Paedobaptism and Credobaptism | Agreements and Differences
Baptism has become the subject of debate for centuries. Be it baptismal regeneration, credobaptism, paedobaptism, or other beliefs. The debates have taken centre stage and the theology of baptism has often become secondary to the debate. Traditions run strong, and so too do feelings about the topic. Believers from Baptist families cannot fathom why a Presbyterian is insistent on having their children baptized, much less sprinkled. Dutch Reformed families do not comprehend why Baptist families reject their children’s status as covenant children. Lutherans believe that baptism confers faith through regeneration. Reformed believers understand that baptism is more than a ritual, but it does not, in and of itself, create faith. Pentecostals believe in two different baptisms in Christian life. The first baptism is a baptism of water, and the second baptism is a spiritual baptism that fills believers in a greater or lesser measure. Church of Christ congregations believe that baptism is part of the repentant process. The list goes on. There are Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Arminian, and other traditions with differing baptism beliefs. But one thing is clear: Baptism matters. Stanley K. Fowler laments that Baptists are “generally more certain about what does not happen in the sprinkling of an infant than they are about what does happen in the immersion of a confessing believer.”1
The focus of this paper is not to argue against every other position, for this paper would never end. The chosen focus is to see baptism, as Particular Baptists believed it to be. For comparison, Reformed Paedobaptists will be contrasted throughout this paper to give a clear understanding of where Baptists agreed with them, and where their beliefs diverged. Many important similarities give a sense of unity between Credobaptists, those who believe that baptism is only valid for confessing believers, and Paedobaptists, who believe that children ought to be participants in baptism. Neglecting this unity creates unnecessary division on points that are, effectively, shared between both practices without distinction. However, there are apparent differences in theology and practice which makes baptism so important to understand. An incorrect understanding of baptism will lead to entirely different ways a church conducts itself. Though this is not damning, the differences are important. It is worth debate and dialogue to come to a better understanding of God’s church, since both positions desire to please God by worshipping him in spirit and truth (John 4:24).
Praise God, much of what Baptists believe is shared among their Paedobaptist brothers. One of the most important beliefs that is shared between both the Particular Baptists and their Reformed brothers is their emphasis on Baptism being a sacrament or ordinance. Richard Barcellos notes that both “ordinance” and “sacrament” ought to be used interchangeably, as that is what the English Particular Baptists did. “Ordinance” was used to note the practices of the Lord’s Supper and baptism are “ordained by God” whereas “sacrament” refers to the function as a sign and means of grace. Baptists often preferred to say ordinance, but this was not to deny baptism as a means of grace. They did so to stress a dominical institution. 2 Hercules Collins, a seventeenth-century Baptist, agreed with the terminology of sacrament and wrote such in his catechism.3 Benjamin Beddome, an eighteenth-century Baptist, displays Baptists continuing to agree with their Paedobaptist brothers on the Lord’s Supper and baptism being sacraments. Working through the Baptist Catechism, Beddome, in Q. 96, “How do baptism and the Lord’s Supper become effectual means of salvation,”4 writes, “Are sacraments signs? Yes. This Abraham received the sign of circumcision, Romans 4:11. Are they outward signs of spiritual and individual blessings? Yes.”5 Particular Baptists were with the Reformed Paedobaptists who believed that baptism is a sacrament.
A sacrament is a sign and means of grace. Many argue that baptism is nothing more than a declaration of public faith. Though baptism is a public declaration of faith, limiting it to just a declaration is a disservice to the fullness of baptism. Sadly, as Craig Carter laments, “Baptists gradually had lost contact with the sacramentalism of their founding fathers and increasingly had emphasised baptism as a human response to the gospel, rather than as a divine act of grace.”6 God is the one who works in baptism but this is often neglected in modern Baptist churches. Churches often have their baptism candidates profess a testimony as they describe how they have come to faith. Carter explains the dangers of considering baptism caused by men:
This leads to a number of problems in modern critical interpretation of the Bible, such as the concept that causation in that whatever is caused by man is not caused by God as if causation were a zero sum game, which in turn leads to a dichotomy between divine action and human action and between grace and faith. It then appears that one must sacrifice grace to retain faith or make baptism a mechanical and automatic impartation of grace, if it is to be a matter of grace at all.7
Carter is correct to notice the implicit denial of God’s work. Calvinists have always believed that God is the one who elects and draws people to himself. Baptism is part of the salvation process. It is not a work that man does for God. Fowler also warns his readers about this trend, stating, “salvation is not a reward for the act of baptism; acceptance of baptism is simply the formal way to receive the gift of salvation.”8 Reformed Credobaptists and Paedobaptists agree, largely, with baptism being sacramental.
Another point of agreement among the Particular Baptists and Reformed Paedobaptists is covenant theology. Baptism debates in the Reformed community largely focus on infants. Specifically, if the children of believers should receive baptism or not. According to Credobaptists, the New Testament practice is the clearest example, and there are never times when children are baptized in the text. Paedobaptists argue that this is an argument from silence and needs to be balanced with biblical theology. The whole Bible is a story. The story follows God and his covenants. From the covenant of Redemption that was made before the foundation of the earth to the Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and New Covenants. Though all covenants are important to follow the reasons for each position’s theology, the Paedobaptist position is largely grounded in the Abrahamic covenant. The Abrahamic Covenant and the covenant of works are where most differences in Credobaptist and Paedobaptist covenant theology are found. Sam Waldron, a Baptist, writes, “the organic unity of the covenants mean that they depend on and grow out of each other. The divine covenants are not self-contained entities. They are all phases in the growth of the same plant.”9 By this, Waldron means that each covenant relies on the covenant before it, since they build upon one another.
God has an overarching story that is delivered by covenants that expand upon one another. Starting with the covenant of redemption, when God acted before10 creation and covenanted within the persons of the Trinity. Next, to the covenant of works where God told Adam not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. However, Adam did not listen to God. He and Eve ate from the tree and fell into sin. Adam became a federal head and all in Adam are born sinners. But God’s grace was greater than man’s sin. God made a promise to Adam and Eve that he would send one to redeem them from the curse of sin. Following that, God made a covenant with Noah. God was recreating the world because of the depth of man’s sin but preserves Noah. Afterwards, God gives Noah a covenantal sign that he would never again destroy the earth by flood. Sam Renihan notes, “The Noahic Covenant expands from Noah to his family to all mankind to all the earth to all flesh. In a repetitious manner God makes it clear that this covenant applies to all people”11 The covenants continue, with the Abrahamic Covenant. Through Abraham, God promises to bless all the nations. God also promises that Abraham will be the father of many nations. Following the Abrahamic Covenant, God establishes the Mosaic Covenant. Israelites were commanded to keep the covenant so they would receive the promised blessings. Then there is the Davidic Covenant that God establishes with David. God promised that there would be an eternal throne. Finally, God makes a New Covenant with his people.
Though both Particular Baptists and Reformed Paedobaptists agree with the language of sacrament, and that there is a covenantal framework that guides the Scriptures, there is much dispute about the outworking of covenant theology. The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (2LCF)12 largely departs from the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) where the covenant is concerned in chapter 7. Though fundamentally the same in the first paragraph, the second paragraph is taken out of the 2LCF. WCF 7.2 says, “The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.” The second paragraph is on the covenant of works made with Adam, yet was not written into the 2LCF. Pascal Denault argues that “the seventeenth-century Particular Baptists endorsed the broadly accepted view among Reformed theologians concerning the covenant of works.”13 Though the Particular Baptists did not disagree with the covenant of works, they were emphatic to separate the covenant of work and covenant of grace from the Old and New Covenants.14 The covenant of works and the old covenant, to Baptists, were not synonymous, but they were fundamentally linked.
The third paragraph of the WCF and the second of the 2LCF are mostly the same, with a few changes to the 2LCF to account for omitting the second paragraph and only affirming one covenant, rather than two. The fourth WCF paragraph is also omitted from the 2LCF. The fifth paragraph of the WCF and the third paragraph of the 2LCF are radically different.15 Credobaptists had a different understanding of the covenant of grace from the Paedobaptists. Paedobaptists largely argued for “one covenant under two administrations” and “made the Old and New Covenants to be seen only as two different administrations of the save covenant, rather than two different covenants in themselves.”16 This allows Paedobaptists to argue in favour of a mixed covenant. Not all who are members of a church are to be assumed regenerate, whereas Baptists assumed that all who are in the covenant are regenerate. Paedobaptists argued that children are part of the covenant and could operate under the theology of Acts 2:39 where the promise is made “for you and your children”.17 Baptists believed in only one covenant of grace. They even believed that the covenant of grace was shown to Adam (2LCF 7.3). But what Baptists did not believe was that there was one covenant with two administrations. This is the largest divergence between the WCF and the 2LCF. Since Baptists tried to model as much of the 2LCF to the WCF,18 the difference is no minor matter.
The covenant of grace was not formalized, according to the Baptists, but revealed in part. Paedobaptists argued that the covenant was formally established with Adam.19 Baptists believed in a progressive unveiling of the covenant of grace that would finally be fully revealed and formalized through Christ. This meant that there was a promise of grace, but not a covenant of grace (which requires ratification) until the New Covenant unveils Christ.20 The New Covenant, therefore, is the covenant of grace. Whereas the Paedobaptists believe God ratified the covenant of grace with Adam, the Credobaptists saw that a promise of grace that was only revealed and not ratified until the full revelation of it through the New Covenant.
The next covenant that has radical differences is in the Abrahamic covenant. The Abrahamic covenant is a short section of Scripture, but it has massive implications. Abraham is promised that he would be a great father of many nations. Starting in Genesis 12:1-3, God says to Abram:
Go forth from your country, and from your relatives and from your father’s house, to the land which I will show you; and I will make you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great; and so you shall be a blessing; and I will bless those who bless you and those who cures you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed.
When that promise was made, Abram’s wife Sarai was barren. But God opened her womb and gave them Isaac. But this promise goes beyond Isaac. Galatians 3:17-18 show that God made a promise to Abraham, but did not formalize the covenant of grace.21 The sign of circumcision was a progression towards the full revealing of the covenant of grace. The Abrahamic Covenant is a further unveiling of the covenant of grace but is not itself the covenant of grace. Baptists believe that the promise made to Abraham was that God would be a God to Abraham and his spiritual seed.22 Because Baptists believe that the covenant of grace is the New Covenant fully revealed, Collins responds to infants being baptized if they are in the covenant of grace:
By asserting that the infants of believers are in the covenant of grace, they must either mean of the covenant grace absolutely considered, and if so, then there is no total and final apostasy of any infant seed of believers from the covenant, but all must be saved then. Or they must mean conditionally, that when they come to years of maturity, they by true faith, love, and holiness of life, taking hold of God’s covenant of grace, shall have the privileges of it. If this is their meaning, then what spiritual privilege does the infant seed of believers have more than the infant seed of unbelievers, if they live also to years of maturity, and by true faith and love take hold God’s covenant? Furthermore, would not the seal of the covenant belong as much of the children of unbelievers as to the children of believers? Yes, since the infant seed of the unbeliever sometimes comes to embrace God’s covenant, and the infant seed of the believer does not; as often this is seen to the sorrow of many godly parents.23
Collins rightly notes the covenant of grace is found in the full revelation of the New Covenant. The children of believers must either be in the covenant and know God, never falling away, or they have no greater benefits than that of unbelieving families, who have children who enter the covenant, as opposed to Christian families, which tragically sees children reject the gospel.
There are two seeds of Abraham. His physical seed, and his spiritual seed. Those who are born of Abraham in the flesh, and those who are children of Abraham spiritually. Paul makes this clear in Romans 4:16:
For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all.
The sign of circumcision was given to Abraham’s physical descendants, but not all Abraham’s physical children trust in the promise of the gospel. Galatians 4:22-31 “constitutes a key passage of Particular Baptist federalism.”24 Abraham had two sons. The first, Ishmael with Hagar the bondwoman. Second, Isaac with Sarah the free woman. Hagar represents the covenant made with the physical descendants in the Abrahamic Covenant. Sarah represents the promise made to the spiritual children. Verses 28-29 make this clear, “and you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise. But as at that time, he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also.” The children of the promise are of that promise the Baptists already noted. The promise reveals the covenant of grace but is not the covenant of grace itself.25
The focus of children, therefore, is seen differently between Reformed Paedobaptists and Particular Baptists. Paedobaptists believe that the promise of the covenant of grace is for believers and their physical children. Baptism, therefore, is administered to children of believers. Credobaptists believe that the covenant of grace is for believers and spiritual infants. In this way, both positions believe in a type of infant baptism, though they are very different understandings of infants.
Though often overlooked, one common belief shared between Credobaptists and Paedobaptists is the sufficiency and necessity of Scripture. Both deeply care about God’s word and work hard to interpret it correctly. Therefore, all texts in Scripture are taken seriously by both Credobaptists and Paedobaptists. They do not come to the same conclusion from the text, so the overview of baptism texts that will be observed for the rest of this paper are not proofs that a Paedobaptist does not believe Scripture, but that they have come to a different conclusion. While I believe they are incorrect, they are not any less serious expositors of the word than Credobaptists are.
John’s baptism, which is recorded in all four gospels, is a baptism of repentance. The recipients of this baptism were those who had come to a recognition that they needed their sins to be forgiven. This baptism is not the same baptism instituted at the start of the church in Acts 2 and therefore does not build up the Credobaptist case for believer-only baptism. However, what can be seen even in John’s gospel is that baptism is more than simply a washing of the body. This baptism had a purpose: the forgiveness of sins.
Matthew 28’s great commission has Jesus tell his disciples they are commanded to go. In their going, they are commanded to make disciples. This would show that, before the church started, the marching orders were explicit. Baptism is assumed for all new converts. But this was before the church had second-generation members, so there is no reason to command believers to baptize their children.26
Acts 2 is when the church starts at Pentecost. There was a large crowd that was convicted over Peter’s message and they asked him what they must do to be saved. Peter tells them in verse 38 to, “repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Immediately, they were baptized. Baptism in the New Testament follows immediately from conversion. This lends credibility to the Credobaptists, who note that Peter ties belief with baptism. This is not a necessary denial of infant baptism either, however, since the church is just starting. Just as in Matthew 28, there are no second-generation believers to have baptism given to them. Fowler notices a pertinent problem that resides among Baptists. He asks, “when thinking about the relation between salvation and baptism, one fundamental question is this: Do we get baptized because we are sinners seeking Christ, or because we are disciples bearing witness to a previously completed conversion?”27 Texts like Acts 2 shows that the biblical answer is the former, whereas modern-day Baptists more often assume the latter.
Acts 8 sees Philip proclaim the gospel to an Ethiopian eunuch. After Philip explains to the eunuch, who had no idea what he was reading, that Christ is the fulfilment of the message he was reading, the eunuch speaks up and asks to be baptized.28 He and Philip go down to the water and the eunuch is baptized. This is yet another verse that connects a person who believes the gospel and responds with baptism. Fowler again notices a trend in the Bible. He says, “the writers of the New Testament do not separate faith and baptism, and neither should we.”29
Acts 10 is where the Holy Spirit is poured out upon the gentile, Cornelius, and his entire household. The text shows that Peter links conversion to baptism again. Those who heard Peter’s sermon were amazed that even gentiles were coming to believe in Christ for the forgiveness of their sins. The text has an interesting note in verse 47 where Peter says, “surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” This text helps Credobaptists argue that conversion comes before baptism, for those around Peter considered the idea of refusing water to the gentiles. This could, however, also show the hatred Jews had towards gentiles which still lingered in those days. Whatever the case was, there was an examination of those who came to believe the gospel.30
Acts 16 and 18 have entire households come to faith. These texts bring up the interesting topic of household baptisms. Paedobaptists argue that household baptisms include whole families who come to Christ. Whole families include children since children are part of the family. Credobaptists are quick to respond in one of two ways. The first way is by denying that there were children in the house. That is absolutely a possibility. The other option is that the reference to the entire household believing is that all who heard the gospel and understood it came to believe. Acts 16:34 has the whole household rejoice.
This raises some questions. First, assuming children are in the house, are children rejoicing? If so, Credobaptists can affirm that children of young ages can receive the gospel. Credobaptists are not infant-deniers. Credobaptists believe baptism is only for those who repent of their sins and believe the gospel. Surely faith can come at any time. In Luke 1:41, John the Baptist leaps for joy in Elizabeth’s stomach when he was near the Messiah. Therefore, if the children rejoiced with the rest of the household, this poses no problem for Credobaptists. If the children do not rejoice, then the text does not have them in focus, which renders this point moot.
Second, the rest of the family rejoices with the Jailer. It has been asserted that the Jailer was the one who was converted, and the rest of the household was baptized because the Jailer was the head of the household and they are to follow his instructions. But again, the whole house rejoices with him. Why would unbelievers rejoice in the Jailer’s conversion, and why would they submit to baptism if they did not believe in the promise given to the Jailer? The arguments for household baptisms do not crumble the Credobaptist position.
Acts 19 is interesting because Paul asks some disciples at Ephesus if they received the Holy Spirit when they believed. But they answered in the negative, saying they were not even aware there is a Holy Spirit. These believers received the baptism of John, which was for the remission of sins, but they had not received the baptism unto Christ, which is linked to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Acts 22 is about the conversion of Paul. Paul was told to be baptized and have his sins washed away. Faith and baptism are again linked. Fowler asks another helpful question and answers:
Can we be saved without baptism? Of course we can - God’s grace is not limited by our failure to do everything right. But that is not the right question. The right question is, how does God intend baptism to function? And the answer of the biblical text is that God intends it to serve as a defining moment of conversion, the way in which the penitent sinner formally says yes to the gospel and receives the salvation offered by God through Christ.31
Paul’s baptism here is exactly what Fowler asserts: a penitent sinner formally saying yes to the gospel.
Romans 6 is where Paul shares that all who have been baptized into Christ were baptized into his death. Being buried with Christ in baptism, Christians are united with him in his resurrection. This text seems to show an active faith in those who have been baptized into Christ’s death, lending strength to Credobaptists. Reformed Paedobaptists would have a hard time arguing that their children were buried with Christ and raised to newness of life without the belief that children may fall away. However, because they believe the covenant is mixed, composed of physical descendants and spiritual descendants, they can argue for infant baptism, hoping their child grows in the faith. Both Credobaptists and Paedobaptists should have strong desires for their children to trust in Christ for their salvation.
In Colossians 2:11-12, Paul says that Christians:
Were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.
Circumcision has been a topic of debate among Credobaptists and Paedobaptists as well. Paedobaptists assert that circumcision is replaced with baptism as part of the full unveiling of the New Covenant. Credobaptists, arguing that circumcision was for the physical descendants, note that circumcision of the flesh was replaced with the circumcision of the heart. Romans 2 talks about physical circumcision being of no benefit to Christians. The focus is on keeping the law. Those who have a circumcision that is “of the heart, by the Spirit, and not the letter” (Romans 2:29) are the ones who are known by God. Infants are not the ones who come to Christ by faith. It is the parents of Paedobaptist households who bring their children to be baptized.
1 Peter 3:21 has a strong claim from Peter. Peter claims that baptism, which corresponds to the ark saving Noah and his family, saves believers. Baptism saves as a pledge of a clean conscience, and not because of a regenerative process that happens in the water. R. C. Sproul writes about his Baptist brothers while looking at 1 Peter 3:21:
One reason why the Baptist community has emerged historically as one of the strongest Protestant groups is that historic Baptists rejected the idea of baptismal regeneration. Baptists believe that the efficacy of baptism is so dependent upon faith that it ought never to be administered to anyone who has not made a profession of faith. Inasmuch as infants are not capable of doing so, baptism should be reserved only for those who profess faith in Christ.32
Sproul rightly argues that Baptists are careful to administer baptism to those who confess faith and not those who have not yet come to faith.
Through all the texts examined, Credobaptists argue that belief and baptism are consistently linked. They note that Paedobaptists argue from silence that there was no denial for infants to be baptized. Paedobaptists also see belief and baptism linked, but believe that it is for the parents of children. Paedobaptists respond to Credobaptists that denying children of baptism because there is no explicit text for infants is an argument from silence. Though Baptists argue from silence in the texts, they would assert that the silence is because there was never a view of infants being baptized in the New Covenant, and therefore not a thought.
One last note on Baptism among reformed believers comes from two Presbyterian ministers who believed it would be honest to write about common claims that relate to the early church. Examining Tertullian’s On Baptism, which advocates for the baptism of children, H. F. Stander and J. P. Louw say:
This passage from Tertullian is indeed the earliest reference in early Christian writings to children being baptized. However, to equate the baptism of children with the baptism of babies, as adherents of infant baptism prefer to do, is to neglect the fact that these children were not baptized within a theological framework of the Abrahamic covenant and circumcision.33
Stander and Louw note that parents of young children were advised to baptize their children, but the reason for doing such was not through a covenant theology framework. The framework was not established before the Protestant Reformation and therefore is no more historical than the Baptist position is.34 Stander and Louw are honest to admit that many texts from the early church do not give credibility to the Paedobaptist view. Looking at Barnard who tries to prove infant baptism from the writings of Justin in his Apology, they write, “one may speculate why Barnard resorts to an ‘indirect proof’ of infant baptism in Justin’s Apology but ignores a ‘direct proof’ of believer’s baptism in the same work.”35 They conclude:
The patristic literature of the first four centuries clearly shows how infant baptism developed. Probably the first instances known, occurred in the latter part of the third century, mostly in North Africa, but during the fourth century infant baptism became more and more accepted.36
Stander and Louw humbly clarify that baptisms in the early church are not as clearly fixed for the Paedobaptist position as is often claimed.
Both Credobaptists and Paedobaptists need to work hard to come honestly to the text and see what the biblical consensus is. I am convinced the Credobaptist position is correct and that the Particular Baptist’s covenant theology is the most theologically and biblically convincing position. However, it is no surprise that many brothers and sisters in the faith are impressed with the Paedobaptist position. There is much to rejoice over in the shared salvation common to both Credobaptists and Paedobaptists. There is unity over baptism as a sacrament. There is a unity about God’s covenants as a progressive story. They are united in their love of God and his Scripture. And even though our practices for or against infant baptism are enough to separate, the unity of Christ’s church prevails.
1 Stanley K. Fowler, Rethinking Baptism: Some Baptist Reflections (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2015), vii.
2 Richard C. Barcellos, The Lord’s Supper as a Means of Grace: More than a Memory (Scotland: Mentor, 2013), 24.
3 Hercules Collins, An Orthodox Catechism, eds. Michael A. G. Haykin & C. Stephen Weaver Jr. (Palmdale: RBAP, 2014), 73.
4 Benjamin Keach, The Baptist Catechism (1693; repr., Vestavia Hills, AL: Solid Ground Christian Books, 2010), 117.
5 Benjamin Beddome, A Scriptural Exposition of the Baptist Catechism (1776; repr., Birmingham: Solid Ground Books, 2006), 161.
6 Craig A. Carter, “The Recovery of a Sacramental Ontology as the Basis for Developing a Sacramental Theology of Baptism” in Ecclesia Semper Reformanda Est: The Church is Always Reforming: A Festschrift on Ecclesiology in Honour of Stanley K. Fowler, eds. David G. Barker, Michael A. G. Haykin, & Barry H. Howson (Kitchener, Ontario: Joshua Press, 2016), 117.
7 Ibid, 121.
8 Fowler, Rethinking Baptism, 32.
9 Samuel E. Waldron, A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, 5th ed. (Darlington, CO: EP Books, 2016), 129.
10 Before being an anachronistic term, since time “before” time is illogical. Augustine deals with this in his Confessions.
11 Samuel Renihan, The Mystery of Christ: His Covenant & His Kingdom (Cape Coral: Founders Press, 2019), 82.
12 In function, James Renihan argues that the First London Baptist Confession of Faith (1LCF) agreed in all ways with the 2LCF. This is a subject of debate, so it seems safe to rely on the 2LCF.
13 Pascal Denault, “By Farther Steps: A Seventeenth-Century Particular Baptist Covenant Theology” in Recovering a Covenantal Heritage, ed. Richard C. Barcellos (Palmdale: RBAP, 2014), 71.
14 Ibid, 73.
15 In fact, the Savoy Declaration of Congregational Paedobaptists also greatly departs from the WCF.
16 Denault, 75.
17 Ibid, 77.
18 Ibid, 84.
19 Ibid, 85.
20 Ibid, 86.
21 Ibid, 93.
22 Ibid, 92.
23 Collins, 77.
24 Denault, 94.
25 Ibid, 96.
26 Though one could make a case for why Jesus could have omitted that, knowing that it would not just be for one generation. Though that is speculation.
27 Fowler, 29.
28 The textual variant of Acts 8:37 says, “And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” If this is an original text, this would be strong text for Credobaptists. However, the text highly unlikely, according to the UBS, to be original.
29 Fowler, 29.
30 Examination may give credibility to Baptists who insist that baptism can be delayed until a later time, rather than spontaneous baptisms.
31 Fowler, 30.
32 R. C. Sproul, 1-2 Peter: St. Andrew’s Expositional Commentary (Wheaton: Crossway, 2011), 137.
33 H. F. Stander & J. P. Louw, Baptism in the Early Church, 2nd ed. (South Africa: Didaskalia Publishers, 1994), 3.
34 One could argue that it is older by upwards of a century, formalized in the publications of the WCF and 2LCF. But prior to the Protestant Reformation, the practice of the church was with Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. Neither church advocates for baptism based on covenant theology.
35 Stander & Louw, Baptism in the Early Church, 5.
36 Ibid, 119.
Bibliography
Barcellos, Richard C. The Lord’s Supper as a Means of Grace: More than a Memory. Scotland: Mentor, 2013.
Beddome, Benjamin. A Scriptural Exposition of the Baptist Catechism. 1776. Reprint, Birmingham: Solid Ground Books, 2006.
Carter, Craig A. “The Recovery of a Sacramental Ontology as the Basis for Developing a Sacramental Theology of Baptism” In Ecclesia Semper Reformanda Est: The Church is Always Reforming: A Festschrift on Ecclesiology in Honour of Stanley K. Fowler, edited by David G. Barker, Michael A. G. Haykin, & Barry H. Howson, 115-36. Kitchener, Ontario: Joshua Press, 2016.
Collins, Hercules. An Orthodox Catechism. Edited by Michael A. G. Haykin & C. Stephen Weaver Jr. Palmdale: RBAP, 2014.
Denault, Pascal. “By Farther Steps: A Seventeenth-Century Particular Baptist Covenant Theology” In Recovering a Covenantal Heritage. Edited by Richard C. Barcellos. Palmdale: RBAP, 2014.
Fowler, Stanley K. Rethinking Baptism: Some Baptist Reflections. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2015.
Keach, Benjamin. The Baptist Catechism. 1693. Reprint, Vestavia Hills, AL: Solid Ground Christian Books, 2006.
Renihan, Samuel. The Mystery of Christ: His Covenant & His Kingdom. Cape Coral: Founders Press, 2019.
Sproul, R. C. 1-2 Peter: St. Andrew’s Expositional Commentary. Wheaton: Crossway, 2011.
Stander, H. F. and J. P. Louw. Baptism in the Early Church. Second Edition. South Africa: Didaskalia Publishers, 1994.
Waldron, Samuel E. A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. Fifth Edition. Darlington, CO: EP Books, 2016.