# Baptism - My Journey



## Jared (Nov 4, 2011)

Okay. I never thought I would say this, but I am actually open at this point to questioning my view of baptism. I have been a credo-baptist all my life. However, I am now a covenant theologian (or very close) and I am Reformed in a lot of other ways. 

Well, I got Mike Horton's systematic before it was officially released like I mentioned here on PB. I was reading his section on baptism the other night and it was very convincing. He almost persuaded me. Hmm. Reminds me of a hymn. Almost Persuaded.

Anyway, I see the connection between covenant theology and paedobaptism. But, I still have a couple of questions. One that most paedobaptists could answer and another that would probably be better for someone who has made the journey from credobaptism to paedobaptism.

The first question is spiritual. Isn't baptism supposed to show how we have been buried with Christ in death and been raised with Him in life, that we identify with His death, burial, and resurrection? Isn't it supposed to be a testimony to our own personal faith?

The second question is more of a sentimental issue. I grew up singing songs about going down to the river to get baptized. I was baptized in a river when I was a child. I have a lot of fond memories of baptisms like that. I know that's not a very good reason to reject paedobaptism, but it is forceful I think for some people. For me to embrace paedobaptism would be to move even further away from the faith of my family, even further than I have moved already by becoming Reformed.


----------



## Jared (Nov 4, 2011)

Could someone move this to the "Baptism" forum? I thought that there was one but I couldn't find it when I was trying to post this.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Nov 5, 2011)

Jared, 

Let me begin by commending your open-mindedness. I too have been where you are. And accepting the Baptist position merely to avoid conflict would not leave you on a very sound footing. You must be persuaded in your own mind. However, I of course would contend with the notion that paedobaptism is a foregone conclusion for someone affirming Covenant Theology. Your open-mindedness should swing both ways. This includes carefully studying both sides of an argument. I fear that some people become Calvinist because they find out one of their heroes (e.g. Spurgeon or Piper) was/is a Calvinist without actually understanding the doctrine or its implications. Then, in time they find that other great men of the faith (e.g. Calvin, Owen) embraced paedobaptism, and so off they go. Those guilty of this are often unstable in their own thinking and easily unsettled when challenged. Whatever side of this debate you end up on, must be decided because you are inwardly convinced and convicted from God's Word that it is the biblical position - and there be prepared to stand. The implications of this debate, while not a "first tier" issue, have profound implications in the church and for you personally. And so I urge the utmost caution in examining this matter.

Why don't you state specifically what points of the paedobaptist doctrine you find compelling. That might help us to narrow our discussion and then we can go from there.

Recommended Reading:


The Appendix to the Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) 
Believer's Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ 
Covenant Theology: A Reformed & Baptistic Perspective on God's Covenants



> "If I thought it wrong to be a Baptist, I should give it up and become what I believed to be right . . . If we could find infant baptism in the Word of God, we would adopt it. It would help us out of a great difficulty, for it would take away from us that reproach which is attached to us – that we are odd and do not do as other people do. But we have looked well through the Bible and cannot find it, and do not believe it is there; nor do we believe that others can find infant baptism in the Scriptures, unless they themselves first put it there"
> C. H. Spurgeon
> Autobiography​


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Nov 5, 2011)

Weston Stoler said:


> From what I have studied I do not find a biblical warrant for making baptism only have one meaning. I really found this sketchy when I was an IFB. Because I could never buy that baptism was only for a testimony that "hey I am a believer and this is what happened".



Your statement seems to imply that this is the Baptist position. However, Baptists do not maintain that baptism has only one meaning. The Baptist Confession states that Baptism signifies multiple things:



> *BCF 29:1, Of Baptism*
> 
> Baptism is an Ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party Baptized,
> 
> ...


----------



## Weston Stoler (Nov 5, 2011)

I am sorry I misrepresented the baptist position. It is what I was taught as a baptist that it was only a symbol of salvation and nothing else.


----------



## Jared (Nov 5, 2011)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Why don't you state specifically what points of the paedobaptist doctrine you find compelling. That might help us to narrow our discussion and then we can go from there.



Okay. The following verse makes sense if you are a paedobaptist but I have never found a satisfactory answer to this passage from a credobaptist point of view:

For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 
(1 Corinthians 7:14 ESV)

I was never really convinced by the argument that in the book of Acts when it says that families were baptized that all of the family including the infants were baptized because it doesn't say they were. Of course that can't be ruled out, but it's an argument from silence. But 1 Corinthians 7:14 is difficult to understand outside of paedobaptism.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Nov 5, 2011)

Hi Jared:

Your first question is stated like this, "The first question is spiritual. Isn't baptism supposed to show how we have been buried with Christ in death and been raised with Him in life, that we identify with His death, burial, and resurrection? Isn't it supposed to be a testimony to our own personal faith?"

And, your second question seems to be referring to the mode of Baptism. Is that what you are struggling with? The mode?

Thanks in advance,

Rob


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 5, 2011)

Jared,
Unless you change churches, I don't think this is an immediate issue in your life. Take the long route to this change--if you get there.

If you approached a confessional Presbyterian minister and just asked him to baptize your newborn, he'd ask you why your own pastor can't do it. If you tell him your church doesn't baptize infants (or those not come-of-age), he should tell you that if your child isn't going to be on the roll of the church where he's baptized, it won't happen. That's because we don't do "individual rites," but church-rites. And if you join a church that does those baptisms (and its doctrinally pure) then you have a pastor who is right there to work with you through certain questions.

You can go ahead with questions here; I'm not cutting you off. My point is, you don't appear to be in a church where you can put this notion into practice, even if you buy-in. Sometimes you can get "convinced" ahead of your judgment, which may catch up to your decision or maybe not. And this means you have time to think about everything, including the traditional Reformed implication of CT that points to infant-baptism as sign/seal of the covenant. You may never need to explain your "move" to an outside family-member. But you could still be a covenant-theologian who was baptized as an adult.


----------



## saintandsinner77 (Nov 5, 2011)

I became a paedobaptist a couple of years ago after spending much time in Baptist churches. The NT speaks of our being children of Abraham by faith and so, since Abraham's household was circumcised and baptism has replaced circumcision, then our households, including infants should be baptized. The oikos formula seems like a very strong position for the paedobaptist. The Baptists counter that it speaks of persons believing with their whole households, but when we look at the following passage- "One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, ‘If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.’ And she prevailed upon us." (Acts 16:14-15; ESV) . In this passage, only Lydia's faith is mentioned. In the end, both Baptists and paedobaptists have assumptions about households- Baptists must believe absolutely no households in the NT texts had infants, the paedobaptists think, some did. Which seems more reasonable?


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Nov 5, 2011)

Jared Hanley said:


> For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
> (1 Corinthians 7:14 ESV)



Well the first thing to say concerning this text is that Paul isn't discussing baptism. And secondly, if the children being sanctified by a believing parent means that they should be baptized, then should we not also consider the unbelieving spouse a proper subject of baptism? Paul speaks of the unbelieving spouse in the same terms as the children. So it would stand to reason from a paedobaptist perspective that unbelieving spouses should be baptized also. Right?

Of course not. We understand that the apostle is speaking here of the sanctifying influence of a Christian witness in the home. Paul links the holiness of the children (and the unbelieving spouse) to the presence of a believing parent in the home, not the reception of baptism.


----------



## saintandsinner77 (Nov 5, 2011)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Jared Hanley said:
> 
> 
> > For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
> ...



Pastor Sheffield, of course the unbelieving spouse should not be a subject since she would come to baptism in willful, public unbelief (a despising of the sacrament) and would thus make a mockery of baptism. Christ told His disciples to suffer the little children to come to Him (and I don't see how that is restricted to only a little pat on the head or temporal blessing). Children are also capable of belief (i.e. John, the first Baptist  ). Baptists need to answer- If we are Abraham's children by faith (as the NT states) and Abraham gave the covenant sign to the children in the OT, where is the radical break with withholding the covenant sign from children in the NT? The burden of proof is on Baptists to show the radical change in the understanding of households from Old to New.


----------



## jogri17 (Nov 5, 2011)

Jared Hanley said:


> The first question is spiritual. Isn't baptism supposed to show how we have been buried with Christ in death and been raised with Him in life, that we identify with His death, burial, and resurrection? Isn't it supposed to be a testimony to our own personal faith?
> 
> The second question is more of a sentimental issue. I grew up singing songs about going down to the river to get baptized. I was baptized in a river when I was a child. I have a lot of fond memories of baptisms like that. I know that's not a very good reason to reject paedobaptism, but it is forceful I think for some people. For me to embrace paedobaptism would be to move even further away from the faith of my family, even further than I have moved already by becoming Reformed.



Greeting brother, 
You bring up a good topic. When I first joined the Puritan board I too was a credo baptist. I was Reformed Baptist in a very Wayne Grudem, DA Carson kind of persuasion. For me it took quite a long time to change my perspective. I suppose I had certain advantages. My family are mostly atheists or non-practicing romanists (they want their children baptised and after that no more church). They found my rejection of infant baptism when I turned 15 to be offensive and would not let me be immersed at the Church I was going to at the time, but they did let me go to Church and youth group. It is ironic that at 18 I was indeed annabaptised and now I regret that. But I was trying to follow scripture and go along with the the doctrine I believed to be the Truth at the time. I believe that though my actions were sinful, God was pleased that it was done out of a sincere desire to obey his Word. This is why it is helpful to make distinctions between types of sins and why I don't feel a strong impulsive need to try to convert credo baptists. I believe God's word is clear and that in due time God will change their minds. And if God doesn't, that is his buisness. But we can only know God's truth because of the illumination of his Holy Spirit. 

I am not a theologian, but I will respond to your two questions the best I can. Your first question is: '' show how we have been buried with Christ in death and been raised with Him in life, that we identify with His death, burial, and resurrection? Isn't it supposed to be a testimony to our own personal faith?''. My response is yes! That is what the Scripture teaches. The question remains does that necessarly mean that the sign (baptism) must always come after that which is signified (regeneration/saving faith)? I respond no. The promise of the Covenant of Grace (Abraham-David-Jesus) is that the promise is to all those hear and to their children. This does not mean that every child of those who embrace the Covenant of Grace receive the benefits, but that they are a part of the Covenant community whether they are saved or not. Of course if they are not saved eventually they are no longer apart of it and they deny their own sign and ought to be removed. But normally Christians ought to except that God will save their children because God delights in the repentance of sinners (and covenant children are just as wicked and sinful as anyone else), but because of their circumstances of being born in such an amazing position within God's people, odds are because of the ordinary means of Grace God will save them. So in summary the sign is given because there is a presumption that God WILL save them in the future, not because of a reality currently present. Now, Reformed folk historically practiced immersion of both infants and adults, but because of practical reasons that doesn't happen as often. The mode is not fundamental to the issue, the vows and the triune intention is what matters in a valid baptism. 

Your second question concerning your family is legtimate, but not a deal breaker. My suggestion is that you not make a huge deal over it and rub their faces in it. When I was first converted, I tried to convert my family every weak and shared the Gospel with them. I think I made the mistake of hardening their hearts to it. I should have waited for good opportunities instead of trying to make circumstances occur where I could force the Gospel in. If you are convinced that covenant baptism is biblical. My suggestion is to quietly and humbly talk to your elders and pastor and say you no longer believe what the Church teaches on an non-essential subject, but it is very important to you. Ask humbly to permit a letter of transfer to a Reformed or Presbyterian Congregation. Go in peace if they let you, and if they say no, I am not sure if it is biblical to leave a Church you are already a member at to leave over baptism. That is between you and your conscience. Concerning your family I would just say that you felt more comfortable with this other sort of Church and emphasize the Unity you share in the Gospel. And if they bring up baptism, humbly say you are not an expert at this stuff, but after reading books and comparing it with the scripture you found it compatible and over time the Holy Spirit worked in your heart to convince you. Offer to loan them books, or a pamphlet on the subject or burn a c.d. for them on the subject done by capable theologians without all the technical jargon. Practiclaly, hosting family get togethers and not bringing it up is a good way to keep the peace and it shows good will torward them. If you cannot, make the best tasting food you can and treat them like you would any other brother and sister in Christ. I find most credo baptists havn't thought about the subject- it is just culturally assumed like osmosis, and it is best to now come off as ''that'' crazy out their relative.


----------



## Jared (Nov 5, 2011)

saintandsinner77 said:


> C. M. Sheffield said:
> 
> 
> > Jared Hanley said:
> ...



Please don't read into this question any sarcasm whatsoever. But, what about children of believing parents who were not baptized as children (perhaps the parents attended a baptist church)? When they are old enough to rebel against the faith that has been handed to them by their parents, they wouldn't be willing subjects just as the unbelieving spouse would not be a willing subject. What is lost by not having our children baptized as infants if indeed paedobaptism is the proper view?

---------- Post added at 01:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:14 PM ----------




Contra_Mundum said:


> Jared,
> Unless you change churches, I don't think this is an immediate issue in your life. Take the long route to this change--if you get there.
> 
> If you approached a confessional Presbyterian minister and just asked him to baptize your newborn, he'd ask you why your own pastor can't do it. If you tell him your church doesn't baptize infants (or those not come-of-age), he should tell you that if your child isn't going to be on the roll of the church where he's baptized, it won't happen. That's because we don't do "individual rites," but church-rites. And if you join a church that does those baptisms (and its doctrinally pure) then you have a pastor who is right there to work with you through certain questions.
> ...



Thanks. I think this is good advice.


----------



## jogri17 (Nov 5, 2011)

Jared Hanley said:


> Please don't read into this question any sarcasm whatsoever. But, what about children of believing parents who were not baptized as children (perhaps the parents attended a baptist church)? When they are old enough to rebel against the faith that has been handed to them by their parents, they wouldn't be willing subjects just as the unbelieving spouse would not be a willing subject. What is lost by not having our children baptized as infants if indeed paedobaptism is the proper view?



Case by case basis. Depends on mental and emotional maturity. Personally I would say around 11 or 12 is you would draw the line and say no. In the past it could have been a bit older (13-16), but I remember at around 5th or 6th grade some classmates already starting to experiment sexually, drink, or try drugs. That is generally more and more common, though not the majority for sure. But it is around that age that children are starting to have to make their own moral choices independently from their parents.

---------- Post added at 02:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:57 PM ----------




Jared Hanley said:


> What is lost by not having our children baptized as infants if indeed paedobaptism is the proper view?


 1. the protection and the promises of the Church. Fundamentally the Church, while they love all they can, is responsible for the members in the most supreme way. Where there is no membership (baptism is a requirement thereof), the Church cannot help and protect the people beyond ''pious advice'' and social pressure. The keys to the kingdom which Christ gave to the Church cannot be exercised as Jesus intended.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Nov 5, 2011)

Jared, greetings,

Here is where I think you are having problems based on your last question. You see scripture as written to believers in Christ. As their is some sort of believer/unbeliever dichotomy. Rather you must view it in a covenantal manner. That would be a covenant keeper/covenant breaker view. If the child was baptized early on then later reject the faith by which they have been sanctified, they are covenant breakers(Hebrews 10:26-31). Scripture is full of covenantal language.

Also, saying "what is lost" totally shows a sign of a flippant attitude towards baptism. It's not about gaining or losing but rather about being covenantally faith to our covenantal God. Wanting to obey Him in every aspect of our lives. That's my two cent editorial...


----------



## Unoriginalname (Nov 5, 2011)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Jared,
> 
> Let me begin by commending your open-mindedness. I too have been where you are. And accepting the Baptist position merely to avoid conflict would not leave you on a very sound footing. You must be persuaded in your own mind. However, I of course would contend with the notion that paedobaptism is a foregone conclusion for someone affirming Covenant Theology. Your open-mindedness should swing both ways. This includes carefully studying both sides of an argument. I fear that some people become Calvinist because they find out one of their heroes (e.g. Spurgeon or Piper) was/is a Calvinist without actually understanding the doctrine or its implications. Then, in time they find that other great men of the faith (e.g. Calvin, Owen) embraced paedobaptism, and so off they go. Those guilty of this are often unstable in their own thinking and easily unsettled when challenged. Whatever side of this debate you end up on, must be decided because you are inwardly convinced and convicted from God's Word that it is the biblical position - and there be prepared to stand. The implications of this debate, while not a "first tier" issue, have profound implications in the church and for you personally. And so I urge the utmost caution in examining this matter.
> 
> Why don't you state specifically what points of the paedobaptist doctrine you find compelling. That might help us to narrow our discussion and then we can go from there.



While I respectfully disagree with Rev Sheffield's theological views on baptism I think he has a great point. I think it is unstable to change your views just because everyone else is doing it. While I wholeheartedly agree with paedobaptism, I think it would be unwise to just sign on. Take your time and really challenge yourself. that is just my unneeded


----------



## jogri17 (Nov 5, 2011)

Andrew P.C. said:


> As their is some sort of believer/unbeliever dichotomy.



Well there is a believer / unbeliever dichotomy language in Scripture as well as more nuanced covenantal language (one reason why I don't believe Paul wrote Hebrews!). Biblically either an individual is united to Christ or dead in trespasses and sins. There is no grey here. IT is black and white. Either you are born again or dead. Either you are regenerate or on your way to hell. Well yes, covenant children are ''sanctified'' in the sense of being set a part. This is not necessary the same sanctification that comes from Saving faith in Jesus Christ. Children of the Covenant are just as much enemies of God by nature as pagans are, but God is gracious and includes them in the covenant, but by nature of the covenant (or the sign) they not receive the benefits without the same faith as all are commanded to have.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Nov 5, 2011)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Here is where I think you are having problems based on your last question. You see scripture as written to believers in Christ. As their is some sort of believer/unbeliever dichotomy. Rather you must view it in a covenantal manner. That would be a covenant keeper/covenant breaker view.



There is a clear believer/unbeliever distinction in Scripture. 


*2 Corinthians 6:15* - "And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?"
*1 Timothy 5:8* - "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."
*Mark 16:16* - "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."
*John 3:16 & 18* - "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. . . He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."
*Luke 12:46* - "The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers."

And there are of course counless other references. The question is, how do you miss it?


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Nov 5, 2011)

Joseph, greetings,

When the apostles (or writers or the new testament) wrote their letters, they wrote them to the same audience that the OT writers wrote to... The covenant community which is comprised of believers and unbelievers alike. I'm not saying that there isn't specific things written to believers only but Paul was writing overall to his audience, the covenant community(covenant members).


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Nov 5, 2011)

Andrew P.C. said:


> When the apostles (or writers or the new testament) wrote their letters, they wrote them to the same audience that the OT writers wrote to... The covenant community which is comprised of believers and unbelievers alike. I'm not saying that there isn't specific things written to believers only but Paul was writing overall to his audience, the covenant community(covenant members).



Do you mean the "church." Because I don't recall the Apostle Paul ever employing the term "covenant community." No I'm pretty sure that term was coined by Presbyterian theologians. And Paul's language in his epistles seem very much to assume that his audience is composed of regenerate believers. 



> 1 Corinthians 1:2 - "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ"


----------



## jogri17 (Nov 5, 2011)

Andrew P.C. said:


> When the apostles (or writers or the new testament) wrote their letters, they wrote them to the same audience that the OT writers wrote to... The covenant community which is comprised of believers and unbelievers alike. I'm not saying that there isn't specific things written to believers only but Paul was writing overall to his audience, the covenant community(covenant members).



Thanks for the warm greeting! It made my day---seriously! Which I suppose is kinda sad in a way...

Anyways, I would disagree on that point. One had the audience of Jews under the Mosaic Covenant (A part of the Covenant of Grace) while the New Testament authors wrote to Jew-Gentile mixed or gentile dominated congregations with little knowledge of the Mosaic Covenant and never lived under it (though the NT is of of the same substance as the Mosaic Covenant), the administration is radically different. 

The majority of Converts from Paul's missionary trips would not have been like Timothy but complete pagans ignorant of the Torah, the Writings, and the Prophets, and that was the Bible of the Church until the Canon was finally established and recognized.

---------- Post added at 04:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:04 PM ----------




C. M. Sheffield said:


> And Paul's language in his epistles seem very much to assume that his audience is composed of regenerate believers.



Really? Because he makes the effort to specifically address Children or parents about their children (Romans 7; Eph. 6; col 3).


----------



## Unoriginalname (Nov 5, 2011)

jogri17 said:


> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> > When the apostles (or writers or the new testament) wrote their letters, they wrote them to the same audience that the OT writers wrote to... The covenant community which is comprised of believers and unbelievers alike. I'm not saying that there isn't specific things written to believers only but Paul was writing overall to his audience, the covenant community(covenant members).
> ...




I think his point was it was the same type of community in the sense that it was made up of both true believers and false professors and/or not yet believers. It is not like the church in the new testament is only invisible. We believe that the church has members in the visible body who are not regenerate and may never be, of course that is where our baptist brothers disagree. The epistles are not written (yet again baptists will disagree) only to true believers but to all in the visible church.


----------

