How has your view of baptism changed?

[Constantlyreforming]

I subscribe to the WCF and when I joined the PB, I made note that I disagreed with the Paedobaptist position, but within the last year I have came to a position that I would happily baptise infants, but I would also like to see the person grow in maturity in the knowledge of God's grace and want to be immersed as a sign of obedience. I am a Baptist at heart, but if I were a pastor I would be more than willing to baptise your infant. This is my compromise as a peacemaker.

interesting. you are the first I have come across with such a heart.

 

[Pilgrim]

Credo to Paedo...
Was raised in and Baptized in an independent fundamentalist baptist church that taught decisional regeneration & full immersion upon confession of faith in the sign of a cross symbolizing death burial and resurrection. Had a "false profession of faith" leaning on my own works, and carried fire insurance in my back pocket all the while living in sin.

What is this cross formation/sign of the cross? I've never heard of it, at least not in those terms, but I have never darkened the door of an IFB church either. Is it perhaps a reference to positioning the arms a certain way while going under?

 

[Pilgrim Standard]

What is this cross formation/sign of the cross? I've never heard of it, at least not in those terms, but I have never darkened the door of an IFB church either. Is it perhaps a reference to positioning the arms a certain way while going under?

Chris,
This is a teaching that I had heard not only in that IFB church but other IFB churchs, but not held exclusively or universally in IFB churches, I have learned. Also a Pentecostal Preacher who was my uncle taught this. It is a teaching of a significance in the position of the of the person in relation to the water forming a 'cross' with the person standing vertically in water that is horizontal. The person is driven backward into the water being leveled to the water and submerged under the water then brought back vertical to the standing position forming the 'cross' with the water. They made much of the visible "symbolism" of the cross made, although this view only tends itself to modern Baptistic Fonts with plexiglass fronts facing the congregation, the plunging backward under the water as a "symbol" of burial under the earth, even though it is not earth it is water & Christ was buried in a tomb not under ground, and the Resurrection of Christ from death, as the believer is lifted out of the "death of burial in water with Christ"

I think it all goes to show how much uninspired human minds can place supposed symbolism above the thing signified. (Or make more of symbolism than the word of God itself does.)

 

[Ryan]

Paedo born and raised. Haven't really taken the time to study the matter. It's time.

Thanks for the testimonies and links. Good thread.

 

[Pilgrim]

What is this cross formation/sign of the cross? I've never heard of it, at least not in those terms, but I have never darkened the door of an IFB church either. Is it perhaps a reference to positioning the arms a certain way while going under?

Chris,
This is a teaching that I had heard not only in that IFB church but other IFB churchs, but not held exclusively or universally in IFB churches, I have learned. Also a Pentecostal Preacher who was my uncle taught this. It is a teaching of a significance in the position of the of the person in relation to the water forming a 'cross' with the person standing vertically in water that is horizontal. The person is driven backward into the water being leveled to the water and submerged under the water then brought back vertical to the standing position forming the 'cross' with the water. They made much of the visible "symbolism" of the cross made, although this view only tends itself to modern Baptistic Fonts with plexiglass fronts facing the congregation, the plunging backward under the water as a "symbol" of burial under the earth, even though it is not earth it is water & Christ was buried in a tomb not under ground, and the Resurrection of Christ from death, as the believer is lifted out of the "death of burial in water with Christ"

I think it all goes to show how much uninspired human minds can place supposed symbolism above the thing signified. (Or make more of symbolism than the word of God itself does.)

True, it is certainly imaginative. Through the years I have attended Southern Baptist, Sovereign Grace (Calvinistic baptistic, (not to be confused with SGM)) Wesleyan and independent Bible churches and I haven't seen this "cross" mentioned or practiced in any of them. But none of them would fit into the IFB or pentecostal mold either. (Was the reference to Pentecostal a reference to Oneness Pentecostal, or a trinitarian group?) These have all been in the Deep South or Gulf Coast regions, but I don't know if it is a regional thing or not. The symbolism of burial and resurrection are sometimes emphasized but not the specifics that you allude to.

Regardless, as you noted to Phil, WRT mode (or subjects) we can either start a new thread or discuss it privately so as to not derail the thread any further.

With regard to Phil being in the PCA, as far as I know he is not an officer of the church. They don't have confessional membership the way the Dutch and continental Reformed do. I'm sure the PCA has a great many dispensationalists and Arminians in membership as well (you only have to affirm the 5 questions to join) so a man who is basically confessional on all points but who has doubts about baptism isn't going to be seen as unusual unless he's being divisive in the local church. The PCA is chock full of disgruntled Baptists and baptistic folks, but in the future I would expect to see this lessen somewhat with the number of Calvinistic graduates coming out of SBC seminaries.

 

[Phil D.]

Benjamin,

First of all, I need to apologize for using unnecessarily harsh words in my previous post (as well as to thank you for your gracious overlooking of them), even though I wasn't directing them at you specifically. It was more of an exasperated response to the bare assertion itself relative to the historical record.

But simply because there are instances of persons associating physical immersion as a mode in baptism with "burial" in Christ in ages past does not make the mode in question necessary from scripture.

Agreed, although that is not the argument I make in the attached article. Rather, if you will go over it carefully, you will see that I am saying that the view in question was the unbroken consensus of the universal church (including among the early Greek-speaking Eastern church fathers) until quite recently (in relative terms), and even then denial of it is concentrated among a pretty limited sector of Christianity. Thus to present it as a modern invention by ill-informed modern Western immersionists (as some modern non-immersionists have) is not a tenable argument. I also try and show that there are very good answers to all of the objections that have been raised against it in modern times. Also, at the very end of the document you will see my main reason for seeing the symbolism as "not unimportant", even though it may not be absolutely crucial to hold.

Looking at Alcuin of York (735–804) English stating "[Those who do not practice triple immersion] neglect to imitate in baptism the three days‘ burial of our Savior..." I find this an unscriptural emphasis placing "Preference" above Scriptural mandate.

Again, agreed. Now if you were to say that about immersion itself regardless of the number of times it was repeated, well, again, see the end of my article. (Maybe I'll have to link to the study I did on triple vs. single immersion in the early church sometime...)

Being that this is going off topic I would invite you to create a new post in regard to the document you have provided, so as we do not derail the OP

Feel free to do so yourself, if you have such a compulsion...

In the Spirit of keeping with this thread... I am curious as to how you came to the position of "Other" being in the PCA?

See my personal profile.

 

[21st Century Calvinist]

Me also. I actually contemplated joining a Baptist church when in undergrad. But in the end I stuck with the Presbyterian's. Now I am pedo by conviction.

 

[Weston Stoler]

Started going to an indy fundy baptist church when I was 13 and made a confession of faith. They where an odd (very arminian) mix of indy fundy, joel osteen, and rick warren. Try to mix those together. It is like oil and water. Anyways Now I have been convinced of not only calvinism but infant baptism.

 

[shelly]

I started off credo and changed to paedo. We thought it wasn't something we had to think about since we were finished having children, God convicted us that we weren't the ones to decide, therefore we had to study this out. We actually made several church moves that reflected our direction away from vitrolic, fluffy or repetitive preaching and focused more on actual God-based preaching that wasn't man-centered. We made moves based on church polity, we looked for a church that had built in accountability to protect the sheep from the pastor(that was important to us due to our experiences in the IFB). We found a Bible church that functioned much like Presbyterian denominations, but we didn't know that at the time. From the Bible church we moved to a PCA because we were taught out of the church, in other words we learned what the pastor was trying to teach faster than the church as a whole and it became time to move on. Another pastor in the church warned us that the questions we were asking was going to end up leading us to infant baptism and the presbyterian church and that we were on a slippery slope. We jumped on the slope and began attending the PCA, about 5 years later we had a baby and he was baptised in the CPC this spring. We have seen God's hand in our journey and praise Him for it!!!

 

[Shawn Mathis]

Raised in an unbelieving family. My family attended a dispensational, charismatic, arminian, credo-baptist church (say that five-times fast). In the military discovered Banner of Truth, then Ten Points of Calvinism book, embraced Calvinism first, then covenantalism then paedobaptism. Then joined a Presbyterian (OPC) church in the early 90s.

 

[py3ak]

I started off credo and changed to paedo. We thought it wasn't something we had to think about since we were finished having children, God convicted us that we weren't the ones to decide, therefore we had to study this out. We actually made several church moves that reflected our direction away from vitrolic, fluffy or repetitive preaching and focused more on actual God-based preaching that wasn't man-centered. We made moves based on church polity, we looked for a church that had built in accountability to protect the sheep from the pastor(that was important to us due to our experiences in the IFB). We found a Bible church that functioned much like Presbyterian denominations, but we didn't know that at the time. From the Bible church we moved to a PCA because we were taught out of the church, in other words we learned what the pastor was trying to teach faster than the church as a whole and it became time to move on. Another pastor in the church warned us that the questions we were asking was going to end up leading us to infant baptism and the presbyterian church and that we were on a slippery slope. We jumped on the slope and began attending the PCA, about 5 years later we had a baby and he was baptised in the CPC this spring. We have seen God's hand in our journey and praise Him for it!!!

It's very nice to see post again, Shelly!

 

[Rob H]

Started as assumed/conditioned but barely educated credo. Until I reached 37 years I was credo. Now I'm convinced, educated conscientiously paedo. Reformed folk actually took the time to educate me and encouraged me to pay attention.