Thanks so much for your encouraging words! May God continue to direct your heart into a deepening knowledge and love of Christ the Savior.

Nathan

Your reference of Timothy is interesting, but the text does not make reference to baptism. I can see why a Baptist would interpret that text as possibly referencing baptism because the Baptist view is that bapism is a public profession of faith. However, the Scriptures don’t use this language to describe or define baptism. Even someone who is baptized as an infant would still need to make a public profession of faith later, as is practiced in all faithful Reformed Presbyterian churches. The baptism is a sign of God’s promise, based on the covenant, whereas the public profession is the evidence that God has kept that promise.

Jason

While I do think that the level of speculation involved in this line of argumentation makes it very tenuous and less weighty than many other arguments, both pro and con, I can still admit that I think it a legitimate possibility, at least, that Timothy’s adult baptism is in mind. However, the issue is not so clear cut as you might think, given the changing times in which the apostles lived. A person who was well-acquainted with the scriptures and truly regenerate, in the generation of which Timothy’s parents were likely a part, would have been born long before Christian baptism had even been inaugurated. Even if Timothy’s mother had been baptized by John the Baptist, that would not have been Christian baptism — remember how the disciples of John were constrained to be baptized again into Christ, in the book of Acts? It is likely that even Timothy’s grandmother and mother, although true and faithful Israelites, did not understand the need for baptism until an apostle, bringing the mystery of the gospel, appeared to them — and that may well have been the time when all three generations were baptized! It’s all speculative, but in any case, I don’t see it as a strong argument against paedo-baptism.

Nathan

I want to thank you for your kind response to my last question. I wonder if I might have your thoughts on another aspect of the baptism debate. A few years ago, R.C. Sproul in a debate with John Macarthur said something like this (my paraphrase) ‘if the N.T. recorded one account of a second generation Christian being baptized as an adult (or believer) that would settle the matter.’ Not long after hearing that comment I revisited 1st Timothy 6:12 and Paul’s charge to Timothy to, “Figh the good fight of faith. Take hold of eternal life to which you were called and about which you made the confession in the presence of many witnesses.” While this is by no means a conclusive text confirming Timothy’s adult baptism, yet, given Timothy’s mother and grandmother having raised him in the faith it seemed possibly to be pointing to that event.In addition,I found it somewhat odd that not a few reformed commentators (most notably William Hendriksen) saw the verse as a reference to Timothy’s adult baptism. Just curious to know you thoughts on this. Thanks again Nathan. The Lord continue to bless you and keep you brother!

Sorry for the delay in responding — but yes, I think it very highly likely that those who heard Peter’s sermon, and realized that the promise was to them and their children, came with their children to be baptized as households, as seems to be the predominant example in Acts whenever baptisms are actually described.

Happy New Year, and may many blessings flow to you from our Christ!

Nathan

Grace to you in Christ! I have read with much interest both your defense of credobaptism and your retraction of the same. Based upon your understanding of padeobaptism I have one question. In Acts 2:41 Luke writes: Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day. Do you really believe that those of whom Luke writes baptized their infants, young children and teenagers assuming that these were also present?

Thanks for responding. And rich blessings be yours in the coming year!

Nathan

I have very much enjoyed your writing, as well as the posts by all those following this issue on your blog. I am studying this issue deeply for the first time. Full disclosure, I am a Reformed Baptist. My brother-in-law is a padeobaptist. We have been having very edifying conversations as of late regarding the proper subjects of baptistm.

I have a question…

You quoted only a portion of Acts 2:39. The full quote of Acts 2:38-39 is as follows…

38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

You made no mention of “…and for all who are far off,” in your post. What is to be done with these people? And how does this affect your position? Thank you for your response.

Rob

http://www.upper-register.com/mp3s.html

then scroll down to “And the God of Thy Seed”

First of all, in the text discussed above (Luke 18:15-17), It is not I who call them infants, it is Luke. No reliable dictionary or lexicon I am aware of suggests any translation of the term “brephos” (Luke’s term) other than “unborn child/embryo” or “infant”. Whether we like it or not, Christ is saying that these children, including infants, are possessors of the Kingdom.

Second, although in Christ’s application of the event to our faith he uses the term “paidion” (little child) which can and often does refer to an older child, that does not necessarily restrict his meaning to the case of the older child — the event preceding argues that he is using the term inclusively (as it is capable of being used), to commend to us the example of the infants and young children of their believing parents. And would it be inappropriate or impossible for Jesus to do this? He holds forth birds and lilies as examples for our faith, so why can he not do the same with infants, who rest unreservedly on their mothers’ breasts, and have no anxiety over their future? Ought we not to possess that kind of faith, if we would consider ourselves Kingdom heirs?

But in any case, the simple teaching of the text is that children, including infants, were coming to Jesus, and he was naming them and all who are like them possessors of the Kingdom.

If it is an infant, how does an infant receive the kingdom? To say they receive it from their family based on Abraham, how does that reconcile with Rom. 9:7? We are children of Abraham by faith Rom. 4:16 not his natural seed. That is the same problem the Jew had in understanding the gospel throughout the NT.

If circumcision profited them nothing if not accompanied with faith Rom. 2:28-29 I Cor. 7:19 how is infant baptism worth anything if not accompanied with faith?

While I can see your case for some of the discontinuities mentioned above, and would agree that some of those “troubles plaguing reformed Christianity” are indeed pernicious, I don’t think that those points alone can establish your case against paedo-baptism. As in any other matter, it must be argued on its own merits; and when done so properly, I think the outcome will be a hearty acceptance of it. Of course, some good theologians will disagree with me in that; and if you do as well, I will express my opinion that you are wrong on the point, but at the same time I will rejoice in the unity we have in the gospel of Christ. By the way, you can argue against credo-baptism as well, and likewise against any doctrine, by noting theological aberrations connected to it in some fashion. But those considerations are not ultimately telling.

Grace and peace from the Cross, Nathan

I am a former Christian Reformed member & a Presbyterian Elder here in Metro Manila, Philippines- but now embraces “believer’s baptism”. I accepted this view after wrestling first with the issue of the “Christian sabbath” and tithing. Once I see the discontinuity there-it is not hard to see the discontinuity between Abraham’s fleshly seed and his spiritual children. I also realized that most troubles plaguing reformed Christianity today and before stems from this wrong reading of Covenant theology. like why Calvin agreed that Servetus is a civil threat to the church, Halfway Covenant during Jonathan Edwards, Kuyper’s presumptive regenaration, why theonomy wants to imposed biblical law in society, why Federal Vision tries to emphasize justification by faith that works. It is because they expand the covenant to include unbelieving children. And reformed paedobaptist theology wont stop at the church! I can now safely say that when I quote John 1: 12-13 I can say it without qualifications or rationalizations. I have 4 children btw.

I agree with you that biblical hermeneutics should lead to infant baptism. But I do think that there are a great many Baptists who are excellent theologians, overall, and who are doing their best not to let their theology force their reading of the scriptures. Of course it would be best never to “put your opinion into what you think the Bible says,” but unfortunately, that’s not true with any of us 100% of the time. We all have blind spots, and we’re all striving together for a better understanding of Christ. God grant that we may be able to help each other out, whether credo- or paedo-baptistic in our current understanding!

Nathan

I use to go to Baptist church for a long time, but let me tell you, their theology is forced onto the Bible and does not come from the Bible. I find most Baptist do not have very good theology, and even the ones that do dont’ really understand alot of the Bible becuase it doesn’t fit traditional Baptist theology. I am almost upset at the fact Baptist wont change their theology becuase they fail to do Biblical hermanutics. I still love my Baptist brothers, but the Bible cleary teaches in my opinion if you will actually do Biblical hermanutics Infant baptism. Not baptising children is insulting to God and His grace.

Ken

Thanks for your comment – you bring a new perspective to the table, as I don’t think anyone so familiar with the Arminian/Methodist understanding of paedobaptism has yet been involved in the discussion. I certainly appreciate some of your points. I would have to agree that paedobaptism is fundamentally inconsistent with Arminian theology, particularly in its tenet that faith must precede regeneration.

As far as the Baptist “inconsistency,” I think that their different understanding of the nature of baptism must account for it. They do not see baptism as a sign/seal of regeneration and inclusion in the Church, but rather as a public confession of faith. So they are not really inconsistent with their own point of view (even those among them who would admit the possibility of infant regeneration) – but the question is, do they have an adequate understanding of the meaning and significance of baptism?

I agree with you that infants may be regenerated (as John the Baptist certainly was while still in the womb, according to the explicit testimony of Luke); and furthermore, I agree that the children of believers must be acknowledged as regenerate, inasmuch as God calls them “holy” (I Corinthians 7) which they could not be if unregenerate, and in fact Jesus speaks of them as those who possess the Kingdom of Heaven, by which description he certainly qualifies them as regenerate, if one would compare other gospel passages in which the meaning of possessing the Kingdom is made clear (e.g. The discourse with Nicodemus). Of course, there remains the mystery of God’s secret will, so that, among the visible church, some tares will in fact exist until the return of Christ – whether those having grown up in the church from infancy or those having made a false profession as adults – but clearly, God has given us strong cause to consider our children as covenant-members and so to instruct them in the necessity of ongoing faith in Christ, lest they prove to be false professors in the end (in the vein of the Hebrews warning passages, etc.).

As far as your questions go:

1.I believe that Jesus was baptized, first, in proxy for all of God’s people who had been commanded to be baptized with John’s baptism, and yet could never do so with perfect enough repentance to be finally pleasing to God. Jesus undertook to win a positive righteousness by actively obeying every command that had been laid upon the people whom he came to save. As God had commanded this baptism of repentance through John, Jesus undertook to be baptized in perfect accord with God’s intention, in order to win a perfect obedience to give to his people. But secondly, Jesus was solemnly dedicating himself to passing through the waters of God’s judgment. The end and goal of his life would be to undergo the full and exhaustive judgment of God in the place of the elect, and his baptism was a solemn sign and seal of that arrangement.

2.The sign given to the church is related, I think, in that it signifies and seals a union with Christ in all of his redemptive activity, most notably his death and resurrection. So, if the baptism of Christ sealed him in his coming death, and our baptism seals us as dying with Christ, they both must point to the same reality. However, the way in which the subjects of baptism relate to that reality, Christ as actively accomplishing it, and we as receiving the benefits of it, are fundamentally different.

3.I think John’s baptism must have been different than today’s Christian baptism. After all, those disciples who had been baptized by John, when they were given the news about Jesus, were required to be baptized again. The fundamental difference must be that, in John’s time, the people were looking ahead to God’s judgment, repenting of their sins, and acknowledging their need of a future Messiah to undergo this judgment in their stead. But after Christ had already undergone God’s judgment, the perspective is one of participation in an already-accomplished event. John’s was a baptism of hoping in the promise, when God’s wrath was yet hanging over the people. Christian baptism is a baptism of participation in the fulfilled promise, and does not merely look ahead to a time when God’s wrath shall have been averted, but rejoices in that very truth.

These answers are not meant to be authoritative assertions, but thought-through suggestions, that may stand to be corrected by any more thought or insight into the subject.

Blessings from the cross, Nathan

I am a former Methodist pastor who went from Wesleyan/Arminian to Calvinist/Reformed/Presbyterian. I read through these posts with great interest. As a UMC pastor, I baptized infants, but the Methodist position is somewhat different than the Reformed view.

Arminian paedobaptism is inconsistent. In Arminianism, one must actively choose to believe in Christ. He is given “prevenient grace” which enables him to make this decision. Prevenient grace is given to all human beings, not just to baptized infants. At best, infant baptism seems to increase one’s chance of choosing Christ. Once he chooses faith in Christ, he then is regenerated. In Arminian theology, an infant cannot be passively regenerated. He must choose for himself at some later date.

It appears that credobaptism has the same inconsistency but from the other end. Credobaptism insists upon a profession of faith while still insisting upon monergism. I find it interesting that the London Baptist Confession recognizes that infants can be regenerated. It states

Infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, Who works when, where, and how He pleases. So also are all elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.

The LBC also recognizes the difference between the visible and invisible church (Chapter 26 Of The Church). Hence, a regenerated infant can belong to the invisible church but, be denied membership in the visible church by virtue of not being able to make a profession of faith. This seems very inconsistent to me.

Be that as it may, I pastor a Presbyterian church and embrace paedobaptism because I believe Covenant Theology and Calvinism are the best articulations we have of sound Biblical theology. The Biblical concepts that are important to the discussion, in my opinion, are

1. The existence, overlap, and difference between the visible and invisible church
2. Understanding the sacraments, particularly baptism in this instance, as sign and seal and not type and antitype.
3. Seeing that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and Circumcision of the Heart are two different ways of talking about the “sealing” work of the Holy Spirit in salvation.
4. What better way to demonstrate the active work of God and the passive state of dead and helpless man than in the baptism of a passive infant receiving the sign of the Covenant of Grace?

I know I’m saying a lot and not defending anything. However, after reading through the two different threads on Pitchford’s Ramblings, I believe these ideas were already touched upon in one degree or another.

I have some questions that are all interrelated.

What was the purpose of the baptism of Jesus Christ? Many credobaptist point to the baptism of Christ as one of their strongest arguments for credobaptism, “if it was good enough for Jesus, it is good enough for me.”

Next question. Is Jesus’ baptism the same thing as the sign given to the covenant community of the visible church? This, I think, is a very important question.

One more related question. What exactly is the baptism of John and is it the same or different than what was commanded later on in the New Testament in relation to salvation? These questions are at the heart of the many credobaptist’s arguments against paedobaptism.

In Christ,

Norman Patterson