Thread: Handling Difficult Questions - Baptism

Note: This was originally a Facebook post for some of my friends, which I intended not only to articulate my struggle, but to encourage others. I offer it up here for the same reasons, and for any advice my PB brothers (and sisters) may have.

-----

I assume that all of us sometimes encounter difficulties in our Bible study, or encounter people from different Christian traditions that hold ideas that seem utterly alien. Other than just shrugging your shoulders and dismissing it, what do you do about it? Especially when people you care about – smart, godly, great people – seem to be pulling you in different directions, how do you tell what is really true?

I am now facing the most difficult doctrine that I have ever had to grapple with in my Christian walk. It is also a relatively significant doctrine that would affect my ability to be ordained or teach in certain denominations. The issue I am considering is baptism, whether it is for regenerate professors of faith only (credobaptism) or whether the children of believers are proper recipients of the sacrament (covenantal paedobaptism).

The overriding concern is the pursuit of truth. Sometimes motivations such as vindicating yourself and others, or reducing tension between family and friends can interfere with a wholehearted pursuit of truth. It must be constantly remembered that Christ alone is Lord, and that His Word and approval are worth more than the affirmation of any other.

The pursuit of truth takes time. The psychological pressure of being uncertain may cause you to seek a quick, easy, or convenient answer; but this is not the way of discipleship. Christ calls us to a lifetime of following, not easy resting.

I have outlined below how I plan to resolve this issue, in the hope that it may provide help to someone who is facing or will face a difficult doctrinal issue at some time.

Read the Bible Through Again Entirely
Often a Bible difficulty cannot be solved directly. Bible doctrines are interconnected, and an understanding of the whole can greatly help the comprehension of a part. Plus, it simply gives more time for meditation and maturity.

Continue to Repent of Sin and Seek Holiness
Reading Calvin’s Institutes and John Frame’s The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God has impressed upon me that obedience to God is a prerequisite for greater understanding. Romans 1 details how a group of people who knew some things about God rejected their knowledge, and God abandoned them to ignorance. Colossians 1:10 connects the knowledge of God with bearing fruit for him. So, it seems that the way to a deeper knowledge of God is through a deeper relationship with Him.

Study the History of the Controversy
A lot of things make more sense when viewed in their historical contexts. At the same time, you encounter a lot of great people and ideas from church history and broaden your understanding of Christianity and what God has done in the world before you entered it.

Study the Surrounding Doctrines
Again, Christian doctrine is all interconnected. So, seeing how one idea bumps up against others can help give the entire issue shape. For example, baptism is connected to the Lord’s Supper, the New Covenant, and the nature of the church.

Consider the Best Arguments
It can be very appealing to read one side of an issue and nod at the “unassailable” arguments. The pursuit of truth, however, compels us to understand an issue so well that we would be able to present each side in a way that proponents of that side would recognize and approve.

Pray
Wisdom comes from God, yes? (See Proverbs for answer).

Finally, even at the end, we have to be willing to say “I don’t know” and repeat the process. The Bible is a big book, and even taking college or seminary courses doesn’t allow us to absorb that kind of knowledge in a short span of time.

I hope this helps someone who may be going through some difficulties or just critical thinking. Pray for me as I seek to grow in knowledge!

Charlie,

I can resolve one difficulty for you - if baptism is for regenerate professors of faith only then it is impossible to determine who ought to be baptized apart from having the mind of God.

Charlie:

Appreciate the humility you've brought to searching the Scriptures...I can learn a great deal from that!

I think in your search it is gonna boil down to whether you see God working throughout all of history to redeem a single people in the same way (ie, OT Israel and the NT church are the same people, both justified by an alien righteousness) or multiple people in different ways (ie, OT Israel through the sacrificial system / moral code and the NT church through Christ's blood). If God is working in parallel, but separate tracks for these different peoples then baptism has no connection with circumcision as a covenant sign and seal...however, if God is working on the same track, then baptism takes circumcisions place as the covenant sign and seal (albeit now broadened to include females) in a similar way that the Eucharist takes the place of the Passover. One people, one track...with Jesus inaugurating the new elements of the sacraments in his person since the convenant is now thrown wide open for both Jew and Gentile, male and female.

if baptism is for regenerate professors of faith only then it is impossible to determine who ought to be baptized apart from having the mind of God.

Originally Posted by sotzo

God working throughout all of history to redeem a single people in the same way

Those two things did it for me. The latter one first and the first one eventually.

Praying for you, Charlie. It's a pickle. Paradigm shifts hurt.

C

Charlie,

I also resonate with your struggle. As Camille said, "It's a pickle." Over the past few months, I have been assembling a collection of bibliography from free resources on the net (turning them into PDFs) as well as purchasing some of the key books on both sides of the issue.

You are in an EXCELLENT place for decision-making, a seminary student. You attend one of the wonderful Reformed schools with some great profs! Praise the Lord. Now is an ideal time to think, pray, talk with other students, and pick the mind of your teachers. Some of us are in our mid 50s and facing the issue seriously (with great embarrassment) for the first time. Would I love to trade places with you! Enjoy the struggle.

Some look at it this way;

if baptism is for regenerate professors of faith only then it is impossible to determine who ought to be baptized apart from having the mind of God.

Then again other's would say that indeed baptism is for regenerate professors only, so we baptise all who profess saving faith.
Then all regenerate professors would in obedience to the command to believe and be baptized . This way they would obey that ordinance.
All unregenerate persons who falsely professed that a work of grace was done and falsely profess this by baptism will have additional sins to pay for-taking the Lord's name in vain, lying, hypocracy.
Then it would not be Impossible to determine who ought to be baptized apart from having the mind of Christ.
That issue is solved.
The second issue is also no issue- God has always saved by grace,through faith His people.That happens all the way through the bible, not just from Abraham to the NT. That happens before,circumcision, or baptism so that is not really what is at issue.
So it would seem that these two issues are not necessarily at the heart of the issue.

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

Some look at it this way;

if baptism is for regenerate professors of faith only then it is impossible to determine who ought to be baptized apart from having the mind of God.

Then again other's would say that indeed baptism is for regenerate professors only, so we baptise all who profess saving faith.
Then all regenerate professors would in obedience to the command to believe and be baptized . This way they would obey that ordinance.
All unregenerate persons who falsely professed that a work of grace was done and falsely profess this by baptism will have additional sins to pay for-taking the Lord's name in vain, lying, hypocracy.
Then it would not be Impossible to determine who ought to be baptized apart from having the mind of Christ.

Thanks, Dennis. It is a privilege to be fairly young, have supportive friends, and have 3 seminaries in town to work things out among. I'm resolved to be your assistant something - somewhere, somehow, someday - just to get the mentoring.

Semper, regarding baptizing regenerates versus professor, I defer to John Murray, one of my favorite paedobaptists:

It is not by any means the prerogative of those who administer the government and discipline of the church to determine whether the profession made is a true and sincere profession of such faith. A judgment of this kind would exceed the warrant of men. But it is the prerogative and duty of those who rule in the church of God to make plain, both in the instruction and examination of candidates for admission, what the meaning of the profession is and to insist that only the regenerate, only those united to Christ by faith, can truly make the profession required. There is thus the fullest scope for the examination of candidates in ascertaining the intelligence and consistency of the profession made, in instructing candidates respecting the nature of the Christian confession, in dissuading those who do not have true faith from making the profession which they cannot sincerely and honestly make, and in maintaining the purity of the church against the entrance of the ignorant and profane. But this examination, it must be remembered, is not conducted on the premise that to the officers of the church or to the church as a communion is given the prerogative to determine who are regenerate and who are not. It is conducted, rather, on the basis that to the ministry of the church belongs the obligation to insure as far as possible by instruction and warning that only those united to Christ will make the confession which only such can truly make. It is the function of the church to demand an intelligent, credible, and uncontradicted confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.

So, as I am to "Consider the Best Arguments," I don't think that there is an objection there.

Also, sotzo, since there are definite differences between circumcision and baptism (such as the inclusion of women), I need specific exegesis showing me where they are the same and where they differ. It would be unreasonable for me to conclude that Reformed Baptists believe "God is working in parallel, but separate tracks for these different peoples."

An update on where I am:

I still need to consider

(1) the household baptisms
(2) the overall teaching of the NT regarding children
(3) the specifics of the New Covenant, such as in Jer. 31

I am open to being persuaded of paedobatism by a cumulative effect, but only if no serious objections can be raised.

Still praying (imperfectly)

Still serving (imperfectly)

Still reading my Bible (only through Numbers)

Charlie,

Try listening to Pastor Shishko's series on infant baptism (http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.as...istian+Baptism). It's free and does an interesting job on the household aspect. Marcel, Murray, and Strawbridge are supposedly among the better books on the subject.

For the other side, you have Jewett, Malone, Coxe, and Beasley Murray.

If you want an interesting Doppelgänger experience, try picking up an old copy of Baker's Dictonary of Theology (republished as the Wycliffe Dictonary of Theology). My old historical theology prof Geoffrey Bromiley does an amazing job in a very brief entry with convincing you of believers' baptism in one article, then turning around and convincing you of infant baptism in the next article. When your head quits spinning, you might even think he should have been an attorney instead of a theologian!

Thanks, Dennis. The bibliography on this issue is simply staggering. You'd think it was the sign and seal of the covenant or something.

One of the other things I'm working on is seriously bumping up my Hebrew skills. I'm proficient enough in Koine where I can read the Greek-heavy guys and not be intimidated, even deciding for myself the strength of their linguistic arguments. I'm definitely not there in Hebrew, and since a good number of texts are in the shadow Testament, I may have to suspend some of the heavier reading until I can interact on more of a peer level.

I am also trying to figure out if one can have a "paedobaptist" view of children without actually baptizing them.

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

I am also trying to figure out if one can have a "paedobaptist" view of children without actually baptizing them.

Yeah, that's a really good question. I think it's possible, but I think it's tenuous. JMHO.

C

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

Semper, regarding baptizing regenerates versus professor, I defer to John Murray, one of my favorite paedobaptists:

It is not by any means the prerogative of those who administer the government and discipline of the church to determine whether the profession made is a true and sincere profession of such faith. A judgment of this kind would exceed the warrant of men. But it is the prerogative and duty of those who rule in the church of God to make plain, both in the instruction and examination of candidates for admission, what the meaning of the profession is and to insist that only the regenerate, only those united to Christ by faith, can truly make the profession required. There is thus the fullest scope for the examination of candidates in ascertaining the intelligence and consistency of the profession made, in instructing candidates respecting the nature of the Christian confession, in dissuading those who do not have true faith from making the profession which they cannot sincerely and honestly make, and in maintaining the purity of the church against the entrance of the ignorant and profane. But this examination, it must be remembered, is not conducted on the premise that to the officers of the church or to the church as a communion is given the prerogative to determine who are regenerate and who are not. It is conducted, rather, on the basis that to the ministry of the church belongs the obligation to insure as far as possible by instruction and warning that only those united to Christ will make the confession which only such can truly make. It is the function of the church to demand an intelligent, credible, and uncontradicted confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.

So, as I am to "Consider the Best Arguments," I don't think that there is an objection there.

Yes, there is an objection if you try to insist that one may only baptize the regenerate. As Murray rightly notes, this judgment exceeds the warrant of men. To state that we ought to examine men's professions to the best of our ability is not the same as saying that one may determine their regeneration. Further, to state that true profession belongs to the regenerate alone is not the same thing as saying that a Church Officer is able to ascertain a true profession infallibly.

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

I am also trying to figure out if one can have a "paedobaptist" view of children without actually baptizing them.

The paedobaptist view of children is that they are disciples. If you view a child as a disciple would you then disobey the command of the Lord to baptize them?

Incidentally, I should have noted that the original post was commendatory. It's a good approach all the way around for any study and not simply for studying this particular issue. We never arrive at a point where we shouldn't be reading through and studying the Word. At the same time, however, there are certain fundamentals of discipleship and the Gospel that militate certain positions and we come to cognitive rest.

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

[As Murray rightly notes, this judgment exceeds the warrant of men. To state that we ought to examine men's professions to the best of our ability is not the same as saying that one may determine their regeneration. Further, to state that true profession belongs to the regenerate alone is not the same thing as saying that a Church Officer is able to ascertain a true profession infallibly.

Would you mind pointing me to where Murray deals with this matter? Thanks.

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Yes, there is an objection if you try to insist that one may only baptize the regenerate. As Murray rightly notes, this judgment exceeds the warrant of men. To state that we ought to examine men's professions to the best of our ability is not the same as saying that one may determine their regeneration. Further, to state that true profession belongs to the regenerate alone is not the same thing as saying that a Church Officer is able to ascertain a true profession infallibly.

I think we may have miscommunicated. I know that many Baptists have talked about only baptizing regenerates, but a Reformed Baptist will agree with Murray that the basis of baptizing is on a credible profession.

So I do not believe the crucial distinctions lie along this line of reasoning. I do, however, greatly appreciate your prayers and the suggestions you have made. Please continue to add anything you think would be helpful. That cognitive rest you speak of is what I seek, though it may be a long search.



Dearly, the quote I posted was from Murray's Christian Baptism, Chapter 3. In my edition (P&R, 1980) it is on pages 36-37.

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Yes, there is an objection if you try to insist that one may only baptize the regenerate. As Murray rightly notes, this judgment exceeds the warrant of men. To state that we ought to examine men's professions to the best of our ability is not the same as saying that one may determine their regeneration. Further, to state that true profession belongs to the regenerate alone is not the same thing as saying that a Church Officer is able to ascertain a true profession infallibly.

I think we may have miscommunicated. I know that many Baptists have talked about only baptizing regenerates, but a Reformed Baptist will agree with Murray that the basis of baptizing is on a credible profession.

So I do not believe the crucial distinctions lie along this line of reasoning. I do, however, greatly appreciate your prayers and the suggestions you have made. Please continue to add anything you think would be helpful. That cognitive rest you speak of is what I seek, though it may be a long search.



Dearly, the quote I posted was from Murray's Christian Baptism, Chapter 3. In my edition (P&R, 1980) it is on pages 36-37.

I understand that Charlie but when you posted you made this distinction and asked the question whether or not it belongs to regenerate professors alone and the clear answer is "No" or none could be baptized without the mind of Christ.

I engage and have engaged in many discussions with Baptists here and understand the distinctions/arguments made. Unfortunately, this very point is not drawn out clearly enough and leads to a lack of some self-examination about whether or not the Church can or cannot baptize the regenerate. Some are clearly confused on this point and even those that are not do not always carefully couch their arguments acknowledging this point. If you haven't spent any time yet reviewing the discussions in the Baptism forum you may want to find some of the more lengthy debates to see how some of those discussions proceed.

Blessings!

Rich

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

It's a good approach all the way around for any study and not simply for studying this particular issue. We never arrive at a point where we shouldn't be reading through and studying the Word. At the same time, however, there are certain fundamentals of discipleship and the Gospel that militate certain positions and we come to cognitive rest.

Charlie, that was also the burden of my post. You are in a WONDERFUL spot to "field test" these issues before you get into pastoral ministry. I regret not giving them enough thought before middle age! And, since you cannot suspend commitment forever, I would encourage you to find a view you believe to be biblical and move forward decisively. One of the bummers of many graduates of my seminary is their tendency to approach biblical and theological issues with cognitive paralysis: "On the one hand . . . but on the other hand." When the people of God come to church, they need to hear a sure word from the Lord, not the uncertainties and vacillations of the academy.

Incidentally, at this stage of my reconsideration, the following seems evident:
* Credo baptism rests chiefly on a few seemingly "clear" admonitions ("believe and be baptized"); the rest of it is derived inferentially from an assumed dysjunctive between the testaments. It is at its strongest point (i.e., the command to baptize disciples) on the theme that resonates best with our contemporary individualistic society: choice and decision. Regardless of what the apostles meant, Americans "hear" the book of Acts in ways that tend to support credo baptist practice.
* Paedo baptist views draw their greatest force from seeing continuity between the testaments and deducing practice from the sheer logic of the covenantal position.

There are plenty of verses that can be adduced to support either model. But, diachronic biblical theology will tend to be the favorite of credo baptists while a more synchronic Sys Theo approach rooted in the covenant will be the likely choice of paedo baptists.

Between the two, my tradition (credo baptism) has a much better practice than its theory would suggest with regard to children. Paedo writers are correct that the way the typical Baptist treats his kids is hardly consistent with our view of depravity, regeneration, and baptism. We would never count them as disciples until they "accepted Jesus and were baptized." However, we would never think of carrying out the logic of our position by considering them vipers in diapers or pagans in the playpen either. Some have noted that Baptists have no theology of children. That is possibly true, especially for most of us who hail from non-Reformed Baptist denominations.

The paedo model is far tighter and logically compact. Children make sense in the paedo model as does Hebrews 6, 10, Gal 5, and a lot of other texts.

Frankly, Charlie, you will not need facility with Hebrew to read the major books on the topic. Your Greek and knowledge of theology will be suffficient. God bless you as you rightly handle the Word of Truth.

Originally Posted by Dearly Bought

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

[As Murray rightly notes, this judgment exceeds the warrant of men. To state that we ought to examine men's professions to the best of our ability is not the same as saying that one may determine their regeneration. Further, to state that true profession belongs to the regenerate alone is not the same thing as saying that a Church Officer is able to ascertain a true profession infallibly.

Would you mind pointing me to where Murray deals with this matter? Thanks.

Bryan,

You don't have to go to the book to see what I was speaking of. If you look at the quote, I bolded the portion where Murray stated what I simply re-stated.

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Charlie, that was also the burden of my post. You are in a WONDERFUL spot to "field test" these issues before you get into pastoral ministry. I regret not giving them enough thought before middle age! And, since you cannot suspend commitment forever, I would encourage you to find a view you believe to be biblical and move forward decisively. One of the bummers of many graduates of my seminary is their tendency to approach biblical and theological issues with cognitive paralysis: "On the one hand . . . but on the other hand." When the people of God come to church, they need to hear a sure word from the Lord, not the uncertainties and vacillations of the academy.

I hear you, Dennis. I also question the ability of men who have never found themselves in a bit of cognitive paralysis, or at least disturbance. If the other side has always been obviously completely wrong, I wonder how much that man has actually felt the gravity and depth of theology. I grew up IFB and that's ugly.

But, I understand you saying I do need to come to a conclusion. On the one hand (men...), I want to put this to rest. I don't want to do a Fred Malone, where 10 years later I decided I converted for superficial reasons and now I'm converting back. Ouch! So, some thoroughness is required. On the other hand (...de), I can't let this go on forever. So I hope to clear it up within about a year from now.

What makes it really hard is that I'm already Presbyterian in polity, and I really like the PCA churches in town. I confessed to a friend yesterday that sometimes I just wish God would make me paedobaptist.

Citing Malone is quite appropriate. Some of us were "trained" in one school of thought so thoroughly that we never bothered to feel the force of the arguments we "knew" only in a bulleted list to prepare for a sys theo test. Unfortunately, that leaves us vulnerable later when we finally "get around" to looking at the issue seriously.

Whatever you do, DON'T remain on the fence too long. Whether you baptize babies or believers, churches need pastors who believe in what they teach and follow it faithfully. Some traditions have pastors who are generally better prepared in Bible and theology than others. But, NONE of them want pastors who don't know what they believe.

It is certainly difficult and taxing, especially since there are often a multitude of practical issues weighing down on you (response of family, friends, your education, etc.). When things finally came to a head for me, I ended up getting only 2 hours of sleep or so one night. I couldn't stop thinking about the implications of the convictions that I was coming to. However, it is definitely worth losing some sleep over and I'm glad I did.