- Joachim Rieck
All Christian denominations
basically agree that Christian baptism
is the point of entrance into the church. What is not so clear in the minds of many is whether an
actual conversion experience should precede
Christian baptism and church membership or not.
Evangelical Paedo - Baptists generally baptize their infants into the
faith of their believing “covenant
parents“ , in the certain hope that in years to come, the LORD would
be pleased to add saving faith to these baptized children. Evangelical Paedo Baptists therefore baptize
their children in anticipation of
their children’s conversion.
Roman Catholic - Paedo Baptists and some Anglicans
unashamedly confer
a saving status upon their
children in the act of baptism. In their view baptism actually saves! This is called baptismal
regeneration.
The Paedo- Baptist movement
generally does not baptise by
immersion (although the Greek word ‘baptizo’
suggests immersion ). They ‘baptize’
by sprinkling! The Eastern Orthodox church is an
exception in this matter. In
keeping with the true meaning of ‘baptizo’ they practise
infant immersion!
THE FORMULA OF PAEDO BAPTISM
Baptism - Church Membership - Conversion (?)
Credo Baptists believe that
baptism by immersion should only follow upon
conversion. For this they have strong
scriptural warrant, since every instance of baptism in the New Testament follows (and never precedes) conversion. Baptists believe that conversion is
the warrant for baptism,
which leads into church membership.
THE FORMULA OF CREDO BAPTISM
Conversion – Baptism – Church Membership
IS PAEDO
BAPTISM REALLY REFORMED ?
Here follows a perhaps controversial
question : Are Paedo Baptists really
reformed in their practise of baptism ?
At a recent meeting with some dear Paedo
Baptist brothers they expressed their doubt to me as to whether a Baptist could really be reformed. Without entering into a long debate on who owns the name “Reformed”, I want to suggest
that we use the title ‘reformed’ in a “biblical” sense and not in a “philosophical” sense. To be
sure, no one is ever completely biblical, and the reformation
process should be on-going (Semper
Reformanda – ‘ always reforming’)
The conscience of a true Reformer
is always bound by the
Word of God. When Martin Luther, the famous German Reformer was asked to recant his Protestant
beliefs before the Council of Worms (April 16-26 , 1521 AD) he said this:
“Unless I am convicted by
Scriptures and plain reason- I do not accept the authority of popes and councils,
for they have contradicted each other concerning
- my conscience is captive to the Word
of God. I cannot and I will not recant
anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise . God
help me. Amen”[1]
Following Luther’s logic[2], I too must say to my Paedo Baptist
brothers that “Scripture and plain reason” must determine my understanding on this subject . I say this as one who himself was
born into the Lutheran tradition, but who has subsequently rejected the
unreformed view of “Lutheran baptism”.
How could I possible dispute on this matter with the great Luther and for that matter, Calvin? I will say only this. If Luther and Calvin with their profound understanding of the Word of God had given their great minds to further study
on this subject, and if they had lived longer, and in peaceful times, and with
a more settled disposition, both would have come to the same view on believers
baptism
as some of their contemporaries, the often despised Anabaptists.
Anabaptist Swiss pastors such as Conrad Grebel, Georg Blaurock and Felix Manz were godly and competent men[3].
Their contributions to the corporate
Reformation effort has often been underrated.
My argument with Paedo Baptists is that their view of baptism is essentially unreformed! It is a hangover of a “sacralistic society” [4]
, cemented by the
Roman emperor Constantine and fomented later by Roman Catholicism. By the end
of the 4th Century, “not yet baptized persons were required to attend catechism classes in preparation
for baptism; all who after attending
such classes who refused to present
themselves for baptism… were subject to the ultimate sentence.”[5]
And
so, infant baptism had become a
tradition in the church rather than a biblical practise. When tradition rules
over the plain teaching of Scripture, the Spirit who causes His Word to be
inspired is grieved. This unreformed tradition
of baptizing babies into the
communion of the church has
spawned a huge group of “nominal believers “ in the world. A nominal believer
is a person who may be convinced but not converted !
Baptists commit a similar mistake when they baptize
and add unconverted people into
membership.
When we
ignore the necessity, importance and primacy of the new birth as the vital entry point into Christ and
into the church, we will soon find
that our churches will slowly
die, for the church that is
populated by unregenerate men and women is indeed a barren tree!
“Christianity grows alien to its
essence when it is made into law for those who have been born instead of reborn”
.[6]
Many mainline denominations (including many Baptist churches ) are now led by unconverted men and women.
Having not entered through the narrow gate themselves (Matt 7:13, 14)
they cannot teach and persuade others concerning the importance and necessity
of the new birth (John 3:1-8). If we ignore the necessity of the new birth,
then the only other alternative is a mechanical view of conversion. The doctrine of baptism has sadly been abused to this end.
Oddly enough, a good number of evangelical believers today continue to
hold on to the practise of infant baptism, justifying this practise by appealing
to God’s covenant with the believer. If a child has a
converted parent, then it is said that the child is subject to the privileges of the covenant of God with his /her parent(s). There is much truth in this. The covenant that the believing parent has with God is indeed a rich blessing and a source of
hope. God requires parents
to teach their children, pray for their children, and walk in covenantal
faithfulness before their children. There is certainly much hope for parents
who walk in covenantal faithfulness before their God. However, the covenant requires children to respond
obediently to their parents teaching.
The covenant was never designed by God to be an unconditional guarantee
that believer’s children would be automatically saved because their
parents were in covenant with God! The whole history of Israel is surely a sad testimony to this. Second generation believers
are often notoriously unfaithful to the God of their fathers.
The hope of the Christian parent does not begin with the act of baptism. The hope of the Christian
parent begins with wrestling in prayer for
the souls of their children who are born after the likeness of the fallen Adam.
The Christian parent will remain restless in this regard until their offspring
are in Christ, after which they should be baptized and introduced to the church – the ekklesia – literally ‘the called out ones.’
We are of the opinion that Luther and Calvin did unfortunately not take
the Reformation far enough in this matter. They did not reform the Roman Catholic
practise of infant baptism.
Thankfully then there were those
children of the Reformation (e.g. the
Anabaptists and the English Baptists ) that did
see the plain meaning,
teaching and practise of Scripture
in this regard. Their insistence
upon the biblical practise of the manner and mode of baptism
made them to inherit the name “Baptist”. They clearly saw that the New
Testament practise of baptism always only applied to believers. They
also saw very clearly ,that since baptism is the biblical response to one’s profession
of faith, that this act also became the door to church membership.
Reformed Baptists therefore teach
that only those who are converted and baptized should have a right to
membership in Christ's church.
[3] A good
resource for further study on the
Anabaptists: “The Anabaptist Story” by William Estep. Eerdmans 1996 ( 3rd
ed.)
[4] A sacral
society is a society held together by a
religion to which all the members of that society are committed” (Leonard
Verduin : The Reformers and their Step children , p. 23)
No comments:
Post a Comment