Why I am now a Baptist

[Semper Fidelis]

Just to lighten the load.....

I went to visit a Fundamentalist Independent Baptist Church in Virginia Beach, Virginia when I was a young Christian in the Early 80's. A Senior Chief Petty Officer name Sandy Rogers I highly respected went there. He was a lay preacher I listened to on the U.S.S. Forrestal. He was a man above reproach. And he loved people and His Lord.

Anyways, there was a visiting Preacher that day. He was round as he was tall. He had a white head of hair that just magnified his faces contorting as he got louder as the sermon when on. At the highth of his excitement and running around the place loudly yelling at the crowd he started off on a tyraid about his Baptist heritage. As he proceeded he said as loudly as he could, "I am not an arminean. I am not a Calvinist. I am a BAAAABBBBTTTTTTIIIIIIIISSSSSSSST! I was BORN a BABTIST. I was RAISED a BABTIST. I WILL DIE A BAAAABBBBBTTTTTTIIIIIIISSSSSSSSSSSST!

I just sat back in my chair in a bewildered, amazed, and stupified look and said, Wow. That little southern man just wore me out.

I was already a Calvinist and attended a Reformed Baptist Church so he had no effect on me. But I am sure his energy did something for my edification.

I did learn some good stuff from Sandy Rogers though. He was a good Christian Navy man. And he lived out his convictions. His kids were cute also.

That story reminds me of the Landmark Baptist I heard preach last year. He went on for about 45 minutes about his baptist heritage and pretty much condemned all Presbyterians and Reformed.

I should have gotten up and walked out, but I was with a friend and didn't want to leave him sitting there.

To be frank, Ryan, I think a modern-day Paul would have said of such thinking about baptism: " For in Jesus Christ neither baptism availeth any thing, nor unbaptism..."

 

[MW]

To be frank, Ryan, I think a modern-day Paul would have said of such thinking about baptism: " For in Jesus Christ neither baptism availeth any thing, nor unbaptism..."

I can imagine him saying, "neither Baptistism nor unBaptistism availeth anything."

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Sometimes it helps to read all of the posts in a thread, especially a long one like this one before responding. I've often been guilty of that myself. I do believe in the validity of GNC although I prefer the phrase "necessarily contained" in the LBCF. That confessional issue is really tangential, although it did help me to learn what Jim Renihan and others think about it.

The argument from Gen. 17 had me convinced for several years. It's the simplest and most logically compelling argument for covenant paedobaptism. If you accept that premise then the household baptism passages and many others seem to fall right into place. But I do not believe that it is a legitimate inference from the Scriptures. I don't accept your premise that the covenant of grace is administered in the same way in the New Covenant as it was in the old. Moreover, if baptism is exactly the same as circumcision, then why did not Paul silence the Judiazers by simply explaining that baptism had replaced circumcision?

Your last point is an argument from silence. Moreover, the Judaizers were teaching that circumcision was essential in order to be saved. Furthermore, Paul was writing during the period of transition between the Old and New Covenants when it was permissable for Jewish believers to have both signs, so such an explanation would not have been sufficient.

This is the heart of the matter, in my opinion. How much emphasis one places on the arguments from silence against the paedo view determines, to a great degree, which direction you take. For the credo, they are overwhelming. For the paedo they are inconsequential. (Perhaps I am overstating the case somewhat)

The Baptist view of the covenant of grace would have us believe that the new and better covenant excludes the children of believers and puts them out of the visible church. Such an idea would have been unthinkable to those brought up in the Hebraic mindset. It is not surprising however that such an idea is accepted widely by Christians living after the Renaissance and Enlightenment.

By this logic couldn't we also condemn the paedos for excluding female children of the covenantal parents from the visible church?

How have paeodos excluded female covenant children from the visible church? The paedo-baptist position is not based on argument from silence as it is clearly revealed in the Old Testament that the children of believers are to receive the sign of the covenant of grace and membership of the visible church. Since this has not been revoked, then the duty must continue to be binding.

 

[KMK]

Your last point is an argument from silence. Moreover, the Judaizers were teaching that circumcision was essential in order to be saved. Furthermore, Paul was writing during the period of transition between the Old and New Covenants when it was permissable for Jewish believers to have both signs, so such an explanation would not have been sufficient.

This is the heart of the matter, in my opinion. How much emphasis one places on the arguments from silence against the paedo view determines, to a great degree, which direction you take. For the credo, they are overwhelming. For the paedo they are inconsequential. (Perhaps I am overstating the case somewhat)

The Baptist view of the covenant of grace would have us believe that the new and better covenant excludes the children of believers and puts them out of the visible church. Such an idea would have been unthinkable to those brought up in the Hebraic mindset. It is not surprising however that such an idea is accepted widely by Christians living after the Renaissance and Enlightenment.

By this logic couldn't we also condemn the paedos for excluding female children of the covenantal parents from the visible church?

How have paeodos excluded female covenant children from the visible church? The paedo-baptist position is not based on argument from silence as it is clearly revealed in the Old Testament that the children of believers are to receive the sign of the covenant of grace and membership of the visible church. Since this has not been revoked, then the duty must continue to be binding.

Sorry, I 'miswrote'. I edited my original.

My point is, if paedos believe that it is wrong for baptists to deny the sign to those who are in the NC simply because it is their right, then shouldn't they also believe that it was wrong for God to deny the sign to female infants in the AC?

It would help the paedo argument in my opinion if y'all would start from "it is clearly revealed in the Old Testament that the male children of believers are to receive the sign of the covenant..."

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

This is the heart of the matter, in my opinion. How much emphasis one places on the arguments from silence against the paedo view determines, to a great degree, which direction you take. For the credo, they are overwhelming. For the paedo they are inconsequential. (Perhaps I am overstating the case somewhat)



By this logic couldn't we also condemn the paedos for excluding female children of the covenantal parents from the visible church?

How have paeodos excluded female covenant children from the visible church? The paedo-baptist position is not based on argument from silence as it is clearly revealed in the Old Testament that the children of believers are to receive the sign of the covenant of grace and membership of the visible church. Since this has not been revoked, then the duty must continue to be binding.

Sorry, I 'miswrote'. I edited my original.

My point is, if paedos believe that it is wrong for baptists to deny the sign to those who are in the NC simply because it is their right, then shouldn't they also believe that it was wrong for God to deny the sign to female infants in the AC?

It would help the paedo argument in my opinion if y'all would start from "it is clearly revealed in the Old Testament that the male children of believers are to receive the sign of the covenant..."

I don't really think this is an issue as female children were considered part of the visible church in the OT and there is additional revelation in the NT that females are to be baptized (i.e. Lydia).

 

[KMK]

How have paeodos excluded female covenant children from the visible church? The paedo-baptist position is not based on argument from silence as it is clearly revealed in the Old Testament that the children of believers are to receive the sign of the covenant of grace and membership of the visible church. Since this has not been revoked, then the duty must continue to be binding.

Sorry, I 'miswrote'. I edited my original.

My point is, if paedos believe that it is wrong for baptists to deny the sign to those who are in the NC simply because it is their right, then shouldn't they also believe that it was wrong for God to deny the sign to female infants in the AC?

It would help the paedo argument in my opinion if y'all would start from "it is clearly revealed in the Old Testament that the male children of believers are to receive the sign of the covenant..."

I don't really think this is an issue as female children were considered part of the visible church in the OT and there is additional revelation in the NT that females are to be baptized (i.e. Lydia).

Suit yourself!

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Sorry, I 'miswrote'. I edited my original.

My point is, if paedos believe that it is wrong for baptists to deny the sign to those who are in the NC simply because it is their right, then shouldn't they also believe that it was wrong for God to deny the sign to female infants in the AC?

It would help the paedo argument in my opinion if y'all would start from "it is clearly revealed in the Old Testament that the male children of believers are to receive the sign of the covenant..."

I don't really think this is an issue as female children were considered part of the visible church in the OT and there is additional revelation in the NT that females are to be baptized (i.e. Lydia).

Suit yourself!

I intend too.

 

[KMK]

I don't really think this is an issue as female children were considered part of the visible church in the OT and there is additional revelation in the NT that females are to be baptized (i.e. Lydia).

Suit yourself!

I intend too.

I can tell from your avatar!

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Suit yourself!

I intend too.

I can tell from your avatar!

 

[Herald]

Daniel, I'm on my mobile device so I can't easily find a comment you made about making baptism and idol. I thought about that comment and believe it to be a wise and insightful statement. Baptism is not an unimportant topic but it can become more important than it should. It is a sign, not substance. Neither Baptists or Presbyterians are saved by water baptism. The differences between the two sides are well established. We have a better opportunity to sway a brother on a point of doctrine or practice who is already in our theological camp than to labor one who isn't. I wonder whether we should place a greater emphasis on sanctification for purpose of godliness. So long as our doctrinal distinctives are not heretical I now question the time spent in arguing and debating foundational principles. I am not saying the topic (and ones like it) should be repressed, just kept in balance.

 

[Pilgrim]

Daniel, I'm on my mobile device so I can't easily find a comment you made about making baptism and idol. I thought about that comment and believe it to be a wise and insightful statement. Baptism is not an unimportant topic but it can become more important than it should. It is a sign, not substance. Neither Baptists or Presbyterians are saved by water baptism. The differences between the two sides are well established. We have a better opportunity to sway a brother on a point of doctrine or practice who is already in our theological camp than to labor one who isn't. I wonder whether we should place a greater emphasis on sanctification for purpose of godliness. So long as our doctrinal distinctives are not heretical I now question the time spent in arguing and debating foundational principles. I am not saying the topic (and ones like it) should be repressed, just kept in balance.

From The Soul Winner by C.H. Spurgeon:

It is because God blesses men through the churches that we desire to see them prosper, and not merely for the sake of the churches themselves. There is such a thing as selfishness in our eagerness for the aggrandisement of our own party; and from this evil spirit may grace deliver us! The increase of the kingdom is more to be desired than the growth of a clan. We would do a great deal to make a Paedobaptist brother into a Baptist, for we value our Lord's ordinances; we would labour earnestly to raise a believer in salvation by free-will into a believer in salvation by grace, for we long to see all religious teaching built upon the solid rock of truth, and not upon the sand of imagination; but, at the same time, our grand object is not the revision of opinions, but the regeneration of natures. We would bring men to Christ and not to our own peculiar views of Christianity. Our first care must be that the sheep should be gathered to the great Shepherd; there will be time enough afterwards to secure them for our various folds. To make proselytes, is a suitable labour for Pharisees: to beget men unto God, is the honourable aim of ministers of Christ.

 

[KMK]

This is the heart of the matter, in my opinion. How much emphasis one places on the arguments from silence against the paedo view determines, to a great degree, which direction you take. For the credo, they are overwhelming. For the paedo they are inconsequential. (Perhaps I am overstating the case somewhat)

Where is the silence? We have clear examples of individuals being baptised on the basis of their parents being included in the covenant -- Old Testament (Noah's family and Israel in the Red Sea) and New Testament (household baptisms).

With all due respect, Rev Winzer, can it really be that 'clear' if so many godly men have disagreed on this issue for hundreds of years?

Besides I was specifically refering to the argument from silence brought up by Daniel that goes something like this: The thought of not granting the covenant sign to infants 'would have been unthinkable to those brought up in the Hebraic mindset.' Therefore, if credo baptism were true we should expect there to be some discussion about it in the NT.

 

[Amazing Grace]

This is the heart of the matter, in my opinion. How much emphasis one places on the arguments from silence against the paedo view determines, to a great degree, which direction you take. For the credo, they are overwhelming. For the paedo they are inconsequential. (Perhaps I am overstating the case somewhat)

Where is the silence? We have clear examples of individuals being baptised on the basis of their parents being included in the covenant -- Old Testament (Noah's family and Israel in the Red Sea) and New Testament (household baptisms).

With all due respect, Rev Winzer, can it really be that 'clear' if so many godly men have disagreed on this issue for hundreds of years?

Besides I was specifically refering to the argument from silence brought up by Daniel that goes something like this: The thought of not granting the covenant sign to infants 'would have been unthinkable to those brought up in the Hebraic mindset.' Therefore, if credo baptism were true we should expect there to be some discussion about it in the NT.

Good point Ken. It obviously is not "thus says the Lord" thing.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Daniel, I'm on my mobile device so I can't easily find a comment you made about making baptism and idol. I thought about that comment and believe it to be a wise and insightful statement. Baptism is not an unimportant topic but it can become more important than it should. It is a sign, not substance. Neither Baptists or Presbyterians are saved by water baptism. The differences between the two sides are well established. We have a better opportunity to sway a brother on a point of doctrine or practice who is already in our theological camp than to labor one who isn't. I wonder whether we should place a greater emphasis on sanctification for purpose of godliness. So long as our doctrinal distinctives are not heretical I now question the time spent in arguing and debating foundational principles. I am not saying the topic (and ones like it) should be repressed, just kept in balance.

I could not agree with this post more. If I spent more time reading the Bible, rather than arguing about what is in it, I think my time would be much better served.

 

[KMK]

Daniel, I'm on my mobile device so I can't easily find a comment you made about making baptism and idol. I thought about that comment and believe it to be a wise and insightful statement. Baptism is not an unimportant topic but it can become more important than it should. It is a sign, not substance. Neither Baptists or Presbyterians are saved by water baptism. The differences between the two sides are well established. We have a better opportunity to sway a brother on a point of doctrine or practice who is already in our theological camp than to labor one who isn't. I wonder whether we should place a greater emphasis on sanctification for purpose of godliness. So long as our doctrinal distinctives are not heretical I now question the time spent in arguing and debating foundational principles. I am not saying the topic (and ones like it) should be repressed, just kept in balance.

I could not agree with this post more. If I spent more time reading the Bible, rather than arguing about what is in it, I think my time would be much better served.

Agreed. Shame on me for studying God's Word for the sole purpose of glorifying myself by winning an argument. How disgusting.

Thanks to this reminder, I will redouble my efforts to treat God's Word (which He has magnified above His own name) with proper reverance. After all, is it not possible that paedos and credos are both wrong???

 

[Amazing Grace]

Daniel, I'm on my mobile device so I can't easily find a comment you made about making baptism and idol. I thought about that comment and believe it to be a wise and insightful statement. Baptism is not an unimportant topic but it can become more important than it should. It is a sign, not substance. Neither Baptists or Presbyterians are saved by water baptism. The differences between the two sides are well established. We have a better opportunity to sway a brother on a point of doctrine or practice who is already in our theological camp than to labor one who isn't. I wonder whether we should place a greater emphasis on sanctification for purpose of godliness. So long as our doctrinal distinctives are not heretical I now question the time spent in arguing and debating foundational principles. I am not saying the topic (and ones like it) should be repressed, just kept in balance.

I could not agree with this post more. If I spent more time reading the Bible, rather than arguing about what is in it, I think my time would be much better served.

Agreed. Shame on me for studying God's Word for the sole purpose of glorifying myself by winning an argument. How disgusting.

Thanks to this reminder, I will redouble my efforts to treat God's Word (which He has magnified above His own name) with proper reverance. After all, is it not possible that paedos and credos are both wrong???

This is a perfect example of what the Jews call an "Arguement for the sake of Heaven". The Glorification of God vs the demonizing or dehumanizing of the oppenent. The former being the goal..

 

[Herald]

Brethren, please don't misunderstand. I am in no way saying that baptism is not a worthy topic for discussion or even debate. It is. But when the body of work in that regard regularly lacks grace and turns personal, both sides lose even if one wins.

 

[MW]

With all due respect, Rev Winzer, can it really be that 'clear' if so many godly men have disagreed on this issue for hundreds of years?

It is clear as day that eight souls, not one, were saved by water, relative to which water baptism is a like figure, 1 Pet. 3:20, 21. It is clear as day that the "fathers" which inherited the promised land were "baptised in the sea" as "children which had no knowledge," 1 Cor. 10:1, 2; Deut. 1:39. And while it is true that household baptisms have been made controversial by a specious line of reasoning which suggests that whole households just happened to believe in order to be baptised, it is also clear as day that these households were baptised as households and not as individuals making up the household, in continuity with what the Old Testament teaches concerning household salvation.

 

[MW]

It is a sign, not substance. Neither Baptists or Presbyterians are saved by water baptism.

They are saved by baptism as a sign, Mark 16:16; 1 Pet. 3:21. It may not be "grace" in and of itself, but it is still a "means of grace."

 

[Houston E.]

With all due respect, Rev Winzer, can it really be that 'clear' if so many godly men have disagreed on this issue for hundreds of years?

It is clear as day that eight souls, not one, were saved by water, relative to which water baptism is a like figure, 1 Pet. 3:20, 21. It is clear as day that the "fathers" which inherited the promised land were "baptised in the sea" as "children which had no knowledge," 1 Cor. 10:1, 2; Deut. 1:39. And while it is true that household baptisms have been made controversial by a specious line of reasoning which suggests that whole households just happened to believe in order to be baptised, it is also clear as day that these households were baptised as households and not as individuals making up the household, in continuity with what the Old Testament teaches concerning household salvation.

And this in no way contradicts "If she is of years, she can speak for herself"? Or is "household" taken to mean children only?

 

[MW]

And this in no way contradicts "If she is of years, she can speak for herself"? Or is "household" taken to mean children only?

Asked and answered. We don't force baptism on unwilling recipients.

 

[Houston E.]

And this in no way contradicts "If she is of years, she can speak for herself"? Or is "household" taken to mean children only?

Asked and answered. We don't force baptism on unwilling recipients.

Agreed.
So when you speak of the household baptisms, do you affirm that all members of that household were baptized? Or is it possible that a spouse refused?

 

[MW]

So when you speak of the household baptisms, do you affirm that all members of that household were baptized? Or is it possible that a spouse refused?

There is no point speculating. I suppose there is a bare possibility that individuals may have refused, but holy writ gives no indication of such. We have a warrant from the word of God to baptise households as households, and that is really all that matters.

 

[Houston E.]

So when you speak of the household baptisms, do you affirm that all members of that household were baptized? Or is it possible that a spouse refused?

There is no point speculating. I suppose there is a bare possibility that individuals may have refused, but holy writ gives no indication of such. We have a warrant from the word of God to baptise households as households, and that is really all that matters.

Thank you Rev.Wizner. BTW, I consider it an honor to be able to dialogue with you.

 

[MW]

Thank you Rev.Wizner. BTW, I consider it an honor to be able to dialogue with you.

It is a great blessing to me to find brethren of a like mind who receive the Scriptures as their only rule of faith and life. The interaction on this board has taught me alot about the practical implications of Philippians 3:15, 16.

 

[InevitablyReformed]

Rev. Winzer,

I'm having some difficulty with your interpretation of 1 Peter 3:21 (I've looked at your interpretation of this text from another thread as well, or maybe it was this one, I dunno, this one is pretty darn long). I just can't seem to get around what seems very obvious to me. That is, Peter is giving a definition of baptism that goes something like this: "baptism is an answer to God for a good conscience." This seems to coincide nicely with the repent and be cleansed of John's baptism (BTW, please stop me and correct along the way). So, if the above is the case--how does that fit with baptism as quasi replacement for circumcision (sign/seal)? I've just been having a hard time with the covenantal paedo view lately and this text seems to be swinging me towards credo (to be perfectly honest).

Thanks in advance.

In Christ,

Daniel

 

[MW]

Peter is giving a definition of baptism that goes something like this: "baptism is an answer to God for a good conscience." This seems to coincide nicely with the repent and be cleansed of John's baptism (BTW, please stop me and correct along the way).

The "answer" is in fact an "interrogation which demands an answer." Baptism is not itself the answer, but what requires the answer. If we look at the text in context, God established His covenant with Noah, and on that basis the household was figuratively "saved by water." The salvation signified in baptism required that the eight souls respond to God with a good conscience. Ham, in fact, did not, and suffered the curse of God's covenant; but that did not forbid him from being figuratively saved by water.

Concerning John's baptism, nowhere does he say, "Repent in order to be baptised." The words of the text intend a connection, not a condition.

It is important to be clear about how we should approach the doctrine of salvation. It is altogether of grace. God establishes His covenant with man. He is the inititator and the benefactor; all human participation in God's covenant is always one of reception. Man is the beneficiary. If we lose sight of this fundamental point then not only baptism but every doctrine of the Christian faith will be brought into doubt and confusion.

 

[InevitablyReformed]

Peter is giving a definition of baptism that goes something like this: "baptism is an answer to God for a good conscience." This seems to coincide nicely with the repent and be cleansed of John's baptism (BTW, please stop me and correct along the way).

The "answer" is in fact an "interrogation which demands an answer." Baptism is not itself the answer, but what requires the answer. If we look at the text in context, God established His covenant with Noah, and on that basis the household was figuratively "saved by water." The salvation signified in baptism required that the eight souls respond to God with a good conscience. Ham, in fact, did not, and suffered the curse of God's covenant; but that did not forbid him from being figuratively saved by water.

Concerning John's baptism, nowhere does he say, "Repent in order to be baptised." The words of the text intend a connection, not a condition.

It is important to be clear about how we should approach the doctrine of salvation. It is altogether of grace. God establishes His covenant with man. He is the inititator and the benefactor; all human participation in God's covenant is always one of reception. Man is the beneficiary. If we lose sight of this fundamental point then not only baptism but every doctrine of the Christian faith will be brought into doubt and confusion.

Rev. Winzer,

Thanks for the quick response. So, let me ask you this: Is it impossible/wrong to separate what seems to me to be a definition of baptism in the NT from the Noah story that precedes it? In other words, do you see Peter's parenthesis as necessarily linked to verse 20? I hope that you do not see these questions as silly. I am truly trying to understand.

Daniel

 

[MW]

Thanks for the quick response. So, let me ask you this: Is it impossible/wrong to separate what seems to me to be a definition of baptism in the NT from the Noah story that precedes it? In other words, do you see Peter's parenthesis as necessarily linked to verse 20? I hope that you do not see these questions as silly. I am truly trying to understand.

Of course they're not silly; you may be inevitably reformed, but not without means.

What gives the impression that verse 21 is a parenthesis? Given what was said in verse 16 about "having a good conscience," it would appear that verse 21 is essential to his exhortation. That would make verse 20 an Old Testament illustration of the point. My own view is that the water is figurative of "being put to death in the flesh" with Christ, and the salvation by water represents being quickened in union with the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This leaves baptised persons is a figurative already/not yet situation, and compelled to live answerably to their baptismal obligations while they are in the world awaiting the resurrection. If this view is correct, there is no place for a parenthesis in the exhortation, but every verse is contributory to it. Blessings!

 

[InevitablyReformed]

Thanks for the quick response. So, let me ask you this: Is it impossible/wrong to separate what seems to me to be a definition of baptism in the NT from the Noah story that precedes it? In other words, do you see Peter's parenthesis as necessarily linked to verse 20? I hope that you do not see these questions as silly. I am truly trying to understand.

Of course they're not silly; you may be inevitably reformed, but not without means.

What gives the impression that verse 21 is a parenthesis? Given what was said in verse 16 about "having a good conscience," it would appear that verse 21 is essential to his exhortation. That would make verse 20 an Old Testament illustration of the point. My own view is that the water is figurative of "being put to death in the flesh" with Christ, and the salvation by water represents being quickened in union with the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This leaves baptised persons is a figurative already/not yet situation, and compelled to live answerably to their baptismal obligations while they are in the world awaiting the resurrection. If this view is correct, there is no place for a parenthesis in the exhortation, but every verse is contributory to it. Blessings!

Rev. Winzer,

The parenthesis that I was referring to is how it is constructed in my NKJV: "There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurection of Jesus Christ."

Don't know if that helps clarify what I meant. Thanks again.

Daniel