10
Bonomo on Un-Catholic Baptists
Posted by Eric F. Langborgh on 10 Sep 2007 at 08:55 pm
It is likely to be a few more weeks before I am able to get back to my normal blogging practices, so I apologize again to my readers. In the meantime, I am pleased to post the following “guest blog” from my friend and brother in the Lord, Jonathan Bonomo, who originally posted his thoughts as a comment in the context of this thread over at Green Baggins. (NOTE: I have just posted an update and clarification of intent from Jonathan at the beginning of his article. I would merely like to add an “Amen!” to his additional thoughts.)
First, as way of introduction, like Jonathan, I spent many good years as a Christian as a member of a “Reformed” Baptist congregation. One of the issues that ultimately led me to reexamine my credobaptist-only convictions was my growing study and concern for the catholicity of the church. As Jonathan strongly hints at in his article here, Baptist ecclesiology is inherently anti-creedal — which will perplex my Baptist brothers who do recite the Creeds as part of their regular liturgy. Nevertheless, Baptist and congregational polity denies any real authority beyond the local congregation, and I was struck by the impossibility of any real catholic unity nor formulation of say, the Nicene Creed — so critical to defining the bounds of orthodoxy — if this form of ecclesiology had ever held sway the first 1600 years of Christendom. (Indeed, as Jonathan writes, the Baptistic system — which is held by all denominations and independent churches that deny paedobaptism — is in important aspects, just the polar opposite error of Roman Catholicism.) In Presbyterianism, by way of contrast, a robust, visible church and the formulation of the Creeds are indeed at least theoretically possible. In fact, it has been plausibly suggested by many that the early church was much more presbyterian in structure than the highly centeralized form it had taken in the West by the time the High Middle Ages rolled along. With that said, here is Jonathan’s excellent post (Note: This article was :
UPDATE and NOTE from Jonathan Bonomo: In my article that follows here below, I am sensitive to the fact that some may be offended by my thinking on this issue, so I want to be clear on one thing: I love my Baptist brothers. I believe them to be gravely mistaken on a number of very important points which strike at the heart of what I consider to be catholic and apostolic Christianity, but this does not keep me from embracing them as brothers in Christ and seeking to be united with them as much as humanly possible this side of heaven. I think the same of those faithful brethren in the Roman fold, even in the midst of my serious objections to their doctrine and practice and what I see as a serious deviation from the Gospel of the grace of God. I count neither Roman nor Baptist Christians my enemies, so saying that neither is a more desirable option for me than the other (were I to not be historically Reformed) is not, in my thinking, an insult to either side. The negative context in which this question was initially addressed in the comment thread at Green Baggins may be cause for unfortunate confusion as to the ethos of what I was trying to say, and so to state my opinion more positively: I believe that both faithful Baptists and faithful Romanists are my brothers, and therefore, I see neither side as being any worse than the other, just as I see neither as any better. I see both groups (of course, while recognizing many differences among particular individuals who are within either communion) as residing at two opposite ends of the ideological spectrum of historic Christianity, but nevertheless as component parts of the visible church of Jesus Christ, apart from which there is no ordinary hope of salvation. I have severe disagreements with both sides, but since my view of Christianity is not reducible to mere propositions, I can express brotherly affection toward those with whom I drastically differ in propositional matters.
In this regard, I stated thus in a comment in the thread which is linked to above:
I want to reiterate and be clear on one thing, because I think the ethos of what I am saying here has been misunderstood by Rev. Johnson, and therefore most likely by many others. I have many close friends who are Baptists. I love them. I pray for them. I have cordial relationships and brotherly discourse and debate with them on a regular basis. I have worshipped in their churches, been to their weddings, and grieved with them over their losses. Nothing I have said here has been meant to insult Baptists, but to simply be honest about what I see as a heretical ideological tendency that conditions the practice of re-baptism.
And to clarify yet again: when I say “heretical ideological tendency” here I’m not trying to anathematize people. I’m talking about an ideological tendency which I view as being opposed to the spirit of the Creed. This is all. So please, don’t go saying to people “Bonomo hates Baptists,” because it simply is not true, and to say that I have written anything which would imply such would be slander. Rather, if you have a bone to pick with me on this, you can tell people, “That lousy Bonomo loves Romanists as much as he loves Baptists, and thinks he is just as far from (and close to!) the one side as he is the other.” I know people will probably hate me for this too, but it would at least be an accurate portrayal of what I am actually trying to say. After all, I’ve come to grips with the fact that I will most likely be hated by folks no matter what, so I would like to at least be hated for reasons that at least approximate what I actually believe.
* * * * *
The Baptistic System is Un-Catholic by Jonathan Bonomo
When I speak of a “Baptist” tradition, I am speaking broadly of a basic doctrinal paradigm which reduces Christianity to a personal thing — a matter of merely personal salvation which ordinarily happens apart from any material means (i.e. the ministry of the Church in Word and Sacrament); says that one only becomes a member of the church because one has been saved outside of her rather than being saved by God through her (which is the historic Reformed position); therefore reduces the church to a mere collection of like-minded individuals, the sacraments to mere memorials of what is absent and badges of profession rather than sacred signs of what is present and actual means of grace; and thinks it is okay to break away from the rest of Christendom by claiming that they alone possess true Christian Baptism and therefore think it permissible, good, and necessary to re-baptize anyone not baptized in an “age of accountability.” This is what I mean by the term “Baptist.”
Baptists, as I understand them (and yes, I think it applies to all varieties, even the “Reformed” stripe) therefore cannot rightfully confess the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds. And this is a very serious issue, in my opinion. Sure, they can say the words “catholic church,” “communion of saints,” and “one baptism for the remission of sins,” but what they mean by these terms is manifestly different than what the faith of the church which framed these Creeds understood by them.
Thus, the Baptistic system is an uncatholic and heterodox position, in my opinion. Sure, there are better and worse forms of it, but in the end the basic underlying presuppositions remain the same. And I’m sorry, but much as I love and want to be united with my Reformed Baptist brothers, I simply cannot be: no more so than I could with Rome. Speaking of a “Reformed Baptist” position makes no more sense to me than if we were to speak of a “Reformed Arminian” tradition. Thinking that predestination is cool and an affinity for talk about covenants is simply not enough to make one Reformed.
Again, as I said at the outset of our exchange, this discussion really comes down to first principles. If you view soteriology and ecclesiology as two completely separate departments of theology, then it is quite possible to abstract the Gospel and say that one can have an unorthodox ecclesiology and sacramentology and yet retain a pure Gospel. But in my thinking, soteriology and ecclesiology are organically connected. We must distinguish between them, of course, but we cannot separate them. (And, just for the record, I am just as convinced that Rome’s perverted Gospel is inwardly connected to her perverted ecclesiology, as well. As I said before, where Rome equates the church and Christ, Baptists separate them. Both positions are just as errant and just as grave.)
Thus, a corruption and material deviation in the one will always result in a corruption and material deviation in the other.
Calvin saw this, and he accordingly declared:
“But because it is now our intention to discuss the VISIBLE Church [emph. mine], let us learn even from the simple term ‘mother’ how useful, indeed how necessary it is that we should know her. For there is no other way to enter into life unless this mother conceive us in her womb, give us birth, nourish us at her breast, and lastly, unless she keep us under her care and guidance until, putting off mortal flesh, we become like the angels. Our weakness does not allow us to be dismissed from her school until we have been pupils all our lives. Furthermore, away from her bosom one cannot hope for any forgiveness of sins or any salvation.” (Inst. 4.1.4)
And it is apparent in Calvin’s writings against the Anabaptists that he viewed them as having placed themselves outside of her fold. The main issue for him was the practice of re-baptism, which our modern Baptists, both those who wrongfully claim the title “Reformed” as well as those who detest it, have in common with the sixteenth century Anabaptists. No matter how loudly they may want to protest that they are not of the same mind with their forefathers here, they cannot get away from this underlying issue: they have taken baptism away from the church catholic and presumed the right to claim it for themselves. This is a material deviation from both Reformed and historic Christian orthodoxy.
You may say that Baptists possess a “saving Gospel.” I do not deny that God saves men through what they preach (I am witness that He does!), just as I do not deny that God may save men through the corrupted Gospel which the Romanists preach. But the Gospel they possess is not the Gospel that the Reformed Churches have historically recognized as acceptable or orthodox, because the Reformed churches from earliest days were not wont to separate Gospel and Church or Christ and Church as we — due to the influence specifically of baptistic revivalism — are in ours.
Hopefully that will help you understand better where I’m coming from. I don’t trust many here will agree with me. That’s fine. But if I’m going to be serious about my claim to be Reformed, I want to follow the tradition I am claiming. And this is where my study of it has led me.
* * * * *
Jonathan is currently pursuing his MA at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and plans to pursue ordination into the pastorate. You may find him in the blogosphere most often at ReformedCatholicism.com.
[...] on his blog a comment that I originally made at Green Baggins. The post on Eric’s blog is here. For some context, my comments were couched in the midst of the thread of this post, where the [...]
Dear Jonathan:
Some of my students asked me if I’d read your blog description of Baptists. I hadn’t, but now I have. In some ways I found it predictable, and in many ways it is generally what I might expect, but without mentioning any bibliography I couldn’t know exactly who you might be talking about. In other ways, your response seems based more on stereotypes and caricatures of your radically reformed cousins.
One book that I’d be interested in knowing if you think it fits your description of Baptists as heterodox and non-sacramental is Steve Harmon’s Towards Baptist Catholicity. I have written a review article for First Things that should be coming out soon. You might also glance through other books in the same series with Paternoster. Perhaps you will say that these Catholic Baptists are simply exceptions that prove the rule. Or perhaps you may consider revising your description of us.
Your Catholic Baptist Brother in Christ,
Curtis Freeman
PS You might read my note “Come and See” to see if I fit your description.
http://www.divinity.duke.edu/programs/baptisthouse
Rev. Freeman,
Context here is very important. My words here are in response to a specific question: “who are worse, Romanists or Baptists.” If all you’ve read of what I have to say is this specific post, then you’re getting a charicatured version of the actual context of the discussion in which my comments were couched. You can see fuller context in the thread which Eric has linked here.
For me, the issue is rebaptism and the idea that the church is a mere society of like-minded individuals. If that does not describe you, then I apologize, but I did clarify in the comment thread that this is what I am getting at, not just folks who believe it expedient to hold off on Baptism until a later date (as a Tertullian or a St. Monica).
No, I’ve not read Harmon’s work, but I’ve been wanting to pick it up.
Forgive me, Dr. Freeman… I just realized that I erred in addressing you as “Rev. rather than “Dr.” Though I’m sure both titles apply. :-)
Dr. Freeman,
I apologize for multiplying responses, but I was hurried in leaving the previous comments and didn’t have the time to include something else I wanted to say. I do recognize many differences between various types of Baptists, and I do see a healthy and encouraging movement towards catholicity amongst Baptists of our day (My friend Rev. Wyman Richardson being one of them). I was not trying to lump all Baptists into one monolithic whole in every respect, but rather to articulate what I see as being a fundamental underlying anticreedal (and by that I mean out of line with the spirit of the Creed, not an inability to recite its words) ideology which conditions the practice of rebaptism and the thinking that the church is a collection of individuals who have *already been saved apart from her* rather than a divine institution through which people are saved.
Also, I wrote some clarifying remarks on my beliefs on this issue, which sums up nicely further clarifying remarks which I would like to offer on this subject here, in the section labelled “update”: http://www.reformedcatholicism.com/?p=1292.
Ok… nevermind… those clarifying remarks are now included in this post above.
Thanks for the note Jonathan. I understand the need for context, but many of your statements about Baptists aren’t contextual. For example, “Baptists, as I understand them (and yes, I think it applies to all varieties, even the “Reformed” stripe) therefore cannot rightfully confess the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds.” I certainly can find you enough Baptists to fit your description, but again, that doesn’t apply to me, or Steve Harmon, or most of the Duke Baptists, or many Baptists in larger Baptists life. Were you aware that the defining act of the Baptist World Alliance 102 years ago was the confession of the Apostles’ Creed? Steve’s book has much on that. Timothy George is a of the contributors to one of the books in our series. Are we all odd outlyers. Maybe so, some would say. We think, however, that being Baptist is not at odds with catholicity, but can exemplify it in our worship, work, and witness. My point is that these sweeping characterizations rarely hold. It’s better to talk in specifics. That way we know what it is you’re describing, and we can respond. Indeed, this is part of the wider church conversation that we are to be open to, isn’t it?
Dr. Freeman,
I’ve never said that those holding to traditional Baptist doctrine cannot *say* the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds. Of course they can, and on the majority of the articles they are fully orthodox and for this I applaud them. However, the problem comes in confessing the “Holy Catholic Church” and the “one Baptism for the remission of sins.” Here, I think, I am not going out on a limb in saying that what those who believe that someone Baptized by the Catholic (not necessarily Roman) Church needs to be re-baptized do not mean by these words what the Church which originally composed and confessed these Creeds meant. There is only *one* Baptism, and that an unrepeatable rite for the remission of sins. To re-baptize is therefore opposed to the Creed. I understand that Baptists believe that only baptism applied to a professing believer by immersion is really Christian Baptism, and so you can still say “one baptism,” but, as I said before, this is opposed to the faith of the church which framed the Creeds. Same words, different meaning. Too, saying that Baptists alone possess true Baptism is a denial of the Catholic Church, for it cuts the legs out from under all those bodies who do not accept their distinctive doctrine, by calling their initiatory rite invalid.
“We think, however, that being Baptist is not at odds with catholicity, but can exemplify it in our worship, work, and witness.”
As I said above, I am thankful for the strides made in the Baptist community toward a more catholic doctrine and practice. I am familiar with the work of Dr. George–I appreciate him and am in his debt in many ways. And I do not deny for one second that many of my Baptist friends are among the most Christ-loving folk and unity-desiring folks I know. But still, no matter how many peripheral areas are cleaned up, no matter how Christian one’s conversation and life may be, and no matter
how many advances are made toward cordial discourse with others, if the essential point (that is, the practice of rebaptism) remains untouched, there is no hope for true catholicity, in my opinion (that is, catholicity as it would have been understood by the early and Nicene Church as well as the magisterial Reformers). This issue betrays a fundamental difference of ideology in the areas of Church and Sacrament from the historic Church both before and during the Reformation era.
“My point is that these sweeping characterizations rarely hold. It’s better to talk in specifics.”
I agree with you here, for the most part. This is why I was trying to be specific in clarifying that what I had in mind was not any individual people, but an underlying doctrinal paradigm which ties together all those groups which practice rebaptism. There are huge differences between different types of Baptists; I have not denied this.
The problem, however, is that the discussion in which these comments were couched was a rather silly one dealing precisely with the “sweeping characterizations” of others towards the “Federal Vision” and the Roman Church and their enmity against God and the Gospel. Thus, though I did make some “sweeping characterizations,” the context in which they were made is important to understand.
The conversation began by a Presbyterian fellow saying he’d go with Baptists before going with his fellow Presbyterians who espouse “Federal Vision” doctrine. I responded by saying that this way of thinking betrays a dramatic departure in worldview from the thought of the magisterial Reformers. Then somehow the conversation moved to Rome (because some people seem to think that “FV” folks are crypto Romanists) and how Baptists are so much better than those Gospel-denying Romanists. In combating this way of thinking, I was only seeking to state that, to me, neither side (taken as a general ideology) is any better than the other, as I see the two movements to be on two opposite ends of the ideological spectrum, with historic Reformed, Lutheran, and Anglicans in between them, which is where I would place myself. The problem is that most Reformed folks in our day have forsaken original Reformed thought for a more “baptistic” (as I would label it) way of thinking, so they can’t even comprehend what I might be getting at. It is the abstraction of the Gospel, the separation of Christ and the redemption he provides from the church which he instituted as the means through which this salvation would come to the world and individual men which is at issue here. For some reason, if you speak this way–that is, as Calvin or Luther would have–in Reformed circles of our day you get labeled a closet Romanist, but if you talk about the Gospel as something apart from the Church, and the Church only as the collection of individuals who come into her fold having already been “saved” and the sacraments of mere memorials of this salvation and things that happened long ago–that is, as Baptists historically have–and get recognized as a faithful Presbyterian. I hope that, even if you do not agree with a single point I am making, you can at least understand my frustration in this regard.
So, in the context of this discussion, the generalizations work both ways my interlocutors were wanting to lump all Romanists together under one category of “enemies of the Gospel,” while I was seeking to combat this conception of Rome, and perhaps wound up over-generalizing Baptists myself. But it is worth noting that I made continual efforts to guard against this over-generalization by recognizing the dramatic differences that do exist between Baptists of various stripes, just as they exist between Romanists of various stripes.
Perhaps it was a mistake to place these comments up as a post separated from the context of that overall discussion. But my main point remains, unless someone can convince me otherwise, or unless I begin seeing a mass movement amongst Baptists to forsake the practice of rebaptism, which remains to me a sure sign of an uncatholic ecclesiology and sacramentology.
Jonathan:
Here I can only reply that you’re arguing from “popular” theology about the mass of Baptists whose practice you “know.” What I am suggesting is that if you want to engage in serious theological conversation, and not just popular blog generalizations, you’ll have to engage some specific texts that are pushing in precisely the direction you are dismissing Baptists for. Your responses indicate that you haven’t done that. On the rebaptism question there is a wealth of literature out there responding to BEM, and now there is a new converestion on the new text “One Baptism.” You may wish to generalize based on your assumptions about the past or your own experience. In the end that doesn’t go anywhere and may be ecumencially divisive. If you want to see some movement of Baptists and other non big “C” Catholics toward catholicity, which I believe you do, then perhaps you might engage in conversations based on serious ecumenical theology. That would help us all and increase the space rather than the categorical dismissal of all Baptists. There’s nowhere to go if that’s the case except to convert to whatever it is you’re proposing. That’s a nonstarter.
Your Baptist Brother in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church,
Curtis Freeman
Dr. Freeman,
First, I want to welcome you to the Borg Blog. I am honored by your presence and your taking the time to comment here.
In regard to your conversation, I do want to challenge you just a bit, though. In regard to what Jonathan (and I) sees as important first principles, I do think that Jonathan has been quite specific. Namely, all Baptists do in fact hold to the necessity of “re-baptism” for those who were “only” sprinkled/dunked/immersed/whatever as infants or too-young children. All Baptists — of all stripes — hold such to be merely a “wet dedication.” Baptism — to all Baptists — can only occur definitionally when an individual verbally and (usually) “credibly” professes the faith at the administration of the rite. Therefore, infant baptisms are illegitimate and those who received such must be “re-baptized” before admittence into the church and to the Lord’s Table.
As Jonathan has explained, this has ramifications concerning the Creed: even if we say the same words, we mean different things in professing “one baptism.” And it has ramifications towards our ecclesiology — since only those baptized according to the Baptist definition are to be admitted into the church and ultimately to the Lord’s Table. Again, this means we are professing something different when we say the words “one holy catholic and apostolic church” in the Creed. And to Calvin and the magisterial Reformers, this compromises the Gospel in the opposite way that Rome has in its insistence on so equating its church structure to Christ himself. Baptists, effectively, separate what can not be separated (though not equated).
This is Jonathan’s point, and with respect, you haven’t engaged it yet.
IOW, in one sense you are correct: conversion on this point by Baptists *is* necessary for true catholic unity between paedos and credos. And, conversion by Roman Catholics on their opposite error is necessary for true catholic unity to ever be considered between Rome and the Reformers. (I happen to think there are other currently insurmountable roadblocks on top of this concerning Rome, and fewer depending on the variety of Baptist; Jonathan and I might disagree at this point).
So, taking all of our comments together — both here and at the Greenbaggins thread, we both say this concerning our Baptist brothers — and you: you are our brothers in Christ, we love you as such, we will gladly worship and extend the hand of fellowship to you, you are welcome to the Lord’s Table at our churches, we will pray with and for you, knowing we are worshipping the same God and stand before Him by virtue of His Son, Jesus Christ, adding nothing whatsoever of our own merit. We long for greater unity with you and think greater ecumenicalism in the meantime is great.
But catholic unity is impossible as long as the necessity of “re-baptism” is held by Baptists, as it is by all. Holding to credobaptism-only as the preferred practice is not the problem the divides us in the catholic sense. But refusing to recognize as valid the baptisms of my children and millions of Christians now and down through the ages is an insurmountable obstacle, save your conversion on this issue. I don’t say that with any animosity or belligerance intended, but merely as a point of unfortunate fact.
Yours in Christ,
–Eric
NOTE: I commend for further reading and explanation Jonathan’s brotherly and well-reasoned response to Dr. James White’s objections on this issue, found here:
http://www.reformedcatholicism.com/?p=1295
Eric:
Your statement: “Namely, all Baptists do in fact hold to the necessity of “re-baptism” for those who were “only” sprinkled/dunked/immersed/whatever as infants or too-young children.”
Here you simply couldn’t have read the BEM responses or the “One Baptism” or Beasley Murray on Baptism or any number of others. When you do and see that the description you’ve given doesn’t apply to ALL Baptists I’ll be happy to enter into conversation. Until then you’ve started on a false premise and there’s no space for conversation, simply denominational apologetics. I’m not interested in that.
All the best,
Curtis Freeman
Dr. Freeman,
I’m not interested in denominational apologetics either. I’ve repeatedly attempted to clarify that my words here and elsewhere on this score are meant for those who practice rebaptism. I am aware that there are Baptists around who do not rebaptize, but rather simply have a conviction that waiting until an age of credible profession is best policy. But I have been assured on numerous occasions by other Baptists that such folks are really not Baptists. Hence, I am accused of misrepresenting the Baptist position no matter what. Confusing stuff. But either way, I have repeatedly clarified that what I have in mind is the practice of rebaptism.
I admit I have more work to do in getting better aquainted with the current state of “Baptist catholicity,” but let it just be said that my words here and in the comment thread at Greenbaggins were meant for the sole purpose of stating where I see my own position with regard to both the historic Roman and Baptist positions, notwithstanding movements toward what I would consider a more orthodox position from either side.
And, to be clear, I know I don’t have it all together either, much less do I think modern day Presbyterians as a whole are without need of much repentance and self-examination in a number of areas. (God knows we are!) So please, don’t take my comments as pontifications from someone who thinks he knows it all. I was just trying to level an otherwise rather lop-sided playing field (within my own communion). Perhaps I made some over-generalizations, and for this I apologize. But I still feel that I’ve clarified my position enough so that anyone who cares enough to take the time to read everything I’ve said should understand that I’m talking about broad underlying doctrinal paradigms and ecclesiological first principles which condition both the doctrines of the Roman church as well as those Christians who practice rebaptism, not necessarily each and every particular person within those respective communions, respectively. And, too, I’ve repeatedly confessed my brotherly affection for all faithful Christians in either fold. And the Baptist brothers I interact with on a regular basis could well attest to the fact that these are not mere words.
Much love and reverence for you in Christ,
Jonathan
Add A Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.