I am close to beginning my studies with Reformed Theological Seminary Virtual in Systematic Theology. Part of this will be the study of the sacraments (ordinances is what I call them) which certainly include baptism.

As I have read through some of the posts here from those who hold and teach infant baptism, I am trying to begin to put my finger on what is the "woop and woof" of the reason for baptizing infants. It appears to me at this point, and simply put, that the reason is primarily due to the federal headship of parents who are truly in the New Covenant to give to their children born naturally of them the sign of the Covenant. Have I understood correctly?

The mandate for this forum is to be ready to debate and discuss. I am ready to discuss, but not debate it. So, if I have violated the mandate of the forum, I am sorry. I am just seeking to begin to build an understanding of infant baptism. I do not plan on entering any debate on the matter until I am confident that I have complete grasp on the doctrine of infant baptism.

Thanks.

__________________
Geoff/Reformed Baptist
Acworth, GA
John 6:37
All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.


"Show me your war face."

I moved your thread to the paedo answers forum, but I believe your post is not asking anything new. Perhaps Andrew can provide some links to previous threads that will adequately answer your questions.

Andrew?

__________________
Bill Brown
Elder
Reformed Baptist
Maryland

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?
Visit my BLOG Theology for the Rest of Us

I am not a theologian and it has taken me a long time to firm up my view on this. Now I am at the point of saying it is a clear and convincing case, something like 70/30 (not beyond reasonable doubt).

Years ago, when I first had this explained, I accepted this based on something like a preponderance of scriptural evidence (i.e. 51/49) It became acceptable to me (to baptise infants) on the basis that there is more than one purpose of baptism. The signs and seals conferred by baptism could be to initiate an infant into the covenant community or to an adult by profession of faith. Both purposes being biblical, it seemed, meant I could accept infant baptism.

I would begin with the Scripture proofs in the Westminster Confession of faith from Chapter XXV 2.


Meditate on these and study their immediate context, then try to step back and take a look at what can be discerned from the whole of Scripture (Old and New Testament) about covenant community.

__________________
Scott
PCA
North Carolina


"Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised)"
Hebrews 10:23

I generally stay out of baptism waters, I mean threads, but I'll provide a few links which may serve as useful reading / reference (there are so many threads that I think these links will be more useful personally):

Links and Downloads Manager - Baptism - Baptism -- Francis Schaeffer - The PuritanBoard

Links and Downloads Manager - Baptism - Infant Baptism: How My Mind Has Changed -- Dennis Johnson - The PuritanBoard

Links and Downloads Manager - Baptism - Infant Baptism Scriptural and Reasonable -- Samuel Miller - The PuritanBoard

Links and Downloads Manager - Baptism - William the Baptist - The PuritanBoard

__________________
Andrew

FYI, that would be "warp and woof." I chuckled to myself when I tried to picture you saying "woop and woof."

__________________
Jim
1689 LBCF
Independent Bible Church
North Texas, USA

Andrew, I could have posted the links but then I would be taking over your job. You really should have been a Matrix character. The Oracle...the Architect...the Librarian!

New avatar perhaps?

Too true and too funny.

__________________
For the sake of the Name,

John Hill
Faith Community - Woodstock, Ga
Adopted. Husband for 13 years. Father of 5 children.
http://faithcommunitychurch.org- My home church
Rocky Top, you'll always be, home sweet home to me.

Thanks for the replies. I know the subject is wearisome for both Baptists and Presbyterians. I am just trying to understand it.

And thanks for the correction on woop and warp.

I recently came across a Richard Pratt's ThirdMill.org website that makes available video and audio seminary lessons. We used one of his videos on baptism (appropriately titled "Why do we baptize our children?") in a recent sunday school class and many found it a brief, helpful overview of the basics of the paedobaptism arguments. It is available here.

__________________
Steve Kellam
Ruling Elder
Redeemer ARP Church (Blacksburg, VA)
Husband to Holly and father to Bethany, Susannah, and Charlotte (and one on the way!)
“Prayer is as natural an expression of faith as breathing is of life” -- Jonathan Edwards

Fantastic. Bookmarked.

One of the main premises of paedobaptism is that all throughout human history God's covenant people included their children by God's direct command to initiate the little ones into the covenant by way of circumcision. God, at all times, and his people, counted (and treated) children part of God's covenant people.

Understanding the regulative principle we find no warrant and no place in scripture where God has now cut off the children from the covenant of grace. We would expect to find some (at least one?!) upset Jews somewhere, anywhere, in the NT. Yet total silence. No objections, not a word of protest. This matter [of who is in the covenant of grace] is so large, spanning from Genesis to Revelation, that a simple one verse answer can not dislodge the significance of total silence in the NT about children now being removed from the grace of God.

__________________
Chris
Presbyterian Reformed Church of Charlotte (PRC)
Student, Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary
SC

...hope is nothing but the nourishment and strength of faith.
~ Calvin's Institutes III.ii.43

Thank you so much! This is a topic I'm looking into myself.

__________________
Dennis E. McFadden, Ex Mainline Baptist (in Remission)
Atherton Baptist Homes, CEO
First Baptist Church of Alhambra, Member, Transformation Ministries (CA)

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Very well said.

What finally pushed me over from the credo side to paedo was that I began to see that burden of proof rests on the credo position.

Geoff, you also may want to read R. Scott Clark's paper: A Contemporary Reformed Defense of Infant Baptism. He explains the reasoning for the Paedo-baptism stance better than most that I've seen.

__________________
Steve Butts - Former SBC-er
Three Forms of Unity - Bradenton CRCNA - Bradenton, Florida
(A conservative member in a conservative congregation)

"Turning away to false Theology is equal to turning away to false gods" — Francis Schaeffer (Death in the City)

Thanks brother.

The best and most succinct, and most authoritative, statement on infant baptism that I know of is the one adopted by the Synod of Dordt. It is the formulary (or, liturgy) for baptism used in the Dutch Reformed churches.

In it you find a statement something like, "...we may not therefore exclude them (i.e., the children) from baptism...." It's just too hard to get past the argument it refers to, as Mangum has well-said above.

But it takes a lot of careful thought also. Because some of the objections raised by Baptists point to the weaknesses of a lot of views that Paedo's hold to when they are not careful and fall into various errors. For, example, you don't find anything about federal headship in the formulary. Instead it focuses on the promises of God in relation to His Covenant. That's the context of all the Scripture quoted in the formulary; and that context is properly established. So a wrong view of presumed salvation based on federal headship is excluded, as are other more or less common beliefs that have crept in.

In other words, I must have read it, whether in church whenever there were baptisms (anywhere from 10-15 a year in our large church) or studying it at home (with eleven children I studied it each time before they were each presented for baptism, and now again for the grand-children). After about the five hundredth time through it I'm still learning, the formulary still amazes me.

__________________
JohnV :detective:

John Vandervliet
Ontario, Canada
member of: Canadian Reformed Church
"In coming to understand anything we are rejecting the facts as they are for us in favour of the facts as they are" C.S Lewis, An Experiment in Criticism

Here's a 3 part entry from a CRC minister explaining the case for "wet babies":

Iron Ink - Category: covenant theology

__________________
Mark Van Der Molen
Immanuel URC
DeMotte, Indiana

Is this available online??

Here:

</title> <meta name="description" content= "Book of Praise: Liturgical Forms"> <meta name="keywords" content=""> <title>Book of Praise: Liturgical Forms

You might also find the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) explanation helpful:

Why Does the Orthodox Presbyterian Church Baptize Infants?

It focuses on five points:

1)The church of the Old Testament and the church of the New Testament are, in essence, the same church;

2)God includes the children of believers as members of this church;

3)In the Old Testament era, children of believers, because they were church members, were given the sign of circumcision;

4)In the New Testament era, God has taken the sign of circumcision and changed it to baptism;

5)Therefore, in the New Testament era, children of believers, because they are church members, are to be given the sign of baptism.

Thanks so much, Steve. Raised as a Baptist, we were never exposed to the reasons for infant baptism in anything other than a polemical ("can you believe they actually do that?") kind of way. And, when you attend a caffeteria seminary (one with lots of every kind of theology and ideology), you learn to pass over the arguments deftly, lest it start a fight. Consequently, those of us who are products of that kind of education, can cite a few proof texts for our own tradition and the arguments "against" the other position, but often have no clue what motivates the "other side" to find their view attractive or compelling. This piece (just finished it during my commute today) was an EXCELLENT introduction done in a very non-threatening manner. Can't say that it would convert many credos to paedos. However, it certainly defangs the poisonous biting that often accompanies the discussion. What a GREAT resource! I could see using the video with my Sunday School class in order to help them understand the paedo position.

I'm glad you enjoyed it, Dennis. I was also impressed with the manner in which Pratt presented his arguments. My pastor studied with Dr. Pratt at RTS and always thought very highly of him. We are on a little summer break with our sunday school and we decided to watch his series on Father Abraham as well for a few weeks.

I grew up in the Episcopal church and was baptized as an infant but I never really thought much about it until we joined an OPC church in Pennsylvania and had our first child. Suddenly, the subject became very important. After leaving the Episcopal church after high school, I had bounced around from various baptist churches and some non-denominational ones and didn't have a firm position on the issue. I am convinced at this point that paedobaptism is the best interpretation of the biblical evidence but I don't take issue with brothers and sisters in Christ who differ other than to explain and teach why I think it is correct.

If you want a full-on, in depth, exploration of all the issues surrounding infant baptism, you can check out an excellent sunday school series by William Shishko from Franklin Square OPC that covers the subject in great depth.

This may seem like a silly question...let's say a Baptist changes his view on this issue from the credo position. At what age would the children of such a man not be baptized? Let's say he has 5 children, ages 10, 8, 5, 3, and 6 months. None are baptized. Which ones should or should not be baptized according to infant baptism?

Quick question on this presentation. About half way through, on the second point concerning God's covenant and adults and children being included in the covenant, Mr. Pratt refers to Genesis 17:7, and the seed thereof, as the children of Abraham saying, "God brought adults into covenant along with their children" when the Apostle in Galatians 3:16 applies, or interprets, the seed meaning Christ?

I believe they should all be baptized. They are under his authority, they belong to him, and he and all that is his belong to God. It is God's mark of oath and ownership, and he has commanded it unto them through the church. This whole house has become disciples, on account of the believer (see Acts 16:33f). And disciples are to be baptized, Mt.28:19.

In our society of legal-age emancipations, and children leaving home on their own or semi-independent at school, etc., there is a variable point at which it is unwise to insist on such a baptism.

And no one who is openly hostile or refuses baptism for some reason should be baptized against their contrarily expressed will. These should be children in submission to their parents.

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --

Gal. 3:16 is referring to Gen 22:18, not Gen 17:7.

Thanks brother. Do you believe the children of true believers in Christ are somehow in spiritual danger or deficient in any way if their parents do not baptize their children?

For what reason? Basically I am asking how is it that you know it refers to Gen 22:18, not 17:7 or not both?

I don't believe there is additional "soul-peril" to any unbaptized person, even an adult convert. Baptism is a churchly action, done by the church in God's Name. It makes a statement about inclusion in the church. It encloses in the visible kingdom. It does not make an infallible pronouncement about the invisible kingdom, or even attempt to.

I believe there are definite blessings Christ attaches to his church, and that those blessings (sometimes in a general sense, other times in a more pointed fashion) are missed when membership that I think should be acknowledged is rather refused. There is definitely a difference between telling a young person: "You do not belong to this group; I hope you can belong someday," and "You are a member of this group," perhaps even, "You have never NOT been a member of this group," and even, "You can be excluded from this group."

To whatever kind or degree an improperly excluded person can suffer for being so excluded, he will suffer neglect. That neglect may possibly be ameliorated in other ways, and God's grace is greater than our failures. And no elect person ever fails to attain to his redemption. But who (on earth) is to say that some unwarranted exclusion was not a means to a person's damnation?

If the question goes the other way--well, what if he shouldn't be included, and his unwarranted inclusion results in his damnation?--the answer is: that could happen too, even on a paedo-baptist understanding. But we aren't deciding who gets baptized on the basis of which side it might be better to err on. We are (both sides) simply trying to do what God says, and therefore, whichever side is correct, it seems more likely that not doing the proper thing will result in greater woes.

Because Paul makes the significant point that the term "seed" is singular.

The word is one of those collective singulars, meaning the same Hebrew word can refer to a single seed, or to many seeds. In Gen. 17:7 "seed" clearly means ALL of Abraham's descendants throughout their generations.

However, in Gen 22:18, the reference is in one sense to Isaac (one person) but in a typological sense to the greater "Isaac", to the Only Beloved Son, Christ, whom Isaac only typifies. Not to mention the context is the binding of Isaac on the altar, on Mt. Moriah (site of the later Temple, 2 Chr. 3:1), "God himself will provide a lamb," etc. Certainly this is a titanic place for Paul to build his case upon.