Add to favorites Examiner Bio

Book Review - Baptism: Three Views

David Wright, ed. Baptism: Three Views. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2009. $16.00. Paper. 200 pages. ISBN 978-0830838561.

 

            It was unfortunate that the editor of this book, longtime University of Edinburgh professor David Wright was not able to see the completed version that he oversaw before his death. He would have been pleased with the work. Following in the series of many other two (or more) views on various theological topics comes the always touchy topic of baptism. It is certainly true that people tend to take their views on the matter of baptism (how, when, and why) based primarily on their theological presuppositions and subjective experiences as their premise. But if a person maintains an open mind while reading through this book, it is certain that they will learn a thing or two not only as relating to their “opposing” view, but also their own.

            A lot of people might be confused as to the need to present a third view. To be sure, this critique does not escape the writers of the other two more majority views! Nonetheless, having a dialogue comprised of three, or more (see also: Understanding Four Views on Baptism; Zondervan, 2007) does provide the uninformed reader as to a “third voice” in the dialogue juxtaposing just having two others have at each other. Rightly noted of course in the introduction by InterVarsity Press editor Daniel Reid, he warns that readers “might naturally gravitate toward the middle road….But this view is not posed as a theological and practical compromise. It is a view that stands foursquare on its own biblical, theological and historical basis.” (pg. 16)

            Thus begins three essays, two responses per essay and one rebuttal to the responses in each essay from each contributing author--- each with an attempt to show how their position is the best expression biblically, theologically, and historically. The first contributor is Seminary professor Bruce Ware arguing for the Believer’s Baptism perspective. Ware has never been afraid to lay all his theological convictions out on the table in his writings (see also: God’s Lesser Glory for a good example; Crossway, 2000). This is respectable because, at least in my own thinking, the issue of baptism is not just about the issue of baptism. “In actual fact one’s view of baptism is bound up with other theological and hermeneutical considerations.” (pg. 14) Ware is Reformed theologically, is a dispensationalist (pg. 42, footnote), a five-point Calvinist, and has a “low church” ecclesiology in the form of Baptist.

            So it is no surprise that Ware considers believer’s baptism (or more appropriately: convert’s baptism, as he later agrees with Lane on that argument) to be not only the best expression in a myriad of convoluted biblical, theological, and historical data; but he considers it to be the only plausible option—at least for those of us who take Scripture seriously. In reading Ware’s arguments over the course of the book, I noticed several things. First, he spends too much ink on the immersion vs. sprinkling debate; a debate that the other two authors don’t really object to as it is a nonissue for their own arguments.

Secondly, despite being very pro-sola Scriptura (pg. 175 especially; with emphasis on “reason” on page 176… peculiar) he spends a lot of time and effort to show from historical theology the validity of believer’s baptism. In other words, if proof texting could carry over to historical figures and “You see, Tertullian said…. so that proves believer’s baptism” then Ware would have an open and shut case. To be sure, Ware’s exegesis is commendable. He has a reputation as a man who really knows his Scripture and his argument shows that.

However, my concern with Ware third and lastly is that while the argumentation from Scripture is indeed important and central to the debate, I was disappointed in Ware’s lack of looking at the entirety of the Biblical canon (and hence, story of what God is doing to make the world right). Instead, you found no discussion of the Old Testament, and hence first century Judaic thought in the New Testament writers. There is discussion, in the form of explaining away, the infant baptist’s case for the importance of the covenant. Albeit, one could expect to have it be explained away in these terms with Ware if one is a dispensationalist.

Nonetheless, Ware’s essay and argumentation throughout the book provides a great example of how one’s entire theology plays into this particular discussion on baptism. One can always refute to Ware with a “Yeah, but…” statement; such as Ware’s discussion on “through faith” (pg. 27) with a “Yeah, but what about the ‘New Perspectives’ view on ‘through faith?” or a “Yeah, but…” on his discussion regarding the old and new covenants (pgs. 44ff). In short, Ware makes some solid points and presents the believer’s baptism perspective very well. Yeah, but….

            There are two other perspectives to read before the book is complete! Thus the dialogue continues on to Presbyterian minister and Seminary professor Sinclair Ferguson with the infant baptism view. Ferguson’s essay is probably the most “heady” out of the other essays. This is partly due to the case for infant baptism not being clearly viewed as black and white--- whether biblically, theologically, or historically. That is not to say that infant baptism is incorrect, but rather that the argument for infant baptism is very nuanced and in fact many people chase after the dreaded straw man while attacking this view.

            The bulk of Ferguson’s argument for infant baptism lies in the discussion about the covenant (the biblical part). Secondly, the argument is strengthened by Ferguson’s interpretation of post-Apostolic writings and figures from the first few hundred years after Pentecost (the historical part). Lastly, yet intertwining in both prior exaltations is the theological part, putting everything together and making it concise.

            The discussions on the covenant can best be summarized by Ferguson himself, “The rainbow was in fact first a sign of God’s promise to God himself. It then reassured Noah that God himself was reminded to remember his promise! Later the Abrahamic covenant had its own sign of circumcision (Gen. 17:11), while the ‘visible’ sign of the Mosaic covenant was the Sabbath day (Ex 31:16-17).” (pg. 85, emphases his). He goes on: “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.” (pg. 87).

            This biblical analysis from Ferguson can be closely elaborated on theologically. Something that only Ferguson talked about, which I really liked, was that the “Objective signification grounds the subjective realization.” (pg. 90) In other words, for Ferguson and the infant baptism perspective and contra the believer’s baptism attack to the straw man, there is a subjective element to baptism. However, it is grounded in an objective significance (that is, reality). The subjective element to the infant being baptized is the parents committing their child to the covenant of God (as well as the congregation in affirmation), with the objective element being the transformation of the individual being brought into that loving covenant. To put it logically: 1) God makes his covenant, while 2) his people respond to his covenant in either, 3a) faith and obedience (which brings blessing) or 3b) unbelief and disobedience (which brings cursing).

            For Ferguson, to add a nail in the coffin to his argument he draws from highly reliable and difficult to refute sources of information: the Didache and the early patristics in post-Apostolic times. Even more so to the point, Ferguson initiates a discussion on a potential threat to the historical case for infant baptism via Tertullian’s dispute of the practice. In short, “in his [Tertullian’s] case [disputing infant baptism was] set within the context of perceived laxity in the church…. But his arguments indicate that already by his time the practice of infant baptism was widespread, even if they do not by themselves indicate how long that had been the case.” (pg. 80)

            The reader by the end of Ferguson’s rebuttal to the refutations by the other two authors at the end of the essay might be scratching their head as to how a third view or even a compromised view can be reached. That is where London School of Theology professor Anthony Lane comes in with an attempt to not just reconcile or compromise the other two majority views, but as the introduction above affirmed to establish a whole new position that has its own theological, biblical, and in fact historical groundings.

            Right from the first paragraph (as one has gotten a glimpse of the assuredness from Lane in his responses), he is quite certain about his view being the “correct view” (pg. 139, his words). So what does this “correct view” encompass? For Lane, he begins his argument by posing the question: How does one become a Christian? He goes on to elaborate on this question by finally coming to the bulk of his argument, what he calls the “seismological approach”. This is the key to his argument in which he firmly acknowledges the ambiguity of either infant or believers (now argued as “convert’s”) baptism in both the Bible and in the first few hundred years of the Church.

Basically, he wants to start sooner and work backwards to find out what the Church was up to in that ambiguous time. He discusses Tertullian (a favorite in this debate apparently) for some time, opting more for recognizing the context in which Tertullian was speaking against infant baptism. As Lane says, “Tertullian believed that baptizing children was inexpedient; he did not claim that it was illegitimate, irregular or invalid. In short, Tertullian had no objection in principle to infant baptism.” (pg. 147, emphasis his)

            One thing that was peculiar about Lane’s argument (among many things, according to Ware and Ferguson’s refutations) is his heavy emphasis on “post baptismal sin” and “emergency baptism”—something the other two writers hardly if at all touch on. Yet, for Lane this is a large crux of his argument for a dual-practice for baptism and something that he sees quite clearly in the concerns of the post-Apolostic Fathers—a sort of synergistic blending between infant and believer’s.

Another peculiar argument from Lane is his discussion on the legitimacy of his view within mainstream orthodox thought. Noting that “Calls for an alternative approach [to either infant or believer’s] have even come from within the Roman Catholic Church.” and “In seventeenth-century England a group of Baptist churches began to accept either practice.” (both on page 165). One can only wonder as to the credibility of “a group of Baptist churches” or “calls for an alternative approach” coming from the Vatican are in any way “groups” who desire to be consistent with their own traditions and maintain reliable continuation of their Church’s theology. To be frank: surely these fringe groups of believers, while surely their intentions being noble, are in no way aligning with traditional Roman Catholicism or Baptist theology. A plea to all to maintain theological consistency in their tradition of choice should be prominently announced here, otherwise why are you part of that tradition at all?

In closing, this is a fantastic book for the layperson who desires to know more about “that bizarre other view” estrange from their own, or for the informed pastor/scholastic who is looking for a good reference or argumentation on this subject from noteworthy scholars. Whoever reads this book should do so with an open heart and engaging mind. Hopefully it will make you think about the issue of baptism in a new way, to learn about alien views so different from your own, and perhaps cause you to inquire more esoterically into either the opposing, or your own (!) view more in depth. Although David Wright did not live to see the completion of this book, he would surely have been proud at the (mostly) cordial and tact dialogue between the contributors—all of whom respect Professor Wright with high regard and credit his extensive work on this issue to their own thoughts on the matter.