This May Be the Best Concise Work Penned by a Puritan on Infant Baptism

Status
Not open for further replies.
Glen Clary wrote of this somewhat a few year back for The Confessional Presbyterian journal. Glen J. Clary, "Ulrich Zwingli and the Swiss Anabaptists: Sola Scriptura and the Reformation of Christian Worship," CPJ v.6 (2010), 108-124. http://www.cpjournal.com/contents-by-issue/the-confessional-presbyterian-6-2010/ Some caution is needed; not for this, but I recall some years back it was the thing to call the Puritan understanding of the RPW, anabaptistic.
Just as a historical note, the radical Anabaptists articulated such an extreme RPW that led them to all sorts of aberrations in worship (well beyond their views on baptism).

Can you be specific and give historical examples. Can you substantiate the claim that the Anabaptists affirmed the RPW beyond a vague commitment to Scripture's authority. This is something I have not heard before.
 
FYI; Glen has been putting some of his material on his blog; so it may be worth searching to see if this article is online. Otherwise v6 is still in print.
 
FYI; Glen has been putting some of his material on his blog; so it may be worth searching to see if this article is online. Otherwise v6 is still in print.

As I recall, Clary cites Grebel's letter to Muntzer as the first articulation of the RPW. If Clary doesn't have it online I believe Grebel's letter is, or at least it was some time ago when I read it.
 
There is no obvious nor positive actual command to change the day just as there is no command to abrogate placing the sign on the children of covenanting parents. One gets to these doctrines via G&NC. Need I mention the other doctrines that we get to via G&NC? As I said, poor argument.

I never said there was a 'positive actual command.' I pointed out the clear witness of Scripture found in the appearances of our Lord, the outpouring of the Spirit, the practice of the apostolic church, and the clear declaration of the apostle John that the first day of the week is the Lord's Day. Regardless of the absence of a 'positive command' you yet have the clear example and positive declaration that it is the first day of the week.

But we have no such example of infant baptism in the New Testament nor do we have one word declaring it to be the practice of the church or commanding it in any way. Unlike the issue of the Christian Sabbath, infant baptism is completely foreign to the New Testament and the Scriptures as a whole.
 
FYI; Glen has been putting some of his material on his blog; so it may be worth searching to see if this article is online. Otherwise v6 is still in print.

As I recall, Clary cites Grebel's letter to Muntzer as the first articulation of the RPW. If Clary doesn't have it online I believe Grebel's letter is, or at least it was some time ago when I read it.

Here's a post by Clary: http://reformedforum.org/who-discovered-the-regulative-principle/

And I believe this is the letter he cites: http://www.anabaptistnetwork.com/grebel
 
There is no obvious nor positive actual command to change the day just as there is no command to abrogate placing the sign on the children of covenanting parents. One gets to these doctrines via G&NC. Need I mention the other doctrines that we get to via G&NC? As I said, poor argument.

I never said there was a 'positive actual command.' I pointed out the clear witness of Scripture found in the appearances of our Lord, the outpouring of the Spirit, the practice of the apostolic church, and the clear declaration of the apostle John that the first day of the week is the Lord's Day. Regardless of the absence of a 'positive command' you yet have the clear example and positive declaration that it is the first day of the week.

Agreed. In the same way, based on continuity, covenant and the fact that the Lord does not change (consider the imperative in Gen 17, 'for all generations'), the same must be said of the covenant sign. The Sabbath day is not the Lord's day and the sign is no longer bloody, but water, but still the sign of covenant.

But we have no such example of infant baptism in the New Testament

Dispensationalism


nor do we have one word declaring it to be the practice of the church

Placing a sign on infants has always been the practice of the church, whether old or new.

or commanding it in any way.

It is commanded, 'for all generations'.

Gen 17, Deut 29:

9*Keep therefore the words of this covenant, and do them, that ye may prosper in all that ye do.
10*Ye stand this day all of you before the LORD your God; your captains of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, with all the men of Israel, 11*Your little ones, your wives, and thy stranger that is in thy camp, from the hewer of thy wood unto the drawer of thy water: 12*That thou shouldest enter into covenant with the LORD thy God, and into his oath, which the LORD thy God maketh with thee this day: 13*That he may establish thee to day for a people unto himself, and that he may be unto thee a God, as he hath said unto thee, and as he hath sworn unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.


The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Dt 29:8–13.

Unlike the issue of the Christian Sabbath, infant baptism is completely foreign to the New Testament and the Scriptures as a whole.

Again, you discount the continuity of scripture and end up dispensationalizing facts. I see you have no issue with the decalogue.
 
Scott,

You may call me a dispensationalist if you like. That takes nothing away from what I've said any more than it adds to your arguments. If you are persuaded there is nothing between your position and that of C. I. Schofield, it would show a surprising lack of understanding. If all that is required to show someone a dispensationalist is to point where they see discontinuity between the old and New Covenants, then such a charge can be levied at any honest Presbyterian, but to very little effect.

The sole basis of your argument lies in saying that baptism has supplanted circumcision as the sign of the covenant and then take all the commands relating to circumcision as binding on the Church and believers. But this too is foreign to the New Testament. Nowhere is such a hermeneutic warranted. It is rather similar to the old dispensatioanlists who would try to interpret the New Testament from the Old rather than the other way round. It's ironic I think.

The fact is, if the Apostles had any thought of baptism replacing circumcision as the sigh of the New Covenant, it most certainly would have come to the fore in the greatest controversy of the New Testament--that of circumcision being yet binding on New Covenant believers. The Legalists declared, "Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved" (Acts 15:1). The church responds with a decree that says NOTHING of baptism now supplanting circumcision. Nor does the Apostle Paul in all his letters which interact substantially with this controversy. Their silence says everything! If it is as you suggest, why O WHY would they not have made it clear at that moment? The only suitable answer to that question is that they did NOT believe that baptism had supplanted circumcision but was a distinct sign belonging to the New Covenant.
 
As one who, as I said, is struggling with this issue, does anyone know of any person—whether on this board or published elsewhere—who has written a response to the book written by Pascal Denault? That, by far, is the most convincing argument for the Baptist position I have ever encountered. I have yet to find a satisfying response to it, this present work by Rev. Harrison most definitely included.
 
Scott,

You may call me a dispensationalist if you like. That takes nothing away from what I've said any more than it adds to your arguments. If you are persuaded there is nothing between your position and that of C. I. Schofield, it would show a surprising lack of understanding.

I understand that there is more than just 'Schofield' (sic) dispensationalism. It is that which I refer. Do you understand that?

If all that is required to show someone a dispensationalist is to point where they see discontinuity between the old and New Covenants, then such a charge can be levied at any honest Presbyterian, but to very little effect.

Well, not exactly. I get that there are biblical dispensations. God works that way. Both of us get that. However, from a covenanting perspective, what you are doing is adding a dispensation that covenanters disagree with and hence, we call that dispensationalism, because that is what it is. Granted, it is not Larkin dispensationalism, but none the less....

The sole basis of your argument lies in saying that baptism has supplanted circumcision as the sign of the covenant and then take all the commands relating to circumcision as binding on the Church and believers.

Like what? Placing the sign? Yea...thats commanded!

But this too is foreign to the New Testament. Nowhere is such a hermeneutic warranted.

In continuity and God's immutability...'to all generations'.

It is rather similar to the old dispensatioanlists who would try to interpret the New Testament from the Old rather than the other way round. It's ironic I think.

Well, to be perfectly honest, I have never used that process myself; I read the whole of scriptures. The Old leads me to the new and the new helps me see more clearer the veiled items.

The fact is, if the Apostles had any thought of baptism replacing circumcision as the sigh of the New Covenant, it most certainly would have come to the fore in the greatest controversy of the New Testament--that of circumcision being yet binding on New Covenant believers.

No. Water replaced the cutting. I see no struggle and neither did they. There were some issues mind you, but that was obviously worked out.

The Legalists declared, "Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved" (Acts 15:1). The church responds with a decree that says NOTHING of baptism now supplanting circumcision. Nor does the Apostle Paul in all his letters which interact substantially with this controversy. Their silence says everything! If it is as you suggest, why O WHY would they not have made it clear at that moment?

Simply because they were speaking to people who wanted to keep circumcising. They didn't understand it and one has to consider the transitional idea. It took some time. For example, were the Apostles ever baptized? Peter? Paul? How about if one's child had just been circumcized and then Pentecost came the following day? Do you believe for a second that the Apostles were telling these jews, 'listen, I am sorry to tell u but the sign you placed yesterday was in vain! You must now baptize your child!' No! Absolutely not. And that is exactly why you never see any of that, anywhere!
 
Rev Winzer,

I really appreciate your impute on various topics but this is one where things get a bit confusing. This also goes back to Pastor Sheffield's original point: "A selective rejection of the regulative principle of worship." He's absolutely right here. If this were a different topic pertaining to Church order and worship many of you Presbyterians would be demanding (and rightly so) that your readers understand the RPW. Defining the RPW, Derek Thomas says:

"Put simply, the regulative principle of worship states that the corporate worship of God is to be founded upon specific directions of Scripture. On the surface, it is difficult to see why anyone who values the authority of Scripture would find such a principle objectionable."

The problem is that you guys change the rules when it comes to baptism; and suddenly the versus that clearly demonstrate believers baptisms say something completely different than what they actually say, or the scriptures are much more complicated than we Baptist can see; as your last post clearly demonstrates. Pastor Sheffield said, "But in all of these examples and in all of the New Testament, not so much as a single word commands the baptism of infants." It's here where paedobaptist find the RPW (as Derek Thomas put it) objectionable. If this were another topic you fellows would be all for it. But how did you respond? "That is irrelevant." You know, that's how people break down a particular viewpoint. They look for inconsistencies, and hope the rest of house just simply falls over. If we ever get to the place were we're asking "Where in the New Testament is the command NOT to...?" than why defend the RPW on any point when someone who objects to the RPW ask the same question?

Your brother,
Tyrese

Just as a historical note, the radical Anabaptists articulated such an extreme RPW that led them to all sorts of aberrations in worship (well beyond their views on baptism). The Reformed took the principal and grounded it in its proper biblical realm and within redemptive history as Rev. Winzer suggested. There is no doubt that there exists a more extensive and radical interpretation of the RPW than that which has been articulated by the Reformed. That interpretation belongs properly to the Anabaptists however, not to the heirs of the Reformation who regard the RPW as operating within its particular realm and with reference to its appropriate objects after due consideration of the analogy of faith.

So basically what you're telling me is that if anyone disagrees with the paedobaptist view he must be as radical as the Anabaptist? Gotcha. Sounds to me you guys would just rather not address the issue at hand. I don't make this a topic of division, but it is interesting how paedobaptist "change up" when it's convenient for them to do so.
 
As one who, as I said, is struggling with this issue, does anyone know of any person—whether on this board or published elsewhere—who has written a response to the book written by Pascal Denault? That, by far, is the most convincing argument for the Baptist position I have ever encountered. I have yet to find a satisfying response to it, this present work by Rev. Harrison most definitely included.

In my opinion, the reason why you haven't found anything that adequately responds to the "Reformed" Baptist perspective is because there isn't. To be fair to the OP I haven't read the book that he has shared. I'm glad that he shared it but does anyone really believe that there's a new argument to a practice that's simply not in Scripture? Brother, I would encourage you to focus on what the Scriptures actually say. I think a lot of Baptist continue to read and re-read paedobaptist arguments because they're discontent with being a Baptist.
 
Last edited:
Rev Winzer,

I really appreciate your impute on various topics but this is one where things get a bit confusing. This also goes back to Pastor Sheffield's original point: "A selective rejection of the regulative principle of worship." He's absolutely right here. If this were a different topic pertaining to Church order and worship many of you Presbyterians would be demanding (and rightly so) that your readers understand the RPW. Defining the RPW, Derek Thomas says:

"Put simply, the regulative principle of worship states that the corporate worship of God is to be founded upon specific directions of Scripture. On the surface, it is difficult to see why anyone who values the authority of Scripture would find such a principle objectionable."

The problem is that you guys change the rules when it comes to baptism; and suddenly the versus that clearly demonstrate believers baptisms say something completely different than what they actually say, or the scriptures are much more complicated than we Baptist can see; as your last post clearly demonstrates. Pastor Sheffield said, "But in all of these examples and in all of the New Testament, not so much as a single word commands the baptism of infants." It's here where paedobaptist find the RPW (as Derek Thomas put it) objectionable. If this were another topic you fellows would be all for it. But how did you respond? "That is irrelevant." You know, that's how people break down a particular viewpoint. They look for inconsistencies, and hope the rest of house just simply falls over. If we ever get to the place were we're asking "Where in the New Testament is the command NOT to...?" than why defend the RPW on any point when someone who objects to the RPW ask the same question?

Your brother,
Tyrese

Just as a historical note, the radical Anabaptists articulated such an extreme RPW that led them to all sorts of aberrations in worship (well beyond their views on baptism). The Reformed took the principal and grounded it in its proper biblical realm and within redemptive history as Rev. Winzer suggested. There is no doubt that there exists a more extensive and radical interpretation of the RPW than that which has been articulated by the Reformed. That interpretation belongs properly to the Anabaptists however, not to the heirs of the Reformation who regard the RPW as operating within its particular realm and with reference to its appropriate objects after due consideration of the analogy of faith.

So basically what you're telling me is that if anyone disagrees with the paedobaptist view he must be as radical as the Anabaptist? Gotcha. Sounds to me you guys would just rather not address the issue at hand. I don't make this a topic of division, but it is interesting how paedobaptist "change up" when it's convenient for them to do so.
If you take the modern RB tack on modified covenant theology as your argument then not necessarily. This particular argument with reference to the RPW is classically Anabaptist, however.

Sent from my LG-D851 using Tapatalk
 
Brother, I would encourage you to focus on what the Scriptures actually say. I think a lot of Baptist continue to read and re-read paedobaptist arguments because they're discontent with being a Baptist.

Agreed. I was once in that category. I read everything the Presbyterians had to say on infant baptism in print. I wanted to be "truly" Reformed. But after going over all the arguments with a fine toothed comb, I realized it why it takes so much heavy reading to find infant baptism in the Bible--because it isn't there. You can only find it if you put it there. We need rather to take the Bible in its plain and simple sense with child-like faith and appreciation.
 
But we have no such example of infant baptism in the New Testament nor do we have one word declaring it to be the practice of the church or commanding it in any way. Unlike the issue of the Christian Sabbath, infant baptism is completely foreign to the New Testament and the Scriptures as a whole.

This is a common challenge to our position. Shishko often ased White to demonstrate where the OT household principle was abrogated. Of course, there is no place in scripture. I find this compelling. If being under the external covenant allowed the judgment of charity to children, the absense in the NT would be a regression. How would the new covenant be better if it didn't impart even greater benefits?

I make these points respectfully. My grandparents are baptist and are wonderful examples of what Christians are supposed to be. Though we worship in different churches, we have sweet fellowship and mutual respect.

I'm hoping that the tone of this discussion can evolve into a gentler, more compassionate discussion (from all sides). I'm praying that it is an edifying discussion, not an opportunity for dart throwing.
 
Brother, I would encourage you to focus on what the Scriptures actually say. I think a lot of Baptist continue to read and re-read paedobaptist arguments because they're discontent with being a Baptist.

Agreed. I was once in that category. I read everything the Presbyterians had to say on infant baptism in print. I wanted to be "truly" Reformed. But after going over all the arguments with a fine toothed comb, I realized it why it takes so much heavy reading to find infant baptism in the Bible--because it isn't there. You can only find it if you put it there. We need rather to take the Bible in its plain and simple sense with child-like faith and appreciation.

There is more proof of infant baptism in the New Testament than there is of a woman ever taking the Lord's Supper. A point that Harrison makes in as many words. If you will not have infant baptism, you may as quickly stop women from coming to the table.
 
To be honest, I tire of the argument over New Testament examples of infant baptism or the absence thereof. That's not the issue, in my opinion. Whatever conclusion to which an individual comes on the matter is frankly irrelevant. The Baptist argues the absence of infant baptism, the Paedobaptist counters with household baptism, and vice-versa. The whole argument is unprofitable, in my experience.

The issue is the covenants, which nobody seems to be addressing.
 
If everyone is so tired, start a thread with a topic refined to your liking in one of the baptism forums. I frankly am finding the passages of PB a bit narrow with all these huge chips on folks' shoulders that need navigating. I know this is Matt's publishing forum but that does not mean anything goes and I am therefore shutting this down and folks should really be handling this in the proper forum.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top