# No! I refuse! You Can't Make me become a paedobaptist!



## BlackCalvinist (Mar 28, 2005)

Okay, so last night, I had the usual credo-paedo conversation with Tony Arnold, pastor of Gaithersburg Community Church. Tony's covenantal, historicist premill. 

So........ I'm sitting here reading an article over at reformedtheology.ca and the 'light' just clicked on in the back of my head that (for the first time) made the paedo viewpoint make sense.

Maybe I'm temporarily insane. I _did_ get abducted by the guys in black suits a while back......

I'm off to read some Fred Malone before I wake up Presbyterian.....


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Mar 28, 2005)

I'd be interested to see you reply to my "13 Questions for Reformed Baptists" thread.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 28, 2005)

Kerry,
I suggest staying away from Malone. Continue reading presbyterian material. My 2 cents: Just because you were reared in a credo camp, does not make you credo by default. You owe it to God and to yourself to endeavor to fully understand the position, else the position you own is not truly a position at all.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Mar 28, 2005)

I can relate in that _nothing_ about the paedo- viewpoint made sense to me until one day the "Aha!" light came on regarding one single point, and only then did other points subsequently begin to make sense.

Out of curiosity, Kerry, what is the point you're thinking of that started to make the overall paedo- view possibly seem at least somewhat plausible?


----------



## Archlute (Mar 28, 2005)

Kerry,

Reading Malone won't help you at this point. As a Baptist, I fought the proponents of covenantal baptism for two-and-a-half years, and Malone's book was my last sure defense. But at the end of that period, after studying the arguments from every possible angle (atomistically speaking, even the syntactical possibilities of the key Greek passages, as well as word studies in the LXX, etc.) I realized that there was no longer anything in Malone's work (or anyone else's) to assure me of the correctness of the Baptist position. They were just unable (or unwilling) to deal with the fully biblically-encompassing hermeneutic of the covenantal position. 

I used to return occasionally to Malone, wondering if maybe I'd missed something in his argument(s), but each time I returned I would find myself saying, "He's only attacking isolated sub-positions, not the real issues, and he's ignoring some important arguments as well." The more frequently you return, the quicker your dissatisfaction will make itself manifest. I love my Baptist friends and family, but I am now a completely convinced and unashamed conservative, confessionally-reformed, Presbyterian (I'm in the habit of making all of those qualifications - my wife's entire family is in the PCUSA, and we must distinguish!)

Hope that's more of an encouraging challenge for you than anything else.

In Christ.


----------



## JohnV (Mar 28, 2005)

> I used to return occasionally to Malone, wondering if maybe I'd missed something in his argument(s), but each time I returned I would find myself saying, "He's only attacking isolated sub-positions, not the real issues, and he's ignoring some important arguments as well." The more frequently you return, the quicker your dissatisfaction will make itself manifest. I love my Baptist friends and family, but I am now a completely convinced and unashamed conservative, confessionally-reformed, Presbyterian (I'm in the habit of making all of those qualifications - my wife's entire family is in the PCUSA, and we must distinguish!)



Well said, Adam. I've never been a Credo, being Paedo all my life, but a number of people have talked to me about it, and you say it very well. I really don't know what they're up about when they're missing so much. But I grant that the kind that I usually am faced with are Arminian Baptists, who hang an awful lot on the "coming out of the water" type of arguments. In part I feel left out of discussions like this because of my being raised Paedo. Its not right to think that therefore I've never thought it out, or really confronted the arguments; but all the same, I also haven't the richness that those who have come out of the Credo persuasion have received in their struggles. My struggles with the debate is not likely as deep a wrestling as theirs. So I usually confine myself to helping out in areas where the richness of my heritage can be of assistance in understanding it. But you hit on my feelings exactly in your post about the integrity of the position on its own, apart from the feelings we bring into it.


----------



## LawrenceU (Mar 28, 2005)

Kerry,
You don't need Malone. All you need is in the Scriptures.


----------



## Tirian (Mar 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> I can relate in that _nothing_ about the paedo- viewpoint made sense to me until one day the "Aha!" light came on regarding one single point, and only then did other points subsequently begin to make sense.



Chris,

Which point was it for you? I have been considering this prayerfully for sometime and I'm not convinced yet by the paedo viewpoint.

Matt


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Matthew Glover_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> ...



For me it was to presume continuity between the covenants unless God says otherwise.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Mar 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> For me it was to presume continuity between the covenants unless God says otherwise.



Agreed, and the parables of the kingdom.


----------



## daveb (Mar 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> For me it was to presume continuity between the covenants unless God says otherwise.



Same here.


----------



## pastorway (Mar 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LawrenceU_
> Kerry,
> You don't need Malone. All you need is in the Scriptures.



Yep. The light did not have to come on for me because it was already on and has just gotten brighter and brigheter the longer I confirm and defend the credo position from the Scriptures. 

All these years on the Puritan Board and I am more a Baptist today than I was when I signed up!

Phillip


----------



## Tirian (Mar 29, 2005)

> For me it was to presume continuity between the covenants unless God says otherwise.



Do you mean the Abrahamic covenant an the New covenant in Christ? To argue against continuity would be absurd and I agree with you on this. However my children are included in that covenant by birth legally and when they are regenerated (whenever that occurs) they also partake of that covenant spiritually. Am I being disobedient by instructing(or rather at this point, raising) them to be baptised after they make a profession? Are they excluded from any covenantal promise/benefit before baptism? Are you suggesting that even though the mode of the sacrement has changed that there is no possibility that the timing/application could have changed - that I should continue to apply it to my children upon legal inclusion in the convenant (birth)?

In asking these questions I find myself on the precipise of answering them in favor of the paedo view..... more prayer and consideration required.

Matt


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Matthew Glover_
> 
> 
> > For me it was to presume continuity between the covenants unless God says otherwise.
> ...



You know the answers to these questions, but I will address one. Can you show me where the timing changed? Good, searchign post, btw.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Mar 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by LawrenceU_
> ...



*grabs PastorWay's arm and hides behind him*


----------



## pastorway (Mar 29, 2005)

Study the New Covenant! NEW. Compare the Old and New covenants in 2 Cor 3, and everywhere else we find mention of it in the Scriptures. In doing so we find that for starters *everyone* in the NC:

knows God (a synonym for salvation - John 17:3)
has their sins forgiven (Heb 8-9)
has had Christ's blood shed for them (1 Cor 11:25; Luke 22:20)

I also recommend reading Owen on Hebrews 8! And listen to James White on Hebrews 8 here: The Better Covenant

Phillip


----------



## Me Died Blue (Mar 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Matthew Glover_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> ...



Well, I now believe that non-elect children of believers are external members of the New Covenant as part of the Covenant of Grace, but originally the key point that made me begin to rethink my credobaptism was that _even if they weren't_, and _even if_ credobaptists were right about the New Covenant consisting only of the elect, it is then a question of how it is to be determined from our perspective who is elect, and regarding that question, surely God's own many promises of spiritual blessing and favor to the children of believers are at least as reliable a ground on which to presume election as is professed faith, which is based on presumption just as much. I talked about that point further here.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Mar 29, 2005)

> Originally posted by pastorway:
> *Study the New Covenant! NEW. Compare the Old and New covenants in 2 Cor 3, and everywhere else we find mention of it in the Scriptures. In doing so we find that for starters everyone in the NC:
> 
> knows God (a synonym for salvation - John 17:3)
> ...




It's a *NNNNNNNNEEEEEEWWWWWW* Covenant!!! 

First of all, I hope you are not arguing that true, spiritual members of the Old Covenant did not have forgiveness of sins and that they did not know God. Admittedly, they did not know God in the way we can through the New Covenant in Christ's blood, wherein we know God through Christ in a personal, relational way (and no longer through priests and sacrifices and shadows of Christ), but nonetheless, they knew God in a primitive, pre-incarnate way. The Jer. 31/Heb. 8 passage is not a laundry list of brand new realities never-before-had by God's people, but shows that, in comparison to the Old Covenant, all of these realities are enjoyed in a more glorious and sure way, through Christ.

The Hebrew word for "new" in Jeremiah 31 is _KDSH_, rightly translated "fresh" or "renew" in English. The covenant of promise is made fresh and renewed in the New Covenant; it is not a _brand new_ covenant.

Paul makes it clear that we are not a NEW tree, but grafted into the same tree as before (Rom 11). He also makes it clear that we have been brought into the same ol' covenant of promise, not a BRAND NEW covenant of promise (Eph 2). If it is the same tree and the same covenant of promise, where is the blatantly CLEAR passages explaining the repeal of previous covenant membership understanding for the thousands of previously Jewish converts to Christ?

Peter made a grievous error at Pentecost, with all of the Jewish men and families present (many of whom were likely holding their children in their arms, wondering if this promise was to them also as before) by saying the promise was to "you and to your children and to all who are far off (the Gentiles)."

Where is the clear, Holy Spirit-inspired explanation of a radical change in the _same_ covenant of promise for an all-Jewish Church to understand without confusion?

The NEWNESS of the New Covenant, according to Hebrews, is related to the glory of its outward administration and the blessings enjoyed by the covenant members in spiritual union with God through Christ; that is, no longer being through a cold, rigid relationship of sacrifices, rituals and offerings. Most people stop reading at Hebrews 8 and conclude that what has been said in Jer. 31 is the "new stuff," when in reality the members of the CoG have all along had those things in some form, just not in as glorious of a form (2 Cor 3).

However, at the end of Hebrews 8 when we read that "what is getting old is ready to pass away," we must keep reading and find that the author of Hebrews then tells us precisely _what_ is getting old and is ready to pass away in the phrase "Now even the first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly place of holiness." A good exegete will realize that this next section of Hebrews is a clarification of what is "getting old and ready to pass away" in Ch. 8. Sometimes we have to not let the chapter boundaries get in the way of our interpretation of a text.

Yes, Christ's blood was shed for all of the members of the New Covenant, but you can be legally obligated within a covenant and not receive the benefits of that covenant. The children of believers are, by birth, legally brought into the covenant community, obligated to produce saving faith in order to enjoy the spiritual communion of life with God through Christ and in his blood.

Despite not all being elect and in a spiritual communion of life with God (through Christ's blood which is symbolized through animal blood until his coming), Moses still shows the blood of the covenant covering all of Israel (Exo 24:7-8).

By its very nature, a covenant is within a legal sphere of understanding. Legally speaking, one can be in the covenant and bound by its obligations/stipulations without knowledge of it (cg. unbelievers referred to as "covenant breakers" in Rom 1:31; I doubt we would argue your average pagan realizes they are in covenant with God). This does not guarantee you will ever receive the benefits promised in the covenant, yet the promise is still given to you, legally speaking. An infant born of a believer is made legally bound to the stipulations of the covenant (saving faith in Christ), but only when such faith is produced (a gift of God) are they brought into a spiritual communion with God through Christ and receive the spiritual benefits of the covenant in full.

[Edited on 3-29-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]


----------



## pastorway (Mar 29, 2005)

Listen to the link I gave for James White. He answers your post with sound exegesis.

Phillip


----------



## john_Mark (Mar 29, 2005)

*Kerry, I was waiting for you*

I was waiting for you in #prosapologian last night, but you never showed. I had a present for you.


----------



## Peter (Mar 29, 2005)

Matt, are you a Covenanter?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Mar 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> Listen to the link I gave for James White. He answers your post with sound exegesis.



I've heard it and I disagree.


----------



## pastorway (Mar 29, 2005)

well alrighty then......what else do we have to discuss then? You reject sound exegesis a main passage explaining the New Covenant, so we are at a roadblock......


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Mar 29, 2005)

> *You reject sound exegesis a main passage explaining the New Covenant, so we are at a roadblock......*




That's pretty much an _ad hominem,_ Phillip.

I can reverse that claim and put it back on you easily (along with the rest of the Presbyterians on this board).


----------



## pastorway (Mar 29, 2005)

no ad hom intended

White gives good solid exegesis of the passage and those who disagree with him are of necessity then holding to poor exegesis.

True, they say the same of me (and White), but we are right and you are wrong! (why? because I said so.....hehehe)


----------



## lwadkins (Mar 29, 2005)

Just a general comment here. The truth of the baptism issue is either discoverable or it isn't. If it is then one side of this issue is in error. Now having come to this issue late in life and being unsure when I attended a Baptist church and still unsure when I joined a Presbyterian church. Both sides claiming that their side has the sound exegesis of scripture on their side. It seems obvious to me that one side or the other is unable to overcome their human biases in order to see the truth of scripture. Now I have come to a conclusion based on Scripture, but I believe there are non-scriptural evidences that can aid a person in coming to a valid conclusion. One of those aids for me is philosophically noting that the argumentation on one particular side is, in my view, precisely in line with the proclivities and personal desires of fallen humans beings rather that strictly relying on a solid understanding of God's word on this issue.


----------



## Preach (Mar 29, 2005)

Kerry,
Brother, you have been on my mind and in my prayers for the last few months. I have sensed a restlessness within your posts. I commented on this about a month ago in another thread. If I am off base I apologize. 

I mentioned then and I mention now that the Lord may be in the process of transforming you theologically. Continue to search the Scriptures. For many who have converted to the paedo position, it has been one argument.

For me, it was not the most phiosophically sound, nor primary line of defense, but I will share it with you.

Dr. John Gerstner asked this question (rough paraphrase): "Is it possible that the children of believers in the Old Testament had greater blessings than the children of believers in the New Testament"? 

My immediate gut reaction was to say outloud, "no". That is what pricked my conscience.

Please know that we love you and are praying God's sovereign will upon your life. 

"In Christ",
Bobby


----------



## JohnV (Mar 29, 2005)

Well, if I look at it from another angle now, r.e. what is it about the Credo position that has me in knots, its this: Phillip and Lawrence I respect very much. I believe them. I think they're careful, loyal, thoughtful, truly believe, and also have the Holy Spirit. I don't think they are thorough, but then they likely think that I'm not thorough either. Now, though they haven't presented any argument that that makes the Paedo position shaky (I too think that they don't deal the the crux of the issue at stake), yet I cannot doubt their sincerity or the gifts God has given them. It's like Phillip says, it's in impasse. We just haven't, for all the posts on the subject on this Board, addressed the points we need to to make a difference for some. 

On the other hand, we have done more than make a difference for others. To get back to Scott's first post, we need to deal with it honestly, or we're not really dealing with it, but just finding excuses. Well, I'm not about to go around accusing anyone of a lack of integrity, because I just don't believe that. We're more often too honest with our inner feelings and notions; or should I say too open with them sometimes. For some this has borne fruit in opening up to them the belief that others hold dear. For others, like myself and Phillip, it has only deepened and strengthened the position we already were rooted in. So I think the discussions have been more than worth it. 

But getting back to Kerry's concern, as well as of others who have expressed the same struggling going on inside them, I would recommend listening to or reading all that has been recommended, from either side, for the truth will show itself, even through falsehood and deception, that's how strong it is. And then God will give you peace with it, whichever way you decide to believe, if you believe for the sake of God's truth and God's righteousness, not your own. 

What has me convinced right now, as a very strong argument that seems impeachable, is William Young's statement in his article on Historic Calvinism And NeoCalvinism, where he says, "The Covenant relation warrants presumption that children of believers are regenerated from earliest infancy (he is arguing against Kuyperian Presumptive Regeneration here) *and are to be treated as posessing saving grace* unless and until they should reject the covenant." That piece inserted in the argument against a wrong kind of PR, which I agree with, nevertheless says with impeccable logic what the place of children of believers are to hold in the church. That means that we as Paedos, have a different understanding of what baptism means and represents than the Baptists. It is two different baptisms, though not entirely so. And I think that's the crux of the issue at stake with those who are struggling with it. We're not really talking about why children should be included in the rite of baptism, from the Paedo end, but why they should be excluded from it. 

And that's a quite different discussion, as I make it out. We may defend our particular views, but for me there needs to be a reason for excluding the children. And that has been discussed to quite an extent on this Board. At the same time, it seems to me, the question for the Credo is not so much why children should be included, but why it should not be administered only to those who express, or can credibly express their faith.


----------



## SRoper (Mar 29, 2005)

"For me it was to presume continuity between the covenants unless God says otherwise."

Same here. Specifically, I realized that "where is paedobaptism mentioned in Scripture?" is the wrong question.


----------



## john_Mark (Mar 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SRoper_
> "For me it was to presume continuity between the covenants unless God says otherwise."
> 
> Same here. Specifically, I realized that "where is paedobaptism mentioned in Scripture?" is the wrong question.



This sounds like an argument from silence i.e. "unless I am explicitely told not to do it I am going to do it." No offense, but from my years of arguing with Roman Catholics if the above type of argumentation were enough to settle their Traditions the argument would have been over long ago. 

They could assume all they wanted unless explicitely forbidden.

For Kerry: Last night, Dr. White said he's going to have to send you the last two issues of the RBTR where this issue is addressed.


----------



## JohnV (Mar 29, 2005)

Mark:
I think that's what Scott is saying too, if I'm not mistaken. He's not moved by the argument from silence either.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 29, 2005)




----------



## blhowes (Mar 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_


Can this author be trusted, or is he one of those modern-day theologians we need to be careful with?


----------



## blhowes (Mar 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> Bob, I think he has a new perspective on stuff...


That's what I was afraid of. Thanks for the head up.


----------



## Presbyrino (Mar 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> no ad hom intended
> 
> White gives good solid exegesis of the passage and those who disagree with him are of necessity then holding to poor exegesis.



Here's some even sounder exegesis you may not have considered:
http://reformedsermons.org/compile_topic.asp/site//category/subjects/topic/Infant Baptism


----------



## blhowes (Mar 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> Are you mocking my new do?




[bowing out so as not to take the thread too far down a rabbit trail]


----------



## john_Mark (Mar 29, 2005)

Hi John, 

I guess I need to add some context to my thoughts.

The first quote, "For me it was to presume continuity between the covenants unless God says otherwise." I see this as assuming that neither to baptize or not to baptize infants is explicit so the current belief will stand unless told to do otherwise. Also, it assumes that to have continuity we must baptize infants.

Next we have, "œSame here. Specifically, I realized that "where is paedobaptism mentioned in Scripture?" is the wrong question." I don´t see this in the same light as above (obviously). We are explicitly told to baptize. So the question becomes what are the elements involved in baptism? From which we draw the question of paedo-baptism being valid or not. So this question is derived from what should be the proper administration of baptism rather than a stand alone question to prove the position. 

Just my thoughts.

Your friendly neighborhood, second-class, baptist PB member.


----------



## Philip A (Mar 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by john_Mark_
> For Kerry: Last night, Dr. White said he's going to have to send you the last two issues of the RBTR where this issue is addressed.



Kerry,

This is a very good resource, take your time studying them both. Also consider picking up the full version of _Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes_ by Michael Renihan (which is contained in partial form in both of these issues of RBTR). As you study though the issue, and seek to find answers to the assertions of our paedobaptist brethren, you may well find that most if not all of your previous reasons for holding to Credobaptism no longer hold up. At this point, however, it would be a mistake to therefore conclude that there is therefore no basis for Credobaptism. The modern Baptist case is in many ways quite different from the case of the early Particular Baptists, especially that of Nehemiah Coxe and the other writers of the 1689 Confession.

There was a point at which I tried to become a paedobaptist, to take on the presupposition that infant baptism was correct, and try to find support for it in the scriptures. This helped me to clear up my position to quite a degree (not that I have, or can ever, fully plumb the depths of scripture) but I was never able to justify it.

I have never been able to force the Abrahamic Covenant to be coextensive with the Covenant of Grace.


.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Mar 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Philip A:_
> I have never been able to force the Abrahamic Covenant to be coextensive with the Covenant of Grace.




Do you not consider the Abrahamic covenant to be the covenant of promise (the CoG)? There is a vast amount of NT texts that prove they are coextensive.

Some simple examples:



> *Luke 1:68 Â "œBlessed be the Lord God of Israel,
> for he has visited and redeemed his people
> 69Â and has raised up a horn of salvation for us
> in the house of his servant David,
> ...


*


The continuity between the stipulations/obligations and makeup of the Old and New Covenants is very clear:




Exodus 6:7 I will take you to be my people, and I will be your God, and you shall know that I am the Lord your God, who has brought you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians

and

Ezekiel 36:28 You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God.

Click to expand...


[Edited on 3-29-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]

[Edited on 3-29-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]

[Edited on 3-29-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]*


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by joshua_
> ...



Love you guys _anyway._ 




> I have never been able to force the Abrahamic Covenant to be coextensive with the Covenant of Grace.



Its because you are misunderstanding the _Covenant of Works._ If you do not understnad why I say that, then that is saying something important about your understanding of "covenant".

[Edited on 3-29-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## Philip A (Mar 29, 2005)

> I have never been able to force the Abrahamic Covenant to be coextensive with the Covenant of Grace.



Its because you are misunderstanding the _Covenant of Works._ If you do not understnad why I say that, then that is saying something important about your understanding of "covenant".

[/quote]

Well, if _someone_ would get on with COLO.... 

But seriously now, my comment was very general, as I did not identify the particular points at which I see a mismatch, but nevertheless, I am particularly interested to find out that to which you are referring. By all means, please explain. 

-Philip
(not so patiently waiting on Rutherford  )

[Edited on 3-29-2005 by Philip A]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 29, 2005)

Sorry about COLO. We are trying to get through that and two other books at the same time. I hope to have all 3 done soon. (No really, soon!) I'll let Rutherford explain.


----------



## Philip A (Mar 29, 2005)

Where and how does Rutherford differ from Witsius, in general? What would I miss if I finished Witsius and didn't read Rutherford?


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Mar 29, 2005)

This is pretty fascinating.  I've been deluged with IMs, Doc sent me the articles from the RBTR (I printed one - still reading) and even on my AACL list, someone posted about it which touched off a discussion about paedobaptism!  and after all that.... Tony gave me a call  (matter of fact, I pointed him to this page so he could have a good laugh too)

I had no idea that folks actually paid any attention to what I write 

That said, I'm going to pick up Joachim Jeremias' book, Bromily's book, Sartelle's book, Murray's book and also the resource listed above by Philip A and stuff by Fred Malone, Doc's sermon on Hebrews and his two articles and others. I do intend to study this issue out in full...

I think what I may need to do ahead of all of that is pick up a 'primer' on Covenant Theology, since everyone else involved in the debate is starting there except for me (I'm still on the 'center' of the fence as a progressive dispensationalist....). 

That's a nice cover, Matthew.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Mar 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Preach_
> Kerry,
> Brother, you have been on my mind and in my prayers for the last few months. I have sensed a restlessness within your posts. I commented on this about a month ago in another thread. If I am off base I apologize.
> 
> I mentioned then and I mention now that the Lord may be in the process of transforming you theologically. Continue to search the Scriptures.



Not just in this area, but in others as well, Bobby. You're not completely off base........ I'm always 'in-flux' - always challenging what I believe and constantly checking it again and again by the scriptures. At the end of the day, I want to be _theologically correct_ - not simply because it looks good to have all my theological ducks in a row properly or because that's the name of my website, but because right doctrine is glorifying to God when proclaimed in love (truth in love... you know...that thing). 

A lot of 'issues' theologically have been popping up for me ever since 98 (which is when Bill Kilgore from Scripture Thoughts - http://home.flash.net/~thinkman ) first challenged me on the issue of total depravity, a challenge that began a 2-year trek into Calvinism (culminating in a reading of Custance's _The Sovereignty of Grace_ and Doc's _The Potter's Freedom_ ). Since then, as I've grown in my undestanding of the doctrines of grace, other areas of my theology have been affected as well. I don't know how MacArthur stays put where he is, but I can't. So over the past 2-3 years, I've quietly, almost unnoticably floated closer to Covenant Theology, courtesy of Saucy, C. Marvin Pate, Bock and Blaising. Dispensationalist roots die hard... and some still do make sense. I've spent more time interacting with folks in the reformed/calvinistic camp than not... so issues of baptism and other CT related issues keep coming up because... I'm around them. 

I wonder where I'll 'end up' after all of this, sometimes. I think a trip to RTS and an M.Div degree may help.

I appreciate beyond words that you are and have been praying for me. That may be part of the reason my heart has softened on some issues.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Mar 29, 2005)

Kerry,

Without a doubt study the scriptures. But don't be afraid to read some good authors if you so desire. Anyone fighting against that is in fear of the truth, the truth WILL stand either way. I've studied the issue going on 5 years now and the more I read scriptures "the dots were connecting" and the more I was convinced in the infant position (meaning covenant position traditionally understood). 

I can tell you with a honest heart I NEVER had a preconceived idea about baptism one way or the other. I was baptized in a baptist church from atheism/agnosticism. No "churchy tradition baggage" to speak of (I had irreligious baggage). But the more and more I studied the more the Scriptures opened up in that direction for me. When I finally did read some authors, either way, what I found was that what I studied was increasingly falling into the paedeo corner. I was being and am convinced from the Word of God, prayer to that end and nothing less. I actually fought, mentally, at one time to stay in the other corner - but logic and reason alone militated against it.

Finally, I prayed with all earnest and heart that justified layman sinner can that God would open my eyes one way or the other. I also, prayed for both camps that the truth would be revealed to the one or the other which ever it was.

I say all that to hopefully encourage you in this journey of our faith and not to convince you of a particular position (though I have to state my position for open honesty). I know what those "epiphany of truth" moments are like. I know what your talking about! I've had three big ones in my life, Christ revealed to me at conversion, what we nickname as Calvinism and covenant theology strictly speaking. Every time the Scriptures literally have "come alive".

So again, God's word will lead and don't fear reading sound teachers - nothing wrong with that at all. There is a lot to be gained reading both those in opposition to the truth and those in position of the truth for one learns from the wrong as well as the correct position by way of contrast.

I'll remember you in my prayers.

In Christ,

Larry

[Edited on 3-30-2005 by Larry Hughes]


----------



## Philip A (Mar 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> I'll let Rutherford explain.



Oh, now that's a low down trick.... double tongues for you


Seriously though, I want to know how my inability to see what's going on in your head translates to not understanding covenant.

If you want to know how I understand "covenant", just go read Witsius....


----------



## Tirian (Mar 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> Matt, are you a Covenanter?



If you are talking to this Matt, then the answer us YES. 

But I'm not without baggage 

Matt


----------



## Peter (Mar 30, 2005)

A covenanter who doesnt believe in covenant baptism, how does that work?


----------



## Tirian (Mar 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> A covenanter who doesnt believe in covenant baptism, how does that work?



My background is in the Bretheren church (non-exclusive) - the Lord led me to the RP church only last year, though for my wife it was a return to the church of her childhood. This is one area that I just haven't studied hard enough though. I feel like I have "come home" myself, but there is no automatic mechanism to align myself completely with the testimony of the church - I need to bring myself there through a great deal of prayer and study. For me, this particular issue of baptism is not one set in stone - I'm not rejecting any view nor am I blindly embracing any view. 

Matt


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 30, 2005)

Matthew writes:

"For me, this particular issue of baptism is not one set in stone - I'm not rejecting any view nor am I blindly embracing any view."

I applaud this idea. At least Matthew is not subscribing to a view by default like the majority.


----------



## Augusta (Mar 30, 2005)

This issue to my very logical mind (for a woman) is very easy. God deals with households. All through the OT and NT. This has all coalesced for me very recently in an even firmer manner upon understanding God's order of headship. I learned more about this by understanding the headcovering issue in 1 Cor. 11. God's created order is unimpeachable. It is from creation and has never in any way been abbrogated but only strengthened in the NT in 1 Cor. 7:14-16 in addition to all of the "households" that are baptized. The man is the head of the household. In the OT are numerous examples of household blessing and household curses. Noah et al, Lot et al, and even Achan and his poor family and their animals were killed because of his sin in Joshua 7. The burden of proof that God deals with everyone on an individual basis all of a sudden is on the Baptists. I still think this is a subtely arminian view left over that says we have a work that we must do of our own not so "free will." Ick!

Brian Schwertley deals with this less oft used arguement in the sermon below. It is the 4th in a series but the first 3 deal with what is already hashed out all of the time ad nauseum. There is also a 5th part which should be interesting. I haven't got to that one yet. 

Baptism pt 4 B. Schwertley


----------



## street preacher (Mar 30, 2005)

Children of believing parents are holy in the sight of God. Holy in the Greek is translated in other passages of Scripture as SAINT. Children in the Covenant Community are set apart by God Himself. They are church members! In Ephesians Paul says that the letter is written to the SAINTS in Ephesus. If the letter to the Ephesians is written to and addresses the Saints, then why does he directly address the children in this letter, hmmmmm?

[Edited on 3-31-2005 by street preacher]


----------



## Augusta (Mar 31, 2005)

If it is such a "new" covenant and not just a fulfilled and refreshed covenant that all in the covenant are elect, why then does the bible say that the tares will grow among the wheat? And we are not to try to separate them but that is for the Lord to do in the final judgment. 

The good seeds are the invisible church obviously because they are the seed that the "Son of Man" had planted and are the "the sons of the kingdom." Then satan sows the bad seeds "among" the good seeds close enough that the tares are not to be pulled up so as not to damage the wheat. Notice that it doesn't mention the daughters of the kingdom but the sons because women and children were always subject to their fathers or husbands. The "covenant household" view is upheld again. 

Schwertley and others I have heard it from say that in that geographical area there was a weed that would grow with the wheat that was called bearded darnell. It looked just like the wheat until it came to full bloom and "bore its fruit" and had this bearded looking appearance and then you could tell them apart. So we will know them by their fruit in due time but will not be able to pick them out right away. 

Not to mention that in the vineyard parable the reprobate grow right on the vine but are cut off in the final judgment. Is not the vine a symbol of the visible church? 

Matthew 13: 

37 He answered and said to them: "He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. 

38 The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked one. 

39 The enemy who sowed them is the devil, the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels. 

40 Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age. 

41 The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, 

42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 

43 Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!


----------



## ChristianTrader (Mar 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Matthew writes:
> 
> "For me, this particular issue of baptism is not one set in stone - I'm not rejecting any view nor am I blindly embracing any view."
> ...



But everyone always has a default position. The issue is that we should not just accept the default but should study the issue carefully.

In this issue, one either would baptise their children currently or they would not. There is no neutral position. Now you could discuss how strongly one holds to a particular belief and how hard it would be to convince a person otherwise.

Personally, I have studied the issue some but am not completely convince d for the paedobaptist position. My default position is the WCF. So if the question came up regarding baptizing a child of mine, I would baptize them.

CT


----------



## JohnV (Mar 31, 2005)

> _from the hand of Hermonta, alias CT (ChristianTrader)_
> But everyone always has a default position. The issue is that we should not just accept the default but should study the issue carefully.


I'd like to discuss that sometime. It seems to me that this is a biased statement, Hermonta, as it comes from a default position 



But, I see your point also. You're saying the same thing that I would have. The truth is there for us to see, and it is the aim of instruction and study to attain to the truth of a matter. 

I'm so glad to see these posts, defending the rightful place of children within the family of God, and that baptism has an application to that end. But I know that from my Dutch roots that there has come a view of baptism, wrongly called PR, that thinks that that is the basic application of baptism. And I find that I have to struggle against misconceived views of Paedo baptism more than I struggle against Credo baptism. I guess that's because I've seen many, family and friends, turn from Paedo to Credo (Arminianist) because of such reasons, showing that they didn't understand it in the first place. So I like seeing these kinds of posts; it shows that we are all thinking about it a lot more.


----------



## Augusta (Mar 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> I'm so glad to see these posts, defending the rightful place of children within the family of God, and that baptism has an application to that end. But I know that from my Dutch roots that there has come a view of baptism, wrongly called PR, that thinks that that is the basic application of baptism. And I find that I have to struggle against misconceived views of Paedo baptism more than I struggle against Credo baptism. I guess that's because I've seen many, family and friends, turn from Paedo to Credo (Arminianist) because of such reasons, showing that they didn't understand it in the first place. So I like seeing these kinds of posts; it shows that we are all thinking about it a lot more.



In Christ we are individuals but in covenant we are households with a covenant head. This is consistent with the OT sign of the covenant and how it was administered (to households). God didn't suddenly change his means and covenant. He fullfilled it, and the OT believers were eschatologically "now, not yet" one with us in the invisible church from before the foundations of the world. 

1 Cor. 10

1 Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, 

2 all were baptized  into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 

3 all ate the same spiritual food, 

4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock  that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. 

5 But with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness. 

In Egypt when the angel of death was sweeping through it was the "households" that were covered by the blood of the passover lamb. They were told if any stepped out of that covered house they would die. If they stayed they were safe.

I challenge any baptist to listen to Schwertley's entire series on baptism. It's a 6 part series and very in-depth. Yes, I thought it was 5 but it's 6 and he gives out so much info in each part. He is really fast paced and thorough. He deals with the covenant family very well. It is free and can be downloaded in mp3 form for ipods or for burning to discs to listen in the car. Check it out.

Schwertley Baptism series


----------



## Augusta (Mar 31, 2005)

Found an awesome quote by Rushdooney from The Institutes of Biblical Law:

"Circumcision on the eighth day removes the power of the rite from man to God. The young child is not capable of justifying, regenerating, or santifying itself. He is entirely passive in the rite. The fact of divine grace is thus set forth. Just as the covenant wholly represents Gods initiative in grace, so the sign of the covenant represents the same."

How cool is that! You can't get much more reformed than that!


----------



## Thomas (Apr 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by LawrenceU_
> ...


 1Timothy 6:20


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Thomas_
> 1Timothy 6:20



Nice use of _ad hominem_ there, buddy.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 16, 2005)

And twisting of Scripture, no less ...


----------



## Theological Books (Apr 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by OS_X_
> Okay, so last night, I had the usual credo-paedo conversation with Tony Arnold, pastor of Gaithersburg Community Church. Tony's covenantal, historicist premill.
> 
> So........ I'm sitting here reading an article over at reformedtheology.ca and the 'light' just clicked on in the back of my head that (for the first time) made the paedo viewpoint make sense.
> ...



Kerry, I do not know you, but I want to encourage you. *First*, let me say there are worse things for you to become than a paedobaptist. Your world will not end, though your life around you may change. *Second*, I am personally a Reformed Baptist (2nd LBC of 1689), but I am a member in good standing of an Orthodox Presbyterian Church, taking an exception (my wife and I) to paedobaptism. *Third*, I am a student at Westminster Seminary California, and have lived in an atmosphere of an overwhelming majority of paedobaptists, many of whom are my dearest and closest friends. (I have lived in this environment for nearly five years.). *Fourth*, my wife and I are expecting our first child this August.

All of this is to say, "I feel ya." And I think I can say that moreso than many others. Sure, many have gone through similar circumstances, but I think that number is relatively few if you look at the lives of Baptists as a whole (usually avoiding Presbyterian circles, schools, influences, etc., in general). And all of this is to say that the most compelling aspect of paedobaptism is "peer pressure." This is not to say my beloved paedo bretrhen want to manipulate you into paedobaptism, but the pressure from the reformed community (due to the lack of a strong presence of well-articulated and trained Reformed Baptists) is very strong. I know what it is like to be an outsider, especially as a student at WSC and a member of an OPC church. Though I am a fellow student and fellow church member, I'm still not "one of them." That mentality is inesapable in my environment, and dare I say in the reformed community as a whole. The pressure is enormous. You cannot escape it. If you have the ability, ask Fred Malone about his journey. When he told it to me--and the others listening as he held court around a nice fire-pit while enjoying fine Christian liberties--I simply said, "Thank you, God, someone else has gone through this." And Baptists who "convert" to paedobaptism will say, if honest, that a pressure--unlike any other, even that of Calvinism--had been lifted from their shoulders. I believe the main reason is the pressure of being accepted as "one of the reformed." It seems the pressure of being "truly reformed" (a paedobaptist) is a great impetus not only for searching for truth, but is a great reason to see the opposing view as truth. The baby--Wesley Bradford Myers, Jr.--is creating, yet again, the same kind of pressure. It is a bit different, now, as everyone knows I am the "shining light" of Baptistism on campus; or the "token" Baptist. My minister and session also know me intimately and where I stand theologically, so their "pressure" isn't as great as it might be upon someone else. (They know I'm not the kind of Baptist who argues, "It's John the Baptit, not John the Presbyterian!") Yet, the pressure is still there. Is it a creation of mind? Is it the intent of the paedos to manipulate me? No, it is neither of the two, but the pressure of acceptance is still there at all times.

To date, my child will not be baptized as an infant. It isn't that I don't "get" the paedo arguments. I've been taught the paedo arguments from the best paedo professors, systematicians, exegetes, and biblical theological minds in the nation. I know Murray's view inside and out (as represented by Dr. Robert Strimple), and I know Klines view inside and out. I know paedobaptist covenant theology. I know all the paedobaptist prooftexts. I know all the rediculous and serious quotes from scholars on both sides. I know bad representations, and I know good representations. I know deficient representations, and I know well-nurtured representations. And, you know what? The light still hasn't "turned on." BUT I PRAY FOR GOD TO TURN ON THAT LIGHT! I so desparately want to become a paedobaptist there is a HUNGER for it. The hunger isn't always full-blown throttle, but it's always in the back of my mind. And I'm convinced it may be there for several years, or even the rest of my life (if I remain a Baptist). But I still have no biblical desire to baptize my son, my firstborn. Why not? I guess that is the million dollar question. I hope you can find your "why not," but if you don't, I certainly won't blame you. I could greatly and sincerely empathize with your decision if you became a paedobaptist. I couldn't raise a charge against you if you did. But I simply want you to be aware that the pressure for becoming a paedo seems even greater than pressure to become a Calvinist. It is a different form of an opponent, being inside the reformed community (calvinistic doctrines of grace) than being outside of it (a non-calvinist). It's a different kind of pressure and insistance.

Dear brother, I know how it feels. Be patient. You have your whole life ahead of you. While baptism is a matter of obedience to God that we should want to settle, I firmly believe God completely understands the torment through which one can go in making such a decision, especially with godly men and scholars on each side making significant contributions conflicting with one another. I believe God understands the struggling to such a degree that disobedience in the area of paedo/credo baptism is "covered with more grace and kindness and mercy and forgiveness" than many other doctrinal errors and practically applied practices of the faith.

That being said, you can remain a Baptist and believe non-elect are in the New Covenant. You can remain a Baptist and adhere to the covenant of works, the covenant of redemption, and the covenant of grace. You can be a Baptist and be truly covenantal, embracing the familial aspect of the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants. You can be a Baptist and a consistent covenantal theologian. You can be a BAptist and be amillennial. You can be a Baptist and be TRULY REFORMED. I'm just sad to say there aren't many Baptists out there providing the answers to convince you of all of this. By God's grace, maybe one day I can spill ink on the subject to be of help to someone such as you; as someone such as _myself_. Until then, be patient. There is no need to hurry, brother.

[Edited on 4-27-2005 by Theological Books]


----------



## govols (Apr 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> 1 Cor. 10
> 
> 1 Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our *fathers* were under the cloud, all passed through the sea,
> ...



All were baptized refers to "all our fathers" but if you say that the children, ie a boy(s), then what if they did not have children. Does it still hold true that they were their fathers?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 27, 2005)

The point of mentioning "all were baptized" is that there was no distinguishing between baptism for the elect or professing elect - the entirety of Israel was baptized, just as the entirety of the visible Church should be baptized.


----------



## govols (Apr 27, 2005)

So you mean that Israel was professing their solidarity, alliance, fellowship with Moses as their leader?


----------



## JohnV (Apr 27, 2005)

In response to Theological Books, I would like to make a remark or two. 

I don't believe this is a good time to be tying the present Presbyterian churches to the purity of doctrine; they are not good representatives of that right now. There are things going on that betray the low esteem of doctrine in the general population of the churches. There are many very good defenders of doctrine in the churches, to be sure. Yet it is still true that there are some getting away with things that ordinarily are not as present in the churches as they are present today. So I would not at all recommend judging the proper Prebyterian view of baptism by the present faithfulness in the Presbyterian churches. 

There is pressure of all sorts in the churches. I was born Paedo baptist, and never knew any other, but I too feel the "pressure" to conform to a lower view of it, one that is not in the way of the quiet general slide into oblivion taking place. In some places it is not so quiet, in that there are militant views on certain topics charging those differing with them of error (to put it mildly), and paint them as protagonists when in actual fact they themselves were the ones who came out swinging, they themselves were the antagonistic exclusivists. There is pressure of all kinds, and it is not just a Presbyterian or even a Christian phenomenon. 

I think we should be careful not to paste things over issues that don't belong there. I do understand very well that the impetus to belong includes facing the differences, especially where lines are drawn in the sand. If you are the one drawing the line, however, then you can expect people to see the line in their midst. I too have drawn a line, a very heavy one; and I am facing the consequences. But I have to always remember the difference between belligerance and ignorance. For some reason people are ever so willing to think that an Amillennialist or a Classicist is out on the warpath against the militant Postmilliennialist, or the militant Presuppostionalist, even though the huge mountain of evidence is the other way. My objection for my right just to be a member without undue duress is still, after more than four years of official oversight by the church, unheard. I have stated my concern in more ways than I can number, and more often than a farmer calls his cows in for milking, but for some reason they still think I'm out for someone's head, and nothing more. Can we expect a proper consensus among Presbyterians in such an atmosphere of distrust, exacerbated by constant barrage of new, and differing and "line in the sand" ideas?

I understand that in reality the pure doctrine is mixed with the fallen people. Our efforts to understand, much less to live the doctrines, is hampered by our own sins, the ones we are unwilling to let go of because there is no pressure from our peers to do so. They even encourage certain sins. But when you're thinking through any doctrinal issue you have to keep them separate. Don't look at the Presbyterians, but look at Presbyterian teaching. See if it reflects sound Biblical doctrine. And ask about the things you don't understand. Don't accept what you cannot agree with, just because of pressure; just obey the truth as best you can. And do so because you love God with all your heart, courage, and strength. 

I think we have come a long ways in discussions on the different views on baptism. The lines in the sand are mostly still in the same place, but our reasoning together has become more precise, more respectful, and more fruitful, through our fellowshiping together. Our mutual aim is the unified truth of Scripture, in order to please the same Master we all serve. No one is earning any points personally. We're all trying to leave the truth as we see it so that we may embrace the truth as it really is, admitting of our own fallibility and limitations. And this Board has accommodated that effort very, very well. 

So we are one here: no pressure. And that is how it is in the Church even more so. That's how I see things from where I sit.


----------



## Theological Books (Apr 27, 2005)

JohnV,

I can honestly say I do not understand your remarks toward what I wrote in the slightest. Sorry.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Theological Books_
> JohnV,
> 
> I can honestly say I do not understand your remarks toward what I wrote in the slightest. Sorry.



John,
I don't want to over the issues again but I think I can understand TB's confusion: You have to bring up Presupp/Postmill bad guys in many of your posts. This throws some people off. I know you aren't referring to me or people like me. But for some on here--TB, for one--it can get confusing.


----------



## JohnV (Apr 27, 2005)

Jacob:

Point well taken. I'm sorry. 

TB:

I'm sorry if I confused you. I was responding to the original intent of this thread, not trying necessarily to counter your post. It is a tough struggle when it comes to facing issues on which Christians differ, when they differ honestly; it is a whole other issue when they differ dishonestly. I was using my own experiences to demonstrate how honest differences can become dishonest. "Peer pressure" can be a dishonest influence upon an honest difference.


----------



## Theological Books (Apr 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> Jacob:
> 
> Point well taken. I'm sorry.
> ...



Ah, yes, and I do not think the paedobaptist brother wants to imploy "peer pressure," but the is the nature of the beast.


----------

