# How to have a civil discussion about baptism



## Bill The Baptist (Feb 17, 2013)

It seems that the one thing that cause the most strife here on the PB is when the discussion turns to baptism. People can get downright ugly. Here is a video from the Gospel Coalition where Ligon Dincan and Thabiti Anyabwile discuss this topic in a respectiful, civil, and intelligent manner. This should be a model for us as well. Should We Baptize Infants? - Videos - The Gospel Coalition


----------



## Quatchu (Feb 17, 2013)

You mean the best thing to say when a credo asks me why I became paedo is'nt, "I read the Bible."


----------



## Gforce9 (Feb 17, 2013)

Those are some of the great qualities of Dr. Duncan........patience and kindness.


----------



## Herald (Feb 17, 2013)

Online message boards are an incubator of sorts. Outside of places like the Puritan Board the majority of Presbyterians and Baptists have little interaction with each other. Because we mostly keep company with our own, issues like baptism are seldom debated. That was my reality prior to joining this board 7 1/2 years ago. I was a willing participant in more than a few contentious baptism debates. While I circled the wagons a few times, I realized my reaction was due to the fact that something near and dear to my heart was being challenged. A good response in any debate is to have the intellectual honesty to know why you believe what you do. Those heated debates forced me to do that. Sometimes sparks in a discussion serve a good purpose.


----------



## Unoriginalname (Feb 17, 2013)

Herald said:


> Online message boards are an incubator of sorts. Outside of places like the Puritan Board the majority of Presbyterians and Baptists have little interaction with each other


I agree, offline there are very few times that we have opportunities to debate something like baptism. I think also in real life it is a little harder to be dismissive because the person is sitting right across from you and does not just appear as a block of type.


----------



## thbslawson (Feb 17, 2013)

Great video! Thanks for sharing.


----------



## AlexanderHenderson1647 (Feb 17, 2013)

I've heard that you should always start off by pointing out that the FACT that the Baptist Church never went through the Reformation but was rather of direct descent from the Apostles teaching, preserved in absolute purity. Hence, the only reason anyone would ever baptize an infant is because they are wittingly or unwittingly clinging to a remnant of a Roman Catholic heresy resultant from the Reformation not going far enough in either Lutheran or Reformed positions. That usually gets all the defenses lowered and everyone ready to smoke the peacepipe


----------



## irresistible_grace (Feb 18, 2013)

AlexanderHenderson1647 said:


> I've heard that you should always start off by pointing out that the FACT that the Baptist Church never went through the Reformation but was rather of direct descent from the Apostles teaching, preserved in absolute purity. Hence, the only reason anyone would ever baptize an infant is because they are wittingly or unwittingly clinging to a remnant of a Roman Catholic heresy resultant from the Reformation not going far enough in either Lutheran or Reformed positions. That usually gets all the defenses lowered and everyone ready to *smoke the peacepipe*


----------



## Curt (Feb 18, 2013)

Not really worth my time unless baptismal regeneration is involved.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Feb 18, 2013)

AlexanderHenderson1647 said:


> I've heard that you should always start off by pointing out that the FACT that the Baptist Church never went through the Reformation but was rather of direct descent from the Apostles teaching, preserved in absolute purity. Hence, the only reason anyone would ever baptize an infant is because they are wittingly or unwittingly clinging to a remnant of a Roman Catholic heresy resultant from the Reformation not going far enough in either Lutheran or Reformed positions.



I cannot tell you HOW many times I have been on the receiving end of that one.....


----------



## Jack K (Feb 18, 2013)

In addition to both of them being civil, I thought Duncan stated the paedo position (both what it is not and what it is) with excellent clarity and succinctness, saying just enough and avoiding distracting side issues.


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 18, 2013)

AlexanderHenderson1647 said:


> I've heard that you should always start off by pointing out that the FACT that the Baptist Church never went through the Reformation but was rather of direct descent from the Apostles teaching, preserved in absolute purity. Hence, the only reason anyone would ever baptize an infant is because they are wittingly or unwittingly clinging to a remnant of a Roman Catholic heresy resultant from the Reformation not going far enough in either Lutheran or Reformed positions. That usually gets all the defenses lowered and everyone ready to smoke the peacepipe



Putting the question of Baptist origins aside for the moment, either side has to argue (or must believe) that his practice is the Apostolic practice if one believes in any semblance of the RPW or thinks that the NT speaks authoritatively in the matter. Many liberals of course, could care less, along with certain independent churches (usually dispensational in my experience) who have decided, like Burger King, that you can have it your own way and don't think its worth dividing over. Some, such as Kurt Aland and Karl Barth (I think, although the names aren't as important as the idea) have argued that infant baptism wasn't the Apostolic practice but that there is good reason to practice it today. I trust that no one here would hold to such views. 

There can be disagreement without intentional misrepresentation, malice, etc. It seems that this board has improved in that regard from the mid-late part of the last decade. I asked a question about something I found in a popular paedobaptist ST text a year or two ago and was surprised if not somewhat disappointed at the subdued response. Some of that may simply be a result of less board activity compared to 4-5 years ago. However, one can flame away with impunity on FB should he so desire. 

I think some of us board "veterans" may have lost our appetite for yet another debate where the same arguments and rebuttals are advanced again and again. Some of us may have concluded that fanning the flames and creating and contributing to threads that end up with over 100 posts isn't the best use of our time at present. I started such a thread myself about 5 years ago after adopting Baptist views (hard to believe it's been that long!) that, in retrospect, for whatever good it may have accomplished, likely generated more heat than light at times. In that case, I should have waited longer to begin such a discussion as I was still in sort of a "cage stage" and was unclear on some things. (I'll let y'all know when I have every aspect of Systematic Theology all figured out!) I don't know if any subsequent baptism threads that have equaled it in terms of volume and rancor. But there could well be some threads I've missed as I took about a two year break from the board and even now often go weeks at a time without checking it.


----------



## AlexanderHenderson1647 (Feb 18, 2013)

GulfCoast Presbyterian said:


> AlexanderHenderson1647 said:
> 
> 
> > I've heard that you should always start off by pointing out that the FACT that the Baptist Church never went through the Reformation but was rather of direct descent from the Apostles teaching, preserved in absolute purity. Hence, the only reason anyone would ever baptize an infant is because they are wittingly or unwittingly clinging to a remnant of a Roman Catholic heresy resultant from the Reformation not going far enough in either Lutheran or Reformed positions.
> ...



If this fails, it is always best to appeal to the historical fact that King James intervened with the translation of of the 1611 AV when he refused to allow the translators to use the preferred word "immerse" when every one to the person wanted it. He rather forced them to transliterate the word "baptizo" sinking the word into obscurity and setting back Biblical interpretation ever since.

Regrettably, all this I was taught in my new members class when joining the SBC. Mind you, since being here on the board and talking to other, conversations like this have closed. There are great considerations that my credo brothers offer.


----------



## Phil D. (Feb 18, 2013)

AlexanderHenderson1647 said:


> Quote Originally Posted by GulfCoast Presbyterian View Post
> Quote Originally Posted by AlexanderHenderson1647 View Post
> I've heard that you should always start off by pointing out that the FACT that the Baptist Church never went through the Reformation but was rather of direct descent from the Apostles teaching, preserved in absolute purity. Hence, the only reason anyone would ever baptize an infant is because they are wittingly or unwittingly clinging to a remnant of a Roman Catholic heresy resultant from the Reformation not going far enough in either Lutheran or Reformed positions.
> I cannot tell you HOW many times I have been on the receiving end of that one.....
> ...



Oh, those rascally Baptists..! I am so glad I have never heard a peado resort to an improbable or partisan argument on baptism.


----------



## AndrewOfCymru (Feb 18, 2013)

Herald said:


> A good response in any debate is to have the intellectual honesty to know why you believe what you do. Those heated debates forced me to do that. The result? I became more knowledgeable on the issue of baptism, and found myself even more convinced of the Baptist position.



Thanks for that Bill. I remember reading through those debates and being vicariously challenged to know what I believe and why I believe it about baptism, as well as other topics. I now find myself in the same position as you.


----------



## MightyManfred (Feb 18, 2013)

I think the best way to examine this issue is to be humble and lay one's presuppositions on the table for discussion. I think the main issue is traceable to the way one looks at the covenants with Abraham and Moses. The "proof texts" in the NT are not definitive and are, for the most part, not the foundation of the belief.


----------



## AlexanderHenderson1647 (Feb 18, 2013)

Phil D. said:


> AlexanderHenderson1647 said:
> 
> 
> > Quote Originally Posted by GulfCoast Presbyterian View Post
> ...



I know! So peculiar how that goes. Go figure!


----------



## Tirian (Feb 23, 2013)

Start with a discussion on Covenant Theology. Agree on the nature of the covenants. If you can't get to common ground here you will never ever reach common ground on the Theology of Baptism. Just not possible. Mode, history, church lineage cannot debunk CT. If you are CT you cannot possibly exclude children from the Covenant of Grace in Christ. Christ has the preeminence and in Him all things are better, not worse.

I think we have discussions that descend so quickly because we start in the wrong place....


----------



## Herald (Feb 23, 2013)

AndrewOfCymru said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> > A good response in any debate is to have the intellectual honesty to know why you believe what you do. Those heated debates forced me to do that. The result? I became more knowledgeable on the issue of baptism, and found myself even more convinced of the Baptist position.
> ...



Andrew, I think that is all we can really hope to accomplish in any debate. It takes sheer hubris to automatically consider the other party as wrong, and his arguments not worthy of consideration. I cringe when I remember those debates of about 5 or 6 years ago. The respect I now have for many of my dear paedobaptist friends was established through their patience with me during that time. The fact that paedobaptists and credobaptists can co-exist quite happily on this board is an enigma of sorts. It reveals, at least to me, that Christian unity is not about agreeing on all things. It is about being united in Christ. No. I am not in favor of tearing down denominational distinctives. It is necessary for us to separate for the sake of conscience, and for the furtherance of the Gospel. But I can rejoice knowing that my paedobaptist brethren are advancing the message of the kingdom.


----------



## Herald (Feb 23, 2013)

Matthew Glover said:


> If you are CT you cannot possibly exclude children from the Covenant of Grace in Christ.



It may be better to qualify your statement by saying, "If you are_ a paedobaptist _CT you cannot exclude children from the Covenant of Grace in Christ." There is a Baptist view of CT that, while different from paedobaptist CT on the continuity of the Abrahamic Covenant, is radically different from the predominant dispensational theology found in the majority of Baptist churches.


----------



## DMcFadden (Feb 23, 2013)

I have always found it the best course, when debating with Bill Brown, to say, "I'm right , your wrong," turn around and leave. 

Ligon Duncan is a gift to the Christian community, in my opinion. I have NEVER heard him do anything that was not clear, classy, and Christian to the core.

Having been on both sides of the credo-paedo divide in my life, the "arguments" and the "reasons" are pretty well known. As much as some of us would like to conceive of ourselves as "rational, argument driven" machines (cf. Sheldon in the Big Bang Theory show), we are not. Arguments that would have convinced us years ago fail to even register as worth considering today. In my youth, the dispi pretrib view was so clear that a bunch of us teens thought that our pastor must be too stupid (or even wicked) to know the truth and to teach it. In college and seminary, the post-trib view was so clearly biblical and so convincingly argued (first by Gundry, then by Ladd), that a bunch of us ridiculed the Hal Lindsey types and made fun of any preacher so benighted as to teach that tripe. About a half dozen years ago, Kim Riddlebarger's book caused me to re-examine the lingering questions and doubts in my mind about the premillennial system. The result was an adoption of amillennialism as a more "classical" expression of eschatological doctrine, shorn of the sectarianism and special hermeneutics necessary to posit so many entities, special meanings of words, and elaborate historical reconstructions.

None of us wants to decide our theology based on our peer group, mood of the month, or popularity of the proposed position. However, the complex of lenses we wear, many of them unrecognized by us, have a tremendous impact upon how we decide our positions. How many of us know people who reject a political, theological, or moral position because they are reacting to a bad experience with a parent, spouse, pastor, or group of church people?

My seminary drove me nuts with its compulsive "on the one hand, on the other hand" approach to making decisions about theological issues. It modeled more of a paralysis of analysis than helping men get a "word from the Lord" out of the Bible and be able to preach it confidently to God's people. Come to a CONCLUSION and proclaim it confidently. 

But . . . [wait for it . . . wait for it], have the humility to recognize that you may be wrong and that you need to be open to reconsider some of the views that you hold uncritically.


----------



## Herald (Feb 23, 2013)

DMcFadden said:


> I have always found it the best course, when debating with Bill Brown, to say, "I'm right , your wrong," turn around and leave.



I feel the love! 


Sent from my most excellent Galaxy S III


----------

