Why I am now a Baptist

[Herald]

The gentlemen who began this thread made a severe doctrinal adjustment based upon a formal fallacy.

His writings reflect the following argument:

Those who gladly received the word were baptized
Therefore, all who were baptized gladly received the word

The argument reduces to the formal fallacy of asserting the consequent:

If someone gladly received the word, then someone was baptized
Someone was baptized
Therefore, someone gladly received the word

Ron

Ron, I'm not sure what you're trying to prove.

Acts 2:41 41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.

Does anyone come to faith in Christ without receiving (gladly) the gospel? Can anyone receive the gospel without coming to faith? In light of 1 Cor. 2:14 the answer to both questions is, "no." Does everyone who is baptized receive the gospel? No. The context of this passage is about those who have received the gospel and were baptized. Receiving the gospel is the condition that qualifies both baptism and those who were baptized.

The gospel cannot be held captive to a logical equation. Look at the Law and Gospel thread, especially the comments of Matthew Winzer. It think it will add clarity to the discussion.

What precisely is the Baptist trying to argue except inference when they state that, in effect, all of the examples you have of Baptisms are of Believers. This is a logical conclusion.

As Ron pointed out, it is proper inference to assert that those that gladly receive the Word are proper recipients of baptism but it does not follow that if a person is the proper recipient of baptism that they gladly receive the Word.

Rich, is Ron exegeting Acts 2:41 or turning it into philosophical fodder? That passage is referring to believers without equivocation. We have the benefit of reading inspired scripture that eliminates any doubt that those being written about were saved.

Earlier in this thread I told you that I do not hold to perfect knowledge. Regardless of the sign or its significance, none of us know with certainty whether the baptizee is saved. This thread ran out of gas last week, so I took that to mean that we've all said our piece and are content to move on to other things for the time being. That was fine with me until Ron made his post and pulled out of Acts 2:41 what I don't believe is there.

 

[Ron]

NJP,

The passage says that those who received the word were baptized. What this means in logic is that reception of the word was a sufficient condition for baptism. Your assertion, which cannot be justified by the text, is that reception of the word was a necessary condition for baptism.

It’s not a matter of exegesis at this point because we both agree that those who receive the word were baptized. It's a matter of logic. Does the verse say that nobody was baptized who did not receive the word? Or does it say that only those who received the word were baptized? A baptist logician would agree that the verse may not be used against the paedo position.

Ron

 

[Ron]

That was fine with me until Ron made his post and pulled out of Acts 2:41 what I don't believe is there.

My Baptist brother,

I didn't pull out of Acts 2:41 what wasn't there. I simply put back into Acts 2:41 only that which was there.

Ron

 

[Herald]

Ron, perhaps I am too simplistic. I read the passage and understand that those who received the word were baptized. What do I conclude from that? That all who were baptized received the word (the gospel) were saved. There were none baptized that did not receive the word. How is that not a matter of exegesis?

btw, I am not the one who used this passage to criticize the paedo position. It was Chris who wrote that this passage was instrumental in opening his eyes to the credo position. I would turn to other passages in scripture that would have more substance in the argument than Acts 2, but that's just me.

 

[Herald]

NJP,

Bill, Ron changed your last initial from B to P.

So now you're North Jersey Paedobaptist!

Not on your best day!

 

[Ron]

NJP,

Bill, Ron changed your last initial from B to P.

So now you're North Jersey Paedobaptist!

Maybe I was being prophetic! <duck>

 

[Ron]

Ron, perhaps I am too simplistic. I read the passage and understand that those who received the word were baptized. What do I conclude from that? That all who were baptized received the word (the gospel) were saved. There were none who baptized that did not receive the word. How is that not a matter of exegesis?

Brother,

This can be difficult and I appreciate that. I think that sometimes we have pre-commitments that cause us to miss things. I am not trying to be patronizing; I really believe that. Let me try to get the point across another way. Baptism is obviously a very passionate subject for you; so let me, therefore, substitute “received the email invitation” for “received the word” and also let me substitute for “baptized” the phrase “came to the party”.

Does this sound reasonable to you? “I read the passage and understand that those who received the email invitation came to the party. What do I conclude from that? That all who came to the party received the email invitation. There were none who came to the party that did not receive the email invitation.”

I think you now see my point. There could have been many who came to our party on Monday who did not receive email invitations. As a matter of fact, all the children of those who received email invitations came to the party! Don’t get me wrong. I am not suggesting that the passage teaches paedobaptism. I’m simply pointing out that it may not be used as argument against the practice. An email invitation might have been a sufficient condition for coming to the party but obviously the statement doesn't imply that an email invitation was a necessary condition for coming to the party. In the like manner, you have imposed upon the text a necessary condition that simply isn't there.

Ron

 

[Herald]

Ron,

Brother, I never said the passage is a ding against paedobaptism (see my previous post). I was simply taking the passage on it's plain meaning. Acts 2:41 says that all who received the gospel were baptized. In that specific group there were none who received that were not baptized. I am not using the passage in a larger context whether it be positive or negative. I don't see the passage as a clear defense of either credo or paedo baptism. But within that particular passage everyone who received was baptized and everyone who was baptized received. In that passage. To claim today, that everyone who is baptized has received is to claim perfect knowledge. I am on record as opposing perfect knowledge.

Perhaps we are talking past each other to an extent?

 

[Ron]

I was simply taking the passage on it's plain meaning. Acts 2:41 says that all who received the gospel were baptized. In that specific group there were none who received that were not baptized.

Correct

But within that particular passage everyone who received was baptized

Correct

and everyone who was baptized received.

Where does it say that? It only says that those who received were baptized. Again, those who received my email came to my party. That doesn't mean there weren't people there who did not "receive"...

Yours,

Ron

 

[Herald]

Ron,

Taking all of Acts 2 in context, Peter was filled with the Holy Spirit while making his address. Luke wrote using perfect knowledge of the facts since he was being lead by the Spirit. The word received in v. 41 was on first condition, Peter's. The power behind Peter's received word was the message of the gospel as given by the Holy Spirit. Given that the Spirit had just been revealed in much power and that the leading Apostle had delivered a Spirit-filled sermon, it would not not be reading into the text to state that all who were baptized had received. Why? What and who is the central theme of this chapter? Is it not the Holy Spirit? Considering how the Spirit manifested Himself in visible power (vs. 3-4), those who believed the gospel were also lead by the Spirit (Eph. 2:4,5). Therefore, all who received were baptized and all who were baptized received.

Now, take this out of the environment of Acts 2 and ask me whether I can make that same claim today when the gospel is preached and sinners respond. I cannot make that claim. I do not have perfect knowledge or divine revelation to know the heart of men.

Perhaps we've come to a systemic disagreement in how we view the text. That's fine. I an agree to shake hands and disagree.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich, is Ron exegeting Acts 2:41 or turning it into philosophical fodder? That passage is referring to believers without equivocation. We have the benefit of reading inspired scripture that eliminates any doubt that those being written about were saved.

Earlier in this thread I told you that I do not hold to perfect knowledge. Regardless of the sign or its significance, none of us know with certainty whether the baptizee is saved. This thread ran out of gas last week, so I took that to mean that we've all said our piece and are content to move on to other things for the time being. That was fine with me until Ron made his post and pulled out of Acts 2:41 what I don't believe is there.

Ron has responded but I want to be more explicit in encouraging you to train your machine guns and fire away at a bad exegetical argument. The irony is that you're destroying the Original Post by Chris Poe, which you thanked him for.

You have rightly asked: "Where does Acts 2:41 say this..."

Let me ask you this, since you thanked Chris for this post.

Where does Acts 2:41 state, explicitly, that only those that gladly received him were baptized by the Apostles either before, after, or ever?

I asked Chris, in fact, why does Acts 2:41 preclude a man from telling his wife who might not have been there. Chris implied that only those present that day who received the News gladly continued in the Apostles' doctrine and the breaking of the bread. Where does it say that? Why does Acts 2:41 militate against any others later that day within a household (even adults!) from receiving that News?

Why does Acts 2:41 militate for a paedocommunion position if I am a paedobaptist? Where does it say that Bill?

You see the LBCF confesses this: "...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..."

The WCF says the same.

This means that the plain exegesis of a passage either directly teaches something or something may be necessarily inferred.

You think you're arguing with Ron here. In fact, Ron has not presented an exegetical claim upon the Scriptures. Chris did and you thanked him for it.

Ron is rightly challenging that proper exegesis of Acts 2:41 cannot sustain Chris' claim on the text. Chiris poured all sorts of unnecessary inference into it. It seems you're now agreeing with Ron, violently, that he should not have done so.

Hence, since you thanked Chris for that post, and you seem to be having second thoughts about drawing things out of Acts 2:41 that aren't there, perhaps you ought to take that debate up with Chris and his use of the text.

 

[Ron]

NJB,

For some reason you haven't dealt with anything I've written. I'm happy to leave it there.

Ron

 

[Herald]

Ron,

Please forgive me but I just couldn't follow your email scenario. I understood it but couldn't see it in light of the text. I didn't intend to ignore your contribution to the discussion.

Blessings.

 

[Herald]

Let me ask you this, since you thanked Chris for this post.

Come on, Rich. I was thanking Chris for his honesty in stating his change of position. Thanking someone for a post doesn't mean you agree with every jot and tittle. I've thanked those who have refuted my positions because of the way they've articulated their argument. FYI Chris and I spoke offline about his baptismal change. I shared with him how I didn't see what he did in Acts 2. But you didn't know that because a "thanks" doesn't offer commentary.

 

[MW]

The exegesis must be taken one step further. It is not a matter of what the text does not say. The text positively states "they that gladly received his word were baptized." What was his word? To repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins, v. 38. To whom was this promise made? Both to those who had been pricked in their hearts and their children, v. 39. From what were they to be saved? From that untoward generation which had taken Christ and crucified him by wicked hands, v. 40, fathers and children alike. The text clearly points to the fact that both fathers and children were baptised and thereby separated from that crooked generation. The only other alternative is that the fathers submitted to baptism and thereby escaped identification with the blood-guilty nation whilst the children remained guilty of their fathers' sin.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Let me ask you this, since you thanked Chris for this post.

Come on, Rich. I was thanking Chris for his honesty in stating his change of position. Thanking someone for a post doesn't mean you agree with every jot and tittle. I've thanked those who have refuted my positions because of the way they've articulated their argument. FYI Chris and I spoke offline about his baptismal change. I shared with him how I didn't see what he did in Acts 2. But you didn't know that because a "thanks" doesn't offer commentary.

Well, I apologize for inferring that you agreed with a post that you thanked him for.

Nevertheless, the point that Ron was making is established by your reply. Chris' drew some un-necessary inferences. That was all that Ron was pointing out from the beginning.

 

[Ron]

Ron,

Please forgive me but I just couldn't follow your email scenario. I understood it but couldn't see it in light of the text. I didn't intend to ignore your contribution to the discussion.

Blessings.

No problem, friend.

Sleep tight.

Ron

 

[Pilgrim]

As I have mentioned previously, the initial post in this thread is not the sum total of my case against the Reformed paedobaptist argument. The Acts 2 passage is simply what caused me to reexamine the issue. As I've noted there is certainly nothing novel about my objections or my position. Unfortunately, I have a lot of responsibilities off the board right now (church, family, work, etc.) that preclude me from interacting with the responses as I would like. However, I thought it was incumbent upon me to note my change in views and affiliation and to offer some explanation for the change, especially since I am a moderator here and had previously been rather critical of the Baptist position.

The reader will judge whether the recent posts by the paedos or the original post and those in support of it are more faithful to the text, particularly the assertion that non professors were baptized on the day of pentecost. I can think of few things more ironic than paedobaptists, whose position admittedly is based on inference, accusing Baptists of making unwarranted inferences on the issue of who should be baptized.

Along with my other responsibilities, I am in the middle of moving this weekend so I now have to break away from this discussion and from posting on the PB at all for a time but I hope to pick up the debate again some day.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

As I have mentioned previously, the initial post in this thread is not the sum total of my case against the Reformed paedobaptist argument. The Acts 2 passage is simply what caused me to reexamine the issue. As I've noted there is certainly nothing novel about my objections or my position. Unfortunately, I have a lot of responsibilities off the board right now (church, family, work, etc.) that preclude me from interacting with the responses as I would like. However, I thought it was incumbent upon me to note my change in views and affiliation and to offer some explanation for the change, especially since I am a moderator here and had previously been rather critical of the Baptist position.

The reader will judge whether the recent posts by the paedos or the original post and those in support of it are more faithful to the text, particularly the assertion that non professors were baptized on the day of pentecost. I can think of few things more ironic than paedobaptists, whose position admittedly is based on inference, accusing Baptists of making unwarranted inferences on the issue of who should be baptized.

Along with my other responsibilities, I am in the middle of moving this weekend so I now have to break away from this discussion and from posting on the PB at all for a time but I hope to pick up the debate again some day.

When you have the time, I await your defense of your exegesis of Acts 2:41 to support what you clearly stated it inferred both in terms of who must have been baptized that day as well as that no others continued in the Apostle's doctrine and the breaking of the bread.

 

[daddysapp]

Temptation

This may be considered off topic but...
Because my local congregation is vastly Arminian, I have been tempted to switch to a Presbyterian church myself but alas, we only have the liberal PCUSA and American PCs (not PCA) in my area and no orthodox reformed or Reformed Baptist churches so perhaps I have been spared from this conflict by geography. Still, it would be nice to be with like minded folks (thus this board), Baptist or otherwise.

So, perhaps I am where I need to be. Teaching and asking people to think ,but carefully with forethought, about doctrine and promise.

Thanks for the honesty and also for the great respect from the opposing view as well.

 

[Pilgrim]

Hi Guys

Could some of you, from both the credobaptist and paedobaptist viewpoint, provide a list of books that discuss in detail the passages that are most commonly studied in regards to this issue?


Thanks

Justin

Justin,

Here are a few of the better known works. Of course there are many more, especially from prior to the 20th Century.

Paedo books include:

John Murray, Christian Baptism
Pierre Ch. Marcel The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion
Gregg Strawbridge, ed. The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism
John P. Sartelle, Infant Baptism: What Christian Parents Should Know. This is a briefer treatment.
James M. Chaney William the Baptist. Focuses primarily on mode, but there is also a long chapter on infant baptism. This is probably available online somewhere.

There are of course many others. I believe PB memver Rev. Daniel Hyde has recently published a defense of Reformed paedobaptism.

Other paedo books that focus on the mode of baptism include:

Jay E. Adams The Meaning and Mode of Baptism
Rowland S. Ward Baptism in Scripture and History

Baptist:

Paul K. Jewett Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace
Fred Malone A String of Pearls Unstrung
Greg Welty A Critical Evaluation of Paedobaptism
Fred Malone The Baptism of Disciples Alone
Alan Conner Covenant Children Today: Physical or Spiritual?
David Kingdon Children of Abraham (out of print)
T.E. Watson, Should Babies Be Baptized? (This has been published under other titles as well, including Baptism Not for Infants)
Thomas R. Schreiner and Shawn D. Wright eds. Believer's Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ.
John L. Dagg, Manual of Theology
Richard Furman, The Children of Church Members
Adoniram Judson, Christian Baptism.

Another recent book that may be helpful is Understanding Four Views on Baptism from Zondervan's Counterpoints series. The Baptist view is defended by Dr. Tom Nettles while Dr. Richard Pratt defends the Reformed view. Lutheran and Church of Christ views are also presented.

The Monergism pages on baptism and covenant theology will have a ton of links to online articles as well. But use discernment as always.

 

[Pilgrim]

I feel sad.

Not to have lost a champion, because Gods word is sufficient. But I feel sad to think that someone would defend the bibilical view with such vigor and then be turned on such shallow grounds.

I am no bigot when it comes to our baptist brothers. My FIL is a minister of that ilk, I was born to that faith, I studied at 2 of their schools, and every day I am working to plant a church that welcolms both views within one reformed fellowship.

And yet...

I feel sad. How (I ask in all honestly & sincerity) could you have ever called yourself a presbyterian (who defended the faith, not just an adherent) and still missed the point in Acts?

I just do not understand...

As you would imagine, I disagree that I have been "turned on shallow grounds." But I think you ask a fair question, and it is one that I have asked myself. At this point I question whether I was honestly searching for truth as much as I thought I was when I switched to paedo about three years ago. In retrospect a lot of it probably had to do with preferring the OPC over other local church options for other reasons, particularly worship. I accepted the paedo arguments that seemed very logical once I accepted the premises, but I did not study the Scriptures as I should have to see if the things I was reading were so.

 

[Pilgrim]

I don't feel like trudging into this argument thus I am only going to offer an observation. Coming from a Baptist background and moving to a Presbyterian background I have heard both teachings and witnessed both baptisms. Therefore, here is the observation I offer. The Baptist church's I have attended, which have been several, routinely had infant dedication ceremonies, and I might add that I participated in two of them with my children. Anyway, the ceremony consists of the parents and the church pledging to raise the child in the Church and that each member would assist in that endeavor. The only thing missing from these ceremonies and the Presbyterian ceremony was the water. It just sort of makes you go .

Especially since there is no warrant for such a ceremony in the Bible. I'll take a wild guess and assume that "baby dedications" are largely a 20th Century innovation in Baptist churches. Many Baptist churches do not have them.

 

[Pilgrim]

Ron, perhaps I am too simplistic. I read the passage and understand that those who received the word were baptized. What do I conclude from that? That all who were baptized received the word (the gospel) were saved. There were none baptized that did not receive the word. How is that not a matter of exegesis?

Bill,

I guess we bumbling Babdists just don't get it.

 

[Pilgrim]

You see the LBCF confesses this: "...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..."

The WCF says the same.

Rich,

As I'm sure you know, WCF 1.6 states:

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...

It is no accident that the Baptists who drafted the 2nd LBCF changed this wording to avoid what some see as good and necessary consequences from the Scripture but in fact (in our view) are not necessarily contained in the Scripture.

 

[Pilgrim]

When you have the time, I await your defense of your exegesis of Acts 2:41 to support what you clearly stated it inferred both in terms of who must have been baptized that day as well as that no others continued in the Apostle's doctrine and the breaking of the bread.

Acts 2:41 plainly states that those who received Peter's word were baptized. I'm seriously not trying to be inflammatory, but to try to fit infant baptism in there is almost as bad in my view as the tortured exegesis that Roman Catholics use in trying to prove their doctrines about the papacy or Mary. (Of course I'm not saying that Reformed paedos are no better than Romanists. Not at all. I have a lot of respect for the Reformed and we all owe alot to Reformed ministries and scholarship through the past several centuries.)
Acts 2:42 describes the same group, but obviously more were added as time went on. This is the understanding of Acts 2:41 that you will find in practically every Baptist apologetic. It isn't the main passage they camp out on, but it is typically cited as a proof text for the credo position.

Since it's very late and it would take me too long to come up with something this succinct, I'm now going to be lazy and borrow a little from Fred Malone. These are reasons (schema or superstructure if you will) he gives for being a Baptist in Why I Am a Baptist ed. by Tom J. Nettles and Russell D. Moore, pp. 138-139:

1. Jesus Christ is the only final physical seed of Abraham (Gal. 3:16,19).
2. Only those "of faith" are the seed of Abraham through their faith relationship to Jesus Christ (Gal. 3:14, 26-29; Rom.4), not the offspring of believers.
3. The new covenant of Jesus Christ is defined as including regenerate forgiven members alone, not believers and their children (Heb. 8:8-12).
4. Infant baptism is based by inference on a final Old Testament authority over the New Testament.
5. Infant Baptism violates the regulative principle of worship, cherished by Presbyterians and Baptists alike, which maintains that ordinances must instituted by revelation, not by inference from the Old Testament.

The baptism of disciples alone is the only instituted baptism of Jesus Christ in the New Testament (Matt. 28:19-20). That is why I am a Baptist.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

You see the LBCF confesses this: "...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..."

The WCF says the same.

Rich,

As I'm sure you know, WCF 1.6 states:

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...

It is no accident that the Baptists who drafted the 2nd LBCF changed this wording to avoid what some see as good and necessary consequences from the Scripture but in fact (in our view) are not necessarily contained in the Scripture.

Please define for me what you believe the material difference between deducing a doctrine from good and necessary consequence and that which is "necessarily contained". I believe this wording is a distinction without a difference based upon the inferences and deductions manifest even by yourself in the original post.

 

[Pilgrim]

You see the LBCF confesses this: "...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..."

The WCF says the same.

Rich,

As I'm sure you know, WCF 1.6 states:

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...

It is no accident that the Baptists who drafted the 2nd LBCF changed this wording to avoid what some see as good and necessary consequences from the Scripture but in fact (in our view) are not necessarily contained in the Scripture.

Please define for me what you believe the material difference between deducing a doctrine from good and necessary consequence and that which is "necessarily contained". I believe this wording is a distinction without a difference based upon the inferences and deductions manifest even by yourself in the original post.

I know of at least one Baptist who agrees with you and who prefers the GNC language.

I haven't done a lot of study of the 1689, but I do know that their general practice was to only change portions of the WCF (or Savoy) that they disagreed with. I think it's clear that in their mind at least they were trying to emphasize the primacy of Scripture against things like the considerations that lead to the paedo view which obviously they didn't see scriptural warrant (i.e. necessarily contained in the Scriptures) for.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich,

As I'm sure you know, WCF 1.6 states:



It is no accident that the Baptists who drafted the 2nd LBCF changed this wording to avoid what some see as good and necessary consequences from the Scripture but in fact (in our view) are not necessarily contained in the Scripture.

Please define for me what you believe the material difference between deducing a doctrine from good and necessary consequence and that which is "necessarily contained". I believe this wording is a distinction without a difference based upon the inferences and deductions manifest even by yourself in the original post.

I know of at least one Baptist who agrees with you and who prefers the GNC language.

I haven't done a lot of study of the 1689, but I do know that their general practice was to only change portions of the WCF (or Savoy) that they disagreed with. I think it's clear that in their mind at least they were trying to emphasize the primacy of Scripture against things like the considerations that lead to the paedo view which obviously they didn't see scriptural warrant (i.e. necessarily contained in the Scriptures) for.

Changing words doesn't change anything Chris. You still haven't answered my question. Either you believe you can deduce ideas from Scripture on the basis of good and necessary inference or you do not. If you do not believe this is the case then there are several posts in this very thread that belie that assertion.

 

[Pilgrim]

Please define for me what you believe the material difference between deducing a doctrine from good and necessary consequence and that which is "necessarily contained". I believe this wording is a distinction without a difference based upon the inferences and deductions manifest even by yourself in the original post.

I know of at least one Baptist who agrees with you and who prefers the GNC language.

I haven't done a lot of study of the 1689, but I do know that their general practice was to only change portions of the WCF (or Savoy) that they disagreed with. I think it's clear that in their mind at least they were trying to emphasize the primacy of Scripture against things like the considerations that lead to the paedo view which obviously they didn't see scriptural warrant (i.e. necessarily contained in the Scriptures) for.

Changing words doesn't change anything Chris. You still haven't answered my question. Either you believe you can deduce ideas from Scripture on the basis of good and necessary inference or you do not. If you do not believe this is the case then there are several posts in this very thread that belie that assertion.

My position is this. The inference that infants should be baptized is neither good nor necessary. The practice of infant baptism violates the RPW. I think this from Benjamin Keach says it well and it speaks to the differences between the WCF and LBCF in Chapter 1 as well:

From Benjamin Keach: Gold Refin’d, or Baptism in its Primitive Purity (London: 1689), 69-70, 146 (orthography and punctuation modernized).

What commission our brethren have got, who sprinkle children, I know not. Let them fetch a thousand consequences, and unwarrantable suppositions for their practice, it signifies nothing, if Christ has given them no authority or rule to do what they do in his name. Natural consequences from Scripture we allow, but such which flow not naturally from any Scripture we deny; can any think Christ would leave one of the great sacraments of the New Testament, not to be proved without consequences?

We affirm, that in all positive or instituted worship (such as baptism is) which wholly depends upon the mere will and pleasure of the law-giver, it is absolutely necessary there should be an express command, or plain and clear examples, though in other respects we allow of natural deductions and consequences from Scripture for the confirming and enforcing of duties, and for the comfort and instruction of God’s people. But as there is neither express command nor example for infant-baptism; so it can’t be proved by any consequence or inference, that naturally and genuously rises from any Scripture, as we have proved, nor does draw any such consequences to prove it.