Why I am now a Baptist

Pilgrim · #1 (**permalink**) 05-19-2008, 01:47 AM

Brothers and Sisters,

I came to credobaptist convictions three weeks ago. Here, with slight modifications to remove personal references, is what I recently sent to the pastor of the PCA church we had been planning to join as well as the pastor of the OPC church that I still belong to explaining why I am now attending a Baptist church:

Until Saturday night I would have told you that I was a convinced paedobaptist and Presbyterian. I was even prepared to sell most of my Baptist books, even including several ones by and about Spurgeon. However as I had told you in our first meeting, I have always struggled with Acts 2:41 and never thought that passage taken as a whole was nearly as favorable to paedobaptism as many think. No paedo has ever been able to answer it completely to my satisfaction. Whenever I have asked the question (including several times on the PB) I usually get stony silence. Others will respond with some kind of snide comment like "Baptists just don't get it". Others will try to argue that there were no children there that day. If I recall correctly that day you responded with something like "we shouldn't get hung up on one verse" or "we shouldn't allow one verse to determine things." However, I suppose I just ignored my concerns up until now. But I read it in context Saturday night and it hit me like a ton of bricks:

Quote:

Acts 2:41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. 42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Some will argue that the reference to "breaking of bread" in Acts 2:42 is not necessarily a reference to the Lord's Supper. It is used as a proof text in the Westminster Standards at WCF 21.5, 21.6, 26.2, WLC 63, 108, 154, 174, 175 and WSC 50 and 88. Several of these are general references to the means of grace but Acts 2:42 is used in other instances as a proof text specifically for the Lord's Supper. I interpret these verses to teach that, first of all, those who received Peter's word that day were baptized (i.e. only those personally professing faith) and that this same group continued steadfastly breaking bread which typically included in those days the celebration of the Lord's Supper. These two verses, in my opinion, throw the Reformed teaching of paedobaptism and credo communion into serious doubt. It appears that the two choices that do justice to the unity expressed here are either adopting Baptist views or adopting paedocommunion. Unfortunately, many in Reformed churches are opting for the latter. This is why we see so many who come from Baptist backgrounds like Doug Wilson, Gregg Strawbridge and Randy Booth adopting paedocommunion soon after becoming paedobaptists. A whole lot more NT evidence can be marshaled against paedobaptism than can be brought to bear against
paedocommunion. Once one has explained away all of the "believe and be baptized" verses in favor of an overarching concept of covenant theology that is imposed upon the scriptures, why let 1 Cor. 11 get in the way of practicing paedocommunion? I am glad that churches like the PCA have up until this point held the line against paedocommunion. But I believe at this point that the teaching of the Westminster Standards on this subject is inconsistent and am thinking that those who have argued that the western church abandoned paedocommunion after the adoption of transubstantiation because of concerns that the child would throw up the elements have a point. Of course the eastern church has never abandoned paedocommunion and will force alcoholic wine down the throat of children who are barely more than infants.

Joshua · #2 (**permalink**) 05-19-2008, 01:49 AM

(most respectfully, mind you!

)

Joshua · #3 (**permalink**) 05-19-2008, 01:50 AM

I forgot to add:

and "thanks" for sharing.

Davidius · #4 (**permalink**) 05-19-2008, 02:02 AM

Thanks for sharing, Chris. I respect the difficulty of embracing new positions and the diligence I'm sure you've given this question.

Could you elaborate more on just what exactly your argument is? You stated that some men were baptized, that 2:42 may refer to communion, and concluded that we therefore must either accept paedocommunion or reject paedobaptism. I don't see how this follows from the passage. I'm not trying to debate you on this; your explanation just doesn't make sense to me and I'm looking for clarification so that I may understand your new position.

Pilgrim · #5 (**permalink**) 05-19-2008, 02:03 AM

I apologize to and ask forgiveness from any Baptists I may have offended in the past with my previous PB posts on baptism and Baptists.

Semper Fidelis · #6 (**permalink**) 05-19-2008, 02:04 AM

It doesn't change the fact that I still hold you in high esteem but I find your reasoning to be something that would not hit me like a ton of bricks. It falls flat on me.

I'm not sure how you move from a historical narrative that is focused on the number baptized that day to a didactic principle that baptism is for adult believers. You obviously have to conclude much more than that thin piece of Scriptural evidence because neither the setting nor the verse provide enough information to demand children were present (after all Peter repeatedly refers to the crowd as "men and brethren"). Also, a Covenant principle would consistently only "count" men just as in the Old Testament (exactly how many women and children were there in the desert?). If you're uncomfortable with that as being "explained away" and unsatisfactory then so be it but I don't know how you're going to satisfactorily build an injunction that baptism is for professors on the basis of texts that can be interpreted both ways and then conveniently give no answer where household baptisms are spoken of and just "explain that away" in the same way you assume others have explained away this single verse in your estimation.

I'm not trying to beat you up over this but my convictions on the Covenant are built from an underlying super-structure that takes many more things into account including the progression of Covenantal development. I simply don't see Acts 2:41 as something that would knock down that whole edifice and find the historical narratives to be, at best, vague to establish a principle either way. For every verse where you might want to definitively create a "this must speak of adults only" you'll have the same wrestling process with those that we believe militate in the opposite way. You've obviously built some sort of super-structure beside this single verse or it would not have hit you like a ton of bricks.

I do hope that you'll find a Confessional position on the matter and not try to strike some position that rests between Confessions but settles on none.

Blessings!

Rich

Semper Fidelis · #7 (**permalink**) 05-19-2008, 02:11 AM

Incidentally, a truer history of paedocommunion is found in CPJ 3.

North Jersey Baptist · #8 (**permalink**) 05-19-2008, 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

I apologize to and ask forgiveness from any Baptists I may have offended in the past with my previous PB posts on baptism and Baptists.

Chris, all is fair in love, war and baptism threads.

Pilgrim · #9 (**permalink**) 05-19-2008, 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davidius

Thanks for sharing, Chris. I respect the difficulty of embracing new positions and the diligence I'm sure you've given this question.

Could you elaborate more on just what exactly your argument is? You stated that some men were baptized, that 2:42 may refer to communion, and concluded that we therefore must either accept paedocommunion or reject paedobaptism. I don't see how this follows from the passage. I'm not trying to debate you on this; your explanation just doesn't make sense to me and I'm looking for clarification so that I may understand your new position.

Thanks for your question, David. Unfortunately I won't have much time for a protracted debate on this and don't anticipate being on here much at all in the coming weeks, but I will try to answer now since I am still online.

Very simply, I believe that all of those who were baptized on the day of Pentecost were professing believers, and v. 42 states that this same group celebrated the Lord's Supper together. In my mind those who accept paedobaptism must also accept paedocommunion in order to do justice to the text. As I stated, I am glad that the Confessional Reformed do not practice paedocommunion, but at this point I regard that as a happy inconsistency.

I am well aware that many will not be satisfied with my reasoning, but I felt that it was incumbent upon me as a moderator of this board with 5500+ posts to explain my change in views, especially since a good portion (my guess is at least a few hundred) of my previous posts were dedicated to hammering Baptists.

FWIW I continue to think using the term Reformed to simply refer to those who accept TULIP isn't particularly helpful, but it seems to be a lost cause at this point.

North Jersey Baptist · #10 (**permalink**) 05-19-2008, 02:19 AM

Quote:

I do hope that you'll find a Confessional position on the matter and not try to strike some position that rests between Confessions but settles on none.

I concur. Chris, while I am personally thrilled to have you on the credo side of the issue, Rich makes a salient point. If you haven't already done so, spend some time with the 1689 London Baptist Confession and its rationale behind credo baptism. The passage in Acts may be the fulcrum in which your conviction changed, but allow your change to be grounded on scriptural and historical grounds. I am not saying this is the case, but you if you arrived at a credo position separate from the accepted Baptist confession, that would concern me. You would be out on your own and subject to further changes in your baptismal position. This could lead to needless angst.

I'll keep you in prayer over the next few days as your decision begins to maturate.

Pilgrim · #11 (**permalink**) 05-19-2008, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

It doesn't change the fact that I still hold you in high esteem but I find your reasoning to be something that would not hit me like a ton of bricks. It falls flat on me.

I'm not sure how you move from a historical narrative that is focused on the number baptized that day to a didactic principle that baptism is for adult believers. You obviously have to conclude much more than that thin piece of Scriptural evidence because neither the setting nor the verse provide enough information to demand children were present (after all Peter repeatedly refers to the crowd as "men and brethren"). Also, a Covenant principle would consistently only "count" men just as in the Old Testament (exactly how many women and children were there in the desert?). If you're uncomfortable with that as being "explained away" and unsatisfactory then so be it but I don't know how you're going to satisfactorily build an injunction that baptism is for professors on the basis of texts that can be interpreted both ways and then conveniently give no answer where household baptisms are spoken of and just "explain that away" in the same way you assume others have explained away this single verse in your estimation.

I'm not trying to beat you up over this but my convictions on the Covenant are built from an underlying super-structure that takes many more things into account including the progression of Covenantal development. I simply don't see Acts 2:41 as something that would knock down that whole edifice and find the historical narratives to be, at best, vague to establish a principle either way. For every verse where you might want to definitively create a "this must speak of adults only" you'll have the same wrestling process with those that we believe militate in the opposite way. You've obviously built some sort of super-structure beside this single verse or it would not have hit you like a ton of bricks.

I do hope that you'll find a Confessional position on the matter and not try to strike some position that rests between Confessions but settles on none.

Blessings!

Rich

Thanks for your gracious response, Rich. I appreciate your concern about confessional limbo. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, with his views on baptism, couldn't subscribe to either the WCF or 1689, but his position would be largely unworkable in most contexts. I now subscribe to the 1689 although there may be some issues unrelated to baptism or polity in which I may prefer the WCF. I'm thinking primarily of the teaching on marriage and divorce although there may be some others as well.

Semper Fidelis · #12 (**permalink**) 05-19-2008, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Very simply, I believe that all of those who were baptized on the day of Pentecost were professing believers, and v. 42 states that this same group celebrated the Lord's Supper together.

By the same reasoning, may we conclude there were no women and children in the Desert? I just don't see this Chris.

Why must the verse that speaks about the activity of those present that day preclude any notion that they actually went home and told others in their household?

In fact, by your reasoning, if a single woman was not present that day, she couldn't have become a believer by the report of her husband. Assume the man comes home and tells his wife (who wasn't there that day) the news of Christ's resurrection. Since you insist that only the population at Pentecost that day were those that continued steadfastly in the Apostle's doctrine and the breaking of the bread, then there were absolutely no wives at home that day who heard the report from their husbands and later became believers.

Is this your assertion?

Pilgrim · #13 (**permalink**) 05-19-2008, 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

Quote:

I do hope that you'll find a Confessional position on the matter and not try to strike some position that rests between Confessions but settles on none.

I concur. Chris, while I am personally thrilled to have you on the credo side of the issue, Rich makes a salient point. If you haven't already done so, spend some time with the 1689 London Baptist Confession and its rationale behind credo baptism. The passage in Acts may be the fulcrum in which your conviction changed, but allow your change to be grounded on scriptural and historical grounds. I am not saying this is the case, but you if you arrived at a credo position separate from the accepted Baptist confession, that would concern me. You would be out on your own and subject to further changes in your baptismal position. This could lead to needless angst.

I'll keep you in prayer over the next few days as your decision begins to maturate.

Thanks, Bill. My understanding, based on my reading of A String of Pearls Unstrung is that Fred Malone returned to being a Baptist for reasons that are largely similar to mine, although it was a different text that initially caused him to reconsider his position. I have long been familiar with the arguments on both sides of this issue and have gone back and forth on it since at least 2003. I had come to paedo convictions at just about the same time as I joined this board in Sept. 2005.

North Jersey Baptist · #14 (**permalink**) 05-19-2008, 03:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Quote:

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

Quote:

I do hope that you'll find a Confessional position on the matter and not try to strike some position that rests between Confessions but settles on none.

I concur. Chris, while I am personally thrilled to have you on the credo side of the issue, Rich makes a salient point. If you haven't already done so, spend some time with the 1689 London Baptist Confession and its rationale behind credo baptism. The passage in Acts may be the fulcrum in which your conviction changed, but allow your change to be grounded on scriptural and historical grounds. I am not saying this is the case, but you if you arrived at a credo position separate from the accepted Baptist confession, that would concern me. You would be out on your own and subject to further changes in your baptismal position. This could lead to needless angst.

I'll keep you in prayer over the next few days as your decision begins to maturate.

Thanks, Bill. My understanding, based on my reading of A String of Pearls Unstrung is that Fred Malone returned to being a Baptist for reasons that are largely similar to mine, although it was a different text that initially caused him to reconsider his position. I have long been familiar with the arguments on both sides of this issue and have gone back and forth on it since at least 2003. I had come to paedo convictions at just about the same time as I joined this board in Sept. 2005.

Regarding "A String of Pearls", Malone makes this statement which I found most profound:

Quote:

As I look back to those days as a sincere and searching seminary student I often wonder if I was as honestly searching for the truth as I thought I was. For in the hard crucible of sometimes bitter rejection by my Baptist friends over the doctrines of sovereign grace, and in the warm fellowship of my like-minded paedobaptist brethren, it is more than possible that I allowed subjective feelings to influence my interpretation of the objective truth about baptism. I do not believe that I am the only Baptist who became a Presbyterian under these circumstances. In fact, I believe many Baptists, frustrated with doctrinal shallowness, have left Baptist churches to find a theologically comfortable home in sound Presbyterian churches. However, the sacraments are never minor issues of doctrine, and it is my hope that this pamphlet will persuade many to stay in, help reform, and build more sound Baptist churches.

Having experienced the same shallow depth in Baptist circles, Malone's comments resonate with me.

Pilgrim · #15 (**permalink**) 05-19-2008, 03:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Quote:

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

I concur. Chris, while I am personally thrilled to have you on the credo side of the issue, Rich makes a salient point. If you haven't already done so, spend some time with the 1689 London Baptist Confession and its rationale behind credo baptism. The passage in Acts may be the fulcrum in which your conviction changed, but allow your change to be grounded on scriptural and historical grounds. I am not saying this is the case, but you if you arrived at a credo position separate from the accepted Baptist confession, that would concern me. You would be out on your own and subject to further changes in your baptismal position. This could lead to needless angst.

I'll keep you in prayer over the next few days as your decision begins to maturate.

Thanks, Bill. My understanding, based on my reading of A String of Pearls Unstrung is that Fred Malone returned to being a Baptist for reasons that are largely similar to mine, although it was a different text that initially caused him to reconsider his position. I have long been familiar with the arguments on both sides of this issue and have gone back and forth on it since at least 2003. I had come to paedo convictions at just about the same time as I joined this board in Sept. 2005.

Regarding "A String of Pearls", Malone makes this statement which I found most profound:

Quote:

As I look back to those days as a sincere and searching seminary student I often wonder if I was as honestly searching for the truth as I thought I was. For in the hard crucible of sometimes bitter rejection by my Baptist friends over the doctrines of sovereign grace, and in the warm fellowship of my like-minded paedobaptist brethren, it is more than possible that I allowed subjective feelings to influence my interpretation of the objective truth about baptism. I do not believe that I am the only Baptist who became a Presbyterian under these circumstances. In fact, I believe many Baptists, frustrated with doctrinal shallowness, have left Baptist churches to find a theologically comfortable home in sound Presbyterian churches. However, the sacraments are never minor issues of doctrine, and it is my hope that this pamphlet will persuade many to stay in, help reform, and build more sound Baptist churches.

Having experienced the same shallow depth in Baptist circles, Malone's comments resonate with me.

I can totally identify although of course I am not a pastor and have not been to seminary.

Mayflower · #16 (**permalink**) 05-19-2008, 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Quote:

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Thanks, Bill. My understanding, based on my reading of A String of Pearls Unstrung is that Fred Malone returned to being a Baptist for reasons that are largely similar to mine, although it was a different text that initially caused him to reconsider his position. I have long been familiar with the arguments on both sides of this issue and have gone back and forth on it since at least 2003. I had come to paedo convictions at just about the same time as I joined this board in Sept. 2005.

Regarding "A String of Pearls", Malone makes this statement which I found most profound:

Quote:

As I look back to those days as a sincere and searching seminary student I often wonder if I was as honestly searching for the truth as I thought I was. For in the hard crucible of sometimes bitter rejection by my Baptist friends over the doctrines of sovereign grace, and in the warm fellowship of my like-minded paedobaptist brethren, it is more than possible that I allowed subjective feelings to influence my interpretation of the objective truth about baptism. I do not believe that I am the only Baptist who became a Presbyterian under these circumstances. In fact, I believe many Baptists, frustrated with doctrinal shallowness, have left Baptist churches to find a theologically comfortable home in sound Presbyterian churches. However, the sacraments are never minor issues of doctrine, and it is my hope that this pamphlet will persuade many to stay in, help reform, and build more sound Baptist churches.

Having experienced the same shallow depth in Baptist circles, Malone's comments resonate with me.

I can totally identify although of course I am not a pastor and have not been to seminary.

Me too, i got converted in a baptist church but only knew arminian doctrine (and from the anti-calvinistic circle), through the great influence of the puritans and reformers and through covenant theology i embraced (i think) 2 years paedobaptism, but sinds a few years again i saw (what i believe) the errors of infant baptism and the nature and the New Covenant and the New Testament Church, so i came back to credobaptism. The lectures of William Einwechter (excellent!!), books from David Kingdon, Fred Malone and Nehemia Cox convinced me.

William Einwechter : The Great Debate Over Baptism and the Covenant (11 cd's)
The Great Debate over Baptism and the Covenant (11 CDs)

AV1611 · #17 (**permalink**) 05-19-2008, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

I believe that all of those who were baptized on the day of Pentecost were p