As I began studying Reformed Theology almost seven years ago, one thing that flew under the radar was the area of baptism. I am not sure why that happened but it did. I assumed that every believer in the protestant church believed in credo baptism a.k.a. credo baptism. For the past few months, I now know some protestant denominations including those in the reformed communities believe in paedo baptism a.k.a. infant baptism. Some of my favorite theologians such as R.C. Sproul, John Calvin, and Sinclair Ferguson all embrace paedo baptism while others such as John Piper, Albert Mohler, and John MacArthur embrace credo baptism.
So who is right and who is wrong? While I hold the credo baptism, because I see more Biblical evidence supporting credo, I am not saying that credo Baptists are right and paedo Baptists are wrong and vice versa. I am going to share two posts from both sides. One giving a Biblical defense of paedo baptism and the other giving a defense of credo baptism. The purpose of this post is not to say who is right and who is wrong. The purpose of this post to help those who do not understand the difference between the two and why certain church leaders hold their beliefs in whatever baptism position they have taken.
The first Kevin DeYoung who wrote a defense of paedo baptism:
It sounds like the beginning of a joke or a support group introduction, but it’s true: some of my best friends are Baptists. I speak at conferences with and to Baptists. I read books by Baptists (both the dead and the living). I love the Baptist brothers I know–near and far–who preach God’s word and minister faithfully in Christ’s church. I went to a Baptist church while in college and know that there are many folks of more credobaptist persuasion in my own church. I imagine the majority of my blog readers are Baptist. You get the picture. I have thousands of reasons to be thankful for my brothers and sisters in Christ who do not believe in baptizing infants.
And yet, I do. Gladly. Wholeheartedly. Because of what I see in Scripture.
One of the best things I get to do as a pastor is to administer the sacrament of infant baptism to the covenant children in my congregation. Before each baptism, I take a few minutes to explain why we practice infant baptism in our church. My explanation always includes some–but rarely is there time for all–of the following:
It our great privilege this morning to administer that sacrament of baptism to one of our little infants. We do not believe that there is anything magical about the water we apply to the child. The water does not wash away original sin or save the child. We do not presume that this child is regenerate (though he may be), nor do we believe that every child who gets baptized will automatically go to heaven. We baptize infants not out of superstition or tradition or because we like cute babies. We baptize infants because they are covenant children and should receive the sign of the covenant.
Read the entire post here.
A week after Kevin DeYoung wrote this post, Sam Storms wrote a defense of credo baptism:
Last week my good friend Kevin DeYoung posted an article on his blog titled, A Brief Defense of Infant Baptism. I thought it might help everyone to hear a brief defense of believer’s baptism, or what we typically refer to as credo baptism. What follows is not a response to Kevin’s arguments, but simply an outline of the reasons why I remain a credo-baptist.
Why do I believe that only believers should be baptized in water? Why am I a "credo-baptist" rather than a "paedo-baptist" (the term "credo" comes from the Latin which means "I believe," hence baptism for believers only; the term "paedo" comes from the Greek word for infant).
Before I answer that question, it may be helpful to briefly explain why some Christians baptize their infants. The primary reason comes from their understanding of the relationship between Old Testament circumcision and New Testament baptism.
In the Old Testament, male infants were circumcised as the outward sign of entrance into the covenant community of Israel. This did not guarantee their salvation, but marked them out as recipients of the external blessings of a national covenant into which they were introduced by physical birth.
Read the entire post here.
No comments:
Post a Comment