# Preliminary deliberations upon W Gary Crampton's book on Baptism



## CalvinandHodges (Aug 14, 2010)

Hi:

This thread is not intended to be a debate about Baptism. A good friend of mine (A Norseman) was kind enough to acquire a copy of Dr. Crampton's book for me, and I have been reading it ever since. Currently, I am in the midst of chapter 4 of 11 chapters. Because of this I have not read the entire argument that Dr. Crampton makes, but there have been some points of interest as well as some thoughts concerning the Baptism debate that I believe are worth commenting on at this point.

First, it seems to me that the two sides all too often talk past each other. Rather than engaging in the points that each side is trying to make there is a sort of code used by the two sides in order to deflect the points being made. This idea occurred to me as I was reading the first few chapters of Dr. Crampton's book.

Second, it seems to me a bit unfair to criticize the Westminster Confession of Faith the way Dr. Crampton seems to be doing. The WCF is, first and foremost, a *Confession* of what we believe. The WCF is not a *Defense* of what we believe. Though the Confession cites Scripture for its views - there is no commentary as to how/why these passages apply to the statements of the Confession. Consequently, when Dr. Crampton states that there is a contradiction between the WCF's definition of Baptism and the application of Baptism to the children of believers does not seem fair or correct.

Third, it seems unfair to me to criticize Dr. Crampton's book because, "there is no new argument for credo-baptism." When I look at a book on Baptism, whether it be a Paedo or Credo book, I am not looking for original argumentation, but as to how well the book articulates the teaching of Baptism and defends this teaching from the Whole Counsel of God. From what I have read so far I think that Dr. Crampton (WGC from now on) has done an excellent job in stating the criticisms that credo-baptists have concerning infant baptism. He is clear and concise, and that is what makes his book valuable.

Now, I wish to make some comments concerning some of the statements in WGC's book. I would welcome comments on these points (especially from my Norse friend), but I do not wish to debate at this time. I distinguish a "comment" from a "debate point" in that a comment makes a suggestion while a debate point makes a statement. A comment might be phrased like this, "That is interesting, but did you consider this..."

On page 4 of WGC's book I found one of the major points that credo-baptists make concerning infant baptism. One hears this point made in just about all statements that Credo-baptists make concerning infant baptism, and, thus, it must be an important point among Credo-baptists. WGC writes:



> There is not a single example of infant baptism in the whole of Scripture.


For those of us who hold Sola Scriptura dear this is a very important point. WGC points out that many infant baptist scholars have also agreed with this statement. John Calvin notes that those who objected to infant baptism at his time had also made a similar claim. He points out that there is no single example of women taking the Lord's Supper in the New Testament. Given the strong emphasis that Credo-baptists make concerning the "no single example" statement one would have to question why, then, would they allow women to take the Lord's Supper?

The emphasis here is on "example" - there is no single example - but "examples" are not the only means by which the Church is to deduce the will of God on a matter. There are direct commands in the Bible, and, there are also matters that deal with "good and necessary consequence" that evince the will of God in the Scriptures.

Several pages later WGC makes some remarks concerning "good and necessary consequence" but comments on those points will have to wait for a later post.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Marrow Man (Aug 14, 2010)

Rob, I'm not going to comment (having not read the book), but I was wonder if you could elaborate on what you mean in the point below. I.e., what is the "sort of code used by the two sides in order to deflect the points being made"?



CalvinandHodges said:


> First, it seems to me that the two sides all too often talk past each other. Rather than engaging in the points that each side is trying to make there is a sort of code used by the two sides in order to deflect the points being made. This idea occurred to me as I was reading the first few chapters of Dr. Crampton's book.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Aug 14, 2010)

Hi:

Good question, Tim, I think you can see this in the "specially defined" words used by either side: "New Covenant" meaning "Believers Only" or, "Dispensationalism" as a means of pointing out the supposed rejection of the OT by credo-baptists. These terms, and others like it, do not seem to be used in order to make a point, but, to "circle the wagons" so to speak and to let those who are on the "in" (on either side) to bypass what is being said, and stay the course of the accepted dogma.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## MW (Aug 15, 2010)

CalvinandHodges said:


> WGC writes:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
You may be interested in George Gillespie's defence of infant baptism in his Miscellany Questions. 88-92. He specifically appeals to 1 Corinthians 10 as an undeniable example of infant baptism in Scripture.

The fact is that there is not a single example of a person born into a Christian home being baptised upon their own profession of faith.

The whole of Scripture, doctrinally and practically, testifies to the practice of infant inclusion. The social principle of federal representation is ingrained in the fabric of redemption. One must do violence to holy writ to make the Scriptures speak in defence of antipaedobaptism.


----------



## Michael (Aug 15, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> You may be interested in George Gillespie's defence of infant baptism in his Miscellany Questions. 88-92.


Are you able to post this Rev. Winzer? Or a link perhaps?

---------- Post added at 08:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:18 PM ----------

Got it...



> Mr. Tombes, in his Apology for the two treatises, and appendix concerning infant baptism, inserts a letter to Mr Selden, p. 90, in which he intimateth his opinion, that Pædobaptism did not succeed into the room of circumcision, wherein he saith he was the more confirmed, having read of baptism used among the Jews before the time of John Baptist, in their admitting of proselytes, and that therefore John was not accused for baptising, as if that had been an innovation or new rite introduced, but for baptising without authority.
> I do not marvel that Mr. Tombes is so cautious that baptism should not be thought to succeed into the room of circumcision, for so he should make baptism more like to the circumcision of the Arabians, who are not circumcised till they be thirteen years of age (as Zonaras, Annal., tom. 1, de Rebus Judaicis, p. 13, tells us), because their forefather Ishmael was circumcised about that age, than to the circumcision of the eighth day, ordinarily used among the people of God, under the Old Testament. For my part, I think the Apostle, Col. ii. 11, 12, doth plainly hold forth that baptism hath succeeded into the room of circumcision, which is also the common and received opinion of divines. However, because Mr. Tombes doth rather think that the Christian baptism succeedeth to that baptism used among the Jews in their admission of proselytes, this hath given occasion to me to apply my thoughts to search a little into the original of baptism by water; and whether the original thereof, or that which God had respect unto in the institution thereof, maketh anything against, or for, infant baptism.
> 
> That baptising with water is a divine institution, is plain from John i. 33, "He that sent me to baptise with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending," &c. As for that which this institution had reference unto in the Old Testament or Jewish customs, first of all consider Ezek. xvi. 4, "As for thy nativity, in the day thou wast born thy navel was not cut, neither wast thou washed in water to supple thee," &c. Where the Chaldee salth, "The congregation of Israel was like unto a child cast out into the open field, whose navel is not cut, and it is not washed in water, that it might be cleansed." The Septuagint, whom Jerome followeth, "And thou art not washed in water unto salvation:" eis swthrian, in salutem. Jerome1 applieth it to baptism, as being necessary even to infants who are in their blood and sinful pollution, and have therefore need to be washed in the laver of regeneration, and baptised.
> ...


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Aug 20, 2010)

Hi:

After taking the advice of my Norse friend I decided not to continue commenting until I had read the whole book. It is an enjoyable read. As I mentioned before the clarity of the credo-baptist arguments contained in it makes this volume stand out as one of the better works by Credo-baptists on this subject.

As I mentioned in the OP the Credo-baptist argument that "there are no examples of Infant Baptism in the New Testament" turns out to be one of the driving presuppositions of the book. Dr. Crampton first mentions this argument on pages 4-6 of his book. I think I suggested that if one is to be consistent with this type of hermeneutic, then the Credo-baptists must not allow women to take the Lord's Supper - "there are no examples of women taking the Lord's Supper in the New Testament." This response was first mentioned by John Calvin, and I would be interested in how Credo-baptists would respond to it.

Rev. Winzer has also posted a relevant response to the objection by Credo-baptists: 1 Cor 10 talks about the baptism of the whole of Israel.

Dr. Crampton continues in his book to a section entitled, "Baptism and the Lord's Supper Go Together," I might suggest, then, that Credo-baptists stop administering the Lord's Supper to women because there is no NT evidence for it. However, Dr. Crampton deals with this subject in more depth later on in his book. I will follow the outline in his book and deal with this subject when he delves into it with more depth.

The next point that he makes is: "Multiple Differences Among Paedo-Baptists as to why Infants Should Be Baptized." The "Practice in Search of a Theology" point of view of the Credo-Baptists.

Are there multiple arguments for Infant Baptism? Yes. Not all people are convinced in a certain way, and what may seem like a weak argument to some is a strong argument to others. Not all people are convinced of Calvinism from one type of argument alone. I was convinced by reading Romans 9. A friend of mine was convinced by reading John 1:12-13. I was convinced by "God having Mercy on whom He will have Mercy." My friend was convinced that God gives the power to become Born Again. I am convinced of Infant Baptism by the Great Commission and Discipleship Baptism. I believe that the children of Believers come under the definition of Disciple, and they are being Discipled, therefore, they should be Baptized. An elder in my Church was convinced of Infant Baptism by the Baptizing of the Philippean jailor. Also, the presentation of Infant Baptism can be modified according to the culture and mindset of the times: Cyprian, Augustine, and Martin Lloyd-Jones all live in different times, with different ways of thinking, and different cultures - consequently - one should expect a different way of explaining Infant Baptism. If one were to investigate in-depth the underlying unity of all of the arguments, then one would see that it is the Covenant Promises given to believing parents, and, consequently, to their children under discipleship that is the thread woven in all of the arguments for Infant Baptism.

Cyprian: Epistle 58, Section 3: "Moreover, belief in divine Scripture declares to us, that among all, whether infants or those who are older, there is the same equality of the divine gift. Elisha, beseeching God, so laid himself upon the infant son of the widow, who was lying dead, that his head was applied to his head, and his face to his face, and the limbs of Elisha were spread over and joined to each of the limbs of the child, and his feet to his feet. If this thing be considered with respect to the inequality of our birth and our body, an infant could not be made equal with a person grown up and mature, nor could its little limbs fit and be equal to the larger limbs of a man. But in that is expressed the divine and spiritual equality, that all men are like and equal, since they have once been made by God; and our age may have a difference in the increase of our bodies, according to the world, but not according to God; unless that very grace also which is given to the baptized is given either less or more, according to the age of the receivers, whereas the Holy Spirit is not given with measure, but by the love and mercy of the Father alike to all. For God, as He does not accept the person, so does not accept the age; since He shows Himself Father to all with well-weighed equality for the attainment of heavenly grace."

Cyprian's argument that infants should be baptized because they receive the Divine Grace is consistent with how infant baptists view Covenant Theology. "Divine Grace" here is a greater administration than Saving Grace, see, Mt 7:22-23; Heb 6:4-6.

To "modernize" Augustine's argument: The visible Church is the Kingdom of Christ's New Covenant, Infants born of Christian parents are in the Church, therefore, because they are in the Church they should be baptized.

If Martyn Lloyd-Jones did not believe in Infant Baptism, then why is he presented as one who practices infant baptism?

I think that another factor which should be considered is that the objections to Infant Baptism have changed over times. Therefore, those tasked with defending Infant baptism are going to address the objections of their particular time rather than objections which have not been raised.

I agree with Dr. Cramptons' citation of George Muller at the end of his chapter:



> It is my firm conviction that of all the truths revealed in the Holy Scriptures, none is clearer than the truth in regard to baptism ... and that the truth is obscured solely because inquirers are not willing to let the Bible alone answer the question. pg. 10.


The Bible alone should be our guide in all matters concerning faith and life. This, I might suggest, does not mean that the Bible does not need to be interpreted. After all, God gives us preachers and teacher in order to show us the true doctrine of the Bible. Oftentimes we allow our presuppositions to prejudice our interpretation of the Bible. I would like to point out that Dr. Cramption shows how the Credo-baptist uses certain presuppositions in order to misunderstand the teachings of Scripture on Baptism in the next chapter of his book entitled, "The Definition of Baptism."

However, I will have to address this in my next post.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Aug 22, 2010)

Hi:

I would like to suggest to my credo-baptist brothers that the objections to their argument concerning "no example given" are Biblical and relevant. To summarize:

1) If one replaces "Baptism" with the "Lord's Supper" and "infant" with "women" then one can find a "Bible alone" argument for excluding women from the Lord's Supper. Are we not to use the "Scriptures Alone" as the only rule of faith and life? Are there any examples of women taking communion in the NT alone? Should we not then guide our interpretation of the "less clear" passages based upon this principle of "examples"? Therefore, when we come to 1 Cor 11:28, and the Apostle Paul says, "Let a man examine himself," then we should be interpreting that to be males only?

2) Rev. Winzer's citation of 1 Cor 10 needs a complete answer from credo-baptists.

To go on to chapter 2 of Dr. Crampton's book:

He cites both the WCF and the LBC in their definitions of Baptism. I think it would be useful to do so here:



> WCF Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church;[2] but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life.[7] Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.[8]


and,



> LBC: Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.


He then says:


> "The wording in the Baptist Confession is somewhat different from that of the Westminster Confession, but the meaning is essentially the same. What is described in both cases is believer, disciple, or confessor baptism (credobaptism).


In analyzing the two confessions Dr. Crampton is both right and wrong. He is right in saying that the two confessions use different wording. He is wrong in saying that they mean the same thing. The idea that one can use different words and mean the same thing is a post-modern understanding that has come into the Church through various translation philosophies - such as the dynamic equivalance of the NIV. Words have meaning, and different words have different meanings - even if the words can be used as synonyms. I would like to suggest that the Westminster Divines in formulating their definition of Baptism were thinking in much different terms than the London Baptists when the Baptists formed their definition. Since the LBC came after the WCF I would suggest that the Baptists were *deliberately* thinking of Baptism in terms different from the Westminster Divines. That is why the words are different.

In short, Dr. Crampton in trying to show a contradiction in the WCF is imposing a credobaptist presupposition on the WCF that was not the intention of the writers of the WCF. The contradiction exists only if one is thinking in strictly Credobaptist terms. I think that is why much heat is thrown about on this subject - because it is not the Scriptures that is really being talked about, but the interpretation (presuppositions) imposed upon the Scriptures that is being debated. With many people these are "core beliefs" - that is - if I change these beliefs, then I must change as well. To me, if the Yankees win the World Series - it will not change me in any significant fashion. However, if my views concerning Baptism change, then my behavior has to change as well. Our "core beliefs" we think define us as to who we are, and, consequently, we are loath to give them up. However, as Christians, it is the Bible that defines us as to who we are. We should be ready to abandon core beliefs if the Scriptures warrant it.

What, then, do these two different definitions of Baptism show concerning core beliefs? I will try to point this out as best as I can, Lord willing:

Dr Crampton says, "Water baptism symbolizes, not only the blessings of the gospel, *but the saving response to the gospel by the party baptized.*" It is this second point that he emphasizes throughout the rest of the chapter. It is this second point that I think is the *major objection* that Credobaptists have concerning infant baptism. The problem with this, as I see it, is that the "saving response" is not the *only* aspect of the sign of Baptism that is applicable. The Westminster Confession of Faith says:

"...*not only* for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church, *but also*..." First, and foremost, according to the WCF, Baptism is a "solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church." The visible church, according to the same WCF:



> The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion;[2] and of their children:[3] and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ,[4] the house and family of God,[5] out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.[6]


Thus, the WCF *does not* contradict itself in regards to Baptism, because it defines the visible Church as believers and their children. The argument then would be that since Baptism admits people into the visible Church, then infants, who are in the visible church should be baptized as the outward sign of their admittance.

What about the rest of what the Confession says concerning Baptism? Those are the blessings given to those who have true faith in Jesus Christ - their baptism becomes effective to them by Faith. The baptizing of infants is not a matter of "Presumptive Faith," but simply following what the Scriptures teach concerning their inclusion in the visible church.

If you notice, the LBC omits, "admission into the visible church." I believe it does so purposefully.

The argument between the two confessions, as defined by the confessions themselves, hinges upon who are and who are not members of the visible church.

I am forced to suggest, then, that Dr. Crampton's statement that the WCF contradicts itself is not valid. There is also another consideration to make concerning these two Confessions of Faith:

The best way for me to express my misgivings is to point out that the WCF sees Baptism as a picture of the Work of the Holy Spirit. The LBC sees Baptism as a picture of the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is manifestly demonstrated in the mode of Baptism.

Since the WCF sees Baptism as a picture of the Work of the Spirit of God they consider the mode of Baptism as sprinkling/pouring for two reasons: 1) Everywhere in the Old and New Testaments the Spirit of God is said to be "poured out" or "sprinkled" upon believers. When the blood of Christ is *applied* to believers it is done by sprinkling (the application of the blood of Christ is done by the Spirit of God). And, 2) Nowhere in the Old or New Testaments is it ever said, or implied, that the believer is to be applied to the Holy Spirit, but just the reverse - it is the Holy Spirit who is applied to the Believer. Consequently, water is applied to the believer, and not the believer to the water. To dip a person is not necessary, but Baptism is rightly administered by the sprinkling or pouring of the water on the person. The water in Baptism represents the Spirit. Dipping is applying the person to the water. 

It is the Spirit of God who makes both the Visible and Invisible Church.

Because Dr. Crampton seems to have misunderstood what the WCF is saying concerning Baptism, the visible church, and the Holy Spirit, and, he seems to want to impose his Credobaptist understanding on the WCF, it does not convince me, as a Paedobaptist, that he is addressing the matter correctly. He cites some Paedobaptists as in fundamental agreement with his points, but I am not in fundamental agreement with those Paedobaptists. He has to address the presuppositions of the Paedobaptists, and not seek to interpret the confession by his own presuppositions. When you define your opponent's views as your own, when they are not, then you are talking past your opponent - you are seeing him in agreement with you when they are not.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Aug 24, 2010)

Hi:

We have seen that the Credobaptist assertion that there are "no examples in the NT of infant baptism" has been challenged on, at least, two levels: 1) There is no example in the New Testament of women taking the Lord's Supper, and, 2) The citation of 1 Cor 10 as an example of infants being baptized in the New Testament.

In Chapter 2 Dr. Crampton points out that the Westminster Confession of Faith and the London Baptist Confession both agree on the definition of Baptist - that they are Credobaptistic in nature. I believe it has been shown that the two Confessions are manifestly different in their understanding of Baptism. By placing the children of Believers in the visible church, and, by stating that Baptism admits the party Baptized into the visible church, it then follows that the children of believers are to be Baptized as an outward mark of their standing in the visible church. I believe that the LBC purposefully omits this teaching of the WCF. Therefore, the two understandings of what Baptism signifies are different.

If the argument between the two sides hinges upon the admittance or non-admittance of infants of believers into the visible church, then it follows that that is where the discussion should be addressed.

In Chapter 3, however, Dr. Crampton goes back to the nature of Baptism: Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament.

Here is where Credobaptists and Paedobaptists butt heads together. The Paedobaptist does not deny that Baptism is for believers. They everywhere state that such is the case. The problem lies in that the word "only" is not in their vocabulary. Baptism is for believers and their children - is what we think and believe.

Dr. Crampton emphasizes the New Testament nature of the sacrament of baptism. Because of this, he brings out a very powerful argument:



> The Confession correctly states that water baptism is a New Testament sacrament. Hence, it should be studied from a New Testament perspective. This is the proper approach to the study of the New Covenant sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and rightly so. Even though Exodus 12 teaches that Old Testament Israelite children partook of the Passover ordinance (which foreshadowed the New Testament ordinance of the Lord's Supper), we know from the teaching of the New Testament that participation in the Lord's Supper is more restrictive. First, there is no positive or direct New Testament command to include infants or small children in this covenant feast. And, second, in 1 Corinthians 11:27-32 there is the clear biblical mandate that one needs to examine himself prior to partaking of the sacrament, lest he eat and drink unworthily and bring judgment on himself, pgs. 18-19.


This would indeed be a powerful argument if Dr. Crampton could drive home his two point. The first point, "there is no positive or direct New Testament command..." is not necessary to prove infant baptism. The practice of infant inclusion in the sign of the Covenant in the Old Testament does not need to be restated in the New. What Dr. Crampton, and Credobaptists, need to prove is the second point, "a clear biblical mandate that specifically forbids infant baptism." We agree with Dr. Crampton that there is a clear Biblical mandate to forbid children the Lord's Supper. However, there needs to be a clear Biblical mandate in the New Testament that forbids infant Baptism.

Because there is no clear New Testament mandate that forbids infant baptism - it therefore follows that the Old Testament practice of infant inclusion in the Old Covenant persists into the New Covenant.

This is why Paedobaptists "retreat" into the Old Testament - to demonstrate the inclusion of infants of believers as the standard practice of the visible church from the very beginning. If such a practice can be established Biblically in the Old Testament, then it can be presumed to persist in the New Testament. Unless there is a clear New Testament mandate that infants should be excluded.

Because the practice of infant inclusion in the visible church was already performed, and was implemented for thousands of years, there is no reason for the Apostles to make a positive statement concerning infants in their teachings. However, if infants were to be excluded from the visible church, then there would need to be a clear statement to that effect. Dr. Crampton clearly points this out concerning the Lord's Supper: The Passover allowed children to participate. Nevertheless, the New Testament clearly forbids it. Circumcision included infants in the covenant. There is no clear command in the New Testament that forbids infants from inclusion in the covenant.

It seems to me that Dr. Crampton makes a very large theological mistake at the end of the chapter when he writes:



> It is difficult to reconcile these (paedobaptist) statements with the teaching of John 1:12-13, which says, "But as many as received Him [Jesus Christ], to them He gave the right to become children of God. even to those who believee in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." These verses clearly teach that those who have an "interest in the covenant, and right to the seal of it, and to the outward privileges of the church" under the New Testament era are those who are "born not of blood ... but of God, brackets his, parenthesis mine."


The reconciliation is simple: John is talking about the Elect - the invisible church. The children of believers are members of the visible church - consequently - they may be members of the invisible church as well. But, whether they are members of the invisible church or not, as members of the visible church they are regarded as being in the covenant of God. This has been the practice of the Church from the beginning of time - if Adam and Eve had not fallen, then their children would have been in the covenant. The question then: How does John 1:12-13 forbid infants in the covenant?

I would welcome questions or comments. That no one seems to be asking questions or making comments or even clicking the "thanks" button makes me think that maybe I am wasting my time?

Blessings to you all,

Rob


----------

