Reformed Paedo-Baptism Conversion Personal Testimony

I suppose I should conclude this series with a surprising anecdote that happened to me after giving up the fight for credo-baptism. I had expected that accepting the doctrine of infant baptism would be difficult, and that it would cause me much pain and suffering. But as it turns out, letting go was surprisingly easy. It was as if I was bracing to crash through a door and then at the moment of impact found it ajar. To explain that I had better back up a bit.

Roughly 200 years ago a Presbyterian minister by the name of Thomas Campbell became convinced that the regulative principle meant that paedo-baptism was wrong, and that baptism was reserved only those who profess faith. He shared his conclusions with his fellow Presbyterian ministers but they dismissed his concerns with, "That's not what the confessions say."

Campbell then decided that the confessions are unjustly constraining and don’t accurately represent Scripture, and that the people who are being raised on them are being taught to believe in a man-made system and not in the Bible itself. He throws out the confessions, breaks with his fellow Presbyterians, and declares that form now on the Bible is the only creed, confession, or rule for life, and that henceforth he would find other like-minded Christians to fellowship with. As it turns out, Barton W. Stone (a Baptist) was willing to join him in this unity movement, and the rest (as they say) is history. The Restoration movement was a group dedicated to leaving all suspect theological innovations behind and becoming like the early church.

This is an ideal reconstruction of course, seen through my childish eyes. As an adult I find it possible that Thomas wasn’t pursuing the truths of Scripture but was working with ulterior motives, perhaps even hiding his disagreement from the Doctrines of Grace under the banner of Christian liberty. Nonetheless, this was the portrait of faith I was raised on. The stories of heroic men who followed the teachings of Scripture fearlessly, even when it was unpopular or dangerous to do so, was drilled into me, and I was nurtured on the idea that we should pursue Scriptures with a pure and holy passion. “Follow the Bible at all costs O son of the Restoration, for that is your only sure guide” was reinforced with love by innumerable Sunday school teachers and pulpit preachers. So you can imagine their horror then when I came to the conclusion that "once saved always saved" is the Biblical position.

That was beyond the pale, and the Christian thing to do for me was to go into exile to avoid causing any further division in an already battered denomination. So we settled into attending the closest thing to our heritage where we could find theological agreement—the local Baptist church. I’d been somewhat close with the Baptists since my college days, and I was delighted to finally be a part of their happy energy. Although it was never an exact fit for us, we did well there.

Years later the Baptist church we were attending jumped sideways into Willow Creek Christianity and we left for another, stricter Baptist church with a policed confession so that that wouldn't happen again. It was at the second church that I continued to study until, quite by accident, I fell into paedo-baptism. And after assuring myself that this was the more biblical position, I resigned my membership there, being unwelcome because of how far of phase I was with the London Baptist Confession of Faith. (As a side note, because I've grown up in the Churches of Christ and seen up close how unity is only achieved through orthodoxy, I'm not only convinced they are right to demand my resignation but I love them much more for it. Unity is not achieved when we pretend creeds don’t matter, it happens when we cling as hard as we can to Scripture, argue, and hug at the end of the day as workers for the Lord. Baptists may be wrong on baptism (and by that I mean they're wrong) but they are fellow servants of Christ, and are pursuing Him as best they know how. They are working to keep out error in their church, and I appreciate that.)

While I was happy with Baptist theology I never felt like it quite fit right. That’s owing to my Church of Christ heritage no doubt. But once I agreed that the paedo-baptists were right I suddenly no longer felt like I needed to push away my upbringing nor be ashamed of it. The sorrow of leaving, the sour longing of not growing up evangelical, the sting of feeling like a man in exile, it was all gone in an instant. Why? I don’t know. But when I accepted Presbyterianism I somehow became able to let go of my grudge against Campbell for the destructive legacy he birthed that caused most of my friends to apostatize. Unlike when I was at the Baptist churches I now have a sense of coming home, of accepting who I am. I am the true child of the Restoration, the man Campbell set out to make. I am the fruit of his vision.

I think if he were to meet me he would be delighted to see his plan come to maturation just as he'd hoped, to see a man who lived his life by casting himself wholly upon the Bible. I also think he would promptly despair as well to see how I’ve embraced the Presbyterianism he fled. If this series hasn’t convinced you then I suspect you’re thinking something like, "You think it's Biblical to baptize babies and you still call yourself a son of the restoration? Have you gone completely mad?"

Hold up there. I know what you’re thinking, because it’s what I used to think. And before you go any further let me ask you the question that plagued me the entire time I've been studying this issue: what if it's true? What if there really is a singular plan of salvation which God purposed in eternity past? Does it matter all that much if we call it the covenant of grace, or something else? What if God made a covenant with Adam at his creation, the gist of which was that he was not to eat the tree of knowledge? Does giving it a dumb name like Covenant of Works change the fact that the world fell when Adam ate the fruit? More to the point, what if those ancient creeds we rejected represent the most Biblical framework available? What if Campbell was substantially wrong and his point about being careful with creeds was only a minor one?

Please don't make the mistake of just writing me off as someone who's fallen into a simple and obvious error. My whole life I've been more or less totally immune to the Reformed viewpoint because I, like Campbell, saw the speculation in it. So while some of my friends fell into accepting an interpretive grid imposed on the text, that it wasn't a problem for me because I only accept what the Bible puts forward. It just so happened that one day I came face to face with the possibility that this framework was not only Biblical, but the most Biblical.

It sounds strange, I know. It caught me off guard, frankly. But in the final analysis I can only fold my hands and become what I am. I am a son of the Restoration. Therefore I am today a Presbyterian. All that we left, all that we fled from, for all this time. It was true. And in this there is the peace we left behind. As C.S. Lewis said, “a wrong sum can be put back right, but only by going back till you find the error and working it afresh from that point, never by simply going on.”

So the story has a happy ending after many months of toil and misery. I put my head right and my heart followed. I suspect it would be the same way for you. I therefore close with the words of Martin Luther, "Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis; my conscience is captive to the Word of God. Thus I cannot and will not recant, because acting against one's conscience is neither safe nor sound. God help me. Amen."

Bonus content: Sproul vs. Begg debate this issue

Return to the Index