# Some help concerning paedobatism-



## austinbrown2 (Jul 24, 2006)

Hello all. 

I have been wrestling with the credo/paedo baptism debate for about a year now. Having listened to various sermons, debates, and having read a good number of articles and books, I think I can adequately locate the crux of the debate. Nevertheless, I still feel like I'm at an impasse. It's not that I am opposed to paedobaptism, indeed, there is much to commend the doctrine, rather, I am not able to definitively secure the position in my mind in such a fashion that I can firmly believe it is THE Biblical position. As it presently stands, I cannot trump the credobaptist position. It is as though both sides can stand if certain paradigmatic structures are accepted. And I don´t know how to knock one or the other down for good. 

So what do I ask of you who are much more adept on this issue? Help me think through one or two of the strongest aspects to a Reformed Baptist polemic (in my opinion). 

Since Jesus Christ is the true Israel and those who are united to Him are true Jews, how does this fact not make the Baptist polemic plausible or potentially true? Expanded: If we talk about redemptive historical shifts and note how the NT views those united to Christ as children of Abraham and God´s people, what is to stop one from declaring that baptism is applied only to those who are united to Christ? Faith would be determinative for the application of the sign of the covenant. 

Naturally, we could seek to knock this down by pointing out that we don´t know for certain that such and such profession is genuine (you know the argument"¦). But what really knocks this down with a crash? I feel like we are dealing with concepts that are very hard to anchor down, namely, the changes (or lack thereof) from the OT shadows and types to fulfillments in the NT (at least with regards to this specific debate). 

Secondly, what is the response to the idea that Christ fulfilled the genealogical aspect of the OT? I have heard Fred Malone talk about this. Did Christ fulfill and thus end the genealogical aspect of the Abrahamic covenant? In this way, Christ is the true Seed and those who believe are the children of God (hence there is a connection here with my first question). 

I feel like if I could put these questions to rest, then I could happily credo-paedobaptism. 

Many thanks,
Austin


----------



## MW (Jul 24, 2006)

It may be helpful, if you are having problems with the continuity/discontinuity issue of Old and New Testaments, to simply start with the New Testament and what it says about children. Where in the NT are children of believing parents treated as covenant-strangers? They are regarded as "in the Lord." Eph. 6:4, "And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." Antipaedobaptists are unable to furnish one example of a child of a believer being baptised when they have come to a so-called age of discretion. Take this NT acceptance of believers' children being "in the Lord," and the continuity/discontinuity is easier to solve.



> What is to stop one from declaring that baptism is applied only to those who are united to Christ? Faith would be determinative for the application of the sign of the covenant.



Infants have faith. Heb. 11:23, "By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months of his parents." The man sick of the palsy was healed when Jesus answered the faith of his friends. The Lord accepts the faith that is exercised in the behalf of another, when they are hindered from exercising it themselves. Hence, the infants of believers are united to Christ by the faith of their parents.



> Secondly, what is the response to the idea that Christ fulfilled the genealogical aspect of the OT? I have heard Fred Malone talk about this. Did Christ fulfill and thus end the genealogical aspect of the Abrahamic covenant? In this way, Christ is the true Seed and those who believe are the children of God (hence there is a connection here with my first question).



The response is, yes, He fulfilled the genealogical aspect of the OT, and so revelaed Himself to be the Christ which the fathers saw afar off and embraced. This, however, does not negate the fact that the fathers trusted in Christ from infancy. Ps. 22:9, 10, "But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother´s breasts. I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother´s belly." Ps. 71:5, 6, "For thou art my hope, O Lord GOD: thou art my trust from my youth. By thee have I been holden up from the womb: thou art he that took me out of my mother´s bowels: my praise shall be continually of thee."

[Edited on 7-25-2006 by armourbearer]


----------



## austinbrown2 (Jul 24, 2006)

*Armourbearer-*

>>>>>>>It may be helpful, if you are having problems with the continuity/discontinuity issue of Old and New Testaments, to simply start with the New Testament and what it says about children. Where in the NT are children of believing parents treated as covenant-strangers? They are regarded as "in the Lord." Eph. 6:4, "And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." Antipaedobaptists are unable to furnish one example of a child of a believer being baptized when they have come to a so-called age of discretion. Take this NT acceptance of believers' children being "in the Lord," and the continuity/discontinuity is easier to solve.<<<<<<<<<<

This is a good point; and it is one that I feel the weight on. There is no doubt that these little ones are considered saints by Paul. Is it conceivable that Paul has in mind children that believe, however? This of course would raise your other salient points about vicarious faith, etc. And wouldn't this admonition extend to the earliest days of their life... which of course introduces the perplexing question that really weighed on me as a father; namely, my little one says he believes. Why not act on that? When is it enough?

I guess this really comes back to overarching assumptions that constrain us to accept the weight of inferences and the like. When we approach such texts we carry paradigms with us. But how many anomalies does it take to overthrow a paradigm? And it would appear to be the case that our paradigms actually shade and color how potent the various anomalies are. It is in this vein that I begin to spin a bit. 

Am I right in seeing that it is really the nature of the NC that is crucial here? The Reformed Baptist stands or falls on the idea that the NC only includes those who are believers/elect. As I listen to various Reformed Baptists talk, they invariably insist that only the elect are in the NC. Therefore, the sign should only be applied to those who profess faith. This comes down to an understanding of Hebrews 8 (and Jeremiah) and how one handles warning passages. If I am convinced that people who are not elect are connected with the NC, then it would seem to negate the Reformed Baptist´s main contention. Would you agree? 

I can´t say that I am able to articulate how the non-elect are related to the NC, but my exegesis pretty much forces me that direction. I would love to read or listen to a careful analysis of this particular aspect to the debate. It seems rather determinative in my mind. Am I off here?

>>>>> The response is, yes, He fulfilled the genealogical aspect of the OT, and so revelaed Himself to be the Christ which the fathers saw afar off and embraced. This, however, does not negate the fact that the fathers trusted in Christ from infancy. Ps. 22:9, 10, "But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother´s breasts. I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother´s belly." Ps. 71:5, 6, "For thou art my hope, O Lord GOD: thou art my trust from my youth. By thee have I been holden up from the womb: thou art he that took me out of my mother´s bowels: my praise shall be continually of thee."<<<<<<<<<<

Help me understand your point here a little better. If Christ fulfilled the genealogical aspect of the OT, then is there a way out for the Baptist? Can´t they assert that the "œand your children" aspect was scaffolding that is now done away with? 

Help me understand, also, what the verses quoted above establish in your mind. What does that entail? 

Thanks for your time and patience.
Austin


----------



## Dan.... (Jul 24, 2006)

> As I listen to various Reformed Baptists talk, they invariably insist that only the elect are in the NC. Therefore, the sign should only be applied to those who profess faith.



Here is an important issue:
The conclusion in the quote above does not follow from the premise.

How does anyone _know_ who the elect are? If you only baptize those who profess faith, are you baptizing _only_ the elect? Can there not be false professors? If we are to baptize only the elect, then we need to know something that only God knows.

Is the promise of God ('to you and to your children') a lesser thing than a profession of faith? Neither the baptist or paedo-baptist know who is elect. The paedo-baptist baptizes on the basis of the promise, 'to you and to your children'; the baptist on the profession of faith. Neither guarantees that only the elect are baptized.

Is the New Covenant made up of the elect alone? Yes and No. In its essence, the promise is to the elect alone. In its administration (that is, in the visible church) there is a mixed multitude; both in paedo-baptist and in baptist churches.



> Can´t they assert that the "œand your children" aspect was scaffolding that is now done away with?



Not according to Acts 2:39.


[Edited on 7-25-2006 by Dan....]


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by austinbrown2_
> Am I right in seeing that it is really the nature of the NC that is crucial here? The Reformed Baptist stands or falls on the idea that the NC only includes those who are believers/elect. As I listen to various Reformed Baptists talk, they invariably insist that only the elect are in the NC. Therefore, the sign should only be applied to those who profess faith. This comes down to an understanding of Hebrews 8 (and Jeremiah) and how one handles warning passages. If I am convinced that people who are not elect are connected with the NC, then it would seem to negate the Reformed Baptist´s main contention. Would you agree?
> 
> I can´t say that I am able to articulate how the non-elect are related to the NC, but my exegesis pretty much forces me that direction. I would love to read or listen to a careful analysis of this particular aspect to the debate. It seems rather determinative in my mind. Am I off here?



You're quite correct that the nature of the New Covenant is key here. Many, myself included, have found the following article by Dr. Richard Pratt to be helpful. 

Infant Baptism in the New Covenant--Jeremiah 31:31-34


----------



## MW (Jul 24, 2006)

Austin,

Thankyou for your open treatment of the subject.



> _Originally posted by austinbrown2_
> Am I right in seeing that it is really the nature of the NC that is crucial here? The Reformed Baptist stands or falls on the idea that the NC only includes those who are believers/elect. As I listen to various Reformed Baptists talk, they invariably insist that only the elect are in the NC. Therefore, the sign should only be applied to those who profess faith. This comes down to an understanding of Hebrews 8 (and Jeremiah) and how one handles warning passages. If I am convinced that people who are not elect are connected with the NC, then it would seem to negate the Reformed Baptist´s main contention. Would you agree?



Yes, we must acknowledge the difference between the new covenant and its administration. God alone knows whose heart He has written His covenant upon; but it is man who is commissioned to administer baptism as a seal of the covenant. Man cannot read the heart; therefore he is required to administer baptism on mere profession, without making scruples as to the state of another man's heart. This applies as equally to children as to adults. If we recognise that God accepts faith exercised on the part of an individual who is himself hindered from exercising it, then there can be no difficulty with parents professing faith on behalf of their children.



> I can´t say that I am able to articulate how the non-elect are related to the NC, but my exegesis pretty much forces me that direction. I would love to read or listen to a careful analysis of this particular aspect to the debate. It seems rather determinative in my mind. Am I off here?



The reprobate may be equated with the tares, which are permitted to grow with the wheat in the kingdom of God, lest one portion of wheat be lost. Better to have a mixed church than to have one of the elect rooted up with the reprobate.

Rom. 9-11 provides a biblical perspective of the nature of the reprobate as they partake with the elect in the outward administration of the covenant. They are children of the flesh, not of the promise.

Heb. 6:4-6 provides some insight into "the common operations of the Spirit" which the reprobate partake of, yet fall away from.



> >>>>> The response is, yes, He fulfilled the genealogical aspect of the OT, and so revelaed Himself to be the Christ which the fathers saw afar off and embraced. This, however, does not negate the fact that the fathers trusted in Christ from infancy. Ps. 22:9, 10, "But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother´s breasts. I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother´s belly." Ps. 71:5, 6, "For thou art my hope, O Lord GOD: thou art my trust from my youth. By thee have I been holden up from the womb: thou art he that took me out of my mother´s bowels: my praise shall be continually of thee."<<<<<<<<<<
> 
> Help me understand your point here a little better. If Christ fulfilled the genealogical aspect of the OT, then is there a way out for the Baptist? Can´t they assert that the "œand your children" aspect was scaffolding that is now done away with?



How can it be scaffolding if infants were incorporated in the building? The benefits of the covenant of grace are the substance of it; the modes of administration are the accidents of it. If children partook of the blessings of the covenant, then they partook of the substance of it, not merely things that were circumstantial to it.



> Help me understand, also, what the verses quoted above establish in your mind. What does that entail?



I believe it entails that the elect belong to God from the womb, and can claim a special preservation and provision as such. The Lord Himself asserts, in Ezek. 16:21, that they are HIS children.


----------



## austinbrown2 (Jul 25, 2006)

*To Armourbearer and others*

Thank you again for your time and helpful response.

Conviction is a strange thing, isn't it. Here I am, a man who was compelled by the warnings to first consider paedobaptism. In that process I felt the sting of inadequacy to Baptist logic. I see the beauty of the covenant and how God is concerned with the family. I don't hear any squabbles over the exclusion of children in the NC- which one would surely expect from a Jew. There are bits of evidence that comport with the paedobaptist position; and as a father I experience certain pragmatic problems concerning Baptist practice. Does the baby dedication show an intuitive desire to recognize some kind of covenant inclusion? It sure seems so. 

Anyway, I think I need to just be patient and wait for the deep conviction to come. I have a lot of data in my mind, but it hasn't sunk down into my heart yet (if you know what I mean). 

>>>>>>>How can it be scaffolding if infants were incorporated in the building? The benefits of the covenant of grace are the substance of it; the modes of administration are the accidents of it. If children partook of the blessings of the covenant, then they partook of the substance of it, not merely things that were circumstantial to it.<<<<<<<

Very well said. I can't refute it. But if I may whine a bit more  I perceive the debate as dealing with intangibles, to some extent (allow me to think out loud for a second). The paedobaptist doesn´t see a rescinding of the covenant sign to children because the NC doesn´t exclude them and doesn´t rescind the ancient practice- which is natural given the covenant of grace as stretching through human history. They see strong support through various inferences and even direct support in passages like Acts 2. 

However, the Reformed Baptist sees this same inferential evidence as being able to be interpreted in accordance with their paradigm. The passages function like a swinging door, if you will. The same goes for the direct support passages. Their already accepted paradigm causes them to not feel constrained to see the passage that way. The anomaly just doesn´t have enough force to overturn the anchors to their outlook. Their intangible- at least what I consider to be difficult to get my hands on- is the contention that there has been a historical redemptive shift towards the spiritual remnant idea- the real deal professors of Christ who have the sign of inclusion into Christ applied to them. This perception of things stems from their seeing faith and baptism coordinated over and over again. Retorts concerning a mixed church, fallible judgment regarding baptism candidates and the like are similar anomalies that just don´t carry enough weight to uproot their oak tree. 

This is the difficulty: breaking the self-supporting paradigms. The paradigm colors everything. It provides levels of constraint, deflates anomalies by looking back to its roots and saying, "œWell, I know this is true, so whatever problems this does pose to me must be interpreted in accordance with what I know to be true." There is a certain kind of circularity going on that is difficult to crack. 

For the Reformed Baptist, I can see how they go the direction they do. Is there enough trumping data to overturn this kind of paradigmatic constraint though? Maybe so. Is there enough data to overturn the paedobaptist paradigm? I´m not sure there could be. If the root, or the anchor of the system resides in the covenant of grace and the silence of any kind of rescinding to the children principle, then can there be enough "œfaith and baptism appear to go together" data? The Reformed Baptist considers this to be the intangible that is difficult to get their hands around, so they simply go with the "faith and baptism appear to go together" data. 

As it stands, I think I still need to take my time and let these things settle. Nevertheless, I cannot help but see that the paedobaptist root is pretty darn strong. If I can´t beat it, then maybe I should jump aboard the paedo-ship. But I want it to be more than simply "œI can´t beat it." I would like to have the conviction that "œit is THE Biblical position." 

I think I need to think through vicarious faith a bit more. You have raised some points that aren´t brought up much in the literature that I have read. 

Thanks,
Austin


----------



## austinbrown2 (Jul 25, 2006)

*To Pilgrim*

Thanks for the article. I have read it and have found it to be the best Reformed response to the issue. 

Blessings,
Austin


----------



## kceaster (Jul 25, 2006)

*Greetings fellow Hoosier...*

To me, the whole Baptist contention revolves around looking too much at the sign instead of the thing signified. Think of it this way, many persons wear wedding rings, but in their hearts, they are not truly married to the person they wear it for. Marriage is a state of the heart as much as it is of the flesh. It is a mystery how two people become one in heart. It's much further than flesh, and much further than mere feelings of love. Marriage as God intended it is the strongest bond between humans and it is supernatural.

In much the same way, baptism represents our engagement to be the Lord's. Outwardly, we belong to Him. But inwardly, unless the Holy Spirit has truly circumcised our hearts, we do not belong to Him. No amount of love or devotion or feeling can make us belong to Him in our baptism. Only the Spirit can do that. Therefore, the sign should be applied to all who externally belong to the family of God. Whether they truly belong to the bride of Christ, though, is an internal and private matter. Only the Spirit knows and thus baptism is a mystery and why we consider it a sacrament.

As soon as I stopped looking at baptism as a line in the sand, so to speak, or, as I used to define it, an outward sign of an inward faith, I realized that in order for it to truly point to the thing signified, it must be made effectual by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does not wait for an age of reason, or for a profession of faith, or for the assurance of the pastor that he is baptizing the right person. The Holy Spirit decides when to baptize someone. We have merely supplied the water and the Word.

That helped me, though admittedly, I did not have to come to that conclusion until after my children were baptized on their profession. But, as I hope to be a minister of the gospel one day, I do not have qualms applying the sign of baptism, trusting that the Holy Spirit will truly baptize the child when and if it is His good pleasure to do so. 

I hope that helps you.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## msortwell (Jul 25, 2006)

One possible justification for struggling as you attempt to adopt the paedobaptist view would be that you already hold to the view best supported by the inspired text! 

Blessings Brothers!

[Edited on 7-26-2006 by msortwell]


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jul 25, 2006)

If the sign/seal points to first of all to the promise and not to the recipient, then the Baptist case is less compelling.

Circumcision/Baptism (signs of initiation) are signs/seals/promises of what is true of those who believe. 

The Baptist paradigm is that somehow the relation between the sign/seal and the thing signified/sealed changed between Moses and Christ. 

Where is the evidence for this?

Bob Strimple debated Rev Malone some years ago. I believe the recordings are available from WSC. Call 760 480 8474 and ask for Henry Doorn or email at [email protected]

As to the argument that Christ fulfilled the genealogical aspect is fulfilled does not seem to address the administration of the covenant of grace directly. Yes, Chirst fulfilled the genealogies in Matt 1, but so what? 

This seems to be a case of question begging. The premise seems to be, that the covenant of grace was administered via genealogy under Moses but "spiritually" under Christ. 

We covenantal paedobaptists deny the premise. It has always been the case that not all national, physical, genetic Israel has been Israel. One is a true Israelite by faith. Abraham is the father of all who believe whether circumcised or uncircumcised.

There was an internal/external distinction under Moses and it remains under Christ.

http://www.wscal.edu/clark/ecclesiology.php
http://www.wscal.edu/clark/baptism.php
http://www.wscal.edu/clark/israel.php

rsc


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> 
> 
> > As I listen to various Reformed Baptists talk, they invariably insist that only the elect are in the NC. Therefore, the sign should only be applied to those who profess faith.
> ...



Dan has summarized a very important point quite well here. Though study of the continuity issue between the covenants as well as the nature of the signs (circumcision and baptism) was of course necessary as well, the point Dan summarized here was essentially the point that made everything about the paedobaptist position fall into place for me when I first studied it a few years back.


----------



## austinbrown2 (Jul 25, 2006)

*To R Scott Clark*

>>>>>>>The Baptist paradigm is that somehow the relation between the sign/seal and the thing signified/sealed changed between Moses and Christ. 

Where is the evidence for this?<<<<<<<<<

And this is what appears to me to be one of the strongest points- maybe THE point? How does the Baptist come to their conclusion? Well, if we admit that there isn't a definitive text to negate the concept of paedobaptism, then we must move towards deductive or historical redemptive shifts to negate the paedobaptist claim. But this comes back to your point. What kind of evidence can be marshaled to substantiate this contention? Can we really appeal to a host of swinging door passages (passages that can go either way if considered in isolation)? This makes for some heated verbiage, but can it really put the issue to rest? Maybe? If enough anomalies pile up, then it might cause the paradigm to break. Personally, I need more. I therefore come to this fundamental point you raise Mr. Clark. 

What can the Baptist provide to really trump this covenantal contention? If the case can be built that there exists a very similar structural organization to the OC and NC, and that a dichotomy between the physical and spiritual breaks down, what does the Baptist stand on?- at least in the sense of really refuting the paedobaptist argument. Hmmm. 

Does a recognition that the NC stresses faith as inclusion into Christ, that in the NC Christ is the true Israel and those who place their faith in Him are children of Abraham, does this fact so dis-comport with the paedobaptist scheme that it cannot be true? I don´t see how it NECESSARILY follows. And if it doesn´t necessarily follow, then wouldn´t a wise systematic theologian seek to accept both of these strands of evidence? In other words (thinking out loud again), is there something about our believing and being children of Abraham that necessarily negates the idea that those who are children of Abraham by faith should not have the sign of the covenant placed on their children? What can a Reformed Baptist say to this without appealing to swinging door passages or seeking to substantiate their root contention without circular support within their paradigm? (This last sentence may not make a whole lot of sense, but I can´t think how to state it more clearly at the moment).

Is this thinking straight? 

>>>>>>Bob Strimple debated Rev Malone some years ago.<<<<<<<

I have listened to this. It was an awesome debate. I thought it was especially helpful in bringing out the over-realized eschatology of the Reformed Baptist and the NC. I need to listen to it again (I´m a mailman, so I listen to tons of MP3´s while I walk the mail"¦ literally a couple thousand so far). 

>>>>>>As to the argument that Christ fulfilled the genealogical aspect is fulfilled does not seem to address the administration of the covenant of grace directly. Yes, Chirst fulfilled the genealogies in Matt 1, but so what? 

This seems to be a case of question begging. The premise seems to be, that the covenant of grace was administered via genealogy under Moses but "spiritually" under Christ. 

We covenantal paedobaptists deny the premise. It has always been the case that not all national, physical, genetic Israel has been Israel. One is a true Israelite by faith. Abraham is the father of all who believe whether circumcised or uncircumcised.<<<<<<<<

Good point. Unless there is something else to be said by the Reformed Baptist, this line of argumentation becomes neutral at best. 

Thanks for the links. I will check them out. 

I must say, however, that I am much more inclined to listen to stuff (MP3). I´m a downloading fool 

I recently listened to your MP3 lecture on Auburn Avenue stuff (called something like united to Christ and Baptism???). I thought is was good.

Cheers,
Austin


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 25, 2006)

Austin, if you like downloading audio sermons, there are 23 lectures on baptism by OPC minister William Shishko on Sermon Audio if you haven't listened to them already.


----------



## austinbrown2 (Jul 25, 2006)

*Pilgrim on MP3*

Thanks. It's kinda funny, I just saw that yesterday and thought I should listen to them. I am looking forward to listening to him debate James White.

But again, thank you. I plan on downloading that in a few minutes.

Austin


----------



## msortwell (Jul 25, 2006)

> The Baptist paradigm is that somehow the relation between the sign/seal and the thing signified/sealed changed between Moses and Christ.



Baptism, according to Westminster Larger Catechism (LC), in the response to question 177, identifies baptism as "œa sign and seal of our regeneration and ingrafting into Christ . . ." It, of course, goes on to indicate that it is administered, "œeven to infants." But to address the observation regarding "œthe Baptist paradigm," lets examine the "œparadigm" of the LC and consider if a Baptist view is inconsistent with it.

Premise "“ baptism is a sign and seal of our regeneration and ingrafting into Christ.

To whom was that sign and seal affixed under the OC? It was affixed to those who were the apparent recipients of the promise "“ to the apparent seed of Abraham "“ the visible church (as it were) at that time.

To whom would Baptists affix this sign and seal under the NC? The Baptist would affix them to those who are the apparent recipients of the promise "“ to the apparent seed of Abraham (those professing faith in Christ - And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed) "“ the visible church at this time.

To whom would Paedobaptists affix this sign and seal under the NC? T Paedobaptist would affix them to those who are the biological children of those who are the apparent recipients of the promise "“ to those who do not yet appear to be the seed of Abraham "“ the progeny of the visible church.

From this perspective it would seem that continuity is better maintained by baptizing professing believers. And it would seem that the sign and seal is, in the NC to be applied to the same population as it was applied to in the OC "“ to those who are the apparent recipients of the promise "“ in the present economy, those would be those who claim to be in Christ.

But what of Acts 2:39? 

Acts 2:39 - For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call (KJV).

But to whom is the promise made? Does the verse say that it is to all of our children and to as many as are afar off that are called? It seems a more appropriate interpretation to understand the offer to include as many as are called, some of whom are our children and some of whom are afar off. 

My thoughts.

[Edited on 7-26-2006 by msortwell]

[Edited on 7-26-2006 by msortwell]


----------



## MW (Jul 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by msortwell_
> To whom was that sign and seal affixed under the OC? It was affixed to those who were the apparent recipients of the promise "“ to the apparent seed of Abraham "“ the visible church (as it were) at that time.
> 
> To whom would Baptists affix this sign and seal under the NC? The Baptist would affix them to those who are the apparent recipients of the promise "“ to the apparent seed of Abraham (those professing faith in Christ - And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed) "“ the visible church at this time.
> ...



Paragraph 1 -- the seed of Abraham, the biological children of those who were apparent recipients of the promise, received the sign and seal.

Paragraph 2 -- the apparent recipients of the promise, those professing faith, but not their biological children, receive the sign and seal.

Paragraph 3 -- the apparent recipients of the promise, those professing faith, AND their biological children, received the sign and seal.

Quite clearly paragraphs 1 and 3 correspond, while paragraph 2 introduces a disjunction.


----------



## dannyhyde (Jul 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by austinbrown2_
> 
> Does the baby dedication show an intuitive desire to recognize some kind of covenant inclusion? It sure seems so.
> 
> ...



Hello Austin,

I appreciate your wrestling with this subject, especially as a father. Your comment above struck me as very intuitive. While writing a book on baptism for evangelicals that are coming to the Reformed Faith and wondering why we as Reformed churches baptize babies, I was amazed in some of my research. As I studied baby dedication I came across all kinds of churches that had a written policy and reasons for it. The reasons given were the same as infant baptism (children of Christians belong to God) and the "proof-texts" cited were the same that we give (e.g., Gen. 17).

Anyways, as long as Dr. Clark is giving links to things he has wrote, here is a link that previews my forthcoming book, Jesus Loves the Little Children


-- 
Rev. Daniel R. Hyde
Pastor, Oceanside United Reformed Church
www.oceansideurc.org
http://dannyhyde.squarespace.com


----------



## Philip A (Jul 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by dannyhyde_
> 
> Anyways, as long as Dr. Clark is giving links to things he has wrote, here is a link that previews my forthcoming book, Jesus Loves the Little Children



Mr. Hyde,

Do you know yet when the book is due to be available?


----------



## msortwell (Jul 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by msortwell_
> ...




I do not see a disjunction introduced in paragraph 2 (said the Baptist to everyone's surprise ). The promise was not restricted to Abraham REGARDING his seed. Rather, the promise was to Abraham AND TO his seed (Gen 17:7-13). Therefore, the apparent recipients of the promise (the physical seed of Abraham) received the sign and seal. The children of the apparent recipients were not.

Paragraph 3 introduces a departure from the model established under the OC cricumcision because it affixes the sign and seal (baptism) to those who are not the apparent recipients of the promise. Rather, it applies the sign to the biological offspring of the apparent recipients of the promise. 

Was the OC sign applied to the physical offspring of believers? Yes. But why? Because they WERE the apparent recipients of the promise - they were the seed of Abraham. Were they ALL spiritual descendents of Abraham and therefore the true Israel of God? No. But they WERE, like those professing Christ in our day, the visible church. Are all in the visible church today of the true Israel of God? No.

As I have taught those in our fellowship, an orthodox (e.g., non-regenerative) paedobaptist view can not be proven to conflict with Scripture. And there are men whose teachings and understanding of Scripture I greatly admire who hold to the paedobaptist view. That having been said however, it would seem to me to be more consistent with the model established by circumcision under the OC to baptize those who are the apparent recipients of the promise under the NC - those professing Christ as saviour. 

Blessings,

Mike


----------



## dannyhyde (Jul 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Philip A_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by dannyhyde_
> ...



Hello Philip,

The book is set to be out by Oct. 1 at the latest - in time for Reformation Day.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by austinbrown2_
> 
> Does the baby dedication show an intuitive desire to recognize some kind of covenant inclusion? It sure seems so.
> 
> ...



It might appear to be _intuitive_. Whatever the case, the hermeneutic is certainly flawed beyond recognition as the idea is ripped right out of context. Samuel was left at the temple w/ the priests. I have yet to see a parent leave their child behind after thier dedication.


----------



## austinbrown2 (Jul 26, 2006)

*A thanks to all-*

Thank you all for your different contributions. I trust that as I continue to chew on these matters the Lord will guide and direct me (and my family) into that which is good and true. Thank you again.

God bless,
Austin


----------



## MW (Jul 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by msortwell_
> I do not see a disjunction introduced in paragraph 2 (said the Baptist to everyone's surprise ). The promise was not restricted to Abraham REGARDING his seed. Rather, the promise was to Abraham AND TO his seed (Gen 17:7-13). Therefore, the apparent recipients of the promise (the physical seed of Abraham) received the sign and seal. The children of the apparent recipients were not.




There is no material difference between a promise made REGARDING an entity and a promise made TO an entity. As made to Abraham the promise REGARDS the seed. As made to the seed it is made TO them. The covenant, as established with Abraham, was not restricted to himself, but included his seed. So far as Abraham was concerned he received a promise REGARDING his seed. So far as believers under the NT are concerned, they have received a promise REGARDING their seed. The paedo position accords, and the antipaedo position discords.


----------



## msortwell (Jul 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by msortwell_
> ...



I am sorry but what you are offering is not logic. If a person promises to me that he will take care of my family should I die, that person has made no promise to my family. They have made a promise to me regarding my family. They have not however, made a promise to my family. 

In the case of Abraham, God made a promise to him regarding his seed and to his seed (Gen 17:7). It is necessary to make this clear because it establishes that the sign and seal was affixed only upon those to whom the promise was made "“ not to others - as would be the case if the promise was simply made to Abraham REGARDING his seed. 

The credobaptist position sustains continuity by placing upon the recipients of the promise (those to whom the promise is made - those who believe upon Christ) the sign and seal of baptism. To baptize the biological offspring of believers (to whom no promise was made) breaks continuity.

Additionally, it is a misreading of Acts 2:39 to use it to claim a promise to have been made to all of our children (as seems to be the position of some on the board) or even regarding all of our children. The promise spoken of is NOT the general promise of redemption, but the promise of the receiving of the Holy Ghost (Acts 2:33-38). And this promise is not to all of the children of those addressed (the children of believers), no more that it is to all of those who are afar off. Rather it is to all of those in each category who are called ( . . . even as many as the Lord our God shall call. Acts 2:39b). In short the verse tells nothing regarding all of our children. But it gives us cause for hope for some of our children - those whom God calls.

Blessings!

Mike


----------



## MW (Jul 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by msortwell_
> I am sorry but what you are offering is not logic. If a person promises to me that he will take care of my family should I die, that person has made no promise to my family. They have made a promise to me regarding my family. They have not however, made a promise to my family.



Either way, the family are still beneficiaries of the promise. To them belongs the benefit of whatever was promised.



> In the case of Abraham, God made a promise to him regarding his seed and to his seed (Gen 17:7). It is necessary to make this clear because it establishes that the sign and seal was affixed only upon those to whom the promise was made "“ not to others - as would be the case if the promise was simply made to Abraham REGARDING his seed.



Either way, the seed of Abraham are beneficiaries of the promise. To them belongs the benfit of what God promised.



> The credobaptist position sustains continuity by placing upon the recipients of the promise (those to whom the promise is made - those who believe upon Christ) the sign and seal of baptism. To baptize the biological offspring of believers (to whom no promise was made) breaks continuity.



The antipaedobaptist position denies that the biological offspring of believers are beneficiaries of the promise made to believers. They do not believe that what God has promised to believers belongs to their seed. Hence the antipaedobaptist position posits something discontinuous with the Abrahamic arrangement, namely, that the seed of Abraham are beneficiaries of the promise made to him.



> Additionally, it is a misreading of Acts 2:39 to use it to claim a promise to have been made to all of our children (as seems to be the position of some on the board) or even regarding all of our children. The promise spoken of is NOT the general promise of redemption, but the promise of the receiving of the Holy Ghost (Acts 2:33-38). And this promise is not to all of the children of those addressed (the children of believers), no more that it is to all of those who are afar off. Rather it is to all of those in each category who are called ( . . . even as many as the Lord our God shall call. Acts 2:39b). In short the verse tells nothing regarding all of our children. But it gives us cause for hope for some of our children - those whom God calls.



So the verse speaks SOMETHING concerning children, but you conclude the verse tells NOTHING concerning children.


----------



## msortwell (Jul 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> The antipaedobaptist position denies that the biological offspring of believers are beneficiaries of the promise made to believers. They do not believe that what God has promised to believers belongs to their seed. Hence the antipaedobaptist position posits something discontinuous with the Abrahamic arrangement, namely, that the seed of Abraham are beneficiaries of the promise made to him.



The antipaedobaptist position???? Isn´t that just a bit defensive? 

Please explain to me the promise which was made to believers (relative to which baptism is the current sign and seal) that belongs to the biological children of believers. Perhaps that would help me to understand your position better.



> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> So the verse speaks SOMETHING concerning children, but you conclude the verse tells NOTHING concerning children.



No. I try to be very careful with what I write. I wrote that Acts 2:39 speaks something concerning children of believers, but that "œthe verse tells nothing regarding all of our children." My point is that it offers no information that pertains to each of our children. The final phrase in the verse ( . . . even as many as the Lord our God shall call. Acts 2:39b) indicates that the promise is limited to those of our children who are called by God. Therefore, it tells us something of our children (those that are called) but it tells us nothing (that relates to) all (both the called and those that will not be called) of our children. For it makes no claims regarding, or reference to, those of our children that are not the called of God.

[Edited on 7-27-2006 by msortwell]


----------



## MW (Jul 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by msortwell_
> The antipaedobaptist position???? Isn´t that just a bit defensive?



That is the neutral, non-pejorative term as found in theological writings on the issue. To refer to the position as baptist or credo-baptist is to concede the point.



> Please explain to me the promise which was made to believers (relative to which baptism is the current sign and seal) that belongs to the biological children of believers. Perhaps that would help me to understand your position better.



"To be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee," Gen. 17:7. It is made with Abraham REGARDING his seed. His seed are the beneficiaries.



> No. I try to be very careful with what I write. I wrote that Acts 2:39 speaks something concerning children of believers, but that "œthe verse tells nothing regarding all of our children." My point is that it offers no information that pertains to each of our children. The final phrase in the verse ( . . . even as many as the Lord our God shall call. Acts 2:39b) indicates that the promise is limited to those of our children who are called by God. Therefore, it tells us something of our children (those that are called) but it tells us nothing (that relates to) all (both the called and those that will not be called) of our children. For it makes no claims regarding, or reference to, those of our children that are not the called of God.



So the SOMETHING that is promised is to our children, only you would qualify it is those children whom the Lord our God shall call. For the sake of the argument, supposing the apostle to be qualifying his previous statement, and assuming he is speaking of the inward call -- if the promise belongs to some of our children, then some of our children should be baptised, if we are going to have a continuation of the Abrahamic arrangement. Only we do not know which children the Lord will call, so we baptise all of them, lest by excommunicating them we place a stumbling block in the way of those the Lord will call.


----------



## blhowes (Jul 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> Austin, if you like downloading audio sermons, there are 23 lectures on baptism by OPC minister William Shishko on Sermon Audio if you haven't listened to them already.


I think I'm going to download/listen to these lectures. I listened to most of the first lecture last night - very interesting. Perhaps I'll end up a stronger baptist, more convinced of the baptist position, when I've finished listening to it...or not.


----------



## CDM (Jul 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> ...



He'll be debating James White on this topic very soon.


----------



## blhowes (Jul 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by mangum_
> He'll be debating James White on this topic very soon.


Have you ever heard Pastor Shishko debate before? He seemed real knowledgeable the little I've heard him so far, just wondering how he does in a debate setting.


----------



## kceaster (Jul 27, 2006)

*Bob...*

I got to hear him in a debate on baptism this past January. He's so pastoral and warm. I could listen to him for hours even if he were on the opposing side.

When I grow up, I want to be a fraction of the man he is.

Blessings,

KC


----------



## blhowes (Jul 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> I got to hear him in a debate on baptism this past January. He's so pastoral and warm. I could listen to him for hours even if he were on the opposing side.
> 
> When I grow up, I want to be a fraction of the man he is.
> ...


That's quite a testimonial about the man...how'd he do in the debate?
I understand his upcoming debate with James White is on Long Island, which wouldn't be too far of a drive for me. I might just have to try and attend.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kceaster_
> ...



I seem to recall reading somewhere that Rev. Shishko has some background in debate. I do know that he has served as moderator for several of White's debates in the NY area in the past.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kceaster_
> ...



Bob -- If you and Pastor Shishko get together, you should discuss baptism while having a shish-kabob!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by blhowes_
> ...




Yuk yuk yuk


----------



## blhowes (Jul 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Bob -- If you and Pastor Shishko get together, you should discuss baptism while having a shish-kabob!


Good one!


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Jul 27, 2006)

This has been a very edifying discussion.


----------



## msortwell (Jul 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by msortwell_
> ...



But the Baptist looks to Gal 3:29 and sees that the seed being mentioned in Gen 17:7 as referring to those who are Christ´s, or more precisely those who, by profession, profess to be Christ´s. 

29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. (KJV)

It seems inescapable that Paul is addressing believers when he addresses those who are Christ's and therefore "Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

Blessings,

Mike


----------



## MW (Jul 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by msortwell_
> But the Baptist looks to Gal 3:29 and sees that the seed being mentioned in Gen 17:7 as referring to those who are Christ´s, or more precisely those who, by profession, profess to be Christ´s.
> 
> 29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. (KJV)
> ...



It is inescapable. But the promise made in Gen. 17:7 includes children of 8 days old (v. 12). Moreover, Paul at no point excludes infants from being believers or professors. That is an antipaedobaptist assumption which finds no warrant from Scripture. Please refer to the post above, where David's baby belief is described in the very words of inspiration.


----------



## kceaster (Jul 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kceaster_
> ...



To be honest, his competition was less than stellar. But instead of burying him, I thought he did a great job in being gently assertive. Some guys would have went for the throat. But he is so gentle. I have a hard time imagining him spanking his kids, but I know he does. One of the things they hand out to new families at Franklin Square is a small paddle for correcting children. A neat idea whose time has come.

If I were close, I'd go, Bob.

Blessings,

KC


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Jul 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by msortwell_
> ...



I have heard it said that David simply did not know if he was going to see his baby again, but expressed his agony in a figurative way.

Or something like that.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Jul 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> ...



Here is the article I read that addressed this. Of course, it is written by a antipaedobaptist.



> from Steve Camp's _Article, How Wide is the Narrow Road? _
> *A Sentimental Hermeneutic*
> It's hard to fathom, but that little phrase, "I shall go to him..." is the foundational Scriptural evidence given to forming this doctrinal conviction. Most evangelicals who hold to this belief, assert that David was stating an immutable theological truth, "That my son is in heaven, as all children are in heaven, and one day I will go to him." What is surprising to many of us who do not hold to this view, is that this application of this one verse resembles more of a prooftexting than it does a clear exegesis of the text.
> 
> This text interpreted in that fashion, may come from what I call a "sentimental hermeneutic." David is not expressing in those words a theological certainty; he is expressing grief and a desire to be with his son. This is a common emotion in a time of death especially when the loss was attributed to his own sinfulness. To make it something more seems out of context within the text.


----------



## MW (Jul 28, 2006)

When I referred to baby belief I meant David's experience as a baby. These are the quoted portions:

Ps. 22:9, 10, "But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother´s breasts. I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother´s belly."

Ps. 71:5, 6, "For thou art my hope, O Lord GOD: thou art my trust from my youth. By thee have I been holden up from the womb: thou art he that took me out of my mother´s bowels: my praise shall be continually of thee."

Blessings!


----------



## Larry Hughes (Aug 6, 2006)

Austin,

I default to the many great teachers and pastors on this board for the better arguments but I can offer a layman's "seeing of it" and personal experience. Leaping off of one of the best points:



> If the sign/seal points to first of all to the promise and not to the recipient, then the Baptist case is less compelling. ---Dr. Clark



This and the covenant continuity was the death knell for me, then later my wife. The covenant continuity was compelling to both of us years ago when we studied the covenants from Abraham forward (ironically through a precept study!). What we began to see just stunned us. Yet, it was seeing the promise in baptism, the Gospel itself that was the killer to our old Baptist thinking. Up to that point the covenant argument was compelling but the R. Baptist had their argument too. But it was seeing the Gospel in the sign, the promise that locked it in for me especially then my wife later who grew up Baptist (26 years for her). Once we both saw the promise/gospel in the sign that sealed if forever and is why the Baptist position never re-appeals in the least to us. It would be tantamount to giving up the Gospel (on baptism) to go back, that´s how strong THAT particular point was. So the what the sign/seal points to or is founded/based/exists upon, however one wants to state that is CRUCIAL. It not only makes the Baptist position, in the conscience less compelling, it makes it utterly uncompelling. Even if one struggles to keep all the covenant ideas afloat in the mind (especially us lay persons with limited study time and so forth), seeing this one point, what it points to/founded upon/valid upon and etc"¦, the promise/gospel, is the tower that holds one to the infant baptism position. Although the covenant puts the "œglue" to it, so to speak.

The reason this is huge for a "œbeliever only", like my former self, comes down to the timing of baptism and any of us who struggled with "œdid I get it right". Once one is relieved that baptism does not depend upon me, my pastor, nor even my church (so to speak, assuming Trinitarian baptism), but rather the promise and Gospel of God, His Names sake (which is why we name the Trinity in giving it), then its just a short leap to "œwhy not" infants. Because if the timing for adults is "œirrelevant" in the sense that it´s not based upon the recipient but God´s promise, then there is no valid reason to not baptize children. Then the covenant provides the crucial link for that.

This two fold issue, covenant continuity and what the sign/seal points to (or similarly is founded, based upon) is the two fold fundamental argument against adult only baptism. And what makes it so strong is that its not a "œlaw" against "œlaw" argument (my belief in baptism is better than yours or more obedient), but rather a pure Gospel argument. It says to the Baptist, as it did me and my wife, "œHere is just how rich God´s grace REALLY is toward you, take it, enjoy it, rejoice, praise His goodness." When a Baptist sees THAT, because fundamentally many good Baptist are desirous of a strong Gospel in all things, when he/she sees that, they will be compelled irresistibly to it. Without seeing the Gospel in it, the promise to which it points, I´ve seen too many pure covenant arguments boil down to a "œmy law" is better than yours, though nobody means this it just happens often when we let our emotions over take us in the heat of debate (something I´ve found myself battling with in my own debates). But if you see that Gospel there, the wall comes down and BOOM!

But the first steps when you actually move that direction are wobbly. I recall the first time when we decided it for our children, though the doctrine was strong for us and we couldn´t go back so compelled, there´s still that old "œgut feeling" that gets you. That´s just on the personal experience level. It was similar from when I came from unbelief to belief, I couldn´t return, it was irresistible, but still one is nervous about those first few steps.

Blessings in your journey in the faith, 

Larry


----------



## austinbrown2 (Aug 6, 2006)

*Thank you Larry*

I appreciate your sharing some of your own existential struggles and that which clinches the issue in your mind. I have to agree in two ways. I agree that what you view as crucial is indeed crucial. I feel its weight and, like I said originally, I can't knock it down. Secondly, I have the hesitancy of which you speak. It's hard to re-shape one's thinking. So in this way, I'm leaning on time, further meditation and also personal experience- for now I am attending a RPCNA Church. In fact, there was a baby baptism this morning. I must confess that it was beautiful. 

Thanks again,
Austin


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by austinbrown2_
> I appreciate your sharing some of your own existential struggles and that which clinches the issue in your mind. I have to agree in two ways. I agree that what you view as crucial is indeed crucial. I feel its weight and, like I said originally, I can't knock it down. Secondly, I have the hesitancy of which you speak. It's hard to re-shape one's thinking. So in this way, I'm leaning on time, further meditation and also personal experience- for now I am attending a RPCNA Church. In fact, there was a baby baptism this morning. I must confess that it was beautiful.
> 
> Thanks again,
> Austin



Which Indiana church are you attending?


----------



## kceaster (Aug 7, 2006)

It's Sycamore, right?

KC


----------



## austinbrown2 (Aug 7, 2006)

*Which Church?*

Yep, it's Sycamore Presbyterian in Kokomo. Unfortunately, that is the closest Reformed Church for us, and that is still 40 minutes away. But it appears to be a good church. Pastor York is a very godly and humble man. I greatly respect that/him.

Austin


----------



## Me Died Blue (Oct 8, 2006)

> _Originally posted by dannyhyde_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Philip A_
> ...



Rev. Hyde,

Is this book available yet? The link you gave above as well as the Reformed Fellowship page still list it as "Fothcoming" and "Coming Soon," respectively.


----------

