# Baptism Question - Presbyterianism and Believer's Baptism



## Nathan A. Hughes (Jul 16, 2018)

I was just wondering can someone be an Orthodox Presbyterian and believe in only believers baptism but comprise on infant baptism in terms of attending one. The reason I ask this is because I affirm Orthodox Presbyterianism and I believe in believers baptism. I understand why some do believer in infant baptism but I don't personal believe in infant baptism. I would attend an infant baptism in principle.


----------



## Cymro (Jul 16, 2018)

Dear Brother, if you are committed to the WCF then you are committed to paedobaptism. If as I suspect you attend a Baptist church, (forgive me if I am wrong, but I don’t know of an English Presbyterian church in your area), then that would account for your belief in believers baptism only. Presbyterians hold to believers baptism as well, but also hold to children being in covenant and are to receive the covenant sign and promise. If you continue in the Baptist belief, then I don’t think that prohibits you attending a “sprinkling” if family or friends would be upset by your refusal to go.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 16, 2018)

You {Nathan} are a little confusing to me, in that you capitalize Orthodox Presbyterian, which is a particular denomination of Presbyterians in the USA.

Is your commitment to Presbyterianism (of the faithful sort) chiefly a matter of church government (as that is the origin of the name)? The name came from the party in those days when ecclesial governance was an issue of major contention. Is your stated confessional basis (WCF) simply the result of your present membership, your default commitment?

I wonder if you would be happier affirming the London Baptist Confession (1689) rather than the WCF. I don't know if there are other issues you have with the LBC and its differences with the WCF (it follows the WCF verbatim more than 80% of the time).

As a Presbyterian, I don't believe you are compromising in attending; only do no harm to your own conscience. If you attend an infant's baptism and don't object to an affront, you have done yourself no harm so far as I can see.

In my opinion, in that how one treats the sacraments is one of the "marks" of the church--not as central as the gospel, but still a major identifier, and a difference that separated the Baptists--you seem to waver on an item that does serve to "define" a Presbyterian, in particular an "orthodox" one. So, in this significant thing clearly you are not orthodox Presbyterian.

On the other hand, you seem content to remain docile under Presbyterian affiliation, to submit to its government and discipline, and to grow in the faith. Your behavior is appropriate to calling yourself by the name of your church. Your private dissent is not disturbing the peace of the church.

And, in time you could find yourself finally persuaded by the arguments that have persuaded the majority in Presbyterianism of the propriety of baptism that includes infants of one or both believing parents. I would try not to worry greatly about the matter.

Reactions: Like 2 | Edifying 2


----------



## Nathan A. Hughes (Nov 8, 2018)

Recently, I have been diligently studying the topic of Paedobaptism. For the most part of my Christian life I have been a firm believer in Believers Baptism. Before I came to faith in Christ I attended a Baptist Chapel that taught only Believers Baptism. I have come to the realization that Paedobaptism was not what I thought it was, nor do those who hold the view teach what I previously believed they did.

When I was under the ministry of my former Baptist Chapel I just accepted the teaching of believers baptism without studying the other side. I was new to Christianity and keen to learn. I was taught that those who teach infant baptism believe similar to the Roman Catholic doctrine i.e. that baptism in some way merits salvation or cleanses from sin. I rejected Credobaptism completely at the time. Since coming to saving faith in Christ I have not challenged myself regarding my position on baptism. So, recently I decided to open the topic up for study. To my amazement I was told a lot of false information regarding the doctrine of infant baptism. My view was not based on Scripture, but based on what folk said. This was wrong of me and I have now repented of that. I am so grateful that the Lord has blessed me with a good sound fellowship and opened my eyes to the truth of His Word. 

I came out of Arminianism a couple of years ago. Since leaving that I continued to hold my now former view as I never questioned it or thought that much about it. I’ve been a Reformed and Evangelical Christian for over 5 years now. I am also a Presbyterian thus, I am committed to infant baptism as well as believers baptism. I accept that infants can receive the covenant sign. I affirm the WFC which states in Chapter XXVIII (28) and section IV (4), _“Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.”_

I do intend to post an article explaining more fully why I have changed my mind on this topic (at some point in the future). However, I would just like to take this opportunity to say that I believe that it is ok to baptise an infant providing that one, or both parents are Christians and do not believe that the act of the sacrament of baptism in anyway saves or contributes to the infant’s salvation in any way. This post today is just a brief one to state the fact that my position has changed on baptism. 

I am convinced in my mind that my belief is in keeping with Scripture. We ought to affirm doctrine based on Scripture, not what others say. Romans 14: 5 says, “One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.”

I would just like to thank both Bruce and Jeff as you both encouraged me to search the Scriptures to see if these things are so. Thank you, may God bless you both. Also thank you for dealing with me graciously back in July 2018. I can understand now why there were some concerns and confusion. Every blessing

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Nov 8, 2018)

Wonderful to read, Nathan!


----------



## Smeagol (Nov 8, 2018)

Nathan A. Hughes said:


> I rejected Credobaptism completely at the time.


I think you meant to say Paedobaptism here (I could be wrong). I am not trying to be “picky”, but since I see you also post on your own blog, I figure you would like it to reflect accurately.

Secondly, and more importantly, I am glad to see you have been convinced by the scriptures on the topic of baptism and infants of believers. You have had quite the journey over the past few years. I enjoyed reading about your story from your blog.


----------



## Nathan A. Hughes (Nov 8, 2018)

Grant Jones said:


> I think you meant to say Paedobaptism here (I could be wrong). I am not trying to be “picky”, but since I see you also post on your own blog, I figure you would like it to reflect accurately.
> 
> Secondly, and more importantly, I am glad to see you have been convinced by the scriptures on the topic of baptism and infants of believers. You have had quite the journey over the past few years. I enjoyed reading about your story from your blog.


Thank You Grant for pointing that out, you are right. I have changed it on my blog now. opps! Every blessing

Reactions: Like 1


----------

