It suddenly occurs to me that in the Baptist conception is inherently contradictory. For the Baptist, baptism is basically “deponent” ( that is to say that it is “passive in form, but active in meaning”). For the Baptist the person “is baptized” (passive). It is something that is done to them. However in nearly every other Baptist explanation of Baptism it has to do with how this Baptism is the declaration by the person of his or her decision to follow Jesus thus contradicting the whole passive idea with a definition that bespeaks activity. This is a contradiction and is in contrast to the Biblical meaning of baptism as a sign of Christ’s claim on the believer from the foundation of the world, a decision in which the believer is a totally passive recipient.
And it is the refusal of the Baptist to bring their children to the Baptismal font that unwinds the contradiction so as to reveal what the Baptist really believes. The Baptist might say that the recipient in Baptism is passive but inasmuch as they refuse to bring their children to be baptized they are screaming that the recipient of Baptism must be the active party. Baptism, thus for Baptists is not about God’s claim upon the believer but rather it is about the believers claim upon God.
This is actually put on display visibly as in Baptist Baptism the person being Baptized is not passive in the least but is clinging to the person who is baptizing them giving aid to both the person dunking them and their arising out of the water.
Baptist thinking, however well intended it might be, is thus a anthropocentric leaning into Christianity and thus can never be genuinely Reformed. It is the mix of synergism with the claim of monergism.
Hat Tip — Jonathan Lovelace
