# Newness of a New Thread on Baptism



## B.J. (Jan 24, 2007)

On what does the Doctrine of Infant Baptism rise, or fall? That is, on what does it hinge? To say it another way, what would have to be shown in order for Paedo's to throw down their weapons and surrender?


----------



## VaughanRSmith (Jan 24, 2007)

Paul manata said:


> That Scripture is fallible.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 24, 2007)

Paul manata said:


> That Scripture is fallible.



Or that God is schizophrenic.


----------



## blhowes (Jan 24, 2007)

B.J. said:


> On what does the Doctrine of Infant Baptism rise, or fall? That is, on what does it hinge? To say it another way, what would have to be shown in order for Paedo's to throw down their weapons and surrender?


A guess: You'd hear the sabers clanging on the ground if they could simply be shown where in the scriptures God has changed the way he deals with families and children covenantally. Show them the discontinuity between the OT and the NT with regard to God's dealings with the family, and your victory's won.
Just guessing,
Bob


----------



## B.J. (Jan 24, 2007)

_



A guess: You'd hear the sabers clanging on the ground if they could simply be shown where in the scriptures God has changed the way he deals with families and children covenantally. Show them the discontinuity between the OT and the NT with regard to God's dealings with the family, and your victory's won.
Just guessing,
Bob

Click to expand...

_



And I am guessing that Baptist either a) cant show it, or b) dont think it is necessary to show?


----------



## blhowes (Jan 25, 2007)

B.J. said:


> And I am guessing that Baptist either a) cant show it, or b) dont think it is necessary to show?


I think Baptists can (do) show it, but not to the satisfaction of the paedobaptists who hear. Their arguments are not convincing to them, but they are to the baptists.

The Baptist/Paedobaptist who tries to convince someone from the 'other side' of their position has an uphill, challenging battle to fight. For one thing, definitions of terms (New Covenant, baptism, etc.) are different, so its very easy to talk past the other person or for a person to not hear what's being said. 

So often the discussions eventually seem to come back to disagreements about the New Covenant and who's in that covenant. That may be where the battle lines are drawn. Convince the paedobaptist that its just the elect in the covenant, and that may put an unrepairable dent in their armour, which leads them open for their adversary to move in without mercy for the kill. Convince the baptist that its not just the elect, then they are left by the wayside tearing off their armour, maimed, wounded, and gasping for air. (I love these threads that start out "...to throw down their weapons and surrender")


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 25, 2007)

blhowes said:


> Convince the paedobaptist that its just the elect in the covenant, and that may put an unrepairable dent in their armour, which leads them open for their adversary to move in without mercy for the kill. Convince the baptist that its not just the elect, then they are left by the wayside tearing off their armour, maimed, wounded, and gasping for air. (I love these threads that start out "...to throw down their weapons and surrender")



Bob,

The irony of this is this: Reformed Baptists make much of the New Covenant being only the Elect _as if it means anything as to who the appropriate recipients of baptism are supposed to be._

Let me ask you a simple question: When was the last time you baptized somebody _on the basis of election_?

In other words, Baptists argue this point endlessly _as if_ they baptize the elect but when I press them on this point they acknowledge they don't really know who the elect are and aren't baptizing on the basis of election.

The "armour" you perceive is no armour at all. It has absolutely no bearing on who a visible Church chooses to baptize. You could convince me that the New Covenant consists only of the Elect but it would not convince me, in the least, that this means that we ought not baptize our children.


----------



## blhowes (Jan 25, 2007)

Rich,
Thanks for the response. I'll have to give it more thought and get back to you. 

I have to get ready to go to a meeting here at work now, but I was wondering if this was what you meant to type?



SemperFideles said:


> When was the last time you based somebody _on the basis of election_?



Bob


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 25, 2007)

blhowes said:


> Rich,
> Thanks for the response. I'll have to give it more thought and get back to you.
> 
> I have to get ready to go to a meeting here at work now, but I was wondering if this was what you meant to type?
> ...



Doh! It's 2200 here while it's in the morning there: When was the last time you baptized somebody on the basis of election?


----------



## Kevin (Jan 25, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Bob,
> 
> The irony of this is this: Reformed Baptists make much of the New Covenant being only the Elect _as if it means anything as to who the appropriate recipients of baptism are supposed to be._
> 
> ...




 

That is a great point! I have used it myself with local reformed baptists, in fact I am having lunch with a RB pastor today~I think I might spring it on him


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Jan 25, 2007)

This really is the final nail in the coffin. When I was investigating this, I realized that in order to be Baptist I had to hold on to some of the dispensational beliefs that I was being freed of to make it work. 

So many passages about disciples and children really come to light with the reformed hermeneutic.


----------



## blhowes (Jan 25, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Let me ask you a simple question: When was the last time you baptized somebody _on the basis of election_?


Simple answer: Never. I don't have the authority to baptize anybody on any basis. (jk)



SemperFideles said:


> In other words, Baptists argue this point endlessly _as if_ they baptize the elect but when I press them on this point they acknowledge they don't really know who the elect are and aren't baptizing on the basis of election.


They baptize those they presume to be the elect based on the person's profession of faith, perhaps similarly to how paedobaptists (I'm presuming?) try to only allow the elect to participate in the Lord's supper based on the profession of the communicant member. Its a judgment call on both sides, both are probably correct the majority of the time, and there's some room for error.




SemperFideles said:


> The irony of this is this: Reformed Baptists make much of the New Covenant being only the Elect _as if it means anything as to who the appropriate recipients of baptism are supposed to be._
> 
> The "armour" you perceive is no armour at all. It has absolutely no bearing on who a visible Church chooses to baptize. You could convince me that the New Covenant consists only of the Elect but it would not convince me, in the least, that this means that we ought not baptize our children.


I may be looking at the baptist side of your armour, ie., those things that would need to be demolished in my mind to believe differently. My understanding of the CT side is that God always worked covenantally in a way that included everybody in the family. All members of the family were included in the covenant, some of whom were saved and some who proved reprobate. 

Boys were circumcised when they were 8-days old, failure to do so meant that they (?) had broken the covenant. Since there's a connection between OT circumcision and NT baptism, infants are assumed to be in the covenant, and are baptized. 

So, my thinking was that infant baptism is practiced to some extent because of the covenantal pattern established in the OT. If the new covenant is different from the pattern, and it is proven (to the satisfaction of the paedo) that only believers are part of the new covenant, then it made sense that the paedo would want to re-evaluate whether or not infants should receive the sign of that covenant. In the OT, they placed the sign of the covenant on those they believed to be part of the covenant, all their male offspring. In the NT, you would want to do same thing and place the NT covenant sign on those you believed to be part of the new covenant.

Soooo...(taking a deep breath) that was my thinking. 

Continuing to think it through,

Bob


----------



## Calvibaptist (Jan 25, 2007)

Coming from the other direction, what is the one argument on which credo-baptism stands or falls? I'm not really sure, except assuming that the New Covenant is made only with regenerate people.

BTW, this is a sincere question, since I am fairly new the even the 1689 Confession, let alone the WCF and CT... If baptism in the New Covenant corresponds with circumcision in the Old Covenant (which I believe it does), then why are female infants baptized? They would not have been circumcised under the Old Covenant, so why baptize them under the New?


----------



## blhowes (Jan 25, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> If baptism in the New Covenant corresponds with circumcision in the Old Covenant (which I believe it does), then why are female infants baptized? They would not have been circumcised under the Old Covenant, so why baptize them under the New?



I don't know about the connection between circumcision and baptism and how all that stuff fits together, but its clear that both men and women were baptized.

Act 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and *women*.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Jan 25, 2007)

and that women were _considered_ circumcised:

"But if a stranger sojourns with you, and celebrates the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near to celebrate it; and he shall be like a native of the land. *But no uncircumcised person may eat of it*" (Exodus 12:48).


----------



## 5solasmom (Jan 25, 2007)

ChristopherPaul said:


> This really is the final nail in the coffin. When I was investigating this, I realized that in order to be Baptist I had to hold on to some of the dispensational beliefs that I was being freed of to make it work.
> 
> So many passages about disciples and children really come to light with the reformed hermeneutic.




This was my experience too. 

For my dh and I, it came down to hermanuetics. The arrival to covenant baptism ultimately came with seeing continuity in the scriptures where before we did not.

When that happened, _many _NT passages that before were always somewhat befuddling to us, now made complete sense and had much richer meaning - giving us greater hope and seeing God's mercies upon our children in ways we previously did not.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 25, 2007)

blhowes said:


> So, my thinking was that infant baptism is practiced to some extent because of the covenantal pattern established in the OT. If the new covenant is different from the pattern, and it is proven (to the satisfaction of the paedo) that only believers are part of the new covenant, then it made sense that the paedo would want to re-evaluate whether or not infants should receive the sign of that covenant. In the OT, they placed the sign of the covenant on those they believed to be part of the covenant, all their male offspring. In the NT, you would want to do same thing and place the NT covenant sign on those you believed to be part of the new covenant.
> 
> Soooo...(taking a deep breath) that was my thinking.
> 
> ...



But you see what you're really basing baptism on is _profession_ and not election. In adults, we have no better fruit than confession and fruit of a converted life but they are still phenomenal signs. They are not infallible guarantees that you're baptizing an elect individual.

In the end, Baptists must admit that they are applying the Covenant sign to both believers and un-believers and that the Church is not any admission into the New Covenant at all (not even just a visible one) for were it so then they would be admitting the unregenerate visibly into the Covenant and cannot do so according to their theology. Thus they're left concluding that they baptize people in a Church as a sign of something guessing that they're probably baptizing mostly elect but not knowing for sure.

Additionally, there's this strange tension that's set up where nobody knows who's in Covenant with one another because the New Covenant is _completely_ invisible. Paul enjoins people not to be unequally yoked to an unbeliever, echoing Covenant passages of those outside the Covenant, but, truthfully how can anyone know if their future spouse is elect? Baptists can't say they're in Covenant with anybody in their visible communion because they do not know who the elect are.

Thus, the surety or "improvement" or "newness" that Baptists seek by baptizing mature professors doesn't improve anything by excluding their children. The distance between the infant and the person old enough to profess is not the distance between reprobate and elect but mental capacity. What they sacrifice for this distance to convince themselves that they're baptizing the elect is a sense of Covenant nurture and considering the frame of a little one. They lose a sense of connectedness within the family itself supposing they have no spiritual fellowship in the least with those closest to them until the child proves to them they can be treated with a deeper spiritual intimacy.

I would just conclude with the fact that we have repeatedly sought a warrant for the discontinuity in who is a member of the Church. It not only goes against nature to treat our children as if they are unholy until they prove otherwise but there is absolutely no warrant to proceed along the formula that Baptists do. That is this: the NC is the elect, therefore let's only baptize professors so we limit the amount of reprobate. That kind of reasoning is extra-Biblical. It may make the practice seem acceptable when challenged but it's not a warrant that God gives in His Word but a defense of a current practice. Baptists, in the end, can only defend their practice by looking at narratives in Scripture that describe phenomena but never prescribe a doctrine. They assume away the phenomena that probably included children in households on the basis of a doctrine inferred from a phenomenom. They can point to absolutely no didactic teaching that spells this practice out but it is all inferred and used to overthrow the principle of family solidarity that exists from Genesis through the New Testament.


----------



## tewilder (Jan 25, 2007)

ChristopherPaul said:


> and that women were _considered_ circumcised:
> 
> "But if a stranger sojourns with you, and celebrates the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near to celebrate it; and he shall be like a native of the land. *But no uncircumcised person may eat of it*" (Exodus 12:48).



Was the passover observed during the wilderness wandering years, when circumcision was not?


----------



## blhowes (Jan 25, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> But you see what you're really basing baptism on is _profession_ and not election. In adults, we have no better fruit than confession and fruit of a converted life but they are still phenomenal signs. They are not infallible guarantees that you're baptizing an elect individual...


Actually, I'm really not trying to defend baptist practices. I was mostly trying to answer the original question, as if I were a paedobaptist. That's where the big IF word comes in. IF I believed as a paedobaptist (as best as I can understand it) and *IF* I were convinced that the covenant membership was different for the New Covenant (ie., that the NC was only the elect), then it seems to follow that I'd have to re-evaluate placing the covenant sign on an infant. 

My biggest 'problem' with baptist practices is the pressure or responsibility that seems to be placed on parents regarding determining when their child should be baptized. It seems that more discernment is expected of parents than (in my opinion) the scriptures expect. What I mean is, typically in my baptist experience, young children 'get saved' and, after the parent is convinced its real, they bring the child to the pastor to be baptized. If the pastor is convinced the experience is real, the child is baptized.

I'm thinking, "Do the scriptures really say that, as a parent, its my responsibility to be able to judge my child's 'salvation experience' and to know when its time to bring the child to the pastor to be baptized?" 

If that's what the scriptures say, I'll do my best to discern it, but...


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 25, 2007)

blhowes said:


> Actually, I'm really not trying to defend baptist practices. I was mostly trying to answer the original question, as if I were a paedobaptist. That's where the big IF word comes in. IF I believed as a paedobaptist (as best as I can understand it) and *IF* I were convinced that the covenant membership was different for the New Covenant (ie., that the NC was only the elect), then it seems to follow that I'd have to re-evaluate placing the covenant sign on an infant.
> 
> My biggest 'problem' with baptist practices is the pressure or responsibility that seems to be placed on parents regarding determining when their child should be baptized. It seems that more discernment is expected of parents than (in my opinion) the scriptures expect. What I mean is, typically in my baptist experience, young children 'get saved' and, after the parent is convinced its real, they bring the child to the pastor to be baptized. If the pastor is convinced the experience is real, the child is baptized.
> 
> ...



Fair enough Bob. I ought to be careful not to ascribe to you everything that is mainstream to Reformed Baptist thought. I think what I was trying to do was demonstrate that I just don't see any weapons that the Reformed Baptist has that even attacks the Paedo Baptist position.

The Election argument doesn't even require that we put up a shield and it's really just a distraction. It's more like two guys are boxing and one of the opponents says: "Hey, what's that?!" and the dummy actually falls for it and looks at it and gets clocked. I'm repeatedly surprised that so many paedobaptists waste their time arguing that point with Reformed Baptists for the sake of who ought to be baptized. If they want to correct a faulty Covenant Theology in their Baptist brethren then that's fine but to guard baptism proper it's just not applicable.

I think there is only really one thing that would cause me to throw down my weapons and become a Reformed Baptist: Give up the idea that I form my doctrine on clear didactic teaching in favor of historical narratives.


----------



## elnwood (Jan 26, 2007)

B.J. said:


> On what does the Doctrine of Infant Baptism rise, or fall? That is, on what does it hinge? To say it another way, what would have to be shown in order for Paedo's to throw down their weapons and surrender?



That there no longer remains a promise to physical children.

"Give a man an open bible, an open mind, a conscience in good working order, and he will have a hard time to keep from being a Baptist." - A. T. Robertson


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 26, 2007)

elnwood said:


> That there no longer remains a promise to physical children.
> 
> "Give a man an open bible, an open mind, a conscience in good working order, and he will have a hard time to keep from being a Baptist." - A. T. Robertson



That is the problem with most people isn't it? An open mind.

For my part, Don, I prefer a very narrow mind.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Jan 26, 2007)

and charismatics and dispensationalits and arminians, etc, etc, etc.



> Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, "Do you understand what you are reading?" And he said, "Well, *how could I, unless someone guides me?*"





> Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,....





> Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for *they *received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.



"What does the Bible mean to you?"


----------



## elnwood (Jan 26, 2007)

Paul manata said:


> That's what a cultist said to me once.
> 
> A JW told me that if I just would read the Bible without the influence of anything else, then I'd see that the trinity is unbiblical.
> 
> Funny that JW's are credo baptists too.



A Baptist is necessarily a credobaptist, but credobaptist is not necessarily a Baptist.

You actually made the same joke by saying that the scripture had to be fallible for paedobaptism to be not true. I make the same joke and you associate me with a cult. There are plenty of false religions that baptize infants too, and yet I would not dare make that association.

Is there anything you won't do to offend a Baptist?


----------



## elnwood (Jan 26, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> That is the problem with most people isn't it? An open mind.
> 
> For my part, Don, I prefer a very narrow mind.



Okay. That was apt. Props for that.


----------



## non dignus (Jan 26, 2007)

The new covenant is a better covenant.

Let's say we're going to trade in our old family car for a new one, a better one. The salesman shows us the latest model. But I notice it's only a two seater. 

"Where are the kids gonna sit?" I ask.

Salesman: "Sir, trust me. For you this is a better car."

??


----------



## elnwood (Jan 26, 2007)

Paul manata said:


> Don,
> 
> So your response to my joke was to associate me with someone whose cognitive faculties are malfunctioning?
> 
> From my perspective, you said that I either (a) don't open my Bible (perhaps I follow tradition like a Catholic?), (b) don't have an open mind, (c) don't have a brain that works properly, or (d) all three.



Actually, I was thinking more (e) none of the above, that you should have a hard time preventing yourself from being a Baptist.

At times, it feels like it's okay to make jokes against credobaptism, but if you make a joke against paedobaptism, everybody jumps on you.

But I think the JW citation was what put it beyond the realm of kidding. A "guilt by association" argument with a known cult is offensive to me.

I'm good friends with my pastor, but that does not mean I hold the same theology or have the same sense of humor that he does. I can take a joke too, but not from a stranger because I cannot as easily judge his intentions.

Anyway, I hope to meet you in person, and maybe someday we can develop rapport that we can learn how to joke with each other and not offend.


----------



## jenney (Jan 28, 2007)

Paul manata said:


> 1. So it's all subjective. You can say that if we're not baptists we must have malfunctioning brains, but I can't say that JW's are credobaptist?



Well, _I_ have certainly never said that non-Baptists have malfunctioning brains, and I _still_ think it is inappropriate to bring up the JW's thing. If it pertained to the debate, it would be fine, but I can't see how it does. 

I am the weaker brother here. It hurts and offends me every time you bring that up, and makes me not want to listen to your good points. You can make it easier for me to hear your position if you don't lump me in with JW's. On my part, I will work on not being easily offended!

For the record, I don't mind being considered/called "not truly reformed" or "non-covenantal" or "inconsistent" or "someone who ignores the OT" or "ignorant of the continuity of the covenant" etc. Those are negative but not insulting (and I may not agree with you in those assessments!) I only say that so you don't think I can't take criticism. I can, just I would like it to be sincere and related to the debate at hand.


----------



## jenney (Jan 29, 2007)

Paul manata said:


> 2. One one analysis, you are lumped in with JWs because you're all credo. But, I'm lumped in with RCs and FV people.


If you don't like being lumped in with RCs and FVs, then I would think you wouldn't want to treat others that way yourself, rather than use it as an excuse to get the first dig in.

I guess what I should have written was: "Is it edifying? Does it give grace to those who hear? Is it Christlike?"



> 3. As for your last paragraph, I have no clue what you're talking about. I don't think I've made any comments directed *your* way.


I want to go on record as saying that some "insults" are Biblically acceptable in my book, so I'm not trying to red-light all unpleasant dialog. I didn't think you'd ever made any comments to me at all, and I'm really sorry if you thought I was accusing you of calling me names, personally.

I recognize there are some very strong feelings surrounding this subject and these threads are not for the faint of heart.


----------

