Baptism and the Regulative principle

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

ReformedBaptist

Puritan Board Freshman
This was originally posted in the wading pool but I was asked to post it here to get more

Hey guys n gals! As a Baptist who is into reformed theology I have been wrestling with infant baptism. Before I ask this question I would like to state that I in no way mean this offensively, I am honestly curious. How do Presbyterians consolidate infant baptism and the regulative principle of worship, as infant baptism isn't found in scripture( as far as I know)?
 
I know this is a lot to ask but would you mind walking me through the logical steps from Gen 17 to baptism as the new circumcision? :graduate:
 
Baptists are often taught to think of withholding baptism from believers' children as Scripture's default position... so that without a specific command about baptizing children or an example of it happening it feels (to many a Baptist) like an only-do-what's-clearly-regulated mindset would oppose such baptisms.

BUT...

What if including children in covenant membership were Scripture's default position? In that case, it would require a specific command to withhold baptism or an example of it being delayed for that same mindset to conclude that children of believers must not be baptized. Do you see? The regulative principle could lead you to either conclusion depending on how you view baptism and covenant membership from the rest of Scripture.

We baptize our kids because God has clearly commanded that we ought to raise them as disciples and as a part of the covenant community. There is no command in Scripture that baptism ought to wait until discipleship has gone on for several years; rather, much evidence that baptism must take place at the beginning of a life of discipleship. Likewise, there is no command in Scripture that the church should be a mix of those who've been baptized and those who have not; rather, much evidence that all who are part of the church community must be baptized.
 
This was one area that I struggled with when I first began attending a Reformed Presbyterian Church. It certainly was not easy to see, coming from a "proof text this" background. Some things that were helpful to me:

1. Understanding God's covenants and how he has dealt with his people throughout the ages. I.e., are we really a new group or are we grafted into the same tree they were part of? (Rom 11)
2. Understanding circumcision not just as an ethnic thing (others nations in the day practiced both male and female circumcision), but as something pointing toward the need for cleansing of the heart. It couldn't have been just ethnic since the foreigner wanting to join them was also to submit to circumcision.
3. Understanding baptism not just as a sign of following Christ, but signifying the need for cleansing of the inner man.
4. Seeing the connection between baptism and circumcision (note Col 2:11--14 where Paul connects them and their meaning).

I also found Randy Booth's "Children of the Promise" to be helpful, and would be happy to share this portion on the similarities between baptism and circumcision:

Baptism and Circumcision both:
1. Are initiatory rites (Gen 17:10–11;Mat 28:19; Act 2:38–39; 8:12–13)
2. Signify an inward reality (Rom 2:28–29; Col 2:11–12; Phi 3:3)
3. Picture the death of the old man of sin (Rom 6:3–7; Col 2:11–12)
4. Represent repentance (Jer 4:4; 9:25; Lev 26:40–41; Act 2:38)
5. Represent regeneration (Rom 2:28–29; Tit 3:5)
6. Represent justification by faith (Rom 4:11–12; Col 2:11–14)
7. Represent a cleansed heart (Deu 10:16; 30:6; Isa 52:1; Act 22:16; Tit 3:5–7)
8. Represent union and communion with God (Gen 17:7; Exe 19:5–6; Deu 7:6; Heb 8:10)
9. Indicate citizenship in Israel (Gen 17:4; Gal 3:26–29; Eph 2:12–13; 4:5)
10. Indicate separation from the world (Exe 12:48; 2Co 6:14–18; Eph 2:12)
11. Can lead to either blessings or curses (Rom 2:25; 1Co 10:1–12; 11:28–30)

Ultimately, I found that every objection I had to baptizing children, would have been an equal objection for circumcising children. I think Henry said well that if children of believers were included in the first covenant, why would they be excluded in the second? Peter seems to anticipate this in Acts 2 when he says that the promise is for you and your children (echoing the same language spoken to Abraham regarding circumcision).

In the Old Testament, an entire household would be circumcised, all the servants, children, etc., everyone whom the head was responsible for. They were brought into the "church", that decision was made for them. In practice, your children have been born into the "church" in some way. You don't expect them to act like heathen, you train them as Christians. In baptism we symbolize their need for cleansing, and their affiliation with the people of God, that we expect them to follow after God, and that we trust God will be their God too. Yes, in God's providence that doesn't happen in every instance, but the same was true with some circumcised Israelites. We realize that they may not be part of the invisible church yet, but we can hold onto the blessed promise that God will be a God to us and our children after us, just like Abraham could.
 
Keep in mind that there is a subtle difference between the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith with regard to Scripture and how this relates, for instance, to the RPW.

WCF 1:6 -- "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture ..."

LBC 1:6 -- "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture..."

While the phrasing is similar, I don't believe that "good and necessary consequence" is viewed in the same way as "necessarily contained" by Baptists.

Good and necessary consequence is important, however. Calvin, in his Institutes, argues that there is no direct command in Scripture that women may participate in the Lord's Supper (i.e., it must be deduced; since it also deals with a sacrament/ordinance, this is particularly relevant to how one views WCF/LBC 1:6). Similarly, we could say something similar about the Lord's Day being now observed on the first day of the week -- no direct command, but a good and necessary consequence deduction of what we read in Holy Scripture. Since I don't know of many Christians groups that observe a Seventh Day Sabbath or who bar women from the Lord's Supper, we need to ask the reason why these views are held.

Here is a good little book on the phrase that I would recommend: By Good and Necessary Consequence: Ryan M. McGraw: 9781601781826: Amazon.com: Books
 
Jack K said:
Baptists are often taught to think of withholding baptism from believers' children as Scripture's default position
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with this statement. Baptists are taught to think Scripturally about Baptism. ;)
We begin with Scripture, not with the traditions of men. That leads us to baptize those whom the Lord commands us to baptize. Baptists are not often taught to consider whom we must withhold this ordinance from. Rather we are taught Biblically, who must (as a matter of obedience to Christ) be baptized. The focus is upon the positive command (who is the command to be baptized given to) not upon who must be kept from obedience to that command.
 
I really appreciate your responses! Great stuff! And you all made a good point in that my upbringing was really affecting my point of view. I did think of a question though. It was mentioned here and I've seen it elsewhere that infant baptism is symbolizing God's promise of salvation. My question is what if God doesn't save them? In my very limited and humble understanding of this, it would make God look like a liar?
 
Might I recommend a book?

‘Abrahams Four Seeds’ John Reisinger

“It is the authors desire that this book would be of benefit to those who desire to understand “What does the Scripture say?”. May the watchword Sola Scriptura have real meaning in the church!” John Reisinger

I
 
Hemustincrease said:
Might I recommend a book?

‘Abrahams Four Seeds’ John Reisinger

“It is the authors desire that this book would be of benefit to those who desire to understand “What does the Scripture say?”. May the watchword Sola Scriptura have real meaning in the church!” John Reisinger

I
Click to expand...

I would not recommend this book. Reisinger is a proponent of New Covenant Theology.
 
ReformedBaptist said:
How do Presbyterians consolidate infant baptism and the regulative principle of worship, as infant baptism isn't found in scripture( as far as I know)?
Click to expand...

Infants are saved by Christ. Baptism is a sign of salvation by Christ. Therefore infants are baptised. The alternative is to exclude infants from the gift of salvation, which is contrary to the covenant of grace as administered in both the Old and New Testaments.
 
armourbearer said:
Infants are saved by Christ. Baptism is a sign of salvation by Christ. Therefore infants are baptised. The alternative is to exclude infants from the gift of salvation, which is contrary to the covenant of grace as administered in both the Old and New Testaments.
Click to expand...

You might need to expound on that a little more? Do you mean all infants?
 
Logan said:
You might need to expound on that a little more? Do you mean all infants?
Click to expand...

So far as the Scriptural doctrine of baptism is concerned it suffices to say that infants are saved. That salvation is ultimately restricted to "elect infants" is irrelevant seeing as baptism is the sign of salvation and not salvation itself.
 
ReformedBaptist said:
So why would you baptize them symbolizing their salvation if they might be a reprobate?
Click to expand...

Why are adults baptized symbolizing their salvation if they might be reprobate? Whether an individual is elect or reprobate is known only to God. It does not enter into the question as to whom should be baptised.
 
ReformedBaptist said:
True but infants cannot make that decision at all
Click to expand...

Where does a "decision" factor into this? Are you speaking of a verbal profession? Also, ones "claim" to be saved does not make it so, as has already been established. I'm pretty sure there are dead people in Baptist churches who claim to be "saved" and have made a "decision".....that is a side issue to the discussion. The issue is in how one looks at who was and who now should be included in the covenant. To argue baptism apart from covenantal understanding is to argue over shingles and siding and not the foundation and structure that allows the shingles and siding to stay in place.
 
ReformedBaptist said:
True but infants cannot make that decision at all
Click to expand...

Many evangelical-minded churches these days make a big deal of "The Decision." An individual's public decision to "accept Christ" is seen as the all-important, defining moment in the Christian life. Where such a mindset dominates, it's hard to conceive of baptism coming before The Decision.

The question is whether that Decision-ism (with its emphasis on what the believer does to get saved) is biblical doctrine and practice. Although saving faith does include volitional choices, I'm not convinced the decisionist mindset is right. Rather than speak of a decision to be made, it's far more biblical to speak of faith.

So let's examine baptism in relation to faith rather than decisions. A Baptist might argue that baptism ought to follow professed faith, not come before it. Well, a good Presbyterian does too. A good Presbyterian church will not baptize a baby unless that baby's parent professes faith first. The issue that divides is not whether faith should be expressed first, but rather whether the parent's professed faith and membership in the church makes the child part of the church as well and therefore someone to be baptized. Remember that Timothy's faith dwelt first in his grandmother and mother. We recognize such faith. With our hope focused on God's work and his grace to families rather than on an individual's apparent decision, we baptize children based on a parent's profession of faith.
 
Last edited:
I was partly trying to see if one could accept infant baptism and still hold to covenant theology. But in acts 2:38 Paul says to repent and be baptized. But I agree their are many false confessions
 
John Murray's book "Christian Baptism" is a great resource for Baptists struggling to interpret baptism in a covenantal framework.
 
If children are not to young to partake of the sin of the first Adam, they are not
too young to partake of the grace of the second. Baptism is a sign and seal of the promise of God,
that he will be a God to us and our children. Purely parental love is insufficient grounds to pray
for our children, rather the solid grounds of the covenant promise provides a greater assurance
and hope for their salvation. The unity of the covenant must be maintained, so what is true of
children in the old , must pertain in the new.
" But unto them that do Him fear
God's mercy never ends;
And to their children's children still
His righteousness extends."
 
ReformedBaptist said:
I was partly trying to see if one could accept infant baptism and still hold to covenant theology. But in acts 2:38 Paul says to repent and be baptized.
Click to expand...

“Water Baptism: What Saith The Scriptures?” by Thomas Swan:

"Faith and repentance are necessary to baptism. These do not apply to infants. Therefore infants are not to be baptised. That is the argument. Let us apply it to circumcision. That infants were circumcised is a fact beyond dispute. Circumcision of infants eight days old was commanded by God (Genesis 17:12). Is there anything said about circumcision that does not apply to infants? If we turn to Acts 15:4, we shall see that certain Jews maintained that the Gentiles “must be circumcised and keep the law.” The Apostle testified that every man that is circumcised is a debtor to keep the whole law (Galatians 5:3). And in Romans 2:25, he says, “Circumcision verily profiteth if thou keep the law; but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.” Can an infant become a debtor? Can an infant keep the law? Certainly not. Then, according to this argument, infants should not have been circumcised. According to the Scripture it was right for infants to be circumcised; but according to this argument it was wrong. Our Baptist friends cannot blame us if we prefer the Scriptures, and decide that their argument is wrong."
 
Just a note that the OP seemed to want information on what paedobaptists believe, not get into a debate. Some of the posts here seem defensive.
 
ReformedBaptist said:
I was partly trying to see if one could accept infant baptism and still hold to covenant theology. But in acts 2:38 Paul says to repent and be baptized. But I agree their are many false confessions
Click to expand...

You need to keep reading.


And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For/Because the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.

This is the same language of Gen. 17 given to Abraham concerning covenant of circumcision.

The promise is to all believers and their children --> Believers and children are circumcised.
The promise is to all believers and their children --> Believers and children are baptized.

The promise being: If you believe you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, your heart will be circumcized, you will be cleansed of your sin, you will be saved.
 
John Lanier said:
I would not recommend this book. Reisinger is a proponent of New Covenant Theology.
Click to expand...

Have you read the book which I recommended? Are you able to refute what he presents?

He is a teacher of Biblical truth. New Covenant Theology is the theology found in Scripture. It is the theology Christ taught. It is the theology Paul and the other Apostles taught. It is not ‘new’ in some post modern way. It is ‘New’ because God said so in His Word.

What Reisinger does not do:
1. Exalt traditions/confessions of men over the Word and then try and fit it all together by taking verses out of their context.
2. Teach lawlessness
3. Teach theology based on a confession.

What he does do:
1. Teach truth from Scripture with nothing added and nothing taken away.
2. Expose the errors within other positions, by Scripture alone, not by pitting one tradition of man against another.
3. Exalt the Word of God over and above any written code or confession or tradition of men.
4. Teach the exact same theology that Christ and the Apostle Paul taught. He is NOT teaching anything ‘new’.

However, you are of course entitled to your opinion. I just wanted to make sure others (who have not already studied these things out) would not be lead (wrongly) into considering ‘New Covenant Theology’ to be something heretical. The exact opposite is in fact true.

I have my body armour on as I write and will now hide behind the sofa. ;)
 
Jo-Anne, I am not a moderator, but espousing New Covenant Theology here I believe goes against the Standards that is to be held here at the Puritanboard. I have provided a link by the PB owner about the rules you agreed to when signing up on the PB: http://www.puritanboard.com/f58/what-reformed-board-24779/#post304386 and here: http://www.puritanboard.com/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_forumrulesfaq

This doctrine teaches that the 10 Commandments are abrogated or changed (depending on the view). That view is just plain false.

I'm sure you could not espouse your view, but rather first start asking people for their thoughts on New Covenant Theology before coming here and saying that it is absolutely true. Especially since it is in fact a 'new' doctrine (at the very least a 'new name').

And it is true that if we are to come to a right thinking about baptism (OP) then we must first understand the theology of the covenants.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top