Paedo-Baptism Answers Best Paedo Baptist Resources

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ben_Leevey

Puritan Board Freshman
Hello brethren,

I want to be absolutely sure that there is no biblical basis for Paedo baptism. In light of this, if you don't mind I would like the best you've got!

Audio resources would be great! Particularly debates. (I've listened to the Sproul vs Macarthur one, brother Sproul doesn't do a great job...)

Written resources would also be good, but again, the best arguments you know.

And then if any of you feel very capable of discussing Paedo Baptism, feel free to do so.

If it's true, I want to be convinced.
 
Audio resources would be great! Particularly debates. (I've listened to the Sproul vs Macarthur one, brother Sproul doesn't do a great job...)
MacArthur’s argument was pretty poor in my opinion, and he seems to not have understood the paedobaptist case very well. Sproul’s argument wasn’t the best, but I think it was better than MacArthur’s.

Hodge and Berkhof make good cases in their Systematics. In your case, I would strongly recommend “Infant Baptism and the Silence of the New Testament” by Brian Holstrom. I’d also add that 2000 years of the church baptizing infants suggests that there is a biblical basis even if it’s not a good one.
Genesis 17 and Acts 2:8-9 are the individual passages that I find most convincing. The covenantal reality of scripture and the continuity between old and New Testaments is the best argument in my opinion. Pre-new covenant, children were included in the covenant and given the covenant sign. Under the new covenant, I don’t see any indication that this reality has ceased. To the contrary, I see God’s mercy expanded and consistency with what came before.
The promise is for the children Acts 2:8-9 as well as their parents, and (thank God) the gentiles. A believing parent makes the children holy 1 Corinthians 7, and Jesus says “let the children come to me.” Regardless of whether there are babies in the Acts households, it is households being baptized. One could also make case that John the Baptist baptized households based on how ancient proselyte baptism was applied, but I’m less sure about that one.
In any case, there’s a lot of threads discussing this on the board.
 
I like Word, Water, and Spirit by J.V. Fesko. 400 pages of solid, biblical development from Genesis to Revelation. Very well done.
 
I think the following are well worth reading:
Baptism: Answers to Common Questions by Guy M. Richard
Christian Baptism by Prof. John Murray

In my opinion debates are a waste of time better to listen to a teaching series on both positions or such like.

I reccomend the following series by the late Prof. Edward Donnelly (especially for Reformed Baptists)

 
There are a lot of good resources out there on infant baptism. However, since you are coming at it from a baptist perspective, it may be better to consider the reformed doctrines of the covenant of grace and visible church. Infant baptism is a consequence of these doctrines. One way to convince yourself that this is the case is to look at the proof texts the WCF employs to establish infant baptism.

JG Vos:
Infant Baptism, properly considered, is an implication of two doctrines of the Bible — the doctrine of the Visible Church, and the doctrine of the Covenant of Grace. It is not at all surprising that those sections of the historically Reformed denominations in which the Reformed doctrines of the Visible Church and the Covenant of Grace are neglected or are not emphasized, are precisely the ones in which infant baptism is at present widely suspect as unscriptural. Any church which is weak on the Biblical doctrine of the Visible Church and the doctrine of the Covenant of Grace is bound to become weak and unsure on the doctrine of infant baptism. The same is true of the individual Christian. Any Christian who lacks intelligent conviction of the truth of the Biblical doctrine of the Visible Church and the doctrine of the Covenant of Grace is bound to become weak, hesitating and unsure on the question of infant baptism.

For infant baptism is a corollary of the two doctrines mentioned. It is implicit in them, and it is properly derived from them by inference. No church and no Christian can be any stronger or sounder on infant baptism than he is on the Biblical doctrines of the Visible Church and the Covenant of Grace. This may suggest why there is so much weakness and questioning about infant baptism today in denominations which formerly held it firmly. It may well be that in these denominations there has been a gradual but nevertheless real shift from the historic Reformed and Biblical doctrines of the Church and the Covenant, and that this has involved, as its inevitable consequence, a weakening and in some cases almost a rejection of infant baptism.
 
Read Romans chapters 9-11. Camp out in 11 for a while. My studying of that chapter is what finally convinced me of Reformed Covenant Theology that the church is part of the same tree that the Jews and their children were part of. Infant baptism comes naturally from understanding that the New Covenant is based on the Abrahamic covenant and isn’t simply some totally new thing (cf. Jeremiah 30-33, Romans 4, Galatians 3). The children of OT believers and NT believers are never seen the same as children of pagans (Ezekiel 16:20-21, 1 Cor. 7:14). They are in the covenant and blessed by God even though they must still trust in Christ for the forgiveness of their sins to be saved (just as it was in the Old Testament).
 
There are a lot of good resources out there on infant baptism. However, since you are coming at it from a baptist perspective, it may be better to consider the reformed doctrines of the covenant of grace and visible church. Infant baptism is a consequence of these doctrines. One way to convince yourself that this is the case is to look at the proof texts the WCF employs to establish infant baptism.

JG Vos:
I am reformed Baptist. So not a fundamental. I am covenantal, but not to the extent of the equivocation of circumcision and Baptism. That is kind of the key point that I have never heard good proof for.

Read Romans chapters 9-11. Camp out in 11 for a while. My studying of that chapter is what finally convinced me of Reformed Covenant Theology that the church is part of the same tree that the Jews and their children were part of. Infant baptism comes naturally from understanding that the New Covenant is based on the Abrahamic covenant and isn’t simply some totally new thing (cf. Jeremiah 30-33, Romans 4, Galatians 3). The children of OT believers and NT believers are never seen the same as children of pagans (Ezekiel 16:20-21, 1 Cor. 7:14). They are in the covenant and blessed by God even though they must still trust in Christ for the forgiveness of their sins to be saved (just as it was in the Old Testament).
Except for the end, a hearty amen!
 
I am reformed Baptist. So not a fundamental. I am covenantal, but not to the extent of the equivocation of circumcision and Baptism. That is kind of the key point that I have never heard good proof for.


Except for the end, a hearty amen!
Just curious, what part did in the end did you disagree with?
 
In my opinion debates are a waste of time better to listen to a teaching series on both positions or such like.
The thing I appreciate about debates is it gives both sides the chance to address one another on inconsistencies with scripture. Whereas if it's one sided, it can be easier to not think of one aspect, and be pulled into something unbiblical. Listened to this debate last night:

It was not helpful. Sproul did a better job than Strawbridge.

They are in the covenant and blessed by God even though they must still trust in Christ for the forgiveness of their sins to be saved (just as it was in the Old Testament).
Really just the phrase "they are in the covenant". And also, no doubt, the implications you draw from the rest.
 
Some early questions I was asked while I was searching this topic:

What is Baptism actually? Whose sign is it? What does it signify?

What does God think of my children? What are my children to the church?

I am reformed Baptist. So not a fundamental. I am covenantal, but not to the extent of the equivocation of circumcision and Baptism. That is kind of the key point that I have never heard good proof for.

What do you make of Colossians 2:11-12?
 
Last edited:
What is Baptism actually? Whose sign is it? What does it signify?
Baptism is the public declarational sign of one who has been buried with Christ in His death, and raised with Christ in His resurrection for all those who are sealed in covenant with Christ's atoning blood.

and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. Colossians 2:10-12

Note it does mention circumcision here, but not physical circumcision. Paul is aligning spiritual circumcision with baptism. Not spiritual circumcision.

(by the way, it is interesting, I had not read the end of your message when I quoted Colossians, it just came to mind a proof for credo baptism )
 
Baptism is the public declarational sign of one who has been buried with Christ in His death, and raised with Christ in His resurrection for all those who are sealed in covenant with Christ's atoning blood.

and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. Colossians 2:10-12

Note it does mention circumcision here, but not physical circumcision. Paul is aligning spiritual circumcision with baptism. Not spiritual circumcision.

(by the way, it is interesting, I had not read the end of your message when I quoted Colossians, it just came to mind a proof for credo baptism )
That interpretation of Colossians misses two things. First, the relationship between the sign and thing signified, in OT and NT; second, if both believer and Christ undergo a circumcision in verse 11, it seems that the parallel Paul brings forward in verse 12 is that both the believer and Christ undergo a baptism. In both cases, the circumcision and the baptism, there are spiritual realities that stand behind the initiation rites. To state it another way, it seems to be overly fine exegeiss to eliminate the signs from the things signified. One should not have to choose between a reference to a rite OR a work of the spirit.

^thanks to J.V. Fesko for much of that point.
 
That interpretation of Colossians misses two things. First, the relationship between the sign and thing signified, in OT and NT; second, if both believer and Christ undergo a circumcision in verse 11, it seems that the parallel Paul brings forward in verse 12 is that both the believer and Christ undergo a baptism. In both cases, the circumcision and the baptism, there are spiritual realities that stand behind the initiation rites. To state it another way, it seems to be overly fine exegeiss to eliminate the signs from the things signified. One should not have to choose between a reference to a rite OR a work of the spirit.

^thanks to J.V. Fesko for much of that point.
So I think we're passing one another brother. I'm saying, the sign of the covenant is heart circumcision. That seems to be what Paul is saying. Whereas you are saying the sign is the sign of the old covenant. As far as I can see Paul is speaking of the new covenant circumcision, not old covenant circumcision.
 
So I think we're passing one another brother. I'm saying, the sign of the covenant is heart circumcision. That seems to be what Paul is saying. Whereas you are saying the sign is the sign of the old covenant. As far as I can see Paul is speaking of the new covenant circumcision, not old covenant circumcision.

Yes, certainly passing one another! I think it gets down to root differences in how we understand not just Colossians 2, but the entire Bible, which would make a conversation pointless. Which is ok! You can come back in a bit having read the proffered resources, and illuminate us as to your conversion, or the reasons for a lack of a conversion, on the issue of baptism. Best of searching, f'real.
 
Some audio resources for you to consider:

Also, it's somewhat of a more difficult book to get a hold of, but Holy Baptism: The Scriptural Riches and Realities of Infant Baptism by Gerald Procee is one of the best on the topic. He spends a large portion of the book answering Baptist objections.
 
Some audio resources for you to consider:

Also, it's somewhat of a more difficult book to get a hold of, but Holy Baptism: The Scriptural Riches and Realities of Infant Baptism by Gerald Procee is one of the best on the topic. He spends a large portion of the book answering Baptist objections.
Thank you!
 
Baptism is the public declarational sign of one who has been buried with Christ in His death, and raised with Christ in His resurrection for all those who are sealed in covenant with Christ's atoning blood.

What passage of Scripture are you looking at to say that baptism is a public profession of the believer? Or is that just an inference?
 
What passage of Scripture are you looking at to say that baptism is a public profession of the believer? Or is that just an inference?
I can't give you any imperatives, only indicatives. And by the way, I withdraw the word public brother. That was incorrect:


The Profession of a believer: Acts 2:38-41, Acts 8:12, Acts 8:12, Matthew 28:19-20

In all these, we see the person's are baptized post profession, as a result of that profession.
 
I can't give you any imperatives, only indicatives. And by the way, I withdraw the word public brother. That was incorrect:


The Profession of a believer: Acts 2:38-41, Acts 8:12, Acts 8:12, Matthew 28:19-20

In all these, we see the person's are baptized post profession, as a result of that profession.
Ok, I understand. Thank you for the clarification, brother.

Just curious, why are you so interested in the topic of infant baptism and wanting to be positive you don't agree with it? Did something spark your research?
 
Ok, I understand. Thank you for the clarification, brother.

Just curious, why are you so interested in the topic of infant baptism and wanting to be positive you don't agree with it? Did something spark your research?
I want to know the truth brother. :) And I want to be able to deal capably with any subject in light of the scriptures. I don't want to hold to any view because it's orthodox (meaning what well looked at denominations believe) or traditional, or not considered heretical by the groups I like. I want to know and believe exactly what the scriptures say.
 
I want to know the truth brother. :) And I want to be able to deal capably with any subject in light of the scriptures. I don't want to hold to any view because it's orthodox (meaning what well looked at denominations believe) or traditional, or not considered heretical by the groups I like. I want to know and believe exactly what the scriptures say.
A desire to know the truth is a great motivation! In your research have you thought about trying to understand the Reformed view of the Covenant of Grace? Are you convinced that is incorrect or are you still working through that too?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top