Infant baptism seeking to understand

Status
Not open for further replies.
jeclark71

jeclark71

Puritan Board Freshman
Hello brother and sisters in Christ. Normally I would just read articles and the post here :graduate:on the PB, but today I am seeking some knowledge. I have just listen to Rc Sproul debate with John MacArthur over infant baptism and RC got my attention to the point of seeking further information. I listen to Dr. R. Scott Clark answer and he went along the same lines. I am a Baptist and I was one who thought infant baptism was just historic act dew to the fear of infant death in the early church. However these two men made me want to look further into this subject. This is not a debate for I lack any knowledge concerning this topic and my arguments would be not be my own. Just asking for insight and truly wanting to learn thank you. :graduate:
 
Yes my brother, I haviing trouble understanding the need,but I am curious of why, if at all we should baptize infants. I found the discussion interesting and wanted to pursue the reasoning behind the practice. As I was taught in school it was done out of a fear of infants dying and parents not knowing what happens after the death of an infant in the early church.
 
jeclark71 said:
As I was taught in school it was done out of a fear of infants dying and parents not knowing what happens after the death of an infant in the early church.
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, which seminary teaches this?
 
Brother it is no seminary it was Campbellsville University a liberal arts Bible school :eek: Dr Josepth Early Church history class.
 
jeclark71 said:
Brother it is no seminary it was Campbellsville University a liberal arts Bible school :eek: Dr Josepth Early Church history class.
Click to expand...

I guess Tim Phillips made it out unscathed. Good to hear that it was not a Baptist seminary that was teaching that.
 
The early church posited odd reasons on both sides of the issue. An early argument against infant baptism involved doubt about whether post-baptismal sins could be forgiven.

Also understand that this issue involves different ways of reading or approaching Scripture, not just different interpretations of certain passages. I think Edward Donnelly's sermons, which were posted on the Board recently, would be a good place to start:

Pastor Edward Donnelly Sermons - SermonAudio.com
 
louis_jp said:
Pastor Edward Donnelly Sermons - SermonAudio.com
Click to expand...

Could not agree more with this recommendation. I don't think you will find them theologically exhaustive but in my opinion they are extremely helpful and focus on the heart of the matter. God be with you as you dive more into it.
 
jeclark71 said:
I am curious of why, if at all we should baptize infants.
Click to expand...

I'm sure this thread will fill up with very long posts shortly, so here is a brief answer to the direct question. They (the child of a believing parent) are Christians, and federally holy before baptism, and therefore they are baptized.
 
littlepeople said:
I'm sure this thread will fill up with very long posts shortly
Click to expand...

I'm sure you are right - though it would be nice if James has a chance to listen to the sermons by Pastor Donnelly and come back with some thoughts & questions first before he gets bombarded! :)
 
James, I listened to the Sproul/MacArthur debate when I was first considering this issue (I grew up Baptist and had much the same impression as you did as to why infant baptism "became" a practice). I don't recall the debate being particularly helpful for me, it was too short and Sproul explained things well but only within a certain, already accepted framework (covenant theology).

Some books I found helpful:
Christ of the Covenants (to get a view of historic and biblical covenant theology)
Children of the Promise by Randy Booth (particularly on infant baptism and the comparison to circumcision)
A short book on baptism by John Murray, I don't recall the title.

It was not an easy study for me, but I am paedobaptist now. I wrote a short position paper on it after I'd studied the topic, which I'd be happy to share. It might have value purely because we have similar backgrounds.
 
James I used to be a Baptist pastor too until I became convinced that God wants babies of believers baptized. I agree with the Donnelly recommendation. Also if you have a copy of Hodge's systematic read his section on baptism.

Keep this in mind: After Abraham believed he was circumcised (which is the way it is done in the Baptist church and which is also the way it is done in paedobaptist churches when someone is converted) but notice what happened next. God told him to circumcise his children and the next thing we find his entire household receiving circumcision. Whether they were old enough to believe wasn't the point. Circumcision was the sign of the covenant and God wanted it to be given not only to adult believers but also to their children because God said "I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee."

In other words, it was God who put children into the Church. When we move to the New Testament He nowhere puts them out. Rather the promise is repeated "For the promise is unto you and to your children..." and the same pattern is repeated. Having given baptism as the new sign of the covenant we find adults believing being baptized and then their households as well. Line up Genesis 17 and Acts 2.38-39 and notice how the promise is repeated and then watch the pattern of Genesis 17 repeated again and again throughout Acts.
 
Last edited:
Should this be moved to the paedo-baptist sub forum since it's specifically asking about infant baptism and not debating baptism?
 
Not, not, not going to keep moving this thread around. Hopefully, jeclark71 can still find the thread he started...

My ID and biases should be clear to anyone. But I want to echo a point made above by another poster.

In the first place, the OP is clear that all the author wants is info, data. He isn't "taking his first steps" toward a change in baptismal views. Many people in many traditions are taught a prejudiced view (rather than a robust presentation) of contrary opinions. And, on top of that, our already formed judgments--our goggles--color how we process our early exposure to other notions. It takes work (more than many are willing to put in) to understand a different view sympathetically. Nor does sympathy imply being "open to conversion" on a subject. James is to be commended for seeking clarity.

Why each side in the baptism debate does its thing has everything to do with an outworking of theological and interpretive convictions. One reason for big-confusion in certain lives is that they assume something about practice and then adopt that practice (against their former practice), but then get "lost" trying to find their way to a supporting theology. This is actually a cogent criticism of the story James tells above, about what he was taught the origins of IB were. People do or observe things in ignorance, and then search for a plausible "backstory," which usually ends up being something that makes sense given other convictions held already (but not necessarily the best explanation).

Baptismal roots are, in the nature of things, very deep. It is a deceptively simple rite, and can be trivialized in even the best of theological minds, by looking at it as simply being a surface decoration. But as we have seen from a few of this Board's former participants, if one assumes a commonness below the surface, and then "switches" his practice based on a very shallow notion of conformity or alignment, that one easily becomes dangerously adrift because that which is seen (practice) is desperately in need of an anchor unseen (theology). It is tragically simple to get swept away into truly aberrant theology, and all on account of a quest for simplistic answers.

So, the suggestion to listen to ED's sermon-series on the subject was a good one. There, one is likely to discover a care and depth to providing answers and perspective--something for which this medium (internet chat) is not particularly conducive (though, sometimes with effort it can be). :2cents:
 
Logan said:
Some books I found helpful:
Christ of the Covenants (to get a view of historic and biblical covenant theology)
Children of the Promise by Randy Booth (particularly on infant baptism and the comparison to circumcision)
A short book on baptism by John Murray, I don't recall the title.
Click to expand...

As another who changed position from credo to paedo I would second these recommendations.
The book by John Murray is titled Christian Baptism and would be a very helpful introduction.

Another book I found extremely good and which covered a lot of issues was The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, edited by Gregg Strawbridge, each chapter on a different topic by different contributors.
 
PaulMc said:
Another book I found extremely good and which covered a lot of issues was The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, edited by Gregg Strawbridge, each chapter on a different topic by different contributors.
Click to expand...

I am currently reading this book. It's a good read. I would recommend it as well.
 
louis_jp said:
The early church posited odd reasons on both sides of the issue. An early argument against infant baptism involved doubt about whether post-baptismal sins could be forgiven.

Also understand that this issue involves different ways of reading or approaching Scripture, not just different interpretations of certain passages. I think Edward Donnelly's sermons, which were posted on the Board recently, would be a good place to start:

Pastor Edward Donnelly Sermons - SermonAudio.com
Click to expand...

Louis, there seems to be something wrong with your signature. It isn't showing up at the bottom of your posts.
 
While it does contain some good material, I think it should be noted that about half of the contributors to the Strawbridge volume are Federal Visionists who also affirm paedocommunion as well as (to varying degrees) aberrant views of justification. So it is probably not the first place to look lest one come away with an inaccurate understanding of what confessional Reformed paedobaptists believe.

Simply consulting the pertinent sections of some representative Reformed systematic theology works is probably as good as anything else. For example, Berkhof, Reymond, Charles Hodge, A.A. Hodge's "Outlines of Theology," etc.
 
Pilgrim said:
While it does contain some good material, I think it should be noted that about half of the contributors to the Strawbridge volume are Federal Visionists who also affirm paedocommunion as well as (to varying degrees) aberrant views of justification. So it is probably not the first place to look lest one come away with an inaccurate understanding of what confessional Reformed paedobaptists believe.
Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing this out. When I read it I wasn't aware of the background of all the writers (except Joel Beeke), but I didn't sense any aberrant views except in the last chapter by RC Sproul Jr where he advocates paedocommunion.
Point taken if one was to read other materials by some of the FV contributors, however.
 
While I might not have a lot to contribute to this discussion at this time, I will say that necessity did seem to be a motive in the early Church for infant and death bed baptisms. Baptism had many views in the early Church. Forgiveness of sin was closely linked to baptism therefore if a child was sick or someone was on their deathbed the rite of baptism was administered for that reason.

Baptism took on many different theological implications and even a few different formulas and practices. Concerning the differences between the Confessional Baptists and Reformed Churches of the Reformation there were clearly Covenantal teachings that tied the practice to how one viewed the essence of Church membership and the New Covenant. This gets complicated as it involves the individual Covenants (Abrahamic, Mosaic, New Covenant) and their unity or disunity.
I can explain more later if there needs to be more commentary on the topic. I am headed out of town today and might be busy tomorrow which will hinder my participation. But I will try to help out as much as I can.
 
Thanks Logan I have listen to a couple sermons by pastor Donnelly he does a great introduction to the topic and gives good insight to both sides of the issue. I will seek out a couple of these books John Murray. I am curious of your journey my friend.
 
jeclark71 said:
Thanks Logan I have listen to a couple sermons by pastor Donnelly he does a great introduction to the topic and gives good insight to both sides of the issue. I will seek out a couple of these books John Murray. I am curious of your journey my friend.
Click to expand...

My journey sort of begins with a move toward Reformed theology. I seem to have had some sort of intuitive knowledge of God's election from early childhood but it wasn't until my mid-teens that I began studying the issue in any way. I came to be convinced of election fairly quickly. Incidentally my early teens were under teaching that was strongly influenced by John MacArthur. I still appreciate much of what MacArthur stands for but find his theology to be fractured, or pieced together like a mosaic. There never seemed to be a consistent thread.

Anyway, when going to college I was looking for a reformed church and came upon the only one in town: Reformed Presbyterian Church (of North America). I was taken immediately by the simple worship, thought that singing psalms was a positively brilliant idea (why had no one thought of that before? :D) and really enjoyed that the people there were Christians throughout the week and not just on Sunday. It was (and is) a close-knit group.

Shortly after beginning to attend I started reading the Westminster Confession and came across the section on baptism. I was rather startled to see that infants of believing parents were to be baptized. Wasn't that a Roman Catholic thing? I remember the index of my MacArthur study Bible listed Pro 30:6 as the solitary reference under "infant baptism", which of course reads "Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar."

As providence would have it, I was going over for supper that evening to one of the young families, so with excellent and careful tact I broached the subject by saying "You guys don't really believe in infant baptism do you?" The answer was a very serious "well, yes we do, and here's a few reasons why."

After speaking to some of the elders (who I was already convinced were godly men who studied the Bible for themselves and wouldn't do something just because of tradition), I tried to study the issue for myself, over the course of about a month, but what an intense month it was! I first used a concordance to find every reference to baptism, baptizing, baptize, etc in order to try to get a biblical picture of what the Bible actually taught about baptism. I had grown up under the assumption that it was something of a profession of faith.

Next, I began reading everything I could: all the commentaries I could get my hands on for those passages, all the books the elders would lend me (and they have a lot!), I particularly found Matthew Henry's treatment (in his works, not commentary) helpful, "Children of the Promise" by Booth, and "Christian Baptism" by Murray. There were many more though.

Part of the difficulty for me was coming at this without a covenantal background. I actually came to a covenantal view after I became convinced of infant baptism, which is not the ordinary progression. The big point for me was the comparison and analogy to circumcision. Once I understood that circumcision was not just an ethnic sign (many of the surrounding nations also practiced it and it was applied to foreigners joining the covenant people), then I found that any objection I had to infants being baptized was also an objection against infants being circumcised. I argued both sides with myself quite vehemently during those days...

Part of the difficulty for me was that this really isn't a "proof text" issue, and that was how I was used to approaching topics in Scripture. You want to prove election, well, here's a dozen verses that explicitly say it, and another hundred that imply or assume it. Whether to baptize infants is not at all similar, and one has to realize that both sides make assumptions and argue from implicit information. For the baptist, repent and be baptized is the big one, but I realized the same is assumed of those men in the OT who were then to circumcise their infants (e.g. Ex 12:48, Jer 9:25). I had to start looking at more than just a verse at a time, but an entire thought-process and assumption.

MacArthur makes the comment that the Reformers just didn't reform enough, and they held onto infant baptism because of tradition. I think that is an extremely unfair comment to make about a people who thought through and studied everything they did and held it up to the Scriptures. They probably would have been appalled at that comment. I found that Reformed theology was overwhelmingly paedobaptist and that there was strong reason for it historically. The early fathers misapplied it I think but like most things they went astray in, it seems to have had a good start and foundation.

Anyway, that's basically my story. I can't speak for anyone else on this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
Objection To Infant Baptism
Replies
24
Views
3K
Scott Bushey
Scott Bushey
scottmaciver
  • Locked
Infant Baptism
Replies
0
Views
1K
scottmaciver
scottmaciver
Tyrese
  • Locked
Infant Baptism
2 3
Replies
64
Views
19K
Contra_Mundum
Contra_Mundum
Z
  • Locked
Infant Baptism?
2
Replies
55
Views
15K
toddpedlar
toddpedlar
Romans922
  • Locked
Infant Baptism????
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
Larry Hughes
L
Back
Top