Go to the index of other articles to do with Baptismal Integrity.
Go to John's Brinkster Home Page.
Update 42 page 8.
In Update 42:
New name
Why infants?
Baptism in CW
Baptism & Fathers
Does history compel?
Is history so clear?
Baptists' integrity
Table fellowship
If God gave
Reborn again
But does history compel the present?
Roger Godin, vice-chair of Baptismal Integrity, replied in the Church of England Newspaper to Colin Buchanan and Michael Saward
Like the indefatiguable Michael Saward and the inimitable Colin Buchanan, I too made many Synod speeches on infant baptism. So perhaps I may join the debate now - always conscious that lay folk who dare to take them on run the risk of being theologically and patristically stampeded.
Colin Buchanan gives a very balanced statement of the supposed evidence, including Tertullian speaking against the practice! In his honesty he includes the words ‘strong possibility’, ‘may have suggested’, ‘likelihood’ and so on. Is not such uncertainty in evidence by itself evidence of uncertainty?
I can agree with Colin that ‘it appears reasonable to suggest that everything that is involved in being Christian at all is symbolised in baptism.’ But that does not mean scripture requires baptism of infants who are unable to express their opinion on the subject!
Although Michael provides fascinating history, I just cannot see that evidence of the practice of the early church means that it is necessarily the correct interpretation of scripture. After all, scripture itself includes many examples of practices that were definitely not models for today’s church.
I can and do rejoice when young people are baptised - however limited their understanding - but where is the scriptural base for adults speaking on behalf of the (sometimes asleep or rebelling) baby? Whilst I accept the integrity of those who argue ‘covenant theology’, there is surely an alternative construction. Those circumcised children were born into Jewish families: there was no doubt about their heritage. The parallel for baptism breaks down totally where neither parent is a Christian. And whilst I accept that 1 Cor 7:14 points to a special spiritual relationship through a believing parent, saying they are ‘holy’ does not mean they are born again - but in a special position. And I can see no Old Testament evidence that an equivalent sign was given to girls. Proselytes are clearly Yahweh believers.
Yes, paedobaptists will always differ from what Colin calls the ‘phalanx’ of the majority of other non-Roman Catholic Christians. But I urge a far more positive approach. More and more in secular society I find both parents and Christian young people who are sorry about having been baptised before they believed. Without faith, the sign of baptism seems empty. With faith, and being able to testify of the love of Christ personally, dramatically reinforces the sacrament. It is sad that many such pass on to other denominations.
So if there are some Christian parents out there who are hesitating, let’s be clear. Since all but ex opere operato believers agree that baptism does not make baby a Christian, what is lost through making a powerful sign of commitment through a well-planned Thanksgiving service releasing the child for the wonderful moment of being baptised as a believer? Boldly go where Tertullian led!
Go to the index of other articles to do with Baptismal Integrity.
This web page was last updated on 14th January 2003.
Go to John's Brinkster Home Page.