Rise of the Uberbaptist
or Crashing the Caste Party
Uri Brito asked me once how I can possibly believe that the church is central, and simultaneously be a baptist. Does being a baptistic fan of Jordan, Leithart and Wilson necessarily involve an element of schizophrenia? You might be interested to know how Federal Vision looks from where I stand. If not, just humour me.
As some hyperpreterists discovered, I’m not interested in the personalities involved in any debate. I’m interested in discussion, without prejudice. And I’m not in paid ministry so I have nothing to lose (mind you I have been hauled over the coals a couple of times by well-meaning ministers anyhow). And it’s my blog, so I’ll say what I think, and I leave it open for any readers to reply. In fact, I welcome debate. My cards are on the table and you can set them alight if you wish — and if you can.
It seems to me that the FV gents are really onto something. Their “strange” views on baptism and justification come out of the Scriptures, not so much out of the Reformation. Yet, the more I chew it over, the more I agree with them, and the more I can see what a thorn-in-the-foot their thinking is within Presbyterianism.
Concerning baptism, I think the significance they are giving to this rite is entirely Scriptural. (You can find more on my view of baptism if you click this baptism tag.) They want baptism to mark the territory of the Covenant people. Very good. The problem is, they have rediscovered this humongous V8 engine of significance, and tried to squeeze it into the mini minor of paedobaptism. The outcome is naturally a two-tiered Covenant people: those under oath by proxy (through Godparents), and those under oath by their own volition: the Christians and the Christian-ized.
Now, their enemies, also Reformed, understand that this is a problem. If the baptism of an infant has such a significance, it puts an untold amount of pressure on the doctrine of justification. The infant congregant is expected to keep Covenant (i.e. remain faithful to church, repent when they sin, stick with it), and if they don’t, they have apostatized. Baptism is likened to circumcision in many, but not all, ways by the FV gents. If you are part of the visible church, then you must be baptized.
I think this FV emphasis on a boundary, and the rite, and Covenant faithfulness is fantastic, and Scriptural. As a baptist, I have learned a great deal about the Bible from their materials, and have a lot more to learn. I might change my mind, but it seems that the entire problem is solved if infant baptism is removed from the equation. It’s the evil kid in the classroom, the ringleader, whose removal allows the other kids to take their rightful, respectful places and behave.
Uri said that Jordan says every baptism is an infant baptism. I like that thought. We come to Christ and are babes in the faith. I agree with Jordan that “regeneration” in Scripture is a process. But for all their talk about making the Covenant objective, baptism, unlike circumcision is neither a personal sign (as they accuse baptists of maintaining) nor a familial one. It is a sign that indicates the maturity of the entire New Covenant body over the Old Covenant body. Baptism does not indicate a boundary of flesh. It is a boundary of Spirit, a better Covenant sign for a different kind of Israel – a mature one that is able to judge rightly.
There are no bit-saints in the New Covenant. If you have the Spirit of God, you will persevere. God disciplines His children. Obedience becomes irresistible. That is what I see in Scripture and in my own experience. Baptism does not begins one’s life. It begins one’s ministry, one’s life of spiritual obedience.
The FVers understand the full import of the sign. Perhaps they actually are “poison” to traditional Presbyterianism. But it is a poison to which the FVs themselves are not immune. Their teachings are not at home in their own system. Strangely, their emphases gel perfectly with credobaptism, if not with the individualistic thinking of many baptists themselves.
But the other guys (TRs) understand that the giving of that import to infant baptism causes serious structural problems. At least they recognize it as poison to their system. The problem is not the poison. It is their weak system.
Allow only credobaptism and you can have both the import given to it by Scripture (serving as a priest and elder in the Holy Place and eating at Jesus’ table) and a freedom from the collateral damage to the precious Reformational sola fide.
To put this pictorially, the Scripture-sensitive FVs want to give a good shot of liquor to congregants. Full marks. The tradition-retentive TRs realize that giving a full shot of liquor to babies is not on. Full marks. Or to put it another way, one side wants to play table tennis with a football, and the other side realizes this will tear nets and smash paddles. How to resolve this? Play football with this rite, as God commanded.
The solution is to not only understand what baptism signifies, but whom it is actually for, and stop confusing it with Christian parenting.
Pull out the errant thorn, the doctrinal tensions will disappear, and everyone can relax. They just won’t be Presbyterians any more. They will be a kind of Christian the world has never seen, a godly hybrid of Presbyterian brain and Baptistic brawn — Uberbaptists who like poison and live on it — and I reckon that would be an incredible development. We just have to be patient and civilized until all this experimentation in the lab is finished.
January 24th, 2011 at 3:45 pm
Also, as discussed above, when a family joined the Covenant, not every individual was circumcized.
January 24th, 2011 at 4:22 pm
Wow. Baptism threads on this blog are way better than most in the Reformed blogosphere.
After “absorbing” all of your posts, Mike, I think I am where you are–except on the opposite side of the argument. I think this comment by John Owen kind of sums it up for me too:
“Baptism as oath seems to be the core of what you’re articulating here and an oath-by-proxy seems to be your main objection to paedobaptism. I’d like to understand why this is the primary way you view baptism.”
I’m trying to follow your thinking in your use of the Matrix for your credo-only argument and I still don’t “get it.” Sorry. Seriously, I’m trying.
You mentioned that on paedo-logic we should adopt a bunch of babies and baptize ‘em and teach ‘em. To which I would say–no kidding. That’s actually a great idea.
Also, I have a question about your seemingly high view of sacramental efficacy. Not sure how a physical rite that actually does something is consistent with a credo-only argument which, at least for me, was based on the fact that all that matters it what had already happened on the inside. Which then dictates (somehow-because after all, we don’t have regeneration goggles) whom we should baptize. So, if the water rite of baptism is a bare, empty, sign–lead me to the nearest Baptist congregation.
It seems to me that you have to say that baptism is for the (seemingly) regenerate only, right? OK, so what if baptist churches have a 27% unregenerate-yet-baptized population and the presbys have a 42% unregenerate-yet-baptized population? Is that really the type of argument we want to inform our practice? Trying to attain a higher percentage of (seemingly) regenerate members? Really? (I don’t think this is what you would argue by the way. I do, however, think it is a logical conclusion from a credo-only stance though).
You wrote: “Articulating a consistent paedobaptist theology causes problems because paedobaptism is not consistent with the Bible.”
Isn’t this what we’re debating? And arguments like Leithart’s cause problems because our Enlightenment saturated and individualistc minds can’t handle them–yet.
Great thread and I hope my post wasn’t a complete waste of your time. Blessings brother!
January 24th, 2011 at 4:23 pm
“Also, as discussed above, when a family joined the Covenant, not every individual was circumcized.”
Yes they were–by proxy.
January 24th, 2011 at 4:26 pm
By the way, I am not some crazy nocturnal American–I’m in Okinawa.
January 24th, 2011 at 4:39 pm
http://biblicalhorizons.wordpress.com/2008/01/28/the-circumcision-of-christ/
Thought this was relevant.
January 24th, 2011 at 6:04 pm
Thanks for your comments, Daniel. The interaction has been very interesting.
“Baptism as oath seems to be the core of what you’re articulating here…”
The Bible consistently puts baptism at step 6 in the matrix (or step 4 in the Covenant model). The implications of that are enormous. Moreover, babies can’t walk on water.
“…we should adopt a bunch of babies and baptize ‘em and teach ‘em. To which I would say–no kidding. That’s actually a great idea.”
Why limit this to babies? Why not require everyone we invite to church to be baptized, put under Covenant, so if they leave we can call them apostates?
“…seemingly high view of sacramental efficacy.”
What happens on the outside first is public testimony, confession with the mouth. That does something. Baptism adds the believer to the congregation. That is an act of grace. The Spirit puts the saint in the Head and baptism puts the saint in the Body. Acts uses this matrix over and over.
Also, the Old Testament rites were efficacious until they were fulfilled in history. Circumcision and blood sacrifice became meaningless after the death of Christ. Baptism pictures our future physical resurrection, when this rite, too, will become meaningless.
“… we don’t have regeneration goggles…” No, but this is exactly where church discipline applies, just as you would apply it to Presbyterians. If someone doesn’t repent, they were a whited sepulchre. The Word was never mixed with faith. We don’t need regeneration goggles. They put themselves into the church under oath, and under the eyes of the elders. Whatever is “on the inside” will bear fruit.
“…Trying to attain a higher percentage of (seemingly) regenerate members?”
Wow. Isn’t that what the church is? Imagine a 90% unregenerate church! Oh, wait.
I do think the sound teaching in your Presbyterian churches compensates for it a lot. As I said, this new emphasis on discipling children properly is wonderful. But it’s not related to baptism.
“You wrote: ‘Articulating a consistent paedobaptist theology causes problems because paedobaptism is not consistent with the Bible.’
Isn’t this what we’re debating? And arguments like Leithart’s cause problems because our Enlightenment saturated and individualistc minds can’t handle them–yet.”
No. What I am saying is that Leithart’s pre-Enlightenment thinking turns infant baptism into something that potentially skews the gospel. Leithart’s thinking applied to credo-baptism is exactly what baptists need.
“’Also, as discussed above, when a family joined the Covenant, not every individual was circumcized.’ Yes they were–by proxy.”
Likewise then, why baptize infants? They shelter in the same way. The rite need not be applied.
“http://biblicalhorizons.wordpress.com/2008/01/28/the-circumcision-of-christ/
Thought this was relevant.”
Yes – it’s good. But we participate in the circumcision of Christ, well actually His death, which circumcision pictured, when the Word cuts us to the heart. That’s what we see in Acts. The conversion of the 3000 follows the matrix as a new Tabernacle. Baptism does not come at the beginning, in any instance. Word, Cutting, Repentance, Faith, Spirit, Confession, Baptism, addition to Household of God. Baptism unites us to His resurrection. Infants do not have circumcized hearts. For guys who study Covenant theology, the order of things should be pretty clear.
Training and shelter in the household of faith is one thing. Being a living stone of the house is quite another.
Thanks again!
January 24th, 2011 at 7:09 pm
Another thought, isn’t baptizing the unregenerate a bit like stitching dead limbs onto a body and hoping some of the life will rub off – seeing there is no actual connection to the nervous system? That is so last Covenant.
The work of the Spirit might be “inside” but it is real. And the work of the church receiving believing members is also real. The church is a body of prophets. We bind and loose. The law binds and the Spirit looses – just ask Daniel’s friends.
January 24th, 2011 at 7:53 pm
“Another thought, isn’t baptizing the unregenerate a bit like stitching dead limbs onto a body and hoping some of the life will rub off – seeing there is no actual connection to the nervous system? That is so last Covenant.”
But baptists don’t actually avoid this problem, do they?
January 24th, 2011 at 8:02 pm
The baptist churches I’ve been in seem to do a pretty good job. Hey, the apostles didn’t avoid it entirely. Where infant baptism has been the norm, people think a Christian is someone who isn’t a Muslim. That’s why the phrase “born again” was introduced, from what I can tell.
January 24th, 2011 at 8:11 pm
Mike,
Lord willing, we’ll both be around long enough to discuss this some more. God bless you and may more and more folks start reading your blog.
Daniel
January 24th, 2011 at 8:16 pm
Thanks – you too.
January 25th, 2011 at 1:47 am
Mike,
Well, the paradigms run deep here. I don’t really grant any of your first premises. I think your insights are helpful in saying some stuff about ‘how much more’ baptism is, but our assumptions about how that works out, on the basis of who children are in God, are not playing together nicely. Specifically, I’m hearing two things from what you’re saying — that Psalm 22 does not teach that children trust God, only that they have learned to trust their parents, and (I assume . . .) that there is no longer (or never was?) a promise of God to be God to the believer’s children?
——–
But – children ARE the warriors of God. “Out of the mouth of babes and nursing infants You have ordained strength, Because of Your enemies, That You may silence the enemy and the avenger.”
(“And Jesus said to them, “Yes. Have you never read,‘ Out of the mouth of babes and nursing infants You have perfected praise’?”)
. . . these are physical infants, not Timothy-s, who are silencing the enemy and the avenger. It’s not abstract, it’s nursing babies praising the God of their salvation. Sure, Timothy is Paul’s ‘son,’ but in Eph. 6 Paul is talking about sons-with-no-quote-marks who are to obey their parents, not ‘in general’ or ‘in the abstract’ but ‘in the Lord’ because the promises of covenant blessing (“that it may go well with thee” — cf. Sutton’s That You May Prosper) are as much to the children as they are to the adults . . . because Paul here lets us know that “I am the Lord thy God” was, and is, true for the children as much as for the adults.
—————-
Respond if you want; I think there are some deeper paradigms yet at work. I’ll take a break here probably.
Blessings,
Doug
January 25th, 2011 at 1:57 am
Mike,
Thanks for the clarifications. Like Daniel above, I’m still struggling to understand “your use of the Matrix for your credo-only argument.” I also can’t help but feel that you’re bringing credo-only pre-convictions to the way that you’re viewing the Scriptures.
I admit to being a bit dense. If you have the time, could you unpack the following for me?
Quote:
[All this came out of my observation of the use of the matrix through the Old Testament, and then what the book of Acts and the epistles do with it. Day 2 is the construction of the Veil, the “setting apart” or betrothal. Day 6 is the open Veil, the Bride ready for marriage. Jordan says that birth is the betrothal and paedobaptism is the wedding. But the Biblical structure seems to be that being under Law is the betrothal and baptism is the wedding. The Old Covenant arranged the marriage in childhood. The New Covenant consummated it. Raising kids in Christian homes and in church is not the marriage, and this confusion is what gets the TRs hackles up (I guess). They are using the sign of Day 6, the head and body standing before God for judgment, for Day 2, the cutting of flesh. I hope that makes sense. Paedobaptism confuses the “taking out of the world for training and transforming” with the “putting back into the world for government.”]
Not fully understanding this, I guess that I’d respond here by saying that, under the Old Covenant, even the adults were children, being under Law (betrothal). In the New Covenant, even the children are mature, participating in the consummation (marriage).
Thanks for taking the time to interact with me. My name gets me attention in Reformed circles even when I don’t deserve it. Really, I’m just an armchair theologian who will never live up to my namesake.
I am interested to see further writings by you on this topic.
Peace,
-John O.
January 25th, 2011 at 2:13 am
[But - children ARE the warriors of God. “Out of the mouth of babes and nursing infants You have ordained strength, Because of Your enemies, That You may silence the enemy and the avenger.”]
Amen.
January 25th, 2011 at 9:55 am
Doug and John
I prefer the RSV rendering of Psalm 8:
“O Lord, our Lord, how majestic is thy name in all the earth! Thou whose glory above the heavens is chanted by the mouth of babes and infants, thou hast founded a bulwark because of thy foes, to still the enemy and the avenger.”
Moving forward in history, Jesus quotes this text in the context of children singing hosannas. Moving backward in history, it most likely refers to Deuteronomy 31:21:
“And it shall come to pass, when many evils and troubles are befallen them, that this song shall testify against them as a witness; for it shall not be forgotten out of the mouths of their seed: for I know their imagination which they go about, even now, before I have brought them into the land which I sware.”
All of which supports instilling the Law of Love into our children (forming). I’m sure many of us knew Bible verses by rote before we really understood what they meant? Baptism is for when we understand what they mean, when the Spirit joins the dots and gives us His eyes, the mind of Christ.
January 25th, 2011 at 10:10 am
Doug
One of the deep paradigms is the forming and filling I keep mentioning. Is God God to my children? Yes. How so? His grace is mediated through their parents. Limiting baptism to believers is not relevant to this at all.
Jesus grew in wisdom and stature (forming) and when ready for ministry, He was baptized (filling).
I think we all take a step back and look at the table, credobaptism is holding all the cards.
John
“Not fully understanding this, I guess that I’d respond here by saying that, under the Old Covenant, even the adults were children, being under Law (betrothal). In the New Covenant, even the children are mature, participating in the consummation (marriage).”
Yes, this is where we have the same process working at different levels. My point is that the New Covenant rite reflects the stage of maturity of the entire body in history. The OT church was a body of death, asleep in the dark, and prostrate like Adam before the filling of the Spirit. The NT church is the UPRIGHT resurrection body, standing on the springs of water as mediator, feet in the Jordan, etc. We can say that children are mature, having the mind of Christ, but this can only apply to the regenerate. Otherwise you have baptism doing something “real” (entry into government) before the Spirit has done anything “real.” This is not the order we are given in any instance. We even see the correct order in Peter’s robing himself, jumping into the water and eating breakfast with Jesus!
Thanks guys
January 26th, 2011 at 12:48 am
Mike,
It is hard for thee to kick against the goads . . . thanks for the comments.
Doug
January 26th, 2011 at 1:12 am
Mike, there was supposed to be a smiley face in that last comment, like this
January 26th, 2011 at 2:22 am
OK, I can’t stop. Help me, Mr. Wizard! . . . anyway . . . you write:
—–BOQ—-
Is God God to my children? Yes. How so? His grace is mediated through their parents. Limiting baptism to believers is not relevant to this at all.
—–EOQ—-
I want to make sure I’m understanding that statement, and not twisting it into the opposite of what you intend. I read it as saying, in part, “baptism is for believers, not children.”
If I’m hearing that correctly, that’s where I don’t grant the defining assumption that children aren’t/can’t be believers (Mt. 18, “these little ones who believe in me”).
I think the matrix stuff is waaaay cool, but it can’t negate what the text actually says about the little ones . . . who believe in Jesus.
I don’t /think/ that I’m misreading what you’re saying about children, but please correct me if I’m wrong.
Best wishes in Christ, with thanksgiving for your faithfulness to Him! Keep it up!
Doug
January 26th, 2011 at 9:43 am
Doug
Thanks for that. I probably meant infants. The qualification is a circumcized heart (repentance) and faith.
The “little ones” texts do concern Christian parenting, but Jesus uses parenting as an illustration for discipleship. Just as we trusted our parents/teachers who led us to Christ, we are to trust Christ Himself. He says in Matthew that the children are under angelic guardians. When you took a millstone as surety, you took someone’s life “in pledge” (Deuteronomy 24:6). Perhaps that is what Jesus is referring to here. False teaching is robbing someone and forcing them into debt slavery. Will have to give that some more thought.
Revelation 18:21 Then a strong angel took up a stone like a great millstone and threw it into the sea, saying, “So will Babylon, the great city, be thrown down with violence, and will not be found any longer.
Again, the kingdom of heaven is not said to be for children, but those adults who humble themselves “as this child.”
Jesus told the women to weep not for Him but for their children, who were slain with the sword, or crushed in the collapsing Temple (6000 women and children in one go) or sold into slavery by Titus and carried “back to Egypt in ships.” Judaism was thrown into the Gentile sea like Pharaoh’s army.
You want infant baptism? There it is. They all “drowned,” with their teachers, the first century Jewish rulers. They didn’t make it out of Egypt.
Baptism is for mediators, priests, not those who are mediated to. It is for those who minister to others, and in the New Covenant body we are all given gifts for ministry. This quite obviously doesn’t include infants, unless you bring a tradition to the text and scratch around for support. If these “child” texts (here and in the Psalms) are the best there is, it’s looking bankrupt.
I read one article on paedobaptism (I think part of the book edited by my friend Gregg Strawbridge) that used “we are not commanded not to do it” as an argument. With that brilliant logic, perhaps we should be baptizing animals. After all, they were part of an Old Covenant household. We are not commanded not to do it.
January 27th, 2011 at 3:11 am
Mike, thanks again. I will truly give it a rest for a while.
BTW, (although I didn’t agree with it) I really enjoyed the imagery you used above: “infant baptism is . . . the evil kid in the classroom” — I’ll remember that!
Blessings,
Doug
January 27th, 2011 at 10:09 am
I teach Bible to high school kids. I know all about it.
January 27th, 2011 at 10:31 pm
Mike,
Here’s my go-at-it:
1)
“The outcome is naturally a two-tiered Covenant people: those under oath by proxy (through Godparents), and those under oath by their own volition: the Christians and the Christian-ized.”
While oaths are a part of the picture here, I would venture to say that it is God’s oath which takes precedence. He claims for himself our children saying, “These are mine. They are my warriors, my quivered arrows. By faith they will live; by apostasy they will die.” God’s claim on our children is primary. Does this not rule all other apps of this ideology? If baptism is a ritual that places God’s name on the subject, he then is the primary oath maker. Proxyism takes a back seat then. Abraham wasn’t Isaac’s proxy the foreskin was dying in his place. Circumcision was an ordination rite, not a salvific one. Abraham was saved back in Haran w/o circ’n. His circ’n was his ordination as priest. Ha! Look to whom I am preaching.
Listen to my sermon on Christ’s circumcision and let me know what you thynk.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2076795/JesusCutOffaTheologyOfCircumcision
2)I’m not sure I understand your “evil-kid-in-the-classroom” comment. How does its removal benefit? Isn’t that like closing your eyes to make the boogeyman go away?
3) Your paragraph on “bit-saints” I think proves the ordination aspect. Infants are ordained in their baptisms. You want an oath vow taken by volitional creatures? That’s the eucharist.
4) Dontcha know you’re not s’posed to mix your metaphors?
5) Per se, baptism has nothing to do with faith unless one is a pagan converting. If one is a pagan converting and is baptised for service, where does that leave one’s children? “Son, if you like what you see in the deal I got, then when you come around you can have it, too”? That’s the problem with baptistic baptism theology (imho): like Arminianism, it wants to retain autonomy which, ipso facto, is null and void when God comes a-callin’.
January 27th, 2011 at 10:43 pm
I see the link is problematic. Here it is anew:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2076795/JesusCutOff.mp3
January 27th, 2011 at 11:15 pm
Travis, you are messing up the kitchen.
1) Was God’s name upon Israelite females? As above, the rite was only applied to those who could image personally the Covenant body as a whole.
2) Baptism is explicitly connected to repentance and faith, and implicitly (typologically) connected to eldership.
3) Baptism is aligned with the sanctions, but also with the Day of Atonement. Eldership concerns wise judgment. Baptism is the sign for a more mature Covenant, the warrior bride. Were there baby Nazirites?
4) Isaac didn’t need a proxy. Yes, he WAS the proxy. Circumcision is about the Son under the knife of the Father. It is submission to death, helplessness, prostration, historical discontinuity. It is also familial, two thousand years of cutting into Adam in anticipation of the Bride.
5) God claims our children, certainly. But circumcision was not about God’s claim on Israel’s children, unless you discount the baby girls. It was about the Covenant mediators, the males, in anticipation of the seed of the Woman. It had nothing to do with parenting.
6) The FVs want paedocommunion. The TRs don’t. So stop baptizing babies and the problem goes away. The FVs say baptism is “efficacious.” The TRs don’t (obviously this is far more nuanced in reality.) Again, stop baptizing babies and the problem goes away.
7) Baptism makes knights, and communion is the round table (a place of celebration and government). They cannot be separated. One is an oath to the Body, and the other is the renewal of that oath. Discernment, judgment, is key.
8 ) One’s children shelter under the Covenant, the priesthood of all BELIEVERS. No point baptizing non-believing infants (paedofaith is not Christian faith, it is training for Christian faith).
9) Baptists might behave like Arminians, but in one respect, they are right. Baptism pictures the RESPONSE of the Bride to the self-sacrifice of the Bridegroom. Granted, God is sovereign. But the response is the response of a corpse suddenly brought back to life. Infant baptism is not a celebration of the response of the faithful. It is nothing like the baptisms in the Bible.
10) Baptists go wrong if they make it entirely autonomous. They need the good Covenant theology of Presbyterians, just without this misuse of it. Not sure what baptists are like in USA (although I do have quite a few ex-patriot American baptist friends) but I don’t think the problem is autonomy so much as a failure to teach the Bible. It looks to me like it’s not just the kids that are raised with no comprehension of Covenant. Neither are the adults!
January 28th, 2011 at 12:52 am
Man, you got it!!