BAPTiSM?

FIDES ALIENA

Augustine admitted that baptism must have faith as its prerequisite. He also admitted that infants can't do that. So, for Augustine, the church believes for the infant.

ECCLESIA TRIUMPHANS

Many scholastics who followed Augustine then said that the triumphant church in heaven is the source of "faith" for infants. But how so? Because they no longer need their faith and it is deposited into a treasury of merits.

FIDES PROPRIA or FIDES INFANTIUM

When our hot-headed friend Luther took the stage, he too insisted that faith and baptism must not be divorced. But for Luther, the issue was the faith of the one being baptized ["propria"]. Because he followed the robust rationale of much Medieval thought, he did not hesitate to say that reason is often a hinderance to faith. Thus, infants, because they are unscathed by reason, actually can have faith. "In baptism, the infants themselves believe and have their own faith."

DE BAPTISMO

"De Baptismo" was a powerful tract published by Zwingli in which he parted ways with Rome, Luther, and many of his Anabaptist friends. In it, he wrote,

In this matter of baptism, if I may be pardoned for saying it, I can only conclude that all the doctors have been in error from the time of the apostles. This is a serious assertion, and I make it with such reluctance that I had not been compelled to do so by contentious spirits, I would have preferred to remain silent.

Zwingli divorced faith and baptism and went on to maintain the covenantal argument for baptism that is commonly held today among most paedobaptists. He was not the first to do so, but definitely one of the most polemically outspoken of his time.

For anyone who has read to this point, you're a nerd. I just needed to iron this out on a keyboard.

I've just recently read the best defense of infant baptism I've ever read. It is still unconvincing, but well-argued. It's called "What About Baptism?" by Ralph E. Bass, Jr. There are some blatant slips and errors in the book, but it's still quite direct and thoughtful. For example, he claims that the Greek word "didache" means "twelve." He was just wrongly taught on that one. It means "teaching." He also makes several systematic assumptions on the text. We all do, but Ralph's are a little too strong.

I still find "Believer's Baptism" by Schreiner and Wright to be more faithful to the biblical witness. Does it have it's own scattering of questionable logic? Sometimes. Do I agree with every jot and tittle of interpretation? Not necessarily. Do they understand the covenantal nature of the story of God revealed in the Scriptures? You bet. Is there a type-o on page 230 in my copy? Yes. But still, this book seems to put baptism closer to the final exhortation of Jesus to His disciples in Mt 28.18-20. I feel that it keeps baptism closer to the gospel, the new covenant, and the consummation of the eschaton.

Now, to both of you who endured this, leave some comment expressing your disapproval that I will likely not respond to :)

ROMANS 7 [this is boring and really just for john paulling, tom schreiner, and doug moo]

Many argue for a pre-regenerate reading of Paul in Rom 7. This is, of course, in contrast to the historical Reformed way it has been read – that Paul is describing Christian sentiments. First of all, 7 comes before 8 in most Bibles. Thus, the supposed war of 7 should always be read in view of the victory through the Spirit in 8. However, there are some lovely constructions in the Greek that show that the way this text has normally been read is appropriate.

Paul’s line of argument, his grammar, and his use of conjunctions throughout Rom 7 prove that Rom 7.14-20 is a singular thought. This first chart shows that Paul uses almost the exact syntactical structure in vs.14-16 as he does in vs.18-20. This highlights 7.17. Why is this important?

The pre-regenerate readings of Rom 7 say that the present tense verbs are “historical” presents and that Paul's use of "I" is not a personal testimony, but a rhetorical device. These are viable options. But look at 7.17. If this structure sandwich confirms that the meat here is 7.17, then how we understand it could help us on how this passage should be read.

Several points must be made about 7.17. The first two words are a phrase that is used for emphatic time indication [also in 3.21, 6.22, 7.6, 15.23, and 15.25]. This fact alone should be enough to warrant veracity to the historic interpretation. However, there is further evidence. The third word is a negative adverb of time. Then, if stacking three present time words together wasn’t enough, Paul uses two present tense verbs beside one another as if to say, “I myself alone am [not] doing….”

The second chart is not as swaying, but is still icing on the credible cake [I need better word pictures]. It is also a grammatical structure that centers in on the present tense regenerate Paul and his struggles. If you don’t like all this, Doug Moo has better support for both positions in his NICNT Romans commentary on pages 442-452.