A Debate on Baptism: Part 1

Vaughn Ohlman has asked that I debate him over the issue of baptism. This will be my introduction and my first response. You may find his introduction and first question here.

Intro

Over the past year God has been working in my heart, teaching me and instructing me by means of literature and listening to much wiser men. From my beginning as an Arminian creedo-baptist, to a Calvinist, and now to a paedo-baptist, I can see my transition and how God has laid down certain doctrines in my mind to reveal others. I once believed that paedo-baptism was wrong and un-biblical, using the typical arguments that a creedo, like myself at the time, would use. However, during that time I ran into walls with particular concepts, such as people being enlightened and leaving the body of Christ, covenant continuity, and the meaning of baptism. The creedo-baptist position assumes the validity of it’s position, reads into biblical examples of baptism, and can only be consistently held with a dispensational theology. I believe the creedo-baptist position is a hard one to be released from because of heavy presuppositional anchors.

I hope to see fruit come from this debate, to where I clearly articulate my position, and that I clearly articulate the problems with Mr. Ohlman’s position. I do not wish to straw-man Mr. Ohlman, not do I wish to mock him. I simply desire to argue the case of infant baptism from a biblical perspective. If I could ask Mr. Ohlman one question, that I believe would really make him think about his position, it would be, “What about covenant continuity?”. Mr. Ohlman believes in covenant continuity, because he is a theonomist. His blog is titled “The Practical Theonomist”. Mr. Ohlman believes in covenant continuity.

Answer

Mr. Ohlman’s first question:

“For my first question for Mr. Wheeler I think I will throw a bit of a softball… sucker him in slowly. Here, tis, my first question. Same as my mega-question, actually, and a question I think I will be asking a lot: Why do you bring forward for baptism those who have neither confessed nor given any evidence of faith in Christ? Given that no Scripture ever commands you to do so, given that no one in Scripture is ever seen doing so, why do you do it? Or why do you propose others should do so?

From John’s first baptisms the grammar of the narratives are clear; people ‘came’ for baptism. John preached, they repented, they came for baptism. Jesus came for baptism . Peter called upon people to come for baptism, they came .
No one is ever called to bring others for baptism… let alone those who have evidenced no belief, no fruit of redemption.

When the Eunuch asked Phillip if he could be baptized, he replied, “If you believe…”

Why do you give another answer?”

In short answer, I believe infants should be baptized because we are commanded to “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you…” (Matt 28:19-20, Eph 6:4) and welcome the children of at least one believing parent into the church, regarding them as a holy saint, a child of God, being cleansed from the world.(1 Cor 7:14).

I, like Mr. Ohlman, do not believe that I should be baptizing people who are not Christians. It is not the church’s business to baptize anyone that hate’s Christ, hates the church, and loves their sin. They are not welcomed into fellowship with the church. However, when we baptize anyone we cannot definitively know the state of their heart. However, the term Christian is not clearly defined in Scripture. When I use the word Christian, I mean one that has received Trinitarian baptism. We assume that believers are actually believers. We assume that our brothers and sisters in Christ are actually brothers and sisters in Christ. I assume that Mr. Ohlman is saved, but I do not doubt he is saved just because I cannot know his heart.

Now, Mr. Ohlman is arguing that baptism is only for those who profess faith, based on biblical examples of individuals professing faith.  This is where my statement, “The creedo-baptist position assumes the validity of it’s position, reads into biblical examples of baptism,…” is expressed by Mr. Ohlman. If the Bible gives an example of people confessing Christ and then being baptized, it does not logically follow that this is the only way baptism is to be administered. Scripture gives us examples of entire households being baptized. I typically do not use the Household Baptism argument to prove paedo-baptism, I do think though these examples make a strong point. The creedo assumes that the entire household professed faith, yet there is no example of that. The only way Mr. Ohlman could argue that everyone in the household professed faith is by inserting his already accepted creedo-baptist doctrine into those examples of household baptism, and this is why; the household baptisms are parallel to Acts 2:39.

“For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”” Acts 2:39

This teaching that our children are a part of God’s promise is nothing new. The inclusion of households in God’s covenant people goes all the way back to Genesis, where God made promises to Abraham, including his household. I think the strong point made, with the household baptism accounts, is not that there may have been infants in the home (even though I believe there were) but that this reflects covenant continuity. If we’re going by biblical example as the basis for covenant continuity, then we would see that the believer’s children are a part of the covenant, just as children always have been. The New Covenant is built on better promises, not worse. We see this covenant inclusion of households in the account of Noah that his household was saved from the flood because of his righteousness, not theirs.(1 Pet 3:21) Children are a part of God’s covenant, and therefore are to receive the sign of the covenant.

The “hermeneutic” that “We should not do anything unless clearly taught by Scripture.” falls apart at the basic level because we are not commanded to do many of the things we do today. There is no “clearly” stated sentence that Christians have the right to firearms, yet we do have that right, based not on clear command, but instead on implication from other parts of Scripture. Covenant continuity is the reason that infant baptism is true. If baptism is compared to circumcision, and is the new practice that initiates people into the covenant, then infants should receive it, just as they have always received covenant membership.

One comment

  • If we’re completely honest in this debate, BOTH sides assume something in the texts that are used to support their respective positions. In that respect, it amounts to “the pot calling the kettle ‘black’ “.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *