Ever heard someone say: "I'm a Baptisterian"? I have, and I always think to myself: "Wha?" In my mind the statement translates: "I'm happy to be ignorant in important ecclesiological issues, because the Lord's body, his church for whom he died, is not important enough for me to spend my valuable time considering." As a Presbyterian/Covenantalist I am happy to rejoice with Baptist brothers and sisters in the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, especially with those who understand the importance of the church. But it saddens me when either Persbys or Baptists trivialize important ecclesiological distinctives.
Justin Taylor has posted a thanks to Ligon Duncan for his post of the basics of covenant baptism at Reformation 21. In a spirit of unity, which I applaud, he refers to a discussion between Baptist (SBC) Mark Dever and Presbyterian (PCA) David Coffin in which they offered 17 points of agreement between baptists and covenantalists on baptism. The first point of agreement is this:
1. No one disagrees with professor baptism (except Quakers).
But is that true? Is it true that baptists and covenantalists affirm professor baptism in the same sense?
The only sense in which I can imagine it is true is that both baptize professors. But the trouble is neither agrees with what the baptism of a professor means, which is, I think, the heart of the issue.
For instance, baptists baptize professors only. Covenantalists baptize professors and there children. Therefore, if a baptized child later professes the faith, becoming a professor, they are not then baptized again, because their baptism as a child is viewed as valid. However, if that person who had been baptized as a child wants to become a member of a baptist church, he would be required to be baptized as a professor. In that way, baptists and covenantalists define professor baptism differently.
Furthermore, covenantalists affirm that the baptism of every professor and their children is a valid baptism. Baptists do not affirm this. Baptists believe that only the truly regenerate can receive a valid baptism. If one professes faith, yet is unregenerate, and that person is baptized, then their baptism is not regarded as valid. Therefore, if that person at a later time "realizes" that he was not really regenerate when first baptized, he must be baptized again for a valid baptism to occur. Covenantalists only baptize once. Regeneration is not required as a prerequisite (If it were how could we ever presume to baptize anyone this side of glory?). In that way baptists and covenantalists define professor baptism differently.
I don't believe that either Dever or Coffin mean to trivialize this important ecclesiological issue. Their second point clearly reads:
2. This is a subject of great import.
However, while I appreciate the desire to find common ground, the first point of "agreement" is only true if one allows the term professor baptism to be defined differently by each side of the debate. In other words, it is not a point shared in common. Baptists and covenantalists may both baptize professors, but if they don't mean the same thing by it, then claiming commonality on this point is not very helpful.
2 comments:
Jay, brilliant observation, you are right.
I find "southern" presbyterian brothers, like Coffin and Duncan, tend to be more friendly to baptistic arguments than others in the reformed/covenantal tradition. Much of the Federal Vision debate (if you want to call it that...) in the PCA brought out an active division among so-called covenantalists. This is part of why I added the efficacy comment to you're other post on Duncan's baptism.
I'm afraid to many presbyterians (not necessarily saying this is true of the aforementioned-way smarter than me- brothers) don't sound all together different from baptists when it comes to the efficacy of baptism.
Lots here to consider, but I think you have hit on a key issue. I'm glad Duncan and Coffin (and others) get along so brillianty with our baptist brothers, however, you're point is well taken and I find it hard to be comfortable saying "no one disagrees with professor baptism".
Thanks Tony.
I'm still becoming acclamated to the current theological discussions in the PCA. It's far different from the SBC, where the discussion is primarily over the doctrines of grace.
I do want to work hard to maintain unity with my baptist brothers, but I don't think theological precision needs to be sacrificed as a basis for that unity.
Post a Comment