|
|
 |
Christian Baptism
The importance of Christian baptism is clear for all to see
in the New Testament (Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38,
etc.). Every branch of the Christian church has agreed that
baptism is a divine ordinance whose observance is part of
what constitutes a church. In this the Free Presbyterian
Church is at one with all the rest.
DIVIDED OPINION
However, historically there have been widespread differences
of opinion among men equally committed to accepting the
Bible as our God-given, inspired, and infallible rule of faith
and practice. This is true within Protestantism. Evangelical
Protestants reject the Romish notion of baptismal regeneration,
but they differ among themselves as to the proper mode and
subjects of baptism. Historically, the Reformed churches along
with the Lutheran, Episcopal, Congregational, and Methodist
churches have accepted that pouring, sprinkling, and dipping
are all valid modes of baptism. They have also believed that
baptism is the sign and seal of God’s covenant with His people
and that it should be administered to all who are in that
covenant. They argue that the infant children of believers are
included in the covenant and that therefore baptism should be
administered to them.
Over against this view, Baptists and Anabaptists have
argued that baptism must follow a personal profession of
faith. It cannot legitimately be administered to children who
have made no such personal profession. The New Testament
nowhere commands or mentions the baptism of infants. The
only baptism it knows is believer’s baptism.
On the mode of baptism, Baptists insist that only
immersion is acceptable because, they say, the verb baptizo
means “to dip,” and the symbolism of Romans 6 (death,
burial, and resurrection) demands immersion. Interestingly
the early Anabaptists of the Reformation period baptized
believers by pouring.
FOUR CENTURIES OF CONTROVERSY
It is easy to see what controversy the subject of baptism has
engendered. Each point made by one side is vigorously contested
by the other. After four hundred years of polemics the argument
has not abated. Perhaps it will indicate the complexity of the
debate to point out that one of the best presentations of the
Baptist case is by an ex-Presbyterian, while one of the best
apologies for paedo-baptism is by a Baptist pastor who set
out to write a defense of his views and was converted to a
Presbyterian view of baptism in the course of his study!
DIFFERENCE WITHOUT DIVISION
The Free Presbyterian Church recognizes that good men
have differed and continue to differ on this emotive subject.
Yet should God’s people separate from one another over
baptism? Can they not hold their view strongly while allowing
conscientious brethren to hold a differing view? We believe
they can and should. Thus our Additional Statement on The
Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 28.3-4, states:
We admit into our fellowship those who believe
that covenant infants should receive baptism,
the sign and seal of God’s covenant with His
people—defining an infant as a person who
has not matured to the point of being able to
respond to the obligations of the gospel call
in repentance and faith. We equally admit
into our fellowship those who believe that
the sacrament of baptism, no less than the
sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, should be
administered only to those who have come to a
credible profession of personal faith in Christ.
. . . In dealing with this subject that has long
caused bitter divisions among God’s people, we
pledge ourselves to hold our views with a loving
toleration and respect for differing brethren,
all of us being united in repudiating the error
of baptismal regeneration.
We do not undervalue baptism, but we do not want needless
division either. We would not wish to be so exclusively
Presbyterian that we could find no place for a C. H. Spurgeon
just because he strongly adhered to believer’s baptism. Nor
would we wish to be so Baptistic that we would exclude a
Robert Murray McCheyne just because he held strongly to
baptism for the infant children of believers.
In the World Council of Churches, Baptists and paedo-
Baptists are seeking to work out an acceptable position
that will do justice to all their traditions. They are doing
this in a spirit of compromise on every major doctrine of the
gospel. That is a betrayal. But is it not sad that Baptists and
paedo-Baptists who agree in upholding every fundamental
of the faith cannot usually find the love, the humility, or
whatever it takes, to stand together in the unity of the
gospel? We have long enjoyed the benefits of the fruitful
coexistence and cooperation of credo-Baptist and paedo-
Baptist brethren who have stood with equal commitment
for the work and witness of the Lord Jesus Christ in the
Free Presbyterian Church.
|
