I am once again proselytizing for a new denomination that I started with a friend a few years ago: Reformed Bapterians. A Reformed Bapterian is, in a nutshell, one who enjoys a glass of wine with pot-luck. [1]
It took us a while to flesh out more details of this new denomination. For example, we developed the syncretic compromise of calling baptism and the Lord's supper Sacramental Ordinances, or Ordinary Sacraments, you choose.
As for baptism, we decided that we should have infant baptism, and a believer's dedication. That is, parents will present their child for the sign of covenantal inclusion, and then, when the child is able to make a credible profession of faith, he dedicates himself to the church. Why, it's perfect!
However, we also permit the reverse ordering, under the rather irrefutable two step logic:
1) If the manner and mode of baptism was important, God the Holy Spirit would have been clear when inspiring scripture. [2]
2) As Reformed Bapterians, we believe that baptism is a means of grace, and God (being God) can dispense it to infants or adults as he sees fit. [3]
We didn't get into the church government question—that might be the trickiest road to navigate on the way to unification. That, and the breakdown between wine and grape juice in the trays--should it be wine in the outer circle and grape juice in the middle, or vice-versa? These are vexing questions.
On a more serious matter, we discussed the real question: when should a baptism not "stick?" That is, suppose you were baptized as an infant in a Catholic church, but are now, as an adult, a Presbyterian. Should your baptism count?
Our view is that it should, the efficacy of the sacrament being separate from the spiritual state of the presiding official. After all, there are certainly unbelieving clergy from any denomination who have performed baptisms, weddings, and conducted the Lord’s supper. Upon discovery of their apostasy, we would not go back and re-baptize anyone whom they had baptized over the years.
On the other hand, we think the church should permit a person to be baptized again, if that makes them feel comfortable. This discussion started because one of my friends had been baptized in a Catholic church but was not a believer until she was an adult, at which time she joined a Presbyterian church. She wanted to be baptized again, but the church (correctly, I believe) told her it wasn't necessary. On the other other hand, the church should have said: but we will, if you feel it is important. There is a school of thought in some reformed circles that re-baptism is in some manner insulting to God. You are asking God to, once again, demonstrate his covenant, as if you don't believe he'll deliver on the basis of the first time the promise was made. Hmm--the story of God and Gideon leads me to believe that God doesn't mind if we ask him again and again. While (obviously) one shouldn't treat baptism willy-nilly, I see no scripture that supports the view that an adult, who for whatever reason feels uncomfortable about his baptism, cannot be baptized again. It appears to me to be a man-made restriction and, as such, is likely incorrect.
Similarly we believe that if a person was baptized as an infant and they want to, as an adult, join a Baptist church, their baptism should be accepted, lest the leaders decide for God that any grace he dispensed during the infant baptism was all for naught. Seriously, that is effectively the position of reformed Baptist churches that do not accept prior infant baptism. They are saying: God himself was not able to make this baptism legit, because it wasn't done the way we think it should have been done, even though we lack convincing scriptural proof for our practice. [4]
Nevertheless, we would encourage such a person to receive believers baptism by immersion as a sign of unity with the congregation they are about to join.
In short, a Bapterian church would surely allow a new member to be baptized if they desire, but would also recognize their previous baptism.
All denominations other than Bapterians place a greater emphasis on their man-made traditions of baptism, based (Presbyterian or Baptist) on disputable exegesis, than on the actual scriptural promises related to baptism. They will claim, pietistically, it is because they are taking baptism seriously. But don't listen! What they are doing is taking their theology seriously. Taking one's theology seriously is a good thing when the scriptural support is strong. Taking it seriously when the scriptural support is weak is asking for trouble.
[1] Bapterians have a regulative principle when it comes to potluck: It must include at least three versions of green bean casserole to be acceptable.
[2] The Bapterian hermeneutic is this: anything that serious God-fearing reformed evangelicals who affirm the inerrancy of scripture have been arguing about for more than a century is something we should stop arguing about and admit we don't know.
[3] So obvious it deserves a "duh".
[4] I say this, mind you, as one who affirms credobaptism.
What, no macaroni pie?
ReplyDelete