Baptism

JM said:

Is it wrong that I'm not overly concerned with who receives Baptism?

I mean, I was a Baptist and pretty hardcore about Baptism but now...I don't really care all that much. If you look at history the church has practiced paedobaptism but scripture gives no command concerning infants.

Is it wrong to just submit to the historical interpretation of scripture and allow for paedobaptism?

Yours in the Lord,

jm

Click to expand...

I've observed in non-paedobaptist Churches a wholesale embrace and joy in "dedications", where an infant is baptized as a dedication to Lord with prayers that the infant will grow in the ways of the Lord and be raised to be a faithful servant to Christ. I found this to be very near to, very close to paedobaptism, while using other terminology, and kind of opened my believer's baptism by immersion senses (at the time) in a way as I thought about it, reflected on it, after the facts.

In most churches I have been in, infants have been dedicated, while baptism is for those who have made a personal profession of faith. However, I attended one church where infant baptism would be given during the dedication if the parents asked for it, but it was made VERY clear that this was on the same basis as a dedication and that the water was merely a symbol of the intent to bring the child up 'in the nurture and admonition of the Lord' with prayers that when old enough to understand, he/she would make a personal commitment.

My personal view is that adult baptism is more scriptural since I don't see any clear evidence in scripture for the baptism of infants - and baptism always followed on from profession of faith. But I wouldn't get too upset with the outward symbol of christening as long as it is made very clear that this is merely a symbol of the parents' desire to 'train up a child in the way he should go' and in no way saves the child. The real danger arises when people think they are 'saved' because they have been christened as a baby.

JM said:

Is it wrong that I'm not overly concerned with who receives Baptism?

Click to expand...

Well, you are a LBCF proponent, so your view that there is no warrant from the full counsel of Scripture is not unexpected.

Of course, given your confessional affirmation, it is odd that you are not "overly concerned" about baptism in general, given the LBCF.

JM said:

Is it wrong that I'm not overly concerned with who receives Baptism?

I mean, I was a Baptist and pretty hardcore about Baptism but now...I don't really care all that much. If you look at history the church has practiced paedobaptism but scripture gives no command concerning infants.

Is it wrong to just submit to the historical interpretation of scripture and allow for paedobaptism?

Yours in the Lord,

jm

Click to expand...

I would say yes you are wrong. Infant baptism arises from a different covenant theology and is very important. If you hold to thr covenant theology of men such as Gill and that of historical Baptists you must see it as being important. Baptists are no longer persecuted by paedobabtists but we were not so long ago. Much blood was shed over the issue. Does it now become unimportant because a little time has passed? Stick to your guns my brother.

Compromise in one thing and it will not be long before you compromise on many things. One of the things I respect about AMR is that he doesn't compromise. I strongly disagree with him on some issues concerning our different covenant theology but respect his uncompromising stance. He actually believe what he says.

twin1954 said:

I would say yes you are wrong. Infant baptism arises from a different covenant theology and is very important. If you hold to thr covenant theology of men such as Gill and that of historical Baptists you must see it as being important. Baptists are no longer persecuted by paedobabtists but we were not so long ago. Much blood was shed over the issue. Does it now become unimportant because a little time has past? Stick to your guns my brother.

Click to expand...

It's difficult to imagine blood being shed over baptism differences anytime soon. People today do not shed blood over much greater and pressing matters, which I do not wish to go into specifics, only to say that so many important doctrines and issues have been compromised in so many different Churches that "downgrade" is hardly the word for it. If blood shed were the hallmark of truth though, I suspect the followers of Islam might have us all beat, or the Jews during WWII. I am not a Catholic because of the blood shed by the hands of Catholics, most of them involved were probably young and understood little, and had few choices in the matter, and let's face it, religion is a powerful tool for justifying blood shed, that much is true, unfortunately I cannot help but think so much of it is not justified, but rather preying upon the sinful carnal nature and desires already in the hearts of men.

A few months ago and since then, I've been one of few to stand by John Calvin, without condemning him for what little part he had in the burning of Servetus. But I have spent some time reading into the subject, and many if not most do not look at the event in full context of the historical narrative. I think we all have a tendency to judge the past through a modern perspective through our experiences, and it is unfortunate, because we can miss out on truth, which I no doubt have, but hope to continue learning.

God bless you twin

Servetus was heretic. His death was the judgement of God. And I am certain the people involved at the time viewed that as true. The same free will libertarians that don't like the idea of God intervening over the affairs of man in salvation, don't like the idea of judgement either. They prefer a god who stands afar off.

Apologetic_Warrior said:

It's difficult to imagine blood being shed over baptism differences anytime soon. People today do not shed blood over much greater and pressing matters, which I do not wish to go into specifics, only to say that so many important doctrines and issues have been compromised in so many different Churches that "downgrade" is hardly the word for it. If blood shed were the hallmark of truth though, I suspect the followers of Islam might have us all beat, or the Jews during WWII. I am not a Catholic because of the blood shed by the hands of Catholics, most of them involved were probably young and understood little, and had few choices in the matter, and let's face it, religion is a powerful tool for justifying blood shed, that much is true, unfortunately I cannot help but think so much of it is not justified, but rather preying upon the sinful carnal nature and desires already in the hearts of men.

A few months ago and since then, I've been one of few to stand by John Calvin, without condemning him for what little part he had in the burning of Servetus. But I have spent some time reading into the subject, and many if not most do not look at the event in full context of the historical narrative. I think we all have a tendency to judge the past through a modern perspective through our experiences, and it is unfortunate, because we can miss out on truth, which I no doubt have, but hope to continue learning.

God bless you twin

Click to expand...

You are very correct in what you say. Yet my admonition was about the blood of Baptists being shed over the issue of baptism. Many Baptists lost their lives because they believed the issue important. That was my point. If others were willing to give their lives because of what they believed, whether rightly or wrongly, shouldn't we at least stand for what we believe though there is no persecution anymore?They didn't compromise their beliefs but stood firm even in the face of death.

God bless you as well.

Retracted. I think what I said could be misunderstood so I've retracted.

JM said:

In England prior to 1660 many Dissenters (Baptist, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Quaker, etc) all set aside their differences and worshipped and communioned together. I see this happening again due to the political climate we find ourselves in, and although I see credobaptism as more scriptural, I'm not willing to part ways with other believers over the issue. (Source for the above info)

Click to expand...

For me it isn't a matter of parting ways with other believers, I honestly consider many Presbyterians my brothers and sisters, but simply calling out error as I ought. Our different theologies and their consequences are not trivial.

twin1954 said:

For me it isn't a matter of parting ways with other believers, I honestly consider many Presbyterians my brothers and sisters, but simply calling out error as I ought. Our different theologies and their consequences are not trivial.

Click to expand...

God bless the soul who color coded (red="major") the differences between the WCF and LBCF HERE.

JM said:

Is it wrong that I'm not overly concerned with who receives Baptism?

Click to expand...

Like you JM, I don't think it matters much (as long as in the case of paedobaptism the infant has Christian parents and/or godparents who are committed to nurturing the infant in faith towards Christ.)

Water baptism symbolizes union with Christ in his death, new birth by the Spirit, and a righteous standing before God. But baptism does not guarantee that the person being baptized has received or will receive the spiritual blessings it symbolizes. That is equally true whether the person being baptized is a newborn baby or an adult professing faith in Christ.

I was baptized as an infant and I have never seen the need or felt the desire to be baptized again as a professing Christian. My baptism as an oblivious baby expresses the fact that God was preparing me to have faith in him before I asked for or even knew that I needed his mercy.

Modern western people tend to think of conversion and water baptism as two separate events. But I don't think people in the New Testament world made such a clear cut distinction. A positive response to the gospel included faith and baptism. It was not regarded problematic if one was separated from the other in time. Thus Paul could sometimes write of the human response to the gospel by focusing on just one aspect of the whole event while at other times he focused on another aspect. For example, when describing conversion as being baptized into Christ, Paul was not implying that water baptism has an automatic efficacy independent of submission to Christ in faith. Similarly when Paul described conversion as being incorporated into Christ by faith, he was not implying that water baptism was just a rubber-stamp on a fait accompli.

In the book of Acts repentance, faith, receiving the Spirit, being incorporated into Christ, and being baptized in water all belonged together conceptually though they rarely all occurred simultaneously. Despite irregularities in the chronological order, it was perceived as a single multi-faceted event.

JM said:

I can't say I'm convinced that infant baptism is in error. It has been the standard practice in the church since the beginning.

I guess I'm becoming less idealistic with old age *(and experience).

Click to expand...

I am a lot older than you and though in some areas I have softened in the fundamentals there is no compromise. Theology and the consequences of it will remain as fundamental truth to me.