McChurch

Jason Engwer and I have been debating with some Catholics about baptismal justification and baptismal regeneration. The two primary sources of information about NT baptism are Luke and Paul. Catholic epologists try to fit the NT data into a Catholic paradigm. But the NT data, considered on its own terms, is quite resistant to Catholic domestication or homogenization:

“If one concentrates on certain parts of Acts (chs. 1-2,8-11,16,18-19,22), or rather on parts of these chapters, baptism seems to be the normal and universal way into the Christian church. What are we to do? ask the crowd on the Day of Pentecost. Repent, and let each of you be baptized, Peter replies (2:37-38). The converted Samaritans respond in the same way; Cornelius and his friends, the Philippian jailer and his household, many of the Corinthians, are baptized. If however we turn to the other chapters (and to parts of those listed above) there is silence. The Temple crowd are urged to repent and have their sins blotted out; they are not told to be baptized. There are no baptisms in Luke’s account of the ‘first missionary journey,’ though churches are established (14:23). Apart from Lydia and the Philippian jailer there are no baptisms in Macedonia or in the main account apart, that is, from 19:5) of Paul’s work in Ephesus. No baptisms take place after ch. 19, even in Malta, where Paul made so deep an impression. Again, if we ask, Does the gift of the Spirit precede, accompany, or follow the rite of water-baptism? we get different answers in different parts of Acts. If we ask, Must baptism be complemented by the laying on of hands? there is no consistent answer. What is mean by baptism in (or with) the Spirit? Is it a consequence of water-baptism or is it independent of water-baptism? Who are the proper recipients of water-baptism? Adult believers only, or infants also? None of these questions can be answered with any confidence on the basis of Acts. There is quite enough of baptism in Acts to make it clear that Luke was familiar with the practice; we can hardly fail to conclude that baptism was not, as is commonly supposed, a universal custom in the early church, or at least that some of Luke’s sources (such as that based on Antioch) were not interested in baptism, G.K. Barrett, The Acts of the Apostles: Introduction and Commentary on Acts XV-XXVIII (T&T Clark 1998), xci.

“At 2:38 it is not quite stated but it is implied that the gift of the Spirit follows upon baptism: Let each of you be baptized…and you will receive…The opposite order occurs in 10:44-48. The Spirit fell upon Cornelius and his friends and to this Peter’s response was, ‘Can we fail to baptize these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did?’ There is further complication in ch. 8 (cf. 19:6) when Philip baptizes the Samaritans and it is not said that they received the Holy Spirit; Peter and John arrive, impose their hands and pray, and the Spirit is given. Is the imposition of hands necessary? It is not mentioned in the other stories we have considered. Is it a rite that only an apostle can execute? We do not know the answers to these questions; see the notes on the various passages. We cannot fail to conclude that Luke gives an unclear account of baptism. He has no fixed principles about its practice, or perhaps its meaning,” ibid. xci-xcii.

Several things stand out in this summary of baptism in Acts:

i) It’s a tribute to Luke’s honesty as a historian that he doesn’t try to shoehorn his diverse material into a preconceived pattern. He simply reports what he heard and saw.

ii) Because he doesn’t attempt to systematize the data into a stereotypical formula or streamline trajectory, what his history reveals is the lack of standardization in the baptismal practice of the NT church. The NT church isn’t McChurch. It isn’t a franchise in which, wherever you go, you find the same menu.

Catholics often complain that the Protestant rule of faith is a “blueprint for anarchy.” Yet Luke’s record of baptism in Acts is fairly…dare we say…chaotic.

iii) For Luke, baptism is clearly important–but just as clearly, baptism isn’t all-important. Why didn’t James and the remaining Apostles convene another council in Jerusalem to impose unity on all this ramshackle diversity? In this respect, among others, the priorities of the high-church tradition are at variance with the priorities of the NT church.

Catholics promote living tradition, but they demote the living church of the Apostolic era.