This is the first of my book reviews and I’m not sure how it will turn out; I’m not so great of a writer. I don’t mean for this review to exhaust the book in its entirety, but rather highlight on some of the main points the author provides and my interactions with these ideas.
From Paedobaptism to Credobaptism: A Critique of the Westminster Standards on the Subjects of Baptism
by W. Gary Crampton
Chapter 1
Crampton points out that there are no expressed commands in the New Testament to baptize infants nor is there any record of such a clear case. Of course it is argued by many paedobaptists that household baptisms included infants but there is no concrete support for that. There are however explicit commands to baptize those who profess Christ in the New Testament.
Without an express command to baptize infants, to do so would violate the Reformed belief of the regulative principle, which states that the only acceptable worship of God is restricted to what is expressed within the Scriptures and is not subject to the ways we may come up with to worship him. For example, one church I went to years ago conducted a worship service playing the game “Simon” with the attendees who each had one of four different colors of glow sticks.
Among paedobaptists, there are multiple differences as to why infants should be baptized. I know I have heard arguments approached from different angles. There is a great quote from J.M. Pendleton summing up some of the many different reasons,
How contradictory! How antagonistic! It seems that infants are baptized that they may be saved – that they may be regenerated – because they have faith – because their parents are believers – because they are involved in original sin – and because they are holy – because they ought to be brought into the church – and because they are in the church by virtue of their birth – and because of their “personal connection” with Christ, in consequence of His assumption of human nature.
Shouldn’t so many different arguments for this practice of infant baptism be even more reason to question its validity?
Chapter 2
The Westminster Confession of Faith defines baptism as follows,
Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in his church until the end of the world.
By this definition, paedobaptists declare that they confess their faith in baptism, yet give this sign to their infants without any confession. Again, they declare baptism to be a sacrament of faith and penitence yet grant it to those infants who have neither. Even better they call baptism a sign of profession, yet give it to infants who make no profession.
Chapter 3
A sacrament is defined by the Westminster Shorter Catechism as
“a sacrament is a holy ordinance instituted by Christ, wherein, by sensible signs, Christ, and the benefits of the New Covenant, are represented, sealed, and applied to believers.”
Crampton goes on to questions this by asking if this to be applied to believers, then why should we baptize infants who have never professed belief? I feel that Crampton actually misunderstands this definition. From what I’ve heard from many paedobaptists say (and maybe even some credobaptists) the benefits of the New Covenant may be applied to the unregenerate as a sign, but avails nothing if not a true believer. If one is a true believer then the benefits of the baptism are truly applied. I would take the phrase, “applied to believers” to be in reference to the benefits, not the sacrament in this definition.
It is also helpful to note that water baptism is a New Testament sacrament, therefore we should look to the New Testament when studying this sacrament. This is the approach we take on the studying the Lord’s Supper even though the Old Testament ordinance of Passover was a foreshadowing of the Lord’s Supper.
One argument I’ve heard on infant baptism is that in this New Covenant, which is more inclusive than the old, why would you forbid the children of the covenant members from receiving this sign of a more inclusive covenant when they were previously included in the old? Well, could you not say the same thing with the Lord’s Supper? This is the covenant meal of the more inclusive covenant, yet participation in this meal is more restrictive than Passover was. There is no positive or direct command in the New Testament to include infants or small children in this covenant meal. In fact, there is clear biblical mandate to examine oneself before partaking of the sacrament lest he eat and drink unworthily and bring judgment on himself.
If these conditions are enough for the regulation of the participants in the Lord’s Supper, why then would it not be good enough to regulate the participants of baptism?
B.B. Warfield, Louis Berkhof, and John Calvin are all in agreement that there is not sufficient evidence in the New Testament to support infant baptism. But shouldn’t there be if it is true that the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed? Shouldn’t the Old Testament be read in light on the New?
Life and Doctrine 