The Ohio Independent Baptist, July 1960

RIPTU R L BAPTISM \ \ 1 <.'\ 1t:·,, of n l .1\1tl1 ra11 110<.lk 11, tl1c al10, 11a111.c, \\ l11cl1 "vl1il 11ot a11 ccl1torial. m1.1st ap])car l1crc so lo11g as finances pt:r1111t 01,1, 1() pa,~cs. Tl1' f•d1to1 ,, ,1.. se11t ar\ i11terc~t111g book 011 bapt1s111 fron1 ll' lt1tl1t1~t11 po111t ot ,1 ,, 11, a11 ar11cst la:\'n1,111 of thal • l'ic1101111r\at1011 1"110 book ,, as ,, r1tte11 i11 1953 bv Dr. Ut1ras ~aar111, a~ira of F111lc111d, ,, 110 at the ti1ne ,vas · tcacl1i11g i11 ..1 Fi11111.. l1 Ltt tl1el'i111 e111i11ar,· 111 l\,l1cl11ga11. It is an imaginary di,1logt1e bet,, c11 a l\1art111 Cl1ildfont a11d a Jol111 Bapstead. ,, l1ilc tl'ic latter qt1otes co11s1derable l1terat1.1re fron1 bap– t1 tic .. ot1rces. l1e 1.. 110 n1a tcl1 for l\1artin Childfont, who is .., , er,· lear11ed 111a11. Dr. aar111,·aara clain1s tl1at lie l1as tried to state the case of tl1e bapt1stic sects as l1onestly as his ovvn. Since tl1at is ,·er)· hard to do. vve ma)' grant that he tried, even if l1e d1d not ticceed. That l1e has read our side is evi– dent. bt1t 1t is just as e,J' ide11t that he makes John Bapstead g1,·e up too ea ily and then uses l1is admissions and re– tractions as proofs on \\·hich to build his argument. He undot1btedly has l1elped to strengthen the faith of waver– in ~ Lutherans, even if he has not co11vinced many Baptists of error. ,,r c are reviewing this book in much the same spirit. We do not suppose many pedo-baptists will read thi series that v\ 1 ill run for several months, nor that they \\"ill be con,·inced if they do; but '\Ve think it will help put son1e iron in the blood of our modern, enemic Baptists, \\'ho ha, 1 e largely lost their sense of mission. We have read the Ohio Independent Baptist for over twenty years, and \\'e cannot remember any articles on baptism, so it is time we print some. INFANT BAPTISM AND CIRCUMCISION l\1artin Childfont begins by reminding John Bapstead of Old Testament circumcision, and of the fact that, while Abraham received it after he became a believer, his de– scendants were to receive it as infants. From Col. 2:11 he argues that baptism, as a seal of righteousness, is analogous to circumcision and therefore should be given to the chil– dren of believers. We cannot give all the arguments of the book and com– ment on them without writing a book larger than the other. The sufficient answer is that the circumcision of Christ mentioned in Col. 2: 11 is done without hands and baptism in or with v. 1 ater is manual. The circumcision of Christ is spiritual, as all New Testament fulfilments of Old Testa·– ment types are. A type is not fulfilled in another type, for that would be postponement and not fulfilment. For ex– ample, the Old Testament altar is not fulfilled in a memorial altar in a church building, but in the death of Christ on the cross (Heb. 13:10-12) . We admit that there is an analogy between circumcision and baptism and that this is why Paul immediately went on to mention baptism in the twelfth verse. Both rites picture separation from sin and both are initiatory- one into a chosen nation and the other into the household of Christian faith. Because n1embership in the chosen nation was by natural birth, it was fitting that infants eight days old should be circumcised; but by a like analogy, sinners of all nations must wait bapti~m until they have been born again into the family of God. We are distinctly told thclt we do not become children of God by blood or the will of man, but of God (John 1:12, 13). It is not only adults like Abraham who must wait until they believe, but all must do so. Far from circumcision suggesting that New Testament believers should baptize their infants, it suggests that they should wait until they are converted. First birth, then circumcision: first the second birth, then baptism. PROSELYTE AND FAMILY BAPTISM Next, Mr . Childfont argues that the J ewish custom of proselyte baptism proves that when whole families were said in Acts to have been baptized, it must mean that chil– dren were included. since the Jews baptized the children of proselytes as well as the adults themselves. He says (p. 9), "An unprejudiced mind would naturally suppose that the Church followed a practice similar to that customary among the Jews. The Church 'inherited' many things-not only the Old Testament, but also many practices in its work and some features of organization-from the Syna- ~ogue.' ' Bapt1s t5 a11s"vcr tl1al. tl1e early church only inhcri tecl \vhat vvc fincl in the New Testame11t, such as weekly mecl- 111gs, Bible rcadi11g, s111ging and prayer, ancl that even these are only similar bccaus the Spirit of God lecl the Apostles to adopt these similar methods of worsl11p. We must not guess beyond whal is \¥ritten. All Baptists do not agree as qu1?kly .as Jo?:r:i Bapstead that Dr. A. H. Strong was right 1n his op1n1on that proselyte baptism was com– mon among the Jews before Christ's time. Many scholars both Baptist and non-Baptist are uncertain about it. The fact that Josephus does not mention it when describing how Jews took in Gentile converts makes it doubtful that it was common at that time. But what if it were? I t was not com~_anded in the Old Testament, bu_t was like many other trad1tions of the elders that Jesus said made void the L aw of God (Mark 7:8, 9). The New Testament makes a point of showing how the Old Testament promises and some of the old type were fulfilled in Christ; but it never mentions the traditions of the elders except to condemn them. Dr. Saarnivaara argues that child baptism was so com– mon that it need not be mentioned in the New Testament· but it is more reasonable to suppose that it was not men~ tioned because it was not practiced. He argues that silence cannot prove our contention, but the burden of proof is on him. It is he who has read infant baptism into the text and introduced an innovation into New Testament inter– pretation, and so he must prove it, as all debaters know. The burden of proof is always on the affirmative, not on the negative. Silence cannot prove his contention that in– fants were baptized, but silence does suggest that our doubts about such a practice are correct. His imaginary John Bapstead may have been too dull to see that, but real Baptists are not that dull. JESUS AND THE CHILDREN As all pedo-baptists, Dr. Saarnivaara argues that Matt. 19:13-15 suggests that we should baptize little children. Yet, unlike most of them, he admits that J esus did not baptize tho~e that the mothers brought. He gives three strange reasons why our Lord did not perform the rite that we will discuss toward the close of this first install– ment. He argues in circles that take in the B ible, theology and church history to prove that we ought to baptize the little ones even if Jesus did not, just because in his Lu – theran way he cannot see how else we can receive th em. To Lutherans "receiving" is theological and ecclesiastical: to Baptists it is personal and spiritual. Which slant is the natural one in the reading of the Gospels we leave to those that have read them without an ax to grind. It would be most unnatural to suppose that the disciples thought clifferently of children than other religious J ews, - unless three years with J esus had made them love them more. They all considered children as very important mem– bers of the covenant nation. They would not think of bap– tizing them, however, for even if the J ews had begun to baptize the children of proselytes, they did not baptize their own. John's baptism was a sign of repentance for those who wished to prepare themselves for the coming Messiah, and those who had no personal sin did not need it. There is not a scintilla of evidence that J ohn or J esus' disciples baptizecl children, let alone infants. The natural explanation of the difference between Matt. 18: 3 and 19: 14 is that in the first instance a small child came up to Jesus while he was having an informal discus– sion with his twelve disciples, and in the other several mothers brought their children to be blessed while he was in the midst of an important debate with the Pharisees. The disciples tried to prevent them from disturbing that debate. One thing is sure, and that is that they would never have driven candidates for baptism away if J esus had taught them that infants shou ld be bapt ized . The only reason why Dr. Saarnivaara brings up this question of J esus and the children is to establish h is con– tention that children can receive the kingdom of God and that since the kingdom is received by faith, they can also believe. Martin pins J ohn Bapstead down step by step (Continued on page 16) •