# Are Reformed Paedobaptists inconsistent?



## Pilgrim (Dec 18, 2007)

James White, the contributors to _Believer's Baptism_ and other antipaedobaptists charge that Reformed paedobaptists are inconsistent in their application of covenant theology. More specifically, it is argued that in the Old Covenant economy, every man under the authority of the head of household was circumcised, including extended family members, servants, etc. However this is not the case in Reformed paedobaptist churches, where only infants and small children of believers are baptized apart from a credible profession of faith. Quite often, even children above a certain age (which of course varies) are not baptized when their family joins the church unless they are professing believers, and extended family members and others who may be in the household are not baptized apart from a credible profession of faith. 

What say ye?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Dec 18, 2007)

Note that it officially says I thanked Josh for his (exceedingly) "Useful" post.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 18, 2007)

Pilgrim said:


> James White, the contributors to _Believer's Baptism_ and other antipaedobaptists charge that Reformed paedobaptists are inconsistent in their application of covenant theology. More specifically, it is argued that in the Old Covenant economy, every man under the authority of the head of household was circumcised, including extended family members, servants, etc. However this is not the case in Reformed paedobaptist churches, where only infants and small children of believers are baptized apart from a credible profession of faith. Quite often, even children above a certain age (which of course varies) are not baptized when their family joins the church unless they are professing believers, and extended family members and others who may be in the household are not baptized apart from a credible profession of faith.
> 
> What say ye?



Sound like a bit of a straw-man; paedo-baptists believe that the covenant of grace is made with us and our offspring, not out servants. This can be seen by the fact that Abraham was specifically told to circumcise his servants, but the covenant was not made "between me and you, and you servants". Even if Dr. White is correct, how does this prove infant baptism is wrong?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 18, 2007)

Me Died Blue said:


> Note that it officially says I thanked Josh for his (exceedingly) "Useful" post.



Now that's sarcasm.


----------



## Gloria (Dec 18, 2007)

joshua said:


> No. They are not being inconsistent.


----------



## Davidius (Dec 18, 2007)

Well, as long as the individual doesn't refuse to be baptized I don't see why other members of households aren't baptized these days. When I was studying the baptism issue I found it helpful that Bill Shishko used the term "oikobaptism" (household baptism) instead of "paedobaptism." It may be one way to keep the Baptist from chanting the "There is no mention of baptizing infants in the New Testament." Well, okay, there aren't, but there is mention of "households" and "families" being baptized. And this is the language of the rite of circumcision in the OT; it included infants.


----------



## Pilgrim (Dec 18, 2007)

joshua said:


> No. They are not being inconsistent.



Why not?


----------



## Pilgrim (Dec 18, 2007)

Me Died Blue said:


> Note that it officially says I thanked Josh for his (exceedingly) "Useful" post.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Dec 18, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Well, as long as the individual doesn't refuse to be baptized I don't see why other members of households aren't baptized these days. When I was studying the baptism issue I found it helpful that Bill Shishko used the term "oikobaptism" (household baptism) instead of "paedobaptism." It may be one way to keep the Baptist from chanting the "There is no mention of baptizing infants in the New Testament." Well, okay, there aren't, but there is mention of "households" and "families" being baptized. And this is the language of the rite of circumcision in the OT; it included infants.



Hmmmmm.  Very interesting. Do you have a link to this information or care to share where it is found?


----------



## Davidius (Dec 18, 2007)

Southern Presbyterian said:


> CarolinaCalvinist said:
> 
> 
> > Well, as long as the individual doesn't refuse to be baptized I don't see why other members of households aren't baptized these days. When I was studying the baptism issue I found it helpful that Bill Shishko used the term "oikobaptism" (household baptism) instead of "paedobaptism." It may be one way to keep the Baptist from chanting the "There is no mention of baptizing infants in the New Testament." Well, okay, there aren't, but there is mention of "households" and "families" being baptized. And this is the language of the rite of circumcision in the OT; it included infants.
> ...



Which information?


----------



## Seb (Dec 18, 2007)

You can dl The White / Shishko debate here


----------



## Pilgrim (Dec 18, 2007)

Seb said:


> You can dl The White / Shishko debate here



See also Rev. Shishko's messages on baptism here.


----------



## SoCalReformed (Dec 18, 2007)

Pilgrim said:


> More specifically, it is argued that in the Old Covenant economy, every man under the authority of the head of household was circumcised, including extended family members, servants, etc. However this is not the case in Reformed paedobaptist churches, where only infants and small children of believers are baptized apart from a credible profession of faith.



One thought that I have long held is that only males were circumcised under the Old Covenant to my knowledge, whereas baptism today is administered by paedobaptists to both males and females under the New. Assuming there is a theological connection between circumcision and paedobaptism, I am forced to wonder, Why the inconsistency of application?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 18, 2007)

Does JW (bless him) think that Abraham pulled out the knife, and with a crazy grin and an odd gleam in his eye said: "Whip it out boys, and lay it on the table--it'll only hurt for .. a couple days. Trust me!"

Please. How about Gen. 17:14, " Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."

Here's what he probably said: "OK, you don't believe what I preach here, the truth I proclaimed to you back in Ur when I brought you out with me? Why did you consent to leave? If you believe, then I'm cutting ME first, then you, as God commanded. If you *refuse* to be cut, then you are "cut off", goodbye. See ya. We have some parting gifts for you at the door."


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 18, 2007)

RRHeustisJr said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> > More specifically, it is argued that in the Old Covenant economy, every man under the authority of the head of household was circumcised, including extended family members, servants, etc. However this is not the case in Reformed paedobaptist churches, where only infants and small children of believers are baptized apart from a credible profession of faith.
> ...



How about Gal 3:28?

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is _*neither male nor female*_, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."


----------



## SoCalReformed (Dec 18, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> How about Gal 3:28?
> 
> "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is _*neither male nor female*_, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."



Exactly.

But, does this mean that females were not part of the Covenant in the Old, but now they are, according to Paedobaptist theology? If Galatians 3:28 is used to bolster Paedobaptism, then are we to believe that females were treated just like the Greek in the Old, which is why females (and Greeks) were not circumcised?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 18, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Does JW (bless him) think that Abraham pulled out the knife, and with a crazy grin and an odd gleam in his eye said: "Whip it out boys, and lay it on the table--it'll only hurt for .. a couple days. Trust me!"


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 18, 2007)

RRHeustisJr said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> > How about Gal 3:28?
> ...



No, we would say that they were not fully incorporated in the external rites. We would say that they were fully incorporated in the substance of the covenant (since we believe it was part of the covenant of grace, and not that it was two covenants--one inward by faith, another outward and purely of the flesh); but they were not included in _all elements_ of the administration. They were not circumcised, they were not commanded to the feasts. On the other hand, she could be a Nazarite, or a singer (Ex. 2:65, Neh. 7:67), etc.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 19, 2007)

Bruce makes the obvious point. Let me press home the "consistency" issue on this because I believe the idea that one would require someone to be a believer to live in your household is very obvious.

Do I actually need to start a poll just for Credo Baptists and not announce that it relates to the Baptism issue and ask this question:

Would you allow a pagan to live and work in your home and practice idolatry around your children?

I frankly don't know how these facile objections gain any traction with men who can otherwise use their brains well.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 19, 2007)

> Would you allow a pagan to live and work in your home and practice idolatry around your children?



If the answer is no (which it should be), then Abraham's servants must have been believers. But even if it were the case that the sign of the covenant should have been passed on to pagans in OT households, how does this prove the Credo Baptist case? To me the whole argument just seems to be clutching at straws.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 19, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> > Would you allow a pagan to live and work in your home and practice idolatry around your children?
> 
> 
> 
> If the answer is no (which it should be), then Abraham's servants must have been believers. But even if it were the case that the sign of the covenant should have been passed on to pagans in OT households, how does this prove the Credo Baptist case? To me the whole argument just seems to be clutching at straws.



Well, let me also press the case a little harder in the case of Abraham.

James White, of all people, likes to press the point of consistency. You see, the case for believers baptism is made on the _examples_ given in the New Testament. Credo-Baptists make the point that baptism is to be applied to professors only for that is the only example we have in the Scriptures.

Well, then let them be consistent on this point.

All the examples of Abraham's household in the Scriptures show them to be believers - witness the servant that went to Ur to search for a wife for Isaac. Hence, to be _consistent_, the credo-Baptist _must_ insist that all the circumcised males in Abraham's household were believers.

As James White likes to say: Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 19, 2007)

By the way, I see nothing wrong or inconsistent with insisting that servants in a household must be baptized given the close familial connection that would entail.

Let us attempt to be _consistent_ according to the standards of Dr. White.

Every example we have of a slave in a New Testament household in the New Covenant is a baptized slave who is a believer. Witness the book of Philemon. Also, Paul admonishes masters to treat slaves in their household as those who have the same Master (Eph 6:9). 

In other words, there is absolutely no example of unbelieving slaves in a believing household in the New Covenant or the Old Covenant. On the contrary, the opposite is true by both example and didactic principle. Hence, the ruling Baptist hermaneutic requires that all Baptists _insist_ that household servants must be baptized.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 20, 2007)

Well I think Rich has just about knocked that argument on the head.

I don't know why James White et al has to resort to this kind of argument. in my opinion the best Baptist arguments are the ones from Hebrews 8 and the "true seed" in Galatians 3; while I do not find these convincing, they are much more cogent than this.


----------



## GenRev1611 (Dec 20, 2007)

*Defense of Oikobaptism*

In hearing the debate between James White and William Shishko, it was interesting to hear Dr. White state that the first couple of household Baptisms where faith and repentance was the establishment of Apostolic authority on the Credo-Baptism position and how the following baptisms which mention no faith and repentance to the best of my knowledge lay on "this authority", but yet using his argument to it's logical conclusion, seems to favor the Oikobaptism position because it's basis was on a deeper foundation of a household position that dates back to Abraham. If the household principle has indeed been abrogated, then why when Peter addressed the *MEN OF ISRAEL* before the Pentecost sermon, did he raise up passages like Joel 2:28 where it's stated that there sons and daughters shall prophecy. Men in Israel, who were head of there household would have immediately understood this as speaking of their immediate children and not later descendants. After they were cut to the heart by Peters sermon Acts 2:37, Peter told that same crowd of Jews in the following verses, (remember *men* were the ones being addressed, the Greek word ANAIR, which is also sometimes translated husband) they were told to repent. Acts 2:38- he continues, Repent (so obviously as established before the call to repentance addressed the ones *cut to the heart*) and *be baptized everyone of you*. The command to be baptized seems to be given indiscriminately. He then follows on verse 39 by stating that the promise if for you and *your children* (remember he did site Joel earlier and remember that their minds are more on immediate descendants according to the household principle from the Abrahamic Covenant)And to them that are afar off (can also mean the Gentiles and their immediate descendants) as many as the Lord will call to himself. Notice also in verse 41 it does not say that *all who received his words were baptized* but it says *those (a demonstrative used) who received his word were baptized*. Demonstratives usually refer to particular people rather than *all* a word that may be used of people as a collective whole. The antecedent has to he *"Those who were cut to the heart"*. Tell me if this is stretching it a bit, but I highly doubt it.


----------

