# When to Baptize



## twogunfighter (Dec 3, 2004)

Many of you know that I have been trying to figure out if infant baptism is required or just authorized by scripture. I am certain that Acts 2:39 shows that the covenant promises are to the children of beleivers and I have been for some time. I have just been struggling with the idea of requiring baptism as infants rather than some time later down the line. I have been reading Witsius in an attempt to understand why the requirement. It seems that Witsius thinks the following:

A: Children are included in the covenant promise and as such are presumed to receive the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:39, 1 Cor 7:14, Matt 19:14 etc

B: Those that have received the Holy Spirit cannot be denied baptism of water. Acts 10:47, Acts 11:16-18

C: Therefore infants cannot lawfully be denied water baptism by their adult Christian parents.

On the face of it I am convinced, but I would like to submit his argument to the board for hole poking. Also those that are scholars may want to correct my understanding if I don't understand Witsius' argument correctly.

Thanks 
Chuck


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 3, 2004)

Ahh, Witsius' 'presumption' rears it's head!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 3, 2004)

Chuck,
God commands that the sign be placed on our children. We do so in faith that He whom has promised, as He has promised father Abraham, is indeed faithful to even us.


----------



## twogunfighter (Dec 3, 2004)

Are you saying that I don't understand Witsius correctly?



> God commands that the sign be placed on our children.



Agreed. 

At what age must the children be baptized?

Answer: As soon as possible.

Why?

Answer: see A+B=C in my first post.

Are we talking past each other here?

[Edited on 3-12-2004 by twogunfighter]


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 3, 2004)

Is baptism the succession of circumcision?

If so, did God have the OT saints tarry in applying that sign?


----------



## twogunfighter (Dec 3, 2004)

Fred


> Is baptism the succession of circumcision?



Yes, but it is not the equivalent. Even among PB churches baptism is not carried out on the eighth day. 

I am confused by both of you. Are you all saying that my A+B=C is an incorrect formulation? If so I want to know why. Did I not understand or did Witsius get it wrong?


----------



## Peter (Dec 3, 2004)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Is baptism the succession of circumcision?
> 
> If so, did God have the OT saints tarry in applying that sign?



Yes. 8 days I believe.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 3, 2004)

Chuck,
You have not misunderstood Witsius. What we are saying and what Witsius is saying are both true.


----------



## twogunfighter (Dec 3, 2004)

OK good I am glad that paedos are not poking holes. Now to see if any baptists can.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Dec 3, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



One thing though... I do believe the Council of Carthage decided that Christians are not obligated to baptize along that same time table. They just said "asap" (or something to that effect).


----------



## pastorway (Dec 3, 2004)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Is baptism the succession of circumcision?



No.

Otherwise the council in Acts would have replied to the Gentile churches that they did not have to be circumcised because they were already baptized. yet they said no such thing because OT circumcision is not connected to NT baptism in any way.



[Edited on 12-3-04 by pastorway]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 3, 2004)

Phillip,
What scriptures in Acts are you exactly referencing?


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 3, 2004)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



Or else Peter would have told the Jews that their children that their children were not included in the covenant. :bigsmile:


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 3, 2004)

Remeber though, that there is some truth to what Phillip is saying. ("Some"!) (Don't lose your head now Phillip). 

Circumcision is not replaced by baptism in that one necessarily makes way for the other. I think oftentimes is that Paedos misrepresent what is fulfilled in Christ (circumcision) and what now becomes a more distinct covenant sign based on what Christ did and continues to do. Christ fulfills and continues circumcision more distinctly in regeneration by the cross fulfilled. For example, I am circumcised with a circumcision made without hands. Christ continues that which physcial circumcision symbolized (regeneration). But I have new covenant sign that "technically" replaced the old, but "substantively" replaced it, and demonstrates not only my regenerate, by my washing in the Word (baptism).



> A: Children are included in the covenant promise and as such are presumed to receive the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:39, 1 Cor 7:14, Matt 19:14 etc
> 
> B: Those that have received the Holy Spirit cannot be denied baptism of water. Acts 10:47, Acts 11:16-18
> 
> C: Therefore infants cannot lawfully be denied water baptism by their adult Christian parents.



This formula is excellent.
Promise + Assumption of the Holy Spirit = baptism. This was the position of Calvin and reformers as well. (Calvin harps on this).


----------



## twogunfighter (Dec 6, 2004)

Phillip




> No.
> Otherwise the council in Acts would have replied to the Gentile churches that they did not have to be circumcised because they were already baptized. yet they said no such thing because OT circumcision is not connected to NT baptism in any way.



Note that my rewriting of Witsius formulation has no OT supporting scriptures. This is because I did not want the typical Baptist argument that since Baptism is a new covenant sign OT connections don't hold water. In my view the circumcision/baptism parrallels are corroborative evidence and should not be the pillar that paedobaptism is upheld on. 

I think that my formula must be attacked by Baptists at point A, because once A is stipulated to then there is no option to exegete B other than the way Witsius did. I have attempted to look up in the search function for other threads what the alternate exegesis of the baptist side would be for Acts 2:39 and Cor 7:14 and have found little on those two verses. 

I am begging one of you baptists to somehow rescue me from this CT logic. I am being dragged with my fingers digging holes in the carpet to the PaedoBaptist position. Life would be so much easier to be blissfully ignorant.

Fred

In one of the other threads that I read about Presumptive Regeneration, you said that you did not believe in PR but in PE. If you hold to PE then how do you know when to baptize your kids if you do not assume that the Holy Spirit is currently residing in your children?

Chuck


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 6, 2004)

Chuck,
Fred's position is that the HS is not yet residing in his child. He will confidently 'presume'' Gods election but not regeneration until fruit is evidenced. As far as baptism, all CT's place the sign on thier children asap. The sign is placed in obedience and in faith. It points to that which God has already promised to accomplish. 

Chapter XXVIII.
Of Baptism.

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,(a) not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church;(b) but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,(c) of his ingrafting into Christ,(d) of regeneration,(e) of remission of sins,(f) and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life.(g) Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.(h)


----------



## twogunfighter (Dec 6, 2004)

Scott

Yes, I understand, but why baptize if you do not presume that the HS is living in the child. Regeneration is where Acts 10:47 becomes operative. If there is no regeneration then the sign can be biblically withheld because we are only required to baptize those that the HS can be presumed to indwell whether by their own confession or by the faith of the parents beleiving in the promise of God. I ask this because I have thought that I held to PE rather than PR but as a result of trying to find other info in threads on this board, I recognize that if I hold to PE then baptism does not necessarily follow but if PR then baptism indeed is required to follow. 

Right now though, it seems to me that PR is the best interpretation because in Acts 2, the promise described in Vs 39 seems to point back to the same promise in Vs 33 which is the HS. Not sure how PEs can get around that...... 

Chuck


----------

