# Question for Tom Bombadil



## Calvibaptist (Aug 28, 2007)

I have asked this question (or a variation of it) twice and it has been ignored. So, I figured I would start off a thread with it and figured that Paul couldn't stay out of the fray.  I am honestly trying to understand the consistency of the paedo view as it pertains to covenant families.

My question is a hypothetical based on the idea that children of believers are considered in God's covenant and, therefore, deserving of baptism.:

Suppose a couple in their mid-80's come to your church, hear the gospel, are converted and become covenant members through baptism. Would you also feel the necessity to baptize their children who are in their mid-50's and their grandchildren who are in their mid-20's and their great-grandchildren who are young children? If so, why? And if not, why not?


----------



## Jim Johnston (Aug 28, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> I have asked this question (or a variation of it) twice and it has been ignored. So, I figured I would start off a thread with it and figured that Paul couldn't stay out of the fray.  I am honestly trying to understand the consistency of the paedo view as it pertains to covenant families.
> 
> My question is a hypothetical based on the idea that children of believers are considered in God's covenant and, therefore, deserving of baptism.:
> 
> Suppose a couple in their mid-80's come to your church, hear the gospel, are converted and become covenant members through baptism. Would you also feel the necessity to baptize their children who are in their mid-50's and their grandchildren who are in their mid-20's and their great-grandchildren who are young children? If so, why? And if not, why not?



I don't recall ever reading this question, anyway....

Let me ask a question(s) so I can answer you better:

Did the children in their 50s reject or accept the Gospel?

Same for the Grandchildren?

The answer to the last on will help with the great great grandchildren (1, 2, 3, yr old?), who are children of the Grandchildren in their 20s.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 28, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> > I have asked this question (or a variation of it) twice and it has been ignored. So, I figured I would start off a thread with it and figured that Paul couldn't stay out of the fray.  I am honestly trying to understand the consistency of the paedo view as it pertains to covenant families.
> ...



Why does it matter whether they reject the gospel or not? Are they not covenant children?

This is the crux of my question. I am trying to understand how far along in life you consider one to be a "covenant child." One of the complaints against us Baptists is that we don't recognize that God works covenantally through families. I am trying, through this hypothetical question, to figure out exactly what is meant by that.

BTW, any one else is free to respond. I just wanted to draw attention, and I knew Paul wouldn't shy away from responding.


----------



## Herald (Aug 28, 2007)

> I just wanted to draw attention, and I knew Paul wouldn't shy away from responding.



Doug - what a cheesy method of getting Paul to respond. I'm sure glad I wouldn't use a tactic like that.


----------



## aleksanderpolo (Aug 28, 2007)

An infant cannot rebel against his parents, so he is still under the covenant headship of his parent. If they rebel against their parent's faith, they are cut-off from the covenant. So it depends on whether the 50 year old accept or reject the Gospel. Contrary to popular belief, we don't go about and baptize people who are openly rejecting the Gospel, just because their parents are believers.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 28, 2007)

aleksanderpolo said:


> In infant cannot rebel against his parents, so he is still under the covenant headship of his parent. If they rebel against their parent's faith, they are cut-off from the covenant. So it depends on whether the 50 year old accept or reject the Gospel. Contrary to popular belief, we don't go about and baptize people who are openly rejecting the Gospel, just because their parents are believers.



Thanks for that response. I am still trying to get how the continuity of the covenants work and why you say that Baptists have discontinuity because we wait until a profession of faith occurs.

Abraham circumcised everyone in his household, including Ishmael, whom he knew was not the child of promise. He also circumcised his male servants, etc. Would not continuity in the covenants dictate that baptism should be given to even adult children of converts no matter what their response to the gospel in the hope that the means of grace would work upon them just as it does upon young children? What is the difference?

Forgive me if this sounds like a set-up and you are waiting for me to spring a trap. I am not setting anyone up. I am just trying to fine-tune my understanding based on what I have read in the other threads.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 28, 2007)

aleksanderpolo said:


> If they rebel against their parent's faith, they are cut-off from the covenant.



I'm confused. I thought that a person who was cut off from the covenant people was still in the covenant, they were just breakers of the covenant and would be judged at the end? I think that is what I read.


----------



## blhowes (Aug 28, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> My question is a hypothetical based on the idea that children of believers are considered in God's covenant and, therefore, deserving of baptism.:
> 
> Suppose a couple in their mid-80's come to your church, hear the gospel, are converted and become covenant members through baptism. Would you also feel the necessity to baptize their children who are in their mid-50's and their grandchildren who are in their mid-20's and their great-grandchildren who are young children? If so, why? And if not, why not?


Given your hypothetical, and if we grant that there's a connection between OT circumcision and NT baptism, how would this question have been answered in the OT for circumcision? (if a couple in their mid-80's came to the temple...)

Since households were circumcised, for the purpose of your hypothetical, are all the generations living in the same house? I'd assume that typically (at least in our culture) most mid-50 year olds wouldn't be living with their parents, so they'd have their own, separate households. (am I wrong about the extent of households?).


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 28, 2007)

blhowes said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> > My question is a hypothetical based on the idea that children of believers are considered in God's covenant and, therefore, deserving of baptism.:
> ...



In response to your question, I would assume that everyone in that couple's family (who was male) would have also been circumcised. This is what happened to Abraham. This is the example that is used for the Philippian jailer in the corresponding household text for baptism in the NT.

But shouldn't the principle supercede cultural norms of the day? If the promise is to you and to your children, as paedos use Acts 2 to say, should it matter whether the children have, in our culture, moved out of the house or whether it is like the culture of the Old Testament?


----------



## blhowes (Aug 28, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> But shouldn't the principle supercede cultural norms of the day? If the promise is to you and to your children, as paedos use Acts 2 to say, should it matter whether the children have, in our culture, moved out of the house or whether it is like the culture of the Old Testament?


Yes, good point.

From your understanding, how would household have been defined in the OT? 

Gen 12:1 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will show thee: 

Gen 18:19 For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.

When Abraham left his father's house, didn't his family then become a separate household?


----------



## CDM (Aug 28, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> I have asked this question (or a variation of it) twice and it has been ignored. So, I figured I would start off a thread with it and figured that Paul couldn't stay out of the fray.  I am honestly trying to understand the consistency of the paedo view as it pertains to covenant families.
> 
> My question is a hypothetical based on the idea that children of believers are considered in God's covenant and, therefore, deserving of baptism.:
> 
> Suppose a couple in their mid-80's come to your church, hear the gospel, are converted and become covenant members through baptism. Would you also feel the necessity to baptize their children who are in their mid-50's and their grandchildren who are in their mid-20's and their great-grandchildren who are young children? If so, why? And if not, why not?



Relatedly, as many Baptists believe, immersion is the only valid method of Baptism. So if an 80 year old sickly woman in the Ukraine in the month of January professed faith, and there were no buildings / indoor plumbing for submersion, would you plunge her into the nearest -20 degree lake?


----------



## JM (Aug 28, 2007)

mangum said:


> Relatedly, as many Baptists believe, immersion is the only valid method of Baptism. So if an 80 year old sickly woman in the Ukraine in the month of January professed faith, and there were no buildings / indoor plumbing for submersion, would you plunge her into the nearest -20 degree lake?



Isn't this off topic?


----------



## aleksanderpolo (Aug 28, 2007)

> Abraham circumcised everyone in his household, including Ishmael, whom he knew was not the child of promise.



Abraham was told that Ishmael was not the child of promise, he didn't know whether Ishmael will be cut-off in the future, at the time of circumcision. But that's not really the point, the point is covenant sign is applied based primarily on God's promise and command. God told him to circumcise the whole household, because the promise is not only to Abraham but to his children as well, therefore he did it.



> Would not continuity in the covenants dictate that baptism should be given to even adult children of converts no matter what their response to the gospel in the hope that the means of grace would work upon them just as it does upon young children? What is the difference?



The difference is, we were not told any of his household member rebel against the Lord at the time of circumcision. A similar case can be argued for the cases in Acts, where household baptism was mentioned but no rebellion against the Lord was mentioned. 



> I'm confused. I thought that a person who was cut off from the covenant people was still in the covenant, they were just breakers of the covenant and would be judged at the end? I think that is what I read.



Esau was in the covenant when he was circumcised. He was cut-off later in life when he rebel against the covenant by marrying pagan and despising his birthright. So, your newborn infant will be considered in the covenant until they show that they are covenant breakers. 



> I am still trying to get how the continuity of the covenants work and why you say that Baptists have discontinuity because we wait until a profession of faith occurs.



Here is my 2 cents. In the Abrahamic covenant, the children were considered in the covenant and receive the covenant sign, they might show that they are covenant breakers later in life by their rebellion, and be cut-off from the covenant. We considered our children to be in the covenant and give them the covenant sign. But you consider your children not in the covenant. Even if they later profess their faith, you still won't consider them to be in the covenant with 100% confidence, because in your view the NC belongs only to the elect (I assume that you haven't change your view on Jer 31). 

Hope that I am not too confusing.


----------



## blhowes (Aug 28, 2007)

mangum said:


> Relatedly, as many Baptists believe, immersion is the only valid method of Baptism. So if an 80 year old sickly woman in the Ukraine in the month of January professed faith, and there were no buildings / indoor plumbing for submersion, would you plunge her into the nearest -20 degree lake?


-20 degree water? Thinking which I'd prefer - to be dunked, sprinkled, or have it poured on me. Each would involve a (cold) step of faith.


----------



## Kevin (Aug 28, 2007)

Hey Pastor Doug,

I would say that the adult child in your example, if still living in the household, should be baptised. 

In the case of our Father Abraham he circumcised all males within his houshold. That is, all those who were adults were circumsized based on his "decision" (bad word choice I know). This does not mean that they are passsive recipients. They could have left his "household" rather than submit to this sign. I think (!) that this indicates an acceptance on the part of those capable of "deciding" for themselves.

So I would say that the Abraham circumcision narative tells us that his household consistes of at least 2 and possibly 3 groups; 

Group one, is those underage who played no role and recieved circumcision. 

Group two, is those of age who submit to the god of Abraham and so recieve the sign.

Group three, is (possibly) those who do not submit and thus leave the household.


----------



## Kevin (Aug 28, 2007)

To clarify, Yes the Adult child should be baptised, because an adult, who is under authority, would either accept the faith of his father, or leave the household.


----------



## CDM (Aug 28, 2007)

JM said:


> mangum said:
> 
> 
> > Relatedly, as many Baptists believe, immersion is the only valid method of Baptism. So if an 80 year old sickly woman in the Ukraine in the month of January professed faith, and there were no buildings / indoor plumbing for submersion, would you plunge her into the nearest -20 degree lake?
> ...



Yes.

Although it has just as much relevance to the proper subjects of Baptism as the OP.

Now, that I'm thinking about it, what did baptistic sects do during times and at places where there were no baptistries in very cold climates?


----------



## VictorBravo (Aug 28, 2007)

mangum said:


> JM said:
> 
> 
> > mangum said:
> ...



I don't know what the sects did, but I know at least some churches waited until they could find warm water. But that's another thread. . . .


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 28, 2007)

mangum said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> > I have asked this question (or a variation of it) twice and it has been ignored. So, I figured I would start off a thread with it and figured that Paul couldn't stay out of the fray.  I am honestly trying to understand the consistency of the paedo view as it pertains to covenant families.
> ...





Thanks for the humor!


----------



## blhowes (Aug 28, 2007)

Kevin said:


> To clarify, Yes the Adult child should be baptised, because an adult, who is under authority, would either accept the faith of his father, or leave the household.


Just trying to retrace your steps...

Exo 12:48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. 
Exo 12:49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.​
In the case of a stranger, in order to keep the passover with the children of Israel, all the males needed to be baptized. Those that weren't, couldn't keep the passover.

Does the Bible say somewhere that the children of a stranger would either have to accept their father's faith, or leave the household?


----------



## bradofshaw (Aug 28, 2007)

The point here, is that that which has been given to me in my home, is set apart to God, because I am set apart to God. If I have a child born to me, he enters into the covenant relationship that I have with God. Likewise, if I become a Christian as a head of a household of a wife, children, and as in the case of Abraham, indentured servants, than all that is under my headship is brought with me into this covenant relationship. In the same way, all that I am, say, do, and own is under God's authority and must be set apart to His service. God wants all of me, even my children.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 28, 2007)

mangum said:


> JM said:
> 
> 
> > mangum said:
> ...



Actually, I thought my question was very relevant. It was related to who is considered in the covenant family and, therefore, subject to baptism. Forgive me if you don't like the question.

BTW, you mean "baptistic sects" like Ambrose who baptized Augustine in this baptistery in Milan in the 4th century? Mark Dever posted this picture after visiting it.







A little much for the sprinkling of an infant, don't you think? Oh, wait, even though Augustine's mother was a believer, he hadn't been baptized as an infant.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Aug 28, 2007)

mangum said:


> JM said:
> 
> 
> > mangum said:
> ...



In chapter 7 of the Didache when running water was not available they poured water on thier head in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost:

7:1 But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize.
7:2 Having first recited all these things, baptize {in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit} in living (running) water.
7:3 But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water;
7:4 and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm.
7:5 But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
7:6 But before the baptism let him that baptizeth and him that is baptized fast, and any others also who are able;
7:7 and thou shalt order him that is baptized to fast a day or two before.


----------



## aleksanderpolo (Aug 28, 2007)

> A little much for the sprinkling of an infant, don't you think? Oh, wait, even though Augustine's mother was a believer, he hadn't been baptized as an infant.



To counter balance, you should also consider that Paul baptized the whole Philippian jailer's household with the water used for washing their wound. Too little water to submerge a whole household with it, I suppose? I am wondering if bathtub was common in those days in a jailer's house?


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Aug 28, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> Abraham circumcised everyone in his household, including Ishmael, whom he knew was not the child of promise.


I would like to point out that God commanded that ALL who are under Abraham's household be baptized. Ishmael, right there and then, DID NOT reject God.



Calvibaptist said:


> Would not continuity in the covenants dictate that baptism should be given to even adult children of converts no matter what their response to the gospel


No. Flat out rejection of God would make them NON-covenant members. 



Calvibaptist said:


> Forgive me if this sounds like a set-up and you are waiting for me to spring a trap. I am not setting anyone up. I am just trying to fine-tune my understanding based on what I have read in the other threads.



It took me awhile to get down SOME of the Presbyterian terminology... I'm still working it out.

The scriptures DO NOT teach that those who reject God were still members of the covenant. They were cut off from the covenant of God.

By the way... alot of people don't know that I'm a baptist. I'm trying to work out these issues because of recent events.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 28, 2007)

aleksanderpolo said:


> > A little much for the sprinkling of an infant, don't you think? Oh, wait, even though Augustine's mother was a believer, he hadn't been baptized as an infant.
> 
> 
> 
> To counter balance, you should also consider that Paul baptized the whole Philippian jailer's household with the water used for washing their wound. Too little water to submerge a whole household with it, I suppose? I am wondering if bathtub was common in those days in a jailer's house?



Where does the Bible suggest that they used the water for washing their wounds? I'm sorry, but I just don't buy that they couldn't have gone out to a watering hole or something. BTW, the Bible doesn't say that either. It just says they were baptized. Since the natural means of Baptism in biblical times was immersion and since that's what the word meant, we ought to assume the natural usage of the word.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 28, 2007)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham circumcised everyone in his household, including Ishmael, whom he knew was not the child of promise.
> ...



ok. I see that.



Andrew P.C. said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> > Would not continuity in the covenants dictate that baptism should be given to even adult children of converts no matter what their response to the gospel
> ...



So, someone could be in covenant with God and then out of covenant with God? I thought those who broke the covenant were still members but received the cursings of the covenant. Wasn't this the point of Deuteronomy 28. They were still His people, but under the cursings of the covenant, and then upon repentance would be brought back.



Andrew P.C. said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> > Forgive me if this sounds like a set-up and you are waiting for me to spring a trap. I am not setting anyone up. I am just trying to fine-tune my understanding based on what I have read in the other threads.
> ...



I know what you mean. I came out of a Dispensational background, so I am having to relearn what I should have learned in the first place. And to confuse matters, it was more of a Progressive Dispensational background which tries to mix Covenant Theology with Dispensationalism. Just when I think I've got it all figured out, God goes and whacks me in the theological head!


----------



## Kevin (Aug 28, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> aleksanderpolo said:
> 
> 
> > > A little much for the sprinkling of an infant, don't you think? Oh, wait, even though Augustine's mother was a believer, he hadn't been baptized as an infant.
> ...



You were doing Ok there brother 'til you got to that bit about "the natural means..." and "that's what the word meant...".

Really, read some books about the Biblical & Reformed doctrine of baptism and then try this thread again.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Aug 28, 2007)

> So, someone could be in covenant with God and then out of covenant with God? I thought those who broke the covenant were still members but received the cursings of the covenant. Wasn't this the point of Deuteronomy 28. They were still His people, but under the cursings of the covenant, and then upon repentance would be brought back.



Well, as I said... i'm still working it out... I see your point and take back that comment..


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 28, 2007)

Kevin said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> > aleksanderpolo said:
> ...



Honestly, I thought the basic meaning of _baptidzw_ (sp?) was "to dip."

According to Thayers:



> 1. properly, to dip repeatedly, to immerge, submerge (of vessels sunk, Polybius 1, 51, 6; 8, 8, 4; of animals, Diodorus 1, 36).
> 
> 2. to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water
> 
> II. In the N. T. it is used particularly of the rite of sacred ablution, first instituted by John the Baptist, afterward by Christ's command received by Christians and adjusted to the contents and nature of their religion (see ba,ptisma, 3), viz., an immersion in water, performed as a sign of the removal of sin, and administered to those who, impelled by a desire for salvation, sought admission to the benefits of the Messiah's kingdom



According to Liddel-Scott:



> to dip in or under water; metaph., soaked in wine, Plat.; over head and ears in debt, Plut.
> 2. to baptize


----------



## Scott (Aug 28, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> I have asked this question (or a variation of it) twice and it has been ignored. So, I figured I would start off a thread with it and figured that Paul couldn't stay out of the fray.  I am honestly trying to understand the consistency of the paedo view as it pertains to covenant families.
> 
> My question is a hypothetical based on the idea that children of believers are considered in God's covenant and, therefore, deserving of baptism.:
> 
> Suppose a couple in their mid-80's come to your church, hear the gospel, are converted and become covenant members through baptism. Would you also feel the necessity to baptize their children who are in their mid-50's and their grandchildren who are in their mid-20's and their great-grandchildren who are young children? If so, why? And if not, why not?



There is no duty to baptize the 50 year olds because they are emancipated at the time of the parents' conversion. I think it is that simple. 

Scott


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 28, 2007)

Scott said:


> There is no duty to baptize the 50 year olds because they are emancipated at the time of the parents' conversion. I think it is that simple.
> 
> Scott



So, the covenant (and God's covenantal workings) do not necessarily flow down to children. They only work if the children are still living at home? Is it a federal headship idea?

I still don't understand. I thought the importance was that God worked "generationally." I thought it was that we were not all individuals, but that God worked through families. I thought that "the promise is to you and to your children" not "to you and to those of your children who are still living at home."

I'm being a little facetious and please don't take it the wrong way. But, it seems to me that once someone is past child-bearing years and have grown children you are starting to sound like a Baptist.


----------



## CDM (Aug 28, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> Kevin said:
> 
> 
> > Calvibaptist said:
> ...



So, that explains the meaning of a passage, then correct? The definition of a word? It is not how the author uses the word that communicates meaning? All means all and that's all all means right?

Mark 7:1-5
1Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem. 

2And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault. 

3For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. 

4And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, *as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables*. 

5Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?​
To dip, eh?


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 28, 2007)

mangum said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin said:
> ...



You missed my quote from Thayers, specifically the second definition:



> 2. to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water



To cleanse by dipping or submerging. In other words, how would you wash dishes? You would put them under water. Again, this is the *normal* meaning. I did not say it was the only meaning.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 28, 2007)

I just kind of skimmed the thread,

But to address one of the issues raised,

Of several factors to take into account, a primary one is the variety of connotations "household" has.

Now take Abraham's house. We have certain matters to take into account, for example, there is the fact that Abraham up and left his former home in Ur. Were there people originally in his house who said: "Nope, you can leave, but we're staying"? Abraham preached a message of deliverance from idolatry, to follow him "to a land he did not know" at God's direction.

So, it seems gratuitous to me to assume from the beginning there were all these subordinates (with their own charges), who were just a bunch of godless idolaters attached to Abraham out of economic incentives. Wasn't Abraham a spiritual leader from the word "go"? Abraham had a _faithful_ retinue, and it is really senseless to suppose otherwise. His was a journey of faith, and those who went with him followed him in faith, or at the very least _in profession of faith_. 

Furthermore, how many of us really believe that Abraham
1) circumcised without preaching the message of circumcision?
2) circumcised a recalcitrant man?

Certainly, anyone who refused circumcision (and who thereby rejected the Word of the Lord) was also saying 'goodbye' to the household of Faith. He was to be cut off. So, any idea that Abraham was a kind of "mini-oriental despot" weilding a kind of foot-on-the-neck authority, with servants who never talked back because they could have their tongues cut out, etc.--Please, this is simply not the Abraham the Bible presents to us.

I'm saying all this as a prelude to the observation that "household" is a variable term to begin with. The basics are a man and his immediate family. Now, our egalitarian culture has really taken it to the "household" hammer and tongs. But I think we can fairly dismiss the notion that we must somehow infinitely extend the notion of necessity. In the Bible itself, there seems to be a difference between the denizens of the Jailer's household, and Abraham's. Furthermore, when the Bible says, "a man shall leave his father and mother," that indicates to me a leaving the house.

Therefore, I do not see the biblical terminology demanding anything like a multi-generational inclusion under this household identity. The 80 yr olds, and their 50 yr old sons, and their sons, etc.--this sounds like a clan, not a house.

When a man is "of age, let him answer for himself," seems to be a biblical model. So, I think it is perfectly reasonable to make _most _teenagers coming into the church with their parents the first time make a profession, *and* get baptized, as also the parents.

Well, what about that wife?
The suggestion has been made that there are (or might be) all these unsaved spouses running around a church, and they just LOVE being around all these Christians, getting "plugged in" to the believer's community, but "don't bother me with that religious stuff. If I come on Sunday, I read a book during the sermon, or listen to my i-pod. I like to sing, so I just mouth the words. I sleep during the prayers. But I just love you people." Huh? Where does this happen? Don't unbelievers usually tell their believing spouses, "Enjoy yourself--I'm watching the game/fishing/mowing," or "I'll be gardening/shopping/sunbathing until you get home"?

But I'll bite. Based on Scripture order, if there is a *wife* (and only a wife, not the husband--because it's HIS house), willing to be discipled/taught the rudiments of the Christian faith, and willing _knowingly_ (because the facts and consequences of the matter have been spelled out--like reading an arrestee the Miranda) to be baptized into the visible church, I would treat this as I would Ruth's statement: "Whithersoever thou shalt go, I shall go, and thy God shall be my God."

If she tells me "*I do not believe, and I won't believe anything of this stuff you're teaching*," I wouldn't baptize her either--no more than Abraham would have circumcized that man who refused it. (Yea, he held the ones down who refused and did it to 'em anyway... please.) We don't baptize rejecters of the faith.

If the objection is raised: "But the children, they haven't had the opportunity to reject the gospel, and you're already baptizing them!"
1) how is this any more an indictment of infant or child baptism than infant or child circumcision?
2) They ARE by nature children of wrath, but God changes the elect ones *by means*, namely by rearing in the "fear and admonition of the Lord." 
3) I have a duty to _indoctrinate_ them IN the gospel. I do not have the duty to let them grow up and taste the world, and see how it compares to the taste of the gospel I gave them, that they should then claim to weigh them in the balance and choose one over the other. If they never reject the gospel, but persistently reject the world, is this not a wonderful thing? Perfectly they do this? No, but then, who does?
4) What KIND of faith, what kind of Saving Faith, does baptism represent? Does it represent the kind of mature, _*discerning*_ Faith required for Communion? Or does it represent the basic, most simple kind of childlike trust in God?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 28, 2007)

There are a number of extensive treatments on baptizw. I think Dale's is the most exhaustive, but no matter.

We can accept the "base" meaning as "to dip". As in LXX, Joshua 3:15 "...and the feet of the priests carrying the ark were *dipped* in the edge of the water."

Their leading men's feet were barely wet (dipped) when the waters were shut off. Certainly there is no indication that the "foot" (which had a rather elastic meaning--toes, Jdg. 1:6; even up the leg, 1 Sam. 7:16) was "totally submerged". Rather the opposite.


----------



## Scott (Aug 28, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> Scott said:
> 
> 
> > There is no duty to baptize the 50 year olds because they are emancipated at the time of the parents' conversion. I think it is that simple.
> ...


Gen. 17 speaks of applying the sign to those in the household, even those who are not children. Emancipated children are outside the household. The "to you and your children" is a loose synonym for household. The OT and NT applications clarify any ambiguity. Both involve household applications of the covenant sign.

BTW, not sure what you mean in some of your comments, such as we are not all individuals. 

In terms of interacting with emancipated unbelieiving children who have never been baptized, an adult presbyterian will be in essentially the same position as a Baptist.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Aug 28, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> > Calvibaptist said:
> ...



i) It matters because you don't baptize those who you know reject the Gospel, who publicly deny it.

ii) Our confession says that the proper subjects of baptism are those who profess, and their children. So, if the 50 yr. olds denied Christ, then that breaks the chain right there. You don't force people to be baptized against their expressed will. What gave you the idea we thought _that_?

iii) Anyway, what if Abraham converted at age 80, and then had kids in their 50's, and grandkids in their 20's, and they all *rejected* Jehovah. Are you saying that Abraham would pull out his sharp rock-knife, let out a blood-thirsty howel, and tell them that he's gonna cut part of their member off? When they said, "Forget you, Dad (or Gramps) we don't like Jehovah," did he start running after them, tackling them in the dirt while he held his rock-knife in his teeth, and rip their clothes off, hold them down with some slaves as he, with wide-eyed manson lamps gleaming in the moonlight, set out to saw part of their member off?

Sounds a bit odd to me. Personally, I think I could fight off a 90 yr. old dude who was trying to saw off my manhood with his rock-knife!


----------



## Herald (Aug 28, 2007)

> Sounds a bit odd to me. Personally, I think I could fight off a 90 yr. old dude who was trying to saw off my manhood with his rock-knife!



Deuteronomy 34:7 7 Although Moses was one hundred and twenty years old when he died, his eye was not dim, nor his vigor abated. 

Joshua 14:10-11 10 "And now behold, the LORD has let me live, just as He spoke, these forty-five years, from the time that the LORD spoke this word to Moses, when Israel walked in the wilderness; and now behold, I am eighty-five years old today. 11 "I am still as strong today as I was in the day Moses sent me; as my strength was then, so my strength is now, for war and for going out and coming in. 

I think there was something in the manna.


----------



## Davidius (Aug 28, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> Abraham circumcised *everyone in his household*, including Ishmael, whom he knew was not the child of promise.



You answered your own question. Do the 50 year-olds and 20 year-olds still live with the 80 year-olds as part of the "household"?

Bill Shishko, an OPC pastor with a great series on baptism, prefers the term _oikobaptism_ (household baptism) to _paedobaptism_.


----------



## Herald (Aug 28, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> > Tom Bombadil said:
> ...



Paul - in all seriousness, Doug is asking his hypothetical to get a satisfactory answer on the issue of continuity/discontinuity within the paedo position. While your forensic response about Abraham chasing down his progeny with a rock knife is worthy of a Sly Stallone movie, it's focusing on the wrong part of the argument. 

p.s. have you ever considered writing a screen play?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 28, 2007)

Bill,
I'll just say that his "ceasing" to be a covenant child, can have a couple different aspects.

1) There is one sense in which I am _still_ a covenant child.
2) There is a sense in which when I left home, I stopped being under my parent's authority.
3) There is a sense in which when I married, and started my own family, I was no longer in an ambiguous state (if it mattered) of not being under their authority, but not being IN authority.
4) There is the sense of a covenant child being placed under formal discipline, or eventually being excommunicated. He's still his believing parent's covenant child, but he is no longer the *church's* covenant child. He's been "handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme."

Perhaps that's enough "senses". What about his kids? Well, since apparently he never became a full communicant member, he has no right to the benefits of such professing membership--including bringing one's children for baptism. Some churches would have disciplined him already, judging him to have rejected the truth by NOT professing it. Under different circumstances, he might be regarded as a very slow learner, but still submissive, still evidencing the will to try.

But surely, we are speaking here of an extraordinarily extreme case, yes? And we don't typically establish order based on the fringe behavior, but normative behavior. "Hard cases make bad law." In how many of such fringe cases is it not evident there has been positive rejection of the truth? Few. And so, discipline would be in order. And after discipline, he is no longer (as Paul put it) in that chain of authority.


----------



## MW (Aug 28, 2007)

On declining to baptise a 50 year old child on the basis of parent's profession, consider John 9:21, "He is of age; ask him: he shall speak for himself."

On washing (baptising) only one part of the body, consider John 13:10, "He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit." Immersionists require the whole body to be washed, but yet are inconsistently content to take a sip of wine and a mouthful of bread in token of partaking of the Lord's supper. The elements are symbolic, not ritualistic.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Aug 28, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> > Sounds a bit odd to me. Personally, I think I could fight off a 90 yr. old dude who was trying to saw off my manhood with his rock-knife!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How much more then would a 20 or 30 yr old have been able to take them! 

If the elderly were that strong, how strong were the young bucks?


----------



## 44jason (Aug 28, 2007)

As a Baptist, I would baptize those who professed faith in Christ and had repented of their sins.
The Bible is clear about that.
Why would I dare start baptizing any more than that? Whether they are 50, 20, 10, or 1 years of age?
Will baptizing all of these others actually administer grace to them?
Will it give them an "upper hand" in becoming regenerate?
Or will it confuse them into believing that they are already saved because they have been baptized and accepted by the people of God, place under the seal of the Covenant sign.
I could just see the Apostles on Pentecost with 3000 saved men trying to figure out which children they should baptize and which they should not. And what about their wife, "Hey honey, guess who I met in Jerusalem -- the Messiah! Here, pour this water on your head and all of the children's heads. You are now disciples of Jesus."

No, for some reason when I read the book of Acts and the epistles I find the Gospel being preached, people repenting and believing (even whole households), and being baptized.

If not, you think that maybe one of the Apostles would have said, "Hey, this baptism thing is just like circumcision expect for the following umpteen different rules and regulations."

No, it looks to me like they basically said, "If you confess that Jesus is Lord thou shalt be saved... Repent therefore and be baptized."

(forgive the waggishness of the way I said the above... just trying to keep it plain.	)


----------



## Jim Johnston (Aug 28, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> > Calvibaptist said:
> ...



No, if you read it a bit more carefully, I think you'll get that I have fully responded, and in fact undermined, his entire questioning. I did that with my first question.

His questions are based on the *assumption* that it "doesn't matter" (his words) if you profess faith or not, you're in the covenant even as a willfull and known public God-hater. This wasn't even allowed in Israel. So, for me not to baptize the 50, and 20 yr olds because of publicly expressed unbelief is *continuous* with the OC. I'm attempting to show that the preuppositions that guide his question are off. Fix those, problem gone. I'm just trying to have a little rhetorical fun while I'm at it!


----------



## Jim Johnston (Aug 28, 2007)

44jason said:


> No, for some reason when I read the book of Acts and the epistles I find the Gospel being preached, people repenting and believing (even whole households), and being baptized.



Still using fallacious arguments I see.....

Here's my responsee:

No, for some reason when I read history books and watch the news I find only white people getting elected, and serving as President of the USA. Therefore, I naturally conclude that *only* white people should be President.


----------



## MW (Aug 28, 2007)

44jason said:


> Or will it confuse them into believing that they are already saved because they have been baptized and accepted by the people of God, place under the seal of the Covenant sign.



Well, either salvation has come to the house or it has not. If salvation has come to the house, then the members of the house have every reason to believe they are saved.


----------



## 44jason (Aug 28, 2007)

Paul,
Your thoughts are truly beyond me. Why you would conclude such a thing makes no sense, nor does it in any way parallel to my statement.

If your logic were true then you could say, "Since the Bible doesn't say that believers ONLY are in the New Covenant then we can conclude that unreached tribes in Africa who have not rejected Jesus Christ are also in the New Covenant."

Of course that statement is untrue. Of course you would not make it.
But to accuse me of making such arguments is neither right nor helpful to this effort to understand the Scriptures.

So knock it off .... or I will sic Gene on you.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 28, 2007)

We would need "warrant" to say such a thing.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Aug 28, 2007)

44jason said:


> Paul,
> Your thoughts are truly beyond me. Why you would conclude such a thing makes no sense, nor does it in any way parallel to my statement.
> 
> If your logic were true then you could say, "Since the Bible doesn't say that believers ONLY are in the New Covenant then we can conclude that unreached tribes in Africa who have not rejected Jesus Christ are also in the New Covenant."
> ...




Jason, sick Gene or whoever you want on me. Most credos admit I won, and all paedos do. I'd keep the debate silent, if I were you.

Anyway, you're just making yourself look ridiculous. You obviously have had zero training in logic. I took the exact same *form* of your argument, switched around *terms* and drew an admittedly absurd conclusion. ry to learn and ask questions if you're opperating in a field outside of your comfort zone.

That you're calling my conclusion absurd proves that you think your conclusion is absurd! That's the funny part!

I'd actually stody a logic book before you respond. I gave you a link to study, it appears you didn't take advantage.

Anyway, here's a brief lesson:

If a form of argumentation is valid in one case, it is valid in all. This doesn't matter if the terms are switched around. if the premises were true, the conclusion would follow. So, here's a form:

_1. All men are mortal.

2. Socrates is a man.

3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal._

Now, that form is like this

_4. All M is P.

5. All S is M.

6. Therefore, all S is P._

The form even has a name - the Barbara syllogism. It's form can be expressed like this: AAA-1

So, whatever terms you put in the premises, if they are true, you can count on the conclusion being true.

_7. All birds are black.

8. Tweetie is a bird.

9. Therefore Tweetie is black._

Premise 1 is false, but that has nothing to do with *validity.*

Now, Jason, a way (one of many) to test for invalidity, is to test an argument by logical counter example. In this test, you use the same form, and the same number of true premises, but you draw an obviously false conclusion. This proves an argument invalid because a valid argument, remember, cannot have a false conclusion if the premises are true.

So, let's look at your argument:

_10. All the examples on baptisms in the Bible are of those who profess faith/repent and believe._

_11. Therefore, only those who profess faith/repent and believe should be baptized._

Now, based on my above argument, having demonstrated how we can test for validity, I'll now test your argument by logical counter example. I will use the same amount of true premises, and draw the same conclusion, only switching *terms,* which are, as proved above, totally incidental to the argument's validity.

_12. All the examples of US Presidents have been of Caucasian males._

_13. Therefore, only Caucasian males should be Presidents of the US._

And so if 10 and 11 constitute a valid argument, then so does 12 and 13. 12 and 13 do not constitute a valid argument. Therefore, 11 and 12 do not. (You'll note that I have proven my point via a _modus tollens_ argument.) I thus take it that I have proven my case. If you’re not here just to ruffle feathers, to make mere drive-by assertions, and if you desire to show yourself a workman approved by God - which I believe you do - I expect a response of an admittance of error.


----------



## 44jason (Aug 28, 2007)

Oh man, not the "let me teach you logic" response.


----------



## 44jason (Aug 28, 2007)

You probably had that ready for a cut and paste.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 28, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> So, it seems gratuitous to me to assume from the beginning there were all these subordinates (with their own charges), who were just a bunch of godless idolaters attached to Abraham out of economic incentives. Wasn't Abraham a spiritual leader from the word "go"? Abraham had a _faithful_ retinue, and it is really senseless to suppose otherwise. His was a journey of faith, and those who went with him followed him in faith, or at the very least _in profession of faith_.
> 
> Furthermore, how many of us really believe that Abraham
> 1) circumcised without preaching the message of circumcision?
> ...



AMEN!

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

You know how, in my guidelines, I talk about facile arguments that play to a crowd. The idea that Abraham or any other Israelite was allowed to keep a heathen in their household as long as they were missing some skin on the end of their penis is just so completely ridiculous as to deserve a burst of laughter. But, yet, I hear this argument repeated so often that it seems to have some weight to many.

Do you guys really suppose Abraham just looked the other way while his servants were sacrificing to idols in his household? Do you guys really suppose that Abraham tied down and gagged screaming adult males who said: "I hate your God!" and said "TOO BAD, you're in my household and this is the command of God!"

If we want to base the answer on EXAMPLE then what do we have:
1. Every example of rebellion in Abraham's household was met with putting the person out of the household. Witness Ishmael. Do Ishmael's descendants circumcise their flesh?
2. Every example we have of servants in Abraham's household clearly demonstrates that there was a living trust of Abraham's God. Witness the servant who sought a wife for Isaac.

Thus, insofar as historical narrative is enough to establish the didactic principle for believer's only baptism for Baptists, you ought to accept this data alone as sufficent that the command to Abraham did not include the circumcision of the worshippers of false gods.

Further, the didactic evidence completely militates against this as Israelites were not even permitted to go near Pagans and could not have a heathen in their household as a slave.

I really had to get this off my chest. This argument is one of those: "I can't believe what I'm reading (or hearing) right now."

At the very least, guys, have the decency to believe that Abraham was at least as good a father as you would be. Would you hire a servant to live in your house that was a Voodoo priest and let your kids grow up around that guy?!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 28, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> 44jason said:
> 
> 
> > Or will it confuse them into believing that they are already saved because they have been baptized and accepted by the people of God, place under the seal of the Covenant sign.
> ...


Well that just depends. If someone in the house is sick and they get healed, healing has come to the house. Is everyone affected. Well yes. Even if it is one person who got healed. 

Now if everyone in the house is sick, but only a fewget healed, has healing still come to the house. Yes it has. Does it affect everyone even though they were not all healed. Well as much as the healed can get up and tend to the needs of the sick. Healing has come to the house dispite the fact not everyone got healed.

I would say that it is the same with with Salvation.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 28, 2007)

{Ahem}

The thread is closed. A note to the new Mods. We have the power to continue to post things in threads that the unwashed masses do not (oops, how did I let that slip out).

Anyway, be mindful of the little Closed icon thingy.


----------

