Change of Baptismal Position
- Thread starter matt01
- Start date
- Status
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Matthew,
For me, it was a building that was constructed over a number of years. I was fortunate as a credo baptist to be involved with a presbyterian discussion forum on yahoo for the last 5 years. Following the discussions there were surely the catalyst.
For me, it was a building that was constructed over a number of years. I was fortunate as a credo baptist to be involved with a presbyterian discussion forum on yahoo for the last 5 years. Following the discussions there were surely the catalyst.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I sat under Presbyterian preaching for nine months and watched the debate on puritanboard for about a month. During that time I began to see Covenant Theology unfold as a more consistent system.
cupotea
Puritan Board Junior
I started attending a reformed church when I was 11, so I guess I've believed in infant-baptism as long as I've ever thought about it. What sealed the deal for my parents was a sermon series on the Covenant by Rev. Steve Wilkins (of Auburn Avenue Church -PCA- Monroe, Louisiana). 
Rob, if you have Q's about the Sabbath, I ___highly____ recommend you read "The Lord's Day" by Joseph Pipa (another excellent PCA minister). I'd give it a :thumbup: to infinity and back. :yes:
Rob, if you have Q's about the Sabbath, I ___highly____ recommend you read "The Lord's Day" by Joseph Pipa (another excellent PCA minister). I'd give it a :thumbup: to infinity and back. :yes:
Ianterrell
Puritan Board Sophomore
My Church was going through the doctrine of the covenants in the LBC1689. I took some exceptions, and had some questions about the doctrines, simultaneously I had started reading more of the debates here on PB which peaked my interest in the biblical foundations for Covenant Theology and infant baptism.
I was already familiar with the issue though I had not been raised Baptist, I was able to taste the Baptist position through my interaction with the church I had joined. Their view on re-baptism, and mode had some holes in it I felt. Over the course of a few months I became convinced of Covenant Theology and consequently Paedobaptism, I talked with my pastor about the readings I was doing the whole time, we shot ideas off of each other. It became apparent that neither of us were convinced of the others arguments; the materials he gave me I worked with and didn't find truly damaging to the argument for CT.
I was already familiar with the issue though I had not been raised Baptist, I was able to taste the Baptist position through my interaction with the church I had joined. Their view on re-baptism, and mode had some holes in it I felt. Over the course of a few months I became convinced of Covenant Theology and consequently Paedobaptism, I talked with my pastor about the readings I was doing the whole time, we shot ideas off of each other. It became apparent that neither of us were convinced of the others arguments; the materials he gave me I worked with and didn't find truly damaging to the argument for CT.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
One of the key issues for me was Gods immutability. The way the scriptures emphasized the extent of Gods promise was unmistakable.
The second significant facet had to do with the great commision and whether or not 'discipling' necessarily implied conversion. in my opinion, based upon scripture alone, it does not. In fact, placing the sign upon someone implied that the recipient was being actively [i:190b6bba99]discipled[/i:190b6bba99], not necessarily elect or converted. Hence, baptizing could rightfully be applied to infants. In the case of adult's, the same applies.
The second significant facet had to do with the great commision and whether or not 'discipling' necessarily implied conversion. in my opinion, based upon scripture alone, it does not. In fact, placing the sign upon someone implied that the recipient was being actively [i:190b6bba99]discipled[/i:190b6bba99], not necessarily elect or converted. Hence, baptizing could rightfully be applied to infants. In the case of adult's, the same applies.
voided user1
Puritan Board Freshman
Not to change the course of this discussion at all, but I want to add something. I was a dispensationalist, and I held back from embracing a covenant understanding because of the paedobaptist view. Again, not to open that can of worms, but I would say don't take it so much as a system as truths that you come to embrace. In other words, it's OK to grow in your faith and not understand everything right away. I am a credobaptist and covenantal, but the paedobaptist issue was something that held me back and was a good hurdle for me to have to get over. I realized it was OK to be covenantal and there were others who were covenantal yet did not embrace paedobaptism. Don't turn away truths you have come to value because the system teaches paedo or credo. Continue to study and embrace all the truth you have.
For me...it was so natural, I can't even remember when I became paedo...I think it just came a few months after accepting the Doctrines of Grace.
I guess I just figured if we are in covenant with God, and we circumcised infants in the old covenant...then baptism of infants is how we now sanctify our children in the light of the revaltion of Christ. That, and seeing whole households being baptized...it simply made sense to me. For some people, there are huge hangups. Surprisingly, this was one of the things that wasn't for me...but, charasmatic gifts were, though.
I guess I just figured if we are in covenant with God, and we circumcised infants in the old covenant...then baptism of infants is how we now sanctify our children in the light of the revaltion of Christ. That, and seeing whole households being baptized...it simply made sense to me. For some people, there are huge hangups. Surprisingly, this was one of the things that wasn't for me...but, charasmatic gifts were, though.
luvroftheWord
Puritan Board Sophomore
The hardest part of my process was not accepting paedobaptism, but learning to deal with the fact that I was officially an "outsider" to my family and friends. I think I was one of maybe 2 or 3 paedobaptists on the whole Liberty campus. None of my family understands it. I was raised in a church that despises it. That was the hardest part.
What was weird for me was that I really wanted to be a paedobaptist even when I was still credo. Because I was concerned with being Biblical, the Hebrews 8 argument held me back for a while. Plus, I had still had some continuity/discontinuity issues to work through. But I remember when the light finally came on and it all made sense to me. My friends accused me at first of making an emotional decision to embrace paedobaptism, but the Lord knows where both my heart and my mind are on this issue. I am convinced by Scripture of paedobaptism. No one can fault me for that.
But anyway, I think the process altogether took about a year and a half.
What was weird for me was that I really wanted to be a paedobaptist even when I was still credo. Because I was concerned with being Biblical, the Hebrews 8 argument held me back for a while. Plus, I had still had some continuity/discontinuity issues to work through. But I remember when the light finally came on and it all made sense to me. My friends accused me at first of making an emotional decision to embrace paedobaptism, but the Lord knows where both my heart and my mind are on this issue. I am convinced by Scripture of paedobaptism. No one can fault me for that.
But anyway, I think the process altogether took about a year and a half.
Authorised
Puritan Board Freshman
I've slid into the paedobaptist position slowly...it just started coming together one day as I became more consistent with the doctrines of grace, etc.
It was mostly the paedos on this board who were helpful in convincing me (during the time I was a lurker).
Most of my family doesn't understand either, because they're all Arminian Baptists, so that's
It was mostly the paedos on this board who were helpful in convincing me (during the time I was a lurker).
Most of my family doesn't understand either, because they're all Arminian Baptists, so that's
Mine was a slow progression from quasi-dispensationlist to reformed baptist to this coming Sunday all 3 of my children will be baptized :bs2:
The catalyst for my move from Dispensational was my disgust with Dispensational premillenialism, then I fully embraced all 5 points of Calvinism, to now truly understanding the immutability of God and His covenants.
It would be interesting to see if someone has had an alternate progression...paedo to credo.
The catalyst for my move from Dispensational was my disgust with Dispensational premillenialism, then I fully embraced all 5 points of Calvinism, to now truly understanding the immutability of God and His covenants.
It would be interesting to see if someone has had an alternate progression...paedo to credo.
cupotea
Puritan Board Junior
I was dunked in a SBC in Seattle Washington but never got very deep into the credo argument at the time. When I moved back to Detroit I joined a church of the OPC, was schooled in Covenant Theology and haven't looked back. I've perused NCT and Progressive Dispensationalism and admit them to be superior to traditional Dispensationalism as an overall structure but suspect them to be little more than an admirable effort to jettison the Dispensational view but somehow remain Baptist.
My journey was over a course of years and was perhaps not exactly usual.
I started out as a part of an "American Catholic" family (you know, church on Christmas and Easter). I went to Roman Catholic grade school until 7th grade. Then, Providentially, we moved to a neighboring suburb whene there was no good Catholic school. So I went to public school. In high school my favorite teacher was a fervent (Dispensational) Christian, who (oddly enough) was also a lover of the Puritans.
{much snipped for time sake}
In law school I started attending a Southern Baptist church. It was staunchly Calvinistic and Dispensational (sort of Spurgeon + Scofield + G. Campbell Morgan+ Scroggie). A few years later I became a Reformed Baptist (1689). Then after graduation, I got married and we moved to Cleveland, where there was no close RB church (Fred Pugh's church was 45-50 minutes away). There was a PCA church 10 minutes away so we started attending there. I had been studying the issue off and on for a couple of years before. But then all of a sudden I found myself in a PCA church, with paedobaptists lining my library shelves (Owen, Warfield, Calvin, etc) and my wife became pregnant. So there was an obvious [i:f242f7ccf9]practical[/i:f242f7ccf9] matter to be dealt with. I studied the issue harder, and the key for me was Matthew Henry. Both because of his little work on baptism, and because of the great respect I already held him in.
And the rest, they say is history, as I become older, more cranky and more Presbyterian every day.
I started out as a part of an "American Catholic" family (you know, church on Christmas and Easter). I went to Roman Catholic grade school until 7th grade. Then, Providentially, we moved to a neighboring suburb whene there was no good Catholic school. So I went to public school. In high school my favorite teacher was a fervent (Dispensational) Christian, who (oddly enough) was also a lover of the Puritans.
{much snipped for time sake}
In law school I started attending a Southern Baptist church. It was staunchly Calvinistic and Dispensational (sort of Spurgeon + Scofield + G. Campbell Morgan+ Scroggie). A few years later I became a Reformed Baptist (1689). Then after graduation, I got married and we moved to Cleveland, where there was no close RB church (Fred Pugh's church was 45-50 minutes away). There was a PCA church 10 minutes away so we started attending there. I had been studying the issue off and on for a couple of years before. But then all of a sudden I found myself in a PCA church, with paedobaptists lining my library shelves (Owen, Warfield, Calvin, etc) and my wife became pregnant. So there was an obvious [i:f242f7ccf9]practical[/i:f242f7ccf9] matter to be dealt with. I studied the issue harder, and the key for me was Matthew Henry. Both because of his little work on baptism, and because of the great respect I already held him in.
And the rest, they say is history, as I become older, more cranky and more Presbyterian every day.
Me Died Blue
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
One of the initial things that was foundational for my study of covenant theology was the disgust I had developed for Dispensationalism during a "Jewish roots" class I took at my A/G church. Upon studying the issue for a couple months, the covenantal mindset as a whole made the most sense to me by far...except for paedobaptism, which I couldn't see myself accepting. Like Craig Sowder said, I actually [i:e8dbc92060]wanted[/i:e8dbc92060] to believe in paedobaptism at that time, but couldn't at all see myself coming to actually see it as biblical. As I studied God's general promises to believer's children, I began to see how I could be [i:e8dbc92060]slightly[/i:e8dbc92060] more considerate toward paedobaptism...then what finally clinched it for me was a point made by Warfield: "No man can read the heart. As a consequence, it follows that no one, however rich his manifestation of Christian graces, is baptized on the basis of infallible knowledge of his relation to Christ. All baptism is inevitably administered on the basis not of knowledge but of presumption. And if we must baptize on presumption, the whole principle is yielded; and it would seem that we must baptize all whom we may fairly presume to be members of Christ's body. In this state of the case, it is surely impracticable to assert that there can be but one ground on which a fair presumption of inclusion in Christ's body can be erected, namely, personal profession of faith. Assuredly a human profession is no more solid basis to build upon than a divine promise. So soon, therefore, as it is fairly apprehended that we baptize on presumption and not on knowledge, it is inevitable that we shall baptize all those for whom we may, on any grounds, fairly cherish a good presumption that they belong to God's people - and this surely includes the infant children of believers, concerning the favor of God to whom there exist many precious promises on which pious parents, Baptists as fully as others, rest in devout faith."
luvroftheWord
Puritan Board Sophomore
Excellent Warfield quote! That was helpful for me as well in my transition stage.
voided user1
Puritan Board Freshman
"Disgust" with dispensationalism seems to be a recurring theme. Because that's my background and I've met plenty of arrogant Reformed folks, it's important me to keep it real. Sure we're right, but nothing justifies disdain. By God's grace we have been brought to some understandings that we need to hold to and graciously influence others with.
As a Baptist, I think it's important to note that (as has been made clear by the posts above) the infant baptism position is a result of a supposed need for it within the system. Historically, it is the Baptists who are the most reformed in the sense we went beyond the positions already taken.
No matter which position we take, it needs to square with what we know of Scripture and we need to always take the position of living lives constantly reformed by the Living and Written Word.
As a Baptist, I think it's important to note that (as has been made clear by the posts above) the infant baptism position is a result of a supposed need for it within the system. Historically, it is the Baptists who are the most reformed in the sense we went beyond the positions already taken.
No matter which position we take, it needs to square with what we know of Scripture and we need to always take the position of living lives constantly reformed by the Living and Written Word.
kceaster
Puritan Board Junior
Jon...
With all respect, going beyond positions already taken is not reformation, it is revolution. Reformation returns to form. Revolution remakes the form to fit the times.
Look at any reformation in the Bible and it is an exact return to form. Especially, look at Josiah. He did not invent anything new. He completely returned to the source. That is why the Reformation was the Reformation. They took an ad fontes approach to their religion. And what they found, they returned to and expounded upon.
In Christ,
KC
With all respect, going beyond positions already taken is not reformation, it is revolution. Reformation returns to form. Revolution remakes the form to fit the times.
Look at any reformation in the Bible and it is an exact return to form. Especially, look at Josiah. He did not invent anything new. He completely returned to the source. That is why the Reformation was the Reformation. They took an ad fontes approach to their religion. And what they found, they returned to and expounded upon.
In Christ,
KC
Me Died Blue
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
to Kevin.[quote:9927697be8="Wymer168"]Sure we're right, but nothing justifies disdain.[/quote:9927697be8]
In reference to disdain [i:9927697be8]for people[/i:9927697be8], you are correct. But with all due respect, nothing could be further from the truth with reference to [i:9927697be8]doctrine[/i:9927697be8] - in fact, not only are we justified in disdaining false doctrine, we [i:9927697be8]ought[/i:9927697be8] to loathe it, since it is a perversion of God's truth. Should we correct others in a gracious spirit? Of course. But that should not in any way lessen the sharpness with which we rebuke their heresy itself.
voided user1
Puritan Board Freshman
lol
I'd be among the first to say we need to disdain false doctrine. I'm referring to the disdain for people that the Reformed sometimes have. Too often we cloud real issues with our own sinful attitudes. In terms of Scripture there is no place for arrogance with regard to other human beings. In my experience, we as Reformed people must particularly guard our hearts and mouths for the sin of thinking we are better than others.
KC, you're right, in a sense. Since you see the credo position as going beyond the past form, of course you see Baptists as revolutionaries rather than reformers. Since I see the credo position as returning from a fallen form to the historic, inspired form, of course I see the credo position as more reformed than the paedo. We can argue semantically, but certainly we both agree that the Baptists went beyond the other Reformed peoples. Whether that further position was a reform or revolution is a matter of opinion, a matter on which we disagree.
Jon
I'd be among the first to say we need to disdain false doctrine. I'm referring to the disdain for people that the Reformed sometimes have. Too often we cloud real issues with our own sinful attitudes. In terms of Scripture there is no place for arrogance with regard to other human beings. In my experience, we as Reformed people must particularly guard our hearts and mouths for the sin of thinking we are better than others.
KC, you're right, in a sense. Since you see the credo position as going beyond the past form, of course you see Baptists as revolutionaries rather than reformers. Since I see the credo position as returning from a fallen form to the historic, inspired form, of course I see the credo position as more reformed than the paedo. We can argue semantically, but certainly we both agree that the Baptists went beyond the other Reformed peoples. Whether that further position was a reform or revolution is a matter of opinion, a matter on which we disagree.
Jon
Me Died Blue
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Sorry I misunderstood you, Jon. I guess I confused your mention of disgust with Dispensationalism with your saying that nothing justifies disdain. No worries. :bs2:
voided user1
Puritan Board Freshman
I understand, Chris. We need to be hawkish on false doctrine. Grace and truth are the best team around. 
- Status
