On Sunday evenings this fall, our church has been covering the topic of Basic Christianity and Discipleship. We have a lot of new members and new believers, and so we have been split into groups of 10-20 to go over these things. For example, we spend one lesson on the attributes of God, one on prayer, how to study the Bible, the nature and role of the Church, etc. I lead one of these groups.

A pastor writes an extended outline for a lesson, and each group uses that outline for their lesson.

This week's lesson is on Baptism and the Lord's Supper.

It's a 7-page outline, with 5.5 of them on baptism. We are baptists after all, and that is a major point in our identity. Two of those pages address the debate around infant baptism.

And there is a major problem. The argumentation is not just weak, but just plain wrong. I'm not pretending to be a scholarly authority on the matter, but the pastor attempts to address Reformed paedo's specifically in part of it, and it's just plain full of red herrings, non-sequiturs and, I hate to say it, general ignorance about what Reformed paedo's believe.

A few examples: he states there are only 3 categories of scriptures used by paedos to make their case - those that mention baptism and not infants, those than mention infants and not baptism, and those that mention neither.

Now, if I put my paedo hat on, all I would have to say is, "So? Even if I grant that all my references fall in those categories, infant baptism can still be drawn from good and necessary consequence, so that accusation is of no effect." And the paedo would be right.

He says (emphatically) that there are no examples of infants being baptized. While I agree, it would be FAR more accurate (and fair) to say that there are no clear examples, and that the debate simply cannot and will not be settled on the basis of the well-known passages with household baptisms. Their ambiguity (again, even if the paedo grants it) cannot be considered sound argumentation against a paedo.

And lastly - in his refutation of Reformed paedobaptism, not once does the outline bother even to use the words "Covenant of Grace" or explain basic tenets of Covenant Theology. It's as if it doesn't exist. It boils down to, "Hey, using this baptist framework, now I've proved infant baptism is wrong." There's no effort (or even apparent knowledge) that paedo's are operating from a different set of core interpretive and theological principles. Now, I know this is only a basic outline of our Church's view on these matters, but you can't refute a position without explaining what they hold.

Simply put, I have serious doubts over whether our leadership has ever read or interacted with an intelligent paedobaptist. I am actually quite angry at the assumption and apparent arrogance at the belief that some of the greatest scholars God has ever given to man can be thoroughly dismissed in 2 pages, in the same way we would dismiss a view that is genuinely nuts.

I almost feel like I've been insulted, even though it's not directed at me. It's just not fair. At all. I would want and expect a dogmatic stance from church leadership - but one that is well-reasoned, and shows evidence of careful study.

I know the right answer - talk to my elders about it in the most humble way possible. However, I am quite certain (in all human terms) that even suggesting that this argumentation is inadequate would be seen almost as mutiny, or like I'm arguing for infant baptism. And by its very nature the conversation is disrespectful, regardless of my behavior and attitude in it. It's an accusation of sloppy research, libelous writing toward brothers in Christ who deserve better, etc. The conversation, quite simply, would NOT go well. The guy who wrote it is the most wonderful, humble minister I've ever known, he has memorized nearly half of the Bible, and holds a Ph.D in Church History. And that is why it is hard for me to believe what I see in front of me.

I can attempt to skirt that portion of the outline to focus on others. The leadership has openly said that the outline is just a basic guide,and that individual teachers can focus on some parts more than others if they wish. Should I do my best just to spend the majority of our time on those other things? Or should I address the pastor/s directly about it? How?

An important side note, there are 2 elders that are in the group I teach. Excessive deviation and focus on other parts of the outline would probably raise eyebrows.

Help! I got the outline on Wednesday, and I teach on Sunday.

__________________
Jeremy Gage
First Baptist Church
Durham, NC

"No heart can conceive that treasury of mercies which lies in this one privilege, in having liberty and ability to approach unto God at all times, according to his mind and will." - John Owen

Seems like you've already decided their reaction before approaching them. Is that fair? The conversation would only be deemed disrespectful if it is approached disrespectfully. Try bringing it up with your pastor/elders in a spirit of inquiry instead of a spirit of confrontation; they may surprise you...

__________________
Carl Gobelman
Long Grove Community Church (Evangelical)
Vernon Hills, IL
Blog: http://newcreationperson.wordpress.com

"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come."

Hi Jeremy:

First, I feel for you.

Second, it would probably not be a good idea to directly address your concerns in the class. I would suggest that you take them privately to your pastor, and see what he thinks about it.

Third, you might even suggest to him that you would like to present a more complete outline of paedo-baptist thought as a means of showing where exactly we are wrong! :-)

Fourth, a good, and inexpensive book, that presents the paedo-baptist argument can be found here:

Reformation Media & Press

They tend to take a while in shipping. A downloadable copy (updated as well, but a little more expensive) can be found here:

https://ssl.clickbank.net/order/orde...0683131&item=1

Finally, having once been a credo-baptist I understand the "heat" one can undergo for even appearing to be sympathetic to paedo-baptism. My suggestion would be to drop entirely any attempt to seem "fair" to paedo's in public, and, again mention your concerns privately to your pastor.

Even then you may be eyed as a compromiser, and you may even lose your teaching position because of it. If you need to rant, then rant with us here on the board.

Blessings,

Rob

__________________
In Essentials Unity, in non-Essentials Liberty, in all things Charity.

Robert Paul Wieland
Springs Reformed Presbyterian Church
Colorado Springs, CO RPCNA
Student at Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Pittsburgh PA
Never be afraid to do something new. Remember, amateurs built the Ark, but professionals built the Titanic.

That is certainly the right answer. And given my pastor's education and character, I owe him that amount of charity.

I neglected an interaction we had 2 years earlier with him, in preparation for my wife's baptism. She was baptized as an infant in the CRC, and so it was a natural topic of conversation in the time leading to her baptism as a believer. His commentary at that point was identical to what is on the page. At the time, I just noted as an aside that there are some paedobaptists who would not fall prey to the things he mentioned, and I was on the receiving end of a very suspicious and almost angry look, and he changed the topic immediately. It was clearly not a point of view he wanted to hear.

First, thanks Second, yes, there is no question I will not be expressing my concerns in the class - that would be entirely inappropriate. I still know your counsel is right....but it isn't going to be fun.

What if I let "the heat of the moment" blow over a little, and go see him after a few weeks have passed?

It's much easier to say, "looking back, I have some questions about the lesson on baptism...what about these folks who believe something different?" than it is to say "I'm concerned and I am not comfortable teaching this lesson on Sunday for these reasons."

I agree with much of the advice given. It might be wise to depart from that portion of the notes and discuss the paedo position from our covenantal perspective rather than to reiterate false dichotomies and proofs by lack of evidence.

__________________
Michael Masztal
Ruling Elder, Chapel By The Sea, ARP
Melbourne Beach, FL

I don't think this is an argument you want/need to have.

You know how frequently our own discussions on this board go around and around, with no settlement. If YOU understand the issues, then you are in a position to answer questions put to you. I very much doubt that you will change anyone's mind in that church, even if the goal is merely to encourage accuracy and friendship between Christians in alternate churches. The issues are hermeneutical and substantive (meaning). The similarities between our camps on baptism are fairly superficial, both teaching some sort of initiation/membership rite. And that's about as far as it goes.

The Ref.Bapt. will tend to be closer to a presby/ref, but still the differences loom. How much more in a SBC?

My advice: do not interject too much of your own "take" on the subject. If you cause friction, or cause people to ask other "unsettling" questions, you will not be thanked, not even after you have "settled" the minds of others. You will lose your position of informal influence. Unless the church is heading into a "Puritan" mold, under the leadership of elected pastorate, you should not try to be "wiser" than your elders.

__________________
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? --

I don't see why it is important to specifically address the paedo side in a church Bible study. But if it is necessary, you might take the opportunity to teach Baptists how the Reformed paedos do have excellent arguments to support their practice and they are not closet Romanists. I get tired of sophomoric people from both sides who believe their opponents are just ignorant. Very intelligent and godly men have been contending over this issue for 400 years now; obviously, the case for both has strong support. Let's be honest with our sheep in presenting the strengths and weaknesses of the other side as well as our own. What are we afraid of? Truth?

__________________


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?