In Defense of Paedobaptism
10 comments | Permalink
Dennis Johnson, Infant Baptism: How My Mind Has Changed
R. Scott Clark, A Contemporary Reformed Defense of Infant Baptism
(HT: Heidleblog)
R. Scott Clark, A Contemporary Reformed Defense of Infant Baptism
(HT: Heidleblog)
posted by JT at Sunday, August 26, 2007
10 Comments:
I believe the passage from Genesis 17:7 is critical to my understanding of paedobaptism, especially when thought of in light of Romans 4. Great articles and that comes from a life long baptist turned Presbyterian!
James
Oops... didn't mean to capitalize Presbyterian and leave Baptist lower case.
Thanks for continuing to post on this, Justin. I'm a credoBaptist who is sympathetic toward the paedo view, and I wish more Baptists understood it. I'm going to check these articles out as well as the chapter you posted from that book by Schreiner & Ware. (I will get that book one of these days, too).
I would also like to encourage people to look at another resource along these lines (defending paedobaptism): Nathan Pitchford (who contributes to Reformation Theology) wrote an excellent defense of credobaptism from a covenantal theology perspective. Then later upon further interaction, study, and prayer, wrote a retraction & defense of paedobaptism. The comments under both posts exemplify a level-headed Scriptural debate. I would encourage any interested in the reasons why paedobaptists believe their veiw to be biblical, to look no further than these articles.
Johnson's article is probably the most convincing argument for paedobaptism that I've read yet.
Still, Johnson, I would argue, makes the same mistake every reformed paedobaptist makes. He assumes too much continuity between the Old and New Covenants. He assumes that just as children were members of the community of God under the Old Covenant simply by virtue of who their parents are, so also are children of New Covenant parents. This is precisely what John the Baptist seems to be arguing against in Matthew 3 - that it doesn't matter who your parents are anymore , but that now it is a matter of believing the gospel, not being a part of the right family.
Children now are accepted into the New Covenant community in the same way those who "are far off" are. Namely, by accepting the gospel.
Johnson’s article is the best argument I’ve read defending paedobaptism. My husband and I, formerly Baptists, have continued to be credobaptists even though we have been members of a paedobaptist church (PCA) for about 6 years. We both read Johnson’s article yesterday and are now paedobaptists. We have heard many almost convincing arguments, but Johnson’s delivery was excellent… a must read. If it doesn’t convince you, at least it should bring some understanding of the stance of paedobaptists.
Ann: I agree it's a very good piece, although I think it largely ignores the best credobaptist arguments on the new covenant.
I think you at least should read Wellum's piece first. You may be back to credobaptism again!
Justin
Ann brought to my attention that the links I left above are dead. I'm pretty sure the site will be back up soon, looks like they are changing software on the site or something.
Anyways, in a day or two they should be live again.
Sorry :(
JT,
I'll take your advice and read the Wellum piece before the Johnson piece! I'm on the edge, but I'm a member of a Baptist church (Bethlehem Baptist, actually).
I sat in your TULIP class, it was excellent.
Blessings,
Bob Hayton
FYI: the links work now
Justin, thank you for recommending Wellum’s argument… I had missed that link. I read it and Pitchford’s articles referenced by Bob above.
Johnson’s arguments are more convincing to me than either Wellum’s or Pitchford’s. Over the years, I have heard many unconvincing paedobaptistic arguments and Pitchford’s would fall in that category for me. Wellum’s portrayal of paedobaptistic arguments are lacking in that he states some positions that are not universally accepted by paedobaptists and fails to bring up points that are relevant yet opposing. If this were actually a debate, the paedobaptist would be able to interject relevant arguments. And, I’m sure you could say the same for Johnson’s arguments. I reread Johnson’s letter to see what was finally convincing to me. I did not read anything that was new to me. I believe it was somewhat his plain and logically writing style, but more than that, he did not reference paedobaptist arguments that I consider weak, and he did appeal to Biblical evidence to make his case. It seems to me that credobaptists limit their view of the sign of baptism to verses that contain the word baptism. Like studying the sovereignty of God or the Trinity, it seems to me to be better when studying baptism, like Johnson, to include passages on circumcision and how a covenant community is defined.
On another note, do Baptist’s not believe in the doctrine of the visible and invisible church? I’m pretty sure I know some unregenerate Baptists. LOL It seems to me that Wellum is either dismissive of this teaching or does not view it the same way as Presbyterians.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home