Doug Wilson???

[Erinwilcox]

I just have to interject some thoughts on this whole Reformed Baptist Issue. Quite frankly - I think it is unfair to insinuate that a person is NOT Reformed on the basis of their stand on padeobaptism or credo-baptism. In light of the doctrines of Grace (what really matters) the issue of padeobaptism pales in comparison. Now I may not be the resident expert on the reformation - but from my understanding and studies it is apparant to me that the crux of the movement centered on Justification and Grace - not padeobaptism. In fact, the one thing the Reformers could agree on was Justification and Grace. So as long as we are all on the same page in that regard - I think its safe to say that we are of the Reformed Faith!

Thank you for these thoughts. Everything that I had ever heard was that to be a Calvinist one must believe in the Doctrines of Grace. Paedo vs. Credo baptism was never an issue. I am in awe of the paedobaptists here on SR. That is why I let ya'll teach me about your beliefs. I greatly respect you. But, I do not believe that your beliefs on baptism are correct. But you are still Reformed and so am I. I'm just Reformed Baptist. I hope that we can all get along and agree to love eachother through our "shortcomings" and disagreement on the issue of baptism. Remember, united we stand, but divided we fall. Let us not allow our disunity on the issue of baptism hinder our unity in promoting biblical truth and doctrine. We are all Calvinists, right?! Therefore, let us stand together and not fall because of an issue like baptism.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

I just have to interject some thoughts on this whole Reformed Baptist Issue. Quite frankly - I think it is unfair to insinuate that a person is NOT Reformed on the basis of their stand on padeobaptism or credo-baptism. In light of the doctrines of Grace (what really matters) the issue of padeobaptism pales in comparison. Now I may not be the resident expert on the reformation - but from my understanding and studies it is apparant to me that the crux of the movement centered on Justification and Grace - not padeobaptism. In fact, the one thing the Reformers could agree on was Justification and Grace. So as long as we are all on the same page in that regard - I think its safe to say that we are of the Reformed Faith!

My good friend Behe. It looks like we are going to have to disagree again. Calvin and all the early Reformers, and the early Reformed Creeds all take a hard position against the anabaptist, because they denied baptism to their children. This meant that the cut their children off from the Church of Jesus Christ and Covenant People of God. They saw this as a very big deal.

I would agree that baptism, by itself, would not be that big of a deal, but it is what drives our view of baptism that is important. That driving force is "covenant."

Paedobaptists and Credo-"only"-baptists have radically different understanding of how covenant relates to God's people. Yes, it is true that Reformed Baptists do hold to some aspects of covenant, but by not baptising their children they prove that they have a fairly big difference opinion about the nature of the Covenant than the historic Reformed position.

I mention this in these discussion regularly. I do refer to these Calvinistic Baptists brethren as "Reformed Baptist," because it is the title they call themselves, and in regular conversation I would not mention that I think the title unbefitting them. But this forum is a place to discuss such things, so I bring it up.

I have mention also thjat one major concern of mine is that American Reformed paedobaptists have, for many years, been drifting in their thinking and have become less Reformed and more Baptist. I would like to see that drift stop and see things go back in other direction. This is because I think the other direction (early Reformed thought) is, for the most part, more Biblical.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[Erinwilcox]

My good friend Behe. It looks like we are going to have to disagree again. Calvin and all the early Reformers, and the early Reformed Creeds all take a hard position against the anabaptist, because they denied baptism to their children. They saw this as a very big deal.

I would agree that baptism, by itself would not be that big of a deal, but it is what drives our view of baptism that is important. That driving force is "covenant."

Paedobaptists and Credo-"only"-baptists have radically different understanding of how covenant relates to God's people. Yes, it is true that Reformed Baptists do would to some aspects of covenant, but by not baptising their children they prove that they have a fairly big difference opinion about the nature of the Covenant than the historic Reformed position.

I mention this in these discussion regularly. I do refer to these Calvinistic Baptists brethren and "Reformed Baptist," because it is the title they call themselves, and in regular conversation I would not mention that I think the title unbefitting them. But this is a place to discuss such things so I bring it up.

I have mention also thjat one major concern of mine is that American Reformed paedobaptists have, for many years, been drifting in their thinking and have become less Reformed and more Baptist. I would like to see that drift stop and see things go back in other direction. This is because I think the other direction (early Reformed thought) is, for the most part, more Biblical.

Coram Feo,
Kenith

I have found, personally, that I am able to accept most of the covenantal views of the paedobaptists. I understand it, to some extent, and agree with much of it. It is merely the issue of the baptism that I have a problem with. I do not see infants being baptized in the Bible. However, I do believe that Reformed Baptists should dedication their children to the Lord. I know that many Baptist and other protestant denominations do this (I was dedicated), but at least in my RB church we do not. I think that the dedication and the infant baptism are similar (except that we don't baptize) and that it might show more of the symbol of the covenant. But, I'm still stuck on baptizing infants, although I find that I agree with much of covenant theology.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

I have found, personally, that I am able to accept most of the covenantal views of the paedobaptists. I understand it, to some extent, and agree with much of it. It is merely the issue of the baptism that I have a problem with. I do not see infants being baptized in the Bible. However, I do believe that Reformed Baptists should dedication their children to the Lord. I know that many Baptist and other protestant denominations do this (I was dedicated), but at least in my RB church we do not. I think that the dedication and the infant baptism are similar (except that we don't baptize) and that it might show more of the symbol of the covenant. But, I'm still stuck on baptizing infants, although I find that I agree with much of covenant theology.

Hello Erin,

I appreciate your comments on this subject, which is (IMHO) more important than many modern Evangelicals (Reformed or otherwise) seem to think. No it will not send anyone to hell, but it is important to our overall understanding of the Word of God and how our children are seen by the Lord.

You said " I do not see infants being baptized in the Bible." That is a fair statement, but lets follow that logic. Where in the N.T. Scripture do we have an example of women taking communion?

If an example in Scripture is going to be our position on whether or not it is Biblical, then women should be barred from the Lord's table. No where in any part of the New Testament do we find women taking Communion.

We do have many examples in the New Testament of "household" baptisms. This is important because of the context of Scripture. In the Old Testament any time someone joined God's Covenant people he and his "household" recieved the covenant sign.

THe facts of the household baptisms are sent in letters to peoples who ONLY possess the OLD COVENANT SCRIPTURES, and it was in the Old Testament that folks like the Bareans went to verify that what the Apostles said was true. Don't you think they would have connected the "household" dots?

There is no credo baptists until Tertullian, and he argued against babies, virgins and widows being baptised because of an extreme view of baptismal regeneration. Still, if you Tertullian, it is clear that infant baptism was the norm when he wrote (circa 200 AD). If the Credo baptist are correct we must believe that the WHOLE Christian Church left the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles (on this matter) with in 100 years of the Apostle John's death, AND that NOBODY said a word about it and no one gave the slightest protest.

I find that impossible to believe. Even without that, if you look at Covenant, starting in Gen. (and not Matt or Luke) than paedobaptism makes perfect sense and it seems impossible that someone could believe otherwise (BTW: I too was once a credo "only" baptist.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

I have found, personally, that I am able to accept most of the covenantal views of the paedobaptists. I understand it, to some extent, and agree with much of it. It is merely the issue of the baptism that I have a problem with. I do not see infants being baptized in the Bible. However, I do believe that Reformed Baptists should dedication their children to the Lord. I know that many Baptist and other protestant denominations do this (I was dedicated), but at least in my RB church we do not. I think that the dedication and the infant baptism are similar (except that we don't baptize) and that it might show more of the symbol of the covenant. But, I'm still stuck on baptizing infants, although I find that I agree with much of covenant theology.

Just curious... why do you think RBs should dedicate their children, and yet not baptize them? In what ways are they similar?

 

[calmcoolandelected]

( i am thinking of an actual real live dude who likes him & is legalistic, no one on here, that honestly wasn't a dig at ch'all that like 'im.)

Reformedfan,

I know folks on the Robbins side who I would consider legalists! Funny, huh? But seriously, I know several people that know Wilson personally and have great respect for him (although they may or may not always agree with him).

CC&E

 

[Erinwilcox]

Just curious... why do you think RBs should dedicate their children, and yet not baptize them? In what ways are they similar?

Because it sort of shows that they are part of the covenant in that the parents will strive to bring them up in the fear and admonition of the Lord (i.e. symbolic). However, I believe that only believers should be baptized.

 

[mlqurgw]

My good friend Behe. It looks like we are going to have to disagree again. Calvin and all the early Reformers, and the early Reformed Creeds all take a hard position against the anabaptist, because they denied baptism to their children. This meant that the cut their children off from the Church of Jesus Christ and Covenant People of God. They saw this as a very big deal.

I would agree that baptism, by itself, would not be that big of a deal, but it is what drives our view of baptism that is important. That driving force is "covenant."

Paedobaptists and Credo-"only"-baptists have radically different understanding of how covenant relates to God's people. Yes, it is true that Reformed Baptists do hold to some aspects of covenant, but by not baptising their children they prove that they have a fairly big difference opinion about the nature of the Covenant than the historic Reformed position.

I mention this in these discussion regularly. I do refer to these Calvinistic Baptists brethren as "Reformed Baptist," because it is the title they call themselves, and in regular conversation I would not mention that I think the title unbefitting them. But this forum is a place to discuss such things, so I bring it up.

I have mention also thjat one major concern of mine is that American Reformed paedobaptists have, for many years, been drifting in their thinking and have become less Reformed and more Baptist. I would like to see that drift stop and see things go back in other direction. This is because I think the other direction (early Reformed thought) is, for the most part, more Biblical.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

I agree with you here and this is precisely why I do not call myself a Reformed Baptist. I do hold a different view of the covenent than truly Reformed folks. Perhaps sometime we can discuss these things but at the moment I haven't the time. Looking forward to it though. I want to read what you have written on the subject thoroughly and develop a response that is both Biblical and makes sense. As I have great difficulty with the second part it may take me some time.

 

[AndOne]

My good friend Behe. It looks like we are going to have to disagree again. Calvin and all the early Reformers, and the early Reformed Creeds all take a hard position against the anabaptist, because they denied baptism to their children. This meant that the cut their children off from the Church of Jesus Christ and Covenant People of God. They saw this as a very big deal.

I would agree that baptism, by itself, would not be that big of a deal, but it is what drives our view of baptism that is important. That driving force is "covenant."

I understand and know that the Reformers took strong stands against the Anabaptists - but baptism of infants wasn't the main issue. If you look into the actual beliefs of Anabaptists you will discover that they did not (don't know if this is still true or not) hold to the biblical concept of the Trinity. That was the biggest issue that seperated Anabaptists from the Reformers. In my study of the situation - padeobaptism was a "side" issue.

In spite of my own acceptance of padeobaptism - I would have to say that the Reformed baptists can and do believe in Covenant Theology. Remember - because of my circumstances I am currently attending a Reformed Baptist Church. I look at the Reformed Baptist position of covenant theology as being similar to the Anglican position. The similarity lies in their infants being dedicated and then baptised later in life whereas in Anglican cirlces the infants are baptised and then confirmed. Quite frankly - in the context of covenant theology I don't have a problem with this. I just think the Baptists (those that are NOT of the dispensationalist variety) have got it wrong in their methodology.

Paedobaptists and Credo-"only"-baptists have radically different understanding of how covenant relates to God's people. Yes, it is true that Reformed Baptists do hold to some aspects of covenant, but by not baptising their children they prove that they have a fairly big difference opinion about the nature of the Covenant than the historic Reformed position.

How so? Are you sure about this? Just because their methodoly is incorrect doesn't necessarily mean their view on Covenant Theology is different than the historic Reformed position. Of course I will agree that those Baptists that are dispensationalist are off base.

I have mention also thjat one major concern of mine is that American Reformed paedobaptists have, for many years, been drifting in their thinking and have become less Reformed and more Baptist. I would like to see that drift stop and see things go back in other direction. This is because I think the other direction (early Reformed thought) is, for the most part, more Biblical.

I don't think they have drifted in their thinking - but have adapted to a society and culture that is made up of people who have proven to be Godless and unChristian. In essesnce I would say that American Reformed paedobaptists are becoming more evangelistic these days in response to the current trends of unbelief. The Baptists have always been this way. The world is not like it was in the 1500s where just about every one was Christian or at least believed in God. It's more like it was in the days of the early church - where no one believed properly and had to be evangelized. New Converts are incorporated into the church through baptism - and that perhaps is why there is this "disturbing" trend that you see permeating the historical padeobaptist way of thinking.

So what if someone takes a walk down the aisle and proclaims he is a Christian. Who are you and I to sit and judgement upon that person and proclaim that he probably did not accept Christ? Why is the alter call such a bad thing? In the Bible there are recordings of instant conversions - why does it have to be a long drawn out process today? Just because it was that way for you and I does not mean it will be that way for someone else. Heck if someone walks down the aisle and accepts Christ - if it is a true conversion - we'll see him back to church the following Sunday. So what's the big deal? When we see a real change in his life, his desire to glorify our Lord, and he keeps coming to church - then we baptise him. I don't really have a problem with this process - and when you look at conversions in the New Testament - many times Baptism was done right after an acceptance of the Gospel. So maybe this trend isn't such a bad thing after all...

 

[heymikey80]

How so? Are you sure about this? Just because their methodoly is incorrect doesn't necessarily mean their view on Covenant Theology is different than the historic Reformed position. Of course I will agree that those Baptists that are dispensationalist are off base.

I agree, there are some Reformed Baptists that offer due freedom to paedobaptists to baptize their kids in the church, recognize prevailing continuity with the Old Testament Church, who see the Covenant operating among people who are not yet converted, who don't see their churches as subgroups of people who "willingly consent to walk together" (London Confession, 1689), and who see OT history in light of trust and not solely as examples and "how-to" projects for us NT people.

But they are harder to tease out of the larger group.

The issue is more one of ecclesiology for me. I see the Church as Christ's. Some RB churches do too, and I've appreciated their frank courage in backing away from the historic construction of Reformed Baptist churches (something we conservative Presbyterians could learn from).

I also don't hold that agin' 'em. They're my brothers, even if I can't commune with their church if I embrace paedobaptism.

 

[Erinwilcox]

The issue is more one of ecclesiology for me. I see the Church as Christ's. Some RB churches do too, and I've appreciated their frank courage in backing away from the historic construction of Reformed Baptist churches (something we conservative Presbyterians could learn from).

I also don't hold that agin' 'em. They're my brothers, even if I can't commune with their church if I embrace paedobaptism.

What do you mean by the church belonging to Christ? I am RB and we, as all the other sister RB churches that I know of , do believe that the Church belongs to Christ and that it is His bride. Thus, I am confused by what you meant by that statement.

I guess it's sort of easier for an RB to fit into a Presbyterian church than for a Presbie to fit into an RB. . .

 

[heymikey80]

What do you mean by the church belonging to Christ? I am RB and we, as all the other sister RB churches that I know of , do believe that the Church belongs to Christ and that it is His bride. Thus, I am confused by what you meant by that statement.

Well, that's a good thing. But the Baptist London Confession actually echoes John Locke's view of churches as loose organizations of like-minded people, which is not the same view of the church as those who are Christ's.

In the US this often translates into a church that can insulate itself against theologies it doesn't want to deal with. Churches can emphasize specific teachings or doctrines and simply request that other members accept it, or move on.

This is also a fairly well-accepted congregationalist view -- which unfortunately some Presbyterian churches have problems with, too.

But the church of Christ demands a broad reach, among all those relying on Christ and not in any public or profoundly serious sin. If you look at the range in Corinth for instance, and the lines Paul truly drew to excommunicate people, you find some wild and wacky people who were still embraced within the church.

And I would say that according to 1 Cor 11:17ff, Paul demanded that everyone embrace everyone else as Christians. I don't know how that worked among people who weren't convinced of the Resurrection; people who disrupted worship; people speaking publicly in tongues. But it doesn't sound like they were excommunicated for it. Some admittedly would've been ignored at Paul's instructions in the letter (!), but they wouldn't have been turned out of the church.

I think those lines are proper for churches, today.

I guess it's sort of easier for an RB to fit into a Presbyterian church than for a Presbie to fit into an RB. . .

Yes, the people of Christ are an eclectic group.

Reminds me of one of my fav' Nicole Nordeman songs: "Please Come".

Thanks for the comments, Erin.

 

[Erinwilcox]

Well, that's a good thing. But the Baptist London Confession actually echoes John Locke's view of churches as loose organizations of like-minded people, which is not the same view of the church as those who are Christ's.

In the US this often translates into a church that can insulate itself against theologies it doesn't want to deal with. Churches can emphasize specific teachings or doctrines and simply request that other members accept it, or move on.

This is also a fairly well-accepted congregationalist view -- which unfortunately some Presbyterian churches have problems with, too.

But the church of Christ demands a broad reach, among all those relying on Christ and not in any public or profoundly serious sin. If you look at the range in Corinth for instance, and the lines Paul truly drew to excommunicate people, you find some wild and wacky people who were still embraced within the church.

And I would say that according to 1 Cor 11:17ff, Paul demanded that everyone embrace everyone else as Christians. I don't know how that worked among people who weren't convinced of the Resurrection; people who disrupted worship; people speaking publicly in tongues. But it doesn't sound like they were excommunicated for it. Some admittedly would've been ignored at Paul's instructions in the letter (!), but they wouldn't have been turned out of the church.

I think those lines are proper for churches, today.

Well, I would have to disagree with some of what you have said. Firstly, regarding embracing the Christians who weren't convinced of the Resurrection, can one even be a Christian and believe such? The whole basis of our faith, the hinge upon which Christianity turns is the fact the Christ was resurrected (1 Cor. 15:17). If Christ was not raised from the dead then we have no Christian faith. Therefore, I would argue that the church should NOT just put up with those who don't believe in the Resurrection because I do not believe that those people are even saved! And when you say that Paul demands that we embrace all Christians everywhere (which in a sense is true), you forget that in that very chapter he is exhorting and rebuking them! Yes, we need to love Christians, but we are commanded to rebuke and exhort them as well. So, we cannot just stand by and let bad, faulty doctrine be proclaimed as true. . .we must lovingly rebuke and exhort our brethren in the hopes that God might show them their error.

Also, let me present this situation. The Church at large is the Church of Christ. However, there are individual churches and each differs slightly (or not so slightly) in doctrine. However, each individual church must be unified for a house divided against itself cannot stand. Therefore, the members of each individual church should all be as unified as possible in doctrine. Now, if someone as an RB were to go to a PCA church, join it, and then constantly spout off about how wrong they think infant baptism is, what would you think of them? Well I would think that they were being disruptive and jeapordizing the unity of the church. All things are to be done decently and in order. Thus, this person would be disruptive. Also, I would think that though you mentioned people speaking in tongues, etc. that these things were all done decently and in order since it was Paul who instructed them about order.
1 Cor. 14:40

 

[heymikey80]

Well, I would have to disagree with some of what you have said. Firstly, regarding embracing the Christians who weren't convinced of the Resurrection, can one even be a Christian and believe such? The whole basis of our faith, the hinge upon which Christianity turns is the fact the Christ was resurrected (1 Cor. 15:17). If Christ was not raised from the dead then we have no Christian faith. Therefore, I would argue that the church should NOT just put up with those who don't believe in the Resurrection because I do not believe that those people are even saved! And when you say that Paul demands that we embrace all Christians everywhere (which in a sense is true), you forget that in that very chapter he is exhorting and rebuking them! Yes, we need to love Christians, but we are commanded to rebuke and exhort them as well. So, we cannot just stand by and let bad, faulty doctrine be proclaimed as true. . .we must lovingly rebuke and exhort our brethren in the hopes that God might show them their error.

That's largely the point Calvin makes ("The Necessity of Reforming the Church"), that the church really needs exhortation and rebuke. But you can see that doesn't come by dividing people up into smaller churches with specialized doctrines, but by plopping them all into the same platform, unified around ... well, something else (or Someone in this case).

Paul's response was not to excommunicate those who disbelieved Christ's resurrection, at least not immediately -- and they were within the church at Corinth (1 Cor 15:12). Paul also didn't declare them "no longer a church" because they harbored disbelievers in the resurrection. Maybe Paul intended to impose some action when he got there without mentioning it explicitly. He only made general statements about doing something when he came to Corinth again. His argument's in 1 Corinthians 15.

Paul was willing to pass judgement on sex sin (1 Cor 5) from a distance, though.

To me Paul took a very different strategy from modern churches' approaches. He took a redemptive approach. No, not everyone had their act together with regard to the Resurrection. But he was willing to halt the acceptance of this teaching, without rejecting those who thought this way. That way he "held them in place" while he could talk with them. He didn't create a "my way or the highway" doctrine. He also didn't allow "any which way but loose" within the church at Corinth. He took a redemptive role: he exhorted, instructed, rebuked, confronted, communed, commisserated, all to convert and attract and redeem people by the Gospel of Christ.

To me that's the point: the church is to be redemptive. Paul exemplified this by permitting weak faith to be involved with strong faith, and to grow thereby.

Also, let me present this situation. The Church at large is the Church of Christ. However, there are individual churches and each differs slightly (or not so slightly) in doctrine. However, each individual church must be unified for a house divided against itself cannot stand. Therefore, the members of each individual church should all be as unified as possible in doctrine. Now, if someone as an RB were to go to a PCA church, join it, and then constantly spout off about how wrong they think infant baptism is, what would you think of them? Well I would think that they were being disruptive and jeapordizing the unity of the church. All things are to be done decently and in order. Thus, this person would be disruptive. Also, I would think that though you mentioned people speaking in tongues, etc. that these things were all done decently and in order since it was Paul who instructed them about order.
1 Cor. 14:40

But I know you see, Paul is telling them to put their worship in order -- so they weren't in order. And yet they were a church, even while they were disorganized. (Calvin talks about this in Commentaries, 1 Cor 1:2)

If doctrinal differences should divide the church out of concern for unity, then Paul has a serious problem. 1 Cor 3 describes the logic Paul uses, and he ends with this: "whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or things present or things to come; all things belong to you, and you belong to Christ; and Christ belongs to God." One might just as well say today, "whether Sproul or Ryrie or Wright or the world or life or death or things present or things to come; all things belong to you, and you belong to Christ; and Christ belongs to God."

Paul stresses the sole principle of unity: "you belong to Christ". When the church sees someone who belongs to Christ, that person belongs in the church. Sure, there will be concerns both for the peace and the purity of the church. People cannot be free of rules and still organize. But it's actually regrettable when a rebellious Christian has to be restrained from attending church. We really ought to be together, not because we all think the same doctrines, but because we all belong to the Savior. That's the unity Christ says is right -- a much wilder, larger, less organized, and yes, more factioned church doctrinally is the one He says He wants.

Paul himself said factions were in some part to be expected (1 Cor 11:18b-19). To Paul the Corinthians were too factioned 17, 20ff). But Paul expects some breaks, some arguments, some conflicts to "see who's approved".