# William Cunningham on Baptism



## Learner (Oct 7, 2004)

He is one of my favorite theologians . I prefer reading him than Charles Hodge . Of course they had different specialities .

Now let me say this plainly so that you who read too quickly but not so carefully do not mistake me here . Dr . Cunningham was a paedobaptist . He believed in it . He was not a Baptist , he was a fine , learned Presbyterian . I will quote from his : " Historical Theology " Volume 2 . Just remember , he was a paedobaptist , though he concedes a lot to the baptistic position . My quotes will pertain to his sympathy with the baptistic stance , although he thought infant baptism was lawful and scriptural . He does tend to repeat himself a bit . But all the more reason to listen to him in his appeal for Presbyterians to examine their thoughts again on the subject .



... Baptism , as well as the Lord's Supper , is ... presented to us in the New Testament ; and it is from the case of adult participation that we ought to form our general views and impressions of the meaning and design of these ordinances . It tends to greatly introduce obscurity and confusion into our whole conceptions upon the subject of baptism , that we see it ordinarily administered to infants , and very seldom to adults . This leads us insensibly to form very defective and erroneous conceptions of its design and effect ... ( page 125 )


... We ought to remember , that we ought to form our primary and fundamental conceptions of baptism from the baptism of adults . ( page 126 )


The general tenor of Scripture language upon the subject of baptism applies primarily and directly to the baptism of adults , and proceeds upon the assumption , that the profession implied in the reception of baptism by adults , -- the profession , that is , that they had already been led to believe in Christ , and to receive Him as their Saviour and their Master , -- was sincere , or corresponded with the real state of their minds and hearts . It is necessary , therefore , to form our primary and fundamental conceptions of the objects and effects of baptism ... from the baptism of adults and not infants . ( page 144 )


[ If ] we but seldom witness the baptism of adults , and commonly see only the baptism of infants ... we are very apt to be led to form insensibly very erroneous and defective views of the nature and effects of baptism , as an ordinance instituted by Christ in His Church , or rather , to rest contented with scarcely any distinct or definite conception upon the subject ... If we were in the habit of witnessing adult baptism , and if we formed our primary and full conceptions of the import and effects of the ordinance from the baptism of adults , the one sacrament would be as easily understood , ... as the other ... These statements may , at first view , appear to be large concessions to the anti-paedobaptists ... ( page 145 )


Paedobaptists , from the causes to which I have referred , are apt to rest contented with very obscure and defective notions of the import and objects of baptism , and to confound adult and infant baptism as if the same principles must fully and universally apply to both . ( page 146 )


The ordinary tenor of Scripture language concerning baptism has respect , primarily and principally ... to adults , --- and that thus a profession of faith is ordinarily associated with the Scripture notices of the administration of baptism ; ... so... we are to regard baptism upon a profession of faith , as exhibiting the proper type and full development of the ordinance . ( page 151 )


Infant baptism [ has ] difficulties which undoubtedly attach to it , and with the obscurity in which some points connected with it are involved . ( page 154 )


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 7, 2004)

Curiously speaking, what does he say on circumcision and Genesis 17? Can you quote some of that from his book for us?


----------



## Learner (Oct 8, 2004)

Curiously enough , he doesn't mention it as I recall . I had to borrow the book and have already returned it . Perhaps Fred and others who own the book can help with those specifics .


----------



## Learner (Oct 9, 2004)

Doesn't anyone have any thoughts on Dr. Cunningham's remarks ? Are his ideas foreign to you ? Are you in agreement to a certain extent but take exception to some things ?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 9, 2004)

[quote:40c762f4c8="Learner"]Doesn't anyone have any thoughts on Dr. Cunningham's remarks ? Are his ideas foreign to you ? Are you in agreement to a certain extent but take exception to some things ?[/quote:40c762f4c8]

Tim,
Let me say this; it is important for each of us to understand what we believe and why. None of us should fly on the seats of our pants. Having said this, it is obvious that Cunningham does not understand what he believes. This is not 'foreign', even for today this is consistant with the majority of believers. The credo is credo because that is how he was brought up. The paedo, the same (generally). It is obvious that Cunningham has misunderstood Matt 28; for some odd reason (at least from the quotes you present) he seems to believe that the commission is intended for the adult. His thinking is (in my opinion) leaning into Arminianism, i.e do this, do that, then baptise. Again, not that I've read Cunningham, but simply based upon what you've presented, his theology has possibly been influenced from that other than the reformed camp; it would have had to be, where else could he have come up with such an idea that flies in the face of the historic reformed? As Matt has mentioned in his citing of Gen 17; is this not where it all is rooted? How did he mess this up? He just doesn't truly know what he believes.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 9, 2004)

Tim,
I am glad that you brought this up for I plan to read Cunningham one day. I have heard nothing but good things about him (and he is scottish!!!!). This would be helpful to know.

[brief aside] If you all will permit me a short aside that is related to the subject: What is the format and purpose of an Historical Theology as opposed to a Systematic?{/brief aside}


----------



## JohnV (Oct 9, 2004)

[quote:cdd5807f8d="Learner"]Doesn't anyone have any thoughts on Dr. Cunningham's remarks ? Are his ideas foreign to you ? Are you in agreement to a certain extent but take exception to some things ?[/quote:cdd5807f8d]

Before I signed up on this Board I had never thought of Believer's Baptism as Credo Baptism. But I welcomed the new name (new for me) because of the particular problem I kept running into in what is called Paedo Baptism on this Board, that is Infant Baptism. It is not Infant Baptism that was the problem; it was those who had changed or were changing their position from it to Believer's Baptism. 

The ones that I dealt with mostly were those who were formerly of the Infant Baptism tradition but had left it, or were leaving it, for Believer's Baptism. What they were describing to me as Infant Baptism, and why they no longer held to it, was not the Infant Baptism that I believed in. In fact, I was beginning to be persuaded that I ought to encourage them as much as possible to leave behind that which they formerly believed, because it was in fact erroneous. It was really devoid of anything more than a superficial tie to the Covenant. So I could hardly blame them for leaving that. I would too. 

But at the same time I would try to encourage thinking further along the same lines; in particular the direct inferences of Believer's Baptism. For the understanding that I had of Paedo Baptism, as we call it on this Board, is that it is Believer's Baptism plus its Covenantal inference upon the believer's children. It is not just Infant Baptism. That is why I liked the terms used on this Board a whole lot better. In the end its just different terms, but for me it was a fresh use of words without the connotations of my tradition or background. Now that I am used to the use the new terms I find that the same problem still prevails, that Paedo Baptism is primarily referred to as the baptsm of the infants of believers by those who don't understand it. 

I don't think that this ought to be the case. Paedo Baptism ought first and foremost be about the baptism of believers on the basis of professed faith. Faith is the door into the new life; more particularly it is faith in Him who is the Way, the One through Whom we may enter. Baptism signals that entrance, by being the visible proclamation in the Church of God's Covenantal promises to the one who entered through faith in Christ. 

And this has Scriptural inferences that go along with it. God's promises are clearly bestowed upon the entire household of those who came in by faith. Therefore the sign and seal of the promises is extended also to those who are of the God-ordained institution of family, seeing that the household of God is also considered to be a family in Scripture, with the Church being the very bride. So it makes sense that the offspring of such an institution would be included by Scriptural necessity. 

So I see Paedo Bapstism as being Credo Baptism [u:cdd5807f8d]plus[/u:cdd5807f8d] its Covenantal inferences. 

I think it is kind of you to attempt to show us the inconsistencies of our expressed faith. We will not deny the purity of the gospel in this way, but rather expose our own failings in living and believing that one true Word. However, to use theologians against each other for the purpose of arguing one's own point is not a good idea, even for yourself. From what I make of this quote from Cunningham is that it could conceivably have been taken out of context (not being familiar with his work myself), or it could be that he is also arguing against the form of Paedo Baptism which is repugnant to all of us, or that, as Scott says, he does not have a sufficient grasp of what he is talking about. But in any case, I do not see this as bearing on our profession of faith and our understanding of baptism. It rather has the effect of clarifying the position, not denying it. 

The inclusion of infants within the Covenant is itself unassailable on Scriptural terms; this has been demonstrated many times on this Board. The question that is dealt with mostly is the placement, meaning, and extent of that Covenant, whether or not it includes only those who have been saved in the temporal sphere of understanding, or whether it also includes those whom God has indicated are to be seen and treated as being heirs of the promises of grace, of which baptism is the sign and seal. The latter cannot be denied out of Scripture; the question for many is whether it is affirmed. 

Whenever we put two things against each other, as if the one eliminates the other, then we should be careful not assume that this is so. It is possible yet that both are possible, but then in a sense that is different than is postulated. Credo Baptism does not of itself preclude Paedo Baptism; it is Credo Baptists who like to preclude Paedo Baptism, because they see it a militating against their view of baptism. But if we look carefully at the issues then this is not totally the case, for Paedo Baptism includes Credo Baptism, but sees more. It is only particular aspects of what Credo Baptists believe in their parctices, that are not necessarily part of Credo Baptism, that preclude Paedo Baptism. These should be the focus of any discussion, if there is to be any correction of doctrine. 

Coming at it from my background, this is my interaction with the quote given, Tim.


----------



## Learner (Oct 9, 2004)

John , thanks for your comments . I will talk about them at a later time .

Scott , you said that Cunningham is : " leaning into Arminianism " . That's a new one . He is regarded to have been one of the best Reformed theologians . And you felt that he : " does not understand what he believes " . Hmm... he spent considerable time discussing what he claimed to believe . How could he come up with such ideas ? Maybe from the Word of God itself , and not inferentially . He was in a state of tension between what his tradition taught on one hand , and what the Bible explicitly teaches on the other .


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 9, 2004)

[quote:9a43425ac5="Learner"]

Scott , you said that Cunningham is : " leaning into Arminianism " . That's a new one .[/quote:9a43425ac5]

Whether it is new is irrelevent. Based upon the quotes you supplied, if in fact they are in context, he is vaselating away from the historic position of reformed theology. I believe we also need to distinguish what the term 'reformed' actually denote and whom may ascribe the title. It is NOT a credo title and this is where plenty of confusion arises out of. For instance, one quotes Spurgeon and asribes what he has said to the reformed view. This is a misnomer. Spurgeon is not 'reformed' in the technical sense. One might find issue with this; that would be because one does not rightfully understand how and whom the title (technically) belongs and originates. 
Having said that, if you are relating Cunninghams comment with that of the reformed because he was presbyterian, that does not prove anything. One needs to look in the pot to see the ingredients in the soup. Now, I repeat, I am not saying that Cunningham is NOT reformed, but this quote, if it is in context, is NOT reformed; and yes, it is indeed leaning into an Arminian mindset. If this is new to you, again, it is because you have misunderstood the reformed position in the clinical sense. 

[quote:9a43425ac5]He is regarded to have been one of the best Reformed theologians .[/quote:9a43425ac5]

By whose standard? Not that my library is complete, but I have not heard of him nor have any of his writings. Based upon that, I would wonder if he can be seen as 'one of the best Reformed theologians'.

[quote:9a43425ac5]......And you felt that he : " does not understand what he believes " . Hmm... he spent considerable time discussing what he claimed to believe .[/quote:9a43425ac5]

This does not make what he believed correct, or reformed.

[quote:9a43425ac5]How could he come up with such ideas ?[/quote:9a43425ac5]

How did Doug Wilson come up with such ideas? Do you consider Wilson 'reformed'? He is not. He is in error, hence he cannot be accounted with the orthodox historic reformed.



[quote:9a43425ac5]Maybe from the Word of God itself , and not inferentially .[/quote:9a43425ac5]

I assume you believe that the scriptures do not intend to infer anything??? Do you approve of woman taking the supper? The tithe in the NT church? The trinity? This statement is silly and you know it.

[quote:9a43425ac5]He was in a state of tension between what his tradition taught on one hand [/quote:9a43425ac5]

You have CONFUSED the reformed position with the traditionalism of Rome. This only proves that you have no idea of what reformed theology is historically or orthodoxically.


[quote:9a43425ac5] and what the Bible explicitly teaches on the other .[/quote:9a43425ac5]

See above.


----------



## luvroftheWord (Oct 10, 2004)

As his quotes stand now without any further context in which to read them (I don't have any of Cunningham's works), I would just say that I disagree with almost everything he says in those quotes, particularly the comment that we should develop our general views and impressions about baptism based upon the case examples of adult baptisms in the Bible. That is just illogical to begin with. You can't universalize particulars.

And besides, there are a great many paedobaptists that I stand in agreement with, so somebody like Cunningham who happens to be off on some things doesn't bother me in the least. And yes, it would be Cunningham who is off, not the rest of us. :smug_b:


----------



## Learner (Oct 10, 2004)

I don't know this and I don't know that . True . My handle is Learner . I chose that moniker because I am in need of learning . I have a meager knowledge of the theological realm for instance . You too have your fair share of ignorance Scott . We both need to learn . Don't speak as though you have arrived at the acceptable level of knowledge .

The paedobaptist community will not crumble over the words of the respected Dr. Cunningham . I have never envisioned that fantasy .

Scott , you have not heard of him nor have any of his writings . You said : " Based upon that , I wonder if he can be seen as one of the best Reformed theologians . " Your library is the standard Scott ? That sounded rather arrogant of you . Did you really mean that ? Is there a possibility that your library may be inadequate ? Mine is . I am sure you will run across good theologians that you were unaware of before .

Being unfamiliar with Dr. Cunningham is not a tragedy , but his works should be consulted for a more well - rounded understanding of doctrinal theology throughout the history of the Church . I think he ranks very highly as an important resource . Of course he has weknesses as any mortal does . I didn't mean to suggest that he was flawless . AND , some of what you may see as weaknesses may be considered as strengths by others . I wouldn't drop him because of his contrary baptismal views alone .

Dr. Cunningham's friends and fellow professors at the Free Church College , Edinburgh , James Bannerman and James Buchanan sang his praises . In addition , J. J. Bonar , said this regarding a book of his sermons -- " the pith of Genevan doctrine . " He preached almost 2,000 sermons and I have one book of his messages back in the states that I miss a lot . Robert Reymond appreciates him and calls him Reformed . As a matter-of-fact , Dr. Reymond uses the terms Calvinism and Reformed interchangeably . He cites four Baptists by name and British Baptists in general as being in the Reformed camp . And I am sure he did not mean them alone . See page 882 of his Systematic Theology .

By now I thought there would be some specific reaction to a couple of his statements . Yet none of his views have been addressed in particular . Was he in error throughout the quotes I provided ? Was there anything that any of you are in agreement with ? I know he is very wordy and redundant . He could have been more concise . 

This business of -- you don't belong in our Reformed club is getting a little old Scott . So who is out ? Spurgeon is not qualified , huh ? Anyone else ? How about John Bunyan , John Gill , Robert Haldane , Herman Hoeksema ( too hyper ) , A. W. Pink , James Boice ( wrong eschatology ) , Dr. D. M. L-J ? Are they on your uninvited list ? I am unimpressed . Being on the Lord's list is to be preferred : the Lamb's Book of Life .

Your contention that Cunningham tended toward Arminianism still baffles me . Are the Baptists on the PB Arminian , or inclining toward that , because of their baptistic convictions ? " Do this , do that . " you said . Are you referring to belief and repentance preceding baptism as works oriented ? We know that both are given (granted ) by God . Where is the Arminianism ? Give some substance to your charges .

By the way , there were 6 baptisms at my Church on Sunday . An 11 year old girl who gave a very clear testimony as well as five adults in their 20's to 30's . All were plain in telling of their former lost estate and separation from God in the past but coming into saving union with Christ . It was quite moving . Maybe infant baptisms are touching as well . But the recipient isn't aware of anything in the rite . It is good to hear from a conscious person extolling his/her Lord and Savior .

As I was looking at some B. B. Warfield articles I found : " What is Calvinism " , " A Brief and Untechnical Statement of the Reformed Faith " , and " Calvinism " ( 36 pages ) . None of them mentioned the covenant or children .

Infant baptism is indeed inferential . I know you believe it to be a valid deduction based on the good and necessary principle . I disagree .

I do not have any books by Frame or Wilson , though I have read about them .


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 11, 2004)

[quote:53b6d38433="Learner"]
I don't know this and I don't know that . True . My handle is Learner . I chose that moniker because I am in need of learning . I have a meager knowledge of the theological realm for instance . You too have your fair share of ignorance Scott .[/quote:53b6d38433]

jab, stick, punch......
Ali ropa dope:
No disagreement there. 


[quote:53b6d38433] We both need to learn . Don't speak as though you have arrived at the acceptable level of knowledge .[/quote:53b6d38433]


jab, jab, stick........
Bushey bobbin and weavin:
Anyone who knows me here on PB will assuredly validate that I do not believe 'I have arrived.' 

[quote:53b6d38433]The paedobaptist community will not crumble over the words of the respected Dr. Cunningham . I have never envisioned that fantasy .

Scott , you have not heard of him nor have any of his writings . You said : " Based upon that , I wonder if he can be seen as one of the best Reformed theologians . " Your library is the standard Scott ? [/quote:53b6d38433]

jab, jab, punch, body shot, stick......
Actually, I said that my library was not complete! My library is not the standard, Matt McMahon's is! He may have Cunningham.


[quote:53b6d38433] That sounded rather arrogant of you . Did you really mean that ? Is there a possibility that your library may be inadequate ?[/quote:53b6d38433]

Sweat pouring off brow.......Arrogant? I said that it was incomplete didn't I? Arrogance would have implied it was the best in the land (I already mentioned that my best friend's library is that.)

[quote:53b6d38433] I am sure you will run across good theologians that you were unaware of before .[/quote:53b6d38433]

The bell rings; round one over:

I agree. I said that I was only going on the quotes you presented. I made mention of the fact that I cannot speak for the man himself or his theology at large because I did not have any of his writings; come to think of it, I may have some. As I am typing, I am beginning to remember that I do have a series of his and right before I left for New Hampshire, Matt told me to read him.

[quote:53b6d38433]Being unfamiliar with Dr. Cunningham is not a tragedy , but his works should be consulted for a more well - rounded understanding of doctrinal theology throughout the history of the Church . I think he ranks very highly as an important resource . Of course he has weknesses as any mortal does . I didn't mean to suggest that he was flawless . AND , some of what you may see as weaknesses may be considered as strengths by others . I wouldn't drop him because of his contrary baptismal views alone .
[/quote:53b6d38433]

What you see as strength Tim, I see as inconsistency. This is one of the problems within the rank and file of the paedo baptist realm. It had to begin somewhere and it doesn't suprise me much anymore when I hear of respected theologians who actually have been affected by this insidious beast of an idea. 

[quote:53b6d38433]Dr. Cunningham's friends and fellow professors at the Free Church College , Edinburgh , James Bannerman and James Buchanan sang his praises . In addition , J. J. Bonar , said this regarding a book of his sermons -- " the pith of Genevan doctrine . " He preached almost 2,000 sermons and I have one book of his messages back in the states that I miss a lot .[/quote:53b6d38433]

Bannerman, Buchanan and Bonar! Love them!

[quote:53b6d38433] Robert Reymond appreciates him and calls him Reformed . As a matter-of-fact , Dr. Reymond uses the terms Calvinism and Reformed interchangeably .[/quote:53b6d38433]

Technically, I wouldn't say that because of the quotes, Cunningham isn't reformed, but I would say he is confused and on his way to being outside the realm of reformed orthodoxy.
(again, solely based upon the quotes alone) The quotes attack (in my opinion) the epicenter of the reformed theology.

[quote:53b6d38433]He cites four Baptists by name and British Baptists in general as being in the Reformed camp .[/quote:53b6d38433]

Reymond does, correct? If taken to task, Reymond would fess up, I promise!

[quote:53b6d38433]And I am sure he did not mean them alone . See page 882 of his Systematic Theology .

By now I thought there would be some specific reaction to a couple of his statements . Yet none of his views have been addressed in particular . Was he in error throughout the quotes I provided ? [/quote:53b6d38433]

We are talking Presbyterianism/Reformed faith are we not? The quotes you provided were erred. That is the contention.
They are not sound, nor reformed.

[quote:53b6d38433]Was there anything that any of you are in agreement with ? I know he is very wordy and redundant . He could have been more concise .[/quote:53b6d38433]

Tim,
There may be much I am in agreement with. However, based upon your initial post, I was not looking for that which I agree with, but that which is erred along the lines of reformed theology proper. 



> This business of -- you don't belong in our Reformed club is getting a little old Scott .
> It may seem like an old rag to you Tim, you will have to get used to it here; it is truth. Don't blame me, I am only the messenger. Do me a favor, read Matt's paper, "What it means to be truly reformed"; it can be found on his site. Not that everything Matt says is gospel, this paper is based upon historic principles that come out of the orthodoxical lineage of the reformed church. Question: Did you ever read Nigel Lee's works like I suggested?
> 
> [quote:53b6d38433]So who is out ? [/quote:53b6d38433]
> ...


----------



## Learner (Oct 11, 2004)

Scott , I do not have time for a long response . I just want to say that I appreciate your gracious manner in replying to me . It makes things a lot better . AND , I am sorry . I read your October 9th post in haste . You did indicate that your library is incomplete . So please ignore my thoughts about your arrogance and the Scott standard lines . People have read some of my posts in haste and made wrong conclusions and yet that's what I did with yours .

I will read Matt's paper .

About Nigel Lee . To me he's like a highly educated Peter Ruckman . He has said some outrageous things about Baptists . If he and John Cotton had lived at the same time they would have been quite the tag-team against the Baptists . And I mean sinning -up a storm in persecution of the anti-paedobaptists . Maybe you could suggest someone who is a bit more level-headed .

Why don't you write Reymond and ask if he erred in calling a number of Baptists Reformed in his systematic theology ? In the back of his book he again calls a number of Baptists Reformed . It was not just said in-passing by him . He was quite deliberate .

My church doesn't : " Wait until the cows come home " , before baptism . Do not generalize all Baptists by your experience . 

It is indeed possible that unregenerate people may be baptized on occasion in the Baptist churches . But how much more prevalent is that so in the paedobaptist churches !

Do I have to beg you or anyone else to please be specific with respect to Cunningham's remarks ? Is anyone listening ? Don't be so dismissive with a wave of the hand . Counter his statements in particular .

Scott , why not comment on the things he said that you agree with ? What is wrong with that ? I would really like to know if there is something he said that deserved merit in your eyes .


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 11, 2004)

I hope to have time this week to go through the Cunningham quotes. I suspect that he is referring not at all to the subjects of baptism, but rather as to what baptism symbolizes and seals, per the Confession of Faith:
[quote:211ac9cc3a="WCF 28.1"]Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world[/quote:211ac9cc3a]

But I must take the time to defend Cunningham. He was indeed was on the greatest reformed theologians of his day (or this for that matter). His [i:211ac9cc3a]Historical Theology[/i:211ac9cc3a] is a must read. His [i:211ac9cc3a]The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation[/i:211ac9cc3a] is also excellent. He is the equal or better of Bannerman and Buchanan (who are also excellent).

He was not Arminian, not defective in his covenant theology.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 11, 2004)

Tim,
You request I comment on some of the Cunningham quotes. I have pasted your opening post to consult. I hope you don't mind.

[quote:205b3c929b="Learner"]
Dr . Cunningham was a paedobaptist . He believed in it . He was not a Baptist , he was a fine , learned Presbyterian . Just remember , he was a paedobaptist , though he concedes a lot to the baptistic position .[/quote:205b3c929b] 

If the above statement is true, Cunningham was confused. You say on one hand that he [i:205b3c929b]believed[/i:205b3c929b] in paedo baptism, yet on the other, [quote:205b3c929b]he concedes a lot to the baptistic position[/quote:205b3c929b]. Both of these ideas cannot be true. They fly right in the face of each other. This is exactly why I've said that he was confused. This type of thinking shows no consistancy in regards to paedo theology; it smacks of fragmentation at best.


[quote:205b3c929b]My quotes will pertain to his sympathy with the baptistic stance , although he thought infant baptism was lawful and scriptural .[/quote:205b3c929b]

So, if he thought that infant baptism was [i:205b3c929b]lawful and scriptural[/i:205b3c929b], how could he side with the baptistic view??? I guess he would acknowledge his unlawfulness and anti-sola scriptural approach in this regard? I have to be honest here Tim, I believe you have misunderstood Cunningham.

[quote:205b3c929b]He does tend to repeat himself a bit . But all the more reason to listen to him in his appeal for Presbyterians to examine their thoughts again on the subject .
[/quote:205b3c929b]

Based upon what you have presented, I would not use him as a source. But.....I have to say, I have not witnessed this for myself. I MUST believe that you have misunderstood him Tim and have not rightly represented him in his fuller form. Remember, not to try and discredit you personally, but your previous use of Reymond was taken out of context. So, with all respect to the Doctor, I have to lean more his way and give him the benefit of the doubt in regards to his presbyterianism.

Cunningham quote:
[quote:205b3c929b]... Baptism , as well as the Lord's Supper , is ... presented to us in the New Testament ; and it is from the case of adult participation that we ought to form our general views and impressions of the meaning and design of these ordinances . [/quote:205b3c929b]

Obviously, Cunningham's hermeneutic is flawed.
This is not how a covenanter would think.

[quote:205b3c929b]It tends to greatly introduce obscurity and confusion into our whole conceptions upon the subject of baptism , that we see it ordinarily administered to infants , and very seldom to adults . This leads us insensibly to form very defective and erroneous conceptions of its design and effect ... ( page 125 )
[/quote:205b3c929b]

This could possibly be true. I would have to agree that we see more infant baptisms than adult one's. This does not necessarily skew one's theology. One's theology is grounded in scripture alone, not opinions. Every jot and tittle must be responsibly weighed according to the Holy scriptures. Based upon this, I disagree with this statement; "This leads us insensibly to form very defective and erroneous conceptions". My opinion, it's silly. It shows no faith in Gods word. 

[quote:205b3c929b]... We ought to remember , that we ought to form our primary and fundamental conceptions of baptism from the baptism of adults . ( page 126 )
[/quote:205b3c929b]

Question: Prior to the NT, did men form their [i:205b3c929b]primary and fundamental conceptions of baptism from the baptism of adults[/i:205b3c929b] ??? 

[quote:205b3c929b]The general tenor of Scripture language upon the subject of baptism applies primarily and directly to the baptism of adults , and proceeds upon the assumption , that the profession implied in the reception of baptism by adults , -- the profession , that is , that they had already been led to believe in Christ , and to receive Him as their Saviour and their Master , -- was sincere , or corresponded with the real state of their minds and hearts . It is necessary , therefore , to form our primary and fundamental conceptions of the objects and effects of baptism ... from the baptism of adults and not infants . ( page 144 )
[/quote:205b3c929b]

Tim,
The above quote IS NOT covenantal and if Cunningham thought this he was not (even) presbyterian in his theology, he was baptistic. This is much like the thinking that is going around today in our reformed circles. The church I am a member of has many charasmatics there. It is grievous to say the least. Again, please read some good material on CT and you will see how Cunninghams position is erred. The sign has never been applied under these rationales. The commission never says that someone needs to have these precepts in place prior to receiving the sign.

Tim,
I didn't include the rest of the quotes as they all smack of the same nonsense. I truly do not know what to tell you other than this is part of the problem; inconsistancy in the paedo camp. Revivalism and the like has crept in unaware and like a virus has infected us from the middle out. Whatever the case, it does not justify the error perpetuated. All I can suggest is to read (if you haven't yet already) Witsius' works on the covenant to gain a better understanding of the historic, orthodox, biblical position.

Thanks for the exchange......

SPB


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 11, 2004)

Hi ya fred,
Please do not misunderstand what I have said. I agree with you. This has been at the base of my statement. I must lean into the idea that this man was a presbyterian and was reformed in his theology. The quotes are concerning to say the least. However, the only rationale is that he has been taken out of context.......


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 11, 2004)

Yes, Scott I agree. Another possibility for some of the difference is that Schenck does not represent the end all of Presbyterian theology.


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 19, 2004)

I had saved this post, and the others might be moved over, but I wanted to get this back in:

======================================
Ok,

I'm not going to post at length here, for time sake, and because it will be lost in the conversion. But here is what I must say:

First, Tim, you are giving an entirely false impression of Cunningham. It would have been important if you had said from the beginning that the paragraph in question (which you have STILL taken out of context) was in his chapter on Concupiscence, dealing with the Romish view of baptism and the donum superadditum. Cunningham does not even have in mind here the credo/paedo debate. He is referring to Popish baptismal regeneration, in which Rome asserts that baptism in and of itself immediately saves and makes the infant free from all sin at that moment. The Confession explicitly rejects this:


> The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered



Please read Cunningham's entire chapter on infant baptism (Vol 2, p. 144ff.) for the credo/paedo issue (in which he is solidly paedo). Cunningham is talking about baptism and *ORIGINAL SIN* (hence the title of the chapter, Concupiscence), not infants.

Second, Scott R, Jacob and Scott,
you need to look closer at the quote. There is NOTHING in the quote that denies the efficacy of baptism in its proper reformed sense. Cunningham is rejecting Popish fancies regarding baptismal efficacy:



> The other Reformers certainly did not admit the Popish doctrines of baptismal justification and regeneration



The reference to the adult baptisms is simply a description of how the Bible ordinarily describes baptism. The most ardent of paedobaptists see that the crux of the issue is not a description of a baptism of a child, but the covenantal nature of the ordinance and continuity with the OT (see, e.g. Owen, Henry, et al). What baptism signifies is also ordinarily seen in adults (and prefigured in infants) as the Confession states:



WCF 28.1 said:


> ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life



The whole key to this section is Vol I p. 538, where Cunningham points out the Reformers view of the relation of baptism to original sin and whether there remains ANY sin in those who have been baptized. Rome denies this, for she denies that sinful proclivities (i.e. concupiscence) are sinful in and of themselves. That is how Rome gets around the idea of lust bringing forth sin in James 1.

I'm getting very tired of "revivalism" being thrown at all sorts of solid reformed men (Hodge, Dabney, Thornwell, and now Cunningham) when they won't talk like the folks over at Reformed Catholics.

[Edited on 10/19/2004 by fredtgreco]


----------



## AdamM (Oct 19, 2004)

> I'm getting very tired of "revivalism" being thrown at all sorts of solid reformed men (Hodge, Dabney, Thornwell, and now Cunningham) when they won't talk like the folks over at Reformed Catholics.



Actually, I don't think you can get more "Old School" then Dabney, Girardeau, Thornwell and Palmer (and I might add you can't get more more "New School" in approach to doctrine then the Reformed Catholics today.)



[Edited on 19-10-2004 by AdamM]


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> 
> 
> > I'm getting very tired of "revivalism" being thrown at all sorts of solid reformed men (Hodge, Dabney, Thornwell, and now Cunningham) when they won't talk like the folks over at Reformed Catholics.
> ...



I completely agree. That is the source of my frustration.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 19, 2004)

Why would one add Hodge into the revivalistic ideas? he was not one of them affected by it, but fought it.


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Why would one add Hodge into the revivalistic ideas? he was not one of them affected by it, but fought it.



There was a quote by Scott Roberts from a book by D.G. Hart that basically said Hodge was a closet revivalist.

Also, please be aware Matt, that today's epithet is not "TR" but "revivalist" or "too Lutheran."


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 19, 2004)

> There was a quote by Scott Roberts from a book by D.G. Hart that basically said Hodge was a closet revivalist.



Nonsense.

[Edited on 10-19-2004 by webmaster]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 19, 2004)

This one is well done fellows........

Closed, see you next spring.


----------

