Leithart on Baptism

The Baptized Body by Peter J. Leithart

My rating: 3 of 5 stars

For me, this book, like Leithart’s writings generally, was both a hit and a miss. Let’s take it from the top.

Chapter one, “Starting before the Beginning,” was intended to clear “enough ground to move ahead” to discuss the biblical texts about baptism. This chapter seemed a bit choppy, as Leithart’s hitting on different philosophical, ontological, and theological topics. It was intended to be controversial with section headings such as, “Why Sacraments Are Not Signs,” “Why Sacraments Are Not Means of Grace,” and “Why Sacraments Are Not Symbols.” That said, I found the concept of Sacraments as rituals to be compelling and helpful. Sacraments can, however, be signs, means of grace, symbols, AND rituals.

Read Full Post »

Schmemann’s For the Life of the World

For the Life of the World: Sacraments and Orthodoxy by Alexander Schmemann
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

This is my first contact with Alexander Schmemann. I am quite sure that I’ll make some time to explore him further, for I found this little book to be both gloriously illuminating and but also a bit scary.

As to the illumination, Schmemann proposes a view of the world that is enormously compelling. He sees the world “sacramentally.” I think what he means by that is that the world is God’s creation and is both to manifest his presence and also to be fellowship with us. Sin, of course, destroys the whole sacramental aspect of creation and now leads only to death. The church, however, is the sacrament to the world. It is through the church that God manifests his presence to humanity and has fellowship with creation, thus fulfilling creation. This sacramental church function is wonderfully Christ-centered and is expressed and lived in the Sacraments (do note the capital S) of the church. I found all this to be wonderful and refreshing, especially because I saw significant aspects of Postmillennialism and Van Tillian apologetics woven throughout. Not to mention that Schmemann (with his insightful attack on Secularism) would be death on RADICAL two-kingdoms theology. All this is splendid.

But not all is splendid, for the book is also scary. Schmemann did not intend this book as an apologetic for his Eastern Orthodox views of the Sacraments (all seven of them). Rather, it is more a description or an elaboration. Schmemann did not set out to “prove” anything, but rather to set forward or present his ideas. Well, ideas are dangerous things. Just because an idea (or a collection of them) is compelling does not make it correct or true. Holding, as I do, the Bible to be the final word on truth and “leitourgia,” I want to be very careful to weigh Schmemann (and everyone else for that matter) in the balance of God’s very Word. Where Schmemann has captured and articulated God’s truth, let him be our teacher. Where he has not, let God be true and every man a liar.

Finally, as I read this book, I saw Peter Leithart on about every page. Many of Pastor Leithart’s criticisms in The Baptized Body, for example, are quite clearly traceable to Schmemann’s influence (or at least so it seems to me). I mention that only in passing, not to paint Schmemann with a Leithart brush. I am quite sure that the discerning reading will benefit from Schmemann, even in he is opposed to Leithart’s thinking. However, it seems to me that if one wants to understand Leithart better, Schmemann would be a good place to start.

View all my reviews

Read Full Post »

Bromiley on the Sacraments in the Reformation

Sacramental Teaching and Practice in the Reformation Churches by Geoffrey W. Bromiley
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

I wasn’t sure what to think when I picked up this little volume. I don’t know too much about Bromiley, but I know he is responsible for translating a whole library of books into English, including works from Karl Barth, Wolfhart Pannenberg, and (if I’m not mistaken) even some Rudolf Bultmann. I therefore had my doubts about Bromiley’s ability to fairly reproduce a summary of the sacramental teaching and practice in the reformation churches. I have found in my studies of the theology of John Calvin that many interpreters who are influenced by so-called Neo-Orthodoxy have a tendency to recast Calvin in their own image. I feared that maybe Bromiley might be cut from that unsavory cloth.

I was happily surprised, then, to find that Bromiley’s handling of the topic was quite faithful to what I have come to understand as Reformation teaching. Now, I’ll own that I didn’t read this book with scrupulous care. (I largely read it at the side of a pool during the kids’ swimming lessons.) Even so, I found the book edifying and informative. It was well-organized and brief, making it an easy entrance into an admittedly difficult subject.

One thing that I thought was odd is that Bromiley essentially did not quote the Reformers. My recollection is that all the footnotes were references to Scripture. In other words, this little work was very much Bromiley’s condensation of Reformation teaching. This book is his summary, and it is a good summary.

View all my reviews

Read Full Post »

Union with Christ and the Mystery of Baptism

 

 

Baptism Hawaiian Style

Heidelberg Catechism #43

Q: What further advantage do we receive from Christ’s sacrifice and death on the cross?

A: Through Christ’s death our old selves are crucified, put to death, and buried with him, so that the evil desires of the flesh may no longer rule us, but that instead we may dedicate ourselves as an offering of gratitude to him.

Theological: Do you ever find yourself marveling at the way the Bible speaks of our definitive break from sin and darkness? I do. Paul tells us that our old man has been put to death in Christ, that we are new creations.

Read Full Post »

Hypocrites in the New Covenant?

This post is the second (here’s the first) in a series that should provide a biblical defense of the practice of infant baptism, and I admit that it’s way too long. I hope, however, that it is very clear and compelling. Having corresponded with my friend, I have come the conclusion that he holds to the spiritual unity between the believers before Christ and those of us after him, which was the concern of the first post. Since that is so, I hoping to progress in this post and examine the question of who is in the New Covenant. That is, is the New Covenant (NC) administration peculiar in that only the faithful are a part of it, or are unfaithful hypocrites also a part of the NC? The purpose of examining this question is that a significant number of folks hold that the NC is exclusively for the faithful (and thus quite distinct from the covenants that precede it). I think that such a view of the NC is incorrect. What’s more, I think it’s easy to show that such a view of the NC is incorrect. Finally, I think that such a view of the NC tends toward a misunderstanding of both the progression of administrations of the Covenant of Grace and the place of the children of believers in that Covenant. So, I’m still laying groundwork so that we can progress toward baptism and infant baptism specifically. Anyhoo… let us now look how the Bible views the NC and who it includes in that covenant.

Read Full Post »

Old on the Reformed Baptismal Rite

The Shaping of the Reformed Baptismal Rite in the Sixteenth Century by Hughes Oliphant Old

My rating: 5 of 5 stars

I found this book to be fascinating, greatly informative and easily accessible. Old offers a look at the development of the practice of baptism among the Reformers, but in so doing he gives us much more than that. For anytime one studies the Reformers, one necessarily studies all of church history before the Reformers. This book offers a sweeping (but detailed) view of the baptismal rite from NT times into the early Christian centuries, through the long Middle Ages into the Reformation. Old analyzes changes in the rite of baptism in light of historical, political, and theological developments in the church and the culture generally. He demonstrates how the baptismal rite developed through the centuries and what the Reformers had to work with as they set to reforming the baptismal rite in their own churches. I’ve read a good deal about the Reformed doctrine of baptism, but I was blown away by how much I didn’t know about the Reformed practice of baptism. Further, I am impressed at how conversant the Reformers were (generally, but specifically with regard to baptism) with the early and medieval church. The Reformers (and Old’s presentation of their work and thought) should encourage us to read more broadly and be less provincial. This is an excellent book and is highly recommended for anyone interested in the doctrine and practice of baptism in the Reformed churches.

View all my reviews

Read Full Post »

Baptism, Identity, and Education

Dear child, do you wish to lead a Christian life and to live according to the will of God our heavenly Father?

Yes, dear father, for I have been baptized in the name of God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit….

These are the opening words from Martin Bucer’s catechism from 1534. Note that the child’s identity is wrapped up in their baptism. “Do you want to live in a way that pleases God?” “Yes, for I am baptized.” That’s not a full answer, but it’s a fine start. We train up our children to grow up into who they are: children of God. Further, note the strong connection between discipleship and baptism, which is drawn from (among other places) Mt 28. Bucer’s commitment to Christian pedagogy also made Strasbourg a thriving center of evangelical education.

(Drawn from Hughes Oliphant Old’s The Shaping of the Reformed Baptismal Rite in the Sixteenth Century [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992], 186.)

Read Full Post »

Background for Infant Baptism

So, I’m working with a friend on the issue of infant baptism. I’m going to take my emails to him and (with a tiny bit of polish) post them here. Here’s my design: I want to work through and present the broad theological consideration from which the practice of infant baptism is flows and in which it’s rooted. I won’t be throwing in any zingers or wise cracks (sorry to say) – I’m aiming at being very transparent and understandable. The fact that these posts are slightly polished emails will, I think, detract from their general usefulness. I am, however, hoping that they will be clear enough to help people understand the broad theological basis for the practice of infant baptism. I’ll be happy to answer questions in the comments… might throw in a few fun zingers down there. 🙂

Read Full Post »

How Important is Faith?

Heidelberg Catechism #43

Q. What further advantage do we receive from Christ’s sacrifice and death on the cross?

A. Through Christ’s death our old selves are crucified, put to death, and buried with him, so that the evil desires of the flesh may no longer rule us, but that instead we may dedicate ourselves as an offering of gratitude to him.

Theological: Romans 6 (among other passages) teaches us that we were buried with Christ in baptism. The blessings of that baptism are received by faith

Read Full Post »

Consistency in Baptismal Thought

My friend, Kris Kord, has a snazzy new blog. I don’t condone blogspot, but he’s done okay with it. 🙂

He just posted a useful article on infant baptism… well, not really. The post was on the purpose of baptism with a view to answering some common questions regarding infant baptism. I think he’s done a good job. (Here is another useful site on infant baptism.) What I’d like to add to the discussion is a plea for consistency. It goes a little something like this: “PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEEEEASE be consistent!” Since that kind of pleading usually doesn’t work, I’ll go ahead and examine a couple of the patent inconsistencies in the thought processes of many who oppose the biblical doctrine and practice of infant baptism.

Starting with Kris’s third question: “Doesn’t infant baptism give false assurance?” Kris’s answer is that infant baptism can, to be sure, be misused and misunderstood. But here’s the consistency issue: can’t “believer’s baptism” also be misused and misunderstood in EXACTLY the same ways? If a child coming up can misunderstand his baptism and be deluded into a false assurance, what stops an adult from similarly deluded? Nothing. What’s a potential problem for paedobaptists is also a potential problem for credobaptists. Thus, this question provides no basis for opposition to infant baptism. We should all, rather, encourage one another to be faithful to our baptisms by each of us serving Christ with our whole heart, soul, mind and strength.

Kris’s fourth question has to do with an infant’s ability to understand, and thus to benefit from, his baptism. First off, I’ll grant that, at the time of his/her baptism, the infant probably doesn’t know too much about what’s going on or what it means. This, however, is not a sure thing; John the Baptist proves this (Luke 1:41 ff.). Again, a consistency issue: I submit that most people who are baptized upon the basis of a credible profession of faith know very little, too. Honestly. The thirteen-year-old, or the thirty-year-old have just a beginning of knowledge of what baptism is and means. They’ll grow into that baptism for the rest of their life. The same it true of infants: they’ll grow into their baptism throughout the rest of their lives. The only difference here is one of degree, not one of kind. On a personal note, I suspect that my first-born (five years after his baptism as an infant) knows a good deal more theology (specifically Trinitarianism and Christology) than your standard Evangelical five years after his “believer’s baptism.” So, again, this knowledge issue does not provide a basis to oppose infant baptism.

I want everyone to know that infant baptism isn’t done in presumption. It’s done in faith, and it leads to action. God chose Abraham and give the sign and seal of circumcision to him and his children (including 8-day-old infants). Immediately afterward, God said this: “For I have chosen him, that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice, so that the LORD may bring to Abraham what he has promised him” (Gen 18:19). May we all so command our children and households. May we all simply take God at his word and trust that he’s a God to us and to our children… to a thousand generations.

Read Full Post »