Recently I had opportunity to engage in a friendly dialogue with some Baptist academics over the merits of the project proposed in Recovering the Reformed Confession. That project is, as they say, wending through the publication process. Because of space limitations I was unable to do a couple of things, namely, to engage more fully with some of the texts and approaches to Baptist covenant theology (as distinct from Reformed covenant theology). Continue reading →
But if your meaning be, (as I strongly suspect it is) that we must not expect to be owned by Christ, except we give up infants baptism; then, I say, it is the most uncharitable, as well as unwarrantable, and dangerous censure . . . Continue reading →
Some years back I published a book review in the pages of Modern Reformation magazine. Some responded with a letter to the editor complaining that I had distinguished between the Reformed churches and the Baptist churches. My revised response is below. § . . . Continue reading →
One frequently reads that the only real differences between Particular Baptists and the Reformed is over baptism. That claim, however, misses some fundamental differences. Baptists withhold the rite of covenant initiation from the children of believers on the ground that the New . . . Continue reading →
A correspondent to the HB writes to ask, “According to Paul, who are Abraham’s children?” In one way or another, I get this question frequently. Most American evangelicals have been taught some version of Dispensational theology or are otherwise influenced by it . . . Continue reading →
XXVI. What is said by some (“Infants are baptized in the faith of their parents”) does not mean that what is in adults is imputed to infants or answers for infants; both because each one lives by his own faith and because . . . Continue reading →
XXI. Baptism (with respect to true believers) seals saving grace because it is connected with the internal baptism of the Spirit. But with respect to hypocrites, it does not have the accompanying grace of the Spirit, but is only a badge of . . . Continue reading →
XVIII. The cause of infant baptism is not the actual faith of infants, of which they are no more capable than of that instruction by which the disciples of Christ are taught (Mt. 28:19). But it is both the universal command to . . . Continue reading →
XII. There was no need that a particular precept concerning the baptism of infants should be given because it was known to the disciples that infants were circumcised. It therefore sufficed that there was a general command to baptize all nations, under . . . Continue reading →
XI. (7) Because the fathers acknowledged the necessity of infant baptism and approved its propriety by their practice. Justin Martyr mentions it (“Quaestiones et Responsiones ad Orthodoxos,” Q. 56 in Opera quae feruntur omnia [ed. J.C.T. de Otto, 1881], v. 3, Pt. . . . Continue reading →
HB reader Allan writes, The NT apostolic doctrine is that OT circumcision of the flesh is replaced by NT circumcision of the heart. I have not found them saying it is replaced by baptism. Allan, Circumcision was always a sign of what . . . Continue reading →
IX. (5) Because the children of believers are holy; therefore they ought to be baptized. For since they have the thing signified, they cannot and ought not to be deprived of the sign (Acts 10:47). “The unbelieving wife,” says the apostle, “is . . . Continue reading →
VII. (3) By parity, the necessity of baptism is the same as that of circumcision. Now circumcision was to be administered to infants according to the command of God. Therefore also infant baptism. The truth of the major is proved (a) because . . . Continue reading →
VI. To no purpose is the reply: (1) “Hence it would follow that the Lord’s Supper should also be administered to infants because the thing signified belongs to them.” Although the same thing is signified in both, still there is a difference . . . Continue reading →
IV. Nor ought it to be objected that Christ puts instruction before baptism and so speaks of adults, who can be instructed, and not of infants (“teach [μαθητεύσατε],” he says). Although Christ placed teaching before baptism, this must be referred to the . . . Continue reading →
This series has really been about how to interpret Scripture. Christians study the same Bible, but we often read it differently. Sometimes we begin with different assumptions about the nature of things and authority. These different methods and starting points lead to . . . Continue reading →
Although the Church existed from the beginning, it was, before the calling of Abraham, for the most part in a state of dispersion. Too little is recorded of it, prior to that event, to give us definite knowledge of its nature and . . . Continue reading →
With this episode now we dive into the question of baptism itself. So far we have been setting the stage because, from the historic, confessional Reformed point of view, the debate about infant baptism is really a debate about how to understand . . . Continue reading →
We are just about ready to immerse ourselves, as it were, in the question of baptism but we have at least one more thing to discuss before we get to baptism and that is this: what is baptism? In the Reformed tradition, . . . Continue reading →
In this episode we see that the benefits of the New Covenant are the benefits of the covenant of grace. There are some who see a strong discontinuity between the promises made to Abraham and the new covenant promised Jeremiah 31. There . . . Continue reading →