Today while driving the countryside, I finally had the opportunity to listen to the Bill Shishko/James White debate on the subject of credo-baptism verses paedo-baptism. Shishko defended the paedo position by appealing to the standard household baptism as found in the Book of Acts. What I found a little different about his argument in this particular debate is his paralleling the NT era of household baptism with Noah and his belief saving his family through baptism.
The parallel is striking. God saw Noah as a righteous man. God commanded Noah to build an Ark. Through the faith of Noah the Ark was built, and as a result his family was saved. On the surface, I was impressed.
Thinking about that argument though has caused me to ask some questions. Did his children believe or disbelieve the faith of Noah? In other words, was Noah’s faith theirs as well, or did they just go along for the ride?
The Scriptures say that it took a hundred years to build the Ark. Did Noah’s sons assist Noah in building it? I assume that would have been the case. Now would they have built it if they were unbelievers? Were they morally neutral? And saying to themselves, “Well dad may have been called to build the Ark or he may not have been, but we’ll help because he is our dad.”
The Scriptural facts are, they were all saved from perishing in the flood. Even if they had babies on board, the children would have been saved. Is this really a parallel to the NT? If I baptize my baby, he is certain to be saved from the judgment? Or is there more going on?
Then I thought of Lot. Now Lot was considered by God as a righteous man. God sent messengers to Lot and told him to leave the city of Sodom. His sons-in-law did not believe Lot’s faith. And as they were leaving Lot’s wife disobeyed and was turned into a Pillar of Salt. Was Lot’s faith insufficient? Or did his household not believe and receive the faith of the head of the household?
The debate is very provocative. It will cause you to think through issues you may have not thought of before, such as the New Covenant, Particular Redemption, Election and ect.. It will drive you to be consistent in your approach to Scripture and in your theology. You can get them here.
Soli Deo Gloria
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Excellent post!
I do think it is a parallel, but a parallel that doesn't support paedo baptism. Instead, Noah believed and his sons as well. Noah is head of the household, and his house believed along with him and were saved. This is what we see in the Book of Acts.
What if the sons did not believe? Would they have been saved anyway?
I think Noah is mentioned alone as believing in the same sense that Abraham is spoken of as the Father of believers. For they possess the same faith as Abraham, the faith in the promises of God.
I am not sure I understand the benefit/purpose of pedobaptism?
I am a paedobaptist. I must say James had quite a challenge on this one.
Anonymous # 2,
I loved this debate. There is nothing like 2 scholarly Bible believing men who take well thought arguments and seriously interact with them. The other thing I like is that both men "show up" to the debate thoroughly prepared knowing what the other side believes.
There is nothing like Iron sharpening Iron. You just don't get that anymore. Certainly not with the likes of Ergun Caner. So many Christians have no clue and do not want to.
I just loved it.
Post a Comment