Historical-Grammatical Baptism
For a brief time in my life, I accepted the Presbyterian doctrine of infant baptism. I grew up Baptist, but as I became more Reformed in my theology, the issue was inescapable (especially since I found myself attending a Presbyterian church). I wrestled with it for over a year before having my first son sprinkled. Shortly thereafter I withdrew from being convinced of infant baptism and continued to wrestle with the issue for another year or two, continuing to become more and more convinced of the Baptist position.
A good exegete of Scripture uses historical-grammatical method of exegesis. It truly is one of the most responsible ways to handle a text, though it flies in the face of our postmodern, deconstructed society. This is a pretty straight forward method in my opinion. To determine the meaning of a passage one should look at the historical context in which it is written, and then look at the grammar of the passage in light of the historical context to determine the full meaning of the text. One needs to look at the historical context first because words change in meaning over time. For example, the Greek word logos simply meant word or principle, but thanks to Greek philosophy the word began to carry a much deeper meaning by the time John uses the word in his Gospel account. For modern context examples, in older English (like that of the KJV) you will come across the word "conversation," but it doesn't mean people talking to one another as it does today. In older contexts, it referred to one's way of life. In even more recent times, the word "gay" has changed. Fifty to sixty years ago, it simply meant "happy". Nowadays, the word refers to homosexuality. So words must be defined according to their historical contexts before an accurate meaning can be understood. This places great emphasis on the necessity to know and understand history, so we can come to a solid understanding of what the Scriptures teach (and likewise other theologians and teachers of the past).
One of the arguments by the paedobaptists is dealing with the historical context of the New Testament. This is one of the most convincing arguments for a Presbyterian to me. In brief, it argues that the reason the New Testament is silent about baptizing infants is because the Jewish culture was so inundated with the covenantal idea that it would have no need to speak of baptizing infants. The whole culture at that time would have believed that children would be included with their believing parents. That was the pattern established with Abraham and at no point in time was it ever revoked. They further argue that if this is true we should expect to see households receiving the sign of the covenant, which of course we do all throughout the book of Acts. In fact, argument could even be made that the number of household baptism accounts exceeds the number of individual baptism accounts, further emphasizing the household principle.
(Though my feeble attempts to explain the argument are presented, I believe that I accurately portray the argument. For a much better explanation and portrayal of the argument, research Francis Schaeffer's argument for infant baptism.)
While discussing infant baptism with a friend, the thought occurred to me that one of the passages used in support of infant baptism (though much debated among Reformed folk as to it's relevance) really undermines the historical contextual argument for infant baptism.
What should we do then with the idea that parents desired to bring their children to Christ? I won't deny how compelling such a passage can be to become a paedobaptist. As one who struggled with it, reading such a passage can be convincing. However, it is only convincing if you come to the passage with such a preconceived notion. But as argued above, I think such a presupposition is fallacious.
As a parent, I know the desire to do the best for your children. Jesus even comments how even though we are evil people, we seek to do good for our children. Parents innately want to do the best for their children. What each parent deems as best differs family to family, but the same general concept exists throughout all ages and cultures. As a Christian, I desire to see my children come to Christ and obey the Lord. I know that it is only those who display true faith and repentance are those who will spend eternity with the Lord. Further, it is only those who members of the New Covenant who know the Lord and experience the full blessings of the covenant. So what should my natural response be as a parent? Bring my child to Christ. How can I bring my child to Christ nowadays? In the story above the parents wanted Christ to lay His hands on their child and bless him/her. The church is Christ's body, and should act as His hands and feet, so I need to bring them to church if I want Christ to physically minister to my children. I ask Christ to speak blessing over them, so I pray to Christ for them. I want Christ's blessing spoken to them, so I read to them from God's Word. This explains everything displayed in the passage without assuming infant baptism, and applies not only to a Jewish context, but all cultural contexts, because all parents seek the best for their children. And as a final note, the fact that the parents were seeking a blessing from Christ I think furthers supports my argument that the parents wanted to see the best for their child, without necessitating their inclusion in the covenant.
A good exegete of Scripture uses historical-grammatical method of exegesis. It truly is one of the most responsible ways to handle a text, though it flies in the face of our postmodern, deconstructed society. This is a pretty straight forward method in my opinion. To determine the meaning of a passage one should look at the historical context in which it is written, and then look at the grammar of the passage in light of the historical context to determine the full meaning of the text. One needs to look at the historical context first because words change in meaning over time. For example, the Greek word logos simply meant word or principle, but thanks to Greek philosophy the word began to carry a much deeper meaning by the time John uses the word in his Gospel account. For modern context examples, in older English (like that of the KJV) you will come across the word "conversation," but it doesn't mean people talking to one another as it does today. In older contexts, it referred to one's way of life. In even more recent times, the word "gay" has changed. Fifty to sixty years ago, it simply meant "happy". Nowadays, the word refers to homosexuality. So words must be defined according to their historical contexts before an accurate meaning can be understood. This places great emphasis on the necessity to know and understand history, so we can come to a solid understanding of what the Scriptures teach (and likewise other theologians and teachers of the past).
One of the arguments by the paedobaptists is dealing with the historical context of the New Testament. This is one of the most convincing arguments for a Presbyterian to me. In brief, it argues that the reason the New Testament is silent about baptizing infants is because the Jewish culture was so inundated with the covenantal idea that it would have no need to speak of baptizing infants. The whole culture at that time would have believed that children would be included with their believing parents. That was the pattern established with Abraham and at no point in time was it ever revoked. They further argue that if this is true we should expect to see households receiving the sign of the covenant, which of course we do all throughout the book of Acts. In fact, argument could even be made that the number of household baptism accounts exceeds the number of individual baptism accounts, further emphasizing the household principle.
(Though my feeble attempts to explain the argument are presented, I believe that I accurately portray the argument. For a much better explanation and portrayal of the argument, research Francis Schaeffer's argument for infant baptism.)
While discussing infant baptism with a friend, the thought occurred to me that one of the passages used in support of infant baptism (though much debated among Reformed folk as to it's relevance) really undermines the historical contextual argument for infant baptism.
And they were bringing even their babies to Him so that He would touch them, but when the disciples saw it, they began rebuking them. But Jesus called for them, saying "Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. (Luke 18:15-16)Our paedobaptist brethren will look to this passage and say, "See! The people brought their babies to Jesus to be blessed. That proves that the people functioned from a covenantal mindset." Yes, this is true that they brought their babies to Jesus. I will say that in my own personal wrestling, trying to understand the place of my children has been one of the most difficult to discern. But I want to point out a different issue not often addressed in this passage: the disciples' rebuke. If the "covenantal context" is so prevalent in this culture, as so depended upon by the Presbyterians, why does this story occur at all? If the culture was one of including children as a part of the covenant and that was the expectation, the disciples would have had no qualms with the parents bringing their children to Jesus. I believe the evidence of this dispute proves that the historical context isn't so covenantally inundated as Presbyterians assume. The consequence to this is that I don't believe it would have been as evident to the first century church that the children of believers were included in the covenant and should receive the its sign, thus requiring a positive command to baptize infants in order to clarify the issue. But since no such command exists in the New Testament, the regulative principle of worship demands that we only give the sign of the covenant to those who repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior.
What should we do then with the idea that parents desired to bring their children to Christ? I won't deny how compelling such a passage can be to become a paedobaptist. As one who struggled with it, reading such a passage can be convincing. However, it is only convincing if you come to the passage with such a preconceived notion. But as argued above, I think such a presupposition is fallacious.
As a parent, I know the desire to do the best for your children. Jesus even comments how even though we are evil people, we seek to do good for our children. Parents innately want to do the best for their children. What each parent deems as best differs family to family, but the same general concept exists throughout all ages and cultures. As a Christian, I desire to see my children come to Christ and obey the Lord. I know that it is only those who display true faith and repentance are those who will spend eternity with the Lord. Further, it is only those who members of the New Covenant who know the Lord and experience the full blessings of the covenant. So what should my natural response be as a parent? Bring my child to Christ. How can I bring my child to Christ nowadays? In the story above the parents wanted Christ to lay His hands on their child and bless him/her. The church is Christ's body, and should act as His hands and feet, so I need to bring them to church if I want Christ to physically minister to my children. I ask Christ to speak blessing over them, so I pray to Christ for them. I want Christ's blessing spoken to them, so I read to them from God's Word. This explains everything displayed in the passage without assuming infant baptism, and applies not only to a Jewish context, but all cultural contexts, because all parents seek the best for their children. And as a final note, the fact that the parents were seeking a blessing from Christ I think furthers supports my argument that the parents wanted to see the best for their child, without necessitating their inclusion in the covenant.
Comments
Post a Comment