# AHH help!! The paedo's are after me!!!



## ~~Susita~~

Brothers and sisters, I want to understand infant baptism SO much right now that it's driving me to tears! I just don't get it. I'm credo, and I just don't get it and it's so frustrating!!! Please help


----------



## Davidius

~~Susita~~ said:


> Brothers and sisters, I want to understand infant baptism SO much right now that it's driving me to tears! I just don't get it. I'm credo, and I just don't get it and it's so frustrating!!! Please help



Do you have questions in any specific area? I came over to the Paedo side about 6 months ago so maybe I can help.


----------



## ~~Susita~~

I just don't get why people would want to baptize an unsaved infant. Yeah, it's a "sign that they are entering the visible covenant family" - but I don't get it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Which unsaved infant are you referring to? Do you have the name of an un-elect infant in a Reformed Church so we can discuss that particular child?


----------



## ~~Susita~~

No. I'm just saying: What if the child is not one of God's elect? Why baptize it?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

What if one of your members isn't one of God's elect? Why baptize you?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Incidentally, Susan, I'm not berating you. This is called Socratic questioning. I'm trying to draw something out of you...


----------



## ReformedWretch

SemperFideles said:


> Which unsaved infant are you referring to? Do you have the name of an un-elect infant in a Reformed Church so we can discuss that particular child?



Hey Rich

I discussed this a while back, but here goes again.

Our daughter was baptized as an infant and at 24 shows NO SIGN of being anything other than being 100% devoted to the world. I know that means little as she is not dead and Lord willing will not be for a long time. However I do often worry that some see baptizing their infants as some kind of "security blanket". I don't rest easier because Alisha has been baptized, that's for sure.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Understood Adam. I'm not of the school of thought that sees baptism as a "security blanket". That school of thought has no intersection with the Biblical (read Reformed) thought on the matter.

Your daughter was promised something on condition of faith and she is in rebellion of it. Let's continue to pray that God will convert her. If she does embrace Christ by faith, she need not be re-baptized for the the promise was made by One who doesn't change.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Adam,

Have to run to a meeting. Don't have time to interact on this right now but I don't want to discourage you or be flippant. I'll try to explain this more if you have any unanswered concerns.


----------



## ~~Susita~~

SemperFideles said:


> If she does embrace Christ by faith, she need not be re-baptized for the the promise was made by One who doesn't change.



But if she is not one of His elect (GOD FORBID! I will pray for her, Mr. Leavelle), what was the point of that baptism?


----------



## Davidius

~~Susita~~ said:


> But if she is not one of His elect (GOD FORBID! I will pray for her, Mr. Leavelle), what was the point of that baptism?



This is an important question. Our understanding of what baptism actually is hangs on it. 

Sure, a Presbyterian believes that baptism is the sign of entrance into the visible Church for children of believers but he also understands that baptism is a sign of God's promises to his people. In this sense, baptism is for all who witness it. The ritual is not merely a profession of dedication on the receiver's end. It is God saying something to the receiver and to everyone: that those who repent and believe will receive what the sign signifies. It _doesn't_ (and this is the Baptist error) say "the person receiving this sign _has_ what is signified."

Does that make any sense?


----------



## Dwimble

Susan, I'm sure someone will correct me if I incorrectly state the facts, but the basic difference in the two camps seems to be one of having a different view of the _purpose_ of water baptism. The one sees it as an outward, visible sign of a profession of faith of the believer, whereby you confess that you have been buried and raised with Christ. The other sees at as an outward, visible sign of belonging to the covenant body of believers, or the visible church...similar to circumcision in the old testament, signifying being under the covenant and of Israel. But remember, God judged plenty of Jews, even though they had been circumcised since the 8th day of their lives. Circumcision didn't guarantee or indicate election and neither does baptism.


----------



## Puritanhead

SemperFideles said:


> Incidentally, Susan, I'm not berating you. This is called Socratic questioning. I'm trying to draw something out of you...


 Yeah, but she asked you. Draw something out of yourself, while you're at it.


----------



## ~~Susita~~

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> This is an important question. Our understanding of what baptism actually is hangs on it.
> 
> Sure, a Presbyterian believes that baptism is the sign of entrance into the visible Church for children of believers but he also understands that baptism is a sign of God's promises to his people. In this sense, baptism is for all who witness it. The ritual is not merely a profession of dedication on the receiver's end. It is God saying something to the receiver and to everyone: that those who repent and believe will receive what the sign signifies. It _doesn't_ (and this is the Baptist error) say "the person receiving this sign _has_ what is signified."



Okay I read those last two sentences a few times and I understand that. Do you have some Scripture about what you just said that I can study?


----------



## ~~Susita~~

Dwimble said:


> Susan, I'm sure someone will correct me if I incorrectly state the facts, but the basic difference in the two camps seems to be one of having a different view of the _purpose_ of water baptism. The one sees it as an outward, visible sign of a profession of faith of the believer, whereby you confess that you have been buried and raised with Christ. The other sees at as an outward, visible sign of belonging to the covenant body of believers, or the visible church...similar to circumcision in the old testament, signifying being under the covenant and of Israel. But remember, God judged plenty of Jews, even though they had been circumcised since the 8th day of their lives. Circumcision didn't guarantee or indicate election and neither does baptism.



Yes, okay, that's great! Folks, if you don't mind, I'd like to leave it at this so I can study/read my Bible for a bit, then I'll hit this thread up again.

Thanks!


----------



## Davidius

> Okay I read those last two sentences a few times and I understand that. Do you have some Scripture about what you just said that I can study?



I would recommend that you start in the Old Testament and follow Michael's point out. Remember, many important doctrines cannot be simply proof-texted (in other words, for things like the Trinity and Infant Baptism I can't just point to one verse and say 'aha! I've got you now!' This is what many Baptists try to do using one or two different verses in the NT instead of looking at the entire bible and trying to understand what the sacraments mean and how they have been/are used. Here are some questions:

When was circumcision instituted? (Gen 17, _not_ in Exodus 20. Baptists like to make the error of associating circumcision with the Mosaic covenant [what the writer of the Hebrews calls the Old Covenant])

Was circumcision instituted as part of the Mosaic Covenant or the Abrahamic Covenant? (read Galatians 2-4)

Of what was circumcision a sign? (search bible gateway for references to circumcision in the OT. Also Check Colossians 2:11-12). 

Were people required to profess their own faith in order to be circumcised? (Read Gen 17 again, and also Romans 2, 9 and 11)

What did circumcision have to do with God's dealings through the family unit? 

Does God still care about families or did that change in the NT? (Romans 11. There is one Covenant of Grace, the olive tree to which Paul refers. Gentiles have been grafted into the tree but it's the same tree. The Covenant is the same and therefore we can only change the aspects of it that God has changed. As a Presbyterian, I would argue that although the sign has changed from circumcision to baptism, the application to children of believers has not since that is not mentioned anywhere.)

Why are there household baptisms in Acts? (this must come after studying the other issues in order to make sense)

Also, check out 1 Cor. 10:1-5 and 1 Peter 3. Notice the discussion of types of baptism in the OT and inclusion of whole families (children). 

I hope this helps. Let me know if there is anything else I can do.


----------



## ~~Susita~~

I really appreciate your help and at the same time, I ask for everyone's patience. I have much to learn and it's frustrating 

I need to go to bed, still recovering from last night's bout of stomach flu and a long day of work. Have a blessed evening, y'all!


----------



## Blueridge Believer

BAPTISM DEBATE


James White, Reformed Baptist vs. Bill Shishko, Orthodox Presbyterian



It was the sincere hope of both James White and Bill Shishko that the following debate would model for many how Christians should be unafraid to engage their differences in a common commitment to the authority of the Word of God. We believe the desire of both men for the debate was fulfilled. 

We provide the audio of this debate without cost, only asking that God's people remember that these events, and the facilities that bring you this hopefully challenging and helpful information, require the support of God's people. We would ask that you remember Alpha and Omega Ministries and help us to continue to edify the saints through debates and apologetic activities.


----------



## Mayflower

I got converted in an arminian baptist church (and never heard about covenant theology), after 4 years by studying John calvin and the puritans i started to understand covenant theology and embraced paedobaptism (but i still hath some doubts), but than after reading the follow books, and became finally clear and convince concerning credobaptism. I love the reformed theology and the puritans, but i think the were absolute wrong with the support of infant baptism :

- David Kingdon : Childeren of Abraham
- T.E Watson : Should babies be baptized ?
- Prof Hendrick F. Stander & Prof Johannes P. Louw : Baptism in the early church.
- Henry Danvers : A treatise of baptism
- Samuel Waldron : A Reformed baptist manifesto
- Nehemiah Cox : Covenant theology
- John Gill : Baptism

See the follow links :

http://www.christian-truth.org/church/paedobaptism1.html

http://www.founders.org/library/malone1/string.html

http://www.trinity-baptist-church.com/art_abrcov.htm

http://qqohelet.tripod.com/chantrybaptism.html

http://www.founders.org/library/welty.html

http://www.baptisttheology.org/documents/FromCircumcisiontoBaptism_001.pdf

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Lake/8890/grace/jtorreysmith.html

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Lake/8890/grace/jtorreysmith2.html

http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Sermons&Tracts/sermon_66.htm

http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Sermons&Tracts/sermon_58.htm

http://www.vor.org/rbdisk/ivimey/html/gill_bap.htm

http://www.gracesermons.com/robbeeee/circumcision.html

http://www.frontlinemin.org/paedo.asp

http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~sjreeves/personal/1cor.html

http://pitch.fitzage.com/2005/11/08/credo-baptism-and-covenant-theology/

http://victorian.fortunecity.com/dadd/464/patient.html


----------



## AV1611

~~Susita~~ said:


> I really appreciate your help and at the same time, I ask for everyone's patience. I have much to learn and it's frustrating



*I would like to suggest some resources that I found very helpful:*

*A.* Hanko interacts very well here with Reformed Baptist polemic focusing upon David Kingdon.

*B.* Go here and listen to the following sermons:

In the series _Abraham, the Father of the Faithful_listen to "God's Covenant with Abraham & his Seed"

In the series _The History of the Covenant_ listen to both "The Covenant with Abraham" and "The New Covenant".

In the series _PREACHING, SACRAMENTS & DISCIPLINE_ listen to "God's Covenant with Christ's Seed's Seed".​
*C.* Have a read through this article.

*D.* Have a read through this article.

*E.* Have a read through this sermon.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Puritanhead said:


> Yeah, but she asked you. Draw something out of yourself, while you're at it.



Ryan,

My statements on baptism are so common that the casual observer would trip over them on this forum.

Susan asked a very specific question that, in its premise, contained a conclusion that would make it impossible for any person (professor or infant) to be baptized. Socratic questioning is a very useful learning tool in some circumstances to help people answer questions that they already know if they just thought things through a bit.

My goal was less lofty than convincing Susan that the Reformed view of baptism is the biblical one. If she answers my questions and thinks about the answer then she'll understand why her question about why people would baptize an unsaved infant makes no sense.


----------



## JM

If you're looking for answers try Reformed Reader.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Susita,

You wrote,

I just don't get why people would want to baptize an unsaved infant. Yeah, it's a "sign that they are entering the visible covenant family" - but I don't get it….I'm just saying: What if the child is not one of God's elect? Why baptize it?​

I see you have a lot of material offered you. I hope to make this short and sweet. One thing I love about the Lord Jesus is His economy of speech while not sacrificing divine depth.

I also like what “Dwimble” said (post #13).

Had I been born in ancient Israel (I am a Jew) I would have circumcised my son in obedience to God’s command to my father Abraham *, so my son would be accepted into the covenant community, the primary blessing of this being the presence of God in our community**. I would do it because it was a command of God to Abraham and all his descendants. We know that they are not all Israel who are of Israel***, and those who do not love God and His law are covenant-breakers, despite their circumcision. God always has a remnant within the covenant community who truly love Him and keep His commandments.

Back to the present: When my daughter was born (1972), she was baptized while an infant. I was an ignorant young believer, knowing nothing of sound doctrine, or of the paedo-credo dispute, yet I baptized her…I suppose you might say by intuition. I see, now that I am more mature, the Scripture equates NT baptism with OT circumcision: 

In whom [Christ] also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God [i.e., faith in the operation of God], who raised him from the dead. (Col. 2:11, 12)​
Baptism is the same sign and seal circumcision was†, and I consider it a command not only from the covenant with Abraham, which “covenant of grace” NT believers are a part of††, but a command given by the Lord and the apostles, concerning entrance into the NT covenant community, the “reconstituted Israel.” †††

With the kingdom of God opened to all the nations, and individuals irrespective of family structure, baptism replaced circumcision, a bloodless sign (the blood of the new covenant already having been shed), and a sign of inclusion for all people and both sexes.

As in the ancient covenant community of Israel, so with the NT covenant community of Israel‡, we administer the covenant sign and seal upon all our seed, that they may be recipients of the great grace vouchsafed to us as the people of God. As in the old community, not all will receive it. But you can believe all the parents – and others in the community – will be praying for the lives of their seed, as well raising them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

Although the Baptists do not acknowledge the significance of some of the things I have said, I think it can be fairly asserted that they have the _exact_ same depth and quality of prayer for their children, as well equally raising them in the same holy nurture and admonition, so that the end result is the same, those elect children in _both_ camps will be given that which the Lord has determined will be to their salvation and growth in grace. In _spirit_ the credos are one with the paedos, if not in understanding.


* Gen 17:9-14
** Gen 17:7
*** Romans 9:6
† Ro 4:11
†† Gal 3:9, 29
††† Acts 2: 38, 29; Mark 16:16
‡ Gal 6:15, 16

Quality materials for further study:

David Engelsma’s, _The Covenant of God and the Children of Believers_: http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_51.html

Herman Hoeksema’s, _Believers and Their Seed_, is a good book on the topic.

Another is Herman Hanko’s _We And Our Children_, specifically responding to Reformed Baptist David Kingdon’s _Children of Abraham_

One might not agree with all the PRC’s views, but on Infant Baptism they are good, and clear.

This wasn’t very “economical,” Susita, but I hope it helps!

Steve


----------



## Theoretical

~~Susita~~ said:


> Yes, okay, that's great! Folks, if you don't mind, I'd like to leave it at this so I can study/read my Bible for a bit, then I'll hit this thread up again.
> 
> Thanks!


Susan, you have a PM.


----------



## AV1611

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Quality materials for further study:
> 
> David Engelsma’s, _The Covenant of God and the Children of Believers_: http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_51.html



I had forgotten about this one.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Herman Hoeksema’s, _Believers and Their Seed_, is a good book on the topic.



Excellent but as one of the PRC ministers said:

_Believers and Their Seed _is not a book designed to prove infant baptism over against the baptist position. It is a book for those already convicted of the truth that "The baptism of young children is … to be retained in the church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ" (Article 24 of the 39 Articles). Herman Hoeksema grounds infant baptism in the covenant of grace with believers and their seed which in turn is rooted in the covenant life of the Triune God, "a life of the most intimate communion of love and friendship, resting in the unity of God’s Being and living through the personal distinction" of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (p. 61).

As well as grounding infant baptism in God’s covenant, Hoeksema draws out the relationship between infant baptism and election and the doctrines of grace. Thus he opposes a "conditional" covenant (chs. 1-2) and baptismal regeneration (chs. 3-4) and deals with the difficult pastoral issue of covenant children who die in infancy (ch. 11).

_Believers and Their Seed _has helped a lot of people understand infant baptism more deeply and been of great comfort to believing parents. The proper understanding of the covenant also helps to preserve Anglican, Congregational and Presbyterian churches from the incursion of baptistic thinking (pp. 4-5) and the modern practice of infant "dedication" services. For those less familiar with some of the controversies between paedobaptists (chs. 1-4), it may be best to read the positive treatment of God’s covenant and infant baptism first (chs. 5-11). ​



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Another is Herman Hanko’s _We And Our Children_, specifically responding to Reformed Baptist David Kingdon’s _Children of Abraham_



Agreed and this is better than Hoeksema's _Believers and their Seed_ if one is looking to find answers to Reformed Baptist arguments in that Hoeksema is not defending paedobaptism so much as expounding his view of the covenant which whilst excellent is not the best place to start.


----------



## aleksanderpolo

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Back to the present: When my daughter was born (1972), she was baptized while an infant. I was an ignorant young believer, knowing nothing of sound doctrine, or of the paedo-credo dispute, yet I baptized her…I suppose you might say by intuition. I see, now that I am more mature, the Scripture equates NT baptism with OT circumcision:



The Jews back at Pentecost would have baptized their infant by intuition too. They might not have a highly developed covenant theology at that time, but they had understood the covenant of grace this way for more than a thousand years, that their children are part of the covenant community. There would be riot if now in the New Covenant their children are excluded. 

Susan, remember the apostles view the New Covenant in light of their understanding of the Covenant of Grace established with Abraham, not the other way round. So, you should probably study the Covenant of Grace in the OT first in order to understand baptism, not the other way round.


----------



## Theoretical

aleksanderpolo said:


> The Jews back at Pentecost would have baptized their infant by intuition too. They might not have a highly developed covenant theology at that time, but they had understood the covenant of grace this way for more than a thousand years, that their children are part of the covenant community. There would be riot if now in the New Covenant their children are excluded.
> 
> Susan, remember the apostles view the New Covenant in light of their understanding of the Covenant of Grace established with Abraham, not the other way round. So, you should probably study the Covenant of Grace in the OT first in order to understand baptism, not the other way round.




Well said.


----------



## Puritanhead

SemperFideles said:


> If she answers my questions and thinks about the answer then she'll understand why her question about why people would baptize an unsaved infant makes no sense.


 That's only if she accepts those same inferences you do, in the course of answering her own question. You're making a case from presumption, and begging inferences that you could elucidate and explain rather than just assume that others see them. She doesn't operate from your premises, hence she doesn't draw the same conclusion. 

R.C. Sproul does a wonderful thing in his theology classes. He compels the avowed paedo-baptist pupils to study a credo-baptist book, and vice versa. It helps to know what the other side believes and why they believe it. But when someone challenges you or asks why, you can't just expect to make a challenge to their position merely by counter-questions.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Puritanhead said:


> That's only if she accepts those same inferences you do, in the course of answering her own question. You're making a case from presumption, and begging inferences that you could elucidate and explain rather than just assume that others see them. She doesn't operate from your premises, hence she doesn't draw the same conclusion.


Not at all. You'd have to see where the questions went to conclude that I was begging any inferences. My questioning was going to be along common assumptions concerning election, etc....



> R.C. Sproul does a wonderful thing in his theology classes. He compels the avowed paedo-baptist pupils to study a credo-baptist book, and vice versa. It helps to know what the other side believes and why they believe it. But when someone challenges you or asks why, you can't just expect to make a challenge to their position merely by counter-questions.



Sure I can. I know what your Confession states. I'm also interacting with a young Sister in Christ and my intent was to help. Again, the intent of Socratic questioning is to _instruct_ and help. Some people actually know the answer to some of the questions they ask.

I appreciate your concern, I just disagree with you.


----------



## non dignus

_"Repent, *and let everyone of you *be baptised..."_

Acts 2:38


----------



## JM

This title was suggested to me in support of credo but it's written by paedobaptists,  Baptism in the Early Church by Hendrik Stander and Johanes Louw.


----------



## ~~Susita~~

non dignus said:


> _"Repent, *and let everyone of you *be baptised..."_
> 
> Acts 2:38



Repent AND be baptized after doing so.

Thanks for all the info., folks. I have my work cut out for me.


----------



## Mayflower

JM said:


> This title was suggested to me in support of credo but it's written by paedobaptists,  Baptism in the Early Church by Hendrik Stander and Johanes Louw.




This was one of the books, which brought me back to the credobaptist position!


----------



## JonathanHunt

JM said:


> If you're looking for answers try Reformed Reader.




Susita, I very strongly recommend you follow this advice.


----------



## CDM

aleksanderpolo said:


> *The Jews back at Pentecost would have baptized their infant by intuition too. They might not have a highly developed covenant theology at that time, but they had understood the covenant of grace this way for more than a thousand years, that their children are part of the covenant community. There would be riot if now in the New Covenant their children are excluded*.
> 
> Susan, remember the apostles view the New Covenant in light of their understanding of the Covenant of Grace established with Abraham, not the other way round. So, you should probably study the Covenant of Grace in the OT first in order to understand baptism, not the other way round.



After many posts in Baptism threads, I have yet to hear a plausible (or any other) explanation from Baptists of why there was not even a peep from the hearers of our Lord and his Apostles that your children are now cut-off from God in this new and better covenant and oh, by the way, this severing is good news.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi Susita:

I am as perplexed as to the disagreements of Baptists towards paedo-baptism as you are concerning the arguments of paedo-baptists! So, in our mutual confusion allow me to point out a few things.

First, all agree that the children of believers were circumcised in the Old Covenant. That this circumcision brought the children under the outward dispensation of the Covenant of Grace. That not all children who were circumcised were members of the inward Covenant of Grace: Was not Esau Jacob's brother? It was the children of believers (Israel) that were to be circumcised. The children of the gentiles were not to be circumcised.

Is there anything in this first point that Credo-Baptists would find objectionable?

Second, the New Covenant teaches us that the administration of circumcision has been replaced by the administration of baptism. The strongest textual support for this idea is found here:



> In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead, Col. 2:11,12.


We can also argue from a logical standpoint: That since circumcision has been done away as the administration of entrance to the outward Covenant of Grace, then there had to be something to take its place. Baptism fits the requirements perfectly for this new administration. This is the teaching of the great Baptist theologian John Gill on Col. 2:12:



> The apostle goes on to observed how complete and perfect the saints are in Christ; that they are not only circumcised in him in a spiritual sense, and the body of the sins of their flesh is put off, and removed from them in allusion to the cutting off and casting away of the foreskin in circumcision; but that they and all their sins were buried with Christ, of which their baptism in water was a lively representation, Commentaries, vol. 9, pg. 188.


One would argue that if the connection between circumcision and baptism is "spiritually" made, than the physical representation of each cannot be logically denied. I believe that Credo-Baptists would agree that not all those who receive the *physical* sign of baptism are saved. The classic example of this would be Simon the Sorceror who was baptized by the Apostles, but was later found to be, "in the gall of bitterness" as Peter put it.

Do Credo-Baptists have any objection to the understanding that Baptism replaced Circumcision as the physical (outward) representation of membership in the Covenant of Grace?

Third, *both* Circumcision in the Old Testament and Baptism in the New Testament represented the same thing in different forms. The OT taught that it was the heart that needed Circumcising, Deut. 10:16, 30:6. This is nothing less than what the NT calls Born Again. A person cannot circumcise his own heart. Consequently, it is a work of the Spirit of God found in the shadows of the Old Testament figure of Circumcision. Paul argues the same thing in Rom. 2:25-29. Thus, when you read the description of Baptism in the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith you can read the word "circumcision" as it applied in the Old Testament:



> Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament (i.e. Circumcision is an ordinance of the Old 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, ch. 29, Of Baptism, parenthesis mine.


Now, is there any objection by the Credo-Baptists that Circumcision and Baptism represented the same thing in their respective Covenants?

Here is where the Paedo's and Credo's disagree:

That since Circumcision was given to Believers and their children, so, also, Baptism is to be given to Believers and their children.

The Credo's argue that the New Covenant is given to Believers only and not to their children. They derive this, I believe, from the "Seed of Abraham." That is, the Church is now the Seed of Abraham, and the Church consists only of those who believe in Jesus Christ. Consequently, Baptism is only for those who can make a valid profession of faith and join the church.

There are many objections to this positon:

First, if the Church were to abandon its children in such a way, then there would be clear teaching from the New Testament that children of believers are in no way to be considered outward (physical) members of the Covenant of Grace. We have, in fact, many passages in the Scriptures that teach just the opposite:



> Then were there brough unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven, Matt. 19:13,14.


If the children of believers are considered, "members of the kingdom of heaven," than how much moreso should they be considered members of the kingdom here on earth? Which is greater heaven or earth? In the parallel passage in Luke 18:15 the word "infants" is used as well as "children."

It is true that Baptism is not in view here, but membership in the kingdom of heaven is understood. Jesus, by the way, did not physically baptize anyone during his ministry.



> Then Peter said unto them, repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you, and your children, and for those who are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call, Acts 2:38,39


This much disputed passage includes the children of believers as inheritors of the "promise." To whom is referred to in the phrase, "For the promise is to you..." but those who respond to the calling of God in the preaching of the Word. All those of whom, "the Lord our God shall call" and their children are encompassed in the promises of God. Since Baptism is given to "you," then it should be given to "your children," and to "those who are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."

In order for the Credo-Baptist to support their idea that Baptism is given only to believers and not their children, they would have to cut out the phrase, "your children" here in their Bibles. If the promises given in Baptism are only for Believers, then Peter had no business to include "your children" in the passage - unless Peter is saying that "your children" will be infallibly saved - which is an untruth.



> For the unbelieveing husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy, 1 Cor. 7:14,


The children of at least one believing parent are considered "holy." How can that be? If the New Covenant is for individual professing believers only, then how can one consider the child of a believer "holy"? In other parts of the New Testament the word "holy" here is rendered "saint."

It is evident from the New Testament that the children of Believers have the same rights and priviledges that the children of the Old Testament had. The continunity between circumcision and baptism of the children of believers continues in the New Testament.

The contention of the Credo-Baptists that "Believers Only" are to be baptized, and that the children of believers are "edited out" of the outward Covenant of Grace is no where substantiated in the New Testament. Their argument is an argument from silence.

The Credo-Baptist has to produce positive evidence that the children of believers are excluded from baptism. Is there a positive command in the Bible that says that children of believers are not to be baptized? If there is no such actual command, than the inductive arguments that Credo-Baptists do use, i.e., "the only examples of baptism we have in the New Testament are believers only," is insufficient in light of the Old Testament as well as the treatment of the Children of Believers in the New Testament passages cited above.

Consequently, I lovingly call my Credo-Baptist brothers in Christ to repent of this sin, and return to Jesus Christ.

Grace and Peace,

-CH


----------



## Augusta

non dignus said:


> _"Repent, *and let everyone of you *be baptised..."_
> 
> Acts 2:38




Susita, the key word here was EVERYONE. This was a big crowd that included many children of all ages.


----------



## RamistThomist

Just wondering:

Why would children of believers have fewer privileges (no baptism, covenant seal) in the New Covenant than they did in the Old Covenant, when the new covenant is usually associated with more privileges/light/revelation?

I know that isn't a kill-shot argument, but I heard it from Gerstener and thought it was neat.


----------



## Theoretical

Draught Horse said:


> Just wondering:
> 
> Why would children of believers have fewer privileges (no baptism, covenant seal) in the New Covenant than they did in the Old Covenant, when the new covenant is usually associated with more privileges/light/revelation?
> 
> I know that isn't a kill-shot argument, but I heard it from Gerstener and thought it was neat.




That was also one of the more compelling issues for me when I decided paedo back when I was debating between the two stances.


----------



## JM

I love Reformed Reader it's a good place to post specific questions or concerns.


----------



## kvanlaan

> Originally Posted by non dignus
> "Repent, and let everyone of you be baptised..."
> 
> Acts 2:38



Didn't see that this was covered in any posts in this thread (and I _am_ paedo myself, I was baptized into the CRC in infancy) but can an infant repent? If this is a two-part command, can he _really_ be speaking to everyone? Otherwise, it almost seems to support the credos instead. Please excuse my ignorance on this, I just can't see how this is a clear support for paedobaptism as I now see it (but would love to have it explained to me.)


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I think David's reason for highlighting the words "let every one of you" is to try and get you, the reader, to ask "who is _every one of you,_" or more precisely, who would the hearers of Peter have understood that phrase to refer to? Would they have heard his say those words, look around at the group standing there, and think, "This man is speaking to *us*, commanding *us*."

I don't think so. The general call of the gospel is indiscriminate. And especially in that context, Peter may be addressing the people who happen to be in front of him at that moment, but his words have the widest conceivable application, certainly nothing _less than_ the whole city of Jerusalem, really than the whole OT church. For that church, collectively and through its leadership, had rejected the Messiah, putting him to death--which God had of course decreed to be the instrument of bringing about the salvation of the world.

It was a cosmic act of covenantal abolition, on the part of man. But Peter announces a universal call of redemption. He calls out to the *nation* to repent, and turn to the risen Christ and ask forgiveness. These are people who think covenantally. It is their covenant-consciousness that Peter uses to make his case against everyone--EVEN againt those who were not physically present at Jesus formal rejection and judicial murder (and certainly many present on this day would not have been there 50 days prior). Yet they were all cut to the heart.

Peter, therefore, would not have been heard by these Jews as simply commanding that they, as individual hearers, be baptized, but that the whole, guilty covenant people needed to re-enter covenant with the God and his Anointed they had so lately rejected. Which statement is immediately followed by the more well-known language of verse 39: "for the promise is to you, and to your children, and to those who are afar off--as many as the Lord our God shall call." This language, many of us are already familar with as echoing OT covenant language: "I will be God to you, and to you children..."

So, back to the question: who would the original hearers have understood Peter to have been referring to when he said, "... and be baptized _every one of you,_ for the promise is to you and to your children..."?

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## AV1611

JM said:


> Good link.



http://reformedreader.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1010&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=


----------



## AV1611

The Meaning of Baptism pt1

The Meaning of Baptism pt2

Household Baptisms


----------



## Mayflower

The Ancient Mode Of Baptizing, BY IMMERSION, PLUNGING, OR DIPPING INTO WATER

http://www.oldpathsbaptist.org/gill_09.html

http://www.oldpathsbaptist.org/gill_10.html

And as i wrote before read the book : Baptism in the Early Church by Prof. Hendrik Stander and Prof. Johanes Louw. Both professors are from a presbyterian paedobaptist church, and believe that mode in the early church was immersion and not sprinkling.

http://65.71.233.194/arbca/baptism_church_book.htm


----------



## rwinger61

~~Susita~~ said:


> Brothers and sisters, I want to understand infant baptism SO much right now that it's driving me to tears! I just don't get it. I'm credo, and I just don't get it and it's so frustrating!!! Please help



Don't feel too bad, the struggle is natural. It took them over 20 years to finally get me.

The main obstacle in my pre-paedo thinking was the continuity between the Testaments. Once that was overcome, everything fell into place.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Susita,

Always remember in anything you study not to start at the end of the story, but the beginning.

Paul the Apsotle is a very smart fellow, and a hard fellow to follow if you don't understand what he understood in the Hebrew Scriptures. (Remember - his Bible was the Old Testament.)

In order to to understand baptism, you have to understand the covenant sign.

In order to understand the covenant sign, you have to go back to Genesis and find out what God was doing with father Abraham when he instituted the "covenant sign".

In order to understand father Abraham, you have to understand what happened with Adam and Eve and the fall in the Covenant of works.

To understand baptism, you first have to understand "covenant" or all this will be very frustrating.


----------



## Theoretical

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> Susita,
> 
> Always remember in anything you study not to start at the end of the story, but the beginning.
> 
> Paul the Apsotle is a very smart fellow, and a hard fellow to follow if you don't understand what he understood in the Hebrew Scriptures. (Remember - his Bible was the Old Testament.)
> 
> In order to to understand baptism, you have to understand the covenant sign.
> 
> In order to understand the covenant sign, you have to go back to Genesis and find out what God was doing with father Abraham when he instituted the "covenant sign".
> 
> In order to understand father Abraham, you have to understand what happened with Adam and Eve and the fall in the Covenant of works.
> 
> To understand baptism, you first have to understand "covenant" or all this will be very frustrating.




Understanding the OT and how it follows redemptive history really is the only sound way for Infant Baptism to make sense from a sound, logical doctrinal standpoint. It is what made me an ironclad paedo after lots of debate and nearly being rebaptized (in fact being within a few hours when ilness combined with unease to make the baptism not happen).

If the NT stood alone, isolated from the OT promises and provisions, then the answer to this question would be obvious in the credobaptist direction.


----------



## AV1611

Mayflower said:


> The Ancient Mode Of Baptizing, BY IMMERSION, PLUNGING, OR DIPPING INTO WATER



It is just a slight problem for the Baptist to prove that from the Greek.


----------



## Mayflower

http://www.reformedreader.org/rbb/broadus/immersionbroadus.htm


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Greetings:

When the non-Biblical views of the Credo-Baptists are exposed for all to see they then turn to immersion vs. sprinkling in order to avoid the obvious error of their thinking. The WCF does not forbid baptism by immersion:



> Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary: but baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person, ch. 28, sect. 3.


There is plenty of evidence that the Church performed both. If an unbaptized convert in my congregation felt it necessary to be dipped, then I would not violate his conscience by not dipping him.

I have yet to see a cogent Baptist answer to my previous post. Has their inordinate pride in being "Biblical" finally been silenced?

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## Theoretical

CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings:
> 
> When the non-Biblical views of the Credo-Baptists are exposed for all to see they then turn to immersion vs. sprinkling in order to avoid the obvious error of their thinking. The WCF does not forbid baptism by immersion:
> 
> 
> There is plenty of evidence that the Church performed both. If an unbaptized convert in my congregation felt it necessary to be dipped, then I would not violate his conscience by not dipping him.
> 
> I have yet to see a cogent Baptist answer to my previous post. Has their inordinate pride in being "Biblical" finally been silenced?
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> -CH


Furthermore, it's a _non sequitur_ argument, since after all, the Eastern Orthodox practice immersionist infant baptism.

Credo/Paedo and Immersion/Sprinkling-Pouring are not inherently bound to each other.


----------



## MeanieCalvinist

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> Susita,
> 
> Always remember in anything you study not to start at the end of the story, but the beginning.
> 
> Paul the Apsotle is a very smart fellow, and a hard fellow to follow if you don't understand what he understood in the Hebrew Scriptures. (Remember - his Bible was the Old Testament.)
> 
> In order to to understand baptism, you have to understand the covenant sign.
> 
> In order to understand the covenant sign, you have to go back to Genesis and find out what God was doing with father Abraham when he instituted the "covenant sign".
> 
> In order to understand father Abraham, you have to understand what happened with Adam and Eve and the fall in the Covenant of works.
> 
> To understand baptism, you first have to understand "covenant" or all this will be very frustrating.


 Dr Matt,

I have spent much time on this very topic upon reading your book along with may others including Herman Witsius(which is indeed a great work). I must state that New Covenant is NOT like the old and CANNOT be broken by men. God is indeed faithful to His people (ie. the true seed of Abraham). I believe in INFANT baptism (spiritually speaking). Please correct me if I am wrong but is not the TRUE circumcision on that is made without hands? Israel was continually called to circumcise the foreskin on their hearts. Please help me out with this question, In your understanding how is it that God looks upon the unregenerate child differently upon baptized than he did prior? An other way of asking the question is "How does God see that child differently upon baptism then prior to?" I hope you understand the question.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

MeanieCalvinist said:


> Dr Matt,
> 
> I have spent much time on this very topic upon reading your book along with may others. Including Herman Witsius(which is indeed a great work). I must state that New Covenant is NOT like the old and CANNOT be broken by men. God is indeed faithful to in His people (ie. the true seed of Abraham). I believe in INFANT baptism (spiritually speaking). Please correct me if I am wrong but is not the TRUE circumcision on that is made without hands? Israel was continually called to circumcise the foreskin on their hearts. Please help me out with this question, In your understanding how is it that God looks upon the unregenerate child differently upon baptized than he did prior? An other way of asking the question is "How does God see that child differently upon baptism then prior to?" I hope you understand the question.



Hi:

Was the New Covenant broken by Simon the Sorceror? If not, then does that mean we only baptize the Elect? 

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## MeanieCalvinist

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> Was the New Covenant broken by Simon the Sorceror? If not, then does that mean we only baptize the Elect?
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> -CH



Greetings CH,

I do not believe Simon the Sorceror was IN Christ therefore I do not believe he was in the NC. 
Do you believe that man can break the NC? (If so please explain). 
Again, I would like to know how you believe God looks upon an unregenerate child/infant/adult differently upon baptism than He does before baptism. I look forward to both Dr. Matt's and your responses on this vital issue.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

MeanieCalvinist said:


> Greetings CH,
> 
> I do not believe Simon the Sorceror was IN Christ therefore I do not believe he was in the NC.
> Do you believe that man can break the NC? (If so please explain).



Greetings:

I am taking you on your own Baptist presuppositions:

Was Simon the Sorceror Baptized?

Yes.

What does that mean to a Baptist? Was Simon the Sorceror Baptized into the New Covenant?

Yes or No?

The Paedo-baptist would say that Simon was baptized into the outward (physical) administration of the Covenant. That, as long as his profession of faith remained legitimate, he was a member of the Church, and received all the priviledges and rights thereunto. We would treat and consider him a true Christian man unless he proved otherwise.

In being Baptized Simon the Sorceror made a Covenant with God of which he broke.

The unbreakable Covenant is God's Covenant with the Elect. If you baptize people based on this criterion (which the Apostles did not), then you must baptize only the Elect. Who here is arrogant enough to claim they know who are elect or not?

I have heard it said from Baptists, "Oh, we do our best..."

Well, your best is not good enough when you consider that you are talking about God's everlasting and unbreakable Covenant. The Covenant made at Baptism is everlasting and unbreakable only to the Elect, and not to the non-Elect.

We do not baptize people based on Election, but on the Covenant Promises of God:

"...For the promise is to you, your children, and those who are afar off..." 

You wrote:



> Again, I would like to know how you believe God looks upon an unregenerate child/infant/adult differently upon baptism than He does before baptism.


From Scripture:



> For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now they are holy, 1 Cor. 7:14.


The child of a believer is considered "holy" or "set apart." As I have noted in other posts the term used here is translated in other places as "saint."

Consider, your Baptist presuppositions would lead you to strike out this verse in the Bible. The child is not considered "holy" because the child believes, but because one, or both, of his parents believe. Your views lead you astray of the Word of God, and not towards it.

Repent (metanoeo) of this unbelieving mindset.

Peace,

-CH


----------



## ReformedWretch

How is one "holy" before one "believes"? I am not doubting scripture, just looking for an explanation. For example, my daughter. She is clearly NOT a "believer", at what time, or age was or is she no longer holy? When it is "evident" that she does not "believe"? Up until that point she was "holy"? If so, that means what exactly?


----------



## ChristianTrader

houseparent said:


> How is one "holy" before one "believes"? I am not doubting scripture, just looking for an explanation. For example, my daughter. She is clearly NOT a "believer", at what time, or age was or is she no longer holy? When it is "evident" that she does not "believe"? Up until that point she was "holy"? If so, that means what exactly?



I would say that a person is to be considered holy and set apart until they are no longer set apart. I would think it would be somewhere between the lines when they are barred from the Lord's Table and excommunication.

CT


----------



## ReformedWretch

Ok, so if she had died before she was "barred" she would have stood justified before God due to her baptism? If so, isn't this another form/way of salvation? Do paedo's argue that baptized infants stand justified before God based on baptism up until they can "decide" or we can decide that they are not elect?

It all honestly confuses me, and always has.


----------



## JM

As B.B. Warfield said, "It is true that there is no express command to baptize infants in the New Testament, no express record of the baptism of infants and no passage so stringently implying it that we must infer from them that infants were baptized. If such warrant as this were necessary to justify the usage, we would have to leave it completely unjustified. But the lack of this express warrant is something far short of forbidding the rite; and if the continuity of the church through all ages can be made good, the warrant for infant baptism is not to be sought in the New Testament, but in the Old Testament where the church was instituted and nothing short of an actual forbidding of it in the New Testament would warrant our omitting it now."

Regulative principle: Whatever is not commanded by Scripture in the worship of God is forbidden.


----------



## ReformedWretch

> Regulative principle: Whatever is not commanded by Scripture in the worship of God is forbidden.



Which leads to this article I found

Infant Baptism and the Regulative Principle of Worship


Our Presbyterian friends often state that the authority for infant baptism comes from "good and necessary inference" of Old Testament circumcision of infants, not from positive command, example, or institution in the New (Warfield, Berkhof, Murray, et al). In fact, they candidly and regularly admit that there is no command or example of infant baptism in the New Testament, or indeed, in all the Scriptures.

Baptists often reject Presbyterian infant baptism by showing that the Paedobaptist ("infant Baptist") brand of covenant theology erroneously allows "good and necessary inference" from Old Testament circumcision to overrule the only positive institution of baptism in the New Testament, namely, that of disciples alone. This is a proper argument. However, few recognize that this Presbyterian error is a violation of their own "regulative principle of worship." Yet, the practice of infant baptism does just that.

This may not seem to be a very significant statement at first, but since the regulative principle is taught and championed by our Presbyterian brethren, it actually is a very serious charge. It means that they contradict their most important principle of worship every time they baptize an infant.

Baptists have held historically to the very same regulative principle of worship, though many have forgotten that today. In fact, we ultimately practice "the baptism of disciples alone" because of it. I am convinced that one reason that some Baptists are becoming Presbyterians is because Baptists do not understand the regulative principle any more.

Obviously, Baptists and Presbyterians cannot both be right on the question of baptism. Granted, this issue is not essential to salvation (as is, for example, justification by faith alone), but it does concern a sacrament of the church and thus cannot be dismissed as unimportant (though some ministers have tried to do just that in order to serve in the Presbyterian ministry). Baptists who are tempted to forsake the theologically troubled Baptist Zion for more comfortable Presbyterianism may not realize that they must violate the Presbyterian (and Baptist) regulative principle of worship to do so.

In order for me to prove my thesis I will first define "the regulative principle" from Presbyterian sources and then show why I believe that infant baptism is a clear violation of that principle.
What is the regulative principle of worship?

According to the Westminster Presbyterian and the 1689 London Baptist Confession (the mother confession of American and Southern Baptists),

the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture (WCF 21:1; italics mine).

This regulative principle teaches that God-approved Christian worship includes only elements and practices "instituted by God Himself limited by his own revealed will [and not] any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture." In other words, speculation, invention, imagination, and uncommanded practices, etc., cannot be permitted to change or neglect instituted worship. Therefore, the only elements of worship approved in the regulative tradition, according to Scripture, are:

Prayers: The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear; the sound preaching, and conscionable hearing of the word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith, and reverence; singing of psalms with grace in the heart; as also the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ; are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God: besides religious oaths and vows, solemn fasting, and thanksgivings upon special occasions, which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in a holy and religious manner (WCF 21:4-5; italics mine).

Prayer, the reading and preaching of Scripture, singing, the sacraments, vows, thanksgivings, etc., are the only authorized elements of Reformed worship. It should be noted that the only sacraments which are approved as elements of worship are those which have been "instituted by Christ" himself, not by "good and necessary inference.

On the other hand, the "normative principle of worship" is practiced by Lutherans, Anglicans, Roman Catholics, and, apparently, by many charismatic and fundamental Baptists. They are joined by a growing number of Southern Baptists who, sometimes ignorantly, have turned from their theological heritage in the regulative.

The normative principle teaches that worship must consist of that which is commanded by God and may also include that which is not specifically prohibited by Scripture. This opens the door to many uncommanded activities which often limit the practice of those commanded elements. The result too often is seen in public worship which has very little Scripture reading and twenty minute sermonettes.

Obviously, the normative principle invites invention, creativity, and new elements of worship which are never commanded or mentioned in Scripture. It also permits practices which are prescribed in Old Testament worship to be used in New Testament Christian worship by "good and necessary inference," even if these practices are not prescribed for Christian worship. This accounts for the traditional differences in worship between those from normative versus regulative backgrounds. It also explains the normative additions of pageantry, altars, priesthoods, vestments, prayer books, mariolatry, prayers to saints, and other practices not instituted by Scripture for Gospel worship. Others today add drama, dance, puppets, clowns, movies, magicians, comedians, weight lifting, high-pressured "altar calls," entertainment, and whatever else their heart desires. When one holds to the normative principle, another must ask: "Where will it end up?"

The regulative principle has always included "that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word, which are always to be observed" (WCF 1:6). However, these circumstances of worship are always limited to time, place, order of worship, length of worship, language, pews, air conditioning, etc., issues which are common to any human society (see The Westminster Confession of Faith, by G. I. Williamson, 161). They have never included new uncommanded activities such as those mentioned above.

Adding to the confusion, others who claim to hold to the regulative principle have redefined the simpler elements of worship to include creative "applications" of those elements by "good and necessary inference." Thus they justify new practices such as drama as a form of preaching and dance as a form of praise. These are justified by "good and necessary inference" even though such practices are never commanded in either Old Testament worship or New Testament Christian worship. Such teachers have, whether unwittingly or purposefully, returned to the normative principle of worship by adding what Scripture has not specifically prohibited. No amount of protesting to the contrary can change this fact.

In summary, the Reformed regulative principle of worship allows only those elements of worship which have been positively instituted and commanded by God in Scripture.
What does the regulative principle have to do with infant baptism?

Infant baptism violates the regulative principle of worship. Baptism is one of the sacraments which has been "instituted by Christ." Thus it is regulated by God, limited by His revealed will, and prescribed by Holy Scripture. This regulation extends to the subjects of baptism. Who are to be baptized? How are they to be baptized? Why are they to be baptized? To answer these questions we must ask a more basic one: What has been "instituted by Christ?"

Christ's institution of baptism, in its mode, meaning, and subjects is to be regulated by the Word of God. Yet, as Baptists and Paedobaptists agree, the only subjects of baptism which can be conclusively determined by Scripture are professing disciples. Infants are included only by "good and necessary consequence," a normative addition which is never commanded in the Bible. The practice of baptizing babies violates the regulative principle.

Amazingly, Paedobaptist apologist, Pierre Marcel, actually states that God only gives us general instructions concerning the doctrine of baptism and then leaves it up to us to determine its practical application to infants. This is done, he argues, by "normative principles." He compares the practice of infant baptism to the work of application in preaching. This is a woefully inadequate comparison when one considers the Westminster Confession's inclusion of sacraments under the regulative principle of worship. Marcel writes,

The Church never confines herself merely to the letter, but, working from the data of Scripture and under the control of the Holy Spirit, she affirms normative principles and elaborates the consequences and applications which make her life and development possible and effective. Were it not so, the exercise of the pastoral ministry, the cure of souls, preaching, discipline, and so on, would be absolutely impossible! It is thus that the Church operates when she passes from adult to infant baptism. Scripture affords general instruction on baptism, its meaning and value, and the Church applies it concretely in life. If Scripture assigns to the children of believers the enjoyment of the same privileges as are experienced by those who are of an age to confess their faith, and since it nowhere makes mention of a baptismal ministry which should have been applied to adults born of Christian parents, it has said sufficient on this point, without needing to have prescribed literally the baptism of infants.[1]

It is astonishing that Marcel admits that infant baptism is practiced on "normative principles" and therefore does not need to be prescribed literally by Scripture! This is clearly an application of the normative principle, not the regulative, to a sacrament "instituted by Christ." It is even more astonishing to see how he uses the lack of biblical instruction concerning the baptism of adults who were born to Christian parents. He makes these adult children of believers a special class and then cites the Bible's silence regarding their baptism to justify the baptism of infants.

It is not true that the Scripture is silent on the baptism of "adults born of Christian parents." They, along with adults born of non-Christian parents as well as men and women, boys and girls of every age are commanded by the Lord through the Scripture to repent and believe the gospel. Those who do, regardless of their backgrounds, should, like the first century believers of the New Testament, be baptized (Acts 2:41).

To make a special class out of the adult children of believers and then to equate the Scripture's silence regarding them with its silence on infant baptism is preposterous. Such thinking can lead anywhere, even back to the seven sacraments of Roman Catholicism. After all, the Scripture is no more silent on infant baptism than it is on the administration of last rites.

One fundamental question remains: if Christ did not actually institute infant baptism, how can it be, in the language of the confession, a sacrament "instituted by Christ?" Marcel's explanation of infant baptism on "normative principles" constitutes a Paedobaptist affirmation of what has been maintained in this article, that infant baptism is a violation of the regulative principle of worship and is based upon the normative principle.

When God instituted circumcision, He was very specific to identify its subjects. This is why infants were circumcised. This is in keeping with the regulative principle. Now in this New Testament era are we to assume that the regulative principle concerning the subjects of the sacraments "instituted by Christ" (baptism and the Lord's Supper), limited by God's revealed will, and prescribed by Holy Scripture, are to be left to our application as if it were an uncommanded circumstance of worship? If words mean anything, obviously not. According to the regulative principle, the only subjects of baptism "instituted by Christ" and prescribed in Holy Scripture are disciples.

I am convinced that the "good and necessary inference" which establishes infant baptism, has opened the door to other difficulties within the Reformed and evangelical Christian world. Theonomy, paedocommunion, and more recently, stated applications of the regulative principle of worship which in fact have transformed it into the old normative principle, are three such examples. Or could it be that infant baptism was always based upon the normative principle instead of the regulative? That is my conclusion. Perhaps we all, Presbyterians and Baptists alike, need to recommit ourselves to the biblically based regulative principle of worship and follow it where it leads us.

Neither Baptists nor Paedobaptists have a corner on the truth. Both need to examine our beliefs and practices in the light of God's Word. The heritage which we share in the Protestant Reformation reminds us that the church must be "reformed and always reforming according to the Word of God." Why do we do what we do in worship? How are the sacraments of the church to be observed? What does the Word specifically say about the subjects of baptism? These questions must be answered from the Bible. Such an exercise will prove beneficial for every child of God. Further, it should make us careful not to violate Scripturally regulated worship through the incorporation of uncommanded, uninstituted, unrevealed, and unprescribed practices.


----------



## AV1611

JM said:


> Regulative principle: Whatever is not commanded by Scripture in the worship of God is forbidden.



You are misapplying the RPW


----------



## ReformedWretch

Ah, well ok then, never mind.....


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I recall Dr. McMahon dealt with the Baptized RPW argument as Fred Malone makes it, here.


----------



## JM

NaphtaliPress said:


> I recall Dr. McMahon dealt with the Baptized RPW argument as Fred Malone makes it, here.



That settles it then, I guess.


----------



## JM

JM said:


> That settles it then, I guess.




Allow me to restate the above: The debate still rages.

Found the quote here.

j


----------



## MeanieCalvinist

CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings:
> 
> I am taking you on your own Baptist presuppositions:
> 
> Was Simon the Sorceror Baptized?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> What does that mean to a Baptist? Was Simon the Sorceror Baptized into the New Covenant?
> 
> Yes or No?
> 
> The Paedo-baptist would say that Simon was baptized into the outward (physical) administration of the Covenant. That, as long as his profession of faith remained legitimate, he was a member of the Church, and received all the priviledges and rights thereunto. We would treat and consider him a true Christian man unless he proved otherwise.
> 
> In being Baptized Simon the Sorceror made a Covenant with God of which he broke.
> 
> The unbreakable Covenant is God's Covenant with the Elect. If you baptize people based on this criterion (which the Apostles did not), then you must baptize only the Elect. Who here is arrogant enough to claim they know who are elect or not?
> 
> I have heard it said from Baptists, "Oh, we do our best..."
> 
> Well, your best is not good enough when you consider that you are talking about God's everlasting and unbreakable Covenant. The Covenant made at Baptism is everlasting and unbreakable only to the Elect, and not to the non-Elect.
> 
> We do not baptize people based on Election, but on the Covenant Promises of God:
> 
> "...For the promise is to you, your children, and those who are afar off..."
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> 
> From Scripture:
> 
> 
> The child of a believer is considered "holy" or "set apart." As I have noted in other posts the term used here is translated in other places as "saint."
> 
> Consider, your Baptist presuppositions would lead you to strike out this verse in the Bible. The child is not considered "holy" because the child believes, but because one, or both, of his parents believe. Your views lead you astray of the Word of God, and not towards it.
> 
> Repent (metanoeo) of this unbelieving mindset.
> 
> Peace,
> 
> -CH



CH,

I would love to continue our dialogue, however, statements like, "..your Baptist presuppositions would lead you to strike this verse in the Bible.." and "Repent of this unbelieving mindset" right off the bat does not bring glory to our to our Lord and Savior. You have assumed that I believe baptism to be the sign of the New Covenant(which I do not). The passage in 1 Cor 7 is not addressing baptism at all. I believe the sign of the NC is circumcision just as it was in the the Old. 

I am simply asking a question concerning your understanding of how God sees unregenerage children (ie unrepentant unbelieving children) differently when they are baptized. Please explain this to me.
I only see two classes of people in the bible believers (children of God) and unbelievers (children of wrath). 

Instead of getting a bit upset of somewhat nasty in your response why not dialogue with me and be patient? (lets show fruits of the Spirit).

In Christ,

MC


----------



## ReformedWretch

from that article;



> Lastly, there are practical flaws in the paedobaptist theology. Those who sprinkle infants are on the horns of a dilemma. Either they must tamper with the definition of baptism to make it signify something less than personal spiritual union with Christ as the Bible clearly teaches; or they will be driven to teach infant salvation or presumptive regeneration. If the first course is chosen, one must also corrupt the New Testament view of the church and its discipline. If some who are less than saved are properly to be considered as members of Christ's body, there is a great deal of stress with the New Testament's view of membership and fellowship. If the second course is chosen, one's pedagogy will be affected. How are parents and pastors to address the children if they are viewed as joined to Christ? Unfortunately, much paedobaptist literature written for children reflects a tendency to address them as believers, not as in need of evangelism. Note the interesting historic dispute on this subject by paedobaptist theologians J.H.Thornwell and R.L.Dabney on one hand, and Charles Hodge on the other.



Here is and always has been my biggest struggle with paedobaptism. I've always stayed out of this debate because I fear some will think less of me for where I stand and at this point, where I think I shall remain.


----------



## ReformedWretch

> however, statements like, "..your Baptist presuppositions would lead you to strike this verse in the Bible.." and "Repent of this unbelieving mindset" right off the bat does not bring glory to our to our Lord and Savior.



I agree that we can do without statements like these.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

MeanieCalvinist said:


> CH,
> 
> I would love to continue our dialogue, however, statements like, "..your Baptist presuppositions would lead you to strike this verse in the Bible.." and "Repent of this unbelieving mindset" right off the bat does not bring glory to our to our Lord and Savior. You have assumed that I believe baptism to be the sign of the New Covenant(which I do not). The passage in 1 Cor 7 is not addressing baptism at all. I believe the sign of the NC is circumcision just as it was in the the Old.
> 
> I am simply asking a question concerning your understanding of how God sees unregenerage children (ie unrepentant unbelieving children) differently when they are baptized. Please explain this to me.
> I only see two classes of people in the bible believers (children of God) and unbelievers (children of wrath).
> 
> Instead of getting a bit upset of somewhat nasty in your response why not dialogue with me and be patient? (lets show fruits of the Spirit).
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> MC



MC:

Your signature proclaims you to be a Baptist of the 1689 character. Is it "nasty" of me to hold you to your tradition? Is it "nasty" of me to call you to repentance for an obviously non-biblical mindset? If this is how you define "nasty" than I stand in good company with Jesus and His Apostles.

I have answered your question with 1 Cor. 7:14. The child of a believer is considered "holy." Whether baptism is in view here or not is irrelevant. Before the child is baptized he is considered "holy." After the child is baptized he is considered "holy." That is the attitude of the Bible whether or not the child is baptized. The implications concerning unbelieving parents I will leave at the intuitive level of this passage.

Would you not baptize someone of whom the Bible proclaims as "holy" and "set apart"? Where would you find prohibition on such a matter?

"That only individual professing believers are to be baptized" is nowhere substantiated in the Scriptures.

Repent of this.

-CH


----------



## ReformedWretch

Again, CH..there are MANY here who hold to differing views on baptism and we fellowship in unity. You're coming across to harshly here and I am personally asking you to step back a little or leave the thread. Baptists could call YOU to repentance and we could go back and forth all day with that nonsense, but that would be foolish. Address the arguments and debates within this post without coming across as someone who has it all figured out please.


----------



## MeanieCalvinist

CalvinandHodges said:


> MC:
> 
> Your signature proclaims you to be a Baptist of the 1689 character. Is it "nasty" of me to hold you to your tradition? Is it "nasty" of me to call you to repentance for an obviously non-biblical mindset? If this is how you define "nasty" than I stand in good company with Jesus and His Apostles.
> 
> I have answered your question with 1 Cor. 7:14. The child of a believer is considered "holy." Whether baptism is in view here or not is irrelevant. Before the child is baptized he is considered "holy." After the child is baptized he is considered "holy." That is the attitude of the Bible whether or not the child is baptized. The implications concerning unbelieving parents I will leave at the intuitive level of this passage.
> 
> Would you not baptize someone of whom the Bible proclaims as "holy" and "set apart"? Where would you find prohibition on such a matter?
> 
> "That only individual professing believers are to be baptized" is nowhere substantiated in the Scriptures.
> 
> Repent of this.
> 
> -CH



CH, 
So what you are saying is that unbaptized children of believing parents are indeed "holy" in God's sight? If that is the case, as a baptist holding to believer's baptism, it should not matter whether or not I baptize my children for they are already "holy" in His sight.(according to your above statement). Maybe you could clarify this for me. I thought that unbaptized children are considered unclean in many Presbyterian circles. Just as those in the OT were when they did not recieve the sign of circumcision. (being cut off). What does the WCF have to say on this issue? Do you not hold any creeds or confessions yourself? I look forward to your response.

In Christ,

MC


----------



## ReformedWretch

This is how I expect to see us debate. Simple questions/inquiries, not overly bold statements calling for repentance.


----------



## aleksanderpolo

I think I see a problem here:

If I am not mistaken, I have seen more than once that Baptists on this board deny that Baptism is the sign of the New Covenant, because not all baptized are in the "unbreakable" New Covenant.

If this is so, Jer 31 has nothing to do with Baptism, because Jer 31 talks about the "unbreakable" New Covenant, and if Baptism is not the sign of this New Covenant, then we shouldn't use this passage to suggest Baptism can only be administered to professed believers only, am I right? 

And I supposed this passage: *Jer 31:34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord.

*

means that we shouldn't have Sunday school and teaching in the "New Covenant Age", when the "unbreakable" New Covenant has already fully fullfilled now?


----------



## JM

*Quote:*
What is covenant theology? The straightforward, if provocative answer to that question is that it is what is nowadays called a hermeneutic -- that is, a way of reading the whole Bible that is itself part of the overall interpretation of the Bible that it undergirds. A successful hermeneutic is a consistent interpretative procedure yielding a consistent understanding of Scripture in turn confirms the propriety of the procedure itself.
and

*Quote:*
It is a hermeneutic that forces itself upon every thoughtful Bible-reader who gets to the place, first, of reading, hearing, and digesting Holy Scripture as didactic instruction given through human agents by God himself, in person; second, of recognizing that what the God who speaks the Scriptures tells us about in their pages is his own sustained sovereign action in creation, providence, and grace; third, of discerning that in our salvation by grace God stands revealed as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, executing in tripersonal unity a single cooperative enterprise of raising sinners from the gutter of spiritual destitution to share Christ's glory for ever; and, fourth, of seeing that God-centered thought and life, springing responsively from a God-wrought change of heart that expresses itself spontaneously in grateful praise, is the essence of true knowledge of God. Once Christians have got this far, the covenant theology of the Scriptures is something that they can hardly miss.

J.I.Packer link


----------



## MeanieCalvinist

aleksanderpolo said:


> I think I see a problem here:
> 
> If I am not mistaken, I have seen more than once that Baptists on this board deny that Baptism is the sign of the New Covenant, because not all baptized are in the "unbreakable" New Covenant.
> 
> If this is so, Jer 31 has nothing to do with Baptism, because Jer 31 talks about the "unbreakable" New Covenant, and if Baptism is not the sign of this New Covenant, then we shouldn't use this passage to suggest Baptism can only be administered to professed believers only, am I right?
> 
> And I supposed this passage: *Jer 31:34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord.
> 
> *
> 
> means that we shouldn't have Sunday school and teaching in the "New Covenant Age", when the "unbreakable" New Covenant has already fully fullfilled now?




Hi aleksanderpolo!

I understand what you are saying concerning teachers in the NC. I DO believe that their is a need for teachers in the NC. What is being expressed in this passage is that those who are in the NC will know the Lord. (Making it a believers Covenant). Israel was always being called to circumcise the foreskin of their hearts and to be stiff-necked no longer. That is because not all Israel was the "Israel of God". So I believe there are teachers in the NC and that this passage does not say, "no longer shall each teach." It says," no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord." To me this passage is a clear demonstration to the idea that the NC is a Covenant that is exclusively made up of believers. (Those for whom Christ died). Hopefully what I said makes sense to you.

In Christ,

MC


----------



## Barnpreacher

Isn't the issue of breaking covenant dealing with the unbelief of the individual?

For example when Korah died and went alive into the pit in Numbers 16 how did he break covenant? Was it because he rebelled against the authority of Moses? No, he broke covenant because of his unbelief. He was never a part of "true Israel." Yet he was a part of the visible covenant community. He received blessings as being a part of God's outward covenantal group. But in the end he died and went to hell because of his unbelief.

So then in the same regard is that not how one breaks the New Covenant? In their unbelief they refuse to repent and believe the gospel. They die as an unbeliever even though they may have been a part of God's visible church they were never a part of the "true Israel", the invisible Church.

One can't really put a distinction between unbelief in the OC and unbelief in the NC can they? It's unbelief that causes a man to break covenant and die and go to hell. If that's not what caused Korah to break covenant then what did? Was he holy and righteous up until the point of Numbers 16 when he rebelled against God? Then all of a sudden he "broke covenant"? That can't be it at all because that would make his righteousness the basis of his standing. He was just never a part of the true church and neither are those in the New Covenant who die in unbelief. They can be a baptized member of a local church and still die and go to hell.

In that regard the New Covenant isn't any different from the old, is it?


----------



## CalvinandHodges

MeanieCalvinist said:


> CH,
> So what you are saying is that unbaptized children of believing parents are indeed "holy" in God's sight? If that is the case, as a baptist holding to believer's baptism, it should not matter whether or not I baptize my children for they are already "holy" in His sight.(according to your above statement). Maybe you could clarify this for me. I thought that unbaptized children are considered unclean in many Presbyterian circles. Just as those in the OT were when they did not recieve the sign of circumcision. (being cut off). What does the WCF have to say on this issue? Do you not hold any creeds or confessions yourself? I look forward to your response.
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> MC


Greetings:

It would matter because baptizing your children is a matter of obedience to the Coveant you made with God. Baptism is a sacrament, a ritual, it does not "make" you holy. You should be aware of this because in your own tradition one has to make a profession of faith *before* he is baptized: you must be "born again" or be "holy" before you can be baptized.

As I understand it many children of believer's die in the womb, or at childbirth, or before they can be baptized. One can use 1 Cor. 7:14 to comfort the bereaved parents. I hold to the Westminister Standards, and the Three Forms of Unity.



> Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how He pleaseth: so also, are all other elect persons who are uncapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word, WCF 10:3, c.f. 1689 chapter 10.



A person who says that someone is "unclean" before he is baptized sounds like an argument from Baptismal Regeneration or some similar error. A person dunked in water or having water poured on the head does not have his sins cleansed: it is an outward sign of the washing and renewing of the Holy Ghost.

Where is your command to forbid children of believers from Baptism when we have so many encouragements from Scripture to do so?

Baptism of Believers Only is not Scriptural. It is an error that needs to be repented of.

Grace and Peace,

-CH


----------



## Semper Fidelis

houseparent said:


> from that article;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastly, there are practical flaws in the paedobaptist theology. Those who sprinkle infants are on the horns of a dilemma. Either they must tamper with the definition of baptism to make it signify something less than personal spiritual union with Christ as the Bible clearly teaches; or they will be driven to teach infant salvation or presumptive regeneration. If the first course is chosen, one must also corrupt the New Testament view of the church and its discipline. If some who are less than saved are properly to be considered as members of Christ's body, there is a great deal of stress with the New Testament's view of membership and fellowship. If the second course is chosen, one's pedagogy will be affected. How are parents and pastors to address the children if they are viewed as joined to Christ? Unfortunately, much paedobaptist literature written for children reflects a tendency to address them as believers, not as in need of evangelism. Note the interesting historic dispute on this subject by paedobaptist theologians J.H.Thornwell and R.L.Dabney on one hand, and Charles Hodge on the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is and always has been my biggest struggle with paedobaptism. I've always stayed out of this debate because I fear some will think less of me for where I stand and at this point, where I think I shall remain.
Click to expand...

Adam,

I always find it strange and ironic when Baptists state the above about the paedobaptist position.

Here is the WCF on the significance of Baptism:


> 1. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his Church until the end of the world.


Here is the LBCF on Baptism's significance:


> 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.


The WCF is _stronger_ not weaker on the fact that Baptism signifies spiritual union with Christ.

Now, if what the author of the quote intends to say is that, in Baptism, _actual_ spiritual union with Christ has been conferred then he, not we, are on the horns of a dilemna. Why? Because people like Simon the Sorceror are baptized!

I find much Baptist argumentation to be tactical in argumentation rather than actually valid criticisms. There is not a single charge that can be levied agains the practice of baptizing the potential apostate that cannot be immediately levied back on their practice. They know very well, when pressed, that they are not baptizing merely the elect when they baptize.



aleksanderpolo said:


> I think I see a problem here:
> 
> If I am not mistaken, I have seen more than once that Baptists on this board deny that Baptism is the sign of the New Covenant, because not all baptized are in the "unbreakable" New Covenant.
> 
> If this is so, Jer 31 has nothing to do with Baptism, because Jer 31 talks about the "unbreakable" New Covenant, and if Baptism is not the sign of this New Covenant, then we shouldn't use this passage to suggest Baptism can only be administered to professed believers only, am I right?


I've probably typed this 100 times on this board. This is exactly the case.

The unbreakability of the New Covenant has NOTHING to do with who is baptized. Nada. Zero. Zip.

I suggest Baptists read this thread again: http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=21492

Notice around Post #42 that I promise Bill that I will quote him next time a Baptist starts using the unbreakability of the New Covenant for participation in the Sacraments of the Church:


> Originally written by Bill Brown:
> You suggested that Baptists do not want to corrupt New Covenant membership by admitting those who may not be in the New Covenant. First and foremost, the New Covenant cannot be corrupted. There are corrupt people who claim the inward blessings of the covenant, but they have not corrupted the covenant itself. I don't know about other Baptist ministers, but when someone asks to become a member of our church we do not officiate as arbiters as to whether they are granted membership in the New Covenant. No, our concern is whether they give assent to exercising repentance and faith, are seeking to live a life obedient to scripture and have been baptized.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for writing this. I will quote you the next time a Baptism thread comes up and somebody argues for believers-only baptism on the basis of Hebrews 6 or Jeremiah 31 and says something like: "But the New Covenant can't be violated..." as an argument. You make my point well that this is an invalid argument and yet it dominates Reformed Baptist literature as the penultimate reason for credo-baptism.
Click to expand...

This is the irony of how much ink is wasted in Reformed Baptist literature estabilishing the unbreakability of the New Covenant as the grounds for credo-Baptism. It's rather like they spend 99% of their time erecting a fortress on a hill but then when the discussion of a flesh and blood human being is presented for baptism, they don't ask the question: Are you elect?

Really, the frailty of the Baptist argument would be revealed for what it was if Baptists understood that the unbreakability of the New Covenant doesn't give them the warrant they desire. They are left, fundamentally, with a single argument for credo-baptism and that is historical narrative.

That is, they have passages that, on the face of it, seem to imply that only professing adults are to be baptized but this is not actually taught. "Believe and be baptized" are collected as prooftexts while "this promise is to you and your children..." is ignored. It ought to be noted that, on the one hand, historical narrative is a flimsy method of estabilishing the necessity of a doctrine (compared to didactic teaching) and that there are narrative passages that contradict their position that are discarded arbitrarily, on the other.


----------



## non dignus

A really, *REALLY *consistent Baptist should only baptize believers on their deathbed, because then he can look back at the subject's life and see they are "really, *REALLY * elect". Really.


----------



## ReformedWretch

Are there missing posts in this thread?


----------



## Puritanhead

SemperFideles said:


> they don't ask the question: Are you elect?


 Your earlier premise doesn't logically lead to the right conclusion here Rich. You're going in circles and contradicting yourself in the end. I thought it was implicit in statement "they will be driven to teach infant salvation or presumptive regeneration." But anyway I submit that baptist article is not well though-out objection anyway. So, why trivialize the Baptist argument by entertaining and dwelling on a weak argument, and imputing it to all Baptists?


----------



## ReformedWretch

> The thread so far has negated its purpose of inquiry in the comments and topical debates that have ensued.



If I could I would have locked this thread a looooong time ago for that simple reason.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

houseparent said:


> Are there missing posts in this thread?



All moved to the other thread because they got way off of what was being discussed.


----------

