Skip to main content

A Thought On Baptism, And Scripture Alone

Let me be direct, and brief: you can't settle the question of whether to baptize infants or not from Scripture alone. Strictly speaking, Scripture doesn't "say" anything. All appeals to Scripture are appeals to an interpretation of Scripture. Once you get past all the impressive citations of particular passages, it's an unwinnable argument, from either side. Bad faith and theological-dogmatic relativism are the most obvious results.

This is very simply why we have a Magisterium in holy mother Church, and why said Church claims to be the one Christ founded, because it is. It is reasonable to believe such because that which all Christians hold in common despite their divisions cannot be accounted for without the authority of the Catholic Church. And such an authority, so visible, and so constant through these many centuries, must be divine, if we grant that God has spoken at all.

There does need to be an acknowledgment that the paedobaptist--despite his efforts to distance himself from that Church he denies--is reliant on her teachings and practices, even unwittingly. In saying this, I do not intend to indicate that I think credobaptism is correct; on the contrary. Baptize your babies as soon as you can, and the Church is happy to help. I simply want the baby-baptizer to admit when he is relying upon apostolic tradition. (Or Tradition.)

For my part, paedobaptism doesn't fit in a monergistic system at all. That is, a system where only one actor does the work. It is a relic of sacramentality, of enchantment, you might say. A good Presbyterian may add whatever qualifications he likes, or denials. When he baptizes his infant children, he harkens back to his Catholic roots. Also, the very nature of a sacrament, while testifying to divine gratuity, also testifies to co-operation as strongly. The consistency of the radicals in their total rejection of all things Roman Catholic, bears witness to that.

Perhaps some attempt to carve out middle positions that never existed, because the sting of "heretic" is too much to bear.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un