Baptism Discussion

[Ryan&Amber2013]

A Presbyterian friend of mine asked me to post this on here to get some feedback, because he's talking through things with a Baptist. Any input about the article would be great so I can send him this thread to read through the comments. Thanks!

https://founders.org/2019/04/10/an-analysis-of-reformed-infant-baptism/

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The P-B isn't a "combat-proxy" service. Prsbey shouldn't get into arguments, then call in big-brother to bail him out of a tight spot. Hit the books.

The article is a Baptist article, on a Baptist site. It's tailored to Baptists, and it wasn't run out there to challenge Presbyterians to a head-to-head.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

The P-B isn't a "combat-proxy" service. Prsbey shouldn't get into arguments, then call in big-brother to bail him out of a tight spot. Hit the books.

The article is a Baptist article, on a Baptist site. It's tailored to Baptists, and it wasn't run out there to challenge Presbyterians to a head-to-head.

Thanks for the thought, but it's much different than what may be implied. They are in a friendly and brotherly way having a dialogue to help each other understand each other's beliefs, and he was just seeking input on how to explain why that article is not accurate from a Presbyterian perspective.

 

[Kinghezy]

One quick point: why connecting theonomy to padeobaptism? Is not Jeff Durbinb a reformed Baptist theonomist?

From a source that is positive towards Jeff Durbin https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/2016/02/19/my-thoughts-on-the-jeff-durbinsteve-camp-interview/

3) What we have here are the two sides at cross purposes. Did Steve know Jeff is a postmillennial theonomist? I could not tell.​

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Thanks for the thought, but it's much different than what may be implied. They are in a friendly and brotherly way having a dialogue to help each other understand each other's beliefs, and he was just seeking input on how to explain why that article is not accurate from a Presbyterian perspective.

OK.
But you (or he) should understand: we spar with one another here, for iron-sharpening exercise. Dropping this article here like "red meat," and then setting back to watch what happens to it is a lot like starting a fight just to see something interesting, or to pick up technique. That's sort of what the OP said to me. I won't be baited like that, and the PB doesn't exist for the entertainment.

 

[Grant]

OK.
But you (or he) should understand: we spar with one another here, for iron-sharpening exercise. Dropping this article here like "red meat," and then setting back to watch what happens to it is a lot like starting a fight just to see something interesting, or to pick up technique. That's sort of what the OP said to me. I won't be baited like that, and the PB doesn't exist for the entertainment.

Bruce,

I don’t think Ryan meant to bait you or anyone here like drawing blood in a hen house to watch them peck each other’s eyeballs out. Though I agree the wording did seem as such in the OP, that does not seem like Ryan’s PB style. In other words, Ryan is the Poster Child of the PB “Nice Guy” ( a sincere compliment to Ryan). Rather, and Ryan can correct me, I think Ryan (and myself for that matter), know that on PB there are many (like you) who have much study, training, and pastorly wisdom. Often we, the laymen, need help seeing through articles (like the linked one) that for the well trained appear with bullet holes, while for others they seem “strongish” at first glance (especially for those with Baptist origins).

So, I think Ryan just wants to see some PB wisdom and intellect shared relating to the article. The person asking the question may have already “hit the books” (who knows), but even after reading books, PB wisdom has a special flare that has help solidify for me arguments that I previously read in books.


P.S. I really hope some weigh in. Many former baptist and baptist on the fence will likely be aided by an answer.

 

[Scott Bushey]

like drawing blood in a hen house to watch them peck each other’s eyeballs out.

<Laughed out loud>

 

[Grant]

<Laughed out loud>

You liked that huh?

Sorry I have been conducting an environmental Egg laying inspection this week. Needless to say I have birds on the brain.

 

[Grant]

At least the article is a somewhat clear case of where Reformed Baptist draw their differences on CT and the RPW.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

Thanks Grant, your judgment was accurate. You guys don't have to comment on it at all, or the post can be taken down all together. Or maybe the Presbyterians only can share what they think about the article. Honestly, I personally don't like theological rough debates and prefer gentleness and peace. I was just helping a friend, who after reading this thread so far probably has some interesting thoughts about how we respond to each other.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Thanks Grant, your judgment was accurate. You guys don't have to comment on it at all, or the post can be taken down all together. Or maybe the Presbyterians only can share what they think about the article. Honestly, I personally don't like theological rough debates and prefer gentleness and peace. I was just helping a friend, who after reading this thread so far probably has some interesting thoughts about how we respond to each other.

OK.
Look, I read the whole article. I honestly don't think much of it. How thoroughly should I rip it to shreds? "In love," of course...

If I wrote an article of comparable length identifying what I thought were its weaknesses, posting it here in public forum where it would be admired and deplored--in equal measure--I can imagine the author (who isn't on this site, to my knowledge) might be troubled by that. After all, he wrote the article as a Baptist, on a Baptist site, for a Baptist readership, fully aware of his Baptist leanings and probably at least theoretically aware that he has Baptist blind-spots.

And here I come, as a Presbyterian with his claws out, critical barbs at the ready, going to carve this turkey and earn the cheers of my tribe... maybe even a tag-team match, yeeeah... No.

How do we respond to each other on the P-B? Maybe a better question in this case is: how should we treat people who aren't on this site, who didn't write what they wrote expecting to get thoroughly--if kindly and "in love"--roasted by strangers? If your friend wants an analysis, I will provide him one at his request, in a private email.

 

[Grant]

And here I come, as a Presbyterian with his claws out, critical barbs at the ready, going to carve this turkey

You picked up on the birds too I see!

 

[JTB.SDG]

A few thoughts:

First, his definition of "substance" and "administration" is incorrect. He got the words right, those are two really important words. And he is right (sort of) about the general claim that we put our infants in the Covenant of Grace (this requires a lot of clarification I don't have time for here). But when we use the words substance and administration, and as they've been used traditionally, that's not what's we're referring to. He's talking about the inward reality versus the outward realm of the covenant. But substance/administration is what is used to distinguish between the Covenant of Grace in the OT and the Covenant of Grace in the NT. They are both the Covenant of Grace; they're both the gospel; IE, same in substance. But they are administrated in different ways. How so? This is where we get into the differences between the OT/NT. The OT was less clear, the NT is more clear. The OT had ceremonies as appendages that were done away with in the NT. The OT was Christ in shadows, the NT Christ in substance. In the OT the gospel had overall a lesser effect on its hearers, a much greater effect in the NT.

To get to his final objections (Inconsistencies, #4):

#1-2. Some have indeed argued that an unbelieving spouse who is willing could/should receive baptism as being part of the household. If any of us had bondslaves the way Abraham did in Genesis (not hired workers for the day but belonged to the household for life); we would also be baptizing them.

#3. I don't really follow him here to be honest. Yes, we only baptize the children of professing believers. An (adult?) non-communicant member means that person grew up in the church but hasn't professed Christ. Which means they haven't personally made a claim to faith (they wouldn't consider themselves a believer; at least not yet). So. . .no, we don't baptize their children. Don't get the objection.

#4. Faith wasn't required for circumcising (Gentile) adults in the Old Covenant? I would say it WAS required. First and best example of an adult believing before receiving the sign is Abraham himself (Romans 4:10-11). He is the pattern par excellence for converting Gentile adults; he believes in the Lord first then receives the sign to signify his faith. There's more: In Ezekiel 44:7-9, the Lord, speaking in particular of Gentiles, rebukes Israelite leaders for allowing foreigners both uncircumcised in flesh AND uncircumcised in heart into the sanctuary. So, the Gentiles who were to be given access to the Lord's sanctuary were not only to be circumcised in flesh—but also in heart. Faith was absolutely the prerequisite for an adult Gentile in the OT who wanted to follow the God of Israel and join His people. Besides, Exodus 12:49 says it was the same rule for Gentiles who joined God's people as it was for Jews. So, if the Lord was so disturbed over the fact that many in Israel were outwardly circumcised but lacked the true circumcision of the heart (Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4, 9:25-26, etc), how could that be okay for Gentiles?

 

[Andrew35]

A few thoughts:

First, his definition of "substance" and "administration" is incorrect. He got the words right, those are two really important words. And he is right (sort of) about the general claim that we put our infants in the Covenant of Grace (this requires a lot of clarification I don't have time for here). But when we use the words substance and administration, and as they've been used traditionally, that's not what's we're referring to. He's talking about the inward reality versus the outward realm of the covenant. But substance/administration is what is used to distinguish between the Covenant of Grace in the OT and the Covenant of Grace in the NT. They are both the Covenant of Grace; they're both the gospel; IE, same in substance. But they are administrated in different ways. How so? This is where we get into the differences between the OT/NT. The OT was less clear, the NT is more clear. The OT had ceremonies as appendages that were done away with in the NT. The OT was Christ in shadows, the NT Christ in substance. In the OT the gospel had overall a lesser effect on its hearers, a much greater effect in the NT.

To get to his final objections (Inconsistencies, #4):

#1-2. Some have indeed argued that an unbelieving spouse who is willing could/should receive baptism as being part of the household. If any of us had bondslaves the way Abraham did in Genesis (not hired workers for the day but belonged to the household for life); we would also be baptizing them.

#3. I don't really follow him here to be honest. Yes, we only baptize the children of professing believers. An (adult?) non-communicant member means that person grew up in the church but hasn't professed Christ. Which means they haven't personally made a claim to faith (they wouldn't consider themselves a believer; at least not yet). So. . .no, we don't baptize their children. Don't get the objection.

#4. Faith wasn't required for circumcising (Gentile) adults in the Old Covenant? I would say it WAS required. First and best example of an adult believing before receiving the sign is Abraham himself (Romans 4:10-11). He is the pattern par excellence for converting Gentile adults; he believes in the Lord first then receives the sign to signify his faith. There's more: In Ezekiel 44:7-9, the Lord, speaking in particular of Gentiles, rebukes Israelite leaders for allowing foreigners both uncircumcised in flesh AND uncircumcised in heart into the sanctuary. So, the Gentiles who were to be given access to the Lord's sanctuary were not only to be circumcised in flesh—but also in heart. Faith was absolutely the prerequisite for an adult Gentile in the OT who wanted to follow the God of Israel and join His people. Besides, Exodus 12:49 says it was the same rule for Gentiles who joined God's people as it was for Jews. So, if the Lord was so disturbed over the fact that many in Israel were outwardly circumcised but lacked the true circumcision of the heart (Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4, 9:25-26, etc), how could that be okay for Gentiles?

The issue in #3 may be regarding the nature of the national covenant with Israel whereby the nation might be apostate for several generations and yet the descendants still regarded as "in the covenant" in some sense.

By parallel, the objection may be phrased as, "But isn't the child of those (though non-communicant members) who were themselves given the [new] covenant sign also in some sense in the covenant, and therefore why should the covenant sign be withheld from him/her?"

That's how I read it at least. Anyone else, b/c I got confused on that one too.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Asking a profession is simply a method of gaining a credible confession the faith, which is a prerequisite to "keeping the feast," in NC terms the Lord's Supper, which is incumbent on all adult covenant members--on pain of exclusion/excommunication. The Old Covenant was replete with disciplinary measures to bar former members from participation, circumcision notwithstanding.

Jesus was examined by the elders, in advance of his dutiful attendance 3Xyr as as an adult, per the Law (Ex.23:17, etc.) once he turned 13 (age of majority, "bar mizvah" of the time). These things are in the Bible--a "revealed reason," if one is really that interested.

Is it supposed that those who shunned the feasts and confession of Israel's faith properly had their sons circumcised? Which priest would do that for them? Obviously, on the presupposition that the covenant was a carnal ordinance for a carnal covenant, I suppose anyone could hop in-or-out of it depending on the weather, or the generation.

 

[JTB.SDG]

FYI, I interacted with this brother directly in response to his article and was greeted with helpful interaction and kindness.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

One quick point: why connecting theonomy to padeobaptism? Is not Jeff Durbinb a reformed Baptist theonomist?

From a source that is positive towards Jeff Durbin https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/2016/02/19/my-thoughts-on-the-jeff-durbinsteve-camp-interview/

3) What we have here are the two sides at cross purposes. Did Steve know Jeff is a postmillennial theonomist? I could not tell.​

Jeff Durbin isn't exactly a textbook example of a Reformed Baptist (nevertheless I love the brother dearly), so I am not sure what that is meant to prove.

Besides, most 1689 LBCF confessing Reformed Baptists do not hold Theonomy to be compatible with Reformed Baptist teaching, and most practicing Theonomists would agree that paedobaptistic Covenant Theology is a necessary prerequisite to Theonomy in any case.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

Thanks guys, for the replies. It ended up being a lost cause. Some of the guys in the church have spent many many hours talking through things and listening to his beliefs, and today he basically said "I don't care even if you convince me, I'm still going to look at the Baptist position and side with them."

 

[Andrew35]

Thanks guys, for the replies. It ended up being a lost cause. Some of the guys in the church have spent many many hours talking through things and listening to his beliefs, and today he basically said "I don't care even if you convince me, I'm still going to look at the Baptist position and side with them."

Good reminder that, veracity of a position aside, we so often reason our way from our conclusion rather than to it.