# At What Age Do We Start Baptizing our Children?



## A_Wild_Boar

This is mainly for my Baptist brethren. I wondered when a child can be baptized. I have two children that have a great understanding of Gods Salvation and trust in Him completely. They don't know too much about the why and how of Baptism yet, but they are getting close.

If they are to fully understand what Baptism entails and they ask to be Baptized, what should I tell them?

Actually an opinion from the Presbyterian crew wouldnt hurt either.


----------



## Halliday

I think the question is not what they understand but do you understand what your responsibilities to them? Richard Baxter has a great practical work called &quot;Duties of parents to their children&quot;. It can be found at crta.org. But to answer your main question...yesterday. (as soon as possible)


----------



## A_Wild_Boar

[quote:3a56cc8f30][i:3a56cc8f30]Originally posted by Halliday[/i:3a56cc8f30]
I think the question is not what they understand but do you understand what your responsibilities to them? Richard Baxter has a great practical work called &quot;Duties of parents to their children&quot;. It can be found at crta.org. But to answer your main question...yesterday. (as soon as possible) [/quote:3a56cc8f30]

Thanks for the link, I will study up on it some. I understand I have much to do as the parent in this matter. Right now I still see paedo baptism as a type of baptismal regeneration. I dont see how not having my children baptized will cause God to consider them unclean. 

I still thank you for your information and I will certainly consider it.


----------



## wsw201

[quote:d6d880bcb8]
Thanks for the link, I will study up on it some. I understand I have much to do as the parent in this matter. Right now I still see paedo baptism as a type of baptismal regeneration. I dont see how not having my children baptized will cause God to consider them unclean. 
[/quote:d6d880bcb8]

You should go ahead and have your children brought before your church ( I'm not sure how Baptists do this) to be examined and baptized.

It is unfortunate that you have gotten the impression that baptizing infants is a &quot;type&quot; of Baptismal Regeneration, because it is not (atleast not in any Protestant Church). In addition, God does not see your children as &quot;unclean&quot; because they have not been baptised yet. Where did you get this idea?


----------



## A_Wild_Boar

Originally posted by wsw201[/i]
[quote:23ec211d03]

It is unfortunate that you have gotten the impression that baptizing infants is a &quot;type&quot; of Baptismal Regeneration, because it is not (atleast not in any Protestant Church). In addition, God does not see your children as &quot;unclean&quot; because they have not been baptised yet. Where did you get this idea? [/quote:23ec211d03]

I will admit the idea is bourne from ignorance. Like I said, I will certainly consider it and research it further.


----------



## Tertullian

At what age do we start baptizing are children?

This is a hard question because it is really asking who ought to draw the line?... but our Presbyterian brothers who try to make a mountian out of a mole hill have the same problem when it comes to administering the Lord's Supper... so if this mountain is unpassable for the Baptist in respect to baptism it is eqaully impossible to pass for the Presbyterian in respect to the Lord's Supper.


Reformed or puritan baptist have a ceremony for infants that does not involve baptism but a blessing... after all Jesus blessed the children not baptized them... and are we wiser than Jesus? 


As a child who was baptized in a Lutheran Church as an infant, I could not in good conscience believe that I was actually baptized as a disciple because I had not yet repented and therefore I was baptized as a Disciple letter in life in good conscience, and I can relate to Charles Spurgeon who once testified from his own life, 

[quote:f4655a2b70] &quot;The Church of England Catechism has in it, as one of you may remember, this question, 'What is required of persons to be baptized?' and the answer I was taught to give, and did give, was,'Repentance, whereby they forsake sin, and faith, whereby they steadfastly believe the promises of God made to them in that sacrament.' I looked that answer up in the Bible, and I found it to be strictly correct as far as repentance and faith are concerned, and of course, when I afterwards became a Christian, I also became a Baptist; and here I am, and it is due to the Church of England's Catechism that I am a Baptist. Having been brought up among Congregationalist, I had never looked into the matter in my life. I had thought to have been baptized as an infant; and so, when I was confronted with the question,'what is required of persons to be baptized?' and I found that repenteance and faith were required, I said to myself,'then I have not been baptized; that infant sprinkling of mine was a mistake; and please God that I ever have repentance and faith, I will be properly baptized'... It led me however, as I believe, to follow the Scriptural teaching that repentance and faith are required before there can be any true baptism [/quote:f4655a2b70] 


My humble advice is that it is better not to act against your conscience [so if you are not 100% sure that your children are to be baptized as infants do not do it]. The best approach is to allow your children the joy of chosing Christ in baptism once they meet the requierments of Discipleship, the point is you do not have to decide when to baptize your children let them make the choice... this is the method that works well in Presbyterian circles when it comes to the Lord's Supper and it also works will in the case of Baptism. 

To the Glory of Christ-Tertullian :saint:


----------



## Tertullian

[quote:f68e8ca249][i:f68e8ca249]Originally posted by wsw201[/i:f68e8ca249]

You should go ahead and have your children brought before your church ( I'm not sure how Baptists do this) to be examined and baptized. [/quote:f68e8ca249]

Reformed or purtian baptist bless their children not baptise them following the example of Christ.

[quote:f68e8ca249] It is unfortunate that you have gotten the impression that baptizing infants is a &quot;type&quot; of Baptismal Regeneration, because it is not (atleast not in any Protestant Church). [/quote:f68e8ca249]

Actually, the Lutheran Church does teach baptismal regeneration so some protestand churches do teach that... also Calvin and the reformed creeds argued that infant baptism could be given because God has promised to regenerate all children with Christian parents.

[quote:f68e8ca249]
[b:f68e8ca249]John Calvin[/b:f68e8ca249] 

"God promises that he adopts our infants as his children before they are born, when he promises that he will be a God to us and to our seed after us. This promise includes their salvation. Now will any dare to offer such an insult to God as to deny the sufficiency of his promise to insure its own accomplishment?" (Calvin) 

[b:f68e8ca249]THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM[/b:f68e8ca249] 

Q74: Are infants also to be baptized? 

A74: Yes, for since they, as well as their parents, belong to the covenant and people of God,[1] and through the blood of Christ [2] both redemption from sin and the Holy Ghost, who works faith, are promised to them no less than to their parents 


[b:f68e8ca249]THE BELGIC CONFESSION OF FAITH[/b:f68e8ca249] 

...we detest the error of the Anabaptists, who are not content with the one only baptism they have once received, and moreover condemn the baptism of the infants of believers, who we believe ought to be baptized and sealed with the sign of the covenant, as the children in Israel formerly were circumcised upon the same promises which are made unto our children. And indeed Christ shed His blood no less for the washing of the children of believers than for adult persons; and therefore they ought to receive the sign and sacrament of that which Christ has done for them [/quote:f68e8ca249]

Infant, according to Berkhof the only objective and certain reason to baptize infants would be a promise of God to regenerate our children [which could be argued to be a type of baptismal regeneration] or baptismal regeneration.

[quote:f68e8ca249] In addition, God does not see your children as &quot;unclean&quot; because they have not been baptised yet. Where did you get this idea? [/quote:f68e8ca249]

It comes from the fact that most infant baptist argue identity between circumcision and baptism, and if that is true &quot;baptism = circumcision&quot; then just as the parent in the Old administration became a Covenant breaker and their children became unclean and had to leave the household or land if they did not circumcise their children, so the arguement continues, parents in the New administration who do not baptize their children become covenant breakers and their children must be kicked out of church- the problem of course with this arguement is that it is based on a false premise, namely, circumcision=baptism. 

to the glory of Chirst-Tertullian


[Edited on 2-29-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Roldan

Tertullian, I see that you are back, couldn't resist could you?:tongue:

cool, I read a couple of things that can be easily refuted but will do so tomorrow for it is late and I am moving to my NEW house, praise God for His abundant blessings!:wr51:

Grace and Peace


----------



## wsw201

[quote:55250fc72f]
This is a hard question because it is really asking who ought to draw the line?... but our Presbyterian brothers who try to make a mountian out of a mole hill have the same problem when it comes to administering the Lord's Supper... so if this mountain is unpassable for the Baptist in respect to baptism it is eqaully impossible to pass for the Presbyterian in respect to the Lord's Supper. 
[/quote:55250fc72f]

Presbyterians do not have a problem when it comes to administering the Lord's Supper. We take seriously the admonish in 1 Cor 11:27ff. Because the Supper is for the Church, it is the responsibility of the Church to make sure that we do not feed God's judgment to our children.


[quote:55250fc72f]
The best approach is to allow your children the joy of chosing Christ in baptism once they meet the requierments of Discipleship, the point is you do not have to decide when to baptize your children let them make the choice... this is the method that works well in Presbyterian circles when it comes to the Lord's Supper and it also works will in the case of Baptism.
[/quote:55250fc72f]

FYI, in the Presbyterian Church children do not make the choice, the Session does.


[quote:55250fc72f]
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is unfortunate that you have gotten the impression that baptizing infants is a &quot;type&quot; of Baptismal Regeneration, because it is not (atleast not in any Protestant Church). 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Actually, the Lutheran Church does teach baptismal regeneration so some protestand churches do teach that... also Calvin and the reformed creeds argued that infant baptism could be given because God has promised to regenerate all children with Christian parents. 
[/quote:55250fc72f]

Let me clarify; Not in Reformed Churches. Regarding Calvin and the Reformed Confessions, it is true that the grounds for baptism is based on the command and promise of God, but the issue goes to who it will be effectual for. Baptism does not confer regeneration (WCF Chapter 28). Therefore, the Reformed position has never been &quot;Baptismal Regeneration&quot;.


[quote:55250fc72f]
It comes from the fact that most infant baptist argue identity between circumcision and baptism, and if that is true &quot;baptism = circumcision&quot; then just as the parent in the Old administration became a Covenant breaker and their children became unclean and had to leave the household or land if they did not circumcise their children, so the arguement continues, parents in the New administration who do not baptize their children become covenant breakers and their children must be kicked out of church- the problem of course with this arguement is that it is based on a false premise, namely, circumcision=baptism. 
[/quote:55250fc72f]

First, Baptism does not &quot;equal&quot; Circumcision. There are points of contact between the two but they are not &quot;equal&quot;. Regarding the status of a child as to whether they are &quot;unclean&quot; or &quot;holy&quot; goes to 1 Cor 7:14.

[Edited on 3-4-2004 by wsw201]


----------



## Tertullian

[quote:1dec579f29][i:1dec579f29]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:1dec579f29]
God decides..not man. This shows, I think, an inconsistancy by the baptists. The always say, the ONLY qualification is that one repents and believes. Now, if a 2 and 1/2 yr old &quot;repents and believes&quot; most (note: I said most) baptists say, &quot;well, I'm not sure if it's credible.&quot; Show the verse that says, &quot;repent, believe, and if your parent wants to &quot;grill&quot; you for 12 yrs because he thinks that you are not giving a credible profession, and be baptized.&quot; [/quote:1dec579f29]

If Presbyterian's can get across the river, (i.e. that there are faith qualifications before takening the Lord's Supper), why cannot the Baptist cross the same river of qaulifications when it comes to baptism. Is the Lord Supper some how less important or not as a big a sacrament as baptism?

Also, Presbyterians only put the problem one step back because they also baptizethe &quot;ONLY qualification is that one repents and believes&quot; principle- they just use make the qualification apply to parents instead of individuals. Hence, your arguement works against both sides because we both have the same qualifications. 

[quote:1dec579f29]I actually feel sorrow for our covenant children. Man does not have the say-so over who gets the sign...it's God's covenant, and He decides. He has so decided that our children are to be marked out from the world at birth. Is there still an idea of covenant people here? Should we live like the nations? No! My child is set apart. I do not treat him like Johnny covenant breaker's family treats their children. God is the head of my household. Choose ye this day whom ye will serve. But as for me [i:1dec579f29]and my house[/i:1dec579f29], we will serve the Lord.

-Paul [/quote:1dec579f29]

You seem to present a false dilemia. I mean is it really true that we either give children the &quot;sign&quot; or retreat them like Johnny the Covenant breaker would treat his children. 

I guess God must have commanded the Israelites to treat their female children like Johnny Covenant breaker would- and then corrected His mistake in the New Covenant? 

I think the answer is obvious no one has the innate &quot;right&quot; to the covenant sign. Even Covenant members do not have an innate right to the Covenant sign... therefore a person to prove infant baptism must do more than simply prove that infants are in the New Covenant to establish infant baptism... a person needs to prove that God commanded baptism to be given only to infants with parents with faith and where God says that both male and infemale infants can be baptized. As far as I know nobody has been able to show that God has commanded these things. 

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 3-4-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Tertullian

I am not sure if you were trying to critique my post or agree with my post (since I agree with everything you wrote)

[quote:5056e88bd5][i:5056e88bd5]Originally posted by wsw201[/i:5056e88bd5]
[quote:5056e88bd5]
This is a hard question because it is really asking who ought to draw the line?... but our Presbyterian brothers who try to make a mountian out of a mole hill have the same problem when it comes to administering the Lord's Supper... so if this mountain is unpassable for the Baptist in respect to baptism it is eqaully impossible to pass for the Presbyterian in respect to the Lord's Supper. 
[/quote:5056e88bd5]

Presbyterians do not have a problem when it comes to administering the Lord's Supper. We take seriously the admonish in 1 Cor 11:27ff. Because the Supper is for the Church, it is the responsibility of the Church to make sure that we do not feed God's judgment to our children. [/quote:5056e88bd5]

In the words of Presbyterian John Frame, 

&quot;Small children cannot examine themselves (1 Cor. 11:28), but they cannot repent and believe either (Acts 2:38). It is reasonable to say that both passages are addressed to adults and do not set forth requirements for all recipients of the sacraments&quot; (Worship in Spirit and Truth, p. 100.)

Hence, you must either start given communion &amp; baptism to infants or you must give neither but you cannot do both consistently- hence if you are serious about your conviction that infants are not to be given communion because of (1 Cor 11:28) why not be consistent and use the same logic with baptism (see Acts 2:38). 

But if your love for infant baptism is stronger than you love for Discipleship communion then just start given communion to infants- but at the very lest be consistent. 


[quote:5056e88bd5][quote:5056e88bd5]
The best approach is to allow your children the joy of chosing Christ in baptism once they meet the requierments of Discipleship, the point is you do not have to decide when to baptize your children let them make the choice... this is the method that works well in Presbyterian circles when it comes to the Lord's Supper and it also works will in the case of Baptism.
[/quote:5056e88bd5]

FYI, in the Presbyterian Church children do not make the choice, the Session does. [/quote:5056e88bd5]

point well taken.


[quote:5056e88bd5][quote:5056e88bd5] [quote:5056e88bd5]
It is unfortunate that you have gotten the impression that baptizing infants is a &quot;type&quot; of Baptismal Regeneration, because it is not (atleast not in any Protestant Church). [/quote:5056e88bd5]

Actually, the Lutheran Church does teach baptismal regeneration so some protestand churches do teach that... also Calvin and the reformed creeds argued that infant baptism could be given because God has promised to regenerate all children with Christian parents. 
[/quote:5056e88bd5]

Let me clarify; Not in Reformed Churches. Regarding Calvin and the Reformed Confessions, it is true that the grounds for baptism is based on the command and promise of God, but the issue goes to who it will be effectual for. Baptism does not confer regeneration (WCF Chapter 28). Therefore, the Reformed position has never been &quot;Baptismal Regeneration&quot;. [/quote:5056e88bd5]

No but the historic &quot;Reformed&quot; position has been that God will always regenerate and elect children with Christian parents... so in doctrine it is different but in practice the line is fuzzy. 


[quote:5056e88bd5] [quote:5056e88bd5]
It comes from the fact that most infant baptist argue identity between circumcision and baptism, and if that is true &quot;baptism = circumcision&quot; then just as the parent in the Old administration became a Covenant breaker and their children became unclean and had to leave the household or land if they did not circumcise their children, so the arguement continues, parents in the New administration who do not baptize their children become covenant breakers and their children must be kicked out of church- the problem of course with this arguement is that it is based on a false premise, namely, circumcision=baptism. 
[/quote:5056e88bd5]

First, Baptism does not &quot;equal&quot; Circumcision. There are points of contact between the two but they are not &quot;equal&quot;. [/quote:5056e88bd5]

Amen... at last a Presbyterian who is willing to admit it. 


[quote:5056e88bd5] Regarding the status of a child as to whether they are &quot;unclean&quot; or &quot;holy&quot; goes to 1 Cor 7:14.

[Edited on 3-4-2004 by wsw201] [/quote:5056e88bd5]

the context of 1 Cor 7:14 is really in favor of the Reformed Baptist camp... for indeed it does call the children &quot;holy&quot; but it also says that the unregenerate spouse has that same identicial &quot;holiness&quot; (or santification). Hence, this verse ultiamtely proves that the type of holiness infants have is not enough to demand that infants have to be given the Covenant sign (indeed no group of people even in Covenant has that right unless God commands them to be given it). 

We can ultiamtely see that just as the &quot;holiness&quot; of the adult unregenerate does not give them the right to be baptism, by analogy, we ought to conclude the same about infants because according to this passage they have the same type of holiness.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 3-4-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## wsw201

Tertullian,

I was simply attempting to clarify some points you made concerning Presbyterians. Since you agree with me it appears you are "closer to the Kingdom" than you might think :wink1:


[quote:9faf494a16]
In the words of Presbyterian John Frame, 

&quot;Small children cannot examine themselves (1 Cor. 11:28), but they cannot repent and believe either (Acts 2:38). It is reasonable to say that both passages are addressed to adults and do not set forth requirements for all recipients of the sacraments&quot; (Worship in Spirit and Truth, p. 100.) 

Hence, you must either start given communion &amp; baptism to infants or you must give neither but you cannot do both consistently- hence if you are serious about your conviction that infants are not to be given communion because of (1 Cor 11:28) why not be consistent and use the same logic with baptism (see Acts 2:38). 

But if your love for infant baptism is stronger than you love for Discipleship communion then just start given communion to infants- but at the very lest be consistent.
[/quote:9faf494a16]

Fortunately, Dr. Frame does not set dogma for the Church. I know who Dr. Frame is but I am not familiar with his works. I pray that you have taken him out of context, or that this simplistic thinking is not representative of his efforts at scholarship. But in either case, the guiding principles for Presbyterians are the Holy Scriptures and subordinately the Westminster Standards. I am sure Dr. Frame and all Presbyterians are aware of the difference and similarities between the two sacraments as pointed out in the Westminster Larger Catechism:

Q. 176. Wherein do the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper agree?
A. The sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper agree, in that the author of both is God;[1137] the spiritual part of both is Christ and his benefits;[1138] both are seals of the same covenant,[1139] are to be dispensed by ministers of the gospel, and by none other;[1140] and to be continued in the church of Christ until his second coming.[1141]


[1137] Matthew 28:19. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 1 Corinthians 11:23. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread.

[1138] Romans 6:3-4. Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 1 Corinthians 10:16. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

[1139] Romans 4:11. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also. Colossians 2:12. 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. Matthew 26:27-28. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

[1140] John 1:33. And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. Matthew 28:19. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 1 Corinthians 11:23. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread. 1 Corinthians 4:1. Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. Hebrews 5:4. And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.

[1141] Matthew 28:19-20. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 1 Corinthians 11:26. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come.

Q. 177. Wherein do the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper differ?
A. The sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper differ, in that baptism is to be administered but once, with water, to be a sign and seal of our regeneration and ingrafting into Christ,[1142] and that even to infants;[1143] whereas the Lord's supper is to be administered often, in the elements of bread and wine, to represent and exhibit Christ as spiritual nourishment to the soul,[1144] and to confirm our continuance and growth in him,[1145] and that only to such as are of years and ability to examine themselves.[1146]

[1142] Matthew 3:11. I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire. Titus 3:5. Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost. Galatians 3:27. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

[1143] Genesis 17:7, 9. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.... And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. Acts 2:38-39. 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 unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. 1 Corinthians 7:14. 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 are they holy.

[1144] 1 Corinthians 11:23-26. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come.

[1145] 1 Corinthians 10:16. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

[1146] 1 Corinthians 11:28-29. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.


[quote:9faf494a16]
No but the historic &quot;Reformed&quot; position has been that God will always regenerate and elect children with Christian parents... so in doctrine it is different but in practice the line is fuzzy.
[/quote:9faf494a16]

I don't know where you get this from, but it is not the historic "Reformed" position that God "will always regenerate and elect children with Christian parents". This is no where in Scripture or in our Standards.


[quote:9faf494a16]
Amen... at last a Presbyterian who is willing to admit it.
[/quote:9faf494a16]

But they do have points of contact with the most important being as to what they both represent.


[quote:9faf494a16]
the context of 1 Cor 7:14 is really in favor of the Reformed Baptist camp... for indeed it does call the children &quot;holy&quot; but it also says that the unregenerate spouse has that same identicial &quot;holiness&quot; (or santification). Hence, this verse ultiamtely proves that the type of holiness infants have is not enough to demand that infants have to be given the Covenant sign (indeed no group of people even in Covenant has that right unless God commands them to be given it). 

We can ultimately see that just as the &quot;holiness&quot; of the adult unregenerate does not give them the right to be baptism, by analogy, we ought to conclude the same about infants because according to this passage they have the same type of holiness. 
[/quote:9faf494a16]

Much of the confusion about this passage is based on ecclesiology. Hodge does an excellent job of making the case regarding what is meant by "holy" as well as the status of children in the visible church. Here is a thread that includes Hodges commentary on the passage http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=1867 I am sure that you will find Hodges presentation more than convincing


----------



## Tertullian

*wsw201,*

Thanks for the response, I always enjoy looking at this issue with those who have an open Bible and humble spirit as you appear to have. But I must respectfully disagree with your comments and hope to explain why I have to disagree. 


[quote:b156dd7416] [b:b156dd7416] Fortunately, Dr. Frame does not set dogma for the Church. I know who Dr. Frame is but I am not familiar with his works. I pray that you have taken him out of context, or that this simplistic thinking is not representative of his efforts at scholarship. But in either case, the guiding principles for Presbyterians are the Holy Scriptures and subordinately the Westminster Standards. I am sure Dr. Frame and all Presbyterians are aware of the difference and similarities between the two sacraments as pointed out in the Westminster Larger Catechism: [quotes the Westminster confession and proof texts] [/b:b156dd7416] [/quote:b156dd7416]

I am sure that Dr. Frame is familiar with what the confession states that is why he did not actually include his comments in the main text of his book but in the foot notes. Regardless, however, I my point was not to appeal to Frame's authority but to the force of his argument (that fact that Frame says only brings the issue into focus because it is becoming more apparent then ever before that both Presbyterians and Reformed Baptist have found the Westminster confession to be inconsistent on this issue). Note Dr. Frame's argument again, 

[i:b156dd7416]&quot;Small children cannot examine themselves (1 Cor. 11:28), but they cannot repent and believe either (Acts 2:38). It is reasonable to say that both passages are addressed to adults and do not set forth requirements for all recipients of the sacraments&quot; (Worship in Spirit and Truth, p. 100.)[/i:b156dd7416]

Now the force of Frame's argument seems reasonable enough, if 1 Cor. 11:28 proves that infants ought not to be given the Lord's Supper than Acts 2:38 proves that infants ought not to be given baptism, on the other hand, if Acts 2:38 does not prove that infants can not be given the sacrament, then in turn 1 Cor. 11:28 does not prove that they cannot be given the Lord's Supper. Hence, Frame's argument reveals a embarrassing inconsistency that has been neglected by the majority of Presbyterians with only the few brace souls who like Frame have now begun to deal with it. 

Hence I think it is clear, you either give both sacraments to infants or you do not and so live happily and consistently, but to give one sacrament but not another to infants is to defy consistency. 

(To use the Westminster as proof that the practice is not inconsisent is a mistake because the truth of the Westminster in this matter is what is in question- hence it is a vicious circle to use the Westminster to justify itself.)


[quote:b156dd7416] [b:b156dd7416]I don't know where you get this from, but it is not the historic "Reformed" position that God "will always regenerate and elect children with Christian parents". This is no where in Scripture or in our Standards. [/b:b156dd7416][/quote:b156dd7416]

I agree fully with you that Scripture does not teach that God regenerates all Children of believers. Most Presbyterians in America today are more careful when the attempt to infer infant baptism but historically this has not been the case. I agree that no truly reformed person has taught baptismal regeneration; my argument is that the historic reformers kicked baptismal regeneration out the front door but sneaked it in through the back by saying that God promised to regenerate all children of Christians without exception. To support this argument I quoted these normative sources: [quote:b156dd7416]
[b:b156dd7416]John Calvin[/b:b156dd7416] 

"God promises that he adopts our infants as his children before they are born, when he promises that he will be a God to us and to our seed after us. This promise includes their salvation. Now will any dare to offer such an insult to God as to deny the sufficiency of his promise to insure its own accomplishment?" (Calvin) 

[b:b156dd7416]THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM[/b:b156dd7416] 

Q74: Are infants also to be baptized? 

A74: Yes, for since they, as well as their parents, belong to the covenant and people of God,[1] and through the blood of Christ [2] both redemption from sin and the Holy Ghost, who works faith, are promised to them no less than to their parents 


[b:b156dd7416]THE BELGIC CONFESSION OF FAITH[/b:b156dd7416] 

...we detest the error of the Anabaptists, who are not content with the one only baptism they have once received, and moreover condemn the baptism of the infants of believers, who we believe ought to be baptized and sealed with the sign of the covenant, as the children in Israel formerly were circumcised upon the same promises which are made unto our children. And indeed Christ shed His blood no less for the washing of the children of believers than for adult persons; and therefore they ought to receive the sign and sacrament of that which Christ has done for them [/quote:b156dd7416] 
[quote:b156dd7416] [b:b156dd7416] But they [i.e. baptism and Circumcision] do have points of contact with the most important being as to what they both represent. [/b:b156dd7416][/quote:b156dd7416] 
Yes, hence there is analogy not identity. 

[quote:b156dd7416] [b:b156dd7416]Much of the confusion about this passage [i.e. 1 Cor 7] is based on ecclesiology. Hodge does an excellent job of making the case regarding what is meant by "holy" as well as the status of children in the visible church. Here is a thread that includes Hodges commentary on the passage http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=1867 I am sure that you will find Hodges presentation more than convincing [/b:b156dd7416][/quote:b156dd7416]

Why ought I to find this convincing? Hodge seem to offer nothing new to the table but just repeats the old "federal holiness" argument. Yet even Paedobaptist have found in this text nothing to support the practice of infant baptism. For example Albert Barnes writes:

[quote:b156dd7416] "This passage has often been interpreted, and is often adduced to prove that children are 'federally holy,' and that they are entitled to the privileges of baptism on the ground of the faith of one of the parents. But against this interpretation there are insuperable objections.

(1) The phrase 'federally holy' is unintelligible, and conveys no idea to the great mass of men. It occurs nowhere in the Scriptures, and what can be meant by it?
(2) It does not accord with the scope and design of the argument. There is not one word about baptism here; not one allusion to it; nor does the argument in the remotest degree bear upon it. The question was not whether children should be baptized, but it was whether there should be separation between man and wife, where one was a Christian and the other was not.
(3) The supposition that this means that the children would be regarded as [i:b156dd7416] illegitimate [/i:b156dd7416] if such a separation should take place, is one that accords with the scope and design of the argument.
(4) This accords with the meaning of the word 'unclean' (He quotes Acts 10:28,] [/quote:b156dd7416] 

And again Barnes concludes:

[quote:b156dd7416] I believe infant baptism to be proper and right, and an inestimable privilege to parents and children. But a good cause should not be made to rest on feeble supports, nor on forced and unnatural interpretations of the Scriptures. And such I regard the usual interpration placed on this passage. [/quote:b156dd7416]

I mean is it not even remarkable that Hodge was defending these verses from scholars who had found in these verses a reason to say that infant baptism was not practiced! (Yet these verses are alleged to be absolutely convincing of the practice though some have actually argued against infant baptism based on these passages?)

I propose a more modest but I think accurate interpretation of these passages. Actually I will quote someone who did his homework already, as he wrote:

[quote:b156dd7416]
1. Q. Doesn't I Cor. 7:14 teach that children of believers are covenantally set apart and thus eligible for baptism? 
A. No. The term &quot;sanctified&quot; that describes an unbelieving spouse of a believer and the term &quot;holy&quot; that describes the children of believers are based on the same root word in Greek. Therefore, whatever holiness the children have is also shared by an unbelieving spouse. Since an unbelieving spouse is not in the covenant, one cannot use this passage to establish that the children are. Paul's whole argument is grounded in the similarity of the two cases. If unbelieving spouses and children of believers do not share the same type of holiness, the difference between the two cases invalidates Paul's entire argument from the holiness of the children to the holiness of the unbelieving spouse. In fact, Paul's argument actually implies an argument against infant baptism. If the children in Corinth were baptized but unbelieving spouses were not, then the Corinthians would never have accepted Paul's argument that the holiness of the children implied the holiness of unbelieving spouses. 
I have elaborated on this argument in a separate article on I Cor. 7:14. [/quote:b156dd7416]
To see the elaboration of his argument go to http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~sjreeves/personal/1cor.html

PS I assure you I am by no means 100% on these issues, but I am just trying to seek the truth in the matter, and so far am being convinced more and more that the reformers were wrong on this issue and that the Reformed Baptist got it right.

In love in respect...

To the Glory of Christ-Tertullian:saint:

[Edited on 3-6-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## A_Wild_Boar

OK, here is another question. Again not really desiring to turn it into a big debate (of course its not a bad thing as I often learn quite a bit from you all). My brother's wife wants their new baby to be Baptized, as well as my brother. She wants this, not my brother who is pretty much an atheist but has no problem with the baby being baptized. 

Question is, should they do it even though one parent is an atheist and the mother is a new ager? Should I recommend a Presbyterian church to do this or another paedo church? And question is, will they do it regardless of the parents standing with God? They really want this done, but since I am a Baptist, I could not give an answer that tickled their ears in this matter. I gave my opinion on the matter, but she thinks the baby should be baptized. I asked her why and she said its traditional and she thinks it will save the baby. Even though she is a new ager, she believes in Baptismal regeneration (not her words of course). 

As to my children? I am working on that as they are growing strong in the faith and see to have complete trust in an Almighty and Sovereign God. 

Thanks for any advice.


[Edited on 3-6-2004 by A_Wild_Boar]


----------



## wsw201

[quote:16755a59fe]
I am sure that Dr. Frame is familiar with what the confession states that is why he did not actually include his comments in the main text of his book but in the foot notes. Regardless, however, I my point was not to appeal to Frame's authority but to the force of his argument (that fact that Frame says only brings the issue into focus because it is becoming more apparent then ever before that both Presbyterians and Reformed Baptist have found the Westminster confession to be inconsistent on this issue). Note Dr. Frame's argument again, 

&quot;Small children cannot examine themselves (1 Cor. 11:28), but they cannot repent and believe either (Acts 2:38). It is reasonable to say that both passages are addressed to adults and do not set forth requirements for all recipients of the sacraments&quot; (Worship in Spirit and Truth, p. 100.) 

Now the force of Frame's argument seems reasonable enough, if 1 Cor. 11:28 proves that infants ought not to be given the Lord's Supper than Acts 2:38 proves that infants ought not to be given baptism, on the other hand, if Acts 2:38 does not prove that infants can not be given the sacrament, then in turn 1 Cor. 11:28 does not prove that they cannot be given the Lord's Supper. Hence, Frame's argument reveals a embarrassing inconsistency that has been neglected by the majority of Presbyterians with only the few brace souls who like Frame have now begun to deal with it. 

Hence I think it is clear, you either give both sacraments to infants or you do not and so live happily and consistently, but to give one sacrament but not another to infants is to defy consistency. 

(To use the Westminster as proof that the practice is not inconsisent is a mistake because the truth of the Westminster in this matter is what is in question- hence it is a vicious circle to use the Westminster to justify itself.) 

[/quote:16755a59fe]

Needless to say, I don't see any inconsistency within the Westminster Standards and neither does any Presbyterian who has studied the Standards, comparing them to the truth of Scripture, and fully subscribes to them as a confession of their faith. Each question in the Catechism and each Chapter in the WCF cannot be taken in isolation, they must be understood as a whole, just like Scripture, of which they are based on. The Standards are a system of biblical doctrines and must be looked at as such. I usually find those who see inconsistency within the Standards look at them in a disjointed way, much like people do with Scripture when they find inconsistencies. 
The force of the argument that Frame makes may seem reasonable but it is simplistic. That is why I included the Larger Catechism questions (and Scripture) to show that though both are Sacraments, they are different in how they are administered, and who they are administered to. I understand your reluctance to see the force of Hodges argument in 1 Cor 7:14, but it is perfectly reasonable to me and Presbyterians through out the history of the Presbyterian Church. I believe the primary issue in understanding Hodges point goes to a difference in ecclesiology between Baptists and Presbyterians. Baptsits do not hold to the distinction between the Visible and Invisible Church as Presbyterian do. If they did, Hodges argument would make more sense. 
The issue of peadocommunion is a thread all unto itself. I don't know if Frame takes an exception to the Standards regarding peadocommunion but I don't, and the issue goes far beyond simply saying "if you baptize infants you must also grant them access to the Table so Presbyterians can be consistent".


[quote:16755a59fe]
I agree fully with you that Scripture does not teach that God regenerates all Children of believers. Most Presbyterians in America today are more careful when the attempt to infer infant baptism but historically this has not been the case. I agree that no truly reformed person has taught baptismal regeneration; my argument is that the historic reformers kicked baptismal regeneration out the front door but sneaked it in through the back by saying that God promised to regenerate all children of Christians without exception. To support this argument I quoted these normative sources: 
[/quote:16755a59fe]

The problem with using these quotes is that it is not all that is said on the issue. Calvin did not believe in baptismal regeneration in any form and neither the Heidelberg Catechism or Belgic Confession profess any type of baptismal regeneration, back door or otherwise. You must consider the whole of Calvin's thought as well as the whole of the two confessions. What most Baptists fail to understand is that the promises exhibited in the Sacraments (Baptism or The Lord's Supper) are only effectual for believers/elect. Calvin and the Continental and Scottish Confessions affirm this. As I have stated in other threads, the call of the Gospel is looked at in two ways, ie; the General Call and the Effectual Call. These are two key points. And just as the Sacraments cannot be separated from the Word, the efficacy of the Sacraments can not be separated from the Gospel. Therefore, the Sacraments, like the Call of the Gospel message, are only effectual for those whom it was intended for, the elect.


[quote:16755a59fe]
PS I assure you I am by no means 100% on these issues, but I am just trying to seek the truth in the matter, and so far am being convinced more and more that the reformers were wrong on this issue and that the Reformed Baptist got it right.
[/quote:16755a59fe]

Well, we do look through a glass dimly, so I guess that's why you are a Baptist and I am a Presbyterian.


----------



## Craig

I don't think there'd be a need to be rebaptized...unless it was a liberal Methodist church where they baptized you in the name of Sophia, her Offspring, and whatever else is PC for the Holy Spirit.

I was baptized as an infant....was baptized when I was an adolescent, was converted around the age of 18...found out about 2 years ago that I had already been baptized as an infant...should I get rebaptized? Naaaa. That would just be ridulous. God accomplished what He promised in my baptism from infancy. It's interesting to look back at the fact I was baptized twice while unconverted and see how faithful God has been in covenant to my family.


----------



## Tertullian

*Wsw201,*

Thanks for the edifying conversation. It seems that we have made the majority of your points but I think you have begun to repeat yourself- I respect your prestigious tradition but I cannot except it if it means compromising what I believe Scripture and my conscious convicts and teaches. Hence, if you are going to convince me you need to prove more than this is what the reformers said or this is the prestigious tradition of the reformers because to appeal to them is to use the very things who truth is being questioned to prove themselves. Therefore, if you have made all the points that you are wanting to make great and may the Lord bless you for your willingness to contineut this dialogue... but if you still have more to say and add to the conversation I just wanted to take this time to expand what I said before in response to your comments below. 


[quote:8287ab1732] Needless to say, I don't see any inconsistency within the Westminster Standards and neither does any Presbyterian who has studied the Standards, comparing them to the truth of Scripture, and fully subscribes to them as a confession of their faith. [/quote:8287ab1732]

It may be true that you personally do not see any inconsistency within the Westminister Standards but I think it is a stretch to say that no Presbyterian who has studied the issue, doing their best to comparing Scripture with the Standards has ever differed in their opinion their yours. John Frame (if I am interpreting right which I do not doubt that I am) is a prime counterfactual to the claim that no Presbyterian who has studied the Scripture and Standard and come to the conclusion that no contradiction exists. 

In truth a whole Paedocommunion movement is gaining momentum in different Presbyterian sects and it will probably continue to grow as more and more Presbyterian continue to examine the issue. Why, some Presbyterians on this very board that I have talked with in the past have defended and affirmed Paedocommunion on the basis that it is inconsistent to argue for Paedobaptism but than not use that same logic to justify paedocommunion, and they would add, if 1 Corthians disproved Paedocommunion than the book of Acts would disprove Paedobaptism. 

[quote:8287ab1732] Each question in the Catechism and each Chapter in the WCF cannot be taken in isolation, they must be understood as a whole, just like Scripture, of which they are based on. The Standards are a system of biblical doctrines and must be looked at as such. I usually find those who see inconsistency within the Standards look at them in a disjointed way, much like people do with Scripture when they find inconsistencies. [/quote:8287ab1732]

In actuality the "Standards" have been changed over time and each Presbyterian sect has his own version of the Srandard, so it is artificial to compare Scriptural consistency with the Standards consistency. The Standards are still a work in progress which God is continuing to sanctify as he continues to confirm his Church to its glorious destiny. Therefore, since people have found inconsistency in the past (ex. on Civil government) it follows that it is not necessary that we judge a prior anyone wrong who claims to have discovered an inconsistency in the Standards for they may very well have discovered something which may have been overlooked in the past. 

[quote:8287ab1732] The force of the argument that Frame makes may seem reasonable but it is simplistic. That is why I included the Larger Catechism questions (and Scripture) to show that though both are Sacraments, they are different in how they are administered, and who they are administered to. [/quote:8287ab1732]

Frame's argument has yet to be dealt with (besides appeals to authority), and they need to be because if Frame's argument is sound then Frame's argument undermines the Westminster proof texts for its position on whom receives the sacraments (whether Frame intended it to or not, I think he did undermine the prooftexts). 

Hence, so much for the inerrancy of the Confessions and reformers, and it is a dubious proposition to use the Westminster and reformers to vindicate itself once its proof texts have been undermined. Therefore we need arguements from Scripture not appeals to confessions and reformers if we are to solve this debate between paedocommunion and credo-communion. 

[quote:8287ab1732] I understand your reluctance to see the force of Hodges argument in 1 Cor 7:14, but it is perfectly reasonable to me and Presbyterians through out the history of the Presbyterian Church. [/quote:8287ab1732]

Presbyterian history when it comes to the issue of using 1 Cor 7:14 as proof text is far from consistent in fact if a different group of people had been picked to make the confession that verse might never have been used. B.B. Warfield was right when he wrote (paraphrase) "brothers we must all confess that we have different arguments for this dearly cherished tradition" - and that statement reveals the only consistent thing in regards to this specific topic- Presbyterians have all offered different arguments for the practice of infant baptism which contradict each other and the only thing they all had in common was their conclusions. 

1 Cor 7:14 has not even convinced all Presbyterians and so it seems doubtful that Reformed Baptist that it will convince Reformed Baptist- after all Reformed Baptist have begun to use these verses to prove their position- please see my last post to see how. 

I encourage you to please read my response to 1 Cor 7:14 over again because I assure you I do not just disagree with it but I have reasons why I do not agree with it which I listed before. 

[quote:8287ab1732] I believe the primary issue in understanding Hodges point goes to a difference in ecclesiology between Baptists and Presbyterians. Baptsits do not hold to the distinction between the Visible and Invisible Church as Presbyterian do. If they did, Hodges argument would make more sense. [/quote:8287ab1732]

On the contrary Confessional Reformed Baptist do make that distinction between the Visible and Invisible Church, in fact the reformers actually borrowed it from Augustine so that distinction is not new or unique to the reformers, the London Baptist Confession teaches it and Reformed Baptist traditionally have upheld it- and so contrary to your assertion, even with the distinction made, Hodges argument does not make sense. 

At the very lest you need to elaborate upon your statement because I do accept that distinction as Augstine taught it and the LBC and even Westminster- and find nothing in it that contradicts Reformed Baptist teaching. 

[quote:8287ab1732] The issue of peadocommunion is a thread all unto itself. I don't know if Frame takes an exception to the Standards regarding peadocommunion but I don't, and the issue goes far beyond simply saying "if you baptize infants you must also grant them access to the Table so Presbyterians can be consistent". [/quote:8287ab1732]

But is it also trut that Paedocommunion advocates have more arguments than Frames so both sides have not made their full case, but how is that relevant to if Frame's arguement is sound? After all, Frame has made a good argument and if it is sound which I believe it is than logic demands that we choice one of the alternatives. The alternatives being the Reformed Baptist position or the Paedocommunion position- only Scripture can tell which one of these logical alternatives is right. 

God bless

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian


----------



## Tertullian

[quote:11db6a5910][i:11db6a5910]Originally posted by Craig[/i:11db6a5910]
I don't think there'd be a need to be rebaptized...unless it was a liberal Methodist church where they baptized you in the name of Sophia, her Offspring, and whatever else is PC for the Holy Spirit.

...God accomplished what He promised in my baptism from infancy. It's interesting to look back at the fact I was baptized twice while unconverted and see how faithful God has been in covenant to my family. [/quote:11db6a5910]

I guess you must be amazed that God kept His promise to you when you were baptized as an infant when you consider on your view all the times God has broken His promise throughout history- after all how many Christian infants has God promised to regenerate but than broken His promise to regenerate them! 

If I held your position I would be amazed to that God kept his promise, since he has borken his promise so many times in the past. My amazement if I viewed God's promise the way I heard some Presbyterians describe would be of the same type as finding out that a habitial liar told me the truth and kept his promise. 

I know you might say that God's promise to regenerate you was conditional on your unregenerate faithfulness- but if that is true why are you even amazed that God kept his promise- you earned it. 

(Not intending this to hurt or offend but just wanting to make a point)

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 3-7-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Tertullian

[quote:ffdd909cdb][i:ffdd909cdb]Originally posted by A_Wild_Boar[/i:ffdd909cdb]
OK, here is another question. Again not really desiring to turn it into a big debate (of course its not a bad thing as I often learn quite a bit from you all). My brother's wife wants their new baby to be Baptized, as well as my brother. She wants this, not my brother who is pretty much an atheist but has no problem with the baby being baptized. 

Question is, should they do it even though one parent is an atheist and the mother is a new ager? Should I recommend a Presbyterian church to do this or another paedo church? And question is, will they do it regardless of the parents standing with God? They really want this done, but since I am a Baptist, I could not give an answer that tickled their ears in this matter. I gave my opinion on the matter, but she thinks the baby should be baptized. I asked her why and she said its traditional and she thinks it will save the baby. Even though she is a new ager, she believes in Baptismal regeneration (not her words of course). 

As to my children? I am working on that as they are growing strong in the faith and see to have complete trust in an Almighty and Sovereign God. 

Thanks for any advice.


[Edited on 3-6-2004 by A_Wild_Boar] [/quote:ffdd909cdb]

I am not sure how a Presbyterian would answer that question but as a Reformed Baptist Christ Sacrament can be given only to those who have faith. Our duty as Christians is to protect the Sacrametents from abuse as much as we can... I always love the story of how Calvin refused to let non-Christians eat from the Lord's Supper- in fact Calvin said he would rather die than let them share in the Lord's table. 

Johnathen Edwards is another prime example of a Christian refusing to let unregenerate people take the Covenant meal even though it cost them dearly (Edward's job). 

Let us follow their heroic examples because they followed Scripture on this matter. 

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian


----------



## Tertullian

[quote:62b1304206][i:62b1304206]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:62b1304206]
[quote:62b1304206]
am not sure how a Presbyterian would answer that question but as a Reformed Baptist Christ Sacrament can be given only to those who have faith.
[/quote:62b1304206]

how do you know who to give it to then?

what scriptural support to you have to say that, say, baptism can only be given to those who have faith. That is, ONLY be given to those?

-Paul [/quote:62b1304206]

Do you not agree that Scripture teaches that we ought not to give the Sacraments to people who do not profess to be Christians? 

All of us baptize on the basis of profession of faith, you baptize on the parents profession we baptize on the person's profession


----------



## Tertullian

[quote:8b77bc4975][i:8b77bc4975]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:8b77bc4975]
Tertullian,

The reasons I asked is because now you say, &quot;profession of faith&quot; whereas previously you said [/quote:8b77bc4975]

For the record book I was answering different questions- one question- &quot;who ought to be baptized?&quot; another question &quot;who is baptized?&quot; This is the &quot;is&quot; &quot;ought&quot; distinction. 

[quote:8b77bc4975][quote:8b77bc4975]
as a Reformed Baptist Christ Sacrament can be given only to those who have faith. 
[/quote:8b77bc4975]

Now, for who makes a [i:8b77bc4975]profession[/i:8b77bc4975] it does not follow that the [i:8b77bc4975]have[/i:8b77bc4975] faith. So it appeared to me that you would have no epistemological grounds to baptize anyone. Now that you have clarified, fine. [/quote:8b77bc4975]

I am not sure what you mean by &quot;epistemologicial problem&quot; or &quot;no epistemologicial grounds&quot; because my system of thought does not require me to read the hearts of people and only if I had to read a person's heart would it be a &quot;problem.&quot; or lack of &quot;grounds&quot;. 

I mean it is no more a problem for baptist than it is for Presbyterians on the issue of the Lord's Supper or even for Presbyterians who are determining if the parents of the baptized infants have faith or not. So if it is a problem for baptist the problem is found in the Bible and all Christian sects suffer from it. 

[quote:8b77bc4975] And, I assume that you mean that the [i:8b77bc4975]person receiving[/i:8b77bc4975] the sacrement has to &quot;profess&quot; faith; it wouldn't count for a parent that is. So, I asked what evidence can you provide from Scripture which says that ONLY those who &quot;profess&quot; faith may be baptized. You don't need a long dissertation just a few will suffice.

-Paul [/quote:8b77bc4975]

Math 28:19 and Acts 2:38 teach Discipleship baptism. 

Using the regulative principle of worship we can say that even though Scripture does not probit a person who professes, &quot;atheism to be true&quot; from being baptized- we still do not have to baptize them and in fact we would be wrong to baptize them. Why? 

In answering that question, we can note that the sacraments, since they are an element of worship, must be regulated by God's word. Hence, only God's commands are to be followed and we are not to add to God's commandments things from our imagination like baptizing atheist. See what happened to Aarons sons when they added something to the service elements that was not prohibed by God. 


The requirement of &quot;profession&quot; is a circumstance- if we could read a person's heart we would not need the profession- but this circumstance is applied because the weakness of human nature when it comes to reading peoples hearts. 


hope this helps.

[quote:8b77bc4975] p.s. I have sent you 2 u2u's, have you received them?

-Paul [/quote:8b77bc4975]

I just read them... sorry for not replying earlier.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 3-8-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## A_Wild_Boar

[quote:4b9ba87e0f][Originally posted by Tertullian--
I am not sure how a Presbyterian would answer that question but as a Reformed Baptist Christ Sacrament can be given only to those who have faith. Our duty as Christians is to protect the Sacrametents from abuse as much as we can... I always love the story of how Calvin refused to let non-Christians eat from the Lord's Supper- in fact Calvin said he would rather die than let them share in the Lord's table. 

Johnathen Edwards is another prime example of a Christian refusing to let unregenerate people take the Covenant meal even though it cost them dearly (Edward's job). 

Let us follow their heroic examples because they followed Scripture on this matter. 

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian [/quote:4b9ba87e0f]


I basically asked my brother over and over why he wanted to be Baptized. Basicall it came dow to because his wife wanted him to and since she was going to have the baby Baptized he didnt mind.

I basically explained that unless he was willing to live the life of a professing child of God, then he would be nothing more than a washed pig. Well I put it in nicer terms but he got the point. His wife still thinks having the baby Baptized will save the child. I fail to see the difference between an unprofessing adult being Baptized and an unknowing infant.


----------



## A_Wild_Boar

[quote:3380747635] God accomplished what He promised in my baptism from infancy. It's interesting to look back at the fact I was baptized twice while unconverted and see how faithful God has been in covenant to my family. [/quote:3380747635]

Sorry I edited out some. I dont know what type of Methosists they had me sprinkled by. My parents were a couple of weed smoking hippies who thought it would be nice to have me Baptized in the tradition of my family. (my family has NEVER been religious)

But regarding the above statement by you I am left with the feeling you were regenerated because you were Baptized. 

I doubt I am the expection. If I was regenerated because I was Baptized, then who is the covenant with? The unregenerate parents? God promises to regenerate ALL Baptized? no of course one would say only the elect. But if God regenerates and keeps His promise to regenerate Baptized infants, then certainly all Baptized infants are of the elect, if not they would never have been given the opportunity to be Baptized.

Man I should really stop with this subject because I am getting nowhere fast with it.

I will have to leave it at this. I personally dont have much problem with other folks Baptizing their kids. I just dont see it the way you do. 

I fear that I may anger some here with my questions. I promise they were purely out of curiosity and ignorance. I am glad to have found this forum and the Saints that post here.

I thank God.


----------



## Guest

[quote:aa22b2803b]
So, since infants cannot &quot;repent/believe&quot; then, therefore, they cannot be saved.
[/quote:aa22b2803b]


If a dumb ass can speak and silence the madness of a prophet, an infant can repent and have faith.

Repentance unto life is granted by God through the gift of faith, transferred to the child by the promise of the covenant.


----------



## Tertullian

*Paul,*

Your argument is the same one that John Calvin used against the Anabaptist (I think comparing your arguement to John Calvin is the highest honor a Presbyterian can receive and I meant it to be taken as a complement), but Reformed Baptist are not Anabaptist and Presbyterians will have to use better arguments today then the ones advanced by Calvin yesterday against a different group. For Calvin's arguments are outdated and useless in debates with Reformed Baptist, therefore Presbyterians must if they are to establish the tradition of infant baptism come up with new arguments. I will try my best to explain how Calvin's argument falls apart when it encounters the Reformed Baptist position. 


Remember my argument was not that Mathew 18:19 and Acts 2:38 expressly prohibit non-discipleship baptism but that they only command discipleship baptism. Using the regulative principle of worship, however, I argued that infant baptism (a form of non-Discipleship baptism) though not prohibited in Scripture, is nonetheless, not commanded by Scripture, and so to follow it would be to break the regulative principle of worship. The regulative principle is why we cannot justify Atheist baptism even though it is not prohibited by Scripture and the same goes for infant baptism. With this background let us proceed to critically examine Calvin's argument, which ran:


"If infant baptism is excluded because of verses like Mathew 18:19 or Acts 2:38, than so is infant salvation". 


Note- I never argued that infant baptism is exluded because of verses like these, I only argued that these verses had no refrence to them. Hence, Calvin's target is someone else. Nonetheless letting that slide for now let is deal with the arguement any how. 


To this argument of Calvin Reformed Baptist J.L. Dagg responds: 

[quote:f8c00b149c] This argument has no force, to establish infant baptism. Because infants may be saved without repentance and faith, it does not follow that they are entitled to every privilege which may be claimed for them. The utmost extent to which the argument can go, is weaken the force of the opposing argument; and this it does in appearance only. How are we to reconcile the declaration, "He that believeth not shall be damned," with the doctrine of infant salvation? The answer is obvious. When Christ commissioned his disciples to preach the gospel to every creature, he meant every creature capable of hearing and understanding it. "He that believeth not," means- he that, having heard the gospel, rejects it. In this obvious meaning of the phrase, it affirms nothing contrary to infant salvation. Adopting the same mode of exposition, in the preceding clause, it signifies- he that hears the gospel, believes it, and is baptized, shall be saved. The commission does not say, whether infants will be saved, or whether they ought to be baptized; for the simple reason, that is has no reference to them. The argument before us, drives us to this exposition of the commission; but what does infant baptism gain by it? WE learn from it, that, in the great commission which Christ gave to his apostles, by which baptism was established as a permanent institution to be observed among all nations to the end of time, he had no reference to infants. (Manual of Church Order, p. 184.) [/quote:f8c00b149c]

As you can see, from this quote, Calvin's argument though works fine in debate with Anabaptist is useless in debates with Reformed Baptist, who actually want to emphasis the conclusion of Calvin's arguement for Calvin's conclusion has proved that these commands have "no reference to infants" and so using the regulative principle of worship Reformed Baptist refuse to worship God with their imaginations by adding things that though not prohibited are not commanded. Hence, Reformed Baptist like me have found Calvin's argument to establish rather than refute Discipleship baptism. 

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 3-9-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## kceaster

*Tyler...*

You will need to define discipleship and non-discipleship baptism because presbyterians always baptize disciples, whether infant, child, adolescent, or adult.

It would seem that you would define discipleship baptism as one that is accompanied by the individual's profession of faith; and non-discipleship baptism as one that is not based upon the individual profession of faith.

The difficulty that surrounds this position is that you do not have an explicit command to baptize anyone because of their profession of faith. There is no such command.

Now, there is a preponderance of examples of those who are baptized after they had professed faith, which you imply as the necessity for the baptism to have occurred. This, however, does not mean that it is normative, nor is it commanded to baptize only those who have professed faith.

The direct command that we have been given is to make disciples and baptize them.

Therefore, discipleship baptism is nothing more than baptizing a disciple.

Who is a disciple, then? Only those who have professed faith? Then Jesus' disciples themselves were baptized prematurely, for they did not profess faith. They were made disciples and baptized but they did not know that Jesus was the Christ and Son of God until later.

So, if you're going to use discipleship baptism to defeat our position, you should know that our definition of disciple is different. The infant of a believer is a disciple. They are holy and they are godly seed. Presbyterians baptize disciples only.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## wsw201

Tertullian,

Sorry for not responding sooner, but I have been a little busy. But I would like to make a few comments.

[quote:2706d95285]
Thanks for the edifying conversation. It seems that we have made the majority of your points but I think you have begun to repeat yourself- I respect your prestigious tradition but I cannot except it if it means compromising what I believe Scripture and my conscious convicts and teaches. Hence, if you are going to convince me you need to prove more than this is what the reformers said or this is the prestigious tradition of the reformers because to appeal to them is to use the very things who truth is being questioned to prove themselves. Therefore, if you have made all the points that you are wanting to make great and may the Lord bless you for your willingness to contineut this dialogue... but if you still have more to say and add to the conversation I just wanted to take this time to expand what I said before in response to your comments below. 
[/quote:2706d95285]

It is true that I have made the majority of my points and it was not necessarily my intention to get into a long debate, but simply point out the Historic Presbyterian position regarding the sacraments and who they are to be administered to. Many people read these threads and I would not want them to get the wrong impression. I certainly would not expect you to compromise what you believe and I stopped trying to convince Baptists about the Sacraments along time ago. 


[quote:2706d95285]
It may be true that you personally do not see any inconsistency within the Westminister Standards but I think it is a stretch to say that no Presbyterian who has studied the issue, doing their best to comparing Scripture with the Standards has ever differed in their opinion their yours. John Frame (if I am interpreting right which I do not doubt that I am) is a prime counterfactual to the claim that no Presbyterian who has studied the Scripture and Standard and come to the conclusion that no contradiction exists. 
[/quote:2706d95285]

Fortunately it is not just my opinion but is the opinion of the PCA. The Standards are not infallible. If inconsistencies do exist, whether with Scripture or within the Standards themselves, then there are procedures for changing the Standards, but to date no one has made such an attempt. If Dr. Frame or others are serious about their contentions regarding the Standards, they should state them in a Resolution to GA. My guess is they won't. It is easier to just throw stones at the Standards.


[quote:2706d95285]
In truth a whole Paedocommunion movement is gaining momentum in different Presbyterian sects and it will probably continue to grow as more and more Presbyterian continue to examine the issue. Why, some Presbyterians on this very board that I have talked with in the past have defended and affirmed Paedocommunion on the basis that it is inconsistent to argue for Paedobaptism but than not use that same logic to justify paedocommunion, and they would add, if 1 Corthians disproved Paedocommunion than the book of Acts would disprove Paedobaptism. 
[/quote:2706d95285]

I have been studying the Peadocommunion issue for quite awhile and I as well as the PCA have found the arguments lacking. Whether there is a movement or that it is gaining momentum is debatable. I usually find that those advocating this unbiblical position are simply louder. 


[quote:2706d95285]
In actuality the "Standards" have been changed over time and each Presbyterian sect has his own version of the Srandard, so it is artificial to compare Scriptural consistency with the Standards consistency. The Standards are still a work in progress which God is continuing to sanctify as he continues to confirm his Church to its glorious destiny. Therefore, since people have found inconsistency in the past (ex. on Civil government) it follows that it is not necessary that we judge a prior anyone wrong who claims to have discovered an inconsistency in the Standards for they may very well have discovered something which may have been overlooked in the past. 
[/quote:2706d95285]

It is hardly artificial in considering inconsistencies. In fact there has been very little change in the Standards since it was adopted by the Church of Scotland in 1647. One thing that you might find interesting is that when the Standards have been significantly changed, those churches have eventually moved away from the Reformed Faith into Liberalism, Neo-Orthodoxy or something totally different from Christianity. This is self evident considering what happened to the PCUSA at the turn of the 20th Century. 


[quote:2706d95285]
Frame's argument has yet to be dealt with (besides appeals to authority), and they need to be because if Frame's argument is sound then Frame's argument undermines the Westminster proof texts for its position on whom receives the sacraments (whether Frame intended it to or not, I think he did undermine the prooftexts). 
[/quote:2706d95285]

One of the reasons why I say that Frame's argument is simplistic is that there is more to it. Act 2:39 must be included with verse 38 because it is the explanation for verse 38. I would hope that Frame is not going to take the Baptist position on these verses and understands that when verse 39 states that the promise is to you and your children, Peter is referring his Jewish audience back to the Abrahamic Covenant. As a Presbyterian, he should understand why an infant is not required to "repent and believe". If he doesn't then maybe he is a closet Baptist (but I doubt it). I suppose Dr. Frame is not willing to turn Scripture on its head by denying its covenantal structure. Now do I expect Baptists to get this? No! That's why they are Baptists. Regarding 1 Cor 11:27ff, yes this is for adults, or those who can examine themselves. That is why the Church does not feed damnation to its infants. 

[quote:2706d95285]
Hence, so much for the inerrancy of the Confessions and reformers, and it is a dubious proposition to use the Westminster and reformers to vindicate itself once its proof texts have been undermined. Therefore we need arguements from Scripture not appeals to confessions and reformers if we are to solve this debate between paedocommunion and credo-communion. 
[/quote:2706d95285]

I would be the last to say that the Standards are inerrant, much less the Reformers. That is why we can change the Standards. As far as the proof texts being undermined, sorry, they have not been.


[quote:2706d95285]
Presbyterian history when it comes to the issue of using 1 Cor 7:14 as proof text is far from consistent in fact if a different group of people had been picked to make the confession that verse might never have been used. B.B. Warfield was right when he wrote (paraphrase) "brothers we must all confess that we have different arguments for this dearly cherished tradition" - and that statement reveals the only consistent thing in regards to this specific topic- Presbyterians have all offered different arguments for the practice of infant baptism which contradict each other and the only thing they all had in common was their conclusions. 

1 Cor 7:14 has not even convinced all Presbyterians and so it seems doubtful that Reformed Baptist that it will convince Reformed Baptist- after all Reformed Baptist have begun to use these verses to prove their position- please see my last post to see how. 

I encourage you to please read my response to 1 Cor 7:14 over again because I assure you I do not just disagree with it but I have reasons why I do not agree with it which I listed before. 
[/quote:2706d95285]

I have read your response and I understand how the writer came to his conclusion. Pastorway has come to the same conclusion, as I would ascertain that virtually all Baptists have. The reason this verse is used as one of many texts concerning infants is that it brings further light to the inclusion of infants in the visible church. Since God has declared the child as holy, the child is given status in the visible church (note: I am not talking about the invisible church, and neither is Hodge). Because of this status they have the right to the sign of inclusion in the visible church, ie; baptism. As Hodge notes, a child of an Israelite is circumcised (the sign of inclusion) because they are an Israelite, and a child of a Christian is baptized (sign of inclusion) because the are a Christian. Regarding the spouse of the believer, they are of an age that they can make a profession of faith, which the Church would require before Baptism.


[quote:2706d95285]
On the contrary Confessional Reformed Baptist do make that distinction between the Visible and Invisible Church, in fact the reformers actually borrowed it from Augustine so that distinction is not new or unique to the reformers, the London Baptist Confession teaches it and Reformed Baptist traditionally have upheld it- and so contrary to your assertion, even with the distinction made, Hodges argument does not make sense. 

At the very lest you need to elaborate upon your statement because I do accept that distinction as Augstine taught it and the LBC and even Westminster- and find nothing in it that contradicts Reformed Baptist teaching. 
[/quote:2706d95285]

My comment regarding the visible Church is based on the LBCF. It does not give a definition of the visible church as the WCF does, though it does describe "visible saints". 

I would be interested to hear how a Reformed Baptist describes the visible church, especially in comparison to the WCF.


----------



## luvroftheWord

Isn't it interesting how the Scriptures teach us that we as adults must become like little children to inherit the kingdom, yet in the church we make the little children become like adults to actually feed on Christ at his table? :saint:

Sorry. Just a paedocommunionist who is submissive to the authority of his church (PCA) having a little fun here.


----------



## Tertullian

*Paul,*

[quote:c27cb025c4][quote:c27cb025c4] 


and so using the regulative principle of worship Reformed Baptist refuse to worship God with their imaginations by adding things that though not prohibited are not commanded. Hence, Reformed Baptist like me have found Calvin's argument to establish rather than refute Discipleship baptism/ [/quote:c27cb025c4]



Yes but(!), I'm sure you understand that I believe infant baptism to be commanded by God. [/quote:c27cb025c4]

I do not doubt for a second that this is what your position teaches that God commands infant baptism but I question the truthfulness of that position and cannot find for the life of me a verse anywhere that commands infant baptism. 

[quote:c27cb025c4] Also, if you are going to be hardline about this...i.e., EXPRESSLY SET DOWN, give me a passage that says &quot;women are to partake in the Lord's supper&quot; and an &quot;example of a women taking it.&quot; 

Well you can't. But you will go to good and necessary inference and say that that counts. Well, as you know, I will do this too. You will disagree that I have properly drawn an inference, I will disagree with your interpretation. Thus we are back at the original starting point and the regulative principle has been rendered null 'n void. [/quote:c27cb025c4]

Actually, I do not hold to "women Lord's Supper" I mean being a women is not the qualification for the Lord's Supper, the qualification of the Lord's Supper is being a Disciple (1 Cor. 11: 28-29), so only people both men and women who meet that qualification can participate in the Lord's Supper. Just because you are a women does not entitle you to the Lord's Supper but being a Disciple does, it would be breaking the regulative principle of worship for me to add more qualifications than discipleship like not being women. 

[quote:c27cb025c4] Furthermore, you say that you practice the regulative principle in Church....can you show me THAT expressly set down? [/quote:c27cb025c4]

The doctrine of Regulative Worship is defended the same way the doctrine of Scripture alone is by the very nature of Scripture or in this case worship. 

[quote:c27cb025c4] Does your baptist church use any instruments? What songs do you sing? [/quote:c27cb025c4]

Others on this board both Presbyterians and Reformed Baptist have already addressed this issue explaining the difference between a circumstance and element. Instruments and song choice are circumstances that vary from language to language and culture to culture but these circumstance must always conform to the element in worship. 

- I do not recommend that you try to say that infant baptism is a circumstance because circumstance very from culture to culture and place to place and time to time... and so I do not think you want to prove that infant baptism can be done or not done based on the prefrence of the church. 

[quote:c27cb025c4] Also, my argument still works. I feel it was not addressed. [/quote:c27cb025c4]

I feel it was addressed and ask you to please reread the quote by the Reformed Baptist I posted.

[quote:c27cb025c4] You said that ONLY people who repent and have faith CAN be baptized...since that is what the Bible says. [/quote:c27cb025c4]

I never argued that, I said that the Bible only teaches Discipleship baptism but never prohibits non-discipleship Baptism. The Scriptural teaching summed up in the Regulative Principle teaches that we must not add to God's worship anything beyond what God commands, even if it is not directly prohibited by Scripture. 

[quote:c27cb025c4] I pointed out that using your principles, ONLY repenters and faith havers can go to heaven. The Bible uses the same language for baptism as it does salvation, i.e., repent and believe...why won't you be consistant here? 

-Paul [/quote:c27cb025c4]

Please reread my response in my last post, I agree with you that Acts 2:38 has not reference to infants that is my point.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 3-10-2004 by Tertullian]

[Edited on 3-10-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Tertullian

*KC,*

Thanks for that excellent insight, I think your counter question is the only way to make infant baptism immune to the challenge that the regulative principle of worship affords against the practice:

Yes, God only commands Disciples to be baptized, and we cannot do more than God commands even if God does not prohibit it, but you see infants are really disciples. 

However, let me say that if you use the word disciple so broadly that it can be used about infants or athiest spouses who are &quot;santified&quot; (see 1 Cor 7), then I will simply have to change words, for I chose the word &quot;Disciple&quot; to mean what it means in every day conversation. 

Namely as someone who holds to the teachings of Christ (see John 8: 31 &quot;If you were really my Disciples you would hold to my teachings...&quot

Therefore to answer your question,

[quote:43a905649d] You will need to define discipleship and non-discipleship baptism because presbyterians always baptize disciples, whether infant, child, adolescent, or adult. [/quote:43a905649d]

I would define Disciple as anyone who meets the qualifications laid out in Acts 2:38 and Mathew 28:19. My point is simply that God only commands those who meet those qualifications to be baptized. (What we call those people who meet those qualifications is not really important- so long as people know who we are talking about- in the past Disciple has accomplished that mutual understanding) 

Hope this answers your question which is certainly the best question to ask after hearing a Reformed Baptist appeal to the regulative principle of worship.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 3-10-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Tertullian

*wsw201,*

Thanks for the response and I think you have made sure that everyone knows what the Standards say regardless if they think they are consistent with their Scripturual proof texts.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian


----------



## Halliday

your turning Christianity into humanism. If a &quot;disciple&quot; has to meet certain requirements to be truely disciples then you are right in the Roman Catholic court of works = salvation. You are just going about it on a longer path: profession = works = baptism = true disciple = salvation. Is that what you are saying? 
Because the Bible is clear that Judas was a disciple. Our children are our duty. When we fail to teach them Christ's way, which is baptizing our households, we are committing the sin of Adam over again. Salvation is not the center of our religion. We are to fulfill all righteousness. We are to establish the law of God. &quot;The Word became flesh&quot;. The Word is central. We cannot waste our time trying to be as God and determine who He is going to shed His grace upon. Our time is to be spent apply His every word to all of life. That is making disciples out of the nations!

[Edited on 3-10-2004 by Halliday]

[Edited on 3-10-2004 by Halliday]


----------



## kceaster

*Tyler...*

I think, and I may be way off base, that you are equating a disciple with a converted person. Again, I would have to ask if Jesus' disciples were converted persons when they were baptized.

I would agree with you that true disciples are those who exhibit belief and faith and persevere to the end. But we do not baptize them at the end. We baptize them at the beginning.

But as we have learned from the 80's and 90's of the past century, a cursory belief is not necessarily saving faith. Therefore, a person may say that they believe in God and be considered a disciple of Christ. Such is the same with small children. If we teach them that there is a God and that He has redeemed His elect through Christ, there is not a child that I know of who would not confess the same. We would consider them disciples, they are being taught and they do believe. They are like the seed that receives the Word with gladness.

However, when life goes on, do they live what they said they believe? Here, now, is the all important test. While the non-Lordship folks try to convince us that these are saved persons, we know that they are merely the seed who has been burned by the sun or choked by the weeds. They are not true disciples because they have not persevered.

They are therefore, not converts. They have not received a circumcised heart.

Yet in Presbyterian and Baptist churches alike, they are baptized. We just baptize them much earlier. But it cannot be denied that many of those who have been saved at a revival or crusade have been baptized but have been cut down by the sun or the weeds and thorns. There is no way out of this.

So for the Baptist, they consider themselves to have done their jobs if they baptize a &quot;converted&quot; person. But I have 6 of those people in my close family and I can tell you that, although they said they believed, they have not been truly converted, otherwise they would live like they should.

I may not have been Baptist in my former life, but I was baptistic. The same rules applied. And I can tell you that many were baptized, but few now follow the Lord. There is no greater saftety in baptizing a &quot;believer&quot;, than in baptizing an infant. Not that there is sanction against either, for I can find no verse that even implies that ministers of the gospel will be judged for baptizing the wrong people.

If we truly want to baptize believers, we should do it on the deathbed, my father as the prime example. I am sure that he will wait until then to try to make things square with God. But he is unregenerate and content to be so. Yet, he has been baptized. It would seem that if we want assurance that we have baptized a truly converted person, we will have to wait until they are close to death so that we can truly inspect their fruit.

But, I'm sure you will agree that this is not a good answer, either.

Therefore, I will believe that we are doing our duty before the Lord if we baptize those we are discipling. This includes the children of believers.

If God wishes, these same will be converted and will be true disciples. If He has made them a vessel of dishonor, their baptism will be one more thing added to the guilt of their sinfulness, for they will have spurned the grace common to baptism.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Tertullian

*KC,*

I think we have changed topics, I do not want to debate how words ought to be used it is the concepts behind the words that we need to talk about. 

For even if the word &quot;Disciple&quot; does in your language game apply to infants that does not hurt my arguement one bet. As I hope to explain below. 


My arguement is that only those people who meet the requirements laid out in Acts 2:38 can be baptized.

Another verse that has the qualifications for baptism is found latter in that same book:

[quote:312ec7f8d4] &quot;As they went along the road the came to some water; and the eunuch said, &quot;look! Water! what prevents me from being baptized?&quot; And Philip said, &quot;if you believe with all your heart, you may.&quot; Acts 8: 36-37) [/quote:312ec7f8d4]


My arguement is simple:

X= those who meet the qualifications laid out in Acts 2:38, Mathew 28:19 and Acts 8:36-37.

(1) Scripture only commands &quot;X&quot; to be baptized.
(2) The Regulative principle of worship says that we can only do what is commanded by Scripture. Even if it is not expreslly prohibited
(Therefore) Therefore, we can only baptize &quot;X&quot; even though no verse prohibits a non-X from being baptized.

Call &quot;X&quot; whatever you like if you do not like the short hand term &quot;Disciple&quot; the point is that &quot;X&quot; is a person who meets the qualifications as laid out in Scripture in the verses mentioned above.

Also, I have never faulted infant baptist for baptizing a non-regenerate and so no need to refute that arguement since noone here is arguing against infant baptism based on the you &quot;baptize non-regenerate people&quot; arguement.


To the glory of Christ-Tertullian



[Edited on 3-10-2004 by Tertullian]

[Edited on 3-10-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Tertullian

[quote:6b814d3b94][i:6b814d3b94]Originally posted by Halliday[/i:6b814d3b94]
your turning Christianity into humanism. If a &quot;disciple&quot; has to meet certain requirements to be truely disciples then you are right in the Roman Catholic court of works = salvation. You are just going about it on a longer path: profession = works = baptism = true disciple = salvation. Is that what you are saying? 
Because the Bible is clear that Judas was a disciple. Our children are our duty. When we fail to teach them Christ's way, which is baptizing our households, we are committing the sin of Adam over again. Salvation is not the center of our religion. We are to fulfill all righteousness. We are to establish the law of God. &quot;The Word became flesh&quot;. The Word is central. We cannot waste our time trying to be as God and determine who He is going to shed His grace upon. Our time is to be spent apply His every word to all of life. That is making disciples out of the nations!

[Edited on 3-10-2004 by Halliday]

[Edited on 3-10-2004 by Halliday] [/quote:6b814d3b94]

Halliday, I think you may have misunderstood what I said in my posts- I do not think that a descision saves you- nor do I fault reformed paedobaptist for baptizing non-regenerate.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 3-10-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## kceaster

*Tyler...*

[quote:8fad6d7e58]I think we have changed topics, I do not want to debate how words ought to be used it is the concepts behind the words that we need to talk about. 

For even if the word &quot;Disciple&quot; does in your language game apply to infants that does not hurt my arguement one bet. As I hope to explain below. 


My arguement is that only those people who meet the requirements laid out in Acts 2:38 can be baptized.

Another verse that has the qualifications for baptism is found latter in that same book:

[quote:8fad6d7e58] &quot;As they went along the road the came to some water; and the eunuch said, &quot;look! Water! what prevents me from being baptized?&quot; And Philip said, &quot;if you believe with all your heart, you may.&quot; Acts 8: 36-37) [/quote:8fad6d7e58][/quote:8fad6d7e58]

Here is where you have switched topics. There is no explicit command here. It may very well tell us about who is being baptized, but there is nothing in either one of your texts that gives us a command to only baptize such people. We must defer, then, to the great commission for a command. There it tells us to baptize disciples.

[quote:8fad6d7e58]My arguement is simple:

X= those who meet the qualifications laid out in Acts 2:38, Mathew 28:19 and Acts 8:36-37.

(1) Scripture only commands &quot;X&quot; to be baptized.[/quote:8fad6d7e58]

This might be okay if your other two texts involved even an implicit command to us, but they do not.

[quote:8fad6d7e58](2) The Regulative principle of worship says that we can only do what is commanded by Scripture. Even if it is not expreslly prohibited.[/quote:8fad6d7e58]

If you are going to assert this, you need to remember that those in covenant are expressly commanded to initiate their children into the covenant. There is no abrogation of this command in Scripture. Therefore, you must conclude another alternative if you are going to cite the regulative principle.

[quote:8fad6d7e58](Therefore) Therefore, we can only baptize &quot;X&quot; even though no verse prohibits a non-X from being baptized.[/quote:8fad6d7e58]

Your conclusion does not hold up since Scripture does not command only your &quot;X&quot; to be baptized.

[quote:8fad6d7e58]Call &quot;X&quot; whatever you like if you do not like the short hand term &quot;Disciple&quot; the point is that &quot;X&quot; is a person who meets the qualifications as laid out in Scripture in the verses mentioned above.[/quote:8fad6d7e58]

I don't remember ever arguing against believer's baptism. So I am not sure why you would think I am not advocating your requirements. But your requirements are only so for an adult believer. Clearly, since there is no command to discontinue a child's membership in the covenant, then they must have the same requirement placed on baptism as was on circumcision. Covenant kids are to receive the covenant sign.

[quote:8fad6d7e58]Also, I have never faulted infant baptist for baptizing a non-regenerate and so no need to refute that arguement since noone here is arguing against infant baptism based on the you &quot;baptize non-regenerate people&quot; arguement.[/quote:8fad6d7e58]

So your whole beef is that infant baptism is not commanded? That is easy enough to overcome. Simply decide to believe that circumcision and baptism are linked and you will have it licked. See Col. 2:11-12 for details. Circumcision was commanded for all in covenant with God and baptism became a sign of the new covenant administration.

Argument goes like this.

1) The circumcision of infants in the OT was required for covenant inclusion.

2) Baptism became, not replaced, the NT sign for inclusion in the covenant.

Conclusion: Baptism of infants is required for covenant inclusion based upon the OT command.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Roldan

I tried to stay away from this discussion but could not any longer due to some outlandish arguments.

Tyler, I know that you have been researching the RP and think that is excellent. BUT the way you try to use it as an argument is totally unconvincing and misinterpretated. Please do not allow your new found zealous discovery of a principle run away with your thinking before researching thoroughly, I am only telling you this to save you any more embarassement because KC and Paul have annhialated your use of the RP as an argument.:tongue:

To use your RP argument as well. Where is there a COMMAND to pesent, dedicate a child of a believer ANY WHERE is scripture?

To anyone, what happened to Pastorway? He never responded to the questions I presented.uzzled:


----------



## Tertullian

*Response to Paul's objections,*

Syllogism for Discipleship Baptism. Discipleship Baptist that is that is defined by Reformed Baptist as outlined in the London Baptist Confession of 1689.


"X"= A person who meets the qualification of faith and repentance. (Mathew 28:19, Acts 2:28, 8:36-37)


(1) Scripture commands &quot;X&quot; to be baptized with no reference to "non-X".
(2) Scripture never commands or prohibits "non-X" to be baptized.
(3) The Regulative principle of worship says that we can only do what is commanded by Scripture even if it is not expressly prohibited. 
(4) Therefore, we can only baptize &quot;X&quot; even though no verse prohibits a non-X from being baptized.


The objections to this syllogism so far have been intriguing and interesting but ultimately do not overrule what has been said in the syllogism for various reasons.


Paul, seems to object to "premise 1" on the basis that if these are the qualifications for baptism they are also the qualifications for salvation and so infants cannot be saved. The problem with this objection is that it fails to recognize that these verses are addressed to adults who have been regenerated and has no reference to either infant baptism or salvation. These verses do not prohibit infant salvation which can be inferred from other parts of Scripture and they do not prohibit infant baptism which cannot be infered from the rest of Scripture (or does it, may be the arguements have just not been stated yet). Therefore, Paul's objection rather than contradict the first premise ultimately establishes the fact that when Scripture speaks of baptism it has no reference to infants. 


Paul, also seems to challenge the "premise 3" when he writes about "in Church" and so on. The problem is that if Paul is right he has only proved that infant baptism is inconsistent with the regulative principle of worship because Paul is defending infant baptism by dening the regulative principle of worhsip, which is what my syllogism seeks to prove. All, I can say to Paul is that if the regulative principle does not apply to baptism than why does he have a problem with how Reformed Baptist have preferred to administer the sacrament? 


Paul also challenges "premise 2" by an unstated and unargued assumption that the recipients of circumcision must be the same as baptism because circumcision is identical to baptism. 


There are two objections to Paul's argument one fatal and one troublesome.


The troublesome one Paul brought up by Pual himself is the obvious fact that not even Presbyterians believe that the recipients of the signs are identical. 


Paul attempts to refute this obvious counter objection. Paul writes:


[quote:d3fe245c81] Moreover, we are covenant theologians, and we view the covenants as additive. ..

But you will protest! &quot;Where is the command to give the sign to women in the OT?&quot; We will reply that the NT gives us new revelation that women are now to receive the covenant sign. 

That would look like: 

1) Women may now receive the covenant sign 
2) X(infant girl) is a women 
3) Therefore X may receive the covenant sign. [/quote:d3fe245c81] 

Note: premise one of Paul's arguement is false. The essense is &quot;Disciple&quot; and the gener is the &quot;accident&quot; on the matter of whom receives baptism- so yes women receive the sign but not because they are women but because they are Disciples. That is why not every women gets a sign. Hence, the real premise should read:

1) Women who are Disciples should receive the Covenant sign.
2) Infants can be women.

Note it does not follow that infants receive the sign logicially- the proof for this will have to be established on other grounds. 

Therefore, let us look at Paul's other arguement. 

When Paul says that the New Covenant is only "additive not subtractive" he must mean that the "New Covenant is more glorious than the Old Covenant" because if he meant something else like nothing was abrogated when the Covenant passed from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant, we can easily offer the counterfactual of animal sacrifices during worship services. 

Now I think Paul's gap filler is extremely dangerous because it runs like this, (1) we can assume what we think a Covenant would look like if it was more glorious, (2) all genders of infants receiving the sign is more glorious (3) therefore we can assume that since males infants had the sign of circumcision in the Old we can assume that in the New since it is more glorious we can give baptism to male and female infants.

Now a Reformed Baptist could object to both premises in Paul's argument. They could reject the to (premise 1) since this is a clear violation of the regulative principle of worship because it is a type of will worship that the regulative principle seeks to destroy that is why Reformed churches do not accept the Roman Catholic argument that runs- well we do not have an express command to use alters in worship but I will assume that the New Covenant does since the New Covenant is more glorious. So if we accepted premise (1) of Paul's argument we would have to say that some will worship is alright and that the regulative principle is therefore not true.

Also reformed Baptist could object to "premise 2" since, using the rules of the whole syllogism, we can chose a criteria outside of Scripture like what we think a more glorious Covenant would look like, Reformed Baptist simply say that Discipleship baptism is what a more glorious Covenant would look like and so we ought to interpret Scripture as teaching Discipleship baptism. 

Therefore, Paul has asked a Reformed Baptist question but not been able to answer it. So now we know that not even Presbyterian's are consistent with their interpretation that Col 2:11-12 teaches identity between those who receive the signs in both Covenants. Since they disagree that only males ought to be baptized- and then try to justify female infant baptism on the basis of will worship. 

Yet the fatal objection is that, I deny this identity so Paul needs to prove this truth not assume it in this debate.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian


----------



## Tertullian

Syllogism for Discipleship Baptism as defined by Reformed Baptist as outlined in the London Baptist Confession of 1689.

"X"= A person who meets the qualification of faith and repentance. (Mathew 28:19, Acts 2:28, 8:36-37)

(1) Scripture commands &quot;X&quot; to be baptized with no reference to "non-X".
(2) Scripture never commands or prohibits "non-X" to be baptized.
(3) The Regulative principle of worship says that we can only do what is commanded by Scripture even if it is not expressly prohibited. 
(4) Therefore, we can only baptize &quot;X&quot; even though no verse prohibits a non-X from being baptized.




since KC, seems to have left premises 1 and 3 alone, and Paul's objection to me seem to be powerless to overrule the argument let us move on to the stronger objections that both Paul and KC both more or less agree on. 


Challenging "premise 2" KC writes:


[quote:6301041b4a] That is easy enough to overcome. Simply decide to believe that circumcision and baptism are linked and you will have it licked. See Col. 2:11-12 for details. Circumcision was commanded for all in covenant with God and baptism became a sign of the new covenant administration. 

Argument goes like this. 

1) The circumcision of infants in the OT was required for covenant inclusion. 

2) Baptism became, not replaced, the NT sign for inclusion in the covenant. 

Conclusion: Baptism of infants is required for covenant inclusion based upon the OT command. [/quote:6301041b4a]

The problem is that Reformed Baptist will not simply decide but demand proof that the recipients of circumcision and baptism are identical. Citing Col. 2:11-12 is not helpful because a look at the passage reveals a silence about such an identity.

Paul was reminding these gentiles what they had in Christ for they were not born of the circumcision?
[b:6301041b4a]11 [/b:6301041b4a]and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; [b:6301041b4a]12 [/b:6301041b4a] having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. [b:6301041b4a] 13 [/b:6301041b4a] When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions 
Now was it "baptism" or the "circumcision of Christ" which allowed the Gentiles to become part of God's people even though they had not been circumcised? I think verse 13 answers that question, that it was the "circumcision of Christ" that is what gave the Gentiles the circumcision without hands and so gave them entrance into the Covenant community. 

Even Karl Barth recognized this when he wrote:

[quote:6301041b4a] Many expositors have tried to see in this circumcision Christian baptism, regarding this as the New Testament equivalent to the Old Testament rite called circumcision. If they are right, then in view of the lofty predicates ascribed to this circumcision in v. 11 it is clearly settled that we have in baptism a means, instrument, or channel of grace. There are serious objections, however, to the equation of this circumcision with baptism. Is not the statement: "You are baptized in Him" (along with: You are dead and you are raised again in Him), without any parallel in the New Testament? Even with the strongest concentration on its deeper sense, can baptism, which is in any case a human act performed with water, be described so simply as a work not done with human hands? In what tolerable sense can the statement in v. 11: "You are risen...," when in v. 12 the power which effects their resurrection is expressly said to be that of faith in the operation of God who raised Jesus from the dead, so that it cannot be described as baptism. Finally, how odd it is if the whole attack on the rituals commended by the false teachers depends as the decisive point on the argument that they are not needed because in this respect Christians are best provided for in baptism! Positively, when the clause in c. 12a, which undoubtedly refers to baptism, calls it a being buried with Christ, is it not point back to a preceding dying with Him? All these difficulties disappear if one assumes that the circumcision effected on Christians- described in an expression peculiar to Colossians but most appropriate to his thesis- there is denoted the crucifixion of Christ which took place for Christians and embraces them. Christians receive a share in the fullness of the Godhead. This was the work done on them, not by human hands in the body of the flesh in which they existed was put off and set aside like an old garment. If v. 11 speaks of the death of Christ which embraces Christians, it relation to the parallel v. 12, which speaks of their resurrection with Christ, is meaningful; it is also one which is found else where in Paul. The reference to Christ death is a clear and cogent argument against the false teachers by whose onset the Colossians community was threatened. To call the death of Christ which embraces Christians His circumcision, i.e, the circumcision effect by God in Him, is justifiable in a defense against Jewish-Gnostic ritualism, in which (cf. Col. 3:11) the demand for circumcision probably played a prominent part. It is also justifiable on the ground that herein- in accordance with the meaning of Old Testament circumcisions (cf. Tit 2:14)- God purified a people for His possession. On this view (but only on this view) one can also see why there is in v. 12a a resemblance of baptism as the burial of Christians with Christ. This resemblance is not an argument. As in Rom 6:2-4 it gives emphasis to the real argument. It is to this effect: Even in your own lives as Christian you being with the event in which you burial with Christ, and there with you liberation from all autonomous attempts at deification of salvation, was... confirmed and registered by that which yourseleves desired and received from the community. Hold fast to this! ( P 119-120) [/quote:6301041b4a] 

Based on this reasons the identity of those who receive circumcision and baptism cannot be substantiated by these verses. 


To the glory of Christ-Tertullian


----------



## Tertullian

[quote:00106ac918][i:00106ac918]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:00106ac918]
I tried to stay away from this discussion but could not any longer due to some outlandish arguments.

Tyler, I know that you have been researching the RP and think that is excellent. BUT the way you try to use it as an argument is totally unconvincing and misinterpretated. Please do not allow your new found zealous discovery of a principle run away with your thinking before researching thoroughly, I am only telling you this to save you any more embarassement because KC and Paul have annhialated your use of the RP as an argument.:tongue:

To use your RP argument as well. Where is there a COMMAND to pesent, dedicate a child of a believer ANY WHERE is scripture?[/quote:00106ac918]

Roldan, can you please explain how my objections to Paul or KC objections does not work? If not than I simply must note that It is very suspicious when a person starts accusing his opponents of fallacies but never actually points them out because it is a symptom that a person is angry that they do not have a counter argument to combat a position they think is right but cannot find a reason to prove it.

Hope to see you Monday...

Lord bless... your reforming brother

Tertullian


----------



## kceaster

*Tyler....*

[quote:f58c6d5d81]Syllogism for Discipleship Baptism as defined by Reformed Baptist as outlined in the London Baptist Confession of 1689.

"X"= A person who meets the qualification of faith and repentance. (Mathew 28:19, Acts 2:28, 8:36-37)

(1) Scripture commands &quot;X&quot; to be baptized with no reference to "non-X".
(2) Scripture never commands or prohibits "non-X" to be baptized.
(3) The Regulative principle of worship says that we can only do what is commanded by Scripture even if it is not expressly prohibited. 
(4) Therefore, we can only baptize &quot;X&quot; even though no verse prohibits a non-X from being baptized.[/quote:f58c6d5d81]

As I said before, show me in your two Acts passages where there is any implicit or explicit command to the church as to whom they are to baptize. While these may be precedent in case law, they are not the law upon which the precedent rests.

[quote:f58c6d5d81]since KC, seems to have left premises 1 and 3 alone, and Paul's objection to me seem to be powerless to overrule the argument let us move on to the stronger objections that both Paul and KC both more or less agree on.[/quote:f58c6d5d81]

I didn't leave 1 alone because I stated that your premise was not proved by your texts in Acts. If you are only left with Matthew, then your &quot;X&quot; is explicitly a disciple. In the immediate context, a disciple is one who is baptized and taught.

Your argument must then next address what a disciple is and what a disciple is not. Invariably, you will always look at a mature example or statements apprehending, &quot;If you do X, you are my disciple.&quot; Unfortunately, the latter statement is not a requirement for becoming a disciple, but remaining a disciple. A disciple, in the final analysis, is one who is to be taught, nothing more, nothing less. These are the ones who are also baptized. 

Further, I have never left your point three alone, because my history on this board shows very well that I hold very closely to the RPW. Again, it is unfortunate that you cannot see the command from the OT to include infants, which was not abrogated in the NT and therefore still applies.

It is therefore inappropriate for you to say that I have not dealt with your premises. You simply did not care for my answers, but they are a valid counter-argument.

[quote:f58c6d5d81]Challenging "premise 2" KC writes:


[quote:f58c6d5d81] That is easy enough to overcome. Simply decide to believe that circumcision and baptism are linked and you will have it licked. See Col. 2:11-12 for details. Circumcision was commanded for all in covenant with God and baptism became a sign of the new covenant administration. 

Argument goes like this. 

1) The circumcision of infants in the OT was required for covenant inclusion. 

2) Baptism became, not replaced, the NT sign for inclusion in the covenant. 

Conclusion: Baptism of infants is required for covenant inclusion based upon the OT command. [/quote:f58c6d5d81]

The problem is that Reformed Baptist will not simply decide but demand proof that the recipients of circumcision and baptism are identical. Citing Col. 2:11-12 is not helpful because a look at the passage reveals a silence about such an identity.

Paul was reminding these gentiles what they had in Christ for they were not born of the circumcision?
[b:f58c6d5d81]11 [/b:f58c6d5d81]and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; [b:f58c6d5d81]12 [/b:f58c6d5d81] having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. [b:f58c6d5d81] 13 [/b:f58c6d5d81] When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions[/quote:f58c6d5d81]

That in which you have quoted, is all the proof you need. The only way for it to become clear to you is if you see these verses in the context of Scripture, not Baptist theology.

Two things are unavoidable:

1. Infants were included in the covenant in the OT by their circumcision.

2. If infants are to be included in the covenant in the NT, they must have a sign administered to them.

[quote:f58c6d5d81]Now was it "baptism" or the "circumcision of Christ" which allowed the Gentiles to become part of God's people even though they had not been circumcised? I think verse 13 answers that question, that it was the "circumcision of Christ" that is what gave the Gentiles the circumcision without hands and so gave them entrance into the Covenant community.[/quote:f58c6d5d81]

And as Paul's thoughts continue IN THE SAME SENTENCE, he shows that the circumcision made without hands is attached to the Spirit's work in water baptism. Complete the thought. You are dividing verse 11 from verse 12 instead of seeing it as one sentence.

Now, a follow on question. What is the circumcision of Christ? 

[quote:f58c6d5d81]Even Karl Barth recognized this when he wrote:

Based on this reasons the identity of those who receive circumcision and baptism cannot be substantiated by these verses.[/quote:f58c6d5d81]

Unfortunately you have not proved that my arguments do not stand. You certainly will not gain any favor by quoting Barth.

If you think it through, I think it will become apparent to you. But you can't look at baptism as a baptist does. The sign of baptism is not the all important thing. Generation after generation merely look at the sign instead of what is signified by it. The baptism that baptists practice is merely a water rite. Once this is satisfied, they are satisfied. This is no different than the way Israel looked at circumcision. If the outward sign was applied, all was good.

However, the outward sign is only what we see. If it is not completed inwardly by the Spirit, that circumcision made without hands, then the person merely got wet. More than that, the person, if they are unregerate, has just received a sign of the covenant, which they have now spurned. And, as in the Supper, they will be held accountable for their spurning.

Get past the sign. The sign may be applied externally to those in the external community of faith. Only in the elect, is the sign applied internally, the circumcision made without hands.

If you view baptism as only an outward sign, you will never see it for what it is. It is because you only see the outward, that you cannot see why infants are to be baptized. Because the final conclusion you must come to is that the outward baptism is salvific, which we all know is an error.

Only what the Spirit does on the inside is what is salvific. He does not depend upon the sign, the sign depends upon Him.

Because this is true, we can see that those of the circumcision and those of baptism are linked, not by the sign, but the thing signified.

And because that is true, infants of believers should be baptized, just as God commanded the patriarchs to circumcise.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Roldan

[quote:9fcc8beb3e][i:9fcc8beb3e]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:9fcc8beb3e]
[quote:9fcc8beb3e][i:9fcc8beb3e]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:9fcc8beb3e]
I tried to stay away from this discussion but could not any longer due to some outlandish arguments.

Tyler, I know that you have been researching the RP and think that is excellent. BUT the way you try to use it as an argument is totally unconvincing and misinterpretated. Please do not allow your new found zealous discovery of a principle run away with your thinking before researching thoroughly, I am only telling you this to save you any more embarassement because KC and Paul have annhialated your use of the RP as an argument.:tongue:

To use your RP argument as well. Where is there a COMMAND to pesent, dedicate a child of a believer ANY WHERE is scripture?[/quote:9fcc8beb3e]

Roldan, can you please explain how my objections to Paul or KC objections does not work? If not than I simply must note that It is very suspicious when a person starts accusing his opponents of fallacies but never actually points them out because it is a symptom that a person is angry that they do not have a counter argument to combat a position they think is right but cannot find a reason to prove it.

Hope to see you Monday...

Lord bless... your reforming brother

Tertullian [/quote:9fcc8beb3e]

I'm sorry that you did not understand my post. I CLEARLY stated my objection to your RP argument. Did you overlook the question that is relevant to your arguments? Please refer to it again and please answer it. Remember answer the question according to your Zwinglian RP view. 

See you Monday. 

Your Reformed brother, Roldan:bigsmile:

P.S. Tyler you know me man. There is no anger involved here, Grace and Peac

[Edited on 3-12-2004 by Roldan]


----------



## Tertullian

*Roldan,*

I do not teach baby dedications, I teach Baby blessings. That has been the historic Puritan Baptist practice.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 3-13-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Roldan

[quote:599430bd25][i:599430bd25]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:599430bd25]
I do not teach baby dedications, I teach Baby blessings. That has been the historic Puritan Baptist practice.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian [/quote:599430bd25]

Dedications, presentations, exhortations, blessings whatever you may wish to call it, again according to your view where is this specifically commanded in scripture?

[Edited on 3-12-2004 by Roldan]


----------



## Tertullian

[quote:1d28bad27d][i:1d28bad27d]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:1d28bad27d]
[quote:1d28bad27d][i:1d28bad27d]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:1d28bad27d]
I do not teach baby dedications, I teach Baby blessings. That has been the historic Puritan Baptist practice.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian [/quote:1d28bad27d]

Dedications, presentations, exhortations, blessings whatever you may wish to call it, again according to your view where is this specifically commanded in scripture?

[Edited on 3-12-2004 by Roldan] [/quote:1d28bad27d]

We follow the example of Christ who blessed the Children.


----------



## Roldan

[quote:76daf89ce2][i:76daf89ce2]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:76daf89ce2]
[quote:76daf89ce2][i:76daf89ce2]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:76daf89ce2]
[quote:76daf89ce2][i:76daf89ce2]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:76daf89ce2]
I do not teach baby dedications, I teach Baby blessings. That has been the historic Puritan Baptist practice.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian [/quote:76daf89ce2]

Dedications, presentations, exhortations, blessings whatever you may wish to call it, again according to your view where is this specifically commanded in scripture?

[Edited on 3-12-2004 by Roldan] [/quote:76daf89ce2]

We follow the example of Christ who blessed the Children. [/quote:76daf89ce2]


Tert, you know as well as I that the example of Christ blessing children is in NO WAY A COMMAND bless children in Worship.

Did Christ bless those children in a Worship service? Of course not.

Were those children He blessed children of believers? We don't know. unlikely though.

So why not admit that the baptist when screaming &quot;Regulative Principle&quot; are proving to much and do not practice their own objections to Reformed RP.

My point is, to use the RP as a argument against infant baptism is unhelpful and to me an insult to the intelligence.

Bottom line you have NO command expressed in scripture to bless, dedicate, present or whatever baptist want to call it. Therefore please discontinue that argument for it becomes devestating to your own position.

With meekness and a heart to help, Roldan


----------



## Tertullian

[quote:6d1d663a5f][i:6d1d663a5f]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:6d1d663a5f]
[quote:6d1d663a5f][i:6d1d663a5f]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:6d1d663a5f]
[quote:6d1d663a5f][i:6d1d663a5f]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:6d1d663a5f]
[quote:6d1d663a5f][i:6d1d663a5f]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:6d1d663a5f]
I do not teach baby dedications, I teach Baby blessings. That has been the historic Puritan Baptist practice.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian [/quote:6d1d663a5f]

Dedications, presentations, exhortations, blessings whatever you may wish to call it, again according to your view where is this specifically commanded in scripture?

[Edited on 3-12-2004 by Roldan] [/quote:6d1d663a5f]

We follow the example of Christ who blessed the Children. [/quote:6d1d663a5f]


Tert, you know as well as I that the example of Christ blessing children is in NO WAY A COMMAND bless children in Worship.

Did Christ bless those children in a Worship service? Of course not.

Were those children He blessed children of believers? We don't know. unlikely though.

So why not admit that the baptist when screaming &quot;Regulative Principle&quot; are proving to much and do not practice their own objections to Reformed RP.

My point is, to use the RP as a argument against infant baptism is unhelpful and to me an insult to the intelligence.

Bottom line you have NO command expressed in scripture to bless, dedicate, present or whatever baptist want to call it. Therefore please discontinue that argument for it becomes devestating to your own position.

With meekness and a heart to help, Roldan [/quote:6d1d663a5f]

Roldan, I will not discontinue an arguement because you ask me to, please prove it wrong, because if you are right I will stop baby blessing as well, instead of saying alright Rholdan both sides break the regulative principle so go a head an continue... I would rather end baby blessing than worship God with my imagination!

Also, you misunderstand the regulative principle of worship if you think that we cannot follow an example of Christ, I mean Christ command his Disciples to bring the children to him to be blessed and that is what Reformed Baptist do, namely, follow Christ command. Obviously Paul and your &quot;In church&quot; arguement fails to understand the &quot;circumstance&quot; aspect of the regulatice principle because you treat the in church outside church as an element but where we the Church worship God is actually a circumstance not an element. 

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 3-12-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Tertullian

*Paul,*

[b:1a1b083d53]Thanks for the response, I always enjoy talking with you. I know that probably nothing I say could ever change your view but I still think that the point of debate is not always to win an arguement but to help to challenge the other person to compare his position with Scripture and I think that this debate is accomplishing that. Nonethelesss I have a few things to say in reply to your objections. [/b:1a1b083d53] 

[quote:1a1b083d53][quote:1a1b083d53] Tyler,

Well, I thought my arguments were very damaging, but since you choose to protest I can only tighten the noose harder. 

First let's deal with your syllogism. You write: 
[quote:1a1b083d53]

(1) Scripture commands &quot;X&quot; to be baptized with no reference to "non-X". 
(2) Scripture never commands or prohibits "non-X" to be baptized. 
(3) The Regulative principle of worship says that we can only do what is commanded by Scripture even if it is not expressly prohibited. 
(4) Therefore, we can only baptize &quot;X&quot; even though no verse prohibits a non-X from being baptized. [/quote:1a1b083d53]


Let's note first. Premise two is a negative premise. To translate it and make it clearer it is saying: 

No Scripture is a commander or prohibitor of non-X to be baptized. 

What is the problem? Well, this is a fallacious syllogism. One cannot have an affirmative conclusion with a negative premise. Therefore, do I even need to continue? Well, technically no. But it's Friday...so let's have more fun.... [/quote:1a1b083d53] 

[b:1a1b083d53] Actually my conclusion was a negative one but I can see how you could interpret it as being a positive one, but obvious I am not trying to prove that adult disciples can be baptized since we both affirm that but I am trying to prove that infants and other non-Disciples cannot be baptized. I concluded that we can only baptize group "X" and never baptize group "non=X" even though no verse prohibits non-X from being baptized so it really was a negative conclusion. [/b:1a1b083d53] 

[quote:1a1b083d53][quote:1a1b083d53]

Paul, seems to object to "premise 1" on the basis that if these are the qualifications for baptism they are also the qualifications for salvation and so infants cannot be saved [/quote:1a1b083d53]


That's right. 

[quote:1a1b083d53]

The problem with this objection is that it fails to recognize that these verses are addressed to adults who have been regenerated and has no reference to either infant baptism or salvation. 
[/quote:1a1b083d53]


And are the baptism verses, &quot;repent and be baptised&quot; addressed to regenerated adults? Also, Scripture commands that what one must do in order to be saved is &quot;repent and believe.&quot; No where does command or prohibit what non-X (an infant) must do. But Tyler says: 

[quote:1a1b083d53] These verses do not prohibit infant salvation which can be inferred from other parts of Scripture 
[/quote:1a1b083d53]


Now, what have I been saying? Why does Tyler get to use inference when it suites him? [/quote:1a1b083d53]

[b:1a1b083d53] I am not just making stuff up, we probably could both agree that Scripture does warrant the inference of infant salvation. In fact, I think the eveidence might be stronger than inferrence but I for one have not problem with inference persay so long as it is warranted. [/b:1a1b083d53]

[quote:1a1b083d53] I have argued, and there have been thousands of papers written in support of infant baptism by the greatest theological minds ever, that we can infer infant baptism. But Tyler states about these inferences: 

[quote:1a1b083d53] they do not prohibit infant baptism which cannot be inferred from the rest of Scripture (or does it, may be the arguments have just not been stated yet). [/quote:1a1b083d53]


Tyler knows very well the arguments have been stated. So, upon analysis, what this debate boils down to is: if infant baptism can be inferred from Scripture then we would not violate the regulative principle. Infant baptism can be inferred. Therefore we do not violate the regulative principle. 

Let me break it down further. What Tyler's argument really amounts to is this: 

if infant baptism is true then they have no problem with the regulative principle. 

And this brings us back logically, as you'll be bound to say, to the original debate over infant baptism. You see, Tyler must FIRST PROVE that infant baptism is not taught in Scripture before he can use the RP argument! Therefore, it boils down to a begging of the question. Tylers argument is now not very impressive: 

if credo-baptism is true then the regulative principle supports it 

Who's impressed with this?! [/quote:1a1b083d53]

[b:1a1b083d53] This is not a fair assessment of my argument from the regulative principle my argument states that the burden of proof is on the paedobaptist not the Reformed Baptist to prove infant baptism, and of course my argument is that no where in Scripture does it command infant baptism, but only if you accept the regulative principle of worship would that be a problem for not practicing it. For if you did not hold to the regulative principle who cares how you administer the sacrament we can add to God's commands. 
KC, has understood that point and that is why he moved to the next logical level and tried to argue that infant baptism was commanded I hope that you will come up to join us in level two soon so that you can offer your proof that God commanded it. [/b:1a1b083d53]


[quote:1a1b083d53] Let's continue...shall we? About my challenge of Tylers INTERPRETATION of the RP he writes: 

[quote:1a1b083d53] The problem is that if Paul is right he has only proved that infant baptism is inconsistent with the regulative principle of worship because Paul is defending infant baptism by denying the regulative principle of worship, which is what my syllogism seeks to prove. 
[/quote:1a1b083d53]

Now, is this what I have been saying? I have challenges Tyler's INTERPRETATION of the RP. This is because I have shown, for ONE example, that baptism in the NT were IMMEDIATELY done. they did not wait for the elders to &quot;grill&quot; potential baptizies. So, far from showing that infant baptism is inconsistant with the RP (which I addressed above) I have actually shown that Tyler (or his church) are the ones who are inconsistant. They need to engage in IMMEDIATE baptisms; and furthermore these baptisms ought not be done IN CHURCH. Obvioulsy since there is no command to baptize IN A CHURCH and actually all the evidence we have are examples of baptisms that take place OUTSIDE of A CHURCH. 

He then throws out a red herring, but this dog won't hunt. [/quote:1a1b083d53]

[b:1a1b083d53]Actually I am not sure why you think I or my church grills incomers, this is just something the theological enemies of Baptist made up about Reformed Baptist but its basis for this critique is in the critic's imaginations not the London Baptist confession. Furthermore, the "in Church, out church" is a circumstance, I encourage please tell me that whom receives the sacrament is a circumstance to, and than we can make more progress I this area. [/b:1a1b083d53] 

[quote:1a1b083d53][quote:1a1b083d53]
All, I can say to Paul is that if the regulative principle does not apply to baptism than why does he have a problem with how Reformed Baptist have preferred to administer the sacrament? 
[/quote:1a1b083d53]


Tyler, it should be obvious. It is becasue you only give the sign of the covenant to half the members of the covenant. It is because you, a mere man, would seek to have the very children Christ blesses and says, &quot;do not hinder them from me,&quot; give a &quot;credible&quot; profession in order to be allowed into a covenant that God has allowed them in! That's my problem. [/quote:1a1b083d53]

[b:1a1b083d53] I am only worshipping God how he prescribes rather than adding my imagination into the worship, furthermore, Christ blessing children has nothing to do with baptism, not the Disciples tried to hinder the children- so obviously they were not in the practice of baptizing infants. [/b:1a1b083d53] 

[quote:1a1b083d53][quote:1a1b083d53] Tyler now turns his guns to my argument to show that it is (1) troublesome and (2) fatal. We shall see if both shots hit their target. Dealing with (1) he writes: 

[quote:1a1b083d53] Paul also challenges "premise 2" by an unstated and unargued assumption that the recipients of circumcision must be the same as baptism because circumcision is identical to baptism 
[/quote:1a1b083d53]


...and... 

[quote:1a1b083d53]he troublesome one Paul brought up by Pual himself is the obvious fact that not even Presbyterians believe that the recipients of the signs are identical. 
[/quote:1a1b083d53]


Now, by &quot;identical&quot; I mean that the children of covenant members are also considered covenant members. No presbyterian I know of disagrees. SO, so far Tyler is setting up a straw man. This wil, become more evident. [/quote:1a1b083d53] [/quote:1a1b083d53]

[b:1a1b083d53] In the old Covenant the essence of the recipients of circumcision was male and the accident was age, in contrast to this Presbyterians argue that the recipients are both female and children and the essence is on the faith of the parents until the child is old enough. Notice that the two recipients are not identical and the reason for them getting the sacrament is not identical. [/b:1a1b083d53]

[quote:1a1b083d53][quote:1a1b083d53]
Note: premise one of Paul's arguement is false. The essense is &quot;Disciple&quot; and the gener is the &quot;accident&quot; on the matter of whom receives baptism- so yes women receive the sign but not because they are women but because they are Disciples. That is why not every women gets a sign. Hence, the real premise should read: 

1) Women who are Disciples should receive the Covenant sign. 
2) Infants can be women. 

Note it does not follow that infants receive the sign logicially- the proof for this will have to be established on other grounds. 
[/quote:1a1b083d53]


It should be obvious to an interpreter who wants to read his oponant in the best light that my argument has the hidden phrase &quot;women who are in the covenant should recieve the sign (because the bible now tells us this).&quot; X(infant women) is in the covenant. Therefore, she should revieve the covenant sign. Again, Tyler should know this. He should have delt with the strong version of what he knew I meant. [/quote:1a1b083d53] 

[b:1a1b083d53] First off, just because a women is in covenant does not mean that they should receive the sign- see women in the old Covenant- obviously the qualification is Disciple and secondly I did change your premise to disciple. [/b:1a1b083d53]

[quote:1a1b083d53] It should be obvious that I didn't mean ALL women indescriminatly! Why would he interpret me that way then? 

[/quote:1a1b083d53]

[b:1a1b083d53] I can only go by what you tell me. [/b:1a1b083d53]

[quote:1a1b083d53] According to my above argument it does follw...logically. Now, what Tyler has done is again assumed (read his P1) that ONLY disciples (as he defines it) who are women should get the sign. [/quote:1a1b083d53]

[b:1a1b083d53] Again, I do not want to play with words, Disciple is just a short hand for someone who meets the qualifications of repentance and faith, in fact, on another thread you defined disciple as someone who believes and I accept that definition. [/b:1a1b083d53] 

[quote:1a1b083d53] But it should be obvious to even a child that this is what we are debating! So, again, Tyler's argument is: if paedoism is false then only disciples should get the sign of the covenant. This is unimpressive. [/quote:1a1b083d53]

[b:1a1b083d53] My argument is that it does not follow that if women who are disciples get the sacrament, infants since they are women should get the sacrament, for the obvious reason that there are to categories of women one who gets it and one who does not and it is logically possible that female infants fail into the category that does not get the sacrament hence we need more arguments to decide not arguments that only prove that it is logically possible that female infant baptism could or could not be true. [/b:1a1b083d53] 

[quote:1a1b083d53] Now for (2). 

[quote:1a1b083d53] When Paul says that the New Covenant is only "additive not subtractive" he must mean that the "New Covenant is more glorious than the Old Covenant" because if he meant something else like nothing was abrogated when the Covenant passed from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant, we can easily offer the counterfactual of animal sacrifices during worship services. [/quote:1a1b083d53]


Yes it is more glorious...MORE inclusive, as well! Furthermore, who says sacrifice was abrogated? [/quote:1a1b083d53]

[b:1a1b083d53]The Westminster Confession says that animal sacrafices have been aboraged. [/b:1a1b083d53]

[quote:1a1b083d53]Christ is our sacrifice! Thus blood atonement is still required! So we can see an odd neo-dispensationalism comming from Tyler. [/quote:1a1b083d53] 

[b:1a1b083d53] Not only Tyler but the Westminster we might add and the book of Hebrews (see chapter 8) say that they have been aboraged and we are no longer to have many priest and many sacrafices but they have been restricted to one. [/b:1a1b083d53]

[quote:1a1b083d53] Even the very fact of blood atonement still being required for the remission of sin is evidence of the CONTINUITY...now, that sacrifiece was done once for all and is for all men not just jews; but this shows that the NC is more glorious and inclusive! [/quote:1a1b083d53]

[b:1a1b083d53]It is more glorious but it is flaw to say that inclusive is more glorious- indeed the sacrifices and priests have been restricted and excludes all but one, but though the Old was more inclusive at this point, the New Covenant is still more glorious. That is why you need to rest your argument with the first premise merely the New Covenant is more glorious than the Old which we can both agree with. [/b:1a1b083d53] 

[quote:1a1b083d53] He continues to show my fatal errors: 

[quote:1a1b083d53] Now I think Paul's gap filler is extremely dangerous because it runs like this, (1) we can assume what we think a Covenant would look like if it was more glorious, (2) all genders of infants receiving the sign is more glorious (3) therefore we can assume that since males infants had the sign of circumcision in the Old we can assume that in the New since it is more glorious we can give baptism to male and female infants. 
[/quote:1a1b083d53]


Was that my argument? Wasn't my argument that all genders of covenant members are to recieve the sign and children are still covenant members? I need to see this revoked. That's right, that's my covenantal grid. My presupposition. [/quote:1a1b083d53] [/quote:1a1b083d53]

[b:1a1b083d53] No, you need to prove that circumcision is identical to baptism (which I reject) you need to prove that the command to only circumcise infants has been revoked (which you have just assumed based on what you conception of a better covenant would look like, which is an extremely dangerous form of interpretation and will worship) You are not assuming continuality (you are assuming replacement theology, cirucimcison is replaced by baptism) and then assuming that God has not continued to obey what he called a primitive patricidal command but has corrected his mistake and started to baptize both sexes, which you know not from Scripture but from what you feel is what a more glorious Covenant should look like. [/b:1a1b083d53] 

[quote:1a1b083d53] I assume continuity unless otherwise revoked. [/quote:1a1b083d53] 

[b:1a1b083d53] than stop assuming replacement theology and stop baptizing female infants. [/b:1a1b083d53] 

[quote:1a1b083d53] I don't assume, as Tyler seems to, a dispensation appraoch. That is, unless repeated in the new we cannot assume continuity.[/quote:1a1b083d53]

[b:1a1b083d53] I assume basic continuity between the Covenants I assume God still has the right to choice who get the sacraments of His Covenants. [/b:1a1b083d53] 

[quote:1a1b083d53] Therefore, we have seen that Tyler's argument has been now defeated. His RP argument is a lone soldier satnding atop a mountain. But what he doesn't see is that his sword is made of paper and his shield is made of glass, and the real battle is going down on the field below him. 

-Paul [/quote:1a1b083d53] 

[b:1a1b083d53] Actually I stole this argument from an appendex in the London Baptist Confession and it has stood for the last couple of centuries and most of your rebuttals of Discipleship baptism are against the regulative principle of worship or are just artificial name calling (ex. Dispensational method vs. my Covenantal method and so on) 

To the Glory of Christ-Tertullian [/b:1a1b083d53]


----------



## Tertullian

KC,

I really have enjoyed this convo I hope you have enjoyed it as well. Seeing that we might be nearing the end, I thought I would wrapp up your convo, since I do not think you can produce an arguement from Scripture that supports the doctrine that baptism is circumiscion (Col 2:11-12 I do not think teache that, for reasons listed below). 

I can only conclude that if I was in your shows faced with the regulative principle I would certainly be digging for an express verse that teaches that infants can be baptized but on failing to find one I would certainly have tried to connect circumcison with baptism as you have tried to do, but I do not think that that connection is going to work. Why? Becaue the Bible just does not make that connection, and so your whole counter-arguement is based on a connection not found in Scripture. Hence, I think though your method of reponse to the regulative principle is the most likely to overcome the arguement (find a command)-but a command just cannot be found and then to try to connect baptizing with circumcison and than apply the command to circumcise babies to baptism ultimately fails too, because this connection is something Scripture does not connect- 

and hences this absenve of connection leaves your entire arguement that we must asume the command applies to both circumcison and baptism is hopelessly floating on a connection never made in Scripture.


Here are my arguements below.

[quote:4a532060a8] As I said before, show me in your two Acts passages where there is any implicit or explicit command to the church as to whom they are to baptize. While these may be precedent in case law, they are not the law upon which the precedent rests. [/quote:4a532060a8]

I think you may have missed the point, I agree with you in some respect, my one point in bring these passages up is that baptizing disciples (i.e. people who repent and believe) is not a violation of God's commands and that this was the practice of the Apostles and Apostolic church (both sides can agree with this without compromise to their respective positions). I still would argue that when Peter says "Repent and be baptized" and than it says latter on the text "all who believes were baptized" we can conclude that Peter did not administer baptism indiscriminately but only gave it to those who expressed faith in Christ. Although Peter's command do not prohibit other people from being be baptized they do command only those people to be baptized. 

[quote:4a532060a8] didn't leave 1 alone because I stated that your premise was not proved by your texts in Acts. If you are only left with Matthew, then your &quot;X&quot; is explicitly a disciple. In the immediate context, a disciple is one who is baptized and taught. [/quote:4a532060a8]

That is not the immediate context of Mathew, using that definition anyone whom we tell and teach the Gospel (atheist, Buddhist, Deist) could be called a Disciple, obviously Jesus was using the word as it is traditionally used and clearly, though teaching is a necessary ingredient to the definition of Disciple it is not sufficient without the addition of repentance and belief on the learner or Disciples part. 

[quote:4a532060a8] Your argument must then next address what a disciple is and what a disciple is not. Invariably, you will always look at a mature example or statements apprehending, &quot;If you do X, you are my disciple.&quot; Unfortunately, the latter statement is not a requirement for becoming a disciple, but remaining a disciple. [b:4a532060a8]A disciple, in the final analysis, is one who is to be taught, nothing more, nothing less. These are the ones who are also baptized [/b:4a532060a8]. [/quote:4a532060a8]

Again, that means that the atheist who we teach the Gospel is automatically made a Disciple and than he simply refuses to continue and becomes a "Disciple breaker?" I think that this is not how we traditionally employ the word- O Bertrand Russell was a Diciple of Christ because he was taught the Bible in his youth, Muhammad was a Disciple of Christ because he was taught about Christ as well, I mean is this really what we want to say? Obviously, teaching is not a sufficient definition unless it is accompanied by a positive response like belief on the part of the listener. 

[quote:4a532060a8] Further, I have never left your point three alone, because my history on this board shows very well that I hold very closely to the RPW. Again, it is unfortunate that you cannot see the command from the OT to include infants, which was not abrogated in the NT and therefore still applies. [/quote:4a532060a8]

I agree that it was never abrogated but I disagree that it was ever commanded. I do not accept the statement that the recipients of circumcision is identical to baptism. 

[quote:4a532060a8] It is therefore inappropriate for you to say that I have not dealt with your premises. You simply did not care for my answers, but they are a valid counter-argument [/quote:4a532060a8]
You do not doubt that Scripture commands Disciples to be baptized (which was premise one) nor do you doubt the regulative principle of worship (which was premise three) hence you only object that God never commanded baptism which was an objection to (premise 2) that is all I meant by saying that you left premise one and there alone.


[quote:4a532060a8] That in which you have quoted, is all the proof you need. The only way for it to become clear to you is if you see these verses in the context of Scripture, not Baptist theology. 

Two things are unavoidable: 

1. Infants were included in the covenant in the OT by their circumcision. 

2. If infants are to be included in the covenant in the NT, they must have a sign administered to them. [/quote:4a532060a8]

Who is not reading Colossians in context, Paul was not even talking about infants in this passage, must Presbyterians only use these verse to say that circumcision is identical to baptism. 

[quote:4a532060a8]And as Paul's thoughts continue IN THE SAME SENTENCE, he shows that the circumcision made without hands is attached to the Spirit's work in water baptism. Complete the thought. You are dividing verse 11 from verse 12 instead of seeing it as one sentence. 

Now, a follow on question. What is the circumcision of Christ? [/quote:4a532060a8]

The Circumcision of Christ is the cross and that is how we have been reconciled to God, that is why Paul develops the thought that Christ cross reconciled us in the preceding verses not baptism. 

[quote:4a532060a8] Unfortunately you have not proved that my arguments do not stand. You certainly will not gain any favor by quoting Barth [/quote:4a532060a8]

It is a shame that you did not want to address Barth's argument against the idea that this verse teaches circumcision is baptism.


Barth's arguments against this interpration run

1) Is not the statement: "You are baptized in Him" (along with: You are dead and you are raised again in Him), without any parallel in the New Testament? 

2) Even with the strongest concentration on its deeper sense, can baptism, which is in any case a human act performed with water, be described so simply as a work not done with human hands? 

3) In what tolerable sense can the statement in v. 11: "You are baptized...," be set in juxtaposition with that in in. 12 the power which effects their resurrection is expressly said to be that of faith in the operation of God who raised Jesus from the dead, so that it cannot be described as baptism.

4) Finally, how odd it is if the whole attack on the rituals commended by the false teachers depends at the decisive point on the argument that they are not needed because in this respect Christians are best provided for in baptism! 

Barth's argument in favor of seeing baptism as having the function of sealing the fact that we where circumcised in Christ on the cross rather then functioning as the circumcision of Christ as Presbyterians must assert to prove identity between the two sacraments. 

Barth shows that all three of the difficulties mentioned above disappear if we interpret Christ crucifixion effecting in us the circumcision done without human hand. 

1) Positively, when the clause in c. 12a, which undoubtedly refers to baptism, calls it a being buried with Christ, is it not point back to a preceding dying with Him? All these difficulties disappear if one assumes that the circumcision effected on Christians- described in an expression peculiar to Colossians but most appropriate to its thesis- there is denoted the crucifixion of Christ which took place for Christians and embraces them. Christians receive a share in the fullness of the Godhead. This was the work done on them, not by human hands in the body of the flesh in which they existed was put off and set aside like an old garment. If v. 11 speaks of the death of Christ which embraces Christians, it relation to the parallel v. 12, which speaks of their resurrection with Christ, is meaningful; it is also one which is found else where in Paul. The reference to Christ death is a clear and cogent argument against the false teachers by whose onset the Colossians community was threatened. To call the death of Christ which embraces Christians His circumcision, i.e, the circumcision effect by God in Him, is justifiable in a defense against Jewish-Gnostic ritualism, in which (cf. Col. 3:11) the demand for circumcision probably played a prominent part. It is also justifiable on the ground that herein- in accordance with the meaning of Old Testament circumcisions (cf. Tit 2:14)- God purified a people for His possession. On this view (but only on this view) one can also see why there is in v. 12a a resemblance of baptism as the burial of Christians with Christ. This resemblance is not an argument. As in Rom 6:2-4 it gives emphasis to the real argument. It is to this effect: Even in your own lives as Christian you being with the event in which you burial with Christ, and there with you liberation from all autonomous attempts at deification of salvation, was... confirmed and registered by that which yourseleves desired and received from the community. Hold fast to this! ( P 119-120)

KC, untill you can answer Barth's objection I believe that you have not yet proved your case but have just assumed your case to be true by assuming that circumicison is identical to baptism. (Note: I am not Barthian but this just goes to show that you do not have to be Baptist to see that these verses have nothing to do with an identity between circumcision and baptism). Colossians 2:11-13 does not teach such an identity or atleast force us to come to that conclusion seeing that another alternative presents itself- hence your whole argument about continuity is left floating on mid air without the slightest Scriptural evidence, I mean one verse was a slime argument anyway to rest a whole Doctrine of connection upon, but now with no verses whatever holding the doctrine up how is still in the air? The answer I think is that it is not still hanging on the wall but has fallen to the ground and broken in peices. 

I see no reason to &quot;connect circumcison and baptism&quot; and so until you can connect the two you have no right to argue covenant continuation between two things that were never connected in the first place. 


To the glory of Christ-Tertullian:saint:

[Edited on 3-13-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Tertullian

*Paul,*

Great idea, to limit the scope of the convo!!!

[quote:44e99af76e] Well, now your equivocating. I do believe that it is commanded. I took you as wanting me to show you a verse that said, &quot;Baptize your children.&quot; There is no verse that says, &quot;Baptize infants.&quot; I do believe, though, that we are commanded to give our children the sign of the covenant. So, I guess I'm playing at your's and KC's level now. [/quote:44e99af76e]

Hmmm, on a rereading of my last post to you I can see that my words about "second level" could be taken to mean something negative about you- please forgive me if it sounded insulting I suppose a better way I ought to have said it was that the meat of the issue is really your guy's objections to premise 3 of the regulative principle argument. 



I guess, the regulative principle proves that the burden of proof is upon the Presbyterian to show where God commands infants to be baptized. But the Presbyterians have answered saying that throw some kind of inference we have the command (either by inference that connects circumcision to baptism, and then another inference that says that what God whom God command to receive circumcision he must also command to receive baptism, etc.) and then from that inference, Presbyterians try to use the same type of argument against the Reformed Baptist and say where is the repeal to stop giving circumcision or baptism to infants?
[quote:44e99af76e][quote:44e99af76e]
Actually I am not sure why you think I or my church grills incomers, this is just something the theological enemies of Baptist made up about Reformed Baptist but its basis for this critique is in the critic's imaginations not the London Baptist confession.
[/quote:44e99af76e]

I use grill for rehtorical fashion. My point, which was avoided, is that in the NT example the baptisms are IMMEDIATELY done. They do not wait and &quot;talk nicely over a cup 'o cofee to prospective baptizies.&quot; [/quote:44e99af76e]

Good point, I agree we ought to baptize on a creditable profession and that we do not absolutely need to quiz the person though in some cases it might be wise but as you pointed out in other case it might be wise not to as well. We are in agreement here. 

[quote:44e99af76e][quote:44e99af76e]
First off, just because a women is in covenant does not mean that they should receive the sign- see women in the old Covenant- obviously the qualification is Disciple and secondly I did change your premise to disciple. 
[/quote:44e99af76e]

No no no. Your missing the point. Because a women is in THE NEW COVENANT does mean she get's the sign. We are in the NC now. I know that that didn't aply in the old, but we are not talking about OC we are talking about NEW. [b:44e99af76e]ANd we have revelation telling us that women may now participate [/b:44e99af76e]. [/quote:44e99af76e]

Amen, as long you always add that last line I will agree that women who meet the qualifications of revelation (namely Discipleship) may participate in New Covenant sacraments).

[quote:44e99af76e][quote:44e99af76e]
The Westminster Confession says that animal sacrafices have been aboraged
[/quote:44e99af76e]

I said &quot;sacrifice&quot; not &quot;animal.&quot; Now, the need for sacrifice is still required...but it is done in Christ. SO, again we see the continuity. [/quote:44e99af76e]

Sure we see continuity but not addictiveness. 

[quote:44e99af76e][quote:44e99af76e]
Thanks for the response, I always enjoy talking with you. I know that probably nothing I say could ever change your view but I still think that the point of debate is not always to win an arguement but to help to challenge the other person to compare his position with Scripture
[/quote:44e99af76e]

I think I'll take you up on that. Prove the RP from Scripture.

-Paul [/quote:44e99af76e]

The regulative principle can be established in Scriptures repeated emphasis that worship is not to be conducted the way Heathen worship their gods. We can see that Aaron's sons were stuck dead when they added something not prohibited by Scripture. The ultimate argument though is that God is Lord and Holy and as such due to the nature of worship it must be regulative by His own wishes and not ours. (See Matt's defense I think he did a good job overall)


To the glory of Christ-Tertullian:saint:

[Edited on 3-13-2004 by Tertullian]

[Edited on 3-13-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Roldan

[quote:8cf4ff2dc2][i:8cf4ff2dc2]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:8cf4ff2dc2]
[quote:8cf4ff2dc2][i:8cf4ff2dc2]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:8cf4ff2dc2]
[quote:8cf4ff2dc2][i:8cf4ff2dc2]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:8cf4ff2dc2]
[quote:8cf4ff2dc2][i:8cf4ff2dc2]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:8cf4ff2dc2]
[quote:8cf4ff2dc2][i:8cf4ff2dc2]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:8cf4ff2dc2]
I do not teach baby dedications, I teach Baby blessings. That has been the historic Puritan Baptist practice.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian [/quote:8cf4ff2dc2]

Dedications, presentations, exhortations, blessings whatever you may wish to call it, again according to your view where is this specifically commanded in scripture?

[Edited on 3-12-2004 by Roldan] [/quote:8cf4ff2dc2]

We follow the example of Christ who blessed the Children. [/quote:8cf4ff2dc2]


Tert, you know as well as I that the example of Christ blessing children is in NO WAY A COMMAND bless children in Worship.

Did Christ bless those children in a Worship service? Of course not.

Were those children He blessed children of believers? We don't know. unlikely though.

So why not admit that the baptist when screaming &quot;Regulative Principle&quot; are proving to much and do not practice their own objections to Reformed RP.

My point is, to use the RP as a argument against infant baptism is unhelpful and to me an insult to the intelligence.

Bottom line you have NO command expressed in scripture to bless, dedicate, present or whatever baptist want to call it. Therefore please discontinue that argument for it becomes devestating to your own position.

With meekness and a heart to help, Roldan [/quote:8cf4ff2dc2]

Roldan, I will not discontinue an arguement because you ask me to, please prove it wrong, because if you are right I will stop baby blessing as well, instead of saying alright Rholdan both sides break the regulative principle so go a head an continue... I would rather end baby blessing than worship God with my imagination!

Also, you misunderstand the regulative principle of worship if you think that we cannot follow an example of Christ, I mean Christ command his Disciples to bring the children to him to be blessed and that is what Reformed Baptist do, namely, follow Christ command. Obviously Paul and your &quot;In church&quot; arguement fails to understand the &quot;circumstance&quot; aspect of the regulatice principle because you treat the in church outside church as an element but where we the Church worship God is actually a circumstance not an element. 

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 3-12-2004 by Tertullian] [/quote:8cf4ff2dc2]

Tyler, Tyler, Tyler, again you miss the point. You are a great example of Red hearings. 

My point is that you have no COMMAND to bless children of BELIEVERS. Can mininsters go around blessing little children in a Chuck E. Cheese facility just because Christ did it. That is absurd. 

Again you or any baptist, have any scriptural warrant to bless children and infants. By the way Christ blessed children not infants, so do you only believe in blessing children who are older than infants? For infants can't try to walk up to Jesus. It was older children.

Of course I understand the RP, do you know there are different views of the RP? Yours being Zwinglian and Ana-baptist? And ours being the Reformed view(Calvinistic)?

By the way Kc and Paul's arguments are devestating to your arguments. Just because you can't see that yet does not mean it isn't, you just can't accept it. Your arguments are sounding intelligent but really &quot;you ain't sayin nothin&quot;. 

I think you just need to study this more thoroughly in order to come in here talking like a Theologian who has studied for years. Just my 

:wr50:

I gues we will talk more on Monday.

Love you brother. Roldan


----------



## Tertullian

*Roldan,*

[quote:66a34e4b7b] Tyler, Tyler, Tyler, again you miss the point. You are a great example of Red hearings. 

My point is that you have no COMMAND to bless children of BELIEVERS. Can mininsters go around blessing little children in a Chuck E. Cheese facility just because Christ did it. That is absurd. [/quote:66a34e4b7b]

I am not sure what you mean, Scripture never portrays Christ as forcing his blessing upon children against the parents wishes and nether ought we. 

[quote:66a34e4b7b] Again you or any baptist, have any scriptural warrant to bless children and infants. By the way Christ blessed children not infants, so do you only believe in blessing children who are older than infants? For infants can't try to walk up to Jesus. It was older children. [/quote:66a34e4b7b]

It is hard to prove from the text that no infants were blessed by Christ- the word in the Greek employed (I think being no Greek scholar)is a catch phrase that could include both groups. 

[quote:66a34e4b7b] Of course I understand the RP, do you know there are different views of the RP? Yours being Zwinglian and Ana-baptist? And ours being the Reformed view(Calvinistic)? [/quote:66a34e4b7b]

Actually I adopt the regulative principle of worship as outlined in the London Baptist confession. 

[quote:66a34e4b7b] By the way Kc and Paul's arguments are devestating to your arguments. Just because you can't see that yet does not mean it isn't, you just can't accept it. Your arguments are sounding intelligent but really &quot;you ain't sayin nothin&quot;. [/quote:66a34e4b7b]

May be, but you are not exactly a unbaised person to make that judgment call. Feel free to answer in of my questions I give to them I always wanna hear you take on matters. 

[quote:66a34e4b7b] I think you just need to study this more thoroughly in order to come in here talking like a Theologian who has studied for years. Just my.. [/quote:66a34e4b7b]

How much studing is enough? Two years, three years, four years, who gets to draw the line? I think it is best to judge the arguements not the qualifications of the person making the arguements wouldn't you agree?

Again, I did not make this arguement up but I am standing on the shoulders of the London Baptist Divines who I do think have the background necessary to argue it if there is such a thing. 

[quote:66a34e4b7b]I gues we will talk more on Monday.

Love you brother. Roldan [/quote:66a34e4b7b]

Hope to see you then. Also I thought you might be intereste in this explaination given by a Reformed Baptist for the practice:

[quote:66a34e4b7b]
Baby blessing is not an element of worship therefore they are optional but they do seem warranted for special services just as Weddings and funerals are, and these services as the Westminster confesses are, "ordered by the light nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word" (Westminster Confession 1.6). These should not be confused with baby dedications. 

In the gospels of Mathew (19:13-15), Mark (10:13-16), and Luke (18: 15-17) we read of an occasion when Jesus took the little children up in his arms, put his hands on them, and blessed them.
1) Who brought their children to Jesus? We are not told. They might have been genuine believers in Christ or temporary followers.
2) How old wre the children who were brought to Jesus? Mathew calls them 'little children'; Mark 'young children'; Luke 'Infants' (or new-born babies).
3) Why were the children brought to Jesus? Mathew says 'that he might put his hands on them and pray'
4) What did the disciples do? They rebuked those who were bringing the children, and tried to stop them coming to Jesus.
5) Why did they stop the children coming to Jesus? Because they thought that Jesus was not interested in babies who were not old enough to understand his teaching.
6) What happened when Jesus saw this? Mark tells us that 'he was much displeased'
7) What did Jesus say to the disciples? 'suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of heaven' or, in another translation, 'let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them; for the kingdom of heaven belong so such'
8) What else did Jesus say? 'Verily I say unto you, Whosever shall not receive the Kingdom of God as a little child he shall not enter therein.'
9) What did Jesus do to the children? 'He took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them and blessed them.' We are not told that Jesus baptized the babies or christened them or dedicated them, but that he blessed them. Had Jesus baptized the babies the disciples would have protested even more, for they were accustomed to seeing the repentant baptized, but not babies.
10) What does 'blessed them' mean? Mathew says that the little children were brought to Jesus that he might put his hands on them and pray. To bless here does not mean to consecrate or dedicate, but to pray, asking God's blessing Jesus blessed the children by praying over them and for them.
11) What did he pray for the children? We are not told, but whatever he asked of the father he received, so that thee children were blessed as a result of being brought to Jesus. Perhaps they were converted later in life. We are not told that Jesus' blessing the children made them Christians there and then.
12) What are we to do? We should bring our children to Jesus seeking his blessing upon them. He is the only Savior and he alone can save them from their sins. We can bring out children to Jesus privately in prayer, which we should do constantly, but it is fitting that we should do this publicly as well- for the Lord is especially present in the midst of his people. If this is done, it is suggested that the minister read out to the congregation the above questions and answers in order to ensure the people understand the origin and nature of the blessing. Having doe this, the minister takes the baby in his arms, and prays after this manner:

"Lord Jesus Christ, thou hast said that the Kingdom of heaven belongs to little children, and we now bring to thee this child... asking thee for they blessing. Hear our prayers on his behalf, and in they good time send they Holy Spirit into his heart that he may be converted and saved from his sin, and be made a member of they church and an heir of they everlasting kingdom. Do this for they name's sake. Amen'
The service could well end with the blessing:
The Lord bless thee, and keep thee; the Lord make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee; the Lord lift up his continence upon thee, and give thee peace. Amen'
[/quote:66a34e4b7b]


----------



## Tertullian

[quote:a8628a6b26][i:a8628a6b26]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:a8628a6b26]
I just want to know where we are COMMANDED to baptize IN A CHURCH? Can someone help me out here?

(1) Scripture commands &quot;X&quot; to be baptized with no reference to "non-X". 
(2) Scripture never commands or prohibits "non-X" to be baptized. 
([b:a8628a6b26]3) The Regulative principle of worship says that we can only do what is commanded by Scripture even if it is not expressly prohibited. [/b:a8628a6b26] 
(4) Therefore, we can only baptize &quot;X&quot; even though no verse prohibits a non-X from being baptized. 

where is the &quot;express command&quot; to baptize in a church? Even though it is not prohibited the RP says we can only do wht is commanded.

See, I can be a better RPer than Tyler

-Paul

[Edited on 3-13-2004 by Paul manata] [/quote:a8628a6b26]

So you would agree that regulative principle argues againt infant baptism? Remember in a church building or outside a church building is a circumstance not an element.


----------



## Tertullian

*Paul,*

Thanks Paul for keeping it concise and breif. I hope that you are being edified as much as I am. 

[quote:add26ffac4] Re: burden of proof: no, I think that the one who says God has changed allowing children in the covenant when he had for millenia is up to you to show.[/quote:add26ffac4]

How can God stop what he never started? God never commanded Baptism to be given to infants in the Old or New. 

[quote:add26ffac4] Re: RP: so you can't prove it from Scripture? Tell me, how is following a command to give our children the sign of the covenant hethen? Sounded like question begging to me. [/quote:add26ffac4]

The Regulative Principle can be proven but I really do not want to debate that with Presbyterians who already believe it (I am assuming that you agree with it) 

[quote:add26ffac4] Re: your argument: Are you going to fix it? [/quote:add26ffac4]


Fine: According to the regulative principle of worship I need a command to baptize an infant, where is the command?

[quote:add26ffac4] Re: disciples as followers of Christ: good, now you can agree to baptize infants, since I believe that they are. Now, of course there are different levels of cognitive awareness like my sons understanding of the trinity now and what it will be like as he matures. Who are you to lay down the mental requirements one must have for God to consider them? Furthermore, all the examples (blatantly obvious) we have are ADULTS being baptized. I'll be generous to you. An &quot;adult&quot; back then was 12 years old. Now, would you not baptize a 11 yr old. Give me an example of a 9 yr old being a disciple? You can't...oh well you can of course infer and ponder. But this would seem prejudicial. [/quote:add26ffac4]

Peter said "repent and be baptized" notice the order, that is why it says a few verses latter, "all who believed were baptized." The Eunuch asked Philip what prevented him from being baptized" Philip replied, "Believe with all you heart, and you may" Christ said go an make "Disciples" then baptize them. Notice that Peter was obeying Christ commission by baptizing Disciples and how Did Peter and Philip define Disciple, as someone who repented and believed. 

[quote:add26ffac4] Re: command to baptize infants: &quot;baptize households.&quot; Oh yea, you will re-interpret that. O.k., &quot;promise is to you and your children.&quot; Oh yea, you'll reinterpret that as well. &quot;Your children are holy, set apart.&quot; You'll reinterpret that as well. Or, (1) all visible church members are to be baptized. (2) Our children are visible church members. (3) Therefore they ought to be baptized. P2 is proved from Paul addressing parts of his letters (e.g. eph.) to children. Oh yea, you'll reinterpret that as well. Or,(1) ALL NC covenant members are to recieve the sign of NC membership. (2) Children are members of the NC. (3) Therefore, they are to receive the sign. P2 is proved because the NC prophacies include children. Oh yea, you'll reinterpret that as well. [/quote:add26ffac4]

Warfeild freely admits that, "It is true there is no express command to baptize infants in the New Testament, no express record of the baptism of infants and no passages so stringently implying it that we must infer from them that infants were baptized" (Studies in Theology, p. 399.) and once these facts are admitted it logically follows that infant baptism is not authorized by the New Testament. Warfield logically must grant this when he writes, "The warrant for infant baptism is not to be sought in the New Testament but in the Old Testament." (Ibid. p. 399). So if your own side even confesses that all those verses prove nothing constructive about the practice of infant baptism why do you persist on using them not even your own side finds them convincing. I am sure what you already adopt infant baptism these verses must speak volumes but to people who are not already convinced of the practice these verses say nothing about infant baptism as Warfield confessed. 

[quote:add26ffac4] It is becomming obvious that your argument is begging the question. What's really going on is that IF our position is correct then we DO NOT have a problem with the RP. Now(!), what you need to do BEFORE you can use the RP argument is prove our position wrong. Do you see this? Your argument ONLY works IF...IF... our side is wrong. So, first we will debate this for the next few hundred years, then maybe when we are proved wrong you can say, &quot;see the regulative principle argued against it.&quot; So, what you have done is set up a criteria that YOU will not allow us to meet. It's not as though we have no answers, but it's that you don't like them. So don't pretend that you have this objective argument and the &quot;facts&quot; speak for themselves. You are a better Van Tilian than that. So, admit that your argument is only true IF we are wrong and therefore, we should be debating those things...because until they are refuted then you CANNOT use the RP. [/quote:add26ffac4]

What is really going on is that you need to jump aboard and defend the thesis that circumcision equals baptism, that is really where KC is at and that is where you should be at to. Notice, you have to prove that God has commanded infant baptism, your only hope is that circumcision equals baptism, now prove it from Scripture. (Note using Col 2:11-2 will not work unless you can answer Barth's objections that I left on my last reply to KC)

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 3-13-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Tertullian

*Paul,*

Why go through the back door when we are all waiting for you the front? This is not a military raid we are meeting for a freindly cup of tea.

Here is something I wrote on the regulative principle of worship; I accept the Westminster definition and proot texts:


[quote:e2a25d0922] The Lord is not to be trifled with, especially, in the matter of how He is worshiped by His people. The Lord has commissioned His peculiar people not to worship in the manner of the Heathen but to follow in complete obedience all of God's commands. While the Heathen around ancient Israel worshiped their gods with human sacrifice, orgies and mutilation and whatever else their sinful imagination conjectured, Israel in contrast was to keep God's Holiness before their minds constantly and to beware of using their corrupt imagination to worship God. God has built a permanent and clear monument about the serious nature of respecting God's commands when He caused heaven to poor down fire on Aaron's sons, Nadab and Abilu, who only offered strange fire before God (see Leviticus 10). Nowhere does Scripture prohibit "strange fire" but God's angered burned against Aaron's sons nonetheless. Why, because God had nowhere commanded it. God was demonstrated through this tragedy that the antithesis that exists between the worship the true God and the pagan way of worship must be honored and never blurred. God's people must not worship God in a manner that is not expressly commanded even if it is not expressly prohibited by Scripture. The Westminster Confession of Faith faithfully teaches what Scripture teaches upon the subject of worship when it proclaims: 

I. The light of nature showeth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all, is good, and doth good unto all, and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the might.(a) But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture.(b)

(a) Rom. 1:20; Acts 17:24; Ps. 119:68; Jer. 10:7; Ps. 31:23; Ps. 18:3; Rom. 10:12; Ps. 62:8; Josh. 24:14; Mark 12:33.
(b) Deut. 12:32; Matt. 15:9; Acts 17:25; Matt. 4:9, 10; Deut. 4:15 to 20; Exod. 20:4, 5, 6; Col. 2:23. Reformed Worship must be regulated by God's word. (Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646 21:1) 

This Confession continues to observe that the worship of the triune God is divided between "Elements" and "Circumstances". The term "Elements" is a short hand term that describes commands from God that the church must obey when it worships. The term "Circumstances" describes how in practice the "Elements" are done justice in each of the various cultures and times the Church finds herself worshipping God in. The Westminster continues to define baptism as one of the Church's Elements of worship and this brings us to the conclusion that we must follow baptism as it is prescribed by Scripture and never add to the practice anything beyond what is written even if it is not expressly forbidden by Scripture. This is one of the greatest strengths of the prestigious tradition outlined in the Westminster Standards. 
Ironically, however, it was this strength that ultimately caused a group of non-conformist to reject part of the Standard. Reformed Baptist, Dr. Fred Malone explains that this later group of theologians would seek to amend what they felt to be a great inconsistency within the Westminster Standard in regards to the Standard's positive stance on infant baptism and positive stance of the regulative principle of worship. This group history would call "Reformed Baptist" and in 1689, these theologians published the London Baptist Confession of 1689 and in an appendix explained why they could not in good conscience continue to follow the reformers and the Westminster Divines in affirming infant baptism. They wrote:

Therefore, we cannot for our own parts be persuaded in our own minds, to build such a practice as this, upon an unwritten tradition: But do rather choose in all points of Faith and Worship, to have recourse to the Holy Scriptures, for the information of our judgment, and regulation our practice... All instituted worship receives its sanction from the precept, and is to be thereby governed in all necessary circumstance thereof [emphasis Fred Malones]1 

The Reformed Baptist theologians were fully persuaded that Christ was Lord over His Church's worship of Him and they could not find in Scripture where Christ ever commanded infant baptism. Thus, the controversy of infant baptism was born a fresh only it was propelled by those of a reformed magisterial mindset instead of the Anabaptist verity that had appeared earlier. The question that must now be asked is where the Reformed Baptist right when they said that infant baptism breaks the regulative principle of worship? Both sides of the controversy have typically admitted that Scripture does not prohibit infant baptism, but still, the burden of proof ultimately falls upon the Reformed paedobaptist because the regulative principle of worship considers the answer to the question does God expressly prohibit this practice to be irrelevant to the question what practices ought to be conduced in worship serves. Thus we can only conclude that the burden of proof is ultimately upon the Reformed Paedobaptist to prove infant baptism, not the Reformed Baptist to disprove infant baptism. Yet, this fact, only changes the nature of the game but the game is far from won by the Reformed Baptist side. [/quote:e2a25d0922] 


To the glory of Christ-Tertullian


----------



## Goosha

*I hope you don't mind me jumping in*

Hey Tertullian,

I've been trying to follow the discussion thus far and found it quite good. You debate very well and your polite and I appreciate that. Your familiarity with Presbyterian authors is quite astounding and it reminds me of T.E. Watson's book on baptism which boasts itself for basing its arguments, ironically, on what paedobaptists have written. Now, your argument from the regulative principle rests on the fact that there are no commands to baptize infants. How that command should be presented in scripture I'm sure your quite flexible in regards to its form. In this case, not flexible enough to accept what paedobaptists have been offering thus far; incidentally, this is precisely what you and Paul are debating. How far do we take the regulative principle?

I wish only to satisfy your challenge by taking a slightly different approach. I'm not going to criticize most of the arguments that you have presented thus far because at this point you have debated that the burden of proof lies on paedobaptists. Rather than debate the burden of proof issue, because I think Paul and KC are doing a fine job, I wish only to beat a dead horse by repeating some common proofs that I think satisfy the regulative principle.

While ago, you had mentioned that just being in the New Covenant is not enough to prove infant baptism because "...no one has the innate &quot;right&quot; to the covenant sign. Even Covenant members do not have an innate right to the Covenant sign... therefore a person to prove infant baptism must do more than simply prove that infants are in the New Covenant to establish infant baptism... a person needs to prove that God commanded baptism to be given only to infants with parents with faith and where God says that both male and in female infants can be baptized. As far as I know nobody has been able to show that God has commanded these things." I would say that this is partial truth. Circumcision was a requirement of ALL males to be members of the covenant. So all men not only had an innate right to baptism but also were commanded to do so. I think baptism in the New Covenant falls under the same line of reasoning. Everybody in the New Covenant (dead folks exempted) must be baptized or else run into the equally unbiblical proposition that there are such things as unbaptized visible church members or that baptism is morally optional.

Here is a simple way of looking at the argument:

1.)All covenant members (dead ones exempted) are required to receive the covenant sign of baptism.
2.)Infants are covenant members because of their believing parents.

Conclusion: Infants are required to receive the covenant sign of baptism.

All I have to do is prove that all covenant members are required to receive baptism and show that infants of believing children are covenant members and I have satisfied the regulative principle.

Premise 1 I will openly take for granted. It is utterly ridiculous for me to imagine that people can become apart of the covenant without the requirement of its initiatory rite. This was true in the Old Covenant and by virtue of continuity must be true in the New Covenant. As far as the Lord's Supper, that's different. Not even all adults are fit for the Lord's Table let alone the whole debate for infant communion. 

The big question is whether infants are apart of the New Covenant. Well, I would just refer to another thread on this issue. But I think the answer is 'yes.'


Cordially,

Jayson Rawlins


----------



## Tertullian

*Jayson Rawlins,*

Thanks for the warm introduction and I appreciate your willingness to open up a fresh dialogue about a subject that ought to begiven at least a little bet of time if we are to make progress. 

I just thought you might be interested in two points that I think will help answer your questions.

Firstly, in regards to the burdon of proof I just wanted to make it clear that once the idenity between circumcision and baptism is granted the burden of proof does shift to the Reformed Baptist who does not want to baptize male infants; however, I would add that Scripture itself does not connect or make identicial circumcison and baptism and therefore I reject this connection and therefore the burden of proof become once again on the Presbyterian side to show the command to baptize infants. (I know Presbyterians use Col 2:11-14; but there are serious objections to using the passage to find idenity between the two rites see my last post to KC)

Secondly, in regards to the issue of Covennant membership and the rite of the Covenant, I know that you cannot subjectively imagination it but our imaginations are not a good place to establish how we are to worship God. 

here is something I wrote explaining why I feel and argue that the whole Covenant member arguement is useless to overrule the regulative principle arguement:

[quote:3c3961f8fc] [b:3c3961f8fc] The Most Common but Useless Argument given for the Reformed Paedobaptist position [/b:3c3961f8fc]

Before progress can be made in critically examining and questioning the two most compelling arguments for the Paedobaptist position a popular argument must first be set aside because unless it is addressed it will haunt the minds of those who have read on this subject from a Paedobaptist perspective. Yet it is for this reason that Barth had to add his third point, namely, the Paedobaptist must prove what needs to be proved. For many Paedobaptist argue that the physical children of spiritual Covenant members are included in the Covenant of grace, in fact, they spend whole books defending that thesis when they were suppose to be defending infant baptism. Indeed nothing could be more irrelevant than answer to the question what is the status of the physical children of spiritual Covenant members. For either way the question is answered we will have learned nothing about infant baptism, for if the question is answer that physical children of Christian parents are not necessarily New Covenant members (my own position) we now know that infant baptism is wrong, but if we answer the question and say, yes, they are New Covenant members, we have learned nothing about if we ought to baptize an infant or not. Why not? Consider the argument for infant baptism based on Covenant membership: 

(a) That all children of believers are born in the external sphere of the Covenant of Grace. 
(b) That the covenant privileges belong to them by birth 
(c) That the covenant seal and sign must be given to all children of believers since they are in the external sphere of the Covenant of Grace. 


TE Watson destroys this argument with speed when he writes: 

If for argument's sake we grant propositions (a) and (b) we will now show that inference (c) does not necessarily follow. Let us consider an example in the Old Testament. It will not be denied that Jewish females had as great a part and interest in the covenant made with Abraham as had the males. Here then we have a case of persons in covenant who are yet without the sign of the covenant, circumcision. To answer the obvious objection, it should be remembered that a certain kind of circumcision was given to females by the Egyptians, and a similar practice could easily have prevailed among the Jews. Now the reason the Jewish males were circumcised. Had it so pleased him, he need never have given any sign at all, in which case both males and females would have been in covenant with him without having any sign to that effect. 

Thus, people may be in covenant who are without the sign of the covenant, and the sole reason for giving all or some of the sign of the covenant is the command of God. It follows that even if the children of believers were in some special covenant relationship, this of itself does not entitle them to the sign of that covenant. The sign is to be given only as the Lord commands - perhaps to males only, perhaps to females, perhaps to both, perhaps to neither. In previous chapters we have seen that the Lord has not commanded that babies should be baptized, whether male or female, so that Christians are no more required to baptize their babies than the Jews are required to circumcise their females (Should Babies Be Baptized? p. 
Watson's observation that you can be in the Covenant and still not receive the Covenant sign is most pertinent to the present evaluation of trying to prove infant baptism by proving that children of believers are New Covenant Members. Using the regulative principle of worship we can focus more clearly on the heart of the matter, this argument is useless because it is only a command to baptize an infant that could warrant the baptism of an infant. Therefore, this and only this, (i.e. a command of God) can be the argument that will satisfy the criteria that the argument to baptize infants must fulfill. Therefore, regardless of its popularity we must ultimately judge this argument as essentially useless and irrelevant to the question of infant baptism and now begin to examine the two arguments that attempt to explain the basis for infant baptism on a command from God. 

[/quote:3c3961f8fc]

Thanks for the response you seem like a very well read person on this subject so I would enjoy hearing from you in the future.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian:saint:


----------



## Tertullian

*Jayson Rawlins,*

Thanks for the warm introduction and I appreciate your willingness to open up a fresh dialogue about a subject that ought to begiven at least a little bet of time if we are to make progress. 

I just thought you might be interested in two points that I think will help answer your questions.

Firstly, in regards to the burdon of proof I just wanted to make it clear that once the idenity between circumcision and baptism is granted the burden of proof does shift to the Reformed Baptist who does not want to baptize male infants; however, I would add that Scripture itself does not connect or make identicial circumcison and baptism and therefore I reject this connection and therefore the burden of proof become once again on the Presbyterian side to show the command to baptize infants. (I know Presbyterians use Col 2:11-14; but there are serious objections to using the passage to find idenity between the two rites see my last post to KC)

Secondly, in regards to the issue of Covennant membership and the rite of the Covenant, I know that you cannot subjectively imagination it but our imaginations are not a good place to establish how we are to worship God. 

here is something I wrote explaining why I feel and argue that the whole Covenant member arguement is useless to overrule the regulative principle arguement:

[quote:cdeb489486] 
[b:cdeb489486] What Does the Reformed Paedobaptist have to prove in light of the Regulative Principle of Worship [/b:cdeb489486]

To make progress in the controversy between credobaptism and paedobaptism the question must be asked what exactly the paedobaptist needs to prove in order to satisfy the regulative principle of worship. Theologian Karl Barth provides an excellent outline of the three ingredients to the argument that the reformed paedobaptist needs to articulate in order to make his case that Scripture when viewed as a whole clearly commands the practice of the baptism of the children of Christians. Barth's criteria may be summarized as follows (1) The necessity of infant baptism must be established (either by just and necessary inference or a direct command) (2) The case must be presented calmly and clearly (3) What needs to be proved must be proved and not something else. When all three of these criteria are meet than the Reformed Baptist will have been sufficiently answered by Reformed Paedobaptist. Yet as Barth showed, and I will try to show, these criteria were not meet by either the reformers or their prodigy after them. It must also be noted that Reformed Baptist will not be convinced by vicious circular arguments or appeals to the authority of the reformers or Standards no matter how prestigious they may be since the very truth of their conclusions is what needs to be proved and established. It is amazing how many Paedobaptist arguments become invalid once that last point is made. Having established the criteria by which we can judge the arguments advanced to support the questionable practice of baptizing infants let us begin to examine them. 

The history of the arguments advanced by Paedobaptist can be summarized in the words of Paedobaptist B.B. Warfield who wrote to his fellow Paedpbaptist Presbyterian and Congregationalist, "Let us confess that we do not all argue alike or aright. But is not this a proof rather of the firm establishment in our hearts of the practice?" (Studies in Theology, p. 406.) a statement which, Reformed Baptist TE Watson, insightfully adds, "Indeed it is, and hence men are so slow to give the practice up?" (Should Babies Be Baptized?, p. 79.). Indeed, Warfield was right the only thing that can be counted on, when comparing John Calvin's argument, to Charles Hodge's argument , to John Owens' argument is that they all contradict each other, some finding one verse to support the practice another disagreeing and so forth. Yet, two arguments seem to continually reappear and unite these theologians in the otherwise confusion called positive evidence of the practice of infant baptism. These two arguments are that God has promised to regenerate infants so they can receive the sign of regeneration (i.e. Baptism) and that covenant sign was administered to infants in the Old Covenant and therefore baptism since is the same Covenant sign must be given to infants in the New Covenant. Yet under close scrutiny neither argument affords the just and necessary inference that they are dressed up to have.



[b:cdeb489486] The Most Common but Useless Argument given for the Reformed Paedobaptist position [/b:cdeb489486]

Before progress can be made in critically examining and questioning the two most compelling arguments for the Paedobaptist position a popular argument must first be set aside because unless it is addressed it will haunt the minds of those who have read on this subject from a Paedobaptist perspective. Yet it is for this reason that Barth had to add his third point, namely, the Paedobaptist must prove what needs to be proved. For many Paedobaptist argue that the physical children of spiritual Covenant members are included in the Covenant of grace, in fact, they spend whole books defending that thesis when they were suppose to be defending infant baptism. Indeed nothing could be more irrelevant than answer to the question what is the status of the physical children of spiritual Covenant members. For either way the question is answered we will have learned nothing about infant baptism, for if the question is answer that physical children of Christian parents are not necessarily New Covenant members (my own position) we now know that infant baptism is wrong, but if we answer the question and say, yes, they are New Covenant members, we have learned nothing about if we ought to baptize an infant or not. Why not? Consider the argument for infant baptism based on Covenant membership: 

(a) That all children of believers are born in the external sphere of the Covenant of Grace. 
(b) That the covenant privileges belong to them by birth 
(c) That the covenant seal and sign must be given to all children of believers since they are in the external sphere of the Covenant of Grace. 


TE Watson destroys this argument with speed when he writes: 

If for argument's sake we grant propositions (a) and (b) we will now show that inference (c) does not necessarily follow. Let us consider an example in the Old Testament. It will not be denied that Jewish females had as great a part and interest in the covenant made with Abraham as had the males. Here then we have a case of persons in covenant who are yet without the sign of the covenant, circumcision. To answer the obvious objection, it should be remembered that a certain kind of circumcision was given to females by the Egyptians, and a similar practice could easily have prevailed among the Jews. Now the reason the Jewish males were circumcised. Had it so pleased him, he need never have given any sign at all, in which case both males and females would have been in covenant with him without having any sign to that effect. 

Thus, people may be in covenant who are without the sign of the covenant, and the sole reason for giving all or some of the sign of the covenant is the command of God. It follows that even if the children of believers were in some special covenant relationship, this of itself does not entitle them to the sign of that covenant. The sign is to be given only as the Lord commands - perhaps to males only, perhaps to females, perhaps to both, perhaps to neither. In previous chapters we have seen that the Lord has not commanded that babies should be baptized, whether male or female, so that Christians are no more required to baptize their babies than the Jews are required to circumcise their females (Should Babies Be Baptized? p. 
Watson's observation that you can be in the Covenant and still not receive the Covenant sign is most pertinent to the present evaluation of trying to prove infant baptism by proving that children of believers are New Covenant Members. Using the regulative principle of worship we can focus more clearly on the heart of the matter, this argument is useless because it is only a command to baptize an infant that could warrant the baptism of an infant. Therefore, this and only this, (i.e. a command of God) can be the argument that will satisfy the criteria that the argument to baptize infants must fulfill. Therefore, regardless of its popularity we must ultimately judge this argument as essentially useless and irrelevant to the question of infant baptism and now begin to examine the two arguments that attempt to explain the basis for infant baptism on a command from God. 

[/quote:cdeb489486]

Thanks for the response you seem like a very well read person on this subject so I would enjoy hearing from you in the future.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian:saint:

[Edited on 3-14-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Tertullian

*Paul,*

I think you may have misunderstood my arguement or my arguement may have been unclear. Therefore please allow me to clarify:

[quote:cbeb7c97ec] Therefore, we can see that the issue is over whether Scripture commands our children to be baptized, and not about the regulative principle. So, in conclusion, I must conclude that your argument begs the question and has zero weight...unless you are correct about your position; which is what I dispute. So, if credoism is true then paedoism is not. This is the essemce of Tyler's argument. [/quote:cbeb7c97ec]

The essence of my argument is that the burden of proof is upon the Paedobaptist to produce a command to baptize infants; I agree with you that if circumcison and baptism were identicial I would have to be the one to come up with a command that forbids the baptism of male infants, but I do not agree that baptism is circumcison. Hence, you either have to prove that Scripture teaches that they are identicial or you have to produce the command to baptize infants another way. 

As for the regulative principle of worship- I can agree wih the Westminster stance so would you agree that a person cannot hold to the regulative principle of worship as outlined in that Confession and continue to baptize infants. After all if that person does not accept that &quot;baptism is circumcison&quot; due to the fact that Scripture never teaches there is identity between, also they take a convenantal rather than replacement approach to Scripture and that not even Presbyterians accept complete identity between the rites when they include female infants then he has not command to practice infant baptism and according to the regualtive principle what is not commanded is not to be done-

so that person would have to stop baptizing infants if he accept the Westminsters stance on the regulatice principle right?



To the glory of Christ-Tertullian


[Edited on 3-14-2004 by Tertullian]:saint:

[Edited on 3-14-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Tertullian

*Paul,*

Thanks for the reply.

How about instead of &quot;beer&quot; we are meeting for Bible study after all man does not live on bread alone...  but feel free to bring the beer for yourself if you want (Luther would be proud)


[quote:842b531756] Well, this burden is only because your presupposing your position. I presuppose mine so I think you have burden. [/quote:842b531756]

I do not presuppose the truth of my position my position could be in error we have to check what our highest authority says and that is Scripture to see what side is right... no wonder you cannot see my arguments if you just assume that you position is right. 

[quote:842b531756] God places our Children in the covenant. He has nowhere told us that they are out. All NC members receive the sign. I need you to show where God removes the Children from the covenant. [/quote:842b531756] 

I have addressed this issue who is a "Covenant member" and who gets the "Covenant sign" must be distinguished as different questions. Until you can explain to my why I cannot distinguish those categories I will not because as we all know if I do not distinguish them I am forced to say that no women were Covenant members in the Old Covenant and I would have to say that God is not Sovereign over who gets the sign or that the essence of a Covenant is that the Covenant members must get a sign but all of these doctrines are pure speculations that cannot be supported from Scripture and I see no reason to follow someone where Scripture does not take me. 

[quote:842b531756]So this burden stuff is not helpful. You should know as a debater that burden is a slippery slope. [/quote:842b531756]

Funny words coming from a Presbyterian, I am amazed how you can use that argument when it works in you favor and then disregard it when it appears to work against your position. In truth there is nothing inherently wrong with establishing who has the burden of proof as a "debater" I know that sometimes it is not wise to even debate until that point is established. 

[quote:842b531756] Furthermore, circumcision is not identical...who says it is ...DEPENDING on how you define identical. Noone has EVER said that baptism means to cut forskin?!.[/ [/quote:842b531756]

Many Presbyterians have said that they were identical for example the Ursinus, co-author of the Heidelberg Catechism, reduced the whole argument for infant baptism to a single syllogism that read: 

"Under the Old Testament, infants were circumcised as well as adults. Baptism occupies the place of circumcision in the New Testament and has the same use as circumcision had in the Old Testament. Therefore infants are to be baptized as well as adults" (Ursinus) 

Of course I acknowledge that Presbyterians argue "replacement theology" of the rites then argue "command continuity" of the administration (go figure) but this is exactly where I see the problem I do ever see Scripture teaching that the "command to circumcision male infants" carries over into baptism. The only way Presbyterians can say that it is to argue that in essence circumcision and baptism are the same (the proof for this who knows because Col 2:13-14 simply cannot teach it once the text is allowed to speak for itself instead of fitted into a theological framework)

[quote:842b531756] First off, you can agree as far as what you THINK they menat by something. Since they are not hear you don't know what they MEANT....for sure. [/quote:842b531756]

That's true that the Westminster Divines are not here but does it really follow that I cannot tell what they meant? 

[quote:842b531756] Also, I asked some pointed questions in my last post. Can you answer those please? What I want to do is have YOU explain your system. Please stop giving me the &quot;footnote refutation.&quot; 

-Paul [/quote:842b531756]
What do you want to know that I did not answer in my description of the regulative principle that I have already given you on a past thread. How about this you define the practice and I will see if I agree with it or not. 
To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 3-14-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Goosha

*Hey, its me again*

Tertullian,

I understand your argument, but I don't really know quite how to respond. I think we're just simply drawing completely different conclusions from the same facts. Here is how I think this is the case:

My sets of syllogisms:
OT
1.)All males in covenant are required to receive the initial sign.
2.)Infant males are in the covenant.
C.) Therefore, infant males receive the initial sign.

NT
1.)All males and females in covenant are required to receive the initial sign.
2.)Infant males and females are in covenant.
C.) Therefore, infant males and females receive the initial sign.

Notice that in my set of premises, the only change made is that females are now given the sign. In your application of the facts, you conclude that there is a change in the requirements of receiving the sign (i.e. only by a profession of faith). You base this from a completely different application of the same scripture. Since women didn't receive the covenant sign in the Old Testament, you argue that covenant membership can't determine who receives the signs but require, like all "elements of worship," a command or provision from scripture. 

This isn't a bad line of reasoning but I don't think it reflects the relationship between the sign and the covenant accurately. The basis for males receiving the sign according to scripture was the covenant itself. Consequently, there was a very strong connection between the sign and the covenant. I am going to suggest that the difference between the old and the new is not the requirement for children to make a credible profession of faith but rather that females are now given the initial sign whereas before they were not. Taking this view maintains the integrity of God's covenant relationship with the family and also gives a balance connection between the sign and the covenant. It seems to me that taken your position a person loses an important dynamic and connection between the covenant and its corresponding ordinance. Your position makes the sign connected to the profession of faith more than any connection with the covenant itself. Personally, I think the paedobaptist treatment of the covenant and the sign to be more cohesive.

I don't expect this to be very persuasive but I hope you see where I'm coming from. By the way, I think your ability to defend the baptist position is pretty good. I had to really chew on your argument before responding.

Cordially,

Jayson Rawlins

[Edited on 3-14-2004 by Goosha]


----------



## Tertullian

*Jayson Rawlins,*

Thanks for that excellent explanation of how you view the Covenant in relation to the Covenant signs. Personally I do not think that being part of the visible church puts in you in the New Covenant but I still feel that even a Reformed Baptist does think that infants are part of the "external Covenant of Grace" I still do not think that they would be inconsistent to withhold baptism from infants. 


I think TE Watson's observation however is still very impressive:

[quote:86cdc69ded] Thus, people may be in covenant who are without the sign of the covenant, and [b:86cdc69ded]the sole reason for giving all or some the sign of the covenant is the command of God [/b:86cdc69ded]. It follows that even if the children of believers were in some special covenant relationship, this of itself does not entitle them to the sign of that covenant. The sign is to be given only as the Lord commands - perhaps to males only, perhaps to females, perhaps to both, perhaps to neither. In previous chapters we have seen that the Lord has not commanded that babies should be baptized, whether male or female, so that Christians are no more required to baptize their babies than the Jews are required to circumcise their females (Should Babies Be Baptized? p. 99) [/quote:86cdc69ded] 

I mean it is not the full story to say that males and females in Covenant are baptized in the New Covenant for adult males and females must also "repent and be baptized" (Acts 2:38) and we are to baptize Disciples (Mathew 28:19) so to be precise we are to baptize women and men who meet the qualifications Discipleship which include faith and repentance in adults and are in Covenant. 

Now of course the qualifications of these verses have no reference to infants so they cannot be used to say that infant baptism is prohibited because they do not meet these qualifications but that fact does reveal that what God's commands about baptism has no reference to infants. 


The Jews ultimately circumcised males because of God's Covenantal commands to circumcise males and felt no burden to circumcise females in the absence of a Covenantal command from God even though women were in Covenant. Likewise a Reformed Baptist need feel no burden to baptize an infant in the absence of a Covenantal command to baptize them. 

Just some food for thought-

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian


----------



## Roldan

[quote:30f6bd459b][i:30f6bd459b]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:30f6bd459b]
Thanks for that excellent explanation of how you view the Covenant in relation to the Covenant signs. Personally I do not think that being part of the visible church puts in you in the New Covenant but I still feel that even a Reformed Baptist does think that infants are part of the "external Covenant of Grace" I still do not think that they would be inconsistent to withhold baptism from infants. 


I think TE Watson's observation however is still very impressive:

[quote:30f6bd459b] Thus, people may be in covenant who are without the sign of the covenant, and [b:30f6bd459b]the sole reason for giving all or some the sign of the covenant is the command of God [/b:30f6bd459b]. It follows that even if the children of believers were in some special covenant relationship, this of itself does not entitle them to the sign of that covenant. The sign is to be given only as the Lord commands - perhaps to males only, perhaps to females, perhaps to both, perhaps to neither. In previous chapters we have seen that the Lord has not commanded that babies should be baptized, whether male or female, so that Christians are no more required to baptize their babies than the Jews are required to circumcise their females (Should Babies Be Baptized? p. 99) [/quote:30f6bd459b] 

I mean it is not the full story to say that males and females in Covenant are baptized in the New Covenant for adult males and females must also "repent and be baptized" (Acts 2:38) and we are to baptize Disciples (Mathew 28:19) so to be precise we are to baptize women and men who meet the qualifications Discipleship which include faith and repentance in adults and are in Covenant. 

Now of course the qualifications of these verses have no reference to infants so they cannot be used to say that infant baptism is prohibited because they do not meet these qualifications but that fact does reveal that what God's commands about baptism has no reference to infants. 


The Jews ultimately circumcised males because of God's Covenantal commands to circumcise males and felt no burden to circumcise females in the absence of a Covenantal command from God even though women were in Covenant. Likewise a Reformed Baptist need feel no burden to baptize an infant in the absence of a Covenantal command to baptize them. 

Just some food for thought-

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian [/quote:30f6bd459b]

Now that was better. Great observation, Of course I thoroughly disagree but that was very relevant and touches the main details of disagreement between the two camps, Good job:thumbup:


----------



## kceaster

*Tyler....*

Thanks for your analysis of my arguments. I must defer the balance of my statements with orthodoxy. I am sorry that you do not make the logical correlation from Colossians 2. All other Reformed divines do. I'll stick with them.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Roldan

[quote:722122a6b4][i:722122a6b4]Originally posted by kceaster[/i:722122a6b4]
Thanks for your analysis of my arguments. I must defer the balance of my statements with orthodoxy. I am sorry that you do not make the logical correlation from Colossians 2. All other Reformed divines do. I'll stick with them.

In Christ,

KC [/quote:722122a6b4]

And the Reformed Congregations says &quot;AMEN!&quot;


----------



## Tertullian

[quote:4a9a54fadb][i:4a9a54fadb]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:4a9a54fadb]
[quote:4a9a54fadb][i:4a9a54fadb]Originally posted by kceaster[/i:4a9a54fadb]
Thanks for your analysis of my arguments. I must defer the balance of my statements with orthodoxy. I am sorry that you do not make the logical correlation from Colossians 2. All other Reformed divines do. I'll stick with them.

In Christ,

KC [/quote:4a9a54fadb]

And the Reformed Congregations says &quot;AMEN!&quot; [/quote:4a9a54fadb]

I guess I do not have enough pictures of reformers on my wall but I just do not see it nor will I accept the resolution that because the majority says so it must be true... I mean Calvin also said that the Bible taught that the earth was the center of the universe... so much for the infalliablity of Calvin.


----------



## Goosha

*Not throwing in the towel quite yet*

Hi Tertullian,

I have not given up on the discussion yet. I think we are now done with clarifying our positions and I would like to make another point before throwing in the towel. Now, I think I fully understand your argument and the argument T.E. Watson makes when he writes:

"Thus, people may be in covenant who are without the sign of the covenant, and the sole reason for giving all or some the sign of the covenant is the command of God. It follows that even if the children of believers were in some special covenant relationship, this of itself does not entitle them to the sign of that covenant. The sign is to be given only as the Lord commands - perhaps to males only, perhaps to females, perhaps to both, perhaps to neither. In previous chapters we have seen that the Lord has not commanded that babies should be baptized, whether male or female, so that Christians are no more required to baptize their babies than the Jews are required to circumcise their females (Should Babies Be Baptized? p. 99)"

This argument is quite clever. In fact, should I decide to change from discussing the covenant to discussing the church, the same argument would apply. You could simply say that women not being circumcised in the Old Testament proves that not everyone in the Old Testament church received the sign simply on the basis of their membership with the church. Unfortunately, this argument indicates to me that it would be a complete waste of time to even make an argument for infant baptism from their church membership based on the above argument. Honestly, I don't know how Watson came up with the argument but its quite ingenious!

My response:

I think Watson's position, on its own terms, is possible. A person could very well draw yours and Watson's conclusion that since women weren't circumcised that that proves the covenant membership doesn't require the covenant sign. 

I think that a better conclusion could be that when God makes a corporate covenant that all covenant members are required to receive the covenant sign unless God makes some qualification to it. 

In other words, the reason women didn't receive the sign based on their covenant membership was because God made that particular qualification. I think this makes better sense of the New Covenant with its expanded blessings. The Old Testament had its limitations that where eliminated in the New Covenant. For instance, only men were priests in the Old Covenant but now both men and women who believe are priests in the New Covenant. 

At this point, I think Watson's interpretation leads to a problem in the New Testament whereas the interpretation that I'm suggesting tends to make better sense of both old and new. The fact that there were no explicit commands aimed at women to partake of the Lord's Supper nor is there any examples in scripture that women ever did proves to be an interpretive conundrum for Watson. I know what someone might say, "Women are disciples and therefore they should be given the Lord's Table." But what is this? Nothing more than a CORPORATE command applied to individual classes. Yet, Watson has proven that such can never be the case. He has to prove that WOMEN disciples are required to partake. It is no longer enough to say that women are disciples and therefore they should be given the table. After all, there is no substantial difference with me arguing that a child should receive the sign because of his or her covenant relationship with God than Watson arguing that because a woman is a disciple or that she is a believer that she should be given the table. Even if it were argued that the table is made for believers, he could not prove that this includes women. Based on his own criteria, he has to show that women believers are commanded to partake of the Lord's Table. What Watson has done is he has eliminated all inferences made from corporate covenants and promises. Since the family composes subclasses, he has required that covenants made with the families must have explicit reference to the individual subclasses in order to apply to them. I believe this point has already been brought up and I only mention this because I think it's probably the best way of demonstrating which approach to the Old Covenant bests helps us to understand the New Covenant.

In summary:
I am postulating that all covenants with the family require the individual members to participate in the signs of the covenant unless God says otherwise. I think this better expresses the way God functions in the bible and also allows us to have a basis for giving women the table of the Lord and not doing damage to the Regulative Principle.

For further interest, there are some very fine theologians who would argue that women were in fact circumcised (non-physically of course). While this isn't my argument, I think it deserves a hearing and so I'll post a friend's argument below:

It is true that only the males in Israel received the physical rite of circumcision. But should we conclude that because the women in Israel did not receive a cutting in their flesh that they were not considered to be circumcised? I believe the answer to this is no. But let us consider what the result would be if this conclusion did follow. In Exodus 12:43-50, the LORD gives Moses and Aaron commands concerning the institution of the Passover feast. In this passage, one of the explicit requirements of celebrating the Passover was that the feast be given ONLY to those who were circumcised. "But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it" (Ex 12:48). Now, if it is true that females in the Old Testament were not circumcised, then all the women of Israel would have been excluded from the Passover meal. But we know that this is not true. So we must reject the idea that women were not circumcised in the Old Testament. The women in Israel were circumcised, not in their flesh, but because of the federal headship of the father of the household. Because God makes his covenant with individuals and their households, he counted the female children in Israel as circumcised on the basis of the circumcision of the Father. 

So we see that Tertullian's argument fails because the first premise is false. Women did receive the covenant sign of circumcision, though the sign was not literally cut in their flesh.

Cordially,

Jayson Rawlins

[Edited on 3-16-2004 by Goosha]


----------



## Tertullian

*Jayson Rawlins,*

Thanks for your humble thoughts and questions. May our Lord grant us wisdom and humility as we submit together to the rule of Scripture as amateurs desperately in need of grace to guide us through this most difficult of subjects. 

I thank you for reading my response and hope that my response is adequate. 

You are correct in recognizing the significance of Watson's argument when you write:

[quote:69b86f4ce0] Unfortunately, this argument indicates to me that it would be a complete waste of time to even make an argument for infant baptism from their church membership based on the above argument. Honestly, I don't know how Watson came up with the argument but its quite ingenious! [/quote:69b86f4ce0]

Whereas as you seem to think that the problem with Watsons argument is that it would make the whole argument from Covenant membership a complete waste of time, I see this part of Watson's argument to be the strength rather then the detractor. This is precisely the point I want to emphasis for I see no reason how Covenant Membership has anything to do with the administration of the Covenant sign, only God's command affords the basis for the administration of the Covenant sign. Reformed Baptist who think that infants are included in the Covenant need feel no more pressure an infant then the Jews did for women and therefore in order to establish the practice of infant baptism a command from God must be produced and the whole argument form Covenant membership becomes irrelevant and misdirected. 

In response to the two objections raised I will reply to each one separately as follows:

[quote:69b86f4ce0] I think Watson's position, on its own terms, is possible. A person could very well draw yours and Watson's conclusion that since women weren't circumcised that that proves the covenant membership doesn't require the covenant sign. [/quote:69b86f4ce0]

I agree with your summary but I just thought that we could expand the argument further by saying that the Covenant of Grace since it began directly after the fall proceeded for years without any Covenant member receiving a Covenant sign but this only expands upon the original observation that you can be in Covenant and still not receive a sign (this expansion will hopefully become more relevant throughout the rest of this post because I think it helps make your own unique formulation of the relationship between the Covenant membership and the Covenant sign inadequate to explain the biblical evidence). 

You outlined your position very nicely and theologically well when you said, 

[quote:69b86f4ce0] I think that a better conclusion could be that when God makes a corporate covenant that all covenant members are required to receive the covenant sign unless God makes some qualification to it. [/quote:69b86f4ce0]

But this is where I will have to ask for proof because I think that it is dangerous to just presume without a command that a vassal has the right to a Covenant sign that the Lord of the Covenant must honor unless He says otherwise. Where exactly is the prohibition to not circumcise women, where exactly was the prohibition for Covenant members like Enoch and Noah to not receive a sign, I think a search of Scripture reveals that there is no prohibition, so then did these Covenant members get a great disservice when they did not get a Covenant sign would they have a just compliant against the Lord of the Covenant for not receiving a sign? No God was perfectly just and they would have not right to launch a complaint why? Because Covenants do not require members all Covenant members to get Covenant signs, in fact, only the Covenant Suzerain has the right to command whom gets the Covenant sign if any and only those whom he commands have the "right" to get that sign.

The fact that God no where prohibits infant Covenant of Grave members from receiving the sign puts no more pressure on the Reformed Baptist than the Jews had to circumcise females even though no express command prohibited females from getting the Covenant sign.

I know that you would object to this and say:

[quote:69b86f4ce0] At this point, I think Watson's interpretation leads to a problem in the New Testament whereas the interpretation that I'm suggesting tends to make better sense of both old and new. The fact that there were no explicit commands aimed at women to partake of the Lord's Supper nor is there any examples in scripture that women ever did proves to be an interpretive conundrum for Watson. I know what someone might say, "Women are disciples and therefore they should be given the Lord's Table." But what is this? Nothing more than a CORPORATE command applied to individual classes. Yet, Watson has proven that such can never be the case. [/quote:69b86f4ce0] 

But if your argument is sound (for I disagree with its premise) I could always just agree with you and say that women ought not to receive the Lord's Supper for just because we do not like were Scripture takes us is not a reason not to go there. However, Scripture does clearly teach "Discipleship Lord's Supper" therefore any Disciple may receive the sacrament and since some women are defined in Scripture as Disciples these same group may receive the sacrament- but only that group- hence I reject women Lord's Supper because just because you are a women it does not mean that you have the right to the lords table, but if you are a Disciple and on "accident" are women then you can be a participant in the table just like Disciples who on accident are "men"- Note no command ever commands men to have the Lord's Supper either (that I know of). Therefore, I think the Discipleship answer satisfies the command creita laid out in Watson's original argument and we do not have to go the "CORPORATE command applied to individual classes" route after all. 


As for the final possible objection- that women were counted "circumcised" because some alleged connection to the federal male. The Reformed Baptist who thinks infants are Covenant members simply goes on to say, well if that is true for women in the Old Covenant than I think it is true for Babies in the New my federal baptism covers the infants until he has come of age and therefore he does not have to be baptized like the women did not have to be circumcised. Remember the Reformed Baptist might add it would have been wrong for a women to get circumcised without a Covenant command and in the New Covenant we can assume that it would be wrong to baptize infants without a command, especially when they are federally coved by the baptism of their parents. Therefore this objection is helpless because it is a two way street which could just as easily be used by Reformed Baptist- this argument is therefore irrelevant at best- or at worst back fires and supplies more ammo to the Reformed Baptist. 

Hence I think Watson's argument deserves a second chance: 

"Thus, people may be in covenant who are without the sign of the covenant, and the sole reason for giving all or some the sign of the covenant is the command of God. It follows that even if the children of believers were in some special covenant relationship, this of itself does not entitle them to the sign of that covenant. The sign is to be given only as the Lord commands - perhaps to males only, perhaps to females, perhaps to both, perhaps to neither. In previous chapters we have seen that the Lord has not commanded that babies should be baptized, whether male or female, so that Christians are no more required to baptize their babies than the Jews are required to circumcise their females (Should Babies Be Baptized? p. 99)"

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 3-16-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## luvroftheWord

Tertullian,

I just wanted to jump in and say that you are very good at debating the credobaptist position. However, you previously said concerning the above federal circumcision argument:

[quote:028e7cccc0]
As for the final possible objection- that women were counted "circumcised" because some alleged connection to the federal male. The Reformed Baptist who thinks infants are Covenant members simply goes on to say, well if that is true for women in the Old Covenant than I think it is true for Babies in the New my federal baptism covers the infants until he has come of age and therefore he does not have to be baptized like the women did not have to be circumcised. Remember the Reformed Baptist might add it would have been wrong for a women to get circumcised without a Covenant command and in the New Covenant we can assume that it would be wrong to baptize infants without a command, especially when they are federally coved by the baptism of their parents. Therefore this objection is helpless because it is a two way street which could just as easily be used by Reformed Baptist- this argument is therefore irrelevant at best- or at worst back fires and supplies more ammo to the Reformed Baptist.
[/quote:028e7cccc0]

The women in the Old Testmant were not &quot;allegedly&quot; circumcised. God counted them as being truly circumcised, otherwise they would not have been able to partake of the Passover. Federal headship is a clear reality in the Scriptures.

Now, if you try to say that infants today are federally baptized, then this means infants are truly baptized. Thus, they have no need of later baptism after they make a profession of faith. If you baptize them with water, you have baptized them twice. The federal circumcision was real circumcision in the OT. Likewise, if you argue for federal baptism, your infants are really baptized. This is not consistent with baptist theology.

Furthermore, since we have an example of a woman being baptized in Scripture (Lydia), there is no need for a &quot;federal baptism&quot; since we can give baptism with water to our female and male infants alike.


----------



## Tertullian

[quote:23ea75a4cd] The women in the Old Testmant were not &quot;allegedly&quot; circumcised. God counted them as being truly circumcised, otherwise they would not have been able to partake of the Passover. Federal headship is a clear reality in the Scriptures.

Now, if you try to say that infants today are federally baptized, then this means infants are truly baptized. Thus, they have no need of later baptism after they make a profession of faith. If you baptize them with water, you have baptized them twice. The federal circumcision was real circumcision in the OT. Likewise, if you argue for federal baptism, your infants are really baptized. This is not consistent with baptist theology. [/quote:23ea75a4cd]

I am not sure that if follows that it would be wrong to baptize a Disciple because of a federal baptism they received as an infant from their parents, without doubt if the federal circumcison applied to female infants it would just have equally applied to male infants, yet even though male infants were circumcised federally they still had to be circumcised personally because God commanded them to be, so the Reformed Baptist who for some reason accepts this position that has yet to be proved from Scripture could just say that Disciples are like males under the Old administration, when infants they are covered federally but when they become Disciples they must be baptized personally because they have been commanded by to do so.

I know that may sound awkward but the awkwardness comes from the whole concept of federal circmusion, in truth, females did not have to be circumcised and so they could still participate in the passover because qualiticiations about circumsion had no refrence to them. 

All in all, I think this federal circumsion is a two way street reformed Baptist could just as easily use it to prove that infants can be in Covennat and not be baptized as you have to say that women could be in covenant and not be circumcised. 


[quote:23ea75a4cd] Furthermore, since we have an example of a woman being baptized in Scripture (Lydia), there is no need for a &quot;federal baptism&quot; since we can give baptism with water to our female and male infants alike. [/quote:23ea75a4cd]

Lydia is also a &quot;Disciple,&quot; and it was because of her faith not her gender that she was given the sacrament, so all this verse really proves is Lydia's baptism was a Discipleship one. 

Also, to say that females had to get federal covering because they could not be circumcised is untrue (Egyptians females were circumcised). Females were not circumcised in Israel because God had not commanded them to be.

Thanks for the comments though,

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian


----------



## luvroftheWord

[quote:cf4bc646dd][i:cf4bc646dd]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:cf4bc646dd]
I am not sure that if follows that it would be wrong to baptize a Disciple because of a federal baptism they received as an infant from their parents, without doubt if the federal circumcison applied to female infants it would just have equally applied to male infants, yet even though male infants were circumcised federally they still had to be circumcised personally because God commanded them to be, so the Reformed Baptist who for some reason accepts this position that has yet to be proved from Scripture could just say that Disciples are like males under the Old administration, when infants they are covered federally but when they become Disciples they must be baptized personally because they have been commanded by to do so.
[/quote:cf4bc646dd]

First of all, there is no federal baptism in the New Testament because baptism can be given to all in the household, male or female. In the OT, the male infants were circumcised in their flesh, not federally. Women were circumcised via the federal headship of the father and not in their flesh (Female circumcision is a mutilation of the woman's genitals. Even in Egypt in recent years there has been a ban on the practice. Though they are both called &quot;circumcision&quot; the two acts are very different from one another). Women are not federally baptized today because we know baptism can be administered to females (which was why I brought up Lydia to begin with). 

Furthermore, in baptist theology, &quot;federal baptism&quot; in an anomaly because it contradicts the baptist meaning of baptism, which is to be given upon an individual's profession of faith in Christ. It is unthinkable that one person's baptism could &quot;count&quot; for or cover another person in baptist theology.

Also, you have made a great deal of the idea that God has COMMANDED &quot;discipleship baptism&quot; as you have called it. But there is no single verse in the NT that says anything like, &quot;you shall only give baptism to a person who have first made a profession of faith in Christ and have become disciples&quot;. Yes, baptists can point to texts that speak of adults being converted and then being baptized, but this is not the same thing. Baptists INFER from these texts that baptism should only be given to disciples. So the baptist positions rests on inference, just like the paedobaptist position, and they should be willing to admit this much. If a practice requires the COMMAND of God, then even the baptist position is excluded by your use of the RPW. Thus, you are applying the RPW too rigidly.

[quote:cf4bc646dd]
I know that may sound awkward but the awkwardness comes from the whole concept of federal circmusion, in truth, females did not have to be circumcised and so they could still participate in the passover because qualiticiations about circumsion had no refrence to them....

.....Also, to say that females had to get federal covering because they could not be circumcised is untrue (Egyptians females were circumcised). Females were not circumcised in Israel because God had not commanded them to be.
[/quote:cf4bc646dd]

Do you believe that a female from the house of a man that was uncircumcised would be allowed to partake of the Passover meal? Of course not. It is because no uncircumcised person could eat the Passover.

There is much more that can be said, but I'm sure my reasoning will not convince you, just as yours is not convincing to me. But because I do believe T. E. Watson's argument is lacking, I wanted to at least chime in and give a reason why.


----------



## Goosha

*Regulative Principle*

Tertullian,

"But this is where I will have to ask for proof because I think that it is dangerous to just presume without a command that a vassal has the right to a Covenant sign that the Lord of the Covenant must honor unless He says otherwise. Where exactly is the prohibition to not circumcise women, where exactly was the prohibition for Covenant members like Enoch and Noah to not receive a sign, I think a search of Scripture reveals that there is no prohibition, so then did these Covenant members get a great disservice when they did not get a Covenant sign would they have a just compliant against the Lord of the Covenant for not receiving a sign? No God was perfectly just and they would have not right to launch a complaint why? Because Covenants do not require members all Covenant members to get Covenant signs, in fact, only the Covenant Suzerain has the right to command whom gets the Covenant sign if any and only those whom he commands have the "right" to get that sign. 

The fact that God no where prohibits infant Covenant of Grave members from receiving the sign puts no more pressure on the Reformed Baptist than the Jews had to circumcise females even though no express command prohibited females from getting the Covenant sign."


I think its funny that when I read my own writing that it seems clear but as soon as there is a response made I am able to immediately see its obscurity. I didn't intend on suggesting that every covenant requires a sign. I apologize if that's what was communicated. I was simply taking a moral perspective from this. If God makes a conditional covenant with a group of people, every individual person should understand that a corporate command applies to individuals within the group unless there is some provision made for certain people (i.e. women and circumcision). For instance, God made a conditional covenant with Israel during the time of Moses and it was understand that the terms of the covenant applied to everyone. Of course, God never leaves us wondering exactly how these promises apply and if there is a qualification that needs to be made, it will be made. 

You ask where there is a prohibition to circumcise women. First of all, women can't be circumcised. When people claim some sort of circumcision for women, they are breaking God's law which does not provide the liberty of self-mutilation. Simply put, this so-called woman circumcision breaks God's law. 

You say that Covenants do not require all members to receive the covenant sign. Is that true for all covenants? Is that true for all covenant signs? Using the regulative principle, I could simply say that the New Testament doesn't provide the basis for unbaptized church members in the New Covenant Church. Thus, the Regulative Principle proves that everyone in the New Covenant Church must be baptized or else the Regulative Principle is broken. Once that is established, one could further argue from Old Testament Prophecy and the general ecclesiastical pattern of scripture that believers and their children will be apart of the New Covenant Church.

Thus, the argument goes as such-

1.) Everyone in the New Covenant Church is baptized as per the Regulative Principle. 
2.) The Bible teaches that the children of believers are apart of the New
Covenant Church.
Conclusion: The children of believers are to be baptized into the church.

Now, you may make your argument that covenant membership does not entitle a person to the covenant sign; fine, you are now required to prove that there could be such a category as unbaptized church members in the New Testament. Since the regulative principle shows us that there is no basis for unbaptized New Covenant Church membership, I am suggesting that only baptized individuals compose the visible church. I like taking this line of reasoning a little more than what I have previously written for at least two reasons: 1.) I don't have to address the issue of whether women were circumcised federally (My friends can debate that much better than I ever could) 2.) I use the Regulative Principle to prove my point. Whether this is convincing or not doesn't really matter, I found the entire discussion profoundly edifying.

Cordially,

Jayson Rawlins


----------



## Tertullian

To all my dearly loved Paedobaptist brothers in General,

This debate is really starting to get deeper into the issues but please understand that a lot of the stuff you guys might assume is not assumed by me. For example I reject the premise that "every Covenant member is required to carry the Covenant sign" (this premise has yet to be proved from Scripture but has so far just been assumed). Hence, the whole "necessity" for some how devising a way that women could be "circumcised" in the Old Covenant so that we can continue to hold to this "theological framework" (i.e. everyone in Covenant receives the sign) is not very compelling to someone like me who does not have to go through mental gymnastics to preserve what he feels is a human tradition anyway. I mean it could be argued that "undetectable space aliens move the planets and therefore everything will stop unless acted upon by a moving force" but for anyone who does not feel a predisposition for the belief that "everything stops unless something moves it" the space alien explanation is not very compelling for the case of Aristotelian metaphysics. Sure no-one could really refute the "undetectable space alien" theory but does that mean that we must accept belief in it? (I see no reason to think so, especially when most of us today think that things will continue to move unless something stops them- as Newton taught).

I am looking at this whole issue from the perspective that only God's commands can give a person the right to have the Covenant sign administered to them (I think the same arguments advanced for the Regulative Principle of Worship can be advanced to defend this position, God's commands are not to be added or subtracted)... you may hold the different assumption that God's command is not really the issue but Covenant membership is... but the point is that we must first address the question of which is the case... if you cannot prove that Covenant membership is a sufficient reason for the administering of a sacrament from Scripture then no argument advanced from that premise will be impressive from someone who wants to base his doctrines upon Scripture. 

From a logical perspective: It only takes one counterfactual to disprove a universal negative. Hence, I only need to present a counterfactual to disprove that "No Covenant members can receive the Covenant sign unless God specifies" proposition. Watson provides such a counterfactual when he lists women in Old Covenant - it does not really matter why they did not get the sign the point of Watson's argument is that this assumption "You cannot be in Covenant and receive the sign unless God directly says otherwise" is not true. 

Just like if I said "There are no pink pigeons in the world" but you had produced through some sort of wired lab experiment a "pink pigeon" my original statement would be wrong- period. In the same way it is just wrong to say that all Covenant members get the sign... because they are Covenant members... unless God says otherwise" for Old Covenant members who were women are a clear counterfactual- period (Whatever reason for women in the Old Covenant that reason is irrelevant the point is that we can no longer assume that just because you are a Covenant member you must get the Covenant sign). 


Therefore not only is there no compelling reason to just assume that people get the Covenant sign because they are in Covenant but there is also strong reason to reject that assumption- we must therefore judge each case of Covenant members individually (i.e. did God command this group to the sign or not) that is the only safe way to arrive at the truth. Hence, this route is a dead end in the debate because it ultimately brings us back to where we started did God command this group (in this case infants) to be baptized. 

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian


----------



## Tertullian

*Jayson Rawlins,*

Thanks for the enlightening and warm posts. You seem not to put a lot of weight on the "Covenant membership=Covenant sign" arguments and you have never seemed quite satisfied with the "federal circumcision of women" hypothesis (I only say this because you presented it with the disclaimer that this was a suggested of your friend that you did not necessarily endorse) and I understand your hesitancy in using these arguments. So I was wondering if you thought that these arguments still left a reasonable doubt in regards to proving the idea that we can just argue infants are Covenant members and then baptism them even though we do not have a command?

I regard to your other point which seems to take a different route then the other arguments I think that it still will not ultimately get passed the reasonable doubt phase because it seems to flounder upon the same rock that the other ones did in the end. 

[quote:f20fd1e8de] 1.) Everyone in the New Covenant Church is baptized as per the Regulative Principle. 
2.) The Bible teaches that the children of believers are apart of the New 
Covenant Church. 
Conclusion: The children of believers are to be baptized into the church. [/quote:f20fd1e8de]

I think I understand the argument but what I do not understand is why the only disproof of this syllogism would be an argument that shows "you are now required to prove that there could be such a category as unbaptized church members in the New Testament" for the other disprove of this argument would be a rejection of premise 1- for where exactly does God command all Church members to be baptized? I see where he commands adults to be baptized and repent and believe and work for their food but obviously these commands do apply to infants unless we want to say that infants must confess Christ as Lord, believe and repent to be saved and work for their food. Now it is reverse is true in regards to the regulative principle- for according to the regulative principle it is just as bad to subtract as it is to add to God's command so if this syllogism is based of a premise which commands something extra than what God commanded then the regulative principle requires us to drop the syllogism. 

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian


----------



## kceaster

*Tyler...*

[quote:9665de2e74][i:9665de2e74]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:9665de2e74]
[quote:9665de2e74][i:9665de2e74]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:9665de2e74]
[quote:9665de2e74][i:9665de2e74]Originally posted by kceaster[/i:9665de2e74]
Thanks for your analysis of my arguments. I must defer the balance of my statements with orthodoxy. I am sorry that you do not make the logical correlation from Colossians 2. All other Reformed divines do. I'll stick with them.

In Christ,

KC [/quote:9665de2e74]

And the Reformed Congregations says &quot;AMEN!&quot; [/quote:9665de2e74]

I guess I do not have enough pictures of reformers on my wall but I just do not see it nor will I accept the resolution that because the majority says so it must be true... I mean Calvin also said that the Bible taught that the earth was the center of the universe... so much for the infalliablity of Calvin. [/quote:9665de2e74]

First, I am not claiming infallibility for anyone. But I will not say that all are wrong on a particular point of doctrine.

We would not call into question any of them for their trinitarianism would we? Then why is it that we can lump them all together when it comes to infant baptism and say that each of them was wrong on this point? How do we know that? By what standard are we judging? By the Word? Well then it is our interpretation vs. theirs, and who is going to win?

The majority. The rule of faith is what is going to win. Otherwise, we have dissented merely because we believe we're right and they're wrong. Who are we to say that the Spirit has taught us and not them? We're not infallible either.

The majority believes Jesus is Lord. The majority believes that salvation is by grace alone. The majority believes that the Scriptures are inerrant. So is the majority always wrong in the church of God? They are right more than they are wrong.

So I reject your notion that we are merely following a majority who is wrong. There is no standard you can show to prove they are wrong because you stand relatively alone against them.

I am sorry you do not like to be a dissenter, but this is exactly what comes along with it.

And, while you may think that you are now the majority because of loose evangelicalism, you need to realize that most of the people you stand with, you do not agree with, except for the one point of baptism. In soteriology, most all of the rest baptistic types believe that we are saved by our choice and our works.

The Reformation was right on infant inclusion. I didn't say they were infallible, but on this point, they are correct. The burden of proof is upon you.

Further, how do you know that the Earth is not the center of the universe?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Goosha

*Just a quick question*

Tertullian,

You wrote:
"I see where he commands adults to be baptized and repent and believe and work for their food but obviously these commands don't apply to infants unless we want to say that infants must confess Christ as Lord, believe and repent to be saved and work for their food."

What conclusion can you possibly draw from this? Do you think this proves that only believers ought to be baptized? God may have commanded adults to be baptized, but there is no scripture indicating that ALL water baptisms require a profession of faith. Are you suggesting that based on the regulative principle the above observation proves that God has authorized only baptism by a credible profession of faith? I hope you see where I coming from. I tried to argue from God revealing only examples of people entering into church membership with their baptism; consequently, I concluded that God has only authorized baptized people the right to join local congregations. Similarly, you observe only adults baptized on the basis of their profession of faith and conclude that God has only authorized those who profess faith the rite of baptism. Honestly, I don't see any difference between both of our uses of the regulative principle. Perhaps I am mistaken and you don't conclude water baptism requiring a profession of faith, but it seems unfair for you to require of me something that you yourself don't seem to be following. Do I really need a command that says that all church members are baptized? If I do, then don't you need a command stating that all baptized people are those who have professed faith? Or maybe, both of us are using the regulative principle correctly but have drawn different conclusions based on our interpretation of scripture.

Cordially,

Jayson Rawlins


----------



## luvroftheWord

Tertullian,

I don't know if Jayson will respond or not, but I have some thoughts concerning what you have said thus far.

First of all, the command of God is very important to me and all paedobaptists alike. Paedobaptists love the RPW. It is a part of our heritage. It is God's requirement for how he is to be worshiped. But you need to understand (maybe you already do) that we as paedobaptists do not see ourselves as breaching the RPW because we do believe paedobaptism has been commanded by God. The command is not necessarily explicit, but it is very implicit in the texts of Scripture.

The Westminster Confession says concerning the RPW:

21:1: But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture. 

But the same confession also says the following:

1:6: The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.

So the fact that infant baptism allegedly has no explicit command in Scripture is not a problem because God's commands and requirements for us can also be inferred through good and necessary consequence.

You yourself said in a previous post a while back:

[quote:8f6240dce8]
but I for one have not problem with inference persay so long as it is warranted.
[/quote:8f6240dce8]

And I presume by the word "warranted" here, we can substitute the phrase "good and necessary". And thus we would be in agreement here. If the RPW does not allow for us to infer God's commands by good and necessary consequence, but to only practice what is explicitly commanded, then not even credobaptism is possible because there is no explicit command in the Bible that says "baptism can only be given to a person who has first professed faith in Christ and has become a disciple" (and as I said before, I hope you are honest enough to admit that BOTH paedo and credobaptism build their positions on inferences from Scripture).

I realize this all may be nothing new to you but I bring it all up for a reason. You have alleged that the practice of paedobaptism breaches the RPW. Paedobaptists disagree with this assertion because we believe our position is derived via good and necessary consequence, and thus the RPW is still satisfied. The point I am making is that this debate really has nothing to do with the RPW but with our interpretation of biblical texts. Both parties believe and are attempting to adhere to the RPW. Nobody is trying to sidestep the RPW to save their position, not even paedobaptists. When I first read Fred Malone's critique of paedobaptism using the RPW, my immediate thoughts were, "This guy can't be serious. Being a former paedobaptist himself, he should know better than to argue this way". Fundamentally, the reason you disagree with paedobaptism is not based on the RPW, as you may assert. The debate is really due to the fact that you disagree with the paedobaptist exegesis of texts from which, by good and necessary consequence, we infer our position (I trust that you are honest enough to admit that paedobaptists formulate their position from Scripture and not just because they are following the ideas of mere mortals like Calvin, Owen, et al). It does no good for you to argue that paedobaptists err because they practice something the RPW doesn't permit because I could also argue that Baptists err because they do NOT practice something that the RPW REQUIRES. The RPW argument against paedobaptism is question-begging because it assumes the truth of the Baptist position at the beginning (and likewise with a paedobaptist who may try to use a similar argument against Baptists). So this brings us back to the texts of Scripture to settle the issue.

Moving to another issue, I believe Jayson's syllogism is valid (obviously), and of the two premises you could have challenged, I was surprised you chose the first, considering that it is by and large the mainstream view in almost the whole of Christendom that one must be baptized to be a member of the church. And what is more is that we have no single example in the NT of a person being added to the number of the church who did not first receive Christian baptism. There is no explicit command that says "any person seeking membership in the church must first receive baptism", but the command is implicit all throughout the NT. Nobody was added to the church until they had first been baptized. Show me one verse, one instance of a person being added to the number of the church without first being baptized, and this premise is overthrown.

Also, if the church was to accept unbaptized persons into its number, this would also require the command of God, would it not? But where is this commanded either implicitly or explicitly in the NT?

But if the first premise is true, and the syllogism is sound, then it sounds the death knell for credobaptism.

Finally, you said:

[quote:8f6240dce8]
please understand that a lot of the stuff you guys might assume is not assumed by me.
[/quote:8f6240dce8]

Believe me, I understand this as well as anybody. In fact, this is one of the reasons this issue is so frustrating to discuss at times. It seems impossible sometimes to find a common ground to build from where our assumptions are the same. This is why I have refrained from debating the baptism issue for quite a while because too often it seems like too much energy is wasted trying to break through all the assumptions. This is the first time I have seriously interacted with somebody on this issue for months, and to be honest, I don't know how much longer I will continue. Don't be offended if I don't continue much longer in this discussion. Consider me as pulling a Michael Jordan, briefly coming out of retirement only to exit the game again (I'm 99.9% sure I'm done).


----------



## Tertullian

[quote:0990a0c05a][i:0990a0c05a]Originally posted by Goosha[/i:0990a0c05a]
Tertullian,

You wrote:
"I see where he commands adults to be baptized and repent and believe and work for their food but obviously these commands don't apply to infants unless we want to say that infants must confess Christ as Lord, believe and repent to be saved and work for their food."

What conclusion can you possibly draw from this? Do you think this proves that only believers ought to be baptized? God may have commanded adults to be baptized, but there is no scripture indicating that ALL water baptisms require a profession of faith. Are you suggesting that based on the regulative principle the above observation proves that God has authorized only baptism by a credible profession of faith? I hope you see where I coming from. I tried to argue from God revealing only examples of people entering into church membership with their baptism; consequently, I concluded that God has only authorized baptized people the right to join local congregations. Similarly, you observe only adults baptized on the basis of their profession of faith and conclude that God has only authorized those who profess faith the rite of baptism. Honestly, I don't see any difference between both of our uses of the regulative principle. Perhaps I am mistaken and you don't conclude water baptism requiring a profession of faith, but it seems unfair for you to require of me something that you yourself don't seem to be following. Do I really need a command that says that all church members are baptized? If I do, then don't you need a command stating that all baptized people are those who have professed faith? Or maybe, both of us are using the regulative principle correctly but have drawn different conclusions based on our interpretation of scripture.

Cordially,

Jayson Rawlins [/quote:0990a0c05a]

To be honest I do agree with your arguement and mine- All those baptized are church members (your arguement based on the regulative principle) and all those baptized are believers (my arguement based on the regulative principle)- So all those baptized become church members and only Disciples are baptized. Note these two arguements are parrallel being justified by the same arguements.

Now I hope you can see the reverse:

Paedobaptist arguement women received federal circumsion therefore they did not have to be circumcised, the Reformed Baptist arguement babies received federal baptism therefore they do not have to be baptized. (Note the these two arguements are parrallel being justified on the same logic)

All in all, to follow the regulative principle leads us to the credo position and to follow the federal circumicision (which I do not think is not taught in Scripture) could also lead us to a credoposition

Hope this helps.

To the glory of Christ, Tertullian


----------



## Tertullian

> [quote:f0fe8624ed][i:f0fe8624ed]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:f0fe8624ed]
> Tertullian,
> 
> I don't know if Jayson will respond or not, but I have some thoughts concerning what you have said thus far.
> 
> First of all, the command of God is very important to me and all paedobaptists alike. Paedobaptists love the RPW. It is a part of our heritage. It is God's requirement for how he is to be worshiped. But you need to understand (maybe you already do) that we as paedobaptists do not see ourselves as breaching the RPW because we do believe paedobaptism has been commanded by God. The command is not necessarily explicit, but it is very implicit in the texts of Scripture.
> 
> The Westminster Confession says concerning the RPW:
> 
> 21:1: But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture.
> 
> But the same confession also says the following:
> 
> 1:6: The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.
> 
> So the fact that infant baptism allegedly has no explicit command in Scripture is not a problem because God's commands and requirements for us can also be inferred through good and necessary consequence.
> 
> You yourself said in a previous post a while back:
> 
> [quote:f0fe8624ed]
> but I for one have not problem with inference persay so long as it is warranted.
> [/quote:f0fe8624ed]
> 
> And I presume by the word "warranted" here, we can substitute the phrase "good and necessary". And thus we would be in agreement here. If the RPW does not allow for us to infer God's commands by good and necessary consequence, but to only practice what is explicitly commanded, then not even credobaptism is possible because there is no explicit command in the Bible that says "baptism can only be given to a person who has first professed faith in Christ and has become a disciple" (and as I said before, I hope you are honest enough to admit that BOTH paedo and credobaptism build their positions on inferences from Scripture).
> 
> I realize this all may be nothing new to you but I bring it all up for a reason. You have alleged that the practice of paedobaptism breaches the RPW. Paedobaptists disagree with this assertion because we believe our position is derived via good and necessary consequence, and thus the RPW is still satisfied. The point I am making is that this debate really has nothing to do with the RPW but with our interpretation of biblical texts. Both parties believe and are attempting to adhere to the RPW. Nobody is trying to sidestep the RPW to save their position, not even paedobaptists. When I first read Fred Malone's critique of paedobaptism using the RPW, my immediate thoughts were, "This guy can't be serious. Being a former paedobaptist himself, he should know better than to argue this way". Fundamentally, the reason you disagree with paedobaptism is not based on the RPW, as you may assert. The debate is really due to the fact that you disagree with the paedobaptist exegesis of texts from which, by good and necessary consequence, we infer our position (I trust that you are honest enough to admit that paedobaptists formulate their position from Scripture and not just because they are following the ideas of mere mortals like Calvin, Owen, et al). It does no good for you to argue that paedobaptists err because they practice something the RPW doesn't permit because I could also argue that Baptists err because they do NOT practice something that the RPW REQUIRES. The RPW argument against paedobaptism is question-begging because it assumes the truth of the Baptist position at the beginning (and likewise with a paedobaptist who may try to use a similar argument against Baptists). So this brings us back to the texts of Scripture to settle the issue. [/quote:f0fe8624ed]
> 
> We are in complete agreement here, but this has not be useless this has been monumental we have now established who has the &quot;burden of proof&quot; if Paedobaptist wish to baptize infants then where is the command to baptize infants... Reformed credo Baptist do not need to prove that Scripture prohibits infant baptism... Reformed Paedobaptist need to prove that Scripture commands it. Now we are in a position to begen to examine the evidence since it has been established what needs to be proved and by who... The reformed Paedo needs to prove that God has commanded the baptism of infants with Christian parents and they can prove God has Commanded this either by inference or a direct quote.
> 
> [quote:f0fe8624ed] Moving to another issue, I believe Jayson's syllogism is valid (obviously), and of the two premises you could have challenged, I was surprised you chose the first, considering that it is by and large the mainstream view in almost the whole of Christendom that one must be baptized to be a member of the church. And what is more is that we have no single example in the NT of a person being added to the number of the church who did not first receive Christian baptism. There is no explicit command that says "any person seeking membership in the church must first receive baptism", but the command is implicit all throughout the NT. Nobody was added to the church until they had first been baptized. Show me one verse, one instance of a person being added to the number of the church without first being baptized, and this premise is overthrown.
> 
> Also, if the church was to accept unbaptized persons into its number, this would also require the command of God, would it not? But where is this commanded either implicitly or explicitly in the NT?
> 
> But if the first premise is true, and the syllogism is sound, then it sounds the death knell for credobaptism. [/quote:f0fe8624ed]
> 
> Actually I as a Reformed Baptist agree with this but not all the arguements you used to prove baptism=Church membership are the same arguements Reformed Baptist use to prove that only Disciples should be baptized. So all I can say is why if you accept the same logic to justify one position will you not apply that same logic in Scripture to the question who gets baptized?
> 
> Personally I do not think that &quot;Scripture commands all Church members to be baptized&quot; but if the arguements you guys advanced to prove it were true then you guys would have to accept credobaptism because all the arguements work for the credobaptist position also.
> 
> 
> [quote:f0fe8624ed] Finally, you said:
> 
> [quote:f0fe8624ed]
> please understand that a lot of the stuff you guys might assume is not assumed by me.
> [/quote:f0fe8624ed]
> 
> [quote:f0fe8624ed] Believe me, I understand this as well as anybody. In fact, this is one of the reasons this issue is so frustrating to discuss at times. It seems impossible sometimes to find a common ground to build from where our assumptions are the same. This is why I have refrained from debating the baptism issue for quite a while because too often it seems like too much energy is wasted trying to break through all the assumptions. This is the first time I have seriously interacted with somebody on this issue for months, and to be honest, I don't know how much longer I will continue. Don't be offended if I don't continue much longer in this discussion. Consider me as pulling a Michael Jordan, briefly coming out of retirement only to exit the game again (I'm 99.9% sure I'm done). [/quote:f0fe8624ed] [/quote:f0fe8624ed]
> 
> Note I am saying that we cannot just assume that because somebody is in Covenant we have to assume that he or she gets the sign we need to look at each Covenant seperatly to see how God has set each Covenant administration up... now if you guys are going to agree with that and say fine we will look and see how pnly New Covenant adminsters who is a member and from that evidence we will prove that all New Covenant members get the sign- I only ask you to be consistent and allow the New Covenant to define how it administers the sacraments... (as a Credobaptist I encourage it, please show me where in the New Covenant God commands infant baptism)
> 
> To the glory of Christ-Tertullian
> 
> PS remember that I am not fully convinced that the New Testament teaches that all Church Members get the sign (I not it teaches only Church members get the sign but these two propositions are different)... I think this point will be important latter on in this discussion)
> 
> 
> 
> [Edited on 3-18-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Tertullian

[quote:d18bae1a26][i:d18bae1a26]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:d18bae1a26]
Tyler,

I am working on something that I think you will like. I will try to post it this weekend.

you said:

[quote:d18bae1a26]
the Reformed Baptist arguement babies received federal baptism therefore they do not have to be baptized. 
[/quote:d18bae1a26]

Whoa! Every baptist I have ever talked to has said that one can receive nothing by mere [i:d18bae1a26]birth![/i:d18bae1a26] in the current admisnistration of cog. Are you saying now that by nature of their BIRTH infants are federally baptized!?!? ....But isn't it a baptist maxum that &quot;All who are children of Abraham are children by FAITH and not by BIRTH?&quot; Don't the baptist teach that familial ties are done away with?-&quot;the sins of the fathers will not be passed on to the children.&quot; How could [i:d18bae1a26]mere physical relationship[/i:d18bae1a26] do anything? I think your response was [i:d18bae1a26]ad hoc[/i:d18bae1a26] and is not consistant with baptistic doctrine. Therefore, you are wrong that &quot;federal baptism&quot; could lead to a credo position.

-Paul

[Edited on 3-18-2004 by Paul manata] [/quote:d18bae1a26]

Remember I was arguing that if we accept the premise that &quot;all Covenant members get the sign&quot; we still do not have to go to the Paedobaptist side. Why?

because even though I Personally do not teach &quot;federal baptism&quot; but if you guys are allowed to teach &quot;federal circumcison&quot; to exclude women from getting the sign in the Old Covenant. I see no reason why a Reformed Baptist could not just use the same logic to exclude infants... my point was not that this is an arguement for credobaptism but that the Covenant membership=Covenant sign route is a dead end for both sides.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian


----------



## luvroftheWord

Tertullian,

[quote:0ac2451351]
We are in complete agreement here, but this has not be useless this has been monumental we have now established who has the &quot;burden of proof&quot; if Paedobaptist wish to baptize infants then where is the command to baptize infants... Reformed credo Baptist do not need to prove that Scripture prohibits infant baptism... Reformed Paedobaptist need to prove that Scripture commands it. Now we are in a position to begin to examine the evidence since it has been established what needs to be proved and by who... The reformed Paedo needs to prove that God has commanded the baptism of infants with Christian parents and they can prove God has Commanded this either by inference or a direct quote.
[/quote:0ac2451351]

I think it can be argued that the burden of proof is on the credobaptists. But I'm not going to argue over the burden of proof because to be quite honest, I'm not concerned in the least about it. I don't have anything to hide in my position. I obviously think paedobaptism can be proven, or else I wouldn't have abandoned credobaptism and accepted it.

[quote:0ac2451351]
Actually I as a Reformed Baptist agree with this but not all the arguements you used to prove baptism=Church membership are the same arguements Reformed Baptist use to prove that only Disciples should be baptized. So all I can say is why if you accept the same logic to justify one position will you not apply that same logic in Scripture to the question who gets baptized? 

Personally I do not think that &quot;Scripture commands all Church members to be baptized&quot; but if the arguements you guys advanced to prove it were true then you guys would have to accept credobaptism because all the arguements work for the credobaptist position also.
[/quote:0ac2451351]

I'm a little confused here. First you said that, as a Reformed Baptist, you agreed with my argument, but then you said you don't think Scripture commands all church members to be baptized, which was what my argument was.

But if you don't think Scripture commands all church members to be baptized, can you show either explicitly or by good and necessary inference where accepting unbaptized people into the number of the church is justified? If you believe the church can accept unbaptized people into its membership without God's command, then why can't we baptized our infants without a command (not that we believe this is the case)?

Also, our arguments don't work for the credobaptist position at all because the Bible explicitly includes our children in the New Covenant church in numerous places.

Ezekiel 37:24-28-- 
"My servant David shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall walk in my rules and be careful to obey my statutes. They shall dwell in the land that I gave to my servant Jacob, where your fathers lived. [i:0ac2451351]They and their children and their children's children shall dwell there forever[/i:0ac2451351], and David my servant shall be their prince forever. I will make a covenant of peace with them. It shall be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will set them in their land and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in their midst forevermore. My dwelling place shall be with them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Then the nations will know that I am the LORD who sanctifies Israel, when my sanctuary is in their midst forevermore."

Isaiah 59:21-- 
"And as for me, this is my covenant with them," says the LORD: "My Spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or [i:0ac2451351]out of the mouth of your offspring, out of the mouth of your children's offspring[/i:0ac2451351]," says the LORD, "from this time forth and forevermore."

Jeremiah 32:37-41-- 
"Behold, I will gather them from all the countries to which I drove them in my anger and my wrath and in great indignation. I will bring them back to this place, and I will make them dwell in safety. And they shall be my people, and I will be their God. I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever, for their own good and [i:0ac2451351]the good of their children after them.[/i:0ac2451351] I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them. And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me. I will rejoice in doing them good, and I will plant them in this land in faithfulness, with all my heart and all my soul."

Zechariah 10:6-10-- 
"I will strengthen the house of Judah, and I will save the house of Joseph. I will bring them back because I have compassion on them, and they shall be as though I had not rejected them, for I am the LORD their God and I will answer them. Then Ephraim shall become like a mighty warrior, and their hearts shall be glad as with wine. [i:0ac2451351]Their children[/i:0ac2451351] shall see it and be glad; their hearts shall rejoice in the LORD. I will whistle for them and gather them in, for I have redeemed them, and they shall be as many as they were before. Though I scattered them among the nations, yet in far countries they shall remember me, and [i:0ac2451351]with their children[/i:0ac2451351] they shall live and return. I will bring them home from the land of Egypt, and gather them from Assyria, and I will bring them to the land of Gilead and to Lebanon, till there is no room for them."

Now if our argument is true, that the Bible commands all church members to be baptized, then it is not credobaptism but paedobaptism that is true, because our children are members of the church.

[quote:0ac2451351]
I only ask you to be consistent and allow the New Covenant to define how it administers the sacraments... (as a Credobaptist I encourage it, please show me where in the New Covenant God commands infant baptism)
[/quote:0ac2451351]

I suppose a starting place would be the Ezekiel passage listed above. "They shall walk in my rules and be careful to obey my statutes." That baptism is one of God's rules and statutes is a point that should not be disputed. And who are those who are to walk in these statutes? "They and their children and their children's children." This is a New Covenant prophecy, but yet it sounds a whole lot like the way things were in the Old Covenant. The "to you and to your children" principle did no cease with the Old Covenant, but continues into the New Covenant.

[quote:0ac2451351]
PS remember that I am not fully convinced that the New Testament teaches that all Church Members get the sign (I not it teaches only Church members get the sign but these two propositions are different)... I think this point will be important latter on in this discussion)
[/quote:0ac2451351]

I'm confused by your wording here. Do you or do you not believe the NT teaches that all church members get the sign? Or did you mean to make a distinction between church members and covenant members? If this is what you meant, I believe I already know why you think this is such an important point since I've been around the baptism carousel a time or two. But even though I may be wrong, I will still go ahead and say that I think making a distinction between the covenant community and the church is an arbitrary and unwarranted distinction.


----------



## Tertullian

*luvroftheWord*

I am sorry I think I have done an injustice to your post because I think I was debating a different issue than you were. I have argued that we cannot just assume that a &quot;person who is a Covenant member must get the sign of that Covenant.&quot; Hence, the whole arguement that seeks to prove well Children are Covenant members (Whatever their arguement is) and therefore we must be Paedobaptist is nor valid because all we learn when we discover that children are New Covenant members (Not saying I agree but just hypotheticially) we have only learned that they might or might not be baptized. 

I have been defending that analysis against good questions from different people on this board... so we are not really debating Credoism or Paedoism we are debating if this arguement &quot;Covenant member=Covenant sign&quot; is even an arguement that should be attempted by Paedobaptist.

Here is my original arguement- I explain what the Paedobaptist needs to prove and why the &quot;babies are Covenant member&quot; method fails to prove what needs to be proved.


[quote:670033913f] What Needs to be Proved

To make progress in the controversy between credobaptism and paedobaptism the question must be asked what exactly the paedobaptist needs to prove in order to satisfy the regulative principle of worship. Theologian Karl Barth provides an excellent outline of the three ingredients to the argument that the reformed paedobaptist need to articulate in order to make their case that Scripture when viewed as a whole clearly commands the practice of the baptism of the children of Christians. Barth's criteria may be summarized as follows (1) The necessity of infant baptism must be established by a command of God either by just and necessary inference or by direct command found in Scripture (2) The case must be presented calmly and clearly (3) What needs to be proved must be proved and not something else. When all three of these criteria are meet then the Reformed Baptist demand for a command to be baptize infants will have been sufficiently answered by Reformed Paedobaptist. Yet as Barth showed, and I will try to show, these criteria were not meet by either the reformers or their prodigy after them. Only this criteria will suffice because the demands of the Regulative Principle of Worship will not be fulfilled by vicious circular that appeal to the authority of the reformers or Westminster Standards for no matter how prestigious they are they cannot properly be utilized since the very truth of their conclusions is what needs to be proved and established.


[b:670033913f] The Most Common but Useless Argument given for the Reformed Paedobaptist position [/b:670033913f]

Before progress can be made in critically examining and questioning the two most compelling arguments that Paedobaptist use to teach that God has indeed commanded baptism, a popular argument must first be set aside because unless it is addressed it will haunt the minds of those who have read on this subject from a Paedobaptist perspective. Barth's third point, namely, the Paedobaptist must prove what needs to be proved is really helpful in dealing with this popular but misdirected argument for many Paedobaptist argue that the physical children of spiritual Covenant members are included in the External Covenant of Grace. Whole books defending the inclusion of infants in the Visible Church have been written when the authors of these books were supposed to be defending infant baptism for in point of fact for it is ultimately irrelevant according to the Regulative Principle of Worship if infants are in Covenant or not. Therefore either way the problem of infant inclusion in the External Covenant of Grace is answered nothing will have been learned about if Scripture commands infant baptism. If the question is answered that physical children of Christian parents are not necessarily New Covenant members (my own position) or if the problem is solved that infants are somehow External Covenant of Grave members, we have learned nothing about if we ought to baptize an infant or not. Why not? Consider the argument for infant baptism based on Covenant membership: 


(a) That all children of believers are born in the external sphere of the Covenant of Grace. 
(b) That the covenant privileges belong to them by birth 
(c) That the covenant seal and sign must be given to all children of believers since they are in the external sphere of the Covenant of Grace. 



This argument may look decisive but in truth Reformed Baptist TE Watson destroys this argument with speed when he writes: 


If for argument's sake we grant propositions (a) and (b) we will now show that inference (c) does not necessarily follow. Let us consider an example in the Old Testament. It will not be denied that Jewish females had as great a part and interest in the covenant made with Abraham as had the males. Here then we have a case of persons in covenant who are yet without the sign of the covenant, circumcision. To answer the obvious objection, it should be remembered that a certain kind of circumcision was given to females by the Egyptians, and a similar practice could easily have prevailed among the Jews. Now the reason the Jewish males were circumcised. Had it so pleased him, he need never have given any sign at all, in which case both males and females would have been in covenant with him without having any sign to that effect. 

[i:670033913f] Thus, people may be in covenant who are without the sign of the covenant, and the sole reason for giving all or some the sign of the covenant is the command of God. It follows that even if the children of believers were in some special covenant relationship, this of itself does not entitle them to the sign of that covenant. The sign is to be given only as the Lord commands - perhaps to males only, perhaps to females, perhaps to both, perhaps to neither. In previous chapters we have seen that the Lord has not commanded that babies should be baptized, whether male or female, so that Christians are no more required to baptize their babies than the Jews are required to circumcise their females (Should Babies Be Baptized? p. 99) [/i:670033913f]

Watson's observation that you can be in the covenant and still not receive the Covenant sign is most pertinent when the argument from the covenant status of infants to the administration of infant baptism because it shows that the two categories of covenant membership and who receives the covenant sign are separate and most not be confused. A Reformed Baptist who thinks that infants are included in the Covenant of Grace because of who their parents need feel no more obligated to baptize infants then the Jews felt about women in the Old Covenant. Only a command of God can warrant the administration of a covenant sign. Regardless of the popularity of this particular Paedobaptist argument we must ultimately judge this argument as essentially useless and irrelevant to the question of infant baptism.
[/quote:670033913f]

hopes this answers some of your questions and clearifies what I have been arguing in my last few posts.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian


----------



## Tertullian

[quote:35c0435bac][quote:35c0435bac][i:35c0435bac]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:35c0435bac]
[quote:35c0435bac]
Remember I was arguing that if we accept the premise that &quot;all Covenant members get the sign&quot; we still do not have to go to the Paedobaptist side. Why? 
[/quote:35c0435bac]

Tyler, could you please correctly state goosha's P1? Was your premise what his was? [/quote:35c0435bac][/quote:35c0435bac]

The position Goosha at one point was defending this:

&quot;The basis for males receiving the sign according to scripture was the covenant itself. Consequently, there was a very strong connection between the sign and the covenant&quot;.

And that is what I was addressing so I think my rebuttals were on topic- for if it is admited that no one is baptized on the basis of their Covenant status then it follows that the whole arguement from Covenant membership of babies to Covenant sign administrations- is not only wrong on fact (I think for babies of Christians are not automaticially placed in the New Covenant) but even if it was true it still would be a pointless method because if we prove they are Covenant member we only prove that they might or might not be given the Covenant sign... and that conclusion is a far cry from Paedobaptism

[quote:35c0435bac][quote:35c0435bac]
I see no reason why a Reformed Baptist could not just use the same logic to exclude infants... 
[/quote:35c0435bac]

See my above refutation of the baptist who would try this. [/quote:35c0435bac]

Thanks. I saw them but still think that your arguement that goes, &quot;well just looking at the New Testament examples we can see that every church member is given the sign&quot;...

now all I can say is let us apply that same logic to infant baptism... &quot;every time we see someone baptized in the New Testament they have proffessed fiath therefore we can only baptize those who profess faith...&quot;

putting these two arguements together we come up with only those who are baptized are considered church members and the church is made up of those who have faith. (I am not saying this is my arguement I am saying is that your logic for church membership is the same one some baptist (but not I) haved used to prove credobaptism) 


[quote:35c0435bac] also, I have asked three questions in three speparte posts. Can thos ebe addressed, please?

-Paul [/quote:35c0435bac]

1) I have already asked you to explain your position about elements and circumstance and I will tell you if I agree

2) If you say that we can only use the New Covenant to prove our positions (then please let us do that in all areas) Fine I admit that all those baptized become church members by New Testament examples but I also note that by New Testament examples we cannot prove infant baptism as Warfield wrote:

"It is true there is no express command to baptize infants in the New Testament, no express record of the baptism of infants and no passages so stringently implying it that we must infer from them that infants were baptized" (Studies in Theology, p. 399.)

Therefore, I have no problem using the New Testament to define New Covenant sings and church membership it has typicially been the Paedobaptist who had to jump ship and try to fit a circle where a square was by saying that baptism replaced circumcison but some the commands to administer circumcison to male infants continued in its replacement but gets expaned to females because we think that is more glourious (after all the inclusion of women in baptism is not that great so we need to add infants to make baptism better than circumcison) ... on and on the arguement goes... and in the end you head is dizzy and going is this what they meant by a just and necessary inference?&quot;

3) I define a command of God the way Scripture does. -if you defined it we would probably agree.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian 


[Edited on 3-19-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Roldan

[quote:d7953775ab][i:d7953775ab]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:d7953775ab]
3) I define a command of God the way Scripture does. -if you defined it we would probably agree.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian 


[Edited on 3-19-2004 by Tertullian] [/quote:d7953775ab]


With all due respect Tert. but that was no answer at all just good dodge, please answer the question. Thanx


----------



## Goosha

*Come on now!*

Hey Tyler,

I've gotta hand it to you, you have a lot of endurance. You should tell your children about how you debated four Presbyterians at the same time. Anyways, I just wanted make progress in the discussion but now realized what Paul Manata had already noticed- you have reworded my first premise based off the regulative principle.

You wrote:
"Fine I admit that all those baptized become church members by New Testament examples." At first, I thought you were ready to go onto the next step but then I noticed that your admission that "all those baptized become church members" is significantly different than my original premise. In fact, if I were to put your premise into my syllogism it turns out to be a logical fallacy. I'm not sure if you intended that to be the case but it sure is tricky. In fact, your premise doesn't progress the debate for my position at all and you have not said anything significantly different than your original argument and I'm kinda laughing right now as I write this. Lets take a look at your premise:

1.) If a person is baptized, then he/she becomes a church member
2.) Infants of believers are church members.
C.) Infants of believers are baptized.

LOL. This is a logical fallacy and still requires us to prove that infants are baptized. Based on your premise, we would need an example of an infant baptism to prove to you that God has authorized infant baptism. 

I had to reread my original arguments over again to see if I had written them correctly or if I was committing the same logical fallacy but I found my premise written this way:

"I tried to argue from God revealing only examples of people entering into church membership with their baptism; consequently, I concluded that God has only authorized baptized people the right to join local congregations."

A shorter version would be:

1.) If a person is a member of the local church, then he/she was required to be baptized.

After all, only baptized people have a right to join the church according to the regulative principle. My question is- Do you accept this premise and not the premise, "If a person is baptized, then he/she becomes a church member." In other words, do you believe that visible church membership has the moral prerequisite of baptism? Or, do you think that membership in the church does not presuppose necessarily baptism. Granted, I understand that sometimes pastors can't always be sure of whether all of their members have been baptized properly but I am arguing ethically that church membership implies baptism. Again, I repeat the question:

Do you agree that if a person is a member of a local church, then he/she was required to be baptized (either from another church or for the first time)?

Cordially,

Jayson Rawlins

[Edited on 3-19-2004 by Goosha]


----------



## luvroftheWord

Tertullian,

Really nobody is off topic here, unless you just assume that there is a distinction between the covenant community and the church. I reject that distinction.

[Edited on 3-19-2004 by luvroftheWord]


----------



## cih1355

[quote:c0b2793adf][i:c0b2793adf]Originally posted by A_Wild_Boar[/i:c0b2793adf]
This is mainly for my Baptist brethren. I wondered when a child can be baptized. I have two children that have a great understanding of Gods Salvation and trust in Him completely. They don't know too much about the why and how of Baptism yet, but they are getting close.

If they are to fully understand what Baptism entails and they ask to be Baptized, what should I tell them?

Actually an opinion from the Presbyterian crew wouldnt hurt either. [/quote:c0b2793adf]

If they are truly saved, then they should get baptized as soon as possible. Jesus said to baptize those who are already disciples (Matt. 28:19). The pattern in the book of Acts is that people repented and believed the gospel first before they got baptized.


----------



## Saiph

[quote:d3e4b9f9aa]
If they are truly saved, then they should get baptized as soon as possible. Jesus said to baptize those who are already disciples (Matt. 28:19). The pattern in the book of Acts is that people repented and believed the gospel first before they got baptized. 
[/quote:d3e4b9f9aa]

Did you forget these verses brother ? ? 

They do not explicitly say repentance followed or preceded their baptism.


Act 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added [unto them] about three thousand souls. 


Act 16:14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard [us]: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. 
Act 16:15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought [us], saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide [there]. And she constrained us. 


Act 16:32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. 
Act 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed [their] stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. 


And it seems to me from the following verse that we really do not know if repentance comes before, after or with the gift of regeneration.


Act 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.


----------



## luvroftheWord

[quote:0c1ac22179][i:0c1ac22179]Originally posted by cih1355[/i:0c1ac22179]
Jesus said to baptize those who are already disciples (Matt. 28:19).
[/quote:0c1ac22179]

Actually, Jesus said, &quot;Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.&quot; There is nothing in these words giving us a chronological order of what precedes what.

And even if there was a chronological order to Jesus' words, I make disciple my children from their birth, and thus, they are proper recipients of baptism even on baptist grounds.

So my advice to A Wild Boar is this: by all means, baptize your children as soon as possible.


----------



## SolaScriptura

[quote:97b16c5a3f][i:97b16c5a3f]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:97b16c5a3f]

So my advice to A Wild Boar is this: by all means, baptize your children as soon as possible. [/quote:97b16c5a3f]

...lest they should die and be in peril of the fires of hell!

Just kidding. I couldn't resist. :tumble:


----------



## luvroftheWord

Oooooh, Mr. Smartypants!


----------



## cih1355

[quote:1bdd43a9f8][i:1bdd43a9f8]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:1bdd43a9f8]
[quote:1bdd43a9f8][i:1bdd43a9f8]Originally posted by cih1355[/i:1bdd43a9f8]
Jesus said to baptize those who are already disciples (Matt. 28:19).
[/quote:1bdd43a9f8]

Actually, Jesus said, &quot;Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.&quot; There is nothing in these words giving us a chronological order of what precedes what.

And even if there was a chronological order to Jesus' words, I make disciple my children from their birth, and thus, they are proper recipients of baptism even on baptist grounds.

So my advice to A Wild Boar is this: by all means, baptize your children as soon as possible. [/quote:1bdd43a9f8]

When Jesus said, &quot;...baptizing them...&quot;, the &quot;them&quot; refers to disciples. So, Jesus meant &quot;baptizing disciples&quot;.


----------



## cih1355

[quote:09dba0c8a4][i:09dba0c8a4]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:09dba0c8a4]
[quote:09dba0c8a4]
If they are truly saved, then they should get baptized as soon as possible. Jesus said to baptize those who are already disciples (Matt. 28:19). The pattern in the book of Acts is that people repented and believed the gospel first before they got baptized. 
[/quote:09dba0c8a4]

Did you forget these verses brother ? ? 

They do not explicitly say repentance followed or preceded their baptism.


Act 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added [unto them] about three thousand souls. 


Act 16:14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard [us]: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. 
Act 16:15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought [us], saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide [there]. And she constrained us. 


Act 16:32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. 
Act 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed [their] stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. 


And it seems to me from the following verse that we really do not know if repentance comes before, after or with the gift of regeneration.


Act 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. [/quote:09dba0c8a4]

All of those verses that you referred to have to do with people getting converted. Faith in Christ and repentance are involved in conversion.


----------



## Saiph

[quote:f2726adc12]
All of those verses that you referred to have to do with people getting converted. Faith in Christ and repentance are involved in conversion. 

[/quote:f2726adc12]

That is an assumption.

Anyway, there is no warning in Scripture for someone who baptizes someone else that is not &quot;truly saved&quot; as it is said in a previous post.

But woe to them who take the covenant sign lightly, like when Moses did not circumcise his son, nd Zipporah righteously confronted the neglect of her husband.


----------



## Tertullian

*Jayson Rawlins,*

I view it as this: I am not really debating five Presbyterians but I am learning form an edifying conversation that involves five Presbyterians. 

Thank you for setting up such a brief synopsis of your arguments, I hope that I will be able to use this show you what I mean when I said that-If I accepted your "arguments" about church Membership=New Covenant sign" and you accepted that position based on the same argument, we must both become Credobaptist because that same identical argument proves credobaptism when it is used to see who is the proper recipients of baptism. Allow me to demonstrate by parrelling your two twin arguments below: 

[quote:14d204929b] "I tried to argue from God revealing only examples of people entering into church membership with their baptism; consequently, I concluded that God has only authorized baptized people the right to join local congregations." [/quote:14d204929b]

I tried to argue from God revealing only examples of adults who meet the qualifications being baptized; consequently, I concluded that God has only authorized that adults who meet the qualifications receive baptism.

[quote:14d204929b] A shorter version would be: 

1.) If a person is a member of the local church, then he/she was required to be baptized.


After all, only baptized people have a right to join the church according to the regulative principle.." [/quote:14d204929b]

1) Only adults who meet the qualifications were baptized. 

After all, only adults who have the qualifications have the right to be baptized according to the regulative principle. 


[quote:14d204929b] My question is- Do you accept this premise and not the premise, "If a person is baptized, then he/she becomes a church member. In other words, do you believe that visible church membership has the moral prerequisite of baptism? Or, do you think that membership in the church does not presuppose necessarily baptism. Granted, I understand that sometimes pastors can't always be sure of whether all of their members have been baptized properly but I am arguing ethically that church membership implies baptism. Again, I repeat the question: 


Do you agree that if a person is a member of a local church, then he/she was required to be baptized (either from another church or for the first time)? [/quote:14d204929b]

If you accept the logic in this argument then use must consistently accept the parallel argument that proves that infants cannot get the sacrament- personally, as you know I am Reformed Baptist and so I accept the traditional Reformed Baptist answer to that question- namely- yes all Disciples are to be baptized and become church members-they are to become church members in fact I think that Barth was on to something when he explained the essential aspect of the Disciple commitment to share the destiny of the community and the community the destiny of the Disciple- in other words Baptism is a Disciples first act of obedience. 

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 3-20-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## luvroftheWord

Curt,

[quote:396695e64b]
When Jesus said, &quot;...baptizing them...&quot;, the &quot;them&quot; refers to disciples. So, Jesus meant &quot;baptizing disciples&quot;.
[/quote:396695e64b]

First, even if that's what he meant, that still doesn't necessitate a chronology here.

Second, the Greek text will not allow this interpretation. (I don't know if you know Greek or not, but to be safe I'm going to assume you don't) For one thing, the noun &quot;disciples&quot; is not present in the text. The word that the English versions commonly derive the the word &quot;disciple&quot; from is the verb [i:396695e64b]matheteuo[/i:396695e64b]. This verb means &quot;to make one a disciple&quot;, or simply &quot;to teach&quot;. In fact, the KJV translates this verse, &quot;Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them...&quot; If you translate the verse this way, then even in English the word &quot;them&quot; cannot refer to &quot;disciples&quot; since the word isn't even present in English. It is crystal clear in the Greek text (and even some English texts, depending on which translation you have, such as the KJV) that the pronoun [i:396695e64b]autous[/i:396695e64b], &quot;them&quot;, is referring to the [i:396695e64b]ethne[/i:396695e64b], &quot;nations&quot;. 

Now, as to what Matt 28:19 IS saying about &quot;making disciples&quot; and &quot;baptizing&quot;, the verb [i:396695e64b]matheteuo[/i:396695e64b] is a simple command (for those who are familiar with Greek, it is aorist active imperative). The word &quot;baptizing&quot;, in technical language, is an anarthrous present active participle in the predicate position, which means the participle is functioning adverbially to describe the command to teach/make disciples. What this all means in layman's terms is that the action of the participle (in this case, the &quot;baptizing&quot; ) is taking place at the same time as the action of the main verb, which is the command to teach/make disciples.

So as I said before, there is nothing in the text of Matthew 28:19 that gives us a chronological order of &quot;first you make disciples, then you baptize&quot;. At most, it says both acts of disciple-making and baptizing are to be practiced presently in the ministry of the church. This verse cannot be used to argue against the paedobaptist position.

I apologize if you already know Greek and anything I said insulted your intelligence, as that wasn't my intention. I also apologize if what I said was way over your head because I wasn't trying to make you feel or look stupid. I supposed I should have asked if you were familiar with Greek before I posted all this, but since I've written it all up, I'll post it, and if you have any questions about what I wrote, I'll try to help you understand.

[Edited on 3-20-2004 by luvroftheWord]


----------



## Tertullian

[quote:68f1672cae]

When Jesus said, &quot;...baptizing them...&quot;, the &quot;them&quot; refers to disciples. So, Jesus meant &quot;baptizing disciples&quot;. 

Jesus said, &quot;MAKE disciples of nations,... baptizing them and teaching them.&quot; 

How would one MAKE a disciple? By baptizing them, AND by teaching them. 

(1) Baptize: I want to make my child a disciple, therefore, I baptize him. [/quote:68f1672cae]

Paul, how can you ask Reformed Baptist to accept this argument when not even all (I think the majority) Paedobaptist do not accept the validity of that argument. As TE Watson shows in his book that uses Paedobaptist to demolish the arguements of other Paedobaptist:

[quote:68f1672cae] Richard Baxter observes:

[quote:68f1672cae] this is not like some occasional historical mention of baptism, but it is the very commission of Christ to his apostles for preaching and baptism, and purposely expresseth their several works in their several places and order. Their first task is by teaching to make disciples, which are by Mark called believers. The second work is to baptize them... The third work is to teach them all things, which are afterwards to be larned in the school of Christ. To contemn this order to ronounce all rultes of order; for where can we expect to find it if not here? (Disputations of Right to Sacrament, p. 149f [/quote:68f1672cae]

...Another one to admit the fact, but not the consequences, of the order expressed in Christ commission to baptize is James Bannerman, who writes:

[quote:68f1672cae] The apostolic commission in Mark is to this effect: "Go ye into all the word and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth, and is not baptized, shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be damned." It is abundantly obvious that this language applies primarily to the ordinary case of adults and not to the exceptional case of infants, and while the order- first belief, and then baptism- refers to adults. It cannot apply to infants, to whom the Gospel cannot be preached and who cannot be expected to believe it. (The Church of Christ, vol. 2, p. 104f) [/quote:68f1672cae]

Seeing that the order is so plain, it is small wonder that the Roman Catholic Bishop Bossuet taunts the Reformed Churches, writing:

[quote:68f1672cae]Jesus Christ has said, "Teach and baptize", and again, "He that beleiveth and is baptized shall be saved." But the church solely by the authority of tradition and custom, has so interpreted these words, that the instruction and faith which Christ had joined with baptism might be separated from it in the case of infants. These words, "Teach and baptize", have along time perplexed out Reformed gentlemen. (On the Holy Supper, p. 127f) [/quote:68f1672cae]

They still do!

So important is this commission to baptize, that space will be given to several more quotations:

[b:68f1672cae] John Calvin [/b:68f1672cae] 'Christ enjoins that those who have submitted to the gospel, and professed to be his disciples, shall be baptized; partly that it may be an outward sign of faith before men. (Harmony of the Evangelists, vol. 3 p. 385)

[b:68f1672cae] Charles Simeon [/b:68f1672cae] 1. They were to teach all nations. 2. They were to baptize their converts in the name of the sacred three (Expository Outlines in loc)

[b:68f1672cae] David Brown [/b:68f1672cae] Set the seal of visible Disci0pleship upon the converts by baptizing them 

[b:68f1672cae] Louis Berkhof [/b:68f1672cae] They who accepted Christ by faith were to be baptized in the name of the triune God, as a sign and seal of the fact that they had entered into a new relation to God and as such were obligated to live according to the laws of the kingdom of God (Kingdom theology, p. 642) [/quote:68f1672cae] 

Not only do Paedobaptist disagree but they offer strong reasons to disagree with that arguement for Paedobaptism.

[quote:68f1672cae] (2) teach: Could be tricky. I mean can teaching affect an infant? Well, it just so happens that Paul tells us in Titus 1:11 that the teaching of the circumcision group (who taught, among other things, that infants should still be circumcised to keep the law) is destroying whole households. So, I guess that their can be destructive teaching and constructive teaching. What do we do when we construct something? We MAKE something. We MAKE our children into disciples. [/quote:68f1672cae]

This arguement is not very compelling because no one need deny that infants are effected by the doctrines their parents hold, for example any Baptist could fully agree that if the parents thought that God wanted them to sacrafice their children then of course that would affect their children- but does it follow from that the we ought to baptize infants? (I fail to see how anyway.) 

[quote:68f1672cae] The assumption is that children cannot be disciples in ANY sense. Well, they can. They just are at a different stage then you are. I mean, this shouldn't be to hard to grasp. I teach my son about the trinity but that is no where near what a 10 yr old knows. And the 10yr olds level is not that of a 20 yr old. And the 20yr old is not at a 40 yr olds..... 

-Paul [/quote:68f1672cae]

Again how can you expect a Reformed Baptist to just agree with you without Scriptural support- the question is not whether Paul defines infants as Disciples but does Scripture define infants as Disciples- and I know of no such verse where any infant is every called a Disciple- do you?

Professor John Murray says about babies: They are not psychologically capable of such faith and its corresponding confession. (Christian Baptism p. 74).

How is a Christian infant any more a learner than a pagan infant? Neither can speak nor understand and without the preaching of the Gospel can they really be taught about Christ by a parent? No compelling reason can be advanced to argue that babies who do not believe can be considered Disciples and without that compelling reason why ought the Reformed Baptist to agree with it? The answer is that Reformed Baptist do not have to agree with it nor should they agree with it because to call an infant a "Disciple of Christ" is just to betray the way language is usually implied in everyday conversation not to mention the Bible. 


Hence we must conclude with Louis Berkhof: There is not explicit command in the Bible to baptize children (Systematic theology, p. 632)

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian


----------



## Goosha

*Excellent*

Hi Tyler,

Well, I think we are ready to progress the debate to the next level. Here is both of our syllogisms based on the regulative principle.

My syllogism with premise 1 as you have accepted it:

1.) God has only authorized baptized people the right to join local congregations. (Based on the Regulative Principle.)
2.) God has authorized infants of believers to be members of the visible church.
C.) God has authorized infants of believers to be baptized.


Your syllogism:

1.) Only adults who meet the qualifications were baptized. (Based on the Regulative Principle.)
2.) Infants of believers are not adults who meet the qualifications.
C.) Infants of believers were not baptized.

I think both of our arguments are logically valid. Yet, our conclusions are completely contradictory. This means that one or more of the premises we're using in our arguments are false. You agreed with my premise 1; however, if you are correct, my second premise must be false. Would you agree if I could demonstrate biblically that infants of believers were church members that infant baptism would be vindicated based on my syllogism above? If so, this would disprove your premise 1. If I can't, then your premise 1 would be vindicated and paedobaptism could not be true.

While I have not succeeded in placing the burden of proof onto you, I think I have at least brought it down to the most fundamental issue- were infants of believers church members? 

Cordially,

Jayson Rawlins


----------



## Tertullian

[quote:a748fee25f] Curt, 
[quote:a748fee25f] When Jesus said, &quot;...baptizing them...&quot;, the &quot;them&quot; refers to disciples. So, Jesus meant &quot;baptizing disciples&quot;.[/quote:a748fee25f]

First, even if that's what he meant, that still doesn't necessitate a chronology here.[/quote:a748fee25f]

Why not? As your own Paedobabptist, Richard Baxter had to confess, "To contemn this order is to renounce all rules of order; for where can we expect to find it if not here?" I seems that if that is what it meant then we do have an order that proves that baptism has no reference to infants. 

However you also argued that it did not so let us look at those arguments: 

[quote:a748fee25f] Second, the Greek text will not allow this interpretation. (I don't know if you know Greek or not, but to be safe I'm going to assume you don't) For one thing, the noun &quot;disciples&quot; is not present in the text. The word that the English versions commonly derive the the word &quot;disciple&quot; from is the verb matheteuo. This verb means &quot;to make one a disciple&quot;, or simply &quot;to teach&quot;. In fact, the KJV translates this verse, &quot;Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them...&quot; If you translate the verse this way, then even in English the word &quot;them&quot; cannot refer to &quot;disciples&quot; since the word isn't even present in English. It is crystal clear in the Greek text (and even some English texts, depending on which translation you have, such as the KJV) that the pronoun autous, &quot;them&quot;, is referring to the ethne, &quot;nations&quot;. 

Now, as to what Matt 28:19 IS saying about &quot;making disciples&quot; and &quot;baptizing&quot;, the verb matheteuo is a simple command (for those who are familiar with Greek, it is aorist active imperative). The word &quot;baptizing&quot;, in technical language, is an anarthrous present active participle in the predicate position, which means the participle is functioning adverbially to describe the command to teach/make disciples. What this all means in layman's terms is that the action of the participle (in this case, the &quot;baptizing&quot; ) is taking place at the same time as the action of the main verb, which is the command to teach/make disciples. 

So as I said before, there is nothing in the text of Matthew 28:19 that gives us a chronological order of &quot;first you make disciples, then you baptize&quot;. At most, it says both acts of disciple-making and baptizing are to be practiced presently in the ministry of the church. This verse cannot be used to argue against the paedobaptist position. 

I apologize if you already know Greek and anything I said insulted your intelligence, as that wasn't my intention. I also apologize if what I said was way over your head because I wasn't trying to make you feel or look stupid. I supposed I should have asked if you were familiar with Greek before I posted all this, but since I've written it all up, I'll post it, and if you have any questions about what I wrote, I'll try to help you understand. 

[Edited on 3-20-2004 by luvroftheWord] [/quote:a748fee25f] 

I maybe one of those who are ignorant of Greek but I know that the people who translated the New American Standard knew Greek and (I am not really impressed that the KJV supports your interpretation) so is this is an accurate translation of the Greek: 

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (NAS)

If it then I do not see your argument if it is not then why do you disagree with the majority of Bible translations or have you listed all your reasons already?

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 3-20-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Tertullian

Goosha, 

I agree that we are ready to move onto the next level.

[quote:3ef66143a4] 
Here is both of our syllogisms based on the regulative principle. 

My syllogism with premise 1 as you have accepted it: 

1.) God has only authorized baptized people the right to join local congregations. (Based on the Regulative Principle.) 
2.) God has authorized infants of believers to be members of the visible church. 
C.) God has authorized infants of believers to be baptized. 


Your syllogism: 

1.) Only adults who meet the qualifications were baptized. (Based on the Regulative Principle.) 
2.) Infants of believers are not adults who meet the qualifications. 
C.) Infants of believers were not baptized. 

I think both of our arguments are logically valid. [/quote:3ef66143a4]

Agreed

[quote:3ef66143a4] Yet, our conclusions are completely contradictory. This means that one or more of the premises we're using in our arguments are false. [/quote:3ef66143a4]

I concur 

[quote:3ef66143a4] You agreed with my premise 1; however, if you are correct, my second premise must be false. Would you agree if I could demonstrate biblically that infants of believers were church members that infant baptism would be vindicated based on my syllogism above? If so, this would disprove your premise 1. If I can't, then your premise 1 would be vindicated and paedobaptism could not be true. [/quote:3ef66143a4]

I am not sure that you would be able to convince a Reformed Baptist that babies of Christian are church members, I mean Paul commanding children to obey parents in Ephesians or the children of believers being called holy is hardly evidence of that.

I think that if we could say that if you could not prove that infants are church members then we for sure have a reason to reject Paedobaptism but I am not sure we have a reason to reject credobaptism if you prove that infants are church members- Why? 

Because your argument to support that all church members get the sign rested on the premise that "every example in the New Testament church members got the sign" now if you prove that infants were Church members would have a clear defeater to your premise that "Every example of the New Testament a church member go the sign" - hence we now have a defeater against the very argument used to support the argument that all church members get the sign. (If that is not your arguement for church membership=baptism, I apologize and ask to be set straight)


[quote:3ef66143a4] While I have not succeeded in placing the burden of proof onto you, I think I have at least brought it down to the most fundamental issue- were infants of believers church member [/quote:3ef66143a4]


I think the situation is worse for the Paedobaptist, looking at this objectively with Scripture, we can see that the Paedobaptist position cannot live consistently with these two premises:

A) Every Example in the New Covenant demonstrates that all church members get baptized. 
B) No example of infant baptism can be found

Yet this is exactly what you must do if the Paedopostion's arguement is to work I think for your argument runs


1) Every example in the New Covenant shows that a church member is baptized.

2) The regulative principle states that we cannot go beyond the example of Scripture. 

3) Therefore, all church members are baptized.

4) Infants are church members.

5) Infants have no example of baptism but all church members are baptized.

6) Therefore, Infants must be baptized because they are church members.

If you say that number (5) is not part of the argument as you stated it I will agree but add that it is implied since I do not think you believe that you can produce an clear undisputable passage about an infant baptism. 

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 3-20-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## luvroftheWord

[quote:0f993207d1][i:0f993207d1]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:0f993207d1]
I maybe one of those who are ignorant of Greek but I know that the people who translated the New American Standard knew Greek and (I am not really impressed that the KJV supports your interpretation) so is this is an accurate translation of the Greek: 

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (NAS)

If it then I do not see your argument if it is not then why do you disagree with the majority of Bible translations or have you listed all your reasons already?
[/quote:0f993207d1]

Yes, the NASB is a fine translation here. But my point was that in the Greek text, the word &quot;disciple&quot; (the Greek word [i:0f993207d1]mathetes[/i:0f993207d1]) is just not there. The phrase in English &quot;make disciples&quot; is actually a verb in the Greek, the word [i:0f993207d1]matheteuo[/i:0f993207d1]. That is why the word &quot;disciples&quot; absolutely cannot be what the pronoun &quot;them&quot;, is referring to. A pronoun cannot refer to a verb.

The verb [i:0f993207d1]matheteuo[/i:0f993207d1] can be properly translated &quot;to teach&quot;, but the idea being the verb is more properly expressed in a translation such as &quot;make disciples&quot; because the idea of the verb is for the teaching to be followed by the listeners. If you leave the translation as simply &quot;teach&quot;, this idea can be missed because teaching can still be considered teaching whether anybody follows it or not. So translating the verb as &quot;make disicples&quot; probably more accurately captures the idea being expressed in the verb.

But even though that is the case in English, it still doesn't change the fact that the noun just isn't there in the Greek. The command &quot;make disciples&quot; is one word in the Greek, the word [i:0f993207d1]matheteuo[/i:0f993207d1]. The &quot;them&quot; that are baptized is the pronoun [i:0f993207d1]autous[/i:0f993207d1]. [i:0f993207d1]Autous[/i:0f993207d1] absolutely cannot refer back to [i:0f993207d1]matheteuo[/i:0f993207d1] because pronouns are used in place of nouns, not verbs. We must look to the Greek to see the syntactical functions of the text because, as this particular verse shows, the English can be misleading.


----------



## Tertullian

[quote:acf9e119e4][i:acf9e119e4]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:acf9e119e4]
[quote:acf9e119e4][i:acf9e119e4]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:acf9e119e4]
3) I define a command of God the way Scripture does. -if you defined it we would probably agree.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian 


[Edited on 3-19-2004 by Tertullian] [/quote:acf9e119e4]


With all due respect Tert. but that was no answer at all just good dodge, please answer the question. Thanx [/quote:acf9e119e4]

I am not dodging questions about credobaptism I am dodging entering a debate that in fact need not be debated because both sides already agree- that is why I want to Paul to define his position so that I can agree with it- both Presbyterians and Reformed Baptist agree with the regulative principle of worship.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian


----------



## Tertullian

[quote:5d746dc8f2][i:5d746dc8f2]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:5d746dc8f2]
Tertullian,

Really nobody is off topic here, unless you just assume that there is a distinction between the covenant community and the church. I reject that distinction.

[Edited on 3-19-2004 by luvroftheWord] [/quote:5d746dc8f2]

That distinction is unimportant to my arguement for even if it is for sake of arguement assumed that there is no distinction my arguement still stands (so far as I can see)


----------



## Tertullian

*Paul,*

[quote:0411214456] baptists at war with eachother

Tert states that T.E Watson argues that covenant membership does not get you thie sign. This is fine. 

Tert seems to agree. 

P.K. Jewett does not. Now, i can't exactly remembert the page, but it in his last section for his positive case. Maybe pg.226 or 228. He says that being a member of the new covenat does get youn the sign. He just doesn't think that children are in the NC (based on poor exegesis and not taking into account the covenant apostacy passages). But this is a side issue that I didn't wan to get into. 

Now, this will be used in what I (Lord willing!) will post this weekend. 

But at least we can see that the baptisst can't even agree amongst themselves. [/quote:0411214456] 
Wow, if you reject credobaptist because they have disagreements then you should certainly drop Paedobaptism for they are worse then credobaptist when it comes to disagreements for the reasons to practice infant baptism. 

However, I just want to set something straight for the record book. I accept Jewett's, Riddersbos's, Owen's, and others arguements that the New Covenant is unbreakable- as does TE Watson- all TE Watson and I are saying is that Paedobaptism cannot be proved or disproved by proving or disproving that children are Covenant members. 

[quote:0411214456] Now, Tert. 

(1) You used the element circumstance argument. I want you do give me the objective standard by which we determine what is cultural? This will not be easy. If it were then we would solve the head covering issue and a host of others! So, I asked YOU. It is YOUR argument. I have not put anyhting forth yet. Again, PROVE that &quot;out.&quot; [/quote:0411214456]

Each element and circumstance must be looked at individually- but for this debate we either say that baptism is an element (Thus we must look to Scripture) or we must say it is a circmustance and you must say that the Baptist are doing baptsim right since it is a circumstance how it is adminstered- but if you still want to Discipleship baptism as defined by baptist is wrong- I suggest we continue to affirm the Confessions and say that baptism is an element. 


[quote:0411214456] (2) Command: anything explicitly or taken by good and necessary inference from God. [/quote:0411214456] 
I accept that definition.

[quote:0411214456] Infant baptism is taken by good and neccessary inference. 

herefore, we are commanded to. [/quote:0411214456] 
As a Reformed Baptist I am not going to take your word for it I am going to ask for proof- for example you could start by proving that baptism and circumcision are identical which is the basis for the whole inference to begin with. 

This is a clear case of using your position to prove your position.

[quote:0411214456] So, now my original point has come full circle. You said you would agree with my definition. So, by saying &quot;God has not commanded infant baptism&quot; you must have PROVED that. Therefore, your RP argument begs the question. You cannot use it UNTIL you have defeated our other arguments. Thus your RP argument is shown to be hasty and based on prejudice. [/quote:0411214456]

No, I only used my regulative principle argument to show who has the burden of proof and now that we know the Paedobaptist does we can began to question if Scripture commands it or not (i.e. can Paedobaptist provide a command to baptize infants) 

[quote:0411214456] So, as of right now your argument should be stated like this: 
[quote:0411214456]

(1) Scripture commands &quot;X&quot; to be baptized with no reference to "non-X". 
(2) I think that Scripture has not commanded non-x to be baptised 
(3) The Regulative principle of worship says that we can only do what is commanded by Scripture even if it is not expressly prohibited. 
(4) Therefore, we can only baptize &quot;X&quot; even though no verse prohibits a non-X from being baptized. 
[/quote:0411214456] [/quote:0411214456]

I guess you are right and so the most logical thing for a Paodobaptist to do would be to show where Scripture commands infant baptism and so provide a counterfactual to premise 2. 

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian



[Edited on 3-20-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Saiph

Here is a better syllogism:


Christ commands us to baptize His disciples.
Children of believers are His disciples.
Ergo, We are commanded to baptize children of believers.


----------



## Tertullian

[quote:55a2471ff1][i:55a2471ff1]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:55a2471ff1]
Here is a better syllogism:


Christ commands us to baptize His disciples.
Children of believers are His disciples.
Ergo, We are commanded to baptize children of believers. [/quote:55a2471ff1]

This is logicial but is premise 2 provable from Scripture? After all the question is not how do we define disciples but how does Scripture define disicples and so where does Scripture say that an infant is a Disciple?

We could even question &quot;premise 1&quot; if it does turn out that infants are Disciples for where exactly does Scripture say that Disciples who do not believe and repent are to be baptized?

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian


[Edited on 3-20-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Saiph

Mat 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. 

1Co 7:14 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 are they holy. 



A disciple at the most simple level is one who is under the teaching of Christ. Are your children under the teaching of Christ or the enemy ? ?

At a more advanced level a disciple is one who continues in that teaching unto maturity.

The infant of a believing parent is born into discipleship.



[Edited on 3-20-2004 by Wintermute]


----------



## Tertullian

I do not think that the verses you quoted warrant the conclusion that Scripture teaches that only infants of Christians are Disciples 

[quote:09b15aeee2] Mat 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. [/quote:09b15aeee2]

Reformed Baptist J.L Dagg has already address this verse so I thought I would quote him before I added my own observation. 

[quote:09b15aeee2] In interpreting and applying the phrase , "Of such us the kingdom of heaven," an important question must be decided; whether the word "such" denotes literal children, or persons of child-like disposition. As the clause stands in our common version, it seems to import that the kingdom consists of such persons exclusively. Now, no one imagines that the kingdom is a community consisting of literal infants only; and, therefore, this rending, it retained, greatly favors the other interpretation, according to which the whole community are properly described as persons of child-like disposition, The disciples of Christ are humble, confiding, teachable, and free from malice and ambition; and these qualities characterize all who have a part in the kingdom Manual of Church Order, p. 146[/quote:09b15aeee2]

Jesus declared that no one enters the kingdom unless he is regenerated or born again so if all infants of Christians are in the kingdom would you agree that every infant born of Christian parents in regenerated? If you say &quot;no&quot; and that every Christian infant is not regenerated then they are not all in the kingdom, hence, one more reason to favor the interpretation that Christ was speaking metaphorically not literally. 

Furthermore, why not include all infants for that is what the text says (on your view) so why limited it to only infants of Christians as Presbyterians inconsistently do when they use this verse and the only baptized some infants. 

[quote:09b15aeee2] 1Co 7:14 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 are they holy.[/quote:09b15aeee2]

These verses do not teach that children are Disciples anymore than that the unbelieving spouse is a disciple. 
In context we see that Paul is answering the question should a Christian continued to be married to unbeliever- are we really to believe that Paul answers this specific question by saying yes your children are Disciples? (I see no reason to think Paul answered such a specific question with a none answer like that) 
I propose a more modest but I think accurate interpretation of these passages. Actually I will quote someone who did his homework already, as he wrote: 
[quote:09b15aeee2]

1. Q. Doesn't I Cor. 7:14 teach that children of believers are covenantally set apart and thus eligible for baptism? 

A. No. The term &quot;sanctified&quot; that describes an unbelieving spouse of a believer and the term &quot;holy&quot; that describes the children of believers are based on the same root word in Greek. Therefore, whatever holiness the children have is also shared by an unbelieving spouse. Since an unbelieving spouse is not in the covenant, one cannot use this passage to establish that the children are. Paul's whole argument is grounded in the similarity of the two cases. If unbelieving spouses and children of believers do not share the same type of holiness, the difference between the two cases invalidates Paul's entire argument from the holiness of the children to the holiness of the unbelieving spouse. In fact, Paul's argument actually implies an argument against infant baptism. If the children in Corinth were baptized but unbelieving spouses were not, then the Corinthians would never have accepted Paul's argument that the holiness of the children implied the holiness of unbelieving spouses. 
I have elaborated on this argument in a separate article on I Cor. 7:14. [/quote:09b15aeee2]

To see the elaboration of his argument go to http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~sjreeves/personal/1cor.html

Isn't significant that these very passages where the same ones used by German scholars to say that infant baptism was not practiced during the Apostolic area. 

[quote:09b15aeee2]A disciple at the most simple level is one who is under the teaching of Christ. Are your children under the teaching of Christ or the :wr30: ? ? [/quote:09b15aeee2] 

No, they cannot even speak English yet so I have not been able to teach them about Christ with Scripture that is why I will evangelize them a pray for them not just assume that they already know Christ. I will follow the example of Scripture and take my children to Christ not the font. 

Even John Murray admitted that children are not physiologically capable of Christian belief so not even all Paedobaptist can agree with this argument yet you expect Reformed Baptist to find this argument persuasive? 

Besides even if they could somehow learning about Christ that does not make them Disciples because merely learning about something does not make you a Disciple I mean have you learned what Muhammad said if so would it be alright if I called you a Disciple of Muhammad, or what about if your children learn about Muhammad in school should we then call them Disciples of Muhammad because they have learned about them? 

[quote:09b15aeee2] At a more advanced level a disciple is one who continues in that teaching unto maturity. [/quote:09b15aeee2]

This is not a more advanced level this is Scriptures definition of what a true Disciple is... see John 15:8. Basically a true Disciple is someone who holds and believes the teachings of Christ.

[quote:09b15aeee2] The infant of a believing parent is born into discipleship. 

[Edited on 3-20-2004 by Wintermute] [/quote:09b15aeee2]

Born into discipleship? Where does Scripture ever teach that we do not have to repent and hold to Christ teachings to be a Disciple? 

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 3-20-2004 by Tertullian]

[Edited on 3-20-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Goosha

*Hee Hee*

Hi Tyler,

You wrote:

1.) "Every example in the New Covenant shows that a church member is baptized. 
2.) The regulative principle states that we cannot go beyond the example of Scripture.
3.) Therefore, all church members are baptized. 
4.) Infants are church members. 
5.) Infants have no example of baptism but all church members are baptized. 

Therefore, Infants must be baptized because they are church members. 
If you say that number (5) is not part of the argument as you stated it I will agree but add that it is implied since I do not think you believe that you can produce an clear undisputable passage about an infant baptism." 

This is a fair representation of my argument. I also think that you have proven the difficulty of my argument very well. Since offering a New Covenant example would prove to be a contradiction of premise 1. If I understand you correctly, I think this means that you would accept an Old Testament passage that predicts children of the New Covenant as apart of the church. Is this correct?


Jayson Rawlins


----------



## cih1355

[quote:d5cbe173e3][i:d5cbe173e3]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:d5cbe173e3]
Mat 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. 

1Co 7:14 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 are they holy. 



A disciple at the most simple level is one who is under the teaching of Christ. Are your children under the teaching of Christ or the enemy ? ?

At a more advanced level a disciple is one who continues in that teaching unto maturity.

The infant of a believing parent is born into discipleship.



[Edited on 3-20-2004 by Wintermute] [/quote:d5cbe173e3]

Acts 11:26 says that the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch. The term, &quot;disciple&quot;, is synonymous with the term, &quot;Christian&quot;. The disciples of Jesus are Christians. In other words, the disciples of Jesus are saved people.


----------



## cih1355

Being under the teaching of Christ does not mean that you are a disciple. If you do not bear fruit, that is evidence that you are not a disciple of Christ (John 15:8).


----------



## Saiph

Tertullean:


Judas was called a disciple.

Many so-called disciples left Jesus. . . 

Your interpretation must account for this in some way.

You are what you read.

Read the scriptures and pray about it. These Baptists are filling your head with nonsense.


----------



## Tertullian

*Wintermute,*

Thanks for the response

[quote:703dffbd9a] Tertullean: 


Judas was called a disciple.

Many so-called disciples left Jesus. . . [/quote:703dffbd9a]

Wait "so-called" not even you would attribute true Discipleship to these people so why ought the Reformed Baptist- Judas was not a Christian yet in charity they credited Judas as being a Disciple until he proved otherwise (See John 15:8). Judas was chosen by Christ but he was chosen as the betrayer not as a true Disciple. 

[quote:703dffbd9a] Your interpretation must account for this in some way. [/quote:703dffbd9a]

It is easy to account for these things Judas and the others were not really Christ sheep but wolves dressed in sheep skins, if they were really Christ sheep they would have heard their shepherd rather then going astray- The one who really has some accounting is the one who says that Christ the New Covenant High Priest is not able to save all those in the New Covenant. 

[quote:703dffbd9a] You are what you read. [/quote:703dffbd9a]

I am not sure what you mean? 

[quote:703dffbd9a] Read the scriptures and pray about it. [/quote:703dffbd9a]

I will continue to do thanks for the encouragement to continue. 

[quote:703dffbd9a] These Baptists are filling your head with nonsense. [/quote:703dffbd9a]

The arguments Baptist like Jewett, White, Spurgeon, Gill, Malone, Chantry, Martin, Denver, Watson and others just make sense to me and I can see it Scripturally.

From my perspective it is the argument that runs "Judas was called a Christian- therefore - we must baptize infants" that I think has holes big enough to drive a fleet of trucks through.

To the Glory of Christ-Tertullian 

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 3-21-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Tertullian

*Jayson Rawlins*

Thanks for the reply.

[quote:b9a6b34750] Hee Hee

Hi Tyler, 

You wrote: 

1.) "Every example in the New Covenant shows that a church member is baptized. 
2.) The regulative principle states that we cannot go beyond the example of Scripture. 
3.) Therefore, all church members are baptized. 
4.) Infants are church members. 
5.) Infants have no example of baptism but all church members are baptized. 

Therefore, Infants must be baptized because they are church members. 
If you say that number (5) is not part of the argument as you stated it I will agree but add that it is implied since I do not think you believe that you can produce an clear undisputable passage about an infant baptism." 

This is a fair representation of my argument. I also think that you have proven the difficulty of my argument very well. Since offering a New Covenant example would prove to be a contradiction of premise 1. [/quote:b9a6b34750]

I think we are in agreement

[quote:b9a6b34750] If I understand you correctly, I think this means that you would accept an Old Testament passage that predicts children of the New Covenant as apart of the church. Is this correct? [/quote:b9a6b34750]

That is essentially correct-however...

An old Covenant promise that all physical children of the spiritual children of Abraham would be church members would be monumental in establishing infant church membership but I think that it would still prove nothing about infant baptism because we still have no reason to assume that just because a person is a church member they get the sign but we must see if God commands this particular group of church members to be baptized. Ultimately, an appeal to the Old Covenant promises about the New stumbles over the same rock that the last one did in that it ultimately will undermine itself because every argument that proves infants are church members, disproves that every example of church members are given baptism in the New Testament. This is a real pickle that I do not think can be solved unless the Old Covenant promises that New Covenant infant church members must be given the sign.

I would be curious to find out which verses in the Old Covenant teaches that all children with New Covenant parents become part of the New Covenant by a sort of birth right? 

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian


----------



## Tertullian

*Paul*

[quote:23c7963ec6] Tertullian, 

Do youn agree that your post where you cited paedo's against me was doing the exact same thing that you accused KC Easter of when he quoted the Westminster divins? If so, why did you do it. [/quote:23c7963ec6]

No it was not the same because KC was appealing to the prestigious tradition itself- I on the other hand was not appealing to the authority of these Paedobaptist but the arguments they used and also I was noting that Paedobaptist have been the ones to recognize these arguments not just Reformed Baptist. 

[quote:23c7963ec6] (2) You cite paedo's all the time who disagree, I cited a disagreement from baptists. When I did that all of a sudden me doing that is turned around on me. Don't you think that you should play by the same rules that you impose on us? [/quote:23c7963ec6]

Where did Jewett every say that getting the sign automatically entitles you to Covenant membership or vis. Versa? Futhermore, both Watson and I, agree with Jewett, Ridderbos, Owens, White and others and say that you cannot break the New Covenant. 

[quote:23c7963ec6] (3) Burden of proof. You still don't seem to get it. You think we have burden because you are ASSUMING your position and YOUR definitions. I have allready proved that you have burden...just as much as you have proved I have. [/quote:23c7963ec6]

I do not have the burden of proof- you have the burden of proof because I do not accept that baptism is identical to circumcision- therefore until you prove that why do I have to provide a verse that shows that God stopped what he never started? 

[quote:23c7963ec6]If baptists do not baptize our children then they violate the regulative principle which command us to. 

They do not baptize thier children. 

Therefore they violate the regulative principle. 

See, if my position is correct you violate...if your is correct I violate. Do you get the point? One must FIRST prove that his position is correct! You have not established burden. [/quote:23c7963ec6]

Let see if there is a command the Baptist is wrong if there is not a command the Presbyterian is wrong- hence the Presbyterians takes the positive stance and the Baptist the negative stance... the burden of proof is upon the affirmative side because we need a positive command according to the regulative principle of worship. 

[quote:23c7963ec6] You only THINK you have based on YOUR ASSUMPTION of what the Bible commands. [/quote:23c7963ec6]

All I have done is ask where the command to baptize an infant is if that is assuming then I plead guilty- now could you please produce the command? 

[quote:23c7963ec6] (4) You are not playing fair: You agreed to my definition of command. [/quote:23c7963ec6]

A direct or just and necessary inference will still suffice... so we are still in agreement with the definition.

[quote:23c7963ec6] Now, when verses are given to you, you just say-&quot;well, it doesn't mean that to me.&quot; It seems that you really mean by command an EXPLICIT statement. So, this is what it boils down to: &quot;I will accept inference, if it meets my preconceived plan.&quot; [/quote:23c7963ec6]

What verses? I never read them could you repeat the ones that you inferred God commanded the baptism of infants? I mean let us both acknowledge that there is bad inferences and good 

[quote:23c7963ec6] (5) Infant/Child disciples: &quot;[Timothy], from INFANCY you have known the Scriptures which are able to make you wise.&quot; Timothy's mother disciple him...FROM INFANCY (and baptised him too ). [/quote:23c7963ec6]

What verse said that he was baptized or is that a read between the lines? Also is it just possible that Paul was making a point and was not expecting his readers to think that Timothy literally knew the scriptures before he could understand language and his cognitive abilities and senses had matured? Furthermore, to learn about something does not make you a Disciple... suppose you kids learn about Islam in school does that make the Muhammad's Disciples or suppose that they learned about secular Humanist should we start referring to them as Bertrand Russell's children? I doubt you would want to say that you children are secular humanist or Islamic because they have learned about it. 

[quote:23c7963ec6] You speak of Murry and phsycological/cognative abilities? This is all fine and good. I agree that they do not have ADULT capibilites. I agree that they cannot &quot;discern the body, and &quot;REMEMBER&quot; Christ). But they have SOMETHING. INFANTS PRAISE GOD!(Mt. 21:16) [/quote:23c7963ec6]

So do rocks so using your logic should we baptized rocks or call them Disciples?
[quote:23c7963ec6] Now, you will redefine and show how that's not what you mean. But take EVERY OTHER STATEMENT oF PRAISE in the Bible and it would SEEM that infants couldn't do it! It seems like an adult task. [/quote:23c7963ec6]

I do not have to redefine you are probably the one who is going to redefine and say that rocks don't really praise God that was just... but we shall see. 

[quote:23c7963ec6] (6) Tit 1:11. You ddin't get the point. I PROVED by that that teaching could affect infants. [/quote:23c7963ec6]

Sure it affected them- just like if parents adopted the belief that infants ought to be killed because God decrees it that would affect the children so how I am I denying that or how is that even relevant to infant baptism.

[quote:23c7963ec6] So, I saw no warrent to conclude that we could not teach our children all that Jesus has commanded. Do you deny this? If not, I have fulfilled the second half of making a disciple. [/quote:23c7963ec6]

Yes, and we should teach our children Discipleship baptism because that is what Jesus commanded or can you produce a command that says otherwise... now we are back again to the question where is the command to baptize infants... I think in the end you will have to agree with Louis Berkhof and admit that it is not there.


[quote:23c7963ec6] (7) You didn't disprove my statement that ONE of the ways I make my child a disciple is by baptizing him. You just quoted people who disagree. I can cite may paedo's who agree but I am sure you don't want to get into the name-game. I have my child, at an early stage &quot;comming to Christ.&quot; people even took INFANTS to him. The disciples rebuked Jesus....huh, come to think of it, it is very fitting that you guys be called &quot;disciples baptizers.&quot;

-Paul (going to wok and hoefull comming in to write out my argument later) [/quote:23c7963ec6]

All I notice form that text is that the Disciples were not in the habit of baptizing infants... furthermore I did not just quote Paedobaptist I included there arguments... there is a divine appointed order that cannot be neglected. Show me Scripture ever says that baptism makes someone a Disciple and then I will entertain the suggestion that this is what Mathew is talking about. 

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian


----------



## Saiph

By using the phrase &quot;so-called disciples&quot; I was referring to the fact that they were disciples, but did not remain as such. Read John 15.


[quote:ebbd64681b]
From my perspective it is the argument that runs "Judas was called a Christian- therefore - we must baptize infants" that I think has holes big enough to drive a fleet of trucks through. 
[/quote:ebbd64681b]

That is not my argument.

My argument is that children are a gift from the LORD, and set apart, and disciples of Christ. The bible calls them arrows in our quiver. Arrows AGAINST the enemy. They are vines, not weeds. Therefore we put the sign of all the covenant promises and blessings upon them because they are in fact part of the promises and blessings.


----------



## Roldan

[quote:1049295f8e][i:1049295f8e]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:1049295f8e]
[quote:1049295f8e][i:1049295f8e]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:1049295f8e]
[quote:1049295f8e][i:1049295f8e]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:1049295f8e]
3) I define a command of God the way Scripture does. -if you defined it we would probably agree.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian 

[Edited on 3-19-2004 by Tertullian] [/quote:1049295f8e]


With all due respect Tert. but that was no answer at all just good dodge, please answer the question. Thanx [/quote:1049295f8e]

I am not dodging questions about credobaptism I am dodging entering a debate that in fact need not be debated because both sides already agree- that is why I want to Paul to define his position so that I can agree with it- both Presbyterians and Reformed Baptist agree with the regulative principle of worship.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian [/quote:1049295f8e]

Again, Nice dodge. Can you just answer the question? uzzled: What are you afraid of? And NO we would not agree, for your view of the RP is not Reformed but anabaptist. 

First you say out of inference then you say command only then retreat again to inference. Which is it?:question:


----------



## Tertullian

I justed wanted to thank everyone for the wonderful coments they have given throughout this exchange of verses and insights... I pray that God edifies you as he has me through your comments. 

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian



[Edited on 3-21-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Tertullian

*Wintermute,*

[quote:c7b09887f3] By using the phrase &quot;so-called disciples&quot; I was referring to the fact that they were disciples, but did not remain as such. Read John 15. [/quote:c7b09887f3]
Let me ask you a question how do you prove to be a disciple?

[quote:c7b09887f3][quote:c7b09887f3]
rom my perspective it is the argument that runs "Judas was called a Christian- therefore - we must baptize infants" that I think has holes big enough to drive a fleet of trucks through. [/quote:c7b09887f3]

That is not my argument. 

My argument is that children are a gift from the LORD, and set apart, and disciples of Christ. The bible calls them arrows in our quiver. Arrows AGAINST the enemy. They are vines, not weeds. Therefore we put the sign of all the covenant promises and blessings upon them because they are in fact part of the promises and blessings. [/quote:c7b09887f3]

I think this is really a false dilemma I mean Reformed Baptist no more hate their infants then the Jews hated their daughters. Every argument you make about how Reformed Baptist cannot understand the uniqueness of their infants could just as equally be utilized against the Jews and their infant daughters. I know I am challenging your tradition but Reformed Baptist must be presented with Scripture not emotional appeals to verses that have nothing to do with how the sacraments are to be administered.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 3-21-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Tertullian

> [i:928aba88f1]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:928aba88f1]
> [quote:928aba88f1][i:928aba88f1]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:928aba88f1]
> 
> Again, Nice dodge. Can you just answer the question? uzzled: What are you afraid of? And NO we would not agree, for your view of the RP is not Reformed but anabaptist. [/quote:928aba88f1]
> 
> Roldan, I encourage you to please read what Paul and I have recently (i.e. within the last few posts) been talking about Paul has defined &quot;command&quot; and I have agreed with his defintion.
> 
> Are joint agreement is that God can give his command either through a just and necessary inference that connects a direct command about this subject to that subject or else a direct command about a subject.
> 
> As for the Anabaptist part I hold and agree with the Westminster in its statements concerning the regulative principle of worship and I confess along with my confession the London Baptist Confessions and its stance upon the issue which is a twin of the Westminster on this issue.
> 
> [quote:928aba88f1] First you say out of inference then you say command only then retreat again to inference. Which is it?:question: [/quote:928aba88f1]
> 
> When did I say any of this... could you please quote me so I know what you are refering to because I honestly have no idea what you had in mind when you said that... were you saying that as a Reformed Baptist I must do that or were you saying that I have done that or...?


----------



## Goosha

*You've got to be kidding*

Greetings Tyler,

It's been an interesting discussion so far and I've personally learned a lot about why I believe in paedobaptism. You are well aware of my reasoning. For I begin with church membership to prove my point and I openly believe that a person's covenant membership entitles them to the covenant sign of baptism. For adult believers, I think baptism is necessary for entering the New Covenant. For children, I think they are included by virtue of their parent's relationship with God. 

It is my opinion that T.E. Watson's conclusion is incorrect about the New Covenant. His reasoning ends up reading his interpretation of the Old Covenant into the New Testament. He does so with his conclusion that covenant relationship doesn't imply covenant sign; ironically, I think I succeeded in disproving Watson's argument using the Regulative Principle. Personally though, my argument about church membership implying baptism can be proven more directly than the round about proof I employed using the Regulative Principle. The apostle Paul, in 1 Corinthians 10:2-3, tells us that the Israelites were all baptized into Moses in the red sea and makes a threatening analogy against the Corinthian church and I don't think this would make much sense without presupposing that all church members were baptized into Christ. I think there is more biblical evidence for this but this should suffice for now since I am simply expressing my personal opinion at the moment.


[quote:9269e1bdbe][i:9269e1bdbe]Originally posted by Tertullian.[/i:9269e1bdbe]
[quote:9269e1bdbe]
1.) "Every example in the New Covenant shows that a church member is baptized. 
2.) The regulative principle states that we cannot go beyond the example of Scripture. 
3.) Therefore, all church members are baptized. 
4.) Infants are church members. 
5.) Infants have no example of baptism but all church members are baptized. 

Therefore, Infants must be baptized because they are church members. 
If you say that number (5) is not part of the argument as you stated it I will agree but add that it is implied since I do not think you believe that you can produce an clear undisputable passage about an infant baptism." 
[/quote:9269e1bdbe]

I think we are in agreement

[quote:9269e1bdbe]
If I understand you correctly, I think this means that you would accept an Old Testament passage that predicts children of the New Covenant as apart of the church. Is this correct? 
[/quote:9269e1bdbe]

That is essentially correct-however... 

An old Covenant promise that all physical children of the spiritual children of Abraham would be church members would be monumental in establishing infant church membership but I think that it would still prove nothing about infant baptism because we still have no reason to assume that just because a person is a church member they get the sign but we must see if God commands this particular group of church members to be baptized. Ultimately, an appeal to the Old Covenant promises about the New stumbles over the same rock that the last one did in that it ultimately will undermine itself because every argument that proves infants are church members, disproves that every example of church members are given baptism in the New Testament. This is a real pickle that I do not think can be solved unless the Old Covenant promises that New Covenant infant church members must be given the sign.

I would be curious to find out which verses in the Old Covenant teaches that all children with New Covenant parents become part of the New Covenant by a sort of birth right? 

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian
[/quote:9269e1bdbe]


I think its funny that every time I think we are ready to go on to the next step in the debate you make a statement that sets me back to square 1. At first, I thought you agreed with your representation of my arguments and I certainly agreed with it. But then you write that part stating "...but I think that it would still prove nothing about infant baptism because we still have no reason to assume that just because a person is a church member they get the sign...." Well, which is it? Do you agree with my set of premises which explicitly prove "3.) Therefore, all church members are baptized," or no? I'm confused about your response. If there is nothing I can do to persuade you of this proposition that "all church members are baptized" than I'll never persuade you of infant baptism. Yet, in this post you seem to affirm that you both disagree and agree with that proposition. Could you please clarify? If you don't accept the premise "Therefore, all church members are baptized" then I will have to politely throw in the towel on the issue. There is no reason to even debate whether the Old Covenant predicts that children will be members of the church if you don't see any direct link between church membership and baptism. Not to mention the fact, we both have entirely different sets of presuppositions and assumptions that we are bringing to the issue that cause us to view the facts in different ways. It will take far too much time and energy to break down these epistemological walls. So as I already said, if you don't see the link between church membership and baptism, nothing I say will be meaningful or persuasive to you, so I will bow out of the discussion altogether, at least for now.

Cordially,

Jayson Rawlins


----------



## Saiph

[quote:d02505b02b]
I know I am challenging your tradition but Reformed Baptist must be presented with Scripture not emotional appeals to verses that have nothing to do with how the sacraments are to be administered. 

[/quote:d02505b02b]

Brother, everything I said in that paragraph about children being arrows and vines and gifts from God can be found in Proverbs and the Psalms.


----------



## Tertullian

[quote:f88920d458][i:f88920d458]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:f88920d458]
[quote:f88920d458]
I know I am challenging your tradition but Reformed Baptist must be presented with Scripture not emotional appeals to verses that have nothing to do with how the sacraments are to be administered. 

[/quote:f88920d458]

Brother, everything I said in that paragraph about children being arrows and vines and gifts from God can be found in Proverbs and the Psalms. [/quote:f88920d458]

No doubt they do teach that children special; but what do these verses teach about how to adminster baptism? (I don't even find the word baptism in any of those verses do you?) Remember all those verses could be said about Jewish daughters yet they did not the get the Covenant sign, hence a Reformed baptist is no more obligated to baptized their infants then the Jews were to give the covenant sign to their daughters. 

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian


[Edited on 3-21-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Tertullian

*Jayson Rawlins*

[quote:678760e7e2]

[i:678760e7e2]Originally posted by Tertullian [/i:678760e7e2]. 
[quote:678760e7e2]: 

1.) "Every example in the New Covenant shows that a church member is baptized. 
2.) The regulative principle states that we cannot go beyond the example of Scripture. 
3.) Therefore, all church members are baptized. 
4.) Infants are church members. 
5.) Infants have no example of baptism but all church members are baptized. 

Therefore, Infants must be baptized because they are church members. 
If you say that number (5) is not part of the argument as you stated it I will agree but add that it is implied since I do not think you believe that you can produce an clear undisputable passage about an infant baptism." [/quote:678760e7e2]


I think we are in agreement 
[quote:678760e7e2] 


If I understand you correctly, I think this means that you would accept an Old Testament passage that predicts children of the New Covenant as apart of the church. Is this correct? [/quote:678760e7e2]



That is essentially correct-however... 

An old Covenant promise that all physical children of the spiritual children of Abraham would be church members would be monumental in establishing infant church membership but I think that it would still prove nothing about infant baptism because we still have no reason to assume that just because a person is a church member they get the sign but we must see if God commands this particular group of church members to be baptized. Ultimately, an appeal to the Old Covenant promises about the New stumbles over the same rock that the last one did in that it ultimately will undermine itself because every argument that proves infants are church members, disproves that every example of church members are given baptism in the New Testament. This is a real pickle that I do not think can be solved unless the Old Covenant promises that New Covenant infant church members must be given the sign. 

I would be curious to find out which verses in the Old Covenant teaches that all children with New Covenant parents become part of the New Covenant by a sort of birth right? 

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian [/quote:678760e7e2]

To this arguement of mine you responded:

[quote:678760e7e2] I think its funny that every time I think we are ready to go on to the next step in the debate you make a statement that sets me back to square 1. At first, I thought you agreed with your representation of my arguments and I certainly agreed with it. But then you write that part stating "...but I think that it would still prove nothing about infant baptism because we still have no reason to assume that just because a person is a church member they get the sign...." Well, which is it? [/quote:678760e7e2]

What I have virtually attempted to prove is that both arguments of your are contradictory for this arguement, "infants are members of the church members because the Old Covenant says so" and this arguement which correctly using the regulative principle of worship runs, "all church members get the Covenant sign, because every instance in the New Covenant reveals that all church members are given baptism" contradict. How so? Because if you prove that infants were church members then it would no longer be true that every instance of church members would be baptized- hence- the regulative principle would no longer force us to conclude that every group of church members were baptized. Hence, I think this is a dilemma that shows that you cannot have your cake and eat it also. We cannot say that all church members get the sign because every instance of church members gets the sign in the New Covenant... and we cannot say that infants are church members who do not have an instance of getting the covenant sign. 

[quote:678760e7e2] Do you agree with my set of premises which explicitly prove "3.) Therefore, all church members are baptized," or no? [/quote:678760e7e2]

Based on your regulative principle argument I would have to agree with it so long as it is not assumed that infants are not church members but if we assume that they are then I would have to disagree with it using that same regulative principle because it is just as dangerous to add as it is to subtract. 

[quote:678760e7e2] I'm confused about your response. If there is nothing I can do to persuade you of this proposition that "all church members are baptized" than I'll never persuade you of infant baptism. [/quote:678760e7e2]

Your regulative principle arguments works fine, unless you can prove that infants were church members, then your argument no longer works.

[quote:678760e7e2] Yet, in this post you seem to affirm that you both disagree and agree with that proposition. Could you please clarify? [/quote:678760e7e2]

That is because I feel your two arguments contradict each other, that if I agree with one I must reject the other. 

[quote:678760e7e2] If you don't accept the premise "Therefore, all church members are baptized" then I will have to politely throw in the towel on the issue. There is no reason to even debate whether the Old Covenant predicts that children will be members of the church if you don't see any direct link between church membership and baptism. [/quote:678760e7e2]

I think you are starting to see Watson and I's point, Scripture itself never assumes that Covenant members must all get the sign... Watson and I see basic continuity between the Covenants and so we see no reason to stop assuming that unless Scripture changes that... now if infants are not church members then your regulative principle argument would prove that all church members must get the sign... however if infants are members then your regulative principle would no longer work because no we have an example of a group that Scripture never records getting the sign. 

[quote:678760e7e2] Not to mention the fact, we both have entirely different sets of presuppositions and assumptions that we are bringing to the issue that cause us to view the facts in different ways. It will take far too much time and energy to break down these epistemological walls. So as I already said, if you don't see the link between church membership and baptism, nothing I say will be meaningful or persuasive to you, so I will bow out of the discussion altogether, at least for now. [/quote:678760e7e2]

You can convince me though, you just need to come up with an argument that all church members get the Covenant sign in the New Covenant... because by proving infants are church members you have undermined your own regulative principle of worship arguments that runs all example of baptized groups get baptized in the New Covenant, because if what you are saying is true then infants who would be a baptized group become a clear counterfactual to the claim that all church member groups Scripture records as being baptized. So if you come up with a new argument that all church members get the sign and then prove that infants are church members then you would have a sound argument. 

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian


[Edited on 3-21-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Goosha

*Sounds great*

Hello Tyler,

Now I understand.

You wrote:
"You can convince me though, you just need to come up with an argument that all church members get the Covenant sign in the New Covenant."

Well, I'll be honest with you. I kind of always took that for granted so it might take some time before I can give something substantial; although, I have been trying to accumulate some texts. Anyways, I accept the challenge.

Cordially,

Jayson Rawlins


----------



## Tertullian

[quote:5800ccd951][i:5800ccd951]Originally posted by Goosha[/i:5800ccd951]
Hello Tyler,

Now I understand.

You wrote:
"You can convince me though, you just need to come up with an argument that all church members get the Covenant sign in the New Covenant."

Well, I'll be honest with you. I kind of always took that for granted so it might take some time before I can give something substantial; although, I have been trying to accumulate some texts. Anyways, I accept the challenge.

Cordially,

Jayson Rawlins [/quote:5800ccd951]

Alright sounds good... remember you have to come up with two arguements that prove that 1) All church members get the Covenant sign and 2) Infants with Christian parents are church members. And these arguements must have mutually supporting premises... I am looking foreward to hearing from you... May the Lord guide our search for truth in his Words of Life.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian


----------



## luvroftheWord

[quote:0fbb86b06c]
Tyler/Tertullian has been taking some big pieces. Unfortunately, for him, he has let our pawns advance and we are now in a position where a checkmate is one move away. His king is on his own back row blocked by re-enforced pawns, and we have one pawn who is going to cross the last flank and become a queen; which will inturn, allow us to obtain a checkmate.
[/quote:0fbb86b06c]

 That was a very long, but very creative way of saying that you can disprove someone's position. You're awesome, Paul.


----------



## cih1355

Paul,

You wrote, &quot;Therefore, the sacrement of baptism is to be given to the Church. We know that letters are written to churches where, Paul for example, writes about their baptism. Paul, writting to churches, assumes that the church members have been baptized. &quot;

When Paul wrote to the church at Rome, he wrote about their baptism. For example, Romans 6:3-4 says, &quot;Or do you do not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.&quot; 
Paul is not only assuming that they were baptized. He is also assuming that they are saved as well. Verse 6 of the same chapter says that our old man was crucified with Him. If their old nature is dead, they must have been saved.


----------



## Tertullian

*Paul,*

I have never changed my position upon what the Paedobaptist needs to do to prove his case as I wrote earlier,

To make progress in the controversy between credobaptism and paedobaptism the question must be asked what exactly the paedobaptist needs to prove in order to satisfy the regulative principle of worship. Theologian Karl Barth provides an excellent outline of the three ingredients to the argument that the reformed paedobaptist need to articulate in order to make their case that Scripture, when viewed as a whole, clearly commands the practice of the baptism of the children of Christians. Barth's criteria may be summarized as follows (1) The necessity of infant baptism must be established by a command of God and that God has commanded this can shown either by just and necessary inference which proves that when God commanded "this" he also intended "that" that or by a direct command found in Scripture (2) The case must be presented calmly and clearly (3) What needs to be proved must be proved and not something else. When all three of these criteria are fulfilled then the Reformed Baptist demand for a command to be baptized infants will have been sufficiently answered by Reformed Paedobaptist. Yet as Barth showed, and I will try to show, these criteria were not meet by either the reformers or their prodigy after them. Only the criteria of a command will suffice because the demands of the Regulative Principle of Worship will not be fulfilled by vicious circular that appeal to the authority of the reformers or Westminster Standards for no matter how prestigious they are they cannot properly be utilized since the very truth of their conclusions is what needs to be proved and established.

With that let us exaimine your post

[quote:1f33ab9123] Checkmate!

Tyler/Tertullian has been taking some big pieces. Unfortunately, for him, he has let our pawns advance and we are now in a position where a checkmate is one move away. His king is on his own back row blocked by re-enforced pawns, and we have one pawn who is going to cross the last flank and become a queen; which will inturn, allow us to obtain a checkmate. How so? [/quote:1f33ab9123]
It is a shame that these types of arguments get turned into a battle of wits rather then a humble quest for truth we ought all to examine our hearts and see if the Lord is pleased with our speech... love edifies but knowledge only puffs one up.... It also appears that you have failed case 2 because this type of polemic is anything but loving this is not a sport like chess we are talking about God's holy word and the sacraments... I apologize if I lead anyone to think that I thought I was smarter then Paul I am not he has walked with God longer then I have... and walking with God does tend to bring spiritual knowledge... but even the best of us have our blind spots. 


therefore let me continue to address the rest of your post not that I have hopefully got across that I do not want to play a sport but to be edified in godly concersation.

[quote:1f33ab9123] Tyler has come to this position: 
[quote:1f33ab9123]

You can convince me though, you just need to come up with an argument that all church members get the Covenant sign in the New Covenant [/quote:1f33ab9123]


Just so there is no mistake, he writes again: 
[quote:1f33ab9123]

So if you come up with a new argument that all church members get the sign and then prove that infants are church members then you would have a sound argument.[/quote:1f33ab9123]


So, is everbody clear? Tyler has made two challenges: (1) Show that all Church members get the sign, and (2), prove that infants were considered/or are church members, then we will have a sound argument. This is what I will attempt to do. I will begin with 1 first. [/quote:1f33ab9123]
I have been open and honest laying down the criteria that need to be established if God has indeed commanded all church members to be baptized and infants are church members then it follows that infants are to be baptized because the regulative principle of worship would be satisfied... I only wish some Presbyterians on this board would be honest and continue to examine this issue with an open heart and Bible and carefully read what both sides are saying before they pounce... I thank you Paul for taking the time to read my posts and analyze my post but I still think that you have not proved either of the premises that you want to make and I hope to give you my reasons below. 

[quote:1f33ab9123] Are all church members entitled to the sign? 

We can ask the question this way: &quot;Is the sacrement of baptism intended (or given to) for the whole church?&quot; Or, &quot;do all covenant members have a right to the covenant sign?&quot; Let us engage on a brief journey of theological history. That is, how have, and do, theologians answer this question? [/quote:1f33ab9123]

I think your whole presentation could be reduced to these on if all church members are to be given the sacraments to these two quotes; and I just do not see how any of it is relevant to the question are all sacraments to be given to all church members... 

[quote:1f33ab9123]The Westminster Confession of Faith says, in Ch. XXVII 

[quote:1f33ab9123]I. Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace,[1] immediately instituted by God,[2] to represent Christ and His benefits; and to confirm our interest in Him:[3] as also, to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church and the rest of the world;[4] and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to His Word.[5] 
[1] ROM 4:11 . GEN 17:7 

[2] MAT 28:19 1CO 11:23 

[3] 1CO 10:16 11:25 ,GAL 3:27 ,3:17 

[4] ROM 15:8, EXO 12:48 . GEN 34:14 

[5] ROM 6:3-4, 1CO 10:16, 21 . [/quote:1f33ab9123]

The Londom Baptist Confession states: 

[quote:1f33ab9123] 
XXXIII. 

Jesus Christ hath here on earth a [manifestation of His] spiritual kingdom, which is His Church, whom He hath purchased and redeemed to Himself as a peculiar inheritance; which Church is a company of visible saints, called and separated from the world by the word and Spirit of God, to the visible profession of faith of the gospel, being baptized into that faith, and joined to the Lord, and each other, by mutual agreement in the practical enjoyment of the ordinances commanded by Christ their head and king. 

Matt. 11:11; 2 Thess. 1:1; 1 Cor. 1:2; Eph. 1:1; Rom. 1:7; Acts 19:8,9, 26:18; 2 Cor. 6:17; Rev. 18:4; Acts 2:37, 10:37; Rom. 10:10; Matt. 18:19,20; Acts 2:42, 9:26; 1 Pet. 2:5. [/quote:1f33ab9123][/quote:1f33ab9123]

And you conclude 


[quote:1f33ab9123] Therefore, the sacrement of baptism is to be given to the Church. We know that letters are written to churches where, Paul for example, writes about their baptism. Paul, writting to churches, assumes that the church members have been baptized... Therefore, since the Bible tells us that the sacrement of Baptism is for the entire church, and if we can show that infants/children were considered members of the church, then it would follow that infants/children have the right to be baptized. I will now procede to prove the antecedent, assuming that number 1 of Tertullian requests has been more than satisfied. [/quote:1f33ab9123]
Actually, all Tertullian needs to do is note that all these objections could be raised against the Jews not giving the sign to their Jewish daughters... was not circumcision given to Israel to separate them from the world, was not circumcision given to Israel to show regeneration, was not circumcision the Old Covenant sacrament? Therefore, if these verses present a problem for the Reformed Baptist then the presented a problem of the Jew who did not circumcise his daughter... All I can say is that not one single Confession or Person Paul quoted every tried to argue that God had commanded circumcision or baptism to be given to all Church members... sure it was for the church just as circumcision was for Israel; but that proves nothing... God put a rainbow in the sky for all men yet no person was required to ware the sign personally... the bottom line is where does God command all church members to be baptized? 

As a Reformed Baptist I can use Goosha argument from the Regulative Principle to support it but as I have already shown one infants are assumed as Covenant members that argument no longer prove that all church members must be given the sign. 

[quote:1f33ab9123] Are infants/children considered church members? 

So, since I have satisfied number one, of Tertullians requests, all that's left is to show that infants/children were/are considered members of the New Testament church. We should all be in agreement that infants were considered members of the Old Testament church, and we could argue, as B.B. Warifed did: 
[quote:1f33ab9123]

The argument in a nutshell is simply this: God established his Church in the days of Abraham and put children into it. They must remain there until He puts them out. He has nowhere put them out. They are still then members of His church and as such entitled to its ordinances. -B.B. Warfield, The Polemics of Infant baptism,&quot; in &quot;Studies in Theology&quot; 1981 reprint, 9.408. [/quote:1f33ab9123] [/quote:1f33ab9123]

Why are they entitled Warfield? Not even in the Old Covenant were all the infants entitled for it was males? Warfield never tells where he got this from yet he basis his whole argument upon it... I guess not even geniuses are beyond the power of human tradition.

[quote:1f33ab9123] And this seems fine to me. I believe that, in accordance with covenant theology's hermeneutic, this would count as good and necessary inference. Unfortunately, though the baptist says he will accept inference, what he ends up doing is looking for an explicit statement-in the New Testament-evidencing their dispensational tendancies. Now, I cannot offer a verse which says, &quot;Infants are church members&quot; but I will try to show, by just the New Testament, that it considered infants/children memebers. It will be an inference, I'd say, of the same level as women and the Lord's supper. [/quote:1f33ab9123]
You are just poisoning the well, where have I ever said that I will not except an inference? I just reject the identity between circumcision and baptism and I do not think that Presbyterian can even account for their belief that all church members must get the sign.... They must borrow this from the Reformed Baptist side but it is about time they accounted it without using Reformed Baptist capital... Furthermore why do you not apply this continuity principle in the matter of church membership=baptism after all this was not true in the Old Covenant so where is your verse to correct what you view as a big mistake of God's part when he picked a sign but only ordered half of the Covenant church to receive it. 

[quote:1f33ab9123] Remember, all I need to do is show that infants/children were considered church members. [/quote:1f33ab9123]
Well you still have to show were God commanded all church members to be baptized? 
[quote:1f33ab9123] I am not supposed to prove that they are members of the New Covenant. Although, many believe that church memebrs are members of the New Covenant, including many of the above scholars. That is, the New Covenat is made up of both elect and non-elect members (cf. John 15, Heb. 10, I Cor.5, etc). I will at least offer some brief reasons to show that the children of believers are New covenant members....even though all I need to prove is that they are church members for it to be a &quot;sound&quot; argument.. [/quote:1f33ab9123]
This is a tangent that I do not think really need to be said because it is a completely different subject; it is always suspicious in debate when the person who is suppose to be proving "A" starts talking about "B" and even admits that he is getting off topic... after all if one really had a case for "A" wouldn't he want to develop it? (just food to ponder)

[quote:1f33ab9123] I will start with Ephesians 6:1-3: 
[quote:1f33ab9123]

1Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2&quot;Honor your father and mother&quot; (this is the first commandment with a promise), 3&quot;that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.&quot; [/quote:1f33ab9123][/quote:1f33ab9123]

Paul are you suggesting that Paul wrote this letter to little infants who could not yet read or understand? I mean have you made an assumption here that Paul can only write letters to church members but why assume that? Furthermore Reformed Baptist Dagg has robbed this argument of its force along time ago when he wrote:

[quote:1f33ab9123] 
Because children were addressed in an epistle directed to a church, it does not necessarily follow that they were members of the church. As parents were required to bring up their children ion the nurture and admonition of the Lord, the same epistle that enjoined this duty from the Lord, might appropriately contain a direct command from the Lord, requiring the children to obey their parents. IN performing the duty enjoined on them, the parents would naturally and properly take their children with them to the public worship of the church, where the apostolic epistles would be read in their hearing. The fact, therefore, that an apostolic command was addressed to them, and claimed the right of commanding them in the name of the Lord.

But the probability is, that the children whom Paul addressed were members of the church. The command, "Obey your parents in the Lord," is so expressed, as apparently to imply that the obligation was to be felt and acknowledged by them, because of their relation to the Lord. The children to whom Paul addressed this command must have possessed intelligences to apprehend its meaning, and piety to feel the force of the motive presented in these words, "For this is well pleasing unto the Lord" Timothy, from a child, had known the Holy Scriptures. Intelligent piety has, in all ages, been found in children who have not yet reached maturity; and such children have a Scriptural right to church membership. 

The argument contains a fallacy which deserves to be noticed, in the assumption, that the children who were commanded to obey, and the children who were to be brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, were the same. Masters were commanded how to treat their servants, and servants were commanded to obey their masters; but it would be wrong to infer that no masters were so commanded but those who had pious servants, or that no servant commanded but those who had pious masters. On the contrary, those servants who had believing masters are distinguished from those who had believing masters are distinguished from the whose masters were unbelievers; and yet the latter class were commanded to obey, as well as the former. The relation of master and servant existed, in some cases, when both of the parties were members of the church; and, in other cases, when one party was in the church and the other party out of the church. No proof exists, that the relation of the parent and child may not have been divided in the same manner. Parents were not commanded to bring up their children in nurture and admonition of the Lord because the children were church-members; and children were not commanded to obey their parents because the parents were church-members. The supposition, therefore, that the children in the two cases were the same, is an assumption without proof. [/quote:1f33ab9123]

I think Daggs objections should be answered before we take Ephesians as proof that children are church members.

[quote:1f33ab9123] Now, I have satisifed reguest number 2. Therefore, on Tertullians own terms, I have given a sound argument. My last argument was valid and certainly applies for the good and necessary inference criteria-that Tertullian adhers to(?). Now the reader should take note of what Tertullian will do. I assume that he will not be persuaded. But you will note the presuppositional nature of his commitment. You will also see that there is no way i could prove it without an explicit example. I will then point out the women-Lord supper dielma, and he will say that it is commanded by virtue of discipleship. This is still inference! When will the baptist stop playing both sides of the fence? 

in Christ, 
-Paul [/quote:1f33ab9123]

Paul, I notice that you try to warn the reader ahead of time that I will not agree and come up with a reason... Do I detect a hint of insecurity with your arguments that you felt the need to poison the well against me before I even responded?

Paul, I am sure that the careful reader has already noted that all of your arguments that all church members get the Covenant even when added together does not produce even one command in Scripture to baptize all church members and on top of this all your arguements could with equal force be argued against Jews not circumcising their women, yet in spite of all your arguments the Jew's felt no need to circumcise women, so why should the Reformed Baptist feel obligated because of your arguements to baptize infants?

(Now the careful reader will note that I have accepted Goosha's Regulative Principle that proves church members get the sign, but as I already showed Goosha the Paedobaptist undermines that very argument when the say that children are church members- hence only Reformed Baptist can say that church members get the sign... Paul's attempt to find a new argument for church membership appear to me to bevery questionable and flawed)

Hence, Paul still has not proved "Premise 1" and Paul did not prove "Premise 2" in fact Paul seemed not to even acknowledge that Reformed Baptist have already answered that question in the past, instead Paul brought up a few weak arguments but I have always held to the philosophy that it is better to present your opponents strongest arguments then his weakest ones- therefore Paul proved neither premise 1 or 2. 

To the Glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 3-22-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## cih1355

[quote:446bd5fa13]
[b:446bd5fa13]Objection #2:[/b:446bd5fa13] &quot;But it is referring to the elect because it says they are saints and follow Jesus.&quot;

[b:446bd5fa13]Answer:[/b:446bd5fa13] Oh, so did the elect have red dots on their forehead and they made all the non-red-dot-havers go outside? Also, we read: &quot;Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ send greetings&quot; If saints means elect ones then how did they know who to kiss? And, &quot;Greet all the saints in Christ Jesus. The brothers who are with me send greetings.&quot; How did they know who to greet? Did the saints have a red dot on their forehead? Therefore, it does not follow that saint equals elect.
[/quote:446bd5fa13]

If the saints are not necessarily the elect, then why does Paul in the book of Ephesians address the saints and say that they were chosen before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless before Him?


----------



## kceaster

*Tyler....*

I believe the command you're searching for is found in Matthew 28. Disciples are to be baptized.

Incidentally, I don't think it wise for you to adopt a position that the paedobaptist simply follows tradition. For one, it opens you up to scrutiny. Are there no traditions you follow? And two, because of all the links we have showed you that you refuse to see, or cannot see, whichever the case, you know that paedobaptism flows from the Scriptures instead of requiring a proof text. Infant inclusion is from the beginning and is never abrogated. In fact, it is put forward with an exclamation point with Christ.

If it is tradition that we cling to, should we ignore Jesus' words and actions toward little children? It is not as if He did not realize that they were Adam's sons. It is not as if He did not see their hearts. It is not as if He did not know whether or not they were His own. It is not as if He did not know whether the Spirit would enliven them.

He did not see a spark of faith or potential in them, because if they were not yet regenerated, they were dead in trespasses and sins, just like the pharisees to whom He did not have good things to say.

So why would Christ treat a tiny sinner any different than a grown-up one? These were children of believers.

How do you answer? Why does it look like tradition to you, when we are only doing as Christ commands - baptizing disciples - and why should we not treat the children of believers as Christ did?

Look past the wooden erection of case law, because that is just what you are arguing from. It has little to do with the RPW because God has not forbidden us to treat our infants thusly, but has given us a solid command to inaugurate our children into the covenant community. And this command is not abrogated.

So your claim that we are ignoring the RPW in this case does not have warrant. God did command us to include our children. And the female children as well. The virgins of Israel were afforded a special and delicate place. They were honored, not cast aside. They were just as much a part of the covenant community as were the sons. They did not receive the sign, because it was not through their flesh that men were born. They carry the seed but do not implant it. They were purified through their covenant head.

Now they are purified just as men are, by the washing of water. Their covenant head is Christ while in submission to their fathers and their husbands.

None of this is tradition, for tradition's sake. It is in the Word of God that these things are spoken and commanded. Because it is in the Word, it is a godly tradition, not man-made. If God commanded it, and has not undone it. Then it stands.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## luvroftheWord

[quote:76852e6172]
Actually, all Tertullian needs to do is note that all these objections could be raised against the Jews not giving the sign to their Jewish daughters... was not circumcision given to Israel to separate them from the world, was not circumcision given to Israel to show regeneration, was not circumcision the Old Covenant sacrament? Therefore, if these verses present a problem for the Reformed Baptist then the presented a problem of the Jew who did not circumcise his daughter...
[/quote:76852e6172]

If circumcision was to set Israel apart from the other nations, would you care to explain how Jewish daughters were set apart since they allegedly were not circumcised?

[quote:76852e6172]
I only wish some Presbyterians on this board would be honest and continue to examine this issue with an open heart and Bible and carefully read what both sides are saying before they pounce
[/quote:76852e6172]

Some of us are former Baptists and know what the issues are, Tertullian. Some of us had the audacity to actually embrace paedobaptism being convinced from Scripture. There is nothing dishonest about coming to a different conclusion than you do. Your position isn't quite so obvious as you try to make it sound.


----------



## Saiph

Tertullean: There are two types of branches. Both are said to be &quot;in&quot; Christ. Even the ones that do not bear fruit and are eventually cast into the fire. How do Baptists account for the &quot;in me&quot; phrase of Jesus ? ? ? ? 



John 15


I Am the True Vine

1 &quot;I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. 2 [b:013c0727c2]Every branch of mine that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. [/b:013c0727c2]3 Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you. 4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. 5 I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. 6 [b:013c0727c2]If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.[/b:013c0727c2] 7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8 By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples. 9 As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love. 10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love. 11 These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full.


----------



## Tertullian

[quote:bf15106872][quote:bf15106872][i:bf15106872]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:bf15106872]
[quote:bf15106872]
Actually, all Tertullian needs to do is note that all these objections could be raised against the Jews not giving the sign to their Jewish daughters... was not circumcision given to Israel to separate them from the world, was not circumcision given to Israel to show regeneration, was not circumcision the Old Covenant sacrament? Therefore, if these verses present a problem for the Reformed Baptist then the presented a problem of the Jew who did not circumcise his daughter...
[/quote:bf15106872]

If circumcision was to set Israel apart from the other nations, would you care to explain how Jewish daughters were set apart since they allegedly were not circumcised?[/quote:bf15106872] [/quote:bf15106872]

That is easy not all people in the Old Covenant had to receive the sign for the sign to be effective in doing what it was suppose to do. I mean do you deny that circumcison made Israel different then the nations around her or do you deny that women were not circumcised?

[quote:bf15106872][quote:bf15106872]
I only wish some Presbyterians on this board would be honest and continue to examine this issue with an open heart and Bible and carefully read what both sides are saying before they pounce
[/quote:bf15106872]

Some of us are former Baptists and know what the issues are, Tertullian. Some of us had the audacity to actually embrace paedobaptism being convinced from Scripture. There is nothing dishonest about coming to a different conclusion than you do. Your position isn't quite so obvious as you try to make it sound. [/quote:bf15106872]

Point well taking I was never challenging the sincerity of Paedobaptust just their Scriptural validity. 

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 3-23-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## luvroftheWord

[quote:060b200d2a]
That is easy not all people in the Old Covenant had to receive the sign for the sign to be effective in doing what it was suppose to do. I mean do you deny that circumcison made Israel different then the nations around her or do you deny that women were not circumcised?
[/quote:060b200d2a]

I deny that women were not circumcised, as I argued a long time ago. The question is WHY was circumcision able to set the entire nation of Israel apart from the nations if not every person had to receive it?

[Edited on 3-23-2004 by luvroftheWord]


----------



## Tertullian

[quote:befbe1ccbb][i:befbe1ccbb]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:befbe1ccbb]
Tertullean: There are two types of branches. Both are said to be &quot;in&quot; Christ. Even the ones that do not bear fruit and are eventually cast into the fire. How do Baptists account for the &quot;in me&quot; phrase of Jesus ? ? ? ? 



John 15


I Am the True Vine

1 &quot;I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. 2 [b:befbe1ccbb]Every branch of mine that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. [/b:befbe1ccbb]3 Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you. 4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. 5 I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. 6 [b:befbe1ccbb]If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.[/b:befbe1ccbb] 7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. [b:befbe1ccbb]8 By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples. [/b:befbe1ccbb]9 As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love. 10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love. 11 These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full. [/quote:befbe1ccbb]

I see so we are both in agreement that true Disciples are not cutt off, after all those who were cutt off proved not to be Disciples.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian



[Edited on 3-23-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Tertullian

*Paul,*

[quote:8e9368bb80] the shorter version: 

The westmister and London divines as well, as Jewett, Grudem, Berkof, Dabney, Murray, Shedd, et al have said that baptism is for all church members. as well as gave verses. Thus Tertullian has to disagree with the top pedigree if both camps to hold his position. [/quote:8e9368bb80]

Actually, I do agree that church members get the sign but that is because I am not Paedobaptist and can use the Regulative Principle of worship stated by Goosha, but as I already noted Paedobaptism if it were true would undermine that argument so the Paedobaptist need to find a new argument.

Secondly, not one of the quotes you provided proved anything more than that baptism is for church members... now does it follow that all church members must be baptized from just that premise of course not. Note circumcision was for Israelites but it did not follow that all Israelites had to be baptized (ex. women)

[quote:8e9368bb80] I proved that infants were considered church members by the fact that Jewish Christians had their infants circumcised and were thus members of their parents churches. [/quote:8e9368bb80]

So you either think women were not Jewish or you just made a historical mistake either way you would be wrong.

[quote:8e9368bb80] These synogogue's were called churches. Therefore, certain new testament churches had infant members! [/quote:8e9368bb80]

Again, what does church membership have to do with who get the sign... after all using your analogoy women infants did not get the sign even though they were church members in Jewish synagogues. Besides I still have serious doubts about this whole approach I mean we might as well say that all servants of Christians are Christians because all slaves of Jewish male servatns were circumcised but you don't accept that argument so why should I find your argument persuasive about infant membership?

[quote:8e9368bb80] Tyler, I feel that you didn't even address my post. Premise one was more than satisfied and you, who said to attack your oppenants strongets argument, didn't even address my argument that proved that infants were considered members of first century churches. [/quote:8e9368bb80]

I feel that I did. Your arguments were useless because I could agree with everything the guess you quoted wrote and still believe what I believe. 

[quote:8e9368bb80] And, go and re-read Warfields argument, you totally butchered it. [/quote:8e9368bb80]

Please reread my response I think you misunderstood me

[quote:8e9368bb80] Finally, I have no ill feeling and I just wrote the beginning of my post the way I did to make it more interesting. I apologize if you were offended. And, no matter what you may think, we are debating. So, since you are sensative to those things I will try not to phrase what I right in a way that would offend you. I just thought it was an interesting way to put a point. 

Please, re-read my post. I proved both # 1 and 2. 

-Paul [/quote:8e9368bb80]

I did and do not find them any more persuasive then I did before I can only note that you did not answer any of my objections but just acted like I never made them

Objection to your first premise, is that Jews did not feel any weight to administer their infant daughters the Covenant sign so why must baptize feel pressured to administered the Covenant sign because of your arguments? Also it comments a logic fallacy because it can be admitted that baptism is for members and still not be forced to baptize all church members because only some church members might get it. Just because a an orange is a fruit it does not follow that every fruit is an orange... just because baptism is for church members it does not follow that every church members is baptized.

Objection to your second premise; please answer Dagg's objections listed in my last post.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian


----------



## Tertullian

[quote:116d8362b4][i:116d8362b4]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:116d8362b4]
[quote:116d8362b4]
That is easy not all people in the Old Covenant had to receive the sign for the sign to be effective in doing what it was suppose to do. I mean do you deny that circumcison made Israel different then the nations around her or do you deny that women were not circumcised?
[/quote:116d8362b4]

I deny that women were not circumcised, as I argued a long time ago. The question is WHY was circumcision able to set the entire nation of Israel apart from the nations if not every person had to receive it?

[Edited on 3-23-2004 by luvroftheWord] [/quote:116d8362b4]

Well I am sorry I am going to have to disagree that women were circumcised... I do not know of any scholar who says that women were circumcised... what verse or verses do you have to prove that women were circumcised and so disprove 2000 years of the traditional Christian interpretation of Scripture?

I think only tradition would force us to read between the lines that circumcision was given to women. 

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 3-23-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Tertullian

[quote:2043d2a8fa][i:2043d2a8fa]Originally posted by kceaster[/i:2043d2a8fa]
I believe the command you're searching for is found in Matthew 28. Disciples are to be baptized.

Incidentally, I don't think it wise for you to adopt a position that the paedobaptist simply follows tradition. For one, it opens you up to scrutiny. Are there no traditions you follow? And two, because of all the links we have showed you that you refuse to see, or cannot see, whichever the case, you know that paedobaptism flows from the Scriptures instead of requiring a proof text. Infant inclusion is from the beginning and is never abrogated. In fact, it is put forward with an exclamation point with Christ.

If it is tradition that we cling to, should we ignore Jesus' words and actions toward little children? It is not as if He did not realize that they were Adam's sons. It is not as if He did not see their hearts. It is not as if He did not know whether or not they were His own. It is not as if He did not know whether the Spirit would enliven them.

He did not see a spark of faith or potential in them, because if they were not yet regenerated, they were dead in trespasses and sins, just like the pharisees to whom He did not have good things to say.

So why would Christ treat a tiny sinner any different than a grown-up one? These were children of believers.

How do you answer? Why does it look like tradition to you, when we are only doing as Christ commands - baptizing disciples - and why should we not treat the children of believers as Christ did?

Look past the wooden erection of case law, because that is just what you are arguing from. It has little to do with the RPW because God has not forbidden us to treat our infants thusly, but has given us a solid command to inaugurate our children into the covenant community. And this command is not abrogated.

So your claim that we are ignoring the RPW in this case does not have warrant. God did command us to include our children. And the female children as well. The virgins of Israel were afforded a special and delicate place. They were honored, not cast aside. They were just as much a part of the covenant community as were the sons. They did not receive the sign, because it was not through their flesh that men were born. They carry the seed but do not implant it. They were purified through their covenant head.

Now they are purified just as men are, by the washing of water. Their covenant head is Christ while in submission to their fathers and their husbands.

None of this is tradition, for tradition's sake. It is in the Word of God that these things are spoken and commanded. Because it is in the Word, it is a godly tradition, not man-made. If God commanded it, and has not undone it. Then it stands.

In Christ,

KC [/quote:2043d2a8fa]

I do not object to tradition per say I reject to unscriptural tradition... we all have our tradition I do not deny but that only means that we need to examine them with Scripture and be willing to admit that we could be wrong.

I am having a hard time buying this whole women were circumcised federally bet could you please give a me a verse that teaches that? If not we are back to man-made tradition again only worse, now we are using more man-made tradition to prove man-made tradition- This is always dangerious consider women who added a extra tradition here and there and now look where she be? I do not want to make the same mistake do you? If not I suggest you bring some Scriptures to the table... start be proving this federal circumcison from Scripture.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian


----------



## luvroftheWord

Tertullian,

[quote:81fe597d3a]
I do not know of any scholar who says that women were circumcised... what verse or verses do you have to prove that women were circumcised and so disprove 2000 years of the traditional Christian interpretation of Scripture?
[/quote:81fe597d3a]



Wow! And this from the same person who immediately said this afterward:

[quote:81fe597d3a]
I think only [i:81fe597d3a]tradition[/i:81fe597d3a] would force us to read between the lines that circumcision was given to women.
[/quote:81fe597d3a]

I cannot help but laugh at that statement. I'm not making fun of you, don't get me wrong. I just can't believe somebody who chides paedobaptists for appealing to their forefathers, saying &quot;not tradition, but Scripture alone!&quot; like you have done would even begin to make an argument like this. (By the way... all this tradition stuff you imply about paedobaptists is getting old. I could just say that you are following the traditions of your anabaptist fathers.)

If I wanted to, I could simply respond with the following quote from your own lips:

[quote:81fe597d3a]
I guess I do not have enough pictures of reformers on my wall but I just do not see it nor will I accept the resolution that because the majority says so it must be true
[/quote:81fe597d3a]

Now, because I am a more honest paedobaptist than that, I am not content to leave the argument there. You said before that not everyone in the nation of Israel had to receive the sign for the sign to do its job. Of course, you HAVE to say that to affirm both that circumcision set Israel apart from the nations and that women and Israel were not circumcised. But I asked you why the women of Israel were still set apart from the world even without receiving the sign in their flesh, as the men were to do. I ask you this first because you are right, on the one hand. Women didn't receive the sign in their flesh, yet the sign still did it's job. But on the other hand, you cannot account for why this is the case. I have proposed that it is the case because of the principle of federal headship, or put a more common way, the household concept. [I am indebted to Robert R. Booth's book [u:81fe597d3a]Children of the Promise[/u:81fe597d3a] for many of the ideas that are discussed below... it is an excellent read on the subject of infant baptism.]

God has ALWAYS worked according to this principle, even before the institution of circumcision. Scripture is full of examples in which the term &quot;household&quot; is understood as including all those who are under the authority of the head of the covenantal family unit. As the head of the household went, so did the family, every member being effected. God showed favor to Noah and as a result his family went with him into the ark (Gen. 7:1). The Lord plagued all of Pharaoh's house for the sin of Pharoah himself (Gen. 12:17). All who were born in Abraham's house or were slaves were to be circumcised (Gen. 17:12-13, 23, 27). God spared Lot's family on account of Lot himself (Gen. 19:16). The Lord closed all the wombs of the women in Abimelech's household because of Abimelech's sin individually. (Gen. 20:17-18). As a result of the sin of Simeon and Levi, Jacob said, &quot;I shall be destroyed, I and my household&quot; (Gen. 34:30). Households were spared death where the blood of the Passover lamb was applied to their doorposts (Ex. 12:27). The Levites were numbered according to their household membership (Num. 3:15). Joshua made his decision to serve the Lord and thus his family was required to do the same thing (Josh. 24:15). God judged the house of Eli because of the sins of his sons (1 Sam 3:12-14). David brought God's judgment upon his whole house because of his sinful conduct with Bathsheba (2 Sam. 12:10). Achan's entire family was stoned with him because of his personal sin of stealing silver and gold (Josh 7:15, 24-25). God promises to punish the wicked, &quot;visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations&quot; (Ex. 34:7). To say that federal headship has no support in Scripture is to deny the facts.

What I have described above is the OT outlook on the household concept leading up to the NT period of the early church. Federal headship has much relevance to the issue of baptism because we find instances of &quot;household baptisms&quot; in the NT. We have household baptisms recorded in Acts, included Cornelius and his house (10:48; 11:14), Lydia and her house (16:15), the Philippian jailer and his house (16:33), Crispus and his house (18:8), and in 1 Cor. 1:14-16 we have the baptism of Stephanus and his house. On what basis should we say that the term &quot;household&quot; is defined differently in the NT than it was in the OT? The first century culture of the church did not just fall out of heaven without a historical context or worldview, so I don't believe there is much warrant for making a distinction between the households of the OT and the households of the NT. It is simply unthinkable that the worldview of the first century audience suddenly transformed from a federal to an individualistic mindset just because they are living in the book of Acts and not the book of Genesis. One very good example of the household concept in the NT is the feeding of the multitudes. In these instances, the heads of the household were counted rather than the entire family. This makes perfect sense if the federal headship concept is true. 

So in short, paedobaptists see the household baptisms of the NT as being the continuing principle of federal headship. Every individual in the house was baptized because of the faith of the federal head of the home. Just as in the case of Joshua who said, &quot;as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord&quot;, this was true in the NT as well. The head of the household made the decision to serve the Lord for the other members of his house. Whether there were actually any children present in the households in Acts is really irrelevant to the issue of federal headship, and much ink is wasted trying to prove that there were or weren't. I believe that the paedobaptist position has OT and NT history and culture working in its favor here.

Now of course, none of what I have said above is persuasive to a Baptist. In fact, they all go to great lengths to exegete these passages showing that the people believed before they were baptized, and low and behold, it just so happens that everybody in the house came to a consensus and decided to believe all at the same time and then be baptized! Now, is this position exegetically possible? It is one alternative, but it is unlikely given the fact that, as I said before, these texts that record these baptisms do not come to us in a vacuum, apart from a historical and covenantal context. But of course, this usually doesn't phase a Baptist either since they are usually willing to see more discontinuity between the covenants than I am willing to see. But this doesn't change what was in the minds of the first century audience. (This is really where the issue gets tough because this is where the differing presuppositions and assumptions of credo and paedobaptists are at the forefront... This is also where I usually get lost in the debate because I have no clue how to get past these epistemological barriers.)

Now, you have tried to counter this federal headship argument by showing that you could just as easily say that the infants of believers are federally set apart by the adult's baptism, though the infants must later be truly baptized after they have made a profession of faith. But I and Paul have both argued that the idea that one person's baptism can cover another person is a concept that is completely foreign to Baptist theology. It gives the &quot;federal baptism&quot; a different meaning altogether from the water baptism that the child receives later in life. But this would not be a continuing pattern of federal headship because in the OT the sign of circumcision meant the same thing for both the males who received the sign in their flesh and the females who received the sign through the federal headship of their father/husband. The women of Israel were set apart from the rest of the world without receiving circumcision in their flesh, not because it was just that way, but because of this principle of federal headship. The women of Israel were truly set apart from the pagan nations and granted full membership in Israel, able to partake of the Passover, because they were counted as circumcised. This makes PERFECT sense under this principle, and the principle itself, as I have demonstrated, is perfectly justifiable by Scripture.

Also, for the sake of those who may be reading over this thread who are searching through the issues, I would just like to point out that many of the arguments Tertullian has raised against what the paedobaptists in this thread have been arguing are NOT necessarily positions that Tertullian himself holds to, but are simply arguments that, for the sake of argument, a Reformed Baptist can raise in order to get out of baptizing their infants. This "federal baptism" idea is one of those arguments. I would just ask the reader to consider which is more likely to be true, the arguments given here in favor of paedobaptism, or these unique "for the sake of argument" arguments that Tertullian has raised that not even he himself always agrees with.




[Edited on 3-23-2004 by luvroftheWord]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

This thread is disappointing. Credo responses seem to be more avoidance than interaction. I would like to see a credo pick apart, not by sophistry, but logically and exegetically, Paul's last long post.

Don't just avoid it......


----------



## Tertullian

*luvroftheWord*

I know what your position is, your arguement rests upon the premise that all church members must get the Covenant sign... os then you have to restort to a federal circucumsion for women that not one verse teaches... now you were suppose to prove that all church members get the Covenant sign not just assume that they do in then try to prove federal circumcision... in order to prove federal circumcision you must base it on a different premise then every covenant member must get the sign... for that is the very assumption that I am proving and saying is wrong... and then you bring up federal circumcision- but when asked why you hold to federal circumcision you say that you hold to it because all church members must get the sign... do you notice the circular arguement here? 

Federal circumcison-proves-that all church members get the sign

All church members get the sign-proves- that women had a federal circumcision.

I do not think these arguements prove your position I think they state your position- so now that we know what your position is where is the proof?

Also, for anyone reading these posts note that I can only say that if you accept federal circumcison though no Bible verses ever teaches it- then why not accept the same arguement for infants- it is true that Reformed Baptist do not hold to federal baptism for infants because no Scripture teaches it but- the same could be said of the federal circumcison- so if you can accept one tradition without Scripture why not two or three or four? So why not just think that infants are covered by this federal theology? (I see no reason why not if we can accept women federal circumcison)

I think it is safe to conclude that the arguement above all arguements for infant baptism is that John Calvin said this... that it exlains why we have to invent a theology of federal Covenant sign administration- when no Scripture supports it- to prove a tradition of all Covenant members must get the sign because of some human right- again a tradition nowhere taught in Scripture- to support another tradition (infant baptism) which is nowhere expressely commanded in Scripture. Tradition no taught in Scripture always adds more tradition until we can nolonger remember or care if verses supporit it.

We all have our tradition but it is dangerious to argue tradition for the sake of tradition.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian


----------



## Tertullian

[quote:12d8aa143e][i:12d8aa143e]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:12d8aa143e]
This thread is disappointing. Credo responses seem to be more avoidance than interaction. I would like to see a credo pick apart, not by sophistry, but logically and exegetically, Paul's last long post.

Don't just avoid it...... [/quote:12d8aa143e]

I have got to go to work right now but I wll get to work on a response when i come back


----------



## Optimus

*Paul*

That was an excellent post.


----------



## Roldan

*Paul*

That was a superb post!:thumbup:

I really can't see how any baptist can refute that. Of course they will try but it will just be red herings and a bunch of &quot;i disagree's&quot; and like you stated

&quot;the argumentative style of the credo to my post is essentialy, this: &quot;I didn't see you prove anything.&quot; Which can be translated thus, &quot;Whatever my net don't catch aint fish.&quot; 

I predict some outrageous hermenutics on its way.


----------



## luvroftheWord

Tertullian,

Wow. I am stunned by your last post. I don't even know where to begin a response. I just spent almost three hours last night and early morning putting that last post together, looking up Scriptures and putting my thoughts together only to have you not only dismiss my post, but misrepresent my argument altogether. I don't know if I want to waste anymore time on this.

[quote:70208552d6][i:70208552d6]Originally posted by Tertullian.[/i:70208552d6]
I know what your position is, your arguement rests upon the premise that all church members must get the Covenant sign... os then you have to restort to a federal circucumsion for women that not one verse teaches... now you were suppose to prove that all church members get the Covenant sign not just assume that they do in then try to prove federal circumcision... in order to prove federal circumcision you must base it on a different premise then every covenant member must get the sign... for that is the very assumption that I am proving and saying is wrong... and then you bring up federal circumcision- but when asked why you hold to federal circumcision you say that you hold to it because all church members must get the sign... do you notice the circular arguement here?
[/quote:70208552d6]

That is NOT how I argue for federal headship at all. Anyone that really reads my last post will notice right away that no part of my argument for federal headship rests on the premise that all covenant members get the covenant sign. I went right to the OT to show the federal headship principle as it occurs ALL OVER THE PLACE in the Scriptures. It is upon those Scriptures that I built a case for the principle, and assuming basic continuity between the OT and NT, then applied the principle to the NT in the household baptisms. If anything was simply assumed in my last post it was the idea of continuity, not that all covenant members receive the sign.

Nowhere have I ever said, &quot;Because all covenant members get the sign of the covenant, federal circumcision must be true.&quot; That is not my argument, and never has been my argument. All I have to do to prove that is refer you to EVERY other post I've ever written in this messageboard on this subject. And there are many. I was the 11th person to register on this board back when it started up in 2002. I've been around this carousel a time or two.

And by the way, this federal headship idea isn't my own invention. Do a search for posts by Webmaster and KC and other paedobaptists on this board and you'll see similar arguments. 

[quote:70208552d6]
I think it is safe to conclude that the arguement above all arguements for infant baptism is that John Calvin said this... that it exlains why we have to invent a theology of federal Covenant sign administration- when no Scripture supports it- to prove a tradition of all Covenant members must get the sign because of some human right- again a tradition nowhere taught in Scripture- to support another tradition (infant baptism) which is nowhere expressely commanded in Scripture. Tradition no taught in Scripture always adds more tradition until we can nolonger remember or care if verses supporit it. 

We all have our tradition but it is dangerious to argue tradition for the sake of tradition.
[/quote:70208552d6]

Yeah, paedobaptists and their traditions. If it weren't for Calvin there wouldn't be paedobaptists. I don't have the time or inclination to debate this issue with somebody who does not respect my position (and the position of people in this board and Christians all over the world) any more than this last quote shows.

Sorry to leave you hanging, guys, but I've had enough of this.

[Edited on 3-23-2004 by luvroftheWord]


----------



## Goosha

*Things the make you go hmmmm......*

Does church membership imply that a person is baptized?

I choose to take this question on because the question, "Where does God command all members of the covenant to be baptized?" begs the question. This question already assumes both discontinuity and a preconceived conclusion from that discontinuity. I wish to provide at lest some basis for the idea the church membership implies baptism.

Here is my attempt:

If you are in the church, then you are in Christ (Galatians 1:22).
If you are in Christ, then you are His disciple (John 15:2,8).
If you are a disciple, then you are baptized (John 4:2, Matthew 28:19,20).
Therefore, if you are in Christ, then you are baptized.


If you grant my interpretation of the scriptures above, I think we have pretty good idea that to be in Christ is to be a disciple and a church member.
If you are in the visible church, then you are in Christ (in covenant). 
If you are in Christ, then you are baptized.
Therefore, if you are in the visible church, then you are baptized (by implication only).

Another line:
I also think an argument can be constructed from 1 Corinthian 10:2-3 "and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and all ate the same spiritual food." I don't think Paul would have mentioned the idea of everyone in Israel's baptism into Moses and then using that as a basis for threatening the Corinthian church if he didn't see a pretty strong parallel. Thus, I think in this text Paul assumes that all the Corinthians were baptized like all of Israelites were baptized.

The arguments of above are by no means deductive (subject to interpretive and logical fallacies). However, I do think they at least swing the pendulum in favor of the first premise of a syllogism arguing for paedobaptism. 

1.) Church members were required to be baptized.
2.) Infants of believers are church members.
C.) Therefore, Infants of believers were required to be baptized.

If my line of reasoning is correct, then I also think that the bible authorizes us to see children as Disciples of Christ since (according to my study) the bible makes no distinction between church memberships and discipleship.

Cordially,

Jayson Rawlins


----------



## Tertullian

*Goosha*

Thanks for the response,

I always appreciate your humble manner I feel that at the very lest you have definitely proved something that needs to be noted Paedobaptism can be presented calmly without recourse to "I have proved my case but I know that Baptist will use his sophistry..." I thank you for that... you have probably presented the most persuasive and humble case I have read throughout these discourses... May the Lord guide his Church into truth. 

[quote:750fc88ab0] Things the make you go hmmmm...... 

Does church membership imply that a person is baptized? 

I choose to take this question on because the question, "Where does God command all members of the covenant to be baptized?" begs the question. This question already assumes both discontinuity and a preconceived conclusion from that discontinuity. I wish to provide at lest some basis for the idea the church membership implies baptism. [/quote:750fc88ab0]

Now remember Goosha I do as a Confessional Reformed Baptist teach that all church members ought to be baptized but that is because I accept your argument based on the Regulative Principle that runs something like this that the Regulative Principle teaches that we must not add or subtract to Scripture but follow their examples and commands, every recorded instance of Church member was baptized: therefore we ought to baptize all church members" This I believe is a solid argument for the baptism of all church members, I think another one would be the baptism of Christ but since that presuppose the doctrines of the Reformed Baptist I will not bring that up but continue to press the one you made.

Unfortunately as I already noted this argument of yours can only work on a Baptist model in fact a Paedobaptist undermines this argument which is the only basis non-credobaptist can use. For consider your syllogism:

1.) Everyone in the New Covenant Church is baptized as per the Regulative Principle. 
2.) The Bible teaches that the children of believers are apart of the New 
Covenant Church. 
Conclusion: The children of believers are to be baptized into the church.

Now we can see that premise 2 contradicts premise 1 because if infants were indeed church members then the New Testament would have an instance of a church member not receiving the sacrament of baptism and thus we would have a defeater for premise 1 if premise 2 was true but if premise 1 was not true we have no basis to include infants as members because baptism is allegedly the initiation rite of church membership according to many paedobaptist... for if it is true that we can add to worship Scripture what is not expressly outlined in Scripture we cannot worship God by baptizing infants if he did not command (anymore Reformed Baptist could stop worshipping God in that way could if God did command). 

Now I want to examine your attempts to come up with a better supporting argument for "premise 1" then the one that has been used by Reformed Baptist and I think inconsistently by Paedobaptist for as you already noted this about your arguments "The arguments of above are by no means deductive (subject to interpretive and logical fallacies). However, I do think they at least swing the pendulum in favor of the first premise of a syllogism arguing for paedobaptism" now according to the Westminster Standards the type of inferences to establish a command need to be "just and necessary" but you have admitted that your inferences are not just and necessary but only inspire sympathy to the "1 premise" so clearly according to the Westminster Standards it would be wrong to worship God based on a "Inference" that could possibly and admittedly be in error! Therefore, I think that is sufficient to show that you still need to develop a better argument and I hope you do because it is only a lack of command that keeps me a Credobaptist. 


[quote:750fc88ab0] Here is my attempt: 

If you are in the church, then you are in Christ (Galatians 1:22). 
If you are in Christ, then you are His disciple (John 15:2,8). 
If you are a disciple, then you are baptized (John 4:2, Matthew 28:19,20). 
Therefore, if you are in Christ, then you are baptized. [/quote:750fc88ab0]

The phrase "in Christ" is very vague after all in context Jesus was using a metaphor not entering into a discourse about who was a church member so we out not to turn the passage into something it is not but always be cautious about drawing conclusions from Jesus teachings on subjects different from Jesus was teaching. Now I also note that Jesus clearly says that the branches that were in him but cutt off proved not to be Disciples in John 5:8, so then clearly it is not sufficient to be "in Christ" in the metaphorical sense that Christ used the phrase because Christ tells us that they were not disciples. So premise 2 fails because it is not true that if "you are in Christ" in the metaphorical sense of John 15 that you are a Disciple because Christ teaches otherwise and Christ ought to be regarded as the best interpreter of his own parable. 

[quote:750fc88ab0] If you grant my interpretation of the scriptures above, I think we have pretty good idea that to be in Christ is to be a disciple and a church member. 
If you are in the visible church, then you are in Christ (in covenant). 
If you are in Christ, then you are baptized. 
Therefore, if you are in the visible church, then you are baptized (by implication only). [/quote:750fc88ab0]

Again the conclusion does not follow because it does not follow that if you are in Christ you are baptized unless of course you want to say that no Old Covenant saint was ever in Christ? But more probably you would chose to argue that all those whom are "in Christ" whom the command to be baptized has reference to; hence we are back again to Watson's original point it is the command of God that gives a person the right to be baptized not being in Christ or church membership (if the two are taken together as is possible depending upon context I think but is not necessarily true depending on context, see my above discussion of the context of John 15.) 

[quote:750fc88ab0] Another line: 
I also think an argument can be constructed from 1 Corinthian 10:2-3 "and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and all ate the same spiritual food." I don't think Paul would have mentioned the idea of everyone in Israel's baptism into Moses and then using that as a basis for threatening the Corinthian church if he didn't see a pretty strong parallel. Thus, I think in this text Paul assumes that all the Corinthians were baptized like all of Israelites were baptized. [/quote:750fc88ab0] 

Yes but that paves the way for Paedocommion as well because they all drank the same spiritual food as well, but the Westminster clearly teaches that this is not a necessary inference despite the word "all" so why ought a Reformed Baptist be persuaded by the word "all" when the Westminster Divines rejected Paedocommuion despite that same word? I think that answer is that Reformed Baptist are under no more obligation to acknowledge that all were baptized from this position then that all are to be given the Lord's Supper. Therefore, church membership no more implies baptism then it does the Lord's Supper- but that is another issue- 

Getting back to the matter at hand, I think Paul is not talking about the issue who is a church member and so it is dangerous to draw conclusion about church membership from a passage Paul intended to teach on a different subject with. Yet, to draw the analogy properly we can notice that infants could not have possibly literally have taking the manna because they were still drinking milk and had not physically matured to the point- so now we know by inference that when Paul said all partook of the Lord's Supper he had no reference to infants, so it is also safe to infer the word all can be used in such a manner that it has no reference to infants therefore it becomes vain to press the word "all" to say that infants had to be church members because we can see that Paul can use the word "all" in the same context without reference to infants. 

In fact, I suppose a Reformed Baptist could argue that since Paul used the word "all" without reference to infants but said "all" referring to church members we can infer that infants are not church members!!! So it is a to way street in the end and once again we come to Watson's observation that church membership does not equal baptism unless we drop Paedobaptism because the only argument that proves church membership equals baptism presupposes Reformed Baptist doctrine.

[quote:750fc88ab0] The arguments of above are by no means deductive (subject to interpretive and logical fallacies). However, I do think they at least swing the pendulum in favor of the first premise of a syllogism arguing for paedobaptism. 

1.) Church members were required to be baptized. 
2.) Infants of believers are church members. 
C.) Therefore, Infants of believers were required to be baptized. 

If my line of reasoning is correct, then I also think that the bible authorizes us to see children as Disciples of Christ since (according to my study) the bible makes no distinction between church memberships and discipleship. [/quote:750fc88ab0]
I think these inference are not the type need to hang a whole doctrine upon because they cannot pass the scrutiny of the Regulative Principles worship "just and necessary" demand. Also, the inferences I think prove to have some fatal or else troublesome flaws even if they were presented as meeting the standard's demands.

Hope this helps

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian


----------



## Tertullian

[quote:69e0b6180d][i:69e0b6180d]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:69e0b6180d]
Tertullian,

Wow. I am stunned by your last post. I don't even know where to begin a response. I just spent almost three hours last night and early morning putting that last post together, looking up Scriptures and putting my thoughts together only to have you not only dismiss my post, but misrepresent my argument altogether. I don't know if I want to waste anymore time on this.

[quote:69e0b6180d][i:69e0b6180d]Originally posted by Tertullian.[/i:69e0b6180d]
I know what your position is, your arguement rests upon the premise that all church members must get the Covenant sign... os then you have to restort to a federal circucumsion for women that not one verse teaches... now you were suppose to prove that all church members get the Covenant sign not just assume that they do in then try to prove federal circumcision... in order to prove federal circumcision you must base it on a different premise then every covenant member must get the sign... for that is the very assumption that I am proving and saying is wrong... and then you bring up federal circumcision- but when asked why you hold to federal circumcision you say that you hold to it because all church members must get the sign... do you notice the circular arguement here?
[/quote:69e0b6180d]

That is NOT how I argue for federal headship at all. Anyone that really reads my last post will notice right away that no part of my argument for federal headship rests on the premise that all covenant members get the covenant sign. I went right to the OT to show the federal headship principle as it occurs ALL OVER THE PLACE in the Scriptures. It is upon those Scriptures that I built a case for the principle, and assuming basic continuity between the OT and NT, then applied the principle to the NT in the household baptisms. If anything was simply assumed in my last post it was the idea of continuity, not that all covenant members receive the sign.

Nowhere have I ever said, &quot;Because all covenant members get the sign of the covenant, federal circumcision must be true.&quot; That is not my argument, and never has been my argument. All I have to do to prove that is refer you to EVERY other post I've ever written in this messageboard on this subject. And there are many. I was the 11th person to register on this board back when it started up in 2002. I've been around this carousel a time or two.

And by the way, this federal headship idea isn't my own invention. Do a search for posts by Webmaster and KC and other paedobaptists on this board and you'll see similar arguments. 

[quote:69e0b6180d]
I think it is safe to conclude that the arguement above all arguements for infant baptism is that John Calvin said this... that it exlains why we have to invent a theology of federal Covenant sign administration- when no Scripture supports it- to prove a tradition of all Covenant members must get the sign because of some human right- again a tradition nowhere taught in Scripture- to support another tradition (infant baptism) which is nowhere expressely commanded in Scripture. Tradition no taught in Scripture always adds more tradition until we can nolonger remember or care if verses supporit it. 

We all have our tradition but it is dangerious to argue tradition for the sake of tradition.
[/quote:69e0b6180d]

Yeah, paedobaptists and their traditions. If it weren't for Calvin there wouldn't be paedobaptists. I don't have the time or inclination to debate this issue with somebody who does not respect my position (and the position of people in this board and Christians all over the world) any more than this last quote shows.

Sorry to leave you hanging, guys, but I've had enough of this.

[Edited on 3-23-2004 by luvroftheWord] [/quote:69e0b6180d]

I think we are best to drop this topic... we have made our points and neither one finds the other persasive... but may the Lord bless your studies at RTS.


----------



## Tertullian

*Paul,*

1) In regards to your post I have noticed that your proof for premise &quot;1) All church members must be baptized&quot; was presented as if I did not think that, what I said or meant to say is that the Paedobaptist must use Reformed Baptist tactics to prove that... only Goosha's regulative Principle argument has been successful and Goosha arguement was the one advanced I think by the Confessions- but as I have already shown Paedobapist undermine that very argument when they assert that infants are church members because according to Goosha'a argument all instances of church members in the New Testament were baptized- but if the Paedobaptis is right infants since they are members according to Paedos disprove that premise- hence paedos no longer have a good argument for that position.

Now did you address that argument by presenting an alternative argument that proves infants can have church membership? Nop, you just proved that Reformed Baptist and Paedobaptist agree that Church members get the sign... but did my position say otherwise... nop in fact that is what I said- I said both Presbyterians and Reformed Baptist believe that but only Reformed Baptist can account for it... unless you have an alternative argument that does not Presuppose the Reformed Baptist position... therefore your argument is not really an argument in fact it was something I agreed with from the very beginning but could you please account for the practice on Paedobaptist grounds?

After all, I find it strangely puzzling that we are only allowed to use the New Testament and not infer from the Old Covenant to see if church membership guarantees the covenant sign... I mean why can not we Reformed Baptist use the same strategy to see who gets the sign infants or adults? 

PS- Proving that church members get baptized does not prove what needs to be proved because just because all oranges are fruit it does not follow that all fruit are oranges... so just because all baptized are church members it does not follow that all church members are baptized in just purely logicial grounds. 


2) As for Ephesians proving that infants are church members because Paul gives a command to children who can understand what he is writing showing that Paul had no reference to infants but to children who had faith and could understand language... I do not even think that proves that we have a just and necessary inference that Scripture teaches that these children were infants, and if it is children with faith it does not follow that they were only children with Chrsitian parents and that all children with Christian parents are Christian, after all, Dagg showed the fallacy behind that argument which has yet to be dealt with. 

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 3-24-2004 by Tertullian]

[Edited on 3-24-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Roldan

[quote:b9a5bb0159][i:b9a5bb0159]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:b9a5bb0159]
This thread is disappointing. Credo responses seem to be more avoidance than interaction. I would like to see a credo pick apart, not by sophistry, but logically and exegetically, Paul's last long post.

Don't just avoid it...... [/quote:b9a5bb0159]


After reading Tyler's post, I thought this needed to be reiterated once again.


----------



## Tertullian

[quote:479761079a][i:479761079a]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:479761079a]
[quote:479761079a][i:479761079a]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:479761079a]
This thread is disappointing. Credo responses seem to be more avoidance than interaction. I would like to see a credo pick apart, not by sophistry, but logically and exegetically, Paul's last long post.

Don't just avoid it...... [/quote:479761079a]


After reading Tyler's post, I thought this needed to be reiterated once again. [/quote:479761079a]

Please enlighten me as to how I have failed to address a point? I mean do you want to put your words into actions by having a debate on a Monday night- after all if Paul's arguements about the 1) Apostle commaning children who could understand him and probably had faith; thus all infant with Christian parents are to be baptized&quot; or the arguement that &quot;Judas was called a Disciple; thus infant baptism&quot; or &quot;women were federally circumcised; thus infant baptism&quot; are what you say they are then you are prepared I mean what could I possible say in return to those arguements... we could even have an audience who could watch and see how weak credotbapsitm is right? So what do you think maybe on a Monday night at the end of your study on Covenant theology?


[Edited on 3-24-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Roldan

[quote:01eb7e52b5][i:01eb7e52b5]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:01eb7e52b5]
[quote:01eb7e52b5][i:01eb7e52b5]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:01eb7e52b5]
[quote:01eb7e52b5][i:01eb7e52b5]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:01eb7e52b5]
This thread is disappointing. Credo responses seem to be more avoidance than interaction. I would like to see a credo pick apart, not by sophistry, but logically and exegetically, Paul's last long post.

Don't just avoid it...... [/quote:01eb7e52b5]


After reading Tyler's post, I thought this needed to be reiterated once again. [/quote:01eb7e52b5]

Please enlighten me as to how I have failed to address a point? I mean do you want to put your words and actions by having a debate on a Monday night- after all if Paul's arguements are what you think they are then you are prepared I mean what could I possible say in return... we could even have an audience who could watch and see how weak credotbapsitm is right? So what do you think maybe on a Monday night at the end of your study on Covenant theology? [/quote:01eb7e52b5]

Its a date big shot!:tongue:

oh by the way:

&quot;This thread is disappointing. Credo responses seem to be more avoidance than interaction. I would like to see a credo pick apart, not by sophistry, but logically and exegetically, Paul's last long post.

Don't just avoid it...... &quot;


----------



## Tertullian

[quote:603429d050][i:603429d050]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:603429d050]
[quote:603429d050][i:603429d050]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:603429d050]
[quote:603429d050][i:603429d050]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:603429d050]
[quote:603429d050][i:603429d050]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:603429d050]
This thread is disappointing. Credo responses seem to be more avoidance than interaction. I would like to see a credo pick apart, not by sophistry, but logically and exegetically, Paul's last long post.

Don't just avoid it...... [/quote:603429d050]


After reading Tyler's post, I thought this needed to be reiterated once again. [/quote:603429d050]

Please enlighten me as to how I have failed to address a point? I mean do you want to put your words and actions by having a debate on a Monday night- after all if Paul's arguements are what you think they are then you are prepared I mean what could I possible say in return... we could even have an audience who could watch and see how weak credotbapsitm is right? So what do you think maybe on a Monday night at the end of your study on Covenant theology? [/quote:603429d050]

Its a date big shot!:tongue:

oh by the way:

&quot;This thread is disappointing. Credo responses seem to be more avoidance than interaction. I would like to see a credo pick apart, not by sophistry, but logically and exegetically, Paul's last long post.

Don't just avoid it...... &quot; [/quote:603429d050]

Cool... by the way words can not make something true... no matter how many times you repeat it... why not just let the reader decide... I already know that Paedobaptist will not change their minds... Paul for example already confessed that he presumes infant baptism to be true and so he must debate just for fun. So I mean is it really any surprise if you do not find my arguements convincing when you presume your position to be true?


----------



## cih1355

[quote:f26a0c4da5]If you are in the church, then you are in Christ (Galatians 1:22).[/quote:f26a0c4da5]

Suppose there is an adult in the church and he does not profess to be a Christian. Would he be in Christ? If so, is he a disciple and should he get baptized?

[Edited on 3-24-2004 by cih1355]


----------



## Roldan

[quote:36eb49f8bb][i:36eb49f8bb]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:36eb49f8bb]
Tertullian,

Thanks for agreeing to number 1. All that's left was to prove #2. I gave a few examples, though you just want to deal with the ephesians passage. (btw, both sides have [i:36eb49f8bb]inference[/i:36eb49f8bb] interpreting that vs. But my argument, which you haven't addressed, is that I proved that certain first century Christian churches had infant members. You have not delt with this. You throw out red herrings. Forget the slaves, and girls, and all the rest, all YOU ASKED was for me to show that their were infant members! That's it. Are you now requalifying? Here is the argument again:

[quote:36eb49f8bb]
Last, but certainly not least, Christian Jewish parents still circumcised their infants (Acts. 21:21) and was still a sign of true relationship to God (Rom. 2:29). Even the great Baptist sophist Paul King Jewett recognized this (though he then tries to use it to argue for credobaptism, but his rebuttle is not the point of my argument)! By circumcising them it meant that they were members of their parent's synagogues and we know that believing Jews assembled in Christian synagogues (Jas. 2:2). These synagogues were also considered Christian churches (Jas. 5:14). Therefore, we know that certain first century churches had infant members! (cf. Douglas Wilson, To A Thousand Generations, pgs 122-123). 
[/quote:36eb49f8bb]

p.s. I am sorry that you were offended at the [i:36eb49f8bb]style[/i:36eb49f8bb] in which I wrote my last post. I apologized and have tried to not write in that way. I find it sad that you keep bringing that up. And, many people think that you have not addressed my post, maybe their wrong, maybe their right...but could a possibility be that you haven't? I mean, I just re-posted my argument and saw that you keep bringing up Eph. (btw, even though you have not delt with the reductio's I posted to defend the Eph passage. And, even though I answered your question about writting letters to infants &quot;who couldn't understand.&quot; by saying that Tit 1:11 proves that [i:36eb49f8bb]teaching[/i:36eb49f8bb] can have an effect on infants.) So, maybe you just haven't delt with it. I mean, that's not beyond imagination...is it?

And Tyler, there is not much difference between someone who says something in a matter of fact way, and someone who dresses it up in nice complimentary words. You continue to appeal to emotion (my opinion is because my post does't want to be delt with head on). You act as if I am just calling names while you continue to say things like: &quot;if you would just check Scripture aganst your traditions.&quot; You know what that is saying? It is saying, &quot;You guys don't even read the bible, because if you did you would be credo.&quot; How is this not at the same level, or worse(!), then what I have said. Or, you guys just follow your fathers...while I follow the Bible. And then you have the nerve to say that we (or I) are not humble! The reason I am calling you out is because I just want to debate the objective issues. I am tired of being portrayed as the &quot;uncaring paedo&quot; while you are &quot;just discussing and searching for the truth.&quot; I wasn't going to bring this up but I see that it has continued. You are using a debate trick. You are painting me in a light that takes the focus of my argument. And you do it very well. You dress your arrows up in fluffy feathers...but guess what? The tip is still exposed and it still makes its mark. Like this:

[quote:36eb49f8bb]
Paul for example already confessed that he presumes infant baptism to be true and so he must debate just for fun. 
[/quote:36eb49f8bb] 

That's right Tyler, I do. And if you don't think you presuppose your system you are just ignorant (in the technical sense). And, people can change their presuppositions. Have you read Kuhn? Wittgenstein? It is a presupposition at the more towards the outer layer of the web. Therefore, is is not as non-negotiable as a belief towards the center. But where have I ever said I just debate it for fun! Where! Quote me! This is what I am tallking about. Please, brother, stop putting us in the light of rude, arrogant, proud people. Tyler, a pig is still a pig even if you perfume her up. And your comments are still arrogant and emotive and degrading to paedo's (as if we don't read the bible) even though you say it kindly. And I will take the heat for this, even though it is the consensus of many paedo's here. But they let it slide. Hmmm, maybe we're not as arrogant and proud as you have portrayed us. Sorry for this, but I just thought enough was enough.

There now that i have cleared the air on that one...hopefully we can get back to just dealing with the issues.

-Paul

[Edited on 3-24-2004 by Paul manata]

[Edited on 3-24-2004 by Paul manata] [/quote:36eb49f8bb]

On Point???:saint:


----------



## Goosha

Tyler,

You wrote:
"Again the conclusion does not follow because it does not follow that if you are in Christ you are baptized unless of course you want to say that no Old Covenant saint was ever in Christ?&quot;

I do believe people in the Old Testament were in Christ (Ephesians 2:12); however, the Old Testament saints were brought into Christ through circumcision. That's what it means to be apart of the "commonwealth of Israel."

You wrote:
"The phrase "in Christ" is very vague after all in context Jesus was using a metaphor not entering into a discourse about who was a church member so we out not to turn the passage into something it is not but always be cautious about drawing conclusions from Jesus teachings on subjects different from Jesus was teaching. Now I also note that Jesus clearly says that the branches that were in him but cutt off proved not to be Disciples in John 15:8, so then clearly it is not sufficient to be "in Christ" in the metaphorical sense that Christ used the phrase because Christ tells us that they were not disciples. So premise 2 fails because it is not true that if "you are in Christ" in the metaphorical sense of John 15 that you are a Disciple because Christ teaches otherwise and Christ ought to be regarded as the best interpreter of his own parable."

1.) I prefer not to see the phrase "in Christ" or as the text actually states &quot;in me&quot; as vague. My argument is based off a unity in the usage of the phrase "in Christ." I grant that the bible speaks of a person's relationship with Christ differently in different places. However, the places where I pointed out the phrase have essentially the same basic idea-they all carry the basic idea of "identification."

2.) As far as John 15 stands, I have derived two basic points. The first point is that some branches don't bare fruit and are yet "in me (Christ)" in some manner (This of course is not agriculturally sound since branches can't even exist apart from a vine). Again, I think this is a term of identification. The dead branches are those who claim to be Disciples of Christ and the ones that bear fruit are genuine disciples. Or else, how could they both be connected to Christ? What do disciples and non-disciples have in common that would place them both together on the vine? Since scripture clearly indicates that all disciples receive baptism (whether those who claim to be or those who are genuinely), I am suggesting that both kinds of branches are placed (identified) in Christ through discipleship and baptism. If I am correct, then to be a disciple is at minimum to be baptized.


Also, since we are now debating scripture, it would be helpful if you provide a positive interpretation. In order to help this along, I have two questions for you in order to keep this focused.
1.) Do you think that the branches that bear no fruit are "in Christ" in any way?
2.) Do you think that the branches that bear no fruit are not disciples even by profession?

Cordially,
Jayson Rawlins


----------



## Tertullian

*Goosha,*

It is always a happy occasion when two brothers in Christ trade Scripture together in an effort to discover truth is it not? I still have serious objections however to the idea that simply being "in Christ" demands you be giving the Covenant sign apart from a Command of Christ. I have attempted to respond to your question below. Also, I do not think that John 15 will be of must support in proving that Disciples can be unregenerate because this passage actually teaches what the requirements of true discipleship is and it is not mere baptism or membership in a local church... these may be necessary but they are not sufficient for the true test is Christ sanctifying them by his word and then them bearing fruit- only when these two things happen do we have a Disciple but more on that below. 

[quote:4e348b84bd] Tyler, 

You wrote: 
"Again the conclusion does not follow because it does not follow that if you are in Christ you are baptized unless of course you want to say that no Old Covenant saint was ever in Christ?&quot; 

I do believe people in the Old Testament were in Christ (Ephesians 2:12); however, the Old Testament saints were brought into Christ through circumcision. That's what it means to be apart of the "commonwealth of Israel." [/quote:4e348b84bd]

But what about before circumcision was administered would you then say that no one was "in Christ" like Noah or would you say that you say that Noah was "in Christ" apart from Baptism and circumcision meaning that it is improper to just assume that because a person is "in Christ" they must be baptized or circumcised. Also, consider the case of women who were "not circumcised" in any meaningful way, or what about babies who die who have not been baptized or circumciced would you think that they could be saved and if so would they be saved in yet not be "in Christ?" If no to any of these cases then we cannot just assume that all who are in Christ are given a "Covenant sign"

[quote:4e348b84bd] You wrote: 
"The phrase "in Christ" is very vague after all in context Jesus was using a metaphor not entering into a discourse about who was a church member so we out not to turn the passage into something it is not but always be cautious about drawing conclusions from Jesus teachings on subjects different from Jesus was teaching. Now I also note that Jesus clearly says that the branches that were in him but cutt off proved not to be Disciples in John 15:8, so then clearly it is not sufficient to be "in Christ" in the metaphorical sense that Christ used the phrase because Christ tells us that they were not disciples. So premise 2 fails because it is not true that if "you are in Christ" in the metaphorical sense of John 15 that you are a Disciple because Christ teaches otherwise and Christ ought to be regarded as the best interpreter of his own parable."

[quote:4e348b84bd] 1.) I prefer not to see the phrase "in Christ" or as the text actually states &quot;in me&quot; as vague. My argument is based off a unity in the usage of the phrase "in Christ." I grant that the bible speaks of a person's relationship with Christ differently in different places. However, the places where I pointed out the phrase have essentially the same basic idea-they all carry the basic idea of "identification." [/quote:4e348b84bd][/quote:4e348b84bd]

When I called the word "vague" it was not to dismiss it or trivialize but to show that Christ meant this phrase to be taken as a figure or metaphor not literally. Indeed Christ goes to great lengths to show that these branches are not his Disciples in verse 8, and if they are not his Disciples then they are not his period and they are not identified with Christ... Christ does not lose his sheep He is to good of a Shepherd to lose his sheep. Therefore, ultimately we need to see the phrase "In me" as a metaphorical expression meant to convey those who were not true disciples or Covenant members but were merely people who experiences some privileges but will be punished most severely for their deceit and wickedness... to identity Christ with these unregenerate lairs is jumping beyond the import of Christ discourse and actually undermines Christ own interpretation of the passage... "By this is My Father glorified, that you bear much fruit; so you will be My Disciples" (15:8) and "every branch that does not bear fruit He takes away" (15:2) 

I think Christ distinction in verse 4 is so important it is those whom Christ abides in and whom abide in him that bear fruit it is them that Christ is identified with and only them for all those whom Christ is identified with or abides with will bear fruit and those whom Christ does not abide with are the ones that Christ does not abide with... Clearly Christ was not speaking metaphorically not literally when he said those whom he does not abide with are not his Disciples were "cutt off" from him... that question we need to ask ourselves is how does a person prove to be a disciple and prove not to be a disciple?

[quote:4e348b84bd] 2.) As far as John 15 stands, I have derived two basic points. The first point is that some branches don't bare fruit and are yet "in me (Christ)" in some manner (This of course is not agriculturally sound since branches can't even exist apart from a vine). Again, I think this is a term of identification. The dead branches are those who claim to be Disciples of Christ and the ones that bear fruit are genuine disciples. Or else, how could they both be connected to Christ? What do disciples and non-disciples have in common that would place them both together on the vine? Since scripture clearly indicates that all disciples receive baptism (whether those who claim to be or those who are genuinely), I am suggesting that both kinds of branches are placed (identified) in Christ through discipleship and baptism. If I am correct, then to be a disciple is at minimum to be baptized. [/quote:4e348b84bd]

A tree is know by its fruits is it not, so a good tree bears good fruit because it is a good tree and a bad tree bad fruit because it is a bad tree. Now we can begin to see what Christ is saying, Christ was not saying that his Disciples become his disciples by good works but prove to be Disciples because of their works. These false Disciples were not Christ Disciples but only pretenders and they will be judged by God for their deceit, yet this does not mean that they were identified with Christ because they claimed to be regenerated, indeed, being baptized is not a minimum to be a Disciple the whole point of Christ discourse is to prove exactly the opposite for Christ has taught that his Disciples never perish but bear fruit that will last throughout eternity... Christ never lost what he never had and he never was identified in any important sense with these false pretenders of truth. 


[quote:4e348b84bd] Also, since we are now debating scripture, it would be helpful if you provide a positive interpretation. In order to help this along, I have two questions for you in order to keep this focused.

1.) Do you think that the branches that bear no fruit are "in Christ" in any way? [/quote:4e348b84bd]

I accept the historic reformed interpretation of these verses outlined by these commentators 

[quote:4e348b84bd] 

[b:4e348b84bd] John Gill [/b:4e348b84bd]
Every branch in me that beareth not fruit...
There are two sorts of branches in Christ the vine; the one sort are such who have only an historical faith in him, believe but for a time, and are removed; they are such who only profess to believe in him, as Simon Magus did; are in him by profession only; they submit to outward ordinances, become church members, and so are reckoned to be in Christ, being in a church state, as the churches of Judea and Thessalonica, and others, are said, in general, to he in Christ; though it is not to be thought that every individual person in these churches were truly and savingly in him. These branches are unfruitful ones; what fruit they seemed to have, withers away, and proves not to be genuine fruit; what fruit they bring forth is to themselves, and not to the glory of God, being none of the fruits of his Spirit and grace: and such branches the husbandman 

[b:4e348b84bd] John Calvin [/b:4e348b84bd]
2. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit. As some men corrupt the grace of God, others suppress it maliciously, and others choke it by carelessness, Christ intends by these words to awaken anxious inquiry, by declaring that all the branches which shall be unfruitful will be cut off from the vine. But here comes a question. Can any one who is engrafted into Christ be without fruit? I answer, many are supposed to be in the vine, according to the opinion of men, who actually have no root in the vine.

[b:4e348b84bd] Augustine[/b:4e348b84bd] Commenting on John 15:8

For if herein God the Father is glorified, that we bear much fruit, and be made the disciples of Christ, let us not credit our own glory therewith, as if we had it of ourselves. For of Him is such a grace, and accordingly therein the glory is not ours, but His. Hence also, in another passage, after saying, &quot;Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works;&quot; to keep them from the thought that such good works were of themselves, He immediately added, &quot;and may glorify your Father who is in heaven.&quot;4 For herein is the Father glorified, that we bear much fruit, and be made the disciples of Christ. And by whom are we so made, but by Him whose mercy hath forestalled us? For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works.5 (Augustine)

-Note Augustine says that Disciples are made by Christ and will bear good works for they are his workmanship- hence it follows that those who do not bear fruit are not Christ Disciples. [/quote:4e348b84bd]

Moving on to your next question:

[quote:4e348b84bd] 2.) Do you think that the branches that bear no fruit are not disciples even by profession? [/quote:4e348b84bd]

No a Disciple only by profession is no more a Disciple than a monopoly one dollar bill is a certified US Dollar bill, and Dr. James White has done a wonderful job of explaining why this is. I encourage you to read the full article http://aomin.org/John15.html but here is Whites summary of the reasons why the branches in him are not Disciples of Christ.

[quote:4e348b84bd] Summary of Exegesis: 
So what can we say regarding the teaching of the Lord Jesus in John 15? And specifically, why should any Bible-believing person reject the idea that the words of the Lord, especially regarding fruitless, rejected, and burnt branches, lead us to believe that salvation is anything less than the perfect, infallible work of a Perfect, Infallible Savior (John 6:37-39)?
The words of the Lord Jesus do not lead us to believe the branches which are taken away (v. 2) and burned (v. 6) are disciples. In fact, one cannot maintain such an interpretation in light of the following considerations: 

1) Christ differentiates between those who are "clean" by the Word which is spoken to them and the branches that are taken away: there is no such thing as a true disciple who is not cleansed by the Word;

2) The Lord limits the realm of true discipleship to those who abide in Him. The branches taken away in v. 2 and burned in v. 6 do not abide in Christ and hence are not disciples; 

3) Jesus gives no indication that there is a major exception to verse 5, where there are those who abide in Him and yet do not bear fruit (reinforcing the distinction inherent in the entirety of the passage);

4) the Lord defines fruit bearing as the only evidence of discipleship (v. 8). Since the branches that are taken away and burned bore no fruit, it follows inevitably that they are not, by Jesus' own definition, disciples;

5) Jesus spoke these words not to cause His disciples sorrow but to give them joy (15:11). The centrality of the Father and Son in bringing out the fruitfulness of the Vine brings joy; interpreting these words so as to refer to true disciples losing their salvation does not;

6) the focus upon Christ as the source of all spiritual life picks up the same theme found in John 6 (as the Bread of Life). It is completely backwards to take a passage that presents the work of the Father in glorifying Himself in bringing forth fruit in Christ's people and see it as a passage teaching the opposite, that is, the Father's failure to bring forth fruit and hence lose one-time true believers. (James White) [/quote:4e348b84bd]

Hence, we can conclude that John 15 does not teach that unregenerate are Christ Disciples but rather the reverse and so we can conclude with the words of Calvin: "To the same effect is the latter clause, that you may become my disciples; for he declares that he has no one in his flock who does not bear fruit to the glory of God". (Calvin)

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian


[Edited on 3-25-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Tertullian

*Paul,*

[quote:4a125a89bf] Tertullian, 

Thanks for agreeing to number 1. [/quote:4a125a89bf]
Well hold on a second I have not just handed you the debate quite yet. Indeed I as a Reformed Baptist do not teach that Church members have an innate right to the Covenant sign that God is obliged to appease, but I say that God can chose whom gets the Covenant sign and that God has chosen out of share Grace to allow Disciples to get the Covenant sign- also I think only Disciples are in the church- hence only members of the church get baptized. Now using this standard God's command to baptize is still what ultimately allows someone to be baptized and nothing more not less.
You on the other hand have got to provide a "command of baptism" that says that "all church members" which you says includes more than Disciples but their children also are to be baptized. The Reformed Baptist is consistent to teach that baptism belongs to all church members because he thinks that only Disciples (That is someone who repents and has faiths) are church members, you on the other hand, want to say that infants are church members- hence where is the command to baptize all church members- Us reformed Baptist only needed to prove that Disciples get baptized and that only Disciples are church members to conclude that all church members are baptized- but that route is not open to the Presbyterians... so clearly they need to account from Scripture for their belief that all church members are to be baptized (as the Reformed Baptist can do).

Therefore "premise 1" needs to be expanded and elaborated you have only done half the work for we now know what your position is but we have still to hear the prooof. 

[quote:4a125a89bf] All that's left was to prove #2. I gave a few examples, though you just want to deal with the ephesians passage. (btw, both sides have inference interpreting that vs. But my argument, which you haven't addressed, is that I proved that certain first century Christian churches had infant members. You have not delt with this. You throw out red herrings. Forget the slaves, and girls, and all the rest, all YOU ASKED was for me to show that their were infant members! That's it. Are you now requalifying? [/quote:4a125a89bf]
First off, I am not convinced that they were infants Paul was addressing and second off you need to do more than just prove that some infants could be church members you need to prove that all children of Disciples are church members... this clearly cannot be inferred from the Ephesians passage as Dagg pointed out whose objections I think must be answered before you can continue to use these verses in Ephesians as support for your position-

[quote:4a125a89bf] Here is the argument again: 
[quote:4a125a89bf] Last, but certainly not least, Christian Jewish parents still circumcised their infants (Acts. 21:21) and was still a sign of true relationship to God (Rom. 2:29). Even the great Baptist sophist Paul King Jewett recognized this (though he then tries to use it to argue for credobaptism, but his rebuttle is not the point of my argument)! By circumcising them it meant that they were members of their parent's synagogues and we know that believing Jews assembled in Christian synagogues (Jas. 2:2). These synagogues were also considered Christian churches (Jas. 5:14). Therefore, we know that certain first century churches had infant members! (cf. Douglas Wilson, To A Thousand Generations, pgs 122-123). [/quote:4a125a89bf][/quote:4a125a89bf]

Now remember, my position is that only a command from God gives a person the right to administer the sacrament not church membership alone... now God had commanded circumcision of male infants... but what about female infants they did not get the sign... hence we can conclude that church membership does not mean that a person must literally get the Covenant sign. What was the difference between male and females infants was it church membership or God's command? Clearly it was God's command. 

Therefore, "premise 1" has not be proved for we still have no reason to accept both Paedobaptism and the position that all New Covenant members are to be baptized only a Reformed Baptist position can account for those believes. Also, as far as I can see "premise 2" has not be prove either because Dagg has shown that infants were not the intended recipients of Paul's command but were probably regenerated children who had faith and could community in langue- children in such a position is fully accountable with the Baptist understanding- and proves nothing about all infants of Christian parents are church members. Also, the observation that infants were church members (i.e. citizens of Israel or part of Abraham's household) is acknowledge by both sides but proves nothing about the who is part of the metamorphic Spiritual Israel- and worse- these facts only seem to confirm the belief that Presbyterians cannot account for why all church members must be baptized because e as these facts prove being in Covenant does not guarantee the literal application of God's Covenant sign (ex. women in Old Covenant) 

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Not only is Paul correct, but he is showing the credos that they are demonstrating a view that they cannot rpove by Scripture, where Paul has, bu Scripture made an argument they seem to keep missing.


[quote:d2727ab83a]
In fact Tyler has shown that he doesn't even understand it.
[/quote:d2727ab83a]

Sorry Tyler, but thus far he is right. You need to be able to show, not by probability, but by Scripture that &quot;profession&quot; is that which warrants discipleship. The moment you do that two things will happen 1) you will find something that no other Baptist since baptists have been around have been able to do, and 2) you would have put together a very good Arminian argument.

Either way you lose the argument here.

(This is a helpful thread. Everyone should go back read through it).


----------



## Tertullian

*Paul,*

Good response in general but I do not think that it was directed at me... therefore in order to get back on track I have decided to go point by point- all my words and quots are in bold to make it easer to tell them apart.

[quote:36313c39a9] Tyler, 

Let us examine your arguments: 

You said: 
[quote:36313c39a9] Indeed I as a Reformed Baptist do not teach that Church members have an innate right to the Covenant [/quote:36313c39a9]


Well, lets not pretend that this is because of your reformed baptist views. Here is what your pedigree teaches: 
[quote:36313c39a9]

What are the different activities within the life of the church that God uses to bring blessing to us? What do we miss if we neglect involvment in a local church? [He then list 11 means of grace and the third is baptism] -Grudem, Systematic Theology, pgs. 950-51. [/quote:36313c39a9]

[quote:36313c39a9]
To this Church He hath made His promises, and giveth the signs of His covenant, presence, acceptation, love, blessing and protection. Here are the fountains and springs of His heavenly graces flowing forth to refresh and strengthen them. -LBC 
[/quote:36313c39a9]


So, what can we glean from Grudem and the London divines? It is painfully obvious that both of these reformed baptists teach that covenant signs are what God has commanded to be given to his church! Note: the LBC says, &quot;to the church He hath given these signs. [/quote:36313c39a9]

[b:36313c39a9] Paul you are trying to fit a square where a circle belongs just because you cannot deal with an argument is no excuse to add to your opponents argument and then defeat what you added? Where have I denied that all church members are to be given the sacraments? Did not I definitively state:

[quote:36313c39a9] ]Reformed Baptist do not teach that Church members have an innate right to the Covenant sign that God is obliged to appease, but I say that God can chose whom gets the Covenant sign and that God has chosen out of share Grace to allow Disciples to get the Covenant sign- also I think only Disciples are in the church- hence only members of the church get baptized. (Tertullian) [/quote:36313c39a9] 

How can you continue to ignore this statement of mine and act as if my position is that not all church members get baptized? Do I agree with Jewett and do I agree with Grudem of course but I think it is just irresponsible not to quote the rest of Jewett where he virtually says what I have says; Therefore to quote the rest of Jewett:

[quote:36313c39a9] Of course, the sign of this new covenant belongs to the covenantess. But who are they? Those who can say, "We have a Christian for our father" (John 8:33.)? Not so. The convenatees are not those who are [i:36313c39a9] born [/i:36313c39a9] into the covenant, those whose father and mother have the law "written upon their hearts," but those who [i:36313c39a9] themselves [/i:36313c39a9] have had this experience, having been born again by the Spirit of God. This subjective, inward, existential, experiential, spiritual change is the hallmark of the new covenant. It is not, then, a false, unbiblical subjectivism, but a true, biblical one which reserves baptism for those who will both confess Jesus Christ with their mouths and also believe in their hearts that God has raised him from the dead (Rom. 10:9) [/quote:36313c39a9]

Clearly in context, Jewett has virtually repeated what I said, God has commanded all new covenant members to be church members and all new covenant members to be baptized, hence, all church members are commanded to be baptized. Jewett says nothing about new covenants having an innate right to baptism divorced from a Command of God. 

It would be a mistake to assume cause and effect when the evidence only warrants correlation the regulative Principle of worship clearly stipulates that only a command from God can justify the administration of baptism- so is the London Baptist Confession inconsistent then to say that all church members are baptized of course not- why? Because Christ has ordered all Disciples to be baptized and only Disciples are to be church members... there is nothing in consistent here. The London Baptist divine would have been repulsed I think by the idea that we can do what ever we want like baptize ourselves on our own authority on the basis of covenant membership alone. Jewett agrees that all new covenant are to be baptized because he also believes that only the regenerate are new covenant members. 
Paedobaptist, however, must assume cause and effect that is covenant membership causes the right to be baptized even without a command from God. Though they come to the same conclusion that Reformed Baptist came to (i.e. all new covenant members are to be baptized) they got to the right conclusions with bad reasons and hence even a good conclusion if it has a bad reason backing it turns out to be a bad conclusion. Can you account for your assumption that all church members are baptized because of an innate right based on the Covenant membership divorced from a command from God? This question has been ignored, neglected and retreated from but the careful reader will note that so far no Paedobaptist has been able to account for this tradition and probably most Paedobaptist do not even realize they have this tradition which shows the danger of accepting one tradition with Scriptural support... we soon become insensitive to accepting as Scriptural truth stuff nowhere taught in Scripture and thus we no longer even need a reason from Scripture to support our cherished beliefs.

The Reformed Baptist can account for his belief from Scripture that the all new covenant members ought to be baptized the Paedobaptist just assumes it without every accounting for it- The difference between these two approaches to Scripture is black and white. [/b:36313c39a9]

[quote:36313c39a9] Now, what does this have to do with your above statement that church members do not have an innate right to the sign? it has to do with your misunderstanding of what the church is. It has to do with your underdeveloped view of ecclesiology. [/quote:36313c39a9]
[b:36313c39a9] We all limit what the church I limit it in quantity you limit it in quality- I think the New covenant is a great Covenant founded upon the promises of God that Christ ensures we get- you view the New Covenant as applying to both saved and non-saved as something like a host of spiritual privileges that are not really conclusive in regards to salvation because Christ can fail to ensure that God's promises apply to all his people... Therefore let us stop saying the one sides limits the church we both do the question is which way to we (or rather Scripture) wants to limit it- quality or quantity?[/b:36313c39a9]
[quote:36313c39a9] Let's note a few things: 

(1) The church is not some building in Florida. 

(2) The church is made up of its members. 

(3) By logical implication when one says, &quot;the church&quot; they are saying, &quot;all the members.&quot; 

(4) So, in essence, the above might as well be saying that the sacrement of baptism is given to all the members of the visible church. 

(5) Therefore, you as a reformed baptist, must say that--if the sacrement of baptism is given to the Church then all the members (who are the church) have a right to the sign. You have to. By pure logic. [/quote:36313c39a9] 
[b:36313c39a9] The careful student will notice that Paul has produced an "ought" from an "is" for Paul produces a "right" from the way things are done. If we accepted this argument might we might as well say that Hitler had a "right" to kill people because he historically killed peopled. In truth this argument confuses correlation with cause and effect;
"All X is Y, Y refers to X, therefore, whatever applies to X applies to Y" now Paul implies but never states that therefore we can assume that if X has a right to baptism so does Y. But is this really what Paul wants to prove after all is this not what my position states? After all was it not I who said,
"Disciples are commanded By God to be baptized and as such Disciples have a right to baptism, church members are Disciples, and therefore church members are baptized" 
So how has Paul furthered the debate? Has he answered my objections against Paedobaptist using this argument? Nop... the silence is shocking after all did not I clearly say:
"Now using this standard God's command to baptize is still what ultimately allows someone to be baptized and nothing more nothing less. You, Paedobaptist on the other hand have got to provide a "command of baptism" that says that "all church members" which you says includes more than Disciples but their children are also to be baptized. The Reformed Baptist is consistent to teach that baptism belongs to all church members because he thinks that only Disciples (That is someone who repents and has faiths) are church members, you on the other hand, want to say that infants are church members- hence where is the command to baptize all church members- Us reformed Baptist only needed to prove that Disciples get baptized and that only Disciples are church members to conclude that all church members are baptized- but that route is not open to the Presbyterians... so clearly they need to account from Scripture for their belief that all church members are to be baptized (as the Reformed Baptist can do).
Why does not Paul answer these objections perhaps it is the same reason the thief does not find the police man? Therefore in order to make progress in this debate Paul you must provide an alternative argument that defends that "church members have a right to the covenant sign on the basis of covenant members divorced from a command from God" All you have done is said that God commanded one group to be baptized and this group is also a church member... therefore you have not proved an "innate right" but ultimately a command of God as the basis for the baptism of church membership: Hence we can agree with Watson after all:
[quote:36313c39a9] Thus, people may be in covenant who are without the sign of the covenant, and [i:36313c39a9] the sole reason for giving all or some the sign of the covenant is the command of God [/i:36313c39a9] . It follows that even if the children of believers were in some special covenant relationship, this of itself does not entitle them to the sign of that covenant. The sign is to be given only as the Lord commands - perhaps to males only, perhaps to females, perhaps to both, perhaps to neither. In previous chapters we have seen that the Lord has not commanded that babies should be baptized, whether male or female, so that Christians are no more required to baptize their babies than the Jews are required to circumcise their females (Should Babies Be Baptized? p. 99) [/quote:36313c39a9]
Therefore in order to establish infant baptism a person needs to prove that God has commanded infants to be baptized and not that infants are covenant members... [/b:36313c39a9]

[quote:36313c39a9] Now, you qualify: 
[quote:36313c39a9]

The Reformed Baptist is consistent to teach that baptism belongs to all church members because he thinks that only Disciples (That is someone who repents and has faiths) are church members [/quote:36313c39a9]


First, at the crucial point, I must note that you have not provided verses to prove this view. The view that only disciples are church members, that is. [/quote:36313c39a9]
[b:36313c39a9] I basis this on the fact that only Disciples are commanded to join local churches (see Heb 10:25) although it is true that Scripture does not prohibit other people like atheist from joining the local church the regulative principle demands that we only sanction what Scripture commands and not add traditions like the practice "atheist church members" which originates not from the command of God but the will of man. Therefore, I have showed a verse where Scripture command Disciples to join the church but can you produce a verse where Scripture commands infants to join the church or more realistically parents to join infants to the church? [/b:36313c39a9]
[quote:36313c39a9] Secondly, you must again be forced to requalify. You have said that only those who have faith are church members. Now, how do you know who has faith? If one truly has faith then they are elect. So, upon analysis you are saying that only elect are church members. But this is false. I Corinthians 5 tells us that there are non-elect who make up the same lump as the elect. Furthermore, it tells us that when the are &quot;purged from among them&quot; that is the church judging...its members! So, Paul tells us that there are non-elect church members. [/quote:36313c39a9]
[b:36313c39a9] I agree that only new covenant members are part of the invisible church... I think you are confusing these two churches you see the London Baptist of Faith following Scripture distinguishes between the visible and invisible Church. Now those who are in the Visible church are not necessarily part of the New Covenant or Visible Church but only appear to be part of that New Covenant Church while the Church awaits Christ return. I Corinthians 5 proves nothing more than that a member of the Visible Church was temporary expelled because of immoral behavior unbecoming of even the pagans around them. This in no way proves that Christ failed as someone High Priest or that man can sin and so fall from his election but only that people who appeared to belong to Christ and of the elect were really not of them. [/b:36313c39a9]

[quote:36313c39a9] So, what you must mean is that only those who make a profession of faith are church members. Therefore, we can retranslate your statement thus: (I will add my remarks via bold print) 
[quote:]

The Reformed Baptist is consistent to teach that baptism belongs to all professing church members because he thinks that only professing Disciples (That is someone who professes to repents and has professed faiths) are professed church members...professedly [/quote:36313c39a9]

This is not very impressive.

Also, the problem here is that there is nothing new going on here. Adults have always had to profess faith! Furthermore, where is the scriptural proof for this?!? [/quote]
[b:36313c39a9]Well first off you are describing the visible Church not the invisible church and I note that you are right the visible church is composed of those who profess... so far from being unimpressive this shows that infants who do not profess to be Disciples are not part of the Visible Church. I would think that would be significant to this debate... I am surprised that you do not think that it is important. Of course Scriptural proof for this is found when Christ teaches that no everyone who says to me "Lord, Lord..." will be saved for though these professed to have the inward reality they in truth were never known by Christ. [/b:36313c39a9]

[quote:36313c39a9] you write: 
[quote:36313c39a9]

second off you need to do more than just prove that some infants could be church members you need to prove that all children of Disciples are church members [/quote:36313c39a9]


Prove that all children of disciples are church members? O.K. How bout this: 

All members of the new covenant are entitled to the covenant sign. 

All children of disciples are members of the new covenant. 

Therefore, all children of disciples are entitled to the covenant sign. [/quote:36313c39a9]

[b:36313c39a9] Of course I would not accept a vicious circular argument like this... I asked you prove that children of Disciples are new covenant members and you assume it in your premises. Only someone who was already a Padobaptist would find this argument persuasive but that is not surprising at all. [/b:36313c39a9]
[quote:36313c39a9] Would you accept this valid argument? Even Jewett would: [/quote:36313c39a9]
The question is not would I but would you?
[quote:36313c39a9]

Of course, the sign of this new covenant belongs to the covenantees. But who are they? -Paul King Jewett, Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace, pg. 228 (1980 reprint edition). [/quote:36313c39a9]

[b:36313c39a9] Now I have already quoted the rest of Jewett's statements and they show that Jewett follows the Confessions in affirming the Regulative Principle of worship... Jewett says that Christ has commanded the baptism of the regenerate and that only the regenerate are church members... now if you follow Jewett then we have established that the Command of God and not the Covenant membership is the basis behind the New Covenant seal. [/b:36313c39a9]

[quote:36313c39a9] Now, are are children in the new covenant? 

Deuteronomy 30:1 &quot;So it shall be when all of these things have come upon you, the blessing and the curse which I have set before you, and you call them to mind in all nations where the LORD your God has banished you, 2 and you return to the LORD your God and obey Him with all your heart and soul according to all that I command you today, you and your sons, 3 then the LORD your God will restore you from captivity, and have compassion on you, and will gather you again from all the peoples where the LORD your God has scattered you. . . 6 &quot;Moreover the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, in order that you may live. 
• Jer 32:37 &quot;Behold, I will gather them out of all the lands to which I have driven them in My anger, in My wrath, and in great indignation; and I will bring them back to this place and make them dwell in safety. 38 &quot;And they shall be My people, and I will be their God; 39 and I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear Me always, for their own good, and for the good of their children after them. 40 &quot;And I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; and I will put the fear of Me in their hearts so that they will not turn away from Me. 
• Zech 10:6 &quot;And I shall strengthen the house of Judah, And I shall save the house of Joseph, And I shall bring them back, Because I have had compassion on them; And they will be as though I had not rejected them, For I am the LORD their God, and I will answer them. 7 &quot;And Ephraim will be like a mighty man, And their heart will be glad as if from wine; Indeed, their children will see it and be glad, Their heart will rejoice in the LORD. 8 &quot;I will whistle for them to gather them together, For I have redeemed them; And they will be as numerous as they were before. 9 &quot;When I scatter them among the peoples, They will remember Me in far countries, And they with their children will live and come back. • Joel 2:1 Blow a trumpet in Zion, And sound an alarm on My holy mountain! Let all the inhabitants of the land tremble, For the day of the LORD is coming; Surely it is near, 2 A day of darkness and gloom, A day of clouds and thick darkness. As the dawn is spread over the mountains, So there is a great and mighty people; There has never been anything like it, Nor will there be again after it To the years of many generations. . .15 Blow a trumpet in Zion, Consecrate a fast, proclaim a solemn assembly, 16 Gather the people, sanctify the congregation, Assemble the elders, Gather the children and the nursing infants. Let the bridegroom come out of his room And the bride out of her bridal chamber. . . 27 &quot;Thus you will know that I am in the midst of Israel, And that I am the LORD your God And there is no other; And My people will never be put to shame. 28 &quot;And it will come about after this That I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind; And your sons and daughters will prophesy, Your old men will dream dreams, Your young men will see visions. 29 &quot;And even on the male and female servants I will pour out My Spirit in those days. 
• Jer 31:33 &quot;But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,&quot; declares the LORD, &quot;I will put My law within them, and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 &quot;And they shall not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,&quot; declares the LORD, &quot;for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.&quot; 35 Thus says the LORD, Who gives the sun for light by day, And the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, Who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar; The LORD of hosts is His name: 36 &quot;If this fixed order departs From before Me,&quot; declares the LORD, &quot; Then the offspring of Israel also shall cease From being a nation before Me forever. &quot; 37 Thus says the LORD, &quot;If the heavens above can be measured, And the foundations of the earth searched out below, Then I will also cast off all the offspring of Israel For all that they have done,&quot; declares the LORD. 
• Isa 59:20 &quot;And a Redeemer will come to Zion, And to those who turn from transgression in Jacob,&quot; declares the LORD. 21 &quot;And as for Me, this is My covenant with them,&quot; says the LORD: &quot; My Spirit which is upon you, and My words which I have put in your mouth, shall not depart from your mouth, nor from the mouth of your offspring, nor from the mouth of your offspring's offspring, &quot;says the LORD,&quot; from now and forever. &quot; 
• Mal 4:5 &quot;Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the LORD. 6 &quot;And he will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the land with a curse.&quot; 

In the new covenant's fulfillment and full disclosure, the New Testament apostles included the generational principle (the &quot;you and your seed&quot; concept) in their explanation of the new covenant. 
• Luke 1:17 &quot;And it is he who will go as a forerunner before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, TO TURN THE HEARTS OF THE FATHERS BACK TO THE CHILDREN, and the disobedient to the attitude of the righteous; so as to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.&quot; 
• Luke 2:48 &quot;For He has had regard for the humble state of His bondslave; For behold, from this time on all generations will count me blessed. 49 &quot;For the Mighty One has done great things for me; And holy is His name. 50 &quot;AND HIS MERCY IS UPON GENERATION AFTER GENERATION TOWARD THOSE WHO FEAR HIM. 
• Mat 19:14 But Jesus said, &quot;Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.&quot; 
• Acts 2:39 &quot;For the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself.&quot; 
• Acts 3:25 &quot;It is you who are the sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, 'AND IN YOUR SEED ALL THE FAMILIES OF THE EARTH SHALL BE BLESSED.' • Acts 13:32 &quot;And we preach to you the good news of the promise made to the fathers, 33 that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, 'THOU ART MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN THEE.' 
• Rom 4:13 For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. . .16 For this reason it is by faith, that it might be in accordance with grace, in order that the promise may be certain to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, 17 (as it is written, &quot;A FATHER OF MANY NATIONS HAVE I MADE YOU&quot; in the sight of Him whom he believed, even God, who gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist. 

Now, the onus is on you to prove that God has removed infants from the church. In the OT they were considered members. In the NT they were considered members. Show me the explicit removal of them. How do I know that first century churches had infant members? 

Christian Jewish parents still circumcised their infants (Acts. 21:21) and was still a sign of true relationship to God (Rom. 2:29). Even the great Baptist sophist Paul King Jewett recognized this (though he then tries to use it to argue for credobaptism, but his rebuttle is not the point of my argument)! By circumcising them it meant that they were members of their parent's synagogues and we know that believing Jews assembled in Christian synagogues (Jas. 2:2). These synagogues were also considered Christian churches (Jas. 5:14). Therefore, we know that certain first century churches had infant members! (cf. Douglas Wilson, To A Thousand Generations, pgs 122-123). [/quote:36313c39a9]

[b:36313c39a9] Alright- here is where Christ explains how you get in the New Covenant:

"Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh but the spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, "you must be born again." The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit" (John 3:5-8)

"Yet to all who receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God- children not born of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God (John 1:12-13)

You see your mistake in using the passages that you did is to realize that Old economy contained both shadow and spiritual aspects that must be kept distinct from one another... Abraham has two sets of children one spiritual one physical... during the Old economy the two overlapped but always remained separated and during the New economy the shadowy has disappeared. Abraham had both spiritual children and physical children (see Galatians 4:21-31). As Spurgeon explains:

[quote:36313c39a9] "Well," says one, "a difficulty suggests itself as to your views, for an argument is often drawn from the fact, that inasmuch as Abraham must circumcise all his seed, we ought to baptize all our children." Now observe the type, and interpret it not according to prejudice, but according to Scripture. In the type the seed of Abraham is circumcised; you draw the inference that all typified by the seed of Abraham ought to be baptized, and I do not cavil at the conclusion; but ask you, who are the true seed of Abraham? Paul answers in Rom 9:8, "They who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are the counted for seed." As many as believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, whether they be Jews or Gentiles, are Abraham's seed. Whether eight days old in grace, or more or less, every one of Abraham's seed has a right baptism. But I deny that unregenerate, whether children or adults, are of the spiritual seed of Abraham. The Lord will, we trust, call many of them by his grace, but as yet they are "heirs of wrath even as others." At such times as the Spirit of God shall sow the good seed in their hearts they are of Abraham's believing seed; but they are not so while they live in ungodliness and unbelief or are yet incapable of faith and repentance. The answering person in type of Abrham is, by the confession of everybody, the believer, and the believer ought, seeing he is buried with Christ spiritually, to avow that fact by his public baptism in water, according to the Saviors own precept and example" [/quote:36313c39a9]


Therefore in order to become a child of God we must be born again or regenerated. This is why we are not to give the sacrament of baptism to the physical decedents of Abraham as Jewett explains:


"...All Israelites had a right to the sign of circumcision by virtue of their participation in the earthly blessings of the covenant community: they were citizens of the nation of Israel by birth. However, since this outward form of the covenant was done away in Christ, to baptize indiscriminately in the New Testament age is either to abuse discipline in administering the right or to be guilty of hypocrisy" (Jewett 102) [/b:36313c39a9]

[quote:36313c39a9] Tyler, where is the command that infants have ever been removed! [/quote:36313c39a9]

[b:36313c39a9] removed? How can God stop what he never started? The Spiritual children of Abraham have always been those regenerated not born of flesh... are you asking where God has abrogated the shadowy aspects of the old economy which included the physical children of Abaraham? I answer in the book of Hebrews chapter 10 verse 1. [/b:36313c39a9]

[quote:36313c39a9] If what you say is true, &quot;that ONLY disciples are church members,&quot; then these Christian Jewish churches were in error! [/quote:36313c39a9]

[b:36313c39a9] I agree and disagree... I disagree with your interpretation of history and think that the accurate interpretation of history reveals that these Christian Jews continued to circumcise their children not on the bases of their New covenant status but on the basis of Christian liberty... but if your interpretation is correct then yes they were wrong for it is always wrong to worship God in way he has not commanded. [/b:36313c39a9]

[quote:36313c39a9]Remember, you said that: 

[quote:36313c39a9]because he thinks that only Disciples (That is someone who repents and has faiths) are church members [/quote:36313c39a9]


Now, since you don't believe that infants can repent and have faith then you must conclude that the first century church was in error! [/quote:36313c39a9]

[b:36313c39a9] Well that is assuming that your interpretation of history is correct... but I do not think it is... but if it was then we are in agreement they are in error because Covenant membership alone does not secure baptism but only a command of God secures it. Also, if they joined their infants to the church apart from a command of God they were in error... [/b:36313c39a9]

[quote:36313c39a9] Regardless of me showing boys, girls, slaves, martians, creatures from the nether regions...whatever(!)..., that doesn't matter. Don't you see that if I even show that ONE infant was considered a church member that would decimate your definition of the ONLY ones who can be church members. Since you don't believe that infants can repent and have faith, and since you believe that only those who are church members are those who repent and have faith then ONE example disproves your position. [/quote:36313c39a9]

[b:36313c39a9] Why if your case is so strong must you resort to tradition to prove tradition... why not just use Scripture to justify this alleged Scriptural tradition? Instead you have got to appeal to a possible erroneous interpration of history which at worst is wrong and which at best only proves to me that you are not alone in your error but had first century company... imagine if I tired to argue that Gentiles did not circumcise their children hence they did not view their children as infants you would object but if so why do you expect me to accept your argument?.. The bottom line is that this is not an argument from Scripture but an argument from speculation as such holds no weight in a Reformed theology [/b:36313c39a9]


[quote:36313c39a9] Even worse, you contradict yourself. here's how: 

you said: 
[quote:36313c39a9]

second off you need to do more than just prove that some infants could be church members you need to prove that all children of Disciples are church members [/quote:36313c39a9]

...and... 

[quote:36313c39a9]

I think only Disciples are in the church [/quote:36313c39a9] [/quote:36313c39a9]

[b:36313c39a9] This is not a contradiction [/b:36313c39a9]

[quote:36313c39a9] Now, if NO non-disciples may be church members (and you say that infants cannot be disciples) then, on the square of oposition, the &quot;E&quot; statement's contradiction MUST BE false. Now, if I showed that even ONE infant was considered a church member that contradicts &quot;E&quot;. So, the &quot;I&quot; statement would be, &quot;some non-disciples are church members.&quot; Therefore, if you say that I have even proved that ONE infant can be a church member, let alone ALL children of disciples, then you have contradicted your &quot;E&quot; statement. Thus, you cannot allow me to prove that even SOME are. Do you see this? [/quote:36313c39a9]

[b:36313c39a9] So what you are saying is that you do not feel you have to prove all of the Presbyterian position but only half of it and then you ask Reformed Baptist to embrace all of it? Do not you see that a Reformed Baptist could accept that if God were to supernaturally proclaim that this specific child is to be baptized and joined to the church a Reformed Baptist could baptize that child and join him to his church and be completely consistent with the spirit of the Reformed Baptist tradition which teaches that only on a command from God do we worship him. Therefore on purely logical grounds Reformed Baptist could admit that one infant was to be baptized and still not baptize all infants of Disciples as Paedobaptist require. [/b:36313c39a9]


[quote:36313c39a9] This gives my above argument about certain first century churches having infant members new force. You cannot run from it by saying, &quot;oh, you need to prove that all children are members.&quot; This is what we have been talking about by &quot;not addressing&quot; my arguments. [/quote:36313c39a9]

[b:36313c39a9] Now I understand by "not addressing my argument" you merely meant that I did not agree with your arguments and attempted to rebut them- interesting terminology.- In truth I have addressed these for I have said that proving that God only commanded one infant to be baptized does not prove that God commanded all infants to be baptized... furthermore proving tradition with more but only ancient tradition and historical speculation is not compelling all to anyone who embraces sola Scriptura as the basis for doctrine. [/b:36313c39a9]

[quote:36313c39a9] So, you either need to one (redefine your definition of disciple. Or, (2) Directly refute my argument (and you CANNOT do this by mentioning girls, slaves, or whatever. Hopefully I have made my point.[/quote:36313c39a9]

[b:36313c39a9] Nop. I could just as easily argue that since Gentiles did not circumcise their infants they viewed them as non church members... but this probably not persuasive to you and so you can see why this is not persuasive to me. [/b:36313c39a9]

[quote:36313c39a9] Now, regarding Eph 6: You cite Dagg 
[quote:36313c39a9]

But the probability is, that the children whom Paul addressed were members of the church. The command, "Obey your parents in the Lord," is so expressed, as apparently to imply that the obligation was to be felt and acknowledged by them, because of their relation to the Lord. The children to whom Paul addressed this command must have possessed intelligences to apprehend its meaning, and piety to feel the force of the motive presented in these words, "For this is well pleasing unto the Lord" Timothy, from a child, had known the Holy Scriptures. Intelligent piety has, in all ages, been found in children who have not yet reached maturity; and such children have a Scriptural right to church membership. [/quote:36313c39a9]


The problem here is that he does not get into whether they were members since infancy. He has assumed that a profession needs to be made to be a member. He did not prove that in the quote you attributed to him. Indeed, my above argument proves that profession is not necessary for membership. [/quote:36313c39a9]

[b:36313c39a9] 1) we notice that you can no longer sustain just a reading of Ephesians to prove your case but most bring in assumptions (I think you have not proved) to interpret the passage a different way... hence this passage viewed in isolation form the differing assumptions of Reformed Baptist or Presbyterians proves nothing one way or the other for either side... all and all this passage is not conclusive but is the victim of being interpreted by at lest one flawed hermeneutic and which assumptions are flawed must be proved in another place hence we can safely dismiss your argument from Ephesians as question bagging since you have to assume Paedobaptism to interpret the text that way. [/b:36313c39a9] 

[quote:36313c39a9] You write: 
[quote:36313c39a9]

but what about female infants they did not get the sign... hence we can conclude that church membership does not mean that a person must literally get the Covenant sign. What was the difference between male and females infants was it church membership or God's command? Clearly it was God's command. [/quote:36313c39a9]

Yes, and in the New Testament the sign is to be given to both genders. And, you can say that church membersghip does not include that they get the sign, but you would be disagreeing with the top pardo's [/quote:36313c39a9]

[b:36313c39a9]Amen[/b:36313c39a9]

[quote:36313c39a9] and credo's on this! [/quote:36313c39a9]

[b:36313c39a9] I reject that assertion and note that no Reformed Baptist to my knowledge says that we can baptize apart from a command of God but has argued instead that God has commanded all Disciples to be baptized, and all church members are Disciples, hence all church members are to be baptized- Note it is still the command of God that ultimately determines who gets the sign not who is a church member. [/b:36313c39a9]

[quote:36313c39a9] So, your position requires you to abandon your top pedagree. [/quote:36313c39a9]

[b:36313c39a9] Why? I agree with them- and confess- that a command of God alone is the sufficient base for the giving of the sign. [/b:36313c39a9]

[quote:36313c39a9] Furthermore, we are talking about the NEW COVENANT Church. It does you zero good to keep hanging on to the OT. Thus the fundamental hermaneutical error of Tertullian: He judaizes the new and Christianizes the old! [/quote:36313c39a9]

[b:36313c39a9] I note how quickly Paedos drop their "Covenant" polemic when it works against their position showing that it is the practice that seeks the arguments not the arguments that seek their conclusions. If I am guilty of being Covenantal then I embrace that charge and plead guilty as charged. [/b:36313c39a9]

[quote:36313c39a9] [quote:36313c39a9]

. Also, as far as I can see "premise 2" has not be prove either because Dagg has shown that infants were not the intended recipients of Paul's command but were probably regenerated children who had faith and could community in langue- children in such a position is fully accountable with the Baptist [/quote:36313c39a9]

Now, did anyone catch this? Re-read the above argument. Essentially premise two has not been proven by me since Dagg has shown that the Ephasis children were probably regenerate. Oh, so now I am supposed to be refuted by probability?!?! [/quote:36313c39a9]

[b:36313c39a9] Yes, we admit that we could be wrong in how we interpreted theses verses but we think that it is a safe bet to think that Paul was talking to regenerate who had faith and could understand Greek. Remember in context the probability Dagf is talking about is if these children was not to church members or church members and Dagg says probably church members but we cannot be certain [/b:36313c39a9]

[quote:36313c39a9]Furthermore, this begs the question. It assumes that a child is a member of a church when they are regenerate (or at least when they profess to be). This is what's in question. So, even if you show that they were regenerate it does nothing to show when they became members...unless(!) you ASSUME a credo scheme! [/quote:36313c39a9]

[b:36313c39a9] So in other words these verses do not present a problem for the credo scheme as you first alleged but can be interpreted consistently with a credo scheme- so now that this is established where is the argument against the credo position and where is the argument in favor the Paedopsoiton? [/b:36313c39a9]

[quote:36313c39a9] Therefore, my argument has not even been addressed. In fact Tyler has shown that he doesn't even understand it. Yes, I haven't given a verse that says &quot;children are church members&quot; but the inference I have drawn is a cruching weight on the shoulders of credoism. 

-Paul [/quote:36313c39a9]

[b:36313c39a9] You have not given a verse that says that children were in the church which is what I asked you to do instead you brought an inference which is by no means a necessary inference and hence according to the Standards cannot be used to justify a doctrine...

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian [/b:36313c39a9]


----------



## Tertullian

[quote:f481464eec][i:f481464eec]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:f481464eec]
Not only is Paul correct, but he is showing the credos that they are demonstrating a view that they cannot rpove by Scripture, where Paul has, bu Scripture made an argument they seem to keep missing.


[quote:f481464eec]
In fact Tyler has shown that he doesn't even understand it.
[/quote:f481464eec]

Sorry Tyler, but thus far he is right. You need to be able to show, not by probability, but by Scripture that &quot;profession&quot; is that which warrants discipleship. [/quote:f481464eec]

I think when you used the word &quot;probablity&quot; you were following Paul who had misquoted or taken out of context Dagg, was only saying that it is possible that these people were not church members but they most probably were... he was not saying what Paul seemed to interpet him as saying- namely that he thought he could probably be wrong about this verse not teaching that the children were unregenerate. 

Therefore, I think that you should read these posts more carefully and make sure you that you understand what both sides are saying instead of just reading one side- this will help reduce mistakes like these in the future. 

[quote:f481464eec] The moment you do that two things will happen 1) you will find something that no other Baptist since baptists have been around have been able to do, and 2) you would have put together a very good Arminian argument.

Either way you lose the argument here. [/quote:f481464eec]

Actually, the &quot;profession&quot; is a circumstance not an element, for example suppose that we could read hearts and know who had faith and who did not... then we would not need a profession but because we are human and can only baptize based on a profession because we cannot read hearts we have to adapt to the situation- Presbyterians no less then Baptist do this- only one does it to the parents the other to the actual person. 

Also, I have never critiqued Presbyterians for relying upon professions from parents so why do you critique Reformed Baptist of relying on professions? Clearly if my circumstance arguement is not valid both sides are in deep trouble unless a new arguement is developed because we are then left with two choices either stop baptizing or drop the regulative principle of worship- Personally I will accept the premise that profession is a circumstance not an element what about you?

Secondly, I learned this arguement from Spurgeon so I did not invented this is the historic Reformed Baptist position I think. 

[quote:f481464eec] (This is a helpful thread. Everyone should go back read through it). [/quote:f481464eec]

Thanks I think, I can only add that everyone should be sure to read both sides....

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian


----------



## Scott Bushey

Tyler writes:
&quot;Also, I have never critiqued Presbyterians for relying upon professions from parents so why do you critique Reformed Baptist of relying on professions?&quot;

We do not &quot;rely&quot; or base our placing the sign upon the child because of the parents profession per se, but more on the command of God to place the sign on covenant members. For all we know, the parents may not be in the internal covenant.


----------



## Tertullian

[quote:06781582cb][i:06781582cb]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:06781582cb]
Tyler writes:
&quot;Also, I have never critiqued Presbyterians for relying upon professions from parents so why do you critique Reformed Baptist of relying on professions?&quot;

We do not &quot;rely&quot; or base our placing the sign upon the child because of the parents profession per se, but more on the command of God to place the sign on covenant members. For all we know, the parents may not be in the internal covenant. [/quote:06781582cb]

Has not Paul Manata already disposed of this type of reasoning because that is equlivant to a Reformed Baptist saying that we Baptize upon a command of God not a human profession. Of course this is true in theology upon both the Reformed Baptist and Presbyterian camps... but the question must be asked in practice how do both sides apply this command in daily church service? The answer is that in order to comply with God's command we must baptize based on human profession of the individual (if we are Baptist) or the parents profession (if we are Presbyterian)

Here is Paul's argument: 

...you must again be forced to requalify. You have said that only those who have faith [or parents have faith] are church members. Now, how do you know who has faith [or whose parents have faith]? If one truly has faith then they are elect. So, upon analysis you are saying that only elect are church members. But this is false. I Corinthians 5 tells us that there are non-elect who make up the same lump as the elect [i.e. the visible church]. Furthermore, it tells us that when the are &quot;purged from among them&quot; that is the church judging...its members! So, Paul tells us that there are non-elect [visible] church members.

So, what you must mean is that only those who make a profession of faith [or whos parents make a profession of faith] are church members. Therefore, we can retranslate your statement thus: (I will add my remarks via bold print) 

The Reformed Baptist [and Presbyterian] is consistent to teach that baptism belongs to all professing church members [or parents who profess to be church members] because he thinks that only professing Disciples (That is someone who professes to repents and has professed faiths) [or parents who profess to be church members] are professed church members...professedly 

Therefore... I repeat again without hesitation: 

&quot;I have never critiqued Presbyterians for relying upon professions from parents so why do you critique Reformed Baptist of relying on professions?&quot;

[Edited on 3-26-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Tertullian

*Paul*

[quote:8be3773c98] Tyler, you told Webmaster

&quot;I think when you used the word &quot;probablity&quot; you were following Paul who had misquoted or taken out of context Dagg, was only saying that it is possible that these people were not church members but they most probably were... he was not saying what Paul seemed to interpet him as saying- namely that he thought he could probably be wrong about this verse not teaching that the children were unregenerate. 

Therefore, I think that you should read these posts more carefully and make sure you that you understand what both sides are saying instead of just reading one side- this will help reduce mistakes like these in the future.&quot; 

this is just a little something before I address your post later 

Tyler, I actually was quoting YOU! This is what YOU siad...NOT Dagg. Therefore, I think that you should read these posts more carefully and make sure that you understand who I am quoting. And, regardless of what you say, you confused deduction and induction. Furthermore, inductuve words like &quot;probability&quot; is only as strong as the next peice of evidence. My infant church member argument refuted the &quot;probability.&quot; Moreover, you should know, as a presuppositionalist, that &quot;probability&quot; and thinks like, &quot;what is more likely&quot; are determined by your presuppositions. ...Anyway 

-Paul [/quote:8be3773c98]

Paul I don't even recall using the words "probability" or "probably" and a simple survey of the relevant data shows that Webmsaster was referring to your post and you had quoted Dagg statement that said:

[quote:8be3773c98] Because children were addressed in an epistle directed to a church, it does not necessarily follow that they were members of the church. As parents were required to bring up their children ion the nurture and admonition of the Lord, the same epistle that enjoined this duty from the Lord, might appropriately contain a direct command from the Lord, requiring the children to obey their parents. IN performing the duty enjoined on them, the parents would naturally and properly take their children with them to the public worship of the church, where the apostolic epistles would be read in their hearing. The fact, therefore, that an apostolic command was addressed to them, and claimed the right of commanding them in the name of the Lord. 

[b:8be3773c98]But the probability is, that the children whom Paul addressed were members of the church. The command, "Obey your parents in the Lord," is so expressed, as apparently to imply that the obligation was to be felt and acknowledged by them, because of their relation to the Lord. The children to whom Paul addressed this command must have possessed intelligences to apprehend its meaning, and piety to feel the force of the motive presented in these words, "For this is well pleasing unto the Lord" Timothy, from a child, had known the Holy Scriptures. Intelligent piety has, in all ages, been found in children who have not yet reached maturity; and such children have a Scriptural right to church membership. [/b:8be3773c98]

The argument contains a fallacy which deserves to be noticed, in the assumption, that the children who were commanded to obey, and the children who were to be brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, were the same. Masters were commanded how to treat their servants, and servants were commanded to obey their masters; but it would be wrong to infer that no masters were so commanded but those who had pious servants, or that no servant commanded but those who had pious masters. On the contrary, those servants who had believing masters are distinguished from those who had believing masters are distinguished from the whose masters were unbelievers; and yet the latter class were commanded to obey, as well as the former. The relation of master and servant existed, in some cases, when both of the parties were members of the church; and, in other cases, when one party was in the church and the other party out of the church. No proof exists, that the relation of the parent and child may not have been divided in the same manner. Parents were not commanded to bring up their children in nurture and admonition of the Lord because the children were church-members; and children were not commanded to obey their parents because the parents were church-members. The supposition, therefore, that the children in the two cases were the same, is an assumption without proof. [/quote:8be3773c98]

Unfortunately you only quoted the part that is in bold and gave the false impression that Dagg thought that Paul was possibly referring to unregenerate but probably was not- that is not what Dagg said that is not what I said but that is what Webmaster interpreted us as saying based upon your post- I am not sure if you or him made the mistake but the point is that we all (myself included) need to read both sides not just limit ourselves to ourside. 

PS your infant church member did not refute the Dagg's probability because again the probability that Dagg was talking about is not the probablity you are talking about. Dagg was simply saying that it was more probably that these children were regenerated believing Christians of young age who had faith and could speak Greek and Dagg certianly agreed that it was not infant church members who could neither understand Paul's command nor could have faith. Besides you still have not addressed his argument which is below the part you sited about the fallacy employed by Paedobaptist who use this arguement. 

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian


----------



## Goosha

*For your information*

Hi Tyler,

I've been looking over the 1 Corinthians 10:2 passage to see if I was drawing something from the text that wasn't there and I'm convinced that my original theory seems justified.

You write:

"Yes but that paves the way for Paedocommion as well because they all drank the same spiritual food as well, but the Westminster clearly teaches that this is not a necessary inference despite the word "all" so why ought a Reformed Baptist be persuaded by the word "all" when the Westminster Divines rejected Paedocommuion despite that same word? I think that answer is that Reformed Baptist are under no more obligation to acknowledge that all were baptized from this position then that all are to be given the Lord's Supper. Therefore, church membership no more implies baptism then it does the Lord's Supper- but that is another issue-"

I hope you realize that I never made the argument above. I am arguing that 1 Corinthians 10 proves that all members of the visible church were baptized. If the Corinthian church was not, at least, all baptized, then the passage becomes unintelligible because Paul uses Israel's baptism and participation in a communion as the basis for his warning. This passage was not meant to prove infant baptism or paedo communion. You can make sense of this passage even though not all of the Corinthians took the Lord's Table; however, this passage becomes unintelligible once it's denied that all the members of the Corinthian church were baptized. Here is what the Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible has to say,

"1 Cor. 10:2 They were all baptized into Moses. Because Christian baptism stresses the union of the believer with Christ, Paul used the language of baptism to draw a correspondence between Old Testament Israel and the Corinthian church (see note on 5:12-13). All the Israelites of the exodus generation went through the ordeal and deliverance of this event (which involved crossing through the water) by virtue of their identification with their leader, Moses. Note the repetition of the word "all" in verses 1-3 (also 12:13)...[b:dd9b46c614]All the members of the visible church in Corinth had been baptized into Christ [/b:dd9b46c614] and therefore had tasted God's deliverance, but that was no guarantee that God would be pleased to save all of them."

You wrote:

"Getting back to the matter at hand, I think Paul is not talking about the issue who is a church member and so it is dangerous to draw conclusion about church membership from a passage Paul intended to teach on a different subject with. Yet, to draw the analogy properly we can notice that infants could not have possibly literally have taking the manna because they were still drinking milk and had not physically matured to the point- so now we know by inference that when Paul said all partook of the Lord's Supper he had no reference to infants, so it is also safe to infer the word all can be used in such a manner that it has no reference to infants therefore it becomes vain to press the word "all" to say that infants had to be church members because we can see that Paul can use the word "all" in the same context without reference to infants."

Again, I never made this argument. I only seek to prove what the passage clearly implies and that is all the members in the Corinthian church were baptized and perhaps many and if not most of them partook of the Lord's Table.

"In fact, I suppose a Reformed Baptist could argue that since Paul used the word "all" without reference to infants but said "all" referring to church members we can infer that infants are not church members!!!"

I think this is funny. You bought into my main point that all the church members at the Corinthian church were baptized but you went beyond what the text warranted or at least that's what you seem to think that I did. Friend, I never even thought of using this as some magic verse proving infant baptism. I don't even think this proves either infant baptism nor paedo communion but only that all the members of the Corinthian church were baptized. Anyways, I just wanted to throw this in. There is plenty for you to respond to out of Paul's posts so I won't extend this longer than it needs to be.

Cordially,

Jayson Rawlins


----------



## Tertullian

*Goosha,*

Now that we have decided that these passages cannot be used to maintain the practice of infant baptism-which was I side issue for I agree with you that you never really ever attempted to utilize these verses as a reason for the practice of infant baptism but that you had utilized them for the conclusion that all church members are baptized. I will attempt to address your argument or else expand upon my interpretation of these verses. Therefore I will respond to your argument which you summarized quit nicely here:

[quote:4a107ba0ac] I hope you realize that I never made the argument above. I am arguing that 1 Corinthians 10 proves that all members of the visible church were baptized. If the Corinthian church was not, at least, all baptized, then the passage becomes unintelligible because Paul uses Israel's baptism and participation in a communion as the basis for his warning. This passage was not meant to prove infant baptism or paedo communion. You can make sense of this passage even though not all of the Corinthians took the Lord's Table; however, this passage becomes unintelligible once it's denied that all the members of the Corinthian church were baptized. Here is what the Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible has to say, 

"1 Cor. 10:2 They were all baptized into Moses. Because Christian baptism stresses the union of the believer with Christ, Paul used the language of baptism to draw a correspondence between Old Testament Israel and the Corinthian church (see note on 5:12-13). All the Israelites of the exodus generation went through the ordeal and deliverance of this event (which involved crossing through the water) by virtue of their identification with their leader, Moses. Note the repetition of the word "all" in verses 1-3 (also 12:13)...[b:4a107ba0ac]All the members of the visible church in Corinth had been baptized into Christ [/b:4a107ba0ac]and therefore had tasted God's deliverance, but that was no guarantee that God would be pleased to save all of them.

...I never made this argument. I only seek to prove what the passage clearly implies and that is all the members in the Corinthian church were baptized and perhaps many and if not most of them partook of the Lord's Table." [/quote:4a107ba0ac]

Now I will begin to address what I think to be some problems with this particular approach. First off you wrote:

"You can make sense of this passage even though not all of the Corinthians took the Lord's Table; however, this passage becomes unintelligible once it's denied that all the members of the Corinthian church were baptized"

But why is that? Baptism is not even the main focus on these passages the Lord's Supper is, so it seems to follow that if they were not all given the Lord's Supper they would not be able to relate to what Paul was saying... but this leaves us in two directions for we can either limit church membership to Disciples or we embrace paedocommunion. 

Worse still if we think that infants were church members they could not relate to Paul's analogy anyway since they could not yet speak Greek so if we want to press that this analogy only makes sense if all the church members could relate to it then again we are forced to affirm that all the church members were not infants.

Yet most important above all this is that I just do not think that this is a good argument to rest the basis for the administration of baptism to all church members. Clearly Christian were baptizing other Christians when first Corinthians was not yet in circulation, I mean during the first centuries the popular Christian may have never have even seen this passage his entire life yet they still baptized church members so this cannot really be the basis for Christian baptism of church members. So there is a reason which is the basis for the baptism of church members and it has no relation to this passage.

Lastly, I think this passage would not be compelling to someone who accepts that infants were church members but did not think that church membership was a basis for baptism because nowhere in the text does it actually say that church membership was the basis for either the Israelites baptism or the Corinthians baptism... Paul's point was that God punishes sinners even if the have experienced Covenant privileges and that was all Paul's analogy was meant to say... to draw conclusions about an innate right to baptism divorced from a command from God to baptism is foreign to this passage.

[quote:4a107ba0ac] You wrote: 

"In fact, I suppose a Reformed Baptist could argue that since Paul used the word "all" without reference to infants but said "all" referring to church members we can infer that infants are not church members!!!" 

I think this is funny. You bought into my main point that all the church members at the Corinthian church were baptized but you went beyond what the text warranted or at least that's what you seem to think that I did. Friend, I never even thought of using this as some magic verse proving infant baptism. I don't even think this proves either infant baptism nor paedo communion but only that all the members of the Corinthian church were baptized.. [/quote:4a107ba0ac]

Well, I think these verses could be utilized to prove that only Disciples were church members because only Disciples can partake of the Lord's Supper, yet you would probably not find that argument persuasive but I think is where we would have to go if your right. Remember, the Apostle Paul clearly teaches that all church members in Israel had the Lord's Supper so we can conclude if the analogy is to apply to the Corinthians that they must of all had the Lord's Supper... but this still does not prove that the basis for the Lord's Supper was their church membership... could we not just as easily say that just as Israel was commanded by God to enter through the water and commanded to eat the manna that the New Israel is also privileged to its sacraments by a command from God and not solely their badge that says that they are a church membership and if that is true then it looks like Watson was right after all when he said:

[quote:4a107ba0ac] Thus, people may be in covenant who are without the sign of the covenant, and the sole reason for giving all or some the sign of the covenant is the command of God . It follows that even if the children of believers were in some special covenant relationship, this of itself does not entitle them to the sign of that covenant. The sign is to be given only as the Lord commands - perhaps to males only, perhaps to females, perhaps to both, perhaps to neither. In previous chapters we have seen that the Lord has not commanded that babies should be baptized, whether male or female, so that Christians are no more required to baptize their babies than the Jews are required to circumcise their females (Should Babies Be Baptized? p. 99) [/quote:4a107ba0ac]
Therefore it is the command that needs to be proved not that infants are church members... if we are to establish the practice of infant baptism... for the idea that you can get the Covenant sign divorced from a command from God but solely on the basis of your position in Covenant is not to be found in either the Old or New. Hence, Paul's analogy could be easily understood within Watson's framework of only a command earns the right to the privilege of the sacraments... and what is compatible with Watson's view cannot be used as an argument against it. 


[quote:4a107ba0ac][quote:4a107ba0ac] Anyways, I just wanted to throw this in. There is plenty for you to respond to out of Paul's posts so I won't extend this longer than it needs to be [/quote:4a107ba0ac]
Cordially, 

Jayson Rawlins [/quote:4a107ba0ac]

How have I not already responded to what Paul said? What part did you think I need to address that I have not already addressed?

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 3-27-2004 by Tertullian]

[Edited on 3-27-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Scott Bushey

Gentlemen,
Make you closing remarks as this thread has had it's day.

[img:a3b24fdd8c]http://www.semperreformanda.com/images/bangheae.gif[/img:a3b24fdd8c]

I will close it tomorrow...........


----------



## luvroftheWord

Unbelievable. Simply unbelievable.


----------



## Roldan

*Exhortation*

I wanted to express my deepest appreciation to all that defended the Reformed position on Covenant Theology.

You guys did a masterful job at obliterating the credo's understanding of the covenant and its signs.

I already hear the credo here &quot;ah but your are a paedo and can't make that judgment for it's bias&quot; but with all due respect I am no LIAR and don't need to be dishonest with biblical matters. And the truth is that watching this thread has proved that baptist theology is at its core dispensational(save the drama for your mama). 

Paul, SUPERB! I have enjoyed your biblical responses.

Lotw, Also crucial points you made.

Goosha, Excellent!

Webmaster, you da man!

Terullian, I give you an A++++ for effort, but nice try, keep studying your almost there.


I will be setting up a formal debate with Tyler Hicks in the near future at a church or some place that will hold plenty of people. Anyone who lives in Florida who would like to attend feel free to contact me via email or 863-293-8984. This will be no mickey mouse debate. It will be in-depth. keep you posted.

In the name of our Sovereign King,

Richard W. Roldan


----------



## Tertullian

[quote:088f9ac9e4][i:088f9ac9e4]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:088f9ac9e4]
Scott,

Can you close it on sunday morning? (Or late Saturday night?)

I will be posting my final response tomorrow. 

Thanks.

-Paul

[Edited on 3-27-2004 by Paul manata] [/quote:088f9ac9e4]

Paul, I will let you have the last word,

All I can say is that anybody reading these posts objectively will note that when asked for a command to baptize babies they have not been able to produce it... for when they said that God commanded circumcision to be given to male infants we can infer that means baptize all infants with Christian parents... but I simply noted that circumcision is not baptism there is an analogy there but not identity... I then explained why Col 2:11-12 cannot be used to justify the identity... and I listed my reasons... but the Paedo response... Well that is not what Calvin said.

Then I argued that the whole Paedo concept will infants are in covenant therefore they must be baptized is wrong because you can be in covenant and still not be baptized... as Watson observes: 

Thus, people may be in covenant who are without the sign of the covenant, and the sole reason for giving all or some the sign of the covenant is the command of God. It follows that even if the children of believers were in some special covenant relationship, this of itself does not entitle them to the sign of that covenant. The sign is to be given only as the Lord commands - perhaps to males only, perhaps to females, perhaps to both, perhaps to neither. In previous chapters we have seen that the Lord has not commanded that babies should be baptized, whether male or female, so that Christians are no more required to baptize their babies than the Jews are required to circumcise their females (Should Babies Be Baptized? p. 99)

Hence, I argued that this route is not really worth debating about because it ultimately proves nothing about who is to be baptized... hence in order to prove infant baptism the Paedo needs to prove that God has commanded it... and so far they have not been able to provide a command...



KC- arguement ran but Calvin said I would rather side with Calvin then with you so even though I will not answer your objections concerning Col 2:11-13 I am right because Calvin is on my side.

LOTW- women were federaly circumcised. Note- even if it was true so what? But I see no compelling reason to accept this once it is no longer just assumed that people must be given the covenant sign who are in covenant.

Paul Manata- Has said that he assumes infant baptism to be true and that is why he holds to it. Paul has not responded to Dagg's arguement again using Ephisians... nor has Paul actually delt with my position about why all church members are to be given the sign- note I said because God has commanded it- Paul says because they are church members- But Paul has not yet seen the difference between these to positions and so his arguements can not really be considered an arguement against my position on that issue. 

Webmaster- Has just ponitificated that he likes what Paul said and that is not an arguement or if it is it is not a logicial arguement

Roldan- Has just ponitifcated that he likes what Paul said and that is not an arguement or it is is it is not a logicial arguement

Goosha- Has said that Watson's arguement is interesting but he does not accept it but I do not think has been able to undermine it to date.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian


----------



## Scott Bushey

Paul'
You're up to the plate.................
[img:87ac16090a]http://www.semperreformanda.com/images/browsmiley.gif[/img:87ac16090a]

[Edited on 3-27-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## kceaster

*Tyler...*

[quote:d06b58b0ed]KC- arguement ran but Calvin said I would rather side with Calvin then with you so even though I will not answer your objections concerning Col 2:11-13 I am right because Calvin is on my side.[/quote:d06b58b0ed]

I forgive you in advance for your butchery of my argument. I read every post on this thread and I did not mention Calvin once. You did when you commented about his thinking that the earth was the center of the universe. I asked you how you knew it wasn't.

But I did not mention Calvin nor did I even type his name in this thread. I did not cite him when discussing the Colossians 2 passage.

It kinda shows how much you pay attention to the arguments.

My argument was that circumcision and baptism are intertwined in God's economy, that infants are included in the covenant because they were never abrogated out of it, and that the great commission commands us to baptize disciples, which our children are.

I did mention that the Reformation made these things clear and proved that it is not mere tradition, but that it is biblically warranted.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Scott Bushey

Thank you Kevin.......
Is that your closing remarks Kev?


----------



## kceaster

*Scott...*

Yes, I have nothing further, your honor.

:wr51:

In Christ,

KC


----------



## luvroftheWord

Well, since I was a part of this debate for a while, I will also offer some closing statements.

First, all throughout this debate Tertullian has been building and tearing down strawmen. He has assumed that the assumption that is crucial to mine, Paul's, Jayson's, and KC's position is that there is an identity between circumcision and baptism. He seems to believe this is the point on which the paedobaptist position stands or falls.

Tertullian has said:

[quote:e5b0156484]&quot;for example you could start by proving that baptism and circumcision are identical which is the basis for the whole inference to begin with.&quot;

&quot;No, you need to prove that circumcision is identical to baptism&quot;

&quot;I see no reason to 'connect circumcison and baptism' and so until you can connect the two you have no right to argue covenant continuation between two things that were never connected in the first place.&quot;[/quote:e5b0156484]

And in his final post he said:

[quote:e5b0156484]All I can say is that anybody reading these posts objectively will note that when asked for a command to baptize babies they have not been able to produce it... for when they said that God commanded circumcision to be given to male infants we can infer that means baptize all infants with Christian parents... but I simply noted that circumcision is not baptism there is an analogy there but not identity... I then explained why Col 2:11-12 cannot be used to justify the identity[/quote:e5b0156484]


Now, I have read back over this entire thread, and I don't recall any paedobaptist in here arguing for an identity between circumcision and baptism. KC did deal with Colossions 2:11-12 for a bit, but even he said the following:

[quote:e5b0156484]Because this is true, we can see that those of the circumcision and those of baptism are linked, not by the sign, but the thing signified.[/quote:e5b0156484]

That is not the identity Tertullian seems to be looking for.

Paul also said:

[quote:e5b0156484]Furthermore, circumcision is not identical...who says it is...DEPENDING on how you define identical. Noone has EVER said that baptism means to cut forskin?!.[/quote:e5b0156484]

I did not (nor do I think Goosha did) even deal with the issue of the specific relationship between circumcision and baptism because that has NEVER been my basis for believing paedobaptism. My own words from a thread from last summer should prove this:

[quote:e5b0156484]Thus, I don't think such objections as, &quot;well why do you baptize females in the NT if only males were circumcised in the OT?&quot; are really very strong since there isn't supposed to be a one-to-one correlation between the two signs or some type of &quot;replacement&quot;. I hope I'm being clear in this. If not, I can try to explain more clearly later on... Keep in mind what I just said about &quot;replacement&quot; in the signs. But where I believe /continuity/discontinuity becomes an issue is in the way in which God works in his covenant with his people in both OT and NT. This should be the focus of the discussion and not the signs, per se.

Taken from the thread Baptism replaces Circumcision.... or does it?[/quote:e5b0156484]

So it appears that much of Tertullian's time and energy in this debate has been misdirected because this point is not as central to our positions as he wants to think it is. It may be important to many paedobaptists, but it is not important to the ones in this messageboard. He can chide us for not dealing with this point if he wants, but why defend a point you don't even embrace?

Now the only other closing remark I want to make concerns Tertullian's response to the points I was particularly concerned with in this debate. Tertullian said above concerning my argument:

[quote:e5b0156484]LOTW- women were federaly circumcised. Note- even if it was true so what? But I see no compelling reason to accept this once it is no longer just assumed that people must be given the covenant sign who are in covenant.[/quote:e5b0156484]

I believe it should be evident enough to those who have followed this thread that the &quot;so what?&quot; of my argument is that if I am right about what I said about federal circumcision, T. E. Watson's argument, an argument that Tertullian has relied very heavily upon, goes up in smoke.

I would also add that no meaningful response was given this argument. Tertullian tried to respond to it by making an argument for &quot;federal baptism&quot; in the NT. But when Paul and I both showed that this is not possible in a Baptist framework, the essense of Tertullian's response was, &quot;Well, I don't see any reason to believe that.&quot; I would ask the reader of this thread what kind of debate this would have been if all the paedobaptists had just responded to Tertullian's arguments with &quot;Well, I don't see any reason to believe that.&quot;

He also misrepresented my argument, saying that the reason I believe in federal circumcision is because I operate on the assumption that all covenant members get the sign. But I will just refer the reader back to my last two posts to show that this was not the case at all, but I developed my case for federalism based upon texts of Scripture where the principle was clearly seen in various contexts, with the administration of covenant signs being on of them.

I would also just re-emphasize the point that if I am right on this point, and women were circumcised in the OT, Watson's argument, and likewise, a very large portion of Tertullian's argumentation in this thread, disappears.

Blessings to Tertullian and all who were involved for their diligence in this debate.


----------



## Goosha

*Finis*

I appreciated the discussion. I've learned a whole bunch and am grateful to have had the opportunity to post my thoughts.

Tyler has continued to look for a command requiring all members of the covenant to be baptized. Perhaps the reason he has not been satisfied is because he is asking the wrong question. If the bible indicates that person enters into covenant through the sign, then proving who is in the covenant would prove who receives the sign.

Also, requiring us to find a command from the New Testament that all members receive the sign assumes discontinuity. Why should God have to repeat what has already been established? In response, T.E. Watson has attempted to come up with this idea that unless God specifies who receives the covenant sign within the covenant community than that person isn't allowed (i.e. Regulative Principle). I don't find this very convincing at all since this would result in the absurd conclusion that women can't participate in the Lord's Supper (I still have not found anything convincing in Watson's argument to provide a solution for this). For where does the bible command that women disciples are required to partake of the Lord's Table? It doesn't; so, on Watson's own standard they shoudn't. However, we, as paedobaptists can confidently argue that women disciples receive the Lord's Supper by their covenant relationship with Christ. 


Also, another problem with this requirement for a command, "All members must receive the covenant sign" overlooks the fact that it's the initiatory sign in first place that brings a person into the covenant or church community. Beginning with the great commission- "19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in [into] the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit...."This is a common motif found in Galatians 3:27 (into Christ), 1 Corinthians 1:15 (in [into-eis] my name), 10:2 (into Moses paralleled with &quot;into Christ&quot;-), Acts 19:3 (lit. &quot;into what were you baptized&quot;-), Romans 6:3 (into Christ). This idea of being "baptized into Christ" clearly implies being baptized into the church or covenant community much like circumcision was for Israel. A person who wanted to become a Jew would have to be circumcised before they could enjoy the rights of a Jew. Thus, to ask, "Where does the bible command all covenant members to receive the sign?" is not the correct question. The proper question is, "How does a person enter into the covenant?" The answer is, "baptism." I think the New Testament teaches this and is further supported by the Old Testament pattern as well. 

Even though my argument from 1 Corinthian 10 may not be persuasive to you, it does demonstrate that covenant signs (sacraments) come with covenant responsibilities and this serves as the basis for threatening the members of the Corinthian Church.

Cordially,

Jayson Rawlins

[Edited on 3-27-2004 by Goosha]


----------



## Scott Bushey

Pauls post is the only one missing...........He's out doing his trade. He will post soon.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

This thread is now closed.

:closed:


----------

