Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Paedo-baptism’

Does Teaching Someone the Bible Make Them a Christian?

by Brandon Adams

Someone recently sent me the following argument from a paedobaptist and asked me to respond.

Obviously, if you hold to credobaptism, you won’t agree with this conclusion on it’s face, but I’d love to hear some thoughtful non-defensive responses. There is an explicitness to the gospel that is only communicated and received with a certain level of mental understanding. Which leads a lot of people to say that we can’t say someone is a Christian until they are able to grasp and profess belief in this message. I get that. But… as a worldview, as a moral basis, as a way of life, Christianity is something that is practically lived in as well. A baby born into a Christian family, from day one is given a Christian worldview. They are certainly not being trained to be atheists or pagans. Nobody exists without a worldview, and if the worldview you’re being taught is the Bible, then you are a Bible believer by default. The Jews didn’t have to debate this issue because it was so explicitly commanded that they should raise their kids as Jews. But Judaism wasn’t a religion that lacked anything Christianity does, in fact it is the same religion. It had laws that were to be obeyed with gratitude, it demanded faith in God and his promises, it threatened those in the religion not to turn away… so what changed? My argument is that nothing has changed, and in practice, we all know it. Are we not required to raise our children as Christians? “Well it depends on what you mean by Christian”. But does it? Do we tell our kids to obey God’s law? Why? To be justified? No… because they are required to. Why? If it isn’t for their justification, then why? It’s because we recognize that they are under the authority of Christ by virtue of being in your home. If we require our children to obey God’s law, with threats of discipline if they fail, yet we do not recognize them as Christians, we are demanding that they rely on their flesh to obey God’s law… this is hypocritical. For some reason this line of reasoning confuses people and makes them think I’m saying Baptists don’t raise their kids in the faith. I’m actually saying the exact opposite. They do raise them in the faith, while also saying they are not in the faith. [For the record: This is a tension I held all my days as a credobaptist. Even when I was the most conviced of the position, I couldn’t reconcile this issue.]

This is a typical paedobaptist collectivist mindset. It’s what allows them to think that entire nations can be part of the church, as the magisterial reformers practiced. Entire nations became Protestants “at the blast of a trumpet” (the governing authorities’ declaration). They ridicule baptists for being too individualistic, but we merely recognize that believing the gospel is an individual matter. Collectives (families, nations) are not saved. Individuals are.

 

 

 

Read the entire article here.

Advertisements

A Reformed Baptist View of I Cor. 7:14

December 10, 2015 Leave a comment

by Stan Reeves

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. I Cor. 7:14

 

 
Introduction

The implications of I Cor. 7:14 for the issue of infant baptism have often been debated by baptists and paedobaptists. Regrettably, both sides have been guilty of handling this passage in a simplistic manner. The paedobaptist errors are particularly disturbing, since most paedobaptists appeal to this passage to help establish their case for infant baptism. To read some of their claims, one would think that the passage implies infant baptism in a most obvious way. A closer examination, however, reveals that this passage offers no support for infant baptism; in fact, we will see that the passage actually argues against infant baptism.

A Critique of the Paedobaptist Interpretation

The paedobaptist argument from I Cor. 7:14 is expressed well by John Murray:

The apostle was writing to encourage them against this fear [that their Christian standing would be prejudiced by this mixed relationship]. The encouragement he provides is that the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother. In order to reinforce the argument drawn from this principle he appeals to what had been apparently recognised among the Corinthians, namely, that the children of even one believing parent were not unclean but rather holy. (Christian Baptism, p. 64)

 

 

 

Read then entire article here.

Infant Baptism and the Regulative Principle of Worship

November 12, 2015 2 comments

by Fred Malone

Our Presbyterian friends often state that the authority for infant baptism comes from “good and necessary inference” of Old Testament circumcision of infants, not from positive command, example, or institution in the New (Warfield, Berkhof, Murray, et al). In fact, they candidly and regularly admit that there is no command or example of infant baptism in the New Testament, or indeed, in all the Scriptures.

Baptists often reject Presbyterian infant baptism by showing that the Paedobaptist (“infant Baptist”) brand of covenant theology erroneously allows “good and necessary inference” from Old Testament circumcision to overrule the only positive institution of baptism in the New Testament, namely, that of disciples alone. This is a proper argument. However, few recognize that this Presbyterian error is a violation of their own “regulative principle of worship.” Yet, the practice of infant baptism does just that.

This may not seem to be a very significant statement at first, but since the regulative principle is taught and championed by our Presbyterian brethren, it actually is a very serious charge. It means that they contradict their most important principle of worship every time they baptize an infant.

 

 

 

Read the entire article here.

A Response to the Arguments for “Covenant Child Baptism”

by Tom Chantry

Last week the Aquila Report published an article by Pastor Jason Van Bemmel of the Presbyterian Church in America entitled “15 Arguments in Favor of Covenant Child Baptism.” The article was structured as ten arguments regarding subject (but with an eleventh “bonus” argument), and five more regarding mode.

This helpful list sumarizes every major Presbyterian and Reformed argument on baptism in one place, which is surprisingly rare. Various arguments have been advanced over the years, and not all paedobaptists agree with every argument. A list of arguments is therefore helpful for a number of reasons.

 

 

 

Read the entire article here.

 

“Things are bad where there is need of so many remedies”

September 9, 2015 Leave a comment

Christopher Blackwood, a Particular Baptist minister, said the following regarding infant baptism:

“It fills the conscience with scruples. Some question whether they were ever baptized. Some question how could I make a covenant by myself, much less by others, being an infant. Some think there is no word at all for what is herein done, but it’s only a laudable Apostolic tradition. Some think it a sign of faith in present, others in infants. But that which causeth most scruple is, about the formalis ratio, the formal cause that [entitles] a man to this infant baptism. Some think the faith of the parents, or of those that offer them, doth [entitle] them hereto. Others think that the faith of their Grand-father, great-grandfather to many generations if none be neerer, that were godly of the race, the faith of Noah shall serve. Others think the faith of the whole Church. Others think that Children’s seminal faith makes them capable hereof, the nature whereof who can understand, seeing all faith requires an act of the understanding which infants have not. Some think Abraham’s faith doth it. Some think there is an inward covenant which was made to Abraham, whereby whatsoever God is to a godly man, he is the same to all the seed. Nay say others; seeing many of the godly’s seed are wicked, this is impossible but there is a certain outward covenant, formerly in circumcision, now in baptism whereby infants do partake. Talk with ten men, and you shall see them divided into five parts about the formal cause that entitles an infant to baptism. It’s a speech of Erasmus, ‘Things are bad where there is need of so many remedies.’”

Blackwood was educated at Cambridge and ordained in the Church of England. He renounced infant baptism in 1644. This is from his book, The Storming of Antichrist, published the same year.

 

 

Source [Particular Voices]

God’s Covenants With Man

GCM 1

 

GCM 2

 

GCM 3

GCM 4

GCM 1

 

By Stuart Brogden

Download the PDF here.

Also check out this sermon by Stuart:

Baptist Covenant Theology

No Proof of Paedobaptism: An Evaluation of Jared Oliphint’s post “Not Your Average Paedobaptism”

by Tom Hicks

When I first came to believe the Bible’s teaching on unconditional election, I acquired some new theological heroes. But my new heroes also baptized their babies. I reasoned, “Men like Calvin, Owen, and Edwards were saturated with the Bible, and they were right about God’s gracious purpose of election. How could they be wrong about infant baptism?” So, I read as many Reformed books and articles on paedobaptism as I could find. In the past, when I studied the Reformed literature on election, I looked up the relevant passages, followed the exegesis easily, and it was clear that the Bible teaches unconditional election. But that was not my experience when I studied the Reformed doctrine of infant baptism. I was ready to believe. I wanted to believe. But the arguments for infant baptism seemed based on questionable exegesis and theological inference built on theological inference. My heart was broken. I couldn’t follow my new theological heroes into paedobaptism. I love my paedobaptist brothers. They are dear friends and co-laborers in the gospel. I am theologically closer to Reformed paedobaptists than to any other kind of believer. But on this point, I am convinced that they are wrong.

Jared Oliphint recently wrote an article for the Gospel Coalition in which he made a case for infant baptism on the basis of the distinction between the internal and external aspects of the covenant (Berkhof calls this the “dual aspect” of the covenant of grace). Oliphint argues that the new covenant is breakable, and that understanding the allegedly breakable nature of the new covenant helps make sense of infant baptism. I’m going to show you why Oliphint’s argument is unconvincing to this Reformed Baptist.

 

 

 

Read the entire article here.

Source [Confessingbaptist.com]