# Secondary Issue - Baptism



## JM

Hey folks, 

I'll admit, I need some help on this. The last year I've come to view baptism as something that shouldn't divide us. I've moved from credo to paedobaptism but really don't see a reason to separate from credobaptists especially now with orthodox Protestantism under attack from all sides. I'm not trying to reduce the importance of the sacraments and probably have a much higher view of the sacraments than many of my Reformed fams, I guess...maybe, I'm worn out from all the division we face. Is baptism an issue we should divide over? 

Yours in the Lord, 

jm

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Alan D. Strange

@JM 

It seems inescapable.

I firmly believe that children born of believers (at least one) are outwardly in the covenant and ought to be baptized. But my dear Baptist friends would say no. And I would urge them to baptize their children.

I also do not believe that dipping is necessary (immersion, pouring, and sprinkling all being valid modes, in my read of things). My dear Baptist friends think otherwise and insist on immersion.

According to them, all my children are not truly baptized, since they were baptized as infants and later made professions of faith. To me, failure to baptize those that have a right to the sign and seal of it is a serious matter.

Practically speaking, how can we not be divided over such? We can respect one another across the lines and esteem one another as fellow believers but we cannot be together in the same communion given these differences.

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 9 | Informative 1 | Amen 3


----------



## JM

I know of a local ARP congregation that allows Baptists into full membership minus the office of Elder. This, to me, makes sense.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Obviously, the facts speak for themselves. Baptism is an issue that divides Confessional Baptists from Presbyterians.

On the one hand, those that have not been baptized as confessing believers are unchurched, on the other, those that have been baptized as children or professing believers are not unchurched.

That said, _division_ here should not be taken to mean something that sets one outside the boundaries of Christendom. But it should be taken to mean that there is disagreement between the paedo and anti-paedo baptist.

I am wondering what you mean by "_division_" as it relates to the context of Protestantism being under attack. Both camps stand together as _Protest_ants, still _protesting, _hence these in-house differences are not really part and parcel of the attack upon _Protestantism_ at large, other than those that raise the "_So many denominations!_" canards. You know, the Romanists or those bizarre odd ducks that have declared all the church militant is corrupt and refuse to covenant with a local church (other than having coffee at Starbucks claiming to be "_doing church_"). 

If we could wave a wand and these baptism issues were to vanish, I suspect the attack upon Protestantism would still continue.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## JM

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Obviously, the facts speak for themselves. Baptism is an issue that divides Confessional Baptists from Presbyterians.
> 
> On the one hand, those that have not been baptized as confessing believers are unchurched, on the other, those that have been baptized as children or professing believers are not unchurched.
> 
> That said, _division_ here should not be taken to mean something that sets one outside the boundaries of Christendom. But it should be taken to mean that there is disagreement between the paedo and anti-paedo baptist.
> 
> I am wondering what you mean by "_division_" as it relates to the context of Protestantism being under attack. Both camps stand together as _Protest_ants, still _protesting, _hence these in-house differences are not really part and parcel of the attack upon Protestantism at large, other that those that raise the "_So many denominations!_" canards. You know, the Romanists.
> 
> If we could wave a wand and these baptism issues were to vanish, I suspect the attack upon Protestantism would still continue.



On one hand I guess I'm referring to the leadership in many Protestant denominations leaving the Protestant confessions and orthodoxy while many in the pew are still orthodox.

I have read many, many times on this and other forums where Reformed Baptists are attending paedo congregations and paedo's are attending Baptist and Reformed Baptist churches. There is a unity in Protestantism that extends beyond the confessions especially since, "_So many denominations!_" is a canard.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Let's separate issues.



JM said:


> On one hand I guess I'm referring to the leadership in many Protestant denominations leaving the Protestant confessions and orthodoxy while many in the pew are still orthodox.


These groups surely have means (as in church courts, discussion with elders, etc.), especially if they are confessional groups, to deal with these issues. If the membership is content to sit idly by while the ordained servant wanders off in the weeds, then perhaps they deserve what they get. May it never be!



JM said:


> I have read many, many times on this and other forums where Reformed Baptists are attending paedo congregations and paedo's are attending Baptist and Reformed Baptist churches. There is a unity in Protestantism that extends beyond the confessions especially since, "_So many denominations!_" is a canard.


What would this "unity" actually be without some formal statements about "what is in" and "what is out?" How else are we to determine the like-minded in that which we hold dear other than to actually define the same?

Granted, some "attend church out of bounds" due to varying personal and practical circumstances. I tend to grant them the charity and prudence that they are not forsaking the requirement to assemble corporately. Discerning the motives behind these choices is impossible absent some public declarations from these persons.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor

Alan D. Strange said:


> Practically speaking, how can we not be divided over such? We can respect one another across the lines and esteem one another as fellow believers but we cannot be together in the same communion given these differences.



This is my thought, too.

Yes, paedobaptists and Baptists can unite doctrinally around the essentials of the gospel—even the majority of theology—but it’s the practical issue in this case that forces division (more geographic than anything else). In other words: baptism, although it is not of first dogmatic rank, is of more than enough practical import to mean that differences cannot cohabitate in the same ministry. After all, how can two ministers who disagree on what to do with our children minister in the same congregation, over the same people? It just can’t happen. No matter what the practice, the conscience of one of the ministers will be violated.

Baptism just isn’t something one can shrug at or be on the fence about; they must make a decision. As others have said, it does not divide us in Christ, but it does divide us in practice, as well it should.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Alan D. Strange

JM said:


> I know of a local ARP congregation that allows Baptists into full membership minus the office of Elder. This, to me, makes sense.



That local congregation is not the only one, since Presbyterians regard Baptists as having valid baptisms. It's Baptists that don't regard Presbyterians as having valid baptisms.

Your illustration only cuts one way. Do you know of any Baptists who allow non-immersed Presbyterians baptized either as adults or as infants into their membership? I don't.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Edward

JM said:


> I know of a local ARP congregation that allows Baptists into full membership minus the office of Elder. This, to me, makes sense.



Do they have a diaconate? If so, how can they honestly deal with Ordination question 3? (ARP Form of Government 8.17) 


> Do you accept the doctrines of this Church, contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, as founded on the Word of God and as the expression of your own faith and do you resolve to adhere thereto?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## jwithnell

Edward said:


> Do they have a diaconate? If so, how can they honestly deal with Ordination question 3? (ARP Form of Government 8.17)


Confessional Presbyterian churches welcome those who make a credible profession of faith, but require officers of any stripe to subscribe to the WCF.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Edward

jwithnell said:


> Confessional Presbyterian churches welcome those who make a credible profession of faith, but require officers of any stripe to subscribe to the WCF.



Yes, which leaves 3 options. 

1) They don't have a diaconate.
2) The poster upthread is wrong.
3) They aren't a confessional church.

I tried to research but only two of the ARP churches in Ontario had decent web sites (both had a diaconate). The other 4 could best be described as sub-standard web presence and there was no way to tell one way or the other. So, hopefully, the answer is "1".


----------



## bookslover

Joel Beeke, in his forthcoming 4-volume systematic theology (Volume 1 due at the end of March, 2019!), has a co-author, whose name I can't recall. Since Beeke is Dutch Reformed and his co-author is Reformed Baptist, it'll be interesting to see how the chapter on baptism (in Volume 4) will play out.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## iainduguid

I have occasionally heard of churches that allow members of the congregation to follow their own beliefs as to baptism. However, from my perspective that is not uniting the two views but dividing them still further into three: credobaptists, pedobaptists and "whatever" baptists. As has been noted already on this thread, serious pedobaptists and credobaptists regard it as too important an issue not to have a church position on. Over the course of time, "whatever" baptist churches tend to become credo or pedo. The exception might be some low church Anglicans in England and Australia, who are denominationally pedobaptist but lean in a credobaptist direction and who have a very low sacramental theology.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## deleteduser99

It only we had full unity and we were all one mind...

But....

My children are either disciples, or they are not.
Either Christ feeds them as members of his visible church, or he does not.
Either we can treat them in charity as believers, or we cannot.
Either we proclaim that God will be God to the children of believers, or we do not.
Either that promise continues in the New Covenant times, or it does not.
Either to such belongs the Kingdom, or it does not.
Either they are holy, or they are not.
Either you can sing “Jesus Loves Me” to your child, or you cannot.
Either you can teach them to pray “Our Father”, or not.

I do understand the concerns of the Baptist side. Only last November was I still a Baptist. However, these are only a few practical differences that your baptism theology makes.

Of course on the Baptist side some will argue that Paedobaptism in some measure denies the Gospel, or it fosters presumption, gives children a worthless second-tier church membership status, confuses the Covenants, robs the New Covenant of its exceedingly greater privileges, takes us back to Judaism, locks us up in old types and shadows which are done away with, muddles the history of redemption, brings the unconverted into the church, and gives parents and children hope for extra-Biblical blessings they have no title to. If they are right, none of this is small.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Elizabeth

Division(over the timing of baptism) is 'escapable' in the Lord. It is 'small' in the Lord, in the sense that it does not hinder his work one iota. Does anyone think God will not work his will among Presbyterians who baptize their babies or Baptists who do not?


----------



## Smeagol

I believe Baptism is worthy of dividing over because of the views already stated and additionally because both views confessionally claim that mishandling (specifically withholding) Baptism is sinful.


Interestingly I believe there was a Church plant in Madison, MS, which consisted of leadership that were a mixture of Paedo & Anti-Paedo.... there were other strange things they did as well (meeting times and such). However, based on their website it looks like sermons stopped being logged back in May. I am not sure if they still meet or not.


----------



## deleteduser99

Elizabeth said:


> Division(over the timing of baptism) is 'escapable' in the Lord. It is 'small' in the Lord, in the sense that it does not hinder his work one iota. Does anyone think God will not work his will among Presbyterians who baptize their babies or Baptists who do not?



It's not only timing, but there are real practical ramifications for the children themselves, their parents, and the church. God may work above the means, but we'd be presumptuous to neglect them, since we do have a clear command to baptize, and who is baptized cannot possibly be immaterial; and ordinarily, he does his work through the means. Generally where His work is, there has been a means made effectual.

So, if we are to baptize our children, count them as members of the church, and treat them as disciples, and actively disciple them, that's no small thing.

I can say it's had great ramifications for my fathering.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

Elizabeth said:


> Does anyone think God will not work his will among Presbyterians who baptize their babies or Baptists who do not?



I believe that one of us is wrong. In that, there are surely going to be detriments based on obedience. Consider the passage in Hebrews chapter 12.

In Genesis 17 it warns that not placing the sign on our children results in a 'cutting off'. This cutting off is akin to missing blessings that come, by default, in our obedience.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Smeagol

Elizabeth said:


> Division(over the timing of baptism) is 'escapable' in the Lord. It is 'small' in the Lord, in the sense that it does not hinder his work one iota. Does anyone think God will not work his will among Presbyterians who baptize their babies or Baptists who do not?


Elizabeth,

No one here is claiming that man can hinder the will of God. Trust me even the most heretical church gathering is not outside the Will of God and is not outside being able to be used by God (how He uses them is another topic). Baptism is not a small matter in any sense in my opinion.

Everything is a vessel of the Lord's will. The Lord's 2 sacraments are of HIGH importance and should be HIGH priorities for every local Church. Baptist (regarding the views on Baptism) usually create much less friction inside a Presbyterian Church vs. a Presbyterian inside of a Baptist Church.


----------



## Jonathan R

Alan D. Strange said:


> That local congregation is not the only one, since Presbyterians regard Baptists as having valid baptisms. It's Baptists that don't regard Presbyterians as having valid baptisms.
> 
> Your illustration only cuts one way. Do you know of any Baptists who allow non-immersed Presbyterians baptized either as adults or as infants into their membership? I don't.
> 
> Peace,
> Alan



Our church meets Presbyterians halfway in that regard. We have what we call "associate membership" which has all the privileges of membership with the exception of voting on constitutional amendments. That is merely a safeguard to say that they cannot work to make our church not a baptist one. Until recently, they could not vote at all. We have this category because we are in a college town, with students who often wants to remain members at their "home church" and this is a way of ensuring church oversight while they are in college. It is also there because we have a fair number of paedobaptists who for one reason or another do not worship with any of the local Presbyterian churches. Much like presbyterian churches, our deacons and elders must fully subscribe to our confession (1689 LBCF), which naturally rules out leadership roles for "associate members."

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## lynnie

I guess I am a "whatever Baptist". So are plenty of people I know.

How can anybody read all the long threads here debating the subject, and not conclude that wonderful brethren on both sides who appeal to many many scriptures and love the great doctrines of grace and God's sovereignty, have come to different conclusions? How can anybody say they can't join together in true fellowship with them, even while maintaining their convictions? I just don't get the division either, after years of reading the debates here.

When we lived in another state we went to a very fine PCA church with lots of Baptists. Why would they leave a truly great church over this? The Calvinist Baptist church we are in now has one guy in leadership who we love very much who is paedo. His wife and kids and he are very happy and involved members. Why leave over this?

The real issue in my opinion is whether church leadership will allow the "other side" membership even if not eldership. We know Baptist churches that will accept people as members who believe their infant baptism was valid and not force rebaptism. I think that is how it should be. And our PCA experience is that Baptists are welcome as members although not as elders. But there would be the same approach for persons who are not 5 pointers. You can be a member without believing in L for example, but not an elder. 

This is a speculative and cynical thing to say, but I'll throw it out there.....I've seen quite a few people who had strong convictions on something suddenly "see the light" when it meant they had a chance to be in leadership. Baptism for one, and changing sides. Former charismatic positions suddenly tossed, not by conviction and biblical study, but to be in the inner ring. I wonder how many people change sides just to be a respectable member and not from true belief. It is something to be aware of and cautious about.


----------



## Smeagol

lynnie said:


> Why leave over this?


One example among many:

How would you advise a father, who is Paedo, have his children baptized in a Credo-Only congregation?


----------



## JM

Thank you everyone for your insights. You have given me plenty to think about. 

Yours in the Lord, 

jm

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Lynnie, I guess you could imagine Abraham dealing with those who wouldn't circumcise their children. It was the clear command of God to do so- could Abraham have taken a "live and let live" position before God who had commanded? It's just as clearly still a command to paedobaptists to give children the sign of the promise, now clearly baptism. To not require this duty of new parents would be a sin.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## JM

Edward said:


> Yes, which leaves 3 options.
> 
> 1) They don't have a diaconate.
> 2) The poster upthread is wrong.
> 3) They aren't a confessional church.
> 
> I tried to research but only two of the ARP churches in Ontario had decent web sites (both had a diaconate). The other 4 could best be described as sub-standard web presence and there was no way to tell one way or the other. So, hopefully, the answer is "1".



Here is the church I referred to http://trinityarp.org/

I believe it passed in 2011 but I can't be certain. The email I had from Pastor Henry (current Pastor still) went to an account I no longer have access to.

Yours in the Lord,

jm


----------



## Scott Bushey

Jeri Tanner said:


> Lynnie, I guess you could imagine Abraham dealing with those who wouldn't circumcise their children. It was the clear command of God to do so- could Abraham have taken a "live and let live" position before God who had commanded? It's just as clearly still a command to paedobaptists to give children the sign of the promise, now clearly baptism. To not require this duty of new parents would be a sin.



Consider Moses' wife Zipporah when Moses delayed in placing the commanded signage:

"24 And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the Lord met him, and sought to kill him. 25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast _it_ at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband _art_ thou to me. 26 So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband _thou art_, because of the circumcision."

_The Holy Bible: King James Version_, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ex 4:24–26.


----------



## Edward

JM said:


> Here is the church I referred to



Thanks. They do show a deacon. Problematic.


----------



## JM

Edward said:


> Thanks. They do show a deacon. Problematic.



Piper's church does something similar and I believe Bunyan was quoted in their position paper.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Harley said:


> Of course on the Baptist side some will argue that Paedobaptism in some measure denies the Gospel, or it fosters presumption, gives children a worthless second-tier church membership status, confuses the Covenants, robs the New Covenant of its exceedingly greater privileges, takes us back to Judaism, locks us up in old types and shadows which are done away with, muddles the history of redemption, brings the unconverted into the church, and gives parents and children hope for extra-Biblical blessings they have no title to. If they are right, none of this is small.



Yes, I'd say that pretty well sums it up.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Edward

JM said:


> Piper's church does something similar and I believe Bunyan was quoted in their position paper.



But Baptists don't subscribe to the WCF, so it wouldn't be an issue.


----------



## JM

Edward said:


> But Baptists don't subscribe to the WCF, so it wouldn't be an issue.



If I recall...they must subscribe to the 1689.


----------



## lynnie

Grant Jones said:


> One example among many:
> 
> How would you advise a father, who is Paedo, have his children baptized in a Credo-Only congregation?



Hi- I was out all day...so anyway, one local Calvinist Baptist pastor we know (grad from WTS) has a local Presbyterian pastor who will baptize babies if people feel strongly about it. The pastors respect each other and get along and if somebody doesn't want to leave the Baptist church but wants to get a baby baptized, they go over to the local Presbyterian. I guess it is during a service but I never asked. I happen to think this is an example of how churches should relate and be willing to help, but I doubt many here would agree. 

To tell you the truth we knew that quite a few people in that church had come out of the RCC. We rejoice in the marvelous fact of their salvation and becoming Protestant, but why exactly should I assume people who desire to baptize their baby have a Reformed and godly conviction? In those cases it wasn't my business and I didn't ask, but unless a person is taught, how do you know they don't have lingering vestiges of superstitious baptismal regeneration type thinking? How do you even know the desire to baptize anybody isn't Federal Vision-ish? 

I've met people in the PCA who talk about communion like there is magic in the elements and the pastor has had to try to talk to them privately, and I am not sure he got through. All that to say I think the mentality among paedos can be naive, ie, assuming people baptize babies for the right reason. I hope the pastors here really know what is going on with their people when they baptize a baby and don't assume anything. I think you'd be surprised how many people in the pews ascribe some magic to baptism. 

Jeri- you missed my point I think. There are endless threads here on this, year after year, and both sides make very excellent points that are fully scripture based. I choose to hold more to one side while fully accepting the other side, instead of being staunchly dogmatic that the other side is "in sin"- a position I think is ridiculous and needs a review of Romans and how to accept those whose conscience differs on disputable matters. 

If this is not a disputable matter where we accept one another, then why exactly are both sides allow to post and discuss here at PB as full members in good standing? Makes no sense if one side is in sin.


----------



## Smeagol

lynnie said:


> instead of being staunchly dogmatic that the other side is "in sin"- a position I think is ridiculous and needs a review of Romans


Ridiculous?.... Don’t shoot the messenger. Our Lord the creator of all we know commands us to keep his sacraments in his Holy Word.

What is your definition of sin?
I will give the short simple answer given in the Catechism questions I do with my daughters because it is always fresh on my mind.

“Sin is any lack of conformity to or transgression of the law of God”.

Is Baptism not a command? Are we not held to conform to Baptism as commanded in scripture?

Regarding the rest of your post, I will leave it to others much more suited than myself to address the various inconsistencies and anti-confessional statements, which regardless if one is a confessional Baptist or Presbyterian, are concerning.

As an example of a well known Baptist explaining (very charitably) that the Paedo position is sinful (his view not mine).
https://www.9marks.org/article/the-sin-of-infant-baptism-written-by-a-sinning-baptist/

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## deleteduser99

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Yes, I'd say that pretty well sums it up.



Glad to know it's a fair representation.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## deleteduser99

lynnie said:


> Hi- I was out all day...so anyway, one local Calvinist Baptist pastor we know (grad from WTS) has a local Presbyterian pastor who will baptize babies if people feel strongly about it. The pastors respect each other and get along and if somebody doesn't want to leave the Baptist church but wants to get a baby baptized, they go over to the local Presbyterian. I guess it is during a service but I never asked. I happen to think this is an example of how churches should relate and be willing to help, but I doubt many here would agree.
> 
> To tell you the truth we knew that quite a few people in that church had come out of the RCC. We rejoice in the marvelous fact of their salvation and becoming Protestant, but why exactly should I assume people who desire to baptize their baby have a Reformed and godly conviction? In those cases it wasn't my business and I didn't ask, but unless a person is taught, how do you know they don't have lingering vestiges of superstitious baptismal regeneration type thinking? How do you even know the desire to baptize anybody isn't Federal Vision-ish?
> 
> I've met people in the PCA who talk about communion like there is magic in the elements and the pastor has had to try to talk to them privately, and I am not sure he got through. All that to say I think the mentality among paedos can be naive, ie, assuming people baptize babies for the right reason. I hope the pastors here really know what is going on with their people when they baptize a baby and don't assume anything. I think you'd be surprised how many people in the pews ascribe some magic to baptism.
> 
> Jeri- you missed my point I think. There are endless threads here on this, year after year, and both sides make very excellent points that are fully scripture based. I choose to hold more to one side while fully accepting the other side, instead of being staunchly dogmatic that the other side is "in sin"- a position I think is ridiculous and needs a review of Romans and how to accept those whose conscience differs on disputable matters.
> 
> If this is not a disputable matter where we accept one another, then why exactly are both sides allow to post and discuss here at PB as full members in good standing? Makes no sense if one side is in sin.



That's a fair question: can we hold fellowship while one side is in sin?

Without hesitation, yes. Godly men all throughout history are wrong on this issue, yet accepted by Christ. It's either Calvin, Edwards, Turretin, Owen, and a host of others, or Spurgeon, Judson, Carey, Bunyan, and many others who are wrong. God has accepted both, works through both, sanctifies both. We are not only constrained, but gladly accept, all whom God has accepted. I'd be wicked to reprobate men like Spurgeon and my good brothers and sisters in Reformed Baptist circles. They would likewise be wicked to do the same to me and my girls (assuming their profession is credibly acceptable).

God has accepted godly men and women who have baptized their children, and taught their children to do the same.
He has likewise accepted those who never did baptize their children.

Sins of ignorance are to be tolerated and graciously dealt with. Willful sins are another matter (which is what I think lay behind the near-slaying of Moses in early Exodus). Though, that doesn't mean sins of ignorance are without ramifications. No Baptist pastor is ever going to be able to consent to the baptism of an infant. Likewise, no paedobaptist pastor will assent to a rebaptism. That's only reality.

And in the end, none of us will die knowing what sins we were still committing even in old age.

It doesn't change the fact that it's sin, which is why the discussion needs to continue. It's not the prettiest way to be conformed to God's will, but debate is a means God uses. If anything, we walk away knowing the Scriptures better. It's ugly at times because of our sin and our ignorance, but maybe we just need to look at this as growing pains as we develop into Christ our Head (Ephesians 4).

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## lynnie

Grant-

I remember that Dever post very well when it came out, as it came up at another blog I look at, along with RS Clark at the same time writing that he would (hypothetically) discipline any young couple in his church who were Baptist and wanted to wait to baptize a baby. You know, discipline like church discipline for adultery or heresy.

I thought both of them were sickening, and that episode of blog furor did more to turn me into the "both sides are biblical" position than any other. I happen to like Spurgeon and Edwards both; Piper and Sproul both enriched my life, and we've had wonderful pastoral care and love in Calvinist Baptist and PCA churches. I could list many others but you get the point. I read on this board and people on both sides make wonderful contributions to many various discussions.

Like eating meat sacrificed to idols or not, sometimes things are matters of conscience and and different understandings. If the act is done by faith unto God, it isn't sin on either side. Nobody is saying it is ok to never baptize; nobody is against baptism. Everybody wants their kid to end up saved by faith and baptized, the two groups just have different timelines. I think it is tragic how the reputation of Reformed theology has been so damaged by the accusations of sins thrown around by some on the blogs.

To give a personal analogy, I am convinced headcoverings are a NT command. I think that passage is MORE clear, not less, than the baptism subject in the NT. But I don't accuse people of sin if they don't agree, I look at it as something missing in their progressive sanctification and that none of us see clearly in this life. And I don't divide over it.


----------



## Jeri Tanner

lynnie said:


> Jeri- you missed my point I think. There are endless threads here on this, year after year, and both sides make very excellent points that are fully scripture based. I choose to hold more to one side while fully accepting the other side, instead of being staunchly dogmatic that the other side is "in sin"- a position I think is ridiculous and needs a review of Romans and how to accept those whose conscience differs on disputable matters.


It's not a slur or a judgment on anyone's character to determine that baptizing, or withholding baptism, from an infant is sin. It's simply a necessity- if the church were to give up its distinctions, whether paedo or credo, much would be lost. It may be a secondary issue but it's an important one. Brothers and sisters in Christ can and must still love and fellowship with each other, but the distinctions are necessary until the Lord comes. One view on covenant and children and baptism is right and the other view is wrong; one view reflects God's command and the other opposes it. This isn't the color of the carpet. A lot hangs on it. That's why good pastors must teach and require submission to distinct doctrinal positions in the churches. I guess we disagree on this but that's my take on it. I think good Presbyterian and Baptist churches are trying to find a way to accommodate the needy sheep outside their distinctives who need a good church, without compromising on those distinctives.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart

lynnie said:


> If the act is done by faith unto God, it isn't sin on either side.



I think you'll have a hard time proving from the Scriptures that the sacrament (or ordinance) of baptism is in the same class as eating meat sacrificed to idols.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Edward

JM said:


> If I recall...they must subscribe to the 1689.



The big differences on the Sacraments between the LBC and the WCF are the reasons that this thread exists.


----------



## Edward

lynnie said:


> I've met people in the PCA who talk about communion like there is magic in the elements



Like Christ being really present?

"the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers"

Like there are mysteries involved? " partake of these holy mysteries"

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart

Two categories are distinct. There are matters of God's law and matters of conscience. The line should not become so blurred that we come to say that different ideas of baptism are of no consequence. Clearly, anyway, they have very real practical consequences.


----------



## Smeagol

lynnie said:


> I've met people in the PCA who talk about communion like there is magic in the elements and the pastor has had to try to talk to them privately, and I am not sure he got through. All that to say I think the mentality among paedos can be naive, ie, assuming people baptize babies for the right reason. I hope the pastors here really know what is going on with their people when they baptize a baby and don't assume anything. I think you'd be surprised how many people in the pews ascribe some magic to baptism.


What do you mean by magic?

Again BOTH confessions attest that something “spiritual” does take place when the people of God take part in and witness the sacraments being performed.

Below I will quote Chapter 30 of your own confession:
“7. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses. ( 1 Corinthians 10:16; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 )”

We have our confessions to set up boundaries and protective walls (to protect orthodoxy). Bottom line boundaries “separate”. However our historic confessions are blessings and should be applied and followed with integrity (unless one takes exceptions of course). And yes scripture is the supreme authority.

Lastly, Sister Lynnie, I would encourage you to continue to study even your own confession and the Bible in the matter. Your posts on this thread evidence that studying your confession’s and above all scripture’s view on the sacraments would help you see why sincere Protestant brothers/and sisters “d”ivide (little “d”) over the sacraments..... especially paedo vs. anti-paedo.

I do appreciate your thoughts on the matter and you taking the time to explain your angle.

P.S. If you feel this strongly that there should be no divide, consider asking your current Elders why your congregation does not simply join the local Presbyterian Church or vice-versa (hopefully they can help answer as well). I think you will find even more things that provide solid reasoning why we routinely gather separately.


----------



## lynnie

Re magic, it had to do with women on nursery duty or for some reason not present during communion....bathroom emergency maybe....going into the kitchen after to get a piece of bread and leftover grape juice by themselves. Not a communal partaking at all. I know it may be hard to feel like you missed communion but the PCA pastor told us privately that they attributed something almost magical to the leftover elements when he spoke to them.


----------



## lynnie

Grant, while I agree with you about communion, I stand my ground that there are probably quite a few people in Reformed churches bringing babies to be baptized, not for the reasons you would teach but for more magical effects akin to a Roman Catholic. Try probing this a bit if it comes up and you may find that the Federal Vision thinking is more insidiously present than you thought. Maybe my experience is not the norm, I don't know.


----------



## Smeagol

lynnie said:


> Grant, while I agree with you about communion, I stand my ground that there are probably quite a few people in Reformed churches bringing babies to be baptized, not for the reasons you would teach but for more magical effects akin to a Roman Catholic. Try probing this a bit if it comes up and you may find that the Federal Vision thinking is more insidiously present than you thought. Maybe my experience is not the norm, I don't know.


Understood.
Reformed circles are not the only ones that have to fend off the belief that Baptism saves.... 

Heck (sorry that is the Mississippi coming out), even in traditional southern baptist churches, baptism can wrongly be viewed as a “get-out-of-hell” free card.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## lynnie

By the way, for what it is worth, I do not support baby dedications at all. So when we talk about Baptists, I don't include the faux baptism of dedications.


----------



## TheInquirer

I get people have strong convictions on this topic and rightly so, it isn't trivial. However, do you know what a lot of people don't have strong convictions about? Loving one another. 

If people felt as strongly about loving the Lord their God and their fellow Christian as they do about other points of doctrine, I think we might be divided less when we probably agree on 98% of everything else. 

I am not asking anyone to throw out their convictions but only to hold them in the right priority in balance with what God also commands elsewhere.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart

lynnie said:


> By the way, for what it is worth, I do not support baby dedications at all. So when we talk about Baptists, I don't include the faux baptism of dedications.



There was a baby dedication at our church. My wife aptly described it as a "dry baptism".

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Tom Hart

TheInquirer said:


> I get people have strong convictions on this topic and rightly so, it isn't trivial. However, do you know what a lot of people don't have strong convictions about? Loving one another.
> 
> If people felt as strongly about loving the Lord their God and their fellow Christian as they do about other points of doctrine, I think we might be divided less when we probably agree on 98% of everything else.
> 
> I am not asking anyone to throw out their convictions but only to hold them in the right priority in balance with what God also commands elsewhere.



I am not sure what you mean here without giving any specific examples.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

I wouldn’t say it’s “secondary”. I would say that it’s important enough not only to make confessional status, but for at least one confession to conclude that it’s a “great sin” (WCF 28.5) to neglect the baptism of adults and infants.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Alan D. Strange said:


> I firmly believe that children born of believers (at least one) are outwardly in the covenant and ought to be baptized. But my dear Baptist friends would say no. And I would urge them to baptize their children.





Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Obviously, the facts speak for themselves. Baptism is an issue that divides Confessional Baptists from Presbyterians.





Taylor Sexton said:


> Baptism just isn’t something one can shrug at or be on the fence about; they must make a decision. As others have said, it does not divide us in Christ, but it does divide us in practice, as well it should.





iainduguid said:


> As has been noted already on this thread, serious pedobaptists and credobaptists regard it as too important an issue not to have a church position on.


I have previously argued that Vos' "Doctrine of the covenant in Reformed Theology" is a helpful article for both Paedobaptists and Reformed Baptists to have a discussion on. Vos is a Reformed Paedobaptist and he gives a full discussion of a Reformed Paedobaptist Covenant Theology. Yet he leaves a discussion of Infant Baptism until the end of the essay. Therefore Reformed Baptists can agree with about 80% of the essay - the final 20% would be where the disagreement arises.

Remember both the WCF and the 1689 Confession have much in common.

The point I am getting to is this - my country has a smaller population than many big USA cities. It is not practical in small cities in New Zealand to have both a Reformed Paedobaptist and a Reformed Baptist church. So there has to be some Reformed church that caters for both. It may be different in the USA, but I would say that even in your country, as secular forces put more pressure on the church, for Reformed Paedobaptists and Reformed Baptists to work together. Surely we have more in common than with Calvinistic Dispensationalists, or with Calvinistic Charismatics etc.

Yes our differences are real but keep it in perspective.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Harley said:


> Either we can treat them in charity as believers, or we cannot.


Remember to keep the distinction between election and covenant otherwise you create other problems.


----------



## deleteduser99

lynnie said:


> Grant, while I agree with you about communion, I stand my ground that there are probably quite a few people in Reformed churches bringing babies to be baptized, not for the reasons you would teach but for more magical effects akin to a Roman Catholic. Try probing this a bit if it comes up and you may find that the Federal Vision thinking is more insidiously present than you thought. Maybe my experience is not the norm, I don't know.



“We have Abraham as our Father!” We are very prone to abuse God’s kindness meant to lead us to repentance.


----------



## Smeagol

TheInquirer said:


> I get people have strong convictions on this topic and rightly so, it isn't trivial. However, do you know what a lot of people don't have strong convictions about? Loving one another.
> 
> If people felt as strongly about loving the Lord their God and their fellow Christian as they do about other points of doctrine, I think we might be divided less when we probably agree on 98% of everything else.
> 
> I am not asking anyone to throw out their convictions but only to hold them in the right priority in balance with what God also commands elsewhere.


No one is going to debate that here. Especially since ,according to 1 John 5:1-3, loving God is keeping his commands. Our ( Baptist and Presbyterians) desire to be obedient to him in the sacraments is a result of our love for God and his Word.

Again Baptism is not the only point of disagreement. No one is saying Baptist and Presbyterians should not love one another. No one is saying we Should not ever do joint projects together. No one is saying we may never ever attend one another’s services from time to time. No one is saying that a Presbyterian cannot EVER, in good faith, join with a solid confessional Baptist congregation or vice-versa. There are many circumstances where families, due to location (and other things), simply have to agree to disagree and still attend a congregation that is otherwise faithful to what they hold true. We are talking about a persons individual Church membership and if difference in views on Baptism (Paedo/ Anti-Paedo) is a valid (not a must but a valid) reason to separate. To which I would answer..Yes. As @Harley stated above (https://www.puritan-board.com/threads/secondary-issue-baptism.96455/#post-1179444). The difference is not simply “do I baptize the baby or not”; the implications of the Paedo/Anti-Paedo discussion are much greater.

*P.S. @Stephen L Smith ...you are right brother, geography often plays a large part.*


----------



## jw

I cannot fathom the logic that goes behind thinking a session may discipline one set of parents for something that they would not discipline a different set of parents. Or, for that matter, thinking that a doctrine such as Baptism, is of such insignificance that its proper belief about and execution may be subject to one’s uninformed conscience to such a degree that opposite sides of the matter may not freely call the other’s wrong belief about it to be _sin_.

If any anitpaedobaptists take vows to be subject to the care/discipline of the rule and government of a denomination that upholds covenant baptism, they should be prepared to submit their children for baptism, regardless if they believe it to be biblical or not; otherwise, they should not join that church.

BTW, _discipline_ doesn’t start with excommunication. It starts with placing oneself under the preaching of the Word, rightly hearing and making proper use of it, and receiving the counsel and rule of those Whom the Lord has put over His people in that local chapter of Zion. Ultimately, if one’s conscience “cannot” abide the teaching (and required subsequent practice) of a denomination, one should not expect special treatment. No one is/should be arguing that a couple who is somehow (bewildering to me) surprised by such a requirement should be barred from the table without further loving direction given them from their elders, having opportunity to reconsider their actions, if not their beliefs.


----------



## Taylor

Tom Hart said:


> There was a baby dedication at our church. My wife aptly described it as a "dry baptism".



No joke, I saw my little baby cousin get “dedicated” last year, and the pastor dipped a white flower in water, _poured_ the water over her head, and said, “I dedicate you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Smeagol

Taylor Sexton said:


> No joke, I saw my little baby cousin get “dedicated” last year, and the pastor dipped a white flower in water, _poured_ the water over her head, and said, “I dedicate you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”


Sounds close to when I had my daughters baptized...minus the white flower.

Maybe the pastor was a closet Paedo...and had everyone fooled...


----------



## Taylor

Grant Jones said:


> Maybe the pastor was a closet Paedo...and had everyone fooled...



I highly doubt it. He is a Charismatic pastor with very little theological training. He probably didn’t even realize he was practically performing an infant baptism, save one single word...


----------



## deleteduser99

Stephen L Smith said:


> Remember to keep the distinction between election and covenant otherwise you create other problems.



Agreed. I'm more referring to presumptive unregeneration combined with a standard of baptizing none before a certain age, and an outlook that almost treats a child's conversion testimony as unverifiable and doubtful until then. As a Baptist I held to presumptive unregeneration, and had my girls grown up under me with that view I probably would've doubted any profession of faith they made before 13. I could've potentially bruised the lambs.

That being said, neither is it regeneration until proven otherwise. Charity is the only principle that helps us walk a safe middle ground for our childrens' sakes.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Cymro

Is there not wisdom in having separate denominations over a very important distinctive. To have the two views operating in one church is unworkable, because when one view gains the majority in membership then the collision occurs. So whilst we might be separated over that doctrine, that does not prevent exchange of pulpits, or the congregations having fellowship privately or publicaly. 
But the real division I feel is over views of the covenant, which is foundational to the iterpretaion of the ordinance.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## lynnie

Taylor....hilarious and awful. 

I also wanted to post this here; I've posted it before. Poythress is writing this for Baptists to encourage baptizing children as young as two and three. From a baptist perspective where it is meant for those with evidence of true faith and regeneration, there is no need to deny it to young children with simple faith. Don't let the title throw you. 

It doesn't change the major difference of what paedos and credos think baptism represents. But if you are Baptist and think baptism represents being saved, then you don't have to wait until a child is much older. 

https://frame-poythress.org/indifferentism-and-rigorism/


----------



## JM

I would like to add that I'm not settled in my position on baptism which is probably why I'm struggling. The move was not made for biblical reasons but more practical and historical reasons. 

Pray for me. 

jm

Reactions: Praying 1


----------



## Tom Hart

JM said:


> I would like to add that I'm not settled in my position on baptism which is probably why I'm struggling. The move was not made for biblical reasons but more practical and historical reasons.
> 
> Pray for me.
> 
> jm



I will pray.


----------



## Smeagol

JM said:


> I would like to add that I'm not settled in my position on baptism which is probably why I'm struggling. The move was not made for biblical reasons but more practical and historical reasons.
> 
> Pray for me.
> 
> jm


JM,
Are you trying to decide to leave a Church or are you struggling with the aftermath of already having left (feel free to PM me)?

I will pray for you today brother.


----------



## TheInquirer

Grant,

I understand that we are not debating whether loving one another is important or not, what I am saying is this - "Is the command to love one another held as strongly in one's mind as the command to baptize in a certain manner? If so, how does it help us navigate these disagreements?"

Why do I even mention this? Because of how this issue is often handled and how it exacerbates divisions rather than promotes unity.

Let's go back to the OP for a second.

His main issue is this - Should baptism divide us in light of the current state of attacks on the church? Can baptists and paedobaptists function together in a church?

Now look at the responses. Some say "No way, we must separate" and some are giving examples of how congregations hold to their convictions of what they will teach and how they will function while still desiring to include and shepherd members from a different doctrinal stance.

Personally, I think the second example is more consistent with Christian love than the first. You may disagree but there is my reasoning:

Here is how we do it at our church. We are Baptist but allow paedobaptists into membership if they can explain their position based on a solid understanding of Scripture. We do this to screen out views such as baptismal regeneration which we believe are clearly out of bounds and threaten the gospel. We do not allow paedobaptism to be taught or paedobaptists to become elders. That is how we hold on to our Baptist identity and convictions yet still welcome paedobaptists into membership.

Does it work? So far it has. Why? Because our paedobaptist brothers and sisters know we love them and want to include them in our congregation as much as we can since we choose to emphasize what we have in common rather than let the smaller (albeit important) issues divide us. There are not a lot of strong, Bible believing churches in our area for paedobaptists as most Presbyterian churches are PCUSA and have gone far off the rails. We recognize this and want to love our brothers and sisters.

Ever since we made this change to allow paedobaptists into membership a few years ago I have never heard any complaints from paedobaptists over how they are treated or the standards we put in place. When we teach on issues like baptism, we do it with grace and kindness without sacrificing our convictions. We don't teach the issue in a way that insults or demeans the views of paedobaptists. If someone wanted to have their infants baptized, I believe we would simply work with another local congregation in town that we trust since we pursue relationships with other pastors that hold our core evangelical convictions. We wouldn't accuse them of being in sin or seek to discipline in them in any way unless they wandered off into the baptismal regeneration heresy. This is how I would want to be treated if I were in the reverse circumstance and chose to find fellowship in Presbyterian church. I wouldn't expect them to bend to my doctrinal stance but I would want to be respected and cared for as a brother in Christ. I would hold up my time at RTS as an example of this. Their care and respect for me as a Baptist, while still holding on to their convictions, was nothing short of exemplary and an example for me.

My point is this - How you go about dealing with the issue is of great importance and can either lessen or exacerbate the divisions we face between one another. Sometimes we get so focused on the doctrinal side of things we forget and fail to hold other extremely important truths tightly as we work through it.

Over the 23 years I have been deeply immersed in church life I have time and again seen a failure to hold on to both love and truth tightly without sacrificing either. It seems that congregations develop cultures that either default to one or the other and the problems that it creates are massive and I believe it leads to many, many unnecessary divisions and fights.

There is a time to separate from a church and there is a time to stay and be unified and commit to loving a group of people that share core convictions. As I have become more and more exposed to the Reformed world over the last 8 years, I have been absolutely astounded over what some people choose to separate over when they probably have unity over 99.5% of their doctrine. I think we would all like to be around people that believe exactly as we do but that is a great recipe to have a church of 1. I understand we have to draw the lines in certain places but when we are drawing those lines, I would just encourage that we make sure we are doing it in a way that pleases the Lord and seeks to love His people the best we can and that that is at the forefront of our minds as we do so.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Smeagol

TheInquirer said:


> Is the command to love one another held as strongly in one's mind as the command to baptize in a certain manner?


Yes, it should be, at least in my mind.


TheInquirer said:


> If so, how does it help us navigate these disagreements?"


 That is the purpose of PB (in one sense), to help us flesh things out.


TheInquirer said:


> Some say "No way, we must separate"


 Who said this? Not I.


TheInquirer said:


> Baptist but allow paedobaptists into membership if they can explain their position based on a solid understanding of Scripture.


Do you require them to be re-baptized if they were only baptized as infants? If not, how do you reconcile that with scripture and your standards and your own Church's Membership Covenant? 


TheInquirer said:


> There are not a lot of strong, Bible believing churches in our area for paedobaptists as the most Presbyterian churches are PCUSA and have gone far off the rails.


Like I said geography plays a big role.


TheInquirer said:


> I would just encourage that we make sure we are doing it in a way that pleases the Lord and seeks to love His people the best we can and that that is at the forefront of our minds as we do so.


 Amen.


----------



## Jake

There are some churches that allow for both (credo- only and paedo-) positions on baptism, such as the Free Presbyterian Churches of Ulster and North America and this microdenomination.


----------



## TheInquirer

Grant Jones said:


> Do you require them to be re-baptized if they were only baptized as infants? If not, how do you reconcile that with scripture and your standards? How do you receive them into your membership if they have not been "dipped" or "immersed", without being out of accord with your own confession (assuming your Church is confessional..I could be wrong) ?



- We do not require rebaptism
- Reconcile - This is where I think it is helpful to have a "What we teach" statement that is more tightly defined than the doctrinal standards required for membership.
- We are not a confessional church.

It's good to work through this issue, especially in light of where our culture is at and the fact that many communities do not have multiple strong Bible-believing, Reformed or Reformed-ish churches that give people the option to find something that exactly matches their convictions.

Though they aren't the church, I appreciate Reformed seminaries like Westminster Cal. and RTS Orlando that have Reformed Baptist study options. To me that sends a good message of what they believe is the highest priority - the core of Reformed theology badly needed in this country - and what they can allow some flexibility on to serve their students and the church at large.


----------



## Smeagol

TheInquirer said:


> - We do not require rebaptism
> - Reconcile - This is where I think it is helpful to have a "What we teach" statement that is more tightly defined than the doctrinal standards required for membership.
> - We are not a confessional church.



Last question I promise:
Correct me if I am wrong, but if you receive a person into membership (who was only baptized as an infant, are you not violating your Own Church's membership covenant? From your Churches Website:

“*Church Covenant*
Members of Christ The Redeemer Church make the following covenant to each other before God:

Having, we trust, been brought by God's grace to repent and believe in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, and having been baptized upon our profession of faith, into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, we now, relying on his gracious aid, solemnly and joyfully renew our covenant with each other. “http://www.christredeemer.com/beliefs/


----------



## TheInquirer

It's a good question - I would guess the language of the church covenant was not updated when the elder position paper was written. I will forward your observation along.


----------



## Smeagol

TheInquirer said:


> It's a good question - I would guess the language of the church covenant was not updated when the elder position paper was written. I will forward your observation along.


Understood. I digress. I have enjoyed our dialogue brother.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## JM

Grant Jones said:


> JM,
> Are you trying to decide to leave a Church or are you struggling with the aftermath of already having left (feel free to PM me)?
> 
> I will pray for you today brother.



I guess I was overly idealistic in the past when it came to doctrine and dogma. Thank you for your prayers and the offer to chat via PM. 

jm

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## lynnie

JM said:


> I guess I was overly idealistic in the past when it came to doctrine and dogma. Thank you for your prayers and the offer to chat via PM.
> 
> jm



I prayed for you a few times yesterday.

It is good- not just okay, but excellent- to be undecided with honesty about any doctrine where Reformed churches and scholars disagree. I mean, you can't really say you are Reformed and hold to Federal Vision, or argue with L and P, but it is OK to take years- months or many many years- reading and thinking about baptism, or the finer points re the sabbath, or eschatology, or spiritual gifts, or anything where you have Presbyterians and Baptists holding to varied views. Better to be honest than a pretender in a church. You submit to church leaders in doctrine by not being argumentative and don't undermine them, but neither do you park your brains at the door. Be prepared to spend your life having some doctrinal back and forths.

On this subject ( baptism) I will point out that what really bugs my husband and I is conversations on both sides with people who spout one position without thinking through what they are saying as applied to communion. Man oh man has hubby had the discussions with guys including pastors about what they say from the pulpit and their glaring inconsistency. (and I am not referring to anybody here, although it could apply at PB but I don't know of anybody). 

Paedos will talk about continuity of the covenant and children and promises and carry on about it and then you ask them why their kids are not eating the covenant meal, and OT kids ate the passover. You would be shocked at how many have zero reply and ho hum and finally appeal to the BCO or something, but you press them about why, and they can't answer and they know they are inconsistent and you can seen them grit their teeth.

The smarter paedos have thought it through and say that people have to examine themselves before they eat the meal, so they want the kid to be older and aware of sin, and that is why they have a two stage process ( ie baby baptism and older communion). 

If you ask some guys about why they disagree with credo baptism and throw back at them something they just said about communion that could apply to baptism ( waiting until evidence of faith for a sacrament) they have no answer and get that deer in the headlight look.

Credos are worse. They sit there with the kids taking communion and you ask them sometime why, if the kid isn't baptized, and they hem and haw and have no answer. That's normal, people don't read theology or think much. But you bring it up with the pastor, respectfully, and pastors get annoyed or even mad.They have no good answer, not even the staunch Calvinists. Its crazy. I don't think there is a good answer on that one; if you are credo baptist I think you should not allow communion. Thinking paedos at least can appeal to 1 Cor 11 to examine yourself before communion . 

Before I get flamed, I am not accusing anybody at PB about this, I am talking about many people and leaders we have known, so don't go flaming me to death. I know there are many threads in the archives that discuss this subject...I am warning JM lol. He needs to be ready to face the paedo credo fire someday. 

My husband has ended up at a paedo and credo must go together position based on years of theology reading in seminary and after, and based on extensive discussions with both sides. I am that way for credos although more lenient with paedos (only if they can give a good reason to not allowing the covenant meal to a toddler, and a whole lot of them have no good reason at all). 

So I am sorry be so long winded JM, but I hope that whatever side you end up on you will really think it through and think through what you believe as it relates to communion as well. Be ready to answer a young millenial exposed to say Grudem on Baptism who likes paedo writers also and is torn, and sees the inconsistencies with their newly TR friend spouting off about continuity of covenants but who can't explain why there is a difference with babies and communion. 

Its a jungle out there. Your indecision on this doctrine is healthy and good and godly. Take years if you need to. I am still in the "both sides have really really good arguements" place, even if I think one side is stronger I don't think it matters. That's just me. Its not a bad place to be especially when talking to a marriage where the husband and wife are on opposite sides (I've talked to several of them). You can really encourage a marriage when you are a "whatever" Christian on this, lol.

Reactions: Like 1 | Sad 1


----------



## JM

A buddy of mine invited me to a Bible study at a Baptist church last night. The Anglican Church I attend doesn't offer a Bible study at this time so it was good to be with other believers reading God's word. 

jm


----------



## Dachaser

JM said:


> Hey folks,
> 
> I'll admit, I need some help on this. The last year I've come to view baptism as something that shouldn't divide us. I've moved from credo to paedobaptism but really don't see a reason to separate from credobaptists especially now with orthodox Protestantism under attack from all sides. I'm not trying to reduce the importance of the sacraments and probably have a much higher view of the sacraments than many of my Reformed fams, I guess...maybe, I'm worn out from all the division we face. Is baptism an issue we should divide over?
> 
> Yours in the Lord,
> 
> jm





JM said:


> Hey folks,
> 
> I'll admit, I need some help on this. The last year I've come to view baptism as something that shouldn't divide us. I've moved from credo to paedobaptism but really don't see a reason to separate from credobaptists especially now with orthodox Protestantism under attack from all sides. I'm not trying to reduce the importance of the sacraments and probably have a much higher view of the sacraments than many of my Reformed fams, I guess...maybe, I'm worn out from all the division we face. Is baptism an issue we should divide over?
> 
> Yours in the Lord,
> 
> jm


Those of us who call Jesus our Lord, who have been sealed by the promised Holy Spirit, are indeed one in Christ Jesus, and we have to learn to accept that while we must agree on the essentials of the Christian Faith, there will also be those areas of disagreement that will stillhappen among us. We should learn from the example of Dr Sproul and Dr MacArthur, how they modeled to and for us their sincere love for each other, even with some major areas of theological disagreements still remaining until the time Dr Sproul passed on to meet Jesus. 

Its OK to have differences in theology among ourselves in the body, as long as those areas are not essentials of the faith, and really think that all of us will be surprised on how we all had some certain issues where we really did not grasp what the scriptures were clearing teaching to us.


----------



## Tom Hart

Reformed said:


> Infant baptism is not found within Scripture. Believer's baptism definitely is.



 I really think we can do better than this.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed

Tom Hart said:


> I really think we can do better than this.



Are you saying it is found in Scripture? By all means, show me and I will change my position.


----------



## Smeagol

Reformed said:


> Are you saying it is found in Scripture? By all means, show me and I will change my position.


I would encourage you to search old threads. The threads will present attempted biblical cases (from both sides) and also provide some solid resources (ex. Articles, podcast, books).


----------



## Scott Bushey

Reformed said:


> Infant baptism is not found within Scripture.



Was circumcision a sign and seal of the covenant?? Is water baptism a sign and seal of the same covenant? Was circumcision given to infants?

Do u ever see an abrogation of placing the sign on infants?

Does Gen 17 tell us that the placing of the sign perpetual?

"Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and *thy seed* after thee* in their generations*. 10 This _is_ my covenant, which ye shall keep, *between me and you and thy seed after thee*; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. 11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; *and it shall be a token of the covenant* betwixt me and you. 12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, *every man child in your generations*, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which _is_ not of thy seed. 13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

_The Holy Bible: King James Version_, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ge 17:9–14.

I have asked this before and no one interacted with this fact; yea, we see "no positive command to place any sign on infants" in the NT; if we had said this in that generation, we would have been laughed off stage as every Jew knew the covenant sign and it's demand. In our age, when a child comes to faith (younger than adulthood), it is a big thing (even in Presbyterian circles); one sees a celebration. More grand than when an adult comes to faith! Why is it that we see not one instance in the NT where a child comes to faith? Not one! I will tell u why, because all those children had the sign on their flesh already.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Taylor

Reformed said:


> Are you saying it is found in Scripture? By all means, show me and I will change my position.



To be completely fair, the New Testament _might_ not (not "_does_ not") contain references to infant baptisms. To say it_ does_ not is, at best, saying too much exegetically.

On the other hand, while the New Testament does depict many "credobaptisms," if we again are to be completely fair and exegetically thorough, we must say it only contains "credobaptisms" of one particular sort: first generation believers. As far as I am aware, there are no _explicit_ examples of baptisms of second-generation believers upon confession of faith. Therefore, there is an element of argument from silence in both the credobaptist and paedobaptist positions. That is why Bavinck rightly says:

"We need to overcome our astonishment over the fact that the New Testament nowhere explicitly mentions infant baptism. This fact can be explained by saying that in the days of the New Testament, the baptism of adults was the rule, and the baptism of infants, if it occurred at all, was the exception. It was the period in which the Christian church had been founded and expanded by conversions from Judaism and paganism. It is precisely that transition that is clearly depicted in baptism. Adult baptism is therefore the original baptism; infant baptism is derivative; the former must not be conformed to the latter, but the latter must be conformed to the former" (_Reformed Dogmatics_, vol. 4, p. 526).​
Exegesis and hermeneutics matter, not merely always calling for explicit examples of things if we are to affirm them. After all, there are no _explicit_, word-for-word references to the Trinity in Scripture, yet it is plainly taught throughout. Biblicism, while looking and sounding good and right, can definitely lead to error if not handled well.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Reformed said:


> I see this as a dangerous stance. Are we all not one body? Be careful how you answer. You are either in the communion of Christ or not.





Reformed said:


> Infant baptism is not found within Scripture. Believer's baptism definitely is.





Tom Hart said:


> I really think we can do better than this.



Indeed we can and must do better.

*Moderator Note*:

David,

You are new here and may not be aware of how we approach the matter. For that matter some others may be in need of a refresher.

We permit Credo-Baptists and Paedo-Baptists to discuss their views and even be a wee bit strident in their positions in separate forums that allow others to ask questions to be answered by only the respective holder of the view in the respective forum:

https://www.puritanboard.com/forums/paedo-baptism-answers.122/
https://www.puritanboard.com/forums/credo-baptism-answers.123/

Now this forum, wherein we are posting right now, is for _debate_ and _discussion_, albeit keeping the following in mind:

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/new-guidelines-for-the-baptism-forum.24468/

No matter how you slice it, to boldly claim paedo-baptism is not found in Scripture, while credo-baptism definitely is, you are _asserting_ that paedo-baptists are practicing a sacrament/ordinance without any warrant from the whole counsel of Scripture.

David, if you want to _debate_ and _discuss_ the matter and the claim, start a thread in this forum, substantiate the naked assertion, withstand cross-examination, in the hope that we all may be edified. Do not simply assert, nor go so far as to call a respected ordained servant to caution in your request for his next response.

Let's practice a wee bit of trepidation in matters wherein we have obvious differences about that which we hold dear (e.g., _In my opinion_ _It seems to me_, etc) versus strident declarations.

Reactions: Like 4 | Edifying 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Smeagol

Reformed said:


> I've done the research actually.


Do you believe that when we give the sign to our infants that it is sin?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Reformed said:


> Circumcision was a sign of the covenant, yes. Water baptism is not a sign and seal of the same covenant. No.



huh???

What is water baptism a sign and seal of?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Reformed said:


> LBCF Section 29 tells us it is a sign of a belief and fellowship with Christ from a remission of sin.



In LBC ch 7:2
"7.2 Moreover, as Adam had brought himself and his posterity under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace.1 In this covenant he freely offers to sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring from them faith in him that they may be saved,2 and promising to give his Holy Spirit to all who are elected to eternal life, to make them willing and able to believe."

In 14:2 it says:
"But the principal acts of saving faith are those directly to do with Christ—accepting, receiving, and resting on him alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace."

In 15:2:
"15.2 There is no one who does good and does not sin,1 and the best of people may fall into great sins and provocations [against God] through the power and deceitfulness of their indwelling corruption and the strength of temptation.2 Therefore God has mercifully provided in the covenant of grace that when believers sin and fall they shall be restored to salvation through repentance."

15:5
"15.5 In the covenant of grace God has made full provision through Christ for the preservation of believers in their salvation, so, although even the smallest sin deserves damnation,1 yet there is no sin great enough to bring damnation on those who repent. This makes the constant preaching of repentance essential."

Given that since Gen 3, all men are saved in the same fashion, the sign and seal are directly related to the C of G.

By the way, care to interact with my previous question?


----------



## Reformed

Scott Bushey said:


> In LBC ch 7:2
> "7.2 Moreover, as Adam had brought himself and his posterity under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace.1 In this covenant he freely offers to sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring from them faith in him that they may be saved,2 and promising to give his Holy Spirit to all who are elected to eternal life, to make them willing and able to believe."
> 
> In 14:2 it says:
> "But the principal acts of saving faith are those directly to do with Christ—accepting, receiving, and resting on him alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace."
> 
> In 15:2:
> "15.2 There is no one who does good and does not sin,1 and the best of people may fall into great sins and provocations [against God] through the power and deceitfulness of their indwelling corruption and the strength of temptation.2 Therefore God has mercifully provided in the covenant of grace that when believers sin and fall they shall be restored to salvation through repentance."
> 
> 15:5
> "15.5 In the covenant of grace God has made full provision through Christ for the preservation of believers in their salvation, so, although even the smallest sin deserves damnation,1 yet there is no sin great enough to bring damnation on those who repent. This makes the constant preaching of repentance essential."
> 
> Given that since Gen 3, all men are saved in the same fashion, the sign and seal are directly related to the C of G.
> 
> By the way, care to interact with my previous question?



Not sure what question I missed, but on this, we will have to agree to disagree that Baptism is equivalent to the sign of circumcision. It is a New Covenant, not a covenant with Israel as the original covenant was.


----------



## Smeagol

Reformed said:


> LBCF Section 29 tells us it is a sign of a belief and fellowship with Christ from a remission of sin.


Paedo vs. anti-paedo aside, Your covenant theology may be out of accord with even your own confession (I think this is what @Scott Bushey is trying to show).


----------



## Reformed

Grant Jones said:


> Your covenant theology may be out of accord with even your own confession (I think this is what @Scott Bushey is trying to show).



Perhaps, because now I am confused...


----------



## Scott Bushey

Reformed said:


> Not sure what question I missed



"Why is it that we see not one instance in the NT where a child comes to faith?"


----------



## Herald

Many of you know the theological journey I was on when I joined the Puritan Board in 2005. I had left cage-stage Calvinism and was struggling with Dispensationalism vs. Covenant Theology. The majority of CT books I encountered were written by paedobaptists. While I found them compelling, I was only reading one side of the debate. I joined the PB with the hope that I would engage with paedos and credos and get answers to my many questions. Surprisingly, that is exactly what happened. My screen name at that time was Baptist-in-Crisis. I chuckle at that name now, but 13 years ago that was exactly what I was. I read numerous threads on Baptism and displayed my ignorance for all to see by jumping into conversations with my betters. I had a lot to learn. Slowly but surely, I increased my theological acumen and got my head around some of the discussions. Eventually, the "in-crisis" moniker waned and I became convinced beyond a reasonable doubt as to what I believed about the Abrahamic Covenant, the New Covenant, and baptism. 

I have many Presbyterian friends who have earned the right to gently rib me about the outcome of my journey. We have a love and affection for each other in Christ. We have defended each other when necessary. However, as Rev. Strange more eloquently pointed out, we believe differently on a very important doctrine. Being part of the same local church would present material problems. Most paedobaptists do consider credobaptists to be in sin over the baptism issue, and most confessional Baptists believe the same thing in return. While we believe the other side is wrong, we understand that both sides love the Gospel and want to see sinners converted and the kingdom of God expand. It makes sense for both sides to labor for the Gospel without internal differences that could obscure gospel work. That said, sometimes providence makes for strange bedfellows. There are times when paedos and credos alike may find themselves attending a church that has a different view than us on an issue like baptism. In those rare situations, it is incumbent on the believer holding to the minority position not to advocate their own view, which would sew the seeds of disharmony. 

As far as the Puritan Board goes, it is a melting pot of sorts. To quote Abraham Lincoln, "With malice toward none, with charity for all". That is good advice for anyone who dips their toe in theological debate. None of us are beyond learning, and none of us are beyond correction.

Reactions: Like 5 | Edifying 1 | Amen 1


----------



## lynnie

I have a great idea. How about three baptisms? One as a baby as a covenantal sign. Another one when evidence of saving faith is present in accord with Romans 6 that we are buried with Christ and raised up with him. That one has to have two parts- immersion according to classic Baptists and sprinkling according to Lloyd- Jones (Baptist sprinkler) and Presbyterians. Lots of good verses for sprinkling, and some for immersion too. 

Then you get the third one in accord with the book of Acts: "in the Name of Jesus". That is how they did it, it never says in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Just the Lord Jesus Christ. That will make the UPC oneness people happy. 

I guess that's more like four if you sprinkle and immerse. Sounds good to me. Given the state of the church today, I bet we could get a mega congregation in no time with the proper advertising, as long as we present ourselves as the best and most cutting edge group around. Add the word "prophetic" and they'll be lining up out the door. 

Seriously, I again take strong issue with anybody who thinks you can't enjoy rich fellowship with those who differ on this. Especially on the mission field, you may not have many options. We've been in churches on both sides, with pastors on both sides, and know other people on both sides in churches on the other side. It just does not need to be the determining factor when solid teaching, godly leaders, nice praying people, and so forth are present. We have ample gasoline right now to drive where we want, but that could change. We need to be mentally prepared for trials that disrupt our lifestyle and force us to go more local.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

Reformed said:


> Because not everything that happened in the first 30 years of the church are recorded in the New Testament.



Consider federal headship; and the covenant. how Jews thought in regards to their children, based on that covenant. For thousands of years, the nation of Israel saw their seed as instrumental to God's plan of redemption; then, the NT comes along and all of a sudden, the Jews are to think differently? Their seeds are not included any longer, in fact, they are, by default, outside the camp. This notion would be classical if in fact, this were true. But, since we see no indications that the children are now 'outside', this is exactly why we see no conversions of children at all in NT writings because they were already under the covenant.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Another important distinction would be to see that we see no mass baptisms in the NT; meaning, all those people that already had the sign on their flesh via circumcision, prior to Christ's death, submitting to water. Consider infants that had the sign placed on them, prior to this time period as well. Do u really think that the church at large was telling all these Jews, 'Your son's are no longer 'in covenant'?


----------



## Reformed

Scott Bushey said:


> then, the NT comes along and all of a sudden, the Jews are to think differently? Their seeds are not included any longer, in fact, they are, by default, outside the camp.



Yes, exactly.



Scott Bushey said:


> this is exactly why we see no conversions of children at all in NT writings because they were already under the covenant.



That's reading into the text also known as eisegesis. 



Scott Bushey said:


> Another important distinction would be to see that we see no mass baptisms in the NT; meaning, all those people that already had the sign on their flesh via circumcision, prior to Christ's death, submitting to water. Consider infants that had the sign placed on them, prior to this time period as well. Do you really think that the church at large was telling all these Jews, 'Your son's are no longer 'in covenant'?



No, it is saying there is a new covenant and here is how things are done now. You seem to read a lot into the text that is not there.


----------



## Taylor

Reformed said:


> That's reading into the text also known as eisegesis.





Reformed said:


> You seem to read a lot into the text that is not there.



Remember, brother, there does not appear to be any reference whatsoever of a second-generation baptism of a person upon confession of faith in the New Testament. Therefore, are not Baptists reading something into the text that isn’t there—namely, the assumption that adult baptisms of first-generation converts at a special point in redemptive history without question translates into the baptism of adult converts only and ever? The point is this: we are all "reading things into the text that aren’t there," and that’s not always a bad thing (remember, there is no reference to the Trinity as such in Scripture). As I tried to say before, with my quotation of Bavinck as support (did you see that a while back, as you never responded?), this issue is biblical-theological, not so much textual.


----------



## sc_q_jayce

Reformed said:


> Because not everything that happened in the first 30 years of the church are recorded in the New Testament.


If this is your argument, then paedobaptism is just as scriptural as children of believers coming to faith in the New Testament.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

Reformed said:


> Because not everything that happened in the first 30 years of the church are recorded in the New Testament.


Could that include an explicit account of infant baptism?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## sc_q_jayce

Grant Jones said:


> Could that include an explicit account of infant baptism?


Stalker!

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Smeagol

sc_q_jayce said:


> Stalker!


----------



## Tom Hart

lynnie said:


> Seriously, I again take strong issue with anybody who thinks you can't enjoy rich fellowship with those who differ on this.



Who has said that?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart

Reformed said:


> Because not everything that happened in the first 30 years of the church are recorded in the New Testament.



That's not a particularly strong argument. What keeps paedobaptists from asserting the same? You appear to be operating on an assumption of credobaptism.


----------



## Reformed

Taylor Sexton said:


> Therefore, are not Baptists reading something into the text that isn’t there—namely, the assumption that adult baptisms of first-generation converts at a special point in redemptive history without question translates into the baptism of adult converts only and ever?



Matthew's Gospel commands us to make disciples and then to baptize them. It doesn't specify only adults. It just says to make disciples and then to baptize them. There are also many other verses that show baptism follows salvation, not prior to salvation.



sc_q_jayce said:


> If this is your argument, then paedobaptism is just as scriptural as children of believers coming to faith in the New Testament.



No, see above.



Grant Jones said:


> Could that include an explicit account of infant baptism?



No, infants would not get saved and make a profession of faith.



Tom Hart said:


> That's not a particularly strong argument. What keeps paedobaptists from asserting the same? You appear to be operating on an assumption of credobaptism.



See above. I operate under the assumption that what is taught in Scripture is what should be followed.


----------



## Taylor

Reformed said:


> Matthew's Gospel commands us to make disciples and then to baptize them. It doesn't specify only adults. It just says to make disciples and then to baptize them. There are also many other verses that show baptism follows salvation, not prior to salvation.



That’s not necessitated from the text, no. In fact, I would argue that you are doing exactly what you have accused others of doing: "reading into the text something that’s not there." Most scholars I have consulted (even Baptist ones, if I am not mistaken), on the contrary, take the present participle βαπτίζοντες as a participle of means, not time. In other words, the text says, "Make disciples of all nations *by* baptizing them, etc...."

In other words, on the level of pure exegesis of this text, baptism is the initiation of discipleship, not its end.


----------



## Reformed

Taylor Sexton said:


> That’s not necessitated from the text, no. In fact, I would argue that you are doing exactly what you have accused others of doing: "reading into the text something that’s not there." Most scholars I have consulted (even Baptist ones, if I am not mistaken), on the contrary, take the present participle βαπτίζοντες as a participle of means, not time. In other words, the text says, "Make disciples of all nations *[you]by[/you]* baptizing them, etc...."
> 
> In other words, on the level of pure exegesis of this text, baptism is the initiation of discipleship, not its end.



I agree it is the initiation of discipleship. But it comes after the conversion. This is evident in many other passages in the NT that speak on baptism. Never do we see in the NT baptism coming prior to conversion.


----------



## Taylor

Reformed said:


> Never do we see in the NT baptism coming prior to conversion.



With all respect, brother, I think you are conveniently ignoring what has been said in this thread, by both me and others. No one has denied that there are no explicit instances of infant baptisms recorded in the New Testament. But you seem to be missing what I said above: there are also no instances of anything other than first-generation Christians being baptized upon profession of faith in the New Testament, either! Therefore, the Baptist operation of withholding the baptism of children of believers until they make a credible profession is quite literally just as absent in the New Testament as is infant baptism.

So, I could just as easily turn a challenge you posed earlier around against you: Show me one instance of a child of a believing Christian being denied baptism until a credible profession in the New Testament, and I will change my position. This issue cuts both ways, and therefore requests for "explicit examples" are not as useful as your pleas might make them seem.


----------



## Reformed

Taylor Sexton said:


> But you seem to be missing what I said above: there are also no instances of anything other than first-generation Christians being baptized upon profession of faith in the New Testament, either!


I don't see how this is relevant.



Taylor Sexton said:


> Therefore, the Baptist operation of withholding the baptism of children of believers until they make a credible profession is quite literally just as absent in the New Testament as is infant baptism.



Actually, that, in my opinion, is comparing apples and oranges.

I do not see the point of distinguishing a difference between first-generation converts and subsequent generations.


----------



## Reformed

Taylor Sexton said:


> But you seem to be missing what I said above: there are also no instances of anything other than first-generation Christians being baptized upon profession of faith in the New Testament, either!


I don't see how this is relevant.



Taylor Sexton said:


> Therefore, the Baptist operation of withholding the baptism of children of believers until they make a credible profession is quite literally just as absent in the New Testament as is infant baptism.



Actually, that, in my opinion, is comparing apples and oranges.

I do not see the point of distinguishing a difference between first-generation converts and subsequent generations.


----------



## Taylor

Reformed said:


> I don't see how this is relevant.





Reformed said:


> I do not see the point of distinguishing a difference between first-generation converts and subsequent generations.



It’s actually very relevant. Because if Acts only records, as Bavinck says above, the baptisms of original converts from Judaism and paganism, then _*that*_ explains why we only see adults being baptized in Acts; it is _*not*_ *necessarily* because, as you have said, only adults are to be baptized. To ask, then, for someone to prove something from such a special occasion by specific example is unreasonable, and to act as if the absence of that thing proves any conclusion is fallacious.

Now, if Acts did in fact present us with even one instance of the child of a believer (for this is what I mean by "second-generation believer") being denied baptism until a profession of faith is made, then yes, your case is closed and shut. But the fact is that such a thing does not exist in the Scripture, and therefore for you to appeal from this silence as if it proves your case is highly fallacious.

Here is an example. Say I were a dog breeder. Say I bred, for the first time ever, a Labrador Retriever and a Poodle, making a "Labradoodle." I record my findings in a book about how this new breed came about, but nothing further. Say someone else comes along, reads my findings, and says, "The only way to make a Labradoodle is to breed a Poodle and Labrador Retriver," not knowing that I actually found out later on that I could also breed Labradoodles to make more Labradoodles, only I did not record this finding. So, say this person argues, "Look, in his writings there is absolutely no example whatsoever of Taylor ever breeding Labradoodles together to make more Labradoodles. There is only the first way of breeding the two original breeds!" Well, this argument is fallacious, and obviously so, because my findings only described the *first* generation of Labradoodles and how *they* came about, and therefore *of course* this is the only way described in my findings. Now, if in my findings I had tried to breed two Labradoodles only to find out they were sterile, then *and only then* would our friend have a case.

In the same way, because Acts only shows us the origins of the original, first-generation converts, then *of course* they would be baptized upon profession; that’s how it *had* to work, but that doesn’t mean that the narrative is teaching only adults professing faith may be baptized. Now, if Acts depicted for us, again, a specific example of a child of a believer (of which there are no examples!) being denied baptism until a profession is made, then *and only then* would your case be as strong as you are trying to make it seem.


----------



## Reformed

Taylor Sexton said:


> it is _*not*_ *necessarily* because, as you have said, only adults are to be baptized.





Taylor Sexton said:


> In the same way, because Acts only shows us the origins of the original, first-generation converts, then *of course* they would be baptized upon profession; that’s how it *had* to work, but that doesn’t mean that the narrative is teaching only adults professing faith may be baptized.



I have actually never argued this. I agree children can be baptized upon profession of faith as prescribed by Scripture.


----------



## Taylor

Reformed said:


> I have actually never argued this. I agree children can be baptized upon profession of faith as prescribed by Scripture.



Did you read the rest of what I said? You’re getting caught on something not even a part of my main argument.


----------



## Reformed

Taylor Sexton said:


> Did you read the rest of what I said? You’re getting caught on something not even a part of my main argument.



Yes, I read what you said but I don't agree with your premise. I thought I had already made that clear perhaps I didn't. I don't think the scenarios are of equal comparison. I also do not see a point of distinction between the first converts and subsequent converts. There, in my view, is no reason to make any such distinction.

So on that point, you and I will have to agree to disagree because I don't think we are going to change each other's minds on that.


----------



## Taylor

Reformed said:


> I also do not see a point of distinction between the first converts and subsequent converts. There, in my view, is no reason to make any such distinction.



The reason it is important is because the very definition of our different practices demands the distinction. Both credobaptists and paedobaptists agree that all first-generation converts—that is, those who are the first in their families to believe—ought to be baptized upon a confession of faith and not before. The disagreement lies, rather, in what to do with the children of believers, or the "second generation"; one position says baptize them, the other says not to.

You have argued that because there is no example of a person getting baptized before a profession of faith in the New Testament that no one ought to be baptized until they make such a profession. However, your conclusion contains more than your premise(s), because your argument does not account for the fact that in the New Testament it is only the baptisms of first-generation converts that are depicted, yet it is precisely on this point that the two positions agree! Therefore, your argument is, at best, incomplete. And it will remain incomplete because the New Testament simply does not give us an example of any second-generation believers in the context of the question of their baptism. The whole point is that your position, just like ours, contains at least some level of argument from silence. You may not recognize or admit it, but the fact remains that it does.


----------



## Reformed

Taylor Sexton said:


> The reason it is important is because the very definition of our different practices demands the distinction. Both credobaptists and paedobaptists agree that all first-generation converts—that is, those who are the first in their families to believe—ought to be baptized upon a confession of faith and not before. The disagreement lies, rather, in what to do with the children of believers, or the "second generation"; one position says baptize them, the other says not to.



The only reason there is disagreement on 2nd generation is because they port over the old covenant of circumcision and transpose it into baptism without any direction to do so from Scripture.

So no, I still do not believe there needs to be a distinction made. In the old covenant, circumcision was commanded to be given to the children. Baptism was not. It's not an equal porting of the covenant, it is very different actually. In the OT it was by birth and the race you were in. In the NT it is by being born again into a family, not because of the race that you are. They are not equivalent.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor

Reformed said:


> So no, I still do not believe there needs to be a distinction made.



And yet the very impetus and foundation of Baptist sacramentology requires this distinction. Otherwise, why all the fuss and protest, historically speaking? You can deny the distinction, but you do so in denial of both Scripture and your own theological ancestry.


----------



## Reformed

Taylor Sexton said:


> And yet the very impetus and foundation of Baptist sacramentology requires this distinction. Otherwise, why all the fuss and protest, historically speaking? You can deny the distinction, but you do so in denial of both Scripture and your own theological ancestry.



Again, we are going to have to agree to disagree. I'll bow out now. I've hijacked this thread enough.


----------



## Taylor

Reformed said:


> Again, we are going to have to agree to disagree.



That’s fair enough, brother. I was never trying to convince you if paedobaptism, but rather pointing out that your own argument is not at all free of the same holes you so quickly identify in others'. Thoroughness in this matter is paramount. This is more than just "show me an explicit example." If that’s all good exegesis is, then none of us should be Trinitarians!

(By the way, I would love to talk with you sometime about my journey from 1689 Federalism to Westminster Federalism, a shift which is actually quite recent—within the past year.)

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Reformed said:


> Again, we are going to have to agree to disagree. I'll bow out now. I've hijacked this thread enough.


Before you depart, David, I think you owe Rev. Strange a response:

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/secondary-issue-baptism.96455/page-4#post-1180250
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/secondary-issue-baptism.96455/page-5#post-1180282


----------



## Reformed

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/secondary-issue-baptism.96455/page-4#post-1180250
> https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/secondary-issue-baptism.96455/page-5#post-1180282



Somewhere in this crazy thread firestorm, I did send a response saying that was not my intent. I already sent him a PM explaining a little while ago. Everything is good. I was not attacking him, I was simply saying how it can come across even though I know that was not his intent.

Someone else commented that was even what I had meant once they re-read my post.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Taylor Sexton said:


> (By the way, I would love to talk with you sometime about my journey from 1689 Federalism to Westminster Federalism, a shift which is actually quite recent—within the past year.)


I am keen to learn from you  I am still struggling with the issue.

Reformed Baptists make much of the fact that Christ is mediator of the New Covenant and that he actually mediates. But I now see at least two problems with this. Firstly Christ, as mediator, had Judas as a disciple. Secondly, the Reformed Baptist arguement for the New Covenant falls short of its claims. The New Covenant (Heb 8) states that all will know the Lord, and that we will not need teachers in the New Covenant. But Reformed Baptists need teachers. And they do not infallably know that all their baptised members know the Lord. There is clearly a yet - not yet tension here which needs to be acknowledged.


----------



## Tom Hart

Reformed said:


> Matthew's Gospel commands us to make disciples and then to baptize them. It doesn't specify only adults. It just says to make disciples and then to baptize them. There are also many other verses that show baptism follows salvation, not prior to salvation.



This is an old credobaptist talking point. I am no scholar, but I have learned that the Greek does not say what you are trying to force it to say. Perhaps English translations can be somewhat less clear, but know of no English translation that necessarily says what you are saying it should. (@Taylor Sexton has made the point about the grammar already.)

Again, it seems that without engaging the text seriously, you continue to make similar bold assertions. You say you have studied that matter, but, to me at least, it's not showing. I see a bias towards credobaptism to the point that it is colouring your exegesis. (I was a credobaptist once, some years ago, and I made the same points you're making now.)


----------



## Herald

Reformed said:


> Somewhere in this crazy thread firestorm, I did send a response saying that was not my intent. I already sent him a PM explaining a little while ago. Everything is good. I was not attacking him, I was simply saying how it can come across even though I know that was not his intent.
> 
> Someone else commented that was even what I had meant once they re-read my post.


David,

Patrick is right. You owe Rev. Strange a direct response. Your tone toward him was harsh.


----------



## Reformed

Herald said:


> David,
> 
> Patrick is right. You owe Rev. Strange a direct response. Your tone toward him was harsh.



I have already done so, and I disagree about my tone. Please re-read my post. I was informing him what his post came across as. I did not accuse him of thinking such which I clearly stated in the post and subsequent posts. This is getting to the point of bullying the newbie.


----------



## Tom Hart

Reformed said:


> Everything is good.



It doesn't look good.



Reformed said:


> This is getting to the point of bullying the newbie.



Not quite. You might consider how you have come across. We can charitably accept that nothing ill was intended, but because a thing is not intended does mean that thing did not occur.

This is an internet forum, and words typed do not always have the same tone as words spoken. It might sound better in your head than it looks to us.


----------



## Smeagol

Reformed said:


> I have already done so, and I disagree about my tone. Please re-read my post. I was informing him what his post came across as. I did not accuse him of thinking such which I clearly stated in the post and subsequent posts. This is getting to the point of bullying the newbie.


David,

Take it from another newbie, who has also had to apologize on a separate matter. My own thread was rightly sent to Sheol ( destroyed) because I sinfully lashed out. Your post to Dr. Strange on the Thread seemed harsh to an onlooker and out of place. Even though you sent a PM, to all those who will read this thread, it will seem like you ignored his attempts to ask you for clarity. We are not attacking you brother. See it as protecting..... since this thread will still be read in the future

I have enjoyed the back-and-forth, but do consider a public response, which will help tie up loose ends on the thread.


----------



## Taylor

Perhaps this thread has reached a closing point? Of course, I am not and would never try to act as a moderator here, but from my ignorant vantage point it seems that this thread has outlived its purpose, and devolved into something worse.

My ...


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Thread closed for moderator review.

Reactions: Like 3


----------

