# General Pattern of Baptism in the NT



## HisRobes4Mine (Mar 16, 2019)

My wife and I have been having some serious discussions about baptism recently. I lean paedo while she remains staunch credo. One of the points that keeps her credo is the general pattern of the NT being “repent and then be baptized.” Essentially the argument is that faith must proceed the giving of the covenant sign. 

Is it possible to demonstrate that the giving of the covenant sign can be given to someone prior to expressing faith without going back into the OT?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost (Mar 16, 2019)

This still references the OT, though quoted and applied in the NT:

"How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? *Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised.*
And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith *which he had while still uncircumcised*, that he might be the *father of all those who believe*, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, and the *father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised*." (Rom. 4:10-12)

In the OT, believing _preceded_ the sign of the covenant. Abraham is _still_ the father of believers. There is no difference between the OT and NT in this regard.

Should OT infants have received the sign of the covenant? They did. Was this household principle abrogated or further established in the NT? Who was baptized? Households! 

Hope this helps...

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Smeagol (Mar 16, 2019)

HisRobes4Mine said:


> Essentially the argument is that faith must proceed the giving of the covenant sign.


Samuel,

Your on to something here. In fact this is the same formula Abraham showed us. Abraham has faith first! But then he also shows us it was valid to give the sign before faith was actually evidenced (to his children). Hope that helps.

In other words, the pattern your wife is rightly picking up on, is not unique to the NT. That pattern has it’s origin in the OT. However your wife is leaving out another pattern, Covenant Children, which is also in the OT FIRST and then the NT.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## deleteduser99 (Mar 16, 2019)

Brother, I must remember to say a prayer for you. My wife and I changed positions at the same time studying the Scriptures together. There was one pount where we had disagreement, and it required great care and tenderness. Theological switches are never easy because our whole lives are structured around our positions. May God give you both light and wisdom.

@Grant Jones and @timfost have given us a very clear example of an OT convert who believed and repented before being circumcised, and that is great precedence of what was required of any Gentile convert before either he or his family could become members of the OT church--they must believe and repent. So the requirements for admission in the NT have an ancient precedent.

My time is limited, but continuing that vein: Can we really say it not required of Gentile converts--outsiders coming into Israel--in the OT to repent and believe, or have some believable profession? I can't possibly imagine the answer is no when God had such a demand of holiness from the covenant people, both internal and external demands. Were I an elder in Israel I dont think I'd ever appoint circumcision to one who clung to his idols, continued in adultery, or was not willing to be justified before God in the way that Abraham was. It'd go against the whole point of being a holy and separate people. As God had said in other circumstances, "I will be sanctified by those who draw near to me" Leviticus 10. And clearly, as OT history shows, this demand was enforced.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## JTB.SDG (Mar 16, 2019)

The pattern for unbelieving ADULTS is indeed the reality first, then the "rite". But the pattern for CHILDREN of believing households is rather the "rite" first, which is expected and prayed and hoped to be followed by the reality.

The best and clearest example is what Grant quoted from Romans 4:11. Abraham, the unbelieving man, embraces the reality of the covenant (faith) first, which is followed by the sign (circumcision). But then what does he do with his 8 day old sons? Rather, what does God command him to do for his 8 day old sons? Who could in no way at that point have believed as he himself did? God commands them to receive the sign before faith could have ever been possible. For a more thorough explanation, see: https://www.ruinandredemption.com/abraham-additional-resources, especially pages 6 and following in the document.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Kinghezy (Mar 17, 2019)

How about 1 Cor, which talks about having one believing parent, the other parent is sanctified and so are the children. There seems to be a treatment of the family as a unit in regards to the visible covenant.

Or 1 Peter, where it directly connects the ark to baptism. You have to ask yourself, was everyone on the ark elect?

You have the Colossians passage that connects circumcision to baptism.

Beeke makes a good case that in all cases the NT is better than the OT (baptism is girls whereas circumcision is only boys, no longer converting to Judaism, etc). To not accept the children as part of the visible covenant would be a step back.

I think the burden of proof is on your wife. The NT speaks strongly on things that change (eat pork, no sacrifices, etc). Where is the argument saying children should be treated differently?


1 Corinthians 7:13-16
If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For 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. But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace. For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

Matthew Henry
This way of speaking is according to the dialect of the Jews, among whom a child begotten by parents yet heathens, was said to be begotten out of holiness; and a child begotten by parents made proselytes was said to be begotten intra sanctitatem--within the holy enclosure. Thus Christians are called commonly saints; such they are by profession, separated to be a peculiar people of God, and as such distinguished from the world; and therefore the children born to Christians, though married to unbelievers, are not to be reckoned as part of the world, but of the church, a holy, not a common and unclean seed.​
1 Peter 3:18-22
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a *few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this*, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.


Colossians 2:11-12
In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Bill Duncan (Mar 17, 2019)

As you see from these men, as they are sending you to the OT for references, which is the only place to build any confidence in any doctrine, you are looking in the wrong place for the answers. You must look to the old testament for an understanding of sacramental baptism. 
You say that you "lean" towards paedo-. That makes you the wrong person to be instructing her on this doctrine. You need someone who is skilled in teaching this doctrine to both of you. I assume your Church is baptistic. If it is, you should submit to the doctrine taught there. If you want to instruct her in a different doctrine then you should go to Church that teaches that doctrine. By teaching a doctrine which is contrary to that which your Church adheres to is teaching her that your Church is wrong on this point. The logical conclusion is that if they are wrong on one doctrine they may be wrong on others. This is acting as a disrupting factor to her and counterproductive to the work of the shepherds of your Church.
You are in a difficult position to say the least. However you can look at this as an opportunity put wheels on various graces God offers you.
1. You may patiently wait upon the Lord' hand of providence to teach you and her. 
2. You may exercise your headship, and leave this Church. Then join a Church which teaches the doctrine that you hold to. 
3. The two of you can attend different Churches. 
4. You can do nothing.
None of these will be easy, but neither is a sojourn through any wilderness. In fact, that a good place to see the emphasis God puts on this doctrine. God sought to kill Moses for not performing the sign of the Covenant on his own son. Moses did not take responsibility for his own family, and his wife had to do it. She saved his life. God takes this stuff seriously, shouldn't we? (Exodus 4)

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## B.L. (Mar 17, 2019)

HisRobes4Mine said:


> Is it possible to demonstrate that the giving of the covenant sign can be given to someone prior to expressing faith without going back into the OT?



The answer is no. One can not provide an example from the Bible where someone received the sign of the new covenant prior to expressing faith.

To quote B.B. Warfield from p. 399 of his book _Studies in Theology_, "The warrant for infant baptism is not to be sought in the New Testament but in the Old Testament."

To quote John Murray from p. 72 of his book _Christian Baptism_, "One of the most persuasive objections and one which closes the argument for a great many people is that there is not express command to baptize infants and no record in the New Testament of a clear case of infant baptism...The evidence for infant baptism falls into the category of good and necessary inference..."


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 17, 2019)

The idea of silence in the NT is not a valid rationale; the continuity of scripture is; to hold to the former is no less than dispensationalism. God has always worked through covenant and to disregard this is akin to disregarding an attribute of God.

There are other doctrines that we can see a level of silence in the NT, that many have no argument with, but when it comes down to the subject of 'baptism', hang their hat on that one.

The idea that we see no direct command to negate the placing of the sign on our children, according to the OT commands, is never really dealt with; In fact, we see a number of scenarios where families are baptized. The idea of silence, on the other hand, says much as it could be easily said that the reason we see no examples where infants receive the sign is secondary to the fact that the writers of the NT took for granted that the readers would by default, given the way God has always worked, take into consideration the continuity of scripture when considering the perpetuity of the covenant sign and it's application in the NT church.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Poimen (Mar 17, 2019)

Yes I think it is possible, though not advisable since Reformed theology teaches that God is one and so his covenant of grace is one, though differently adminstered (see WCF 7.5).

You will see this in the NT when you distinguish between the command _to _baptise and a command _to be_ baptised. Obviously they are related but the former addresses the one who baptises and the latter the ones who are baptised.

Note that the former is inclusive insofar as it embraces nations and households (Matthew 28; Acts - household baptisms), and thus authorises the application of baptism to more than those who confess the faith.

The latter is exclusive insofar as it restricts the application to conscious, confessing recipients. This restriction of baptism to adherents is due to the nature of the covenant God i.e. with believers but the admission of the children of believers is _also_ due to the nature of the covenant that God makes, when he embraces the families of those who believe.

I explore this more at my blog if you would like to study this further:
www.kingandkirk.com/2017/08/29/the-two-commandments-of-baptism/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Mar 17, 2019)

Of course the NT pattern is the baptism of believers, because there were yet no Christian covenant children in existence to whom to give the sign of baptism. Because Acts takes place during the epochal shift, to where the only possibility is that Christians for a time would arise because of direct conversion and not family heritage, this only makes sense.

Bavinck says as much:

"First of all, we need to overcome our astonishment over the fact that the New Testament nowhere explicitly mentions infant baptism. This fact can be explained by saying that in the days of the New Testament, the baptism of adults was the rule, and the baptism of infants, if it occurred at all, was the exception. It was the period in which the Christian church had been founded and expanded by conversions from Judaism and paganism. It is precisely that transition that is clearly depicted in baptism. Adult baptism is therefore the original baptism; infant baptism is derivative; the former must not be conformed to the latter, but the latter must be conformed to the former. The validity of infant baptism does not lapse on that account"

—Herman Bavinck, _Reformed Dogmatics: Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation_, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend, vol. 4, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 526.​

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans922 (Mar 17, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> The idea of silence in the NT is not a valid rationale; the continuity of scripture is; to hold to the former is no less than dispensationalism.



Yes, it is the error of Marcionism.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 17, 2019)

HisRobes4Mine said:


> Is it possible to demonstrate that the giving of the covenant sign can be given to someone prior to expressing faith without going back into the OT?



Whenever I learned that there were household baptisms in the New Testament, the whole notion of infant baptism seemed a lot less objectionable. It also requires you to go back to the OT to fully understand its significance. If initially arguing from the OT is not going to work with your wife, then start here and work your way back to the OT from this starting point.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Kinghezy (Mar 17, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> It also requires you to go back to the OT to fully understand its significance.



A lot (if not all) of doctrine is best understood reading all of scripture. I do not see how you can understand the atonement if you do not see how, starting in Gen 3 and on, the blood of another provides the means to reconcilation. Or how can you understand Christian morality without plumbing what the OT says? There are plenty of examples that show how the NT relies on the old, and so why should how God covenants with his people (not an insignificant thing) not be influenced by the OT.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 17, 2019)

Kinghezy said:


> A lot (if not all) of doctrine is best understood reading all of scripture. I do not see how you can understand the atonement if you do not see how, starting in Gen 3 and on, the blood of another provides the means to reconcilation. Or how can you understand Christian morality without plumbing what the OT says? There are plenty of examples that show how the NT relies on the old, and so why should how God covenants with his people (not an insignificant thing) not be influenced by the OT.



Of course it does, but if you are dealing with someone who says "no OT arguments allowed" then simply citing OT arguments is not going to work with them initially. As a principled pragmatist, I believe in initially using arguments that will work with the person to whom you are addressing them. Once the initial hurdle about support from the NT is overcome, then you can go back and correct their erroneous suppositions concerning the OT.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## J.L. Allen (Mar 17, 2019)

Why separate the OT so violently from the NT? I would not acknowledge the desired parameters to satisfy a person’s curiosity or cause for objection. If they want to properly discuss the matter, they have to acknowledge the totality of its evidence.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 17, 2019)

Johnathan Lee Allen said:


> Why separate the OT so violently from the NT? I would not acknowledge the desired parameters to satisfy a person’s curiosity or cause for objection. If they want to properly discuss the matter, they have to acknowledge the totality of its evidence.



It is an accommodation to the prejudices of your opponent with the ultimate end in sight of correcting their erroneous assumptions. Just like if you were arguing with a Jew who did not accept the New Testament witness to the Messiah, you would seek to refute them out of the Old Testament.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## J.L. Allen (Mar 17, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> It is an accommodation to the prejudices of your opponent with the ultimate end in sight of correcting their erroneous assumptions. Just like if you were arguing with a Jew who did not accept the New Testament witness to the Messiah, you would seek to refute them out of the Old Testament.


I agree to an extent. However, the man’s bride is a Christian and thus must accept the whole testament of God. Granted, this is done with grace. 

Again, you have stated a truth that is indeed crucial for many interactions with those possessing differences of position.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 17, 2019)

Johnathan Lee Allen said:


> I agree to an extent. However, the man’s bride is a Christian and thus must accept the whole testament of God. Granted, this is done with grace.
> 
> Again, you have stated a truth that is indeed crucial for many interactions with those possessing differences of position.



For people who have been influenced by Dispensationalism, however, it is difficult to get through to them that the Old Testament is not the Word of God emeritus. That is why I suggest beginning with an argument that appeals to their prejudice in the hope that they will eventually see that their prejudice is mistaken.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## J.L. Allen (Mar 17, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> For people who have been influenced by Dispensationalism, however, it is difficult to get through to them that the Old Testament is not the Word of God emeritus. That is why I suggest beginning with an argument that appeals to their prejudice in the hope that they will eventually see that their prejudice is mistaken.


Wise words. I’ll concede.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Kinghezy (Mar 17, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Of course it does, but if you are dealing with someone who says "no OT arguments allowed" then simply citing OT arguments is not going to work with them initially. As a principled pragmatist, I believe in initially using arguments that will work with the person to whom you are addressing them. Once the initial hurdle about support from the NT is overcome, then you can go back and correct their erroneous suppositions concerning the OT.



I am thinking of bringing to light obvious places (aka moral law) that the NT relies on the OT. What would your example of a dispensationist response be?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 17, 2019)

Kinghezy said:


> I am thinking of bringing to light obvious places (aka moral law) that the NT relies on the OT. What would your example of a dispensationist response be?



Would they not argue that they accept the OT commands when the NT repeats them? Is that not why most (if not all) of them reject the idea that the Sabbath remains valid in the NT?


----------



## Andrew35 (Mar 17, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Of course it does, but if you are dealing with someone who says "no OT arguments allowed" then simply citing OT arguments is not going to work with them initially. As a principled pragmatist, I believe in initially using arguments that will work with the person to whom you are addressing them. Once the initial hurdle about support from the NT is overcome, then you can go back and correct their erroneous suppositions concerning the OT.


This was certainly true in my case.

Although on this forum we obviously want to make our arguments from Scripture and hold it as our ultimate authority, other supplemental lines of attack may be helpful initially.

The issue that kept nagging me as a Baptist was the nigh universal practice of paedobaptism in the early church. It seemed to me that the paedo matter would naturally have come up in the early churches, and the apostles and their appointed elders would have said, "No, sorry. 18 years or older only may apply" (as some Baptists would have it). And that would have become _established practice_.

Now here's the rub: we know that the doctrine and rationale behind a practice can change very rapidly, as the theology behind baptism certainly did. A practice itself, however, will nearly always be held in a death-grip by some stubborn congregation or another, at least leaving some trace evidence.

In order for credo to be true, we have to believe that the practice of paedobaptism was universally adopted in every corner of the empire, even in small, rural, out-of-the-way congregations--without so much as a squawk or sign of struggle left behind--within a generation or two of the apostles. And this by people that would give up their lives over, for example, the date of Easter. I just couldn't make sense of it.

This is somewhat akin to James White's textual argument vs Bart Ehrman; i.e., if you don't have a strong authority than can make top-down changes, there is no method, empire-wide by which you can alter the Biblical manuscript record.

These thoughts and some other life-circumstances sent me back to the Scriptures with eyes a little more open.

Reactions: Like 2 | Edifying 1


----------



## Jack K (Mar 17, 2019)

HisRobes4Mine said:


> Essentially the argument is that faith must proceed the giving of the covenant sign.



Keep in mind that there is another New Testament pattern: baptism proceeds discipleship. The community of growing, learning believers is united as a baptized community. So if our children are young disciples—that is, if we are teaching them and they are growing and are even beginning to practice faith (as when we teach them to pray, for example)—shouldn't they be baptized at the start of all this, if we are following the New Testament order of things?

As a practical matter, it is difficult to know just how we are supposed to train kids to practice faith if at the same time we are telling them they don't really belong to the faith community yet. And how are they to love God when God has not yet put his covenant promises on them?

Good Presbyterians do look for evidence of faith before baptizing a baby; they just look for it in the parents. That's the real difference with Baptists. So the what-comes-first question you ought to be asking is not whether baptism should proceed faith (we agree that's not the design), but whether discipleship should proceed baptism.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 17, 2019)

> The issue that kept nagging me as a Baptist was the nigh universal practice of paedobaptism in the early church.



Again, you are speculating based on silence....

Some quotes from the father of the faith on PB:

http://www.semperreformanda.com/pre...rom-the-fathers-of-the-faith-on-paedobaptism/


----------



## Andrew35 (Mar 17, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> Again, you are speculating based on silence....
> 
> Some quotes from the father of the faith on PB:
> 
> http://www.semperreformanda.com/pre...rom-the-fathers-of-the-faith-on-paedobaptism/


No, I didn't speculate at all. I had questions. Did you read all my post? I don't think you really understood what I was trying to say.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 17, 2019)

Andrew,
Forgive me if u interpreted my response as curt; I can promise u that it wasn't. I am simply replying to the statement itself. U said, the practice was 'nigh' in the early church. I say, thats along the same vein as speculating, which was/is based on silence in any of the early church documents and writings. The reason this is so, is because of what I have already said.

This may have been said before so forgive me for being redundant but the early church were Jews. Jews who understood covenant and understood where their children fit into that equation. It would have been very odd if the apostles now told the Jews, 'your kids are no longer included in this new protocol'. As well, we never see that in any of the NT writings; so the shoe falls to the other foot in how baptists force the interpretation.


----------



## Andrew35 (Mar 17, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> Andrew,
> Forgive me if u interpreted my response as curt; I can promise u that it wasn't. I am simply replying to the statement itself. U said, the practice was 'nigh' in the early church. I say, thats along the same vein as speculating, which was/is based on silence in any of the early church documents and writings. The reason this is so, is because of what I have already said.
> 
> This may have been said before so forgive me for being redundant but the early church were Jews. Jews who understood covenant and understood where their children fit into that equation. It would have been very odd if the apostles now told the Jews, 'your kids are no longer included in this new protocol'. As well, we never see that in any of the NT writings; so the shoe falls to the other foot in how baptists force the interpretation.


No worries! I wasn't offended, just trying to understand.

What I said was that paedobaptism was the "nigh universal practice" of the early church. I really didn't think this point was up for debate, honestly, let alone a matter of speculation--depending on how far back you go with "early," of course.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 17, 2019)

Andrew,
My bad. I misunderstood. 'Nigh'. Hence, u believe that PB was the practice of the early church?


----------



## Andrew35 (Mar 17, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> Andrew,
> My bad. I misunderstood. 'Nigh'. Hence, u believe that PB was the practice of the early church?


Afraid so.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 17, 2019)

Then, forgive me as I misunderstood u. We agree.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Mar 17, 2019)

For the OP, one shouldn’t shy away from the idea that the norm in the NT (and maybe for the first century) was adult baptism. Infant baptism doesn’t rest upon the pattern of the 1st century church. The reformed have acknowledged these points from the beginning. See James Bannerman and William Cunningham on these points:

https://renopres.com/2017/03/27/james-bannerman-the-efficacy-of-infant-baptism/

https://renopres.com/2017/03/26/william-cunningham-infant-baptism/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## HisRobes4Mine (Mar 17, 2019)

timfost said:


> This still references the OT, though quoted and applied in the NT:
> 
> "How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? *Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised.*
> And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith *which he had while still uncircumcised*, that he might be the *father of all those who believe*, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, and the *father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised*." (Rom. 4:10-12)
> ...



I would say that is one of of the things that helped me was the continuity between the covenants in relationship to profession of faith and then the giving of the covenant sign. I’m still working on how to properly understand/explain the relationship of the children to the parents who have received the sign. It is definitely something that is drawn from “good and necessary inferences” as the WCF says. The lack of properly understanding the close relationship the covenants have seems to be related to a poor understanding of the OT.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## HisRobes4Mine (Mar 17, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> But then he also shows us it was valid to give the sign before faith was actually evidenced (to his children)



This is something that we can only show by good and necessary inference though correct? In other words, a covenantal understanding of Scripture will lead us to understand certain passages in the NT through that lens.?


----------



## timfost (Mar 17, 2019)

HisRobes4Mine said:


> I would say that is one of of the things that helped me was the continuity between the covenants in relationship to profession of faith and then the giving of the covenant sign. I’m still working on how to properly understand/explain the relationship of the children to the parents who have received the sign. It is definitely something that is drawn from “good and necessary inferences” as the WCF says. The lack of properly understanding the close relationship the covenants have seems to be related to a poor understanding of the OT.



It's interesting that when Paul exhorts Timothy to "preach the word," (2 Tim. 4:2) he primarily was referring to the OT since the NT was largely not written or fully circulated at that time. The covenant relationship in the OT was constantly before NT believers.


----------



## HisRobes4Mine (Mar 17, 2019)

Harley said:


> Brother, I must remember to say a prayer for you. My wife and I changed positions at the same time studying the Scriptures together. There was one pount where we had disagreement, and it required great care and tenderness. Theological switches are never easy because our whole lives are structured around our positions. May God give you both light and wisdom.
> 
> @Grant Jones and @timfost have given us a very clear example of an OT convert who believed and repented before being circumcised, and that is great precedence of what was required of any Gentile convert before either he or his family could become members of the OT church--they must believe and repent. So the requirements for admission in the NT have an ancient precedent.
> 
> My time is limited, but continuing that vein: Can we really say it not required of Gentile converts--outsiders coming into Israel--in the OT to repent and believe, or have some believable profession? I can't possibly imagine the answer is no when God had such a demand of holiness from the covenant people, both internal and external demands. Were I an elder in Israel I dont think I'd ever appoint circumcision to one who clung to his idols, continued in adultery, or was not willing to be justified before God in the way that Abraham was. It'd go against the whole point of being a holy and separate people. As God had said in other circumstances, "I will be sanctified by those who draw near to me" Leviticus 10. And clearly, as OT history shows, this demand was enforced.



Thanks Brother! It is not easy to walk through this theological change. However, I’m learning how merciful and gracious our great God is and how sinful I am. He is teaching me how to be patient and how to better love my wife. 

The journey is difficult since my family and I moved to KY last July for me to attend Southern here. The elders of our church in AZ believed God was gifting me to be an elder so encouraged me to come here to be trained. I was questioning some things theologically before and during our move here. Now that we’ve been here for awhile, I’ve really started to lean toward the paedo position but am frustrated because I know my theological shift also means a postponement of being ordained to serve in a church. Learning God know what I need!

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## deleteduser99 (Mar 18, 2019)

HisRobes4Mine said:


> Thanks Brother! It is not easy to walk through this theological change. However, I’m learning how merciful and gracious our great God is and how sinful I am. He is teaching me how to be patient and how to better love my wife.
> 
> The journey is difficult since my family and I moved to KY last July for me to attend Southern here. The elders of our church in AZ believed God was gifting me to be an elder so encouraged me to come here to be trained. I was questioning some things theologically before and during our move here. Now that we’ve been here for awhile, I’ve really started to lean toward the paedo position but am frustrated because I know my theological shift also means a postponement of being ordained to serve in a church. Learning God know what I need!



Good lessons  Ephesians 5 is our model for loving our wives, and I think it's called the washing of water not only for the purifying effect, but for the gentleness of the washing itself. May God grace you.

I can understand the frustration. I would say though, it's ultimately a mercy. The one thing you do not want is to go into eldership in a church/denomination where you cannot confidently subscribe to its confession. It would be insincere at best no matter how you tried to make it work. However, God is a God of great providences. If He has put a gift in you, He's not going to remove it just because you need a clearer understanding of the Word, and this may be part of placing you in the exact place where he would have you serve, first as a church member, and if He wills, as an elder. So, your desire to know the truth on baptism is a cooperation with His Spirit, and not a resistance. That's a comfort. If Christ is the one giving gifts in Ephesians 4, then Christ is the one putting them in their proper congregations.

But I would say, study and study the Scriptures themselves on this matter until you are fully convinced fully from Scripture one way or the other. The Lord bless you in it. Having been on both sides of the baptism debate I can say, if God made me an elder, I'd be happier to do it as a paedo than a credo. I am as a parent for sure.

@Bill Duncan has advice in his post well worth heeding. Studying and searching these things out together is one thing, though it has to be done in light of both of you having membership vows to uphold. When we switched views we were advised by paedo friends not to propogate our views because we were still under membership at an RB church though we then lived in another state. I think joint study is permitted, and no elder should ever hinder honest inquiry into Bible teaching, nor would they desire to, but when it begins to look like propogation of a contrary view then conflicts arise.

The education complicates it. If your sending church is paying for your education, it seems some discussions with your elders back home may be in order, depending on just how far into the PB position you lean. However, I don't have any experience in such things.

Reactions: Like 3 | Edifying 1


----------



## Smeagol (Mar 18, 2019)

HisRobes4Mine said:


> This is something that we can only show by good and necessary inference though correct? In other words, a covenantal understanding of Scripture will lead us to understand certain passages in the NT through that lens.?


I think I know what you are asking, if my answer misses your question tell me.

My answer:
Yes, but Not solely in my opinion. Think about how in the new testiment the children of believing parent(s) are called holy. And the NT maintains Household language (which clearly includes more than just babies).

However you are not entirely wrong either, because a covenatal understanding of scripture is simply the only way to to read scripture, even if not “reformed”, I find it extremely poor exegesis (I was guilty of this) not to always be conscious of God’s covenants as one makes their way through the Bible. Simply put, according to the Bible, does God ever relate to us outside of a covenant? I do not think so. Using scripture to interpret scripture is another way of saying what you said: “viewing through a Covenant Theology Lens.”

Romans teaches us that we are either represented by fallen Adam or Christ. No person on earth lacks a covenant relationship to God, we either stand condemned or reconciled to God as it relates to our covenantal standing.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## timfost (Mar 18, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> cove*natal*



Grant, you obviousy have babies on the mind lately.

Congrats, by the way!

Reactions: Funny 5


----------



## Bill Duncan (Mar 18, 2019)

Andrew P.C. said:


> For the OP, one shouldn’t shy away from the idea that the norm in the NT (and maybe for the first century) was adult baptism. Infant baptism doesn’t rest upon the pattern of the 1st century church. The reformed have acknowledged these points from the beginning. See James Bannerman and William Cunningham on these points:
> 
> https://renopres.com/2017/03/27/james-bannerman-the-efficacy-of-infant-baptism/
> 
> https://renopres.com/2017/03/26/william-cunningham-infant-baptism/


I'm not in agreement that the "norm" in the NT was adult baptism. Two points.

1. Imagine yourself a Jewish convert who has, for thousands of years, as a church, and as an ethnicity, been giving your suckling infant males a sign of inclusion in the group, and now your new pastor tells you the sign is no longer valid. Now your male heirs will have no sign, nothing to remind them who they belong to. Nothing to remind them that they will be cut off, it they apostatize, and nothing to remind them that God said he would rather cut himself in half, and spill his own blood than to fail his promise to them. I personally would be outraged, and I would ask the Pastor to prove it. He having nothing, to show me would, would probably on the pulpit supply list the next week, if not out of a job, and slopping hogs for the gentiles.

2. Unless all the gentile converts were on the Chinese plan of one child per household, or were on the American plan of planned parenthood, a little elementary math would tell you that the norm was covenant, federal baptism.


----------



## Smeagol (Mar 18, 2019)

timfost said:


> Grant, you obviousy have babies on the mind lately.
> 
> Congrats, by the way!


Both my text friends and now my PB friends know that I am not the best speller. Did I just invent a new word?

Here was how I informed my pastor :

“Adam I have a prophecy, I believe we are going to be getting a new member in need of a baptism within nine months. It is extremely likely the new member will have red hair.”

Isn't a prophecy about someone being pregnant deemed a Pregnancy?

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Mar 18, 2019)

HisRobes4Mine said:


> Is it possible to demonstrate that the giving of the covenant sign can be given to someone prior to expressing faith without going back into the OT?



No.


----------



## Smeagol (Mar 18, 2019)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> No.


Sure it is. Paul had "A" covenant sign prior to his faith.


----------



## HisRobes4Mine (Mar 18, 2019)

Kinghezy said:


> Beeke makes a good case that in all cases the NT is better than the OT (baptism is girls whereas circumcision is only boys, no longer converting to Judaism, etc). To not accept the children as part of the visible covenant would be a step back.



I’ve read a bit from Beeke but have yet to come across that section. Where does he make this case?


----------



## HisRobes4Mine (Mar 18, 2019)

Bill Duncan said:


> As you see from these men, as they are sending you to the OT for references, which is the only place to build any confidence in any doctrine, you are looking in the wrong place for the answers. You must look to the old testament for an understanding of sacramental baptism.
> You say that you "lean" towards paedo-. That makes you the wrong person to be instructing her on this doctrine. You need someone who is skilled in teaching this doctrine to both of you. I assume your Church is baptistic. If it is, you should submit to the doctrine taught there. If you want to instruct her in a different doctrine then you should go to Church that teaches that doctrine. By teaching a doctrine which is contrary to that which your Church adheres to is teaching her that your Church is wrong on this point. The logical conclusion is that if they are wrong on one doctrine they may be wrong on others. This is acting as a disrupting factor to her and counterproductive to the work of the shepherds of your Church.
> You are in a difficult position to say the least. However you can look at this as an opportunity put wheels on various graces God offers you.
> 1. You may patiently wait upon the Lord' hand of providence to teach you and her.
> ...



Thanks Bill, this is something that we are both praying through and discussing heavily.


----------



## HisRobes4Mine (Mar 18, 2019)

Harley said:


> Good lessons  Ephesians 5 is our model for loving our wives, and I think it's called the washing of water not only for the purifying effect, but for the gentleness of the washing itself. May God grace you.
> 
> I can understand the frustration. I would say though, it's ultimately a mercy. The one thing you do not want is to go into eldership in a church/denomination where you cannot confidently subscribe to its confession. It would be insincere at best no matter how you tried to make it work. However, God is a God of great providences. If He has put a gift in you, He's not going to remove it just because you need a clearer understanding of the Word, and this may be part of placing you in the exact place where he would have you serve, first as a church member, and if He wills, as an elder. So, your desire to know the truth on baptism is a cooperation with His Spirit, and not a resistance. That's a comfort. If Christ is the one giving gifts in Ephesians 4, then Christ is the one putting them in their proper congregations.
> 
> ...



The education does complicate matters but not too much. Our pastors encouraged us to go, but our church is not financially helping us in this matter.


----------



## De Jager (Mar 18, 2019)

I would suggest to read the new testament and see how the new testament itself testifies that it is a continuation of God's one revelation and one covenant. The passages in Luke 1 (song of Mary, song of Zacharias) are especially helpful when refuting dispensationlism in my opinion. Also Galatians is extremely helpful, as is Romans 4. Romans 11 is also helpful in that it teaches that the gentiles are grafted into the ONE olive tree, showing continuation and unity between OT and NT believers.

Then, when that obstacle is overcome, then you can start using the OT in your arguments. Until then, point to the household baptisms; however, realize that those won't seem as significant until it is realized that the household baptisms are simply with keeping in line with how the covenant sign has always been applied since the time of Abraham. Therefore, I would advise to discover the continuity of the covenant of grace first.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Kinghezy (Mar 18, 2019)

Mr. Jones,

I see, pot calling kettle black 



timfost said:


> Grant, you obviousy have babies on the mind lately.
> 
> Congrats, by the way!






Grant Jones said:


> True Christian hospitality towards a weaker spelling brother. My vote is cast!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Kinghezy (Mar 18, 2019)

HisRobes4Mine said:


> I’ve read a bit from Beeke but have yet to come across that section. Where does he make this case?



I believe from this series: https://www.sermonaudio.com/search....yword=Child+Rearing&keyworddesc=Child+Rearing

I believe it is the longer version of what this book was distilled from: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12546319-parenting-by-god-s-promises

I listened to it over a year ago, so cannot tell you which lecture (was a Sunday school class, not a sermon) it was.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 19, 2019)

timfost said:


> This still references the OT, though quoted and applied in the NT:
> 
> "How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? *Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised.*
> And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith *which he had while still uncircumcised*, that he might be the *father of all those who believe*, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, and the *father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised*." (Rom. 4:10-12)
> ...


Water Baptism in the NC though seems to be implying that the spiritual circumcision is done by God before the person receives the ordinance.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost (Mar 19, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> Water Baptism in the NC though seems to be implying that the spiritual circumcision is done by God before the person receives the ordinance.



Are you agreeing with me? I can't tell.

Both spiritual circumcision/baptism occur before the physical sign is applied in the sacrament.


----------



## terry43 (Mar 20, 2019)

I do not believe the scripture clearly presents infant baptism as a replacement for the mark of the covenant ... When scripture is silent that's how I stay. Like many I have gone back and forth.. all of my children were baptized as infants in the RC tradition as was I... However after I was saved I was baptized as an adult because I wanted my Death and resurrection with Christ to be my decision and proclamation.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 20, 2019)

terry43 said:


> I do not believe the scripture clearly presents infant baptism as a replacement for the mark of the covenant .



Hi Terry,
How do u understand Acts 16:31 if not by covenant? What could the apostles have meant here?


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Mar 20, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> How do u understand Acts 16:31 if not by covenant? What could the apostles have meant here?



Read down to v. 34. “And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, *believing in God with all his house.*”

They all believed. And they all were baptized. That's the clear biblical pattern.


----------



## De Jager (Mar 20, 2019)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Read down to v. 34. “And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, *believing in God with all his house.*”
> 
> They all believed. And they all were baptized. That's the clear biblical pattern.



That depends on what bible version you read. Read the ESV, and it is rendered differently. There obviously is some ambiguity here in terms of who the "rejoicing" and "believing" includes.

Secondly, you can't have a "pattern" if in the passage immediately previous, we know that Lydia's entire household is baptized and the only person who is mentioned having faith is herself.

Thirdly, "all" does not necessarily mean every individual indiscriminately. If it did, you would have to conclude that there was not a single individual in the household who was too young to understand the gospel, including all extended family, and servants - which seems a bit ridiculous. Of course, we don't need to go to such lengths, because rarely in the Bible does the word "all" refer to every individual without exception. In fact, in many places it refers to "all sorts of people", or "all types" to denote something that is pervasively true but may not be exhaustively true.

Therefore, it is also possible that not _every single indivudal_ was baptized - but that in general, it is pervasively true that those of his household were baptized (some may have refused the rite). The point that Luke is making is not to make a 1 to 1 accounting of belief to baptism, but to put forth a general principle; that is, that on belief of the head of the household, regardless of the number of additional household members who believed, the sign was applied to those in the house. This is of course, in keeping with how God has always applied the sign of inclusion in his people. You of course know how circumcision was applied.

It's the same covenant. It's the same promise "I will be your God, you will be my people" through Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy, Jeremiah, Acts, and Revelation. Baptism clearly is given to mark out those who are part of God's visible people, and there is no reason to start applying this type of sign any different unless God told us to - which he hasn't. It is a visible sign, given to visibly mark out the visible church - not a visible sign to mark out the invisible church, because that would be pointless. Why would God give a visible sign to point out the invisible church? Such a sign is useless because we can't really know if it truly points to the reality or not.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 20, 2019)

De Jager said:


> It is a visible sign, given to visibly mark out the visible church - not a visible sign to mark out the invisible church, because that would be pointless



AMEN.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## KMK (Mar 20, 2019)

De Jager said:


> It is a visible sign, given to visibly mark out the visible church - not a visible sign to mark out the invisible church, because that would be pointless.



Confessional Baptists do not believe baptism is a 'visible sign to mark out the invisible church'. We fully admit (as do Paedos) that some who receive water baptism are hypocrites.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Mar 21, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> Hi Terry,
> How do u understand Acts 16:31 if not by covenant? What could the apostles have meant here?



Do you think that _“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” _means that the whole family will be _saved_ if the head of the household believes? Because if you read this text with oikobaptist presuppositions, that is the only thing it can possibly mean, and I have never met a paedo-/oikobaptist who would go that far.

When a Baptist reads this, we read it like _“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, [this promise is for] you and your household._" Meaning, not only is he (the Philippian jailer) able to lay claim to this promise, but his duly evangelized family as well.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## De Jager (Mar 21, 2019)

KMK said:


> Confessional Baptists do not believe baptism is a 'visible sign to mark out the invisible church'. We fully admit (as do Paedos) that some who receive water baptism are hypocrites.



That's fine, but in all practicality, baptists try as hard as possible to have an exact 1:1 accounting between those who are truly "in Christ" and those who are baptized. 

Baptists of course emphasize the "being united to Christ" aspect of baptism, and thus will only baptize someone if the person gives a credible profession of faith. This of course is because the presupposition is that faith must precede baptism.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 21, 2019)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Read down to v. 34. “And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, *believing in God with all his house.*”



If you remain consistent covenantally, this is rendered from a Federal head perspective; When the federal head believes, so does 'his house'.


----------



## JTB.SDG (Mar 21, 2019)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Do you think that _“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” _means that the whole family will be _saved_ if the head of the household believes? Because if you read this text with oikobaptist presuppositions, that is the only thing it can possibly mean, and I have never met a paedo-/oikobaptist who would go that far.



Actually, brother, this does have implications for how we see God's covenantal dealings with our posterity as Presbyterians. It's exactly the implication that Thomas Goodwin draws out (below). It goes back to God's promise to Abraham: "I will establish My covenant between Me and thee and thy seed. . ." (Genesis 17:7).

Goodwin takes a parallel passage from the gospels, where Jesus says to Zaccheus in Luke 19:9, "Today salvation has come to this house, because he, too, is a son of Abraham." Note that it's Zaccheus alone who the Lord credits as being a “son of Abraham”; and yet the benefits of salvation are imputed to his entire household: “Today salvation has come to this house, because he, too, is a son of Abraham.” And here's what he writes: “when Zaccheus was thus converted, Christ enlarges his covenant to Zaccheus' family also, 'This day is salvation come to this house, inasmuch as he is also the son of Abraham,' (verse 9). Now if Christ's intent had been in this answer given, to show that he. . .though a great sinner, yet was converted as being a son of Abraham (as some expound it), he would have made it the reason but of this only, why Zaccheus was saved himself personally; but he makes it the reason why his house should be saved also, and so the covenant stuck with them of his family likewise, because he the father of the family was now a believer. . .so now being converted, [he] is therefore called a 'son of Abraham' and withal had this privilege of Abraham, as being his son. . .to have his house brought into the covenant, even of that of salvation, in conformity to his father Abraham. . .Thus in like manner, when the apostles came to preach the gospel to a Gentile householder, master or father of a family, they carried the offer of it in this tenor, and in the way of this privilege, as a motive to conversion. So when Paul preached to the jailor, Acts 16, he asking, 'What shall I do to be saved?' (verse 30), Paul answers, 'Believe on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved;' and then adds, 'thou and thine house.'” (From Works, V9, pp430-31).

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 2


----------



## De Jager (Mar 21, 2019)

Deuteronomy 29:10-14

God renews the covenant with the people of Israel, including the little ones. Let's think about this. God enters into covenant with _babies_. 

Again, let's get this through our heads: _God enters into covenant with babies_.

Questions: But how?!?! They can't believe! They don't have faith!!!

Answer: God doesn't seem to care. They are his children because they are born to people who are a part of the believing community. According to God, that is a good enough reason to enter into covenant with them. According to God, he calls them his children (Ezekiel 16). According to God, he is _their God_ (Deuteronomy 29:13). Thus, a child born to believing parents is _called to believe_ from the moment of conception. From the moment of conception, God is _his God._ In the case of a covenant child, God is _his God_ long before the child can exercise personal faith in the promises of God. That of course is why God gave them the sign of circumcision - to mark them out as HIS.

This is how God treats the children of believers. They are special. They are holy. They always have been, and they always will be.

The burden of proof is on the baptist to prove that God now thinks differently about the children of believers.

The following sermon is by Kenneth Stewart, RP church of Glascow. It is INCREDIBLY beneficial. I encourage you to give it a listen.

https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1129161419391

Reactions: Amen 2


----------



## timfost (Mar 21, 2019)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Do you think that _“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” _means that the whole family will be _saved_ if the head of the household believes? Because if you read this text with oikobaptist presuppositions, that is the only thing it can possibly mean, and I have never met a paedo-/oikobaptist who would go that far.



Hi, this is a great conversation!

I think you need to flesh out the implications of this statement a little. The statement to which you refer effectively means that the promise of salvation has come to this house. The entire household is regarded as members of the visible church to whom the promises were made (Abraham _and his seed_).

Even from the Credo perspective, baptism is sometimes applied to hypocrites. Because of this, both positions leave room for baptized people not having salvation. In other words, the implication of salvation in this passage ultimately poses a problem to both positions if the your logical dilemma is applied evenly.



> a Baptist reads this, we read it like _“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, [this promise is for] you and your household._" Meaning, not only is he (the Philippian jailer) able to lay claim to this promise, but his duly evangelized family as well.



Again, fleshing this out may be important here. Why include the household? If Jew or Gentile individually can come to Christ through faith (believing), extending to the household is redundant since it is individual believing that places one in the covenant. If being "duly evangelized" is what's in view here, why not include the community if "duly evangelized"?

The fact is that the promises are made to the household-- not the community. The household is a special covenant relationship with a biblical pattern and precedent. Presbyterians understand continuity in the entire Bible on this point and we are not forced to "qualify" the word _household _as are our Baptist brethren. 

I believe the the Baptist position either makes the term _household_ redundant or a common, not special, relationship.

I say these things not to be combative but to continue a good conversation.

Thanks!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Mar 21, 2019)

De Jager said:


> Deuteronomy 29:10-14
> 
> God renews the covenant with the people of Israel, including the little ones. Let's think about this. God enters into covenant with _babies_.
> 
> ...



Here's a much better take on this issue:

https://pettyfrance.wordpress.com/2019/03/21/i-will-be-a-god-to-you-and-to-your-children/


----------



## KMK (Mar 21, 2019)

De Jager said:


> That's fine, but in all practicality, baptists try as hard as possible to have an exact 1:1 accounting between those who are truly "in Christ" and those who are baptized.



This is what confessional Baptists believe:

LBC Chapter 29, Paragraph 1. "Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, *a sign *of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life."

That is not much different than Presbyterians:

MCF Chapter 28, Paragraph 1. "Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church;[2] but also to be unto him *a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,*[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life.[7] Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his Church until the end of the world."



De Jager said:


> Baptists of course emphasize the "being united to Christ" aspect of baptism, and thus will only baptize someone if the person gives a credible profession of faith.



Presbyterians also require a credible confession of faith for baptism (just not with infants).

There are differences, but not in the way you describe. Maybe your experience with Baptists is with the non-confessional stripe.


----------



## De Jager (Mar 21, 2019)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Here's a much better take on this issue:
> 
> https://pettyfrance.wordpress.com/2019/03/21/i-will-be-a-god-to-you-and-to-your-children/



Seems like a lot of effort has been put forth by this person to prove that the covenant of grace is not continuous throughout the bible but that somehow the NC is different and unrelated to the other covenants. This is not biblical.

Briefly from the article:

_Notwithstanding the connection the old covenant(s) have to Christ, they are not the new covenant. Their parties, promises, and precepts are distinct. Christ rejected Abrahamic paternity as sufficient grounds for inclusion in his kingdom, he rejected the idea that Canaan would be the realm of his kingdom, and he rejected the continuance of the Abrahamic/Mosaic laws.

The new covenant is the blessing for the nations, a people born from above. It forgives sins and perfects the conscience. It grants an everlasting inheritance in the new creation. It enables its people to believe and obey. It is for Jew and Greek, all who call on the name of the Lord.
_
I think this comes down to people not understanding what Israel was, and also not understanding the purpose of the mosaic covenant/laws. People think that Israel is just a 'picture' of future salvation, and that the Jews were related to God in some type of national, earthly way and nothing more. This is simply false.

The author of the article makes a false distinction between pre-Christ and post-Christ in that he says that the NC is for Jews and Gentiles, while before Christ it was for Jews only - this is clearly implied in the quoted paragraphs. This is simply untrue. The covenant people, even before Christ contained many who were not 'ethnic Jews' - i.e. physically descended from Abraham. In fact, there are "pagans" in the line of Christ. In Exodus 12, God explained the criteria for allowing foreigners to partake in the passover - the head of the house had to believe, and the males had to be circumcised. There were obviously foreigners seeking to join themselves to the covenant people. And why? So they could have a better life? Maybe partly - but probably because they recognized that Israel's God was the one true God.

What made a Jew special? His blood? No, not at all. A Jew is "not one outwardly, but one inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart". What made a Jew special was that HIS GOD WAS THE LORD. Furthermore, even Abraham himself, and other OT saints looked beyond the physical promises to something better:

Hebrews 11:13-16

_"These all died in faith, not having received the promises...they desire a better, that is a heavenly country. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God."
_
The saints before Christ, even those who lived in the promised land under the reign of King David, died without having received the fulness of God's promises. We need to get that through our heads! Therefore, we can say, even from Noah, through Abraham, David, Jeremiah, etc. God's promises always pointed to things beyond this life. Yes, there was a time where God promised an earthly land and with earthly blessings - but that was not the fulness of the promises - it never has been.

When God said to Abraham "I will be your God", heavenly promises were in play. And when God said to Abraham "I will be the God of your descendants", these same promises were in play. They were promises that ultimately culminated in eternal fellowship with God himself in the "heavenly country".

And how is this any different than anyone who hears the phrase "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved"? Is this promise of salvation not exactly the same as the one given to Abraham. Of course it is. Is this promise of salvation realized through faith in Christ? Of course it is. By faith we become a true child of Abraham - and it has ALWAYS been the case. 

An old testament pagan who believed that Israel's God was the one true God and joined himself to the covenant people (and who was then circumcised with all his), was a child of Abraham in a _more meaningful sense than _a person who was born "Jewish" and yet didn't believe. God has always been interested in a people with "circumcised hearts".

This is why Jesus is not impressed with people who say "we have Abraham as our father". This is not a new development, in that God has not just recently become displeased at such a statement. God has always looked with disappointment on those who rely solely on bloodlines in order to prove that they are "good with God". Jesus didn't change anything when he confronted that attitude.

God does not change. He treats people the same yesterday, today, and forever. People have and always will be saved by grace alone, through faith alone, and it has always been the case that those who are truly united to Christ by faith are the only ones who can really look forward to the ultimate fulfillment of God's promises - eternal fellowship with him. There are many in the visible congregation who are tares, who say "we are Abraham's children!" yet lack the real substance of the promises. This has always been the case and will always be the case. Yet, God has also always seen fit to give the sign of inclusion in his visible people to believers and their children - always, always, always. 

Baptism is a visible sign which marks out someone as being a disciple of Christ, being under his tutelage, being under his authority. A child born to Christian parents qualifies. A covenant child is a disciple in every sense of the word (no, disciple does not necessarily equal regenerate, see John 6 where Jesus 'disciples' leave him). A covenant child is a learner, a student, a person under the authority of Christ's teaching. And since a covenant child qualifies to be baptized, we baptize them. A covenant child belongs to the "believing community" in the exact same way that a covenant child belonged to the believing community in the times pre-Christ.

Reactions: Amen 2


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Mar 21, 2019)

De Jager said:


> Seems like a lot of effort has been put forth by this person to prove that the *covenant of grace is not continuous throughout the bible* but that somehow the NC is different and unrelated to the other covenants.



I'm sorry, but I don't see how it's possible to draw that conclusion, especially since the author most certainly would reject that idea.


----------



## De Jager (Mar 21, 2019)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> I'm sorry, but I don't see how it's possible to draw that conclusion, especially since the author most certainly would reject that idea.



Hi Sean,

He may reject the idea, but this is the impression that I got when I read the quoted part. He is making a distinction between the NC and the times pre-Christ which simply doesn't exist. For example, he says that the NC "enables people to believe and obey" like this is somehow a new concept, like people didn't believe and obey before Christ. This is simply not the case. There are many cases in the Bible of old testament saints doing those exact things.

Furthermore he emphasizes that the NC promises an inheritance in the new creation, supposing that the this wasn't promised before. The verses I showed from Hebrews prove that this has always been in mind. The author sets up a false comparison. Thus he is arguing for the discontinuity of the CoG rather than the continuity. He is pointing out (supposed) points of difference, which really aren't that different at all.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Mar 21, 2019)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> I'm sorry, but I don't see how it's possible to draw that conclusion, especially since the author most certainly would reject that idea.


Sean, the problem many see, myself included, is that the 1689 Federalism movement (including Sam Renihan I think) uses language that emphasises the discontinuity between the two covenants more than what Reformed Baptists did 15-20 years ago. So this tends to create a greater degree of suspicion by paedobaptists to the Reformed Baptist position.


----------



## Andrew35 (Mar 21, 2019)

I just wanted to jump in and say how much I'm enjoying this thread. Good contributions on both sides; much more edifying than some of the other threads recently on similar topics. I feel like I'm learning a lot. Please carry on!

Reactions: Like 2 | Edifying 1


----------



## Kinghezy (Mar 21, 2019)

De Jager said:


> Christ rejected Abrahamic paternity as sufficient grounds for inclusion in his kingdom, he rejected the idea that Canaan would be the realm of his kingdom, and he rejected the continuance of the Abrahamic/Mosaic laws.



I think he also conflates Abraham and Moses. Abraham was before the law and is his faith even before circumcision! Galatians explicitly counters that.

Galatians 3:16-18
Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, And to offsprings, referring to many, but referring to one, And to your offspring, who is Christ. This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Mar 21, 2019)

De Jager said:


> That's fine, but in all practicality, baptists try as hard as possible to have an exact 1:1 accounting between those who are truly "in Christ" and those who are baptized.



No. All that we _do_ or _can_ require is a _credible_ profession of faith in Christ. Our Confession states, Those "professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any error everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted" (BCF 26:2). In that respect, we are no different from our paedobaptist brethren except in our denial that Baptism and membership are to be extended to the children of believers.

But it must be acknowledged that you yourselves employ the same rubric in admitting those baptized as children into "communicant" membership. So that anytime "communicant" membership (or perhaps more appropriately "real" membership) is conferred, the Presbyterian session acts in precisely the same fashion as the elders in the Baptist church.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 21, 2019)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> admitting those baptized as children into "communicant" membership



Infants that receive the sign are not 'communicant' members, but *non-communicant* members.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## De Jager (Mar 21, 2019)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> No. All that we _do_ or _can_ require is a _credible_ profession of faith in Christ. Our Confession states, Those "professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any error everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted" (BCF 26:2). In that respect, we are no different from our paedobaptist brethren except in our denial that Baptism and membership are to be extended to the children of believers.
> 
> But it must be acknowledged that you yourselves employ the same rubric in admitting those baptized as children into "communicant" membership. So that anytime "communicant" membership (or perhaps more appropriately "real" membership) is conferred, the Presbyterian session acts in precisely the same fashion as the elders in the Baptist church.



I concede your point. I have just heard the classic baptist tagline "it's an external sign of an internal reality", and equated that with what you yourself understand, which was wrong.

Perhaps you might say "It's an external sign of what is _professed_ to be an internal reality", which makes more sense.

I also agree that reformed churches employ a similar rubric, for example when serving the Lord's supper, or when performing a household baptism - they evaluate the profession of faith of the head. I concede this point.

Not surprisingly, I take issue with your confession. It teaches that only those who have professed faith may be called "visible saints". I do not think that is biblical at all. I think this is a new idea which simply must be introduced in order to account for a faulty view of baptism.

1 Corinthians 7:14 teaches us that our children are "holy". Where does such a child fit into the picture painted by the confession? That child is unlike a pagan child, scripture tells us as much. They are holy to the Lord, set apart by him and for him. If only those who have professed faith are to be reckoned as "visible saints", then why do we see verses like this:

_"Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them which are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints"_ (1 Cor. 1:2)

Literally:

_"To the church of God being in Corinth, having been sanctified in Christ Jesus, called holy"_

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_corinthians/1.htm

Paul uses the same Greek word in the same letter in both chapters 1 and 7. In chapter 1, he refers to the congregation in Corinth as those who are "holy". In Chapter 7, he refers to the children of at least one believing parent (who were obviously members of the congregation, otherwise why would he write this?) as holy as well.

The congregation = holy
The children of the congregation = holy

The apostle Paul considers that the children of believers have the same status (holy) as the rest of the community. No, they do not have the maturity of the rest of the community, but they are members just the same. I assume you are a citizen of the United States. When did you become a US citizen? When did you become obligated to live under the rule of law of the US? Was it when you decided that you agreed with everything the US stood for, and then told everyone that you had decided to be a citizen? No, it was decided _for you_, as you were a US citizen from the moment you were born, and you were obligated to obey the rule of law in your country from birth. You had no say in the matter. Of course, you can commit treason, reject the country of your birth, and leave, but that is besides the point - that does not mean that you were not born a citizen of the US.

We view our children in a similar light. A covenant child belongs to God. They are called "saints" and also called to be saints, that is, to live up to their external calling, exercising their own personal faith in the one true living God, the same God who in his divine providence set that child into a believing household.

Have a great night 

Izaak

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Mar 22, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> Infants that receive the sign are not 'communicant' members, but *non-communicant* members.



Obviously. I was talking about _the point at which_ those who are baptized as children are _admitted into_ communicant membership.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Mar 22, 2019)

De Jager said:


> The congregation = holy
> The children of the congregation = holy



Do you view unbelieving spouses in the same light? I would say, your exegesis requires it!

Allow me to complete what you have left unfinished...

The congregation = holy
The children of the congregation = holy
*The unbelieving spouse = holy
*​

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost (Mar 22, 2019)

De Jager said:


> The congregation = holy
> The children of the congregation = holy



That's a great point! It's no wonder that Peter and Paul directly instruct husbands and wives, servants _and children. _This household is identical to the OT household.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Mar 22, 2019)

timfost said:


> That's a great point! It's no wonder that Peter and Paul directly instruct husbands and wives, servants _and children. _This household is identical to the OT household.



So, why are unbelieving spouses excluded from the covenant community to which 1 Corinthians 7:14 declares them to have a part?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## De Jager (Mar 22, 2019)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Do you view unbelieving spouses in the same light? I would say, your exegesis requires it!
> 
> Allow me to complete what you have left unfinished...
> 
> ...



Chris,

Perhaps my exegesis does require it. It certainly would make sense, although I would have to study it a bit more, and I am certainly open to correction on this point. It seems as though they would be "holy" the same way the children are - that is, now under the Lordship of Christ by virtue of the fact that they are under the headship of a believing husband. In fact, in the situation where a man comes to faith, us "oikobaptists" would say that the whole household should be baptized, including the children, and the wife (as long as she does not refuse it).

Again, you can't keep us oikobaptists from referencing the old testament, so here I go again: when Abraham was given the sign of circumcision, he applied it even to his male servants who were obviously adults, and to Ishmael, his 13 year old son. He also applied it to the infants, including Isaac, who was a baby when he received it. The criteria in that situation was not that you had to have a personal faith, or even that you had to be related by blood to Abraham, but that you had to be in a believing household.

Abraham did not go and circumcise the townspeople whom he did not have any influence whatsoever, only those under his headship. 

I hope you have a great day!

Izaak

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## De Jager (Mar 22, 2019)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> So, why are unbelieving spouses excluded from the covenant community to which 1 Corinthians 7:14 declares them to have a part?



I'm not sure they are, but you will have to ask someone smarter than I to answer that question.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 22, 2019)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> The congregation = holy
> The children of the congregation = holy
> *The unbelieving spouse = holy*



This is a biblical fact and need to be understood w/ distinctions; Covenantally speaking, and I am sure u have heard, there is such a things as (h)oliness in the Lord and (H)oliness. The participants of the external side of the covenant have respectable participation in this (h)oliness that outsiders do not; for example, being exposed daily to the gospel and it's commands, sitting under the means of grace etc.

One cannot escape the statement made by the Apostle when he tells us that the 'unbeliving spouse and children are (h)oly'. Consider Judas. Consider Gen 17 and the detriment of not placing the commanded sign. The contrast to that detriment is this (h)oliness by being *in covenant*.



> Q. 5. What holiness is it that is called federal, or Covenant holiness which is in Infants?
> 
> Ans. It is not so much personal holiness (though it may so be called, because the person is a Church member, separated from the world to God) as holiness of the seed, Society, Family, or Nation, which is derived from father to son, as if the father be a free man of such a City, that privilege is so personal, as it is by the Law hereditary freedom derived from father to son, if the father have jus ad media salutis right to the means of salvation, so hath the son. Hence this was first domestical, God made the Covenant with Abraham and his family: I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, Gen. 17. it was extended to him, not as a father only, but as to the head of the family; the children of Servants born in Abrahams family were to be circumcised and to be instructed as having right to the means of salvation. Gen. 17.12. He that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man-child in your Generations (so it is Generation-holiness) he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, that is not of thy seed. So God shows clearly that in Abraham he chose the Nation and the house, Gen. 18 19. I know Abraham, that he will command his children (that is too narrow a Church Visible) and his household after him, that they shall keep the way of the Lord. 2. Afterward he chose the Nation to be a peculiar people holy to himself, Deut. 7.6,7. but not with another new distinct Covenant, but in the same Covenant. 8. But because the Lord loved you, and would keep the oath that he had sworn to your fathers, to wit, to Abraham. Deut. 10.15. He chose their seed after them, even you, above all people, not above all houses. Amos 3.2. You only have I known of all the families of the earth. So the external Church Covenant and Church right to the means of grace is given to a society and made with Nations under the New Testament, Isa. 2.1,2,3. Psal. 2.8,9. Psal. 22.27. Psal. 87. 2,3,4. Rev. 11.15. Matth. 28. 19,20. And not any are baptized in the New Testament, (except the Eunuch, and Saul, Acts 8.39.) who were baptized firstly, but they were baptized as publick men representing a seed; also, societies are baptized. All Judea, Mat. 3. 3. All the land of Judea, Mark 1. 5. All the multitude, all the people, Luke 4.7.21. Sure the fathers were so Christianed and Baptized as their children had right to the same seal. So Joh. 3.22,23,26. Cornelius his house and all with him were baptized, Acts 10.33.47. Three thousand at once, Acts 2. 39,40,41. The Jailer and his house, Acts 16.33. servants and friends. The household of Stephanas, 1 Cor. 1.16. was Baptized. And this 3. is holden forth as the Church, as the household of Narcissus which are in the Lord, Rom. 16.11. Aquila and Priscilla, and all the Church at their house. v. 5. The Church at the house of Philemon, Phil. v.3. which teacheth that the Covenant holiness is of societies and house under the New Testament as in Abrahams house, and as Abrahams house was Circumcised, so are whole houses under the New Testament Baptized. 4. Paul aptly calls it the holiness of the lump, or Nation, and the first fruits, root-holiness, the holiness of the root and the branches. Of the Olive Tree and the branches, Rom. 11. 16,17. (5.) The special intent of God in sending the word of the Covenant must evidence this; he sends not the Gospel unto, and for the cause of one man, to bring him in, but to gather a Church and his elect ones, by a visibly and audibly Preached Covenant to a society, to a City; to Samaria. Acts 8. To the Gentiles, Acts 13. To all Nations, Mat. 28. 19,20. that they and their children may have right to salvation and to the means thereof, and to the Covenant, and therefore we are not curiously to inquire whether the faith of the father be real or not, if the Gospel be come to the Nation, to the House, to the Society. The Lord in one Abraham, in one Cornelius, in one Jayler, (whom he effectually converts as far as we can gather from the Scriptures) chooses the race, house, society, nation, and gives them a Covenant-holiness, the mans being born where the call of God is, does the turn, as much as the faith of the Parent. For by the root is not necessarily meant the Physical root the father. For Abraham was not the Physical root and father, nor Cornelius of all the servants and friends in the house. But if a friend be in the house, or society, and profess the Gospel, he and his obtain right to Baptism and the means of salvation. But as touching real holiness, it is not derived from a believing father, to make the son a believer, Scripture and experience say the contrary. Nor 2. is internal and effectual confederacy with God, that, by which one is a son of promise, Rom. 9. and predestinate to life, a national favour. For 1. no man is chosen to life in his father, because the father is chosen: A chosen father may have a reprobate son. 2. Election to life is not of nations or houses or societies, but of single persons. It is not said, before the nation had done good or evil, I chose this nation all and whole, not this, but I loved this man, not this man.
> 
> Samuel Rutherford, Infant Baptism Proven From the Scriptures



http://www.semperreformanda.com/pre...m-index/various-reformed-quotes-on-1-cor-714/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Mar 22, 2019)

De Jager said:


> Perhaps my exegesis does require it. It certainly would make sense, although I would have to study it a bit more, and I am certainly open to correction on this point. It seems as though they would be "holy" the same way the children are - that is, now under the Lordship of Christ by virtue of the fact that they are under the headship of a believing husband. In fact, in the situation where a man comes to faith, us "oikobaptists" would say that the whole household should be baptized, including the children, and the wife (as long as she does not refuse it).
> 
> Again, you can't keep us oikobaptists from referencing the old testament, so here I go again: when Abraham was given the sign of circumcision, he applied it even to his male servants who were obviously adults, and to Ishmael, his 13 year old son. He also applied it to the infants, including Isaac, who was a baby when he received it. The criteria in that situation was not that you had to have a personal faith, or even that you had to be related by blood to Abraham, but that you had to be in a believing household.



Your consistency here is refreshing. Thank you. As always, your error is twofold: First, interpreting the greater revelation of the NT by the lesser revelation of the Old; and Second, imposing baptism onto texts that are not addressing it.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Mar 22, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> This is a biblical fact and need to be understood w/ distinctions; Covenantally speaking, and I am sure u have heard, there is such a things as (h)oliness in the Lord and (H)oliness. The participants of the external side of the covenant have respectable participation in this (h)oliness that outsiders do not; for example, being exposed daily to the gospel and it's commands, sitting under the means of grace etc.



Of course I agree. But in applying 1 Cor. 7:14 to baptism, there are only two consistent positions. Either 1) Baptism is to be applied to the entire household irrespective of personal faith (and therefore to unbelieving spouses); or 2) the "holiness" spoken of, though of real benefit to them, does not entitle them to baptism and church membership without a personal profession of faith in Christ.

But "oikobaptists" do neither of these and rather welcome the very young child by baptism into the church while denying the sacrament and membership to unbelieving spouses and their older children. I, for one, am glad paedobaptists are inconsistent on this point. I simply wish they would admit their inconsistency or agree with us, that 1 Cor. 7:14 isn't talking about baptism and provides no support for the practice.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 22, 2019)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> But in applying 1 Cor. 7:14 to baptism, there are only two consistent positions.



U are not thinking covenantally and hence, your result; 1 Cor 7 says nothing about the sign; the Apostle, the Jew of Jews, is taking into consideration the perpetuity of the covenant left to Israel for 'all generations' when he writes what he does. 

Sir, it has never been such a way; you wrongly presume that it has changed; please show me a positive command where God has rescinded a command that he tells us is 'for all generations'? You speculate, based on silence. Consider all the Jews and their federal headship over their families. The reason their is silence and why we see no children, ever, being baptized anywhere in the NT writings is suspect; Not one case where we see '_______ child was baptised @ 12 years old, etc. etc. Why is that? Surely u have witnessed a child in congregations u have been present in have baptised young children. In fact, it is a high event! Congregations are more excited when children come to faith at an earlier age than adults of riper ages. Yet, we see not one example. This is due to the fact that all those children already had the sign of covenant in their flesh. 

When John the Baptist was calling folk to the Jordan, do u think for a second that the people came without their families? Federal headship and things like this were family decisions and actions. The covenant has always included families. Since the gospel has always included families, it has not changed in essence. 


C. M. Sheffield said:


> I simply wish they would admit their inconsistency or agree with us, that 1 Cor. 7:14 isn't talking about baptism and provides no support for the practice.





C. M. Sheffield said:


> 2) the "holiness" spoken of, though of real benefit to them, does not entitle them to baptism and church membership without a personal profession of faith in Christ.



It is not inconsistent; you are the one being inconsistent and falling prey to dispensationalism. On one hand, you are not antinomian and subscribe to the decalogue, yet abandon a command in Gen 17 that clearly tells us that the sign is for 'all generations'. Consider the passover; infants, young children were not allowed to participate until they were able to confess just what it was that they believed about said, passover:

http://www.semperreformanda.com/201...ld-be-allowed-to-partake-in-the-lords-supper/

http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/rite-reasons/no-51-response-to-richard-bacon-part-1/


----------



## De Jager (Mar 22, 2019)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Your consistency here is refreshing. Thank you. As always, your error is twofold: First, interpreting the greater revelation of the NT by the lesser revelation of the Old; and Second, imposing baptism onto texts that are not addressing it.



Dear Chris,

I would say your error is "as always" the following:

You are interpreting the revelation of the NT in a way which ignores how God has dealt with his people for 2,000 years.

Baptism is a sign that you belong to God through Jesus Christ. That's why Jesus told us to baptize people who are under His tutelage (disciples - learners). A disciple of Jesus Christ is someone who is in the visible congregation of the one, true, living God, who is eternally Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That one true living God was also triune in the old testament. A person who was given the circumcision in the old testament was under the Lordship of the the everlasting _WORD_ (John 1:1). I will say it again for emphasis: a child who was given circumcision before the incarnation, that is before the _word was made flesh_, was still a disciple of the _WORD; _they were under the Lordship of YHWH, eternal Father, Son (WORD), and Holy Spirit, because God does not change.

Baptism of course is a sign that we belong to God. Not that we just belong to 'Jesus', but that we belong to the triune, everlasting, unchanging God - Father, Son (Word) and Holy Spirit. That is why Jesus commanded us to baptize in the trinitarian name.

Baptism is a sign given for the exact same function as circumcision was - to visibly mark out who is part of God's people. The covenant has always had an initiatory sign. Baptism is not "new" in that sense. And since it is not "new" in that sense, we apply it in the same way unless given explicit direction otherwise. Baptists often will say something to the effect of "show me an explicit mentioning or command of infant baptism in the NT". I will ask a similar question: "show me an explicit forbidding of infant baptism in the NT", and I will become a baptist. We look at the household baptisms in the NT and say - "of course, that is what we would expect to see". To us, it is irrelevant if kids are mentioned explicitly or not - it is not necessary. God has already explained how to give covenant signs in the OT, he doesn't need to do it again. If God says something once, we listen, end of story.

You see, the burden of proof is on you to prove that we should not give the sign of baptism to children. However, that will never happen because the oikobaptist position is extremely solid biblically, theologically, exegetically, and historically (the early church fathers writings indicate that household baptism was quite normal and considered an apostolic practice). In fact, everyone's _default_ position should be that of an oikobaptist, because that is in keeping with the tenor of scripture and the history of the church.

Finally, I don't think I am imposing baptism into 1 Corinthians 7:14. This text is of course not addressing baptism - I will gladly concede that point. However, this text does teach that children are holy, set apart unto the Lord. This is in keeping with our interpretation of how children of believers are to be treated. While it doesn't explicitly talk about baptism, it certainly supports the covenantal position; it does not harm it in any way shape or form.

Thanks for your response,

Izaak

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## De Jager (Mar 22, 2019)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Of course I agree. But in applying 1 Cor. 7:14 to baptism, there are only two consistent positions. Either 1) Baptism is to be applied to the entire household irrespective of personal faith (and therefore to unbelieving spouses); or 2) the "holiness" spoken of, though of real benefit to them, does not entitle them to baptism and church membership without a personal profession of faith in Christ.
> 
> But "oikobaptists" do neither of these and rather welcome the very young child by baptism into the church while denying the sacrament and membership to unbelieving spouses and their older children. I, for one, am glad paedobaptists are inconsistent on this point. I simply wish they would admit their inconsistency or agree with us, that 1 Cor. 7:14 isn't talking about baptism and provides no support for the practice.



We deny the Lord's supper to infants because the apostle clearly sets out that we must "discern the Lord's body" in order to partake. We do not deny baptism to infants, because the apostles gives no such explicit command to do so. I really don't think there is an inconsistency. The two sacraments are different in that one is initiatory, the other is for the "walk".

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## timfost (Mar 22, 2019)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> So, why are *unbelieving* spouses excluded from the covenant community to which 1 Corinthians 7:14 declares them to have a part?



You answered your own question.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Mar 22, 2019)

timfost said:


> You answered your own question.



Did I? If the unbelieving spouse is holy just like the child, why wouldn't they be baptized? If they are members of the believer's houshold, why wouldn't they be baptized? 

If we MUST believe that there were infants in the households baptized in Acts, is it not just as probable that there were unbelieving adults who were baptized?


----------



## hammondjones (Mar 22, 2019)

Is this spouse willing? If so, would say yes, and this thread spoke of it:

https://puritanboard.com/threads/should-an-unbelieving-spouse-be-baptized.86894/#post-1078851


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Mar 22, 2019)

hammondjones said:


> Is this spouse willing? If so, would say yes, and this thread spoke of it:
> 
> https://puritanboard.com/threads/should-an-unbelieving-spouse-be-baptized.86894/#post-1078851



If the spouse is "willing", then they aren't "unbelieving" and the whole point is moot.


----------



## J.L. Allen (Mar 22, 2019)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> If the spouse is "willing", then they aren't "unbelieving" and the whole point is moot.


You’re equating willingness with regeneration.


----------



## De Jager (Mar 22, 2019)

timfost said:


> You answered your own question.



Tim, I think we need to flesh this out a bit.



C. M. Sheffield said:


> Did I? If the unbelieving spouse is holy just like the child, why wouldn't they be baptized? If they are members of the believer's houshold, why wouldn't they be baptized?
> 
> If we MUST believe that there were infants in the households baptized in Acts, is it not just as probable that there were unbelieving adults who were baptized?



Hi Chris, this is a great conversation. 

Again, I will go back to the OT. When Abraham had all his males circumcised, it is highly probable that some of his servants (he had many, many servants) were given the sign even though they might not have been savingly united to Christ by faith. The criteria was not that one had to have a deep, intellectual, personal, faith that they could articulate. The criteria was the same for servants, their children, and biological children of Abraham - the criteria is not personal belief, but that they had to a) belong to a believing household and b) be willing to be subject to the rite (obviously the children had no choice).

I suppose that anyone in Abraham's household could have refused the sign and ran away. Certainly if a servant refused the sign, that was a indication of complete unbelief and unwillingness to subject oneself in any way, shape, or form to the one true God, who was the God of that household.

I am not arguing that if one was circumcised as an adult that it necessarily indicates that an adult was savingly united to Christ - but certainly it did indicate that they were willing to be subject to the headship of the head of the household, who was a believer. Certainly it indicated that they were willing to be associated with the people of God. In that sense, they are "confessing their faith" in a small way. Again, I am not arguing that they are necessarily saved, or elect, but that by accepting the sign, indicating that they are willing to become a "disciple" or a "learner", sitting under the authority of believers.

In that sense, they were "holy", different from the rest of the pagans, who would have nothing to do with God.

Izaak

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost (Mar 22, 2019)

De Jager said:


> Tim, I think we need to flesh this out a bit.



Sounds good, though likely it won't be till tonight when I have a little time.

Thank you all for such an irenic conversation!


----------



## hammondjones (Mar 22, 2019)

Well, maybe so. But in those days what are we expecting a wife in that culture to do?

(sorry, can't quote at work - weird)


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Mar 22, 2019)

Johnathan Lee Allen said:


> You’re equating willingness with regeneration.



We don't require "regeneration" for baptism, we require a "profession of faith".

Isn't "Yes, I am willing to be baptized and be discipled as a Christian" a profession of faith?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## J.L. Allen (Mar 22, 2019)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> We don't require "regeneration" for baptism, we require a "profession of faith".
> 
> Isn't "Yes, I am willing to be baptized and be discipled as a Christian" a profession of faith?


To the point of an unbelieving spouse, they may passively agree to be baptized without their saying they are a Christian. It isn’t their desire because they think of it as fanciful traditions based on superstition, but they love their husband or wife and wish to show them that love without consideration of what it means. That isn’t the same as an active profession. One agrees to do so to be in unity and the other agrees with personal interest in the implication of the act itself. That’s what I was originally getting at. I should have been clear from the get.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Mar 22, 2019)

Johnathan Lee Allen said:


> To the point of an unbelieving spouse, they may passively agree to be baptized without their saying they are a Christian. It isn’t their desire because they think of it as fanciful traditions based on superstition, but they love their husband or wife and wish to show them that love without consideration of what it means. That isn’t the same as an active profession. One agrees to do so to be in unity and the other agrees with personal interest in the implication of the act itself. That’s what I was originally getting at. I should have been clear from the get.



And you maintain that it would be good to baptize such a person and admit them into membership of the church?


----------



## De Jager (Mar 22, 2019)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> We don't require "regeneration" for baptism, we require a "profession of faith".
> 
> Isn't "Yes, I am willing to be baptized and be discipled as a Christian" a profession of faith?



Hey Sean!

I agree with you - it *is* a profession of faith! Good point!

We must all agree that regeneration is not discernable (as to the exact time, of course). I realize baptists do not baptize based on regeneration, but on a credible profession. This makes sense.

I guess the whole question is this: what has to be the content of one's profession before a baptist would administer the rite? Certainly, many baptists would require a fairly robust profession of faith before administering baptism, indicating one's personal trust in the Lord Jesus for salvation. I would certainly believe that such a profession as that is required for admittance to the Lord's table, but not for baptism.

This is because of what I wrote earlier - we believe that baptism and the Lord's supper are different - while they are both sacraments instituted by Christ, that baptism is an initiatory rite - it is a rite to mark the _start_ of the discipleship process - while the Lord's supper is a rite that marks personal embracing of the saviour who is set before us during the discipleship process.

Let's think about Jesus' disciples in John 6. Some of course left him after they could not stand his hard sayings. They afterwards "no longer walked with him". This is of course not talking about physically walking exclusively - but that they were no longer willing to sit under Jesus' teaching! They were indeed disciples - real disciples! But tragically they abandoned the saviour, and thus stopped being his disciples.

So when Jesus commands his apostles to make _disciples_ and then baptize them, I really don't think that we can say that the saviour had in mind "only those who can make a robust profession of faith", but rather, those who will be willing to sit under my teaching.

For the child of a believer - that child has no choice in the matter - they ARE under the discipleship of Christ, whether they like it or not! For an adult though, they can walk away - they can abandon the saviour - and reject his Lordship over their life. Does this mean they have then just lost their salvation? No - rather it indicates (for the time being at least - they might come back) that "they were never of us" - that they were a tare - they indeed were disciples for a time, visible saints, but they did not have the most important thing - that is, faith in the saviour presented to them. I think we all can agree that that is the most important thing! 

Election, and regeneration are in the background - they are invisible realities, not discernible by the naked eye - but what _is_ discernable is that we _can see_ when someone is sitting under the Lord's teaching and is a "disciple". That is why Christ gives us a visible sign. A visible sign (baptism) is given to visibly mark out those who are disciples, who sit under the teaching of Christ. Another visible sign is given (Lord's Table) to visibly mark out those who profess to embrace the saviour presented to them in the discipleship process. An invisible sign (the internal sealing of the holy Spirit) is given to each believer when they are savingly united to Christ - which makes sense, because you cannot see it with the naked eye. 

A child born to Christian parents is a disciple from the moment of conception, and continues to be a disciple until they die, or leave the congregation due to unbelief, or are excommunicated due to sin in doctrine or in life.

God bless,

Izaak


----------



## J.L. Allen (Mar 22, 2019)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> And you maintain that it would be good to baptize such a person and admit them into membership of the church?



I would maintain that if a person has publicly declared a desire to be baptized, but their motive, not made known, is that of former person in my example, they would be baptized. They would be because we can discern with real clarity what someone makes public. Obviously, there are cases where it’s easy to discern a person’s motive and we can act accordingly.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Mar 22, 2019)

De Jager said:


> I guess the whole question is this: what has to be the content of one's profession before a baptist would administer the rite?



Our Confession provides a most helpful answer to that question. In paragraph 2 of Chapter 26, Of the Church, it states:

"All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any error everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted."​
So in answer to your question, the criteria are positive and negative. Positively, they must profess repentance from sin, faith in and obedience to Christ. Negatively, there must be nothing in their doctrinal views are manner of life that "destroys" their profession (i.e. heretical views, or patterns of immorality). 

Obviously, pastoral wisdom is required in making these evaluations. And the elders in different congregations may be more or less strict in their application. But that is the Confession's answer.


----------



## Smeagol (Mar 22, 2019)

JTB.SDG said:


> For a more thorough explanation, see: https://www.ruinandredemption.com/abraham-additional-resources, especially pages 6 and following in the document.


 @HisRobes4Mine
I second this recommendation. Well thought out and laid out information. I have used this resource with my wife and mother who both found it helpful when I first told them I was convinced of infant baptism. Both of whom originally thought I was nuts and now at least my wife has embraced the position and my mother I think is close. Whoever wrote it has done a solid service to many saints

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## timfost (Mar 22, 2019)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Did I? If the unbelieving spouse is holy just like the child, why wouldn't they be baptized? If they are members of the believer's houshold, why wouldn't they be baptized?
> 
> If we MUST believe that there were infants in the households baptized in Acts, is it not just as probable that there were unbelieving adults who were baptized?



Izaak's comment below is helpful:



De Jager said:


> ...they were willing to be subject to the headship of the head of the household, who was a believer. Certainly it indicated that they were willing to be associated with the people of God.



I have appreciated the answers given by you and Sean, as it helps us Presbyterians represent and understand your position correctly, even if we disagree.

Consider your statement:

"If the unbelieving spouse is holy just like the child, why wouldn't they be baptized?"

You make an assumption here that does not accurately represent our position. We never said an unbeliever is actually holy or even to be regarded as such. We extend a judgment of charity to a) our children who do not have a profession as we would show a b) judgment of charity to older members of the household that are willing to be associated with the believer without opposition while being instructed in the faith. If it is a _profession _we are talking about, to be an unbeliever is to profess in words/actions that which _*deny*_ Christ.

We do not believe that professing _unbelievers _are to be regarded the same as infants/small children in a believing household. You are mistaken if you think an unbelieving adult and a child are to be regarded as the same in our view, since that would necessitate we regard the child as an unbeliever. We do not. Do you?


----------



## timfost (Mar 22, 2019)

We adopted a twelve-year-old last year. We baptized her shortly after the adoption. Although she would not qualify for communion at this point, she is in our household and we instruct her _in the Lord._ Do we instruct those outside the faith to live godly lives? No, we call them to repent! This is not the relationship I have with my children. I've heard it expressed that the danger of presbyterianism on this point is that we treat or children as believers, thereby hurting them or giving them false assurance if they are actually not. But isn't the Christian life a calling to perpetual faith and repentance? Since faith and repentance are not just necessary for conversion, this is something before my children daily, as well as my wife and myself!

Finally last May my sister-in-law suddenly and very unexpectedly passed away with fullterm twins. I can say that our church lost three believers that day because of the outworking of God's covenant. Would you, my Baptist brethren, regard only one of them as a believer and the other two unbelievers?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 22, 2019)

I misread the OP as "General Patton on baptism..."

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 3


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 23, 2019)

timfost said:


> Are you agreeing with me? I can't tell.
> 
> Both spiritual circumcision/baptism occur before the physical sign is applied in the sacrament.


We both would seem to be saying that God does His spiritual work to save us first, and then the water baptism is being administered to us.


----------



## timfost (Mar 23, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> We both would seem to be saying that God does His spiritual work to save us first, and then the water baptism is being administered to us.



Yes, agree on this point. The difference would be in administering to the household of believers.

Thanks for clarifying!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 23, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> I misread the OP as "General Patton on baptism..."



https://www.historyonthenet.com/the-religious-life-of-george-s-patton


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Mar 26, 2019)

Bill Duncan said:


> I'm not in agreement that the "norm" in the NT was adult baptism. Two points.
> 
> 1. Imagine yourself a Jewish convert who has, for thousands of years, as a church, and as an ethnicity, been giving your suckling infant males a sign of inclusion in the group, and now your new pastor tells you the sign is no longer valid. Now your male heirs will have no sign, nothing to remind them who they belong to. Nothing to remind them that they will be cut off, it they apostatize, and nothing to remind them that God said he would rather cut himself in half, and spill his own blood than to fail his promise to them. I personally would be outraged, and I would ask the Pastor to prove it. He having nothing, to show me would, would probably on the pulpit supply list the next week, if not out of a job, and slopping hogs for the gentiles.
> 
> 2. Unless all the gentile converts were on the Chinese plan of one child per household, or were on the American plan of planned parenthood, a little elementary math would tell you that the norm was covenant, federal baptism.



Nothing you just said invalidates the original claim. Have you had a chance to read Bannerman specifically? He interacts with this point clearly.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 26, 2019)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Nothing you just said invalidates the original claim. Have you had a chance to read Bannerman specifically? He interacts with this point clearly.


Every time it seems water baptism was spoken of in the NT, was connected to faith in Christ and having the Holy Spirit already in mind.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 26, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> We both would seem to be saying that God does His spiritual work to save us first, and then the water baptism is being administered to us.



That's not what Tim said and that's generally not what's happening in circumcision. The infant is circumcised before his mighty profession of faith.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 26, 2019)

Henry Scudder on the benefit of observing the administration of baptism, which may be of interest to those studying this subject.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Mar 27, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> Every time it seems water baptism was spoken of in the NT, was connected to faith in Christ and having the Holy Spirit already in mind.




There is a connection. Faith is a benefit that baptism signifies and seals.

I’ll state this:

Infants who are baptized have an interest in the church of Christ and a right to property. However, they do not have the benefits which baptism signifies and seals until they come to faith. The believer not only has a right to property but a right to possession. Baptism not only confers but confirms for the believer.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 2, 2019)

Andrew P.C. said:


> There is a connection. Faith is a benefit that baptism signifies and seals.
> 
> I’ll state this:
> 
> Infants who are baptized have an interest in the church of Christ and a right to property. However, they do not have the benefits which baptism signifies and seals until they come to faith. The believer not only has a right to property but a right to possession. Baptism not only confers but confirms for the believer.


The person being administered the Baptism already has been baptized by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ.


----------

