The PuritanBoard  

Go Back   The PuritanBoard > Theology > Baptism

Baptism Discuss baptism and the objects of baptism.
This forum is for those who desire to DEBATE and DISCUSS. All others please refrain from this Forum.

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 06-20-2008, 06:10 AM
Puritanboard Doctor
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Saintfield, Co. Down, Northern Ireland
Posts: 6,566
Thanks: 2,062
Thanked 1,124 Times in 740 Posts
Edmund Calamy on Denying Infants Baptism

In light of recent discussions on the exclusion of infants from the visible church, here is a quote from the Puritan Edmund Calamy (he is saying this not me):

Quote:
How cruel are men grown to their little infants, by keeping them from the seal of entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven, and making their children to be just in the same condition with the children of Turks and Infidels?
E. Calamy, The Great Danger of Covenant Breaking, p. 18
__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 06-20-2008, 09:37 AM
KMK's Avatar
KMK KMK is offline.
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Wrightwood, CA
Posts: 8,605
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 3,597
Thanked 1,317 Times in 758 Posts
Well in that case I will run right down to the local RC church and get my new infant baptized! I sure don't want to disappoint Mr. Calamy!
__________________


http://www.villagecommunitychurch.org/


"Preparing a sermon is like cooking a meal. You need pots and pans and utensils, but you don't bring them out to the table where people are eating." Derek Thomas


Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 06-20-2008, 09:59 AM
Pilgrim's Avatar
Puritanboard Doctor
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Mandeville, LA
Posts: 7,361
Thanks: 1,495
Thanked 932 Times in 643 Posts
Calamy guilty of calumny!

I know this will be defended as GNC, but these kinds of statements are really an argument from sentimentality. It moves the discussion forward about as well as us credos following Gill and posting that infant baptism is Part and Pillar of Popery, etc. But if we must post them all there is a quote from Owen that conveys a similar message.
__________________
Christian
One Pilgrims Progress

Last edited by Pilgrim; 06-20-2008 at 10:14 AM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 06-20-2008, 10:13 AM
CDM's Avatar
CDM CDM is offline.
Puritanboard Junior
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Rock Hill, SC
Posts: 1,963
Thanks: 441
Thanked 415 Times in 212 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMK View Post
Well in that case I will run right down to the local RC church and get my new infant baptized! I sure don't want to disappoint Mr. Calamy!
Mr. Calamy is advocating and defending Christian Baptism not antichrist's mockery of it.
__________________
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
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 06-20-2008, 10:52 AM
Puritanboard Doctor
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Saintfield, Co. Down, Northern Ireland
Posts: 6,566
Thanks: 2,062
Thanked 1,124 Times in 740 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMK View Post
Well in that case I will run right down to the local RC church and get my new infant baptized! I sure don't want to disappoint Mr. Calamy!
What he is saying is that if infants cannot be members of the visible church, then they cannot be members of the invisible church. Baptists cannot have it both ways. If you do not think that infants should be part of the visible church then I respect your position, however, if this is taken to its logical conclusion you will have to affirm that they cannot be part of the invisible church (this is not to say that all covenant children are members of the invisible church).

The whole argument comes down to this: are the children of Christians pagans, or are they part of the visible church?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 06-20-2008, 10:54 AM
KMK's Avatar
KMK KMK is offline.
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Wrightwood, CA
Posts: 8,605
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 3,597
Thanked 1,317 Times in 758 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilgrim View Post
Calamy guilty of calumny!

I know this will be defended as GNC, but these kinds of statements are really an argument from sentimentality. It moves the discussion forward about as well as us credos following Gill and posting that infant baptism is Part and Pillar of Popery, etc. But if we must post them all there is a quote from Owen that conveys a similar message.
I agree and it was this kind of argumentation that really began to turn me off to the paedo view with which I fully intended to agree. I recommend, if the paedos truly desire to further their cause, they refrain from such statements. It makes them sound elitist.

Question: Does the paedo desire that every believing parent, regardless of their conscience, baptize their infants? Is that really what you are after? IOW, would you have me go against my own confession and baptize my infant in order to avoid charges of cruelty?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 06-20-2008, 11:09 AM
Puritanboard Doctor
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Saintfield, Co. Down, Northern Ireland
Posts: 6,566
Thanks: 2,062
Thanked 1,124 Times in 740 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMK View Post
I agree and it was this kind of argumentation that really began to turn me off to the paedo view with which I fully intended to agree. I recommend, if the paedos truly desire to further their cause, they refrain from such statements. It makes them sound elitist.

Question: Does the paedo desire that every believing parent, regardless of their conscience, baptize their infants? Is that really what you are after? IOW, would you have me go against my own confession and baptize my infant in order to avoid charges of cruelty?
You have to remember the historical context in which this was written, it was at a time in which denying believers children the sacrament of baptism was seen as a truly radical thing, both theologically and socially.

Even if you think that Mr. Calamy is guilty of overstatement (which he may be), his basic point stands: Baptists exclude the children of believers from the visible church, and thus, by implication, from the invisible church.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 06-20-2008, 11:38 AM
KMK's Avatar
KMK KMK is offline.
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Wrightwood, CA
Posts: 8,605
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 3,597
Thanked 1,317 Times in 758 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMK View Post
I agree and it was this kind of argumentation that really began to turn me off to the paedo view with which I fully intended to agree. I recommend, if the paedos truly desire to further their cause, they refrain from such statements. It makes them sound elitist.

Question: Does the paedo desire that every believing parent, regardless of their conscience, baptize their infants? Is that really what you are after? IOW, would you have me go against my own confession and baptize my infant in order to avoid charges of cruelty?
You have to remember the historical context in which this was written, it was at a time in which denying believers children the sacrament of baptism was seen as a truly radical thing, both theologically and socially.

Even if you think that Mr. Calamy is guilty of overstatement (which he may be), his basic point stands: Baptists exclude the children of believers from the visible church, and thus, by implication, from the invisible church.
I am aware of this caricature set forth by paedo baptists.

But you have not answered my question...
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 06-20-2008, 11:41 AM
KMK's Avatar
KMK KMK is offline.
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Wrightwood, CA
Posts: 8,605
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 3,597
Thanked 1,317 Times in 758 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by mangum View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMK View Post
Well in that case I will run right down to the local RC church and get my new infant baptized! I sure don't want to disappoint Mr. Calamy!
Mr. Calamy is advocating and defending Christian Baptism not antichrist's mockery of it.
Sorry, I will not be cruel by taking my infant to the RC church. How about if I join the local Methodist church? I know Pastor Susan will baptize her!
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 06-20-2008, 11:43 AM
CDM's Avatar
CDM CDM is offline.
Puritanboard Junior
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Rock Hill, SC
Posts: 1,963
Thanks: 441
Thanked 415 Times in 212 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMK View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilgrim View Post
Calamy guilty of calumny!

I know this will be defended as GNC, but these kinds of statements are really an argument from sentimentality. It moves the discussion forward about as well as us credos following Gill and posting that infant baptism is Part and Pillar of Popery, etc. But if we must post them all there is a quote from Owen that conveys a similar message.
I agree and it was this kind of argumentation that really began to turn me off to the paedo view with which I fully intended to agree. I recommend, if the paedos truly desire to further their cause, they refrain from such statements. It makes them sound elitist.

Question: Does the paedo desire that every believing parent, regardless of their conscience, baptize their infants? Is that really what you are after? IOW, would you have me go against my own confession and baptize my infant in order to avoid charges of cruelty?
Yes, I would have you go against your own confession and baptize children of believers...but not to "avoid charges of cruelty" but because all of God's covenant people have always included their children in the covenant of grace in accordance with God’s will.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 06-20-2008, 11:45 AM
CDM's Avatar
CDM CDM is offline.
Puritanboard Junior
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Rock Hill, SC
Posts: 1,963
Thanks: 441
Thanked 415 Times in 212 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMK View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mangum View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMK View Post
Well in that case I will run right down to the local RC church and get my new infant baptized! I sure don't want to disappoint Mr. Calamy!
Mr. Calamy is advocating and defending Christian Baptism not antichrist's mockery of it.
Sorry, I will not be cruel by taking my infant to the RC church. How about if I join the local Methodist church? I know Pastor Susan will baptize her!
Glad to hear it! Pastor Susan is also in league with antichrist, so, no, do not go there either.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 06-20-2008, 11:48 AM
Inactive User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Posts: 4,956
Thanks: 906
Thanked 820 Times in 504 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMK View Post
Well in that case I will run right down to the local RC church and get my new infant baptized! I sure don't want to disappoint Mr. Calamy!
What he is saying is that if infants cannot be members of the visible church, then they cannot be members of the invisible church. Baptists cannot have it both ways. If you do not think that infants should be part of the visible church then I respect your position, however, if this is taken to its logical conclusion you will have to affirm that they cannot be part of the invisible church (this is not to say that all covenant children are members of the invisible church).

The whole argument comes down to this: are the children of Christians pagans, or are they part of the visible church?
I guess the correct answer for us Presbyterians would be that they are wet pagans, wouldn't it? For all intensive purposes they're pagans (or to use Mr. Calumy's terminology and be more specific, Turks and Infidels) who attend church more regularly than the dry pagans.
__________________
Davidius
Husband of Emily
Member of All Saints Anglican Church - Chapel Hill (AMiA / Anglican Church of North America)
Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German and Classics
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
The Following User Says Thank You to Davidius For This Useful Post:
christianyouth (06-20-2008)
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 06-20-2008, 11:50 AM
KMK's Avatar
KMK KMK is offline.
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Wrightwood, CA
Posts: 8,605
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 3,597
Thanked 1,317 Times in 758 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by mangum View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMK View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mangum View Post

Mr. Calamy is advocating and defending Christian Baptism not antichrist's mockery of it.
Sorry, I will not be cruel by taking my infant to the RC church. How about if I join the local Methodist church? I know Pastor Susan will baptize her!
Glad to hear it! Pastor Susan is also in league with antichrist, so, no, do not go there either.
Darn! Well, lets see... (thumbing through the yellow pages) How about the local Nazarene church? The United Church of Christ? Maybe I could just baptize her in the kitchen sink?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 06-20-2008, 12:06 PM
CDM's Avatar
CDM CDM is offline.
Puritanboard Junior
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Rock Hill, SC
Posts: 1,963
Thanks: 441
Thanked 415 Times in 212 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMK View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mangum View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMK View Post

Sorry, I will not be cruel by taking my infant to the RC church. How about if I join the local Methodist church? I know Pastor Susan will baptize her!
Glad to hear it! Pastor Susan is also in league with antichrist, so, no, do not go there either.
Darn! Well, lets see... (thumbing through the yellow pages) How about the local Nazarene church? The United Church of Christ? Maybe I could just baptize her in the kitchen sink?
I fail to see your point.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 06-20-2008, 12:28 PM
Puritanboard Doctor
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Saintfield, Co. Down, Northern Ireland
Posts: 6,566
Thanks: 2,062
Thanked 1,124 Times in 740 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davidius View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMK View Post
Well in that case I will run right down to the local RC church and get my new infant baptized! I sure don't want to disappoint Mr. Calamy!
What he is saying is that if infants cannot be members of the visible church, then they cannot be members of the invisible church. Baptists cannot have it both ways. If you do not think that infants should be part of the visible church then I respect your position, however, if this is taken to its logical conclusion you will have to affirm that they cannot be part of the invisible church (this is not to say that all covenant children are members of the invisible church).

The whole argument comes down to this: are the children of Christians pagans, or are they part of the visible church?
I guess the correct answer for us Presbyterians would be that they are wet pagans, wouldn't it? For all intensive purposes they're pagans (or to use Mr. Calumy's terminology and be more specific, Turks and Infidels) who attend church more regularly than the dry pagans.
They may be unregenerate, but they are not "pagans" - those outside the visible church.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 06-20-2008, 12:29 PM
Puritanboard Doctor
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Saintfield, Co. Down, Northern Ireland
Posts: 6,566
Thanks: 2,062
Thanked 1,124 Times in 740 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMK View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMK View Post
I agree and it was this kind of argumentation that really began to turn me off to the paedo view with which I fully intended to agree. I recommend, if the paedos truly desire to further their cause, they refrain from such statements. It makes them sound elitist.

Question: Does the paedo desire that every believing parent, regardless of their conscience, baptize their infants? Is that really what you are after? IOW, would you have me go against my own confession and baptize my infant in order to avoid charges of cruelty?
You have to remember the historical context in which this was written, it was at a time in which denying believers children the sacrament of baptism was seen as a truly radical thing, both theologically and socially.

Even if you think that Mr. Calamy is guilty of overstatement (which he may be), his basic point stands: Baptists exclude the children of believers from the visible church, and thus, by implication, from the invisible church.
I am aware of this caricature set forth by paedo baptists.

But you have not answered my question...
I desire that every believing parent have their children baptized, but only if it is in line with their conscience.

As I have said elsewhere, both sides can make this doctrine into an idol, my point with the OP was to show that the argument I made about children in the visible church (in other threads) was not a novel one.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 06-20-2008, 01:20 PM
Me Died Blue's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 4,654
Thanks: 494
Thanked 159 Times in 82 Posts
I think this thread has run its course already. It can stay as a reference for, and brief commentary on, a particular Puritan quotation on baptism, but beyond that, I can't see anything good coming out of the discussion, in the last several posts or anytime in the foreseeable future.

Closing...

__________________
Chris


A passion to know and reflect Christ by living and demonstrating the truth and richness of the historic Reformed faith

Visit My Website Here

Christopher Blum
Member of Trinity Presbyterian Church of Northern Kentucky (PCA) in Burlington, KY

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Me Died Blue For This Useful Post:
BobVigneault (06-20-2008), Daniel Ritchie (06-20-2008), KMK (06-20-2008), Poimen (06-20-2008)
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.0

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2 ©2009, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright © 2002-2008 PuritanBoard.com
Hosted by WebsiteMaven - helping ministries with web hosting advice, reviews, and design.
67 Westminster Abbey © Confessional Presbyterian Presses - used with permission.
Add Our Custom Button to your Google Toolbar

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69