Wrath of the Waters
Under the title Baptism working against you…, my Presbyterian friend Uri Brito wrote:
“Reprobation is a real theological and biblical idea. It is directly related to the idea of apostasy. Apostasy is a real theological and biblical idea. It is directly related to baptism. In baptism, apostates find their worst nightmare. It is better to be baptized by a cult (which is an invalid baptism to begin with) than to be baptized by an orthodox Trinitarian church. The problem for the apostate with the latter baptism, is that they incur the full wrath of the waters. As Leithart writes: ‘Their baptisms are effective in being witnesses against them.’ Baptized apostates will receive what the Egyptian army received.”
How can an involuntary baptism be a witness against anyone? If I am in a coma for some reason on my wedding day and the best man has to make the vows for me, what sort of case are the witnesses going to have if I break those vows because I feel like I have woken up with Leah instead of Rachel?
Bad analogy, I know. I think the Egyptian army picture is a brilliant one because it points to the military symbolism behind baptism.[1] As discussed elsewhere here, baptism is for those who consciously decide to join the army.
When a soldier goes AWOL, he is not rebelling against the significance of the family of his birth. He is not called to account for rebellion against his nationality. He has broken the vows he took when he joined the army, when he publicly declared his allegiance and his submission to the authority of the armed forces. His worst nightmare is his sergeant, not his father. The punishment is a court-martial, not disownment.
To my limited mind, the boundary-marking ‘Federal Vision’ views on baptism are spot on, but they only make sense as they concern credobaptism, which is perhaps why the non-FV paedobaptists have such a problem with them. The FV attempts to cram a V8 engine into a Mini Minor.
The waters of baptism are mystical but not that kind of mystical. Baptism does bring with it the potential for both blessings and curses, but it is not the blessings and curses conditioned upon obedience to your parents or a decision made for you by them. Jordan is right in condemning ‘worship by proxy.’ But surely neither do we decide to follow Jesus by proxy. This is not the way following Jesus is presented to us in the New Testament at any point.
Jordan says that a Covenant child’s birth is his/her betrothal and that infant baptism is their marriage to Jesus. Marriage by proxy? Vows by proxy? Never. Christian parents dedicate their child to Jesus. This fits the symbolism of betrothal. A conscious baptism is the wedding day, so we have no business condemning those who wake up from the coma and want a divorce. Under the bridal New Covenant, we get to say “I do” with our own lips.
So help me God.
_____________________________________
[1] See Protesting the Draft, The Acid Test and Comparing Apples with Apples.
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:43 pm
“How can an involuntary baptism be a witness against anyone?”
The same way my natural birth into my natural family, an event that was completely involuntary on my part, can be a witness against me if/when I curse my parents. I am placed by grace in this family, and am bound to its covenantal obligations, all without consulting me first (involuntarily, by conscription). Will someone complain about this lavish kindness?
On what do you base this denial: “The waters of baptism are mystical but not that kind of mystical. Baptism does bring with it the potential for both blessings and curses, but it is not the blessings and curses conditioned upon obedience to your parents…” ?
Finally: “But surely neither do we decide to follow Jesus by proxy. This is not the way following Jesus is presented to us in the New Testament at any point.” We are obligated to follow Jesus by grace, not by proxy. That grace comes to us by virtue of our being children of the covenant, as it always has, and is sealed to us in baptism. Nor do we decide to follow Jesus by proxy. Being thus obligated in our baptism as infants, we decide (some of us in a pivotal moment later, others of us deciding every day, all our lives) to follow Jesus ourselves. Baptism places us under covenant obligation, and we ourselves do the work of keeping the covenant (following Jesus).
Of course following Jesus is not presented in the NT as “by proxy.” Covenant-keeping (i.e., daily obedience to God/Christ) is not by proxy. Nobody can do it for you. It must require our conscious, mental and physical energy. But entry into the covenant in the first place is a work of grace, a gift to the children of the covenant. Of course, outsiders may enter the covenant by voluntary submission to Christ. But that is not how children of the covenant enter. They are already in.
Re: betrothal vs. wedding day, we all agree baptism is the wedding. But the analogy is not exhaustive. It breaks down as all analogies do, and it breaks down at precisely the “voluntary/involuntary” point. Marriage by proxy? Vows by proxy? Absolutely. And thank God. To be left outside this marriage by proxy is to be outside of Christ, outside of God’s favor, and outside of eternal life.
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Hi Alicia
Wow -a bite! Thank you.
“That grace comes to us by virtue of our being children of the covenant, as it always has, and is sealed to us in baptism.”
You have put your finger right on the difference between circumcision and baptism. Circumcision pictured Christ’s dealing with that “first birth” as Covenant head (see my post link above “Protesting the Draft”). Adam cursed his Father. Circumcision was about killing Adam.
But baptism is about being born “again.” The New Covenant is presented as being beyond the blood ties. It is not about Adam. It is about the race of Adam, greater Eve, dancing on his grave! Whoever does the will of the Father in heaven is Jesus’ family.
As a symbol of a more mature Covenant, it is the saint moving from obedience to Adamic parents to a greater authority (and obeying his parents in submission to that greater authority).
Re marriage by proxy, even in arranged marriages (as “Covenant children”) the bride and groom are both present and conscious of what they are doing.
I don’t mean to insult anyone’s baptism or what was meant by it. But in the New Testament is it not the means of new grace but the obedient response to it. More grace certainly follows because one has joined the local body.
Children in Covenant families benefit from the Covenant, but that is not what baptism is about. Paedobaptism is like Abraham staking out the Land, claiming it as a future inheritence. But that is circumcision! New Covenant baptism is the army summoned under Moses and then TAKING the Land under Joshua. It is not claiming the child as future territory. It is about entering in to govern.
Basically, I don’t really disagree with what you have said, only that these factors concerning children have anything to do with New Covenant baptism as it is presented in the New Testament.
Thanks for your comment.
November 24th, 2009 at 12:42 am
Thanks for your continued help on this subject. This is a great post.
September 26th, 2010 at 5:59 pm
Sir,
Before I reply to your post (Lord willing, in due time), I was wondering if you have read Peter Leithart’s Against Christianity and The Baptized Body? He actually deals with some of the involuntary/voluntary issues you bring up.
James White actually brought up a similar issue in his RC baptism debate with Doug Wilson. Basically, he argued that what made the baptism of a person valid was the “choice” of the person being baptized. He was outraged that someone could be put under obligation without their OWN consent. Literally, as he was speaking the words he seemed to hesitate (ever so slightly). Now, I could be wrong (and often am, mind you) but I think he hesitated because he realized the foundation of his argument (and I believe that it must be as a baptist) was inherently a Lockean/Jeffersonian view of man. That is to say, the seat of all political authority lies in the individual. The validity of anything must come from the autonomous choice of the man. Now, I know you are a Calvinist and that you believe that man only chooses after he has been given new life by the Spirit (Amen!). But Calvinism does not exonerate, in my opinion, the necessity of decisionism inherent in baptistic theology.
Also, if you have read Leithart’s books that I mentioned above, I would really like to hear how you might respond to the sociological argument he makes in the appendix.
I very much respect your views and have learned much from your Matrix book and your blog. I absolutely did not mean anything that I have said above for combative or malicious reasons.
Also, just as some background: I was a calvinist baptist for roughly two years before I started reading guys like J. Jordan, P. Leithart, D. Wilson, and…M. Bull. I couldn’t hold on after that.
October 1st, 2010 at 9:09 pm
Hi Daniel
I’ll read Dr Leithart’s appendix again and get back to you. In the mean time, check out my typological arguments under the baptism tag around here.
Kind regards,
Mike
October 1st, 2010 at 10:22 pm
Hi Michael,
Thanks for the response and I look forward to hearing what you think.
Daniel