Wise words from Dr. Lucas
Some highlights
Simply put, in my mind, Baptist ecclesiology is inherently sectarian (and that is not a good thing). Let me say also that, thankfully,most Baptists' hearts trump their doctrinal claims on this matter and they end up loving Presbyterians anyway.
For me, it was the ideal of regenerate church membership that broke down first. Being someone who specialized academically in American religious history and who has done work on Jonathan Edwards, I came to be convinced that it was impossible to peer into someone's heart to determine whether or not he was regenerate. All one could do was judge the "fruit" that accompanied his profession; and sometimes the professions are illegitimate. And if you have illegitimate professions of faith, that means you have hypocrites accounted as true members of the visible church. And if that is the case, then that means the visible church is a mixed body of believers and unbelievers (posing as believers). The end result was this: the Baptist claim for regenerate church membership was an attempt to make the visible church into the church that God alone can see (which is "regenerate" because it consists of the elect through time and space). Since this is clearly impossible (as the 1689 London Baptist Confession itself confessed), it is not an ideal that is biblically demanded for the local, visible church.
Once that principle fell, I was freed to think about the visible church in the way that I see it on Sunday morning (as well as the way I see it in the Bible): as professing believers and their children, who are set apart, holy, for God's purposes in their lives (1 Cor. 7:14). And since these children are admitted as part of God's visible people, they should receive the sign of entrance into that people, which in the OT was circumcision (Gen. 17) but in the NT is baptism (Acts 2:38, 39; Col. 2:11). God's purpose has always been for entire households to be identified with God's visible people (Gen. 17; Acts 16). The upshot here is that these two understandings--the visible church consists of believing households and the sign of admittance into the visible church should be applied to the entire household as a result of the household head's profession--made Baptist ecclesiology impossible for me. And so, I joined the Presbyterian church.
posted by Bobby's blog at 3:30 PM
7 Comments:
What about having their hearts circumcised? I take that to mean that the sign of being in the covenant community is an inward and spiritual one and not one of outward obedience. That is what so much of the NT tells us. The things that were physical pointed to something spiritual that is so much more important.Circumcision was outward obedience, but now God is looking for those who have obedient hearts. Baptism is a sign that a believer is dead to sin and raised again a new creature. In my baptist opinion it is not the new circumcision.
God has always been looking for obedient hearts. If you don't think that baptism is related to circumcision, then what do you do with Paul's linking of the two together in Colossians 2? God's "true" covenant people have always been those who have experienced the circumcision of the heart, however, only God knows who those people really are. The people who have (and this can be seen in the NT as well) been identified as the visible people of God have always been those who profess their aligence to him and their family. Does that mean that they all posess a right relationship, no, but it does not mean they are apart from the benefits of growing up in a Christian household.
Colossians 2 speaks of the new circumcision and baptism in 2 different ways. He talks about the circumcision of the flesh of the old man. Our old hearts, the ones that went after worldly things has died. The point he makes about baptism reiterates this. We are dead to sin and raised to be a new creature in him.
Both of these points, show one thing. These events are related to believers. The baptism spoken of here is obviously that of a believer and not one who is sprinkled so they will grow up in a christian home.
This builds an even stronger case for believers baptism.
As far as those who are in the church and give signs of being unregenerate. I believe 1 Corinthians 5 tells us what to do about that situation. If it has become apparent that one is not saved or is showing no sign of salvation, then they must be put out, for they were never truly a part of the kingdom.
Two things:
1. Baptizo does not refer to a specific mode. You can do a diachronic word study of the use of baptizo from Classical Greek to the Byzantine era and see that it can mean anything from drowning to pouring to sprinlking to dipping. So, don't get silly about that.
2. The idea of children being cut off from growing up in a Christian home is silly. The Old Testament is full of the examples of children of believers being treated as part of the community until they prove otherwise. The New Testament follows up on this as well. You can find this in Acts 2 where Peter connects the crowd to the Abrahamic Covenant (which was never nullified in Scripture) by saying "the promise is to you and your children". Also, in 1 Cor 7, Paul makes a clear statement when addressing mothers with unbelieving husbands by declaring: For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy (ESV). Paul is not speaking of children who have made a "personal profession" yet. This is in continuity with the OT - God values families. If the children to not embrace Christ, then they are not part of the people of God, but you don't raise them in such a way that teaches them that God does not value them. You raise them to be disciples.
Again, I realize there is not specific command to baptize children. This silence, does not speak to the fact, that the overall theology of the family is actually strengthened in the NT. Children of believers are called holy by Paul, the Covenant God gave to Abraham was not nullified anywhere in the New Testament, and Peter in Acts 2 declares that God’s Covenantal promises are to parents and their children. Acts also records household baptisms and Paul mentions baptizing the household of Stephaneus. In the Gospels, Jesus Himself blesses children and gives specific commands to not look down upon them because “such is the Kingdom of Heaven”. There are early records of the Church baptizing infants and, in fact, there was no major disagreement in Church history concerning infant baptism until the Reformation.
I never said that children should not be raised in a Godly home. That should be every Christian parents goal, to raise Godly disciples. This does not mean that they are a part of the church. Christians are commanded to preach the gospel and raise Godly children. I would never argue that, but what does that have to do with children being members of the church.
The baptism in Colossians is talking about someone who was dead to Christ in sin, then being made alive. This does not sound like an infant being made part of any covenant.
The Old Testament is based on Christ and on the New Testament and it is not the other way around. Christ is the highest revelation we have, why would we go back and try to fit him into the system, when the system was put in place to point to him from eternity past.
Again, circumcision was pointing to the exact same thing - a work being done on your behalf when/which you could not perform yourself for the purpose of placing a signpost on the person that they belonged to God. Also, Paul is not speaking of ritual baptism in that particular passage. He is connecting the spiritual truths that the audience would have associated with circumcision and applying it to the sign of baptism. It's a comparison, not a prescription of subject/mode. He is speaking of a spiritual nature.
Regarding the OT. I would caution one against looking at it so flippantly. There is continuity (and discontinuity) between the Testaments. Just because Jesus came doesn't mean we throw out the OT. It is still God's word and serves to explain the NT. (especially when the NT writers are quoting the OT)
I am sorry if I seemed to undervalue the OT. That would never be my intent. When I was speaking at church on Wednesday nights, I spent the majority of my time in the OT.
I have to disagree with you about the baptism here. I think what he is getting at is more of a spirit baptism anyway. What God has done through Christ in our lives. He has made us dead to sin and now we are risen new creatures as Christ did. I believe when we are saved this is what happens to us and the baptism that is outward is a sign for us, as the LORD's table is.
I hope this discussion has been good for you. It has been a pleasure for me to chat with you about this.
Post a Comment
<< Home