# This May Be the Best Concise Work Penned by a Puritan on Infant Baptism



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 3, 2016)

[video=vimeo;169014458]https://vimeo.com/169014458[/video]



> *"This work is a theological canon!" - Scott Bushey*


*Infant Baptism God’s Ordinance*, by Michael Harrison (1640-1729)

Michael Harrison (1640-1729) was a faithful Puritan Minister of the Gospel and a powerful Reformed Presbyterian preacher.

Is this just another book on infant baptism? No. It is possibly the best succinct, yet comprehensive work on the subject ever written by a puritan. It was originally a longer series of sermons that Harrison preached to his congregation, many of whom were Baptist at the time. At their request, he placed his thoughts into a concise treatise that covers all the main points needful in understanding the biblical position of infant inclusion in the Covenant of Grace, and infant baptism.

Harrison’s work is so acute in its biblical presentation of the truth of Scripture that the reader cannot be but left in awe of his masterful exactitude to God’s mind on the issue of infant inclusion in the Covenant of Grace, and the application of the sign of the covenant to every visible member in the church. He gives the reader an introductory lesson on the Covenant of Grace and those parties involved by way of its membership, and then proceeds to teach the reader why infants are to be baptized.

Harrison deals hermeneutically with 9 biblical arguments on the issue; two of which are his most important foundational chapters setting the stage for the rest of the book. He also shows the danger of shutting infants out of the kingdom of heaven, and answers all the main objections to Antipaedobaptist theology on the issue. He ends the work with a chapter on the right mode in which baptism should take place, along with a chapter on applying the truths of the study to the life of the members of the covenant community.

Without sounding clichéd, this work is among the top works ever written on the subject, and in my estimation is irrefutable. The unbiased reader will have no issues with Harrison’s biblical exposition and logic driven inference. It is a powerhouse puritan work that every Paedobaptist ought to read for support, and every Antipaedobaptist ought to read to untangle their dispensational theology. Harrison says that Antipaedobaptism is “to be justly abhorred as false doctrine,” and proves this to the reader beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is not a scan or facsimile, has been updated in modern English for easy reading and has an active table of contents for electronic versions.

Get the eBook pack here at the Puritan Shop (ePub, mobi and PDF)

Get the Printed Book Here at Puritan Publications and don't forget to use a coupon!

Get the Kindle Version Here

Get the Nook Version Here

Get the Google Play Version Here


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 4, 2016)

Spend $20 or more on your next book order and we will take off $5. That's money you can spend somewhere else or save for your next book purchase. Use this on the new Harrison book on _Infant Baptism_ and its like buy one get one at 50% off to hand off to someone else who needs to read it. *Enter code NEWMOON at checkout and take $5 off orders of print books equal to or greater than $20. This offer ends June 5th at midnight. Remember, coupon codes are CASE-SENSITIVE*. Use it at checkout at Puritan Publications' print books.


----------



## Ed Walsh (Jun 4, 2016)

*My Early Take*



C. Matthew McMahon said:


> This May Be the Best Concise Work Penned by a Puritan on Infant Baptism



I am only on chapter 2, and so far, everything Matthew said about this book is true. This may be the most useful little book on baptism ever printed.

Some may ask, “Where in the New Testament is the specific command to baptize our children?”

This is not the right question. The question should be, “Where in the New Testament is the command NOT to baptize your children?”

With simple logic applied to Scripture, Harrison blows contrary arguments out of the water.

Harrison reasons:
“Now this is the case of infant baptism. The Question is not by what sign, but at what age, people are to be admitted into the visible Church? Now this was fully determined in the Old Testament. Infants at eight days old were to be admitted members of the visible Church. There is little said of it in the New Testament because there was no need of it; this truth having been once settled in the Old Testament has never been repealed.”

“4. Those doctrines which were once thoroughly settled in the Old Testament, and never called into question by any in the New, there was no occasion given to speak of them again.”

“We find, that what was but darkly hinted in the Old Testament, and much questioned in the New, is fully cleared; and much is said of it, as that glorious doctrine of justification by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. This was very darkly hinted in the Old Testament, and very much opposed by preachers of legalism in the New Testament. Therefore, much is said in the New Testament to clear it.”

“But an infant’s right to the covenant, or to Church-membership, there was much said of it in the Old Testament, and it was never denied or called in question by any in the Apostles days. They were settled, and had a peaceable possession of their privileges ever since Abraham’s time.”

“Had any in the Apostles days scrupled in an infants’ right, very much would have been said of it. The Jews, who tenaciously adhered to their old privileges, would never so silently have suffered their children to be cast out of covenant, without taking notice of it.”

The above was written even before the author gets to what he calls, “THE FIRST ARGUMENT FOR INFANT BAPTISM.”

Maybe you will die a Baptist. I don’t know. But I recommend you read this little book. Get the Kindle edition like I did, if you don’t want to spend much money. It’s only about six bucks.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 6, 2016)

Ed Walsh said:


> C. Matthew McMahon said:
> 
> 
> > This May Be the Best Concise Work Penned by a Puritan on Infant Baptism
> ...



I agree. We've put out a number of books on infant baptism and covenant theology (Calamy, Rutherford, Brinsley, Blake, etc.) and most of them are longer treatises that really go into detail. But Harrison's work is exceptional because its like getting a master set of cliff notes on the most important aspects of the doctrine, which I think is Harrison's gift - being able to do that concisely. (We are working on another one of his works on justification which is done in the same manner.)

I agree with Ed! Its the most concise, useful book on the subject in print.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 6, 2016)

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> Ed Walsh said:
> 
> 
> > C. Matthew McMahon said:
> ...



I read it....very good. It is a cliff notes of sorts with some argumentation that is not typical. Excellent. Concise and lined up.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jun 7, 2016)

There was a response made at the time by one of the Framers of the 1689 Baptist Confession http://theangus.rpc.ox.ac.uk/treasures/sandy-foundation-of-infant-baptism-shaken/


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jun 7, 2016)

Ed Walsh said:


> Some may ask, “Where in the New Testament is the specific command to baptize our children?” This is not the right question. The question should be, “Where in the New Testament is the command NOT to baptize your children?”



A selective rejection of the regulative principle of worship.


----------



## Logan (Jun 9, 2016)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> A selective rejection of the regulative principle of worship.



Coming from a Baptist background myself, that's what I thought at first. Then I realized it wasn't.


----------



## Ed Walsh (Jun 9, 2016)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> A selective rejection of the regulative principle of worship.



To *C. M. Sheffield *Could you explain?

Thanks

PS - I am a former Baptist.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jun 9, 2016)

Ed Walsh said:


> A selective rejection of the regulative principle of worship.
> To C. M. Sheffield Could you explain?



It is very simple. Confessional Presbyterians are governed by the RPW in their practice until they come the issue of Baptism and then completely reverse themselves in this one area and say "well, the Scriptures don't forbid it, it must be Ok!" 

Keach said it best: "The infants of such as are professing believers are not to be baptized; because there is neither command nor example in the Holy Scriptures, or certain consequence from [the Scriptures] to baptize such."


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 9, 2016)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Ed Walsh said:
> 
> 
> > A selective rejection of the regulative principle of worship.
> ...



This representation is skewed with dispensationalism and misses the point. Forget what Keach states! The command to place the sign on our children IS regulative and derived from scripture. We are not flying on the seats of our pants. If one understand covenant rightly, they will follow suit. 

I wonder if Keach feels the same about other items derived from scripture by using good and necessary consequence and inference? Poor argument.


----------



## MW (Jun 9, 2016)

The regulative principle of worship -- WHAT is not commanded is forbidden. It pertains to the PARTS of worship.

The Bible never provides precept or precedent for restricting the subjects of baptism to those who make personal profession of faith. The antipaedobaptist stands on a biblical mandate which simply does not exist. The SUBJECTS of baptism could not fall under the regulative principle of worship without limiting the principle to a specific class of people, and that would effectively destroy the moral obligation of ALL MEN to worship God.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jun 9, 2016)

Scott Bushey said:


> Poor argument.



Followed by an empty response. You have not interacted with my statements. You have only dismiss them out of hand with no small amount of bluster.


----------



## StephenG (Jun 9, 2016)

One must not forget that New Testament Christianity already derives some of its worship practices from Old Testament Judaism (Psalms, confession, prayer, Benediction, etc.). 
Having given my 2 cents, let us be gracious to one another in our responses, lest this turn into another one of those WWI-style Baptism debates


----------



## Taylor (Jun 9, 2016)

My issue is not the covenant _per se_, but the _nature_ of the New Covenant. Namely, what is spoken in Jeremiah 31:33-34. I plan on reading this book, but can anyone that has read this book testify as to whether or not Rev. Harrison deals with that text?


----------



## Ed Walsh (Jun 9, 2016)

*More Food for Thought*



C. M. Sheffield said:


> "The infants of such as are professing believers are not to be baptized; because there is neither command nor example in the Holy Scriptures or certain consequence from [the Scriptures] to baptize such."



There's plenty of commands and examples in the Bible. Just not as many in the New Testament as in the Older.
In this way they deal with us at this day. "We challenge you," they say, "to prove infant baptism to be God’s ordinance; bring us a plain text, and we will believe."

Must we believe nothing but what we have totidem verbis, in just so many words in Scripture? Then how shall we prove the first day of the week to be the Christian Sabbath? That a woman may come to the Lord’s Table? That a Christian may be a magistrate?"
​Once we realize that the sign of the Covenant has changed, but not the Covenant, there is an overabundance of proof that children are included in the visible church.


3. Those doctrines which were clearly revealed, and fully confirmed in the Old Testament, though little or nothing is said of them in the New Testament, and were never repealed, are yet to be owned, received and believed, as if much had been said of them in the New Testament; the whole of Scripture is God’s Word, and what need is there of proving the same thing twice, unless the Authority of the Old Testament is questioned? This is also evident in the lawfulness of a Christian Magistracy, in an oath before a Magistrate, and making war on a just occasion. There is so little said of these things in the New Testament, many of the Anabaptists have denied them; yet these being fully settled and confirmed by God in the Old Testament, are to be owned, though little is said of them in the New.

Now this is the case of infant baptism. The Question is not by what sign, but at what age, people are to be admitted into the visible Church? Now this was fully determined in the Old Testament. Infants at eight days old were to be admitted members of the visible Church. There is little said of it in the New Testament because there was no need of it; this truth having been once settled in the Old Testament has never been repealed.

4. Those doctrines which were once thoroughly settled in the Old Testament, and never called into question by any in the New, there was no occasion given to speak of them again.

We find, that what was but darkly hinted in the Old Testament, and much questioned in the New, is fully cleared; and much is said of it, as that glorious doctrine of justification by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. This was very darkly hinted in the Old Testament, and very much opposed by preachers of legalism in the New Testament. Therefore, much is said in the New Testament to clear it.

But an infant’s right to the covenant, or to Church-membership, there was much said of it in the Old Testament, and it was never denied or called in question by any in the Apostles days. They were settled, and had a peaceable possession of their privileges ever since Abraham’s time.

Had any in the Apostles days scrupled in an infants’ right, very much would have been said of it.[3] The Jews, who tenaciously adhered to their old privileges, would never so silently have suffered their children to be cast out of covenant, without taking notice of it.

A doctrine may be very clear, the Scriptures brought to prove, and the argument then deduced clear and convincing; and yet it may remain dark to one that is incapable of discerning it. An object may be very obvious, and yet not well discerned, by reason the eye is clouded. How plain are the doctrines of the Trinity, the divine nature of Christ, justification by imputed righteousness, etc., and yet many are so blind as not to see these things?

So the matter in debate is this, viz. That the infants of believing parents have a right to baptism, is as clear to me as the other, yet many will not see it. The generality of Christians are but babes in knowledge, have but dark and confused apprehensions of the clearest truths in Religion, and must necessarily be much more at a loss in what does not have that clearness and perspicuity in it.

Harrison, Michael; McMahon, C. Matthew. Infant Baptism God's Ordinance. Puritan Publications. Kindle Edition.​ 
The New Testament is not silent concerning the members of the Covenant, far from it. For the promise is to you and your children. Acts 2:39

Unless you believe that a doctrine is not a doctrine unless it is found in the New Testament, then many things we accept as required or forbidden based on the Older Testament must be challenged. Beastiality, the tithe, six-day creation, that children are to be included in the covenant, etc.

Genesis 17:7
And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.


----------



## Ed Walsh (Jun 9, 2016)

Taylor Sexton said:


> but can anyone that has read this book testify as to whether or not Rev. Harrison deals with that text?



I found two places, but he does not deal with the passage in-depth.
Here are the references in context:

From the Introduction:
1. This phrase, I will be thy God, and you shall be my people, is never found but in a promise of the Covenant of Grace, (Gen. 15: 1; Exod. 29: 45; Jer. 24: 7, 31: 33-39; Ezek. 11: 18-20, 34: 22-25, 37: 23; Zech. 8: 8; 2 Cor. 6: 16; Rev. 21: 3).

From Chapter 4:
That infants are in covenant as well as their parents, is undeniably evident from the tenure of that covenant made with Abraham, which was a Gospel-covenant, (Gen. 17: 7), as we have abundantly proved; and that the promise of the Covenant is to them, is as evident, Acts 2: 39, “The promise is to you, and to your children;” he means the promise of God to Abraham, the promise of Salvation by Christ, which was promised both to Jews and Gentiles. It was to the Jews in the first place. Or do you suppose the Apostle has respect to Jer. 31: 33-34, or to Joel 2: 28? Either way, it does not alter the case, for those were all branches of the Covenant of Grace, and explications of what was virtually contained in that first promise to Abraham in Genesis 17:7.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jun 9, 2016)

MW said:


> The Bible never provides precept or precedent for restricting the subjects of baptism to those who make personal profession of faith. The antipaedobaptist stands on a biblical mandate which simply does not exist. The SUBJECTS of baptism could not fall under the regulative principle of worship without limiting the principle to a specific class of people, and that would effectively destroy the moral obligation of ALL MEN to worship God.



I must respectfully disagree. The clear command of Scripture is that sinners "Repent, and be baptized... in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38). 

Repentance and faith are requisite to the receiving of Baptism: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" (Mark 16:16). 

This pattern of faith preceding baptism is evident throughout the book of Acts. 

On the day of Pentecost "they that gladly received his word were baptized" (Acts 2:41). 

When Philip baptized the Ethiopean Eunich in Acts 8:36-37: And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.

When Peter preached to Cornelius' House, Peter baptized those on whom the Holy Spirit had fallen saying, "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord" (Acts 10:47-48; cf. 11:17, 18). 

While the baptism of Lydia's house is not as explicit it certainly provides no evidence of infants being baptized and therefore gives us no reason to overturn the clear testimony of Scripture in other places. 

In the case of the Philippian Jailer we are told he was "believing in God with all his house" (Acts 16:34). 

The same is true for Crispus and his house. We are told he "believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized." Again the pattern is clear: faith precedes baptism. 

The baptism of Stephanas and his house, Paul only remarks upon it parenthetically.​
But in all of these examples and in all of the New Testament, not so much as a single word commands the baptism of infants. We have not a single example of a child being baptized. We have rather the clear command to be baptized following repentance and faith and that pattern being demonstrated in the Acts of the Apostles. To suggest that we stand on a biblical mandate that does not exist, ignores the plain testimony of Scripture.


----------



## timfost (Jun 9, 2016)

Why debate baptism here when we could watch a really good YouTube debate? 

Shishko v. White is hard to beat. Both sides were orderly and irenic. All of the points made above were very effectively debated in the video. (Yes, it's long, but very worth it!)

[video=youtube;RoVXoH585gw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&persist_app=1&v=RoVXoH585gw[/video]


----------



## MW (Jun 9, 2016)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> I must respectfully disagree. The clear command of Scripture is that sinners "Repent, and be baptized... in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38).



On Acts 2:38, you have not established any exegetical basis for your conclusion. The apostle simply couples repentance with baptism in the case of those who had crucified Christ. There is nothing exclusive in his exhortation.



C. M. Sheffield said:


> Repentance and faith are requisite to the receiving of Baptism: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" (Mark 16:16)



There is no imperative or subordination of action in this verse. It merely shows that baptism is a moral obligation on those who are to be saved.



C. M. Sheffield said:


> This pattern of faith preceding baptism is evident throughout the book of Acts.



We find a pattern of faith preceding baptism in the case of converts to the Christian faith, but it is not an exclusive pattern. We also find households being baptised, and sometimes without any reference being made to the personal faith of those who are baptised.



C. M. Sheffield said:


> But in all of these examples and in all of the New Testament, not so much as a single word commands the baptism of infants.



That is irrelevant once it is recognised that the subjects of baptism is a moral consideration, not a positive one. While you argue that it is positive it cannot be established that anyone should be the subject of baptism because the New Testament never gives a single word to restrict baptism to any class of persons.


----------



## Tyrese (Jun 10, 2016)

Rev Winzer, 

I really appreciate your impute on various topics but this is one where things get a bit confusing. This also goes back to Pastor Sheffield's original point: "A selective rejection of the regulative principle of worship." He's absolutely right here. If this were a different topic pertaining to Church order and worship many of you Presbyterians would be demanding (and rightly so) that your readers understand the RPW. Defining the RPW, Derek Thomas says:

"Put simply, the regulative principle of worship states that the corporate worship of God is to be founded upon specific directions of Scripture. On the surface, it is difficult to see why anyone who values the authority of Scripture would find such a principle objectionable."

The problem is that you guys change the rules when it comes to baptism; and suddenly the versus that clearly demonstrate believers baptisms say something completely different than what they actually say, or the scriptures are much more complicated than we Baptist can see; as your last post clearly demonstrates. Pastor Sheffield said, "But in all of these examples and in all of the New Testament, not so much as a single word commands the baptism of infants." It's here where paedobaptist find the RPW (as Derek Thomas put it) objectionable. If this were another topic you fellows would be all for it. But how did you respond? "That is irrelevant." You know, that's how people break down a particular viewpoint. They look for inconsistencies, and hope the rest of house just simply falls over. If we ever get to the place were we're asking "Where in the New Testament is the command NOT to...?" than why defend the RPW on any point when someone who objects to the RPW ask the same question? 

Your brother,
Tyrese


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 10, 2016)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Scott Bushey said:
> 
> 
> > Poor argument.
> ...



Pastor,
All of these typical arguments have been addressed here on PB ad nauseum, why go over the same trail?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 10, 2016)

Tyrese said:


> Rev Winzer,
> 
> I really appreciate your impute on various topics but this is one where things get a bit confusing. This also goes back to Pastor Sheffield's original point: "A selective rejection of the regulative principle of worship." He's absolutely right here. If this were a different topic pertaining to Church order and worship many of you Presbyterians would be demanding (and rightly so) that your readers understand the RPW. Defining the RPW, Derek Thomas says:
> 
> ...



'The problem is that you guys change the rules '

No one changed the rules. Just because 'a rule' is not hyperbolically spelled out in the NT does not imply abrogation; for example, the command to change the last day of the week sabbath to the first.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jun 10, 2016)

Scott Bushey said:


> No one changed the rules. Just because 'a rule' is not hyperbolically spelled out in the NT does not imply abrogation; for example, the command to change the last day of the week sabbath to the first.



We have the clear witness of Scripture on that matter with the appearances of our Lord to his Church occurring on the first day, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on that day, the practice of the Church in the book of Acts meeting regularly on that day (Acts 20:7; I Cor. 16:2), together with the Apostle John identifying the first day of the week as the Lord's Day (Rev. 1:10). 

What we don't have is any command or even a single instance of infant baptism in the whole of the New Testament. Your comparison falls short.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jun 10, 2016)

Scott Bushey said:


> Pastor,
> All of these typical arguments have been addressed here on PB ad nauseum, why go over the same trail?



Why don't we just make a rule that we'll never discuss topics more than once on the board. Of course if we did that, there would only be very few things we could discuss. But your comment assumes that the present members of the board have been present all along. However, the membership of this board is not static. There are some wrestling with these issues even now. Perhaps they would appreciate taking part in a discussion of the matter. I might also add, that these discussions help even those of us who are settled in our opinions to sharpen our arguments. Bottom line: this is a discussion board--so we ought not to stifle discussion.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Jun 10, 2016)

Tyrese said:


> Rev Winzer,
> 
> I really appreciate your impute on various topics but this is one where things get a bit confusing. This also goes back to Pastor Sheffield's original point: "A selective rejection of the regulative principle of worship." He's absolutely right here. If this were a different topic pertaining to Church order and worship many of you Presbyterians would be demanding (and rightly so) that your readers understand the RPW. Defining the RPW, Derek Thomas says:
> 
> ...



Just as a historical note, the radical Anabaptists articulated such an extreme RPW that led them to all sorts of aberrations in worship (well beyond their views on baptism). The Reformed took the principal and grounded it in its proper biblical realm and within redemptive history as Rev. Winzer suggested. There is no doubt that there exists a more extensive and radical interpretation of the RPW than that which has been articulated by the Reformed. That interpretation belongs properly to the Anabaptists however, not to the heirs of the Reformation who regard the RPW as operating within its particular realm and with reference to its appropriate objects after due consideration of the analogy of faith.


----------



## Taylor (Jun 10, 2016)

Just got through reading the book. Here are my initial thoughts. Perhaps I can expand on them later.

1) With absolutely no intention of degrading the great mind of Rev. Harrison, I was overall underwhelmed by the book. I was expecting it to be the paedobaptist version of Pascal Denault's book. But, it was far from it.

2) I found the tone at times to be troublesome. I felt at a couple of points during the book that I was being labeled some kind of arch-heretic—who wishes to exclude people from the Kingdom, including damning my own children. I know this was a different time and place, but that kind of rhetoric is, in my opinion, not helpful. Furthermore, I felt that I was being accused several times of willful blindness. I find that to be contrary to fact. I have communicated on this board, for example, that I _want_ to become a paedobaptist because I am troubled by the fact that all of my favorite theologians are such. However, I still remain overall unconvinced.

3) I did not find any revolutionary arguments raised in this book. Again, I was not blown away. Perhaps this is a good book, but "irrefutable" and "case closed" are a little strong. In fact, I found Rev. Harrison to make many of the same blunders that Dr. White frequently points out in his debates. For example, Rev. Harrison frequently quoted Acts 2:39, yet only half of it. He never got past the "...to your children" part to the "...even as many as the Lord our God shall call." That is just one example of incomplete Scriptural argumentation I found (in my not-so-intelligent opinion).

4) I was frustrated by the fact that none (literally none) of the objections raised in the second-to-last chapter are any of the objections I have ever heard any Baptist raise. Even more, I myself have never even thought of those objections.

5) I found Rev. Harrison at times to be a little questionable in his conclusions. Again, I highly respect the Puritans, and Rev. Harrison, who was a faithful minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ, is certainly no exception, but to say, for example, that baptism by immersion is an express violation of the sixth commandment is just plain silly. I can't imagine anyone advocating or defending such a conclusion.

Those are just a few brief thoughts. All in all, I have actually been far more challenged by reading many of the discussions peppered throughout this wonderful forum. Perhaps, when I get a chance to write a lot, I might elaborate on what I found lacking in this book.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 10, 2016)

One of things I appreciated about Harrison is he continues to allude to "the unbiased reader." That resonated with me personally.

As a former baptist, I wrestled quite a bit about that point _as a baptist_. I was forced by just about everyone in the history of the church (except Benjamin Keach, Hansard Knowles, and Thomas Griffin (and yes I know there were other baptists out there but these were the biggies along with John Tombes)) that I didn't have a single example of Credo-Baptism in the NT. But _I was saying_ there isn't a single example of an infant being baptized specifically stated. That was a huge bone of contention for me to deal with. I said I was a Credo-baptist, but I didn't find one example of what we regularly did in our baptist church with families and children anywhere in the NT. No examples.

We are not talking about an adult that has a profession of faith. Everyone, including Paedobaptists, are CredoBaptists in that regard, so to speak. None of us have any contention over that. But with infants and children,_ that was the problem_.

Bob and Mary got married in our baptist church. A year later they had a child. They wanted to know what they should with the child. They were instructed by the elders that the child is not a Christian, is of the Kingdom of the Devil, and needed to be evangelized. I mean, what else were the elders of the baptist church going to say to them about their unregenerate child of the devil? They could pad that a little, and say the child is a "gift from the Lord" and "under the means of grace." But as I sat there and thought about that, it was a bit off, and very inconsistent in my mind. In evangelizing the child, until the "age of accountability" (wherever that is in Scripture), or thereabouts, the elders would sit down with the child and see if they had come to faith, or if there was enough evidence on some outward profession that they in fact come been translated from the dominion of darkness, to the kingdom of Christ. If there was, they would then meet with them for a time, (I saw them do this for months in trying to discern their regeneracy) and then finally, they would baptize them after they were comfortable. To me that smelled of Arminianism - some outward show they needed to see. I really didn't like that. And many people in the church that were not dealing with the issue didn't like the really long time it took for the elders to discern things. Sometimes it would be months and months. That was another thing you just don't see in the NT.

I had a really hard time with the way we dealt with children in our baptist church (keep in mind they were a reformed baptist church) because that scenario above is found NO PLACE in the bible. It just doesn't exist. There is no scenario about a mom and dad, having a child, bringing them to the elders, having them discerned at a certain age and then baptized. But that was the common practice of our church, at the time, in dealing with children. I don't find a single instance anywhere in the NT of dealing with children in that way, or any instruction in dealing with them in the NT in that way. But that's what _we_ did.

So I had a tough time saying to the Presbyterians, I don't find Paedobaptism explicitly commanded in the NT (with my dispensational twist on it must be EXPLICITLY stated in the NT to be true) while all the while our own practice had no warrant in Scripture, anywhere, and was not explicitly stated. What we did do, was at times, dedicate a child. But as far as I remember, no one ever handed their child over to the elders like Hannah did in the.....wait for it....Old Testament. That was the epitome of contradicting our NT beliefs. And, who would want to dedicate to God a child of the devil? Huh? It was strange all around for me.

It took me a good while (years) to become an "unbiased reader" because my bias of my overlay of my Credo stance with adults, was running my theology for the way I would see how we dealt with kids without the use of a biblical instruction for what we were doing with them. But I did it because it was a lack of options that ran my paedo theology.

Once that bias was removed, and I came to terms with that, it was a roller coaster of theological sanctification for me personally.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 10, 2016)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Scott Bushey said:
> 
> 
> > No one changed the rules. Just because 'a rule' is not hyperbolically spelled out in the NT does not imply abrogation; for example, the command to change the last day of the week sabbath to the first.
> ...



There is no obvious nor positive actual command to change the day just as there is no command to abrogate placing the sign on the children of covenanting parents. One gets to these doctrines via G&NC. Need I mention the other doctrines that we get to via G&NC? As I said, poor argument.



> What we don't have is any command or even a single instance of infant baptism in the whole of the New Testament. Your comparison falls short.



The absence says much, that being, all the children in the initial stages already had the sign upon them @ 8 days and the subsequent cases, by default also had the sign placed-this is typical when we think of how families functioned in that age and culture. Consider if John the (paedo)baptist was crying out in the wilderness, repent, be baptised, but leave your family at home!

I could charge the credo with the same, i.e. why is it that we do not see any children ever coming to a faithful confession, i.e. a 10 year old, and having water placed on them??? If it is a grand event in this credo age, why was it not then? 

Ultimately, this comes down to the RPW and command. Gen 17 is quite clear.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jun 10, 2016)

TheOldCourse said:


> Just as a historical note, the radical Anabaptists articulated such an extreme RPW that led them to all sorts of aberrations in worship (well beyond their views on baptism).



Can you be specific and give historical examples. Can you substantiate the claim that the Anabaptists affirmed the RPW beyond a vague commitment to Scripture's authority. This is something I have not heard before.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 10, 2016)

Glen Clary wrote of this somewhat a few year back for _The Confessional Presbyterian_ journal. Glen J. Clary, "Ulrich Zwingli and the Swiss Anabaptists: Sola Scriptura and the Reformation of Christian Worship," CPJ v.6 (2010), 108-124. http://www.cpjournal.com/contents-by-issue/the-confessional-presbyterian-6-2010/ Some caution is needed; not for this, but I recall some years back it was the thing to call the Puritan understanding of the RPW, anabaptistic. 


C. M. Sheffield said:


> TheOldCourse said:
> 
> 
> > Just as a historical note, the radical Anabaptists articulated such an extreme RPW that led them to all sorts of aberrations in worship (well beyond their views on baptism).
> ...


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 10, 2016)

FYI; Glen has been putting some of his material on his blog; so it may be worth searching to see if this article is online. Otherwise v6 is still in print.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Jun 10, 2016)

NaphtaliPress said:


> FYI; Glen has been putting some of his material on his blog; so it may be worth searching to see if this article is online. Otherwise v6 is still in print.



As I recall, Clary cites Grebel's letter to Muntzer as the first articulation of the RPW. If Clary doesn't have it online I believe Grebel's letter is, or at least it was some time ago when I read it.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jun 10, 2016)

Scott Bushey said:


> There is no obvious nor positive actual command to change the day just as there is no command to abrogate placing the sign on the children of covenanting parents. One gets to these doctrines via G&NC. Need I mention the other doctrines that we get to via G&NC? As I said, poor argument.



I never said there was a 'positive actual command.' I pointed out the clear witness of Scripture found in the appearances of our Lord, the outpouring of the Spirit, the practice of the apostolic church, and the clear declaration of the apostle John that the first day of the week is the Lord's Day. Regardless of the absence of a 'positive command' you yet have the clear example and positive declaration that it is the first day of the week. 

But we have no such example of infant baptism in the New Testament nor do we have one word declaring it to be the practice of the church or commanding it in any way. Unlike the issue of the Christian Sabbath, infant baptism is completely foreign to the New Testament and the Scriptures as a whole.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Jun 10, 2016)

TheOldCourse said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > FYI; Glen has been putting some of his material on his blog; so it may be worth searching to see if this article is online. Otherwise v6 is still in print.
> ...



Here's a post by Clary: http://reformedforum.org/who-discovered-the-regulative-principle/

And I believe this is the letter he cites: http://www.anabaptistnetwork.com/grebel


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 10, 2016)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Scott Bushey said:
> 
> 
> > There is no obvious nor positive actual command to change the day just as there is no command to abrogate placing the sign on the children of covenanting parents. One gets to these doctrines via G&NC. Need I mention the other doctrines that we get to via G&NC? As I said, poor argument.
> ...



Agreed. In the same way, based on continuity, covenant and the fact that the Lord does not change (consider the imperative in Gen 17, 'for all generations'), the same must be said of the covenant sign. The Sabbath day is not the Lord's day and the sign is no longer bloody, but water, but still the sign of covenant.



> But we have no such example of infant baptism in the New Testament



Dispensationalism




> nor do we have one word declaring it to be the practice of the church



Placing a sign on infants has always been the practice of the church, whether old or new.



> or commanding it in any way.



It is commanded, 'for all generations'. 

Gen 17, Deut 29:

9*Keep therefore the words of this covenant, and do them, that ye may prosper in all that ye do.
10*Ye stand this day all of you before the LORD your God; your captains of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, with all the men of Israel, 11*Your little ones, your wives, and thy stranger that is in thy camp, from the hewer of thy wood unto the drawer of thy water: 12*That thou shouldest enter into covenant with the LORD thy God, and into his oath, which the LORD thy God maketh with thee this day: 13*That he may establish thee to day for a people unto himself, and that he may be unto thee a God, as he hath said unto thee, and as he hath sworn unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.


The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Dt 29:8–13.



> Unlike the issue of the Christian Sabbath, infant baptism is completely foreign to the New Testament and the Scriptures as a whole.



Again, you discount the continuity of scripture and end up dispensationalizing facts. I see you have no issue with the decalogue.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jun 10, 2016)

Scott, 

You may call me a dispensationalist if you like. That takes nothing away from what I've said any more than it adds to your arguments. If you are persuaded there is nothing between your position and that of C. I. Schofield, it would show a surprising lack of understanding. If all that is required to show someone a dispensationalist is to point where they see discontinuity between the old and New Covenants, then such a charge can be levied at any honest Presbyterian, but to very little effect. 

The sole basis of your argument lies in saying that baptism has supplanted circumcision as the sign of the covenant and then take all the commands relating to circumcision as binding on the Church and believers. But this too is foreign to the New Testament. Nowhere is such a hermeneutic warranted. It is rather similar to the old dispensatioanlists who would try to interpret the New Testament from the Old rather than the other way round. It's ironic I think.

The fact is, if the Apostles had any thought of baptism replacing circumcision as the sigh of the New Covenant, it most certainly would have come to the fore in the greatest controversy of the New Testament--that of circumcision being yet binding on New Covenant believers. The Legalists declared, "Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved" (Acts 15:1). The church responds with a decree that says NOTHING of baptism now supplanting circumcision. Nor does the Apostle Paul in all his letters which interact substantially with this controversy. Their silence says everything! If it is as you suggest, why O WHY would they not have made it clear at that moment? The only suitable answer to that question is that they did NOT believe that baptism had supplanted circumcision but was a distinct sign belonging to the New Covenant.


----------



## Taylor (Jun 10, 2016)

As one who, as I said, is struggling with this issue, does anyone know of any person—whether on this board or published elsewhere—who has written a response to the book written by Pascal Denault? That, by far, is the most convincing argument for the Baptist position I have ever encountered. I have yet to find a satisfying response to it, this present work by Rev. Harrison most definitely included.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 10, 2016)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Scott,
> 
> You may call me a dispensationalist if you like. That takes nothing away from what I've said any more than it adds to your arguments. If you are persuaded there is nothing between your position and that of C. I. Schofield, it would show a surprising lack of understanding.



I understand that there is more than just 'Schofield' (sic) dispensationalism. It is that which I refer. Do you understand that? 



> If all that is required to show someone a dispensationalist is to point where they see discontinuity between the old and New Covenants, then such a charge can be levied at any honest Presbyterian, but to very little effect.



Well, not exactly. I get that there are biblical dispensations. God works that way. Both of us get that. However, from a covenanting perspective, what you are doing is adding a dispensation that covenanters disagree with and hence, we call that dispensationalism, because that is what it is. Granted, it is not Larkin dispensationalism, but none the less....



> The sole basis of your argument lies in saying that baptism has supplanted circumcision as the sign of the covenant and then take all the commands relating to circumcision as binding on the Church and believers.



Like what? Placing the sign? Yea...thats commanded!



> But this too is foreign to the New Testament. Nowhere is such a hermeneutic warranted.



In continuity and God's immutability...'to all generations'.



> It is rather similar to the old dispensatioanlists who would try to interpret the New Testament from the Old rather than the other way round. It's ironic I think.



Well, to be perfectly honest, I have never used that process myself; I read the whole of scriptures. The Old leads me to the new and the new helps me see more clearer the veiled items.



> The fact is, if the Apostles had any thought of baptism replacing circumcision as the sigh of the New Covenant, it most certainly would have come to the fore in the greatest controversy of the New Testament--that of circumcision being yet binding on New Covenant believers.



No. Water replaced the cutting. I see no struggle and neither did they. There were some issues mind you, but that was obviously worked out.



> The Legalists declared, "Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved" (Acts 15:1). The church responds with a decree that says NOTHING of baptism now supplanting circumcision. Nor does the Apostle Paul in all his letters which interact substantially with this controversy. Their silence says everything! If it is as you suggest, why O WHY would they not have made it clear at that moment?



Simply because they were speaking to people who wanted to keep circumcising. They didn't understand it and one has to consider the transitional idea. It took some time. For example, were the Apostles ever baptized? Peter? Paul? How about if one's child had just been circumcized and then Pentecost came the following day? Do you believe for a second that the Apostles were telling these jews, 'listen, I am sorry to tell u but the sign you placed yesterday was in vain! You must now baptize your child!' No! Absolutely not. And that is exactly why you never see any of that, anywhere!


----------



## Tyrese (Jun 10, 2016)

TheOldCourse said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> > Rev Winzer,
> ...



So basically what you're telling me is that if anyone disagrees with the paedobaptist view he must be as radical as the Anabaptist? Gotcha. Sounds to me you guys would just rather not address the issue at hand. I don't make this a topic of division, but it is interesting how paedobaptist "change up" when it's convenient for them to do so.


----------



## Tyrese (Jun 10, 2016)

Taylor Sexton said:


> As one who, as I said, is struggling with this issue, does anyone know of any person—whether on this board or published elsewhere—who has written a response to the book written by Pascal Denault? That, by far, is the most convincing argument for the Baptist position I have ever encountered. I have yet to find a satisfying response to it, this present work by Rev. Harrison most definitely included.



In my opinion, the reason why you haven't found anything that adequately responds to the "Reformed" Baptist perspective is because there isn't. To be fair to the OP I haven't read the book that he has shared. I'm glad that he shared it but does anyone really believe that there's a new argument to a practice that's simply not in Scripture? Brother, I would encourage you to focus on what the Scriptures actually say. I think a lot of Baptist continue to read and re-read paedobaptist arguments because they're discontent with being a Baptist.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Jun 10, 2016)

Tyrese said:


> TheOldCourse said:
> 
> 
> > Tyrese said:
> ...


If you take the modern RB tack on modified covenant theology as your argument then not necessarily. This particular argument with reference to the RPW is classically Anabaptist, however. 

Sent from my LG-D851 using Tapatalk


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jun 10, 2016)

Tyrese said:


> Brother, I would encourage you to focus on what the Scriptures actually say. I think a lot of Baptist continue to read and re-read paedobaptist arguments because they're discontent with being a Baptist.



Agreed. I was once in that category. I read everything the Presbyterians had to say on infant baptism in print. I wanted to be "truly" Reformed. But after going over all the arguments with a fine toothed comb, I realized it why it takes so much heavy reading to find infant baptism in the Bible--because it isn't there. You can only find it if you put it there. We need rather to take the Bible in its plain and simple sense with child-like faith and appreciation.


----------



## timfost (Jun 10, 2016)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> But we have no such example of infant baptism in the New Testament nor do we have one word declaring it to be the practice of the church or commanding it in any way. Unlike the issue of the Christian Sabbath, infant baptism is completely foreign to the New Testament and the Scriptures as a whole.



This is a common challenge to our position. Shishko often ased White to demonstrate where the OT household principle was abrogated. Of course, there is no place in scripture. I find this compelling. If being under the external covenant allowed the judgment of charity to children, the absense in the NT would be a regression. How would the new covenant be better if it didn't impart even greater benefits?

I make these points respectfully. My grandparents are baptist and are wonderful examples of what Christians are supposed to be. Though we worship in different churches, we have sweet fellowship and mutual respect.

I'm hoping that the tone of this discussion can evolve into a gentler, more compassionate discussion (from all sides). I'm praying that it is an edifying discussion, not an opportunity for dart throwing.


----------



## ProtestantBankie (Jun 10, 2016)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> > Brother, I would encourage you to focus on what the Scriptures actually say. I think a lot of Baptist continue to read and re-read paedobaptist arguments because they're discontent with being a Baptist.
> ...



There is more proof of infant baptism in the New Testament than there is of a woman ever taking the Lord's Supper. A point that Harrison makes in as many words. If you will not have infant baptism, you may as quickly stop women from coming to the table.


----------



## Taylor (Jun 10, 2016)

To be honest, I tire of the argument over New Testament examples of infant baptism or the absence thereof. That's not the issue, in my opinion. Whatever conclusion to which an individual comes on the matter is frankly irrelevant. The Baptist argues the absence of infant baptism, the Paedobaptist counters with household baptism, and vice-versa. The whole argument is unprofitable, in my experience.

The issue is the covenants, which nobody seems to be addressing.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 10, 2016)

If everyone is so tired, start a thread with a topic refined to your liking in one of the baptism forums. I frankly am finding the passages of PB a bit narrow with all these huge chips on folks' shoulders that need navigating. I know this is Matt's publishing forum but that does not mean anything goes and I am therefore shutting this down and folks should really be handling this in the proper forum.


----------

