[TruthTalk] Baptists and infant baptism

[Blaine Borrowman]

Blaine:  Here are some findings from my investigation into the matter of infant baptism, the views of the reformers, and the Baptist Church.  This is not conclusive, as it discusses Reformed Baptists--but is revealing nevertheless.  It seems there are some Baptists who practice infant baptism, called paedo-baptists, and it seems the early reformers upheld such a doctrine.  Given in the article are reasonings for not upholding imfant baptism, which accords with doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Also, it states the origins of the Baptist Church go back to Scotland , 1653, apparently after the reign of James I of England (AKA James VI of Scotland ), who ascended the thrones of both England and Scotland in 1603.  I will post anything else I find.   What is a Reformed Baptist Church? As stated earlier, when the church was first formed it met under the name of Inverness Independent Church. The reason for this title was to avoid any offence being given to the existing Baptist church. Over the early months, however it became increasingly clear that this designation in no way stated our true position and purpose. The original Baptists in Scotland could be traced back to 1653, and to a Confession of faith which strongly upheld the doctrines of free and sovereign grace on which our own church was doctrinally based. Even though the vast majority of Scottish baptists had now lapsed into a thorough-going Arminian theology, we, nevertheless, felt that we should be identified with "our fathers in the faith," so to speak. Accordingly, in April, 1971 the designation of the church was changed to the Reformed Baptist Church of Inverness.     Although at one with the reformers concerning the doctrine of salvation, reformed baptists adopt a different position in the issues of the church and the doctrine of baptism. We would hold that on the question of baptism the reformers "left-off reforming", and simply followed on in the footsteps of Rome. The theological approach, of course, was different, but the main point o baptism - viz. WHO is it that should be baptised, remained the same. To the early reformers - Presbyterian or Lutheran - it is the children of believers who are in the main subjects for baptism; to baptists, it is believers only who are to receive the ordinance. The unremitting burden of New Testament revelation makes the latter position clear. In stark simplicity the command is spelled out - "Believe and be baptised;" in simple terms the corresponding reaction is brought before us - "They that believed were baptised." Nowhere do we ever read of anyone other than a professing believer in Jesus Christ ever being baptised. There is not one instance in all the Word of God of an infant being baptised, and there is not one command in all the Word of God to baptise infants. This must surely be a weighty consideration. there IS, of course, an Old Testament command for Hebrews to circumcise their male children, but the theological reasonings necessary to turn this into a command to baptise infants is tortuous in the extreme. .  .  .   As already stated, although one with the reformers in the vital issues of the doctrine of salvation, reformed baptists differ greatly on their doctrine of the church - especially on the question of WHO constitutes the "visible" church of Christ on earth. Paedo-baptists - those who hold to child baptism - believe that it is a "a society made up of all such as in all ages and places in the world do profess the true religion, and their children." (Larger Catechism, A.62.) Baptists believe that the visible church is constituted only of those who make profession of Christ as Lord and Saviour, and who go on to manifest a life consistent with that profession. In accordance with the New Testament pattern, baptism and church attachment are integral. "Then they that gladly received the word (believed) were baptised.. and added to the church." All who believe in Christ are "baptised into Christ," in connection with their eternal union etc. with Him; and all who believe in Christ are part of the whole Church of Christ that will spend eternity with Him. But those eternal and heavenly - and mysterious - relationships have visible, earthly reflections, in our being baptised with water, and added to a valid church of Christ under Christ our Lord. In all the addresses to all the churches in the New Testament scriptures the title, or titles, given to those who constitute those churches are saints, called, those who call on the name of Christ etc. Children of believers are in a very privileged and blessed position in being within the orbit of the preaching of the word, and the prayers of the saints etc., but they may not be looked upon as "members" of the church until there is a good evidence that God has regenerated their souls, and given them a mouth to profess His Son. This view of the church we would hold to be essential to the two purposes of the Church's calling in the world - viz. the worship of God and the work of the gospel. Whereas there will always be those who gather "with" the church who have not, as yet, professed Christ as Lord and Saviour, that is a different matter from the "church gathered" to the honour and glory of the name of her Saviour. And then, if the church is to be God's agent in the work of the gospel, who but those who have felt the grace of that gospel in their lives can engage in that work? Imperfect and all as the reflection must ever be, the church on earth must reflect the essentials of that which will be above and forever; where they all know their Lord as the One who loved them and washed them from their sins in His blood.