Reformed Baptism Critique #1

OK, before I start this I should say that I was baptized as an infant and I'm very grateful for the faith legacy of my family and my parent's commitment to raise me as a Christian.  I also have the utmost respect for the godliness and sincerity of many of my paedo-baptising brothers and sisters, that doesn't change the fact, however, that on this subject I think they are totally wrong and that my own baptism as a baby was no baptism at all and so when I was later baptised as an adult, that was my first and only baptism and not a "rebaptism" at all. 

I came across this article via TC Robinson who did so via Will Lee.  The article is written by Richard L. Pratt, Jr. professor of Old Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando, Florida, and so I don't think I can be accused of attacking a straw man.  If someone reading this thinks his presentation is not representative they should let me know. This should not be taken as an attack on any person but as a genuine attempt to engage the ideas in a robust fashion.

In its own way, the Reformed understanding of baptism is highly sacramental. That is, Reformed theology views baptism as a mysterious encounter with God that takes place through a rite involving physical elements and special ceremony. Through this encounter, God graciously distributes blessings to those who participate by faith and also judgment to those who participate without faith. (p1)

In this I have little to say except that I am perhaps a less typical Baptist in that I don't object to sacramentalist language being applied to baptism (nor to the Lord's Supper).  However, for any talk of sacrementalism not to degenerate into mystical superstition or magic, "particpation by faith" has to be a key concept.  Any idea that just having a rite done to you regardless of your own disposition towards God can be efficacious is superstition pure and simple.

For example, Paul spoke of baptism as “the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit” (Tit. 3:5). He also wrote that, through baptism, believers are united to Christ and die to sin (Rom. 6:3-7). Peter, in turn, when asked what was required for salvation, replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38). Elsewhere, Peter boldly declared, “Baptism … now saves you also – not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 3:21). These and many other New Testament passages at least seem to indicate that baptism is much more than a symbol. In the language of the Bible, spiritual realities such as rebirth, renewal, forgiveness, salvation, and union with Christ are intimately associated with the rite of baptism. (p2)

Although Pratt wrongly conflates the "wasing of rebirth" with the "renewal by the Holy Spirit" which are two separate things, every one of the scriptures he cites clearly links baptism with repentance, there is no suggestion of the "baptise now, repent later" aproach to baptism found in mainline churches.  Instead baptism and repentance go hand in hand.  As Pratt points out, "spiritual realities" are "intimately associated with the rite of baptism."  Infant baptism surely severs the rite from the reality when it is given to an infant incapable of repentance.  The most important verse in this regard is perhaps Romans 6:3-7, rather than some sort of spiritual reality or philosphical metaphor Paul understands "dying to sin" to be a very real concrete ethical process of ceasing to perform the works of the flesh (see Rom 6:11-14, Col 3:5-11) how can a baby die to sin?  They cannot, they are cute, but they are not yet moral agents.

Pratt is yet to make his case for infant baptism, but I must confess at this stage to be at a loss to see how he can build a case for such on the foundations he has laid so far.  Stay tuned.

Let me know what you think,  :-)

A Challenge from David Black

Just came across NT scholar David Black's website, it is kind of a funny not-quite-a-blog-blog-imitation, not really sure whether I'll be coming back much, but this article caught my eye.

I’m still waiting for it – the church marquee that says:

Senior Pastor: Jesus Christ

I could not think of anything greater than to be part of a fellowship of believers where Jesus Himself is intentionally given charge to lead His church, where all bow before Him whether pastor or deacon or so-called layperson. Paul insists that Christ must receive the preeminence in all things (Col. 1:18). Toward Him all must move.

Last week in our theology class I surveyed the main Scriptures having to do with authority in the church. I feel there are so many things in our churches that are inconsistent with Paul’s pronouncement that Christ is first and that everything must enhance His preeminence. How is it, I asked, that no one can name the “pastor” of any New Testament church? The answer is precisely because their first priority was Christ. The leadership they had was a “fellowship of leadership” (Michael Green) – a group of  co-equal, non-hierarchical leaders who sought to steer their flocks’ energies into loving God, loving others, and loving the world.

It is essential that Jesus Christ be dynamically first in the life of our churches. When He is at the center – leading, empowering, directing, rearranging – our churches will no longer be pastor- or program-centered. To let a man or a method become too important is not only carnal, it’s idolatrous. It is an affront to Jesus Christ, who is the church’s only Senior Pastor.

Read the rest here
But comment beneath, because there is no where to comment on Black's website :-(

Are Acts 15:36-41 and Gal 2:11-13 Describing the Same Event?

Will Willimon in his Interpretation commentary on Acts states,

The reasons that Luke gives for the breakup of the Paul and Barnabas team does not square with Paul's version in Galataians 2:11-13.  Paul's own assertion that he had doctrinal differences does not fit in with Luke's purposes (p133)

But it is surely incorrect to conflate the two events.  Paul gives no hint in Galatians that his disagreement with Peter led to a schism between him and Barnabas, but only expresses surprise that Barnabas should be led astray by Peter's actions (Gal 2:13).  Which statement surely evinces a high regard for Barnabas.  Rather, in this instance I think the criterion of embarrassment suggests that this episode in Acts does not show Paul in the best light, especially given the fact that Barnabas' trust in Mark is eventually proven correct (Col 4:10, Phil 24) and Paul and Barnabas later reconcile (1 Cor 9:6, Col 4:10), and is therefore a reliable account of the reason for the division. 

Is anyone aware of anything that would support Willimon's assertion?  Is there something I have missed?  It seems rather cut and dried to me.  let me know what you think :-)

Christ but not Jesus?

In response to an earlier post on Christian preaching of the Old Testament Bob MacDonald makes the intriguing suggestion that perhaps not all NT references to Christ refer exclusively to Jesus.  I have to be honest I find this highly problematic on a number of fronts, but wasn't sure which particular texts Bob might have in mind.  When pressed he suggests Col 1:24, "in my flesh I am completing what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is the church."  To me the reference to "affliction" (θλῖψις) unmistakably invokes Jesus' passion.  In the gospels this word is usually used of eschatalogical tribulation, not Jesus' suffering per se, but in Paul's letters it is mainly used to talk about suffering caused by external circumstances, e.g. Rom 5:3, 1 Cor 7:28, 1 Thess 1:6.  Not only that but in Colossians it is a particular suffering for Christ's body the church.  (This idea of the church as Christ's body frequently causes confusion, but it is simply a possesive genitive, the body corporate that belongs to Christ.)  Now in Paul's thinking who suffered for the sake of the church's salvation? Was it a nebulous formless cosmic "Christ" or was it the human Jesus, the Christ, who suffered and died "in his fleshly body . . . so as to present [the church] holy and blameless and irreproachable before him."(Col 1:23)? 

Now none of this solves the problem of what Paul finds lacking in Christ's sufferings, or how his suffering helps complete it, but that is a topic for another post.  Suffice to say I'm not convinved that the NT ever talks about Christ with out exclusively intending to denote Jesus.

Grasshopper Theology: A Prelude

As a prelude to a series I am planning on Grasshopper Theology I wanted to share with you a definition from BDAG for the word πραύτης, which is translated "meekness" in Colossians 3:12 (NRSV):

the quality of not being overly impressed by a sense of one's self-importance

There, isn't that beautiful?  If only all dictionary entries could send a shudder through your soul.  :-)