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: