This one was a wild ride. Took me a while to read since many of the ideas formulated in detail here were, at least, somewhat new to me.
The subject of infant baptism has been & is currently a huge point of consternation in my brain. My shelves are full of mainly infant sprinklers, many of whom disagree on the “why” behind their doctrine of paedobaptism. From Augustine, to Aquinas, to Luther, to Calvin, to modern Presbyterians, CREC’s, Anglicans, and Catholics - none can agree why infants should be baptized or what actually is taking place during said baptism.
I have read tons of baptism material in what would mainly be considered Presbyterian or Westminster leaning, all of which has led me to think their hermeneutical approach is weak at best and objectively inconsistent. Maybe I’ll change this view one day.
Given that reality, I ventured into the world of reformed Anglicanism, aka Baptismal Regeneration. BR is a scary concept for us who hold to justification by faith alone, and yet Rome has a long history of burning people who hold this view. So, what gives? Are we actually saved by baptism? Are infants regenerated at their sprinkling? More later.
Some positives of the book:
1. The interpretive method Sadler uses is, in my opinion, much stronger than Presbyterians. In summary, we are all born into death through the first Adam. The children of believers therefore are born into the Second Adam though their baptism, or, regenerated at their baptism. Regeneration for Sadler doesn’t mean what it means for most of us. We interpret regeneration as full conversion: Sadler basically sees it as giving the baptized person the spiritual cleats to play the game - a starting point.
2. Sadler takes the warning passages of falling from grace seriously and deals with them in a way that makes some logical sense. If you’re baptized into Christ, and have received *some* grace in your baptism, if you fall away, you fell from something you really truly held in your baptism. According to Sadler, Paul assumes everyone is in a state of grace who is in the church, similar to the responsibility the Jewish people held through their circumcision; this dispensation of grace is “new” and “better” in that through baptism, grace is truly given rather than just a sign, like circumcision. As a (current) Baptist, I appreciated this.
Negatives:
1. This view is heavily dependent on interpreting 2 parts of scripture correctly: the New Birth in John 3 & Mark 16:16. On Mark, most scholars seem to agree that Mark 16 was not in original manuscripts; from what ive studied (S/O to Wes Huff), there’s no way to assume Mark 16 should be canon. So, that one is kind of out. On John 3, Sadler states Jesus is teaching baptismal regeneration here. “Born of water and spirit” is assumed to be effectual working at baptism. I’m not sure this is a good approach.
2. Ultimately, where Sadler loses me is at his divisions. He divides election into partially elect people who have been baptized and eternally elect people who persevere unto the end. He argues anyone can lose their salvation, at any time, due to the partial grace given at baptism. Ultimately, to me, the only thing that matters in theology is what’s true, what’s eternal. How those things are worked out pastorally is a different subject. Scripture seems to say there are wheat and tares, no one else. The church should be working to sort those people out by faithful preaching & shepherding.
3. Sadler’s approach to why people are united to Christ is fully based on baptism than faith. When you read Paul, he is laser focused on the faith aspect of our union to Christ. Baptism is part of that, sure, but faith is the primary crux for that union. Sadler is so focused on BR that he seemingly replaces the relationship given to the believer on the basis of faith with the act of baptism, and this is where I finally am lost on accepting his view as biblical. Hebrews 4 and Galatians 3 are great examples of why I cannot accept his position, for now.
At final analysis, this is still probably the most consistent infant baptism argument I’ve come across. The BR position Sadler argues should be taken seriously in the reformed world.