Secondary Issue - Baptism

Status
Not open for further replies.
Taylor....hilarious and awful.

I also wanted to post this here; I've posted it before. Poythress is writing this for Baptists to encourage baptizing children as young as two and three. From a baptist perspective where it is meant for those with evidence of true faith and regeneration, there is no need to deny it to young children with simple faith. Don't let the title throw you.

It doesn't change the major difference of what paedos and credos think baptism represents. But if you are Baptist and think baptism represents being saved, then you don't have to wait until a child is much older.

https://frame-poythress.org/indifferentism-and-rigorism/
 
I would like to add that I'm not settled in my position on baptism which is probably why I'm struggling. The move was not made for biblical reasons but more practical and historical reasons.

Pray for me.

jm
 
I would like to add that I'm not settled in my position on baptism which is probably why I'm struggling. The move was not made for biblical reasons but more practical and historical reasons.

Pray for me.

jm

I will pray.
 
I would like to add that I'm not settled in my position on baptism which is probably why I'm struggling. The move was not made for biblical reasons but more practical and historical reasons.

Pray for me.

jm
JM,
Are you trying to decide to leave a Church or are you struggling with the aftermath of already having left (feel free to PM me)?

I will pray for you today brother.
 
Grant,

I understand that we are not debating whether loving one another is important or not, what I am saying is this - "Is the command to love one another held as strongly in one's mind as the command to baptize in a certain manner? If so, how does it help us navigate these disagreements?"

Why do I even mention this? Because of how this issue is often handled and how it exacerbates divisions rather than promotes unity.

Let's go back to the OP for a second.

His main issue is this - Should baptism divide us in light of the current state of attacks on the church? Can baptists and paedobaptists function together in a church?

Now look at the responses. Some say "No way, we must separate" and some are giving examples of how congregations hold to their convictions of what they will teach and how they will function while still desiring to include and shepherd members from a different doctrinal stance.

Personally, I think the second example is more consistent with Christian love than the first. You may disagree but there is my reasoning:

Here is how we do it at our church. We are Baptist but allow paedobaptists into membership if they can explain their position based on a solid understanding of Scripture. We do this to screen out views such as baptismal regeneration which we believe are clearly out of bounds and threaten the gospel. We do not allow paedobaptism to be taught or paedobaptists to become elders. That is how we hold on to our Baptist identity and convictions yet still welcome paedobaptists into membership.

Does it work? So far it has. Why? Because our paedobaptist brothers and sisters know we love them and want to include them in our congregation as much as we can since we choose to emphasize what we have in common rather than let the smaller (albeit important) issues divide us. There are not a lot of strong, Bible believing churches in our area for paedobaptists as most Presbyterian churches are PCUSA and have gone far off the rails. We recognize this and want to love our brothers and sisters.

Ever since we made this change to allow paedobaptists into membership a few years ago I have never heard any complaints from paedobaptists over how they are treated or the standards we put in place. When we teach on issues like baptism, we do it with grace and kindness without sacrificing our convictions. We don't teach the issue in a way that insults or demeans the views of paedobaptists. If someone wanted to have their infants baptized, I believe we would simply work with another local congregation in town that we trust since we pursue relationships with other pastors that hold our core evangelical convictions. We wouldn't accuse them of being in sin or seek to discipline in them in any way unless they wandered off into the baptismal regeneration heresy. This is how I would want to be treated if I were in the reverse circumstance and chose to find fellowship in Presbyterian church. I wouldn't expect them to bend to my doctrinal stance but I would want to be respected and cared for as a brother in Christ. I would hold up my time at RTS as an example of this. Their care and respect for me as a Baptist, while still holding on to their convictions, was nothing short of exemplary and an example for me.

My point is this - How you go about dealing with the issue is of great importance and can either lessen or exacerbate the divisions we face between one another. Sometimes we get so focused on the doctrinal side of things we forget and fail to hold other extremely important truths tightly as we work through it.

Over the 23 years I have been deeply immersed in church life I have time and again seen a failure to hold on to both love and truth tightly without sacrificing either. It seems that congregations develop cultures that either default to one or the other and the problems that it creates are massive and I believe it leads to many, many unnecessary divisions and fights.

There is a time to separate from a church and there is a time to stay and be unified and commit to loving a group of people that share core convictions. As I have become more and more exposed to the Reformed world over the last 8 years, I have been absolutely astounded over what some people choose to separate over when they probably have unity over 99.5% of their doctrine. I think we would all like to be around people that believe exactly as we do but that is a great recipe to have a church of 1. I understand we have to draw the lines in certain places but when we are drawing those lines, I would just encourage that we make sure we are doing it in a way that pleases the Lord and seeks to love His people the best we can and that that is at the forefront of our minds as we do so.
 
Last edited:
Is the command to love one another held as strongly in one's mind as the command to baptize in a certain manner?
Yes, it should be, at least in my mind.
If so, how does it help us navigate these disagreements?"
That is the purpose of PB (in one sense), to help us flesh things out.
Some say "No way, we must separate"
Who said this? Not I.
Baptist but allow paedobaptists into membership if they can explain their position based on a solid understanding of Scripture.
Do you require them to be re-baptized if they were only baptized as infants? If not, how do you reconcile that with scripture and your standards and your own Church's Membership Covenant?
There are not a lot of strong, Bible believing churches in our area for paedobaptists as the most Presbyterian churches are PCUSA and have gone far off the rails.
Like I said geography plays a big role.
I would just encourage that we make sure we are doing it in a way that pleases the Lord and seeks to love His people the best we can and that that is at the forefront of our minds as we do so.
Amen.:detective:
 
Last edited:
Do you require them to be re-baptized if they were only baptized as infants? If not, how do you reconcile that with scripture and your standards? How do you receive them into your membership if they have not been "dipped" or "immersed", without being out of accord with your own confession (assuming your Church is confessional..I could be wrong) ?

- We do not require rebaptism
- Reconcile - This is where I think it is helpful to have a "What we teach" statement that is more tightly defined than the doctrinal standards required for membership.
- We are not a confessional church.

It's good to work through this issue, especially in light of where our culture is at and the fact that many communities do not have multiple strong Bible-believing, Reformed or Reformed-ish churches that give people the option to find something that exactly matches their convictions.

Though they aren't the church, I appreciate Reformed seminaries like Westminster Cal. and RTS Orlando that have Reformed Baptist study options. To me that sends a good message of what they believe is the highest priority - the core of Reformed theology badly needed in this country - and what they can allow some flexibility on to serve their students and the church at large.
 
Last edited:
- We do not require rebaptism
- Reconcile - This is where I think it is helpful to have a "What we teach" statement that is more tightly defined than the doctrinal standards required for membership.
- We are not a confessional church.

Last question I promise:
Correct me if I am wrong, but if you receive a person into membership (who was only baptized as an infant, are you not violating your Own Church's membership covenant? From your Churches Website:

Church Covenant
Members of Christ The Redeemer Church make the following covenant to each other before God:

Having, we trust, been brought by God's grace to repent and believe in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, and having been baptized upon our profession of faith, into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, we now, relying on his gracious aid, solemnly and joyfully renew our covenant with each other. “http://www.christredeemer.com/beliefs/
 
It's a good question - I would guess the language of the church covenant was not updated when the elder position paper was written. I will forward your observation along.
 
It's a good question - I would guess the language of the church covenant was not updated when the elder position paper was written. I will forward your observation along.
Understood. I digress. I have enjoyed our dialogue brother.:cheers2:
 
JM,
Are you trying to decide to leave a Church or are you struggling with the aftermath of already having left (feel free to PM me)?

I will pray for you today brother.

I guess I was overly idealistic in the past when it came to doctrine and dogma. Thank you for your prayers and the offer to chat via PM.

jm
 
I guess I was overly idealistic in the past when it came to doctrine and dogma. Thank you for your prayers and the offer to chat via PM.

jm

I prayed for you a few times yesterday.

It is good- not just okay, but excellent- to be undecided with honesty about any doctrine where Reformed churches and scholars disagree. I mean, you can't really say you are Reformed and hold to Federal Vision, or argue with L and P, but it is OK to take years- months or many many years- reading and thinking about baptism, or the finer points re the sabbath, or eschatology, or spiritual gifts, or anything where you have Presbyterians and Baptists holding to varied views. Better to be honest than a pretender in a church. You submit to church leaders in doctrine by not being argumentative and don't undermine them, but neither do you park your brains at the door. Be prepared to spend your life having some doctrinal back and forths.

On this subject ( baptism) I will point out that what really bugs my husband and I is conversations on both sides with people who spout one position without thinking through what they are saying as applied to communion. Man oh man has hubby had the discussions with guys including pastors about what they say from the pulpit and their glaring inconsistency. (and I am not referring to anybody here, although it could apply at PB but I don't know of anybody).

Paedos will talk about continuity of the covenant and children and promises and carry on about it and then you ask them why their kids are not eating the covenant meal, and OT kids ate the passover. You would be shocked at how many have zero reply and ho hum and finally appeal to the BCO or something, but you press them about why, and they can't answer and they know they are inconsistent and you can seen them grit their teeth.

The smarter paedos have thought it through and say that people have to examine themselves before they eat the meal, so they want the kid to be older and aware of sin, and that is why they have a two stage process ( ie baby baptism and older communion).

If you ask some guys about why they disagree with credo baptism and throw back at them something they just said about communion that could apply to baptism ( waiting until evidence of faith for a sacrament) they have no answer and get that deer in the headlight look.

Credos are worse. They sit there with the kids taking communion and you ask them sometime why, if the kid isn't baptized, and they hem and haw and have no answer. That's normal, people don't read theology or think much. But you bring it up with the pastor, respectfully, and pastors get annoyed or even mad.They have no good answer, not even the staunch Calvinists. Its crazy. I don't think there is a good answer on that one; if you are credo baptist I think you should not allow communion. Thinking paedos at least can appeal to 1 Cor 11 to examine yourself before communion .

Before I get flamed, I am not accusing anybody at PB about this, I am talking about many people and leaders we have known, so don't go flaming me to death. I know there are many threads in the archives that discuss this subject...I am warning JM lol. He needs to be ready to face the paedo credo fire someday.

My husband has ended up at a paedo and credo must go together position based on years of theology reading in seminary and after, and based on extensive discussions with both sides. I am that way for credos although more lenient with paedos (only if they can give a good reason to not allowing the covenant meal to a toddler, and a whole lot of them have no good reason at all).

So I am sorry be so long winded JM, but I hope that whatever side you end up on you will really think it through and think through what you believe as it relates to communion as well. Be ready to answer a young millenial exposed to say Grudem on Baptism who likes paedo writers also and is torn, and sees the inconsistencies with their newly TR friend spouting off about continuity of covenants but who can't explain why there is a difference with babies and communion.

Its a jungle out there. Your indecision on this doctrine is healthy and good and godly. Take years if you need to. I am still in the "both sides have really really good arguements" place, even if I think one side is stronger I don't think it matters. That's just me. Its not a bad place to be especially when talking to a marriage where the husband and wife are on opposite sides (I've talked to several of them). You can really encourage a marriage when you are a "whatever" Christian on this, lol.
 
A buddy of mine invited me to a Bible study at a Baptist church last night. The Anglican Church I attend doesn't offer a Bible study at this time so it was good to be with other believers reading God's word.

jm
 
Hey folks,

I'll admit, I need some help on this. The last year I've come to view baptism as something that shouldn't divide us. I've moved from credo to paedobaptism but really don't see a reason to separate from credobaptists especially now with orthodox Protestantism under attack from all sides. I'm not trying to reduce the importance of the sacraments and probably have a much higher view of the sacraments than many of my Reformed fams, I guess...maybe, I'm worn out from all the division we face. Is baptism an issue we should divide over?

Yours in the Lord,

jm
Hey folks,

I'll admit, I need some help on this. The last year I've come to view baptism as something that shouldn't divide us. I've moved from credo to paedobaptism but really don't see a reason to separate from credobaptists especially now with orthodox Protestantism under attack from all sides. I'm not trying to reduce the importance of the sacraments and probably have a much higher view of the sacraments than many of my Reformed fams, I guess...maybe, I'm worn out from all the division we face. Is baptism an issue we should divide over?

Yours in the Lord,

jm
Those of us who call Jesus our Lord, who have been sealed by the promised Holy Spirit, are indeed one in Christ Jesus, and we have to learn to accept that while we must agree on the essentials of the Christian Faith, there will also be those areas of disagreement that will stillhappen among us. We should learn from the example of Dr Sproul and Dr MacArthur, how they modeled to and for us their sincere love for each other, even with some major areas of theological disagreements still remaining until the time Dr Sproul passed on to meet Jesus.

Its OK to have differences in theology among ourselves in the body, as long as those areas are not essentials of the faith, and really think that all of us will be surprised on how we all had some certain issues where we really did not grasp what the scriptures were clearing teaching to us.
 
Are you saying it is found in Scripture? By all means, show me and I will change my position.
I would encourage you to search old threads. The threads will present attempted biblical cases (from both sides) and also provide some solid resources (ex. Articles, podcast, books).
 
Infant baptism is not found within Scripture.

Was circumcision a sign and seal of the covenant?? Is water baptism a sign and seal of the same covenant? Was circumcision given to infants?

Do u ever see an abrogation of placing the sign on infants?

Does Gen 17 tell us that the placing of the sign perpetual?

"Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. 10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. 11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. 12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. 13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ge 17:9–14.

I have asked this before and no one interacted with this fact; yea, we see "no positive command to place any sign on infants" in the NT; if we had said this in that generation, we would have been laughed off stage as every Jew knew the covenant sign and it's demand. In our age, when a child comes to faith (younger than adulthood), it is a big thing (even in Presbyterian circles); one sees a celebration. More grand than when an adult comes to faith! Why is it that we see not one instance in the NT where a child comes to faith? Not one! I will tell u why, because all those children had the sign on their flesh already.
 
Are you saying it is found in Scripture? By all means, show me and I will change my position.

To be completely fair, the New Testament might not (not "does not") contain references to infant baptisms. To say it does not is, at best, saying too much exegetically.

On the other hand, while the New Testament does depict many "credobaptisms," if we again are to be completely fair and exegetically thorough, we must say it only contains "credobaptisms" of one particular sort: first generation believers. As far as I am aware, there are no explicit examples of baptisms of second-generation believers upon confession of faith. Therefore, there is an element of argument from silence in both the credobaptist and paedobaptist positions. That is why Bavinck rightly says:

"We need to overcome our astonishment over the fact that the New Testament nowhere explicitly mentions infant baptism. This fact can be explained by saying that in the days of the New Testament, the baptism of adults was the rule, and the baptism of infants, if it occurred at all, was the exception. It was the period in which the Christian church had been founded and expanded by conversions from Judaism and paganism. It is precisely that transition that is clearly depicted in baptism. Adult baptism is therefore the original baptism; infant baptism is derivative; the former must not be conformed to the latter, but the latter must be conformed to the former" (Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 4, p. 526).​

Exegesis and hermeneutics matter, not merely always calling for explicit examples of things if we are to affirm them. After all, there are no explicit, word-for-word references to the Trinity in Scripture, yet it is plainly taught throughout. Biblicism, while looking and sounding good and right, can definitely lead to error if not handled well.
 
Last edited:
I see this as a dangerous stance. Are we all not one body? Be careful how you answer. You are either in the communion of Christ or not.
Infant baptism is not found within Scripture. Believer's baptism definitely is.
:banghead: I really think we can do better than this.

Indeed we can and must do better.

Moderator Note:

David,

You are new here and may not be aware of how we approach the matter. For that matter some others may be in need of a refresher.

We permit Credo-Baptists and Paedo-Baptists to discuss their views and even be a wee bit strident in their positions in separate forums that allow others to ask questions to be answered by only the respective holder of the view in the respective forum:

https://www.puritanboard.com/forums/paedo-baptism-answers.122/
https://www.puritanboard.com/forums/credo-baptism-answers.123/

Now this forum, wherein we are posting right now, is for debate and discussion, albeit keeping the following in mind:

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/new-guidelines-for-the-baptism-forum.24468/

No matter how you slice it, to boldly claim paedo-baptism is not found in Scripture, while credo-baptism definitely is, you are asserting that paedo-baptists are practicing a sacrament/ordinance without any warrant from the whole counsel of Scripture.

David, if you want to debate and discuss the matter and the claim, start a thread in this forum, substantiate the naked assertion, withstand cross-examination, in the hope that we all may be edified. Do not simply assert, nor go so far as to call a respected ordained servant to caution in your request for his next response.

Let's practice a wee bit of trepidation in matters wherein we have obvious differences about that which we hold dear (e.g., In my opinion It seems to me, etc) versus strident declarations.
 
LBCF Section 29 tells us it is a sign of a belief and fellowship with Christ from a remission of sin.

In LBC ch 7:2
"7.2 Moreover, as Adam had brought himself and his posterity under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace.1 In this covenant he freely offers to sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring from them faith in him that they may be saved,2 and promising to give his Holy Spirit to all who are elected to eternal life, to make them willing and able to believe."

In 14:2 it says:
"But the principal acts of saving faith are those directly to do with Christ—accepting, receiving, and resting on him alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace."

In 15:2:
"15.2 There is no one who does good and does not sin,1 and the best of people may fall into great sins and provocations [against God] through the power and deceitfulness of their indwelling corruption and the strength of temptation.2 Therefore God has mercifully provided in the covenant of grace that when believers sin and fall they shall be restored to salvation through repentance."

15:5
"15.5 In the covenant of grace God has made full provision through Christ for the preservation of believers in their salvation, so, although even the smallest sin deserves damnation,1 yet there is no sin great enough to bring damnation on those who repent. This makes the constant preaching of repentance essential."

Given that since Gen 3, all men are saved in the same fashion, the sign and seal are directly related to the C of G.

By the way, care to interact with my previous question?
 
In LBC ch 7:2
"7.2 Moreover, as Adam had brought himself and his posterity under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace.1 In this covenant he freely offers to sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring from them faith in him that they may be saved,2 and promising to give his Holy Spirit to all who are elected to eternal life, to make them willing and able to believe."

In 14:2 it says:
"But the principal acts of saving faith are those directly to do with Christ—accepting, receiving, and resting on him alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace."

In 15:2:
"15.2 There is no one who does good and does not sin,1 and the best of people may fall into great sins and provocations [against God] through the power and deceitfulness of their indwelling corruption and the strength of temptation.2 Therefore God has mercifully provided in the covenant of grace that when believers sin and fall they shall be restored to salvation through repentance."

15:5
"15.5 In the covenant of grace God has made full provision through Christ for the preservation of believers in their salvation, so, although even the smallest sin deserves damnation,1 yet there is no sin great enough to bring damnation on those who repent. This makes the constant preaching of repentance essential."

Given that since Gen 3, all men are saved in the same fashion, the sign and seal are directly related to the C of G.

By the way, care to interact with my previous question?

Not sure what question I missed, but on this, we will have to agree to disagree that Baptism is equivalent to the sign of circumcision. It is a New Covenant, not a covenant with Israel as the original covenant was.
 
LBCF Section 29 tells us it is a sign of a belief and fellowship with Christ from a remission of sin.
Paedo vs. anti-paedo aside, Your covenant theology may be out of accord with even your own confession (I think this is what @Scott Bushey is trying to show).
 
Last edited:
Many of you know the theological journey I was on when I joined the Puritan Board in 2005. I had left cage-stage Calvinism and was struggling with Dispensationalism vs. Covenant Theology. The majority of CT books I encountered were written by paedobaptists. While I found them compelling, I was only reading one side of the debate. I joined the PB with the hope that I would engage with paedos and credos and get answers to my many questions. Surprisingly, that is exactly what happened. My screen name at that time was Baptist-in-Crisis. I chuckle at that name now, but 13 years ago that was exactly what I was. I read numerous threads on Baptism and displayed my ignorance for all to see by jumping into conversations with my betters. I had a lot to learn. Slowly but surely, I increased my theological acumen and got my head around some of the discussions. Eventually, the "in-crisis" moniker waned and I became convinced beyond a reasonable doubt as to what I believed about the Abrahamic Covenant, the New Covenant, and baptism.

I have many Presbyterian friends who have earned the right to gently rib me about the outcome of my journey. We have a love and affection for each other in Christ. We have defended each other when necessary. However, as Rev. Strange more eloquently pointed out, we believe differently on a very important doctrine. Being part of the same local church would present material problems. Most paedobaptists do consider credobaptists to be in sin over the baptism issue, and most confessional Baptists believe the same thing in return. While we believe the other side is wrong, we understand that both sides love the Gospel and want to see sinners converted and the kingdom of God expand. It makes sense for both sides to labor for the Gospel without internal differences that could obscure gospel work. That said, sometimes providence makes for strange bedfellows. There are times when paedos and credos alike may find themselves attending a church that has a different view than us on an issue like baptism. In those rare situations, it is incumbent on the believer holding to the minority position not to advocate their own view, which would sew the seeds of disharmony.

As far as the Puritan Board goes, it is a melting pot of sorts. To quote Abraham Lincoln, "With malice toward none, with charity for all". That is good advice for anyone who dips their toe in theological debate. None of us are beyond learning, and none of us are beyond correction.
 
I have a great idea. How about three baptisms? One as a baby as a covenantal sign. Another one when evidence of saving faith is present in accord with Romans 6 that we are buried with Christ and raised up with him. That one has to have two parts- immersion according to classic Baptists and sprinkling according to Lloyd- Jones (Baptist sprinkler) and Presbyterians. Lots of good verses for sprinkling, and some for immersion too.

Then you get the third one in accord with the book of Acts: "in the Name of Jesus". That is how they did it, it never says in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Just the Lord Jesus Christ. That will make the UPC oneness people happy.

I guess that's more like four if you sprinkle and immerse. Sounds good to me. Given the state of the church today, I bet we could get a mega congregation in no time with the proper advertising, as long as we present ourselves as the best and most cutting edge group around. Add the word "prophetic" and they'll be lining up out the door.

Seriously, I again take strong issue with anybody who thinks you can't enjoy rich fellowship with those who differ on this. Especially on the mission field, you may not have many options. We've been in churches on both sides, with pastors on both sides, and know other people on both sides in churches on the other side. It just does not need to be the determining factor when solid teaching, godly leaders, nice praying people, and so forth are present. We have ample gasoline right now to drive where we want, but that could change. We need to be mentally prepared for trials that disrupt our lifestyle and force us to go more local.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top