Theology in Particular: The Administration and Administrator of Baptism

 

JTR

Book Review: W. Gary Crampton: From Paedobaptism to Credobaptism: A Study of the Westminster Confession and Infant Baptism

 

Dr. Crampton died last week on 7.17.24. I posted this video version of my review of his book which I recorded in 2011.

 

I also posted to my academia.edu page the written version of my review which appeared in the Reformed Baptist Trumpet, Vol. 2, No. 1 (2011):13-15. Read it here.

JTR

CRBC Baptism Video (8.14.22)

JTR

WM 205: Interview: David Charles on Albert N. Martin Festschrift

 

I have posted WM 205, my interview with David Charles, co-editor of A Workman Not Ashamed: Essays in Honor of Albert N. Martin (Free Grace Press, 2021).

You can find the book here.

You can read this recent review of the book by Brian G. Najapfour on the Biblical Spirituality Press website.

JTR

The Vision (2.5.21): Spiritual Applications from the Baptism of Christ

 

Image: Modern view of the Jordan River, Israel

Note: Devotion taken from last Sunday's sermon on Matthew 3:13-17 (audio not yet uploaded).

Matthew 3:16 And Jesus when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Here are some spiritual applications we might draw from the baptism of Christ Matthew 3:13-17:

First, we should reflect on John’s protest that he was unworthy to baptize the Lord (Matt 3:14).

John was given a task by the Lord for which he did not believe that he was adequate. John, a sinner, was commanded to baptize the sinless one.

One thinks of the apostle Paul who had persecuted the church of God and who was then appointed to be an apostle. In 2 Corinthians 2:16 Paul wrote, “And who is sufficient for these things?”

We are not worthy to bear his shoes! He still gives unholy men, holy tasks. John was not fit to baptize Christ but God himself demanded it “to fulfill all righteousness” (Matt 3:15).

What is your protest and how is the Lord overcoming it?

Second, we are reminded that our lives are hid in the sinless life of Christ.

Christ did not need to confess sin, for he had none. He did not need to repent of sin, for he had none. Yet, he submitted himself to baptism.

John Calvin said that Christ was baptized to assure believers “that they are ingrafted into his body,” buried with him in baptism that we may walk with him in newness of life (see Rom 6:3-4).

Calvin adds: “The general reason why Christ received baptism was, that he might render full obedience to the Father; and the special reason was that he might consecrate baptism in his own body, that we might have it in common with him.”

Third, we are reminded of the example of Christ.

As Christ was submitted to baptism by John, so we, if we are his followers, should be submitted to baptism (see Matt 28:19-20).

Matthew Poole notes that we learn from Christ’s example that no man is to have contempt for baptism or to neglect it.

Fourth, we are reminded of the Trinity as revealed truth.

We find several places in the Scripture where the one true God is plainly spoken of as Father, Son (or Word), and Spirit:

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

2 Corinthians 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.

1 John 5: 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

But here in the baptism of the Lord Jesus we see the triune God displayed in narrative:

The Father looks on from heaven with pleasure and speaks.

The Spirit descends, as a dove, and rests on Christ.

The incarnate Son of God is there in the water, in obedience to the Father, fulfilling all righteousness.

So, we can say with the ancient hymn, “Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.”

JTR

Eusebius, EH.7.7-9: Dionysius's Epistles on the (Re)Baptism Controversy

Image: Remains of a cross-shaped baptistery in ancient Laodicea, in modern day Turkey.

This is an occasional series of readings from and brief notes and commentary upon Eusebius of Caesarea’s The Ecclesiastical History: Book 7, chapters 7-9. Listen here.

Notes and Commentary:

These chapters continue to report on the letters of Dionysius of Alexandria to various persons regarding the baptism controversy. Dionysius sided with Stephen in opposition to Cyprian of Carthage and his argument that the lapsed must be re-baptized.

Chapter 7 describes the third letter of Dionysius On Baptism to Philemon, a presbyter of Rome. In it he claims to have received a vision which affirmed the propriety of his reading the works of heretics so that he might be able to understand and refute them.

He claims that in his practice he was following “the rule and pattern” of Heraclas of Alexandria, called here papa or “pope”, who did not require those who had drifted into false teaching to be re-baptized when restored.

He also notes that the African practice extended back to previous bishops.

He next cites the fourth letter of Dionysius On Baptism directed to Dionysius of Rome, at this time a presbyter but later the bishop.

Chapter 8 continues to describe this fourth letter as dealing with Novatian, whom he says falsely accused “our most compassionate Lord Jesus Christ of being without mercy.”

Chapter 9 describes a fifth letter of Dionysius to Xystus, bishop of Rome. Here he describes a brother in Alexandria who had received a disorderly baptism at the hands of heretics and with a tender conscience desired rebaptism, but this was refused by Dionysius.

Beyond these letters of Dionysius, two others are mentioned, a second to Xystus and the church at Rome, and another to Dionysius of Rome.

Conclusion:

These chapters expand upon the (re)baptism controversy and Dionysius’s role as an advocate through his letters in opposition to the position of Cyprian of Carthage and others who were promoting the necessity of baptism for the lapsed. He appeals to the leaders of the Roman church, noting, in particular his agreement with Heraclas of Alexandria.

JTR

Eusebius, EH.7.3-6; Cyprian and Stephen's Conflict Over the (Re)Baptism of the Lapsed

This is an occasional series of readings from and brief notes and commentary upon Eusebius of Caesarea's Ecclesiastical History: Book 7, chapters 3-6. Listen here.

Notes and Commentary:

These chapters continue to review the baptismal controversy that followed after the Decian persecution and the Novatian schism. What should be done to the lapsed, fallen, or heretics who desired to be restored to the church?

Chapter 3 begins with the position of Cyprian of Carthage who held that the lapsed had to be submitted again to baptism for purification. This view was opposed by Stephen of Rome who held that baptism (or rebaptism) was not required for restoration.

Chapters 4-5 shares a letter from Dionysius of Alexandria to Stephen celebrating the peace now achieved in the churches. It provides a summary of the churches and their bishops, including:

Demetrian at Antioch;

Theoctistus at Caesarea;

Mazabanes at Aelia (Jerusalem);

Marinus at Tyre (succeeding Alexander);

Heliodorus at Laodicea (succeeding Thelymidres);

Helenus at Tarsus and Cilicia;

Firmilian at Cappadocia.

At the death of Stephen, he was succeeded as bishop by Xystus, to whom Dionysius wrote a second letter On Baptism.

Dionysius describes how Stephen wrote regarding his conflict with Helenus and Firmilian over this issue of baptism of those who had “come over from heresies” and his threatening withdrawal of fellowship with them because of it.

Mention is also made to his communication with two presbyters, Dionysius and Philemon, who “had formerly been of the same opinion as Stephen.”

Chapter 6 notes that in this same letter Dionysius also makes reference to “the Sabellian heresy.” It is described as having begun “at Ptolemais in the Pentapolis” and as being an “impious doctrine” offering blasphemy against God the Father and “great unbelief” in “the only begotten Son.”

Conclusion:

These chapters describe the conflict between Cyprian and Stephen over the baptism (rebaptism) of those who had fallen during persecution or heresy. It again describes the writing of Dionysius and his efforts to forge peace and unity. Two of his letters are cited, one to Stephen, and a second to Xythus, Stephen’s successor. Lastly, mention is made of his combatting the Sabellian heresy. When the church has outward peace, it must also be vigilant to maintain inward peace and fidelity.

JTR

Matthew C. Bingham on Reformed Baptists being "Reformed"

Image: CRBC baptismal service (11.10.19) [in the baptistery of Louisa BC]

In his article in the book On Being Reformed: Debates over a Theological Identity (Palgrave Pivot, 2018) [see WM 137] defending the propriety of Reformed Baptists to be considered “Reformed” and distinguishing Reformed Baptists from those who are merely Calvinistic Baptists, Matthew C. Bingham offers this succinct summary (pp. 47-48):

With the wider Reformed tradition, Reformed Baptists affirm monergistic soteriology, an appreciation of God’s meticulous providence, and a robust declaration that all things work “to the praise of the glory of his wisdom, power, justice, infinite goodness, and mercy” [2LBCF 5:1]. But alongside these things, and also in keeping with the wider Reformed tradition, Reformed Baptists affirm the regulative principle of worship, demand that a plurality of elders rule in the local congregation, and recognize the need that local churches not be isolated from one another but are instead called to hold “communion together” for their mutual “peace, union, and edification” [2LBCF 26:15]. With the wider Reformed tradition, Reformed Baptists embrace the Lord’s Day as the Christian Sabbath, understand the Lord’s Supper to be more than a bare memorial but rather a means of grace given for our “spiritual nourishment” (2LBCF 30:1], and recognize that the Lord of the Decalogue has given therein a summary statement of his immutable moral law. And with the wider Reformed tradition, Reformed Baptists understand all of Scripture as covenantally structured, rejecting dispensationalism and seeing the New Testament church as properly and fully “the Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16).

To this he then adds:

On these and other points, those Christians subscribing to the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of faith identity, not with the nebulous and ill-defined “Baptist” community, but rather with the Reformed tradition out of which their confessional document emerged. The fact that seventeenth century churchmen who drafted the confession would not have used the term “Reformed Baptists” to describe themselves was the result of political and cultural, rather than theological, considerations and should not dissuade contemporary Christians from embracing the term without embarrassment. Ultimately, then, if pressed as to why I would eschew terms like “Calvinistic Baptist” and stubbornly persist in calling myself “Reformed,” I would simply have to say that I agree with R. Scott Clark and others when they remind us that “Five Points” are not enough. A Calvinistic and Augustinian monergism does not exhaust the confessional heritage to which I subscribe; for that I need a better term: “Reformed.”

JTR

Buried with Christ in baptism

Image: Scene from baptism [at Louisa BC] (9.23.18)

Image: After service fellowship (9.23.18)

Note: Devotion taken from last Sunday's sermon on Romans 1:1-4.

Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we should walk in newness of life (Romans 6:4).

We do not become a Christian by living a good life (that would be works righteousness), but we aspire to live a good life, because we have become Christians. We have been transformed by Christ.

We might add: We do not become Christians by being baptized, but we are baptized, because we have become Christians.

It should not go without notice that Paul presents here in Romans 6 a beautiful image of what baptism signifies. When a Christian is baptized, he is saying, “I identify with the Lord Jesus Christ. I have died to sin through Christ. My old life is buried. I have been raised with Christ to walk in newness of life.”

This inspired description has long been used as a proof for believer’s baptism by immersion.

Who is the right candidate for baptism? A believer in the Lord Jesus Christ.

How should this person be baptized? By full immersion in water.

In favor of this mode of baptism, there is the linguistic argument. The verb baptizo means “to immerse, dip, or plunge,” and it is the verb used in every instance to describe the baptism of a believer. There is a verb in Greek for “to pour” echeo, and for “to sprinkle” rhantizo, and for “to wash” nipto, but in every instance when a baptism is described in the NT the verb is baptizo.

There is the argument from the example of Christ’s baptism (cf. Mark 1:10: “coming up out of the water”).

There is the argument from references to abundance of water when baptism is done in the NT (cf. John 3:22: “And John was also baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there.”; Acts 8:36).

And there is also the argument from Romans 6 that the only practice of baptism that could possibly match up with what Paul describes here is believer’s baptism by immersion: the believer being plunged beneath the surface of the water into “the watery grave of baptism” and being raised to walk in newness of life.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Wilken on Baptism in the Early Church

In Robert Louis Wilken’s The First Thousand Years: A Global History of Christianity (Yale, 2012), he offers an interesting description of the development of early Christian practices, like baptism. He draws upon the descriptions of baptism in the Apostolic Tradition, an early third century treatise. Wilkin notes:

After a long period of instruction and moral formation, those who had been accepted for baptism were to bathe, fast, and present themselves to the bishop…. Baptism took place at daybreak. A tank or pool would be filled with water, and the catechumens (those who had been instructed) would take off their clothes to prepare for immersion.

At this period of Christian history most people who were baptized were adults. But in the midst of the description of baptism the Apostolic Tradition inserts the surprising sentence: “You are to baptize the little ones first.” Apparently infant baptism was permissible—though not conventional—and parents or guardians would speak for the children. Then came the men, followed by the women, who were to let down their hair and take off any jewelry. Nothing could be taken down into the pool. First, the bishop would anoint each person with oil, “hand over” the trinitarian rule of faith, immerse the catechumen three times, and anoint him or her with oil a second time. Then the newly baptized were clothed, and the celebration of the Eucharist followed (176).

I was interested in the fact that Wilken affirms both that baptism was practiced by the mode of immersion and that the baptismal candidates were typically adults. We see the practice of infant baptism developing, but, according to Wilkin, it was not “conventional.” Paedobaptist Protestants not only have to explain the lack of warrant for infant baptism in the NT but also in the predominant practice of Christianity in the opening centuries of its existence.

JTR

Five Books on Credobaptism versus Paedobaptism

A couple of young people who occasionally drive from Williamsburg to attend our church, recently asked me to recommend some books on a confessional perspective on believers' baptism by immersion, as they are studying the issue of credobaptism versus paedobaptism.  Here are five suggestions (listed in chronological order by the year published) with a few annotations:

1.  John L. Dagg, Manual of Church Order (The Southern Baptist Publication Society, 1858; Gano Books, 1990).

This is the companion volume to Dagg’s Manual of Theology (1857).  It provides a classic defense of believers’ baptism by immersion (pp. 13-73).  Special focus is given to the linguistic argument regarding the verb baptizo with references to its uses in ancient Greek.

2.  Fred Malone, A String of Pearls Unstrung (Founders Press, 1998).

This booklet, originally written in 1977, describes the author's transition from being a Presbyterian to being a Baptist.  It can be read online here.  For a fuller treatment on the subject of baptism you can also read his book The Baptism of Disciples Alone:  A covenantal argument for credobaptism versus paedobaptism (Founders Press, 2003).

3.  Samuel E. Waldron, Biblical Baptism:  A Reformed Defense of Believers’ Baptism (Truth for Eternity Ministries, 1998).

This 80 page booklet from a leading contemporary Reformed Baptist systematic theologian provides a careful exegetical, theological, and practical discussion of baptism.

4.  Hal Brunson, The Rickety Bridge and the Broken Mirror:  Two Parables of Paedobaptism and One Parable of the Death of Christ (iUniverse, 2007).

This self-published book from a former Southern Baptist who considered becoming a Presbyterian but who eventually became a confessional Baptist offers a creative take on the topic by imagining a discussion between the Presbyterian B. B. Warfield, the dispensationalist J. N. Darby, and the confessional Baptist C. H. Spurgeon.

5.  W. Gary Crampton, From Paedobaptism to Credobaptism:  A Critique of the Westminster Standards on the Subjects of Baptism (Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2010).

A pastor and scholar describes his transition from the Presbyterian to the confessional Baptist position through a study of the Westminster Standards.  For my written review of this book look here (for the same review in audio look here).

The Vision (6.19.14): What is Baptism?

Note:  Here are some notes from last Sunday afternoon’s message in the Spurgeon’s Baptist Catechism series:

Q 75:  What is baptism?

A:  Baptism is an ordinance of the NT, instituted by Jesus Christ, to be unto the person baptized a sign of his fellowship with Him in his death, burial, and resurrection, of his being engrafted into Him, of remission of sins, and of his giving up himself unto God through Jesus Christ to live and walk in newness of life.

We might make three basic observations on this answer:

1.  The Baptist Catechism prefers to describe baptism here as an “ordinance” (stressing that the practice of baptism comes by the order or command of Christ) rather than as a sacrament.

The framers of our confession and catechism had a high view of the ordinances, but they did not want to confuse the sacrament with “sacramentalism” (the view that baptism and Lord’s Supper are beneficial regardless of the spiritual state of those who partake of them).

2.  Baptism is “instituted by Jesus Christ.”

How?

First, by his person example in being submitted to baptism (see Matthew 3:13-17).

Second, by his direct command to his disciples (Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:15-16).

Third, by the demonstration of this as the practice of the early church in the book of Acts, which as part of Holy Scripture, is also the very words of Christ (see, for example, Acts 8:35-38).

3.  Baptism is a “sign.”

So the Catechism reads:  “to be unto the person baptized a sign of his fellowship with Him in his death, burial, and resurrection.”

Notice it prefers the word “sign” rather than “symbol.”  Sign has more weight to it than mere symbol.  When a person is baptized an announcement or public declaration is made.

Our catechism teaches that baptism is a sign of at least four things:

First, it signifies our fellowship with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection (see Romans 6:3-5; Colossians 2:11-13).

Second, it signifies our being engrafted into Christ (John 15:1-7; Romans 11:16-24).

Third, it signifies remission of sins:

Baptism does not achieve remission of sins.  That is only done through the cross work of Christ.  But it pictures what Christ has done by calling to mind the ordinary act of washing in water to cleanse the body.

When Paul reports how he was discipled or catechized by Ananias as a new convert he records that Ananias said to him:

Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Now, did Paul mean by this that Ananias taught him that by the “work” of baptism one had his sins washed away?  Certainly not!  As Peter taught, what saves is not “the putting away of the filth of the flesh” by physical washing, but “the answer of a good conscience toward God” (1 Peter 3:21).

Fourth, it signifies our giving up ourselves “unto God through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.”

Having heard and believed the gospel, the Ethiopian eunuch asked Philip:  “See, here is water, what doth hinder me from being baptized?” (Acts 8:36).  To which Philip responded:  “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest”, and the Eunuch confessed, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God” (v. 37).

The language of giving up oneself or submitting oneself is prominent both here and later in Question 79 (“What is the duty of such as are rightly baptized?”) when the catechism stresses the importance of those who are baptized giving themselves up “to some particular and orderly Church of Jesus Christ, that they may walk in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.”

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

CRBC Sunday School Lesson and Discussion on Baptismal Mode (11.10.13)

I posted the audio from last Lord's Day's Sunday School discussion at CRBC on the subject of baptismal mode.  I also posted a pdf of the PowerPoint I used for the lesson.  We only do this class after lunch once of a month (on the second Sunday) in place of our afternoon worship, since I have to leave early to preach at a local retirement home.

 

JTR

Two major issues with baptism: subject and mode

When it comes to the issue of the sacrament or ordinance of baptism there are two major questions:  (1)  Who are the proper subjects of baptism?  Should only professing believers be baptized or should we also baptize the infants of believers?  (2) How should we perform the baptism?  This is the question of mode.  Should we pour water upon, sprinkle water upon, or immerse the person in water?

 There seem to be at least three options that have been proposed (that is among those who hold that baptism with water as a sacrament or ordinance should be practiced--Quakers and some ultra-dispensationalists would argue against the practice altogether):

A. Roman Catholic/Lutheran/Anglican/Presbyterian:

Proper subject:  A professing believer or the infants of believers.

Proper mode:  pouring, sprinkling, or immersion.  Note:  Some would insist on only the mode of pouring and sprinkling, while other would allow immersion for professing believers.

B.  Eastern Orthodox:

Proper subject:  A professing believer or the infants of believers.

Proper mode:  immersion only.



C.  Baptist:

Proper subject:  A professing believer only.

Proper mode:  immersion only.

 

As a Baptist, I obviously hold that the third of these options is most faithful to Scripture.  For a further exposition of the Baptistic view on the proper subject and mode of baptism, see Spurgeon's Baptist Catechism (with Scriptural proofs) Questions 75-78.

 

JTR

A Presbyterian and a Reformed Baptist talk Baptism

Ordinances: Baptism in Acts

I have recently been thinking again about the doctrine of the ordinances (sacraments), baptism and the Lord's Supper, as we tighten and clarify our church's belief and practice.  Here is the first of several posts on this topic, regarding baptism in Acts:

On baptism: Should new believers be baptized immediately after they profess faith in Christ as seems to be the pattern in Acts or should there be a time of discipleship and discernment before baptism is administered?

Eight observations:

1. In the book of Acts the normal pattern is for baptism to follow very closely upon conversion. Examples in Acts: Jerusalem converts at Pentecost (2:37-41); Ethiopian Eunuch (8:36-38); Saul/Paul (9:18); Cornelius and his household (10:44-48); Lydia and her household (16:14-15); the Philippian jailer and his household (16:30-33).

2. The question is whether this pattern in Acts is prescriptive (given as the norm for the church to follow in all ages) or descriptive of the unique power manifested through the apostolic era to launch the church. Is the Acts pattern ordinary or extraordinary? Those in the charismatic tradition have tended to take Acts as wholly prescriptive (ordinary) while those in the Reformed tradition have tended to be more circumspect, recognizing both some elements that are prescriptive (ordinary) and others that are merely descriptive of the apostolic age (extraordinary).

3. Though there are descriptions of baptism taking place “straightway” after conversion (see the Philippian Jailer and his household in 16:33), other mentions of baptism are less precise in giving a definite time signature (e.g., the Samaritan converts in 8:12 where the focus is not on immediacy but on the fact that “both men and women” were baptized after believing). In the case of Sergius Paulus, Luke tells us he heard the word (13:7) and believed (13:12), but there is no description given us of his baptism (whether immediate or delayed).

4. There are also some examples of what we might call “irregular” baptisms in Acts. Simon the Samaritan Sorcerer is baptized by Philip, but Peter later rebukes him for his simony (8:9, 13, 18-24). Apollos “was instructed in the way of the Lord” but knew “only the baptism of John” (see 18:24-28). I think we can assume that among the things Aquila and Priscilla explained to him “more perfectly” was his need for Christian baptism. The Ephesian twelve, likewise, seem to be disciples who knew only the baptism of John till Paul instructed them in the faith and administered Christian baptism to them (19:1-7). These might be examples of those who at the first touch of Jesus “see men as trees, walking” but at a second touch see “every man clearly” (see Mark 8:22-26).

5. In the Gospels Jesus teaches that disciples must first sit down and “count the costs” before committing to be his disciples (see Luke 14:25-33). Anyone who puts his hand to the plough and looks back is not fit for the kingdom of God (Luke 9:62). We are to remember Lot’s wife (Luke 17:32). Our “yes” must be “yes” and our “no,” “no” (Matt 5:37). Solomon warns that we are “not to give the sacrifice of fools” by being rash with our mouths and uttering things hastily before the Lord, so that if we make a promise we are sure to keep it promptly (see Ecc 5:1-5). These Scriptures would add indirect evidence to the appropriateness of some period of discernment and discipleship before baptism is administered.

6. Since salvation is by grace through faith and not by works (Eph 2:8-9), including the work of baptism, we do not need to rush baptism in the way that those who affirm baptismal regeneration suggest (whether Roman Catholics or Campbellites).

7. The key focus of the witness of Acts regarding baptism is less on the immediacy of baptism after conversion, but on the fact that belief always precedes baptism. One must be a believer before he is baptized. Acts affirms credo-baptism.

8. Another key focus in baptism in Acts is that Christian baptism is administered by proper officers (e.g., in Acts 8 by Philip one of the Jerusalem seven [deacons?] or in Acts 19 by the apostle Paul). In his A Body of Practical Divinity, Baptist theologian John Gill thus observes, “Admission to baptism lies solely in the breast of the administrator, who is the only judge of qualification for it, and has the sole power of receiving it, and of rejecting from it.” The administrator would be a gospel minister, as a church officer. In some cases he might deem that baptism be administered “straightway” as in the days of Acts, but in other cases he might deem that further instruction and discipleship be given.

JTR

Book Review: W. Gary Crampton's "From Paedobaptism to Credobaptism"

I have posted an audio reading of the book review I did for Gary Crampton's From Paedobaptism to Credobaptism and a pdf of the review to sermonaudio.com.

JTR

Gary Crampton's "From Paedobaptism to Credobaptism"

I got several books as Christmas (or Ranzaa) gifts that I am working through including Bunyan's The Life and Death of Mr. Badman and Eric Metaxas' biography Bonhoeffer:  Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy.  Another is Gary Crampton's From Paedobaptism to Credobaptism:  A Critique of the Westminter Standards on the Subject of Baptism (RBAP, 2010).  Dr. Crampton is an elder now at the Reformed Baptist Church of Richmond.  I have had the opportunity to meet and speak with him a couple of times over the past year.  He had a long career as a Presbyterian pastor and theologian but eventually came to Baptistic convictions.  

In the opening chapter of his book, Crampton cites a three-fold problem with infant baptism:  (1) there are no examples of infant baptism in the NT; (2) baptism and the Lord's Supper go together (therefore, it does not makes sense to offer one--baptism to infants--while witholding the other--the table); and (3) there are multiple differences among paedobaptists as to why infants should be baptized (see pp. 4-10).

You can also read a multi-part interview with Dr. Crampton conducted by Richard Barcellos on the Illumination blog:  part one, part two, part three, and part four.

JTR