Darby and Paedobaptism

Status
Not open for further replies.

JM

Puritan Board Doctor
While looking for an article I read comparing dispensationalism with the thinking behind paedobaptism, I found the following paper:

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/vox/vol11/brethren_rowdon.pdf

he continued to regard the baptism of the children of believers as thoroughly scriptural, though he defended the practice with arguments somewhat different from those usually adopted by exponents of paedo-baptism.​

Darby was convinced that the Baptist position was unscriptural.​

Darby’s own view of baptism is articulated with reference not to the parallels between the old and new covenants but to the contrasts between the dispensational stages of development that he perceived in the New Testament, and particularly to the difference between the baptismal commission given to the Twelve and the preaching commission given to Paul.​

Dispensational presuppositions were also of use in explaining the pastoral problem inherent in paedo-baptism. This was attributed to failure to maintain discipline in Christendom―a failure which had resulted in apostasy. For Darby, the Lord’s Supper was the sign of the unity of the Body of Christ, and if those who remained no more than members of the kingdom of heaven, had been barred from the Lord’s Table, all would have been well. Scripture, however, had foretold the degeneration of the ‘house’ into a ‘great house’, and its ultimate judgment. Yet, strangely, Darby seems to have acted on the principle, abusus non tollit usum in retaining the practice of baptism.​

Should someone tell MacArthur that since all Calvinists should be Premil, all Dispensationalists should be paedo?
 
Well, anything Darby agreed with we should definitely toss, just out of spite for Darby. Or maybe not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top