Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Credo-baptism’

Free Ebook- An Apology for the Baptists

February 17, 2017 Leave a comment

An

Apology

For The

Baptists;

In Which

They Are Vindicated From The Imputation

Of Laying

An Unwarrantable Stress

On

The Ordinance Of Baptism.

And

Against The Charge Of Bigotry

In Refusing

Communion At The Lord’s Table

By Abraham Booth

 

Download here (Pdf)

Advertisements

Two Views on Infant Baptism

February 14, 2017 Leave a comment

Thabiti Anyabwile and Ligon Duncan Wade Into the Debate

Download here

Event: TGC Council Colloquium

Date: May 25, 2012

Thabiti Anyabwile is a pastor of Anacostia River Church in southeast Washington, D.C., and a Council member of The Gospel Coalition. He is the author of several books, including Reviving the Black Church. Ligon Duncan is chancellor and CEO of Reformed Theological Seminary and a TGC Council member. He has co-authored, edited, or contributed to more than 35 books.

You can listen to this episode of The Gospel Coalition podcast here or watch it on video.

Editors’ note: Come hear from Anyabwile on “Gospel Freedom, Gospel Fruit” and Duncan on “The Reformed Tradition Beyond Calvin” at TGC’s upcoming 2017 National Conference, April 3 to 5 in Indianapolis. Register soon!

 

Source (Gospel Coaltion)

Keach on the Contradictions of Calvinist Paedobaptism

From Benjamin Keach, Gold Refin’d, or, Baptism in its Primitive Purity (London: 1689), 169.

Is it not strange men should say, all children of believers are in covenant, and that there is no falling from a state of grace; but that the New Covenant is so well ordered in all things, and sure, that it will secure all that are indeed in it, unto eternal life; and yet many of these children, who they say, are in this covenant, perish in their sins, dying unregenerate?

Source [IRBC]

Does a rejection of infant baptism require a rejection of the Lord’s Day Sabbath as well? John Tombes answers

James Renihan:

The popular 17th century Presbyterian preacher Stephen Marshall stated that rejecting infant baptism necessitated a rejection of the Lord’s Day Sabbath as well. Here is the reply from John Tombes.

John Tombes: An examen of the sermon of Mr. Stephen Marshal about infant-baptisme in a letter sent to him. 1645

“You say, . . . I see that all that reject the baptizing of Infants, do & must upon the same grounds reject the religious observation of the Lord’s day, or the Christian Sabbath, viz., because there is not (say they) an expressed institution or command in the New Testament.

Give me leave to take up the words of him in the Poet . . . What a word hath gotten out of the hedge of your teeth! They doe, They must. Though I doubt not of your will, yet I see you want some skill in pleading for the Lord’s day, that others have the truth in that it is neither so, nor so, They neither doe, nor must reject upon the same ground the Lords Day. That they doe not I can speake for one; and your owne words delivered after with more caution, Verily I have hardly either knowne, or read, or heard, intimate that though few, yet you cannot say, but you have heard, or read, or knowne of some, that have not with baptizing of Infants rejected the Lord’s Day; but you have, I presume heard or read of whole, and those reformed Churches, that have upon such a ground rejected the Lords day as not of divine institution, who yet are zealous for paedobaptisme. Nor must they, And to make that good, let us consider their ground as you mention it. Their ground you say is, because there is not an expresse institution or command in the New Testament: this then is their principle, that what hath not an expresse institution or command in the New Testament is to be rejected. But give me leave to tell you, that you leave out two explications that are needful to be taken in; First, that when they say so, they meane it of positive instituted worship, consisting in outward rites, such as Circumcision, Baptisme and the Lord’s Supper are, which have nothing morall or naturall in them, but are in whole and in part Ceremoniall. For that which is naturall or morall in worship, they allow an institution or command in the old Testament as obligatory to Christians, and such doe they conceive a Sabbath to be, as being of the Law of nature, that outward worship being due to God, days are due to God to that end, and therefore even in Paradise, appointed from the creation; and in all nations, in all ages observed: enough to prove so much to be of the Law of nature, and therefore the fourth Commandment justly put amongst the Morals; and if a seventh day indefinitely be commanded there, as some of your Assembly have endeavoured to make good, I shall not gainsay; though in that point of the quota pars temporis which is moral, I do yet [epekein — (original is Greek)] suspend my judgement. Now Circumcision hath nothing moral in it, it is meerely positive, neither from the beginning, nor observed by all nations in all ages, nor in the Decalogue, and therefore a Sabbath may stand, though it fall. 2. The other explication is, that when they require expresse institution or command in the New testament, they doe not meane that in positive worship there must be a command totidem verbis, in so many words, in forme of a precept, but they conceive that Apostolicall example, which hath not a meere temporary reason, is enough to prove an institution from God, to which that practice doth relate. And in this, after some evidences in the Scripture of the New Testament, they ascribe much to the constant practice of the Church in all ages. Now then if it be considered, that when Paul preached upon the first day of the weeke, and Paul was at Troas, Acts 20.7 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] the Disciples came together to breake bread, and Paul, 1 Cor. 16.1 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] ,2 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] as he had appointed in the Churches of Galatia, so he appoints at Corinth collections for the poore the first day of the week, & Revel. 1.10 it hath the Elogium or title of the Lord’s day; and it was so Sacred among Christians, that it was made the question of inquisitors of Christianity, ‘Dominicum servatis?’ hast thou kept the Lords Day? To which was answered , Christianos sum, intermittere non possum, I am a Christian, I may not omit it. It is clear evidence to me, that either Christ or the Apostles, having abrogated the old Sabbath, Col. 2.16 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] subrogated the first day of the week instead of it. Now if a moity of this could be brought for Paedobaptisme, in the stead of Circumcision of infants, I should subscribe to it with you. But Paedobaptisme not consisting with the order of Christ in the institution, being contrary to the usage of it by John the Baptist, & the Apostles, there being no foote-steps of it, til the erroneous conceit grew of giving God’s grace by it, and the necessity of it to save an infant from perishing, some hundreds of yeares after Christ’s incarnation; I dare not assent to the practice of it upon a supposed analogy, equity or reason of the rule of Circumcision, and imaginary confederation with the believing parent in the Covenant of Grace. For to me it is a dangerous principle upon which they that so argue: to wit, that in meere positive things (such as Circumcision and Baptism are) we may frame an addition to God’s worship from analogy or resemblance conceived by us between two ordinances, whereof one is quite taken away, without any institution gathered by precept or apostolical example. For if we may doe it in one thing, why not in another? Where shall we stay? They that read the Popish expositors of their Rituals, doe know that this very principle hath brought in Surplice, Purification of women, &c. that I mention not greater matters. I desire any learned man to set me downe a rule from Gods Word, how far I may go in my conceived parity of reason, equity or analogy, and where I must stay; when it will be superstition and will worship, when not; when my conscience may be satisfied, when not? That which Christ and his Apostles have taken from the Jewes, and appointed to us, we receive as they have appointed; but if any other man, if a Pope, or Oecumenical Councel take upon them to appoint to mens Consciences any rite in whole or in part, upon his owne conceived reason from supposed analogy with the Jewish ceremonies, it is an high presumption in such against Christ, and against the Apostles command to yeeld to it Col. 2.20 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] though it hath a show of wisdome, v. 23. And the Apostles example, Gal. 2.3 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] ,4 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] ,5 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] binds us to oppose it, when it is likely to bring us into bondage.”

 

Source [Confessing Baptist]

Meredith Kline: Baptist Criticism of WCF is Correct

October 3, 2016 2 comments

 

Source: Lecture 31

See also A Presbyterian (Finally) Gets Acts 2:39 Right

To understand how paedobaptists have misunderstood Romans 9:6ff, see They are not all Israel, who are of Israel

Make sure to read Jamin Hubner’s two chapters in Recovering a Covenantal Heritage titled “Acts 2:39 in its Context: An Exegetical Summary of Acts 2:39 and Paedobaptism”

http://www.1689federalism.com

 

Source [Contrast]

The Household Baptisms Of The New Testament

by David Cason

I. Preliminary Considerations

If the great debate over who should be baptized could be distilled into one question, it would be this:

Should only those who personally profess gospel faith be baptized, or should the children of those professing believers be baptized as well?1

When an argument is made for the latter, paedobaptist2 view, an appeal is inevitably made to those instances in the New Testament when a “household” is said to have been baptized. Since all agree that every other recorded instance of baptism is that of a professing believer, the interpretation of these texts is crucial. Only in these “household” passages can the paedobaptist allege that the Scriptures record the actual baptism of the non-confessing child of a believer (or, put more carefully, the baptism of one party on the basis of another’s faith). A close exegetical examination of those passages is therefore desirable.3

If they evidence a difference from the other recorded New Testament baptisms, or exegetically connect with the Old Testament concept of household circumcision4 , much legitimate ground is gained in the argument for infant baptism. But, if the texts in question fail to yield such evidence, the argument for the practice of infant baptism will have been dealt a substantial blow.

Understanding the pivotal importance of these verses, it is worthwhile to consider briefly some simple interpretive principles which apply to the exposition of the Word. Scripture is the interpreter of Scripture. The clear passages of Scripture must be allowed to interpret the dark, and the complete passages to interpret the elliptical. There exist in Scripture both detailed and abbreviated accounts of these “household” baptisms. It is neither sound nor admissible for the paedobaptist to use the shorter accounts in such a way as to bring them into conflict with the fuller narratives.6 This implies, naturally, that the passages must be exegeted. It is entirely inadmissible, though common enough in practice, to merely reference such passages as conclusive proof texts, or to dismiss anti-paedobaptist arguments with a casual wave of the word “house” or “household,” without looking at what the verses actually record.7 With these ground rules in mind, we turn to the Scriptural narratives.

Download the pdf here.


1 This is a modern way of putting the question. It ought to be stated, Should only those who profess gospel faith be baptized, or should those subject to that professed believer’s household authority be baptized as well? But because this more accurate phrasing seriously damages the paedobaptist argument in the modern world, the question is rarely framed in this more logically (and biblically) consistent fashion.

2 paedobaptist – one who advocates infant baptism

3 And yet, it is this close exegetical examination which is almost never present in paedobaptist apologetic. For example, James Bannerman, in his crucial and exhaustive work on the Presbyterian view of the church, spends 26 pages giving what amounts to a purely theological argument for infant membership in the covenant. He disposes of the household baptism passages in less than two pages, never undertaking an actual exegesis of any. Despite the lack of careful analysis, he does not hesitate to cite the verses as absolute and final testimony in favor of infant baptism, with overstatement that borders on the fantastic. He writes, “…nothing more is necessary, in regard to the practice of the Primitive Church in the matter of infant baptism, than to refer to the frequent and almost constant mention of the Baptism of ‘households’ and ‘families,’ in which it is morally certain that there must have been infant members….Such expressions as these, interpreted in the light of the previous undoubted practice of the Jewish Church, can admit of only one meaning….Under the circumstances of the Apostolic Church, the repeated mention of household or family Baptism is itself decisive evidence of the practice by which infants were baptized.” (Bannerman, James, The Church of Christ, 2:92-93).

Samuel Miller is carried away in similar fashion, but for Miller, two pages is two too many. After merely adducing three “household” passages, and admitting that there is no proof of actual infant baptism in any of them, he nonetheless offers them as a kind of impregnable defense. Miller writes “Now, though we are not certain that there were young children in any of these families, it is highly probable there were. At any rate, the great principle of family baptism of receiving all the younger members of households on the faith of their domestic head, seems to be plainly and decisively established. This furnishes ground on which the advocate of infant baptism may stand with unwavering confidence.” (Miller, Samuel, Infant Baptism Scriptural and Reasonable). Miller also exemplifies the characteristic misstatement of the question described in footnote 1 above.

John Calvin, after a discussion marked most by the number and diversity of its ad personam attacks on those who question the doctrine of infant baptism, dispenses with all the household passages in a single sentence. He writes, “For although this is not expressly narrated by the Evangelists, yet as they are not expressly excluded when mention is made of any baptized family, (Acts 16:15, 32), what man of sense will argue from this that they were not baptized?” (Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Chapter 16.8).

4 E.g. Genesis 17:23

5 This is not a controversial doctrine. It is standard Reformation interpretive practice. The principle is so widely recognized that it was made a matter of confessional bond by the Puritan authors of the Westminster documents. “The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of and Scripture (which is not manifold, but one) it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.” (Westminster Confession of Faith, 1:10).

6 Again, this is hardly an extreme notion. Every Calvinist regularly uses the “Scripture with Scripture” methodology when explaining the meaning of the word “world” in the various passages concerning the extent of the atonement. And no sound interpreter would say that the more limited narratives in the Gospel of Mark control the interpretation of the longer accounts given in Luke or Matthew.

7 This is the interpretive norm in paedobaptist treatments. See footnote 3 for some notable examples.


Disclaimer: I am not familiar with David Cason, therefore a link to this article does not mean that I endorse everything he believes or teaches concerning doctrine. However, linking to this article means that I believe he has rightly exegeted the “household baptism” texts over and against the paedobaptists interpretation of said text.

A Critical Evaluation of Paedobaptism

August 23, 2016 2 comments

I may have shared this article once before, but here it is again


Revision 1.3

By Greg Welty (M.Div, Westminster Theological Seminary; B.A., UCLA)

The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him–Proverbs 18:17 A printed version is available from:

Reformed Baptist Publications

2001 W. Oak Avenue

Fullerton, CA 92833-3624

(714) 447-3412 (Office & FAX)

Introduction

As a Baptist student at a Reformed seminary, I encountered many theological pressures — from students and teachers alike — to convert to a paedobaptistic view. After much study, I came out convinced that “Reformed Baptist” was not a contradiction of terms (as my paedobaptist peers admonished me), but a qualification of terms, a subjecting of the traditionally Reformed version of covenant theology to a more careful biblical scrutiny. And so while abundantly grateful for my training in Reformed theology at seminary, for both the piety and the scholarship of my professors, I have concluded that the doctrine of infant baptism is neither a good nor necessary consequence deduced from Scripture (to use the language of the Westminster Confession of Faith, I.vi).

In my readings on the subject of baptism, Paul K. Jewett’s Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace(2) was a revolutionary treatment of the subject. It was the first full-length book I had seen which actually critiqued the doctrine of infant baptism from the perspective of covenant theology itself. Some may debate as to how faithful Jewett actually is to the details of covenant theology, as those details are spelled out in the Reformed confessions. But his basic identification of the problem as one of biblical theology was quite insightful. Avoiding a blatantly dispensational approach, he applies the Reformed emphasis on unity and progress in redemptive history to the sacraments themselves, thus beating the paedobaptists at their own game of continuity and discontinuity. To those who are familiar with Jewett, it will be clear that I am indebted to him at several points.

This paper was originally written to fill a primary need among the seminary interns and other young men at my church. My own experience has taught me that nondispensational, Calvinistic baptists are perpetually tempted to look over the fence of their small and often divisive camp and covet the ministry opportunities available in conservative Presbyterian circles. Many have made this leap, and often do so because they simply don’t have a deep, Scripturally-based conviction that the baptist view is correct. Rather, they have absorbed their baptistic sentiments culturally and emotionally, and thus often lose them by the same means. Many have not been presented with an extended series of biblical arguments against infant baptism, a set of arguments which is at the same time consistent with their own nondispensational and Calvinistic perspective. So consider the following to be a resource for seminary and Bible students who want a quick, clear, and accessible summary of the leading reasons why Reformed Baptists (and all biblical Christians) ought not to embrace the doctrine of infant baptism.

 

 

 

Read the entire article here.