# To what extent should Baptism extend to children of believers?



## Zenas (May 22, 2008)

Hypotheticals: (For Presbyterians!)

1. Parents have a child. 18 years later the parents convert and are Baptized. The child, though 18, is still under their authority and in their house. Should the child be Baptized?

2. Same facts, except change the child's age to 25. He is unmarried and still under his parents authority, technically. 

3. Same facts as #1 except the 18 year-old is a well known fornicator and drunkard. 

At what point do we require a profession of faith from the child an thus engage in credo-Baptism and at what point do we apply the ordinance to the child on the merit of him now being a child in a Covenant family and thus practice paedo-Baptism?

I have never myself thought through this before. Though I find the practice of paedo-Baptism consistent with a Covenantal view of Scripture, I can surmise no criterion to draw a bright-line between paedo and credo practice. At risk of being known as ignorant and unlearned, I leave it to you. 


*
Clarification, I meant I am the ignorant and unlearned, not those replying. *


----------



## travis (May 22, 2008)

Hmmm, good question. I think that the church should do everything they can to have them baptized, even without a profession of faith, however if the child is openly hostile to the request then the answer would be 'no'.

And with that, I have no idea how to back up my answer


----------



## MOSES (May 22, 2008)

Zenas said:


> Hypotheticals: (For Presbyterians!)
> 
> 1. Parents have a child. 18 years later the parents convert and are Baptized. The child, though 18, is still under their authority and in their house. Should the child be Baptized?
> 
> ...



I hope you don't mind a couple of quick thoughts from the "ignorant and unlearned."

- I did not present my children for baptism because of my "headship" over them but because of God's promises to them...(not to take away from the importance of headship in covenant).

- In all the scenarious you give, the person should be baptized if he desires baptism (that also includes desiring what baptism is a sign of, union with Christ). He should not be baptized if he rejects it.

- Those that desire baptism should be baptized...period. No confession of faith necessary, they are part of the covenant household and should be given the covenant sign.

I think my last thought hints at what your really wanting to know. At what point do we presbyterians become creedo in these scenarious...Never. Because the child is given baptism, because the adult child is also given baptism if he does not reject it.

Note: I take an exception to scenario two if that child is not in the "household", but on their own.


----------



## Iconoclast (May 22, 2008)

Nobody likes to deal with what if scenerio's. Pastor Shishko said that he would not baptize children that old,who deny Christ openly.
When dealing with adults I do not believe there is a difference between the two camps. Believe and be baptized is still the rule.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 22, 2008)

Zenas said:


> Hypotheticals: (For Presbyterians!)
> 
> 1. Parents have a child. 18 years later the parents convert and are Baptized. The child, though 18, is still under their authority and in their house. Should the child be Baptized?
> 
> ...



Since the child, in such a case, has reached years of understanding, they should not be baptised except upon profession of faith.


----------



## Zenas (May 22, 2008)

Clarification, I meant I am the ignorant and unlearned, not those replying.


----------



## Zenas (May 22, 2008)

Iconoclast said:


> Nobody likes to deal with what if scenerio's. Pastor Shishko said that he would not baptize children that old,who deny Christ openly.
> When dealing with adults I do not believe there is a difference between the two camps. Believe and be baptized is still the rule.



When is one an adult and when is one a child?


----------



## Zenas (May 22, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> > Hypotheticals: (For Presbyterians!)
> ...



When do years of understanding begin? What if the child is 12, or 8?


----------



## larryjf (May 22, 2008)

Zenas said:


> Hypotheticals: (For Presbyterians!)
> 
> 1. Parents have a child. 18 years later the parents convert and are Baptized. The child, though 18, is still under their authority and in their house. Should the child be Baptized?
> 
> ...



Since the "child" in these scenarios is actually legally an adult, and legally responsible for himself, he should not be baptized based on the parents.

However, if the child was 16 and he was legally under the headship of his parents, then yes he should be baptized.

If the 16 yr old is a drunkard or something similar, then of course not. Even a baptized adult drunkard who is unrepentant is to be removed from the church, so there would be no reason to admit a drunkard into fellowship at all.


----------



## Zenas (May 22, 2008)

Do we go by the law of our country then as to who is an adult? 

What about 6 year olds who are clearly rebellious?


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (May 22, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> > Hypotheticals: (For Presbyterians!)
> ...



 think: I think).

But, that brings up another subject perhaps , but what is everyone's opinion of this "years of understanding"? I've heard it referred to as "the age of accountibility" at times ... is such a concept biblical?


----------



## larryjf (May 22, 2008)

Zenas said:


> Do we go by the law of our country then as to who is an adult?
> 
> What about 6 year olds who are clearly rebellious?



Yes, we would go by the laws of the country. After all, the governing authorities are God-ordained.

When we speak of an individual being under their parents authority we must take into consideration if legally they are really under that authority or not. Eighteen year olds are not legally under the authority of their parents, and we must obey all laws that don't directly go against the Scriptures.

The baptism of a child has to do with the parents faith in God's promise to them and their children, the 6 year old would be baptized based on that, not based on his rebelliousness per say. After all, i've been rebellious since my baptism, but that doesn't make it an invalid baptism (and i was baptized as an adult).


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 22, 2008)

Zenas said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > Zenas said:
> ...



This is a complex question, though it is worth keeping in mind that it is one the people in the OT would also have had to grapple with when a pagan - who professed faith in the God of Israel - wished to join the church. It would appear from our Lord's example in Luke 2 that children did not partake of the passover until 12 (or is it 13?), so perhaps that gives us some indication.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 22, 2008)

Zenas said:


> Do we go by the law of our country then as to who is an adult?
> 
> What about 6 year olds who are clearly rebellious?



All children are rebellious, they have Adam's sin imputed to them, and so foolishness is bound up in their hearts.


----------



## larryjf (May 22, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> This is a complex question, though it is worth keeping in mind that it is one the people in the OT would also have had to grapple with when a pagan - who professed faith in the God of Israel - wished to join the church. It would appear from our Lord's example in Luke 2 that children did not partake of the passover until 12 (or is it 13?), so perhaps that gives us some indication.



The tradition was to go up and take part in the fastings, to learn a trade, etc. at 12; then at 13 they were considered an adult.

Luke 2 says that Jesus was 12, but it doesn't say that it was the first time they went to participate in Passover. Besides, that's a question more for the Lord's Supper than Baptism.


----------



## Zenas (May 22, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> > Do we go by the law of our country then as to who is an adult?
> ...



True!


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 22, 2008)

larryjf said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > This is a complex question, though it is worth keeping in mind that it is one the people in the OT would also have had to grapple with when a pagan - who professed faith in the God of Israel - wished to join the church. It would appear from our Lord's example in Luke 2 that children did not partake of the passover until 12 (or is it 13?), so perhaps that gives us some indication.
> ...



Does the text not indicate though that that was the first time Christ went with his parents? If there has to be a 'cut off' point for children receiving baptism why not make it here?


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (May 22, 2008)

> Does the text not indicate though that that was the first time Christ went with his parents?



NO. I think they went every year. It was their custom to go every year. But it was when He was twelve, that He stayed behind in the temple and taught the teachers.

Luke 2:41-42 says:
"Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover. And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast."


----------



## larryjf (May 22, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Ritchie said:
> ...



And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast. (Luk 2:42)

It doesn't appear to me to state that it was His first time at passover. It seems to simply indicate that at this particular trip He was 12. Most likely to contrast His age and understanding with that of the doctors He was conversing with.

In 2:40 we are told of His wisdom, in 2:42 we are told of His young age, in 2:47 we are told that the doctors were were astonished at His understanding. 

Even if it was His first time, it has nothing to do with Baptism as Christ would have been circumcised as a baby.


----------



## Iconoclast (May 22, 2008)

Legally a person is considered an adult in most states at either 18, or 21.
In other cultures it must vary. Children can believe the gospel before adulthood if God saves them. Most confessional baptists are not in a rush to baptize very young children. Young children say they believe many things, that as they grow older they change their mind on.
Some baptist parents are over-eager to baptize young children so they{ the parents can comfort themselves} that in their mind the child is now on His or her way to heaven. It is probably best to wait until the Holy Spirit saves the child first however.
We went into a fundamental baptist church once when my second son was 5yrs old. One of the deacons was talking to him and my son said he believed in Jesus. The deacon wanted to baptize him right away. We explained that we would prefer to wait until we had reason to believe that the Spirit had given him new life.
Laws are written to protect children in our society. At what age can someone drive? Drink? Give Consent for medical treatment? Get married? Sign a legal document?
Some day they will do all these things , but it is probably not good to allow them to while they are young and lack understanding.
Why push to tell your child -you are saved- you are a christian- you are a disciple- you can live a life pleasing to God just as you are- live up to your baptism- improve your baptism.... When more than likely they have not been regenerated yet! So you expect them to be, act, or live as a christian without the indwelling Spirit? In the stength of their flesh they will do no more than give an outward conformity to an external standard, when God will give a new heart. A false and fleshly "church member" is a hypocrite at best and a dried out dead formilist at their worst.
Cults indoctrinate their children, it is religion without the Spirit. Nobody here wants that for their children.
Baptists do not tell their children that much different than a presbyterian tells their children hopefully. Jesus saves sinners, Jesus saves His people.Jesus saves all who believe. All died in Adam.All In Christ live.
You {the child} live in a home with believing parents. If God is merciful to you , you also will believe and be saved as your parents were saved by God.
We { your parents} cannot save you. You must deal with God personally. We can only tell you the truth as it is In Christ. The promise of life is only to those who believe by a God given faith.
Anyone who remains seperated from God and dies without Christ will die in their sins.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 22, 2008)

I think the answer is prudential. It depends on an age, not of _acountability_ but of _discretion_. As an elder, I would not have any problem approving the baptism of a 2 year old, and I would have a significant problem baptizing an 18 year old, on the basis of their parent's profession. You would need to persuade me that the 18 year old was (for example) handicapped, or truly a meek, but slow individual. A person this old is capable of defining his *acceptance* of "disciple" status, even if his primary early motivations are somehow related to his status as a dependent.

The question of NT slaves/servants has come up before. Aside from the fact of household baptisms, we are largely speculating as to how much of a man or woman's human "property" was considered under his sovereign mastery, and to what degree. Our cultures are radically dissimilar. Onesimus might have given us a bit more data, if we could have known a bit more about him--too bad.

I would say that the OT age of majority already mentioned (13) serves as a useful marker for the median. Below it, fewer questions regarding the wisdom, above it, more and more.


----------



## MW (May 22, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Since the child, in such a case, has reached years of understanding, they should not be baptised except upon profession of faith.



This leaves no alternative but for them to disobey their parents in the Lord, which is contrary to Eph. 6. Whilst they are submissively living with their parents, and have not yet left father and mother, they are included in the covenant promises, and should therefore be granted the sign of inclusion in the covenant.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 22, 2008)

larryjf said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > larryjf said:
> ...



True enough, but if one is old enough to receive the passover/Lord's Supper, does that not imply that they are too old to receive baptism as a covenant child rather than upon a profession of faith?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 22, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > Since the child, in such a case, has reached years of understanding, they should not be baptised except upon profession of faith.
> ...



Not really, they can (if enabled by the Holy Spirit) obey their parents by repenting and believing the gospel. Nowadays, it is not uncommon for people over 30 to be living at home with their parents, this would mean that if their parents were converted, we would have to baptise them, then automatically excommunicate them for being unbelievers.


----------



## Zenas (May 22, 2008)

Daniel, should we be excommunicating the children of believers who show themselves to be reprobate later in life?


----------



## MW (May 22, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Not really, they can (if enabled by the Holy Spirit) obey their parents by repenting and believing the gospel. Nowadays, it is not uncommon for people over 30 to be living at home with their parents, this would mean that if their parents were converted, we would have to baptise them, then automatically excommunicate them for being unbelievers.



You are forcing providence into an either/or situation, whereas the terms of the covenant of grace allow them the opportunity to be learners of the Christian faith like every other covenant child living in a Christian home. The NT states the household as an entity came into covenant with God. You are reflecting the individualism of your times.


----------



## MOSES (May 22, 2008)

Zenas said:


> Clarification, I meant I am the ignorant and unlearned, not those replying.




Yea I know...

But being I was replying, and I am "ignorant and unlearned," I figured I had better tell you that right up front...(i.e., I was confessing that I am not the right man for the job of answering your question...but would interact as one like you.)...


----------



## satz (May 22, 2008)

1 Peter 3:21 tells us that baptism is the answer of a good conscience toward God. How can a child who does not profess faith in God answer him with a good conscience?


----------



## MW (May 22, 2008)

satz said:


> 1 Peter 3:21 tells us that baptism is the answer of a good conscience toward God. How can a child who does not profess faith in God answer him with a good conscience?



Heb. 11:20, "By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come."


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 22, 2008)

satz said:


> 1 Peter 3:21 tells us that baptism is the answer of a good conscience toward God. How can a child who does not profess faith in God answer him with a good conscience?



How can a reprobate man, who is baptized on the basis of a false profession, who does not _have_ faith in God, answer him with a good conscience in your understanding?


----------



## satz (May 22, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> satz said:
> 
> 
> > 1 Peter 3:21 tells us that baptism is the answer of a good conscience toward God. How can a child who does not profess faith in God answer him with a good conscience?
> ...



That doesn't say that Issac baptized Esau or Jacob. It seems to me 1 Peter is setting out a definition for what baptism is and is for, and an unbelieving 18year old (which the OP was concerned with) cannot fulfil that definition.


----------



## MW (May 22, 2008)

satz said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > satz said:
> ...



If the passage is read in context it will be seen that baptism is equated with the deliverance of Noah and his family through the flood. That deliverance was in accord with the covenant which was made with Noah, Gen. 6:18. The covenant was made with Noah -- thee, singularly -- and the other seven were saved on the basis of their familial relationship to Noah as wife, sons, and sons' wives. After the flood, the covenant was established in the plural with Noah and his descendants, Gen. 9:9, including specifically the line from Shem to Abraham, to Isaac and Jacob. (Incidentally, it included Ham also, and on him fell the curses of the covenant.) The covenant of circumcision was a ratifying of this initial promise made to Noah. The blessing "concerning things to come" was pronounced on the basis of this covenant promise.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 23, 2008)

Zenas said:


> Daniel, should we be excommunicating the children of believers who show themselves to be reprobate later in life?



Yes, they are covenant breakers.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 23, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > Not really, they can (if enabled by the Holy Spirit) obey their parents by repenting and believing the gospel. Nowadays, it is not uncommon for people over 30 to be living at home with their parents, this would mean that if their parents were converted, we would have to baptise them, then automatically excommunicate them for being unbelievers.
> ...



Have we any reason to believe that the households included adults? Moreover, would you baptise the 30 year old if he was an open homosexual?


----------



## jwithnell (May 23, 2008)

As others have stated, the age of 12-13 was significant among the Jews in OT times all the way up to today (the age for Bar Mitzvahs). This likely led to the confusion about Christ's whereabouts as his family left the temple: up until that time, he would have been expected to walk among the women and children, after that time, his mother likely assumed he had taken his place among the men. In my church, the session is reluctant to admit anyone to the Lord's table before this age.

And yes, covenant breakers should be disciplined -- this is far more loving than just permitting them to just drift off without intervention and warning. This is incredibly heartbreaking!


----------



## MW (May 23, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Have we any reason to believe that the households included adults? Moreover, would you baptise the 30 year old if he was an open homosexual?



The Baptists ask the same thing about children. The usual answer is, We have no reason not to consider their presence in the household.

On homosexuals, quite obviously such would not be considered as submitting to the CHRISTIAN government of the household. Immorality disbars on all accounts.


----------



## satz (May 23, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> satz said:
> 
> 
> > 1 Peter 3:21 tells us that baptism is the answer of a good conscience toward God. How can a child who does not profess faith in God answer him with a good conscience?
> ...



I would say that such a man cannot answer God with a good conscience. I apologize, but I am not sure what you are getting at.


----------



## satz (May 23, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> satz said:
> 
> 
> > armourbearer said:
> ...



I will agree that the context of the verse shows that baptism is connected somehow to the salvation of Noah – although I would have viewed the connection as being that both baptism and the ark are figures of Christ’s resurrection.

However, whatever is the connection between baptism and Noah’s ark, I do not see Peter making the link you make to the point that Noah’s family was saved through him. That a man’s family can be saved in a practical way through him may well be a principle of the word of God, but I do not see that Peter applies it to baptism.

Peter here makes explains something about baptism, and in brackets, in adds in a little comment to clear up possible confusion about what baptism is – “not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God”. So baptism does not wash away sins legally according to Peter, but rather is the answer of a good conscience towards God.

As I see it, that is the clear statement of the apostle, and I am not sure how pointing out the context of Noah overturns this interpretation.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 23, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > Have we any reason to believe that the households included adults? Moreover, would you baptise the 30 year old if he was an open homosexual?
> ...



So adult children who do not love the Lord Jesus Christ are also barred?

PS do you believe in the adherents view of baptism that is held in the Scottish Highlands?...just curious.


----------



## MW (May 23, 2008)

satz said:


> Peter here makes explains something about baptism, and in brackets, in adds in a little comment to clear up possible confusion about what baptism is – “not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God”. So baptism does not wash away sins legally according to Peter, but rather is the answer of a good conscience towards God.



The apostle speaks of eight souls SAVED BY WATER. He further states that baptism is a LIKE FIGURE. Seven of the souls were saved by their familial relationship to Noah. Ham in fact had no such good conscience toward God, but incurred the curses of God's covenant; and nevertheless he was temporally saved by water. This is pertinent to your original question. The good conscience is the personal responsibility of the person baptised, not a pre-requisite for baptism.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 23, 2008)

satz said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > satz said:
> ...



Hence, what difference does it make if it is a child or a false professor in your view. It seems that you cannot administer the ordinance for anyone for fear that the person professing may not really be giving an answer with a "good conscience" by your own admission.


----------



## timmopussycat (May 24, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > Not really, they can (if enabled by the Holy Spirit) obey their parents by repenting and believing the gospel. Nowadays, it is not uncommon for people over 30 to be living at home with their parents, this would mean that if their parents were converted, we would have to baptise them, then automatically excommunicate them for being unbelievers.
> ...



Point of Information, not debate: 

Daniel is doing no forcing - the hypothetical situation, as originally given by Zenas created the specific situation that Daniel addressed.


----------



## satz (May 25, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> satz said:
> 
> 
> > Semper Fidelis said:
> ...



The original post concerned a child of at least 18 years of age and asked '...At what point do we require a profession of faith from the child and thus engage in credo-Baptism...' 

I admit I was surprised to see some paedobaptists seem to say that an 18 year old could be baptized without having to make a profession of faith, which I believe is against this verse.

I do not believe you need to be 'sure' that a person is really giving an answer with a good conscience before you can baptize. In Acts baptisms happened very quickly after the receipient responded positively to preaching, which would leave no time to investigate the genuineness of a person's profession. However, there was a response to the preaching, and certianly for someone of the age of 18, a profession would at least be required before baptism could be administrated.


----------



## satz (May 25, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> The good conscience is the personal responsibility of the person baptised, not a pre-requisite for baptism.



Even if this is so, does that mean we should give baptism to a person who we know 100% lacks a good conscience - ie an 18 year old or older person who gives no profession of faith?

Baptism and Noah's salvation may be figuratively connected, but that does not mean every aspect of Noah's salvation applies to baptism.

Because of the other NT verses on baptism, I do not believe that the covenant aspect of Noah's salvation, ie his unbelieving family members being saved through him, applies to determining the subjects for baptism. However, I guess a simple credo vs paedobaptism debate is beyond the topic of this thread.

Returning to the topic of the OT - which is an 18 or older child in the family of converted christian, it seems to be in every instance in the NT a person who was capable of making a profession of faith was only baptized after making such a profession - which is completely in line with 1 Pet 3:21 - they were answering God will a conscience made clean by hearing the gospel.

There were household baptisms, but on the strenght of this verse, why should we assume they included the baptism of unbelieving adults? For the jailor it tells us that Paul preached to all his house first (Acts 16:32), for Cornelius we are told he already feared God with his house before even meeting Peter (Act 10:2). When these examples are combined with 1 Pet 3:21, I see no reason to believe that all adults baptized in household baptisms in the NT had believed the gospel first.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 25, 2008)

satz said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > satz said:
> ...



It doesn't really matter what the premise of the original post was about. The real point here is that you have just acknowledged that there must be something more said about this "good conscience" as false professors come forward to be baptized and false professors cannot answer with a "good conscience".

Hence, a "good conscience" cannot be the basis for the administration of any baptism and that passage is really quite immaterial to the decision to baptize in any instance.


----------



## MW (May 25, 2008)

timmopussycat said:


> Point of Information, not debate:
> 
> Daniel is doing no forcing - the hypothetical situation, as originally given by Zenas created the specific situation that Daniel addressed.



Mr. Ritchie was providing an additional criterion to the OP when he stated "not really," and proceeded to mention repenting and believing as necessary in order to avoid the sitation of excommunication after baptism. Quite clearly he created an either/or situation not mentioned in the original scenario. The fact is, the paedobaptist belief in household baptism is not age relevant; therefore we should not set age limits on the Holy Spirit.


----------



## MW (May 25, 2008)

satz said:


> Baptism and Noah's salvation may be figuratively connected, but that does not mean every aspect of Noah's salvation applies to baptism.



That is something you will need to establish by exegesis, and cannot gratuitously assume for the sake of furthering your position. The apostle states baptism is a LIKE FIGURE of salvation; the burden therefore rests on the person who would introduce dissimilarities.


----------



## satz (May 27, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> satz said:
> 
> 
> > Semper Fidelis said:
> ...



I don’t think that a verse from a New Testament epistle where an apostle directly addresses the nature of baptism can be described as immaterial to the decision to baptize in any instance…

I am not sure what you mean by what more needs to be said about the good conscience. If you like, I can change it to say ‘a profession of a good conscience toward God’ is necessary for baptism. However, this is a principle that operates through all of our relationships with other Christians. Only God can truly see the state of the heart and soul. We as men are restricted to only looking at the external evidence of someone’s Christianity. But that does not mean we do not look for evidence.

It is a fact of the world we live in that false professors will come forward and join the church. Pastors may do all they can to prevent that, but they will never be able to be completely successful.

Similarly by this verse, baptism is the answer of a good conscience toward God, and pastors should do their best to ensure that those that come to be baptized are doing just that. Can they ever stop a false professor from being baptized? No. But that does not mean they should stop looking for evidence.


----------



## satz (May 27, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> satz said:
> 
> 
> > Baptism and Noah's salvation may be figuratively connected, but that does not mean every aspect of Noah's salvation applies to baptism.
> ...



Isn't the whole point of a _figure_ to compare two things in a particular way that the speaker has in mind?

I do not believe when people use figures of speech to compare two things in everyday conversation they intend to mean every single aspect of the two things they are comparing is similar.

When I say that someone is like a bull in a china shop, I am meaning to compare only one aspect of that person to a bull - his clumsiness. I do not intend to liken him to a bull in any other way.

Jesus said many times the kingdom of God is like... That does not mean we should go into his argicultural metaphors and derive all kinds of teachings about the kingdom of God from farming. Each metaphor Jesus used was to teach about one particular aspect of the kingdom of God.

So I do not see that the burden should rest on me to prove that baptism and the ark are not alike in every single way. Peter had a particular point to make by bringing up the ark, and his figure should not be pressed beyond that without reason.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 27, 2008)

satz said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > satz said:
> ...



Mark,

Your post simply indicates, by its meandering, exactly the point. If you simply stick to you initial answer that a false professor cannot answer God with a good conscience then you make my point that your initial rejection of the baptism of a person on the basis that they cannot answer God with a good conscience is something that you cannot determine in its visible administration. All hand-waving aside to distract from that point about how "...well we try to do our best..." doesn't cut it. Why am I not permitted to simply answer you: "...well we try to do our best..."?

You see, these types of issues, where you try to insist that "...an answer to a good conscience..." is key to the reason why you baptize a professor are convenient until somebody points out that you have absolutely no idea what the real state of the conscience of a man is. You don't know your own heart much less the heart of a man on the basis of a profession.

I'm not stating that the verse is immaterial to the issue of baptism but it is immaterial with respect to the issue of who a Baptist has determined they will now baptize according to the manner in which the verse is typically understood by the same.


----------



## satz (May 27, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Mark,
> 
> Your post simply indicates, by its meandering, exactly the point. If you simply stick to you initial answer that a false professor cannot answer God with a good conscience then you make my point that your initial rejection of the baptism of a person on the basis that they cannot answer God with a good conscience is something that you cannot determine in its visible administration. All hand-waving aside to distract from that point about how "...well we try to do our best..." doesn't cut it. Why am I not permitted to simply answer you: "...well we try to do our best..."?
> 
> ...



Rich,

If my post was meandering I will humbly submit the deficiency was mine, and not the position. 

Just in response to the part about 'trying our best' and the fact that we can never really know the heart of a man: As I tried to say in a previous post, while I believe the baptism requires the answer of a good conscience, from Acts, we see that baptisms took place very quickly after a positive response to preaching. So as far as the evidence for a 'good conscience' goes, the preachers did not take it that they needed to know 100% without any doubts that this profession was genuine.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 27, 2008)

But how can someone have a good conscience if they are unregenerate?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 27, 2008)

satz said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > Mark,
> ...


Mark,

You're conflating "profession" with "good conscience" and simply begging the question. You haven't demonstrated that a profession is equivalent to or gives warrant to assume that the professor has a "good conscience", that the visible administration is based upon a "good conscience", or that Peter intended any of the above in his use of the term. You simply assume it all and then proceed as if it is established.


----------



## MW (May 27, 2008)

satz said:


> Isn't the whole point of a _figure_ to compare two things in a particular way that the speaker has in mind?



The word is literally "antitype." It is not simply a word picture. It possesses "true likeness." That being the case, we assume similarity until it can be shown otherwise that there is dissimilarity.


----------



## MW (May 27, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> But how can someone have a good conscience if they are unregenerate?



He can't; but the apostle doesn't require them to have it in order to be baptised. The "answer" is not strictly speaking what the baptised person gives, but something baptism requires of the person. Baptism is an interrogation which demands a good conscience towards God. As such, the baptism comes first, and the answer of a good conscience follows.


----------



## satz (May 29, 2008)

Rev Winzer and Rich,

Thank you for the interaction. I think I will leave it at there for now.


----------

