On the other hand, it seems to me that the vast majority of younger seminary students and recent seminary graduates today, while they may not call themselves charismatic or Pentecostal, will generally say, “Well I’m certainly not a cessationist because I can’t see proof for that view in Scripture. But I haven’t seen many good examples of how these things actually work either.” So they often fall in what I would call an “open but cautious” category – some more open and some more cautious! And I do think that people who are strongly committed to a cessationist view are in a much smaller minority today than they were twenty or thirty years ago, at least in the academic world and among younger seminary students and pastors.
It is very hard to get around 1 Corinthians 13:10: “When the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.” People read that in context and nearly always conclude (rightly, I think) that “when the perfect comes” refers to the time of Christ’s return, and “the partial” refers to the miraculous gifts that Paul has been discussing in verses 8-9, such as prophecy and speaking in tongues. So I think most younger pastors and seminary students who think about this topic read that verse and conclude that Paul is saying, “When Christ returns, prophecy and speaking in tongues (and by implication, other spiritual gifts) will pass away.” That means that these gifts are still with us today, and our only question is how to encourage them and use them rightly, seeking always to be subject to Scripture.
The problem is what such a “compromise” implies about the views of baptism of the people who adopt it. For people who hold to infant baptism, they have to be able to say that it’s OK for believing parents not to baptize their infant children, which seems to them to be disobeying a command of Scripture as they understand it. How can they really say this?
On the other side, those who hold to believer’s baptism (as I do) have to be willing to admit into church membership people who have been baptized as infants, and who did not, of course, make any profession of faith at the time they were baptized. But these people (such as myself) who think that genuine baptism has to follow a personal profession of faith are then put in position of saying that infant baptism is also a valid form of baptism. And that contradicts what they believe about the essential nature of baptism – that it is an outward sign of an inward spiritual change, so that the apostle Paul could say, “As many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Galatians 3:27)
I don’t think I realized this difficulty when I wrote my Systematic Theology. I had been in an Evangelical Free Church for about four years and it seemed to me to work well enough. But now I’m beg
inning to realize that admitting to church membership someone who has not been baptized upon profession of faith, and telling the person that he or she never has to be baptized as a believer, is really giving up one’s view on the proper nature of baptism, what it really is. It is saying that infant baptism really is valid baptism! If we didn’t think it was valid baptism, we should be telling people who were baptized as infants that their “baptism” was not valid baptism and they should be baptized now, after their personal profession of faith. They would need to do this in obedience to Christ’s command.
So I have been re-thinking my position on this issue, and I have been considering sending a change to the publishers of my Systematic Theology book, at least explaining that there are more difficulties to my “compromise” view than I had initially realized.
In short, I don’t think the baptism issue is going to go away any time soon.
Finally, I’m thankful that believers who differ on the issue of baptism can still have wonderful fellowship with one another across denominational lines, and can have respect for each other’s sincerely held views. I certainly do not put the question of baptism in the same category as the denial of penal substitutionary atonement which you mentioned [yesterday] because that seems to me to be a denial of the heart of the Gospel. And, as I mentioned, it seems to me that evangelical feminism involves, implicitly at least, a denial of the authority of the Bible. But differing views on baptism or the millennium do not have serious consequences of that type.