Great overview of the biblical evidence, very clearly written and avoids any complex jargon. Easy to digest and take on board all the information, just the right length to serve as a good introduction

In "Baptism," Guy Richard provides a short overview of what baptism is and presents a case for infant baptism. Richard begins by first defining what baptism is, what it signifies, which modes of baptism is acceptable, and why we ought to be baptized. The author then moves on to outline his position on infant baptism based on biblical precedent, covenantal continuity, and connections between circumcision and baptism. Richard asserts that the household baptisms in the New Testament seem to indicate the entire household being baptized which would include children and servants. Moreover, Richard states that the new covenant Jesus establishes in the NT is the same covenant in essence as the Abrahamic covenant in the Old Testament (OT) but in an expanded, clearer form. As such, baptism serves a similar function to circumcision in the OT to mark out those who are the true children of Abraham. Since the Israelites were commanded to undergo circumcision, believers today should also baptize their children as recipients of God’s special blessings and privileges within the covenant community. At the end of the book, Richard discusses common objections by credobaptists and offers some practical applications in relation to baptism.

Although I agree with most of Richard’s points on baptism generally, there seems to be some weaknesses regarding the author’s arguments for infant baptism. I hope to examine what Richard posits as the meaning and significance of baptism and how these two fundamental elements are at odds with his position on infant baptism.

Firstly, in terms of definition, Richard defines baptism as a physical sign of the internal reality of a believer who has been regenerated through faith. In a similar way, circumcision was to be the outward symbol of the internal heart circumcision that God required of the Israelites. Richards acknowledges that in both circumcision and baptism, there certainly are individuals who do not exhibit regenerate hearts such as Esau and Ishmael. In both infant baptism and circumcision then, the objective would seem to be inclusion in the covenantal community which would be at odds with Richard’s definition of baptism as being the outward sign of the internal washing and cleansing of sin. This would mean then that infant baptism would not meet the definition of baptism as defined by Richards since there is no regeneration in the infant.

Secondly, in terms of meaning, Richard asserts that baptism primarily signifies the washing away of sin of which I fully agree. However, my question is: what does baptism signify for infants? Surely it cannot signify the washing of sin as all children are born sinners. This would then seem to imply that the baptism of children and adults are similar in form but different in substance. If so, then how do we reconcile this with baptism as described by Richard as a sign and seal of a believer who put their faith in Jesus? I understand those who undergo infant baptism often go through confirmation, but would this not further solidify the argument that infant baptism and adult baptism are different in nature?

Richard does clarify later in the book that infant baptism is the hope that the child will exercise saving faith in the future, the solemn promise of the parents to raise their children in the Lord, and the inclusion of the child in the covenantal community including its spiritual blessings and privileges. If that is the case, none of those three objectives would fit the definition of baptism that Richard himself puts forward at the beginning of the book.

Richard also argues based on OT precedent of Abraham circumcising all the males in his entire household that we should take this as example that we should baptize our children. It is apparent that not only the children but all males including servants of various ages were also circumcised. Does this mean that those servants also exercised saving faith in God like Abraham or were they baptized only because their master was? Assuming some of these males were adults such as Abraham’s trusted servant in Genesis 24, should it not be based on their own faith that circumcision is applied? If not based on their own faith, their circumcision would seem more a matter of their affiliation with Abraham and his household rather than a sign of spiritual regeneration which again would mean their “baptisms” would not fit Richard’s definition and meaning. Moreover, if based on Richard’s argument that infant baptism is for covenantal inclusion and spiritual inheritance, what spiritual privileges and blessings do these household servants inherit since they are not the biological children of Abraham and of which some were pagan foreigners?

Based upon my observations above, it would seem difficult to argue the case for infant baptism if it does not meet the definition and meaning that the author himself presents.

I recommend this book to all who are unfamiliar with the subject of baptism in general and infant baptism in specific. Despite my objections to the author’s arguments as stated above, I greatly appreciate Richard’s efforts to make this book accessible to a wide audience and his charitable approach to those who support believer’s baptism. As this book is introductory in nature, it is apparent that many of the arguments and counterarguments for both supporters and their opponents have not been fully fleshed out. As such, I encourage readers to increase their familiarity of this subject through reading the Bible, engaging the works of seasoned preachers and scholars, and praying for the Spirit to provide greater wisdom and enlightenment as this critical subject has immense significance to the Christian life.

In compliance with Federal Trade Commission regulations, I was provided a review copy of this book from Reformation Trust.

Blog: https://contemplativereflections.wordpress.com/2019/04/17/book-review-baptism/

Had an interesting take on infant baptism. Didn't really explain things to me like I wanted it to, I felt that most of the book focused on the infant baptism.

A good and clear explanation of the Reformed protestant view on Baptism. Richard firmly falls into the peadobaptist camp while also being gracious and thoughtful in his engaging of the credobaptist argument.

This book covers all the major issues. What is the New Covenant? Continuity between the Old and New Covenant. Visible/invisible distinction. What baptism does. The only thing that I thought was lacking was what baptism does not do... I would have been helpful to address some of the wrong thinking about baptism beyond his criticism of credobaptism. The only other caveat I would have about this book is that it is dulled down significantly.

I had not heard of Guy Richard prior to reading this short book on baptism. After a brief search online, I realized we shared many similar beliefs so I figured this book was a safe bet. However, shortly after starting the book I realized that wasn’t the case. This book is written in support of infant baptism, which I don’t support, and I wish the cover mentioned that in some way. I firmly believe in believers baptism, now even though I grew up in a church that practiced infant baptism. Acts 2 shows believers baptism being practiced. One needs to confess their belief in Jesus to be baptized and an infant can’t do that. For these reasons, among others, I can’t recommend this book.

This book is a great tour on both Old & New Testaments verses which relate to baptism. Guy Richard charitably navigates the waters and avoids sharp debate while making his points clear. His conclusion is typical of paedobaptists, that of baptism mainly signifying washing and cleansing. Would have like he delved more in the higher views of the efficacy of baptism as Witsius does, which do exist within Richard's tradition.

Overall, it is a well argued treatment of an important topic for covenant families. While not as short as other "booklets", it can be handled to introduce brothers and sisters in Christ who are studying this topic.

What does baptism mean and what is the significance of baptism? Any Christian studying baptism naturally come from different believes. Some believe baptism of babies and others believe baptism comes after affirmation of faith. Another is aspect of baptism is how. Sprinkling vs full immersion. Myself I came from a Lutheran/Methodist background and as a young adult moving into the Baptist belief of affirmation of faith full immersion. I never understood the reasoning behind the baptism of babies, however, this study sheds light on this that is a real blessing of faith and the gospel. Using the Old Testament covenant of circumcision, baptism follows the same line of faith for parents, the reminder of our faith and the covenant of our God. The words that drew me in "thus when we baptize an infant, we proclaim the sovereignty of God in salvation and the complete inability of man to save himself or do anything to contribute to his salvation".

Whatever you believe about baptism, this study will challenge you and lead you to the gospel. Highly recommend.

A Special Thank you to Reformation Trust Publishing and Netgalley for the ARC and the opportunity to post an honest review

Baptism by Guy M. Richard is a fairly easy read but is strong and biblical. I grew up in the SBC and this book answered many of the questions that I have always pondered about the practice of infant baptism.

One of the challenges in understanding the rituals and practices of the Christian faith lie in finding biblical support. What exactly is baptism? Does it mean only immersion? What about requirements on who should be baptize? What about the different ways of baptism? How do we relate to our fellow believers who believe in other different points of view about baptism? Moreover, there are certain groups like the Baptists who are adamant about immersion as the way to be baptized. How do we respond? These questions and more are not easily referenced by mere Bible verses alone. He writes this book as a way to synthesize Bible texts and to relate them as much as possible to present day contexts. He cautions us against using specific texts to build whole doctrines about baptism. What is important is that we think through, with Scripture as guide, about the meaning and the importance of baptism. At the same time, it is hoped that the understanding would be expanded to other brothers and sisters. Instead of letting differences divide the Christian world, it is hoped that with greater understanding, we would be more united on the importance and significance of baptism. Key points of agreement are:
Christian baptism is important;
Water is needed for baptism;
Baptism is to be done in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit;
Baptism is a core essential and practice of faith.
On baptism, Richard takes us through the Old Testament and New Testament instances of baptism. The crux of the matter remains the same: Cleansing and rite of washing. We get to understand the different ways of baptism: Immersion, sprinkling, pouring, and even affusion (pouring out of the Spirit). We learn that we should not miss out the meaning of baptism by wrongful emphasizing any one mode. We understand the four meanings of baptism; the reasons we baptize; the ways to do it; the differences between Baptist practices and the rest; how to respond to baptist arguments that we don't agree with; and Jeremiah 31 that is often used to promote "believers-only baptism."


My Thoughts
This book is a convenient layout of the basic things to know about baptism. Author and Pastor Guy Richard makes three points very clear. The first is to caution us from using scattered texts per se to explain all of baptism. He explains that if we want to explain what baptism is, we need to extensively examine what the various Bible texts are saying and to put together a bigger picture of what it means. One should not depend on short pet answers which would do injustice to the whole concept of baptism. The second point is to recognize that we should not give simplistic answers to a more complex issue. Trying to be dogmatic about any position, especially controversial ones will be unhelpful. The third point is a helpful one that points us to a more respectful and reverent study of the Bible. All of these are carefully dealt with for the sake of uniting the wider Christian family. It begins with understanding. We may not agree on the exact mode or theology behind baptism. What we could agree are the basic need and importance of baptism; that it must include water; that it is an essential part of being a believer.

I warmly recommend this book for general reading and understanding of baptism.

Guy Ritchie is executive director and assistant professor of systematic theology at Reformed Theological Seminary in Atlanta. He has also served as senior minister of the First Presbyterian Church in Gulfport, Miss for 12 years.

Rating: 4.25 stars of 5.

conrade
This book has been provided courtesy of Reformation Trust and NetGalley without requiring a positive review. All opinions offered above are mine unless otherwise stated or implied.

As a reformed baptist, I enjoyed how gracious and charitable the author was in representing our side and presenting his. Too often someone who disagrees with something doesn’t have the right understanding of that thing, this isn’t the case here. Richard doesn’t draw a line in the sand but rather a circle around it

I still adhere to a credo/believer’s baptism but enjoyed the book nonetheless.

I received an arc of this book on netgalley in exchange for an honest review.

Okay. this book explains the reasoning he has on the topic, but I felt like the Scripture arguments just weren't that good. This book wouldn't change my mind about the opinions I have already, but if you want to know where people are coming from in their reasoning about baptism, I suppose I would recommend this one.

Baptism: Answers to Common Questions’, Guy M. Richard, Reformation Trust, 2019, pp.129.

There is no doubt that within the Christian Church – and more narrowly within evangelical circles – there is division over the sacrament of Baptism. Unfortunately, and oftentimes, the paedo-baptist (inclusion of covenant children) position is misunderstood and even mistreated as an attachment sentimentalism and superstition by those of a credo-baptist position.

In this small little book, the author presents an irenic discussion on the nature and meaning of baptism, whilst forthrightly presenting a solidly and biblical argument for the paedo-baptist position. And this is of course needed in the debate. The author calmly writes and explains his understanding by careful and robust exegesis of the texts and passages, along with working at a proper biblical theology of the subject matter.

As I have already noted, there is a genuine irenic feel to this little book and the author encourages readers to have a gracious posture when we deal with the subject with those who do disagree with us.

At only 129 pages, this makes this book especially suitable for study groups, new member classes, and for making readily available for a more general readership. It is an easy read and the author succeeds at explaining his case and lays out clear exegesis of texts as well as explaining the rites and practices behind the Old Testament baptisms and washings.

Personally and even as a ‘layman’ I am always on the lookout for suitable small works that are great treatments of ‘core’ subjects of the Christian faith. I found this to be one example that I would certainly recommend and encourage folks to have a copy available.

Anyone wishing to view a sample chapter can do so here at the Ligonier webpage.

I received a e-galley of this work from the Publisher in return for a honest review. I was not obliged to give a positive review.

I've always grown up in the Baptist world. Because of that, I've never actually encountered and explored the arguments for infant baptism. After reading Baptism by Guy Richards, that has changed. But have my views on baptism?

First, I will say that I walked away with a greater appreciation of the infant baptism position. I grew in my understanding and even found some of it compelling. I could even make some of the connections Richards was attempting to make between Old and New Testaments.

What I didn't find convincing, however, were his arguments from Scripture. I found myself consistently writing notes that his arguments were reaching and making assumptions that just weren't there. While Richards would argue that Baptists assume things regarding baptism in the New Testament, it appeared to me that the assumptions made by the Presbyterian camp were much farther and wider.

One thing I hadn’t considered, but was swayed by Richards argument is that the meaning of baptism has far greater weight than the mode. Richards paints a compelling case that the mode is not always made clear in Scripture, but the meaning is certainly emphasized. I appreciate that emphasis and was thoroughly swayed by the argument (however, I still think we should immerse believers whenever possible).

Ultimately, I was not convinced on the position of infant baptism, but I did enjoy getting to explore the topic and hear better arguments for it than I’ve heard before. I think, if anything, we should seek to genuinely understand the position of those we disagree with so Richards book serves well in that way.

“Baptism” from Reformation Trust Publishing was written by executive director and assistant professor of systematic theology at Reformed Theological Seminary Guy Richard. The author is Presbyterian so many credobaptists are likely to be hesitant when picking it up. However, the introduction makes clear that this book is written with both credobaptists (those who believe baptism should be done after one professes faith) and paedobaptists (those who believe children and infants of believers should be baptised) in mind.

The book is written from a paedobaptist perspective, but with the intention to bring some clarification to a family debate between brothers and sisters of the faith. Richard does an excellent job of being charitable and honest to both sides, including a chapter on why the Baptist brothers and sisters disagree.

The author explores many topics such as the meaning of baptism, why we baptise, and who should be baptised. I have personally benefited from the book as a question that has been on my mind is “Should I be re-baptized” and this book actually addresses this specific question.

“Baptism” is a great read for those seeking to go deeper in their understanding of baptism or for those who would be interested in seeing a differing view point.

I received an e-copy of this book in exchange for my fair and honest review.

Baptism seems to be a hot topic and a heated debate between Baptists and Presbyterians. Some people felt they need to avoid the conversation altogether because it has resulted in name-calling and even broke relationship. You want to see some nasty debates, just check out Twitter some times.

I have read a few Baptism books over the years from both sides of the issue. Granted they are not heated debated, but they are a few I can walk away from that has not changed my view that Baptism is meant for believers only as the Bible clearly demonstrates. You may not agree with that, but it does not mean we cannot be brother and sisters just because we disagree. I know Guy M. Richard would say the same, which he did in his book on Baptism.

He expressed in the book that Baptism is and should be a family discussion. Yes, we will have different opinions on the matter, but that does not mean we should break fellowship because of it. He expressed that Reformed Baptists are still brothers and sisters in the Lord even though they may not agree with the teaching on Infant Baptism.

In this book, he shows us why he along with many Presbyterians why they believe the children of believers should be baptized. He reasons were clear and discussed in a manner where you did not feel like the enemy if you hold to Believer's Baptism. Richard does address why Baptists do not believer infants should be baptized and other difference we have in this issue.

This book is one that I would recommend to everyone (Baptists and Presbyterians) to read and have a healthy discussion on Baptism. I love that Richard was gracious to Baptists and understood where we are coming from on Baptism without resorting to backbiting. Has he changed my mind on Baptism? No, but I did appreciate what he wrote overall.

This originally appeared at The Irresponsible Reader.
---
It's been awhile since I've read a book on baptism -- it's been awhile since I've seen a new one published, too (but maybe I stopped paying attention), so when I saw this on NetGalley, I had to take a chance. I'm very glad I did. Richard discusses in his introduction that questions about this sacrament are some of the most frequently asked to Presbyterian (and, I assume, Reformed) pastors. Sadly, they're usually asked when pastors can't give the kind of answers they should -- at least based on his experience.

He begins looking at the meaning of Baptism -- both the Greek terms translated as "baptism" and the sacrament. He does so very well, covering all the bases. Following that he moves to the method of baptism -- how should the water be applied? Once he's finished with these matters he moves into the more complicated question -- who should be baptised? He begins with the "household" baptisms in the New Testament before turning to the objections and arguments of Baptist and baptistic brothers. He not only examines and explains them fairly well, he responds to them in an irenic manner, but not giving an inch to them.

The conclusion, "What Can We Take Away from All This" is just fantastic. Richard's meditations on how our baptisms should shape our lives and our faith, to build our faith and give us assurance. It's easily worth half of whatever you pay for the book, and maybe more.

This is probably not a book that will convince any detractors. It may not be enough to convince the earnest seeker. But it will explain the basics for each topic considered. It will demonstrate the systematic and biblical basis for Richard's positions exists and they aren't mere tradition. These are outlines to be filled in with further reflection, reading and research by the reader.

Along those lines, each chapter could really use a "For Further Reading" to help the reader get deeper into the topics covered -- or one at the end of the book. But I do think as each chapter is so topic-focused, it'd be very helpful. As good as each chapter is, they are just an overview. Not every reader is going to want to go deeper into, say, the mode/method of baptism but they might want to spend more time on the meaning of Baptism, or his response to Baptist interpretations of Jeremiah 31. For example, I think I agree with his differing from Murray on the former -- but I'd like to read more about that, if it's possible.

Richard's tone throughout is gracious, kind, yet unbending. It's not easy to putt off in print, especially on a topic like Baptism. There were many times he could've gone for the jugular, rhetorically speaking. He never did, trusting that the arguments would carry the day. And, in my not so humble opinion, he's right to trust that.

Gracious, encouraging, thorough and easy to read -- this introduction to "the waters that divide" Christians is just what you want in a book on this topic. But more than those, it's deeply biblical in nature. Richard's focus in bringing the light of the canon to this topic, and he succeeds there. I strongly encourage you to read it.


Disclaimer: I received this eARC from Reformation Trust Publishing via NetGalley.

I'll be brief and I hope, respectful. What I have read so far in this book is yet another attempt to bend over backwards and disprove that baptism is a necessary component (for the most part) in the salvation process. The absolute worst example of this was a document I read on the CARM site. I wrote them a detailed rebuttal and invited them to reply - they never did.

In this book the author rightly points out that the English term baptism refers to a number of different ceremonies, words and events. I cannot disagree with this. I also respectfully acknowledge that the Lord can give his Holy Spirit to whomsoever He wishes - and how he wishes. This He has done in different points in the biblical record.

However, the author seems to suggest that unless baptism always means 'immersion' it totally invalidates the idea that it is - usually - a necessary part of the process. Plus (and I may have been misinformed) when Jesus gavce the great commission He clearly told his disciples to immerse those who came to believe - the Greek word there is for total immersion rather than dipping which is another Greek word.

Furthermore, when the author talks about the case of the baptising of the Ethiopian Eunch he says that if Phillip went down into the water with him - as in he was immersed along with the Eunech - it would mean he was baptised twice. No, it doesn't. Salvation is not activated by water light an Amazon Echo linked lightswitch. Yes, most baptisms are conducted by the baptiser standing above the water but what in any way is to stop Phillip going under to support him? It won't double-tap the baptism switch. So this is not a good argument for this event.

The way I see it is this - God has given us a house and said the way in for most people is through the front door. People who insist that baptism is just not needed are insisting on going in through the window - and potentially negating their ownership of the house.

In Acts 2:38, you repented, and were baptised - 'Repent and be immersed every one of you. Do this in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39This promise is made to you, to your children, and to all who are far away; yes, as many as the Lord our God will call.' ” (Acts 2:37-39).

It was THEN that you received the Holy Spirit. Now, before you argue that it was done differently elsewhere in the scriptures there were thousands and thousands of people who did this over the course of a few days. None of them are recorded as insisting it was done differently.

So, of course, I could be completely wrong. But I will not be recommending this book because it simply does not give the issue a fair chance.

Joshua

This is a great book. Although I dont subscribe to the author's understanding of the covenants and by virtue of that the author's understanding of other things as well, his point about the Abrahamic Covenant being a spiritual and not an ethnic covenant is good for us baptists to take into account.

That being said, I have to take a star off because I dont think he does justice to the baptist position. The book gets a bit weaker by the end.