# Infant Baptism?



## Zork

Hi.
As a new Reformed believer I never heard of Baptizing infants.
I was studying the WCF last night and I came across Infant Baptism, Is it Biblical?
Does it make me less Reformed if I don't agree with that one point?

Thanks in advance.

Help Please.


----------



## FCC

Good morning Ronny,
You will ignite a debate with this question! I can't think of many doctrines that divide the Reformed like infant baptism does. Welcome to the fold by the way!
To answer your questions, "Is it Biblical?" As a Reformed Presbyterian I will answer yes it is biblical! The WCF gives you an introduction to the doctrine so I would say follow up with the scripture references and prayer. Then study some other Reformed authors on the topic to learn more about it and pray! I would recommend Berkhof's Systematic Theology as a good starting point. He deals with the topic very well (in fact, it was Berkhof who first started me on the long road to infant baptism!). 
Second, "does it make you less Reformed?" I would say no it doesn't. Some will disagree I am sure, but it doesn't make you less Reformed. Many of the most faithful ministers that I am aware of are Reformed Baptists. We are all growing and learning so continue to study and to learn! Spend much time in prayer and Bible reading so that you can grow in your sanctification! 

May the Lord bless you in all the riches of His grace!

David


----------



## Curt

This should be interesting.


----------



## jwithnell

Infant baptism grows out of the Old Testament belief and practice that children born to believing parents are part of the covenant community and should be recognized as such. As in any covenantal sign, it holds out the promises of blessing to those who remain faithful to the covenant, and curses if the covenant is broken. As a parent, I recognize my role as a steward of the children God has given me and the awesome responsibility of bringing them up as covenant-keepers.


----------



## Zork

FCC said:


> Good morning Ronny,
> You will ignite a debate with this question! I can't think of many doctrines that divide the Reformed like infant baptism does. Welcome to the fold by the way!
> To answer your questions, "Is it Biblical?" As a Reformed Presbyterian I will answer yes it is biblical! The WCF gives you an introduction to the doctrine so I would say follow up with the scripture references and prayer. Then study some other Reformed authors on the topic to learn more about it and pray! I would recommend Berkhof's Systematic Theology as a good starting point. He deals with the topic very well (in fact, it was Berkhof who first started me on the long road to infant baptism!).
> Second, "does it make you less Reformed?" I would say no it doesn't. Some will disagree I am sure, but it doesn't make you less Reformed. Many of the most faithful ministers that I am aware of are Reformed Baptists. We are all growing and learning so continue to study and to learn! Spend much time in prayer and Bible reading so that you can grow in your sanctification!
> 
> May the Lord bless you in all the riches of His grace!
> 
> David



Thanks, I will do a deeper study.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Historical lesson here. 

Being Reformed has to do with *theology and practice*. The same goes for Reformed Baptists. You can't separate the two. The Baptists who put together the London Baptist Confessions never claimed to be Reformed even though they came out of their tradition. I believe they were noted as being Particular Baptist noting that they were not Reformed but held to the same tenants concerning the 5 points of Calvinism and a form of Covenant Theology (that did differ) from the Reformers.

Is infant Baptism biblical? I would say it is but you would have to understand that the Scriptures are one book and you would have to understand the continuity of the Bible in relationship to some of the things that are abrogated. The Continuity / Discontinuity issue plays into this discussion. Reformed Theology historically holds to a stronger continuity of the scriptures than the Particular Baptists held and hold to. So they aren't the same. It has to do with theology and practice. 

While Luther was a Reformer he is not considered to be a Reformed Theologian. There is also something called the Radical Reformation which is heresy. Those people might be considered to be reformers but they are not at all Reformed. 

You might want to ask others for recommendations on what books you can read online to help you understand Covenant Baptism better from both the paedo-baptist and credo-baptist positions.


----------



## Zork

Curt said:


> This should be interesting.



Interesting?


----------



## Kim G

Zork said:


> I was studying the WCF last night and I came across Infant Baptism, Is it Biblical?


 If you ask a Presbyterian, they will say it is biblical. If you ask a Reformed Baptist, they will say it is not biblical. I have heard the arguments for both sides and am stuck in the middle. 


> Does it make me less Reformed if I don't agree with that one point?


 Some Presbyterians say you must be Presbyterian to be truly reformed. But many do not take it that far. Obviously Reformed Baptists do not agree with infant baptism and they consider themselves reformed.


----------



## Zork

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Historical lesson here.
> 
> Being Reformed has to do with theology and practice. You can't separate the two. The Baptists who put together the London Baptist Confessions never claimed to be Reformed even though they came out of their tradition. I believe they were noted as being Particular Baptist noting that they were not Reformed but held to the same tenants concerning the 5 points of Calvinism and a form of Covenant Theology (that did differ) from the Reformers.
> 
> Is infant Baptism biblical? I would say it is but you would have to understand that the Scriptures are one book and you would have to understand the continuity of the Bible in relationship to some of the things that are abrogated. The Continuity / Discontinuity issues play into this discussion. Reformed Theology historically holds to a stronger continuity of the scriptures than the Particular Baptist held and hold to. So they aren't the same. It has to do with theology and practice.
> 
> While Luther was a Reformer he is not considered to be a Reformed Theologian. There is also something called the Radical Reformation which is heresy. Those people might be considered to be reformers but they are not at all Reformed.
> 
> You might want to ask others for recommendations on what books you can read on line to help you understand Covenant Baptism better from both the paedo-baptist and credo-baptist positions.



Okay, will do that. Thanks for the input.
So if I agree with the London Baptist Confession it doesn't really make you "Reformed".
So you must agree with WCF then?
This is going to bother me until I understand it. 

Ai ja jai.

---------- Post added at 02:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:52 PM ----------




Kim G said:


> Zork said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was studying the WCF last night and I came across Infant Baptism, Is it Biblical?
> 
> 
> 
> If you ask a Presbyterian, they will say it is biblical. If you ask a Reformed Baptist, they will say it is not biblical. I have heard the arguments for both sides and am stuck in the middle.
> 
> 
> 
> Does it make me less Reformed if I don't agree with that one point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some Presbyterians say you must be Presbyterian to be truly reformed. But many do not take it that far. Obviously Reformed Baptists do not agree with infant baptism and they consider themselves reformed.
Click to expand...


Thanx, very insightful.
But are there rules?(Like if you don't agree with that one point ,you are disqualified?)
I read a lot of commentaries about it last night. SO CONFUSING. True what you say about Baptists(Read London Baptist confession.) No mention of it there.


----------



## Edward

Zork said:


> But are there rules?(Like if you don't agree with that one point ,you are disqualified?)



It depends on the denomination. Some Presbyterian denominations require all members to subscribe to the Confession; others just require subscriptions by the officers. And among those that require subscription to the standards, some allow those officers to take exception to a particular provision of the standards if that exception does not strike at the heart of the doctrine. (A not uncommon exception in some presbyteries of the PCA, for example, would be for family recreation on the Lord's day). Infant baptism, however, should be one of those doctrines for which exception should not be made for those who subscribe.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

This might help you a bit. I wrote it years ago and have had to edit it a bit since I became Reformed. I first wrote it as a Reformed Baptist. 

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/p...storical-understanding-reformed-theology-316/


----------



## Peairtach

> Okay, will do that. Thanks for the input.
> So if I agree with the London Baptist Confession it doesn't really make you "Reformed".
> So you must agree with WCF then?
> This is going to bother me until I understand it.
> 
> Ai ja jai.



If a person doesn't agree with Calvinistic i.e. Reformed doctrine of salvation, he isn't Reformed in any sense.

(a) Total depravity

(b) Unconditional election

(c) Particular redemption

(d) Irresisitible grace

(e) Perseverance or preservation of the saints.

These truths attest to God's total sovereignty in salvation which is the hallmark of Reformed theology, along with Reformed theology's teaching on the covenants (i.e. Covenant Theology) as the way in which God relates to His creatures. 

Presbyterians and Dutch Reformed would view the Reformed Baptist approach to the Covenant of Grace in the New Testament, and therefore also to the Church, as somewhat, if not very, half-baked. 

Many would still be willing to talk about "Reformed Baptists" if they hold to Reformed soteriology, and have some kind of commitment to Covenant Theology, which nevertheless brakes down or gets garbled when we reach the New Testament.




> Thanx, very insightful.
> But are there rules?(Like if you don't agree with that one point ,you are disqualified?)
> I read a lot of commentaries about it last night. SO CONFUSING. True what you say about Baptists(Read London Baptist confession.) No mention of it there.



Don't be anxious. The Lord will lead you into all truth if you seek his guidance in prayer and carefully search the Scriptures and compare Scripture with Scripture. 

Neither side believes from Scripture that baptism is necessary for salvation. That's definitely not biblical or Reformed.

Many of our dear brothers in Christ on this board are Reformed Baptists who subscribe to the 1689 London Confession.


----------



## Curt

Zork said:


> Interesting?



Yes, Ronny. There are differing perspectives here on the PB, regarding baptism. At times this can cause division, although most on the PB act like ladies and gentlemen.


----------



## J. Dean

Curt said:


> Zork said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Ronny. There are differing perspectives here on the PB, regarding baptism. At times this can cause division, although most on the PB act like ladies and gentlemen.
Click to expand...

That's because we've had our coffee! 

Seriously, while I grew up full immersion, I don't have a problem with infant baptism (save for the Catholic and Orthodox understandings of IB).


----------



## Constantlyreforming

I suggest you read three books on the subject.

The Bible, as one book, Genesis through Revelation
William the Baptist
Jesus Loves the Little Children, by Daniel Hyde


----------



## py3ak

Zork said:


> Hi.
> As a new Reformed believer I never heard of Baptizing infants.
> I was studying the WCF last night and I came across Infant Baptism, Is it Biblical?
> Does it make me less Reformed if I don't agree with that one point?
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> Help Please.



It would, in conjunction with some other points, make you what today is called a Reformed Baptist. The two terms together modify one another: it is not "Reformed", simply - it is Reformed _Baptist_, with Baptist distinctives appended to and modifying standard Reformed doctrine. But it is not baptist simply, it is _Reformed_ Baptist, with a calvinistic, and indeed a Westminsterian and covenantal confession.


----------



## Marrow Man

I moved this thread to the Baptism forum since that seems more appropriate.



Zork said:


> I was studying the WCF last night and I came across Infant Baptism, Is it Biblical?
> Does it make me less Reformed if I don't agree with that one point?



If the WCF copy you have came with the footnotes, then that should answer the question. Consider that not only the Westminster divines held to this view, but virtually all of the 16th century Reformers, who were "sola Scriptura." Obviously they felt it was biblical.

If you are Baptist as your signature indicates. It will not be just this one point with which you will differ. I would suspect your view of church government will also be different from the WCF.


----------



## rbcbob

Zork said:


> So if I agree with the London Baptist Confession it doesn't really make you "Reformed"



I tend to say that Reformed Baptists are "further reformed". Paedobaptists (infant baptistizers) and Credobaptists (believer baptizers) get along fairly well on this board.


----------



## JML

Constantlyreforming said:


> I suggest you read three books on the subject.
> 
> The Bible, as one book, Genesis through Revelation
> William the Baptist
> Jesus Loves the Little Children, by Daniel Hyde



Personally, I think William the Baptist was a better book on mode than it was on subjects but it is still worth a read. 

I would also read some books from the other side. Unfortunately, many use dispensational reasoning. Perhaps some good credo recommendations should be made as well. When I studied the subject, I read books from both perspectives before I came to a conclusion.

Here are some credo side books:

1. From Paedobaptism to Credobaptism by Gary Crampton (Is the best one out there in my opinion because it is not dispensational or anti-continuity)
2. Baptism of Disciples Alone by Fred Malone (Southern Baptist, so a lot of the arguments are anti-continuity)
3. Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace by Paul Jewett (Haven't read it but has been recommended)

Paedo Side

1. William the Baptist
2. Covenant Baptism by Peter Bloomfield
3. Baptism in Scripture and History by Rowland S. Ward

Obviously there are many more that you may want to go with.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian

Aye! All Paedobaptists are also Credobaptists!


----------



## Constantlyreforming

GulfCoast Presbyterian said:


> Aye! All Paedobaptists are also Credobaptists!



yes.


----------



## Andres

Here is a short blog post I wrote in December titled, _Why I Chose to Have my Infant Son Baptized_. I wrote it with the target audience of friends/family who weren't familiar with paedobaptism, so it's a very simple read.


----------



## Mathetes

Marrow Man said:


> If you are Baptist as your signature indicates. It will not be just this one point with which you will differ. I would suspect your view of church government will also be different from the WCF.



I'm curious how Baptist and Presbyterian views on church government differ. Don't they both believe in a multiplicity of elders?



jwithnell said:


> Infant baptism grows out of the Old Testament belief and practice that children born to believing parents are part of the covenant community and should be recognized as such. As in any covenantal sign, it holds out the promises of blessing to those who remain faithful to the covenant, and curses if the covenant is broken. As a parent, I recognize my role as a steward of the children God has given me and the awesome responsibility of bringing them up as covenant-keepers.



For what it's worth, when I deconverted from Roman Catholicism and went church-searching for a good biblical Protestant church, I attended two of the Presbyterian churches here in Toronto for quite a while. I was still undecided on the issue of paedo/credobaptism when I started attending a Reformed Baptist church, so it's never been the issue to make me choose between one or the other. But after I thought about it for a while, it seems to me that circumcision was in times past a seal of the old covenant. And with the coming of Jesus, baptism has become the seal of the new. On this, I think we agree. But it seems to me that while one is _born_ into the old covenant, one is _reborn_ into the new, as per John3:5. Now, I don't refer to John 3:5 because of the reference to water. I don't believe that Jesus is speaking of baptism, but instead referring to Ezekiel 36:25-27. But if that is a passage about regeneration, then it appears to me that one has to be regenerate to be a part of the kingdom of God. If so, then if baptism is in fact a seal of the new covenant, then the seal should be administered when one is in fact a part of said covenant.

Now, I have heard the objection that we don't really have a window into a person's heart and that a person may be baptized and then become an apostate. But I don't think that we were ever intended to have an infallible criteria to determine someone's regenerate state. As per John 15:8, if bearing fruit is sufficient to prove one's status as a disciple, then it should be a sufficient criteria to allow baptism.

Ok that was long-winded, but I'm just curious what the paedo response to that would be.


----------



## JML

Mathetes said:


> I'm curious how Baptist and Presbyterian views on church government differ. Don't they both believe in a multiplicity of elders?



A lot. Probably should start another thread though.


----------



## jgilberAZ

Not trying to argue ... truly just seeking information ... as a relatively recent reformed (Baptist) myself. Well, I say recent reformed, but that's not entirely correct. My studies have led me to calvinism, then reformed theology (for the most part) ... only recently though aligning myself with a reformed baptist church instead of a Dispensational baptist church.

That said ... as scripture is our rule and authority ...

What is the scriptural support showing that baptism in the new covenant is the same (or a replacement for) circumcision in the old covenant?

Thanks.


----------



## JML

Mathetes said:


> And with the coming of Jesus, baptism has become the seal of the new.



Someone correct me if I am wrong, but for a Baptist, the seal of the New Covenant is the Holy Spirit, not baptism.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian

Mathetes said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are Baptist as your signature indicates. It will not be just this one point with which you will differ. I would suspect your view of church government will also be different from the WCF.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious how Baptist and Presbyterian views on church government differ. Don't they both believe in a multiplicity of elders?
Click to expand...


The vast majority of Baptist churches are congregationalist, and many SBC churches are very anti-elder rule. See this polemic, for example: http://baptistcenter.com/11 Wring Revision.pdf


----------



## Mathetes

John Lanier said:


> Mathetes said:
> 
> 
> 
> And with the coming of Jesus, baptism has become the seal of the new.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone correct me if I am wrong, but for a Baptist, the seal of the New Covenant is the Holy Spirit, not baptism.
Click to expand...


I thought that was Pentecostals, but we may be talking about different things.


----------



## Zork

Curt said:


> Zork said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Ronny. There are differing perspectives here on the PB, regarding baptism. At times this can cause division, although most on the PB act like ladies and gentlemen.
Click to expand...


Oh, Last thing I want is that.


----------



## nicnap

rbcbob said:


> I tend to say that Reformed Baptists are "further reformed". Paedobaptists (infant baptistizers) and Credobaptists (believer baptizers) get along fairly well on this board.



I prefer to say Full-baptists (a.k.a covenantal baptists/Presbyterians/household baptizers/ and if we must paedobaptists) and half-baptists (professor/"believer" only baptists).


----------



## Kim G

John Lanier said:


> Someone correct me if I am wrong, but for a Baptist, the seal of the New Covenant is the Holy Spirit, not baptism.



Actually, I think that Reformed Baptists believe the seal of the New Covenant is baptism. However, they believe that baptism is only to be administered to those who have a credible profession of faith, since only those with saving faith are true members of the New Covenant.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## JML

Mathetes said:


> John Lanier said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathetes said:
> 
> 
> 
> And with the coming of Jesus, baptism has become the seal of the new.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone correct me if I am wrong, but for a Baptist, the seal of the New Covenant is the Holy Spirit, not baptism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought that was Pentecostals, but we may be talking about different things.
Click to expand...


I assure you we are. 

*2 Corinthians 1:21-22*
"Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and anointed us is God, who also sealed us and gave us the Spirit in our hearts as a pledge."

*Ephesians 1:13-14*
"In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory."

*Ephesians 4:30*
"Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption."


The Pentecostal takes it as a special outpouring of the Spirit that enables one to speak in tongues, etc. I am just talking about the fact that when one believes the Holy Spirit comes and dwells in him. This is the seal that one is a true believer, because they have the Holy Spirit.

*Romans 8:9*
"However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him."

---------- Post added at 10:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:27 AM ----------




Kim G said:


> Actually, I think that Reformed Baptists believe the seal of the New Covenant is baptism. However, they believe that baptism is only to be administered to those who have a credible profession of faith, since only those with saving faith are true members of the New Covenant.
> 
> Please correct me if I'm wrong.



You may be right. My thought was that baptism to the Baptist was the sign but not the seal. The Holy Spirit is the seal.


----------



## Mathetes

John Lanier said:


> Mathetes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Lanier said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathetes said:
> 
> 
> 
> And with the coming of Jesus, baptism has become the seal of the new.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone correct me if I am wrong, but for a Baptist, the seal of the New Covenant is the Holy Spirit, not baptism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought that was Pentecostals, but we may be talking about different things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I assure you we are.
> 
> *2 Corinthians 1:21-22*
> "Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and anointed us is God, who also sealed us and gave us the Spirit in our hearts as a pledge."
> 
> *Ephesians 1:13-14*
> "In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory."
> 
> *Ephesians 4:30*
> "Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption."
> 
> 
> The Pentecostal takes it as a special outpouring of the Spirit that enables one to speak in tongues, etc. I am just talking about the fact that when one believes the Holy Spirit comes and dwells in him. This is the seal that one is a true believer, because they have the Holy Spirit.
> 
> *Romans 8:9*
> "However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him."
Click to expand...


I see what you mean, although I'm looking over my church membership handbook and it says the following on baptism:

"It is a symbol of the believer's spiritual baptism into one body (1 Corinthians 12:13)"

"It is a testimony that you desire to be identified with Christ (Colossians 2:12)"

"It acknowledges the Lordship of Christ as we obey (Luke 6:46)"

So although it doesn't quite say it outright, it does seem to indicate in so many words that baptism is a seal or "signing" of the new covenant in Christ. Perhaps Reformed Baptist churches differ from other Baptist churches on the matter, though.

edit: wrote this before I saw your response to Kim G


----------



## Marrow Man

Mathetes said:


> I'm curious how Baptist and Presbyterian views on church government differ. Don't they both believe in a multiplicity of elders?



I'm assuming that, as a Baptist, you don't have presbyteries or Synods and that you adopt a congregational/independent form of church government.


----------



## Zork

*Okay, Correct me if I got it wrong with the following.*

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

14. sanctified-Those inseparably connected with the people of God are hallowed thereby, so that the latter may retain the connection without impairing their own sanctity (compare 1Ti 4:5); nay, rather imparting to the former externally some degree of their own hallowed character, and so preparing the way for the unbeliever becoming at last sanctified inwardly by faith.

by . by-rather, "in . in"; that is, in virtue of the marriage tie between them.

by the husband-The oldest manuscripts read, "by the brother." It is the fact of the husband being a "brother," that is, a Christian, though the wife is not so, that sanctifies or hallows the union.

else . children unclean-that is, beyond the hallowed pale of God's people: in contrast to "holy," that is, all that is within the consecrated limits [Conybeare and Howson]. The phraseology accords with that of the Jews, who regarded the heathen as "unclean," and all of the elect nation as "holy," that is, partakers of the holy covenant. Children were included in the covenant, as God made it not only with Abraham, but with his "seed after" him (Ge 17:7). So the faith of one Christian parent gives to the children a near relationship to the Church, just as if both parents were Christians (compare Ro 11:16). Timothy, the bearer of this Epistle, is an instance in point (Ac 16:1). Paul appeals to the Corinthians as recognizing the principle, that the infants of heathen parents would not be admissible to Christian baptism, because there is no faith on the part of the parents; but where one parent is a believer, the children are regarded as not aliens from, but admissible even in infancy as sharers in, the Christian covenant: for the Church presumes that the believing parent will rear the child in the Christian faith. Infant baptism tacitly superseded infant circumcision, just as the Christian Lord's day gradually superseded the Jewish sabbath, without our having any express command for, or record of, transference. The setting aside of circumcision and of sabbaths in the case of the Gentiles was indeed expressly commanded by the apostles and Paul, but the substitution of infant baptism and of the Lord's day were tacitly adopted, not expressly enacted. No explicit mention of it occurs till Irenæus in the third century; but no society of Christians that we read of disputed its propriety till fifteen hundred years after Christ. Anabaptists would have us defer baptism till maturity as the child cannot understand the nature of it. But a child may be made heir of an estate: it is his, though incapable at the time of using or comprehending its advantage; he is not hereafter to acquire the title and claim to it: he will hereafter understand his claim, and be capable of employing his wealth: he will then, moreover, become responsible for the use he makes of it.


----------



## thbslawson

B.B. Warfield's "Polemics on Infant Baptism" was what _won me over_ so to speak. Here's a link to it:

The Polemics of Infant Baptism by Benjamin B. Warfield

But to answer your other question, no, I don't think it makes you less reformed. This is one of these issues that has divided godly men in the "reformed camp" for centuries, and I doubt it will be settled until Christ returns.


----------



## Zork

thbslawson said:


> B.B. Warfield's "Polemics on Infant Baptism" was what _won me over_ so to speak. Here's a link to it:
> 
> The Polemics of Infant Baptism by Benjamin B. Warfield
> 
> But to answer your other question, no, I don't think it makes you less reformed. This is one of these issues that has divided godly men in the "reformed camp" for centuries, and I doubt it will be settled until Christ returns.



What I don't understand is everywhere I look I see Division because of Infant baptism, Am I not Seeing the bigger picture or is it a SMALL issue to quarrel about.
To baptize or not to baptize, does it really make that big a difference?


----------



## Mathetes

Marrow Man said:


> Mathetes said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious how Baptist and Presbyterian views on church government differ. Don't they both believe in a multiplicity of elders?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm assuming that, as a Baptist, you don't have presbyteries or Synods and that you adopt a congregational/independent form of church government.
Click to expand...


Can't say that we do to the former, and the latter sounds about right.


----------



## JML

Zork said:


> thbslawson said:
> 
> 
> 
> B.B. Warfield's "Polemics on Infant Baptism" was what _won me over_ so to speak. Here's a link to it:
> 
> The Polemics of Infant Baptism by Benjamin B. Warfield
> 
> But to answer your other question, no, I don't think it makes you less reformed. This is one of these issues that has divided godly men in the "reformed camp" for centuries, and I doubt it will be settled until Christ returns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I don't understand is everywhere I look I see Division because of Infant baptism, Am I not Seeing the bigger picture or is it a SMALL issue to quarrel about.
> To baptize or not to baptize, does it really make that big a difference?
Click to expand...


First of all, baptism is an ordinance that we are commanded by the Scriptures to follow. So yes, it does make a difference if one is not baptized (although not in salvation, WCF 28:5).

*It is a big issue because the Paedobaptist says this:*


Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 28, Section 5
"it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance" (infant baptism)
One cannot join most Presbyterian churches if their children are not baptized. 
Some also would withhold the Lord's Supper from those of a different church whose children are not baptized.


*It is a big issue because the Credo or Anti-paedobaptist says this:*


One cannot be a member of the church unless you are baptized by immersion after a profession of faith, i.e. those baptized as infants are to be re-baptized or baptized for the first time if you like 
One cannot partake of the Lord's Supper unless you have been baptized by immersion after a profession of faith.
Some would say also that you are in sin by not being baptized by immersion or because your children were baptized without a profession.


----------



## CharlieJ

Zork said:


> What I don't understand is everywhere I look I see Division because of Infant baptism, Am I not Seeing the bigger picture or is it a SMALL issue to quarrel about.
> To baptize or not to baptize, does it really make that big a difference?



Well, there are two reasons I think it is vitally important. First, the Reformed churches confess that there are two marks of the church: 1) the administrations of the sacraments and 2) the preaching of the gospel. So, who gets baptized impinges directly on one of the 2 marks.

Second, Reformed theology holds that the sacraments actually confer grace. So, from the paedobaptist perspective, denying baptism to an infant is denying the infant both its proper place in the church and the grace imparted by baptism. Many Baptists outside the strictly Reformed type don't believe in grace-imparting sacraments; they merely have human works called ordinances. Since it doesn't do anything anyway, I can see why they would be inclined to think it doesn't matter. (Yet, for some reason, they do care. Try to tell an average Baptist pastor about an infant baptism and he'll hit the roof.)


----------



## Zork

John Lanier said:


> Zork said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thbslawson said:
> 
> 
> 
> B.B. Warfield's "Polemics on Infant Baptism" was what _won me over_ so to speak. Here's a link to it:
> 
> The Polemics of Infant Baptism by Benjamin B. Warfield
> 
> But to answer your other question, no, I don't think it makes you less reformed. This is one of these issues that has divided godly men in the "reformed camp" for centuries, and I doubt it will be settled until Christ returns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I don't understand is everywhere I look I see Division because of Infant baptism, Am I not Seeing the bigger picture or is it a SMALL issue to quarrel about.
> To baptize or not to baptize, does it really make that big a difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, baptism is an ordinance that we are commanded by the Scriptures to follow. So yes, it does make a difference if one is not baptized (although not in salvation, WCF 28:5).
> 
> *It is a big issue because the Paedobaptist says this:*
> 
> 
> Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 28, Section 5
> "it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance" (infant baptism)
> One cannot join most Presbyterian churches if their children are not baptized.
> Some also would withhold the Lord's Supper from those of a different church whose children are not baptized.
> 
> 
> *It is a big issue because the Credo or Anti-paedobaptist says this:*
> 
> 
> One cannot be a member of the church unless you are baptized by immersion after a profession of faith, i.e. those baptized as infants are to be re-baptized or baptized for the first time if you like
> One cannot partake of the Lord's Supper unless you have been baptized by immersion after a profession of faith.
> Some would say also that you are in sin by not being baptized by immersion or because your children were baptized without a profession.
Click to expand...


Okay, But isn't there a difference between Baptism and Infant Baptism then?
Sounds a bit Legalistic don't you think?
I understand that you must be baptized before taking part of all that but babies? Bit Extreme. LOL. 
What you said was very helpful, thank you. I understand the Implications now.

---------- Post added at 08:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:19 PM ----------




> 1. denying baptism to an infant is denying the infant both its proper place in the church and the 2. grace imparted by baptism


. 

First part makes sense(I like it), second part needs explanation with scriptural proof please. (I'm defending Infant Baptism at work, Starting to see big picture of infant baptism)


----------



## thbslawson

Zork said:


> thbslawson said:
> 
> 
> 
> B.B. Warfield's "Polemics on Infant Baptism" was what _won me over_ so to speak. Here's a link to it:
> 
> The Polemics of Infant Baptism by Benjamin B. Warfield
> 
> But to answer your other question, no, I don't think it makes you less reformed. This is one of these issues that has divided godly men in the "reformed camp" for centuries, and I doubt it will be settled until Christ returns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I don't understand is everywhere I look I see Division because of Infant baptism, Am I not Seeing the bigger picture or is it a SMALL issue to quarrel about.
> To baptize or not to baptize, does it really make that big a difference?
Click to expand...


Ronny,

I can't speak for everyone here, but when you ask if this is a "small" issue, my answer is both yes and no. First, no, it's not a small issue, but an issue of being obedient to the Lord. I won't venture to go into a full explanation of infant baptism here. As you read, you're going to begin to understand the arguments both for and against it. So if it's something that is Scriptural, commanded by God, it is no small thing for us to ignore it and disobey it. 

But secondly, yes, it is a "small" issue in the grand scheme of things. The difficulty with this issue is that there is good Biblical evidence to support both positions. It isn't something that is as clear cut as, say, the virgin birth or the resurrection. To deny those doctrines is to simply deny Scripture. But both Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians are making honest arguments from Scripture, and good ones too. I sat in the middle for a long long time on this because both arguments ARE so good. At the end of the day, I believe the paedo-baptist position makes the strongest argument and seems most consistent with the whole of Scripture. But I could never fault anyone for maintaining a credo-baptist position as long as they can make an honest argument from Scripture. It is "small" in that neither Reformed Baptists nor Presbyterians believe that baptism saves, so while important, taking one position or the other does not ultimately compromise the gospel or other major Scriptural teachings. 

I personally believe there should be greater cooperation between Reformed Baptist and Presbyterian brothers, and am encouraged by efforts over the past few years to stand together in defense of the gospel. At the end of the day that which unites us is far greater than our doctrinal differences in regards to baptism.


----------



## py3ak

Zork said:


> (I'm defending Infant Baptism at work)



Please don't do that. It's understandable and commendable that understanding something new is exciting; but it's often a good idea to let ideas digest and settle first. I'm delighted to see you receiving so many good answers to important questions, and if you can be patient about putting all of these things together (for which the confessions are an excellent help) it will help your understanding of them to be more sober and consistent.


----------



## Mushroom




----------



## cajunhillbilly53

Zork said:


> *Okay, Correct me if I got it wrong with the following.*
> 
> Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
> 
> 14. sanctified-Those inseparably connected with the people of God are hallowed thereby, so that the latter may retain the connection without impairing their own sanctity (compare 1Ti 4:5); nay, rather imparting to the former externally some degree of their own hallowed character, and so preparing the way for the unbeliever becoming at last sanctified inwardly by faith.
> 
> by . by-rather, "in . in"; that is, in virtue of the marriage tie between them.
> 
> by the husband-The oldest manuscripts read, "by the brother." It is the fact of the husband being a "brother," that is, a Christian, though the wife is not so, that sanctifies or hallows the union.
> 
> else . children unclean-that is, beyond the hallowed pale of God's people: in contrast to "holy," that is, all that is within the consecrated limits [Conybeare and Howson]. The phraseology accords with that of the Jews, who regarded the heathen as "unclean," and all of the elect nation as "holy," that is, partakers of the holy covenant. Children were included in the covenant, as God made it not only with Abraham, but with his "seed after" him (Ge 17:7). So the faith of one Christian parent gives to the children a near relationship to the Church, just as if both parents were Christians (compare Ro 11:16). Timothy, the bearer of this Epistle, is an instance in point (Ac 16:1). Paul appeals to the Corinthians as recognizing the principle, that the infants of heathen parents would not be admissible to Christian baptism, because there is no faith on the part of the parents; but where one parent is a believer, the children are regarded as not aliens from, but admissible even in infancy as sharers in, the Christian covenant: for the Church presumes that the believing parent will rear the child in the Christian faith. Infant baptism tacitly superseded infant circumcision, just as the Christian Lord's day gradually superseded the Jewish sabbath, without our having any express command for, or record of, transference. The setting aside of circumcision and of sabbaths in the case of the Gentiles was indeed expressly commanded by the apostles and Paul, but the substitution of infant baptism and of the Lord's day were tacitly adopted, not expressly enacted. No explicit mention of it occurs till Irenæus in the third century; but no society of Christians that we read of disputed its propriety till fifteen hundred years after Christ. Anabaptists would have us defer baptism till maturity as the child cannot understand the nature of it. But a child may be made heir of an estate: it is his, though incapable at the time of using or comprehending its advantage; he is not hereafter to acquire the title and claim to it: he will hereafter understand his claim, and be capable of employing his wealth: he will then, moreover, become responsible for the use he makes of it.





Could not have said it better myself


----------



## Pilgrim

John Lanier said:


> Constantlyreforming said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you read three books on the subject.
> 
> The Bible, as one book, Genesis through Revelation
> William the Baptist
> Jesus Loves the Little Children, by Daniel Hyde
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I think William the Baptist was a better book on mode than it was on subjects but it is still worth a read.
> 
> I would also read some books from the other side. Unfortunately, many use dispensational reasoning. Perhaps some good credo recommendations should be made as well. When I studied the subject, I read books from both perspectives before I came to a conclusion.
> 
> Here are some credo side books:
> 
> 1. From Paedobaptism to Credobaptism by Gary Crampton (Is the best one out there in my opinion because it is not dispensational or anti-continuity)
> 2. Baptism of Disciples Alone by Fred Malone (Southern Baptist, so a lot of the arguments are anti-continuity)
> 3. Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace by Paul Jewett (Haven't read it but has been recommended)
> 
> Paedo Side
> 
> 1. William the Baptist
> 2. Covenant Baptism by Peter Bloomfield
> 3. Baptism in Scripture and History by Rowland S. Ward
> 
> Obviously there are many more that you may want to go with.
Click to expand...



Considering the fact that Fred Malone is a subscriber to the 2nd London Baptist Confession and the church he pastors is affiliated with ARBCA, (as well as the SBC) I don't know that it would be quite accurate to say that he falls on the discontinuity side, all things considered. I'm assuming by continuity you mean non-covenantal, even from the Baptist perspective. Now it's possible that he may lean more that way compared to Dr. Crampton, whose work I have not read. But I think it's safe to say that Dr. Malone is more on the continuity side than most of the contributors to _Believer's Baptism_ edited by Schreiner and Wright, for example. That being said, I think the latter book has some good chapters as well. 

I do think Jewett's book is still one of the better treatments, his clear deficiencies on other subjects like egalitarianism notwithstanding. David Kingdon's _Children of Abraham_ is still cited as a landmark work nearly 40 years after its publication. Unfortunately it's been long out of print and hard to find. I've seen reports that he's supposed to be working on a revision but if so it has yet to see the light of day.

Actually, offhand I can't think of any monographs on the baptism issue from the Baptist side that are approached from an explicitly dispensational viewpoint. (I'm using the word here strictly to denote those who believe that the church is only made up of those saved between Pentecost and the pretrib rapture.) Matthew Waymeyer, a graduate of The Masters Seminary, produced a short book a few years ago that is published by Kress Publications. I haven't read it. But Dr. Greg Welty, a Southern Baptist subscriber to the 1689, recommends the book nonetheless and says that Waymeyer's dispensationalism didn't really factor into his work in that particular book. Other than that, I can't think of any. Many of the contributors to the _Believers Baptism_ volume are closer to New Covenant Theology but to my knowledge none are dispensational.


----------



## Weston Stoler

My pastor says that he wants the door of church membership to be as big as salvation. If you are a saved believer you can become a member, even if you have no been baptized. 

Anyways this is a great place to have questions answered about baptism, I also would contact a presbyterian (PCA, OPC, or possibly EPC) pastor in your city and sit and talk with him. It would be more helpful then reading these arguments, even though they are well written.


----------



## JML

Pilgrim said:


> Actually, offhand I can't think of any monographs on the baptism issue from the Baptist side that are approached from an explicitly dispensational viewpoint. (I'm using the word here strictly to denote those who believe that the church is only made up of those saved between Pentecost and the pretrib rapture.)



Hi Chris,

I actually said "many use dispensational reasoning." When I said that I had in mind the New Covenant theology types that have written some on baptism. They are quick to say that something was Old Covenant and completely discount it just like the dispensational camp does. I didn't mean they were dispensationals. Thanks for your input and recommendations.


----------



## py3ak

Weston Stoler said:


> My pastor says that he wants the door of church membership to be as big as salvation. If you are a saved believer you can become a member, even if you have no been baptized.



Baptism serves as a sign of the solemn admission of the baptized party into the visible church. Why not make their admission known in the way God has appointed?
Furthermore, the church is to teach people to observe all that Christ has commanded - including baptism. If someone is not willing to be baptized, why would they wish to be a church member?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Agree or disagree?

A Puritan's Mind » What Does it Mean to be Reformed – Really? – by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon

AMR


----------



## Zork

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Agree or disagree?
> 
> A Puritan's Mind » What Does it Mean to be Reformed – Really? – by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon
> 
> AMR



Very Insightful, I agree.
That was exactly what I was looking for in one of my questions.
I agree with his conclusion, You can't call yourself reformed if you're not 100% with their teachings.

So then you must agree with the WCF 100% or you're not Reformed?
Now the question is, What do you call yourself if you differ?


----------



## matt01

Zork said:


> What I don't understand is everywhere I look I see Division because of Infant baptism, Am I not Seeing the bigger picture or is it a SMALL issue to quarrel about.
> To baptize or not to baptize, does it really make that big a difference?



It is not an indifferent issue. My wife and I are Reformed Baptists, but belong to a PCA church due to providence. We have obviously not baptized our children. While we do not argue with the brethren about baptism, it is something that is mentioned regularly, and which we think about a great deal - particularly when the church prayers for the covenant children...


----------



## Pilgrim

Weston Stoler said:


> My pastor says that he wants the door of church membership to be as big as salvation. *If you are a saved believer you can become a member, even if you have no been baptized. *



I think you must have misunderstood your pastor. Are you sure he didn't instead mean that disagreement over baptism is no bar to membership and that you don't have to be a paedobaptist to join? Unless things in the PCA are more of a shambles than I imagined, no PCA congregation will admit anyone into membership who hasn't been baptized by their definition.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

jgilberAZ said:


> What is the scriptural support showing that baptism in the new covenant is the same (or a replacement for) circumcision in the old covenant?
> 
> Thanks.



Jeff,

If that's the same church, then is John still the pastor where you attend? I used to attend a reformed baptist church in 07 named grace covenant church in Gilbert. Anyways if it is, let John know I said hello.

For your question, it's not a matter of replacement.... Rather it's a continuity of renewal. Christ has come and established a new covenant sign for new testament believers. The sign of God's people in the OT was circumcision, but now the sign for us is baptism. There is way more into this subject then that, but that's a very basic simplistic version. I'd suggest reading the confessions and a few books these gentlemen on the PB have listed. Most importantly, read scripture... Study scripture, and pray on it.


----------



## KaphLamedh

Luther was one of the greatest reformer and he was influence to Jean Calvin in many topics. But, Luther believed and Lutherans believe still today in baptismal regeneration.
I have understood from the Scriptures that baptism is something that Christian him self have to do after conversion. Acts 2:37-38 is one where I stand for credo-baptism.
May God be merciful to us, that we do not attack against our brothers in Christ, even if we have disagreement in this issue.


----------



## toddpedlar

Weston Stoler said:


> My pastor says that he wants the door of church membership to be as big as salvation. If you are a saved believer you can become a member, even if you have no been baptized.
> 
> Anyways this is a great place to have questions answered about baptism, I also would contact a presbyterian (PCA, OPC, or possibly EPC) pastor in your city and sit and talk with him. It would be more helpful then reading these arguments, even though they are well written.



Hold it, Weston. This is what your pastor at the PCA church says? You can be a member if you've not been baptized???? Are you sure you heard that correctly?


----------

