Saturday, June 13, 2009

IS THE BAPTIST VIEW CLEAR IN SCRIPTURE? part 2

More from me on the Baptist view and whether the credobaptist view is clearly found in Scripture. --Josh Brisby
_____________________________________

First, I want to address brother -----'s request of showing him an infant in Scripture that was baptized. We want our reasoning to be good reasoning, and I have to confess that this was one of the reasons I left the credobaptist view. (I don't mean that in any derogatory way.) I could respond to this request by demonstrating its fallaciousness in several ways:

(1) Brother -----, please show me just one example of a female President of the United States. I don't see any. Therefore, only males should be President of the United States.

(2) Brother -----, please show me just one example of a woman partaking of the Lord's Supper. Most seem to agree, after all, that they did not partake of the Levitical Passover (especially the unclean ones on their period).

(3) Brother -----, please show me one example in Scripture of a child professing faith first, and then being baptized. After all, Baptists believe that children can be baptized if they profess faith. So can you show me just one example of a child professing faith and then being baptized in Scripture? This would be the perfect way to demonstrate your view.

(4) What if I were to define "sleeping" by pointing to an example of a horse sleeping? I would surely conclude that the definition of sleeping included the posture of standing up.

I could give more to demonstrate why this kind of reasoning is not sound. It is quite clear to me that the credo view commits the "descriptive equals prescriptive fallacy": namely, taking examples of baptisms (description) and saying that this must be the command of *how* and *who* (prescription). You cannot take an example of something and make it the command or prescription for the definition of something. Otherwise, we would be forced to conclude that sleeping includes standing up from our sleeping horse example.

Both sides use inference. I *do* believe I can point to examples of infants being baptized. The problem is, brother ----- won't accept those examples because they are not clear to him. It is likewise not clear to me that *only* believers should be baptized, even on -----'s own grounds.

Both sides use inference. The question is, which side uses "good and necessary" inference, to quote the WCF? It is clear to me that the Baptist side does not.

Blessings in our Savior!


5 comments:

Scott F Oakland said...

Hi Josh - I'm listening now to your old refutation of infant baptism on TNM. I am studying this now as well and am trying to retain an open mind. I'm Reformed Baptist but my eyes are being opened to the concept of infant baptism. But....this is not to be rushed, I am still studying. The difficulty I am having is on the unsaved being purposely placed in the church. I am also reading books on the topic, listening to MP3s and debates etc. This I must say is the most difficult topic I have ever studied. And I'm a Pastor!

Josh Brisby said...

You're right it is very difficult. As you can tell, I have changed on the issue publicly. I've thought of perhaps doing a refutation of my show with Gene, but there is already so much literature on both sides.

I am considering doing a several-part series on my blog called "A Friendly Critique of the Reformed Baptist View". I may or may not do it, but am considering it.

It took me nine years of study and debate to come to the paedo position.

I wish you a blessed journey in your studies!

Anonymous said...

With reference to argument number 2on women and the Lord's supper,
"concerning the admission of women to the Lord's Table, Paul clearly addresses both men and women in the first part of 1 Corinthians 11. When he goes on to discuss the responsibility to take the Lord's Supper properly he is still writing both to men and women." Fred Malone

Anonymous said...

Baptism is also an 'appeal to God' by the one baptized (1 Pet 3:21). Infants do not seem capable of such an appeal. Baptism symbolizes the blessings of the gospel. Baptism also symbolizes a God-wrought saving response to the gospel. Among other things, baptism is a sign "of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life," as a Reformed confession says. Though part of the meaning of baptism is that it’s a sign of the baptized person’s “giving up unto God through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life,” man can not boast because faith and repentance are God’s gracious gift to His chosen ones.

Pastor Matt Singleton said...

Sorry i think you are blinded by poor theology. You rely on the reasoning of church fathers who were influence by the pagan philosophy of plato instead of relying on pure rational exegesis. john the baptist is not a discriptive aregument. It is a prophet giving a demand.
mark 1:3 "The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins"
Baptism is not just a meaning symbol. And yes, it is meaningless when it means nothing to the person recieving it.
mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."
When Thomas proclaimed "my Lord and My God" he did so implying that they are not separate!

What you are stumbling on is the understanding of what a church is and what the great comission is.

Is Jesus sinless? If christ body, is not redeemed it is not sinless. Therefore the local paedo baptist church is a false witness. because it welcomes unbelief and is not set apart.

I know my tone is harsh and my arguments have a harsher conclusion. But we do not have much time on this earth So you need to repent now and so that you may make the most of the remainder of your days and fulfill the great comission. So while my words are tough remember this is tough love.