# Explaining Infant baptisim to in-laws



## Reformingstudent (Feb 25, 2006)

Well I knew somewhere down the line the subject of our sons baptism would become an issue with my in-laws, (they are southern baptist) as they feel that my son should be baptised again if he so chooses. I have explained to my wife, who just wants to keep peace in the family, that he does not need to be re-baptised as that would make it seem as though his first baptism wasn't valid. How can I explain this to them so they can understand? 
they are glad that we are bringing our son up in church and trying to teach him the ways of the Lord although they have many concerns about our Church (mostly because they are Arminian hard line baptist and have no understanding of what true biblical faith is) Can't talk to them as they only want to know what they know and do not wish to be taught.
Should I leave the decision up to my son who is now only 7 as to whether he wants to be baptised again or not? I think that as head of the family, my decision should be the final word on the issue but do not wish to be difficult.
Just wanted some other opinions. Thanks


----------



## Puddleglum (Feb 25, 2006)

You're in a PCA church, right? And you're Presbyterian, right? 

No, your son shouldn't have to decide whether or not to be re-baptized. He is under both your authority and the authority of the church - and if I understand right, neither you nor the church thinks that he should be rebaptized. 
There may come a time many years later when he could decide to be re-baptized and may have reason to do so - but not now. 

And I don't think that it is a good idea to put the burden of the decision on your son. You'd basically be making him pick between you and his grandparents . . .


----------



## py3ak (Feb 25, 2006)

Jessica is right on.


----------



## Presbyrino (Feb 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Reformingstudent_
> How can I explain this to them so they can understand?
> Should I leave the decision up to my son who is now only 7 as to whether he wants to be baptised again or not? I think that as head of the family, my decision should be the final word on the issue but do not wish to be difficult. Just wanted some other opinions. Thanks



You are the head of your household, and you need to explain to your in-laws that as head of your household, you are obeying the scripture in having your son baptized as an infant. Of, course you need to do this in a gracious, respectful but firm manner. Nor should you seek to get dragged into endless debates at every family gathering over the issue of baptism. If you don't set your in-laws straight on your authority, you may gain some short-term peace, but many more problems in the long run.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 25, 2006)

My opinion is that re-baptism is wrong. Baptism points to regeneration. And as a believer in the doctrines of grace, you know that regeneration only happens once, not twice. 

And I agree with what Jessica said above. Letting your son choose for himself would force him to choose between you and his grandparents, and that isn't fair to him. Also, in doing that, you would basically be sending him the message that baptism is a doctrine that "doesn't matter", i.e. you can just "do whatever you want". But hopefully this is not the message you want to teach your son. Rather, teach him about being in covenant with God, and the fact that his covenantal relationship with God started from the time he became your son, not from the time he makes some personal confession.

Also, I have multiple friends who have been re-baptized, and they regret having done it. They realize now that they were disdaining their first baptism, as if it wasn't good enough, as if it wasn't valid.

I believe that re-baptism should NEVER happen!

I want to commend you for wrestling with this issue. Some parents would carelessly let their children get re-baptized without even thinking about it. Thank you for being discerning in this area, and for recognizing the importance of making a Godly decision.


"There is one body and one Spirit . . . one Lord, one faith, *one baptism*" (Eph. 4:4-5)


Blessings!


----------



## Presbyrino (Feb 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by py3ak_
> Jessica is right on.




Yes, jessica, very wise words indeed!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 25, 2006)

Jessica is spot on.

Children in your household don't have liberty to defy your authority in such issues. It is improper for others, outside the household, to confuse a minor and undermine your authority in such matters. Keep the peace when possible, continue to be a good witness of Covenant parenting to them. If they get too insistent or openly undermine your authority you may have to be firm in reminding them of your authority and the impropriety of their interference. Be as gentle as possible but you have every right to insist.


----------



## ReadBavinck (Feb 25, 2006)

Tom,

Thanks for writing about a compicated situation in a clear and short post. It really helps the board get clear focused answers.

Christopher


----------



## Reformingstudent (Feb 25, 2006)

My mother in-law made the comment to my wife the other day when it was told her that our Son had been baptised by sprinkling that immersion was the only proper mode of baptism, so of course in her narrow view, our sons baptism was not "real" baptism.
They mean well but are very neurotic about things like this. They are hard to figure out at times but I live and let live with them.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Feb 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Reformingstudent_
> ...Should I leave the decision up to my son who is now only 7 as to whether he wants to be baptised again or not? I think that as head of the family, my decision should be the final word on the issue but do not wish to be difficult.
> Just wanted some other opinions. Thanks



Tom,

I agree with those who've said that it's your decision. 

As to helping your relatives see the paedobaptist case (you may not convince them) you should take them to Abraham in Gen 17 and then to Rom 4. That's the heart of the PB case. You might also take them to Col 2 where Paul links baptism and circumcision. The point would be to show them that you're doing it from biblical principle and not sentiment or tradition.

I'm suggesting that you ask them if you can explain why PB is the most biblical thing to do. You're not asking to change their minds or their views but just to help them see why you think it's biblical.

Try this  essay. Perhaps they're willing to read it. I wrote it to try to help baptists see the PB case.

If they're not willing even to hear your case, then there's not much you can do. 

As to in-laws and pressure not to initiate children into the covenant community, I have found the Zipporah case instructive. Granted it's a difficult passage, but it explains perhaps why Moses didn't initiate his second son. Certainly it suggests that the Lord takes a dim view of not initiating children into the covenant community.

Blessings,

rsc


----------



## Steve Owen (Feb 25, 2006)

As and when your son comes to maturity and, God willing, to faith, he will decide for himself what is right in this matter. In the meantime, he is under your authority and I hope that your in-laws will have the good sense to leave matters alone. They should be thanking the Lord that their daughter has a Christian husband and that their son is being brought up in a Christian home.

Martin


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> As and when your son comes to maturity and, God willing, to faith, he will decide for himself what is right in this matter. In the meantime, he is under your authority and I hope that your in-laws will have the good sense to leave matters alone. They should be thanking the Lord that their daughter has a Christian husband and that their son is being brought up in a Christian home.
> 
> Martin



Martin,

I just want to thank you and commend you for this excellent, irenic post.

When I saw you had posted on this thread, I fully expected to see you come with your guns blazing against what you consider not to be "real baptism". 

But you pleasantly surprised me. You simply agreed that the child is under the father's authority, and that the in-laws should leave them alone, with thankfullness that their son-in-law is a Christian who loves the Lord.

Thank you, Martin.


----------



## Reformingstudent (Feb 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Reformingstudent_
> ...



Thanks Scott. I just got done burning Bob McKelvey's A case for Infant baptism: confessions of a former baptist. http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?currSection=sermonsspeaker&sermonID=831051405 Not sure if they will take the time to listen to it or not as most of the time as I have tried to share anything with them, he usually dismisses it without a second thought. Now if I were a baptist on the other hand... lol


----------



## Steve Owen (Feb 26, 2006)

Tom,
I'm sure you have more sense than to go on a crusade to convert your in-laws to Presbyterianism. I can think of nothing more likely to cause family disharmony. Treat your in-laws with the respect that you desire from them, and do not imagine that there is some magic paedo-baptist bullet that will convert them to your way of thinking.

Be thankful that they raised their daughter in such a way that she became a suitable bride for you. The whole matter will resolve itself one way or another when your son becomes old enough to decide for himself. Until then: least said, soonest mended.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## Reformingstudent (Feb 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Tom,
> I'm sure you have more sense than to go on a crusade to convert your in-laws to Presbyterianism. I can think of nothing more likely to cause family disharmony. Treat your in-laws with the respect that you desire from them, and do not imagine that there is some magic paedo-baptist bullet that will convert them to your way of thinking.
> 
> ...



Martin,
No, I am not trying to convert my in-laws to Presbyterianism (and what is wrong with that pray tell?  ) Just wanted to explain to them why we baptize our kids. Not trying to force the issue on them but would like to have them have a better understanding.

Blessings.


Tom


----------



## Puritanhead (Feb 28, 2006)

Presbyterians and their little baptismal quarrels with Southern Baptists.


----------



## Pilgrim (Mar 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> Presbyterians and their little baptismal quarrels with Southern Baptists.



The Southern Baptists are now having a quarrel amongst themselves on baptism over the new IMB guidelines.

[Edited on 3-1-2006 by Pilgrim]


----------



## Preach (Mar 1, 2006)

Chris, what does IMB stand for?


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Apr 16, 2006)

Sorry to "resurrect" a thread on Resurrection Day but I was going to ask something related to this anyways. So I thought I'd just post it on here.

I was going to ask what does one do when they have been rebaptized? I'm a Baptist so I would have to be very convinced of paedo-baptistm to change my beliefs. I was baptized in the Catholic church as a baby and then I got rebaptized after becoming a Christian because I didn't think my infant baptism counted. If it turns out that it did count, would God be angry with me for getting rebaptized?

By the way, thanks for providing that link on infant baptism for Baptists. I will check it out.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 16, 2006)

THE SINS OF ADULT REBAPTISM AND OF LEAVING ONE'S BABIES UNBAPTIZED:
http://www.dr-fnlee.org/rebap.html

NO REBAPTISMS IN ACTS 18:24 THROUGH 19:7 -- by Francis Nigel Lee:
http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs6/acts19/acts19.html

CALVIN ON THE VALIDITY OF 'ROMISH' BAPTISM:
http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs3/cotvorcb/cotvorcb.pdf


----------



## Pilgrim (Apr 16, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Preach_
> Chris, what does IMB stand for?



International Mission Board of the SBC. 

They recently adopted controversial guidelines for missionaries that state that their baptism must be from a baptistic church (i.e. one that doesn't allow for infant baptism, one that practices immersion only and one that doesn't see baptism as a sacrament) to be appointed by the IMB. This guideline is seen as Landmarkism rearing its head, in that it rejects "alien" immersion i.e. an immersion by a Presbyterian minister, etc. is considered invalid. But I think that such a rule likely would not have been controversial at all 100 years ago, when most Baptists practiced close communion, etc.


----------



## Pilgrim (Apr 16, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Reformingstudent_
> My mother in-law made the comment to my wife the other day when it was told her that our Son had been baptised by sprinkling that immersion was the only proper mode of baptism, so of course in her narrow view, our sons baptism was not "real" baptism.
> They mean well but are very neurotic about things like this. They are hard to figure out at times but I live and let live with them.



Of course it's not just her narrow view, but the view of every "real" baptist so it is hardly surprising.

[Edited on 4-16-2006 by Pilgrim]


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Apr 16, 2006)

Thanks for the links Scott. I will comment on a few things and maybe ask some questions in regards to the first link.

The link said: "Because circumcision has now been replaced by baptism, the latter too is unrepeatable -- and rebaptism impossible." Has circumcision been replaced by baptism? Would not Jesus have been circumcised as a baby and yet He was baptized as an adult.

The link also said: "Hebrews 6:1-6 implies that those who get themselves rebaptized, recrucify Christ. For it commands: "Do not again lay down...the doctrine of baptisms.... They crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh!" This would mean that I have no hope of being saved then wouldn't it? I believe that passage talks about how one who recrucifies Christ cannot be saved. If the link is correct then I would have no hope. But I do have hope...and a conundrum.

I do not know too much about covenant theology and look forward to learning about it, but I think I have a concept of the basics. In the New Testament period wasn't the way to enter the covenant different than in Genesis? After the death of Christ, wasn't the way to enter the covenant to repent of your sins and be baptized, implying "maturity" as opposed to being an infant or an adult? 

Anyways...thanks for the links.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 16, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> Thanks for the links Scott. I will comment on a few things and maybe ask some questions in regards to the first link.
> 
> The link said: "Because circumcision has now been replaced by baptism, the latter too is unrepeatable -- and rebaptism impossible." Has circumcision been replaced by baptism? Would not Jesus have been circumcised as a baby and yet He was baptized as an adult.
> ...



Brian,
Think about this: Were men in the OT saved any differently than in the NT? Can you say dispensationalism?


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Apr 16, 2006)

to Jessica. 

I call mysself a Reformed Baptist but Im not decided on infant baptism its makes sense in my mind but Im not quite there yet. But In my mind and heart your son is baptized done deal. Rebaptism is sin and unnecessary. As long as he is baptized properly (in the Father , Son , and Holy Spirit) then it should be settled. 

But try to be diplomatic with the in laws since there probably just as convicted as you are being on the other side fo the issue.

In Christ,
Blade


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Apr 16, 2006)

Hey Scott, well I do come from a dispensationalist background. I really don't know much about covenant theology. What I do know seems vastly different from what I am used to.

In regards to dispensationalism, all I do know is that I always believed people were saved the same way. They were saved by faith in a coming Messiah, wheras we are saved by faith in the Messiah who already came. Is a loving and merciful God going to cast me into hell because I believed that I needed to be baptized again?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 16, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> Hey Scott, well I do come from a dispensationalist background. I really don't know much about covenant theology. What I do know seems vastly different from what I am used to.
> 
> In regards to dispensationalism, all I do know is that I always believed people were saved the same way.



Exactly the same way; justified by faith alone in Christ alone.




> They were saved by faith in a coming Messiah, wheras we are saved by faith in the Messiah who already came.



Is this different or the same? See Heb ch 11




> Is a loving and merciful God going to cast me into hell because I believed that I needed to be baptized again?



If you are Christs, your sin has been payed for. We all sin and many of us are in error. Some error damns. In your case, it does not, unless of course you believe a heresy, ex. baptismal regeneration.


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Apr 16, 2006)

Thanks for your answers Scott. I don't believe in baptismal regeneration per se. I believe that when we are born again we are regenerated by the Holy Spirit. But in the case of infant baptism, wouldn't that be baptismal regeneration? Thanks, gotta fly.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 16, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> Thanks for your answers Scott. I don't believe in baptismal regeneration per se. I believe that when we are born again we are regenerated by the Holy Spirit. But in the case of infant baptism, wouldn't that be baptismal regeneration? Thanks, gotta fly.



No. I suggest reading:

"A Simple Overview of Covenant Theology" by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon

"The Covenant of Life Opened" by Rev. Samuel Rutherford 

The books can be purchased here:

http://www.puritanpublications.com

~What do you mean by 'per se'?

[Edited on 4-16-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Apr 16, 2006)

Thanks. Scott, I saw on the paedocommunion thread where you posted this: "In summary: 
1, infant baptism signifies*regeneration*" That is why I asked you about that in the previous post.

By "per se" I mean that when one is born again they are regenerated by the Holy Spirit. They are baptized into the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit:

1 Corinthians 12:12,13 
"12The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. 13For we were all baptized by[a] one Spirit into one body"”whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free"”and we were all given the one Spirit to drink."

So I believe we are all baptized into the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit when we are born again. For lack of a better term I would personally call this baptismal regeneration.

Romans 6:2-4 says that we are baptized into Christ's death:
"2By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life."

[Edited on 4-16-2006 by BaptistCanuk]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 16, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> Thanks. Scott, I saw on the paedocommunion thread where you posted this: "In summary:
> 1, infant baptism signifies*regeneration*" That is why I asked you about that in the previous post.
> 
> ...



Correct; this is what the confessions say. However, this and baptismal regeneration are horses of a different color. BR says that the baptism is efficaiously regeneratory. In the reformed ranks, it points to something God has already ACCOMPLISHED.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 16, 2006)

Allow me to add that there is a difference between 1) what God has "already accomplished" _in Christ for all the elect,_ 2) what he "accomplishes" with regard to actually regenerating a professing person, and 3) what "may yet have to be accomplished" historically and particularly in the case of an infant or youth. Baptism is a sign of all these things, but they are distinguishable things. It is a sign of what GOD does.

Just because baptism signifies and seals, doesn't mean that the grace of regeneration is necessarily tied to the moment of water baptism, nor that every person baptized with water is necessarily elect. Water baptism is an external administration. Thus it functions in an external (albeit sacramental) way. In other words, there is a "connection" between the sign and the thing signified, but it is sacramental, not effecatious. It works by faith, not by fact.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 16, 2006)

The insanity and absurdity of the IMB and SBC continues to rear its ugly head. It never ceases to amaze. Essentially, the only doctrine that the IMB/SBC holds as VITAL is baptism by immersion that isn't considered gracious (sacramental). Anything from open theism to women youth ministers is fair game, though...


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Apr 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> The insanity and absurdity of the IMB and SBC continues to rear its ugly head. It never ceases to amaze. Essentially, the only doctrine that the IMB/SBC holds as VITAL is baptism by immersion that isn't considered gracious (sacramental). Anything from open theism to women youth ministers is fair game, though...



I'm sorry...but I don't know what you mean.


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Apr 17, 2006)

I do have to ask, was Jesus circumcised as an infant? If so, why did He get baptized as an adult? 

As for me and my sins and forgiveness, etc. the Bible does say that it is impossible to be saved after one recrucifies Christ, right? I didn't know that was what I was doing when I got baptized again as an adult. I thought I was obeying God.

Anyways, might be drifting off topic and I apologize. Still...questions that I have.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> I do have to ask, was Jesus circumcised as an infant? If so, why did He get baptized as an adult?
> 
> As for me and my sins and forgiveness, etc. the Bible does say that it is impossible to be saved after one recrucifies Christ, right? I didn't know that was what I was doing when I got baptized again as an adult. I thought I was obeying God.
> ...



Mat 3:15 But Jesus answered him, "Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he consented. 

Christ volunterred for baptism to 'fulfill all righteousness'. Johns baptism was a baptism of repentance; surely Christ did not need to repent, so it must have been for another reason. 

For us it is different in that baptism has replaced circumcision; it is a reflection of wjhat Christ has accomplished:

Col 2:11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 
Col 2:12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. 

As far as your baptism, as I have already told you, error is one thing. Sounds like you were hoodwinked into it.


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Apr 17, 2006)

"As far as your baptism, as I have already told you, error is one thing. Sounds like you were hoodwinked into it."

Scott, could you please sound a little more gracious? Nobody "hoodwinked" me, I did it on my own because I believed I was obeying God. 

Why would Jesus be baptized to fulfill all righteousness when He was already circumcized if baptism replaced circumcision? I am a Baptist. What kind of Baptist doesn't get baptized after coming to faith?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> "As far as your baptism, as I have already told you, error is one thing. Sounds like you were hoodwinked into it."
> 
> Scott, could you please sound a little more gracious? Nobody "hoodwinked" me, I did it on my own because I believed I was obeying God.
> ...



Chris,
Let me elaborate: I was previously a baptist. I presented myself for baptism upon coming to faith. Like yourself, I was taught that this is the thing to do so I did it. years later, I found out that my Roman Catholic baptism was valid. What does this say for the leaders whom encouraged an illicit practice? I was _hoodwinked_! Further study will prove to you that rebaptism is sinful and I am as guilty as you in this regard. The baptist churches should accept Romes baptism as it was done in the same formula as they use, only years earlier.

On Jesus' baptism: Henry writes:

The Baptism of Jesus. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. 14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? 15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. 16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 

Our Lord Jesus, from his childhood till now, when he was almost thirty years of age, had lain hid in Galilee, as it were, buried alive; but now, after a long and dark night, behold, the Sun of righteousness rises in glory. The fulness of time was come that Christ should enter upon his prophetical office; and he chooses to do it, not at Jerusalem (though it is probable that he went thither at the three yearly feasts, as others did), but there where John was baptizing; for to him resorted those who waited for the consolation of Israel, to whom alone he would be welcome. John the Baptist was six months older than our Saviour, and it is supposed that he began to preach and baptize about six months before Christ appeared; so long he was employed in preparing his way, in the region round about Jordan; and more was done towards it in these six months than had been done in several ages before. Christ's coming from Galilee to Jordan, to be baptized, teaches us not to shrink from pain and toil, that we may have an opportunity of drawing nigh to God in ordinance. We should be willing to go far, rather than come short of communion with God. Those who will find must seek.

Now in this story of Christ's baptism we may observe,

I. How hardly John was persuaded to admit of it, v. 14, 15. It was an instance of Christ's great humility, that he would offer himself to be baptized of John; that he who knew no sin would submit to the baptism of repentance. Note, As soon as ever Christ began to preach, he preached humility, preached it by his example, preached it to all, especially the young ministers. Christ was designed for the highest honours, yet in his first step he thus abases himself. Note, Those who would rise high must begin low. Before honour is humility. It was a great piece of respect done to John, for Christ thus to come to him; and it was a return for the service he did him, in giving notice of his approach. Note, Those that honour God he will honour. Now here we have,

1. The objection that John made against baptizing Jesus, v. 14. John forbade him, as Peter did, when Christ went about to wash his feet, John xiii. 6, 8. Note, Christ's gracious condescensions are so surprising, as to appear at first incredible to the strongest believers; so deep and mysterious, that even they who know his mind well cannot soon find out the meaning of them, but, by reason of darkness, start objections against the will of Christ. John's modesty thinks this an honour too great for him to receive, and he expresses himself to Christ, just as his mother had done to Christ's mother (Luke i. 43); Whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? John had now obtained a great name, and was universally respected: yet see how humble he is still! Note, God has further honours in reserve for those whose spirits continue low when their reputation rises.

(1.) John thinks it necessary that he should be baptized of Christ; I have need to be baptized of thee with the baptism of the Holy Ghost, as of fire, for that was Christ's baptism, v. 11. [1.] Though John was filled with the Holy Ghost from the womb (Luke i. 15), yet he acknowledges he had need to be baptized with that baptism. Note, They who have much of the Spirit of God, yet, while here, in this imperfect state, see that they have need of more, and need to apply themselves to Christ for more. [2.] John has need to be baptized, though he was the greatest that ever was born of woman; yet, being born of a woman, he is polluted, as others of Adam's seed are, and owns he had need of cleansing. Note, The purest souls are most sensible of their own remaining impurity, and seek most earnestly for spiritual washing. [3.] He has need to be baptized of Christ, who can do that for us, which no one else can, and which must be done for us, or we are undone. Note, The best and holiest of men have need of Christ, and the better they are, the more they see of that need. [4.] This was said before the multitude, who had a great veneration for John, and were ready to embrace him for the Messiah; yet he publicly owns that he had need to be baptized of Christ. Note, It is no disparagement to the greatest of men, to confess that they are undone without Christ and his grace. [5.] John was Christ's forerunner, and yet owns that he had need to be baptized of him. Note, Even they who were born before Christ in time depended on him, received from him, and had an eye to him. [6.] While John was dealing with others about their souls, observe how feelingly he speaks of the case of his own soul, I have need to be baptized of thee. Note, Ministers, who preach to others, and baptize others, are concerned to look to it that they preach to themselves, and be themselves baptized with the Holy Ghost. Take heed to thyself first; save thyself, 1 Tim. iv. 16.

(2.) He therefore thinks it very preposterous and absurd, that Christ should be baptized by him; Comest thou to me? Does the holy Jesus, that is separated from sinners, come to be baptized by a sinner, as a sinner, and among sinners? How can this be? Or what account can we give of it? Note, Christ's coming to us may well be wondered at.

2. The overruling of this objection (v. 15); Jesus said, Suffer it to be so now. Christ accepted his humility, but not his refusal; he will have the thing done; and it is fit that Christ should take his own method, though we do not understand it, nor can give a reason for it. See,

(1.) How Christ insisted upon it; It must be so now. He does not deny that John had need to be baptized of him, yet he will now be baptized of John. Aphes arti--Let it be yet so; suffer it to be so now. Note, Every thing is beautiful in its season. But why now? Why yet? [1.] Christ is now in a state of humiliation: he has emptied himself, and made himself of no reputation. He is not only found in fashion as a man, but is made in the likeness of sinful flesh, and therefore now let him be baptized of John; as if he needed to be washed, though perfectly pure; and thus he was made sin for us, though he knew no sin. [2.] John's baptism is now in reputation, it is that by which God is now doing his work; that is the present dispensation, and therefore Jesus will now be baptized with water; but his baptizing with the Holy Ghost is reserved for hereafter, many days hence, Acts i. 5. John's baptism has now its day, and therefore honour must now be put upon that, and they who attend upon it must be encouraged. Note, They who are of greatest attainments in gifts and graces, should yet, in their place, bear their testimony to instituted ordinances, by a humble and diligent attendance on them, that they may give a good example to others. What we see God owns, and while we see he does so, we must own. John was now increasing, and therefore it must be thus yet; shortly he will decrease, and then it will be otherwise. [3.] It must be so now, because now is the time for Christ's appearing in public, and this will be a fair opportunity for it, See John i. 31-34. Thus he must be made manifest to Israel, and be signalized by wonders from heaven, in that act of his own, which was most condescending and self-abasing.

(2.) The reason he gives for it; Thus it becomes us to fulfil all righteousness. Note, [1.] There was a propriety in every thing that Christ did for us; it was all graceful (Heb. ii. 10; vii. 26); and we must study to do not only that which behoves us, but that which becomes us; not only that which is indispensably necessary, but that which is lovely, and of good report. [2.] Our Lord Jesus looked upon it as a thing well becoming him, to fulfil all righteousness, that is (as Dr. Whitby explains it), to own every divine institution, and to show his readiness to comply with all God's righteous precepts. Thus it becomes him to justify God, and approve his wisdom, in sending John to prepare his way by the baptism of repentance. Thus it becomes us to countenance and encourage every thing that is good, by pattern as well as precept. Christ often mentioned John and his baptism with honour, which that he might do the better, he was himself baptized. Thus Jesus began first to do, and then to teach; and his ministers must take the same method. *Thus Christ filled up the righteousness of the ceremonial law, which consisted in divers washings;* thus he recommended the gospel-ordinance of baptism to his church, put honour upon it, and showed what virtue he designed to put into it. It became Christ to submit to John's washing with water, because it was a divine appointment; but it became him to oppose the Pharisees' washing with water, because it was a human invention and imposition; and he justified his disciples in refusing to comply with it.

With the will of Christ, and this reason for it, John was entirely satisfied, and then he suffered him. The same modesty which made him at first decline the honour Christ offered him, now made him do the service Christ enjoined him. Note, No pretence of humility must make us decline our duty.

II. How solemnly Heaven was pleased to grace the baptism of Christ with a special display of glory (v. 16, 17); Jesus when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water. Others that were baptized staid to confess their sins (v. 6); but Christ, having no sins to confess, went up immediately out of the water; so we read it, but not right: for it is apo tou hydatos--from the water; from the brink of the river, to which he went down to be washed with water, that is, to have his head or face washed (John xiii. 9); for here is no mention of the putting off, or putting on, of his clothes, which circumstance would not have omitted, if he had been baptized naked. He went up straightway, as one that entered upon his work with the utmost cheerfulness and resolution; he would lose no time. How was he straitened till it was accomplished!

Now, when he was coming up out of the water, and all the company had their eye upon him,

1. Lo! the heavens were opened unto him, so as to discover something above and beyond the starry firmament, at least, to him. This was, (1.) To encourage him to go on in his undertaking, with the prospect of the glory and joy that were set before him. Heaven is opened to receive him, when he has finished the work he is now entering upon. (2.) To encourage us to receive him, and submit to him. Note, In and through Jesus Christ, the heavens are opened to the children of men. Sin shut up heaven, put a stop to all friendly intercourse between God and man; but now Christ has opened the kingdom of heaven to all believers. Divine light and love are darted down upon the children of men, and we have boldness to enter into the holiest. We have receipts of mercy from God, we make returns of duty to God, and all by Jesus Christ, who is the ladder that had its foot on earth and its top in heaven, by whom alone it is that we have any comfortable correspondence with God, or any hope of getting to heaven at last. The heavens were opened when Christ was baptized, to teach us, that when we duly attend on God's ordinances, we may expect communion with him, and communications from him.

2. He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, or as a dove, and coming or lighting upon him. Christ saw it (Mark i. 10), and John saw it (John i. 33, 34), and it is probable that all the standers-by saw it; for this was intended to be his public inauguration. Observe,

(1.) He saw the Spirit of God descended, and lighted on him. In the beginning of the old world, the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters (Gen. i. 2), hovered as a bird upon the nest. So here, in the beginning of this new world, Christ, as God, needed not to receive the Holy Ghost, but it was foretold that the Spirit of the Lord should rest upon him (Isa. xi. 2; lxi. 1), and here he did so; for, [1.] He was to be a Prophet; and prophets always spoke by the Spirit of God, who came upon them. Christ was to execute the prophetic office, not by his divine nature (says Dr. Whitby), but by the afflatus of the Holy Spirit. [2.] He was to be the Head of the church; and the Spirit descended upon him, by him to be derived to all believers, in his gifts, graces, and comforts. The ointment on the head ran down to the skirts; Christ received gifts for men, that he might give gifts to men.

(2.) He descended on him like a dove; whether it was a real, living dove, or, as was usual in visions, the representation or similitude of a dove, is uncertain. If there must be a bodily shape (Luke iii. 22), it must not be that of a man, for the being seen in fashion as a man was peculiar to the second person: none therefore was more fit than the shape of one of the fowls of heaven (heaven being now opened), and of all fowl none was so significant as the dove. [1.] The Spirit of Christ is a dove-like spirit; not like a silly dove, without heart (Hos. vii. 11), but like an innocent dove, without gall. The Spirit descended, not in the shape of an eagle, which is, though a royal bird, yet a bird of prey, but in the shape of a dove, than which no creature is more harmless and inoffensive. Such was the Spirit of Christ: He shall not strive, nor cry; such must Christians be, harmless as doves. The dove is remarkable for her eyes; we find that both the eyes of Christ (Cant. v. 12), and the eyes of the church (Cant. i. 15; iv. 1), are compared to doves' eyes, for they have the same spirit. The dove mourns much (Isa. xxxviii. 14). Christ wept oft; and penitent souls are compared to doves of the valleys. [2.] The dove was the only fowl that was offered in sacrifice (Lev. i. 14), and Christ by the Spirit, the eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot to God. [3.] The tidings of the decrease of Noah's flood were brought by a dove, with an olive-leaf in her mouth; fitly therefore are the glad tidings of peace with God brought by the Spirit as a dove. It speaks God's good will towards men; that his thoughts towards us are thoughts of good, and not evil. By the voice of the turtle heard in our land (Cant. ii. 12), the Chaldee paraphrase understands, the voice of the Holy Spirit. That God is in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, is a joyful message, which comes to us upon the wing, the wings of a dove.

3. To explain and complete this solemnity, there came a voice from heaven, which, we have reason to think, was heard by all that were present. The Holy Spirit manifested himself in the likeness of a dove, but God the Father by a voice; for when the law was given they saw no manner of similitude, only they heard a voice (Deut. iv. 12); and so this gospel came, and gospel indeed it is, the best news that ever came from heaven to earth; for it speaks plainly and fully God's favour to Christ, and us in him.

(1.) See here how God owns our Lord Jesus; This is my beloved Son. Observe, [1.] The relation he stood in to him; He is my Son. Jesus Christ is the Son of God, by eternal generation, as he was begotten of the Father before all the worlds (Col. i. 15; Heb. i. 3); and by supernatural conception; he was therefore called the Son of God, because he was conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost (Luke i. 35); yet this is not all; he is the Son of God by special designation to the work and office of the world's Redeemer. He was sanctified and sealed, and sent upon that errand, brought up with the Father for it (Prov. viii. 30), appointed to it; I will make him my First-born, Ps. lxxxix. 27. [2.] The affection the Father had for him; He is my beloved Son; his dear Son, the Son of his love (Col. i. 13); he has lain in his bosom from all eternity (John i. 18), had been always his delight (Prov. viii. 30), but particularly as Mediator, and in undertaking the work of man's salvation, he was his beloved Son. He is my Elect, in whom my soul delights. See Isa. xlii. 1. Because he consented to the covenant of redemption, and delighted to do that will of God, therefore the Father loved him. John x. 17; iii. 35. Behold, then, behold, and wonder, what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that he should deliver up him that was the Son of his love, to suffer and die for those that were the generation of his wrath; nay,and that he therefore loved him, because he laid down his life for the sheep! Now know we that he loved us, seeing he has not withheld his Son, his only Son, his Isaac whom he loved, but gave him to be a sacrifice for our sin.

(2.) See here how ready he is to own us in him: He is my beloved Son, not only with whom, but in whom, I am well pleased. He is pleased with all that are in him, and are united to him by faith. Hitherto God had been displeased with the children of men, but now his anger is turned away, and he has made us accepted in the Beloved, Eph. l. 6. Let all the world take notice, that this is the Peace-maker, the Days-man, who has laid his hand upon us both, and that there is no coming to God as a Father, but by him as Mediator, John xiv. 6. In him our spiritual sacrifices are acceptable, for his the Altar that sanctifies every gift, 1 Pet. ii. 5. Out of Christ, God is a consuming Fire, but, in Christ, a reconciled Father. This is the sum of the whole gospel; it is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that God has declared, by a voice from heaven, that Jesus Christ is his beloved Son, in whom he is well pleased, with which we must by faith cheerfully concur, and say, that he is our beloved Saviour, in whom we are well pleased.


[Edited on 4-18-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Apr 17, 2006)

Scott, well my name is Brian. But thank you for your post. I hear what you're saying. Yes, the Catholics used the same formula for baptism but you being a former Baptist are familiar with their belief that one must have faith before being baptized right? That is why they believe that the RC baptism isn't valid. I am going to go back and read through what you posted. Thanks for doing so.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 17, 2006)

Sorry Brian,
Here's something from Calvin as well: 

Baptism, Calvin says, is the sacrament of ablution and regeneration; the Eucharist is the sacrament of redemption and sanctification. Christ "came by water and by blood" (1 John 5:6); that is, to purify and to redeem. The Spirit, as the third and chief witness, confirms and secures the witness of water and blood; that is, of baptism and the eucharist (1 John 5:8).859 This sublime mystery was strikingly exhibited on the cross, when blood and water issued from Christ´s side, which on this account Augustin justly called ´the fountain of our sacraments.´ "

I. Calvin defines baptism as, a sign of initiation, by which we are admitted into the society of the Church, in order that, being incorporated into Christ, we may be numbered among the children of God."

II. Faith derives three benefits from this sacrament.

1. It assures us, like a legal instrument properly attested, that all our sins are cancelled, and will never be imputed unto us (Eph. 5:26; Tit. 3:5; 1 Pet. 3:21). It is far more than a mark or sign by which we profess our religion before men, as soldiers wear the insignia of their sovereign. It is "for the remission of sins," past and future. No new sacrament is necessary for sins committed after baptism. At whatever time we are baptized, we are washed and purified for the whole life. "Whenever we have fallen, we must recur to the remembrance of baptism, and arm our minds with the consideration of it, that we may be always certified and assured of the remission of our sins."

2. Baptism shows us our mortification in Christ, and our new life in him. All who receive baptism with faith experience the efficacy of Christ´s death and the power of his resurrection, and should therefore walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:3, 4, 11).

3. Baptism affords us "the certain testimony that we are not only engrafted into the life and death of Christ, but are so united to him as to be partakers of all his benefits" (Gal. 3:26, 27).

But while baptism removes the guilt and punishment of hereditary and actual sin, it does not destroy our natural depravity, which is perpetually producing works of the flesh, and will not be wholly abolished till the close of this mortal life. In the mean time we must hold fast to the promise of God in baptism, fight manfully against sin and temptation, and press forward to complete victory.

III. On the question of the validity of baptism by unworthy ministers, Calvin fully agrees with Augustin against the view of the Donatists, who measured the virtue of the sacrament by the moral character of the minister. He applies the argument to the Anabaptists of his day, who denied the validity of Catholic baptism on account of the idolatry and corruption of the papal Church. "Against these follies we shall be sufficiently fortified, if we consider that we are baptized not in the name of any man, but in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and consequently that it is not the baptism of man, but of God, by whomsoever administered." The papal priests "did not baptize us into the fellowship of their own ignorance or sacrilege, but into the faith of Jesus Christ, because they invoked, not their own name, but the name of God, and baptized in no name but his. As it was the baptism of God, it certainly contained the promise of remission of sins, mortification of the flesh, spiritual vivification, and participation of Christ. Thus it was no injury to the Jews to have been circumcised by impure and Apostate priests; nor was the sign on that account useless, so as to render it necessary to be repeated, but it was sufficient to recur to the genuine original "¦ . When Hezekiah and Josiah assembled together out of all Israel, those who had revolted from God, they did not call any of them to a second circumcision."

He argues against the Anabaptists from the fact also, that the apostles who had received the baptism of John, were not rebaptized. "And among us, what rivers would be sufficient for the repetition of ablutions as numerous as the errors which are daily corrected among us by the mercy of the Lord."860

IV. He pleads for the simplicity of the ordinance against the adventitious medley of incantation, wax-taper, spittle, salt, and "other fooleries," which from an early age were publicly introduced. "Such theatrical pomps dazzle the eye and stupify the minds of the ignorant." The simple ceremony as instituted by Christ, accompanied by a confession of faith, prayers, and thanksgivings, shines with the greater lustre, unencumbered with extraneous corruptions. He disapproves the ancient custom of baptism by laymen in cases of danger of death. God can regenerate a child without baptism.

V. The mode of baptism was not a subject of controversy at that time. Calvin recognized the force of the philological and historical argument in favor of immersion, but regarded pouring and sprinkling as equally valid, and left room for Christian liberty according to the custom in different countries.861 Immersion was then still the prevailing mode in England, and continued till the reign of Elizabeth, who was herself baptized by immersion.

VI. But while meeting the Baptists half-way on the question of the mode, he strenuously defends paedobaptism, and devotes a whole chapter to it.862 He urges, as arguments, circumcision, which was a type of baptism; the nature of the covenant, which comprehends the offspring of pious parents; Christ´s treatment of children, as belonging to the kingdom of heaven, and therefore entitled to the sign and seal of membership; the word of Peter addressed to the converts on the day of Pentecost, who were accustomed to infant circumcision, that "the promise is to you and your children" (Acts 2:39); Paul´s declaration that the children are sanctified by their parents (1 Cor. 7:14), etc. He refutes at length the objections of the Anabaptists, with special reference to Servetus, who agreed with them on that point.

He assigns to infant baptism a double benefit: it ratifies to pious parents the promise of God´s mercy to their children, and increases their sense of responsibility as to their education; it engrafts the children into the body of the Church, and afterwards acts as a powerful stimulus upon them to be true to the baptismal vow.

On Matt 3:

http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol31/htm/ix.xxx.htm

[Edited on 4-18-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Cuirassier (Apr 18, 2006)

Dear brother Scott,

I cannot speak for Brian, yourself, or anyone else's reasons for following believer's baptism, you alone know whether or not you were "hoodwinked." In deference to your position on this forum, I most respecfully and lovingly urge caution against presumption of why and how another believer chose to follow the Bible's command regarding baptism. 

What I can say with full authority is that my baptism was neither hoodwinked, coerced, forced, brainwashed, or pressured. My baptism came out of my understanding of its command in Scripture after careful counsel with both my parents and my pastor--a Free Presbyterian Minister, I should add. My decision to enter the waters of baptism was (and continues to be) an act of obedience to Biblical command to do so--as an outward testimony of inward regeneration from spiritual death to spiritual life, as testimony of my complete faith in Christ's redemptive work alone, and as commitment to walk in holiness and purity through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. 



> my Roman Catholic baptism was valid.



Astounding. As a child of former RC's, my parents had me baptised expressely for regenerative purposes. The intent by the priest, and the desire of my parents in doing so was COMPLETELY in error. There was nothing about that baptism that was justifiable within what the Bible teaches about baptism. RC infant baptism is a damning heresy--if in no other aspect but that it inculcates in the person the horrible misapprehension that that they are "saved" on account of it--and if you ask most RCs, they will assert their acceptance by God in part--if not in whole--is due to their baptism. 

Therefore, if that baptism was heretical and erroneous, how can a truly saved believer (which I was NOT, when baptized as a child), who is following the mandate of Scripture to believe and be baptised, (Acts 18.8, Acts 19.5, et al) be sinning by being baptised as a step of faith and obedience? 



> The papal priests "did not baptize us into the fellowship of their own ignorance or sacrilege, but into the faith of Jesus Christ, because they invoked, not their own name, but the name of God, and baptized in no name but his.



I believe Calvin was in error here. "Invoking God's name" can hardly be a sufficient test to render worship true and valid--never mind a divinely instituted sacrament. Would God have accepted a non-Levite to perform temple work? What if they would have followed the sacrificial ordinances to the letter? I mean, come on, a good, God-fearing Jew from Judah or Reuben? No, the Bible teaches that the priesthood belonged strictly to the Levites. If He would not have accepted the sacramental work of a devout, God-fearing non-Levite, I am unable to believe God can accept the sacramental work of an unregenerate papal priest.

Such a "baptism" - sought for by unregenerated parents, for an unregenerate child, performed by an unregenerate priest, for the the heretical purpose of saving the child's soul, contains, and entails nothing worthy of being considered valid. Much less, therefore, can the baptism of that child in later years - as a regenerated saved believer, performed by a saved minister of the gospel, for the biblical purposes clearly defined for baptism - be considered sinful.

Recognizing the majority of my brothers/sisters here are paedobaptist in belief, I will respect that view and withhold comment on the principle of true believers baptizing their children. I cannot, however, in good conscience, sit silent when a believer is told he sinned in following the purpose and practice of baptism as taught by Scripture.

your humble friend in Christ,

dl

[Edited on 4-18-2006 by Cuirassier]

[Edited on 4-18-2006 by Cuirassier]

[Edited on 4-18-2006 by Cuirassier]

[Edited on 4-18-2006 by Cuirassier]

[Edited on 4-18-2006 by Cuirassier]


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 18, 2006)

We really need to work at keeping hyperbole out of these discussions.

As a presbyterian with baptist friends and family, I too think loaded language like "hoodwinked" should be reserved for describing your own feelings coming out of some view you now see as a error. Don't lay it down on someone else. "Hoodwinked" is the language of deliberate, external deception. In this audience of both credos and paedos, some of us are going to get this point of theology right only after our translation to glory.

And I am just willing enough to admit that, as right as I think I am, the man who may change his tune on arrival on the other side will be me. And I say that without a twinge of doubt as to my present correctness. The heart is, after all, more deceptive than anything else.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 18, 2006)

Daniel,
As to your latter points, re. the validity of your RC baptism, not everyone is on the same page on this, not even within presbyterianism. The question we have to ask ourselves is "was there a baptism?" For those who say no, whether presbyterian or baptist, then the right thing to do is get baptized. For those who say yes, be it Calvin or someone today, the issue is very much associated with the Donatist question. Is the action intrinsically related to the one participating in said action, or is the _church's_ action a greater factor than any individual person's participation in the act?

Obviously there is an objective component to this. There is what I think is the truth, and then there is the truth itself. They may not line up. We can be in error, but not sinning. We can also be in error and sinning, knowingly or unknowingly. But we are duty bound to obey the dictates of the conscience, and also seek to have that conscience continually enlightened by God's Word (1 Tim. 1:5). Let us each endeavor to do so.


----------



## Pilgrim (Apr 18, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> We really need to work at keeping hyperbole out of these discussions.
> 
> As a presbyterian with baptist friends and family, I too think loaded language like "hoodwinked" should be reserved for describing your own feelings coming out of some view you now see as a error. Don't lay it down on someone else. "Hoodwinked" is the language of deliberate, external deception. In this audience of both credos and paedos, some of us are going to get this point of theology right only after our translation to glory.
> ...


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 18, 2006)

I admit, _hoodwinked_ was abad choice; please forgive me everyone involved here. 


I assumed based upon Brians earlier post that he was baptised as a RC. I pray it was not with another credo assembly! I do have a friend who has been baptised in a CC more than once; the eldership allowed for it; this is sinful! 

As far as Rome's validity: If Rome's baptism is valid, all that reject it are sinning in this regard. As well, those whom subscribe to it, if Rome's baptism is illicit, they have sinned by rejecting a valid one; it cannot be both ways.

Bruce,
You write:



> We can be in error, but not sinning.



Can you give me an example?


----------



## Cuirassier (Apr 18, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> I admit, _hoodwinked_ was abad choice; please forgive me everyone involved here.



 No worries, brother!



> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> As far as Rome's validity: If Rome's baptism is valid, all that reject it are sinning in this regard. As well, those whom subscribe to it, if Rome's baptism is illicit, they have sinned by rejecting a valid one; it cannot be both ways.



I absolutely agree with your logic: I do affirm Rome's baptism to be illicit, and concur with your consequence - that rejecting believer's baptism is against Scripture. I wouldn't want it both ways.  

dl

[Edited on 4-18-2006 by Cuirassier]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 18, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Cuirassier_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Daniel,
You won't get off the hook that easy. Calvin is wrong! Luther is wrong as well as Owen. Count Turretin in! Poole and Henry. Edwards! I guess they all just had a bad day. I expect you will counter w/ Spurgeon, Gill, and Turtullian......

[Edited on 4-19-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Cuirassier (Apr 18, 2006)

Brother Scott,

I was not aware I was on a hook in the first place....

It would be with neither jocularity nor cavalier levity that I would entertain disagreement with such great scholars. 

Nevertheless, if on the point at hand (the validity/non-validity of Roman baptism), I am faced with deciding between their teaching and that which I see in Scripture, then I am compelled to do so.

In Him,

dl

[Edited on 4-19-2006 by Cuirassier]


----------



## smhbbag (Apr 19, 2006)

> You won't get off the hook that easy. Calvin is wrong! Luther is wrong as well as Owen. Count Turretin in! Poole and Henry. Edwards!



I'm sure this is exactly the sort of argument that Luther himself had directed toward him. List off a bunch of last names of theologians your target reveres, and expect him to concede and cower at the thought of contradicting them. Even when not evident in the person making the claim (and I'm certainly not making this rebuke of Scott), the argument, in and of itself, simply reeks of hubris. Luther didn't back down, even while maintaining genuine reverence for those men who formed the long historical line against him. 

A list of names that are (rightly) well-respected is not the ace of spades. But yet it's constantly played as if it was. Argumentation by appeal to a good authority can be very helpful, but it is by no means sufficient by itself to prove anything at all. Its persuasive and logical power does (and should) fall _well_ below pretty much any valid form of argument. In fact, to resort to it often shows a serious discomfort in staying on the true proving grounds of the issue. 

If one is confident in argumentation that does _ not_ resort to such tactics, why deviate into one that does?

[Edited on 4-19-2006 by smhbbag]


----------



## Irishcat922 (Apr 19, 2006)

Here is an excellent explanation By John Murray. I always hand this out to any family members who ask me why we believe in infant baptism.

http://members.aol.com/RSICHURCH/infants.html


----------



## Larry Hughes (Apr 25, 2006)

Sean,

Thanks that is a very good resource.

We ran into this very issue a few months back. Our pastor gave wise council to just invite them, particularly the grand and greatgrand parents to the service with no attempt to "change their minds"...and say, "The worse case scenario is you'll hear the Gospel preached and worship with us". He said he had run into this issue before with grand parents. But the way the ceremony does, it is so exceedingly Gospel rich (would make Luther happily jealous) that the reaction he got from opposing family members was, "I don't understand it, but I sure wish I did."

So, we did. And from some of the grandparents after our children were baptized into the church that is exactly their reaction. One of them walked up to me and said, "I now understand why you baptized your children." Others were crying tears of joy, it was a wonderful proclamation of the Gospel.

It ended up being the best advice I could have. The essence of it was this, in my own words, sometimes the best way we (biblical practice of true baptism, paedeo) can bear witness to it is simply let the Gospel ring through it as it should. I'm not saying there is not a time and place for argument and reasoning, but sometimes in actual life it is better to let the Gospel speak for itself. This is exactly what happened by our pastors wise council. Some understood for the first time and some kind of saw it but still were not sure, but their hearts began seeing it. It is a forgone reality, when that sacrament or the other rings clearly and powerfully with the Gospel to which it both points and is founded upon and not upon the faith of the recipient which many are so use to seeing. When that is understood or begun to be grasped, then baptism is seen for what it really is.

The one thing I must emphasize is the crucial way in which the local Presbyterian. church does the ceremony. Because prior to this, before our present pastor came on, it was done in a way that "apologized" to "other" on lookers who might not believe. When we do this we loose baptism's reality. By making the ceremony, "We don't baptize thinking it saves our children..." apologizing both for Rome and to Baptist its Gospel witness is lost. When our present pastor came on that was the FIRST thing he changed. The ceremony NOW give the Gospel powerfully and purely as it can only be given. 

I say that, somewhat new to PCA, as a freshman that sometimes can give a fresh perspective as oppose to those growing up within that denomination. It was very powerful to see how our present pastor changed that and how it now gives forth the Gospel in the Sacrament. Sometimes a new comers eyes can see things that old timers, if you will, have forgotten or over looked.

In Love of Christ,

Larry


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Apr 25, 2006)

Larry, that is a great story but wouldn't this statement "We don't baptize thinking it saves our children..." be true? Baptism doesn't save. Faith does. Don't worry, I'm not a heretic. I'm a Baptist. :bigsmile:


----------



## Larry Hughes (Apr 25, 2006)

Brian,

It is not my intent to get into an endless debate here. It is a true statement but there is a tremendous difference in saying what a thing IS versus what it IS NOT. If we reduce our ceremony to a series of "it is not x, not y, not z, ad nausem...", though defending against hereseys of all sorts, we reduce the whole of the ceremony, taken up by apologetics, to not saying what it IS. By stating the negatives and emphasizing that AT the expense of the positive, one effectively is never saying what it is and at length basically not giving forth the Gospel in it which of course is the devil's real intent...hide and obscure the Gospel in many ways.

Look at it this way: In defending 2 + 4 = 6 I could all day long say 2 + 4 does not equal 1, 2 + 4 does not equal 2, 2 + 4 does not equal 3, 2 + 4 does not equal 4, 2 + 4 does not equal 5, 2 + 4 does not equal 7, 2 + 4 does not equal 8, 2 + 4 does not equal n + 1 where n is any positive real number other than 5.

Or close to home, one could spend all day long defending what Christianity is not and never get to what it is. Yes, your actively attacking opposition but at length your never really saying what Christianity IS. As Luther said if your fighting where the battle is NOT at, then your not really defending the faith.

So much more important it is to state the Gospel in Baptism, that it is based upon the Gospel and not receptacle of faith but the Gospel itself. That is to set forth Christ to which baptism points and is founded, not faith itself. Rather than say the worthless and obvious statement baptism doesn't save you meritoriously any more than faith doesn't save you meritoriously.

If all one has done is communicate the one of an infinite number of "nots" a thing is not or emphasized it, one has worthlessly done nothing. If all I say is, "one is not saved by works of any kind" or emphasized that, then I've done nothing. One must give the positive and emphasize that. Or as Paul says, "I preach Christ and HIM crucified..."

Stating the nots, or emphasizing it to the expense of the positive only robs people of the great comfort of the Gospel found in baptism FOR ME. Baptism is FOR faith not because of faith. There's a BIG difference.

In Christ's Love,

Larry


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 25, 2006)

Larry,
But isn't it consistant w/ historic reformed thinking that we baptise because of what God has already accomplished in our children? Does it not point to that accomplishment?

Nigel lee writes:



> First Peter 3:21 clarifies that "œBaptism" is "œ not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God." And again, if one does not believe and presume one´s children to be regenerate -- one has no business getting them baptized at all (unless with Rome one believes baptizing them regenerates them).


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Apr 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> Brian,
> 
> It is not my intent to get into an endless debate here. It is a true statement but there is a tremendous difference in saying what a thing IS versus what it IS NOT. If we reduce our ceremony to a series of "it is not x, not y, not z, ad nausem...", though defending against hereseys of all sorts, we reduce the whole of the ceremony, taken up by apologetics, to not saying what it IS. By stating the negatives and emphasizing that AT the expense of the positive, one effectively is never saying what it is and at length basically not giving forth the Gospel in it which of course is the devil's real intent...hide and obscure the Gospel in many ways.
> ...



That's fine. I'm not interested in a debate either. 

"Rather than say the worthless and obvious statement baptism doesn't save you meritoriously any more than faith doesn't save you meritoriously." I don't believe what I said was worthless. It was obvious though because Christ saves us through FAITH. But that's the first time I've been told what I said was worthless. Excuse me for a moment while I 

I disagree. Baptism is because of faith and not for faith, and yes, there is a difference. I agree on that.


----------



## beej6 (Apr 25, 2006)

Along with Murray's article above, I'd recommend this one from the OPC:

http://www.opc.org/cce/tracts/WhyInfantBaptism.html


----------



## Larry Hughes (Apr 27, 2006)

Scott,

I'll post on a fresh board. I don't want to over take Tom's question on this. I'll try to come up with some clever or not so clever name!

Tom,

My advice would be the same I received for your consideration.

In Christ's Love,

Larry


----------

