# Would paedobaptism ever eliminate credobaptism?



## steadfast7 (Oct 4, 2011)

I've heard it argued by paedobaptists that credobaptists deny the covenant sign to their children, thereby causing them to miss out on this deeply meaningful sign and the blessings that ensue.

However, this must argument cuts both ways. Consider that paedobaptism, rightly done, would seemingly result in generations upon generation of Christians having never experienced a baptism upon their profession of faith. During the time of the early church, when the entire empire was Christian, the only instances of believers baptism would have taken place by foreign and pagan converts from abroad.

Could not a credobaptist rightly charge a paedobaptist of denying the meaningful sign of believer's baptism to so many Christians? In an ideal world, where families remained in tightly knit, tradition-maintaining units, and the gospel was faithfully preached in churches, could paedobaptism make credobaptism obsolete?


----------



## J. Dean (Oct 4, 2011)

We need to remember first of all that, as I've said in other places, this is an in-house debate. Nobody's salvation is dependent upon baptism. While there's validity in discussing the matter, let's just remember that those on the other side of our position do not cease to be Christians because they hold to their stance (I realize that most of you here are already on the same page with this, so please consider this just a friendly reminder  ).


----------



## CharlieJ (Oct 4, 2011)

I don't think so. The "ideal" church world would not be an introverted, withdrawn community, but a vibrant evangelistic and missionary enterprise. I suppose that if the vast majority of people in the world became Christian, such a thing would be possible.

I think contemporary paedobaptists have an advantage that medieval ones did not. Since Christianity is no longer tied to various national churches and political regimes, we can focus on the truly theological aspects of it, and integrate it within a truly missionary church. Only among some Muslims are Christians viewed as agents of a foreign power, and that has mostly to do with the way they view religion, not the way we do.


----------



## au5t1n (Oct 4, 2011)

steadfast7 said:


> Could not a credobaptist rightly charge a paedobaptist of denying the meaningful sign of believer's baptism to so many Christians?



From our perspective, every baptism of an elect person is a "believer's baptism" in time. Baptism is a visible initiation into Christian discipleship, not a badge of past accomplishment.


----------



## steadfast7 (Oct 4, 2011)

austinww said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> > Could not a credobaptist rightly charge a paedobaptist of denying the meaningful sign of believer's baptism to so many Christians?
> ...


 
Well no, Austin. That's not a believers baptism anymore than getting your entree "on the house" on account of spoiled meat is considered a "free lunch." In other words, just because it all turns out in the end doesn't mean you went in with that intention. Also, isn't there a sense in which the infant is not baptized on account of his own faith, but the faith of his parents? and not only his immediate parents, but as circumcision goes, if you were to back it up several generations, the entire family tree would be baptized on account of the faith of a single ancestral patriarch.

I'll admit, I like how community and family-oriented paedobaptism is, but isn't baptism also about personal faith and commitment?


----------



## au5t1n (Oct 4, 2011)

steadfast7 said:


> Well no, Austin. That's not a believers baptism anymore than getting your entree "on the house" on account of spoiled meat is considered a "free lunch."



It's only spoiled meat if you think the purpose of baptism is to make a statement about past faith.




steadfast7 said:


> Also, isn't there a sense in which the infant is not baptized into his own faith, but the faith of his parents?



He is baptized into Christ visibly, and we hope invisibly in God's appointed time. You might enjoy reading Calvin's paedobaptism section in the Institutes. It goes into some of the questions you are asking about the connection between baptism and faith as it relates to infants.



steadfast7 said:


> I'll admit, I like how community and family-oriented paedobaptism is, but isn't baptism also about personal faith and commitment?



Baptism is about salvation (a sign thereof), which should manifest in personal faith and commitment for those who can demonstrate them, but baptism is not primarily about a personal decision, no. This is why when I rejected decisional regeneration and embraced monergism, my credobaptism fell like a domino very shortly thereafter.


----------



## steadfast7 (Oct 4, 2011)

austinww said:


> Baptism is about salvation (a sign thereof), which should manifest in personal faith and commitment for those who can demonstrate them, but baptism is not primarily about a personal decision, no. This is why when I rejected decisional regeneration and embraced monergism, my credobaptism fell like a domino very shortly thereafter.


Ah, but every paedobaptist is also a staunch credobaptist, which is why Presbyterians don't baptize adults _unless_ they provide a credible profession of faith. In fact, one will find that credobaptism is the standard position - the first principles - affirmed by all Reformed theologians, and infant baptism is usually an addendum, almost a "special case" tacked on to the end of most discourses on baptism. Coming back to my OP, I find it ironic that so much emphasis is placed by the Reformed on credobaptism, when in fact, they would have witnessed but very few of them happening in their lifetimes in Europe.


----------



## au5t1n (Oct 4, 2011)

steadfast7 said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> > Baptism is about salvation (a sign thereof), which should manifest in personal faith and commitment for those who can demonstrate them, but baptism is not primarily about a personal decision, no. This is why when I rejected decisional regeneration and embraced monergism, my credobaptism fell like a domino very shortly thereafter.
> ...



Professing adults and their children are baptized for essentially the same reason: as an initiation into Christian discipleship. We charitably hope they also possess the inward reality, but that belongs to God's secret will and happens in his appointed timing. This is true for all baptized, regardless of age. No one is baptized in Presbyterian churches in recognition of the value of a decision they have made. They are initiated into a life of discipleship. An adult who conscientiously rejects the faith does not wish to be initiated into discipleship; he does not wish to be a disciple. If he did, we would baptize him.


----------



## Phil D. (Oct 4, 2011)

J. Dean said:


> We need to remember first of all that, as I've said in other places, this is an in-house debate. Nobody's salvation is dependent upon baptism. While there's validity in discussing the matter, let's just remember that those on the other side of our position do not cease to be Christians because they hold to their stance (I realize that most of you here are already on the same page with this, so please consider this just a friendly reminder ).



Yes, thank you for this. I totally agree. Given the strong dissension this issue has historically evoked in the church - with equally sincere and capable people on both sides, In my humble opinion - I've sometimes wondered why God chose not to be so explicit as to simply say point-blank in scripture either "water baptism is for professing believers and their young children," or, conversely, "water baptism is only for professing believers and no others." 

Of course I know that the way the subject of baptism is treated in scripture is absolutely perfect for its intended purpose. God was most wise in presenting it exactly the way He did. Any and all shortcomings regarding a proper understanding of it is certainly due to our shortcomings as fallen human beings. Knowing that the subject is not unimportant, yet not absolutely vital in terms of one's salvation, I have to wonder if scripture's relative impreciseness (for lack of a better term) on the matter may partly have something to do with (hopefully and ideally) our developing a proper attitude and treatment towards those we ultimately find ourselves disagreeing with.


At the same time I would add that, no, both sides obviously can't be right in a strictly objective sense.


----------



## MarieP (Oct 4, 2011)

austinww said:


> This is true for all baptized, regardless of age. No one is baptized in Presbyterian churches in recognition of the value of a decision they have made. They are initiated into a life of discipleship. An adult who conscientiously rejects the faith does not wish to be initiated into discipleship; he does not wish to be a disciple. If he did, we would baptize him.



But isn't that based on a decision the adult has made to NOT pursue discipleship? (I say that realizing he's a child of wrath and totally depraved)

What if you adopted a 6-year-old who doesn't want to be a disciple. Of course, they are still under their parents' roof- it's the same situation in the credobaptist world- there's a time of life when children of believers come to church by command, and then, at a point based on circumstances and parental wisdom, they choose whether or not to come.

---------- Post added at 12:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:52 PM ----------




Stargazer65 said:


> I believe that's the same view in all baptist churches as well. It is considered the first act of a disciple.



Exactly! At least in Reformed Baptist churches. I forget where I read it, but someone came up with the term "professor's baptism." It does away with the paedobaptist charge against the idea of Baptism being meaningless if one isn't truly regenerate.


----------



## Peairtach (Oct 4, 2011)

*Dennis*


> Well no, Austin. That's not a believers baptism anymore than getting your entree "on the house" on account of spoiled meat is considered a "free lunch." In other words, just because it all turns out in the end doesn't mean you went in with that intention. Also, isn't there a sense in which the infant is not baptized on account of his own faith, but the faith of his parents? and not only his immediate parents, but as circumcision goes, if you were to back it up several generations, the entire family tree would be baptized on account of the faith of a single ancestral patriarch.



We are covenant generational lines engrafted into the roots and trunk of Israel; we are not the roots and trunk of Israel themselves.

The roots of the Covenantal Olive Tree extend from the early patriarchs e.g. Abel, to the time of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The trunk of the Covenantal Olive Tree is the Israelite nation from the time of Moses to Christ - with a few Gentile branches and twigs added. The boughs and branches and twigs of the Covenantal Olive Tree are the many individuals, families and intergenerational lines that have been engrafted by God into the Covenantal Olive Tree/the Israel of God/the Commonwealth of Israel, since the time of Christ. 

Meanwhile most of the Jews were cut out of the Covenantal Olive Tree, and out of the Israel of God (Gal 6:16) in the first century, and must be re-engrafted as individuals, families and inter-generational covenant lines. It is promised that this will happen on a massive scale at some point in the future.



> But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember *it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you*. Then you will say, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. (Rom 11:17-21, ESV)



God is in the process of engrafting all nations into the Covenantal Olive Tree, which is the Israel of God, which is the Commonwealth of Israel.

There are sometimes breaks in these inter-generational lines that have to be recognised by the non-administration of baptism.

Even in Old Covenant Israel there were distinctions made between the Righteous and the Wicked, and in the Old Covenant the Wicked could even be sometimes excommunicated by death. People weren't automatically entitled to circumcision for their sons in Israel, especially if they'd been permanently cut off by execution or God's providential cuttin-off by death! What happened in the case of lesser forms of excommunication e.g. shunning and exile regarding circumcision for one's children, I don't know. 

In the New Covenant people can't be excommunicated by death, but they can be excommunicated, temporarily or permanently and this will have implications for whether their children or grandchildren will be baptised.

*Dennis*


> In other words, just because it all turns out in the end doesn't mean you went in with that intention.



Although we receive Him it is ultimately of God's intention not ours:


> But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, *nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:12-13) *



*Marie*


> "professor's baptism."



Sounds good. We're learning from each other!


----------



## steadfast7 (Oct 4, 2011)

austinww said:


> Professing adults and their children are baptized for essentially the same reason: as an initiation into Christian discipleship. We charitably hope they also possess the inward reality, but that belongs to God's secret will and happens in his appointed timing. This is true for all baptized, regardless of age.


 Then why do we not baptize all (who are far off) and charitably hope for their eventual regeneration? In the case of adults, we screen them through a rigorous process before admitting them into discipleship/baptism. Children of believers are obviously in a special category of their own; they are disciples by family heritage, in other words, there is something intrinsic to infants (and therefore extrinsic to the hearing of faith) that makes them worthy of baptism. Interestingly, while your monergism makes you reel at credobaptism, in my view, paedobaptism more greatly offends it.


Peairtach said:


> We are covenant generational lines engrafted into the roots and trunk of Israel; we are not the roots and trunk of Israel themselves.
> 
> The roots of the Covenantal Olive Tree extend from the early patriarchs e.g. Abel, to the time of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The trunk of the Covenantal Olive Tree is the Israelite nation from the time of Moses to Christ - with a few Gentile branches and twigs added. The boughs and branches and twigs of the Covenantal Olive Tree are the many individuals, families and intergenerational lines that have been engrafted by God into the Covenantal Olive Tree/the Israel of God/the Commonwealth of Israel, since the time of Christ.


As an Asian, I can totally appreciate ancestry and family trees, but the thing is that we are only grafted into Israel in as much as we are grafted into Christ - baptized into Christ. He is Abraham's singular offspring to which the promises point. We must close with Christ personally in order to be united with him. What i see in paedobaptism is generations of disciples coming in on the coat-tails on their ancestors and not having the privilege of closing with Christ and remembering the day of their public confession of him. 

do any paedobaptists feel they have "missed out" on the biblical example of adult baptism and all the joy of that day?


----------



## au5t1n (Oct 4, 2011)

steadfast7 said:


> In the case of adults, we screen them through a rigorous process before admitting them into discipleship/baptism.



We do? The Apostles didn't, unless you think 3000 converts were screened through a rigorous process in Acts 2. And then there's Simon Magus.


----------



## steadfast7 (Oct 4, 2011)

austinww said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> > In the case of adults, we screen them through a rigorous process before admitting them into discipleship/baptism.
> ...


Well, I'm speaking of the average Presbyterian church. But, having said that, I have known of a couple who became Christians later in life and the whole family including grown children were baptized, although they possessed no faith in Christ.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 4, 2011)

steadfast7 said:


> do any paedobaptists feel they have "missed out" on the biblical example of adult baptism and all the joy of that day?


I can't drum up that feeling. Perhaps some other man could.

I also wasn't saved out of a life of drug abuse. Or rampant sexual immorality. Or gang warfare. Have I "missed out" on having a dramatic conversion story?

On the other hand, I didn't miss out on knowing the joy of baptized-and-belonging for as far back as my memory can stretch. I also participate, as one growing and then grown up, in every baptism (of any age) when such a person is baptized in a service I attend. So... why should the joy of MY baptismal day mean more to me than the joy of welcoming another person into the family? Was MY ordinary birthday more special than my sister's?

Could certain views of baptism have an unhealthy preoccupation with the self?


----------



## MW (Oct 4, 2011)

Ps. 66:6, "there did we rejoice in him."

If the rejoicing is "in him," it needs no individual peculiarity. If it not "in him," one is seeking to squeeze out of the ordinance something that is not there.


----------



## au5t1n (Oct 4, 2011)

Contra_Mundum said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> > do any paedobaptists feel they have "missed out" on the biblical example of adult baptism and all the joy of that day?
> ...



Coming at it from the other angle, I was baptized at 13 and don't feel that I gained anything by waiting. Most Baptist kids don't have particularly joyous baptism experiences. We said some words and we got really wet in front of a lot of people.


----------



## steadfast7 (Oct 4, 2011)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Could certain views of baptism have an unhealthy preoccupation with the self?


I also did not have a dramatic conversion but was baptized as a teenager when I had apprehended the gospel. It was a joyous day which I remember vividly. I see in Acts time and time again that personal and communal joy was an intergral part of the conversion/baptism process, so I don't see a warrant to safeguard against something that is fully celebrated in Scripture. I think that paedobaptists are actually condemning the the dangers of decisionism, which we likewise condemn, but are not extricating that from a healthy rejoicing at one's personal salvation.

---------- Post added at 09:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:54 AM ----------




austinww said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> > steadfast7 said:
> ...


 Thanks for the comment. The way I see it, at the very least, it was something that is etched in your memory, and it's something that you, like Augustine, can point to and recall as a momentous day. Something is better than nothing, wouldn't you say? Those generations who grow up only witnessing infant baptisms of others are one step removed from the personal joy of one's own inclusion into the family.


----------



## cajunhillbilly53 (Oct 5, 2011)

Every time we baptize someone we participate in that baptism, whether an adult convert or the child of a believer. We renew our baptismal vows and commit ourselves anew to the Gospel and to accepting a new member in to the Church. It is the action of the entire covenant community.


----------



## Prufrock (Oct 5, 2011)

steadfast7 said:


> The way I see it, at the very least, it was something that is etched in your memory, and it's something that you, like Augustine, can point to and recall as a momentous day. Something is better than nothing, wouldn't you say? *Those generations who grow up only witnessing infant baptisms of others are one step removed from the personal joy of one's own inclusion into the family.*



The bold portion seems akin to saying, "Someone adopted by a kind family from an orphanage as an infant (contrasted to someone adopted as a teenager) is one step separated from the personal joy of one's own inclusion in the family." If that's one you mean by those terms, then all I can say is "That's fine with me." I give you my personal promise that I do not stay up at night feeling disappointed that I've missed out on something by being baptized as an infant.


----------



## steadfast7 (Oct 5, 2011)

Prufrock said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> > The way I see it, at the very least, it was something that is etched in your memory, and it's something that you, like Augustine, can point to and recall as a momentous day. Something is better than nothing, wouldn't you say? *Those generations who grow up only witnessing infant baptisms of others are one step removed from the personal joy of one's own inclusion into the family.*
> ...


 Well not quite. An adopted child is fully included and can feel every much as part of a family as a natural born. I'm only saying that having a recollection of one's own baptism could be considered better on several levels than having no recollection at all. I don't think it's a far stretch of the imagination to make that assertion. But if having no recollection of one's own but witnessing the baptism of others serves as ample means of grace, then that's fine too.


----------



## Rob H (Oct 5, 2011)

austinww said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> > In the case of adults, we screen them through a rigorous process before admitting them into discipleship/baptism.
> ...



I infer that the massive difference between Acts 2 and 2012 is that there wasn't much competition between denominations, Christian theologies or Bible study approaches back in Acts 2. Culturally, as well, people who were baptized (credo), were getting into something taken much more seriously than that which happens to a factory-dipped megachurchgoer. Then, to align with Christianity _meant_ something. Now, the rigorous screening process is a tactic in the battle for the central significance of Christianity.

I'm sure there were exceptions, since there's always been syncretism, compromise and confusion, but on the whole, there's a huge difference in how believer baptism of then and now should proceed.


----------



## Peairtach (Oct 6, 2011)

Rob H said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> > steadfast7 said:
> ...



People aren't meant to be as "rigorously-screened" for baptism as they are for the Lord's Supper, though if an adult comes for baptism for himself, unless the Kirk Session intends a period of waiting between his baptism and his first Lord's Table, they will be screening him for both anyway.

But there is always the understanding that just because you've been baptised, doesn't mean you should automatically come, or be allowed to come, to the Lord's Table. 

Baptism is the outer door of the visible church; the Lord's Supper is the inner door.

A credible profession is all that is necessary for the administration of baptism; an accredited profession is what is needed for the Lord's Supper.

We are to examine ourselves each time we take the Lord's Supper, and the permission to partake may be withdrawn at any time.

We see that the Apostles were much more rigorous and careful in their administration of the Lord's Supper, and it is hedged about with greater warnings regarding chastisement and apostasy, than baptism is.

---------- Post added at 08:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:58 PM ----------

*Dennis*


> Well not quite. An adopted child is fully included and can feel every much as part of a family as a natural born. I'm only saying that having a recollection of one's own baptism could be considered better on several levels than having no recollection at all. I don't think it's a far stretch of the imagination to make that assertion. But if having no recollection of one's own but witnessing the baptism of others serves as ample means of grace, then that's fine too.



Boys circumcised as babies had no recollection of their circumcision and, unless it was explained to them, they may have believed that all boys were made that way.

The sacraments must be accompanied by the instruction of the Word about them, for both adults and children.


----------



## Constantlyreforming (Oct 14, 2011)

steadfast7 said:


> Prufrock said:
> 
> 
> > steadfast7 said:
> ...




scriptural support, please?

what you must understand is that baptism is a sign and seal of faith, but it is a sign and seal of faith having entered into the covenant home. "for today salvation has come upon this house"....

and this means inclusion into the visible membership of the church. as long as children are under the headship of their parents and are in the home, then they should receive the sign, unless they reject it. But by rejecting it, they are to be rejected by the church.


----------



## jwithnell (Oct 14, 2011)

> what you must understand is that baptism is a sign and seal of faith, but it is a sign and seal of faith having entered into the covenant home. "for today salvation has come upon this house".... and this means inclusion into the visible membership of the church


This is the central point missed by anyone seeking an individual experience in baptism. God has chosen a people and has set his sign upon them. If we are gentiles, we mercifully have been grafted in. _It doesn't matter if my children have some feeling toward their baptism or some emotional recollection of coming to faith._ What matters is my obedience as a parent in having my covenant children baptized and their coming to trust Jesus as their own (whether it's at age 1 or 20, recollected or not).


----------



## steadfast7 (Oct 14, 2011)

there is nothing wrong with a sacrament producing feelings of gratefulness and increased faith. That is what they are designed to do in part, and paedobaptist congregations and parents don't seem to have any qualms about milking those benefits. I have heard many times that the entire congregation participates in an infant being baptized and what a blessing it is to have their faith strengthened. 

But when it is raised that it is too bad that the infant himself enjoys no subjective benefit from the act, then suddenly subjective benefits have no place anymore? 

Would anyone disagree that, in the final analysis, paedobaptism is for the benefit of the grownups? How ironic indeed!

also, may I point out that infant baptism is a conclusion drawn from scripture by the church, not a command given to the church by God.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Oct 14, 2011)

steadfast7 said:


> also, may I point out that infant baptism is a conclusion drawn from scripture by the church, not a command given to the church by God.



Depends on who you ask.

Genesis 17 and Colossians 2 seems to be a pretty clear command.

---------- Post added at 07:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:28 PM ----------




steadfast7 said:


> there is nothing wrong with a sacrament producing feelings of gratefulness and increased faith. That is what they are designed to do in part, and paedobaptist congregations and parents don't seem to have any qualms about milking those benefits. I have heard many times that the entire congregation participates in an infant being baptized and what a blessing it is to have their faith strengthened.
> 
> But when it is raised that it is too bad that the infant himself enjoys no subjective benefit from the act, then suddenly subjective benefits have no place anymore?
> 
> ...



I would also point out that I did not need an euphoric eruption of emotions when I became saved. I simply wanted to be saved. 

Should I desire an euphoric eruption of emotions when I became baptized, or is the fact that I am baptized into the covenant family sufficient?

In my mind it is much more important what baptism does vs. how baptism makes me feel. 

So I am not concerned if my child remembers the exact moment he came into the covenant family. I am just concerned that he is a part of the covenant family.


----------



## Peairtach (Oct 14, 2011)

*Dennis*


> But when it is raised that it is too bad that the infant himself enjoys no subjective benefit from the act, then suddenly subjective benefits have no place anymore?
> 
> Would anyone disagree that, in the final analysis, paedobaptism is for the benefit of the grownups? How ironic indeed!



I was baptised as a baby and I would disagree that the contemplation of my baptism blessed by the Spirit of God produces no subjective benefits, as would the divines that wrote the Westminster Larger Catechism:

*E.g.*


> Question 167: How is our Baptism to be improved by us?
> 
> Answer: The needful but much neglected duty of improving our Baptism, is to be performed by us all our life long, especially in the time of temptation, and when we are present at the administration of it to others; by serious and thankful consideration of the nature of it, and of the ends for which Christ instituted it, the privileges and benefits conferred and sealed thereby, and our solemn vow made therein; by being humbled for our sinful defilement, our falling short of, and walking contrary to, the grace of baptism, and our engagements; by growing up to assurance of pardon of sin, and of all other blessings sealed to us in that sacrament; by drawing strength from the death and resurrection of Christ, into whom we are baptized, for the mortifying of sin, and quickening of grace; and by endeavoring to live by faith, to have our conversation in holiness and righteousness, as those that have therein given up their names to Christ; and to walk in brotherly love, as being baptized by the same Spirit into one body.



You do not understand that the contemplation of our infant baptism contributes great spiritual benefits to those that do so, just as the contemplation of their infant circumcision did to those under the Old Covenant, although they were babes in arms when they were circumcised.


----------



## steadfast7 (Oct 14, 2011)

Chaplainintraining said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> > also, may I point out that infant baptism is a conclusion drawn from scripture by the church, not a command given to the church by God.
> ...



maybe my standards are but the fact that a minimum of 2 verses are required (that do not speak directly paedobaptism) to establish the command demonstrates that it is a second tier, derived conclusion from scripture and not an explicit command.


----------



## au5t1n (Oct 14, 2011)

steadfast7 said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> > steadfast7 said:
> ...



This is true in the same sense that there isn't a Lord's Supper command that singles out women specifically; however, the general instructions on the Lord's Supper include women among others. Likewise we believe the Great Commission commands infant baptism, but not only infant baptism specifically. So yes and no. It is commanded, but it is not commanded in isolation from general baptism commands.


----------



## Scholten (Oct 14, 2011)

steadfast7 said:


> Those generations who grow up only witnessing infant baptisms of others are one step removed from the personal joy of one's own inclusion into the family.



Thanks for your comments here, Dennis, a lot of good thought-provoking remarks. I think it is also important to note that in Presbyterean and Reformed ecclesiology one cannot "grow up witnessing infant baptisms" only. In addition to each infant baptism the person must experience conversion and make their profession in order for the next generation to be baptized as infants. If we focus just on baptism, infant baptism can continue for many generations. But we must also consider these baptisms in the light of the rest of healthy Christian living.


----------



## jwithnell (Oct 14, 2011)

> Would anyone disagree that, in the final analysis, paedobaptism is for the benefit of the grownups? How ironic indeed!


This is just so foreign to anything I have seen practiced. The parents are making vows before God and face the awesome covenant responsibility that come with those vows. The other adults are promising to assist in those responsibilities. I see no vicarious, subjective benefit to the adults present. When I have felt the waters of baptism on my baby's head I have primarily experience tremendous gratitude toward God for having saved me and for giving me covenant children. As the children grow, they witness baptisms and ask questions about their own. It is an opportunity to tell them that they too were baptized and must be walking in Christ.


----------



## steadfast7 (Oct 16, 2011)

austinww said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> > Chaplainintraining said:
> ...



the argument is fallacious and I'm surprised that Calvin came up with something so silly. It is essentially saying that a command does not need to be explicit to be obeyed because there are times when members within a set are not named, but yet are obligated to obey. By this is not how commands work. All those to whom it applies are subsumed in the whole. The Lord's supper command IS explicit to women because it is commanded of disciples, a group comprising of men and women. one only needs to interpret that the Lord's supper is for disciples in order to conclude it's for women.

Infant baptism is in a very different category. This is not a matter of a clear command but the absence of named members within a set. It is a new practice which has neither example nor instruction concerning it in scripture.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 16, 2011)

Calvin's argument isn't fallacious. The demand by the anabaptist for a verse for infant baptism was specious, and the suggestion that women would need the same sort of demand is a reductio.

But I'll just go along with your reasoning. You've stated that a group may be defined as containing certain types of individuals, and therefore not every sub-category needs an explicit mention. You say that the Lord's Supper is for disciples, which you then define as "comprising men and women." This definition should really come with some rigorous Scriptural support, instead of being assumed as "self-evident." After all, you are simply dismissing the other argument as superfluous, but you need a true basis for such a dismissal. Of course, there's more to it than that, and the criteria for partaking is more qualified than simply "discipleship" (for example, whether a person is under censure). But still, on a simplistic level, I'll play along.

Who are disciples? Disciples are those who are taught the faith, being counted as citizens of the spiritual kingdom. I say the church has had disciples since the beginning. But I'll choose an arbitrary start with Abraham. "For I have known him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him, that they keep the way of the Lord, to do righteousness and justice, that the Lord may bring to Abraham what he has spoken to him." Gen.18:19 Children down to infants are disciples by any just measure in the Old Testament. And disciples are to receive the covenant-sign that pertains to them, that sets them apart.

Has the definition of disciples changed since the New Testament? Where? How? Don't we agree that properly identified disciples should receive the covenant-sign that belongs to disciples? It seems to me you've merely changed the definition of "disciple" to suit yourself, so that _anymore_ infants aren't presumed within it, but have in fact been excluded from it. Doesn't THAT assertion need some sort of "explicit text" in its defense? And yet we have Jesus himself taking up the *brephe* in his arms, declaring that the kingdom of heaven belongs to just such persons as they are.

The Great Commission text serves us just fine, as a call for infants baptism as well as for any other disciples.


----------



## steadfast7 (Oct 16, 2011)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Calvin's argument isn't fallacious. The demand by the anabaptist for a verse for infant baptism was specious, and the suggestion that women would need the same sort of demand is a reductio.



Is it unreasonable to require a clear text laying out the command or providing an example of what it looks like? Do we obey any other commands that are of this variety? ie. two or more texts that do not not refer to the act itself, but are read and combined within a theological framework in other for it to work. I know of no other commands that bind our consciences but the kind that is stated explicitly, or an example given, in Scripture alone. it seems that paedobaptism stands out as being named as a command but is not "cut from the same block" as all other commands. 

that women shall partake of the Supper answers the question: who must obey this rule? As with all commands, they are to obey it to whom it applies. We know that the command was technically given to the 12, and by extension, those who believed because of their testimony. That includes women. Inference is the means of answering this question, if not, the Bible would become nothing but a bunch of lists. In the 10 Commandments, God does not list the 12 tribes of Israel in the introduction to make sure they all know that it applies to them. If you belong to the group that the command is given to, then it applies to you. A personal command to all members would be impossible.

that believers must baptize their infant children answers the question: what must we do? This is a very different question, the answer of which must come from scripture alone, either explicitly, or by example - not by inference. This is how we determine the answer to this question in every situation of this sort. Where do find the scriptural command or example that infants are to be splashed with water?

Calvin erroneously equated these two very different question-types.



Contra_Mundum said:


> You say that the Lord's Supper is for disciples, which you then define as "comprising men and women." This definition should really come with some rigorous Scriptural support, instead of being assumed as "self-evident."



Acts 9:36, "Now there was in Joppa a disciple named Tabitha, which, translated, means Dorcas. She was full of good works and acts of charity." 



Contra_Mundum said:


> Who are disciples? Disciples are those who are taught the faith, being counted as citizens of the spiritual kingdom. I say the church has had disciples since the beginning. But I'll choose an arbitrary start with Abraham. "For I have known him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him, that they keep the way of the Lord, to do righteousness and justice, that the Lord may bring to Abraham what he has spoken to him." Gen.18:19 Children down to infants are disciples by any just measure in the Old Testament.



The paedobaptist is not exempt from problems with definition. Because you use verses that do not actually contain the word "disciple", you must (arbitrarily, as you admit) assign the definition of "disciple" according to your framework. You are right that children have been commanded to be taught the faith and be raised in the fear and admonition of the Lord. But technically speaking, "disciple" is a New Testament term. The best scriptural definition comes from the Great Commission. Regardless of age, a disciple is made when he/she is baptized as is _taught to obey_ everything the original disciples of Jesus were commanded. It is important that they are not merely passively taught the faith, but are capable of actively obeying it. There are certainly a few hints as to who is capable of being included in this set. Are infants taught the faith? how? Do infants obey Jesus' commands? how?


----------



## Ne Oublie (Oct 16, 2011)

steadfast7 said:


> It is important that they are not merely passively taught the faith, but are capable of actively obeying it. There are certainly a few hints as to who is capable of being included in this set. Are infants taught the faith? how? Do infants obey Jesus' commands? how?



I have always found it interesting how quick we are to underestimate what a child understands and their capabilities to 'actively' obey. Does this not correlate to what the Lord has said regarding the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these? 

On an experience note, I have seen such great example of obedience to our Lord, just as much if not more so, from my 1, 3, 5 and 12 year old children. Just as any new believer, the infant is discipled by the Word of God and taught what it is they are to obey. And, although an adult can appear to be more competent and active in doing so by the time they profess, they were once infants in their faith just the same.


----------



## steadfast7 (Oct 16, 2011)

Ne Oublie said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> > It is important that they are not merely passively taught the faith, but are capable of actively obeying it. There are certainly a few hints as to who is capable of being included in this set. Are infants taught the faith? how? Do infants obey Jesus' commands? how?
> ...



I'm certainly open to God revealing himself to infants in ways beyond our understanding, but is this what scripture has in mind for us in defining a "disciple"? I'm not sure. I am assuming that the sampling is coming from the cross section of those who are able to apprehend truths and obey.

Taken to the logical conclusion, infant baptism should lead us to be much more open to baptizing unbelieving spouses far in advance of their hearing the gospel and being discipled - for they, like the infant, have every right to be baptized in like manner.


----------



## Ne Oublie (Oct 16, 2011)

steadfast7 said:


> lead us to be much more open to baptizing unbelieving spouses far in advance of their hearing the gospel and being discipled - for they, like the infant, have every right to be baptized in like manner.



Can you explain to me how this hypothetical, would actually be possible? I cannot imagine someone not having the time to share the gospel but yet have the time to baptise them? 

A very strange conclusion...


----------



## steadfast7 (Oct 16, 2011)

Ne Oublie said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> > lead us to be much more open to baptizing unbelieving spouses far in advance of their hearing the gospel and being discipled - for they, like the infant, have every right to be baptized in like manner.
> ...



very prevalent in the practice of mass baptisms in church history. The conversions of the Vikings, Celts, and other Barbarian nations. Few, if any, communicants were presented with the gospel to the degree where they understood it sufficiently prior to their baptism.


----------

