My son and I went to a community wide service the other day. This began an interesting conversation about the difference between denominations. I tried as best as I could to explain to him all of the different distinctives which both unite us and separate us. Part of our discussion centered around why we’ve been given the name Baptists. This led to an interesting discussion about why I believe in credobaptism (believer’s baptism) and not paedobaptism (infant baptism).
While I hold a good many things in common with my Presbyterian brothers and sisters, I remain a Baptist by conviction. And one of the main reason why I remain a credobaptist actually comes from a principle I’ve learned from Presbyterians (or perhaps more accurately from the Reformation). That principle is the regulative principle.
This principle is defined by the Westminster Confession of Faith:
the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture. (21.1)
Put simply, the regulative principle teaches that everything we do when we gather for worship must be sanctioned by Scripture. This includes the way we administer the ordinances (like baptism and the Lord’s Supper). Westminster outlines this as well:
Prayers: The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear; the sound preaching, and conscionable hearing of the word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith, and reverence; singing of psalms with grace in the heart; as also the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ; are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God: besides religious oaths and vows, solemn fasting, and thanksgivings upon special occasions, which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in a holy and religious manner (21.4-5)
The regulative principle is a hallmark within Reformed churches. Many churches have slid towards the normative principle of worship—which allows anything not forbidden by Scripture. The regulative principle argues that unless Scripture tells us we should do something within our worship gathering we should not do that thing.
So where does this leave infant baptism?
I stumbled upon these words of Balthasar Hubmaier the other day. He was drowned in the Danube for his views on baptism, hopefully by agreeing with him I do not suffer a similar fate:
It is clear enough for him who has eyes to see it, but it is not expressed in so many words, literally: ‘do not baptize infants.’ May one baptize them? To that I answer: ‘if so I may baptize my dog or my donkey… I may make idols out of St. Paul and St. Peter, I may bring infants to the Lord’s Supper, bless palm branches, vegetables, salt, land and water, sell the Mass for an offering. For it is nowhere said in express words that we must not do these things. (The Anabaptist Story, 90)
Hubmaier is arguing from the regulative principle and the principle of sola Scriptura. This is why I am amazed that good Presbyterians like B.B. Warfield can say,
“It is true that there is no express command to baptize infants in the New Testament, no express record of the baptism of infants, and no passages so stringently implying it that we must infer from them that infants were baptized. If such warrant as this were necessary to justify the usage we should have to leave it incompletely justified. But the lack of this express warrant is something far short of forbidding the rite” (Quoted here)
Warfield goes on to argue that a sign of the covenant was instituted in the Old Testament and therefore must be expressly denied in the New Testament. That to me appears to be the crux of the argument—is baptism the continuation of the covenant of circumcision. Warfield then quotes Lightfoot: “It is not forbidden” in the New Testament to “baptize infants, — therefore, they are to be baptized.
I suppose my Presbyterian brothers and sisters will disagree, but I cannot find an explicit place in Scripture which shows that baptism replaces circumcision. Yes, there is a connection from Colossians 2:11-12
, but again what we are doing here is arguing from a good and necessary inference. This is the language of John Murray who says, “Surely the inference is one of good and necessary consequence that infants should be given the sign and seal of that which, by the authority of Christ, they are to be accounted.” Friends, this is the argumentation and the very language of the normative principle and not the regulative principle.
It is not upon these grounds alone, but as one who holds to the regulative principle I simply cannot move from my Baptist conviction that baptism is meant for believers and not for infants who cannot yet believe.
John 3:23. John was baptizing in the River Jordan because “there was much water there”
Dont need a lot for sprinkling
Interestingly, there are reputable lexicons that have “man waters” rather than “much water” and posit that there were there at Aenon not deep waters, but many shallow streams.
But in any case, for the record, I’m ordained PCA and I have and will immerse believers (not babies of course). Some of us will. And as to deep water being needed, last year I was in Haiti and performed a baby baptism for a couple with their Downs baby. It was very easy, as we stood near the swimming pool, to wade in the shallow end when it was time to put water on the child and bend over for a handful of water. So I waded into 3-4 feet of water to reach over and get what I needed. I can see that happening in some dry parts of the world.
God bless.
Should have been,
Interestingly, there are reputable lexicons that have “MANY waters” rather than “much water” and posit that there were there at Aenon not deep waters, but many shallow streams.
You are speaking to the how of baptism. But another difference is the why of baptism.
They baptize infants for a different reason than we baptize believers.
Even before I understood what the regulative principle was, I failed to see the purpose of paedobaptism. The new covenant includes those united with God through Jesus by faith in Him. Babies are not in the new covenant *even* if they are of the elect. And not every child born to a believer goes to Heaven.
Thus it seems to me that baptizing babies stands against both baptism and the new covenant, and weakens them as well.
For any of our knowledgeable Presbyterian friends who read this blog: (Les)
Take 4 babies, 2 born in a P church and 2 born in a B church. One from each church goes to Heaven, the other one does not. What advantage have the baptised babies over the unbaptized babies?
Hi Mike. Short answer none. Assuming that all four babies were raised by loving and godly parents who taught them the things of God, the baptism does not affect whether they end up with Jesus or not.
But may I add, if you are positing that these babies died in infancy, I believe that all four would be with Jesus at death and it would have nothing to do with baptism still.
Balthasar Hubmaier was tortured and burned, his wife was drowned – by the Protestants.
David R. Brumbelow
Nearly 500 years ago.
I am wondering what your point is and what that has to do with this discussion.
We have a history of the most despicable racism and violence against blacks, Native Americans, and such that extends into recent days, even the present, but people say, “We should put the past in the past.”
I am struggling to see what the value is in bringing up the fact that Hubmaier was put to death.
Obviously, in those days, people believed that doctrinal conformity should be enforced not by conscience but by coercion. I have only heard one person say he thinks any of this was in any way a good idea and he’s a slightly unhinged discernment blogger.
Servetus. Hubmaier. Yeah. Bad stuff happened. Our forefathers did some pretty bad stuff too. Not a lot of pristine figures in church history, are there?
What was your point in bringing this up?
I think to correct my history. He is right. I said drowned that was his wife Hubmaier was tortured and burned.
Okay.
I sat on an airplane all night, went through customs, missed my flight and am sitting at Dulles.
I saw that and I’m like, huh?
Mike, I am not trying to be argumentative here, or even to take one side or the other. Instead, I am honestly trying to explore both sides of this “normative verses regulative” debate. It seems to me that many things are done in conservative Baptist worship about which Scripture is silent: the use of individual cups for communion, that we use grape juice instead of wine, the use of modern musical instruments (they didn’t have pianos or organs back then, and I have not seen any indication of a choir), the order of worship itself, and the earliest records known (which are still later than the close of the canon) indicate that the pastor sat to preach while the congregation stood, as well as that there was neither an opening nor a closing prayer–not to mention electric lights, sound systems, and air conditioning. OK, I did mention them, but they are secondary at best. Is there a line for this “regulative principle”at the edge of the Biblical record for things on which Scripture is silent? If so, how does one understand that it is not an accommodation to this “normative principle”? I guess you could say that the Amish and the Mennonites practice this “regulative principle” to its fullest–in both their worship and their lifestyle a well, and the Church of Christ certainly claims to. I guess my question boils down to, “At what point does ‘regulative worship’ cease to have a bearing? Maybe I am trying to be like those who got bogged down into questioning if birds consumed left-over bread from communion, were they saved? Can you or someone help me understand the boundaries of this “principle” ? And if there are boundaries, what is the Scriptural basis for that?
John
John F. Good questions. The RPW does have limits and they are as mentioned elsewhere. The elements of worship are such things as the preaching of the word, Lord’s supper, etc. Also wishing the RPW definitions are what many call “circumstances.” These are things that are not set down in scripture explicitly or by good and necessary inference. Things like sound amplification, types of communion wine holders (cups or one cup, etc.). These are considered to be circumstances of worship where there is wide latitude. WCF 1.6 also says,
“and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.”
So whether to sing praises to God is not optional, the the of music, traditional vs contemporary is not defined.
God bless.
Yeah, what I’d say is that if the air conditioner was somehow central to our worship then we’d be talking regulative principle or normative principle. My understanding of the Reg. Principle is that it’s really saying the things we do when we gather ought to be either explicitly or implicitly in the Scriptures. So we read Scripture, pray, sing, preach, etc. But it doesn’t regulate that we have to only sing without amplified voice or not drive cars to the church or things like that.
I’m not sure if that clears it up or not, John. I’ve really appreciated this article by Trip Lee https://www.9marks.org/article/journalmust-all-regulative-principle-churches-look-same/
Well, resident PCA guy here. And please consider this “friendly fire” so to speak as the discussion unfolds.
I appreciate the tenor of your piece and I also appreciate the fact that what you have dine here is stand firmly for what you believe to be true. Would that we all would do that more.
You concluded with, “It is not upon these grounds alone, but as one who holds to the regulative principle I simply cannot move from my Baptist conviction that baptism is meant for believers and not for infants who cannot yet believe.”
Three things for starters:
1. Do you or have you and your church practiced infant dedications? If not, good for your position. If yes, why?
2. Do you permit female to participate in the Lord’s supper? I assume yes. If yes, why? There is no explicit command for females to participate nor is there an explicit example of females participating in the supper.
3. I think that you go too far in demanding an explicit command or example. It is well understood about the RPW that the “good and necessary inference” part is deemed to be authoritative. WCF 1.6 says, “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.” Right here in 1.6 is the basis for “But the acceptable way of worshiping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshiped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture.” So we see no conflict here.
God bless and thanks for the post.
#1 is a fair point. I suspect that Baptist’s “baby dedication” services are a definite holdover from older paedo-baptist tradition. But the way in which they are done–when done correctly–of course has nothing to do with salvation or incorporating them into the greater “family of God.” Primarily, when done thoughtfully, baby dedication is a commitment on the part of believing parents to share the Gospel faithfully and consistently with their kids, doing their part in raising their kids to know the Lord. No water is used. No form of church membership is involved for the babies.
#2 is a new one to me, I must say, but surely no one reading 1 Corinthians 11 with an eye to discerning authorial intent would arrive at the conclusion that this is just some male enclave of the church coming to take the Lord’s Supper. All of vv.17-20 point speak of the church “meeting together” or “coming together.” How much more explicit can it get than in v.18 “when you come together as a church?” One of the major concerns inside the passage is that no one would be left out (vv.21-22). “My body, which is for you…” — how could this be read any other way than for all believers, regardless of sex?
David, appreciate the comments on 1 and 2.
On #1, I actually like the idea of baby dedications in Baptist churches. If you can’t get some water on them, at least do all but!! 🙂
And, just to be clear, “has nothing to do with salvation or incorporating them into the greater “family of God.” We Presbys agree that the baptism has nothing to do with salvation necessarily at the time of baby baptisms. We affirm that no baptism saves. None. We are with you guys there. I hope that is not news around these parts. As to the “family of God,” we do affirm that when the covenant sign is placed on babies, they are considered part of the “visible church” or the “family (visible) of God.” Of course we all know that we all, Baptists included, sadly have unregenerate among our local expressions of the visible church.
On #2, I do get your point. But to get there, we all end up using “good and necessary inference” to include females since it is nowhere in the NT explicitly commanded that they be included nor is there an explicit example. That is my point about the use of “good and necessary inference.”
God bless.
Good comments and friendly tenor. And we generally agree, although I definitely lean more normative than regulative.
I disagree that it falls into the category of “good and necessary inference” to posit that women celebrated the Lord’s Supper in Corinth. The commands are to a plural “you.” We need not speculate as to whether that “you” included women or not, for at other points in the letter women are explicitly a part of the “you.”
“The commands are to a plural “you.””
Cod have still been only to the men. “You all men.” Point is that it’s not explicit. Nor is there an example. But then we could talk about “surely households had little one in them” though not explicit. That said, of course women are to be included.
God bless.
“The commands are to a plural “you.””
Could have still been only to the men. “You all men.” Point is that it’s not explicit. Nor is there an example. But then we could talk about “surely households had little one in them” though not explicit. That said, of course women are to be included.
God bless.
Les: You posit that baby dedications are a good thing since it’s a halfway step to (kinda like) doing the right thing. If you trust in the RPW as a good Presbyterian, then how can you advocate creating a form of worship that you see as unbiblical, as any aberrant or bastardized form of true Worship would be necessarily (in the RPW’s view) impure – thus false? Would that not be akin to saying that female pastors are aberrant, but as long as they preach a Gospel message, then they are more acceptable? Or being homosexual, but at least being committed and monogamous? Or being pro-choice, but only till twenty weeks? I realize these are hyperbolic examples, and I’m not likening your position to them as a direct correlation – except to point out the serious nature of quibbling with the details, and accepting “halfway Biblical” as being less sinful than completely unbiblical. Since we are talking about true Worship, and the sacraments here, it would seem that accuracy to Scripture would be the benchmark by which we set the standard, rather than a pat on the back for getting “halfway” there. I know a lot of Presbyterians would take umbrance at your position, and call fire from Heaven a fit reward for those who would tamper with pure Worship, rather than to worship not at all. In other words, far better to not do something at all, if we know to do so would be against the RPW from Scripture. To be completely fair, I actually am glad you yourself don not take the view I’m describing, because, as a Reformed Covenantal Baptist, I see no issue with baby dedications, though I would never refer to them as a “dry baptism.” I see them as a healthy testimony on the part of the parents to the Body that they are covenanting with God to raise their child in the fear and admonition of the Lord, and that (as good Covenantal Baptists) they will apply the sign of the Covenant when they understand Scripture to command it – upon the confession of faith from the believer. I do not see this forbidden or exhorted as necessary or violable within the Church, and so I practice it as the parents desire, and pray that the child will grow in the bonds of the faithful family in which the Lord has entrusted… Read more »
Joel,
RE: Les on baby dedications…
I’m not 100% sure, but I think that was tongue in cheek on Les’ part, hence the smile emoji.
Hey Joel Hunt,
You said, “You posit that baby dedications are a good thing since it’s a halfway step to (kinda like) doing the right thing. If you trust in the RPW as a good Presbyterian, then how can you advocate creating a form of worship that you see as unbiblical, as any aberrant or bastardized form of true Worship would be necessarily (in the RPW’s view) impure – thus false?”
Well Mike was right that there was some tongue in cheek going on there. Note that “it’s a halfway step to (kinda like) doing the right thing” were not my words.
Having said that somewhat tongue in cheek, I still have no problem holding to RPW and seeing no issue for my Baptists brothers having baby dedications. After all, don’t they involve vows? Vows are well within RPWare they not?
I say, Baptists, have that baby dedication and focus it on asking God to fill you with His spirit to parent and vow to nurture your child in the Lord. A God focused vow before God is no problem.
Anyway, blessings.
I, of course, agree on Believer’s Baptism by Immersion.
I think some take the regulative principle too far.
The Church of Christ use it to justify not having musical instruments in worship services. While the New Testament does not mention musical instruments in worship, neither does it mention electric lights, pulpits, or air conditioning. Yet, the Church of Christ do use them.
The only two biblical church offices are pastor and deacon, yet I do not think it is against Scripture to have a church secretary or youth or music minister.
John has already spoken to much of this. But thought I’d add my comment as well.
David R. Brumbelow
I am not sure I’m either fully with the regulative or normative principles in church practice.
If Scripture commands it, obviously it should be obeyed. But there is so much that isn’t commanded or even dealt with, and we have great freedom. that doesn’t mean ANYTHING goes. I am not really into the smoke machines and such – and if I never see another interpretive dance I’m just fine.
Is there something else? Regonormative? Normorelative?
I just want to see YOU interpretive dance. I would so drive to Iowa to see that.
I second Les’ idea; Voices field trip perhaps?
Overall good article, and good reasons to be a credobaotist.
I have been, and still am, sympathetic to the regulative principle…but…because of my commitment to the sufficiency of scripture, I have ultimately rejected it as a requirement, and so for over a decade have argued for the Normative principle.
One of the points of Sufficiency is that we may not forbid something that scripture does not forbid. I may not tell someone that it is a sin to include announcements in a worship service any more than I can tell them it is a sin to wear blue jeans.
In addition, Because of the imprecision of “good and necessary inference” nearly anything can be allowed for. John Frame has written on this when he argues for the use of instruments, and other things…saying that using instruments is a method to obey the command to sing. His arguments have been criticized by some as essential doing away with the RP (which he says he is following).
I agree both with Frame’s arguments about why certain things are allowed, and with his critic’s evaluations.
A friend of mine at a reformed baptist church has announcements before the call to worship, due to the belief that according to the regulative principle, announcements should not be part of the worship service. In my view, this is completely unnecessary, and not required by scripture, and is an example of how the regulative principle AS A REQUIREMENT, goes beyond scripture.
(I agree with the PRINCIPLE that scripture should guide our worship and lives.).
It’s an interesting point to be sure, and I’m glad we don’t have an echo chamber in the comments.
There are other considerations that add to the discussion regarding the RP aspect of this that we might normally make without appealing to the RP. For example, since Jesus demonstrated baptism through John the Baptist, his baptism is necessarily the theological connection. The question is whether his baptism is the equivalent of circumcision or not. To whit:
1) The fact that he was baptizing circumcised Jews should cause some doubt there.
2) We have often equated baptism with the inauguration of something: The inauguration of faith in the eyes of credos, the inauguration of the covenant in the eyes of paedos, and the inauguration of Jesus’ ministry. There’s another inauguration that the people of the day would see in John’s baptism and it comports with his baptism of repentance. This would be the baptism required of Gentile converts to Judaism. Three things were required of converts: a) circumcision, b) a sacrifice be made at the temple, and c) baptism. Jews by birth would already have the first two accomplished. John’s message was that they hadn’t been faithful Jews and were no better than Gentiles. Therefore, they needed baptism as a sign that they had repented and become faithful Jews again.
3) So what of Jesus’ baptism? He had been a faithful Jew, in fact the most faithful. He had no need of baptism for himself, but he was giving the sign of the Gospel (death, burial, resurrection) that would define the new covenant.
If we apply the RP to the pattern of John’s baptism, then we see that while baptism is indeed the sign of the new covenant, it doesn’t have the same form as the old covenant. In fact, even in the old covenant it was recognized that the circumcision of the heart is the ideal (Deut 30:6) and is carried over to the new covenant in that fashion (Rom 2:29). So the inward sign of the covenant is referred to as circumcision, but the outward sign of circumcision is dropped in favor of the pattern of John the Baptist in aligning the believer with Christ, not after physical birth (and physical circumcision) but after spiritual re-birth (and spiritual circumcision). That’s where we as Baptists believe the RP applies Scripturally.
It seems to me that we just aren’t happy with freedom. We seem to want rules, and where none are, we’ll make them up. We say we’re happy to be out from under the Law, but then we make a whole new set.
I think one issue interrelated to this (regulative / normative) is whether one views the Reformation as a destination or a stop en route to the destination. Seems like some (not all) in the Reformed camp want the current church to go back to how we were during the Reformation era viewing it as the best era of the church. I would contend the Reformation was one stop on the road back to New Testament church practice and that the free church of today is actually much closer to the NT practice than the Reformers ever were. For example, we do missions worldwide, we don’t try to jail opponents, we believe in religious freedom and the wrongness of racism, and we understand the greatness of fried chicken at fellowships?. The Reformers were the closest to the NT in their day but they wouldn’t be in our day.
Scott H.,
Exactly.
The reformers also said always reforming but many have stopped reforming and wont question the reformed past.
Jim,
Excellent thoughts.
If the purpose of baptism is to be a sign of the new covenant –an inauguration of it in the life of the one being baptized, what then is the new covenant?
To anyone who would answer:
“…and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband.” (I Cor. 7:14)
Can this become a NP or RP?
To what extent is the child (dedicated or baptized) the beneficiary of his/her parents devotion to Christ?
What has such devotion accomplished?
What has Acts 16:31-34 to do with our choice of principle?
Just as sanctified can be a benefit to the life being lived now, the unbeliever loving their spouse and therefore following the example set; the extent the child is the beneficiary is in being raised in a Gospel faithful home.
The benefit is in having parents just as concerned with the “heart” of the child as they are the standing in the world. Believing parents take the beginning strides for their child in the area of wisdom (fear of the Lord), and Proverbial instruction for later life. The child is blessed because the spousal, and parent/child relationships are solidly built upon the foundation of Scripture and not worldly psychology or ideas.
Such devotion has accomplished faithfulness to make disciples in the 1st ministry provided to the parents, their own children.
Unfortunately, Acts 16 becomes an argument from silence no matter which sides uses it.
Glenn, We are not under law but under grace. But we often choose, out of love, to operate under laws or principles, like church covenants, to further the kingdom of God. Thus we are not compelled to choose either principle but rather compelled by love to work together in unity. Now as to Acts 16:31-34: 31 They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. 33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. 34 And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household. There is no controversy here. Everyone in the household that believed in God [v.34] was baptized [v. 33]. What we don’t know is how young the youngest believer was. But that is another topic altogether. Also what is directly implied is that the truth of the Gospel was explained to the people in the household [v. 32], so that we see that it is talking about the members of that household who could understand. Again, how young wasthe youngest that could understand we do not know, nor is ot germane to the topic. And as these who heard that truth grasped it in their their heart we see that they believed [v. 34]. Now this passage does not rule out paedobaptism, but it does not provide any proof for it either. But it does point greatly to believers baptism. It shows that those who believe are baptized. In the times of the Lord and the early years afterward, baptism was for repentance. And repentance without faith is a farce. Thus baptism for the Jewish religion and for the Christians was a faith based act. Children were not expected to have sufficient understanding of life, and of themselves and of the issues involved, to grasp the significance of repentance and turning from evil to good. Neither are they so deemed today. Some people and theologians want the Bible to recognize children as adults in the matter of sin and repentance, but I think they are mistaken. Very few societies if any take that view, and to impose it upon the Bible… Read more »