# Help me understand PaedoBaptism (As a Credobaptist)



## Michael E (Jan 20, 2020)

Forgive me if this has either been discussed (I'm sure it has but couldn't find a concise thread here) or this is the wrong place. Hear my plea:

I am reformed baptist (inb4 we all joke that baptists can't be fully reformed). However, my wife and I have both come to a place where we feel like more traditional reformed churches are where the Lord will have us. We've found that most of the churches we respect the most and desire to attend when we move next month are all paedobaptist. This is a sticking point for us and we have a baby on the way so we'd like to figure this out. Now forgive me for lack of understanding in this area or inaccurate understanding of the Scripture or arguments in favor of Paedobaptism, but here's where I am at:

- While I deeply respect church tradition, I don't find this in and of itself a compelling defense to contribute to paedobaptist tradition as we've seen many things that have historically been present in the church up through 500 years ago were not necessarily right or correct. 

- The baptize your household passage feels like a real stretch to say clearly it's including children as we aren't even aware of the members of the home.

- If we're drawing covenantal links in OT > NT, Scripture seems to indicate that a circumcision of the heart is what we need in the NT (faith). 

- It appears that every instance of baptism or command of baptism occurs with professing believers.

I want to be open to this but I am just having a real time getting there. I don't feel something that should be so simple should require a book or dissertation to explain how you can make these connections to arrive at the proper conclusion. Please help! We just want to be faithful to what the Lord instructs us.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jan 20, 2020)

Michael, I am also learning on this subject  Firstly, could you fix your signature per the Puritanboard rules. See https://www.puritanboard.com/help/signature/


----------



## Michael E (Jan 20, 2020)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Michael, I am also learning on this subject  Firstly, could you fix your signature per the Puritanboard rules. See https://www.puritanboard.com/help/signature/



Whoops! Thanks for pointing this out. Should be adjusted now.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JennyGeddes (Jan 20, 2020)

Michael E said:


> Whoops! Thanks for pointing this out. Should be adjusted now.



Hi, Michael!
I am afraid I am woefully inept to help here, but my husband and I did grow up baptist. One thing that really struck us when studying Acts was the pattern of household baptisms (granted not all were household baptisms). Even if every recorded household in Acts included adult children only, if the pattern is household baptisms, eventually you are going to run into some minor children/babies. There is so much more to this of course, but this was something that opened us up to studying the issue more at first.
I pray you and your wife find God’s peace with this however it turns out for you.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Michael E (Jan 20, 2020)

JennyGeddes said:


> Hi, Michael!
> I am afraid I am woefully inept to help here, but my husband and I did grow up baptist. One thing that really struck us when studying Acts was the pattern of household baptisms (granted not all were household baptisms). Even if every recorded household in Acts included adult children only, if the pattern is household baptisms, eventually you are going to run into some minor children. There is so much more to this of course, but this was something that opened us up to studying the issue more at first.
> I pray you and your wife find God’s peace with this however it turns out for you.


Thank you so much Jenny, I'll be diving more into Acts here in the coming weeks with this in mind.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Wretched Man (Jan 20, 2020)

Michael, I am right there with you (theologically and situationally) and look forward to the responses in this thread.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## timfost (Jan 20, 2020)

Hi Michael,

Welcome! There have been a number of discussions on baptism lately. Here is a recent one that I thought was fruitful. 

It's a great subject and I hope that in time you are able to find greater clarity on the issue.

Are you in Virginia or Pennsylvania? I live near Gettysburg, PA and attend church in Gettysburg. If you're close by we could get together over coffee.


----------



## Taylor (Jan 20, 2020)

Welcome to the board, brother. I pray you will be blessed here.

I will try to help a little with the three bullet points you offered, each in turn:


I think it would be helpful if you understand our position not as "paedobaptism," but "covenant household baptism." This really gets to the root of what we profess. It also helps understand our use of the household baptisms. Our argument with the NT household baptisms is not, "There must have been _at least_ one infant or child in these households!" Rather, the argument is that there surely was not genuine profession of faith from every individual in the household. If there was even one person in these households who did not make a personal profession of faith, then the Baptist position fails, since baptism would then be shown to be on the basis of the covenant being made with the household and not with a professing believer. That's our argument. Children are a subset of those within the household.
Circumcision of the heart was always the issue in the OT, too. There has always been a distinction between the sign and the thing signified.
With regard to your third bullet, we would expect this to be the case by the nature of the point in history the book of Acts is in. Seeing as the NT Church had just begun, then we should expect to see mainly baptisms upon profession of faith, since there had not been any time for children of believers to be born. Bavinck argues as much, as well:
"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. The validity of infant baptism does not lapse on that account, nor does it need tradition to sustain itself, as Roman Catholicism asserts."

—Herman Bavinck, _Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation_, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend, vol. 4, 4 vols., Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 526.​

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jan 20, 2020)

Study the Scriptures themselves, make them primary, dig into the the relevant passages until you exhaust them, go through every argument both ways, and and pray fervently and believingly and persistently for light. God will answer such endeavors.


----------



## Michael E (Jan 20, 2020)

timfost said:


> Hi Michael,
> 
> Welcome! There have been a number of discussions on baptism lately. Here is a recent one that I thought was fruitful.
> 
> ...


Hi Tim thanks for the response! I'm currently in VA but moving next month to New Holland. Is that close?


----------



## Michael E (Jan 20, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Welcome to the board, brother. I pray you will be blessed here.
> 
> I will try to help a little with the three bullet points you offered, each in turn:
> 
> ...


This is a great resource and I appreciate you reaching out.


----------



## Michael E (Jan 20, 2020)

RPEphesian said:


> Study the Scriptures themselves, make them primary, dig into the the relevant passages until you exhaust them, go through every argument both ways, and and pray fervently and believingly and persistently for light. God will answer such endeavors.


Absolutely, thank you for the encouragement.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Jan 20, 2020)

This is a good short article 
https://opc.org/cce/tracts/WhyInfantBaptism.html

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost (Jan 20, 2020)

Michael E said:


> Hi Tim thanks for the response! I'm currently in VA but moving next month to New Holland. Is that close?



It's about an hour East of us. That's not that far!


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jan 20, 2020)

Reformed Baptist pastor Jeffrey Johnson wrote a book "The Fatal Flaw of the Theology Behind Infant Baptism". Esteemed PB member and OPC Pastor, Lane Keister, has an insightful response on his blog. I am working through it at present, you might find it insightful.

Part 1 https://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2019/09/20/reviewing-jeffrey-johnsons-the-fatal-flaw/
Part 2 https://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2019/10/12/reviewing-jeffrey-johnsons-the-fatal-flaw-part-2/
Part 3 https://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2019/10/24/reviewing-jeffrey-johnsons-the-fatal-flaw-part-3/
Part 4 https://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/...rey-johnsons-the-fatal-flaw-part-4-chs-12-16/
Part 5 https://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/...rey-johnsons-the-fatal-flaw-part-5-section-2/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jan 20, 2020)

Wretched Man said:


> Huh? You're making an assumption that not every individual made a genuine profession of faith to be baptized... even though God's word states they did (Acts 16:34)? And you're using this assumption to support another assumption there may have been infants involved... even though God's word does not state this?


FYI See this thread https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/household-baptisms-in-the-new-testament.99172/


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jan 20, 2020)

@Wretched Man

Nathan:

Are you assuming that the perfect active participle _πεπιστευκως _("[he] having believed") refers to "his entire household"? It does not: the participle is nominative, masculine, singular, referring to the faith of the Philippian jailer.

Here's how it reads in the Greek (last phrase): "he was rejoicing whole-housedly [an adverb], he having believed in God."

There was quite a controversy over the translation of this in the NIV and, sadly, parties won out that sought to blunt the force of the masculine singular participle and it ends up sounding as if the whole household, rather than the jailer, believed.

Appeals in cases like this must be made to the original language and not translations that may alter the meaning. As Taylor suggests, linguistic disputes remain that I'll not detail here, but I think that the grammatical structure of the original favors the ESV and my admittedly awkward, literal translation above.

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## JTB.SDG (Jan 20, 2020)

There's a lot to be said so it's hard to just make a few comments in a context like this. This is a 20-page pamphlet that deals with why we baptize our infants: https://www.ruinandredemption.com/abraham-additional-resources. Hope it helps!

On the household baptism stuff and Acts: The issue will never be settled for either side based on evidence/lack thereof in household baptisms. Note that there is not one specific instance in all of NT Scripture where Christian parents hold off on giving the covenant sign to their children until after a profession of faith.


----------



## B.L. (Jan 21, 2020)

Michael E said:


> I am reformed baptist (inb4 we all joke that baptists can't be fully reformed). However, my wife and I have both come to a place where we feel like more traditional reformed churches are where the Lord will have us. We've found that most of the churches we respect the most and desire to attend when we move next month are all paedobaptist. This is a sticking point for us and we have a baby on the way so we'd like to figure this out.



Hello Michael,

You will find there are many who hold to the credobaptist position and find themselves most at "home" in Presbyterian Churches, particularly if living in an area that has no Reformed Baptist presence. I've known this to be the case for a good number whose views on worship makes attending other broadly evangelical churches untenable. A PCA church planter told me a few years ago his denomination owes its "growth" to Southern Baptists. While this may be an exaggeration, it's a reality I know to be true for a couple of the Presbyterian Churches near me. I mention this to make the simple point that you are not alone.

Since you have a child on the way you will no doubt be spending a lot of time wrestling over the issue of baptism, particularly as you seek to join a paedobaptist church. The temptation will be to resolve the issue as quickly as possible and swallow the doctrinal differences without chewing slowly. Take your time, study the issues, and take advantage of the collective wisdom here on this board and elsewhere. 

Lastly, don't be afraid if once the dust settles you remain a credobaptist worshipping alongside wonderful paedobaptist brothers and sisters. I've known a few "circles" who tried to force themselves into "square" holes only to realize after doing violence to their consciences that it's okay if they differ on this issue. Seek to preserve the unity and peace of the church while being thankful to God there is a Reformed witness near where you are moving to.

Welcome to the board my friend!

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## JollyGreenGavin (Jan 21, 2020)

Dr. Richard Pratt does an excellent job explaining the paedo position here:








The synopsis is this:


In each covenant God made with man, there were believers and unbelievers. There were also adults and their children.


The sign of the NC is baptism where the sign of the AC was circumcision.


Baptism’s significance for the believer as opposed to baptism’s significance for the infant.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jan 21, 2020)

I would urge you also, Michael, to begin a thread in the credo-answers forum, where objections you read from the paedos can be answered without sparking a debate. There are plenty of those debates to read. But there you may ask specific questions like: why is the New Covenant different and better? (which is the heart of the issue, really, not whether household baptisms occurred); and, "why has the application of the sign changed along with the sign itself?"
An attempt to discuss those in a free-for-all has been done time and again, and those battles, while sometimes profitable, get very long and often sidetracked.


----------



## Wretched Man (Jan 21, 2020)

Ben Zartman said:


> I would urge you also, Michael, to begin a thread in the credo-answers forum, where objections you read from the paedos can be answered without sparking a debate. There are plenty of those debates to read. But there you may ask specific questions like: why is the New Covenant different and better? (which is the heart of the issue, really, not whether household baptisms occurred); and, "why has the application of the sign changed along with the sign itself?"
> An attempt to discuss those in a free-for-all has been done time and again, and those battles, while sometimes profitable, get very long and often sidetracked.


All, I apologize for my “credo” comment. It was actually a question because I am sincerely trying to understand your position. I have deleted my comment and look forward to weighing your thoughts on this subject.


----------



## De Jager (Jan 21, 2020)

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/42876493-baptism

The above link might be a good book to read. It was written by a professor at Reformed Theological Seminary. It is short and concise.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jan 21, 2020)

@Michael E

My time to interact is highly limited, but a few notes.

Infant baptism and paedonaptism, I think, are misleading terms. They don't convey the principle. I think these terms are more used because this demographic is at the center of contention. Once you grasp this, the argument of a lack of mention of infants fails to carry weight any further.

But there is no Scriptural burden to prove a certain demographic was baptized. I read nothing of Americans or mailmen being baptized either. However, it is good and necessary consequence that if they profess faith, not having been baptized, they must be baptized.

So with households. Are infants members of the household? Good enough warrant that this demographic is included among the baptized parties if present in a household.

The rest is debate about covenant theology.


----------



## De Jager (Jan 21, 2020)

Michael E said:


> - The baptize your household passage feels like a real stretch to say clearly it's including children as we aren't even aware of the members of the home.
> 
> - If we're drawing covenantal links in OT > NT, Scripture seems to indicate that a circumcision of the heart is what we need in the NT (faith).
> 
> ...



A circumcision of the heart has always been what the Lord requires. This isn't just a new covenant thing. Note that the exhortations for a circumcised heart were given in the old testament.

It is important to realize that the covenant with Abraham is essentially spiritual in nature (it did have some physical aspects but that wasn't the main focus) and is fulfilled in the new covenant. Really, the NC is the means by which the promises of the Abrahamic covenant are realized. Yet even before the NC was inaugurated God was all about a people who were not only circumcised outwardly, but inwardly. As we read in Romans 4, circumcision was a sign and seal of the righteousness that Abraham had by faith. We also read in Colossians 2 that the sign finds it's fulfillment in the work of Christ. Now realize that God commanded even infants to receive this sign, even before they showed any indication of personal trust in God for their righteous standing.
_
Therefore we can at the very least say that there is good precedent in scripture to apply a sign of faith to those under the care of the faithful, regardless of whether the person under care has personally apprehended the promises of God.
_
On what basis was a person circumcised? The scriptures are clear: that person must have either personally believed (as in the case of Abraham) or must be under the care (i.e. in the household) of one who did (like Isaac, Ishmael, Abraham's servants). And on the face of it, we see the same thing with baptism in the new testament. We either see a personal faith - like the Ethiopian Eunuch, Lydia, the Philippian Jailer - or we see a covenantal link to a person of faith - i.e. the households of Lydia, the Jailer, Stephanas, etc. Given the 2,000 years of applying the covenantal sign to believers and their seed, we would expect to see instructions on the contrary in the NT if this practice was to be changed. We do not see these instructions. We instead see examples of household baptisms. Were there children there? No one knows, and it doesn't really matter actually - what we are told in the case of Lydia and the Jailer is that the head believed, and yet the household was baptized.


----------



## Paul1976 (Jan 21, 2020)

Let me second what B.L. McDonald said a few posts above. I found reformed theology while attending a vaguely baptist church moving in the direction advocated by Andy Stanley and others. After deciding to move to a new church, the best option I could find was Presbyterian (PCA). Basically, I had a choice between several reformed baptist churches which were dispensational, or a church that practiced paedobaptism. (Yes, I know many would say you can't be reformed and hold dispensational views!) To me, that was an easy choice.

I met with the pastor. I did realize that, like you, I didn't really understand the paedobaptist view. I had some idea it would take time to understand (it's taken me years). I decided, rather than investigate the hard question of which position is correct, I would investigate the simpler question of whether I could attend as a credobaptist. The answer was yes,although I couldn't hold an office like elder or deacon. There is also a reasonable expectation that I not actively try to cause division over the issue, something I would not want to do in the first place. I've felt very much at home in that wonderful church ever since.

Personally, I've found it sadly ironic that something that should unite God's people instead serves as one of the major sources of division among those who otherwise understand and practice Christianity so well. I am not saying that baptism is unimportant, or that one should not study carefully and endeavour to practice it properly. However, both sides will admit that there isn't a clear scripture that specifically states whether baptism should or should not be applied to infants. Both practices are inferred from a broad reading of scripture, and great minds who sincerely love God have come down on both sides of the issue.

My advice is to seek a church that highly values the clear teaching and application of the gospel, that teaches rich theology as a means being more and more amazed at how awesome the God of the Bible is, and seeks to teach people to live as they should in the light of the gospel. No church does that perfectly. But, you will find good churches that hold to either credobaptism or paedobaptism. I would suggest (in your case) not being afraid to attend a paedobaptist church as long as the pastor is OK with you attending as a credobaptist.

If you're like me, it may take longer than you have to really settle the issue of credo/paedobaptism. In my case, I am a person who needs to carefully understand both sides of many issues in order to settle a question. I've learned from experience that just listening to the arguments from one side often gives you a confusing and distorted view of the issue. After attending a PCA church, I did learn their position well and I found the case strong. Other posts in this thread are leading you to some of those lines of thinking. Surprisingly, what I found hard was finding a solid presentation of the credobaptist position so that I could fairly evaluate that position. It took me about five years before I settled into the paedobaptist position. That may or may not happen for you, but I would encourage you not to over-prioritize that particular theological issue. One other thought is that it is relatively easy for a credobaptist to function within a paedobaptist congregation that will have them since it simply means not applying baptism until your children are older.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 21, 2020)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Reformed Baptist pastor Jeffrey Johnson wrote a book "The Fatal Flaw of the Theology Behind Infant Baptism". Esteemed PB member and OPC Pastor, Lane Keister, has an insightful response on his blog. I am working through it at present, you might find it insightful.
> 
> Part 1 https://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2019/09/20/reviewing-jeffrey-johnsons-the-fatal-flaw/
> Part 2 https://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2019/10/12/reviewing-jeffrey-johnsons-the-fatal-flaw-part-2/
> ...



Although these are posted on my blog, there are several posters, and this particular 5-part insightful review is done by R. Fowler White, not myself. I believe his name is on the posts, but it may be at the bottom of each one.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 21, 2020)

Good answer to the original bullet points have been made. I will add a few thoughts that always seem to help my credo friends at least understand the paedo position, even if they don't wind up agreeing with it. 

1. Is baptism something WE do or something GOD does through the instrumentality of a minister? If the latter, then the seemingly inextricable link between baptism and confession of faith becomes much less important. In this regard, paedos believe that Baptists have read into the book of Acts a temporal order that always has to be there: salvation, _then_ baptism. 

2. In paedo argumentation, baptism, while it points to the shed blood of Christ, is more of a churchly thing than an individual thing, even if it is individuals who are baptized. That is, what it does is solemnly mark the inclusion of a person into the _visible_ church (here the Reformed distinction between visible and invisible church becomes important). Actually _being_ in the visible church happens by profession, either of the person, or, in the case of infants, their believing parent(s). 

3. How the covenants build one on top of another (rather than replace the one that comes before) has vast implications for the position of children in regard to the church. Whether children should be baptized depends on the _prior_ point of children's standing in the covenant. I cannot possibly stress this point hard enough. Here the distinction between the Baptist position on covenant theology and the Reformed is vitally important to grasp. Baptists believe that the covenant of grace only has one kind of participation: full participation in all the benefits of salvation. Paedos believe that the apostasy passages, such as Hebrews 6, point to two different aspects of covenantal participation: the essence of the covenant, which is indeed salvation (which prompts the Hebrews author to say, "we expect better things from you"), and the administration of the covenant, encompassing the visible church, and including the benefits of the means of grace (and from which people do indeed, tragically, fall away). 

4. The OT sign of circumcision was a sign and seal (see Romans 4) of a spiritual reality: justification by faith alone. The NT sign of baptism means the same thing (Colossians 2). Both circumcision and baptism are physical signs that point to spiritual realities. Baptists tend to see circumcision as a physical sign that points only to a physical thing. This does not really square with Romans 4. 

5. Whether anyone is convinced by these points or not, you do need to realize that the paedo position is built on top of _biblical exegesis_, and NOT primarily church history. I have run into this objection several times now with Baptists: they think that paedos either only or primarily believe in paedo-baptism because the church says so. I don't know of _one single paedo_ in the Reformed camp who believes this! And yet this misunderstanding continues. While church history would tell us not to throw out a traditional view without much soul-searching (and exegesis!), and it can also tell us how to be fully ecumenical in the best sense of that term, church history cannot function as a source of revealed truth. I would never ask anyone to believe in paedo-baptism because the church says so, or because tradition says so. 

Hope this helps you understand.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jan 21, 2020)

If you have read this far, you will see that Baptists are accused of inserting discontinuity into the covenants. But this is not so: we see Christ as the center of all covenants that lead up to Him and go forward from Him. So Christ casts a shadow back to Abraham, rather than Abraham projecting past Christ. All the types were fulfilled in Christ, who then commands: repent and be baptized.


----------



## De Jager (Jan 22, 2020)

greenbaggins said:


> While church history would tell us not to throw out a traditional view without much soul-searching (and exegesis!), and it can also tell us how to be fully ecumenical in the best sense of that term, church history cannot function as a source of revealed truth. I would never ask anyone to believe in paedo-baptism because the church says so, or because tradition says so.



This is a good point. Another helpful thing to realize is that the reformed position on baptism is not a Roman catholic hangover. The reformed position is much different than that of Rome or even the Lutheran church. Yes, all three baptize infants but the reformed on a very different basis. We don't believe that the physical application of baptism washes away original sin. We don't believe that it works ex opere operato (I think I used that correctly?). To the reformed a sacrament is always a confirmer of the Word, and the word has central place. We do hold that no one will be saved without baptism (a spiritual baptism, the one signified in the sign), but that getting someone wet does not contribute to their standing with God.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Jan 22, 2020)

PaedoBaptism is hard to understand for a Baptist because it is not an argument solely from the New Testament. Although there are NT verses that make no sense from a believers only baptism viewpoint (See Col. 2:11-12)

It’s easy to get bogged down with all the complex and varying views on covenant theology, but the idea of baptizing believers and their children is simple.

I think my personal confusion with the idea of believer’s only baptism was rooted in the idea that only New Testament believers are born again by the Holy Spirit which started in time in the New Testament era at Pentecost/great commission. So Baptism to me was a visible sign of an new inward reality.

But, if you see that the old and New Testament church is one body of true regenerate believers, and all Israel has to be born again, as Jesus told Israel’s teacher Nicodemus, then you wouldn’t have an issue with infants being circumcised or baptized before a profession of faith since both are signs of God’s promise and not a sure sign of our personal decision in salvation.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jan 22, 2020)

Colin said:


> START HERE:
> http://tms.edu/m/TMS-Fall2018-Article-01.pdf


Moderator:

Colin, this article is by a Dispensational theologian and it undermines the covenant theology of the 1689 Baptist Confession - the confession you hold to according to your signature.

It is important to grasp this point. Dispensationalism is no friend of the Reformed Baptist view of the covenant. It also is an unacceptable view on the Puritan Board. The Puritan Board rules specify Reformed confessional requirements. It is important to note this.

I am not sure if you wanted to make a particular hermeneutical argument based on this article. If so please state it. But as the article itself is quite critical of covenant theology I am unsure if it is of any help to you in making a specific argument. As I said, the information in this article undermines (and undermines quite seriously In my humble opinion) the covenant theology of the 1689 Baptist Confession.


----------



## Colin (Jan 22, 2020)

Sorry uploaded the wrong link. 'Post Deleted'


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jan 22, 2020)

greenbaggins said:


> Although these are posted on my blog, there are several posters, and this particular 5-part insightful review is done by R. Fowler White, not myself. I believe his name is on the posts, but it may be at the bottom of each one.


Lane, R. Fowler White's name is at the top of each page.

I see on your profile page (Information tab) that you are an ordained minister in the PCA. Are you not an ordained minister in the OPC? Carl Trueman has said PCA ministers "are not far from the kingdom of God." Mark 12:34. I assume you read Vos on the kingdom then moved to the OPC?  I had to use Vos as part of my clarification 

Seriously, I have been enjoying your posts on Baptism. It is strengthening my thinking on this. I am skimming through Jewett's book "Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace". A Reformed Baptist friend wants to keep me in the Baptist camp and suggested the book. The argument is that Jewett points out numerous inconsistencies with the paedobaptist position (eg, that paedocommunion is the logical extension of infant baptism, and that the exegesis of Col 2:11-13 demands a Baptist interpretation). I don't know if you have read Jewett but I might formulate a few questions for your comment in the next day or so. I am sure it will instruct others on this forum as well. By the way I find some of Jewett's critiques shallow if not misleading. Eg, he does not allow for the paedobaptist distinction between the visible and invisible church in his argument.


----------



## Andrew35 (Jan 22, 2020)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Lane, R. Fowler White's name is at the top of each page.
> 
> I see on your profile page (Information tab) that you are an ordained minister in the PCA. Are you not an ordained minister in the OPC? Carl Trueman has said PCA ministers "are not far from the kingdom of God." Mark 12:34. I assume you read Vos on the kingdom then moved to the OPC?  I had to use Vos as part of my clarification
> 
> Seriously, I have been enjoying your posts on Baptism. It is strengthening my thinking on this. I am skimming through Jewett's book "Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace". A Reformed Baptist friend wants to keep me in the Baptist camp and suggested the book. The argument is that Jewett points out numerous inconsistencies with the paedobaptist position (eg, that paedocommunion is the logical extension of infant baptism, and that the exegesis of Col 2:11-13 demands a Baptist interpretation). I don't know if you have read Jewett but I might formulate a few questions for your comment in the next day or so. I am sure it will instruct others on this forum as well. By the way I find some of Jewett's critiques shallow if not misleading. Eg, he does not allow for the paedobaptist distinction between the visible and invisible church in his argument.


I've been reading Jewett's book as well. I wanted to try to find "the best of the best" to see if I could convince myself back into the Baptist camp (yes, I read Denault's book too, which I found interesting but ultimately unconvincing re. the Covenant of Grace). So far, no luck.  

One of the problems with RB use of Jewett, however, is that his understanding of the sacrament is not RB. For example, he allows that children can and should be baptized upon profession of faith. All the RBs (and many Southern Baptists) I know do not allow for this as an acceptable practice, although they may accept such baptism as irregular.

There were some other distinctions as well that I can't recall at the moment. I need to finish it someday.


----------



## Michael E (Jan 22, 2020)

This has all been incredibly helpful and insightful. I look forward to digging into some of the more time consuming resources here shortly. Thank you all!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Colin (Jan 23, 2020)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Moderator:
> 
> Colin, this article is by a Dispensational theologian and it undermines the covenant theology of the 1689 Baptist Confession - the confession you hold to according to your signature.
> 
> ...


Here is the link I intended:
https://founders.org/2019/04/10/an-analysis-of-reformed-infant-baptism/


----------



## Ed Walsh (Jan 23, 2020)

BLM said:


> You will find there are many who hold to the credobaptist position and find themselves most at "home" in Presbyterian Churches, particularly if living in an area that has no Reformed Baptist presence. I've known this to be the case for a good number whose views on worship makes attending other broadly evangelical churches untenable.



This is true in my experience as well. But, also in my experience, the reverse is not necessarily true. I mean the Baptist has been baptized. Right? But the Baptists often, no usually will not accept someone's infant baptism as legitimate for membership in the church. I only mentioned this to point out which group is more inclusive in their acceptance of the whole body of Christ. While this is not _proof_ of which position this correct, it is something to consider while mulling this over in your mind.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 23, 2020)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Lane, R. Fowler White's name is at the top of each page.
> 
> I see on your profile page (Information tab) that you are an ordained minister in the PCA. Are you not an ordained minister in the OPC? Carl Trueman has said PCA ministers "are not far from the kingdom of God." Mark 12:34. I assume you read Vos on the kingdom then moved to the OPC?  I had to use Vos as part of my clarification
> 
> Seriously, I have been enjoying your posts on Baptism. It is strengthening my thinking on this. I am skimming through Jewett's book "Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace". A Reformed Baptist friend wants to keep me in the Baptist camp and suggested the book. The argument is that Jewett points out numerous inconsistencies with the paedobaptist position (eg, that paedocommunion is the logical extension of infant baptism, and that the exegesis of Col 2:11-13 demands a Baptist interpretation). I don't know if you have read Jewett but I might formulate a few questions for your comment in the next day or so. I am sure it will instruct others on this forum as well. By the way I find some of Jewett's critiques shallow if not misleading. Eg, he does not allow for the paedobaptist distinction between the visible and invisible church in his argument.



Stephen, my current perception is that Jewett's is the best argument for the credo position in existence, precisely because he takes a covenantal stance on the relation of the testaments. As for paedocommunion, Cornel Venema has answered this particular question exceedingly well in his treatment of the subject. In short, 1 Corinthians 11 requires a level of self-examination not possible in infants. As in most Reformed understandings of the OT/NT, there is continuity and discontinuity. The subjects for covenantal membership is an area of continuity, while the sacraments themselves have both continuity and discontinuity with the OT signs and seals. They point to the same thing (continuity), but do so in a different manner (e.g., bloody vs. non-bloody in the case of circumcision/baptism). 

Also, the proper understanding of the two sacraments indicates that they function differently with regard to the subjects. This is a major difference between credos and paedos. Jewett is not the only one to argue that what works for one sacrament ought to work for the other. However, a reading of Berkhof's ST will reveal that the Reformed position is that the subjects of baptism are entirely passive, while the subjects of the Lord's Supper are both passive and active. The assumption behind Jewett's critique, therefore, only works within the credo perspective. Once the sacraments are allowed to work differently, the critique falls to the ground.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 23, 2020)

Colin said:


> Here is the link I intended:
> https://founders.org/2019/04/10/an-analysis-of-reformed-infant-baptism/



I have started what will probably be a five part answer to Mr. Tom Hicks's article on the GB.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 2


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 23, 2020)

greenbaggins said:


> I have started what will probably be a five part answer to Mr. Tom Hicks's article on the GB.


I figured you would see the strawman arguments I saw. Good Job!!!

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Colin (Jan 23, 2020)

Colin said:


> Sorry uploaded the wrong link. 'Post Deleted'


https://founders.org/2019/04/10/an-analysis-of-reformed-infant-baptism/


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 23, 2020)

Colin said:


> https://founders.org/2019/04/10/an-analysis-of-reformed-infant-baptism/


We read that. That is what Pastor Lane is commenting about here. 
https://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/...ion-of-the-proper-subjects-of-baptism-part-1/
I like Tom but he only reveals to me that he doesn't understand the Reformed position concerning this topic.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jan 23, 2020)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I figured you would see the strawman arguments I saw.


Agreed. I first saw this article as it was circulated among some Reformed Baptist churches in Australia. I have no doubt Lane will deal with the straw man arguments. I'll just deal with one issue. He implies that Paedobaptists undermine the Regulative Principle of worship. As Reformed Baptist Greg Welty pointed out on the Reformed Baptist Discussion List a few years ago, the argument is fallacious because the issue is more about hermeneutics. But I found the argument to be a double standard because many Reformed Baptist churches in my country have a weak understanding of the RPW. Further, it has been my experience that Confessional Paedobaptists are better at utilising the Doxological Principle of Worship. That is why I am excited about Wes Bredenhof's new book "Aiming to Please". Wes made the statement:


Guido's Brother said:


> What may particularly be unique about this book is how it grounds the Regulative Principle in covenant theology.


One of the congregations of the Reformed Churches of New Zealand (the beautiful Scottish city of Dunedin [I am biased as a South Islander and a Scotsman  ] ) has this helpful summary of the DPW. I think strengthening the links between Covenant Theology, the RPW and the DPW is a great development. Again it adds to the irony when Reformed Baptists say Paedobpatists weaken the RPW when they are slow to see the link between Covenant Theology and worship.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jan 23, 2020)

Tom Hicks argues:
"_Third, the Reformed Paedobaptist doctrine of the covenant of grace ascribes saving power to the OT covenants of promise_. But this is impossible since the OT covenants of promise, including the Abrahamic covenant, were established on the shed blood of animals and imperfect human mediators. The OT covenants of promise commanded their members to trust the Lord, to love the Lord, and obey the Lord. But the OT covenants did not provide their members with the power to obey their commands. The shed blood of animals and human mediators never gave grace needed for regeneration, justification, sanctification, and perseverance. That only comes from the shed blood of Christ and His mediation. The paedobaptist notion of a “saving substance” in the OT covenants is foreign to the Bible."

This is dreadful. I'm not surprised Lane regards the argument as closet dispensationalism:

"I have answered this partially above, but a few more thoughts on the rest of the paragraph are in order. Does he really believe that the Holy Spirit was not given to OT saints? This is dispensational teaching, not Reformed teaching. He seems to be laboring under the lack of distinction between the Holy Spirit being poured out at Pentecost, which had to do with giving offices/gifts to people, versus the regenerative power of the salvific presence of the Holy Spirit, which was most certainly present in OT saints. Furthermore, his position opens itself up to a highly ambiguous situation. Is the substance of the OT covenants Christ or not? If it is, then the substance of the OT covenants is the same as that of the new, which he did seem to imply when he said, “They correctly teach that after Adam’s fall, the whole Bible is unified by one covenant of grace.” But now he wants to say that the substance of the OT is not the saving covenant of grace at all. Obviously I agree (and paedos, too) that it wasn’t the shed blood of animals and human mediators _itself_ that gives grace for justification. But that is quite different from saying that OT saints didn’t have those things. They did. And it was the blood of animals and human mediators that _pointed to_ the blood of the Lamb and the One Mediator to end all mediators. The substance of the OT covenants was in promise form, yes. But that promise form _still presents Christ Himself_, and it is by the promised Christ that OT believers were saved. Abraham rejoiced to see Jesus’ day. He saw it and was glad, Jesus tells us. Mr. Hicks’s position on this is confusing."
https://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/...ion-of-the-proper-subjects-of-baptism-part-1/


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jan 23, 2020)

greenbaggins said:


> Stephen, my current perception is that Jewett's is the best argument for the credo position in existence, precisely because he takes a covenantal stance on the relation of the testaments.


Are you aware there are a number of Particular Baptist works out now on this subject post Jewett? I know your friend reviewed one on your blog. A recent one is by Dr Sam Renihan "The Mystery of Christ, His Covenant, and His Kingdom". I see under the commendations tab that OPC pastor David VanDrunen 'recommends' the book. Sam also wrote an essay on the covenantal Baptist position. I started a PB post about this a few weeks ago. I have not read Sam's book but I see he starts the book (see table of contents tab) with a chapter on typology (ch 2). My suspicion is that he uses Vos' approach to typology to argue for the Historic Redemptive argument appropriate for a Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology. I say suspicion because my reading of previous writings of Dr Renihan is that he is a Baptist flavour of Meredith Kline and 'stretches' Vos' Historic Redemptive approach further than Vos would. In other words, I do wonder if Renihan falls into the trap of an implicit dispensationalism that you noted in Tom Hick's essay. 


greenbaggins said:


> However, a reading of Berkhof's ST will reveal that the Reformed position is that the subjects of baptism are entirely passive, while the subjects of the Lord's Supper are both passive and active. The assumption behind Jewett's critique, therefore, only works within the credo perspective. Once the sacraments are allowed to work differently, the critique falls to the ground.


I could not find this reference in Berkhof but Bavinck's RD 4:583f confirms your argument.


greenbaggins said:


> The OT sign of circumcision was a sign and seal (see Romans 4) of a spiritual reality: justification by faith alone. The NT sign of baptism means the same thing (Colossians 2). Both circumcision and baptism are physical signs that point to spiritual realities. Baptists tend to see circumcision as a physical sign that points only to a physical thing. This does not really square with Romans 4.


I am coming to see now the significance of this Paedobaptist argument now. Could you expand on this please.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 24, 2020)

Stephen, I am aware that several works have come out. I have not read them, so my information on them is negligible, and you probably are better informed on more recent RB arguments than I am. Jewett is still very highly regarded in paedo circles as the book that takes covenantal theology most seriously, and is therefore fruitful ground for greater rapprochement between RB's and paedos. I have no doubt that some of the later works also take covenant theology very seriously, and are less Dispensational-flavored than Tom Hicks is. I will try to flesh out the sign-seal argument as you request.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 24, 2020)

As for Berkhof, it is more implied than stated. He implies it when he mentions the efficacy not being limited to the moment of administration (640), whereas in his discussion of the LS, he mentions what is required to participate (especially the top of 656, where he says, "Its effective operation is dependent, not only on the _presence_, but on the _activity_, of faith in the recipient".


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 24, 2020)

Part Two is up.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RickG (Jan 24, 2020)

Hi Michael. Not sure if this will help, but I wrote a summary of my thinking earlier in my journey on this great subject. It is basically a brief summary a melding of the key points that stood out (to me at least) of two quite common basic 'primers' on this issue: "Children of the Promise" and "William the Baptist". Problem is, one can read the points, and they have little meaning, unless one is grappling with them at full length while doing the reading personally. However, I found it a useful exercise. Since then, I still uphold the key elements there that challenged and changed my thinking, but am also moving on to other areas of question on the topic. The points are brief and simplistic, and much lengthier and detailed arguments are given by others above, and in other forums of course.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jan 24, 2020)

greenbaggins said:


> I have not read them, so my information on them is negligible, and you probably are better informed on more recent RB arguments than I am. Jewett is still very highly regarded in paedo circles as the book that takes covenantal theology most seriously, and is therefore fruitful ground for greater rapprochement between RB's and paedos. I have no doubt that some of the later works also take covenant theology very seriously, and are less Dispensational-flavored than Tom Hicks is.


Lane, I just read your second response to Tom Hicks with great profit. I think you have hit the nail on the head. 1689 Federalism wants to calve itself out as the true interpretation of chapter 7 of the 1689 Baptist Confession yet emphasises discontinuities between the Old and New Covenants in a way that Reformed Baptists would not have done 20 years ago. I think your comment "Only retroactively does the gospel apply to OT believers" highlights the problem here.

I did want to add if you want to understand more fully where Mr Hicks is coming from as you continue to critique him (or other similar writers), you may want to visit the 1689 Federalism website which has extensive information - videos books, essays etc explaining their position. Their FAQ page has quite a bit of information on their view of the relationship between the Old and New Covenants.

Regarding Mr Hicks comment "Historic Reformed Baptists had a better way", Dr Sam Renihan (who I mentioned in my previous post) did his PhD on this area. His book "From Shadow to Substance: The Federal Theology of the English Particular Baptists (1642-1704)", is a full Baptist study of how the early Baptists developed their covenant theology and how they debated this with their paedobaptist brethren.


greenbaggins said:


> I will try to flesh out the sign-seal argument as you request.


Thank you Lane. Look forward to it.

Robert @Reformed Bookworm look forward to your research articles on the apostasy passages in Hebrews you kindly promised a little while ago.


----------

