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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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. :cheers:

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.

After many posts in Baptism threads, I have yet to hear a plausible (or any other) explanation from Baptists of why there was not even a peep from the hearers of our Lord and his Apostles that your children are now cut-off from God in this new and better covenant and oh, by the way, this severing is good news. :um:
 
Hi Susita:

I am as perplexed as to the disagreements of Baptists towards paedo-baptism as you are concerning the arguments of paedo-baptists! So, in our mutual confusion allow me to point out a few things.

First, all agree that the children of believers were circumcised in the Old Covenant. That this circumcision brought the children under the outward dispensation of the Covenant of Grace. That not all children who were circumcised were members of the inward Covenant of Grace: Was not Esau Jacob's brother? It was the children of believers (Israel) that were to be circumcised. The children of the gentiles were not to be circumcised.

Is there anything in this first point that Credo-Baptists would find objectionable?

Second, the New Covenant teaches us that the administration of circumcision has been replaced by the administration of baptism. The strongest textual support for this idea is found here:

In whom 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, who hath raised him from the dead, Col. 2:11,12.
We can also argue from a logical standpoint: That since circumcision has been done away as the administration of entrance to the outward Covenant of Grace, then there had to be something to take its place. Baptism fits the requirements perfectly for this new administration. This is the teaching of the great Baptist theologian John Gill on Col. 2:12:

The apostle goes on to observed how complete and perfect the saints are in Christ; that they are not only circumcised in him in a spiritual sense, and the body of the sins of their flesh is put off, and removed from them in allusion to the cutting off and casting away of the foreskin in circumcision; but that they and all their sins were buried with Christ, of which their baptism in water was a lively representation, Commentaries, vol. 9, pg. 188.
One would argue that if the connection between circumcision and baptism is "spiritually" made, than the physical representation of each cannot be logically denied. I believe that Credo-Baptists would agree that not all those who receive the physical sign of baptism are saved. The classic example of this would be Simon the Sorceror who was baptized by the Apostles, but was later found to be, "in the gall of bitterness" as Peter put it.

Do Credo-Baptists have any objection to the understanding that Baptism replaced Circumcision as the physical (outward) representation of membership in the Covenant of Grace?

Third, both Circumcision in the Old Testament and Baptism in the New Testament represented the same thing in different forms. The OT taught that it was the heart that needed Circumcising, Deut. 10:16, 30:6. This is nothing less than what the NT calls Born Again. A person cannot circumcise his own heart. Consequently, it is a work of the Spirit of God found in the shadows of the Old Testament figure of Circumcision. Paul argues the same thing in Rom. 2:25-29. Thus, when you read the description of Baptism in the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith you can read the word "circumcision" as it applied in the Old Testament:

Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament (i.e. Circumcision is an ordinance of the Old Testament), ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life, ch. 29, Of Baptism, parenthesis mine.
Now, is there any objection by the Credo-Baptists that Circumcision and Baptism represented the same thing in their respective Covenants?

Here is where the Paedo's and Credo's disagree:

That since Circumcision was given to Believers and their children, so, also, Baptism is to be given to Believers and their children.

The Credo's argue that the New Covenant is given to Believers only and not to their children. They derive this, I believe, from the "Seed of Abraham." That is, the Church is now the Seed of Abraham, and the Church consists only of those who believe in Jesus Christ. Consequently, Baptism is only for those who can make a valid profession of faith and join the church.

There are many objections to this positon:

First, if the Church were to abandon its children in such a way, then there would be clear teaching from the New Testament that children of believers are in no way to be considered outward (physical) members of the Covenant of Grace. We have, in fact, many passages in the Scriptures that teach just the opposite:

Then were there brough unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven, Matt. 19:13,14.
If the children of believers are considered, "members of the kingdom of heaven," than how much moreso should they be considered members of the kingdom here on earth? Which is greater heaven or earth? In the parallel passage in Luke 18:15 the word "infants" is used as well as "children."

It is true that Baptism is not in view here, but membership in the kingdom of heaven is understood. Jesus, by the way, did not physically baptize anyone during his ministry.

Then Peter said unto them, repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you, and your children, and for those who are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call, Acts 2:38,39
This much disputed passage includes the children of believers as inheritors of the "promise." To whom is referred to in the phrase, "For the promise is to you..." but those who respond to the calling of God in the preaching of the Word. All those of whom, "the Lord our God shall call" and their children are encompassed in the promises of God. Since Baptism is given to "you," then it should be given to "your children," and to "those who are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."

In order for the Credo-Baptist to support their idea that Baptism is given only to believers and not their children, they would have to cut out the phrase, "your children" here in their Bibles. If the promises given in Baptism are only for Believers, then Peter had no business to include "your children" in the passage - unless Peter is saying that "your children" will be infallibly saved - which is an untruth.

For the unbelieveing husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy, 1 Cor. 7:14,
The children of at least one believing parent are considered "holy." How can that be? If the New Covenant is for individual professing believers only, then how can one consider the child of a believer "holy"? In other parts of the New Testament the word "holy" here is rendered "saint."

It is evident from the New Testament that the children of Believers have the same rights and priviledges that the children of the Old Testament had. The continunity between circumcision and baptism of the children of believers continues in the New Testament.

The contention of the Credo-Baptists that "Believers Only" are to be baptized, and that the children of believers are "edited out" of the outward Covenant of Grace is no where substantiated in the New Testament. Their argument is an argument from silence.

The Credo-Baptist has to produce positive evidence that the children of believers are excluded from baptism. Is there a positive command in the Bible that says that children of believers are not to be baptized? If there is no such actual command, than the inductive arguments that Credo-Baptists do use, i.e., "the only examples of baptism we have in the New Testament are believers only," is insufficient in light of the Old Testament as well as the treatment of the Children of Believers in the New Testament passages cited above.

Consequently, I lovingly call my Credo-Baptist brothers in Christ to repent of this sin, and return to Jesus Christ.

Grace and Peace,

-CH
 
Just wondering:

Why would children of believers have fewer privileges (no baptism, covenant seal) in the New Covenant than they did in the Old Covenant, when the new covenant is usually associated with more privileges/light/revelation?

I know that isn't a kill-shot argument, but I heard it from Gerstener and thought it was neat.
 
Just wondering:

Why would children of believers have fewer privileges (no baptism, covenant seal) in the New Covenant than they did in the Old Covenant, when the new covenant is usually associated with more privileges/light/revelation?

I know that isn't a kill-shot argument, but I heard it from Gerstener and thought it was neat.
:ditto:

That was also one of the more compelling issues for me when I decided paedo back when I was debating between the two stances.
 
I love Reformed Reader it's a good place to post specific questions or concerns.
 
Originally Posted by non dignus
"Repent, and let everyone of you be baptised..."

Acts 2:38

Didn't see that this was covered in any posts in this thread (and I am paedo myself, I was baptized into the CRC in infancy) but can an infant repent? If this is a two-part command, can he really be speaking to everyone? Otherwise, it almost seems to support the credos instead. Please excuse my ignorance on this, I just can't see how this is a clear support for paedobaptism as I now see it (but would love to have it explained to me.)
 
I think David's reason for highlighting the words "let every one of you" is to try and get you, the reader, to ask "who is every one of you," or more precisely, who would the hearers of Peter have understood that phrase to refer to? Would they have heard his say those words, look around at the group standing there, and think, "This man is speaking to us, commanding us."

I don't think so. The general call of the gospel is indiscriminate. And especially in that context, Peter may be addressing the people who happen to be in front of him at that moment, but his words have the widest conceivable application, certainly nothing less than the whole city of Jerusalem, really than the whole OT church. For that church, collectively and through its leadership, had rejected the Messiah, putting him to death--which God had of course decreed to be the instrument of bringing about the salvation of the world.

It was a cosmic act of covenantal abolition, on the part of man. But Peter announces a universal call of redemption. He calls out to the nation to repent, and turn to the risen Christ and ask forgiveness. These are people who think covenantally. It is their covenant-consciousness that Peter uses to make his case against everyone--EVEN againt those who were not physically present at Jesus formal rejection and judicial murder (and certainly many present on this day would not have been there 50 days prior). Yet they were all cut to the heart.

Peter, therefore, would not have been heard by these Jews as simply commanding that they, as individual hearers, be baptized, but that the whole, guilty covenant people needed to re-enter covenant with the God and his Anointed they had so lately rejected. Which statement is immediately followed by the more well-known language of verse 39: "for the promise is to you, and to your children, and to those who are afar off--as many as the Lord our God shall call." This language, many of us are already familar with as echoing OT covenant language: "I will be God to you, and to you children..."

So, back to the question: who would the original hearers have understood Peter to have been referring to when he said, "... and be baptized every one of you, for the promise is to you and to your children..."?
 
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 :(

Don't feel too bad, the struggle is natural. It took them over 20 years to finally get me.

The main obstacle in my pre-paedo thinking was the continuity between the Testaments. Once that was overcome, everything fell into place.
 
Susita,

Always remember in anything you study not to start at the end of the story, but the beginning.

Paul the Apsotle is a very smart fellow, and a hard fellow to follow if you don't understand what he understood in the Hebrew Scriptures. (Remember - his Bible was the Old Testament.)

In order to to understand baptism, you have to understand the covenant sign.

In order to understand the covenant sign, you have to go back to Genesis and find out what God was doing with father Abraham when he instituted the "covenant sign".

In order to understand father Abraham, you have to understand what happened with Adam and Eve and the fall in the Covenant of works.

To understand baptism, you first have to understand "covenant" or all this will be very frustrating.
 
Susita,

Always remember in anything you study not to start at the end of the story, but the beginning.

Paul the Apsotle is a very smart fellow, and a hard fellow to follow if you don't understand what he understood in the Hebrew Scriptures. (Remember - his Bible was the Old Testament.)

In order to to understand baptism, you have to understand the covenant sign.

In order to understand the covenant sign, you have to go back to Genesis and find out what God was doing with father Abraham when he instituted the "covenant sign".

In order to understand father Abraham, you have to understand what happened with Adam and Eve and the fall in the Covenant of works.

To understand baptism, you first have to understand "covenant" or all this will be very frustrating.
:ditto:

Understanding the OT and how it follows redemptive history really is the only sound way for Infant Baptism to make sense from a sound, logical doctrinal standpoint. It is what made me an ironclad paedo after lots of debate and nearly being rebaptized (in fact being within a few hours when ilness combined with unease to make the baptism not happen).

If the NT stood alone, isolated from the OT promises and provisions, then the answer to this question would be obvious in the credobaptist direction.
 
Greetings:

When the non-Biblical views of the Credo-Baptists are exposed for all to see they then turn to immersion vs. sprinkling in order to avoid the obvious error of their thinking. The WCF does not forbid baptism by immersion:

Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary: but baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person, ch. 28, sect. 3.
There is plenty of evidence that the Church performed both. If an unbaptized convert in my congregation felt it necessary to be dipped, then I would not violate his conscience by not dipping him.

I have yet to see a cogent Baptist answer to my previous post. Has their inordinate pride in being "Biblical" finally been silenced?

Blessings,

-CH
 
Greetings:

When the non-Biblical views of the Credo-Baptists are exposed for all to see they then turn to immersion vs. sprinkling in order to avoid the obvious error of their thinking. The WCF does not forbid baptism by immersion:


There is plenty of evidence that the Church performed both. If an unbaptized convert in my congregation felt it necessary to be dipped, then I would not violate his conscience by not dipping him.

I have yet to see a cogent Baptist answer to my previous post. Has their inordinate pride in being "Biblical" finally been silenced?

Blessings,

-CH
Furthermore, it's a non sequitur argument, since after all, the Eastern Orthodox practice immersionist infant baptism.

Credo/Paedo and Immersion/Sprinkling-Pouring are not inherently bound to each other.
 
Susita,

Always remember in anything you study not to start at the end of the story, but the beginning.

Paul the Apsotle is a very smart fellow, and a hard fellow to follow if you don't understand what he understood in the Hebrew Scriptures. (Remember - his Bible was the Old Testament.)

In order to to understand baptism, you have to understand the covenant sign.

In order to understand the covenant sign, you have to go back to Genesis and find out what God was doing with father Abraham when he instituted the "covenant sign".

In order to understand father Abraham, you have to understand what happened with Adam and Eve and the fall in the Covenant of works.

To understand baptism, you first have to understand "covenant" or all this will be very frustrating.
Dr Matt,

I have spent much time on this very topic upon reading your book along with may others including Herman Witsius(which is indeed a great work). I must state that New Covenant is NOT like the old and CANNOT be broken by men. God is indeed faithful to His people (ie. the true seed of Abraham). I believe in INFANT baptism (spiritually speaking). Please correct me if I am wrong but is not the TRUE circumcision on that is made without hands? Israel was continually called to circumcise the foreskin on their hearts. Please help me out with this question, In your understanding how is it that God looks upon the unregenerate child differently upon baptized than he did prior? An other way of asking the question is "How does God see that child differently upon baptism then prior to?" I hope you understand the question.
 
Last edited:
Dr Matt,

I have spent much time on this very topic upon reading your book along with may others. Including Herman Witsius(which is indeed a great work). I must state that New Covenant is NOT like the old and CANNOT be broken by men. God is indeed faithful to in His people (ie. the true seed of Abraham). I believe in INFANT baptism (spiritually speaking). Please correct me if I am wrong but is not the TRUE circumcision on that is made without hands? Israel was continually called to circumcise the foreskin on their hearts. Please help me out with this question, In your understanding how is it that God looks upon the unregenerate child differently upon baptized than he did prior? An other way of asking the question is "How does God see that child differently upon baptism then prior to?" I hope you understand the question.

Hi:

Was the New Covenant broken by Simon the Sorceror? If not, then does that mean we only baptize the Elect?

Blessings,

-CH
 
Hi:

Was the New Covenant broken by Simon the Sorceror? If not, then does that mean we only baptize the Elect?

Blessings,

-CH

Greetings CH,

I do not believe Simon the Sorceror was IN Christ therefore I do not believe he was in the NC.
Do you believe that man can break the NC? (If so please explain).
Again, I would like to know how you believe God looks upon an unregenerate child/infant/adult differently upon baptism than He does before baptism. I look forward to both Dr. Matt's and your responses on this vital issue.
 
Greetings CH,

I do not believe Simon the Sorceror was IN Christ therefore I do not believe he was in the NC.
Do you believe that man can break the NC? (If so please explain).

Greetings:

I am taking you on your own Baptist presuppositions:

Was Simon the Sorceror Baptized?

Yes.

What does that mean to a Baptist? Was Simon the Sorceror Baptized into the New Covenant?

Yes or No?

The Paedo-baptist would say that Simon was baptized into the outward (physical) administration of the Covenant. That, as long as his profession of faith remained legitimate, he was a member of the Church, and received all the priviledges and rights thereunto. We would treat and consider him a true Christian man unless he proved otherwise.

In being Baptized Simon the Sorceror made a Covenant with God of which he broke.

The unbreakable Covenant is God's Covenant with the Elect. If you baptize people based on this criterion (which the Apostles did not), then you must baptize only the Elect. Who here is arrogant enough to claim they know who are elect or not?

I have heard it said from Baptists, "Oh, we do our best..."

Well, your best is not good enough when you consider that you are talking about God's everlasting and unbreakable Covenant. The Covenant made at Baptism is everlasting and unbreakable only to the Elect, and not to the non-Elect.

We do not baptize people based on Election, but on the Covenant Promises of God:

"...For the promise is to you, your children, and those who are afar off..."

You wrote:

Again, I would like to know how you believe God looks upon an unregenerate child/infant/adult differently upon baptism than He does before baptism.
From Scripture:

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now they are holy, 1 Cor. 7:14.
The child of a believer is considered "holy" or "set apart." As I have noted in other posts the term used here is translated in other places as "saint."

Consider, your Baptist presuppositions would lead you to strike out this verse in the Bible. The child is not considered "holy" because the child believes, but because one, or both, of his parents believe. Your views lead you astray of the Word of God, and not towards it.

Repent (metanoeo) of this unbelieving mindset.

Peace,

-CH
 
How is one "holy" before one "believes"? I am not doubting scripture, just looking for an explanation. For example, my daughter. She is clearly NOT a "believer", at what time, or age was or is she no longer holy? When it is "evident" that she does not "believe"? Up until that point she was "holy"? If so, that means what exactly?
 
How is one "holy" before one "believes"? I am not doubting scripture, just looking for an explanation. For example, my daughter. She is clearly NOT a "believer", at what time, or age was or is she no longer holy? When it is "evident" that she does not "believe"? Up until that point she was "holy"? If so, that means what exactly?

I would say that a person is to be considered holy and set apart until they are no longer set apart. I would think it would be somewhere between the lines when they are barred from the Lord's Table and excommunication.

CT
 
Ok, so if she had died before she was "barred" she would have stood justified before God due to her baptism? If so, isn't this another form/way of salvation? Do paedo's argue that baptized infants stand justified before God based on baptism up until they can "decide" or we can decide that they are not elect?

It all honestly confuses me, and always has.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top