Booth on Baptism (part 1)

I decided to listen to the recent poll which suggested that I should first read up more fully on the topic of infant baptism before dealing into material from the credo-baptist viewpoint. For the past week or so I've been reading Booth on Baptism during my bus travels, and am now about 60% of the way through the book. Rather than focusing on Booth's arguments, I instead want to think of his attitude and some of the possible implications of this debate.

I've read a lot of bad writing in which both sides present horrible caricatures of their opponents. I wasn't quite too sure what to expect from Booth given that I was recommended the book by a paedobaptist, but that soon changed. One Mark Dever, a baptist whose name might be recognized by some of you, mentioned that it was a shame that a guy named Booth held certain views on a particular topic as he had written such a great book on infant baptism. I suppose that it's possible that he was referring to some other author, but there's not an incredibly large market for books on infant baptism and Booth isn't the most common name around either.

Delving into the first few pages of the book, I discovered that the author spent the first chapter attempting to set a proper tone for the discussion. He noted that oftentimes it seems either to "be quiet, get in line, and don't bother your neighbor" (p. xi) but that God calls us to live changed lives and to diligently search the scriptures for the truth.

How should the debate be framed:

People commonly protect their beliefs not by a solid, reasoned defense from the Bible, but by carelessly misrepresenting opposing views ... We need to understand exactly what our brother's positions are before we attempt to expose their weaknesses.

How can we possibly oppose what we do not understand? We know we understand an opposing view only when we are able to articulate it and receive the affirmation of our opponent that we have accurately represented his position. Only then can we proceed to argue against it. It does not take a big man to push over a straw man - little men are up to this simple task. (pgs. 3, 5)

These words of Booth setup the overall focus of the debate, but the tone also needs to be defined. In terms of focus, what Booth aims for is clear, reasoned argument in which an opponent can agree with Booth's assessment of his views. (And in this case Mark Dever, seems to serve the role of that agreeing opponent). The attempt at defining a tone for the debate comes next, and it is summed up by the word humility:

Humility must guide our discussion. This does not forbid expressions of enthusiasm or confidence in one's position; nor does it exclude vigorous exchanges between sincere Christians. It does, however, exclude arrogance, rudeness, and anger. The fruit of the Spirit must be manifest even in our disagreements with one another ... Our goal must be to build up Christ's church, not to divide it. Brothers have often wounded one another needlessly over the topic of baptism with hasty and unkind words. No one has ever won anything in such a debate - only losers emerge from the fray. Destructive debate ... is especially inappropriate in dealing with baptism - a sign of our union with Christ and consequently with one another.

I must admit to having someone of a vested interest in the outcome of this debate given that I'm a member of a paedobaptist church, although the same could be said for Booth who went from being a credobaptist pastor to practicing paedobaptism. Thus it's with some trepidation that I approach this topic.

The easiest outcome would be to become a more convinced paedobaptist, but that's not guaranteed at this point . What should be the impact were I to become a credobaptist? I mentioned my undecidedness in this area when chatting with Shawn about theology prior to joining my present church. At the time it seemed sufficient to agree to future discussion should it come to pass that I disagree with the official PCA position there. Beyond discussion, no course for further action was set.

Where on the spectrum of things does the issue of baptism lie? The PCA isn't as rigidly paedobaptist as some other denominations - there are attendees who disagree with the church on this issue but still participate. The Westminster Confession mentions All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all (chapter I, section VII), and I've tended to classify time of baptism as one of the less clear things in scripture.

To steal a line from Sovereign Grace Ministries:

As important as baptism is, we do not believe that it should be a source of contention among Christians. (We must, however, disagree firmly with a doctrine known as "baptismal regeneration," inasmuch as this position endangers the gospel itself.)

While we do not believe in infant baptism, we wholeheartedly embrace as brothers and sisters in Christ the many Christians who sincerely hold this view (assuming, of course, commonality of the gospel and other core doctrines such as the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, etc.).

(I copied this from the FAQ of one of the churches in this "family" but I think that this statement was previously posted to the main website for the group).

Somewhat clearer to me than the manner of practice of baptism is Hebrews 13:17a (ESV): Obey your leaders and submit to them. This principle has been encapsulated by 9 Marks as the Ninth Mark of a Healthy Church Member -- Follows Leadership. Which is the trump card - the issue of baptism or the principle of following leadership? How do these two competing principles balance each other out? In a place where leaders might disagree with your views, how confident do you need to be that you're correct prior to changing your practice?

Should a possible change on the matter of baptism result in a migration to a different church regardless of the views of leaders in my present one? Should the leadership encourage me to seek out another church? Should the PCA attempt to officially accomodate both views on baptism as some denominations like the Evangelical Covenant do?

A lot of baptists that I've spoken to seem to regard the intention to get baptized if convinced you should to be sufficient. For example, Albert Mohler of Southern-Baptismdom once advised a caller on his radio program not to baptize (yet) new converts who were under the age of majority and whose parents were opposed to this being conducted. Odds are that within a few years at the moment I'll be moving to a different city, which would also be a convenient point at which to change churches. Even if I were to change my mind on the matter of baptism, should I change my practice prior to this point?

Perhaps in posting this I'm merely confirming a Presbyterian stereotype: that it's a group better at thinking about things than actually doing them. It might be a good idea to spend the time actually deciding whether or not to change my view on this subject before examining in detail all the contingencies that might result from a change.

Anyways, there's a lot left to read... 400 pages or so left before I finish both books.