# Poll: Type of Baptism?



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Jun 26, 2008)

Sorry if this has already come up. I would like to know what your views on not only persons baptized, but mode of baptism as well.

Paedo, Immersion - Philip Schaff (maybe)
Paedo, Triune Immersion - Eastern Hetero... Orthodox
Paedo, Sprinkling (Aspersion) - Most Presbyterians
Paedo, Pouring (Affusion) - Some Presbyterians
Paedo, "Just get 'em wet" - Presbyterian/Reformed
Credo, Immersion - John MacArthur
Credo, Triune Immersion - Brethren Churches
Credo, Sprinkling/Pouring - John Smyth, early Anabaptists
Credo, "Just get 'em wet" - Not sure about any of these
Credo, but accept previous infant baptism - John Piper
Water baptism no longer applies - Salvation Army
Other (Please Explain)

This came from the discussion about RB's rebaptizing (or properly baptizing, as the case may be) those baptized/dedicated as infants. Are all RB churches immersionist? Would they require an adult who had water poured on him to be immersed?

I for one believe pouring is proper, since as John baptized with water, so Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit and fire, which were poured out on us. I don't believe immersion or sprinkling (which I had done) are wrong, just less proper. Discuss.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 26, 2008)

For me it would involve situations that also are circumstancial. I would hold to an immersionists confessional Credo view as being the most biblical. But I also note that the word baptizo in the Septuagint also included pouring for ceremonial cleansing of homes and such. Some wheel chair bound people might not be able to be immersed so I wouldn't have a problem pouring for them as being biblical. 

When you mention triune immersion I take it you mean dipping them three times in each of the persons names. I for one do not think that is biblical since the word name is singular. I will vote credo immersion but note I am not stuck on the mode.


----------



## danmpem (Jun 26, 2008)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> For me it would involve situations that also are circumstancial. I would hold to an immersionists confessional Credo view as being the most biblical. But I also note that the word baptizo in the Septuagint also included pouring for ceremonial cleansing of homes and such. Some wheel chair bound people might not be able to be immersed so I wouldn't have a problem pouring for them as being biblical.



I'm not using this as any kind of grounds for one way or another, but there was a man a few years back who was wheel chair bound and was carried down to a swimming pool and baptized there. My pastors were so set on getting this guy immersed that they wouldn't let anything get in the way, and the guy seemed to love every minute of it!


----------



## christiana (Jun 26, 2008)

We baptize believers, immersed, in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit! Buried with Christ in baptism, raised to live eternally with Him!

Soli deo gloria!!


----------



## Christusregnat (Jun 26, 2008)

Households converted require baptism of adults and children, so clearly I cannot choose the wine in front of you!

Children born in converted families require baptism as children, so clearly I cannot choose the wine in front of me!

Immerse does not mean to baptise, and baptise does mean immerse... wait what's that thing over there?!

Nevermind... it was nothing!

So, it depends.

The second, and only slightly less well known, is THIS, never enter a battle of wits with a Presbyterian when washing's on the line!! A HA HA! A HA HA! A HA HA HA!!....


----------



## Romans922 (Jun 26, 2008)

What is the difference between aspersion and affusion?

And for most/some presbyterians when baptizing do you "grab" the water and sprinkle/pour 1x or 3x (doing it 1x per name for each of the 3 persons of the Godhead)?


----------



## Barnpreacher (Jun 26, 2008)

christiana said:


> We baptize believers, immersed, in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit! Buried with Christ in baptism, raised to live eternally with Him!
> 
> Soli deo gloria!!



We baptize *professing* believers.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jun 27, 2008)

I'll see your profession, and raise you a snooty presbyterian comment:

We baptize those that *God professes* to be believers!





Barnpreacher said:


> christiana said:
> 
> 
> > We baptize believers, immersed, in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit! Buried with Christ in baptism, raised to live eternally with Him!
> ...


----------



## Zenas (Jun 27, 2008)

I chose the closest one, which was Paedo via whatever mode. 

However, I also fully ascribe to credo via any mode when an adult comes to the faith.


----------



## Dwimble (Jun 27, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> Households converted require baptism of adults and children, so clearly I cannot choose the wine in front of you!
> 
> Children born in converted families require baptism as children, so clearly I cannot choose the wine in front of me!
> 
> ...


Bravo!

I chose "all of the above", because I've spent the last few years building up an immunity to baptism arguments.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Jun 27, 2008)

I voted triune immersion believing it to be 'Ad Trinitatem' - in the name of the trinity. I did not mean to vote for a triple dunking!


----------



## JonathanHunt (Jun 27, 2008)

Dwimble said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> > Households converted require baptism of adults and children, so clearly I cannot choose the wine in front of you!
> ...



As you wish...


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 27, 2008)

Paedo, "Just get 'em wet"


----------



## Archlute (Jun 27, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> Households converted require baptism of adults and children, so clearly I cannot choose the wine in front of you!
> 
> Children born in converted families require baptism as children, so clearly I cannot choose the wine in front of me!
> 
> ...




 That was pretty good.


----------



## Archlute (Jun 27, 2008)

I don't have a problem with any of the paedo practices, but prefer Triune affusion.


----------



## Davidius (Jun 27, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> I'll see your profession, and raise you a snooty presbyterian comment:
> 
> We baptize those that *God professes* to be believers!
> 
> ...



So God professes that all children of Christian parents are believers? 

*****

I chose Other because I don't believe in just baptizing infants or just baptizing believers.  I like Bill Shishko's term, _oikobaptism_, that is, baptizing professing adults and their households. And although I'd prefer sprinkling or pouring, I think either of those is fine, and acknowledge the validity of immersions.


----------



## kceaster (Jun 27, 2008)

I chose "other".

The Holy Spirit determines who He baptizes and by whatever means He effectually works...

...if we're really talking about baptism.

If we're simply mentioning the outward sign, then credo/paedo sprinkling or pouring.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 27, 2008)

Davidius said:


> And although I'd prefer sprinkling or pouring, I think either of those is fine, and acknowledge the validity of immersions.



Exactly. The "just get 'em wet" option in the poll is really the only one that does justice to the Westminster Confession, since the latter explicitly (and I would say Scripture as well, though implicitly) denies any greater or lesser propriety between either pouring or sprinkling, and likewise acknowledges the validity or immersing. From the confessional paedo view it's really pretty simple.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jun 27, 2008)

Davidius,

Yes, I believe that God's revealed declaration is that all of our children are saints. Whether the secret purpose of God is in accordance with this revealed declaration is irrelevant for how the church _ought to_ consider our children.

I think of the Deuteronomy 29:29 formulation.

Also, it's interesting that even when God specifically told certain saints about His secret will, they still acted and thought about their children based on God's revealed declarations. I think of Abraham still including Ishmael in the rite of circumcision, and Isaac still treating Esau as one of God's chosen people, and seeking a blessing for him. Also, Abraham prayed "O that Ishmael might live before thee!" when specifically told that Ishmael had been rejected. All that to say, yes, I think that God professes that all of our children are believers. Not in the feeble sense of a human profession of faith, but in the mighty power of His revealed Word.

Cheers,

Adam






Davidius said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> > I'll see your profession, and raise you a snooty presbyterian comment:
> ...


----------



## Christusregnat (Jun 27, 2008)

Thanks Adam!

Adam





Archlute said:


> That was pretty good.


----------



## raekwon (Jul 11, 2008)

I voted "Paedo - Just get 'em wet". I personally find immersion to be preferable whenever practicable (ie: professing adults and children who haven't previously been baptized), but confessionally (and biblically), any mode is fine.


----------



## a mere housewife (Jul 11, 2008)

Human faith is not feeble; it overcomes the world. Nor is God's declaration of someone as a believing saint divorced from this human reality. I think that speaking of God's declaring all baptised infants to be 'believers' is unhelpful. God declares the infants of believers to be 'sanctified' or 'holy'. 

I loved the Presbyterian with washing on the line .


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Sep 12, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> Davidius,
> 
> Yes, I believe that God's revealed declaration is that all of our children are saints. Whether the secret purpose of God is in accordance with this revealed declaration is irrelevant for how the church _ought to_ consider our children.
> 
> ...


----------



## Quickened (Sep 12, 2008)

I voted for Credo, Immersion as my understanding has it


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Sep 12, 2008)

While I believe the credo position is most likely correct, I personally subscribe to the Free Presbyterian postion. This borrowed from thier website:

6a. Baptism -- The Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, under Christ the Great King and Head of the Church, Realizing that bitter controversy raging around the mode and proper subjects of the ordinance of Christian baptism has divided the Body of Christ when that Body should have been united in Christian love and Holy Ghost power to stem the onslaughts and hell-inspired assaults of modernism, hereby affirms that each member of the Free Presbyterian Church shall have liberty to decide for himself which course to adopt on these controverted issues, each member giving due honor in love to the views held by differing brethren, but none espousing the error of baptismal regeneration.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Sep 12, 2008)

ManleyBeasley said:


> The promises God gives to the Jews and their physical children translate to a spiritual family now. We WERE of Adam and now we are of Christ. Does this mean we are physically/genetically of Christ's blood line? No we are born again. Jesus said "What is born of the flesh is flesh, what is born of the Spirit is spirit." Our children in the covenant are our spiritual children or children according to the gospel. As John said it brought him joy when his "children walked in truth". That being said, the promises are promises to a spiritual family not physical. We Credos DO believe in baptizing infants, SPIRITUAL infants. New born Christians.
> 
> OLD COV--physical infant is circumsized
> NEW COV--spiritual infant (newly saved believer) is baptized



There seems to be a fundamental disconnect here insofar as circumcision came through Abraham, not Adam. And Abraham circumcised more than his physical offspring. Circumcision was never a purely matter of genetics. 

The physical to spiritual does not fit exactly fit all the data we have in the Bible. 

First of all, OT circumcision was not strictly physical in nature. Physical circumcision was intended to be an external display of an inward circumcision of the heart (spiritual, Deut. 10:16). 

Secondly, NT baptism is not purely spiritual. Like circumcision, there is a physical dimension that represents the spiritual.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Sep 12, 2008)

Blueridge Baptist said:


> While I believe the credo position is most likely correct, I personally subscribe to the Free Presbyterian postion. This borrowed from thier website:
> 
> 6a. Baptism -- The Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, under Christ the Great King and Head of the Church, Realizing that bitter controversy raging around the mode and proper subjects of the ordinance of Christian baptism has divided the Body of Christ when that Body should have been united in Christian love and Holy Ghost power to stem the onslaughts and hell-inspired assaults of modernism, hereby affirms that each member of the Free Presbyterian Church shall have liberty to decide for himself which course to adopt on these controverted issues, each member giving due honor in love to the views held by differing brethren, but none espousing the error of baptismal regeneration.



Since it's a personal choice, does that also mean an individual can decline to be baptized altogether?


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Sep 12, 2008)

tcalbrecht said:


> Blueridge Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > While I believe the credo position is most likely correct, I personally subscribe to the Free Presbyterian postion. This borrowed from thier website:
> ...



I don't think that they had that in mind. I sure they would insist upon one being baptized.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Sep 12, 2008)

Paedo, "just get 'em wet."

And the great thing is that since I am a _de facto_ one man court of the church, I get to decide when where and how I baptize. So if I'm feeling like immersing, I can. If I wake up and I feel like pouring... I can. If I wake up and feel like using a fire hose... well, you get the picture.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Sep 12, 2008)

By the way... I was just kidding about that fire hose thing... I'd never employ a fire hose for baptismal purposes.


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Sep 12, 2008)

tcalbrecht said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> > The promises God gives to the Jews and their physical children translate to a spiritual family now. We WERE of Adam and now we are of Christ. Does this mean we are physically/genetically of Christ's blood line? No we are born again. Jesus said "What is born of the flesh is flesh, what is born of the Spirit is spirit." Our children in the covenant are our spiritual children or children according to the gospel. As John said it brought him joy when his "children walked in truth". That being said, the promises are promises to a spiritual family not physical. We Credos DO believe in baptizing infants, SPIRITUAL infants. New born Christians.
> ...



When speaking of the physical to spiritual element I'm speaking of the Old vs New Covenants not refering to the fact that both circumcision and baptism are physical (they have to be because they are testaments to the 2 covenants; 1 being flesh, 1 being spiritual). The first being a covenant of works (and so of flesh) the second being a covanent of grace. The law was given over time with Abraham (circumcision represented the Law in Galations) and ultimately going through Moses. At the same time the Cov of grace was being established through promises to Abraham, David,etc and was fully revealed through the coming of Christ and the completion of the NT. Both Covenants (grace and works) always co-existed and grew in revelation (though grace took longer for the full revelation)

Circumcision was commanded for the infants of the Jews because of their bloodline (though certainly others were circumcized when they converted). Their flesh circumcision (law) was seperate from the heart circumcision (grace). Regeneration is where the new covenant starts in a person and so baptism is for the believer.


----------



## Christusregnat (Sep 12, 2008)

ManleyBeasley said:


> The promises God gives to the Jews and their physical children translate to a spiritual family now. We WERE of Adam and now we are of Christ. Does this mean we are physically/genetically of Christ's blood line? No we are born again. Jesus said "What is born of the flesh is flesh, what is born of the Spirit is spirit." Our children in the covenant are our spiritual children or children according to the gospel. As John said it brought him joy when his "children walked in truth". That being said, the promises are promises to a spiritual family not physical. We Credos DO believe in baptizing infants, SPIRITUAL infants. New born Christians.
> 
> OLD COV--physical infant is circumsized
> NEW COV--spiritual infant (newly saved believer) is baptized



Manley,
This division of OT=physical and NT=spiritual is not biblical. For instance, when Paul argued about spiritual circumcision in Galatians, he used Isaac as the instance of God's spiritual children: the children of promise. Also, when Paul discusses the sign of circumcision in Romans 4, he clearly demonstrates that it was a sacrament of spiritual significance, to be received by faith alone. It signified regeneration, God's choice of us, and His eternal convenant blessing of being God to us and our children. If you are concerned about that icky physical land stuff, see Romans 4 where Paul tells us Abraham was promised the world, and not just Canaan. Also, Jesus tells us that we will inherit the earth, and Solomon tells us that the wicked lay up treasures for the righteous. Physical, physical, physical. All through the bible.

Babies circumcised on the 8th day were not considered to be "in Adam", they were considered to be "in Christ". To argue otherwise is to seek another way of salvation in the OT, which (frankly) seems to be the most logical choice for those that argue against including our infant seed in God's holy church. Anything you argue against infant baptism may be argued against circumcision. The problem with this procedure is that the NT grounds its doctrine of salvation through Christ's work in Moses and the prophets. Dispose of infants in the church now, dispose of justification by faith alone as an OT doctrine. Can't have it both ways. That is, unless you choose not to think through the logic of your position.

Cheers,


----------



## FrielWatcher (Sep 12, 2008)

I am still in debate about this one, but I voted Credo "just get 'em wet". Yet, I was baptized in the LCMS church as an infant, my brother was baptized Roman Catholic, and my sister was baptized PC(USA). I could have voted Paedo "just get 'em wet" too.


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Sep 12, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> > The promises God gives to the Jews and their physical children translate to a spiritual family now. We WERE of Adam and now we are of Christ. Does this mean we are physically/genetically of Christ's blood line? No we are born again. Jesus said "What is born of the flesh is flesh, what is born of the Spirit is spirit." Our children in the covenant are our spiritual children or children according to the gospel. As John said it brought him joy when his "children walked in truth". That being said, the promises are promises to a spiritual family not physical. We Credos DO believe in baptizing infants, SPIRITUAL infants. New born Christians.
> ...



Read my second response, I may have put it up while you were typing this. I'm not saying OT =flesh and NT =spirit (I'm not a dispensationalist). I'm saying OT had 2 covenants, works and grace and the NT has 2 covenants, works and grace. Circumcision was a law. All of the ceremonial Laws were shadows of the Cov of grace. 

Babies circumcized on the 8th day were being obedient (with thier parents help) to the Law (their school master) just as they would later be obedient to a list of ceremonies that point to Christ. Their having faith had nothing to do with it. Many who had no faith still participated in the law. To baptize infants seems to make the cov of grace behave like the cov of works (not in regards to salvation). To enter the covenant of works we only have to be born. To enter the covenant of grace we must be reborn.


----------



## Christusregnat (Sep 12, 2008)

ManleyBeasley said:


> Read my second response, I may have put it up while you were typing this. I'm not saying OT =flesh and NT =spirit (I'm not a dispensationalist). I'm saying OT had 2 covenants, works and grace and the NT has 2 covenants, works and grace. Circumcision was a law. All of the ceremonial Laws were shadows of the Cov of grace.
> 
> Babies circumcized on the 8th day were being obedient (with thier parents help) to the Law (their school master) just as they would later be obedient to a list of ceremonies that point to Christ. Their having faith had nothing to do with it. Many who had no faith still participated in the law. To baptize infants seems to make the cov of grace behave like the cov of works (not in regards to salvation). To enter the covenant of works we only have to be born. To enter the covenant of grace we must be reborn.



Manley,

Indeed, you were typing as I was; hate it when that happens 

Anywho, circumcision was not part of the covenant of works. Circumcision was a covenant of free mercy, of free forgiveness of sins, and of God's choosing those who could not choose Him.

Paul argues against circumcision, not because of the nature of circumcision _per se_, but because of the judaizers' abuse of it. He actually argues in favor of the grace of circumcision in Romans 4:



> 9 Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. 11 And he received the *sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised*, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, 12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised.



The Jews distorted circumcision, and if you assume that they were right about their opinion, then you join in their error. You may disclaim being a dispensationalist, but it is only because (as I stated previously) because you are not thinking through your position. Please see where I specifically discussed the argument against infant baptism being an argument against circumcision in the OT, etc. I don't think you answered that particular portion:



> Babies circumcised on the 8th day were not considered to be "in Adam", they were considered to be "in Christ". To argue otherwise is to seek another way of salvation in the OT, which (frankly) seems to be the most logical choice for those that argue against including our infant seed in God's holy church. Anything you argue against infant baptism may be argued against circumcision. The problem with this procedure is that the NT grounds its doctrine of salvation through Christ's work in Moses and the prophets. Dispose of infants in the church now, dispose of justification by faith alone as an OT doctrine. Can't have it both ways. That is, unless you choose not to think through the logic of your position.



Cheers,


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Sep 12, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> > Read my second response, I may have put it up while you were typing this. I'm not saying OT =flesh and NT =spirit (I'm not a dispensationalist). I'm saying OT had 2 covenants, works and grace and the NT has 2 covenants, works and grace. Circumcision was a law. All of the ceremonial Laws were shadows of the Cov of grace.
> ...



I'm arguing a very old argument that predates dispensationalism by many years. 

I thought I did answer the argument you made about arguing against infant baptism being an argument against circumcision. It is presupposing the argument. I'm only arguing against circumsionion if infant baptism is right. That can't be used because thats what is debated. People in the OT were saved by grace through faith. Circumcision was a sign of faith in the same way all the ceremonial law was: *a shadow of the cov of grace*.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Sep 12, 2008)

ManleyBeasley said:


> When speaking of the physical to spiritual element I'm speaking of the Old vs New Covenants not refering to the fact that both circumcision and baptism are physical (they have to be because they are testaments to the 2 covenants; 1 being flesh, 1 being spiritual). The first being a covenant of works (and so of flesh) the second being a covanent of grace. The law was given over time with Abraham (circumcision represented the Law in Galations) and ultimately going through Moses. At the same time the Cov of grace was being established through promises to Abraham, David,etc and was fully revealed through the coming of Christ and the completion of the NT. Both Covenants (grace and works) always co-existed and grew in revelation (though grace took longer for the full revelation)
> 
> Circumcision was commanded for the infants of the Jews because of their bloodline (though certainly others were circumcized when they converted). Their flesh circumcision (law) was seperate from the heart circumcision (grace). Regeneration is where the new covenant starts in a person and so baptism is for the believer.



Again, the Abrahamic covenant under which circumcision was instituted was under the covenant of grace, not works. Don’t confuse the terms covenant of works and covenant of grace with old covenant and new covenant. They are not parallel differentiations. 

The Scriptures on this subject are accurately represented in the WCF:



> 5. This covenant [of grace] was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law, it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the old testament.
> 
> 6. Under the gospel, when Christ, the substance, was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper: which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, yet, in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the new testament. *There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same [covenant of grace], under various dispensations.*
> 
> WCF, Chapter 7



The "dispensational" aspect of the COG under the older covenant was not different than under the new wrt the members of the covenant, believers and their household (Acts 2:39). Both were spiritual in that they ultimately pointed to the same spiritual truth. Both had physical signs to point to the spiritual truth, the necessity of circumcision of the heart -- that circumcision being sovereignly administered by the divine hand. But under neither covenant was circumcision of the heart an individual prerequisite for application of the physical sign.


----------



## Solus Christus (Sep 12, 2008)

SolaScriptura said:


> Paedo, \"just get 'em wet.\"
> 
> And the great thing is that since I am a _de facto_ one man court of the church, I get to decide when where and how I baptize. So if I'm feeling like immersing, I can. If I wake up and I feel like pouring... I can. If I wake up and feel like *using a fire hose*... well, you get the picture.



[video=youtube;UbbNCWZ2lvA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbbNCWZ2lvA&NR=1[/video]

 You may be onto something here Ben.


----------



## Roldan (Sep 12, 2008)

christiana said:


> We baptize believers, immersed, in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit! Buried with Christ in baptism, raised to live eternally with Him!
> 
> Soli deo gloria!!



So basically you guys have symbolized a symbol, that just seems really odd to me. no offense


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Sep 12, 2008)

tcalbrecht said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> > When speaking of the physical to spiritual element I'm speaking of the Old vs New Covenants not refering to the fact that both circumcision and baptism are physical (they have to be because they are testaments to the 2 covenants; 1 being flesh, 1 being spiritual). The first being a covenant of works (and so of flesh) the second being a covanent of grace. The law was given over time with Abraham (circumcision represented the Law in Galations) and ultimately going through Moses. At the same time the Cov of grace was being established through promises to Abraham, David,etc and was fully revealed through the coming of Christ and the completion of the NT. Both Covenants (grace and works) always co-existed and grew in revelation (though grace took longer for the full revelation)
> ...



The core issue is taking the external signs of the OC and trying to make them comepletely congruent with the new. Though inwardly both covenants express the same spirit outwardly there are clear differences. The very ideal of the NC is that it can't be broken. The application that is given by paedo-baptists is under the assumption that the NC like the OC can be broken. The infant who is baptized may "break the covenant" like many circumcized Jews did in the OC. This is not possible according to the text in Jeremiah 31. 

Jeremiah 31:31-34 "'The time is coming,' declares the LORD, 'when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them,' declares the LORD. 'This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,' declares the LORD. 'I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, "Know the LORD," because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,' declares the LORD. 'For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.'". 

The NC is being given because the OC was broken. The NC (clearly seen here) cannot be broken (since this is the solution to the OC breakability). This passage is clearly speaking of regeneration. "I will put my law on their minds and write it on their hearts", "I will be their God, and they will be my people", "they will *ALL* know Me" "I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more". This is a discription of the NC and clearly describes regeneration. The forgiveness of sins is the result of being in this NC. Do baptized infants of believing parents have automatic forgiveness? I know you don't believe that. The NC is for the regenerate and belief is certainly the first fruit of regeneration which equals believers baptism as far as I can see.


----------



## Roldan (Sep 12, 2008)

ManleyBeasley said:


> [
> The promises God gives to the Jews and their physical children translate to a spiritual family now. We WERE of Adam and now we are of Christ.




So Man, this assertion in your quote would indicate by implication anyways, that first of all there was not a spiritual family then in the OT as in the OT remnant Church those who were indeed not only circumcised in the flesh but also in the heart to which circumcision really meant and that this promise that those circumcised would indeed finally be part of the spiritual community of God if they had faith.

Second, you state that this physical promise then was translated to, and I'm assuming by spiritual family you mean, the Elect. My question then would be which promise are you talking about the Adamic or the Abrahamic? I too affirm the COW but also affirm that this COW was superceded by the COG made with Abraham from which circumcision originated from and that we can observe from Gen. chpts 12 15 17 that this COG promise not only had a physical aspect to it by ethnicticity but that this Abrahamic promise ALWAYS was intended for the Spiritual family that would be blessed by Abraham in his time the OT continuing into our time of the NT, so that circumcision as being the sign of the COG in the OT a physical sign of an inward reality (and I will use your wording here now) is translated now into a more better sign of baptism for the same participants, the physical and spiritual families but only the inward spiritual Jews(as Paul calls us) continue to be the Remnant so that nothing really changed EXCEPT for the sign.



> Does this mean we are physically/genetically of Christ's blood line? No we are born again. Jesus said "What is born of the flesh is flesh, what is born of the Spirit is spirit."



But MAnley, this concept is not a new one but one that flows from the OT as I explained above. And I would venture to answer your first question with a YES those in the outward Covenantal family are PHYSICALLY of Christ's bloodline. Is the one you baptize always born again inwardly? no, so then you have the same alleged problem the baptist accuse us of having when baptizing our infants and/or children. Sure I know what you guys are going to say "well we can only go by thier public profession" and how does that solve the problem? It doesn't. But in the Presbyterian Covenantal model we can answer that really quickly as noted by all the posts, lol. Remember Not all Israel is Israel for both in the OT and NT.




> Our children in the covenant are our spiritual children or children according to the gospel. As John said it brought him joy when his "children walked in truth".



So by this your saying that the children in the covenant are His SPIRITUAL children=believers who have accepted the Gospel, right?




> That being said, the promises are promises to a spiritual family not physical. We Credos DO believe in baptizing infants, SPIRITUAL infants. New born Christians.



But Manley, again this begs the question of who is this spiritual family that has these spiritual infants? Do you know for sure who these people are? I don't think any credo or paedo can make such a claim. SO allow me to restate what you just asserted, it would go like this...

"We credos believe in baptizing PROFESSING infants but not really sure if they are or not but do anyways, PROFESSING SPIRITUAL infants that in reality might really still be in the womb of sin. OUTWARD PHYSICAL PROFESSIN Christians."

THat is the reality sir of a baptistic creed.


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Sep 12, 2008)

Roldan said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



I apologized in my last post for some confusion. I've had to write most of this in a big hurry. I never ever meant for anyone to think I was saying the NT has a spiritual covenant and OT fleshly. The covenants of grace and works have both existed in the OT and NT.

Responding to your last statement---Of course. It isn't denied that we may fail to always only baptize the elect. I've never heard a Baptist say otherwise. That doesn't change my argument. I don't claim any kind of perfection for anyone when it comes to baptizing 100% saved people. I'm arguing against the paedo interpretation of the covenant equivalence of circumcision to baptism. Mine is a defence not a pure offence. My argument previous to your statement examines an OT description of those *IN* the NC. They are all regenerate. There is *NO* NC for the unregenerate (infants or anyone else). We certainly fail at times and baptize the unregenerate. The question is "should we knowingly and purposefully baptise the unregenerate (all infants)?" I think Jeremiah speaks to that when describing the NC.


----------



## Roldan (Sep 12, 2008)

ManleyBeasley said:


> The core issue is taking the external signs of the OC and trying to make them comepletely congruent with the new. Though inwardly both covenants express the same spirit outwardly there are clear differences. The very ideal of the NC is that it can't be broken. The application that is given by paedo-baptists is under the assumption that the NC like the OC can be broken. The infant who is baptized may "break the covenant" like many circumcized Jews did in the OC. This is not possible according to the text in Jeremiah 31.
> 
> Jeremiah 31:31-34 "'The time is coming,' declares the LORD, 'when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them,' declares the LORD. 'This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,' declares the LORD. 'I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, "Know the LORD," because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,' declares the LORD. 'For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.'".
> 
> The NC is being given because the OC was broken. The NC (clearly seen here) cannot be broken (since this is the solution to the OC breakability). This passage is clearly speaking of regeneration. "I will put my law on their minds and write it on their hearts", "I will be their God, and they will be my people", "they will *ALL* know Me" "I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more". This is a discription of the NC and clearly describes regeneration. The forgiveness of sins is the result of being in this NC. Do baptized infants of believing parents have automatic forgiveness? I know you don't believe that. The NC is for the regenerate and belief is certainly the first fruit of regeneration which equals believers baptism as far as I can see.




So why baptize at all then Manley? After all you are baptizing individuals who by profession claim to be regenerated and in the NC that cannot be broken but then you have these same individuals breaking the NC. The argument that says "well thats their fault because they were really not in the NC in the first place" then my question is, why in the world are you guys given them the sign of the NC if they are not even regenerated in the first place and very quickly turn the same gun used against the paedo and point it towards the credo and ask......



> This is a discription of the NC and *clearly describes regeneration*. The forgiveness of sins is the result of being in this NC. *Do baptized professing adults have automatic forgiveness?*



I inserted Adults where you had baptized infants


----------



## Roldan (Sep 12, 2008)

ManleyBeasley said:


> Roldan said:
> 
> 
> > ManleyBeasley said:
> ...



Coo


Responding to your last statement---Of course. It isn't denied that we may fail to always only baptize the elect. I've never heard a Baptist say otherwise. That doesn't change my argument. I don't claim any kind of perfection for anyone when it comes to baptizing 100% saved people. I'm arguing against the paedo interpretation of the covenant equivalence of circumcision to baptism. Mine is a defence not a pure offence. My argument previous to your statement examines an OT description of those *IN* the NC. They are all regenerate. There is *NO* NC for the unregenerate (infants or anyone else).

So then there is was no *outward Israel/Israel *and an *inward Israel/Remnant of Israel* in the OC?


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Sep 12, 2008)

Roldan said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> > The core issue is taking the external signs of the OC and trying to make them comepletely congruent with the new. Though inwardly both covenants express the same spirit outwardly there are clear differences. The very ideal of the NC is that it can't be broken. The application that is given by paedo-baptists is under the assumption that the NC like the OC can be broken. The infant who is baptized may "break the covenant" like many circumcized Jews did in the OC. This is not possible according to the text in Jeremiah 31.
> ...



No. That has nothing to do with it. I've never claimed that to be the issue. You are assuming that my main issue (with this current argument) is that you are baptizing people who end up not saved. I'm actually attacking the argument that says the NC is a breakable Covenant like the OC which allows for KNOWINGLY baptizing the unsaved infants. You guys claim that your infants must be baptized because they are included in the covenant because of the parents. Jeremiah proves this to be untrue. Those in the NC are regenerate. You can say that we baptize proffesions that end up being false but we don't see Baptism as puting the person in any covenant but being a symbol of the covenant we believe (but could be wrong) the person has entered through faith in Christ.

We are only debating the theological basis for our beliefs in baptism not the exegetical or historical. I am just trying to deal with the area that Paedobaptists make their main argument. Keep in mind that at the end of the day I love you guys (as I mentioned I attend a PCA church) and don't want to be divided because of this issue. I'm just enjoying some good healthy debate.


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Sep 12, 2008)

Roldan said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> > Roldan said:
> ...



Thats not what I'm saying at all. In fact that was one point I was trying to make before. What I'm saying is there is no outward and inward distinctions in the new covenant. Accordng to Jeremiah the new is regeneration and unbreakable. Thats what makes it superior to the OC. The OC was broken but the new is unbreakable and there is therefore no outward Israel. Baptism is again not the covenant but a symbol.


----------



## Roldan (Sep 13, 2008)

I just came back from presbytery so I read your post. There are some issues then that I would like to address concerning breakable covenants and circumcision vs baptism and all that but I want to articulate it better than I can right now because I'm exhausted with all the questions that were posed to the four candidates that were examined today. Two of them coming out of the Reformed Baptist crew HAHA!!! They finally came to the true Reformation, naw just kidding but I'll be back


----------



## tcalbrecht (Sep 13, 2008)

ManleyBeasley said:


> The core issue is taking the external signs of the OC and trying to make them comepletely congruent with the new. Though inwardly both covenants express the same spirit outwardly there are clear differences. The very ideal of the NC is that it can't be broken. The application that is given by paedo-baptists is under the assumption that the NC like the OC can be broken. The infant who is baptized may "break the covenant" like many circumcized Jews did in the OC. This is not possible according to the text in Jeremiah 31.
> 
> Jeremiah 31:31-34 "'The time is coming,' declares the LORD, 'when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them,' declares the LORD. 'This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,' declares the LORD. 'I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, "Know the LORD," because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,' declares the LORD. 'For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.'".
> 
> The NC is being given because the OC was broken. The NC (clearly seen here) cannot be broken (since this is the solution to the OC breakability). This passage is clearly speaking of regeneration. "I will put my law on their minds and write it on their hearts", "I will be their God, and they will be my people", "they will *ALL* know Me" "I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more". This is a discription of the NC and clearly describes regeneration. The forgiveness of sins is the result of being in this NC. Do baptized infants of believing parents have automatic forgiveness? I know you don't believe that. The NC is for the regenerate and belief is certainly the first fruit of regeneration which equals believers baptism as far as I can see.



Manley,

A couple things quickly.

1) You seem to have shifted your terminology from covenant of works/grace to old/new covenant. Have you now come to understand that the Abrahamic covenant was an expression of the covenant of grace? (See LBC Chapter 7) And, therefore, circumcision was an outward expression of the covenant of grace, just as water baptism is today?

2) Do you believe that every person who receives "believer’s baptism" is regenerate and has eternal life? If not, then do you agree that "believer’s baptism" has no effect for some people if they do not express repentance and faith unto eternal life? In other words,, the external/physical act does not always represent the internal condition for every individual case. If that is the case, then how does water baptism relate to Jeremiah 31?


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Sep 14, 2008)

tcalbrecht said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> > The core issue is taking the external signs of the OC and trying to make them comepletely congruent with the new. Though inwardly both covenants express the same spirit outwardly there are clear differences. The very ideal of the NC is that it can't be broken. The application that is given by paedo-baptists is under the assumption that the NC like the OC can be broken. The infant who is baptized may "break the covenant" like many circumcized Jews did in the OC. This is not possible according to the text in Jeremiah 31.
> ...



1. I always agreed to the Abraham and Davidic covenants being covenants of grace. I got some of my language and thinking wrong (unfortunately caused confusion) and attempted to clear it up with these later posts. Again, my apologies.

2. No, absolutely not. That's the issue that I'm arguing with. We (Baptists)don't believe that the Baptism has any effect to placing a person in covenant but is an ordinance for professing believers. That is a distinct difference in our views here. It doesn't argue against my point to say that we also "baptize the unregenerate" because our baptism is not entering into covenant but is a symbol of the baptized's profession. That's not to say baptism should be taken lightly in any way, but it's still not the entering into covenant itself. What *IS* shown by Jeremiah 31 is that the NC *IS* regeneration and *unbreakable*. This is a serious difficulty for infant baptism because paedo-baptists believe that baptism is entering into the new covenant and the new covenant *can* be broken.


----------



## Nightshade (Oct 26, 2008)

I strongly favor immersion based on the teaching of the early church as found in the Didache. While not infallible and, therefore, subject to error the same as any human produced document, it dates to the late 1st century when there were still believers alive that personally knew the Apostles and had 1st hand knowledge of their teaching.

It it, pouring is certainly taught as acceptable -- but for use when immersion was not possible.

As a consequence, I have to conclude that pouring or sprinkling is a valid form of baptism; however, that we should not prefer it over immersion.


----------

