# What I have learned about infant baptism



## shackleton (May 28, 2008)

I recently listened to two good audio sermons on infant baptism by Richard Pratt (Reformed Sermons and Lectures on Infant Baptism), and realize that it has to do with seeing the bible as _one_ complete whole. Not segmented as in dispensationalism. 

There is not a break from the OT to the NT. It is one Covenant of Grace through all of history. It is the same God from the OT that is in the NT. 

I guess I was still reading it from a notion that something changed when Jesus came and died. That that started a new era. I guess this also explains the notion of the moral laws still being in effect as well. Seeing the bible as one complete whole changes how everything is viewed and understood.


----------



## toddpedlar (May 28, 2008)

Few, if any, covenant theologians would argue that NOTHING changed when Jesus died, though, or that a new era did NOT initiate with his death & resurrection.


----------



## reformedman (May 28, 2008)

shackleton said:


> I recently listened to two good audio sermons on infant baptism by Richard Pratt (Reformed Sermons and Lectures on Infant Baptism), and realize that it has to do with seeing the bible as _one_ complete whole. Not segmented as in dispensationalism.
> 
> There is not a break from the OT to the NT. It is one Covenant of Grace through all of history. It is the same God from the OT that is in the NT.
> 
> I guess I was still reading it from a notion that something changed when Jesus came and died. That that started a new era. I guess this also explains the notion of the moral laws still being in effect as well. Seeing the bible as one complete whole changes how everything is viewed and understood.




With great respect due to my paedo brethren and in light of the fact that credo nor paedo are dispensationists(reformed), I would think that the paedo would be more of a dispensationaiist than the credo because simply, the circumscision has changed into some other form of physical act. While with the credo, (atleast for most (in my opinion)), the credo believes that the token of circum. was mandated for all in the house of Abraham who were the seed of Abraham(and the servants and anyone else in his house but this is another thing), in other words, for believers only. And that was a forshadow of the circumscision of the heart of which current paedos agree you must have (a circum. of the heart as it were).
So for the credo it has continued just as the sacrificing of the animals for offerings which were a forshadow completed in Christ; the circum. of the privates is a forshadow of the circum. of the heart.

For the paedo on the other hand, the circum. of the privates changed so that it is now no longer a water-baptism(which incidentally has nothing involving forshadow of the heart) as well as it to all children born to the family, saved or unsaved, and also, it is now practiced on females. 

So the idea that credo would lead you to think that it was somewhat dispensationalist sort of caught me by surprise a little and shocked me to think that you didn't see it more in the paedo brethren.

Please understand that this is not an argument of retaliation, nor that I am debating, it was just surprising is all.

-peace


----------



## shackleton (May 28, 2008)

I guess what I meant was that things did not change in the dispensational sense. Angry God OT, nice friendly Jesus in the NT, different plans for church and Israel. But that there is only one Covenant of Grace through the whole bible.

(response to Toddpeddlar)


----------



## Pilgrim (May 28, 2008)

Dr. Richard Pratt is a very clear communicator who is often able to make the complex understandable. He is a contributor, along with Tom Nettles and a couple of others, to the recent 4 views on Baptism book published by Zondervan. His article on Jer. 31 was instrumental in my move to paedobaptism around 2005 since that passage was one that was emphasized strongly by those who had influenced me previously. However, as you can imagine in light of my recent change, I no longer find him persuasive on this issue. 

Confessional Baptists see one covenant of grace throughout history too, but obviously disagree that the covenant sign should be applied to the children of professing believers in the New Covenant administration.


----------



## danmpem (May 28, 2008)

Thank you all for this input. I am definitely going to check these speakers out.


----------



## shackleton (May 28, 2008)

I just bought the book "Baptism: Four views" but have not yet read it. I am not yet settled one way or the other on the issue except to say that I am not Dispensational. The problem is that both sides have good arguments. Like Pratte says in the sermons, infant baptism is not explicit, but implicit. Herein lies the problem. One has to have a better than cursory understanding of the OT and hermeneutics to understand infant baptism. The reader has to be taught it and led to how the idea comes from a covenant understanding of scripture.


----------



## reformedman (May 28, 2008)

shackleton said:


> Like Pratte says in the sermons, infant baptism is not explicit, but implicit. Herein lies the problem.



Thank you brother, you said it much clearer than I could. That was all I was trying to say in the above post, that although it is not negated, it is not outrightly stated. And if it is not commanded, then I will not do it.

My English is bad so I appreciate the clarification you gave, brother.


----------



## Herald (May 29, 2008)

I can't help but be amazed when I hear people categorize God as angry in the OT and displaying love, grace and mercy in the NT. Either they willfully misrepresent the character of God or they are ignorant. God's love, grace and mercy drips from the pages of the OT. From God's provision for Adam _after _he sinned to His calling of the pagan Ruth, not only to faith but also the Messianic line. If the OT is a symphony then the psalter is its crescendo. It is a treatise of God's benevolence towards those He loves. Conversely, the NT speaks of the eternal fires of hell and the unquenchable wrath of God, "that is revealed from heaven against all unrighteousness and the unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness." God's nature does not submit to the compartmentalization of men.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 29, 2008)

North Jersey Baptist said:


> I can't help but be amazed when I hear people categorize God as angry in the OT and displaying love, grace and mercy in the NT. Either they willfully misrepresent the character of God or they are ignorant. God's love, grace and mercy drips from the pages of the OT. From God's provision for Adam _after _he sinned to His calling of the pagan Ruth, not only to faith but also the Messianic line. If the OT is a symphony then the psalter is its crescendo. It is a treatise of God's benevolence towards those He loves. Conversely, the NT speaks of the eternal fires of hell and the unquenchable wrath of God, "that is revealed from heaven against all unrighteousness and the unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness." God's nature does not submit to the compartmentalization of men.


----------



## Kim G (May 29, 2008)

North Jersey Baptist said:


> God's love, grace and mercy drips from the pages of the OT. From God's provision for Adam _after _he sinned to His calling of the pagan Ruth, not only to faith but also the Messianic line. If the OT is a symphony then the psalter is its crescendo. It is a treatise of God's benevolence towards those He loves.



This is true. But ask me how many times I heard that in my church growing up?

(Answer: Never)


----------



## MW (May 29, 2008)

reformedman said:


> So the idea that credo would lead you to think that it was somewhat dispensationalist sort of caught me by surprise a little and shocked me to think that you didn't see it more in the paedo brethren.



The sign itself is of positive commandment, and therefore changeable. The principle of including children in the covenant is moral, and therefore unchangeable. The paedobaptist maintains the substance of the covenant is the same, and accordingly speaks of one covenant of grace. The antipaedobaptist insists that the substance of the covenant has changed, so that he is obliged to speak of different covenants. Clearly, then, the position which approaches the dispensationalist is the antipaedobaptist.


----------

