Remember that debate we had around here on infant baptism vs. believer’s baptism? It was in Nov. and Dec. of 2005. (See this summary post on the debate.) Well there is a new book out which may prove helpful to anyone seriously considering the issue.
For most of my life I have just assumed believer’s baptism was correct, but when I began to seriously think and debate on the issue, I came to understand that the issue is not as hard and fast as I once thought. Part of this stems from my new understanding of Calvinism and Reformed doctrine. I am now much more open to the Reformed doctrine of infant baptism (which is not at all a baptismal regeneration view), but I remain Baptist still. However, I have determined I need to do more research in this area, and this book looks like it should be one I study.
There is an interesting interview of Tom Schreiner, one of the editors, on Justin Taylor’s blog which is worth reading if you are conversant with the debate (the comments are interesting as well). It also links to an interesting article written by Bob Stein on the subject as well.
I am going to list the chapters and contributors from the book below. Feel free to provide any feedback on the debate in general or this book in particular.
Author Preface
Foreword
Timothy GeorgeIntroduction
Thomas A. Schreiner and Shawn D. Wright1. Baptism in the Gospels
Andreas J. Köstenberger2. Baptism in Luke-Acts
Robert H. Stein3. Baptism in the Epistles: An Initiation Rite for Believers
Thomas R. Schreiner4. Baptism and the Relationship between the Covenants
Stephen J. Wellum5. Baptism in the Patristic Writings
Steven A. McKinion6. “Confessor Baptism” : The Baptismal Doctrine of the Early Anabaptists
Jonathan H. Rainbow7. Baptism and the Logic of Reformed Paedobaptists
Shawn D. Wright8. Meredith Kline on Suzerainty, Circumcision, and Baptism
Duane A. Garrett9. Baptism in the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement
A. B. Caneday10. Baptism in the Context of the Local Church
Mark E. Dever [HT: Justin Taylor]
I have not yet this entire post, but just from the a quick overview, I would simply think since infant baptism is not in the Bible, it would not be done and that would be the end of it. Especially since the origin of infant baptism was the Catholic belief it imparted saving faith to those being baptized.
My 2 cents.
https://www.amazon.com/Christian-Baptism-John-Murray/dp/0875523439/sr=8-1/qid=1169061164/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-6056681-8430425?ie=UTF8&s=books was a decent, although not comprehensive book on the subject.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0875525547/002-6056681-8430425 also seems good, although I’ve only started to read it.
I also thought the following article gave an excellent brief overview http://public.csusm.edu/guests/rsclark/Infant_Baptism.html
Ichabod,
Check out this post which is my attempt at reconstructing a plausible and Scriptural argument for infant baptism. It is not as easily dismissed as you make it seem.
Blessings in Christ,
Bob
Ichabod,
Also to treat it as a “sub-Christian” view as you seem to do, is to wrongly divide the body of Christ. (Note I am not including RCs in this statement.)
Bob
Matt,
Thanks for the recommendations! In due time I will try to check them out.
God bless you brother,
Bob
Hey, I know those guys.
I have long studied this issue…and recently left a calvinist church that performed infant baptisms…for a baptist arminian church that opposes them.
After much study and interaction with calvinist on this issue and other calvinists beliefs…I have come to the conclusion that calvinist are more interested in debate and over anaylysis of biblical issues.
I do think its simple…if infant baptism were right…wouldn’t we see at least ONE example of it in the Bible?
In Christ,
Bill K.
Bill K.,
You do realize that the book featured here is written by Baptists who are also Calvinist? It may seem simple to you and me, but there are many young Baptists who are converting to Presbyterianism. If we care for their souls we should try to address their concerns on their level, rather than ignoring their questions.
I think everything requires a definition until one makes a commitment to a belief.
I understand the word “baptism” to mean “identify with.” If you read about the history of the building of the temple (extra-biblical sources), you will see many examples of the tools being used to build the temple being “baptized.” The tools were “identified with” the building of the temple – in a way “sanctified” or “set apart” for the specific use of construction.
So, that would explain why God commands believers to be “baptized” as He wants us to be “identified with” Him.
“Infant Baptism,” as I would define it, would mean identifying the infant with God. Often times churches would have “baby dedication,” and I would see this as a form of “baptism,” as the parents ask God to protect the child and lead him/her to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.
Now, whether or not “infant baptism” is required biblically might cause some debate. If one desires to follow exactly as the first church did, the in a sense this “baptism” would be required.
If you are going to do that, I would say people should speak in tongues and perform miraculous healings. I’m not saying that there is any harm in “dedicating” the child to God, but I am saying that we should make careful considerations when stating that “following the first church is the correct and only way.”
Interesting question but baptism is so closely tied to salvation in the NT that the argument for infant baptism is on shaky ground in addition to the fact that no infants are baptized in scripture. If one holds to Sola Scriptura, I don’t see how one can attempt to separate baptism from being only for believers; thus, making infant baptism a non-biblical practice.
Hey all,
Thanks for entering the discussion. But you really should go read this post before jumping on and debating. Basically the arguments given here are too simplistic for the discussion.
On the Baptist side they will say where is an example of “infant baptism”. On the paedobaptist side, they say where does the NT explicitly state the children should not be part of the covenant (as they always were in the OT) and thus receive the sign of the covenant (in the NT/new covenant this would be baptism not circumcision). Baptists reply that babies don’t have faith and thus the sign wouldn’t work. But Paedobaptists counter that babies received circumcision—even though circumcision pictured the same reality baptism does [ie. it is a picture or “a sign and seal” of faith] see Rom. 4:11.
So to sum it all up, both sides rest on a certain amount of silence and in Biblical exegesis and doctrinal studies, silence never wins the day. We can’t point to silence or base our beliefs on silence. As far as explicit dealing with the question of both infant salvation and whether infants did or didn’t get baptized, the NT is silent. We should then tread carefully and not automatically rule out our opponents as “un-Biblical” or even “sub-Christian”.
Hope that helps!
Bob
Crowned fish,
I think I know you and you hail from Japan, but I can call you Royal Tuna, if you’d like! 🙂 [By the way anonymity is totally fine on here.]
Anyway, your comment is interesting. And you are right that we need to define terms. Also, you go to the OT and bring it in on the discussion: very commendable.
I basically agree that baptism includes the idea of “identifying with”. However it is more than that. It is a symbol and a sign. In the OT for instance, the tools were symbolically cleansed with the washing or baptizing ritual. In the NT the word baptizo is actually used for this in Hebrews and with things like couches that would obviously not be dunked but rather sprinkled like the cleansing rituals from the OT. So Paedobaptists point to the sprinkling of the OT then to Hebrews and say baptizo means sprinkling. Baptists tend to ignore the OT backdrop and look at a Greek dictionary and find that baptizo means dip or immerse. I think both sides have valid arguments, and that since Scripture does not make absolutely explicit which mode to use, either would be okay. Although one can find some suggestive uses of baptizo in the NT which strongly point to immersion.
But this brings up a good point, most Baptists I know say Baptism symbolizes Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection, and our own acknowledgment of Christ’s work for us (our belief). And yes some NT passages teach that. But at its root, baptism symbolizes that we have been cleansed by a sovereign act of God. We stand purified becaue of Christ. And this stems from the backdrop of purification rituals with water in the OT, a backdrop Baptists often forget.
Going back to your comments, it is interesting to note that baby dedication was started by Zwingli and some of his followers who turned Baptist [Zwingli later abandoned that I believe, as he opposed the Baptists], I believe. And it was instituted to make sure that believer’s only baptism did not miss out on the dedication of children to God as hopefully future members of the new covenant.
But I am at a loss to understand your last couple paragraphs. We are to baptize because Scripture tells us to baptize, not merely because the first-century church did it. And I agree that some of the practices of the first-century church are not valid for today. For instance they were communalistic but I think that was an attempt to address a particular crisis, and not a binding pattern for us to follow.
But we still do learn much from first-century practices as stated in Scripture and we should emulate them when we can. [For now, I will leave the whole question of whether the miraculous gifts are for today or not untouched.] When we start studying the early church from non biblical sources, then we begin to lose authority. It is probable that early practices were Biblically based. But then again it may be early errors.
I am not sure if you are saying we don’t need to baptize at all or not. The extra Biblical records about what the early church believed and practiced can certainly inform us, but they are not binding. We should baptize because Scripture commands it, and we should seek to determine how Scripture would have us do this.
I currently think the emphasis of the new covenant as being composed of believers only points to a believer’s baptism. But as my post I linked to above shows, I certainly do not think that paedobaptists (particularly of the presbyterian or reformed variety) are overtly rejecting Scripture. And currently I am not sure how important this whole issue should be and whether we should really split off into separate churches over our position on this issue.
Can you clarify your comment a bit? Or am I making better sense now? Or were you responding to someone else?
God bless you brother,
Bob
I thought to chime in here about something that is missing from the debate. Perhaps it’s better to clarify a factor in one’s ‘position’ on baptism. It’s not the ‘elephant’ in the room kind of thing, but rather it is that the eschatological beliefs that one adheres to also affect ecclesiological ones as well. In this case, many covenantal theologians will lean toward paedobaptism (whether amillennial, post-millennial, or covenantal premillennial) and also in believer’s baptism. I don’t know if it’s me, but many dispensationalists will also be credobaptists, but not because one is a dispensationalist (on the other hand, and in many cases, Baptists who adhere to credo baptism only are also covenantal theologians). But, in the case of the dispensationalist, such eschatological beliefs don’t necessarily dictate or influence what one believes regarding baptism. Just my observation at this point…..
Larry,
Interesting point. I wonder how this all panned out before dispensationalism as a system really developed. There was a time when most Baptists would have been Covenantal yet still credo-baptist only. I wonder if Baptists grew along with the growth and dominance of the dispensational system or not.
Just thinking out loud.
Dispensationalism came out of Presbyterianism.
Bob,
You mention the Zwinglians practicing baby dedication . . .
. . . I find it telling that the early credobaptists were so compelled to retain a practice of baby dedication when they ceased baptizing children of believers, like they’d be missing something if they didn’t do it. Just as there’s no explicit New Testament command to baptize infants, there’s also no explicit New Testament command to ceremonially dedicate children to God. That doesn’t seem terribly in line with the “regulative principle” if they’re going to retain an unmandated aspect of a so-called “tradition of men.”
But to get technical about the history, some of Zwingli’s followers weren’t satisfied with the extent of his reforms and wanted to be a little more radical than him. I don’t know that he ever practiced credobaptism personally. But I could be wrong. I’d have to go look it up. Furthermore, I’d read somewhere that in 1525, the German Anabaptist, Balthasar Hubmeier (I love that name!) not only innovated baby dedication after removing the water from the paedobaptism, but he also started the practice of foot washing!
I’d like to address one point about the nature of the New Testament church from Piper’s quote you cited in your debate with Pitchford in 2005:
“The Church is not to be a mixed heritage like Abraham’s seed. The Church is not to be like Israel – a physical multitude and in it a small remnant of true saints. The Church is the saints, by definition. The Church continues the remnant. As verse 28 says, the Church is “like Isaac, children of promise.â€
The whole effort to deny that there are unbelievers in the “New Testament” church is a little disingenuous. Did not Jesus teach that tares would grow among the wheat? It looks like talking out of both sides of one’s mouth to say “the church” is the saints, by definition, when even Baptists will in other contexts recognize that many who profess faith and then receive baptism are not truly regenerate. Yet they are “members of the church.” This is one reason it’s so wise to distinguish between the visible (a mixed multitude) and the invisible church (the number of the elect alone, which is truly known only to God). That’s why I don’t buy the argument that the church is a people of God distinct from the believing remnant of the natural seed of Abraham. Gentiles were grafted into the believing remnant of Israel in the Old Testament, and Paul taught in Romans 11 that engrafted Gentiles currently happen to predominate among the believing remnant of Israel specifically to provoke the unbelieving natural seed to jealousy that they might return to the Lord. Looks pretty seemless to me.
Am I getting us off topic? I’m sorry, but it does pertain to the question of church membership. Credobaptists criticize paedobaptists for some of those infants growing up in unbelief, while credobaptists themselves have many professing-but-not-possessing baptized members among their own number.
Captain HK,
Yea, I’m probably wrong on Zwingli, but I thought it came from someone who was at one time connected with him.
And re: the quote, I am seeing more and more how weak that argument is. Especially in light of Rom. 11 which speaks of people being cut out of the one true vine today. The vine has to refer to God’s covenantal people today, and apparently there are some in the covenant that are not truly regenerate. This idea jives with the warning passages of Hebrews and obviously with the Parable of the Tares.
Really there is much in common with Baptists and Paedos. Both know there kids have something special and are more privileged than pagans. Both dedicate them to God. Both do not give them complete fellowship until they publically confess Christ (either in Confirmation or Believer’s Baptism).
Thanks for contributing to the conversation.
Bob
I can’t help to see that there are two avenues of arguments going on in this same thread. There’s that friction between those who adhere to the historic Bapitst belief in credo-baptism, and yet on the other hand, struggle as to whether it is ‘biblical’ to baptize infants in some kind of baby dedication ceremony due to the influence of covenantal theology. For me (being a classical dispensationalist), it’s easy to believe in credo-baptism and not have my eschatological beliefs ‘get in the way’ of how I would practice baptism. From what I’ve studied so far with my dispensationalism class is that Baptists (in history, as well as many contemporary Reformed Baptists) who have a covenental eschatology would not have considered practicing paedo-baptism; it was against their views that only self-professed believers would partake of that ordinance. It’s interesting to note that Capt. Headknowlege brought up the topic that even in the local church, there would (and are) those who profess belief in Christ as their personal savior, yet aren’t truly one of the elect. It’s a strange, yet sad, fact that Christ knew of this reality. These unbelievers, who partake of the ordinances of the Lord’s Supper and (credo) Baptism are also in our local congregations. I would need to research dispensationalist scholars as to the relationship of baptism and Romans 11. A good topic to say the least!
Here’s something from Spurgeon regarding baptism (and, Spurgeon was a covenantal pre-millennialist):
First, let me remind you that our Savior’s words teach us that baptism follows faith: “He that believeth and is baptized.” Never neglect the order of things in the Bible. If God puts them one, two, three, do not you put them three, two, one. You never had a servant, I hope, who twisted your orders out of order. Did you ever say to her, “Mary, now go and sweep the parlour, and afterwards take the duster, and dust the table, and the shelves, and the books”? Did she come to you some time after, and say, “Madam, I have done as you commanded me; I dusted the table, and the shelves, and the books, and then I swept the room”? Every good housewife here knows what would happen from turning Tier orders upside down in that fashion. Now, a great many in the Christian Church at the present day have put it thus: “He that is baptized and believeth.” I am not one of those maidservants; I dare not turn my Master’s orders upside down. You have no right to baptize people till they have believed in Christ as their Savior. Remember how Philip put it to the Ethiopian eunuch when that worthy man said, “See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?” Philip answered, “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.” And if thou dost not believe with all thine heart, thou oughtest not to be baptized, thou hast no right to this ordinance of Christ unless thou art a Christian. “He that believeth and is baptized,” — that is the Scriptural order. Read the New Testament impartially, and you will always find that those who were baptized were believers. They believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, and then they were baptized into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Larry,
That is a strong argument and one which keeps me a Baptist. Baptism and belief are so closely tied together in the NT. Although Acts 8:37 is probably not original to Scripture, it is certainly an early gloss.
But I agree the Rom. 11 and Baptism angle is interesting.
Blessings in Christ,
Bob
Bob,
It may very well have been that someone connected to Zwingli also had the idea to dedicate babies, independent of Hubmeier, or maybe one influenced the other either way. Perhaps a stronger student of history than either of us will be able to speak to that.
As for the infant believers of paedo’s and credo’s . . . go ahead and say it! Don’t be afraid! It’s biblical (1 Corinthians 7:14b) — THEY’RE HOLY!!! Not just closer to the light, not just more privileged than pagans, they are separated by God to himself, be definition! And there is no other biblical category for where God deposits people whom he separates from the world to himself; he grants them the promises of the covenant! And he is sovereign enough to grant the faith on his timetable, not ours.
Come on over to the dark side, Buddy! Resistance is futile–you WILL be assimilated!
🙂
baptism and adam and eve
Humans use the word man to describe one single adult male
and humans also use man to describe many humans. When it
comes to the eviction out of the garden it would seem
that mans interpretation in this story describes ‘The Man’
as two adult persons, one of each sex. Not only do humans
address both as ‘the man’ they use words like him, he and his
to describe them.
We know that the interpretation of Genesis 3 has been the
same for a really long time, but just how long? Most teach
it as ‘the fall’ and say that god drove both Adam and Eve out
of the garden. But this is not true unless you are willing to
except ‘The man’ meant both the man Adam and the woman
Eve, even as he him ect.
Could men two thousand years ago have questioned or
challenged this, if the interpretation and the words were the
same back then? Could it have been believed that a more in
depth interpretation would only complicate the interpretation?
People are fixed on the meaning of it and to question it in a
new light may have only bought about more questions that
the teachers did not have answers for. If Eve was not driven
out then this might be the very reason Lilith was bought to
light. Otherwise how did Adam get to know Eve and the two
of them have children after he was thrown out of the garden.
What if Jesus was drawn into all of this? Being cursed to
follow after Adam Jesus might have decided Eve must have
got out and went after him by water. The flaming sword guarded
the way to the tree of life but it appears to have been between
Eve and where Adam was driven out. There is no mention that
god told Eve not to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge
and it was not this tree that the flaming sword was guarding.
So she could have eaten all she wanted, gained wisdom and
figured it out. Or, the cherubim could have told her how to get out.
Is there a relationship with the first act of Jesus being baptized
and this scenario?
I have never heard the interpretation of genesis 3 any other way
but the way man has described it over the years. Is it more suitable
for man to shun the blame off on Eve then to give her good word
for making it out of the garden and into her mans arms. She was
after all created because he the man Adam was lonely.
There is no doubting that god told man not to eat the fruit and look
how quick he was to shift the blame to Eve after eating it. Through
new light like this, perhaps we can understand more about why Jesus
had the attitude he had toward women.
There was a wedding feast in among the first acts of Jesus as well I
do believe; no doubt when Eve got out of the garden and to her man,
she consummated her marriage with him. Can the shedding of new
light on an old interpretation like this be likened to turning water to wine?
Just a thought from Cheryl
Cheryl,
I think you are reading something into the texts here. Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would guide us into all truth. So there is safety in listening to all the centuries of church history and teaching on this and any other subject of doctrine.
Gen. 3 teaches that Eve understood that she was forbidden to eat the fruit. Then it says she did. So Eve sinned. She gave it to Adam and he ate, which was a sin. These were the first sins ever done by humans. 1 Tim. 2:13-14 also teaches that Eve sinned. It points out she was the one deceived by the Serpent. So that concurs with what we have in Gen. 2.
Eve is connected with Adam, she is his helper and was made for Adam. Gen. 2:24 teaches that the man and woman cleave together into a special relationship of unity. This is what God intended for marriage to be. So when Adam leaves, it is natural to think Eve leaves as well. We then see them together in 4:1. “Know” is slang for “know sexually”, that is what the Hebrew term indicates (to know intimately, and it is often used as a polite way of saying “had sexual relations with”). So it is not as if Adam is learning about Eve, after a long separation.
Also about the word “man”. Man is the Hebrew term “ad’m”. So the word “man” is the same word for Adam’s name “adam”. In Gen. 5:2, God restates that he made male and female and named them “man” or “adam”. This would indicate contextually that often when you see “man” in the prior chapters, both male and female humans are in view. Also, some see this as God naming the couple after the man’s name.
Also, Jesus did not have a low view of women. He had a radical view of women in his day. He actually had some women travel with him, it seems. He treated women with respect and taught that they were equal in dignity with man. Even in one of his divorce teachings, he gave rules the wife could follow (and initiate) on her own. The New Testament is unparalleled up to that point in history for how it treated women.
I hope some of this helps. May Jesus shed more light on the Word for you, and may the Spirit illumine it to your heart. May you see Jesus as wonderful and true.
In Christ,
Bob Hayton