Question from a Credo...

Reformed Baptist · #1 (**permalink**) 07-17-2008, 08:48 AM

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.

North Jersey Baptist · #2 (**permalink**) 07-17-2008, 08:57 AM

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?

Scott1 · #3 (**permalink**) 07-17-2008, 09:05 AM

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.

Quote:

3] 1CO 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. ACT 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. EZE 16:20 Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, whom thou hast borne unto me, and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured. Is this of thy whoredoms a small matter, 21 That thou hast slain my children, and delivered them to cause them to pass through the fire for them? ROM 11:16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches. GEN 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. 17:7 And 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.

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.

VirginiaHuguenot · #4 (**permalink**) 07-17-2008, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

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?

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

Gomarus · #5 (**permalink**) 07-17-2008, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reformed Baptist

. . . 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. . .

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

Quote:

The essential foundation or base of any structure or organization; from weaving, in which the warp —the threads that run lengthwise—and the woof —the threads that run across—make up the fabric: “The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are the warp and woof of the American nation.

North Jersey Baptist · #6 (**permalink**) 07-17-2008, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Quote:

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

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?

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, 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!

VirginiaHuguenot · #7 (**permalink**) 07-17-2008, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

Quote:

Originally Posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Quote:

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

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?

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, 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?

govols · #8 (**permalink**) 07-17-2008, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

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!

Too true and too funny.

Reformed Baptist · #9 (**permalink**) 07-17-2008, 10:11 AM

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.

skellam · #10 (**permalink**) 07-17-2008, 10:16 AM

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.

Reformed Baptist · #11 (**permalink**) 07-17-2008, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skellam

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.

Fantastic. Bookmarked.

mangum · #12 (**permalink**) 07-17-2008, 11:36 AM

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.

DMcFadden · #13 (**permalink**) 07-17-2008, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skellam

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.

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

Seb · #14 (**permalink**) 07-17-2008, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mangum

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.

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.

Reformed Baptist · #15 (**permalink**) 07-17-2008, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seb

Quote:

Originally Posted by mangum

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.

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.

Thanks brother.

JohnV · #16 (**permalink**) 07-17-2008, 01:16 PM

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.

mvdm · #17 (**permalink**) 07-17-2008, 01:18 PM

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

Iron Ink - Category: covenant theology

Gomarus · #18 (**permalink**) 07-17-2008, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnV

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. . .

Is this available online??

JohnV · #19 (**permalink**) 07-17-2008, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gomarus

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnV

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. . .

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