Pastors Stephen Baker, Corey Hall and Josh Howard discuss the reformed, Westminster view of baptism, in particular paedobaptism, and how it differs from Roman Catholicism and Lutheranism.
I’m not a Presbyterian. I’m reformed Baptist. It’s funny to hear about federal vision thrown in here. Even though I don’t subscribe to the Westminster, the Presbyterian, paedo-baptism or communion. It’s so easy to see right through the Christian version of visceral reactions to doctrines. Even I can tell the FV does make a distinction in visible and invisible church.
I have been so decidedly Baptist for years. It seemed so clear to me, and all of the Presbyterian arguments I heard from friends just fell flat. However, much to my everlasting chagrin, things in the scriptures have just started to click, and I have become Presbyterian, somewhat against my will. I’m keeping my screen name, though. Long live the Spurge-meister! I appreciate this discussion.
1:12:48 I am currently in the position of joining a OPC Presbyterian Church, even though I am a reformed Baptist. There is not much in my area that you could call a faithful church as far as reform covenant doctrine is concerned. I was going to a church where elders would have in Arminian/Calvinistic belief between them, but they are dispensational. This is the only church that I could find that holds to doctrines of grace/covenant theology. I am not gonna let baptism hold me back from joining the church and submitting to the elders. I think there’s a lot here behind his statements that he needs to reevaluate. 2020 revealed a lot behind the churches we go to. I think it’s important we go to a church where we hold the closest theological beliefs. Nothing against Cory. I just think unity right now in the body is the most important thing. If anyone has any thoughts on my wife and I joining a Presbyterian Church I’d love to hear it or any encourage. This was one of the best episode yet as far as helping out the unity of the church. Thank you.
I can certainly appreciate the position you find yourself in brother! I came from membership in a PCA church to joining a Reformed Baptist church because it was the ONLY church in the region that we moved to that taught Reformed doctrines…I concur that 2020 became a ‘winnowing’ of wheat and chaff where faithful, healthy church life is concerned…I now, with tongue planted firmly in cheek, refer to myself as a Baptitarian! Peace of Christ to and yours!
The validity of the mode of baptism by dunking can be challenged for the Credobaptist, because in the Bible everyone was baptized by "living waters" meaning flowing rivers or moving body of water. Therefore dunking in a pool is no different than sprinkling a child. But the early church produced the Didache and laid out a framework for administering the sacrament of baptism which makes provision for all modes of using water. Church history and the influence directly on the 3rd and 4th century church by Paul, Peter, John and his direct disciples. *Edit it was covered 10 mins after I posted this comment 😂 Great conversation. I also have moved from 1689 reformed credobaptist to WCF CREC leaning paedobaptist. There's also a whole discussion to be had about how the church is to operate Presbyterian vs Baptist individualism.
I do think it is a big stretch to assume all natural flowing bodies of water are deep enough to immerse. Likewise, even if there is enough water to theoretically immerse, that it is therefore safe to do so. "Living" water always seems to be about the type of water, not its appropriateness for submerging an adult human sized body. Especially in the Didache where it seems like the concern is baptizing in water that isn't going to make people sick by prioritizing flowing water over stagnant water and colder water over warmer.
1:08:40 That is a good point. I’m a reformed Baptist, but only became reformed about 5 years ago and am Baptist from being raised Baptist but have covenant theology / credo vs paedo Baptist on my list of doctrines to settle. I also find it a tad contradictory to say since there isn’t explicit infant baptism taught in scripture so you don’t accept it, but also hold to “age of accountability” and that children under that age don’t “need regeneration” (iirc). That seems to touch on original sin as well, and even as a Baptist I see no evidence for age of accountability or not needing regeneration before that age.
I’m still investigating this topic and find this discussion quite useful. I just saw a video discussing Baptism from a Lutheran perspective. Can’t say I appreciate their beliefs. 🤨
As a credobaptist, this is the first paedo argument that I have been able to follow all the way through. Currently a member at a local PCA church despite my differing views on baptism. I have a lot to think through. Thank you!!
This sounded very much like a baptist talking with another baptist. Presbyterians have adopted the baptist mindset wholesale and just hang on to the water. This is what the Federal Vision is attempting to rectify.
I'm unclear as to why it was said the Didache teaches immersion. It mentions baptizing in living (that is, flowing) water, but it doesn't say how deep this water is. Not all natural bodies of water are deep enough to immerse. It seems to be pragmatically laying out what sort of water sources should be preferred, flowing water is better than stagnant water, and if you have to go with stagnant water, prefer colder water. If anything, this seems to match the sort of water that is going to be healthier to baptize with to avoid getting anyone sick due do the nasty things that can grow and accumulate in stagnant water. Not questioning the validity of immersion (or sprinkling for that matter), but the only explicit mode mentioned is pouring. This seems similar to reading into very natural descriptions of how you go towards or away from a natural body of water (down to / up from) because of how gravity works and assuming they are descriptive of a mode, immersion.
For what it’s worth the title led me to expect a reformed Baptist position on Baptism. As a reformed Baptist that does not hold to “age of accountability” I’m a bit disappointed in the credo presentation here.
@@lawrencestanley8989 They knew who to apply the covenant sign to, all members of a believers household. They knew this from Gen 17, which Peter reinforces in Acts 2, and household baptism is seen throughout Acts. The apostles never once made baptism about age, so I don't see where Baptists are getting that from.
@@oracleoftroy Wait, what? No one said that baptism has anything to do with age. The church is not based on any ethnic, national distinctives as was the Old Covenant to Israel, but rather on the reality of faith alone, by grace alone in the power of the Holy Spirit. The Church is not a continuation of Israel as a whole; it is a continuation of the true Israel, the remnant-not the children of the flesh, but the children of promise through faith. Therefore, it is not fitting that the children born merely according to the flesh receive the sign of the covenant, baptism, but rather that the sign be given to those who, through faith are recipients of the promise.
@@lawrencestanley8989 This seems to confuse the visible sign / church and the invisible. In the end, even despite saying and intending this, Baptists can't practice it, as they can't know the heart. Only God knows. We baptism based on the visible, the household is in covenant with God. Whether they believe us the work of God. The promises given in baptism don't depend on what man does anyway, they are up to God.
