Open Baptists & Paedobaptism

[Humble Disciple]

Historically, Open Baptists were Baptist congregations in England that accepted for communion, as well as church membership, those who had been baptized as infants, without requiring them to be baptized again. If baptism is just an outward symbol of repentance, is it necessary for Baptist churches to require that new members be re-baptized?

The editor of the three-volume edition of the Works of John Bunyan in 1854, George Offor, comments on Bunyan’s position:

"Bunyan saw all the difficulties of this question: he was satisfied that baptism is a personal duty, in respect of which every individual must be satisfied, in his own mind, and over which no church had any control; and that the only enquiry as to the fitness of a candidate for church fellowship should be, whether the regenerating powers of the Holy Ghost had baptized the spirit of the proposed member into newness of life. This is the only livery by which a Christian can be known. Bunyan very justly condemns the idea of water baptism being either the Christian’s livery or his marriage to the Saviour."

It is a sad fact that most Baptists have long since denied the theology of the Strict and Particular Baptists and yet have the vestige of an external requirement. Others who hold steadfastly to the theology have not listened to their father in the faith, John Bunyan. Even those whom Bunyan admonished at that time seem to have relented for a time since in the appendix to the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1677) they wrote,

"We would not be misconstrued, as if the discharge of our consciences did any way disoblige or alienate our affections or conversations from any others that fear the Lord: earnestly desiring to approve ourselves to be such as follow after peace with holiness. We continue our practice, not out of obstinacy, but we do therein according to the best of our understandings, in that method which we take to be most agreeable to the Scriptures. The christening of infants, we find by church history, to have been a very ancient practice; still we leave every one to give an account of himself to God. And if in any case debates between Christians are not plainly determinable by the Scriptures, we leave it to the second coming of Christ."

Sadly, this statement was omitted from the 1689 republished edition of the Second London Baptist Confession—the year after Bunyan’s death. We concur with Bunyan, “I own water baptism to be God’s ordinance, but I make no idol of it.”
Baptism and Church Communion by John Bunyan - WordMp3.com

 

[SavedByGrace]

Paedobaptism is NOT taught anywhere in the 66 Books of the Holy Bible. The Bible is very clear that ONLY those who can "repent and believe in the Gospel", must be baptised after they are saved.

 

[AustinC]

Paedobaptism is NOT taught anywhere in the 66 Books of the Holy Bible. The Bible is very clear that ONLY those who can "repent and believe in the Gospel", must be baptised after they are saved.

...using grape juice and leavened bread cut into cubes for communion is not taught anywhere in scripture either.

The issue that I have with some who practice paedobaptism is their teaching of baptismal regeneration. Those who see baptism as a covenant sign of the New Covenant, yet still recognize their babies are unregenerate sinners until they show evidence of redemption, have a biblical argument that allows me to fellowship with them. I see no reason to re-baptize their children when their children seek membership in a Baptist Church.

 

[37818]

A case for rebaptism is found in Acts of the Apostles 19:3-5, ". . . And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. . . ."

 

[SavedByGrace]

A case for rebaptism is found in Acts of the Apostles 19:3-5, ". . . And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. . . ."

why do you think this was done?

 

[Mikey]

...using grape juice and leavened bread cut into cubes for communion is not taught anywhere in scripture either.

The issue that I have with some who practice paedobaptism is their teaching of baptismal regeneration. Those who see baptism as a covenant sign of the New Covenant, yet still recognize their babies are unregenerate sinners until they show evidence of redemption, have a biblical argument that allows me to fellowship with them. I see no reason to re-baptize their children when their children seek membership in a Baptist Church.

Disagree. No paedobaptist has been baptised, they've just had a very short bath. It is a requirement for all who profess repentance and faith in the lord Jesus Christ to be baptised. Thus any paedobaptist who refuses to be baptised is in opposition and disobedience to scripture, which is very serious.

 

[37818]

why do you think this was done?

They had not understood John's teaching and so had not yet believed on Jesus of whom John preached.

 

[AustinC]

Disagree. No paedobaptist has been baptised, they've just had a very short bath. It is a requirement for all who profess repentance and faith in the lord Jesus Christ to be baptised. Thus any paedobaptist who refuses to be baptised is in opposition and disobedience to scripture, which is very serious.

Mikey, you may not understand covenant theology, thus you may not understand how baptism symbolizes the new covenant and sets the children apart because of the believing parent.

For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
~ 1 Corinthians 7:14

Be honest, water baptism is only ceremonial/symbolic. The effective baptism is that which the Holy Spirit does when He immerses us into Christ upon God's redemptive action via our new birth. Using water does nothing to invoke our regeneration, but it is an act of obedience. Therefore, since it is an act of obedience, can it not be an act of obedience by the parents to bring the children into covenant with God yet also know that God has not yet shown His elective choice in granting the child saving faith.

There is no scripture that declares a person must be baptized a second time after faith has been clearly demonstrated. Let us therefore acknowledge that there is room for mystery in this issue.

 

[rlvaughn]

Historically, Open Baptists were Baptist congregations in England that accepted for communion, as well as church membership, those who had been baptized as infants, without requiring them to be baptized again. If baptism is just an outward symbol of repentance, is it necessary for Baptist churches to require that new members be re-baptized?

I conclude we do not require those who had some ceremony performed on them as infants to be re-baptized, because they have never been baptized. Biblical baptism is a response to repentance and faith, the answer of a good conscience toward God.

 

[Mikey]

Mikey, you may not understand covenant theology, thus you may not understand how baptism symbolizes the new covenant and sets the children apart because of the believing parent.

For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
~ 1 Corinthians 7:14

Be honest, water baptism is only ceremonial/symbolic. The effective baptism is that which the Holy Spirit does when He immerses us into Christ upon God's redemptive action via our new birth. Using water does nothing to invoke our regeneration, but it is an act of obedience. Therefore, since it is an act of obedience, can it not be an act of obedience by the parents to bring the children into covenant with God yet also know that God has not yet shown His elective choice in granting the child saving faith.

There is no scripture that declares a person must be baptized a second time after faith has been clearly demonstrated. Let us therefore acknowledge that there is room for mystery in this issue.

Baptised a second time??? There was no first time!!

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

can it not be an act of obedience by the parents to bring the children into covenant with God yet also know that God has not yet shown His elective choice in granting the child saving faith.

There is absolutely no scriptural support for this.
Firstly, there is ZERO scriptural evidence that water baptism brings ANYONE into a covenant with God, we enter the covenant by believing the Gospel.

Secondly, even if Baptism did bring someone into Covenant with God, (Which it does not) there is nothing in the scripture that would indicate a parent can do so on behalf of a child anymore than they could do so for their neighbor, or anyone else.

And no it cannot be an "Act of obedience" on the part of the parents, because there is no command being obeyed. Obedience requires a command given that is obeyed.

 

[37818]

Disagree. No paedobaptist has been baptised, they've just had a very short bath. It is a requirement for all who profess repentance and faith in the lord Jesus Christ to be baptised. Thus any paedobaptist who refuses to be baptised is in opposition and disobedience t o scripture, which is very serious.

Agreed. Even so, the believer's baptism is an obeience in an addition to the gospel, not part of the gospel (1 Corinthians 1:17, Romans 1:16). Baptism not being a matter of salvation in any way.

 

[Mikey]

Mikey, you may not understand covenant theology, thus you may not understand how baptism symbolizes the new covenant and sets the children apart because of the believing parent.

For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
~ 1 Corinthians 7:14

Be honest, water baptism is only ceremonial/symbolic. The effective baptism is that which the Holy Spirit does when He immerses us into Christ upon God's redemptive action via our new birth. Using water does nothing to invoke our regeneration, but it is an act of obedience. Therefore, since it is an act of obedience, can it not be an act of obedience by the parents to bring the children into covenant with God yet also know that God has not yet shown His elective choice in granting the child saving faith.

There is no scripture that declares a person must be baptized a second time after faith has been clearly demonstrated. Let us therefore acknowledge that there is room for mystery in this issue.

I understand their covenant theology enough. The new covernant isn't actually a new covenant but a new administration of the old covenant. And as such the substance of the new administration is the same as the old, even if the outward has changed. Therefore Circumcision = Baptism ( but now girls and gentiles are able to recieve the sign).

I don't care how they try to justify paedobatism from their theology, their theology is wrong. Padobaptism is wrong. Infants are not part of the new covenant, as it is faith which unites us to Christ and the covenant with Him.

I maintain that they wanted infant baptism then came up with a theology that supported/incorporated padobaptism.

 

[AustinC]

Baptised a second time??? There was no first time!!

Sure there was a first time. The baptism was when they were infants.
What you are complaining about is not the baptism, but the fact that the infant did not profess a conversion story before the baptism was done. The issue, for you, is one of timing, not one of the actual ceremony of water baptism.

I am a Baptist. I would not baptize until conversion was confirmed. Every story of water baptism in the Bible is one where a person confesses faith. Therefore, I follow that pattern.

Yet, there is also a good argument for water baptism as a setting apart into new covenant with God and confirmation of conversion later.

What is a false teaching is that there is regeneration at the moment of baptism which therefore saves an infant. Such a teaching is untenable. Thus, I could not be a member in a Lutheran, Orthodox or Roman Catholic church, but I could be a member in a Presbyterian church, which does not teach baptismal regeneration.

 

[AustinC]

There is absolutely no scriptural support for this.
Firstly, there is ZERO scriptural evidence that water baptism brings ANYONE into a covenant with God, we enter the covenant by believing the Gospel.

Secondly, even if Baptism did bring someone into Covenant with God, (Which it does not) there is nothing in the scripture that would indicate a parent can do so on behalf of a child anymore than they could do so for their neighbor, or anyone else.

And no it cannot be an "Act of obedience" on the part of the parents, because there is no command being obeyed. Obedience requires a command given that is obeyed.

Actually, there is evidence that water baptism replaced circumcision in the new covenant.

Romans 6:3-5 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

1 Corinthians 12:13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

Galatians 3:27-29 [/I]For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.[/I]

The connection is made between the everlasting Abrahamic Covenant and the everlasting New Covenant. God established circumcision with Abraham. God established baptism with the Church.

I am not saying Baptist churches should change their method of waiting to baptize until after evidence of faith. I am simply saying that a covenant baptism is a biblical argument as well.

 

[Mikey]

Sure there was a first time. The baptism was when they were infants.
What you are complaining about is not the baptism, but the fact that the infant did not profess a conversion story before the baptism was done. The issue, for you, is one of timing, not one of the actual ceremony of water baptism.

I am a Baptist. I would not baptize until conversion was confirmed. Every story of water baptism in the Bible is one where a person confesses faith. Therefore, I follow that pattern.

Yet, there is also a good argument for water baptism as a setting apart into new covenant with God and confirmation of conversion later.

What is a false teaching is that there is regeneration at the moment of baptism which therefore saves an infant. Such a teaching is untenable. Thus, I could not be a member in a Lutheran, Orthodox or Roman Catholic church, but I could be a member in a Presbyterian church, which does not teach baptismal regeneration.

it is not a baptism. Profession of faith must be present before baptism for it to be a legitimate (or actual) baptism.

The unregenterate are not apart of the new covenant. Do you believe that the new covenant is a mixed covenant (that the unregenerate and the regenerate are both in the new covenant)?

And yes baptismal regeneration is very serious error. And indeed Presbyterians do not believe in baptismal regeneration.

 

[Mikey]

.

Are you a paedobaptist masquerading as a Baptist?

 

[AustinC]

The question is, how Scripture should shape our congregational meetings? This question has often been cast as a debate between the Normative Principle and the Regulative Principle. Putting it very simply, the Normative Principle says “You’re allowed to do this thing in church so long as Scripture doesn’t forbid it”, whereas the Regulative Principle says “Only do this thing in church if Scripture gives clear warrant to do so”.

Both are aiming for something good. The Regulatives don’t want Scripture to be silenced. They want to take its authority seriously, and let its voice have an active role in shaping congregational life. They don’t want Scripture to be a dusty set of standing orders that only functions to rule out certain things.

The Normatives want to give greater weight to the freedom God has given us to work out the details. They don’t want the particulars of first-century church life to constrict the outworking of church life in other times and places. They want godly flexibility within clear scriptural boundaries.

The dispute arose at the time of the Reformation, and was classically argued out between Richard Hooker (for the Normatives) and the more radical puritans (Thomas Cartright et al., for the Regulatives). The issue at the time was how far one should go in reforming the accumulated Roman Catholic dross of centuries. Given that some things definitely had to go (the Mass, the mediatorial priests, the supreme authority of the Pope, and so on), how far should the razor be permitted to cut? Putting it simply (and I hope not simplistically), Hooker argued that if something was ancient, and approved of by reasonable men, then unless Scripture forbade it, the practice should remain. Cartwright and others argued that this approach did not give Scripture ‘enough say’, and that practices and forms should only survive the axe if Scripture gave them clear warrant.

There’s no room here to go into the intricacies of the historical argument and the consequences that flowed from it, but I have to say that the terms of the dispute have always struck me as odd in light of 1 Corinthians 12-14, and 14:26 in particular: “What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building.”

According to Paul, as he addresses the somewhat chaotic Corinthians, the central principle that should guide whether something is done or not in church is edification. And so if I was a Normative guy, I would regard 1 Corinthians 14:26 as a ‘No’ to any practice (no matter how well-established and regarded) if it had ceased to be edifying (that is, useful for building people in to the congregation, and building them up as members). And if I was a Regulative sort of person, I would regard the same verse as a clear scriptural ‘Yes’ for any practice that was edifying, whether or not I could find an example of it in the New Testament.

Perhaps we should call it the Constructive Principle: do that which builds; don’t do that which does not build. The question then becomes, “What is it that builds?”

Regulative or normative?

 

[AustinC]

it is not a baptism. Profession of faith must be present before baptism for it to be a legitimate (or actual) baptism.

The unregenterate are not a part of the new covenant. Do you believe that the new covenant is a mixed covenant (that the unregenerate and the regenerate are both in the new covenant)?

Where does the Bible declare this law you have created?

Second, was Paul lying when he said the children would be set apart (sanctified) by the believing parent in 1 Corinthians 7?

Was Israel saved when the young boy was circumcised at 8 days of age or was salvation an issue of faith in the Promised One (read Hebrews 11) who would redeem them? Should a Jewish family wait to circumcise their child until they believed?

Honestly, dispensationalism has muddied this up and brought legalism into the church where it ought not to exist. Covenant exists in the church and our children are kept from the evil one in their youth as we bring them to church with us. It is interesting how Baptists have compromised and have "baby dedications" (where is that found in scripture) that simply don't use water as a symbol of covenant. Why? I think it is because we acknowledge covenant, but we want to avoid the notion of baptismal regeneration ever being entertained. I respect that. I follow that process. I don't, however, begrudge those who baptize infants...as long as baptismal regeneration is not taught.

 

[AustinC]

Are you a paedobaptist masquerading as a Baptist?

Nope
I am a Baptist who recognizes that baptism is an ordinance given to us by God which symbolizes the covenant God has made with his elect.