# Ack, I am slipping into Paedobaptism....



## Coram Deo

I thought I would never hear myself say these words but I believe I have or am slipping into the Paedo-Baptist camp. Many of you thought that this might happen since I already became a Presbyterian in Polity and lately accepted Pouring as a mode for Baptism. I guess I was holding to my last visage of cradle faith, that of credobaptism. A sermon or two from our pastor and a few good articles from Dr. Scott Clark and extra study from internet articles have lead me down this path. Things that are really undeniable... I will try to summarize what I accept and see through Covenant Eyes....

Circumcision and Baptism are signs and seals of the Covenant of Grace which is the New Covenant which the Abrahamic Covenant was the New Covenant and not the Old Covenant.

The Old Covenant was indeed the Mosaic Covenant, Not the Abrahamic Covenant.

The Abrahamic Covenant IS the Covenant of Promise, the Covenant of Grace, An Everlasting Covenant, abet Foreseeing of the promise of Christ as we Look back to the promise of Christ.

The Mosaic Covenant was Types and Shadows (Ceremonial Aspects) that was to point us to Christ. It was all Typological, The Rituals, The Priesthood, The Kingship of David and were intended to be temporary, to be fulfilled by the reality: Christ. The Mosaic Covenant was also a republication of the Covenant of Works. 

When the New Testament Speaks of the Old Covenant it is only referring to the Mosaic Covenant and not the Abrahamic Covenant.

When the New Testament Speaks of the New Covenant it puts it in the same category of Faithful Abraham and of the Abrahamic Covenant. 

Dr. Scott Clark said it best with _"Don't miss the fundamental identification of all New Covenant believers with Abraham. "It is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham." In other words, genetics means nothing -- never has-- ultimately. What matters is true faith, and specifically faith that inherits or receives the promise of justification sola gratia, sola fide, the same promise given to Abraham. Thus we are blessed "along with Abraham."

Does Abraham here appear as an "Old Covenant" figure? No. Keep going in Gal 3. In v. 10 Paul contrasts "those who rely on works of the law" with (v. 11) “The righteous shall live by faith.” How does the blessing of Abraham come to anyone? In v. 14, it is "in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham" comes to "the Gentiles....."

Here comes the clincher. In v. 15 Paul appeals to the way covenants were made in the ancient world. No one annuls a "man-made" covenant "or adds to it once it has been ratified." This is significant because "the promises were made to Abraham and to his seed. It does not say, “And to seeds,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your seed,” who is Christ." In other words, whoever has faith in Christ has the promise, because Christ is the promise. Abraham had faith in Christ. Abraham was a Christian. Abraham is not identified with Moses, who is typically identified with the law, rather he is identified with the gospel.

In v. 17 Paul makes the point even clearer. The Mosaic covenant, the Old Covenant, came 430 years after the promise to Abraham. It was a codicil to the covenant. It didn't change the fundamental character of the covenant of grace God made with Abraham and to his children. Why was the Mosaic, Old Covenant given? In v. 19 Paul says that it was given "because of transgressions," i.e., it was given as a schoolmaster to drive sinners to Christ. For the rest of the chapter he elaborates on how the Old Covenant was temporary and the covenant of grace is not. Indeed, he wrote a whole the better part of an entire chapter on this very theme in Gal 4. Those who think that the Old, Mosaic, Covenant is the "real thing" are looking in the wrong direction. There are two women, Hagar and Sarah, who represent (Gal 4:24-31) two covenants. Sarah (Abraham and Isaac) represents the covenant of grace and Hagar (and Ishmael) represent the Jerusalem from below.

Again, going back to Rom 4 just briefly, how does Paul speak of Abraham? He is the "father of all who believe" (4:11), both Jew and Gentile. Abraham was justified by faith and so are we. We are under the same promises, the same grace that he was. Thus our Lord said, "Abraham saw my day and rejoiced" (John 8:56).

Abraham was a member of the very same covenant of grace of which we are members. He was a member of the covenant of grace under a different, typological administration, but it was the same covenant of grace."_



The New Covenant is build on better promises then the Old Covenant which was the Mosaic Covenant.

Circumcision was given to Abraham and his seed in Genesis 17:7 for reasons I might not fully understand... Circumcision was the sign of the covenant of grace which existed in the Abrahamic Covenant as the Internal and External Aspects of the Covenant of Grace. Unbelieving Jews still received the sign of the Covenant by having parents who were part of the Covenant. 

The External and Internal Aspects of the Covenant of Grace is the same as the Visible and Invisible Aspects of the New Covenant which is the Covenant of Grace.

Accordingly the Promise has carried over with the same Promise in Acts 2:38, 39 which Peter says "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children."

Wait, that is the language of Genesis 17:7... The Promise is to you and to your children.

Baptism is a sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace in the New Covenant Epoch. Which even in Baptist circles are still given to unbelievers (It is unavoidable this side of glory) So the Visible Church is made of believers and unbelievers in the same way as in the Abrahamic Covenant.

The Invisible Church is made up of only those who are internally in the covenant of God, the Elect. It was true in Abraham's Day and it is true today.

But there has always been unbelievers externally in covenant with God without a heart change. They will have a greater account to give since they have had greater access to the gospel.

Paul certainly makes this distinction in Rom 2:28 between those who are in the covenant of grace "outwardly" and those who are in the covenant of grace "outwardly" and inwardly, i.e., by grace alone through faith alone.

It is undeniable that unbelievers are in the church today and there will always be Ishmael's in the New Covenant. If there were Esaus and Ishmaels in the Abrahamic administration of the covenant of grace and there was a Hymenaeus and an Alexander (and Ananias and Sapphira). Then is the New Covenant so utterly different from the covenant of grace as it was under Abraham? 

In my Baptistic Understanding I was misviewing the Visible and Invisible aspects of the Church which is the same as the Internal and External aspects of the Church in the Old Testament. And I was overreaching with a over-realized eschatology of the Church in Consummation when the Visible and Invisible Church becomes one and the same with only true believers.

I will end this post with a last comment, a quote from Dr. Scott Clark about those who are externally in covenant without a heart change..

_" It's possible for those who participate in the administration of the covenant of grace, in the New Covenant, to "taste of the powers of the age to come." Sure they do. They're baptized (1 Cor 10) and they come to the Lord's Table. They're in the congregation. They hear the gospel. They sing the psalms and when they leave, they "profane the blood of the covenant." They've walked between the pieces, as it were, they've gone through the covenant cutting ritual by coming to the Lord's Table. They've received baptism and come under its promises but also its jeopardy."_

So they will be held in greater account then those outside of the covenant.


----------



## greenbaggins

So, when are you going to change your signature?  I am curious, why the "ack?" Is it such a terrible thing that you are now joining the ranks of the truly saved? After all, one is only saved by being an infant who is baptized, and we should look to our baptism as the only proper means of assurance in the faith. Is your leg off yet? I'm pulling pretty hard.


----------



## Coram Deo

I was thinking about changing it soon... 

As for the Ack, I was being alittle goofy with the title... 

Thanks for the leg pull... I will not lean FV by the Grace of God... 





greenbaggins said:


> So, when are you going to change your signature?  I am curious, why the "ack?" Is it such a terrible thing that you are now joining the ranks of the truly saved? After all, one is only saved by being an infant who is baptized, and we should look to our baptism as the only proper means of assurance in the faith. Is your leg off yet? I'm pulling pretty hard.


----------



## BlackCalvinist

Yesssss, yessssss..... commmmmme to the daaaaaaahhhhhrk side.....


----------



## Coram Deo

Funny thing, I almost used that as a thread title... "I have come to the Dark Side Luke".... 




BlackCalvinist said:


> Yesssss, yessssss..... commmmmme to the daaaaaaahhhhhrk side.....


----------



## AV1611

Glad to hear it! 

http://www.davidpfield.com/other/Goodwin-CovenantChildren.pdf


----------



## kvanlaan

I remember someone here had an avatar that said "Come to the dark side - we've got cookies." (And yes, we do have cookies, and yes, we will share them.)


----------



## Blueridge Believer

I went to a Presbyterian bible study last tuesday night. They got thier brain wave machine out and tried to get me. Luckily I had tinfoil under my hat and I was able to escape unharmed. Other than that I had a good time.


----------



## Nse007

Coram Deo said:


> I thought I would never hear myself say these words but I believe I have or am slipping into the Paedo-Baptist camp. Many of you thought that this might happen since I already became a Presbyterian in Polity and lately accepted Pouring as a mode for Baptism. I guess I was holding to my last visage of cradle faith, that of credobaptism. A sermon or two from our pastor and a few good articles from Dr. Scott Clark and extra study from internet articles have lead me down this path. Things that are really undeniable... I will try to summarize what I accept and see through Covenant Eyes....
> 
> Circumcision and Baptism are signs and seals of the Covenant of Grace which is the New Covenant which the Abrahamic Covenant was the New Covenant and not the Old Covenant.
> 
> The Old Covenant was indeed the Mosaic Covenant, Not the Abrahamic Covenant.
> 
> The Abrahamic Covenant IS the Covenant of Promise, the Covenant of Grace, An Everlasting Covenant, abet Foreseeing of the promise of Christ as we Look back to the promise of Christ.
> 
> The Mosaic Covenant was Types and Shadows (Ceremonial Aspects) that was to point us to Christ. It was all Typological, The Rituals, The Priesthood, The Kingship of David and were intended to be temporary, to be fulfilled by the reality: Christ. The Mosaic Covenant was also a republication of the Covenant of Works.
> 
> When the New Testament Speaks of the Old Covenant it is only referring to the Mosaic Covenant and not the Abrahamic Covenant.
> 
> When the New Testament Speaks of the New Covenant it puts it in the same category of Faithful Abraham and of the Abrahamic Covenant.
> 
> Dr. Scott Clark said it best with _"Don't miss the fundamental identification of all New Covenant believers with Abraham. "It is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham." In other words, genetics means nothing -- never has-- ultimately. What matters is true faith, and specifically faith that inherits or receives the promise of justification sola gratia, sola fide, the same promise given to Abraham. Thus we are blessed "along with Abraham."
> 
> Does Abraham here appear as an "Old Covenant" figure? No. Keep going in Gal 3. In v. 10 Paul contrasts "those who rely on works of the law" with (v. 11) “The righteous shall live by faith.” How does the blessing of Abraham come to anyone? In v. 14, it is "in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham" comes to "the Gentiles....."
> 
> Here comes the clincher. In v. 15 Paul appeals to the way covenants were made in the ancient world. No one annuls a "man-made" covenant "or adds to it once it has been ratified." This is significant because "the promises were made to Abraham and to his seed. It does not say, “And to seeds,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your seed,” who is Christ." In other words, whoever has faith in Christ has the promise, because Christ is the promise. Abraham had faith in Christ. Abraham was a Christian. Abraham is not identified with Moses, who is typically identified with the law, rather he is identified with the gospel.
> 
> In v. 17 Paul makes the point even clearer. The Mosaic covenant, the Old Covenant, came 430 years after the promise to Abraham. It was a codicil to the covenant. It didn't change the fundamental character of the covenant of grace God made with Abraham and to his children. Why was the Mosaic, Old Covenant given? In v. 19 Paul says that it was given "because of transgressions," i.e., it was given as a schoolmaster to drive sinners to Christ. For the rest of the chapter he elaborates on how the Old Covenant was temporary and the covenant of grace is not. Indeed, he wrote a whole the better part of an entire chapter on this very theme in Gal 4. Those who think that the Old, Mosaic, Covenant is the "real thing" are looking in the wrong direction. There are two women, Hagar and Sarah, who represent (Gal 4:24-31) two covenants. Sarah (Abraham and Isaac) represents the covenant of grace and Hagar (and Ishmael) represent the Jerusalem from below.
> 
> Again, going back to Rom 4 just briefly, how does Paul speak of Abraham? He is the "father of all who believe" (4:11), both Jew and Gentile. Abraham was justified by faith and so are we. We are under the same promises, the same grace that he was. Thus our Lord said, "Abraham saw my day and rejoiced" (John 8:56).
> 
> Abraham was a member of the very same covenant of grace of which we are members. He was a member of the covenant of grace under a different, typological administration, but it was the same covenant of grace."_
> 
> 
> 
> The New Covenant is build on better promises then the Old Covenant which was the Mosaic Covenant.
> 
> Circumcision was given to Abraham and his seed in Genesis 17:7 for reasons I might not fully understand... Circumcision was the sign of the covenant of grace which existed in the Abrahamic Covenant as the Internal and External Aspects of the Covenant of Grace. Unbelieving Jews still received the sign of the Covenant by having parents who were part of the Covenant.
> 
> The External and Internal Aspects of the Covenant of Grace is the same as the Visible and Invisible Aspects of the New Covenant which is the Covenant of Grace.
> 
> Accordingly the Promise has carried over with the same Promise in Acts 2:38, 39 which Peter says "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children."
> 
> Wait, that is the language of Genesis 17:7... The Promise is to you and to your children.
> 
> Baptism is a sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace in the New Covenant Epoch. Which even in Baptist circles are still given to unbelievers (It is unavoidable this side of glory) So the Visible Church is made of believers and unbelievers in the same way as in the Abrahamic Covenant.
> 
> The Invisible Church is made up of only those who are internally in the covenant of God, the Elect. It was true in Abraham's Day and it is true today.
> 
> But there has always been unbelievers externally in covenant with God without a heart change. They will have a greater account to give since they have had greater access to the gospel.
> 
> Paul certainly makes this distinction in Rom 2:28 between those who are in the covenant of grace "outwardly" and those who are in the covenant of grace "outwardly" and inwardly, i.e., by grace alone through faith alone.
> 
> It is undeniable that unbelievers are in the church today and there will always be Ishmael's in the New Covenant. If there were Esaus and Ishmaels in the Abrahamic administration of the covenant of grace and there was a Hymenaeus and an Alexander (and Ananias and Sapphira). Then is the New Covenant so utterly different from the covenant of grace as it was under Abraham?
> 
> In my Baptistic Understanding I was misviewing the Visible and Invisible aspects of the Church which is the same as the Internal and External aspects of the Church in the Old Testament. And I was overreaching with a over-realized eschatology of the Church in Consummation when the Visible and Invisible Church becomes one and the same with only true believers.
> 
> I will end this post with a last comment, a quote from Dr. Scott Clark about those who are externally in covenant without a heart change..
> 
> _" It's possible for those who participate in the administration of the covenant of grace, in the New Covenant, to "taste of the powers of the age to come." Sure they do. They're baptized (1 Cor 10) and they come to the Lord's Table. They're in the congregation. They hear the gospel. They sing the psalms and when they leave, they "profane the blood of the covenant." They've walked between the pieces, as it were, they've gone through the covenant cutting ritual by coming to the Lord's Table. They've received baptism and come under its promises but also its jeopardy."_
> 
> So they will be held in greater account then those outside of the covenant.



Duh...

(When are you going to PM me back?)


----------



## Herald

Michael,

No disrespect, but you know I have always believed it was only a matter of time before you shed any pretense of being a Baptist. That's not a criticism or a pot shot. It's just an observation of where you've been going over the past few years.


----------



## kvanlaan

Oh Bill, why oh why do you yourself struggle with this issue? Just follow Michael's lead - there's room for everyone over here, you know....


----------



## Ivan

To each his own.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

Ivan said:


> To each his own.




Is this another way of saying:

[bible]Judges 21:25[/bible]


----------



## JBaldwin

Come join us, Bill, the grass is greener over here. 

Incidentally, we had an adult baptism yesterday at our church (we sprinkle, of course), and both the elder and the pastor who spoke said, this is a "believer's baptism". In other words,, when an adult comes to the faith, and they haven't been previously baptised, we call it believer's baptism. I had never heard that term used in the Presbyterian church before, but I really don't have a problem with it.


----------



## Ivan

ChristopherPaul said:


> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> 
> To each his own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this another way of saying:
> 
> [bible]Judges 21:25[/bible]
Click to expand...


I'm glad you read that verse.


----------



## Herald

TO ALL:

I USED to be a Baptist-in-Crisis. Please note the past tense. I am now quite at peace with credobaptism. I am an oak. I cannot be moved. Give it your best shot!


----------



## BobVigneault

Language is everything brother Ivan. In fact, let's think this through.

The paedo-baptist is confident that primitive baptism was paedo in mode and understanding. Some where the church changed this mode to credo baptism in mode and understanding.

Coram Deo has proudly announced that he is slipping into paedo. We of course could use the synonym for 'slipping' and call it 'sliding'.

So, here is how we may phrase this current phenomenon based on Coram Deo's testimony.

They look back to an ancient baptism and the slide toward it, therefore:

Many on the board are BACK-SLIDING into a paedo-baptistic understanding.
_ 
Quod erat demonstrandum_


----------



## mark

Dear Coram Deo, 
Same thing happend to me! I went to a grace brethren seminary (think john mc arthure). It started, oddly enough, with reading presuppositional apologetic writers who happened to be presbyterians (Bahnsen, Van Til, Frame). 

And as I studied the doctrine of the covenants, it became more clear.

One thing a reformed pastor told me--and this was a big hang-up, because the confessions and baptismal orders in the Psalter and catechisms can sound "Catholic" to a Baptist, was not to confuse being in covenant with God and being justified before God. 

My wife is still getting there and it's been what--5 yrs? But both our daughters are baptized. And looking at my kids from a covenantal perspective really gives me great impetus to teach them the way of the Lord.


My 3 yr old knows almost 50 Q's from the Catechism for Younger Children. Praise God!

So, jump in--the water's fine!


----------



## ChristopherPaul

JBaldwin said:


> Come join us, Bill, the grass is greener over here.
> 
> Incidentally, we had an adult baptism yesterday at our church (we sprinkle, of course), and both the elder and the pastor who spoke said, this is a "believer's baptism". In other words,, when an adult comes to the faith, and they haven't been previously baptised, we call it believer's baptism. I had never heard that term used in the Presbyterian church before, but I really don't have a problem with it.



The debate is over believer-only baptism.

Plus the grass is indeed greener because we do not over water. Our neighbors tend to over saturate their lawns.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

Can't we all just get along???


----------



## JBaldwin

ChristopherPaul said:


> JBaldwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come join us, Bill, the grass is greener over here.
> 
> Incidentally, we had an adult baptism yesterday at our church (we sprinkle, of course), and both the elder and the pastor who spoke said, this is a "believer's baptism". In other words,, when an adult comes to the faith, and they haven't been previously baptised, we call it believer's baptism. I had never heard that term used in the Presbyterian church before, but I really don't have a problem with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The debate is over believer-only baptism.
> 
> Plus the grass is indeed greener because we do not over water. Our neighbors tend to over saturate their lawns.
Click to expand...



Thanks for that clarification


----------



## Poimen

BobVigneault said:


> Many on the board are BACK-SLIDING into a paedo-baptistic understanding.



Back-sliding into a font instead of a baptismal pool... ouch!

Perhaps he would be better off as a credo-baptist.


----------



## JM

Not glad to hear it!


----------



## BobVigneault

HEY!!!! I was talking to Ivan! You other guys stop listening in.

Why do the Dutch have such a long tradition of holding back on the water?







Poimen said:


> Back-sliding into a font instead of a baptismal pool... ouch!
> 
> Perhaps he would be better off as a credo-baptist.


----------



## jaybird0827

Dear Corum,

This news makes my day. 

I'm one of those who came full-circle. When I finally understood things from the covenantal perspective, my 8-year fling with credobaptism was officially over.


----------



## Ivan

BobVigneault said:


> Language is everything brother Ivan. In fact, let's think this through.
> 
> The paedo-baptist is confident that primitive baptism was paedo in mode and understanding. Some where the church changed this mode to credo baptism in mode and understanding.
> 
> Coram Deo has proudly announced that he is slipping into paedo. We of course could use the synonym for 'slipping' and call it 'sliding'.
> 
> So, here is how we may phrase this current phenomenon based on Coram Deo's testimony.
> 
> They look back to an ancient baptism and the slide toward it, therefore:
> 
> Many on the board are BACK-SLIDING into a paedo-baptistic understanding.
> _
> Quod erat demonstrandum_



I'm happy for Coram Deo and I'm happy for New Jersey Baptist, formerly known as BaptistinCrisis.

Let each be firmly convinced.


----------



## Pilgrim

JBaldwin said:


> Come join us, Bill, the grass is greener over here.
> 
> Incidentally, we had an adult baptism yesterday at our church (we sprinkle, of course), and both the elder and the pastor who spoke said, this is a "believer's baptism". In other words,, when an adult comes to the faith, and they haven't been previously baptised, we call it believer's baptism. I had never heard that term used in the Presbyterian church before, but I really don't have a problem with it.



We had an adult baptism yesterday as well.


----------



## Ivan

Pilgrim said:


> JBaldwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come join us, Bill, the grass is greener over here.
> 
> Incidentally, we had an adult baptism yesterday at our church (we sprinkle, of course), and both the elder and the pastor who spoke said, this is a "believer's baptism". In other words,, when an adult comes to the faith, and they haven't been previously baptised, we call it believer's baptism. I had never heard that term used in the Presbyterian church before, but I really don't have a problem with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We had an adult baptism yesterday as well.
Click to expand...


That is wonderful!!


----------



## JBaldwin

Ivan said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBaldwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come join us, Bill, the grass is greener over here.
> 
> Incidentally, we had an adult baptism yesterday at our church (we sprinkle, of course), and both the elder and the pastor who spoke said, this is a "believer's baptism". In other words,, when an adult comes to the faith, and they haven't been previously baptised, we call it believer's baptism. I had never heard that term used in the Presbyterian church before, but I really don't have a problem with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We had an adult baptism yesterday as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is wonderful!!
Click to expand...


It was exciting to me, too, because this is a sign that we are bringing new believers into the church which is also our responsibility.


----------



## mark

Baptists normally teach their children to sing "Jesus loves me." So, if they belong to Christ, why not baptize them?


----------



## BobVigneault

Because a baby dedication is a dry baptism. 



mark said:


> Baptists normally teach their children to sing "Jesus loves me." So, if they belong to Christ, why not baptize them?


----------



## Pergamum

jaybird0827 said:


> Dear Corum,
> 
> This news makes my day.
> 
> I'm one of those who came full-circle. When I finally understood things from the covenantal perspective, my 8-year fling with credobaptism was officially over.



Ha, I read that once someone is married, that adultery and cheating most often occurs at year 7 or 8... the same for those who are betwixt by Mrs. Paedo too.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BobVigneault

Holy mackerel Pergi, I charged 'back-sliding', you've escalated it to 'adultery'. We just need one more Baptist upstart to bring this up to 'murder'. Come on, who's going to be the one?


----------



## Pergamum

mark said:


> Baptists normally teach their children to sing "Jesus loves me." So, if they belong to Christ, why not baptize them?



Jesus "loved" the rich young ruler too, but he went away sad. Baptism is a sign that we have died to self and have risen to a new life as per Romans 6:4.


----------



## reformedcop

Welcome Brother!


----------



## Pergamum

mark said:


> Baptists normally teach their children to sing "Jesus loves me." So, if they belong to Christ, why not baptize them?



Jesus "loved" the rich young ruler too, but he went away sad. Baptism is a sign that we have died to self and have risen to a new life as per Romans 6:4.


----------



## ServantofGod

Great. Just when I turn to the London Baptist Confession, every one else turns back...


----------



## Pergamum

BobVigneault said:


> Holy mackerel Pergi, I charged 'back-sliding', you've escalated it to 'adultery'. We just need one more Baptist upstart to bring this up to 'murder'. Come on, who's going to be the one?



Oh...was that a bit harsh? It's an analogy...no analogy is perfect. Let me pull back the label to mere backsliding instead I guess. 



P.S. I''ve never met a holy mackeral. A few moralistic ones, but never a holy one...


----------



## Zadok

jaybird0827 said:


> Dear Corum,
> 
> This news makes my day.
> 
> I'm one of those who came full-circle. When I finally understood things from the covenantal perspective, my 8-year fling with credobaptism was officially over.



Oh dear me! It is our covenantal understanding, as well as other considerations, which bring us to the Credo position.

For those who are interested, you might like to listen to 3 messages by Dr. Peter Masters the current minister at Spurgeon's Metropolitan Tabernacle on the contrasts of the Covenants.

Message 1 - http://reformedbaptist.co.uk/PM Covs Lecture 1.zip

Message 2 - http://reformedbaptist.co.uk/PM Covs Lecture 2.zip

Message 3 - http://reformedbaptist.co.uk/PM Covs Lecture 3.zip

These lectures also helpfully tackle the much disputed 1 Corinthians 7.14


----------



## 5solasmom

Blessings to you and your family, Michael!

My husband and I, longtime credobaptists, also became convinced of covenant baptism for these same reasons 3 years ago.


----------



## Herald

Zadok said:


> jaybird0827 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Corum,
> 
> This news makes my day.
> 
> I'm one of those who came full-circle. When I finally understood things from the covenantal perspective, my 8-year fling with credobaptism was officially over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh dear me! It is our covenantal understanding, as well as other considerations, which bring us to the Credo position.
> 
> For those who are interested, you might like to listen to 3 messages by Dr. Peter Masters the current minister at Spurgeon's Metropolitan Tabernacle on the contrasts of the Covenants.
> 
> Message 1 - http://reformedbaptist.co.uk/PM Covs Lecture 1.zip
> 
> Message 2 - http://reformedbaptist.co.uk/PM Covs Lecture 2.zip
> 
> Message 3 - http://reformedbaptist.co.uk/PM Covs Lecture 3.zip
> 
> These lectures also helpfully tackle the much disputed 1 Corinthians 7.14
Click to expand...


Well said.


----------



## Mayflower

I got converted in a credo-baptist church, but when i discoverd the puritans and reformed theology i embraced for 1.5 year paedobaptism, but than i discoverd how wrong i was, and through Nehemiax Cox and through the teachings of William Einwechter it really openend my eyes for the credobaptist covenantal position!


----------



## Herald

Blueridge Baptist said:


> I went to a Presbyterian bible study last tuesday night. They got thier brain wave machine out and tried to get me. Luckily I had tinfoil under my hat and I was able to escape unharmed. Other than that I had a good time.



Brother James, it's fun to make them think they "gotcha."


----------



## Seb

Congrats Michael. 

Gee...wonder what kinda of debate this thread is about to slide into?


----------



## Herald

Seb said:


> Congrats Michael.
> 
> Gee...wonder what kinda of debate this thread is about to slide into?



There's no debate. Michael is entitled to be wrong.


----------



## DMcFadden

BobVigneault said:


> Holy mackerel Pergi, I charged 'back-sliding', you've escalated it to 'adultery'. We just need one more Baptist upstart to bring this up to 'murder'. Come on, who's going to be the one?



O the humanity of it all! You're murdering me! Don't go to the Dark Side, Luke.

The logic of covenant theology MAY lead some/many to infant baptism. However, a sober examination of the phenomena of scripture should be enough to convince one of the believers baptist position.


----------



## Zenas

BobVigneault said:


> HEY!!!! I was talking to Ivan! You other guys stop listening in.
> 
> Why do the Dutch have such a long tradition of holding back on the water?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back-sliding into a font instead of a baptismal pool... ouch!
> 
> Perhaps he would be better off as a credo-baptist.
Click to expand...


LOL! That's hilarious.


----------



## Zenas

Michael,

Glad to have you on board sir. Welcome to the Dark Side. Mind your step over the FV-er's.


----------



## Herald

DMcFadden said:


> BobVigneault said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy mackerel Pergi, I charged 'back-sliding', you've escalated it to 'adultery'. We just need one more Baptist upstart to bring this up to 'murder'. Come on, who's going to be the one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> O the humanity of it all! You're murdering me! Don't go to the Dark Side, Luke.
> 
> The logic of covenant theology MAY lead some/many to infant baptism. However, a sober examination of the phenomena of scripture should be enough to convince one of the believers baptist position.
Click to expand...


Brother Dennis, don't appeal to logic. The three of us (Vic, you and I) simply need to but on our tin foil helmets and resist the forces of darkness! I'm even protecting my cat Dunkin' from the forces arrayed against us!


----------



## MrMerlin777

My family and I came to the position of Covenant Baptism a few years back(after being Credo only Baptist for my entire life). It took alot of study and prayer and was not a possition we came to easily. But now I am quite at peace with the doctrine and practice.

Though I certainly don't anathamatize in any way my Credo only Baptist brothers and sisters.

Grace and Peace to you all.

And Michael, blessings to you and your family in your doctrinal journey.


----------



## timmopussycat

mark said:


> Baptists normally teach their children to sing "Jesus loves me." So, if they belong to Christ, why not baptize them?



When they can sing "Jesus loves me" in truth, some of us baptize them. There have been clear evidences of faith in children as young as 3 and those children lived a solid Christian life in their later years.


----------



## crhoades

North Jersey Baptist said:


> TO ALL:
> 
> I USED to be a Baptist-in-Crisis. Please note the past tense. I am now quite at peace with credobaptism. I am an oak. I cannot be moved. Give it your best shot!


 
Even oaks topple over from time to time...You know...the bigger (more stubborn) they are...the harder the fall!


----------



## Bladestunner316

How does the baptist position view John the Baptist who was saved in the womb?

I ask this question as a credo-baptist admittedly with friendliness towards the peado position.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

crhoades said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> TO ALL:
> 
> I USED to be a Baptist-in-Crisis. Please note the past tense. I am now quite at peace with credobaptism. I am an oak. I cannot be moved. Give it your best shot!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even oaks topple over from time to time...You know...the bigger (more stubborn) they are...the harder the fall!
Click to expand...



They usually topple over because of some disease or foreign intrusion into its life. A healthy tree stands strong. 

BTW, We discussed the CofG and the Abrahamic Covenant of Circumcision a while back and I mentioned that the CofG doesn't necessarily find a sign in circumcision. Not everyone in the CofG was required to be circumcised who knew God. Just those of Abrahams posterity and clan were required to take on circumcision. We discuss some interesting things here. And it aint long.http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/esau-covenant-30290/


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Bladestunner316 said:


> How does the baptist position view John the Baptist who was saved in the womb?
> 
> I ask this question as a credo-baptist admittedly with friendliness towards the peado position.




Nathan,
John the Baptizer was an exceptionally different (not normal) exception. I think everyone here would agree with that. 

From a credo position though the New Covenant child of God is in union with Christ. Confession is made unto salvation. We are children of Abraham because of our like faith in Christ. And Baptism signifies something that is a reality in our confession. Our lives are hid in Christ and we are in union with Christ because of a circumcision not made with hands (regeneration) buried with him in baptism risen with him *through the faith* of the operation of God. If this is not true of our lives then we are dead in sin and our baptism is a lie. We also bear a false testimony and only heap upon ourselves more judgment.


----------



## Jim Johnston

> However, a sober examination of the phenomena of scripture should be enough to convince one of the believers baptist position.



I didn't notice this thread. I haven't had a computer for a while, or a place to type. I just becamse a credo baptist. I follow the examples and the narratives of the first century church as _normative_. 

What am I talking about? I sold my house and donated my possessions to the brothers. I have no computer anymore, but I can use it if I sign up. So that's why I hadn't seen this thread.

My eyes have been opened. I look at examples in the Bible, and then I make them normative. I only saw believers being baptized, so that is normative. I only see apostles and miracle workers doing the baptizing, so that is normative too. Not one example of a non-apostle or a non-wonder worker baptizing someone. And, I also sold my house and gave the proceeds to the church; 'cause those examples are normative, see?

32All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need. 

Now, come here so I can lay a wet on on the cheek of my brothren, cause that's normative too.

Oh, and this may be off topic, but I also believe tounges is for the church today. I do it now. Really. I had to do this because when one searches the Scriptures, well, that's just the example of the first century church. And whatever they did is normative.

Ack, I am slipping into speaking in tounges, miracle working, and kissing the stubble-faced believers who cross paths with me. Good thing, too. Given the examples, all of them, I have to believe the gifts are for today because only since there are no more apostles, then only miracle workers can baptize.

I feel ya, Corma Deo, I'm just moving in the opposite direction . . .


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon

Coram Deo said:


> I thought I would never hear myself say these words but I believe I have or am slipping into the Paedo-Baptist camp. Many of you thought that this might happen since I already became a Presbyterian in Polity and lately accepted Pouring as a mode for Baptism. I guess I was holding to my last visage of cradle faith, that of credobaptism. A sermon or two from our pastor and a few good articles from Dr. Scott Clark and extra study from internet articles have lead me down this path. Things that are really undeniable... I will try to summarize what I accept and see through Covenant Eyes....
> 
> Circumcision and Baptism are signs and seals of the Covenant of Grace which is the New Covenant which the Abrahamic Covenant was the New Covenant and not the Old Covenant.
> 
> The Old Covenant was indeed the Mosaic Covenant, Not the Abrahamic Covenant.
> 
> The Abrahamic Covenant IS the Covenant of Promise, the Covenant of Grace, An Everlasting Covenant, abet Foreseeing of the promise of Christ as we Look back to the promise of Christ.
> 
> The Mosaic Covenant was Types and Shadows (Ceremonial Aspects) that was to point us to Christ. It was all Typological, The Rituals, The Priesthood, The Kingship of David and were intended to be temporary, to be fulfilled by the reality: Christ. The Mosaic Covenant was also a republication of the Covenant of Works.
> 
> When the New Testament Speaks of the Old Covenant it is only referring to the Mosaic Covenant and not the Abrahamic Covenant.
> 
> When the New Testament Speaks of the New Covenant it puts it in the same category of Faithful Abraham and of the Abrahamic Covenant.
> 
> Dr. Scott Clark said it best with _"Don't miss the fundamental identification of all New Covenant believers with Abraham. "It is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham." In other words, genetics means nothing -- never has-- ultimately. What matters is true faith, and specifically faith that inherits or receives the promise of justification sola gratia, sola fide, the same promise given to Abraham. Thus we are blessed "along with Abraham."
> 
> Does Abraham here appear as an "Old Covenant" figure? No. Keep going in Gal 3. In v. 10 Paul contrasts "those who rely on works of the law" with (v. 11) “The righteous shall live by faith.” How does the blessing of Abraham come to anyone? In v. 14, it is "in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham" comes to "the Gentiles....."
> 
> Here comes the clincher. In v. 15 Paul appeals to the way covenants were made in the ancient world. No one annuls a "man-made" covenant "or adds to it once it has been ratified." This is significant because "the promises were made to Abraham and to his seed. It does not say, “And to seeds,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your seed,” who is Christ." In other words, whoever has faith in Christ has the promise, because Christ is the promise. Abraham had faith in Christ. Abraham was a Christian. Abraham is not identified with Moses, who is typically identified with the law, rather he is identified with the gospel.
> 
> In v. 17 Paul makes the point even clearer. The Mosaic covenant, the Old Covenant, came 430 years after the promise to Abraham. It was a codicil to the covenant. It didn't change the fundamental character of the covenant of grace God made with Abraham and to his children. Why was the Mosaic, Old Covenant given? In v. 19 Paul says that it was given "because of transgressions," i.e., it was given as a schoolmaster to drive sinners to Christ. For the rest of the chapter he elaborates on how the Old Covenant was temporary and the covenant of grace is not. Indeed, he wrote a whole the better part of an entire chapter on this very theme in Gal 4. Those who think that the Old, Mosaic, Covenant is the "real thing" are looking in the wrong direction. There are two women, Hagar and Sarah, who represent (Gal 4:24-31) two covenants. Sarah (Abraham and Isaac) represents the covenant of grace and Hagar (and Ishmael) represent the Jerusalem from below.
> 
> Again, going back to Rom 4 just briefly, how does Paul speak of Abraham? He is the "father of all who believe" (4:11), both Jew and Gentile. Abraham was justified by faith and so are we. We are under the same promises, the same grace that he was. Thus our Lord said, "Abraham saw my day and rejoiced" (John 8:56).
> 
> Abraham was a member of the very same covenant of grace of which we are members. He was a member of the covenant of grace under a different, typological administration, but it was the same covenant of grace."_
> 
> 
> 
> The New Covenant is build on better promises then the Old Covenant which was the Mosaic Covenant.
> 
> Circumcision was given to Abraham and his seed in Genesis 17:7 for reasons I might not fully understand... Circumcision was the sign of the covenant of grace which existed in the Abrahamic Covenant as the Internal and External Aspects of the Covenant of Grace. Unbelieving Jews still received the sign of the Covenant by having parents who were part of the Covenant.
> 
> The External and Internal Aspects of the Covenant of Grace is the same as the Visible and Invisible Aspects of the New Covenant which is the Covenant of Grace.
> 
> Accordingly the Promise has carried over with the same Promise in Acts 2:38, 39 which Peter says "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children."
> 
> Wait, that is the language of Genesis 17:7... The Promise is to you and to your children.
> 
> Baptism is a sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace in the New Covenant Epoch. Which even in Baptist circles are still given to unbelievers (It is unavoidable this side of glory) So the Visible Church is made of believers and unbelievers in the same way as in the Abrahamic Covenant.
> 
> The Invisible Church is made up of only those who are internally in the covenant of God, the Elect. It was true in Abraham's Day and it is true today.
> 
> But there has always been unbelievers externally in covenant with God without a heart change. They will have a greater account to give since they have had greater access to the gospel.
> 
> Paul certainly makes this distinction in Rom 2:28 between those who are in the covenant of grace "outwardly" and those who are in the covenant of grace "outwardly" and inwardly, i.e., by grace alone through faith alone.
> 
> It is undeniable that unbelievers are in the church today and there will always be Ishmael's in the New Covenant. If there were Esaus and Ishmaels in the Abrahamic administration of the covenant of grace and there was a Hymenaeus and an Alexander (and Ananias and Sapphira). Then is the New Covenant so utterly different from the covenant of grace as it was under Abraham?
> 
> In my Baptistic Understanding I was misviewing the Visible and Invisible aspects of the Church which is the same as the Internal and External aspects of the Church in the Old Testament. And I was overreaching with a over-realized eschatology of the Church in Consummation when the Visible and Invisible Church becomes one and the same with only true believers.
> 
> I will end this post with a last comment, a quote from Dr. Scott Clark about those who are externally in covenant without a heart change..
> 
> _" It's possible for those who participate in the administration of the covenant of grace, in the New Covenant, to "taste of the powers of the age to come." Sure they do. They're baptized (1 Cor 10) and they come to the Lord's Table. They're in the congregation. They hear the gospel. They sing the psalms and when they leave, they "profane the blood of the covenant." They've walked between the pieces, as it were, they've gone through the covenant cutting ritual by coming to the Lord's Table. They've received baptism and come under its promises but also its jeopardy."_
> 
> So they will be held in greater account then those outside of the covenant.



 My transition from credo to paedo was similar. A book that was of immense help to me during that time was:

Children of the Promise by Robert R. Booth (P&R Publishinghillipsburg, New Jersey), 1995.

The author was a Baptist pastor for ten years before being persuaded of paedo-baptism.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

One more thing before all of you paedo's want to chop my head off. I have discipled more guys who have become paedo than have remained credo. A few of them are in the ministry now. And we still love each other very much. This is not an issue to divide fellowship over.


----------



## Davidius

Tom Bombadil said:


> However, a sober examination of the phenomena of scripture should be enough to convince one of the believers baptist position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't notice this thread. I haven't had a computer for a while, or a place to type. I just becamse a credo baptist. I follow the examples and the narratives of the first century church as _normative_.
> 
> What am I talking about? I sold my house and donated my possessions to the brothers. I have no computer anymore, but I can use it if I sign up. So that's why I hadn't seen this thread.
> 
> My eyes have been opened. I look at examples in the Bible, and then I make them normative. I only saw believers being baptized, so that is normative. I only see apostles and miracle workers doing the baptizing, so that is normative too. Not one example of a non-apostle or a non-wonder worker baptizing someone. And, I also sold my house and gave the proceeds to the church; 'cause those examples are normative, see?
> 
> 32All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.
> 
> Now, come here so I can law a wet on on the cheek of my brothren, cause that's normative too.
> 
> Oh, and this may be off topic, but I also believe tounges is for the church today. I do it now. Really. I had to do this because when one searches the Scriptures, well, that's just the example of the first century church. And whatever they did is normative.
> 
> Ack, I am slipping into speaking in tounges, miracle working, and kissing the stubble-faced believers who cross paths with me. Good thing, too. Given the examples, all of them, I have to believe the gifts are for today because only since there are no more apostles, then only miracle workers can baptize.
> 
> I feel ya, Corma Deo, I'm just moving in the opposite direction . . .
Click to expand...


Finally, somebody with some real sense. Thanks for that miracle-working handkerchief you sent me, Paul.


----------



## Jim Johnston

Davidius said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, a sober examination of the phenomena of scripture should be enough to convince one of the believers baptist position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't notice this thread. I haven't had a computer for a while, or a place to type. I just becamse a credo baptist. I follow the examples and the narratives of the first century church as _normative_.
> 
> What am I talking about? I sold my house and donated my possessions to the brothers. I have no computer anymore, but I can use it if I sign up. So that's why I hadn't seen this thread.
> 
> My eyes have been opened. I look at examples in the Bible, and then I make them normative. I only saw believers being baptized, so that is normative. I only see apostles and miracle workers doing the baptizing, so that is normative too. Not one example of a non-apostle or a non-wonder worker baptizing someone. And, I also sold my house and gave the proceeds to the church; 'cause those examples are normative, see?
> 
> 32All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.
> 
> Now, come here so I can law a wet on on the cheek of my brothren, cause that's normative too.
> 
> Oh, and this may be off topic, but I also believe tounges is for the church today. I do it now. Really. I had to do this because when one searches the Scriptures, well, that's just the example of the first century church. And whatever they did is normative.
> 
> Ack, I am slipping into speaking in tounges, miracle working, and kissing the stubble-faced believers who cross paths with me. Good thing, too. Given the examples, all of them, I have to believe the gifts are for today because only since there are no more apostles, then only miracle workers can baptize.
> 
> I feel ya, Corma Deo, I'm just moving in the opposite direction . . .
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Finally, somebody with some real sense. Thanks for that miracle-working handkerchief you sent me, Paul.
Click to expand...


No problem. No need to thank me, I got it from Peter Popoff.


----------



## DMcFadden

Tom Bombadil said:


> However, a sober examination of the phenomena of scripture should be enough to convince one of the believers baptist position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't notice this thread. I haven't had a computer for a while, or a place to type. I just becamse a credo baptist. I follow the examples and the narratives of the first century church as _normative_.
> 
> What am I talking about? I sold my house and donated my possessions to the brothers. I have no computer anymore, but I can use it if I sign up. So that's why I hadn't seen this thread.
> 
> My eyes have been opened. I look at examples in the Bible, and then I make them normative. I only saw believers being baptized, so that is normative. I only see apostles and miracle workers doing the baptizing, so that is normative too. Not one example of a non-apostle or a non-wonder worker baptizing someone. And, I also sold my house and gave the proceeds to the church; 'cause those examples are normative, see?
> 
> 32All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.
> 
> Now, come here so I can lay a wet on on the cheek of my brothren, cause that's normative too.
> 
> Oh, and this may be off topic, but I also believe tounges is for the church today. I do it now. Really. I had to do this because when one searches the Scriptures, well, that's just the example of the first century church. And whatever they did is normative.
> 
> Ack, I am slipping into speaking in tounges, miracle working, and kissing the stubble-faced believers who cross paths with me. Good thing, too. Given the examples, all of them, I have to believe the gifts are for today because only since there are no more apostles, then only miracle workers can baptize.
> 
> I feel ya, Corma Deo, I'm just moving in the opposite direction . . .
Click to expand...


Sarcasm duly noted.


----------



## DMcFadden

Truth be told, my existential/ecclesiastical crisis of this decade has found me revisiting first principles to be sure that my views are based on clear convictions regarding exegetical and theological matters rather than the casual acceptance of traditions from my childhood. Hence, yes, I do plan to consider the covenant arguments regarding baptism in connection with some reading on covenant theology. If the Spirit working through the Word leads be to different convictions, I may jump out of my cozy baptistry and join you Presbyterians with your water rationed baptisms.

However, at this point, I agree with Delmar's last line in the baptism scene of "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" 

Pete: Well I'll be a s**********. Delmar's been saved. 

Delmar O'Donnell: Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward. 

Ulysses Everett McGill: Delmar, what are you talking about? We've got bigger fish to fry. 

Delmar O'Donnell: The preacher says all my sins is warshed away, including that Piggly Wiggly I knocked over in Yazoo. 

Ulysses Everett McGill: I thought you said you was innocent of those charges? 

Delmar O'Donnell: Well I was lyin'. And the preacher says that that sin's been warshed away too. Neither God nor man's got nothin' on me now. *C'mon in boys, the water is fine. *


----------



## Jim Johnston

DMcFadden said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, a sober examination of the phenomena of scripture should be enough to convince one of the believers baptist position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't notice this thread. I haven't had a computer for a while, or a place to type. I just becamse a credo baptist. I follow the examples and the narratives of the first century church as _normative_.
> 
> What am I talking about? I sold my house and donated my possessions to the brothers. I have no computer anymore, but I can use it if I sign up. So that's why I hadn't seen this thread.
> 
> My eyes have been opened. I look at examples in the Bible, and then I make them normative. I only saw believers being baptized, so that is normative. I only see apostles and miracle workers doing the baptizing, so that is normative too. Not one example of a non-apostle or a non-wonder worker baptizing someone. And, I also sold my house and gave the proceeds to the church; 'cause those examples are normative, see?
> 
> 32All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.
> 
> Now, come here so I can lay a wet on on the cheek of my brothren, cause that's normative too.
> 
> Oh, and this may be off topic, but I also believe tounges is for the church today. I do it now. Really. I had to do this because when one searches the Scriptures, well, that's just the example of the first century church. And whatever they did is normative.
> 
> Ack, I am slipping into speaking in tounges, miracle working, and kissing the stubble-faced believers who cross paths with me. Good thing, too. Given the examples, all of them, I have to believe the gifts are for today because only since there are no more apostles, then only miracle workers can baptize.
> 
> I feel ya, Corma Deo, I'm just moving in the opposite direction . . .
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sarcasm duly noted.
Click to expand...


And I noted it in your post as well. 

One good turn deserves another.


----------



## Herald

crhoades said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> TO ALL:
> 
> I USED to be a Baptist-in-Crisis. Please note the past tense. I am now quite at peace with credobaptism. I am an oak. I cannot be moved. Give it your best shot!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even oaks topple over from time to time...You know...the bigger (more stubborn) they are...the harder the fall!
Click to expand...




The above oak never really was saved. It was torn up by the roots.


----------



## R Harris

Hey - you need to read Alan Conner's new book - don't you know that?!!!


As one who was walked in the Reformed Faith for 25 years, I admittedly struggled with infant baptism for a number of years. The standard covenantal arguments are certainly powerful, but I wanted to see more explicit evidence from the Scriptures themselves.

What got me over the hump was my study of the two household baptisms in Acts 16 - Lydia and the jailer.

Regarding Lydia, it is clear from the text that the Lord opened HER heart to receive the things spoken of by Paul.

Then, in a sweeping motion, Luke simply says "and when she and her HOUSEHOLD were baptized . . .". No mention is made of any of the other members of the household - no ages, genders, nothing.

Lydia then tells Paul and Silas, "if you have judged ME to be faithful to the Lord, come and stay at my house." Note carefully - she does not say, if you have judged US (her and the members of her household) to be faithful - only herself. Why did only her profession of faith matter? Weren't those professions of the other members of the household also important? If not, why not? 

The baptism of the Jailer clinched it for me. The ESV and the marginal footnote of the NASB have the correct translation in verse 34 - "And he rejoiced along with his entire household that _HE_ had believed in God."

The greek participle "having believed in God" is masculine singular, modifying the jailer.

Interestingly, Paul Jewitt wrote a book 30 years ago entitled "infant baptism and the covenant of grace,", seeking to dispel the teaching of infant baptism.

On page 111, Jewitt _readily admits_ that the greek demonstrates that only the jailer believed. But seeing hiimself backed into a corner, Jewitt then says "well then why did the entire household rejoice?"

Simple - if I get a raise at work, my household rejoices with me, but I alone received the raise. While someone under the age of 3 may not understand what a raise is, they rejoice simply because they see everyone else rejoicing. I do not understand why Jewitt could not accept this line of reasoning.

(Also, I thought Jewitt did a lamentably weak job of handling the I Corinthians 7:14 passage.)

Bottom line: even though the other members of these households did not make a profession of faith at that time, they were still baptized.

Note also in the Genesis 17:23-27 passage that ALL of Abraham's male HOUSEHOLD were also circumcised - not just Isaac. So, in the OT we have household circumcisions, and in the NT, household baptisms.

I have yet to see any work provide an adequate response to this line of reasoning for these household baptisms.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

R Harris said:


> Hey - you need to read Alan Conner's new book - don't you know that?!!!
> 
> 
> 
> The baptism of the Jailer clinched it for me. The ESV and the marginal footnote of the NASB have the correct translation in verse 34 - "And he rejoiced along with his entire household that _HE_ had believed in God."
> 
> The greek participle "having believed in God" is masculine singular, modifying the jailer.
> 
> Interestingly, Paul Jewitt wrote a book 30 years ago entitled "infant baptism and the covenant of grace,", seeking to dispel the teaching of infant baptism.
> 
> On page 111, Jewitt _readily admits_ that the greek demonstrates that only the jailer believed. But seeing hiimself backed into a corner, Jewitt then says "well then why did the entire household rejoice?"
> 
> Simple - if I get a raise at work, my household rejoices with me, but I alone received the raise. While someone under the age of 3 may not understand what a raise is, they rejoice simply because they see everyone else rejoicing. I do not understand why Jewitt could not accept this line of reasoning.
> 
> (Also, I thought Jewitt did a lamentably weak job of handling the I Corinthians 7:14 passage.)
> 
> Bottom line: even though the other members of these households did not make a profession of faith at that time, they were still baptized.
> 
> Note also in the Genesis 17:23-27 passage that ALL of Abraham's male HOUSEHOLD were also circumcised - not just Isaac. So, in the OT we have household circumcisions, and in the NT, household baptisms.
> 
> I have yet to see any work provide an adequate response to this line of reasoning for these household baptisms.



I am looking at page 111 in Jewitt's book and can't find your reference. And I looked in the back of the book for a passage reference to the Act 16 passage concerning the jailor and I can't locate it. 

BTW, have you read Conner's book?
Reformed Baptist Academic Press

You can listen to him here. The Narrow Mind Aftermath: "Covenant Children Today" and interview wih author and pastor Alan Conner TNM #888 11.26.07


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

R Harris said:


> (Also, I thought Jewitt did a lamentably weak job of handling the I Corinthians 7:14 passage.)



Read this guy on 1 Corinthians 7:14.

A Reformed Baptist View of I Cor. 7:14


----------



## R Harris

I am looking at page 111 in Jewitt's book and can't find your reference. And I looked in the back of the book for a passage reference to the Act 16 passage concerning the jailor and I can't locate it. 

BTW, have you read Conner's book?
Reformed Baptist Academic Press

You can listen to him here. The Narrow Mind Aftermath: "Covenant Children Today" and interview wih author and pastor Alan Conner TNM #888 11.26.07[/QUOTE]

I guess it might depend on which edition of the book you read. Different editions with different typeset can cause material to have different page numbering. But yes, I did read that in Jewitt's book - I could be mistaken on the page number, but I know it was in that vicinity of the book.

Since my time and money are limited, can you basically tell me how Conner deals with the household baptisms? That is what I zero in on, because people seek "definite proof" on these matters, and the covenantal arguments just go back and forth without any resolution. So all I care to know is how he deals with the Acts 16 household baptisms.


----------



## Eoghan

*Qualifications for baptism*

A worthy addition to the shorter catechism 

_*Q. "What prevents me from being baptised?"
A. "If you believe with all your heart, you may"*_​
Acts 8:36-38


----------



## jaybird0827

Eoghan said:


> A worthy addition to the shorter catechism
> 
> _*Q. "What prevents me from being baptised?"*_
> _*A. "If you believe with all your heart, you may"*_​
> Acts 8:36-38


 
I don't think so. It's already in there.

*Q. 95. To whom is Baptism to be administered?*
A. Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him; but the infants of such as are members of the visible church are to be baptized.
http://www.reformed.org/documents/WSC_fn.html#fn196


----------



## RamistThomist

Tom Bombadil said:


> However, a sober examination of the phenomena of scripture should be enough to convince one of the believers baptist position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't notice this thread. I haven't had a computer for a while, or a place to type. I just becamse a credo baptist. I follow the examples and the narratives of the first century church as _normative_.
> 
> What am I talking about? I sold my house and donated my possessions to the brothers. I have no computer anymore, but I can use it if I sign up. So that's why I hadn't seen this thread.
> 
> My eyes have been opened. I look at examples in the Bible, and then I make them normative. I only saw believers being baptized, so that is normative. I only see apostles and miracle workers doing the baptizing, so that is normative too. Not one example of a non-apostle or a non-wonder worker baptizing someone. And, I also sold my house and gave the proceeds to the church; 'cause those examples are normative, see?
> 
> 32All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.
> 
> Now, come here so I can lay a wet on on the cheek of my brothren, cause that's normative too.
> 
> Oh, and this may be off topic, but I also believe tounges is for the church today. I do it now. Really. I had to do this because when one searches the Scriptures, well, that's just the example of the first century church. And whatever they did is normative.
> 
> Ack, I am slipping into speaking in tounges, miracle working, and kissing the stubble-faced believers who cross paths with me. Good thing, too. Given the examples, all of them, I have to believe the gifts are for today because only since there are no more apostles, then only miracle workers can baptize.
> 
> I feel ya, Corma Deo, I'm just moving in the opposite direction . . .
Click to expand...


I have been waiting for so long for someone to say something just like this. All to often people respond to _x_ position by saying, "Well, the apostles didn't go around ___________ (e.g., Christianizing culture, getting involved in politics, baptizing babies, playing Xbox, etc).


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

First off let me say that for your conviction to be formed on one issue as this is slightly a bit strange in my thinking. I have never heard someone become convinced by this line of reasoning when there are so many other issues that seem to be more prevelant in the discussion. As per se the Seed of Abraham, The Abrahamic Covenant and the CofG. Jeremiah and the New Covenant, Covenant signs and who is considered a covenant member. 


Anyways. We either stand or topple over based upon some argument. There are much better places to make your argument for paedobaptism than on the household issue.

I will quote the section that Alan Conner discusses on the Jailor for you.



> *The Household of the Phillippian Jailer*
> 
> The baptism of the Philippian jailer's household (Acts 16:33) also gives no encouragement for those who want to believe in infant baptism. We learn several things about his household. First, in verse 32, the gospel is preached to them all, which suggests that they were all of age to hear the gospel. Second, in verse 34, we read, "And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household." The Greek of the last half of this verse allows for two interpretations. It means either that the whole family believed with the jailer (the majority opinion), or that the whole household rejoiced with him in his new found faith (minority view), or possibly both occurred. Whichever view is adopted, it still requires that the whole household was old enough to understand and respond to what was going on. Infants , therefore, are not in view. They either all believed, or they all rejoiced. But even if the correct interpretation is that they all rejoiced with the jailer, does this not also imply that they believed as well? Would this whole household rejoice greatly with him if they had not also come to faith and shared int his joy of salvation? It seems unlikely.
> 
> Thus the evidence indicates that the jailer's household heard the gospel, believed it, and was baptized. The assume that infants were present and baptized based on the jailer's faith is to read into the passage far more than is there.
> 
> Covenant Children Today
> by Alan Conner
> p.105



And by the way. Why would there be rejoicing for someone who was undeniably going to be punished and persecuted for his new faith. Especially since it was going to effect the whole household. This was not a raise in the fiduciary manner. We all like getting raises to pay our earthly debts and to buy more stuff. But rejoicing over someone becoming a Christian who helped other Christians who were being persecuted would not look like a raise from the boss necessarily.


----------



## kvanlaan

> TO ALL:
> 
> I USED to be a Baptist-in-Crisis. Please note the past tense. I am now quite at peace with credobaptism. I am an oak. I cannot be moved. Give it your best shot!



Shoot, I thought the cookies would do it. Let me check with some of the other paedos here and see if we can 'sweeten the pot'. I'll get back to you...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

kvanlaan said:


> TO ALL:
> 
> I USED to be a Baptist-in-Crisis. Please note the past tense. I am now quite at peace with credobaptism. I am an oak. I cannot be moved. Give it your best shot!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shoot, I thought the cookies would do it. Let me check with some of the other paedos here and see if we can 'sweeten the pot'. I'll get back to you...
Click to expand...


I like raisins in mine along with the chocolate chips


----------



## kvanlaan

> I like raisins in mine along with the chocolate chips



Ah, the price of a Baptist's soul...


----------



## Mushroom

> I went to a Presbyterian bible study last tuesday night. They got thier brain wave machine out and tried to get me. Luckily I had tinfoil under my hat and I was able to escape unharmed. Other than that I had a good time.


See now, that's the problem. If you actually had used tinfoil you'd come around to the truth, but what you really have been using is aluminum foil, which has a disruptive effect on the subliminal messages we've been beaming at your head.


----------



## mark

Seb said:


> Congrats Michael.
> 
> Gee...wonder what kinda of debate this thread is about to slide into?



Hey I'm a conservative member in a conservative (somewhat) congregation too! maybe I should say that instead of 'don't freak out on me.'


----------



## mark

*1 cor 7:14*

while not the sole basis upon which we determine this doctrine (really, it is used as an ancillary to the doctrine of the covenant and the unity between the abrahamic and new, nevertheless); _of course_ we would assert the unbelieving spouse has the right to be baptized. Why else were there household baptisms in the book of Acts? 

1st century christians rightly understood following the ways of the Lord in a covenantal fashion. Hence Aikin's ENTIRE family was destroyed for this one man's sin. This is only one of many, many examples. How about Rahab's family? They were saved because of her belief and subsequent obedience.

Covenant headship is what we are talking about.

Even so, Paul says the unbelieving spouse is sanctified by her believing spouse. This article seems to deploy its whole argument on the idea that the unbelieving spouse is not sanctified, only his/her chidlren are. 

But that's not what the text says....

14For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.(ESV)


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Wow, this thread grew fast. I thought I must have missed this over the past couple of days but realized it grew rapidly when I opened it.

I will withold from being controversial because this is an "everything" thread already.

I'll just say that I'm happy for you.

I have many Brothers and Sisters in the Lord that disagree on this topic.

Most important for me to ensure that a Christian understands on this topic is that the Sacrament (or ordinance if you like) is a sign of something objective that God promises to do for those that believe. If you ground the meaning of the sign in the believer - that is to say if the sign is something of an intrinsic character rather than something that points outside of us - then I believe the Christian has been robbed of something profound.

When the Enemy comes to your life and begins to try to sift you like wheat, when the question comes to your mind "Is your faith really strong enough to save you?", will the answer be found in the strength of your faith or will the ANCHOR be found in the Promise of God?

[bible]Hebrews 6:13-20[/bible]

You see, I firmly believe that whether one baptizes an adult or a child, what will sustain that Christian is not a sign that says of them: "I baptize you because of the quality of your faith...." Rather, the baptism should hold forth that Promise, confirmed by an Oath, that all who believe on Christ shall surely be saved from their sins.

I may not have much faith, I may even be convinced that my faith is weak, but, Beloved, I know that a clinging to the feet of Christ is enough because God has sworn His Promise in my baptism and has confirmed it by an Oath and so I cling to something that CANNOT BE MOVED!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

mark said:


> Even so, Paul says the unbelieving spouse is sanctified by her believing spouse. This article seems to deploy its whole argument on the idea that the unbelieving spouse is not sanctified, only his/her chidlren are.
> 
> But that's not what the text says....
> 
> 14For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.(ESV)




Can you quote me the portion of the article that says the unbelieving spouse isn't sanctified by the believing spouse? I think he was making more of a connection between the unbelieving spouse and children. BTW I like Gill's view better.


----------



## Zadok

mark said:


> while not the sole basis upon which we determine this doctrine (really, it is used as an ancillary to the doctrine of the covenant and the unity between the abrahamic and new, nevertheless); _of course_ we would assert the unbelieving spouse has the right to be baptized. Why else were there household baptisms in the book of Acts?
> 
> 1st century christians rightly understood following the ways of the Lord in a covenantal fashion. Hence Aikin's ENTIRE family was destroyed for this one man's sin. This is only one of many, many examples. How about Rahab's family? They were saved because of her belief and subsequent obedience.
> 
> Covenant headship is what we are talking about.
> 
> Even so, Paul says the unbelieving spouse is sanctified by her believing spouse. This article seems to deploy its whole argument on the idea that the unbelieving spouse is not sanctified, only his/her chidlren are.
> 
> But that's not what the text says....
> 
> 14For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.(ESV)



Reference: Proverbs 18.17

You need to listen to those messages I referred to in my prevous post brother. You will find the Corinthians passage explained in clear and simple terms without the wholesale freighting of the OT covenant into the NT.


----------



## MW

Coram Deo said:


> The Old Covenant was indeed the Mosaic Covenant, Not the Abrahamic Covenant.
> 
> The Abrahamic Covenant IS the Covenant of Promise, the Covenant of Grace, An Everlasting Covenant, abet Foreseeing of the promise of Christ as we Look back to the promise of Christ.
> 
> The Mosaic Covenant was Types and Shadows (Ceremonial Aspects) that was to point us to Christ. It was all Typological, The Rituals, The Priesthood, The Kingship of David and were intended to be temporary, to be fulfilled by the reality: Christ. The Mosaic Covenant was also a republication of the Covenant of Works.
> 
> When the New Testament Speaks of the Old Covenant it is only referring to the Mosaic Covenant and not the Abrahamic Covenant.



Without wanting to pour or sprinkle water on your baptismal flame -- this is really no different than the fundamental dispensational idea which lies at the heart of all anti-paedobaptistic thought. If the Abrahamic covenant was the non-typical covenant of grace and the Mosaic covenant was the typical covenant of works, then we should be circumcising children as Abraham was commanded, not baptising them as was the case with the nation of Israel under Moses. I also wonder how you justify "sprinkling" without reference to the Mosaic covenant. Your presentation of the unity of the covenant, which undergirds the practice of paedobaptism, needs "conversion," in my humble opinion.


----------



## Coram Deo

Bill, 

None Taken..... But I did have you in mind when I wrote "Many of you thought that this might happen since I already became a Presbyterian in Polity and lately accepted Pouring as a mode for Baptism. I guess I was holding to my last visage of cradle faith, that of credobaptism." 


But since I have left credobaptism I guess I need to watch out for the Godfather Mafia of the Baptists..  Your Avatar is scaring me.... And we all know the secret of Baptists "You may never leave once you join or your life is forfeited"... 




North Jersey Baptist said:


> Michael,
> 
> No disrespect, but you know I have always believed it was only a matter of time before you shed any pretense of being a Baptist. That's not a criticism or a pot shot. It's just an observation of where you've been going over the past few years.


----------



## Coram Deo

Wow, 82 Messages... I have some catching up to do...


----------



## Coram Deo

Now that is funny... 




North Jersey Baptist said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobVigneault said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy mackerel Pergi, I charged 'back-sliding', you've escalated it to 'adultery'. We just need one more Baptist upstart to bring this up to 'murder'. Come on, who's going to be the one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> O the humanity of it all! You're murdering me! Don't go to the Dark Side, Luke.
> 
> The logic of covenant theology MAY lead some/many to infant baptism. However, a sober examination of the phenomena of scripture should be enough to convince one of the believers baptist position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brother Dennis, don't appeal to logic. The three of us (Vic, you and I) simply need to but on our tin foil helmets and resist the forces of darkness! I'm even protecting my cat Dunkin' from the forces arrayed against us!
Click to expand...


----------



## Coram Deo

Armourbearer,

If you reread what I wrote I never said that the Abrahamic covenant was not 
typological.. I quoted Dr. Scott Clark with the Following "Abraham was a member of the very same covenant of grace of which we are members. _*He was a member of the covenant of grace under a different, typological administration, but it was the same covenant of grace.*_"

Now as per the Mosaic Covenant.. Maybe I should have been alittle clearer but I was referring to the Mosaic Covenant as a CoW as the Old Covenant which the Abrahamic Covenant is not part of...

The Mosaic Covenant was an administration of the CoG but with a overlap or overlay of a republication of the CoW.

Again, I am going to quote Dr. Scott Clark... "How then was the Mosaic covenant a works covenant? Not relative to salvation but relative to their status as the temporary, typological national people. It is with this theme in view that Paul speaks of Moses as the "old covenant." It isn't just that Moses was typological. Abraham and Noah were typological too but they aren't described as the "old covenant." What is distinct about the Mosaic covenant? It is their status of Israel as God's temporary, typological, cultic people."

I hope this clears up any confusion...






armourbearer said:


> Coram Deo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Old Covenant was indeed the Mosaic Covenant, Not the Abrahamic Covenant.
> 
> The Abrahamic Covenant IS the Covenant of Promise, the Covenant of Grace, An Everlasting Covenant, abet Foreseeing of the promise of Christ as we Look back to the promise of Christ.
> 
> The Mosaic Covenant was Types and Shadows (Ceremonial Aspects) that was to point us to Christ. It was all Typological, The Rituals, The Priesthood, The Kingship of David and were intended to be temporary, to be fulfilled by the reality: Christ. The Mosaic Covenant was also a republication of the Covenant of Works.
> 
> When the New Testament Speaks of the Old Covenant it is only referring to the Mosaic Covenant and not the Abrahamic Covenant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without wanting to pour or sprinkle water on your baptismal flame -- this is really no different than the fundamental dispensational idea which lies at the heart of all anti-paedobaptistic thought. If the Abrahamic covenant was the non-typical covenant of grace and the Mosaic covenant was the typical covenant of works, then we should be circumcising children as Abraham was commanded, not baptising them as was the case with the nation of Israel under Moses. I also wonder how you justify "sprinkling" without reference to the Mosaic covenant. Your presentation of the unity of the covenant, which undergirds the practice of paedobaptism, needs "conversion," in my humble opinion.
Click to expand...


----------



## RamistThomist

I think what Rev Winzer was getting at is that using your arguments in the first post, and (consistently) applying them to another aspect of the Mosaic covenant, namely the Law, you would have a quasi-dispensationalism going on (which is what Kline's system is at parts).


----------



## MW

Coram Deo said:


> "It isn't just that Moses was typological. Abraham and Noah were typological too but they aren't described as the "old covenant." What is distinct about the Mosaic covenant? It is their status of Israel as God's temporary, typological, cultic people."
> 
> I hope this clears up any confusion...



Clear as mud.

Noah and Abraham offered sacrifices. In the "old covenant," as stated by Jeremiah and explained in Heb. 8-10, there was remembrance of sin by means of the sacrifices. It is this element which would be done away under the new covenant, i.e., new administration of the covenant of grace.

Further, Eph. 2, and Rom. 11 expressly teach that Gentiles are incorporated with covenanted Israel in the NT church. There is nothing temporary about OT Israel. Unbelieving Israel are cut off from that olive tree, and Gentile believers are grafted into that olive tree; but it still remains the same covenant entity.

The framework with which you are thinking about the covenants needs to be renewed according to the biblical and confessional pattern -- one covenant of grace comprehending distinct administrations.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon

joshua said:


> BTW, Mr. Sterling, I deleted my superfluous, sidetracking, hi-jacking post.  Sorry 'bout that.




thanks!


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

Blueridge Baptist said:


> I went to a Presbyterian bible study last tuesday night. They got thier brain wave machine out and tried to get me. Luckily I had tinfoil under my hat and I was able to escape unharmed. Other than that I had a good time.






Thanks for the heads up brother James, we'll adjust the setting on our machine to compensate for the foil when you come down to Wytheville on the 5th.


----------



## Eoghan

jaybird0827 said:


> Eoghan said:
> 
> 
> 
> A worthy addition to the shorter catechism
> 
> _*Q. "What prevents me from being baptised?"*_
> _*A. "If you believe with all your heart, you may"*_​
> Acts 8:36-38
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think so. It's already in there.
> 
> *Q. 95. To whom is Baptism to be administered?*
> A. Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him; but the infants of such as are members of the visible church are to be baptized.
Click to expand...


...and these infants believe with all their hearts?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Eoghan said:


> jaybird0827 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eoghan said:
> 
> 
> 
> A worthy addition to the shorter catechism
> 
> _*Q. "What prevents me from being baptised?"*_
> _*A. "If you believe with all your heart, you may"*_​
> Acts 8:36-38
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think so. It's already in there.
> 
> *Q. 95. To whom is Baptism to be administered?*
> A. Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him; but the infants of such as are members of the visible church are to be baptized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...and these infants believe with all their hearts?
Click to expand...


Off topic. James White is my friend but there's an irony that a great text he might enlist to his aid in this debate would not be available to him because the newer translations omit that portion of Acts 8:36. I don't really want to go down that rabbit hole but it just tickled me a bit.

If you look at what Jay said, the first part _is_ in the question of administration. Whether you agree with the portion that follows after the semi-colon, the first part acknowledges that adult baptisms require a profession of faith. It's sort of like a violent agreement with Presbyterians at that point. I think you'll need to deal with Tom Bombadil's reductio ad absurdum if you're going to claim that an example of an adult baptism makes this normative for _all_ baptims. You may wish to assert that the example makes this plain but this has to be argued and not merely asserted.


----------



## mark

Dear Coram,
I heartily recommend John Murray's book, Christian Baptism. John Murray, of course, is great.


----------



## mark

Forgot to say, the Covenant of Grace has good exegitical formulation found in Eph 2:10ff, "the covenants (plural) of the promise (singular)."

This makes is very plausible to believe that the many covenants are all administered under the auspices of the one Covenant of Grace, aka the "eternal covenant," (Hebrews).

gitrdone


----------



## LadyFlynt

ServantofGod said:


> Great. Just when I turn to the London Baptist Confession, every one else turns back...




Nope, I turned Paedo before moving to PA 


The cookies are better over here...


----------



## greenbaggins

Wow, this thread did indeed grow fast. This issue may be the only issue that distinguishes Dennis and Martin from myself. I think that the main issue in regards to infant baptism is the nature of the covenant and the place of children in regard to it. The points about the Mosaic versus the Abrahamic covenant are absolutely crucial, since belief *in the NT* is explicitly connected with the Abrahamic, and *not* the Mosaic covenant. This is plain as a pikestaff from Galatians 3, where those of faith are the children of Abraham. I can hear the credo-only-baptist saying, "But what about that statement? Doesn't it say that only those who actually believe are part of the Abrahamic covenant?" Well, first of all, we don't know that children cannot believe from the womb. The Bible seems to indicate quite the reverse. Secondly, the same objection could be made against children in the Abrahamic covenant before Christ. But the clincher here is Galatians 3:18, where Paul affirms that the inheritance comes _by promise_. What is that promise? It is the Abrahamic covenantal promise! Through the single offspring (Christ), which grammatical point Paul makes a big deal out of, the many offspring (3:7) are blessed by means of promise. In other words, the promise means that the norm is that children are part of the covenant (connected in an external way, and maybe also internally, if they believe). If the kingdom of God belongs to these (as Jesus said), then they should have the sign of this kingdom. Connected with Acts 2, where Peter says that the promise is for you and for your children, then the place of children is affirmed as being exactly the same as in the Abrahamic covenant. Someone might object regarding Acts 2 that it goes on to say, "and for all who are far off." That doesn't negate the point, since the statement does not have to apply to all three groups in exactly the same way. But we can say that the promise is for the children, not just for the adults. 

By the way, the single best book ever written on the subject from a paedo position is undoubtedly _The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism_, by Pierre Marcel, available here.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

greenbaggins said:


> The points about the Mosaic versus the Abrahamic covenant are absolutely crucial, since belief *in the NT* is explicitly connected with the Abrahamic, and *not* the Mosaic covenant.



Hey Lane,

I understand the connection between the Abrahamic and the New. But are you sure that the Mosaic is in no way connected to the New Covenant. I undestand that Galatians 3 puts a direct connection to the Abrahamic but it also distances itself somewhat from the sign of it as it is the same sign is connected with the Mosaic. 



> (Gal 3:6) Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
> 
> (Gal 3:7) Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
> 
> (Gal 3:8) And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
> 
> (Gal 3:9) So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.





> (Gal 5:2) Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
> 
> (Gal 5:3) For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
> 
> (Gal 5:4) Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
> 
> (Gal 5:5) For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
> 
> (Gal 5:6) For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.




Though there is an allegory to illustrate it Paul does say that there are two Covenants in Abraham. One is of the Promise (Covenant of Grace) and the other is bondage (Covenant of Works). The bondage is directly associated with the Mosaic in one aspect. Also notice that Jerusalem is called our mother as Abraham is called our Father. 



> (Gal 4:21) Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
> 
> (Gal 4:22) For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
> 
> (Gal 4:23) But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
> 
> (Gal 4:24) Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
> 
> (Gal 4:25) For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
> 
> (Gal 4:26) But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.



The Mosaic is called our schoolmaster and tutor. It is a grace that points to Christ. Is it not then somehow associated in that it is gracious to point to Christ and His atonement. 

I am convinced that the Covenant of Grace is administered in the Abrahamic and the Mosaic. They both also administer the Covenant of Works. You can be cut off in both.


----------



## Christusregnat

BlackCalvinist said:


> Yesssss, yessssss..... commmmmme to the daaaaaaahhhhhrk side.....


----------



## Christusregnat

Eoghan said:


> jaybird0827 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eoghan said:
> 
> 
> 
> A worthy addition to the shorter catechism
> 
> _*Q. "What prevents me from being baptised?"*_
> _*A. "If you believe with all your heart, you may"*_​
> Acts 8:36-38
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think so. It's already in there.
> 
> *Q. 95. To whom is Baptism to be administered?*
> A. Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him; but the infants of such as are members of the visible church are to be baptized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...and these infants believe with all their hearts?
Click to expand...


Hello Eoghan,

If they didn't believe with all their hearts, how could the kingdom of God and of heaven belong to them?

Do you believe with all your heart? Be careful how you answer. The mighty promise of God in Jeremiah 31 DOES NOT come by changing the administration of the covenant; it comes by the mighty work of God the Holy Spirit among the covenant members: from the greatest to the least of them.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## greenbaggins

Martin, there is definitely some discontinuity with how the covenant of grace was administered during the time of the law versus the time of the Gospel. The bloody sign (circumcision) is replaced with with the bloodless sign (in memorial of the blood that Christ shed, we don't have to shed our blood). Of course, there is much more to the sign than memorial. But we cannot deny its memorial aspect. 

It is true that all those not in the CoG belong still as covenant breakers to the CoW. Furthermore, the law has its third use in the NT CoG. However, the administration of the CoG follows the Abrahamic, not the Mosaic pattern. In which case, the children of believers are in the same position that they have always been in with regard to the covenant. At the very least, strong evidence would have to be put forward that children were now *not* to be regarded as belonging the covenant's administration. No such evidence do we find.


----------



## Iconoclast

*mixing the promises?*

While Christ is the promised seed of Galatians all are agreed.
I believe it is an error to see in acts2;38-39 the promise spoken of as the same promise in that the context of the passage is speaking of the promise of psalm 16:9-10 being fulfilled in Christ. Peter quotes it as such as he speaks of our risen Saviour. Death could not hold Him,as per 1cor 15
The "promise" not to be left to the second death and all of it's corruptions are given to those at pentecost , if they believe. It is given to their children if they believe. It is given to all who are afar off, if they believe.
The promise is an actual promise to all who are In Christ. This requires the Holy Spirit. I will develop it more later, as I must go to work now.
Lane, and Mike and any other here: Do you see how the promise of Acts 2:22-33 , is the exact promise of Acts2:38-39???
This impacts the teaching radically and is instructive on how the doctrines we believe,ie, election, particular redemption, Spirit Baptism, are linked .
I do not think you padeo brethren slow down here in Acts 2 because you are excited to see a link to the word promise [ which you are eager to link to gen 17] with our children. I do not believe that this passage has that in view, as much as Peter is given psalm 16 by the Spirit to apply here.
Whatever Gen 17 has to say, which I by no means seek to diminish, These are great foundational promises with many facets- I believe that it is error to make Acts 2 38-39 speak in the way you propose.
I suspect some of you might like to comment on this


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

greenbaggins said:


> At the very least, strong evidence would have to be put forward that children were now *not* to be regarded as belonging the covenant's administration. No such evidence do we find.



I would agree with you if you said elect children. (that is if I am understanding your sentence structure correctly) And I would probably disagree (with you) with whom the Covenant sign should be administered to. The Covenant of grace is purely focused upon those who are in the faith and heirs with Abraham and have union with Christ in the New Covenant. 

But then again I am a Credo Baptist. 

I am not sure what to make of the *not*. Are they or are they not?

edittttt.... 

The more I read it the more I am convinced I am not sure what you are saying Lane. You are probably being pretty clear. It is just that my head has some wiring problems. LOL

Are you saying that there is no evidence that Children are not belonging to the Covenantal administration?

I am confused.... 
It won't be the last time.


----------



## DMcFadden

greenbaggins said:


> Wow, this thread did indeed grow fast. This issue may be the only issue that distinguishes Dennis and Martin from myself.



Ack! What a time to have my hard drive fail and need to transfer 180 GB of data to another computer AND have a busy work day!!!  

Looks like I'll be mostly sitting this one out.


----------



## greenbaggins

Iconoclast said:


> While Christ is the promised seed of Galatians all are agreed.
> I believe it is an error to see in acts2;38-39 the promise spoken of as the same promise in that the context of the passage is speaking of the promise of psalm 16:9-10 being fulfilled in Christ. Peter quotes it as such as he speaks of our risen Saviour. Death could not hold Him,as per 1cor 15
> The "promise" not to be left to the second death and all of it's corruptions are given to those at pentecost , if they believe. It is given to their children if they believe. It is given to all who are afar off, if they believe.
> The promise is an actual promise to all who are In Christ. This requires the Holy Spirit. I will develop it more later, as I must go to work now.
> Lane, and Mike and any other here: Do you see how the promise of Acts 2:22-33 , is the exact promise of Acts2:38-39???
> This impacts the teaching radically and is instructive on how the doctrines we believe,ie, election, particular redemption, Spirit Baptism, are linked .
> I do not think you padeo brethren slow down here in Acts 2 because you are excited to see a link to the word promise [ which you are eager to link to gen 17] with our children. I do not believe that this passage has that in view, as much as Peter is given psalm 16 by the Spirit to apply here.
> Whatever Gen 17 has to say, which I by no means seek to diminish, These are great foundational promises with many facets- I believe that it is error to make Acts 2 38-39 speak in the way you propose.
> I suspect some of you might like to comment on this



Acts 2: 38-39 cannot be talking about the promise of Psalm 16. This is for two reasons. 1. The quotation from Psalm 110 intervenes between the quotation of Psalm 16 and vv. 38-39. 2. Nothing in Psalm 16 mentions the promise of the Holy Spirit. The language of the promise is linked to the call of the Lord in verse 39. 

The language of call belongs to the Abrahamic covenant. He is addressing Jews, and talking about Gentiles, which is vitally important to the Abrahamic promise (through you all nations shall be blessed). Jews steeped in their OT would not have failed to understand that Peter was making the claim that the Abrahamic covenant is fulfilled in Christ. The church is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise. The entire scope of the covenant has broadened from just Jew to now Jew plus Gentile. If that is the case, and the covenant is now founded on greater promises, then how in the world can we say that the privileges of children are less than they are in the OT? 

Dennis, I feel your pain. 

Martin, do you agree that there is a distinction that can be made between the substance of the covenant and its administration? After all, in the Abrahamic covenant, Ishmael was circumcized, but was not saved, not elect. He had the administration, but not the essence. The same is true today of the church. It is quite possible to possess the administration of the covenant without being saved. On this vein, one rock on which the credo-only-baptist position falls is the apostasy passage in Hebrews 6. I would argue that Hebrews 6 represents the situation in which a participant in the administration of the covenant (but never saved) falls away from that administration. But if there is no outward administration that can be distinguished from the essence of the covenant (which essence of the covenant we both believe equals salvation), then from what did the apostate fall? The author of Hebrews speaks of the church as being in the wilderness situation, the same as OT Israel. The language is dripping with OT allusions to Israel in the wilderness. There it was abundantly proven that people could participate in the administration without possessing the essence. The language in Hebrews 6 is covenantal language. This shows us that the nature of the covenant's essence is salvation, but the outward administration includes the visible signs (circumcision in the OT, baptism in the new). 
You are correct, by the way, in your interpretation of my sentence. There is no evidence in the NT that the place of children in the covenant has changed from having more privileges to having fewer privileges. If Christ said that the substance of the kingdom belongs to little children also, then why refuse them the sign of that kingdom?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

greenbaggins said:


> You are correct, by the way, in your interpretation of my sentence. There is no evidence in the NT that the place of children in the covenant has changed from having more privileges to having fewer privileges. If Christ said that the substance of the kingdom belongs to little children also, then why refuse them the sign of that kingdom?




Thanks Pastor,

I will work my way backwards starting with the last question. When Jesus was making this statement it is assumed that their were infants in the crowd. I am not sure you can make that assumption. But that is neither here nor there. The main gist of the passage is that one must enter or receive the Kingdom as a little child. Childlike faith which cries Abba. In that I would say that this is a passage that does require that the children have some gnosis, reason, and faith. At least that is the gist of the passage if I am understanding it correctly. 



> (Luk 18:16) But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
> 
> (Luk 18:17) Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Rom 8:14) For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
> 
> (Rom 8:15) For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
> 
> (Rom 8:16) The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
Click to expand...







> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> Martin, do you agree that there is a distinction that can be made between the substance of the covenant and its administration? After all, in the Abrahamic covenant, Ishmael was circumcized, but was not saved, not elect. He had the administration, but not the essence. The same is true today of the church. It is quite possible to possess the administration of the covenant without being saved. On this vein, one rock on which the credo-only-baptist position falls is the apostasy passage in Hebrews 6. I would argue that Hebrews 6 represents the situation in which a participant in the administration of the covenant (but never saved) falls away from that administration. But if there is no outward administration that can be distinguished from the essence of the covenant (which essence of the covenant we both believe equals salvation), then from what did the apostate fall? The author of Hebrews speaks of the church as being in the wilderness situation, the same as OT Israel. The language is dripping with OT allusions to Israel in the wilderness. There it was abundantly proven that people could participate in the administration without possessing the essence. The language in Hebrews 6 is covenantal language. This shows us that the nature of the covenant's essence is salvation, but the outward administration includes the visible signs (circumcision in the OT, baptism in the new).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well it is obvious you don't know my thoughts on this. Now you are in for it.  You are really gonna be taken aback now. Check out these small threads.
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/works-within-mosaic-covenant-24649/
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/esau-covenant-30290/
> 
> They will be illuminating for you. Dr. Mike Renihan makes a few posts in the second thread.
> 
> I agree that Hebrews 6 is Covenantal language. We are in agreement there. But it also applies to all who are outside of the Mosaic even though it is primarily written to those who were under the Mosaic at one time. But we are persuaded of better things concerning those he wrote to.
Click to expand...


----------



## R Harris

PuritanCovenanter said:


> First off let me say that for your conviction to be formed on one issue as this is slightly a bit strange in my thinking. I have never heard someone become convinced by this line of reasoning when there are so many other issues that seem to be more prevelant in the discussion. As per se the Seed of Abraham, The Abrahamic Covenant and the CofG. Jeremiah and the New Covenant, Covenant signs and who is considered a covenant member.
> 
> 
> Anyways. We either stand or topple over based upon some argument. There are much better places to make your argument for paedobaptism than on the household issue.
> 
> I will quote the section that Alan Conner discusses on the Jailor for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Household of the Phillippian Jailer*
> 
> The baptism of the Philippian jailer's household (Acts 16:33) also gives no encouragement for those who want to believe in infant baptism. We learn several things about his household. First, in verse 32, the gospel is preached to them all, which suggests that they were all of age to hear the gospel. Second, in verse 34, we read, "And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household." The Greek of the last half of this verse allows for two interpretations. It means either that the whole family believed with the jailer (the majority opinion), or that the whole household rejoiced with him in his new found faith (minority view), or possibly both occurred. Whichever view is adopted, it still requires that the whole household was old enough to understand and respond to what was going on. Infants , therefore, are not in view. They either all believed, or they all rejoiced. But even if the correct interpretation is that they all rejoiced with the jailer, does this not also imply that they believed as well? Would this whole household rejoice greatly with him if they had not also come to faith and shared int his joy of salvation? It seems unlikely.
> 
> Thus the evidence indicates that the jailer's household heard the gospel, believed it, and was baptized. The assume that infants were present and baptized based on the jailer's faith is to read into the passage far more than is there.
> 
> Covenant Children Today
> by Alan Conner
> p.105
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And by the way. Why would there be rejoicing for someone who was undeniably going to be punished and persecuted for his new faith. Especially since it was going to effect the whole household. This was not a raise in the fiduciary manner. We all like getting raises to pay our earthly debts and to buy more stuff. But rejoicing over someone becoming a Christian who helped other Christians who were being persecuted would not look like a raise from the boss necessarily.
Click to expand...


The very things that Conner raises I responded to in my original post.
He is not being honest with the original greek and is not quoting verse 34 accurately. Any serious, objective greek scholar will tell you that the participle modifies the jailer. As I said, Jewitt admitted it, and then made the same "rejoicing" arguments that Conner made above.

I used the "raise" example as an illustration. Certainly the jailer's household had reason for rejoicing; he almost thrust a sword through himself and would have done so had Paul not arrived when he did. It is hard for us, in a modern society of skepticism, to see a household rejoicing about its head's salvation.

Again, people miss the entire context of the household baptisms. I actually agree with your link to the I Cor. 7:14 passage in that yes, the other members of the household SHOULD be baptized. Age - old, young, teenager or infant - has nothing to do with it. With Abraham's household, the OLDER MALES were also circumcised, along with 8 day old Isaac, even though they too made no profession to Yahweh, just like Isaac.

Noah is the same thing. HE ALONE was found righteous, yet the household of ADULTS went aboard the ark with him. If God was strictly individualistic, he could have easily provided for Noah alone, caused him to fall into a deep sleep just like Adam after Noah had reached dry ground, and started the human race all over again. But God did not do that; he used the HOUSEHOLD to begin re-populating the earth. Even the reprobate HAM was included in this - just as Esau would receive the sign of circumcision later.


----------



## JonathanHunt

Zadok said:


> jaybird0827 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Corum,
> 
> This news makes my day.
> 
> I'm one of those who came full-circle. When I finally understood things from the covenantal perspective, my 8-year fling with credobaptism was officially over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh dear me! It is our covenantal understanding, as well as other considerations, which bring us to the Credo position.
> 
> For those who are interested, you might like to listen to 3 messages by Dr. Peter Masters the current minister at Spurgeon's Metropolitan Tabernacle on the contrasts of the Covenants.
> 
> Message 1 - http://reformedbaptist.co.uk/PM Covs Lecture 1.zip
> 
> Message 2 - http://reformedbaptist.co.uk/PM Covs Lecture 2.zip
> 
> Message 3 - http://reformedbaptist.co.uk/PM Covs Lecture 3.zip
> 
> These lectures also helpfully tackle the much disputed 1 Corinthians 7.14
Click to expand...


Good lectures. have we met, Satch? I'm often at the Tab for LRBS and SoT.

J


----------



## Jim Johnston

> Originally Posted by *Eoghan*
> _A worthy addition to the shorter catechism
> 
> 
> Q. "What prevents me from being baptised?"
> A. "If you believe with all your heart, you may"
> 
> Acts 8:36-38 _



Even in the Old Testament an adult proselyte had to profess faith in Yahweh, turn from his idols, and endeavor to follow Yahweh's statutes.

So, back then, this convo could have taken place:

Adult Proselyte: "What prevents me from receiving circumcision?"

Orhtodox Jew: "If you believe, you may. If you turn from your idols, give your allegeince to Jehovah, you may."

So, what's the big difference here?

Oh yeah, note that those proselytes turned around and circumcised (say) their toddlers; who, by the way, were not *ethnic* Jews, and the Messiah *would not* come from *their* loins.


----------



## Jim Johnston

> Originally Posted by *Puritan Covenenter *
> 
> *originally posted by greenbaggins:* "You are correct, by the way, in your interpretation of my sentence. There is no evidence in the NT that the place of children in the covenant has changed from having more privileges to having fewer privileges. If Christ said that the substance of the kingdom belongs to little children also, then why refuse them the sign of that kingdom?"
> 
> 
> *Puritan Covenanter now:* _Thanks Pastor,
> 
> I will work my way backwards starting with the last question. When Jesus was making this statement it is assumed that their were infants in the crowd. I am not sure you can make that assumption. But that is neither here nor there. The main gist of the passage is that one must enter or receive the Kingdom as a little child. Childlike faith which cries Abba. In that I would say that this is a passage that does require that the children have some gnosis, reason, and faith. At least that is the gist of the passage if I am understanding it correctly.
> 
> (Luk 18:16) But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God._





Allow me to quote that famous paedobaptist slayer, *Paul King Jewett* for our baptist brothers here. *Jewett says* of the kind of interpretation Randy (and many other baptists) gives, that it is: 

“_. . . correct as far as it goes, [but] can we say that this interpretation exhausts the meaning of the text? Does it not seem forced and arbitrary to say that Jesus meant, ‘Let ty he little children come to me, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to people who are like them, people who resemble them in spirit?’ The Greek by no means implies the exclusion, but rather the inclusion, of the ones mentioned. When the Jews cry out against Paul, ‘Away with such a one!’ they could hardly have meant ‘away with someone like this man.’ Rather, they meant away with Paul, and everyone of his kind! …Surely if parents brought their children to Jesus when he was in the flesh, we may bring them to the [church] where he meets with his people… Therefore, one may say that in all Christian churches the children of confessing parents belong to the congregation . . ._” (Jewett, _Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Graqce_, pp. 59-60, 62).


----------



## Jim Johnston

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Anyways. We either stand or topple over based upon some argument. There are much better places to make your argument for paedobaptism than on the household issue.
> 
> I will quote the section that Alan Conner discusses on the Jailor for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Household of the Phillippian Jailer*
> 
> The baptism of the Philippian jailer's household (Acts 16:33) also gives no encouragement for those who want to believe in infant baptism. We learn several things about his household. First, in verse 32, the gospel is preached to them all, which suggests that they were all of age to hear the gospel. Second, in verse 34, we read, "And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household." The Greek of the last half of this verse allows for two interpretations. It means either that the whole family believed with the jailer (the majority opinion), or that the whole household rejoiced with him in his new found faith (minority view), or possibly both occurred. Whichever view is adopted, it still requires that the whole household was old enough to understand and respond to what was going on. Infants , therefore, are not in view. They either all believed, or they all rejoiced. But even if the correct interpretation is that they all rejoiced with the jailer, does this not also imply that they believed as well? Would this whole household rejoice greatly with him if they had not also come to faith and shared int his joy of salvation? It seems unlikely.
> 
> Thus the evidence indicates that the jailer's household heard the gospel, believed it, and was baptized. The assume that infants were present and baptized based on the jailer's faith is to read into the passage far more than is there.
> 
> Covenant Children Today
> by Alan Conner
> p.105
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And by the way. Why would there be rejoicing for someone who was undeniably going to be punished and persecuted for his new faith. Especially since it was going to effect the whole household. This was not a raise in the fiduciary manner. We all like getting raises to pay our earthly debts and to buy more stuff. But rejoicing over someone becoming a Christian who helped other Christians who were being persecuted would not look like a raise from the boss necessarily.
Click to expand...


In my list of answers to various Baptist objections to either paedo arguments or positive Baptist polemics that I am working on, I address this type of argument seen evidenced in the quoted section above. These are all in rough draft form. I currently have (A) --> (M) in my list.

*B. The Information Contained in the Household Passages Lead to the Assumption that No Infants Were Present:*

This objection proceeds this way: Because the household passages tell us that (a) the whole household believed, or (b) the whole household served the saints, or (c) the whole household had the word preached to them, it is thus reasonable to conclude that no infants were present. The implicit assumption is that these things could not be said of entire households if the households had infants included as members among them. But this is Vulcanizing the New Testament. That is, these objections treat the biblical writers as if they were inhuman robots, making sure to be as precise as a Mr. Spock or a Lt. Data. But, when we look at how the Bible applies these terms, as well as how normal humans talk this way, we can see that the objection is a paper tiger.

For example, in answering the first criticism, take the case of the Philippian jailer. The grammar of the Greek in that passage only tells us that the jailer believed. It is going beyond what is exegetically demonstrable to say that every single person made an intelligent profession of faith. In fact, the great precisionist, Dr. Luke, could have easily used just one Greek word to make Acts 16:34 say that the believing was done by all the members of the household. The language here thus makes the baptism of a Christian family, including an infant, in the 2,000nds totally compatible with what happened in the Jailer’s house. 

Moreover, I would point out what appears to be an inconsistency in the application of Federalistic ideas ascribed to the people in the New Testament. Take the local commission in Matthew 10. Jesus tells his disciples to go out to all of Judea. To go and preach the good news to the “_towns and households_.” Jesus says that if anyone in that “_town or household_” rejects the word of the disciples, then the disciples are to leave that “_town or household_” and it would thus be more terrible for that “_town or household_” then it was for Sodom and Gomorrah. In his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, New Testament scholar (and Baptist) Craig Blomberg notes that in “Treating an entire home or town on the basis of the actions of one person within it reflects the corporate solidarity common in much of antiquity and in many parts of the world today, in which the decisions of a key individual are owned by the entire community” (p.173). But apparently “corporate solidarity” is “out the window” when it comes to “treating an entire home on the basis of the actions of one” believer.

Now, unless we are going to say that there were no infants in all of Judea, then it appears that the infants of these towns which rejected Jesus were considered rejecters of the Gospel because of the decision of their federal head. They were thus numbered among the “Synagogue of Satan.” They did not personally reject Jesus, but they were counted among the _rejecters_ and regarded as such. But how come this idea isn’t transferred to households which accepted Jesus? When the Philippian jailer’s household accepted the Gospel, why wasn’t the household, as such, considered as _acceptors_; counted among the synagogue of God’s people? If it could be said that the “town or household” that included infants rejected the Gospel, then it’s not saying anything controversial to say that a household that included infants accepted the Gospel. It appears that when it comes to rejecting Jesus the parents decision is good enough to include the children among the rejecters, but when it comes to accepting Jesus the parents decision isn’t good enough to include the children among the accepters! But if Federalism is done away with, then it’s done away with! One cannot have his individualistic cake and eat it too.

The next objection, that it is said that the households baptized “served” the people of God and so infants couldn’t have been among them, is easily seen as imputing a robotic mindset on to the biblical writers. If consistent, would these people tell me that I am wrong to say that my family “celebrated” Christmas in Grand Rapids Michigan if I had a two-month old? Would they call me a liar for saying that my family “watched” a movie together? In fact, we talk this way all the time, don’t we? At our churches don’t we say that the “Jones family is always helping out with things at the church?” Do we seriously think that we should not talk this way about the Joneses because they have two two-month old twin daughters? What about Joshua? Could he say that he and his house _serve_ the Lord only when he had no infants? If his wife gave birth to a baby boy 9 months after his great statement to the Israelites, could an Israelite have went up to him and said, “Well, what about now Joshua, you’re not so cool as you thought you were 9 months ago, are you? Now you have to say, ‘But as for me and _some_ of my house, we will serve the Lord.’”

The last objection is that we read that the word was preached to _some_ of these households, and thus there couldn’t have been infants there, or present, or taking part in the reading. But the Bible doesn’t see things this way. We read in Joshua 8:35 that “There was not a word of all that Moses had commanded that Joshua did not read to the _whole assembly_ of Israel, including the women _and children_, and the aliens who lived among them.” Are we to believe that there were no infants in all of Israel!? Thus, all of the above objections rest upon a rejection of the corporate ideas running through the conceptual and linguistic milieu of the day, and hence constitute a begging of the very question up for debate, i.e., has Federalistic attitudes been done away with due to the inauguration of the New Covenant? It seems the biblical and common sensical evidence militates against this view.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Tom Bombadil said:


> Originally Posted by *Puritan Covenenter *
> 
> *originally posted by greenbaggins:* "You are correct, by the way, in your interpretation of my sentence. There is no evidence in the NT that the place of children in the covenant has changed from having more privileges to having fewer privileges. If Christ said that the substance of the kingdom belongs to little children also, then why refuse them the sign of that kingdom?"
> 
> 
> *Puritan Covenanter now:* _Thanks Pastor,
> 
> I will work my way backwards starting with the last question. When Jesus was making this statement it is assumed that their were infants in the crowd. I am not sure you can make that assumption. But that is neither here nor there. The main gist of the passage is that one must enter or receive the Kingdom as a little child. Childlike faith which cries Abba. In that I would say that this is a passage that does require that the children have some gnosis, reason, and faith. At least that is the gist of the passage if I am understanding it correctly.
> 
> (Luk 18:16) But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Allow me to quote that famous paedobaptist slayer, *Paul King Jewett* for our baptist brothers here. *Jewett says* of the kind of interpretation Randy (and many other baptists) gives, that it is:
> 
> “_. . . correct as far as it goes, [but] can we say that this interpretation exhausts the meaning of the text? Does it not seem forced and arbitrary to say that Jesus meant, ‘Let ty he little children come to me, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to people who are like them, people who resemble them in spirit?’ The Greek by no means implies the exclusion, but rather the inclusion, of the ones mentioned. When the Jews cry out against Paul, ‘Away with such a one!’ they could hardly have meant ‘away with someone like this man.’ Rather, they meant away with Paul, and everyone of his kind! …Surely if parents brought their children to Jesus when he was in the flesh, we may bring them to the [church] where he meets with his people… Therefore, one may say that in all Christian churches the children of confessing parents belong to the congregation . . ._” (Jewett, _Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Graqce_, pp. 59-60, 62).
Click to expand...


Are we confusing different types of speech and literature maybe and making all forms of speech to be the same as Tom and Jewett are requiring? Jesus is teaching a lesson in one and in the other historical narrative the others are crying out for Paul's head. BTW, Jesus did bless those children that were in his presence. No one is taking away from that. What kind of blessing?, we can only assume about.


----------



## Jim Johnston

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Puritan Covenenter *
> 
> *originally posted by greenbaggins:* "You are correct, by the way, in your interpretation of my sentence. There is no evidence in the NT that the place of children in the covenant has changed from having more privileges to having fewer privileges. If Christ said that the substance of the kingdom belongs to little children also, then why refuse them the sign of that kingdom?"
> 
> 
> *Puritan Covenanter now:* _Thanks Pastor,
> 
> I will work my way backwards starting with the last question. When Jesus was making this statement it is assumed that their were infants in the crowd. I am not sure you can make that assumption. But that is neither here nor there. The main gist of the passage is that one must enter or receive the Kingdom as a little child. Childlike faith which cries Abba. In that I would say that this is a passage that does require that the children have some gnosis, reason, and faith. At least that is the gist of the passage if I am understanding it correctly.
> 
> (Luk 18:16) But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Allow me to quote that famous paedobaptist slayer, *Paul King Jewett* for our baptist brothers here. *Jewett says* of the kind of interpretation Randy (and many other baptists) gives, that it is:
> 
> “_. . . correct as far as it goes, [but] can we say that this interpretation exhausts the meaning of the text? Does it not seem forced and arbitrary to say that Jesus meant, ‘Let ty he little children come to me, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to people who are like them, people who resemble them in spirit?’ The Greek by no means implies the exclusion, but rather the inclusion, of the ones mentioned. When the Jews cry out against Paul, ‘Away with such a one!’ they could hardly have meant ‘away with someone like this man.’ Rather, they meant away with Paul, and everyone of his kind! …Surely if parents brought their children to Jesus when he was in the flesh, we may bring them to the [church] where he meets with his people… Therefore, one may say that in all Christian churches the children of confessing parents belong to the congregation . . ._” (Jewett, _Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Graqce_, pp. 59-60, 62).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are we confusing different types of speech and literature maybe and making all forms of speech to be the same as Tom and Jewett are requiring? Jesus is teaching a lesson in one and in the other historical narrative the others are crying out for Paul's head. BTW, Jesus did bless those children that were in his presence. No one is taking away from that. What kind of blessing?, we can only assume about.
Click to expand...


No, we're not. I thought Jewtt's point was rather clear. At any rate, to disagree with it is to disagree with Jewett. I score points either way!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

R Harris said:


> The very things that Conner raises I responded to in my original post.



But not adequately enough in my opinion. And I am sure that it is not adequately enough for others. 



R Harris said:


> Again, people miss the entire context of the household baptisms. I actually agree with your link to the I Cor. 7:14 passage in that yes, the other members of the household SHOULD be baptized. Age - old, young, teenager or infant - has nothing to do with it. With Abraham's household, the OLDER MALES were also circumcised, along with 8 day old Isaac, even though they too made no profession to Yahweh, just like Isaac.



I am not sure you agree with the link to the 1 Cor. 7:14 passage either. I am not so sure you understood it. 

Anyways...

You need to read our discussions about the Abrahamic Covenant and the Mosaic. They are short. This will help you understand a Reformed Baptist view of the Covenants.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/esau-covenant-30290/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/works-within-mosaic-covenant-24649/



R Harris said:


> Noah is the same thing. HE ALONE was found righteous, yet the household of ADULTS went aboard the ark with him. If God was strictly individualistic, he could have easily provided for Noah alone, caused him to fall into a deep sleep just like Adam after Noah had reached dry ground, and started the human race all over again. But God did not do that; he used the HOUSEHOLD to begin re-populating the earth. Even the reprobate HAM was included in this - just as Esau would receive the sign of circumcision later.



Esau received the sign of the Covenant of circumcision but that isn't necessarily the sign of the Covenant of Grace. As concerning Noah all 8 souls were saved according to the text Peter wrote.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Tom Bombadil said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allow me to quote that famous paedobaptist slayer, *Paul King Jewett* for our baptist brothers here. *Jewett says* of the kind of interpretation Randy (and many other baptists) gives, that it is:
> 
> “_. . . correct as far as it goes, [but] can we say that this interpretation exhausts the meaning of the text? Does it not seem forced and arbitrary to say that Jesus meant, ‘Let ty he little children come to me, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to people who are like them, people who resemble them in spirit?’ The Greek by no means implies the exclusion, but rather the inclusion, of the ones mentioned. When the Jews cry out against Paul, ‘Away with such a one!’ they could hardly have meant ‘away with someone like this man.’ Rather, they meant away with Paul, and everyone of his kind! …Surely if parents brought their children to Jesus when he was in the flesh, we may bring them to the [church] where he meets with his people… Therefore, one may say that in all Christian churches the children of confessing parents belong to the congregation . . ._” (Jewett, _Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Graqce_, pp. 59-60, 62).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are we confusing different types of speech and literature maybe and making all forms of speech to be the same as Tom and Jewett are requiring? Jesus is teaching a lesson in one and in the other historical narrative the others are crying out for Paul's head. BTW, Jesus did bless those children that were in his presence. No one is taking away from that. What kind of blessing?, we can only assume about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, we're not. I thought Jewtt's point was rather clear. At any rate, to disagree with it is to disagree with Jewett. I score points either way!
Click to expand...


Yes you are and No you don't. I won that one. And I am not sure I agree with Jewett anyways. You are assuming again.


----------



## Zadok

JonathanHunt said:


> Good lectures. have we met, Satch? I'm often at the Tab for LRBS and SoT.
> 
> J



Hi Jonathan

I suspect you are too young to remember. I started at the Tab Seminary back in 1983**, was married at the Tab in 1988 and also worshipped there for a couple of years.

** remained probably the longest standing member until my circumstances changed and I was no longer able some 5 years ago. Not bad for a course that is supposedly only 3 years!


----------



## JonathanHunt

Zadok said:


> JonathanHunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good lectures. have we met, Satch? I'm often at the Tab for LRBS and SoT.
> 
> J
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Jonathan
> 
> I suspect you are too young to remember. I started at the Tab Seminary back in 1983**, was married at the Tab in 1988 and also worshipped there for a couple of years.
> 
> ** remained probably the longest standing member until my circumstances changed and I was no longer able some 5 years ago. Not bad for a course that is supposedly only 3 years!
Click to expand...


Four years, now!

I was 11 when you were married.

You probably knew my parents, especially back in 88 when the place wasn't so packed as it is now.

J


----------



## Jim Johnston

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we confusing different types of speech and literature maybe and making all forms of speech to be the same as Tom and Jewett are requiring? Jesus is teaching a lesson in one and in the other historical narrative the others are crying out for Paul's head. BTW, Jesus did bless those children that were in his presence. No one is taking away from that. What kind of blessing?, we can only assume about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we're not. I thought Jewtt's point was rather clear. At any rate, to disagree with it is to disagree with Jewett. I score points either way!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes you are and No you don't. I won that one. And I am not sure I agree with Jewett anyways. You are assuming again.
Click to expand...


I did't think you agreed with Jewett. So, what am I "assuming" and how is it "again." You're overreaching, again.

Jewett = the paedobaptist destroyer only when baptists agree with him.

I just enjoy using baptists against other baptists. I have tons of quotes from baptists, almost to the point that I coud play one baptist off another and hardly ever have to resort to using a paedobaptist rejoinder to one of their arguments.

At the end of the day, though, I thought Jewett's point was sound. Very. I never expected you to agree. Credobaptism is a very presuppositional position (as opposed to it being pulled right from the pages of Scripture, as some which to portray it). It's just refreshing to see credobaptists being honest with the evidence, from time to time. That's all. Since I know you won't be convinced, I didn't post what I did to debate the point. I posted it for others, mainly. Not necessarily to get into a debate with you.


----------



## Zadok

JonathanHunt;376278
You probably knew my parents said:


> Yes I do know your parents, and I used to know many others, some of whom have moved on .. Ho hum.
> 
> Anyways, this is all , so best behave ourselves.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Tom Bombadil said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we're not. I thought Jewtt's point was rather clear. At any rate, to disagree with it is to disagree with Jewett. I score points either way!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you are and No you don't. I won that one. And I am not sure I agree with Jewett anyways. You are assuming again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did't think you agreed with Jewett. So, what am I "assuming" and how is it "again." You're overreaching, again.
> 
> Jewett = the paedobaptist destroyer only when baptists agree with him.
> 
> I just enjoy using baptists against other baptists. I have tons of quotes from baptists, almost to the point that I coud play one baptist off another and hardly ever have to resort to using a paedobaptist rejoinder to one of their arguments.
> 
> At the end of the day, though, I thought Jewett's point was sound. Very.
Click to expand...


And I can use Paedo's against paedo's. No big deal.


----------



## Jim Johnston

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you are and No you don't. I won that one. And I am not sure I agree with Jewett anyways. You are assuming again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did't think you agreed with Jewett. So, what am I "assuming" and how is it "again." You're overreaching, again.
> 
> Jewett = the paedobaptist destroyer only when baptists agree with him.
> 
> I just enjoy using baptists against other baptists. I have tons of quotes from baptists, almost to the point that I coud play one baptist off another and hardly ever have to resort to using a paedobaptist rejoinder to one of their arguments.
> 
> At the end of the day, though, I thought Jewett's point was sound. Very.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I can use Paedo's against paedo's. No big deal.
Click to expand...


Good. 

a) Many baptists have tried to give the impression that only the paedo camp is divided. Glad we realize the baptists who have made much of this (cf. Malone, Baptism of Disciples Alone) are not being square with the facts.

b) I haven't seen you use any against ay of *my* arguments. 

c) Right now we're dealing with Jewett's rather devasting point against *your* interpretation of the verses Green Baggins point out.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Tom Bombadil said:


> Good.
> 
> a) Many baptists have tried to give the impression that only the paedo camp is divided. Glad we realize the baptists who have made much of this (cf. Malone, Baptism of Disciples Alone) are not being square with the facts.



I don't know of any Baptists that would say that they all agree with each other. You often make claims that just confound me. But I have come to expect that from you. 



Tom Bombadil said:


> b) I haven't seen you use any against ay of *my* arguments.



I have read quite a few books on Baptism as you have. I would rather just keep my arguments based upon what I understand the scriptures saying. And as you know, I have to work a little harder at it than some do. I speak better for Randy Snyder than for any Baptist or Presbyterian.




Tom Bombadil said:


> c) Right now we're dealing with Jewett's rather devasting point against *your* interpretation of the verses Green Baggins point out.



Devastating in your own mind maybe. It has had little effect upon me. BTW, Lane told me he would be responding to my discussion with him tomorrow. And it wasn't him I was discussing Jewett with. It was someone else. I believe you're getting facts mixed up again. 

TTFN


----------



## mark

*Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants Are One*

I am picking up that some believe that the covenant with Abraham is bifurcated from the covenant with Moses. 

However, the following texts seem to indicate otherwise...

Exodus 2:24
And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob.

Deuteronomy 4:31
For the LORD your God is a merciful God. He will not leave you or destroy you or forget the *covenant with your fathers *that he swore to them.

Deuteronomy 7:12
"And because you listen to these rules and keep and do them, the LORD your God will keep with you the *covenant* and the steadfast love that he swore to your *fathers.*

Deuteronomy 8:18
You shall remember the LORD your God, for it is he who gives you power to get wealth, that he may confirm his *covenant that he swore to your fathers*, as it is this day.

Deuteronomy 29:25
Then people will say, 'It is because they abandoned the *covenant of the LORD, the God of their fathers,* which he made with them when he brought them out of the land of Egypt,


Deuteronomy 31:20
For when I have brought them into the land flowing with milk and honey, which I swore to give to their fathers, and they have eaten and are full and grown fat, they will turn to other gods and serve them, and despise me and break my covenant.

Doesn't covenant theology assert that all the covenants flow into and from each other in succession under the auspices of the one Covenant of Grace?

Therefore, it seems to me that the promise was given to believers and their seed under the Abrahamic administration as well as the Mosaic, and of course in the New. The difference is, while the nature of the promise hasn't changed (to believers and their seed), the new covenant a) fulfills the promise made to Abraham by means of the Great Commission, and b) removes the Gentiles and Jews from having to live under the Mosaic system as a way of life (temples, priests, sacrifices, etc. That is not to say the Decalogue has no place in our lives). 

I'm a bit new to this--so comments are welcome if I need to be corrected. 
Think Spring Midwesterners!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Mark,

There are some promises that just pertain to Abraham and his posterity that are neither CofW or CofG. They are just covenantal promises made to Abraham concerning his posterity. An examination of Genesis 17 will reveal this.


----------



## Jim Johnston

Randy!



PuritanCovenanter said:


> I don't know of any Baptists that would say that they all agree with each other. You often make claims that just confound me. But I have come to expect that from you.



I didn't say that any _Baptists_ said that they all agreed with each other. Where'd you get _that_ idea? I said that many _Baptists_ have made it a point to point out that _paedobaptists_ disagree with _eachother_ (i.e., other paedobaptists). I referred you to one such place, Dr. Fred Malone's book, The Baptism of Disciples Alone. T.E. Watson's _Baptism Not For Infants_, is another. Baptists have made much hay out of the claim that "paedobaptists authors can be used to refute each other." I was simply saying that I can now say this about them. So, if this has *always* been the case, then you are tacitly admitting that those Baptists were using stupid arguments to refute paedobaptists! Well, thanks Randy!

My books are all packed away right now so I can't give exact page numbers of specific references, but this should be enough substantiate my claim:

Dr. Fred Malone stated: "This expanded republication of Baptism Not for Infants (1962), often overlooked, is a welcome addition to any shelf as a useful refutation of infant baptism. Watson's unique method of argument is to take quotations exclusively from paedobaptist authors and allow them to refute each other."

So, not only didn't you understand my comment (which happens a lot), you also pointed out that these popular ways of arguing have been successfully met head on by myself.



PuritanCovenanter said:


> I have read quite a few books on Baptism as you have. I would rather just keep my arguments based upon what I understand the scriptures saying. And as you know, I have to work a little harder at it than some do. I speak better for Randy Snyder than for any Baptist or Presbyterian.



Okay. But I, for one, will not use only the Bible. I will also pull on extra-biblical support (can't interpret the Bible in a vacuum). And, I will also appeal to any Baptist, paedobaptist, Roman Catholic, Arminian, or even apostate or any one else who happens to interpret a passage right, or shed some light on it which bears on its exegesis (say, a pagan archeologist).




PuritanCovenanter said:


> Devastating in your own mind maybe. It has had little effect upon me. BTW, Lane told me he would be responding to my discussion with him tomorrow. And it wasn't him I was discussing Jewett with. It was someone else. I believe you're getting facts mixed up again.
> TTFN



1. In both mine and Jewett's mind, maybe.

2. I already said I didn't expect it to have an "effect" on you. So, this is no surprise, or worry, to me. I, for one, think Jewett's point is great, I see no way around it, and you just threw up some prayer of a possible response. Certainly you didn’t expect me to be convinced by that, I'm, sure. So, we're all even Steven on this score. I have the word of a scholar on one hand, you had a fly-by-night "maybe" as a rejoinder. I'm totally fine leaving it at that.

3. I know what Lane told you.

4. I know that it wasn’t him who you were discussing Jewett with.

5. I never said it was. Rather, I said:

Originally posted by *Tom Bombadil*: _"Right now we're dealing with Jewett's rather devastating point against *your* interpretation of the verses Green Baggins point out."_

So, I was talking about the _verses_ that Lane pointed out, and your _interpretation_ of those _verses_. Notice all I said Green Baggins pointed out to you were _verses_. And, all I said you interacted with him on was your interpretation of those _verses_. Not on _Jewett_. The grammar of my sentence cannot lead one to believe that I intimated that you and Green Baggins were discussing _Jewett_.

So, it's a real head-scratcher how you came up with that interpretation of my comment. A mystery. Cue Colombo music.

6. So, no facts mixed up here. "Again," or otherwise. Unlike what we've seen multiple times on your end. But, let's not degenerate this into a petty squabble. Seems like correcting your mixing of the facts about what I said, and letting the accusations go, is the only thing that should get an "again" put next to it.

Anyway, have a good evening!


----------



## R Harris

PuritanCovenanter said:


> R Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Esau received the sign of the Covenant of circumcision but that isn't necessarily the sign of the Covenant of Grace. As concerning Noah all 8 souls were saved according to the text Peter wrote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and so does the Hebrews 11 passage, which states that Noah constructed an ark for the saving of his HOUSEHOLD.
> 
> The household was certainly saved from the flood. But we learn later that Ham was most DEFINITELY not regenerate (Genesis 9:25). Do you believe that Ham was really regenerate?
> 
> Regarding I Cor 7:14, his beef is with the fact about the unbelieving spouse being "sanctified." He wonders why they are not considered for baptism the same as the "holy children." I thought I made my point clear there, but apparently not. It again relates to how other non-professing members of the household are viewed by God under the authority of at least one believing spouse.
> 
> The issue of the households is whether or not the other members besides Lydia and the jailer made a profession of faith. I am convinced from the texts, as presented in my original post, that they did not. Yet, they were still baptized. Again, we are not presented with any information about gender or age. Why? Because it didn't matter. Anyone under Lydia's or the jailer's authority, or Stephanas' authority (I Cor. 1) received the sign.
Click to expand...


----------



## mark

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Mark,
> 
> There are some promises that just pertain to Abraham and his posterity that are neither CofW or CofG. They are just covenantal promises made to Abraham concerning his posterity. An examination of Genesis 17 will reveal this.



Neither CofW or CofG? The CofW was with Adam. And if the CofG is the one covenant that binds them all (was Tolkein on to something), saying the covenant w/ Abraham somehow is related to the covenant of works doesn't make any sense. 

Maybe I'll just start a new thread. But Genesis 17 says, Abraham's covenant is an eternal one, and that Abraham would be the father of many nations. 
How does divvying up the covenat of Abraham into separate parts, some part of the CofW, some part of the CofG and some part of Cofsomethingelse make any sense at all? I ask this out of sincerity and respect.


----------



## mark

Maybe you meant that kings would come from Abraham and you mean this is Part 3 of the Covenant w/ Abraham. But David and indeed Christ himself are kings and part of Abraham's seed.

The promise of Abraham to be the father of many nations is called an "everlasting covenant. Even the rite of circumcision is called an "everlasting covenant," fulfilled in baptism in the new covenant. The same language is said of Isaac--this is an everlasting covenant. The same phrase is used in the covenant w/ Abraham. There are many promises, all under one promise fulfilled by Christ the true Seed of Abraham. 

I don't see any Part 3 of the covenant w/ Arbraham that is not part of the CofG. The CofW is fulfilled by Christ too. This should all be understood as Christ fulfilling the CofG--which is the covenant of promise (Eph 2:10ff).


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Tom Bombadil said:


> Randy!
> 
> Anyway, have a good evening!



Tom, 

This is what you said.



> a) Many baptists have tried to give the impression that *only* the paedo camp is divided.



I still find this to be lacking in substance. Where did someone suggest or give the impression that the paedo camp is the only camp divided? Their is a difference between saying that only the paedo camp is divided and that the paedo camp is divided on this subject. That is what I was responding to. Rabbit trails. You are good at them. You are skilled in argumentation. That is for sure.

And you were correct. We were dealing with Jewetts point on the passage. I got tired and mixed up in my conversations. I was also dealing with Mark on Jewett also. I just think that Jewett is wrong. Jesus is teaching a Kingdom Principle here and exposing a truth as I noted before. That is a different kind of genre in literature than a record of someone who is calling for your someones head in a historical setting. Sorry I was getting tired and as I noted before I have to work at things a little harder. Sorry for getting off page and being accusatory in a bad manner.

You know... our conversations would go much easier if you would quit acting like we are in a contest to one up each other in the outset of our discussions. For instance you saying I get the points or I am winning. (Just to be honest, that just sets me in off) You don't have everything correct. And if you think you do, you have problems. I don't think I understand everythng. There are better ways to help people understand. I have asked you to help me understand some stuff before but you are in constant debate mode. Learn a different mode of teaching brother and you will get along better here.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Mark,

Where does this fit into the Abrahamic Covenant? Isn't the promises concering Ishmael a part of the Covenant made with Abraham? There is an everlasting part of the Abrahamic Covenant that Ishmael was not included in. Abraham asked God if Ishmael could partake in it but God said no. 



> (Gen 17:18) And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!
> 
> (Gen 17:19) And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.
> 
> (Gen 17:20) And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.
> 
> (Gen 17:21) But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.



There are two different promises here that God set before Abraham. 

That along with the passages in Galatians 4 about two Covenants makes me consider this.


----------



## Iconoclast

Lane,
Thank you for your reply to my post concerning Acts 2;
you said this;


> Acts 2: 38-39 cannot be talking about the promise of Psalm 16. This is for two reasons. 1. The quotation from Psalm 110 intervenes between the quotation of Psalm 16 and vv. 38-39. 2. Nothing in Psalm 16 mentions the promise of the Holy Spirit. The language of the promise is linked to the call of the Lord in verse 39.
> 
> The language of call belongs to the Abrahamic covenant. He is addressing Jews, and talking about Gentiles, which is vitally important to the Abrahamic promise (through you all nations shall be blessed). Jews steeped in their OT would not have failed to understand that Peter was making the claim that the Abrahamic covenant is fulfilled in Christ. The church is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise. The entire scope of the covenant has broadened from just Jew to now Jew plus Gentile. If that is the case, and the covenant is now founded on greater promises, then how in the world can we say that the privileges of children are less than they are in the OT?



Lane,  with your second paragraph, especially as this important theme is a thread that is behind many NT. portions.
I do not agree that because Psalm 2, or psalm 110 language is also added to the mix, that this in any way changes the use of Psalm 16 speaking of Christ being raised by the Spirit.
Psalm 16 does not mention the Spirit directly, but Peter does Acts2:24,33
The promise of the Father of Acts 1:4, finds fulfillment here-as well as Acts 11:15-16


> 14Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.
> 
> 15And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
> 
> 16Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.


Interesting that in reference to the household being saved, he says 
"who shall tell thee words" whereby thou and "thy household shall be saved"
This is why I believe the reformed baptist position addresses biblically the important area of household's. The reality of the promise as an * actual reality* happens in this way.
In the case of elect infants dying in infancy, or mentally defective persons God in His mercy does right at all times with each of these persons.
Psalm 110/Mel-priesthood/ kingly reign Psalm 2 are added to show how all scripture points to our Lord. These do not negate the reality of the promise which the Lord had beagn to instruct them on in John 14, 15, 16


----------



## greenbaggins

PuritanCovenanter said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct, by the way, in your interpretation of my sentence. There is no evidence in the NT that the place of children in the covenant has changed from having more privileges to having fewer privileges. If Christ said that the substance of the kingdom belongs to little children also, then why refuse them the sign of that kingdom?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Pastor,
> 
> I will work my way backwards starting with the last question. When Jesus was making this statement it is assumed that their were infants in the crowd. I am not sure you can make that assumption. But that is neither here nor there. The main gist of the passage is that one must enter or receive the Kingdom as a little child. Childlike faith which cries Abba. In that I would say that this is a passage that does require that the children have some gnosis, reason, and faith. At least that is the gist of the passage if I am understanding it correctly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Luk 18:16) But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
> 
> (Luk 18:17) Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, let's look at Luke 18 very carefully. Verse 15 states that infants were brought to Jesus in order that Jesus might touch them. What is this word "infants?" The Greek word is "brephe." Every lexicon I checked says that it means "infant," not even "small child." In fact, the word is often used of fetuses. So, I am not sure how you can say that we shouldn't assume that infants were present. That is what the word means. Infants were brought to Jesus. Therefore, infants were present.
> 
> Secondly, the words "of such" in verse 16 are a genitive possessive. Literally translated, the passage would read: "The kingdom of God is of these such." It is by no means exclusive of the infants brought to Him in verse 15, but inclusive, as has been pointed out on this thread. The kingdom of God is possessed by such as these. To say that this should be spiritualized to mean "the faith of such as these" does not help the credo position, since even that statement assumes that these little children have faith which is to be imitated! However, it is best not to import the meaning of Matthew 18:2-3 into this passage. They do not say the same thing.
Click to expand...


----------



## greenbaggins

> I do not agree that because Psalm 2, or psalm 110 language is also added to the mix, that this in any way changes the use of Psalm 16 speaking of Christ being raised by the Spirit.
> Psalm 16 does not mention the Spirit directly, but Peter does Acts2:24,33



Then I am at a loss as to how you can claim that Acts 2:38-39 are a direct reference to the Psalm 16 quotation. 

The household language of the jailor can only be handled correctly by the paedo position. Only the jailor believed, but his entire household was baptized. It does not say in the text anywhere that the household also believed.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

greenbaggins said:


> Okay, let's look at Luke 18 very carefully. Verse 15 states that infants were brought to Jesus in order that Jesus might touch them. What is this word "infants?" The Greek word is "brephe." Every lexicon I checked says that it means "infant," not even "small child." In fact, the word is often used of fetuses. So, I am not sure how you can say that we shouldn't assume that infants were present. That is what the word means. Infants were brought to Jesus. Therefore, infants were present.
> 
> Secondly, the words "of such" in verse 16 are a genitive possessive. Literally translated, the passage would read: "The kingdom of God is of these such." It is by no means exclusive of the infants brought to Him in verse 15, but inclusive, as has been pointed out on this thread. The kingdom of God is possessed by such as these. To say that this should be spiritualized to mean "the faith of such as these" does not help the credo position, since even that statement assumes that these little children have faith which is to be imitated! However, it is best not to import the meaning of Matthew 18:2-3 into this passage. They do not say the same thing.




I don't have a problem with the fact that infants were brought to Jesus for a blessing. I would have done the same thing as a parent. I did seek for God's blessing upon my children as babies through prayer on a constant basis. For their physical as well as their spiritual health. 

I am not convinced that this bringing the infants of verse 15 is looking for a covenantal blessing though. Nor do I see it as a support for baptism in the fact that these children are already most likely already circumcised. I don't see these parents doing anything any different than I did in my beseeching the Lord to bless my kids when they were infants. I have also noticed that for some reason the Greek word changes to paidion when the Lord starts to teach concerning the Kingdom of God in verse 16.

Well, here is what I have to work with in these passages. The greek in verse 16 and 17 which I am more pointedly speaking on implies that the passage may in fact mean more than an infant.



> G3813
> παιδίον
> paidion
> Thayer Definition:
> 1) a young child, a little boy, a little girl
> 1a) infants
> 1b) children, little ones
> 1c) an infant
> 1c1) of a (male) child just recently born
> 1d) of a more advanced child; of a mature child
> 1e) metaphorically children (like children) in intellect
> Part of Speech: noun neuter
> A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from dimin. of G3816
> Citing in TDNT: 5:636, 759
> 
> Strongs...
> 
> G3813
> παιδίον
> paidion
> pahee-dee'-on
> Neuter diminutive of G3816; a childling (of either sex), that is, (properly) an infant, or (by extension) a half grown boy or girl; figuratively an immature Christian: - (little, young) child, damsel.



So according to other references it can be other than an infant. I find it significant that the greek changes the word here and the action that these children are able to perform. 



> Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child



The word receive (dechomai) is closely associated with the same word little child (paidion). Recieving is something that this child is capable of doing is it not? 


I do believe the Kingdom of God is for infants. And I do believe God even blesses those outside of the Covenant. This is a hard topic for me to understand because the Kingdom of God is not ambiguous about who the Kingdom of God is for. In fact the following passages (v.16, 17) spell that out. And to be more specific the Kingdom of God is for the Elect. The Covenant of Grace is only for the Elect. I don't think Jesus is saying that it is for every infant. I do believe that God can give a blessing that might not be eternal in nature. Maybe I am wrong.


----------



## greenbaggins

PuritanCovenanter said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, let's look at Luke 18 very carefully. Verse 15 states that infants were brought to Jesus in order that Jesus might touch them. What is this word "infants?" The Greek word is "brephe." Every lexicon I checked says that it means "infant," not even "small child." In fact, the word is often used of fetuses. So, I am not sure how you can say that we shouldn't assume that infants were present. That is what the word means. Infants were brought to Jesus. Therefore, infants were present.
> 
> Secondly, the words "of such" in verse 16 are a genitive possessive. Literally translated, the passage would read: "The kingdom of God is of these such." It is by no means exclusive of the infants brought to Him in verse 15, but inclusive, as has been pointed out on this thread. The kingdom of God is possessed by such as these. To say that this should be spiritualized to mean "the faith of such as these" does not help the credo position, since even that statement assumes that these little children have faith which is to be imitated! However, it is best not to import the meaning of Matthew 18:2-3 into this passage. They do not say the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a problem with the fact that infants were brought to Jesus for a blessing. I would have done the same thing as a parent. I did seek for God's blessing upon my children as babies through prayer on a constant basis. For their physical as well as their spiritual health.
> 
> I am not convinced that this bringing the infants of verse 15 is looking for a covenantal blessing though. Nor do I see it as a support for baptism in the fact that these children are already most likely already circumcised. I don't see these parents doing anything any different than I did in my beseeching the Lord to bless my kids when they were infants. I have also noticed that for some reason the Greek word changes to paidion when the Lord starts to teach concerning the Kingdom of God in verse 16.
> 
> Well, here is what I have to work with in these passages. The greek in verse 16 and 17 which I am more pointedly speaking on implies that the passage may in fact mean more than an infant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G3813
> παιδίον
> paidion
> Thayer Definition:
> 1) a young child, a little boy, a little girl
> 1a) infants
> 1b) children, little ones
> 1c) an infant
> 1c1) of a (male) child just recently born
> 1d) of a more advanced child; of a mature child
> 1e) metaphorically children (like children) in intellect
> Part of Speech: noun neuter
> A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from dimin. of G3816
> Citing in TDNT: 5:636, 759
> 
> Strongs...
> 
> G3813
> παιδίον
> paidion
> pahee-dee'-on
> Neuter diminutive of G3816; a childling (of either sex), that is, (properly) an infant, or (by extension) a half grown boy or girl; figuratively an immature Christian: - (little, young) child, damsel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So according to other references it can be other than an infant. I find it significant that the greek changes the word here and the action that these children are able to perform.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word receive (dechomai) is closely associated with the same word little child (paidion). Recieving is something that this child is capable of doing is it not?
> 
> 
> I do believe the Kingdom of God is for infants. And I do believe God even blesses those outside of the Covenant. This is a hard topic for me to understand because the Kingdom of God is not ambiguous about who the Kingdom of God is for. In fact the following passages (v.16, 17) spell that out. And to be more specific the Kingdom of God is for the Elect. The Covenant of Grace is only for the Elect. I don't think Jesus is saying that it is for every infant. I do believe that God can give a blessing that might not be eternal in nature. Maybe I am wrong.
Click to expand...


A couple of things here. The word in verse 15 is _not_ paidion. The word "paidion" can mean several different things. The word "brephe" cannot. the word "paidion" in verses 16-17 is limited in the context by the word "brephe" in verse 15. The paidions of verses 16-17 _are_ the brephes of verse 15. 

Secondly, the argument here from the paedo side is not that this is a baptism, or a form close to baptism. The argument here is that the children of believers belong to the kingdom of God, and as such, the sign of that very same kingdom also belongs to them. We can reasonably assume that the children of believers are not like the world's children. Therefore, they are to be given the sign of the administration of the kingdom of God. Again, why could Jesus say that the _*kingdom*_ belongs to such as these (I noticed that you did not respond to the genitive possessive argument), and then we turn around and say that the _*sign*_ of this kingdom is denied to them? If they can have the substance, then why not the sign?


----------



## VictorBravo

R Harris said:


> The household was certainly saved from the flood. But we learn later that Ham was most DEFINITELY not regenerate (Genesis 9:25). Do you believe that Ham was really regenerate?



Sorry about sidetracking from the main discussion, but I don't quite get this. Gen. 9:25 says that Canaan was cursed. Does that fact itself mean the Ham was unregenerate?

It seems to imply the converse of what paedobaptists hold: If the offspring is cursed, the parent is an unbeliever.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

greenbaggins said:


> A couple of things here. The word in verse 15 is _not_ paidion. The word "paidion" can mean several different things. The word "brephe" cannot. the word "paidion" in verses 16-17 is limited in the context by the word "brephe" in verse 15. The paidions of verses 16-17 _are_ the brephes of verse 15.



I understood that brephe was the word in verse 15. I agree that there were infants being brought to Jesus and that he was willing to bless them and they were worthy to receive a blessing from Him. But I think he becomes more focused in what he wants to teach in the following verses as I noted above about receiving the Kingdom of God. 



greenbaggins said:


> Secondly, the argument here from the paedo side is not that this is a baptism, or a form close to baptism. The argument here is that the children of believers belong to the kingdom of God, and as such, the sign of that very same kingdom also belongs to them. We can reasonably assume that the children of believers are not like the world's children. Therefore, they are to be given the sign of the administration of the kingdom of God. Again, why could Jesus say that the _*kingdom*_ belongs to such as these (I noticed that you did not respond to the genitive possessive argument), and then we turn around and say that the _*sign*_ of this kingdom is denied to them? If they can have the substance, then why not the sign?




And here is where I am going to start to disagree even more strongly. When my children were born into my family they were born enemies of God. I agree that they were created for God and for His purposes in the Kingdom as a whole. But they were not necessarily children of faith. They didn't exhibit the one thing Father Abraham did. Faith in Christ. The Kingdom of God is for them but they were not receivers of it yet, nor could they appropriate it as infants by the instrument of faith as Father Abraham did. I believe it is deceptive to apply a sign upon them that might not be true of them. They might not be Children of the Eternal Covenant. I don't believe this passage is telling me to place a Covenant sign upon them either. It is a passage that is seeking a blessing from God and then Jesus tells us how the blessing of the Kingdom of God is appropriated. 

I am not sure this passage is conferring the essence of the Covenant of Grace upon infants. 

Maybe I am not understanding how you think the Kingdom of God belongs to these. In a Mosaic Covenantal way I would say yes. The Kingdom of God belonged to them as Jews. But in a New Covenant sense I am having problems with this since those who are considered in the union with Christ and His Kingdom are those who have faith like father Abraham.


----------



## greenbaggins

PuritanCovenanter said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> A couple of things here. The word in verse 15 is _not_ paidion. The word "paidion" can mean several different things. The word "brephe" cannot. the word "paidion" in verses 16-17 is limited in the context by the word "brephe" in verse 15. The paidions of verses 16-17 _are_ the brephes of verse 15.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understood that brephe was the word in verse 15. I agree that there were infants being brought to Jesus and that he was willing to bless them and they were worthy to receive a blessing from Him. But I think he becomes more focused in what he wants to teach in the following verses as I noted above about receiving the Kingdom of God.
> 
> 
> 
> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly, the argument here from the paedo side is not that this is a baptism, or a form close to baptism. The argument here is that the children of believers belong to the kingdom of God, and as such, the sign of that very same kingdom also belongs to them. We can reasonably assume that the children of believers are not like the world's children. Therefore, they are to be given the sign of the administration of the kingdom of God. Again, why could Jesus say that the _*kingdom*_ belongs to such as these (I noticed that you did not respond to the genitive possessive argument), and then we turn around and say that the _*sign*_ of this kingdom is denied to them? If they can have the substance, then why not the sign?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And here is where I am going to start to disagree even more strongly. When my children were born into my family they were born enemies of God. I agree that they were created for God and for His purposes in the Kingdom as a whole. But they were not necessarily children of faith. They didn't exhibit the one thing Father Abraham did. Faith in Christ. The Kingdom of God is for them but they were not receivers of it yet, nor could they appropriate it as infants by the instrument of faith as Father Abraham did. I believe it is deceptive to apply a sign upon them that might not be true of them. They might not be Children of the Eternal Covenant. I don't believe this passage is telling me to place a Covenant sign upon them either. It is a passage that is seeking a blessing from God and then Jesus tells us how the blessing of the Kingdom of God is appropriated.
> 
> I am not sure this passage is conferring the essence of the Covenant of Grace upon infants.
> 
> Maybe I am not understanding how you think the Kingdom of God belongs to these. In a Mosaic Covenantal way I would say yes. The Kingdom of God belonged to them as Jews. But in a New Covenant sense I am having problems with this since those who are considered in the union with Christ and His Kingdom are those who have faith like father Abraham.
Click to expand...


Again, a couple of things. There is no way that paidion is not delimited by "brephe" in verse 15. At the very least, seeing that Jesus is rebuking his disciples for their rebuke of the people for bringing infants to Jesus, the paidia must include the brephe. The people bring brephe, the disciples rebuke the people, and Jesus rebukes the disciples. The sequence of events here plainly indicates that the infants also are included among those to whom belongs the kingdom of God. 

How do you know that your children were born enemies of God? Was John the Baptist born an enemy of God? Was David, when he says that he was taught to trust in God while still at his mother's breast? If you believe it is deceptive to apply a sign to infants which may or may not be true of them, then there is no way you can apply the sign to adults either. How do you know that adults are saved? Adults lie all the time, and the heart is deceptive above all things. if it is such a terrible thing to apply the sign to someone for whom it does not point them to salvation, then the sacrament belongs to no one. If we cannot read infant hearts, we cannot read adult hearts either. 

I am not sure that you understand my distinction between the substance of the covenant and its administration. Baptism belongs to the administration of the covenant. Salvation is the substance of the covenant. It is quite possible with an adult for them to have the administration without the substance. So also is it true with infants. But we cannot say from Scripture that it is impossible for infants to have at least the seed of faith. There are way too many passages that prove otherwise. Therefore, this argument does not work against infant baptism.


----------



## Jim Johnston

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Randy!
> 
> Anyway, have a good evening!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom,
> 
> This is what you said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a) Many baptists have tried to give the impression that *only* the paedo camp is divided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I still find this to be lacking in substance. Where did someone suggest or give the impression that the paedo camp is the only camp divided? Their is a difference between saying that only the paedo camp is divided and that the paedo camp is divided on this subject. That is what I was responding to.
Click to expand...


Because they use those points as arguments in their works (cf. the Malone quote). If they also believed that credobaptists could be summoned to "refute" (Malone's word) credobaptists, then it strikes me as an odd form of argumentation. Especially not one to heap laudaitory (as Malone did of Watson) comments on. Strikes me that a rational person would not make those claims unless he didn't think the same charge could be leveled right back at him. For example, it would be like me trying to make a major point by poiting out how rude someone was. According to common consensus, this charge could be shoved right back at me.  So, when reading another's argument, I use what's called "the principle of charity." Since it would be uncharitable for me to assume that such smart men as Fred Malone and T.E. Watson were advancing an argument they knew they were also guilty of, as that would be dumb, I interpret them in the best light. And, believe it or not, this is a common argument I hear from baptists. I can't tell you how many times in my discussions with baptists they have pointed out that "paedobaptists cannot agree amongst themselves." In fact, besides the two books I mentioned, I heard this very argument used on me twice this month! You ahve to understand, I live in a rather large city, and know quite a bit of people, both paedo and credo, and so I am involved in this discussions quite often in person even more, hard as it is to believe, sometimes than on the web! So, yes, Baptists have portrayed themselves as saying that only presbytarians can be used against each other. Now, you may not. And you may know many people who do not. But, I know many who do. Notice that I used the word "many." I also backed this up with quotes from prominent baptists. So, this is my explanation for what I said. I hope you find it understandable.


----------



## Seb

Tom Bombadil said:


> For example, it would be like me trying to make a major point by poiting out how rude someone was. According to common consensus, this charge could be shoved right back at me.



*STOP THE THREAD...* Did Paul just say he is rude? 

Oops, never mind, he only said it was a consensus.  

Carry on...


----------



## mark

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Mark,
> 
> Where does this fit into the Abrahamic Covenant? Isn't the promises concering Ishmael a part of the Covenant made with Abraham? There is an everlasting part of the Abrahamic Covenant that Ishmael was not included in. Abraham asked God if Ishmael could partake in it but God said no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Gen 17:18) And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!
> 
> (Gen 17:19) And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.
> 
> (Gen 17:20) And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.
> 
> (Gen 17:21) But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are two different promises here that God set before Abraham.
> 
> That along with the passages in Galatians 4 about two Covenants makes me consider this.
Click to expand...


Hey brother, I think I'll just post a new thread, ok?


----------



## R Harris

victorbravo said:


> R Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> The household was certainly saved from the flood. But we learn later that Ham was most DEFINITELY not regenerate (Genesis 9:25). Do you believe that Ham was really regenerate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry about sidetracking from the main discussion, but I don't quite get this. Gen. 9:25 says that Canaan was cursed. Does that fact itself mean the Ham was unregenerate?
> 
> It seems to imply the converse of what paedobaptists hold: If the offspring is cursed, the parent is an unbeliever.
Click to expand...


That is the point I was trying to make. Ham, like Esau, was in the covenant, but not a believer. Yet, Ham was obviously part of Noah's household, Esau was a part of Isaac's household. 

True, Noah cursed the canaanite offspring, but covenantal cursing is certainly not uncommon in Scripture, especially when the said person was in the covenant but clearly demonstrated unbelief in and against that covenant.

On a somewhat similar note, we see that with some "baptized believers" in the NT. People who received the sign, but eventually fell away and demonstrated no true regeneration. The fact that therefore even the Apostles baptized non-believers should give credo-baptists reason for pause.


----------



## VictorBravo

R Harris said:


> victorbravo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> The household was certainly saved from the flood. But we learn later that Ham was most DEFINITELY not regenerate (Genesis 9:25). Do you believe that Ham was really regenerate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry about sidetracking from the main discussion, but I don't quite get this. Gen. 9:25 says that Canaan was cursed. Does that fact itself mean the Ham was unregenerate?
> 
> It seems to imply the converse of what paedobaptists hold: If the offspring is cursed, the parent is an unbeliever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the point I was trying to make. Ham, like Esau, was in the covenant, but not a believer. Yet, Ham was obviously part of Noah's household, Esau was a part of Isaac's household.
> 
> True, Noah cursed the canaanite offspring, but covenantal cursing is certainly not uncommon in Scripture, especially when the said person was in the covenant but clearly demonstrated unbelief in and against that covenant.
> 
> On a somewhat similar note, we see that with some "baptized believers" in the NT. People who received the sign, but eventually fell away and demonstrated no true regeneration. The fact that therefore even the Apostles baptized non-believers should give credo-baptists reason for pause.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, I'm still confused about your point. How do we know that Ham was unregenerate other than the fact that Canaan was cursed? Are you stating what I called the converse of the paedobaptist position, that is, that a parent is unregenerate if the child is cursed?

Granted, Ham was disobedient, and the covenantal curse is not uncommon, but I'm still trying to figure out how this fits into the Esau-Jacob mold. 

Esau is easy, he was in the covenant and demonstrated unbelief. But I hear you saying that Ham was in the same position because Canaan was cursed, not because we are told that Ham himself demonstrated unbelief.

The reason this gives me pause is because we have many examples of the faithful having unregenerate offspring. Samuel's sons and Eli's sons, for instance. 

I must be missing something.


----------



## mark

But didn't Esau demonstrate reconciliation--a primary Christian virtue--with his brother Jacob? In fact, Esau and Jacob _both_ buried their father, Isaac (Gen 35:29).


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Tom Bombadil said:


> I also backed this up with quotes from prominent baptists. So, this is my explanation for what I said. I hope you find it understandable.





Tom Bombadil said:


> a) Many baptists have tried to give the impression that *only* the paedo camp is divided.



The above is not representative of what is below if I am reading it correctly. I wonder if Malone would really say what you are saying. I do agree he is saying that the use of paedo writings is useful in this way but I don't see him saying what you are saying. And I hope everyone knows that I am not representative of all Baptists either. Many Baptists will disagree with me at some point. I don't have it all figured out and I am working on understanding this also. 



Tom Bombadil said:


> Dr. Fred Malone stated: "This expanded republication of Baptism Not for Infants (1962), often overlooked, is a welcome addition to any shelf as a useful refutation of infant baptism. Watson's unique method of argument is to take quotations exclusively from paedobaptist authors and allow them to refute each other."



Where in this quote does Malone say that only the paedo camp is divided?

Have a good night Tom. We are off to church in a bit.


----------



## jaybird0827

mark said:


> But didn't Esau demonstrate reconciliation--a primary Christian virtue--with his brother Jacob? In fact, Esau and Jacob _both_ buried their father, Isaac (Gen 35:29).


 
The following passage from Hebrews seems more consistent with the understanding that Esau never had faith unto salvation.



> 15 Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled;
> 16 Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. 17 For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.
> 
> -- Hebrews 12:15-17 (AV)


----------



## DMcFadden

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Fred Malone stated: "This expanded republication of Baptism Not for Infants (1962), often overlooked, is a welcome addition to any shelf as a useful refutation of infant baptism. Watson's unique method of argument is to take quotations exclusively from paedobaptist authors and allow them to refute each other."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where in this quote does Malone say that only the paedo camp is divided?
Click to expand...


I believe that the point was that when one is disputing with another person, it may work to your advantage to show that others with their same presuppositions (or even positions) undermine the value of their arguments. For example, if I argue with a J.W., it would be nice to show the inconsistencies in the argument using another J.W. That is why so many evangelists to Mormons will stipulate to making their case from a Bible the Mormons accept rather than from the NIV, etc. My reading of the quote was that your raise extraneous issues if you use credo baptist sources to dispute with those in the paedo camp.


----------



## nicnap

I have been up and down and through this and finally landed about 3 years ago...someone pass me a cookie.


----------



## mark

*thanks!*



jaybird0827 said:


> mark said:
> 
> 
> 
> But didn't Esau demonstrate reconciliation--a primary Christian virtue--with his brother Jacob? In fact, Esau and Jacob _both_ buried their father, Isaac (Gen 35:29).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The following passage from Hebrews seems more consistent with the understanding that Esau never had faith unto salvation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 15 Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled;
> 16 Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. 17 For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.
> 
> -- Hebrews 12:15-17 (AV)
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Homer says, Doh! forgot about that one. Good catch!


----------



## Jim Johnston

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also backed this up with quotes from prominent baptists. So, this is my explanation for what I said. I hope you find it understandable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> 
> a) Many baptists have tried to give the impression that *only* the paedo camp is divided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The above is not representative of what is below if I am reading it correctly. I wonder if Malone would really say what you are saying. I do agree he is saying that the use of paedo writings is useful in this way but I don't see him saying what you are saying. And I hope everyone knows that I am not representative of all Baptists either. Many Baptists will disagree with me at some point. I don't have it all figured out and I am working on understanding this also.
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Fred Malone stated: "This expanded republication of Baptism Not for Infants (1962), often overlooked, is a welcome addition to any shelf as a useful refutation of infant baptism. Watson's unique method of argument is to take quotations exclusively from paedobaptist authors and allow them to refute each other."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where in this quote does Malone say that only the paedo camp is divided?
> 
> Have a good night Tom. We are off to church in a bit.
Click to expand...



Randy, I covered all of this in one of my posts. I presented my reasoning for that. I'm just not going to interpret Malone as someone who presents arguments, and praises other arguments of the same nature, when he knows they can be thrown right back at him. If you're guilty of X, then you don't act as if X is a good reason to deny or show the errors in anothers position, because this, ceteris paribus, implies that there are good arguments against your *own* position. I'll give the man more credit than that. I really don't know how to explain myself any better. If you're not buying my argumentation, I guess we're at an impasse.


----------



## Iconoclast

greenbaggins said:


> I do not agree that because Psalm 2, or psalm 110 language is also added to the mix, that this in any way changes the use of Psalm 16 speaking of Christ being raised by the Spirit.
> Psalm 16 does not mention the Spirit directly, but Peter does Acts2:24,33
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I am at a loss as to how you can claim that Acts 2:38-39 are a direct reference to the Psalm 16 quotation.
> 
> The household language of the jailor can only be handled correctly by the paedo position. Only the jailor believed, but his entire household was baptized. It does not say in the text anywhere that the household also believed.
Click to expand...


Lane
1] The acts 2 quote if you read Peter's sermon, or starting from acts1 it is simply the context of a straight reading of the text- It is discussing what has happened to Jesus /the cross/death/burial/ resurrection,ascension,to the Davidic throne. The promise is that he would see no corruption. The so called covenant child is not in view. Jesus is in view.
2]then you say;


> Only the jailor believed, but his entire household was baptized. It does not say in the text anywhere that the household also believed.


[/QUOTE] Are you then saying they baptized adult unbeliever's? I would not want to defend that position brother. Am I missing something with this?
Clearly the other household passages speak of believing in God with all his house.
In the white /shisko debate pastor Shisko said he would not baptize any adult who does not believe, as baptists would not [ knowingly].
I think that no padeo in here would advocate that the apostles would knowingly baptize an unbeliever.
3] As far as only the jailer believed- the text focused on the jailer in particular we are not given all details as to who was in the household, how old, was it the servants or any other info.
4] if you mis-spoke on this, I do not want to jump on your words to sort of "win" a point. I am interested in coming to truth and appreciate your time and effort to respond. I sometimes respond quickly and do not think out my responses as much as I should sometimes.
5] When you have time.....or anyone who reads the post walk through the verses in acts 2:22-39 again and see if it fits the way I am suggesting, even if you are not convinced of my position on this.

The promise is to Christ/ we partake of the promise when the Spirit quickens us / Spirit baptism places us in union with Christ as part of his body the church.....what you would refer to as the invisible church. Then you can rightly understand Romans 6. We died in Him/We live in Him.


----------

