“So long as it remains true that Paul represents the Church of the Living God to be one, founded on one covenant (which the law could not set aside) from Abraham to to-day, so long it remains true that the promise is to us and our children and that the members of the visible Church consist of believers and their children — all of whom have a right to all the ordinances of the visible Church, each in its appointed season. The argument in a nutshell is simply this: God established His Church in the days of Abraham and put children into it. They must remain there until He puts them out. He has nowhere put them out. They are still then members of His Church and as such entitled to its ordinances. Among these ordinances is baptism, which standing in similar place in the New Dispensation to circumcision in the Old, is like it to be given to children.” BB Warfield
After spending many hours over the years reading, studying, and praying on the subject of baptism, I finally made the decision to pull my family from our Baptist church and join the OPC. I could no longer withhold the waters from our children. From the very beginning children of believers have been members of God’s visible church and at no point has He revoked their membership. Instead, He reaffirms. Continuation is evident throughout the New Testament and disregarding (or explaining away) the obvious was no longer an option.
While I believe Covenant Household Baptism (paedobaptist, oikobaptist) to be the correct biblical understanding of the sacrament, below is a list of 3 resources (defending both sides) that I found extremely helpful while studying the subject.
Baptism of Disciples Alone, Fred Malone
Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ, Thomas R. Schreiner, Shawn Wright
The Church of Christ, James Bannerman
William: The Baptist, James M Chaney
The Church has always included infants among its members, the proof, after what has already been said, need not demand a lengthened illustration. If the Church of God, made up of His professing people, be one and the same society at all times, and under all its different dispensations, then the proof that infants were members of it at one period must be a proof that they are competent to be members of it at any subsequent period; unless, indeed, some express and positive enactment can be produced, altering the charter of the society, and excluding, as incompetent to be admitted by the new and altered terms of the deed, those formerly comprehended within it. If no such proof of alteration in the charter or constitution of the society can be produced,—if the society itself remains the same in character and terms of admission as before,—then the proof that infants were once its members may suffice for proof that they are still competent to be so. James Bannerman
Comments are closed.