« Understanding Isaiah (Lesson 1: Introduction) | Main | Understanding Isaiah (Lesson 2: The Wickedness of Israel and Her Resultant Rejection - Chapter 1) »
Credo Baptism: A Retraction
By pitchford | December 6, 2005
It may at first glance appear out of place to preface a retraction with these famous words of Martin Luther, by which he refuses to retract anything; however, I think the quotation is appropriate, because the same concern that constrained him not to retract anything, in spite of weighty pressures upon him to do so, now constrains me to make this retraction, notwithstanding several pressures that to me are weighty indeed. That is to say, I have indeed been convinced by scripture and clear reason of the error of my previous position, and my conscience now compels me to renounce the position to which I have held all my life. It is difficult for me to do so. May God help me.
It is never easy to make a retraction. One is hindered on every side by pressing concerns and anxieties. There is of course the flaring up of that innate human pride which bristles at the thought of admitting one’s error. By God’s grace I feel that this is a very minor consideration for me at this time. There is also the sudden, crushing sensation of guilt brought about by the realization that one has taught as a scriptural truth, to credulous sheep of Christ’s flock, a supposition that may not be scriptural at all. This concern, too, has been for me greatly ameliorated by the further reflections, first, that I have actually done little teaching on this specific subject; second, that the issue itself is not weighty enough to be a legitimate cause for divisiveness or separation within the body of Christ. Credo-baptists and paedo-baptists alike, when passionately striving for the sake of the Name, have in common a gospel that far outweighs any legitimate differences in the accidents of the covenant signs. In other words, this particular issue does not affect the purity of the gospel of Christ, and should not affect the intensity of love and fellowship shared by those who belong to Christ. And third, this Christian interaction, far from being a basis for guilt or gloom, should be an occasion to rejoice that Christ is still using the mutual edification of his body to cause us all to grow up into doctrinal maturity. Whether credo-baptists or paedo-baptists ultimately prove to be in the right, the loving, Christian interaction they have on the issue ought to be mutually sharpening, and mutually intensifying the love and hunger of one another for Christ, the Savior of us all. However, the last obstacle to my posting this retraction, is difficult for me indeed. That is the fear of anger or rejection by family and friends, because of this change. All my family and all those closest to me in the body of Christ are credo-baptists, and have been as long as I can remember. The thought that I may alienate many of them or do irreparable damage to our relationship by this post is very nearly paralyzing to me. But in the final analysis, all that I can say is, “Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason…I am bound by the scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God.” No matter how devastating the consequences, I cannot let any consideration other than scriptural reasoning guide my beliefs. I may be wrong in the change of position that I am about to embrace. If I am, the scriptures alone must convince me of that. Until that time, “Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise, may God help me.”
My basic reason for this change of position is simply the realization that the infant children of believers are indeed members of the church, possessors of the kingdom, partakers of the covenant – and that because of this status, it is appropriate and necessary that they be given the sign of covenant inclusion, which is, in this dispensation of the covenant, baptism. The comments of Christ in all of the synoptic gospels, on the occasion of the disciples turning away infants of believers as they were coming to Christ to be blessed, are very instructive. As perhaps the most thorough of the three accounts, we will observe Luke 18:15-17:
And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.
At the outset, we must note three things: first, it is indeed infants who are incapable of expressing faith who form the subject of this admonition by Christ. Second, it is specifically infants of adults who profess faith in Christ. They believe in him, and are therefore bringing their children to him. Third, it is said of these infants, that the kingdom of heaven is theirs. It is not logically possible to construe the statement made by Jesus as excluding them from ownership of the kingdom – the set of those who own the kingdom of heaven is positively described as containing those who are like these infants; and negatively limited to those who are like these infants: in order to say that they themselves are excluded, one would have to say that they are unlike themselves in the very point about which Christ was saying that, to be like them, is to possess the kingdom. The nature of kingdom-possession throughout the gospels is exceedingly clear: if one has entered, or owns the kingdom, he is Christ’s, the heir of the promises made to Abraham, the subject of a regenerated heart, in short, a member of the covenant community. At the least, this passage necessitates that we acknowledge a set of infant children of believers in Christ who are the heirs of the kingdom and members of the church.
The significance of this admonition of Christ, and that it was given to the disciples in particular, becomes more clear when we consider some other admonitions that Christ gave to them. The first of these admonitions that we must notice is the authority of the keys of the kingdom, given to Peter in particular in Matthew 16:18-19, and broadened to the consensus of church leadership in Matthew 18:17-18. In both of these instances, Christ is speaking specifically of the building/formation of the church. When he says to Peter that he has the keys to bind or loose someone with regard to the formation of the church, he must be speaking of the authority officially and formally to recognize someone as a church member, or to denounce him as a heathen, i.e. a non-church member. As becomes clear in Matthew 18, this authority is not only Peter’s alone, but belongs to the church leadership in general. And further, this authority is not arbitrary, but must be exercised in conjunction with prayer and the discernment of the revealed will of the father (Matthew 18:19,20). The church on earth is the formally-recognized set of those who are heirs of the kingdom, as any basic New Testament survey would show. Therefore, Christ is giving Peter and the church leadership the authority to give formal recognition to those to whom belongs the kingdom of heaven. The church leadership may wrongly give or withhold that recognition (cf. Christ’s statement in Matthew 7:22-23, that many will falsely claim to have done certain things in Christ’s name), but when truly done in Christ’s name and in genuine, prayerful discernment of his will, it is within the church’s authority to bestow that formal recognition.
But how is this actually to be done? In what way did Christ ordain that the disciples recognize the entrance of certain persons into the church, i.e. confirm them as kingdom-heirs? Matthew 28:18-20 makes this clear. Christ commands that his disciples make disciples of the nations, recognizing their entrance into the church by baptizing them into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Throughout the rest of the New Testament as well, the significance of baptism as the formal, outward recognition of status as church members and kingdom-heirs is apparent. These two additional admonitions of Christ, therefore, set his admonition against refusing to recognize infants of believers as kingdom-heirs in a new light. Christ, in effect, has said to his disciples, “I want you formally to recognize certain persons as kingdom-heirs; I want you to do so through baptism; and I forbid you to exclude the infant children of those who believe in me as kingdom-heirs. I want you to recognize them also as possessors of the kingdom.”
These initial considerations alone are compelling; and throughout the New Testament we find teachings that, although not conclusive in themselves, still fit remarkably well into this basic frame of reference. For instance, consider I Corinthians 7:12-14. Paul is here giving instructions concerning marriage, and he brings up the case of a marriage in which only one of the partners comes to Christ. In this case, the believing spouse should not leave the unbeliever. Paul’s reason for this command is enlightening: the presence of just one believing spouse sanctifies the home so that the children are holy. If the spouse were to leave so that the children were in a household governed by an unbelieving parent alone, then they would be unclean. There is a sense, therefore, in which God considers children of believing parents “holy”. This does not necessitate that they are to be considered covenant children and church members (and hence proper subjects of baptism), but it is by far the likeliest and most reasonable explanation.
Peter’s statement of Cornelius, in Acts 10:47, is very convincing as well, when conflated with this prior understanding from the gospels. In the Acts passage, Peter’s basic reasoning is this: “Because these persons possess covenant realities (something which it would be impossible to possess and not be a member of the church), it would be wrong to forbid them the covenant sign of baptism. If Christ said of infant children of believers that they possess covenant realities (the kingdom of heaven), then it would be likewise wrong to forbid them the covenant sign of baptism.
Another convincing line of reasoning may be derived from Paul’s teachings in Galatians 3:13-18. Here Paul reasons that the church in the New Testament (those who believe) are heirs of the Abrahamic blessings, and members in the Abrahamic covenant. The Mosaic covenant (i.e. the law) could never disannul the Abrahamic covenant which was expressly said to be eternal (e.g. Genesis 17:7). The unilateral covenant made with Abraham is still in full effect today, and the church of the New Testament is coterminous with the modern set of members in the Abrahamic covenant. Therefore, if we as the modern expression of the church are members of the Abrahamic covenant, the institution of the Abrahamic covenant has a direct bearing on our practice today. And if we look at the institution and subsequent history of the Abrahamic covenant, we see that from its inception, God dealt in family units. Hence, Abraham’s entire family was formally inaugurated into the covenant community, even members of his family who were not truly regenerate. This is the pattern throughout the rest of the Old Testament, and we see no clear indication of change in the New Testament. In fact, we see certain evidences that the family is still the basic unit of covenant inclusion in the New Testament. For instance Acts 2:38-39, in which Peter commands his audience to be baptized, for “the promise is to you and to your children,” to which he adds, “even to as many as the Lord our God shall call.” True, the offer is extended only to those whom God has called, of which it is to be presumed that the evidence of that calling is the expression of faith, but there is still the indication that the calling is still manifested in family units – the head of household indicates that he has been called when he exercises faith, so his household is baptized into the church. This is not at all conclusive, but given the prior history of covenant inclusion in basically familial units, it is quite reasonable to see this statement of Peter in continuity with the same essential model. All the more so by virtue of the fact that he was proclaiming membership in the very same covenant that had exhibited this model for so many years. The several examples of household baptisms, as well, although again not at all conclusive in themselves, at least lend added plausibility to the idea of familial solidarity in covenant inclusion. The issue is not really whether or not there were actually infants in any of those households that were baptized, but rather the reasons given for the baptism of the households. In at least some of these instances (e.g. the households of Lydia and the Philippian jailer) no indication is given of whether or not the rest of the household also believed. The general tenor of the passages would indicate that this reasoning was assumed: “Because the head of the household believed, the whole household was baptized.” Whether or not the rest of the household also professed faith is not even mentioned, as though it were irrelevant to the fact of the household baptism. Again, not conclusive, but remarkably well adapted to the frame of reference we have already established. It would perhaps be superfluous to mention I Corinthians 7:14 again, but it does still have some bearing on the issue.
Not only does Old Testament history show that for thousands of years God dealt with family units in formal covenant inclusion (a pattern that he has never explicitly changed); but more than that, throughout the history of the Abrahamic covenant, God has explicitly commanded that the infants of believing parents be given the sign of the covenant (e.g. Genesis 17:10). The sign of the Abrahamic covenant before Christ was circumcision. The sign of the Abrahamic covenant after Christ is baptism, as Colossians 2:11-12 makes clear. The nature of the covenant sign has changed, but the command that infants be given the sign of the covenant has certainly nowhere explicitly been repealed. It is tenuous at best to assume that the occasion of changing the nature of the covenant sign demands an explicit renewal of the delineation of the subjects of the covenant sign.
The basic syllogism that I have taken some pains to establish may be summed up thus:
MP: God has commanded that covenant members be given the covenant sign (e.g. Genesis 17:7-10; Acts 10:47; Matthew 28:18-20);
mp: The infant children of believers are covenant members (e.g. Matthew 16:18-19);
mp: Today, baptism is the covenant sign (Colossians 2:11-12);
Con. God has commanded that infant children of believers be baptized.
Scriptures and clear reason are therefore convincing my conscience of the necessity of paedo-baptism. I cannot do other than to embrace it.
Thus far, I have only given a positive case to establish the necessity of paedo-baptism. I will now briefly deal with some of the common arguments put forth in favor of credo-baptism.
The unexceptional command in the New Testament is “Repent and be baptized,” and there are no clear examples of anyone being baptized who had not first repented.
This is a historical reality, but it proves nothing. It is self-evident that the apostles, in spreading the gospel, would address their exhortations to unbelieving adults. It is further evident that all unbelieving adults would only be candidates for baptism upon profession of faith. And, although there are no clear examples of infant baptism, there are indications that the belief of the head of a household was sufficient cause to have the entire household baptized. Whether these particular households had any infants is beside the point. What matters is, whether or not any household today, of which the head believes, has any infant children.
Baptism is explicitly called an act of faith/appeal to God, and indicates an actual incorporation into Christ’s body (e.g. Colossians 2:11-12, I Peter 3:21, Galatians 3:26-27).
This is undeniably true, but it does not necessarily follow that baptism must come after faith/appeal to God/incorporation into the body of Christ. Romans 4:5 says just as clearly that circumcision is a sign and seal of faith, and many passages in the Old Testament, such as Deuteronomy 10:16 and 30:6 clearly indicate that circumcision is a removal of the old nature that is rebellious and does not love God; but that does not necessitate that circumcision be given only after its subject was able to express faith or give evidence of a changed heart. In fact, God commanded infants to be circumcised.
The New Covenant was prophesied as a covenant of internal genuineness, and the New Testament church is consistently viewed as a pure body of believers, unlike the Jewish nation. Just as Jews were incorporated into the external body of God’s people at physical birth, so Christians are incorporated into the internally-genuine body of God’s people at spiritual birth, i.e. the occasion of faith and repentance.
This is by far the most convincing argument for credo-baptism. It is the sole reason I remained a credo-baptist for so long. And yet it loses its force upon the observation of a few basic truths.
The newness of covenant members being internally genuine, prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31-34 and quoted in Hebrews 8:8-13, is a newness in relation to the Mosaic covenant, not the Abrahamic. In fact, Jeremiah explicitly says that the New Covenant would be, “Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt…” The covenant made on that occasion was clearly not the Abrahamic, but the Mosaic. Hence it was the Mosaic that was “made old,” and “ready to vanish away” (Hebrews 8:13). By contrast, the Abrahamic was explicitly said to be eternal (Genesis 17:7).
Of this Abrahamic covenant, it was said as explicitly as it is said of the New covenant that it was pure. Everyone that is included in it was clearly spoken of in terms that deny the possibility of impure membership, e.g. “I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee” (Genesis 17:7). However, in this pure covenant, God explicitly commanded that some who were not genuine be formally included through the covenant sign, for example Ishmael and Esau. Hence it is at least not impossible for the New Covenant to be spoken of as pure, and yet for it to be commanded that the covenant sign be given to some who are potentially not genuine.
Several passages in the New Testament indicate that some who are formally members in the New Covenant are not actually genuine. Examples include the Hebrews warning passages (Hebrews 4:1-11; 6:4-8; 10:26-29; 12:14-17), and, most tellingly, Romans 11:17-24. This passage very clearly states that, just as the Jews were formally incorporated into the covenant, and then were broken off for unbelief, so those of us today who have been incorporated into the same covenant will likewise be broken off if we exhibit unbelief. Hence it is possible for persons to be genuinely incorporated into the New Covenant, and yet not be genuine believers. The purity-of-the-church argument could be formulated in precisely the same manner with regard to the Abrahamic covenant before Sinai: and yet, God commanded the sign of the covenant to be given to infants. Therefore, it is at least not implausible that the sign of the covenant be given today.
I have not come across any reasons, scriptural or logical, to reject my positive arguments for paedo-baptism. However, none of the positive arguments I have come across for credo-baptism are at all conclusive. My conscience leaves me no choice but to accept the validity, and indeed the necessity of paedo-baptism. I hope this reality does not separate me from my beloved Baptist friends and brothers in Christ. And yet, even if it does, “it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. I cannot do otherwise, here I stand, may God help me.”
December 6th, 2005 at 8:52 am
Whoops!! I attached a comment that belongs here to your Isaiah post. Sorry. I’m not use to these blog things. My bad. Can you fix it?
As the technical guru, I took the liberty of deleting the original comment and pasting it here. — Fitzage
How many months do we have to woo you back to the Baptist persuasion before Nicole delivers? Seriously, thanks for your honesty and your willingness to submit to a conscience informed by the Word of God. Don’t expect excommunication from this brother any time soon. As you probably know, Bethlehem Baptist is in the process of amending our constitution so that believer’s Baptism is no longer a test of membership. I do regret that this has been such a major divisive point in church history.
I am, however, concerned about what seems to me to be an unavoidable potential in pedo-baptism of creating confusion for baptized children over matters of faith and assurance. A baptized child should grow up hearing less than “You are a full participant of the saving effects of the atonement” (hopefully) and apparently more than “You are outside of the redeemed community, alien to the people of God.” How does this work? How do we talk about this? Of course, the perceived potential for a doctrine to create confusion is no reason not to embrace it. Final appeal must always be made to the Scriptures, as you have so eloquently affirmed.
I wish I had time to do your new position justice by reading through all the blog correspondence that followed your first article. Hopefully some day when the semester is over. For now, quickly, two exegetical considerations and one theological:
I’m unsure about your interpretation of Luke 18:15-17, a text which appears to be very pivotal for you. First, note that Christ uses paidios and not the original brefos when He states “of such is the Kingdom of heaven.” I don’t believe this switch on the part of the author is unintentional. I do believe that children with the capacity for faith are in view, for he admonishes the audience to “receive the kingdom of God like a little child.” The little children of whom is the Kingdom are the little children who receive the kingdom, consciously and personally.
Concerning Col. 2:11-12, I’ve never understood the supposed continuity between circumcision and baptism appealed to from this text. It seems to me taht what replaces physical circumcision is not another physical symbol, but “a circumcision made without hands” “the circumcision of Christ.” This inner reality is apparently attested to by Baptism, but the act which signifies our death and burial with Christ is clearly carried out “through faith” (v. 12). The act itself is inconsequential but for conscious faith. Even if there is continuity between the old Covenant sign of circumcision and the “New Covenant sign” of baptism, this does not establish the further continuity of applying the sign to infants (or how about limiting it to male infants for exact continuity?).
Further, I am having trouble theologically synthesizing the idea of pedo-baptism with the doctrine of limited (particular) redemption you so excellently and gloriously defended in an earlier post. Particular redemption states that Christ’s death was not potential, but actual in its effects. How are we to understand how a baptized child who grows up and leaves the church, has participated in the blessings effected by the blood of Christ? Were they efficacious for him or not? In your article on the atonement you state: “We have no choice but to recognize that Christ shed his blood to put a heart of faith in all those who would be included in the Covenant.” Christ shed His blood for all those in the new Covenant. The promise of the New Covenant is that they will all know God and they will all have their sins forgiven. Will Christ’s blood accomplish what it set out to do in each Covenant member or not? If not, it appears we need another category in discussions about the extent of the atonement.
You wanted positive arguments for credo-baptism, and I haven’t given them here. I do think the burden of proof is on the pedo-baptist, because his position is based on a series of inferences, and not on one single text where an infant is baptized. On the other hand, credo-baptists have the support of every baptismal incident in Scripture. This is an argument from silence, but for me, shifts the weight of proof onto the shoulders of those who would suggest something different than or additional to the baptism accounts of Scripture.
I love you brother, because of the gospel, for the sake of the One who has welcomed us all to the glory of God. I would like to hear further responses/defenses as you have time. An exchange could do nothing but deepen our understanding of and love for the Church, the Covenants and Christ.
Corbett
December 6th, 2005 at 10:54 pm
I came here from the link at Sharper Iron, and found your statement of retraction very interesting. As a dispensational credo-baptist working on a PhD at Westminster Theological Seminary (a Presbyterian school), I’ve certainly had to wrestle with the same issues and texts that you have, and yet I’ve come to a different conclusion.
Let me say at the outset that your statement here is a model of graciousness in presentation. Furthermore, I have only imagined how difficult it would be for me to announce a move to a radically different position than the one I currently adopt (say, for instance, to covenant paedo-baptism), and how I’d feel alienated from family and all of the pastors and professors that have invested their time in me. It takes a great deal of courage to take a stand where one believes that the Bible demands he must go, regardless of the personal cost. I respect that.
But, obviously, I still disagree with your position. As the poster above me said, I do tend to agree that the burden of proof lies with the PB, as all the examples of baptism in Scripture are of the CB variety.
Again, a disclaimer: I am a dispensationalist, not a covenant theologian. Certainly, a PB position is more compatible with CT than with dispensationalism; that is not debatable. CT, of course, does not demand PB, as there are a number of CB covenant theologians. However, I will refrain from turning this into a dispy vs. CT battle, as that isn’t the point of your thread.
I do disagree with your reading of the Luke 18 passage, and in particular with your understanding of the parents there to be unbelievers. Surely, you will acknowledge that hordes of people who longed for Jesus to touch, heal, or bless them in some way were not actually believers in the truest sense of the term, will you not? It seems to me to be particularly tenuous to hang one’s understanding of this passage (and to allow this passage to be a major crux of your argument) when it is doubtful that all those who came to Jesus came by virtue of saving faith. If you cannot give some reason for saying that it is more likely than not that these folks were actually believers (and I would hold, based on how the crowds thinned when Jesus offered hard sayings, that most were not converted), your argument would result in the baptism of all children, whether of unbelieving parents or not. And I’m sure you would reject this.
Allow me to submit another passage for your consideration. Oddly, this thought occured to me late last week, before I heard of your post. I was thinking of the passage Luke 12:49-53:
49″I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed! 51Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”
And it occured to me that this passage would present some problems to the covenant theologian. You contend that God has, historically, worked his saving covenant through the family unit. Obviously, I would agree with that in the context of OT national Israel. It seems to me, however, that Christ is announcing that there is some sort of change in that administration, in which even the family unit will be divided by the acceptance or rejection of him. I don’t believe that this is somehow conclusive proof, and I’m sure that, from within the CT paradigm, the passage can be harmonized, but, on the surface, it appears that this attacks the idea that the family unit is primary in the transmission of the faith.
Again, I commend you for taking a bold step that you believe that Scripture demands. It is not my goal to try to save you from the “Dark Side,”
as it were, but I do believe that paedo-baptism has yet to have a biblical case made for it.
Michael Riley
International Baptist College
Tempe, AZ
December 7th, 2005 at 3:08 am
In re-reading my post, I need to clarify my paragraph on Luke 18. I am taking issue with your understanding that the parents in that passage are all believers (not unbelievers, as my original post said). Essentially, my contention is that many of the people who followed Jesus earthly ministry, even those who came seeking miracles, were not believers. Much of your argument, however, hinges on your contention that those who offered their children to Christ for a blessing must be believers. I am simply looking for some evidence that this is a valid assumption.
Sorry for any confusion.
Michael Riley
December 7th, 2005 at 6:41 am
Hi Nate-
I was intrigued by your post title so I wandered over from SharperIron. Thank you, as others have already said, for being a model of Christian sincerity and graciousness with your apology / retraction. The quote by Luther at the top absolutely captures the essence of what you felt / said and was, IMHO, a nice touch.
I am interested, however, to know why you are Covenant in your theology, which seems to be the underlying motive for your change to paedo-baptism; I thought that it might be an interesting post for you to write. I know that I would certainly be interested it.
December 7th, 2005 at 7:13 am
Corbett:
In regards to the potential for creating confusion for baptized children in matters of faith and assurance: It seems to me that there is not as much of a danger here as those looking from the outside see. Paedo-baptism helps emphasize to the parent their responsibility to raise their children up in Christ. A godly parent will teach the child that personal belief in Christ is absolutely necessary for their salvation, and that they have been blessed to be a part of a Covenant household. They will also be taught that they will receive a greater punishment if they are broken off then those who were never under the Covenant in the first place.
To touch on your other comments, in brief:
I’m not sure why the shift in word usage (although it could just be a shift because it’s shifting from narrative to a quotation.) However, that doesn’t at all change the fact that the children that were being brought to Jesus at that time, and therefore the ones he was primarily referring to were most definitely infants. There are also two statements here: “of such is the kingdom of God,” and “receive the kingdom of God as a little child.” These seem to me to be saying two different things. The second one is saying you must have faith like a child, but the first is definitely saying that the Kingdom consists, at least in part, of little children, of whom the infants then being brought to him appear to be his primary reference.
Colossians 2:11-12 clearly links baptism to circumcision of the heart, at the very least, and is not that what circumcision of the flesh represented as well (Romans 4:11)? In regards to baptism and faith, I think Pitchford has already dealt with this issue.
In regards to the perceived conflict between particular redemption and paedo-baptism, I don’t believe there is really a conflict. Perhaps a synthesis of these ideas would be helpful, however, but I’m not ready to do that at this point. Suffice it to say that I believe the doctrine of particular atonement still stands, but there are also definitely Covenant connections in addition to truly regenerate people (see the olive tree in Romans 11).
In regards to the burden of proof argument, I would say it goes the other way. While there are many examples of baptism of believers in the New Testament, that doesn’t mean that believers’ only baptism is taught. It is quite likely that these are the primary incidents reported because of the fact that this is primarily what was happening in the New Testament. I believe the burden of proof lies on the credo-only-baptist because it must contend with the entirety of God’s Covenant workings throughout history.
Michael:
I am sorry to hear that you are still a Dispensationalist (I mean this partly tongue-in-cheek. While I believe very strongly that Dispensationalism is incorrect and dangerous, I also believe that it is not a reason for condemnation or separation. See the doctrinal statement on this site for a view that is very similar to mine in this regard).
In regards to Luke 12, you make an interesting point. It is true that the gospel will tear apart families, but the gospel will not cause believing parents to be torn apart from young children. I’m sure you would agree that this verse does not change the fact that godly parents have a responsibility to raise their children in a godly manner. In the same way, this does not change the Covenant link and responsibilities parents have to their children.
I don’t think that it is possible for a Dispensationalist to come to a belief in paedo-baptism. I also think that paeedo-baptism is a much less important issue than CT/Dispensationalism. I would encourage you to read the articles and following discussions on this site in regards to Dispensationalism and Covenant theology.
Jay C:
As I mentioned to Michael, Pitchford has some excellent articles on the subject. I scrounged up the link to the Dispensationalism Category
Matt
December 7th, 2005 at 11:54 am
fitzage,
I’m a bit disappointed with your response. You completed ignored one of my arguments, and you sidestepped the other, giving no good reasons.
Allow me to reiterate my question: what reasons would you offer that would indicate that all of those parents who brought their children to Jesus for a blessing were believers? This is a huge assumption on your part, and as you have made Luke 18 a focal point of your argument, you have some obligation to demonstrate that your reading is the best reading of the text. Again, I will contend that many, and perhaps a majority, of the masses who followed Jesus followed him merely to see and experience the wonders of his public ministry, and turned away from him when he demanded commitment. I do not believe that these people were, therefore, genuine believers. Again, if they are not believers, your reading of the passage would demand that children in general, not just children of believers, are partakers of the kingdom and should therefore be baptized. I think I am right to assume that both you and I find this idea entirely unacceptable. Therefore, it is incumbent upon you to provide something like compelling proof that these parents in Luke 18 are, in fact, believers.
Your response to the Luke 12 passage is baffling. The text specifically speaks of a break in the relationship between a father and son, and a mother and daughter. I am at a loss as to how you, without any argumentation, exempt young children from this verse. I further do not see the nature of the comparison that you suggest between the responsibility of rearing a child in a Christian way and the continuation of a Covenant link. Certainly, we all agree that children must be reared in a manner that will lead them to faith. The whole point of the passage, though, is that the gospel will divide families. Parents will believe, and children won’t. Children will believe, and parents won’t. It is difficult for me, on this basis, to somehow see that the children of the believer in some way are connected to the Covenant of grace, simply by virtue of having been born to Christian parents.
As for my dispensationalism, I believe that you are right that I cannot really give an honest consideration to the argument for PB from my current perspective. However, I do not wish to get into that argument (CT vs. disp.) in this forum, as I believe it would sidetrack the discussion from what you intended (a discussion of PB vs. CB). I am well aware of both the strengths and weaknesses of the CT position, and have chosen my position, not out of tradition or heritage, but as the one that makes the best sense of Scripture and as the one that is most consistent with the nature of the image of God in man and the use of language that is consistent with that image. I have purposefully limited my arguments to those that both dispy and reformed credo-baptists could endorse, rather than attempting a full-scale CT vs. dispensationalism war.
December 7th, 2005 at 7:26 pm
I think you are confusing me with the original author of this post. I have never personally made Luke 18 a focal point of my position on infant baptism. Would you feel better if I said something like “you make a good point about Luke 18. I am not sure how to answer it at this point”?
In regards to Luke 12, I may not have been very clear in my response. While it is true that the gospel will tear families apart because some believe and some don’t, this is hardly the last word on the issue (1 Corinthians 7:14, for example). Just because a Covenant child may grow up and fall away does not make there Covenant membership any less valid.
My point about young children was only the fact that an infant can not yet choose to believe on their own, so their belief or unbelief is not going to tear the family apart. If their parents believe, that won’t tear the family apart because there is no conflict between their belief and the child’s unbelief.
Essentially what I’m saying is that this passage has no real bearing on the subject. Whether or not I’ve clearly expressed my reason for this, I don’t know.
December 7th, 2005 at 7:55 pm
Pitchford,
Are you going to do the honest thing and leave your Baptist church? Or are you going to stay and change both the websites doctrinal statment and your churches doctrinal statement. If you deny credo-baptism, simply put, you are no longer a baptist by confession (and I do believe that baptist is a confessional position).
CAWatson
December 7th, 2005 at 9:31 pm
I would encourage anyone just entering the discussion now, to first go back and at least peruse the previous post and discussion here first. That way, there is no unnecessary repetition of arguments previously discussed.
Thanks
December 7th, 2005 at 10:01 pm
CA Watson,
Your challenge to Nathan to leave his Baptist church must represent a common reaction to his current position.
First, I would challenge you to consider that John Bunyan believed that Baptist churchs should accept paedoBaptists into their fellowship. What would keep them Baptists would be the beliefs of their eldership. In fact, this is what Bethlehem Baptist Church, pastored by John Piper, is proposing to do. The elders feel that the church should allow principled paedoBaptists into membership, but not the eldership. It would be the new members’ responsibility to have a teachable spirit, and the elders’ responsibility to teach the Baptist position. The elders are of the position that Baptism is a much more minor issue to separate over, than other issues which the church does not separate over (whether one believes in Calvinism or not, for instance). Wayne Grudem in his Systematic Theology (pg. 967 in the Zondervan 2000 edition) says, “The position advocated in this book is that baptism is not a ‘major’ doctrine that should be the basis of division among genuine Christians, but it is nonetheless a matter of importance for ordinary church life, and it is appropriate that we give it full consideration.” And later (pgs. 982-983) he spells out his thoughts on how churches could accomodate both paedoBaptists and credoBaptists in their membership. He calls on churches to stop dividing over the issue.
In further support of this position, see Justin Taylor’s presentation of John Bunyan’s position here. Also check out Pastor Mark Dever’s thoughts on the issue (A link is provided here to listen to his address to Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and a link is provided here to read the address). Also, in the 1800’s a large group of Baptists in Britain moved to an open membership policy concerning Baptism. Also, the Landmark controversy led by JR Graves in the 1800’s in America reflect the fact that many Baptist were much more willing to fellowship and have communion with non-Baptists, than many Baptists today would think.
Thus, I personally, and many other of the principle ones discussing this issue on the previous discussion and Corbett on the discussion here, do not want to break fellowship with our dear brother in Christ, Nathan Pitchford. While Corbett and I remain unconvinced of his position, we can certainly respect the Biblical basis for his position, and his careful thinking through and reading and discussing this issue, before he came to his current position.
Thanks,
Bob Hayton
Fundamentally Reformed
December 7th, 2005 at 10:44 pm
All,
fitzage was right, in that I had incorrectly assumed that he was the original author of the post. I apologize to him for accusing him of dodging my argument, when it wasn’t technically directed at him in the first place.
Bob, I do intend to read that earlier discussion at some point. I actually noticed it yesterday, just after I originally posted, and browsed it, but didn’t really have time to carefully read all 85 million words of it
I will attempt to do so this weekend.
December 7th, 2005 at 11:03 pm
OK, Nathan, you have now laid out in print, one of the logical extensions of your reformed theology. I am interested to see how this will all play out in your church ministry.
I disagree with you, bro, but won’t burn you at the stake either. When in the intermountain West, don’t hesitate to pop in at Red Cliff. We have so much fun stuff to discuss.
December 8th, 2005 at 12:08 am
Thank you, everyone, for joining the discussion. I apologize for my delay in commenting — I have been working late hours, and this has really been my first opportunity. In light of the proliferation of viewpoints, arguments, questions, etc., that are being thrown around, I hope that you will not take offense at my decision to subsume under one general comment my responses to all the comments that have been posted to this point. I would like to respond personally and in depth to everyone in particular, but time-constraints are a very real consideration, and hence I must at this time forbear.
I commend all of you who have pointed out the necessary foundational implications of a covenantal framework for this discussion. As has also been suggested, this is not the appropriate forum to discuss that underlying hermeneutic (as important as such a discussion is). I have made several other posts that deal more explicitly with that question. “Critiquing the Dispensational Hermeneutic” treats of the underlying presuppositions and linguistic considerations inherent in arriving at one or the other viewpoint. “Is Dispensationalism Biblical,”on the other hand, is geared towards laymen who have not been exposed to the debate and all the terminological baggage that has accrued, and hence focuses on several straightforward examples of New Testament authors’ treatment of Old Testament passages. “The Centrality of Christ” (lesson 3 of the Living Word hermeneutics series), the recent post “Understanding Isaiah” (lesson 1), and “Apparently Contradictory Prophecies of Eschatological Israel in Isaiah” all arrive at the basic conclusion that any honest biblical theology of the prophets must lead one to several conclusions which are impossible within the framework of Dispensationalism. “Land, Seed, and Blessing in the Abrahamic Covenant” is also along those lines. For either a formulation of my own beliefs or an ongoing dialoge on the issue, I would direct anyone there. Really, I think it is vital that we arrive at some agreement on this foundational level before I have any hope of coming to unity on the baptism question.
As far as Luke 18 goes, let me make a couple of prefatory remarks:
It has been remarked that this passage is pivotal for my belief system. Let me clarify that statement. The passage is pivotal for my first series of arguments. That later series which involves Genesis 17, Galatians 3, Colossians 2, and Romans 4 is virtually untouched by the standing or falling of my interpretation of Luke 18. This second series of arguments is, in my mind, more solid and conclusive, because it embraces a more thorough systematization of biblical beliefs. That is to say, more clear and emphatic biblical motifs come to bear directly on the issue in this assessment. However, it must be entirely unconvincing to one who does not hold in common the underlying covenantal assumption. Which was in fact my reason for dealing first with Luke: I knew I would be speaking, by and large, to Dispensationalists, and so I was burdened to formulate an expression of my beliefs that would not contradict their fundamental manner of looking at scriptures. All that to say, Luke 18 is not truly pivotal for my beliefs, it is only pivotal for my Dispensationally compatible way of expressing those beliefs, which is, confessedly, somewhat less convincing than the covenantally-necessary formulation.
I do not, however, think this is a cop-out, nor do I concede anything on my original understanding of Luke 18. It was suggested, first, that Christ was speaking only of children with the capacity to express personal faith, due to the shift from “brephe” to “paidia,” as the text moved from narrative to dialogue. Point one: the term “paidia” is capable of the inclusion of “brephe,” as well as other more mature children. (Ironically, we’re discussing the case for paedobaptism, not brephobaptism, which indicates at least the possibility of understanding “paidia” as infants.) Hence, if children of multiple ages were coming to Jesus, including infants, it would be the natural term to use. Therefore, when Luke, in the prefatory narrative, calls to our attention that “kai ta brephe” were being brought to Jesus, he is bringing to our attention the fact that those “paidia” of which Jesus spoke do not just potentially include infants, they actually include infants.
Second, it was suggested that some of those parents who brought infants to Jesus may simply have been professing faith, and not genuine believers. We must certainly acknowledge that there were great multitudes of insincere professors in Jesus’ day, but also that Jesus knew what was in the heart of man, that is, he knew who the insincere professors were. Although we cannot look back with historical certainty and say that these parents either were or were not genuine, Christ assuredly could and did. It is logically just as possible that he saw the sincerity of the parents in question and therefore blessed the children, as it is that he saw their insincerity and blessed the children anyway. It is impossible to prove either way, and therefore, if compelling theological evidence can be brought to bear on the answer, this must take precedence to mere insubstantiable speculation. The theological evidence that I was assuming is, again, derived largely from a covenantal framework and so I am questioning more than ever the possibility of seeing a Dispensational Paedo-baptist. But regardless of that issue, the speculation that the parents may not be believers is indeed speculation and can neither be proved nor disproved from the passage itself, if we exclude the supposition that Jesus would not give covenant blessings to children of insincere believers.
This does raise another question: is it fitting to assume that children of professing believers are covenant children and should be given baptism? I think the answer is yes. If the parents later on prove to be insincere, that does not necessarily invalidate their children’s baptism, and we may expect that by God’s grace many children raised in such situations would turn out to be true believers even after their parents have fallen away. This is also speculation, but at least it raises another possibility of understanding Luke 18 without invalidating the basic point I was trying to display. In summation, first, Christ may well have seen that the parents were true believers, and hence made his statment of their children (including “brephe”}; or second, mere profession of faith may have been sufficient to subsume them under the covenant notwithstanding their lack of genuineness, and hence, in spite of their insincerity, their children were appropriately to be called covenant children anyway. Such passages as Romans 11, which indicate the plausibility of some truly covenantal people being false professors lends a certain amount of legitimacy to this potential assessment.
With regards to Luke 12: although Fitzsimmons did not take the pains to lay out all the logical progression for his conclusion, I think he hit at the heart of the issue. Basically, it is logically impossible, given any understanding of humanity, to suppose that this separation involved believing parents and infant children. I think we would both agree that a believing parent should not abandon his infant because it has not yet professed faith. I also find it hard to believe that an infant will abandon its parents because they profess faith in Christ. Give them milk and they will stay quite contentedly. So the division must come between family members who are able to have personal convictions on the issue of Jesus. If a child of a believer grows up to the point of being able to express personal convictions and abandons the faith of his parents, that does not logically imply that his baptism as an infant should not have occured. Think again of Romans 11 and the Hebrews warning passages. It seems feasible for some who were appropriately given the covenant signs to later turn out to be Esaus. I cannot see how this passage proves anything with regard to infant baptism.
Another point that was brought up: in Colossians 2, “what replaces physical circumcision is not another physical symbol, but “a circumcision made without hands” “the circumcision of Christ.””
This is true: in this passage we are said to have been given the true circumcision when we were baptized. That is, we were not given physical circumcision itself, but what circumcision conveyed — the death of the flesh, a new heart that loves God, etc. But are we really to understand that water baptism itself actually produces this spiritual reality? Unless we would embrace the crudest superstition and sacramentalism, we would have to confess that physical, water baptism only symbolizes this inner change. Which is the same thing as saying, water baptism symbolizes the same reality that physical circumcision symbolized, that reality which could be called either “the circumcision of Christ,” or the “baptism of the Spirit,” or even “regeneration”. Physical circumcision signified the giving of a new heart (as I demonstrated from the OT); Water baptism symbolizes the same thing (e.g. Colossians 2); but both are effective only through faith. This is where Romans 4 becomes so compelling. Even though circumcision, the old sign of the covenant, was said to be a seal of faith, it was nevertheless commanded for infants. So even though baptism in Colossians 2 is seen as operative through faith, the legitimacy of paedo-baptism is not thereby ruled out. In fact, what is positively established, that water baptism signifies the same thing that physical circumcision signified, leans strongly toward the establishment of paedo-baptism.
As far as my article on particular redemption goes, I confess I must do some minor reworking on the broadness of the formal covenant, but I do not see how that invalidates my basic assertion, that Christ only propitiated for the sins of the elect. If nothing else, formal covenant inclusion could be added to the list of things Christ purchased for some of the non-elect, together with many other elements of common grace; but formal covenant inclusion does not equate with redemption/atonement.
I guess I’ve been rambling for long enough now. If I have overlooked anyone’s argument, please be merciful. When I get a chance, I’ll read through everything again to see if there are more issues I need to recognize. Oh, by the way, I am not planning on breaking off fellowship with my Baptist Church, nor do I think this is dishonest. Yes, I will change the doctrinal position of this website to accomodate my change, but it is neither in my authority nor in my desire to change the doctrinal statement of the Baptist Church here. If God uses our interaction to bring the consensus of the church to my views, then it would be appropriate for them to change. But if that never happens, they are still Christ’s body in Martin, ND, and God forbid that I should ever be separated from them on account of a theological difference that does not touch the purity of the gospel.
December 8th, 2005 at 12:48 am
I just added the following update to our doctrinal positions on our page “About Us”.
Update: largely through constructive dialogue with Nathan and Matthew Fitzsimmons, Nathan Pitchford has come to embrace the paedo-baptist position. Dave Hayton is still working through the issue. Whatever the outcome, all of us here at Pitchford’s Ramblings hope by the grace of God to continue striving together for the sake of the gospel in the true unity and fellowship of Christ. We firmly believe that different positions on this particular issue should not divide believers as they labor for the advance of the Kingdom.
December 8th, 2005 at 6:08 am
I have to admit, I am dissapointed in you. Although I do not claim to be as smart as you are, and never have, I believe the Scriptures are laid out simply enough for a child to understand. And I believe, as we have all our lives, that the Bible is very clear on this point–and not in the direction you have recently taken. I think this is dangerous ground you are treading, and you are in the position to lead some astray. Please pray and think this and the ramifications of this through thoroughly. You know I love you, but I am disappointed.
December 8th, 2005 at 2:40 pm
Because I feel that in this thread and the previous one that the main discussion points have been covered thoroughly and well, I have silently followed along - for the most part. However, if I may address the seemingly common attitude that has now found its way into this discussion. Cassie, I don’t know you, but I feel you are being very unfair to Pitchford, who has already expressed his deep concern (which I know all too well) that family and friends disapprove of his newly found position. A reasoned disagreement is one thing - a categorical write-off of a brother’s thorough and biblical study and conclusion is another thing all together. Thank you everyone else for sticking to the topic.
But that’s not the main thing that worries me. My issue is with the phrase “I believe the Scriptures are laid out simply enough for a child to understand.” While it is true that becoming a Christian is “easy,” I’d challenge you to present one biblical topic that is simple enough for a child to come away with full understanding of it. I Corinthians 3 makes the distinction between those who are only able to partake of the “milk” of Scripture as “babes” and those who desire the “meat.” Those who loved the milk too much to wean themselves off it are called “carnal” and are the cause of “envying, strife, and divisions”(KJV). In the church today, it seems those people still exist. Yes, we’re all babes at one point, but the Scriptures weren’t given for us to ignore, gloss over, or broad-brush.
Imagine if every one of us had the respect for the Word and dedication to studying it that Pitchford has exhibited here. Some would say this would lead to time-wasting theological discussions that divide men. Paul said just the opposite in I Corinthians 3: it is the spiritual babes among us that cause the division and strife.
When I began thoroughly studying issues like monergistic soteriology, the Covenants, and baptism, I experienced some separation from some friends and family. However, I also discovered a strong new unity with other Christian brothers and sisters that were also honestly studying these topics. These new bonds are much deeper, not because they are the temporal bonds of blood or acquaintance, but because I am now joined in a unity centered around the Word of God. The old bastions of tradition and failed hermeneutics have been replaced by firm confidence in the Bible alone. I no longer approach the Scripture trying to figure out how in the world I’m going to fit a covenant passage into my dispensationalism or how I’m going to prove that wine in the Bible was non-alcoholic. I simply read the Bible and align my beliefs with what I read. Imagine my delight to realize the Spirit is still at work and is leading other believers to the same conclusions!
I do not want to be misunderstood. I’m not saying that a dispensationalist is outside the brotherhood of those who love the Lord and reverance His Word. I am saying, though, that those who are too afraid or stubborn to give the Bible supreme authority and seek to know its every precept (even the hard ones) are at the very least doing themselves a great disservice.
I may as well report that in light of Scriptural conviction, largely brought on through the discussions on this site and personal study, I will be having my 3 children baptized in January. It is overwhelming to me to consider that just as Abraham circumcised Isaac as sign of God’s grace to him, I will be extending the sign of the same covenant to my children. By God’s grace, I hope that they will each become “internally circumcised” as well.
One more thing: I would like to see thoughts from others of you (Pitch?) on what you are or will be doing practically to bring your children up in a Covenant family. Me first: currently my children (ages 4, 2, 1) are all three learning a children’s version of the Shorter Catechism. We are up to question 35. My one-year-old only knows one of them. When we ask her “Is there more than one true God?” she holds up one finger and smiles really big. We are also memorizing Psalm 23 and the Lord’s Prayer, not to mention our nightly “Bible story” which I often use to teach simple theological and practical nuggets (the wedding at Cana was fun). Once we have the Lord’s Prayer down, we will move on to the Apostle’s Creed.
I struggled with how to approach other topics with my children. Another recent discussion at fitzage.com was the alcohol issue. Growing up in a fundamental family and church, there was simply no discussion on such topics. Not wanting my children to grow up (as I did) thinking people are sinful just because they drink beer, but also wanting them to understand the importance of moderation, I finally settled upon the most practical of solutions: my wife and I will set the example, with God’s help. My son has already asked “what’s wine?” and I was able to tell him, “wine is something big people drink - you know, like Coke and coffee” instead of “wine is an icky drink that only people that don’t love Jesus drink” (as I would’ve heard growing up). My children will see me drink a glass of wine occasionally at dinner and will understand that it is something to be respected but not to illogically and unbiblically condemn.
I understand I’ve gone off-topic here, but I think it’d be great to start a thread on this site or a different one for parents to present these kind of practical things they are doing to raise a family that will God-willing not suffer the pains of Romans 11.
December 8th, 2005 at 5:36 pm
Hey Pitchford! Greetings from Israel. I just wanted to let you know that this site has been a great encouragement to me. Cass gave me the web address and suggested I take a look. While I don’t always agree with everything, there is always food for thought and a motivation to dig deeper into the Word. I have a lot to think about and search the Word for. It helps keep me focused in my now entirely secular mileu. I miss the theological discussions and constant challenge of accepted belief that I shared with believers in the States. I am still searching for a home church here, so keep me in your prayers.
December 9th, 2005 at 2:42 am
Fascinating, Pitchford. Given my own sympathies toward covenant theology I must, of necessity, take your arguments more seriously than would a dispensationalist. So are you saying that those who bear the signs of the New Covenant are not necessarily members? These would, to you, be candidates for the warning passages? I suppose I’m still struggling with the notion of inaugurating those who evidence no fruit of the New Covenant into the New Covenant. Doesn’t Jeremiah 31 presuppose a law-inscribed heart for membership? Essentially, were not those who were previously family members of the Old Covenant but were disobedient the fleshy clothing of spiritual realities that are seen more clearly with NT revelation? Why should this “type” not have vanished, or at least refocused, as well? Just a few hasty and not altogether well-thought-out questions as I rush to study Hebrew vocab.
December 9th, 2005 at 2:58 am
Nathan (not Pitchford), As you stated, you don’t know me, therefore you cannot know my intentions or relationship to Nathan Pitchford. As I stated, I do love Nathan and have for all my life and his, certainly much longer than you have known him. Nathan will be able to respond in a much better way than you, seeing as how he does know me. As far as your arguments concerning your beliefs and how you choose to raise your children–Congratulations! I am also a parent, to three, and I can assure you my husband and I also strive to raise ours as we are convicted Biblically. And I must say, I do take offense at your implied statement that I am one who is “too afraid or stubborn to give the Bible supreme authority and seek to know its every precept.” This is a very bold and presumptuos statement from one who does not know the one he is accusing of such a sin. Please be careful in the future of your words and accusations in matters so important.
December 9th, 2005 at 5:21 am
Kuiper,
Read Romans 11. This is by far the strongest passage in regards to the fact that those who are not regenerate can be partakers of the Covenant.
Matt
December 9th, 2005 at 5:35 am
Cassie:
Please accept my apologies for the misunderstanding. I used a quote from your comment to address a common error I’ve seen rear up in almost every one of these discussions: namely, that the Bible is intended to be easy to understand. This is never implied in Scripture; rather, we are instructed to “study” it thoroughly. My thoughts spilled over into subjects somewhat unrelated to your comment, which is the quote you reiterated. I have argued at length with friends and family who ignore the clear teaching of the Scriptures in favor of arguments like “that’s what my youth pastor said” and “if God wanted us to baptize infants He would have said so” - presumably because they can’t, won’t, or shan’t study the Scriptures for themselves. I am not accusing you of this and I am not accusing the fine dispensationalists that have already commented here of this. Yes, Pitchford can defend his views to his own sister, but I assumed that by publically expressing your disapproval that you were purposely opening yourself up to rebuttal. I consider myself an acquaintance of your brother through my brother, so you are right that you know him better. However, I also know that I have had far more discourse over these theological issues with acquaintances like your brother than I have had with my sister (the originator of the “youth pastor” quote). I’m not sure how length of association plays into the concerns I raised about your comment. In my opinion, you should consider yourself blessed to have a brother with such a strong devotion to Scripture. Again, I hope I have not offended you in any way.
December 9th, 2005 at 6:54 am
Hello Everyone,
For anyone who may not know, I am Nathan Pitchford’s wife. And I would like to sincerely thank those who have been so gracious and meek in their comments. The Bible is clear that the world will know we are Christ’s through the love that we have for one another. I also greatly appreciate those who have used scripture for our edification and to explain their positions. Simply being informed on how people feel because of Nathan’s retraction is not very helpful. The Word of God is what must change us and convince us of the truth.
For anyone who thinks Nathan has come to this position to be different, clever, etc., I must inform you that you are greatly mistaken. I have been by Nathan’s side the whole way and would like to clarify any confusion people might have concerning his motives. This particular issue became so important especially now that our first child is to be born. Nathan’s true desire is to lead our family in the exact way God says he should. And the only way he can do that is to study thoroughly what the Bible says. It is not enough to simply do things the way one has been taught all his life. I am so thankful that my father has always encouraged me and everyone else under him to never take his word for what he taught without looking to see if those things were scriptural. He realizes, as we all should, that we and those who have taught us are capable of error. And if we are found in the wrong, it won’t be sufficient to blame those who taught us. God will hold us personally responsible for knowing and obeying his Word.
Also for any dear ones who feel betrayed, please believe me when I tell you that Nathan agonized for weeks over the possibility of hurting those whom he respects and loves the most in this world. But I am proud of him for loving God more. And to know that he loves God even more than he loves me causes me to love and trust him even more.
Nathan believes that he is right on this issue, but he is very aware of the fact that he could be wrong. Therefore, he welcomes any biblically based help on this issue.
It was not easy for Nathan to come to this conclusion. And if anyone thinks he is trying to prove himself to be more intelligent than others, please remember that he came to this conclusion because certain brothers in Christ were loving enough to bring scripture to his attention and point out some fallacies in his reasoning.
I also know that he didn’t just jump into Paedo-baptism for the fun of it. When he started to lean this way, he sought our pastor’s counsel and read anything he could get his hands on in relation to Credo-baptism to see if there was something he was missing.
I am sad to see that this article has received so much attention while other such as “Knowing Our God” (1 and 2), “Images of the Savior,” “Treasuring the Trinity,” “The Riches of Romans,” “Understanding Isaiah,” “The Living Word,” etc. which really show Nathan’s passion for Christ and the Scripture have received practically no comments. I would suggest that we all immerse ourselves in those primarily.
Our burden in all of this is not to win anything but to magnify Christ together with our brothers and sisters in the body of Christ.
A nobody laboring to exalt SOMEBODY,
Nicole Pitchford
December 9th, 2005 at 7:23 am
It is an unfortunate reality that the comment dialogue seems largely to have shifted from baptism to me. I have an uncomfortable feeling that people are not going to be edified by reading about me, and I would like to see the conversation shift back to the scriptures, particularly as they have to do with baptism. I am certainly not upbraiding anyone for what has been written, or trying to make rules for what constitutes appropriate discussion. I appreciate all of the feedback, and I am doing my best to take it to heart; but in the final analysis, the scriptures alone have the authority to cause me to change my views.
Thanks for all the loving support as well as the loving criticism. Both have their place in our task of growing up together into doctrinal maturity. I hope that God’s grace will enable all of us to display the unity befitting Christians who love the same Savior and strive for the same gospel, even in a discussion marked by differences.
Cassie: I’m sorry you are disappointed and I hope you can believe that I am doing my insignificant best to be honest with scriptures.
Nathan: I am also planning on using a catechism with my children, perhaps the Westminster Shorter; however I am thinking of replacing or supplementing the section on the ten commandments with some of the wording from a brief article by John Frame on seeing Christ in the decalogue. I have a link to it from the homepage if you want to check it out. I am also thinking about going chapter by chapter (several times, each time in a manner adapted to their level of maturation) through A History of the Work of Redemption by Jonathan Edwards. This is a beautifully Christocentric biblical theology, arranged in a remarkably simple and useful style. Other than those things I have not come up with any definite plans. I am certainly in desperate need of God’s grace and wisdom as I prepare to embark on this massive undertaking. Oh, I am also planning on looking into Bethlehem’s Children Desiring God sources. I trust those will be very valuable.
Fawna: Good to hear from you. It’s been a while: I must confess my utter ignorance of your current state of affairs. You should shoot me an update at somentecristo@yahoo.com sometime.
Kuiper: I asked Fitzy precisely that same question when I was still desperately clutching to credo-baptism and he was kind enough to give a very helpful response. You should check out the comments thread from my first article on baptism. The comment is buried in there somewhere. It basically just brings up the Hebrews warning passages as well as (most convincingly) the Romans 11 olive tree analogy.
December 10th, 2005 at 2:38 am
In the spirit of the last few posts, I want to retract a statement I made in my first post about your forthcoming child. This is really little to joke around about. I have no doubt that your desire is to raise him or her in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and I bless you in that and pray with your for the final outcome of his or her faith. It is easy to forget when chatting with an old, hard-skinned college buddy, that there are now wives and broader families and ministries involved.
I also regret having brought up the paidia/brefos distinction in Luke 18. It’s time for me to read Carson’s Exegetical Fallacies again, I know. However, I’m still trying to get my mind around the argument. You’re right, there is sufficient semantic overlap such that paidia could refer to infants. The issue is, does the context at hand shed any light on the age and consciousness level of these children? Indeed, for Christ says they “receive the kingdom of God”. I have know doubt that infants as well as older children were being brought to Christ for his blessing. What is significant is that when Christ makes His statement about the Kingdom, he must be referring to those older children who have the consciousness necessary to receive it. He implores us to be like them in receiving the Kingdom. This is obviously a call for childlike faith, it cannot be a call for the passiveness unconsciousness of an infant or it is no call at all. So infants are present in the narrative, yes, but nowhere is it said that they are included in Christ statement about who inherits the Kingdom.
Tell me what you think about this text: “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27). We have a set of people who have been baptized into Christ. And everyone in that set (“as many of you as…”) are described as having also put on Christ. Unless we are prepared to say that infants of believers prior to faith have “put on Christ”, we must conclude that they cannot rightly be baptized into Christ. Interestingly, a few verses later Paul says, “if you are Christ’s then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” (3:29). No longer does membership in the covenant have to do with physical lineage, but rather being “in Christ”, or being “sons of God through faith” (v. 26). The distinction between the physical/genealogical nature of the Abrahamic Covenant and the Spiritual/Christological nature of the New Covenant is beautifully explicit in Galatians, and I’m not sure how it mixes with and is supported by the inclusion of infants of believers in the new covenant community. Help me with this.
I am also curious about how you take 1 Pet. 3:21, wherein baptism is described as “an appeal to God for a good conscience.” The question must be asked whether this appeal might be done on behalf of another, namely one’s infant. This would have to be established. If you have blogged about these passages anywhere else, just disregard and point me in the right direction.
By the way, if anyone is interested, Bethlehem retracted the amendment that would have lifted the believer’s baptism requirement for membership because of lack of support. Perhaps this issue, for better or for worse, will continue to be a dividing one among protestants from now until kingdom come (excuse the leftover dispensational colloquialism).
Grace and Peace,
Ryan
December 10th, 2005 at 3:13 am
Just to clarify, the reason for my last comment was not to defend my husband because I felt he was being mistreated. There is no need for that. He is in God’s hands. But I know that his motives have become an issue to some people (a few have commented here and others have not). Therefore, I was hoping to get that issue out of the way in order to get back to the real issue at hand — what the Bible has to say about baptism — as others are trying to do also.
December 11th, 2005 at 10:05 am
Corbett:
In Luke 18, Christ classifies the group of children whom he had just commanded his disciples to allow to approach him as kingdom-possessors. It was this group specifically in which Luke had included “kai ta brefe”: at a point when this term is the only possible antecedent, Christ then calls “them” [read: ta brefe], and says to his disciples “Allow ‘them’ [read: ta brefe] to come unto me, for ‘of such’ [read: of the brefe and others like them] is the kingdom of heaven.” After that, Christ makes a statement about receiving the kingdom as “paidia” which one could grammatically understand either as having or as not having immediate reference to the set including “brefe” that he had just categorized as possessing the kingdom: but in no analysis can his first statement exclude them. As far as a logical synopsis, it is at least plausible that Christ is referring to the credulous manner in which these covenant “brefe” will accept the things which they have been taught from infancy, never questioning the basic Christian principles of their parents as they mature. If you prefer another logical explanation (e.g. Christ uses the occasion to jump to an analogically-related but not precisely identical teaching about believing kingdom truths as young-but-capable-of-believing “paidia”), that is fine. But I don’t see how you can exclude “brefe” from the first statement of Christ about kingdom ownership.
As far as Galatians 3:26-27, you have made an excellent point. My question is, “Could the baptism in this context be water baptism, or must it not be the reality which water-baptism only signifies?” It seems to me that if you say it is only water baptism, and not the reality to which that rite points, then you must say that every person who has ever undergone the physical rite has in actuality put on Christ and become God’s son — a conclusion which I think we would both find impossible on other theological grounds. This passage must be speaking of the true baptism, not water baptism. In which case, the force of the argument dissolves. Now it just becomes a question of whether or not it is legitimate to give the sign of true baptism to covenant children who have not yet displayed the evidence of true baptism. The fact that “true” circumcision was explicitly said to be a removal of heart-stubborness in Deuteronomy 10:16 (among other things elsewhere), not to mention the fact that it is called a seal of faith in Romans 4, and yet it was given to covenant children incapable of displaying the true reality to which circumcision pointed, leads us to the certain recognition that it is not covenantally inappropriate for water baptism to signify the true baptism into Christ and yet be given to covenant children.
The argumentation from I Peter 3:21 loses its forcefulness as well when we compare Romans 4. It is possible for a covenant sign to be a “seal of faith,” or else an “appeal to God,” and yet be given to covenant children. For a practical consideration, remember how diligent Martin Luther was, when feeling cast off by God, to remember, “I have been baptized, I have been incorporated into Christ, I am Your child.”
Thanks for your sensitivity and Christlike spirit of love and meekness in your joke-retraction (as well as in the profitable ongoing dialogue).
Bob:
Thanks for your much-needed exhortations to unity in the gospel of Christ. I agree wholeheartedly with the segment of Grudem’s Systematic Theology to which you referred.
December 12th, 2005 at 9:05 am
Clarification on Luke 18:
In my last comment, I skipped over Christ’s use of “paidia” in his first statement, but that shouldn’t change the substance of what I was saying, because the “paidia” had clear reference to the “brefe” that he had just called to himself.
Just thought I’d mention that so nobody gets confused.
December 12th, 2005 at 2:09 pm
Nathan Pitchford (and all),
I posted another reply at my blog here. (I posted it there instead of here, because I could format it easier, hope you do not mind).
Please reply.
Thanks!
December 13th, 2005 at 9:12 am
I’m feeling guilty for not reading your previous blog material, and end-of-the-semester projects are weiging heavy, so I’m going to sign out and wait to see you at the end of the month in Martin, God-willing.
Except to say, if you take Gal. 3 as a reference to the inner reality that baptism testifies to, I really do think you strengthen the case of the credo-baptist rather than weaken it. You have conceded that the outward sign of baptism is meant to signify true inner regeneration. As for Deut. 10:6 and Rom. 4, you are right when you say these are references to “true circumcision”, in other words the circumcision which parallels and gives witness to the circumcision of the heart. Any other circumcision was simply a means of setting apart ethnic Israel (and the slaves and sojourers connected with them) from the other nations, and this is no longer a necessity, because the people of God are set apart by the indwelling Spirit in the New Covenant (Romans 2:29). God warned Israel that the external sign apart from faith would not be an everlasting reality. Jeremiah 9:25: “Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will punish all those who are circumcised merely in the flesh…”
Well, that’s all, and I really will stop bothering you with under-developed arguments. Enjoy your Christmas, and may the manifold glories of Christ be freshly captivating this season.
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:48 am
“Don’t Drown Dave in the Danube!”–A Plea for Realism in the Debate on Baptism
Introduction
Pardon my penchant for alliteration–I, too, was raised an independent Baptist Fundamentalist. In the remarks that follow, I hope to a) explain briefly my present position and b) argue adamantly for the peaceful co-existence of paedo- & credo- baptism within the same church-structure.
In 1527, with a sort of sadistic irony, the Council of Zurich declared “He who dips, shall be dipped.” Beginning with Felix Manz, scores of “Anabaptists” were drowned in the Danube, the Limmat, and other nearby bodies of water. Drownings were accompanied by occasional beheadings, and even a number of burnings at the stake. To put it mildly, baptism was a big deal in the Reformation/post-Reformation era–even among those who would otherwise agree on the central doctrines of the Reformation.
Therefore, I regard it no light matter that this discussion has gone on as [comparatively] “smoothly” as it has. I want to publicly give many thanks to Nathan for his diligent and honest work on the subject, not to mention the charitable and Christ-like spirit in which it was carried out. Thank you also to the Fitzimmons Brothers for your likewise careful, probing, and humble interactions with Nathan. And, I should also put a hearty thanks in to all others who have posted meaningful comments throughout the discussion [Bob, Ryan, Nicole, et. al.]. It is my hope that through such venues like these, we can each & together grow into a deeper knowledge of Christ.
Bvvvvbvbv n
My Present Thoughts on Baptism
In case anyone is wondering, this discussion has done much to cause me to re-align in my own thinking about baptism. If anything, I have come to see that one who thinks his case [for or against] credo-baptism is “airtight”…is, to be blunt, a “bonehead.” Now, I do not intend to offend anyone by that word, but truly it is the word that best fits the description of what I thought of myself upon seriously wrestling through the arguments. That having been said, let me briefly lay out for you where I am at presently on this whole matter of paedo- vs. credo- baptism.
As I’ve mentioned briefly to both Nathan and Bob, I went at this question from three sides: textual evidence, arguments from silence, and practical considerations. I laboured to honestly argue for and against each of the positions as I went through each angle. Here are my results:
Textual Evidence: Paedo-baptism wins the day, but not by leaps and bounds.
Arguments From Silence & Practical Considerations: Credo-baptism wins the day, but not by far.
So, where does that leave me? It’s not as easy as saying, “Look, the textual evidence supports paedo-baptism, so you better go for paedo-baptism!” At the end of the day, we must, I repeat, WE MUST admit the enormous amount of Biblical silence upon the question at hand. And therefore, since such is the case, arguments from silence and practical considerations, I think, should be afforded much more weight than they are normally [and rightly] not given.
So, again, where does this leave me? In somewhat of a quandary, actually. I mean, I see and gladly affirm the connection and continuity between the Abrahamic and the New Covenant. Romans 11 & Romans 4 are very powerful arguments. However, we are forced to admit that something has changed in the administration of things, aren’t we? As has been pointed out already, it is no longer infant males alone who are afforded the sign. So…who says whether the change is from only infant males [including slaves, etc.] to infant males & females [and slaves, still?]; or, from infant males alone to no infants at all [or slaves?]? Some plausible theological arguments can be made for each, I think. Furthermore, have paedo-bapitsts really taken seriously the incredible/alarming silence in the New Testament on the transition between circumcision and baptism? Or, on the other hand, have not credo-baptists “spun out of control” in their view that the end-times Church is somehow to be more pure than the Abrahamic community? Again, there are sound, plausible arguments to both sides of each question raised. But in my opinion, at the end of the day, we better be holding somewhat lightly to our conclusions.
Allegedly, when asked of his position on the millennium, R.C. Sproul replied, “When it comes to eschatology, I land like a butterfly with sore feet.” I don’t know about the rest of you, but I certainly see the question between paedo- and credo- baptism as far lesser than even basic eschatological debates! I think it is categorically easier to make a case for amilliennialism, than it is to make a case for padeo- or credo-baptism!
Which means, I will probably wake up certain days being convinced of credo-baptism, while other days [with the proper amount of coffee] I will become convinced of paedo-baptism. The one thing I hope never happens: that I wake up some day being so defined by the one, that I despise, demean, or divide away from those of the other side. What a tragedy that would be!
Conclusion/Proposal
So then, in conclusion, let me say a few more things, and then announce my proposal.
First of all, just because this debate concerns nothing central to the Christian faith, doesn’t mean that it is without value to discuss it carefully. I think we have all seen the value to this discussion. And, since we’re laboring to bring every thought into subjection to Christ, no matter is too little that cannot be brought out into the light and be Biblically examined for our edification.
However, secondly, I whole-heartedly agree with Nicole that is sad that such a comparatively minor discussion as paedo- vs. credo- baptism has generated such wealth of energy and discussion, while other papers on the blog are far more worthwhile and yet have received little if any recognition or discussion.
Thirdly, therefore, my only criticism of your work on this subject, Nathan, are the weighty terms in which you described your decisions and changes of opinion. I understand that for you, the jeopardizing of familial relationships was/is a real concern, and not one that I can relate with. So, I hope this doesn’t come across as painful, merely descriptive. I think the Luther-lingo and the recantation-mantra was a little much. It wouldn’t be normal to read such a heading for a paper on head-coverings for women, or a paper detailing the shift from post-millennialism to amillennialism, so why should we talk in such a way about credo- vs. paedo- baptism? I understand the historical strife over the issue, and perhaps that coupled with your family situation prompted the vocabulary-choice. I am not trying to judge you on your word-choice, but just say that I think it would be very healthy to the Church if once and for all we all stopped viewing the debate as such a definitive and earth-shattering dogma. Just a growing conviction, that’s all.
Fourthly, I am well aware that this little imperfect treatise is probably riddled with fallacies and errors. I welcome your corrections where you think there ought to be. I am still growing in this area, though satisfied at this point to turn my full attention to other more weighty concerns of the Church.
And then, fifthly, I would like to sound the battle trumpet for radical togetherness between paedo- and credo- Baptists. What a hell-deserving tragedy that such a debate has resulted in such incredible division over the centuries! Both parties are to blame. Seriously, this ought to disturb us deeply! Did Jesus die for this? Did he die to have a Bride that divides and fights against itself over such petty issues?! What honor to Christ, if we joined hands [despite our differences over baptism], pooled resources, and labored together to finish the Great Commission! I mean, hit ‘em with a wet noodle, shoot ‘em with a squirt gun…do whatever you got to do, but just baptize them in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit! Infants? Figure it out! Work together; neither of you believe in baptismal regeneration…so this shouldn’t be such a big deal.
Now, finally, I come to my “proposal” of sorts. In stead of “credo-” or “paedo-”…maybe I’ll call it “weirdo-baptism.” Okay, all stupid jokes aside, let me briefly explain my idea. Why not intentionally labor to create a church-structure wherein both paedo-baptism and credo-baptism are likewise accepted and practiced? I think that the Evangelical Free Church already does something like this, but don’t quote me on it.
Wouldn’t that be a refreshing thing? Both sides would be “forced” to peacefully coexist and concentrate their energies on the Main things. Parents who were okay with paedo-baptism, would have their infants baptized, while those who chose to hold off on the baptism still formally dedicated the child into the covenant community during a special service. Children/older folks, who were originally baptized as infants, and now showed forth emerging signs of regeneration would be given the opportunity to either publicly align with the confirmation statement, or become baptized again, either way adequately allowing for public confession of Christ before men.
Well, I have written enough. Thank you, everyone, for your time and thoughts. May Christ be more fully glorified as His Church becomes more radically devoted to working together as one Body.
David Hayton
December 24th, 2005 at 9:27 pm
I will leave another question: What does paedo-baptism do? Does it, as Catholic theology states, remove sin ex opera operata? Or is it more like a baptist baby dedication? If you are going to remove credo-baptism, does that mean that after a person is converted they do not have to be baptized again? Doesn’t that somewhat ruin the metaphor of water baptism for conversion (as used by Paul in Romans 6, Colossians 2 - note that Baptism is used alongside circumcision as a conversion metaphor, not as an infant metaphor)? The paedo-baptist position seems horribly inconsistent with the Scriptural metaphor of baptism, but perfectly consistent with Covenant theology (That shows my cards on the side of the debate on which I am, but I will not make this into an argument of CT against D).
December 25th, 2005 at 10:12 am
CAW,
Infant baptism is not at all like Catholic infant baptism. It essentially officially includes children in the covenant community, just like circumcision in the Old Testament.
I think it is highly important to realize that a paedo-baptist does not remove credo-baptism. Most say that a child does not need to be re-baptized once they are saved, but someone who comes to faith as an adult must be baptized, just as credo-baptists believe. The terminology used doesn’t really do justice to the beliefs in question, but alas.
December 28th, 2005 at 1:31 pm
David: excellent, with one reservation.
You are completely correct that the church should be lovingly inclusive of both paedo- and credo-. I’m a member of a PCA church and we have several families in our membership who call themselves Reformed Baptist. As near as I can tell, there is no major discussion or division among our ranks, though from a brief discussion with one Baptist family I gathered they don’t seem to grasp why we actually baptize infants.
However, I grew up in a Baptist church. It doesn’t matter even that it was an independent, fundamental one. Credo-baptist belief is what makes a Baptist a Baptist. So, like it or not, it is a huge point of division that those of us with that background will probably have to discuss off and on the rest of our lives. From that perspective, then, I believe that Pitchford used just the right amount of gravity to describe his decision. Think about it this way: Pitchford comes from a Baptist background and with his new position will never be able to land a pastorate in a Baptist church. I would say the correlation to Luther is accurate, whether or not the actual issue should be as weighty.
Your related statements are great from a theoretical and hopeful standpoint. Anyone who reads them and is in a position to create such an environment in their church should do so. I simply want to clarify where Pitchford is coming from, since I understand it all too well.
December 31st, 2005 at 9:41 pm
If a baptized infant is a part of the covenant, does this mean that they are also a member of the visible church? If that child grows up and is never converted (or converted much later in time as a teen, adult or even elderly person), is that child still allowed membership into the church? If so are you fellowshipping as light with darkness (2 Cor 6)?
Now (speaking tongue and cheek), which baptism of mine would you take as valid? I was baptized both as an infant (as a methodist) and as a believer (as a baptist).
January 1st, 2006 at 1:03 am
CAW,
A baptized infant is a part of the visible church, which would be synonymous with the “Covenant Community.” In my church, there is a difference between that and a “communing member,” which would be someone who is a full member and allowed to partake in the Lord’s Supper.
As a new Presbyterian, I can’t pretend to know all the ins and outs of this yet. To become a communing member, the person must give a credible profession of faith, just as one would need to do to become a member of a baptist church, for example. As far as whether or not the person is arbitrarily removed from the “visible church” at some point because they have not made a profession of faith, I don’t know. I will say that it would probably be highly uncomfortable for them to continue attending the church if they are not a believer, or at least claiming to be (that is, if the church is truly preaching the whole counsel of God).
This would be very similar to the way it would be in your church. There will always be tares among the wheat, and there must be a point at which you say “you are living in sin and are unable to be a part of the church.” I don’t see there being much difference in practice here between paedo-baptists and credo-only-baptists.
In regards to your tongue in cheek question, I can’t pretend to know what methodists believe about baptism (and I’m sure there are different varieties of methodists), but the infant baptism would be a valid baptism. In other words, an adult would not be required to be re-baptized upon belief if they were baptized as an infant. Whether or not it depends on if the church they were originally baptized had correct beliefs about the subject, I don’t know if it makes a difference. In other words, would the infant baptism be less valid if the person performing it believed if it produced regeneration? Maybe. I don’t know.
January 5th, 2006 at 6:05 am
I’m glad the conversation seems to have turned in some measure from debate over the baptism issue (to which I have contributed, and which will continue to be important and necessary) to postulations for a good way forward in this mileu of disagreement. I am fully agreed that this relatively minor theological note should not be the devisive issue that it has been historically and continues to be today. There is no doubt something Satanic in the fact that it has so gotten in the way of fellowship and fulfillment of the Great Commission. Though I trust and submit to the leadership over me at Bethlehem, I can’t help but grieve that we aren’t moving forward in an attempt to unite true brothers of different baptismal persuasions under one roof.
Conversations over the web, but especially in person with Nathan have forced me to agree that, as has been said, the arguments for credo-baptism are not air-tight. Nathan and the Fitzsimmons have set forth an excellent case. However, I am also suspicious that NP could argue that I have orange hair in a way that would be believable to me even if I were looking in a mirror. All that to say, I hope I don’t have to be smarter and more articulate than Nathan, and Calvin, and Owen, and Edwards, to dissent from their conclusions. We all take issue with Thomas Aquinas over a few things, but have fun taking it into the ringer with him.
I guess as happy as I am about the spirit of unity and love I sense in recent posts, I’m not sure I want to be quite as cavalier about the mode and manner of baptism. I hope that the other ordinance of Christ (ordinance/sacrament/you fill in the blank), the Lord’s Supper, would not be treated with the same flippancy. Can we get away with serving pizza and coke at the table of the Lord? After all, we’re not sure how Christ is present in the elements anyway…?
Though far from a perfect situational parallel, Romans 14 helps me as I think about navagating through how brothers inter-relate in the church setting in spite of doctrinal differences, and let’s not forget that Romans 14 admonishes us, in the midst of everything else, to “have an opinion before God”! So, I would encourage you, Dave, myself, and others like us to whom this issue is appearing less and less significant, for the good of the body and the glory of Christ to go ahead and make up our minds about whether to sprinkle infants, hit each other with wet noodles or immerse confessional believers in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. We might fall out on different sides, but it seems like we owe it to our families, our ministries, the Text, to fall out somewhere.
I think our common fundy background taught us that the only way to fellowship is to shrug our shoulders toward doctrinal precision. Do we have to bow to this model? Is there a potential for loving, teaching and embracing a certain expression of Baptism that one finds to be most biblical, while at the same time loving and embracing those of a different persuasion, and for the good of the Great Commision and the glory of God agreeing not to make a big deal about it towards one another, but making a little bit of a deal about it when it comes to practicing the ordinance?
If I were convinced of Paedo-baptism, I would want Ketsia’s (my daughter) baptism to be a meaningful event. I would not want someone to get up there and say, “well, we’re not sure if this is doing any good, and I know half of you don’t think this is a legitimate member of the covenant community, but here goes, hand me that eye-dropper…”
I have a question as well for the contributing PCAers. How would you feel if a good number of covenant members in your church thought nothing of your child’s baptism? Isn’t the baptism not of isolated individualized significance, but intended to be an event which pulls together the covenant community to work for and assist in this new member’s perseverance in the covenant? What if a good number don’t believe the child belongs in the covenant yet? It still seems practically difficult to me.
I am aware that I could still be constrained and tainted by baptist tradition, fundamentalist ideology and years of looking at the text a certain way. If so, help me. This is an important discussion, and I am laboring to think of ways in which the significance and meaning behind each form of the practice of baptism can be loved and upheld without sacrificing unity to any substantial degree.
A small fish, if a fish at all,
Ryan
January 5th, 2006 at 10:39 am
corbett:
Excellent stuff. On the one hand, yes, this issue shouldn’t separate Christians from worshiping together. On the other, it’s obvious that we all do have or are developing strong opinions on the subject. I think it boils down to respect of the motive and reasoning behind the other side’s practice, at least as far as a churchwide unity is concerned. Unfortunately necessary disclaimer for those skipping the preceding post and comments and settling on this comment: Naturally, this wouldn’t apply to positions that are obviously error from Scripture.
Obviously, the pastor and/or elders of a church will hold one position, which will automatically cause bias in their teaching. That is to be expected and I have no problem with that. I think it wise, though, for a pastor to teach objectively why each side does what they do and to give a brief, respectful summary at each occasion that merits it. For example, if baptizing a baby, the pastor can give the why’s and wherefore’s and request that the congregation honor the parents’ desire to see the child included in the church family. If baptizing a 7 year old who has recently professed faith, the pastor can speak of believer’s baptism (need I remind that we all agree on this?) and what it signifies. The only procedural difference I see is not requiring a credo- or paedo- stand from the parents, but honoring each sincere and knowledgeable request. Obviously, I would think it wise for the pastor and elders to ascertain the reasoning behind each parent’s wishes when they present a newborn.
I’ve mentioned before that I see little difference in practice between the “baby dedications” I grew up with in Baptist churches and the baptisms I’ve observed in my current church. The only difference is the water. It seems Baptists like the idea of a Hannah/Samuel “giving the child to God” more than they’d admit. =)
Yes, baptism is important as the Lord’s Supper is important, but remember that both credo- and paedo-’s believe baptism is a sign of the same thing. The symbolism shouldn’t be an issue at all and thus the sacrament itself can still be elevated to its proper place, regardless of the issue of who it is properly applied to.
If two thousand years have taught us anything, it’s that God-honoring believers have always disagreed on this issue. I agree that we all need to come to a knowledgeable conclusion, corbett, but I also believe that the kind of radical love Pitchford’s talking about needs to be given the preeminence Christ intended in His church — yes, even to the point of coexisting peacefully in the same four walls.
Pitchford,
I can’t tell you how excited I am about what you’re proposing. I don’t want to be like the “friends” of Luther who took his teaching to an extreme and caused anarchy, but I feel it must be stated that the natural end of love for Christ above petty differences is an end of denominational distinctions. That means no more Baptist, no more Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran, Reformed, etc. As grand as this sounds, it seems there are some real implementation problems for 90 percent of God-honoring churches in this country. For instance, though Presbyterians are known for Reformed theology and paedo-baptism, it is their church government structure that gives them their name. Though I am a member of a Presbyterian church, I would call myself simply “Reformed” because I am not convinced that the presbytery structure is the best form of church government. Baptists are defined by the very issue we’ve been discussing and would be even less likely to drop the title in favor of a Gospel-first, mutual-respect model (on the flip side, though, it could actually be easier for a [Reformed] Baptist to accept because they only have one such issue to tolerate. But I digress). I’ve mentioned before that my church is already on the road to such a position — we have active members who are Reformed Baptist and have no quarrels, even though the general practice is strictly paedo-. Are we destined to continue in division indefinitely, keeping our labels, and seeing only minor “upgrades” here and there around the country? In other words, what is the big picture, the reality, from your perspective? Just what can we do, especially as lay people?
I was saddened by the typical-yet-still-unexpected response of a friend recently who said that since he’s a credo-baptist and I’m a paedo-, he wouldn’t be able to start a church with me. I realized that despite my personal excitement over people like you, Pitchford, suggesting an end to such divisions, there are probably far more people like my friend who feel that such divisions are justified from Scripture. I don’t understand the reasoning and it is discouraging. I would love to go to a city with some friends and start a church that exemplifies the kind of love we’ve been talking about (no, really!), but I know that the reality is that hardly anyone is willing to part from the mental security and structure that a strict demoninational approach provides them doctrinely. I can’t count the acquaintances I had through college who voiced concerns with this issue and that, yet at the end of the day are comfortable and would rather tack “progressive” in front of a title than admit it’s wrong all together. Conversely, I know that there are a very few that might actually be interested in what we’re talking about — but only a few and I’m not sure I could conjure up any names right now.
Any words of advice or encouragement are welcome from anyone.
(Note: I realized about halfway through this comment that some of it applies more to the post When Will All The Fighting End? than to this one. My apologies.)
January 5th, 2006 at 11:12 am
First of all, I’d like to quote the previous post, or a portion of it:
“For example, if baptizing a baby, the pastor can give the why’s and wherefore’s and request that the congregation honor the parents’ desire to see the child included in the church family. If baptizing a 7 year old who has recently professed faith, the pastor can speak of believer’s baptism (need I remind that we all agree on this?) and what it signifies.”
You speak of baptism as if it is a church policy, at the discretion of the family’s desire. (i.e., if you want your child to be baptized as a baby, go ahead! It’s your choice!) Might I remind you that baptism is a Scriptural principle, and not just something that parents can just decide for their child. Salvation is personal, strictly between a single person and God himself, and if anyone else “intercedes” but Christ himself, who is the One Mediator,(i.e., the pastor who is baptizing, the parents who wish it to be done) then they are giving a false hope to their child and to others who see the action they take.
Baptism is clearly only EVER stated as an action of obedience to God AFTER salvation. (except of course in the case of Christ, who had no need of salvation, obviously; his baptism was the example for ours)
You speak of uniting with others in spite of this issue, and yet you are the one who is creating the division. Baptism isn’t just another issue which information is little provided in the New Testament; on the contrary, there is much to go by. It is not up to whatever your “preference” is as far as when to baptize a person. It is obedience to God, which we cannot just decide to do how we want and when we want.
It sounds to me like you’re looking for another Halfway Covenant - if your child is a member of the church from a time shortly after birth via baptism, then what reason is there for them to be saved later? What is membership in a church for, if not for true believers in Christ?
January 5th, 2006 at 11:59 am
I am sure that all of the questions you have would be answered by simply reading first this, then this, then the one above these comments, and lastly this. Please read all of the comments, as much of the meat is located there. Please read all of the Bible passages (easy, since they’re clickable and even KJV).
I don’t know you personally, but I understand all too well where you’re coming from. It’s exactly where I was coming from when I started studying this issue.
January 6th, 2006 at 6:12 am
I think a major part of the difficulty in envisioning a church warmly accepting of all christians genuinely convinced from the scriptures of either side of this particular baptism debate inheres in the basic logistical structure of the twenty-first century Western “church.” Ask anyone on the streets for a definition of a “church,” and, more than likely, he will come up with something that has to do either with a building; or else with the officially registered set of people that regularly attend services in a particular building. People talk of multiple evangelical churches in the same city, even right next to each other, with no reservation. Is that a biblical conception of the Church? It would appear from a perusal of the book of Acts that the church is made up of those who have embraced Christ as Lord, and whom the Holy Spirit has incorporated into Christ’s body. The different churches that are spoken of as mutually exclusive of each other are merely so indicated for necessary geographical reasons. The “Church of God at Corinth,” the “Church which is at Ephesus,” etc., never intended anything but those who had embraced Christ who happened to be in a similar temporal/geographical venue. There is no indication in the New Testament of the legitimacy of recognizing different “churches” other than that constrained by the logistical necessities making it impossible for a certain group of believers to meet with others. With this understanding as a foundation, it would make perfect sense and be perfectly conceivable for as many genuine Christians as is numerically/geographically feasible to be meeting together, encouraging each other, attempting in the love of Christ to explain to each other why one or the other view of the proper subjects of baptism is unscriptural — as one Church, members indiscriminately of Christ’s body. I imagine you would find much less difficulty in seeing this sort of ideal realized in a milieu such as Communist China, in which the only churches are underground meetings together of persecuted Christians who are no doubt sincerely thankful for the fellowship in Christ of any true believer, whether paedo- or credo-baptistic. In other words, I think the extra-scriptural conception of local churches as enrolled, registered groups of Christians who meet together not because of geographical necessities but because of commonality in non-essential-to-the-gospel issues is the biggest opponent, practically speaking, of the church which I delight to envision, the church where all those who believe the same gospel are meeting together in an attempt to edify and build one another up, recognizing that they, as well as others, retain unscriptural ideas and need the common rebuke and encouragement found in the whole gamut of those saved by the blood of the Lamb.
Doctrinal precision is important. But refusing to meet together with the believers who have certain doctrinal convictions other than yours will not do anything to abet doctrinal precision. Nor will it do anything to abet the weightier matters of demonstrating to the world that we are Christ’s disciples by our unity and love, and strategizing together to complete the great commission with which he left us.
January 7th, 2006 at 1:59 am
I will agree with you that there are far too many petty differences between churches and church members. Also, that the persecution of believers, there is increased unity within the church. However, the “why can’t we all just get along” philosophy doesn’t work either; what kind of church would you go to? What would they preach? When I go to church on Sunday, I want to know that the man in the pulpit believes the same things I do, on every doctrinal account, if at all possible. At this point I know that my pastor does. If born again Christians, as you suggest, would all become part of the same gathering, who would shepherd them? What would church polity be like? How then would you persuade many different denominations of which view is biblical? (How would anyone KNOW? Obviously we have the Bible and these issues are still debatable.) It sounds like a lot of confusion to me. And knowing the way Baptists alone are independent of each other sometimes, pretty much impossible.
Again, I would quote from the previous post:
“It would appear from a perusal of the book of Acts that the church is made up of those who have embraced Christ as Lord, and whom the Holy Spirit has incorporated into Christ’s body. The different churches that are spoken of as mutually exclusive of each other are merely so indicated for necessary geographical reasons.”
Perhaps Acts would imply such a oneness within the church, and indeed there was, but soon thereafter several factions sought to destroy Pauls’ (and others’) careful teaching. The believers in Galatia were being decieved by the Judaizers, which is the main reason for that particular epistle.
I would also agree with you that in the early church there was more unity, but partly that was because, at least at first, the doctrine was the same. It all came from the same place, initially, and that was Christ and the Apostles. It is when others heard the Gospel
During the Reformation, several others sprung up, with their study of the Scriptures - Luther, Calvin, and others. Luther, coming from a Catholic background, brought some of the unbiblical ideas with him. Misunderstanding the book of James, he did not comprehend the relationship between faith and works. Luther himself was a man, and although I believe he was born-again, he was not infallible and his ideas are in part flawed.
I have to go to work - I read most of those threads, nate…interesting but I’m still not convinced. (I’ll get back to this later…?)
January 7th, 2006 at 2:13 am
Abigail,
I don’t have much time, but I just wanted to quickly point out that a doctrinal error on Luther’s part on one count does not affect everything else he taught. Also, the fact that he came out of the Catholic church doesn’t mean that:
Everything he brought with him from the Catholic influenc was necessarily wrong.
Just because some things he brought with him were wrong that others were as well.
I don’t know how Luther’s view of baptism compares to the Catholic’s erroneous views, but it frankly doesn’t matter.
Matt
January 7th, 2006 at 2:15 am
Also . . .
Luther may have misunderstood the book of James, but that doesn’t mean he misunderstood faith and works. He thought the book of James contradicted the rest of the Bible on the subject, and therefore thought it should not be included in the canon, if I remember correctly.
January 7th, 2006 at 3:38 am
Abigail,
I would caution you to think carefully before you compare the differences of opinion on the proper subjects of Baptism to the heretical Judaizing factions with which Paul contended. The precise reason that Paul was so adamant about excluding them from the fellowship of the church was that they were in fact teaching another gospel. As I have said multiple times, the purity of the gospel should be the standard by which to accept or reject someone as a true believer.
Regarding your out of hand supposition that within the ranks of those who believe the same gospel a greater church-wide unity just wouldn’t work, I think you may still be bringing too many preconceived American notions to bear on the question. Why would you want to think that the person in the pulpit believed the same things as you “on every doctrinal account”? Surely, a greater maturity in understanding some scriptural things would be vital for discharging the function of a teacher. As far as the concerns of who would shepherd such believers, what church polity would look like, etc., I would suggest that anyone biblically qualified, with a sound grasp of scriptures and a heart to exercise the office of an elder, would be fitted to shepherd the church. In the case of issues upon which the Bible is not immediately clear, so that mature and godly men may with some reason think differently, I would expect the elders both to give a scriptural account for why they believe the way they believe and an honest explanation of why some do not believe that way. If not every believer whom they shepherd arrives at the same conclusions as any one elder, it merely indicates that there is still room for growth in the body — a growth that should be sought in unity and love. If any member of the flock (or elder for that matter) came to an unbiblical position on anything essential to the nature of the gospel (the virgin birth, the substitutionary atonement, the true deity and humanity of Christ, etc.), that would be an entirely different matter. That person (as the Judaizing heretics in Galatia) should under no circumstances be considered true Christians.
Consider how Paul dealt with the Corinthian believers who, although Christians, retained very serious and obviously unbiblical ideas. He did not separate from them (except the one who was giving strong indication of the lack of genuine faith), nor did he exhort them to find a different shepherd who had all the same views, but he loved them as believers, and sought to bring them about to doctrinal unity and maturity. I think we could do well to learn from such an example.
January 7th, 2006 at 9:11 pm
Now that the discussion has turned to unity and disunity we are essentially discussing separatism. I can be unified with you in the work of the ministry and in worship to the extent that I am in agreement with you. For instance, I could invite Pitchford to preach in my pulpit a gospel message (as long as he didn’t discuss limited atonement - which isn’t necessary for a gospel message) and I’m sure that I could preach the gospel in his pulpit. But I would not invite him to teach on eschatology or prophesy in my church at all. At this point, I could not invite him to teach on ecclesiology because of his position on baptism. But I could invite Corbett to teach on ecclesiology. Separatism happens on levels of agreement. I will work with a person to the extent that I agree or disagree with them. Doctrine divides absolutely.
Maybe that is why I still consider myself a fundamentalist (and am still considered a fundamentalist by fundamentalists).
January 7th, 2006 at 10:04 pm
CAW:
I’m on my way out for the day, but I wonder where you get your definitions of separatism and unity. Are they man-made or Scriptural? I understand that what you’re saying is the popular view, thus denominations. I recently listened to several men at 9Marks discuss this topic and though they came close to what I believe is biblical, they still held firmly to the fact that the subjects of Baptism issue is an obvious reason to separate ecclesiastically from other equally devout brothers in Christ. For this kind of separation that affects every Christian in America, if not the world, would there not have to be the slightest whiff of biblical direction that one is right over the other? Alas, both sides have their share of arguments from silence that may never be satisfied, so in the mean time what right do we have to split Christ’s church?
January 8th, 2006 at 12:00 am
I understand the importance of unity, and I think that fundamentalists definitely take their separation way too far in many cases.
However, I still have some reservations about opening up unity quite so far. This should probably go on the other thread, but this is where the discussion is so . . .
While I will not be so dogmatic about my belief in infant baptism as to call the views of credo-only-baptists to be sinful or heretical, I still belief that pado-baptism and the Covenant Theology that backs it up are very important doctrines.
There are many ways in which I would be willing to cooperate with dispensationalists and Reformed Baptists, especially the latter. There is much more to Infant Baptism, however, than just the typical “baby dedication,” as it truly ties them into the church body and emphasizes our responsibility as an assembly to assist the parents in raising their children in a godly manner.
You may say this emphasis is also in Dispensational and Baptist churches, but I have never seen it to the extent that it is in Reformed churches, especially those that believe in infant baptism.
My point, then, is that these elements of the church body are very important, and (I believe, at least in the area of Covenant Theology) clearly taught in Scripture. I believe it is something that should not be undermined.
I’m not really 100% clear on what I am trying to say, which is why I can’t express it very well. But I believe it may be of greater importance than we are prone to treat it.
Do these things affect the purity of the gospel directly? Perhaps not, but they are extremely important and affect a whole variety of areas (ecclesiology, eschatology, outreach, etc.). Do I run around calling those who disagree in these areas sinners? No (which I think is a mane reason fundamentalists go way too far in their separation — calling that sin which is not). But I do think there has to be some sort of separation to maintain what I believe to be a very important teaching of Scripture.
Am I making any sense here?
January 8th, 2006 at 9:25 am
fitzage:
No, not really. What I personally am trying to figure out is if the New Testament church would’ve ecclesiastically fissured over this issue or ones of similar importance (eschatology, moderate drinking, circumcision, meat offered to idols, or even bona fide sins like rampant immorality (Corinth)). Given that the example of the New Testament church is part of the canon of Scripture, is it not the example that we are to follow on these types of issues? You and CAW obviously feel the same way (from different sides of this one issue) about this and I take some comfort in recent rhetoric that implies that some would allow a paedo- preacher in their credo- church as long as he stayed off that subject. That’s more of step than I’ve seen to date from the majority of Christians in this country. I just want to know the why of only going that far when the Bible’s examples and precedents allow for much more in the same body of believers. At what point in church history did we feel that division was tolerable in the church of Christ? I am not endorsing an ECT-like embracing of Catholics, but perhaps Luther’s desire to reform instead of separate was guided not from an mistaken adherence to his Catholic background but from a desire to not divide what he felt could be simply corrected. He didn’t set out to create “Lutheranism” — he set out to steer the universal church back to an understanding of the Word and was extremely discouraged when those he considered spiritual fathers chastised him for doing so.
Please give me examples from Scripture that are similar to the idea you’re presenting — that it’s okay to fellowship but not okay to include in church membership or service. Or, that it’s fine to allow someone to preach (or distribute their books on other subjects) when they believe something else that’s so “bad” you won’t allow them membership in your church. I’m not seeing it.
January 8th, 2006 at 9:40 am
I don’t appreciate the way you put my concerns on the same level as such petty differences as moderate drinking, etc. However, you make a valid point.
The New Testament seems to be much more intent on keeping the body together than we tend to think.
Some of these issues, however, did not exist at that point. If dispensationalism had been invented at the time, would it have been condemned?
I am starting to lean more and more towards being as inclusive as possible, but I’m having trouble seeing where the line of defending the true gospel must be drawn. Should things like the doctrines of grace, which are extremely important, be included; or are they not essential?
I’m still thinking through this. It is obviously significantly different than how I was raised, and I’m still not completely sure the truth is not somewhere in the middle.
January 8th, 2006 at 9:43 am
I meant to also mention this. I like the way Pitchford has broken this down in his who we are and what we believe article.
On thing that concerns me is that, if you are going to fight passionately for certain doctrines, and you are the leadership in a church, how are you going to let others teach contradictory doctrine?
January 8th, 2006 at 10:02 am
As soon as I hit ’submit’ I thought of a little bit more clear way to say what I’m trying to. By the way, does anyone’s wife have a ’submit’ button? Okay, bad joke and totally uncalled for. I love you, honey.
If we are willing to say “you’re wrong enough that you can’t be included in my church congregation” what we’re really saying is “I’m right enough to not have to extend the totality of Christ’s love to you.” There’s an intellectual arrogance that seems to be portrayed for these “iffy” issues. If we ourselves admit that it’s unimportant to the Gospel itself, why do we let our practice play out like it’s more important than the Gospel? Is it because of a rabid desire to be right on every little issue? Honestly?
I understand your thoughts about the doctrines of grace, though I would say that Covenant vs dispensationalism is a discussion that should be able to take place within the same four walls. It’s all about teaching. If a teacher in your church is teaching something different than you, perhaps it’s time for a church-wide study on the issue. What if that Sunday School teacher ends up being right and you as, say, the pastor are shown to be wrong? What if you had already named your church something that indicates you believe a doctrine that you now don’t believe? I think these questions are more than hypothetical. What does a Baptist pastor do if he’s truly being honest and has been convinced from Scripture that his credo- view is inaccurate? I would argue that the reason this just doesn’t happen is because of some kind of fear of being wrong or of the consequences. Within a model of unity no matter the belief on such issues, I would imagine that people would be more apt to change long-held views to more closely conform to Scripture simply because there’s an environment around them that allows for it. It is in that scenario that I would place your concern about the doctrines of grace.
January 11th, 2006 at 12:07 pm
quoting Pitchford:
“I think you may still be bringing too many preconceived American notions to bear on the question. Why would you want to think that the person in the pulpit believed the same things as you “on every doctrinal account”? Surely, a greater maturity in understanding some scriptural things would be vital for discharging the function of a teacher.”
What I have studied in the Bible, and what my father - who happens to have an M. Div and a D. of Min. - has taught me, agrees completely with the doctrinal stands of the pastor I am under now. I don’t mean to insinuate that my dad’s right about everything - after all, he’s human - but I do happen to trust his judgment on doctrinal issues that I have not had a chance to study out at length myself.
“As far as the concerns of who would shepherd such believers, what church polity would look like, etc., I would suggest that anyone biblically qualified, with a sound grasp of scriptures and a heart to exercise the office of an elder, would be fitted to shepherd the church.”
Okay. Now tell me what “Anyone biblically qualified, with a sound grasp of scriptures and a heart to exercise the office of an elder” is. Can you outline what you are referring to there more clearly? What you might define as “biblically qualified” in your own eyes may not be in someone else’s. You’re using very nice, descriptive language, but your clarity is minimal on the actual details.
And I wasn’t insinuating that everyone become a “[insert religion name here]” and we all go to that type of church. I meant, how could the numerous religions who believe the same gospel and disagree on other points come together in any sort of organized fashion? It sounds a lot like compromise, and one cannot be too careful when dealing with issues that, although they seem petty, are still important. You can’t bring them all together as “One body in Christ” if some parts of the body have disease (aka, unbiblical doctrine). Eventually, that disease may spread to the rest of the body. “And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast [it] from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.” (Matthew 18) One cannot attempt to bring so many different doctrines together and then say “We’ll take care of those later.”
quoting Fitzage:
“Do these things affect the purity of the gospel directly? Perhaps not, but they are extremely important and affect a whole variety of areas (ecclesiology, eschatology, outreach, etc.).”
That’s pretty much what I was trying to say, to a point. I would be more apt not to fellowship regularly with someone who disagreed with the stand I believe is biblical on an issue closely, although indirectly involved with the gospel, than someone who merely had issues with what I would define as “separation” ~ issues such as drinking, etc. However, I have, do, and will continue to seek out those who are closest to my own views on those subjects, simply because I believe they are biblical. The standards I have chosen are based upon what I know to be my own shortcomings, and where I think I ought to draw the line.
“Do I run around calling those who disagree in these areas sinners?”
I do ~ They’re all sinners, just like I am. However, when Paul speaks of all things being “lawful” but not necessarily “expedient” - sometimes that is where I draw the line. I don’t love them any less, they’re a brother or sister in Christ to me and in the end, that’s what will ultimately matter. But on earth, some of those things do matter.
quoting Nathan:
“By the way, does anyone’s wife have a ’submit’ button?” Haha! Understanding completely what you mean, I think that’s hilarious. (in spite of my gender :P)
“I am not endorsing an ECT-like embracing of Catholics, but perhaps Luther’s desire to reform instead of separate was guided not from an mistaken adherence to his Catholic background but from a desire to not divide what he felt could be simply corrected.”
I would agree with you on his possible reasons, but it seems pretty obvious that it didn’t work. The Catholic church would not be reformed or “fixed”, as it were. Its very foundations were heretical, so to “correct” the unbiblical issues would require a complete restructuring of doctrine, polity and eschatology.
If “correction” is what you suggest for today’s church, I would respectfully say that it is unrealistic to expect any such behavior or cooperation from most types of churches. History has shown that attempts to “fix” the church (Catholic, Anglican) have failed pretty miserably.
“If we ourselves admit that it’s unimportant to the Gospel itself, why do we let our practice play out like it’s more important than the Gospel?”
What would you define as “unimportant to the Gospel”? It seems to me that the Christian life cannot truly be separated into sections such as this. We cast off the old man continually through the process of sanctification, which although not necessary for us to enter heaven, is so, SO necessary for an effective Christian life. How is it any less important than the rest of Scripture? I think that by picking and choosing what we think are the “important issues”, important though they may be, and using them as our basis for fellowship or lack thereof, we are lessening the overall credibility of the Scriptures. That is not to say that some issues cannot be interpreted differently by different people (we’re not robots, after all), but some churches’ “interpreting” things differently than is clearly outlined in the Bible is one reason for a lot of biblical separation.
I could be wrong, but it looks to me like I managed to de-rail the original topic pretty effectively by my first post or two. Or maybe all of them. :-/ Sorry
January 11th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
Abigail:
Yikes. That sounded almost like you agree with me! That is exactly what I’m saying. Unfortunately, you follow it with an [opposite?] comment:
Let me reiterate and possibly clear something up: we are not talking about the Gospel here. I think everyone commenting realizes this, but a new reader might not. That said, what we are talking about is issues like eschatology and baptism that, though important to seek the teaching of Scripture on, are unimportant to (or irrelevant, have no bearing on, do not affect) the Gospel. A person’s belief about whether babies are correctly baptized does not effect his salvation. I would even partially argue that a person does not have to have a grasp on the doctrines of grace to become saved, though this is one of the most hotly debated topics in Christendom. This is what I mean by “unimportant to the Gospel.” I respectfully submit that any reasonable person would have to agree. To say that a pre-trib rapture view, for instance, is on the level with justification by faith or the deity of Christ would mean that you would have to be able to quote passage after passage of Scripture agreeing with that view in a clear, literal way. This is the whole reason a list of the Fundamentals was formed — to ensure that all God-honoring Christians had something they could join together over to fight rampant liberalism. I would have to believe that it is naive at best to think that every “doctrine” is on an equal plane of clarity and doctrinal importance in the Bible.
With that as the basis, then, I go back to our current topic. Let’s assume that division over secondary or tertiary (if we could categorize them that way) doctrines is Scriptural. 1) Where’s the support? As has been clearly outlined above and in Pitch’s “Fighting” post, such fissures in the New Testament occured only over teachings that challenged the Gospel itself. 2) Given no Scriptural support for such division, who decides? This would be the rubber hitting the road. Each church’s ideology would agree: we look to the Scripture to decide our faith and practice, but if that were the case we’d only divide over things the Scripture instructs us to. I would argue — and this is personal observation that I believe is correct — that we divide over personalities (not temperment, but personages, leaders, etc.).
Let me explain. How do you know how to find a “good” church when you move to a new town? I have lots of experience in this growing up, so I’ll tell you. First, you open the yellow pages to the correct denomination(s) (some Baptists are open to Bible churches, some Presbyterians would be open to Reformed churches or sometimes Congregational, hence the ’s’ in denominations). You then look for the ones with certain letters/words on their sign or in the phone book (no SBC if you don’t care for Southern Baptist, “independent, fundamental,” etc.). You take your narrowed down list and maybe call somebody that used to live in that town and get their take or maybe visit the churches’ web sites to try to get a feel for what they believe (if you’re lucky, you get to read a Statement of Faith). Armed with this knowledge on Sunday, you start visiting churches. Depending on how many there are, this might take a few weeks to a few months. If you like the preaching and the music, you look at the bulletin board and magazine stand to see who they affiliate with. You’re looking for a Christian college you recognize, a preacher you’re familiar with, a tract you’ve handed out, maybe a Sunday School materials publisher you’re comfortable with.
Okay, now stop that rosy picture and think of the New Testament church. There was only ever one church in town and Paul made it clear that tying allegiance (affiliation?) to a personality was carnal (I Cor. 3). In fact, he says that instead of following this man or that, “ye are Christ’s (vs 23).” How different is that than what we have now when Christians blindly follow a man or a denomination or an institution simply because their parents did or because some preacher made it sound good. I have friends who chose a seminary based on how they liked the preaching of the president of it (not an assumption, fact). Is this the mind that Christ wants us to have?
Of course, after my too long explanations above, it is the Scripture itself that is most clear on this subject. I would venture to say that I Cor. 3 is more clear on the issue of unity than any passage is on the issue of baptism.
Unfortunately, the practice is harder to implement. A rush to try to create an all-inclusive body could end badly if the leadership is not careful. Since we’ve created this monster over thousands of years, it can’t (and admittedly won’t) change overnight. I think the best course of action is prayer and patient procedure. Communicate with those in your realm of being these thoughts. If you have your own blog, newsletter, etc., write about it. In other words, do what you can and trust that God works in ways beyond our knowledge. If you don’t see results, don’t worry too much. The Christians around you will be encouraged to greater unity even if they’re unwilling to follow you all the way.
I know I’m treating this like a done deal now, and I hope to follow up with a little more thorough study on my own blog. However, I’ve seen enough to know the general direction my practice must now take. God bless you, Pitch, for opening up this can of worms.
January 12th, 2006 at 10:08 am
Nathan,
Thanks for the helpful comments. It would seem that we’re at the same point: recognizing the scriptural mandate for church-wide unity, and yet at somewhat of a loss as to how we might take manageable steps to begin to see this scriptural ideal realized in modern America (and throughout the world). I guess we need to do some more thinking on practical ways of fleshing out the Bible commands, recognizing all the time that the Church is Christ’s, and that He alone can ultimately gift it with a pervasive, loving unity. Perhaps it would be beneficial to start a new thread dealing with the orthopractical ramifications of the orthodoxy we have encountered by God’s grace.
Abigail,
I did not intend to imply that either you or your father were scripturally ungrounded; only that, when you come across other Christians who do not have the depth of grounding in the Bible that God may have granted to you, the scriptural example is not to separate from them, but to love them as fellow-Christians and to work for their ongoing sanctification, recognizing all the time that God may use them as well to help yours. I am not suggesting that we should, in spite of real differences, join together believers of diverse doctrinal persuasions into one body. I am proclaiming with certainty that all who truly trust in Christ alone for salvation are one body by the unstoppable power of Jesus — and that we should learn to live like it and show it. In your last comment, you made the following statement:
“…one cannot be too careful when dealing with issues that, although they seem petty, are still important. You can’t bring them all together as “One body in Christ” if some parts of the body have disease (aka, unbiblical doctrine).”
I would suggest that this sort of assessment both misunderstands the point I was trying to make, and minimizes the necessity/certainty of truths that are eminently scriptural. With regard to the first matter, this statement seems to imply that I myself do not see issues other than the basic gospel as important. nothing could be further from the truth: I am convinced that it is only as the Spirit opens our hearts to see the deep things of scripture more clearly that we will be conformed more to the image of the One whom the Bible reveals. In other words, the very heart of the Christian life is seeking more certainty in every scriptural matter — looking at doctrine more intently in order to see Christ more clearly and love him more passionately. Further, it seems to imply that I am attempting to bring all Christians together (in an impossible attempt) as one body in Christ. That is a task for which I could never consider myself qualified. It would take the miraculous power of God. But God has declared in no uncertain terms (cf. Ephesians 4, for instance) that he has already joined all believers together in one body, and that it is at the heart of truly being Christ’s to manifest that unchangeable reality through the expression of Christian love and fellowship in the gospel which we all believe. (e.g. John 13:34-35).
With regard to the second matter, your statement seems to imply (perhaps you did not so intend it, and if not, please forgive my assumption) that those believers who have unbiblical doctrine are not part of the same body of Christ with those believers who have more doctrinal understanding. Beyond this, it seems to imply that, in the case of doctrinal differences, the basic approach should be breaking apart and fellowshipping in groups that are bound together by doctrinal similarities greater than that of the gospel (which would include an orthodox understanding of the Trinity, the person of Christ, the substitutionary atonement, salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, to the glory of God alone, according to the scriptures alone). I would suggest (and I think with some scriptural backing) that other, lesser doctrines are so important, and other believers in the same gospel are so precious, that to withhold the encouragement, love, and edification that comes from fellowship with Christians who understand more of the Bible would be a tragedy and a shame.
I still think that your conception of the local church may be flavored by Americanism. You seem to operate from the assumption that local churches are groups of similar Christians that have banded together, possibly to the exclusion of other groups of Christians in the same region. I do not think this default paradigm is biblical. It sees a local church as something in which membership can be chosen by humans, on the basis of something other than whether or not the person in question is a true believer in Jesus. I would contend that a local church is comprised of every single believer in a close geographical area, and that the only authority humans in the church have to recognize membership (or the lack thereof) is by a mature, bibilical analysis of whether or not a person is a genuine Christian. If he shows no evidence of being Christ’s, the leadership of the church may consider him a heathen (cf. Matthew 18) — but that is different from saying they may tell him, “You would fit in better with this other church next to us. I trust you are a true Christian, but because you do not believe doctrine X, you are not a member of this church.” I would suggest that the orthodox Presbyterian church and the orthodox Baptist church sitting right next to it are not in reality two different churches, but one local church which is part of the one body of Christ. Therefore, when in practice these two groups behave as different bodies, that is both an improper picture of what the church truly is, and an error of practice being perpetrated by all of these believers(however orthopractic they may be in every other issue).
As far as the practical questions, “What would such a scenario look like,” or, “Do you mean you would have someone speak at your church who did not espouse the doctrines of grace?”, etc., I would again make the clarification that we are dealing in a milieu in which this vision (and essential reality) of the oneness of Christ’s body is not being fleshed out. Therefore, I would answer from the standpoint of two different positions. If I were in the position where I could have considerable influence in whether or not a specific group of believers would be brought under the teaching of, for instance, an Arminian (e.g. if I were an elder/pastor in an Americanly recognized “church”), I would not encourage or facilitate this Arminian believer to exercise his teaching among those specific believers. This is not because I do not see him as a dear brother in Christ, but because I would evaluate him as a doctrinally immature believer (however mature he may be in certain matters), and therefore not qualified for the office of an elder. I would probably use a similar approach in the case of most Dispensationalists. However, I would have no trouble encouraging that group of believers over which God had given me influence to hear the teaching of a sovereign-grace-loving credo-baptist or a sovereign-grace-loving paedo-baptist (a John Piper or an R.C. Sproul). The same thing would hold true for differences of opinion on the Millennial issue. This is because I believe that the scriptures are ambiguous enough that a doctrinally mature believer may, with some reason, come to different convictions on these two specific issues.
From the standpoint of having opportunities for meeting together, talking together, discussing together, celebrating the Lord’s Table together (etc.) with already recognized elders who are Arminian, or so on, I would encourage it, but not on the basis of a “Let’s just not bring up divisive issues” mentality. I would encourage us all to be spending time working together through those very issues, all the while recognizing that, as those who have been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, we have far more to unite us than could ever divide us, and that the whole point of discussing these issues is to encourage one another to grow more into the image of Christ. And furthermore, that it is only by the grace of God that we understand any spiritual truth; that all of us still have room to grow into further spiritual truth; and that we should all be fervently praying for ourselves and others that the Spirit would bless our understanding as we seek his truth together.
I am definitely rambling now (true to the title of the blog) and no doubt testing your gracious patience. Thank you for your efforts in this ongoing discussion. I am confident that God is using this interaction for his glory and our good. Thanks for being willing to be the occasion of my continuing sanctification, as I hope by God’s grace I may be to yours. I do not even know precisely who you are, but I can see that you are a lover of Christ, and therefore I love you dearly in Him.
January 12th, 2006 at 10:25 am
Pitchford,
I’m coming more in line with what you are saying, the more I read and think about this. In fact, your last post is probably closer to what I was trying to say earlier than the way it came out (or what I was trying to say was somewhere in the middle).
Thanks.
January 12th, 2006 at 12:22 pm
“I would contend that a local church is comprised of every single believer in a close geographical area, and that the only authority humans in the church have to recognize membership (or the lack thereof) is by a mature, bibilical analysis of whether or not a person is a genuine Christian.”
Examine Acts 2:41, if you would: “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added [unto them] about three thousand souls…” This verse clearly separates the actions of salvation and baptism and church membership. I would agree that in the New Testament, the church could consist of all the believers in a specific area who could reach the gathering, but a person who is a Christian in the same sense that you and I and Nathan and Matt are could still cause problems within the church, therefore creating further division and confusion. I would contend that by refusing to fellowship closely with others who have erroneous or unbiblical views on some very important subjects (women in the pulpit, for example), we are defending the weaker members of the flock of God. It is up to the person who is wrong to come back into fellowship with the rest of the Body, not the responsibility of the Body to accomodate for it. Now it is the church’s duty to inform the person of what they are doing wrong and give them a chance to repent. In the event that they do not, however, a measure of discipline must often be employed.
“Your statement seems to imply (perhaps you did not so intend it, and if not, please forgive my assumption) that those believers who have unbiblical doctrine are not part of the same body of Christ with those believers who have more doctrinal understanding.”
Indeed, that was not my implication. I merely meant that for the sake of other doctrinally immature believers, those with potentially divisive or hurtful teachings might be gently, biblically corrected (Gal. 6:1), and if they would not respond in a Christlike manner, that they would be kept from or disciplined out of the church. They are still brothers and sisters in Christ, and still going to heaven. However, they are still wrong. To prevent their influence of sin and to renounce the ill-gotten testimony, I should hope that a shepherd would do everything in his power to protect the flock. (Because even smart people do stupid things sometimes, and it might take drastic measures for them to realize their error)
In any case…you might know me better than you think. (or at least I know who you are) I remember you from Camp Grace in Wheatland - I was there about 2 summers past as a junior counselor, as well as during the teen week. I do recall you being noted for your “deep thinking” ~ a title which I can see that you earned.
I think I’m rambling too, so I’ll shut up now.
Now I know I’m responsible for off-topic-ness…but it seems that’s a regular occurence around here, so I’m not going to fret about it.
January 12th, 2006 at 10:53 pm
Thanks brothers and sisters. These comments have been very thoughful and insightful, and I think recognize the ambiguities of operating within a less than ideal context (every context that preceeds the return of the King is less than ideal, right?). I have been helped. In theory I love the concept of one church in every local community — I really do — but at the same time, I’m going to want to be an elder in that church, and I’m not going to want to be on the council with female elders, though I might consider them to be sisters in Jesus. Is that unChrist-like and divisive, or is that just a reality of living in the unconsumated kingdom that must be reckoned with until Jesus comes?
I really think we can do better than we’re doing now, and at the same time not reduce or dilute the scope of meaning of an issue like Baptism. As much as paedo/credo-baptists love in common about the ordinance, there are some at least semi-significant ramifications of going one way or the other. “Who constitutes the people of God?” “What is the nature of the New Covenant?” and “What does this ordinance of the Lord accomplish?” are all questions affected by the question of baptism, but none of them affect our oneness is Christ Jesus. I just don’t want to suggest that the ordinance must lose its significance or take on everyone else’s significance in order for unity to happen. God help us know the best way forward.
CAW, I am honored at the offer to teach on ecclesiology from your pulpit, but I hope you would allow me to camp on such topics as the glorious headship of Jesus over His bride, the nature and extent of Christ’s atoning work for His church, and the church’s lines of origin going back to Genesis 3. You might not be too excited about my level of passion for Baptist polity, etc.
January 13th, 2006 at 3:00 am
Corbett,
I can understand your concern that, if you were serving on a local council of elders, you would not feel comfortable sharing that role with a woman. As you suggest, there will always be discrepancies between essential realities and practical manifestations until the King comes in his glory. However, we should be doing everything possible in the meantime to minimize those discrepancies. Let’s imagine a very believable scenario:
You are a teaching elder (or pastor or whatever title you prefer) at a Baptist church in Small Town, USA. Across the street from you is a conservative Methodist church, that preaches salvation by grace through faith in Christ, but retains several doctrinal errors: rank Arminianism, women in the pulpit, paedo-baptism (a problem in your estimation). Now, what could you do to pursue unity and edification without compromising or downplaying the importance of doctrine? The typical approach has been, “Just leave them alone and let them do their own thing.” Is this the best approach?
What if you called the Methodist minister and said, “We are all brothers and sisters in Christ, and our unity in the gospel is precious and indissoluble. We love you, and are concerned that your belief about doctrines “A”, “B”, “C”, and “D” may not be scripturally grounded. We have a conscientious objection against inviting you to preach from our pulpit, because we believe the scriptures tell us that only men are qualified to discharge th office of the elder. But would you be interested in the following proposal? Let’s gather all of the believers together this Sunday night and celebrate the Lord’s Supper, remembering that because of Christ’s work we are all one body. Then, let us pray together that the Holy Spirit would give us all wisdom in understanding the scriptures; humility in accepting as truth what we learn; and love and unity to work together for the sake of his Name. Finally, let us read a passage of scripture that deals with a certain one of these areas in which we see differently, and prayerfully, carefully discuss its meaning and application together.”
That proposal, bathed in prayer and humility, would not be a compromise or minimizing of doctrine; but it would be a step towards realizing the biblical ideal. It may come to nothing, but God may use it to begin to unite all believers in one heart of love for Christ, and to edify each one doctrinally as they search the scriptures together.
Abigail,
I must confess that I do not share your interpretation of Acts 2:41. “Were added” is a passive verb, which has the disadvantage of giving no clear subject of the action performed. But I think it is more reasonable (especially upon a comparison of other NT passages dealing with incorporation into the church) to see the subject as God, not the apostles or church leaders. In other words, as people were being saved, giving outward expression to that internal reality through baptism, God was incorporating them into the church. It was not a case of the apostles writing down the names of all the baptized believers in an official register, as a sort of third step toward becoming an integral part of the Jerusalem church. At least I cannot see it that way.
Blessings in Jesus.
January 13th, 2006 at 3:30 am
Abigail,
You are confusing two different issues:
Discipline and eventual potential separation from a brother in Christ who insists on persisting in disobedience, and
Separating from someone who has honestly come to a different conclusion about what the Bible says about a matter that does not affect the purity of the gospel.
These are two different things. It also seems to me, as Pitchford mentioned, that Acts 2:41 is in fact saying that by virtue of these people believing and being baptized they became a part of the church. There is no creation of a membership role stated or implied here.
January 13th, 2006 at 4:09 am
fitzage boiled it down nicely. What modern fundamentalism and to some extent evangelicalism want us to do is to separate from equally devout believers. We’re not talking about disobedience here. Even blatant misinterpretation doesn’t constitute outright disobedience. Remember when some Pharisaical Jews in the church in Jerusalem wanted to require circumcision? The modern American response would be split and create a new church that doesn’t require circumcision. That was hardly Peter or James’ response, though (Acts 15). This is the model of such disputes in the New Testament: solve them, don’t run from them. I would then submit that an issue like requiring a Mosaic circumcision of all believing men is even more biblically defined than the ones we’ve been addressing (subjects of baptism, etc). If that wasn’t cause for separation, why do we think more ambiguous things like baptism are?
I agree with Pitchford that an actual, single unified body in each town is probably unlikely short of a miracle, but I like what he’s saying about what we can do. Don’t hide the differences. Bring them to the forefront so all parties know that the Gospel itself is what our fellowship centers around and that growth and change is needed in all of us. The slightest doctrine is important and worth studying. However, there is very little worth separating from other believers — who share equal standing with God — over. As Pitchford said, how do we ever expect other Christians to change their erroneous views if we simply cut them off and refuse open, honest debate? And then as I said, what happens if such open debate between loving brothers proves that I’m wrong?
January 13th, 2006 at 1:20 pm
Corbett…nice work
You said a lot of the things I either intended to say and didn’t get to or which I was trying to say…
Nathan, I stand corrected on that point: as an English grammar freak, I have to say that I believe you are right about the subject of that particular verse and the ones near it as well. Of course I wasn’t suggesting that the Apostles wrote down all 3,000 new members into their little church ledger…
Nate, Pitch, and Matt…one question that’s nagging me…you don’t believe in the Tribulation or the Millennium, do you? Sounds like you’re trying to “usher in the kingdom”. I could be completely, totally wrong here, but if you do/are, then your viewpoints would almost make sense, at least for you.
I happen to be premillennial, pre-trib myself, so what Corbett said concerning “less than ideal context”, I believe, would apply most definitely to that issue. (also see below…)
I am quite certain that there are a few things you are taking for granted that we agree on, and we very well might not…
Depending on what you believe concerning the Tribulation, Rapture, and Millennial reign of Christ, there are a few things that we might have to “agree to disagree” on, considering that those parts of End Times doctrine very closely affect the Christian life of today. While I also would enjoy being able to fellowship with all born-again believers in Christ as one body, regardless of label or church type, I just don’t think it practical (meaning there are a lot of factors out of our control) and frankly I don’t think it’s possible until Christ returns. (Now if you don’t believe in the literal, physical, Millennial reign of Christ here on earth, then there’s a very high probability you’d disagree with me ~ I’m not necessarily taking it for granted)
I would say that I have met Christians from other assemblies (not Baptist), with whom I have spoken and had a chance to chat about spiritual matters. It is an enjoyable experience, for most often that on which we disagree does not come up in a conversation. We are able to rejoice that we have found another Child of God in the “teeming masses” of unsaved people around us.
I would consider that person part of the “Body of Christ”; just because we go to different churches on a given Sunday does not mean that we are not brothers and sisters, nor that we are not part of the same spiritual Church. Although I understand that the animosity you suggest (as between say, Baptists and Presbyterians) does exist in some cases, I would contend that often it does not.
Are we members of different spiritual churches simply because we meet with a separate assembly during the week? I do not see how we are dividing the Church if it is indeed a matter of the heart. However, perhaps the reason we meet at a certain place or with a particular group is because we share common ground on the smaller issues. It does not mean that we hate the others, but we believe that our own view is biblical, and they believe the same of theirs…what then?
Your hypothetical situation seems difficult to wrap my brain around; not that I don’t comprehend your words, but I wonder how many common grounds you truly might share with this other church. Perhaps you preach the same gospel, but you have different views of the End Times, Rapture, and so forth. That affects many of the “prerequisites” to church doctrine. What happens if they refuse to take your own side on an issue when you have proven from the Scripture that you are right? Would you continue to fellowship with them on a close level, even though they decided that you interpreted the Scripture wrongly from their point of view? Or would you keep your own asseyour flock the doctrines you felt were biblical, although in disagreement with the other church?
I think that would pretty much bring us back to where we started, even if there was no anger involved on either side (a thought which seems to me unlikely, knowing how I’ve seen pastors/congregations behave in the flesh).
Thank you for the interesting thoughts on the topic ~ an interesting insight into your viewpoint. Although I don’t share most of it, I still find you all my beloved brothers in Christ. (just like my real siblings, still the only girl :P)
I may or may not be back to post in this topic; the semester seems to have overtaken me by force, along with numerous other responsibilities. Nice chattin’ with you all.
~Abigail
January 13th, 2006 at 7:50 pm
correction for my last post:
“Or would you keep teaching your flock the doctrines you felt were biblical, although in disagreement with the other church?”
(I can’t remember exactly what that sentence was meant to say, but that’s pretty close.)
January 13th, 2006 at 10:13 pm
Just to clarify from my last post, I didn’t at all intend to suggest that because we live in a less-than-ideal context and Christ is coming to make all things new that the Church should throw up its hands, and hunker down under the hatches in its current splintered form until the day of His appearing. If “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” is a kingdom reality, it is a reality to which we are to be working with bloodearnestness. Who knows how much God might be pleased to create visible unity in Christ’s body before our Savior’s return? Thus, concrete situations like the one you outlined, Nathan, are stimulating and helpful for moving from where we are to where we ought to be. I am just trying to be both real and ideal, because Kingdom living calls for both.
With this vision, I’m not so much trying to “usher in the kingdom” as I am recognizing that the kingdom is here, though not in consumated form, and is moving and progressing toward incompassing the whole earth and increasing in comformity to the will and ways of Christ (see parables in Matthew 13 for example). As far as I can discern, I think I am largely in agreement with Nathan on matters of kingdom and eschatology (incuding having serious concerns with the doctrines of the pre-trib rapture and the kingdom of God as strictly futuristic). While I see them as important and informative for life and ministry, I certainly think they are far from issues which ought to separate the bride of Christ.
But now we’re really drifting from the issue at hand.
January 14th, 2006 at 12:17 am
I think the conversation is winding down for now. Let me say, in conclusion, that I have enjoyed this interaction and found it very profitable in my own attempt to work through these issues. We have one Savior: let us labor together for the sake of his name. He has one people: let us love each other earnestly and intentionally. He has one Word: let us seek to be guided solely by the truths found in its pages. And, no matter what eschatological framework we subscribe to, we all agree that, in the end, Christ will be victorious and we will all worship him in unity forever. Let us be hopeful in the face of every obstacle as we work together to see his kingdom advanced throughout all the world.
soli deo gloria.
January 14th, 2006 at 12:46 am
soli deo gloria.
amen.
January 14th, 2006 at 8:55 pm
I’m only on the net once a week during the break, so allow me to get one more comment in before the post is totally closed.
I will place myself on this point: Doctrine matters. Doctrine is important and essential. In fact, nearly all points of doctrine are essential.
Doctrinal issues include:
-Issues of grace/sovereign grace (i.e. points of calvinism)
-Polity issues
-Mode and subject of Baptism
-Partakers of communion
-Definition of the church
-etc.
Non doctrinal issues are also important but not necessarily essential. I am a member of a local Baptist church. Certain ones on this blog would not be able to covenant with the church because, included in the covenant, is a statement including abstaining from selling, or consuming alchoholic beverages. I am separated from that person to an extent, but it does not mean that I could have an enjoyable theological discussion over a few bowls of chili (I’ll choose to drink water, iced tea or milk, even if the other guy chooses a beer). Are we brothers in Christ? If we agree on the essential nature of the gospel, yes.
But I have no patience for someone who refuses to separate from unbelief. Left wing and most evangelicals have separated themselves from me by working with those who deny the gospel by working with Catholics, semi-liberals, etc.
All doctrines are not created equal.
Disclaimer: Yet, there is only one right answer. Either Pitchford is correct on his position on baptism or I am correct. They are mutally exclusive positions. One of us is wrong. Or both of us are wrong. There is an absolute answer. Evangelical non-separatism is full of pluralism.
January 15th, 2006 at 12:28 am
Thanks for the comment: you have again made clear the foundational principles to which all of us have agreed from the beginning. Doctrine matters, and truth by its very nature demands its negation to be non-truth. Because truth is so important, let us be intentional about seeking the doctrinal growth of other believers as well as our own. Let us do this from a framework of shared commonality in the gospel, even though one or the other of us is wrong about baptism (and both of us are wrong in some matters, and hence still need to grow in the knowledge of Christ).
It is a sad statement that you would refuse to covenant with someone as part of a church, not because he has not been purchased with the precious blood of Christ, but because he would drink a beer when you are drinking a milkshake. Christ has made him a part of the church through his own work on the cross. Be careful that you do not, in practice, make any adiaphora — non-essential matters — carry more weight in Christian unity than Christ’s own work and pronouncement.
I appreciate that you would stand together with me in denouncing the errors of papistry as anti-christian. I would only beg you to be careful that you do not make a true christian the enemy in the same way that a proclaimer of a false gospel is the enemy, simply because, although clear on the gospel, he is immature in other doctrinal matters.
With love in Christ,
Nathan
February 11th, 2006 at 9:25 am
So sorry that this is chronologically out of order with what has gone before and also that it is being posted at the wind down of all discussion.
I have spent quite some time reading through Pitchford’s arguments for credo-baptism and the discussion that followed and then on this site on his present stand for paedo baptism and the discussion that followed - having just found the sites today.
I have been spending some time studying the scriptures and the some of the reasons given for coming down on the side of paedo baptism.
The arguments using Covenant Theology to support infant baptism seem to me to be very convoluted. I have engaged with them to try to understand how they are seen to support the case for baptising infants. However, I cannot get past the fact that Jesus’ instruction to the church was to make disciples, baptise them and teach them (in that order?).
None of the scriptures in the NT dealing with the baptism of the household show that infants were present and in fact three of the five show that they definitely were not present. On that matter; the presence of infants and the baptising of infants, the two remaining such passages (Re. Stephanas and Lydia) are silent.
Were the households of Stephanas and Lydia like those of the Phillipian jailer, Cornelius and Crispus, where all the members of those households were believers before they were baptised? Or, should we assume that in these two instances there were infant members in those two households and that they were baptised?
It is the preciseness of Jesus’ instructions in Matthew 28:19, that makes me hesitate over assuming that infants were present.
I ask myself, “Is it likely that the disciples would have baptised Stephanas and Lydia and also anyone else in the household whether or not that person had become a believer, on the basis that they were members of the households alone?
Is it likely, that they would have done this, given that Jesus’ command to them was to baptise disciples (i.e. those who actually believed)?”
I do not think that it is likely that the disciples would add to Jesus’ instructions or interpret that when Jesus said to baptise disciples he also meant that the infants of disciples should be baptised also. I think, in fact that they would have been careful to follow his precise instructions.
There seems to have been two scriptures, which I (in my probable ignorance) see as supporting the credo baptist view which do not seem to have been discussed yet - and apologies if they have been and I have missed them.
I think that the disciples were careful to apply Jesus’ instructions as they were given and, I think so because of what Peter and the Ethiopian official said.
In referring to the family of Cornelius, Peter said, “Can anyone stop them from being baptised with water?” (Acts 10:47). The statement was made after he had seen the evidence of their belief (they had received the Holy Spirit). Peter’s statement infers that the disciples would stop from being baptised those to whom Jesus’ instructions could not apply (i.e. anyone who has not already become a believer and been made a disciple).
This can also be inferred from a question asked by the Ethiopian official (Acts 9:26 – 39). Phillip was explaining to him the Good News about Jesus. It seems that the Ethiopian official now understood about Jesus and believed because when they came to a place where there was some water he said, “Here is some water. What is to keep me from being baptised”?
He had been in Jerusalem to worship God. Is it possible that he used the words “what is to keep me from being baptised” because he had previously been prevented from being baptised because, although he worshipped God he did not understand about Jesus? He was certainly searching the scriptures trying to understand as he travelled home! And, now that he did understand there was nothing to keep him from being baptised. So, Phillip baptised him.
The practice of infant baptism seems to have arisen around 200 AD and it seems to have been instituted for a number of reasons that are not scriptural. I follow this statement with a very brief bullet point historical review of the practice.
• There is no reference to infant baptism in the writings of the church fathers (that is, those who knew the Apostles (Polycarp, Irenaeus, etc.
• The first reference to infant baptism comes from Tertullian (ca 200). He argued against the practice. His objection shows that by the year 200 it was already practiced in some churches.
• There is reference to infant baptism in the writings of Cyprian. Around 251 he recorded that a council of bishops ruled that baptism should not be delayed to the eighth day “lest in doing so we expose the soul of the child to the risk of eternal perdition”.
• Augustine taught that infant baptism went back to apostolic times though he does not cite by name anyone who taught it earlier than Cyprian and he taught that both the sacraments of baptism and communion were necessary for salvation.
• The practice of infant baptism seems to have arisen in North Africa in the latter part of the second century, largely due to the belief that forgiveness of sins came through the sacraments. In keeping with this sacramentalism, communion was given to infants as well.
• When Constantine came to power in 312, Christianity was to be no longer a sect within the empire but was to become synonymous with the Empire. Infant baptism became the link by which the church and the state were united. Since infants could become citizens of the empire without any decision on their part, so too could they become Christians. Infant baptism thus became almost universal practice in a matter of decades.
• Karl Barth admitted that the real motivation behind infant baptism was Constantinianism; that is the unity of the state and the church.
• He commented that men at the time would not renounce this form of church – when the church breaks with infant baptism, People’s church in the sense of a state church is finished.
• Zwingli had serious doubts about infant baptism. He said “nothing grieves me more than at present, I have to baptise children, for I know it ought not to be done”.
• Later he saw that if he were to stand with the Anabaptists he would incur the displeasure of the state and he is also quoted as having said, “If however I were to terminate the practice, then I fear I would lose my prebend (his stipend).
• Luther waffled on the matter. He talked both ways. He wanted to hold to two doctrines that were in conflict, justification by faith and the belief that infants were regenerated by baptism.
• The paedobaptists had a problem. Some children did not grow up to embrace the faith but were reprobates. To face this dilemma, confirmation was instituted.
• Calvin admitted that the scriptures nowhere record the baptism of an infant, but he found an analogical relationship between the Old Testament sign of circumcision and the New Testament sign of baptism.
• Like, Luther, Calvin struggled with the problem of how baptism can be of benefit to an infant who cannot believe.
Compared with those who have discussed the case for credo and paedo baptism in previous posted articles, I think I am probably something of a novice to this sort of thing. I have found them to be thought provoking and graciously offered.
I am not putting forward my notes above as an expert on the subject or to try to argue against the views held by others but just to air what I have found in my own reflections on the matter and because no-one seems to have mentioned the scriptures that seemed to me to indicate the early church’s reluctance to baptise anyone other than those who have shown evidence that they have become believers and therefore meet Jesus’ requirement for baptism now that he has inaugurated the Kingdom and the New Covenant community of believers.
With love for all brothers and sisters in Christ, regardless of whether they are credo or paedo baptists - we are all one in Christ Jesus.
Loraine
February 11th, 2006 at 5:05 pm
Lorainne,
I won’t pretend to have even read your entire post yet, but I wanted to respond to one thing.
I believe the grammar in the “Great Commission” actually is saying to baptize the nations, not necessarily the disciples. This isn’t a support of infant baptism, just that this doesn’t really teach much about baptism in general.
Matt
February 12th, 2006 at 5:53 am
Thanks Matt,
Your comments are much appreciated. For one thing I have never entered into this sort of ‘discussion’ before and now I have proof that it ‘works’.
I will give some thought to your understanding of the ‘Great Commission’.
Loraine
February 19th, 2006 at 1:25 am
Loraine,
If you are wondering what happened to Nathan Pitchford, check out this post, which explains he has just recently been blessed with the birth of his first child, Mishael Calvin Pitchford.
I commented some in the discussions you have labored through. At the onset let me stress I am still credo-baptist at this point. But I have a newfound respect for paedo-baptism. So let me try to give some counter arguments from a paedo-baptistic viewpoint. (Fitzage, Nathan, and Pitchford you guys correct me if I misrepresent your position).
Concerning Matt. 28:19, firstly, this does not at all affect the issue, as far as I can see. Both sides agree that converts to Christianity should be baptized after they are made. Make disciples first then baptize them. This does not say anything as far as their children are concerned, and it does not address subsequent generations of the now reached (ie converted/discipled) nations.
Secondly, you bring up Acts 10:47 and 8:36. Good point. But in each example it is again a first generation conversion in view.
You seem to wonder where the idea of infant baptism could have come from, especially in light of Matt. 28 and these passages in Acts. I recently read the entry on “baptism” in Colin Brown’s Dictionary of New Testament Theology (from vol. 1) which is a classic work on the meaning of the primary Greek words used in the NT. I also read an online article available here, which addressed both sprinkling vs. immersion and paedo vs. credo baptism. Both of these works contained a large defense of paedo baptism. A recurring theme to me was the importance of the OT background to the NT practice of baptism.
The Dictionary article got into specifics about the Jewish rites similar to baptism which accompanied the conversion of non-Jews into their faith. Circumcision was involved but also a one-time ritual cleansing with water (which was in all likelihood not a dipping/immersing but rather a sprinkling/affusing). What applies here is that while the adult Greek would convert to Judaism, all of his household would receive the ritual cleansing (applied to females and males) and his sons would be circumcised too. This was historically most likely a common practice by the time John began baptizing before Jesus’ ministry started. John was called the “baptizer” because he added a new twist. He administered the cleansing ritual/baptism rather than the converts themselves doing it. Of course the REAL controversial aspect of John’s baptism was his baptizing Jews rather than Greeks. His baptism is not a direct counterpart to Christian baptism though. But with this backdrop perhaps we can understand Christian baptism better.
When Christians were encouraged to convert and baptize Gentile nations, would it not be reasonable for them to assume that the entire household would be incorporated in the NT covenant community (and thus be baptized) in much the same way conversions (with accompanying water rituals) were done in Judaism?
The point in Acts 10:47 was less about baptism than it was about conversion. Peter was surprised to see Gentiles given the same grace of repentance/faith and the gift of the Spirit as the Jews were. The appeal about forbidding, was more to do with whether we should identify Gentiles as Christians rather than whether they had believed personally or not–as this is the first recorded non Jewish conversion (Samaritans were half-Jews and the Ethiopian was returning from the temple in Jerusalem and was obviously a Jewish proselyte already {if not a displaced Jew from the dispersion}).
As for household baptisms, the silence does work both ways. For one, we rarely see an individual baptism (the Ethiopian eunuch away from his home on business is the only example I can think of, besides the 12 guys in Ephesus who seemed to be wanderers). Why is that? Why bother about pointing out that the household was baptized? Would not that lead to a possible misunderstanding that the slaves got baptized too, (or did they?). Or why in Acts 16:31 (which is addressed to the jailor alone, as he was in the jail–working) does it say “Believe…and you will be saved AND YOUR HOUSE”?
I wonder if these thoughts help in understanding the paedo-baptist mindset a little better. (A similar post trying to summarize {for the benefits of longtime credo-baptist folks like me} how paedo-baptists come to their positions in a Biblical way, can be found on my blog here.)
As for me, I might be sounding more and more paedobaptist. But I am resolved to study the issue out further. I still want to explore the Jer. 31/Heb. 8 argument more and understand some more of the covenantal defense of credo-baptism (I will also need to read Jewitt’s book).
As far as history goes, we all agree it is secondary in establishing doctrine. Yet Tertullian’s arguments against paedobaptism, I believe, recognize that most believed in it at that time. Similarly Augustine’s belief that most held to paedobaptism all along since the NT time, seems to argue in favor of it. That he and others had inflated the nature of the ordinance does not directly affect whether or not it was administered to children.
Thanks for your honest inquiry and for the hours you took to read all the arguments. May God give wisdom in your (and my) concerns for doctrinal precision. I do hope this discussion helps you have a greater respect for paedo-baptist brothers as far as their concerns to be Biblical goes.
In Christ,
Bob Hayton
Rom. 15:5-7
February 19th, 2006 at 1:03 pm
Loraine,
Please excuse my delay in replying — we’ve been in the hospital this last week with our new baby, Mishael Calvin. Praise be to God!
Let me respond briefly to a few of your points:
- I have recently interacted with a similar interpretation of Matthew 28:18-19, demanding that, since the imperative “make disciples” precedes the reference to baptism, therefore either (1) the baptizing must chronologically follow the making of a disciple, or else (2) the batizing is itself what makes a disciple. Let me reproduce for you my response, as I think it is also applicable in this case:
In other words, to conclude that present participles which follow a single imperative demand a chronologically distinct series of events — that is, that the actions of the participles have to be carried out subsequent to and in a mutually distinct sphere of operation from the action of the imperative is simply not tenable. Matthew 28 tells us much about the relative importance and essential function of baptism. However, it does not specifically dictate for us the precise boundaries for qualified subjects. That is a question which demands the unified testimony of the bible as a whole.
- I have actually addressed the importance of Acts 10:47, with regard to the question at hand, in the article preceding these comments. Building upon my exegesis of Luke 18, I conclude that the significance of Acts 10:47 should actually serve to confirm the legitimacy of the baptism of infants of believers. Again, let me quote a portion of the relevant discussion:
- With regard to Acts 9:26-39, all that I am convinced of is the necessity demonstrated that an adult convert must profess faith in Jesus before baptism may be legitimately performed. This is a point upon which both sides agreed from the beginning, and leaves untouched the altogether different affair of the infants of believers.
- With regard to the several observations on the NT record of household baptisms, I would agree that these cases do not at all prove the paedo-baptist contention. Whether or not there were any infants involved (a supposition which must be confessed is entirely plausible, if not certainly demonstrable) is actually only of secondary importance. The key point to make is that the occurences themselves, and in some cases the precise wording of the accounts, underscore the continuity of God’s historic pleasure to work redemptively within context of the solidarity of the family unit with the present administration of the covenant. When the covenant took its historically defining expression in the days of Abraham, God was clear to emphasize the necessity of formal familial inclusion (albeit his deeper purposes of sovereign election were operative underneath the commanded formal inclusion, granting and withholding essential inclusion in accordance with God’s good pleasure); we are today the heirs of that same covenant which at its beginning emphasized familial solidarity (cf. Galatians 3, et al); therefore, the fact that the New Testament record seems to operate in a milieu which generally assumes inclusion into the covenant by households, at least in several notable instances, our contention that this basic facet of God’s eternal covenant, not having been revoked, is still in force, derives some additional support.
- Regarding your historical summation, I would observe, first, that historical records simply do not tell us anything definitive about the baptismal practices of the early first-century church; and second, the fact that the earliest confirmed historical testimonies to the proper subjects of baptism (pro and con) take for granted the church-wide acceptance of baptism without calling into question its ancient roots at least necessitates the plausibility, and may even suggest the probability of commonly-accepted early first century paedo-baptist practice.
- For curiosity’s sake, as I thought I detected some common threads of thought between your historical section and that of a book I just finished reading — have you read Paul King Jewett’s book on baptism and Covenant Theology? I was actually somewhat disappointed with it — Wayne Grudem’s brief apology for credo-baptism in his Systematic Theology was, I thought, much more compellingly argued (and displayed more understanding of the true underlying issues which influence one’s ultimate understanding). Just wondering. If I could recommend one book from “my side” (supporting paedo-baptism), it would have to be John Murray’s Christian Baptism (which I was just given by a credo-baptist friend, interestingly enough). But now I’m digressing.
Thanks for the further, sharpening dialogue. God bless you as you continue to pursue the truths of his holy Word.
February 20th, 2006 at 9:21 am
Bob and Nathan,
Thank you both for taking the time to respond to my thoughts and comments. Congratulations Nathan on the birth of your son Mishael – a precious gift from God indeed!
In response to your questions Nathan, I have not in fact read Jewett’s book. The brief historical summation in my notes came from a chapter on baptism in a book called “The Doctrines that Divide” by Erwin Lutzer. Thank you for recommending John Murray’s “Christian Baptism”. I have in fact just been given a book to read, (described by Lutzer as perhaps the best defence of infant baptism that has ever been written), called “Children of Promise” by Geoffrey Bromiley. So this is the task before me now.
Also, I have printed off your replies in order to take some time to consider what you have both said. I must also thank you Bob making available your summary of how paedo-baptists come to their positions in a Biblical way. I have printed this too in order to take time to consider it.
I was baptised as a baby but both my parents (and all my family for that matter) were not believers. I also had my three children baptised but at the time, although I went to church, I was not a believer (nor was my husband and he still is not). When I became a believer, I started to study the scriptures and felt a growing sense of unease over the practice of infant baptism, but ‘shelved’ this unease.
Since last October however, I have been engaged in a “period of enquiry” with the Church of Scotland. This is a period of self-appraisal to reflect on a sense of calling to the ministry of Word and Sacrament. It is for this reason that I have felt the need to study and reflect upon the practice of infant baptism. However I did not know then how time consuming and all absorbing it can become.
Coming across your web sites has been a God-send for me. Through them I have obtained a sense of perspective and a great deal of respect for everyone engaged in this debate, whatever side of the debate they are on. We are all seeking to be Biblically based and that is God-honouring whatever our conclusions are.
You will see from the above that it is my intention to read more on the matter and to take time to consider in detail the content of your replies to me. Perhaps when I have reached ‘the end of the road’ for me on this subject, I will give you my own thoughts and conclusions – but a lot of work remains to be done by me before I can do this.
With love and thanks
Yours in Christ
Loraine
(Loved your reference to Romans 15:5-7 at the end of your reply Bob!)
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:35 pm
Loraine,
We rejoice to hear of your conversion, and we will remember your husband in our prayers, that God would also open his heart to embrace Christ alone for righteousness and salvation. Whatever conclusion you finally come to on this topic, we are thrilled to be fellow-members of the body of Christ with you, serving him together as his grace enables us.
Many blessings in Jesus,
Nathan and Nicole
April 5th, 2006 at 4:20 pm
Just want to test the blog before I type…
April 5th, 2006 at 4:37 pm
Awesome it works…! Firstly would like to say THANK YOU for this site. I was doing a search for baptism questions and came across this site. Here is my story.
Raised in a Full Gospel then Alliance background..
never studied the word for myself but was raised by a very well studied (bible college) father who is a Arminian based dispensationalist. (okay, I studied enough to know what HE believes… I am now studying to see what I believe. It is quite the task. Why this issue of baptism for me ??? I have been attending a Lutheran church with my wife and two children(long story on how and why we ended up going there) but I was ignorant to the doctrinal differences and now am studying them. they would like to baptise our children. Please help an ‘ignorant” ( I am using this in the truest sense of the word..not beating myself up)person with the two following questions…And yes I have read this entire “Blog” and find it quite informative and interesting. Question 1: Could you give me your views on the difference between “covenant padeo Baptism” and a Lutherans approach to Padeo Baptism?? (I’m new to Lutheran Doctrine)
Question #2. re Credo vs Padeo debate on this blurb.I was wondering how this would play out… a Credo decides to endorse the concept of Padeo baptism but then asks himself why the “expedience” of the baptism?
If baptism does not save…and we are predestined why the neccesity of baptizing the infant/ In other words…sure there is nothing wrong with it but why??
what comes from it? If the child is not baptized it does not affect the salvation right?
I hope the intent of this question is taken… I am not a well studied person as the persons on this blog but just a unstudied Christian (embarrasingly so) with a couple of questions. (Sorry for the spelling
April 5th, 2006 at 7:39 pm
Brent,
I’m glad you found the site — always feel free to engage in dialogue, ask questions, oppose assertions made by myself or anyone else, if they lack the backing of scripture or good and necessary reasoning from scripture. It’s how we all grow into the same doctrinal maturity for which we should be striving.
Regarding question #1:
I’m not entirely familiar with Lutheran theology, but I have recently had some interactions with Lutherans on this and related topics. The major difference that I detected was, at least the Lutherans I was talking with seemed to have more confidence that the outward sign of baptism always accompanies the essential realities signified — union with Christ, cleansing from sin, etc. Baptism is not merely said to convey those realities to those who believe in Christ, but the act of baptism produces that very belief in Christ. Subsequently, the preaching of the Word and partaking of communion sustain and nourish that faith. So it seems as if, although the act of baptism does not properly save, yet there is no such thing as a properly baptized person who is not saved, because baptism is the means through which God always works faith in its subject. I doubt Luther would have gone that far, but as I said, those particular Lutherans I was corresponding with did.
Paedo-baptism in the Covenant tradition confesses that baptism signifies the same things as the Lutherans confess; and they confess that baptism is the solemn rite of initiation into the covenant community (or the church), replacing the old sign of circumcision. But the danger is very real that one so baptized and formally incorporated into the church may grow up and give evidence that he was never one of God’s true children. However, we do assume that the baptized infants of genuine believers in Christ are themselves Christians who will grow up trusting in Jesus for righteousness.
Question # 2:
I think the basic reason for the practice is that God, who alones knows the full number of those who are actually a part of the covenant of grace (i.e. the church), has also commanded the sign of formal covenant inclusion to be given under the guidance of certain rules which, neverthless do not infallibly mark out true believers. God obviously commands baptism to be given to those who, as adult converts, give a profession of faith (even though some of these may prove to be un-genuine later); and at least in the days of Abraham, God commanded that this sign also be given to the children of believers (even though some of these may prove to be un-genuine later as well). I think the same principle is operative today (although I leave off here, because I have already discussed the reasons in the post). So, first and fundamentally, the reason is that God commands that we give the sign of covenant-inclusion to those who meet certain criteria; but he does not command that we infallibly determine who are actually included in the covenant. Beyond those reasons, some practical considerations are as follows; paedo-baptism emphasizes the fact that anyone who would be accepted by God must be brought by his grace into covenant relationship with himself; it emphasizes the fact that we are sinners from infancy, and in need of God’s grace; it emphasizes the fact that, even though infants are sinners, infants are included in God’s church, as objects of his grace. It emphasizes the familial solidarity which God is so often pleased to employ in his covenant-dealings with mankind. It emphasizes the responsibility we have as parents to raise up our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, teaching them the need to be clinging to Christ for righteousness all throughout their lives, even from earliest childhood.
These are just a few rough thoughts, but maybe they’ll spark your thinking on some point or another. Many blessings in Christ as you seek to find confidence from the Word and the Spirit on this point of doctrine.
April 6th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Thank you for your response. The timing is impeccable that I am discussing these issues as I went to my LAST bible study last night with the Lutheran denomination. I left in peace but will not return. As mentioned I was new to the denmination hence the bible study they wanted me to attend. the issue of Holy Communion was being studied and though I believe more along the lines of Lutheran “real presence” I do not take it as far as they do. I bellieve there is a “mystery” about the breaking of bread ;this is why in Cornith. it states we would be sinning against the body and blood of Christ in taken in an unworthy fashion. But after saying this; Lutherans will tell anyone ( a believer) that if they do not believe the doctrine of “in, under and beside” they should not partake of communion. Well this particular church has been attracting several “evangelicals” and ‘reformed”
members due to a good pastor and a great( I use the word loosely (Charasmatic) service.)
In the bible study they were telling a reformed member that he should not go forward to take communion as he does not believe as they do. I really am apposed to this as he is a brother in the Lord.
Lutherans also believe even if there is no faith (unbeliever) Christ is present in the communion elements. I do not believe this. the irony of this whole issue is that it was padeo baptism I was sruggling with but have decided to not go to the church based on Communion views. I take more of a Ravi Zacharisis view on the communion which is to simply say “there is a mystery” wtih respect to this “ordinance” or “sacrament’ depending on what camp you are in.
My family is now church-less and we will start back at the drawing board. I am currently doing my own study on Calvanism(just ordered a DVD) and on Covenant Theology(book by Dr.Horton on Grace) This is all really heavy and difficult for me but I have really struggled with the Arminian (& Dispensational)doctrines I was raised on. Any words of advice,or comments would be appreciated.
P.S. In your response you never told me why it would be neccessary to baptize an infant from an expedience point of view. In other words, I myself came to a place where I was going to baptize due to some of the same discussions that were raised in this blog. But the one thing I kept struggling with was…”why the hurry”… I’m not sure if you know what I mean but even in you accept that it is okay to baptize what is the benefit… if we do not believe in Regeneration (which I do not) and there is not inherent “powers” in the water.. and my sons are part of the covenant regardless of whether they are baptised or not…why?
This question is not directed at you but more I am looking for my own answers…
April 6th, 2006 at 11:40 pm
Brent,
Is the Calvinism DVD titled “Amazing Grace” featuring Sproul and others? If so, I highly recommend it. Interestingly, it will be the featured entertainment in my house this weekend when my [subtly] Arminian parents visit for a few days.
=)
April 11th, 2006 at 12:33 pm
Nathan,
Just have a moment to comment, but desire to comment more fully soon. Just wanted to say that I thank you for your commitment to searching Scripture alone for answers. As one who embraces infant baptism, I just wanted to throw out some additional food for thought. I find it, at least at this point, impossible to get around the fact that Abraham’s circumcision (the first one performed in the OT) was a sign of his inward faith that was credited to him as righteousness while he was yet uncircumcised. This seems to be in strong agreement with what NT baptism presents - baptism as an outward sign and seal of inward faith that was there before the baptism (sign) is administered to the one who has the faith. So if peado and credo can agree that Abraham first had faith that led to circumcision, just as in the NT the faith already possesed by the believer leads to baptism, and peado and credo can agree that Abraham’s children received that same sign and seal that was brought about by Abraham’s faith, and in fact was commanded by God to be given to his children, do credo have so much trouble seeing a parallel or continuity between OT and NT signs and seals of faith there commanded to be administered to children in th OT?
Let me say also that I pray that I do not sound irreverent or dogmatic. It’s hard, I know, to tell tone of voice in email. Regardless of our different beliefs on baptism, I do love all of my credo brothers in Christ and look forward to eternal fellowhsip in heaven with all brothers and sisters in Christ, whether credo or peado.
Hopefully I will have more time in the future to comment more.
April 11th, 2006 at 2:15 pm
P.S. Please give me grace over my backward typing and mispelling of paedo in my previous post.
Thanks!
Troy
April 11th, 2006 at 7:24 pm
Troy,
Thanks for the comments. They do not sound “dogmatic”, just helpful. I think you’re right that the strongest case can be made from the circumstances surrounding Abraham, particularly when conflated with passages such as Romans 4 and Colossians 2.
April 12th, 2006 at 7:44 am
Nathan,
Just to give a little background, myself and several men at my church have recently embarked upon a study of infant baptism. That’s how I came across your post, and I must say that this discussion board has inspired me even more to dig deeply into the Scriptures on this subject.
I had an interesting thought after reading the posts here:
I think we all agree that circumcision nor baptism bring slavation to the recipient. Along that line, in the OT when an unbelieving child was circumcised before saving faith, what happened when a child of Isreal did come to faith? Of course they couldn’t be “re-circumcised”? So did their true faith validate the sign that they had already received? In other words, does the sign validate one’s faith, or does one’s faith validate the sign?
Along those same lines, here’s a thought about baptism. If an adult professes faith in Christ and is baptised, but later life confesses that they truly didn’t believe when they were baptised, but were just going through the motions for whatever reason, should that person be “re-baptised” when they have a true testimony of faith in Christ affirmed to them in their heart by the Holy Spirit and true faith in Christ for salvation.
Again, does the sign validate the faith, or does faith validate the sign?
Thanks again Nathan for this discussion board. It’s a wonderful venue for dialoguing on this subject.
Troy
April 12th, 2006 at 11:16 am
Troy,
The official position of the PCA is that one baptism is sufficient, whether it happens before or after faith. This is in keeping with it’s basis in circumcision, and I see nothing in the New Testament to change that.
Matt
April 12th, 2006 at 11:55 am
Hi Matt,
Thanks! That’s precisely the point I was trying to make. I’m also PCA. I’m also interested to hear from our credo brothers what the common baptist position is on someone who was (not known by the church at the time) baptised while yet still an unbeliever, but later in life that person affirms that at the time of their baptism they really were not believers although they made a verbal profession of faith, whether it was due to “peer pressure” or to “fit in” or whatever the case may have been. Would those who hold to credo baptism require such a person to be “re-baptised”?
Thanks again!
Troy
April 12th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
I can answer that too, although I can’t defend the answer because I don’t agree with it anymore. I was baptized three times growing up as an independent fundamental baptist. Every time you made a “profession of faith” you had to be re-baptized because they believe that baptism must follow salvation.
I also think that I was probably truly saved earlier, but due to the emphasis placed on the decision made I was confused about the subject. That’s a whole other topic, though.
April 13th, 2006 at 8:47 am
Thanks Matt for sharing that info, and also for the dialogue with me. Considering what you have shared about the church you grew up in, this raises some more questions for me as I continue to study infant baptism (and as I said, I am biased to a degree as I am pro paedo at this point) but still feel the need to study this issue so that I will be confident, from Scripture, in the position that I take.
All that said, the interesting thing to me is that credo baptists “re-baptize” a member for each subsequent profession of faith beyond the intitial profession, it would appear at least at the outset that they are doing something at least similar to what paedos do. Let me explain. If a person is baptized in the baptist church, they are considered a member of the church. And if I am not mistaken baptism brings them in as a member, I think (correct me if I am wrong). If in the future that person admits they were not truly saved when they were baptized but now truly are saved, was that person not accepted as a member of the church all of the previous years that the person themselves admit were not years of true belief for him or her? So in other words, the baptist church in a very real sense baptizes people who are not “true believers” all the time. And the Scriptures even say that the wheat will grow up with the tares. How can we say that the tares that are currently in the baptist church who have been baptized are not being treated as members of the church?
I realize that this is only a partial argument because the most obvious answer would be that we don’t know who the wheat and tares are and that members in the baptist church are baptized upon a profession of faith and that’s what the church has to go on. The only thing that can show that someone is a non-believer is there contradictory profession at a later time or abandonment of the church. But, that’s a very important point, that is the exact thing we are saying about our children - we are saying that the thing that would exclude them from the church is an outward rebellion or rejection of the gospel.
I know we could talk so much more on the two points I have briefly talked about above, and in fact many great theologians have talked about them for centuries on both sides of the debate.
One last thought and I will stop taking up space on the site. In my research so far I have found it very interesting that in a majority of arguments that I have read that most credo supporters simply say that circumcission was nothing more than a sign that you were a member of the physical nation of Isreal. Now I’m not saying that there have not been people in the credo camp who have shown why they feel like this is true according to scripture, because there very well could be many who have, I’m just saying that in the arguments I have read no one who claims this backs it up with Scripture. It just seems to be presented as a given, or yes, here’s that word, a presupposition. I believe at this point that Scripture makes it clear that it wasn’t something that associated you with a earthly nation at it’s main function, but rather I think the Scriptures make it very clear that the very first circumcission ever performed (Abraham) was a result of his faith that was credited to him by God as righteousness while he was still uncircumcised. It was decreed by God as a sign of Abraham’s faith. I don’t see how anyone can refute that with Scripture. And, even more, the very sign that God decreed as a symbol of Abraham’s faith, he also commanded Abraham to administer that sign to his children.
Anyway, I am so sorry that I hav typed so much. Probably the best thing for me to do would just be to continue my study then write a paper and post it on the web somewhere so people can read it and cratique it. But I do welcome a cratique by all who felt led to do so. I see this as a vital part of my study, not being close minded to other views and interpritations. But as for now, I remain paedo.
Sorr again for the long windedness!
Troy
April 13th, 2006 at 10:54 am
Troy,
I don’t think Pitchford minds long comments. Just look at some of the threads on Dispensationalism.
In regards to your comments about circumcision and the Abrahamic Covenant, I think you are spot on. My grandfather (a dispensationalist) sent me some CD’s he came across that are an attempted refutation of paedobaptism from a supposed covenental perspective.
I’ve only listened to the first CD so far, and I don’t even remember exactly what the guy said (it’s been a few months), but I remember being struck at the time with the though that his entire argument (which he views as unique, and indeed he did seem to say some things I hadn’t heard before) was based on a misinterpretation of the Abrahamic Covenant.
April 14th, 2006 at 9:26 am
I have to agree. When I was embroiled in discussion, shortly after my shift to paedo-baptism, a book was recommended to me by Jewett, who was attempting to defend credo-baptism within a covenantal framework. He had exactly the same error (as is quickly perceived even by a reading of what, at the instituion of the sign, circumcision was said to signify — Genesis 17); that is, he thought that circumcision merely united one to physical Israel with its physical blessings — and in fact that that was also the meaning of inclusion in the Abrahamic Covenant. I think an honest assessment of OT witness to the significance of circumcision and the meaning of covenant-inclusion would do a lot to clear up the credo-baptist-yet-covenant-theologian arguments.
April 14th, 2006 at 10:08 am
That is, a book by Jewett was recommended to me. Some misplaced modifiers can entirely change the meaning of the sentence, as this serves to illustrate. Jewett himself did not recommend anything to me at all, rather Ryan Martin, having been impressed by Jewett.
Sorry for the syntactical inanities.
May 8th, 2006 at 10:23 am
Greetings… I am back..to answer a question from a way back in this blog…YES the amazing grace DVD is the one with R.C. Sproul etc… and it has been a life changing experience for my wife and I.
I always called myself a ‘Calvinist” but realized it was a ‘weak head knowledge” at best…and years of being raised in Pentecostal churches and then Alliance gave me a heart & head full of free choice and this DVD has brought an unbelievable amount of peace to my heart. I am going to have my entire family watch it was they were all raised under the same dogma I was…
Anyway… Can I ask of your help? Could someone explain to me the difference between the Lutheran view of infant baptism and the “reformed’ view.. ie Presbyterian??? I am not well studied on this and get very confused with respect to the convenant view which I grasp;but I am still confused about regeneration issues…
May 27th, 2006 at 6:17 pm
Hi ! I skimmed through about a third of all this. I dont have time to get through it currently. I do want to mention that if you all get a chance, do take a look at New Covenant Thelogy, which is distinctive from both Dispensationalism, and Covenant Theology. NCT puts forth an argument for CB, that might be of interest, and that you folks may not have come across.
God Bless,
R.Rao
September 8th, 2006 at 11:23 am
It took me HOURS to read this from top to bottom! I have never come across such a gracious demonstration of Christian disagreement. You all remind me of Paul trying to persuade Philemon - so gracious!
I am a recent convert from Assembly of God/Pentecostal to reformed theology. Every step has been painful and rewarding. To truly change one’s own mind might be the hardest thing to do in the world. I can totally relate to Pitch’s struggle to honestly represent the scriptures and yet see his past where he feels he might not have done so. The strange thing about righteousness and personal holiness is that the closer you get, the further away you feel. funny, huh?
I am joining our local reformed church in two days, and my wife is needing to be “dunked”, when she was already ’sprinkled’ as a young child. This one issue has taken over a year to resolve. We feel that our church leadership is intensely committed to contantly reforming and throwing off tradition if that tradition is shown to conflict with the Word. I currently am no convinced that they are right in this one area - they require believer’s baptism by immersion as a prerequisite to join. I am, however, willing to submit to their leadership on the subject. What else can we do, really, besides step forward in good faith, interpreting the scriptures the BEST we can?
God has led my wife and I to a church that has brought our spirits to life - with teaching and sola scriptura. Although I am not currently convinced that it is “necessary”, it is required by the pastor and elders that God has placed us under. And since the best arguments on both sides of this issue have their pluses and minuses, my wife and I agree to submit to the authority of this church and have her “re-baptized”.
Is this wrong? God understand our spirits and intentions before we even consider our actions. I truly believe that unity outweighs this particular issue. Not every issue, certainly not the deity of Christ, but I wanted to throw out my thoughts for your benefit as well as mine. I seek guidance and dialogue, never confrontation. I spent too much of my life CONVINCED I was right about very very wrong things to ever put my faith in a denomination. Rather, I trust God, who has led me to this church, who requires credo-baptism.
Questions, comments? please email me or post here. I feel like I know you all from the amount of time I spent with your heart-felt comments
In him,
Matt Garwood
Covington, GA
September 8th, 2006 at 12:11 pm
Matt,
I marvel at your patience in reading through this rather lengthy dialogue! I’m grateful that God has allowed our long discussion to be beneficial in another Christian brother’s life — all praise to him!
It’s so encouraging to hear of God’s work in your life, continually opening your eyes to see the truth of scriptures revealed more clearly. God is so gracious and patient with all of us poor, slow-of-heart and dull-of-mind humans! I also appreciate your heart for the love and unity of the Church to grow and be displayed to the world. I agree that this should not be an issue which ought to cause division among brothers in Christ.
As far as your situation goes, I can only tell you what I would do in the same place; but I certainly cannot tell you what you should do. For that, you will have to seek God’s will through much prayer and study of the scriptures, as I can see that you have been doing. In the end, he will not let you go astray from his will.
At the point I am at right now, having been fully persuaded in my own mind of the legitimacy of a baptism which was performed in infancy, I do not see that I could submit to a re-baptism, in good conscience. So I would not have my wife baptized again: but I would do everything I could to continue to be involved in the body of believers in which God had put me, and to respect the spirtual authorities that God had placed me under, only excepting those matters which my conscience would not allow. This means that, if I were in your place, I would meet with the elders of the church and explain that I could not submit to another baptism (with the reasons for that decision), but also seek the ability to be involved as much as possible in the church, given that difference. Hopefully this would be a workable reality (since I don’t see an “official” registered membership as a necessary prerequisite to be really and substantially a part of the church).
Anyway, that would be my response. But I am not trying to prescribe any response as that to which anyone else is bound to follow. I will just pray that God would give you discernment in the question at hand — and however you resolve the difficulty, I will trust that you are following God as the Spirit is enabling you. And I will certainly not in any way limit the fellowship that we have if you choose a different course than that which I myself would follow.
May God grant you discernment in your spirit.
Pitchford
September 15th, 2006 at 10:57 am
Just an update - My wife and I joined Rockdale Community Church in Covington, GA last Sunday, and what a day it was! As a confirmation of sorts that I was making an acceptable compromise, the Holy Spirit led my testimony and my wife’s to touch SO many people! The past I have walked through puts me in the place where God can really use me and my struggles as an example of his patience, grace, and mercy.
So she was baptised by immersion, though neither of us felt particularly convicted to do so. I feel as if this was a case of “deferring to the weaker brother”, as mentioned in the New Testament. Brothers with hang-ups on eating meat offered to idols ought to be allowed to entertain this restriction and we, as stronger brothers, should not cause them to sin against their own conscience. Thank you to everyone who chimed in on this great debate, and Pitch in particular for your kind words. Already, good has come of our submission in this area: many were strengthened in our public testimony - a testimony I could only give if joining this church. God works all things, indeed
In Him,
Matt
September 15th, 2006 at 11:22 am
Thanks for the update. May God grant you a rich and Christ-centered ministry among our brothers at Rockdale Community Church.
January 7th, 2007 at 4:21 am
All,
Here’s my story:
1) My father comes from a Baptist background in Chile.
2) He was discipled in a Presbyterian Reformed church in Australia.
3) He eventually became a paedo-baptist, when I was about 7. He then baptised me and my younger siblings all at once. So I remember my infant baptism!
4) Many years later I am a member of an Alliance congregation. (Brent, this one is neither Arminian nor Dispensational. It is credo-baptist though.)
5) My wife and I are expecting our first child in April.
6) We are planning to move to another town soon, and the church we would attend there happens to be paedo-baptist.
So what do we do? Dedicate now, or baptise later!
We’re busily studying, not only so that we know what to do in April, but as an important preparation for how we go about raising this child.
My wife found the links to Pitchford’s articles on baptism and the associated responses. She left them on screen for me, knowing I’d be interested, and I certainly was! I have just spent a blessed 2 hours trying to drink water from a fire hydrant! What a delight to see Christians studying Christ’s word diligently, in such a gracious manner!
Nicole,
Your response was beautiful (22). I hope to move on to the other articles on this site as well - especially the one on Treasuring the Trinity. It’s a theme our congregation has been appreciating lately.
Brent,
I’m referring to a question you asked in your original response (76), which you reiterated in response 78.
You had come to a place where you were going to baptize your children “due to some of the same discussions that were raised in this blog. But the one thing [you] kept struggling with was… ‘why the hurry?’”
I think Nathan answered your question in his section “Question 2″, perhaps a little indirectly (77). I think his answer is: God commands us to apply the sign of the covenant to those who belong to it.
Abraham acted immediately because God spoke to him clearly. When the commandment is clear, then there’s a real hurry ( See )
How the command applies to us now is less clear. So I would say, take your time considering what it is that God commands in
our context. Once you’ve arrived at your conviction, act on it. I really appreciated my father’s patience on this issue. He
waited till he owned the doctrine himself, and then he obeyed it immediately. It’s now time for me to do the same.
Looking back I can see the blessing of being a covenant child. My parents taught me to appreciate my privilege and understand
my responsibility. I was treated in many ways as being part of the visible church, yet I was never assumed to be part of the
invisible church. This was made very clear to me. There was the faithfully delivered call, repent and believe.
I suppose one point about signs is that they are teaching aids for children. God gave us signs to teach us. They’re something
concrete for us to wrestle with, and they are designed so that as we wrestle with them, we arrive at some meaning, some
application for our lives. (I’m picturing God’s scenario of Jewish children asking their parents what the various signs
meant; and I’m also mindful of the journey you bloggers have been on, starting with baptism, and ending up discussing much about covenants etc.). [this paragraph is a bit 'random', sorry]
One question though, that my wife and I suddenly came up with today.
1) What does infant baptism correlate to in the Old Testament? Circumcision
2) What about the Lord’s Supper? The Passover?
3) Were children involved in the Passover? (Yes, see )
So our questions are:
A) Are we right about the Passover being the Old Testament background to the Lord’s Supper?
B) If it is appropriate for us believers to baptise our children, is it appropriate for us to give them the Lord’s Supper?
If anyone has some links to discussions or studies that address that issue, feel free to pass them on. I’m not intending to start a discussion on the topic here.
Ah, what a joy it is to know the Lord! What a joy it is to be part of his people, and to have this incredible book preserved
for us, and through it to be able to see this man, this God, this Lord Jesus Christ who reconciles all things to himself!
Derek Santibanez
Sydney, Australia
PS Reposting this. Hopefully someone can delete my previous one. I’m having problems with newlines and links.
January 7th, 2007 at 4:26 am
How embarrassing. Links & newlines still broken. Links were to:
Exodus 4:24-26
Exodus 12:21-28
January 7th, 2007 at 10:28 am
I’m not 100% clear on this subject myself, but I don’t think that the Lord’s Supper is necessarily a continuation or New Testament representation of the Passover.
Also, unlike baptism, the Lord’s Supper has a clear liturgy laid out for us—one that requires those who receive it to examine themselves and partake.
January 7th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
I tend to think there are at least some strong threads of continuity between passover and the Lord’s Supper — When Christ instituted the latter, he was clearly doing so within the context of passover, using the same passover signs, and just re-vamping them to make them a little more explicit. But really, the Passover, from the beginning, signified precisely the same realities — it just looked ahead, while the Lord’s Supper looks back. Passover is part and parcel of the Covenant of Promise (instituted within the context of the Abrahamic Covenant) whereas the Lord’s Supper is part and parcel of the Covenant of Fulfillment; but besides that obvious difference between promise and fulfillment, I think they intend the same essential reality.
I would agree with Fitzy that the First Corinthians 11 passage, which admonishes us to examine ourselves and then partake, introduces a different dynamic than we have with baptism — but is that really all that different from Passover? For one thing, the children must have been at least old enough to eat strong meat, before they could participate in the fullest sense; and didn’t the youngest child involved ask questions as to the meaning of the feast? Which seems to me to be similar to the whole idea of self-examination.
Anyway, those are some off-the-cuff thoughts: I haven’t given this one quite as much deliberation as the baptism issue.
By the way, thanks for the comment, Derek — it’s encouraging to hear testimonies from other believers who are in the same journey. I deleted your original post, so there should just be the re-post in the comments thread now.
Blessings from the Cross,
Nathan
February 4th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Derek,
It’s Young Bok Kim. How wonderful it is that I can catch you here. Please email me since I do not have your email address. I would love to hear you brother. My email address is yands1104@hanmail.net.
February 20th, 2007 at 10:28 am
Greetings All!
I am a former Methodist pastor who went from Wesleyan/Arminian to Calvinist/Reformed/Presbyterian. I read through these posts with great interest. As a UMC pastor, I baptized infants, but the Methodist position is somewhat different than the Reformed view.
Arminian paedobaptism is inconsistent. In Arminianism, one must actively choose to believe in Christ. He is given “prevenient grace” which enables him to make this decision. Prevenient grace is given to all human beings, not just to baptized infants. At best, infant baptism seems to increase one’s chance of choosing Christ. Once he chooses faith in Christ, he then is regenerated. In Arminian theology, an infant cannot be passively regenerated. He must choose for himself at some later date.
It appears that credobaptism has the same inconsistency but from the other end. Credobaptism insists upon a profession of faith while still insisting upon monergism. I find it interesting that the London Baptist Confession recognizes that infants can be regenerated. It states
Infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, Who works when, where, and how He pleases. So also are all elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
The LBC also recognizes the difference between the visible and invisible church (Chapter 26 Of The Church). Hence, a regenerated infant can belong to the invisible church but, be denied membership in the visible church by virtue of not being able to make a profession of faith. This seems very inconsistent to me.
Be that as it may, I pastor a Presbyterian church and embrace paedobaptism because I believe Covenant Theology and Calvinism are the best articulations we have of sound Biblical theology. The Biblical concepts that are important to the discussion, in my opinion, are
I know I’m saying a lot and not defending anything. However, after reading through the two different threads on Pitchford’s Ramblings, I believe these ideas were already touched upon in one degree or another.
I have some questions that are all interrelated.
What was the purpose of the baptism of Jesus Christ? Many credobaptist point to the baptism of Christ as one of their strongest arguments for credobaptism, “if it was good enough for Jesus, it is good enough for me.”
Next question. Is Jesus’ baptism the same thing as the sign given to the covenant community of the visible church? This, I think, is a very important question.
One more related question. What exactly is the baptism of John and is it the same or different than what was commanded later on in the New Testament in relation to salvation? These questions are at the heart of the many credobaptist’s arguments against paedobaptism.
In Christ,
Norman Patterson
February 20th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Norman,
Thanks for your comment – you bring a new perspective to the table, as I don’t think anyone so familiar with the Arminian/Methodist understanding of paedobaptism has yet been involved in the discussion. I certainly appreciate some of your points. I would have to agree that paedobaptism is fundamentally inconsistent with Arminian theology, particularly in its tenet that faith must precede regeneration.
As far as the Baptist “inconsistency,” I think that their different understanding of the nature of baptism must account for it. They do not see baptism as a sign/seal of regeneration and inclusion in the Church, but rather as a public confession of faith. So they are not really inconsistent with their own point of view (even those among them who would admit the possibility of infant regeneration) – but the question is, do they have an adequate understanding of the meaning and significance of baptism?
I agree with you that infants may be regenerated (as John the Baptist certainly was while still in the womb, according to the explicit testimony of Luke); and furthermore, I agree that the children of believers must be acknowledged as regenerate, inasmuch as God calls them “holy” (I Corinthians 7) which they could not be if unregenerate, and in fact Jesus speaks of them as those who possess the Kingdom of Heaven, by which description he certainly qualifies them as regenerate, if one would compare other gospel passages in which the meaning of possessing the Kingdom is made clear (e.g. The discourse with Nicodemus). Of course, there remains the mystery of God’s secret will, so that, among the visible church, some tares will in fact exist until the return of Christ – whether those having grown up in the church from infancy or those having made a false profession as adults – but clearly, God has given us strong cause to consider our children as covenant-members and so to instruct them in the necessity of ongoing faith in Christ, lest they prove to be false professors in the end (in the vein of the Hebrews warning passages, etc.).
As far as your questions go:
1.I believe that Jesus was baptized, first, in proxy for all of God’s people who had been commanded to be baptized with John’s baptism, and yet could never do so with perfect enough repentance to be finally pleasing to God. Jesus undertook to win a positive righteousness by actively obeying every command that had been laid upon the people whom he came to save. As God had commanded this baptism of repentance through John, Jesus undertook to be baptized in perfect accord with God’s intention, in order to win a perfect obedience to give to his people. But secondly, Jesus was solemnly dedicating himself to passing through the waters of God’s judgment. The end and goal of his life would be to undergo the full and exhaustive judgment of God in the place of the elect, and his baptism was a solemn sign and seal of that arrangement.
2.The sign given to the church is related, I think, in that it signifies and seals a union with Christ in all of his redemptive activity, most notably his death and resurrection. So, if the baptism of Christ sealed him in his coming death, and our baptism seals us as dying with Christ, they both must point to the same reality. However, the way in which the subjects of baptism relate to that reality, Christ as actively accomplishing it, and we as receiving the benefits of it, are fundamentally different.
3.I think John’s baptism must have been different than today’s Christian baptism. After all, those disciples who had been baptized by John, when they were given the news about Jesus, were required to be baptized again. The fundamental difference must be that, in John’s time, the people were looking ahead to God’s judgment, repenting of their sins, and acknowledging their need of a future Messiah to undergo this judgment in their stead. But after Christ had already undergone God’s judgment, the perspective is one of participation in an already-accomplished event. John’s was a baptism of hoping in the promise, when God’s wrath was yet hanging over the people. Christian baptism is a baptism of participation in the fulfilled promise, and does not merely look ahead to a time when God’s wrath shall have been averted, but rejoices in that very truth.
These answers are not meant to be authoritative assertions, but thought-through suggestions, that may stand to be corrected by any more thought or insight into the subject.
Blessings from the cross,
Nathan
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:44 am
Well I am very greatfull for this blog and will so I think we ought to thank about doing one thing when somone says somthing about the Bible that we dont agree with and that is do some reall bible hermanutics and not put your opinion into what you think the Bible says.
I use to go to Baptist church for a long time, but let me tell you, their theology is forced onto the Bible and does not come from the Bible. I find most Baptist do not have very good theology, and even the ones that do dont’ really understand alot of the Bible becuase it doesn’t fit traditional Baptist theology. I am almost upset at the fact Baptist wont change their theology becuase they fail to do Biblical hermanutics. I still love my Baptist brothers, but the Bible cleary teaches in my opinion if you will actually do Biblical hermanutics Infant baptism. Not baptising children is insulting to God and His grace.
Ken
December 22nd, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Ken,
I agree with you that biblical hermeneutics should lead to infant baptism. But I do think that there are a great many Baptists who are excellent theologians, overall, and who are doing their best not to let their theology force their reading of the scriptures. Of course it would be best never to “put your opinion into what you think the Bible says,” but unfortunately, that’s not true with any of us 100% of the time. We all have blind spots, and we’re all striving together for a better understanding of Christ. God grant that we may be able to help each other out, whether credo- or paedo-baptistic in our current understanding!
Nathan
July 20th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Brothers:
I am a former Christian Reformed member & a Presbyterian Elder here in Metro Manila, Philippines- but now embraces “believer’s baptism”. I accepted this view after wrestling first with the issue of the “Christian sabbath” and tithing. Once I see the discontinuity there-it is not hard to see the discontinuity between Abraham’s fleshly seed and his spiritual children. I also realized that most troubles plaguing reformed Christianity today and before stems from this wrong reading of Covenant theology. like why Calvin agreed that Servetus is a civil threat to the church, Halfway Covenant during Jonathan Edwards, Kuyper’s presumptive regenaration, why theonomy wants to imposed biblical law in society, why Federal Vision tries to emphasize justification by faith that works. It is because they expand the covenant to include unbelieving children. And reformed paedobaptist theology wont stop at the church! I can now safely say that when I quote John 1: 12-13 I can say it without qualifications or rationalizations. I have 4 children btw.
July 21st, 2008 at 7:44 am
Ray,
While I can see your case for some of the discontinuities mentioned above, and would agree that some of those “troubles plaguing reformed Christianity” are indeed pernicious, I don’t think that those points alone can establish your case against paedo-baptism. As in any other matter, it must be argued on its own merits; and when done so properly, I think the outcome will be a hearty acceptance of it. Of course, some good theologians will disagree with me in that; and if you do as well, I will express my opinion that you are wrong on the point, but at the same time I will rejoice in the unity we have in the gospel of Christ. By the way, you can argue against credo-baptism as well, and likewise against any doctrine, by noting theological aberrations connected to it in some fashion. But those considerations are not ultimately telling.
Grace and peace from the Cross,
Nathan
January 29th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
We are instructed by Christ to receive the kingdom as these little children. If they are young children then I take that to mean with a simple childlike faith.
If it is an infant, how does an infant receive the kingdom? To say they receive it from their family based on Abraham, how does that reconcile with Rom. 9:7? We are children of Abraham by faith Rom. 4:16 not his natural seed. That is the same problem the Jew had in understanding the gospel throughout the NT.
If circumcision profited them nothing if not accompanied with faith Rom. 2:28-29 I Cor. 7:19 how is infant baptism worth anything if not accompanied with faith?
January 29th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Hi John,
First of all, in the text discussed above (Luke 18:15-17), It is not I who call them infants, it is Luke. No reliable dictionary or lexicon I am aware of suggests any translation of the term “brephos” (Luke’s term) other than “unborn child/embryo” or “infant”. Whether we like it or not, Christ is saying that these children, including infants, are possessors of the Kingdom.
Second, although in Christ’s application of the event to our faith he uses the term “paidion” (little child) which can and often does refer to an older child, that does not necessarily restrict his meaning to the case of the older child — the event preceding argues that he is using the term inclusively (as it is capable of being used), to commend to us the example of the infants and young children of their believing parents. And would it be inappropriate or impossible for Jesus to do this? He holds forth birds and lilies as examples for our faith, so why can he not do the same with infants, who rest unreservedly on their mothers’ breasts, and have no anxiety over their future? Ought we not to possess that kind of faith, if we would consider ourselves Kingdom heirs?
But in any case, the simple teaching of the text is that children, including infants, were coming to Jesus, and he was naming them and all who are like them possessors of the Kingdom.
June 8th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Lee Irons has a wonderful 8-part mp3 series on this subject.
http://www.upper-register.com/mp3s.html
then scroll down to
“And the God of Thy Seed”