In my time on social media, I come across a lot of questions directed at Baptists, which in many cases are actually veiled (or not so veiled) criticisms. I therefore decided to take a little break from my blogging break and provide the best answers I could to these questions. Nearly every query here addressed is one that I have received personally, and some on many occasions. What follows are merely the explanations of one Baptist and should not be considered normative for all Baptists or all Baptist churches. I await your objections with great anticipation.

Why do you only baptize those who profess faith in Jesus Christ?

The reasons for this practice can essentially be divided into two categories: 1) reasons related to demonstrated apostolic practice in the New Testament, and more importantly 2) reasons related to our understanding of the biblical covenants. I believe the Bible teaches that the New Covenant is a saving covenant: only those who are united to Christ are in it, and those who are united to Christ will always be united to Him. It is therefore an unbreakable covenant, unlike the Old Covenant.

Both the New Testament and the Didache (the earliest non-canonical Christian document we have) describe the baptism of those who repented of sin and professed faith in Jesus Christ. The household baptisms in the book of Acts are frequently brought forth as a challenge to this explanation. As I have discussed elsewhere, only one of the household baptisms mentioned in the New Testament does not also describe the baptized persons believing in Christ and/or receiving the Holy Spirit. The exception is the household of Lydia, where only her own faith is mentioned. We are therefore unlikely to reach agreement based on New Testament practice alone, but my credobaptist position is based mostly on my understanding of the covenants, my rejection of baptismal regeneration (i.e. the literal washing away of sins in baptism), and the absence of an explicit biblical command to baptize infants.

Many Baptists have put together long and detailed defenses of this position, and I have done so elsewhere. For the purposes of this article, I simply wanted to begin by summarizing what I believe: that we should baptize those who repent of their sins and profess faith in Jesus Christ.

Do you really think you can know perfectly who the elect are?

No. Only God knows our hearts perfectly. Only He knows perfectly the ones He loved before the foundation of the world and predestined for salvation. Nevertheless, God wants us to have assurance of our salvation, and scripture therefore provides several markers of saving faith. The responsibility of the church is simply to assess whether a person is repentant, professes faith in Christ, and wishes to be baptized.

It is certainly possible for people to seem to do all these things, when in fact they have sinful motives known only to themselves, or are in fact deluding themselves. Such was the case with Simon Magus, who was baptized but later proven to be seeking the gifts of the Spirit for financial gain. I do believe that a church and its ministers have a basic duty to determine if the person is a genuine follower of Christ and really intends to devote his or her life to Him. This could be why the Didache describes converts being catechized before baptism.

To sum up, the church is not expected to have perfect knowledge of who is regenerate. They should simply assess whether the person professes faith, accepts basic orthodox doctrine (i.e. belief in the Trinity, belief that Christ is the Son of God), and shows some evidence of the work of the Spirit in their lives. (That last one is perhaps hardest to assess, and we do not expect anyone to be completely sanctified before baptism…or death.)

Can a young child have saving faith?

Yes, absolutely they can. The Bible never places a minimum age on saving faith. A child does not possess the cognitive abilities to make a verbal statement of saving faith until around 3 years old, depending on the individual. Keep in mind that a very young child is not yet aware of certain basic concepts, such as the fact that something hidden has not really disappeared. This is simply a matter of brain development.

Nevertheless, it would be wrong of me to make a blanket statement to the effect that, “Only a person of 3 years of age can have saving faith.” We are all different, and God brings each of us to Himself in His good timing. Jesus commanded us to let the little children come to Him, and so we ought to do. If your child tells you that they believe in Jesus and are sorry for their sins, then there is every reason to suppose it is a genuine statement. It is important, of course, to continue teaching them and ensure over time that they fully comprehended the issue, but the day any child proclaims faith in Jesus Christ ought to be a truly joyful one for parents.

Can an infant be regenerate?

Yes. Here I define “regenerate” as the work of the Holy Spirit in a person’s life to spiritually resurrect them and make them capable of seeking the things of God. I believe this occurs at a definite point in time and is linked with our justification. The question then is whether the Holy Spirit could and/or does perform such a work in the lives of infants. I have no doubt that He could. I have no doubt that He did for one rather unique person: John the Baptist.

Even so, I do not believe this is the norm. Most toddlers I have met do not show irrefutable evidence of being regenerate, whereas they show plenty of irrefutable evidence of having a sinful nature. I therefore believe that the case of John the Baptist is remarkable precisely because it was not ordinary. This is not the way God chooses to work with most people. However—and this is an important however—I believe there is a certain percentage of the elect who never make it to that age at which we can typically discern signs of regeneration. Some children die before they are born, or when they are still infants. I believe God does act to save all of those infants who are called according to His will, and I have no reason to suppose that this does not include regeneration.

Despite this, I do not believe this is how God works in the majority of us, and for good reason: many of us benefit from having memories of what we were like before God acted to save us. More to the point, it is curious to me to hear people question my views on this point when they do not at the same time claim to baptize based on regeneration. It is one thing to say that infants can be regenerate. It is quite another to say that they must be, and another still to say they should be baptized before making a profession to that effect.

At what age can a person be baptized?

Some Baptist churches refuse to baptize small children. Some have a particular age requirement. I do not think this is a biblical practice, nor one that is required according to a credobaptist doctrinal position. In fact, I believe it comes as much from Arminian-ish ideas about a supposed “age of accountability” as anything else. Because I am a Calvinist in terms of soteriology, I do not accept such things, so they have no impact on my beliefs regarding baptism. The Bible has not given a minimum age requirement for baptism. The only thing we are to look for is a profession of faith with a basic level of credibility.

Would I allow a 3 or 4 year old to be baptized? Yes. However, I would want to speak to the child individually about this and make sure it is what they want. It is not enough for their parents to tell me that the child has faith. The child is not saved on the basis of their parents’ faith. However, I have heard very young children make professions of faith that I believe to be quite credible. I would not hesitate to have them baptized. We should rejoice in the faith of our children and pray continually that their faith will grow and be strengthened.

Do the warning passages in Hebrews trouble you?

Trouble me as in keep me up at night? No. Trouble me as in being difficult to synchronize with other aspects of my theology? Sure. I actually think these warning passages present a difficulty for anyone who holds to Calvinist soteriology, which is to say a high view of God’s sovereignty and predestination. This question is usually asked by confessionally Reformed Christians who believe that the passages which warn of a person falling away from grace refer to those who were only in the administration of the New Covenant and did not have the substance.

To be clear, both paedobaptists and credobaptists who hold to Calvinist soteriology believe that the persons described in these passages were never justified by faith. We all believe that those who are truly united to Christ will persevere to the end. That is not the issue. We agree on what the passages don’t mean, but not on what they do mean.

Because I believe that the New Covenant only consists of those who are united to Christ, I do not believe the confessionally Reformed understanding of these passages is correct. I do not believe the hypothetical persons being described by the author of Hebrews were ever in the New Covenant. Is this rather like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole? Maybe, but I am interpreting these passages in light of the rest of scripture, and even the rest of the book of Hebrews. They do not stand alone and were never meant to do so. So am I reading my interpretation into the text? To a certain extent, because I use scripture to interpret scripture.

In much the same manner, confessionally Reformed Christians read these passages in light of Calvinist soteriology, thus bringing their own set of assumptions to the interpretive process. We all do this because we understand that if we took every verse at face value without synchronizing it with other verses, then we would be forced to conclude that the Bible is full of blatant contradictions. In fact, I do not believe there are contradictions in scripture, but rather that we must not interpret individual verses in a vacuum.

I believe the confessionally Reformed explanation of the warning passages proves too much and begins to move the substance of the New Covenant into the administration. It suggests that a person covered by Christ’s blood (which points to union with Him) and indwelt by the Holy Spirit can fall away. That is the substance of the covenant and not the administration. This could lead to a very conditional understanding of the New Covenant, which could in turn create issues with assurance and legalism. I therefore do not find any interpretive answer that leaves me 100% satisfied, and I admit the difficulty, but I do not believe it is enough to overthrow my understanding of the New Covenant.

If infants were in the Church in the Old Testament, and God never put them out, then why do you put them out?

This question assumes a certain definition of the Church and the New Covenant. It assumes that national Israel was the visible Church of the Old Testament, and it assumes that the New Covenant includes both the visible and invisible Church. I disagree on both counts. National Israel was never the Church, visibly or invisibly. It was a type of the Church. It pointed forward to the Church and resembled it in certain ways, but they are not one and the same thing.

I also believe, along with other Baptists, that there is an important distinction to be made between Abraham’s physical descendants and his spiritual descendants. The Apostle Paul made this distinction in his letters to the Romans and the Galatians. These two groups of descendants were given two separate covenants: the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. Abraham’s spiritual descendants are those who have faith in Jesus Christ. They are what is sometimes called the invisible Church: the elect. These people have existed in all ages. However, they were not connected to Abraham by birth, but rather grafted in by faith. The membership of the New Covenant is made up of these spiritual descendants.

Therefore, we are not attempting to put anyone out. We are basing our practice on the words of the Apostle Paul regarding the identity of Abraham’s spiritual descendants: they are those who have faith. That is why we look for evidence of faith rather than evidence of parentage when we decide whom to baptize. It is not really about excluding infants at all. It is about the criteria given by God, which is faith in Jesus Christ and His salvation.

Why don’t Baptists catechize their children?

There are multiple logical steps that bring a person to this question. Step #1: Children should be raised in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Step #2: A catechism helps to accomplish this by teaching scriptural truths to children. Step #3: Because using a catechism is good, not using it is bad. Step #4: Everyone should use a catechism with their children.

Now, I am not anti-catechism by any means, but please notice the logical steps involved. When people criticize Baptists for not putting their children through a catechetical program, they are making a moral judgment of sorts, or at least a value judgment. I have observed many Baptists of all stripes raising their children. They read to them from scripture. They read to them from Christian books. They listen to songs based on scripture or Christian doctrine. They put them in programs like AWANA to memorize scripture. They send them to Sunday School. They send them to summer Bible programs and Christian camps. They send them to Christian schools at great expense. They have family devotions or study times. They pray with them. They pray for them. And yes, some of them even use a question and answer catechism. (Benjamin Keach wrote a catechism for Baptists way back in the 17^th century.)

I honestly do not believe that the percentage of Baptists taking zero interest in their children’s spiritual development is any higher than in other denominations. The question here is about the method. Could it be that catechisms are a more effective way of teaching doctrine? Maybe. They are certainly an excellent tool, whether or not they are qualitatively better than simply studying and memorizing scripture. But please realize that it is a long way from the simple command to raise one’s children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord to judging people for not using a catechism to accomplish that.

Catechisms came into vogue during the Reformation period. Before that there were creeds, and I admit that most Baptists have not done a good enough job of emphasizing the creeds. Therefore, there is more work to be done in this regard, and I am encouraged to see more of my friends at church using catechetical training with their children. However, I do not think my parents failed me because we used other methods instead of catechisms.

Why don’t Baptists practice family worship?

I admit this is a problem. The practice of family worship has largely died out, and not only among Baptists. There are multiple culprits here. 1) Family worship was promoted most enthusiastically by the Puritans, whose writings are difficult for many modern people to understand. 2) There is a general trend among American Christians against the legalism in which so many were raised, and they have transitioned to a more pietistic or emotional version of Christianity. Neither of these trends bodes well for family worship, and given that it was promoted most ardently by the Puritans, and “Puritan” in our culture is often considered a synonym for “legalist”, you will find many people objecting that this is just another extra-biblical rule being imposed on us all.

3) The busyness of modern life and the limiting of the sacred to just a few hours per week makes it difficult for many families to create a habit of worshipping together every day. This is not only the fault of the families in question. Our culture does not give them much time to breathe. 4) Family communication on the whole is breaking down. We are becoming more connected to our smartphones than we are to each other. We no longer feel a need to be present at a church service, but are content to watch one on television. We are what Michael Horton and company call “self-feeders”.

5) The Bible generally puts an expectation on husbands/fathers to oversee the spiritual welfare of their homes, but we have seen a huge increase in the number of absentee fathers, fathers who stay home while their wife brings the children to church, etc. Even as Sen. Ben Sasse and others have observed that some adults (and particularly adult males) live in a state of perpetual childhood, so we see a rising number of husband and fathers paying no heed to basic biblical instruction to teach those in their household the things of God.

Therefore, I conclude that while this is certainly a problem for Baptists, it is not only a problem for Baptists. Because their covenant theology includes a more defined household principle, the confessionally Reformed are perhaps more likely to push for family activities that mirror this belief. However, family worship ought not be limited to one denominational stream. I am encouraged to see many of the people in my own church returning to a principle of family worship, and I hope this trend increases among Baptists.

Why don’t Baptists include their children in corporate worship?

This is a somewhat odd question because, in fact, many Baptist churches include children in corporate worship. The standard Protestant worship service is divided into three parts: 1) congregational singing, recitation, and prayer, 2) the sermon, and 3) the Lord’s Supper. Most Baptist churches do not administer the Lord’s Supper every week. In my own experience at Baptist churches, it has ranged anywhere from one a quarter to twice a month. Thus, a standard worship service consists of two parts.

Baptist churches of any significant size almost universally provide a nursery service for the very youngest children, i.e. less than 2 years. I have never been to a church that actively announced that parents could not keep these children in the service, but the nursery was always provided as an option. (I do not doubt that there are churches out there that firmly disallow children in the service, but I do not think this is the norm.) Beyond that, you get a diversity among Baptist churches. Some have children’s Sunday School, but it occurs prior to or after the corporate worship service. Some expect children to take part in congregational singing, recitation, and prayer, but then dismiss them to a children’s program during the sermon. Some anticipate that young children will have their own service completely apart from the adults.

Every Baptist church I have attended has generally expected school age children to be present in the entire corporate worship service, including the sermon. They have also provided “cry rooms” where mothers can take small children if they become fussy/hungry so that they can still listen to the sermon. (No one wants to nurse in the middle of church, and sometimes infants don’t like to wait.) I personally do not mind the very smallest children being cared for in a nursery, as newborns spend most of the time sleeping in any case. However, I agree that sectioning children off from the rest of the church in an extreme way is not very biblical.

Most children of school age are capable of sitting through a worship service. Some children do have a shorter attention span and thus struggle with such things. Therefore, parents must be aware of the needs of their particular child and consider how best to include them in corporate worship. However, I must say again, the Baptist churches I have attended have always had lots of children in the service—even very young ones. Perhaps certain Baptist denominations are different in this regard.

It seems better to me not to have a separate “children’s church” program and thus take children away from the main teaching. It also seems entirely correct to have age appropriate programs for children either before or after the main service. Many churches use these age specific lessons to build on the sermon and help explain it to young minds. I think it just comes down to an issue of both/and rather than either/or.

Part of the problem, again, is that people have other activities on their schedules. They want to rush off to lunch or a soccer game, or maybe they don’t want to get up early. I fully appreciate these difficulties, but I think we need to rediscover the value of spending 3 hours at church on Sunday morning rather than 90 minutes, both for children and adults. To sum up, many Baptist churches do not exclude children from corporate worship, but some do. Those that do should seriously consider changing their policies.

Aren’t you treating your children as pagans, and why do you do so?

Perhaps that question sounds harsh to you, but I have come across it often. A closely related comment is, “You would treat them like pagans if you were consistent, but thankfully you’re not consistent.” It’s not just random internet strangers who have said this to me. Friends (or at least purported friends) have said it as well. Well, why does the comment sting? Because of the connotations of the two words they tend to use: pagan and heathen. Think about that for a moment. I have neighbors who do not believe in Christ. I would never refer to them as “pagans” or “heathens”.

The term pagan did not originate as a way to refer to people who were simply uninformed or seeking. Rather, it referred very specifically to people in the earliest centuries of Christianity who clung to the worship of false gods. Pagans were generally polytheists. The term comes from the Latin word for peasant and indicates the fact that many people in the Roman empire who lived in more rural areas were slower to give up their old religious ideas. The word heathen has a similar origin. While both terms are now used in a perjorative manner to refer to anyone who is not a Christian, this is a far cry from their original definition.

What people really mean when they accuse Baptists of treating their children like pagans is that these Baptist parents do not assume that their children believe in Christ until they profess such faith. This tends to offend paedobaptists in one of two ways. Either 1) they believe we should assume that our children are regenerate believers from the beginning or 2) they think that we ought not be raising them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord if we don’t think they are believers. One argument specifically presented to me was that if a Baptist parent instructs their young child about God’s commands, they are just giving them a form of moralism.

Let me make a few statements that will perhaps be helpful. First, both Baptist parents and those from other denominations want their children to come to saving faith at the earliest possible age. Second, the laws of God do not only apply to believers. All of us are required to follow God’s commands. That is why we are all condemned absent of the blood of Jesus Christ. We must proclaim the Law to our children, but we must also proclaim the gospel. That is, we should tell them to follow God’s commands, but we should also tell them that only the person who has received forgiveness in Christ can truly complete those commands. In the heat of the moment, many parents of all denominations fail to strike this balance and simply give the commands without a lot of explanation. I would not accuse any of those parents of attempting to teach moralism or the Law. They just need to do a better job of making sure that both law and gospel are presented.

Third, I think it could be dangerous for any parent to simply assume that their child has saving faith without ever hearing a profession to that effect or seeing definite evidence in the child’s behavior. Many children will not have a dramatic conversion, but scripture says that the Holy Spirit empowers us to say “Jesus is Lord”. We must believe in our hearts and confess with our mouths. I do not think it is wrong to make a charitable assumption and carry a firm hope that someday your child will have saving faith. However, we must be careful not to allow these assumptions to keep us from proclaiming the gospel to our children.

Fourth, it is no more wrong for a Baptist parent to read the Bible with their children or bring them to church prior to a confession of faith than it is for them to read the Bible with their unbelieving neighbor or invite them to church. In both cases, you are doing the most loving thing you can do for that person. We let our children sing hymns before a profession of faith, because in so doing they learn the things of God, and even if they do not comprehend it all at first, they are likely to do so one day. For the same reason, we have them listen to sermons. Many people have come to Christ by listening to sermons.

Fifth, would you assume an adult was a Christian if they never made a statement to that effect or showed any evidence of the Spirit’s work in their life? If not, then why would you assume that about a child? The Bible never promises that all the children of believers will come to faith, and indeed we can point to far too many cases where this did not occur. While some people assume that their children will develop faith and still properly give their children both Law and gospel, there are some who fall into complacency because of their belief that their children surely must be among the elect. I do not know if this happens to a large number of people, but we are simply hoping to avoid this error. We want to evangelize our children as well as the world.

In summary, I do not believe that Baptists treat their children like heathens, nor should they. They treat them as potential recipients of God’s grace, even as we ought to treat anyone who has not yet professed faith in Jesus Christ.

Isn’t credobaptism just a result of individualism?

No, it is not just a result of individualism, but I do not deny that the rise of this tendency of thought has pushed many people toward more individualistic understandings of Christianity. In some ways, this has been a good thing, for all of us ultimately stand before God alone. We cannot rely on the faith of anyone else to save us, including our parents. However, it is not surprising that churches which focus heavily on individualized experiences would tend toward credobaptism. In some senses, credobaptism is as American as apple pie.

Having said that, the Church has always recognized an appropriate place for credobaptism: it is necessary for new converts. Evangelical churches tend to get more converts. It is therefore unsurprising that they tend toward credobaptism. It is also unsurprising that the Protestant Reformation, which urged individuals to read the Bible for themselves, created a wide range of interpretations. Things that had once been taken for granted were questioned, and people started asking, “Does the Bible really command us to baptize infants?”

Therefore, I do not deny that individualistic tendencies have helped to push our culture in a generally credobaptistic direction. However, I think the greatest driving force came from the Reformation itself. The emphasis on justification by faith and rejection of a sacramental form of salvation got the ball rolling. The Reformed emphasis on election/predestination and the role of baptism as a sign/seal of faith rather than a producer of it further stoked this trend. It was not surprising that some people eventually got the idea to baptize those who professed faith.

The arguments in favor of credobaptism consist of more than simple individualism. They are based on one’s understanding of specific passages in scripture. Stating that the Baptist position was only brought about by individualism is rather like saying that the confessionally Reformed position was only created as a way to have a national Church. It is difficult to prove that such considerations did not play any role (as it is to prove any negative assertion), but it would also be wrong to assume that the scriptural arguments did not play the decisive role.

Let’s face it: most people take their position on baptism from the church in which they were raised. Only a minority investigate the matter thoroughly and change their position based on scripture. Therefore, I am sure there is a large percentage of credobaptists who are simply going along with the cultural norm, even as there is a large percentage of paedobaptists who do the same thing according to their own cultural norm. However, we must give credit to those on both sides who study scripture and reach their own conclusion. We should not dismiss our opponent’s position as simply individualistic or corporate thinking, but acknowledge it as the result of genuine biblical conviction.

Doesn’t it bother you that most Christians in history were baptized as infants?

Again, it depends on what exactly you mean. I don’t lose sleep over it. I don’t go through the day thinking, “Woe unto us for having such a history!” I don’t question the salvation of famous Christians who were baptized as infants. What people are really getting at here is the following: Shouldn’t we assume, because so many great theologians argued for paedobaptism, and because so many people were baptized as infants, that this must be the correct position? Is it really possible that God allowed His Church to continue in error for so long, and that only Baptists have discovered the secret path of righteousness?

First of all, I do not believe that the wrong method of baptism compromises a person’s justification, so I am not bothered on that score. I do not question the salvation of Calvin, Luther, Wycliffe, etc. Second, I do not question the important theological contributions of paedobaptists, who have been far more numerous than credobaptists in the 2,000 year history of Christianity. Third, I do not think myself or my fellow credobaptists are any more spiritually concerned than paedobaptists or have some special gift of the Spirit that others do not possess.

Having said all of that, I do believe that it is possible for the Church to remain in serious error for extended periods of time. You could make an argument that the majority of Christians in history have venerated images, held to the perpetual virginity and/or sinlessness of Mary, taught a partially works-based form of salvation, believed in purgatory, held to a formalized apostolic succession, believed that the communion elements were Christ’s physical body and blood, and taught some form of baptismal regeneration. You may wish to question if all of those views have held a historic majority, but the point is that they have all had substantial followings over many centuries. Consider that there was a time when Arianism nearly became the majority opinion within Christianity. Consider that there were periods in medieval Europe where the gospel seemed to be all but dead. The story of the Church is not one of ceaseless doctrinal perfection.

I therefore do not find it impossible that the majority of Christians could have had a mistaken view of baptism. As credobaptists, we believe that the interpretation of the scriptures throughout Church history is an important and even essential standard to which we ought to cling. However, we also accept what was taught by the Reformers: that even Church councils are capable of error, and scripture alone is the norming norm. We do not encourage a reductionist biblicism in all things, but we do believe that when men and scripture seem to disagree, we should side with scripture.

Moreoever, the past few centuries have brought forth a number of excellent theologians—such as John Bunyan, John Gill, and Charles Spurgeon—who were fully convinced of the scriptural warrant for credobaptism, and no one would suggest that they were intellectual slouches or on an individualist kick. I therefore am not all that troubled by the historical tendency toward paedobaptism. Even as certain ideas were revived in the 16^th century with regard to soteriology, sacramentology, and ecclesiology, so this trend continued on into the 17^th century.

Didn’t the Church Fathers disagree with you?

I suppose it would help to clarify what we mean by “Church Fathers”. One typical definition is any theologian prior to and including Augustine of Hippo, which would limit this period to the first four or five centuries after Christ. The very earliest non-canonical document, the Didache, describes the baptism of converts. However, it could be argued that this was because there were more people converting to Christianity at the time than there were babies being born to Christian parents. The earliest Christian documents and artwork also describe baptism by immersion or pouring.

By the second century A.D., we begin to see mentions of infant baptism. One of the earliest is Hippolytus, who described children being represented at their baptism by sponsors. Exactly how old these children were could be debated, but I will go ahead and grant that they were infants. (Whether we should follow Hippolytus’ advice and have people baptized in the nude is perhaps more questionable.) By the third century, we see many of the Fathers arguing for paedobaptism. Tertullian is a less clear case, but certainly by the time we reach Augustine, paedobaptism was the norm. Augustine’s vigorous arguments on the subject seem to have clearly won the day, and the Church followed the practice ever after…until some people questioned it in the 16^th century.

I have heard many confessionally Reformed friends argue that the Fathers are entirely on their side, but the reality is a bit more complicated. I am willing to grant that a majority of the Fathers taught paedobaptism. However, their rationales for doing so were somewhat varied. It was not very far into the history of the Church that theologians began arguing for the baptism of infants on the ground that it could remove original sin. This seems to have been why Augustine argued for it so strongly. He was a chief opponent of Pelagius, who declared that man had free will from birth. Augustine’s arguments regarding sin and baptism were closely linked, as he wrote that infants who died prior to baptism would be punished in the afterlife on account of original sin. (His views do seem to have shifted a bit over the course of his life, or at least to be ambiguous enough that they have confused later scholars.) This suggests to me a certain degree of baptismal regeneration.

Therefore, while the Church Fathers were certainly not universally credobaptist, they did not universally adopt the confessionally Reformed position either. In fact, I have found my Reformed brethren hard pressed to provide me with clear examples of the Church Fathers making exactly the same arguments as them. I have been pointed to passages that have certain similarities, but none that have the level of specificity of the current Reformed position. At the end of the day, I do not hang my hat on the Church Fathers, as esteemed as they may be. Who doubts that there were Trinitarian errors among the Church Fathers and that they held positions regarding the nature of Christ that we would now consider heretical? The Church Fathers were not infallible, nor did they all agree with one another. Just think of how odd Origen’s opinions now seem to us, to the point that many question if he was really a Christian! So no, the majority of Church Fathers do not seem to have been credobaptists, but this does not particularly trouble me.

Why do Baptists care so little about doctrine?

That depends very much on the Baptist, so I do not necessarily agree with the premise of the question. The average churchgoer, it must be said, is not that concerned with the finer details of classical theism. We have many people walking among us who, were we to ask their opinion on certain theological matters, may well provide us with something that amounts to heresy. This problem is not unique to Baptists, but I do admit that there are certain Baptist denominations (or churches in no denomination at all) who do not teach their congregants well. While I do not believe this to be as much of a problem in Particular Baptist churches, it is a bigger issue in the Baptist movement as a whole.

The fact of the matter is that Baptist churches do not agree on certain important doctrinal issues. A classic example would be predestination. Even within the Southern Baptist Convention, you can find people who hold to all five points of T.U.L.I.P. and people for whom “Calvinism” is a dirty word. There are some Baptist churches where the rationale for credobaptism is well understood by the congregants and others where it is simply the de facto procedure. There are some Baptists who take a rather high view of the Lord’s Supper similar to confessionally Reformed churches, and a great many others who take a low view similar to Zwingli.

I think that evangelicals on the whole tend to de-emphasize certain aspects of doctrine in favor of a more experiential version of Christianity. This essentially pietistic influence, combined with the trend toward fundamentalism, has had a negative effect on doctrine in many Baptist churches. This is where catechetical training may show its superiority to methods more commonly used in Baptist congregations. However, I must stress again that there are many Baptists who care just as much about doctrine as Christians from other denominational backgrounds. Therefore, I repeat that I do not fully accept the premise of the question.

I do admit that one area where Baptists have been particularly weak in recent decades is the doctrine of God. Unfortunately, we see some fallacies among Reformed theologians in this same area. I am grateful that we have Particular Baptists devoting themselves to this very issue, and if we are to strengthen doctrine in Baptist churches, then this is a key place to start.

Why do Baptists care so little about the Old Testament?

Again, I do not fully accept the premise of the question. I think there are many Baptists who are well versed in the Old Testament. Having a different opinion about it does not mean that we don’t care about it. There are some Baptist churches that rarely preach on certain portions of the Old Testament or minimize their importance for us today. This could possibly be due to the influence of Dispensationalism, which originally held that God had a different program for the ancient Israelites than he does for us today.

Having said that, I think you are as likely to hear a sermon on the life of Abraham in a Baptist church as you are in a confessionally Reformed one. Where I would like to see us get stronger is in our comprehension of the Prophets. This is perhaps my favorite genre of scripture, and one which I studied intensely during my college years. I tend to lobby everyone to preach more sermons and create more Bible study courses from the Prophets. Alas, people come up with all kinds of excuses: “too long”, “too hard to understand”, “too inapplicable”.

The impression that Baptists don’t care about the Old Testament may derive from the fact that we don’t generally hold that the Old Covenant provided salvation to its participants. Rather, we Particular Baptists and others teach that only the New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace, and every person who has ever been saved has been saved through the New Covenant. However, this certainly does not mean that the passages which deal with the Old Covenant are unimportant to us. We do not believe that God was inactive between the Fall and Christ. Rather, everything in between pointed to Christ and provides us with many valuable lessons and forms of application. Therefore, I certainly hope that Baptists care about the Old Testament, and I think many of them do.

Why do Baptists ignore the covenantal structure of scripture?

I will answer this question with one of my own: “To which Baptists are you referring?” The Particular Baptists of the 17^th century were very concerned with covenants and wrote extensively on the subject. They explicitly taught a Covenant of Works/Covenant of Grace dichotomy. Their difference with the confessionally Reformed came in how they understood the Covenant of Grace. I do not think one could fairly accuse these Baptists and their descendants of ignoring covenants.

There is a second and larger group of Baptists who have been heavily influenced by Dispensationalism, a movement which took root in the 19^th century and has had an effect down to the present day. Early Dispensationalism envisioned a separate track to salvation for Israel and thus had a wildly different understanding of covenants and salvation from the Particular Baptists. However, these days most “Dispensational” churches teach a somewhat modified form of Dispensationalism that doesn’t necessarily have two tracks to salvation. I would not say that Dispensationalists ignore scriptural covenants, but rather that they have significantly misunderstood them. They also miss the Covenant of Works/Covenant of Grace dichotomy.

Then you have a group of Baptists (and general evangelicals who are sometimes counted as Baptists) who have admittedly not paid much attention to the covenantal aspects of scripture because, I am sorry to say, they have not dug deeply into doctrine of any kind. Such churches do exist, and they are perhaps more common among Baptists because the congregational form of church polity allows individual churches to craft their own doctrinal statements, which may or may not address covenant theology.

Therefore, the answer to this question very much depends on which type of Baptist you have in mind. The differences are so substantial that I do not think I could possibly give one answer for Baptists as a whole. For myself and other Particular Baptists, I would say we have not ignored the covenantal aspects of scripture at all. Dispensationalists haven’t ignored them either, but have greatly misunderstood them in certain respects. Then there is a hodge podge of other opinions that probably do leave a lot to be desired because of a general doctrinal weakness.

Aren’t Baptists just ignorant, dumb, or uneducated?

Perhaps you are thinking, “Did someone actually ask you that question?” Not in so many words, no. However, the overall tone taken by many paedobaptists (particularly during Twitter debates) has caused me to increasingly suspect that part of the reason they object to us is our lack of historical and intellectual pedigree. The perceived implication of many comments and questions by the most polemical paedobaptists is that our opinions must be the result of a poor study of the scriptures, a lack of historical knowledge, or a personal background in churches that did not set much store by doctrine. Sometimes this is perceptible in the comments about catechizing children, or the jokes that a Baptist Bible does not include the Old Testament, or the observation that at least a thousand years of Christian scholars were all paedobaptists.

The other way I see this assumption play out is in the observation that people may start out as Baptists, but if they ever commit themselves to serious study, they wise up and become Presbyterians. There have certainly been many Christians who followed this trajectory, some of whom are friends of mine. A certain percentage of these people will often recite the history of their “conversion” and point to it as the moment when they first began to really grasp important scriptural truths. Over time, one gets the sense from certain confessionally Reformed people that evangelical and Baptist churches are fine for coming to faith, but their churches are the place where real scriptural education takes place and people show concern for the more academic aspects of faith.

I should stress that many confessionally Reformed people do not make such implications or create such an impression in the minds of others. However, it is enough of a trend that I feel a need to respond to it. The credobaptist position is not so fantastical that an intelligent, educated, sincere Christian could not come to it as a result of studying scripture. I graduated with honors from one of the best universities in the world. I do not say this to brag, but merely to demonstrate that I am a reasonably sane person. I have blind spots just like anybody. None of us are fully sanctified in terms of knowledge, and I think it is very important for us to admit that.

I have no doubt in my mind that I hold some theological positions that are incorrect. If I knew which ones they were, I would adjust accordingly, but there is also something to be said for realizing and accepting our imperfections. They force us to rely upon the grace of God. Those who believe they have perfect knowledge are especially susceptible to the sin of pride. It is better that the Holy Spirit should reveal things to each of us in His own timing as He continues to illuminate the scriptures every time we open them in faith and humility.

Arguments that appeal to the supposed ignorance or lack of intelligence among Baptists are not just unloving and ungracious, nor are they merely prideful. Calling a large group of Christians stupid is in and of itself stupid, for it goes against the teaching of Jesus Christ: “But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.” (Matthew 5:22, NASB)

I sincerely hope that I never treat any group of Christians as if their beliefs are the product of stupidity, with the possible exception of fringe cults that are truly under the influence of brainwashing or hallucinogens. Such thinking is unworthy of the name of Christ. There may be individual Baptists who are less intelligent or have less education, but if you look at the long line of great Baptist theologians over the years, I think you will find that they were very knowledgable in both the sacred and secular senses—from William Kiffin, to Charles Spurgeon, to the writers of today like James Dolezal. These are people who take their faith and doctrine very seriously.

Do you believe those baptized as infants are unbaptized?

Here you will find a divide among Baptists. There are certainly some Baptists who would suggest that the baptism of infants is completely invalid. They would argue that, since it is not in line with scriptural requirements, it does not count for anything. The Christian who was baptized as an infant must, in their opinion, be baptized upon profession of faith if they are to obey the Lord’s command. Anyone who does not do this would be considered unbaptized.

While this position is certainly common among Baptists, it is not universal. My own opinion is that paedobaptism was not God’s intention, but that it is merely deficient rather than completely invalid. That may still sound harsh, but it actually marks an important difference. I would not personally say that a person who was baptized as an infant is “unbaptized”, and particularly not if they subsequently made a profession of faith before the elders of the church.

You may be wondering how I could hold such a position if I believe that paedobaptism is not in line with God’s command. Indeed, I know that there are plenty of Baptists who would disagree with me on this point. However, I am telling you what I think personally. I believe that it is possible for people to do the right thing for the wrong reason and the wrong thing for the right reason. That is to say, I believe that the intentions of a person’s heart are an important consideration when one attempts to evaluate their spiritual state. Scripture indicates that the Lord does not judge us merely by our external actions, though He certainly does judge based on that criteria. He also judges our thoughts and intentions. Holiness is as much about what is inside a man, i.e. his desires and motivations, as what comes out of him, i.e. his words and deeds.

There are people in credobaptist churches who have never been baptized. They are not typically admitted to membership for this reason, and many of them are told that they need to obey God in this way. However, a person may put off baptism for any number of reasons, most of which are not acceptable to God. Some people actually reject the need to be baptized. These people are setting aside the command of the Lord. They are rejecting His will. They are living in open disobedience.

I would contrast this with the case of a person who was baptized as an infant and truly believes that their baptism was in line with God’s command. They confess their faith, take part in the life of the Church, and strive to obey God’s law. They show every sign of developing the fruits of the Spirit. This person is not rebelling against God’s command. They have simply misunderstood God’s command. I see a difference between those two things, and I believe that the Lord is gracious enough to forgive any deficiencies in their baptism. If such a person came to be convinced of the validity of credobaptism, then I would say they should be baptized again in keeping with the burden placed upon their conscience. However, I would not go so far as to call these people “unbaptized”: not if they made a profession of faith before the elders of the church at some later date. This position of mine may be somewhat controversial, but I hold it in good conscience.

What, in your opinion, would completely invalidate a baptism?

There are some baptisms which I would consider completely unacceptable. The Lord Jesus commanded that His disciples be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I would therefore not accept any baptism which occurred in a non-Trinitarian church. (Indeed, such a thing is not really a church, for it does not teach one of the most basic truths of scripture.) I would go so far as to say that the Trinitarian formula should always be recited during a baptism. That was the command of our Lord.

Furthermore, the New Testament sets a clear example of baptisms being performed by the Church. Indeed, every baptism described in scripture is administered by an officer of the Church. You therefore cannot baptize yourself. I would also be highly hesitant to accept a baptism that was not performed by a pastor, elder, or deacon. There are certain cases where a godly layperson assists the elders in performing baptisms. I might be willing to consider such exceptional circumstances, but in general, I say that all baptisms should be performed by ordained ministers. Baptism is your visible introduction into the Church, and it must be administered by the Church. (Someone will surely raise the case of a person who lives in a part of the world with no churches. I am sure God would give grace in such circumstances.)

A good example of a baptism I would absolutely reject was provided in an anecdote by one of my British friends. He joked that Catholic grandmothers there often used to baptize their grandchildren in the tub in the name of “Jesus, Mary, and Joseph”. That, my friends, is not a baptism. It is performed in the name of a false Trinity and is not administered by the Church. So as well-meaning as those grannies may have been, I regretfully decline to accept those as valid baptisms. I recommend that concerned grandmothers take their grandchildren to church.

Do you believe a Baptist church should offer communion to those who were baptized as infants?

Yes. Again, you will find some disagreement among Baptists on this point. Some churches may only allow members of their own congregation to participate in the Lord’s Supper. Some may ask visitors to confirm that they have received “believer’s baptism”. Every church that I have personally attended has always offered communion to any person who believes in the name of Jesus Christ and has repented of their sins, and this seems to be the practice in many Baptist churches.

The reason things get tricky is because the Lord’s Supper has a connection with church discipline: that is, congregants who have been placed under church discipline are, in many congregations, prohibited from participating in communion. This can lead to a general principle that churches should “fence the table” from those who are guilty of serious sin. If paedobaptism is considered completely invalid, then those who have not been baptized upon profession of faith could be perceived as being guilty of serious sin. This would cause the church to refuse the elements of communion.

In practice, I have never seen any church I have attended do this. I have never witnessed them questioning visitors about their baptismal status or even suggesting that they wished to do so. I think this is the correct policy for two basic reasons: 1) The Lord’s Supper is intended to be a time of communion not only with God, but also with each other. We become sharers in the body and blood of Christ together, even as the Apostle Paul taught. To deny the elements to a person therefore seems to carry an implicit assumption that they are not united to Christ, even as church discipline effectively causes a person to be treated like an unbeliever. I do not think it is right or biblical for us to treat fellow Christians as unbelievers because they were baptized as infants or to refuse to fellowship and commune with them.

2) While the Lord’s Supper should be denied to those who are under church discipline, the Apostle Paul places a stronger mandate on the individual to assess the condition of their own heart and determine if they should partake of the elements. Therefore, churches ought to emphasize the need for congregants to examine themselves before partaking, and if some unrepentant sin were to come to the attention of the elders, it may be appropriate for them to deny the elements. However, even as I don’t believe elders should normally spend their time inquiring after the sins of every member of their congregation, I do not believe they need to do so before the Lord’s Supper. If a visitor came to my church, I would present to them the biblical expectations regarding communion and then let them examine their own heart to decide whether or not to partake.

The short answer is therefore that I would not deny the Lord’s Supper to someone who was baptized as an infant. I would consider denying it to those who simply refuse to be baptized at all.

Do you believe a Baptist church should accept as members those who were baptized as infants without requiring rebaptism?

Potentially, and here again I know that I differ with many of my fellow Baptists. At one Baptist church that I previously attended, the church debated whether or not to accept into membership those who were baptized as believers but not by immersion. This was not about a different understanding of the theology of baptism, but simply the amount of water used. I voted to accept such people into membership, and the measure passed by a narrow margin. My vote in that case reflects the fact that I am not as dogmatic when it comes to some of these issues.

There are many things to consider when deciding whether or not to accept a paedobaptist into membership at a credobaptist church. First, I must state that no credobaptist should ever forbid a paedobaptist to attend, and in practice, I have never seen this happen. (Perhaps it happens in some places, but I sincerely doubt that this is the majority practice.) Second, the church must consider whether or not a person who was baptized as an infant, but never upon profession of faith, could be said to be guilty of serious sin. Third, the church must consider if such a person agrees with the congregation’s statement of faith. Fourth, the church must consider whether or not such a person would be allowed to serve in a teaching capacity. Fifth, the church must consider whether the decision to grant membership to such a person would cause division among the congregants. Sixth, the church must consider whether such an individual would really be happy at a Baptist church, or if there is some other congregation that would be a better fit for them.

I do not consider a person who has been baptized as an infant and subsequently made a profession of faith to be guilty of serious sin. We could debate the question of sin all day, but I do not see it as a rebellion against God’s commands, but rather as a misunderstanding of those commands. I therefore would not classify it as a serious sin. That removes the first hurdle. We do reach a bit of an impasse when it comes to affirming the congregation’s statement of faith, which has been an expectation at all the Baptist churches I have attended. Allowances may be made for slight differences of theological opinion, so it really comes down to where baptism sits on the food chain of doctrinal issues. I might be willing to accept a person who disagreed on that point, so long as they did not hold to baptismal regeneration. (If you hold to baptismal regeneration, then that likely indicates a difference in your understanding of salvation, which would be a more serious issue.)

As far as serving in a teaching capacity, I would not mind if a paedobaptist taught at my church if they did not contradict the church’s statement of faith. In other words, I would not want them promoting a paedobaptist position to the members of the church when they are seen as a kind of representative of the church. I would not mind them telling congregants that they held a different opinion or even discussing their rationale on an individual level, but I think it would be overly divisive for them to mount a kind of campaign to convert the members of the church to paedobaptism. If they wish to attend a church where that is the majority opinion, there are others from which they can choose. They must respect the doctrinal positions of the church and the leadership of the elders.

Allowing paedobaptists to become members of credobaptist churches may well cause division among the congregation. The church I formally attended that had that vote about the amount of water used in baptism did experience some minor division over the issue. Had they been voting to accept people who were baptized as infants, that division would no longer have been minor. It may well have caused the congregants to rebel against the authority of the elders. It would certainly have caused many people to leave if such a measure had been passed. I would say that the elders really need to know their congregation and consider how to go about these things. There are some congregations that would be ready to accept such a measure and some that simply are not in that place.

Finally, I would be rather concerned that a committed paedobaptist would end up frustrated at a committed credobaptist church, particularly if they were in a teaching capacity where they were told not to contradict the church’s position. They may end up experiencing a kind of crisis of conscience. I believe this must factor in to one’s consideration of the issue.

To conclude, I would personally be open to accepting a paedobaptist into membership at a credobaptist church, but it would depend very much on individual circumstances. I would want to have a long talk with the individual and understand clearly why they wish to be a member of a church with which they have a substantial theological disagreement. Keep in mind, we are not talking about simply attending and fellowshipping, but actually being a fully signed up member. I would also want to discuss any expectations regarding teaching roles and what they would plan to do if they had a new child whom they wished to be baptized. Obviously, a credobaptist church would not be willing to administer that baptism, so this would need to be made perfectly clear beforehand. There may be cases where a paedobaptist could be accepted as a member, but I simply cannot make a blanket statement for or against this idea.

Aren’t the sinful excesses and doctrinal errors of some Baptist churches/ministers proof that the credobaptist position is not in line with scripture?

No. Point to any denomination in Christendom, and I am sure we could find cases of serious sin or false teaching. That is because Christians still battle with a sinful nature and are not perfected in knowledge. I am not suggesting that all denominations have an equal grasp of scriptural truth. There is such a thing as objective reality. Nevertheless, I do not believe that any denomination has a complete monopoly on biblical truth, nor do I believe that a few bad apples are proof that the whole batch is rotten.

Now, there are some doctrinal positions that do tend to create errors of practice, and these errors of practice mark them out as false. One example of this would be the worshipful attitude that Roman Catholics take toward the elements of the Eucharist, which was rightly identified by the Reformers as a form of idolatry. These were examples of bad fruit brought about by an incorrect belief: that the bread and wine literally transformed into the physical body and blood of Christ. Even so, false doctrine continues to lead to false practice, but errors on the part of individual pastors, churches, or even split-off denominations do not prove that the entire theological system is heretical.

Therefore, if there are some Baptists who tend toward charismatic or ecstatic excesses, it does not prove that credobaptism is false. If there are some Baptist preachers who cultivate a kind of cult of personality, it does not prove that credobaptism is false. If John Piper says something about gender with which you happen to disagree, it does not prove that credobaptism is false. If John MacArthur says something about eschatology with which you happen to disagree, it does not prove that credobaptism is false. Even so, the existence of the Federal Vision movement does not prove that confessional Reformed soteriology is inherently wrong, nor does the liberal trend of the PCUSA prove that the Presbyterian system of church government is the problem, nor does John Frame’s doctrine of God prove that all Reformed Christians have abandoned the tenets of classical theism.

Why do so many credobaptists end up as paedobaptists?

I am not aware of any reliable statistics that demonstrate the percentage of credobaptists becoming paedobaptists and vice versa. I can name among my own acquaintances several brothers and sisters who were formerly Baptists and are now Presbyterian or Reformed. I have also heard anecdotally from paedobaptists that they get a lot of people switching to their position. Indeed, this seems to account for the majority of their congregational growth, in addition to the births of new babies.

I could not possibly give actual numbers for the number of persons moving in that direction, but it seems to be reasonably substantial. The majority of these people do not seem to have previously attended churches that held to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, but there are always exceptions. The general narrative seems to be that the person first accepts the doctrines of grace (that is, the five points of TULIP) and then moves on to accept Reformed sacramentology and ecclesiology.

Based purely on an analysis of my Twitter circle, I might be tempted to conclude that there are hardly any paedobaptists becoming credobaptists. However, an examination of all the facts suggests to me that this is not actually the case. Within my own family, there are more people who were formerly paedobaptists than were formerly credobaptists. At every Baptist church I have attended, there has been a portion of the congregation that grew up in paedobaptist churches and came to accept the credobaptist position. We also have plenty of anecdotal cases of individuals seeking more information about the Particular Baptist position and some who eventually switch.

Now, I am not saying all of this to get into a debate about who is more persuasive. The fact is that while paedobaptists have been in the majority throughout much of Christian history, they do not seem to make up a majority of regular church attenders within American Protestantism. If we assume that a certain percentage of people in any group will end up changing their position—probably somewhere around 5 or 10%—then this should mean that we see a greater number of credobaptists becoming paedobaptists.

Perhaps the percentage of people who change their mind is higher among credobaptists than paedobaptists. As far as I know, there is no reliable and scientifically collected data available. Even if that were the case, what I want to fight back against here is the notion that either side has a claim to manifest destiny—that is, that one argument is so obviously correct that it cannot help but convert everyone if they would simply give it the time of day. The issue is not that simple. There are good points to be made on either side. I sincerely doubt that this matter will be put to bed before our Lord returns. The fact that I know several people who used to be credobaptists and are now paedobaptists does not necessarily prove that the paedobaptist position is correct, even as the fact that my own mother used to be a paedobaptist and is now a credobaptist proves that our position is correct.

I realize at this point that I have not really answered the original question, which asked why credobaptists become paedobaptists. The reasons may be as varied as the individuals in question. A connection with historic theology seems to be important to many who convert. An appreciation for the entire message of scripture as an integrated whole also seems to be important. I think that the rampant individualism in our society has caused many people to see the appeal of the covenantal model offered by confessional Reformed Christianity, which is in many ways blatantly counter-cultural. I think there are also many skilled apologists for Reformed paedobaptism who can make a very good case, and there are plenty of passages of scripture which are brought up in support of this position. The overall argument is well thought out and expertly defended.

I do believe the argument for paedobaptism is ultimately incorrect. Nevertheless, I can see its appeal. It does not surprise me that many have been convinced by this argument, and I do not doubt that others will follow. Even so, I do not doubt that there will be those who come in our direction and do so rather more quietly.

Do you want all paedobaptists to become credobaptists?

That is not a particular goal of mine. I do believe that the credobaptist position is most in line with scripture, and thus I think it would certainly be good for more people to adopt it. However, I do not feel especially called by God to convert people to the credobaptist position. There are other doctrinal issues that I feel are more pressing and where I can make a more effective contribution. It seems to me that there are already many people fighting the baptism battle. I look for those forgotten fields that need more hands at the plow.

I certainly would enjoy never having to participate in a baptism debate again and never again being insulted for my credobaptist beliefs. I suppose that could come about if everyone became credobaptists. I would like for there to be no more division in the Church of Jesus Christ and for us all to fellowship and worship with one another. This would be possible if we all agreed on doctrine, but I am not so arrogant as to assume that all of my positions must be the correct ones.

While I strive to hold positions that are in line with scripture, I need as much grace as the next person. Therefore, if you find the credobaptist argument compelling, by all means come on in: the water’s fine, and we’re happy to dunk you in it. But if you feel the Spirit is convicting you of the paedobaptist position, we can still fellowship together and walk this narrow road of sanctification, encouraging one another and working to bring the gospel message to as many people as possible.

Bonus Question: Was John Owen a Baptist?

No. He was also not a Presbyterian—at least, not at the end. John Owen was a Puritan paedobaptist. However, while he never advocated for credobaptism, a few of his views seem to have been closer to the Particular Baptists than we would expect for a leading Reformed thinker. For one thing, he ended up as a Congregationalist. For another, the view of the Old and New Covenants he expressed in his commentary on Hebrews chapter 8 was similar enough to that of Baptist Nehemiah Coxe that the latter simply reprinted Owen’s work alongside his own examination of covenant theology.

I do not believe that there is any question that Owen saw the Old (Mosaic) Covenant as either partially or entirely works-based. Those within the confessional Reformed world who hold the republicationist viewpoint may not see that as anything out of the ordinary, but others would find it harder to accept. Owen’s view of the Abrahamic Covenant is something I haven’t studied in depth, but it must have been somewhat different from the Particular Baptists, or he would not have taken the paedobaptist position…unless, of course, he was entirely inconsistent, which I suppose is a possibility.

Therefore, Owen was certainly not a Baptist, but he did think about the Old Covenant in a similar manner, as evidenced by the fact that he continues to be quoted by Particular Baptists to support their argument. It is also notable that Owen signed on to the Savoy Declaration, which is somewhat different from the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith. Again, I am not suggesting that Owen was not Reformed or that he was a Baptist. I am merely saying that there are complexities to his views, which in any case evolved over time. I do not think that anyone has a 100% claim on Owen, and that is part of what makes him such a fascinating theologian.

 

Thank you very much. It was fun. Let’s not do this again. My belief in credobaptism is not the most important part of me. I was never such a self-conscious Baptist until I started using Twitter. I found it to be full of people wishing to emphasize our differences and even taunting me to call them unbaptized. Such an odd place it is! In fact, it was Dr. R. Scott Clark who first labeled me a Particular Baptist. I had never heard of such a thing. I investigated, and sure enough, I found that the Particular Baptists had a lot of good things to say. So thank you, Dr. Clark, for helping me along my way! (See, that’s funny, because I gather that Dr. Clark would like me to become a paedobaptist.)