Infant Baptism Tested


Others will consider it a sterile work, opening old wounds, fighting worn-out battles of an age long since gone. The issue is not dead. Sacramentalism is on the rise in Reformed circles, and elsewhere. Attitudes to children, and ways of treating them spiritually, are being radically changed on such a basis. To help such readers take a good look before they leap, and to challenge those who already baptise infants, he has produced this book — which does what it says in the title: So, reader, if you think it right to contend earnestly for the faith, and if, with an open Bible, you are prepared to examine infant baptism, and willing to test its practice, and thus come to an informed decision about it, this book is for you.

Are you willing to take that risk? This Kindle now has a Table of Contents fully linked. Kindle Edition , pages. Published May 22nd first published November 17th To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up. To ask other readers questions about Infant Baptism Tested , please sign up.

Be the first to ask a question about Infant Baptism Tested. Lists with This Book. This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Feb 13, Ian Major rated it it was amazing. A most enlightening modern work on the issue! So many of the assumptions I have had about what Infant Baptism meant to my paedobaptist friends, proved in this book to be incredibly naive. A book that cuts to the heart of the issue, in a gracious manner. Painful no doubt to many, but necessary to hear.

Michelle Okpewho rated it it was amazing Aug 19, Lucille is currently reading it Mar 18, I am conscious that it is altogether too easy to caricature the position of those I disagree with. While the use of extensive extracts will not avoid this danger entirely, it will, at least, allow those I quote a fair crack of the whip, and make it more difficult for me to build a man of straw in order to set fire to him. Finally on this point, perhaps it might not be out of place to repeat the words of J. To my amazement, there is a sinister development among Baptists.

And so serious is this movement, I intend to publish a separate book on it which I shall denote by Baptist Sacramentalism as a companion volume to this present work. It will, however, assume a much larger role in a book I hope to publish on the believer and the law. Some, no doubt, will object to this present publication, 3 both in its content and tone, calling it divisive, far too polemical. Well, there is no point in denying it - this book is passionately controversial, and trenchantly so.

But lest there should be any misunderstanding, let me say - without any hint of patronisation whatsoever - I wholeheartedly acknowledge that those I have principally in my sights, 5 take 3 Some, it seems, want to avoid all discussion of baptism. The InterVarsity Press, for example, 'have generally steered clear of books on baptism since we prefer not to take sides on the issue' Cross: I have not undertaken the work lightly, and I have wrestled with the accusation.

While I do not condone Martin Luther's virulent language as he grew older, I empathise with his 'apology' for it: This is the only quotation from Mark U. On 'a controversy of great importance When God commands to take the trumpet, and blow a dolorous or a jarring blast, it lies not in man's will what he shall say, or what he shall conceal. If he shall think to be silent as Jeremiah did Which might teach these times not suddenly to condemn all things that are sharply spoken or vehemently written as proceeding out of stomach [by which I DG mean argument for argument's sake], virulence and ill-nature, but to consider rather that I applaud this aim.

But even so, I must write this polemical work. The fact is, with the passing of only a few years since the publication of my Battle for the Church, there is even more need to stress the New Testament doctrine of baptism - and to fight spiritually, with words for it. A sacramental 6 approach to Christ's ordinance is increasingly widespread.

But it is not enough for me to throw up my hands in revulsion, and walk away; I must do what I can to warn the unwary of the incoming tide. Not that I want to open old wounds and make divisions in Christ's church! I raise the issue because of its importance. I will have to use the word; it is in the literature, and many Reformed writers and others more-than-like it.

John Calvin had a high view of the word Calvin: Martyn Lloyd-Jones was not so keen: Personally, I try not to use this term' Lloyd-Jones: It is, to me, an abomination. See Newton pp; and below. To anticipate an objection: No, I am not confusing sacramentalism and sacerdotalism. But they are connected. Both are unbiblical, and the former leads to the latter - whatever the Reformed might say. I will return to the point. This is what I meant when, a few moments ago, I noted recent trends among Baptists. Fowler in , summarising the views of those who are involved in this contemporary Baptist development: Something is missing when conversion is not sacramentally sealed' Fowler pi The Reformed, of course, have long been sacramentalists - but even here it is on the rise.

See end note on p7 for excursus: Furthermore, reader, I hope you will join me as I echo Calvin again: Should it appear to have been devised merely by human rashness, let us abandon it, and regulate the true observance of baptism entirely by the will of the Lord' Calvin: The fact is, not a few erstwhile Baptists are being attracted to infant baptism today because they are impressed with the logic of the covenant theology which buttresses the practice - which, they imagine, is all thoroughly worked out.

They are also taken with the household names of leading Reformed theologians who have advocated the practice; surely, so many distinguished and spiritual men can't be wrong, can they? Furthermore, as I have said, there is an increasing interest in sacramentalism - and in the most surprising quarters!

Note Calvin's reference to 'the church'. He was raising a very important point, and I will have much to say about it. These include 'the growing evidence of sacramental thinking among Baptist theologians' - which I have already noted and intend to tackle. Wright, Emeritus Professor of Patristic and Reformed Christianity, Edinburgh - a Reformed historian holding to infant baptism - deploring the long history of as he saw it the debasing of baptism by the way infant baptism has been practiced sadly, he did not recognise that baptism has been debased by infant baptism itself - not just by corruptions of it!

The same goes for the sacramental Baptists he spoke of.

See a Problem?

Infant Baptism Tested [David H.J. Gay] on www.farmersmarketmusic.com *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. This book will not appeal to every Christian. It is, after all. Infant Baptism Tested has 2 ratings and 1 review. Ian said: A most enlightening modern work on the issue! Excellent!So many of the assumptions I have h.

For the post-Puritan 'degeneration' or 'deterioration' as sacramentalists see it of the supper from Calvin's position to Ulrich Zwingli's, see Davies Vol. Sacramentalism is the issue. Wright, however, when, a few months after the appearance of his book, he published an article in which he tackled the question of what to do next, failed to mention sacramentalism Wright: Given his own emphasis in his book, and the emphasis in the articles and advertisements in the edition of the journal which published his article, this omission, when dealing specifically with the way forward, was serious, and failed to convey the full picture.

I refer to the Evangelical Quarterly April Throughout, by 'Wright' I mean David F. When on occasion I refer to N. Wright, I do so in that form; similarly for Shawn D. Without a robust understanding of what God does in baptism, the grounds upon which infant baptism rested became very tenuous The logic of infant baptism is tied to its efficacy A sacrament, by definition, includes the bestowal of the thing signified' Lusk: Cultivate the Berean spirit: That is all I ask.

First, I am writing against the views of infant baptisers, trying to show that their arguments do not stand up under biblical scrutiny. Of course, I do not pretend that this book exhausts the subject. Much has been written on the question - and written by authors far more able. Even so I want to say something about it, perhaps to supply an introduction for those who may not be aware of the arguments which infant baptisers use - and their consequences.

And that leads me to repeat my next reason for writing. Secondly, I write for those who are contemplating adoption of infant baptism. Before they take the step, I want to warn them of the consequences. Do you wish to read on? While the responsibility for it is entirely my own, of course, I thank those who were kind enough to read the manuscript and make detailed observations and suggestions - Jon Bevan, Simon Gay, Jack Green, Nigel Pibworth, Andrew Rome and the late David Wright.

Account Options

As always, I thank Nigel for the many books and articles he has plied me with - as good as a library, he is knowledgeable with it! I pay tribute to him yet again. I thank my wife, Mona, who, as before, has given me sterling help with source-checking and proof-reading.

Only those who have tried it, know what is involved. The responsibility for every error which remains is, of course, entirely my own. The Reformers were sacramentalists, as were the Anglicans: The Puritans were sacramentalists. As for the 18th century, 'almost to a man the evangelicals - Anglican, Methodist, Whitefieldian, Moravian and those led by Lady Huntingdon - accepted that regeneration in some sense accompanies infant baptism'. Sacramentalism 's virulent growth among Anglicans in the 19th century - the Oxford Movement, the Tractarians - is a byword.

Benjamin Wills Newton, a contemporary witness, wrote: And what about the 20th and 21st centuries? As I will show, Reformed sacramentalism - which has always been there - is now on the march. The fact is, you can't have infant baptism without sacramentalism; if infant baptism is not a sacrament, it is nothing.

Peter Toon, arguing for baptism to be performed with patristic ritual, claimed that 'an appropriate policy for the baptism of the infant children of committed church members [note the subtle watering-down of infant-baptiser theology - see below] cannot truly be worked out until a deep understanding of the relationship of baptism and regeneration is recoveredf! Therefore sacramentalism is the root of the trouble, and if sacramentalism is wrong, infant baptism must fall.

But, as I say, there is a growing emphasis upon Reformed sacramentalism at the beginning of the 21st century.

  • La fille des indiens rouges (French Edition)!
  • Bernard Pivot reçoit (Littérature Française) (French Edition).
  • Women and Empire: The Gap between British Rhetoric and Colonial Realities.
  • ?
  • !
  • Re-Thinking International Relations Theory via Deconstruction (Interventions).

And what about Baptists? In the companion book I mentioned, I will show that during the 20th century, sacramentalism reared its head among the Baptists. And, at the start of the 21st century, its promulgation is growing apace - mostly, at the moment, confined to scholars and writers. But, reader, it will soon reach a Bible college, a pulpit, and then a pew, near you. I want to do what I can to prevent this - or at least warn people about it. Hence the book in question, and this present work. I ask the Reformed Baptists and otherwise who think me deplorably divisive to bear in mind the weight of evidence which shows this increasing emphasis upon sacramentalism.

It has only one terminus. Furthermore, I shall have occasion to refer to the rise and growth of the New Perspective, to which I see a parallel if not a link to the rise and growth of sacramentalism in the 20th century. For now, compare N. Wright's summary of 'The Quest for the Historical Jesus'; namely: New Quest of the s and s By the mids there was a sense of stalemate In the 7 Preamble early s Wright] called a "third quest" for Jesus' N. To return to the Reformed sacramentalism of the present day. Even as I was drawing my mss. Hyde's article in the Banner of Truth, May , ppl Baptism is no mere symbol I am washed with [Christ's] blood and Spirit from the pollution of my soul, that is, from all my sins, as certainly as I am washed outwardly with water The water of baptism is more than mere water As the outer self is washed with water by the minister, the inner self is washed with the blood of the Christ by the Holy Spirit The two events do coincide and are bound together in the relationship between promise and sign We are as really washed from our sins spiritually as our bodies are washed with water Such language, I say, in such a source, in , compels me to write.

Sadly, I received no reply to my e-mail raising the point with the magazine. I go back to the extracts from Luther and Milton about avoiding offence. Why is it, as Robert M. Zins noted with proper disapproval, some modern evangelicals are content to call Rome's doctrine of baptismal regeneration a 'difference', but will not call it an 'error'?

He rightly pointed out that 'the devastating effect of the Roman Catholic doctrine of baptismal regeneration and ex opere operato the thing itself brings about the thing signified is dangerously close to the Reformed view of infant baptism', adding that 'it is not uncommon for Roman Catholic exegetes to defend their practice of baptismal regeneration with Reformed Christian logic based upon the Old Testament covenant with Abraham'. Even so, Zins himself confessed he 'felt the difficulty inherent in denying Rome while affirming the Reformed Churches who still practice infant baptism'.

It arose because he was 'worried about taking out Luther [it is not only Luther! Reader, although it might not seem like it, as I have already explained, I too have felt the pressure to keep quiet. Certainly I do not want to cause needless offence, but no good will be served by keeping silent on vital issues to avoid stepping on somebody's toes. An ostrich has many admirable qualities no doubt, but its proverbial way of keeping out of trouble is no model for the believer. To use another example from the animal kingdom; a hedgehog may find curling into a ball works well for most problems it has to face, but the technique's patent failure to cope with a 20 -ton juggernaut is all-too visible on our roads, I am afraid.

You can't be an infant baptiser without being a sacramentalist. And if things go on as at present, many Baptists will end up sacramentalists. There are only two stable positions: The biblical position - symbol; or, the sacramental position - baptismal regeneration. And we have to choose; we cannot dither between the two Josh. Honest disagreement must be allowed and expressed I take full cognisance of Iain Murray's words: Some lesser men [have] aggravated the differences The material extant upon the controversy certainly shows the need for caution and sympathy with the difficulties of others' Iain Murray: With respect, although I am one of the 'lesser' men, I do not think it is bigoted to quote the words of infant baptisers, seeking to expose what I see as their unbiblical arguments and claims, and to point out the consequences which must inevitably follow from infant baptism.

And it is precisely because I feel for others, that I address those who are thinking of adopting the practice, and warn them of just what it involves. I realise there is a very strong desire today, on the part of many, to gloss over differences on this issue, or, perhaps, to push 1 Cor. But I think the practical effects of infant baptism are too far- reaching for silence.

As to this last, I must say that, although I cannot claim to have felt exactly as he did, I empathise in general with Gerrard Winstanley when writing to Oliver Cromwell in Therefore I was stirred up to give it a resurrection, and to pick together as many of my scattered papers as I could find, and to compile them into this method, which I do here present to you, and do quiet my own spirit.

And now I have set the candle at your door It may be here are some things inserted which you may not like. Therefore I pray you read it, and be as the industrious bee, suck out the honey and cast away the weeds. Though this platform be like a piece of timber rough hewed, yet the discreet workman may take it and frame a handsome building out of it. It is like a poor man that comes clothed to your door in a torn country garment, who is unacquainted with the learned citizens' unsettled forms and fashions.

Take off the clownish [or, in my case, offensive] language, for under that you may see beauty' Winstanley in Hamilton pi Discussion on this subject has been marred not only by bigotry. The full picture has not always been painted. The publishers, however, while failing to mention this omission, stated: What is more, the publishers had room to include 8 pages on Jonathan Edwards - which had no connection with the work in hand. Furthermore, I want to make it clear that, however inconsistent it might seem - given my view of baptism and the church - I am not 'unchristianising' or 'unchurching' those who practice infant baptism in a responsible manner.

I think they are mistaken; I think their practice highly dangerous, and I am prepared to say so, and argue my case. But I do not do it to 'slang [them] off see Wright: Indeed, they are not my main concern in this book. Hoping I do not sound conceited, if I can help any of them to reconsider their position and return to the as I see it biblical pattern - excellent; but primarily, I say again, I am writing for those Baptists who are thinking of taking up infant baptism.

Of course, as John H. Nor is 'disagreement about baptism Yes, everybody has to answer 'to his own master Rom. We can, and we must, remove prejudices and fears wherever possible'. True, 'we are finite beings. None of us will ever be able to comprehend all of God's revelation completely or infallibly'.

But, having admitted all that, I cannot accept I have to 'attain a deeper experience of unity' with believers when this involves tolerating sacramentalism - which I find abhorrent, however godly and scholarly its advocates. I [Kidd] can no longer work Rather, I [Kidd] am discovering here two histories of the one sign we call baptism But I [Kidd] would like to think I [Kidd] can participate in and celebrate the integrity of what is the other, without threat to what is profoundly my own'.

As I say, I disagree with this intensely. I think infant baptism is wrong, and some of its consequences catastrophic. I agree with Armstrong: I dare say my approach will not solve it either - but, reader, I have not set out with any such grand idea. Rather, as I have made clear, I am simply issuing a warning to those who are thinking of becoming infant baptisers. And I mean 'warning'. This in itself begs an important question.

Are we really talking about something 'doubtful' in the sense of 'disputable' Rom. True, baptism is disputed - but dare we call an ordinance of Christ disputable! If so, it would be wrong to pass any opinion on, or make any criticism of, the baptismal practice of others - since we are commanded, in such matters, not to 'dispute' or 'judge' Rom. This, it seems to me, would take us into nonsense-land. Not weigh the arguments men use to defend their practice?

Not pass an opinion on them? For my part, as I have said, I find certain aspects of current teaching on baptism totally unacceptable, matters which to my mind certainly do not fall within the category of Rom. In saying this, as I have stated, I do not 'despise' or 'show contempt for' my brothers Rom. And I am prepared to say so.

Yes, I do accept all believers Rom. What is more, if baptism does come into the remit of Rom. I should give up denying baptism to infants so as to avoid offending my infant-baptising friends; and they should give up baptising infants to avoid offending me Rom. In short, it would be far safer if we all joined the Quakers or the Salvation Army and had nothing to do with baptism. And not only baptism; the Lord's supper, too, would have to cease; or else we should, I suppose, have to tolerate, as something indifferent or disputable, if not the Mass itself, then something very like it.

Once again, this would make a nonsense of a clear command of Christ, and, for the sake of tolerance, drive us to an intolerable conclusion. I, for my part, cannot go along with it. The only alternative, therefore, is to speak up; in love, yes, but to speak up. I am not seeking 'a deeper experience of unity' with sacramentalists on baptism.

I don't think I should. Granted 'the power of symbol and the attendant importance of visual images in the modern world I could not disagree more with Armstrong in his wish 'that the importance of baptism might be recovered even while we disagree about its exact meaning'. Discordant it may be to say it, but the opposite is the truth. Armstrong pp 11 Preamble 22, Its meaning is the heart of its importance. What is more, the call for unity over baptism is but the tip of the ice-berg. See below for extracts from Act 3 Review, the quarterly of which Armstrong is the editor-in-chief, where I trace the accelerating Romeward movement amongst evangelicals, not excluding the Reformed.

There is a pig hidden at the bottom of the poke [sack] of infant baptism, and I want to do what I can to let prospective purchasers know what they are getting. I sum up my position in James Haldane's words: It may indeed be conducted in an improper spirit, and much sin may be committed while we are attempting to vindicate the truth; but this is the abuse of the apostolic precept, that we should earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints It appears to [me] perfectly lawful and proper to point out any perversion of the gospel, and to show how it subverts the truth, while [I] do not presume to judge another man's servant, more especially as to his state before God I [do not] unchristianise Say why it is important that we consider baptism 2.

Point out three mistakes which are often made about the subject 3. Introduce the question of infant baptism 4. Note some dangerous statements by infant baptisers Baptism: Its Importance Before I look at the arguments put forward by infant baptisers in support of their practice, I want to stress the importance of baptism itself. Reader, I urge you not to dismiss this subject as of little or no consequence. Do not wave it aside as trivial. Jesus described his baptism as 'fitting He said it was seemly, fitting, to carry out all God's commands and ordinances. How then can baptism be regarded as a matter indifferent or optional, as some including evangelicals; especially, of all people, Baptists!

  1. 32 Transsexual Haiku?
  2. Infant Baptism Tested - David H. J. Gay - Google Книги;
  3. In the Blue Pike - Volume 02.
  4. ;
  5. Study Guide for Anatomy & Physiology - E-Book.
  6. ;
  7. The Flight to Delhi.

Christ's words show the importance of the issue. I am not interested in a sterile, hair-splitting quarrel over nothing, striving 'about words to no profit' 2 Tim. Well, let me briefly spell out what I think about baptism. Baptism is a standing command - an ordinance - there is nothing optional about it - an ordinance of Christ, an obligation which he has laid upon all his people throughout this age. It would be a severe affront to the New Testament teaching to reckon baptism itself as anything less than fundamental to the church of Jesus Christ' Wright: Since I disagree with much that the Baptist sacramentalist George Beasley- Murray has written on the subject, I am glad to be able to quote him on the question of baptism as an ordinance: It rests on the command of the risen Lord after his achieving redemption and receiving authority over the entire cosmos [Matt.

Such a charge is too imperious to be ignored or modified. It behoves us to adhere to it and conform to it as God gives grace' Beasley-Murray: Baptism in the New Testament p Its Importance two such ordinances; baptism is experienced but once - upon profession of faith 3 - whereas the Lord's supper is to be regularly repeated throughout the believer's life; while baptism is an individual experience, the supper is a corporate act of the local church, and serves to nourish its unity. Both are symbolic acts. But while the grace represented in the symbols is not conveyed by these symbols, 4 nor in experience.

Combining this with Rom. Early pl47; Grass and Randall p The infant baptiser, Oscar Cullmann, argued for baptism before faith. Fowler summarised Cullman's black-is- white argument thus: How wrong can you be? Baptism is administered to converts. This is commonly recognised now [in Cremer has many successors. Beasley- Murray was not quite right. This distortion - the utter turning up-side-down of the New Testament - is not only because of infant baptism. He himself pointed out Cremer' s reference to baptism effecting something.

This is the core of the problem. If it is granted that baptism is a sacrament - that is, it effects something, it produces something - all sorts of distortions of Scripture follow. Naturally, if baptism effects or produces something, that 'something' must follow baptism. So, if baptism produces faith, baptism must precede faith. But baptism does not produce anything! Sacramentalism is the root of the trouble, as I keep saying, and shall keep saying. Salvation is not conveyed to us by the Lord's supper!

And I disagree with Calvin: Take the 16 Baptism: Its Importance the observance, this does not mean they are pointless. In the physical symbols, the believer sees - represented before his eyes - the spiritual realities of his redemption in Christ, and so finds spiritual instruction, edification and encouragement. The ordinances also serve as a kind of physical preaching of the gospel to any unconverted who might observe them.

It leads the believer into local church membership, 7 including the Lord's supper. Christ is represented, not presented. In saying this, I repeat the above - immense blessing comes by obedience to Christ. But this is a far cry from sacramentalism. Pratt, although I would have strengthened his statement: No nonsense about conveying grace - it confirms, demonstrates what has already been experienced. This is undoubtedly the New Testament position. If it had remained the practice in the churches, my book would never have been written.

More important, infant baptism would have never been thought of! See below for my comments on the passages which sacramentalists claim to teach sacramentalism. At least some, if not many, infant baptisers do, as I will show. Furthermore, I think the word should be preached at the ordinances. Early ppl25, ; Grass and Randall pp But not every detail in Acts or the Gospels should be taken as normative for church practice - the letters are designed for that purpose.

Acts records a transition period, a time of explosive spiritual power when extraordinary things were happening - some unique in the history of the church. And I mean unique, never whatever some may claim to be repeated. Just as hard cases make bad law, so to use extraordinary - unique - events as normative for the church today, is far from sensible.

Consider, for instance, the immediacy of New Testament baptism. If I may speak personally, while I acknowledge that excessive delay of baptism is the mistaken norm in some circles, as one who has had the responsibility for baptising, I have felt the need in our culture, blighted by centuries of Christendom see below , for more caution than 17 Baptism: Its Importance Whether or not all this is dismissed as a low view of baptism, it is although I have not stopped to set out the biblical arguments 9 - as I see it - the biblical position.

Compare the rapid funeral arrangements in Acts 5: I will return to this point about the extraordinary. To get back to the two texts in question: As for Acts 8: If similar circumstances should occur today, no doubt a like -baptism would take place. But we are talking about the other Let us not legislate for such an isolated instance. As for Acts 9: As for the connection between baptism and church life as found in the Gospels and Acts, Matt. Of course, it is easy to caricature, poke fun at, and dismiss, Baptists for their efforts at regulating church membership and introducing members Ella pp7- 23 and passim - and there is a good deal of serious criticism that needs to be made and acted upon - but what about infant-baptiser churches and their methods and results?

I shall have more to say on this, in addition to what I have already said in my Battle; which see. If I was writing about believer's baptism, I would not depend on history. It would be no part of my case to try to establish an unbroken line of believer's baptism from the apostles to the Anabaptists.

I know there is little documentary evidence to support it. But there may be reasons. Leaving to one side - for the moment - the time of the very early Fathers, it is to acknowledge the obvious to say that for at least years after the apostles, the biblical ordinance was carried out only by the minority. Furthermore, it was the practice of a desperately persecuted minority. To cap it all, can it really be thought that Rome - who tried to destroy the 'heretics' - would have preserved their writings? In saying all this, however, I am not conceding that there was no witness to believer's baptism in those days.

But my case would not depend on it. My purpose in this book is confessedly negative, exposing the errors and dangers, 18 Baptism: Its Importance And baptism goes far deeper than baptism; the truth is, it goes to the very heart of church life. In this regard, I make no apology for being strident - mariners kept from foundering on the rocks don't often complain of the clanging bell which disturbed their sleep.

As to that, while some want only a positive approach, the Bible shows us how necessary - and God-honouring - a negative course can be. The New Testament itself does that, but this approach is not popular today. But if error is being taught it must be corrected. Paul does this constantly. He exposes the false, warns against it, urges Christians to avoid it; at the same time he gives the positive truth. So we must of necessity do the same. What we believe is of vital importance, because it is going to affect our whole life and conduct' Lloyd-Jones: As I have explained, I aim to speak the truth, albeit trenchantly, in love.

If I needlessly offend, I sincerely apologise, and ask those who disagree with my tone, to be kind enough to remember why I have written. It is the care of souls which moves me. I dread to have to confess with W. Gladstone in a pamphlet published late in life: I quote this with regard both to myself and those who read what I write. The same goes for this further piece from Winstanley's address to Cromwell in I have wrestled over 2 Tim. But I do not think I have engaged in 'foolish and ignorant disputes'; nor have I set out to 'generate strife'; and I hope I have not been guilty of what Paul meant by 'contention' or 'striving'.

John Gill's comments are apt: Calvin, too, I have found helpful, especially when he, even in his comments on the verse, was prepared to call the views of those he opposed, 'silly trifles' Calvin: I hope my attitude bears at least some semblance to 2 Cor. Jude 3 springs to mind, also. Carson, when writing about how he came to question his involvement in infant baptism: Its Importance members are, how they become members and what is expected of them - that is what lies at the heart of this subject.

Warfield put it this way: If we are to demand anything like demonstrative evidence of actual participation in Christ before we baptise, no infant, who by reason of years is incapable of affording signs of his union with Christ, can be thought a proper subject of the sacrament'. As just noted, Warfield believed in infant baptism, and therefore he did not demand the evidence he referred to. But even so his statement illustrates the point I am making - baptism and the doctrine of the church are inseparably linked.

What we believe about baptism, and what we do about it, will be governed by - and will influence - what we believe concerning the church, because 'as is our doctrine of the church, so will be our doctrine of the subjects of baptism'. Dabney made the same point when he said that the doctrine of baptism and the Lord's supper 'is closely dependent on that of the church; and is treated by many authorities, as strictly consequent thereon'.

Think about the atonement, especially the extent of the atonement. For whom did Christ die? The question of the extent of the atonement is not a barren discussion about mere numbers - the very nature of redemption itself is at stake. Did Christ accomplish a certain redemption for all the sinners for whom he shed his blood? Or did he die for some sinners who will never be saved? In very time as I was facing the fundamental problem of the doctrine of the church.

It was the biblical doctrine of the church, as I understood it, that ultimately forced me out of the Church of England. I was now beginning to discover that the two issues were not separate The biblical doctrine of the church as [at the very least] a company of believers drawn from the world was, in fact, one of the factors leading me towards the acceptance of the baptism of believers as being the only true baptism - just as the Anglican view of the national and comprehensive Church was more consistent with the practice of infant baptism' Carson: Note the link Dabney properly made between baptism, the supper and the church.

Its Importance other words, it is not merely the number of the sinners for whom Christ died, but what did he actually accomplish by his death? As I said, the issue goes far deeper; the very nature of the church depends on it; and it has no small effect on salvation itself. Indeed, salvation can be jeopardised by a wrong view of baptism. In short, eternity is at stake. That is how important it is. As to the place of baptism in addressing sinners, I feel the force of C. Spurgeon's comments on Ananias' command to Saul: The tendency with many good evangelists is to say nothing upon that point.

The main thing is to get this man to be a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, but to say: Brethren, we have nothing to do with altering Christ's message, but are bound to deliver it as a whole, without addition or diminution. The tendency everywhere is to say: If our Lord commanded it, who dares call it sectarian?

We are not commanded to preach a part of the gospel, but the whole gospel; and this Ananias did. Is it not written: Why omit one clause? I question whether God's blessing has not been withheld from some teachers and preachers because they have failed to repeat their message in its entirety. A brother will write to me next week and say: T am sorry that I cannot circulate your sermon, because you allude to baptism'. My dear brother, if you cannot circulate the sermon, I must be content without your kind help; but I cannot amend the Lord's word to please the best man upon the earth.

What prominence is given to baptism here [in Acts We should greatly err if we believed in baptismal regeneration, or even in the efficacy of washing in water for the removal of sin; but, on the other hand, we are not to place in the background an ordinance which, by the language of Scripture, is placed in the forefront. Ananias said to Paul: And this tallies with that other text: In both of these passages, 14 See my Particular. If any reader thinks concern for the eternal welfare of souls is described by such words, he and I part company.

Its Importance the Lord puts a special honour upon baptism, and it would be ill for us to neglect that which he so evidently esteems. Do not make any mistake, and imagine that immersion in water can wash away sin; but do remember that if the Lord puts this outward profession side by side with the washing away of sins, it is not a trilling matter.

Remember that other text: Faith must be followed by obedience, or it cannot be sincere; do, then, what Jesus bids you. That is not, however, my point. I want to urge upon you that you should always speak the Lord's word faithfully, and be true to that which the Lord reveals to you, even to the jots and tittles. In these days there is much talk about 'undenominationalism', and in that talk there is much to be admired; but the danger is lest [that?

The suggestion is that one is to give up this, and another to give up that; but I say to you - give up nothing which your Lord commands. I leave it there. Whether or not I have succeeded in allaying the fears of any who think I have a low view of baptism, I cannot say.

But this is what I think about the ordinance. Now for a look at infant baptism. But, before getting into the heart of the matter, some cautionary remarks are necessary. They will form the next chapter. Its Importance End note to Baptism: Its Importance Strict communion J. For if once we admit any reasons to prevail over the testimony of God in his word of truth, we reject divine revelation, we deny that the Scriptures are a perfect rule of faith and practice, we turn our back upon the teachings of the Holy Ghost on that particular point, and we open a wide door for the introduction of every error.

If baptism is an ordinance of Christ, it stands upon his authority. It is not to be slighted as unnecessary, still less to be rejected with contempt. Nor can a child of God safely shelter himself under the names of great and good men who have not seen, nor submitted to that ordinance. Highly esteemed though they are to be for their work's sake, they are not our Lord; they did not die for our sins, nor rise again for our justification. They were [as we all are] but men, fallible men, and in many things offending all, though beloved of God, and blessed in their work.

If the principles and practice of the churches founded by the apostles were not those of strict communion, let it be unceremoniously discarded; but if, as I fully believe, and as I think I have proved in the following pages [of his book], the churches set up by the Holy Ghost immediately after the day of Pentecost were strict baptist churches, those that reject that order are guilty of [mis- understanding, ignorance or] disobedience.

I put the question wholly upon scriptural precept and scriptural practice. Let the practice of strict communion stand or fall by the unerring testimony of God' Philpot pp Since I have quoted Spurgeon above, it is only fair to point out that he did not practice a closed table. Three Common Mistakes As I closed the previous chapter, I said that before we explore the theory and practice of infant baptism, some cautionary remarks are necessary.

For a start, the dispute over infant baptism does not concern merely the age of a person to be baptised. No, the controversy is not over adult baptism as against infant baptism. That is to trivialise the debate. It is believer's baptism as against all other sorts of baptism. It is wrong to dismiss the practice of infant baptism on the grounds that it is 'Old Testament teaching' It is true that infant baptisers make a great deal of the Old Testament in one way or another in the presentation of their case, and they do mistakenly rely heavily on the Old Testament rite of circumcision.

Only believers were baptised in those days. A baptised unbeliever Simon in Acts 8, for instance got short shrift when discovered. The qualifying adjective is needed only because of the invention and predominance of infant baptism. What is more, there is a good case for the disuse of 'infant baptism' - except for serious Latinists - and calling it by its proper name, 'baby baptism'.

But, for its advocates, as Wright said, the former 'retains a certain gravity', whereas the latter 'seems disrespectful, even flippant' Wright: So it does, but it is the truth, all the same. However, it has taken a long time, it seems, for such a self-evident comment to sink in, but I am pleased to record that Wright could properly speak with approval of infant baptisers who are now 'taking with greater seriousness the New Testament, rather than the Old Testament, in considering a theology of baptism, since traditional defences of infant baptism have leaned heavily on the [so-called] parallel with circumcision' Wright: I will return to the misuse 24 Baptism: Three Common Mistakes Having said that, it is too easy - and it is totally wrong - to dismiss their arguments as 'merely Old Testament teaching'.

It is a terrible error to dismiss the Old Testament. In this book I say some strong things about its misuse, and the misguided application of it to church life, but this must not be taken to mean that I dismiss the Old Testament itself. Let me say it - and say it loud and clear - the Old Testament is a part of the infallible word of God, and it must be treated as such.

However, there are substantial differences between the two Testaments, and it is vital to give these their proper weight. It is sometimes done, and it is wrong. It is also wrong to regard every reference to baptism in the Bible as meaning water baptism It is not so.

In some passages of Scripture, the baptism involved cannot possibly refer to water baptism. The truth is, of the Levitical order. In passing, I note infant baptisers feel the need to 'defend' their practice. As one who baptises believers only, I have no sense that I need to 'defend' my practice. Spurgeon saw no need to defend the Bible any more than he would a lion. Open the cage and let it out!

Believer's baptism is written plainly upon the pages of the New Testament. Evidently, as infant baptisers themselves admit I will provide plenty of evidence , the same cannot be said for infant baptism. A mistake here casts a long shadow, as we shall see.

Infant Baptism Tested

See, for instance, John H. Netties and Richard L. Pratt in John H. Armstrong ppl ,3 ,,, Take one example from Nettles. He claimed that in 1 Pet. Three Common Mistakes the Bible speaks of both water baptism and spiritual baptism. These must always be distinguished. The New Testament does, and in no uncertain terms. I must spend just a little time on the differences between the two. One baptism is a physical act to do with water; the other is at least regeneration by the Holy Spirit, a baptism which unites the person to Christ 1 Cor.

With respect, Peter does not. He speaks of a baptism 'which now saves us', not which represents our salvation. I will have more to say on the verse, but the question - 'Which baptism is he talking about? Those who do introduce water baptism where it has no place have also to introduce qualifiers or glosses to avoid disastrous consequences. Take, for instance, Hendriksen on: Paul does not mean that all who, in addition to being baptised in water, have been truly baptised by the Spirit into Christ, have put on Christ. As I have said, water baptism is not in the verse or context. What is more, there is not a hint or a qualification in Paul's statement.

This is what he said and this is what he meant. But note Hendriksen's glosses: In Christ they have risen to newness of life.

Is Infant Baptism Biblical? (Selected Scriptures)

They have become united with him And this, let it be stressed once again, is true of them all' Hendriksen: Note the 'have truly laid aside, in principle I have no quarrel with the sentiment these words express - if we are talking about inward experience judged by outward profession.

But that is not what Paul is talking about in Gal. Hendriksen had to introduce the glosses because he wrongly brought in the idea of water. This must always be the case - unless those who bring in water baptism are prepared to live with the consequences and say that all who are so baptised are united to Christ - which some do! As Calvin immediately went on: Three Common Mistakes Spirit. Both men were baptisers, but they baptised in different realms. Furthermore Jesus is still baptising to this very day, something which is not always appreciated.

A comparison - even a contrast - is drawn between John the Baptist and Jesus Christ as to their persons John 1: One was a great prophet; the other is the Son of God. And there is a corresponding contrast drawn between their baptisms. This contrast is not between two water baptisms, but between two baptisms in two totally different realms - baptism in water and baptism in the Spirit.

I repeat, these two baptisms water baptism and Spirit baptism must be carefully distinguished. Infant baptisers, as well as Baptists, can confuse them, with disastrous results. I will produce the evidence. It is Christ who baptises with the Holy Spirit. As just noted, Christ is still a baptiser, and this fact must be given its full weight; he does not delegate it to others. He does not use his ministers let alone priests to baptise with the Spirit.

Nor does he use his ministers to baptise with water and thereby baptise with the Spirit. Jesus himself baptises with the Spirit. Now, Papists believe that when a priest sprinkles an infant, Christ is baptising the infant with the Holy Spirit through and by the ministrations of the priest. And we shall see that Reformed infant-baptisers get dangerously close to saying whereas Christ is the author of internal grace' Calvin: In other words, John did contrast the two baptisms.

If Calvin's words here are not self-contradictory, I don't know what is. Whenever John's words are quoted in the New Testament, the contrast between the two baptisms is always made Matt. Baptism is an act of God through his ministers which signifies and seals our initiation into the triune communion we are baptised into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. At baptism we are clothed with Christ, united to him and to his church which is his body Gal.

This is a modern statement. I will provide plenty of evidence to show that Calvin and many others have said the same or similar. And many are still saying it. I will also return to 1 Cor. Three Common Mistakes something similar. I produce evidence for what I assert. But whoever says it and for whatever motive, I contend that when men say that Christ baptises with his Spirit as ministers baptise with water, they are grievously in error. Jesus is the only minister who baptises with the Spirit, and he does not delegate this work to any man.

He does it himself; he does it directly. Who regenerates and renews by the Holy Spirit?

Is it Christ through ministers? It is 'God our Saviour God our Saviour baptises with the Spirit through Jesus Christ. God does not do it through his ministers by water baptism. It is Christ who does the work, he is the minister who spiritually baptises. What is more, water baptism is not only different to spiritual baptism, the one has no cause-effect connection with the other - none whatsoever. Just because water is mentioned, we must not leap to the conclusion that we are talking about baptism. Those who think the water is literal, must be consistent and in addition to sprinkling infants they should roast them!

But the water and the fire are both figurative; they are figures of the purifying, cleansing, renewing power of the Spirit of God in regeneration, 10 in which he 9 Why is it that although 'the Protestant Reformers had their quarrels with the Roman Catholic Church over the import and minor aspects of the practice of infant baptism And why, on baptism, are many of the Reformed so close to Rome today?

Three Common Mistakes gives a new, clean heart Ps. Continuing what I say above about the difference between water baptism and Spirit baptism, and that just because water or washing is mentioned in a text, it does not mean that we are talking about baptism. Note, as Robert Anderson observed, in John 3: Christ was not speaking of two births or two baptisms, one baptism by water and the other baptism by the Spirit. In other words, the truths I set out above have little or no relevance to John 3: Christ was speaking of only one baptism - baptism by the Spirit - and one birth - new birth by the Spirit, contrasting it with the old birth by the flesh, the baptism by the Spirit and regeneration by the Spirit being one and the same thing.

Although water is in the passage, it does not refer to water baptism. But, of course, Christ did bring water into the discussion. Now, whatever the water speaks of, unless he has experienced the washing it speaks of, no one will enter the kingdom; he will not be saved. Consequently, if the sacramentalist still wants to insist that the water refers to baptism, then no unbaptised person can be regenerated and saved; in particular, the thief on the cross.

Rome ridiculously argues that he was baptised - by the spurting blood of Christ! Such an argument proves the paucity of the case. Baptism Today and Tomorrow p40 for his extract from H. Wotherspoon on martyrdom being the spiritual equivalent of baptism. Now who will say that no one can be saved without baptism? In asking this, I am not minimising baptism, but circumstances can easily be envisaged where someone is converted, and baptism is simply not possible.

The fact is, the water in John 3: If it does, as Calvin said: Hence arose the belief of the absolute necessity of baptism, in order to the hope of eternal life