Presbyterians Who Have Yielded Ground...

[Rippon]

...to Baptists. There have been a number of paedobaptists who indeed have believed that infant baptism is warranted by Scripture. Nevertheless, they thought that some passages used to marshall support were not legitimate to substantiate infant baptism.

Robert Reymond : Systematic Theology

"I would counsel that the paedobaptist should not put much weight on these 'household baptisms'...he cannot prove that any of these households had infants or small children in them." (I don't have the page number handy)

In Matthew 19:14 the ESV renders it :"But Jesus said, 'Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.' "

I don't have the complete source or quote for the following, but B.B. Warfild (the Lion of Princeton) said "What has this verse to do with infant baptism?"
___________________________________________________
More will follow in the near future.

 

[Revmitchell]

What that argument does do is skips right over the very nature of Baptism. No one who truly understands that can ever promote infant Baptism.


Baptism itself is a public confession that we identify with Christ's death (Romans 6:3), burial (Romans 6:4a), and resurrection (Romans 6:4b).

The context of Romans 6 is that since we identify (my word) with Christ in this way we need to understand that we can know we are new and are no longer in bondage to sin. This is also supported by Jesus Himself in John 3:3 when He said we are regenerated. 2 Corinthians 5:17 also shows us we are a new creature in Christ.

Such a public confession and identity cannot be made by an infant and therefore disqualifies infants from Baptism.

 

[Rippon]

So many of my Christian heroes have been Scottish. Most have been Presbyterian. I'll roll off several names for you: John Kennedy, Robert Candlish, Robert Murray M'Cheyne, Samuel Rutherford, Alexander Whyte,William Still, the Bonar brothers, and the Haldane brothers. And then there is William Cunningham (1805-1861). Dr. Cunningham was quite the Bible scholar. I can read his works; especially Historical Theology with pleasure. I can't find the same enthusiasm for his contemporay and fellow Calvinist friend --Charles Hodge. Hodge is too philosophical for my taste.

Anyway, I will apologize in advance for repetition. But it illustrates his awkward position. He realized that the N.T. view of baptism was the baptistic view, not the paedobaptistic stance. But he was Presbyterian by tradition so... he weakly said in sections that I will not quote things like "the paedobaptist view is lawful and biblical." Yet he did not develop that theme much at all. I have never encountered a Presbyterian who conceded so much ground to the Baptist (and biblical)view.

All of the following will be from his Historical Theology, Vol. 2.

"Baptism, as well as the Lord's supper, is...presented to us in the New Testament; and it is from the case of adult participation that we ought to form our general views and impressions of the meaning and design of these ordinances. It tends to greatly introduce obscurity and confusion into our whole conceptions upon the subject of baptism, that we see it ordinarily administered to infants, and very seldom to adults. This leads us insensibly to form very defective and erroneous conceptions of its design and effect..." (p.125)

"We out to remember, that we ought to form our primary and fundamental conceptions of baptism from the baptism of adults." (p.126)

"The general tenor of Scripture language upon the subject of Baptism applies primarily and directly to the baptism of adults, and proceeds upon the assumption, that the profession implied in the reception of baptism by adults, --the profession, that is, that they had already been led to believe in Christ, and to receive him as their Saviour and their Master, --was sincere, or corresponded with the real state of their minds and hearts. It is necessary, therefore, to form our primary and fundamental conceptions of the objects and effects of baptism...from the baptism of adults and not of infants. (p.144)
__________________________________________
More later.

 

[Rippon]

Continuing Cunningham quotes from his Historical Theology Vol.2.

"[If] we but seldom witness the baptism of adults, and commonly see only the baptism of infants...we are very apt to be led to form insensibly very erroneous and defective views of the nature and effects of baptism, as an ordinance instituted by Christ in His church, or rather, to rest contented with scarcely any distinct or definite conception upon the subject...If we were in the habit of witnessing adult baptism, and if we formed our primary and full conceptions of the import and effects of the ordinance from the baptism of adults, the one sacrament would be as easily understood,...as the other...These statemants may, at first view, appear to be large concessions to the anti-paedobaptist..." (p.145)

"Paedobaptists, from the causes to which I have referred, are apt to rest contented with very obscure and defective notions of the import and objects of baptism, and to confound adult and infant baptism as if the same principles must fully apply to both." (p.146)

"The ordinary tenor of Scripture language concerning baptism has respect, primarily and principally...to adults, --and that thus a profession of faith is ordinarily associated with the Scripture notices of the administration of baptism;...so...we are to regard baptism upon a profession of faith, as exhibiting the proper type and full development of the ordinance." (p.151)

"Infant baptism [has] difficulties which undoubtedly attach to it, and with the obscurity in which some points connected with it are involved. " (p.154)

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

If they yealded ground, then why remain Presbyterian?

 

[padredurand]

"But let us attend to the act of our Savior a little more carefully than these men do. For we must not lightly overlook the fact, that our Savior, in ordering little children to be brought to him, adds the reason, "of such is the kingdom of heaven." And he afterwards testifies his good will by act, when he embraces them, and with prayer and benediction commends them to his Father. If it is right that children should be brought to Christ, why should they not be admitted to baptism, the symbol of our communion and fellowship with Christ? If the kingdom of heaven is theirs, why should they be denied the sign by which access, as it were, is opened to the Church, that being admitted into it they may be enrolled among the heirs of the heavenly kingdom? How unjust were we to drive away those whom Christ invites to himself, to spoil those whom he adorns with his gifts, to exclude those whom he spontaneously admits."

John Calvin "Institutes of the Christian Religion", Book 4, Chapter 16

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

BTW...have you read Dr. McManis (I think his name is) public recant on the Puritan form? Quite interesting. In short he embraces pedobaptism.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

"But let us attend to the act of our Savior a little more carefully than these men do. For we must not lightly overlook the fact, that our Savior, in ordering little children to be brought to him, adds the reason, "of such is the kingdom of heaven." And he afterwards testifies his good will by act, when he embraces them, and with prayer and benediction commends them to his Father. If it is right that children should be brought to Christ, why should they not be admitted to baptism, the symbol of our communion and fellowship with Christ? If the kingdom of heaven is theirs, why should they be denied the sign by which access, as it were, is opened to the Church, that being admitted into it they may be enrolled among the heirs of the heavenly kingdom? How unjust were we to drive away those whom Christ invites to himself, to spoil those whom he adorns with his gifts, to exclude those whom he spontaneously admits."

John Calvin "Institutes of the Christian Religion", Book 4, Chapter 16

DD...I thinks you posted this in the wrong thread. Or is it "me thinks "

 

[Zenas]

If baptism of infants was not acceptable during New Testament times, then why doesn't scripture ever mention the alternative--the baptism of the children of Christian parents once have matured enough to make a profession of faith?

 

[Rippon]

BTW...have you read Dr. McManis (I think his name is) public recant on the Puritan form? Quite interesting. In short he embraces pedobaptism.

Do you mean Matthew McMahon? He retracted his Baptist views a good 12 years ago.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Do you mean Matthew McMahon? He retracted his Baptist views a good 12 years ago.

Yes & so what? Is he one of your Presbyterian buddies also? Someone to pattern yourself after?

 

[Rippon]

DD...I thinks you posted this in the wrong thread. Or is it "me thinks "

Padredurand posted it in the right place. You didn't read the OP. B.B. Warfield, though a paedobaptist, said that Matt.19:14 gave no support for infant baptism.

The Calvin excerpt evidenced that the Man of Geneva got it wrong there.

 

[Rippon]

Yes & so what?

You wanted to know information. I gave the correct info to you and yet you become snarky. What's with you?

Is he one of your Presbyterian buddies also? Someone to pattern yourself after?

There you go again. I have Presbyterian brothers and sisters in the Lord and Baptist brothers and sisters in the Lord. I have Plymouth Brethren friends in the Lord and I have Evangelical Free brothers and sisters in the Lord. I have Protestant Reformed Church brothers and sisters in the Lord and others from various Church backgrounds.

Do you want to say any more nasty things, or will you remember that you are on a Christian forum?

 

[padredurand]

Padredurand posted it in the right place. You didn't read the OP. B.B. Warfield, though a paedobaptist, said that Matt.19:14 gave no support for infant baptism.

The Calvin excerpt evidenced that the Man of Geneva got it wrong there.

Are you allowed to say that in public?

 

[Rippon]

Are you allowed to say that in public?

I get the humor.

But I am with CHS on this.

"If you ask me, do I hold the doctrinal views which were held by John Calvin, I reply, I do in the main hold them, and rejoice to avow it."

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Otherwise known as the domino ...oh forget it.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Are you allowed to say that in public?

Only if you wear a body condome.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Do you mean Matthew McMahon? He retracted his Baptist views a good 12 years ago.

Absolutely

http://www.apuritansmind.com/covena...and-becomes-reformed-by-dr-c-matthew-mcmahon/

 

[Yeshua1]

I get the humor.

But I am with CHS on this.

"If you ask me, do I hold the doctrinal views which were held by John Calvin, I reply, I do in the main hold them, and rejoice to avow it."

That would be the best approach, as Calvin is not listed among the Apostles!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

That would be the best approach, as Calvin is not listed among the Apostles!

Oh ho ho ha ha haaaaaa....sometimes ya supprise me my brother.....taking shots at Dr. RIPPLE..:thumbs: :laugh: