On The Westminster Confession of Faith Regarding Baptism

We addressed the baptism debate, raging yet once again due to Jared Longshore’s departure from Founders due to his embracing of paedobaptism. Hopefully balanced and useful observations of the key issues in the debate, at least as the debate rages between Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists. I think that debate is very, very different than the debate with, for example, Lutherans on the same topic.

[SNB]

Here’s the thing: while it's true that we don’t find explicit references to infants being baptized in Scripture, what Baptists often overlook is that there are no explicit references to them being excluded either. Given the Old Testament context of circumcision, it’s more likely that infants were included in baptism rather than excluded. That’s why the New Testament references to entire households being baptized are relevant to this discussion.

Another point to consider is the context in which the book of Acts was written. The Apostles were evangelizing in new territories, primarily to first-generation converts. Naturally, these people were called to repent, believe, and then be baptized. However, we don’t see references in Scripture to second-generation Christians. The logical conclusion is that the situation would have been different for their children, and history suggests that it was.

[MariusVanWoerden]

the Disciples baptized people coming from the gentiles and Jewish adults. So they said to the Philippian jailor, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” The Philippian jailor was saved but his household was also baptized.

[bassistguy]

I feel like this is the first time I’ve heard Dr. James White not articulate his opponents’ take well, or fully. I would point people who are interested in hearing a hearty discussion on this between Dr. White and Pastor Bill Shishko, debating on Long Island, NY.

[joev]

For the credo-baptists, how do you feel about baby dedications?

[Pizarro]

Really want to see you and Doug debate on baptism

[MTNMT]

How do we know who the elect truly are?

“Those who persevere to the end will be saved”

The same goes for both infants and adults.

We don’t truly know until the end

[jimstiles]

How old was Polycarp when he was martyred? Was he in his nineties or his eighties?

[OGRamrod]

As persuasive as much of the Biblical scholarship is regarding the Credobaptist position, it absolutely falls apart when you leave the lecture hall and go into the real world.

Ultimately, historically and Doctor White has said this himself: the Credobaptist position is about a wholly elect, regenerate visible church. That was what the early Anabaptists - which, he can equivocate all he wants, their entire Baptismal Theology historically starts with these people - all believed and were trying to effect. The issue with that is that quite obviously Baptism isn't magic; it doesn't effect or indicate this at all.

If he insists on saying it does, I would love to know how Brittney Spears & Bill Clinton are part of the Regenerate Elect.

[pakerossi]

When I first joined my church, PCA in DFW. I had this discussion with the associate pastor. He told me about the correlation between circumcision and baptism. In that moment it hit me that he was right, when you were born into the ethnic people of God you were marked with circumcision. Now, when we are born again, we are marked with baptism. And then I said to him “but infants aren’t born again.”which he quickly replied “well, OK, OK it’s not a perfect one to one correlation.” Though I thoroughly disagree with them, I have been a member of that church since 2021. They are faithful to the gospel, and to the exposition of the word of God.

[BurkMacklynFBI]

This was very helpful for me. Was being lead into covenantal baptism but am having doubts.

[mary-janechambers]

I love the wisdom of Doug Wilson but I can’t understand how he can believe in infant baptism because of the covenant. It robs the child of declaring his own faith and repentance through his own decision to be baptized.

[alphablitz]

So James's thinking here is that in the household baptism, the men being baptized more likely than not would have withheld their little children?

[signposts]

The debate about “infant baptism” vs “believer's (read: adult) baptism” is in respects misleading. Unfortunately, this lingua franca by its very nature actually misses the mark because it clouds the issue and hems people into an unnecessary impasse. The dispute makes it about age, when the issue is really about agreement with God's truth by the baptismal candidate no matter their age. James White says "nowhere in the New Testament do we see evidence of the ordinances solemnly engaging us to service in Christ apart from faith and repentance." Well that's quite right.
But here's the thing, children of Christians are born into a faith and worldview by which they will be raised and strategically taught the things of God from infancy. The kids bear no opposition to the faith of their parents, and ordinarily grow into it as their own because it is their own for as long as they live and don't come to abandon it. As such for all intents and purposes, they will be raised Christian, and should be considered Christian seeing as “You have been taught the holy Scriptures from childhood, and they have given you the wisdom to receive the salvation that comes by trusting in Christ Jesus.”.(2 Timothy 3:15).

The specter of abandoning the faith later on as grownups may be brought up but is rather irrelevant to those formative years, and really speaks to another matter entirely. The only thing adult apostasy of someone who grew up “Christian” shows is “These people left our churches, but they never really belonged with us; otherwise they would have stayed with us. When they left, it proved that they did not belong with us.” (1 John 2:19).

The Bible doesn't need to have a doctrine of "infant baptism" as if children are a separate category of people in the Church of Christ. The Bible nowhere treats children anything like that. And that's a good thing. The children of Christian parents are in principle regarded as holy (1 Corinthians 7:14). They're seen as belonging to God (Ephesians 6:1-4). This is why there are very specific commands specially directed at children as well as instructions to parents about their being brought up in the fear of the Lord (Colossians 3:20-21). This training of kids in righteousness by Christian parents is really tantamount to making disciples of them as per Christ's command in the great commission.

The reality is children in the church are part of the church community. Ergo, baptizing them shouldn't be denied to them on the flimsy pretext that they can't repent or believe when the Bible teaches otherwise. The fact that children are regarded as holy and fitting candidates of discipleship a la Matthew 28:19 by virtue of their being brought up with the discipline and instruction that comes from God says so. The simple truth is that the idea that little children can't repent or believe and therefore shouldn't be baptized has no biblical support whatsoever. In fact the Bible teaches the opposite. Jesus made it clear that "anyone who doesn’t receive the Kingdom of God like a child will never enter it.” (Mark 10:15). In other words "unless you turn from your sins and become like little children, you will never get into the Kingdom of Heaven. So anyone who becomes as humble as this little child is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven. (Matthew 18:3-4). If Jesus presented a little kid as humble before a bunch of grownups, what grounds does anyone have to think no little kids can show humility? Again, Jesus taught that children could as surely fall into sin as they could turn from their sins provided they were taught to. This is the most explicit reference to the idea that kids can repent and believe like grownups do seeing as adults are being encouraged to be like little kids who turn from their sins by Christ Himself. After all, Christ did also say, "And anyone who welcomes a little child like this on my behalf is welcoming me. But if you cause one of these little ones who trusts in me to fall into sin, it would be better for you to have a large millstone tied around your neck and be drowned in the depths of the sea." (Matthew 18:5-6). Catch that? You know, the line "these little ones who TRUSTS in ME?" Try and explain that away with the little kids can't repent and believe spiel. I bid you good luck with that.

Fact is Jesus already opened up the kingdom of Heaven to little kids when He said, “Let the children come to me. Don’t stop them! For the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to those who are like these children.” (Matthew 19:14 NLT). These words make one thing clear: Children can and should be brought to Jesus because the kingdom of heaven also belongs to them. Keep in mind that Jesus is talking about the same kingdom of heaven He told Nicodemus no one could see or enter unless they're born again of water and the spirit (see John 3:3-6). Translation: children can in fact experience being born again according to Jesus. Here He also commands that no one stop children from being brought to Him. And sorry, He just ain't talking about so-called baby dedication here. The kingdom of God belonging to children is a salvation issue and not a mere dedication issue, which in the churches that practice "baby dedication" is about the adults doing it and not really about the children being brought to Jesus. God saving people ain't just a grownup thing y'all.

There's just so much more on the side of baptizing children of Christians no matter their age than the side that exempts little children from participating fully in the commonwealth of believers. Imagine being told you're only a citizen of the country you were born only after you grow up even though you've lived there since birth. What country ever treats its infants and children as non-citizens? Our heavenly citizenship is no different. The errors of the "libertarian freedom" philosophy are the only reason most Christians end up reading unwarranted notions that exempt little kids who are in practice already part of a given church community from being fully afforded the grace and privileges of baptism as full members of the body of Christ.

[fredrolinners]

The household baptism of Cornelius

Acts 11:14
and he shall speak words to you by which you will be saved, you and all your household. (NASB)

All those of the household who had believed in the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 15:7; cf. 11:17) were water baptized (Acts 10:48). It requires belief to be water baptized

[langer]

The Lord has got to deliver us as much from a Christian system as from an anti-Christian system it is just as big a thing as to deliver us out of the power of darkness
T. Austin sparks

[DordtyHylemorph]

Several Reformed figures (including those among the Church of England) have held forms of Baptismal Regeneration. It’s one of several positions allowed by the Reformed confessions, but not required.

E.g. Cornelius Burgess (Westminster divine), John Davenant (Dordt divine), Samuel Ward (Dordt divine), etc.

"[Baptism is] the first sacrament of the Christian church, by which upon the covenanted, having been received into the family of God by the external sprinkling of water in the name of the Trinity, remission of sins and regeneration by the blood of Christ and the Holy Spirit are bestowed and sealed, ” as we gather from the passages Mt. 28:19; Rom. 6:3, 4; Tit. 3:5, 6; Acts 2:38."

Francis Turretin, *Institutes of Elenctic Theology*, ed. James T. Dennison Jr., trans. George Musgrave Giger, vol. 3 (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1992–1997), 380.

[hiker-uybi]

Does James White believe only the regenerate are entitled to baptism? His position is hard to follow.

[tomtemple]

all those in the church receive baptism
only the ones who can discern the body can partake in communion

[keithal]

The PCA Book of Church Order in chapter 56 and 57 covers baptism and the administration of those 'sealed' by the covenant.
Soon after my regeneration in 1994 at 40 years old, I joined a PCA local body in Dallas Texas. I learned a lot from that experience. Enough to know I had to leave it for Gospel reasons.
I left some years later upon realizing their fundamental, critically errant theology of infant baptism. I was raised Episcopalian and baptized as an infant and was believer baptized at 48 years old soon after leaving the PCA.
The language of the PCA BoCO is a best confusing and least establishes a third category of man ... going to be saved versus saved or unsaved.
This is arguably another gospel, one of works that purports some Efficacy. It empties the biblical meaning of Covenant of Grace and the Seal of the Covenant.
Regardless of the 'winsome' words of Doug Wilson and the Federal Visionists, infant baptism casts great discord concerning biblical soteriology and worse. Affiliation in any respect with the Federal Vision crowd is a wrong-headed affection for their intellectualism which conflicts directly with biblical exegesis.

[mimz]

Surely the elect are the ones who have RECEIVED baptism in the Holy Spirit, nothing to do with our own doing?