« Understanding Isaiah (Lesson 1: Introduction) | Main | Understanding Isaiah (Lesson 2: The Wickedness of Israel and Her Resultant Rejection - Chapter 1) »
Credo Baptism: A Retraction
By pitchford | December 6, 2005
It may at first glance appear out of place to preface a retraction with these famous words of Martin Luther, by which he refuses to retract anything; however, I think the quotation is appropriate, because the same concern that constrained him not to retract anything, in spite of weighty pressures upon him to do so, now constrains me to make this retraction, notwithstanding several pressures that to me are weighty indeed. That is to say, I have indeed been convinced by scripture and clear reason of the error of my previous position, and my conscience now compels me to renounce the position to which I have held all my life. It is difficult for me to do so. May God help me.
It is never easy to make a retraction. One is hindered on every side by pressing concerns and anxieties. There is of course the flaring up of that innate human pride which bristles at the thought of admitting one’s error. By God’s grace I feel that this is a very minor consideration for me at this time. There is also the sudden, crushing sensation of guilt brought about by the realization that one has taught as a scriptural truth, to credulous sheep of Christ’s flock, a supposition that may not be scriptural at all. This concern, too, has been for me greatly ameliorated by the further reflections, first, that I have actually done little teaching on this specific subject; second, that the issue itself is not weighty enough to be a legitimate cause for divisiveness or separation within the body of Christ. Credo-baptists and paedo-baptists alike, when passionately striving for the sake of the Name, have in common a gospel that far outweighs any legitimate differences in the accidents of the covenant signs. In other words, this particular issue does not affect the purity of the gospel of Christ, and should not affect the intensity of love and fellowship shared by those who belong to Christ. And third, this Christian interaction, far from being a basis for guilt or gloom, should be an occasion to rejoice that Christ is still using the mutual edification of his body to cause us all to grow up into doctrinal maturity. Whether credo-baptists or paedo-baptists ultimately prove to be in the right, the loving, Christian interaction they have on the issue ought to be mutually sharpening, and mutually intensifying the love and hunger of one another for Christ, the Savior of us all. However, the last obstacle to my posting this retraction, is difficult for me indeed. That is the fear of anger or rejection by family and friends, because of this change. All my family and all those closest to me in the body of Christ are credo-baptists, and have been as long as I can remember. The thought that I may alienate many of them or do irreparable damage to our relationship by this post is very nearly paralyzing to me. But in the final analysis, all that I can say is, “Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason…I am bound by the scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God.” No matter how devastating the consequences, I cannot let any consideration other than scriptural reasoning guide my beliefs. I may be wrong in the change of position that I am about to embrace. If I am, the scriptures alone must convince me of that. Until that time, “Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise, may God help me.”
My basic reason for this change of position is simply the realization that the infant children of believers are indeed members of the church, possessors of the kingdom, partakers of the covenant – and that because of this status, it is appropriate and necessary that they be given the sign of covenant inclusion, which is, in this dispensation of the covenant, baptism. The comments of Christ in all of the synoptic gospels, on the occasion of the disciples turning away infants of believers as they were coming to Christ to be blessed, are very instructive. As perhaps the most thorough of the three accounts, we will observe Luke 18:15-17:
And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.
At the outset, we must note three things: first, it is indeed infants who are incapable of expressing faith who form the subject of this admonition by Christ. Second, it is specifically infants of adults who profess faith in Christ. They believe in him, and are therefore bringing their children to him. Third, it is said of these infants, that the kingdom of heaven is theirs. It is not logically possible to construe the statement made by Jesus as excluding them from ownership of the kingdom – the set of those who own the kingdom of heaven is positively described as containing those who are like these infants; and negatively limited to those who are like these infants: in order to say that they themselves are excluded, one would have to say that they are unlike themselves in the very point about which Christ was saying that, to be like them, is to possess the kingdom. The nature of kingdom-possession throughout the gospels is exceedingly clear: if one has entered, or owns the kingdom, he is Christ’s, the heir of the promises made to Abraham, the subject of a regenerated heart, in short, a member of the covenant community. At the least, this passage necessitates that we acknowledge a set of infant children of believers in Christ who are the heirs of the kingdom and members of the church.
The significance of this admonition of Christ, and that it was given to the disciples in particular, becomes more clear when we consider some other admonitions that Christ gave to them. The first of these admonitions that we must notice is the authority of the keys of the kingdom, given to Peter in particular in Matthew 16:18-19, and broadened to the consensus of church leadership in Matthew 18:17-18. In both of these instances, Christ is speaking specifically of the building/formation of the church. When he says to Peter that he has the keys to bind or loose someone with regard to the formation of the church, he must be speaking of the authority officially and formally to recognize someone as a church member, or to denounce him as a heathen, i.e. a non-church member. As becomes clear in Matthew 18, this authority is not only Peter’s alone, but belongs to the church leadership in general. And further, this authority is not arbitrary, but must be exercised in conjunction with prayer and the discernment of the revealed will of the father (Matthew 18:19,20). The church on earth is the formally-recognized set of those who are heirs of the kingdom, as any basic New Testament survey would show. Therefore, Christ is giving Peter and the church leadership the authority to give formal recognition to those to whom belongs the kingdom of heaven. The church leadership may wrongly give or withhold that recognition (cf. Christ’s statement in Matthew 7:22-23, that many will falsely claim to have done certain things in Christ’s name), but when truly done in Christ’s name and in genuine, prayerful discernment of his will, it is within the church’s authority to bestow that formal recognition.
But how is this actually to be done? In what way did Christ ordain that the disciples recognize the entrance of certain persons into the church, i.e. confirm them as kingdom-heirs? Matthew 28:18-20 makes this clear. Christ commands that his disciples make disciples of the nations, recognizing their entrance into the church by baptizing them into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Throughout the rest of the New Testament as well, the significance of baptism as the formal, outward recognition of status as church members and kingdom-heirs is apparent. These two additional admonitions of Christ, therefore, set his admonition against refusing to recognize infants of believers as kingdom-heirs in a new light. Christ, in effect, has said to his disciples, “I want you formally to recognize certain persons as kingdom-heirs; I want you to do so through baptism; and I forbid you to exclude the infant children of those who believe in me as kingdom-heirs. I want you to recognize them also as possessors of the kingdom.”
These initial considerations alone are compelling; and throughout the New Testament we find teachings that, although not conclusive in themselves, still fit remarkably well into this basic frame of reference. For instance, consider I Corinthians 7:12-14. Paul is here giving instructions concerning marriage, and he brings up the case of a marriage in which only one of the partners comes to Christ. In this case, the believing spouse should not leave the unbeliever. Paul’s reason for this command is enlightening: the presence of just one believing spouse sanctifies the home so that the children are holy. If the spouse were to leave so that the children were in a household governed by an unbelieving parent alone, then they would be unclean. There is a sense, therefore, in which God considers children of believing parents “holy”. This does not necessitate that they are to be considered covenant children and church members (and hence proper subjects of baptism), but it is by far the likeliest and most reasonable explanation.
Peter’s statement of Cornelius, in Acts 10:47, is very convincing as well, when conflated with this prior understanding from the gospels. In the Acts passage, Peter’s basic reasoning is this: “Because these persons possess covenant realities (something which it would be impossible to possess and not be a member of the church), it would be wrong to forbid them the covenant sign of baptism. If Christ said of infant children of believers that they possess covenant realities (the kingdom of heaven), then it would be likewise wrong to forbid them the covenant sign of baptism.
Another convincing line of reasoning may be derived from Paul’s teachings in Galatians 3:13-18. Here Paul reasons that the church in the New Testament (those who believe) are heirs of the Abrahamic blessings, and members in the Abrahamic covenant. The Mosaic covenant (i.e. the law) could never disannul the Abrahamic covenant which was expressly said to be eternal (e.g. Genesis 17:7). The unilateral covenant made with Abraham is still in full effect today, and the church of the New Testament is coterminous with the modern set of members in the Abrahamic covenant. Therefore, if we as the modern expression of the church are members of the Abrahamic covenant, the institution of the Abrahamic covenant has a direct bearing on our practice today. And if we look at the institution and subsequent history of the Abrahamic covenant, we see that from its inception, God dealt in family units. Hence, Abraham’s entire family was formally inaugurated into the covenant community, even members of his family who were not truly regenerate. This is the pattern throughout the rest of the Old Testament, and we see no clear indication of change in the New Testament. In fact, we see certain evidences that the family is still the basic unit of covenant inclusion in the New Testament. For instance Acts 2:38-39, in which Peter commands his audience to be baptized, for “the promise is to you and to your children,” to which he adds, “even to as many as the Lord our God shall call.” True, the offer is extended only to those whom God has called, of which it is to be presumed that the evidence of that calling is the expression of faith, but there is still the indication that the calling is still manifested in family units – the head of household indicates that he has been called when he exercises faith, so his household is baptized into the church. This is not at all conclusive, but given the prior history of covenant inclusion in basically familial units, it is quite reasonable to see this statement of Peter in continuity with the same essential model. All the more so by virtue of the fact that he was proclaiming membership in the very same covenant that had exhibited this model for so many years. The several examples of household baptisms, as well, although again not at all conclusive in themselves, at least lend added plausibility to the idea of familial solidarity in covenant inclusion. The issue is not really whether or not there were actually infants in any of those households that were baptized, but rather the reasons given for the baptism of the households. In at least some of these instances (e.g. the households of Lydia and the Philippian jailer) no indication is given of whether or not the rest of the household also believed. The general tenor of the passages would indicate that this reasoning was assumed: “Because the head of the household believed, the whole household was baptized.” Whether or not the rest of the household also professed faith is not even mentioned, as though it were irrelevant to the fact of the household baptism. Again, not conclusive, but remarkably well adapted to the frame of reference we have already established. It would perhaps be superfluous to mention I Corinthians 7:14 again, but it does still have some bearing on the issue.
Not only does Old Testament history show that for thousands of years God dealt with family units in formal covenant inclusion (a pattern that he has never explicitly changed); but more than that, throughout the history of the Abrahamic covenant, God has explicitly commanded that the infants of believing parents be given the sign of the covenant (e.g. Genesis 17:10). The sign of the Abrahamic covenant before Christ was circumcision. The sign of the Abrahamic covenant after Christ is baptism, as Colossians 2:11-12 makes clear. The nature of the covenant sign has changed, but the command that infants be given the sign of the covenant has certainly nowhere explicitly been repealed. It is tenuous at best to assume that the occasion of changing the nature of the covenant sign demands an explicit renewal of the delineation of the subjects of the covenant sign.
The basic syllogism that I have taken some pains to establish may be summed up thus:
MP: God has commanded that covenant members be given the covenant sign (e.g. Genesis 17:7-10; Acts 10:47; Matthew 28:18-20);
mp: The infant children of believers are covenant members (e.g. Matthew 16:18-19);
mp: Today, baptism is the covenant sign (Colossians 2:11-12);
Con. God has commanded that infant children of believers be baptized.
Scriptures and clear reason are therefore convincing my conscience of the necessity of paedo-baptism. I cannot do other than to embrace it.
Thus far, I have only given a positive case to establish the necessity of paedo-baptism. I will now briefly deal with some of the common arguments put forth in favor of credo-baptism.
The unexceptional command in the New Testament is “Repent and be baptized,” and there are no clear examples of anyone being baptized who had not first repented.
This is a historical reality, but it proves nothing. It is self-evident that the apostles, in spreading the gospel, would address their exhortations to unbelieving adults. It is further evident that all unbelieving adults would only be candidates for baptism upon profession of faith. And, although there are no clear examples of infant baptism, there are indications that the belief of the head of a household was sufficient cause to have the entire household baptized. Whether these particular households had any infants is beside the point. What matters is, whether or not any household today, of which the head believes, has any infant children.
Baptism is explicitly called an act of faith/appeal to God, and indicates an actual incorporation into Christ’s body (e.g. Colossians 2:11-12, I Peter 3:21, Galatians 3:26-27).
This is undeniably true, but it does not necessarily follow that baptism must come after faith/appeal to God/incorporation into the body of Christ. Romans 4:5 says just as clearly that circumcision is a sign and seal of faith, and many passages in the Old Testament, such as Deuteronomy 10:16 and 30:6 clearly indicate that circumcision is a removal of the old nature that is rebellious and does not love God; but that does not necessitate that circumcision be given only after its subject was able to express faith or give evidence of a changed heart. In fact, God commanded infants to be circumcised.
The New Covenant was prophesied as a covenant of internal genuineness, and the New Testament church is consistently viewed as a pure body of believers, unlike the Jewish nation. Just as Jews were incorporated into the external body of God’s people at physical birth, so Christians are incorporated into the internally-genuine body of God’s people at spiritual birth, i.e. the occasion of faith and repentance.
This is by far the most convincing argument for credo-baptism. It is the sole reason I remained a credo-baptist for so long. And yet it loses its force upon the observation of a few basic truths.
The newness of covenant members being internally genuine, prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31-34 and quoted in Hebrews 8:8-13, is a newness in relation to the Mosaic covenant, not the Abrahamic. In fact, Jeremiah explicitly says that the New Covenant would be, “Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt…” The covenant made on that occasion was clearly not the Abrahamic, but the Mosaic. Hence it was the Mosaic that was “made old,” and “ready to vanish away” (Hebrews 8:13). By contrast, the Abrahamic was explicitly said to be eternal (Genesis 17:7).
Of this Abrahamic covenant, it was said as explicitly as it is said of the New covenant that it was pure. Everyone that is included in it was clearly spoken of in terms that deny the possibility of impure membership, e.g. “I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee” (Genesis 17:7). However, in this pure covenant, God explicitly commanded that some who were not genuine be formally included through the covenant sign, for example Ishmael and Esau. Hence it is at least not impossible for the New Covenant to be spoken of as pure, and yet for it to be commanded that the covenant sign be given to some who are potentially not genuine.
Several passages in the New Testament indicate that some who are formally members in the New Covenant are not actually genuine. Examples include the Hebrews warning passages (Hebrews 4:1-11; 6:4-8; 10:26-29; 12:14-17), and, most tellingly, Romans 11:17-24. This passage very clearly states that, just as the Jews were formally incorporated into the covenant, and then were broken off for unbelief, so those of us today who have been incorporated into the same covenant will likewise be broken off if we exhibit unbelief. Hence it is possible for persons to be genuinely incorporated into the New Covenant, and yet not be genuine believers. The purity-of-the-church argument could be formulated in precisely the same manner with regard to the Abrahamic covenant before Sinai: and yet, God commanded the sign of the covenant to be given to infants. Therefore, it is at least not implausible that the sign of the covenant be given today.
I have not come across any reasons, scriptural or logical, to reject my positive arguments for paedo-baptism. However, none of the positive arguments I have come across for credo-baptism are at all conclusive. My conscience leaves me no choice but to accept the validity, and indeed the necessity of paedo-baptism. I hope this reality does not separate me from my beloved Baptist friends and brothers in Christ. And yet, even if it does, “it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. I cannot do otherwise, here I stand, may God help me.”
December 6th, 2005 at 8:52 am
Whoops!! I attached a comment that belongs here to your Isaiah post. Sorry. I’m not use to these blog things. My bad. Can you fix it?
As the technical guru, I took the liberty of deleting the original comment and pasting it here. — Fitzage
How many months do we have to woo you back to the Baptist persuasion before Nicole delivers? Seriously, thanks for your honesty and your willingness to submit to a conscience informed by the Word of God. Don’t expect excommunication from this brother any time soon. As you probably know, Bethlehem Baptist is in the process of amending our constitution so that believer’s Baptism is no longer a test of membership. I do regret that this has been such a major divisive point in church history.
I am, however, concerned about what seems to me to be an unavoidable potential in pedo-baptism of creating confusion for baptized children over matters of faith and assurance. A baptized child should grow up hearing less than “You are a full participant of the saving effects of the atonement” (hopefully) and apparently more than “You are outside of the redeemed community, alien to the people of God.” How does this work? How do we talk about this? Of course, the perceived potential for a doctrine to create confusion is no reason not to embrace it. Final appeal must always be made to the Scriptures, as you have so eloquently affirmed.
I wish I had time to do your new position justice by reading through all the blog correspondence that followed your first article. Hopefully some day when the semester is over. For now, quickly, two exegetical considerations and one theological:
I’m unsure about your interpretation of Luke 18:15-17, a text which appears to be very pivotal for you. First, note that Christ uses paidios and not the original brefos when He states “of such is the Kingdom of heaven.” I don’t believe this switch on the part of the author is unintentional. I do believe that children with the capacity for faith are in view, for he admonishes the audience to “receive the kingdom of God like a little child.” The little children of whom is the Kingdom are the little children who receive the kingdom, consciously and personally.
Concerning Col. 2:11-12, I’ve never understood the supposed continuity between circumcision and baptism appealed to from this text. It seems to me taht what replaces physical circumcision is not another physical symbol, but “a circumcision made without hands” “the circumcision of Christ.” This inner reality is apparently attested to by Baptism, but the act which signifies our death and burial with Christ is clearly carried out “through faith” (v. 12). The act itself is inconsequential but for conscious faith. Even if there is continuity between the old Covenant sign of circumcision and the “New Covenant sign” of baptism, this does not establish the further continuity of applying the sign to infants (or how about limiting it to male infants for exact continuity?).
Further, I am having trouble theologically synthesizing the idea of pedo-baptism with the doctrine of limited (particular) redemption you so excellently and gloriously defended in an earlier post. Particular redemption states that Christ’s death was not potential, but actual in its effects. How are we to understand how a baptized child who grows up and leaves the church, has participated in the blessings effected by the blood of Christ? Were they efficacious for him or not? In your article on the atonement you state: “We have no choice but to recognize that Christ shed his blood to put a heart of faith in all those who would be included in the Covenant.” Christ shed His blood for all those in the new Covenant. The promise of the New Covenant is that they will all know God and they will all have their sins forgiven. Will Christ’s blood accomplish what it set out to do in each Covenant member or not? If not, it appears we need another category in discussions about the extent of the atonement.
You wanted positive arguments for credo-baptism, and I haven’t given them here. I do think the burden of proof is on the pedo-baptist, because his position is based on a series of inferences, and not on one single text where an infant is baptized. On the other hand, credo-baptists have the support of every baptismal incident in Scripture. This is an argument from silence, but for me, shifts the weight of proof onto the shoulders of those who would suggest something different than or additional to the baptism accounts of Scripture.
I love you brother, because of the gospel, for the sake of the One who has welcomed us all to the glory of God. I would like to hear further responses/defenses as you have time. An exchange could do nothing but deepen our understanding of and love for the Church, the Covenants and Christ.
Corbett
December 6th, 2005 at 10:54 pm
I came here from the link at Sharper Iron, and found your statement of retraction very interesting. As a dispensational credo-baptist working on a PhD at Westminster Theological Seminary (a Presbyterian school), I’ve certainly had to wrestle with the same issues and texts that you have, and yet I’ve come to a different conclusion.
Let me say at the outset that your statement here is a model of graciousness in presentation. Furthermore, I have only imagined how difficult it would be for me to announce a move to a radically different position than the one I currently adopt (say, for instance, to covenant paedo-baptism), and how I’d feel alienated from family and all of the pastors and professors that have invested their time in me. It takes a great deal of courage to take a stand where one believes that the Bible demands he must go, regardless of the personal cost. I respect that.
But, obviously, I still disagree with your position. As the poster above me said, I do tend to agree that the burden of proof lies with the PB, as all the examples of baptism in Scripture are of the CB variety.
Again, a disclaimer: I am a dispensationalist, not a covenant theologian. Certainly, a PB position is more compatible with CT than with dispensationalism; that is not debatable. CT, of course, does not demand PB, as there are a number of CB covenant theologians. However, I will refrain from turning this into a dispy vs. CT battle, as that isn’t the point of your thread.
I do disagree with your reading of the Luke 18 passage, and in particular with your understanding of the parents there to be unbelievers. Surely, you will acknowledge that hordes of people who longed for Jesus to touch, heal, or bless them in some way were not actually believers in the truest sense of the term, will you not? It seems to me to be particularly tenuous to hang one’s understanding of this passage (and to allow this passage to be a major crux of your argument) when it is doubtful that all those who came to Jesus came by virtue of saving faith. If you cannot give some reason for saying that it is more likely than not that these folks were actually believers (and I would hold, based on how the crowds thinned when Jesus offered hard sayings, that most were not converted), your argument would result in the baptism of all children, whether of unbelieving parents or not. And I’m sure you would reject this.
Allow me to submit another passage for your consideration. Oddly, this thought occured to me late last week, before I heard of your post. I was thinking of the passage Luke 12:49-53:
49″I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed! 51Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”
And it occured to me that this passage would present some problems to the covenant theologian. You contend that God has, historically, worked his saving covenant through the family unit. Obviously, I would agree with that in the context of OT national Israel. It seems to me, however, that Christ is announcing that there is some sort of change in that administration, in which even the family unit will be divided by the acceptance or rejection of him. I don’t believe that this is somehow conclusive proof, and I’m sure that, from within the CT paradigm, the passage can be harmonized, but, on the surface, it appears that this attacks the idea that the family unit is primary in the transmission of the faith.
Again, I commend you for taking a bold step that you believe that Scripture demands. It is not my goal to try to save you from the “Dark Side,”
as it were, but I do believe that paedo-baptism has yet to have a biblical case made for it.
Michael Riley
International Baptist College
Tempe, AZ
December 7th, 2005 at 3:08 am
In re-reading my post, I need to clarify my paragraph on Luke 18. I am taking issue with your understanding that the parents in that passage are all believers (not unbelievers, as my original post said). Essentially, my contention is that many of the people who followed Jesus earthly ministry, even those who came seeking miracles, were not believers. Much of your argument, however, hinges on your contention that those who offered their children to Christ for a blessing must be believers. I am simply looking for some evidence that this is a valid assumption.
Sorry for any confusion.
Michael Riley
December 7th, 2005 at 6:41 am
Hi Nate-
I was intrigued by your post title so I wandered over from SharperIron. Thank you, as others have already said, for being a model of Christian sincerity and graciousness with your apology / retraction. The quote by Luther at the top absolutely captures the essence of what you felt / said and was, IMHO, a nice touch.
I am interested, however, to know why you are Covenant in your theology, which seems to be the underlying motive for your change to paedo-baptism; I thought that it might be an interesting post for you to write. I know that I would certainly be interested it.
December 7th, 2005 at 7:13 am
Corbett:
In regards to the potential for creating confusion for baptized children in matters of faith and assurance: It seems to me that there is not as much of a danger here as those looking from the outside see. Paedo-baptism helps emphasize to the parent their responsibility to raise their children up in Christ. A godly parent will teach the child that personal belief in Christ is absolutely necessary for their salvation, and that they have been blessed to be a part of a Covenant household. They will also be taught that they will receive a greater punishment if they are broken off then those who were never under the Covenant in the first place.
To touch on your other comments, in brief:
I’m not sure why the shift in word usage (although it could just be a shift because it’s shifting from narrative to a quotation.) However, that doesn’t at all change the fact that the children that were being brought to Jesus at that time, and therefore the ones he was primarily referring to were most definitely infants. There are also two statements here: “of such is the kingdom of God,” and “receive the kingdom of God as a little child.” These seem to me to be saying two different things. The second one is saying you must have faith like a child, but the first is definitely saying that the Kingdom consists, at least in part, of little children, of whom the infants then being brought to him appear to be his primary reference.
Colossians 2:11-12 clearly links baptism to circumcision of the heart, at the very least, and is not that what circumcision of the flesh represented as well (Romans 4:11)? In regards to baptism and faith, I think Pitchford has already dealt with this issue.
In regards to the perceived conflict between particular redemption and paedo-baptism, I don’t believe there is really a conflict. Perhaps a synthesis of these ideas would be helpful, however, but I’m not ready to do that at this point. Suffice it to say that I believe the doctrine of particular atonement still stands, but there are also definitely Covenant connections in addition to truly regenerate people (see the olive tree in Romans 11).
In regards to the burden of proof argument, I would say it goes the other way. While there are many examples of baptism of believers in the New Testament, that doesn’t mean that believers’ only baptism is taught. It is quite likely that these are the primary incidents reported because of the fact that this is primarily what was happening in the New Testament. I believe the burden of proof lies on the credo-only-baptist because it must contend with the entirety of God’s Covenant workings throughout history.
Michael:
I am sorry to hear that you are still a Dispensationalist (I mean this partly tongue-in-cheek. While I believe very strongly that Dispensationalism is incorrect and dangerous, I also believe that it is not a reason for condemnation or separation. See the doctrinal statement on this site for a view that is very similar to mine in this regard).
In regards to Luke 12, you make an interesting point. It is true that the gospel will tear apart families, but the gospel will not cause believing parents to be torn apart from young children. I’m sure you would agree that this verse does not change the fact that godly parents have a responsibility to raise their children in a godly manner. In the same way, this does not change the Covenant link and responsibilities parents have to their children.
I don’t think that it is possible for a Dispensationalist to come to a belief in paedo-baptism. I also think that paeedo-baptism is a much less important issue than CT/Dispensationalism. I would encourage you to read the articles and following discussions on this site in regards to Dispensationalism and Covenant theology.
Jay C:
As I mentioned to Michael, Pitchford has some excellent articles on the subject. I scrounged up the link to the Dispensationalism Category
Matt
December 7th, 2005 at 11:54 am
fitzage,
I’m a bit disappointed with your response. You completed ignored one of my arguments, and you sidestepped the other, giving no good reasons.
Allow me to reiterate my question: what reasons would you offer that would indicate that all of those parents who brought their children to Jesus for a blessing were believers? This is a huge assumption on your part, and as you have made Luke 18 a focal point of your argument, you have some obligation to demonstrate that your reading is the best reading of the text. Again, I will contend that many, and perhaps a majority, of the masses who followed Jesus followed him merely to see and experience the wonders of his public ministry, and turned away from him when he demanded commitment. I do not believe that these people were, therefore, genuine believers. Again, if they are not believers, your reading of the passage would demand that children in general, not just children of believers, are partakers of the kingdom and should therefore be baptized. I think I am right to assume that both you and I find this idea entirely unacceptable. Therefore, it is incumbent upon you to provide something like compelling proof that these parents in Luke 18 are, in fact, believers.
Your response to the Luke 12 passage is baffling. The text specifically speaks of a break in the relationship between a father and son, and a mother and daughter. I am at a loss as to how you, without any argumentation, exempt young children from this verse. I further do not see the nature of the comparison that you suggest between the responsibility of rearing a child in a Christian way and the continuation of a Covenant link. Certainly, we all agree that children must be reared in a manner that will lead them to faith. The whole point of the passage, though, is that the gospel will divide families. Parents will believe, and children won’t. Children will believe, and parents won’t. It is difficult for me, on this basis, to somehow see that the children of the believer in some way are connected to the Covenant of grace, simply by virtue of having been born to Christian parents.
As for my dispensationalism, I believe that you are right that I cannot really give an honest consideration to the argument for PB from my current perspective. However, I do not wish to get into that argument (CT vs. disp.) in this forum, as I believe it would sidetrack the discussion from what you intended (a discussion of PB vs. CB). I am well aware of both the strengths and weaknesses of the CT position, and have chosen my position, not out of tradition or heritage, but as the one that makes the best sense of Scripture and as the one that is most consistent with the nature of the image of God in man and the use of language that is consistent with that image. I have purposefully limited my arguments to those that both dispy and reformed credo-baptists could endorse, rather than attempting a full-scale CT vs. dispensationalism war.
December 7th, 2005 at 7:26 pm
I think you are confusing me with the original author of this post. I have never personally made Luke 18 a focal point of my position on infant baptism. Would you feel better if I said something like “you make a good point about Luke 18. I am not sure how to answer it at this point”?
In regards to Luke 12, I may not have been very clear in my response. While it is true that the gospel will tear families apart because some believe and some don’t, this is hardly the last word on the issue (1 Corinthians 7:14, for example). Just because a Covenant child may grow up and fall away does not make there Covenant membership any less valid.
My point about young children was only the fact that an infant can not yet choose to believe on their own, so their belief or unbelief is not going to tear the family apart. If their parents believe, that won’t tear the family apart because there is no conflict between their belief and the child’s unbelief.
Essentially what I’m saying is that this passage has no real bearing on the subject. Whether or not I’ve clearly expressed my reason for this, I don’t know.
December 7th, 2005 at 7:55 pm
Pitchford,
Are you going to do the honest thing and leave your Baptist church? Or are you going to stay and change both the websites doctrinal statment and your churches doctrinal statement. If you deny credo-baptism, simply put, you are no longer a baptist by confession (and I do believe that baptist is a confessional position).
CAWatson
December 7th, 2005 at 9:31 pm
I would encourage anyone just entering the discussion now, to first go back and at least peruse the previous post and discussion here first. That way, there is no unnecessary repetition of arguments previously discussed.
Thanks
December 7th, 2005 at 10:01 pm
CA Watson,
Your challenge to Nathan to leave his Baptist church must represent a common reaction to his current position.
First, I would challenge you to consider that John Bunyan believed that Baptist churchs should accept paedoBaptists into their fellowship. What would keep them Baptists would be the beliefs of their eldership. In fact, this is what Bethlehem Baptist Church, pastored by John Piper, is proposing to do. The elders feel that the church should allow principled paedoBaptists into membership, but not the eldership. It would be the new members’ responsibility to have a teachable spirit, and the elders’ responsibility to teach the Baptist position. The elders are of the position that Baptism is a much more minor issue to separate over, than other issues which the church does not separate over (whether one believes in Calvinism or not, for instance). Wayne Grudem in his Systematic Theology (pg. 967 in the Zondervan 2000 edition) says, “The position advocated in this book is that baptism is not a ‘major’ doctrine that should be the basis of division among genuine Christians, but it is nonetheless a matter of importance for ordinary church life, and it is appropriate that we give it full consideration.” And later (pgs. 982-983) he spells out his thoughts on how churches could accomodate both paedoBaptists and credoBaptists in their membership. He calls on churches to stop dividing over the issue.
In further support of this position, see Justin Taylor’s presentation of John Bunyan’s position here. Also check out Pastor Mark Dever’s thoughts on the issue (A link is provided here to listen to his address to Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and a link is provided here to read the address). Also, in the 1800’s a large group of Baptists in Britain moved to an open membership policy concerning Baptism. Also, the Landmark controversy led by JR Graves in the 1800’s in America reflect the fact that many Baptist were much more willing to fellowship and have communion with non-Baptists, than many Baptists today would think.
Thus, I personally, and many other of the principle ones discussing this issue on the previous discussion and Corbett on the discussion here, do not want to break fellowship with our dear brother in Christ, Nathan Pitchford. While Corbett and I remain unconvinced of his position, we can certainly respect the Biblical basis for his position, and his careful thinking through and reading and discussing this issue, before he came to his current position.
Thanks,
Bob Hayton
Fundamentally Reformed
December 7th, 2005 at 10:44 pm
All,
fitzage was right, in that I had incorrectly assumed that he was the original author of the post. I apologize to him for accusing him of dodging my argument, when it wasn’t technically directed at him in the first place.
Bob, I do intend to read that earlier discussion at some point. I actually noticed it yesterday, just after I originally posted, and browsed it, but didn’t really have time to carefully read all 85 million words of it
I will attempt to do so this weekend.
December 7th, 2005 at 11:03 pm
OK, Nathan, you have now laid out in print, one of the logical extensions of your reformed theology. I am interested to see how this will all play out in your church ministry.
I disagree with you, bro, but won’t burn you at the stake either. When in the intermountain West, don’t hesitate to pop in at Red Cliff. We have so much fun stuff to discuss.
December 8th, 2005 at 12:08 am
Thank you, everyone, for joining the discussion. I apologize for my delay in commenting — I have been working late hours, and this has really been my first opportunity. In light of the proliferation of viewpoints, arguments, questions, etc., that are being thrown around, I hope that you will not take offense at my decision to subsume under one general comment my responses to all the comments that have been posted to this point. I would like to respond personally and in depth to everyone in particular, but time-constraints are a very real consideration, and hence I must at this time forbear.
I commend all of you who have pointed out the necessary foundational implications of a covenantal framework for this discussion. As has also been suggested, this is not the appropriate forum to discuss that underlying hermeneutic (as important as such a discussion is). I have made several other posts that deal more explicitly with that question. “Critiquing the Dispensational Hermeneutic” treats of the underlying presuppositions and linguistic considerations inherent in arriving at one or the other viewpoint. “Is Dispensationalism Biblical,”on the other hand, is geared towards laymen who have not been exposed to the debate and all the terminological baggage that has accrued, and hence focuses on several straightforward examples of New Testament authors’ treatment of Old Testament passages. “The Centrality of Christ” (lesson 3 of the Living Word hermeneutics series), the recent post “Understanding Isaiah” (lesson 1), and “Apparently Contradictory Prophecies of Eschatological Israel in Isaiah” all arrive at the basic conclusion that any honest biblical theology of the prophets must lead one to several conclusions which are impossible within the framework of Dispensationalism. “Land, Seed, and Blessing in the Abrahamic Covenant” is also along those lines. For either a formulation of my own beliefs or an ongoing dialoge on the issue, I would direct anyone there. Really, I think it is vital that we arrive at some agreement on this foundational level before I have any hope of coming to unity on the baptism question.
As far as Luke 18 goes, let me make a couple of prefatory remarks:
It has been remarked that this passage is pivotal for my belief system. Let me clarify that statement. The passage is pivotal for my first series of arguments. That later series which involves Genesis 17, Galatians 3, Colossians 2, and Romans 4 is virtually untouched by the standing or falling of my interpretation of Luke 18. This second series of arguments is, in my mind, more solid and conclusive, because it embraces a more thorough systematization of biblical beliefs. That is to say, more clear and emphatic biblical motifs come to bear directly on the issue in this assessment. However, it must be entirely unconvincing to one who does not hold in common the underlying covenantal assumption. Which was in fact my reason for dealing first with Luke: I knew I would be speaking, by and large, to Dispensationalists, and so I was burdened to formulate an expression of my beliefs that would not contradict their fundamental manner of looking at scriptures. All that to say, Luke 18 is not truly pivotal for my beliefs, it is only pivotal for my Dispensationally compatible way of expressing those beliefs, which is, confessedly, somewhat less convincing than the covenantally-necessary formulation.
I do not, however, think this is a cop-out, nor do I concede anything on my original understanding of Luke 18. It was suggested, first, that Christ was speaking only of children with the capacity to express personal faith, due to the shift from “brephe” to “paidia,” as the text moved from narrative to dialogue. Point one: the term “paidia” is capable of the inclusion of “brephe,” as well as other more mature children. (Ironically, we’re discussing the case for paedobaptism, not brephobaptism, which indicates at least the possibility of understanding “paidia” as infants.) Hence, if children of multiple ages were coming to Jesus, including infants, it would be the natural term to use. Therefore, when Luke, in the prefatory narrative, calls to our attention that “kai ta brephe” were being brought to Jesus, he is bringing to our attention the fact that those “paidia” of which Jesus spoke do not just potentially include infants, they actually include infants.
Second, it was suggested that some of those parents who brought infants to Jesus may simply have been professing faith, and not genuine believers. We must certainly acknowledge that there were great multitudes of insincere professors in Jesus’ day, but also that Jesus knew what was in the heart of man, that is, he knew who the insincere professors were. Although we cannot look back with historical certainty and say that these parents either were or were not genuine, Christ assuredly could and did. It is logically just as possible that he saw the sincerity of the parents in question and therefore blessed the children, as it is that he saw their insincerity and blessed the children anyway. It is impossible to prove either way, and therefore, if compelling theological evidence can be brought to bear on the answer, this must take precedence to mere insubstantiable speculation. The theological evidence that I was assuming is, again, derived largely from a covenantal framework and so I am questioning more than ever the possibility of seeing a Dispensational Paedo-baptist. But regardless of that issue, the speculation that the parents may not be believers is indeed speculation and can neither be proved nor disproved from the passage itself, if we exclude the supposition that Jesus would not give covenant blessings to children of insincere believers.
This does raise another question: is it fitting to assume that children of professing believers are covenant children and should be given baptism? I think the answer is yes. If the parents later on prove to be insincere, that does not necessarily invalidate their children’s baptism, and we may expect that by God’s grace many children raised in such situations would turn out to be true believers even after their parents have fallen away. This is also speculation, but at least it raises another possibility of understanding Luke 18 without invalidating the basic point I was trying to display. In summation, first, Christ may well have seen that the parents were true believers, and hence made his statment of their children (including “brephe”}; or second, mere profession of faith may have been sufficient to subsume them under the covenant notwithstanding their lack of genuineness, and hence, in spite of their insincerity, their children were appropriately to be called covenant children anyway. Such passages as Romans 11, which indicate the plausibility of some truly covenantal people being false professors lends a certain amount of legitimacy to this potential assessment.
With regards to Luke 12: although Fitzsimmons did not take the pains to lay out all the logical progression for his conclusion, I think he hit at the heart of the issue. Basically, it is logically impossible, given any understanding of humanity, to suppose that this separation involved believing parents and infant children. I think we would both agree that a believing parent should not abandon his infant because it has not yet professed faith. I also find it hard to believe that an infant will abandon its parents because they profess faith in Christ. Give them milk and they will stay quite contentedly. So the division must come between family members who are able to have personal convictions on the issue of Jesus. If a child of a believer grows up to the point of being able to express personal convictions and abandons the faith of his parents, that does not logically imply that his baptism as an infant should not have occured. Think again of Romans 11 and the Hebrews warning passages. It seems feasible for some who were appropriately given the covenant signs to later turn out to be Esaus. I cannot see how this passage proves anything with regard to infant baptism.
Another point that was brought up: in Colossians 2, “what replaces physical circumcision is not another physical symbol, but “a circumcision made without hands” “the circumcision of Christ.””
This is true: in this passage we are said to have been given the true circumcision when we were baptized. That is, we were not given physical circumcision itself, but what circumcision conveyed — the death of the flesh, a new heart that loves God, etc. But are we really to understand that water baptism itself actually produces this spiritual reality? Unless we would embrace the crudest superstition and sacramentalism, we would have to confess that physical, water baptism only symbolizes this inner change. Which is the same thing as saying, water baptism symbolizes the same reality that physical circumcision symbolized, that reality which could be called either “the circumcision of Christ,” or the “baptism of the Spirit,” or even “regeneration”. Physical circumcision signified the giving of a new heart (as I demonstrated from the OT); Water baptism symbolizes the same thing (e.g. Colossians 2); but both are effective only through faith. This is where Romans 4 becomes so compelling. Even though circumcision, the old sign of the covenant, was said to be a seal of faith, it was nevertheless commanded for infants. So even though baptism in Colossians 2 is seen as operative through faith, the legitimacy of paedo-baptism is not thereby ruled out. In fact, what is positively established, that water baptism signifies the same thing that physical circumcision signified, leans strongly toward the establishment of paedo-baptism.
As far as my article on particular redemption goes, I confess I must do some minor reworking on the broadness of the formal covenant, but I do not see how that invalidates my basic assertion, that Christ only propitiated for the sins of the elect. If nothing else, formal covenant inclusion could be added to the list of things Christ purchased for some of the non-elect, together with many other elements of common grace; but formal covenant inclusion does not equate with redemption/atonement.
I guess I’ve been rambling for long enough now. If I have overlooked anyone’s argument, please be merciful. When I get a chance, I’ll read through everything again to see if there are more issues I need to recognize. Oh, by the way, I am not planning on breaking off fellowship with my Baptist Church, nor do I think this is dishonest. Yes, I will change the doctrinal position of this website to accomodate my change, but it is neither in my authority nor in my desire to change the doctrinal statement of the Baptist Church here. If God uses our interaction to bring the consensus of the church to my views, then it would be appropriate for them to change. But if that never happens, they are still Christ’s body in Martin, ND, and God forbid that I should ever be separated from them on account of a theological difference that does not touch the purity of the gospel.
December 8th, 2005 at 12:48 am
I just added the following update to our doctrinal positions on our page “About Us”.
Update: largely through constructive dialogue with Nathan and Matthew Fitzsimmons, Nathan Pitchford has come to embrace the paedo-baptist position. Dave Hayton is still working through the issue. Whatever the outcome, all of us here at Pitchford’s Ramblings hope by the grace of God to continue striving together for the sake of the gospel in the true unity and fellowship of Christ. We firmly believe that different positions on this particular issue should not divide believers as they labor for the advance of the Kingdom.
December 8th, 2005 at 6:08 am
I have to admit, I am dissapointed in you. Although I do not claim to be as smart as you are, and never have, I believe the Scriptures are laid out simply enough for a child to understand. And I believe, as we have all our lives, that the Bible is very clear on this point–and not in the direction you have recently taken. I think this is dangerous ground you are treading, and you are in the position to lead some astray. Please pray and think this and the ramifications of this through thoroughly. You know I love you, but I am disappointed.
December 8th, 2005 at 2:40 pm
Because I feel that in this thread and the previous one that the main discussion points have been covered thoroughly and well, I have silently followed along - for the most part. However, if I may address the seemingly common attitude that has now found its way into this discussion. Cassie, I don’t know you, but I feel you are being very unfair to Pitchford, who has already expressed his deep concern (which I know all too well) that family and friends disapprove of his newly found position. A reasoned disagreement is one thing - a categorical write-off of a brother’s thorough and biblical study and conclusion is another thing all together. Thank you everyone else for sticking to the topic.
But that’s not the main thing that worries me. My issue is with the phrase “I believe the Scriptures are laid out simply enough for a child to understand.” While it is true that becoming a Christian is “easy,” I’d challenge you to present one biblical topic that is simple enough for a child to come away with full understanding of it. I Corinthians 3 makes the distinction between those who are only able to partake of the “milk” of Scripture as “babes” and those who desire the “meat.” Those who loved the milk too much to wean themselves off it are called “carnal” and are the cause of “envying, strife, and divisions”(KJV). In the church today, it seems those people still exist. Yes, we’re all babes at one point, but the Scriptures weren’t given for us to ignore, gloss over, or broad-brush.
Imagine if every one of us had the respect for the Word and dedication to studying it that Pitchford has exhibited here. Some would say this would lead to time-wasting theological discussions that divide men. Paul said just the opposite in I Corinthians 3: it is the spiritual babes among us that cause the division and strife.
When I began thoroughly studying issues like monergistic soteriology, the Covenants, and baptism, I experienced some separation from some friends and family. However, I also discovered a strong new unity with other Christian brothers and sisters that were also honestly studying these topics. These new bonds are much deeper, not because they are the temporal bonds of blood or acquaintance, but because I am now joined in a unity centered around the Word of God. The old bastions of tradition and failed hermeneutics have been replaced by firm confidence in the Bible alone. I no longer approach the Scripture trying to figure out how in the world I’m going to fit a covenant passage into my dispensationalism or how I’m going to prove that wine in the Bible was non-alcoholic. I simply read the Bible and align my beliefs with what I read. Imagine my delight to realize the Spirit is still at work and is leading other believers to the same conclusions!
I do not want to be misunderstood. I’m not saying that a dispensationalist is outside the brotherhood of those who love the Lord and reverance His Word. I am saying, though, that those who are too afraid or stubborn to give the Bible supreme authority and seek to know its every precept (even the hard ones) are at the very least doing themselves a great disservice.
I may as well report that in light of Scriptural conviction, largely brought on through the discussions on this site and personal study, I will be having my 3 children baptized in January. It is overwhelming to me to consider that just as Abraham circumcised Isaac as sign of God’s grace to him, I will be extending the sign of the same covenant to my children. By God’s grace, I hope that they will each become “internally circumcised” as well.
One more thing: I would like to see thoughts from others of you (Pitch?) on what you are or will be doing practically to bring your children up in a Covenant family. Me first: currently my children (ages 4, 2, 1) are all three learning a children’s version of the Shorter Catechism. We are up to question 35. My one-year-old only knows one of them. When we ask her “Is there more than one true God?” she holds up one finger and smiles really big. We are also memorizing Psalm 23 and the Lord’s Prayer, not to mention our nightly “Bible story” which I often use to teach simple theological and practical nuggets (the wedding at Cana was fun). Once we have the Lord’s Prayer down, we will move on to the Apostle’s Creed.
I struggled with how to approach other topics with my children. Another recent discussion at fitzage.com was the alcohol issue. Growing up in a fundamental family and church, there was simply no discussion on such topics. Not wanting my children to grow up (as I did) thinking people are sinful just because they drink beer, but also wanting them to understand the importance of moderation, I finally settled upon the most practical of solutions: my wife and I will set the example, with God’s help. My son has already asked “what’s wine?” and I was able to tell him, “wine is something big people drink - you know, like Coke and coffee” instead of “wine is an icky drink that only people that don’t love Jesus drink” (as I would’ve heard growing up). My children will see me drink a glass of wine occasionally at dinner and will understand that it is something to be respected but not to illogically and unbiblically condemn.
I understand I’ve gone off-topic here, but I think it’d be great to start a thread on this site or a different one for parents to present these kind of practical things they are doing to raise a family that will God-willing not suffer the pains of Romans 11.
December 8th, 2005 at 5:36 pm
Hey Pitchford! Greetings from Israel. I just wanted to let you know that this site has been a great encouragement to me. Cass gave me the web address and suggested I take a look. While I don’t always agree with everything, there is always food for thought and a motivation to dig deeper into the Word. I have a lot to think about and search the Word for. It helps keep me focused in my now entirely secular mileu. I miss the theological discussions and constant challenge of accepted belief that I shared with believers in the States. I am still searching for a home church here, so keep me in your prayers.
December 9th, 2005 at 2:42 am
Fascinating, Pitchford. Given my own sympathies toward covenant theology I must, of necessity, take your arguments more seriously than would a dispensationalist. So are you saying that those who bear the signs of the New Covenant are not necessarily members? These would, to you, be candidates for the warning passages? I suppose I’m still struggling with the notion of inaugurating those who evidence no fruit of the New Covenant into the New Covenant. Doesn’t Jeremiah 31 presuppose a law-inscribed heart for membership? Essentially, were not those who were previously family members of the Old Covenant but were disobedient the fleshy clothing of spiritual realities that are seen more clearly with NT revelation? Why should this “type” not have vanished, or at least refocused, as well? Just a few hasty and not altogether well-thought-out questions as I rush to study Hebrew vocab.
December 9th, 2005 at 2:58 am
Nathan (not Pitchford), As you stated, you don’t know me, therefore you cannot know my intentions or relationship to Nathan Pitchford. As I stated, I do love Nathan and have for all my life and his, certainly much longer than you have known him. Nathan will be able to respond in a much better way than you, seeing as how he does know me. As far as your arguments concerning your beliefs and how you choose to raise your children–Congratulations! I am also a parent, to three, and I can assure you my husband and I also strive to raise ours as we are convicted Biblically. And I must say, I do take offense at your implied statement that I am one who is “too afraid or stubborn to give the Bible supreme authority and seek to know its every precept.” This is a very bold and presumptuos statement from one who does not know the one he is accusing of such a sin. Please be careful in the future of your words and accusations in matters so important.
December 9th, 2005 at 5:21 am
Kuiper,
Read Romans 11. This is by far the strongest passage in regards to the fact that those who are not regenerate can be partakers of the Covenant.
Matt
December 9th, 2005 at 5:35 am
Cassie:
Please accept my apologies for the misunderstanding. I used a quote from your comment to address a common error I’ve seen rear up in almost every one of these discussions: namely, that the Bible is intended to be easy to understand. This is never implied in Scripture; rather, we are instructed to “study” it thoroughly. My thoughts spilled over into subjects somewhat unrelated to your comment, which is the quote you reiterated. I have argued at length with friends and family who ignore the clear teaching of the Scriptures in favor of arguments like “that’s what my youth pastor said” and “if God wanted us to baptize infants He would have said so” - presumably because they can’t, won’t, or shan’t study the Scriptures for themselves. I am not accusing you of this and I am not accusing the fine dispensationalists that have already commented here of this. Yes, Pitchford can defend his views to his own sister, but I assumed that by publically expressing your disapproval that you were purposely opening yourself up to rebuttal. I consider myself an acquaintance of your brother through my brother, so you are right that you know him better. However, I also know that I have had far more discourse over these theological issues with acquaintances like your brother than I have had with my sister (the originator of the “youth pastor” quote). I’m not sure how length of association plays into the concerns I raised about your comment. In my opinion, you should consider yourself blessed to have a brother with such a strong devotion to Scripture. Again, I hope I have not offended you in any way.
December 9th, 2005 at 6:54 am
Hello Everyone,
For anyone who may not know, I am Nathan Pitchford’s wife. And I would like to sincerely thank those who have been so gracious and meek in their comments. The Bible is clear that the world will know we are Christ’s through the love that we have for one another. I also greatly appreciate those who have used scripture for our edification and to explain their positions. Simply being informed on how people feel because of Nathan’s retraction is not very helpful. The Word of God is what must change us and convince us of the truth.
For anyone who thinks Nathan has come to this position to be different, clever, etc., I must inform you that you are greatly mistaken. I have been by Nathan’s side the whole way and would like to clarify any confusion people might have concerning his motives. This particular issue became so important especially now that our first child is to be born. Nathan’s true desire is to lead our family in the exact way God says he should. And the only way he can do that is to study thoroughly what the Bible says. It is not enough to simply do things the way one has been taught all his life. I am so thankful that my father has always encouraged me and everyone else under him to never take his word for what he taught without looking to see if those things were scriptural. He realizes, as we all should, that we and those who have taught us are capable of error. And if we are found in the wrong, it won’t be sufficient to blame those who taught us. God will hold us personally responsible for knowing and obeying his Word.
Also for any dear ones who feel betrayed, please believe me when I tell you that Nathan agonized for weeks over the possibility of hurting those whom he respects and loves the most in this world. But I am proud of him for loving God more. And to know that he loves God even more than he loves me causes me to love and trust him even more.
Nathan believes that he is right on this issue, but he is very aware of the fact that he could be wrong. Therefore, he welcomes any biblically based help on this issue.
It was not easy for Nathan to come to this conclusion. And if anyone thinks he is trying to prove himself to be more intelligent than others, please remember that he came to this conclusion because certain brothers in Christ were loving enough to bring scripture to his attention and point out some fallacies in his reasoning.
I also know that he didn’t just jump into Paedo-baptism for the fun of it. When he started to lean this way, he sought our pastor’s counsel and read anything he could get his hands on in relation to Credo-baptism to see if there was something he was missing.
I am sad to see that this article has received so much attention while other such as “Knowing Our God” (1 and 2), “Images of the Savior,” “Treasuring the Trinity,” “The Riches of Romans,” “Understanding Isaiah,” “The Living Word,” etc. which really show Nathan’s passion for Christ and the Scripture have received practically no comments. I would suggest that we all immerse ourselves in those primarily.
Our burden in all of this is not to win anything but to magnify Christ together with our brothers and sisters in the body of Christ.
A nobody laboring to exalt SOMEBODY,
Nicole Pitchford
December 9th, 2005 at 7:23 am
It is an unfortunate reality that the comment dialogue seems largely to have shifted from baptism to me. I have an uncomfortable feeling that people are not going to be edified by reading about me, and I would like to see the conversation shift back to the scriptures, particularly as they have to do with baptism. I am certainly not upbraiding anyone for what has been written, or trying to make rules for what constitutes appropriate discussion. I appreciate all of the feedback, and I am doing my best to take it to heart; but in the final analysis, the scriptures alone have the authority to cause me to change my views.
Thanks for all the loving support as well as the loving criticism. Both have their place in our task of growing up together into doctrinal maturity. I hope that God’s grace will enable all of us to display the unity befitting Christians who love the same Savior and strive for the same gospel, even in a discussion marked by differences.
Cassie: I’m sorry you are disappointed and I hope you can believe that I am doing my insignificant best to be honest with scriptures.
Nathan: I am also planning on using a catechism with my children, perhaps the Westminster Shorter; however I am thinking of replacing or supplementing the section on the ten commandments with some of the wording from a brief article by John Frame on seeing Christ in the decalogue. I have a link to it from the homepage if you want to check it out. I am also thinking about going chapter by chapter (several times, each time in a manner adapted to their level of maturation) through A History of the Work of Redemption by Jonathan Edwards. This is a beautifully Christocentric biblical theology, arranged in a remarkably simple and useful style. Other than those things I have not come up with any definite plans. I am certainly in desperate need of God’s grace and wisdom as I prepare to embark on this massive undertaking. Oh, I am also planning on looking into Bethlehem’s Children Desiring God sources. I trust those will be very valuable.
Fawna: Good to hear from you. It’s been a while: I must confess my utter ignorance of your current state of affairs. You should shoot me an update at somentecristo@yahoo.com sometime.
Kuiper: I asked Fitzy precisely that same question when I was still desperately clutching to credo-baptism and he was kind enough to give a very helpful response. You should check out the comments thread from my first article on baptism. The comment is buried in there somewhere. It basically just brings up the Hebrews warning passages as well as (most convincingly) the Romans 11 olive tree analogy.
December 10th, 2005 at 2:38 am
In the spirit of the last few posts, I want to retract a statement I made in my first post about your forthcoming child. This is really little to joke around about. I have no doubt that your desire is to raise him or her in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and I bless you in that and pray with your for the final outcome of his or her faith. It is easy to forget when chatting with an old, hard-skinned college buddy, that there are now wives and broader families and ministries involved.
I also regret having brought up the paidia/brefos distinction in Luke 18. It’s time for me to read Carson’s Exegetical Fallacies again, I know. However, I’m still trying to get my mind around the argument. You’re right, there is sufficient semantic overlap such that paidia could refer to infants. The issue is, does the context at hand shed any light on the age and consciousness level of these children? Indeed, for Christ says they “receive the kingdom of God”. I have know doubt that infants as well as older children were being brought to Christ for his blessing. What is significant is that when Christ makes His statement about the Kingdom, he must be referring to those older children who have the consciousness necessary to receive it. He implores us to be like them in receiving the Kingdom. This is obviously a call for childlike faith, it cannot be a call for the passiveness unconsciousness of an infant or it is no call at all. So infants are present in the narrative, yes, but nowhere is it said that they are included in Christ statement about who inherits the Kingdom.
Tell me what you think about this text: “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27). We have a set of people who have been baptized into Christ. And everyone in that set (“as many of you as…”) are described as having also put on Christ. Unless we are prepared to say that infants of believers prior to faith have “put on Christ”, we must conclude that they cannot rightly be baptized into Christ. Interestingly, a few verses later Paul says, “if you are Christ’s then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” (3:29). No longer does membership in the covenant have to do with physical lineage, but rather being “in Christ”, or being “sons of God through faith” (v. 26). The distinction between the physical/genealogical nature of the Abrahamic Covenant and the Spiritual/Christological nature of the New Covenant is beautifully explicit in Galatians, and I’m not sure how it mixes with and is supported by the inclusion of infants of believers in the new covenant community. Help me with this.
I am also curious about how you take 1 Pet. 3:21, wherein baptism is described as “an appeal to God for a good conscience.” The question must be asked whether this appeal might be done on behalf of another, namely one’s infant. This would have to be established. If you have blogged about these passages anywhere else, just disregard and point me in the right direction.
By the way, if anyone is interested, Bethlehem retracted the amendment that would have lifted the believer’s baptism requirement for membership because of lack of support. Perhaps this issue, for better or for worse, will continue to be a dividing one among protestants from now until kingdom come (excuse the leftover dispensational colloquialism).
Grace and Peace,
Ryan
December 10th, 2005 at 3:13 am
Just to clarify, the reason for my last comment was not to defend my husband because I felt he was being mistreated. There is no need for that. He is in God’s hands. But I know that his motives have become an issue to some people (a few have commented here and others have not). Therefore, I was hoping to get that issue out of the way in order to get back to the real issue at hand — what the Bible has to say about baptism — as others are trying to do also.
December 11th, 2005 at 10:05 am
Corbett:
In Luke 18, Christ classifies the group of children whom he had just commanded his disciples to allow to approach him as kingdom-possessors. It was this group specifically in which Luke had included “kai ta brefe”: at a point when this term is the only possible antecedent, Christ then calls “them” [read: ta brefe], and says to his disciples “Allow ‘them’ [read: ta brefe] to come unto me, for ‘of such’ [read: of the brefe and others like them] is the kingdom of heaven.” After that, Christ makes a statement about receiving the kingdom as “paidia” which one could grammatically understand either as having or as not having immediate reference to the set including “brefe” that he had just categorized as possessing the kingdom: but in no analysis can his first statement exclude them. As far as a logical synopsis, it is at least plausible that Christ is referring to the credulous manner in which these covenant “brefe” will accept the things which they have been taught from infancy, never questioning the basic Christian principles of their parents as they mature. If you prefer another logical explanation (e.g. Christ uses the occasion to jump to an analogically-related but not precisely identical teaching about believing kingdom truths as young-but-capable-of-believing “paidia”), that is fine. But I don’t see how you can exclude “brefe” from the first statement of Christ about kingdom ownership.
As far as Galatians 3:26-27, you have made an excellent point. My question is, “Could the baptism in this context be water baptism, or must it not be the reality which water-baptism only signifies?” It seems to me that if you say it is only water baptism, and not the reality to which that rite points, then you must say that every person who has ever undergone the physical rite has in actuality put on Christ and become God’s son — a conclusion which I think we would both find impossible on other theological grounds. This passage must be speaking of the true baptism, not water baptism. In which case, the force of the argument dissolves. Now it just becomes a question of whether or not it is legitimate to give the sign of true baptism to covenant children who have not yet displayed the evidence of true baptism. The fact that “true” circumcision was explicitly said to be a removal of heart-stubborness in Deuteronomy 10:16 (among other things elsewhere), not to mention the fact that it is called a seal of faith in Romans 4, and yet it was given to covenant children incapable of displaying the true reality to which circumcision pointed, leads us to the certain recognition that it is not covenantally inappropriate for water baptism to signify the true baptism into Christ and yet be given to covenant children.
The argumentation from I Peter 3:21 loses its forcefulness as well when we compare Romans 4. It is possible for a covenant sign to be a “seal of faith,” or else an “appeal to God,” and yet be given to covenant children. For a practical consideration, remember how diligent Martin Luther was, when feeling cast off by God, to remember, “I have been baptized, I have been incorporated into Christ, I am Your child.”
Thanks for your sensitivity and Christlike spirit of love and meekness in your joke-retraction (as well as in the profitable ongoing dialogue).
Bob:
Thanks for your much-needed exhortations to unity in the gospel of Christ. I agree wholeheartedly with the segment of Grudem’s Systematic Theology to which you referred.
December 12th, 2005 at 9:05 am
Clarification on Luke 18:
In my last comment, I skipped over Christ’s use of “paidia” in his first statement, but that shouldn’t change the substance of what I was saying, because the “paidia” had clear reference to the “brefe” that he had just called to himself.
Just thought I’d mention that so nobody gets confused.
December 12th, 2005 at 2:09 pm
Nathan Pitchford (and all),
I posted another reply at my blog here. (I posted it there instead of here, because I could format it easier, hope you do not mind).
Please reply.
Thanks!
December 13th, 2005 at 9:12 am
I’m feeling guilty for not reading your previous blog material, and end-of-the-semester projects are weiging heavy, so I’m going to sign out and wait to see you at the end of the month in Martin, God-willing.
Except to say, if you take Gal. 3 as a reference to the inner reality that baptism testifies to, I really do think you strengthen the case of the credo-baptist rather than weaken it. You have conceded that the outward sign of baptism is meant to signify true inner regeneration. As for Deut. 10:6 and Rom. 4, you are right when you say these are references to “true circumcision”, in other words the circumcision which parallels and gives witness to the circumcision of the heart. Any other circumcision was simply a means of setting apart ethnic Israel (and the slaves and sojourers connected with them) from the other nations, and this is no longer a necessity, because the people of God are set apart by the indwelling Spirit in the New Covenant (Romans 2:29). God warned Israel that the external sign apart from faith would not be an everlasting reality. Jeremiah 9:25: “Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will punish all those who are circumcised merely in the flesh…”
Well, that’s all, and I really will stop bothering you with under-developed arguments. Enjoy your Christmas, and may the manifold glories of Christ be freshly captivating this season.
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:48 am
“Don’t Drown Dave in the Danube!”–A Plea for Realism in the Debate on Baptism
Introduction
Pardon my penchant for alliteration–I, too, was raised an independent Baptist Fundamentalist. In the remarks that follow, I hope to a) explain briefly my present position and b) argue adamantly for the peaceful co-existence of paedo- & credo- baptism within the same church-structure.
In 1527, with a sort of sadistic irony, the Council of Zurich declared “He who dips, shall be dipped.” Beginning with Felix Manz, scores of “Anabaptists” were drowned in the Danube, the Limmat, and other nearby bodies of water. Drownings were accompanied by occasional beheadings, and even a number of burnings at the stake. To put it mildly, baptism was a big deal in the Reformation/post-Reformation era–even among those who would otherwise agree on the central doctrines of the Reformation.
Therefore, I regard it no light matter that this discussion has gone on as [comparatively] “smoothly” as it has. I want to publicly give many thanks to Nathan for his diligent and honest work on the subject, not to mention the charitable and Christ-like spirit in which it was carried out. Thank you also to the Fitzimmons Brothers for your likewise careful, probing, and humble interactions with Nathan. And, I should also put a hearty thanks in to all others who have posted meaningful comments throughout the discussion [Bob, Ryan, Nicole, et. al.]. It is my hope that through such venues like these, we can each & together grow into a deeper knowledge of Christ.
Bvvvvbvbv n
My Present Thoughts on Baptism
In case anyone is wondering, this discussion has done much to cause me to re-align in my own thinking about baptism. If anything, I have come to see that one who thinks his case [for or against] credo-baptism is “airtight”…is, to be blunt, a “bonehead.” Now, I do not intend to offend anyone by that word, but truly it is the word that best fits the description of what I thought of myself upon seriously wrestling through the arguments. That having been said, let me briefly lay out for you where I am at presently on this whole matter of paedo- vs. credo- baptism.
As I’ve mentioned briefly to both Nathan and Bob, I went at this question from three sides: textual evidence, arguments from silence, and practical considerations. I laboured to honestly argue for and against each of the positions as I went through each angle. Here are my results:
Textual Evidence: Paedo-baptism wins the day, but not by leaps and bounds.
Arguments From Silence & Practical Considerations: Credo-baptism wins the day, but not by far.
So, where does that leave me? It’s not as easy as saying, “Look, the textual evidence supports paedo-baptism, so you better go for paedo-baptism!” At the end of the day, we must, I repeat, WE MUST admit the enormous amount of Biblical silence upon the question at hand. And therefore, since such is the case, arguments from silence and practical considerations, I think, should be afforded much more weight than they are normally [and rightly] not given.
So, again, where does this leave me? In somewhat of a quandary, actually. I mean, I see and gladly affirm the connection and continuity between the Abrahamic and the New Covenant. Romans 11 & Romans 4 are very powerful arguments. However, we are forced to admit that something has changed in the administration of things, aren’t we? As has been pointed out already, it is no longer infant males alone who are afforded the sign. So…who says whether the change is from only infant males [including slaves, etc.] to infant males & females [and slaves, s