# Help me out on Paedobaptism...



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Jul 21, 2004)

Where is a reference to sprinkling in the infallible word that is the only dogmatic source we look too?

Why does the westminister confession say:

3. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person. 

There is not one reference of scripture backing this statement.

While in the LBC of 1689 states: 

4. Immersion, or dipping of the person (h) in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance.

h Mat. 3.16. Joh. 3 23. 

2 references is more than 0

Is not the Greek word for Baptism, "immersion" while there is a separate one for "sprinkling" that was never used?

Paedobaptism seems kinda unstable to me.

Obviously it wasn't emphasized or made clear, if if its even in the Bible, one finds it after digging really deep. 

When was a baby ever refered to as being baptized in the Scripture?


Go ahead and persecute and call names, but if you show me clear scripture I'll smile and shut up. I don't know of any clear scripture on sprinkling though. I figure most peoples defense will be to read some book by someone. However, I could right a book about how we were suppose to get baptized every Sunday, but I wouldn't have any scripture to back me up.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 21, 2004)




----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 21, 2004)

gentlemen,
Please entertain me in proving that one is supposed to be submerged in water..........


----------



## humble_soul (Jul 21, 2004)

Greetings Tim. I see you're new here. Welcome. I hope you find this forum edifying.

Ok, let's see here..

You referenced:


Matthew 3:16

And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him;

John 3:23

John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because water was plentiful there, and people were coming and being baptized


All Bible references from ESV


Where is there within those two verses a requirement to be immersed?

It seems to me that your argument hinges on two things:

1) The meaning of "went up from the water".
2) John baptizing where water is plentiful.

So, we need to exegete the first passage to determine what "went up from the water" means. Does this passage REQUIRE immersion?

The second passage seems easier. We need to find a case where people where baptized where water was NOT plentiful. Although, this second passage doesn't really prove your point, because ALL forms of baptism are easier in places where water is plentiful!

I'm afraid I won't be able to exegete for you, maybe some of the more senior guys can help on this one.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 21, 2004)

[quote:f20412ab3b="Scott Bushey"]gentlemen,
Please entertain me in proving that one is supposed to be submerged in water..........[/quote:f20412ab3b]

[size=16:f20412ab3b]baptize [b:f20412ab3b]baptivzw[/b:f20412ab3b] [i:f20412ab3b]baptizo[/i:f20412ab3b][/size:f20412ab3b]
1. to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2. to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe
3. to overwhelm

[i:f20412ab3b]Not to be confused with 911, bapto. The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (bapto) into boiling water and then 'baptised' (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern [u:f20412ab3b]the immersing of vegetables in a solution[/u:f20412ab3b]. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change.[/i:f20412ab3b]

Furthermore,

[quote:f20412ab3b][b:f20412ab3b]38 And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. 39 And [u:f20412ab3b]when they came up out of the water[/u:f20412ab3b], the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing.
[i:f20412ab3b]Acts 8:38-39 (ESV)[/i:f20412ab3b][/b:f20412ab3b][/quote:f20412ab3b]

Why need to come [b:f20412ab3b]UP OUT OF[/b:f20412ab3b] the water if he was just being sprinkled or poured upon with water? Seems pretty clear that this was Baptism by immersion, [i:f20412ab3b]following[/i:f20412ab3b] CONVERSION, REPENTANCE, FAITH, etc. ... definitely not before.


[quote:f20412ab3b][b:f20412ab3b]41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.
[i:f20412ab3b]Acts 2:41 (ESV)[/i:f20412ab3b][/b:f20412ab3b][/quote:f20412ab3b]

Again, this Baptizing was done right after people were converted, as their "souls were added" to the Church.


----------



## LauridsenL (Jul 21, 2004)

Oops! Double post. Sorry.


----------



## LauridsenL (Jul 21, 2004)

You should read John Murray's book, [u:b26960bd3c]Christian Baptism[/u:b26960bd3c]. He looks at the original Hebrew words that were translated in the Septuagint with the same Greek words (baptizo and bapto) that are transalated as "baptize" or "baptisim" in our English bibles. He demonstrates persuasively that the original Hebrew word meant "to dip" and that often the context makes clear that a dipping, and not immersion, was in mind. (E.g., Lev. 14:6, 51; Ruth 2:14; Daniel 4:30 (LXX v.33) and Daniel 5:21)). In contrast, at most a couple of instances refer to actual immersion.

Similarly in the NT, to give just one example Murray cites, Luke 11:38 literally says that the Pharisees marvelled that Jesus "had not first baptised himself before dinner." Many English translations render this as "washed" himself before dinner because the translators recognize that the reference was to the traditional pouring of water over one's hands before a meal -- not to a full body immersion. The Greek word translated there is a form of the word baptizo. 

In short, there's a very long chapter just refuting, from the original languages, the baptist claim that baptism always and only means immersion. In fact, there are very few instances in which baptizo is used in a manner that clearly means immersion. But don't take my word for it. Read Murray's book. It's pretty short and straightforward.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 21, 2004)

Does anyone have an explanation for the vast archeological evidence being uncovered in the Asia Minor and Middle East areas of the world of Baptistries that were constructed and used for Christian Baptism that are over 4 ft. deep?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 21, 2004)

If infant baptism makes the babies part of the Church family/congregation, that would be knowingly adding unregenerate people to the Church congregation, which the New Testament doesn't promote or accept at all. Are you then saying that infant baptism regenerates the babies, as Catholics claim, or are you just advocating the inclusion of unregenerate, non-saved people into your Church congregation? I'm confused, here. :book:


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 21, 2004)

*The simple answer is that the word baptize does not mean "immerse"! Those who maintain that the Greek verb bapto means "to dip or immerse" are generally correct. (For example, the term is used in the Old Testament, as it is in classical Greek, for dipping hyssop or a finger in the blood used for sacrifice [e.g., Ex. 12:22; Lev. 4:6, 17; 9:9] or dipping one's feet in the Jordan River [e.g., Josh. 3:15].) However, our word baptize translates the Greek word baptizo, not bapto. While bapto may mean "to dip or immerse," baptizo does not refer to a mode, but to a process and an effect. While a baptism may include dipping or immersing, baptizo does not, in itself, mean "to immerse."

Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Acts 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
Acts 8:39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

Writtenfromutopia, using your rationale it looks to me like both of them were baptized!

"And when they were come up out of the water"

[b:9e004fbd6b]THEY[/b:9e004fbd6b]

*Taken from:http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/NH00/0007b.html


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 21, 2004)

Why were they in the water in the first place? So Philip could grab a handful of water and splash it on the Ethiopian's head? Doesn't make any sense for them to need to get in all that water for a little sprinkling. Shoot, they could've just waited for the next rain storm ... or would that be pouring?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 21, 2004)

[quote:ea8778198e="WrittenFromUtopia"]If infant baptism makes the babies part of the Church family/congregation, that would be knowingly adding unregenerate people to the Church congregation, which the New Testament doesn't promote or accept at all. Are you then saying that infant baptism regenerates the babies, as Catholics claim, or are you just advocating the inclusion of unregenerate, non-saved people into your Church congregation? I'm confused, here. :book:[/quote:ea8778198e]

Question: Are you implying that everyone in the church is necesasarily regenerate?

Does discipleship necessarily equal regeneration?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 21, 2004)

Yes, effusion or sprinkling.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 21, 2004)

[quote:e8d4add224="WrittenFromUtopia"]Why were they in the water in the first place? So Philip could grab a handful of water and splash it on the Ethiopian's head? Doesn't make any sense for them to need to get in all that water for a little sprinkling. Shoot, they could've just waited for the next rain storm ... or would that be pouring?[/quote:e8d4add224]

Gabriel..........""And when they were come up out of the water" 
You cannot prove immersion.......New Testament baptisms were not new to the Jew. Sprinkling is not new.

Heb 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

Heb 9:19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
Heb 9:20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
Heb 9:21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.

Biblical baptisms focus on both purification (either actual or ceremonial) and identification. Most people (including your Baptist friends) are probably unaware of the fact that there were baptisms in the Old Testament. Hebrews 9:10 speaks of "various baptisms" (often translated "various washings") that were part of the Old Testament economy. The writer refers to three of these ceremonial baptisms in verses 13, 19, and 21. In each verse (together with their Old Testament references), there is a clear picture of the process and the effect that constituted an Old Testament baptism. 

In verse 13, the writer speaks of a baptism in which "the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh." This refers to Numbers 19:17-18. Here a clean person takes hyssop, dips it in a vessel filled with water and the ashes of a heifer that has been used as a sacrifice, and then sprinkles it on those persons or things that are to be cleansed ceremonially. 

In Hebrews 9:19, we read that Moses "took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people." This refers to Exodus 24:6-8, where again we see that the process of an Old Testament baptism was to dip the hyssop and wool into the blood and sprinkle it as a means of ceremonial purification. 

Finally, in Hebrews 9:21, there is a description of a process by which Moses "sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry." Leviticus 8:19 and 16:14, 16 provide the background for this Old Testament baptism. The priest was to dip his finger in the blood of a bull used for sacrifice, and then sprinkle the blood on the mercy seat (representing atonement). This was a ceremonial means of removing the uncleanness of the children of Israel. 

In every case the process of baptism included a dipping of the instrument used to baptize into a substance such as blood or water. The instrument was then used to sprinkle the person(s) or thing(s) to be baptized. This process had the effect of identifying the substance used for the baptism with that which was baptized. As a result, the people were regarded as ceremonially cleansed by that substance. The baptism was not the dipping, but the process of dipping and sprinkling according to God's order. 

The emphasis of these Old Testament baptisms was not on the mode of baptism, but on the effect: cleansing or purification. These baptisms did not represent something that people did, but something that God did in providing a cleansing from sin and guilt. Baptisms were his means of ceremonially providing such purification.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 21, 2004)

Is everyone in the church regenerate? Not always, but you can be pretty darn sure that a newborn infant [b:f57edc14b5]isn't[/b:f57edc14b5]. The whole point is being missed here..


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 21, 2004)

Gabriel, how do you "bet" on that? Can you suppose the work of the Holy Spirit in people young or old? How in the world do you measure that?????

As for infants....this should rock your conception of the bible and church history a bit. Tell the historical Christian church they are wrong...

A Catechism on Infant Inclusion in the Covenant
by C. Matthew McMahon, et. al. 


Question 1. Are Infants of believers included in the Covenant of Grace?

Answer: Yes, children are included in the Covenant of Grace, and the visible church.[1]



1. Genesis 17:1-14; Matthew 19:14; 1 Corinthians 7:14



Question 2. Upon what Grounds are children part of the Covenant of Grace?

Answer: By two reasons: the promises of God [2] and the command of God.[3]



2. Genesis 15:1; 17:7; Acts 2:39; Galatians 3:18; 2 Peter 1:4

3. Gen. 17:10-12; Acts 21:21; Matthew 28:19



Question 3: What is the promise of God?

Answer: That God would be a God to Abraham and his descendants after him for an everlasting covenant,[4] and that the children of believers are entitled to such a promise since it was made with Abraham and his children.[5]



4. Genesis 17:7; 17:13; 17:19; Psalm 105:9-10; Hebrews 13:20.

5. Genesis 17:7; 26:24; Isaiah 55:3; Jeremiah 32:40; Joel 2:28; Matthew 22:32; Acts 3:25; Romans 4:13



Question 4: What is the command of God?

Answer: The command of God compels all believing parents to have the sign of the covenant of God placed on their children.[6]



6. Gen. 17:23; Joshua 5:3; Luke 2:21; Acts 21:20; Matthew 3:6; Acts 16:15; 16:33; 1 Corinthians 10:2



Question 5: How are the promises of God applicable to children since they are born sinful and depraved?

Answer: The promises of God are applicable to the children of believers since Christian parents presumptively believe their children are regenerate based on the Word of God and the command of God.[7]



7. Genesis 17:7; Acts 2:39; Ezekiel 36:24



Question 6: Does this presumption (that the children of believers are regenerate) negate the reality that these children are conceived in sin, or demonstrate an inconsistency with Total Depravity?

Answer: No. Children of believing parents are conceived in sin, corrupt, depraved and in need of salvation, [8] but their parents presume them to be regenerate, yet are actually regenerate by sovereign election at a time only God knows, if at all; [9] they are to be considered Christians by their parents based on the promise God has made to them, that God will in fact save them and be a God to them; [10] and this view is not inconsistent with Total Depravity since sovereign grace is the means by which God will regenerate and save a child. [11]



8. Genesis 6:5; Psalm 51:5; Romans 3:10-18

9. Luke 1:15; Ephesians 1:9

10. Genesis 17:7; Acts 2:39; 16:33.

11. Romans 4:16; Ephesians 1:3-10; 2:8-10.



Question 7: Are infants of believing parents to be considered Christians?

Answer: Yes. 



Question 8: Why are infants of believing parents to be considered Christians?

Answer: Based on the command and promise of God, they are to be distinguished from the visible world,[12] and are united with believers in the church,[13] being federally holy before God [14] and marked by the covenant sign of circumcision [15] (as in the case of the patriarchs and Israelites) or of baptism [16] (as in the case of the covenant realized in Christ).



12. Genesis 3:15; Ezekiel 16:20-21; 1 Corinthians 2:12;

13. Ephesians 2:19; 3:15.

14. Malachi 2:15; 1 Corinthians 7:14

15. Genesis 17:10; Leviticus 12:3

16. Ezekiel 36:25; Matthew 28:19; Acts 2:39; 16:33



Question 9: Are infants of believing parents to be considered as members of the invisible church or the visible church or both?

Answer: Infants of believing parents are presumed to be in the invisible church [17] and are actually part of the visible church. [18]



17. Genesis 17:7; Acts 2:39

18. Rom. 15:8; Exod. 12:48; Gen. 34:14; Acts 21:21



Question 10: Are all children of believing parents infallibly saved?

Answer: No. They are presumed saved by the parents based on the promises, but may in fact demonstrate their apostasy after the age of discretion, [19] showing themselves in need of saving faith. [20]



19. Genesis 25:34; Hebrews 10:29

20. John 1:12; 5:47; 6:29; Romans 1:17



Question 11: Is this contradictory?

Answer: No. Christian parents presume the regeneration of their children based on the precepts of the Word of God and do not have prior information concerning the decreed eternal destiny of any fellow human being, much less their own children.



Question 12: Is the account of when Abraham circumcised Ishmael inconsistent with the view that infants of believing parents should be presumed regenerate (though he knew that God told him Ishmael would be cast out)?

Answer: No. The sign is administered by way of promise and command. Though the promise would be realized in Isaac, [21] the command still rendered Abraham duty-bound to administer the sign of the covenant on Ishmael, [22] sealing the curses of the covenant upon him as a reprobate. [23]



21. Genesis 21:12

22. Genesis 17:12

23. Deuteronomy 11:26-28



Question 13: In presuming that infants of believing parents are regenerate, does this mean they have an active and actual faith whereby they do good works, understand the Word of God, and meditate on it?

Answer: Infants do not have actual faith, but habitual faith, or faith of habit; for as an acorn possesses in it all the properties of a giant oak tree, so infants possess all the properties necessary for faith as "seed faith" (a faith implanted in them by God and dormant until they reach an age in which they are able to rationally think); infants are unable to discern between their left hand and right hand, [24] not capable of acts of faith, [25] and not capable of hearing or meditating on the Word. [26]



24. Deuteronomy 1:39; Isaiah 7:16; Jonah 4:11

25. Romans 12:1-2

26. Romans 10:17; Hebrews 11:16



Question 14: Are infants of believing parents part of the Kingdom of God?

Answer: Yes. Christ says the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to them, [27] which demonstrates that a real "seed faith" is in them since no one is able to enter the Kingdom of heaven without it [28].



27. Matthew 19:14

28. John 3:3, 5



Question 15: Why does God desire Christian parents to presume their infants are regenerate?

Answer: God desires that Christian parents rely on his revealed Word [29] which includes the children of believing parents in the Covenant of Grace



29. Psalm 119:105; John 17:17



Question 16: May a child of believing parents, after the age of discretion, ultimately be lost?

Answer: God may, by an eternal decree of reprobation, account them lost forever (which is different than His will of precept that Christians are to obey) such as in the case of Ishmael, Esau or others, who outwardly demonstrated their rebellion and reprobation. [30]



30. Exodus 19:5; Leviticus 26:14-16; Deuteronomy 11:13; Ezekiel 20:39; Zechariah 6:15; Romans 9:13; Hebrews 12:16; Galatians 4:24-25.



Question 17: Has God said that His will of precept concerning covenant children is equal to His will of decree concerning covenant children?

Answer: No. At no time has God said that His will of precept (the Word of God given to us in the Bible) is always the same or equal to His will of decree. [31]



31. Deuteronomy 29:29; Daniel 2:22



Question 18: If God's will of decree is different at times than His will of precept, which shall Christians follow?

Answer: Christians are to obey God at His Word, and by His promises, and continue diligently in a constant state of considering whether they truly believe the promises of God or not, [32] which prompts them to sanctifying holiness, [33] and to diligence in teaching their children the Word of God as faithful parents. [34]



32. 2 Corinthians 13:5; John 5:38; 6:29

33. 1 Thessalonians 4:3

34. Proverbs 22:6; Deuteronomy 4:10, 6:7; Ephesians 6:4.



Question 19: Is the doctrine of the inclusion of infants in the Covenant of Grace, and therefore presuming their regeneration, new or novel, unknown to history?

Answer: No. The Early Church, the Reformers, the Confessions, English Puritanism, and Protestant Presbyterianism teach this up and through our present day. [35]



35. The following are a few selected quotes from church history:



John Calvin, "We ought, therefore, to consider, that just as in the case of Abraham, the father of the faithful, the righteousness of faith preceded circumcision, so today in the children of the faithful, the gift of adoption is prior to baptism." (Opera Quae Supersunt Omina, Corpus Reformatorum, Volume 35, Page 8.)



John Calvin, "It follows, that the children of believers are not baptized, that they may thereby then become the children of God, as if they had been before aliens to the church; but, on the contrary, they are received into the Church by this solemn sign, since they already belonged to the body of Christ by virtue of the promise." (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4:15:22. cf. 4:16:24)



The French Confession, "We confess only two sacraments common to the whole Church, of which the first, baptism, is given as a pledge of our adoption; for by it we are grafted into the body of Christ, so as to be washed and cleansed by his blood, and then renewed in purity of life by his Holy Spirit.[1] We hold, also, that although we are baptized only once, yet the gain that it symbolizes to us reaches over our whole lives and to our death, so that we have a lasting witness that Jesus Christ will always be our justification and sanctification.[2] Nevertheless, although it is a sacrament of faith and penitence, yet as God receives little children into the Church with their fathers, we say, upon the authority of Jesus Christ, that the children of believing parents should be baptized."



Ulrich Zwingli, "The children of Christians are not less the children of God than their parents are, or than the children of Old Testament times were: but if they belong to God, who will refuse them baptism?" (Huldreich Zwingli's Werke, Zweyten bandes erste Abtheilung (Zurich, 1830), Page 245.)



Martin Bucer and Wolfgang Capito, "...baptism signified regeneration; that the children of believers are baptized because it is wrong to keep them from the fellowship and company of God's people those who should be truly considered His people." (Lewis Schenck, The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant, Page 28)



Theodore Beza, "It cannot be the case that those who have been sanctified by birth and have been separated from the children of unbelievers, do not have the seed or germ of faith." (Confessio Chrsitanae Fidei, Book 4, Page 48)



Henrie Bullinger, "Since the young babes and infants of the faithful are in the number of reckoning of God's people, and partakers of the promise touching the purification through Christ; it followeth of necessity, that they are as well to be baptized, as they that be of perfect age which professes the Christian faith," (Fifty Godly and Learned Sermons (London, 1587) Page 382.



The Second Helvetic Confession, "We condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that newborn infants of the faithful are to be baptized. For according to evangelical teaching, of such is the Kingdom of God, and they are in the covenant of God. Why, then, should the sign of God's covenant not be given to them? Why should those who belong to God and are in his Church not be initiated by holy baptism?" (Chapter 20, Of Holy Baptism.)



Francis Turretin, "The orthodox occupy the middle ground between Anabaptism and the Lutherans. They deny actual faith to infants against the Lutherans and maintain a seminal or radical and habitual faith is to be ascribed to them against the Anabaptists. Here it is to be remarked before all things: that we do not speak of the infants of any parents whomsoever (even of infidels and heathen), but only of believers, or Christians and the covenanted. (Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Volume 2, Page 583.)



Peter Martyr Vermigli, "We assume that the children of believers are holy, as long as in growing up they do not demonstrate themselves to be estranged from Christ. We do not exclude them from the church, but accept them as members, with the hope that they are partakers of the divine election and have the grace and Spirit of Christ, even as they are the seed of saints. On that basis we baptize them." (Loci Communes, 4:8:7, cf. Robert Reymond's, A New systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, Page 946.)



The Belgic Confession, "Therefore we detest the error of the Anabaptists, who are not content with the one only baptism they have once received, and moreover condemn the baptism of the infants of believers, who we believe ought to be baptized and sealed with the sign of the covenant, as the children in Israel formerly were circumcised upon the same promises which are made unto our children. And indeed Christ shed His blood no less for the washing of the children of believers than for adult persons; and therefore they ought to receive the sign and sacrament of that which Christ has done for them; as the Lord commanded in the law that they should be made partakers of the sacrament of Christ's suffering and death shortly after they were born, by offering for them a lamb, which was a sacrament of Jesus Christ. Moreover, what circumcision was to the Jews, baptism is to our children. And for this reason St. Paul calls baptism the circumcision of Christ." (Article 34)



The Heidelberg Catechism, "Q74: Are infants also to be baptized? A74: Yes, for since they, as well as their parents, belong to the covenant and people of God, and through the blood of Christ both redemption from sin and the Holy Ghost, who works faith, are promised to them no less than to their parents, they are also by Baptism, as a sign of the covenant, to be ingrafted into the Christian Church, and distinguished from the children of unbelievers, as was done in the Old Testament by circumcision, in place of which in the New Testament Baptism is appointed. (Lord's Day 27)



The Westminster Assembly, "That it [baptism] is instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ: That it is a seal of the covenant of grace, of our ingrafting into Christ, and of our union with him, of remission of sins, regeneration, adoption, and life eternal: That the water, in baptism, representeth and signifieth both the blood of Christ, which taketh away all guilt of sin, original and actual; and the sanctifying virtue of the Spirit of Christ against the dominion of sin, and the corruption of our sinful nature: That baptizing, or sprinkling and washing with water, signifieth the cleansing from sin by the blood and for the merit of Christ, together with the mortification of sin, and rising from sin to newness of life, by virtue of the death and resurrection of Christ: That the promise is made to believers and their seed; and that the seed and posterity of the faithful, born within the church, have, by their birth, interest in the covenant, and right to the seal of it, and to the outward privileges of the church, under the gospel, no less than the children of Abraham in the time of the Old Testament; the covenant of grace, for substance, being the same; and the grace of God, and the consolation of believers, more plentiful than before: That the Son of God admitted little children into his presence, embracing and blessing them, saying, For of such is the kingdom of God: That children, by baptism, are solemnly received into the bosom of the visible church, distinguished from the world, and them that are without, and united with believers; and that all who are baptized in the name of Christ, do renounce, and by their baptism are bound to fight against the devil, the world, and the flesh: That they are Christians, and federally holy before baptism, and therefore are they baptized." (The Directory of Public Worship)



The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, "Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ." (Article XXVI, Of Baptism)



Zacharias Ursinus, "First, all that belong to the covenant and church of God are to be baptized. But the children of Christians, as well as adults, belong to the covenant and church of God. Therefore, they are to be bap­tized, as well as adults. Secondly, those are not to be excluded from baptism to whom the benefit of remission of sins, and of re­generation, belongs. But this benefit belongs to the infants of the church; for redemption from sin, by the blood of Christ, and the Holy Ghost, the author of faith, is promised to them no less than to the adult. Therefore, they ought to be baptized." (Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, (1st American Edition, 1851, Pages 366-367.)



William Ames, "The infants of believers are not to be forbidden this sacrament. First, because, if they are partakers of any grace, it is by virtue of the covenant of grace and so both the covenant and the first seal of the covenant belong to them. Second, the covenant in which the faithful are now included is clearly the same as the covenant made with Abra­ham, Rom. 4:11; Gal. 3:7-9-and this expressly applied to infants. Third, the covenant as now administered to believers brings greater and fuller consolation than it once could, before the coming of Christ. But if it pertained only to them and not to their infants, the grace of God and their consolation would be narrower and more con­tracted after Christ's appearing than before. Fourth, baptism sup­plants circumcision, Col. 2:11, 12; it belongs as much to the children of believers as circumcision once did. Fifth, in the very beginning of regeneration, whereof baptism is a seal, man is merely passive. There­fore, no outward action is required of a man when he is baptized or circumcised (unlike other sacraments); but only a passive receiving. Infants are, therefore, as capable of participation in this sacrament, so far as its chief benefit is concerned, as adults." (The Marrow of Theology, Page 211.)



John Bradford, "In baptism is required God's election, if the child be an infant, or faith, if he be of age." (The Writings of John Bradford, Banner of Truth Trust, Carlisle, 1979, Volume 2, Page 290) 



Herman Witsius, "Here certainly appears the extraordinary love of our God, in that as soon as we are born, and just as we come from our mother, he hath commanded us to be solemnly brought from her bosom, as it were, into his own arms, that he should bestow upon us, in the very cradle, the tokens of our dignity and future kingdom;...that, in a word, he should join us to himself in the most solemn covenant from our most tender years: the remembrance of which, as it is glorious and full of consolation to us, so in like manner it tends to promote Christian virtues, and the strictest holiness, through the whole course of our lives." (The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, (London, 1868) Volume 3, Book 4, Chapter 18, Page 1219.)



John Owen, "The end of his message and of his coming was, that those to whom he was sent might be "blessed with faithful Abraham," or that "the blessing of Abraham," promised in the covenant, "might come upon them," Galatians 3:9, 14. To deny this, overthrows the whole relation between the old testament and the new, the veracity of God in his promises, and all the properties of the covenant of grace, mentioned 2 Samuel 23:5...Infants are made for and are capable of eternal glory or misery, and must fall, dying infants, into one of these estates for ever. All infants are born in a state of sin, wherein they are spiritually dead and under the curse. Unless they are regenerated or born again, they must all perish inevitably, John 3:3. Their regeneration is the grace where of baptism is a sign or token. Wherever this is, there baptism ought to be administered. It follows hence unavoidably that infants who die in their infancy have the grace of regeneration, and consequently as good a right unto baptism as believers themselves...In brief, a participation of the seal of the covenant is a spiritual blessing. This the seed of believers was once solemnly invested in by God himself This privilege he hath nowhere revoked, though he hath changed the outward sign; nor hath he granted unto our children any privilege or mercy in lieu of it now under the gospel, when all grace and privileges are enlarged to the utmost. His covenant promises concerning them, which are multiplied, were confirmed by Christ as a true messenger and minister; he gives the grace of baptism unto many of them, especially those that die in their infancy, owns children to belong unto his kingdom, esteems them disciples, appoints households to be baptized without exception. And who shall now rise up, and withhold water from them?" (Works, Volume 16, Banner of Truth Trust (Carlisle, 1988) Pages 335-337)



Samuel Rutherford, "It is clear that infants have their share of salvation, and by covenant it must be...And this promise made to Abraham belongs to them all..." (The Covenant of Life Opened, 1642(?), Pages 83, 104-105)



Richard Sibbes, "Therefore God, intending a comfortable enlargement of the covenant of grace to Abraham, extends it to his seed: "I will be the God of thy seed." It is a great blessing for God to he the God of our seed. It is alluded to by St Peter in the New Testament, "The promise is made to you and to your children," Acts ii. 39. But what if they have not baptism, the seal of the covenant? That doth not prejudice their salvation. God hath appointed the sacra­ments to be seals for us, not for himself. He himself keepeth his covenant, whether we have the seal or no, so long as we neglect it not. Therefore we must not think if a child die before the sacrament of baptism, that God will not keep his covenant. They have the sanctity, the holiness of the covenant. You know what David said of his child, "I shall go to it, but it shall not return to me;" and yet it died before it was circumcised. Yon know they were forty years in the wilderness, and were not circumcised. Therefore the sacrament is not of absolute necessity to salvation. So he is the God of our children from the conception and birth." (Works of Richard Sibbes, Volume 6, Banner of Truth Trust, (Carlisle 1983), Page 22)



Ezekiel Hopkins, "Certainly, since they [infants of believing parents] are in covenant with God; since they are the members of Christ, being members of His body, the Church; since they are sanctified and regenerated, so far forth as their natures are ordinarily capable of, without a miracle; we have all the reason in the world conformably to conclude, that all such die in the Lord, and are forever happy and blessed with Him." (Works, Volume 2 page 326.)



Thomas Goodwin, "The children of godly parents are called the inheritance of the Lord, because he is the owner of them as his elect and chosen, among whom his possession and his peculiar people lie...The children of believing parents, at least their next and immediate seed, even of us Gentiles now under the Gospel, are included by God within the covenant of Grace, as well as Abraham's or David's seed within that covenant of theirs." (Works, Volume 9, Page 426-427)



Thomas Manton, "If they die before they come to the use of reason, you have no cause to doubt of their salvation. God is their God. Gen. 17:7, "I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee;" compared with Gal. 3:14, "That the blessing of Abraham might come on the gentiles through Jesus Christ, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." And they never lived to disinherit themselves. As we judge of the slip according to the stock, till it live to bring forth fruit of its own, so here. (Manton's Complete Works, Volume 18, Page 91)



John Brown of Haddington, "None but regenerated persons have a right to baptism before God...None but such as appear truly regenerated have a right to baptism before men...The infants of parents, one or both visible saints, have a right to baptism before the church...The children of believers are in covenant with God...Infants, such as Christ could carry in his arms, are members of the Kingdom of God. And if members, why deny them the primary seal of membership?" (Systematic Theology, Page 538.)



Alexander Whyte, "Baptism does not effect our engrafting into Christ, it only signifies and seals it." (Commentary on the Shorter Catechism, Page 181.) [Note, there is no distinction between adults and children, or infants, in the Westminster Confession at all on this issue, except by age, and the Directory of Public Worship makes it abundantly clear what they mean by the institution and how it should be administered..]



Robert Shaw, "...for infants of believing parents are born within the covenant, and so are Christians and visible church members; and by baptism this right of theirs is acknowledged, and they are solemnly admitted to the privileges of church membership." (An Exposition of the Confession of Faith, 1845, Page 285.)



J. W. Alexander, "But O how we neglect that ordinance! Treating children in the Church, just as if they were out of it. Ought we not daily to say (in its spirit) to our children, "You are Christian children, you are Christ's, you ought to think and feel and act as such! And on this plan carried out, might we not expect more early fruit of the grace than by keeping them always looking forward to a point of time at which they shall have new hearts and join the church? I am distressed with long harbored misgivings on this point." (Forty Years' Familiar Letters, Volume 2, Page 25.) 



Lyman Atwater, "If our children are in precisely the same position as others, why baptize them?" (Children of the covenant and their part in the Lord, Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review, Volume 35, No. 4 (October, 1863), Page 622)



Lewis Schenck, "The Reformed Church has always believed, on the basis of God's immutable promise, that all children of believers dying in infancy were saved...in other words, all admission to the visible church was on the basis, not of an infallible evidence of regeneration, since no one could read the heart, but on the basis of presumption that those admitted were the true children of God." (The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant, (Phillipsburg, 2003) Page 118.



Benjamin Warfield, "All baptism is inevitably administered on the basis not of knowledge but of presumption and if we must baptize on presumption the whole principle is yielded; and it would seem that we must baptize all whom we may fairly presume to be members of Christ's body." (The Polemics of Infant Baptism, The Presbyterian Quarterly (April, 1899), Page 313.



Henry Van Dyke, "If the baptism of infants does not signify and seal "regeneration and engrafting into Christ," in the same sense and to the same extent as in the case of adults, we have no right to administer it to infants." (The Church: Her Ministry and Sacraments, Page 74)



Abraham Kuyper, "That children of believers are to be considered as recipients of efficacious grace, in whom the work of efficacious grace has already begun. That when dying before having attained to years of dis­cretion, they can only be regarded as saved. Of course [he adds] Calvinists never declared that these things were necessarily so. As they never permitted themselves to pronounce official judgment on the inward state of an adult, but left the judgment to God, so they have never usurped the right to pronounce on the presence or ab­sence of spiritual life in infants. They only stated how God would have us consider such infants, and this consideration based on the divine word made it imperative to look upon their infant children as elect and saved, and to treat them accordingly." (Abraham Kuyper, "Calvinism and Confessional Review," The Presbyterian Quarterly, Vol. IV, No. 18 (October, 1891), Art. I, pp. 602-503; cf. 604.) 



Charles Hodge, "The historic Reformed Doctrine which may be identified with that of John Calvin was as follows: Membership in the invisible church meant vital union with Christ, or regeneration by the Holy Spirit. Since the word presume meant to admit a thing to be, or to receive a thing as true, before it could be known as such from its phenomena or manifestations, the presumption that an infant was a member of the invisible church meant that it was believed to be engrafted into Christ and regenerated before it gave any ordinary evidences of the fact." (The Church Membership of Infants, Page 375.)



Lewis Berkhof and the Conclusions of Utrecht, "It may be well to quote in this connection the first half of the fourth point of the Conclusions of Utrecht, which were adopted by our Church in 1908. We translate this as follows: "And, finally, as far as the fourth point, that of presumptive regeneration, is concerned. Synod declares that, according to the confession of our Churches, the seed of the covenant must, in virtue of the promise of God, be presumed to be regenerated and sanctified in Christ, until, as they grow up, the contrary appears from their life or doctrine; that it is, however, less correct to say that baptism is administered to the children of believers on the ground of their presumptive regeneration, since the ground of baptism is the command and the promise of God; and that further the judgment of charity, with which the Church presumes the seed of the covenant to be regenerated, by no means intends to say that therefore each child is really regenerated, since the Word of God teaches that they are not all Israel that are of Israel, and it is said of Isaac: in him shall thy seed be called (Rom. 9:6,7), so that in preaching it is' always necessary to insist on serious self-examination, since only those who shall have believed and have been baptized will be saved." (Systematic Theology, Page 640)



A. A. Hodge, "But baptism does not ordinarily confer grace in the first instance, but presupposes it." (Outlines of Theology, Page 629.)



John Murray, "Baptized infants are to be received as the children of God and treated accordingly." (Christian Baptism, Page 59.)



Robert Booth, "If the children of believers are embraced by the promises of the covenant, as certainly they are, then they must also be entitled to receive the initial sign of the covenant, which is baptism." (Children of the Promise, P&R Publishing, Page 29)



Robert Reymond, "I think I have shown that infants of believing parents are to be viewed as members of and under the governance and protection of Christ's church and should be treated as such...Accordingly, all present at any and every infant baptism are admonished to "look back to their baptism," to repent of their sins against the covenant, and to "improve and make right use of their baptism...the Directory [of Public Worship] envisions, as Jones rightly states, "a dynamic, life-long relationship between the infants saving faith and Christian walk, on the one hand, and his baptism on the other." (A New systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, Pages 948-49)



In the neglect of understanding the doctrine of "presumptive regeneration," Charles Hodge said, "we have long felt and often expressed the conviction that this is one of the most serious evils in the present state of our churches." (Bushnell's discourses on Christian Nurture, Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review (1847), 19, Pages 52-521.)


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 21, 2004)

:thumbup:


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 21, 2004)

Judg 13:2 And there was a certain man of Zorah, of the family of the Danites, whose name was Manoah; and his wife was barren, and bare not.
Judg 13:3 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto the woman, and said unto her, Behold now, thou art barren, and bearest not: but thou shalt conceive, and bear a son.
Judg 13:4 Now therefore beware, I pray thee, and drink not wine nor strong drink, and eat not any unclean thing:
Judg 13:5 For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.

Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 21, 2004)

If you people think that one week old infants are capable of being regenerate (with the obvious Biblical exceptions of a select handful of historically significant people, and obviously not an example for all) and knowing right from wrong and capable of understanding anything about the Bible at all, then I have nothing else to say to you. That's just ... nevermind. Wow.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 21, 2004)

[quote:763d654eb6="WrittenFromUtopia"]If you people think that one week old infants are capable of being regenerate (with the obvious Biblical exceptions of a select handful of historically significant people, and obviously not an example for all) and knowing right from wrong and capable of understanding anything about the Bible at all, then I have nothing else to say to you. That's just ... nevermind. Wow.[/quote:763d654eb6]

Uh, have you ever heard of justification by faith alone?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 21, 2004)

[quote:bc9b7fe7d4="Scott Bushey"]
Uh, have you ever heard of justification by faith alone?[/quote:bc9b7fe7d4]

Now you're saying a baby can have faith in Christ as their Savior, when they can't even remember what their parents look like? :smug_b:


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 21, 2004)

Oh my...............


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 21, 2004)

Do you understand faith is a gift. It is monergistic. It comes to men. Have you heard the term ordo Salutis? Regeneration can occur at birth. Conversion at a different time; possibly years later.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 21, 2004)

Faith is a gift given to people who can hear and respond to an effectual call. Babies don't know their own names. Faith comes from hearing the gospel, even if it is a gift from God.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 21, 2004)

Gabriel,
You didn't answer my question. Are you familiar with the ordo salutis of salvation?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 21, 2004)

[quote:8a5db6edba="Scott Bushey"]Gabriel,
You didn't answer my question. Are you familiar with the ordo salutis of salvation?[/quote:8a5db6edba]

Of course I am ... hence my last reply.

Every thing I have read regarding the ordo solutis and regeneration has made it pretty clear that the amount of time between regernation and conversion is not long at all. *shrug*


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 21, 2004)

[quote:74993124b1="joshua"]
Maybe not an example for all, but examples nonetheless, no?[/quote:74993124b1]

Perhaps.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 21, 2004)

[quote:394ef18cce="WrittenFromUtopia"][quote:394ef18cce="Scott Bushey"]Gabriel,
You didn't answer my question. Are you familiar with the ordo salutis of salvation?[/quote:394ef18cce]

Of course I am ... hence my last reply.

Every thing I have read regarding the ordo solutis and regeneration has made it pretty clear that the amount of time between regernation and conversion is not long at all. *shrug*[/quote:394ef18cce]

So then if you are familiar with the ordo, you know that regeneration and conversion can be seperate or simultaneous.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 21, 2004)

[quote:499a0b0b6b="joshua"][quote:499a0b0b6b="WrittenFromUtopia"]If you people think that one week old infants are capable of being regenerate (with the obvious Biblical exceptions of a select handful of historically significant people, and obviously not an example for all) and knowing right from wrong and capable of understanding anything about the Bible at all, then I have nothing else to say to you. That's just ... nevermind. Wow.[/quote:499a0b0b6b]

Maybe not an example for all, but examples nonetheless, no?[/quote:499a0b0b6b]

The [i:499a0b0b6b]example[/i:499a0b0b6b] only points to the ordo.........it supports the Ordo Salutis.


----------



## Dan.... (Jul 21, 2004)

Grabriel,

First, I am a Baptist.

Second, the confessional baptist position is that those who profess faith in Christ should be baptized. We do not baptize infants because infants do not profess faith. This does not mean that an infant cannot be regenerate.

If all regenerate persons had a big X on their forheads and if we found an X on the forhead of an infant, we, as Baptists, would not baptize such an one. We would wait until the child has actually professed faith in Christ. Hence, professor's baptism.

Concerning regeneration - No one (infant or adult) is "capable" of being regenerate. Those who are dead have no ability to raise themselves. Regeneration is the work of the Spirit. Our Lord is fully capable to regenerate infants just as quickly as He is to regenerate adults.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 21, 2004)

Okay, so to be more clear, through infant baptism you are WILLINGLY and KNOWINGLY bringing in non-converts to your congregation?

Still, since we can't know if someone is regenerate or not, how does infant baptism even fit in, and why would we want to risk bringing in non-believers into our congregations?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 21, 2004)

Gabriel, after you are done answering the other questions, then perhaps you could answer this one in light of your objections to infant regeneration and/or faith. Can infants be saved and if so, then how? What of those infants who die in infancy? Is there any hope of salvation for them? What of the severely mentally disabled who may never understand the gospel? 
I hope you can see that you are stepping out of the bounds of even the strictest baptists on the Board here when you deny that infants can be regenerate. Of course if you would do a search on this topic and read the other threads on this you would see that too


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 21, 2004)

[quote:d2e3adb251="WrittenFromUtopia"]Okay, so to be more clear, through infant baptism you are WILLINGLY and KNOWINGLY bringing in non-converts to your congregation?

Still, since we can't know if someone is regenerate or not, how does infant baptism even fit in, and why would we want to risk bringing in non-believers into our congregations?[/quote:d2e3adb251]

Where int he world do you find, anywhere, in the NT that says that non-believers cannot be in the church?

Acts 21 states that the Pharisees who were believers were upset that they THOUGHT Paul was teaching that their children were no longer in the covenant. BOTH James and Paul set that straight tot he contrary and said they WERE still included in the covenant family. Why would you think god would stop something He started and promised to covenant families?

Every NT letter is written to the Professing church, not a regenerate church. There is a world of difference.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 21, 2004)

Can infants be saved? If they can hear and respond to an effectual call by putting faith in Christ as their savior, then yes. If not, they're going to be in hell when they die.

Infants who die in infancy would go to hell if they died without putting faith in Christ.

There is no hope for salvation for anyone unless they are God's chosen people and can hear the gospel and put faith in Christ.

Mentally disabled I would assume would be in hell by default as a result of original sin, but I'd still say this with the disclaimer of "but it's all up to God to judge".

It is a misrepresentation of the ordo salutis to say that babies can be regenerated and just sit around for 10+ years until they can actually grasp the concepts of the Bible and the gospel and put true saving faith in Christ. It is even more surprising to claim that an infant could have such saving faith in Christ without having any knowledge of the world around them at all.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 21, 2004)

This has nothing to do with my views on the power of God, and I'm insulted that you'd claim such a thing. Shame on you.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 21, 2004)

Are you a Universalist?


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 21, 2004)

[quote:049dfea0b5="WrittenFromUtopia"]Can infants be saved? If they can hear and respond to an effectual call by putting faith in Christ as their savior, then yes. If not, they're going to be in hell when they die.

Infants who die in infancy would go to hell if they died without putting faith in Christ.

There is no hope for salvation for anyone unless they are God's chosen people and can hear the gospel and put faith in Christ.

Mentally disabled I would assume would be in hell by default as a result of original sin, but I'd still say this with the disclaimer of "but it's all up to God to judge".
[/quote:049dfea0b5]

You do realize that virtually all of Christendom, including the Baptist branches (specifically including Spurgeon) disagree with your position, don't you?

The 1689 specifically says that you are wrong and unorthodox on this point:

"10.3. Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. ( John 3:3, 5, 6; John 3:8 ) "

Since you have taken a position contrary to all of professing Christendom - Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, and even Papist, please produce evidence from the Scriptures and Church theologians that God does not and (in fact) cannot save those who do not make a profession of faith.

While you are at it, please explain how John the Baptist and Jeremiah had the Holy Spirit upon them in the womb. You have gone far beyond standard Baptist theology - and I hope that my brother Phillip will be opnline soon to back me up on this - and you need to repent. if not, DO NOT go into the ministry. I don't want you talking to ANYONE who has had a child die. You are unfit to have that conversation - regardless of anyone's views of who should be the subject of baptism.


----------



## FrozenChosen (Jul 21, 2004)

[quote:3f8da53dcc="WrittenFromUtopia"]Does anyone have an explanation for the vast archeological evidence being uncovered in the Asia Minor and Middle East areas of the world of Baptistries that were constructed and used for Christian Baptism that are over 4 ft. deep?[/quote:3f8da53dcc]

Of course I do. Paedobaptism does not exclude baptism for the new believer. Nor does it exclude immersion. It is not necessary but is certainly possible (in my opinion). Francis Shaeffer said that if parents wanted an infant to be immersed, he would make sure the infant would be safe, and then immerse him! 

Now we find ourselves in a world where Christianity was relatively new, and would have a staggering amount of converts from pagan backgrounds. Probably more than children actually being born in the church.

Consider then what happens in 311 A.D., when Constantine becomes an emperor. If the emperor is a kind of divine figure, well, the rest of the populace better get in line! In order to baptize the millions of new "converts," perhaps churches found it more expedient to baptize by immersion.

Or we could just forget what could be historical and archaeological rumors (as far as has been shown) and leave the debate to the theologians who know there stuff.

Which doesn't include me! *runs away from the actual debate*


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 21, 2004)

[quote:a8f43349a2="Paul manata"][i:a8f43349a2]what[/i:a8f43349a2] are you talking about?[/quote:a8f43349a2]

My sentiments, exactly.


----------



## turmeric (Jul 22, 2004)

[quote:6a4ce33088]Every NT letter is written to the Professing church, not a regenerate church. There is a world of difference.[/quote:6a4ce33088]

This is one reason for the regrettable misunderstanding about the "carnal Christian" because people do not understand that the Apostles were writing to a corpus mixtum.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 22, 2004)

[quote:1cce9ec37f="Paul manata"]Furthermore, in response to the "baptistries uncovered" well, there have been [i:1cce9ec37f]Catholic[/i:1cce9ec37f] churches that had been constructed in the 1300's and even they built in these basillicas. Are you suggesting that the Roman Catholics immersed people in the 1300's?[/quote:1cce9ec37f]

Even Roman Catholics practiced immersion to an extent through the 14th Century, although not predominantly, obviously.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 22, 2004)

[quote:d46026b63b="turmeric"][quote:d46026b63b]Every NT letter is written to the Professing church, not a regenerate church. There is a world of difference.[/quote:d46026b63b]

This is one reason for the regrettable misunderstanding about the "carnal Christian" because people do not understand that the Apostles were writing to a corpus mixtum.[/quote:d46026b63b]

Now THIS is making sense to me. I like this .. it hits home with my past in SBC churches and being taught the false doctrines of "carnal" Christians.

Interesting... I might be closer to understanding this all now because of a simple idea like this one.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 22, 2004)

[quote:0d3613af58="WrittenFromUtopia"][quote:0d3613af58="turmeric"][quote:0d3613af58]Every NT letter is written to the Professing church, not a regenerate church. There is a world of difference.[/quote:0d3613af58]

This is one reason for the regrettable misunderstanding about the "carnal Christian" because people do not understand that the Apostles were writing to a corpus mixtum.[/quote:0d3613af58]

Now THIS is making sense to me. I like this .. it hits home with my past in SBC churches and being taught the false doctrines of "carnal" Christians.

Interesting... I might be closer to understanding this all now because of a simple idea like this one.[/quote:0d3613af58]

Gabriel,

What changed my mind on Covenant Theology altogether was the book of Hebrews and the warning passages. That literally undid all my Baptistic Theology.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 22, 2004)

I changed my avatar to reflect my thoughts about this issue..


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 22, 2004)




----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 22, 2004)

You would also want to take into account the ossuaries and graves of young infants "sent to heaven" by baptism in the first century (probably right around the time the Apostle John either lived, or just after his death.)


----------



## luvroftheWord (Jul 22, 2004)

The idea that infants cannot have faith is inane and foreign to Scripture.

Psalm 8:2--
"Out of the mouths of babes and infants, you have established strength because of your foes, to still the enemy and the avenger."

Psalm 22:9-10--
"Yet you are he who took me from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother's breasts. On you was I cast from my birth, and from my mother's womb you have been my God."

Psalm 71:5-6; 17--
"For you, O Lord, are my hope, my trust, O LORD, from my youth. Upon you I have leaned from before my birth; you are he who took me from my mother's womb. My praise is continually of you."


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 22, 2004)

[quote:06026458e8="ABondSlaveofChristJesus"]Where is a reference to sprinkling in the infallible word that is the only dogmatic source we look too?

Why does the westminister confession say:

3. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person. 

There is not one reference of scripture backing this statement.
[/quote:06026458e8]
This is late in the thread but still must be corrected. I'm not sure which version of the Westminster Confession you have but the version I have (the 1646 version) has a few scripture references for that article of the Confession. They are Hebrews 9:10, 19-22, Acts 2:41, Acts 16:33, Mark 7:4.


----------



## Ianterrell (Jul 22, 2004)

Even though there isn't a great deal of dialogue going on here across the fields, I have to say this has been an interesting thread. And I'm still reading it...

There have been lots of great passages brought up to plate. Plenty of excellent quotes from fine exegetes.


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Jul 22, 2004)

Thanks for the references. Also thanks Paul the excerpt and 
:wr50: 

Seems like things kinda steered off course through most of the thread. Honestly I'm curious on the mode. I don't consider this issue to be that serious of one though. The issue becomes serious when the spiritual meanings are getting attacked. 

I've grown up my entire life in Southern Baptist churches, and membership to the church was dependent on a profession of faith. I remember growing up and not being allowed to partake in the Lords Supper because I was not a member of the church. So a child could be regenerated from birth but not yet converted, still they would wait for the profession before bringing them officially into the body. 

In the Presbyterian churches every child is a member because of a covenant? How is membership acquired in the Presbyterian church? 

I find a lot of my old theology crumbling and being replaced by reformed. 

Obviously, I know nothing about infant baptism. So, pardon my ignorance, im filled with it. :no:


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 22, 2004)

[quote:2507b64da7="ABondSlaveofChristJesus"] 

In the Presbyterian churches every child is a member because of a covenant? How is membership acquired in the Presbyterian church? 

I find a lot of my old theology crumbling and being replaced by reformed. 

Obviously, I know nothing about infant baptism. So, pardon my ignorance, im filled with it. :no:[/quote:2507b64da7]

Children are members of the church upon reception and baptism.

They become communicant members and are able to participate in the Lord's Supper upon the age of discretion (which is simply the time that their parents deem them fit to speak about spiritual things and the Gospel in a manner in which they can articulate it). They will go through a class on basic doctrine, and then are "interviewed" by the elders to test them in their knowledge. Then they partake of the supper. But they are always members after baptism.


----------



## nicnap (Jul 22, 2004)

This is not to inspire argument, for the Lord only knows how I have wrestled with this issue (so much so that I about "switched camps"-even so that I supplied for a local Presbyterian church), but it is only a sincere question. Matt you said that children are members of the church after baptism. What if a child (now an adolescent), never made a communicant member "goes into the world" and is caught up in all sorts of wickedness, is he still a member (let's say he has never professed any sort of belief in Christ)? Would the church then exercise discipline upon him like they would any other member? Could he be excommunicated? If he is excommunicated does he show himself to have never been a member of the Covenant? (Understand that I am a covenantal Baptist [which is not an oxymoron]). If he shows himself to have never been in the covenant, then was it sinful/wrong to baptize him? (Again these questions are asked in a spirit of humility and eagerness to learn- not in an argumentative fashion.)

P.s. Sorry for the run-on sentences. I am typing quick so that I will not forget my questions.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 22, 2004)

[quote:f6f442cb55="nicnap"]This is not to inspire argument, for the Lord only knows how I have wrestled with this issue (so much so that I about "switched camps"-even so that I supplied for a local Presbyterian church), but it is only a sincere question. Matt you said that children are members of the church after baptism. What if a child (now an adolescent), never made a communicant member "goes into the world" and is caught up in all sorts of wickedness, is he still a member (let's say he has never professed any sort of belief in Christ)? Would the church then exercise discipline upon him like they would any other member? Could he be excommunicated? If he is excommunicated does he show himself to have never been a member of the Covenant? (Understand that I am a covenantal Baptist [which is not an oxymoron]). If he shows himself to have never been in the covenant, then was it sinful/wrong to baptize him? (Again these questions are asked in a spirit of humility and eagerness to learn- not in an argumentative fashion.)[/quote:f6f442cb55]

In order:

Yes, he is still a member.
Yes, they should exercise discipline.
Yes, unrepentant sin should be excommunited after the model of Matthew 16 and 18.
No, he shows himself to be a covenant breaker.
No, covenant signs and regeneration are not simultaneous, ever. (i.e circumcision, the covenant sign for 3000 years, was given to [i:f6f442cb55]infants[/i:f6f442cb55] as a sign of regeneration.)


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 22, 2004)

Just a note: a non-communing member can be disciplined, but he cannot be ex-communicated. To be ex-communicated, one must be (by definition) communing.

That is (in my opinion) one of the great sheperding advantages of the Presbyterian system. Children who fail to profess can actually be given the blessing of discipline, instead of simply left to wander off with a "oh, he didn't profess"


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 22, 2004)

Fred is correct. Sorry, I was thinking faster than I should sometimes and apply it to a communicant child who falls into sin.


----------



## nicnap (Jul 22, 2004)

Thanks for the replies. I have some questions in my head, but cannot seem to get them to my fingers to type... . As I think of them, or can enunciate/articulate them (if one can articulate in typing, but you know what I mean), I will post them.


----------

