# Dr. Gary Crampton's book on Baptism is available.



## PuritanCovenanter

A Problem with the Doctrine of Infant Baptism in the Westminster Standards

This should be an interesting read. 

from Paedobaptism... is only $14.30
if you use coupon code: drcrampton

From Paedobaptism to Credobaptism

Or... 

http://www.amazon.com/Covenant-Theology-Christ-Nehemiah-Coxe/dp/0976003937


----------



## Herald

So let it begin.


----------



## JonathanHunt

Muhahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaa! I have ordered my copy from Amazon.co.uk - will have to wait a little for it but its cheaper than getting direct from RBAP due to postage


----------



## Porter

Excellent! Can't wait. More wholesome reiteration of airtight Reformed/Covenantal Credobaptistic arguments, from an interesting angle.


----------



## MW

PuritanCovenanter said:


> A Problem with the Doctrine of Infant Baptism in the Westminster Standards


 


> The problem is three-fold: first, there are no examples of infant baptism in the Bible; second, baptism and the Lord’s Supper go together; and third, there are multiple differences among paedobaptists as to why infants should be baptized.



Asked and answered!


----------



## Herald

I can feel the rumble beneath my feet already. Once a few people have read Crampton's book I can sense a good ole' baptism donnybrook a coming.


----------



## Porter

> donnybrook


----------



## JML

Great. I have been looking forward to this book.


----------



## refbaptdude

This is good news.


----------



## tcalbrecht

armourbearer said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Problem with the Doctrine of Infant Baptism in the Westminster Standards
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is three-fold: first, there are no examples of infant baptism in the Bible; second, baptism and the Lord’s Supper go together; and third, there are multiple differences among paedobaptists as to why infants should be baptized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asked and answered!
Click to expand...

 

Ecclesiastes 1:9


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Gary is a friend of mine. But I have to say that other than a public defense (an unnecessary one in my opinion) of what is obviously a controversial change of opinion, if the book offers nothing new to the question, this hardly needs to be the big deal that is being made of it.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I agree with Chris. We are all going to have to just wait and see. I just ordered my copies and will comment. I will not be persuaded by those who defect to the Paedo side. I believe the progressive nature of the Church reveals what I hold to. 

So for a kind reception let us at least weight to see if exposes more light and listen to what the good Dr. Gary Crampton has said before we start casting stones. 

Thank You. Please be patient. Buy the book. Let's read it and discuss it. This blah blah blah stuff is uncalled for at this point. Read the book and contribute or at least be respectful towards a long time Elder in the Church.


----------



## timmopussycat

tcalbrecht said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Problem with the Doctrine of Infant Baptism in the Westminster Standards
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is three-fold: first, there are no examples of infant baptism in the Bible; second, baptism and the Lord’s Supper go together; and third, there are multiple differences among paedobaptists as to why infants should be baptized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asked and answered!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ecclesiastes 1:9
Click to expand...


Proverbs 18:13


----------



## Marrow Man

Randy, I think the general point is that according to Dr. Crampton's own blurb, he is bringing nothing new to the conversation. The "problem(s)" he mentions have been raised and answered myriad times.

I would also agree that the deleted comment was uncalled for. But some of the anti-paedo comments posted at the beginning of the thread were also a bit over the top as well. Quite frankly, it reminded me of the general glee that comes from the Roman Catholic community when a Protestant converts and proceeds to write a book or two about his conversion.

We talk about how we want peace and togetherness in the Reformed community, and then we wind up turning things like baptism into doctrines that divide. And we celebrate the divisions. I remember a thread several months back over the baptism of my own daughter -- an event that was one of the most joyful of my life was turned into another divisive squabble. That makes no sense to me.


----------



## Herald

Tim,

I recall the baptism thread about your daughter. The tenor of the conversation was sad, although predictable. Both sides have used baptism as a means of embarrassing the other. The only thing accomplished by such behavior is to build animosity and have brother think ill of brother. Of course, not all baptism thread participants devolve that like, but just enough to justify a "WARNING! Watch for sharks!" announcement for all who participate. This is really unique to the online community. The supposed anonymity makes rudeness commonplace. 

As far as Dr. Crampton's book, we can't suppose that a new perspective on a 2000 year old running debate is unnecessary. Even if Dr. Crampton's book doesn't bring anything new to the table it might certainly resonant with those who are struggling with the issue of baptism. Skeptical Presbyterians have a simple choice: don't purchase the book. The same would go for a well respected Baptist who went Presbyterian. In fact, considering the academic and ministerial pedigree that Dr. Crampton possesses it is almost required of him that he explained what happened. This is not a first year seminary student who succumbed to a theological epiphany. From snippets of the book released by Rich Barcellos, Dr. Crampton has been struggling with this for a long time. His book is the proper venue to explain that struggle, and only those interested
in his defense should purchase it.


----------



## Marrow Man

Herald said:


> As far as Dr. Crampton's book, we can't suppose that a new perspective on a 2000 year old running debate is unnecessary. Even if Dr. Crampton's book doesn't bring anything new to the table it might certainly resonant with those who are struggling with the issue of baptism.


 
Appreciate the comments, Bill. But this one is confusing to me? "A 2000 year old running debate"? Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are saying. I can understand "a 500 year old running debate," but 2000 I don't understand. 

As far as bringing anything new to the table, Dr. Crampton's own linked blurb seems to indicate he is not. I appreciate the fact that he has struggled with this for years and has come to a more firm conclusion. But unless he is holding something back in his comments, he is not bringing anything to the discussion that hasn't been been hashed and rehashed many times before -- sort of like some the baptism threads here on the PB. But to gleefully characterize -- sight unseen -- Dr. Crampton's book as "airtight" and precipitous of a "donnybrook" just does not seem helpful. It is almost like going around and looking for a argument.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Bill, I suppose you mean we "shouldn't suppose" a book was unnecessary, but I must certainly did and "can'. And I stand by that.


----------



## AThornquist

Marrow Man said:


> We talk about how we want peace and togetherness in the Reformed community, and then we wind up turning things like baptism into doctrines that divide. And we celebrate the divisions. *I remember a thread several months back over the baptism of my own daughter -- an event that was one of the most joyful of my life was turned into another divisive squabble.* That makes no sense to me.




Whoever caused that must have been a real jerk.


----------



## Marrow Man

Andrew, it wasn't raising the question that I had a problem with, just as I don't have a problem at all with Randy posting the information for this book (why should I?). It's the fact that we tend to take something like this and turn it into such a lengthy and divisive debate. Too much glee at "being right."


----------



## Herald

Well, my earlier comment about a donnybrook had more to do with the fall out of the book among the rabid baptism types. As far as whether he should have written the book, it seems the majority of the dissent is coming from the Presbyterian side. I find that interesting. In the end I do want to hear what this man has to say. Those that don't, well, use your money for something else.

Tim, and yes, I miss typed. It should have been 500 years. Thanks for the correction.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

It shouldn't be surprising Bill; because from the Presbyterian perspective it is a scandal and furthering it with an unnecessary book is furthering the scandal needlessly. It is impossible to divorce this from the equation.


Herald said:


> Well, my earlier comment about a donnybrook had more to do with the fall out of the book among the rabid baptism types. As far as whether he should have written the book, it seems the majority of the dissent is coming from the Presbyterian side. I find that interesting. In the end I do want to hear what this man has to say. Those that don't, well, use your money for something else.
> 
> Tim, and yes, I miss typed. It should have been 500 years. Thanks for the correction.


----------



## timmopussycat

NaphtaliPress said:


> It shouldn't be surprising Bill; because from the Presbyterian perspective it is a scandal and furthering it with an unnecessary book is furthering the scandal needlessly. It is impossible to divorce this from the equation.


Of course, from the Baptist perspective, the book may point up some of the reasons why we think Prebyterians are going beyond what can be deduced from Scripture by the Confessionally required good and necessary consequence.


----------



## au5t1n

AThornquist said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> We talk about how we want peace and togetherness in the Reformed community, and then we wind up turning things like baptism into doctrines that divide. And we celebrate the divisions. *I remember a thread several months back over the baptism of my own daughter -- an event that was one of the most joyful of my life was turned into another divisive squabble.* That makes no sense to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoever caused that must have been a real jerk.
Click to expand...

 
Just looked up the thread. Your first sentence was: "This is not in any way meant to be a credo vs paedobaptism thread, so please don't let it turn into one."


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Maybe; but if it is indeed the case as has been indicated from the provided summary then it was unnecessary. Simply tell folks existing polemics convinced and move on instead of enlarging the scandal. 


timmopussycat said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> 
> It shouldn't be surprising Bill; because from the Presbyterian perspective it is a scandal and furthering it with an unnecessary book is furthering the scandal needlessly. It is impossible to divorce this from the equation.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, from the Baptist perspective, the book may point up some of the reasons why we think Prebyterians are going beyond what can be deduced from Scripture by the Confessionally required good and necessary consequence.
Click to expand...


----------



## Herald

Chris, I'm trying to put the shoe on the other foot. How would I feel if a respected Reformed Baptist switched to paedo? Dissapointed. Grieved. But if the announcement was dignified, and an honest attempt made not to harm his Reformed Baptist brethren on the way out, I wouldn't term it a scandal. A scandal would be if the person was deceptive, malicious, secretive. Based on what I've read of Dr. Crampton's change (and I am open to correction if I'm wrong), he has been honest and above board about this. If I'm right, where's the scandal?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Bill,
I'm using scandal in the old sense of offense not as "scandalous" behavior.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Marrow Man said:


> Randy, I think the general point is that according to Dr. Crampton's own blurb, he is bringing nothing new to the conversation. The "problem(s)" he mentions have been raised and answered myriad times.



I understand what you are saying Tim. I am not sure that another book to these questions might not be warranted though. We have seen many "problem(s)" mentioned over and over in Church History. In fact sometimes those answers get a fresher look and a more intelligent answer. Sometimes they don't. Sometimes the arguments become better defined. As an example, the debate about justification by faith alone seems to keep getting challenged and answered over and over again. And that debate through the years has helped me many times over. 



Marrow Man said:


> I would also agree that the deleted comment was uncalled for. But some of the anti-paedo comments posted at the beginning of the thread were also a bit over the top as well. Quite frankly, it reminded me of the general glee that comes from the Roman Catholic community when a Protestant converts and proceeds to write a book or two about his conversion.



I agree with some of this. But I also see some vitriol in response also. That is why I put this in the Baptism thread. I have tried to portray an attitude of humility when someone expresses a change of position theologically concerning baptism. It doesn't matter from which side they are changing from or to. I am not one to gloat or praise someone for their change of position from paedo to credo on the PB. In fact I have urged caution to some if you will remember. 



Marrow Man said:


> We talk about how we want peace and togetherness in the Reformed community, and then we wind up turning things like baptism into doctrines that divide. And we celebrate the divisions. I remember a thread several months back over the baptism of my own daughter -- an event that was one of the most joyful of my life was turned into another divisive squabble. That makes no sense to me.



I may not be seeing what you are seeing in this thread. I don't see any gloating by anyone on this thread I do see the anticipation of others who hold to Dr. Crampton's conclusion concerning baptism and being confirmed and strengthened in their faith concerning this topic. I am personally encouraged when an old salty theologian confirms and possibly sheds more light on my understanding of the scripture. As in this case I will probably be very encouraged by Dr. Gary Crampton's insight. Please don't take this as gloating. 

And I do believe this debate has been growing since the early Church. Tertullian is one person who challenged the practice of infant baptism in the early Church. So I for one think it is a much older debate than 500 years. 

I will say this, I am not as grieved with the issue of difference as much as when another brother calls out another pronouncing a judgment of sin. I understand it is a confessional difference. But that is where the real dividing line is in my estimation. 

I agree with Rev. Winzer that there have been questions and answers. I find historically that this has happened throughout history. So to reask them and give an answer again is not necessarily a bad thing. I land on the side that is not satisfied with the Covenantal understanding that he holds to. I do hold to the three Covenantal understanding of the Covenant of Redemption, Covenant of Works, and Covenant of Grace. I still waiver between the understanding of the Covenant of Grace and Redemption being the same thing. But that is another discussion. Yes, the questions have been asked and answered. I as well as others are growing in our understanding and conclusions. Some are digressing in my opinion. I am very interested to see why Dr. Crampton has come to the conclusions he has come to. I believe he is has struggled with this issue for many many years and is most serious before God. He has landed where other historical theologians have landed in their answers. I want to know why. 

I admire him for his standing. It will most likely not be one he made for approval of other men. There really aren't that many Particular Baptists out there. He will be heavily criticized from those he has labored with for the cause of Christ because of his conclusions. From what I understand Dr. Crampton has always been up front about his struggle with this issue and recent work is not a ploy for anything else but to know Christ and make Him and His Word known. 

Be Encouraged,


----------



## Marrow Man

Randy, since you are not seeing what I am seeing, then perhaps we should just leave it at that (I, for one, do not see much need in repeating the same old arguments -- my own in this case). The thread involving my daughter was the one example I gave -- a thread that needlessly devolved into divisive arguments pro and con. These things have a way of straying off topic.

Re: Tertullian. You are correct that Tertullian argued against infant baptism, but not for anything that can be utilized in favor of a credo position. He argued against infant baptism because his own view of the efficacy of baptism was faulty -- that infants shouldn't be baptized because they would prematurely receive forgiveness of sins and then afterward incur post-baptismal sins. The value of Tertullian's comments for this discussion is to simply note that the practice of infant baptism existed in the church before 200 A.D., when he was writing.


----------



## JM

As pointed out by Stander and Louw (infant baptists) in their work titled _Baptism in the Early Church_, when the early church baptized infants it had a "performative function" relating to baptismal regeneration. No wonder Tertullian argued against the practice. 

The paedobaptist authors point out three main themes relating to the practice of infant baptism; "1) remission of sins, 2) guaranteed entrance into the Kingdom of heaven, that is, it ensures salvation, and 3) bestowal of a number of spiritual blessings."


----------



## Marrow Man

JM, would not the same belief in baptismal regeneration have been applied to adult converts as well? Wasn't that one of the reasons Constantine delayed his baptism until near death?

And Tertullian still seems to have held to a form of baptismal regeneration, infants or no infants. Not the guy either side wants to marshal to his cause on the issue.


----------



## JM

I don't know enough about Constantine to answer the question as why he delayed baptism or if he did at all. If I'm not mistaken he had political motives behind his association with the church.


----------



## Marrow Man

He did indeed have political motives, but I do believe he also delayed his baptism until his deathbed so that he could make sure all of his sins were "washed away."

OK, enough 

_mea culpa_


----------



## JM

Marrow Man said:


> OK, enough
> 
> _mea culpa_



Yup.


----------



## Herald

NaphtaliPress said:


> Bill,
> I'm using scandal in the old sense of offense not as "scandalous" behavior.



Chris, gotcha.


----------



## timmopussycat

Marrow Man said:


> Randy, since you are not seeing what I am seeing, then perhaps we should just leave it at that (I, for one, do not see much need in repeating the same old arguments -- my own in this case). The thread involving my daughter was the one example I gave -- a thread that needlessly devolved into divisive arguments pro and con. These things have a way of straying off topic.
> 
> Re: Tertullian. You are correct that Tertullian argued against infant baptism, but not for anything that can be utilized in favor of a credo position. He argued against infant baptism because his own view of the efficacy of baptism was faulty -- that infants shouldn't be baptized because they would prematurely receive forgiveness of sins and then afterward incur post-baptismal sins. The value of Tertullian's comments for this discussion is to simply note that the practice of infant baptism existed in the church before 200 A.D., when he was writing.



There is an additional value to Tertullian's comments. That he questioned the practice and with such a bad rationale against it tells us that the theology that currently undergirds the practice was likely unknown to him.


----------



## Marrow Man

timmopussycat said:


> There is an additional value to Tertullian's comments. That he questioned the practice and with such a bad rationale against it tells us that the theology that currently undergirds the practice was likely unknown to him.


 
As would be modern Baptist arguments. But we have already established that this rabbit trail is  Feel free to start another thread.


----------



## Robert Truelove

Another new book from the credo side is "The Fatal Flaw of the Theology Behind Infant Baptism" by Jeffery Johnson. This one is worthy of some attention.


----------



## R Harris

I just hope it is not written in the same tone as Paul Jewitt's book was back in 1978 - _Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace_. Although it appeared to me that Vernon Grounds was engaging in a bit of gloating in his back cover synopsis, I definitely got the impression that Jewitt had an axe to grind.

As I was with Jewitt's book, I will be interested to see how Dr. Crampton deals with (1) the household baptisms of Acts 16 and I Cor. I; and (2) his exegesis of I Cor. 7. Dr. Jewitt's defense against the household baptisms and the I Cor. 7 text was lamentably weak; let's see what Dr. Crampton puts forth.


----------



## rbcbob

I have nearly finished Dr. Crampton's book and am finding that it surpasses my expectations. He certainly understands the debate from both sides.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I am still waiting on my copies. I guess I have been relegated to the background now. I am depressed. I use to get books up front. I guess not any longer.


----------



## cksalmon

None of the issues Dr. Crampton raises in Chapter Four appear to me to be insuperable from the paedobaptistic perspective (although I tend to agree with the thrust of the points he raises therein. More commentary on that in future if there is interest). 

I'll necessarily refrain from commenting beyond what I've read, but, as I'm new to the party, I do wonder what my paedobaptistic brothers make of Crampton's argument in Chapter Two.

I'll attempt to summarize.

Crampton quotes WCF as follows:



> *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, *(1) and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life.* Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.



He further quotes from the Larger Catechism (Q. 165: What is Baptism?):


> A. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein Christ hath ordained the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, to be a sign and seal of ingrafting into himself, of remission of sins by his blood, and regeneration by his Spirit; of adoption, and resurrection unto everlasting life; *(2) and whereby the parties baptized *are solemnly admitted into the visible church, and* enter into an open and professed engagement to be wholly and only the Lord’s.*



The emphasis above is wholly mine, and so shouldn't be laid at Crampton's feet. But, if I take the idea he is driving at correctly, it is something like this:

With regard to (1), infants do not (indeed, are not expected to) "walk in [the] newness of life [as a necessary concomitant of regeneration]" merely by virtue of their baptism as infants. Thus, it seems odd to say of infant-baptized persons that they "walk in newness of life" as a consequent of baptism. 

Two clarifications. First, I don't assume that WCF has in mind presumptive regeneration at this point. Second, I read the phrase "his giving up unto God" as intending something like "his [having been given] up to God." I think this is a charitable reading and clearly implicates the believing parents as the relevant agents at this point. But, still, it seems odd to talk of a baptized infant as "[walking] in newness of life" consequent to his infant baptism. 

With regard to (2), I don't see how persons baptized as infants can, in any meaningful sense, be said to "[have entered] into an open and professed engagement to be wholly and only the Lord’s," as Q. 165 of the Larger Catechism explicitly indicates is _definitional_ of the sacrament of Baptism.

Crampton writes (in response to Q. 165):


> "But one cannot reasonably apply this definition to an infant, who is not able to 'enter into an open and professed engagement to be wholly and only the Lord's.'"


Crampton further quotes "paedobaptist theologian" William Cunningham (whom I haven't read in context) as follows:


> "It is impossible to deny, that the general description which the _Shorter Catechism_ [and the Westminster Standards overall {<- this in Crampton}] gives of a sacrament teaches, by plain implication, that the sacraments are intended only for believers, while no Protestant, except some of the Lutherans, have ever held that babies are capable of exercising faith... Its general import, as implying a virtual restriction of these ordinances to believers, is too clear to be misunderstood or to admit or being explained away."



Having recognized the difficulty WCF presents as to the proper subjects of baptism, Cunningham (per Crampton) argued that the baptism of adults and the baptism of infants had two _different_ meanings. 

Crampton again:



> "Now paedobaptists claim (and correctly so), with the Confession (1:6), that 'the whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.' But the question is, can it be deduced from Scripture 'by good and necessary consequence' that infants are to be baptized? 'Necessary' consequence requires compelling evidence, and such certainly is not to be found in this case. Ultimately, the argument for infant baptism is an argument from silence, and an argument from silence is a logical fallacy, and a violation of the regulative principle of worship."



I would note here that arguments from silence certainly _can_ be fallacious, but are not _necessarily_ so. 

Crampton's argument that WCF violates its own regulative principle is not as easily dismissed, I don't think. 

Someone above wondered about the general tone of the book. On my read, Crampton's work is irenic. One would have to be looking for offense to find it here, at least as far as I've read. 

Best. 

Chris

_Edited for spelling._


----------



## JonathanHunt

One comment. This book cost me £14. That is pounds not dollars. I expected a thick tome. Seriously BAD value for money.


----------



## KensingtonerRebbe

I have a friend who suspects this book will put an end to my Covenant baptism views. He'll be ordering it for me. I'll keep you posted.


----------



## Marrow Man

cksalmon said:


> Crampton again:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Now paedobaptists claim (and correctly so), with the Confession (1:6), that 'the whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.' But the question is, can it be deduced from Scripture 'by good and necessary consequence' that infants are to be baptized? 'Necessary' consequence requires compelling evidence, and such certainly is not to be found in this case. Ultimately, the argument for infant baptism is an argument from silence, and an argument from silence is a logical fallacy, and a violation of the regulative principle of worship."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would note here that arguments from silence certainly _can_ be fallacious, but are not _necessarily_ so.
> 
> Crampton's argument that WCF violates its own regulative principle is not as easily dismissed, I don't think.
Click to expand...

 
Chris, I shall make two comments here:

1) The assumption that infant baptism somehow violates the "good and necessary consequence" clause is quite a stretch, and seems to be historically recognized by Baptists. For example, the language of the London Baptist Confession is changed (from the WCF) at 1:6 to read, "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down _or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture_: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit, or traditions of men." Now, I'm certainly not an expert on the LBC, but I believe it was once pointed out to me that one of the reasons that the language was altered here (from the WCF) was to "close the loop" with regard to infant baptism. If so, that would seem to defuse some of Dr. Crampton's point, since the regulative language of the WCF was actually changed by the English Baptists.

2) Chris, I don't know if you've introduced yourself on a welcome thread, but welcome to the PB! Since you don't live too far away (I live in Louisville), I would love to meet up with you sometime. As long as we don't discuss baptism.


----------



## Herald

Tim, 

I looking forward to meeting you one day and all I wan to discuss is baptism. No hello. No asking how each other is doing. Just baptism, baptism, baptism, baptism, baptism. Baptism 24/7/365. In fact, I want our baptism discussion to be like this:

YouTube - Forrest Gump - Shrimps


----------



## LawrenceU

I'm still waiting . . . . . on my copy


----------



## Marrow Man

Herald said:


> Tim,
> 
> I looking forward to meeting you one day and all I wan to discuss is baptism. No hello. No asking how each other is doing. Just baptism, baptism, baptism, baptism, baptism. Baptism 24/7/365. In fact, I want our baptism discussion to be like this:
> 
> YouTube - Forrest Gump - Shrimps


----------



## R Harris

Chris,

As I mentioned in my previous post . . . how does Crampton (1) deal with the household baptisms of Acts 16 and I Cor. 1; and (2) how does he deal with I Cor. 7?


----------



## JML

LawrenceU said:


> I'm still waiting . . . . . on my copy


 
I got mine yesterday. Now all I have to do is find the time to read it in the midst of working full-time, having a family, going to seminary, writing sermons, and of course hanging out on the Puritan Board. 

Lawrence, yours probably got lost somewhere between Montgomery and Mobile. The UPS guy got tired of looking at pine trees and gave up. It's no man's land.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Joshua said:


> R Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chris,
> 
> As I mentioned in my previous post . . . how does Crampton (1) deal with the household baptisms of Acts 16 and I Cor. 1; and (2) how does he deal with I Cor. 7?
> 
> 
> 
> Baptistically, I'm sure.
Click to expand...

 
I think he does a good job. The book is different than any other credo book I have read. Paedo's will have to bear with the first three chapters till they get to what they want to hear. Just my humble opinion. I am impressed with the book. It does come from a totally different angle. 

When I first got the books I ordered I thought the book was kind of short. But it is packed. Very straight forward as Dr. Crampton's usual style.

BTW, he did a good job with the blessings of kids who are considered Covenant Children as per the Reformed Baptist position also. I say this in light of the question of household baptisms.


----------



## cksalmon

*On the Acts 16 Passages*

Randy,

Here is how Crampton deals with the passages in Acts 16.

*Acts 16.15, On Lydia*
Crampton quotes from and obviously agrees with I. H. Marshall’s commentary (from the Tyndale New Testament series):


> Advocates of infant baptism eagerly seize on this verse [Acts 16:15] and similar ones . . . and argue that the possibility . . . that households included small children is high. Their opponents point out that children, and in particular infants, are never expressly mentioned. In this present case, the fact that Lydia was engaged in business strongly suggests that she was single or widowed, and the members of her household would have included any servants or dependents whom she had living with her.



Crampton concludes, “There is not the remotest suggestion that there were infants baptized in Lydia’s household” (65). 

On a straightforward reading of the Lydia account, it seems, the presence of children must be read into the passage, as, for example, in Kistemaker: “Lydia was a God-fearing woman whose spiritual influence permeates her entire household. She is the head of the family and teaches God’s word to her children” (_Acts_, BNTC [Grand Rapids, MN: Baker Academic, 1991], 590). Obviously, Kistemaker merely assumes the presence of children; they are nowhere explicitly mentioned in the passage, and careful reflection upon the surrounding context would appear to make the presence of children at least _as unlikely _(if not _more _unlikely) than their absence. 

As Kistemaker notes, Lydia acts as the head of her own household. There is no mention of a husband. With the same degree of _textual _evidence (that is, none) we may be just as certain that Lydia was never married and never had children, or that she was widowed prior to having children and never remarried, or that she was widowed and her children are grown and no longer in the household, or that her single child died in infancy and her husband died of cholera, etc. 

*Acts 16.31-32, On the Jailer*
He doesn’t say much about this passage, other than to point out that the salvation offered to the “household” was predicated on belief in Christ—“Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household” (ESV). The Gospel was proclaimed to all those “who were in his house.” Crampton summarizes: “The whole family believed, and the whole family was baptized.” That strikes me as a straightforward reading of the passage in light of the below.

The members of the household are involved jointly at each point of the narrative, not just in the baptism. 
*31b *Salvation is offered to the jailer and “[his] household” on the condition of their belief in the Lord Jesus (ESV); 
*32 *The word of the Lord is spoken to the jailer and “all who were in his house” (ESV);
*33b *“He and all his family,” having believed in the Lord Jesus, were baptized (ESV).
*34 *“He rejoiced greatly that he had come to believe in God, together with his entire household” (NET).

I would point out that I abandoned ESV for v. 34, opting instead for NET. ESV has, instead, “And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God,” making it sound as if the entire household rejoiced but that only the jailer (singularly) had believed in God. Even Kistemaker, eager to read children into Lydia’s household, points out that, here, πανοικεὶ (_panoikei_), “translated ‘with his whole house,’ agrees with both the verb to rejoice and the perfect participle believed” (Kistemaker, Acts, 603). In other words, as Crampton footnotes, “. . . all believed, all rejoiced, and all were baptized” (66, fn 11). 

NET footnotes the following: “The phrase ‘together with his entire household’ is placed at the end of the English sentence so that it refers to both the rejoicing and the belief. A formal equivalence translation would have ‘and he rejoiced greatly with his entire household that he had come to believe in God,’ but the reference to the entire household being baptized in v. 33 presumes that all in the household believed.”

I’ll have to get back to you on 1 Cor passages.

Best.

Chris


----------



## cksalmon

Marrow Man said:


> cksalmon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Crampton again:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Now paedobaptists claim (and correctly so), with the Confession (1:6), that 'the whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.' But the question is, can it be deduced from Scripture 'by good and necessary consequence' that infants are to be baptized? 'Necessary' consequence requires compelling evidence, and such certainly is not to be found in this case. Ultimately, the argument for infant baptism is an argument from silence, and an argument from silence is a logical fallacy, and a violation of the regulative principle of worship."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would note here that arguments from silence certainly _can_ be fallacious, but are not _necessarily_ so.
> 
> Crampton's argument that WCF violates its own regulative principle is not as easily dismissed, I don't think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chris, I shall make two comments here:
> 
> 1) The assumption that infant baptism somehow violates the "good and necessary consequence" clause is quite a stretch, and seems to be historically recognized by Baptists. For example, the language of the London Baptist Confession is changed (from the WCF) at 1:6 to read, "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down _or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture_: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit, or traditions of men." Now, I'm certainly not an expert on the LBC, but I believe it was once pointed out to me that one of the reasons that the language was altered here (from the WCF) was to "close the loop" with regard to infant baptism. If so, that would seem to defuse some of Dr. Crampton's point, since the regulative language of the WCF was actually changed by the English Baptists.
> 
> 2) Chris, I don't know if you've introduced yourself on a welcome thread, but welcome to the PB! Since you don't live too far away (I live in Louisville), I would love to meet up with you sometime. As long as we don't discuss baptism.
Click to expand...

 
Tim,

Definitely, it would be great to meet up sometime in Louisville. I get there often enough. Do you like Vietnamese?

I think I see your point. But, I'm not sure I'd read "by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from" (WCF) and "necessarily contained in" as marking as significant a disjunction between the two documents as you might. Perhaps you're correct, but if so, I'd prefer the language in WCF at that point. Of course, at that point, I'm assuming a certain way of reading WCF's "may be deduced," and it is likely that the framers were not using the word as formally as I might prefer. That is, the argument to paedobaptism, based on the commonly adduced NT passages, seems much more like an exercise in induction to me. Not _necessarily _wrong, but certainly not airtight. 

Just to clarify, it is not Crampton's argument that the Westminster Divines violated their own consciences with regard to infant baptism. That is, there was certainly no perceived dissonance on the part of the framers between what they wrote and what they practiced. Rather, if I'm reading him correctly, Crampton is arguing that paedobaptistic adherents to WCF unintentionally violate one of WCF's perfectly laudable first principles of theological construction. Infant baptism, on this view, just cannot be "deduced by good and necessary consequence" from what _is_ made explicit in Scripture. 

Best.

Chris


----------



## Marrow Man

Thanks, Chris. I don't believe I've ever Vietnamese. Of course, I'd be willing to try it. If Korean is a reasonable compromise, I do know of a good restaurant there.

A few observations in your last two posts, though I am a bit of a disadvantage here, having not read the book (i.e., I am simply going on your comments alone): 1) Does Dr. Crampton interact at all with the household principle with regard to Lydia? In other words,, does he interact in any way with the idea of households, how these function in the Ancient Near East, whether there is a connection with OT principles here, etc.? You/he are correct in saying that there may not have been children in the household; neither is there any indication that anyone in her household received a specifically _credo_ baptism, as nothing is said of anyone's belief but Lydia. 2) There appears to be a problem with with Dr. Crampton's reading of Acts 16:34 (unless I am misunderstanding what you are saying), as the perfect participle "having believed" is both masculine and singular, and the sentence construction seems to better reflect that "he greatly rejoiced with his household [, he] having believed in God." 3) The Divines were not being demonstrably inconsistent in any way simply because they adopted a different hermeneutic than Crampton seems to wish to allow. There are plenty of things that are not necessarily contained in Scripture (as in being _explicitly_ stated) that you and I am Dr. Crampton would all accept and or adopt, and none of us would consider the other of being inconsistent here, at least I do not think so. Worship on the first day of the week or women participating in the Lord's Supper are not expressly stated in Scripture but may be deduced from Scripture. Similarly, Scripture never tells us that Timothy was ever baptized (though he is explicitly said to be circumcised in Acts 16). Does Dr. Crampton interact in any way with the change between the WCF and the LBC at 1:6 and how this affects his argument?


----------



## Herald

Observation to all: the majority of people in this thread have not read Dr. Crampton's book. I wonder about the wisdom of debating his points when, by Tim's own admission, it has not be vetted sufficiently by the majority.


----------



## Marrow Man

Oh, yeah, well I've got three words for you Bill: baptism, baptism, baptism 

Seriously, that's probably wise advice, and Chris and I might actually be able to discuss such things face-to-face at some point. So I will extract myself from the thread like the long-in-the-tooth that I often am.


----------



## cksalmon

Marrow Man said:


> Thanks, Chris. I don't believe I've ever Vietnamese. Of course, I'd be willing to try it. If Korean is a reasonable compromise, I do know of a good restaurant there.
> 
> A few observations in your last two posts, though I am a bit of a disadvantage here, having not read the book (i.e., I am simply going on your comments alone): 1) Does Dr. Crampton interact at all with the household principle with regard to Lydia? In other words,, does he interact in any way with the idea of households, how these function in the Ancient Near East, whether there is a connection with OT principles here, etc.? You/he are correct in saying that there may not have been children in the household; neither is there any indication that anyone in her household received a specifically _credo_ baptism, as nothing is said of anyone's belief but Lydia. 2) There appears to be a problem with with Dr. Crampton's reading of Acts 16:34 (unless I am misunderstanding what you are saying), as the perfect participle "having believed" is both masculine and singular, and the sentence construction seems to better reflect that "he greatly rejoiced with his household [, he] having believed in God." 3) The Divines were not being demonstrably inconsistent in any way simply because they adopted a different hermeneutic than Crampton seems to wish to allow. There are plenty of things that are not necessarily contained in Scripture (as in being _explicitly_ stated) that you and I am Dr. Crampton would all accept and or adopt, and none of us would consider the other of being inconsistent here, at least I do not think so. Worship on the first day of the week or women participating in the Lord's Supper are not expressly stated in Scripture but may be deduced from Scripture. Similarly, Scripture never tells us that Timothy was ever baptized (though he is explicitly said to be circumcised in Acts 16). 4) Does Dr. Crampton interact in any way with the change between the WCF and the LBC at 1:6 and how this affects his argument?



Tim,

Taking your questions in order.

(1) No. He does not. 
(2) So that I do not misrepresent Crampton at this point, I'm providing scans of the relevant four pages (64-67). I believe this falls broadly under the umbrella of fair use, and I can only assume Dr. Crampton would appreciate his book being seriously discussed by such folks as frequent puritanboard. (I hope you can make out the print; it's as legible as I could make it on short notice.)
*pp. 64-65*





pp. 66-67




(images used with permission of the publisher--moderators)
(3) Agreed, generally. 

I've enumerated your last question.

(4) No. He does not. 

I believe I consumed more _kimchi_ than any American Southerner has any right to do during my stint as the youth pastor at Korean First _Presbyterian_ Church in New Orleans. But, assuming you're talking about that Korean restaurant that has the grills built into the table... I don't believe anyone has ever consumed enough _bulgogi_. Count me in.

The grammatical point you raise is obviously important and, I think, can be productively discussed without any explicit reference to Crampton's work. Your argument seems to entail that NET misreads the contextual scope of πεπιστευκὼς ("he having believed"). For, while you're correct that the participle is masculine singular, NET assumes that the scope of the belief in view is coterminous with the number of those baptized. That is, none who were baptized didn't also believe, and also none who rejoiced didn't also believe.

This certainly seems to be how Kistemaker understands the verse ("He rejoiced greatly because he _and his family believed _in God" [_Acts_, 602; emphasis mine]). So also, as noted, NET, as well as KJV, NKJV, NIV, and NASB.

The counter-argument to your position seems to be that πανοικεὶ relevantly controls the rest, but we're getting quickly beyond my competence level at that point. 

Still, even assuming an atomized reading of πεπιστευκὼς, and assuming a sort of general equity of assumption, if you will, we appear to find the entire household (can one safely assume the presence of other adults?) rejoicing (in the reception of the Gospel, apparently) and being baptized. The question I'm left with, in that case, is, Does it make sense to say that the entire household rejoiced—the entire household already having been baptized—because the jailer _alone _believed in God? Did the other adults of the household (surely, if we are to assume the presence of children, we can assume the presence of other adults) _fail_ to believe in God, but rejoiced and were baptized as _unbelieving_ adults?

In that case, the atomization of πεπιστευκὼς would seem to prove _too _much: i.e., the baptism of unregenerate adults whose belief in God cannot be "deduced by good and necessary consequence from" πανοικεὶ . . . πεπιστευκὼς.

Looking forward to grilling some _bulgogi_, brother. 

Best.

Chris


----------



## Marrow Man

Thanks, Chris. Very helpful. I would still dispute the grammatical point (and I went back and read Kistemaker, who simply makes the statement about agreement; I would at least like the grammatical point explained, I guess). Certainly this is not agreed upon by all -- consider, e.g., Bruce's translation in NICNT.

But enough about this. No, the restaurant I'm thinking of does not have a grill in the middle of the table. One of our congregation is originally from South Korea, and she was the first to invite my wife and me there. We have been there on a few occasions (Lee's is the name of the restaurant, btw). Someone connected with the restaurant (either the owner or his son) attends SBTS, I believe.


----------



## cksalmon

Marrow Man said:


> I would still dispute the grammatical point (and I went back and read Kistemaker, who simply makes the statement about agreement; I would at least like the grammatical point explained, I guess).


Heh. Let me go on record as disputing it myself, Tim! Kistemaker's admission of agreement doesn't seal the deal for me, either. With you, I would at least like the grammatical point explained (to such persons, as myself, whose _koine_ is a few years old and didn't substantially delve into exegetical syntax). 

It is significant, however, don't you agree, that Kistemaker states that "the verb _to rejoice_ and the perfect participle _believed_ agree, grammatically, with πανοικεὶ? 

We both agree, I trust, that he doesn't state such for nothing. 

If one were to argue that Kistemaker had as his goal to present a biased view of NT support for infant baptism (neither of us is doing that), one would have to pass over his commentary of Acts 16.34 in silence. 

Best.

Chris


----------



## Marrow Man

Chris, let me go on the record as saying that Kistemaker's Greek is much better than my own.


----------



## R Harris

cksalmon said:


> Randy,
> 
> Their opponents point out that children, and in particular infants, are never expressly mentioned. In this present case, the fact that Lydia was engaged in business strongly suggests that she was single or widowed, and the members of her household would have included any servants or dependents whom she had living with her.



Crampton concludes, “There is not the remotest suggestion that there were infants baptized in Lydia’s household” (65). 

I would point out that I abandoned ESV for v. 34, opting instead for NET. ESV has, instead, “And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God,” making it sound as if the entire household rejoiced but that only the jailer (singularly) had believed in God. A formal equivalence translation would have ‘and he rejoiced greatly with his entire household that he had come to believe in God,’ but the reference to the entire household being baptized in v. 33 presumes that all in the household believed.”


Chris[/QUOTE]

Crampton's inconsistency again strikes the normal chord as have all others who have dealt with this passage. The FACT of the matter is that we do NOT KNOW what the household compositions were; so he cannot emphatically state there is not the "remotest suggestion" that infants or small children could have been in this household. NEITHER SIDE can make a definitive statement either way.

The relevant issue of both baptisms does not deal with what the composition of the households were in terms of age or gender. So, for Luke's perspective, _it didn't matter_. The relevant question is "did the other members of the household make a profession of faith?" The baptist assumes this, even though the text does not say it. Lydia clearly says, "if you have judged ME (not us) to have been worthy, then come and stay at my house." All of the emphasis is upon her, and not the other members of the household. I have waited for 20 years for someone to give me a valid reason as to why she did not include the other members of her household, but still wait, since Crampton himself does not provide an answer.

The greek of verse 34 has been debated at length. Even you admit that the straightforward greek points to the jailer only. Other greek scholars will tell you that the participle "having believed" is pointing to the jailer and not the household, as the ESV translation reads. So bias does come into play here, as people naturally run to the "greek scholar" who simply affirms their present position. So, in other words, Kistemaker is not the final authority or word in this matter. As an example, I have found advocates of sprinkling recoil at the "coming up out of the water" phrases, but those can be easily answered. Just because some advocates may come to a translation conclusion not buttressing their position still doesn't mean that they got the greek right.


----------



## cksalmon

Randy,



R Harris said:


> Crampton's inconsistency again strikes the normal chord as have all others who have dealt with this passage. The FACT of the matter is that we do NOT KNOW what the household compositions were; so he cannot emphatically state there is not the "remotest suggestion" that infants or small children could have been in this household. *NEITHER SIDE can make a definitive statement either way.*


That's true enough. Maybe your analysis points out something significant after all about the disjunction of WCF and LCF you raised above. 



> The relevant issue of both baptisms does not deal with what the composition of the households were in terms of age or gender. So, for Luke's perspective, _it didn't matter_. The relevant question is "did the other members of the household make a profession of faith?" The baptist assumes this, even though the text does not say it. Lydia clearly says, "if you have judged ME (not us) to have been worthy, then come and stay at my house." All of the emphasis is upon her, and not the other members of the household. I have waited for 20 years for someone to give me a valid reason as to why she did not include the other members of her household, but still wait, since Crampton himself does not provide an answer.


With no intention of making your point for you : her house, her invitation to give. It's not clear to me why she would need expand this particular conditional to include the other members of her household (i.e., "If you have judged _us_ to have been faithful to the Lord, come and stay at _my_ house.")



> The greek of verse 34 has been debated at length.


What resources would you recommend on this verse? My commentary "library" is woefully lacking with regard to Acts, but I'm close enough to Southern to obtain relevant journal articles, etc. 



> Even you admit that the straightforward greek points to the jailer only.


Sure. It's always best to show one's work and admit contrary evidence up front.



> *(1) *So, in other words, Kistemaker is not the final authority or word in this matter. . . .* (2)* Just because some advocates may come to a translation conclusion not buttressing their position still doesn't mean that they got the greek right.


*(1)* Agreed.
*(2)* Agreed.

Of course, I also agree with your point regarding the inevitable presence of confirmatory biases in such discussions.

As for me, broadly speaking, I'm more than a bit Bunyanesque on the matter. 

Best,

Chris


----------



## cksalmon

As an aside, John Meade has a good, brief discussion here on the grammatical difficulty of Acts 16.34 and how the Peshitta resolves it.

He writes:


> Notice that the Peshitta does not represent a different text of the NT. Rather, the differences are on the level of translation not text. There are two differences in this text: 1) they translated πανοικει as a noun “and the sons of his house,” and 2) they translated the Greek participle πεπιστευκως as a prepositional phrase “in/because of faith” (ܒܿܗܰܝܡܳܢܽܘܬ݂ܳܐ).



And concludes:


> The Syriac Version supplies us with a translation of this Greek text circum 400 AD or earlier. This is early evidence that the church, at least in the East, was reading this baptismal account with credobaptist eyes. Now, it does not answer the questions of who exactly was in the house or were there any infants in the house at the time, but it at least teaches that faith and baptism must be placed together. Infant faith is not ruled out according to this text. The only option the Peshitta rules out is a baptism apart from faith.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

The translation the Peshitta provides does not "tend" to providing credo-baptist support, to the exclusion of a household that included anyone there under the terms, inclusive. It is simply a straightforward, and very faithful, translation into a Semitic language (which prefers certain renditions of Greek phraseology, not any different than a modern English translation will do); and simply put, very much follows the word order of the Greek. Being myself a person familar to varying degrees with both biblical Hebrew and the modern Semitic tongue, Arabic, I would have to say that Meade's conclusions drawn from the translation is as tendentious as anything he tries to pin on a paedobaptist.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

May I point out a matter concerning the household baptisms in the Book of Acts? We paedo-baptists often get caught up in the discussions concerning these matters with credo-baptists that we tend to overlook the Covenant unity that is the backbone of these baptisms. That is, the major point of showing these baptisms is that the Gentiles, who were not children of God, are now being treated like the Jews, who are the people of God. Thus, you will see, *in every instance* of these household baptisms that the Head of the Household comes to faith in Jesus Christ and is baptized, and then the rest of the household is baptized - with or without a profession of faith necessary. Just as Abraham, the head of his household, was circumcised, and then his whole household was circumcised - with or without a profession of faith - it is now evident that God is treating the Gentiles in the same fashion. This is given as a sign to the Jews that the Gentiles are now open to receiving the Covenant of Grace:

Acts 10:44,45: While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. *And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the holy Ghost.*

Acts 11:16-18: Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God? When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, *Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.*

The baptism is that of the Head of a Household and, concurrently, the household. God is dealing with the Gentiles in the New Covenant in the same fashion that He dealt with the Jews in the Old Covenant. This is not surprising since *both* Covenants are simply administrations of the Covenant of Grace. The inclusion of Gentile believers and their households in the New Covenant was not lost on the believing Jews, and, was a powerful testimony to them that God has now opened the Covenant of Grace to the Gentiles as well.

Infant baptism is a visible sign of Federal Theology at its best.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

All I have to say is read to book first from one who is coming from a Confessional understanding. I know how hard that is hard. I know it is hard to read something that is opposing to ones view. There are blogs on places of unity and disunity concerning cults even. They are violent in content and the original languages. Read the book before you comment please. Even the section provided above does not do justice to it. Just my humble opinion. I hate this debate. But I must admit it is because I have blogged about it so much on my PB blog and debated it so much. Even between Rev. Buchannan and myself. This might might not might not make much sense. 

Read my blogs and the book. Then lets discuss it.

No one is denying Federal Theology here. Christ is our Federal Head in the New Covenant as He was our head in the Old Covenant.


----------



## Porter

> I have a friend who suspects this book will put an end to my Covenant baptism views. He'll be ordering it for me. I'll keep you posted.



Credobaptism _is_ Covenant Baptism.


----------



## Marrow Man

> Credobaptism _is_ Covenant Baptism.



Well, since paedobaptists _are_ also credobaptists, I suppose you are correct.


----------

