# Why I am now a Baptist



## Pilgrim

Brothers and Sisters,

I came to credobaptist convictions three weeks ago. Here, with slight modifications to remove personal references, is what I recently sent to the pastor of the PCA church we had been planning to join as well as the pastor of the OPC church that I still belong to explaining why I am now attending a Baptist church: 

Until Saturday night I would have told you that I was a convinced paedobaptist and Presbyterian. I was even prepared to sell most of my Baptist books, even including several ones by and about Spurgeon. However as I had told you in our first meeting, I have always struggled with Acts 2:41 and never thought that passage taken as a whole was nearly as favorable to paedobaptism as many think. No paedo has ever been able to answer it completely to my satisfaction. Whenever I have asked the question (including several times on the PB) I usually get stony silence. Others will respond with some kind of snide comment like "Baptists just don't get it". Others will try to argue that there were no children there that day. If I recall correctly that day you responded with something like "we shouldn't get hung up on one verse" or "we shouldn't allow one verse to determine things." However, I suppose I just ignored my concerns up until now. But I read it in context Saturday night and it hit me like a ton of bricks:



> Acts 2:41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. 42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.



Some will argue that the reference to "breaking of bread" in Acts 2:42 is not necessarily a reference to the Lord's Supper. It is used as a proof text in the Westminster Standards at WCF 21.5, 21.6, 26.2, WLC 63, 108, 154, 174, 175 and WSC 50 and 88. Several of these are general references to the means of grace but Acts 2:42 is used in other instances as a proof text specifically for the Lord's Supper. I interpret these verses to teach that, first of all, those who received Peter's word that day were baptized (i.e. only those personally professing faith) and that this same group continued steadfastly breaking bread which typically included in those days the celebration of the Lord's Supper. These two verses, in my opinion, throw the Reformed teaching of paedobaptism and credo communion into serious doubt. It appears that the two choices that do justice to the unity expressed here are either adopting Baptist views or adopting paedocommunion. Unfortunately, many in Reformed churches are opting for the latter. This is why we see so many who come from Baptist backgrounds like Doug Wilson, Gregg Strawbridge and Randy Booth adopting paedocommunion soon after becoming paedobaptists. A whole lot more NT evidence can be marshaled against paedobaptism than can be brought to bear against
paedocommunion. Once one has explained away all of the "believe and be baptized" verses in favor of an overarching concept of covenant theology that is imposed upon the scriptures, why let 1 Cor. 11 get in the way of practicing paedocommunion? I am glad that churches like the PCA have up until this point held the line against paedocommunion. But I believe at this point that the teaching of the Westminster Standards on this subject is inconsistent and am thinking that those who have argued that the western church abandoned paedocommunion after the adoption of transubstantiation because of concerns that the child would throw up the elements have a point. Of course the eastern church has never abandoned paedocommunion and will force alcoholic wine down the throat of children who are barely more than infants.


----------



## Davidius

Thanks for sharing, Chris. I respect the difficulty of embracing new positions and the diligence I'm sure you've given this question.

Could you elaborate more on just what exactly your argument is? You stated that some men were baptized, that 2:42 may refer to communion, and concluded that we therefore must either accept paedocommunion or reject paedobaptism. I don't see how this follows from the passage. I'm not trying to debate you on this; your explanation just doesn't make sense to me and I'm looking for clarification so that I may understand your new position.


----------



## Pilgrim

I apologize to and ask forgiveness from any Baptists I may have offended in the past with my previous PB posts on baptism and Baptists.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

It doesn't change the fact that I still hold you in high esteem but I find your reasoning to be something that would not hit me like a ton of bricks. It falls flat on me.

I'm not sure how you move from a historical narrative that is focused on the number baptized that day to a didactic principle that baptism is for adult believers. You obviously have to conclude much more than that thin piece of Scriptural evidence because neither the setting nor the verse provide enough information to demand children were present (after all Peter repeatedly refers to the crowd as "men and brethren"). Also, a Covenant principle would consistently only "count" men just as in the Old Testament (exactly how many women and children were there in the desert?). If you're uncomfortable with that as being "explained away" and unsatisfactory then so be it but I don't know how you're going to satisfactorily build an injunction that baptism is for professors on the basis of texts that can be interpreted both ways and then conveniently give no answer where household baptisms are spoken of and just "explain that away" in the same way you assume others have explained away this single verse in your estimation.

I'm not trying to beat you up over this but my convictions on the Covenant are built from an underlying super-structure that takes many more things into account including the progression of Covenantal development. I simply don't see Acts 2:41 as something that would knock down that whole edifice and find the historical narratives to be, at best, vague to establish a principle either way. For every verse where you might want to definitively create a "this must speak of adults only" you'll have the same wrestling process with those that we believe militate in the opposite way. You've obviously built some sort of super-structure beside this single verse or it would not have hit you like a ton of bricks.

I do hope that you'll find a Confessional position on the matter and not try to strike some position that rests between Confessions but settles on none.

Blessings!

Rich


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Incidentally, a truer history of paedocommunion is found in CPJ 3.


----------



## Herald

Pilgrim said:


> I apologize to and ask forgiveness from any Baptists I may have offended in the past with my previous PB posts on baptism and Baptists.



Chris, all is fair in love, war and baptism threads.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Pilgrim

Davidius said:


> Thanks for sharing, Chris. I respect the difficulty of embracing new positions and the diligence I'm sure you've given this question.
> 
> Could you elaborate more on just what exactly your argument is? You stated that some men were baptized, that 2:42 may refer to communion, and concluded that we therefore must either accept paedocommunion or reject paedobaptism. I don't see how this follows from the passage. I'm not trying to debate you on this; your explanation just doesn't make sense to me and I'm looking for clarification so that I may understand your new position.



Thanks for your question, David. Unfortunately I won't have much time for a protracted debate on this and don't anticipate being on here much at all in the coming weeks, but I will try to answer now since I am still online. 

Very simply, I believe that all of those who were baptized on the day of Pentecost were professing believers, and v. 42 states that this same group celebrated the Lord's Supper together. In my mind those who accept paedobaptism must also accept paedocommunion in order to do justice to the text. As I stated, I am glad that the Confessional Reformed do not practice paedocommunion, but at this point I regard that as a happy inconsistency. 

I am well aware that many will not be satisfied with my reasoning, but I felt that it was incumbent upon me as a moderator of this board with 5500+ posts to explain my change in views, especially since a good portion (my guess is at least a few hundred) of my previous posts were dedicated to hammering Baptists.

For what it's worth I continue to think using the term Reformed to simply refer to those who accept TULIP isn't particularly helpful, but it seems to be a lost cause at this point.


----------



## Herald

> I do hope that you'll find a Confessional position on the matter and not try to strike some position that rests between Confessions but settles on none.



I concur. Chris, while I am personally thrilled to have you on the credo side of the issue, Rich makes a salient point. If you haven't already done so, spend some time with the 1689 London Baptist Confession and its rationale behind credo baptism. The passage in Acts may be the fulcrum in which your conviction changed, but allow your change to be grounded on scriptural _and_ historical grounds. I am not saying this is the case, but you if you arrived at a credo position separate from the accepted Baptist confession, that would concern me. You would be out on your own and subject to further changes in your baptismal position. This could lead to needless angst. 

I'll keep you in prayer over the next few days as your decision begins to maturate.


----------



## Pilgrim

Semper Fidelis said:


> It doesn't change the fact that I still hold you in high esteem but I find your reasoning to be something that would not hit me like a ton of bricks. It falls flat on me.
> 
> I'm not sure how you move from a historical narrative that is focused on the number baptized that day to a didactic principle that baptism is for adult believers. You obviously have to conclude much more than that thin piece of Scriptural evidence because neither the setting nor the verse provide enough information to demand children were present (after all Peter repeatedly refers to the crowd as "men and brethren"). Also, a Covenant principle would consistently only "count" men just as in the Old Testament (exactly how many women and children were there in the desert?). If you're uncomfortable with that as being "explained away" and unsatisfactory then so be it but I don't know how you're going to satisfactorily build an injunction that baptism is for professors on the basis of texts that can be interpreted both ways and then conveniently give no answer where household baptisms are spoken of and just "explain that away" in the same way you assume others have explained away this single verse in your estimation.
> 
> I'm not trying to beat you up over this but my convictions on the Covenant are built from an underlying super-structure that takes many more things into account including the progression of Covenantal development. I simply don't see Acts 2:41 as something that would knock down that whole edifice and find the historical narratives to be, at best, vague to establish a principle either way. For every verse where you might want to definitively create a "this must speak of adults only" you'll have the same wrestling process with those that we believe militate in the opposite way. You've obviously built some sort of super-structure beside this single verse or it would not have hit you like a ton of bricks.
> 
> I do hope that you'll find a Confessional position on the matter and not try to strike some position that rests between Confessions but settles on none.
> 
> Blessings!
> 
> Rich



Thanks for your gracious response, Rich. I appreciate your concern about confessional limbo. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, with his views on baptism, couldn't subscribe to either the WCF or 1689, but his position would be largely unworkable in most contexts. I now subscribe to the 1689 although there may be some issues unrelated to baptism or polity in which I may prefer the WCF. I'm thinking primarily of the teaching on marriage and divorce although there may be some others as well.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pilgrim said:


> Very simply, I believe that all of those who were baptized on the day of Pentecost were professing believers, and v. 42 states that this same group celebrated the Lord's Supper together.



By the same reasoning, may we conclude there were no women and children in the Desert? I just don't see this Chris. 

Why _must_ the verse that speaks about the activity of those present that day preclude any notion that they actually went home and told others in their household?

In fact, by your reasoning, if a single woman was not present that day, she couldn't have become a believer by the report of her husband. Assume the man comes home and tells his wife (who wasn't there that day) the news of Christ's resurrection. Since you insist that _only_ the population at Pentecost that day were those that continued steadfastly in the Apostle's doctrine and the breaking of the bread, then there were absolutely no wives at home that day who heard the report from their husbands and later became believers.

Is this your assertion?


----------



## Pilgrim

North Jersey Baptist said:


> I do hope that you'll find a Confessional position on the matter and not try to strike some position that rests between Confessions but settles on none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I concur. Chris, while I am personally thrilled to have you on the credo side of the issue, Rich makes a salient point. If you haven't already done so, spend some time with the 1689 London Baptist Confession and its rationale behind credo baptism. The passage in Acts may be the fulcrum in which your conviction changed, but allow your change to be grounded on scriptural _and_ historical grounds. I am not saying this is the case, but you if you arrived at a credo position separate from the accepted Baptist confession, that would concern me. You would be out on your own and subject to further changes in your baptismal position. This could lead to needless angst.
> 
> I'll keep you in prayer over the next few days as your decision begins to maturate.
Click to expand...


Thanks, Bill. My understanding, based on my reading of A String of Pearls Unstrung is that Fred Malone returned to being a Baptist for reasons that are largely similar to mine, although it was a different text that initially caused him to reconsider his position. I have long been familiar with the arguments on both sides of this issue and have gone back and forth on it since at least 2003. I had come to paedo convictions at just about the same time as I joined this board in Sept. 2005.


----------



## Herald

Pilgrim said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do hope that you'll find a Confessional position on the matter and not try to strike some position that rests between Confessions but settles on none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I concur. Chris, while I am personally thrilled to have you on the credo side of the issue, Rich makes a salient point. If you haven't already done so, spend some time with the 1689 London Baptist Confession and its rationale behind credo baptism. The passage in Acts may be the fulcrum in which your conviction changed, but allow your change to be grounded on scriptural _and_ historical grounds. I am not saying this is the case, but you if you arrived at a credo position separate from the accepted Baptist confession, that would concern me. You would be out on your own and subject to further changes in your baptismal position. This could lead to needless angst.
> 
> I'll keep you in prayer over the next few days as your decision begins to maturate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks, Bill. My understanding, based on my reading of A String of Pearls Unstrung is that Fred Malone returned to being a Baptist for reasons that are largely similar to mine, although it was a different text that initially caused him to reconsider his position. I have long been familiar with the arguments on both sides of this issue and have gone back and forth on it since at least 2003. I had come to paedo convictions at just about the same time as I joined this board in Sept. 2005.
Click to expand...


Regarding "A String of Pearls", Malone makes this statement which I found most profound:



> As I look back to those days as a sincere and searching seminary student I often wonder if I was as honestly searching for the truth as I thought I was. For in the hard crucible of sometimes bitter rejection by my Baptist friends over the doctrines of sovereign grace, and in the warm fellowship of my like-minded paedobaptist brethren, it is more than possible that I allowed subjective feelings to influence my interpretation of the objective truth about baptism. I do not believe that I am the only Baptist who became a Presbyterian under these circumstances. In fact, I believe many Baptists, frustrated with doctrinal shallowness, have left Baptist churches to find a theologically comfortable home in sound Presbyterian churches. However, the sacraments are never minor issues of doctrine, and it is my hope that this pamphlet will persuade many to stay in, help reform, and build more sound Baptist churches.



Having experienced the same shallow depth in Baptist circles, Malone's comments resonate with me.


----------



## Pilgrim

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I concur. Chris, while I am personally thrilled to have you on the credo side of the issue, Rich makes a salient point. If you haven't already done so, spend some time with the 1689 London Baptist Confession and its rationale behind credo baptism. The passage in Acts may be the fulcrum in which your conviction changed, but allow your change to be grounded on scriptural _and_ historical grounds. I am not saying this is the case, but you if you arrived at a credo position separate from the accepted Baptist confession, that would concern me. You would be out on your own and subject to further changes in your baptismal position. This could lead to needless angst.
> 
> I'll keep you in prayer over the next few days as your decision begins to maturate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, Bill. My understanding, based on my reading of A String of Pearls Unstrung is that Fred Malone returned to being a Baptist for reasons that are largely similar to mine, although it was a different text that initially caused him to reconsider his position. I have long been familiar with the arguments on both sides of this issue and have gone back and forth on it since at least 2003. I had come to paedo convictions at just about the same time as I joined this board in Sept. 2005.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regarding "A String of Pearls", Malone makes this statement which I found most profound:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I look back to those days as a sincere and searching seminary student I often wonder if I was as honestly searching for the truth as I thought I was. For in the hard crucible of sometimes bitter rejection by my Baptist friends over the doctrines of sovereign grace, and in the warm fellowship of my like-minded paedobaptist brethren, it is more than possible that I allowed subjective feelings to influence my interpretation of the objective truth about baptism. I do not believe that I am the only Baptist who became a Presbyterian under these circumstances. In fact, I believe many Baptists, frustrated with doctrinal shallowness, have left Baptist churches to find a theologically comfortable home in sound Presbyterian churches. However, the sacraments are never minor issues of doctrine, and it is my hope that this pamphlet will persuade many to stay in, help reform, and build more sound Baptist churches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having experienced the same shallow depth in Baptist circles, Malone's comments resonate with me.
Click to expand...


I can totally identify although of course I am not a pastor and have not been to seminary.


----------



## Mayflower

Pilgrim said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, Bill. My understanding, based on my reading of A String of Pearls Unstrung is that Fred Malone returned to being a Baptist for reasons that are largely similar to mine, although it was a different text that initially caused him to reconsider his position. I have long been familiar with the arguments on both sides of this issue and have gone back and forth on it since at least 2003. I had come to paedo convictions at just about the same time as I joined this board in Sept. 2005.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding "A String of Pearls", Malone makes this statement which I found most profound:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I look back to those days as a sincere and searching seminary student I often wonder if I was as honestly searching for the truth as I thought I was. For in the hard crucible of sometimes bitter rejection by my Baptist friends over the doctrines of sovereign grace, and in the warm fellowship of my like-minded paedobaptist brethren, it is more than possible that I allowed subjective feelings to influence my interpretation of the objective truth about baptism. I do not believe that I am the only Baptist who became a Presbyterian under these circumstances. In fact, I believe many Baptists, frustrated with doctrinal shallowness, have left Baptist churches to find a theologically comfortable home in sound Presbyterian churches. However, the sacraments are never minor issues of doctrine, and it is my hope that this pamphlet will persuade many to stay in, help reform, and build more sound Baptist churches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having experienced the same shallow depth in Baptist circles, Malone's comments resonate with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can totally identify although of course I am not a pastor and have not been to seminary.
Click to expand...


Me too, i got converted in a baptist church but only knew arminian doctrine (and from the anti-calvinistic circle), through the great influence of the puritans and reformers and through covenant theology i embraced (i think) 2 years paedobaptism, but sinds a few years again i saw (what i believe) the errors of infant baptism and the nature and the New Covenant and the New Testament Church, so i came back to credobaptism. The lectures of William Einwechter (excellent!!), books from David Kingdon, Fred Malone and Nehemia Cox convinced me. 

William Einwechter : The Great Debate Over Baptism and the Covenant (11 cd's)
The Great Debate over Baptism and the Covenant (11 CDs)


----------



## AV1611

Pilgrim said:


> I believe that all of those who were baptized on the day of Pentecost were professing believers, and v. 42 states that this same group celebrated the Lord's Supper together. In my mind those who accept paedobaptism must also accept paedocommunion in order to do justice to the text.



I don't think that you can say all of those who were baptized on the day of Pentecost were professing believers. All you can say is that all those who professed faith were baptised.

Further:

*Question 177: Wherein do the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper differ?
Answer:* The sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper differ, in that Baptism is to be administered but once, with water, to be a sign and seal of our regeneration and ingrafting into Christ, and that even to infants; whereas the Lord’s Supper is to be administered often, in the elements of bread and wine, to represent and exhibit Christ as spiritual nourishment to the soul, and to confirm our continuance and growth in him, and that only to such as are of years and ability to examine themselves.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Chris

I respect your decisions and your desire to be faithful to the word of God. May the Lord continue to bless you.

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hello Pilgrim - I feel like John Wayne when I say that 

I appreciate your desire to explore the Word of God. 

I would like to explore a part of your profession that troubles me a bit about your reasoning. You wrote:



> I interpret these verses to teach that, first of all, those who received Peter's word that day were baptized (i.e. only those personally professing faith) and that this same group continued steadfastly breaking bread which typically included in those days the celebration of the Lord's Supper. These two verses, in my opinion, throw the Reformed teaching of paedobaptism and credo communion into serious doubt. It appears that the two choices that do justice to the unity expressed here are adopting Baptist views or adopting paedocommunion.


As an aside: How can 3,000 people be submerged by Baptism in one day? Only the Apostles had authority to baptize, and there were 12 of them. Each Apostle would have to baptize 750 people in one day? That in itself seems a bit far-fetched.

It seems to me that you are reading a lot into these passages that may not necessarily be there. The danger of any theology is taking one verse and making a doctrine out of it, and then applying it where ever it is convienant. I am mostly addressing those who hold to paedocommunion from this one passage only. Jesus taught His apostles well, and those teachings concerning communion that forbids infants and children from it can be found in 1 Cor 11:27,28. Are you claiming that the Apostles did not know these teachings when they gave the Lord's Supper to the 3,000? (I ask the Paedocommunist). The Bible gives different criteria for Baptism and the Lord's Supper.

The Day of Pentecost was a very special celebration in the Jewish calendar. The Bible required the whole male population of Israel was to appear before God in the Temple on that day, Deut. 16:16. The command includes "all your males," and it does not distinguish age. The command is mentioned several times in the Scriptures, Ex 23:17; 34:23. Now, "each man had to give as he is able," vs. 17, which seems to exclude infants (though it might be that the father gave on behalf of his infant child (also an infant or young child may not be able, and thus need not give) - I don't know). The crowd was probably composed of all men, because that is how Peter addressed them, Acts 2:28. Apparently, there were children among them, because Peter addresses "your children" as well, vs. 39.

So, if "all those who gladly received the word were baptized" were men only, then we would have to ask ourselves if this passage is determinative for the whole Church? Apparently, it cannot be, because we learn later in Scripture that women were baptized as well, such as Lydia. The majority of these men, no doubt, were husbands and fathers and were heads of households.

The Jews had as the sign of the everlasting covenant the rite of Circumcision. Abraham was required to Believe *before* he was to be circumcised. Yet, this circumcision was not given to him only as a Believer, but it was also given to his infant child 8 days old.

Now, when Peter says to the all male crowd that, "the Promise is to you, your children and all who are afar off - even as many as the Lord God shall call" what would that mean to the 3,000 heads of households as they come for baptism with their young children and infants? If Peter just told them that the "Promise was to their children" then how could Peter refuse Baptism to the children of professing Believers "those who gladly received the Word"? The Bible often counts only the men in the Church, Ex 12:37.

Abraham believed, and his children were circumcised. "Those who gladly recevied the Word," were Baptized, and their children as well.

I know that the credo-baptist screams at this and claims that the Scriptures have been violated. But a thoughtful person such as yourself should consider these two things:

1) Since we have a warrant in the Bible that Believers and their children are considered members of the New Covenant - because Circumcision was considered the sign and seal of the New Covenant in the OT. It is then up to the credo-baptist to prove that children of believers are no longer considered in the New Covenant. We should expect a clear statement in the New Testament that the children of believers are no longer considered members of the New Covenant. Where would you find such a statement, or, how would you develop such an argument?

2) Since we can find in the New Testament statements that assume the continunity of the requirement that the children of believers are in the New Covenant, it then follows that we should baptize our children:

Jesus says that the children of Godly parents are "members of the Kingdom of Heaven," Mt 19:13, Mk 10:13.

1 Cor 7:14 - The faith of a believer sanctifies his/her spouse for the sake of their children who are then considered "holy." The word can also be translated "saint."

When the whole scope of the Bible is considered, then the testimony favors paedo-baptism.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## Pilgrim

Mayflower said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding "A String of Pearls", Malone makes this statement which I found most profound:
> 
> 
> 
> Having experienced the same shallow depth in Baptist circles, Malone's comments resonate with me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can totally identify although of course I am not a pastor and have not been to seminary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me too, i got converted in a baptist church but only knew arminian doctrine (and from the anti-calvinistic circle), through the great influence of the puritans and reformers and through covenant theology i embraced (i think) 2 years paedobaptism, but sinds a few years again i saw (what i believe) the errors of infant baptism and the nature and the New Covenant and the New Testament Church, so i came back to credobaptism. The lectures of William Einwechter (excellent!!), books from David Kingdon, Fred Malone and Nehemia Cox convinced me.
> 
> William Einwechter : The Great Debate Over Baptism and the Covenant (11 cd's)
> The Great Debate over Baptism and the Covenant (11 CDs)
Click to expand...


Where did you obtain Kingdon's book? (I assume you are referring to _Children of Abraham_) My understanding is that it has been long out of print. The last I heard you could order a spiral bound copy from a bookseller in the UK (I think) but I don't know if that is still true or not.


----------



## reformedman

The thread has gone into debate away from op. Congratulations on your move. 

Shall we now retire to the debate-thread room? lol


----------



## Pilgrim

As for 1 Cor 7:14, the basic meaning of the words sanctify and holy are the same. Why then is the unbelieving spouse not also baptized? Why not the older relative who may be a member of the household as well? Also, from the paedo view, when do children become too old or aware that they don't qualify for baptism apart from a profession of faith? Why not baptize adult children still living in the household even though they do not profess faith? Are they not in the covenant in the Presbyterian view as well? 

For all of the Presbyterian inveighing against an age of accountability (and much of it is right on) I can't help but think that is, at least to some extent, what is going on here, albeit in reverse. e.g. "Little Johnny is of such an age now (10 or 12 or whatever) in which he would be able to make a credible profession of faith, so let's hold off baptizing him until he does so." 

Moreover I don't think the passage has anything to do with baptism anyway but rather with marriage to an unbeliever and the legitimacy of the children. What's the saying? A proof text without context becomes a pretext? I do recognize of course that this passage is used as another consideration in building a case for infant baptism on the grounds of good and necessary consequence but I no longer find it persuasive. 

Obviously I didn't cover all of the bases and address or use all of the typical arguments with my original post. Because of this some have thought that perhaps I didn't reject infant baptism for the usual Baptist reasons. I do. Basically the Presbyterians can marshal their usual arguments and I will respond with the usual Baptist ones. We can do that if you really feel the need for it, but I won't be able to respond again until at least this evening and maybe not until tomorrow evening.


----------



## doulosChristou

Pilgrim said:


> I came to credobaptist convictions three weeks ago.





From a perusal of their website, I gather that your new church home has ties with or has been influenced by Capitol Hill Baptist Church. That's great! May the Lord continue to be your treasure.

dC


----------



## Semper Fidelis

reformedman said:


> The thread has gone into debate away from op. Congratulations on your move.
> 
> Shall we now retire to the debate-thread room? lol



Not quite. Chris made some charges that the WCF is inconsistent in his OP and opened up  with his announcement. It's one thing to announce a credo-baptist sea change on the basis of an overarching framework but the announcement was constructed around a single verse that he stated militated a clear proof that believer's baptism is clearly and necessarily inferred by Acts 2:41-42 and, if not, then paedocommunion. That can't just be left on the table with the expectation that nobody is going to pick that up and discuss it.


----------



## shackleton

You give me hope. Seeing other prominent, smart and well read people go over to the credo baptist side means I don't have to feel so bad for the way I see things. 

I myself am seeing some grave inconsistencies with the whole infant baptism issue but have not completely moved over yet for two reasons (1) I don't think the bible obsesses over mode, (2) the only good baptist churches in the area are dispensational. 
*Aside note*: The same reason paedo's won't let infants and small children partake of the Lord's Supper is the reason Baptist's won't baptize babies. 

Good luck! I know this decision did not come easy. Try reading A.H. Strong. His section on baptism is very good. Though I am not sure how Calvinistic he is. 

I am in an unfortunate position of not seeing either the WCF or the 1689 fully covering baptism to my liking. However, I have been made aware that this is a confessional board and not subscribing to one is not allowed.


----------



## KMK

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I concur. Chris, while I am personally thrilled to have you on the credo side of the issue, Rich makes a salient point. If you haven't already done so, spend some time with the 1689 London Baptist Confession and its rationale behind credo baptism. The passage in Acts may be the fulcrum in which your conviction changed, but allow your change to be grounded on scriptural _and_ historical grounds. I am not saying this is the case, but you if you arrived at a credo position separate from the accepted Baptist confession, that would concern me. You would be out on your own and subject to further changes in your baptismal position. This could lead to needless angst.
> 
> I'll keep you in prayer over the next few days as your decision begins to maturate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, Bill. My understanding, based on my reading of A String of Pearls Unstrung is that Fred Malone returned to being a Baptist for reasons that are largely similar to mine, although it was a different text that initially caused him to reconsider his position. I have long been familiar with the arguments on both sides of this issue and have gone back and forth on it since at least 2003. I had come to paedo convictions at just about the same time as I joined this board in Sept. 2005.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regarding "A String of Pearls", Malone makes this statement which I found most profound:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I look back to those days as a sincere and searching seminary student I often wonder if I was as honestly searching for the truth as I thought I was. For in the hard crucible of sometimes bitter rejection by my Baptist friends over the doctrines of sovereign grace, and in the warm fellowship of my like-minded paedobaptist brethren, it is more than possible that I allowed subjective feelings to influence my interpretation of the objective truth about baptism. I do not believe that I am the only Baptist who became a Presbyterian under these circumstances. In fact, I believe many Baptists, frustrated with doctrinal shallowness, have left Baptist churches to find a theologically comfortable home in sound Presbyterian churches. However, the sacraments are never minor issues of doctrine, and it is my hope that this pamphlet will persuade many to stay in, help reform, and build more sound Baptist churches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having experienced the same shallow depth in Baptist circles, Malone's comments resonate with me.
Click to expand...


I too had a similar experience. When I became convinced of the DoG I found myself reading mainly Reformed Presbyterian literature (with the exception of Pink). I assumed that I would become convinced of paedobaptism once I studied the issue. I wanted so badly to be a paedo so that I could get plugged in at the nearest Reformed Presbyterian church. But, much to my chagrin, I was not compelled by the paedo argument and found myself embracing credobaptism. It can be a lonely road. I am thankful for PB.


----------



## py3ak

Ken, what you describe was also Al Martin's experience. He thought that John Murray would convince him of paedo-baptism, but John Murray actually convinced him of credo-baptism. 

Chris, it takes principle to reverse your position after arguing publicly for another view. You are to be commended for your honesty, and I trust God will bless you with ever fuller understanding of His word.


----------



## Pilgrim

Semper Fidelis said:


> reformedman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread has gone into debate away from op. Congratulations on your move.
> 
> Shall we now retire to the debate-thread room? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite. Chris made some charges that the WCF is inconsistent in his OP and opened up  with his announcement. It's one thing to announce a credo-baptist sea change on the basis of an overarching framework but the announcement was constructed around a single verse that he stated militated a clear proof that believer's baptism is clearly and necessarily inferred by Acts 2:41-42 and, if not, then paedocommunion. That can't just be left on the table with the expectation that nobody is going to pick that up and discuss it.
Click to expand...


Rich is right that I opened up a huge can of worms if not two or three of them. I certainly expected debate and will respond as I am able. This was posted in the baptism forum after all. I was just making note that due to off-board responsibilities I will not be able to consistently contribute to yet another 200 post baptism thread that just keeps repeating the same arguments over and over. 

My change is not dependent on a single verse but that passage is what caused me to reconsider the whole matter. I didn't think it was necessary to recapitulate the whole Baptist argument in my explanation.


----------



## Pilgrim

joshua said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't think it was necessary to recapitulate the whole Baptist argument in my explanation.
> 
> 
> 
> *WRONG AGAIN!!!!!!*
Click to expand...


Apparently so.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Chris,

I will try to call you tonight brother. And of course you know my position. Be Encouraged. 

Randy


----------



## VictorBravo

God be with you Chris. 

I had no idea of your struggle. May God be glorified in all that you do and may you serve him continually with a pure heart.


----------



## wsw201

> As for 1 Cor 7:14, the basic meaning of the words sanctify and holy are the same. Why then is the unbelieving spouse not also baptized? Why not the older relative who may be a member of the household as well? Also, from the paedo view, when do children become too old or aware that they don't qualify for baptism apart from a profession of faith? Why not baptize adult children still living in the household even though they do not profess faith? Are they not in the covenant in the Presbyterian view as well?



Sorry to lose you to the credo's!!  Are they going to make you get re-baptized??

As you are aware the issue of baptizing adults is not an issue of contention between Baptists and Presbyterian's. Both require a credible profession of faith for all those who are capable. I know some have argued for "household baptisms" but there is nothing in Scripture or our Standards advocating this position. The unbelieving spouse in 1 Cor 7, as an adult, would be required to make their own profession just as any other adult member of the household. Regarding infants, a profession is still required! just not from the infant. At least one parent must make that credible profession on the infants behalf. when the infant grows up and is able to discern the Body and Blood in the Lord's Supper as well as make a credible profession of faith, they will be able to come to the Table.



> For all of the Presbyterian inveighing against an age of accountability (and much of it is right on) I can't help but think that is, at least to some extent, what is going on here, albeit in reverse. e.g. "Little Johnny is of such an age now (10 or 12 or whatever) in which he would be able to make a credible profession of faith, so let's hold off baptizing him until he does so."



There would be no reason to hold off baptizing little Johnny if he were incapable of making a credible profession as long as one of the parents was a professing Christian and member of that particular church. So the above scenario should never happen in a Presbyterian church.



> Moreover I don't think the passage has anything to do with baptism anyway but rather with marriage to an unbeliever and the legitimacy of the children. What's the saying? A proof text without context becomes a pretext? I do recognize of course that this passage is used as another consideration in building a case for infant baptism on the grounds of good and necessary consequence but I no longer find it persuasive.



You are correct that the context of the passage is about marriage but it goes to a larger issue when it mentions the status of the childern. Somehow you have to answer the question WHY is the child now holy??



> Obviously I didn't cover all of the bases and address or use all of the typical arguments with my original post. Because of this some have thought that perhaps I didn't reject infant baptism for the usual Baptist reasons. I do. Basically the Presbyterians can marshal their usual arguments and I will respond with the usual Baptist ones. We can do that if you really feel the need for it, but I won't be able to respond again until at least this evening and maybe not until tomorrow evening.



No issue here. I just made these few comments because I don't want others to get the wrong idea about how things work in the Presbyterian Church.


----------



## JM

Thanks for posting.


----------



## Kevin Lewis

*I appreciate your willingness to announce your new position because of convictions*



Pilgrim said:


> joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't think it was necessary to recapitulate the whole Baptist argument in my explanation.
> 
> 
> 
> *WRONG AGAIN!!!!!!*
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently so.
Click to expand...


Be prepared to be slammed though. I think it is sad in a way though...seems to me like the Presbyterians feel they have "lost one of their own" and now they have to do damage control and start attacking your doctrinal position. Let the obligatory banter begin. Seems like everyone wants respect for their doctrinal position and the way they arrived at it (unless it differs from their own).


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello Chris,

A brief (for me) remark on your OP.

Those listening to Peter were both local Jews and "foreign" Jews, some with family present, some without. There would have been some women, for we know that a company of women were with Peter and the apostles that day, and likely others not of their number were present.

The announcement of the Promise fulfilled -- in Peter's sermon -- included women as recipients ("I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy...And on My servants and on My handmaidens I will pour out in those days of My Spirit..." Acts 2:17, 18); and this inclusion of women as direct recipients was remarkable.

And what was the Promise received? In essence it was union and friendship with God through the Person and work of Jesus Christ, the promised Seed of Abraham. This commencement of the New Covenant promise was dramatic and in the power of Jesus' resurrection, in order to jar His elect from the corrupted religion: "Save yourselves from this untoward [perverse] generation!" (2:40).

These were Jews, newly believing in the Seed, their Messiah, now themselves the spiritual seed of Abraham as well, so when Peter commanded them to be baptized, "every one of you" (38), "for the promise is unto you, and to your children..." it was clear that baptism was the mark (the "token", Gen 17:11 KJV) of submissive obedience to the administration of the New Covenant, without which one would not be counted a member, nor a friend of God.

It was not a new thing for it to be given the male infants / children; what was new was for it to be given to the girls / women! These were Jews, you would sooner tear their hearts from their bodies than tear their children from the Covenant of their God through disobedience to the ancient and irrevocable law, changed in token but not practice.

Were the children present baptized with the fathers? No doubt. The women as well? No doubt. Had the children been denied, the newborn church would have aborted that day, for it would clearly not have been in continuity with the covenant and promise of Abraham.

About the baptized infants partaking the Lord's Table; when the infants and children were circumcised in Abraham's household, were they of a sudden weaned and begin to eat meat? Did they then join the men in the business of adults? Of course not! Neither did the babies newly circumcised with "the circumcision of Christ" (Col 2:11 ff.) of a sudden commence upon the business of men! They did not "continue in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship" (Acts 2:42), nor did they eat the food the adults did at the table, neither did they have the wherewithal to join "in prayers" with the men and women. They were babies! New Covenant babies! Marked with the holy token of God's covenant people. Respectfully I must remark that Baptists would have been run out of Jerusalem that day! Salvation came to houses in the economy of God, not Lone Ranger individuals as we have in abundance today.

Yes, there were covenant breakers, who renounced the covenant (and its seal) their parents had sought to bless them with -- in _both_ stages of the Covenant of Grace, the old and the new.

It is a strange thing to me, to see a fervent defense of the paedo position turn into its opposite, and the erstwhile defender become a detractor. For the paedo is of ancient time, built on the foundation of God's grace to a family, and to all the families of that spiritual line. It is an anomaly.

But I must present this caveat: The Baptists have walked in such godliness, and defended the Faith with such brilliance of intellect (as fruits of the Holy Spirit), that they have immeasurably enriched the church of God. And me personally, I owe my spiritual health to the Lord's ministry through the Reformed Baptists in general -- and Al Martin in particular -- in no small measure. And so I will own in this matter, as I do with respect to those who differ with me in textual matters, that many are the Baptists who are better disciples of our God than I.


----------



## DMcFadden

First of all, thank you Chris for sharing so openly your change in position. You certainly have courage to do so on the PB. Sometimes, despite our official "acceptance" of both views on baptism for membership, the credo ones among us tend to feel like the "red headed step children."

Second, I commend you for seeking to follow the Word of God wherever it leads over the traditions of men. May your tribe increase!

Thirdly, as a Baptist, I do not understand how the verse that struck you became the intellectual fulcrum on which you leveraged yourself into the credo view. I agree with Rich that it doesn't do that for me. Acts 2:38 would seem more to the point.

Fourth, I find myself identifying with Malone's reactions in the statement quoted:



> As I look back to those days as a sincere and searching seminary student I often wonder if I was as honestly searching for the truth as I thought I was . . . it is more than *possible that I allowed subjective feelings to influence my interpretation of the objective truth about baptism*. I do not believe that I am the only Baptist who became a Presbyterian under these circumstances. In fact, I believe *many Baptists, frustrated with doctrinal shallowness, have left Baptist churches to find a theologically comfortable home in sound Presbyterian churches* . . .



Having experienced the same shallow depth in Baptist circles, Malone's comments resonate with me too! Fighting liberals in a mainline "Baptist" denomination, left me hankering for the gardens of delight to be found among the Reformed brethren with sounder theology. Even my lifelong convictions regarding baptism have been thrown into doubt. I have wondered whether my baptist beliefs are due to subjectivity and the desire for the comfort of staying within my tradition, rather than based upon exegetical conclusions. So, on my "to do" list is a re-examination of the arguments for each view. Ironically, Chris, I find myself testing the waters in the opposite direction from you. Your shift from infant to believer is 180 degrees opposite of the orientation I am exploring, albeit tentatively. 

Nevertheless, what you are doing comes from a sincere love of the Lord and for his Word. May you have wisdom and discernment in your next steps. If you stay with the Baptists, I would strongly encourage you to keep a confessional perspective. Nowadays, the Baptists are frustratingly individualistic and autonomous as you know.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

If people make a switch, AND they put it out there for comment, then it will get comments.

This happens both ways, and I think I've seen enough credos coming back on a C-->P switch by affirming their stands, and posting their exegetical defenses, that the suggestion that Pilgrim should expect to be "slammed" for moving is a bit melodramatic.

jpechin was a recent switcher to credo, and that was about the first thing he contributed to the board. In that thread, I asked him if his earlier move to paedo was more than rhetoric, had he actually presented his children for baptism? He had. I appreciated his testimony, even if I disagreed with it. Who slammed him?

When people come in, stating their views, explaining why they are correct NOW, and were in ERROR then, I think they are practically begging for interaction and dispute, as well as affirmation by their new fellows in thought.


----------



## Pilgrim's Progeny

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hello Chris,
> 
> A brief (for me) remark on your OP.
> 
> Those listening to Peter were both local Jews and "foreign" Jews, some with family present, some without. There would have been some women, for we know that a company of women were with Peter and the apostles that day, and likely others not of their number were present.
> 
> The announcement of the Promise fulfilled -- in Peter's sermon -- included women as recipients ("I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy...And on My servants and on My handmaidens I will pour out in those days of My Spirit..." Acts 2:17, 18); and this inclusion of women as direct recipients was remarkable.
> 
> And what was the Promise received? In essence it was union and friendship with God through the Person and work of Jesus Christ, the promised Seed of Abraham. This commencement of the New Covenant promise was dramatic and in the power of Jesus' resurrection, in order to jar His elect from the corrupted religion: "Save yourselves from this untoward [perverse] generation!" (2:40).
> 
> These were Jews, newly believing in the Seed, their Messiah, now themselves the spiritual seed of Abraham as well, so when Peter commanded them to be baptized, "every one of you" (38), "for the promise is unto you, and to your children..." it was clear that baptism was the mark (the "token", Gen 17:11 KJV) of submissive obedience to the administration of the New Covenant, without which one would not be counted a member, nor a friend of God.
> 
> It was not a new thing for it to be given the male infants / children; what was new was for it to be given to the girls / women! These were Jews, you would sooner tear their hearts from their bodies than tear their children from the Covenant of their God through disobedience to the ancient and irrevocable law, changed in token but not practice.
> 
> Were the children present baptized with the fathers? No doubt. The women as well? No doubt. Had the children been denied, the newborn church would have aborted that day, for it would clearly not have been in continuity with the covenant and promise of Abraham.
> 
> About the baptized infants partaking the Lord's Table; when the infants and children were circumcised in Abraham's household, were they of a sudden weaned and begin to eat meat? Did they then join the men in the business of adults? Of course not! Neither did the babies newly circumcised with "the circumcision of Christ" (Col 2:11 ff.) of a sudden commence upon the business of men! They did not "continue in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship" (Acts 2:42), nor did they eat the food the adults did at the table, neither did they have the wherewithal to join "in prayers" with the men and women. They were babies! New Covenant babies! Marked with the holy token of God's covenant people. *Respectfully I must remark that Baptists would have been run out of Jerusalem that day! Salvation came to houses in the economy of God, not Lone Ranger individuals as we have in abundance today.*
> 
> Yes, there were covenant breakers, who renounced the covenant (and its seal) their parents had sought to bless them with -- in _both_ stages of the Covenant of Grace, the old and the new.
> 
> It is a strange thing to me, to see a fervent defense of the paedo position turn into its opposite, and the erstwhile defender become a detractor. For the paedo is of ancient time, built on the foundation of God's grace to a family, and to all the families of that spiritual line. It is an anomaly.
> 
> But I must present this caveat: The Baptists have walked in such godliness, and defended the Faith with such brilliance of intellect (as fruits of the Holy Spirit), that they have immeasurably enriched the church of God. And me personally, I owe my spiritual health to the Lord's ministry through the Reformed Baptists in general -- and Al Martin in particular -- in no small measure. And so I will own in this matter, as I do with respect to those who differ with me in textual matters, that many are the Baptists who are better disciples of our God than I.


 
Steve,
That was well said, you always have away of driving me to a reexamination of my own position. While I am a "settled credo", I am always constantly reevaluating my position. I, like many others on this board(In my humble opinion), am enslaved to my subjective reality. It is a lot to work through. So, I carry my position with humility and always stand to be challenged and corrected in my understanding. Thank you for more food for thought.


----------



## wsw201

> First of all, thank you Chris for sharing so openly your change in position. You certainly have courage to do so on the PB. Sometimes, despite our official "acceptance" of both views on baptism for membership, the credo ones among us tend to feel like the "red headed step children."



Or grey haired ones as the case may be!


----------



## KMK

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hello Chris,
> 
> A brief (for me) remark on your OP.



Classic! 




Jerusalem Blade said:


> Were the children present baptized with the fathers? No doubt.



Could you elaborate on the 'no doubtedness' of this statement?

Are you saying that the Jews immediately recognized that baptism was the new 'token' of the covenant? Are you assuming that there was some further teaching to this effect by Peter that is not recorded? It would seem to me that there would need to be some explaining done especially in light of the 'token' now being offered to females. 

I am willing to accept your conclusion, but I don't understand how you can claim that there is 'no doubt'.


----------



## reformedman

Semper Fidelis said:


> he stated militated a clear proof that believer's baptism is clearly and necessarily inferred by Acts 2:41-42



That was his opinion, he wasn't requesting a debate. But anyway.

He said that it never hit him solidly enough to cause him to see a paedobaptist position.
I think he should be commended for standing on his convictions enough to voice it, and as friends we should understand that he continues to receive our encouragement, not get effected as if we are being pressed for a debate.

I don't say any of this with bitterness, it is only something that I saw that I'd like to say with all due respect to you.

To continue, I do not believe(strictly as an opinion) that if a credo said they saw the light and went to paedo, and a person responded inversely with defenses and prooftexts supporting paedo, that you would permit people bringing up defenses and prooftexts.

All under the bridge anyway, now that I see its been moved to the debate area of the forum. Again, I say this just as observation and opinion, not for slander or accusation.


----------



## DMcFadden

If there ever was proof of the noetic effects of the fall, the debate over baptism would be it. Apparently equally sincere, confessional, conservative Christians seeking to know and to do according to the precepts of the Word of God reach different conclusions on a matter (i.e., the sacraments) which should NOT be incidental or treated as unimportant.

On the one hand, we do not want to go to war over baptism. On the other hand, we don't want to ape the relativistic "tolerance" that is the _zeitgeist _of this time in history. Frankly, if many of us were truly candid, we would admit that our convictions on any number of topics were formed and shaped in an environmental soup flavored with the strong salt of subjectivity. 

A teacher we admired or found to be brilliant argued a case, we couldn't come up with a decent counter, and we embraced his thinking on the topic. Oversimplified to be sure, but that is not necessarily the best recipie for objective weighing of the evidence and coming to firm conclusions on the implications of any important doctrine or issue.

Whichever side you take on the baptism debate, unless you have studied it exhaustively and listened carefully to the strongest arguments for each position, I am not sure that we can say that we have dispassionately come to our convictions. For many of us, we will find ourselves struggling to come to clarity and conviction. Some of us will even find ourselves switching positions over time as different considerations impinge upon our thinking.

So, Chris, God bless you for your honesty. May we all be clear in our understanding of God's Word and have sound reasons for the doctrines we hold to so dearly.


----------



## KMK

DMcFadden said:


> Apparently equally sincere, confessional, conservative Christians seeking to know and to do according to the precepts of the Word of God reach different conclusions on a matter (i.e., the sacraments) which should NOT be incidental or treated as unimportant.



I would add that this has been going on for hundreds of years! (I am assuming that Reformed paedos arguments are different than those of the RC) I agree that it is not incidental or unimportant but I do not understand the smugness displayed by some in both camps. (present company excluded, of course)


----------



## Pilgrim's Progeny

DMcFadden said:


> Frankly, if many of us were truly candid, we would admit that our convictions on any number of topics were formed and shaped in an environmental soup flavored with the strong salt of subjectivity.
> 
> A teacher we admired or found to be brilliant argued a case, we couldn't come up with a decent counter, and we embraced his thinking on the topic. Oversimplified to be sure, but that is not necessarily the best recipie for objective weighing of the evidence and coming to firm conclusions on the implications of any important doctrine or issue.
> 
> Whichever side you take on the baptism debate, unless you have studied it exhaustively and listened carefully to the strongest arguments for each position, I am not sure that we can say that we have dispassionately come to our convictions. For many of us, we will find ourselves struggling to come to clarity and conviction. Some of us will even find ourselves switching positions over time as different considerations impinge upon our thinking.


 
That is very true for many. Even many seasoned pastors have not exhausted every argument for and against the position they hold. Pastors are often left take the position they believe to have the most weight and plant themselves upon it.


----------



## DMcFadden

Honestly, that is how I came to my position on historic premillennialism. So many books, so many arguments, so much to study. After a time, you simply say: "Lord, this looks to be the right answer. Forgive me if I have it wrong and keep me from leading any of your sheep astray."


----------



## shackleton

Ditto to Mcfadden's earlier comment. i find it sad that people who agree whole heatedly on the DoG and other reformed issues practically come to blows on this one issue. Think of the effect the church could have if they could lay aside these differences. 

If I recall correctly, the early reformers parted ways over the same issues, baptism but more specifically the Lord's Supper.


----------



## DMcFadden

shackleton said:


> Ditto to Mcfadden's earlier comment. i find it sad that people who agree whole heatedly on the DoG and other reformed issues practically come to blows on this one issue. Think of the effect the church could have if they could lay aside these differences.
> 
> If I recall correctly, the early reformers parted ways over the same issues, baptism but more specifically the Lord's Supper.



Hey! Cut that out Erick! Or I will take my "hoc est corpus meum" and go home.


----------



## MW

shackleton said:


> i find it sad that people who agree whole heatedly on the DoG and other reformed issues practically come to blows on this one issue.



Obviously, then, they don't agree wholeheartedly on the doctrines of grace, otherwise they could agree on something so basic as to whom the covenant of grace is to be administered without practically coming to blows. Let's be clear -- the Baptist insistence on the excommunication of believers' children is as important as the excommunication of any individual from the church of God.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Reformed-Kermit said:


> Be prepared to be slammed though. I think it is sad in a way though...seems to me like the Presbyterians feel they have "lost one of their own" and now they have to do damage control and start attacking your doctrinal position. Let the obligatory banter begin. Seems like everyone wants respect for their doctrinal position and the way they arrived at it (unless it differs from their own).


This is a childish post.


Contra_Mundum said:


> If people make a switch, AND they put it out there for comment, then it will get comments.
> 
> This happens both ways, and I think I've seen enough credos coming back on a C-->P switch by affirming their stands, and posting their exegetical defenses, that the suggestion that Pilgrim should expect to be "slammed" for moving is a bit melodramatic.
> 
> jpechin was a recent switcher to credo, and that was about the first thing he contributed to the board. In that thread, I asked him if his earlier move to paedo was more than rhetoric, had he actually presented his children for baptism? He had. I appreciated his testimony, even if I disagreed with it. Who slammed him?
> 
> When people come in, stating their views, explaining why they are correct NOW, and were in ERROR then, I think they are practically begging for interaction and dispute, as well as affirmation by their new fellows in thought.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

reformedman said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> he stated militated a clear proof that believer's baptism is clearly and necessarily inferred by Acts 2:41-42
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was his opinion, he wasn't requesting a debate. But anyway.
> 
> He said that it never hit him solidly enough to cause him to see a paedobaptist position.
> I think he should be commended for standing on his convictions enough to voice it, and as friends we should understand that he continues to receive our encouragement, not get effected as if we are being pressed for a debate.
> 
> I don't say any of this with bitterness, it is only something that I saw that I'd like to say with all due respect to you.
> 
> To continue, I do not believe(strictly as an opinion) that if a credo said they saw the light and went to paedo, and a person responded inversely with defenses and prooftexts supporting paedo, that you would permit people bringing up defenses and prooftexts.
> 
> All under the bridge anyway, now that I see its been moved to the debate area of the forum. Again, I say this just as observation and opinion, not for slander or accusation.
Click to expand...


The thread began, and has remained, in the baptism forum. I was merely noting that Chris invited comment on his position, hence commentary on his switch was not out of accord with the OP. Chris has agreed with my assessment.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

armourbearer said:


> shackleton said:
> 
> 
> 
> i find it sad that people who agree whole heatedly on the DoG and other reformed issues practically come to blows on this one issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, then, they don't agree wholeheartedly on the doctrines of grace, otherwise they could agree on something so basic as to whom the covenant of grace is to be administered without practically coming to blows. Let's be clear -- the Baptist insistence on the excommunication of believers' children is as important as the excommunication of any individual from the church of God.
Click to expand...


There is no excommunication because there is nothing to be excommunicated from. You are placing children in Christ when they are not in Christ unless Christ has put them in union with himself.


----------



## Herald

armourbearer said:


> shackleton said:
> 
> 
> 
> i find it sad that people who agree whole heatedly on the DoG and other reformed issues practically come to blows on this one issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, then, they don't agree wholeheartedly on the doctrines of grace, otherwise they could agree on something so basic as to whom the covenant of grace is to be administered without practically coming to blows. Let's be clear -- the Baptist insistence on the excommunication of believers' children is as important as the excommunication of any individual from the church of God.
Click to expand...


And let's be equally clear that Baptists cannot excommunicate those who never were in (as in "part of") the church of God to begin with. You have to be in something in order to be put out of it. Hence, the age old argument between Baptists and Presbyterians.


----------



## Justin Williams

Hi Guys 

Could some of you, from both the credobaptist and paedobaptist viewpoint, provide a list of books that discuss in detail the passages that are most commonly studied in regards to this issue? 


Thanks 

Justin


----------



## Herald

Justin Williams said:


> Hi Guys
> 
> Could some of you, from both the credobaptist and paedobaptist viewpoint, provide a list of books that discuss in detail the passages that are most commonly studied in regards to this issue?
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Justin



Justin,

Excellent booklet on the credo position.

A String of Pearls Unstrung


----------



## Herald

PuritanCovenanter said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shackleton said:
> 
> 
> 
> i find it sad that people who agree whole heatedly on the DoG and other reformed issues practically come to blows on this one issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, then, they don't agree wholeheartedly on the doctrines of grace, otherwise they could agree on something so basic as to whom the covenant of grace is to be administered without practically coming to blows. Let's be clear -- the Baptist insistence on the excommunication of believers' children is as important as the excommunication of any individual from the church of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no excommunication because there is nothing to be excommunicated from. You are placing children in Christ when they are not in Christ unless Christ has put them in union with himself.
Click to expand...




Sehr gut, mein freund.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> shackleton said:
> 
> 
> 
> i find it sad that people who agree whole heatedly on the DoG and other reformed issues practically come to blows on this one issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, then, they don't agree wholeheartedly on the doctrines of grace, otherwise they could agree on something so basic as to whom the covenant of grace is to be administered without practically coming to blows. Let's be clear -- the Baptist insistence on the excommunication of believers' children is as important as the excommunication of any individual from the church of God.
Click to expand...




Just because I love my Baptist brethren doesn't mean that I believe we're completely on the same page with respect to the DoG. The paedo and credo debate cuts at the heart of what the nature of a disciple is. In fact, I was musing over this in the AM today while I was working out and I came to the conclusion that, primarily, it is my understanding of the nature of discipleship within a Covenant that convinces me of Reformed theology against a credo perspective. Baptism is an initiation into visible discipleship (among other things) and I cannot divorce the concept of "disciple" from the notion of training in the fear and admonition of the Lord as Baptists are wont to do.

I'll never understand, perhaps, how a concept of an invisible New Covenant allows one to rend away all the Covenant nurture and training that is rich and exhaustive throughout the Law, the Psalms, the Proverbs, and the Prophets that are the means of grace that God has ordained for His elect. The debates on baptism unfortunately stay in a very theoretical framework and have difficulty in translating and describing what, precisely, a Baptist father is doing on a daily basis with a Baptist son. I can't jump the rail to think in those terms I suppose. Somehow Baptists do it but it would take an entire sea change in my understanding of visible discipleship and the nature of the CoG to make that leap.


----------



## MW

North Jersey Baptist said:


> And let's be equally clear that Baptists cannot excommunicate those who never were in (as in "part of") the church of God to begin with.



The instruction is to bring them up IN THE LORD. The Baptist cuts them off from this privilege until such time as they can profess the Lord for themselves. The facts of the case are quite clear.


----------



## CDM

Justin Williams said:


> Hi Guys
> 
> Could some of you, from both the credobaptist and paedobaptist viewpoint, provide a list of books that discuss in detail the passages that are most commonly studied in regards to this issue?
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Justin



Check out the very short booklet _What about Baptism?_ by Robert Rayburn. It is one of those rare short works that forces one to prove their beliefs and dearly held assumptions.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

armourbearer said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> And let's be equally clear that Baptists cannot excommunicate those who never were in (as in "part of") the church of God to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The instruction is to bring them up IN THE LORD. The Baptist cuts them off from this privilege until such time as they can profess the Lord for themselves. The facts of the case are quite clear.
Click to expand...



Ok, Reverend Winzer. My kids were born cut off. I didn't lie to them about it. I am sorry to inform you but I would say that John the Baptist was not normative. He was a special case. We are all born aliens to the Covenant of God as it says in Ephesians. We are all born in sin. That cuts us off.

The Nature of the old Covenant is dependent upon its Covenant head. Abraham was the Covenant head of the Old. His Children were both spiritual and carnal in nature. Christ's as Covenant head has a different kind of Child. He has no carnal children. All of Christ's children are born from above. He has no carnal children. The nature between the two Covenants is based upon the Covenant heads. Christs Kingdom is spiritual. To be in union with Christ means you are in Christ. 

At the same time. I still taught my Children to seek God as their Creator. I also taught them to learn repentance and Holiness. And thus they have. I don't believe the Covenant of Grace includes the unregenerate. I know Presbyterian's who also don't hold to your position on this matter. The Covenant of Grace is for those who are IN Christ and are in union with him.


----------



## CDM

armourbearer said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> And let's be equally clear that Baptists cannot excommunicate those who never were in (as in "part of") the church of God to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The instruction is to bring them up IN THE LORD. The Baptist cuts them off from this privilege until such time as they can profess the Lord for themselves. The facts of the case are quite clear.
Click to expand...


 Indeed, children of believers are called "holy" for a reason.


----------



## shackleton

Am I understanding it correctly that, to _not_ baptize an infant is akin to excommunication since baptism makes one a member of the visible church?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Another very excellent book on this topic is Covenant Children Today physical or spiritual by Alan Conner


----------



## Herald

Semper Fidelis said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shackleton said:
> 
> 
> 
> i find it sad that people who agree whole heatedly on the DoG and other reformed issues practically come to blows on this one issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, then, they don't agree wholeheartedly on the doctrines of grace, otherwise they could agree on something so basic as to whom the covenant of grace is to be administered without practically coming to blows. Let's be clear -- the Baptist insistence on the excommunication of believers' children is as important as the excommunication of any individual from the church of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because I love my Baptist brethren doesn't mean that I believe we're completely on the same page with respect to the DoG. The paedo and credo debate cuts at the heart of what the nature of a disciple is. In fact, I was musing over this in the AM today while I was working out and I came to the conclusion that, primarily, it is my understanding of the nature of discipleship within a Covenant that convinces me of Reformed theology against a credo perspective. Baptism is an initiation into visible discipleship (among other things) and I cannot divorce the concept of "disciple" from the notion of training in the fear and admonition of the Lord as Baptists are wont to do.
> 
> I'll never understand, perhaps, how a concept of an invisible New Covenant allows one to rend away all the Covenant nurture and training that is rich and exhaustive throughout the Law, the Psalms, the Proverbs, and the Prophets that are the means of grace that God has ordained for His elect. The debates on baptism unfortunately stay in a very theoretical framework and have difficulty in translating and describing what, precisely, a Baptist father is doing on a daily basis with a Baptist son. I can't jump the rail to think in those terms I suppose. Somehow Baptists do it but it would take an entire sea change in my understanding of visible discipleship and the nature of the CoG to make that leap.
Click to expand...


Rich, I have an equally difficult time in trying to understand how a paedo can look back at the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant (circumcision), use that to defend the New Testament sign (baptism), but claim the rest of the Abrahamic promises (land promises to be specific) become spiritual promises in the New Covenant. The paedo reasoning rings hollow in my mind. 

Malone stated it more eloquently:



> It must be understood that just because there was an intermixture of physical and spiritual elements in the Abrahamic Covenant, it does not follow by implication that the same elements apply to the New Covenant. We all know that one became a member of the Abrahamic Covenant by physical circumcision, but God also called Abraham's seed to spiritually circumcise their hearts as well (Deut. 10:16). That the New Covenant emphasizes a spiritual circumcision does not automatically imply that there must be physical members in the New Covenant without such a heart. As Pastor Walter Chantry of Grace Baptist Church, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, has well said, "In the Old Covenant, all that was spiritual was identified with an outward nation. In the New Covenant, all that is outward is identified with a spiritual nation." Therefore, those who apply the Abrahamic inclusion of physical children to the New Covenant as a basis for the infant baptism of the Christian's children must also honestly deal with the "forever" implications of Canaan, circumcision, and household adult membership in the New Covenant as well. There is too much inconsistency here to make a valid argument.


----------



## Herald

And Chris (wherever you are), look what you so efficiently started and then said you didn't want to participate in!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, then, they don't agree wholeheartedly on the doctrines of grace, otherwise they could agree on something so basic as to whom the covenant of grace is to be administered without practically coming to blows. Let's be clear -- the Baptist insistence on the excommunication of believers' children is as important as the excommunication of any individual from the church of God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because I love my Baptist brethren doesn't mean that I believe we're completely on the same page with respect to the DoG. The paedo and credo debate cuts at the heart of what the nature of a disciple is. In fact, I was musing over this in the AM today while I was working out and I came to the conclusion that, primarily, it is my understanding of the nature of discipleship within a Covenant that convinces me of Reformed theology against a credo perspective. Baptism is an initiation into visible discipleship (among other things) and I cannot divorce the concept of "disciple" from the notion of training in the fear and admonition of the Lord as Baptists are wont to do.
> 
> I'll never understand, perhaps, how a concept of an invisible New Covenant allows one to rend away all the Covenant nurture and training that is rich and exhaustive throughout the Law, the Psalms, the Proverbs, and the Prophets that are the means of grace that God has ordained for His elect. The debates on baptism unfortunately stay in a very theoretical framework and have difficulty in translating and describing what, precisely, a Baptist father is doing on a daily basis with a Baptist son. I can't jump the rail to think in those terms I suppose. Somehow Baptists do it but it would take an entire sea change in my understanding of visible discipleship and the nature of the CoG to make that leap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rich, I have an equally difficult time in trying to understand how a paedo can look back at the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant (circumcision), use that to defend the New Testament sign (baptism), but claim the rest of the Abrahamic promises (land promises to be specific) become spiritual promises in the New Covenant. The paedo reasoning rings hollow in my mind.
> 
> Malone stated it more eloquently:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It must be understood that just because there was an intermixture of physical and spiritual elements in the Abrahamic Covenant, it does not follow by implication that the same elements apply to the New Covenant. We all know that one became a member of the Abrahamic Covenant by physical circumcision, but God also called Abraham's seed to spiritually circumcise their hearts as well (Deut. 10:16). That the New Covenant emphasizes a spiritual circumcision does not automatically imply that there must be physical members in the New Covenant without such a heart. As Pastor Walter Chantry of Grace Baptist Church, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, has well said, "In the Old Covenant, all that was spiritual was identified with an outward nation. In the New Covenant, all that is outward is identified with a spiritual nation." Therefore, those who apply the Abrahamic inclusion of physical children to the New Covenant as a basis for the infant baptism of the Christian's children must also honestly deal with the "forever" implications of Canaan, circumcision, and household adult membership in the New Covenant as well. There is too much inconsistency here to make a valid argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Well, whether or not Fred Malone has trouble with this idea, the Apostle Paul has no difficulty when he enjoins children in the Church to obey their parents and cites the 5th Commandment applying a LAND promise to a promise of spiritual blessing for honoring of parents.


----------



## Kevin

I feel sad.

Not to have lost a champion, because Gods word is sufficient. But I feel sad to think that someone would defend the bibilical view with such vigor and then be turned on such shallow grounds.

I am no bigot when it comes to our baptist brothers. My FIL is a minister of that ilk, I was born to that faith, I studied at 2 of their schools, and every day I am working to plant a church that welcolms both views within one reformed fellowship.

And yet...

I feel sad. How (I ask in all honestly & sincerity) could you have ever called yourself a presbyterian (who defended the faith, not just an adherent) and still missed the point in Acts?

I just do not understand...


----------



## shackleton

Kevin said:


> ...baptist brothers...ilk...



Ouch


----------



## MW

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Ok, Reverend Winzer. My kids were born cut off. I didn't lie to them about it. I am sorry to inform you but I would say that John the Baptist was not normative. He was a special case. We are all born aliens to the Covenant of God as it says in Ephesians. We are all born in sin. That cuts us off.



It may be worth your while to go back and read Ephesians 2:11ff with the Jew/Gentile divide in mind, carefully noting the "ye" and "our" distinction. The apostle himself was not a stranger to the covenant of God by birth. His readership, being Gentiles by birth, were strangers. But now, he says, they are brought near. Note, it is not that a different promise has been made to the Gentiles, but that the Gentiles have been incorporated with the Jews in the same promise. They now possess all the privileges of the circumcision. The New Testament does not restrict but enlarge the sphere of the covenant of grace.


----------



## MW

shackleton said:


> Am I understanding it correctly that, to _not_ baptize an infant is akin to excommunication since baptism makes one a member of the visible church?



Not _akin_ to excommunication; it _is_ excommunication. Not baptising infants makes the statement that they have no part nor lot in Christ's kingdom.


----------



## satz

armourbearer said:


> shackleton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Am I understanding it correctly that, to _not_ baptize an infant is akin to excommunication since baptism makes one a member of the visible church?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not _akin_ to excommunication; it _is_ excommunication. Not baptising infants makes the statement that they have no part nor lot in Christ's kingdom.
Click to expand...


But why?

Simply because a child may be holy or part of the covenant does not logically imply they ought to be baptized.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

mangum said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> And let's be equally clear that Baptists cannot excommunicate those who never were in (as in "part of") the church of God to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The instruction is to bring them up IN THE LORD. The Baptist cuts them off from this privilege until such time as they can profess the Lord for themselves. The facts of the case are quite clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, children of believers are called "holy" for a reason.
Click to expand...





> It is true that the children of a believing parents are holy. But what does this mean? Since the unbelieving spouse is also "sanctified" (same word as "holy" used for the children only its verbal form), it seems only logical that they will be holy in the same way that the children are holy. No one in their right mind would assert that the unbelieving spouse is a member of the New Covenant. Neither should anybody think that the unbelieving spouse is worthy of being baptised. To baptise an unbeliever would make a mockery of the gospel which requires faith for salvation. But if both the unbelieving spouse and children are sanctified and made holy the the believing spouse and parent, why do some argue that the children are members of the covenant and should be baptised, but not he unbelieving spouse? And why do some insist on calling the children "saints" (holy ones), but not the unbelieving parent? Since both are made holy by the believer, to make one a holy covenant member and not he other, and to baptise one and not he other is an inconsistency which renders this view point completely unacceptable. Whatever this sanctification means, it cannot be used to argue for the paedobaptist view of "covenant children" which sanctions the baptism of infants or else, one must also argue for "covenant unbelieveing spouses" and the baptism of unbelievers.
> 
> How then are we to explain the sanctification in this verse? We could take it in a similar way to Hebrews 10:29 and understand that both the unbelieving spouse and he the children of believers are made holy or sanctified outwardly in some sense by the godly influences of the believer. But this verse states the sanctification of the unbelieving spouse and children as a fact, and yet this may not always be the case if it only refers to some kind of moral influence brought to bear upon them by the believer.
> 
> A better solution is to see this sanctification as referring to their being conformed to God's moral law so that the marriage and family unit are morally sound and holy in the sight of God. In other words, the marriage and family are legitimate and lawful, even though one spouse is still an unbeliever. Their unbelief does not make the marriage void or invalid.
> 
> One cannot help but think of a similar situation in Ezra chapters 9 and 10 in which the Israelites had married the daughters of the Canaanites. Such mixed marriages were looked upon as an abomination and the Israelites had to put away all of their foreign wives and their children (Ezra 10:3). If the Corinthian believers were aware of this, as the Jewish believers no doubt were, we could understand their concern about their own mixed marriages to unbelievers. "Is my marriage to an unbeliever and abomination? Should I put them away like God commanded the Israelites in the days of Ezra? What about my children, are they an abomination too?" These thoughts could easily be in the background of these verses to the Corinthian church.
> 
> What, then, is Paul's answer? In essence it is this - both your marriage and your children are legitimate before the Lord. They are holy and not to be discarded even though your spouse is an unbeliever and your children are descended from him (or her) as well as from you. The situation with Ezra was a different time and a different set of circumstances. Your children are not illegitimate because your marriage to the unbeliever is a lawful marriage and conforms to Gods' will.
> 
> Thus, the sanctification found in 1 Corinthians 7:14 cannot be made to argue that he children of believers are covenantally holy and therefore should be baptised as infants.....
> 
> Covenant Children Today by Alan Conner pp. 98-99



This passage is about marriage.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

In answer to JerusalemBlade - we are not looking at the Christian observance of the Feast of Weeks, but How the Jews celebrated it. Since they were the ones who were commanded to bring "all males" on the day, then it would follow that "all males" were there, c.f. Deut 16:16.

In anser to Pilgrim's question about 1 Cor 7:14 I find his and the credo-baptist answers just as slippery as his accusations of paedo-baptists on Acts 2:41. The unanswered problem is this:

What does "otherwise" mean in relation to the unbelieving parent?

*For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.*

To say that "sanctified" and "holy" have the same root word does not mean that they mean the same thing. The words "age" and "ageless" both have the same root word, but they mean entirely different things.

If we take the Baptist view that "holy" here means simply, "set apart" then what are the children being "set apart" for? Are they in some kind of purgatory where they are between heaven and earth? And, if so, then where do you find corroborating evidence for such a thing?

The children of believers were considered members of the New Covenant by circumcisin. The children of believers are considered members of the New Covenant by Baptism. Just because the mode has changed does not mean their status in the New Covenant has been changed.

Bill writes:



> I have an equally difficult time in trying to understand how a paedo can look back at the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant (circumcision), use that to defend the New Testament sign (baptism), but claim the rest of the Abrahamic promises (land promises to be specific) become spiritual promises in the New Covenant.


I don't think you have a real problem with this, Bill, because you know that the 10 Commandments were a part of the Mosaic Covenant. But, according to past statements, you claim that Jeremiah 31 abrogates the Mosaic Covenant. But, you have also claimed that the 10 Commandments are still binding on Christians in the New Covenant? (Unless you are consistent and hold to antinomianism?)

So, there are things in the Old Testament that are still binding upon the Christian, and there are things in the Old Testament that are no longer binding. You condemn the paedo-baptist for practicing something that you youself, and your fellow Baptists, practice?

I would submit to you that Abraham was not looking for a physical land, but for a spiritual one:

*By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in taernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God,* Hb 11:8-10.

Where do you find anywhere in Covenant Theology that, "If you believe that one part of the Covenant is still binding for today, it then means that you believe that all of the Covenant is still binding?" Making distinctions between what is binding and what is not binding is the very heart of the Pauline interpretation of Jer 31 in Hebrews 8:9-10:39.

Blessings,

CalvinandHodge


----------



## Iconoclast

Pilgrim said:


> I apologize to and ask forgiveness from any Baptists I may have offended in the past with my previous PB posts on baptism and Baptists.



Pilgrim,
If you get a chance listen to this sermon on Acts 2 and let me know, what you think.
it is on sermonaudio
153 What is a Covenant Child?
Hal Brunson, Ph.D. • 46 min.
Hebrews 2; Acts 2 • First Baptist Church of Parker 100+ Play! | MP3 

SUN 07/09/2006
Sunday - AM


----------



## MW

satz said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shackleton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Am I understanding it correctly that, to _not_ baptize an infant is akin to excommunication since baptism makes one a member of the visible church?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not _akin_ to excommunication; it _is_ excommunication. Not baptising infants makes the statement that they have no part nor lot in Christ's kingdom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But why?
> 
> Simply because a child may be holy or part of the covenant does not logically imply they ought to be baptized.
Click to expand...


Why doesn't it imply that? Baptism is not merely an entrance into the institutional church, but into the church as the visible kingdom of Christ.


----------



## MW

PuritanCovenanter said:


> This passage is about marriage.



It is about marriage as it affects one's ceremonial cleanness before God.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

armourbearer said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, Reverend Winzer. My kids were born cut off. I didn't lie to them about it. I am sorry to inform you but I would say that John the Baptist was not normative. He was a special case. We are all born aliens to the Covenant of God as it says in Ephesians. We are all born in sin. That cuts us off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It may be worth your while to go back and read Ephesians 2:11ff with the Jew/Gentile divide in mind, carefully noting the "ye" and "our" distinction. The apostle himself was not a stranger to the covenant of God by birth. His readership, being Gentiles by birth, were strangers. But now, he says, they are brought near. Note, it is not that a different promise has been made to the Gentiles, but that the Gentiles have been incorporated with the Jews in the same promise. They now possess all the privileges of the circumcision. The New Testament does not restrict but enlarge the sphere of the covenant of grace.
Click to expand...


You are correct. In fact it says strangers from the Covenants (plural) of Promise.

But Paul declares he was a child of wrath with them. I don't know of anyone who is in the covenant of Grace that would be considered a child of wrath.

(Eph 2:2) Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

(Eph 2:3) Among whom also *we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.*


In the New Covenant unbelieving Israel is cut off. The tree is for those who are in the Covenant of Grace. It is no longer a mixed Covenant. Again we are headed down this road. Even Meredith Kline thought that the Mosaic was a reissuing of the CofW. Everyone is rendered dead by it. That is why I also believe it is a mixed covenant. 

The Abrahamic Covenant is fulfilled in Christ. Now Christ is the head of a New Covenant. He is the Covenant head. And his children are spiritual. Not physical. Paul was a stranger to the Covenant of Grace until Christ came to him and reconciled him. 

I would like to ask, are you implying that the Jews were not born under the Wrath of God from birth, and that they didn't need to be reconciled to God and made members of the Eternal Covenant if they were to inherit Christ and and union with Christ? Isn't that what Romans is about? For their is none righteous, no not one. I know you aren't saying that. But you are implying that the Covenant of Grace is mixed with unregenerate and regenerate.


----------



## wallingj

I don't feel like trudging into this argument thus I am only going to offer an observation. Coming from a Baptist background and moving to a Presbyterian background I have heard both teachings and witnessed both baptisms. Therefore, here is the observation I offer. The Baptist church's I have attended, which have been several, routinely had infant dedication ceremonies, and I might add that I participated in two of them with my children. Anyway, the ceremony consists of the parents and the church pledging to raise the child in the Church and that each member would assist in that endeavor. The only thing missing from these ceremonies and the Presbyterian ceremony was the water. It just sort of makes you go .


----------



## Semper Fidelis

PuritanCovenanter said:


> You are correct. In fact it says strangers from the Covenants (plural) of Promise.
> 
> But Paul declares he was a child of wrath with them. I don't know of anyone who is in the covenant of Grace that would be considered a child of wrath.



Randy,

Actually you should modify this statement to state that you don't know of anyone who is in the covenant of Grace. You know that the Elect are but you only know of external professors who may or may not be members of the CoG.

At best you can speak theoretically of the CoG but, practically, you can't speak of visible individuals as participating in it.


----------



## MW

PuritanCovenanter said:


> You are correct. In fact it says strangers from the Covenants (plural) of Promise.
> 
> But Paul declares he was a child of wrath with them. I don't know of anyone who is in the covenant of Grace that would be considered a child of wrath.



Here you make the very point you are contradicting. Paul himself was a child of wrath BY NATURE, Eph. 2:3, and a child of promise BY COVENANT, ver. 12.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

armourbearer said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> This passage is about marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is about marriage as it affects one's ceremonial cleanness before God.
Click to expand...



Marriage is legit. The marriage itself is not unclean as the two are made one by God's decree. But sin is not forgiven and union in Christ is not achieved if one is not in Christ.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

armourbearer said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct. In fact it says strangers from the Covenants (plural) of Promise.
> 
> But Paul declares he was a child of wrath with them. I don't know of anyone who is in the covenant of Grace that would be considered a child of wrath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you make the very point you are contradicting. Paul himself was a child of wrath BY NATURE, Eph. 2:3, and a child of promise BY COVENANT, ver. 12.
Click to expand...


He was made a child of the Promises. Not necessarily Promise. Remember Isreal had physical as well as spiritual promises. The Covenant of Grace is spiritual. He was a stranger to that until he was in Christ.


----------



## Iconoclast

Rob- you said this


> The children of believers were considered members of the New Covenant by circumcisin. The children of believers were considered members of the New Covenant by circumcisin. The children of believers are considered members of the New Covenant by Baptism. Just because the mode has changed does not mean their status in the New Covenant has been changed.
> Just because the mode has changed does not mean their status in the New Covenant has been changed.


Did you mean to say OLD COV by circumcision?

Then you said-


> The children of believers were considered members of the New Covenant by circumcisin. The children of believers are considered members of the New Covenant by Baptism.
> 
> This is still the main point of disagreement. Randy and Bill have pointed it out already. Only Spirit Baptism does this, water baptism does not.
> The view you hold says it does.That is why if you look back at virtually every padeo post, They never mention the new birth,or the Spirit quickening the child.
> Yes, when pressed into it they will say something like - of course it depends upon the Spirit's work. Yet when not prompted you rarely will see this highlighted. Salvation is set forth as a methodical step by step procedure,dealing with mental ascent to the idea that all of the "promise" that the sign pointed to, will be just sort of infused into the child- because we cannot tell when where or How the Spirit moves?
> 
> Randy correctly pointed out that no child is excommunicated because unless they are born of the Spirit they are not in. It is not physical birth the puts you in,like OT. It is new birth the puts you in in NT.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

PuritanCovenanter said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> This passage is about marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is about marriage as it affects one's ceremonial cleanness before God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is legit. The marriage itself is not unclean as the two are made one by God's decree. But sin is not forgiven and union in Christ is not achieved if one is not in Christ.
Click to expand...


Again, you move further and further away from baptism as you yourself well know that neither the Baptist nor the Presbyterian view of Baptism confers union with Christ.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I enjoyed the rest we have had from this kind of discussion.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Iconoclast said:


> Randy correctly pointed out that no child is excommunicated because unless they are born of the Spirit they are not in. It is not physical birth the puts you in,like OT. It is new birth the puts you in in NT.



Hence, profession does not put you in either as baptism neither confers new birth to children nor to professors. Who to baptize then?


----------



## MW

PuritanCovenanter said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> This passage is about marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is about marriage as it affects one's ceremonial cleanness before God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is legit. The marriage itself is not unclean as the two are made one by God's decree. But sin is not forgiven and union in Christ is not achieved if one is not in Christ.
Click to expand...


This is the point we arrive at in view of the apostle's teaching. But to the Corinthians the great problem was how they stood ceremonially before God in view of their sexual union with an unbelieving spouse, and what would be the status of their children as a result. Paul assures them the unbeliever is sanctified in the marriage bond for the purpose of making the sexual union legitimate so that their children are set apart to God in the same way that the children of two believing parents are set apart. Paul's statement only makes sense on the presupposition that the children of a believing marriage are set apart to God and not considered unholy as is the case with unbelievers' children.


----------



## satz

armourbearer said:


> satz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not _akin_ to excommunication; it _is_ excommunication. Not baptising infants makes the statement that they have no part nor lot in Christ's kingdom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But why?
> 
> Simply because a child may be holy or part of the covenant does not logically imply they ought to be baptized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why doesn't it imply that? Baptism is not merely an entrance into the institutional church, but into the church as the visible kingdom of Christ.
Click to expand...


Again... but why. Not being a church member does not equal 'having no part in Christ's kingdom'.


----------



## MW

PuritanCovenanter said:


> He was made a child of the Promises. Not necessarily Promise. Remember Isreal had physical as well as spiritual promises. The Covenant of Grace is spiritual. He was a stranger to that until he was in Christ.



The text reads, Covenants (plural) of promise (singular). The text also reads that the Gentiles were strangers to this plurality of covenants holding forth this singular promise, thereby negating any possibility of suggesting a plurality of covenants between the Old and New Testaments. He further says, not that God made a distinct covenant of promise with the Gentiles, but that the Gentiles were brought near and incorporated into Israel's promise. He proceeds to state clearly what this fulfilled promise is: "through him WE BOTH have access BY ONE SPIRIT unto the Father, ver. 18. Jews and Gentiles are united in the fulfilment of the SAME SPIRITUAL promise.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Semper Fidelis said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is about marriage as it affects one's ceremonial cleanness before God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is legit. The marriage itself is not unclean as the two are made one by God's decree. But sin is not forgiven and union in Christ is not achieved if one is not in Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you move further and further away from baptism as you yourself well know that neither the Baptist nor the Presbyterian view of Baptism confers union with Christ.
Click to expand...


I never said baptism conferred anything, did I? I think we were talking about marriage and what holy meant in 1 Corinthians 7:14 weren't we?

Now concerning Marriage to an unbeliever... God's word and declaration that marriage is not unclean makes it legit confers the truth of it. I think that was what we were discussing. This passage is about the sanctity of marriage. The holiness (sanctification) of the family unit and what that holiness is.


----------



## staythecourse

> I simply don't see Acts 2:41 as something that would knock down that whole edifice and find the historical narratives to be, at best, vague to establish a principle either way. For every verse where you might want to definitively create a "this must speak of adults only" you'll have the same wrestling process with those that we believe militate in the opposite way. You've obviously built some sort of super-structure beside this single verse or it would not have hit you like a ton of bricks.



I am looking forward to seeing the superstructure. If I just started the paedo-credo research and saw someone reverse their theology on this verse I would say the reasoning looks shaky, too.

However, I believe there has been much more thought than the tip of this iceberg.

So please, Chris, when you have time, explain more thoroughly your thoughts.

There's a 5 second rule for candy that hits the floor and a 2 week rule for massive theological changes.


----------



## MW

satz said:


> Again... but why. Not being a church member does not equal 'having no part in Christ's kingdom'.



If you consider the church in its institutional aspect, then obviously not; but the catholic church IS the visible kingdom of Christ on earth (WCF 25:2), and therefore to be denied baptism is to be denied recognition of being a member of this kingdom.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

armourbearer said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was made a child of the Promises. Not necessarily Promise. Remember Isreal had physical as well as spiritual promises. The Covenant of Grace is spiritual. He was a stranger to that until he was in Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The text reads, Covenants (plural) of promise (singular). The text also reads that the Gentiles were strangers to this plurality of covenants holding forth this singular promise, thereby negating any possibility of suggesting a plurality of covenants between the Old and New Testaments. He further says, not that God made a distinct covenant of promise with the Gentiles, but that the Gentiles were brought near and incorporated into Israel's promise. He proceeds to state clearly what this fulfilled promise is: "through him WE BOTH have access BY ONE SPIRIT unto the Father, ver. 18. Jews and Gentiles are united in the fulfilment of the SAME SPIRITUAL promise.
Click to expand...


Your correct it does say Covenants of Promise. But that doesn't negate any possibility of suggesting a plurality of Covenants. It does say Covenants. And I believe the CofG does run through the Covenants as a Promise as the Covenant of Works run through a few of them also. And your are correct. The gentiles were brought near to the Promise of the Covenant of Grace as to where they were aliens in general till now. Christ is the Israel of God is he not? We who are placed in Him are of that same spirtual Promise as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are. Remember not off of Isreal was Isreal. Some were not included just as Ishmael wasn't.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I am stopping for now. I probably won't weigh in much more. I have to get ready for my return home from surgery and for the surgery itself. 

You guys be Encouraged,

Thanks Reverend Winzer


----------



## kceaster

Since the Holy Spirit wrote the book of Acts, then He knows quite well how many He baptized that day, and what their ages were. I don't think we'll ever find that out this side of heaven. I'm not saying that we can't take this literally, but I'm also not saying that 3000 men were immersed in full view of the Jewish leaders, who 50 days before, murdered the One in Whom these persons were supposed to be baptized. It could have been a mass (small m), hyssop-sprinkling event. It could have been a dry baptism in which the Holy Spirit can and does work. In any case, I think the Holy Spirit wrote exactly (through Luke) who He baptized.

Regardless, the promise was to these men of Pentecost, and to their children, and to as many as would be called in the same manner as they. What promise? Same promise as introduced in Genesis 3:15, and the same promise as was more fully developed in Genesis 17:1-8, and the same promise as repeated over and over again. The same promise that in Christ is Yes, and Amen, as are all God's promises. We can try to come up with empirical evidence and irrefutable scriptural proof. But, we'll never end up with agreement unless and until the focus is shifted off the physical sign and placed squarely within the promises of God. After all, we do not have faith in the sign, but in that which the sign signifies. If we all do that, then we'll be much closer to understanding the purpose of God in Salvation. Christ didn't come to save persons, He came to save a people. Why shouldn't that people include children? More importantly, when did God stop including children?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## staythecourse

> As an aside: How can 3,000 people be submerged by Baptism in one day? Only the Apostles had authority to baptize, and there were 12 of them. Each Apostle would have to baptize 750 people in one day? That in itself seems a bit far-fetched.



The 3,000 baptisms in a day is very feasible. It could be done between meals. 3,000/12 = 250 * 20-30 seconds/baptism = 5,000 - 7500 seconds = 83 minutes - 125 minutes


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Assembly Line!!!

Where were the tubs?

Did anyone get exhausted?


----------



## Pilgrim's Progeny

staythecourse said:


> As an aside: How can 3,000 people be submerged by Baptism in one day? Only the Apostles had authority to baptize, and there were 12 of them. Each Apostle would have to baptize 750 people in one day? That in itself seems a bit far-fetched.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 3,000 baptisms in a day is very feasible. It could be done between meals. 3,000/12 = 250 * 20-30 seconds/baptism = 5,000 - 7500 seconds = 83 minutes - 125 minutes
Click to expand...

 no offence, just struck the funny bone. I never thought someone would think to do the math.


----------



## staythecourse




----------



## staythecourse

> Assembly Line!!!
> 
> Where were the tubs?
> 
> Did anyone get exhausted?



OK. The Pool of Siloam was within walking distance OK? (Never know!)


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Iconoclast said:


> Rob- you said this
> 
> 
> 
> The children of believers were considered members of the New Covenant by circumcisin. The children of believers were considered members of the New Covenant by circumcisin. The children of believers are considered members of the New Covenant by Baptism. Just because the mode has changed does not mean their status in the New Covenant has been changed.
> Just because the mode has changed does not mean their status in the New Covenant has been changed.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you mean to say OLD COV by circumcision?
> 
> Then you said-
> 
> 
> 
> The children of believers were considered members of the New Covenant by circumcisin. The children of believers are considered members of the New Covenant by Baptism.
> 
> This is still the main point of disagreement. Randy and Bill have pointed it out already. Only Spirit Baptism does this, water baptism does not.
> The view you hold says it does.That is why if you look back at virtually every padeo post, They never mention the new birth,or the Spirit quickening the child.
> Yes, when pressed into it they will say something like - of course it depends upon the Spirit's work. Yet when not prompted you rarely will see this highlighted. Salvation is set forth as a methodical step by step procedure,dealing with mental ascent to the idea that all of the "promise" that the sign pointed to, will be just sort of infused into the child- because we cannot tell when where or How the Spirit moves?
> 
> Randy correctly pointed out that no child is excommunicated because unless they are born of the Spirit they are not in. It is not physical birth the puts you in,like OT. It is new birth the puts you in in NT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Brother!
> 
> Circumcision in the Old Testament is a sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace - the New Covenant. The sign and seal are applied to the recipient whether or not the recipient is a Believer or the child of a Believer - 8 days old.
> 
> Water Baptism in the New Testament is a sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace - the New Covenant. The sign and seal are applied to the recipient whether or not the recipient is a Believer or the child of a Believer.
> 
> Just as the New Testament teaches that Water Baptism does not save you, so the Old Testament teaches that physical circumcision does not save you either:
> 
> *Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart,* Deut 10:16.
> 
> *And the LORD thy God shall circumcise your heart, and the heart of your seed, to love the LORD thy God with all of your heart that thou mayest live* Deut 31:6.
> 
> *But he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God,* Rom 2:29; see also Jer 4:4.
> 
> Water Baptism does not save a person - but it is a sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace - the New Covenant.
> 
> Physical Circumcision did not save a person either - but it was a sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace - the New Covenant.
> 
> Jesus angered the Jews because they claimed to be the descendents of Abraham, and Jesus acknowledged that they were physically descended from Abraham, but what did He say to them?
> 
> *I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham, *John 8:37ff.
> 
> Water Baptism and Physical Circumcision both needed the Work of the Spirit in order for the recipient to be a true child of Abraham. In the Old Testament language the one circumcised needed his "heart circumcised" which is analogus to being "Born Again."
> 
> I think there is a language barrier here: The New Covenant was promised to Adam and Eve after the Fall, Gen 3:14,15. It is found in the types and shadows of the Old Testament times until the coming of Jesus (the mediator of the New Testament). The types and shadows were then stripped away, and the New Covenant shown in all of its glory in the New Testament. The "Old Covenant" is the Covenant of Works - the "New Covenant" is the Covenant of Grace.
> 
> The Covenant of Grace is called the "New" Covenant because it came after the Covenant of Works - the "Old" Covenant.
> 
> They are called "Old" and "New" testaments because they deal with the death of the testator, Hebrews 9:16,17.
> 
> The testator of the "Old" Testament was the blood of calves and goats, Hebrews 9:19,20. But these could not redeem man because they had to continually be sacrificed, were temporary, and were types of the perfect. The Bible calls this the "first" testament we simply use the word "old".
> 
> The testator of the "New" Testament is Jesus Christ, Heb 9:14-15, 23-28.
> 
> This is, partly, why my investigation into Jeremiah 31 and Paul's interpretation of it in Hebrews chapters 8-10 convinced me the credo-baptist position is incorrect. Membership in the New Covenant in both the Old and New Testaments are believers and their children. We know this to be true because the "holy" status of the children of believers has never been recinded in the New Testament, and, it has, in fact, been assumed, and declared, to continue in the New Testament.
> 
> Just as Abraham was required to "Believe in God" and then he was circumcised, but his infant children were not required to "Believe in God" and be circumcised: So, the head of a household is required to "Believe and be Baptized," but such a requirement is not necessary for his infant children.
> 
> Because the law stating that the children of believers are members of the New Covenant has not been repealed.
> 
> Hope this clears things up,
> 
> CalvinandHodge
Click to expand...


----------



## CalvinandHodges

staythecourse said:


> As an aside: How can 3,000 people be submerged by Baptism in one day? Only the Apostles had authority to baptize, and there were 12 of them. Each Apostle would have to baptize 750 people in one day? That in itself seems a bit far-fetched.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 3,000 baptisms in a day is very feasible. It could be done between meals. 3,000/12 = 250 * 20-30 seconds/baptism = 5,000 - 7500 seconds = 83 minutes - 125 minutes
Click to expand...


----------



## Herald

Robert,

The reason I haven't responded to your earlier post is because this thread has taken off into a full scale baptism debate. I figured that would happen when Chris posted his change of position, but I forgot just how much I disliked the tone of the baptism threads once they got rolling. I haven't read a compelling argument on either side that I haven't heard before. I decided to jump off the moving train and take my lumps. I don't want you thinking I ignored you.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Robert,
> 
> The reason I haven't responded to your earlier post is because this thread has taken off into a full scale baptism debate. I figured that would happen when Chris posted his change of position, but I forgot just how much I disliked the tone of the baptism threads once they got rolling. I haven't read a compelling argument on either side that I haven't heard before. I decided to jump off the moving train and take my lumps. I don't want you thinking I ignored you.



Thank you kindly, Bill.

When I first saw this thread I said to myself, "Oh no, not again!" But the arguments do not run dull for me, and I hope, of late, my tone has not been offensive?

Fight the Good fight, brother,

CalvinandHodge


----------



## bookslover

armourbearer said:


> The text reads, Covenants (plural) of promise (singular).



In fact, Matthew, doesn't the Greek text read "covenants of *the* promise"? I think that, of all the modern translations, only the NIV (ironically enough) preserves the definite article in its rendering.


----------



## Herald

CalvinandHodges said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Robert,
> 
> The reason I haven't responded to your earlier post is because this thread has taken off into a full scale baptism debate. I figured that would happen when Chris posted his change of position, but I forgot just how much I disliked the tone of the baptism threads once they got rolling. I haven't read a compelling argument on either side that I haven't heard before. I decided to jump off the moving train and take my lumps. I don't want you thinking I ignored you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you kindly, Bill.
> 
> When I first saw this thread I said to myself, "Oh no, not again!" But the arguments do not run dull for me, and I hope, of late, my tone has not been offensive?
> 
> Fight the Good fight, brother,
> 
> CalvinandHodge
Click to expand...


Robert, your tone has been fine. Rest easy.


----------



## MW

bookslover said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The text reads, Covenants (plural) of promise (singular).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, Matthew, doesn't the Greek text read "covenants of *the* promise"? I think that, of all the modern translations, only the NIV (ironically enough) preserves the definite article in its rendering.
Click to expand...


Richard, it certainly does; not that I would make too much of it because the Greek tends to prefer the article on certain nouns, so its inclusion is not necessarily an indication of definiteness. But in connection with the singular it at least substantiates the point that a specific promise is in view here, namely, the promise of Christ; which runs counter to the claim that circumcision was merely a national sign concerned with temporal promises.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

CalvinandHodges said:


> [post #75] Hi:
> 
> In answer to JerusalemBlade - we are not looking at the Christian observance of the Feast of Weeks, but How the Jews celebrated it. Since they were the ones who were commanded to bring "all males" on the day, then it would follow that "all males" were there, c.f. Deut 16:16.



Rob, indeed all males were required to show up for this feast, as you noted. However, verses 10 & 11 in this chapter, talking of the feast of weeks / Pentecost, say,

10: And thou shalt keep the feast of weeks unto the LORD thy God.... 11: And thou shalt rejoice before the LORD thy God, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy manservant, and thy maidservant, and the Levite that is within thy gates, and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, that are among you, in the place where the LORD thy God hath chosen you to place his name there.​
This feast was to be a festive one, and although it was mandated all the males were to be there, the entire family, including servants, were invited in this time of rejoicing in the city of Jerusalem, and at the temple in particular. There were women and children in the milling crowds. And listening to Peter.

--------

Justin (post #56),

In answer to your request, here are 2 books and an online pamphlet. They are all from the Protestant Reformed Church, which has a coherent view of infant baptism. First, the pamphlet, The Covenant of God and the Children of Believers - David J. Engelsma

Then there is the book by Herman Hanko, _We And Our Children: The Reformed Doctrine of Infant Baptism_: Reformed Free Publishing Association

And lastly, Herman Hoeksema's: _Believers and Their Seed_ [Check out the Standard Bearer book review at the bottom of the page.]


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Note: because I use the PRC's books, and some of their doctrines, does not mean I adhere to all their views.

-------

Bill, in your post #66 you said,



> I have an equally difficult time in trying to understand how a paedo can look back at the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant (circumcision), use that to defend the New Testament sign (baptism), but claim the rest of the Abrahamic promises (land promises to be specific) become spiritual promises in the New Covenant. The paedo reasoning rings hollow in my mind.



And then you quoted Malone:



> It must be understood that just because there was an intermixture of physical and spiritual elements in the Abrahamic Covenant, it does not follow by implication that the same elements apply to the New Covenant. We all know that one became a member of the Abrahamic Covenant by physical circumcision, but God also called Abraham's seed to spiritually circumcise their hearts as well (Deut. 10:16). That the New Covenant emphasizes a spiritual circumcision does not automatically imply that there must be physical members in the New Covenant without such a heart. As Pastor Walter Chantry of Grace Baptist Church, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, has well said, "In the Old Covenant, all that was spiritual was identified with an outward nation. In the New Covenant, all that is outward is identified with a spiritual nation." Therefore, those who apply the Abrahamic inclusion of physical children to the New Covenant as a basis for the infant baptism of the Christian's children must also honestly deal with the "forever" implications of Canaan, circumcision, and household adult membership in the New Covenant as well. There is too much inconsistency here to make a valid argument.



I think this is an important objection, that is, the "land promises". Was the promise of the land of Canaan (Gen 12:7; 15:7, 18-21; 17:8) given as "an everlasting possession" without qualification? O. Palmer Robertson, in his book, _The Israel of God_, writes,

In the process of redemptive history, a dramatic movement has taken place. The arena of redemption has shifted from type to reality, from shadow to substance. The land which once was the specific place of God's redemptive work served well in the realm of old covenant forms as a picture of paradise lost and promised. But in the realm of new covenant fulfillments, the land has expanded to encompass the whole world. (p. 30, 31)​
Some Jews (of which people, according to the flesh, I am) and some Christians, assert that the _physical land_ promise is Biblical basis for the Jewish state's dispossessing of the native Palestinians _and_ establishing military hegemony over the region, and are fulfilling just these promises / prophecies. I have written elsewhere on this exegetical horror:

http://www.puritanboard.com/290145-post1.html

As pointed out by CalvinandHodge in post #75, Abraham, as well his seed Isaac and Jacob, looked for a city "whose builder and maker is God" (Heb 11:10, 16), "that is, an heavenly [country]". So they also looked beyond the type, to the eternal reality.

When David says, in Psalm 37:9, "For evildoers shall be cut off: but they that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth", he presaged what Jesus said in Matthew 5:5, "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth."

If one says that the Jews living in Palestine now are doing so in prophetic fulfillment, consider the LORD's view:

*But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou should take my covenant in thy mouth? Seeing thou hatest instruction, and castest my words behind thee?" (Ps 50:16, 17)*​
It is also written, "Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and stablisheth a city by iniquity!" (Habakkuk 2:12) Those who are cognizant of what happened in and around 1948 in Palestine should realize that the "land promises" have been appropriated by those precluded from them. The only meek and righteous in that land now are believing Arabs, Messianic Jews and other indigenous believers (not including visiting Christians).

Will there be a physical land of Israel in the new world? Where will the New Jerusalem be located? We know there will be no sea (Rev 21:1), and maybe the earth will not look like it does now. Will my beloved Woodstock (NY) still exist in any fashion?

The entire world will be the land of Israel, for this is the name of Him who is its King, the only Israelite worthy to stand before the Almighty God in His own merit: Jesus of Nazareth. Herein will the land promises be fulfilled to their utmost, in a glory undreamt of by all its inhabitants-to-be.

In sum: there is no inconsistency in the paedo view of the covenant, seeing as the exegesis of types and shadows into fulfilled realities and substance has apostolic warrant.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

py3ak said:


> Ken, what you describe was also Al Martin's experience. He thought that John Murray would convince him of paedo-baptism, but John Murray actually convinced him of credo-baptism.
> 
> Chris, it takes principle to reverse your position after arguing publicly for another view. You are to be commended for your honesty, and I trust God will bless you with ever fuller understanding of His word.



Actually, I do not find that very surprising. Prof. Murray's views on the covenant of grace and the non-validity of the invisible/visible church distinction are very difficult to reconcile with infant baptism.


----------



## Zenas

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> I apologize to and ask forgiveness from any Baptists I may have offended in the past with my previous PB posts on baptism and Baptists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris, all is fair in love, war and baptism threads.
Click to expand...


I'm putting this in my quotes section on Facebook.


----------



## Pilgrim

reformedman said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> he stated militated a clear proof that believer's baptism is clearly and necessarily inferred by Acts 2:41-42
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was his opinion, he wasn't requesting a debate. But anyway.
> 
> He said that it never hit him solidly enough to cause him to see a paedobaptist position.
> I think he should be commended for standing on his convictions enough to voice it, and as friends we should understand that he continues to receive our encouragement, not get effected as if we are being pressed for a debate.
> 
> I don't say any of this with bitterness, it is only something that I saw that I'd like to say with all due respect to you.
> 
> To continue, I do not believe(strictly as an opinion) that if a credo said they saw the light and went to paedo, and a person responded inversely with defenses and prooftexts supporting paedo, that you would permit people bringing up defenses and prooftexts.
> 
> All under the bridge anyway, now that I see its been moved to the debate area of the forum. Again, I say this just as observation and opinion, not for slander or accusation.
Click to expand...


For the record, this thread was always in the baptism forum, which is for debate and discussion.


----------



## Pilgrim

Iconoclast said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> I apologize to and ask forgiveness from any Baptists I may have offended in the past with my previous PB posts on baptism and Baptists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilgrim,
> If you get a chance listen to this sermon on Acts 2 and let me know, what you think.
> it is on sermonaudio
> 153 What is a Covenant Child?
> Hal Brunson, Ph.D. • 46 min.
> Hebrews 2; Acts 2 • First Baptist Church of Parker 100+ Play! | MP3
> 
> SUN 07/09/2006
> Sunday - AM
Click to expand...


Thanks for the heads up. I am familiar with Dr. Brunson because I know some men who belong to or have belonged to that church in the past but unfortunately I haven't listened to his preaching.


----------



## Pilgrim

Ok. I don't have time to read all this now much less respond. I probably won't be able to interact much in this thread until toward the end of the week but I will try to respond to questions as time permits.


----------



## timmopussycat

Contra_Mundum said:


> Assembly Line!!!
> 
> Where were the tubs?
> 
> Did anyone get exhausted?



Please investigate the water supply on the temple mount for your answer. I don't have the issue to hand but I do remember reading within the last 10 years or so in a Christian magazine specializing in archeological issues that, given the water supply to the temple mount area, such a mass baptism (by immersion) was possible.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Hi Tim,
I don't think my post makes much sense without reference to the immediate preceding one, for which it was meant to be a lighthearted reply. I believe it got a laugh from its intended recipient.

To your comment, I think most can assent to the theoretical possibility of thousands of immersions temporally, logistically, etc. Practically possible, politically possible, ... ? I think those are legitimate areas to bring questions to bear. Perhaps a realistic reenactment of the whole event by 3000 baptists would settle the pragmatic question once and for all?

Probably not. Looking forward to the book you've mentioned you are writing related to thnmy. Blessings.


----------



## Ivan

Contra_Mundum said:


> Perhaps a realistic reenactment of the whole event by 3000 baptists would settle the pragmatic question once and for all?



 Oh, brother, don't give us ideas like that!


----------



## aleksanderpolo

Let's get this started: 11 vs 3000!

Seriously, we really need a formal baptism debate in which the two participants are not allowed to leave the ring until all arguments and counter-arguments are answered!


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Apropos the conjectures regarding the immersion of the 3,000 in Jerusalem, I submit the following as evidence to the contrary. The author, F.G. Hibbard, was a Methodist pastor in the early part of the 1800s, and apparently quite exercised in the matters of minute detail pertaining to infant baptism, and to the mode of baptism.

This is from the book, _Christian Baptism_, by Rev. F.G. Hibbard, (NY: Carlton & Lanahan. 1841).

The account of Luke (Acts ii) goes to prove that three thousand persons were baptized and added to the church on the day of Pentecost; but does not specify the mode. If, however, we attend critically to all the circumstances of the occasion, we shall find the weight of evidence to lie against the idea of their being immersed. Proceed we then to notice—

1. _*Their time for baptism*_. Peter began to preach “about the third hour of the day;” i.e., nine o’clock, A.M. Ver. 15. Judging from the nature of the occasion and from the drift of his discourse, as given by Luke, he continued at least an hour. Luke says, “With many other words Peter testified and exhorted,” &c. Ver. 40. Peter’s sermon being ended, the converts must be selected from the multitude, and questioned as to their faith and experience. This was not the work of a moment. If they were immersed, they must have been provided with a change of raiment: This must have occasioned great delay. For when the multitude came together, at first, it was with some confusion and no expectation of Christian baptism or conversion. Then, apartments for men and women must be procured adjacent to the place of baptism. Before all these preliminaries could be disposed of with decency, it must have been afternoon; say one o’clock. The Jewish day closed at six P.M., and Luke says they were baptized and added to the church “the same day.” Consequently they had but five hours left, in which to perform their labour. But if the twelve apostles baptized three thousand persons in five hours, they must have averaged for each apostle two hundred and fifty; which would be, for each, fifty persons per hour, or five persons in every six minutes. This, I need not say, would have been impossible. But if the apostles baptized by aspersion [sprinkling], they thereby saved much time, and might have performed the task with comparative ease....

2. _*They had no place for the immersion of such a multitude*_. The brook Kidron (Cedron), which ran along the east side of the city, was, at its maximum, but a turbid stream,—always dry in the hot season, and it was now about June; so that its waters must have been failing fast. Besides, soon after it issued from its source, it received, from a common sewer, all the blood and ordure of the sacrifices, and the common filth, both of the temple and the northern section of the city. This alone would have rendered it unfit for baptism. As to public pools, we have account of only two, Bethesda and Siloam. The latter was three-fourths of a mile from the spot where the apostles had preached. We have no account of their marching off three thousand persons, with all the multitude of spectators that would naturally follow, this distance. Besides, their time would have failed them. Bethesda lay within the precincts of the temple, and was used in the temple service for the washing of sacrifices, &c. It was, therefore, in the hands of the priests, the avowed and mortal enemies of Christ and his apostles; and I believe it will not be pretended that the dignitaries of the Jewish church, after their recent hard-earned and diabolical triumph over Christ and his followers; their concerted and undisguised hostility to the Christian name; their settled and incurable malice, now newly festered by the alarming success of the apostles,—it will not, I say, be pretended that, under these circumstances, they would have peaceably surrendered their claims to the use of Bethesda, in order to have accommodated the apostles of Christ with a place for Christian baptism; particularly, as the time for the evening sacrifice came on between three and four o’clock, P.M., when the use of the pool was always needed; and it being now Pentecost, and the sacrifices numerous and important, its use would have been wholly indispensable. In addition to all this, (if any additional remark be necessary,) both Siloam and Bethesda were probably of inadequate dimensions to admit twelve men...for the purpose of immersing. In the porches of Bethesda, the sick constantly reclined, waiting to receive the benefit of its healing waters. Where, then, did the apostles immerse three thousand converts? Are there not difficulties attending that hypothesis? (Part II, pp. 111-114)​


----------



## blhowes

aleksanderpolo said:


> Seriously, we really need a formal baptism debate in which the two participants are not allowed to leave the ring until all arguments and counter-arguments are answered!


...and one admits defeat


----------



## Zenas

blhowes said:


> aleksanderpolo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, we really need a formal baptism debate in which the two participants are not allowed to leave the ring until all arguments and counter-arguments are answered!
> 
> 
> 
> ...and one admits defeat
Click to expand...


I think a cage match free-for-all would be much more entertaining. Or better yet, king of the ring. 1v1 until one drops out, then another takes his place. The last party standing is the winner.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi Brother!
> 
> Circumcision in the Old Testament is a sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace - the New Covenant. The sign and seal are applied to the recipient whether or not the recipient is a Believer or the child of a Believer - 8 days old.
> 
> Water Baptism in the New Testament is a sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace - the New Covenant. The sign and seal are applied to the recipient whether or not the recipient is a Believer or the child of a Believer.
> 
> Just as the New Testament teaches that Water Baptism does not save you, so the Old Testament teaches that physical circumcision does not save you either:



I am sorry but I really don't have much time to spend with this due to other things. But let me just say this. I do not think that Circumcision is necessarily the sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace. It is a sign and seal of the righteousness of Abraham's personal faith as mentioned in Romans. 

I have discussed this in previous discussions. There are differences in the two signs as I have mentioned before. 



> Does Baptism Replace Circumcision?
> Posted 02-01-2008 at 08:15 AM by PuritanCovenanter
> Reformed Baptist Institute
> 
> Nehemiah Coxe, Covenant Theology: From Adam to Christ (Palmdale: Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2005, 140) A reprint of A Discourse of the Covenants that God Made with Men before the Law, 1681
> 
> Circumcision was an ordinance of the old covenant and pertained to the law and therefore directly bound its subjects to a legal obedience. But baptism is an ordinance of the gospel and (besides other excellent and most comfortable uses) directly obliges its subjects to gospel obedience. Therefore it is in this respect opposed to, rather than substituted in the place of, circumcision.
> 
> Certainly it is safer to interpret one text according to the general current of Scripture and in full harmony with it, than to force such a sense on many texts (which they will in no way admit) to bring them into a compliance to a notion with which our minds are prepossessed. It is plain that the notion I have insisted on fully agrees with other places where circumcision is discussed according to its immediate and direct use in the old covenant. For there can be no contradiction in ascribing a different and seemingly opposite use and end to the same thing, if it be done in a different respect. What circumcision was directly and in its immediate use is one thing; what it was as subordinate to a better covenant and promise that had precedence to it, is another. It is easy to conceive that it might be that to the father of the faithful in its extraordinary institution, what it could not be to the children of the flesh or carnal seed in its ordinary use.
> 
> To conclude: if circumcision and baptism have the same use and are seals of the same covenant, I can hardly imagine how the application of both to the same subjects should at any time be proper. Yet we find those that were circumcised in their infancy were also baptized on the profession of faith and repentance even before circumcision was abrogated. Yes, according to the opinion that has been argued against, the Jews that believed before Christ suffered were at the same time under a command both of circumcising and baptizing their infant seed. But if the principles that this discourse is built upon are well proved by Scripture, as I take them to be, there must be allowed a vast disparity between circumcision and baptism. The old covenant is not the new; nor that which is abolished, the same with that which remains. Until these become one, baptism and circumcision will never be found so far one that the law for applying the latter should be a sufficient warrant for the administration of the former to infants.



Anyways, You guys have a great week.


----------



## Pilgrim's Progeny

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Apropos the conjectures regarding the immersion of the 3,000 in Jerusalem, I submit the following as evidence to the contrary. The author, F.G. Hibbard, was a Methodist pastor in the early part of the 1800s, and apparently quite exercised in the matters of minute detail pertaining to infant baptism, and to the mode of baptism.
> 
> This is from the book, _Christian Baptism_, by Rev. F.G. Hibbard, (NY: Carlton & Lanahan. 1841).


 
I found the book Steve reference online, wow, he was quite exercised. It looks like it may be worth the read. What do you think, Steve?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Ken, you said in post #43,



KMK said:


> Jerusalem Blade said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were the children present baptized with the fathers? No doubt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you elaborate on the 'no doubtedness' of this statement?
> 
> Are you saying that the Jews immediately recognized that baptism was the new 'token' of the covenant? Are you assuming that there was some further teaching to this effect by Peter that is not recorded? It would seem to me that there would need to be some explaining done especially in light of the 'token' now being offered to females.
> 
> I am willing to accept your conclusion, but I don't understand how you can claim that there is 'no doubt'.
Click to expand...


Yes, it was so preached to them by Peter, that if they would be saved in the new covenant of Messiah, it would be through obediently receiving the new sign of baptism. “Repent, and be baptized every one of you…” (Acts 2:38) They didn’t falter. And yes, there is much that Peter said we do not have recorded: “And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, ‘Save yourselves from this untoward [perverse] generation.’ ” (2:40). Earlier he had included “sons and daughters...servants and handmaidens” (2:17, 18) in the manifesting of the Spirit of God among them. No doubt (there I go again!) he made it clear to them in the sermon we do not have that it was so to be – women were now to receive the mark of the covenant.

You are right, though, Ken, that some _will_ doubt. I suppose my use of that expression is rhetorical – and I used it loosely, thinking of those with paedo leanings! Or perhaps I thought too highly of the (supposed) inexorable logic of my argument!

I suppose also that I was assuming the understanding that there would be a mixed crowd that day during the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost), per Deuteronomy 16:11, where it is written of this feast,

And thou shalt rejoice before the LORD thy God, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy manservant, and thy maidservant, and the Levite that is in thy gates, and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, that are among you, in the place which the LORD thy God hath chosen to place his name there.​
It was to be a festive occasion, a family day, if you will, rejoicing in the goodness of God not only in giving them a good harvest, but in delivering them from Egypt (v. 12) – the which was also typical of the great deliverance from the world the Savior had now obtained for them in Him.

But thanks for calling me on that!

Steve


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Paul, thanks for that link. It is a great resource, and I would highly recommend it for baptism issues in great detail. Being a Methodist he will certainly fail of the Reformed standards in other respects.

-------

Randy, the lead sentence in your quote, “Circumcision was an ordinance of the old covenant and pertained to the law and therefore directly bound its subjects to a legal obedience...” sounds a lot to me like New Covenant Theology, which posits a _radical discontinuity_ between the two covenants, including Abraham’s. This is certainly far from Reformed, and even from Reformed Baptist!

Jesus said that circumcision was not of Moses, but of the fathers (John 7:22). Later in your quote of Coxe he says that the old was “abolished” – but that refers to the Mosaic, not the Abrahamic – for the Abrahamic was not abolished (as was the Mosaic) per Paul saying that we are Abraham’s spiritual seed and heirs of the promise of his covenant.

I don’t have time now to take apart his remarks – I mean, how much time can one give to this stuff!

I must sign off for a while, as I have other things to attend to.

And Randy, I'll be praying for the operation.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Zenas, you said,

"I think a cage match free-for-all would be much more entertaining. Or better yet, king of the ring. 1v1 until one drops out, then another takes his place. The last party standing is the winner."​
Baptists are the tough-guys of the Faith -- they don't give up, they die of illness or natural causes or martyrdom -- so it wouldn't pay to get in a cage with one. No, the way to co-exist with Baptists is to agree to disagree agreeably. There is no other way. And some paedos are cut of the same cloth. You keep such as these out of cages, they'd just go on and on till they depart for glory!

That's the beauty of having moderators -- they turn it off after a while.

I have a great story about the toughness of Baptists -- but it'll have to wait till tomorrow, and I find the book.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Contra_Mundum said:


> To your comment, I think most can assent to the theoretical possibility of thousands of immersions temporally, logistically, etc. Practically possible, politically possible, ... ? I think those are legitimate areas to bring questions to bear. Perhaps a realistic reenactment of the whole event by 3000 baptists would settle the pragmatic question once and for all?



 This was after all a drinking supply as well. I don't suppose the others around the Temple that weren't convinced (including the leaders of the Temple) would mind too much that 3000 dusty people were fouling the water supply.

But it's still theoretically possible.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Paul, thanks for that link. It is a great resource, and I would highly recommend it for baptism issues in great detail. Being a Methodist he will certainly fail of the Reformed standards in other respects.
> 
> -------
> 
> Randy, the lead sentence in your quote, “Circumcision was an ordinance of the old covenant and pertained to the law and therefore directly bound its subjects to a legal obedience...” sounds a lot to me like New Covenant Theology, which posits a _radical discontinuity_ between the two covenants, including Abraham’s. This is certainly far from Reformed, and even from Reformed Baptist!



Well this isn't New Covenant Theology. It is a view that Reformed Baptists hold to. The New is New. To understand our position you would have to look at how John Owen views the differences between the Mosaic and the New Covenant. Check out his view by reading his Hebrews chapter 8 commentary.

The New Covenant is not like the Old Covenant. (Jeremiah 31:31,32) There are elements of continuity and discontinuity. We all think that is true. The Reformed Baptist and Reformed Community just disagree on what is continued and what isn't. Circumcision is one of those areas. We believe that sometimes some people are trying to put New wine into Old wineskins. Better Covenant Better Promises. Might I add that the Promises in the New are better. Therefore they are not the same. 




> (Jer 31:31) Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
> 
> (Jer 31:32) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
> 
> 
> 
> (Heb 8:6) But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
> 
> (Heb 8:7) For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
> 
> (Heb 8:8) For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
> 
> (Heb 8:9) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
> 
> (Heb 8:10) For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
> 
> (Heb 8:11) And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
> 
> (Heb 8:12) For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
> 
> (Heb 8:13) In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.




And I believe Nehemiah Coxes first statement is biblical. Circumcision did bind the Jews to the law and condemnation. Is that not what St. Paul said in Galatians? Circumcision was mandatory for those who wanted to dwell with Abraham also. If you were born under his household and were not circumcised you were to be cut off. There is a binding in circumcision. 



> (Gal 5:3) For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.



This is not New Covenant Theology. If it is than John Owen is a New Covenant Theologian. New Covenant Theology usually denies the Covenant of Works. It also denies the Old Testament law as a guide for the Christians life. They say if it isn't in the New Testament it doesn't apply to the Christian. We don't hold to that view. 

Yes we believe the Old is fulfilled in Christ's coming and that he instituted the New Covenant and is the Head of it. New Head, New Covenant. The Promises in the Previous Covenants are fulfilled in Christ and He is made the Head of a better Covenant as per what Hebrews says.




Jerusalem Blade said:


> Jesus said that circumcision was not of Moses, but of the fathers (John 7:22). Later in your quote of Coxe he says that the old was “abolished” – but that refers to the Mosaic, not the Abrahamic – for the Abrahamic was not abolished (as was the Mosaic) per Paul saying that we are Abraham’s spiritual seed and heirs of the promise of his covenant.




I believe Nehemiah Coxe is just using the language of Hebrews chapter 8 if I am not mistaken. We are children of Abraham in that we have like precious faith with this Father of the faith. With that we agree. It was promised to him and when the seed came the promise was fulfilled. Part of the Abrahamic was transformed into the New Covenant. The Spiritual part not the physical. The physical is done away with. 



> (Heb 8:13) In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
> 
> and 2 Cor. 3






Jerusalem Blade said:


> And Randy, I'll be praying for the operation.



Thanks for the prayers JB. BTW, I love reading your responses. They edify me greatly. 

I am not as concerned about the immersion debate even though I hold that immersion was the practice of he Early Church as a norm.


----------



## staythecourse

I've been laughing about an assembly-line baptism throughout the day.

I have to say, the tone of this thread has been humble, gentle and loving despite the topic and the zeal of adherents.

I am a baptist but I always admire my Presbyterian brothers argument even though I, and it will always be the case, can't see the switch from circumcision to baptism. I will say, being single and childless plays a part in my opinion I am certain.

If I could see the children getting baptized in the text (Acts 2 (gesundheit)) I would say, "you guys were right!"


----------



## Iconoclast

Semper Fidelis said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct. In fact it says strangers from the Covenants (plural) of Promise.
> 
> But Paul declares he was a child of wrath with them. I don't know of anyone who is in the covenant of Grace that would be considered a child of wrath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Randy,
> 
> Actually you should modify this statement to state that you don't know of anyone who is in the covenant of Grace. You know that the Elect are but you only know of external professors who may or may not be members of the CoG.
> 
> At best you can speak theoretically of the CoG but, practically, you can't speak of visible individuals as participating in it.
Click to expand...


Rich, 
We have been here before. But let me ask you a question? How can we have elders or deacons? With your reasoning we cannot know anyone is saved, Confession or profession is always doubtful! We cannot rejoice when an adult professes faith, we cannot see the work of the Spirit.
We can only "know" That Jesus saves some persons called the elect.His work was perfect, but it might not be for any of us?
Brother, if you are comfortable with this so be it.
I believe this is not the pattern described in the Nt. I am not claiming some special ability to see the heart {that is God's domain} What I do see is 1Jn saying he writes these things that we may know we have eternal life.
Jn 5;24 says the person believing has eternal life.
The fact that the church has false professor's among it, does not stop it from being the church , that is God's called out people. The false professor's were never part of it,their apostasy shows it.
Even with your view of the church- visible/invisible, out ward administration of the covenant, you have to come to grips with the same issues.

I do want to thank you, Bruce , Matthew, Rob , and the other's who continue to faithfully hold to your convictions. Many times you men will take the time to try and instruct and take a stand for the truth of God. If we all agreed all the time we would not have as much need for this forum,and online fellowship. Last week Bruce offered up some really good verses in one of the posts and I never got to thank him, some time the little thank you box is not there to press it?
Rich, I do understand to some extent what you men are getting at even if I do not share that view . I had posted earlier about a sermon from sermonaudio, by Hal Brunson


> All sermons by:
> Hal Brunson, Ph.D.
> 
> 422 sermons
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MP3 Downloads:
> 100+
> 
> 
> What is a Covenant Child?
> » 7/9/2006 (SUN) » Hebrews 2; Acts 2
> 
> Sermon ID 7906141921 » Sunday - AM | Upload Media
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Available FREE Media © All media is copyrighted. Blog-This | Help
> 
> (no preview or announcement clips)
> 
> 
> Play Audio! (Streaming) · 16kbps | 46 min. [3]
> 
> 
> 
> Download MP3 (5.5MB) • Batch downloads • How


 I know you are vey busy, but if any of you padeo brethren can give it a listen, I would like to hear what you think on it, also he has two recent sermons where he commented on the fact, that the word's for sprinkle, or pour were not used in any of the baptism contexts.


> Baptism Part 2
> Hal Brunson, Ph.D. • New Members Class • 44 min.
> First Baptist Church of Parker Play! | MP3
> 
> SUN 05/18/2008
> Sunday - AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2 Baptism Part 1
> Hal Brunson, Ph.D. • New Members Class • 38 min.
> First Baptist Church of Parker



Also I just picked up the book by Nehemiah Coxe, have not had a chance to work through it yet. Have you read it?


----------



## bookslover

armourbearer said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The text reads, Covenants (plural) of promise (singular).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, Matthew, doesn't the Greek text read "covenants of *the* promise"? I think that, of all the modern translations, only the NIV (ironically enough) preserves the definite article in its rendering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Richard, it certainly does; not that I would make too much of it because the Greek tends to prefer the article on certain nouns, so its inclusion is not necessarily an indication of definiteness. But in connection with the singular it at least substantiates the point that a specific promise is in view here, namely, the promise of Christ; which runs counter to the claim that circumcision was merely a national sign concerned with temporal promises.
Click to expand...


Matthew, I've often wondered if Paul deliberately included the definite article at that place for theological reasons, not just for grammatical ones. He's in the middle of a very important theological argument there; perhaps he wanted to emphasize the importance of *the* basic covenantal promise - thus, his inclusion of the definite article. 

If that be true, perhaps more translations should translate the definite article there...


----------



## MW

bookslover said:


> If that be true, perhaps more translations should translate the definite article there...



Perhaps; or it could make a translation look something other than English to have "the" inserted before most nouns which are already definite by nature. If you look on Eph. 6:2 it will be seen why the definite article is required with such nouns. The absence of the article is an indicator of indefiniteness, but its presence does not necessarily mean what is definite is referring to a specific or well known object.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Iconoclast said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct. In fact it says strangers from the Covenants (plural) of Promise.
> 
> But Paul declares he was a child of wrath with them. I don't know of anyone who is in the covenant of Grace that would be considered a child of wrath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Randy,
> 
> Actually you should modify this statement to state that you don't know of anyone who is in the covenant of Grace. You know that the Elect are but you only know of external professors who may or may not be members of the CoG.
> 
> At best you can speak theoretically of the CoG but, practically, you can't speak of visible individuals as participating in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rich,
> We have been here before. But let me ask you a question? How can we have elders or deacons? With your reasoning we cannot know anyone is saved, Confession or profession is always doubtful! We cannot rejoice when an adult professes faith, we cannot see the work of the Spirit.
> We can only "know" That Jesus saves some persons called the elect.His work was perfect, but it might not be for any of us?
> Brother, if you are comfortable with this so be it.
> I believe this is not the pattern described in the Nt. I am not claiming some special ability to see the heart {that is God's domain} What I do see is 1Jn saying he writes these things that we may know we have eternal life.
> Jn 5;24 says the person believing has eternal life.
> The fact that the church has false professor's among it, does not stop it from being the church , that is God's called out people. The false professor's were never part of it,their apostasy shows it.
> Even with your view of the church- visible/invisible, out ward administration of the covenant, you have to come to grips with the same issues.
Click to expand...


I do come to grips with the same issues. In classic Reformed theology there is a visible/invisible distinction that covers this.

The point I'm making is that when a Baptist talks about the CoG it has to be done _apart_ from actual baptism. The subject is on a different order: the things invisible only. Because the CoG _only_ consists of the elect, Reformed Baptist theology acknowledges that baptism only confers admission into the visible Church but even the visible Church is distinct from the actual New Covenant that consists only of the Elect.

Hence, it doesn't do much good to have a discussion on the actual identity of those in the New Covenant in a discussion about the administration of the ordinance of baptism from a Baptist perspective. Why? Because that topic is distinct from the decision to baptize.

What I was pointing out to Randy is that he wanted to go to that discussion (as Baptists are wont to do) to state that the CoG cannot consist of somebody who is not Elect. OK, fine. If I grant that point, then it still doesn't bear upon the decision to Baptize.

As I have noted repeatedly, when Baptists get into discussions about the subjects of baptism, invariably they begin talking about an invisible people that they cannot name and move, actually, away from the topic of who is the proper subject of the administration of a visible ordinance. I was trying to pull Randy (and others) back to the discussion of who one would baptize since the composition of the New Covenant says nothing about who to baptize from a Reformed Baptist perspective.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Iconoclast said:


> I know you are vey busy, but if any of you padeo brethren can give it a listen, I would like to hear what you think on it, also he has two recent sermons where he commented on the fact, that the word's for sprinkle, or pour were not used in any of the baptism contexts.



Here is a context where a baptism is spoken of and the word pour is utilized:

Acts 2:33


> Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear.



Acts 10:45


> And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.



In fact, the only actual mode that is ever clearly identified is pouring with respect to the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.


----------



## Pilgrim

North Jersey Baptist said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shackleton said:
> 
> 
> 
> i find it sad that people who agree whole heatedly on the DoG and other reformed issues practically come to blows on this one issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, then, they don't agree wholeheartedly on the doctrines of grace, otherwise they could agree on something so basic as to whom the covenant of grace is to be administered without practically coming to blows. Let's be clear -- the Baptist insistence on the excommunication of believers' children is as important as the excommunication of any individual from the church of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And let's be equally clear that Baptists cannot excommunicate those who never were in (as in "part of") the church of God to begin with. You have to be in something in order to be put out of it. Hence, the age old argument between Baptists and Presbyterians.
Click to expand...


Of course I agree with Randy and Bill here. 

Also, doesn't excommunication relate largely to who can come to the table? If so, then it seems that the confessional Reformed are guilty of keeping these baptized church members from the table as well. That is of course the charge of the FV paedocommunion advocates, that the traditional Reformed position in effect excommunicates baptized children since they are not allowed to participate in the Lord's Supper unless they have made a profession of faith. Indeed Peter Leithart's book was entitled _Daddy, Why Was I Excommunicated_. I haven't read the book, but I don't think it was aimed at Baptists.  

Where in the Bible do we find an example of someone who is baptized but who doesn't partake of the Lord's Supper as well?


----------



## Pilgrim

North Jersey Baptist said:


> And Chris (wherever you are), look what you so efficiently started and then said you didn't want to participate in!



Well, I don't have any problem participating. I just don't have time to spend hours on the board now the way I did in the past, which is a good thing. Iron sharpens iron and as Randy (I think it was) noted, we haven't had a good baptism debate in a while on the PB. My concern was that it would degenerate into ad hominem attacks, insults, whining, etc. and would in general generate more heat than light the way some more recent baptism threads have.


----------



## Pilgrim

Semper Fidelis said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shackleton said:
> 
> 
> 
> i find it sad that people who agree whole heatedly on the DoG and other reformed issues practically come to blows on this one issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, then, they don't agree wholeheartedly on the doctrines of grace, otherwise they could agree on something so basic as to whom the covenant of grace is to be administered without practically coming to blows. Let's be clear -- the Baptist insistence on the excommunication of believers' children is as important as the excommunication of any individual from the church of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because I love my Baptist brethren doesn't mean that I believe we're completely on the same page with respect to the DoG. The paedo and credo debate cuts at the heart of what the nature of a disciple is. In fact, I was musing over this in the AM today while I was working out and I came to the conclusion that, primarily, it is my understanding of the nature of discipleship within a Covenant that convinces me of Reformed theology against a credo perspective. Baptism is an initiation into visible discipleship (among other things) and I cannot divorce the concept of "disciple" from the notion of training in the fear and admonition of the Lord as Baptists are wont to do.
> 
> I'll never understand, perhaps, how a concept of an invisible New Covenant allows one to rend away all the Covenant nurture and training that is rich and exhaustive throughout the Law, the Psalms, the Proverbs, and the Prophets that are the means of grace that God has ordained for His elect. The debates on baptism unfortunately stay in a very theoretical framework and have difficulty in translating and describing what, precisely, a Baptist father is doing on a daily basis with a Baptist son. I can't jump the rail to think in those terms I suppose. Somehow Baptists do it but it would take an entire sea change in my understanding of visible discipleship and the nature of the CoG to make that leap.
Click to expand...


This aspect opens up a whole other dimension to the argument. Some Baptists have also noted that where you come down on this issue has some effect on soteriology as well. A former pastor of mine says infant baptism leads to "backdoor Arminianism" because of the common (though not universal) idea that God is somehow more obligated to save the "covenant child." In the recent book _Believer's Baptism_ SBTS Professor Shawn Wright argues that the Reformed teaching on paedobaptism implicitly undermines _sola fide_.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pilgrim said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, then, they don't agree wholeheartedly on the doctrines of grace, otherwise they could agree on something so basic as to whom the covenant of grace is to be administered without practically coming to blows. Let's be clear -- the Baptist insistence on the excommunication of believers' children is as important as the excommunication of any individual from the church of God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because I love my Baptist brethren doesn't mean that I believe we're completely on the same page with respect to the DoG. The paedo and credo debate cuts at the heart of what the nature of a disciple is. In fact, I was musing over this in the AM today while I was working out and I came to the conclusion that, primarily, it is my understanding of the nature of discipleship within a Covenant that convinces me of Reformed theology against a credo perspective. Baptism is an initiation into visible discipleship (among other things) and I cannot divorce the concept of "disciple" from the notion of training in the fear and admonition of the Lord as Baptists are wont to do.
> 
> I'll never understand, perhaps, how a concept of an invisible New Covenant allows one to rend away all the Covenant nurture and training that is rich and exhaustive throughout the Law, the Psalms, the Proverbs, and the Prophets that are the means of grace that God has ordained for His elect. The debates on baptism unfortunately stay in a very theoretical framework and have difficulty in translating and describing what, precisely, a Baptist father is doing on a daily basis with a Baptist son. I can't jump the rail to think in those terms I suppose. Somehow Baptists do it but it would take an entire sea change in my understanding of visible discipleship and the nature of the CoG to make that leap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This aspect opens up a whole other dimension to the argument. Some Baptists have also noted that where you come down on this issue has some effect on soteriology as well. A former pastor of mine says infant baptism leads to "backdoor Arminianism" because of the common (though not universal) idea that God is somehow more obligated to save the "covenant child." In the recent book _Believer's Baptism_ SBTS Professor Shawn Wright argues that the Reformed teaching on paedobaptism implicitly undermines _sola fide_.
Click to expand...


Interesting. It's funny how one's perspective is shaped by the side of the fence you sit on. In my estimation, Baptist theology either tends toward hyper-Calvinism or a self-determining Arminianism.

Why do I say this?

Because, as I noted above, it is not on the basis of the person's actual participation in the New Covenant that you actually baptize the professor but you baptize on the basis of the profession itself. That means that the chief arbiter for determining who is going to participate in your _Church_ (not to be confused with the New Covenant) is the decision of the individual to express faith. Hence, baptism in the Church is intrinsically based upon the individual profession and not upon Promise. This is why I've even heard it repeated here that baptism is an outward sign of an inward reality. 

Baptism then becomes less a matter of a Promise of God for the visible Church at large and a sign of the New Covenant and more of a sign that relates to the individual profession (decision). I think this naturally leads to the notion that it was the decision itself that procures the salvation because the sign itself was applied upon basis of profession.

Understood correctly, the paedo position does not postulate that there is any halfway mode of salvation for the children of believers but simply recognizes that for _any_ member, including a professor, baptism is applied to those who are to be trained in the fear and admonition of the Lord. An adult disciple, no less than a child, is to be trained in such things and the Church has no infallible visible information for either category. The sign marks both out as visibly connected to the institution where catechesis in the things of God occurs and the sign promises salvation to those who lay hold of the Promise by evangelical faith that is born and nurtured by the means of Grace therein. 

The whole nonsense, in fact, that a person would argue that you wouldn't say "know the Lord" to a person in your Church assumes that those in your Church are of the NC but that presumes you know they are elect upon profession according to a Credo. How silly to assume this when baptism was intended to be the means to bring them regularly near the means of grace. Many professors baptized are not converted and the means of grace may yet convert them if we don't foolishly presume that they are all converted already: professor or child.

The Spirit of God then blows where it may. Neither the child nor the professor is said to be in any position to presume upon election but both are called to strive to enter the narrow path and the Church administers the means of Grace that might convert either. Baptism cannot be viewed by either professor or child in the Reformed schema to point within _them_ but is always a sign external to them to the Promise of God. It is an external promise in both cases of child and professor and avoids the pitfall that the Baptist schema contains that places the nexus of the significance of actual baptism within the individual himself. It's all God in our schema - Promise and means - the individual must respond in evangelical faith born from above.


----------



## Herald

> Interesting. It's funny how one's perspective is shaped by the side of the fence you sit on. In my estimation, Baptist theology either tends toward hyper-Calvinism or a self-determining Arminianism.
> 
> Why do I say this?
> 
> Because, as I noted above, it is not on the basis of the person's actual participation in the New Covenant that you actually baptize the professor but you baptize on the basis of the profession itself. That means that the chief arbiter for determining who is going to participate in your _Church_ (not to be confused with the New Covenant) is the decision of the individual to express faith. Hence, baptism in the Church is intrinsically based upon the individual profession and not upon Promise. This is why I've even heard it repeated here that baptism is an outward sign of an inward reality.


Rich, I am more concerned here with your extreme view of Baptists. 

First, let's differentiate between confessional Baptists and the majority Arminian-leaning Baptist churches. When Baptists are referred to on this board we should have in mind the former, not the latter. Confessional Baptists are first in line to point out the many deficiencies of their wayward brethren. It has been my experience on the PB that confessional Baptists are given ownership (by paedos) of what the majority Baptist churches believe. For the sake of discussion the word "_majority" _applies to unconfessional Baptist churches.

Some of what you say (above) is accurate, although a bit of a mischaracterization. _We do _baptize on the basis of profession. "Believe and be baptized." You do the same with adult converts, so the practice itself is not foreign to paedos. The underlying cause of the disagreement is the matter of who is in the covenant. That we know. But believers baptism is not a reprehensible practice for the paedo when it comes to adult converts.

You are making the accusation that Baptists separate local church membership with New Covenant inclusion. Rich, I have to ask, which Baptists? Confessional Baptists like Randy, Chris and myself; or Baptists of the kind you are used to at Central Baptist Church? Confessional Baptists do not separate local church membership with New Covenant inclusion. A profession of faith is really a confession by the individual that they are a believer. Entrance into the New Covenant is on the basis of faith alone. Baptism is a _sign _of the New Covenant but does not initiate the New Covenant. In other words, Baptism is not the key that turns on the engine of the New Covenant. The confessional Baptist believes the New Covenant is entered into by _faith _and then is _signified _by baptism. That local church membership is predicated on both a credible profession of faith _and _its corresponding sign is logically consistent. How does this differ from the paedo practice with adult converts? Do you baptize an adult convert on the basis of the promise without ascertaining whether the person believes? It almost seems that there is a categorical difference between infants and adults when it comes to the qualifications for baptism. I know, I know. It stems from your view of the covenant. But does baptizing the adult believer stem from that same view or from "believe and be baptized"?



> Baptism then becomes less a matter of a Promise of God for the visible Church at large and a sign of the New Covenant and more of a sign that relates to the individual profession (decision). I think this naturally leads to the notion that it was the decision itself that procures the salvation because the sign itself was applied upon basis of profession.


An absoulte, "Yes!" to the first part of this charge. Baptism is a promise of _nothing_, or at least nothing positive for the visible church, inasmuch that the visible church does not guarantee inclusion in the New Covenant. The credible profession (decision) is a confession by the individual that they believe. So how can you say that we believe the decision itself procures salvation, or were you referring to unconfessional Baptists? You must have because you know that confessional Baptists do not believe that. The decision does not procure salvation. Salvation is on the basis of faith. The decision is a confession of that faith. Truthfully, I hate the word _decision _in this context. It makes me think of the evangelists who scream, "Have you made your decision for Christ?!" Those Finney-type preachers would be the accurate recipients of your charge. For the confessional Baptist, baptism is the sign of the New Covenant administered to a person who confesses faith in Christ. We must assume that the person has been saved based on their confession. Neither paedos or credos can know with certainty that a person is saved. You baptize infants on the assumption they are part of the covenant unless they prove otherwise as they grow up. But you baptize adults on basis that they have believed. You certainly wouldn't baptize one who said they didn't believe. Therefore you appply the sign to adults on the basis of their profession, but I wouldn't think for a moment that you do so for any other reason than you believe the person has come to faith in Christ. So it is on the basis of faith, not profession. Profession is simply a confession of saving faith.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Rich, I am more concerned here with your extreme view of Baptists.


Bill,

Your concern stems from the fact that you completely missed the nature of my interaction with Chris. If you follow the argument, I am interacting with Chris' assertion that Calvinism's baptism of infants is a "gateway drug" into Arminianism. I was demonstrating that this is a misunderstanding of the nature of the sign on the one hand but also attempting to demonstrate how credo-baptism's formulation _tends_ to elevate decision to the center in the life of the Church and lead to Arminianism. You really need to read my argument much more carefully to note where I jump to a "...this could lead to this..." as opposed to "...this is what Reformed Baptists Confess." I understand what your Confession reads. I also know that Chris knows full well what our Confession reads but that did not mean that he might not attempt to state that paedo-baptism might undermine what we confess. I didn't presume to tell him that he had a warped view of our Confession but argued against the slope he was arguing for and presented my argument for the natural pressure that exists within the credo schema to fly apart.



> _We do _baptize on the basis of profession. "Believe and be baptized." You do the same with adult converts, so the practice itself is not foreign to paedos. The underlying cause of the disagreement is the matter of who is in the covenant. That we know. But believers baptism is not a reprehensible practice for the paedo when it comes to adult converts.


Nor did I ever state that baptism upon profession in the case of adult converts was unwarranted.



> You are making the accusation that Baptists separate local church membership with New Covenant inclusion. Rich, I have to ask, which Baptists? Confessional Baptists like Randy, Chris and myself; or Baptists of the kind you are used to at Central Baptist Church? *Confessional Baptists do not separate local church membership with New Covenant inclusion*. A profession of faith is really a confession by the individual that they are a believer. Entrance into the New Covenant is on the basis of faith alone. *Baptism is a sign of the New Covenant but does not initiate the New Covenant*.


Do you see what you just did?

You stated that I erroneously stated that Baptist separate local Church membership from New Covenant membership. I actually stated that local Church membership is not to be confused with participation in the New Covenant and you confirmed my very words above.

You stated very clearly that Baptism does not initiate into the New Covenant. Yet, Bill, how do you know who your local Church members are? Are they not the baptized in your congregation? Hence you do make a class distinction where local Church membership is not to be confused with New Covenant membership or else you would have to say that all baptized are in the New Covenant, which you have repudiated above.



> In other words, Baptism is not the key that turns on the engine of the New Covenant. The confessional Baptist believes the New Covenant is entered into by _faith _and then is _signified _by baptism. That local church membership is predicated on both a credible profession of faith _and _its corresponding sign is logically consistent. How does this differ from the paedo practice with adult converts? Do you baptize an adult convert on the basis of the promise without ascertaining whether the person believes?


You are confusing again between the things invisible, acting as if they are visible to you, then stringing the visible things with it and acting as if your Church is baptizing upon the basis of the two things put together. I know that's confusing so let me explain. You state that the New Covenant is entered into by faith (invisible) and that is signified by baptism (visible). You see, what you did? You continue the argument as if you had warrant to jump from the thing that only God knows and then because you know that some profess you think the Church has some warrant to apply the sign by connecting the two.

Why not construct the same argument by saying that some people have a false faith that doesn't join them to the New Covenant (invisible), the Church thinks they have real faith, and that is signified by baptism. You could have just as easily made that connection.

The difference, again, is that the Reformed Confessions are able to keep the sign as pointing to the Promise of God and administer it to a professor without trying to say that we're saying something about the individual's faith when we baptize. You see how you desire to state something about the individual's faith above but all you really know is a profession. We say we are not saying anything about the individual's faith at the time of Baptism but that does not change the nature of the Promise that holds out the thing signified if the person has faith. Time of administration or nature of the faith of the individual at administration is immaterial. The Promise of God is timeless.




> It almost seems that there is a categorical difference between infants and adults when it comes to the qualifications for baptism. I know, I know. It stems from your view of the covenant. But does baptizing the adult believer stem from that same view or from "believe and be baptized"?


Well, there is a categorical difference. One is a child and the other an adult. From one standpoint, however, there is no difference with respect to the Church's knowledge of the election of the individual. Baptists try to convince themselves otherwise by stating that profession is the key but that is not a guarantor of election.



> Baptism then becomes less a matter of a Promise of God for the visible Church at large and a sign of the New Covenant and more of a sign that relates to the individual profession (decision). I think this naturally leads to the notion that it was the decision itself that procures the salvation because the sign itself was applied upon basis of profession.
> 
> 
> 
> An absoulte, "Yes!" to the first part of this charge. Baptism is a promise of _nothing_, or at least nothing positive for the visible church, inasmuch that the visible church does not guarantee inclusion in the New Covenant.
Click to expand...

Well, of course one must state this if New Covenant = Elect. What I actually stated though is that, by your reckoning, Baptism is stripped of its visible Promissary value (which you heartedly agree to). This is actually sad because you actually agree that Baptism becomes less about what God Promises in terms of His salvific and elective activity and becomes more about the individual, which confirms my assessment of the Baptist view of the ordinance.



> The credible profession (decision) is a confession by the individual that they believe. So how can you say that we believe the decision itself procures salvation, or were you referring to unconfessional Baptists? You must have because you know that confessional Baptists do not believe that. The decision does not procure salvation.


Again, you missed the original point of my post to demonstrate how a slide might occur from the Confessional to an Arminian view here. Re-read what I originally wrote. 

In one sense, though, you have already confirmed your agreement that there is no real objective visible Promissary value to the sign so the sign tends to attach itself to the individual in your view (it only has value if the individual has faith in other words). Baptism, then, visibly says much about the profession and elevates profession (decision) to a primary position in your scheme. I deliberately used the word "decision" provocatively because it is not a huge leap to move from profession to decision since that is how we existentially understand a profession in our own minds. Thus, because profession takes center stage in all the Baptist ordinances, in one sense decision takes center stage in the ordinances and it is not the Promise of God that is central.

It is not that the Presbyterian would state that the profession of a man is immaterial but the significance of baptism is not tied up visibly in the profession of the individual but remains grounded in the Promise of God and never loses its mooring in God's Elective purposes. Hence, I maintain that the Paedo position both invisibly and visibly remains Calvinistic from start to finish while the Credo position invisibly does but visibly does not.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Randy & Co., I want to stay with the quote of Coxe you gave in your post #125 for a while. He said (in part),



> Circumcision was an ordinance of the old covenant and pertained to the law and therefore directly bound its subjects to a legal obedience. But baptism is an ordinance of the gospel and (besides other excellent and most comfortable uses) directly obliges its subjects to gospel obedience. Therefore it is in this respect opposed to, rather than substituted in the place of, circumcision.



I wonder how many Reformed Baptists here on PB will subscribe to this statement? Consider what David Kingdon in his, _Children of Abraham_ (pp. 27, 28), says:

“Circumcision was enjoined on Abraham and his family before ever Israel became a nation. It was not a legal ordinance, but the sign in Abraham’s flesh of God’s gracious covenant with him and his seed...It is my considered opinion that Baptists must recognize the analogy between circumcision and baptism.”​
I will grant that, in Hanko’s words, “the administration of the covenant in the old dispensation was in close connection with the law and the principle of the law....[and] Circumcision was inseparably connected to this administration of the law” (_We and Our Children_, p. 21), and thus had to be replaced as a sign of the covenant when the law was made obsolete. In essence, however, both signs were of the covenant of grace.

The hermeneutical issue involved here pertains not, primarily, to infant baptism, its proofs or lack thereof, but to how the covenant is understood. And in this context, what is the relation of Old Testament Israel to the New Testament church? Is there a unity between them in essence (though not in administration and outward governance)? And is there a unity in the covenants peculiar to each despite outward differences?

The way I understand it, _this_ is the crux of the disparity between the respective paradigms, Reformed and Reformed Baptist. Infant baptism is but _symptomatic_ of the underlying systemic differences.

(Those who desire to have an in-depth analysis of and interaction with the Reformed Baptist view vis-à-vis the Reformed I would recommend Herman Hanko’s excellent, _We And Our Children: The Reformed Doctrine of Infant Baptism_. In this he responds in great detail to Kingdon and _his_ book. I will agree with the Baptists, there is much confusion and division within the Presbyterian and Reformed teachings on this subject, which I have not found in Hanko & company.)

Reformed Baptists (Kingdon included) will assert that the primary significance of the Covenant of Grace (the Abrahamic) in the Old Testament pertains to Israel’s national and natural status, not its spiritual, and thus, when the covenant comes to its fulfillment in Christ and His spiritual kingdom, the “national and natural” aspects of the covenant – notably its inclusion of infants into it – are annulled.

The Reformed, to the contrary, affirm that the _primary_ significance of the covenant with Abraham – and his progeny, Israel – is spiritual, to the extent that the people of God in the Old Testament are identical (in essence) with the church of the New. The Baptists are loath to acknowledge this, despite Stephen (by the Holy Spirit) denominating it so in Acts 7:38. And in Galatians 6:16 the church is called Israel.

So part of the disparity between Reformed and Baptists concerns the nature of the church. Was it because of the abuses of Rome that they moved to their view of a “pure church” comprised only of regenerate individuals?

This discussion then involves the nature of the church, and the people of God up through the ages, from Adam till now.


----------



## JM

Pilgrim said:


> Brothers and Sisters,
> 
> I came to credobaptist convictions three weeks ago. Here (with slight modifications to remove personal references) is what I recently sent to my OPC pastor and the pastor of the PCA church we had been planning to join my relocation and planning to join explaining why I am now attending a Baptist church:
> 
> Until Saturday night I would have told you that I was a convinced paedobaptist and Presbyterian. I was even prepared to sell most of my Baptist books, even including several ones by and about Spurgeon. However as I had told you in our first meeting, I have always struggled with Acts 2:41 and never thought that passage taken as a whole was nearly as favorable to paedobaptism as many think. No paedo has ever been able to answer it completely to my satisfaction. Whenever I have asked the question (including several times on the PB) I usually get stony silence. Others will respond with some kind of snide comment like "Baptists just don't get it". Others will try to argue that there were no children there that day. If I recall correctly that day you responded with something like "we shouldn't get hung up on one verse" or "we shouldn't allow one verse to determine things." However, I suppose I just ignored my concerns up until now. But I read it in context Saturday night and it hit me like a ton of bricks:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Acts 2:41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. 42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some will argue that the reference to "breaking of bread" in Acts 2:42 is not necessarily a reference to the Lord's Supper. It is used as a proof text in the Westminster Standards at WCF 21.5, 21.6, 26.2, WLC 63, 108, 154, 174, 175 and WSC 50 and 88. Several of these are general references to the means of grace but Acts 2:42 is used in other instances as a proof text specifically for the Lord's Supper. I interpret these verses to teach that, first of all, those who received Peter's word that day were baptized (i.e. only those personally professing faith) and that this same group continued steadfastly breaking bread which typically included in those days the celebration of the Lord's Supper. These two verses, in my opinion, throw the Reformed teaching of paedobaptism and credo communion into serious doubt. It appears that the two choices that do justice to the unity expressed here are adopting Baptist views or adopting paedocommunion. Unfortunately, many in Reformed churches are opting for the latter. This is why we see so many who come from Baptist backgrounds like Doug Wilson, Gregg Strawbridge and Randy Booth adopting paedocommunion soon after becoming paedobaptists. A whole lot more NT evidence can be marshaled against paedobaptism than can be brought to bear against
> paedocommunion. Once one has explained away all of the "believe and be baptized" verses in favor of an overarching concept of covenant theology that is imposed upon the scriptures, why let 1 Cor. 11 get in the way of practicing paedocommunion? I am glad that churches like the PCA have up until this point held the line against paedocommunion. But I believe at this point that the teaching of the Westminster Standards on this subject is inconsistent and am thinking that those who have argued that the western church abandoned paedocommunion after the adoption of transubstantiation because of concerns that the child would throw up the elements have a point. Of course the eastern church has never abandoned paedocommunion and will force alcoholic wine down the throat of children who are barely more than infants.
Click to expand...


I re-read it and thought one more thank you was deserved.


----------



## Pilgrim

staythecourse said:


> I simply don't see Acts 2:41 as something that would knock down that whole edifice and find the historical narratives to be, at best, vague to establish a principle either way. For every verse where you might want to definitively create a "this must speak of adults only" you'll have the same wrestling process with those that we believe militate in the opposite way. You've obviously built some sort of super-structure beside this single verse or it would not have hit you like a ton of bricks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am looking forward to seeing the superstructure. If I just started the paedo-credo research and saw someone reverse their theology on this verse I would say the reasoning looks shaky, too.
> 
> However, I believe there has been much more thought than the tip of this iceberg.
> 
> So please, Chris, when you have time, explain more thoroughly your thoughts.
> 
> There's a 5 second rule for candy that hits the floor and a 2 week rule for massive theological changes.
Click to expand...


I agree that one shouldn't go into print immediately with massive theological changes. That's why I posted the OP in this thread 3 weeks after my change in views. 

Those who are awaiting some "superstructure" will likely be disappointed. It is the paedobaptist covenant theologian who needs a "superstructure" to account for his views since they cannot be found in the NT, as has been noted by many paedos on this board and elsewhere. As Louis Berkhof wrote, "Infant baptism is not based on a single passage of Scripture, but on a series of considerations." The Baptist view is based on a plain reading of the Scriptures and needs no such superstructure in order to reach its conclusions. But this does not satisfy some, especially those who may be dissatisfied with certain aspects of Baptist life and may be looking over the fence at what appears to be greener pastures on the confessional Presbyterian side, as was the case with me several years ago. I'll be the first to admit that the Reformed paedobaptist system is internally consistent and often appears persuasive compared to what sometimes appear to be simplistic Baptist arguments. I recall Dr. R. S. Clark posting on here about remembering Dr. Al Martin repeating (maybe it was shouting) over and over that the Bible says "believe and be baptized!" I think this was shortly before RSC became confessionally Reformed. Apparently the lack of superstructure offered by Al Martin was eventually found wanting. I don't think I can do any better than Al Martin did. 

The "superstructure" can be found in the 2nd London Baptist Confession and any number of Baptist works like the aforementioned "String of Pearls Unstrung" by Fred Malone, Alan Conner's "Covenant Children Today", Greg Welty's "Critical Evaluation of Paedobaptism," John L. Dagg's "Manual of Theology" and many others. 

Acts 2:41 says that those who gladly received his word were baptized. It doesn't say those who received his word and their children. This is in the context of a key passage of the paedos. Other credo sounding verses can possibly be explained away in various ways. But v. 41 specifically states who was baptized, and it was those who received Peter's word i.e. those who personally repented and professed belief. 

To be perfectly frank in my opinion someone who doesn't see that this passage, and especially v. 41, teaches the baptism of disciples alone is probably already on the road to being paedo or at best is deliberately trying to maintain a stance of objectivity prior to studying the issue. Or am I just having a continual dense moment for these past 3 weeks?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Chris, you said,

"It is the paedobaptist covenant theologian who needs a 'superstructure' to account for his views since they cannot be found in the NT..."​
This view you state is due to our different hermeneutic. Paedos say that a "superstructure" runs plainly though both the Old and the New, that God's people are one, His covenant of grace is one, His salvation is one, His promise is one, albeit constantly being unfolded / expanded throughout redemptive history. The Old and New Testaments (Covenants) are also one unity, although reflecting different administrations. We do not posit a disunity between the Old and New Testament Scripture.

What you say about Acts 2:41 might be a "plain [21st century] reading", but it does seem to ignore the mindset of the Jew listening to Peter's sermon, which mindset is full of the "superstructure" of God's dealing with His people for millennia. Given the "historical-grammatical" approach to exegesis, should not how Peter was understood by his listeners be taken into account?

"Or am I just having a continual dense moment for these past 3 weeks?"​
I won't bite at that one, though I perceive humility in it!

Steve


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pilgrim said:


> It is the paedobaptist covenant theologian who needs a "superstructure" to account for his views since they cannot be found in the NT...
> 
> ...The "superstructure" can be found in the 2nd London Baptist Confession and any number of Baptist works like the aforementioned "String of Pearls Unstrung" by Fred Malone, Alan Conner's "Covenant Children Today", Greg Welty's "Critical Evaluation of Paedobaptism," John L. Dagg's "Manual of Theology" and many others.


Do you need a superstructure or not Chris?




Pilgrim said:


> ...I recall Dr. R. S. Clark posting on here about remembering Dr. Al Martin repeating (maybe it was shouting) over and over that the Bible says "believe and be baptized!" I think this was shortly before RSC became confessionally Reformed. Apparently the lack of superstructure offered by Al Martin was eventually found wanting. I don't think I can do any better than Al Martin did.



I don't know why this strikes me in such a way but it reminds me of Martin Luther pounding the table "This is my Body! This is my Body!"

I still remember the first time I was exposed to Reformed Baptist theology around 8 years ago. I didn't even know the species existed having only been Reformed for a couple of years but I became friends with James White after reading his interactions with Dave Hunt and thanked him for his interaction.

I remember asking him for information as to why he believed in credo baptism having been exposed to Covenant Theology. He pointed me to a couple of sermons he had delivered on Hebrews 8.

I remember thinking at the time: "What does the New Covenant being only with the Elect have to do with who is baptized?"

I'm still wondering.

It's funny that you state that the Reformed Baptist position is this simple presentation of "Believe and be baptized" but the plain fact is this: When was the last time a Reformed Baptist simply stuck to that argument and argued _simply_ that we are baptizing on this plain issue and nothing more? In fact, I have never seen a debate like that. What is the debate always about? It is an elaborate presentation trying to prove to all that the New Covenant consists of the Elect alone. In the end, however, the discussion of who to baptize is completely left on another table. The issue that you consider is simple, that one must repeatedly pound the table upon, is scarcely scratched.

I'm sorry, Chris, I just don't really think anyone who has witnessed these arguments (even in this thread) can really agree that "Believe and be baptized" has really carried the water for the Baptist presentation. The superstructure for the Baptist is the insistence that the NC is with the Elect alone but, again and again, I'm still wondering what this has to do with the decision to baptize since Baptism does not confer membership into the New Covenant once this is admitted.

Off to bed!


----------



## JonathanHunt

*Calling All Babdists*

CALLING ALL BABDISTS!!!!

Enlist for your duty!

The Pentecost Re-enactment Society seeks 3000 babdists to prove once and for all that it is possible to immerse 3000 folks in one day. To those who are concerned that this might lead to them being baptised twice, just remember, as the good book says 'you can't have enough of a good thing' (Hezekiah 4.1).

Apply now, and if in doubt, just ask yourself...


----------



## MOSES

*3000 Immersed*

Concerning the immersion of the 3000:

I apologize in advance if my following point has already been mentioned here and I missed it.

*It would be an inmodest display to immerse 3000 people that day. Not only inmodest, but possibly pornographic!* Look at the cultural dress of the people in those days. Women did not wear bras, panties, etc. (neither did the men...). Dunking a women of that type of dress in water, then having her walk around the city would be extremely inmodest. I don't think I need to go into details do I? A 3000 person wet t-shirt contest in front of the whole city does not seem to be consistent with Christian modesty.


----------



## VictorBravo

MOSES said:


> Concerning the immersion of the 3000:
> 
> I apologize in advance if my following point has already been mentioned here and I missed it.
> 
> *It would be an inmodest display to immerse 3000 people that day. Not only inmodest, but possibly pornographic!* Look at the cultural dress of the people in those days. Women did not wear bras, panties, etc. (neither did the men...). Dunking a women of that type of dress in water, then having her walk around the city would be extremely inmodest. I don't think I need to go into details do I? A 3000 person wet t-shirt contest in front of the whole city does not seem to be consistent with Christian modesty.



Eh, I don't think that objection is very strong. Why would the numbers matter? One would be just as bad as 3000.

And, without doubt, there were immersions just a few centuries later. Did dress change that much in the intervening period? Doubt it.


----------



## MOSES

victorbravo said:


> Eh, I don't think that objection is very strong. Why would the numbers matter? One would be just as bad as 3000.
> 
> And, without doubt, there were immersions just a few centuries later. Did dress change that much in the intervening period? Doubt it.



I think there is a big difference between someone who is properly dressed in a more private setting, then 3000 people who were suddenly immersed in front of the whole city.

Just my opinion.


----------



## smhbbag

> I remember thinking at the time: "What does the New Covenant being only with the Elect have to do with who is baptized?"
> 
> I'm still wondering.



In reading the thread, it seems you don't recognize a principle that I assumed most baptists held, though now I wonder as nobody has brought it up in response to this critique.

The Elect-only New Covenant is relevant to baptism in this way:

1) We do view baptism as the sign of the NC, which is entered into by faith.
2) The NC is invisible, with no one having perfect knowledge of who is in it. 

So your question remains...if genuine faith (invisible) enters us into the covenant, how can the composition of the NC be relevant to the real-world application of baptism (visible), when we don't know who is genuinely regenerate?

The last principle connects them:
3) All professions are taken as legitimate, without some serious I Cor. 5 justification against it, and we treat that individual _as if_ we had perfect knowledge of their salvation.

This is simple belief in part of the classic invisible/visible distinction. We address all professors as if they are elect - until shown otherwise. That is why pastors can, and should, address their entire congregations - and each member - as holy, as saints, heirs of good promises, etc. 

In fact, a professor's actual status in the NC is only for God to know, and is not relevant to church procedure/policy at all, except when their lack of faith manifests itself in ways deserving excommunication. We know there are wolves, but we don't know who they are. And all members are treated as "innocent" until they prove themselves guilty.

So, that all NC members are elect is entirely relevant. 

If that is the case, and we assume a professor's faith is real, and treat him as if we had perfect knowledge that he is a covenant member, then we can apply baptism as a visible sign of the invisible NC and be entirely consistent. 

It may turn out in eternity that he was no NC member - but that is on his head, and taking the NC sign without faith will only heap more judgment on him, and and so will his greater exposure to the gospel. The church will not, however, be judged in any way for applying baptism to a professor who showed no outward Biblical signs of being unregenerate. That is what we are to do. This is in the same way that a pastor who addresses a disguised wolf as a saint, holy, saved, etc. will not be judged for it.

Does that satisfy, at least to show that in our view, an all-elect NC actually is relevant to the physical application of baptism? I know you disagree with aspects of it - but we are not internally inconsistent or following non-sequitors.


----------



## Herald

Rich,

I should have read your post in context with your dialog with Chris. I don't know whether that makes a substantial difference in how I understood your post, only that it was more directed at Chris than to Baptists in general.

Yes, you did use provocative language. If it was to solicit a response it accomplished its intent. I only responded to your post because I believe it misrepresented confessional Baptists. Not so much on the facts but the conclusions. If it was simply a response in the never ending litany of baptism posts I would have withheld my opinion. Without tooting my own horn I believe you and I did a yeoman's job of alliterating the differences we face in regards to adult baptism, the nature of the covenant, the significance of the sign etc. Instead of continuing the ad infinitum/ad nauseam back and forth I am quite content to let our theological differences stand on their merits. To counter point my disagreements with your last post will only serve to have you counter in return and I believe that will be covering ground that has changed hands numerous times over many different discussions.

Blessings.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

victorbravo said:


> Eh, I don't think that objection is very strong. Why would the numbers matter? One would be just as bad as 3000.
> 
> And, without doubt, there were immersions just a few centuries later. Did dress change that much in the intervening period? Doubt it.



uurrrk.. {pssst..} Vic, I don't think you want to go there. It was mandatory that those baptisms were _sans_ togs, of any kind. Not kidding, its part of the historical record.


----------



## Iconoclast

Rich,
I am enjoying this thread,and agree with Bill that you are doing a solid job with your responses and I think you are also seeking to present an accurate depiction of the RB view. I want to try and interact jut a bit more with your post #136 where in part you said this


> The point I'm making is that when a Baptist talks about the CoG it has to be done apart from actual baptism. The subject is on a different order: the things invisible only. Because the CoG only consists of the elect, Reformed Baptist theology acknowledges that baptism only confers admission into the visible Church but even the visible Church is distinct from the actual New Covenant that consists only of the Elect.


 In another post you added a similar thought


> Because, as I noted above, it is not on the basis of the person's actual participation in the New Covenant that you actually baptize the professor but you baptize on the basis of the profession itself. That means that the chief arbiter for determining who is going to participate in your Church (not to be confused with the New Covenant) is the decision of the individual to express faith. Hence, baptism in the Church is intrinsically based upon the individual profession and not upon Promise. This is why I've even heard it repeated here that baptism is an outward sign of an inward reality.
> 
> Baptism then becomes less a matter of a Promise of God for the visible Church at large and a sign of the New Covenant and more of a sign that relates to the individual profession (decision). I think this naturally leads to the notion that it was the decision itself that procures the salvation because the sign itself was applied upon basis of profession.



Rich, the way I understand public water baptism, is not that it is a "sign" of a future promise [ although obviously glorification is still future} Public water baptism is the public "confession" that God has done a work already in the person. New Birth has taken place and the "promise" is received in full.
It is not a decision that the person has made.It is the person saying that God has brought them from death to life.
If this has taken place inside the person we cannot see it, true.
But we can see them publicly acknowledge Jesus as Lord and they give testimony with the fruit of their lips giving praise to Him.
It is not that the water baptism per se, has given the person admission into the church. It is that the person is declaring that God has placed Him into the body of Christ already, by the work of the Spirit- not the splash of the water.
Padeobaptists would agree with this with an adult baptism would'nt they?
Last week Bruce posted that the verses in Romans 6/ are not even an issue if we would understand baptism to be a sign, rather than the thing signified.
The thing is in the Nt. I do not think this is the order that God has set forth.
Believe #1 and be baptized #2 is the pattern, because the promise has already come. Ot.saints embraced the promise of a future reality, so a sign was given to them. Once the reality of the promise has come we do not go back as if we are OT saints.


----------



## InevitablyReformed

Iconoclast said:


> Rich,
> I am enjoying this thread,and agree with Bill that you are doing a solid job with your responses and I think you are also seeking to present an accurate depiction of the RB view. I want to try and interact jut a bit more with your post #136 where in part you said this
> 
> 
> 
> The point I'm making is that when a Baptist talks about the CoG it has to be done apart from actual baptism. The subject is on a different order: the things invisible only. Because the CoG only consists of the elect, Reformed Baptist theology acknowledges that baptism only confers admission into the visible Church but even the visible Church is distinct from the actual New Covenant that consists only of the Elect.
> 
> 
> 
> In another post you added a similar thought
> 
> 
> 
> Because, as I noted above, it is not on the basis of the person's actual participation in the New Covenant that you actually baptize the professor but you baptize on the basis of the profession itself. That means that the chief arbiter for determining who is going to participate in your Church (not to be confused with the New Covenant) is the decision of the individual to express faith. Hence, baptism in the Church is intrinsically based upon the individual profession and not upon Promise. This is why I've even heard it repeated here that baptism is an outward sign of an inward reality.
> 
> Baptism then becomes less a matter of a Promise of God for the visible Church at large and a sign of the New Covenant and more of a sign that relates to the individual profession (decision). I think this naturally leads to the notion that it was the decision itself that procures the salvation because the sign itself was applied upon basis of profession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rich, the way I understand public water baptism, is not that it is a "sign" of a future promise [ although obviously glorification is still future} Public water baptism is the public "confession" that God has done a work already in the person. New Birth has taken place and the "promise" is received in full.
> It is not a decision that the person has made.It is the person saying that God has brought them from death to life.
> If this has taken place inside the person we cannot see it, true.
> But we can see them publicly acknowledge Jesus as Lord and they give testimony with the fruit of their lips giving praise to Him.
> It is not that the water baptism per se, has given the person admission into the church. It is that the person is declaring that God has placed Him into the body of Christ already, by the work of the Spirit- not the splash of the water.
> Padeobaptists would agree with this with an adult baptism would'nt they?
> Last week Bruce posted that the verses in Romans 6/ are not even an issue if we would understand baptism to be a sign, rather than the thing signified.
> The thing is in the Nt. I do not think this is the order that God has set forth.
> Believe #1 and be baptized #2 is the pattern, because the promise has already come. Ot.saints embraced the promise of a future reality, so a sign was given to them. Once the reality of the promise has come we do not go back as if we are OT saints.
Click to expand...


Iconoclast,

I don't mean to be the child at the adult table in this long, intelligent thread, (I don't even know how to just quote a portion of someone's post yet) but I must ask you this in how I understand the above post. You said that water baptism is a sign of what has happened inwardly and then said that we paedos would affirm this for the adult...OK, here's my question: If you object IN PRINCIPLE to putting the sign of faith on an infant of believers, why did God command Abraham to do it? If we acknowledge that circumcision was a sign of faith (Rom 4), why is it WRONG to put the sign of faith on a child?

Thanks and I'm enjoying the discussion. You guys are awesome.

Daniel


----------



## Semper Fidelis

smhbbag said:


> I remember thinking at the time: "What does the New Covenant being only with the Elect have to do with who is baptized?"
> 
> I'm still wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In reading the thread, it seems you don't recognize a principle that I assumed most baptists held, though now I wonder as nobody has brought it up in response to this critique.
> 
> The Elect-only New Covenant is relevant to baptism in this way:
> 
> 1) We do view baptism as the sign of the NC, which is entered into by faith.
> 2) The NC is invisible, with no one having perfect knowledge of who is in it.
> 
> So your question remains...if genuine faith (invisible) enters us into the covenant, how can the composition of the NC be relevant to the real-world application of baptism (visible), when we don't know who is genuinely regenerate?
> 
> The last principle connects them:
> 3) All professions are taken as legitimate, without some serious I Cor. 5 justification against it, and we treat that individual _as if_ we had perfect knowledge of their salvation.
Click to expand...

Jeremy,

There's no real connection, however, and this is my point. That you treat a professor with the judgment of charity confirms precisely what I have noted repeatedly. It's actually a form of presumptive regeneration because you are treating a member of your Church as if they are regenerate but, in point of fact, you don't have that information and so you rightly treat the individual as if they are.

On the one hand, a sober Baptist ought to criticize anyone then who would present the facile argument that a Paedobaptist Church knowingly baptizes unregenerate people when they would understand full well that no Church either knowingly does this nor can knowingly do something known only to God.

On the other hand, what you haven't established in this formula is the necessity that connects professors only to this category. I would argue that you are baptizing a person into the Church with a judgment of charity that they are capable of responding to the teachings of Christ and then you make the Word and ordinances available to all indiscriminately.

In point of fact, it would be foolhardy to treat a professor as if you had "perfect knowledge" that they were regenerate (as you put it). Why? What if they were not truly believers when they first professed and were baptized? Don't the Scriptures repeatedly enjoin the believer to make their calling and election sure? Is it not the role of the Church to continue to preach the Word with the belief that even those baptized believers sitting in the pew might be converted to the Gospel if, in fact, they never were to begin with?

Put another way, Reformed Baptists certainly don't require that a professing believer be re-baptized in their Church if they were immersed earlier in life at an age of sufficient mental capacity. Well, what is to give the Church "perfect knowledge" of the circumstances of that individual's baptism or what was taught them? I certainly would never presume to have perfect knowledge of the circumstances of the men and women I teach but I must, nevertheless, teach them as if they can respond to the Gospel and I always ever pray that, if they never believed before, that today might be the day that they hear and believe.



> This is simple belief in part of the classic invisible/visible distinction. We address all professors as if they are elect - until shown otherwise. That is why pastors can, and should, address their entire congregations - and each member - as holy, as saints, heirs of good promises, etc.


Well, yes, I agree with this and again it only goes to show the limitations of trying to connect election to actual practice. You don't base the baptism upon election but upon desire to be a disciple and then you have a certain expection of fruit and you hope the best for all things. Never, while the person is willing to be taught, do you give up.



> In fact, a professor's actual status in the NC is only for God to know, and is not relevant to church procedure/policy at all, except when their lack of faith manifests itself in ways deserving excommunication. We know there are wolves, but we don't know who they are. And all members are treated as "innocent" until they prove themselves guilty.



What is interesting about your presentation thus far is that there is absolutely nothing that precludes that the children of believers could be given the exact same status. As you note, repeatedly, you're not really saying of your people that you know they are elect or regenerate. You are simply stating that their union with Christ is only for God to know. Welcome to the paedo position.



> So, that all NC members are elect is entirely relevant.


I don't think you've made it as relevant as you believe. You actually haven't stated anything with respect to how you treat them that necessitates that either the baptism was administered, Word preached, ordinances administered, or discipline initiated on the basis of the persons election. Everything was on the basis of visible profession and willingness/desire to grow.



> If that is the case, and we assume a professor's faith is real, and treat him as if we had perfect knowledge that he is a covenant member, then we can apply baptism as a visible sign of the invisible NC and be entirely consistent.


I think you really need to retreat from the "perfect knowledge" language as you have demonstrated that you don't treat as if you had perfect knowledge. Even in Church discipline the fact that you would pray for a person's restoration would hold out the hope that you have no perfect knowledge but trust that God does.



> It may turn out in eternity that he was no NC member - but that is on his head, and taking the NC sign without faith will only heap more judgment on him, and and so will his greater exposure to the gospel. The church will not, however, be judged in any way for applying baptism to a professor who showed no outward Biblical signs of being unregenerate. That is what we are to do. This is in the same way that a pastor who addresses a disguised wolf as a saint, holy, saved, etc. will not be judged for it.


Once again, something that can be easily said of a child in the paedo schema.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Iconoclast said:


> It is not that the water baptism per se, has given the person admission into the church. It is that the person is declaring that God has placed Him into the body of Christ already, by the work of the Spirit- not the splash of the water.
> Padeobaptists would agree with this with an adult baptism would'nt they?


We would not agree with this. In fact, you make my point beautifully about how a Baptist views the ordinance of baptism of saying something about themselves while the Presbyterian says that Baptism is God's declaration of what He promises to do for all who have faith.

You almost present the idea as if the person may simply walk up to the Church and announce: "I am in the New Covenant and elect. I require that you baptize me so that I can declare to the rest of you by my baptism that I have Evangelical faith."

Baptism is something that is done to a person not something that the person performs as the Church looks on. One of my biggest pet peaves is when I see Baptists treat Baptism as if it's their own very personal expression and choose a special place, outside the Church, to celebrate their personal declaration.

I believe Baptism is much more objective and timeless than this and reflects the Scriptures that see Baptism as something administered by the Church and announced to the individual. Yes, it is personal in one respect. The devotion I draw from my Baptism, in fact, is that I believe that God made a promise to _me_ in my Baptism. The Church was the ministerial agency that announced that Promise but it was backed up by the authority of God who said to me: "As surely as you feel the waters washing the filth of your flesh, so will your sins be washed away if you trust in Christ."

When I was immersed as an adult, I have to say that I am not entirely convinced I even had the first clue about the Gospel at the Church I attended. If Baptism was my declaration of my faith and union with Christ then I suppose I would have to agree with those who believe Baptism has to be performed repeatedly until one is absolutely certain that the faith possessed at the time of Baptism was true.

But, in point of fact, because God was at my baptism and declared the promise through the minister, I can trust the Promise. I am able to know that I have faith and God and so I look at my baptism where the Promise announced salvation to me if I simply cling to Christ. In other words, you want baptism to look at me but, instead, I look away from me to my baptism where the benefits of Christ are promised on condition of faith.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Iconoclast said:


> Rich, the way I understand public water baptism, is not that it is a "sign" of a future promise [ although obviously glorification is still future} Public water baptism is the *public "confession"* that God has done a work already in the person. New Birth has taken place and the "promise" is *received* in full.
> It is not a decision that the person has made.It is *the person saying* that God has brought them from death to life.
> If this has taken place inside the person we cannot see it, true.
> But we can see *them publicly acknowledge* Jesus as Lord and *they give testimony* with the fruit of their lips giving praise to Him.
> It is not that the water baptism per se, has given the person admission into the church. It is that *the person is declaring* that God has placed Him into the body of Christ already, by the work of the Spirit- not the splash of the water.



Note the bolded and underlined highlights. Once again, it is _crystal clear_ that the difference between the two positions is WHO is doing the "talking", WHO is making statements. Is it fundamentally a heavenly, _gospel_ declaration respecting a promise God makes to save believers? Or, as in this answer, is it fundamentally a human-statement?

Does baptism announce monergistic salvation? Who is doing the talking?


----------



## staythecourse

*Both adult and child "say" and "give testimony"*

There is also a public declaration from the paedo-baptist's when they confirm what has taken place between them and the Lord according to their theology. They (both the adult Baptist and the parents of the credo child) are acknowledging that they are passive recipients of God's grace. One professes that they were passively received into God's family as an adult by personal election as evidenced by faith and the other as a child by birth from believing parents.


----------



## staythecourse

> You almost present the idea as if the person may simply walk up to the Church and announce: "I am in the New Covenant and elect. I require that you baptize me so that I can declare to the rest of you by my baptism that I have Evangelical faith."



Hi Rich,

I am comfortable with that statement as a Baptist. If I am not boasting but simply confessing something out of my control happened (namely faith in Christ, adoption, hope of the glory of God in Christ Jesus) then I am doing my duty to be baptized publicly to display myself as a "vessel of mercy" before the world (regenerate, unregenerate, angels, demons, God). No boasting would be involved except in Gods work done in me.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

staythecourse said:


> There is also a public declaration from the paedo-baptist's when they confirm what has taken place between them and the Lord according to their theology. They (both the adult Baptist and the parents of the credo child) are acknowledging that they are passive recipients of God's grace. One professes that they were passively received into God's family as an adult by personal election as evidenced by faith and the other as a child by birth from believing parents.


No, Bryan, that's not hitting at what we confess. The public witness is a necessary condition, but is not an essential condition.

Any time the (true) church (properly) baptizes someone (so we confess), God via his church is saying "God saves believers." That's it. This is MORE basic than than any person's individual appropriation of that truth. And for this reason, WE say (while the baptist emphatically REJECTS) that a valid baptism takes place before or after a true conversion. Because grace to the elect is not tied to the moment of administration. 

Now tell me if a baptist thinks a baptism of any kind, pre-conversion, was any baptism at all, regardless of what the church intended to do? No, b/c a valid baptism on that scheme must follow a conversion. Otherwise, you would accept a paedo-baptized child's baptism. But you don't.


----------



## staythecourse

> Because grace to the elect is not tied to the moment of administration.



Bruce, I don't want to tie up the thread much but Could you explain that?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

WCF 28:6 The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in His appointed time.​This paragraph
1) puts the sign and thing-signified together, showing it is a "means of grace" (that is, a communication of God to his people);

2) states that the Spirit's baptism (which is the _efficacious_ work; the external sign is not, beyond an earthly utterance) *is not tied to the time of the earthly action of the church*; yet

3) in a proper usage, the Spirit of God really does show forth something of the gospel in the ordinance itself, and confers it salvifically *upon the elect* by his own will (not a pastor's or a father's or any man's) *in his own good timing*.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

staythecourse said:


> You almost present the idea as if the person may simply walk up to the Church and announce: "I am in the New Covenant and elect. I require that you baptize me so that I can declare to the rest of you by my baptism that I have Evangelical faith."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Rich,
> 
> I am comfortable with that statement as a Baptist. If I am not boasting but simply confessing something out of my control happened (namely faith in Christ, adoption, hope of the glory of God in Christ Jesus) then I am doing my duty to be baptized publicly to display myself as a "vessel of mercy" before the world (regenerate, unregenerate, angels, demons, God). No boasting would be involved except in Gods work done in me.
Click to expand...




Contra_Mundum said:


> staythecourse said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is also a public declaration from the paedo-baptist's when they confirm what has taken place between them and the Lord according to their theology. They (both the adult Baptist and the parents of the credo child) are acknowledging that they are passive recipients of God's grace. One professes that they were passively received into God's family as an adult by personal election as evidenced by faith and the other as a child by birth from believing parents.
> 
> 
> 
> No, Bryan, that's not hitting at what we confess. The public witness is a necessary condition, but is not an essential condition.
> 
> Any time the (true) church (properly) baptizes someone (so we confess), God via his church is saying "God saves believers." That's it. This is MORE basic than than any person's individual appropriation of that truth. And for this reason, WE say (while the baptist emphatically REJECTS) that a valid baptism takes place before or after a true conversion. Because grace to the elect is not tied to the moment of administration.
> 
> Now tell me if a baptist thinks a baptism of any kind, pre-conversion, was any baptism at all, regardless of what the church intended to do? No, b/c a valid baptism on that scheme must follow a conversion. Otherwise, you would accept a paedo-baptized child's baptism. But you don't.
Click to expand...

To any onlookers,

This interaction and my interaction with iconoclast ought to demonstrate precisely the point I made from the beginning.

Which schema points to the individual and which schema points to the election of God? I think this demonstrates which group tends to center the significance of the ordinances of the Church around human decision and which remains grounded in the grace of God to save.

Viewed correctly, the baptism of children is pure grace. It focuses not upon the individual but upon God who elects _before_ a man has opportunity to _will_ or to run. The credo-baptist formula places the will of man as the precedent for baptism and hence the visible ordinance undermines the basic premise of the doctrines of grace.


----------



## Herald

Rich, forgive me for disagreeing with your claim. I understand what you're saying but couldn't disagree with it more. We baptize because God commands it as a sign of the New Covenant. No, we don't share your covenant view. The only human decision involved is a person claiming to have believed. Once they believe baptism is to be administered immediately. While submitting to baptism is an act of obedience on the part of the one being baptized, baptism is all about God. The individual receives the sign of the New Covenant which identifies them with the body of Christ, the invisible church. 

The credo formula does not place the will of man as the precedent for baptism. The will of God is the precedent for baptism. Believe and be baptized. Not, "I believed so I think I'll be baptized." THAT would be the will of man. The doctrines of grace are not undermined. God calls his elect by grace through faith. His elect believe and submit to the command to be baptized, not under compulsion but joyfully. And this is a will of man how?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Rich, forgive me for disagreeing with your claim. I understand what you're saying but couldn't disagree with it more. We baptize because God commands it as a sign of the New Covenant. No, we don't share your covenant view. The only human decision involved is a person claiming to have believed. Once they believe baptism is to be administered immediately. While submitting to baptism is an act of obedience on the part of the one being baptized, baptism is all about God. The individual receives the sign of the New Covenant which identifies them with the body of Christ, the invisible church.
> 
> The credo formula does not place the will of man as the precedent for baptism. The will of God is the precedent for baptism. Believe and be baptized. Not, "I believed so I think I'll be baptized." THAT would be the will of man. The doctrines of grace are not undermined. God calls his elect by grace through faith. His elect believe and submit to the command to be baptized, not under compulsion but joyfully. And this is a will of man how?



Bill,

The "How?" has been demonstrated by the posts referenced.

As I noted, it's not that the Baptist position, in a Confessional way, starts out trying to put precedence on the decision of man but it ends up with it being at the fore in visible practice.

From a decretal standpoint, it's not that the Baptist position fails in its goal to attempt to remain grounded in the election of God but when it tries to move from its decretal understanding (invisible) to the visible ordinances of the Church, the insistence that profession is the arbiter of detecting the decree, the net result is a focus upon the will of man because the baptism is administered on the basis of profession.

Hence, I maintain, the invisible ideal of the Baptist position is in tension with the visible practice of the Baptist and the visible practice is at the fore of the Body life of the Church. Since the man in the pew lives in the visible ordinance, the natural result is to have the ordinance, that focuses on profession, to focus inward and away from the Promise of God, which is external.


----------



## BobVigneault

Rich, my daughter was baptized recently based on her profession of faith. I know you don't view that as somehow a diminished version of baptism. But if after the adoption takes place I decide to have my two younger children baptized, isn't THAT baptism on the basis of MY profession of faith. I believe that God chose me and my wife, but in his providence, WE chose the OPC we are attending, WE gave our profession in order to become members and now, if I choose, I will have my kids baptized as a sign of their inclusion in the covenant benefits. Now how do you avoid human decision in all this?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Contra_Mundum said:


> The public witness is a necessary condition, but is not an essential condition.



Since I am dissatisfied with my statement here, I am offering a clarification.

In argumentative contexts, the words "necessary" and "essential" are equivalent terms. So, basically it could be argued that I am contradicting myself in that place.

_In the context_ I need to show that I am not. I am using the terms in different senses, and those senses need to be explained.

When I say "The public witness is a necessary condition," I mean it is a "prescriptive" necessity, a "legal" necessity, and that as a condition irrespective of its honesty, its truth value.

When I say "The public witness is not an essential condition," I mean that in the church's activity given a valid set of circumstances, irrespective of the truth of the witness a valid baptism has occurred, and a person has been baptized. Thus, it may be said that the public witness of the individual is NOT a "moral" essential with regard to the church's activity.

In other words, it is IMMORAL for the individual to bear false witness, however that false witness is not an essential that will invalidate the action of the CHURCH.

Moreover, as it touches the occasional infant, it is possible to more clearly see that according to our doctrine, the _true and personal_ witness of the subject is not essential, since it would be empirically impossible.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

BobVigneault said:


> Rich, my daughter was baptized recently based on her profession of faith. I know you don't view that as somehow a diminished version of baptism. But if after the adoption takes place I decide to have my two younger children baptized, isn't THAT baptism on the basis of MY profession of faith. I believe that God chose me and my wife, but in his providence, WE chose the OPC we are attending, WE gave our profession in order to become members and now, if I choose, I will have my kids baptized as a sign of their inclusion in the covenant benefits. Now how do you avoid human decision in all this?



Bob,
It comes down to what entity performs a baptism. Are you (a subject) performing the baptism, or are you submitting to baptism (or submitting your children), and participating in the church's business? If this is a churchly thing, then you are basically passive, apart from your willingness to be included. You are more "acted upon" than "acting". By this, I do not mean you are inert, unresponsive, non-vocal. No more than in any other part of worship.

But if it is fundamentally the church that acts, then you are not the basic speaker. God is. He speaks, we reply. In fact, (we argue) he has commanded you to present his children to him. So, to "choose" to do so is simply to obey him. Baptism isn't a statement about me deciding for Him, but Him deciding to save believers, a sign, a witness of his sovereign Spirit-work.


----------



## timmopussycat

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Apropos the conjectures regarding the immersion of the 3,000 in Jerusalem, I submit the following as evidence to the contrary. The author, F.G. Hibbard, was a Methodist pastor in the early part of the 1800s, and apparently quite exercised in the matters of minute detail pertaining to infant baptism, and to the mode of baptism.
> 
> This is from the book, _Christian Baptism_, by Rev. F.G. Hibbard, (NY: Carlton & Lanahan. 1841).



More recent archaeology has brought to light an additional water source or sources. I think the magazine I saw was Biblical Archaeology Review.


----------



## BobVigneault

Pastor Bruce, as always you have given a great explanation but it sounds more like an explanation of church polity than explicit Scriptural doctrine. When my oldest daughters were babes I followed God's commands to present them to him and had them dedicated in the church. It was an American Baptist turned EV Free Church. This seemed the right thing to do and it was consistent with the teaching of "the church" as they interpreted scripture.

For years I belonged to a Baptist church that taught that we present our children to God through a public dedication. They added the fact that this baby is part of the covenant family and a participant in the benefits of the faith community.

Now I am in an OPC and have submitted to the leadership. In our church we have several families that are reformed Baptists. I am mostly Presbyterian at this point and I will submit my younger children for baptism when they are officially adopted. The OPC applies the very same scriptures that my Baptist brethren read differently.

Both churches follow God's command to present your children to him. Through long, longer and even longer arguments using technical terms that many laymen will never grasp, the leaders claim to speak for God and codify their conventional thoughts. They say we are right and the other church is wrong.

I guess my question to Rich regards this framing of the argument:



> Which schema points to the individual and which schema points to the election of God? I think this demonstrates which group tends to center the significance of the ordinances of the Church around human decision and which remains grounded in the grace of God to save.



Are you really contending that Baptists are weak on the doctrine that God saves by grace alone because they answer God's command to present our children to him in a different mode?

(Rich is sleeping so if anyone wants to jump in, please go ahead.)


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I think Rich's point is that theology and practice are more dis-aligned (when we look at it) on the baptist model. I'm sure the baptist disagrees.

But go back to post #160, where I highlighted line after line in Iconoclast's post -- "the person states, he declares, they testify, etc." Remember, it is TIED to profession, and post-profession at that. Remember, a infant baptized _hasn't been_ baptized according to the baptist understanding. He won't be until he professes, and is then baptized (and of course the method counts as well).

Everything has to be aligned just right in the baptist playbook. The church must intend and perform accurately, AND the person must be properly disposed. If the second part is inaccurate, then no baptism has occurred (or else one must admit to legitimate re-baptisms). Upon analysis, is this not a picture of synergism? Church must be right (and are they intentionally speaking for God on their principles? is this not a step too far for those principles?), and man must be right--they have to be speaking together, or the sign is invalid. Baptist Man cannot come afterward and say, "I was speaking incorrectly, or not at all, at the time, but now I _concur _with heaven. God was true, when as yet I was not."


----------



## BobVigneault

Thank you Pastor Bruce for explaining that. I'll go back and read some of the previous posts. PS, I'm happy that you're speaking to me again. (Tehehehehehehehehe)


----------



## ChristopherPaul

Rich (and Pastor Buchanan) makes a great point. 

Throughout the Old and New Testaments the entire church is addressed, children not excluded (Colossians - "To the saints and faithful brothers in Christ at Colossae" and "Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord"). When we teach all that Jesus commanded we do so also to our children. we teach them to pray, "Our Father...," we teach them to sing Psalms (Psalm 4 - "But know that the Lord has set apart the godly for himself;the Lord hears when I call to him") and we teach them that whether they eat or drink, or whatever they do, they are to do all to the glory of God.

We do none of this because we presume they are regenerate (or unregenerate) or because we presume anything about the state of their heart but only because God has commanded us according to His _good _promises. The only thing we have evidence of is that God has blessed us (that is "us" the saints, the church, consisting of both truly inward regenerate and those who are only outward, but not truly regenerate) with offspring. The Baptist will hold off until they have evidence that this "blessed" offspring is indeed legit and truly included in the God's covenant. An infant that may or may not be truly regenerate must wait on fallible man instead of infallible God before they are considered one of "the saints and faithful brothers in Christ." 

Paedobaptists can't presume anything other than our children are a blessing from God. We do not attempt to know a third will of God (Deuteronomy 29:29). Everything must be based on the revealed will only. If God has blessed us, then we will administer the sign and the seal God has graciously provided to His people.

Credo-only Baptist presume their children are outside the camp unless they prove otherwise (they being both children and elders). If they prove such then they will administer the sign and the seal God has graciously provided to His people.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Tim,

BAR is a respectable mag -- can you cite the issue?



That story about the toughness of Baptists, I looked and found it pertained to a _Methodist_ evangelist / backwoods preacher, Peter Cartwright, in the 1800s. The story was _told_ by a Baptist, William Grady, in his book, _What Hath God Wrought! A Biblical Interpretation of American History_ (p. 195). [He's an IFB, and anti-Calvinist, but a very interesting read nonetheless.]

Anyway, Cartwright, upon entering a town in Ohio, heard of a bartender who was a notorious bully, who would threaten and beat up preachers traveling though his area. So Cartwright, a rugged character, sought him out and whupped him till he promised not ever to do it again -- reportedly singing a hymn while doing so.

A lot of stories about the hardships and persecutions of the early American Baptists in the book.


----------



## Herald

> Since the man in the pew lives in the visible ordinance, the natural result is to have the ordinance, that focuses on profession, to focus inward and away from the Promise of God, which is external.


I don't agree. I've tried repeatedly to state why I disagree but either I'm not communicating well or you don't agree with my explanation (I believe the latter is true). I maintain that credo baptism does focus on the promise of God.

Romans 11 allows me to attach the following passage to all those who believe:

*Jeremiah 30:22* 22 'You shall be My people, And I will be your God.'" 

Another way of saying that would be, "If you are My people, I am your God." That is the promise. Credo baptism is a recognition of that promise made to all of the elect. Why not infants? Because, "believe and be baptized." 

We have the arguments on auto pilot now. We both claim the high ground in the discussion. We do so, not out of pride but because we think we are being faithful to the scriptures. I don't know what else I can say. The arguments are out there. Paedos are going to side with the paedo view and credos with the credo view. 

Josh, you said you can't wait for the baptism debate. What exactly is it that you can't wait for? When the debate is over, there are still going to be two sides believing what they consider to be right.


----------



## KMK

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Since the man in the pew lives in the visible ordinance, the natural result is to have the ordinance, that focuses on profession, to focus inward and away from the Promise of God, which is external.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree. I've tried repeatedly to state why I disagree but either I'm not communicating well or you don't agree with my explanation (I believe the latter is true). I maintain that credo baptism does focus on the promise of God.
> 
> Romans 11 allows me to attach the following passage to all those who believe:
> 
> *Jeremiah 30:22* 22 'You shall be My people, And I will be your God.'"
> 
> Another way of saying that would be, "If you are My people, I am your God." That is the promise. Credo baptism is a recognition of that promise made to all of the elect. Why not infants? Because, "believe and be baptized."
> 
> We have the arguments on auto pilot now. We both claim the high ground in the discussion. We do so, not out of pride but because we think we are being faithful to the scriptures. I don't know what else I can say. The arguments are out there. Paedos are going to side with the paedo view and credos with the credo view.
> 
> Josh, you said you can't wait for the baptism debate. What exactly is it that you can't wait for? When the debate is over there are still going to be two sides believing what they consider to be right.
Click to expand...


I agree.

BTW, didn't Gene Cook already win the debate? Shouldn't this discussion be over?


----------



## Pilgrim's Progeny

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Tim,
> 
> 
> Anyway, Cartwright, upon entering a town in Ohio, heard of a bartender who was a notorious bully, who would threaten and beat up preachers traveling though his area. *So Cartwright, a rugged character, sought him out and whupped him till he promised not ever to do it again -- reportedly singing a hymn while doing so.*
> 
> A lot of stories about the hardships and persecutions of the early American Baptists in the book.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Since the man in the pew lives in the visible ordinance, the natural result is to have the ordinance, that focuses on profession, to focus inward and away from the Promise of God, which is external.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree. I've tried repeatedly to state why I disagree but either I'm not communicating well or you don't agree with my explanation (I believe the latter is true). I maintain that credo baptism does focus on the promise of God.
> 
> Romans 11 allows me to attach the following passage to all those who believe:
> 
> *Jeremiah 30:22* 22 'You shall be My people, And I will be your God.'"
> 
> Another way of saying that would be, "If you are My people, I am your God." That is the promise. Credo baptism is a recognition of that promise made to all of the elect. Why not infants? Because, "believe and be baptized."
Click to expand...

I'm content as well that what I have contended for has been clearly laid out and Baptist presentations of their _visible ordinances_ have borne out what I've stated.

I actually do believe it is a bit more than a disagreement, I actually think you're sort of missing my point about the _visible_ ordinance remaining in tension with the _invisible_ ideal you believe in. There is sort of a neumenal/phenomenal divide in Baptist theology between the New Covenant and the ordinances themselves.

I recognize that you are attempting to base the New Covenant upon the Promise of God, which is inviolable, but the actual ordinance is detached from the the New Covenant itself in a sense because a Baptist cannot afford to state that baptism confers membership into the New Covenant. To do so would destroy your theology that the New Covenant consists only of the elect and you know full well that false professors are baptized inadvertently.

Hence, because the Baptist insists that Baptism is administered to those that profess, and that it is a declaration of the individual, it is the profession (true or false) that admits one into visible participation with the local Church.

On the one hand you have an ideal that exists invisibly with a Promise that applies only to the Elect (whom you do not know) and you have a Church on the other hand consisting of professors only whom you know based on profession and not on any other information related to Romans 11. Just to be abundantly clear, *believe is not the same word as profess*.

You keep defaulting back to your understanding of the New Covenant and say: "Look Rich, I remain grounded in the Promise of God because I believe in this New Covenant that consists of the Elect of God alone."

I answer that you are speaking abstractly at that point and not actually interacting with activity in the _visible Church_ when you do this. Members are being baptized not necessarily into the New Covenant but into the local Church where the will of man to profess is central in every ordinance of the Church.

Thus, profession and the will of man is central in all your visible ordinances and even in how they are spoken of. Some Baptists here have even granted that this profession allows the Church to pretend to have "perfect knowledge" on its basis.

I continue to mantain, therefore, that you have a system of visible ordinances that place the will of man at the fore, which is in essential disagreement with a view of God's election in the Scriptures that emphasizes His action before a man has willed. Even your continued quoting of "Believe and be baptized" and insisting that infants cannot believe assumes that it is the will of a mature mind that takes precedence rather than a Sacrament that applies a sign in hope that the elective purposes of God don't wait for a child to mature.


----------



## Iconoclast

Contra_Mundum said:


> Iconoclast said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rich, the way I understand public water baptism, is not that it is a "sign" of a future promise [ although obviously glorification is still future} Public water baptism is the *public "confession"* that God has done a work already in the person. New Birth has taken place and the "promise" is *received* in full.
> It is not a decision that the person has made.It is *the person saying* that God has brought them from death to life.
> If this has taken place inside the person we cannot see it, true.
> But we can see *them publicly acknowledge* Jesus as Lord and *they give testimony* with the fruit of their lips giving praise to Him.
> It is not that the water baptism per se, has given the person admission into the church. It is that *the person is declaring* that God has placed Him into the body of Christ already, by the work of the Spirit- not the splash of the water.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note the bolded and underlined highlights. Once again, it is _crystal clear_ that the difference between the two positions is WHO is doing the "talking", WHO is making statements. Is it fundamentally a heavenly, _gospel_ declaration respecting a promise God makes to save believers? Or, as in this answer, is it fundamentally a human-statement?
> 
> Does baptism announce monergistic salvation? Who is doing the talking?
Click to expand...


Bruce,
It is the person who is baptized doing the talking, saying, confessing, professing, THAT GOD IN LOVE AND MERCY HAS SAVED THEM.
It is not his parents saying that God promises to save the elect so we will give a sign to a baby of a promise that this baby might not ever recieve.

God's promise to save His elect are completely based upon God's faithfulness to His own oath to save . Jn 6;37-44 hebrews 6:17-19
The human statement as you call it, is seen throughout the book of Acts.
No where is an open ended promise offered. The promise is only to as many as the Lord shall call. When he calls them, they gladly welcome the word, and openly confess such by baptism. I believe therefore I speak.


----------



## Iconoclast

InevitablyReformed said:


> Iconoclast said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rich,
> I am enjoying this thread,and agree with Bill that you are doing a solid job with your responses and I think you are also seeking to present an accurate depiction of the RB view. I want to try and interact jut a bit more with your post #136 where in part you said this
> 
> 
> 
> The point I'm making is that when a Baptist talks about the CoG it has to be done apart from actual baptism. The subject is on a different order: the things invisible only. Because the CoG only consists of the elect, Reformed Baptist theology acknowledges that baptism only confers admission into the visible Church but even the visible Church is distinct from the actual New Covenant that consists only of the Elect.
> 
> 
> 
> In another post you added a similar thought
> 
> 
> 
> Because, as I noted above, it is not on the basis of the person's actual participation in the New Covenant that you actually baptize the professor but you baptize on the basis of the profession itself. That means that the chief arbiter for determining who is going to participate in your Church (not to be confused with the New Covenant) is the decision of the individual to express faith. Hence, baptism in the Church is intrinsically based upon the individual profession and not upon Promise. This is why I've even heard it repeated here that baptism is an outward sign of an inward reality.
> 
> Baptism then becomes less a matter of a Promise of God for the visible Church at large and a sign of the New Covenant and more of a sign that relates to the individual profession (decision). I think this naturally leads to the notion that it was the decision itself that procures the salvation because the sign itself was applied upon basis of profession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rich, the way I understand public water baptism, is not that it is a "sign" of a future promise [ although obviously glorification is still future} Public water baptism is the public "confession" that God has done a work already in the person. New Birth has taken place and the "promise" is received in full.
> It is not a decision that the person has made.It is the person saying that God has brought them from death to life.
> If this has taken place inside the person we cannot see it, true.
> But we can see them publicly acknowledge Jesus as Lord and they give testimony with the fruit of their lips giving praise to Him.
> It is not that the water baptism per se, has given the person admission into the church. It is that the person is declaring that God has placed Him into the body of Christ already, by the work of the Spirit- not the splash of the water.
> Padeobaptists would agree with this with an adult baptism would'nt they?
> Last week Bruce posted that the verses in Romans 6/ are not even an issue if we would understand baptism to be a sign, rather than the thing signified.
> The thing is in the Nt. I do not think this is the order that God has set forth.
> Believe #1 and be baptized #2 is the pattern, because the promise has already come. Ot.saints embraced the promise of a future reality, so a sign was given to them. Once the reality of the promise has come we do not go back as if we are OT saints.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iconoclast,
> 
> I don't mean to be the child at the adult table in this long, intelligent thread, (I don't even know how to just quote a portion of someone's post yet) but I must ask you this in how I understand the above post. You said that water baptism is a sign of what has happened inwardly and then said that we paedos would affirm this for the adult...OK, here's my question: If you object IN PRINCIPLE to putting the sign of faith on an infant of believers, why did God command Abraham to do it? If we acknowledge that circumcision was a sign of faith (Rom 4), why is it WRONG to put the sign of faith on a child?
> 
> Thanks and I'm enjoying the discussion. You guys are awesome.
> 
> Daniel
Click to expand...


The sign given was outward and external looking forward to the promise seed which is Christ. Gal 3;16-29. Now that the seed has come, and accomplished redemption those who God brings to life in the Nt. by Spirit baptism Romans 6;1-17 live in newness of life by the Spirit who indwells them. Spirit baptism applied by the quickening work of the Spirit gives new life, a new creation. Without it , no one is in Union with Christ, or, In His body. Outward signs do not look forward to what might happen now as they did before the cross. The reality of the cross has taken place. 
The person who identifies with the message of the cross by God given faith is the only valid person to be baptized.That is what was read and declared throughout the Nt. No more, no less
Babies do not yet identify with or against anything yet. All persons are dead in Adam. God often time works in and through believing families,yes, this is true. But those children are not immune from from Adam's fall.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Bill,

I hope you're reading Anthony. I couldn't have planned to have a Baptist make my point any clearer in Posts # 184 and 185.


----------



## MW

Iconoclast said:


> Babies do not yet identify with or against anything yet. All persons are dead in Adam.



This commits the same error as Randy did earlier, in assuming that to be dead in trespasses and sins automatically leaves one outside the covenant of grace. But the apostle taught differently. He acknowledged he was a child of wrath by nature, and yet a child of promise by covenant (Eph. 2:1-12). This clearly shows that the Baptist understanding of the doctrines of grace is overly individualistic and doesn't account for the corporate and visible nature of the work of grace in time.

Further, by using the word "identify," you effectively create a doctrine of mediate covenant inclusion. Attempt to apply this to the child's standing in Adam, and what are you left with? Pelagianism. To be consistent you would be forced to say that no child is counted guilty of sin until he himself identifies with Adam. But we know this is not the case, and that all men are immediately accounted guilty as a result of being unconsciously identified with Adam in the covenant of works. We also know from various passages of Scripture that there is an analogy between being in Adam and being in Christ. One is immediately in Adam because of his relation to the covenant of works, and one is immediately in Christ because of his relation to the covenant of grace. There is no difference -- for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, being justified FREELY by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. We are therefore shut up to the conclusion that the covenant of grace is freely administered apart from the idea of self-identification.


----------



## Iconoclast

Semper Fidelis said:


> Iconoclast said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not that the water baptism per se, has given the person admission into the church. It is that the person is declaring that God has placed Him into the body of Christ already, by the work of the Spirit- not the splash of the water.
> Padeobaptists would agree with this with an adult baptism would'nt they?
> 
> 
> 
> We would not agree with this. In fact, you make my point beautifully about how a Baptist views the ordinance of baptism of saying something about themselves while the Presbyterian says that Baptism is God's declaration of what He promises to do for all who have faith.
> 
> You almost present the idea as if the person may simply walk up to the Church and announce: "I am in the New Covenant and elect. I require that you baptize me so that I can declare to the rest of you by my baptism that I have Evangelical faith."
> 
> Baptism is something that is done to a person not something that the person performs as the Church looks on. One of my biggest pet peaves is when I see Baptists treat Baptism as if it's their own very personal expression and choose a special place, outside the Church, to celebrate their personal declaration.
> 
> I believe Baptism is much more objective and timeless than this and reflects the Scriptures that see Baptism as something administered by the Church and announced to the individual. Yes, it is personal in one respect. The devotion I draw from my Baptism, in fact, is that I believe that God made a promise to _me_ in my Baptism. The Church was the ministerial agency that announced that Promise but it was backed up by the authority of God who said to me: "As surely as you feel the waters washing the filth of your flesh, so will your sins be washed away if you trust in Christ."
> 
> When I was immersed as an adult, I have to say that I am not entirely convinced I even had the first clue about the Gospel at the Church I attended. If Baptism was my declaration of my faith and union with Christ then I suppose I would have to agree with those who believe Baptism has to be performed repeatedly until one is absolutely certain that the faith possessed at the time of Baptism was true.
> 
> But, in point of fact, because God was at my baptism and declared the promise through the minister, I can trust the Promise. I am able to know that I have faith and God and so I look at my baptism where the Promise announced salvation to me if I simply cling to Christ. In other words, you want baptism to look at me but, instead, I look away from me to my baptism where the benefits of Christ are promised on condition of faith.
Click to expand...


Rich,
God makes a promise to anyone anywhere who believes the gospel that they will be saved.The promise is to particpate in the fellowship of the Resurrection life of Christ.
All through Acts they believed the WORD Preached. This whole twisting of what was said as if it was an arminian type of thing is off base.
The way you describe it, is more an arminian scheme- look at your language 
The benefits are "promised " to you on the "condition of faith". The promise is to you if you -simply cling to Christ-That sounds like the idea of inherent faith, a full ability of will which I know for a fact you do not believe. I am certain you do not hold to these wrong ideas yet you write what you write
I can trust the promise
I am able to know that I have faith
I look at my baptism
If I simply cling to Christ
I look away from me, to my baptism
Where is the work of God in your statements? It looks like you are doing it apart from God, following a formula, rather than God changing you.

Faith as we know is the gift of God. We are not to look to our baptism, we are to look to Christ by a God given faith. The person who looks and lives does so only by the electing grace and mercy of God.
When an adult is immersed it is in response to the inward work of God, granting repentance and faith. He might not even know all the theology behind it, but if it is of God it is eternal. They do so in obedience to the command of Christ to believe and be baptized. Not to do "something for themselves as a "performance"!
The adult who is baptized is not saying something about himself as you state, He is saying once I was was blind but now I see. God has saved me.
If you did not know this when you were baptized you were not the proper subject of baptism at that time. 
To say that a person has to have full assurance of faith before being baptized is also a ridiculous idea. What would you do if you lived in the first century? Doubt every baptism? 
It is your position that denies the obedience of faith in believer's baptism.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Iconoclast said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iconoclast said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not that the water baptism per se, has given the person admission into the church. It is that the person is declaring that God has placed Him into the body of Christ already, by the work of the Spirit- not the splash of the water.
> Padeobaptists would agree with this with an adult baptism would'nt they?
> 
> 
> 
> We would not agree with this. In fact, you make my point beautifully about how a Baptist views the ordinance of baptism of saying something about themselves while the Presbyterian says that Baptism is God's declaration of what He promises to do for all who have faith.
> 
> You almost present the idea as if the person may simply walk up to the Church and announce: "I am in the New Covenant and elect. I require that you baptize me so that I can declare to the rest of you by my baptism that I have Evangelical faith."
> 
> Baptism is something that is done to a person not something that the person performs as the Church looks on. One of my biggest pet peaves is when I see Baptists treat Baptism as if it's their own very personal expression and choose a special place, outside the Church, to celebrate their personal declaration.
> 
> I believe Baptism is much more objective and timeless than this and reflects the Scriptures that see Baptism as something administered by the Church and announced to the individual. Yes, it is personal in one respect. The devotion I draw from my Baptism, in fact, is that I believe that God made a promise to _me_ in my Baptism. The Church was the ministerial agency that announced that Promise but it was backed up by the authority of God who said to me: "As surely as you feel the waters washing the filth of your flesh, so will your sins be washed away if you trust in Christ."
> 
> When I was immersed as an adult, I have to say that I am not entirely convinced I even had the first clue about the Gospel at the Church I attended. If Baptism was my declaration of my faith and union with Christ then I suppose I would have to agree with those who believe Baptism has to be performed repeatedly until one is absolutely certain that the faith possessed at the time of Baptism was true.
> 
> But, in point of fact, because God was at my baptism and declared the promise through the minister, I can trust the Promise. I am able to know that I have faith and God and so I look at my baptism where the Promise announced salvation to me if I simply cling to Christ. In other words, you want baptism to look at me but, instead, I look away from me to my baptism where the benefits of Christ are promised on condition of faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rich,
> God makes a promise to anyone anywhere who believes the gospel that they will be saved.The promise is to particpate in the fellowship of the Resurrection life of Christ.
> All through Acts they believed the WORD Preached. This whole twisting of what was said as if it was an arminian type of thing is off base.
> The way you describe it, is more an arminian scheme- look at your language
> The benefits are "promised " to you on the "condition of faith". The promise is to you if you -simply cling to Christ-That sounds like the idea of inherent faith, a full ability of will which I know for a fact you do not believe. I am certain you do not hold to these wrong ideas yet you write what you write
> I can trust the promise
> I am able to know that I have faith
> I look at my baptism
> If I simply cling to Christ
> I look away from me, to my baptism
> Where is the work of God in your statements? It looks like you are doing it apart from God, following a formula, rather than God changing you.
> 
> Faith as we know is the gift of God. We are not to look to our baptism, we are to look to Christ by a God given faith. The person who looks and lives does so only by the electing grace and mercy of God.
Click to expand...

Before you confuse yourself further you might want to read what I write.


SemperFideles said:


> "As surely as you feel the waters washing the filth of your flesh, so will your sins be washed away if you trust in Christ."


The object of trust is Christ. Evangelical faith is that which looks to Christ. Reformed faith does not lack personal pronouns but it is where those pronouns are placed that makes an idea non-Reformed.



> When an adult is immersed it is in response to the inward work of God, granting repentance and faith.


What? Really? Every adult that is immersed is being immersed by the "inward work of God?" You really do confuse categories quite easily.



> The adult who is baptized *is not saying something about himself* as you state, *He is saying once I was was blind but now I see. God has saved me.*



So, Anthony, are you saying that when a believer says "Once I was blind and now I see. God has saved me" that this is not about the believer?! 



> If you did not know this when you were baptized you were not the proper subject of baptism at that time.


Which proves my point that I was making. You actually drive home my points beautifully!


----------



## Herald

Rich, why did you baptize your children? Did you not _choose _to do so? You believe the Promise. You believe that the covenant is for, "your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."? You believe your children are holy and baptism enters them into the covenant. But in the end, you _choose _to submit your children to baptism. The elders don't storm into your home at midnight and take your child from you. You do this, not in the presence of saving faith on part of the child but in the absence of it. You then proceed to raise this "covenant child" in the Lord, assuming regeneration unless repudiated by reprobation later in life. But in final analysis you are less certain than the Baptist as to whether the recipient of baptism is saved. By the way, I am not a subscriber to perfect knowledge, or at least not in the way I understand it. You choose to baptize your children. Choice is involved. We choose to submit to baptism. Choice again. Do either of these choices negate the election of God? No. As a believer in the doctrines of grace I confess that God's election is the causation of my choices. That is the essence of Romans 10:9-10. Confessing and believing are things that men do; choices they make. But those choices are actually the continuing work of God in His _perfect _election. 

You keep wanting to lay the charge on Baptists that we view baptism as a work of the will of man. We believe, or least we should believe (Baptists aren't always as confessional as they state), that mans choice in submitting to baptism is not an element of the will _independent _from the grace of God, but the will submitting to God's perfect election; His election made complete. I've twiced used the term "perfect election". By "perfect election" I mean God's election of the believer made complete, from predestination to glorification. While God is completely and utterly responsible for His perfect election of the individual, He causes man to confess and believe and submit to the ordinances/sacraments of the church. God never cedes control or authority of election to the elect. He changes the nature of the elect to submit to their election.


----------



## Pilgrim

Semper Fidelis said:


> Which schema points to the individual and which schema points to the election of God?



I don't accept the premise here (it seems to point to presumptive election if not regeneration--although I don't know that there's really a difference practically) but don't have much time to interact. As Bill noted, I think we're basically at an impasse here. There are a lot of other issues and aspects I would like to bring up, but it would be far too time consuming right now. Hopefully I will be able to do it later. 

The question is, which "schema" reflects Biblical teaching?


----------



## Herald

joshua said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> You believe your children are holy and baptism enters them into the covenant.
> 
> 
> 
> To clarify, no Reformed paedobaptist (that I know of) believes baptism brings a child into the covenant. Rather, it's a _sign_ signifying what is already the child's by birth.
Click to expand...


Josh, if I'm wrong on that I stand corrected. I would change my wording then to, "You believe your children are holy and baptism places on them the sign of the covenant."


----------



## Semper Fidelis

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Rich, why did you baptize your children? Did you not _choose _to do so? You believe the Promise. You believe that the covenant is for, "your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."? You believe your children are holy and baptism enters them into the covenant. But in the end, you _choose _to submit your children to baptism. The elders don't storm into your home at midnight and take your child from you. You do this, not in the presence of saving faith on part of the child but in the absence of it. You then proceed to raise this "covenant child" in the Lord, assuming regeneration unless repudiated by reprobation later in life. But in final analysis you are less certain than the Baptist as to whether the recipient of baptism is saved. By the way, I am not a subscriber to perfect knowledge, or at least not in the way I understand it. You choose to baptize your children. Choice is involved. We choose to submit to baptism. Choice again. Do either of these choices negate the election of God? No. As a believer in the doctrines of grace I confess that God's election is the causation of my choices. That is the essence of Romans 10:9-10. Confessing and believing are things that men do; choices they make. But those choices are actually the continuing work of God in His _perfect _election.
> 
> You keep wanting to lay the charge on Baptists that we view baptism as a work of the will of man. We believe, or least we should believe (Baptists aren't always as confessional as they state), that mans choice in submitting to baptism is not an element of the will _independent _from the grace of God, but the will submitting to God's perfect election; His election made complete. I've twiced used the term "perfect election". By "perfect election" I mean God's election of the believer made complete, from predestination to glorification. While God is completely and utterly responsible for His perfect election of the individual, He causes man to confess and believe and submit to the ordinances/sacraments of the church. God never cedes control or authority of election to the elect. He changes the nature of the elect to submit to their election.



Again, you're confusing what I'm saying. I've never argued that it is wrong that men decide that they desire to be baptized. Nor have I ever argued that parents are not presenting their own children to the Church to be baptized. The Church does not compel baptism. The issue has to do with how each views the _significance_ of the visible ordinance.

Over and over in this thread, the Baptists have insisted that Baptism is a sign that points to the individual's faith. Hence the visible ordinance, at its administration, is said to be the person's speech about their faith and the fact that they are therefore worthy recipients of the ordinance. In contrast, the paedobaptist insists it is not man's speech but God's speech in the Sacrament and the person receiving the Sacrament hears God's announcement of the Promise. 

I don't know how many times I need to type this to make this explicit but I don't know how you confuse what I've typed heretofore as indicating that no wills are involved. Certainly, in the case of professors, men hear the Gospel and present themselves to the Church with the desire to be baptized even in our Churches but you can see Anthony as the quintessential Baptist insisting that the Church now administers the ordinance as indicative of pointing to some reality within. We say, in contrast, that the person does indeed present himself and he is baptized but the Sacrament points to the reality of a Promise without.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pilgrim said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which schema points to the individual and which schema points to the election of God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't accept the premise here (it seems to point to presumptive election if not regeneration--although I don't know that there's really a difference practically) but don't have much time to interact. As Bill noted, I think we're basically at an impasse here. There are a lot of other issues and aspects I would like to bring up, but it would be far too time consuming right now. Hopefully I will be able to do it later.
> 
> The question is, which "schema" reflects Biblical teaching?
Click to expand...


The answer to your question is the paedobaptist scema.

The only people that have insisted on presumptive election and regeneration with respect to Baptism are a couple of Baptists in this thread.

There is nothing presumptive about the election of God viewed correctly. As you likely skimmed over what I wrote and chose merely to pull that quote you ought to know better that what I'm indicating is that we cannot know who is elect and the visible Sacrament in the paedobaptist schema points away from the individual and could not presume election but merely calls the baptized to trust in the Promise of God, which is held forth in baptism. Only the Baptist attempts to say something definitive of the recipient during baptism.


----------



## Herald

Rich, within the Baptist schema, what do you think is our opinion of the ordinance? We do not believe it is the initiation into the New Covenant, for the New Covenant is administered on the basis of _sola fide_. But baptism points to the New Covenant; the Abrahamic Covenant made better. Is there an individual component in the the Baptist schema? To the extent that the individual submits to baptism, yes. There has to be. But instead of baptism being a sign that points to the individual's faith, it is sign of God's more perfect election. It really is a matter of emphasis. You are _choosing_ to emphasize the Baptist profession preceeding baptism. A truly confessional Baptist will emphasize God as the director of His most perfect election, which includes profession (Romans 10:9,10).


----------



## Herald

Rich,

And with all due respect to Anthony, don't hold me to his point of view.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Rich, within the Baptist schema, what do you think is our opinion of the ordinance? We do not believe it is the initiation into the New Covenant, for the New Covenant is administered on the basis of _sola fide_.


Bill,

How many times have I pointed this out in this thread? I've labored that very point so much that some might get carpal tunnel typing it out over and over as much as I have. I suppose I ought to thank you for repeating the point I've made. Yes, yes, yes, Baptists do not believe that baptism initiates into the New Covenant so the next time the New Covenant is toted out to establish the reason for Credo Baptism I expect you to be the first to note that such a discussion has nothing to do with who ought to be baptized.



> But baptism points to the New Covenant; the Abrahamic Covenant made better. Is there an individual component in the the Baptist schema? To the extent that the individual submits to baptism, yes. There has to be. But instead of baptism being a sign that points to the individual's faith, it is sign of God's more perfect election. It really is a matter of emphasis. You are _choosing_ to emphasize the Baptist profession preceeding Baptism. A truly confessional Baptist will emphasize God as the director of His mos perfect election, which includes profession (Romans 10:9,10).



According to your confession, baptism is not a sign of the New Covenant. That language is purposefully left out of your Confession. Your Confession, rather, emphasizes that it is a sign of the fellowship of the individual with Christ and of his faith.


North Jersey Baptist said:


> And with all due respect to Anthony, don't hold me to his point of view.


I'm highlighting Anthony because there is some doubt that I'm somehow just making this all up about how Baptists tend toward a personal emphasis in the ordinance. I maintain that is not accidental nor is Anthony unique in this regard.


----------



## Herald

> How many times have I pointed this out in this thread? I've labored that very point so much that some might get carpal tunnel typing it out over and over as much as I have. I suppose I ought to thank you for repeating the point I've made. Yes, yes, yes, Baptists do not believe that baptism initiates into the New Covenant so the next time the New Covenant is toted out to establish the reason for Credo Baptism I expect you to be the first to note that such a discussion has nothing to do with who ought to be baptized.



Finally, agreement on something. It's not I haven't understood your words. It's the context that kept me repeating myself. We were using similar language but I don't think we were approaching it from the same direction. You view it as a negative of Baptists, while I view it as a distinct positive for reasons given in more than a few posts in this thread.

I will happily, and most diligently, disagree with any Baptist who states that baptism enters the recipient into the New Covenant. I will tell them that God's perfect election; made possible by the birth, death and resurrection of our Lord, provides their entrance into the New Covenant. 



> That language is purposefully left out of your Confession. Your Confession, rather, emphasizes that it is a sign of the fellowship of the individual with Christ and of his faith.



The 1689 LBC says, of baptism:



> Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.



You state correctly that the LBC does not address the New Covenant. Was it purposefully left out? I don't know. I do know that the confession was partly written to separate from Presbyterians. Baptism being the main areas of contention between the two sides, it is not surprising that the New Covenant wasn't addressed head on. But I would call the attention of those interested to some other areas of the LBC.

Regarding God's covenant:



> 7.3 This covenant is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament; and it is founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect; and it is alone by the grace of this covenant that all the posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and blessed immortality, man being now utterly incapable of acceptance with God upon those terms on which Adam stood in his state of innocency.



There is a strong connect-the-dots trail here that starts first with the covenant of works. It leads to the covenant of grace (redemption), of which the New Covenant cannot be separated. 

Regarding Christ the Mediator



> 8.6 Although the price of redemption was not actually paid by Christ till after his incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefit thereof were communicated to the elect in all ages, successively from the beginning of the world, *in and by those promises, types, and sacrifices wherein he was revealed, *and signified to be the seed which should bruise the serpent's head; and the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, being the same yesterday, and to-day and for ever.





> 8.8 To all those for whom Christ hath obtained eternal redemption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same, making intercession for them; uniting them to himself by his Spirit, revealing unto them, in and by his Word, the mystery of salvation, *persuading them to believe and obey*, governing their hearts by his Word and Spirit, and overcoming all their enemies by his almighty power and wisdom, in such manner and ways as are most consonant to his wonderful and unsearchable dispensation; and all of free and absolute grace, without any condition foreseen in them to procure it.



Rich, I believe the exclusion of baptism as the initiation of the New Covenant fits well within the Baptist schema. Circumcision, and now baptism, are _signs_ of God's promise (c.f. LBC 8.6, 29.1). Circumcision was applied to all males in Israel, not on the basis of faith but because of decree. Baptist (credo style) is administered on the basis of professed faith but it's root is planted in the promise of God. This is one of the reasons why the New Covenant is unlike the old Abrahamic covenant. This should be consistent with confessional Baptist orthodoxy and effect our orthopraxy. I am not saying the LBC is outdated but I wonder (for reasons given above) if this issue _was_ intentionally omitted in order to eliminate any blur from the line of demarcation with Presbyterians.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

joshua said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> You believe your children are holy and baptism enters them into the covenant.
> 
> 
> 
> To clarify, no Reformed paedobaptist (that I know of) believes baptism brings a child into the covenant. Rather, it's a _sign_ signifying what is already the child's by birth.
Click to expand...


All children of one Christian parent are covenant children, regardless of whether or not they have the sign of the covenant.


----------



## Herald

Marcellus said:


> I have not been on these boards long but this is a very sad sad sight for me. See my blogs. I don’t understand how you could make a turn like this. You are either right or dead wrong. If you are right everyone on these boards should follow your lead now. If you are wrong you should be able to listen to the arguments against you descision and reverse your direction using scripture alone. I don’t believe there is anyone speaking who is ignorant of Scripture but someone is because both parties cant be right. Being nice is not the answer to this problem. Jesus was not always nice. We need to be frank and direct. Its this kind of breakdown that’s hurting the Reformed Church. Fight it out!! Love your brother! We should fight to keep him or follow him. Is the Scripture that unclear? Has Theology become second place to kind words. This is no small matter and should not be treated as such by either side. Please accept my words with love we are all brothers in Christ but we cannot agree to disagree on clear Biblical Doctrine. And no, I do not have the answers for one side or the other. Its just certain someone is wrong. Nadab and Abihu probably thought they were doing a good thing that would be pleasing to the Lord. They were wrong.
> 
> Leviticus 10
> The Death of Nadab and Abihu
> 1 Aaron's sons Nadab and Abihu took their censers, put fire in them and added incense; and they offered unauthorized fire before the LORD, contrary to his command. 2 So fire came out from the presence of the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD. 3 Moses then said to Aaron, "This is what the LORD spoke of when he said:
> " 'Among those who approach me
> I will show myself holy;
> in the sight of all the people
> I will be honored.' "
> Aaron remained silent.



First of all, please fix your signature. You can find the guidelines for an acceptable signature HERE. Please have this fixed before your next post.

Second, you're new here. May I encourage you to read threads before jumping in. If you had read this thread you would have noticed that both sides have delivered cogent arguments. Yes, one side is wrong. But if a credo and a paedo are still convinced that they are right, that is fine on this board. One of the requirements of the PB is that you subscribe to one of the recognized confessions. It is understood that Baptists are credo for a reason and Presbyterians are paedo for a reason. We talk about it, debate it and hash it out between the lines. At the end of the day we do not compromise our convictions but we display love one to another. I urge to to consider that fact before you make such a passionate appeal.


----------



## Iconoclast

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Rich,
> 
> And with all due respect to Anthony, don't hold me to his point of view.



Bill,
When I respond and interact on these threads I do not intend to speak for all Reformed Baptists, but I speak as a reformed baptist. I welcome any correction if you see defects in what I post.
Furthermore I also realize that some of my thoughts are not fully worked out,and sometimes I cannot seem to get across on the keyboard what i think I could express in person.
I find in these threads I often get responses from Rich, Matthew, and sometmes Bruce. Rich as in his last two posts is almost always convinced that he has proven me mistaken. He usually summons everyone to look and see how he has offered correction. However, if the truth be told more often than not I find he is re-phrasing what I said in a way I did not say it ,then claiming that he has displayed some great error. I back off because it is not my goal to be contentious but to raise issue and get a response.
Rich has also several times been helpful to me,and has helped me correct some wrong ideas and I am thankful for that. Sometimes I feel that I raise a valid point that Rich will sidestep,or seem to side step.
Matthew also tries to stimulate more thought on an issue, and I am thankful that many times he is tying to raise scriptural guidelines and to caution me . 
Bruce has several times taken time to offer good verses and sometimes personal anecdotes to try to clarify his point of view.
All of these brothers are well read and I respect that. Also they demonstrate a commitment and passion for the word and the confessions that in a way I do not want to oppose.As you posted earlier Bill we need people who are more confessionally minded,so I do not count them as opposition.
For the most part we are agreed in most of the main teachings of scripture. The status of the covenant child, sign and thing signified, and what is the church are always where we differ.Most everytime is is over infant baptism.
I do not remember any other topic where we disagree. That is a good thing!
Bill , feel free to question or challenge my posts as is necessary. I do not have any hidden agenda. Sometimes I do my thinking out loud in here and I try to be open to scritpural correction. Now let me get back to my friend ,Rich.


----------



## Herald

Iconoclast said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rich,
> 
> And with all due respect to Anthony, don't hold me to his point of view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill,
> When I respond and interact on these threads I do not intend to speak for all Reformed Baptists, but I speak as a reformed baptist. I welcome any correction if you see defects in what I post.
> Furthermore I also realize that some of my thoughts are not fully worked out,and sometimes I cannot seem to get across on the keyboard what i think I could express in person.
> I find in these threads I often get responses from Rich, Matthew, and sometmes Bruce. Rich as in his last two posts is almost always convinced that he has proven me mistaken. He usually summons everyone to look and see how he has offered correction. However, if the truth be told more often than not I find he is re-phrasing what I said in a way I did not say it ,then claiming that he has displayed some great error. I back off because it is not my goal to be contentious but to raise issue and get a response.
> Rich has also several times been helpful to me,and has helped me correct some wrong ideas and I am thankful for that. Sometimes I feel that I raise a valid point that Rich will sidestep,or seem to side step.
> Matthew also tries to stimulate more thought on an issue, and I am thankful that many times he is tying to raise scriptural guidelines and to caution me .
> Bruce has several times taken time to offer good verses and sometimes personal anecdotes to try to clarify his point of view.
> All of these brothers are well read and I respect that. Also they demonstrate a commitment and passion for the word and the confessions that in a way I do not want to oppose.As you posted earlier Bill we need people who are more confessionally minded,so I do not count them as opposition.
> For the most part we are agreed in most of the main teachings of scripture. The status of the covenant child, sign and thing signified, and what is the church are always where we differ.Most everytime is is over infant baptism.
> I do not remember any other topic where we disagree. That is a good thing!
> Bill , feel free to question or challenge my posts as is necessary. I do not have any hidden agenda. Sometimes I do my thinking out loud in here and I try to be open to scritpural correction. Now let me get back to my friend ,Rich.
Click to expand...


Anthony, please don't misunderstand what I said to Rich. He was using you as an example of what Baptists believe. I took exception to that. Why? I believe that credo Baptism _is _rooted in the promise of God. The promise made to Abraham is made complete in the New Covenant. Rich was questioning you in regards to the role of the professor in the Baptist schema. I didn't want to be held to that standard since I was approaching the conversation from a different direction.


----------



## Herald

Marcellus said:


> I hope this fixed my signature.



Thank you.


----------



## Herald

Marcellus said:


> "First of all, please fix your signature. You can find the guidelines for an acceptable signature HERE. Please have this fixed before your next post" Thank you for this information I will look into it now.
> 
> As for the rest of your post. May I encourage your to read posts before jumping in. My post did not take sides. Sorry I am so passionate about the Church. Hashing it out between the lines is not what the Reformed Church needs. I do agree we should display love to one another and I am truly sorry if you missed that in my post. I urge you to consider that fact before you come down on me with an Iron fist.



Your post came on strong. Too strong in my opinion considering you just entered the fray after nearly 200 posts had accumulated in the thread. I urged you to *think *and _*consider*_. I suggest you do just that.


----------



## Iconoclast

armourbearer said:


> Iconoclast said:
> 
> 
> 
> Babies do not yet identify with or against anything yet. All persons are dead in Adam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This commits the same error as Randy did earlier, in assuming that to be dead in trespasses and sins automatically leaves one outside the covenant of grace. But the apostle taught differently. He acknowledged he was a child of wrath by nature, and yet a child of promise by covenant (Eph. 2:1-12). This clearly shows that the Baptist understanding of the doctrines of grace is overly individualistic and doesn't account for the corporate and visible nature of the work of grace in time.
> 
> Further, by using the word "identify," you effectively create a doctrine of mediate covenant inclusion. Attempt to apply this to the child's standing in Adam, and what are you left with? Pelagianism. To be consistent you would be forced to say that no child is counted guilty of sin until he himself identifies with Adam. But we know this is not the case, and that all men are immediately accounted guilty as a result of being unconsciously identified with Adam in the covenant of works. We also know from various passages of Scripture that there is an analogy between being in Adam and being in Christ. One is immediately in Adam because of his relation to the covenant of works, and one is immediately in Christ because of his relation to the covenant of grace. There is no difference -- for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, being justified FREELY by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. We are therefore shut up to the conclusion that the covenant of grace is freely administered apart from the idea of self-identification.
Click to expand...


Matthew,
Excuse me but I did not say the child is left outside of the covenant of grace. All children are


> 5Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me


 dead in sin. 
I did indicate that the child is dead in sin until the Spirit regenerates him.
We are individually saved, but as living stones are built up a spiritual house.


> 21In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
> 
> 22In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.


All children died in adam,. all adults died in adam.. all died in adam

My Baptist position is that only new birth,being born from above, being quickened by the Spirit, being indwelt by the Spirit, makes someone a new creation in Christ. Only when a person has the Spirit in Him is he a member of the church. The spirit places the person in the Church. The Spirit places someone in union with Christ.
Matthew, I believe it is the Baptist model that is taught in scripture or I would not be a Baptist. I love the eph 2 :1-12 passage- we were dead in sin-- BUT GOD who is rich in mercy-- this is the work of God's grace in time actually saves and converts and many times it is a visible and dramatic conversion.
All children died and sinned in Adam, or no child would see physical death.Salvation is all of grace and all of God. If I gave you any other impression that is not what i intended to do.


----------



## Herald

Shane,



> I have not been on these boards long but this is a very sad sad sight for me. See my blogs.


No. I don't have to view your blogs. This topic is being discussed in this thread and on the PB, not your blogs.



> I don’t believe there is anyone speaking who is ignorant of Scripture but someone is because both parties cant be right.


This comment doesn't make sense. You don't believe there is anyone speaking who is ignorant but then someone is? 



> Being nice is not the answer to this problem. Jesus was not always nice. We need to be frank and direct. Its this kind of breakdown that’s hurting the Reformed Church. Fight it out!!


This is not a cage fight. We do not seek to abandon civility under the guise that it will somehow lead to more fruitful debate. Now I _*know *_you haven't read this thread. If you had you wouldn't have made such an inane comment. 



> Please accept my words with love


You want your brothers in Christ to "fight it out" and we are to accept that admonition in love? This isn't the street corner, my friend. 



> Nadab and Abihu probably thought they were doing a good thing that would be pleasing to the Lord.


I suggest you read that account in context and see if you can't come to a different conclusion.

You really are getting off to a bad start here. You're digging a hole for yourself. My advice? Stop. Disengage. Learn first before spouting off. Not everyone who applies for PB membership is accepted. You were. Consider it a privilege. Defer to some of the stalwart veterans in here and cut your teeth first. It's not only wise, it's polite.


----------



## Iconoclast

Semper Fidelis said:


> Iconoclast said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> We would not agree with this. In fact, you make my point beautifully about how a Baptist views the ordinance of baptism of saying something about themselves while the Presbyterian says that Baptism is God's declaration of what He promises to do for all who have faith.
> 
> You almost present the idea as if the person may simply walk up to the Church and announce: "I am in the New Covenant and elect. I require that you baptize me so that I can declare to the rest of you by my baptism that I have Evangelical faith."
> 
> Baptism is something that is done to a person not something that the person performs as the Church looks on. One of my biggest pet peaves is when I see Baptists treat Baptism as if it's their own very personal expression and choose a special place, outside the Church, to celebrate their personal declaration.
> 
> I believe Baptism is much more objective and timeless than this and reflects the Scriptures that see Baptism as something administered by the Church and announced to the individual. Yes, it is personal in one respect. The devotion I draw from my Baptism, in fact, is that I believe that God made a promise to _me_ in my Baptism. The Church was the ministerial agency that announced that Promise but it was backed up by the authority of God who said to me: "As surely as you feel the waters washing the filth of your flesh, so will your sins be washed away if you trust in Christ."
> 
> When I was immersed as an adult, I have to say that I am not entirely convinced I even had the first clue about the Gospel at the Church I attended. If Baptism was my declaration of my faith and union with Christ then I suppose I would have to agree with those who believe Baptism has to be performed repeatedly until one is absolutely certain that the faith possessed at the time of Baptism was true.
> 
> But, in point of fact, because God was at my baptism and declared the promise through the minister, I can trust the Promise. I am able to know that I have faith and God and so I look at my baptism where the Promise announced salvation to me if I simply cling to Christ. In other words, you want baptism to look at me but, instead, I look away from me to my baptism where the benefits of Christ are promised on condition of faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rich,
> God makes a promise to anyone anywhere who believes the gospel that they will be saved.The promise is to particpate in the fellowship of the Resurrection life of Christ.
> All through Acts they believed the WORD Preached. This whole twisting of what was said as if it was an arminian type of thing is off base.
> The way you describe it, is more an arminian scheme- look at your language
> The benefits are "promised " to you on the "condition of faith". The promise is to you if you -simply cling to Christ-That sounds like the idea of inherent faith, a full ability of will which I know for a fact you do not believe. I am certain you do not hold to these wrong ideas yet you write what you write
> I can trust the promise
> I am able to know that I have faith
> I look at my baptism
> If I simply cling to Christ
> I look away from me, to my baptism
> Where is the work of God in your statements? It looks like you are doing it apart from God, following a formula, rather than God changing you.
> 
> Faith as we know is the gift of God. We are not to look to our baptism, we are to look to Christ by a God given faith. The person who looks and lives does so only by the electing grace and mercy of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Before you confuse yourself further you might want to read what I write.
> 
> The object of trust is Christ. Evangelical faith is that which looks to Christ. Reformed faith does not lack personal pronouns but it is where those pronouns are placed that makes an idea non-Reformed.
> 
> 
> What? Really? Every adult that is immersed is being immersed by the "inward work of God?" You really do confuse categories quite easily.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The adult who is baptized *is not saying something about himself* as you state, *He is saying once I was was blind but now I see. God has saved me.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, Anthony, are you saying that when a believer says "Once I was blind and now I see. God has saved me" that this is not about the believer?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you did not know this when you were baptized you were not the proper subject of baptism at that time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which proves my point that I was making. You actually drive home my points beautifully!
Click to expand...


Sorry Rich I cannot let this go. Let 's see who is confused here?

Let's examine this confusion- here is the last part of your post to me


> Before you confuse yourself further you might want to read what I write.
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by SemperFideles
> "As surely as you feel the waters washing the filth of your flesh, so will your sins be washed away if you trust in Christ."
> 
> The object of trust is Christ. Evangelical faith is that which looks to Christ. Reformed faith does not lack personal pronouns but it is where those pronouns are placed that makes an idea non-Reformed.
> 
> 
> Quote:
> When an adult is immersed it is in response to the inward work of God, granting repentance and faith.
> 
> What? Really? Every adult that is immersed is being immersed by the "inward work of God?" You really do confuse categories quite easily.
> 
> 
> Quote:
> The adult who is baptized is not saying something about himself as you state, He is saying once I was was blind but now I see. God has saved me.
> 
> So, Anthony, are you saying that when a believer says "Once I was blind and now I see. God has saved me" that this is not about the believer?!
> 
> 
> Quote:
> If you did not know this when you were baptized you were not the proper subject of baptism at that time.
> 
> Which proves my point that I was making. You actually drive home my points beautifully!



You first paragraph is wrong absolutely. A baptist is saying Something to the world in His obedience to Jesus command to be baptized in obedience to Christ. He is not saying something about himself,other than he knows he is a guilty sinner before a Holy God. Jesus has saved Him and placed Him into His body. Baptism is an open confession and identification with Christ. Not of something that "God will do for all who have faith" {gospel preaching declares that fact} Believer's Baptism is an open declaration of a dead sinner being brought to life. If a dead sinner is not being bought to life, it is not believer's baptism

In paragraph 3 you say baptism is not something a person "performs"? What like do backflip into the baptismal tank? It is not meant to be a performance, but it is not just something done to the person as if he is a passive . He is actively participating.

You then say you believe Baptism is something announced to the individual Talk about confused- What verse did you see this annoncement in Rich? You said I did not read what you wrote when you said this


> "As surely as you feel the waters washing the filth of your flesh, so will your sins be washed away if you trust in Christ."


 your baptism is conditional and does not speak to reality/ so will ,if? The sins are not already washed away to a person who has believed?

You completely ignore my response to you that the promise of Acts 2, is the promise of the Father given to Christ.of psalm 16, jn 14-16 I recommended 3 sermons on this topic to you and any of the other "onlookers"

Rich, I am not just picking on you , but you are a good example of someone who is chained to a logical system that can offer an explanation in a quintessential way of an outward promise and is in danger of missing or explaining away most of what happened in Acts


----------



## Iconoclast

Bill,
I also believe in the promise of God. There are many ways of appraoch to this.
The promise to Abraham,yes. I was speaking more about the promise of the Father Acts 1;4


> 4And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.


and again in Acts 2


> 30Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
> 
> 31He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
> 
> 32This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
> 
> 33Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.


 The promise was the promise of Psalm 16,quoted in verse 31-33
This is the promise spoken of in Acts 2;39-41 To be united to Christ by Spirit baptism, as in Romans 6 United in His death,and resurrection,and new ness of life is - To you, your children,and all who are afar off- as many as the Lord our God shall call. If they are not called, they have no promise.

Paul speaks of it everywhere, but very clearly in Philipians 3


> 9And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
> 
> 10That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;
> 
> 11If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.



Bill, if you get a chance Listen to this sermon, He says it much clearer than I can


> All sermons by:
> Hal Brunson, Ph.D.
> 
> 422 sermons
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MP3 Downloads:
> 100+
> 
> 
> What is a Covenant Child?
> » 7/9/2006 (SUN) » Hebrews 2; Acts 2
> 
> Sermon ID 7906141921 » Sunday - AM | Upload Media
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Available FREE Media © All media is copyrighted. Blog-This | Help
> 
> (no preview or announcement clips)
> 
> 
> Play Audio! (Streaming) · 16kbps | 46 min. [3]
> 
> 
> 
> Download MP3 (5.5MB) • Batch downloads • How?


----------



## Herald

Anthony,

I don't think paedos would disagree that if an individual is not elect there is no promise; or should I say no _effective _promise. God's promise is with His elect, not the reprobate. I think we are agreed there.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Anthony,

I don't feel picked on.

I think you are missing my point. I realize that a Baptist believes that the reason a professor desires to be baptized is on the basis of something that God has done (re-birth) but you are still missing the obvious point that you are grounding the _reason_ and the _significance_ of the sign in the individual's disposition toward God. Even as you say "This sign isn't about the individual" you keep coming back to personal pronouns and pronouns that say, essentially, the reason that the baptism occurs is because something real has happened to the individual.

As Bruce noted profoundly in another thread, Anthony, you don't even know your own heart well enough to be making declarations to the Church about your "good conscience" (as someone else might have noted). What does Christ state proceeds out of the heart? In fact, if anything, the number of false professions in this world is accelerating and not slowing down.

Regarding promissary language, if you think I'm making that up then you might want to check out Hebrews 6:13-20. Though not specifically related to the rite of baptism, per se, the strength of the Promise is based on two immutable things. Abraham certainly had an existential inner confidence that something profound had happened to him but the hope that he had was fixed like an anchor not to something he found within himself but upon a Promise of a God Who cannot lie backed up by the Oath of that same Immutable God. If you consider that being chained to a quintessential explanation of an outward promise then I'm happy to be a slave to Him who makes Promises to those of us who are feeble and know how our hearts are prone to wander.


----------



## MW

Iconoclast said:


> I love the eph 2 :1-12 passage- we were dead in sin-- BUT GOD who is rich in mercy-- this is the work of God's grace in time actually saves and converts and many times it is a visible and dramatic conversion.



Please now read the passage according to the original intent, with the plurals. The apostle is speaking about corporate blessings, not individualistic ones.


----------



## Iconoclast

Semper Fidelis said:


> Anthony,
> 
> I don't feel picked on.
> 
> I think you are missing my point. I realize that a Baptist believes that the reason a professor desires to be baptized is on the basis of something that God has done (re-birth) but you are still missing the obvious point that you are grounding the _reason_ and the _significance_ of the sign in the individual's disposition toward God. Even as you say "This sign isn't about the individual" you keep coming back to personal pronouns and pronouns that say, essentially, the reason that the baptism occurs is because something real has happened to the individual.
> 
> As Bruce noted profoundly in another thread, Anthony, you don't even know your own heart well enough to be making declarations to the Church about your "good conscience" (as someone else might have noted). What does Christ state proceeds out of the heart? In fact, if anything, the number of false professions in this world is accelerating and not slowing down.
> 
> Regarding promissary language, if you think I'm making that up then you might want to check out Hebrews 6:13-20. Though not specifically related to the rite of baptism, per se, the strength of the Promise is based on two immutable things. Abraham certainly had an existential inner confidence that something profound had happened to him but the hope that he had was fixed like an anchor not to something he found within himself but upon a Promise of a God Who cannot lie backed up by the Oath of that same Immutable God. If you consider that being chained to a quintessential explanation of an outward promise then I'm happy to be a slave to Him who makes Promises to those of us who are feeble and know how our hearts are prone to wander.



Rich, 
Good post here. I am with you on the Hebrews 6 passage. That is one of my favorite spots in Scripture, and actually there is no portion of Hebrews that I do not enjoy and draw comfort and instruction from .
Sorry to come across a bit edgy in my last couple of posts.
The reason I come back to the individual is a strong as the objective promise of God is- unless it translates to an individual in time- it becomes void. With the view I keep offering,God's promise like his word always accomplishes what he has purposed for it Isa 55


> 11So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.


I have always viewed the joy and rejoicing of the new birth as an out pouring of praise to God for salvation. My baptism as an infant in the RC church meant nothing to me as I was living an ungodly life. When God convicted me of sin and gave me a new heart,the change was so radical I suppose that when I see people just speaking in Objective terms about it and not the actual work of new birth by the Spirit it is hard to relate it to the teaching offered. It is similar in my mind to the time Jesus healed ten men and only 1 returned to give thanks and praise.Jesus said where are the nine?


> 17And Jesus answering said, Were there not ten cleansed? but where are the nine?
> 
> 18There are not found that returned to give glory to God, save this stranger


 in verse 15 it says he turned back and with a loud voice glorified God. Jesus asked where are the nine?
A person does not have to have a dramatic testimony of being a murderer, or crack head, or thief, but without a conviction of sin wrought by the Spirit I cannot see how they would be as the ONE in Luke 17.
I am coming to understand the position offered by Padeo's but truthfully I think it is hard to embrace it as fully if you do not hold it, or you would see it is the position taught in scripture and hold to it.
Rich if you can I really would like you to give a listen to the sermons by Pastor Hal Brunson and let me know what you think.


----------



## Iconoclast

armourbearer said:


> Iconoclast said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love the eph 2 :1-12 passage- we were dead in sin-- BUT GOD who is rich in mercy-- this is the work of God's grace in time actually saves and converts and many times it is a visible and dramatic conversion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please now read the passage according to the original intent, with the plurals. The apostle is speaking about corporate blessings, not individualistic ones.
Click to expand...


Matthew, 
Also a good post. Thank you for your online oversight. Honestly I have always looked at the first part of Ephesians as speaking to individuals who then are fitly framed together as in verse 21.
Let me take a fresh look at this book keeping the plural element in mind and see how it settles in. I know that by the time Eph3:9-11 comes around that the corporate church is in view as a whole complete body for sure, the mystery that is now fully made known by the church.
So you are saying with this that The promise comes to individuals/ through the means of the word preached and taught but not apart from the body of Christ corporatly. Then children born to believing parents are included in this purpose, and that God has chosen to - add to the church- in this manner, as well as in missionary and evangelistic methods as well?
Am I following what you are pointing to? That we as parents are to hold to the objective promise and allow the Spirit to move as he pleases,when He pleases and cling to this/ rather than look for any signs of regenerate activity as our judgment may be faulty and flawed?


----------



## MW

Iconoclast said:


> Am I following what you are pointing to? That we as parents are to hold to the objective promise and allow the Spirit to move as he pleases,when He pleases and cling to this/ rather than look for any signs of regenerate activity as our judgment may be faulty and flawed?



Well observed.


----------



## Ron

The gentlemen who began this thread made a severe doctrinal adjustment based upon a formal fallacy.

His writings reflect the following argument:

Those who gladly received the word were baptized
Therefore, all who were baptized gladly received the word

The argument reduces to the formal fallacy of asserting the consequent:

If someone gladly received the word, then someone was baptized
Someone was baptized
Therefore, someone gladly received the word

Ron


----------



## Ron

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Anthony,
> 
> I don't think paedos would disagree that if an individual is not elect there is no promise; or should I say no _effective _promise. God's promise is with His elect, not the reprobate. I think we are agreed there.



Anthony, I agree with you. I wonder if you would consider this argument: 

Reformed Apologist: A Primer on Covenant Theology & Baptism

Ron


----------



## Herald

Ron said:


> The gentlemen who began this thread made a severe doctrinal adjustment based upon a formal fallacy.
> 
> His writings reflect the following argument:
> 
> Those who gladly received the word were baptized
> Therefore, all who were baptized gladly received the word
> 
> The argument reduces to the formal fallacy of asserting the consequent:
> 
> If someone gladly received the word, then someone was baptized
> Someone was baptized
> Therefore, someone gladly received the word
> 
> Ron



Ron, I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. 

*Acts 2:41* 41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls. 

Does anyone come to faith in Christ without receiving (gladly) the gospel? Can anyone receive the gospel without coming to faith? In light of 1 Cor. 2:14 the answer to both questions is, "no." Does everyone who is baptized receive the gospel? No. The context of this passage is about those who have received the gospel and were baptized. Receiving the gospel is the condition that qualifies both baptism and those who were baptized.

The gospel cannot be held captive to a logical equation. Look at the Law and Gospel thread, especially the comments of Matthew Winzer. It think it will add clarity to the discussion.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Ron said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gentlemen who began this thread made a severe doctrinal adjustment based upon a formal fallacy.
> 
> His writings reflect the following argument:
> 
> Those who gladly received the word were baptized
> Therefore, all who were baptized gladly received the word
> 
> The argument reduces to the formal fallacy of asserting the consequent:
> 
> If someone gladly received the word, then someone was baptized
> Someone was baptized
> Therefore, someone gladly received the word
> 
> Ron
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ron, I'm not sure what you're trying to prove.
> 
> *Acts 2:41* 41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.
> 
> Does anyone come to faith in Christ without receiving (gladly) the gospel? Can anyone receive the gospel without coming to faith? In light of 1 Cor. 2:14 the answer to both questions is, "no." Does everyone who is baptized receive the gospel? No. The context of this passage is about those who have received the gospel and were baptized. Receiving the gospel is the condition that qualifies both baptism and those who were baptized.
> 
> The gospel cannot be held captive to a logical equation. Look at the Law and Gospel thread, especially the comments of Matthew Winzer. It think it will add clarity to the discussion.
Click to expand...


What precisely is the Baptist trying to argue except inference when they state that, in effect, all of the examples you have of Baptisms are of Believers. This is a logical conclusion.

As Ron pointed out, it is proper inference to assert that those that gladly receive the Word are proper recipients of baptism but it does not follow that if a person is the proper recipient of baptism that they gladly receive the Word.


----------



## Herald

Semper Fidelis said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ron said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gentlemen who began this thread made a severe doctrinal adjustment based upon a formal fallacy.
> 
> His writings reflect the following argument:
> 
> Those who gladly received the word were baptized
> Therefore, all who were baptized gladly received the word
> 
> The argument reduces to the formal fallacy of asserting the consequent:
> 
> If someone gladly received the word, then someone was baptized
> Someone was baptized
> Therefore, someone gladly received the word
> 
> Ron
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ron, I'm not sure what you're trying to prove.
> 
> *Acts 2:41* 41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.
> 
> Does anyone come to faith in Christ without receiving (gladly) the gospel? Can anyone receive the gospel without coming to faith? In light of 1 Cor. 2:14 the answer to both questions is, "no." Does everyone who is baptized receive the gospel? No. The context of this passage is about those who have received the gospel and were baptized. Receiving the gospel is the condition that qualifies both baptism and those who were baptized.
> 
> The gospel cannot be held captive to a logical equation. Look at the Law and Gospel thread, especially the comments of Matthew Winzer. It think it will add clarity to the discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What precisely is the Baptist trying to argue except inference when they state that, in effect, all of the examples you have of Baptisms are of Believers. This is a logical conclusion.
> 
> As Ron pointed out, it is proper inference to assert that those that gladly receive the Word are proper recipients of baptism but it does not follow that if a person is the proper recipient of baptism that they gladly receive the Word.
Click to expand...


Rich, is Ron exegeting Acts 2:41 or turning it into philosophical fodder? That passage is referring to believers without equivocation. We have the benefit of reading inspired scripture that eliminates any doubt that those being written about were saved. 

Earlier in this thread I told you that I do not hold to perfect knowledge. Regardless of the sign or its significance, none of us know with certainty whether the baptizee is saved. This thread ran out of gas last week, so I took that to mean that we've all said our piece and are content to move on to other things for the time being. That was fine with me until Ron made his post and pulled out of Acts 2:41 what I don't believe is there.


----------



## Ron

NJP,

The passage says that those who received the word were baptized. What this means in logic is that reception of the word was a sufficient condition for baptism. Your assertion, which cannot be justified by the text, is that reception of the word was a necessary condition for baptism. 

It’s not a matter of exegesis at this point because we both agree that those who receive the word were baptized. It's a matter of logic. Does the verse say that nobody was baptized who did not receive the word? Or does it say that only those who received the word were baptized? A baptist logician would agree that the verse may not be used against the paedo position.

Ron


----------



## Ron

> That was fine with me until Ron made his post and pulled out of Acts 2:41 what I don't believe is there.



My Baptist brother,

I didn't pull out of Acts 2:41 what wasn't there. I simply put back into Acts 2:41 only that which was there. 

Ron


----------



## Herald

Ron, perhaps I am too simplistic. I read the passage and understand that those who received the word were baptized. What do I conclude from that? That all who were baptized received the word (the gospel) were saved. There were none baptized that did not receive the word. How is that not a matter of exegesis? 

btw, I am not the one who used this passage to criticize the paedo position. It was Chris who wrote that this passage was instrumental in opening his eyes to the credo position. I would turn to other passages in scripture that would have more substance in the argument than Acts 2, but that's just me.


----------



## Herald

joshua said:


> Ron said:
> 
> 
> 
> NJ_*P*_,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill, Ron changed your last initial from _B_ to _P_.
> 
> So now you're North Jersey Paedobaptist!
Click to expand...


Not on your best day!


----------



## Ron

joshua said:


> Ron said:
> 
> 
> 
> NJ_*P*_,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill, Ron changed your last initial from _B_ to _P_.
> 
> So now you're North Jersey Paedobaptist!
Click to expand...


Maybe I was being prophetic! <duck>


----------



## Ron

> Ron, perhaps I am too simplistic. I read the passage and understand that those who received the word were baptized. What do I conclude from that? That all who were baptized received the word (the gospel) were saved. There were none who baptized that did not receive the word. How is that not a matter of exegesis?



Brother,

This can be difficult and I appreciate that. I think that sometimes we have pre-commitments that cause us to miss things. I am not trying to be patronizing; I really believe that. Let me try to get the point across another way. Baptism is obviously a very passionate subject for you; so let me, therefore, substitute “received the email invitation” for “received the word” and also let me substitute for “baptized” the phrase “came to the party”.

Does this sound reasonable to you? “I read the passage and understand that those who received the email invitation came to the party. What do I conclude from that? That all who came to the party received the email invitation. There were none who came to the party that did not receive the email invitation.”

I think you now see my point. There could have been many who came to our party on Monday who did not receive email invitations. As a matter of fact, all the children of those who received email invitations came to the party! Don’t get me wrong. I am not suggesting that the passage teaches paedobaptism. I’m simply pointing out that it may not be used as argument against the practice. An email invitation might have been a sufficient condition for coming to the party but obviously the statement doesn't imply that an email invitation was a necessary condition for coming to the party. In the like manner, you have imposed upon the text a necessary condition that simply isn't there. 

Ron


----------



## Herald

Ron,

Brother, I never said the passage is a ding against paedobaptism (see my previous post). I was simply taking the passage on it's plain meaning. Acts 2:41 says that all who received the gospel were baptized. In that specific group there were none who received that were not baptized. I am not using the passage in a larger context whether it be positive or negative. I don't see the passage as a clear defense of either credo or paedo baptism. But _within that particular passage _everyone who received was baptized and everyone who was baptized received. _In that passage. _ To claim today, that everyone who is baptized has received is to claim perfect knowledge. I am on record as opposing perfect knowledge. 

Perhaps we are talking past each other to an extent?


----------



## Ron

> I was simply taking the passage on it's plain meaning. Acts 2:41 says that all who received the gospel were baptized. In that specific group there were none who received that were not baptized.



Correct 



> But _within that particular passage _everyone who received was baptized



Correct



> and everyone who was baptized received.



Where does it say that? It only says that those who received were baptized. Again, those who received my email came to my party. That doesn't mean there weren't people there who did not "receive"...

Yours,

Ron


----------



## Herald

Ron,

Taking all of Acts 2 in context, Peter was filled with the Holy Spirit while making his address. Luke wrote using perfect knowledge of the facts since he was being lead by the Spirit. The word received in v. 41 was on first condition, Peter's. The power behind Peter's received word was the message of the gospel as given by the Holy Spirit. Given that the Spirit had just been revealed in much power and that the leading Apostle had delivered a Spirit-filled sermon, it would not not be reading into the text to state that all who were baptized had received. Why? What and who is the central theme of this chapter? Is it not the Holy Spirit? Considering how the Spirit manifested Himself in visible power (vs. 3-4), those who believed the gospel were also lead by the Spirit (Eph. 2:4,5). Therefore, all who received were baptized and all who were baptized received. 

Now, take this out of the environment of Acts 2 and ask me whether I can make that same claim today when the gospel is preached and sinners respond. I cannot make that claim. I do not have perfect knowledge or divine revelation to know the heart of men. 

Perhaps we've come to a systemic disagreement in how we view the text. That's fine. I an agree to shake hands and disagree.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Rich, is Ron exegeting Acts 2:41 or turning it into philosophical fodder? That passage is referring to believers without equivocation. We have the benefit of reading inspired scripture that eliminates any doubt that those being written about were saved.
> 
> Earlier in this thread I told you that I do not hold to perfect knowledge. Regardless of the sign or its significance, none of us know with certainty whether the baptizee is saved. This thread ran out of gas last week, so I took that to mean that we've all said our piece and are content to move on to other things for the time being. That was fine with me until Ron made his post and pulled out of Acts 2:41 what I don't believe is there.



Ron has responded but I want to be more explicit in encouraging you to train your machine guns and fire away at a bad exegetical argument. The irony is that you're destroying the Original Post by Chris Poe, which you thanked him for.

You have rightly asked: "Where does Acts 2:41 say this..."

Let me ask you this, since you thanked Chris for this post.

Where does Acts 2:41 state, explicitly, that only those that gladly received him were baptized by the Apostles either before, after, or ever?

I asked Chris, in fact, why does Acts 2:41 preclude a man from telling his wife who might not have been there. Chris implied that _only_ those present that day who received the News gladly continued in the Apostles' doctrine and the breaking of the bread. Where does it say that? Why does Acts 2:41 militate against any others later that day within a household (even adults!) from receiving that News?

Why does Acts 2:41 militate for a paedocommunion position if I am a paedobaptist? Where does it say that Bill?

You see the LBCF confesses this: "...The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or _necessarily contained_ in the Holy Scripture..."

The WCF says the same.

This means that the plain exegesis of a passage either directly teaches something or something may be _necessarily inferred_.

You think you're arguing with Ron here. In fact, Ron has not presented an exegetical claim upon the Scriptures. Chris did and you thanked him for it.

Ron is rightly challenging that proper exegesis of Acts 2:41 cannot sustain Chris' claim on the text. Chiris poured all sorts of unnecessary inference into it. It seems you're now agreeing with Ron, violently, that he should not have done so.

Hence, since you thanked Chris for that post, and you seem to be having second thoughts about drawing things out of Acts 2:41 that aren't there, perhaps you ought to take that debate up with Chris and his use of the text.


----------



## Ron

NJB,

For some reason you haven't dealt with anything I've written. I'm happy to leave it there.

Ron


----------



## Herald

Ron,

Please forgive me but I just couldn't follow your email scenario. I understood it but couldn't see it in light of the text. I didn't intend to ignore your contribution to the discussion.

Blessings.


----------



## Herald

> Let me ask you this, since you thanked Chris for this post.



Come on, Rich. I was thanking Chris for his honesty in stating his change of position. Thanking someone for a post doesn't mean you agree with every jot and tittle. I've thanked those who have refuted my positions because of the way they've articulated their argument. FYI Chris and I spoke offline about his baptismal change. I shared with him how I didn't see what he did in Acts 2. But you didn't know that because a "thanks" doesn't offer commentary.


----------



## MW

The exegesis must be taken one step further. It is not a matter of what the text does not say. The text positively states "they that gladly received his word were baptized." What was his word? To repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins, v. 38. To whom was this promise made? Both to those who had been pricked in their hearts and their children, v. 39. From what were they to be saved? From that untoward generation which had taken Christ and crucified him by wicked hands, v. 40, fathers and children alike. The text clearly points to the fact that both fathers and children were baptised and thereby separated from that crooked generation. The only other alternative is that the fathers submitted to baptism and thereby escaped identification with the blood-guilty nation whilst the children remained guilty of their fathers' sin.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Let me ask you this, since you thanked Chris for this post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on, Rich. I was thanking Chris for his honesty in stating his change of position. Thanking someone for a post doesn't mean you agree with every jot and tittle. I've thanked those who have refuted my positions because of the way they've articulated their argument. FYI Chris and I spoke offline about his baptismal change. I shared with him how I didn't see what he did in Acts 2. But you didn't know that because a "thanks" doesn't offer commentary.
Click to expand...

Well, I apologize for _inferring_ that you agreed with a post that you thanked him for.

Nevertheless, the point that Ron was making is established by your reply. Chris' drew some _un_-necessary inferences. That was all that Ron was pointing out from the beginning.


----------



## Ron

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Ron,
> 
> Please forgive me but I just couldn't follow your email scenario. I understood it but couldn't see it in light of the text. I didn't intend to ignore your contribution to the discussion.
> 
> Blessings.




No problem, friend.

Sleep tight.

Ron


----------



## Pilgrim

As I have mentioned previously, the initial post in this thread is not the sum total of my case against the Reformed paedobaptist argument. The Acts 2 passage is simply what caused me to reexamine the issue. As I've noted there is certainly nothing novel about my objections or my position. Unfortunately, I have a lot of responsibilities off the board right now (church, family, work, etc.) that preclude me from interacting with the responses as I would like. However, I thought it was incumbent upon me to note my change in views and affiliation and to offer some explanation for the change, especially since I am a moderator here and had previously been rather critical of the Baptist position. 

The reader will judge whether the recent posts by the paedos or the original post and those in support of it are more faithful to the text, particularly the assertion that non professors were baptized on the day of pentecost. I can think of few things more ironic than paedobaptists, whose position admittedly is based on inference, accusing Baptists of making unwarranted inferences on the issue of who should be baptized. 

Along with my other responsibilities, I am in the middle of moving this weekend so I now have to break away from this discussion and from posting on the PB at all for a time but I hope to pick up the debate again some day.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pilgrim said:


> As I have mentioned previously, the initial post in this thread is not the sum total of my case against the Reformed paedobaptist argument. The Acts 2 passage is simply what caused me to reexamine the issue. As I've noted there is certainly nothing novel about my objections or my position. Unfortunately, I have a lot of responsibilities off the board right now (church, family, work, etc.) that preclude me from interacting with the responses as I would like. However, I thought it was incumbent upon me to note my change in views and affiliation and to offer some explanation for the change, especially since I am a moderator here and had previously been rather critical of the Baptist position.
> 
> The reader will judge whether the recent posts by the paedos or the original post and those in support of it are more faithful to the text, particularly the assertion that non professors were baptized on the day of pentecost. I can think of few things more ironic than paedobaptists, whose position admittedly is based on inference, accusing Baptists of making unwarranted inferences on the issue of who should be baptized.
> 
> Along with my other responsibilities, I am in the middle of moving this weekend so I now have to break away from this discussion and from posting on the PB at all for a time but I hope to pick up the debate again some day.



When you have the time, I await your defense of your exegesis of Acts 2:41 to support what you clearly stated it inferred both in terms of who _must_ have been baptized that day as well as that no others continued in the Apostle's doctrine and the breaking of the bread.


----------



## daddysapp

*Temptation*

This may be considered off topic but...
Because my local congregation is vastly Arminian, I have been tempted to switch to a Presbyterian church myself but alas, we only have the liberal PCUSA and American PCs (not PCA) in my area and no orthodox reformed or Reformed Baptist churches so perhaps I have been spared from this conflict by geography. Still, it would be nice to be with like minded folks (thus this board), Baptist or otherwise. 

So, perhaps I am where I need to be. Teaching and asking people to think ,but carefully with forethought, about doctrine and promise.

Thanks for the honesty and also for the great respect from the opposing view as well.


----------



## Pilgrim

Justin Williams said:


> Hi Guys
> 
> Could some of you, from both the credobaptist and paedobaptist viewpoint, provide a list of books that discuss in detail the passages that are most commonly studied in regards to this issue?
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Justin



Justin,

Here are a few of the better known works. Of course there are many more, especially from prior to the 20th Century. 

Paedo books include: 

John Murray, _Christian Baptism_
Pierre Ch. Marcel _The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism_
John Calvin, _Institutes of the Christian Religion_
Gregg Strawbridge, ed. _The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism_
John P. Sartelle, _Infant Baptism: What Christian Parents Should Know_. This is a briefer treatment. 
James M. Chaney _William the Baptist_. Focuses primarily on mode, but there is also a long chapter on infant baptism. This is probably available online somewhere. 

There are of course many others. I believe PB memver Rev. Daniel Hyde has recently published a defense of Reformed paedobaptism. 

Other paedo books that focus on the mode of baptism include: 

Jay E. Adams _The Meaning and Mode of Baptism_
Rowland S. Ward _Baptism in Scripture and History_

Baptist: 

Paul K. Jewett _Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace_ 
Fred Malone _A String of Pearls Unstrung_ 
Greg Welty _A Critical Evaluation of Paedobaptism_ 
Fred Malone _The Baptism of Disciples Alone_
Alan Conner _Covenant Children Today: Physical or Spiritual?_
David Kingdon _Children of Abraham_ (out of print)
T.E. Watson, _Should Babies Be Baptized?_ (This has been published under other titles as well, including _Baptism Not for Infants_)
Thomas R. Schreiner and Shawn D. Wright eds. _Believer's Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ_.
John L. Dagg, Manual of Theology
Richard Furman, The Children of Church Members
Adoniram Judson, _Christian Baptism_.

Another recent book that may be helpful is _Understanding Four Views on Baptism_ from Zondervan's Counterpoints series. The Baptist view is defended by Dr. Tom Nettles while Dr. Richard Pratt defends the Reformed view. Lutheran and Church of Christ views are also presented. 

The Monergism pages on baptism and covenant theology will have a ton of links to online articles as well. But use discernment as always.


----------



## Pilgrim

Kevin said:


> I feel sad.
> 
> Not to have lost a champion, because Gods word is sufficient. But I feel sad to think that someone would defend the bibilical view with such vigor and then be turned on such shallow grounds.
> 
> I am no bigot when it comes to our baptist brothers. My FIL is a minister of that ilk, I was born to that faith, I studied at 2 of their schools, and every day I am working to plant a church that welcolms both views within one reformed fellowship.
> 
> And yet...
> 
> I feel sad. How (I ask in all honestly & sincerity) could you have ever called yourself a presbyterian (who defended the faith, not just an adherent) and still missed the point in Acts?
> 
> I just do not understand...



As you would imagine, I disagree that I have been "turned on shallow grounds." But I think you ask a fair question, and it is one that I have asked myself. At this point I question whether I was honestly searching for truth as much as I thought I was when I switched to paedo about three years ago. In retrospect a lot of it probably had to do with preferring the OPC over other local church options for other reasons, particularly worship. I accepted the paedo arguments that seemed very logical once I accepted the premises, but I did not study the Scriptures as I should have to see if the things I was reading were so.


----------



## Pilgrim

wallingj said:


> I don't feel like trudging into this argument thus I am only going to offer an observation. Coming from a Baptist background and moving to a Presbyterian background I have heard both teachings and witnessed both baptisms. Therefore, here is the observation I offer. The Baptist church's I have attended, which have been several, routinely had infant dedication ceremonies, and I might add that I participated in two of them with my children. Anyway, the ceremony consists of the parents and the church pledging to raise the child in the Church and that each member would assist in that endeavor. The only thing missing from these ceremonies and the Presbyterian ceremony was the water. It just sort of makes you go .



Especially since there is no warrant for such a ceremony in the Bible. I'll take a wild guess and assume that "baby dedications" are largely a 20th Century innovation in Baptist churches. Many Baptist churches do not have them.


----------



## Pilgrim

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Ron, perhaps I am too simplistic. I read the passage and understand that those who received the word were baptized. What do I conclude from that? That all who were baptized received the word (the gospel) were saved. There were none baptized that did not receive the word. How is that not a matter of exegesis?



Bill, 

I guess we bumbling Babdists just don't get it.


----------



## Pilgrim

Semper Fidelis said:


> You see the LBCF confesses this: "...The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or _necessarily contained_ in the Holy Scripture..."
> 
> The WCF says the same.



Rich, 

As I'm sure you know, WCF 1.6 states: 



> The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by *good and necessary consequence* may be deduced from Scripture...



It is no accident that the Baptists who drafted the 2nd LBCF changed this wording to avoid what some see as good and necessary consequences from the Scripture but in fact (in our view) are not necessarily contained in the Scripture.


----------



## Pilgrim

Semper Fidelis said:


> When you have the time, I await your defense of your exegesis of Acts 2:41 to support what you clearly stated it inferred both in terms of who _must_ have been baptized that day as well as that no others continued in the Apostle's doctrine and the breaking of the bread.



Acts 2:41 plainly states that those who received Peter's word were baptized. I'm seriously not trying to be inflammatory, but to try to fit infant baptism in there is almost as bad in my view as the tortured exegesis that Roman Catholics use in trying to prove their doctrines about the papacy or Mary. (Of course I'm not saying that Reformed paedos are no better than Romanists. Not at all. I have a lot of respect for the Reformed and we all owe alot to Reformed ministries and scholarship through the past several centuries.)
Acts 2:42 describes the same group, but obviously more were added as time went on. This is the understanding of Acts 2:41 that you will find in practically every Baptist apologetic. It isn't the main passage they camp out on, but it is typically cited as a proof text for the credo position. 

Since it's very late and it would take me too long to come up with something this succinct, I'm now going to be lazy and borrow a little from Fred Malone. These are reasons (schema or superstructure if you will) he gives for being a Baptist in _Why I Am a Baptist_ ed. by Tom J. Nettles and Russell D. Moore, pp. 138-139: 



> 1. Jesus Christ is the only final physical seed of Abraham (Gal. 3:16,19).
> 2. Only those "of faith" are the seed of Abraham through their faith relationship to Jesus Christ (Gal. 3:14, 26-29; Rom.4), not the offspring of believers.
> 3. The new covenant of Jesus Christ is defined as including regenerate forgiven members alone, not believers and their children (Heb. 8:8-12).
> 4. Infant baptism is based by inference on a final Old Testament authority over the New Testament.
> 5. Infant Baptism violates the regulative principle of worship, cherished by Presbyterians and Baptists alike, which maintains that ordinances must instituted by revelation, not by inference from the Old Testament.
> 
> The baptism of disciples alone is the only instituted baptism of Jesus Christ in the New Testament (Matt. 28:19-20). That is why I am a Baptist.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pilgrim said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see the LBCF confesses this: "...The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or _necessarily contained_ in the Holy Scripture..."
> 
> The WCF says the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rich,
> 
> As I'm sure you know, WCF 1.6 states:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by *good and necessary consequence* may be deduced from Scripture...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is no accident that the Baptists who drafted the 2nd LBCF changed this wording to avoid what some see as good and necessary consequences from the Scripture but in fact (in our view) are not necessarily contained in the Scripture.
Click to expand...


Please define for me what you believe the material difference between deducing a doctrine from good and necessary consequence and that which is "necessarily contained". I believe this wording is a distinction without a difference based upon the inferences and deductions manifest even by yourself in the original post.


----------



## Pilgrim

Semper Fidelis said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see the LBCF confesses this: "...The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or _necessarily contained_ in the Holy Scripture..."
> 
> The WCF says the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rich,
> 
> As I'm sure you know, WCF 1.6 states:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by *good and necessary consequence* may be deduced from Scripture...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is no accident that the Baptists who drafted the 2nd LBCF changed this wording to avoid what some see as good and necessary consequences from the Scripture but in fact (in our view) are not necessarily contained in the Scripture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please define for me what you believe the material difference between deducing a doctrine from good and necessary consequence and that which is "necessarily contained". I believe this wording is a distinction without a difference based upon the inferences and deductions manifest even by yourself in the original post.
Click to expand...


I know of at least one Baptist who agrees with you and who prefers the GNC language. 

I haven't done a lot of study of the 1689, but I do know that their general practice was to only change portions of the WCF (or Savoy) that they disagreed with. I think it's clear that in their mind at least they were trying to emphasize the primacy of Scripture against things like the considerations that lead to the paedo view which obviously they didn't see scriptural warrant (i.e. necessarily contained in the Scriptures) for.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pilgrim said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rich,
> 
> As I'm sure you know, WCF 1.6 states:
> 
> 
> 
> It is no accident that the Baptists who drafted the 2nd LBCF changed this wording to avoid what some see as good and necessary consequences from the Scripture but in fact (in our view) are not necessarily contained in the Scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please define for me what you believe the material difference between deducing a doctrine from good and necessary consequence and that which is "necessarily contained". I believe this wording is a distinction without a difference based upon the inferences and deductions manifest even by yourself in the original post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know of at least one Baptist who agrees with you and who prefers the GNC language.
> 
> I haven't done a lot of study of the 1689, but I do know that their general practice was to only change portions of the WCF (or Savoy) that they disagreed with. I think it's clear that in their mind at least they were trying to emphasize the primacy of Scripture against things like the considerations that lead to the paedo view which obviously they didn't see scriptural warrant (i.e. necessarily contained in the Scriptures) for.
Click to expand...


Changing words doesn't change anything Chris. You still haven't answered my question. Either you believe you can deduce ideas from Scripture on the basis of good and necessary inference or you do not. If you do not believe this is the case then there are several posts in this very thread that belie that assertion.


----------



## Pilgrim

Semper Fidelis said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please define for me what you believe the material difference between deducing a doctrine from good and necessary consequence and that which is "necessarily contained". I believe this wording is a distinction without a difference based upon the inferences and deductions manifest even by yourself in the original post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know of at least one Baptist who agrees with you and who prefers the GNC language.
> 
> I haven't done a lot of study of the 1689, but I do know that their general practice was to only change portions of the WCF (or Savoy) that they disagreed with. I think it's clear that in their mind at least they were trying to emphasize the primacy of Scripture against things like the considerations that lead to the paedo view which obviously they didn't see scriptural warrant (i.e. necessarily contained in the Scriptures) for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Changing words doesn't change anything Chris. You still haven't answered my question. Either you believe you can deduce ideas from Scripture on the basis of good and necessary inference or you do not. If you do not believe this is the case then there are several posts in this very thread that belie that assertion.
Click to expand...


My position is this. The inference that infants should be baptized is neither good nor necessary. The practice of infant baptism violates the RPW. I think this from Benjamin Keach says it well and it speaks to the differences between the WCF and LBCF in Chapter 1 as well: 


> From Benjamin Keach: _Gold Refin’d, or Baptism in its Primitive Purity_ (London: 1689), 69-70, 146 (orthography and punctuation modernized).
> 
> What commission our brethren have got, who sprinkle children, I know not. Let them fetch a thousand consequences, and unwarrantable suppositions for their practice, it signifies nothing, if Christ has given them no authority or rule to do what they do in his name. Natural consequences from Scripture we allow, but such which flow not naturally from any Scripture we deny; can any think Christ would leave one of the great sacraments of the New Testament, not to be proved without consequences?
> 
> We affirm, that in all positive or instituted worship (such as baptism is) which wholly depends upon the mere will and pleasure of the law-giver, it is absolutely necessary there should be an express command, or plain and clear examples, though in other respects we allow of natural deductions and consequences from Scripture for the confirming and enforcing of duties, and for the comfort and instruction of God’s people. But as there is neither express command nor example for infant-baptism; so it can’t be proved by any consequence or inference, that naturally and genuously rises from any Scripture, as we have proved, nor does draw any such consequences to prove it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pilgrim said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know of at least one Baptist who agrees with you and who prefers the GNC language.
> 
> I haven't done a lot of study of the 1689, but I do know that their general practice was to only change portions of the WCF (or Savoy) that they disagreed with. I think it's clear that in their mind at least they were trying to emphasize the primacy of Scripture against things like the considerations that lead to the paedo view which obviously they didn't see scriptural warrant (i.e. necessarily contained in the Scriptures) for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Changing words doesn't change anything Chris. You still haven't answered my question. Either you believe you can deduce ideas from Scripture on the basis of good and necessary inference or you do not. If you do not believe this is the case then there are several posts in this very thread that belie that assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My position is this. The inference that infants should be baptized is neither good nor necessary.
Click to expand...


In other words, your post above was pointless as you agree that the re-wording of the Confession is a distinction without a difference. That is, unless you believe that you are the exception to the rule about making good and necessary inferences among Baptists and your brethren make bad and needless deductions.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

> Can any think Christ would leave one of the great sacraments of the New Testament, not to be proved without consequences?



This is a poor statement from Benjamin Keach. The doctrine of the Trinity and the hypostatic union of Christ's natures is based on GNC.


----------



## RamistThomist

Pilgrim said:


> Justin Williams said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Guys
> 
> Could some of you, from both the credobaptist and paedobaptist viewpoint, provide a list of books that discuss in detail the passages that are most commonly studied in regards to this issue?
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Justin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin,
> 
> Here are a few of the better known works. Of course there are many more, especially from prior to the 20th Century.
> 
> Paedo books include:
> 
> John Murray, _Christian Baptism_
> Pierre Ch. Marcel _The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism_
> John Calvin, _Institutes of the Christian Religion_
> Gregg Strawbridge, ed. _The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism_
> John P. Sartelle, _Infant Baptism: What Christian Parents Should Know_. This is a briefer treatment.
> James M. Chaney _William the Baptist_. Focuses primarily on mode, but there is also a long chapter on infant baptism. This is probably available online somewhere.
> 
> There are of course many others. I believe PB memver Rev. Daniel Hyde has recently published a defense of Reformed paedobaptism.
> 
> Other paedo books that focus on the mode of baptism include:
> 
> Jay E. Adams _The Meaning and Mode of Baptism_
> Rowland S. Ward _Baptism in Scripture and History_
> 
> Baptist:
> 
> Paul K. Jewett _Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace_
> Fred Malone _A String of Pearls Unstrung_
> Greg Welty _A Critical Evaluation of Paedobaptism_
> Fred Malone _The Baptism of Disciples Alone_
> Alan Conner _Covenant Children Today: Physical or Spiritual?_
> David Kingdon _Children of Abraham_ (out of print)
> T.E. Watson, _Should Babies Be Baptized?_ (This has been published under other titles as well, including _Baptism Not for Infants_)
> Thomas R. Schreiner and Shawn D. Wright eds. _Believer's Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ_.
> John L. Dagg, Manual of Theology
> Richard Furman, The Children of Church Members
> Adoniram Judson, _Christian Baptism_.
> 
> Another recent book that may be helpful is _Understanding Four Views on Baptism_ from Zondervan's Counterpoints series. The Baptist view is defended by Dr. Tom Nettles while Dr. Richard Pratt defends the Reformed view. Lutheran and Church of Christ views are also presented.
> 
> The Monergism pages on baptism and covenant theology will have a ton of links to online articles as well. But use discernment as always.
Click to expand...


And

The Priesthood of the Plebs
Amazon.com: The Baptized Body: Peter J. Leithart: Books


----------



## Pilgrim

Semper Fidelis said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Changing words doesn't change anything Chris. You still haven't answered my question. Either you believe you can deduce ideas from Scripture on the basis of good and necessary inference or you do not. If you do not believe this is the case then there are several posts in this very thread that belie that assertion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My position is this. The inference that infants should be baptized is neither good nor necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, your post above was pointless as you agree that the re-wording of the Confession is a distinction without a difference. That is, unless you believe that you are the exception to the rule about making good and necessary inferences among Baptists and your brethren make bad and needless deductions.
Click to expand...


Of course I disagree. I've nowhere stated or agreed that the change of wording in the LBCF is a distinction without a difference. l've noted what I understand the difference to be and the quote I provided by Benjamin Keach, one of the foremost of the framers of the 2nd LBCF, plainly states what the difference is. He argues that that infant baptism is a violation of the RPW although of course he doesn't use that term. My understanding is that term originated with John Murray.


----------



## Pilgrim

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Can any think Christ would leave one of the great sacraments of the New Testament, not to be proved without consequences?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a poor statement from Benjamin Keach. The doctrine of the Trinity and the hypostatic union of Christ's natures is based on GNC.
Click to expand...


First of all, the doctrine of the Trinity and the hypostatic union are not sacraments. But I'm quite sure that Keach would have maintained that those doctrines are *necessarily contained* in the Scriptures and that unlike the practice of infant baptism, they are plainly derived from the Scriptures although of course our finite minds cannot grasp all there is to know about the relationship within the Trinity and the hypostatic union.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pilgrim said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> My position is this. The inference that infants should be baptized is neither good nor necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, your post above was pointless as you agree that the re-wording of the Confession is a distinction without a difference. That is, unless you believe that you are the exception to the rule about making good and necessary inferences among Baptists and your brethren make bad and needless deductions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course I disagree. I've nowhere stated or agreed that the change of wording in the LBCF is a distinction without a difference. l've noted what I understand the difference to be and the quote I provided by Benjamin Keach, one of the foremost of the framers of the 2nd LBCF, plainly states what the difference is. He argues that that infant baptism is a violation of the RPW although of course he doesn't use that term. My understanding is that term originated with John Murray.
Click to expand...


Let me be clearer then. Whether you are confused in the matter or not is immaterial to the point. Both Benjamin Keach and yourself are utilizing inference and good and necessary consequence in your argumentation. Your appel to the RPW is a case in point. You can claim all you want that you somehow transcend this practice with your wording but either you don't understand what the words mean or you don't see in yourself and fellow Baptists what is clearly evident in your presentation.


----------



## MW

> Can any think Christ would leave one of the great sacraments of the New Testament, not to be proved without consequences?



The antipaedobaptist practice is not merely negative, denying the right of infants to baptism; it is also positive, deferring the administration of baptism until such time as the infant can profess faith for himself. Now the New Testament says nothing about an age of accountability at which an infant might credibly profess faith. Antipaedobaptists rely on what they consider to be good and necessary inferences from the Scripture for determining this point. In fact, they often disagree amongst themselves as to an age of accountability. It is certain therefore that the antipaedobaptist acknowledges the need for good and necessary consequence when determining the mind of Christ as to the subjects of one of the great sacraments of the New Testament.

The reality is, the antipaedobaptist has less Scriptural example for his practice with relation to the infants of believers than the paedobaptist. The paedobaptist has the example of baptism being administered to infants under the OT, 1 Cor. 10:2; of souls being saved by water of whom no personal profession of faith was required, 1 Pet. 3:20, 21, and of unqualified household baptisms. This is proof positive, without the use of good and necessary consequence, for the baptism of believers' children without requiring a personal profession of faith from the child.


----------



## Archlute

As a brief interjection:

I have recently had the pleasure of reading through Pierre Marcel's defense of a Reformed view of baptism, and would strongly recommend this book to those who may have any number of questions regarding the exegesis and theology undergirding the baptism of believer's children. I have not found many who have read through this work, though some have heard mention made of it, and I have wondered why it is not more widely known. From what I have read so far, it covers all of the standard objections and discussion related to this Christian practice, and he does so in a very comprehensive manner. There is not one reasonable objection, of which I have ever heard, that is not thoughtfully and convincingly addressed in this work. 

Marcel was a French Reformed minister in the 20th century, and his approach is both scholarly as well as thoroughly pastoral. In fact, the preface opens the work with an acknowledgment that this subject has often been approached without the love of our brothers in mind, and that he aims to convince Baptists, as well as to strengthen the convictions of the Reformed church, by this theological treatise. I would say that if one were to read this work, there would not be reason for them to read another.

Another warm and pastorally minded work, but a little less substantial, is Geoffrey Bromiley's _Children of Promise_. A good read that I had not yet seen mentioned, although I haven't read every post of this thread. 

Anyway, I would readily recommend Marcel's work to anyone who is struggling to understand Christian baptism, or who has recently found the position untenable.


----------



## Pilgrim

Archlute said:


> As a brief interjection:
> 
> I have recently had the pleasure of reading through Pierre Marcel's defense of a Reformed view of baptism, and would strongly recommend this book to those who may have any number of questions regarding the exegesis and theology undergirding the baptism of believer's children. I have not found many who have read through this work, though some have heard mention made of it, and I have wondered why it is not more widely known. From what I have read so far, it covers all of the standard objections and discussion related to this Christian practice, and he does so in a very comprehensive manner. There is not one reasonable objection, of which I have ever heard, that is not thoughtfully and convincingly addressed in this work.
> 
> Marcel was a French Reformed minister in the 20th century, and his approach is both scholarly as well as thoroughly pastoral. In fact, the preface opens the work with an acknowledgment that this subject has often been approached without the love of our brothers in mind, and that he aims to convince Baptists, as well as to strengthen the convictions of the Reformed church, by this theological treatise. I would say that if one were to read this work, there would not be reason for them to read another.
> 
> Another warm and pastorally minded work, but a little less substantial, is Geoffrey Bromiley's _Children of Promise_. A good read that I had not yet seen mentioned, although I haven't read every post of this thread.
> 
> Anyway, I would readily recommend Marcel's work to anyone who is struggling to understand Christian baptism, or who has recently found the position untenable.



Others think that Marcel's work is the best contemporary treatment as well. My guess as to why it is less popular is that he is less well known than Murray, maybe that the book isn't published by a major publisher and sometimes isn't available from many outlets besides seminary bookstores. See here for an article by Fred Malone where he argues that infant baptism is based on the normative principle and that Marcel essentially admits as much. 

I first heard of Bromiley's work when reading Erwin Lutzer's _Doctrines That Divide_. Lutzer said he thought that _Children of Promise_ was the best contemporary defense of paedobaptism. I don't know if that means that he thought it was better than Murray and Marcel or if he had not read them.


----------



## CDM

armourbearer said:


> The exegesis must be taken one step further. It is not a matter of what the text does not say. The text positively states "they that gladly received his word were baptized." What was his word? To repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins, v. 38. To whom was this promise made? Both to those who had been pricked in their hearts and their children, v. 39. From what were they to be saved? From that untoward generation which had taken Christ and crucified him by wicked hands, v. 40, fathers and children alike. The text clearly points to the fact that both fathers and children were baptised and thereby separated from that crooked generation. The only other alternative is that the fathers submitted to baptism and thereby escaped identification with the blood-guilty nation whilst the children remained guilty of their fathers' sin.


----------



## Archlute

Pilgrim said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a brief interjection:
> 
> I have recently had the pleasure of reading through Pierre Marcel's defense of a Reformed view of baptism, and would strongly recommend this book to those who may have any number of questions regarding the exegesis and theology undergirding the baptism of believer's children. I have not found many who have read through this work, though some have heard mention made of it, and I have wondered why it is not more widely known. From what I have read so far, it covers all of the standard objections and discussion related to this Christian practice, and he does so in a very comprehensive manner. There is not one reasonable objection, of which I have ever heard, that is not thoughtfully and convincingly addressed in this work.
> 
> Marcel was a French Reformed minister in the 20th century, and his approach is both scholarly as well as thoroughly pastoral. In fact, the preface opens the work with an acknowledgment that this subject has often been approached without the love of our brothers in mind, and that he aims to convince Baptists, as well as to strengthen the convictions of the Reformed church, by this theological treatise. I would say that if one were to read this work, there would not be reason for them to read another.
> 
> Another warm and pastorally minded work, but a little less substantial, is Geoffrey Bromiley's _Children of Promise_. A good read that I had not yet seen mentioned, although I haven't read every post of this thread.
> 
> Anyway, I would readily recommend Marcel's work to anyone who is struggling to understand Christian baptism, or who has recently found the position untenable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Others think that Marcel's work is the best contemporary treatment as well. My guess as to why it is less popular is that he is less well known than Murray, maybe that the book isn't published by a major publisher and sometimes isn't available from many outlets besides seminary bookstores. See here for an article by Fred Malone where he argues that infant baptism is based on the normative principle and that Marcel essentially admits as much.
> 
> I first heard of Bromiley's work when reading Erwin Lutzer's _Doctrines That Divide_. Lutzer said he thought that _Children of Promise_ was the best contemporary defense of paedobaptism. I don't know if that means that he thought it was better than Murray and Marcel or if he had not read them.
Click to expand...


I didn't really read too much of the article, but saw some of the same misrepresentations of certain issues set forth at the front of that essay in the same manner that Malone argues them in his book. Because of that I don't think that his argument regarding the RPW has any weight.

What Malone does is this:

1. states that baptism is for disciples alone

2. subtly modifies that statement later on to say that baptism is for "professing disciples" alone. Claiming on his own authority that Presbyterians and Baptists are uniformly agreed upon this definition.

3. then hilariously attempts to argue that the baptism of believer's children is a violation of the RPW, although this is based upon his faulty position that disciples must all be "professing disciples".

Assuming that he is speaking of the mandate given to the apostles in Matt. 28:18ff he makes a couple of errors in his assertion.

First, the passage says nothing at all about profession. It could be assumed of adults, but not necessarily of their young children. Now, since Malone cannot conceive of young children actually being disciples of Christ, he ignores this possibility. It should be made clear, however, that the insertion of "professing disciples" is of Malone's own invention and not found in Scripture.

This brings us to the second point. The passage is formed by a governing imperative "make disciples", and followed by two explanatory participles which give the temporal order to the process of making them. They are first to be baptized, and second, to be taught the commands of Christ. These are explanatory participles that describe what it means to "make disciples", and are not to be seen as separate statements on par with the first. Baptists, not grasping the governing/explanatory relationship of these verbs, often attempt to move the temporal sequence to read that we are first to "make disciples" and only then to baptize them. They will, as Malone attempts to do, read this as saying that disciples must be "professing" before they are eligible for baptism.

However, if we understand this as saying that the process of making disciples is one of ongoing education in the commands of Christ, and that it can start with the youngest child even as they see us living out the Christian life before them, and are raised in the nurture and instruction of the Scriptures and the life of the Church, then there is absolutely nothing outside of the RPW to prohibit making disciples of our children by baptizing them and then instructing them as they grow in our homes. 

Finally, in his misuse of the Marcel quote, we have yet another example of Malone's habit of engaging in flawed argumentation by founding arguments upon poor scholarship. He assumes that the "normative principles" of which Marcel speaks, have anything to do with the "Normative Principle" of worship. I really do not think that what Marcel is getting at is anything other than good and necessary consequence, which is rather plain from reading the entirety of the quote. Malone is attempting to overturn Marcel's argument by taking one passage out of context, misunderstanding it, and then saying that it proves his own point - hey, wait a minute! That is exactly how the Baptist argument commonly exegetes Scripture as well


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

In post #249 you write, Chris, 

Acts 2:41 plainly states that those who received Peter's word were baptized. I'm seriously not trying to be inflammatory, but to try to fit infant baptism in there is almost as bad in my view as the tortured exegesis that Roman Catholics use in trying to prove their doctrines about the papacy or Mary.​
“Acts 2:41 plainly states that those who received Peter's word were baptized.” Of course I agree thus far. But consider the context, and by this I mean the mind of the Jewish father listening to Peter when he says (2:38), “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

This was a crisis moment in the nation of Israel, for they had killed the Messiah, concerning whose word, those who heeded it not would consequently “be destroyed from among the people” (Acts 3:23), and not only themselves, but the families they were heads over. Because the apostle(s) with great power gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus (4:33), the people listening to Peter were cut to the heart by the presence of the risen Lord – the Lord of Glory – and knew that all who partook, in faith, of the new initiatory sign of submission and allegiance to the new covenant mediated by Christ were in God’s Israel; and all who did not, were cut off from the people and their God.

When Peter says (2:39), “For the promise is unto you, and to your children...” it rang on their ears as the ancient covenant rang on Abraham’s, *For the command is unto you, and to thy seed after thee....who receives it not, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken My covenant.* (Cf. Gen 17:10-14)

This “promise” Peter spoke of was not only _promise_, it was the very inheritance of Israel, the command of God through His Son, and the life or death of the soul listening, and his house. 

It was the principle of obedience, in which the Jews had been trained long centuries, concerning the obedience of the fathers – starting with Abraham – bringing their infant children into the covenant of the people of God. To deny the token of the covenant on a child rendered that child cut off from God’s people (Gen 17:14).

Now that Messiah sat enthroned over the kingdom, *to order it* (Isaiah 9:7) – *which these listening Jews saw in vision by the grace of the Holy Spirit* – those words, “For the promise is unto you, and to your children” spoke of the everlasting covenant (Gen 17:13), and inclusion in it or exclusion from it, and as Jews they knew that, as with Abraham, their children’s inclusion depended on their obedience. It was a glad tiding, and they that gladly received it were baptized, and – in an ancient pattern of obedience – withheld it not from their seed. To allege they _did_ withhold it is to do violence to the context of Jewish life and faith, and is without warrant.

So when you say, “I'm seriously not trying to be inflammatory, but to try to fit infant baptism in there is almost as bad in my view as the tortured exegesis that Roman Catholics use in trying to prove their doctrines about the papacy or Mary”, you betray your lack of affinity with the Jewish mind, and with the historical-grammatical approach to exegesis.

These first converts to Messiah may not have clearly understood, as Paul was later to explain (Col 2:10-13), that baptism was “the circumcision of Christ”, but they knew that the *sign* they were receiving at the command of the apostles, was the *seal of the righteousness* they already had been given by the Holy Spirit through faith in the gospel preached unto them. This was in profound continuity with the everlasting covenant they were heirs of with Abraham. That these Jews denied their seed the promise through disobedience to the covenant commands – commands unchanged, though the sign openly was – is unthinkable. Though somehow you do think it!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Archlute said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a brief interjection:
> 
> I have recently had the pleasure of reading through Pierre Marcel's defense of a Reformed view of baptism, and would strongly recommend this book to those who may have any number of questions regarding the exegesis and theology undergirding the baptism of believer's children. I have not found many who have read through this work, though some have heard mention made of it, and I have wondered why it is not more widely known. From what I have read so far, it covers all of the standard objections and discussion related to this Christian practice, and he does so in a very comprehensive manner. There is not one reasonable objection, of which I have ever heard, that is not thoughtfully and convincingly addressed in this work.
> 
> Marcel was a French Reformed minister in the 20th century, and his approach is both scholarly as well as thoroughly pastoral. In fact, the preface opens the work with an acknowledgment that this subject has often been approached without the love of our brothers in mind, and that he aims to convince Baptists, as well as to strengthen the convictions of the Reformed church, by this theological treatise. I would say that if one were to read this work, there would not be reason for them to read another.
> 
> Another warm and pastorally minded work, but a little less substantial, is Geoffrey Bromiley's _Children of Promise_. A good read that I had not yet seen mentioned, although I haven't read every post of this thread.
> 
> Anyway, I would readily recommend Marcel's work to anyone who is struggling to understand Christian baptism, or who has recently found the position untenable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Others think that Marcel's work is the best contemporary treatment as well. My guess as to why it is less popular is that he is less well known than Murray, maybe that the book isn't published by a major publisher and sometimes isn't available from many outlets besides seminary bookstores. See here for an article by Fred Malone where he argues that infant baptism is based on the normative principle and that Marcel essentially admits as much.
> 
> I first heard of Bromiley's work when reading Erwin Lutzer's _Doctrines That Divide_. Lutzer said he thought that _Children of Promise_ was the best contemporary defense of paedobaptism. I don't know if that means that he thought it was better than Murray and Marcel or if he had not read them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't really read too much of the article, but saw some of the same misrepresentations of certain issues set forth at the front of that essay in the same manner that Malone argues them in his book. Because of that I don't think that his argument regarding the RPW has any weight.
> 
> What Malone does is this:
> 
> 1. states that baptism is for disciples alone
> 
> 2. subtly modifies that statement later on to say that baptism is for "professing disciples" alone. Claiming on his own authority that Presbyterians and Baptists are uniformly agreed upon this definition.
> 
> 3. then hilariously attempts to argue that the baptism of believer's children is a violation of the RPW, although this is based upon his faulty position that disciples must all be "professing disciples".
> 
> Assuming that he is speaking of the mandate given to the apostles in Matt. 28:18ff he makes a couple of errors in his assertion.
> 
> First, the passage says nothing at all about profession. It could be assumed of adults, but not necessarily of their young children. Now, since Malone cannot conceive of young children actually being disciples of Christ, he ignores this possibility. It should be made clear, however, that the insertion of "professing disciples" is of Malone's own invention and not found in Scripture.
> 
> This brings us to the second point. The passage is formed by a governing imperative "make disciples", and followed by two explanatory participles which give the temporal order to the process of making them. They are first to be baptized, and second, to be taught the commands of Christ. These are explanatory participles that describe what it means to "make disciples", and are not to be seen as separate statements on par with the first. Baptists, not grasping the governing/explanatory relationship of these verbs, often attempt to move the temporal sequence to read that we are first to "make disciples" and only then to baptize them. They will, as Malone attempts to do, read this as saying that disciples must be "professing" before they are eligible for baptism.
> 
> However, if we understand this as saying that the process of making disciples is one of ongoing education in the commands of Christ, and that it can start with the youngest child even as they see us living out the Christian life before them, and are raised in the nurture and instruction of the Scriptures and the life of the Church, then there is absolutely nothing outside of the RPW to prohibit making disciples of our children by baptizing them and then instructing them as they grow in our homes.
> 
> Finally, in his misuse of the Marcel quote, we have yet another example of Malone's habit of engaging in flawed argumentation by founding arguments upon poor scholarship. He assumes that the "normative principles" of which Marcel speaks, have anything to do with the "Normative Principle" of worship. I really do not think that what Marcel is getting at is anything other than good and necessary consequence, which is rather plain from reading the entirety of the quote. Malone is attempting to overturn Marcel's argument by taking one passage out of context, misunderstanding it, and then saying that it proves his own point - hey, wait a minute! That is exactly how the Baptist argument commonly exegetes Scripture as well
Click to expand...


Excellent. As I retired for bed last night I thought to myself about how a Baptist believes that disciple and professor are the same idea. It's almost as if the word "disciple" is spoken that we must be referring to someone who is saved (I was asked if I would baptize an unsaved person as if only saved people are disciples or as if I would know that every person I baptized is saved).

Thus, because their children don't fit the a priori definition of disciple, a Baptist will read Paul commanding parents to train their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord and commanding children to obey their parents on promise of spiritual blessing but it is impossible that they would be disciples.

I've told a number of folks that I think the greatest harm that the RB does is to the view of discipleship in general: both professors and the young. We have no guarantees with either and the process of discipleship is not a certain "absolute conversion" followed by certain sanctification for all. Some are converted later, some are never converted, but if we understand the role of the means of grace then we have no problem exhorting as the author of Hebrews does without having to get into hypotheticals that the warnings aren't really appropriate.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

If you denigrate "good and necessary inference" so much, then where is your positive command *not* to Baptize infants? How would you defend the doctrine of the Trinity?

Curious,

-CH


----------



## Pilgrim

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> If you denigrate "good and necessary inference" so much, then where is your positive command *not* to Baptize infants? How would you defend the doctrine of the Trinity?
> 
> Curious,
> 
> -CH



There is no need for a positive command not to baptize infants but rather there is a need for a positive command to baptize them. Where is your positive command not to burn incense during worship or not to play musical instruments in worship? 

I already answered the same question from Daniel about the Trinity a few posts ago. Defending the Trinity is off topic here. Besides, it is almost 2am, so I'm sure you won't mind if I don't get into it right now.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Pilgrim said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can any think Christ would leave one of the great sacraments of the New Testament, not to be proved without consequences?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a poor statement from Benjamin Keach. The doctrine of the Trinity and the hypostatic union of Christ's natures is based on GNC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, the doctrine of the Trinity and the hypostatic union are not sacraments. But I'm quite sure that Keach would have maintained that those doctrines are *necessarily contained* in the Scriptures and that unlike the practice of infant baptism, they are plainly derived from the Scriptures although of course our finite minds cannot grasp all there is to know about the relationship within the Trinity and the hypostatic union.
Click to expand...


To say that a fundamental doctrine like the Trinity or the hypostatic union can be based on GNC deductions, but a secondary issue like the sacraments can't is somewhat strange. The fact that NT believers have not been commanded to no longer give the sign and seal of the covenant of grace and membership of the visible church to their children is GNC enough as a basis to baptize them and is fully consistent with the RPW when properly understood.


----------



## Pilgrim

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a poor statement from Benjamin Keach. The doctrine of the Trinity and the hypostatic union of Christ's natures is based on GNC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, the doctrine of the Trinity and the hypostatic union are not sacraments. But I'm quite sure that Keach would have maintained that those doctrines are *necessarily contained* in the Scriptures and that unlike the practice of infant baptism, they are plainly derived from the Scriptures although of course our finite minds cannot grasp all there is to know about the relationship within the Trinity and the hypostatic union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To say that a fundamental doctrine like the Trinity or the hypostatic union can be based on GNC deductions, but a secondary issue like the sacraments can't is somewhat strange. The fact that NT believers have not been commanded to no longer give the sign and seal of the covenant of grace and membership of the visible church to their children is GNC enough as a basis to baptize them and is fully consistent with the RPW when properly understood.
Click to expand...


I haven't said that they are based on GNC. If y'all are going to continue to assert that GNC is the same as "necessarily contained" then we are just going to have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Pilgrim said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, the doctrine of the Trinity and the hypostatic union are not sacraments. But I'm quite sure that Keach would have maintained that those doctrines are *necessarily contained* in the Scriptures and that unlike the practice of infant baptism, they are plainly derived from the Scriptures although of course our finite minds cannot grasp all there is to know about the relationship within the Trinity and the hypostatic union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To say that a fundamental doctrine like the Trinity or the hypostatic union can be based on GNC deductions, but a secondary issue like the sacraments can't is somewhat strange. The fact that NT believers have not been commanded to no longer give the sign and seal of the covenant of grace and membership of the visible church to their children is GNC enough as a basis to baptize them and is fully consistent with the RPW when properly understood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't said that they are based on GNC. If y'all are going to continue to assert that GNC is the same as "necessarily contained" then we are just going to have to agree to disagree.
Click to expand...


So you do not agree with GNC then?


----------



## ChristopherPaul

Archlute said:


> As a brief interjection:
> 
> I have recently had the pleasure of reading through Pierre Marcel's defense of a Reformed view of baptism, and would strongly recommend this book to those who may have any number of questions regarding the exegesis and theology undergirding the baptism of believer's children. I have not found many who have read through this work, though some have heard mention made of it, and I have wondered why it is not more widely known. From what I have read so far, it covers all of the standard objections and discussion related to this Christian practice, and he does so in a very comprehensive manner. There is not one reasonable objection, of which I have ever heard, that is not thoughtfully and convincingly addressed in this work.
> 
> Marcel was a French Reformed minister in the 20th century, and his approach is both scholarly as well as thoroughly pastoral. In fact, the preface opens the work with an acknowledgment that this subject has often been approached without the love of our brothers in mind, and that he aims to convince Baptists, as well as to strengthen the convictions of the Reformed church, by this theological treatise. I would say that if one were to read this work, there would not be reason for them to read another.
> 
> Another warm and pastorally minded work, but a little less substantial, is Geoffrey Bromiley's _Children of Promise_. A good read that I had not yet seen mentioned, although I haven't read every post of this thread.
> 
> Anyway, I would readily recommend Marcel's work to anyone who is struggling to understand Christian baptism, or who has recently found the position untenable.



Thank you Adam,

For clarification, I found Marcel at WTS but the book is listed with a different title, _Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism_. Is this the book you are referring?


----------



## Pilgrim

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> To say that a fundamental doctrine like the Trinity or the hypostatic union can be based on GNC deductions, but a secondary issue like the sacraments can't is somewhat strange. The fact that NT believers have not been commanded to no longer give the sign and seal of the covenant of grace and membership of the visible church to their children is GNC enough as a basis to baptize them and is fully consistent with the RPW when properly understood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't said that they are based on GNC. If y'all are going to continue to assert that GNC is the same as "necessarily contained" then we are just going to have to agree to disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you do not agree with GNC then?
Click to expand...


Is the phrase found in the confession to which I subscribe?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

It sounds like we need to agree on what a disciple is. It is either someone who has put on Christ and who follows the teachings of Christ and is able to be disciplined by those teachings or it is anyone who is being evangelized.

I wonder how the New testament speaks of disciples. What are the characteristics of a disciple?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

One more thing. Concerning the Tinity. It is spoken of in terms of all three persons being called God in the New Testament. It has mentions like Name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And plus, we have the relations between the persons of the Godhead plainly spelled out in John's Gospel. I just don't see any mentions of infant disciples. I mean kids (infants) that can't reason or have affection for something they have no capable knowledge of. At least unless God miraculously gives them the intelligence.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

What do you make of a text like: "...of such [brephe] are the kingdom of heaven"? Just because it doesn't use the word "disciple"? Well, I mean besides the fact that the ignorant Disciples were trying to keep these ones away...


----------



## ChristopherPaul

"Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples), he left Judea and departed again for Galilee" (John 4:1-3 ESV).

"After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him" (John 6:66 ESV).


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

In reference to that passage, I believe Jesus is emphasising that Children are just as important to seek a blessing for as we should seek a blessing for adults. The women brought the babies to be blessed by Christ and the disciples were forbidding them. We should seek for God's blessing upon children as we would adults. That is what the passage is about.

You are correct. The passage doesn't call them disciples. I was making a reference to the Godhead and that each member is called God. Someone in a post above was relating our discussion on inference concerning infants and discipleship in relation to inferences concerning the Trinity. I thought it was a bad comparison. I just noted the differences. One can be seen in that all three members of the Trinity are called God. The other is not as easily deducted or inferred.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

ChristopherPaul said:


> "Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples), he left Judea and departed again for Galilee" (John 4:1-3 ESV).
> 
> "After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him" (John 6:66 ESV).




These disciples were actively followers. They stopped being disciples. As Murray notes these were not under Christian baptism yet. The commission had not been instituted.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Pilgrim said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't said that they are based on GNC. If y'all are going to continue to assert that GNC is the same as "necessarily contained" then we are just going to have to agree to disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you do not agree with GNC then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is the phrase found in the confession to which I subscribe?
Click to expand...


So what is your answer?


----------



## Pilgrim

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you do not agree with GNC then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the phrase found in the confession to which I subscribe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what is your answer?
Click to expand...


I'll answer in two parts. 

1. I haven't done as much detailed study as I'd like on what the Baptists who adopted the 2nd London Baptist Confession thought the distinction was between "good and necessary consequence" and "necessarily contained." However, since they typically followed the wording of the WCF (or the Congregationalists' Savoy Declaration in some instances) unless they disagreed with it, it is clear that by not including GNC they were attempting to avoid the practice of creating authoritative doctrines from the Bible that are based on what fallen human logic thinks must represent the Biblical teaching but which are not clearly derived from the text itself. Examples of this in their mind would no doubt include infant baptism as well as Presbyterian church government with its system of courts, etc. 

2. Even if one accepts the premise of authoritative doctrines from the Bible that can be derived via good and necessary consequence, infant baptism is neither a good nor necessary consequence from Holy Writ.


----------



## Herald

> Even if one accepts the premise of authoritative doctrines from the Bible that can be derived via good and necessary consequence, infant baptism is neither a good nor necessary consequence from Holy Writ.



All this begs the question of, "Who are we trying to convince?" Chris, I think the thread has now transcended your defense of why you switched baptismal positions. As in all PB baptism threads, this one has taken on a life of its own. I have always sensed an underlying tension between credos and paedos that has lead to a sort of détente. Another moderator on the paedo side (who I greatly respect) stated that he avoids the baptism threads for reasons such as this. Others feel led, almost compelled, to dive in. It has all the resemblance of a moth to the flame scenario. That's why I tied my dog to the front porch in this latest fray, although I've recently read the threads with much interest.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

PuritanCovenanter said:


> You are correct. The passage doesn't call them disciples. I was making a reference to the Godhead and that each member is called God. Someone in a post above was relating our discussion on inference concerning infants and discipleship in relation to inferences concerning the Trinity. I thought it was a bad comparison. I just noted the differences. One can be seen in that all three members of the Trinity are called God. The other is not as easily deducted or inferred.


Except, that Jesus states _explicitly_ that the kingdom of heaven counted among its citizens ones of _infancy_, just as these persons. So I do not see how you can say this is just an obscure deduction or vague inference?!?

Your explanation of the passage [not quoted here] isn't nearly as good as Murray's (whom you referenced, so I know you've read it).


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

(Mat 13:38) *The field is the world*; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
(Mat 13:41) The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

In the first place I have never read "that Jesus states explicitly that the kingdom of heaven counted among its citizens ones of infancy". That is a stretch. I have read...(Mat 19:14) But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.


I do not deny that the Kingdom is for adults and children. I am not so sure that that equates necessarily to citizenship though. I do believe it ends in citizenship if one becomes humble and has the faith of a child. That is what the text says. Plain and simple the text is about the disciples forbidding the mothers who want Jesus to pray for the children. That is something everyone should want. The text is also about how one comes into the Kingdom attitude wise and that children are just as important to Christ as adults. Jesus is concerned about children as he is men.

And yeah, you were correct. I was sloppy with Murray. I was speaking about his view of Christian baptism. Not necessarily his view of the disciples who departed. I was wrong for being sloppy. I was speaking about Murray's view of Christian baptism and that Christian baptism didn't happen until after Matthew 28:19 or the great commission. 
Thanks for calling me on it.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Pilgrim said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the phrase found in the confession to which I subscribe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what is your answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll answer in two parts.
> 
> 1. I haven't done as much detailed study as I'd like on what the Baptists who adopted the 2nd London Baptist Confession thought the distinction was between "good and necessary consequence" and "necessarily contained." However, since they typically followed the wording of the WCF (or the Congregationalists' Savoy Declaration in some instances) unless they disagreed with it, it is clear that by not including GNC they were attempting to avoid the practice of creating authoritative doctrines from the Bible that are based on what fallen human logic thinks must represent the Biblical teaching but which are not clearly derived from the text itself. Examples of this in their mind would no doubt include infant baptism as well as Presbyterian church government with its system of courts, etc.
> 
> 2. Even if one accepts the premise of authoritative doctrines from the Bible that can be derived via good and necessary consequence, infant baptism is neither a good nor necessary consequence from Holy Writ.
Click to expand...


With point one you are going to have a hard job holding to the Trinity.

Point 2 is much to simplistic an assertion because if covenant of children are still in the covenant of grace and the visible church, then they should receive the sign of belonging to both. Indeed, even the practice of household baptisms constitutes GNC as these texts are meaningless from a Baptistic viewpoint.


----------



## Herald

Question of interpretation. Is it really the faith of a child, or faith _as_ a child? Is this passage in Matthew dealing with the subjective faith of children or the disposition towards faith that all recipients of the kingdom are to have? I have a definite opinion on this and it results in this passage having absolutely no positive implications regarding baptism.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what is your answer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll answer in two parts.
> 
> 1. I haven't done as much detailed study as I'd like on what the Baptists who adopted the 2nd London Baptist Confession thought the distinction was between "good and necessary consequence" and "necessarily contained." However, since they typically followed the wording of the WCF (or the Congregationalists' Savoy Declaration in some instances) unless they disagreed with it, it is clear that by not including GNC they were attempting to avoid the practice of creating authoritative doctrines from the Bible that are based on what fallen human logic thinks must represent the Biblical teaching but which are not clearly derived from the text itself. Examples of this in their mind would no doubt include infant baptism as well as Presbyterian church government with its system of courts, etc.
> 
> 2. Even if one accepts the premise of authoritative doctrines from the Bible that can be derived via good and necessary consequence, infant baptism is neither a good nor necessary consequence from Holy Writ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With point one you are going to have a hard job holding to the Trinity.
> 
> Point 2 is much to simplistic an assertion because if covenant of children are still in the covenant of grace and the visible church, then they should receive the sign of belonging to both. Indeed, even the practice of household baptisms constitutes GNC as these texts are meaningless from a Baptistic viewpoint.
Click to expand...


Well now if that isn't an opinionated answer. 

I am trying to lighten up the discussion. 

But obviously it is opinionated and biased as all of our answers are. 

As Scott Bushey noted once.....


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll answer in two parts.
> 
> 1. I haven't done as much detailed study as I'd like on what the Baptists who adopted the 2nd London Baptist Confession thought the distinction was between "good and necessary consequence" and "necessarily contained." However, since they typically followed the wording of the WCF (or the Congregationalists' Savoy Declaration in some instances) unless they disagreed with it, it is clear that by not including GNC they were attempting to avoid the practice of creating authoritative doctrines from the Bible that are based on what fallen human logic thinks must represent the Biblical teaching but which are not clearly derived from the text itself. Examples of this in their mind would no doubt include infant baptism as well as Presbyterian church government with its system of courts, etc.
> 
> 2. Even if one accepts the premise of authoritative doctrines from the Bible that can be derived via good and necessary consequence, infant baptism is neither a good nor necessary consequence from Holy Writ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With point one you are going to have a hard job holding to the Trinity.
> 
> Point 2 is much to simplistic an assertion because if covenant of children are still in the covenant of grace and the visible church, then they should receive the sign of belonging to both. Indeed, even the practice of household baptisms constitutes GNC as these texts are meaningless from a Baptistic viewpoint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well now if that isn't an opinionated answer.
> 
> I am trying to lighten up the discussion.
> 
> But obviously it is opinionated and biased as all of our answers are.
> 
> As Scott Bushey noted once.....
Click to expand...


----------



## Pilgrim

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what is your answer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll answer in two parts.
> 
> 1. I haven't done as much detailed study as I'd like on what the Baptists who adopted the 2nd London Baptist Confession thought the distinction was between "good and necessary consequence" and "necessarily contained." However, since they typically followed the wording of the WCF (or the Congregationalists' Savoy Declaration in some instances) unless they disagreed with it, it is clear that by not including GNC they were attempting to avoid the practice of creating authoritative doctrines from the Bible that are based on what fallen human logic thinks must represent the Biblical teaching but which are not clearly derived from the text itself. Examples of this in their mind would no doubt include infant baptism as well as Presbyterian church government with its system of courts, etc.
> 
> 2. Even if one accepts the premise of authoritative doctrines from the Bible that can be derived via good and necessary consequence, infant baptism is neither a good nor necessary consequence from Holy Writ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With point one you are going to have a hard job holding to the Trinity.
> 
> Point 2 is much to simplistic an assertion because if covenant of children are still in the covenant of grace and the visible church, then they should receive the sign of belonging to both. Indeed, even the practice of household baptisms constitutes GNC as these texts are meaningless from a Baptistic viewpoint.
Click to expand...


I want to do more study on point 1. A Baptist brother sent me a few links this afternoon, and apparently there is no known extant commentary or statement by those who produced the 1689 explaining this change of wording. Some leading scholars like Jim Renihan believe that "necessarily contained" was simply an attempt to state GNC more precisely and there was no substantial change in meaning. I know some others disagree. I know some Baptists who prefer the GNC language and wish it had been retained. 

As to point 2, I disagree that the household passages are meaningless from a Baptistic viewpoint. They are certainly no more meaningless than Acts 2:41 is from a paedo viewpoint. There have been instances of entire households professing Christ and being baptized at the same time.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Pilgrim said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll answer in two parts.
> 
> 1. I haven't done as much detailed study as I'd like on what the Baptists who adopted the 2nd London Baptist Confession thought the distinction was between "good and necessary consequence" and "necessarily contained." However, since they typically followed the wording of the WCF (or the Congregationalists' Savoy Declaration in some instances) unless they disagreed with it, it is clear that by not including GNC they were attempting to avoid the practice of creating authoritative doctrines from the Bible that are based on what fallen human logic thinks must represent the Biblical teaching but which are not clearly derived from the text itself. Examples of this in their mind would no doubt include infant baptism as well as Presbyterian church government with its system of courts, etc.
> 
> 2. Even if one accepts the premise of authoritative doctrines from the Bible that can be derived via good and necessary consequence, infant baptism is neither a good nor necessary consequence from Holy Writ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With point one you are going to have a hard job holding to the Trinity.
> 
> Point 2 is much to simplistic an assertion because if covenant of children are still in the covenant of grace and the visible church, then they should receive the sign of belonging to both. Indeed, even the practice of household baptisms constitutes GNC as these texts are meaningless from a Baptistic viewpoint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want to do more study on point 1. A Baptist brother sent me a few links this afternoon, and apparently there is no known extant commentary or statement by those who produced the 1689 explaining this change of wording. Some leading scholars like Jim Renihan believe that "necessarily contained" was simply an attempt to state GNC more precisely and there was no substantial change in meaning. I know some others disagree. I know some Baptists who prefer the GNC language and wish it had been retained.
> 
> As to point 2, I disagree that the household passages are meaningless from a Baptistic viewpoint. They are certainly no more meaningless than Acts 2:41 is from a paedo viewpoint. There have been instances of entire households professing Christ and being baptized at the same time.
Click to expand...


Point 2 cannot work from a Baptist standpoint, as we would have to read that individuals professed faith and were Baptized. Acts 2:41 does not militate against a paedo-view as requirements for partaking of the two sacraments are different. While I respect your view, I must confess I was somewhat surprised that you changed your position on the strength of one verse which is far from irreconciable with a paedo-baptist position.


----------



## Pilgrim

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> With point one you are going to have a hard job holding to the Trinity.
> 
> Point 2 is much to simplistic an assertion because if covenant of children are still in the covenant of grace and the visible church, then they should receive the sign of belonging to both. Indeed, even the practice of household baptisms constitutes GNC as these texts are meaningless from a Baptistic viewpoint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I want to do more study on point 1. A Baptist brother sent me a few links this afternoon, and apparently there is no known extant commentary or statement by those who produced the 1689 explaining this change of wording. Some leading scholars like Jim Renihan believe that "necessarily contained" was simply an attempt to state GNC more precisely and there was no substantial change in meaning. I know some others disagree. I know some Baptists who prefer the GNC language and wish it had been retained.
> 
> As to point 2, I disagree that the household passages are meaningless from a Baptistic viewpoint. They are certainly no more meaningless than Acts 2:41 is from a paedo viewpoint. There have been instances of entire households professing Christ and being baptized at the same time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Point 2 cannot work from a Baptist standpoint, as we would have to read that individuals professed faith and were Baptized. Acts 2:41 does not militate against a paedo-view as requirements for partaking of the two sacraments are different. While I respect your view, I must confess I was somewhat surprised that you changed your position on the strength of one verse which is far from irreconciable with a paedo-baptist position.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure I understand your argument in your first sentence here about having to read the passage as teaching that individuals professed faith and were baptized. That of course is our position. 

My change was not merely on the basis of one verse, although I can certainly understand how it appears that way if you read the OP in isolation. That passage is what got me thinking about the whole issue again, but it is not the sole basis for the change. I've laid out more comprehensive reasons in the thread however. 

One's position should do justice to all of the Biblical data, not just some passages where it may appear to make more sense than other positions.


----------



## MW

Pilgrim said:


> As to point 2, I disagree that the household passages are meaningless from a Baptistic viewpoint. They are certainly no more meaningless than Acts 2:41 is from a paedo viewpoint. There have been instances of entire households professing Christ and being baptized at the same time.



Household baptisms on the basis of all professing Christ would be an accidental circumstance, not an intentional practice -- it may or may not happen. But the salvation and baptism of households in the NT clearly point to an intentional pattern. In the case of Zacchaeus, salvation came to his house without any mention of the presence of other individuals, Luke 19:9. This indicates an intentional inclusion of households in the covenant of grace unconditioned by individual response.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

PuritanCovenanter said:


> ChristopherPaul said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples), he left Judea and departed again for Galilee" (John 4:1-3 ESV).
> 
> "After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him" (John 6:66 ESV).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These disciples were actively followers. They stopped being disciples. As Murray notes these were not under Christian baptism yet. The commission had not been instituted.
Click to expand...




I am not emphasizing the baptism but how the text speaks of "disciple." You asked how the NT speaks of disciples. Can the gospel accounts be included? Are these not followers of Christ who recognized by the 12 disciples under Christ's headship as being repentant?

If this were post commission, would that change anything?


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Pilgrim said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi:
> 
> If you denigrate "good and necessary inference" so much, then where is your positive command *not* to Baptize infants? How would you defend the doctrine of the Trinity?
> 
> Curious,
> 
> -CH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no need for a positive command not to baptize infants but rather there is a need for a positive command to baptize them. Where is your positive command not to burn incense during worship or not to play musical instruments in worship?
> 
> I already answered the same question from Daniel about the Trinity a few posts ago. Defending the Trinity is off topic here. Besides, it is almost 2am, so I'm sure you won't mind if I don't get into it right now.
Click to expand...


Hey:

I think you missed the point. I *believe* in "good and necessary inference" and thus I can make such arguments that show incense burning and musical instruments are no longer required. I was not asking you to defend the Trinity - it was a rhetorical question. The Trinity is proved by "good and necessary inference" and is a vital doctrine of Scripture.

We have a positive command to allow children in the New Everlasting Covenant, Genesis 17:14.

Since you do not believe in "good and necessary inference" then you must have a positive command that now forbids children in the New and Everlasting Covenant?

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## Herald

Robert, I really love this thread. On the main page of "Today's Posts" it reads, "Why I became a Baptist." The last post (before this one) was you. So it said, "Why I became a Baptist...Calvin and Hodges."

Beautiful!


----------



## CalvinandHodges

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Robert, I really love this thread. On the main page of "Today's Posts" it reads, "Why I became a Baptist." The last post (before this one) was you. So it said, "Why I became a Baptist...Calvin and Hodges."
> 
> Beautiful!





Both Calvin and Hodge were true Baptists! 

-CH


----------



## Pilgrim

CalvinandHodges said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi:
> 
> If you denigrate "good and necessary inference" so much, then where is your positive command *not* to Baptize infants? How would you defend the doctrine of the Trinity?
> 
> Curious,
> 
> -CH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no need for a positive command not to baptize infants but rather there is a need for a positive command to baptize them. Where is your positive command not to burn incense during worship or not to play musical instruments in worship?
> 
> I already answered the same question from Daniel about the Trinity a few posts ago. Defending the Trinity is off topic here. Besides, it is almost 2am, so I'm sure you won't mind if I don't get into it right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey:
> 
> I think you missed the point. I *believe* in "good and necessary inference" and thus I can make such arguments that show incense burning and musical instruments are no longer required. I was not asking you to defend the Trinity - it was a rhetorical question. The Trinity is proved by "good and necessary inference" and is a vital doctrine of Scripture.
> 
> We have a positive command to allow children in the New Everlasting Covenant, Genesis 17:14.
> 
> Since you do not believe in "good and necessary inference" then you must have a positive command that now forbids children in the New and Everlasting Covenant?
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> -CH
Click to expand...


Sometimes it helps to read all of the posts in a thread, especially a long one like this one before responding. I've often been guilty of that myself. I do believe in the validity of GNC although I prefer the phrase "necessarily contained" in the LBCF. That confessional issue is really tangential, although it did help me to learn what Jim Renihan and others think about it. 

The argument from Gen. 17 had me convinced for several years. It's the simplest and most logically compelling argument for covenant paedobaptism. If you accept that premise then the household baptism passages and many others seem to fall right into place. But I do not believe that it is a legitimate inference from the Scriptures. I don't accept your premise that the covenant of grace is administered in the same way in the New Covenant as it was in the old. Moreover, if baptism is exactly the same as circumcision, then why did not Paul silence the Judiazers by simply explaining that baptism had replaced circumcision?


----------



## TheocraticMonarchist

C&H

I have some Q's about the your following statments. I'm new to the P boards, and don't have much experience with reformed folk... so I'm not much up on this baptism debate .




CalvinandHodges said:


> Jesus says that the children of Godly parents are "members of the Kingdom of Heaven," Mt 19:13, Mk 10:13.



Could you please explain to me where you see this in the text?

Mathew 19

13 Then little children were brought to Him that He might put His hands on them and pray, but the disciples rebuked them. 14 But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” 15 And He laid His hands on them and departed from there.

Mark 10

13 Then they brought little children to Him, that He might touch them; but the disciples rebuked those who brought them. 14 But when Jesus saw it, He was greatly displeased and said to them, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God. 15 Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.”

It takes humility for a rabi such as Jesus halt His buisy schedule and recieve children. Is it possible that Jesus is telling His desciples that they have to humbly recieve the kingdome of God as they would have to humbly recieve a child?



CalvinandHodges said:


> 1 Cor 7:14 - The faith of a believer sanctifies his/her spouse for the sake of their children who are then considered "holy." The word can also be translated "saint."




If we baptisme unbelieving children, should we not also baptise unbelieving spouses too?

Thanks


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Pilgrim said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no need for a positive command not to baptize infants but rather there is a need for a positive command to baptize them. Where is your positive command not to burn incense during worship or not to play musical instruments in worship?
> 
> I already answered the same question from Daniel about the Trinity a few posts ago. Defending the Trinity is off topic here. Besides, it is almost 2am, so I'm sure you won't mind if I don't get into it right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey:
> 
> I think you missed the point. I *believe* in "good and necessary inference" and thus I can make such arguments that show incense burning and musical instruments are no longer required. I was not asking you to defend the Trinity - it was a rhetorical question. The Trinity is proved by "good and necessary inference" and is a vital doctrine of Scripture.
> 
> We have a positive command to allow children in the New Everlasting Covenant, Genesis 17:14.
> 
> Since you do not believe in "good and necessary inference" then you must have a positive command that now forbids children in the New and Everlasting Covenant?
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> -CH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sometimes it helps to read all of the posts in a thread, especially a long one like this one before responding. I've often been guilty of that myself. I do believe in the validity of GNC although I prefer the phrase "necessarily contained" in the LBCF. That confessional issue is really tangential, although it did help me to learn what Jim Renihan and others think about it.
> 
> The argument from Gen. 17 had me convinced for several years. It's the simplest and most logically compelling argument for covenant paedobaptism. If you accept that premise then the household baptism passages and many others seem to fall right into place. But I do not believe that it is a legitimate inference from the Scriptures. I don't accept your premise that the covenant of grace is administered in the same way in the New Covenant as it was in the old. Moreover, if baptism is exactly the same as circumcision, then why did not Paul silence the Judiazers by simply explaining that baptism had replaced circumcision?
Click to expand...


Your last point is an argument from silence. Moreover, the Judaizers were teaching that circumcision was essential in order to be saved. Furthermore, Paul was writing during the period of transition between the Old and New Covenants when it was permissable for Jewish believers to have both signs, so such an explanation would not have been sufficient.

The Baptist view of the covenant of grace would have us believe that the new and better covenant excludes the children of believers and puts them out of the visible church. Such an idea would have been unthinkable to those brought up in the Hebraic mindset. It is not surprising however that such an idea is accepted widely by Christians living after the Renaissance and Enlightenment.


----------



## Archlute

ChristopherPaul said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a brief interjection:
> 
> I have recently had the pleasure of reading through Pierre Marcel's defense of a Reformed view of baptism, and would strongly recommend this book to those who may have any number of questions regarding the exegesis and theology undergirding the baptism of believer's children. I have not found many who have read through this work, though some have heard mention made of it, and I have wondered why it is not more widely known. From what I have read so far, it covers all of the standard objections and discussion related to this Christian practice, and he does so in a very comprehensive manner. There is not one reasonable objection, of which I have ever heard, that is not thoughtfully and convincingly addressed in this work.
> 
> Marcel was a French Reformed minister in the 20th century, and his approach is both scholarly as well as thoroughly pastoral. In fact, the preface opens the work with an acknowledgment that this subject has often been approached without the love of our brothers in mind, and that he aims to convince Baptists, as well as to strengthen the convictions of the Reformed church, by this theological treatise. I would say that if one were to read this work, there would not be reason for them to read another.
> 
> Another warm and pastorally minded work, but a little less substantial, is Geoffrey Bromiley's _Children of Promise_. A good read that I had not yet seen mentioned, although I haven't read every post of this thread.
> 
> Anyway, I would readily recommend Marcel's work to anyone who is struggling to understand Christian baptism, or who has recently found the position untenable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you Adam,
> 
> For clarification, I found Marcel at WTS but the book is listed with a different title, _Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism_. Is this the book you are referring?
Click to expand...


That's the one. 

I am sorry for confusing you and causing you to look for it under a different title. I didn't have it on hand, so I just threw "a defense of a Reformed view of baptism" out there as a general description.


----------



## KMK

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey:
> 
> I think you missed the point. I *believe* in "good and necessary inference" and thus I can make such arguments that show incense burning and musical instruments are no longer required. I was not asking you to defend the Trinity - it was a rhetorical question. The Trinity is proved by "good and necessary inference" and is a vital doctrine of Scripture.
> 
> We have a positive command to allow children in the New Everlasting Covenant, Genesis 17:14.
> 
> Since you do not believe in "good and necessary inference" then you must have a positive command that now forbids children in the New and Everlasting Covenant?
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> -CH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes it helps to read all of the posts in a thread, especially a long one like this one before responding. I've often been guilty of that myself. I do believe in the validity of GNC although I prefer the phrase "necessarily contained" in the LBCF. That confessional issue is really tangential, although it did help me to learn what Jim Renihan and others think about it.
> 
> The argument from Gen. 17 had me convinced for several years. It's the simplest and most logically compelling argument for covenant paedobaptism. If you accept that premise then the household baptism passages and many others seem to fall right into place. But I do not believe that it is a legitimate inference from the Scriptures. I don't accept your premise that the covenant of grace is administered in the same way in the New Covenant as it was in the old. Moreover, if baptism is exactly the same as circumcision, then why did not Paul silence the Judiazers by simply explaining that baptism had replaced circumcision?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Your last point is an argument from silence.* Moreover, the Judaizers were teaching that circumcision was essential in order to be saved. Furthermore, Paul was writing during the period of transition between the Old and New Covenants when it was permissable for Jewish believers to have both signs, so such an explanation would not have been sufficient.
Click to expand...


This is the heart of the matter, in my opinion. How much emphasis one places on the arguments from silence against the paedo view determines, to a great degree, which direction you take. For the credo, they are overwhelming. For the paedo they are inconsequential. (Perhaps I am overstating the case somewhat)



Daniel Ritchie said:


> *The Baptist view of the covenant of grace would have us believe that the new and better covenant excludes the children of believers and puts them out of the visible church*. Such an idea would have been unthinkable to those brought up in the Hebraic mindset. It is not surprising however that such an idea is accepted widely by Christians living after the Renaissance and Enlightenment.



By this logic couldn't we also condemn God for excluding female children of covenantal parents from the visible church in Abrahamic covenant?


----------



## Pilgrim

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey:
> 
> I think you missed the point. I *believe* in "good and necessary inference" and thus I can make such arguments that show incense burning and musical instruments are no longer required. I was not asking you to defend the Trinity - it was a rhetorical question. The Trinity is proved by "good and necessary inference" and is a vital doctrine of Scripture.
> 
> We have a positive command to allow children in the New Everlasting Covenant, Genesis 17:14.
> 
> Since you do not believe in "good and necessary inference" then you must have a positive command that now forbids children in the New and Everlasting Covenant?
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> -CH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes it helps to read all of the posts in a thread, especially a long one like this one before responding. I've often been guilty of that myself. I do believe in the validity of GNC although I prefer the phrase "necessarily contained" in the LBCF. That confessional issue is really tangential, although it did help me to learn what Jim Renihan and others think about it.
> 
> The argument from Gen. 17 had me convinced for several years. It's the simplest and most logically compelling argument for covenant paedobaptism. If you accept that premise then the household baptism passages and many others seem to fall right into place. But I do not believe that it is a legitimate inference from the Scriptures. I don't accept your premise that the covenant of grace is administered in the same way in the New Covenant as it was in the old. Moreover, if baptism is exactly the same as circumcision, then why did not Paul silence the Judiazers by simply explaining that baptism had replaced circumcision?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your last point is an argument from silence. Moreover, the Judaizers were teaching that circumcision was essential in order to be saved. Furthermore, Paul was writing during the period of transition between the Old and New Covenants when it was permissable for Jewish believers to have both signs, so such an explanation would not have been sufficient.
> 
> The Baptist view of the covenant of grace would have us believe that the new and better covenant excludes the children of believers and puts them out of the visible church. Such an idea would have been unthinkable to those brought up in the Hebraic mindset. It is not surprising however that such an idea is accepted widely by Christians living after the Renaissance and Enlightenment.
Click to expand...


The paedo view is an argument from silence. If I had a dollar for every time that someone tried to dismiss an opposing argument by claiming it is an argument from silence....well you know the rest.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

No, Ken. And here's why that logic breaks down:

_The Bible *itself* instituted a multi-tier relationship to the covenant, including Male-Female, defined, described, and defended._ In other words,, the former practice both left women out of inclusion in the fullest sense, while at the same time acknowledging them as covenant members. So there was temporary male minority (while under age) and permanent female minority. We see other relations as well, that fall below that of adult males: servants who were not circumcised were not full members, nor were Gentile proselytes who had not undergone circumcision.

That multi-tier system is explicitly repudiated in the NT, Gal. 3:28, where three specific distinctions are done away: Jew-Gentile, slave-free, and *male-female*.


----------



## MW

KMK said:


> This is the heart of the matter, in my opinion. How much emphasis one places on the arguments from silence against the paedo view determines, to a great degree, which direction you take. For the credo, they are overwhelming. For the paedo they are inconsequential. (Perhaps I am overstating the case somewhat)



Where is the silence? We have clear examples of individuals being baptised on the basis of their parents being included in the covenant -- Old Testament (Noah's family and Israel in the Red Sea) and New Testament (household baptisms).

Further, the 1689 Confession maintains much of the moral teaching of the Westminster Confession, replete with proofs from the Old Testament. Hence the witness of the Old Testament ought not to be regarded as "silence."


----------



## Herald

Bruce, interesting that you choose Galatians 3:28 to support the repudiation of the multi-tier system. Is Paul actually writing about a multi-tier system? I believe the text is communicating a different point.



> Galatians 3:22 22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.



Galatians was written to a mixed bag of Jews and Gentiles. The cultural divide was systemic. Paul was communicating a spiritual truth. All were shut up under sin (Romans 3:23). Why all? So that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ may be given to all who believe (inferred) (Romans 10:13). National origin, gender or covenantal status could never take precedence over the inward spiritual condition. The fact that a male was circumcised and a woman wasn't did not convey saving faith. The only multi-tier system the scriptures bear out is: saved or unsaved.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Just to lighten the load.....

I went to visit a Fundamentalist Independent Baptist Church in Virginia Beach, Virginia when I was a young Christian in the Early 80's. A Senior Chief Petty Officer name Sandy Rogers I highly respected went there. He was a lay preacher I listened to on the U.S.S. Forrestal. He was a man above reproach. And he loved people and His Lord. 

Anyways, there was a visiting Preacher that day. He was round as he was tall. He had a white head of hair that just magnified his faces contorting as he got louder as the sermon when on. At the highth of his excitement and running around the place loudly yelling at the crowd he started off on a tyraid about his Baptist heritage. As he proceeded he said as loudly as he could, "I am not an arminean. I am not a Calvinist. I am a BAAAABBBBTTTTTTIIIIIIIISSSSSSSST! I was BORN a BABTIST. I was RAISED a BABTIST. I WILL DIE A BAAAABBBBBTTTTTTIIIIIIISSSSSSSSSSSST!

I just sat back in my chair in a bewildered, amazed, and stupified look and said, Wow. That little southern man just wore me out. 

I was already a Calvinist and attended a Reformed Baptist Church so he had no effect on me. But I am sure his energy did something for my edification. 

I did learn some good stuff from Sandy Rogers though. He was a good Christian Navy man. And he lived out his convictions. His kids were cute also.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pilgrim said:


> Moreover, if baptism is exactly the same as circumcision, then why did not Paul silence the Judiazers by simply explaining that baptism had replaced circumcision?


This, it seems to me, misses Paul's point in Galatians. As I have noted carefully before, the tenor in Galatians on the idea of circumcision is on the notion of keeping the Law. From the standpoint of what Paul is talking about, he is railing against an apprehension of the Old Covenant that is completely faulty.

I often marvel that Baptists will port Paul's polemic into an argument over recipients of Baptism and, in the process, really miss the force of Paul's argument over the Judaizers main defect in thinking about the Law.

Why didn't Paul simply tell the Judaizers that baptism replaced circumcision? Because their problem was more fundamental than a sign. Their problem was understanding the substance of what the sign of circumcision pointed to so how is replacing an external going to fix their understanding? It would be like telling them to change the wall color on their tomb full of dead man's bones. To be anachronistic, it would be Paul saying: Don't be Judaizers, be Roman Catholics!

Galatians 3:1-3


> 1O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? 2This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?



Do you really suppose that, were Paul to simply tell the Judaizers that they just had to baptize men that this would solve the primary problem?

In fact, it can be argued that, in one sense, he does complete this thought to a Galatian that they have everything they need in Baptism as Baptism signifies what they have in Christ. Had the Judaizers apprehended that point, then they would not have thought for a moment that they had begun in the Spirit and were perfected in the deeds of the Law. Their problem was forgetting that Christ is the author and finisher of our salvation.



North Jersey Baptist said:


> Bruce, interesting that you choose Galatians 3:28 to support the repudiation of the multi-tier system. Is Paul actually writing about a multi-tier system? I believe the text is communicating a different point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Galatians 3:22 22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Galatians was written to a mixed bag of Jews and Gentiles. The cultural divide was systemic. Paul was communicating a spiritual truth. All were shut up under sin (Romans 3:23). Why all? So that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ may be given to all who believe (inferred) (Romans 10:13). National origin, gender or covenantal status could never take precedence over the inward spiritual condition. The fact that a male was circumcised and a woman wasn't did not convey saving faith. The only multi-tier system the scriptures bear out is: saved or unsaved.
Click to expand...


Bill,

Do you honestly believe this solves the issue of a *visible* separation within the Body of Christ? In other words, there are real, flesh and blood, Gentiles and Jews at odds in the congregation and the solution is to tell them that the real separation is to determine those members who are truly saved and those that are unsaved? All are baptized but, hey guys, the _real_ people you're Brothers with are the truly saved and the others are not your Brothers. How do you suppose a Jew or a Gentile is supposed to know if another Jew is his brother on this basis, much less a Gentile?


----------



## Herald

> Bill,
> 
> Do you honestly believe this solves the issue of a *visible* separation within the Body of Christ? In other words, there are real, flesh and blood, Gentiles and Jews at odds in the congregation and the solution is to tell them that the real separation is to determine those members who are truly saved and those that are unsaved. All are baptized but, hey guys, the _real_ people you're Brothers with are the truly saved and the others are not your Brothers. How do you suppose a Jew or a Gentile is supposed to know if another Jew is his brother on this basis, much less a Gentile?


I could have used the _exact_ same terminology to ask whether Bruce really believes Galatians 3 is the repudiation of the multi-tier system. But you're helping me with my point. I already said the Jew-Gentile problem in Galatians was systemic. Galatians was partly written for that reason. It is not a transition between the covenant sign being given to males only (OC), and now to all (NC). I wasn't even approaching this from a baptism viewpoint, except to disagree that is transitionary in essence.


----------



## Herald

> His kids were cute also.


Randy, that's the answer! As long as our kids are cute it doesn't matter what we believe in regards to baptism. And to think I've missed that salient point all these years.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Bill,
A passage doesn't have to be "focused" in a larger way on an issue in order to speak to it. In a passage that is addressing church unity, what would be strange--in a context of correcting the error that "you have to become Jewish to become a Christian"--about the observation that all those "dividing walls" connected to the Law have been eliminated?

The fact that Paul mentions three very real Mosaic segregations, three barriers to unity and full inclusion, and he brushes them aside and announces they have no relevance to a new situation inaugurated in Christ...

Here's Ken original question:


> By this logic couldn't we also condemn the paedos for excluding female children of the covenantal parents from the visible church?


It seemed obvious from the context of the question that he meant "paedo-circumcision". The problem with his thinking is that under Moses, *females were, in fact, lower in status.* They didn't bear the sign, and they weren't, in fact, permitted at a great many exhibitions of Israelite piety! Although nowhere are we led to believe they weren't Israelites, and members of the covenant community. _Yet, their lack of the sign, while not totally excluding them, did exclude them partly, as did their lengthy and regular periods of ritual uncleaness_.

So, even if I was way off base (?), all I said pointing to that Galatians passage is that Paul claims the reality of major differences NOW! Relative to the Law, Ken's question has been answered. The answer is "affirmative, except that there's no condemnation associated with the admission--the lesser status of females was part of divine revelation."


----------



## Semper Fidelis

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Bill,
> 
> Do you honestly believe this solves the issue of a *visible* separation within the Body of Christ? In other words, there are real, flesh and blood, Gentiles and Jews at odds in the congregation and the solution is to tell them that the real separation is to determine those members who are truly saved and those that are unsaved. All are baptized but, hey guys, the _real_ people you're Brothers with are the truly saved and the others are not your Brothers. How do you suppose a Jew or a Gentile is supposed to know if another Jew is his brother on this basis, much less a Gentile?
> 
> 
> 
> I could have used the _exact_ same terminology to ask whether Bruce really believes Galatians 3 is the repudiation of the multi-tier system. But you're helping me with my point. I already said the Jew-Gentile problem in Galatians was systemic. Galatians was partly written for that reason. It is not a transition between the covenant sign being given to males only (OC), and now to all (NC). I wasn't even approaching this from a baptism viewpoint, except to disagree that is transitionary in essence.
Click to expand...


To "pile on" what Bruce noted, it is key to note that the division between "Israel" and "not-Israel" already existed (among the _physically circumcised_) as Paul regularly notes. Even during the period that circumcision existed there was already a distinction between "saved" and "unsaved" in the mind of God. Circumcision signified salvation but didn't confer union with Christ. Inheritance was _always_ conditioned on faith so the insistence that a move from the OC to the NC is a move from participation on bare significance to participation based on union with Christ is unsustainable. The True Israel of God has _always_ received inheritance by faith. It is to the Judaizer's discredit that they miss this even as God had constantly reproved Israel that His own need to be circumcised of the heart and not merely of the flesh.

My point is that you cannot solve a problem of visible unity by noting invisible union with Christ and leaving it to the hearer to simply understand that there is a theoretical Covenant community that they cannot identify. There is a need for the Church of God (both OC and NC) to be able to identify who it is that we are to strive together with toward the end that we have been saved for. What I fear is that too many don't really apprehend how the visible work of the Church, that has always included a mixed multitude, has always been used of God for the conversion and perfection of His Elect.


----------



## Barnpreacher

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Just to lighten the load.....
> 
> I went to visit a Fundamentalist Independent Baptist Church in Virginia Beach, Virginia when I was a young Christian in the Early 80's. A Senior Chief Petty Officer name Sandy Rogers I highly respected went there. He was a lay preacher I listened to on the U.S.S. Forrestal. He was a man above reproach. And he loved people and His Lord.
> 
> Anyways, there was a visiting Preacher that day. He was round as he was tall. He had a white head of hair that just magnified his faces contorting as he got louder as the sermon when on. At the highth of his excitement and running around the place loudly yelling at the crowd he started off on a tyraid about his Baptist heritage. As he proceeded he said as loudly as he could, "I am not an arminean. I am not a Calvinist. I am a BAAAABBBBTTTTTTIIIIIIIISSSSSSSST! I was BORN a BABTIST. I was RAISED a BABTIST. I WILL DIE A BAAAABBBBBTTTTTTIIIIIIISSSSSSSSSSSST!
> 
> I just sat back in my chair in a bewildered, amazed, and stupified look and said, Wow. That little southern man just wore me out.
> 
> I was already a Calvinist and attended a Reformed Baptist Church so he had no effect on me. But I am sure his energy did something for my edification.
> 
> I did learn some good stuff from Sandy Rogers though. He was a good Christian Navy man. And he lived out his convictions. His kids were cute also.



That story reminds me of the Landmark Baptist I heard preach last year. He went on for about 45 minutes about his baptist heritage and pretty much condemned all Presbyterians and Reformed. 

I should have gotten up and walked out, but I was with a friend and didn't want to leave him sitting there.


----------



## MW

It must be obvious why the apostle, in writing to the Galatians, would not say that baptism has come in the place of circumcision -- because the Galatians believed circumcision was pre-requisite to law obedience as a necessary part of salvation; obviously baptism serves no such purpose. And yet he clearly maintains a hermeneutic of continuity when he states that as many as have been baptised into Christ have put on Christ, Gal. 3:27, and that if they are Christ's then are they Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise, v. 29. It could not be any plainer that baptism signified and sealed the same promise as was signified and sealed to Abraham by circumcision.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Barnpreacher said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to lighten the load.....
> 
> I went to visit a Fundamentalist Independent Baptist Church in Virginia Beach, Virginia when I was a young Christian in the Early 80's. A Senior Chief Petty Officer name Sandy Rogers I highly respected went there. He was a lay preacher I listened to on the U.S.S. Forrestal. He was a man above reproach. And he loved people and His Lord.
> 
> Anyways, there was a visiting Preacher that day. He was round as he was tall. He had a white head of hair that just magnified his faces contorting as he got louder as the sermon when on. At the highth of his excitement and running around the place loudly yelling at the crowd he started off on a tyraid about his Baptist heritage. As he proceeded he said as loudly as he could, "I am not an arminean. I am not a Calvinist. I am a BAAAABBBBTTTTTTIIIIIIIISSSSSSSST! I was BORN a BABTIST. I was RAISED a BABTIST. I WILL DIE A BAAAABBBBBTTTTTTIIIIIIISSSSSSSSSSSST!
> 
> I just sat back in my chair in a bewildered, amazed, and stupified look and said, Wow. That little southern man just wore me out.
> 
> I was already a Calvinist and attended a Reformed Baptist Church so he had no effect on me. But I am sure his energy did something for my edification.
> 
> I did learn some good stuff from Sandy Rogers though. He was a good Christian Navy man. And he lived out his convictions. His kids were cute also.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That story reminds me of the Landmark Baptist I heard preach last year. He went on for about 45 minutes about his baptist heritage and pretty much condemned all Presbyterians and Reformed.
> 
> I should have gotten up and walked out, but I was with a friend and didn't want to leave him sitting there.
Click to expand...


To be frank, Ryan, I think a modern-day Paul would have said of such thinking about baptism: " For in Jesus Christ neither baptism availeth any thing, nor unbaptism..."


----------



## MW

Semper Fidelis said:


> To be frank, Ryan, I think a modern-day Paul would have said of such thinking about baptism: " For in Jesus Christ neither baptism availeth any thing, nor unbaptism..."



I can imagine him saying, "neither Baptistism nor unBaptistism availeth anything."


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

KMK said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes it helps to read all of the posts in a thread, especially a long one like this one before responding. I've often been guilty of that myself. I do believe in the validity of GNC although I prefer the phrase "necessarily contained" in the LBCF. That confessional issue is really tangential, although it did help me to learn what Jim Renihan and others think about it.
> 
> The argument from Gen. 17 had me convinced for several years. It's the simplest and most logically compelling argument for covenant paedobaptism. If you accept that premise then the household baptism passages and many others seem to fall right into place. But I do not believe that it is a legitimate inference from the Scriptures. I don't accept your premise that the covenant of grace is administered in the same way in the New Covenant as it was in the old. Moreover, if baptism is exactly the same as circumcision, then why did not Paul silence the Judiazers by simply explaining that baptism had replaced circumcision?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Your last point is an argument from silence.* Moreover, the Judaizers were teaching that circumcision was essential in order to be saved. Furthermore, Paul was writing during the period of transition between the Old and New Covenants when it was permissable for Jewish believers to have both signs, so such an explanation would not have been sufficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the heart of the matter, in my opinion. How much emphasis one places on the arguments from silence against the paedo view determines, to a great degree, which direction you take. For the credo, they are overwhelming. For the paedo they are inconsequential. (Perhaps I am overstating the case somewhat)
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Baptist view of the covenant of grace would have us believe that the new and better covenant excludes the children of believers and puts them out of the visible church*. Such an idea would have been unthinkable to those brought up in the Hebraic mindset. It is not surprising however that such an idea is accepted widely by Christians living after the Renaissance and Enlightenment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By this logic couldn't we also condemn the paedos for excluding female children of the covenantal parents from the visible church?
Click to expand...


How have paeodos excluded female covenant children from the visible church? The paedo-baptist position is not based on argument from silence as it is clearly revealed in the Old Testament that the children of believers are to receive the sign of the covenant of grace and membership of the visible church. Since this has not been revoked, then the duty must continue to be binding.


----------



## KMK

Daniel Ritchie said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Your last point is an argument from silence.* Moreover, the Judaizers were teaching that circumcision was essential in order to be saved. Furthermore, Paul was writing during the period of transition between the Old and New Covenants when it was permissable for Jewish believers to have both signs, so such an explanation would not have been sufficient.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the heart of the matter, in my opinion. How much emphasis one places on the arguments from silence against the paedo view determines, to a great degree, which direction you take. For the credo, they are overwhelming. For the paedo they are inconsequential. (Perhaps I am overstating the case somewhat)
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Baptist view of the covenant of grace would have us believe that the new and better covenant excludes the children of believers and puts them out of the visible church*. Such an idea would have been unthinkable to those brought up in the Hebraic mindset. It is not surprising however that such an idea is accepted widely by Christians living after the Renaissance and Enlightenment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By this logic couldn't we also condemn the paedos for excluding female children of the covenantal parents from the visible church?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How have paeodos excluded female covenant children from the visible church? *The paedo-baptist position is not based on argument from silence as it is clearly revealed in the Old Testament that the children of believers are to receive the sign of the covenant of grace and membership of the visible church.* Since this has not been revoked, then the duty must continue to be binding.
Click to expand...


Sorry, I 'miswrote'. I edited my original.

My point is, if paedos believe that it is wrong for baptists to deny the sign to those who are in the NC simply because it is their right, then shouldn't they also believe that it was wrong for God to deny the sign to female infants in the AC?

It would help the paedo argument in my opinion if y'all would start from "it is clearly revealed in the Old Testament that the *male* children of believers are to receive the sign of the covenant..."


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

KMK said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the heart of the matter, in my opinion. How much emphasis one places on the arguments from silence against the paedo view determines, to a great degree, which direction you take. For the credo, they are overwhelming. For the paedo they are inconsequential. (Perhaps I am overstating the case somewhat)
> 
> 
> 
> By this logic couldn't we also condemn the paedos for excluding female children of the covenantal parents from the visible church?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How have paeodos excluded female covenant children from the visible church? *The paedo-baptist position is not based on argument from silence as it is clearly revealed in the Old Testament that the children of believers are to receive the sign of the covenant of grace and membership of the visible church.* Since this has not been revoked, then the duty must continue to be binding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I 'miswrote'. I edited my original.
> 
> My point is, if paedos believe that it is wrong for baptists to deny the sign to those who are in the NC simply because it is their right, then shouldn't they also believe that it was wrong for God to deny the sign to female infants in the AC?
> 
> It would help the paedo argument in my opinion if y'all would start from "it is clearly revealed in the Old Testament that the *male* children of believers are to receive the sign of the covenant..."
Click to expand...


I don't really think this is an issue as female children were considered part of the visible church in the OT and there is additional revelation in the NT that females are to be baptized (i.e. Lydia).


----------



## KMK

Daniel Ritchie said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> How have paeodos excluded female covenant children from the visible church? *The paedo-baptist position is not based on argument from silence as it is clearly revealed in the Old Testament that the children of believers are to receive the sign of the covenant of grace and membership of the visible church.* Since this has not been revoked, then the duty must continue to be binding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I 'miswrote'. I edited my original.
> 
> My point is, if paedos believe that it is wrong for baptists to deny the sign to those who are in the NC simply because it is their right, then shouldn't they also believe that it was wrong for God to deny the sign to female infants in the AC?
> 
> It would help the paedo argument in my opinion if y'all would start from "it is clearly revealed in the Old Testament that the *male* children of believers are to receive the sign of the covenant..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't really think this is an issue as female children were considered part of the visible church in the OT and there is additional revelation in the NT that females are to be baptized (i.e. Lydia).
Click to expand...


Suit yourself!


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

KMK said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I 'miswrote'. I edited my original.
> 
> My point is, if paedos believe that it is wrong for baptists to deny the sign to those who are in the NC simply because it is their right, then shouldn't they also believe that it was wrong for God to deny the sign to female infants in the AC?
> 
> It would help the paedo argument in my opinion if y'all would start from "it is clearly revealed in the Old Testament that the *male* children of believers are to receive the sign of the covenant..."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really think this is an issue as female children were considered part of the visible church in the OT and there is additional revelation in the NT that females are to be baptized (i.e. Lydia).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Suit yourself!
Click to expand...


I intend too.


----------



## KMK

Daniel Ritchie said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really think this is an issue as female children were considered part of the visible church in the OT and there is additional revelation in the NT that females are to be baptized (i.e. Lydia).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Suit yourself!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I intend too.
Click to expand...


I can tell from your avatar!


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

KMK said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Suit yourself!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I intend too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can tell from your avatar!
Click to expand...


----------



## Herald

Daniel, I'm on my mobile device so I can't easily find a comment you made about making baptism and idol. I thought about that comment and believe it to be a wise and insightful statement. Baptism is not an unimportant topic but it can become more important than it should. It is a sign, not substance. Neither Baptists or Presbyterians are saved by water baptism. The differences between the two sides are well established. We have a better opportunity to sway a brother on a point of doctrine or practice who is already in our theological camp than to labor one who isn't. I wonder whether we should place a greater emphasis on sanctification for purpose of godliness. So long as our doctrinal distinctives are not heretical I now question the time spent in arguing and debating foundational principles. I am not saying the topic (and ones like it) should be repressed, just kept in balance.


----------



## Pilgrim

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Daniel, I'm on my mobile device so I can't easily find a comment you made about making baptism and idol. I thought about that comment and believe it to be a wise and insightful statement. Baptism is not an unimportant topic but it can become more important than it should. It is a sign, not substance. Neither Baptists or Presbyterians are saved by water baptism. The differences between the two sides are well established. We have a better opportunity to sway a brother on a point of doctrine or practice who is already in our theological camp than to labor one who isn't. I wonder whether we should place a greater emphasis on sanctification for purpose of godliness. So long as our doctrinal distinctives are not heretical I now question the time spent in arguing and debating foundational principles. I am not saying the topic (and ones like it) should be repressed, just kept in balance.



From _The Soul Winner_ by C.H. Spurgeon:



> It is because God blesses men through the churches that we desire to see them prosper, and not merely for the sake of the churches themselves. There is such a thing as selfishness in our eagerness for the aggrandisement of our own party; and from this evil spirit may grace deliver us! The increase of the kingdom is more to be desired than the growth of a clan. We would do a great deal to make a Paedobaptist brother into a Baptist, for we value our Lord's ordinances; we would labour earnestly to raise a believer in salvation by free-will into a believer in salvation by grace, for we long to see all religious teaching built upon the solid rock of truth, and not upon the sand of imagination; but, at the same time, our grand object is not the revision of opinions, but the regeneration of natures. We would bring men to Christ and not to our own peculiar views of Christianity. Our first care must be that the sheep should be gathered to the great Shepherd; there will be time enough afterwards to secure them for our various folds. To make proselytes, is a suitable labour for Pharisees: to beget men unto God, is the honourable aim of ministers of Christ.


----------



## KMK

armourbearer said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the heart of the matter, in my opinion. How much emphasis one places on the arguments from silence against the paedo view determines, to a great degree, which direction you take. For the credo, they are overwhelming. For the paedo they are inconsequential. (Perhaps I am overstating the case somewhat)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the silence? We have *clear* examples of individuals being baptised on the basis of their parents being included in the covenant -- Old Testament (Noah's family and Israel in the Red Sea) and New Testament (household baptisms).
Click to expand...


With all due respect, Rev Winzer, can it really be that 'clear' if so many godly men have disagreed on this issue for hundreds of years?

Besides I was specifically refering to the argument from silence brought up by Daniel that goes something like this: The thought of not granting the covenant sign to infants 'would have been unthinkable to those brought up in the Hebraic mindset.' Therefore, if credo baptism were true we should expect there to be some discussion about it in the NT.


----------



## Amazing Grace

KMK said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the heart of the matter, in my opinion. How much emphasis one places on the arguments from silence against the paedo view determines, to a great degree, which direction you take. For the credo, they are overwhelming. For the paedo they are inconsequential. (Perhaps I am overstating the case somewhat)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the silence? We have *clear* examples of individuals being baptised on the basis of their parents being included in the covenant -- Old Testament (Noah's family and Israel in the Red Sea) and New Testament (household baptisms).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With all due respect, Rev Winzer, can it really be that 'clear' if so many godly men have disagreed on this issue for hundreds of years?
> 
> Besides I was specifically refering to the argument from silence brought up by Daniel that goes something like this: The thought of not granting the covenant sign to infants 'would have been unthinkable to those brought up in the Hebraic mindset.' Therefore, if credo baptism were true we should expect there to be some discussion about it in the NT.
Click to expand...




Good point Ken. It obviously is not "thus says the Lord" thing.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Daniel, I'm on my mobile device so I can't easily find a comment you made about making baptism and idol. I thought about that comment and believe it to be a wise and insightful statement. Baptism is not an unimportant topic but it can become more important than it should. It is a sign, not substance. Neither Baptists or Presbyterians are saved by water baptism. The differences between the two sides are well established. We have a better opportunity to sway a brother on a point of doctrine or practice who is already in our theological camp than to labor one who isn't. I wonder whether we should place a greater emphasis on sanctification for purpose of godliness. So long as our doctrinal distinctives are not heretical I now question the time spent in arguing and debating foundational principles. I am not saying the topic (and ones like it) should be repressed, just kept in balance.



I could not agree with this post more. If I spent more time reading the Bible, rather than arguing about what is in it, I think my time would be much better served.


----------



## KMK

Daniel Ritchie said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, I'm on my mobile device so I can't easily find a comment you made about making baptism and idol. I thought about that comment and believe it to be a wise and insightful statement. Baptism is not an unimportant topic but it can become more important than it should. It is a sign, not substance. Neither Baptists or Presbyterians are saved by water baptism. The differences between the two sides are well established. We have a better opportunity to sway a brother on a point of doctrine or practice who is already in our theological camp than to labor one who isn't. I wonder whether we should place a greater emphasis on sanctification for purpose of godliness. So long as our doctrinal distinctives are not heretical I now question the time spent in arguing and debating foundational principles. I am not saying the topic (and ones like it) should be repressed, just kept in balance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could not agree with this post more. If I spent more time reading the Bible, rather than arguing about what is in it, I think my time would be much better served.
Click to expand...


Agreed. Shame on me for studying God's Word for the sole purpose of glorifying myself by winning an argument. How disgusting. 

Thanks to this reminder, I will redouble my efforts to treat God's Word (which He has magnified above His own name) with proper reverance. After all, is it not possible that paedos and credos are both wrong???


----------



## Amazing Grace

KMK said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, I'm on my mobile device so I can't easily find a comment you made about making baptism and idol. I thought about that comment and believe it to be a wise and insightful statement. Baptism is not an unimportant topic but it can become more important than it should. It is a sign, not substance. Neither Baptists or Presbyterians are saved by water baptism. The differences between the two sides are well established. We have a better opportunity to sway a brother on a point of doctrine or practice who is already in our theological camp than to labor one who isn't. I wonder whether we should place a greater emphasis on sanctification for purpose of godliness. So long as our doctrinal distinctives are not heretical I now question the time spent in arguing and debating foundational principles. I am not saying the topic (and ones like it) should be repressed, just kept in balance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could not agree with this post more. If I spent more time reading the Bible, rather than arguing about what is in it, I think my time would be much better served.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed. Shame on me for studying God's Word for the sole purpose of glorifying myself by winning an argument. How disgusting.
> 
> Thanks to this reminder, I will redouble my efforts to treat God's Word (which He has magnified above His own name) with proper reverance. After all, is it not possible that paedos and credos are both wrong???
Click to expand...




This is a perfect example of what the Jews call an "Arguement for the sake of Heaven". The Glorification of God vs the demonizing or dehumanizing of the oppenent. The former being the goal..


----------



## Herald

Brethren, please don't misunderstand. I am in no way saying that baptism is not a worthy topic for discussion or even debate. It is. But when the body of work in that regard regularly lacks grace and turns personal, both sides lose even if one wins.


----------



## MW

KMK said:


> With all due respect, Rev Winzer, can it really be that 'clear' if so many godly men have disagreed on this issue for hundreds of years?



It is clear as day that eight souls, not one, were saved by water, relative to which water baptism is a like figure, 1 Pet. 3:20, 21. It is clear as day that the "fathers" which inherited the promised land were "baptised in the sea" as "children which had no knowledge," 1 Cor. 10:1, 2; Deut. 1:39. And while it is true that household baptisms have been made controversial by a specious line of reasoning which suggests that whole households just happened to believe in order to be baptised, it is also clear as day that these households were baptised as households and not as individuals making up the household, in continuity with what the Old Testament teaches concerning household salvation.


----------



## MW

North Jersey Baptist said:


> It is a sign, not substance. Neither Baptists or Presbyterians are saved by water baptism.



They are saved by baptism as a sign, Mark 16:16; 1 Pet. 3:21. It may not be "grace" in and of itself, but it is still a "means of grace."


----------



## Houston E.

armourbearer said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect, Rev Winzer, can it really be that 'clear' if so many godly men have disagreed on this issue for hundreds of years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is clear as day that eight souls, not one, were saved by water, relative to which water baptism is a like figure, 1 Pet. 3:20, 21. It is clear as day that the "fathers" which inherited the promised land were "baptised in the sea" as "children which had no knowledge," 1 Cor. 10:1, 2; Deut. 1:39. And while it is true that household baptisms have been made controversial by a specious line of reasoning which suggests that whole households just happened to believe in order to be baptised, it is also clear as day that these households were baptised as households and not as individuals making up the household, in continuity with what the Old Testament teaches concerning household salvation.
Click to expand...


And this in no way contradicts "If she is of years, she can speak for herself"? Or is "household" taken to mean children only?


----------



## MW

Houston E. said:


> And this in no way contradicts "If she is of years, she can speak for herself"? Or is "household" taken to mean children only?



Asked and answered. We don't force baptism on unwilling recipients.


----------



## Houston E.

armourbearer said:


> Houston E. said:
> 
> 
> 
> And this in no way contradicts "If she is of years, she can speak for herself"? Or is "household" taken to mean children only?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asked and answered. We don't force baptism on unwilling recipients.
Click to expand...


Agreed.
So when you speak of the household baptisms, do you affirm that all members of that household were baptized? Or is it possible that a spouse refused?


----------



## MW

Houston E. said:


> So when you speak of the household baptisms, do you affirm that all members of that household were baptized? Or is it possible that a spouse refused?



There is no point speculating. I suppose there is a bare possibility that individuals may have refused, but holy writ gives no indication of such. We have a warrant from the word of God to baptise households as households, and that is really all that matters.


----------



## Houston E.

armourbearer said:


> Houston E. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So when you speak of the household baptisms, do you affirm that all members of that household were baptized? Or is it possible that a spouse refused?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no point speculating. I suppose there is a bare possibility that individuals may have refused, but holy writ gives no indication of such. We have a warrant from the word of God to baptise households as households, and that is really all that matters.
Click to expand...


Thank you Rev.Wizner. BTW, I consider it an honor to be able to dialogue with you.


----------



## MW

Houston E. said:


> Thank you Rev.Wizner. BTW, I consider it an honor to be able to dialogue with you.



It is a great blessing to me to find brethren of a like mind who receive the Scriptures as their only rule of faith and life. The interaction on this board has taught me alot about the practical implications of Philippians 3:15, 16.


----------



## InevitablyReformed

Rev. Winzer,

I'm having some difficulty with your interpretation of 1 Peter 3:21 (I've looked at your interpretation of this text from another thread as well, or maybe it was this one, I dunno, this one is pretty darn long). I just can't seem to get around what seems very obvious to me. That is, Peter is giving a *definition* of baptism that goes something like this: "baptism is an *answer to God* for a good conscience." This seems to coincide nicely with the repent and be cleansed of John's baptism (BTW, please stop me and correct along the way). So, if the above is the case--how does that fit with baptism as quasi replacement for circumcision (sign/seal)? I've just been having a hard time with the covenantal paedo view lately and this text seems to be swinging me towards credo (to be perfectly honest).

Thanks in advance. 

In Christ,

Daniel


----------



## MW

InevitablyReformed said:


> Peter is giving a *definition* of baptism that goes something like this: "baptism is an *answer to God* for a good conscience." This seems to coincide nicely with the repent and be cleansed of John's baptism (BTW, please stop me and correct along the way).



The "answer" is in fact an "interrogation which demands an answer." Baptism is not itself the answer, but what requires the answer. If we look at the text in context, God established His covenant with Noah, and on that basis the household was figuratively "saved by water." The salvation signified in baptism required that the eight souls respond to God with a good conscience. Ham, in fact, did not, and suffered the curse of God's covenant; but that did not forbid him from being figuratively saved by water.

Concerning John's baptism, nowhere does he say, "Repent in order to be baptised." The words of the text intend a connection, not a condition.

It is important to be clear about how we should approach the doctrine of salvation. It is altogether of grace. God establishes His covenant with man. He is the inititator and the benefactor; all human participation in God's covenant is always one of reception. Man is the beneficiary. If we lose sight of this fundamental point then not only baptism but every doctrine of the Christian faith will be brought into doubt and confusion.


----------



## InevitablyReformed

armourbearer said:


> InevitablyReformed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Peter is giving a *definition* of baptism that goes something like this: "baptism is an *answer to God* for a good conscience." This seems to coincide nicely with the repent and be cleansed of John's baptism (BTW, please stop me and correct along the way).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "answer" is in fact an "interrogation which demands an answer." Baptism is not itself the answer, but what requires the answer. If we look at the text in context, God established His covenant with Noah, and on that basis the household was figuratively "saved by water." The salvation signified in baptism required that the eight souls respond to God with a good conscience. Ham, in fact, did not, and suffered the curse of God's covenant; but that did not forbid him from being figuratively saved by water.
> 
> Concerning John's baptism, nowhere does he say, "Repent in order to be baptised." The words of the text intend a connection, not a condition.
> 
> It is important to be clear about how we should approach the doctrine of salvation. It is altogether of grace. God establishes His covenant with man. He is the inititator and the benefactor; all human participation in God's covenant is always one of reception. Man is the beneficiary. If we lose sight of this fundamental point then not only baptism but every doctrine of the Christian faith will be brought into doubt and confusion.
Click to expand...


Rev. Winzer,

Thanks for the quick response. So, let me ask you this: Is it impossible/wrong to separate what seems to me to be a definition of baptism in the NT from the Noah story that precedes it? In other words, do you see Peter's parenthesis as necessarily linked to verse 20? I hope that you do not see these questions as silly. I am truly trying to understand.

Daniel


----------



## MW

InevitablyReformed said:


> Thanks for the quick response. So, let me ask you this: Is it impossible/wrong to separate what seems to me to be a definition of baptism in the NT from the Noah story that precedes it? In other words, do you see Peter's parenthesis as necessarily linked to verse 20? I hope that you do not see these questions as silly. I am truly trying to understand.



Of course they're not silly; you may be inevitably reformed, but not without means. 

What gives the impression that verse 21 is a parenthesis? Given what was said in verse 16 about "having a good conscience," it would appear that verse 21 is essential to his exhortation. That would make verse 20 an Old Testament illustration of the point. My own view is that the water is figurative of "being put to death in the flesh" with Christ, and the salvation by water represents being quickened in union with the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This leaves baptised persons is a figurative already/not yet situation, and compelled to live answerably to their baptismal obligations while they are in the world awaiting the resurrection. If this view is correct, there is no place for a parenthesis in the exhortation, but every verse is contributory to it. Blessings!


----------



## InevitablyReformed

armourbearer said:


> InevitablyReformed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the quick response. So, let me ask you this: Is it impossible/wrong to separate what seems to me to be a definition of baptism in the NT from the Noah story that precedes it? In other words, do you see Peter's parenthesis as necessarily linked to verse 20? I hope that you do not see these questions as silly. I am truly trying to understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they're not silly; you may be inevitably reformed, but not without means.
> 
> What gives the impression that verse 21 is a parenthesis? Given what was said in verse 16 about "having a good conscience," it would appear that verse 21 is essential to his exhortation. That would make verse 20 an Old Testament illustration of the point. My own view is that the water is figurative of "being put to death in the flesh" with Christ, and the salvation by water represents being quickened in union with the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This leaves baptised persons is a figurative already/not yet situation, and compelled to live answerably to their baptismal obligations while they are in the world awaiting the resurrection. If this view is correct, there is no place for a parenthesis in the exhortation, but every verse is contributory to it. Blessings!
Click to expand...


Rev. Winzer,

The parenthesis that I was referring to is how it is constructed in my NKJV: "There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurection of Jesus Christ."

Don't know if that helps clarify what I meant. Thanks again.

Daniel


----------



## MW

InevitablyReformed said:


> The parenthesis that I was referring to is how it is constructed in my NKJV: "There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurection of Jesus Christ."



OK; but that's a parenthesis explaining how baptism is a figure. We still have baptism itself naturally related to the OT example.


----------



## InevitablyReformed

One more thing. Would you say that a individualistic interpretation of this text (baptism is the response of an individual toward God post-repentance) does not necessarily rule out a covenantal view (head of household believes--family gets baptized)? If not, why not?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

InevitablyReformed said:


> One more thing. Would you say that a individualistic interpretation of this text (baptism is the response of an individual toward God post-repentance) does not necessarily rule out a covenantal view (head of household believes--family gets baptized)? If not, why not?



I know Rev. Winzer will give a good answer to this but I want to tack on another idea to give you something to "chew on".

An individualistic sense of Baptism is really an individualistic sense of discipleship from a family perspective.

That we are commanded to train our children in the fear and admonition of the Lord is inescapable. Were it not in the Epistles, I am almost certain that many Baptists would deny this is a responsibility of parents because it really fits very poorly with an individualistic sense of discipleship.

The fact is, however, that it is impossible to train at all without reference to the God you serve. An adult who refuses to be trained is in a much different circumstance than the child who must be trained.

It is impossible then, for a child to not have his eyes and ears exposed to the Gospel by that Christian parent and, immediately, that places the child under obligation. He has heard. As I've studied Hebrews recently I have become increasingly concerned that too many place little emphasis on how perilous it is for those that have "tasted" of heavenly things to fall away from them.

Make no mistake about, even if a Baptist father refuses to acknowledge that his child _is_ a disciple, his children will be judged as disciples some day.

The real question will be whether or not you'll be able to say that you were not guilty of their blood if you neglect to be earnest about their discipleship while they are in your charge. God is gracious not to leave us alone for that work but binds that child, life and death, to the Church that administers the means of Grace for their conversion and perfection in sanctification just as it does for all of us who are likewise needful.


----------



## MW

InevitablyReformed said:


> One more thing. Would you say that a individualistic interpretation of this text (baptism is the response of an individual toward God post-repentance) does not necessarily rule out a covenantal view (head of household believes--family gets baptized)? If not, why not?



I think the two could be tenuously maintained, but not without emptying baptism of its significance as a sealing ordinance of God. In this case it would be nothing more than a bare sign of profession, and the whole family being baptised signifies that the household now professes Christ. But this interpretation leaves no place for regarding baptism as certifying the benefits of regeneration through Christ, which is contrary to the apostle's express statement concerning the saving power of the resurrection of Christ; besides the fact that it leaves the initiative with man and makes man his own benefactor.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

> That we are commanded to train our children in the fear and admonition of the Lord is inescapable. Were it not in the Epistles, I am almost certain that many Baptists would deny this is a responsibility of parents because it really fits very poorly with an individualistic sense of discipleship.



 The concept of a Christian family does not seem to fit in with Baptistic thinking; I am not saying Baptists deny such a concept, but it is hard to see how it is consistent with their approach.


----------



## InevitablyReformed

Thanks for the responses gentlemen. Good night.

Daniel


----------



## nicnap




----------



## MW

InevitablyReformed said:


> Thanks for the responses gentlemen. Good night.



Hope you have a good night's rest, and thankyou for the calm discussion.


----------



## Herald

armourbearer said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a sign, not substance. Neither Baptists or Presbyterians are saved by water baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are saved by baptism as a sign, Mark 16:16; 1 Pet. 3:21. It may not be "grace" in and of itself, but it is still a "means of grace."
Click to expand...


Matthew I have understood 1 Pet. 3:21 to be referring to spiritual baptism, "...not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God of a good conscience-- through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." 

I am cautious about extrapolating doctrine from Mark 16:9-20 because of the well known textual arguments. If the argument is that water baptism is to be administered immediately following conversion, and its application is a first sign of obedience to Christ, then I would agree with it as a "means of grace." Anything beyond that would seem to fail compared to the rest of scripture.


----------



## MW

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Matthew I have understood 1 Pet. 3:21 to be referring to spiritual baptism, "...not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God of a good conscience-- through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
> 
> I am cautious about extrapolating doctrine from Mark 16:9-20 because of the well known textual arguments. If the argument is that water baptism is to be administered immediately following conversion, and its application is a first sign of obedience to Christ, then I would agree with it as a "means of grace." Anything beyond that would seem to fail compared to the rest of scripture.



If the context of 1 Pet. 3:21 doesn't confirm a reference to *water* baptism, I don't know what will.

The last twelve verses of Mark are a part of the reformed canon of Scripture. WCF 28:4 and LBC 29:2 both reference Mark 16:16 to establish the point that those who profess faith in Christ are to be baptised. The former deducing it as a non-exclusive connection, the latter falsely implying that it is a non-negotiable condition.


----------



## Herald

armourbearer said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew I have understood 1 Pet. 3:21 to be referring to spiritual baptism, "...not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God of a good conscience-- through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
> 
> I am cautious about extrapolating doctrine from Mark 16:9-20 because of the well known textual arguments. If the argument is that water baptism is to be administered immediately following conversion, and its application is a first sign of obedience to Christ, then I would agree with it as a "means of grace." Anything beyond that would seem to fail compared to the rest of scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the context of 1 Pet. 3:21 doesn't confirm a reference to *water* baptism, I don't know what will.
> 
> The last twelve verses of Mark are a part of the reformed canon of Scripture. WCF 28:4 and LBC 29:2 both reference Mark 16:16 to establish the point that those who profess faith in Christ are to be baptised. The former deducing it as a non-exclusive connection, the latter falsely implying that it is a non-negotiable condition.
Click to expand...


Matthew, I am not saying that the 1 Pet. 3:21 _does not_ refer to water baptism. I was saying that it had been my understanding that it wasn't. But let's say it does refer to water baptism. Please give me your explanation of the salvific nature of water baptism.


----------



## DMcFadden

Semper Fidelis said:


> An individualistic sense of Baptism is really an individualistic sense of discipleship from a family perspective.
> 
> That we are commanded to train our children in the fear and admonition of the Lord is inescapable. Were it not in the Epistles, I am almost certain that many Baptists would deny this is a responsibility of parents because it really fits very poorly with an individualistic sense of discipleship.
> 
> The fact is, however, that it is impossible to train at all without reference to the God you serve. An adult who refuses to be trained is in a much different circumstance than the child who must be trained.
> 
> It is impossible then, for a child to not have his eyes and ears exposed to the Gospel by that Christian parent and, immediately, that places the child under obligation. He has heard. As I've studied Hebrews recently I have become increasingly concerned that too many place little emphasis on how perilous it is for those that have "tasted" of heavenly things to fall away from them.
> 
> Make no mistake about, even if a Baptist father refuses to acknowledge that his child _is_ a disciple, his children will be judged as disciples some day.
> 
> The real question will be whether or not you'll be able to say that you were not guilty of their blood if you neglect to be earnest about their discipleship while they are in your charge. God is gracious not to leave us alone for that work but binds that child, life and death, to the Church that administers the means of Grace for their conversion and perfection in sanctification just as it does for all of us who are likewise needful.



Rich, of all people, you have been a member of a Baptist church where you should know that Baptists do NOT neglect evangelism and discipleship of children. Indeed, credo baptists often do so much Bible reading, Sunday School going, VBS attending, mid-week program promoting, Bible memorization programs, reading to them at night, purchasing Bible based and Christian themed DVDs, etc. that their children make a profession of faith as early as 3 or 4 years old. While baptism is typically delayed for some time after this (don't ask me to explain that one!), those kids are raised as believers. 

And, while this raises a whole host of other problematic issues, I have seen young children receive communion on the basis of their profession of faith.

As I have freely admitted in manifold threads, I am no knee-jerk defender of things Baptist. Made up sacraments (e.g., infant dedication), delays between "accepting" Christ and experiencing Christian baptism, and the obvious problem of the Baptist assumption that a child is a non-believer despite the fact that in practice Baptist kids are treated much like Presbyterian kids give me fits. However, neither am I willing to pretend that Baptist "practice" is all that different from Presbyterian "practice" with regard to raising children in church.


----------



## MW

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Matthew, I am not saying that the 1 Pet. 3:21 _does not_ refer to water baptism. I was saying that it had been my understanding that it wasn't. But let's say it does refer to water baptism. Please give me your explanation of the salvific nature of water baptism.



Bill, I gave you that explanation when I said it is as a "sign" that baptism saves. It signifies and seals the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit in applyingthe death and resurrection of Christ to the elect. The church, by administering the sign, looks to the Spirit of God to work this grace according to His own sovereign will. The person is thus received as a member of the catholic visible church, which is the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, and is instructed, exhorted, and warned in the Lord.


----------



## Herald

armourbearer said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew, I am not saying that the 1 Pet. 3:21 _does not_ refer to water baptism. I was saying that it had been my understanding that it wasn't. But let's say it does refer to water baptism. Please give me your explanation of the salvific nature of water baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill, I gave you that explanation when I said it is as a "sign" that baptism saves. It signifies and seals the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit in applyingthe death and resurrection of Christ to the elect. The church, by administering the sign, looks to the Spirit of God to work this grace according to His own sovereign will. The person is thus received as a member of the catholic visible church, which is the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, and is instructed, exhorted, and warned in the Lord.
Click to expand...


Matthew, have patience with me. Your original answer confused me. I'm not as bright as you, brother. New Jersey public schooling is a burden I must carry for the rest of my adult life. When you said, "They are saved by baptism as a sign" I didn't understand your comment. I agree that baptism is a sign, but understand that the sign does not save. The sign signifies salvation. I simply wanted clarification of your statement.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

DMcFadden said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> An individualistic sense of Baptism is really an individualistic sense of discipleship from a family perspective.
> 
> That we are commanded to train our children in the fear and admonition of the Lord is inescapable. Were it not in the Epistles, I am almost certain that many Baptists would deny this is a responsibility of parents because it really fits very poorly with an individualistic sense of discipleship.
> 
> The fact is, however, that it is impossible to train at all without reference to the God you serve. An adult who refuses to be trained is in a much different circumstance than the child who must be trained.
> 
> It is impossible then, for a child to not have his eyes and ears exposed to the Gospel by that Christian parent and, immediately, that places the child under obligation. He has heard. As I've studied Hebrews recently I have become increasingly concerned that too many place little emphasis on how perilous it is for those that have "tasted" of heavenly things to fall away from them.
> 
> Make no mistake about, even if a Baptist father refuses to acknowledge that his child _is_ a disciple, his children will be judged as disciples some day.
> 
> The real question will be whether or not you'll be able to say that you were not guilty of their blood if you neglect to be earnest about their discipleship while they are in your charge. God is gracious not to leave us alone for that work but binds that child, life and death, to the Church that administers the means of Grace for their conversion and perfection in sanctification just as it does for all of us who are likewise needful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rich, of all people, you have been a member of a Baptist church where you should know that Baptists do NOT neglect evangelism and discipleship of children. Indeed, credo baptists often do so much Bible reading, Sunday School going, VBS attending, mid-week program promoting, Bible memorization programs, reading to them at night, purchasing Bible based and Christian themed DVDs, etc. that their children make a profession of faith as early as 3 or 4 years old. While baptism is typically delayed for some time after this (don't ask me to explain that one!), those kids are raised as believers.
> 
> And, while this raises a whole host of other problematic issues, I have seen young children receive communion on the basis of their profession of faith.
> 
> As I have freely admitted in manifold threads, I am no knee-jerk defender of things Baptist. Made up sacraments (e.g., infant dedication), delays between "accepting" Christ and experiencing Christian baptism, and the obvious problem of the Baptist assumption that a child is a non-believer despite the fact that in practice Baptist kids are treated much like Presbyterian kids give me fits. However, neither am I willing to pretend that Baptist "practice" is all that different from Presbyterian "practice" with regard to raising children in church.
Click to expand...


Agreed Dennis but all this does is serve to highlight what is confessed on the one hand and practiced on the other. It makes sense for a free will Baptist to do all of these things but it doesn't really fit within a context that the children are presumed to be unregenerate until they prove otherwise. In other words, if they are, for all intents and purposes treated like disciples then why does everybody go out of their way to confess that they are not disciples? Since you're loathe to admit that they should be treated like disciples then what do you think the difference is between a disciple and a disciple?

I already noted in this thread that this activity goes on but it is really done "informally". That is to say that the Church sort of accidentally does it because (and rightly so) it would seem a terrible thing to all to simply ignore these little ones who happen to be tagging along with Mom and Dad every Sunday. If their status before God was really as some have argued here in the past, it would be more consistent to drop them off at a pagan friend's home on Sunday until such a time as they confess Christ.

But, as it is, the discipleship of children is generally vague. Pilgrim was very critical of the WLC 167 on improving your baptism which, for all intents and purposes, is the Book of Hebrews in a nutshell with all its warnings to persevere. Presbyterians are _deliberate_ in their means of Grace for all in the congregation. All disciples are identified for what they are and the idea of "striving together" includes the child. We have catechisms designed for the old _and_ the young in our Confessional documents.

Further, this points to a confusion in discipleship at large, which I alluded to earlier when initially answering Houston E's question. Baptists tend to view discipleship beginning at a definitive conversion with the sign designed to mark that conversion. One might get the impression that, in all of this, I deprecate the necessity for conversion. God forbid. The reason I find that model defective, however, is that it leads to presumption about conversion. If the baptized are the converted then there is not this need to fear lest any be found to be unbelieving. In fact, discipleship is a process and baptism simple marks the definitive point where the visible Church marks out that person as one who should be coming to Christ in faith and doing everything within its means to give to that disciple what he needs toward that end. Yes, God alone elects but the Church is visibly earnest toward that end with all disciples. Neither the oldest nor the youngest baptized member should become slack but all should be considering how they might stimulate one another toward love and good works, not forsaking the assembling together as some are in the habit of doing and all the more as they see the Day approaching.

Thus, Dennis, while I agree with you that the activity exists, it is really outside the boundaries (Confessionally) of where the Church actually "exists" since the children are not members of the Church, there is no formalized sense of how that should look since none of the passages in Scripture that teach about Covenant parenting apply any more, and, in fact, the discipleship of adults itself is undermined by a presumption born of a sign that grants far too much confidence to the Church and the individual that definitive conversion has taken place in the baptized.


----------



## MW

North Jersey Baptist said:


> When you said, "They are saved by baptism as a sign" I didn't understand your comment. I agree that baptism is a sign, but understand that the sign does not save. The sign signifies salvation. I simply wanted clarification of your statement.



Bill, I think we have been down this road before -- the visible church only has the sign to go by. If a person is not baptised he is visibly outside the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ. Even if he ise regnerated inwardly by the Holy Spirit, and is therefore a member of the invisible church, there is no way for the visible church to recognise him as one of God's people except by baptism.


----------



## Herald

armourbearer said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you said, "They are saved by baptism as a sign" I didn't understand your comment. I agree that baptism is a sign, but understand that the sign does not save. The sign signifies salvation. I simply wanted clarification of your statement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill, I think we have been down this road before -- the visible church only has the sign to go by. If a person is not baptised he is visibly outside the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ. Even if he ise regnerated inwardly by the Holy Spirit, and is therefore a member of the invisible church, there is no way for the visible church to recognise him as one of God's people except by baptism.
Click to expand...


Matthew, perhaps it is the way you word things or the way I am reading what you are saying. The way you have just phrased your explanation is something I can agree with. Even in Baptist circles a professor will not be admitted into fellowship without obedience through baptism. I am approaching this from a distinctively Baptist slant since this thread is geared that way. Too many Baptist churches have pushed baptism into the realm of the unimportant. Even our church was there at one time, going months after a profession before baptism was administered. We've changed that practice, thank God.


----------



## MW

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Matthew, perhaps it is the way you word things or the way I am reading what you are saying. The way you have just phrased your explanation is something I can agree with. Even in Baptist circles a professor will not be admitted into fellowship without obedience through baptism. I am approaching this from a distinctively Baptist slant since this thread is geared that way. Too many Baptist churches have pushed baptism into the realm of the unimportant. Even our church was there at one time, going months after a profession before baptism was administered. We've changed that practice, thank God.



Bill, Blessed be God for helping you to reform. I wonder now if you will be able to see the implications of not baptising children -- that they are thereby left destitute of salvation from the visible church perspective, and so consigned to outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.


----------



## Amazing Grace

armourbearer said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you said, "They are saved by baptism as a sign" I didn't understand your comment. I agree that baptism is a sign, but understand that the sign does not save. The sign signifies salvation. I simply wanted clarification of your statement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill, I think we have been down this road before -- the visible church only has the sign to go by. If a person is not baptised he is visibly outside the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ. Even if he ise regnerated inwardly by the Holy Spirit, and is therefore a member of the invisible church, there is no way for the visible church to recognise him as one of God's people except by baptism.
Click to expand...


I never knew the kingdom of God was = to the visible church = baptism. Am I understanding this correctly? I certainly hope I am....SO before I heartly disagree with this, Ill wait for clarification..


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Amazing Grace said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you said, "They are saved by baptism as a sign" I didn't understand your comment. I agree that baptism is a sign, but understand that the sign does not save. The sign signifies salvation. I simply wanted clarification of your statement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill, I think we have been down this road before -- the visible church only has the sign to go by. If a person is not baptised he is visibly outside the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ. Even if he ise regnerated inwardly by the Holy Spirit, and is therefore a member of the invisible church, there is no way for the visible church to recognise him as one of God's people except by baptism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never knew the kingdom of God was = to the visible church = baptism. Am I understanding this correctly? I certainly hope I am....SO before I heartly disagree with this, Ill wait for clarification..
Click to expand...


Read more carefully. What Confession do you subscribe to, precisely, Nicolas?


----------



## Amazing Grace

Semper Fidelis said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bill, I think we have been down this road before -- the visible church only has the sign to go by. If a person is not baptised he is visibly outside the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ. Even if he ise regnerated inwardly by the Holy Spirit, and is therefore a member of the invisible church, there is no way for the visible church to recognise him as one of God's people except by baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never knew the kingdom of God was = to the visible church = baptism. Am I understanding this correctly? I certainly hope I am....SO before I heartly disagree with this, Ill wait for clarification..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read more carefully. What Confession do you subscribe to, precisely, Nicolas?
Click to expand...



3FU Richard. What am I supposed to read in them?

Part II: The Sacraments: Baptism

Lord's Day 26 (Q & A 69 70 71)
Lord's Day 27 (Q & A 72 73 74)
Lord's Day 26
Baptism
Q & A 69

Q. How does baptism
remind you and assure you
that Christ's one sacrifice on the cross
is for you personally?

A. In this way:
Christ instituted this outward washing^1
and with it gave the promise that,
as surely as water washes away the dirt from the body,
so certainly his blood and his Spirit
wash away my soul's impurity,
in other words, all my sins.^2

^1 Acts 2:38
^2 Matt. 3:11; Rom. 6:3-10; 1 Pet. 3:21
Q & A 70

Q. What does it mean
to be washed with Christ's blood and Spirit?

A. To be washed with Christ's blood means
that God, by grace, has forgiven my sins
because of Christ's blood
poured out for me in his sacrifice on the cross.^1

To be washed with Christ's Spirit means
that the Holy Spirit has renewed me
and set me apart to be a member of Christ
so that more and more I become dead to sin
and increasingly live a holy and blameless life.^2

^1 Zech. 13:1; Eph. 1:7-8; Heb. 12:24; 1 Pet. 1:2; Rev. 1:5
^2 Ezek. 36:25-27; John 3:5-8; Rom. 6:4; 1 Cor. 6:11; Col. 2:11-12
Q & A 71

Q. Where does Christ promise
that we are washed with his blood and Spirit
as surely as we are washed
with the water of baptism?

A. In the institution of baptism where he says:

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father
and of the Son
and of the Holy Spirit."^1

"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved,
but whoever does not believe will be condemned."^2*

This promise is repeated when Scripture calls baptism
the washing of rebirth^3 and
the washing away of sins.^4

^1 Matt. 28:19
^2 Mark 16:16
^3 Tit. 3:5
^4 Acts 22:16
*Earlier and better manuscripts of Mark 16 omit the words "Whoever believes and is baptized . . . condemned."
Lord's Day 27
Q & A 72

Q. Does this outward washing with water
itself wash away sins?

A. No, only Jesus Christ's blood and the Holy Spirit
cleanse us from all sins.^1

^1 Matt. 3:11; 1 Pet. 3:21; 1 John 1:7
Q & A 73

Q. Why then does the Holy Spirit call baptism
the washing of rebirth and
the washing away of sins?

A. God has good reason for these words.
He wants to teach us that
the blood and Spirit of Christ wash away our sins
just as water washes away dirt from our bodies.^1

But more important,
he wants to assure us, by this divine pledge and sign,
that the washing away of our sins spiritually
is as real as physical washing with water.^2

^1 1 Cor. 6:11; Rev. 1:5; 7:14
^2 Acts 2:38; Rom. 6:3-4; Gal. 3:27
Q & A 74

Q. Should infants, too, be baptized?

A. Yes.
Infants as well as adults
are in God's covenant and are his people.^1
They, no less than adults, are promised
the forgiveness of sin through Christ's blood
and the Holy Spirit who produces faith.^2

Therefore, by baptism, the mark of the covenant,
infants should be received into the Christian church
and should be distinguished from the children
of unbelievers.^3
This was done in the Old Testament by circumcision,^4
which was replaced in the New Testament by baptism.^5

^1 Gen. 17:7; Matt. 19:14
^2 Isa. 44:1-3; Acts 2:38-39; 16:31
^3 Acts 10:47; 1 Cor. 7:14
^4 Gen. 17:9-14
^5 Col. 2:11-13

Article 34

The Sacrament of Baptism
We believe and confess that Jesus Christ,
in whom the law is fulfilled,
has by his shed blood
put an end to every other shedding of blood,
which anyone might do or wish to do
in order to atone or satisfy for sins.

Having abolished circumcision,
which was done with blood,
he established in its place
the sacrament of baptism.
By it we are received into God's church
and set apart from all other people and alien religions,
that we may be dedicated entirely to him,
bearing his mark and sign.
It also witnesses to us
that he will be our God forever,
since he is our gracious Father.

Therefore he has commanded
that all those who belong to him
be baptized with pure water
in the name of the Father,
and the Son,
and the Holy Spirit.^76

In this way he signifies to us
that just as water washes away the dirt of the body
when it is poured on us
and also is seen on the body of the baptized
when it is sprinkled on him,
so too the blood of Christ does the same thing internally,
in the soul,
by the Holy Spirit.
It washes and cleanses it from its sins
and transforms us from being the children of wrath
into the children of God.

This does not happen by the physical water
but by the sprinkling of the precious blood of the Son of God,
who is our Red Sea,
through which we must pass
to escape the tyranny of Pharoah,
who is the devil,
and to enter the spiritual land
of Canaan.

So ministers,
as far as their work is concerned,
give us the sacrament and what is visible,
but our Lord gives what the sacrament signifies—
namely the invisible gifts and graces;
washing, purifying, and cleansing our souls
of all filth and unrighteousness;
renewing our hearts and filling them
with all comfort;
giving us true assurance
of his fatherly goodness;
clothing us with the "new man" and stripping off the "old,"
with all its works.

For this reason we believe that
anyone who aspires to reach eternal life
ought to be baptized only once
without ever repeating it—
for we cannot be born twice.
Yet this baptism is profitable
not only when the water is on us
and when we receive it
but throughout our
entire lives.

For that reason we detest the error of the Anabaptists
who are not content with a single baptism
once received
and also condemn the baptism
of the children of believers.
We believe our children ought to be baptized
and sealed with the sign of the covenant,
as little children were circumcised in Israel
on the basis of the same promises
made to our children.

And truly,
Christ has shed his blood no less
for washing the little children of believers
than he did for adults.

Therefore they ought to receive the sign and sacrament
of what Christ has done for them,
just as the Lord commanded in the law that
by offering a lamb for them
the sacrament of the suffering and death of Christ
would be granted them
shortly after their birth.
This was the sacrament of Jesus Christ.

Furthermore,
baptism does for our children
what circumcision did for the Jewish people.
That is why Paul calls baptism
the "circumcision of Christ."^77

^76 Matt. 28:19
^77 Col. 2:11


without the least respect or view to sin, has predestinated the greatest part of the world to eternal damnation; and, has created them for this very purpose; that in the same manner in which the election is the fountain and cause of faith and good works, reprobation is the cause of unbelief and impiety; that many children of the faithful are torn, guiltless, from their mothers' breasts, and tyrannically plunged into hell; so that, neither baptism, nor the prayers of the Church at their baptism, can at all profit by them;" and many other things of the same kind, which the Reformed Churches not only do not acknowledge, but even detest with their whole soul.

Unless I am reading these wrong, I do not see that equation at all


----------



## Herald

armourbearer said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew, perhaps it is the way you word things or the way I am reading what you are saying. The way you have just phrased your explanation is something I can agree with. Even in Baptist circles a professor will not be admitted into fellowship without obedience through baptism. I am approaching this from a distinctively Baptist slant since this thread is geared that way. Too many Baptist churches have pushed baptism into the realm of the unimportant. Even our church was there at one time, going months after a profession before baptism was administered. We've changed that practice, thank God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill, Blessed be God for helping you to reform. I wonder now if you will be able to see the implications of not baptising children -- that they are thereby left destitute of salvation from the visible church perspective, and so consigned to outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Click to expand...


My brother, I still do not share your view of infants/children and the visible church, _apart _from saving faith. As for baptism as the entrance into the visible church; having been properly explained, I have always believed that. But I do understand how _you _believe the children of Baptist's are left destitute. My child was born rich. She was born to parents that, while imperfect, knew they were bought with a price. We dedicated _ourselves_ (not by ceremony) to raising her with the knowledge of God, expecting His rich hand of mercy to gloriously save her. As possible as it is for any parent to know, we have seen the evidence of faith in her life. She was baptized and has/is growing into a young woman of quality and faith. Anecdotal? I suppose, to some. Destitute before baptism? Actually, destitute before faith. I consider it a more terrible thing to be associated outwardly with the children of God, but not to know Him inwardly. 

God bless you, brother. Have a blessed Lord's Day.


----------



## Herald

For my Baptist brethren,

It is not a strange thing for Baptists to state that baptism enters the one receiving it into the visible church. How many Baptist pastors/elders/deacons would receive a individual for membership that has not received or refuses to be baptized? Therefore, baptism enters the individual into membership in the visible church. It _does not_ grant admission into the invisible church which is the _true _body of Christ.


----------



## Amazing Grace

North Jersey Baptist said:


> For my Baptist brethren,
> 
> It is not a strange thing for Baptists to state that baptism enters the one receiving it into the visible church. How many Baptist pastors/elders/deacons would receive a individual for membership that has not received or refuses to be baptized? Therefore, baptism enters the individual into membership in the visible church. It _does not_ grant admission into the invisible church which is the _true _body of Christ.




NJB: Do Baptists believe that the Visible Church = the kingdom of God? I asked this question before, Rich pointed me to the confessions, but I obviously need a better answer. I honestly did not know they were equal, and I am not saying this to be wise or unbiblical. Many who say Lord Lord can enter the visible church, yet not enter the Kingdom of God, by baptism or profession or any other rubric.


----------



## Pilgrim

Amazing Grace said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> For my Baptist brethren,
> 
> It is not a strange thing for Baptists to state that baptism enters the one receiving it into the visible church. How many Baptist pastors/elders/deacons would receive a individual for membership that has not received or refuses to be baptized? Therefore, baptism enters the individual into membership in the visible church. It _does not_ grant admission into the invisible church which is the _true _body of Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NJB: Do Baptists believe that the Visible Church = the kingdom of God? I asked this question before, Rich pointed me to the confessions, but I obviously need a better answer. I honestly did not know they were equal, and I am not saying this to be wise or unbiblical. Many who say Lord Lord can enter the visible church, yet not enter the Kingdom of God, by baptism or profession or any other rubric.
Click to expand...


No, not in the way you seem to be getting at. To say that the visible church is an exact representation of the invisible church (which I assume must be what you mean by "kingdom of God") is Romish.


----------



## Herald

Amazing Grace said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> For my Baptist brethren,
> 
> It is not a strange thing for Baptists to state that baptism enters the one receiving it into the visible church. How many Baptist pastors/elders/deacons would receive a individual for membership that has not received or refuses to be baptized? Therefore, baptism enters the individual into membership in the visible church. It _does not_ grant admission into the invisible church which is the _true _body of Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NJB: Do Baptists believe that the Visible Church = the kingdom of God? I asked this question before, Rich pointed me to the confessions, but I obviously need a better answer. I honestly did not know they were equal, and I am not saying this to be wise or unbiblical. Many who say Lord Lord can enter the visible church, yet not enter the Kingdom of God, by baptism or profession or any other rubric.
Click to expand...


Nicolas, Baptists believe the kingdom is entered into through conversion, not baptism. The visible church is no more the kingdom of God than a guest in your home is part of your family. That said, our lack of perfect knowledge as to who is saved requires us to consider a baptized and professed believer to be part of the invisible church. Obviously they would be part of the visible church if they are in fellowship with a local body.* 

*See chapter 26 of the 1689 LBC


----------



## Amazing Grace

Pilgrim said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> For my Baptist brethren,
> 
> It is not a strange thing for Baptists to state that baptism enters the one receiving it into the visible church. How many Baptist pastors/elders/deacons would receive a individual for membership that has not received or refuses to be baptized? Therefore, baptism enters the individual into membership in the visible church. It _does not_ grant admission into the invisible church which is the _true _body of Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NJB: Do Baptists believe that the Visible Church = the kingdom of God? I asked this question before, Rich pointed me to the confessions, but I obviously need a better answer. I honestly did not know they were equal, and I am not saying this to be wise or unbiblical. Many who say Lord Lord can enter the visible church, yet not enter the Kingdom of God, by baptism or profession or any other rubric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not in the way you seem to be getting at. To say that the visible church is an exact representation of the invisible church (which I assume must be what you mean by "kingdom of God") is Romish.
Click to expand...


What I am getting at is in response to Winzer's statement: *The person is thus received as a member of the catholic visible church, which is the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ,* where I understnad the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ to mean the Kingdom of God spoken about by Christ. WHich he[winzer] says is entered upon by baptism into the visible church. 

I believe the visible church is an instrument of the Kingdom of God. But I deny it IS the kingdom of God. To quote Augustine: "*Many whom God has, the Church does not have. And many whom the Church has, God does not have."* My fear is if this is the case, than anyone who finds fault with the visible church, is finding fault with God Himself. That is repugnant to me. Now the church is a vessel to bring people into the Kingdom of God, but not to bring them into the visible church as far as I see scripture speaking. John 3 says only those born anew, from above can see the Kingdom of God, which is within you.

I dont know, perhaps I am just confused.


----------



## Pilgrim

Amazing Grace said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> NJB: Do Baptists believe that the Visible Church = the kingdom of God? I asked this question before, Rich pointed me to the confessions, but I obviously need a better answer. I honestly did not know they were equal, and I am not saying this to be wise or unbiblical. Many who say Lord Lord can enter the visible church, yet not enter the Kingdom of God, by baptism or profession or any other rubric.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, not in the way you seem to be getting at. To say that the visible church is an exact representation of the invisible church (which I assume must be what you mean by "kingdom of God") is Romish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I am getting at is in response to Winzer's statement: *The person is thus received as a member of the catholic visible church, which is the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ,* where I understnad the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ to mean the Kingdom of God spoken about by Christ. WHich he[winzer] says is entered upon by baptism into the visible church.
> 
> I believe the visible church is an instrument of the Kingdom of God. But I deny it IS the kingdom of God. To quote Augustine: "*Many whom God has, the Church does not have. And many whom the Church has, God does not have."* My fear is if this is the case, than anyone who finds fault with the visible church, is finding fault with God Himself. That is repugnant to me. Now the church is a vessel to bring people into the Kingdom of God, but not to bring them into the visible church as far as I see scripture speaking. John 3 says only those born anew, from above can see the Kingdom of God, which is within you.
> 
> I dont know, perhaps I am just confused.
Click to expand...


Relieve your confusion and come on over to our side, brother. The water's fine here.


----------



## Arch2k

Amazing Grace said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you said, "They are saved by baptism as a sign" I didn't understand your comment. I agree that baptism is a sign, but understand that the sign does not save. The sign signifies salvation. I simply wanted clarification of your statement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill, I think we have been down this road before -- the visible church only has the sign to go by. If a person is not baptised he is visibly outside the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ. Even if he ise regnerated inwardly by the Holy Spirit, and is therefore a member of the invisible church, there is no way for the visible church to recognise him as one of God's people except by baptism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never knew the kingdom of God was = to the visible church = baptism. Am I understanding this correctly? I certainly hope I am....SO before I heartly disagree with this, Ill wait for clarification..
Click to expand...

 


Amazing Grace said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never knew the kingdom of God was = to the visible church = baptism. Am I understanding this correctly? I certainly hope I am....SO before I heartly disagree with this, Ill wait for clarification..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read more carefully. What Confession do you subscribe to, precisely, Nicolas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 3FU Richard. What am I supposed to read in them?
> 
> ...
> 
> Unless I am reading these wrong, I do not see that equation at all
Click to expand...

 
The Belgic Confession of Faith, Article XXVIII 
Every One Is Bound to Join Himself to the True Church 



> We believe, since this holy congregation is an assembly of those who are saved, *and outside of it there is no salvation*...


 
The Visible Church is the Invisible Church worked out in time. On cannot work without the other. If one only had the invisible church, people would be chosen, but never come to repentance/faith, for then one embarks into the visible church. It is this relationship that makes the denial of one, detrimental to and tantamount to denying the other.

This is not to say that there isn't tares growing with the wheat. But during the already/not yet, this must be the case. There are exceptions to visible church=invisible church, but that is the rule by which we are to judge, and the kingdom God has established.

The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXV
Of the Church



> II. *The visible church*, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion;[2] and of their children:[3] *and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ*,[4] the house and family of God,[5] *out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation*.[6]
> 2. I Cor. 1:2; 12:12-13; Psa. 2:8; Rev. 7:9; Rom. 15:9-12
> 3. I Cor. 7:14; Acts 2:39; Gen. 17:7-12; Ezek. 16:20-21; Rom. 11:16; see Gal. 3:7, 9, 14; Rom. 4:12, 16, 24
> *4. Matt. 13:47; Isa. 9:7; Luke 1:32-33; Acts 2:30-36; Col. 1:13*
> 5. Eph. 2:19; 3:15
> 6. Acts 2:47


----------



## Herald

Amazing Grace said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> NJB: Do Baptists believe that the Visible Church = the kingdom of God? I asked this question before, Rich pointed me to the confessions, but I obviously need a better answer. I honestly did not know they were equal, and I am not saying this to be wise or unbiblical. Many who say Lord Lord can enter the visible church, yet not enter the Kingdom of God, by baptism or profession or any other rubric.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, not in the way you seem to be getting at. To say that the visible church is an exact representation of the invisible church (which I assume must be what you mean by "kingdom of God") is Romish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I am getting at is in response to Winzer's statement: *The person is thus received as a member of the catholic visible church, which is the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ,* where I understnad the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ to mean the Kingdom of God spoken about by Christ. WHich he[winzer] says is entered upon by baptism into the visible church.
> 
> I believe the visible church is an instrument of the Kingdom of God. But I deny it IS the kingdom of God. To quote Augustine: "*Many whom God has, the Church does not have. And many whom the Church has, God does not have."* My fear is if this is the case, than anyone who finds fault with the visible church, is finding fault with God Himself. That is repugnant to me. Now the church is a vessel to bring people into the Kingdom of God, but not to bring them into the visible church as far as I see scripture speaking. John 3 says only those born anew, from above can see the Kingdom of God, which is within you.
> 
> I dont know, perhaps I am just confused.
Click to expand...


Nicolas, you are nibbling around the edge. You're almost there. 

The visible church is not the goal of any Christian. The visible church is nothing more than a categorization. It's a term that allows us to describe a group that claims to be part of another group (the invisible church). Of course, this is a distinctively Baptist position. I do not claim to speak on behalf of Presbyterians. The Presbyterian view of the kingdom of God is rooted in their covenantal understanding. I acknowledge and respect that understanding, yet disagree. In order to save time flipping through countless passages, give attention to the dichotomy of views on Jeremiah 31 and the New Covenant. The Baptist and Presbyterian views of the New Covenant are a microcosm of the larger covenantal disagreement between both camps. 

In defense of Matthew Winzer, he is a most eloquent voice for the Presbyterian point of view and I deeply respect his scholarship and ability to articulate what he believes. My only problem with some of his words is _my ability_ to understand them. I am not his equal in grammar or communicative skills, but I am honored to be his equal in Christ.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Jeff_Bartel said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bill, I think we have been down this road before -- the visible church only has the sign to go by. If a person is not baptised he is visibly outside the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ. Even if he ise regnerated inwardly by the Holy Spirit, and is therefore a member of the invisible church, there is no way for the visible church to recognise him as one of God's people except by baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never knew the kingdom of God was = to the visible church = baptism. Am I understanding this correctly? I certainly hope I am....SO before I heartly disagree with this, Ill wait for clarification..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Belgic Confession of Faith, Article XXVIII
> Every One Is Bound to Join Himself to the True Church
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We believe, since this holy congregation is an assembly of those who are saved, *and outside of it there is no salvation*...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Visible Church is the Invisible Church worked out in time. On cannot work without the other. If one only had the invisible church, people would be chosen, but never come to repentance/faith, for then one embarks into the visible church. It is this relationship that makes the denial of one, detrimental to and tantamount to denying the other.
> 
> This is not to say that there isn't tares growing with the wheat. But during the already/not yet, this must be the case. There are exceptions to visible church=invisible church, but that is the rule by which we are to judge, and the kingdom God has established.
> 
> The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXV
> Of the Church
> 
> 
> 
> 
> II. *The visible church*, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion;[2] and of their children:[3] *and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ*,[4] the house and family of God,[5] *out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation*.[6]
> 2. I Cor. 1:2; 12:12-13; Psa. 2:8; Rev. 7:9; Rom. 15:9-12
> 3. I Cor. 7:14; Acts 2:39; Gen. 17:7-12; Ezek. 16:20-21; Rom. 11:16; see Gal. 3:7, 9, 14; Rom. 4:12, 16, 24
> *4. Matt. 13:47; Isa. 9:7; Luke 1:32-33; Acts 2:30-36; Col. 1:13*
> 5. Eph. 2:19; 3:15
> 6. Acts 2:47
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Well I will prematurely withold judgment on #3 of the WCF. The BC, of which I adhere to is saying that all who are batpized on profession are saved? This is new water for me, no pun intended. 

Scripture proofs for # 3 honestly speak nothing of equating the kingdom of God with the visible church. At least I cannot see it. Now again do not hear what I am not saying Jeff, I am not saying one should not be part of a local assembly. What I am saying is this assembly cannot and does not equal the kingdom of God. If His Kingdom is not of this world, how can it be?

_and said, "Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven._

How can one look at this scripture and say the local visible church equals the kingdom of God.


----------



## Herald

> What I am saying is this assembly cannot and does not equal the kingdom of God. If His Kingdom is not of this world, how can it be?


Nicolas, the kingdom of God is not an all or nothing proposition. In other words, the kingdom does not have to be in all its unbridled glory for it to be present on earth. While nothing unclean has part in God's kingdom, the church _represents _the kingdom of God. Consider this:

1689 LBC 26:3



> The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan; nevertheless _*Christ always hath had, and ever shall have a kingdom in this world*_, to the end thereof, of such as believe in him, and make profession of his name.



The invisible church is made up of visible saints (LBC 26:2), yet only those who are of faith are considered to be part of the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God is constituted by those who are heavenly citizens; temporarily displaced while on earth in our present estate. We are Christ's representatives. a glimpse of the full glory of the kingdom which is to come.


----------



## Arch2k

Mat 13:24 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field;
Mat 13:25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way.
Mat 13:26 But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared.
Mat 13:27 So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’
Mat 13:28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’
Mat 13:29 But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them.
Mat 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn."’"


----------



## DMcFadden

[/QUOTE]


Semper Fidelis said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> An individualistic sense of Baptism is really an individualistic sense of discipleship from a family perspective.
> 
> That we are commanded to train our children in the fear and admonition of the Lord is inescapable. Were it not in the Epistles, I am almost certain that many Baptists would deny this is a responsibility of parents because it really fits very poorly with an individualistic sense of discipleship.
> 
> The fact is, however, that it is impossible to train at all without reference to the God you serve. An adult who refuses to be trained is in a much different circumstance than the child who must be trained.
> 
> It is impossible then, for a child to not have his eyes and ears exposed to the Gospel by that Christian parent and, immediately, that places the child under obligation. He has heard. As I've studied Hebrews recently I have become increasingly concerned that too many place little emphasis on how perilous it is for those that have "tasted" of heavenly things to fall away from them.
> 
> Make no mistake about, even if a Baptist father refuses to acknowledge that his child _is_ a disciple, his children will be judged as disciples some day.
> 
> The real question will be whether or not you'll be able to say that you were not guilty of their blood if you neglect to be earnest about their discipleship while they are in your charge. God is gracious not to leave us alone for that work but binds that child, life and death, to the Church that administers the means of Grace for their conversion and perfection in sanctification just as it does for all of us who are likewise needful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rich, of all people, you have been a member of a Baptist church where you should know that Baptists do NOT neglect evangelism and discipleship of children. Indeed, credo baptists often do so much Bible reading, Sunday School going, VBS attending, mid-week program promoting, Bible memorization programs, reading to them at night, purchasing Bible based and Christian themed DVDs, etc. that their children make a profession of faith as early as 3 or 4 years old. While baptism is typically delayed for some time after this (don't ask me to explain that one!), those kids are raised as believers.
> 
> And, while this raises a whole host of other problematic issues, I have seen young children receive communion on the basis of their profession of faith.
> 
> As I have freely admitted in manifold threads, I am no knee-jerk defender of things Baptist. Made up sacraments (e.g., infant dedication), delays between "accepting" Christ and experiencing Christian baptism, and the obvious problem of the Baptist assumption that a child is a non-believer despite the fact that in practice Baptist kids are treated much like Presbyterian kids give me fits. However, neither am I willing to pretend that Baptist "practice" is all that different from Presbyterian "practice" with regard to raising children in church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed Dennis but all this does is serve to highlight what is confessed on the one hand and practiced on the other. It makes sense for a free will Baptist to do all of these things but it doesn't really fit within a context that the children are presumed to be unregenerate until they prove otherwise. In other words, if they are, for all intents and purposes treated like disciples then why does everybody go out of their way to confess that they are not disciples? Since you're loathe to admit that they should be treated like disciples then what do you think the difference is between a disciple and a disciple?
> 
> I already noted in this thread that this activity goes on but it is really done "informally". That is to say that the Church sort of accidentally does it because (and rightly so) it would seem a terrible thing to all to simply ignore these little ones who happen to be tagging along with Mom and Dad every Sunday. If their status before God was really as some have argued here in the past, it would be more consistent to drop them off at a pagan friend's home on Sunday until such a time as they confess Christ.
> 
> But, as it is, the discipleship of children is generally vague. Pilgrim was very critical of the WLC 167 on improving your baptism which, for all intents and purposes, is the Book of Hebrews in a nutshell with all its warnings to persevere. Presbyterians are _deliberate_ in their means of Grace for all in the congregation. All disciples are identified for what they are and the idea of "striving together" includes the child. We have catechisms designed for the old _and_ the young in our Confessional documents.
> 
> Further, this points to a confusion in discipleship at large, which I alluded to earlier when initially answering Houston E's question. Baptists tend to view discipleship beginning at a definitive conversion with the sign designed to mark that conversion. One might get the impression that, in all of this, I deprecate the necessity for conversion. God forbid. The reason I find that model defective, however, is that it leads to presumption about conversion. If the baptized are the converted then there is not this need to fear lest any be found to be unbelieving. In fact, discipleship is a process and baptism simple marks the definitive point where the visible Church marks out that person as one who should be coming to Christ in faith and doing everything within its means to give to that disciple what he needs toward that end. Yes, God alone elects but the Church is visibly earnest toward that end with all disciples. Neither the oldest nor the youngest baptized member should become slack but all should be considering how they might stimulate one another toward love and good works, not forsaking the assembling together as some are in the habit of doing and all the more as they see the Day approaching.
> 
> Thus, Dennis, while I agree with you that the activity exists, it is really outside the boundaries (Confessionally) of where the Church actually "exists" since the children are not members of the Church, there is no formalized sense of how that should look since none of the passages in Scripture that teach about Covenant parenting apply any more, and, in fact, the discipleship of adults itself is undermined by a presumption born of a sign that grants far too much confidence to the Church and the individual that definitive conversion has taken place in the baptized.
Click to expand...


Rich,

Thanks for an excellent and thoughtful reply. Your points are all worth interacting with but time will permit only a couple at this point.



> I already noted in this thread that this activity goes on but it is really done "informally". That is to say that the Church sort of accidentally does it because (and rightly so) it would seem a terrible thing to all to simply ignore these little ones who happen to be tagging along with Mom and Dad every Sunday.



I guess it depends on what you mean by "informally" and "sort of accidentally." If you mean that it lacks coherent integration within the logic of the Baptist view of the church . . . I agree. That is one of the reasons I am on the PB and currently listening to Kim Riddlebarger's MP3 series on amillennialism after having just finished Palmer Robertson's MP3 on covenant theology. If, however, you are speaking programmatically, you are off by a mile. No pastor I know (certainly not me during 22 years of pastoral ministry before coming to my current ministry) takes children's ministry for granted. Indeed, the majority of my wife's job description relates to children's ministry. Indeed, one might argue that the average Baptist church probably devotes more professional staff resources to children's ministry than most Presbyterian congregations (largely due to size since many Presbyterian congregations are smaller without so much paid staff).

I would contend that the paradox of children's ministry in a Baptist church parallels the anomaly of "baby dedication." Virtually every Baptist church does it, despite the complete absence of Biblical warrant, in large part because not doing it leaves a huge hole (as paedo baptists all realize). If you want to say that Baptists are confused or inconsistent, no objection here. It simply seemed that you moved from the philosophical to the empirical and squeezed the data to fit your interpretation. Baptists take children as seriously as any Protestant. The proper question is why? How, based on their view of the church do they practice in such a contrariwise way?



> If the baptized are the converted then there is not this need to fear lest any be found to be unbelieving.



That may be true in some of the old "once-saved-always-saved and baptism proves it" types. However, in the congregations I pastored (small, medium, and large), we NEVER assumed that baptism proved a person was a Christian. Indeed, Baptist labor so dilligently to evacuate the sacraments of any real meaning (our view of communion is somethings accused of being the "doctrine of the real absence"), that few would ever make the mistake of equating baptism with salvation. For a Baptist, baptist is done as an "ordinance" "just because Jesus 'ordered' us to do so." Unbaptized professing Christians are acting disobediently (e.g., gossip, slander, greed, lust, envy, etc.), but Baptists would generally not see their salvation as at risk. A baptized professor who lacked the indicia of obedience would be viewed as suspect of not being a disciple at all.


----------



## danmpem

DMcFadden said:


> I would contend that the paradox of children's ministry in a Baptist church parallels the anomaly of "baby dedication." Virtually every Baptist church does it, despite the complete absence of Biblical warrant



 I am still investigating credo- and paedo- baptism, but one thing I am convicted of is that I am _not_ dedicating my children.


----------



## Herald

> I would contend that the paradox of children's ministry in a Baptist church parallels the anomaly of "baby dedication." Virtually every Baptist church does it, despite the complete absence of Biblical warrant...


I oppose baby dedication _ceremonies_, but believe it is biblical for parents to dedicate themselves as to the raising of their children.

Also, much of the criticism levied against Baptist churches in the area of "means of grace" is being corrected in confessional Baptist churches. These churches are a small but vocal minority in the larger Baptist church genre.


----------



## KMK

Amazing Grace said:


> Jeff_Bartel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never knew the kingdom of God was = to the visible church = baptism. Am I understanding this correctly? I certainly hope I am....SO before I heartly disagree with this, Ill wait for clarification..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Belgic Confession of Faith, Article XXVIII
> Every One Is Bound to Join Himself to the True Church
> 
> 
> 
> The Visible Church is the Invisible Church worked out in time. On cannot work without the other. If one only had the invisible church, people would be chosen, but never come to repentance/faith, for then one embarks into the visible church. It is this relationship that makes the denial of one, detrimental to and tantamount to denying the other.
> 
> This is not to say that there isn't tares growing with the wheat. But during the already/not yet, this must be the case. There are exceptions to visible church=invisible church, but that is the rule by which we are to judge, and the kingdom God has established.
> 
> The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXV
> Of the Church
> 
> 
> 
> 
> II. *The visible church*, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion;[2] and of their children:[3] *and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ*,[4] the house and family of God,[5] *out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation*.[6]
> 2. I Cor. 1:2; 12:12-13; Psa. 2:8; Rev. 7:9; Rom. 15:9-12
> 3. I Cor. 7:14; Acts 2:39; Gen. 17:7-12; Ezek. 16:20-21; Rom. 11:16; see Gal. 3:7, 9, 14; Rom. 4:12, 16, 24
> *4. Matt. 13:47; Isa. 9:7; Luke 1:32-33; Acts 2:30-36; Col. 1:13*
> 5. Eph. 2:19; 3:15
> 6. Acts 2:47
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I will prematurely withold judgment on #3 of the WCF. The BC, of which I adhere to is saying that all who are batpized on profession are saved? This is new water for me, no pun intended.
> 
> Scripture proofs for # 3 honestly speak nothing of equating the kingdom of God with the visible church. At least I cannot see it. Now again do not hear what I am not saying Jeff, I am not saying one should not be part of a local assembly. What I am saying is this assembly cannot and does not equal the kingdom of God. If His Kingdom is not of this world, how can it be?
> 
> _and said, "Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven._
> 
> How can one look at this scripture and say the local visible church equals the kingdom of God.
Click to expand...


This is great question for your elders. The 'wild wild west' of the PB Baptism Forum may not be the best place to flesh these things out if you are struggling with the proper subjects of baptism. People often play it 'fast and loose' around here and there might be more confusion than understanding. 

(I am not implying that you are not knowledgeable. You are one of the most knowledgeable people on PB, in my opinion.)


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Amazing Grace said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> NJB: Do Baptists believe that the Visible Church = the kingdom of God? I asked this question before, Rich pointed me to the confessions, but I obviously need a better answer. I honestly did not know they were equal, and I am not saying this to be wise or unbiblical. Many who say Lord Lord can enter the visible church, yet not enter the Kingdom of God, by baptism or profession or any other rubric.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, not in the way you seem to be getting at. To say that the visible church is an exact representation of the invisible church (which I assume must be what you mean by "kingdom of God") is Romish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I am getting at is in response to Winzer's statement: *The person is thus received as a member of the catholic visible church, which is the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ,* where I understnad the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ to mean the Kingdom of God spoken about by Christ. WHich he[winzer] says is entered upon by baptism into the visible church.
> 
> I believe the visible church is an instrument of the Kingdom of God. But I deny it IS the kingdom of God. To quote Augustine: "*Many whom God has, the Church does not have. And many whom the Church has, God does not have."* My fear is if this is the case, than anyone who finds fault with the visible church, is finding fault with God Himself. That is repugnant to me. Now the church is a vessel to bring people into the Kingdom of God, but not to bring them into the visible church as far as I see scripture speaking. John 3 says only those born anew, from above can see the Kingdom of God, which is within you.
> 
> I dont know, perhaps I am just confused.
Click to expand...


The confusion stems from visible/invisible Church distinction that is different in Presbyterianism than Baptistic thinking.

Rev. Winzer is not stating that those who are Baptized are elect. That is apparently obvious to the casual observer of this thread. If you simply equate the Kingdom of God with the Elect then that is not what we Confess. I don't have much time to develop this (though it's been all through this thread) but the Kingdom is both visible and invisible. If we simply say that the Elect are in the Kingdom then the Kingdom of God on this Earth is completely invisible.

Yet, there is a visible administration of God's Kingdom on this Earth in the Covenant of Grace. Those that argue for an invisible Covenant of Grace must ultimately argue that Church membership is not membership in the Covenant of Grace and the Kingdom becomes completely invisible at that point.

Also, as I have noted, those in the visible Covenant of Grace are under obligation to the Gospel and to submit to the rule of the Elders within her boundaries. It is not Romish to insist that outside of God's Covenant of Grace there is no possibility of salvation and that Covenant has real, visible Sacraments and not merely ordinances that stand, theoretically, outside of it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

DMcFadden said:


> I already noted in this thread that this activity goes on but it is really done "informally". That is to say that the Church sort of accidentally does it because (and rightly so) it would seem a terrible thing to all to simply ignore these little ones who happen to be tagging along with Mom and Dad every Sunday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it depends on what you mean by "informally" and "sort of accidentally." If you mean that it lacks coherent integration within the logic of the Baptist view of the church . . . I agree.
Click to expand...

Well, yes, and "what I meant" was fleshed out in my response.



> If the baptized are the converted then there is not this need to fear lest any be found to be unbelieving.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That may be true in some of the old "once-saved-always-saved and baptism proves it" types. However, in the congregations I pastored (small, medium, and large), we NEVER assumed that baptism proved a person was a Christian. Indeed, Baptist labor so dilligently to evacuate the sacraments of any real meaning (our view of communion is somethings accused of being the "doctrine of the real absence"), that few would ever make the mistake of equating baptism with salvation. For a Baptist, baptist is done as an "ordinance" "just because Jesus 'ordered' us to do so." Unbaptized professing Christians are acting disobediently (e.g., gossip, slander, greed, lust, envy, etc.), but Baptists would generally not see their salvation as at risk. A baptized professor who lacked the indicia of obedience would be viewed as suspect of not being a disciple at all.
Click to expand...


More or less though I've heard more than a few Baptists (including Gene Cook in the Manata-Cook debate), argue that we no longer have to tell a man in the New Covenant to "know the Lord". That is to say, as the argument went, that once a person is converted (baptized?), you no longer need to tell them to believe the Gospel. I think this is perilous. This works itself out on the ground in a dangerous way when people start to confuse categories and shows the impossibility of working from the ideal. This dialogue you and I are having demonstrates how hard it is to figure out what visible discipleship looks like when all disciples are invisible.

Whether or not this is articulated this way, I am not saying that Baptists have a "once saved, only saved" mentality but a certain over-confidence exists with respect to baptism representing conversion from the very start. If the Church is visibly going to be so confident as to baptize those it believes are converted then this instills in all a certain sense that this has definitively occurred. Why is it, do you suppose, that Particular Baptists of the past would examine men for _years_ before baptism to look for signs of true conversion? In my mind, this is consistent with a Baptistic understanding of the ordinance but is not what the Sacrament is for according to the Scriptures. I believe it flips around what baptism is intended for. I know this is the issue of debate but baptism should be at the beginning of the process when a man is interested in being a disciple and not at the end when you're convinced he's converted. The Church's Word and Sacrament are for sanctification _and_ conversion. This is the crux of the difference.


----------



## KMK

Semper Fidelis said:


> *If the Church is visibly going to be so confident as to baptize those it believes are converted *then this instills in all a certain sense that this has definitively occurred.



Hmmmm...

Confessionally, we baptize those who profess to repent, believe and obey. Any confidence we have is in the biblical promises (or at least general principles) attached to such a profession.



> LBC 29:2. Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.


----------



## Amazing Grace

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Nicolas, the kingdom of God is not an all or nothing proposition. In other words, the kingdom does not have to be in all its unbridled glory for it to be present on earth. While nothing unclean has part in God's kingdom, the church _represents _the kingdom of God. Consider this:




I agree NJB. Perhaps I have derailed the thread somewhat and for that I apologize. 




North Jersey Baptist said:


> 1689 LBC 26:3
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan; nevertheless _*Christ always hath had, and ever shall have a kingdom in this world*_, to the end thereof, *of such as believe in him, and make profession of his name.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The invisible church is made up of visible saints (LBC 26:2), *yet only those who are of faith are considered to be part of the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God is constituted by those who are heavenly citizens;* temporarily displaced while on earth in our present estate. We are Christ's representatives. a glimpse of the full glory of the kingdom which is to come.
Click to expand...



This is what is confusing to me. I can give a 100% hearty amen to this becasue it does not, as the WCF that Bartel showed, equate the visible church equal with the Kingdom of God. I believe the Kingdom of God is here and is to come in its full glory. The Kingdom of God, to my limited understanding, is ONLY those blood bought, Born Anew (Spirit Baptism) Regenerated people. And the universe here and to come where Christ is the reigning King. I personally see no connection with baptism and the Kigdom of God. NAd none that the earthly visible assembly which contains both elect and reprobate to equal the Kigdom of God. 

Again the visible church can point people/lead people into the Kingdom of God, but to declare it as one creates the error of triumphalism. Again to repeat the augustine quote:

"Many whom God has, the Church does not have. And many whom the Church has, God does not have."

This is how I view it. Does that make me baptist? Or just wrong!!!!


----------



## Herald

Amazing Grace said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nicolas, the kingdom of God is not an all or nothing proposition. In other words, the kingdom does not have to be in all its unbridled glory for it to be present on earth. While nothing unclean has part in God's kingdom, the church _represents _the kingdom of God. Consider this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree NJB. Perhaps I have derailed the thread somewhat and for that I apologize.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1689 LBC 26:3
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan; nevertheless _*Christ always hath had, and ever shall have a kingdom in this world*_, to the end thereof, *of such as believe in him, and make profession of his name.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The invisible church is made up of visible saints (LBC 26:2), *yet only those who are of faith are considered to be part of the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God is constituted by those who are heavenly citizens;* temporarily displaced while on earth in our present estate. We are Christ's representatives. a glimpse of the full glory of the kingdom which is to come.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is what is confusing to me. I can give a 100% hearty amen to this becasue it does not, as the WCF that Bartel showed, equate the visible church equal with the Kingdom of God. I believe the Kingdom of God is here and is to come in its full glory. The Kingdom of God, to my limited understanding, is ONLY those blood bought, Born Anew (Spirit Baptism) Regenerated people. And the universe here and to come where Christ is the reigning King. I personally see no connection with baptism and the Kigdom of God. NAd none that the earthly visible assembly which contains both elect and reprobate to equal the Kigdom of God.
> 
> Again the visible church can point people/lead people into the Kingdom of God, but to declare it as one creates the error of triumphalism. Again to repeat the augustine quote:
> 
> "Many whom God has, the Church does not have. And many whom the Church has, God does not have."
> 
> This is how I view it. Does that make me baptist? Or just wrong!!!!
Click to expand...


Nicolas, I don't know if that makes you Baptist (one can only hope!), but you're certainly in agreement with the Baptist view of the Kingdom. In this discussion we are approaching the Kingdom from a soteriological, ecclesiastical and eschatological perspective. This perspective does not mitigate God's dominion as the, "owner of the cattle on a thousand hills." God's rightful claim to creation is an aspect of His kingship, although that is not how we are approaching it in our discussion.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

KMK said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If the Church is visibly going to be so confident as to baptize those it believes are converted *then this instills in all a certain sense that this has definitively occurred.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm...
> 
> Confessionally, we baptize those who profess to repent, believe and obey. Any confidence we have is in the biblical promises (or at least general principles) attached to such a profession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LBC 29:2. Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I rest my case. Thank you for confirming my point.


----------



## DMcFadden

Semper Fidelis said:


> Whether or not this is articulated this way, I am not saying that Baptists have a "once saved, only saved" mentality but a certain over-confidence exists with respect to baptism representing conversion from the very start. If the Church is visibly going to be so confident as to baptize those it believes are converted then this instills in all a certain sense that this has definitively occurred.



I doubt that Baptists have as much confidence that baptism=conversion as paedo-baptists do that their covenant children are Christians. Again, I think we are dealing with empirical facts vs. logical conclusions. You are probably right that the Baptist view of the church leads rather naturally to make this presumptive assumption. However, in practice it does not work that way. 



> Why is it, do you suppose, that Particular Baptists of the past would examine men for _years_ before baptism to look for signs of true conversion? In my mind, this is consistent with a Baptistic understanding of the ordinance but is not what the Sacrament is for according to the Scriptures.



Because they were better (i.e., more consistent) Baptists than the ones today for whom "Christian experience" is the all-important value, not biblical theology. Your posts on the Baptist topic often take on the quality of faulting Baptists for this or that failure in what their practice should be based on what they claim to believe. So who said they care what they claim to believe? Today, with a few notable exceptions, most Baptists inhabit the orbit of broad evangelicalism with all of its quirks and contradictions (except for those liberals in the mainline ABC, a smallish denomination of 1.3 million dwarfed by the huge SBC). For many of them, Baptist is just the name of the church they work at/worship at that is fiercely independent/autonomous, baptizes believers, and does make much of liturgy or sacraments. I concede that in the SBC, loyalty among both clergy and laity is another thing entirely. 

Out here in CA, I don't know that too many people care about denominational loyalty, distinctives, or the original beliefs of the founders of their sect. Outside of the SBC, it is unusual, for example, to find a Baptist pastor who even attended a "Baptist" school. In So. Cal, for example, the percentage of ABC Baptists who came through ANY ABC seminary was less than 5%.



> I believe it flips around what baptism is intended for. I know this is the issue of debate but baptism should be at the beginning of the process when a man is interested in being a disciple and not at the end when you're convinced he's converted. The Church's Word and Sacrament are for sanctification _and_ conversion. This is the crux of the difference.



Very interesting point. Again, I am quite open to re-evaluating the whole Baptist thing in light of Scripture. Frankly, if there were more confessional Baptists around, it might not be so existentially pointed for me. However, in their absence, several varieties of Presbyterian are looking pretty good just now.


----------



## Amazing Grace

KMK said:


> This is great question for your elders. The 'wild wild west' of the PB Baptism Forum may not be the best place to flesh these things out if you are struggling with the proper subjects of baptism. People often play it 'fast and loose' around here and there might be more confusion than understanding.
> 
> (I am not implying that you are not knowledgeable. You are one of the most knowledgeable people on PB, in my opinion.)



Brother Ken:

I am actually not anxious at all about this discussion. In fact, it may be the first time I have put thoughts into words regarding this subject. So there really is no struggle whatsoever on my part. 

As an aside, Baptism threads seem to get the most latitude without getting an infraction resulting in suspension!!!  Therefore, with my mouth, I better play in this sand box.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Semper Fidelis said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, not in the way you seem to be getting at. To say that the visible church is an exact representation of the invisible church (which I assume must be what you mean by "kingdom of God") is Romish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I am getting at is in response to Winzer's statement: *The person is thus received as a member of the catholic visible church, which is the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ,* where I understnad the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ to mean the Kingdom of God spoken about by Christ. WHich he[winzer] says is entered upon by baptism into the visible church.
> 
> I believe the visible church is an instrument of the Kingdom of God. But I deny it IS the kingdom of God. To quote Augustine: "*Many whom God has, the Church does not have. And many whom the Church has, God does not have."* My fear is if this is the case, than anyone who finds fault with the visible church, is finding fault with God Himself. That is repugnant to me. Now the church is a vessel to bring people into the Kingdom of God, but not to bring them into the visible church as far as I see scripture speaking. John 3 says only those born anew, from above can see the Kingdom of God, which is within you.
> 
> I dont know, perhaps I am just confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The confusion stems from visible/invisible Church distinction that is different in Presbyterianism than Baptistic thinking.
> 
> Rev. Winzer is not stating that those who are Baptized are elect. That is apparently obvious to the casual observer of this thread. If you simply equate the Kingdom of God with the Elect then that is not what we Confess. I don't have much time to develop this (though it's been all through this thread) but the Kingdom is both visible and invisible. If we simply say that the Elect are in the Kingdom then the Kingdom of God on this Earth is completely invisible.
> 
> Yet, there is a visible administration of God's Kingdom on this Earth in the Covenant of Grace. Those that argue for an invisible Covenant of Grace must ultimately argue that Church membership is not membership in the Covenant of Grace and the Kingdom becomes completely invisible at that point.
> 
> Also, as I have noted, those in the visible Covenant of Grace are under obligation to the Gospel and to submit to the rule of the Elders within her boundaries. It is not Romish to insist that outside of God's Covenant of Grace there is no possibility of salvation and that Covenant has real, visible Sacraments and not merely ordinances that stand, theoretically, outside of it.
Click to expand...




Can I believe there is a visible church/invisible church distinction, yet not equate the visible church with the kingdom of God? Therefore since the vc is not the KOG, then baptism by water, does not put one into the kog. Christ did not die for the visible church, He died for the invisible church. Therefore how can I with good conscious equate the title KOG with the reprobate?


----------



## Amazing Grace

Acts 8.12; 19.8; 20.25; 28.23, 31
812But when Philip proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and of the name of Jesus Christ, men and women believed and were baptized.

198He went into the synagogue and spoke there boldly for three months, holding discussions and persuading them about the kingdom of God.

2025"Now I know that none of you among whom I traveled preaching the kingdom will ever see my face again.

2823So they set a day to meet with him and came in large numbers to see him where he was staying. From morning until evening he continued to explain the kingdom of God to them, trying to convince them about Jesus from the Law of Moses and the Prophets.

2831He continued to preach the kingdom of God and to teach about the Lord Jesus Christ with perfect boldness and freedom.


Perhaps I am going in the wrong direction. But it is impossible to put church in place of Kingdom in these and any other scriptures it is mentioned. 


Jesus stated that "among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater that he." (Matt. 11:11). This is in itself proof that the kingdom is not the "church". 

1. Since Jesus says there is none born of women greater than John the Baptist, the greatest in the "church" is not as great as John the Baptist.
2. But he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater that John the Baptist.
3. Therefore, the "church" cannot be synonymous with the kingdom. 


Many who have joined the VC by baptism have subsequently fallen away. if the KOG = the Visible church by baptism, this argument requires that Demas (2 Tim. 4:10), Alexander (2 Tim. 4:14) and Diotrephes (3 Jn. 9) are all greater than John the Baptist by virtue of being in the "church"


----------



## Herald

Amazing Grace said:


> Acts 8.12; 19.8; 20.25; 28.23, 31
> 812But when Philip proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and of the name of Jesus Christ, men and women believed and were baptized.
> 
> 198He went into the synagogue and spoke there boldly for three months, holding discussions and persuading them about the kingdom of God.
> 
> 2025"Now I know that none of you among whom I traveled preaching the kingdom will ever see my face again.
> 
> 2823So they set a day to meet with him and came in large numbers to see him where he was staying. From morning until evening he continued to explain the kingdom of God to them, trying to convince them about Jesus from the Law of Moses and the Prophets.
> 
> 2831He continued to preach the kingdom of God and to teach about the Lord Jesus Christ with perfect boldness and freedom.
> 
> 
> Perhaps I am going in the wrong direction. But it is impossible to put church in place of Kingdom in these and any other scriptures it is mentioned.
> 
> 
> Jesus stated that "among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater that he." (Matt. 11:11). This is in itself proof that the kingdom is not the "church".
> 
> 1. Since Jesus says there is none born of women greater than John the Baptist, the greatest in the "church" is not as great as John the Baptist.
> 2. But he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater that John the Baptist.
> 3. Therefore, the "church" cannot be synonymous with the kingdom.
> 
> 
> Many who have joined the VC by baptism have subsequently fallen away. if the KOG = the Visible church by baptism, this argument requires that Demas (2 Tim. 4:10), Alexander (2 Tim. 4:14) and Diotrephes (3 Jn. 9) are all greater than John the Baptist by virtue of being in the "church"



Nicolas, be careful. You're sounding too much like a Baptist.


----------



## Amazing Grace

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Acts 8.12; 19.8; 20.25; 28.23, 31
> 812But when Philip proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and of the name of Jesus Christ, men and women believed and were baptized.
> 
> 198He went into the synagogue and spoke there boldly for three months, holding discussions and persuading them about the kingdom of God.
> 
> 2025"Now I know that none of you among whom I traveled preaching the kingdom will ever see my face again.
> 
> 2823So they set a day to meet with him and came in large numbers to see him where he was staying. From morning until evening he continued to explain the kingdom of God to them, trying to convince them about Jesus from the Law of Moses and the Prophets.
> 
> 2831He continued to preach the kingdom of God and to teach about the Lord Jesus Christ with perfect boldness and freedom.
> 
> 
> Perhaps I am going in the wrong direction. But it is impossible to put church in place of Kingdom in these and any other scriptures it is mentioned.
> 
> 
> Jesus stated that "among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater that he." (Matt. 11:11). This is in itself proof that the kingdom is not the "church".
> 
> 1. Since Jesus says there is none born of women greater than John the Baptist, the greatest in the "church" is not as great as John the Baptist.
> 2. But he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater that John the Baptist.
> 3. Therefore, the "church" cannot be synonymous with the kingdom.
> 
> 
> Many who have joined the VC by baptism have subsequently fallen away. if the KOG = the Visible church by baptism, this argument requires that Demas (2 Tim. 4:10), Alexander (2 Tim. 4:14) and Diotrephes (3 Jn. 9) are all greater than John the Baptist by virtue of being in the "church"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nicolas, be careful. You're sounding too much like a Baptist.
Click to expand...




I have been called much worse NJB!!!! LOL

What I do know is Blood always trumps water. Blood is what puts one into the KOG, not all the water in world. God said When I see the blood, not when I see the water/circumcision...

I just feel very clear and yet confused in all of this..


----------



## KMK

Amazing Grace said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Acts 8.12; 19.8; 20.25; 28.23, 31
> 812But when Philip proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and of the name of Jesus Christ, men and women believed and were baptized.
> 
> 198He went into the synagogue and spoke there boldly for three months, holding discussions and persuading them about the kingdom of God.
> 
> 2025"Now I know that none of you among whom I traveled preaching the kingdom will ever see my face again.
> 
> 2823So they set a day to meet with him and came in large numbers to see him where he was staying. From morning until evening he continued to explain the kingdom of God to them, trying to convince them about Jesus from the Law of Moses and the Prophets.
> 
> 2831He continued to preach the kingdom of God and to teach about the Lord Jesus Christ with perfect boldness and freedom.
> 
> 
> Perhaps I am going in the wrong direction. But it is impossible to put church in place of Kingdom in these and any other scriptures it is mentioned.
> 
> 
> Jesus stated that "among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater that he." (Matt. 11:11). This is in itself proof that the kingdom is not the "church".
> 
> 1. Since Jesus says there is none born of women greater than John the Baptist, the greatest in the "church" is not as great as John the Baptist.
> 2. But he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater that John the Baptist.
> 3. Therefore, the "church" cannot be synonymous with the kingdom.
> 
> 
> Many who have joined the VC by baptism have subsequently fallen away. if the KOG = the Visible church by baptism, this argument requires that Demas (2 Tim. 4:10), Alexander (2 Tim. 4:14) and Diotrephes (3 Jn. 9) are all greater than John the Baptist by virtue of being in the "church"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nicolas, be careful. You're sounding too much like a Baptist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have been called much worse NJB!!!! LOL
> 
> What I do know is Blood always trumps water. Blood is what puts one into the KOG, not all the water in world. God said When I see the blood, not when I see the water/circumcision...
> 
> I just feel very clear and yet confused in all of this..
Click to expand...


Maybe that's because we are on page 10!


----------



## Mayflower

Amazing Grace said:


> I just feel very clear and yet confused in all of this..



Dear Amazing grace,

What do you think of this ?:

The kingdom is NOT the church. The apostles went about preaching the kingdom of God (Acts 8:12; 19:8; 28:23); it is impossible to substitute "church" for "kingdom" in such passages. However, there is an inseparable relationship. The church is the fellowship of men who have accepted His offer of the kingdom, submitted to its rule, and entered into its blessings. The kingdom was offered to Israel (Matt. 10:5-6), who because of their previous convenantal relationship to God were "sons of the kingdom" (Matt. 8:12), its natural heirs. However, the offer of the kingdom in Christ was made on an individual basis in terms of personal acceptance (Mark 3:31-35; Matt. 10:35-35) rather than in terms of the family or nation. Because Israel rejected the kingdom, it was taken away and given to a different people (Matt. 21:43), the church. 

Thus we may say that the kingdom of God creates the church. The redemptive rule of God brings into being a new people who receive the blessings of the divine reign. Furthermore it was the activity of the divine rule which brought judgment upon Israel. Individually the kingdom means either salvation or judgment (Matt. 3:11); historically the activity of the kingdom of God effected the creation of the church and the destruction of Israel (Matt. 23:37-38). This is probably the meaning of Mark 9:1. Within the lifetime of the disciples the kingdom of God would be seen manifesting its power in bringing a historical judgment upon Jerusalem and in creating the new people, the church. Paul announced the rejection of Israel and the salvation of the Gentiles (I Thess. 2:16; Acts 28:26-28). However, the rejection of Israel is not permanent. After God has visited the Gentiles, He will regraft Israel into the people of God, and "so all Israel will be saved" (Rom. 11:24-26), receive the kingdom of God, and enter into its blessings (see Matt. 23:39; Acts 3:19-20). 

The kingdom also works through the church. The disciples preached the kingdom of God and performed signs of the kingdom (Matt. 10:7-8; Luke 10:9, 17). The powers of the kingdom were operative in and through them. Jesus said that He would give to the church the keys of the kingdom of heaven with power to bind and loose (Matt. 16:18-19). The meaning of the keys is illustrated in Luke 11:52. The scribes had taken away the key of knowledge, i.e., the correct interpretation of the OT. The key of understanding the divine purpose had been entrusted to Israel; but the scribes had so misinterpreted the oracles of God delivered to them (Rom. 3:2) that when Messiah came with a new revelation of God's kingdom, they neither entered themselves nor allowed others to enter. These keys, along with the kingdom blessings, are to be given to the new people who, as they preach the good news of the kingdom, will be the means of binding or loosing men from their sins. In fact, the disciples had already used these keys and exercised this authority, bringing men the gift of peace or pronouncing the divine judgment (Matt. 10:13-15).

The kingdom is God's deed. It has come into the world in Christ; it works in the world through the church. When the church has proclaimed the gospel of the kingdom in all the world as witness to all nations, Christ will return (Matt. 24:14) and bring the kingdom in glory. 

Definition: kingdom, kingdom of God, kingdom of Christ, kingdom of heaven


----------



## Pilgrim

danmpem said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would contend that the paradox of children's ministry in a Baptist church parallels the anomaly of "baby dedication." Virtually every Baptist church does it, despite the complete absence of Biblical warrant
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am still investigating credo- and paedo- baptism, but one thing I am convicted of is that I am _not_ dedicating my children.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't agree that virtually every Baptist church does it. Perhaps it's more accurate to say that many larger Baptist churches do it. There are a good many that I know of that do not and would not practice this innovation.


----------



## Arch2k

Jeff_Bartel said:


> Mat 13:24 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field;
> Mat 13:25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way.
> Mat 13:26 But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared.
> Mat 13:27 So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’
> Mat 13:28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’
> Mat 13:29 But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them.
> Mat 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn."’"


 


Amazing Grace said:


> Can I believe there is a visible church/invisible church distinction, yet not equate the visible church with the kingdom of God? Therefore since the vc is not the KOG, then baptism by water, does not put one into the kog. Christ did not die for the visible church, He died for the invisible church. Therefore how can I with good conscious equate the title KOG with the reprobate?


 
Amazing Grace,

The scriptures declare that the kingdom of God is the wheat growing with the tares. It will not always be that way, but for now it is. How would you explain the parable I quoted above?

Here is John Gill's (a baptist btw) explanation:



> The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: by "the kingdom of heaven", is not meant the ultimate glory of the saints in heaven, or the state of happiness in the other world; for there will be no tares there; nor the Gospel, and the ministration of it, but the Gospel dispensation, and times, and kingdom of the Messiah; or rather the Gospel visible church state, on earth, called a "kingdom", of which Christ is king, and in which the saints are subject to him; where proper laws are made for the orderly government of it, and proper officers appointed to explain, and put those laws in execution; and which consists of various persons, united under one head, and independent of any other government: and it is styled the kingdom of heaven, in distinction from the kingdoms of this world; the subjects of it are, or should be, heaven born souls; the word, laws, and ordinances of it are from heaven; and there is some resemblance between a Gospel church state and heaven, and it is very near unto it, and is even the suburbs of it: or else the king Messiah himself is intended, who is compared to a man, a sower; and so it is explained, Mat_13:37 "he that soweth the good seed is the son of man": which is a name and title of the Messiah, by which he is called both in the Old and New Testament; who, though the seed of the woman, yet was the son of man, as of Abraham, and David; and which denotes the truth, and yet the infirmity of his human nature: he is the sower that went about preaching the Gospel of the kingdom, in the Jewish world, or throughout Judea and Galilee, in his own person: and who also, by the ministry of his apostles, sowed the seed of the word in the several parts of the world, which was made effectual for the beginning of a good work of grace on the souls of many; for by "his field" is meant "the world", as appears from Mat_13:38 and means either the whole world, in which both good and bad men live and dwell; and is the field Christ is the proprietor of, both by creation, as God, and by gift, as mediator: or the church, the visible Gospel church state throughout the world; which is as a field well tilled and manured; and is Christ's by gift, purchase, and grace: and by the good seed sown in it, are meant "the children of the kingdom"; as is said, Mat_13:38 such as have a good work begun in them, and bring forth good fruit in their lives and conversations.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Jeff_Bartel said:


> Jeff_Bartel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mat 13:24 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field;
> Mat 13:25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way.
> Mat 13:26 But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared.
> Mat 13:27 So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’
> Mat 13:28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’
> Mat 13:29 But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them.
> Mat 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn."’"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can I believe there is a visible church/invisible church distinction, yet not equate the visible church with the kingdom of God? Therefore since the vc is not the KOG, then baptism by water, does not put one into the kog. Christ did not die for the visible church, He died for the invisible church. Therefore how can I with good conscious equate the title KOG with the reprobate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace,
> 
> The scriptures declare that the kingdom of God is the wheat growing with the tares. It will not always be that way, but for now it is. How would you explain the parable I quoted above?
> 
> Here is John Gill's (a baptist btw) explanation:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: by "the kingdom of heaven", is not meant the ultimate glory of the saints in heaven, or the state of happiness in the other world; for there will be no tares there; nor the Gospel, and the ministration of it, but the Gospel dispensation, and times, and kingdom of the Messiah; or rather the Gospel visible church state, on earth, called a "kingdom", of which Christ is king, and in which the saints are subject to him; where proper laws are made for the orderly government of it, and proper officers appointed to explain, and put those laws in execution; and which consists of various persons, united under one head, and independent of any other government: and it is styled the kingdom of heaven, in distinction from the kingdoms of this world; the subjects of it are, or should be, heaven born souls; the word, laws, and ordinances of it are from heaven; and there is some resemblance between a Gospel church state and heaven, and it is very near unto it, and is even the suburbs of it: or else the king Messiah himself is intended, who is compared to a man, a sower; and so it is explained, Mat_13:37 "he that soweth the good seed is the son of man": which is a name and title of the Messiah, by which he is called both in the Old and New Testament; who, though the seed of the woman, yet was the son of man, as of Abraham, and David; and which denotes the truth, and yet the infirmity of his human nature: he is the sower that went about preaching the Gospel of the kingdom, in the Jewish world, or throughout Judea and Galilee, in his own person: and who also, by the ministry of his apostles, sowed the seed of the word in the several parts of the world, which was made effectual for the beginning of a good work of grace on the souls of many; for by "his field" is meant "the world", as appears from Mat_13:38 and means either the whole world, in which both good and bad men live and dwell; and is the field Christ is the proprietor of, both by creation, as God, and by gift, as mediator: or the church, the visible Gospel church state throughout the world; which is as a field well tilled and manured; and is Christ's by gift, purchase, and grace: and by the good seed sown in it, are meant "the children of the kingdom"; as is said, Mat_13:38 such as have a good work begun in them, and bring forth good fruit in their lives and conversations.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Pretty much how I understand it. The VC is PART of the Kingdom on earth, yet not equal to it. They qre related as MAyflower posted the quote, but not equal to it. The relation is ONLY from a Sovereign standpoint. ANd it is the proclamation of the Word that brings people in, not water.(To the VC) only His blood brings one into the KOG/KOH


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Nicolas,

You're confusing the idea the the visible Church is part of the Kingdom of Heaven with the idea that they are co-extensive.

You are still confused on the visible/invisible distinction.

Nobody is saying, as the Romanist does, that baptism confers the benefits of union with Christ and eternal salvation that can be lost or that the boundaries of the Kingdom on earth begin and end with the rule of a particular visible Church. Union with Christ is apprehended by faith alone by the elect alone. We do believe that the graces signified in baptism are enjoyed by the elect.

But there is yet a visible administration of the Kingdom of Heaven on this earth in the visible Church and it goes beyond simply the fact that the elect just happen to be in the Church.

Are ministers of the Gospel, Christ's ministers, or are they just ministers for the Church? What is the difference in your mind as the Church is Christ's or maybe the Church isn't Christ's in your estimation? Does the Commission of Christ simply apply to the Apostles or did it apply to the Church and, if to the Church, have they not been Commissioned by the King and are an extension of His rule? Hence, the Kingdom does have a visible presence on the Earth, which includes ministers who are, in some cases, not part of the elect themselves.

Further, who is to be called to obedience to the Kingdom of Heaven? By your reasoning, it seems that nobody in the visible Church should be praying "...thy Kingdom come, thy will be done..." for those outside of this invisible ideal are not a part of this Kingdom.

Lastly, how is there any visible authority left for a minister once his Commission from the King has been denied and once we cast doubt on who the members of the Kingdom are? In other words, do people in the visible Church have any responsibility to submit to their Elders if they are not members of the Kingdom? Why do members of the Church have to submit to the Elders of a Church and this is not the case of men outside the Church? What rule do they have that is distinct from the idea, at large, that all men have to bow the knee to Christ?

Frankly, Nicolas, you need to learn how to understand things with greater depth and greater nuance. Whether you agree with Biblical (read Reformed) definitions or not, it is incredibly ignorant to call the Reformed understanding of the Church Triumphalism. Yes, we provide leeway for discussion in this forum without infraction on the basis of Confessional arguments. Because the LBCF clashes drastically with the 3FU and Westminster sparks fly but that is appropriate for the Confessions. What is not appropriate is someone standing as an independent here, who does not understand the position, and then shoots off and calls it Triumphalism when it is noted that Christ still has visible ambassadors in this world and has a reign and rule here that requires that those in His Church recognize that rule and submit to it. It is the height of folly to suppose that a minister can encourage the elect in his congregation to heed all these things and ask the reprobate to disregard.


----------



## MW

1. Kingdom and Church. They are slightly different concepts from an exegetical standpoint, and have overlapping reference points. "Kingdom" is used to refer to God's rule in terms of the here and hereafter, and has different aspects relative to providence (the kingdom of power), salvation (the kingdom of grace), and the eschaton (the kingdom of glory). "Church" is used to specifiy the community of God's people, and is defined in terms either of its relationship to the world (visible) or its relationship to God (invisible). The "kingdom" overlaps the "church" at the point where God's rule becomes visible on earth in the community of His people, Matthew 16:18, 19. It is on this basis that reformed theology has traditionally maintained the valuable truth that the catholic visible church is the kingdom of Christ on earth. Failure to acknowledge this truth leaves the kingdom of Christ without any gate through which to enter into it.

2. Church and Baptism. The significance of baptism and its relation to the church is clearly taught in Matthew 3:13-15, "Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: *for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness*. Then he suffered him."

(1.) By means of baptism Christ identified with His people, and by means of it His people are identified with Him. This is further shown from the foot washing of John 13, especially verse 8, "If I wash thee not thou hast no part with me." It is also taught in the various New Testament epistles where the visible church is repeatedly exhorted to be and act according to what baptism represents.

(2.) Baptism is necessary to "fulfil all righteousness," not by any inherent power in it to effect salvation, but by the divine command which mandates baptism as an outward sign of the righteousness of God in Christ. Hence the apostles, in preaching the gospel to every creature, were to require baptism in order to be saved, Mark 16:16; and this is precisely what the apostles did, e.g., Acts 2:38.

Hence, apart from baptism, there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. God may choose to suspend His own means and save a person apart from baptism, but the church has no way of knowing where or when this takes place; therefore the ministry operates on the basis that those who are baptised are received as members of the visible church, and leaves the question of invisible church membership to the Searcher of hearts and the One who knows who are His.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Semper Fidelis said:


> Nicolas,
> 
> You're confusing the idea the the visible Church is part of the Kingdom of Heaven with the idea that they are co-extensive.
> 
> You are still confused on the visible/invisible distinction.
> 
> Nobody is saying, as the Romanist does, that baptism confers the benefits of union with Christ and eternal salvation that can be lost or that the boundaries of the Kingdom on earth begin and end with the rule of a particular visible Church. Union with Christ is apprehended by faith alone by the elect alone. We do believe that the graces signified in baptism are enjoyed by the elect.
> 
> But there is yet a visible administration of the Kingdom of Heaven on this earth in the visible Church and it goes beyond simply the fact that the elect just happen to be in the Church.
> 
> Are ministers of the Gospel, Christ's ministers, or are they just ministers for the Church? What is the difference in your mind as the Church is Christ's or maybe the Church isn't Christ's in your estimation? Does the Commission of Christ simply apply to the Apostles or did it apply to the Church and, if to the Church, have they not been Commissioned by the King and are an extension of His rule? Hence, the Kingdom does have a visible presence on the Earth, which includes ministers who are, in some cases, not part of the elect themselves.
> 
> Further, who is to be called to obedience to the Kingdom of Heaven? By your reasoning, it seems that nobody in the visible Church should be praying "...thy Kingdom come, thy will be done..." for those outside of this invisible ideal are not a part of this Kingdom.
> 
> Lastly, how is there any visible authority left for a minister once his Commission from the King has been denied and once we cast doubt on who the members of the Kingdom are? In other words, do people in the visible Church have any responsibility to submit to their Elders if they are not members of the Kingdom? Why do members of the Church have to submit to the Elders of a Church and this is not the case of men outside the Church? What rule do they have that is distinct from the idea, at large, that all men have to bow the knee to Christ?
> 
> Frankly, Nicolas, you need to learn how to understand things with greater depth and greater nuance. Whether you agree with Biblical (read Reformed) definitions or not, it is incredibly ignorant to call the Reformed understanding of the Church Triumphalism. Yes, we provide leeway for discussion in this forum without infraction on the basis of Confessional arguments. Because the LBCF clashes drastically with the 3FU and Westminster sparks fly but that is appropriate for the Confessions. What is not appropriate is someone standing as an independent here, who does not understand the position, and then shoots off and calls it Triumphalism when it is noted that Christ still has visible ambassadors in this world and has a reign and rule here that requires that those in His Church recognize that rule and submit to it. It is the height of folly to suppose that a minister can encourage the elect in his congregation to heed all these things and ask the reprobate to disregard.





Rich:

Mayflower posted something I give a cursory Amen to. If I have to change my subscription policy, I will certainly do that. Here "tis.

The kingdom is NOT the church. The apostles went about preaching the kingdom of God (Acts 8:12; 19:8; 28:23); it is impossible to substitute "church" for "kingdom" in such passages. However, there is an inseparable relationship. The church is the fellowship of men who have accepted His offer of the kingdom, submitted to its rule, and entered into its blessings. The kingdom was offered to Israel (Matt. 10:5-6), who because of their previous convenantal relationship to God were "sons of the kingdom" (Matt. 8:12), its natural heirs. However, the offer of the kingdom in Christ was made on an individual basis in terms of personal acceptance (Mark 3:31-35; Matt. 10:35-35) rather than in terms of the family or nation. Because Israel rejected the kingdom, it was taken away and given to a different people (Matt. 21:43), the church.

Thus we may say that the kingdom of God creates the church. The redemptive rule of God brings into being a new people who receive the blessings of the divine reign. Furthermore it was the activity of the divine rule which brought judgment upon Israel. Individually the kingdom means either salvation or judgment (Matt. 3:11); historically the activity of the kingdom of God effected the creation of the church and the destruction of Israel (Matt. 23:37-38). This is probably the meaning of Mark 9:1. Within the lifetime of the disciples the kingdom of God would be seen manifesting its power in bringing a historical judgment upon Jerusalem and in creating the new people, the church. Paul announced the rejection of Israel and the salvation of the Gentiles (I Thess. 2:16; Acts 28:26-28). However, the rejection of Israel is not permanent. After God has visited the Gentiles, He will regraft Israel into the people of God, and "so all Israel will be saved" (Rom. 11:24-26), receive the kingdom of God, and enter into its blessings (see Matt. 23:39; Acts 3:19-20).

The kingdom also works through the church. The disciples preached the kingdom of God and performed signs of the kingdom (Matt. 10:7-8; Luke 10:9, 17). The powers of the kingdom were operative in and through them. Jesus said that He would give to the church the keys of the kingdom of heaven with power to bind and loose (Matt. 16:18-19). The meaning of the keys is illustrated in Luke 11:52. The scribes had taken away the key of knowledge, i.e., the correct interpretation of the OT. The key of understanding the divine purpose had been entrusted to Israel; but the scribes had so misinterpreted the oracles of God delivered to them (Rom. 3:2) that when Messiah came with a new revelation of God's kingdom, they neither entered themselves nor allowed others to enter. These keys, along with the kingdom blessings, are to be given to the new people who, as they preach the good news of the kingdom, will be the means of binding or loosing men from their sins. In fact, the disciples had already used these keys and exercised this authority, bringing men the gift of peace or pronouncing the divine judgment (Matt. 10:13-15).


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Amazing Grace said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nicolas,
> 
> *You're confusing the idea the the visible Church is part of the Kingdom of Heaven with the idea that they are co-extensive.*
> 
> 
> 
> *The kingdom is NOT the church.*
Click to expand...


Case closed.


----------

