Why I am now a Baptist

[Semper Fidelis]

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.

In other words, your post above was pointless as you agree that the re-wording of the Confession is a distinction without a difference. That is, unless you believe that you are the exception to the rule about making good and necessary inferences among Baptists and your brethren make bad and needless deductions.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Can any think Christ would leave one of the great sacraments of the New Testament, not to be proved without consequences?

This is a poor statement from Benjamin Keach. The doctrine of the Trinity and the hypostatic union of Christ's natures is based on GNC.

 

[RamistThomist]

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.

And

The Priesthood of the Plebs
Amazon.com: The Baptized Body: Peter J. Leithart: Books

 

[Pilgrim]

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.

In other words, your post above was pointless as you agree that the re-wording of the Confession is a distinction without a difference. That is, unless you believe that you are the exception to the rule about making good and necessary inferences among Baptists and your brethren make bad and needless deductions.

Of course I disagree. I've nowhere stated or agreed that the change of wording in the LBCF is a distinction without a difference. l've noted what I understand the difference to be and the quote I provided by Benjamin Keach, one of the foremost of the framers of the 2nd LBCF, plainly states what the difference is. He argues that that infant baptism is a violation of the RPW although of course he doesn't use that term. My understanding is that term originated with John Murray.

 

[Pilgrim]

Can any think Christ would leave one of the great sacraments of the New Testament, not to be proved without consequences?

This is a poor statement from Benjamin Keach. The doctrine of the Trinity and the hypostatic union of Christ's natures is based on GNC.

First of all, the doctrine of the Trinity and the hypostatic union are not sacraments. But I'm quite sure that Keach would have maintained that those doctrines are necessarily contained in the Scriptures and that unlike the practice of infant baptism, they are plainly derived from the Scriptures although of course our finite minds cannot grasp all there is to know about the relationship within the Trinity and the hypostatic union.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

My position is this. The inference that infants should be baptized is neither good nor necessary.

In other words, your post above was pointless as you agree that the re-wording of the Confession is a distinction without a difference. That is, unless you believe that you are the exception to the rule about making good and necessary inferences among Baptists and your brethren make bad and needless deductions.

Of course I disagree. I've nowhere stated or agreed that the change of wording in the LBCF is a distinction without a difference. l've noted what I understand the difference to be and the quote I provided by Benjamin Keach, one of the foremost of the framers of the 2nd LBCF, plainly states what the difference is. He argues that that infant baptism is a violation of the RPW although of course he doesn't use that term. My understanding is that term originated with John Murray.

Let me be clearer then. Whether you are confused in the matter or not is immaterial to the point. Both Benjamin Keach and yourself are utilizing inference and good and necessary consequence in your argumentation. Your appel to the RPW is a case in point. You can claim all you want that you somehow transcend this practice with your wording but either you don't understand what the words mean or you don't see in yourself and fellow Baptists what is clearly evident in your presentation.

 

[MW]

Can any think Christ would leave one of the great sacraments of the New Testament, not to be proved without consequences?

The antipaedobaptist practice is not merely negative, denying the right of infants to baptism; it is also positive, deferring the administration of baptism until such time as the infant can profess faith for himself. Now the New Testament says nothing about an age of accountability at which an infant might credibly profess faith. Antipaedobaptists rely on what they consider to be good and necessary inferences from the Scripture for determining this point. In fact, they often disagree amongst themselves as to an age of accountability. It is certain therefore that the antipaedobaptist acknowledges the need for good and necessary consequence when determining the mind of Christ as to the subjects of one of the great sacraments of the New Testament.

The reality is, the antipaedobaptist has less Scriptural example for his practice with relation to the infants of believers than the paedobaptist. The paedobaptist has the example of baptism being administered to infants under the OT, 1 Cor. 10:2; of souls being saved by water of whom no personal profession of faith was required, 1 Pet. 3:20, 21, and of unqualified household baptisms. This is proof positive, without the use of good and necessary consequence, for the baptism of believers' children without requiring a personal profession of faith from the child.

 

[Archlute]

As a brief interjection:

I have recently had the pleasure of reading through Pierre Marcel's defense of a Reformed view of baptism, and would strongly recommend this book to those who may have any number of questions regarding the exegesis and theology undergirding the baptism of believer's children. I have not found many who have read through this work, though some have heard mention made of it, and I have wondered why it is not more widely known. From what I have read so far, it covers all of the standard objections and discussion related to this Christian practice, and he does so in a very comprehensive manner. There is not one reasonable objection, of which I have ever heard, that is not thoughtfully and convincingly addressed in this work.

Marcel was a French Reformed minister in the 20th century, and his approach is both scholarly as well as thoroughly pastoral. In fact, the preface opens the work with an acknowledgment that this subject has often been approached without the love of our brothers in mind, and that he aims to convince Baptists, as well as to strengthen the convictions of the Reformed church, by this theological treatise. I would say that if one were to read this work, there would not be reason for them to read another.

Another warm and pastorally minded work, but a little less substantial, is Geoffrey Bromiley's Children of Promise. A good read that I had not yet seen mentioned, although I haven't read every post of this thread.

Anyway, I would readily recommend Marcel's work to anyone who is struggling to understand Christian baptism, or who has recently found the position untenable.

 

[Pilgrim]

As a brief interjection:

I have recently had the pleasure of reading through Pierre Marcel's defense of a Reformed view of baptism, and would strongly recommend this book to those who may have any number of questions regarding the exegesis and theology undergirding the baptism of believer's children. I have not found many who have read through this work, though some have heard mention made of it, and I have wondered why it is not more widely known. From what I have read so far, it covers all of the standard objections and discussion related to this Christian practice, and he does so in a very comprehensive manner. There is not one reasonable objection, of which I have ever heard, that is not thoughtfully and convincingly addressed in this work.

Marcel was a French Reformed minister in the 20th century, and his approach is both scholarly as well as thoroughly pastoral. In fact, the preface opens the work with an acknowledgment that this subject has often been approached without the love of our brothers in mind, and that he aims to convince Baptists, as well as to strengthen the convictions of the Reformed church, by this theological treatise. I would say that if one were to read this work, there would not be reason for them to read another.

Another warm and pastorally minded work, but a little less substantial, is Geoffrey Bromiley's Children of Promise. A good read that I had not yet seen mentioned, although I haven't read every post of this thread.

Anyway, I would readily recommend Marcel's work to anyone who is struggling to understand Christian baptism, or who has recently found the position untenable.

Others think that Marcel's work is the best contemporary treatment as well. My guess as to why it is less popular is that he is less well known than Murray, maybe that the book isn't published by a major publisher and sometimes isn't available from many outlets besides seminary bookstores. See here for an article by Fred Malone where he argues that infant baptism is based on the normative principle and that Marcel essentially admits as much.

I first heard of Bromiley's work when reading Erwin Lutzer's Doctrines That Divide. Lutzer said he thought that Children of Promise was the best contemporary defense of paedobaptism. I don't know if that means that he thought it was better than Murray and Marcel or if he had not read them.

 

[CDM]

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.

 

[Archlute]

As a brief interjection:

I have recently had the pleasure of reading through Pierre Marcel's defense of a Reformed view of baptism, and would strongly recommend this book to those who may have any number of questions regarding the exegesis and theology undergirding the baptism of believer's children. I have not found many who have read through this work, though some have heard mention made of it, and I have wondered why it is not more widely known. From what I have read so far, it covers all of the standard objections and discussion related to this Christian practice, and he does so in a very comprehensive manner. There is not one reasonable objection, of which I have ever heard, that is not thoughtfully and convincingly addressed in this work.

Marcel was a French Reformed minister in the 20th century, and his approach is both scholarly as well as thoroughly pastoral. In fact, the preface opens the work with an acknowledgment that this subject has often been approached without the love of our brothers in mind, and that he aims to convince Baptists, as well as to strengthen the convictions of the Reformed church, by this theological treatise. I would say that if one were to read this work, there would not be reason for them to read another.

Another warm and pastorally minded work, but a little less substantial, is Geoffrey Bromiley's Children of Promise. A good read that I had not yet seen mentioned, although I haven't read every post of this thread.

Anyway, I would readily recommend Marcel's work to anyone who is struggling to understand Christian baptism, or who has recently found the position untenable.

Others think that Marcel's work is the best contemporary treatment as well. My guess as to why it is less popular is that he is less well known than Murray, maybe that the book isn't published by a major publisher and sometimes isn't available from many outlets besides seminary bookstores. See here for an article by Fred Malone where he argues that infant baptism is based on the normative principle and that Marcel essentially admits as much.

I first heard of Bromiley's work when reading Erwin Lutzer's Doctrines That Divide. Lutzer said he thought that Children of Promise was the best contemporary defense of paedobaptism. I don't know if that means that he thought it was better than Murray and Marcel or if he had not read them.

I didn't really read too much of the article, but saw some of the same misrepresentations of certain issues set forth at the front of that essay in the same manner that Malone argues them in his book. Because of that I don't think that his argument regarding the RPW has any weight.

What Malone does is this:

1. states that baptism is for disciples alone

2. subtly modifies that statement later on to say that baptism is for "professing disciples" alone. Claiming on his own authority that Presbyterians and Baptists are uniformly agreed upon this definition.

3. then hilariously attempts to argue that the baptism of believer's children is a violation of the RPW, although this is based upon his faulty position that disciples must all be "professing disciples".

Assuming that he is speaking of the mandate given to the apostles in Matt. 28:18ff he makes a couple of errors in his assertion.

First, the passage says nothing at all about profession. It could be assumed of adults, but not necessarily of their young children. Now, since Malone cannot conceive of young children actually being disciples of Christ, he ignores this possibility. It should be made clear, however, that the insertion of "professing disciples" is of Malone's own invention and not found in Scripture.

This brings us to the second point. The passage is formed by a governing imperative "make disciples", and followed by two explanatory participles which give the temporal order to the process of making them. They are first to be baptized, and second, to be taught the commands of Christ. These are explanatory participles that describe what it means to "make disciples", and are not to be seen as separate statements on par with the first. Baptists, not grasping the governing/explanatory relationship of these verbs, often attempt to move the temporal sequence to read that we are first to "make disciples" and only then to baptize them. They will, as Malone attempts to do, read this as saying that disciples must be "professing" before they are eligible for baptism.

However, if we understand this as saying that the process of making disciples is one of ongoing education in the commands of Christ, and that it can start with the youngest child even as they see us living out the Christian life before them, and are raised in the nurture and instruction of the Scriptures and the life of the Church, then there is absolutely nothing outside of the RPW to prohibit making disciples of our children by baptizing them and then instructing them as they grow in our homes.

Finally, in his misuse of the Marcel quote, we have yet another example of Malone's habit of engaging in flawed argumentation by founding arguments upon poor scholarship. He assumes that the "normative principles" of which Marcel speaks, have anything to do with the "Normative Principle" of worship. I really do not think that what Marcel is getting at is anything other than good and necessary consequence, which is rather plain from reading the entirety of the quote. Malone is attempting to overturn Marcel's argument by taking one passage out of context, misunderstanding it, and then saying that it proves his own point - hey, wait a minute! That is exactly how the Baptist argument commonly exegetes Scripture as well

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

In post #249 you write, Chris,

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.​

“Acts 2:41 plainly states that those who received Peter's word were baptized.” Of course I agree thus far. But consider the context, and by this I mean the mind of the Jewish father listening to Peter when he says (2:38), “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

This was a crisis moment in the nation of Israel, for they had killed the Messiah, concerning whose word, those who heeded it not would consequently “be destroyed from among the people” (Acts 3:23), and not only themselves, but the families they were heads over. Because the apostle(s) with great power gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus (4:33), the people listening to Peter were cut to the heart by the presence of the risen Lord – the Lord of Glory – and knew that all who partook, in faith, of the new initiatory sign of submission and allegiance to the new covenant mediated by Christ were in God’s Israel; and all who did not, were cut off from the people and their God.

When Peter says (2:39), “For the promise is unto you, and to your children...” it rang on their ears as the ancient covenant rang on Abraham’s, For the command is unto you, and to thy seed after thee....who receives it not, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken My covenant. (Cf. Gen 17:10-14)

This “promise” Peter spoke of was not only promise, it was the very inheritance of Israel, the command of God through His Son, and the life or death of the soul listening, and his house.

It was the principle of obedience, in which the Jews had been trained long centuries, concerning the obedience of the fathers – starting with Abraham – bringing their infant children into the covenant of the people of God. To deny the token of the covenant on a child rendered that child cut off from God’s people (Gen 17:14).

Now that Messiah sat enthroned over the kingdom, to order it (Isaiah 9:7) – which these listening Jews saw in vision by the grace of the Holy Spirit – those words, “For the promise is unto you, and to your children” spoke of the everlasting covenant (Gen 17:13), and inclusion in it or exclusion from it, and as Jews they knew that, as with Abraham, their children’s inclusion depended on their obedience. It was a glad tiding, and they that gladly received it were baptized, and – in an ancient pattern of obedience – withheld it not from their seed. To allege they did withhold it is to do violence to the context of Jewish life and faith, and is without warrant.

So when you say, “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”, you betray your lack of affinity with the Jewish mind, and with the historical-grammatical approach to exegesis.

These first converts to Messiah may not have clearly understood, as Paul was later to explain (Col 2:10-13), that baptism was “the circumcision of Christ”, but they knew that the sign they were receiving at the command of the apostles, was the seal of the righteousness they already had been given by the Holy Spirit through faith in the gospel preached unto them. This was in profound continuity with the everlasting covenant they were heirs of with Abraham. That these Jews denied their seed the promise through disobedience to the covenant commands – commands unchanged, though the sign openly was – is unthinkable. Though somehow you do think it!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

As a brief interjection:

I have recently had the pleasure of reading through Pierre Marcel's defense of a Reformed view of baptism, and would strongly recommend this book to those who may have any number of questions regarding the exegesis and theology undergirding the baptism of believer's children. I have not found many who have read through this work, though some have heard mention made of it, and I have wondered why it is not more widely known. From what I have read so far, it covers all of the standard objections and discussion related to this Christian practice, and he does so in a very comprehensive manner. There is not one reasonable objection, of which I have ever heard, that is not thoughtfully and convincingly addressed in this work.

Marcel was a French Reformed minister in the 20th century, and his approach is both scholarly as well as thoroughly pastoral. In fact, the preface opens the work with an acknowledgment that this subject has often been approached without the love of our brothers in mind, and that he aims to convince Baptists, as well as to strengthen the convictions of the Reformed church, by this theological treatise. I would say that if one were to read this work, there would not be reason for them to read another.

Another warm and pastorally minded work, but a little less substantial, is Geoffrey Bromiley's Children of Promise. A good read that I had not yet seen mentioned, although I haven't read every post of this thread.

Anyway, I would readily recommend Marcel's work to anyone who is struggling to understand Christian baptism, or who has recently found the position untenable.

Others think that Marcel's work is the best contemporary treatment as well. My guess as to why it is less popular is that he is less well known than Murray, maybe that the book isn't published by a major publisher and sometimes isn't available from many outlets besides seminary bookstores. See here for an article by Fred Malone where he argues that infant baptism is based on the normative principle and that Marcel essentially admits as much.

I first heard of Bromiley's work when reading Erwin Lutzer's Doctrines That Divide. Lutzer said he thought that Children of Promise was the best contemporary defense of paedobaptism. I don't know if that means that he thought it was better than Murray and Marcel or if he had not read them.

I didn't really read too much of the article, but saw some of the same misrepresentations of certain issues set forth at the front of that essay in the same manner that Malone argues them in his book. Because of that I don't think that his argument regarding the RPW has any weight.

What Malone does is this:

1. states that baptism is for disciples alone

2. subtly modifies that statement later on to say that baptism is for "professing disciples" alone. Claiming on his own authority that Presbyterians and Baptists are uniformly agreed upon this definition.

3. then hilariously attempts to argue that the baptism of believer's children is a violation of the RPW, although this is based upon his faulty position that disciples must all be "professing disciples".

Assuming that he is speaking of the mandate given to the apostles in Matt. 28:18ff he makes a couple of errors in his assertion.

First, the passage says nothing at all about profession. It could be assumed of adults, but not necessarily of their young children. Now, since Malone cannot conceive of young children actually being disciples of Christ, he ignores this possibility. It should be made clear, however, that the insertion of "professing disciples" is of Malone's own invention and not found in Scripture.

This brings us to the second point. The passage is formed by a governing imperative "make disciples", and followed by two explanatory participles which give the temporal order to the process of making them. They are first to be baptized, and second, to be taught the commands of Christ. These are explanatory participles that describe what it means to "make disciples", and are not to be seen as separate statements on par with the first. Baptists, not grasping the governing/explanatory relationship of these verbs, often attempt to move the temporal sequence to read that we are first to "make disciples" and only then to baptize them. They will, as Malone attempts to do, read this as saying that disciples must be "professing" before they are eligible for baptism.

However, if we understand this as saying that the process of making disciples is one of ongoing education in the commands of Christ, and that it can start with the youngest child even as they see us living out the Christian life before them, and are raised in the nurture and instruction of the Scriptures and the life of the Church, then there is absolutely nothing outside of the RPW to prohibit making disciples of our children by baptizing them and then instructing them as they grow in our homes.

Finally, in his misuse of the Marcel quote, we have yet another example of Malone's habit of engaging in flawed argumentation by founding arguments upon poor scholarship. He assumes that the "normative principles" of which Marcel speaks, have anything to do with the "Normative Principle" of worship. I really do not think that what Marcel is getting at is anything other than good and necessary consequence, which is rather plain from reading the entirety of the quote. Malone is attempting to overturn Marcel's argument by taking one passage out of context, misunderstanding it, and then saying that it proves his own point - hey, wait a minute! That is exactly how the Baptist argument commonly exegetes Scripture as well

Excellent. As I retired for bed last night I thought to myself about how a Baptist believes that disciple and professor are the same idea. It's almost as if the word "disciple" is spoken that we must be referring to someone who is saved (I was asked if I would baptize an unsaved person as if only saved people are disciples or as if I would know that every person I baptized is saved).

Thus, because their children don't fit the a priori definition of disciple, a Baptist will read Paul commanding parents to train their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord and commanding children to obey their parents on promise of spiritual blessing but it is impossible that they would be disciples.

I've told a number of folks that I think the greatest harm that the RB does is to the view of discipleship in general: both professors and the young. We have no guarantees with either and the process of discipleship is not a certain "absolute conversion" followed by certain sanctification for all. Some are converted later, some are never converted, but if we understand the role of the means of grace then we have no problem exhorting as the author of Hebrews does without having to get into hypotheticals that the warnings aren't really appropriate.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi:

If you denigrate "good and necessary inference" so much, then where is your positive command not to Baptize infants? How would you defend the doctrine of the Trinity?

Curious,

-CH

 

[Pilgrim]

Hi:

If you denigrate "good and necessary inference" so much, then where is your positive command not to Baptize infants? How would you defend the doctrine of the Trinity?

Curious,

-CH

There is no need for a positive command not to baptize infants but rather there is a need for a positive command to baptize them. Where is your positive command not to burn incense during worship or not to play musical instruments in worship?

I already answered the same question from Daniel about the Trinity a few posts ago. Defending the Trinity is off topic here. Besides, it is almost 2am, so I'm sure you won't mind if I don't get into it right now.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Can any think Christ would leave one of the great sacraments of the New Testament, not to be proved without consequences?

This is a poor statement from Benjamin Keach. The doctrine of the Trinity and the hypostatic union of Christ's natures is based on GNC.

First of all, the doctrine of the Trinity and the hypostatic union are not sacraments. But I'm quite sure that Keach would have maintained that those doctrines are necessarily contained in the Scriptures and that unlike the practice of infant baptism, they are plainly derived from the Scriptures although of course our finite minds cannot grasp all there is to know about the relationship within the Trinity and the hypostatic union.

To say that a fundamental doctrine like the Trinity or the hypostatic union can be based on GNC deductions, but a secondary issue like the sacraments can't is somewhat strange. The fact that NT believers have not been commanded to no longer give the sign and seal of the covenant of grace and membership of the visible church to their children is GNC enough as a basis to baptize them and is fully consistent with the RPW when properly understood.

 

[Pilgrim]

This is a poor statement from Benjamin Keach. The doctrine of the Trinity and the hypostatic union of Christ's natures is based on GNC.

First of all, the doctrine of the Trinity and the hypostatic union are not sacraments. But I'm quite sure that Keach would have maintained that those doctrines are necessarily contained in the Scriptures and that unlike the practice of infant baptism, they are plainly derived from the Scriptures although of course our finite minds cannot grasp all there is to know about the relationship within the Trinity and the hypostatic union.

To say that a fundamental doctrine like the Trinity or the hypostatic union can be based on GNC deductions, but a secondary issue like the sacraments can't is somewhat strange. The fact that NT believers have not been commanded to no longer give the sign and seal of the covenant of grace and membership of the visible church to their children is GNC enough as a basis to baptize them and is fully consistent with the RPW when properly understood.

I haven't said that they are based on GNC. If y'all are going to continue to assert that GNC is the same as "necessarily contained" then we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

First of all, the doctrine of the Trinity and the hypostatic union are not sacraments. But I'm quite sure that Keach would have maintained that those doctrines are necessarily contained in the Scriptures and that unlike the practice of infant baptism, they are plainly derived from the Scriptures although of course our finite minds cannot grasp all there is to know about the relationship within the Trinity and the hypostatic union.

To say that a fundamental doctrine like the Trinity or the hypostatic union can be based on GNC deductions, but a secondary issue like the sacraments can't is somewhat strange. The fact that NT believers have not been commanded to no longer give the sign and seal of the covenant of grace and membership of the visible church to their children is GNC enough as a basis to baptize them and is fully consistent with the RPW when properly understood.

I haven't said that they are based on GNC. If y'all are going to continue to assert that GNC is the same as "necessarily contained" then we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

So you do not agree with GNC then?

 

[ChristopherPaul]

As a brief interjection:

I have recently had the pleasure of reading through Pierre Marcel's defense of a Reformed view of baptism, and would strongly recommend this book to those who may have any number of questions regarding the exegesis and theology undergirding the baptism of believer's children. I have not found many who have read through this work, though some have heard mention made of it, and I have wondered why it is not more widely known. From what I have read so far, it covers all of the standard objections and discussion related to this Christian practice, and he does so in a very comprehensive manner. There is not one reasonable objection, of which I have ever heard, that is not thoughtfully and convincingly addressed in this work.

Marcel was a French Reformed minister in the 20th century, and his approach is both scholarly as well as thoroughly pastoral. In fact, the preface opens the work with an acknowledgment that this subject has often been approached without the love of our brothers in mind, and that he aims to convince Baptists, as well as to strengthen the convictions of the Reformed church, by this theological treatise. I would say that if one were to read this work, there would not be reason for them to read another.

Another warm and pastorally minded work, but a little less substantial, is Geoffrey Bromiley's Children of Promise. A good read that I had not yet seen mentioned, although I haven't read every post of this thread.

Anyway, I would readily recommend Marcel's work to anyone who is struggling to understand Christian baptism, or who has recently found the position untenable.

Thank you Adam,

For clarification, I found Marcel at WTS but the book is listed with a different title, Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism. Is this the book you are referring?

 

[Pilgrim]

To say that a fundamental doctrine like the Trinity or the hypostatic union can be based on GNC deductions, but a secondary issue like the sacraments can't is somewhat strange. The fact that NT believers have not been commanded to no longer give the sign and seal of the covenant of grace and membership of the visible church to their children is GNC enough as a basis to baptize them and is fully consistent with the RPW when properly understood.

I haven't said that they are based on GNC. If y'all are going to continue to assert that GNC is the same as "necessarily contained" then we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

So you do not agree with GNC then?

Is the phrase found in the confession to which I subscribe?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

It sounds like we need to agree on what a disciple is. It is either someone who has put on Christ and who follows the teachings of Christ and is able to be disciplined by those teachings or it is anyone who is being evangelized.

I wonder how the New testament speaks of disciples. What are the characteristics of a disciple?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

One more thing. Concerning the Tinity. It is spoken of in terms of all three persons being called God in the New Testament. It has mentions like Name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And plus, we have the relations between the persons of the Godhead plainly spelled out in John's Gospel. I just don't see any mentions of infant disciples. I mean kids (infants) that can't reason or have affection for something they have no capable knowledge of. At least unless God miraculously gives them the intelligence.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

What do you make of a text like: "...of such [brephe] are the kingdom of heaven"? Just because it doesn't use the word "disciple"? Well, I mean besides the fact that the ignorant Disciples were trying to keep these ones away...

 

[ChristopherPaul]

"Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples), he left Judea and departed again for Galilee" (John 4:1-3 ESV).

"After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him" (John 6:66 ESV).

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

In reference to that passage, I believe Jesus is emphasising that Children are just as important to seek a blessing for as we should seek a blessing for adults. The women brought the babies to be blessed by Christ and the disciples were forbidding them. We should seek for God's blessing upon children as we would adults. That is what the passage is about.

You are correct. The passage doesn't call them disciples. I was making a reference to the Godhead and that each member is called God. Someone in a post above was relating our discussion on inference concerning infants and discipleship in relation to inferences concerning the Trinity. I thought it was a bad comparison. I just noted the differences. One can be seen in that all three members of the Trinity are called God. The other is not as easily deducted or inferred.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

"Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples), he left Judea and departed again for Galilee" (John 4:1-3 ESV).

"After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him" (John 6:66 ESV).

These disciples were actively followers. They stopped being disciples. As Murray notes these were not under Christian baptism yet. The commission had not been instituted.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I haven't said that they are based on GNC. If y'all are going to continue to assert that GNC is the same as "necessarily contained" then we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

So you do not agree with GNC then?

Is the phrase found in the confession to which I subscribe?

So what is your answer?

 

[Pilgrim]

So you do not agree with GNC then?

Is the phrase found in the confession to which I subscribe?

So what is your answer?

I'll answer in two parts.

1. I haven't done as much detailed study as I'd like on what the Baptists who adopted the 2nd London Baptist Confession thought the distinction was between "good and necessary consequence" and "necessarily contained." However, since they typically followed the wording of the WCF (or the Congregationalists' Savoy Declaration in some instances) unless they disagreed with it, it is clear that by not including GNC they were attempting to avoid the practice of creating authoritative doctrines from the Bible that are based on what fallen human logic thinks must represent the Biblical teaching but which are not clearly derived from the text itself. Examples of this in their mind would no doubt include infant baptism as well as Presbyterian church government with its system of courts, etc.

2. Even if one accepts the premise of authoritative doctrines from the Bible that can be derived via good and necessary consequence, infant baptism is neither a good nor necessary consequence from Holy Writ.

 

[Herald]

Even if one accepts the premise of authoritative doctrines from the Bible that can be derived via good and necessary consequence, infant baptism is neither a good nor necessary consequence from Holy Writ.

All this begs the question of, "Who are we trying to convince?" Chris, I think the thread has now transcended your defense of why you switched baptismal positions. As in all PB baptism threads, this one has taken on a life of its own. I have always sensed an underlying tension between credos and paedos that has lead to a sort of détente. Another moderator on the paedo side (who I greatly respect) stated that he avoids the baptism threads for reasons such as this. Others feel led, almost compelled, to dive in. It has all the resemblance of a moth to the flame scenario. That's why I tied my dog to the front porch in this latest fray, although I've recently read the threads with much interest.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

You are correct. The passage doesn't call them disciples. I was making a reference to the Godhead and that each member is called God. Someone in a post above was relating our discussion on inference concerning infants and discipleship in relation to inferences concerning the Trinity. I thought it was a bad comparison. I just noted the differences. One can be seen in that all three members of the Trinity are called God. The other is not as easily deducted or inferred.

Except, that Jesus states explicitly that the kingdom of heaven counted among its citizens ones of infancy, just as these persons. So I do not see how you can say this is just an obscure deduction or vague inference?!?

Your explanation of the passage [not quoted here] isn't nearly as good as Murray's (whom you referenced, so I know you've read it).