I am just
not so sure about Macleod’s intention behind his Oy-Yoy-Yoy! Has he been reading Luther too much of late?! Not so long
ago Macleod seemed more irenic: “I
don't regard this debate between Baptists and Paedobaptists as a
debate about fundamentals…The divergence itself is not one between
Christians and non-Christians. It is very much an in-house division,
dividing for example, men such as C. H. Spurgeon and John Kennedy,
who on all fundamentals were agreed”
[Donald Macleod - A Faith To Live By]
David
Robertson - as expected - has already robustly responded (see here)!
Who says there is no fun in the Free Church?! See how these
Christians love each other! The world has already taken note, voting
with its feet, a long time ago! Less
heat, more
light!
Theological
blogaholics should, of course (apologies to my socialist friends), be
free to speak their mind (not always necessarily identical with
Christ’s own mind), but what for? To attract seekers, to persuade
outsiders, to promote the Christification of the Church? I would like
to think so!
Sadly,
both articles remind me of how the Church is made up of 'them', viz.
those who are right on baptism, and 'us', that is to say, the wet
baddies!!! The 'one'
baptism that has caused so much division! At least we may thank
Calvin's God for not living in a theocracy - well, 'living' is the
wrong term for our Baptist friends!
I recall
reading an article by another Free-kirker ‘What does the Bible say about infant baptism?’
The
answer: Nothing! The Bible is not even quoted! I have no idea what
such men are on about!
As to the
razzmatazz on ‘dry baptism’ I sympathise with Robertson. He [like
so many of us] is inconsistent, yet accommodating! Wrong in the head
- right in the heart! It doesn't make me feel so bad, after all! In
passing, it was a paedo-baptist who would have agreed with Robertson:
“It can ...be argued that the parents' desire to dedicate their
child to God and to pray for its salvation might be better expressed
in a service of thanksgiving and prayer (although admittedly this is
not clearly attested in Scripture; see, however, Luke 2:22-24), so
that the child may experience personally the full significance of
baptism when he has come to conscious faith in Jesus.” [I Howard
Marshall - A Pocket Guide to New Testament Theology]. God alone is
Lord of the conscience!
It’s
rather odd that Macleod does not see himself as a Baptist. A most able
paedo-baptist expositor of the Westminster Confession complains more
logically in regard to his opponents, “They now assume the name of
Baptists; but this designation we cannot concede to them, if it be
intended to insinuate that others do not baptise, and are not
baptised, agreeably to the principles of the gospel.” [Robert Shaw
- An Exposition Of The Westminster Confession Of Faith]. The Free
Church has a biblical mandate to baptise believers and may even do so
by immersion (the biblical mode according to Calvin) - with a good conscience! I am not so sure about her
right or wisdom to exclude Spurgeon or Lloyd-Jones from the ministry!
But that’s perhaps for another day!
Back to Macleod. Worse still,
and most disturbing, his own baptism seems to do little to assure him
of his personal standing before God, as can be seen from his last
sentence! Can one not be a paedo-baptist will full assurance? I doubt
it!
What good is it Macleod saying
that 'at the moment I would much prefer to be reflecting on the
mediatorial work of Christ' (sic)?! Of what good is a de-gospelised
theology that leaves one in despair over one's eternal destiny?
I
have had to remind myself that baptism is a Gospel (good news)
ordinance, but its abuse (Southern Baptists, too, take note!) has
brought Christ and the Church into disrepute!
Take, for example, the
two established Churches - with their post-apostolic roots - of the UK!
These venerable institutions both
nourish and tolerate, if
not promote,
heretics within their
bosom,
but woe to those who might refuse a parishioner 'to have their child
done!' Such – and perhaps such only – will be disciplined and lose their livelihood for coming out! Okay, that could have been phrased better!
At any
rate, the Kirk (and the Church
of England,
too, I note) is to – indeed, must
by law
- help with ‘hatching / yells, matching / bells, and dispatching /
knells’ its parishioners! It is always nice to feel to be wanted!
No need to ask with Dietrich Bonhoeffer, ‘are we still of any use?’!
The world has already answered that question! Plenty to keep us all occupied with
less important matters!
For
good measure Karl Barth – the greatest 20th
century theologian - may be consulted here.
The
Free Church of Scotland (generally speaking, though
with notable exceptions!)
has played along nicely, too, by practising indiscriminate baptism
for years, quite contrary to the explicit teaching of the Westminster
Confession, but
it would be unkind to say more! A recent article caught my attention: ‘What does the Bible say about infant baptism?’ The answer: Nothing! Well, that was my impression as the author does not quote Scripture at all! No wonder that those of us blessed with a smaller mind have been fermisht!
I,
too, like Macleod and Robertson admire Spurgeon, albeit to a lesser extent. He can have his say, “If
you see infant baptism in the Word, do not neglect it; if it be not
there, do not regard it”. (Sermon on Ephesians
4:30)
Well might we be asking, of
what use is to cry over spilled water when the baby has been thrown
out with the bathwater?
