I, too, am no longer a Baptist

Status
Not open for further replies.

Philip A

Puritan Board Sophomore

UPDATE!
Since this thread continues to pop up now and again, and I even get a PM or two on it occasionally, let me set the record straight regarding my position on baptism. Since the Spring of 2006 I have been thoroughly convinced that the historical Reformed view of paedobaptism is the biblical position, and that no expression of credobaptism, no matter the qualifier, can truly be said to be Reformed. I therefore retract everything I have said below and in subsequent posts in support of credobaptism. I sincerely love my Baptist brethren, but I am at the same time thoroughly convinced that credobaptism is erroneous, unbiblical, and harmful to the church.


As there have been a number of similar threads popping up on the PB, I will add mine here as well. As you can tell from the title, I, too, am no longer a Baptist. As with the others, this study has taken me a long time, sometimes totally immersed in the subject (pardon the pun), sometimes almost indifferent, but my change in position has come about as a result of continued study over about two years now. Also, as others have said, this has come about as a result of reading the bible as a whole, not just certain passages that deal explicitly with baptism, nor even just the NT, but all of scripture, including such subjects as children, covenant, promise, etc. As so many of my paedobaptist friends have urged, I finally went back to Abraham to answer the question.


It has been interesting to see the comments from others on what a change this makes to one´s theology, both systematic and biblical. I have experienced many of these changes as well, such as the following, in which I´m sure you will find echoes of your own thoughts as well:

- I now see the continuity of scripture. I almost feel like tearing out that blank page about ¾ of the way through my bible that says "œNew Testament", as if there were a sharp division between the two testaments. There is rather one continuous thread that runs through the bible from Genesis to Revelation.

- A whole lot more of the scripture has opened up to me as well. Parts that were dark I now see in a whole new light. This, as others have said, brings freshness to reading and studying the bible. Obscure things are now much clearer. The scriptures seem like they are brand new, and much richer.

- I now love the Old Testament. It used to be a history of God´s dealing with a particular nation in a particular way, not applying much to me and merely being of historical interest, if that. Now it is living and breathing, and I get so much more out of reading the OT than I used to. It used to be dark, depressing, and gloomy, and I couldn´t read much of it without going back to the NT to get a fix in between.

- The redemptive-historical aspect of scripture is becoming clearer and clearer to me now, and I can´t wait to get into studying it even more.


I have come to reject many of the Baptist arguments for similar reasons that many of you have. Most of the well known Baptist arguments that seemed so rock solid now seem so poorly thought through. I have noticed a number of them seem to be so focused on a particular word or phrase that they ignore the import of another word or phrase in the same verse or passage! Also there is a huge gap of inconsistency between the supposed theology of the Baptist perspective and their practice. And of course, the vast majority of Baptist arguments ignore the bulk of scripture, and don´t even come close to answering the questions and objections raised by paedobaptists.

So, after all of this study, I am no longer a Baptist, but I am now a Particular Baptist, what some of you may call a Reformed Baptist. (That term has come on hard times recently, as any Baptist who becomes a Calvinist thinks he is now a Reformed Baptist.) Yes, coming to Particular Baptist doctrines has come about for the reasons that I have stated above, has produced the fruits that I have stated above, and stands over and against the Baptist errors that I have cited above. Everything that I wrote above is true and written in good faith. I have written it in such a way in order to emphasize the radical difference between the modern Baptist position and the historical Particular Baptist position - that which is represented in the 1689 Confession and other Particular Baptist writings of the period, most of which are quite obscure and very hard to come by. The Particular Baptist position is rooted in Covenant Theology and starts from Genesis, not from Acts.

Someone has asked the question, why are so many Baptists jumping from the credo camp over into the paedo camp? I firmly believe that it is because they are ignorant of the distinction between the Baptist position and the Particular Baptist position. The end result is the same, both of them end up denying infant inclusion, and therefore infant baptism, but they are not, in fact, the same. The modern Baptist theologian has crossed the Particular Baptist bridge to end up where he is at theologically, and subsequently turned around and burned the bridge behind him by denying Covenant Theology "“ he is now in theological limbo with no vital connection to the scripture. So, when someone says that they have rejected the Baptist position, I completely understand why. But, when someone says "œI have examined both sides of the issue", I can´t help but think that they are unaware that there are in reality three sides of the issue.
 
Last edited:
OH YES!

OH YES!

:lol:

Put it there, my brother!

A much, much appreciated post. Said all I have wanted to say and more.

:amen:
 
Amen! Amen, brother. ( We Baptists know how to use that little Hebraism. )

Very well said; and refreshing I might add.:up:
 
Thanks for the input. Could you perhaps highlight some more differences between the Baptist and Particular Baptist positions? Perhaps point out some key reference people and/or writings on either side to read up on?
 
Wow, I was unaware of this distinction. Now there are particular baptists, when did this happen? I thought all Baptists were dispensational.
 
Ouch!
pow.gif
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by puritansailor
Thanks for the input. Could you perhaps highlight some more differences between the Baptist and Particular Baptist positions? Perhaps point out some key reference people and/or writings on either side to read up on?

I'm waiting for a response to this post.
 
I'll be honest, I think Phillip A will be able to post a few things that DO make a difference between Baptists and Particular Baptists, especially on the practical side of holy living (Sabbth Day, etc.). It should be a helpful post.
 
Originally posted by Philip A
<snip>
- I now see the continuity of scripture. I almost feel like tearing out that blank page about ¾ of the way through my bible that says "œNew Testament", as if there were a sharp division between the two testaments. There is rather one continuous thread that runs through the bible from Genesis to Revelation.
<snip>.

:amen:
 
Originally posted by JonathanHunt
Put it there, my brother!

Firmly Put! :handshake:

Originally posted by puritansailor
Thanks for the input. Could you perhaps highlight some more differences between the Baptist and Particular Baptist positions? Perhaps point out some key reference people and/or writings on either side to read up on?

In general, as I mentioned above, Particular Baptist theology is rooted and grounded in Covenant Theology. Modern Baptist theology is, unfortunately, most often rooted in Dispensationalism, or some residue thereof. True, the historical roots of Baptist thought are directly descended from the Particular Baptists, but modern evangelicals as a whole have a bad case of historical amnesia, so they have no idea where they have come from, and consequently where they are going. Typically the modern Baptist argues from the NT exclusively, and that by example, i.e. "œwe only see adults baptized in the NT, so we only baptize adults." Also, the typical Baptist arguments from Romans 6:3-4, both for subject and mode, are severely lacking in exegesis and tend to ignore the main thrust of Paul´s thought in the immediate context. That is one particular case I had in mind when I said of modern Baptists that "œa number of them seem to be so focused on a particular word or phrase that they ignore the import of another word or phrase in the same verse or passage". As an aside, I do believe that a good argument could be made from the passage, but it rests on other points that must be established first, and contradicts objections that must also be cleared first, before it can be used. I´m sorry I can´t provide particulars, it´s been a while since I´ve been through any modern Baptist polemics; I rather have in my mind a general sense of "œunconvincedness" (if I may coin a term!) with regard to much that I´ve read.

Positively, as a Particular Baptist, I would start in Genesis 3:15 and work forward, showing the continuity of the CoG even before Abraham, through to NT times, and argue my case from that. I see in the Abrahamic Covenant a distinction between the "œgospel" elements of the "œCovenant of Grace revealed to Abraham" and the "œcivil" elements of the "œCovenant of Circumcision made with Abraham". Therefore I do not see infant inclusion as a part of the Covenant of Grace as it was administered via Abraham. Thus the argument against paedobaptism is one from continuity, not from discontinuity. There´s more to it than that, but in general those are its starting points.

As for sources, there are two major Puritan works that are helpful for understanding the Particular Baptist case. The first is from John Tombes, although I must qualify this. Tombes was an Anglican who happened to become convinced of "œantipaedobaptism", but in all other respects remained an Anglican. Therefore he cannot be considered a Particular Baptist, as he did not hold to Particular Baptist ecclesiology (which also, by the way, hardly resembles Baptist ecclesiology as it is taught and practiced today). Tombes is helpful in that he is representative of the general stream of Puritan antipaedobaptist thought from which the Particular Baptists emerged. His work is distilled in Michael Renihan´s Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes, still available, I believe, here, if not elsewhere.

The other, even more helpful source, is Nehemiah Coxe´s A Discourse of the Covenants. Coxe was a major player in the writing of what became the 1689 (Particular!) Baptist confession, but he died before it was officially released. His is the best work that represents the theology behind the confession. Unfortunately, Coxe is not quite back in print yet. His Discourse is soon to be published together with Owen´s comments on the Covenants from Hebrews 8 in a volume called Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ from Reformed Baptist Academic Press. You can see it mentioned here.

There will be some discussion of Tombes and other aspects of both the historical Particular Baptist position and the modern Reformed Baptist position in the issue of the Reformed Baptist Theological Review due out this month, the major theme of which will be paedobaptism. The website for RBTR is here.

I will soon, if not already, begin to sound like a broken record in recommending these sources. If so, please pardon the annoyance. Rest assured that I am not in the employment of RBAP or RBTR :D. I am however convinced that these are essential materials for understanding the historical Particular Baptist position, and that without availing oneself of these resources one cannot fully examine the issue of Paedobaptism.

Originally posted by Webmaster
That post was better than the climax of the "Sixth Sense."
:lol:

Glad to have given you a good laugh, brother!

Originally posted by daveb
Wow, I was unaware of this distinction. Now there are particular baptists, when did this happen? I thought all Baptists were dispensational.

This is particularly why I wrote what I did. My whole purpose for this thread was to illustrate the difference between Baptists and Particular Baptists. I think there are far too many who do not appreciate the distinction. And by the way, it happened during the Puritan Era in the 17th century!

With regards to Dispensationalism, you must understand that there are in fact two definitions of it:

Definition 1 - The historical definition of a Dispensationalist, according to the movement itself, is one who holds to a radical ecclesiological distinction between the Church and Israel, denies substantially the spiritual meaning of OT prophecy, and subsequently holds to a future, earthly, millennial reign of Christ in which the OT prophecies will all be fulfilled physically. This is true Dispensationalism.

Definition 2 - The other definition of a Dispensationalist, and that which is prevalent on this board, is that a Dispensationalist is anyone who sees any more discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments than the Webmaster. :p (This is a most fascinating phenomenon, given his peculiar and tenacious insistence on using the objective, academic, historical definition of the term "œReformed"!)

Originally posted by Webmaster
They are....

According to Definition 2, yes, all Baptists are dispensational. With this I would most heartily agree. I would even go further, as I have stated above, and say that the modern Baptist position is largely based on the Dispensationalism of definition 1.

However, Particular Baptists cannot be considered dispensationalists by Definition 1, as they all hold to Covenant Theology, and either Amillennialism or Postmillennialism, in opposition to Definition 1. (I, personally, am a Partial Preterist Optimistic Interadvental Millennialist, or PPOIM for short :bigsmile:. Yes, I am sorry it doesn´t convert to acronym particularly well).

Neither can Particular Baptists be considered dispensationalists even according to Definition 2, because they do not recognize infant inclusion in the Covenant of Grace revealed to Abraham. They see a continuous lack of infant inclusion throughout the CoG from Genesis 3:15 onwards. In fact, according to Definition 2, Paedobaptists are dispensational, as they hold to a discontinuity within the CoG by inserting infant inclusion into the New Testament! :lol:

I hope, brother, that my non-covenantal inclusion of the :lol: will illustrate for you, and the rest of my dear Paedobaptist brethren, the humor that the last paragraph was intended to communicate!

Originally posted by Webmaster
I'll be honest, I think Phillip A will be able to post a few things that DO make a difference between Baptists and Particular Baptists, especially on the practical side of holy living (Sabbth Day, etc.). It should be a helpful post.

I´ll be honest, I am too tired of typing to post anything in detail, but I will say that he is exactly right! there is a very sharp distinction between Baptists and Particular Baptists with regard to holy living, because Particular Baptists are also Puritans! Therefore the Puritan emphasis on personal piety, the perpetuity of the fourth commandment as applied to the observance of the Lord´s Day, and the Regulative Principle of Worship are all essential aspects of Particular Baptist theology.

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
burden of proof..

What do I have the burden of proving, that I am a Particular Baptist? :bigsmile:
 
Philip, since you do not even see infant inclusion in the Abrahamic covenant, but somehow make a distinguishment between the "Covenant of Grace" made with Abraham and the so-called "civil covenant of circumcision" made with him, what do you interpret all the spiritual references to circumcision in both testaments as signifying? Also, what exactly do you take passages like Gen. 17:7, Deut. 30:6, Ps. 22:9-10, Ps. 103:17-18, Prov. 3:33, Prov. 11:21, Isa. 54:13, Isa. 59:21, Isa. 65:23, Jer. 32:39, Luke 1:14-15, Acts 2:39 and 1 Cor. 7:14 to mean? If God's love, promises and redemptive plan are expressed throughout history in covenants, then to assert that such an abundance of spiritual promises are just random, non-covenantal promises that God happened to make is absurd.
 
There will be some discussion of Tombes and other aspects of both the historical Particular Baptist position and the modern Reformed Baptist position in the issue of the Reformed Baptist Theological Review due out this month, the major theme of which will be paedobaptism. The website for RBTR is here.

In my frame of mind today, I found this funny. What other major theme could be in a RB theological review? What is the difference between RB's and Reformed brethren of other sorts? Baptism.

Philip, I did not mean to poke fun. And I will not call you a dispie, either. I just sort of see the distinction you're making as a distinction without a difference. Fred is in the PCA and I am in the OPC. I don't know where he descended from or what side his family has been on through the centuries. Mine is a sordid past coming from an executioner's family in the middle of German Reformers. I'm pretty sure he sees a two office view in Scripture, whereas I see a three office view, yet, we're both Presbyterians. The thing that makes us Presbyterians is basically that we hold to a certain form of ecclesiastical government.

Now, I do not deny that I would rather distance myself from some Presbyterians. However, the reason they call them that is because of the government.

What makes a Baptist a Baptist? Basically, a Baptist is one who believes that only professing members are to be baptized, over and against pretty much the rest of christendom. This is not Arminian or Calvinistic. The central theme is whether or not infants are to be baptized.

Granted you are a different flavor of Baptist. Just like Fred and I differ. Perhaps the chasm exists much wider in your case between a Reformed and a non-reformed, but you and the most liberal member in the SBC have the same basic point of departure.

Trail of tears talk aside, you should see the connection between all baptists. Who was first and who begat whom is not important. The important point of distinction is that you believe infants are not worthy recipients of the sacrament and ordinance of our Lord.

Your discovery seems to have given you some peace for which you have been searching. I would not try to deter you from your course at all. But, I would encourage you to continue to search. Just because I'm linked to the German Reformation does not mean that I am right any more than your identifying with a group you consider to be historically prior to what you once were. Believe what you believe not just in opposition to a certain group or idea. Believe because of similarities, not differences.

The biggest question I had before I found my current place was why do men believe what they believe. The answer I found was that God illumines all minds to the same truth unless He hardens their heart to it. This is the only logical conclusion to why men believe different things about God since He is One and only one truth may be said of Him. Therefore, He has either blinded men's eyes from the real truth, or there are multiple truths. Since there is only one truth, one hermeneutic, one understanding of God's redemption, then the disagreement must be because the Spirit has not opened the eyes and softened the heart. Of course, we come to this because we are sinful. But God's truth must still be true though every man sins.

Unless someone can point me to another alternative, I think this is the only conclusion to be made.

Therefore, never stop searching for truth. I am not saying this because I think I've found it. I know for a fact that I am a sinful man and that I deceive myself constantly. But this is why God made faith. He continually works this faith within us so that we continually search for the truth. The minute we are so certain that we have all the truth, is the exact moment He has hardened our hearts because of our own sin.

Anyway. I do hope you know I am not ridiculing you. I just wanted to give you something to think about.

In Christ,

KC
 
Kevin,

Now if only the younger Presbyterians would have the wisdom to respond as you.

:worms:

As I duck for cover.
 
Yes, a worthy and well-thought out post from Kevin. As a Baptist, I appreciate the tone, tenor and content of it. Respectful, not dismissive, interesting and fresh.

Jonathan
 
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Philip...
what do you interpret all the spiritual references to circumcision in both testaments as signifying?

Spiritual Circumcision; the circumcision made without hands.


Also, what exactly do you take passages like Gen. 17:7, Deut. 30:6, Ps. 22:9-10, Ps. 103:17-18, Prov. 3:33, Prov. 11:21, Isa. 54:13, Isa. 59:21, Isa. 65:23, Jer. 32:39, Luke 1:14-15, Acts 2:39 and 1 Cor. 7:14 to mean?

For the most part (I won´t quibble about the one or two that I don´t think belong there) that is a collection of covenant promises, some of which are particular to the civil aspects of the covenant. As for the others, those are precious Gospel Covenant Promises, brother! :amen:


If God's love, promises and redemptive plan are expressed throughout history in covenants, then to assert that such an abundance of spiritual promises are just random, non-covenantal promises that God happened to make is absurd.

Absolutely, I agree entirely, that is truly absurd. Whoever suggested that should be beaten! :deadhorse:
 
Kevin, I believe I understand the intent and spirit of you post, and I greatly appreciate it; it bears the marks of a humility, spiritual wisdom, and love for the brethren that can only be the result of God´s work in the heart of man. Praise be to God for the life he has given to dead men! I agree in large part with what you said, but there is something I must ask you. You said:


Originally posted by kceaster
The central theme is whether or not infants are to be baptized.

And on the basis of that, I should "œsee the connection between all Baptists."

I understand your point, but suppose I turn it around on you. I could use the same reasoning, and say that, despite your different backgrounds, the central theme is whether or not infants are baptized, and therefore, at the end of it all, there is really no difference between you and the Roman Catholic. You should see the connection between all paedobaptists.

Does this sound right to you? Or is there some significance to the fact that you arrive at your reason for baptizing infants based on a totally different doctrinal base than does the Roman Catholic? If you were arguing justification with a Roman Catholic, could I step in and say, "œyou two just need to recognize that, after all, you are both paedobaptists"?

Now, I use an extreme example. There is nothing near the immensity of the gap between Baptists and Particular Baptists as there is between the Presbyterian and the Roman Catholic. My Baptist brethren believe in Justification by Grace Alone, through Faith Alone, on account of the work of Christ Alone, and I love them dearly. I do indeed see the connection between all baptists. But there is an important principle underlying my illustration. You cannot judge a person´s theology by their view of the subjects of baptism.

I posted what I did, and in the manner that I did, in order to illustrate the difference between my theology and that of the common variety Baptist. It has been the habit of many to lump all credobaptists into one camp. Is the cause of truth served in doing this? No, it is not, not any more than it is by lumping Presbyterians and Roman Catholics together on account of their both being paedobaptists, or by calling infant baptism "œpart and pillar of Popery".

Does this make sense to you, brother?
 
Originally posted by Philip A
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Philip...
what do you interpret all the spiritual references to circumcision in both testaments as signifying?

Spiritual Circumcision; the circumcision made without hands.

So then is it just a coincidence that the word used to describe that spiritual concept in the New Testament is the very same word used to describe the physical sign in the Old? Surely there is a connection, from a linguistic perspective if none other.

Originally posted by Philip A
Also, what exactly do you take passages like Gen. 17:7, Deut. 30:6, Ps. 22:9-10, Ps. 103:17-18, Prov. 3:33, Prov. 11:21, Isa. 54:13, Isa. 59:21, Isa. 65:23, Jer. 32:39, Luke 1:14-15, Acts 2:39 and 1 Cor. 7:14 to mean?

For the most part (I won´t quibble about the one or two that I don´t think belong there) that is a collection of covenant promises, some of which are particular to the civil aspects of the covenant. As for the others, those are precious Gospel Covenant Promises, brother! :amen:

Then since all of the promises are made to the children of believers, and you acknowledge that some of them are Gospel Covenant Promises, how can you logically say that such children have no promise in the Covenant of grace?

Originally posted by Philip A
If God's love, promises and redemptive plan are expressed throughout history in covenants, then to assert that such an abundance of spiritual promises are just random, non-covenantal promises that God happened to make is absurd.

Absolutely, I agree entirely, that is truly absurd. Whoever suggested that should be beaten! :deadhorse:

So then you agree that those promises to children are covenantal promises? If so, which covenant applies?
 
I'm still waiting to see how being a Particular Baptist is true to Covenant Theology? I was a Baptist for 20 years, and Reformed for 1. I loved the 1689 and believed everything in it. By all practical means, I was a Particular Baptist as you are boasting of in this thread. However, I also came to see the errors in that viewpoint through personal Bible study, so forgive me if I don't seem impressed by your claims in this thread. I will, however, say that I'm praying for you and hope that God's grace and mercy is made evident to you in your life as you grow in the knowledge of our Savior.
 
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
I will, however, say that I'm praying for you and hope that God's grace and mercy is made evident to you in your life as you grow in the knowledge of our Savior.

As I will pray for you too Gabriel.

Grace to you my brother.
 
Philip,

Quite right. I did not come across as clearly as I could have. When I said that there is a clear connection between baptists because they believe that only believers are to be baptized, I meant that in the sense that it is the original departure point between Reformed theology and Reformed Baptist theology. All was in agreement by in large, except for that main point which drove a huge wedge between the two Reformed bodies. Up until that time, the two streams were running parallel and then they flowed apart.

I could say the same for the Reformed Anglicans and the Presbyterians. They were basically in agreement on several key things. But their point of departure was church government among the chief points.

I guess what I am trying to get you to see is where the divide began and perhaps get you to question why and for what reason these divides occurred.

I agree with you that not all who baptize believers only are called baptists. I was in the Church of God (Anderson) for many years and we only baptized believers, yet we were not baptists and some even scorned that name because of elitism, though the beliefs were not all that different.

If we could rewind the tape to where the two roads diverged, what would we find? Why did it occur and what can we learn from it?

I think one of the biggest differences between what I'm proposing and what you suggested is that I am not saying your baptism differs between baptists. I think all the baptists believe the same thing about baptism. They all believe in the trinitarian formula and it is a valid baptism, except in those cases where a person must be baptized again even though they'd been baptized before. (My brother in law is about to go through this in California. He's been baptized twice before and his profession has not changed from the first time, yet the church will not allow him to member unless they baptize him.)

But the comparison between Presbyterians and RCC'ers is that the baptism is for completely different reasons. One involves the superstition of baptismal regeneration and the other does not.

Like the Hatfields and McCoys, we just need to get down to the basic disagreements to see why the feud, if one could call it that, is still ongoing. You and I probably believe the same things about much of our theology, yet a difference still divides us, and because of that, the church.

Find out why and for what reason, because up until that point, Christendom had been on the same page, unless we want to believe the speculative histories that have only emerged in the last 180 years.

That's my advice to you. And I take it for myself as well which is why I study the issues surrounding the Reformation on the continent and in the UK. If we do not have a reasonable idea as to why these things happened, then we are believing what we believe without being informed as to why we believe it.

I hope this makes sense to you.

In Christ,

KC
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top