two roads diverged in a wood…but did they have to?
[Unless otherwise noted, all quotes are from Bullinger’s Decades and have been lightly adapted.]
Many in the old time distinguished between the baptism of John and the baptism of Christ and his apostles, for some of them deny that John’s baptism contained the forgiveness of sins. If we diligently consider and weigh the doctrine of holy scripture, we shall find that the baptism of John and Christ and his apostles is one and the self-same.
And we’re off. A Reformed Baptist, writing for Presbyterians, Anglicans, and a few Reformed Baptists (at least I hope!), on the subject of baptism in the thought of magisterial reformer Henry Bullinger. Ladies and gentlemen, please make sure your seat belts are fastened and your seat backs and tray tables are in their full upright position.
What then is baptism, and why is it commanded?
Christ commanded his disciples to baptize with water for several reasons. Types or figures went through a sort of baptism in water before: the flood, the Red sea through which the people of Israel passed, the various cleansings and washings prescribed in the law. The apostles of Christ certainly didn’t hide these things. For Peter said that Noah was saved in the water of the flood, but the wicked drowned in the water. Paul affirmed that all our fathers were baptized by Moses in the cloud and in the sea. Therefore putting to death and bringing to life is prefigured. And truly, the primary badge in the New Testament is baptism, witnessing that full remission of sins is brought to us by Christ.
The one who baptizes visibly gives the sacrament of regeneration and a testimony of the remission of sins, but the Lord by his Spirit invisibly regenerates, forgives sins, and seals the regeneration. John and the apostles baptize with water; Christ baptizes with the Holy Spirit, not only with the visible sign of fire and the gift of tongues, but even more he [the Spirit] that alone gives all spiritual gifts.
Circumcision among the old people of God was given to infants, therefore baptism ought to be given to infants among the new people; for baptism succeeded in the place of circumcision…. The mystery of circumcision remains in the faithful today. You will not read any of the old interpreters of the church which have not confessed that baptism came instead of circumcision. Truly the likeness and similarity of both of them shows an obvious succession.
So what is baptism? Baptism is a symbol and seal of the Spirit’s work of bringing the new birth and forgiveness of sins to the believer. It is also the sign of the covenant for God’s people, the outward marking by which the people of God are identified.
Now much of Bullinger’s sermon is spent justifying the theology and practice of infant baptism. More on that in a minute. He also spends rather a lot of time arguing with various groups about whether baptism is actually necessary for the believer and whether rebaptism should be practiced. But his statements on what baptism means are so helpful.
The holy scripture teaches that we are washed clean from our sins by baptism. Baptism is a sign and a testimony of our cleansing. For God has truly promised sanctification to his church, and he for this truth’s sake purifies his church from all sins by his grace through the blood of his Son, and he regenerates and cleanses that church by his Spirit. This cleansing is sealed in us by baptism, which we receive, and therefore in the scriptures baptism is called cleansing, remission of sins, purifying, new birth, regeneration, and the fountain of regeneration.
On the use of baptism in the believer’s life…do we as Christians today value our baptism? How often do we reflect on our baptism and how it motivates us in the Christian life?
Baptism is enough for and truly works in the whole life of man. Truly it reaches and refers to all the sins of those who are baptized. For the promise of God is true. The seal of the promise is true, not deceptive. The power of Christ ever works thoroughly to cleanse and wash away the sins of those who are his. Therefore, however often we have sinned in our lifetime, let us call into our remembrance the mystery of holy baptism, for through it we have been washed for the whole course of our life, that we might know, and not doubt, that our sins are forgiven us by the same God and our Lord, truly, by the blood of Christ into whom we are at once grafted by baptism, that he might always work salvation in us, even till we are received out of this life’s misery into glory.
This is 1 Corinthians 6.9-11, ‘Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminates, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Baptism reminds us of what we were. That list above is all of us, not just the really nasty sinners in our churches, and most of us could find ourselves in that list multiple places without even trying. But – we – were – washed. What words of hope and assurance. What words of motivation for a godly life today. Why should we be sanctified? Because we have been baptised.
Given what baptism is and does in the believer’s life, let me propose something that, at least for readers not in Evangel churches, will seem rather radical: Reformed churches becoming dual practice regarding baptism. Reformed credobaptists and Reformed paedobaptists working together in the same churches.
Let’s allow the dust to settle on that shall we? Or have all my readers just unsubscribed? And so soon…only a couple more posts left in this series.
I’m honestly not sure who this is a higher hurdle for, the credobaptists or the paedobaptists. When I lived in the UK, I asked a pastor in the International Presbyterian Church if they’d allow a credobaptist congregation in their presbytery (and taking an exception on a few little words in WCF 28.4/6…maybe a little bit on 28.3). He laughed at me. I guess that was a ‘no’. The response would be similar from most of the Reformed Baptists in the UK I know. Perhaps I’m committing baptismal treason by even making this suggestion.
Now remember, I’m a confessional Baptist. I love and subscribe to the 1689. I love Reformed history. I’ve studied church history, and I love being a Baptist. I love how the Reformation leads to Baptist theology. I do not agree with infant baptism, and were my point in this post polemic rather than irenic, I could justify my disagreement with great detail.
But back on planet earth, there are both Baptists and Presbyterians, and (pace the work of some Baptists) their theology is far more in agreement than it is in opposition. Other than the matter of baptism (and depending on their formulation, also possibly in church government, but that needn’t be as much an issue as it appears to be), their theology is the same. Even on half of the baptism question credobaptists and paedobaptists are fully in agreement. James Bannerman convinced me to remain a credobaptist when I was in that very vulnerable moment of considering swimming the…no, not the Tiber or the Bosphorus…does swimming the Thames work? Gerhardus Vos’ in his Reformed Dogmatics is also outstanding on baptism, and I say that as a convicted credobaptist.
I’m also the pastor of a dual practice church. Officially, at least previously, our tagline on this was ‘we allow freedom of conscience regarding the timing and mode of baptism’, but that’s cumbersome and actually confuses the issue somewhat. Really we are a church that practices (or allows) both Reformed credobaptism and Reformed paedobaptism. Regarding baptism at least, we are both Baptist and Presbyterian. Functionally, we are a rather more Baptist dual-practice church, and a dear sister church in town is a functionally more Presbyterian dual-practice church. Both churches allow both credobaptism and paedobaptism, so I know it can work.
Recently we had the paedobaptist pastor of a sister church come officiate the baptism of a new baby in our church (we don’t have a paedobaptist member of our pastorate yet). He joined us to baptize this little baby, and then left to return to his church to dedicate – ie, not baptise – the infant child of a credobaptist couple in his church. As he left, his parting shot was to me, ‘And you should have your new little girl baptized as well!’ To which I wasn’t quick enough to reply, ‘We will indeed! When she confesses Christ!’ It was a sweet service, remarkably sweet, a tangible picture of the eschatological unity Christ promises. We’re not yet there, but oh we can taste it.
But for those who aren’t dual practice in the local congregation, your current practice isn’t so different from this already. Look, most of us are already comfortable having significant influence from ‘the other side’. Presbyterians use Baptist resources and Baptists read Presbyterian books. Mark Dever and Ligon Duncan were well-known for standing on the same conference stage together and each saying to each other, ‘Brother, you’re in sin for your view of baptism,’ but that didn’t preclude them from speaking publicly together, even preaching at each others’ churches, and doing virtually everything but the local church together. I’m just asking if we can take it one step further.
Rather than only insisting on the disagreement over baptism (which we whole-heartedly acknowledge in my congregation!), can we not also acknowledge the legitimate history and tradition of the church that has led to both Presbyterian and Baptist theologies of the sacraments in the local church? Both are going to be here till Christ returns. Neither is going to be convinced of the other’s position.
Can we also be honest enough to admit that – speaking very generally here – Baptists are terrible at theology and Presbyterians are terrible at evangelism? We need each other! I mean, a church that’s both good at theology and good at reaching people with the gospel? Has such a unicorn even existed before?
Why must we have both a Baptist church and a Presbyterian church in the same town? It’s not that I’m saying baptism doesn’t matter. Indeed it does; it’s a matter of obedience to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ! But both credobaptists and paedobaptists believe that. It’s not that we’re saying all views on baptism are equally valid or equally appropriate. Still less is this a daisy-chain-weaving-kum-bye-yaw-singing-‘can’t we all just get along’ sentiment. No, this is to take the sacraments seriously. But it’s also to take the unity of the church seriously. For Reformed churches, given that we already share so much of our theology, why not actually work together in the same congregation? It can work…
I suppose I don’t really expect that either Presbyterians or Baptists will be swayed by this proposal. But I wish we were more bothered by Jesus’ words in John 17.20-23. Are we one? Are Reformed churches one? Of course legitimate theological disagreements may preclude fellowship, but is this one area where closer local church fellowship is absolutely impossible? Or have we just not considered how it might be possible?
May, at the very least, I ask one thing of both groups? For my Baptist brothers, are we willing to acknowledge that our view of baptism was not the view of the church for the majority of the history of the church? That doesn’t mean we’re wrong, but it should give us a more charitable spirit towards our Reformed brothers with whom we disagree. And for my Presbyterian brothers? Are you willing to acknowledge that there are difficulties with applying the explicit New Testament exegetical meaning of believer’s baptism to infants? That doesn’t mean you’re wrong, but it should give you a more charitable spirit towards your Reformed brothers with whom you disagree.
Bullinger closes his sermon with an apt reflection on how our baptism points to our redemption.
For since we are endued with the Spirit of Christ which works in us, our body truly dies daily, but our spirits live and rejoice in Christ. To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
May our theology and practice of baptism point us to both Christ’s death and the Spirit’s life in us.
Next, on the Lord’s holy supper
