I am never sure quite what to do with responses like this. I
want to be as gentle and gracious as possible with the people who
email me like this, while doing my best to reach an agreement
about the truth of God's word with them.
I think the best approach in this case is simply to respond to
each of the statements given above.
Paul, the baptism of infants is scriptural and is recorded in
early church history.
Two points here. I agree that infant baptism is recorded in
early church history, although the early references are mainly
ambiguous. But, as I have said on numerous occasions, I am simply
not interested in establishing what I should believe on the basis
of what the church has taught and done. The church can help me
understand and apply scriptural truth, but if you can't show me it
is there in the Bible, I feel no obligation to believe it.
Especially if the Bible teaches me the precise opposite!
And, of course, the statement that "the baptism of infants is
scriptural" is completely unsupported. In the light of all I have
read and written about the subject, I am not likely to change my
interpretation of all the passages of scripture I have studied and
discussed simply because someone emails me to say I am wrong. If
you think I am mistaken, then show me from scripture! That is all
I ask.
Baptists have a false view of the subjects,
meaning and mode of christian baptism.
Again, a clear statement of someone's belief, but totally
unsupported by scripture.
Please read Iranaeus who
was born before the apostle John died, Justin Martyr (ad100),
Origen (ad185), Cyprian (ad253), Augustine (ad354), Calvin,
Luther, Edwards, Owen, Warfield etc etc for the truth of the
matter.
Actually, would it surprise you to know that I have read them?
Although - to be honest - for most of them, I have not read their
entire works.
The fact that someone lived a long time ago does not prove that
what they say is true! Paul seemed to spend quite a lot of his
time countering false doctrines in the early church. A lot of what
the early Christians wrote was very poor theology according to
today's standards.
I would be interested to know if my correspondant believes
everything that all those writers wrote? If you look at their
theology, there is quite a lot of disagreement between them. In
fact, it is possible (I have not checked this!) that the only
thing they agree upon is the practice of infant baptism.
But if I am not being called upon to believe everything these
people say, why am I being told to believe what they tell me
about the practice of infant baptism?
I completely fail to understand the argument, if there is one
here. You put together a list of famous people who agree about one
point, and tell me I ought to believe what they say about this one
point. I can put together a list of famous people who agree about
believers' baptism - is that an argument for believing in
believers' baptism? I don't think so.
You would do well to remember that the vast majority of
baptists are Arminians who preach another gospel.
This is a familiar line of argument, but one that has no effect
on me at all.
Firstly: no, I can't remember this, as I don't know if it is
true. I have not counted them. I didn't know that anybody had. In
my personal experience, most people who believed in believers'
baptism have been Calvinists. Maybe my experience has been
atypical.
Secondly: perhaps I have not made this point clearly enough,
but I don't think you can determine what is true or false by
taking a vote. How many people believe a certain doctrine may be of
interest to a sociologist or a historian, but not to a theologian
seeking to arrive at the truth.
And thirdly: this argument is so full of holes, I am astonished
anyone still uses it. You are saying (if we ignore the question of
the number of people involved) that you don't like one thing a
person believes, so something else they believe must of course be
wrong. Since most of these people also believe that Jesus is the
Second Person of the Trinity, will you conclude that this doctrine
is also untrue? I suspect not.
Luther famously held to the Bible as the sole authority for
what we should believe, and several of the other people quoted
would agree with him on this point - as do I. I suspect that
Luther would be horrified to be used in this way.
Luther wrote a great deal. Much of what I have read, I agree
with, and even when I do not entirely agree, I benefit from his
writings. But I am convinced that he is confused about baptism, as
he is about several other topics. And, most of the time, I think
it is clear where he is confused (and, often, why), and I have
already responded to these points in my previous writings about
baptism.
Since I have not read everything Martin Luther wrote, I cannot
attempt a complete reply. And, to be honest, it would not be a
high priority for me. But if anyone can send me a particular
passage he wrote, which you think will demonstrate from scripture
why my understanding of the Bible is wrong, and which answers the
problems I have identified with the paedobaptist understanding,
then please let me have it. I promise to reply! In fact, such a
passage written by anybody would be most welcome.