# Probably a dumb question...



## ServantOfKing (Jul 19, 2006)

This rather irrelevant question has been plaguing me for some time now:

Why is the type of baptism advocated by Baptists and most if not all other evangelical groups so much more widely accepted in the Christian community than the presbyterian/ covenantal view of infant baptism?

It seems like it is in such a minority and only found in one or two types of church settings...

Does anyone have any thoughts on this/ the development of the church in America? 

I know this might need to be moved to another forum, but I wasn't quite sure where to put it!


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 20, 2006)

Ashley,
First, American history (USA) is a small slice of the pie.

Second, you have to understand this penomenon in the social context of this country. Hyper-individualism is rampant today, to the exclusion of notions and principles of solidarity. How many people can explain (how many believe!) the biblical doctrine of Original Sin? Or Union with Christ?

Related to that, third, we all (credo or pedo) believe baptism teaches something about salvation. But we pedos (assuming we know what we believe) believe it points to the monergistic work of God in regeneration. Most credos say that baptism follows a profession of faith, and is the believers first act of obedience _as a Christian_. It is more related to sanctification--dying to sin, living to righteousness.

Fourth, its true that in the evangelical community credo baptism dominates today in America. However, that would not be true looking at the history of this country. It is not logical to say that because so many mainline churches have gone liberal, that is because of infant baptism in those churches. Nor is it true to say that because of credo baptism, churches tend to stay evangelical. Numbers themselves, at any time in history, do not tell the tale of where faithfulness dominates.

Fifth, there have been times when missionary zeal has not burned as hot as it could have, or in all directions. Presbyterians insist on an educated ministry (for good reasons). In the 1800s, we have two facts--a booming foreign missionary movement, and the openning of the American frontier. Missionary minded Presbyterians tended to head for foreign lands, leaving the frontier of the USA to fellow Presbyterians. But those who stayed home often didn't want to go the the hard edges of socitey, preferring established towns and churches. 

So there were more Methodist (who also baptised infants) or Baptists itinerant preachers in this country than Presbyterians (there were some). The former often had far less education (seminary) than a typical Presbyterian. The Presbyterians were, unfortunantly, "more respectable." But this influenced the kinds of theology that folks imbibed. Covenant comprehension waned, coupled with an increase in a "theology" of personal contribution (rugged individualism).

On the other hand, being the organizational (its in the name!) idealogues that they were, the Presbyterians built impressive missionary enterprises in many foreign countries, beginning in the 19th century. Their legacy is still seen today in many places where the "American" University, or hospitals, or other social edifices can be seen, as well as in national Presbyterian churches. If these folks had stayed home, the Presbyterian church would have been just as well represented in the American frontier, but the rest of the world would have lost these benefits.


----------



## New wine skin (Jul 20, 2006)

Rev Buchanan made many great points. I do not want to take away from what he said, but add my own opinion and experience in this matter.

At the risk of making a caricature of the issue here is my opinion spoken on a high level. 

Evangelicals tend to emphasize personal faith/response faith to the exclusion of the covenant demands/economy. Many believers (lay and pastoral) lack an appreciation for covenant and biblical theology. Lay Evangelicals (& some pastors) in America tend to work off a shallow theology and have undeveloped critical thinking skills. For those scholars & learned pastors who are great thinkers and still promote credo baptism, many of whom I know and respect, they still seem to lack a willingness to "release" their personal favoritism out of tradition and honestly evaluate the covenant perspective, first apart from baptism, then going back to consider baptism after full consideration and understanding has been achieved relating covenant theology to the full scope of "theology". (this comment will open a bag of worms) 

John Murray wrote a great monograph on infant baptism if you want a more in-depth study of the particulars. 

Blessings


----------



## Dave L (Jul 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ServantOfKing_
> 
> Does anyone have any thoughts on this/ the development of the church in America?



As an Englishman, I have to admit that my knowledge of the church in America is rather limited, even though the Pilgrim Fathers sailed from my city!

I did a little digging though, and found this article on the history of infant baptism, which although dealing with the early church, does look at the situation in the US as well.



> Infant baptism is tied up with the State control of religion. From the earliest times, rulers have felt it to be necessary to control religion. Each nation had its own gods and other deities were not allowed for reasons of state polity (cf. Dan 3:1ff; 6:7 ). The Romans were quite enlightened in this regard and allowed many religions, but they deemed it wise to erect a statue of the Emperor in every town and to require the people to sacrifice to it. Many persecutions of Christians came about because they refused to call the Emperor 'Lord' or to offer a pinch of incense to his statue.
> 
> Shortly after the time of Constantine, Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. The Emperors cared nothing as to how devout their subjects might be, but they wanted everyone quite literally to be singing from the same hymn-sheet. Other religions or other forms of Christianity carried with them the danger of political unrest. Infant baptism was an ideal instrument for bringing about religious unity. One came into the Church at birth and there one stayed. Anyone who left came under the sanction of both Church and State.
> 
> ...



I hope that you find the article interesting and useful.

I know I did!


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jul 20, 2006)

With all due respect, the notion that Calvin, Luther, Bullinger, Zwingli, and Bucer et al advocated infant baptism primarily (or solely) because they were children of Constantine and helplessly victimized by Christendom is nonsense. 

This is a revision of the old Anabaptist argument that the Reformers continued the practice of infant/paedo-baptism because they weren't fully Reformed.

Such a claim ignores the covenant *theology* of the magisterial Protestants. Yes, they were Constantinian, and one can argue (as I have) that there were ways in which their view of the state continued to reflect that circumstance, but the same argument cannot be sustained in view of their extensive, exegetical, theological, and principled defense of paedobaptism against their Anabaptist critics.

The magisterial Protestants advocated infant baptism because of their commitment to a particular hermeneutic which sees Abraham as the father of the believers and sees substantial continuity between the covenant made with Abraham and the New Covenant by which grace is administered today.

They knew why they advocated infant baptism. Indeed, Luther changed his arguments over time to adapt to criticisms by the Anabaptists. Calvin, Bucer, Zwingli, and Bullinger all, even more than Luther, appealed to the notion of the covenant of grace to justify infant baptism.

rsc




> Infant baptism is tied up with the State control of religion. From the earliest times, rulers have felt it to be necessary to control religion.....


----------



## refbaptdude (Jul 20, 2006)

Ashley,

A helpful read concerning the points brought out by David is "œThe Reformers and Their Stepchildren" by Leonard Verduin.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jul 20, 2006)

Verduin's work does not stand up to the scrutiny of serious historical criticism. 

1. The debate between (ana)baptists and the Reformed is, ultimately, an exegetical, theological debate. It has to addressed on those, not historical grounds.

2. Modern Baptists will do well to be very careful about appealing to the Anabaptists. That appeal will ultimately do more harm than good for the Modern Baptist movement. Despite their formal agreement, what separates the 16th century Anabaptist and their 17th century successors is much greater.

rsc




> _Originally posted by refbaptdude_
> Ashley,
> 
> A helpful read concerning the points brought out by David is "œThe Reformers and Their Stepchildren" by Leonard Verduin.


----------



## refbaptdude (Jul 20, 2006)

> Verduin's work does not stand up to the scrutiny of serious historical criticism.



That is odd since Dr. Richard Gamble declared that the book was quite good in his church history class at RTS this last year.




> Modern Baptists will do well to be very careful about appealing to the Anabaptists. That appeal will ultimately do more harm than good for the Modern Baptist movement. Despite their formal agreement, what separates the 16th century Anabaptist and their 17th century successors is much greater.



I strongly agree

Thanks,
Steve

[Edited on 7-20-2006 by refbaptdude]


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jul 20, 2006)

Did Prof. Gamble give the book an unqualified, categorical endorsement or did he say that Verduin is correct about x or y? 

Verduin does say some fairly obvious things that are undeniably true, and Prof Gamble is a gracious person, but that Verduin said some obvious things (e.g., Christendom was a mistake) does not qualify the book as a piece of serious Reformation scholarship.

rsc




> _Originally posted by refbaptdude_
> 
> 
> > Verduin's work does not stand up to the scrutiny of serious historical criticism.
> ...


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jul 20, 2006)

As a follow-up. Rick posted this at De Regno Christi:



> Wednesday, June 21, 2006
> A Protestant Choice
> Rick Gamble
> 
> ...


----------



## Philip A (Jul 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Second, you have to understand this penomenon in the social context of this country. Hyper-individualism is rampant today, to the exclusion of notions and principles of solidarity.



 to pastor Buchanan.

One very influential work that had a significant effect on my recent change to the Presbyterian side, both with respect to baptism and church government, was Nathan Hatch's _The Democratization of American Christianity_. Of course, Hatch doesn't go into the subject of baptism, and hardly if at all into church government. His basic thesis is that, in the early days of the republic, the revolution in political theory and ideology spilled over into the ecclesiastical realm and began to dictate the way people thought about theology and other issues related to the church. Once you have your eyes opened to this, it is easy to see it in other places, even though the author who introduced the idea didn't make the same connection.

Similarly, when I was reading Jewett's _Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace_, one recurring note kept showing up over and over again: "this [argument] is nothing more than political philosophy", or some variation thereof.


----------



## refbaptdude (Jul 20, 2006)

Scott,

What does the quote by Prof. Gamble have anything to do with your previous statement?



> Verduin's work does not stand up to the scrutiny of serious historical criticism.



Maybe you can help me here? : )



thanks,
Steve


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jul 20, 2006)

The quote from the blog hints at the sort of ambivalence about the Anabaptists that I suggested in my earlier post.

So I quoted it because it seemed to confirm my hypothesis about what Gamble said and why.

rsc 



> _Originally posted by refbaptdude_
> Scott,
> 
> What does the quote by Prof. Gamble have anything to do with your previous statement?
> ...


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> With all due respect, the notion that Calvin, Luther, Bullinger, Zwingli, and Bucer et al advocated infant baptism primarily (or solely) because they were children of Constantine and helplessly victimized by Christendom is nonsense.
> 
> This is a revision of the old Anabaptist argument that the Reformers continued the practice of infant/paedo-baptism because they weren't fully Reformed.
> ...





I always love it when people use the word "nonsense".


----------



## dannyhyde (Jul 21, 2006)

Ditto, Dr. Clark's words below. One need only read the Belgic Confession (1563), article 34, for example, to see an example of the biblical-theological work done by Guido de Bres in his presentation of infant baptism. No where in the Confession does it present a "Constantinian" line of evidence, that it's always been done this way. Instead, de Bres argues biblical-theologically from the meaning of circumcision in light of Christ's work, from the purpose of signs in separating the people of God from the world, and from the analogy of the Passover and Red Sea as well as exegetically from the accounts of circumcision in the Old Testament and baptism in the New.



> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> With all due respect, the notion that Calvin, Luther, Bullinger, Zwingli, and Bucer et al advocated infant baptism primarily (or solely) because they were children of Constantine and helplessly victimized by Christendom is nonsense.
> 
> This is a revision of the old Anabaptist argument that the Reformers continued the practice of infant/paedo-baptism because they weren't fully Reformed.
> ...


----------

