Paedobaptism Questions

[Barnpreacher]

O.k. I cut my teeth in the fundamental, dispensational school of thought. God has been very gracious and merciful in his sovereignty in my life. I have moved away from the Semi-pelagian beliefs and now love the Doctrines of Grace with all my heart. I no longer consider myself a fundamentalist because I got tired of separating myself to so many degrees that I only found I could fellowship with myself. (If you were trained in the school of thought that I was then you know what I mean.)

I'm trying my best to follow the Holy Spirits' guidance as far as dispensationalism and Covenant Theology goes. This is very difficult for me as I now see so many flaws in dispensationalism that I don't consider myself a dispensationalist any longer. However, as I said, that is what I cut my teeth on. I didn't spend any time in my Christian life studying Covenant Theology until recently. So, I have questions. Lots of questions.

Recently I have been immersing myself (no pun intended) in the study of paedobaptism. I want to be convinced from Scripture to the truth of the matter, not just what I've thought was right all these years. I can see a good argument for paedobaptism. I definitely don't think it's wrong like I once did. I respect it and I respect anyone that practices it. Scripture leaves enough room for disagreement on baptism for two brothers to not have to part ways over that matter.

Some of you have been in my shoes. You know what a huge step it is to move from credo to paedo. I'm not saying that I'm there, but the knot in my stomach continues to grow as I study this issue. That kind of decision is not just something that one can just jump into. This has been the most difficult, Scriptural study of my life. I would dare say it was easier for me to move from Semi-Pelagianism to Calvinism than it would be to move from credo to paedo. But I want to be obedient to the Scriptures alone! So, I humbly ask for your prayers as I continue to study this issue.

A couple of questions that I'm sure have been covered here at length before. So, perhaps I can just be pointed to the place where the links are if they have already been covered.

1. How does the covenant sign of circumcision (male only) corelate to the covenant sign of baptism? I understand from Ephesians that it is neither male nor female. I understand the implications of circumcision going to the heart of where the natural seed is passed on. I understand those things, but what significance do covenant signs have upon the female in the Old Covenant? If none, then what is the argument for the significance of the covenant sign for the female in the New Covenant?

2. Also, where does John's baptism of repentance come in when it comes to Covenant Theology?

3. Why are we commanded to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in Matthew 28, but Peter baptized in the name of Jesus Christ in Acts 2? There are other instances of people being baptized only in the name of the Lord Jesus in Acts.

I have many more questions, but these three seem to be the main ones for now.

Thanks in advance for any help, and I appreciate your prayers as I study this matter.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Ryan,

If I could make a suggestion - Baptism and circumcision are not the issues. Without a proper understanding of "covenant" you will be asking the wrong questions to start with. Dispelling Dispensationalism would be the first priority in understanding the practical application of what "covenant" means (i.e. covenant signs). Understanding the Covenant of Redemption / Works / Grace would be my first priority. Everything else will fall into place.

 

[Barnpreacher]

That's a very sound suggestion. I guess I have to apologize. I think I made myself sound completely ignorant of Covenant Theology in my post. I understand and believe the Covenant of Redemption/ Works/ and Grace. I found it amazing how much Scripture had to say on these Covenants once I began to dispell dispensationalism. I cannot say that dispensationalistic thoughts don't still pop into my mind as I study Covenant Theology, but that's to be expected when dispensationalism was all I heard for 30 years.

I'm thankful for what an understanding of the Covenant of Redemption/ Works/ Grace has had on my spiritual life. I just have some questions within Covenant Theology (like the ones I posted) that I'm trying to sort through.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Ryan,
Sometimes the simplest books can be the easiest way to a foundational-principial reorientation. I am not out to make a paedo- out of you. I'll let God decide if you need ot change your mind on that. What I'd like to do is encourage you in becoming "covenant-minded." May I suggest a book(s)?

Promise and Deliverance, by S.G. De Graaf is a series of 4 volumes, in paperback. It is written at a low level, because the work was meant for use at any age. But it is priceless. (Lest you think I speak down to you, please realize that I use things like "the children's catechism" to instruct myself frequently!) What you may find is that what you learn, you can also teach to children. And those children in turn arrive at our age, and they are already light-years beyond us. Books like these are "world-view" shaping. But they will present the Bible's story in covenant-form.

At the same time, or immediately after, you can dive into higher level works--like Witsius' Economy of the Covenants, or O. Palmer Robertson's Christ of the Covenants, and see the same issues treated in greater depth.

in my opinion, trying to understand covenant theology by studying baptism is difficult (especially as baptism is not a "door of comprehension" generally to the subject). There are even dear baptist brothers here who consider themselves "covenant-theologians" of a sort. So, you can be covenant-minded, and still be a baptist. But, I daresay, that if you become a covenant-theologian first, you will approach the whole question of baptism from a different direction. If you become paedo- it will not feel like a gut-wrenching decision. If you decide you should stay where you are, you will still (I think) understand the paedo- position far better than you do now.

 

[Barnpreacher]

Bruce,

I really appreciate those book recommendations, brother. I didn't take the first suggestion as being talked down to at all. I know dispensationalism like the back of my hand. I can't say the same about my knowledge of Covenant Theology because I haven't put near the same amount of study time into it.

Bruce said, "you can be covenant-minded, and still be a baptist." That was an amazing statement because that is essentially where I am at right now. And boy were you ever right when you inferred I will understand the paedo position better than I used to. I can say that now. I mean I was the classic dispie fundamentalist. You paedo's were nothing more than R.C.'s to me. It is so sad how people are filled with that ignorance and they never come to realize what kind of great people are out there serving the Lord. I thank God that he took me out of that fundamentalist, dispensationalist, Semi-Pelagian camp and made me a lover of the Doctrines of Grace, Evangelicals, Covenant Theology and perhaps one day paedobaptism.

I will place the purchase of Promise and Deliverance at the top of my list. Thanks.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I'll just mention that the author of Promise & Deliverance takes an "immersionist" position on the practice of John the Baptist and at least some of the early church baptisms in Acts. I don't agree with him. But at the same time, he advocates paedo-baptism in at least one place, and I assume he was a sprinkler/pourer himself.

The final 20 pages of the final volume gives a brief prospective on the future, with typical Dutch flavoring. And there are a few things that I disagree with there.

But who says you must agree with everything in a book, especially one of such comprehensive scope? The work as a whole is still commendable, and it gets high praise from a diverse grouping of Reformed-minded endorsers.

Available (according to my copy) from Westminster Discount Book Service

[Edited on 7-8-2006 by Contra_Mundum]

 

[Kevin]

Ryan, I also used to be a Dispensational/fundy but unlike everyone else I know I came to the reformed faith by way of studying baptism. This seems to be different from most others who began with the doctrines of grace or covenant theology. So I understand why most people would direct you to spend your time learning more about the covenant as a means to better understanding baptism.

However, most people who share our background believe that they are "bible christians". We are (were) convinced that if only every one else would just read the scriptures without "denominational prejudice" & take the "plain meaning" of the text then they too would be just like us!

Understanding this fact of life about Dispensational/fundy style baptists makes me convinced that showing them that the scriptural doctrine of baptism demands aspersion/affusion of both converts & their children is crucial.

I would say to you the place to begin is looking at the OT baptisms more closely (Heb 9). Once you see clearly how pervasive baptism was in the old covenant you begin to see how Christ's command modified & changed it.

Now I understand the tendency on our part as reformed christians to begin with systematics, but In my humble opinion people such ourselves with our background as Dispensational/fundys are better served by a biblical studies approach.

All the advice you got above was very good. I would not neglect the studies suggested, but perhaps before you begin you might spend a few weeks looking into all of the anointings, sprinklings, and pourings in the OT. Remember the author of Hebrews called them "baptisms". Who could perform them? What was the media? What was the method employed? What was the signifigance? Answering these questions BEFORE you look again at the NT baptisms will clarify your thinking and help you see the continuity in Gods word.

As to your questions above I will only address # 2 because it illustrates so well my point.
Why did John Baptise? Because he was a priest. In the OT priests often baptise.
What is this baptism, which of the "many baptisms" is he employing? Clearly the baptism of (for) repentance.
Who recieved this baptism? Converts from outside the covenant community & Hebrews who wish to signify repentance.
Was his baptism "orthodox"? WAs it performed according to the law of moses? This is important because we were so often told that this was some "new thing" John began. Clearly it was. He after all was examined by a commitee of fellow priests who had the power to call for his stoning if he deviated from the Mosaic law of baptism.
What was the media? Clean water.
What was the method? Sprinkling

Is, Ez, Jer, all teach us something about the messianic nature of this rite as practiced by John. Clearly Johns message was clear enough that the priests recognized what he was claiming. They after all asked who he was & why he was baptising (with this baptism) if he was not the one spoken of by the prophets.

All of the details of the gospel accounts make perfect sense IF we first know what the OT says about baptism. However if we treat each text we read in a vacuum then all kinds of error can creep in.

So my advice brother is simple. Start with the law and the prophets. If we want to understand the NT we must familiarise ourselves with the bible of the NT.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Kevin
Ryan, I also used to be a Dispensational/fundy but unlike everyone else I know I came to the reformed faith by way of studying baptism. This seems to be different from most others who began with the doctrines of grace or covenant theology. So I understand why most people would direct you to spend your time learning more about the covenant as a means to better understanding baptism.

However, most people who share our background believe that they are "bible christians". We are (were) convinced that if only every one else would just read the scriptures without "denominational prejudice" & take the "plain meaning" of the text then they too would be just like us!

This is not neccesarily true; in fact, I was a credobaptist for 3/4 of my walk. I was schooled under the verse by verse/literql meaning of scripture. It was not Presbyterianism that convinced me; I had no knowledge of paedo history nor Presbyterian practices. It was the truer understanding of the scriptures which convinced me. The unbiased release of presuppositions in liu of truth was the culprit! There are many things in scripture that need more research other than the literal implication. For instance:

Matthew 5:39 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Was there a traditional or cultural reason the right cheek was smited? Should we consider this when we interpret the passage?

Understanding this fact of life about Dispensational/fundy style baptists makes me convinced that showing them that the scriptural doctrine of baptism demands aspersion/affusion of both converts & their children is crucial.

The cart is in front of the horse. Understanding the covenant is crucial in understanding the sign, the command to place it, it's perpetuality and Gods promise.

I would say to you the place to begin is looking at the OT baptisms more closely (Heb 9). Once you see clearly how pervasive baptism was in the old covenant you begin to see how Christ's command modified & changed it.

See above.

 

[Kevin]

Hey Scott, I don't disagree. I only meant that if you had started to talk to me 20 years ago about covenant theology my eyes would have glazed over. It was a real eye opener for me however when I read Heb. 9 and realized that "baptism" as used in the scripture did NOT always mean "to dip, plunge, or immerse."

Certainly this is not enough to have a proper understanding of baptism, but given were I was at the time it was what I needed.

BTW in the years since I have taught several bible studies on the doctrine of baptism (am doing one now ) And I have seen God bring over a dozen families into the reformed faith.

Just to be clear; I became reformed after seeing that my much vaunted "literalism" did NOT honestly deal with mode of baptism thus opening my eyes to meaning & subject.

I think that what happened with me was akin to Bahnsens "internal critique". I saw first that my system did not do what it claimed ( to allways let scripture speak for itself). Then I was prepared to see a more consistent, biblical, & covenantal view.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Kevin
Hey Scott, I don't disagree. I only meant that if you had started to talk to me 20 years ago about covenant theology my eyes would have glazed over. It was a real eye opener for me however when I read Heb. 9 and realized that "baptism" as used in the scripture did NOT always mean "to dip, plunge, or immerse."

Certainly this is not enough to have a proper understanding of baptism, but given were I was at the time it was what I needed.

BTW in the years since I have taught several bible studies on the doctrine of baptism (am doing one now ) And I have seen God bring over a dozen families into the reformed faith.

Just to be clear; I became reformed after seeing that my much vaunted "literalism" did NOT honestly deal with mode of baptism thus opening my eyes to meaning & subject.

I think that what happened with me was akin to Bahnsens "internal critique". I saw first that my system did not do what it claimed ( to allways let scripture speak for itself). Then I was prepared to see a more consistent, biblical, & covenantal view.

Kevin,
I pray I did not sound impatient with you; if so, I apologize. All of us need more grace, more patience. It is only by Christ and the HS will we be able to see truth. The road has been difficult for me; I have had to change denominations more than I would have liked. Many a grieved man have I left behind, not to mention the broken hearts. My wife still weeps to this day over leaving our last church family. But all in all, we are praising Him. He is faithful even when we are faithless, and in this, we continue to persevere and praise Him for the refining fire.

 

[Barnpreacher]

Fellas,

I think you all have given sound, sage advice. Kevin - I know exactly what you were trying to say in your post. Although, God used the Doctrines of Grace to move me away from the Dispensational/fundy camp I can understand how he used the subject of baptism to do so for you. In my life I now have a great love for the Doctrines of Grace, the Covenant of Grace and how the O.T. and N.T. fit together so beautifully. Matthew McMahon had me pegged when he talks about backwards hermeneutics in some of his articles. That is where I was for so many years of my Christian walk.

But now that I see and understand the Scriptural evidence for Covenant Theology I have to tackle some of the bigger issues (baptism, premill)within it that go totally against all I've studied for my whole Christian life.

I guess I'm starting to see where I am at right now. I have moved away from dispensationalism, and now adhere to the Scriptural evidences of Covenant Theology. I personally believe one can adhere to Covenant Theology and be a premillennialist. I probably would get a lot of arguments on that point, but I'm certain many of the Free Presbyterians do so. And on the baptism issue there is a reason why it is hitting so close to home right now. There is a church that I have come into contact with that I'm one of the final two candidates to fill their vacant senior pastor position. And they're paedo. Other than that issue there are no real sticking points. But that's a pretty big issue. Hence my dilemma.

 

[LadyFlynt]

Ryan, you sound like where I came from. Three years ago hubby started studying Covenant Theology and I about screamed with the agony of it...in fact, I remember stomping off and having nothing to do with the conversations. Then, I softened to it...but with only a background in dispensationalism, I gave a very gentle and loving conservative Presbyterian preacher all of my questions and "why this isn't making sense to me" issues...he was very patient and I wish we had sat under him longer than we did while in that state.

Only a little over a year ago did we jump the baptism fence...hubby first...took me a bit longer (I like to understand things for myself...but I was willing to have our children baptised anyhow and didn't take offense to it). But boy, I remember what you mean by how we used to view paedobaptists, etc.

I won't try to answer any of your questions as I believe these gentlemen can do a much better job of it than myself...just wanted you to know...there are definately members on this board that can relate.

 

[Barnpreacher]

LadyFlynt,

Thank you very much for your kind, encouraging, well put response. I guess those of us who have come out of the dispensational camps will always have a bond together. We just "know" what each other is trying to say when they talk about how difficult it is to put those dispensational thoughts out of our heads. It's almost like we can read each other's thoughts because we've been there before.

My difficulties are compounded by the fact that the church I presently pastor I took over when I was still adhering to dispensationalism. So, for 2-3 solid years I taught them nothing but Semi-Pelagian, dispensational doctrine. Now, I'm slowly trying to undo that and teach them Reformed theology with an emphasis on the Doctrines of Grace and Covenant Theology. It has been an unbelievably difficult task. But God is good and gracious and merciful and sovereign and I could go on and on!