# Has Your Understanding of Baptism Changed?



## Tom Hart (Sep 11, 2019)

Well, I think you'll all agree that it's time for another baptism thread.

Did your view of baptism change? What was it that first got you thinking about another perspective? What was it that sealed the deal for you?

Has your view of baptism remained the same? Did you ever struggle with another view? What was it that sealed the deal for you?

In case a lot of people do end up replying, I'd ask that the debates be saved for another thread. Otherwise it'll get too confusing. (And, really, we don't need another baptism debate just yet.) I intend this thread as more of a survey, and one which, I hope, will be helpful for people considering this weighty topic.


----------



## Tom Hart (Sep 11, 2019)

To clarify:

There are two poll responses that are not clearly written.

By "Currently struggling with paedo-baptism" I mean a _credo-baptist _currently struggling with paedo-baptism.

And by "Currently struggling with credo-baptism" I mean a _paedo-baptist_ currently struggling with credo-baptism.

Sorry, I can't seem to edit those now. Perhaps a moderator can sort it?


----------



## Taylor (Sep 11, 2019)

I struggled with the baptism issue all the way through seminary. What was hard for me is that I couldn't quite figure out the differences and debates between 1689 Federalism and Westminster covenant theology. I knew they were different, and I knew somewhat how, but I couldn't make sense of how to sort through evaluation biblically.

What ended up convincing me of paedobaptism were two people: Dabney and Vos.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 11, 2019)

I was a Reformed Baptist for 30 years before I became a Reformed theologian. Gaining a better understanding of scripture, the various views of Covenant Theology, and Ecclesiology caused me to make the change in 2011. Studying the Law /Gospel issue as it related to the Mosaic Covenant was a big influence in my change of understanding.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 11, 2019)

Edited. I hoped I fixed the right. 


Tom Hart said:


> To clarify:
> 
> There are two poll responses that are not clearly written.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tom Hart (Sep 11, 2019)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Edited. I hoped I fixed the right.


Thanks. I appreciate it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 11, 2019)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I was a Reformed Baptist for 30 years before I became a Reformed theologian. Gaining a better understanding of scripture, the various views of Covenant Theology, and Ecclesiology caused me to make the change in 2011. Studying the Law /Gospel issue as it related to the Mosaic Covenant was a big influence in my change of understanding.


What was the main issue that caused you to switch ?


----------



## Romans922 (Sep 11, 2019)

Did my view change in what time period? Recently or ever?

Also, I'm taking "Credo-baptism" to mean "Credo-only-baptism". And by "Paedo-baptism" I assume you to mean "Covenant Baptism" or "Believers and their household baptism" --> oikobaptism.

I believe in credo-baptism but not credo-only-baptism, and I believe in covenant baptism e.g. oikobaptism.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## hammondjones (Sep 11, 2019)

Raised credo (but born into Cumberland PC). Main thing that pushed me towards household baptism was being convinced of the underlying continuity of the testaments, reading the WCF with understanding, Colossians 2, and the cogent writings of certain members here.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## sc_q_jayce (Sep 11, 2019)

What's the difference between "Wrestled with credo-baptism, but settled on paedo-baptism" and "Credo-baptism to paedo-baptism?"


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 11, 2019)

Interestingly enough, I eventually changed to paedobaptism via my interest in the singing of the church, which had led to the full EP acapella position. The instruments issue caused me to see how the abrogation of the ceremonial was accomplished in Christ, which then led me gradually to a different (better!) view of covenant theology. My life-long view on baptism fell like a house of cards when I understood that baptism is based on God’s acting and speaking, not on a profession of faith from the creature. I wasn’t even looking to change from the Reformed Baptist view, I was rather flabbergasted and thrilled at God.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 2


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Sep 11, 2019)

sc_q_jayce said:


> What's the difference between "Wrestled with credo-baptism, but settled on paedo-baptism" and "Credo-baptism to paedo-baptism?"


I think the one is a paedo Baptist who had some second thoughts but eventually settled on paedo baptism.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Steve Curtis (Sep 11, 2019)

Some interesting contributions from an earlier, similar thread.


----------



## Tom Hart (Sep 11, 2019)

sc_q_jayce said:


> What's the difference between "Wrestled with credo-baptism, but settled on paedo-baptism" and "Credo-baptism to paedo-baptism?"


Sorry, poorly worded again. I meant "Paedo-baptism to begin with, wrestled with credo-baptism, but settled on paedo-baptism".


----------



## Kinghezy (Sep 11, 2019)

Evangelical'ish, and so by default believer's baptism. Started listening to a reformed podcast from a friend. Starting listening and reading more. Heidelblog/heidelcast was helping in showing the conflation between Abraham and Moses. Scripture passages seemed a lot more clearer with that lense, plus realizing how much more learned the Westminster divines were than me in scripture and education in general, eventually I took the plunge... scratch that... sprinkle (though my pastor is quite liberal with his sprinkling).

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## OPC'n (Sep 11, 2019)

I was converted to paedobaptism because it just made so much more sense. Of course, it might have been easier for me than credobaptists because I didn't really know why people got baptized except that it happened once you said you were a Christian. No one I knew really had a good answer as to why people got baptized after "accepting Jesus" as their Savior. I learned about baptism when I joined the OPC.


----------



## Edm (Sep 11, 2019)

Baptized as an episcopalian infant. In college attended Baptist churches and questioned if I needed to be submerged. Kept attending Baptist churches because my wife was Baptist. We moved to a PCA church and I really started reading and learning. I'm confident in my baptism now. Actually now due to my locale attend a Baptist church again, however, they know my views on Baptism and I'm still Baptized ( even if they dont believe me..)


----------



## Claudiu (Sep 11, 2019)

I voted "Currently credo-baptist struggling with paedo-baptism."

I am currently studying the issue with my wife. We are approaching the matter rather seriously as it has direct implications in our personal and ecclesial life. We see the paedo position, but are still wrestling through certain texts and other preconceived notions we have.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Sep 11, 2019)

Claudiu said:


> I voted "Currently credo-baptist struggling with paedo-baptism."
> 
> I am currently studying the issue with my wife. We are approaching the matter rather seriously as it has direct implications in our personal and ecclesial life. We see the paedo position, but are still wrestling through certain texts and other preconceived notions we have.


Be encouraged brother. Look which one got the most votes so far

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Knecht Christi (Sep 11, 2019)

I spent my whole life as a credo, and came to the paedo position about 6 months ago (though I wrestled with it for the previous 2 years). The thing that really influenced my thinking was realizing that I was assuming credo (assuming children were excluded from the covenant) and demanding an explicit command for infants to be baptized. When I realized this was an assumption that must be examined and defended, and one that in fact contradicted the reformed hermeneutic I was growing into with Covenant Theology, the wheels really began to turn. I found Jeri's answer so interesting, as EP actually had a huge impact on me coming to paedo as well through seeing how the ceremonial law was fulfilled and applying that then to circumcision.

Reactions: Like 2 | Rejoicing 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Sep 11, 2019)

Started as an unbeliever who was aware of Romish baptismal regeneration style infant baptism and general evangelical style credobaptism. 

Got saved as an adult, studied Reformed Theology. Became convinced of the Doctrines of Grace. Studied Covenant Infant / Household Baptism and very nearly drank the Kool-Aid until I began actually studying Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology (specifically 1689 Federalism).

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Steve Curtis (Sep 12, 2019)

Pity we can't click to see who responded to each option. Then, we would know who still needs a lot of work and who just needs a bit of gentle prodding...

Reactions: Funny 4


----------



## earl40 (Sep 12, 2019)

Jeri Tanner said:


> . My life-long view on baptism fell like a house of cards when I understood that baptism is based on God’s acting and speaking, not on a profession of faith from the creature.



BINGO in that to hold to credo basically makes baptism and the Lord's Supper equivalent sacraments in practice.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Sep 12, 2019)

I have always been a credobaptist, and the debates here have been fruitful not only to make me inquire more diligently into the matter, but to see more clearly the glory of _real_ Covenant Baptism.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 12, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> What was the main issue that caused you to switch ?



David, Do you remember this?

https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...b-members-changed-and-why.93477/#post-1140733

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Howard the Reformer (Sep 12, 2019)

Recently had issues with "Presbyterian Reformed" churches in my area and spent nearly two years looking for a solid church to attend. Attended, for about 6 months, a SBC church with an outstanding pastor who was very solid on most Reformed issues (the pastor was an unashamed Calvinist). Spoke with the elders (yes in a SBC church) and was informed that my baptism as an infant was not sufficient to join their church and would I need to have a "Biblical" baptism. I struggled a bit due to my conviction that I needed to be a member of a local church but the baptism issue stopped me from moving forward. I was not trying to change their view but was only trying to get them to appreciate my reasoning. I reached the decision that I would respect their view on baptism but it was a hurdle that I could not leap over. Now visiting a small ARP work and driving a good distance but being a paedo-baptist by my many years of learning I am comfortable with my convictions and my decision.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 12, 2019)

Howard the Reformer said:


> Recently had issues with "Presbyterian Reformed" churches in my area and spent nearly two years looking for a solid church to attend. Attended, for about 6 months, a SBC church with an outstanding pastor who was very solid on most Reformed issues (the pastor was an unashamed Calvinist). Spoke with the elders (yes in a SBC church) and was informed that my baptism as an infant was not sufficient to join their church and would I need to have a "Biblical" baptism. I struggled a bit due to my conviction that I needed to be a member of a local church but the baptism issue stopped me from moving forward. I was not trying to change their view but was only trying to get them to appreciate my reasoning. I reached the decision that I would respect their view on baptism but it was a hurdle that I could not leap over. Now visiting a small ARP work and driving a good distance but being a paedo-baptist by my many years of learning I am comfortable with my convictions and my decision.


Would you have joined the Baptist Church if accepted your infant baptism?


----------



## Howard the Reformer (Sep 12, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> Would you have joined the Baptist Church if accepted your infant baptism?



I have asked myself that question and the answer is probably yes. My wife was raised a Baptist and she understands and appreciates both paedo and credo baptism. While I am convicted of paedo baptism I must confess that the method of baptism does not preclude anyone from entering the Kingdom of God. I remain faithful to the WCF and Presbyterian doctrines, and of course no one can bind anyone's conscience, so to be active in a local church sometimes we have to examine what is more important. If being able to worship God with a local group of believers means, and speaking for myself, being a part of a church that I do not agree with every element then I believe being a part of and worshipping with a group of God's children is more important than my disagreements. However God saw fit to lead us where we can "fit" in more closely with what we believe.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## De Jager (Sep 12, 2019)

Started as a credo-baptist who thought that reformed people stupidly couldn't understand that babies can't believe, therefore shouldn't be baptized.

Started questioning everything around 4 years ago, realizing that the objections that kept coming up to the reformed view were not logically consistent. Discovered that reformed people were able to give answers that satisfied. Saw that the reformed view is consistent with the pattern of scripture. 

I began to understand that both before Christ and after Christ, God's visible people is a mixed bag of true and false believers. I also began to see that it was always God's intent to have a people that were not merely outwardly his, but inwardly his. This became apparent throughout the scriptures. I began to see that faith was always the criteria to be a true child of God, and that God always calls people to true faith from a visible people. I understood that Israel was not a side project God was working on, but the true visible Church, albeit constrained somewhat geographically and ethnically. I realized that foreigners could join the OT church too, meaning it wasn't just a Jewish thing. I recognized circumcision as an entrance rite into the church. I recognized baptism as an entrance rite into the church. I am not convinced why baptism should be applied differently than circumcision, so I am a household baptist. The household baptisms in the NT for me just became corroborating evidence, confirming what I would expect to find based on the pattern of scripture.

Reactions: Like 2 | Rejoicing 1


----------



## Nomos (Sep 12, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> Would you have joined the Baptist Church if accepted your infant baptism?



On what basis could they do that?


----------



## J.L. Allen (Sep 12, 2019)

hammondjones said:


> Main thing that pushed me towards household baptism was being convinced of the underlying continuity of the testaments





Jeri Tanner said:


> My life-long view on baptism fell like a house of cards when I understood that baptism is based on God’s acting and speaking, not on a profession of faith from the creature. I wasn’t even looking to change from the Reformed Baptist view, I was rather flabbergasted and thrilled at God.



These things exactly! For both my wife and I. We wrestled since about March of 2018 (though I was wrestling with ecclesiology a little before this) and fought like mad to keep my Baptist convictions. I was reading and listening to a lot 1689 Federalism resources but found myself with more questions than answers. I finally made the full jump to accepting covenant baptism nearly a year ago. My wife followed a little after in January-ish of this year. We got our four kiddos baptized and are absolutely loving it. Coming inline with Covenant theology as the Bible faithfully teaches has touched every aspect of our lives.

A big thank you to a lot of people here who helped us out with accepting these changes and about changing churches due to these convictions.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## deleteduser99 (Sep 12, 2019)

I started life out as credobaptist. Not reformed though. When I became more reformed beginning in 2010 I retained the credobaptist conviction.

There are many facets to how I came to the position because I was a strongly-convinced credobaptist. With the baptism passages not saying a thing about infants, and Hebrews 8, CB seemed to have a rock-solid case. Plain on the face of Scripture. Whenever I listened to credobaptist materials they were to me unassailable.

I wasn't honest in my studies though. I did make some previous "investigations" into the other side which basically meant listening to one sermon that was pro-paedo, or maybe opening John Murray's book for five minutes, feeling my head spin, and then resorting back to Spurgeon because that was easier to comprehend. When people who understood it better than me tried to talk with me about it I tended to shut them down in some polite manner or another. In some part too I really did just find it confusing because it treats so many big issues at once. Though in later reflections I felt in conscience I wasn't being honest and was making excuses to shelf it and not study it.

I had reasons to stay credobaptist too. I had been RB for a while, I was a deacon at an RB church, and I couldn't stand the thought of leaving them since they were small. Also in my initial Reformed years (but only initially) I thought paedobaptism to be _detestable and distortive of the Gospel_. I could not possibly imagine getting any comfort whatsoever from a covenant where Christ somehow intercedes or mediates for the unconverted and then the mediation isn't effective. I still remember sitting in church thinking how angry I was at the whole idea.

I started coming to my senses a little, realizing I wasn't honest, and one day I just prayed, "Lord, I have no idea what to make of this issue. Show me what's right, and I will follow you wherever the Scriptures lead me."

We were getting ready to move from Texas to MI (which also meant away from our RB church). One morning I was reading Romans 11. I just decided for curiosity sake to see what it is that paedobaptists see in the text that supports their view, not really intent on engaging the subject matter closely.

I was floored. Right in front of me was the New Covenant visible/invisible distinction I had been denying. Christ the Mediator, the root of both Israel AND the New Covenant church. I could not deny it.

Seeing as we were in the midst of moving we decided together that we would study the issue. Lydia was having questions because many of the things she was reading in the Bible simply were not fitting with her theological framework. So we committed over the time to come that we would dig into the issue and decide whether we had been wrong. 

I was fully determined from the outset that if I was going to believe this doctrine, it would be because I really did see it in the Scriptures, as the CBs I have known made a big splash that PBs do _not_ get their doctrine from Scripture, or interpret everything in such a loosy-goosy fashion that no honest or impartial student of the Word would ever do. So the Scriptures would be the sole and primary authority. We did read materials on both sides (I've probably read more from Baptists than Paedobaptists in the time before settling). We prayed a lot over it. I did attempt to involve my elders (keep in mind we were now 900 miles away) and at least did read the materials they asked me to read, and I've tried to have one of my good long-term friends involved who is a convinced CB. I got on here and hashed out a debate or two just to see how well the PB arguments hold up even though I had not yet decided.

So, being fully convinced from the Scriptures themselves, we both committed to the Household Baptist position.

There was no urgency to be in line with Reformed doctrine. There was no sentimentality or unsanctified parental emotions. I dreaded taking this position for fear that it would ultimately harm the spiritual walk of my children, perhaps even lead them to hardened presumption, so let it be clear *that there was no determination that we were going to believe this position whatever it takes*. We believe it on the basis of Scripture.

And Scripture alone.

Reactions: Like 7 | Amen 1


----------



## RJ Spencer (Sep 12, 2019)

Knecht Christi said:


> I spent my whole life as a credo, and came to the paedo position about 6 months ago (though I wrestled with it for the previous 2 years).



I have a similar timeline, it was April when I came to fully accept the paedo position. The continuation of the covenants and the Philippian jailer story convinced me of the Presbyterian view. Read the end of that story in the ESV, the wording is very interesting. Acts 16:34.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## StephenMartyr (Sep 13, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> Did your view of baptism change?



It's changing at the moment, slowly from credo to paedo. I'd still like to learn more.



> What was it that first got you thinking about another perspective? What was it that sealed the deal for you?



The first things that started to get me thinking? Looking into Presbyterianism for the first thing. From that to hearing Sproul, reading here and books. Not necessarily in that order. It's been a good year or so looking at this doctrine.



> Has your view of baptism remained the same? Did you ever struggle with another view? What was it that sealed the deal for you?



No, it hasn't remained the same. I'm currently struggling with the difference between paedo and oiko baptism. They seem similar? The thing that tipped me over to the paedo position was a paper by Ryle, the one on baptism in his book Knots Untied. Read through that on my lunch times at work for a bit. Then read the commentary on the Philippian jailor by Matthew Henry (a tiny portion) and just other material in general. 

[/QUOTE]



kainos01 said:


> Pity we can't click to see who responded to each option. Then, we would know who still needs a lot of work and who just needs a bit of gentle prodding...



I voted for the " Currently credo-baptist struggling with paedo-baptism." position because I haven't seen myself land 100% in the paedo position. By that I mean I'm not able to explain it or defend the position to someone. I'm tipped towards it. Still in the learning phase! 

I'm up to talk via conversation to someone who can go point 1, 2, 3 and on with me.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## J.L. Allen (Sep 14, 2019)

@StephenMartyr
"No, it hasn't remained the same. I'm currently struggling with the difference between paedo and oiko baptism. They seem similar?"

Oiko, paedo, household, covenant baptism are typically all the same. Some of the choice in language can have to do with selecting terms that have less unwarranted, negative connotations amongst certain brothers and sisters. The views on baptism among sisters and brothers, such as myself, who hold to the Reformed/Presbyterian view on baptism might vary on how old a "cutoff" age might be. However, these are not great subjects of disagreement and often come down to the preference or conviction of individual sessions.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## deleteduser99 (Sep 14, 2019)

Johnathan Lee Allen said:


> @StephenMartyr
> "No, it hasn't remained the same. I'm currently struggling with the difference between paedo and oiko baptism. They seem similar?"
> 
> Oiko, paedo, household, covenant baptism are typically all the same. Some of the choice in language can have to do with selecting terms that have less unwarranted, negative connotations amongst certain brothers and sisters. The views on baptism among sisters and brothers, such as myself, who hold to the Reformed/Presbyterian view on baptism might vary on how old a "cutoff" age might be. However, these are not great subjects of disagreement and often come down to the preference or conviction of individual sessions.



To me it's just that. I find paedobaptist to be an unhelpful term. Doesn't get down so well the principle. "Household" does, or at least better. I think the term paedobaptist likely exists because Baptists exclude a demographic we don't, thus infants and small children are at the center of the contention.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## J.L. Allen (Sep 14, 2019)

Harley said:


> To me it's just that. I find paedobaptist to be an unhelpful term. Doesn't get down so well the principle. "Household" does, or at least better. I think the term paedobaptist likely exists because Baptists exclude a demographic we don't, thus infants and small children are at the center of the contention.



Well stated, brother. Thank you.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 14, 2019)

Harley said:


> To me it's just that. I find paedobaptist to be an unhelpful term. Doesn't get down so well the principle. "Household" does, or at least better. I think the term paedobaptist likely exists because Baptists exclude a demographic we don't, thus infants and small children are at the center of the contention.


Since becoming Reformed in my understanding of the scriptures, have seen more sure believer's baptism is, but also much more aware why some still infant baptize!


----------



## Herald (Sep 14, 2019)

When I joined this board (August 2005) I was a Baptist who was struggling with credobaptism. I thought that by joining the Puritan Board it would be the final domino to fall before accepting paedobaptism. Instead of accepting paedobaptism, my Baptist distinctives strengthened. I read more. I discussed more. I prayed more. Even though I wanted the cover to cross over it did not happen. The best laid plans of mice and men...

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 2


----------



## StephenMartyr (Sep 16, 2019)

At church today (CANRC) they had everything in one service: a profession of faith, then his three kids got baptised and it was the Lord's Supper! It was crazy!  But the Table was closed so I couldn't partake. That's okay. That's how they do it.

Interested how they did baptism.

Reactions: Amen 1 | Rejoicing 1


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Sep 16, 2019)

Actually I know quite a few people who switched from paedo to credo, but most would never remain on this board after making such a switch. Not sure what that says about this board

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## J.L. Allen (Sep 16, 2019)

StephenMartyr said:


> At church today (CANRC) they had everything in one service: a profession of faith, then his three kids got baptised and it was the Lord's Supper! It was crazy!  But the Table was closed so I couldn't partake. That's okay. That's how they do it.
> 
> Interested how they did baptism.


That's a beautiful picture right there! Praise God!


----------



## De Jager (Sep 16, 2019)

StephenMartyr said:


> At church today (CANRC) they had everything in one service: a profession of faith, then his three kids got baptised and it was the Lord's Supper! It was crazy!  But the Table was closed so I couldn't partake. That's okay. That's how they do it.
> 
> Interested how they did baptism.


So happy for you. It is beautiful to see while families brought into the church. Regardless of our view of baptism, we can agree on that.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost (Sep 16, 2019)

Bill The Baptist said:


> Actually I know quite a few people who switched from paedo to credo, but most would never remain on this board after making such a switch. Not sure what that says about this board



I'd love to see every Baptist on this board switch to the Presbyterian view, except I'm torn with you, since your username would then be a 9th commandment violation. Even if the mods could change your username, "Bill the Paedo" or "Bill the Presbyterian" just doesn't have the same ring. "William the Wesleyan" sounds better, but then you'd have to leave the board, which would be sad. 

As always, I enjoy our conversations and am glad that Baptists are part of the board. Someday in glory we'll all agree and the correct party won't even say "I told you so."

Reactions: Like 4 | Edifying 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 16, 2019)

timfost said:


> I'd love to see every Baptist on this board switch to the Presbyterian view, except I'm torn with you, since your username would then be a 9th commandment violation.



I think we could get around that problem by inserting a footnote: "Bill is now a Baptist in the proper sense."

Reactions: Funny 4


----------



## timfost (Sep 16, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I think we could around that problem by inserting a footnote: "Bill is now a Baptist in the proper sense."



Yes, like John.


----------



## StephenMartyr (Sep 16, 2019)

timfost said:


> Even if the mods could change your username, "Bill the Paedo" or "Bill the Presbyterian" just doesn't have the same ring.



Preston the Presbyterian?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Sep 16, 2019)

timfost said:


> "Bill the Paedo" or " Bill the Presbyterian" just doesn't have the same ring. "William the Wesleyan" sounds better, but then you'd have to leave the board, which would be sad





Reformed Covenanter said:


> "Bill is now a Baptist in the proper sense.





StephenMartyr said:


> Preston the Presbyterian?


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 17, 2019)

I have gone through 3 protracted bouts of studying through Paedobaptism, once in seminary, once about 10 years ago, and once about last year. Sorry guys. Lane and Pastor Bruce almost had me there. But not quite. I'm probably such a disappointment. But at least now I know that you are all not just halfway Catholics who want to hold on to baby sprinkling, but that the reasoning makes sense. In Indonesia we work with many reformed folks.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## deleteduser99 (Sep 17, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> I have gone through 3 protracted bouts of studying through Paedobaptism, once in seminary, once about 10 years ago, and once about last year. Sorry guys. Lane and Pastor Bruce almost had me there. But not quite. I'm probably such a disappointment. But at least now I know that you are all not just halfway Catholics who want to hold on to baby sprinkling, but that the reasoning makes sense. In Indonesia we work with many reformed folks.



Thank you much for these words.

I've not given up. Long as you stick around and we can induce a fourth

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Herald (Sep 17, 2019)

Harley said:


> Thank you much for these words.
> 
> I've not given up. Long as you stick around and we can induce a fourth



Harley, funny. I was thinking the same about you. LOL


----------



## deleteduser99 (Sep 17, 2019)

Herald said:


> Harley, funny. I was thinking the same about you. LOL



Fair enough, give it your best!

In all seriousness I find the discussions to be edifying. Nothing like hammering out the Word of God with zeal so long as done in love. I keep telling myself I'm gonna pull back a little... never do. Though I seriously need to give my mind to topics much more immediately necessary.


----------



## De Jager (Sep 17, 2019)

timfost said:


> I'd love to see every Baptist on this board switch to the Presbyterian view, except I'm torn with you, since your username would then be a 9th commandment violation. Even if the mods could change your username, "Bill the Paedo" or "Bill the Presbyterian" just doesn't have the same ring. "William the Wesleyan" sounds better, but then you'd have to leave the board, which would be sad.
> 
> As always, I enjoy our conversations and am glad that Baptists are part of the board. Someday in glory we'll all agree and the correct party won't even say "I told you so."



Bill The (Oiko) Baptist

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Herald (Sep 17, 2019)

Harley said:


> Fair enough, give it your best!
> 
> In all seriousness I find the discussions to be edifying. Nothing like hammering out the Word of God with zeal so long as done in love. I keep telling myself I'm gonna pull back a little... never do. Though I seriously need to give my mind to topics much more immediately necessary.



Brother, actually the fire-in-the-belly to debate baptism has gone out. For me, the issue was the nature and scope of the New Covenant. Once that issue was resolved my baptism position was settled. I don't want to make it seem like it was an easy decision. I wrestled with it for years. I still profit from reading new treatments on the subject but I'm debated out.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 17, 2019)

Herald said:


> Brother, actually the fire-in-the-belly to debate baptism has gone out. For me, the issue was the nature and scope of the New Covenant. Once that issue was resolved my baptism position was settled. I don't want to make it seem like it was an easy decision. I wrestled with it for years. I still profit from reading new treatments on the subject but I'm debated out.


I came to the same position on this issue when persuaded by scripture that the real entry into the NC was having faith in Jesus, being then indwelt/sealed by the Spirit, and that baptism was outward sign of that inward work of God!


----------



## De Jager (Sep 17, 2019)

Funny thing is, it is upon understanding the NC that really helped me gain confidence in the reformed position. I think some of the underlying assumptions that RBs hold with regards to the NC can be wrong: the main one being that Jeremiah 31 teaches that the NC is purely an internal thing and that there no longer is an outward administration of the covenant. Even more specifically the phrase "they will all know me from the least to the greatest" seems to be a hinge on which the debate turns. When I understood that phrase in the context of the rest of the book of Jeremiah, it was made plain that this phrase indicates _a pervasiveness, but not an exhaustiveness._ For example in Jeremiah 6, the prophet speaks of _everyone_ dealing falsely and being greedy, _from the least to the greatest_. This could not possibly mean all the covenant people exhaustively 1) because that would include Jeremiah and that's not the point and 2) God has always had a remnant. Therefore, it is best to interpret this as a pervasive wickedness which has infected the people of God, in all ranks and files of life - from the prophet down to the priest. That is just one example of the usage of that phrase. Jeremiah 31 is no different. See the following extremely helpful links. 

https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=312152013124
https://heidelblog.net/2012/11/baptism-the-doctrine-that-caused-tears-1/
https://heidelblog.net/2012/11/baptism-the-doctrine-that-caused-tears-2/
https://heidelblog.net/2012/11/baptism-the-doctrine-that-caused-tears-3/

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 17, 2019)

Somewhere on the PB is a thread in which the quoted passage in Hebrews is showed to be in the context of the end of the ceremonial priesthood, and the inauguration of the priesthood of believers (if I'm saying that right). It fits.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 17, 2019)

This is just one post concerning it. Understanding how Hebrews sheds light on the Jeremiah texts was very eye opening and a cause for great rejoicing in our wonderful Lord. https://puritanboard.com/threads/th...egeneration-or-both.90452/page-2#post-1111081


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 17, 2019)

De Jager said:


> Funny thing is, it is upon understanding the NC that really helped me gain confidence in the reformed position. I think some of the underlying assumptions that RBs hold with regards to the NC can be wrong: the main one being that Jeremiah 31 teaches that the NC is purely an internal thing and that there no longer is an outward administration of the covenant. Even more specifically the phrase "they will all know me from the least to the greatest" seems to be a hinge on which the debate turns. When I understood that phrase in the context of the rest of the book of Jeremiah, it was made plain that this phrase indicates _a pervasiveness, but not an exhaustiveness._ For example in Jeremiah 6, the prophet speaks of _everyone_ dealing falsely and being greedy, _from the least to the greatest_. This could not possibly mean all the covenant people exhaustively 1) because that would include Jeremiah and that's not the point and 2) God has always had a remnant. Therefore, it is best to interpret this as a pervasive wickedness which has infected the people of God, in all ranks and files of life - from the prophet down to the priest. That is just one example of the usage of that phrase. Jeremiah 31 is no different. See the following extremely helpful links.
> 
> https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=312152013124
> https://heidelblog.net/2012/11/baptism-the-doctrine-that-caused-tears-1/
> ...


To he NC is the fulfillment of the Jeremiah 31prophecy, and as such, was at the time of Jesus, when Messiah came and died and rose again.


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Sep 17, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> To he NC is the fulfillment of the Jeremiah 31prophecy, and as such, was at the time of Jesus, when Medhuah came and died and rose again.



Brother, do you remember the discussion on the other thread about the prospect of you slowing down to edit your posts for mistakes and to ensure clarity? The very subject matter you are discussing warrants such care and better precision.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Phil D. (Sep 17, 2019)

I was raised credo-baptist, but definitely wavered about 15 years back. I do find the Reformed rationale for infant baptism somewhat plausible and even quite appealing in certain respects, but ultimately falling short of being a “good _and necessary_” doctrinal conclusion. In the end, to me, it’s just too theoretical and derived, whereas I believe such a central and practical aspect of a sacrament should find very specific and direct indication in the New Testament. (I’ve outlined elsewhere why I just don’t see the household baptism passages as fulfilling that requirement.)

A crucial issue in all of this is whether corporeal circumcision is effectively replaced by water baptism. While scripture does clearly draw a typological correlation between physical circumcision and spiritual circumcision, it never indicates a replacement of the physical application of circumcision with physical baptism. If that were the case, then at least one plain, simple statement to that end would seem requisite, especially considering the severe problems created by the Judaizers over circumcision (e.g. Acts 15, Galatians 5). Likewise, the argument that the Jews would have certainly assumed or understood various baptismal references and language used in the NT as alluding to such a succession fails to account for the fact that in their immediate context some of these passages were directed at or prominently involved gentile believers. I have seen various Reformed answers to these points, but have not found them convincing.

Historically, which is of course only of secondary significance, the first clear references to infant baptism in the early church begin to appear around the end of the 2nd century. Yet it is notable that the covenant argument for infant baptism is absent in any of the early justifications given for it. Again, there are one or two limited and fairly abstract comparisons made between the age involved in OT circumcision and defending infant baptism, but the actual rationale given for the practice is always related to the cleansing of original sin and/or regeneration. This poses the notion that the original covenant basis for infant baptism was completely lost within just a few generations after the apostolic age. While perhaps possible, it seems there would surely have been at least a few more appreciable vestiges remaining in one or two locations. So it seems much more likely and consistent with these writings to conclude that the error of baptismal regeneration gradually crept into the church, which then prompted various practices. Several of the 4th and 5th century church fathers bypass scripture altogether and instead directly appeal to apostolic tradition as their reason for baptizing infants. The first yet still only very partially-orbed theological arguments covenantally connecting circumcision and baptism seem to come from the medieval Catholic Schoolmen. The first full-orbed covenantal argument for infant baptism appears to have come from Zwingli.

Mode, also in a secondary way, poses a problem for me. For numerous reasons I am convinced that NT baptism was intentionally performed by immersion, which obviously is not intuitively or practically well-suited to infants. Could there have been exceptions to this mode in the NT, say for the physically infirmed? Theoretically, yes, but I don’t see any particular indication of this in the relevant texts to go by. Further, the outward means of the sacraments are intended to sensibly portray certain spiritual truths. And I have to agree with the historical consensus that with regard to water baptism this includes proclaiming the concept of death, burial and resurrection with Christ, to which, in my estimate, only immersion will sensibly answer.

Over the years most these points have had multiple PB threads dedicated to discussing them. So I’m not here to necessarily debate them again (at least not on this thread), but simply to share some of my thinking relative to the question in the OP.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 17, 2019)

Reformed Bookworm said:


> Brother, do you remember the discussion on the other thread about the prospect of you slowing down to edit your posts for mistakes and to ensure clarity? The very subject matter you are discussing warrants such care and better precision.


I edited, as still not use to small keys on smart phone!


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 17, 2019)

Phil D. said:


> I was raised credo-baptist, but definitely wavered about 15 years back. I do find the Reformed rationale for infant baptism somewhat plausible and even quite appealing in certain respects, but ultimately falling short of being a “good _and necessary_” doctrinal conclusion. In the end, to me, it’s just too theoretical and derived, whereas I believe such a central and practical aspect of a sacrament should find very specific and direct indication in the New Testament. (I’ve outlined elsewhere why I just don’t see the household baptism passages as fulfilling that requirement.)
> 
> A crucial issue in all of this is whether corporeal circumcision is effectively replaced by water baptism. While scripture does clearly draw a typological correlation between physical circumcision and spiritual circumcision, it never indicates a replacement of the physical application of circumcision with physical baptism. If that were the case, then at least one plain, simple statement to that end would seem requisite, especially considering the severe problems created by the Judaizers over circumcision (e.g. Acts 15, Galatians 5). Likewise, the argument that the Jews would have certainly assumed or understood various baptismal references and language used in the NT as alluding to such a succession fails to account for the fact that in their immediate context some of these passages were directed at or prominently involved gentile believers. I have seen various Reformed answers to these points, but have not found them convincing.
> 
> ...


Phil, just to one of your points: the fact that not-so-good arguments for infant baptism were made by the early church fathers should be no surprise. Much had begun to be lost after the time of the apostles. It was up to the church over the centuries to hammer those things out by church councils, and all that of God's providence; he didn't leave detailed exegesis from the apostles on many topics, for his own good purposes.


----------



## Phil D. (Sep 17, 2019)

Jeri Tanner said:


> the fact that not-so-good arguments for infant baptism were made by the early church fathers should be no surprise.



I don't disagree. But the prospect of there being no appreciable remains of a particular doctrine in the earliest post-apostolic writings seems rather inauspicious and to somewhat militate against its apostolic originality. By contrast, for example, while the doctrine of justification by faith alone was also fairly quickly obscured in some quarters, there are still quite a few clear references to it throughout early church writings.


----------



## B.L. (Sep 17, 2019)

I responded _"wrestled with paedo-baptism, but settled on credo-baptism." _There was a time when I explored Presbyterianism due to maturing views on the regulative principle of worship and wrestling over polity; however, I was never able to embrace covenantal infant baptism and found the arguments from the NT to be unconvincing.

Additionally, the theme of Phil's comments below also resonated strongly with me. I often hear statements like "the church has always practiced infant baptism" and while it is regrettably true for much of church history I find it telling that for _well over a millennium_ the church practiced infant baptism with a different understanding than what the Presbyterian advocates for today. Among the multitude of paedobaptists today, the covenantal infant baptism view is held by only a small minority really. That doesn't make it wrong, but the argument from history that I sometimes hear made isn't a good approach I don't think. 



Phil D. said:


> Historically, which is of course only of secondary significance, the first clear references to infant baptism in the early church begin to appear around the end of the 2nd century. Yet it is notable that the covenant argument for infant baptism is absent in any of the early justifications given for it. Again, there are one or two limited and fairly abstract comparisons made between the age involved in OT circumcision and defending infant baptism, but the actual rationale given for the practice is always related to the cleansing of original sin and/or regeneration. This poses the notion that the original covenant basis for infant baptism was completely lost within just a few generations after the apostolic age. While perhaps possible, it seems there would surely have been at least a few more appreciable vestiges remaining in one or two locations. So it seems much more likely and consistent with these writings to conclude that the error of baptismal regeneration gradually crept into the church, which then prompted various practices. Several of the 4th and 5th century church fathers bypass scripture altogether and instead directly appeal to apostolic tradition as their reason for baptizing infants. The first yet still only very partially-orbed theological arguments covenantally connecting circumcision and baptism seem to come from the medieval Catholic Schoolmen. The first full-orbed covenantal argument for infant baptism appears to have come from Zwingli.





Phil D. said:


> I don't disagree. But the prospect of there being no appreciable remains of a particular doctrine in the earliest post-apostolic writings seems rather inauspicious and to somewhat militate against its apostolic originality. By contrast, for example, while the doctrine of justification by faith alone was also fairly quickly obscured in some quarters, there are still quite a few clear references to it throughout early church writings.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 17, 2019)

Phil D. said:


> I don't disagree. But the prospect of there being no appreciable remains of a particular doctrine in the earliest post-apostolic writings seems rather inauspicious and to somewhat militate against its apostolic originality. By contrast, for example, while the doctrine of justification by faith alone was also fairly quickly obscured in some quarters, there are still quite a few clear references to it throughout early church writings.


I can see where the argumentation for baptism (whether for professing adults or for babies) could more quickly have gotten murky, being that by the 2nd century the theologians were Gentiles; before then, while the church was so largely Jewish, it makes sense that receiving children from a believing household into the church would have been uncontroversial.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 17, 2019)

B.L. McDonald said:


> I find it telling that for _well over a millennium_ the church practiced infant baptism with a different understanding than what the Presbyterian advocates for today.



Could u please provide a citation or two on how u have come to this conclusion?


----------



## Phil D. (Sep 18, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> Could u please provide a citation or two on how u have come to this conclusion?



I would presume the statement in question was a reference to what I said in my post about the covenant argument for infant baptism being absent in any early church justifications for it. That being the point, there can't be any citations to present_ per se_. Various patristic scholars have made note of this circumstance. In their book _Baptism in the Early Church_ Hendrick Stander and Johannes Louw (South African Anglicans) marshal virtually all of the known references to infant baptism through the 4th century and conclude:

The idea of the covenant played no role whatsoever in the theology of the early church leading up to the institution of infant baptism. As a matter of fact, the washing away of sins as a _sine qua non_ [“without which there is nothing”] to enter the kingdom of heaven was the main theological argument for conferring baptism as early as possible. (p. 139)

...It is also remarkable that the link between baptism and circumcision became relevant only when the issue of the age of the one to be baptized became crucial. And even then one should not assume that the third and fourth centuries saw a fully developed doctrine of baptism replacing circumcision. It was more a matter of analogy than dogma. This also explains why the Abrahamic covenant is hardly ever mentioned. These aspects belong to a later stage of development for which the theologies of the fourth century laid the foundation. (p. 185)​This is also documented in Paul Jewett's book _Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace_ (see esp. pp. 80f.). He notes that in the process of pioneering the Reformed covenant argument for infant baptism Zwingli acknowledged that “at many points we shall have to tread a different path from that taken either by ancient or more modern writers or by our own contemporaries.” (_De Baptismo_; 1525; Jewett, p. 80)

Personally I haven't found anything that would contradict these conclusions. Thus, in effect, Reformed advocates of infant baptism are left to say that while those who baptized infants in the early church did the right thing, by all indication they did so for the wrong reasons. This is not to say such a prospect is impossible to reconcile, but it does give one pause.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 18, 2019)

Phil D. said:


> The idea of the covenant played no role whatsoever in the theology of the early church leading up to the institution of infant baptism.



I wonder if I agree with this assessment; How did the writer come to such a conclusion? Based on silence? The thinking is baptistic in nature. For a good example is the silence in the NT about infant inclusion; For a covenanter,it is appreciated by the silence. That being, the covenant was a given and thinking along those lines, rationale, given the culture.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 18, 2019)

Here are some comments from an old thread that Rich and Matthew Winzer address what I say above:

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/historical-support-for-paedobaptism.69820/#post-895301


----------



## Phil D. (Sep 18, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> I wonder if I agree with this assessment; How did the writer come to such a conclusion? Based on silence? The thinking is baptistic in nature. For a good example is the silence in the NT about infant inclusion; For a covenanter,it is appreciated by the silence. That being, the covenant was a given and thinking along those lines, rationale, given the culture.



I understand your position. Yet there are a number of prominent ECF's that write in an apologetic manner regarding infant baptism, often dirtecting their work to various parties who would likely not have assumed or been very familiar with Jewish religious covenant concepts. So the point is that these early writers did in fact state their reasons for baptizing infants (removal of original sin/regeneration), while never invoking covenant principles as a basis for their practice.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 18, 2019)

Again, not to be argumentative, I would have to say that the reading is a matter of interpretation, i.e. assuming their silence is based on a neglect or ignorance of covenant theology proper.


----------



## Phil D. (Sep 18, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> Again, not to be argumentative, I would have to say that the reading is a matter of interpretation, i.e. assuming their silence is based on a neglect or ignorance of covenant theology proper.



Fair enough. I do think that supposing they had covenant theology in mind, anyway, though never stating such, is far more reliant on argumentation from silence than assuming their reasoning was indeed based on the reasons they did in fact provide. In any event, I've always found it fascinating how people can process the same information and often reach such different conclusions - especially among brethren on the topic of baptism!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 18, 2019)

It’s says much for apologetics. All of us are pushing forward w/ our presuppositions guiding us. Mine’s a bit more refined in that I was saved in a Calvary Chapel, moved on to Particular Baptist and my final resting spot, Presbyterian paedo.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## deleteduser99 (Sep 18, 2019)

I don't prefer to decide much from the early church one way or another. Look how much time it took to get some clear statements on the Trinity! 

I remember Sam Waldron discussing the apostolic fathers and what a disappointment they are, comparatively speaking. You would think they had high and developed doctrines, but they didn't. In some places they show shallow understanding of Christian doctrine, and some of it is just regurgitating Scripture lines without any explanations. As he said in one lecture, "I expect to hear baby talk." He mentions one church father who defends original sin and the innocency of babies in the same breath.

No shock if there is not a well-orbed covenant theology or view of the continuity of the covenants. They would likely not identify that well with arguments on either side. As Robert Godfrey said in one lecture, You didn't get a real systematician until Origen, and has called him "a great theologian who was wrong on everything." Some great minds fell flat to understand what they were working with.

Like us, in ways we are not aware of.

In the end though, church history is a maturing and growing process. By wise design the compendium of truth is not locked up in one age. It is not proximity to the apostles that determines understanding or likeliness to be right, but the direction of Christ by the Spirit to reveal what doctrines in what age.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Phil D. (Sep 18, 2019)

@Harley

Again, can't disagree with much of what you say. That's why I classified the ECF's writings as secondary in the matter. But I certainly still find them very interesting and useful in certain respects.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## De Jager (Sep 18, 2019)

The early church fathers are useful in the discussion insomuch as their testimony tells us clearly that infants have been baptized for a long time. As for their reasoning behind doing it, that's another issue. We certainly don't believe in baptismal regeneration like some of them did. I don't think the ECF are a reliable authority on the _why_ or _why not_ on the baptism of infants. Appealing to the ECF's absence of a covenantal argument simply does not prove anything in my mind, because in the place of any covenantal grounds are illegitimate grounds having to do with the washing away of original sin and baptismal regeneration.

People often do the "right" things for the wrong reasons. For example: giving to the local church is "right". However, giving in order to hopefully receive a kickback is wrong, this is in essence the prosperity gospel. 

What we as reformed people want to do is do the right things AND do them for the right reasons. Outward tradition is not enough.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Romans678 (Sep 19, 2019)

Johnathan Lee Allen said:


> These things exactly! For both my wife and I. We wrestled since about March of 2018 (though I was wrestling with ecclesiology a little before this) and fought like mad to keep my Baptist convictions. I was reading and listening to a lot 1689 Federalism resources but found myself with more questions than answers. I finally made the full jump to accepting covenant baptism nearly a year ago. My wife followed a little after in January-ish of this year. We got our four kiddos baptized and are absolutely loving it. Coming inline with Covenant theology as the Bible faithfully teaches has touched every aspect of our lives.
> 
> A big thank you to a lot of people here who helped us out with accepting these changes and about changing churches due to these convictions.


Was it difficult changing churches? Was the transition smooth or rocky?

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk


----------



## J.L. Allen (Sep 23, 2019)

Anthony W. Brown II said:


> Was it difficult changing churches? Was the transition smooth or rocky?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk


It was extremely difficult. It was about 4 months of strain for myself. My wife was convicted of covenant baptism shortly after me and so struggled for less time. There were days when I wept about the inevitable changes. I would say that my session and a few members of another OPC session nearby were instrumental in comforting us through it while being respectful of the membership we held at the time at our old church. They helped with that transition and made it as smooth as possible.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 23, 2019)

I'm barely holding on to my credobaptism. The pushyness of the 1689 Federalism folks has almost got me into the Presbyterian camp. 1,000 dollar reward and a free set of ginsu knives for anyone who can make me a true puritan!

Reactions: Funny 2 | Rejoicing 1 | Sad 1


----------



## J.L. Allen (Sep 23, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> I'm barely holding on to my credobaptism. The pushyness of the 1689 Federalism folks has almost got me into the Presbyterian camp. 1,000 dollar reward and a free set of ginsu knives for anyone who can make me a true puritan!


Brother! This post makes me simultaneously laugh and rejoice. I don't believe I'm the most well-equipped brother give that final nudge, but I can pray!


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 23, 2019)

Johnathan Lee Allen said:


> Brother! This post makes me simultaneously laugh and rejoice. I don't believe I'm the most well-equipped brother give that final nudge, but I can pray!


I can be bribed. I mean the baptists often want to ban and boycott things like Harry Potter and wine, after all.

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## deleteduser99 (Sep 23, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> I'm barely holding on to my credobaptism. The pushyness of the 1689 Federalism folks has almost got me into the Presbyterian camp. 1,000 dollar reward and a free set of ginsu knives for anyone who can make me a true puritan!





Pergamum said:


> I can be bribed. I mean the baptists often want to ban and boycott things like Harry Potter and wine, after all.



You would love being a Reformed Presbyterian. We are the most subtle, soft-spoken and unopinionated group of Christians you will ever find. Yeah, there is the occasional chucking of wooden stools in service*, tomes on psalmody and instruments, political dissent, insistence on national covenanting, but usually to our great shame this life of understatement puts us too far under the radar. Though we did get a little bad press for all this in the 1600s. But we're proud to say we are 100% Cage-Stage Free. And you've been on PB long enough to testify that what I say is true. 

Some in the RPCNA use real wine at the Lord's Table. We've got John Paton. Will that do it?

Can't help with HP, sorry.

Do you need an address for those ginsu knives? Do I pay shipping, or do you? Trying to decide if this $1000 merits a 1099.

*To be clear, this was the one time we've permitted a woman to teach in public worship

Reactions: Funny 4


----------



## J.L. Allen (Sep 23, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> I can be bribed. I mean the baptists often want to ban and boycott things like Harry Potter and wine, after all.


How about all the Harry Potter and wine you'd like? Responsibly, of course. Ingesting too much Harry Potter could result in a loss of good discernment and injuries due to jumping off the roof with your wife's broom thinking you're in a quidditch match.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 23, 2019)

Johnathan Lee Allen said:


> How about all the Harry Potter and wine you'd like? Responsibly, of course. Ingesting too much Harry Potter could result in a loss of good discernment and injuries due to jumping off the roof with your wife's broom thinking you're in a quidditch match.


No Harry Potter for me. Not because it is Satanic, but because J.K. Rowling stinks as a writer. I prefer H.P Lovecraft.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 23, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> No Harry Potter for me. Not because it is Satanic, but because J.K. Rowling stinks as a writer. I prefer H.P Lovecraft.


How about Stephen King?


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 23, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> How about Stephen King?


He cannot finish a story to save his life. It's all character development and then at the end he can't bring it all together. BUT....I used to love him and read the Stand in 4th grade and wrote him a letter telling him I wanted to be a writer. And...get this..he wrote me a personal letter back and sent me a stack of his old Writer's Digest magazines (with his circles and notes after he read the articles). I abhor his politics, but I have read that he has treated his fans well and writes many of them personal letters as he did me.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 23, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> He cannot finish a story to save his life. It's all character development and then at the end he can't bring it all together. BUT....I used to love him and read the Stand in 4th grade and wrote him a letter telling him I wanted to be a writer. And...get this..he wrote me a personal letter back and sent me a stack of his old Writer's Digest magazines (with his circles and notes after he read the articles). I abhor his politics, but I have read that he has treated his fans well and writes many of them personal letters as he did me.


Have you ever read Donaldson, the power that preserves saga?


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 23, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> Have you ever read Donaldson, the power that preserves saga?


Never even heard of him.


----------



## J.L. Allen (Sep 23, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> I prefer H.P Lovecraft.


Simply the best.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 23, 2019)

Johnathan Lee Allen said:


> Simply the best.


Wish they could do a decent movie on his works!


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 23, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> Wish they could do a decent movie on his works!



Wycliffe should translate the Bible into the language of the Old Ones so that they will convert and not come and drive us all mad before destroying us. 

*"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn."*
"In his house at R'lyeh dead Cthulhu waits dreaming."

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## cmt72 (Sep 23, 2019)

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/infant-baptism-and-the-new-covenant-community

Reading material.


----------

