A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul. And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us. (Acts 16:14-15)
I want to preface this by saying that I hold to covenant theology and infant baptism, but I don't think it is a fundamental issue for the church.
This verse has been used to "prove" that baptism should be performed not just on believers, but also their children. The central argument is that Lydia believed and her household was baptized, with the assumption that her household didn't necessarily believe. What is ironic is that the word "household" becomes both a reason to include children in baptism, yet exclude them from communion.
I'm trying to find a link to a pamphlet, but there is a Reformed brochure in many RP churches on paedocommunion. The author claims that if there is any proof that children partook in the passover, then children should not be excluded from communion. When faced with:
Speak to all the congregation of Israel, saying, ‘On the tenth of this month they are each one to take a lamb for themselves, according to their fathers’ households, a lamb for each household. (Ex 11:3)
The author proposed that "households" is NOT meant to be inclusive of children, so Ex 11:3 is not proof that children took part in the Passover meal. Seems like Reformed theologians want to argue different meanings for the same word in order to justify their particular views. Isn't it eisegesis to put one's view above the Scripture? This is the sort of hermeneutical compartmentalization we come to expect from Reformed-types. As long as the argument makes sense for baptism, who cares if the argument makes sense for communion?
So, I think there are two reasonable approaches to the church through scripture. The first is the view of covenant theology. Israel was a nation of families, and thus the church has hereditary characteristics. So, children are included in the church, like they were in Israel. The second is the view that the church is those who have professed faith, without a hereditary component.
Of course, the RPCNA botches this. For baptism, it's hereditary. For communion, it's profession of faith. They try to explain it like voting or driving - I'm a citizen of the US, but I can't vote until I'm 18. However, I don't have to take an oath or profess loyalty to the US in order to vote.
Baptists tend to be more consistent. Baptism and Communion are upon profession of faith.
The end argument ends up being completely historical. Because Reformers and Baptists clashed over baptism and covenant theology, we are the beneficiaries of that schism. So, church leaders on both sides are going to assert a fundamental belief. This is where I have issues.
It's okay to be a baptist RP, as long as you don't have children. If you have children and join an RP church, refusing to baptize your children will get you put under church discipline and potentially excommunicated. I was told this by a person who waited a year to join the RPCNA because he hadn't been convinced of infant baptism. I also know a couple who were baptists, but were allowed to join without discipline because their children were old enough to decide for themselves whether to get baptized.
In the same way, I know RPs who wanted to join a baptist church and were forbidden until they were baptized.
It seems to me that baptism and communion are secondary issues and we shouldn't be forcing people into a specific view of one or the other in order to maintain fellowship. Do we really think all Baptists are heretics because they don't baptize their children? If not, why would we excommunicate someone over the issue? Maybe it's because "insubordination" is considered worse than doctrinal error?
No comments:
Post a Comment