×

A number of Christian publishers have begun releasing books that include various essays and interaction between opposing viewpoints. Zondervan began with the “Counterpoint” series; Broadman & Holman now has a “Perspectives” series. IVP has long had a “Spectrum” series. Last year, they published The Lord’s Supper: Five Views and Baptism: Three Views (2009).

The IVP book on baptism is unique in that it does not focus on all the different views within Christendom. Instead, the focus is squarely on the question most relevant to most evangelicals: Do we baptize infants or not?

Baptism: Three Views does not discuss baptismal regeneration (thus excluding the Churches of Christ, the Anglicans, and Roman Catholics from the conversation). But the narrow focus on adult versus infant baptism actually enhances the book by keeping the discussion pinpointed on the question of who should be baptized, not what is happening in the baptismal font.

Bruce Ware, a professor at Southern Seminary contributes an essay that explains the Baptist position. Sinclair Ferguson, the senior minister at First Presbyterian Church in Columbia, SC, describes the infant baptism view. Anthony Lane, Professor of Historical Theology at London School of Theology, outlines a proposal he describes as “dual practice.”

When I first glanced at the table of contents, I thought to myself, Oh no! There are three views here – two of which are directly opposed and a third that appears to be a hybrid. I can already assume that the book will lead to the third view as the “best of both worlds.” Thankfully, this book stays much more objective than I anticipated. (Furthermore, Lane’s contribution is significant enough in its own right to be taken as a distinctly third view, not merely as a hybrid.)

I was glad to see the strengths and weaknesses of each view presented well. For example, Tony Lane points out one of the weak spots in the Baptist understanding – the baptism of small children:

“The problem with this policy is that few small children reject the views of their parents. In practice it can end up being not too different from the paedobaptist position.” (68)

Very true. Few Baptists today are willing to challenge the recent development of baptizing small children, and because of our enthusiasm for this relatively new practice, we undermine our overall position.

Bruce Ware ably puts forth the Baptist view (which is the one that I hold). Sinclair Ferguson also does an admirable job of making a case for the baptism of infants. If you are looking for a succinct explanation of the paedobaptist position, you will need to look no further than Ferguson’s essay.

The frustrating part of Ferguson’s essay for me (as a Baptist, remind you!) is his tendency to merely state the assumptions that I want to see him prove. For example, take this statement:

“Baptism functions in relationship to the new covenant in Christ in a manner analogous to the function of circumcision in the Abrahamic covenant. In a word, baptism has the same symbolic significance in relationship to fellowship with God as did circumcision.” (87)

I understand that the infant baptist position hinges on this assumption, but this kind of statement is exactly that which needs to be proven from Scripture, not merely stated. Several times, Ferguson uses the phrase “by parity of reasoning” or “through reasoning,” which helps to shine light on how he arrives at seeing baptism within his covenantal framework, one which has much merit to it, but which (on the issue of baptism) seems to me to impose a foreign paradigm on the text.

Tony Lane’s chapter is unique. In a nutshell, he says that the Bible does not specify whether infants can be baptized or only believing adults. Pointing to the early church’s apparent variety of approaches on this issue, Lane believes that we too have freedom to choose:

“The silences are there to leave the church liberty to vary its practice to suit different circumstances. They sanction the variety of practice that we see in the early church.” (166)

Lane’s view is intriguing, but it seems too individualistic for me. He argues that churches should allow freedom even to their members to decide what they want baptism to mean. That sounds like a perfect solution for an individualistic society where people construct their own meaning, but woefully inadequate for those of us trying to be faithful to the Scriptures on these very important matters. I cannot imagine that Paul would not desire uniformity among the churches when it comes to this issue.

Overall, this book is a helpful explanation of the different views of baptism. No matter which position you hold, if you are interested in finding out something about the other views, you will find this book to be a good resource.

LOAD MORE
Loading