Why I am now a Baptist

[Pilgrim]

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:

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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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

 

[Herald]

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]

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.

For what it's worth 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.

 

[Herald]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Herald]

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:

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]

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:

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]

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:

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]

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.

I don't think that you can say all of those who were baptized on the day of Pentecost were professing believers. All you can say is that all those who professed faith were baptised.

Further:

Question 177: Wherein do the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper differ?
Answer: The sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper differ, in that Baptism is to be administered but once, with water, to be a sign and seal of our regeneration and ingrafting into Christ, and that even to infants; whereas the Lord’s Supper is to be administered often, in the elements of bread and wine, to represent and exhibit Christ as spiritual nourishment to the soul, and to confirm our continuance and growth in him, and that only to such as are of years and ability to examine themselves.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Chris

I respect your decisions and your desire to be faithful to the word of God. May the Lord continue to bless you.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hello Pilgrim - I feel like John Wayne when I say that

I appreciate your desire to explore the Word of God.

I would like to explore a part of your profession that troubles me a bit about your reasoning. You wrote:

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 adopting Baptist views or adopting paedocommunion.

As an aside: How can 3,000 people be submerged by Baptism in one day? Only the Apostles had authority to baptize, and there were 12 of them. Each Apostle would have to baptize 750 people in one day? That in itself seems a bit far-fetched.

It seems to me that you are reading a lot into these passages that may not necessarily be there. The danger of any theology is taking one verse and making a doctrine out of it, and then applying it where ever it is convienant. I am mostly addressing those who hold to paedocommunion from this one passage only. Jesus taught His apostles well, and those teachings concerning communion that forbids infants and children from it can be found in 1 Cor 11:27,28. Are you claiming that the Apostles did not know these teachings when they gave the Lord's Supper to the 3,000? (I ask the Paedocommunist). The Bible gives different criteria for Baptism and the Lord's Supper.

The Day of Pentecost was a very special celebration in the Jewish calendar. The Bible required the whole male population of Israel was to appear before God in the Temple on that day, Deut. 16:16. The command includes "all your males," and it does not distinguish age. The command is mentioned several times in the Scriptures, Ex 23:17; 34:23. Now, "each man had to give as he is able," vs. 17, which seems to exclude infants (though it might be that the father gave on behalf of his infant child (also an infant or young child may not be able, and thus need not give) - I don't know). The crowd was probably composed of all men, because that is how Peter addressed them, Acts 2:28. Apparently, there were children among them, because Peter addresses "your children" as well, vs. 39.

So, if "all those who gladly received the word were baptized" were men only, then we would have to ask ourselves if this passage is determinative for the whole Church? Apparently, it cannot be, because we learn later in Scripture that women were baptized as well, such as Lydia. The majority of these men, no doubt, were husbands and fathers and were heads of households.

The Jews had as the sign of the everlasting covenant the rite of Circumcision. Abraham was required to Believe before he was to be circumcised. Yet, this circumcision was not given to him only as a Believer, but it was also given to his infant child 8 days old.

Now, when Peter says to the all male crowd that, "the Promise is to you, your children and all who are afar off - even as many as the Lord God shall call" what would that mean to the 3,000 heads of households as they come for baptism with their young children and infants? If Peter just told them that the "Promise was to their children" then how could Peter refuse Baptism to the children of professing Believers "those who gladly received the Word"? The Bible often counts only the men in the Church, Ex 12:37.

Abraham believed, and his children were circumcised. "Those who gladly recevied the Word," were Baptized, and their children as well.

I know that the credo-baptist screams at this and claims that the Scriptures have been violated. But a thoughtful person such as yourself should consider these two things:

1) Since we have a warrant in the Bible that Believers and their children are considered members of the New Covenant - because Circumcision was considered the sign and seal of the New Covenant in the OT. It is then up to the credo-baptist to prove that children of believers are no longer considered in the New Covenant. We should expect a clear statement in the New Testament that the children of believers are no longer considered members of the New Covenant. Where would you find such a statement, or, how would you develop such an argument?

2) Since we can find in the New Testament statements that assume the continunity of the requirement that the children of believers are in the New Covenant, it then follows that we should baptize our children:

Jesus says that the children of Godly parents are "members of the Kingdom of Heaven," Mt 19:13, Mk 10:13.

1 Cor 7:14 - The faith of a believer sanctifies his/her spouse for the sake of their children who are then considered "holy." The word can also be translated "saint."

When the whole scope of the Bible is considered, then the testimony favors paedo-baptism.

Blessings,

-CH

 

[Pilgrim]

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



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)

Where did you obtain Kingdon's book? (I assume you are referring to Children of Abraham) My understanding is that it has been long out of print. The last I heard you could order a spiral bound copy from a bookseller in the UK (I think) but I don't know if that is still true or not.

 

[reformedman]

The thread has gone into debate away from op. Congratulations on your move.

Shall we now retire to the debate-thread room? lol

 

[Pilgrim]

As for 1 Cor 7:14, the basic meaning of the words sanctify and holy are the same. Why then is the unbelieving spouse not also baptized? Why not the older relative who may be a member of the household as well? Also, from the paedo view, when do children become too old or aware that they don't qualify for baptism apart from a profession of faith? Why not baptize adult children still living in the household even though they do not profess faith? Are they not in the covenant in the Presbyterian view as well?

For all of the Presbyterian inveighing against an age of accountability (and much of it is right on) I can't help but think that is, at least to some extent, what is going on here, albeit in reverse. e.g. "Little Johnny is of such an age now (10 or 12 or whatever) in which he would be able to make a credible profession of faith, so let's hold off baptizing him until he does so."

Moreover I don't think the passage has anything to do with baptism anyway but rather with marriage to an unbeliever and the legitimacy of the children. What's the saying? A proof text without context becomes a pretext? I do recognize of course that this passage is used as another consideration in building a case for infant baptism on the grounds of good and necessary consequence but I no longer find it persuasive.

Obviously I didn't cover all of the bases and address or use all of the typical arguments with my original post. Because of this some have thought that perhaps I didn't reject infant baptism for the usual Baptist reasons. I do. Basically the Presbyterians can marshal their usual arguments and I will respond with the usual Baptist ones. We can do that if you really feel the need for it, but I won't be able to respond again until at least this evening and maybe not until tomorrow evening.

 

[doulosChristou]

I came to credobaptist convictions three weeks ago.

From a perusal of their website, I gather that your new church home has ties with or has been influenced by Capitol Hill Baptist Church. That's great! May the Lord continue to be your treasure.

dC

 

[Semper Fidelis]

The thread has gone into debate away from op. Congratulations on your move.

Shall we now retire to the debate-thread room? lol

Not quite. Chris made some charges that the WCF is inconsistent in his OP and opened up with his announcement. It's one thing to announce a credo-baptist sea change on the basis of an overarching framework but the announcement was constructed around a single verse that he stated militated a clear proof that believer's baptism is clearly and necessarily inferred by Acts 2:41-42 and, if not, then paedocommunion. That can't just be left on the table with the expectation that nobody is going to pick that up and discuss it.

 

[shackleton]

You give me hope. Seeing other prominent, smart and well read people go over to the credo baptist side means I don't have to feel so bad for the way I see things.

I myself am seeing some grave inconsistencies with the whole infant baptism issue but have not completely moved over yet for two reasons (1) I don't think the bible obsesses over mode, (2) the only good baptist churches in the area are dispensational.
Aside note: The same reason paedo's won't let infants and small children partake of the Lord's Supper is the reason Baptist's won't baptize babies.

Good luck! I know this decision did not come easy. Try reading A.H. Strong. His section on baptism is very good. Though I am not sure how Calvinistic he is.

I am in an unfortunate position of not seeing either the WCF or the 1689 fully covering baptism to my liking. However, I have been made aware that this is a confessional board and not subscribing to one is not allowed.

 

[KMK]

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:

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 too had a similar experience. When I became convinced of the DoG I found myself reading mainly Reformed Presbyterian literature (with the exception of Pink). I assumed that I would become convinced of paedobaptism once I studied the issue. I wanted so badly to be a paedo so that I could get plugged in at the nearest Reformed Presbyterian church. But, much to my chagrin, I was not compelled by the paedo argument and found myself embracing credobaptism. It can be a lonely road. I am thankful for PB.

 

[py3ak]

Ken, what you describe was also Al Martin's experience. He thought that John Murray would convince him of paedo-baptism, but John Murray actually convinced him of credo-baptism.

Chris, it takes principle to reverse your position after arguing publicly for another view. You are to be commended for your honesty, and I trust God will bless you with ever fuller understanding of His word.

 

[Pilgrim]

The thread has gone into debate away from op. Congratulations on your move.

Shall we now retire to the debate-thread room? lol

Not quite. Chris made some charges that the WCF is inconsistent in his OP and opened up with his announcement. It's one thing to announce a credo-baptist sea change on the basis of an overarching framework but the announcement was constructed around a single verse that he stated militated a clear proof that believer's baptism is clearly and necessarily inferred by Acts 2:41-42 and, if not, then paedocommunion. That can't just be left on the table with the expectation that nobody is going to pick that up and discuss it.

Rich is right that I opened up a huge can of worms if not two or three of them. I certainly expected debate and will respond as I am able. This was posted in the baptism forum after all. I was just making note that due to off-board responsibilities I will not be able to consistently contribute to yet another 200 post baptism thread that just keeps repeating the same arguments over and over.

My change is not dependent on a single verse but that passage is what caused me to reconsider the whole matter. I didn't think it was necessary to recapitulate the whole Baptist argument in my explanation.

 

[Pilgrim]

I didn't think it was necessary to recapitulate the whole Baptist argument in my explanation.

WRONG AGAIN!!!!!!

Apparently so.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Chris,

I will try to call you tonight brother. And of course you know my position. Be Encouraged.

Randy

 

[VictorBravo]

God be with you Chris.

I had no idea of your struggle. May God be glorified in all that you do and may you serve him continually with a pure heart.

 

[wsw201]

As for 1 Cor 7:14, the basic meaning of the words sanctify and holy are the same. Why then is the unbelieving spouse not also baptized? Why not the older relative who may be a member of the household as well? Also, from the paedo view, when do children become too old or aware that they don't qualify for baptism apart from a profession of faith? Why not baptize adult children still living in the household even though they do not profess faith? Are they not in the covenant in the Presbyterian view as well?

Sorry to lose you to the credo's!! Are they going to make you get re-baptized??

As you are aware the issue of baptizing adults is not an issue of contention between Baptists and Presbyterian's. Both require a credible profession of faith for all those who are capable. I know some have argued for "household baptisms" but there is nothing in Scripture or our Standards advocating this position. The unbelieving spouse in 1 Cor 7, as an adult, would be required to make their own profession just as any other adult member of the household. Regarding infants, a profession is still required! just not from the infant. At least one parent must make that credible profession on the infants behalf. when the infant grows up and is able to discern the Body and Blood in the Lord's Supper as well as make a credible profession of faith, they will be able to come to the Table.

For all of the Presbyterian inveighing against an age of accountability (and much of it is right on) I can't help but think that is, at least to some extent, what is going on here, albeit in reverse. e.g. "Little Johnny is of such an age now (10 or 12 or whatever) in which he would be able to make a credible profession of faith, so let's hold off baptizing him until he does so."

There would be no reason to hold off baptizing little Johnny if he were incapable of making a credible profession as long as one of the parents was a professing Christian and member of that particular church. So the above scenario should never happen in a Presbyterian church.

Moreover I don't think the passage has anything to do with baptism anyway but rather with marriage to an unbeliever and the legitimacy of the children. What's the saying? A proof text without context becomes a pretext? I do recognize of course that this passage is used as another consideration in building a case for infant baptism on the grounds of good and necessary consequence but I no longer find it persuasive.

You are correct that the context of the passage is about marriage but it goes to a larger issue when it mentions the status of the childern. Somehow you have to answer the question WHY is the child now holy??

Obviously I didn't cover all of the bases and address or use all of the typical arguments with my original post. Because of this some have thought that perhaps I didn't reject infant baptism for the usual Baptist reasons. I do. Basically the Presbyterians can marshal their usual arguments and I will respond with the usual Baptist ones. We can do that if you really feel the need for it, but I won't be able to respond again until at least this evening and maybe not until tomorrow evening.

No issue here. I just made these few comments because I don't want others to get the wrong idea about how things work in the Presbyterian Church.