# Establishing Infant Baptism



## amishrockstar (Jan 18, 2010)

I've done a little research on paedobaptism and it seems that
in order to "prove" infant baptism there needs to first be an 
establishment of the idea that the O.T. nation of Israel _equals_ 
the N.T. church; also, an establishment of circumcision _equalling_ 
baptism is needed.

Is that a fair assessment?

If those cannot be established (beyond a few similarities), 
then can paedobaptism be established as a practice that
is binding on all Christians?

Thanks,
Matthew

P.S.
If you were to suggest ONE book that best argues for the
paedobaptist position, what would you recommend?
(I'm asking for post-Bible books)


----------



## Andres (Jan 18, 2010)

A Contemporary Reformed Defense of Infant Baptism by Dr. R. Scott Clark

Jesus Loves the Little Children: Why We Baptize Children by Rev. Danny Hyde 

Infant Baptism by Francis Schaeffer 

The first two gentleman are members here on the PB.


----------



## ClayPot (Jan 18, 2010)

Coming from someone who is not yet convinced about covenant baptism but who is studying the issue, I don't think many would make the argument that way.

The sign of circumcision wasn't given to the nation of Israel but to the children of Abraham, who is the father of many nations. The sign later became identified with the nation of Israel but that was not the original intention. Also, circumcision is not equal to baptism. Both were covenant signs and there are similarities.

The argument I have heard recently relies on the raw data of Scripture. It looks at the raw data regarding baptism from the OT and NT and then draws inference from that. Baptism signifies cleansing, discipleship, and identification. We see the covenant sign given to households in the OT and households in the NT. We see promises given to households in the OT and households in the NT.

This is a poor summary, but hopefully it gives you a few things to think about. You might consider listening to William Shishko's series on Christian Baptism on SermonAudio. It has been very informative. He is a pastor in the OPC and argues for oikobaptism (household baptism), which is similar to paedobaptism with some distinctions.


----------



## amishrockstar (Jan 18, 2010)

Thanks for all the responses. 
@ Andrew: I read what Schaeffer wrote and a little of 
Clark --I'll try to check out that other article too.

@Josh Hicks: I was using "establish" in the sense of 
establishing an argument. In other words, when we
debate issues, we often try to establish the truthfulness
or validity of a claim. I understand that paedobaptists
believe that God has "established" the "truth" of infant
baptism, and from man's perspective there are certain
things that are presupposed (established) in their minds. 
So I wasn't talking on a presuppositional level, but about
how proofs (arguments) are argued for --how they're 
established to give certainty to the reader/listener. 

@Josh F: I think that the "inference" argument is what
scares Baptists the most. Of course, Baptists make 
inferences all the time, but when it comes to doing 
something that God "commands," having an inference,
instead of an explicit N.T. statement, is a scary thing 
--I think-- for most Baptists. 

Thanks again,
Matthew


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 18, 2010)

Hi Matthew,
I think you have touched a vital point, when you observe the close connection between OT/NT, as to who is to be identified as "God's people." The issue of single-or-dual category identification is close to the center of the discussion.

I would suggest, however, that the real central issue is Who the Bible--taken as a whole--is all about. Theology that centers on Christ understands that whatever happens in redemptive history prior to his entrance on the historical stage is setting that stage. That which takes place after his ascension refers itself to promise-and-fulfillment in him Who is the focus.

The practical effect of this orientation, as it respects the people of God, is that it minimizes any _ultimate_ distinctions between them. Believers, whether they live before or after the incarnation, are only relatively distinguished; and as the Forever People, they are being gathered into one body for continuation in the escahtological context.

The Israel that existed in the past was exclusively for the purpose of bringing ISRAEL into the world. He is the vine, and we are all branches. Unless we have no connection to him. Later additions to the vine, namely Gentiles, are Israel insofar as they are connected to ISRAEL. Others (OT) who were on the vine previously were Israel only insofar as they too were connected to ISRAEL.

In other words, typological Israel (OT or NT) is only possessed of a real identity, if faith has united him to the antitype, Christ. So, the question really does come down to whether or not there are ONE or TWO ways whereby anyone in history relates to God. And if there is only one way, then temporary and typological distinctions (such as separated one national identity from the rest of the world's populations) are subject to removal, once the purpose for those separations has been realized. So Paul writes, the middle wall of separation has been broken down, permanently. Furthermore, the OT stands and remains just as authoritative to our faith and practice as the NT, accepting the priority of later revelation for modifying our Faith expression.

But, the question is legitimate, Is there no continuing "mark of distinction" between church and world? We say that indeed there is: the sacraments of the church, of which the first by external mark of initiation is the water of baptism.

I don't agree that there must be an "equality" in a _comprehensive_ sense between the signs of circumcision and baptism. There are certain differences or changes that their positional attitudes toward Christ quite properly reflect. I think there can be shown an equality in an _essential_ sense between both signs of initiation, and this reflects what we call unity in the whole covenant of grace.

Abraham received his sign as indicative of his faith, which Paul declares to be the same faith (same quality, same object) that saves believers today. We are his children because we share his faith. Genesis 17 is the only place, OT or NT, which explicitly *identifies* and *limits* the recipients of the sign of initiation into covenant relationship with God. So goes our reasoning, absent new instructions or modifications, visible covenant membership is defined the same way as it was previously.

To me, this is quite different from an inference. On the contrary, it appears eminently inferential to argue from a few particular (and unambiguous) instances and examples in the NT, that only those whose example we agree upon ARE the "new instructions." So, the idea that we need (and don't have) a comparable NT "statement" to Gen.17 reflects the principle that the fundamental reference point of the OT is national Israel, and not the Christ of Scripture.

If the whole Bible is a single revelation (given in historic installments), then we don't need another Gen.17; we only need NT qualifications and modifications. And those should be spelled out with just the kind of clarity that we have in Gen.17. By comparison, note the institution of Jesus' changes in the covenant meal (the night before he died), and Paul's didactic explication of the same (apostolic teaching) in 1Cor.11; the level of detail is equivalent to Ex.12, particularly the Passover _memorial _institution.

Notice I am not saying that the NT doesn't inform our practice, or that we are reading the OT without NT light. What I am _denying_ is 1) that the OT alone is directing us, and 2) that the OT cannot give us any primary instruction in doctrine and practice.

I hope this is helpful.


----------



## MW (Jan 18, 2010)

It is not only infant membership in the OT church which is as clear as crystal. EVERY REFERENCE TO CHILDREN OF BELIEVERS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT TREATS THEM AS MEMBERS OF THE COVENANT OF GRACE. "Suffer the little children to come unto me." "The promise is to you and your children." "Now are your children holy." "Bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." Accompanied with the repeated reference to household baptisms as a normal practice such language used with reference to believers' children gives a positive, explicit mandate to continue receiving the children of believers into the New Testament church. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT TO SUGGEST THAT CHILDREN OF BELIEVERS OUGHT TO BE EXCOMMUNICATED. The antipaedobaptist fabricates that evidence on the basis of a theological construct in which new covenant membership is unwarrantably applied to elect individuals alone. He then sets about to explain away (1.) the continuity of membership in the covenant of grace, (2.) the New Testament references to infant inclusion, (3.) the normal practice of household baptism, and (4.) the reality of admonition and apostasy in the new covenant. To which is added, (5.) a Pelagian or hyperCalvinist view of the salvation of infants.


----------



## amishrockstar (Jan 18, 2010)

Thanks again for the posts. 
@Rev. Buchanan: "Yes," I found your post helpful, 
but I also had some problems following some of the
statements. Are you able to put your argument into 
a syllogism for me?

@Rev. Winzer: I agree that infant membership in the O.T. 
"church" is clear as crystal. But I can't say that I agree 
with the idea that the children of believers are automatically 
in the Covenant of Grace because I don't believe that
O.T. children were in the Covenant of Grace (CofG) simply
by being a part of Israel. In other words, I understand the 
CofG as referring to a salvific covenant (those who are in it 
are saved or are being saved). So, not everyone in the 
covenant community were part of the CofG. 

Of course, one can be a Baptist and still believe that
God saves children --I don't see that as being an issue. 
I know tons of Baptist who believe that. 

There is one question that sticks out, and I'm sure you've
heard it before, in regards to the quote from 1 Cor. 7:14. 
What do you do with the unbelieving wife?
In other words, the text says that the unbelieving wife
is "sanctified" by her husband (as the children are 
made "holy") --the words seem to be from the same root.
Would you say that the unbelieving wife is in the CofG?

Thanks again,
Matthew


----------



## MW (Jan 18, 2010)

amishrockstar said:


> In other words, I understand the
> CofG as referring to a salvific covenant (those who are in it
> are saved or are being saved). So, not everyone in the
> covenant community were part of the CofG.



Paul refers to his "kinsmen according to the flesh," Rom. 9:3, as ones "to whom pertaineth ... the covenants ... and the promises." Election certainly narrows down who are the true Israel, but that does not mean the covenant promise pertained to any less than the covenant community. To restrict the covenant of grace to the eternal election is to deny that God manifests election through the historical administration of his covenant. This creates a house with no door because it means there would be no entrance point into a state of salvation for the true Israel.



amishrockstar said:


> Of course, one can be a Baptist and still believe that
> God saves children --I don't see that as being an issue.
> I know tons of Baptist who believe that.



Yes, and liberal theologians believe there is salvation for souls that have never heard the gospel. The question is, How are children saved? Various antipaedobaptists explain it in terms of Pelagianism and the original innocence of children. Others have recourse to hyperCalvinism and claim infants are saved by election alone. Such a belief is contrary to all Scripture, which teaches that salvation is an historical manifestation.



amishrockstar said:


> There is one question that sticks out, and I'm sure you've
> heard it before, in regards to the quote from 1 Cor. 7:14.
> What do you do with the unbelieving wife?
> In other words, the text says that the unbelieving wife
> ...



Verse 14 provides an argument to explain the assertion in verses 12, 13, that believers should not leave unbelieving spouses. The text explicitly subordinates the sanctification of the unbelieving spouse to the purpose of making children "holy." It is therefore a marital sanctification that exists for the ceremonial sanctification of children. The believing parent would have had no such concern to begin with if an antipaedobaptist state of affairs had have existed.


----------



## pepper (Jan 21, 2010)

I just have one question for paedobaptist, If baptism is the same symbol as circumcision then when do paedobaptist baptize female infantants? And if it is absolutely required for being in the covenant of grace why were the women left out in circumcision, for we know that women can be circumcisied because some primitive peoples do it today.

---------- Post added at 01:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:01 PM ----------

As far as infants dying in infancy the 1689 is my standard: "Infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word." London Baptist Confession of Faith 1689, Chapter 10.3.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 21, 2010)

pepper said:


> I just have one question for paedobaptist, If baptism is the same symbol as circumcision then when do paedobaptist baptize female infantants? And if it is absolutely required for being in the covenant of grace why were the women left out in circumcision, for we know that women can be circumcisied because some primitive peoples do it today.


 
Who believes that baptism is the same symbol as circumcision?


----------



## alb1 (Jan 21, 2010)

Being a former Southern Baptist myself, I had some of the same questions as Pepper. First of all, God was the one who gave the commandment to Abraham to circumsise males only though the covenant was for Abraham and all his descendents. You can't add to what God commands. What is interesting is that Abraham was told to circumsise all the males in his household. Go to Acts in the New Testament, in Chapter 16 we find the account of the conversion of Lydia. Here we have a woman who was brought into the new covenant. She was baptized along with all in her household. In the old covenant only males received the sign, in the new covenant males and females receive the sign. In both covenants the sign of the covenant was administered to all in their households. In both cases the sign indicated/ indicates households that were/are set apart and identified with God. In both cases, household identification did/does not impart individual salvation. Just as the baptism of an individual does not guarantee the individual is truly regenerated. The real task at hand is for all to proclaim the gospel so that men and women may truly be reconciled to God through Christ. Some receiving the sign before and some receiving the sign after their reconciliation, but all enjoying the grace and mercy of our wonderful Lord.


----------



## pepper (Jan 22, 2010)

You clearly have not read the 1689 London Confession, Chapter 10.3 states exactly what I quoted. "Infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit..." While I am sure they believed that the foundation of that salvation was election, they do not state it that way.

---------- Post added at 08:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:38 AM ----------

A sign must signify something or it is meaningless. If it signifies being in covenant, and the one under the sign is not in the covenant, then it does not make any sense. It becomes meaningless. In requiring faith in Christ prior to baptism from the person then, as all examples in Scripture indicate, then it becomes a better signification.

---------- Post added at 09:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:47 AM ----------

Sorry, my copy of the 1689 has a miss print in the text I quoted. 10.3 should read "elect infants".


----------



## Prufrock (Jan 22, 2010)

Pepper, we *don't* that baptism means "this person is in the covenant internally (i.e., has a saving interest in Christ," so that whole objection is moot. We maintain that it is the objective sign of the covenant, and that it seals Christ and his benefits *to the believer.* It is never a sign which says anything objectively about the person receiving it with respect to internal reality.


----------



## alb1 (Jan 22, 2010)

In my personal experience, as a teen growing up in the SBC (Arminian), you were expected and pressured to make a public profession of faith and be baptized during your teen years. Teen baptism as opposed to infant baptism. I had watched much older siblings who had gone through the process walk away God and the church upon moving out on their own. I was told that when God entered your heart you would be a changed person and I knew I was not changed. So I refused to be a conformist and "join the church" because others were pressuring me. In my early twenties God changed my heart, I made a profession of faith and was baptized. I witnessed countless times in the Baptist church when adults were rebaptized because they said they were not really saved when they were baptized at an early age.

The meaning of the sign is not dependant upon the one receiving the sign, the meaning is dependant upon the working of God in the heart of the one who receives the sign.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jan 22, 2010)

The premise that infant baptism needs to be established begs the question, i.e., it assumes what is in doubt.

It's true that most of the early church fathers, medieval theologians, and all the magisterial Reformers believed that national Israel was the church under the Mosaic or old covenant (see 2 Cor 3; Heb 7-10; Gal 3-4). On this theme see:

Westminster Seminary California clark

Strictly speaking, however, you've begun too late. Abraham was not an "old covenant" figure and infant baptism is rooted in the covenant promise to Abraham (Gen 17), who is treated consistently in the NT as sort of new covenant figure before time. Abraham is the father of all believers (Rom 4). Paul distinguished him clearly from Moses (Gal 3-4). The promises made to Abraham are not "fading" and "obsolete" as the covenant with Moses.

Abraham was Not Moses Heidelblog

On circumcision and baptism, the connection is the cross and death (Col 2:11-12). When Paul thinks of circumcision he thinks of death. Circumcision was a ritual death. It was a type and shadow (Hebrews) pointing forward to the circumcision of Christ, for us, on the cross, when he was cut off for us outside the city walls (Hebrews 13), when all the Mosaic codes were nailed to the cross (Col). Circumcision makes him think of the cross and the cross makes him think of baptism, an unbloody, ritual death which is retrospective. It looks back to the reality of Christ's death. In both cases, circumcision and baptism, the recipient is identified (not united to, contra the FV) with Christ's death. Those who believe receive what the sign/seal promises. Those who believe are elect, but the promise is administered in redemptive history to both those who believe and to those don't believe because the visible church is always a mixed assembly. Nothing about the new covenant, even though it is superior to the Mosaic/old covenant (Jer 31) changes that (Rom 2:28). Thus, in Paul's mind, the prospective sign/seal of circumcision is linked to the retrospective sign/seal of baptism because they refer to the same thing. They are linked conceptually. Why? Paul wasn't a baptist. Neither was Peter. It's in this conceptual world that Peter said "the promise is to you and to your children" (Acts 2:39) repeating almost verbatim the promise to Abraham (Gen 17).

Here are some resources:

Online Resources on Infant-Baptism Heidelblog

Here's a revised/expanded version of this post:

http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/22/circumcision-and-baptism/


----------



## Particular Baptist (Jan 22, 2010)

"Pepper, we *don't* that baptism means "this person is in the covenant," so that whole objection is moot. We maintain that it is the objective sign of the covenant, and that it seals Christ and his benefits *to the believer.* It is never a sign which says anything objectively about each person receiving it." Paul here seems to say something that the Bible does not, and that is that the sign of baptism is "the objective sign of the covenant". Where does he draw such an inference? Baptism is the first act of obediance for the Christian. It seems that for many in the Reformed camp they seem to wish to distinguish between faith and works that they don't realize that the two go together and cannot be separated. The scriptures nowhere point to the fact that baptism is to be given objectively. 

Also, we cannot say that the question about circumcising females "just serves as a distraction from the real subject" because it is a legitimate question to ask the paedobaptist. If they wish to be true to their hermeneutic they would insert the term 'baptize' for 'circumcise' all throughout Genesis 17. The paedobaptist would also have to say that if slavery to were exist, the male slaves should be circumcised because that's what God told Abraham to do in Genesis 17. The paedobaptist would have us believe that these two dispensations of the covenant are the same except on the points of slaves and women recieving the sign, but then where has the hermeneutic gone? You cannot say that this part of the covenant applied to Abraham and us (infants), another part applied just to him (slaves and just males), and this New Covenant part just applies to the present believers (no slaves but both male and female infants). 

For those of you who believe that the church is the continuation of Israel you logically would have to insert the term baptize where circumcise is in Genesis 17. But, if you believe that Israel was a shadow of the church, the true Israel of God, the elect, and you believe that circumcision was a shadow of what baptism would become, then why can't you say that the administration of the sign of circumcision was simply a shadow of the way it is spiritually given to the elect? If you say that "You can't add to what God commands" then why do you say that God commanded us to give the sign of baptism to infant? The Bible nowhere states that the sign is to be administered in the same way that circumcision was given. 

My personal opinion is that circumcision has it's fullfillment in Christ. When we are regenerated, Christ's righteousness is substituted for our righteousness. Everything he did is judicially seen as being applied to us. I firmly believe that the covenant of circumcision still must be in place because it was deemed as an everlasting covenant, therefore there can be no alteration of the sign."Circumcision... is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision" (Romans 2:25). No one has ever been able to keep the law other than Christ, therefore HIS circumcision is of value. The physical circumcision he recieved had meaning because he was able to keep and fulfill the law. Therefore, by faith in him we recieve the sign of circumcision without hands, because we are regarded as righteous as Christ, judicially. Baptism represents our baptism into Christ which in turn represents our adoption as sons of Abraham and therefore sons of God.


----------



## Prufrock (Jan 22, 2010)

Pepper, I wrote my previous post in haste and it has been brought to my attention that I thereby used ambiguous language which is open to much confusion. For that I apologize.

We do not teach that Baptism is an objective seal of Christ to any subject receiving it; that is, baptism does not testify that the person being sprinkled has the internal reality of the covenant. Rather it is a seal to the one receiving it by faith, and a sign of the objective promise of God. Also, it is the means whereby all those covenant with God (professors and their seed) are received into the external communion of the church, or the visible covenant. So for the Reformed, baptism is not meaningless simply because all receiving it are not partakers of the internal reality of the covenant -- for such was never its intent. I hope this clarifies.


----------



## Iconoclast (Jan 22, 2010)

> Paul refers to his "kinsmen according to the flesh," Rom. 9:3, as ones "to whom pertaineth ... the covenants ... and the promises." Election certainly narrows down who are the true Israel, but that does not mean the covenant promise pertained to any less than the covenant community. To restrict the covenant of grace to the eternal election is to deny that God manifests election through the historical administration of his covenant. This creates a house with no door because it means there would be no entrance point into a state of salvation for the true Israel.



Hello Matthew,
I like this imagery you used here of the house with no door. It is a helpful image in that each view can use it ...with some modifications. In easily fits your ecclesiastical model and helps in very simple terms to portray many ideas in simple fashion.
What you see as a restriction of the COG/ could be viewed by some as the newness of how the
covenant is administered now,ie, Christ Himself as the Door, entrance and covenant inclusion by new
birth alone.[ finding fault with them]
The old covenant house with its physical "door" let people in, and let them go out to. The new covenant house has a one way entrance into the door where all who enter in by the strait gate are kept by the home-owner, who invites, and draws them to come.
The OC house served a purpose and serves as a warning to those who look to the NC house
Hebrews 3:1-6.


----------



## MW (Jan 22, 2010)

Iconoclast said:


> The old covenant house with its physical "door" let people in, and let them go out to. The new covenant house has a one way entrance into the door where all who enter in by the strait gate are kept by the home-owner, who invites, and draws them to come.


 
Anthony, I know you know that the OT elders entered into their state of salvation by the same door as we do -- Jesus Christ; and that Jesus Christ invited, drew, and kept them in the same covenant love in which He invites, draws, and keeps believers under the New Testament. Your extended analogy simply won't work. You are confusing the substance of the covenant with its administration.


----------



## Iconoclast (Jan 23, 2010)

Matthew,
Yes. The OT elders who looked forward by a God given faith obtained the substance


> Hebrews 11
> 1Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
> 
> 2For by it the elders obtained a good report





> 39And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
> 
> 40God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.


 Nevertheless these saints were spoken of as a remnant, a residue, an elect remnant. The concept of the*elect remnant*is almost always linked to Ot Israelites who were part of *The Israel of God*. Not just "elect" but an elect remnant. Many or most did not enter in.....correct?
I do not see the same language of a NT. remnant described if the administration is virtually the same with a few upgrades.
It seems that we go directly to the substance now, the same substance but with a new paradigm. Although election is mentioned in the NT, I do not see this idea of a NT.remnant as much as I see a conquering church called out and impowered to serve by the Spirit, not included in the flesh and hope that they catch on later. This continues to be where I better understand your viewpoint, but I do not see the covenant as beinging breakable now as it was in the shadow of the OT administration.
I do not think it is a confusion of


> the substance of the covenant with its administration.


 I think it is administered differently now.



> 20And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
> 
> 21And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.


 Here in Acts 21 indicates what the Jews understood of the Apostles teaching, both about law keeping, and circumcising their children. This seems to be clearly a different model. There is no indication that they were saying or thinking that a new "sign" of covenant inclusion was to be given to children, unless they too believed.
Even Mt 18 speaks of children who *believed in me*in verse 5-6. What happened by physical birth and law in the OT.house seems as if it was changed in Acts 15 and this change was reacted against in Acts 21.
To say that children are *in covenant with God*but not necessarily savingly is a disturbing idea to me. That is why we are told that God preserved the remnant savingly, Isa 1:9 in the OT. Where is a Nt. reference thats speaks of this same concept of only a preserved Remnant, rather than all the blood brought body of Christ believing now?
The overcomer passages in REV.2-3 speak of the elect. Paul speaks of enduring all things for the elects sake, yet not a remnant but all who call upon Him in truth. 1 Cor 10 and Hebrews 3-4 are the closest to it that I can think of in that we are told we are linked to those OT saints before us.You have pointed this out to me before and said to think corporate rather than individual.


> 1Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.
> 
> 2For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
> 
> 3For we which have believed do enter into rest


 We do enter into His rest is substance. Those who believe. 


> 18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.


 saving belief alone brings the substance, lack of belief leaves a person in Adam already condemned.
It is not the knowledge of a promise that exists for those who believe, but the actual *believing *by Divine enablement of the individual. I just cannot shake this idea because of Jn 6:37-44. I do not see where the COR and the CoG differ here in the NT. That is the newness of it, unlike the OC administration. They are not identicalOC/NC administration.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 23, 2010)

I have been laying low lately. If you want to discourse seriously with a Reformed Baptist, I am sure some will speak up here. I am not going to right now. You can email me. If you have questions. I think I can seriously answer your questions. You can also Private message me.


----------



## Kaalvenist (Jan 23, 2010)

amishrockstar said:


> I've done a little research on paedobaptism and it seems that
> in order to "prove" infant baptism there needs to first be an
> establishment of the idea that the O.T. nation of Israel _equals_
> the N.T. church; also, an establishment of circumcision _equalling_
> ...


I would disagree. Our position rests upon the idea that the Old Testament _*church*_ of Israel (as distinguished from the *nation* of Israel) continues on into the New Testament, of which church we are members; and upon the identity in meaning (both spiritual and ecclesiastical) and efficacy of circumcision and baptism, though the two as rites are distinct. I don't think it is helpful to the discussion to use a broad-brushed term like "equals," when Paedobaptists will start pointing to the ways in which they are similar, and Anti-Paedobaptists will point to the ways in which they are different. Obviously we believe in some degree of change between Old and New Testaments... the question at issue is not whether there is any change, but the nature of that change. We simply believe that the Bible nowhere indicates that the membership of the church has changed, or that the essential meaning of the sacraments have changed.


----------



## Particular Baptist (Jan 25, 2010)

Sean, I must say that I heartily disagree with you when you state “we simply believe that the Bible nowhere indicates that the membership of the church has changed”. When you make an assertion that the “membership of the church” hasn’t changed you are right in regards to the invisible church, but in relation to the visible church you yourself would say that membership is different because, if slavery were to exist, I’m sure you would not practice infant slavery baptism. Once again, I bring up this issue because it is one that paedobaptists do not like to discuss, or they wouldn’t call it simply a distraction. Where is the abrogation of the baptism of slaves or servants? 
Another thing that has always bothered me about the baptism issue is the fact that the Abraham Covenant itself says that it is “everlasting”, it never ends. How can we say that an everlasting covenant is everlasting in substance but not in the sign accompanying it? I think we do the Bible injustice if we begin separating the Abrahamic Covenant up between sign and substance and then believe that we keep the substance intact but change the sign and the way it was given out. The scriptures are done much violence if that is how we handle them. As I have stated above, it is my opinion that the Abrahamic Covenant has only one seed (Galatians 3:16) which is Christ. Therefore, if we hope to gain the ultimate blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant, we must be in Christ. But, Christ still had to fulfill the ‘sign’ portion of the Abrahamic Covenant, since he is the only true Seed, therefore he was circumcised (Luke 2:21). This idea, that Christ is the only Seed of Abraham is furthered when Paul states in Romans that no one’s circumcision is of value if they break the law, only Christ’s circumcision ‘counts’ because he is the Seed and he never broke the law, he fulfilled it. Therefore, since the only true Seed of Abrahamic Covenant was Christ, the covenant is fulfilled both sign and substance. How can we look to the Abrahamic Covenant for how to administer the New Testament sign of baptism when Christ fulfilled the sign? For if the sign has not been fulfilled then how do we abrogate it? This is the beauty of the wisdom of God!! The sign of circumcision was given to a people, ethnic Israel, who were the shadow of the substance of the kingdom of God and those in it, the true Israel of God. How can we take up the shadow when the substance, the Seed which is Christ, has shown himself to the world?


----------



## Scott1 (Jan 25, 2010)

This won't answer your question entirely but may be helpful in understanding why infants are baptized.

The idea of continuity (of God's plan for redemption) is strong in covenant theology, and Israel as an Old Testament theocracy is referred to in the Westminster Standards as "a church under age." That reflects both the continuity of redemption through Christ and our continuity as believers with them.

The Scripture proofs for the highlighted section might be helpful in understanding this. Notice passages are from both the Old and New Testaments.



> Westminster Confession of Faith
> 
> Chapter XXVIII
> Of Baptism
> ...






> Scripture proofs
> 
> [12] GEN 17:7 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. 9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. GAL 3:9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. 14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. COL 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 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. ACT 2:38 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. 39 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. ROM 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: 12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. 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. MAT 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. MAR 10:13 And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. 14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. 15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. 16 And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them. LUK 18:15 And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 27, 2010)

Particular Baptist said:


> Sean, I must say that I heartily disagree with you when you state “we simply believe that the Bible nowhere indicates that the membership of the church has changed”. When you make an assertion that the “membership of the church” hasn’t changed you are right in regards to the invisible church, but in relation to the visible church you yourself would say that membership is different because, if slavery were to exist, I’m sure you would not practice infant slavery baptism.


Brother,
With all due respect, the objection you raise is entirely red-herring. It is an utter waste of time to bring up hypothetical situations that do not and cannot apply to the present situation, and then propose that the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the answer is contingent on providing a solution that you would not find objectionable.

If I turned the issue around on you, and proposed a situation where in the current social or ecclesial context immersion seemed both systematically _required _and _unacceptable_ (for any reason), somehow I doubt whether that would have the slightest bearing on whether or not you believed in its appropriateness.

Now as for dealing with the issue itself: if I was living anachronistically in a different time and place, where for some reason servitude was the norm, and households were defined as they once were 2000 years and more ago, then YES, absolutely--given the paedo-baptist position, that is that we believe that households are *required to be* baptized, then the slave-born would needs be baptized, as the same were circumcised in the OT.

I have no idea what sort of amateur-theologians you are accustomed to dealing with, from whom you have never been able to get a straightforward answer to this question. But there you go, from a confessional presbyterian minister.

If there is a problem with giving you an answer, it has everything to do with the fluid dynamics of human social institutions, and nothing whatever to do with the clarity of biblical revelation on the issue. Who wishes to be placed in a position where he is asked basically to "rule" on a "hard-case" which is wholly hypothetical? As if it would make any difference to the one putting the question, neither who himself has a care regarding the answer. _*Does my response to you make any difference in your thinking?*_ If not, then all I've done is popped that distracting balloon, and you can get off that topic, and focus on the true issues.



Particular Baptist said:


> Once again, I bring up this issue because it is one that paedobaptists do not like to discuss, or they wouldn’t call it simply a distraction. Where is the abrogation of the baptism of slaves or servants?


No, it IS a distraction, for the reasons I pointed out above. And besides, you are just wrong (as pointed out) as to why we call it a distraction, as well as the accusation that we don't have an answer. If we had servant-households as the ancient world had them, and we _didn't_ baptize them, then I guess you'd have a valid objection.




Particular Baptist said:


> Another thing that has always bothered me about the baptism issue is the fact that the Abraham Covenant itself says that it is “everlasting”, it never ends. How can we say that an everlasting covenant is everlasting in substance but not in the sign accompanying it? I think we do the Bible injustice if we begin separating the Abrahamic Covenant up between sign and substance and then believe that we keep the substance intact but change the sign and the way it was given out. The scriptures are done much violence if that is how we handle them. As I have stated above, it is my opinion that the Abrahamic Covenant has only one seed (Galatians 3:16) which is Christ. Therefore, if we hope to gain the ultimate blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant, we must be in Christ. But, Christ still had to fulfill the ‘sign’ portion of the Abrahamic Covenant, since he is the only true Seed, therefore he was circumcised (Luke 2:21). This idea, that Christ is the only Seed of Abraham is furthered when Paul states in Romans that no one’s circumcision is of value if they break the law, only Christ’s circumcision ‘counts’ because he is the Seed and he never broke the law, he fulfilled it. Therefore, since the only true Seed of Abrahamic Covenant was Christ, the covenant is fulfilled both sign and substance. How can we look to the Abrahamic Covenant for how to administer the New Testament sign of baptism when Christ fulfilled the sign? For if the sign has not been fulfilled then how do we abrogate it? This is the beauty of the wisdom of God!! The sign of circumcision was given to a people, ethnic Israel, who were the shadow of the substance of the kingdom of God and those in it, the true Israel of God. How can we take up the shadow when the substance, the Seed which is Christ, has shown himself to the world?


1) You obviously have a very different understanding about Paul's argument in Gal (and Rom) than we have. Paul argues that we are in covenant with Abraham, who share his religious faith. Ergo, we are participants in the covenant God makes with him. The only question now is, "How am I a participant in the covenant God makes with Abraham?"

2) You apparently so closely tie in union the sign and the thing signified that there is no room between them. This is a major problem for you, since you also have a covenant and a sign of it, baptism. Under your own rubric then, everyone who has been baptized is _de facto_ in the covenant with Christ. But you know this is not the case. So then, how can you so fuse the sign and the signification under the OT, such that the one is indelibly assigned to the other in substance? You won't admit that of the New Covenant, where you almost casually distinguish between a Spirit-baptism and water baptism. Does the one point to the other or not? Sure, baptism is supposed to point to Christ, but then often in experience it does not. Ergo, the substance and and sign are properly distinguishable.

3) Of course, I understand that then you must "desacralize" Abraham's covenant. So how is it "resacralized" in Gal? Pure typology, I guess. Well, as I pointed out, that's not how we understand our relation to it. No, but we are "in" that covenant. The "New" Covenant is new relative to Moses (properly the "Old") but not to Abraham. "The promise given 430 years prior *cannot* be disannuled." It is properly "New" further in that the fulfilling presence of the Mediator creates its own demand for a new governmental administration. In much the same way, the new U.S. administration (in 1776 and then again in 1787) instituted a new government, while not undoing the substance of the English tradition that formed the basis for (and markedly distinct from superficially similar but substantively different truly, radical, revolutionary upheaval, e.g. France).

4) It is quite clear from what you write above that you attempt baptism on the basis of election. As if professions got you closer to "spiritual reality". Ergo, you baptize WHOM on a presumption (there's no dispute that Mt.28:19 is a command TO baptize). Now I understand that you also believe you baptize particular persons on the basis of an implicit command, however you lack any sort of corresponding NT direction to the explicit instructions given to Abraham. You may disagree with the fact that we note an explicit connection between baptism and circumcision (most plainly expressed in Col.2:11-12), but this means that for us: ALL our baptisms are done according to explicit commandment--to believers (on the basis of profession) and their offspring. The only thing we admit of "implication" in our practice is that infants are an obvious inclusion in the examples (given the biblical treatment of "household"), on the principle that whole households were baptized in the NT, on the testimony of the faith of a single one.

5) Naturally, we understand that the "seed" of Abraham is ultimately "one", namely Christ. But that fact didn't prevent Abraham from obeying the command of God, and circumcising his whole house a full year before the promised line (in Isaac) was born. Therefore, everyone who was circumcised that day (excepting Abraham) was most certainly NOT even potentially direct to the genetic line of Messiah. Yet, they were being constituted into the visible church, and those who received the sign were _supposed to _adhere holily to the faith the sign represented.

But, again I understand you think all that business was radically typological. How then you might conceive that we have the same religion as Abraham, I'm not sure. Christ fulfilled Abraham's sacrifices and all his religious devotion--prayers, prophecy (proclamation), sacrifices. Does that mean that we do not practice religion? All of his activity was centered on Christ and fulfilled in Christ, assuming we have the same religion as he had. So then, why do we do any of our service? Since figurative service is all fulfilled! Is baptism a figure? Is the Lord's Supper a figure?

Surely, we must admit of some kind of substantive continuity between Abraham's display of religion and ours; and if so then the proposition that aspects of our service have definite correlates to aspects of his (or any OT figure) is by no means a radical one.


----------



## Particular Baptist (Jan 28, 2010)

Rev. Buchanan,

Thank you for replying back to my post. I hope that maybe that I can more fully explain my own position so as to not be as ambigous as last time. 

Your statement:

“Now as for dealing with the issue itself: if I was living anachronistically in a different time and place, where for some reason servitude was the norm, and households were defined as they once were 2000 years and more ago, then YES, absolutely--given the paedo-baptist position, that is that we believe that households are required to be baptized, then the slave-born would needs be baptized, as the same were circumcised in the OT.”

My Reply:

1.) In the New Testament (where the sign and administration of baptism are shown), where do you see that ANY apostle or Christ commands believers to baptize their whole households? What scriptural basis do you have for saying that baptism is to be administered to households? 

2.) In the four instances of household baptisms in the Bible {Cornelius (Acts 10), Lydia (Acts 16), the Philippian jailor (Acts 16), Stephanas (I Corinthians 1)}, there is not one mention of infants in those households. “All Cornelius' house gathered to hear Peter's preaching. The Holy Ghost fell upon all--they all received the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit. Then, all were baptized. Paul first preached to the jailor's household. Then, all were baptized. After the baptism, all rejoiced believing in God. Hearing the Word and believing upon that preaching can scarcely be attributed to infants. No doubt, the same pattern adhered to other cases of household baptisms. In Lydia’s case, there is the most doubt that a woman in business would be nursing an infant. The Bible does not tell us she had a husband, let alone children. Infant baptism can be found here only by those most anxious to do so”. –Walter Chantry, Baptism and Covenant Theology Baptist and Covenant Theology, Walter J. Chantry | The Reformed Reader

3.) How do we reconcile the baptism of households with the fact that Jesus said "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.” (Matthew 10:34-39) Those are Christ’s own words, not mine, and I cannot reconcile the paedobaptist belief that baptism is to be for a believer and their offspring when Christ himself said that “a person’s enemies will be those of his own household”. Again, one must do much violence to scripture if you can fit the paedobaptist view of the baptism of households and reconcile that with other scripture.

4.) I must say, that I don’t believe that the Holy Spirit never works in a way that a whole household comes to faith, but I do not believe that that is the norm. I refuse to say that whole households will never be saved because to do so would be against the word of God. While at the same time, I refuse to say that baptism is to be given to a whole household when some of those cannot make a profession of faith. 

You're Statement:

“1) You obviously have a very different understanding about Paul's argument in Gal (and Rom) than we have. Paul argues that we are in covenant with Abraham, who share his religious faith. Ergo, we are participants in the covenant God makes with him. The only question now is, "How am I a participant in the covenant God makes with Abraham?"

My Reply:

1.) I would agree that the question is “How am I a participant in the covenant God makes with Abraham?” is the correct inquiry to be made, here we have agreement. Perhaps I did not make myself clear in the fact that I do believe that the church is organized under the Abrahamic covenant’s blessings, I do concur with you in this, and I do apologize for my ambiguousness on the matter. 
2.) Now to the question itself “How am I a participant in the covenant God makes with Abraham?” The only answer of course is believing in Christ by faith. We both agree here, just as Abraham (and the elect of all ages) are saved by faith so are we presently. The seemingly small difference is the fact that I believe that Christ is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant. Christ is the Seed!! I know we both know Galations 3:16 (Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, "And to offsprings," referring to many, but referring to one, "And to your offspring," who is Christ.) so here is how I interpret what Paul is stating. The promises that we see in the Abrahamic Covenant were given to Abraham and his offspring or seed, simple enough. So, the promises are ONLY to Abraham and the seed, there are no exceptions that Paul gives the reader. Next, he quotes Genesis 12:7 in saying that it does not say “offsprings” but to one “offspring”. And lastly, he tells the reader who that offspring is, Christ! Now, in interpreting this passage, I understand it to mean that only Christ (and thus those whom Christ has made one with himself) were meant to be the offspring. 

3.) Moving on to Galatians 3:18-19, Paul states “For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise. Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary.” I quote this because of the way in which Paul states that the law “was added… until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made”. When was the law fulfilled? When Christ came, he fulfilled the law! The law and scripture “imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe” (Galatians 3:22). One thing I would like to point out is that the law bound everyone under sin so that “the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given those who believe”. Since the offspring has come, the promise is made only to those who believe. 

I know that paedobaptists agree with me wholeheartedly when I point this out. Of course we all believe that only those who come to faith in Christ are given the promise, there is no discrepancy between paedobaptists brethren and myself. The small difference is that I view the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant in Christ as fulfilling the sign of circumcision because he fulfilled the Covenant of works, the law. His circumcision, and only his circumcision, is of value because he fulfilled the law on our behalf (Romans 2:25). It is my conviction, that Christ entered into this covenant on our behalf because our circumcision could never have been of value, he fulfilled the covenant! 

4.) In conclusion, I would ask any paedobaptist how they fit themselves into the covenant of circumcision when Christ (who is the only seed) fulfilled that covenant? 

Your Statement:

“2) You apparently so closely tie in union the sign and the thing signified that there is no room between them. This is a major problem for you, since you also have a covenant and a sign of it, baptism. Under your own rubric then, everyone who has been baptized is de facto in the covenant with Christ. But you know this is not the case. So then, how can you so fuse the sign and the signification under the OT, such that the one is indelibly assigned to the other in substance? You won't admit that of the New Covenant, where you almost casually distinguish between a Spirit-baptism and water baptism. Does the one point to the other or not? Sure, baptism is supposed to point to Christ, but then often in experience it does not. Ergo, the substance and and sign are properly distinguishable.

3) Of course, I understand that then you must "desacralize" Abraham's covenant. So how is it "resacralized" in Gal? Pure typology, I guess. Well, as I pointed out, that's not how we understand our relation to it. No, but we are "in" that covenant. The "New" Covenant is new relative to Moses (properly the "Old") but not to Abraham. "The promise given 430 years prior cannot be disannuled." It is properly "New" further in that the fulfilling presence of the Mediator creates its own demand for a new governmental administration. In much the same way, the new U.S. administration (in 1776 and then again in 1787) instituted a new government, while not undoing the substance of the English tradition that formed the basis for (and markedly distinct from superficially similar but substantively different truly, radical, revolutionary upheaval, e.g. France).
4) It is quite clear from what you write above that you attempt baptism on the basis of election. As if professions got you closer to "spiritual reality". Ergo, you baptize WHOM on a presumption (there's no dispute that Mt.28:19 is a command TO baptize). Now I understand that you also believe you baptize particular persons on the basis of an implicit command, however you lack any sort of corresponding NT direction to the explicit instructions given to Abraham. You may disagree with the fact that we note an explicit connection between baptism and circumcision (most plainly expressed in Col.2:11-12), but this means that for us: ALL our baptisms are done according to explicit commandment--to believers (on the basis of profession) and their offspring. The only thing we admit of "implication" in our practice is that infants are an obvious inclusion in the examples (given the biblical treatment of "household"), on the principle that whole households were baptized in the NT, on the testimony of the faith of a single one.”

My Reply:

1.) Rev. Buchanan, here you state that I “closely tie in union the sign and the thing signified that there is no room between them”. The first thing I would point out is that I never once stated my position on the link between the sign of baptism and the thing signified. My post was simply to discuss how I believe that to base a paedobaptistic view off of the Abrahamic Covenant is simply to do violence to scripture. I never created my “own rubric” and never stated it either. 

2.) I do apologize for not stating my own position on baptism, since it has created much confusion, so I will state my position. Firstly, I can be properly called a credo-baptist. I believe that before one receives the sign of baptism they must first make a profession of faith. Now, you are correct in that it would be ludicrous to believe that everyone who makes a profession has been regenerated. Also, I do not, and have never, believed in baptismal regeneration. In a very true sense, I agree with you that both paedobaptist and credobaptist baptize on presumption. I do not believe that “everyone who has been baptized is de facto in the covenant with Christ”. My understanding on the nature, meaning, and administration of baptism is not rooted in the Abrahamic Covenant (since that covenant has been fulfilled) but as it is described in the New Testament and the nature of the New Covenant. And in those areas, I cannot find any way of finding infant baptism in any part of these scriptures (though I have sought long and hard to convince myself of the paedobaptist view, because I wanted the title of ‘Reformed’ in its fullest sense). I find that a profession of faith must take place before one is baptized. Therefore, I can most properly be said to believe in credo baptism rather than believer’s baptism, because I obviously believe that we can inerrantly see who is regenerated and who is not.

3.) You also stated that “Of course, I understand that then you must "desacralize" Abraham's covenant. So how is it "resacralized" in Gal? Pure typology, I guess.” Obviously, I do not believe that I’m doing what you say that I’m doing. I am not desacralizing circumcision in the OT and resacralizing it in the NT. The sign of circumcision was sacramental in the OT. It was to be given to the whole household; we see that clearly in Genesis 17. But, it is not until Christ came that Paul could look back and state that “circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision” (Romans 2:25). Every single male (other than Christ) who bore the sign of circumcision had his circumcision become uncircumcision. Even Abraham’s circumcision became uncircumcision because he could not fulfill the law. So, the sign of circumcision could only be fulfilled by the offspring, which is Christ. But, Paul alerts the reader to know that Abraham had the same faith in the offspring that we do. Abraham’s uncircumcision became circumcision by faith in the fulfillment of the promise, Christ. Therefore, the promise can be guaranteed to both Abraham and his offspring (Christ and those in Christ). 

4.) Rev. Buchanan, you also stated “The "New" Covenant is new relative to Moses (properly the "Old") but not to Abraham.”The promise given 430 years prior cannot be disannuled." I totally agree!! This is something where we can find unity!! I agree with you that the New Covenant is relative to Moses and not to Abraham. 

5.) Next, you wrote “It is quite clear from what you write above that you attempt baptism on the basis of election. As if professions got you closer to "spiritual reality". Ergo, you baptize WHOM on a presumption (there's no dispute that Mt.28:19 is a command TO baptize). Now I understand that you also believe you baptize particular persons on the basis of an implicit command, however you lack any sort of corresponding NT direction to the explicit instructions given to Abraham.” You are correct in that I, as a credobaptist, do believe that the credobaptist viewpoint in a ‘Reformed’ (if I may use the word) setting does create a ‘purer church’, that is it would have less unregenerate people in a congregation. There are many branches of Arminian credobaptists who probably would not fit in this category since they err in their belief of baptismal regeneration or antinominianism. Again, I do not believe that everyone who is baptized is a member of the elect, but I do not see scriptural basis for not even attempting to gain a profession of faith from a candidate of baptism. 
You also state that I “lack any sort of corresponding NT direction to the explicit instructions given to Abraham”. I would reply by asking you if Abraham was given the sign of baptism. To which, I would hope at least, you and I could agree that Abraham was not given the sign of baptism; he was given the sign of circumcision. You’re viewpoint says that God had to scrap the sign of circumcision and replace it with the sign of baptism. But I ask, was the substance of the covenant AND the sign which signified the covenant ever fulfilled? I say yes! And I do not find my directions for applying the sign of baptism in the Abrahamic covenant which ultimately had only one Seed because he was the only Seed who could fulfill the covenant. I find my directions for baptism in the New Testament where the actual ordinance of baptism was given and where the administration was practiced, not the Abrahamic Covenant which has already been fulfilled.

6.) “You may disagree with the fact that we note an explicit connection between baptism and circumcision (most plainly expressed in Col.2:11-12), but this means that for us: ALL our baptisms are done according to explicit commandment--to believers (on the basis of profession) and their offspring. The only thing we admit of "implication" in our practice is that infants are an obvious inclusion in the examples (given the biblical treatment of "household"), on the principle that whole households were baptized in the NT, on the testimony of the faith of a single one.” Where, Rev. Buchanan, does the Bible explicitly command us to baptize the offspring of believers? I find no such command. Col. 2:11-12 does not further your own argument because whether you believe that it is talking about physical circumcision and baptism, or spiritual circumcision and baptism (which I believe it is), you cannot say that this section of scripture applies to anyone other than the elect. “In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross”. (Colossians 2:11-14) Clearly, this can ONLY be speaking to the elect, the regenerate, those “who were dead in [their] trespasses and the uncircumcision of [their] flesh”. These are those who “God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses”. 

7.) “The only thing we admit of "implication" in our practice is that infants are an obvious inclusion in the examples (given the biblical treatment of "household"), on the principle that whole households were baptized in the NT, on the testimony of the faith of a single one.” Here, your argument is based upon the idea that households were baptized based on the faith of a single one. Since I have already dealt with this previously, I find no need to further the discussion here.

Your Statement:

5) Naturally, we understand that the "seed" of Abraham is ultimately "one", namely Christ. But that fact didn't prevent Abraham from obeying the command of God, and circumcising his whole house a full year before the promised line (in Isaac) was born. Therefore, everyone who was circumcised that day (excepting Abraham) was most certainly NOT even potentially direct to the genetic line of Messiah. Yet, they were being constituted into the visible church, and those who received the sign were supposed to adhere holily to the faith the sign represented.

But, again I understand you think all that business was radically typological. How then you might conceive that we have the same religion as Abraham, I'm not sure. Christ fulfilled Abraham's sacrifices and all his religious devotion--prayers, prophecy (proclamation), sacrifices. Does that mean that we do not practice religion? All of his activity was centered on Christ and fulfilled in Christ, assuming we have the same religion as he had. So then, why do we do any of our service? Since figurative service is all fulfilled! Is baptism a figure? Is the Lord's Supper a figure?

Surely, we must admit of some kind of substantive continuity between Abraham's display of religion and ours; and if so then the proposition that aspects of our service have definite correlates to aspects of his (or any OT figure) is by no means a radical one.

My Reply:

1.) “Naturally, we understand that the "seed" of Abraham is ultimately "one", namely Christ. But that fact didn't prevent Abraham from obeying the command of God, and circumcising his whole house a full year before the promised line (in Isaac) was born.” Again, Rev. Buchanan, we are in agreement!! I believe it was right and it was commanded Abraham to circumcise his offspring and his household, here we agree!! But, we must ask, where does the fulfillment of the Seed come? In Christ of course!! Then, the question must not be how do I gain the blessings of Abraham but how do I gain the blessings of Christ and from Christ! 

2.) “Therefore, everyone who was circumcised that day (excepting Abraham) was most certainly NOT even potentially direct to the genetic line of Messiah. Yet, they were being constituted into the visible church, and those who received the sign were supposed to adhere holily to the faith the sign represented.” Here, once again, we agree. Those who received the sign were supposed to adhere completely to the faith. This much we agree again. 

3.) “But, again I understand you think all that business was radically typological. How then you might conceive that we have the same religion as Abraham, I'm not sure. Christ fulfilled Abraham's sacrifices and all his religious devotion--prayers, prophecy (proclamation), sacrifices. Does that mean that we do not practice religion? All of his activity was centered on Christ and fulfilled in Christ, assuming we have the same religion as he had. So then, why do we do any of our service? Since figurative service is all fulfilled! Is baptism a figure? Is the Lord's Supper a figure?” First of all, I do not view the business as radically typological. If I believed that, why would I find such a necessity for Christ to be Seed, to fulfill the covenant of circumcision? Why do I place such value on Christ’s circumcision over against everyone else’s? Rev. Buchanan, I do believe that we have the same faith as Abraham. I simply place the emphasis on Christ fulfilling the Abrahamic Covenant and not just changing the sign. I believe that Christ fulfilled that covenant and so our practices are focused on being followers of Christ, since he is the only Seed. 

I do agree with you that Abraham’s activity was centered on Christ and fulfilled in Christ! Amen!! Just as Abraham’s activity was centered on Christ, so must mine!! But, my activity is regulated by the fact that the covenant, which had yet to be fulfilled in Abraham’s day, is now fulfilled and, in a sense, is daily being fulfilled on this side of Calvary. 

God Bless,
Spencer


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 28, 2010)

Brother, I'll try to be brief. But that means I won't be exaustive.


Particular Baptist said:


> 1.) In the New Testament (where the sign and administration of baptism are shown), where do you see that ANY apostle or Christ commands believers to baptize their whole households? What scriptural basis do you have for saying that baptism is to be administered to households?


a) I don't start my understanding (my theology) of baptism pristine with the New Testament. I start where the apostles do, in Gen.6, see 1Pet.3:21, and go on from there. Therefore, I begin by rejecting your stricture that I produce a *NT* command to satisfy you.

b) When I read you asking _where is the [NT] command to baptize believers and their households,_ I do not interpret your question along the lines that you accept. I "hear" you asking _where is the [biblical] command to apply the sign of the covenant of grace to believers and their children._ That would be Gen.17; then with reference to Acts 2:38-39 & Col.2:11-12 to complete the picture with NT adjustments.

c) The above is the Scriptural _basis_ for household baptism. Then, we have approximately 2/3 of all the apostolic baptisms that we are aware of listed or described in the NT as "household" baptism, enlisted as _corroborating evidence_ for our conclusion. That is, the theology of baptism would teach us to expect to find household baptisms in the NT, and lo, we find such things.






Particular Baptist said:


> 2.) In the four instances of household baptisms in the Bible {Cornelius (Acts 10), Lydia (Acts 16), the Philippian jailor (Acts 16), Stephanas (I Corinthians 1)}, there is not one mention of infants in those households.


a) I don't "need" to produce the infants for those households. The biblical definition of household includes them. Therefore, I do not need to "remove" the infants from those, or just as significantly, from any others.

b) The significance of the particular texts of the Jailer and Lydia is most especially in that they refer ONLY to the faith of one. Period. And follow that with the baptism. I happily affirm that there were hopefully other professions that night. But I can handle later professions as well. None of those indicators are successful arguments _against_ my position. They only offer your side plausibility of _removing_ the infants.

I do not have any more time tonight to reply. So, I will have to take a rain-check.

Blessings.


----------



## TexanRose (Jan 29, 2010)

amishrockstar said:


> If you were to suggest ONE book that best argues for the
> paedobaptist position, what would you recommend?
> (I'm asking for post-Bible books)


 
I highly recommend Peter Bloomfield's little booklet entitled "Covenant Baptism." It's just $3 from Crown and Covenant Publications. This is the book that did it for me by clarifying the distinction between the Covenant of Grace and its administration.

May I say that there are a lot of bad arguments for paedobaptism out there, but don't be tempted to "throw the baby out with the bathwater" when rejecting those arguments.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 29, 2010)

Dear Brother,
I will continue with my response. Again, I'm not certain I can be as thorough in my reply as your lengthy post might warrant on some other occasion.


Particular Baptist said:


> 3.) How do we reconcile the baptism of households with the fact that Jesus said "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth....” (Matthew 10:34-39) Those are Christ’s own words, not mine, and I cannot reconcile the paedobaptist belief that baptism is to be for a believer and their offspring when Christ himself said that “a person’s enemies will be those of his own household”. Again, one must do much violence to scripture if you can fit the paedobaptist view of the baptism of households and reconcile that with other scripture.


a) How _precisely_ would you relate Jesus' words to the subject of baptism, even credo-baptism? In other words, what connection do you make between these words, and your own theology of baptism? It is not exegetically permissible to simply take words spoken in one context and apply them to another, where the speaker or writer might have put a very different sense to his own statement if asked. Do you think that these verses teach a new fundamental truth concerning NT households, over against OT households? What is your justification for thinking this way?

Could we expect MORE or LESS peace in a household in the New Covenant era? Consider the well-known text of Jer.31:34, "_No more_ shall every man teach ...*his brother*, saying, ‘Know the LORD." Whatever else that passage teaches concerning the future New Covenant era, it surely teaches that under the OLD Covenant it was not uncommon for "a man's enemies to be members of his own house."

This fact: there was internecine strife within the Old Covenant church--had no bearing on the question of who should be identified with the community of faith. So, what of Jesus' statement leads you to the opposite conclusion for the New Covenant church? After that, why should that reasoning be equally persuasive to those on this side, who seem to have a different starting point?

So, once again, simply citing Jesus saying that the Twelve he was sending forth could expect the hostility of their own people (perhaps to include their own families), who were conjoined to the *externals* of biblical religion, and not to the Christ, the *substance* of biblical revelation--I do not accept the idea that Jesus is "revising" our conception of what a household is, even one that is in the church.

b) The very form of your question implies that you are assuming whole and entire your own theological framework as the presumptive agreed-upon basis for working through the issues. But as I have been saying really from my first post in the thread, that is simply not the case. In fact, it was amishrockstar's recognition of the underlying differences in starting point and methodology that led to him creating the thread. You cannot assume you have a grasp of the other side position, and then start leveling charges of inconsistency.





Particular Baptist said:


> 4.) I must say, that I don’t believe that the Holy Spirit never works in a way that a whole household comes to faith, but I do not believe that that is the norm. I refuse to say that whole households will never be saved because to do so would be against the word of God. While at the same time, I refuse to say that baptism is to be given to a whole household when some of those cannot make a profession of faith.


a) There isn't really a question or issue here. It is more of a statement of your own views. So I won't offer any substantive response to it.

b) I will note that you conflate the two issues of "to whom" and "when" for baptism in this statement. This is natural for your side. That is, your theological a priori says that, IF a household was baptized, then ALL of them _must have been_ professors prior to it, or by synecdoche (part for the whole) ONLY the professors in the house _should have been_ baptized.



Particular Baptist said:


> 2.) Now to the question itself “How am I a participant in the covenant God makes with Abraham?” The only answer of course is believing in Christ by faith. We both agree here, just as Abraham (and the elect of all ages) are saved by faith so are we presently. The seemingly small difference is the fact that I believe that Christ is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant. Christ is the Seed!! I know we both know Galations 3:16 (Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, "And to offsprings," referring to many, but referring to one, "And to your offspring," who is Christ.) so here is how I interpret what Paul is stating. The promises that we see in the Abrahamic Covenant were given to Abraham and his offspring or seed, simple enough. So, the promises are ONLY to Abraham and the seed, there are no exceptions that Paul gives the reader. Next, he quotes Genesis 12:7 in saying that it does not say “offsprings” but to one “offspring”. And lastly, he tells the reader who that offspring is, Christ! Now, in interpreting this passage, I understand it to mean that only Christ (and thus those whom Christ has made one with himself) were meant to be the offspring.


OK. That's your understanding. You seem to be saying that Christ is the fulfillment of Abraham's covenant *to the exclusion* of any broad sense (but then you try to tack it on at the end).

a) But the fact is that "the seed" has multiple senses. And Messiah even says, "Here I am, and the *children* you have given me" (Heb.2:13; Is.8:18). Thus, the Abrahamic covenant _is concentrated_ upon Messiah, but does not remove other senses or a wide-reaching fulfillment. Gal.3:7-9 even says that Abraham's true seed are those who share his faith (cf.Rom.2:28-29). So in the same Gal. chapter, we see both the ultimate fulfillment in One, as well as descendants as numerous as the stars of heaven, and the sand of the seashore. And that is the indubitable sense of the text quoted in v8 (Gen.12:3). So you are not letting the whole context of Gal.3 (or Gen.12-22) speak.

b) Nor can you separate Gen.12:2 from 12:7. The most obvious sense of the text is that 12:7 is speaking directly to the many people who would eventually dwell in the Land of Promise by the power of the promise. The most logical reference to the One Seed is Gen.22:18. Not only is that story a climax of the whole promise-covenant narrative (Gen.12-22), but it crystallizes the notion that the _extensive_ fulfillment of the seed-promise has a definite, Messianic _intensive_ fulfillment in the One. It allows the many other texts that give an obvious extensive sense to the term "seed" to have that sense, without demanding of them a complete and immediate reductive sense. God not only promises Messiah, he also promises him a people in the same covenant.

c) So, we come back to the question of whether Abraham is a Christian (speaking anachronistically) or not. If in essence he is, then the promises to him in Genesis are ALREADY Christological in scope and intent. The seed he is promised in an extensive sense is ALREADY only realized in truth when the hope is embraced by faith. For my part, I reject the non-sacral nature of ANY PART of the promise to Abraham.



Particular Baptist said:


> 3.) Moving on to Galatians 3:18-19, ... Paul states that the law “was added… until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made”. When was the law fulfilled? When Christ came, he fulfilled the law! The law ... bound everyone under sin so that “the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given those who believe”. Since the offspring has come, the promise is made only to those who believe.


The promise was NEVER made to ANY BUT those who believe.


Particular Baptist said:


> I know that paedobaptists agree with me wholeheartedly when I point this out. Of course we all believe that only those who come to faith in Christ are given the promise, there is no discrepancy between paedobaptists brethren and myself. The small difference is that I view the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant in Christ as fulfilling the sign of circumcision because he fulfilled the Covenant of works, the law. His circumcision, and only his circumcision, is of value because he fulfilled the law on our behalf (Romans 2:25). It is my conviction, that Christ entered into this covenant on our behalf because our circumcision could never have been of value, he fulfilled the covenant!


a) Are you sure that you want to say, "our circumcision had NO value"? What of Rom.3:1? Was there advantage or not? Further, does your baptism have ANY value? Now, I expect you to clarify by saying that you mean to say, "..._saving_ value," which is externally true, as we all know. But what is the value of circumcision to Christ? Or the value of his circumcision to us? Is it only after a legal question? That Christ was circumcised because the law said so? Just so he could be a completely obedient Jew? What did circumcision MEAN? How did Christ fulfill the MEANING of circumcision, not just the legal prescription?

Of course, if on your premises it is NOT a sacral-question, then I suppose that you are fine with that. But if you are going to understand the position on the other side, you need to see that I am not content to say that circumcision was a "bare sign" on anyone but Christ. It is true his work in both great and small is that which gives meaning to those things that affect us. But it is exactly in the fulfillment that he ensures that the things that affect us attain meaning, through faith.

b) Circumcision was rightly incorporated into the Mosaic Covenant, however it was issued in Abraham's covenant. Therefore, properly speaking circumcision is not "law" in the Mosaic sense, but belongs to Abraham. The fact that the Judaizers Paul fought against treated it as law only shows the more just how bad off they were, in their utter misunderstanding of both law and grace.

You are committing HALF of the same error as the Judaizers, by placing circumcision under "law." (Just because it is *prescription *doesn't make it strictly law--or else "repent and believe" would be "law"; "this DO in remembrance of me," would be "law", etc.) So no, circumcision is not "Covenant of Works." It is the sign of the Covenant of Grace.



Particular Baptist said:


> 4.) In conclusion, I would ask any paedobaptist how they fit themselves into the covenant of circumcision when Christ (who is the only seed) fulfilled that covenant?


I believe my immediate-above comments answer to this point. Abraham's covenant is fulfilled in the same sense that the New Covenant is also fulfilled.



Particular Baptist said:


> 1.) Here you state that I “closely tie in union the sign and the thing signified that there is no room between them”. The first thing I would point out is that I never once stated my position on the link between the sign of baptism and the thing signified. My post was simply to discuss how I believe that to base a paedobaptistic view off of the Abrahamic Covenant is simply to do violence to scripture. I never created my “own rubric” and never stated it either.


The problem is, that what you believe about the "basis" of our beliefs is grounded not in our theology or our understanding of the issues, but in an assumed common-ground basis on baptist suppositions.

You wrote


> ...we do the Bible injustice if we begin separating the Abrahamic Covenant up between sign and substance and then believe that we keep the substance intact but change the sign


Now, how that doesn't represent your view if you call separation "injustice," then begin to challenge the correctness of such distinctions, I don't know. Everyone argues "from" some fixed point, so if your's is simply chosen for convenience, and not your own, you really can't complain if I also "assume" that fixed position is yours "for argument's sake."

So, you can't just "challenge" the other side, and not be expected to have to defend whatever the ground you are standing on to mount your challenge. It doesn't work that way.



Particular Baptist said:


> 2.) I do apologize for not stating my own position on baptism, since it has created much confusion, so I will state my position. Firstly, I can be properly called a credo-baptist. I believe that before one receives the sign of baptism they must first make a profession of faith. Now, you are correct in that it would be ludicrous to believe that everyone who makes a profession has been regenerated. Also, I do not, and have never, believed in baptismal regeneration. In a very true sense, I agree with you that both paedobaptist and credobaptist baptize on presumption. I do not believe that “everyone who has been baptized is de facto in the covenant with Christ”. My understanding on the nature, meaning, and administration of baptism is not rooted in the Abrahamic Covenant (since that covenant has been fulfilled) but as it is described in the New Testament and the nature of the New Covenant. And in those areas, I cannot find any way of finding infant baptism in any part of these scriptures (though I have sought long and hard to convince myself of the paedobaptist view, because I wanted the title of ‘Reformed’ in its fullest sense). I find that a profession of faith must take place before one is baptized. Therefore, I can most properly be said to believe in credo baptism rather than believer’s baptism, because I obviously believe that we can inerrantly see who is regenerated and who is not.


Slight correction; I haven't stated (here, anyway) that p-bs baptize on presumption. I stressed above that we baptize those, and only those, whom we believe we have commandment to baptize. When we judge of visible things, we are acting within our human limitations and by prescription. 



Particular Baptist said:


> 3.) I am not desacralizing circumcision in the OT and resacralizing it in the NT. The sign of circumcision was sacramental in the OT. It was to be given to the whole household; we see that clearly in Genesis 17. But, it is not until Christ came that Paul could look back and state that “circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision” (Romans 2:25). Every single male (other than Christ) who bore the sign of circumcision had his circumcision become uncircumcision. Even Abraham’s circumcision became uncircumcision because he could not fulfill the law. So, the sign of circumcision could only be fulfilled by the offspring, which is Christ. But, Paul alerts the reader to know that Abraham had the same faith in the offspring that we do. Abraham’s uncircumcision became circumcision by faith in the fulfillment of the promise, Christ. Therefore, the promise can be guaranteed to both Abraham and his offspring (Christ and those in Christ).


a) I think you are misapplying Rom.2:25. What is the purpose of that whole section of Romans? To conclude the whole world under sin, Gentiles and Jews alike. The Jewish pride in being God's people and having the law--thus being "God's people"--was foolish and damnable. Paul says to them, "By your law-breaking (and lack of repentance and faith) you show that your circumcision is meaningless." He most certainly means this basic thought, because he turns the thought around and teaches that when the Gentiles do obey matters of God's law, it is as though their uncircumcision was counted as circumcision (v26).

b) The statement, "not until Christ came that Paul could look back..." is completely unacceptable to me. Was Abraham a "Christian" or wasn't he? By my lights, he was, which reconfigures the whole argument for me. How do you plan to crack the foundation of my argument? How are you going to persuade me to see an inconsistency in my view, unless you can convince me Abraham (and all those others, pre-Christ, with the very same faith) did not possess all the visionary grasp of the true realities in Christ that Paul and the writer to Hebrews plainly states he, and they, did have?

c) Abraham's circumcision did NOT become uncircumcision! Never! He was given the sign of his faith having that faith already, and God's gifts are without repentance. Because Christ fulfilled the meaning and substance of that circumcision, and God sustained Abraham and all his faithful children in their faith--through trials and the dim ages until Christ's entrance. Therefore, the circumcision of the faithful was a testimony to them of their circumcised hearts. This is real OT theology.



Particular Baptist said:


> 4.) Rev. Buchanan, you also stated “The "New" Covenant is new relative to Moses (properly the "Old") but not to Abraham.”The promise given 430 years prior cannot be disannuled." I totally agree!! This is something where we can find unity!! I agree with you that the New Covenant is relative to Moses and not to Abraham.


OK.



Particular Baptist said:


> 5.) I, as a credobaptist, do believe that the credobaptist viewpoint ... does create a ‘purer church’, that is it would have less unregenerate people in a congregation.... I do not see scriptural basis for not even attempting to gain a profession of faith from a candidate of baptism.
> ...[Was] Abraham was given the sign of baptism[? ] To which, I would hope at least, you and I could agree that Abraham was not given the sign of baptism; he was given the sign of circumcision.


You want me to agree that Abraham wasn't given baptism, under the strictest of definitions that you impose. So, of course I can agree with you, as long as we agree that you are the party that is defining baptism by stricture. But once we do that, then you must maintain that plain, narrow, contentless definition as the discussion moves along.

But that is not typically how the talk develops. As soon as we move away from the question, relative to Abraham, the definition of baptism wants to expand into fullness, breadth, and meaning. And then I will have to go back, and say, "Well then, under the expanded understanding of baptism, I cannot agree then that Abraham WAS NOT given this "sign", because of all the signification that you now recognize in it." So this path seems fruitless to me.



Particular Baptist said:


> You’re viewpoint says that God had to scrap the sign of circumcision and replace it with the sign of baptism. But I ask, was the substance of the covenant AND the sign which signified the covenant ever fulfilled? I say yes! And I do not find my directions for applying the sign of baptism in the Abrahamic covenant which ultimately had only one Seed because he was the only Seed who could fulfill the covenant. I find my directions for baptism in the New Testament where the actual ordinance of baptism was given and where the administration was practiced, not the Abrahamic Covenant which has already been fulfilled.


a) I would say God chose a new sign that was better, more fitting, more "inclusive" than the old sign, for cause that the Promise Made has become the Promise Kept.

b) Here again, you fuse the sign and its signification. But does our baptism teach the same elemental gospel content as circumcision? The major difference, once again, is Promise vs. Fulfillment. Since the New Covenant is a covenant of fulfillment, why do we need the sign of baptism? It only teaches the same exact content as circumcision, and besides it too is fulfilled in Christ. So, I argue _ceteris paribus,_ the same argument that abolishes circumcision *entirely* (sign and substance), ALSO abolishes baptism by the same rubric.

c) You don't have any *directions* for applying the sign of baptism in the NT. You only have direction so to DO. You don't even have explicit direction as to mode (you are just as much at the mercy of inference as to how much water is needed, etc., as sprinklers are). So you appeal to "good and necessary consequence," relying heavily on the exemplars in Acts. However, no one reads in a vacuum, and so you bring a measure of pre-understanding to those texts also. Now, why you choose to restrict that "good and necessary" to the NT Scriptures is driven by other theological commitments, such as understanding of covenant, etc.



Particular Baptist said:


> 6.) Where, Rev. Buchanan, does the Bible explicitly command us to baptize the offspring of believers? I find no such command.


As stated earlier, your not finding what I find is due to the fact that you and I are looking for different things. You want a text similar to Gen.17 repeated in the NT (which is how you phrased the question in the first place, not a "Bible" command, but "NT" command). I have exactly what I need in Gen.17. If God only needed to speak once, and I've heard him, I am satisfied.



Particular Baptist said:


> Col. 2:11-12 does not further your own argument because whether you believe that it is talking about physical circumcision and baptism, or spiritual circumcision and baptism (which I believe it is), you cannot say that this section of scripture applies to anyone other than the elect.


a) What am I using the text for? To show the unity of the signs, OT & NT, as to their object. Paul says they both "point" to the same thing, ergo, they possess a unity of purpose. I referenced the text _after_ I pointed to Gen.17, because of all the NT passages, it most plainly makes this connection between the signs (and their shared significance). Therefore it accomplishes no more or less than I wished for it, being important to explaining NT adjustments to Covenant of Grace realities in the New Covenant.

b) I don't have any hangups about the fact that ONLY the elect, in either the OT or the NT, ever experience the blessed realities behind the signs. Furthermore, curses are real effects of covenant relations also.



Particular Baptist said:


> 7.) “The only thing we admit of "implication" in our practice is that infants are an obvious inclusion in the examples (given the biblical treatment of "household"), on the principle that whole households were baptized in the NT, on the testimony of the faith of a single one.” Here, your argument is based upon the idea that households were baptized based on the faith of a single one. Since I have already dealt with this previously, I find no need to further the discussion here.


To clarify, my view is based on the *explicit* witness of the text of Scripture (Acts 16:14 & 34), and not on proposals of what could likely be the case, or what must be the case given theological bias against infant baptism. Chantry provides the plausible arguments for reasons to _exclude_ infants from consideration in those cases. He is not able to rule them out, nor can he evade the normative force of the inclusive term "household."



Particular Baptist said:


> 1.) I believe it was right and it was commanded Abraham to circumcise his offspring and his household, here we agree!! But, we must ask, where does the fulfillment of the Seed come? In Christ of course!! Then, the question must not be how do I gain the blessings of Abraham but how do I gain the blessings of Christ and from Christ!


And how is our experience at all different from theirs? How were they to gain the blessings of Christ? How has "fulfillment" over against "promise" changed the essence of our faith, or the expression of that faith? Paul goes out of his way to show how we are Abraham's seed who share his faith.



Particular Baptist said:


> 3.) I do believe that we have the same faith as Abraham. I simply place the emphasis on Christ fulfilling the Abrahamic Covenant and not just changing the sign.... my activity is regulated by the fact that the covenant, which had yet to be fulfilled in Abraham’s day, is now fulfilled and, in a sense, is daily being fulfilled on this side of Calvary.


You say "fulfilled." Period. Full stop. Pack up the dolly furniture, and close the cupboard. Move on. Those relics are "curios" now. Take them out, look at them, admire them, think about what they once did mean. Before we had the grown up beds, tables, lamps.

This is to make Abraham and the rest of the OT about history. About us. About man. About a reality they could not experience because of where they were. But this is wrong.

Abraham and the rest of the OT is about Christ. The Christ who was a part of their experience then, and to which their experience pointed, just as the Apostle's experiences point, who also had Christ as part of their experiences. The apostles and the patriarchs had essentially the SAME experience, only under vastly different lighting conditions. The reality has always been both future and above. And the fact is that the reality is STILL both future and above. They had almost exclusively the "not yet." We have the "already and the not yet."

I say, "fulfilled," meaning the reality is now alive in our experience. But, brother, we aren't in heaven yet. We haven't yet joined Abraham, our father, in the presence of our Lord. This is why we still have signs! Why we still use pointers to the spiritual reality.


I'm going to let others respond to later postings. This one has already been much too long a session for me. But it has been enjoyable. Thank you.
Blessings,


----------



## matt01 (Feb 9, 2010)

Andres said:


> Infant Baptism by Francis Schaeffer



Is Schaeffer's position of the issue similar to that held by a majority of paedo-baptists?


----------

