# A couple of baptism questions



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 15, 2008)

I have a few questions that I hope someone can answer.

1) If Baptism is the new circumcision, then why do we baptize females as well as males?

2) If the Lord's Supper is the new Passover, then why are some against paedo-communion?


I ask out of ignorance.


----------



## larryjf (Nov 15, 2008)

Chaplainintraining said:


> 1) If Baptism is the new circumcision, then why do we baptize females as well as males?


Because the new dispensation has expanded to every nation, and under the expansive nature of the dispensation there is no distinction between male and female in this respect. That's why in the context of baptism we read...

_
Gal 3:27-28 - For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, *there is no male and female*, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 
_




Chaplainintraining said:


> 2) If the Lord's Supper is the new Passover, then why are some against paedo-communion?



What makes you think that infants partook of the Passover and ate the meat, and drank the wine?


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 15, 2008)

I am not sure of the exact age that children partook of the Passover, but I do know that children were active. For example, the oldest child would stand up at a specific point and ask the father why they observed the Passover. This would prompt the father to retell the story of the Passover to everyone. 

This is what I am going on.


----------



## larryjf (Nov 15, 2008)

Chaplainintraining said:


> I am not sure of the exact age that children partook of the Passover, but I do know that children were active. For example, the oldest child would stand up at a specific point and ask the father why they observed the Passover. This would prompt the father to retell the story of the Passover to everyone.
> 
> This is what I am going on.



And during the Lord's supper our children should ask what it means as well. And we should explain to them the sacrament. But teaching someone what the sacrament means through questions is not the same as partaking of the actual sacrament.


----------



## Prufrock (Nov 15, 2008)

> What makes you think that infants partook of the Passover and ate the meat, and drank the wine?



Just curious, why do you think they didn't? We are told that the house ate the Passover. Why would we think children were left out of this?

Am I mistaken here?


----------



## Hippo (Nov 15, 2008)

The WCF states that:

"The sacraments of the old testament, in regard of the spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance, the same with those of the new."

Is it possible that the passover meal was not a sacrament in the same way that the Lords Supper is, i,e, did it dispenses grace to the recipient in the same way that the Lords Supper does or is such a view unconfessional?


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 15, 2008)

If we determine that the Lord's Supper is not the same as the Passover, then how can paedo-baptists use the argument for infant baptism based on the fact that baptism is the same as circumcision? In my eyes I see how they are either the same or different. I cannot make the argument that they are the same, but also different at the same time. Would this not create a contradiction?


----------



## larryjf (Nov 15, 2008)

Prufrock said:


> > What makes you think that infants partook of the Passover and ate the meat, and drank the wine?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I never said that they didn't.
I wanted to know why he thought they did.
Certainly they participated in parts of it, as our infants participate in parts of the Lord's Supper...asking questions and being taught. But did an infant eat the meat and drink the wine?

I don't know if they did or didn't, i simply would like some evidence to support that they did if that's a presumption that's being used in the discussion.


----------



## larryjf (Nov 15, 2008)

The Galatians 3 passage that i quoted shows that in the context of baptism there is no distinction between male and female. So in that sense the NT itself broadened the sacrament to include women.

Regarding the Lord's Supper we are told...

_1 Cor 11:27-29 - Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. *Let a person examine himself*, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For *anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.* _

So the if in the OT infants completely partook of the Passover, the NT does limit the sacrament to those who can examine themselves and discern the body.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 15, 2008)

Prufrock said:


> > What makes you think that infants partook of the Passover and ate the meat, and drank the wine?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Check the Law of God. Only adult males were commanded to attend the feast. Women and children were not required to attend.

Edersheim notes this point well. Christ's attendance at the passover is when He was 12. It was common for Jewish males to attend the feast the year prior to their Bar Mitsvah where it would be thereafter mandatory for them to attend the feast of the Passover.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 15, 2008)

Chaplainintraining said:


> If we determine that the Lord's Supper is not the same as the Passover, then how can paedo-baptists use the argument for infant baptism based on the fact that baptism is the same as circumcision? In my eyes I see how they are either the same or different. I cannot make the argument that they are the same, but also different at the same time. Would this not create a contradiction?



The Lord's Supper is not the same as the Passover. One is a sign of the Exodus while the other is a sign of the NC in Christ's Blood.

Also, Baptism is not, precisely speaking, Circumcision. In substance they signify and seal the same thing but that does not make them equivalent.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 15, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Prufrock said:
> 
> 
> > > What makes you think that infants partook of the Passover and ate the meat, and drank the wine?
> ...




Reference?

Everything I am seeing currently is that the Passover was a family meal. I am not seeing anything that states that children did not eat. In fact does not the Bible say something along the lines that the entire sacrifice should be eaten and none left until morning? Would this not indicate a family meal? I do not know too many men who could eat an entire lamb by themselves. Sorry for not giving the reference. This is all off top of my head in between a few tasks I am working on.


----------



## Prufrock (Nov 15, 2008)

> Check the Law of God. Only adult males were commanded to attend the feast. Women and children were not required to attend.
> 
> Edersheim notes this point well. Christ's attendance at the passover is when He was 12. It was common for Jewish males to attend the feast the year prior to their Bar Mitsvah where it would be thereafter mandatory for them to attend the feast of the Passover.



Thanks, Rich. Does the work to which you are referring discuss the origins of this practice? 

The law _required_ males to bring offerings for the Passover, but it certainly didn't prohibit women and children from partaking in the meal though, right? Thinking strictly of the first Passover in particular -- all were involved. The whole idea is one lamb per house, or family. 

Could you post more summary from the book to which you are referring that discusses this?


----------



## larryjf (Nov 15, 2008)

_If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the LORD, *let all his males be circumcised*. *Then he may come* near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it. 
(Exo 12:48)
_

It's interesting that the stranger must have all of his males circumcised, yet only he would come and keep the Passover.
Does this infer that his household...he and his children...would be circumcised but only he would be permitted at the Passover table?

To which is added...

_There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you." 
(Exo 12:49)
_

And here we are told that they are to take "according to what each can eat" which would seem to exclude infants.

_And if the household is too small for a lamb, then he and his nearest neighbor shall take according to the number of persons; according to what each can eat you shall make your count for the lamb. 
(Exo 12:4)
_


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 15, 2008)

maybe exclude infants, but small children can still eat.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 15, 2008)

larryjf said:


> The Galatians 3 passage that i quoted shows that in the context of baptism there is no distinction between male and female. So in that sense the NT itself broadened the sacrament to include women.
> 
> Regarding the Lord's Supper we are told...
> 
> ...



Larry;

If Galatians 3:27-28 teaches that baptism is now open to women, does it not also teach that baptism is for those who have put on Christ and is one in Christ Jesus?


----------



## larryjf (Nov 15, 2008)

Chaplainintraining said:


> maybe exclude infants, but small children can still eat.



And as the Corinthian passage points out, young children aren't excluded from the table of the Lord based on age either. They must be able to examine themselves and discern the body. There's no reason some young children couldn't do that.

But "paedocommunion" is about infants partaking, not children. And the OP asked:


> why are some against paedo-communion?


----------



## larryjf (Nov 15, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Larry;
> 
> If Galatians 3:27-28 teaches that baptism is now open to women, does it not also teach that baptism is for those who have put on Christ and is one in Christ Jesus?



Well...let's see...

_For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus._

It says those who were baptized have put on Christ. If you are suggesting that one puts on Christ and is then baptized i can't see how you get it from the text.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 16, 2008)

So can any who put on Christ then in baptism then be lost?


----------



## charliejunfan (Nov 16, 2008)

1. circumcision and baptism are both the entry covenant signs, it should not be looked at as if one replaced the other.

2. communion is signifying much more than the passover meal (it signifies us being priests and us sacrificing Jesus Christ as our perfect passover lamb), but basically there were many meals in the OT so it is not possible to compare it the same way with every meal in the OT, therefore we go by the warning of being able to examine ones self when it comes to the Lord's supper.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 16, 2008)

Chaplainintraining said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > Prufrock said:
> ...



What exactly is it that you are "seeing" re: the Passover? Do you know where the Passover was celebrated? It was not celebrated throughout Israel but at the Sanctuary in a central location during the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Only the males were required to make the journey per the Law of God. Folks didn't just hop into their minivans and drive to Jerusalem but it was a multi-day journey for many.

Exodus 23:14-17


> 14(N) "Three times in the year you shall keep a feast to me. 15(O) You shall keep the Feast of Unleavened Bread. As I commanded you, you shall eat unleavened bread for seven days at the appointed time in the month of(P) Abib, for in it you came out of Egypt.(Q) None shall appear before me empty-handed. 16You shall keep(R) the Feast of Harvest, of the firstfruits of your labor, of what you sow in the field. You shall keep the(S) Feast of Ingathering at the end of the year, when you gather in from the field the fruit of your labor. 17(T) *Three times in the year shall all your males appear before the Lord GOD.*



Exodus 34:23-24


> 23(AP) Three times in the year shall *all your males* appear before the LORD God, the God of Israel. 24For I will(AQ) cast out nations before you and(AR) enlarge your borders;(AS) no one shall covet your land, when you go up to appear before the LORD your God three times in the year.



Further, when Christ sent his Disciples to prepare a room for the celebration of the Passover was He violating what you've seen about the nature of the Passover in that He celebrated it with men who were not His blood relatives? In fact, hospitality was practiced by thousands in Jerusalem each Passover as hundreds of thousands of sojourners would descend upon the city to celebrate the Passover. Each household would celebrate the meal and it is hardly difficult for a room full of men to finish off a lamb.

Here is Edersheim


> *The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah*
> Alfred Edersheim
> 1883
> 
> ...


----------



## larryjf (Nov 16, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> So can any who put on Christ then in baptism then be lost?



One can not put on Christ and be lost.

One can be baptized and be lost.
One who professes faith in Christ, goes to church, etc. can be lost (Jn 15).

The passage speaks of as many as were baptized have put on Christ...i don't think it is a reference to time frame. In other words, the scenario could be baptized as an infant, put on Christ as an adult.

However, in the immediate context it certainly is addressing those first generation Christians who came to faith and were baptized as adults...since they weren't raised in a Christian family.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 16, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> So can any who put on Christ then in baptism then be lost?



I know Larry answered this but I'm not sure how this is relevant to your position since your Confession does not believe that the ordinance actually joins a person to the New Covenant nor does it unite to Christ.

Neither do Reformed Confessions teach this.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 17, 2008)

larryjf said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > So can any who put on Christ then in baptism then be lost?
> ...




And yet Reformed Christians believe that there is the one and the same Church from the Old Testament and the New Testament. 

If they were already members of the Church by virtue of their circumcision, why then do they need to be baptized into the Church again? 

Paedobaptists accuse Baptists of "throwing out" children from membership in the church, but is not everyone "thrown out" if those previously in membership by circumcision need to be baptized into membership with the coming of the New Covenant?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 17, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...



Singular identification within the Church in no small part. There is _one_ faith, _one_ baptism for Jew and Gentile.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 17, 2008)

Rich, could you explain further - your reply was too concise for the thick-headed. Expand this a bit for my benefit.


----------



## Herald (Nov 17, 2008)

Chaplainintraining said:


> maybe exclude infants, but small children can still eat.



1689 LBC 30.7,8




> 7. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, _*do then also inwardly by faith*_, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but _*spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified*_, and all the benefits of his death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but _*spiritually present to the faith of believers *_in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.
> ( 1 Corinthians 10:16; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 )





> 8. _*All ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Christ*_, so are they unworthy of the Lord's table, and cannot, without great sin against him, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto; yea, whosoever shall receive unworthily, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, eating and drinking judgment to themselves.
> ( 2 Corinthians 6:14, 15; 1 Corinthians 11:29; Matthew 7:6 )





​ Age is not a requisite requirement for participation in the Lord's Supper - belief is. Additionally, the unbeliever is incapable of examining himself (1 Cor. 11:28) since he is already dead in sin (Eph. 2:1; 1 Cor. 2:14). I require the ability to articulate one's faith in Christ before the Lord's Supper will be administered to that person.


----------



## charliejunfan (Nov 17, 2008)

but we still don't actually know....just sayin...


----------



## Herald (Nov 17, 2008)

charliejunfan said:


> but we still don't actually know....just sayin...


No, we don't know who is definitively saved, but the elder is to uphold the intent of scripture. We act to the best of our ability and the wisdom that God provides.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 17, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > larryjf said:
> ...



Think of the Book of Galatians: part of the problem with the Gentiles is envy of the Jews that is a point of leverage for the Judaizers to cause them to be jealous for their false view of circumcision.

Imagine how difficult it would be for the Church if there had continued to be a point of separation where the Covenant sign for inclusion was different for two sets of people. You really would have a party for the circumcision and for the non-circumcision. Now, you could constantly explain that we're really one in Christ to everybody but there is something to be said, pedagogically, for everyone to participate in the same rite.

There's certainly more to the equation than just this point but Paul does underline the Gentiles' common possession by noting that there is one baptism.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 18, 2008)

Boliver, to answer your questions in the OP (though some good answers have already been given):

Q #1): "If Baptism is the new circumcision, then why do we baptize females as well as males?"​
It would be well to consider what the “old” circumcision signified. Moses makes it clear it was circumcision of the heart, i.e., regeneration leading to repentance (putting off the old man and his sin):

And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live. (Deut 30:6)​
In the OT the sign of the covenant was put only upon the administrators of authority – fathers, brothers, husbands, rulers, priests, kings – which were the males. It was rare, and bode ill, for a woman to be alone, without the covering of any male authority and care.

In the NT Israel – all the people of God, Jew _and_ Gentile – were set free from the authority structure of the Theocracy. The NT house of God was structured differently. Women did not have to be under the headship of a male; they could thrive as singles, or as disciples of Christ when family or husband were not disciples.

So now the sign and seal of that circumcision of the heart effected by the Holy Spirit (regeneration, newness of life in Christ) was to be applied to females, as they were no longer dependent on their males and families for the blessing of God.

Baptism was God’s wonderful provision for administering the sign of the covenant to all in the new House: male, female, Jew, Greek, slave, and free.


Q #2): "If the Lord's Supper is the new Passover, then why are some against paedo-communion?"​
Herman Hanko says it clearly and concisely:

Reformed Baptists sometimes argue that just as children are not permitted to partake of the Lord’s supper, so they ought not to be baptized. A condition to participation in the Lord’s supper is faith; hence faith should be a condition to baptism.

Surely this argument is based upon a serious error with regard to the meaning of the two sacraments and their relation to each other. Baptism is a sign and seal of _entrance_ into the covenant; the Lord’s supper is a sign and seal of _living within_ the covenant as God’s covenant people. Because the elect are brought into God’s covenant by a work of sovereign grace, the one baptized is passive. But the Lord’s supper is a sign and seal of the grace which God supplies through the spiritual food of the body and blood of Christ, whereby we are able to walk as members of his covenant in the world. It is the sacrament, therefore, of conscious membership in God’s covenant. It is the sacrament of mature believers who seek the grace and strength they need from Christ. [footnote: It is for this reason, among others, that paedo-communion is wrong.] The Lord’s supper signifies and seals Christ’s daily blessing of the salvation which he has purchased for his people on the cross. Both sacraments point to God’s covenant, but each points to God’s covenant from a different perspective. (From, _We And Our Children: The Reformed Doctrine of Infant Baptism_, Herman Hanko, p. 66.)​
I hope this satisfactorily answers your questions!

Steve


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 18, 2008)

thanks for the replies. They are very helpful.


----------



## KMK (Nov 18, 2008)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> In the OT the sign of the covenant was put only upon the administrators of authority – fathers, brothers, husbands, rulers, priests, kings – which were the males. It was rare, and bode ill, for a woman to be alone, without the covering of any male authority and care.
> 
> In the NT Israel – all the people of God, Jew _and_ Gentile – were set free from the authority structure of the Theocracy. The NT house of God was structured differently. Women did not have to be under the headship of a male; they could thrive as singles, or as disciples of Christ when family or husband were not disciples.
> 
> So now the sign and seal of that circumcision of the heart effected by the Holy Spirit (regeneration, newness of life in Christ) was to be applied to females, as they were no longer dependent on their males and families for the blessing of God.



I have never heard this Presbyterian view before. Are there some sources you recommend on the different 'authority structure' between the OC and the NC?


----------



## mvdm (Nov 18, 2008)

Here's a very thorough article refuting paedocommunion. I keep it bookmarked as this issue/question crops up repeatedly. The article deals specifically with the Passover question, along the lines Rich was laying out. 

Paedocommunion: A Biblical Examination


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 19, 2008)

Ken,

I don't know of any books etc (save the Scriptures) that deal specifically with it, but here are some thoughts from a post in a recent thread on the topic:

--------

In the OT so much of covenant life depended on the headship of the patriarch, and, later, on the heads of the individual families, houses, tribes, and the nation. God dealt with houses, and families, and _the nation_ as corporate bodies. We in this 21st century are staunch individualists! The covenant promises in these days, we opine, are for _individuals_, irrespective of families!

In the days of the Theocracy, God dealt primarily with Israel, and individual houses, through those who were heads of them; the people of the nation often suffered for the acts of their kings and priests; on the family level, all under the authority of fathers, or husbands, or elder brothers, partook of their blessings _or curses_. The males were the ones accountable to God. 

Circumcision of the males was appropriate to the circumstances of ancient Israel, and the position of authority given them.

In the gospel of the New Covenant God opened to the Gentile nations His gracious salvation. When Jesus came he warned that now things would be different than under the Theocracy of old Israel; there in the families the Law of Moses was acknowledged to be the law of God, and appeal could be made up the chain of command: fathers, priests, judges, rulers, the king. But when Christ came the old authority structure of the Theocracy was set aside; for Jesus said that fathers would be set against sons, and mothers against daughters, and one’s own family members would be one’s enemies and would even put one another to death, houses divided against themselves. The priests and the rulers opposed the Christ, so there was no recourse to _their_ authority.

The _old manner_ of the headship of the father over the family was broken, and the covenant sign placed solely upon him as the covenant head was removed; now women could receive the sign themselves irrespective of their fathers or even their husbands. Sometimes loyalty to Christ separated a woman from her father and brothers. And sometimes from her husband. 

Believing parents (or even one parent – 1 Cor 7:14) brought their children into the covenant of their God, where the infant souls are raised (by the parent) in union and communion with God, and where the blessing of God is given equally, as in Christ “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female...” (Gal 3:28), but all have equal access and privilege. From infancy this expansion of the covenant blessings to include all on an equal standing before God was realized and taught.

As the covenant was removed from its limited range in old Israel and transferred to the new Israel reconstituted by its King (Matt 21:43) – the international community of God’s people, a true holy nation – the sign of membership in that covenant community was changed to accommodate the new status of all members in all nations – male, female, Jew, Greek, slave, free – in their greatly enhanced intimacy with their Lord and Savior. Jesus had finally and completely emancipated all women in His kingdom; He had _essentially_ broken the spirit of slavery as well, as now a servant humanly speaking might well be an elder in God’s Kingdom over a master in the flesh. This “servant” / elder could now demonstrate godly _servant-leadership_ to one secularly over him. The Lord turned the ways of the world upside down in His glorious kingdom.

It is often said that “house baptisms” supposedly with infants in them constitute an argument from silence. There is, however, much more to it than “silence”! We in the 21st century West – as mentioned above – think in terms of individuals, but in the Biblical world – and especially among the people of God – they thought in terms of nations, tribes, and families. God dealt with the heads of nations, tribes and families, and those under them were greatly impacted by their male heads. To wit: the entire human race affected by its head, Adam. The house of Noah saved. The house of Abraham, the house of Jacob, of Achan (cursed), of Saul (mostly destroyed), of David, and so on. The redemptive purposes of God were effected through the families – the houses – of the male leaders of these families. The blessings and privileges of the family in covenant relation to God were constantly expanding and becoming more inclusive over the centuries, till in the time of the New Covenant it opened the way of salvation to the entire world. If the blessings of the covenant now narrowed – to exclude the members of the godly houses under their heads – it would have required an open declaration from God, reversing His primary means of operation. The Baptist view of mere individuals is imposing our Western individualistic paradigm upon an entirely different paradigm which was operative in the ancient world, where the family, tribe, and nation were the objects of God’s dealings. The purpose of this covenant headship over the family was to raise up godly seed, under the covenant care of the Lord. This then amounts not to silence, but the very voice of antiquity, and Biblical precedent.

------

End quote.

Does this help?


----------

