Now what I have already mentioned can be said about my fellow Reformed or Covenantal (for those that are uncomfortable having Reformed and Baptist side by side. A position I certainly understand and respect) Baptists. The point I am trying to make is that we Reformed Baptists are indebted to our Paedobaptist brothers, of the Reformation tradition, since all of the magisterial Reformers were indeed infant baptizers. I cannot bite the hand that feeds me. I'm well aware that it is ultimately the Holy Spirit but my point is that He has used them to help me understand Scripture!
Thus when the bible tells me: "Incline your ear, and hear the words of the wise, and apply your heart to my knowledge..."(Pr 22:17). I take this to include my Paedobaptist brothers and I will most definitely pick up a book from Luther, Calvin, Ursinus, Witsius, Turretin, Owen, Ryle, Warfield, Vos, Machen, Kline, Hodge, Berkhof, Boettner, O. Palmer Robertson, Sproul, Horton, R. Scott Clark, Ferguson, Boice, Lig Duncan, Fesko, Waters (these are some theological heavyweights, folks) e.t.c. I will most gladly sit, as a student, at their feet. They have and will continue to teach me, as I am their pupil.
Do they have their errors? They most certainly do. Ironically enough, the problem I have with mainstream Baptists comes from former Anglican and Presbyterians! Dispensationalism came from an Anglican by the name of John Nelson Darby and it was popularized by C.I. Schofield whom was mentored by James Brookes a Presbyterian minister and Dispensational proponent. Lewis Sperry Chafer the founder of Dallas Theological Seminary was also a Presbyterian minister and a staunch advocate of Dispensationalism. Hence, they are not without their faults. And to relieve the fears of my fellow Credobaptists, I do believe my Paedobaptist brothers to be in the wrong concerning infant baptism. This is just a reminder of the fallibility of man and to stand on Sola Scriptura.
Having stated that- I will sit at the feet of my baby sprinkling brothers and listen in order to learn. The reason why is simple-some of the greatest under-shepherds and theologians that God has raised up have been Paedobaptists! The body of Christ, as a whole, should be thankful for them. "The way of a fool is right in his own eyes,but a wise man listens to advice" (Pr 12:15). Soli Deo Gloria!
For His Glory,
Fernando
I see your point, that you cannot bite the hand that feeds you, but it also seems inconsistent or at least highly ironic that they could be right about so much but utterly flop in regards to infant baptism. And to make matters worse, anathemas were flung out from both sides, meaning this was more than a friendly disagreement.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a prime example of where Sola Scriptura breaks down, for there is no consensus on whether infant baptism is an 'essential' or 'non essential'.
Of course it can be or seem inconsistent because we are fallible men But to attempt to answer the problem with an alleged"infallible Pope" hasn't fared any better. Thus, we are back to square one- the discrepancies in interpretations.
ReplyDeleteHi,
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure how "back to square one" is something that you can build from, since it keeps everything on the level of opinion, and only if held widely enough does that 'popular opinion' become 'dogma'.
It seems the real sin at that point is dividing at all, in the first place, over doctrinal differences like infant baptism. But that runs the risk of devolving into a Christianity without any 'dogma'.
I'm not saying it is something to build from. My point is that differences are there. They will always be there (until the return of Christ) and the problem is not with Sola Scriptura but with fallible man. It is similar to a person buying a gadget with instructions but already has an idea how the gadget should operate and reads the instructions in that light. Lo and behold the gadget is not properly functioning and the problem is not with the instruction manual but with the individual. This is known as "operator error." There are far too many assertions, from a Catholic standpoint, in your objections to respond to.
ReplyDeleteHi,
ReplyDeleteBut you would say Scripture is pretty clear against infant baptism, so the 'problem' is the paedobaptist who is either blind or confused. But to call someone blind or confused is an assertion that by nature creates division.
You certainly wouldn't say Scripture is not clear on this issue without reducing your doctrinal stance to mere opinion.
And the paedobaptist would apply similar logic.
See where the claim "the problem is not with Sola Scriptura but with fallible man" breaks down now?
No, I don't see it at all. I see where you want it to break down, only to replace it with an "infallible Pope." But even amongst your Catholic friends you still have disagreements, so that doesn't work. Just because we disagree on the issue of baptism doesn't mean that were both wrong.It means that one of us is not consistent in our hermeneutic and exegesis of certain texts.
ReplyDeleteThis is all I'm going to say on the matter since there is no problem with Sola Scriptura. My question to you is that since this is a "Protestant" blog is there any particular reason why you came to it?
Hi,
ReplyDeleteIn response to your question: I came here to voice my thoughts - I thought that's what the comment box is for. Given that this is not my blog, I respect your decision if you don't want me posting here.
I think we've said all we can for the time being on this subject anyway, so I don't know what more I'd add.
God Bless
No, I didn't mind you posting at all. It was an honest question. I was just curious, that's all. Thanks for the brief discussion.
ReplyDelete