Left Field

Some time ago I took a test online that would tell me where I stand politically. According to that test, I am a "centrist". I fell right in the center in almost every category. Of course, I was surprised. I thought I'd be more on the right. But they said I wasn't. I was not surprised at the other point they made. "There is no political party that aligns with your views." Yeah, I knew that part. I have, for a long time, been taxed without representation, because the politicians who govern my taxes don't represent my view. But I'm okay with that.

As it turns out, it appears that I fall in a similar category when it comes to Christianity. I have yet to find a religious organization that fits my views. I know. I fall generally in the Protestant camp, but that's way too vague. More narrowly, I fall largely in the Reformed arena. Still, they have components with which I disagree. Take, for instance, the standard Westminster Confession of Faith, the standard document for Presbyterians and the like. I find it to be quite good ... but I still don't agree 100%. And, of course, churches that use this document as their Statement of Faith tell me, "If you don't agree 100%, you can be a member, but you can't be a 'contributing' member." Yeah, yeah, "contributing" is my word, not theirs. I can go there. I can be "okay" with them. I cannot be an elder there, for instance, because we all know that the Bible teaches that the qualifications of elders includes "agrees with the Westminster Confession 100%." Or ... not.

I ran into this last Sunday. They did a reading from the Confession -- Chapter 28. Now, one of the keys of the Reformation was sola scriptura. So why did I run into so many problems with this chapter? Here it is:

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.

II. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto.

III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.

IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.

V. Although it is a great sin to contemn (disdain) or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it: or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.

VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.

VII. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person.

Much of it is fine. I find a lot of it in Scripture. I see that. But there are parts that completely evade me. Take, for instance, this idea that it is "a sign and seal of the covenant of grace" which includes "regeneration". Now, they specifically deny that "no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated." So, if it is a "seal ... of regeneration", in what sense is it a seal? It doesn't mean they're regenerated. It doesn't even mean that they will be regenerated. So ... what type of a seal is this?

I am really confused by Section II there. They require that it be accomplished "by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto." You can argue however you want, but you will not be able to find a reference that requires a "minister of the Gospel" let alone "lawfully called". And the proof texts they offer are worse. There are a couple references to John the Baptist (Matt 3:11; John 1:33), but the primary one is Jesus's Great Commission to, among other things, be "baptizing them" (Matt 28:19-20). If that is a command for a "minister of the Gospel" who is "lawfully called", then it would follow that only that group would be allowed to make disciples or teach them to observe all that Christ commanded.

I don't really care much about immersion versus sprinkling or pouring. I do find it a bit of stretch to compare the baptism described in Romans 6 with sprinkling or pouring, but, hey, I can let that go. And I understand the whole infant baptism argument even if I 1) disagree and 2) don't really find it founded in Scripture. But I am fascinated by that last item: "Only once." The proof text in that case is Titus 3:5 which simply offers, "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost." Umm, yeah, but didn't you already say that baptism doesn't assure regeneration? Didn't you already argue that it is a sign, but not the actual accomplishment of it? Let's say, for instance, that someone is baptized as an infant and it turns out their parents convert a year later to Buddhism (suggesting they never had faith). Does that nullify the baptism (since there were no "believing parents")? Or it turns out that the "minister of the Gospel" wasn't "lawfully called"? Or you were baptized by your grandfather in your uncle's pool? (No, not making that one up.) Does that nullify it? I am, of course, not looking for a reason to nullify someone's baptism. I'm simply asking if it would be wrong for a person, baptized as an infant or otherwise, to believe that it would be in their best interest to do it later in life? The Confession says it would be. I can't find that in the Bible.

Well, that's all just an example. It removes from me the opportunity to deeply participate in my church (and any other of the same persuasion). Not to worry. I have a lot more beliefs that prevent me from being able to participate deeply in many, many other churches -- all that I know of, in fact. (Arminian churches, for instance, have no interest in letting a Reformed person take any real part.) And, while many people think of it as a badge of honor to be "different" like this, I don't. I'm the type that first thinks, "It looks like everyone else believes something different. Am I wrong?" But, I end up standing here anyway. Without any of Luther's perceived bravado, I say, quietly, "Unless I shall be convinced by the testimonies of the Scriptures or by clear reason ... Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me."