Practical benefits of the Baptism ceremony

Status
Not open for further replies.
Multiple people on other threads have repeatedly stated those with Baptist views on infant baptism are in great sin.

This is due to two things:

1) There is a thread on this very topic: https://puritanboard.com/threads/do-you-believe-it-sin-to-neglect-baptism-of-infants.101107/

2) This is language from the Westminster Confession of Faith and this is a Confessional board:

5. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,a yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it,b or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.c

a. Luke 7:30 with Exod 4:24-26. • b. Acts 10:2, 4, 22, 31, 45, 47; Rom 4:11. • c. Acts 8:13, 23.

What do you want people to say if that's their confession? Are any other baptists taking this personally? There are plenty of baptists on the PB, but none are taking it personally. Many presbyterians and baptists on this board, in real life, are great friends. In other words, I encourage you to stop taking it personally, and work to understand our view and why we believe this. If God commands it (as we believe) and it's a sacrament, then of course it is a great sin to neglect it. You'd say the same thing, for example, about the Lord's supper. If a professing Christian neglects partaking in the Supper that Christ has commanded us to partake in, that's a great sin. You'd agree, would you not?
 
Multiple people on other threads have repeatedly stated those with Baptist views on infant baptism are in great sin.
Brother, that's the language of the Westminster Confession. You shouldn't be surprised when a Presbyterian agrees with his own statement of faith. Nor should you take it personally. A consistent Baptist would think that I've sinned by having my children baptized, but you won't find me getting in a tizzy over a Baptist being consistent with his own doctrine.
 
This is due to two things:

1) There is a thread on this very topic: https://puritanboard.com/threads/do-you-believe-it-sin-to-neglect-baptism-of-infants.101107/

2) This is language from the Westminster Confession of Faith and this is a Confessional board:



What do you want people to say if that's their confession? Are any other baptists taking this personally? There are plenty of baptists on the PB, but none are taking it personally. Many presbyterians and baptists on this board, in real life, are great friends. In other words, I encourage you to stop taking it personally, and work to understand our view and why we believe this. If God commands it (as we believe) and it's a sacrament, then of course it is a great sin to neglect it. You'd say the same thing, for example, about the Lord's supper. If a professing Christian neglects partaking in the Supper that Christ has commanded us to partake in, that's a great sin. You'd agree, would you not?
You make good points and perhaps I am overly sensitive to that language in the WCF as I consider seeking membership in the OPC. The irony is I suspect most people attending Presbyterian churches have never read through the WCF nor really understand reformed theology. Yet people like me who have ready through and agree with over 95% of the confession are accused of being in great sin.
 
This is not a specific response to anyone/any post. Repeating something I left in the other recent thread:

Let it be be recognized that WCF 28.5 refers to the whole doctrine of baptism explained in the full four paragraphs above it.

Baptism (for Presbyterians) includes infants in the doctrine; and the expression "a great sin" does not only refer to the contemning and neglect of the baptism of infants, but a general contemning and neglect of the holy ordinance of baptism.

I think the Baptist brethren would largely agree with the contention that despising or disregarding a divine appointment (disagree with us as they may on the proper subjects) is properly sinful.
 
Yet people like me who have ready through and agree with over 95% of the confession are accused of being in great sin.
I was in your shoes for many years. I was a member of the Church I am currently a member at in the late 80's. I was a Reformed Baptist then. When I got married I left to become a member of a Calvinistic Baptist Church where I was a member for over a decade. After my divorce I left that Church to regain some of my spiritual equilibrium. The divorce was really rough on me and my 3 boys. We ended up going to a PCA church plant for a while. I was never forced to believe in paedo baptism. I tried to understand the paedo position but was conflicted and confused by differing Covenant Theological views even by supposed Reformed Theologians. Thankfully this issue was never crammed down my throat nor forced upon me and my sons. My sons were all baptized by their Papaw in the Baptist Church he was ordained in based upon their profession of belief at an early age.

In 2010 I started to see that the language I was using concerning the covenants was being used differently than how I understood it. We were using the same terminology but defining things differently. It took me many years to figure that out. I am kind of slow sometimes. Like Pooh bear, I am a bear of very little brain with some fluff stuck in my ear. Take your time and grow in your conviction. I know guys who have changed from Paedo to Credo only. Just remember to be loving since we are all brothers.

One more thing. This is an internet forum and attitude and emotion are difficult to perceive. So try to take everything read here with a grain of salt when it comes to trying to perceive attitude. Yes, we can be persnickety but that doesn't mean we don't care or are being unloving.
 
I'm sorry if I ruffled feathers on this board. I will continue my theological pursuit elsewhere.

Or... you could recognize that some comments were an attempt to defend the confessions rather than a personal attack that was all about you, and that it is not uncommon on a theological message board to encounter people who are quick to make theological assertions but perhaps not so attuned to the nuances of doing so in a way that is pastorally helpful and sensitive. Most of us have failed that way at some point.

Certainly, you also should be speaking to the leaders at your local Presbyterian church about this. But despite our faults here, it is unlikely you will find a better online community for walking through this issue than the community on this board. If you can come in with a thick enough skin, you can probably learn something.

And as you surely should have noticed, not every paedobaptist here would take the language of Westminster and apply it to you in your situation. Internally, we have been debating the wisdom and appropriateness of that. Also, several of us have attempted to be helpful and pastoral toward you, and to assume the best about you and your motives, while still affirming what we believe. If you are willing to listen and learn, I think you can find help here.
 
Augustine would disagree with you. I would think he would be in a position to comment on what the ancient church believed.

If you were to ask Augustine why infants ought to be baptized, he would give you a reason that you certainly do not agree with, and he would tell you that this also came from the ancient church. Not too impressed with the argument being made here.
 
If you were to ask Augustine why infants ought to be baptized, he would give you a reason that you certainly do not agree with, and he would tell you that this also came from the ancient church. Not too impressed with the argument being made here.

I don't think anyone is or should argue that paedobaptism is biblical because the ECF did it. That isn't the question: the question is - is this a practice that goes back to the early church?

I fully admit that the ECF had weird understandings of things. I don't hold my reformed convictions because the ECF also baptized. But we must also realize that St. Augustine is in fact a historical source that we need to reckon with. Even if he didn't know why people should baptize infants that in no way reduces his credibility in terms of using his eyes and observing a practice, and his historical credibility in terms of telling us the historicity of that practice. It's like Pliny making the observation of early Christians singing hymns. Do we think that Pliny understood the theology of the hymns? Not likely. However that doesn't mean he couldn't use his eyes and ears and make the observation "these people are singing hymns". And we don't question his testimony because he didn't understand the theology.

This misunderstanding of baptism by the early church simply does not imply that infant baptism is wrong any more than the misunderstanding of baptism among current churches in the south makes credo-baptism wrong. As far as I am concerned, the testimony of the ECF only tells that this was a common practice in the early church, at least in the time of Augustine.
 
Agreed Izaak. Even formulations of the Trinity were better understood and developed more precisely a few centuries after Christ.
 
... But we must also realize that St. Augustine is in fact a historical source that we need to reckon with.

Sure, if he had been present in the primitive church to observe that infant baptism was taking place, I'd be all ears. But the fact is that Augustine comes from 350 years after the primitive church and we have no one from the primitive church who mentions the practice of infant baptism at all.

Again, when the question asked is "Isn’t infant baptism confirmed all the way back to the early church?", I am still 100% confident in my answer: No, certainly not.
 
Sure, if he had been present in the primitive church to observe that infant baptism was taking place, I'd be all ears. But the fact is that Augustine comes from 350 years after the primitive church and we have no one from the primitive church who mentions the practice of infant baptism at all.

Again, when the question asked is "Isn’t infant baptism confirmed all the way back to the early church?", I am still 100% confident in my answer: No, certainly not.

Your certainty is admirable. I guess it depends on what you need to see before something is "confirmed", and also what one means by the "early church".

But I fail to see how someone needs to be alive to witness something before we take their claim seriously. Do we really think that Augustine made up the quote out of thin air? He could have. But it is not very likely.

There also seems to be mention of the practice by those living before Augustine as well. (Origen, and in the Apostolic Tradition attributed to St. Hippolytus). We also don't read much if at all of a controversy due to the introduction of the practice.

Ultimately I know this won't convince you but I am convinced things are not quite as "certain" as you make them sound.
 
Add to this that Augustine had access to far more resources than we do. It goes without saying either he was no dunce.... to say the absolute least. And Origen about 100 years before made a similar claim. Augustine was born about the distance of time from the death of the apostle John as today is from the Revolutionary War. That's not much.

But if it's our burden of proof to show they argued for paedobaptism for the reasons we do, then we may also ask to see the Augustinian era credobaptists who argued for late baptism on the basis that:

1) No infants are mentioned as baptized in the NT
2) The New Covenant is new in such a way that those who are not regenerate are excluded, thus no one not professing--infant or non--should be baptized

Perhaps the EC did not think of paedobaptism from a full blown covenantal stance, yet I am not aware of anyone in that time opposing infant baptism on the grounds that credobaptists do today.
 
Last edited:
Your certainty is admirable.

My certainty that something isn't certain? Ok....

I guess it depends on what you need to see before something is "confirmed", and also what one means by the "early church".

Early Church = Apostolic and immediate post-Apostolic age.

For something to be "confirmed" back to the Apostolic and post-Apostolic age would require some kind of witness, either human, archaeological, SOMETHING rather than the nothing that we currently have for the first 180 - 200 years of church history.

But I fail to see how someone needs to be alive to witness something before we take their claim seriously. Do we really think that Augustine made up the quote out of thin air? He could have. But it is not very likely.

No one said Augustine had to have made it up. I am certain (hehe) that Augustine sincerely believed (as you do) that infant baptist is of New Testament era origin. But just at my job where I have been for 20 years for example, I am well aware of practices that are innovations since I started which newer employees have told me with a straight face "this is how it has always been done", and I know better.

There also seems to be mention of the practice by those living before Augustine as well. (Origen, and in the Apostolic Tradition attributed to St. Hippolytus). We also don't read much if at all of a controversy due to the introduction of the practice.

Origen... oh boy.

Ultimately I know this won't convince you but I am convinced things are not quite as "certain" as you make them sound.

You're convinced that my certainty about the lack of certainty of infant baptism is certainly superior to my certainty about the lack of certainty? OK...
 
Early Church = Apostolic and immediate post-Apostolic age.

For something to be "confirmed" back to the Apostolic and post-Apostolic age would require some kind of witness, either human, archaeological, SOMETHING rather than the nothing that we currently have for the first 180 - 200 years of church history.

I have to be honest - I found your post contained a lot of snarkiness. Forgive me if I instigated that, brother, but I did find it distasteful.

You are obviously a very passionate baptist. Ultimately we won't settle and shouldn't settle this based on church history or lack thereof. We both know that there were some things that happened in the early church that we certainly don't practice or believe today. If we are to practice something we must be convinced by the scriptures.

But I would like to ask, what is the "apostolic age"? Certainly up to AD 95-100 when John died. What then is the "immediate post-Apostolic age"? Who defines that? What is your standard? 50 years? 100 years? You speak of the "immediate post-Apostolic age" like it is a category defined by historians. In the "Apostolic Tradition" attributed to St. Hippolytus (170-235 AD) we have the explicit mention of the baptism of small children. That's ~100 years after the death of the last apostle. Is that in the "immediate post-apostolic age" or beyond it?? It is a genuine question. Also is it not interesting that we also do not find a plethora of writings debating the practice? That is also surely significant it it was indeed an intrusion of a non-apostolic practice into the church. But of course I am sure you believe that there was no debate because it didn't exist. And we will just go in circles.

I think our respective stances on this issue are going to colour our reading of the history if not a little bit than a lot. I mean, a reformed person would say that IB or at least the basis for it is clearly implied in Acts 16 which is pretty early in church history :p. A baptist would say that it implies nothing.

I pray that you would have a good day and that God would comfort you with the things signified in the physical sign of baptism - the washing away of your sins by the blood of Christ, the renewal of the Holy Spirit, and being united to Christ in His death and resurrection.

Regards,

Izaak
 
All, I regret posting this thread. I should have realized this had been a hotly debated topic. I sincerely did not intend to stir division and apologize for any inappropriate comments I may have made.

I attempted to delete this thread, but can’t figure out how to... can anyone provide me instruction for how to remove it or may a moderator do so?
 
Moderating:

At this stage I will not delete the thread. I request that all remember that there are people from all walks of life on the Puritanboard. We represent different countries, different Reformed traditions, and all of us have our own unique personalities. In the truest sense this diversity is a good thing. Prov 27:17 "As iron sharpens iron, So a man sharpens the countenance of his friend." As a man from "down under" it has been a blessed learning curve to learn from my beloved brethren in countries thousands of miles from me.

But equally we must remember the scriptural requirement to be loving and gracious to our fellow brethren. Phil 4:5 "Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand". 1 Cor 13:4-7 "Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

I am not perfect with my own comments. I am a sinner who can get irritated quickly. I appreciate the difficulty one may have when someone disagrees. Here is my suggestion if you are having a difficulty with a post. You will notice at the right hand side of the screen a "more options" icon. Push that rather than the "post reply" icon. This gives you an opportunity to check your message for spelling and grammar errors. More importantly, it gives you time to consider if your message complies with Phil 4:5, and 1 Cor 13:4-7. Then press the "preview" icon. This gives you another opportunity to check these things. Sometimes I press preview more than once if I want to check my message even more thoroughly. After all, what we post affects all who read it.

Then, before you push the "reply to thread" icon, ask yourself if you can truly say to your opponent:
"May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope." Rom 15:13

This verse in Romans has been especially precious to me this year. May we all meditate on the above verses and become true models of Christian love one to another.
 
Last edited:
Moderating:

At this stage I will not delete the thread. I request that all remember that there are people from all walks of life on the Puritanboard. We represent different countries, different Reformed traditions, and all of us have our own unique personalities. In the truest sense this diversity is a good thing. Prov 27:17 "As iron sharpens iron, So a man sharpens the countenance of his friend." As a man from "down under" it has been a blessed learning curve to learn from my beloved brethren in countries thousands of miles from me.

But equally we must remember the scriptural requirement to be loving and gracious to our fellow brethren. Phil 4:5 "Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand". 1 Cor 13:4-7 "Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

I am not perfect with my own comments. I am a sinner who can get irritated quickly. I appreciate the difficulty one may have when someone disagrees. Here is my suggestion if you are having a difficulty with a post. You will notice at the right hand side of the screen a "more options" icon. Push that rather than the "post reply" icon. This gives you an opportunity to check your message for spelling and grammar errors. More importantly, it gives you time to consider if your message complies with Phil 4:5, and 1 Cor 13:4-7. Then press the "preview" icon. This gives you another opportunity to check these things. Sometimes I press preview more than once if I want to check my message even more thoroughly. After all, what we post affects all who read it.

Then, before you push the "reply to thread" icon, ask yourself if you can truly say to your opponent:
"May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope." Rom 15:13

This verse in Romans has been especially precious to me this year. May we all meditate on the above verses and become true models of Christian love one to another.
Fair enough. I appreciate everyone’s thoughts and have much to consider and many books to read.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top