#paedobaptist

Back in February I debated secretly with a supposed Reformed Baptist on Facebook messenger. I say: secretly, because he did not want anyone to know that he was moving from supposedly being a Reformed Baptist to a Presbyterian. (I still have a copy of this debate)

However, he wasn't changing his views on infant baptism. No, not at all. He still believed that was wrong. He was changing his views on Church government and wanted to hold to Presbyterian polity, minus Presbyterian paedobaptism. (He claimed that one could be Presbyterian in polity and reject infant baptism, which just showed that he had no understanding of anything he was embracing)

In our debate, I use Scripture showing him that he is wrong. He mentions one Scripture in particular, 1 Tim. 4:14 to try and prove that Presbyterianism church government is taught therein.

I quote Calvin himself on this Scripture and my opponent ignores Calvin's interpretation on this verse. Instead my opponent keeps appealing to tradition. He appeals to early Church fathers and traditions and will not discuss the Scriptures. I explain to him that Rome uses these same arguments against Presbyterians, yet when Presbyterians debate Baptists they argue just like Rome does.

He did not like the idea that I equated Presbyterianism to Roman Catholicism and every time I posted a Scripture refuting his views, he sent derogatory symbols against that Scripture.

Every argument I made, whether Scriptural or historical, he twisted and attacked me instead. He also attacked the Scriptures I used and took none of them seriously.

I finally told him that I was going to expose his errors and heresies. He quickly sent a friend of mine my last statement. This said friend, is a paedobaptist and they both began to rail on me for supposedly claiming that presbyterianism was a heresy. (I never claimed that, I said errors and heresies)

His heresies was not affirming Scripture alone, but appealing to the same thing Roman Catholics do, i. e. tradition. He ridiculed God's Words when I quoted it, thus showing his disdain for the Word of God.

My so-called Paedobaptist friend who entered the debate stated that no Baptist had ever equated infant baptism with Roman Catholicism or no Baptist had ever said that those holding to infant baptism was holding to a romish superstition. And this guy was supposed to be a learned individual in Christian History. So I began to add posts to my wall using his name. I would say that such and such said, that Baptists have never equated infant baptism with Roman Catholicism or that Presbyteriansims infant baptism was a Road back to Rome. After which I would quote from a historical Baptist who stated that very thing!

I did get onto my so-called paedobaptists friend who had entered the debate, without knowing anything except what my opponent told him, by telling him that it is a shame that he would speak without knowing facts and secondly that he would speak without having even sent me a message stating that he would pray for my wife. He claimed that he didn't know she had cancer, however, twice others have appealed to him in debates against me and both times he sided with them, yet he pays enough attention to what I say against his beloved infant baptism, but not enough attention to what I say about my wife having cancer. Hypocritical to say the least! (The way we became Facebook friends is that I defended him in a group years ago, which he is no longer a part) (However, I unfriended him a few months back because though he feigns knowledge, he evidently is one-sided in his reading)

I laugh every time I hear some paedobaptist try to provide me with a definition of what it means to be 'reformed,' and their definition excludes a lot of their own group. They are always devising litmus tests to try and exclude those who reject 'infant baptism,' when in reality, 'infant baptism' is their true litmus test and as I have said before, if 'infant baptism,' makes one 'reformed,' then Rome is 'reformed.'

Here is a litmus test, that would not only exclude Calvin, but would exclude: R. Scott Clark, Horton, Brakel, John Murray, Charles Hodge, Jean Claude, JI Packer, James Currie, etc.....

Sam Renihan:

When studying historical theology and working on understanding the doctrinal position of a historical figure or group, it is important to consult the opponents of that view. Opponents may misunderstand or misrepresent the view you are studying, but such sources serve as helpful sounding boards for filling in gaps, seeing a view by way of contrast, and confirming that your interpretation of their opponents was sound. John Brinsley, a non-conformist paedobaptist minister, will serve as a helpful reflection of the Particular Baptists’ federal thought.

  In this passage, Brinsley makes the standard argument for the justification of infant baptism, namely that because we are in the same covenant as that of Abraham, children ought to be included now as they always have been. John Brinsley, The doctrine and practice of paedobaptisme, 19-20

      He then describes the covenantal counter-argument of the Particular Baptists (everywhere labeled Anabaptists, though falsely), that the old and new covenants are distinct covenants (implying that the Abrahamic covenant is included within the old covenant) and thus children are not included in the new as they were in the old.

Having pinpointed the heart of the controversy between Baptists and Paedobaptists with regard to covenant theology (namely the relationship between the Abrahamic covenant and the covenant of grace), Isaac Backus points out some of the difficulties and inconsistencies that he sees in a Paedobaptist position, especially the way that the language of “Administrations” does not match Scripture. Where scripture asserts two covenants, many Paedobaptists assert two administrations of one covenant.

From Isaac Backus

Click the images for a larger version.