“Infant Baptism and the Regulative Principle of Worship” by Fred Malone
In an issue of The Founders Journal titled Contending for Truth in Love an article by Fred Malone was published titled “Infant Baptism and the Regulative Principle of Worship.” I draw attention to this article because it rightly ties together topics of two recent discussions on Strange BaptistFire- the defense of believers’ baptism and the regulative principle of worship. Readers are encouraged to view the article HERE and to leave comments about the article in the meta of this post.
April 17th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Excellent article. I had not considered paedobaptism from a regulative principle point of view. It makes sense.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
This of course makes the claims of the SBC vacuous against infant baptism if they are at the same time violating the RPW in other areas. Or, am I missing the import of this article?
April 19th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Pat,
Historically speaking, I believe that it can be demonstrated (as Dr. Tom Nettles has asserted in my Baptist History class here at Southern Seminary) that it was a commitment to the regulative principle that first led early Baptist groups rising from the Puritan tradition to consider whether the practice of paedobaptism was indeed consistent with what God has commanded in the New Testament.
Thomas,
The SBC is not monolithic in the way your comment suggests. Individual SBC churches may make claims against infant baptism and yet undermine those claims by ignoring the regulative principle. In fact, carried away by the dumbing-down of Christianity in American evangelicalism, many SBC churches probably never make any substantive argument against infant baptism (believers’ baptism is simply assumed) nor consider what principle drives their worship practices. Other SBC churches, such as the church where I am a member, have been blessed by pastors who have consistently challenged us to give careful attention to these things.
April 19th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Yeah, I am sorry that my statement was the broad brush.
.
This is much better than what I said. It again goes back to what Tom Ascol insists is the major problem, that of unregenerate membership. That condition is widespread because as you said things are just assumed and not examined in depth.
Thanks for the corrective.
May 9th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
A very good post. As a believer, I have always viewed baptism as a sacrement for a believer, not for children of believers. Perhap I don’t correctly understand the paedobaptist position, but am I to understand that they believe the Old Testament covanent sign of circumcision, for males only, on the eighth day after birth, has now become a New Testament sign for both males and females? If that is indeed their position, would my adult children be allowed to be baptised, without any profession of faith or sign of regeneration, if I happened to be saved by God’s grace when I was 60 years old?