# Paedobaptism



## Romans922 (Sep 4, 2006)

Has Doc. McMahon written anything on why we baptize babies?

[Edited on 9-4-2006 by Romans922]


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 4, 2006)

Why don't you just goto A Puritan's Mind instead of asking


----------



## Romans922 (Sep 4, 2006)

I tried, I am stupid.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 4, 2006)

and

A Catechism on Infant Inclusion in the Covenant of Grace
I have put together a Catechism explaining some of the basic points of why the historic Reformed community believed they should baptize children. What has the Reformed church believed about infants and children and covenant inclusion? The answer may surprise you! 

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/McMahonCatechismInfantInclusion.htm

[Edited on 9-4-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Ivan (Sep 4, 2006)

Frankly, for my personal edification, I think I should look at this information too.


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 4, 2006)

Infants are already included in the "covenant of grace". By virtue of believing parents, heck even if only one parent believed. But nowhere in the NT does it explicitly command us to baptize infants. And explicit commands are required under the RPW; unless one wants to make up their own rules when they need to, to support their belief.

I think I'll order the Doctor's book.


----------



## Arch2k (Sep 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> Infants are already included in the "covenant of grace". By virtue of believing parents, heck even if only one parent believed.



You'll be Paedo before you know it Brian!



> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> But nowhere in the NT does it explicitly command us to baptize infants.



All Paedo's agree on this point. The command is implicit, not explicit.



> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> And explicit commands are required under the RPW; unless one wants to make up their own rules when they need to, to support their belief.



You misunderstand the RPW then, for it states that implicit command is just as binding as explicit, hence if children are in the CoG, then they should be baptized.

You are already admitting more than most Baptists would care to, so I would recommend really diving into this topic and reading several books on it (from both sides too) to solidify your position.

Blessings Brian.


----------



## Greg (Sep 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> 
> I think I'll order the Doctor's book.



Good book Brian!  I recommend it.

Like you, I had concordance in hand wanting someone, anyone to show me where the baptism of infants was in the NT, or anywhere in the Bible for that matter. I have a long credobaptist/dispensational background. Dr. McMahon's book helped me alot in understanding the Reformed paedobaptist position (which I now embrace).

But even if you still walk away disagreeing, you'll at least gain a better understanding of the paedo position, why one would apply the covenantal sign to their child.


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 4, 2006)

Hey Jeff, thanks. LOL

No, I do understand the RPW. That was my point brother. That explicit command is required before you can do something, but then people use the "implicit" command thing when it suits their fancy. Thus, making up rules when they need to, to support their belief. You see what I'm saying?


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 4, 2006)

Thanks for the tip Greg, and I agree. It would give me a better understanding of the position.

It's hard to accept everything at once though. When I first learned about Calvinism I thought I wanted to hit the guy. Then he was talking to me about federal heads, baptizing babies, covenants of works and grace, and that was way too much to handle at one time. I've since come to accept Calvinism for the most part, though it can be hard at times.


----------



## Arch2k (Sep 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> It's hard to accept everything at once though. When I first learned about Calvinism I thought I wanted to hit the guy. Then he was talking to me about federal heads, baptizing babies, covenants of works and grace, and that was way too much to handle at one time. I've since come to accept Calvinism for the most part, though it can be hard at times.



Brian,

I know exactly where you are coming from. The Lord brought me to himself in a very similar manner. I was raised in an Arminian dispensational household, and I have had to "eat crow" so-to-speak so many times when it comes to doctrine that it is ridiculous. After so many theological positions changed, I became somewhat numb to the pride I had (in thinking the position I held was right because I was raised that way, and it HAD to be right) and started accepting the changes with joy (but not without theological study and debate at times). I have had to give up almost everything I believed in as a child, and that is ok with me, because it is for the Lord.


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 4, 2006)

Hey Jeff, you do know where I'm coming from. It's great to know that someone does. 

I agree with everything you said. It must have been hard to give up everything you believed as a child. Sort of a spiritual Descartes eh?

Peace.


----------

