Baptism in the Old Testament

The common conception that, in the debate over the proper subjects of baptism, the believers-only position is more concerned not to go beyond the clear example of scripture, where the believers-and-their-infants position has seen fit to extend the scope of subjects beyond that of explicit biblical testimony, by way of analogous reasoning, is at best misleading. There is, in this assumption, an unspoken variable that derives largely from one’s conception of the organic unity of the Bible as a whole. When this variable is apprehended, the underlying supposition of the believers-only position must be rephrased thus: its concern is not to exceed the explicit example of baptism as recorded in the New Testament. This last phrase strikes at the true (albeit largely unrecognized) heart of the debate. It properly relegates the issue to the more foundational debate over hermeneutics – a debate which is indeed clearly addressed in the New Testament.

Let me be more clear on this last point: there is in current vogue the idea that, in order to do justice to the progressive nature of revelation, the expositor of scriptures must take pains not to interpret any portion of the Biblical record by appealing to later, more explicit revelation which undertakes to interpret or explain further the portion under consideration. This supposition is, in light of the self-evidence of scriptural interpretation, utterly groundless. It makes primary and foundational the fact of human authorship, which was always intended to be secondary and of lesser consequence than the Divine authorship of the whole. From the beginning of revelatory history, the human authors consistently labored to make clear that the message they had was not properly to be thought of as “their” message. The ten commandments in particular, and the entire Pentateuch in general, was spoken directly by God, and in the case of the former, even written down on stone by the very finger of God (cf. Exodus 32:16; 34:1). The subsequent mediatorship of Moses in relating the words of God to the people should by no means overshadow the clear emphasis on the authorship of God himself.

This same emphasis is continued throughout the later history of God’s revelation: David, the outstanding representative of the human authors employed in the inscripturation of the Old Testament “writings” (cathubhim), expressed in no uncertain terms the primary authorship of God in those writings of his that were to be included in the Hebrew canon: as we read his confession in 2 Samuel 23:2, “The Spirit of the Lord spoke by me, and his word was in my tongue.” And later, the writing prophets make so patently clear the same truth that it would be superfluous to cite them; their prophecies are so suffused with the fact that what they had to say was not their own word, but the word of God through them, that any simple perusal of them must bring the point immediately to the forefront. In fact, the human authorship of the written prophecies of the Old Testament canon is so overshadowed by the divine, that Peter could later say of them that the prophets themselves, just as their audience, recognized the need to search their own writings in an attempt to understand the mysteries of Christ contained therein (1 Peter 1:10-12). Which is a consideration that must entirely undermine the significance of “human authorial intent” as an exhaustive hermeneutic to employ in our interpretation of scriptures. The human authors themselves were constrained to search their own writings, hoping to find therein the deep things of Christ revealed by the Spirit who spoke through them; thus far did the divine authorship of scriptures overshadow the human authorship of the same.

These considerations lead us to two vital principles: first, there is an organic unity to the Bible as a whole, written as it was by one Author, and testifying to one basic message. Second, the Old Testament contains teaching that is foundational for our modern Christian doctrines and practices. There is not a “Jewish Testament,” containing regulatory principles for an ancient theocracy, and rendered largely irrelevant by the advent of a “Christian Testament,” which contains in itself the whole scope of God’s instruction on how to carry out our Christian practices. That this is the testimony of the New Testament itself about its purpose and relationship to the Hebrew scriptures becomes undeniable upon an honest consideration of the hermeneutic employed by Christ, the Apostles, and the New Testament writings themselves. Christ’s clear understanding of the Old Testament from the beginning of his ministry was that it testified of him: hence, he rebukes the Pharisees for failing to read it with himself at the center of its intended message (John 5:37-40); he rebukes his own disciples for the same reason (Luke 24:15-27); he interprets the entire scope of Old Testament teaching with respect to himself (Luke 24:44-45); and he indicates that the New Testament doctrine of Christ should be spread to the nations by means of this Old Testament revelation (Luke 24:46-49). And this is indeed what the apostles did: Peter, on the day of Pentecost, opened up the Old Testament scriptures to proclaim Christian doctrine (including that of Christian baptism – Acts 2:14-40). Philip testified to the Ethiopian eunuch of Christ from the Old Testament scriptures (Acts 8:27-35). When a doctrinal dispute concerning circumcision and the Jewish law arose, final appeal for the implementation of true Christian practice was made to the Old Testament scriptures (Acts 15:13-19). Moreover, the common practice of Paul as he evangelized was to proclaim Christ from the Old Testament scriptures (e.g. Acts 28:23). This is but to draw a handful of examples from an overwhelming supply of evidence – a supply that springs not only from Acts, but as well from the implicit (or expressly stated) testimony of virtually every Christian epistle written.

What does this all have to do with the proper delineation of the subjects of Christian baptism? I would contend that it demonstrates a way of reading the Bible which must ultimately issue in an understanding of the propriety of the inclusion of the infants of believers in this Christian rite. Even beyond the common arguments deriving from the continuity of the Abrahamic and New Covenants, the correspondence of circumcision in the one to baptism in the other, the unmistakable coincidence of the thing signified by the one symbol as well as the other, and so on, there is a different line of reasoning, less commonly cited, based upon New Testament appeal to look to the Old Testament for further instruction concerning baptism. In other words, besides the analogical reasoning of the relationship of circumcision to baptism (which is itself legitimate), the New Testament indicates that the Old Testament speaks specifically to this matter of Christian baptism, with information significant for us today. All that to say, our theology of the practice of baptism (including its subjects), should make appeal to the explicit examples of all of scriptures, and not just the New Testament.

If this simple principle were carried out, it would place the debate on an entirely different footing: no longer would it be legitimate for the credo-baptist to say, “I am following the explicit pattern of scripture, but the paedo-baptist, relying upon arguments from silence, is going beyond those clear limits to include those who are never explicitly indicated to have undergone baptism.” Instead, the paedo-baptist could legitimately turn the tables, and declare, “I am following the explicit pattern of all of scripture, approving for baptism all those whom the bible explicitly indicates to have undergone baptism; but the credo-baptist, relying on arguments from silence, supposes an unmentioned narrowing of the proper subjects of baptism from one testament to the other.”

But how did this paedo-baptist get the idea that the Old Testament spoke directly to the topic of Christian baptism? We may presume he came to this conclusion from at least two New Testament passages: 1 Peter 3:20-21 and 1 Corinthians 10:1-12. The former declares that the salvation of Noah and his family on the ark was intended to typify the same reality as Christian baptism, leading one to suppose that, given the identity of the thing signified by the one as well as the other symbol, the realities serving to set forth this common thing signified ought as well to be identical. In other words, since the baptism of Noah, by virtue of its circumstances, serves to illustrate the inclusion of his children into the covenant of grace by which he was delivered from God’s wrath (irrespective of their personal profession of faith), it is within the bounds of legitimate hermeneutics to infer that baptism (“the like figure”) ought to signify the same reality.

Perhaps this first example is somewhat tenuous (Noah’s family consisted of adults, and the lack of personal profession of faith is admittedly an argument from silence): the next, however, should set the issue beyond all reasonable doubt. In this passage, Paul is taking pains to demonstrate that we have experienced the same essential realities as “our fathers” in the Old Testament: as have we, they also ate and drank from the spiritual life issuing forth from Christ. As have we, they also underwent baptism. But even having tasted these covenant realities, when they demonstrated an evil heart of unbelief, they were cut off; from which example we should take warning, knowing that God will cut us off as well, who have tasted the same covenant realities, if we demonstrate unbelief as did the fathers. Among other truths, it is undeniably posited here that the first Christian baptism took place at the crossing of the Red Sea: those having crossed through the waters of judgment, to find life on the other side, are here said, in no uncertain terms, to have been baptized. Now then, who was it that partook of this baptism? Not merely those capable of professing faith, but the entire covenant community, infants as well as adults. Which is tantamount to saying that the Bible does in fact have at least one example of infants being included in Christian baptism; and therefore, the position which excludes them is itself established upon an argument from silence – an argument that, apart from the scriptural record, the boundaries of proper baptismal subjects were decreased subsequent to the coming of Christ.

When we understand that there is only one Author of all the scriptures, it should not cause us any discomfort that he should set forth some truths obscurely at first (e.g. those realities intended by baptism), and only later reveal in precise terms what those truths had consisted of the whole time. Any time we have a later revelation explaining to us something about a former shadowy revelation, we would do well to take heed. When Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, it was only a shadowy teaching that, in the same way, everyone who looks in faith to Christ lifted up on the cross as our sin should be freed from the death which our rebellion demands. But when Christ explains that this lifting up of the serpent intended the future lifting up of the Son of Man, we no longer have the right to deny that this was the truth originally signified by Moses’ action. Similarly, when the covenant people crossed through the Red Sea, drank from the Rock, and ate of the Manna, it was only a shadowy truth that this was to symbolize passing safely through judgment to new life that would be sustained by the body and blood of Christ – that is, dying with Christ and being raised up in him to newness of life. But when we see in the New Testament that this event was indeed a case of baptism (1 Corinthians 10:2); and that baptism symbolizes an identification with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection (e.g. Romans 6:3-5); we can no longer deny the fact that the Red Sea crossing intended to signify these truths [1]. In short, we cannot legitimately deny that this event was indeed an example of Christian baptism, and that, as it explicitly includes professing believers together with their children, we have in scriptures a clear example of the Christian practice of paedo-baptism, any repeal of which is an argument from silence, or at the least a systematic inference nowhere explicitly taught in the Bible. This inference may or may not be justified, but it at least needs to be recognized and dealt with.

The foregoing was largely inspired by a reading of this article on baptism by Matthew Fitzsimmons.

  1. The objection may here arise, “But the Israelites were said to have been baptized into Moses, and therefore it is not properly Christian baptism which is taught.” In response to this, it is only necessary to mention the unique status of Moses as a foremost Old Testament type of Christ. In a sense, Moses brought the people through judgment, saved them, and provided them with new life; but just as with the sacrifices of bulls and goats, whose blood did not actually save, but typified Christ’s blood that saves indeed, so Moses himself served in the same way as a type of the coming Christ who would in actuality save his people. This understanding accords well with the later explicit assertions (in the next verse) that the water from the Rock and the manna from heaven intended spiritual food, namely Christ. Furthermore, Paul’s whole point in establishing our position as identical with that of the fathers, so that he might be justified in drawing the conclusion that unbelief will result in judgment upon us as it did with them, would be rendered void if in fact the two baptisms were essentially different. It is, moreover, difficult to understand the baptism into Moses in any other sense that would not make an actual Redeemer of Moses. Moses himself did not save his people, physically or otherwise: he merely showed forth in his person, in a typological sense, the salvation that Christ would truly effect.

16 Responses to “Baptism in the Old Testament”

  1. fitzage says:
    February 4, 2006 at 5:08 am

    Wow! While I only viewed these passages as secondary considerations before, you have helped me realize that they are more than that. I appreciate this fleshing out of this concept.

    As I’ve mentioned before, this disjunction of the Old Testament from the New is rampant in the circles I grew up in and still interact with. It is a great disservice to separate the New Testament from the whole of God’s revelation.

  2. Bob Hayton says:
    February 4, 2006 at 2:01 pm

    What time zone is this set on? It is 2:16am Central time on the 4th of February in the universe I live in. :-} [Your blog says this post was created at 3:51am and the first comment at 5:08am, both on the 4th as well!]

    Anyway, interesting post. The 1 Cor. 10 argument is pretty strong. And I can see your argument in the 1 Pet. 3 passage, too. I admit, I am loathe to change my position on this issue. So I will continue to think through it, but also do so in a way that does not resist change in an unGodly way, by the help of God’s grace. It obviously took some time for you guys to change, and I want to take adequate time to research out all the sticking points in my mind, before hastening on to such a big change.

    This is not to say that I view the subject of baptism argument as hugely significant. I share common precious faith with you paedo-baptists. And these baptism discussions have definitely made this fact very apparent to me. I view both positions as depending a lot on theological assumptions/considerations since there is admittedly plenty of Scriptural silence on this issue. So I say again, I do not think this issue should divide Christians as much as it has.

    One more thing, have either of you noticed Justin Taylor and Rick Phillip’s brief debate on the topic over on Reformation 21 blog? The first post was on 1/28 and the last (so far) was on 1/30. That interchange sparked a somewhat more robust debate here (part 1 was on 1/29 and part 2 on 1/30). [(HT) Justin Taylor]

    God bless.

  3. fitzage says:
    February 4, 2006 at 10:20 pm

    In regards to the time, I think it should be more correct now. This won’t change what’s already there.

  4. nathan says:
    February 5, 2006 at 12:31 am

    Thanks, Pitchford. I know you’ve been addressing baptism in particular here, but the same subtle ignoring of the Old Testament — except for good stories and devotional reading — most likely rears its ugly head in other places, as well. Though I believe I understood this concept with the baptism issue, I realized while reading this that my dispensational roots have contributed to a mindset that I don’t like at all. Immediately the warnings of Revelation 22:18-19 came to mind. If we effectively deny the whole counsel of God when making doctrinal decisions, just how far off are we? This is more than just a “different way” of looking at Scripture. To err here is extremely dangerous.

  5. J. Arminius says:
    February 28, 2006 at 1:47 pm

    This seems like an inverted hermeneutic – making the type the reality as opposed to the picture of the reality! And if the Red Sea is the first Christian baptism it doesn’t bode well since only a minute fraction – the families of Joshua and Caleb – demonstrated sufficient faith for them to cross Jordan into the promised land. Since circumcision only applied to males what gives us the right under the above guidelines to extend the practice to females? Also Joshua 5 may imply that the infants who came out of Egypt may not have been circumcised.

  6. pitchford says:
    February 28, 2006 at 8:59 pm

    Nowhere does Paul refer to the Old Testament crossing of the sea as a “type” of baptism. Rather, he states positively that they were baptized. Your assumption that this is a type which I am considering a reality is certainly unsubstantiated, and deserves a little argumentation/reasoning if anyone is expected to take it seriously. Furthermore, the idea of a type of a symbol (as baptism is, not being the reality of union with Christ in his death, burial, resurrection, etc., but merely a sign and seal of that reality) is a rather unwieldy concept. Types signify some essential thing and symbols signify some essential thing. I can think of no scriptural examples of types signifying symbols, and the very idea of such is baffling. I think you would do well to substantiate your assumed understanding.

    As far as the faith of its subjects goes, I would contend that many who were legitimately baptized, in accordance with the canons which God left for the leadership of the church to evaluate each case, turned out in the end to be unbelievers. this does not invalidate the nature of baptism as a sign of faith, it only establishes certain persons as ultimately unworthy partakers of the sign. Similarly, circumcision was called a sign and seal of faith (Romans 4), and yet many received the sign legitimately, according to the canons of administration given by God to the people of Israel, yet eventually turned out to be unbelievers, hence unworthy partakers.

    Although the essential correlation between baptism and circumcision is biblically evident (Colossians 2), the need for a thoroughgoing, point by point similarity is not thereby to be assumed. I don’t know the precise reason that the New Covenant sign of covenant-inclusion, as opposed to the Old, involved males and females alike, I only know that it did (cf. for instance Lydia). That is enough for me.

    Although Joshua 5 relates the historical fact that the infants during the wilderness wanderings were not circumcised, it does not prescribe this practice as God’s rule. In fact, it was an egregious case of disobedience to God. Genesis 17, long before the Exodus, gives God’s commands in unmistakable terms: every Israelite male was to be circumcised at eight days of age.

  7. pierso says:
    June 26, 2006 at 6:40 am

    Hi, Pitchford. I’m a 23-year-old non-English-speaking French, so would you please show leniency with my poor English…

    I discovered your blog 4 months ago (coming from Monergism “Baptism” webpage)and read many of your posts here (Thanks for your great articles on dispensationalism and Understanding Isaiah).

    I turned paedobaptist (I am not yet married -with no children thus – so consequences are not too practical…) after reading your credo-baptist retractation and other ressource on Monergism. You stated once that before turning paedo, you would read all credo arguments on Monergism. I do not know if you red the last article on Monergism in the credo-baptist only columna, which deals quite fairly with the rationale behind paeodobaptist (http://www.frontlinemin.org/paedo.asp). I would like to know how you would answer these following objections :

    1) Why do paedopabtists look for a warrant of faith in the parents of infant to be baptized ? If the covenant of grace is so unified, and if in the OT a warrant of faith was never required of the parents of the children to be circumcised, then we should not do it.

    2) Why paedobaptist do not bring their little children to the Lord’s supper ? If the covenant of grace is so unified, and if Israelites bring their little children to the Passover meal, then we should do it.

    3) Why paedobaptists do not baptize households ? (Anyway, if if we are not to baptize household (with wife and servant and children), why did they do it in the NT ?)

    Thank you again for your blog !

  8. Pierso says:
    June 27, 2006 at 6:49 am

    On the covenant sign given to male and female alike : there is a difference between saying

    1) that, because of the change from the old to the new administration of the covenant of grace, children are to be withdraw from receiving of the covenant sign ; and

    2) that, because of the change from the old to the new administration of the covenant of grace, female are included in the receiving of the covenant sign.

    The story of covenant-inclusion is not a story of less inclusion, but of more inclusion. The antipaeedobaptist argument is however consistent : in the old testament, inclusion was broader than in the new, because there was a formal Israel and, inside this national Israel, a true Israel of God, the righteous remnant. On the other side, the inclusion of women in the receiving of the New covenant sign-inclusion is consistent with the broadening of the covenant inclusion : as the Gentiles are now included in the new covenant, female are now receiving the new covenant sign. I think the newness of the New Covenant is not one of a radical novelty, but of a renewal of the Abrahamic covenant, with a revelation of who the promise seed is and with the inclusion of Gentiles.

    Anyway, i would like to precise the first question i asked yesterday : 1) why do we baptize only the children of believers, and not their grandchildren (in the case of the children demonstrate themselve as reprobates), whereas anyone in Israël should be circoncise, whether or not their parent profess their faith in Christ ?

  9. pitchford says:
    June 29, 2006 at 7:29 pm

    Pierso,

    Thanks for the comments. I can’t respond right now, but I will try to do so as soon as possible.

    God bless.

    Pitchford

  10. pitchford says:
    June 30, 2006 at 11:45 am

    Pierso,

    I just have a few sketchy responses, which may or may not be of any help.

    1. I think you’re assuming a little too much with regard to your first dilemma: it is true that in the OT, there was a national Israel, of which true Israel according to election was a subset. However, the explicit commands given to Israel at the time of her formation as a nation indicate, first, that all were required to believe in the Lord their God; and second, that those who evidenced unbelief should be cut off from the congregation. Hence, Israel was supposed to be a nation entirely composed of believers, and therefore, only the children of believers were to be included in the covenant. In the case of the children of unbelievers, either they were supposed to be cut off with their unbelieving parents (as was the case with Achan); or perhaps, their unbelieving parents having been cut off, they would then have been raised by believers, and thus would have been properly considered covenant children. In any case, the status of children in Israel according to her design for national purity differs little from the children of the NT church, which should likewise be pure, but which nevertheless retains some tares among the wheat. But just as was supposed to be the case with Israel, when a church member demonstrates unbelief, he should be cut off from the church; and hence, his children would not be considered covenant children.

    2. The typical text used for excluding infants from the Lord’s table is I Cor. 11:28: “But let a man discern himself, and in this way let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.” Antipaedobaptists assert that this method of reasoning is at odds with the paedobaptist reasoning which says that, anytime the command is given to “repent and be baptized,” infants are not properly to be included as coming under the command to repent before baptism should be administered. However, there is at least one difference which may warrant the traditional paedobaptist appeal to I Corinthians 11: in this case, a second person imperative is not being given to a specific person or group of people, but a universal, third-person command is being laid out with respect to the church at large. In other words, there is good reason to suppose that the commands to repent before baptism (1) are directed toward (a) specific person(s); and (2) unexceptionally directed toward those mature enough to evidence repentance. The I Cor. directive, on the other hand, is a church-wide principle intended to govern the administration of the Lord’s supper whenever it is given. One more point: even thus, the difference is not too extreme from one testament to the other. It is physiologically clear that an infant will not be eating roasted lamb; and there are clear indications that, as soon as a child is mature enough to comprehend at all, he should be instructed in the nature of the feast. Which ability to comprehend would likely commence at about the time the child is capable of digesting strong meat.

    3. I think that, in the OT, the circumcision of servants, etc., as a family was incorporated into Israel, was intended as an expression of the entire household being brought into the faith of Israel. If after the circumcision and official incorporation into the covenant any member evidenced unbelief, he would then be subject to the laws of cutting-off, and hence Israel would remain pure. Circumcision (as Baptism) is, in part, a sign of faith; and I don’t think a servant would be extended the sign while professing unbelief. Furthermore, God has typically chosen to work in bringing people into the covenant by means of the family-unit. Hence there are several recorded cases of household baptisms in the NT — just as God brought households into Israel, he often brings households into the true Israel of this age. While there may be some legitimate differences in household inclusion from one testament to the next, which I am not sure how to address en toto, I think the essential similarity is clear enough to avoid making the issue reason for an entire re-structuring of the status of children in the covenant, and in the orthopractical way of adminstering the covenant sign in their case.

    Blessings.

  11. Pierso says:
    July 3, 2006 at 2:05 am

    Thank you. I have read quickly your answer and I need to read it again when I have more time. I think your answer are helping. Anyway, it seems to me that the antipadobaptist position is wrong just because its counter-arguments does not stand. They say that : 1/ There is no clear example of infant baptism in the Bible and for something as a baptism we should not reason only with inference. However this argument would imply that no women coult take the Bread and the Wine, for there is no explicit case in the Bible of woman communion in the body and in the blood of the Lord – but as they do accept women on the Lord’s table, they are inconsistent. Furthermore, your article has just exposed an explicit example of Christian infant baptism. 2/ The NT shows that faith and repentance is prior to baptism. However, it is a logical fallacy. Just because infants are not able to fulfill what is required of adults to be baptized (i.e. faith and repentance) does not mean that infants should not be baptized. For if this argument stands, then children should not eat, for “If anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either”. Therefore, if antipaedobaptists cannot oppose paedobaptists with valid arguments, it follows that the paedobaptist position is true (especially as paedobaptist do have positive reasons to baptize infants). My question were thus not showing my struggle with paedobaptism, and your response help me to understand better the continuity of the Testaments. Thank you Pitchford ! Now I have another question. there is in France actually very few chuches with paedobaptist evangelical. There is paedobaptist liberal protestants. There is antipaedobaptist evangelical protestants. But there is very few paedobaptist evangelical protestants. I also aknowledge that the main problem of our churches here in France is not their view on baptism, but the nearly omnipresent arminianism and prevalent dispensationalism. Do you think it is easier to change my own church where I grew up, or to find a reformed evangelical church (not sure there is one near to my home) even if it is reformed baptist, or to start a new church ? Thank you again for your great site. I am pondering the idea of developping my own French site – I will probably ask you the authorization of translating some of your posts if my site idea works.

    Pierre-Sovann

  12. pitchford says:
    July 6, 2006 at 7:24 am

    Pierre,

    I can sympathize completely with your struggle. I am also part of a Baptist church that is much plagued by arminianism and dispensationalism; there is also little or nothing in the way of solidly reformed churches in the area; and I too have struggled with knowing what to do about it. My first thought is that, I would do my best not to break off contact with the believers you know over any of those issues — and especially not baptism, which is at least a complicated enough question that I think we should be very open to working with other Christians who have come to a different belief on the topic. And even the greater problems of arminianism and dispensationalism will likely not be helped by your leaving. So I would recommend that, whatever you do — if you feel that God is leading you to plant a church, if you find a different reformed church to attend or whatever — whatever you do, be intentional about maintaining fellowship with the church you grew up in. Maybe start a bible study with some of your good friends in that church or something — and God may use that to give you an opportunity to explain the scriptures to them a little more clearly, so that they may see the Holy Spirit open their eyes to the problems with arminianism/dispensationalism. All that to say, I don’t have any recommendations about specific courses of action; but I would generally recommend first, that you maintain intentional fellowship with your old church friends; and second, that you be trying to extend your fellowship to others in the area who are more reformed, if at all possible.

    God bless on your French website idea. If it is God’s will, he will give you the ability to accomplish the plan. Always feel free to translate anything I have written, whether or not you have asked for my specific authorization. I will be pleased if any of my writings are useful to other believers, wherever they may be.

  13. Pierso says:
    July 7, 2006 at 12:43 am

    Thank you for giving me this piece of wise advice.

    What about baptising your child while attending regularly your baptist church ? Is there a meaning baptising one’s children (let’s say by the nearlier truly reformed minister 100 miles from your home) if your local baptist church does not agree with your paedobaptist position ? Or are we to be paedobaptist by conviction and not paedobaptist practically ?

  14. pitchford says:
    July 7, 2006 at 8:07 am

    I would definitely say that, if you are convinced of the legitimacy of the paedobaptist position, you have no choice but to have your child baptized. “It is neither safe nor right to go against one’s conscience” (Martin Luther). If you believe it is God’s will for your children to be baptized, and yet you do not baptize them, you are in conscious disobedience to God. So I would go anywhere I needed to have my children baptized. I actually asked my Baptist pastor, who is overall very reformed, if he would be willing to baptize my son, and he did. But if he hadn’t, I would have gone 75 miles to the nearest reformed church to have him baptized. I realize my situation is unique — most Baptist pastors wouldn’t baptize an infant. But in any case, I would advise you to follow what you are persuaded the scriptures teach — and even if that leads to your Baptist church separating themselves from you, at least you would have a clear conscience that you were doing your best to follow God’s leading.

  15. Joseph Gleason says:
    November 14, 2007 at 3:45 pm

    Great article, Nathan! I just now found it. Good stuff! — I wrote an article along similar lines a while back. Have you seen it? Here is the URL: http://www.biblelighthouse.com/sacraments/baptism-ot.htm

    I would love to hear your input on it, since you and I seem to be thinking along similar lines.

    Thank you!

    In Christ, Joseph Gleason http://www.biblelighthouse.com http://www.reformationsuperhighway.com

  16. pitchford says:
    November 16, 2007 at 11:30 am

    Joseph,

    Thanks for the link! I thoroughly enjoyed it. It’s encouraging to know that someone else out there has come to some of the same conclusions as I have.

    I would recommend anyone following the discussion to read the article linked to in the comment above, as a much more thoroughly developed argument along the same lines as that originally posted here.

Leave a Reply