Why Presbyterians baptize believers and their children
August 17, 2007
Our friend and fellow-blogger, Justin Taylor, has helped (here, here, here, here, and here) draw attention to a significant debate (primarily between credo-baptists) on whether paedo-baptists can properly be admitted to membership, and thence the Lord's Table, in a Baptist Church.
For the record, John Piper, Wayne Grudem and Mark Dever (three of the main internet participants in this exchange - Mark weighed in here and the Pipers rejoined here -- HT: Adrian Warnock) are not only dear friends, and treasures of the Church, but they have conducted this debate beautifully. If you want to see how serious theological discussion is done -- I commend them and their dialogue to you.
Furthermore, Justin has given a thumbnail sketch of why paedo-baptists believe that paedo-baptism is biblical. The sketches he offers are fine as far as they go, but a much simpler explanation can be given. I could actually give the explanation in one sentence, but for clarity and elaboration's sake -- allow me three!
1. God, in both the Old and New Testaments, explicitly makes a promise to believers and to their children (Genesis 17:7; Acts 2:39).
2. God, in both the Old and New Testaments, explicitly attaches specific signs (respectively, circumcision [Genesis 17:10] and baptism [Acts 2:38, cf. Colossians 2:11-12], to this promise that he gives to believers and their children.
3. Therefore, since God has given an explicit promise to believers and their children, in the New Testament, and attached a sign to this promise, and enjoined us (in the new covenant) to administer that sign [baptism, Matthew 28:19-20], then we should give the sign of the promise he has made to believers and their children, to believers and their children, in humble obedience to biblical command and example. QED.
For the record, John Piper, Wayne Grudem and Mark Dever (three of the main internet participants in this exchange - Mark weighed in here and the Pipers rejoined here -- HT: Adrian Warnock) are not only dear friends, and treasures of the Church, but they have conducted this debate beautifully. If you want to see how serious theological discussion is done -- I commend them and their dialogue to you.
Furthermore, Justin has given a thumbnail sketch of why paedo-baptists believe that paedo-baptism is biblical. The sketches he offers are fine as far as they go, but a much simpler explanation can be given. I could actually give the explanation in one sentence, but for clarity and elaboration's sake -- allow me three!
1. God, in both the Old and New Testaments, explicitly makes a promise to believers and to their children (Genesis 17:7; Acts 2:39).
2. God, in both the Old and New Testaments, explicitly attaches specific signs (respectively, circumcision [Genesis 17:10] and baptism [Acts 2:38, cf. Colossians 2:11-12], to this promise that he gives to believers and their children.
3. Therefore, since God has given an explicit promise to believers and their children, in the New Testament, and attached a sign to this promise, and enjoined us (in the new covenant) to administer that sign [baptism, Matthew 28:19-20], then we should give the sign of the promise he has made to believers and their children, to believers and their children, in humble obedience to biblical command and example. QED.
