The Baptist Presbyterian Hermeneutical Baptism Spiral

The baptism discussion has been brewing for a while now with this article being apparently very influential. Having grown up as a Baptist, I am intimately familiar with every Baptist argument for both credobaptism and immersion. Not only am I familiar with the arguments, I have, up until recently, staunchly defended both. During my time in a Baptist seminary I began questioning the legitimacy of an exclusively immersion position, not because I disagreed with immersion, but because I could see the possibility of other options. (Cf. Acts 1:5 and Acts 2:33). That discussion is for another time.

More importantly to me right now is the question of the legitimacy of holding either a credo- or paedobaptist position exclusively. In other words, I am not convinced that either side of the debate can call the other heretical. Thankfully, most in the debate are not doing so on paper, but in practice it seems to come to that at times.

Not Merely an Exegetical Issue

Interestingly enough, I’m not at all convinced that there is a single text of Scripture that settles the issue. If there were, we wouldn’t have such a wide variety of people in our list of evangelical heroes: men like Piper, Packer, Sproul, Grudem, Duncan, Dever, etc. These men differ on their baptism positions, but they are all phenomenal scholars and pastors. Scholars and pastors who, by the way, speak in each other’s churches and at each other’s conferences, who call each other dear friends and who willingly work and write together.

If the baptism issue were clear cut, black and white, a matter of just reading the Bible, then these men would likely be on the same side of the discussion it seems. I say this because there seem to be much less clear issues in which Baptists and Presbyterians find common ground: the Trinity, for instance, or aspects of the Lord’s Supper perhaps.

So why is it that neither the Baptists nor the Presbyterians can prove their point by simply appealing to Scripture?

I propose that the reason Baptists and Presbyterians keep butting heads over baptism is that each assumes its conclusions when reading the baptism texts.

Now, I realize that this is pretty much a logical fallacy called “begging the question.” Of course, we all do it all the time, even in our hermeneutics. No one approaches Scripture with a tabula rasa. No doctrine more clearly illustrates the reality of the hermeneutical spiral than that of baptism.

It works like this: We begin with assumptions about the nature of salvation and baptism and the church. We then read Scripture in order to have our assumptions informed by truth. We come away with our assumptions confirmed and strengthened or at times slightly altered. Then we read Scripture again with the same goal in mind only to find that our new assumptions have given us a new perspective on the same passages of Scripture we read before. Now, lo and behold, we have another set of strengthened or altered assumptions. And the spiral continues.

At some point in the process we come to accept our conclusions/assumptions as truth, and rightly so. This hermeneutical process ought to allow us to discover the truth if we are willing to let the text of Scripture influence our assumptions and presuppositions.

The problem is that in the baptism discussion there are a host of assumptions and presuppositions that influence our study of Scripture.

As a Baptist, one will most likely understand salvation primarily, though not necessarily exclusively, in terms of the individual. The Church is made up of individuals who profess faith in Christ. Individuals identify with Christ and his Church by being baptized.

As a Presbyterian, one will most likely understand salvation primarily, though not necessarily exclusively, in terms of the community. The Church is a community of communities whose members profess faith in Christ for themselves and in cases on behalf of the smaller communities (families). Communities (families) identify with Christ and his Church by being baptized.

This is a world view distinction, not simply a theological distinction. Watch how it works with the following passage:

Acts 2:37-39 37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off– for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

A Baptist sees in this passage the conviction of the Holy Spirit upon the life of an unbeliever, the unbeliever’s subsequent desire, Peter’s command to repent first and then be baptized, followed finally by Peter’s declaration in verse 39 that the promise of God’s Spirit is for all of God’s chosen individuals who repent and are subsequently baptized.

Interestingly, a Presbyterian sees almost the same thing with the caveat that these unbelievers are adults and that the promise in verse 39 is extended to all of God’s chosen ones and their children regardless of whether they are Jew or Gentile.

The distinctions are indeed subtle, but obviously important. It didn’t click with me until very recently that I had read every baptism passage in the NT without the understanding that the people coming to faith were indeed adult converts from Judaism and Paganism. Baptists then assume that the pattern established with these converts applies as well to children of believers. So then, a child of a believer is a pagan and must grow up as a pagan until he or she comes to faith in Christ. At that point, this individual enters into the covenant community and receives the sign of the covenant: baptism.

Now, however, I see that all of these instances of baptism in the NT are missionary baptisms. There are no instances or examples of what happens to one of these convert’s new-born children two years later. The only thing that comes close is a household baptism. The household baptism recorded in Acts 16 is fascinating:

Acts 16:33-34 33 At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34 The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God– he and his whole family.

The jailer comes to faith in Christ and his whole family is baptized. Now, here are the two Baptist arguments:

1. The passage says nothing about there being infants or children in the family, and
2. verse 34 explicitly says that the whole family “had come to believe in God.”

I would respond that you are absolutely right. That is just the point I am making: This passage does not settle the issue. Clearly there is something going on here that Presbyterians see that Baptists do not and that Baptists see that Presbyterians do not. For the Baptist, it is inconceivable that one could not understand what is so clearly stated, namely, that the jailer’s family all believed and then were baptized. For the Presbyterian, it is inconceivable that one could not understand the familial nature of this covenant community: The father believed and the whole family entered the covenant. To a Presbyterian, anyone familiar with the OT would grasp that.

Herein lies the dilemma. Baptists and Presbyterians alike begin with their world view and theological conclusions in mind and then interpret Scripture in light of those conclusions. So my conclusion is this: If you are a Baptist, then hold to credobaptism in humility, acknowledging that your Presbyterian brothers are indeed brothers in Christ. Do not view them as disobedient. Let them eat at the Lord’s Table in your church. Love them and disagree lovingly. If you are a Presbyterian, then hold to paedobaptism in humility, acknowledging that your Baptist brothers are indeed brother in Christ. Do not view them as disobedient. Let them eat at the Lord’s Table in your church. Love them and disagree lovingly.

Each baptism position is consistent with its own theological grid and world view. Neither Baptists nor Presbyterians should be ashamed of their respective positions on baptism. Instead, they should understand their differences with one another and continue to serve together in the body in humility and grace. I agree with Piper. We ought to be able to worship together despite our differences.

UPDATE: Uri Brito uses the same line of reasoning in an excellent post here.