# Verses that Paedobaptists shouldn't use...



## Learner (Sep 29, 2004)

... to support their belief in infant baptism according to some leading anticredobaptists . Did you get that ? This will be a thread of quotes from non-baptists in history who have said that certain Bible passages should not be used to substantiate their beliefs concerning infant baptism .

Today's quote is from Robert Reymond in his Systematic Theology (p. 942) : " I would counsel that the paedobaptist should not put much weight on these ' household baptisms ' ... he cannot prove that any of these households had infants or small children in them . "


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Sep 29, 2004)

What a terrible quote by a paedobaptist (If he said that...in context). (With friends like these who needs.....well nevermind.) 

I think Reymond should read Jochaim Jeremias' exstensive works on "household" it tht is what he meant (I'll check). Whether or not an infant is mentioned in those texts is COMPLETELY besides the point. The point is that therm "INDIVIDUAL" is NOT USED.


----------



## luvroftheWord (Sep 29, 2004)

So are you trying to disprove paedobaptism by showing that paedobaptists disagree among themselves about the text of Scripture? Not very effective, since you can overthrow the entire Christian faith on the same line of reasoning.


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 29, 2004)

I'd like to see the entire Reymond quote in context. Anyone have it? I'm betting that Tim took it out of context, and that Reymond is saying what is in the quote because he thinks there are OTHER, more strong arguments, texts to use, not because he thinks that paedobaptism can't be proven from Scripture.


----------



## JohnV (Sep 29, 2004)

I think it is more telling [i:0e7d34f59c]how[/i:0e7d34f59c] the verses are used than [i:0e7d34f59c]that[/i:0e7d34f59c] they are used. For example, the verse about Jesus coming up out of the water, or going into it, is used to support immersion. I think it is more suitable to use the text, "Jesus wept" to support sprinkling, as a relationship of the proposition to the text is not as much of a stretch. Not that I'm saying that I would use that text. I say it only to point out the difference in the application. The former superimposes imaginative extensions and intentions to the acts described; while the latter draws from a sign from an act. Just as a rock is used to refer to more than a mineral, a lion to more than an animal, and a tower to more than a high building, so the tears of our Lord are significant of some other aspects of our spiritual life. But it does not draw things that are not already in Scripture elsewhere, as the former does. 

So I see a difference in the use of texts, not that they are used at all.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 29, 2004)

Whether there are babies in the household or that the youngest child is a fourteen-year old girl is irrelevant. What matters is that the command was to have the household baptised, irrespective of the fact that a member in the household may not have been capable of cognizant (did I use that word right?) faith.


----------



## daveb (Sep 30, 2004)

The household baptisms do not have to declare that infants were baptized for the paedo's to have a good case. What is important is that there was familial language used, just like in the OT. This familial language of covenant inclusion is what is important in the text and that much is explicit. So really, the paedo in my opinion does not have to prove that there were infants baptized, just point to the covenantal language.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 30, 2004)

[quote:024594ed44="fredtgreco"]I'd like to see the entire Reymond quote in context. Anyone have it? I'm betting that Tim took it out of context, and that Reymond is saying what is in the quote because he thinks there are OTHER, more strong arguments, texts to use, not because he thinks that paedobaptism can't be proven from Scripture.[/quote:024594ed44]

Thats exactly what Reymond HAD to mean. Here is what he said in a [i:024594ed44]fuller[/i:024594ed44] context.

" I would counsel that the paedobaptist should not put much weight on these ' household baptisms ' for even if he could convince the antipaedobaptist that in these cases the believer's household was baptized on the basis of the believers faith, [b:024594ed44]while such a view surely underscores the covenant character of the Christian family[/b:024594ed44], he cannot prove that any of these households had infants or small children in them . "
~my emphasis added

Consistency, consistency, consistency........God has and will always be a God of families.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Sep 30, 2004)

Wow! The fuller quote provided by Scott makes perfect sense. Tim apparently intentionally abbreviated the quote that started this thread in order to leave out a crucial point. This does not appear to be a proper way to advocate one's viewpoint. 

It is well said: A text without a context is nothing but a pretext.


----------



## Mayflower (Sep 30, 2004)

Dear webmaster,

You wrote:
" think Reymond should read Jochaim Jeremias' exstensive works on "household." Whether or not an infant is mentioned in those texts is COMPLETELY besides the point. The point is that therm "INDIVIDUAL" is NOT USED."

That book about household from Jochaim Jeremia, where can i get it ?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 30, 2004)

Mayflower,
Take it easy...........Matt was quick to level charges prior to seeing the fuller statement. Keep in mind, we are exhausted over the complacency and error even in our own ranks. There are very few mainline Presbyterians whom are schooled in covenant theology. Many have no idea what they believe. The majority are saturated with credo principles and charasmania. (I am not saying this of Dr. reymond; His systematic is one of my favorites.)
Amazon has a used copy of jeremias' work.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/002-0795891-0664048

Mayflower,
Go here for your signature requirements please:
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5636


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Sep 30, 2004)

[quote:005c7caaf2="Mayflower"]Dear webmaster,

You wrote:
" think Reymond should read Jochaim Jeremias' exstensive works on "household." Whether or not an infant is mentioned in those texts is COMPLETELY besides the point. The point is that therm "INDIVIDUAL" is NOT USED."

That book about household from Jochaim Jeremia, where can i get it ?[/quote:005c7caaf2]

Unfortuately the three works that are helpful here are out of print.

You may be able to find them at www.kregel.com

Two are by Jeremias, and on is by William Wall on the History of Infant Baptism.

I knew Reymond could not have been overlooking the entire covenant status of Acts. That woudl be very uncharactertistic of him. Scott, thanks for the quote.


----------



## Learner (Sep 30, 2004)

Fred , obviously Dr. Reymond believes that there are other texts which are stronger in support of infant baptism . He has a long section in his book to address that he thinks infant baptism is scriptural . My point which was lost on a lot of you was not to deny that famous , godly , men of the paedobaptist persuasion believe that it is biblical . My point was (and is) to evidence that within the paedobaptist community some texts are not really right to use in maintaining said belief .

The hotly contested missing line from Dr. Reymond's book which Scott has so graciously supplied : " While such a view surely underscores the covenant character of the Christian family . "

Now with that supplied line , does that alter my initial quote ? Reymond doesn't put weight on the household baptism texts in order to support his paedobaptist views . And he urges other paedobaptists to also not put weight on them , those scriptures cannot sustain paedobaptists beliefs . He says that although the passages would buttress their claim of the covenant character of the family , which non-baptists so ardently affirm , these verses are inadequate for the mission . These celebrated passages would underscore that aspect of covenant theology , but they don't do the job , you have to look elsewhere . And elsewhere Reymond does go to establish his infant baptism convictions .

Everyone is quick to jump on the bandwagon and wag the proverbial finger at me . ( The pointer finger , I hope ) . Context is indeed key , but what I did or didn't do has , I trust , been put into perspective . I will continue to put more quotes of other prominent paedobapists who believe-- that though they are in support of their distinctive beliefs , some texts still are not sufficent to accomplish that task . Iron sharpens iron . Don't get mad at the messenger . I think this is a valuable discussion .


----------



## luvroftheWord (Oct 1, 2004)

And what is it you hope to prove by this exercise? I'm not against you posting these kinds of quotes by paedobaptists. It would be just as easy to do with baptists (especially if we only took the quotes from this messageboard). But you obviously have an agenda here, so fill us in on what it is so we can understand.


----------



## Learner (Oct 1, 2004)

Please reread the last several sentences of my former post .


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 1, 2004)

Tim,
What value???


----------



## Learner (Oct 1, 2004)

Scott , there is a great deal of sloppy reading being done here on this board . When I point this out and clarify there is no admission of false accusations against me .

I simply want to point out that respected folks from your side of the aisle have stated that a number of passages in the Bible do not support their beliefs on infant baptism . They had the integrity to do so . They did not forsake their beliefs in I. B. , just said it wasn't justified in certain verses which many others quote . I thought that it would be useful to point these things out and have some discussion on them . But this seems to be such a hot potato . It's like sharks are in the water , they see blood in their estimation and attack . PB should not stand for paedobaptist . Isn't there room for airing the views of admired proponents of infant baptism ? These quotes seem to anger folks. Isn't it better to rather deal with them ? You can disagree , but have some degree of fairness . Some are in the habit of reading or glancing quickly and then pouncing on what they perceive as a resistance to a cherished belief . Take deep breaths and really examine without being in an attack mode .


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 1, 2004)

[quote:74801001bb="Learner"]Scott , there is a great deal of sloppy reading being done here on this board . When I point this out and clarify there is no admission of false accusations against me .

I simply want to point out that respected folks from your side of the aisle have stated that a number of passages in the Bible do not support their beliefs on infant baptism . They had the integrity to do so . They did not forsake their beliefs in I. B. , just said it wasn't justified in certain verses which many others quote . I thought that it would be useful to point these things out and have some discussion on them . But this seems to be such a hot potato . It's like sharks are in the water , they see blood in their estimation and attack . PB should not stand for paedobaptist . Isn't there room for airing the views of admired proponents of infant baptism ? These quotes seem to anger folks. Isn't it better to rather deal with them ? You can disagree , but have some degree of fairness . Some are in the habit of reading or glancing quickly and then pouncing on what they perceive as a resistance to a cherished belief . Take deep breaths and really examine without being in an attack mode .[/quote:74801001bb]

Learner,
Here's the thing. We have all heard this before. You are not the originator of such ideas. If you want to stimulate a good conversation, come at it from a different angle. Infant baptism is a component of covenant theology. You cannot discredit covenant thelogy on the infant baptism issue. Work on discreditting covenant theology if you must. 

There are many weaknesses in the credo camp; more so. How do I know; I was a credo for the majority of my walk with the Lord. The inconsistancies in this camp is overwhelming. When presented with the choice, the later was not any longer an option; it couldn't have been. truth prevailed. You will remain a credo for as long as your interests are clouded presuppositionally. You must be fair to the Spirits lead; take off your credo collored glasses for the sake of truth; only then will you be able to weigh the two theologies rightfully. And, read, read, read; presbyterian lit.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 1, 2004)

[quote:663954dd74="Scott Bushey"] Here's the thing. We have all heard this before. You are not the originator of such ideas. If you want to stimulate a good conversation, come at it from a different angle. [/quote:663954dd74]

That would be very helpful to the topic at large. But we must also remember that each person is working through theological issues, if in fact that is what Tim is doing. 

If Tim is just pot-stirring, yes, I would agree, then come at it from an angle that Shirreff, McArthur, Howell, Welty, Jewett, Bunyan, Gill or someone else has not. their arguments have not swyaed the Paedo community for the last 350 years that they have been propagating it. But I think the credo camp will be hard pressed to come up with new ideas on the subject. Is there something more to say than what Jewett, Howell or Tombes has tried? As a past credo, I can't think of anything else they [i:663954dd74]could say[/i:663954dd74]. Its usually just more of the same.


----------

