AHH help!! The paedo's are after me!!!

[~~Susita~~]

Brothers and sisters, I want to understand infant baptism SO much right now that it's driving me to tears! I just don't get it. I'm credo, and I just don't get it and it's so frustrating!!! Please help

 

[Davidius]

Brothers and sisters, I want to understand infant baptism SO much right now that it's driving me to tears! I just don't get it. I'm credo, and I just don't get it and it's so frustrating!!! Please help

Do you have questions in any specific area? I came over to the Paedo side about 6 months ago so maybe I can help.

 

[~~Susita~~]

I just don't get why people would want to baptize an unsaved infant. Yeah, it's a "sign that they are entering the visible covenant family" - but I don't get it.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Which unsaved infant are you referring to? Do you have the name of an un-elect infant in a Reformed Church so we can discuss that particular child?

 

[~~Susita~~]

No. I'm just saying: What if the child is not one of God's elect? Why baptize it?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

What if one of your members isn't one of God's elect? Why baptize you?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Incidentally, Susan, I'm not berating you. This is called Socratic questioning. I'm trying to draw something out of you...

 

[ReformedWretch]

Which unsaved infant are you referring to? Do you have the name of an un-elect infant in a Reformed Church so we can discuss that particular child?

Hey Rich

I discussed this a while back, but here goes again.

Our daughter was baptized as an infant and at 24 shows NO SIGN of being anything other than being 100% devoted to the world. I know that means little as she is not dead and Lord willing will not be for a long time. However I do often worry that some see baptizing their infants as some kind of "security blanket". I don't rest easier because Alisha has been baptized, that's for sure.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Understood Adam. I'm not of the school of thought that sees baptism as a "security blanket". That school of thought has no intersection with the Biblical (read Reformed) thought on the matter.

Your daughter was promised something on condition of faith and she is in rebellion of it. Let's continue to pray that God will convert her. If she does embrace Christ by faith, she need not be re-baptized for the the promise was made by One who doesn't change.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Adam,

Have to run to a meeting. Don't have time to interact on this right now but I don't want to discourage you or be flippant. I'll try to explain this more if you have any unanswered concerns.

 

[~~Susita~~]

If she does embrace Christ by faith, she need not be re-baptized for the the promise was made by One who doesn't change.

But if she is not one of His elect (GOD FORBID! I will pray for her, Mr. Leavelle), what was the point of that baptism?

 

[Davidius]

But if she is not one of His elect (GOD FORBID! I will pray for her, Mr. Leavelle), what was the point of that baptism?

This is an important question. Our understanding of what baptism actually is hangs on it.

Sure, a Presbyterian believes that baptism is the sign of entrance into the visible Church for children of believers but he also understands that baptism is a sign of God's promises to his people. In this sense, baptism is for all who witness it. The ritual is not merely a profession of dedication on the receiver's end. It is God saying something to the receiver and to everyone: that those who repent and believe will receive what the sign signifies. It doesn't (and this is the Baptist error) say "the person receiving this sign has what is signified."

Does that make any sense?

 

[Dwimble]

Susan, I'm sure someone will correct me if I incorrectly state the facts, but the basic difference in the two camps seems to be one of having a different view of the purpose of water baptism. The one sees it as an outward, visible sign of a profession of faith of the believer, whereby you confess that you have been buried and raised with Christ. The other sees at as an outward, visible sign of belonging to the covenant body of believers, or the visible church...similar to circumcision in the old testament, signifying being under the covenant and of Israel. But remember, God judged plenty of Jews, even though they had been circumcised since the 8th day of their lives. Circumcision didn't guarantee or indicate election and neither does baptism.

 

[Puritanhead]

Incidentally, Susan, I'm not berating you. This is called Socratic questioning. I'm trying to draw something out of you...

Yeah, but she asked you. Draw something out of yourself, while you're at it.

 

[~~Susita~~]

This is an important question. Our understanding of what baptism actually is hangs on it.

Sure, a Presbyterian believes that baptism is the sign of entrance into the visible Church for children of believers but he also understands that baptism is a sign of God's promises to his people. In this sense, baptism is for all who witness it. The ritual is not merely a profession of dedication on the receiver's end. It is God saying something to the receiver and to everyone: that those who repent and believe will receive what the sign signifies. It doesn't (and this is the Baptist error) say "the person receiving this sign has what is signified."

Okay I read those last two sentences a few times and I understand that. Do you have some Scripture about what you just said that I can study?

 

[~~Susita~~]

Susan, I'm sure someone will correct me if I incorrectly state the facts, but the basic difference in the two camps seems to be one of having a different view of the purpose of water baptism. The one sees it as an outward, visible sign of a profession of faith of the believer, whereby you confess that you have been buried and raised with Christ. The other sees at as an outward, visible sign of belonging to the covenant body of believers, or the visible church...similar to circumcision in the old testament, signifying being under the covenant and of Israel. But remember, God judged plenty of Jews, even though they had been circumcised since the 8th day of their lives. Circumcision didn't guarantee or indicate election and neither does baptism.

Yes, okay, that's great! Folks, if you don't mind, I'd like to leave it at this so I can study/read my Bible for a bit, then I'll hit this thread up again.

Thanks!

 

[Davidius]

Okay I read those last two sentences a few times and I understand that. Do you have some Scripture about what you just said that I can study?

I would recommend that you start in the Old Testament and follow Michael's point out. Remember, many important doctrines cannot be simply proof-texted (in other words, for things like the Trinity and Infant Baptism I can't just point to one verse and say 'aha! I've got you now!' This is what many Baptists try to do using one or two different verses in the NT instead of looking at the entire bible and trying to understand what the sacraments mean and how they have been/are used. Here are some questions:

When was circumcision instituted? (Gen 17, not in Exodus 20. Baptists like to make the error of associating circumcision with the Mosaic covenant [what the writer of the Hebrews calls the Old Covenant])

Was circumcision instituted as part of the Mosaic Covenant or the Abrahamic Covenant? (read Galatians 2-4)

Of what was circumcision a sign? (search bible gateway for references to circumcision in the OT. Also Check Colossians 2:11-12).

Were people required to profess their own faith in order to be circumcised? (Read Gen 17 again, and also Romans 2, 9 and 11)

What did circumcision have to do with God's dealings through the family unit?

Does God still care about families or did that change in the NT? (Romans 11. There is one Covenant of Grace, the olive tree to which Paul refers. Gentiles have been grafted into the tree but it's the same tree. The Covenant is the same and therefore we can only change the aspects of it that God has changed. As a Presbyterian, I would argue that although the sign has changed from circumcision to baptism, the application to children of believers has not since that is not mentioned anywhere.)

Why are there household baptisms in Acts? (this must come after studying the other issues in order to make sense)

Also, check out 1 Cor. 10:1-5 and 1 Peter 3. Notice the discussion of types of baptism in the OT and inclusion of whole families (children).

I hope this helps. Let me know if there is anything else I can do.

 

[~~Susita~~]

I really appreciate your help and at the same time, I ask for everyone's patience. I have much to learn and it's frustrating

I need to go to bed, still recovering from last night's bout of stomach flu and a long day of work. Have a blessed evening, y'all!

 

[Blueridge Believer]

BAPTISM DEBATE


James White, Reformed Baptist vs. Bill Shishko, Orthodox Presbyterian



It was the sincere hope of both James White and Bill Shishko that the following debate would model for many how Christians should be unafraid to engage their differences in a common commitment to the authority of the Word of God. We believe the desire of both men for the debate was fulfilled.

We provide the audio of this debate without cost, only asking that God's people remember that these events, and the facilities that bring you this hopefully challenging and helpful information, require the support of God's people. We would ask that you remember Alpha and Omega Ministries and help us to continue to edify the saints through debates and apologetic activities.

 

[Mayflower]

I got converted in an arminian baptist church (and never heard about covenant theology), after 4 years by studying John calvin and the puritans i started to understand covenant theology and embraced paedobaptism (but i still hath some doubts), but than after reading the follow books, and became finally clear and convince concerning credobaptism. I love the reformed theology and the puritans, but i think the were absolute wrong with the support of infant baptism :

- David Kingdon : Childeren of Abraham
- T.E Watson : Should babies be baptized ?
- Prof Hendrick F. Stander & Prof Johannes P. Louw : Baptism in the early church.
- Henry Danvers : A treatise of baptism
- Samuel Waldron : A Reformed baptist manifesto
- Nehemiah Cox : Covenant theology
- John Gill : Baptism

See the follow links :

http://www.christian-truth.org/church/paedobaptism1.html

http://www.founders.org/library/malone1/string.html

http://www.trinity-baptist-church.com/art_abrcov.htm

http://qqohelet.tripod.com/chantrybaptism.html

http://www.founders.org/library/welty.html

http://www.baptisttheology.org/documents/FromCircumcisiontoBaptism_001.pdf

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Lake/8890/grace/jtorreysmith.html

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Lake/8890/grace/jtorreysmith2.html

http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Sermons&Tracts/sermon_66.htm

http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Sermons&Tracts/sermon_58.htm

http://www.vor.org/rbdisk/ivimey/html/gill_bap.htm

http://www.gracesermons.com/robbeeee/circumcision.html

http://www.frontlinemin.org/paedo.asp

http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~sjreeves/personal/1cor.html

http://pitch.fitzage.com/2005/11/08/credo-baptism-and-covenant-theology/

http://victorian.fortunecity.com/dadd/464/patient.html

 

[AV1611]

I really appreciate your help and at the same time, I ask for everyone's patience. I have much to learn and it's frustrating

I would like to suggest some resources that I found very helpful:

A. Hanko interacts very well here with Reformed Baptist polemic focusing upon David Kingdon.

B. Go here and listen to the following sermons:

In the series Abraham, the Father of the Faithfullisten to "God's Covenant with Abraham & his Seed"

In the series The History of the Covenant listen to both "The Covenant with Abraham" and "The New Covenant".

In the series PREACHING, SACRAMENTS & DISCIPLINE listen to "God's Covenant with Christ's Seed's Seed".​

C. Have a read through this article.

D. Have a read through this article.

E. Have a read through this sermon.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Yeah, but she asked you. Draw something out of yourself, while you're at it.

Ryan,

My statements on baptism are so common that the casual observer would trip over them on this forum.

Susan asked a very specific question that, in its premise, contained a conclusion that would make it impossible for any person (professor or infant) to be baptized. Socratic questioning is a very useful learning tool in some circumstances to help people answer questions that they already know if they just thought things through a bit.

My goal was less lofty than convincing Susan that the Reformed view of baptism is the biblical one. If she answers my questions and thinks about the answer then she'll understand why her question about why people would baptize an unsaved infant makes no sense.

 

[JM]

If you're looking for answers try Reformed Reader.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Susita,

You wrote,

I just don't get why people would want to baptize an unsaved infant. Yeah, it's a "sign that they are entering the visible covenant family" - but I don't get it….I'm just saying: What if the child is not one of God's elect? Why baptize it?​

I see you have a lot of material offered you. I hope to make this short and sweet. One thing I love about the Lord Jesus is His economy of speech while not sacrificing divine depth.

I also like what “Dwimble” said (post #13).

Had I been born in ancient Israel (I am a Jew) I would have circumcised my son in obedience to God’s command to my father Abraham *, so my son would be accepted into the covenant community, the primary blessing of this being the presence of God in our community**. I would do it because it was a command of God to Abraham and all his descendants. We know that they are not all Israel who are of Israel***, and those who do not love God and His law are covenant-breakers, despite their circumcision. God always has a remnant within the covenant community who truly love Him and keep His commandments.

Back to the present: When my daughter was born (1972), she was baptized while an infant. I was an ignorant young believer, knowing nothing of sound doctrine, or of the paedo-credo dispute, yet I baptized her…I suppose you might say by intuition. I see, now that I am more mature, the Scripture equates NT baptism with OT circumcision:

In whom [Christ] also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God [i.e., faith in the operation of God], who raised him from the dead. (Col. 2:11, 12)​

Baptism is the same sign and seal circumcision was†, and I consider it a command not only from the covenant with Abraham, which “covenant of grace” NT believers are a part of††, but a command given by the Lord and the apostles, concerning entrance into the NT covenant community, the “reconstituted Israel.” †††

With the kingdom of God opened to all the nations, and individuals irrespective of family structure, baptism replaced circumcision, a bloodless sign (the blood of the new covenant already having been shed), and a sign of inclusion for all people and both sexes.

As in the ancient covenant community of Israel, so with the NT covenant community of Israel‡, we administer the covenant sign and seal upon all our seed, that they may be recipients of the great grace vouchsafed to us as the people of God. As in the old community, not all will receive it. But you can believe all the parents – and others in the community – will be praying for the lives of their seed, as well raising them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

Although the Baptists do not acknowledge the significance of some of the things I have said, I think it can be fairly asserted that they have the exact same depth and quality of prayer for their children, as well equally raising them in the same holy nurture and admonition, so that the end result is the same, those elect children in both camps will be given that which the Lord has determined will be to their salvation and growth in grace. In spirit the credos are one with the paedos, if not in understanding.


* Gen 17:9-14
** Gen 17:7
*** Romans 9:6
† Ro 4:11
†† Gal 3:9, 29
††† Acts 2: 38, 29; Mark 16:16
‡ Gal 6:15, 16

Quality materials for further study:

David Engelsma’s, The Covenant of God and the Children of Believers: http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_51.html

Herman Hoeksema’s, Believers and Their Seed, is a good book on the topic.

Another is Herman Hanko’s We And Our Children, specifically responding to Reformed Baptist David Kingdon’s Children of Abraham

One might not agree with all the PRC’s views, but on Infant Baptism they are good, and clear.

This wasn’t very “economical,” Susita, but I hope it helps!

Steve

 

[Theoretical]

Yes, okay, that's great! Folks, if you don't mind, I'd like to leave it at this so I can study/read my Bible for a bit, then I'll hit this thread up again.

Thanks!

Susan, you have a PM.

 

[AV1611]

Quality materials for further study:

David Engelsma’s, The Covenant of God and the Children of Believers: http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_51.html

I had forgotten about this one.

Herman Hoeksema’s, Believers and Their Seed, is a good book on the topic.

Excellent but as one of the PRC ministers said:

Believers and Their Seed is not a book designed to prove infant baptism over against the baptist position. It is a book for those already convicted of the truth that "The baptism of young children is … to be retained in the church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ" (Article 24 of the 39 Articles). Herman Hoeksema grounds infant baptism in the covenant of grace with believers and their seed which in turn is rooted in the covenant life of the Triune God, "a life of the most intimate communion of love and friendship, resting in the unity of God’s Being and living through the personal distinction" of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (p. 61).

As well as grounding infant baptism in God’s covenant, Hoeksema draws out the relationship between infant baptism and election and the doctrines of grace. Thus he opposes a "conditional" covenant (chs. 1-2) and baptismal regeneration (chs. 3-4) and deals with the difficult pastoral issue of covenant children who die in infancy (ch. 11).

Believers and Their Seed has helped a lot of people understand infant baptism more deeply and been of great comfort to believing parents. The proper understanding of the covenant also helps to preserve Anglican, Congregational and Presbyterian churches from the incursion of baptistic thinking (pp. 4-5) and the modern practice of infant "dedication" services. For those less familiar with some of the controversies between paedobaptists (chs. 1-4), it may be best to read the positive treatment of God’s covenant and infant baptism first (chs. 5-11). ​

Another is Herman Hanko’s We And Our Children, specifically responding to Reformed Baptist David Kingdon’s Children of Abraham

Agreed and this is better than Hoeksema's Believers and their Seed if one is looking to find answers to Reformed Baptist arguments in that Hoeksema is not defending paedobaptism so much as expounding his view of the covenant which whilst excellent is not the best place to start.

 

[aleksanderpolo]

Back to the present: When my daughter was born (1972), she was baptized while an infant. I was an ignorant young believer, knowing nothing of sound doctrine, or of the paedo-credo dispute, yet I baptized her…I suppose you might say by intuition. I see, now that I am more mature, the Scripture equates NT baptism with OT circumcision:

The Jews back at Pentecost would have baptized their infant by intuition too. They might not have a highly developed covenant theology at that time, but they had understood the covenant of grace this way for more than a thousand years, that their children are part of the covenant community. There would be riot if now in the New Covenant their children are excluded.

Susan, remember the apostles view the New Covenant in light of their understanding of the Covenant of Grace established with Abraham, not the other way round. So, you should probably study the Covenant of Grace in the OT first in order to understand baptism, not the other way round.

 

[Theoretical]

The Jews back at Pentecost would have baptized their infant by intuition too. They might not have a highly developed covenant theology at that time, but they had understood the covenant of grace this way for more than a thousand years, that their children are part of the covenant community. There would be riot if now in the New Covenant their children are excluded.

Susan, remember the apostles view the New Covenant in light of their understanding of the Covenant of Grace established with Abraham, not the other way round. So, you should probably study the Covenant of Grace in the OT first in order to understand baptism, not the other way round.

Well said.

 

[Puritanhead]

If she answers my questions and thinks about the answer then she'll understand why her question about why people would baptize an unsaved infant makes no sense.

That's only if she accepts those same inferences you do, in the course of answering her own question. You're making a case from presumption, and begging inferences that you could elucidate and explain rather than just assume that others see them. She doesn't operate from your premises, hence she doesn't draw the same conclusion.

R.C. Sproul does a wonderful thing in his theology classes. He compels the avowed paedo-baptist pupils to study a credo-baptist book, and vice versa. It helps to know what the other side believes and why they believe it. But when someone challenges you or asks why, you can't just expect to make a challenge to their position merely by counter-questions.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

That's only if she accepts those same inferences you do, in the course of answering her own question. You're making a case from presumption, and begging inferences that you could elucidate and explain rather than just assume that others see them. She doesn't operate from your premises, hence she doesn't draw the same conclusion.

Not at all. You'd have to see where the questions went to conclude that I was begging any inferences. My questioning was going to be along common assumptions concerning election, etc....

R.C. Sproul does a wonderful thing in his theology classes. He compels the avowed paedo-baptist pupils to study a credo-baptist book, and vice versa. It helps to know what the other side believes and why they believe it. But when someone challenges you or asks why, you can't just expect to make a challenge to their position merely by counter-questions.

Sure I can. I know what your Confession states. I'm also interacting with a young Sister in Christ and my intent was to help. Again, the intent of Socratic questioning is to instruct and help. Some people actually know the answer to some of the questions they ask.

I appreciate your concern, I just disagree with you.