The Anabaptist/Baptist Confusion

Many are perplexed as to how the Reformed can tie OT circumcision with NT baptism and how infant baptism, practiced by the universal Church of Christ for 1500+ years prior to Anabaptism, is biblical, both on theological and exegetical grounds.

The fretting will cease (at least it must for the thinking Christian!) after one goes through this essay by Rev. Professor-Emeritus Dr. Francis Nigel Lee, entitled, From Circumcision to Baptism "Circumcised...in Baptism" – Colossians 2:11-12 (Biblical refutation of the baptismal views of Baptists and Anabaptists).

The material can be accessed here or here.

All Trinitarian Baptism is Valid—Hence, the Invalidity of Anabaptism

Christian baptism is not a baptism into a denomination, group, etc., but a baptism into the Christian faith, as grounded upon the ontological Trinity. This speaks of the universality (catholicity) of the true Church of Christ, marked by its confession of the Trinity, and that baptism in any of the different denominations, groups, etc. that have this Trinitarian confession is a valid baptism, as it is a baptism into the Trinity. Hence, Anabaptism (rebaptism) is definitely error of an egregious sort, if not utterly sinful (as absurd as regrowing foreskin for recircumcision!).

Dr. Francis Nigel Lee explains:

Westminster Wednesday: A Couple of Baptism Debates

"Is infant baptism Protestant? In short, yes. All the Protestant Reformers including Martin Luther, Huldrych Zwingli and John Calvin held to infant baptism. Though these three great Protestants disagreed on many things, they all agreed on the Protestant doctrine of justification by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. They also agreed that infant baptism is a biblical practice and the best expression of the Protestant gospel. In fact, infant baptism has been the practice of the historic Christian church since the Apostolic period. Of course the historic practice of the church does not settle the question. Historic practice, however, suggests a certain presumption in favor of infant baptism. Nevertheless, tradition alone is not sufficient reason for any practice in the church. Therefore Reformed Christians practice covenant baptism because we are commanded to do so in both the Old and New Covenant Scriptures.

We believe that the Bible alone is the Spirit inspired, infallible, Word of God written. God's Word alone is the source of our faith. Comparing our ideas with God's clear revelation in the Bible is the only way to safety and certainty." (Dr. R. Scott Clark, A Contemporary Reformed Defense of Infant Baptism)

The links to the Robert Strimple vs. Fred Malone debate here (Part 1), here (Part 2), and here (Part 3), and the link to the David VanDrunen vs. Thomas Schreiner debate here.

Infant Baptism: How My Mind Has Changed (by Dennis E. Johnson)

Get the PDF here.