules of grammar, you cannot concede it because you personally find that interpretation problematic on a practical level. Unfortunately, that pretty much ends any discussion of the text.
But let me try to address some aspects of your practical concern...
Let's say you are walking down the street and you get hit by the kid with a super-soaker who says, "You're baptized into Christ!" (Happens everyday!) Did he baptize you? Of course not! I don't know all the particulars of Constantine's alleged baptism of his army, but it sounds very similar to what that kid with the water gun is doing. Water does not equal baptism. Baptism is water comprehended in the Word of God.
But let's say that there was more to Constantine's army baptism than just getting his soldiers wet. Let's say he did it right, with elders of the church and the whole nine yards. Does that make them disciples? Well, don't forget the other instrument -- teaching. You really can’t make disciples without that element as well.
The problem with any mass baptism is that it can be hard to measure the commitment of any given individual. And that is important among adults (I assume Constantine led an army of adults), because we would want them to receive instruction (teaching) voluntarily. So it is important for disciples to continue in the apostles' teaching, but what if they don't? Does that make the baptism illegitimate or ineffective? No, not at all. And the same is true for children.
Below the belt, Eric. Below the belt. Do you actually assume that I interpret Scripture based on "practical problems"?
What in the grammar of the passage requires "baptizing and teaching makes disciples"?
Still, I don't actually think we disagree. Disciples are to be baptized and taught. You indicated that baptisms are for people who are committing. What I'm trying to say is that nothing in the text suggests that disciples are not voluntary. Those who are learners ("disciple") are not learning by force (as the Inquisition would suggest) but by choice. So I can't find in Matt. 28 a command to baptize infants. (Remember, I'm not one hard against paedobaptism. I just don't think it's your best argument.)
Side question: Does baptism require "elders of the church and the whole nine yards"? Is there a specific process required? I mean, if a guy gets baptized by his grandfather in his uncle's pool, is that an "illegal" baptism?
That is not really below the belt... or if it is, it is no lower than all that super-soaker nonsense. The vast majority of Christians in America and around the world acknowledge that baptism plays a role in the making of disciples, but we don't have to carry an umbrella every time we walk out the door. The super-soaker idea is a canard.
What in the grammar of the passage requires "baptizing and teaching makes disciples"?
There are four verbs in the relevant portion of Matthew 28:19-20: to go, to teach (or make disciples), to baptize, and to teach. The first two are presented in an imperative voice. They are commands in the present tense: “Go and make disciples.” The next two verbs are present participles: “baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” The participles are modifiers. We know this because they cannot stand on their own apart from one or both imperatives. The imperatives are connected with the conjunction “and” to form one coherent action. The participles therefore modify both “go” and “teach/make disciples.” You could easily drop one or the other imperative and the sentence still makes sense. “Go, baptizing and teaching,” or “Make disciples, baptizing and teaching.” The participles do not modify merely one command or the other, but both. How do they modify the command to make disciples? Do they convey who, what, when, where, why, or how of making disciples? I think the answer is all too obvious.
I would not contend that this is necessarily the only possible interpretation of the text, but I think it is the simplest, plainest, and clearest meaning. If other possible interpretations do exist, I have not heard any. The other interpretations put forward here and elsewhere are not true to the text, by which I mean that they require a reconfiguration of the and/or a re-conjugation of the verbs in order to work.
Of course, I would agree that there is no command in Matthew 28 to baptize infants, but I am convinced that it is the best Scriptural foundation for the practice. I am curious… what DO you think is the paedobaptist’s best argument?)
I don’t think I indicated that baptism is for people who are committing. I said that as a practical matter it is better to baptize adults who volunteer for it because baptism isn't the only instrument in the making of disciples. You can throw water on anyone, but how are you going to get that person into catechesis? A commitment on their part to come receive instruction would be helpful at that point. This is a special consideration that applies to adults, but not to children. We never ask children to volunteer for catechesis, either in the world or in the church. It would be patently absurd to give them a choice in the matter. We teach them because it is our responsibility to do so – whether we are teaching the ABC’s or the Ten Commandments.
Eric,
Just so we're clear (because I don't think you and I are enemies), the "super soaker nonsense" was exactly that ... nonsense. It said, "I know you don't believe this." Unfortunately, it looked like you believe that I interpret Scripture based on the practicality.
One other clarification. I do interpret Scripture based on the practicality ... in the sense that if it contradicts Scripture it is impractical to interpret it that way.
Finally, it seems abundantly clear (which is why I'm surprised you say, "If other possible interpretations do exist, I have not heard any. ") that the meaning is to baptize and teach disciples. Those disciples, indeed, come from all nations. But the "them" that we are to baptize and teach are not "all people of all nations", but "disciples".
As for what I think are better arguments, I like the circumcision one, and I like the Acts 2 one. You know, "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children ..." (Acts 2:38-39).
Note also that "all nations" doesn't work any better than the Philippian jailer one works. Sure, the jailer may have had children, but since it isn't stated it's so, it's hard to argue it's necessarily so. In the same vein, we know that "make disciples of all nations" is not intended to say, "Make each and every human being in each and every nation a disciple" but "make disciples in every nation". If there is a limit, then there's no way to argue that it does or does not include children.
Finally, it seems abundantly clear... that the meaning is to baptize and teach disciples. Those disciples, indeed, come from all nations. But the "them" that we are to baptize and teach are not "all people of all nations", but "disciples".
My interpretation in no way depends on making “them” a reference to “all nations” or (even more preposterously) to “all people of all nations.” In a previous comment I explicitly tied myself to the notion that “them” refers to the disciples being made, and yet this does not change the fact that the participles modify the command. And what do they tell us about the command? Do they reveal the who, what, when, where, why or how of making disciples? Is there a single English translation that actually renders the passage in a manner that makes baptizing and teaching modifiers for “disciples” instead of “go and make disciples”? It would have to read something like: “Go therefore and make disciples, baptize disciples, and teach disciples.”
I like the Acts 2 argument. It very clearly shows, in my opinion, that all ages were baptized on the Day of Pentecost. I don’t have much use for the circumcision argument anymore. Because it deals with the subject by analogy, all your time is wasted supporting the analogy instead of discussing baptism itself.
The “all nations” argument really shouldn’t be asserted in a vacuum. The book of Matthew is written primarily to a Jewish audience, but it ends up reading like an indictment of Judaism. The Jews were systematically shutting people out of the kingdom of God. They didn’t think women, or children or gentiles could be really be saved, and in this book Jesus systematically tears down those distinctions in relation to salvation. The “all nations” in chapter 28:19 hammers the final nail in the coffin. It is the climax in Matthew’s indictment. It is the most all-inclusive expression Jesus could have used. So the “all nations” argument isn’t really about the meaning of the term “all nations.” It is about the meaning and purpose of the entire Gospel of St. Matthew.
Thanks for the conversation, Stan. I don’t know what my availability will be over the next few days, but I will read and comment if I can find the time. Otherwise... farewell, my friend.
Post a Comment