# Synopsis: What About Baptism?



## CalvinandHodges

Hi All:

On the previous, now locked, thread some of you (Steve Owen, Semper Fi, etc) asked if I would summarize the book I recommended earlier. I will try to do so and still keep the power of the arguments, Lord willing.

_What About Baptism? A Discussion of the Mode, Candidate, and Purpose of Christian Baptism_, by Ralph E. Bass, Jr.

He begins the book by investigating *in-depth* the definitions of the words used in the Bible (Old and New Testaments) that Baptists use to "prove" their view of Baptism. It is in these definitions that the credo-baptist thinks he has the advantage. However, a detailed look at the way the Bible uses these words produces a much different understanding *to the neutral observer.* Here are the various words the Bible uses transliterated from the Greek:

1) _Bapto_ verb "To dip, dye, to put into and remove."
2) _Baptidzo_ verb "To envelope, to merse (merge - to put together so as to remain together, to unite)
3) _Baptismos_ noun "A washing, an act of cleansing."
4) _Baptisma_ noun "A rite or ceremony of baptism."
5) _Baptisteis_ noun "One who baptizes."

He points out that the word _Bapto_ means to dip. He then points out that the word _Baptidzo_ has a very different meaning: "it is characterized by the idea of 'putting in and leaving in' or 'envelopment'. The purpose of this envelopment is to produce a _change of condition_ in the object enveloped. In the ancient Greek world if a person was _Baptidzo_ in water, he was drowned. He was enveloped by the water without a withdrawal from the water. This produced a change of condition - from life to death."

A better definition of _baptidzo_ when we look at the Bible's use of it (see below) would be to "merge, merse, or unite." The English word "immerse" and the Greek word _baptidzo_ both mean to place under water without the provision to remove from the water. Thus, they both make a poor substitute for the idea of "dipping." _Baptidzo_ carries the idea of putting together so as to remain together. The idea of "dipping" (to put in and to pull out) does not properly translate _baptidzo_. The real meaning of the word, as we shall see when we look at the Biblical use of it, is found in a _change of condition_.

The Believer in Christ is Baptized (_baptidzo_) by the Spirit, and is thus united to Him by the working of the Holy Spirit throughout his whole life. The idea of "dipping" (to put in and bring out) does not reflect accurately the Biblical concept of Baptism.

Chapter One: Its Mode:

_Illustrated in the Jewish Ceremonies Referred to in the Book of Hebrews_

When referring to the ritual purifications in the Old Testament the Apostle Paul notes that these *washings* (_baptismos_) were accomplished by means of pouring or sprinkling. Hebrews 9:9-22 reads:



> Accordingly both the gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience, since they relate only to food and drink and various *washings* (_baptismos_), regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation ... (vs 13) For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer *sprinkling* those who have been defiled, sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, *cleanse* your conscience from dead works to serve the living God ... (vs 19) For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with *water* and scarlet wool and hyssop, and *sprinkled* both the book itself and all the people ... (vs 21) And in the same way he *sprinkled* both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood. And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are *cleansed* with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.


The English word used here for *washings* is the Greek word _baptismos_ or *baptism* and is referenced throughout the passage as *sprinkling*. The purifications/washings in the Old Testament that are specifically referred to in the New Testament as *baptisms* were done by sprinkling or pouring. This is further proved:



> Then for the *unclean* person they shall take some of the ashes of the burnt *purification* from sin and flowing water shall be added to them in a vessel. And a clean person shall take hyssop and dip it in the *water*, and *sprinkle* it on the tent and on all the *furnishing* and on the *persons* who were there, and on the one who touched the bone or the one slain or the one dying natural or the grave, Numb 19:17-18 (Heb 9:13)



See also: Ex 24:6-8 - which is referred to in Hebrews 9:19; Leviticus 8:19 (Hebrews 9:21); and Leviticus 16:14 (Hebrews 9:21 as well).

"Now what do these comparisons of Old Testament references to Hebrews 9 tell us? There is no complexity here: the *washings* (_baptismos)_ spoken of in the Book of Hebrews are *sprinklings*.

You can see for yourself that the author of Hebrews, quoting the Old Testament accounts of *sprinklings* calls them *baptisms*. Therefore, by the *authority of Scripture, sprinklings* are an acceptable mode for *baptisms*."

As Bass continues in his book you will find that *sprinkling is the only Biblical (both Old and New Testament) mode of Baptism*.

*The Baptisms (purifications) performed by John the Baptist were sprinklings.*

When the Jews disputed with the disciples of John they questioned them concerning his work which they called *purification*:



> And John also was *baptizing* in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there; and they were coming and were being *baptized* ... There arose therefore a discussion on the part of John's disciples with a Jew about *purification*, John 3:23-26.


By observing the behavior of John the Baptist the Jews came to the conclusion that he was performing rites of purification. *All* of the rites of purification that the Jews were familiar with were done by *sprinkling*:

We have already looked at Numbers 19 above.



> Anyone who touches a corpse, the body of a man who has died, and does not *purify* himself, defiles the tabernacle of the LORD; and that person shall be cut off from Israel. Because the *water for impurity* was not *sprinkled* on him, he shall be *unclean*; his uncleanness is still on him, Numbers 9:13.
> 
> To *cleanse* the house then, he shall take two birds and cedar wood and a scarlet string and *hyssop*, and he shall slaughter the one bird in an earthenware vessel over running *water*. Then he shall take the cedar wood and the *hyssop* and the scarlet string, with the live bird, and dip them in the blood of the slain bird, as well as in the running *water*, and *sprinkle* the house seven times, Leviticus 14:49-51.



See also: Numbers 8:7; Ps 51:7.

The syllogism goes like this:

1) The Jews knew that rites of purification were performed only by sprinkling.
2) John the Baptist - to them - were performing rites of purification by his baptisms.
3) Therefore, John the Baptist was baptizing by sprinkling.

"Had John been immersing at Aenon the subject of 'purifying' would never have been raised, for the purifications of the Old Testament were *never* by immersion." - Jesus refers to John as the greatest of the Old Testament prophets.

*Illustrated in the question of John the Baptist being the Messiah*

The ministry of John the Baptist centered around baptism. In doing so it appeared to the Jews that John was fulfilling certain prophecies concerning the Messiah. So they asked him the question, John 1:19,20. They were thinking about the following verses - compared to the NT description of John the Baptist:



> For I will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands, and bring you into your own land. Then I will *sprinkle clean water * on you, and you will be clean, (Ezekiel 36:24 - compare with Acts 1:5)
> 
> He will sprinkle many nations, Is 52:13-15.


If you continue reading in the Ez 36 passage you will find that *sprinkling clean water, cleansing from sin, and the Holy Spirit* are all mentioned. These three are all associated with John the Baptist's ministry.

*Illustrated in our Lord's Baptism*

Jesus was baptized in order to "fulfill all righteousness," Mt 3:13-17. As our sacrifice and High Priest He had to perfectly conform Himself to all of the Laws of Moses. Some of these criterion included:

1) He had to be thirty years old or older - Numbers 4:3,23 compare Luke 3:23.

2) He had to be called of God, as was Aaron - Exodus 28:1 and Hebrews 5:4-6.

3) He *had* to be sprinkled - Numbers 8:5-7 reads:



> Again the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 'Take the Levites from among the sons of Israel and cleanse them. And thus you shall do to them, for their cleansing: *sprinkle* purifying water on them
> 
> So Moses took some of the *anointing oil* and some of the *blood* which was on the altar, and *sprinkled* it on Aaron, on his garments, on his sons, and on the garments of his sons with him; and he consecrated Aaron, Lev 8:30.


If Jesus was anointed in any other way than that of *sprinkling* then He would not have been fulfilling all righteousness! Acts 10:38-39.

To *anoint* is to *pour* or *sprinkle.* Christ was consecrated by water and *anointed* by the Holy Spirit. The picture of *Holy Spirit baptism* is water baptism by *pouring or sprinkling*.

There is no *anointing* by dipping in the Bible.

*Illustrated in the Relationship of Water Baptism to the Holy Spirit*

Baptism with water portrays the way the Holy Spirit baptized His Church. Notice how water baptism and Holy Spirit baptism are identified in the New Testament:



> John answered and said to them all, 'As for me, I *baptize* you with *water*; but One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to untie the thong of His sandals; He will *baptize* you with the *Holy Spirit* and with fire, Luke 3:16
> 
> And gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, Which, he said, you heard from Me; for John *baptized with water*, but you shall be *baptized* with the *Holy Spirit* not too many days from now, Acts 1:4,5.


Now, notice the *mode* of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit:



> They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to *rest on* each of them, Acts 2:3.
> 
> ...but this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel: And it shall be in the last days, God says, That I will *pour forth of my Spirit* upon all of mankind, Acts 2:16-17.
> 
> Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the *Holy Spirit* He has *poured forth* this which you both see and hear, Acts 2:23.
> 
> While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been *poured out* even on the Gentiles, Acts 10:44-45.
> 
> And after being baptized, Jesus went up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the *Spirit of God descending as a dove and coming upon Him, Mat 3:16-17.*
> 
> And John bore witness saying, I have beheld the *Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven*, and remaining upon Him, John 1:32.
> 
> And the *Holy Spirit descended upon* Him in bodily form like a dove, Luke 3:22.
> 
> He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the *washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,* whom He *poured out* upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, Titus 3:5-6
> 
> Mr. Bass continues quoting the following Scriptures: Acts 2:16-18; Isaiah 55:3; Acts 11:15-16.



To try to separate baptism from the work of the Holy Spirit is to do violence to the whole revelation of the Scriptures upon the subject. *Real baptism is the work of the Holy Spirit, and water (ritual) baptism is that which symbolizes His work.* Yet the most uneducated reader cannot fail to see that in the New Testament believers were not dipped into the Spirit, nor were they immersed in Him, nor plunged down into Him and taken out, but, to the contrary, the Spirit was *shed forth, was poured out, fell, came, or rested upon* them, and as a result they were baptized with the Holy Ghost. Baptism then is not the person's being put into the element, *but rather the element's being put upon the person.*

*Illustrated by the Sprinkling of Blood*

Mr. Bass unrolls a whole roll of Scripture verses to prove this:

Ex 29:16 - and shall take its blood and sprinkle it around on the altar
Ex 29:20 - and sprinkle the rest of the blood around
Le 1:5 - the blood and sprinkle the blood around on the altar
Le 1:11 - the priests shall sprinkle its blood
Le 3:2 - the priests shall sprinkle the blood
Le 3:8 - Aaron's sons shall sprinkle its blood
Le 4:6 - in the blood, and sprinkle some of the blood
Le 4:17 - in the blood, and sprinkle it
Le 5:9 - he shall also sprinkle some of the blood of the sin
Le 7:2: - and he shall sprinkle its blood
Le 16:14-19
Le 17:6 - And the priest shall sprinkle the blood
Nu 18:17 - You shall sprinkle their blood
Nu 19:4 - blood with his finger, and sprinkle 
2 ki 16:15 - and their libations; and sprinkle on it all the blood
Eze 43:18 - offerings on it and to sprinkle blood

Heb 9:22 - blood of the calves and the goats with water and scarlet wool and hyssop and sprinkled.

Hebrews 10:22 - having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

Hebrews 12:24 - and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.

1 Peter 1:2 - according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, that you may obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood.

Time has run up on me, and I must end at this point. I understand that there are questions which credo-baptists might have concerning the above. The above is not exhaustive, and Mr. Bass addresses those questions in the ensuing pages.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## ExGentibus

Thank you Rob, it is much appreciated and helpful.


----------



## CharlieJ

A lot of the argumentation is good. I'm not sure, though, that the Levitical regulations are a good departure point for understanding Christ's baptism. After all, Christ was after the order of Melchizedek and so not of the order of Levi or Aaron. I had toyed with the idea of the priestly baptism, but one of my professors at GPTS helped me see the disconnect.


----------



## Spinningplates2

Thank you Robert. This is exactly what I believe and I have have never seen a better summary. Reading this was pure joy.


----------



## Quickened

Thank you for sharing this. I was curious about the book but unable to ask for some insight earlier. This presents the topic in a manner i have not previously heard and i find it quite interesting!

I'm starting to think i might pick up this book


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Greetings:

You are all very welcome. 

I am presenting Mr. Bass' arguments for infant baptism from his book - arguments that I am in complete agreement with. Each of the points in the Original Post can stand alone, in their Biblical context, as proof for sprinkling/pouring as the Biblical mode of Baptism. Consequently, if there is a weakness in one point such does not overthrow the Biblical nature of sprinkling as the mode of Baptism. A credo-baptist, in order to deny sprinkling as the Biblical mode of Baptism, would have to refute all of the points above, and not just the ones that he thinks he can refute.

Since I have not seen a comprehensive and Biblical refutation of sprinkling/pouring from the credo-baptist contingent, then I can assume that they admit the Biblical foundations of the mode of sprinkling. This would further be substantiated if they simply ignore the Original Post, and then seek to answer Mr. Bass' points that will be presented below. Such a tacit admission would be a singular blow to their views on dipping.

*An interesting point to consider:*

Before I continue I would like to point out that the Greek word which Baptists make so much fuss about (*Bapto* meaning "to dip") appears in the New Testament in only three places. None of these verses has anything even remotely related to the mode of Baptism:



> Luke 16:24 - And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may *dip* the tip of his finger in water...
> John 13:26 - Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have *dipped* it...
> Rev 19:13 - And he was clothed with a vesture *dipped* in blood...


The actual word which Baptists claim that teaches their mode of Baptism as dipping is never actually used in the New Testament to describe the mode! It is clear that the Holy Spirit knew the word, but never used it in relation to the mode of Baptism.

Mr. Bass continues in presenting Infant Baptism in his next chapter wherein he points out the the subjects of Baptism are the Seed of Abraham and their children.

Chapter 2:
*Its Candidates: Believers and Their Children:*

"Who are the proper candidates for Christian baptism?" The answer is: "believers and their children." Does the Bible teach this doctrine? These seven points demonstrate conclusively that baptism is the New Testament counterpart to Old Testament circumcision. What was true of circumcision in the Old Testament is, in many cases, true of baptism in the New Testament.

*Circumcision and Baptism: Signs of the Covenant:*

Mr. Bass uses O. Palmer Robertson's definition of a Covenant: "A covenant is a bond in blood sovereignly administered." A Covenant binds two parties together, and it is sealed with the shedding of blood. There is only one Covenant - all other Covenants are simply expressions of that Covenant, and they never diminish the privileges of those who were beneficiaries of a preceeding covenant. The One Covenant is called the Covenant of Redemption. All other covenants are simply outworkings of this one Covenant:

The Adamic Covenant - The covenant of commencement.
The Noahic Covenant - The covenant of preservation.
The Abrahamic Covenant - The covenant of promise.
The Mosaic Covenant - the covenant of Grace.
The Davidic Covenant - the covenant of the kingdom.
The New Covenant - The covenant of consummation.

God relates with His people only through the Covenant.

A covenant will have a rite of initiation and a rite of ongoing fellowship. The predominant rite of initiation in the Old Testament community of believers was circumcision. The Old Testament rite of fellowship was Passover. In the New Testament we recognize that the Lord's Supper has replaced Passover as the rite of continued fellowship.

What about a New Testament rite of initiation? Is there no such rite in the New Testament - a rite by which we enter into the Church? Of course there is: it is baptism. Notice the correspondence then: The Lord's Supper corresponds to Passover, and baptism corresponds to circumcision. One replaces the other. Mr. Bass quotes from the _New Bible Dictionary_ online from the article on "Baptism":



> It is clear then that, from the first, baptism in the name of Jesus functioned as the rite of entry or initiation into the new sect of those who called upon the name of Jesus...



He then quotes from John Murray:



> ...to think organically of the Scripture revelation is much more difficult than to think atomistically. The argument for infant baptism rests upon the recognition that God's redemptive action and revelation in this world are covenantal. In a word, redemptive action is covenant action and redemptive revelation is covenant revelation. Embedded in this covenantal action of God is the principle that the infant seed of believers are embraced with their parents in the covenant relation and provision. It is this method of God's administration of grace in the world that must be appreciated. It belongs to the New Testament as well as to the Old. It is its presence and significance that grounds infant baptism. And it is the perception of its significance that illumines for us the meaning of this ordinance.


The endpoint of this section is that New Covenant Baptism is the counterpart to Old Covenant circumcision.

*The Covenant Continues In Force Today:*

Mr. Bass acknowledges that there are those who recognize that the Old Testament had covenants, but that there are some who claim such a distinction between these covenants and the new covenant that the Old Covenant is no longer relevant to the New Covenant. Such is a major Biblical mistake. God calls the Old Covenants "eternal":



> And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for *an everlasting coveant* to be God to you and to your descendants after you," Gen 17:7
> 
> It is you who are the sons of the prophets, *and of the covenant* which God made with your fathers... Acts 3:25.
> 
> The time is coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a *new covenant* with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, Jer 31:31
> 
> In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, This cup is the *new covenant* in my blood, which is poured out for you, Lk 22:20


If baptism was not given in the New Covenant as the rite of initiation, then what would have been the rite used in the New Testament? _Circumcision would have continued if baptism had not replaced it._ Why? Because circumcision was the sign and seal of the _eternal covenant_ God gave to Abraham. Its continuance was independent of the Mosaic covenant/law. Because it is _eternal_, if it had not been replaced by baptism it would stell be in force today. The Abrahamic covenant existed before the Mosaic covenant, and continues to exist now (Rm 11:26, 27; 4:16, 17), although expanded and enriched in the New Covenant.

[This, I believe, is the crux that the Baptist does not understand concerning the covenants - That all of the OT covenants listed above continue in the New Covenant. The Reformed often refer to this as "Covenant continunity." Mr. Bass goes on.]

Because the covenants remain, the signs of the covenant remain. And because the covenants remain, the candidates of the covenant remain also, believers (as the Seed of Abraham) and their children, just as it had been for two thousand years prior to the New Testament period.

*The Candidates for the Covenant Sign Remain Unchanged:*

Circumcision as the inititation rite into the Covenant has changed; it is now *baptism*. There is no indication in the Scriptures that the candidates have changed: they are as they have always been the Seed of Abraham and their children.



> It is you who are the sons of the prophets, and of the *covenant* which God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, _And in your seed all the familes of the earth shall be blessed ..._ For the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself, Acts 2:25, 39.


Mr. Bass quotes Charles Hodge:



> Children, therefore, were included in the covenant of grace as revealed under the old dispensation, and consequently were members of the Church as it was then constituted. In the sight of God parents and children are one. The former are the authorized representatives of the latter; they act for them; they contract obligations in their name. In all cases, therefore, where parents enter into covenant with God, they bring their children with them.


[This is called Federal Theology. Such an understanding is even among the unbelievers who say that children born in the United States of America are Americans, and, are under the protection of the Constitution.]

*Neither circumcision nor Baptism Equate to Salvation:*

I believe that we all agree to this statement. It has been the policy of Presbyterians everywhere to emphasize that children of the Seed of Abraham are not automatically regenerate. I will skip this section as it is too obvious.

*When Participated in by Adults, the Faith of the Adults is Required:*

This, again is agreed upon by all. Presbyterians hold that anyone who comes to faith in Jesus Christ, and was not baptized as an infant, needs to be baptized. 

*When Participated in by Infants, the faith of parents is Required:*

Children of the Seed of Abraham are part of the community of faith. If the parents were not part of the covenant, then neither was the child. No infant could present himself for circumcision. It was the faith of the parent that brought the child to this act of obedience.



> For I have chosen him, so that *he will direct his children* and his household after him *to keep the way of the LORD* by doing what is right and just, so that the LORD will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him, Gen 18:19.


As Abraham was called to Godly parenthood and given a sign of the covenant as an indication of this fact, so we are called to Godly parenting as well and given a sign - baptism - for the same reason. The faith of Abraham drove hiim to circumcise Isaac and raise him in the faith. In time, Isaac embraced the faith of his father. So it is with believers today. By faith we baptize our children, looking forward with hope to the time when our children will share that faith and embrace the truths of their baptism.

*Obedience to the Gospel Call Results in the Loss of Covenant Privileges?*

Now here is an interesting scenario: a Jew new in his faith comes to the Church seeking baptism, that rite of initiation into the New Testament Church. But when he does, he is told something startling. *He* may become a part of the community of faith, *but his children cannot*! They must remain outside of this community until they make a personal confession of faith. What a dilemma! To fail to respond in faith and become a part of the new community of faith would result in him being utterly destroyed:

_And it shall be that every sould that does not heed that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people, Acts 3:23_

There is no passage in the New Testament that forbids the children of believers baptism. There are several passages that do encourage it: Acts 2:39, 1 Cor 7:14. If the children of believers were outside of the Covenant, then these passages would make no sense. Mr. Bass quotes Samuel Miller:



> We cannot imagine that the privileges and the sign of infant membership to which all the first Christians had been so long accustomes, could have been abruptly withdrawn, without wounding the hearts of parents, and producing in them feelings of revolt and complaint against the new economy. Yet we find no hint of this recorded in the history of the apostilic age. Upon our principles, this entire silence presents no difficulty. The old principle and practice of infant membership, so long consecrated by time, and so dear to all the feelings of parental affection, went on as before.



*The New Testament Does Not Instruct Us to Baptize Children:*

Now this point is repeated endlessly; we are never told to baptize our children in the New Testament - case closed!

In addressing this point, let's start with the unbelieving Jews of that period. The Jews found fault with Christians at every point that Christians deviated from the Old Testament Scriptures and Jewish practices. But notice that there are no criticisms of Christians by Jews for neglecting their children by dropping them from the covenant.

Why not?

Those who left Judaism and became Christians nowhere complained about not being allowed to bring their children with them into the Church, as they had traditionally done in Judaism.

Why not?

The answer to both questions is that the Children of the Seed of Abraham continued to receive their covenant promises and blessings in the New Covenant. Mr. Bass quotes Francis Shaeffer:



> The only reason possible for the New Testament not dealing with this problem is that _the problem did not exist_. The only possible reason that there was no problem in the Jews' mind was that the believing Jews did apply the covenant sign to their children. They baptized their babies as they had circumcised them in the Old Testament dispensation.


Why are there no specific instructions given on the baptism of children in the New Testament? *Because no specific instructions are needed to continue doing what you have always done*. However, if Christianity did indeed change the spiritual status of children by putting them out of the community of believers, could it be expected that a two-thousand year old custom of making children members of this covenant community be dropped from practice without *one word* of explanation or justification? Mr. Bass quotes Philip Schaff:



> ...we have presumptive and positive arguments fo the apostolic origin and character of infant baptism, *first*, in the fact that circumcision as truly prefigured baptism, as the Passover the holy Supper; *then* in the organic relation between Christian parents and children; in the nature of the new covenant, which is even more comprehensive than the old; in the universal virtue of Christ, as the Redeemer of all sexes, classes, and ages, and especially in the import of his own infancy, which has redeemed and sanctified the infantile age.



There is no such positive command in the Scripture for excluding children from the New Covenant.

All of the evidence in the New Testament points to the continuation of the inclusion of the children of the Seed of Abraham in the New Covenant.

*Baptism replaces Circumcision:*

This whole section is a restatement of the Biblical similarities between Circumcision and Baptism. I believe that Mr. Bass has shown this relationship to be Biblical above, and if anyone want me to go over this material in the future, then I will do so on another post.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Laudante

*Mode of baptism*

Hi, Rob and the rest of the august company:

I really don´t have much time now, but I will just make a few comments regarding the mode of Baptism. Later I´ll try to take some time to give my humble opinion on the candidates issue.

I consider myself 51% Credo-Baptist (as well as 51% supralapsarian). This places me on the LBC side, but I still have a 49% of conviction that I might be wrong, what makes me try to be as objective as possible. I don´t feel committed with one particular tradition or the other, and that gives me certain unbiased aproach, or at least I like to think so. 

Regarding the mode of baptism, the issue was very clearly settled down in the Didache, written by native Greek speakers, just a few years after the apostles, and possibly by direct disciples of them. I´m not saying it is the word of God, of course, but I think that it is a very reliable historic document regarding how the early Christians, who knew perfectly what the verbs _bapto_ and _baptidso_ meant. In Didache we are told that the first option should be immersion in cold running water, the second, immersion in cold still water, the third, immersion in warm still water, and the fourth, sprinkling. I don´t have the time now to go and check, but this is what I remember. Forgive me if I´m wrong. 

Now, in the passage quoted in the book to prove that John was making purifications (John 3:23-26), we are told also that John baptized there, because there was "much water". Why would John need to be in a place with much water if he was only to sprinke?

I´m not against sprinkling as a possible method (unlike most baptists), but to say that sprinkling in the ONLY possible way is a little bit exagerated. And so is the argument that everything related with purification in OT is by sprinkling. Let me just give one example, and very closely related with NT baptism: the consecration of the priests. Jesus seems very clearly to imply that there is a connection between the consecration of the priest the first time the will minister, with the Christian baptism, and between the washing of the hands and feet every subsequent time they (the priests) entered to minister, with the washing of the hands and feet that early Christians practiced after the Master. (John 13:10). 

The consecration of the priests appears in Ex. 29, Lev. 8, 16:4, et al. In all these cases the verb used in the Septuagint is bathing (from louo), and not washing (nipsetai, nipto), as some versions render. In Lev 16:4, for example, we read: 

καὶ λούσεται ὕδατι *πᾶν τὸ σῶμα* αὐτοῦ (and he shall wash his flesh in water). The proper rendering would be "and he should bathe ALL HIS BODY (pan to soma)". Lousetai comes from louo. See what the Strong´s says regarding this verb:

3068. louo (loo'-o)

A primary verb; to bathe (the whole person; whereas nipto means to wet a part only, and pluno to wash, cleanse garments exclusively) -- wash.

It´s interesting that the Septuagint makes a distinction of verb here and in the passages that speak of the regular washing of hands and feet of the priests (not their once-in-life consecration). In those cases, like Ex. 30:17-21, the verb used is Nipsetai (from nipto, to cleanse). 

So it is about 90% sure that the priests, the first time they entered to minister, washed their whole body, probably dipping into the basin, and all the following times, they only cleansed their hands and feet, i.e. an ablution.

And not only the priests did this in their consecration, but also the persons that had suffered an infectious skin disease had to take a bath (whole body) before becoming ceremonially clean. We find this in Lev. 14:8:

"The one to be cleansed shall then wash his clothes and shave off all his hair and bathe (lousetai, from louo) in water and *BE CLEAN (i.e. purification)*. Now afterward, he may enter the camp, but he shall stay outside his tent for seven days."

Isn´t this clearly related with Baptism? 

And also, very significantly, Jesus makes exactly the same verbal distinction in John 13:10. For the body washed (clear reference to Baptism) he uses a verb that comes from louo, and for the washing of hands and feet, he uses a verb that comes from nipto. 

Also, Heb. 10:22 says:

"...having our hearts sprinkled (rherantismenoi, from rhantiso 4472) clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed (bathed, lelousmenoi, from louo again) with pure water."

Why not use sprinkling or cleansing for the body, but BATH?

So, in summary, although this topic can be very much extended, I conclude that purification in OT not only had to do with SPRINKLING. This knocks down the argument based on John 3:23-26, and even, considering the "much water" issue, it helps easily to convert the argument in support of immersion!

In Christ


----------



## Christusregnat

Laudante said:


> Also, Heb. 10:22 says:
> 
> "...having our hearts sprinkled (rherantismenoi, from rhantiso 4472) clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed (bathed, lelousmenoi, from louo again) with pure water."



Hebraisms generally repeat things for emphasis, as well as using the sign for the thing signified, or the thing signified for the sign. Having our hearts sprinkled and our bodies washed is referring to the same thing: baptism. Hearts sprinkled is the inward reality; bodies washed is the outward sign. 

Cheers,


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Laudante said:


> Hi, Rob and the rest of the august company:
> 
> I really don´t have much time now, but I will just make a few comments regarding the mode of Baptism. Later I´ll try to take some time to give my humble opinion on the candidates issue.
> 
> I consider myself 51% Credo-Baptist (as well as 51% supralapsarian). This places me on the LBC side, but I still have a 49% of conviction that I might be wrong, what makes me try to be as objective as possible. I don´t feel committed with one particular tradition or the other, and that gives me certain unbiased aproach, or at least I like to think so.
> 
> Regarding the mode of baptism, the issue was very clearly settled down in the Didache, written by native Greek speakers, just a few years after the apostles, and possibly by direct disciples of them. I´m not saying it is the word of God, of course, but I think that it is a very reliable historic document regarding how the early Christians, who knew perfectly what the verbs _bapto_ and _baptidso_ meant. In Didache we are told that the first option should be immersion in cold running water, the second, immersion in cold still water, the third, immersion in warm still water, and the fourth, sprinkling. I don´t have the time now to go and check, but this is what I remember. Forgive me if I´m wrong.
> 
> Now, in the passage quoted in the book to prove that John was making purifications (John 3:23-26), we are told also that John baptized there, because there was "much water". Why would John need to be in a place with much water if he was only to sprinke?
> 
> I´m not against sprinkling as a possible method (unlike most baptists), but to say that sprinkling in the ONLY possible way is a little bit exagerated. And so is the argument that everything related with purification in OT is by sprinkling. Let me just give one example, and very closely related with NT baptism: the consecration of the priests. Jesus seems very clearly to imply that there is a connection between the consecration of the priest the first time the will minister, with the Christian baptism, and between the washing of the hands and feet every subsequent time they (the priests) entered to minister, with the washing of the hands and feet that early Christians practiced after the Master. (John 13:10).
> 
> The consecration of the priests appears in Ex. 29, Lev. 8, 16:4, et al. In all these cases the verb used in the Septuagint is bathing (from louo), and not washing (nipsetai, nipto), as some versions render. In Lev 16:4, for example, we read:
> 
> καὶ λούσεται ὕδατι *πᾶν τὸ σῶμα* αὐτοῦ (and he shall wash his flesh in water). The proper rendering would be "and he should bathe ALL HIS BODY (pan to soma)". Lousetai comes from louo. See what the Strong´s says regarding this verb:
> 
> 3068. louo (loo'-o)
> 
> A primary verb; to bathe (the whole person; whereas nipto means to wet a part only, and pluno to wash, cleanse garments exclusively) -- wash.
> 
> It´s interesting that the Septuagint makes a distinction of verb here and in the passages that speak of the regular washing of hands and feet of the priests (not their once-in-life consecration). In those cases, like Ex. 30:17-21, the verb used is Nipsetai (from nipto, to cleanse).
> 
> So it is about 90% sure that the priests, the first time they entered to minister, washed their whole body, probably dipping into the basin, and all the following times, they only cleansed their hands and feet, i.e. an ablution.
> 
> And not only the priests did this in their consecration, but also the persons that had suffered an infectious skin disease had to take a bath (whole body) before becoming ceremonially clean. We find this in Lev. 14:8:
> 
> "The one to be cleansed shall then wash his clothes and shave off all his hair and bathe (lousetai, from louo) in water and *BE CLEAN (i.e. purification)*. Now afterward, he may enter the camp, but he shall stay outside his tent for seven days."
> 
> Isn´t this clearly related with Baptism?
> 
> And also, very significantly, Jesus makes exactly the same verbal distinction in John 13:10. For the body washed (clear reference to Baptism) he uses a verb that comes from louo, and for the washing of hands and feet, he uses a verb that comes from nipto.
> 
> Also, Heb. 10:22 says:
> 
> "...having our hearts sprinkled (rherantismenoi, from rhantiso 4472) clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed (bathed, lelousmenoi, from louo again) with pure water."
> 
> Why not use sprinkling or cleansing for the body, but BATH?
> 
> So, in summary, although this topic can be very much extended, I conclude that purification in OT not only had to do with SPRINKLING. This knocks down the argument based on John 3:23-26, and even, considering the "much water" issue, it helps easily to convert the argument in support of immersion!
> 
> In Christ



Greetings Ricardo:

Very well done. Though you have not answered all of the arguments in the Original Post I am impressed with the way you handled this one.

To the easy question first. It has been estimated that John the Baptist Baptized over 100,000 people during his ministry - he would need a lot of water to do so! 

To bounce a similar question off of you - when Peter and the Apostles baptized 3,000 people in one day - where did they get the water to do all those dippings? In the OT great crowds were Baptized by sprinkling (Ex 24:8). Also, Peter preached until about noon - which means that 12 Apostles had to dip 3,000 people all in the space of 12 hours!

I think your reference to John 13:10 militates against the view that dipping is indicated. Washing, in the NT, only a part of a person indicates that the whole person is "bathed". The same Greek root word is used here, but simply means a part of the body is washed. (_ho leloumenos ou cheiras_) I believe this is an operative concept in the New Covenant: One can be considered "bathed" when only a part has been washed. Such is the text of the verse:



> Jesus saith to him, He that is washed (_leloumenos_ bathed) needeth not save to wash (nipto sprinkled/poured) his feet, but is clean every whit...



I am at a loss as to how you are reading Leviticus 8:10-12 which reads:



> And Moses took the anointing oil, and anointed the tabernacle and all that was therein, and sanctified them. And he sprinkled thereof upon the altar seven times, and anointed the altar and all his vessels, both the laver and his foot, to sanctify them. And he poured of the anointing oil upon Aaron's head, and anointed him, to sanctify him.


The word rendered "sprinkled" is the Hebrew word _nazah_ which literally means "to sprinkle." I have great respect for the NT use of the LXX, but it may be that the LXX translators are not using the Greek word in its literal sense. This may be especially so since we have seen that Christ is not using the Greek word in its literal sense either in John 13:10.

I might caution you concerning the use of root words as definitions. This is the mistake made by Baptists which I mentioned in the beginning of the Original Post. The Greek root word _Bapto_ does mean "to dip." However, the Greek word _Baptidzo_ (which has as its root _Bapto_) does not mean "to dip." 

_lousantes_, for example, is used in Acts 10:37 to indicate the washing of a corpse, but this washing was not a bath, but done with sponges or towels to clean the corpse. The "washing" of the body of Jesus before His crucifixion was done in this way, Mt 26:12; Mk 14:8.

_elousen_ (which is _louw_ in the aorist tense) is used in Acts 16:33 where it is highly unlikely that the jailor gave Paul and all those with him a bath. He simply washed (_elousen_) their wounds.

_lousetai_ used in the LXX at Lev 14:8 and 16:4. Again, the root word _louw_ is not used. When I checked the Hebrew in these verses - the words do not specifically indicate "bathing." 

For those who are more English minded - when a suffix or prefix is added to a word - the definition usually (not always) changes. The example of the English word "Age" comes to mind. The word "Age" can mean "a certain amount of time" like "The Age of the Dinosaurs." However, when the suffix "less" is added to the word we have "Ageless" which can mean "an eternity, without age, etc..." The two words have different meanings simply because a prefix/suffix is added.

This is the great error of the Baptists - who want to use the root word _Bapto_ as the definition of all words which have _Bapto_ as its root. This is simply not the case. I am afraid that you are using the same kind of error in your understanding of _louw_.

I am curious as to how you got Greek fonts imported into your text. I am not very computer savvy, and I would like to learn how to do that. Until then I will have to trudge along using transliterations. By the way - the last letter in the root word (_louw_is an Omega (w) not an Omicron (o) which is what Strong's seems to indicate. I think Augustus Strong did a great job with the concordance, but his Greek leaves much to be desired.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Hungus

I found this book helpful in my own switching. Quick question, have you looked at the 2nd edition? I am a bit dubious if on my fixed income 15 dollars for an extra 20 pages of an e-text is worth it.


----------



## A.J.

Laudante said:


> Regarding the mode of baptism, the issue was very clearly settled down in the Didache, written by native Greek speakers, just a few years after the apostles, and possibly by direct disciples of them. I´m not saying it is the word of God, of course, but I think that it is a very reliable historic document regarding how the early Christians, who knew perfectly what the verbs _bapto_ and _baptidso_ meant. In Didache we are told that the first option should be immersion in cold running water, the second, immersion in cold still water, the third, immersion in warm still water, and the fourth, sprinkling. I don´t have the time now to go and check, but this is what I remember. Forgive me if I´m wrong.



The Didache says,



> Didache 7:1
> But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize. Having first recited all these things, baptize _in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit_ in living (running) water.
> 
> Didache 7:2
> But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water; and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm.
> 
> Didache 7:3
> But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

Robert:

The Second (updated) edition is the copy that I am using. It is not fundamentally different from the first (you will find no "new" points in it), but it does expand and augment the Biblical references from the first edition. If you are on a limited budget, then it is not necessary to get.

I have also been notified that Reformation Media seems a bit slow in sending out their copies of this book. It may be wise to download the updated copy from the author.

A.J.

Thank you for posting the Didache. There is nothing in the Didache that specifically says "dipping." Which is one of the reasons why I did not interract with it. The other is that Baptists pride themselves on being "Biblical" - they even have a joke about going to a paedobaptist booktable and not finding a Bible! Yet, they will turn to Greek dictionaries and things like the Didache to prove their position "Biblically."

When John the Baptist was baptizing he was doing so in "running water," but it is clear he was sprinkling.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## TimV

Thanks, Rob. That took a lot of time, but for many of us it will help clarify our thinking.


----------



## a mere housewife

I appreciate the information in this post. I have though been wondering about this since I read it a couple days ago:



> However, a detailed look at the way the Bible uses these words produces a much different understanding *to the neutral observer*



I have been wondering where a _neutral observer_ was found, that his views could be made known (I don't mean that snidely, though there is no way of putting it that doesn't sound as if I did).


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Greetings:

TimV:

Thank you. The clarity is all on the part of Mr. Bass. He should be commended for producing such a clear and concise work on the subject.

A Mere Housewife:

I was simply trying to note that if you put your prejudices aside for awhile, and let the Scriptures speak for itself, then you will find the teachings of infant baptists to be Biblical.

Grace and Peace,

Rob


----------



## a mere housewife

Mr. Wieland, thanks for clarifying what you meant. I personally don't think any convincing argument can be founded on either side being more 'neutral' than another; but I don't mean to distract the thread. Thanks again.


----------



## py3ak

Hi Rob,

As one who has a _somewhat_ closer acquaintance with a mere housewife than you do, I would like to point out that your assumption that she has prejudices she needs to put aside in order to see that infant baptism is the teaching of Scripture, is hardly the most stellar example of your own neutrality - which was her point to begin with. 

Saying "a neutral observer sees what I see" takes for granted your own neutrality; but since advocacy is normally inconsistent with neutrality, and you are an advocate, it seems unlikely that you are neutral. Before the _tu quoque_ comes back at me let me point out that people can say "you're not neutral" without affirming that they themselves are.


----------



## Prufrock

*[Moderator]*
*Since this board includes both Presbyterians and Baptists, certain rules of etiquette must be observed for it to continue to run smoothly. Chief among these is the generally unspoken "Don't play the 'Well that's just because you Presbyterians/Baptists don't know how to read objectively' Card" rule.*
*[/Moderator]*


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi Py3ak and Prufrock:

Sorry, did not think of it in that fashion. 

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Greetings:

Well, anyway, I have summarized about half of the book (47 pages out of 100). The second half of it deals with various arguments that dippers have used to justify their position (pgs. 48-82), and a final section detailing the purpose of Baptism.

He identifies four basic arguments that dipper's use to promote their theory: 1) The word *baptidzo* means "to dip"; 2) The prepositions used in baptism require dipping; 3) The early history of the church illustrates the overwhelming practice of dipping; and, 4) Romans 6 and Colossians 2 clearly teach a dipping mode of baptism.

I think that #1 has been dealt with fairly well above by Mr. Bass, so I will skip that section. Since dippers pride themselves on being "biblical" and make jokes about paedo-baptists not using the Bible to defend their views, then I will skip #3 as well - even though Mr. Bass shows that the assumptions which dippers make concerning Church history are simply that - assumptions. It is not a Biblical argument to appeal to Church history, thus I will not deal with it.

This leaves us with two Biblical arguments that dippers use to justify their position on only dipping adult professing believers.

*Prepositions:*

Mr. Bass gives a list of every preposition found in relation to Baptism, and how they are used in the Scripture:

_en_ can mean: "In, on, at. near. to, by, before, among, with, within, when."

Mt. 3:11 - I baptize you *with* (_en_) water for repentance...
Also, Jn 1:31, 33; Mk 1:5; 3:6.

_eis_ can mean: "Into, in, toward, to, among, near, on, for, against, as, at."

Mk 1:9 ...Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John *in* (_eis_) the Jordan.

In the dative case _eis_/_men_ carries only the meaning, "by means of, with"

Lk 3:16 John answered them all, I baptize you with (_men_ dative) water...
Acts 1:5 For John baptized *with*(_men_) water...
Also, Acts 11:16; Mk 1:8; Jn 1:26

No preposition is used in Acts 10:47.

_anabaino_ means: "To go up." In Mt 3:16 it is combined with _apo_ "From, away from, because of, with, for, of, by."

Mt 3:16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he *went up out of* (anabaino apo) the water.

_katabaino_ means: "To go down." In Acts 8:38 it is combined with the word _eis_ - "From, out of, away from, by, of, because of." In verse 39 _anabaino_ is combined with _ek_ - "From, out of, away from, by, of, because of."

Acts 8:38 Then both Philip and the eunuch went *down into* (_katabaino eis_) the water...
Acts 8:39 When they came *up out of* (anabaino ek) the water...

A look at the prepositions does not lend one to think that dipping occured in the passages. This is especially noteworthy in Acts 8:38,39 where *both* Philip and the Eunuch were described as "going down into" and coming "up out of" the water. Only the Eunuch was "baptized" (baptidzo), but they are both described as "going down into" and coming "up out of" the water. Mr. Bass writes:



> It is simply impossible to tell for sure if the people being baptized went *into, down to, near, at, in, or by* the water. in addition, even if they did go "into" the water, it is not possible to tell if they went into the water to their ankles, calves, knees, thighs, etc. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either not honest or simply does not understand the language of the New Testament Greek, and therefore should not be commenting on it. The preposition argument is a non-argument used, on occasion, in an effort to suggest scholarship in the study of the subject.


*Romans 6:1-11 and Colossians 2:8-14*

[In my opinion these two passages are the strongest Biblical argument that dippers have for adult dipping as the mode of Baptism. However, they do not say what the dipper wants them to say.]

Mr. Bass quotes the two texts:



> What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that gracce might increase? May it never be! How shall we who *died* to sin still *live* in it? Or do you not know that all of us wha have been *baptized into Christ Jesus* have been *baptized into His death*? Therefore we have been *buried* with Him through *baptism into death*, in order that as Christ was *raised* from the *dead* through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of *life*. For if we have become *united* with Him in the likeness of His *death*, certainly we shall be also in the likeness of His *resurrection*, knowing that, that our old self was *crucified* with Him, that our body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin. Now if we have *died with Christ*, we believe that we shall also *live with Him* knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him. For the death that He died, He died to sin, once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus, Rom 6:1-11.


Colossians 2:8-14



> See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; and in Him you were *circumcised* with a *circumcision* made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the *circumcision* of Christ; having been *buried* with Him in *baptism*, in which you were *raised up* with Him through faith in the working of God, who *raised* Him from the *dead*. And when you were *dead* in your transgressions and the *uncircumcision* of your flesh, He made you *alive* together with Him, having forgiven us all oour transgressions, having conceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross, Colossians 2:8-14


Mr. Bass first notes that though *baptism* is mentioned here the idea of water is not present in these verses. If the verses are meant to teach us the mode of baptism, then why is the idea of water not present?

The passages are not speaking about water baptism, but the baptism of the Holy Spirit of which water baptism is simply a symbol. That is why water is not mentioned. That is also why references to Christ's burial and resurrection are not meant to teach a mode of baptism, but to teach something else, something far more important. That something is a product of our *actual* baptism by the Holy Spirit, not out *symbolic* baptism by water.

The Romans 6 passage clearly states that we are *baptized into his death* because we are *baptized into Christ*. Jesus Christ died on the Cross. How, then, does water baptism illustrate the crucifixion of Jesus Christ?

Dippers might argue, with some plausibility, that dipping illustrates His burial and resurrection, but that is not what Romans 6:3-5 is saying. Water baptism (whether done by pouring or dipping) does not in any way convey the death of Jesus Christ by crucifixion. Jesus died on the Cross - not in a hole in the ground.

*Death, Burial and Resurrection:*

Furthermore, it is impossible for dipping to illustrate the actual death, burial and resurrection of Christ. The baptismal formula used by those that dip is "buried in the likeness of His death, raised in the likeness of His resurrection." But was Jesus buried in a hole in the ground and covered with dirt? Did he emerge from such a hole? All of the Gospels are in agreement that Jesus Christ was not buried in a hole in the ground, but in a sepulchre, and was probably laid on a stone slab. His resurrection consisted of Him sitting upright and walking out past the stone door placed there to seal the tomb.

Does the Baptist mode of baptism portray the *real* burial and resurrection of Christ in the Biblical way? No, it does not!

The Death of Christ on the Cross is abundantly celebrated by the Church in the _Lord's Supper_: _For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's_ *death* _until He comes_, 1 Cor 11:26.

The Resurrection of Christ is celebrated every Sunday in our worship of the Risen Son Jesus Christ. Mr. Bass quotes from James Chaney's book _William the Baptist_:



> Immersion involves essential error. Pressed by the exigency of their theory, immersionists have really subverted the ordinance of baptism. From its scriptural significance as a symbol of the Spirit's work in purifying the soul by applying 'the blood of sprinkling,' they, by seizing upon a mere figurative expression of the Apostle Paul, have made it a symbol of the 'death, burial, and resurrection' of Christ. They have, therefore, two ordinances setting forth the work of Christ, and none to set forth distinctively the work of the Spirit.


The baptist err when they make both sacraments depict the work of Christ with neither depicting the work of the Holy Spirit. As a result, _they totally miss the point of Baptism!_

Why then is burial mentioned in the Bible?

The "burial" of Christ was a confirmation that he was truly dead. It is a misnomer in modern day usage, because it brings to mind one being "buried" in a hole in the ground. I admit I was tripped up by this word for a long time. But Jesus was not "buried" as we understand it today. His body was placed/buried in a sepulchre, not in a hole in the ground.

Why then is "baptized" mentioned?

Paul is using the word "baptized" to indicate our being merged, or immersed, or united by the Spirit of God to Christ. Which is exactly what he is saying:



> For if we have become *united* with Him in the likeness of His *death*, Romans 6:5


He is using _baptidzo_ in a figurative sense to indicate the Holy Spirit merging or uniting us into Christ in both His death and resurrection.

*Baptismal Regeneration?*

Though dippers do not believe that Water Baptism saves it follows though that if these passages teach the literal baptism in water, then it would appear that such baptism is necessary in order for one to be saved. If you are not baptized in water, they have the Apostle saying, then you are not united into His death, burial, and resurrection. This is not a problem if you recognize that these passages are referring to the Holy Spirit baptism, for Spirit baptism is certainly required for salvation, and His baptism equates with salvation.

Next, Mr. Bass gives four passages from Scripture that talk about being "baptized into":

1 Cor 10:1-5 For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were *baptized into Moses*...

1 Cor 12:12-14 For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all *baptized into one body*...

Gal 3:27 For all of you who were *baptized into Christ* have clothed yourselves with Christ.

Rom 6:3-4 Or do you not know that all of us who have been *baptized into Christ Jesus* have been *baptized into His death* Therefore we have been *buried* with Him *through baptism into death*, in order that as Christ was *raised* from the *dead* through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.

Baptism, in all of these usages, indicates that the people, or person being "baptized," were united to the object of the baptism, i.e. Moses, the Church, or Jesus Christ. So, what does "baptize into" mean? It means to *merge into or unite and thereby identify with* in a special way. Indeed, in the Romas 6 passage, Paul goes on and makes this very point himself, _For if we have become _*united with Him* _in the likeness of His_*death*, _certainly we shall be also in the likeness of His_ *resurrection* Romans 6:5. *United* that is the point exactly.

On page 73 Mr. Bass has a section entitled "Objections to the dipper's Argument." I will have to reserve that for a time later on.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Iconoclast

CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings:
> 
> Well, anyway, I have summarized about half of the book (47 pages out of 100). The second half of it deals with various arguments that dippers have used to justify their position (pgs. 48-82), and a final section detailing the purpose of Baptism.
> 
> He identifies four basic arguments that dipper's use to promote their theory: 1) The word *baptidzo* means "to dip"; 2) The prepositions used in baptism require dipping; 3) The early history of the church illustrates the overwhelming practice of dipping; and, 4) Romans 6 and Colossians 2 clearly teach a dipping mode of baptism.
> 
> I think that #1 has been dealt with fairly well above by Mr. Bass, so I will skip that section. Since dippers pride themselves on being "biblical" and make jokes about paedo-baptists not using the Bible to defend their views, then I will skip #3 as well - even though Mr. Bass shows that the assumptions which dippers make concerning Church history are simply that - assumptions. It is not a Biblical argument to appeal to Church history, thus I will not deal with it.
> 
> This leaves us with two Biblical arguments that dippers use to justify their position on only dipping adult professing believers.
> 
> *Prepositions:*
> 
> Mr. Bass gives a list of every preposition found in relation to Baptism, and how they are used in the Scripture:
> 
> _en_ can mean: "In, on, at. near. to, by, before, among, with, within, when."
> 
> Mt. 3:11 - I baptize you *with* (_en_) water for repentance...
> Also, Jn 1:31, 33; Mk 1:5; 3:6.
> 
> _eis_ can mean: "Into, in, toward, to, among, near, on, for, against, as, at."
> 
> Mk 1:9 ...Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John *in* (_eis_) the Jordan.
> 
> In the dative case _eis_/_men_ carries only the meaning, "by means of, with"
> 
> Lk 3:16 John answered them all, I baptize you with (_men_ dative) water...
> Acts 1:5 For John baptized *with*(_men_) water...
> Also, Acts 11:16; Mk 1:8; Jn 1:26
> 
> No preposition is used in Acts 10:47.
> 
> _anabaino_ means: "To go up." In Mt 3:16 it is combined with _apo_ "From, away from, because of, with, for, of, by."
> 
> Mt 3:16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he *went up out of* (anabaino apo) the water.
> 
> _katabaino_ means: "To go down." In Acts 8:38 it is combined with the word _eis_ - "From, out of, away from, by, of, because of." In verse 39 _anabaino_ is combined with _ek_ - "From, out of, away from, by, of, because of."
> 
> Acts 8:38 Then both Philip and the eunuch went *down into* (_katabaino eis_) the water...
> Acts 8:39 When they came *up out of* (anabaino ek) the water...
> 
> A look at the prepositions does not lend one to think that dipping occured in the passages. This is especially noteworthy in Acts 8:38,39 where *both* Philip and the Eunuch were described as "going down into" and coming "up out of" the water. Only the Eunuch was "baptized" (baptidzo), but they are both described as "going down into" and coming "up out of" the water. Mr. Bass writes:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is simply impossible to tell for sure if the people being baptized went *into, down to, near, at, in, or by* the water. in addition, even if they did go "into" the water, it is not possible to tell if they went into the water to their ankles, calves, knees, thighs, etc. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either not honest or simply does not understand the language of the New Testament Greek, and therefore should not be commenting on it. The preposition argument is a non-argument used, on occasion, in an effort to suggest scholarship in the study of the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> *Romans 6:1-11 and Colossians 2:8-14*
> 
> [In my opinion these two passages are the strongest Biblical argument that dippers have for adult dipping as the mode of Baptism. However, they do not say what the dipper wants them to say.]
> 
> Mr. Bass quotes the two texts:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that gracce might increase? May it never be! How shall we who *died* to sin still *live* in it? Or do you not know that all of us wha have been *baptized into Christ Jesus* have been *baptized into His death*? Therefore we have been *buried* with Him through *baptism into death*, in order that as Christ was *raised* from the *dead* through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of *life*. For if we have become *united* with Him in the likeness of His *death*, certainly we shall be also in the likeness of His *resurrection*, knowing that, that our old self was *crucified* with Him, that our body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin. Now if we have *died with Christ*, we believe that we shall also *live with Him* knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him. For the death that He died, He died to sin, once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus, Rom 6:1-11.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Colossians 2:8-14
> 
> 
> Mr. Bass first notes that though *baptism* is mentioned here the idea of water is not present in these verses. If the verses are meant to teach us the mode of baptism, then why is the idea of water not present?
> 
> The passages are not speaking about water baptism, but the baptism of the Holy Spirit of which water baptism is simply a symbol. That is why water is not mentioned. That is also why references to Christ's burial and resurrection are not meant to teach a mode of baptism, but to teach something else, something far more important. That something is a product of our *actual* baptism by the Holy Spirit, not out *symbolic* baptism by water.
> 
> The Romans 6 passage clearly states that we are *baptized into his death* because we are *baptized into Christ*. Jesus Christ died on the Cross. How, then, does water baptism illustrate the crucifixion of Jesus Christ?
> 
> Dippers might argue, with some plausibility, that dipping illustrates His burial and resurrection, but that is not what Romans 6:3-5 is saying. Water baptism (whether done by pouring or dipping) does not in any way convey the death of Jesus Christ by crucifixion. Jesus died on the Cross - not in a hole in the ground.
> 
> *Death, Burial and Resurrection:*
> 
> Furthermore, it is impossible for dipping to illustrate the actual death, burial and resurrection of Christ. The baptismal formula used by those that dip is "buried in the likeness of His death, raised in the likeness of His resurrection." But was Jesus buried in a hole in the ground and covered with dirt? Did he emerge from such a hole? All of the Gospels are in agreement that Jesus Christ was not buried in a hole in the ground, but in a sepulchre, and was probably laid on a stone slab. His resurrection consisted of Him sitting upright and walking out past the stone door placed there to seal the tomb.
> 
> Does the Baptist mode of baptism portray the *real* burial and resurrection of Christ in the Biblical way? No, it does not!
> 
> The Death of Christ on the Cross is abundantly celebrated by the Church in the _Lord's Supper_: _For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's_ *death* _until He comes_, 1 Cor 11:26.
> 
> The Resurrection of Christ is celebrated every Sunday in our worship of the Risen Son Jesus Christ. Mr. Bass quotes from James Chaney's book _William the Baptist_:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immersion involves essential error. Pressed by the exigency of their theory, immersionists have really subverted the ordinance of baptism. From its scriptural significance as a symbol of the Spirit's work in purifying the soul by applying 'the blood of sprinkling,' they, by seizing upon a mere figurative expression of the Apostle Paul, have made it a symbol of the 'death, burial, and resurrection' of Christ. They have, therefore, two ordinances setting forth the work of Christ, and none to set forth distinctively the work of the Spirit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The baptist err when they make both sacraments depict the work of Christ with neither depicting the work of the Holy Spirit. As a result, _they totally miss the point of Baptism!_
> 
> Why then is burial mentioned in the Bible?
> 
> The "burial" of Christ was a confirmation that he was truly dead. It is a misnomer in modern day usage, because it brings to mind one being "buried" in a hole in the ground. I admit I was tripped up by this word for a long time. But Jesus was not "buried" as we understand it today. His body was placed/buried in a sepulchre, not in a hole in the ground.
> 
> Why then is "baptized" mentioned?
> 
> Paul is using the word "baptized" to indicate our being merged, or immersed, or united by the Spirit of God to Christ. Which is exactly what he is saying:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For if we have become *united* with Him in the likeness of His *death*, Romans 6:5
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is using _baptidzo_ in a figurative sense to indicate the Holy Spirit merging or uniting us into Christ in both His death and resurrection.
> 
> *Baptismal Regeneration?*
> 
> Though dippers do not believe that Water Baptism saves it follows though that if these passages teach the literal baptism in water, then it would appear that such baptism is necessary in order for one to be saved. If you are not baptized in water, they have the Apostle saying, then you are not united into His death, burial, and resurrection. This is not a problem if you recognize that these passages are referring to the Holy Spirit baptism, for Spirit baptism is certainly required for salvation, and His baptism equates with salvation.
> 
> Next, Mr. Bass gives four passages from Scripture that talk about being "baptized into":
> 
> 1 Cor 10:1-5 For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were *baptized into Moses*...
> 
> 1 Cor 12:12-14 For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all *baptized into one body*...
> 
> Gal 3:27 For all of you who were *baptized into Christ* have clothed yourselves with Christ.
> 
> Rom 6:3-4 Or do you not know that all of us who have been *baptized into Christ Jesus* have been *baptized into His death* Therefore we have been *buried* with Him *through baptism into death*, in order that as Christ was *raised* from the *dead* through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.
> 
> Baptism, in all of these usages, indicates that the people, or person being "baptized," were united to the object of the baptism, i.e. Moses, the Church, or Jesus Christ. So, what does "baptize into" mean? It means to *merge into or unite and thereby identify with* in a special way. Indeed, in the Romas 6 passage, Paul goes on and makes this very point himself, _For if we have become _*united with Him* _in the likeness of His_*death*, _certainly we shall be also in the likeness of His_ *resurrection* Romans 6:5. *United* that is the point exactly.
> 
> On page 73 Mr. Bass has a section entitled "Objections to the dipper's Argument." I will have to reserve that for a time later on.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> Rob
Click to expand...


Rob,
When you wander into Romans 6, and Col2. you correctly identify that Spirit Baptism is primary in understanding these verses. Does Romans 6 speak of actual saving union? The passage makes no sense if the persons addressed are not saved already. If the people are not already believer's they will continue in sin because they would not be indwelt by the Spirit. Romans 8:7
He is speaking to persons already born from above. He is describing to them their * actual *condition of being indwelt by the Spirit.
You mention 1Cor10 . 1 cor 12 Gal3 correctly pointing out how Union is used and described in these passages. Just last week there was a similar thread and many of the padeos got a laugh at pointing out that in 1 Cor 10, and 1Pet. 3:21 the only people who were immersed were the unbeliever's,
the egyptian soldiers, and the world of the ungodly in Noah's day.
The water fully immersing them caused death.In both cases the judgment of God resulted in death. Those in the ark safely were borne up through the water of judgment. Those with Moses were rightly related to the deadly flood waters of judgment.
In Romans 6 those who are in saving Union with Christ come through the judgment .


> 49I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?
> 
> 50But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!


 It is only those who are found IN HIM by Spirit Baptism that come through the judgment and walk in new life.
In Romans 6 the order is Indicitive/Imperative right? In light of who you are,live as children of light. It must come from the inside out,from streams of living water.
The mixed multitude that followed Moses were delivered from Egypt but were never rightly related to the promise, not being mixed with faith


> Hebrews 4
> 1Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.
> 
> 2For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.


 so they perished in the wilderness testing, as will all false professors.
If you are searching for a clue as to the mode which expresses this deliverance from the judgment, I think the immersion that many laugh at, Noah's flood water, Red Sea drowning, speak very well to it.


----------



## A.J.

Iconoclast said:


> When you wander into Romans 6, and Col2. you correctly identify that Spirit Baptism is primary in understanding these verses. Does Romans 6 speak of actual saving union? The passage makes no sense if the persons addressed are not saved already. If the people are not already believer's they will continue in sin because they would not be indwelt by the Spirit. Romans 8:7
> He is speaking to persons already born from above. He is describing to them their * actual *condition of being indwelt by the Spirit.


 
Anthony, is Paul saying that he *actually knows* that the people he is addressing are _in fact_ regenerate? Is that what you are saying? It would be better to say that Paul is addressing them _on the basis of their profession_. This is especially seen in the warning passages found in the same epistles where he discusses in detail the meaning of baptism (cf. Rom. 6 with 11:11-24; Col. 2:11-12 with 1:21-23; Gal. 3:27 with 5:4; etc.). Why does Paul give warning remarks to the New Covenant people of God at all? Also, the apostle clearly indicates that children are included among those whom he addresses in his churches (Eph. 6:1-4; Col 3:20-21). 



Iconoclast said:


> If you are searching for a clue as to the mode which expresses this deliverance from the judgment, I think the immersion that many laugh at, Noah's flood water, Red Sea drowning, speak very well to it.



But *WHO* were immersed? *WHO* were baptized?

The wicked people of Noah's time were certainly immersed, but Noah and his family were not immersed. And yet God's saving of Noah's household is called a _baptism_. 

The Egyptians were also immersed. The Israelites were not immersed, but it is said that God's people were _baptized_. The Israelites in fact walked on _dry_ land (Heb. 11:29). The clouds _poured out_ water on them according to the Psalms (77:17).

Both 1 Cor. 10 and 1 Peter 3 offer no proof to the immersionist argument.

Blessings!

-----Added 8/6/2009 at 03:24:58 EST-----

Robert, thanks again for taking the time.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi Anthony:

I think that A.J. answered your post nicely. Since you have not addressed any of the points made before Mr. Bass started addressing the issue of the Rom and Col passages, then can I assume that you agree with all of the material presented before this?

Are you willing to admit that Sprinkling/Pouring is the Biblical mode of Baptism? If not, then where are the flaws in the paedo-baptist views concerning mode presented prior?

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Iconoclast

A.J. said:


> Iconoclast said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you wander into Romans 6, and Col2. you correctly identify that Spirit Baptism is primary in understanding these verses. Does Romans 6 speak of actual saving union? The passage makes no sense if the persons addressed are not saved already. If the people are not already believer's they will continue in sin because they would not be indwelt by the Spirit. Romans 8:7
> He is speaking to persons already born from above. He is describing to them their * actual *condition of being indwelt by the Spirit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anthony, is Paul saying that he *actually knows* that the people he is addressing are _in fact_ regenerate? Is that what you are saying? It would be better to say that Paul is addressing them _on the basis of their profession_. This is especially seen in the warning passages found in the same epistles where he discusses in detail the meaning of baptism (cf. Rom. 6 with 11:11-24; Col. 2:11-12 with 1:21-23; Gal. 3:27 with 5:4; etc.).
> 
> 
> 
> Why does Paul give warning remarks to the New Covenant people of God at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also, the apostle clearly indicates that children are included among those whom he addresses in his churches (Eph. 6:1-4; Col 3:20-21).
> 
> 
> 
> Iconoclast said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are searching for a clue as to the mode which expresses this deliverance from the judgment, I think the immersion that many laugh at, Noah's flood water, Red Sea drowning, speak very well to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But *WHO* were immersed? *WHO* were baptized?
> 
> The wicked people of Noah's time were certainly immersed, but Noah and his family were not immersed. And yet God's saving of Noah's household is called a _baptism_.
> 
> The Egyptians were also immersed. The Israelites were not immersed, but it is said that God's people were _baptized_. The Israelites in fact walked on _dry_ land (Heb. 11:29). The clouds _poured out_ water on them according to the Psalms (77:17).
> 
> Both 1 Cor. 10 and 1 Peter 3 offer no proof to the immersionist argument.
> 
> Blessings!
> 
> -----Added 8/6/2009 at 03:24:58 EST-----
> 
> Robert, thanks again for taking the time.
Click to expand...


AJ,
Paul is addressing those who have professed salvation. He has explained their standing as to what it means to be justified back from 3:24-through chapter5. 
As we move into chapter 6 he answers the question posed in 6:1,2
can we, or should we continue in sin. When he answers the question he speaks of the *actual* positition of a real christian who has been born from above. Only a christian can be described as he lays it out in this chapter. You asked:


> Why does Paul give warning remarks to the New Covenant people of God at all?


 The passage is instructive for believer's and those who do not believe also.
All warnings given in the NT. are warnings to those who have trusted in the works of the flesh rather than the work of the Spirit for salvation.
I indicated this when I wrote about the 1 cor 10:1-11 passage along with Hebrews 4:1-2.
AJ when you said this:


> This is especially seen in the warning passages found in the same epistles where he discusses in detail the meaning of baptism (cf. Rom. 6 with 11:11-24; Col. 2:11-12 with 1:21-23; Gal. 3:27 with 5:4; etc.).[


 are you saying that the baptism with water accomplishes placing a dead sinner in saving union with Christ , In the death/ when He died,we died in HIM
when he rose from the dead/ we rose in Him.
Your position at best says that water is a sign pointing to this.
My position is these passages describe only those to whom are actually saved by the Spirit indwelling them already.
1cor 12:13. 13For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
This is only true of believers. as here in Gal 3


> 27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ


 Water baptism does not do this. Spirit baptism does
The text does not say; as many of you as have been water baptized into the external administration of the visible body of Christ, have received a sign of what benefits could be yours , if you improve your baptism to a point where at some time you come to faith ,and put on Christ, although we can never know for sure if you have put on Christ.

AJ then you ask this:


> Why does Paul give warning remarks to the New Covenant people of God at all?


 Also, the apostle clearly indicates that children are included among those whom he addresses in his churches (Eph. 6:1-4; Col 3:20-21). 
[/QUOTE]
The warnings are given to any who come in to an assembly but are not actually saved. Like the mixed multitude Num 11;4-5. The New Covenant people make use of the warning passages in self examination .


> 5Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?


 Children are addressed because they also need instruction,as they grow and mature. Their are children who believe also- MT 18:6


----------



## louis_jp

A couple of minor observations here:

First, Baptist children are "in the church" and "part of the community" even before they are baptised. I wish Presbyterians would stop framing the issue this way. It's not helpful. 

Second, could it be that Jews did not object to the position of their children with regard to baptism, simply because they continued to circumsize them? (see, e.g., Acts 21:21-25). If anything, this would seem to be an argument in favor of credo-baptistm.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Greetings:

louis:

The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith excludes children from the visible church in chapter 26 section 6 which reads:



> The members of these churches are saints by calling, visibly manifesting and evidencing (in and by their profession and walking) their obedience unto that call of Christ; and do willingly consent to walk together, according to the appointment of Christ; giving up themselves to the Lord, and one to another, by the will of God, in professed subjection to the ordinances of the Gospel.


Since it is the dippers argument that "children are incapable of saving faith," and, thus are unable to "visibly manifesting and evidencing ... their obedience unto that call of Christ..." They are, by definition, not members of the covenant community.

If they were members, then there can be no objection to them being baptized, because baptism is a sign of being in the covenant community.

Second, Acts 21:21 says that Paul was teaching them not to circumcise. If their children were then cast out of the covenant community, then there would have been an outcry. This is a good text that teaches the transition between the Old and the New Covenant: Paul is teaching them not to circumcise because baptism has taken its place.

Anthony, my friend in Jesus:

You have misconstrued what Mr. Bass and A.J. have said. It is the paedo-baptist position that Paul is addressing *professing* believers. Those who profess faith in Christ can either be regenerate or not regenerate (see the London Baptist Confession, 26:2,3). Notice the "if" statements in Rom 6:

For *if* we be planted with him to the similitude of his death... vs 5

Wherefore, *if* we be dead with Christ... vs 8

The passages are *effective* only to the elect, but they are given to all who profess faith in Jesus Christ.

I think you are doing this to dodge the main point that Mr. Bass is driving at:

How does water baptism by dipping illustrate the crucifixion and death of Jesus Christ?

How does water baptism by dipping illustrate the Biblical narrative of the burial of Jesus Christ in a Sepulchre?

And, you have passed over my question:

Since you have not commented on the Biblical evidence given concerning the Mode of water baptism being sprinkling/pouring, then are you willing to admit that it is the only Biblical mode of water baptism?

If not, then please address the presentation of the mode of baptism first, before going to an argument that you think you can answer.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## louis_jp

Robert, 

I think the Acts passage indicates that Paul did not teach them not to circumsise, but was unfairly accused of doing so. Notice verses 24-25. 

On the other point, may I ask you what is the practical difference between Presbyterian children and Baptist children and their place in the life of the church?


----------



## CalvinandHodges

louis_jp said:


> Robert,
> 
> I think the Acts passage indicates that Paul did not teach them not to circumsise, but was unfairly accused of doing so. Notice verses 24-25.
> 
> On the other point, may I ask you what is the practical difference between Presbyterian children and Baptist children and their place in the life of the church?



Louis:

I have to ask you the same question: Since you have not commented upon the mode of Baptism presented in the Original Post, then are you in agreement with the conclusion - that Sprinkling/Pouring is the only Biblical mode of water baptism?

I am reticent about answering your questions above because you have not committed yourself to answering the mode of baptism. However, I will do so.

Paul is not unfairly being accused of teaching that baptism has replaced circumcision. It is everywhere in his epistles: Rm 2:25,28; 1 Cor 7:19; Col 2:11,16; Gal 5:6; Eph 2:11. Acts 21:24ff does not mention circumcision. Paul then was accommodating himself to matters that were indifferent - especially when a vow was made (vs 23). We are to fulfill our vows unto the Lord unless that vow causes us to commit a sin - then such a vow is without power over us. The four men who made the vow - however foolish it was - were not committing a sin, therefore Paul accommodates himself to their vow to fulfill it.

As to your other question: The practical difference is that Presbyterians baptise their covenant children, credo-baptists do not. If the credo-baptist believes that his children are part of the covenant community, then he is disobedient to the Word of God by not baptizing them.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## louis_jp

Rob,

Your post was about more than just the mode of baptism. You basically summarized an entire book (which was greatly appreciated, btw). I was only addressing two of the subsidiary points you raised. I said they were "minor" observations. 

At this point, I'm content to let it drop. The issue concerning the Acts 21 passage has become rather confused, and I don't feel like going back and disentangling it. On the other issue, I think we are likely to continue talking past each other.

I should clarify that I am open to being persuaded to your view, but, as I was saying, the way you guys sometimes frame the issue doesn't help your case.


----------



## Iconoclast

Hello Rob,
The *if * in Romans 6 is not a contingency.


> 3are ye ignorant that we, as many as were baptized to Christ Jesus, to his death were baptized?
> 
> 4we were buried together, then, with him through the baptism to the death, that even as Christ was raised up out of the dead through the glory of the Father, so also we in newness of life might walk.
> 
> 5For, if we have become planted together to the likeness of his death, [so] also we shall be of the rising again;
> 
> 6this knowing, that our old man was crucified with [him], that the body of the sin may be made useless, for our no longer serving the sin;
> 
> 7for he who hath died hath been set free from the sin.
> 
> 8And if we died with Christ, we believe that we also shall live with him,
> 
> 9knowing that Christ, having been raised up out of the dead, doth no more die, death over him hath no more lordship;
> 
> 10for in that he died, to the sin he died once, and in that he liveth, he liveth to God;
> 
> 11so also ye, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to the sin, and living to God in Jesus Christ our Lord.


 it is more of a settled condition for a born again person, in other words as in verse 4 we were buried together/ his explanation only makes sense if real believers are in view.
I answered the question on immersion in reference to 1pet3, 1 cor 10.
those immersed died,not being rightly related to the judgment ie, in the ark, with moses at the red sea, and found in Christ come through safely.
Noah did not get wet in the ark [not even sprinkled] those with Moses came through on dry ground [ not even sprinkled by the cloud above or the wall of water] sprinkling does not fit even though I recall you in other posts have tried to imply that somehow they got sprinkled.
I enjoyed the material you posted, but I do not see or agree with the conclusions Mr. Bass or you draw from it. 
I have found that such long presentations, which attempt to labour to make a point are more times than not trying to make up for a deficency. In this case the lack of NT, verses that can in any way suggest infant baptism.
Lumping together all kinds of verses that use the words sprinkle , dip, pour,annoint, purify, mixing together water , Spirit, oil, and other things were commanded in the OC. as if this somehow speaks directly to NT. baptism does not follow.
The pouring out of the Spirit does not relate to the mode of baptism.
The sprinkling of the blood does not relate to the mode of baptism
, The water of seperation of numbers 19 does not speak to NT.baptism I do think it speaks to JN.3;3-5
The priest was to bath his flesh in water vs 7,8 he was ceremonially unclean. In Hebrews 10;22 you attempted to answer the post by Laudante when he questioned you on this, but I do not find it convincing.
I make no claim to be a greek, or hebrew expert. The padeo writers use verses than do an end run saying in the greek this, or in the Hebrew that.
If you read credo writers that suggest otherwise.
I do not see in the book of Acts this kind of long winded, gigantic facade erected like an obstacle course in order for someone to get the message.
The other brother mentioned Acts 21


> 20And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
> 
> 21And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.


 The jews objected because they clearly saw something New was being done.
They did not say - Paul teaches that the sign of the covenant has been changed, we baptize infants, rather than circumcise now. He clearly taught them they ought not to circumcise their children.
In Acts 15 no one said baptism is a "sign" a replacement sign to be given to infants.
I did skip over Much of what you pasted from the book because each section, and many of your conclusions based on his book I would not be in agreement with. I was thankful you posted what you did however, so i was just trying to avoid being contentious with you
I agree that these words were used. sprinkle, pour, etc. in their OT.context,and when quoted in books like Hebrews, 9-10. I do not believe it follows that they translate to baptismal mode however.
I find it amusing that you can correctly identify Spirit baptism, and what it means in reference to union with Christ, at certain times.
but if I played sermons by padeo pastors who confuse the issue of whether or not water or Spirit baptism is being discussed in the passages and what they actual benefits would be, there would be two different stories.
Sometime we can sit with open bibles together and look at some of our posts and discuss them, seeing where we can come to agreement, and what is it that separates us. If I am traveling through Pittsburgh I will try and contact you.
That being said because of the amount of times the language of sprinkling, sprinkling many nations,
25Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. 
is used, I can see where Mr. Bass, you, or any other believer keeps pushing for it to speak to mode. This reminds me more of the Numbers 19 passage.


----------



## A.J.

Anthony, I understand why you argue the way you do in your comments on the warning passages and the meaning of baptism. 

It's because (1) you view of the New Covenant does not allow for a clear distinction between God's decree and His administration. Instead, the decree swallows up the administration. The problem for your position, however, is that the Bible does teach that until the coming of the Lord there are (and there will be) _de facto_ members of the visible church who are not elect (Matt 22; John 15; Rom. 11; 1 Cor. 5, 10-11; Heb. 3-4, 6, 10; Rev. 2-3), as has already been implied. Baptism is not only a sign/seal of blessing. It's also a sign/seal of judgment to those who reject Christ and His benefits. Only in heaven or in the consummation will "...*they shall teach no more* every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: *for they shall all know me*, from the least of them unto the greatest of them...."

And further, (2) your position denies "sacramental union" (WCF 27:2, 3). Passages like Rom. 6:4-6, Col. 2:11-12, Gal. 3:27 and 1 Peter 3:19-22 make sense only once we bear in mind that the Holy Spirit does exhibit and confer grace to the elect by the right use of baptism (WCF 28:6). Baptism is a means of grace. 

The force of Paul's exhortations to children in Col. 3:20-21 and Eph. 6:1-4 is lost once we cut it off from its Old Testament backdrop. Paul addresses members of _households_: husbands and wives, masters and bondservants, and, fathers and children. Col 3:20-21 and Eph. 6:1-4 simply repeats what we find in Exo. 20:12 and in Deut. 5:16. In the Old Testament, the children (or "little ones," NASB) were members of God's covenant and people. Why would Paul address them at all if they are now outside the covenant community of the Lord as your position must insist? 



Iconoclast said:


> The jews objected because they clearly saw something New was being done.
> They did not say - Paul teaches that the sign of the covenant has been changed, we baptize infants, rather than circumcise now. He clearly taught them they ought not to circumcise their children.
> In Acts 15 no one said baptism is a "sign" a replacement sign to be given to infants.



But why did the Apostles forbid the Gentiles from being circumcised? What warrant did they have for discontinuing a millenia-old command to administer the sign of circumcision to people who enter God's covenant community? The Acts narratives make sense only if the baptism indeed is the sacramental equivalent of circumcision. _The Apostles did not circumcise the Gentiles precisely because the latter have been baptized already_.

If infants are now excluded from the covenant and people of God, Acts 15 would have been the perfect time and place for the Judaizers to present another objection to the Apostles. The Apostles already forbade the Gentiles from receiving circumcision. And now they were excluding the children who have been members of God's people for thousands of years? Yet we see total silence on this matter. There was no outcry whatsoever on the part of the Judaizers or even from the believing Jews.

B.B. Warfield notes,



> No doubt a large number of the members of the primitive Church did insist, as Dr. Strong truly says, that those who were baptized should also be circumcised: and no doubt, this proves that in their view baptism did not take the place of circumcision. But this was an erroneous view: is represented in the New Testament as erroneous; and it is this exact view against which Paul protested to the Church of Jerusalem and which the Church of Jerusalem condemned in Acts xv. Thus the Baptist denial of the substitution of baptism for circumcision leads them into the error of this fanatical, pharisaical church-party! Let us take our places in opposition, along with Paul and all the apostles.



From The Polemics of Infant Baptism. cf. Acts 21

Brother, I don't think you have adequately dealt with the evidence presented by Robert from Mr. Bass's book. As has been shown, both the meaning of the disputed terms and Biblical usage support sprinkling and pouring. Baptism signifies the cleansing done by the _sprinkling_ of the blood of Christ on the conscience of believers, and the _outpouring_ of the Holy Spirit in His work of regeneration. Your comments on 1 Cor. 10 and 1 Peter 3 confirm the paedobaptist position. Immersion was a sign of judgment to the unbelieving people of Noah's time and the wicked Egyptians of Moses' time. 

Blessings!


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Iconoclast said:


> Hello Rob,
> The *if * in Romans 6 is not a contingency.
> 
> 
> 
> 3are ye ignorant that we, as many as were baptized to Christ Jesus, to his death were baptized?
> 
> 4we were buried together, then, with him through the baptism to the death, that even as Christ was raised up out of the dead through the glory of the Father, so also we in newness of life might walk.
> 
> 5For, if we have become planted together to the likeness of his death, [so] also we shall be of the rising again;
> 
> 6this knowing, that our old man was crucified with [him], that the body of the sin may be made useless, for our no longer serving the sin;
> 
> 7for he who hath died hath been set free from the sin.
> 
> 8And if we died with Christ, we believe that we also shall live with him,
> 
> 9knowing that Christ, having been raised up out of the dead, doth no more die, death over him hath no more lordship;
> 
> 10for in that he died, to the sin he died once, and in that he liveth, he liveth to God;
> 
> 11so also ye, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to the sin, and living to God in Jesus Christ our Lord.
> 
> 
> 
> it is more of a settled condition for a born again person, in other words as in verse 4 we were buried together/ his explanation only makes sense if real believers are in view.
> I answered the question on immersion in reference to 1pet3, 1 cor 10.
> those immersed died,not being rightly related to the judgment ie, in the ark, with moses at the red sea, and found in Christ come through safely.
> Noah did not get wet in the ark [not even sprinkled] those with Moses came through on dry ground [ not even sprinkled by the cloud above or the wall of water] sprinkling does not fit even though I recall you in other posts have tried to imply that somehow they got sprinkled.
> I enjoyed the material you posted, but I do not see or agree with the conclusions Mr. Bass or you draw from it.
> I have found that such long presentations, which attempt to labour to make a point are more times than not trying to make up for a deficency. In this case the lack of NT, verses that can in any way suggest infant baptism.
> Lumping together all kinds of verses that use the words sprinkle , dip, pour,annoint, purify, mixing together water , Spirit, oil, and other things were commanded in the OC. as if this somehow speaks directly to NT. baptism does not follow.
> The pouring out of the Spirit does not relate to the mode of baptism.
> The sprinkling of the blood does not relate to the mode of baptism
> , The water of seperation of numbers 19 does not speak to NT.baptism I do think it speaks to JN.3;3-5
> The priest was to bath his flesh in water vs 7,8 he was ceremonially unclean. In Hebrews 10;22 you attempted to answer the post by Laudante when he questioned you on this, but I do not find it convincing.
> I make no claim to be a greek, or hebrew expert. The padeo writers use verses than do an end run saying in the greek this, or in the Hebrew that.
> If you read credo writers that suggest otherwise.
> I do not see in the book of Acts this kind of long winded, gigantic facade erected like an obstacle course in order for someone to get the message.
> The other brother mentioned Acts 21
> 
> 
> 
> 20And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
> 
> 21And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The jews objected because they clearly saw something New was being done.
> They did not say - Paul teaches that the sign of the covenant has been changed, we baptize infants, rather than circumcise now. He clearly taught them they ought not to circumcise their children.
> In Acts 15 no one said baptism is a "sign" a replacement sign to be given to infants.
> I did skip over Much of what you pasted from the book because each section, and many of your conclusions based on his book I would not be in agreement with. I was thankful you posted what you did however, so i was just trying to avoid being contentious with you
> I agree that these words were used. sprinkle, pour, etc. in their OT.context,and when quoted in books like Hebrews, 9-10. I do not believe it follows that they translate to baptismal mode however.
> I find it amusing that you can correctly identify Spirit baptism, and what it means in reference to union with Christ, at certain times.
> but if I played sermons by padeo pastors who confuse the issue of whether or not water or Spirit baptism is being discussed in the passages and what they actual benefits would be, there would be two different stories.
> Sometime we can sit with open bibles together and look at some of our posts and discuss them, seeing where we can come to agreement, and what is it that separates us. If I am traveling through Pittsburgh I will try and contact you.
> That being said because of the amount of times the language of sprinkling, sprinkling many nations,
> 25Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
> is used, I can see where Mr. Bass, you, or any other believer keeps pushing for it to speak to mode. This reminds me more of the Numbers 19 passage.
Click to expand...


Greetings Anthony:

I would like you to know that there is nothing in any of the posts I have written above that should make you think that you, or anyone else who holds your views, should question your salvation. I believe that you are a true brother in Jesus Christ, and I value your input as iron sharpens iron.

You have argued above that the Romans 6 and Colossians 2 passages cited above refer to the baptism of the Spirit. On this we both agree. You have also pointed out that these passages are given only to true believers. I can agree with that as well. These views, however, do not answer the questions that Mr. Bass has asked:

How does water baptism by dipping illustrate the death of Jesus Christ on the Cross?

How does water baptism by dipping illustrate the burial of Jesus Christ in a Sepulchre?

How does water baptism by dipping illustrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the Sepulchre?

I have found in your last post a rather uncharitable statement. You wrote:



> I have found that such long presentations, which attempt to labour to make a point are more times than not trying to make up for a deficency. In this case the lack of NT, verses that can in any way suggest infant baptism.


I was asked to summarize the book. A book that is only 100 pages long (including bibliography and index), and is, consequently, as books are evaluated, rather short. Could you imagine how long these posts would be if I was asked to summarize James White's book, The King James Only Controversy at 271 pages? Or, John Gill's, The Cause of God and Truth at 356 pages? Or, John Owen's, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ at 312 pages? And seek to do justice to their thoughts?

If I have erred in my summary of the book, then please do not lay it on the account of Mr. Bass' presentation of the subject, but upon my lack of ability to make what he has written more clear and concise. In this I do apologize.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Mayflower

CalvinandHodges said:


> *When Participated in by Infants, the faith of parents is Required:*



Did have all the parents of all the Israelites have faith, of whom those infants were circumcised ???????????????


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Mayflower said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> *When Participated in by Infants, the faith of parents is Required:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did have all the parents of all the Israelites have faith, of whom those infants were circumcised ???????????????
Click to expand...


Hi:

Are you speaking about true faith or professing faith? Esau had a profession of faith - especially when the Bible says that he sought repentance carefully with tears, Heb 12:17. Was he a member of the covenant community? Consequently, would he have circumcised his children?

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## William Price

May I ask one question, and please excuse me if I am out of line...

What is the purpose for baptism? When I was baptized recently, I did so in obedience to the Lord's command, because I wanted to be obedient to His call. But, what then would be the purpose of baptizing infants according to scripture?

Right now, I am a credobaptist (I hope I said that right), but am studying to learn more.


----------



## A.J.

William Price said:


> May I ask one question, and please excuse me if I am out of line...
> 
> What is the purpose for baptism? When I was baptized recently, I did so in obedience to the Lord's command, because I wanted to be obedient to His call. But, what then would be the purpose of baptizing infants according to scripture?
> 
> Right now, I am a credobaptist (I hope I said that right), but am studying to learn more.




Helllo William! 

Here's a short answer to your question. 



> *Heidelberg Catechism*
> 
> 74. Are infants also to be baptized?
> 
> Yes, since they, as well as their parents, belong to the covenant and people of God,1 and both redemption from sin and the Holy Spirit, who creates faith, are through the blood of Christ promised to them no less than to their parents.2 Therefore, by baptism, as a sign of the covenant, they must be grafted into the Christian Church, and distinguished from the children of unbelievers,3 as was done in the Old Covenant by circumcision,4 in place of which in the New Covenant baptism was instituted.5
> 
> 1 Gen 17:7; Mt 19:14; 2 Ps 22:11; Isa 44:1-3; Acts 2:38-39, 16:31; 3 Acts 10:47; 1 Cor 7:14; 4 Gen 17:9-14; 5 Col 2:11-13


----------



## William Price

A.J. said:


> William Price said:
> 
> 
> 
> May I ask one question, and please excuse me if I am out of line...
> 
> What is the purpose for baptism? When I was baptized recently, I did so in obedience to the Lord's command, because I wanted to be obedient to His call. But, what then would be the purpose of baptizing infants according to scripture?
> 
> Right now, I am a credobaptist (I hope I said that right), but am studying to learn more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Helllo William!
> 
> Here's a short answer to your question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Heidelberg Catechism*
> 
> 74. Are infants also to be baptized?
> 
> Yes, since they, as well as their parents, belong to the covenant and people of God,1 and both redemption from sin and the Holy Spirit, who creates faith, are through the blood of Christ promised to them no less than to their parents.2 Therefore, by baptism, as a sign of the covenant, they must be grafted into the Christian Church, and distinguished from the children of unbelievers,3 as was done in the Old Covenant by circumcision,4 in place of which in the New Covenant baptism was instituted.5
> 
> 1 Gen 17:7; Mt 19:14; 2 Ps 22:11; Isa 44:1-3; Acts 2:38-39, 16:31; 3 Acts 10:47; 1 Cor 7:14; 4 Gen 17:9-14; 5 Col 2:11-13
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


So, then infant baptism is an issue of covenant, and nothing else. At least, that is what I gather from the catechism. I am not against such a practice if this is the case.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

William,
IB is a covenantal testimony, and in Reformed doctrine has nothing outwardly to do with effecting a work of grace upon the recipient--no more than any other work of grace upon anyone. If God uses one opportunity to do a secret work in anyone, old or young, we are none the wiser.

**********************
There is something else that can be said here. And it has everything to do with the way you described your own baptism. YOU went to baptism. You ACTED in obedience. There is a fundamental quality to your contribution; you come deliberately as an answer from your faith. I don't think it is far-fetched to say that when we examine a typical Baptist treatment of baptism, the "obedience" quotient is paramount.

There certainly is an obedience aspect to our own practice. In fact, it surprises many Baptists when we say that we do what we do expressly because we believe we are obeying commandment, and not because of tradition or mere desire, or a theological "consistency."

However, no one would dispute, I think, the observation that "obedience" as such does not figure into the expression of our doctrine of baptism. This has to do with what we understand baptism to symbolize, namely the sovereign regenerative work of the Spirit. In other words, we do not understand baptism as being a symbolic first act of obedience, but rather it is symbolic of God's monergistic act toward us.

To put it succinctly, in our view Baptism teaches not so much about Faith as it does about Regeneration.

Baptism "happens to" us; it is not so much an effect of my presenting myself (or my children). In Baptism, God makes the general statement, which is "particularized" in the participants.

The general statement is: "I will save to the uttermost, by the washing of regeneration, all persons--including this one here--who have faith in Jesus, in the gospel which is in this act being symbolically and to all other sensory means declared in this assembly." We confess that the promise is made generally and particularly, yet is efficacious only to the elect at the time God sets, when the blessing is appropriated by faith.

In other words, as with all other gospel promises, the only way to access them is by individual faith. There is the conditional "IF", as there would be in the same case with an adult professor.

The gospel begins to be proclaimed to a tiny infant. And by grace, all his life, day by day in the home, and Sunday by Sunday in church he hears it, and never (we pray God) may he deny it, but always hope in the Christ offered in it.

But the declaration of the promise of life to be found in Union with Christ is not itself contingent on the person. The promise never changes. It has been, and remains the same. So, baptism is God speaking by his church. It is a preaching of the gospel.

Thus, we never repeat a baptism. Because for a baptism to occur, it is not contingent on 1) the "right" heart of the recipient and correct timing, + 2) the "right" mode and church, + 3) the "right" authorized agent and words of institution. That is, for the Baptist unless all these are in alignment, there has been no "baptism" or that which was effected as baptism is invalid.

We generally accept any Trinitarian baptism, done by a church with formal, perhaps even mere historic, profession of the gospel. Because, it is the testimony of the gospel that is paramount, and NOT the worthiness of the minister (or condition of the "building") that matters.

If the church is no church, but a synagogue of Satan, or makes no pretense to the historic Christian church (like Mormons), refuses to baptize in the Trinitarian Name, or has no recognizable ministry from Christ--then we have to reject whatever that rite is as a true baptism. Someone "washed" there simply wasn't ever brought "into" the church, and had not even a whiff of the gospel. He needs to be baptized if he joins our church.

And there are disputes today in Protestantism over whether RCC baptism, which was acknowledged by the Reformers, should still be accepted today for the reasons/problems with the above points. These are matters that we have to wrestle with, but our wrestling with it is no more problematic for us than Baptists have determining whether they have to "get it right" this time with Joe, who doesn't think he was "really" saved last time he walked the aisle, or who wasn't dunked, or wasn't by a proper church, etc.

Our concern is with the open proclamation (or lack of it) of Jesus Christ, the only way of salvation, by an institution calling itself a church, and not the subjective state of a man's heart at some point.


----------



## Iconoclast

Rob,
Sorry to take so long to respond, I am travelling to the wesi coast and do not always have unline access.

I did not mean any personal offence to when I posted this;


> I have found in your last post a rather uncharitable statement. You wrote:
> 
> 
> Quote:
> I have found that such long presentations, which attempt to labour to make a point are more times than not trying to make up for a deficency. In this case the lack of NT, verses that can in any way suggest infant baptism.


 We have interacted enough times online that I think you would know I did not mean a personal attack on you.
I posted that as a general thought that the longer drawn out explanations are more often than not trying to compensate for a lack of some kind.
Sorry if it caused offence.
Now to answer your previous question, you asked this:


> You have argued above that the Romans 6 and Colossians 2 passages cited above refer to the baptism of the Spirit. On this we both agree. You have also pointed out that these passages are given only to true believers. I can agree with that as well. These views, however, do not answer the questions that Mr. Bass has asked:
> 
> How does water baptism by dipping illustrate the death of Jesus Christ on the Cross?
> 
> How does water baptism by dipping illustrate the burial of Jesus Christ in a Sepulchre?
> 
> How does water baptism by dipping illustrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the Sepulchre



If you substitue sprinkling, for dipping in the questions asked by Mr.Bass I think it makes it more obscure than more clear. If I see a Padeo Pastor sprinkling a sleeping or crying infant my first thought is not that water sprinkled on the babies head in any way reminds me a burial in a cave with a large rock rolled in front! Or that water sprinkled on the baby reminds me of Christ being risen.
On the other hand , Jesus when he spoke of His soon coming death, and rising in newness of life spoke of Jonah being in the fish for three days.
Jonah in the sea, not sprinkled but fully immersed.Cut off or seperated from the living/ psa69, yet safely brought through the ordeal .
When baptism by immersion takes place, and the words of Romans 6 are read, usually it is explained as a symbolic picture of the baptized going into the water [death/burial] then coming up out of the water[risen to newness of life]..
It would be hard to re-enact in a literal fashion, a death on a physical cross, and a burial in a literal cave, everytime there is to be a baptism
The flood with Noah, the exodus with Moses show the same thing and it is no mistake that both are mentioned in the NT. in reference to baptism.
Rob, i just see it simply as an easy outward picture of the work of the Spirit in new birth in a *believer*.
All of the passages dealing with sprinkling seem to speak more to santification, that regeneration.
The water of seperation I identify more with Jn. 3:3-11 Jesus expected Nicodemus to "know these things" as the teacher of Israel. this was before NT. baptism was inaugrated.
Does MR. Bass address the water of seperation?
Another thought I had was was Namaan told to sprinkle himself 7 times, or immerse himself? what word was used there?
I am out on the road going to Idaho,Boise, then to Bellvue Washington. I am hoping I can Get to see Pastor Ferrell up in Boise. Maybe I will run this thread by Him.
Sorry again if you took unnecessary offence to my wording, but I like to keep things more concise. TonyD


----------



## William Price

Contra_Mundum said:


> William,
> IB is a covenantal testimony, and in Reformed doctrine has nothing outwardly to do with effecting a work of grace upon the recipient--no more than any other work of grace upon anyone. If God uses one opportunity to do a secret work in anyone, old or young, we are none the wiser.
> 
> **********************
> There is something else that can be said here. And it has everything to do with the way you described your own baptism. YOU went to baptism. You ACTED in obedience. There is a fundamental quality to your contribution; you come deliberately as an answer from your faith. I don't think it is far-fetched to say that when we examine a typical Baptist treatment of baptism, the "obedience" quotient is paramount.
> 
> There certainly is an obedience aspect to our own practice. In fact, it surprises many Baptists when we say that we do what we do expressly because we believe we are obeying commandment, and not because of tradition or mere desire, or a theological "consistency."
> 
> However, no one would dispute, I think, the observation that "obedience" as such does not figure into the expression of our doctrine of baptism. This has to do with what we understand baptism to symbolize, namely the sovereign regenerative work of the Spirit. In other words, we do not understand baptism as being a symbolic first act of obedience, but rather it is symbolic of God's monergistic act toward us.
> 
> To put it succinctly, in our view Baptism teaches not so much about Faith as it does about Regeneration.
> 
> Baptism "happens to" us; it is not so much an effect of my presenting myself (or my children). In Baptism, God makes the general statement, which is "particularized" in the participants.
> 
> The general statement is: "I will save to the uttermost, by the washing of regeneration, all persons--including this one here--who have faith in Jesus, in the gospel which is in this act being symbolically and to all other sensory means declared in this assembly." We confess that the promise is made generally and particularly, yet is efficacious only to the elect at the time God sets, when the blessing is appropriated by faith.
> 
> In other words, as with all other gospel promises, the only way to access them is by individual faith. There is the conditional "IF", as there would be in the same case with an adult professor.
> 
> The gospel begins to be proclaimed to a tiny infant. And by grace, all his life, day by day in the home, and Sunday by Sunday in church he hears it, and never (we pray God) may he deny it, but always hope in the Christ offered in it.
> 
> But the declaration of the promise of life to be found in Union with Christ is not itself contingent on the person. The promise never changes. It has been, and remains the same. So, baptism is God speaking by his church. It is a preaching of the gospel.
> 
> Thus, we never repeat a baptism. Because for a baptism to occur, it is not contingent on 1) the "right" heart of the recipient and correct timing, + 2) the "right" mode and church, + 3) the "right" authorized agent and words of institution. That is, for the Baptist unless all these are in alignment, there has been no "baptism" or that which was effected as baptism is invalid.
> 
> We generally accept any Trinitarian baptism, done by a church with formal, perhaps even mere historic, profession of the gospel. Because, it is the testimony of the gospel that is paramount, and NOT the worthiness of the minister (or condition of the "building") that matters.
> 
> If the church is no church, but a synagogue of Satan, or makes no pretense to the historic Christian church (like Mormons), refuses to baptize in the Trinitarian Name, or has no recognizable ministry from Christ--then we have to reject whatever that rite is as a true baptism. Someone "washed" there simply wasn't ever brought "into" the church, and had not even a whiff of the gospel. He needs to be baptized if he joins our church.
> 
> And there are disputes today in Protestantism over whether RCC baptism, which was acknowledged by the Reformers, should still be accepted today for the reasons/problems with the above points. These are matters that we have to wrestle with, but our wrestling with it is no more problematic for us than Baptists have determining whether they have to "get it right" this time with Joe, who doesn't think he was "really" saved last time he walked the aisle, or who wasn't dunked, or wasn't by a proper church, etc.
> 
> Our concern is with the open proclamation (or lack of it) of Jesus Christ, the only way of salvation, by an institution calling itself a church, and not the subjective state of a man's heart at some point.


Thank you, Bruce. I see what you are saying about infant baptism and true baptism. I appreciate the right spirit in which it was presented as well.


----------



## Iconoclast

Hello AJ,
You posted the following;



> Anthony, I understand why you argue the way you do in your comments on the warning passages and the meaning of baptism.
> 
> It's because (1) you view of the New Covenant does not allow for a clear distinction between God's decree and His administration. Instead, the decree swallows up the administration. The problem for your position, however, is that the Bible does teach that until the coming of the Lord there are (and there will be) de facto members of the visible church who are not elect (Matt 22; John 15; Rom. 11; 1 Cor. 5, 10-11; Heb. 3-4, 6, 10; Rev. 2-3), as has already been implied.. Only in heaven or in the consummation will "...they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them...."



You are correct that I have a different view of the decree/administration. More so in reference to the NT.
I do not agree that only in heaven can the Jer.31/Hebs8 passage be true. I believe that is true for all who savingly believe right now.
AJ, when you say this;


> Baptism is not only a sign/seal of blessing. It's also a sign/seal of judgment to those who reject Christ and His benefits


 I see scripture as teaching that Spirit baptism is the seal. Credo baptism as an outward confession before men of the inward reality.
Any false professor who partipates in baptism, that very false baptism will be one more time he or she has taken God's name in vain.
In MT . 7 Jesus tells such persons depart from me, I never at anytime knew you. He does not say, I only knew you in an outward administration, but then you became a covenant breaker.
Your position has two aspects of the covenant of grace, savingly and inward,,, non savingly and outward. My position has only one, what you would call the invisible church. False professors who assemble with the church, are not of it.1Jn 2:19.
I can explain more if you like.did I understand your question correctly?


----------



## Hungus

Is the revision of this text available anywhere, save from the author?


----------



## A.J.

Iconoclast said:


> Hello AJ,
> You posted the following;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anthony, I understand why you argue the way you do in your comments on the warning passages and the meaning of baptism.
> 
> It's because (1) you view of the New Covenant does not allow for a clear distinction between God's decree and His administration. Instead, the decree swallows up the administration. The problem for your position, however, is that the Bible does teach that until the coming of the Lord there are (and there will be) de facto members of the visible church who are not elect (Matt 22; John 15; Rom. 11; 1 Cor. 5, 10-11; Heb. 3-4, 6, 10; Rev. 2-3), as has already been implied.. Only in heaven or in the consummation will "...they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them...."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct that I have a different view of the decree/administration. More so in reference to the NT.
> I do not agree that only in heaven can the Jer.31/Hebs8 passage be true. I believe that is true for all who savingly believe right now.
Click to expand...

 
Hello brother. I didn't say that only in heaven will the Jer. 31/Heb. 8 passage be true. The New Covenant has been _inaugurated_ and is presently being realized as the gospel is brought to the Gentile nations/families previously unreached by the gospel (Acts 3:25; Gal. 3:8). But only in heaven will it be _consummated_. 



Iconoclast said:


> AJ, when you say this;
> 
> 
> 
> Baptism is not only a sign/seal of blessing. It's also a sign/seal of judgment to those who reject Christ and His benefits
> 
> 
> 
> I see scripture as teaching that Spirit baptism is the seal. Credo baptism as an outward confession before men of the inward reality.
> Any false professor who partipates in baptism, that very false baptism will be one more time he or she has taken God's name in vain.
> In MT . 7 Jesus tells such persons depart from me, I never at anytime knew you. He does not say, I only knew you in an outward administration, but then you became a covenant breaker.
> Your position has two aspects of the covenant of grace, savingly and inward,,, non savingly and outward. My position has only one, what you would call the invisible church. False professors who assemble with the church, are not of it.1Jn 2:19.
> I can explain more if you like.did I understand your question correctly?
Click to expand...


I already indicated that there are unbelievers in the adminstration of the New Covenant (Matt 22; John 15; Rom. 11; 1 Cor. 5, 10-11; Heb. 3-4, 6, 10; Rev. 2-3), and there will be unbelievers in the visible church until the New Covenant is consummated. I don't see how 1 John 2:19 somehow denies this.

Anyway, Mr. Wieland is presently dealing with the mode of baptism, and asking the Baptist posters to interact with the arguments (i.e., meaning of the baptizo and its cognates, and the Biblical usage of those terms) he presented from Mr. Bass' book. It would be better to discuss the proper recipients for a later time.

Blessings!


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Iconoclast said:


> Rob,
> Sorry to take so long to respond, I am travelling to the wesi coast and do not always have unline access.
> 
> I did not mean any personal offence to when I posted this;
> 
> 
> 
> I have found in your last post a rather uncharitable statement. You wrote:
> 
> 
> Quote:
> I have found that such long presentations, which attempt to labour to make a point are more times than not trying to make up for a deficency. In this case the lack of NT, verses that can in any way suggest infant baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> We have interacted enough times online that I think you would know I did not mean a personal attack on you.
> I posted that as a general thought that the longer drawn out explanations are more often than not trying to compensate for a lack of some kind.
> Sorry if it caused offence.
> Now to answer your previous question, you asked this:
> 
> 
> 
> You have argued above that the Romans 6 and Colossians 2 passages cited above refer to the baptism of the Spirit. On this we both agree. You have also pointed out that these passages are given only to true believers. I can agree with that as well. These views, however, do not answer the questions that Mr. Bass has asked:
> 
> How does water baptism by dipping illustrate the death of Jesus Christ on the Cross?
> 
> How does water baptism by dipping illustrate the burial of Jesus Christ in a Sepulchre?
> 
> How does water baptism by dipping illustrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the Sepulchre
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you substitue sprinkling, for dipping in the questions asked by Mr.Bass I think it makes it more obscure than more clear. If I see a Padeo Pastor sprinkling a sleeping or crying infant my first thought is not that water sprinkled on the babies head in any way reminds me a burial in a cave with a large rock rolled in front! Or that water sprinkled on the baby reminds me of Christ being risen.
> On the other hand , Jesus when he spoke of His soon coming death, and rising in newness of life spoke of Jonah being in the fish for three days.
> Jonah in the sea, not sprinkled but fully immersed.Cut off or seperated from the living/ psa69, yet safely brought through the ordeal .
> When baptism by immersion takes place, and the words of Romans 6 are read, usually it is explained as a symbolic picture of the baptized going into the water [death/burial] then coming up out of the water[risen to newness of life]..
> It would be hard to re-enact in a literal fashion, a death on a physical cross, and a burial in a literal cave, everytime there is to be a baptism
> The flood with Noah, the exodus with Moses show the same thing and it is no mistake that both are mentioned in the NT. in reference to baptism.
> Rob, i just see it simply as an easy outward picture of the work of the Spirit in new birth in a *believer*.
> All of the passages dealing with sprinkling seem to speak more to santification, that regeneration.
> The water of seperation I identify more with Jn. 3:3-11 Jesus expected Nicodemus to "know these things" as the teacher of Israel. this was before NT. baptism was inaugrated.
> Does MR. Bass address the water of seperation?
> Another thought I had was was Namaan told to sprinkle himself 7 times, or immerse himself? what word was used there?
> I am out on the road going to Idaho,Boise, then to Bellvue Washington. I am hoping I can Get to see Pastor Ferrell up in Boise. Maybe I will run this thread by Him.
> Sorry again if you took unnecessary offence to my wording, but I like to keep things more concise. TonyD
Click to expand...


Hello Anthony!

I am sorry for taking so long in responding to you as well. After preaching in Aurora, OH last Sunday (Aug 9) I have driven over the past few days 1,500 miles back to Colorado Springs, and I will be here until Aug 26th (then back to Pittsburgh).

I was not so much offended as I was surprised by your comment. Would you consider John Owen's _The Death of Death in the Death of Christ_ a "long drawn out" argument for Limited Atonement? Or, John Gill's _The Cause of God and Truth_ on the matter of Election as "long and drawn out"? When a man seeks to be *comprehensive* in his presentation of a subject, then it does take much time and writing to cover the subject completely. I was also a little bit hurt, because I tried to deal with Mr. Bass' presentation as succinctly as possible. If any offense was taken, then I forgive you, and there is peace between us. 

After reading your post I think the major difference between the two of us is this idea that New Covenant baptism somehow illustrates the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Rom 6 and Col 2 passages that are used by credo-baptists to prove their idea these passages are not addressing the *mode* of baptism either by sprinkling or dipping.

I think it important enough to write this again: The Rom 6 and Col 2 passages are not addressing the *mode* of water baptism either by sprinkling or dipping.

I believe that the argument which Mr. Bass uses is that the Rom and Col passages are referring to the baptism by the Spirit of God. This baptism irreversably unites us to Jesus Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection.

You have to remember that in the Original Post Mr. Bass pointed out that the word _baptidzo_ here *does not mean "to dip,"* but to merge, or unite, in a permament fashion. The word closely resembles our English word "immerse" which indicates a union with something without disuniting it. Thus, "dipping" does not adequately define the word, because "dipping" is a "putting in and taking out." Whereas _baptidzo_ indicates a putting in, but not a taking out - we are *baptidzo* into the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. We are united to Christ, but we are never taken out of that union.

Now, you mentioned Jonah. Is there any reference in the Bible that Jonah's experience reflected baptism by the Holy Spirit uniting us to Christ? I understand Jesus' use of Jonah's experience as prophetic of what was about to happen to him. But, where is it linked to the baptism of the Spirit? If I were to look at the circumstances more closely, then I do not see a dipping here: Jonah was saved from the water by a large fish which swallowed him whole. As he travelled about in this fish he was not dipped in the water, but spared from drowning in it. He was also spat out by this fish onto dry land. I am mystified how all of this can relate to water baptism at all?

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## CDM

CalvinandHodges said:


> After reading your post I think the major difference between the two of us is this idea that New Covenant baptism somehow illustrates the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Rom 6 and Col 2 passages that are used by credo-baptists to prove their idea these passages are not addressing the *mode* of baptism either by sprinkling or dipping.
> 
> I think it important enough to write this again: The Rom 6 and Col 2 passages are not addressing the *mode* of water baptism either by sprinkling or dipping.
> 
> I believe that the argument which Mr. Bass uses is that the Rom and Col passages are referring to the baptism by the Spirit of God. This baptism irreversably unites us to Jesus Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection.



 A professor at RTS Charlotte a few years ago when discussing these passages said to our class, "To any baptist that may be in the room, there is not a DROP of water in either of these passages."


----------



## Iconoclast

Hello Rob, 
Here is where I find an inconsistency with many who put forth the Padeo understanding of these sections. From your last post you wrote:


> I believe that the argument which Mr. Bass uses is that the Rom and Col passages are referring to the baptism by the Spirit of God.
> 
> 
> 
> This baptism irreversably unites us to Jesus Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> You have to remember that in the Original Post Mr. Bass pointed out that the word baptidzo here does not mean "to dip," but to merge, or unite, in a permament fashion. The word closely resembles our English word "immerse" which indicates a union with something without disuniting it. Thus, "dipping" does not adequately define the word, because "dipping" is a "putting in and taking out." Whereas baptidzo indicates a putting in, but not a taking out - we are baptidzo into the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. We are united to Christ, but we are never taken out of that union.
Click to expand...

 Now I agree with this as we have already established. I am looking at where you and MR.Bass say,


> This baptism irreversably unites us to Jesus Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection



and again


> We are united to Christ, but we are never taken out of that union.


 Obviously then these statements would then speak of the elect alone.Anyone" irreversably united to Christ," and those who are" never taken out of that union" are the sheep.
I do not see either passage as pointing to ,or a sign of what "might" be signified. To say that the sprinkled infant is now in anyway "united" to Christ even in some type of outward administration in light of MR.Bass writing does not follow.
The idea of a breakable NT.covenant does not fit *they shall all know me*
I am aware that I have to account for 1Cor 10:1-11 all were baptized unto Moses, all drank of that spiritual drink,as well as the warning of Hebrews 3-4,and 10.
I have been listening to many sermons on these passages, particullarly from David Silversides on sermonaudio. He makes a strong presentation and does not shy away from any issue related to this topic.
However, when I listen to sermonaudio on Romans 6 the padeo presentations almost sound as if they were speaking of baptismal regeneration when addressing the text. { I do not think anyone here would defend that position!] I think I will try and save those sermons on a flash drive so I can point you to some of them. I do not want to name some of those pastors here online, as I will have some opportunity to discuss these matters face to face with them first and make sure I am not mis-understanding what they say.
I had earlier on in one of my first posts thanked you for posting what you did. I just raised a caution about trusting in the length of some explanations is all. I am not saying that someone should not seek to be comprehensive, just that they should not mix the apples and the oranges.
Jesus spoke of Jonah as a sign. I believe it figures in to the whole discussion of the death ,burial, and ressurection.
I see it in the same way Noah's flood or the exodus is viewed. My previous post addressed this. We are preserved from death in Union with Christ as in Romans 6. by Spirit baptism. Water baptism is the proper outward confession of the inward reality of Spirit baptism in a *believer*.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Iconoclast said:


> Hello Rob,
> Here is where I find an inconsistency with many who put forth the Padeo understanding of these sections. From your last post you wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that the argument which Mr. Bass uses is that the Rom and Col passages are referring to the baptism by the Spirit of God.
> 
> 
> 
> This baptism irreversably unites us to Jesus Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> You have to remember that in the Original Post Mr. Bass pointed out that the word baptidzo here does not mean "to dip," but to merge, or unite, in a permament fashion. The word closely resembles our English word "immerse" which indicates a union with something without disuniting it. Thus, "dipping" does not adequately define the word, because "dipping" is a "putting in and taking out." Whereas baptidzo indicates a putting in, but not a taking out - we are baptidzo into the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. We are united to Christ, but we are never taken out of that union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now I agree with this as we have already established. I am looking at where you and MR.Bass say,
> 
> 
> 
> This baptism irreversably unites us to Jesus Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and again
> 
> 
> 
> We are united to Christ, but we are never taken out of that union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously then these statements would then speak of the elect alone.Anyone" irreversably united to Christ," and those who are" never taken out of that union" are the sheep.
> I do not see either passage as pointing to ,or a sign of what "might" be signified. To say that the sprinkled infant is now in anyway "united" to Christ even in some type of outward administration in light of MR.Bass writing does not follow.
> The idea of a breakable NT.covenant does not fit *they shall all know me*
> I am aware that I have to account for 1Cor 10:1-11 all were baptized unto Moses, all drank of that spiritual drink,as well as the warning of Hebrews 3-4,and 10.
> I have been listening to many sermons on these passages, particullarly from David Silversides on sermonaudio. He makes a strong presentation and does not shy away from any issue related to this topic.
> However, when I listen to sermonaudio on Romans 6 the padeo presentations almost sound as if they were speaking of baptismal regeneration when addressing the text. { I do not think anyone here would defend that position!] I think I will try and save those sermons on a flash drive so I can point you to some of them. I do not want to name some of those pastors here online, as I will have some opportunity to discuss these matters face to face with them first and make sure I am not mis-understanding what they say.
> I had earlier on in one of my first posts thanked you for posting what you did. I just raised a caution about trusting in the length of some explanations is all. I am not saying that someone should not seek to be comprehensive, just that they should not mix the apples and the oranges.
> Jesus spoke of Jonah as a sign. I believe it figures in to the whole discussion of the death ,burial, and ressurection.
> I see it in the same way Noah's flood or the exodus is viewed. My previous post addressed this. We are preserved from death in Union with Christ as in Romans 6. by Spirit baptism. Water baptism is the proper outward confession of the inward reality of Spirit baptism in a *believer*.
Click to expand...


Greetings Anthony:

There is much in your above post that I am in agreement with concerning baptism.

First, you are still reading into the Rom and Col passages the idea of water baptism. The idea of water baptism is not in those texts. If you would like to prove that water baptism can be found in the texts, then I am all ears.

I can see why you would think that paedo's are touching upon baptismal regeneration - the concept that one is instantly regenerated when one is *water* baptized. We are not looking at the passages as illustrative of water baptism, but of the Spirit of God working regeneration in the elect, or, in the colorful words of the Apostle - baptism by the Spirit.

Here is an obsticle for your view of water baptism as being present in these passages: *If Paul has in mind water baptism, then he would be talking about baptismal regeneration, because both would then be spoken about in the passages.*

Paedo-baptists categorically reject the idea that water baptism is being mentioned in the passages. What Paul is writing about is our being _baptidzo_ or united to the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ through the work of the Spirit of God. He is using the term _baptidzo_ in a figurative sense in order to bring about a truth: That we are eternally _baptidzo_ merged, immersed, united to Jesus Christ by the working of the Holy Spirit in our hearts.

In my humble opinion it is unbiblical to claim that water baptism symbolizes the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ when all of Scripture tells us that it symbolizes the work of the Spirit of God in the heart of man. The death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is already celebrated in the Lord's Supper and on the first day of every week - the day when Christ rose from the dead. Why do we need baptism to celebrate something that we already celebrate?

Here is another idea that is tripping you up. You wrote:



> Water baptism is the proper outward confession of the inward reality of Spirit baptism


Water baptism is not an "outward confession of the inward reality." It is not a public (outward) confession of faith. I am talking with another credo-baptist on this very issue, and I cannot seem to get it out of his head. Here are some questions for you:

If a baptism is done privately, and in the middle of the night, like Paul did with the Phillippian jailor, is it a legitimate baptism?

Neither the 1689 nor the Westminster Standards ever argue that baptism is an "outward confession of an inner reality." Where do you find this teaching?

Most baptism (if not all these days) are performed privately in a church. How is this considered an outward confession?

Baptism is not a confession of faith. It is a sacrament of initiation into the New Covenant given to believers and their children. Baptism carries all of the significance of circumcision in the Old Testament except that the outward ordinance was changed. All of the inner realities found in circumcision are found in baptism. Since this is the case, and we find no law in the New Testament forbidding infants baptism, the regulation that allowed Abraham (a believer) and his household access to the New Covenant is still in force.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Houston E.

CalvinandHodges said:


> All of the inner realities found in circumcision are found in baptism. Since this is the case, and we find no law in the New Testament forbidding infants baptism, the regulation that allowed Abraham (a believer) and his household access to the New Covenant is still in force.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> Rob



Hi,

Yes, it does say household there and not just infants. So I assume you would have no problem baptizing a child of believing parents of any age? Let's say, 14, 18, 24...


----------



## Laudante

*Es de sabios cambiar de opinión (wise men change opinion, Spanish saying)*

Hi everyone:

I want to thank you all for your valuable posts. I´ve bee unable to thank each one of them separately because I don´t have the "thank" button yet. And especially to you, Rob, for the amazing effort you´ve put in this thread, and which has made me rethink many issues which I though I had resolved long ago, again. I do value long explanation, and if it´s true that they can mean a lack of arguments, they can also mean an excess of them (and much more more frequently this latter, btw), so it´s wrong to judge a work by its extension. The reason why I delayed in responding is that many things in my life had changed in the last week (like a change of country, for example, from Mexico to USA, though not as a wetback, thankfully), so that´s why I haven´t had the time to sit here and write. 

As I said in my first comment, I have considered myself 51% credo, till now, and that because one has to choose. There´s no third option in this debate (well, a third option would be to baptize children and then rebaptize them when adults; but will someone here propose this?). I find excellent arguments and also some perplexing questions for both sides. For example, in support of credo, I can´t help finding a relation between baptism and confession of faith, and a relation between baptism and salvation (not magically, of course), but 1 Pet 3 clearly says that "baptism now SAVES you", and the Nicean Creed says: _Credo in una baptisma in remissionem peccatorum._ In NT times, when someone had faith and repentance to be saved, the first step was to be baptized. It didn´t exist the modern practice of "just close your eyes and make a saving prayer". It was "repent and be baptized" (Acts. 2). So if paedos say that children are saved through baptism, they are admitting that some can be saved without faith, and they would have problems explaining how their baptism is not an _opere operato_ rite, while if they say that children are not saved on the moment of their baptism, then why when they come to be saved later, if it happens, they don´t have to follow the regular practice of "repent and be baptized"? Yes, you can say this refers to adults only, but for their children the procedure is different. And could be, but the problem is that there is no direct Biblical warrant for that. And if the NT was written during the 50 or 60 years after Pentecost, it is obvious that thousands of children of believers were baptized in that time, and still there is not one mention of it in any of the 27 books, nor in any of the second century writings, either. This is puzzling, at the least. Other inconsistencies would be, for example, if baptism is the exact equivalent of circumcision, and not a "free" antytipe, so to say, then why baptizing girls? I´m not saying this is an unsolvable question, but just something that could be raised as a sort of objection. Or, better still, as Houston E. just said, what about the grown up children of new believers? Are they still in the covenant and should be baptized, even if they don´t seem to profess any faith? If not, what is the proper age to demark the line? Another objection could be that in nearly every instance of baptism in the NT, and in all the theologic references to it, it seems that water baptism shpould theorically match the Holy Spirit baptism or happen afterwards, in any case. To separate them can be perhaps something not far from the modern Pentecostal idea that you are first saved and somewhere later you receive the baptism of the Spirit. 

Calvin says regarding the sacraments: "All the energy of operation belongs to the Spirit, and the sacraments are mere instruments which without his agency are vain and useless, but with it, are fraught with surprising efficacy". This implies that to baptize infants one has to assume that the Spirit is operating a regeneration in the baby, or otherwise we are wasting our time in a "vain and useless" rite. But the problem is that there is a more than significant number of those babies who will later show no signs of regeneration at all, even until death. Ishmael and Esau were members of the covenant family, and still they were out of the covenant. Again, I´m not saying that this are absolute arguments, but simply issues to think about. I think all this questions are legitimate to throw up. 

On the other side, there are also some inconsistencies on the credo camp. For example, I cannot see how can you manage to hold a strict covenant theology, and practice credo baptism at the same time. Maybe this is why there is such a strong tendency on the Baptist side not only to be more "New Covenant" in scope, but also to tend toward premillenialism and even dispensationalism sometimes. There is also a greater tendency to separatism and radical evangelism (by this I understand the adopting of a certain "too broad" attitude and methods to attract more people). Of course this is not what always happens, but just a certain tendency. I say this after studying baptist history and sociology for not less than 10-12 years. Obviously, in the arminian baptist side things are much worse. 

Finally, I´ll confess that in this last week my numbers changed, and I thank all the good posters here for their part in it. Now I would consider myself a 51% Paedo and 49% Credo. In other words, a Presbyterian with abiding doubts regarding baptism. The principal reasons for my change are:

a) I realized that 95% of the theologians I have always most admired are Presbyterians. It´s not that we should be moved only by human authorities, but such an excelent company summed on one same camp is less likely to be wrong than I. 
b) The difficulty in dealing with convenant theology and credo-baptism at the same time forced me to make a decision to favor the first one. 
c) I joined Grace OPC in San Antonio, and being in agreement with them in this issue is the best, in order to walk together in perfect unity and peace. 
d) The arguments presented in this thread helped a lot, of course, too. 
e) Reading some papers of one of my greatest heroes in theology, WGT Shedd (the guy in my avatar, for if someone didn´t know), I was finally convinced. One passage was especially powerful for that purpose, namely the following: "They (infants) are church members by reason of their birth from believing parents; and it has been truly said, that the question that confronts them at the period of discretion is not, Will you join the visible church? but, Will you go out of it? Church membership by birth from believers is an appointment of God under both the old and the new economies; in the Jewish and the Christian church... A citizen of the state must be presumed to be such, until the contrary appears by his renunciation of citizenship, and self-expatriation. Until he takes this course, he must be regarded as a citizen. So a baptized child, in adult years, may renounce his baptism and church membership, become an infidel, and join the synagoge of Satan; but until he does this he must be regarded as a member of the church of Christ... The possible exceptions to the general fact that baptism is the sign of regeneration are not more numerous in the case of baptized infants, than of baptized convents." 
f) Finally, I understood that there is indeed a contradiction between saying that the children are members of the church in the Baptist side, and refusing to baptize them. Either you deny their membership, as the LBCF seems to do, or you accept to baptize them, as the Bible commands in the case of all members. I prefer the second option now, in consistency with covenant theology, though for years it seemed easy to me to believe that they are not members until they profess so. 

And regarding the MODE of baptism, I find no problem in remaining in a 50-50 position, as I´ve been always. First, the counter arguments you gave about the verb louo (I don´t use the w, because although it looks like the omega, it sounds as u in English, not as o) weren´t convincing enough, and next time I have a time to sit and write I´ll try to explain why (unless in this week I become a thorough-going sprinkler, which doesn´t seem improbable now! I hope at least, however, that one of these weeks I won´t become a Romanist or a JW! Hehe, just joking). Finally, I wonder if this debate on the MODE is not the equivalent of discussing if the wine of the Supper should be served in crystal or silver glasses! The important thing is the Spirit working in the sacraments, and naturally the reverence and discernent with which we receive them, not the minute way of practicing them, like if we were still under the ceremonial law. You can be sure that if the mode were of utmost importance, there would be a Leviticus-kind book in the NT. There is good historical evidence, for example, that the Roman church by the end of the 1st century used regular, leavened bread for the Supper, instead of _matzoh._

I´ve been accused multiple times of being taken by every wind of doctrine, because I´ve changed so many times my opinions on different theological issues. But that´s because I´m constantly growing, and this will require for anyone constant adjustments, even after many years of being believers. At least I can assure you that each and every change has been to draw me nearer to the classical reformed theology. Otherwise I would be a stubborn. Now my signature and bio reflect the changes suffered last week in life and doctrine.

Your servant in Christ (and sorry for the long post),


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I have not been able to contribute much on the board lately. I am not going to be able to contribute much for the next few days but I did want to point to a blog entry I made tonight. It deals with Covenant heads and Covenant Children. I also have other things on my blog that might address some of the things mentioned in this thread. 

Covenant Head and Covenant Children - The PuritanBoard

Sorry for the hit and run but that is all I can do at this time. 



> This is a major part of Chapter 2 of Alan Conner’s book Covenant Children Today.
> *
> Christ and the New Covenant Family*
> 
> 
> There is a lot of talk today about the “covenant family.” But, many who are teaching on this topic assume that the “covenant family” today is based on the same principles as found in the Old Covenant. That is to say, the children of believers are automatically considered as members of the New Covenant. But, does the Bible support this assumption?
> 
> An important principle in determining the nature of covenant children is to realize the role that the covenant heads play in this process. In God’s covenant with Abraham, he established that Abraham would have both a physical and a spiritual seed. The promise of a physical seed (Genesis 12:2) would begin with the miraculous birth of Isaac by the power of God (Romans 4:18-21). Isaac’s birth initiated the principle of a physical seed which would govern the covenant’s progress and fulfillment down through the centuries, consummating in Jesus Christ (Galatians 3:16). But Abraham also had a spiritual seed. Since Abraham was a believer (Galatians 3:6, 9; Genesis 15:6), his spiritual seed constitutes both the believing remnant of Israel and believing Gentiles (Romans 9-10; Galatians 3:8, 14). Thus, God ordained that the nature of covenant children in Abraham’s covenant would be established by Abraham himself as the covenant head, both by his faith and his physical children.
> 
> But, what about the New Covenant? Should the nature of covenant children established with Abraham continue on in the New Covenant as well? The New Testament is clear that the New Covenant administration of the Abrahamic Covenant does not require the principle of a physical seed descended from Abraham for “be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham” (Galatians 3:7). This indicates that in the New Covenant we are dealing with Abraham’s spiritual seed. The unbelieving Jews have been broken off of the olive tree of the people of God (Romans 11:17-20).
> 
> This shift to an emphasis on the spiritual seed is also clearly demonstrated in the covenant head of the New Covenant, Jesus Christ. As God established in Abraham the nature of his covenant seed, so also he established in Christ the nature of his covenant seed. The same pattern holds for both covenants: the covenant head determines the nature of the covenant seed. Thus, as the head of the New Covenant, Jesus Christ would personally initiate the principle of his covenant seed just as Abraham did for his covenant. But, what kind of children (seed) did Christ have? As the head of the New Covenant, what is the nature of his seed?
> 
> As we consider what the Bible teaches about the covenant seed connected to Jesus Christ, we need to consider the Fatherhood of Jesus Christ in relation to his covenant children. Then, we will examine the way in which Christ defines his covenant family. When we do this, we will see that the New Covenant family is not based on physical relationships at all, but on spiritual qualities alone. Christ’s covenant seed and family is not based on the flesh as it was in the Old Covenant, but is a “household of faith” (Galatians 6:10 - KJV); a “family of believers” (Galatians 6:10 - NIV).
> 
> *The Fatherhood of Jesus Christ*
> 
> The Bible teaches that Christ’s relationship with his redeemed people is one that is rich and many-colored. The glory of Jesus Christ cannot be contained in one simple description. The Bible sets forth his redemptive character with many different analogies and pictures. To the Father, he is the eternal Son of God, but to Christians he is many things. Christ is the sacrificial Lamb of God who died in our place; the Vine and we are the branches; the Head and we are his body; the good Shepherd and we are his sheep; the Husband and we are his bride. In addition to all of this, Christ Jesus is also a Father and we are his children.
> 
> This last truth has important implications for how we are to view membership and the concept of covenant children in the New Covenant. What we will discover is that the Fatherhood of Jesus Christ argues strongly for the concept of spiritual children in the New Covenant, rather than children of physical descent.
> 
> *Christ as our Eternal Father*
> 
> For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6)
> 
> 
> As Isaiah looked ahead to the coming of Christ who would inaugurate the New Covenant, he describes him as a Father to his followers. This relationship is verified in the way that our Lord loves his disciples as a father, cares for them as a father, provides for them as a father, and instructs and disciplines them as a father. What a precious thought. Our Savior is also our spiritual Father so that, in a sense, within the holy Trinity we have no less than two Fathers: God the Father, and God the incarnate Son, both of whom watch over us as spiritual Fathers in their own unique way.
> 
> Second, the obvious result of the fact that Christ is an Eternal Father is that he must also have children – since a father is such only if he has children. But who are his children? The children of Christ cannot be based on the genealogical principle found in the Old Covenant. But, if they cannot be his physical children, then who are they? The obvious suggestion is that they are his spiritual children.
> 
> The Gospels also indicate the idea that Christ has spiritual children; namely, his disciples. We see this in the following passages where Christ refers to his disciples as children:
> 
> And the disciples were amazed at His words. But Jesus answered again and said to them, Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! (Mark 10:24)
> 
> Little children, I am with you a little while longer. (John 13:33)
> 
> Jesus therefore said to them, Children, you do not have any fish, do you? (John 21:5)
> 
> Now what is the significance of Jesus calling his disciples children? Is he saying that they are immature and prone to error like children? This is possible, but the example from John 13 which took place during the Passover feast suggests that Jesus was assuming the paschal role of the head of the family who would preside at the meal and explain its meaning to his children. So, at least in John 13:33, the use of “children” would fit with the concept that Jesus is looking upon his disciples as his spiritual children. The other examples above can also be understood in the same way.
> 
> This concept of a spiritual father with spiritual children was also used by the apostles in the way they sometimes addressed those who came to faith under their ministry (see Galatians 4:19; 1 Corinthians 4:14; 1 John 2:1). And, most notably, it is used of all believers in their relationship with God since he is our heavenly Father and we are his children through the new birth and adoption into his family (John 1:12; Romans 8:14-17). All believers are “children of God.”
> 
> *Christ’s Covenant Children*
> 
> Behold, I and the children whom God has given Me. (Isaiah 8:18 in Hebrews 2:13)
> 
> Not only does the prophet Isaiah teach us about Christ’s role as a spiritual Father, he also has something to say about Christ’s spiritual children as well. These children are mentioned in Isaiah 8:18, which is also quoted in Hebrews 2:13 as the very words of Christ, “Behold, I and the children whom God has given Me.”
> 
> Here again it is quite clear from the context that these “children” who are given to the Messiah by God are not physical children but his spiritual followers united to him by faith. In the context of Hebrews chapter two, they are called “many sons” who are brought to glory (verse 10), his “brethren” (verses 11-12) for whom Christ made “propitiation…” (verse 17) and they are those who, along with Christ himself, put their trust in God (verse 13). No other kind of children is in view here. It is impossible that these covenant children of Christ are based on any principle of physical descent. They can only be spiritual children of faith. The principle of the Old Covenant family no longer applies to Christ and his New Covenant family.
> Also of interest in this passage is the observation that these spiritual children that are given to Christ by God the Father are the reason for his incarnation:
> 
> Since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil. (Hebrews 2:14)
> 
> Christ came down from heaven to assume our human nature that he might set his children free from the power of death held by the devil (verses 14-15) and deliver them from their sins (verse 17). Christ does not bring this help to the angels, but rather to “the descendant (seed) of Abraham” (verse 16).
> 
> This is an important designation. To call the covenant children of Christ (verses 13-14) the seed of Abraham (verse 16) makes another important statement about the nature of Christ’s covenant family. Clearly, they are not defined in terms of physical descent as they were in the Old Covenant. Christ’s spiritual children are now the New Covenant equivalent to the seed of Abraham. They are his spiritual followers, his brethren for whom he died, and those who trust in God. Here we have a clear redefining of the “seed of Abraham” in the New Covenant. The genealogical principle of inclusion in the covenant by physical lineage is replaced by the spiritual principle of faith.
> 
> *Christ’s Covenant Offspring*
> 
> He will see His offspring. (Isaiah 53:10)
> 
> This same truth about the identity of Christ’s covenant children is also seen in Isaiah 53:10, when Isaiah speaks prophetically of Christ’s reward for his self-sacrifice for our sins. The prophet announces, “He will see His offspring.” Now what is the prophet speaking about? In what sense did our Lord have offspring? Again, it cannot be physical children in view. So, it must refer exclusively to his spiritual offspring who are connected to him through faith.
> 
> Thus, both testaments teach that the children of Christ are not physical children at all. Clearly, the genealogical principle of the Old Covenant cannot apply to him. And, as the head of the New Covenant, Jesus Christ establishes in himself the new governing principle of membership in his Church. As clearly as Abraham established his seed according to the principle of physical birth, so Christ establishes his seed according to the principle of spiritual birth. The old genealogical principle of being a member of the covenant by physical descent has come to an end. A new principle is established with Jesus Christ. Being numbered among Christ’s covenant children is now based on the principle of faith alone. As John 1:12 states, “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name.” The New Covenant has a new standard for membership. Abraham’s physical principle of membership is replaced by Christ’s spiritual principle of membership.
> 
> Thus, the belief that the covenant family today follows the pattern of the Old Covenant is nothing but an assumption. It is based on so-called covenant logic that does not reflect accurately the teachings of the prophets as they foretold the coming of Jesus Christ and the New Covenant. Christ, as the head of the New Covenant, clearly establishes in himself the new standard for what it means to be a covenant child. It is a standard based on faith, not physical descent.
> 
> *Christ Defines His Covenant Family*
> 
> Not only is Jesus Christ our “Eternal Father,” and as such establishes a new principle for what it means to be his covenant child, but he also gave specific instruction on the nature of his covenant family. We find this in such passages as Luke 8:19-21:
> 
> 19 And His mother and brothers came to Him, and they were unable to get to Him because of the crowd. 20 And it was reported to Him, “Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, wishing to see You.” 21 But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.”
> 
> In the parallel account, Matthew gives these words, “whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother” (Matthew 12:50). What is clear is that Christ is redefining the nature of his family. He uses this request from his physical family to teach about his covenant family. As his words indicate, the principle of the physical family is no longer the determining factor in establishing his covenant family. Hearing the word and doing it now comprise the spiritual qualifications for being one of Christ’s covenant family members.
> 
> This shows a deliberate intent on the part of Christ to distance himself and his covenant family from the physical principles of the covenant family established with Abraham. If Christ defined his “mother and brothers,” and also his “children” (see above) exclusively in terms of spiritual qualities, then where is there continuity with the Old Covenant? Where do children automatically become covenant members based on their physical descent from covenant parents? Christ’s words clearly exclude from his covenant family those who are connected only by physical ties. “My mother and My brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it.” He does not say that they are “those who hear the word of God and do it and their physical seed.” His New Covenant family is comprised only of those who hear the word of God and obey it. Infants cannot hear and obey the word of God.
> 
> On several occasions, the Lord emphasized this New Covenant principle which stresses the importance of the spiritual family. In Luke 11:27, Christ was teaching truths that were so profound that one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed.” But the Lord responded, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it” (verse 28). The exact same principle is revealed here as above. Christ is saying in the most emphatic way that blessedness is not based on the ties of the physical family. Notice his words, “On the contrary.” The Lord is downplaying the blessedness of his biological mother in order to draw attention to the greater blessedness of those who are connected to him spiritually. Those who hear the word of God and obey it are esteemed as more blessed than his physical mother. Mary’s blessedness would be rooted far more in her faith than in her merely being the physical mother of our Lord (cf. Luke 1:46-55). I’m sure these were shocking words indeed to this woman.


----------



## CharlieJ

*Grammar/Exegesis Error*

Rob, I just wanted to point out a Greek grammatical error in your post. I don't know if the error was caused by the author or by the way you worded your synopsis, but there is a slight problem. It's nothing that really damages the argument, but it's sloppy nonetheless.



> In the dative case eis/men carries only the meaning, "by means of, with"
> 
> Lk 3:16 John answered them all, I baptize you with (men dative) water...
> Acts 1:5 For John baptized with(men) water...
> Also, Acts 11:16; Mk 1:8; Jn 1:26



First, εις never takes the dative case, only the accusative. I think the author meant εν, and I'm interpreting the slash mark to mean "when εν is used in a μεν clause." Second, μεν is simply a contrastive particle often used in conjunction with δε to show two alternatives (the μεν clause is the first and the δε the second). So, there is no reason at all that μεν would affect the meaning of the preposition. Now, I would agree with the author that in the statements made by John the Baptist (most of the examples), the instrumental sense makes more sense, but it has nothing to do with the presence of μεν. 

For example, in John 11:6 we read τοτε μεν εμεινεν εν ω ην τοπω δυο ημερας, translated woodenly "Then he remained in the place *in* which he was for two days." Also Acts 12:5 - ο μεν ουν Πετρος ετηρειτο εν τη φυλακη. "So Peter was being kept *in* the prison."

Third, some of the examples given don't even match when εις is corrected to εν. Luke 3:16 contains a μεν clause that uses a dative without a governing preposition. The corresponding δε clause uses the εν preposition, and the meaning is presumably parallel, but as I've pointed out, the μεν is irrelevant to determining the semantic value of the case. Acts 1:5 and 11:16 are the same. John 1:26 does not contain a μεν.

So, I'm not making any judgments as to whether you or the author are at fault, but I figured either way, it would be best to let you know so you can clean it up. You've spent so much time on it, I figure you'd want to make it as perfect as you can.


----------



## Iconoclast

Hi Rob,
You asked the following:


> If a baptism is done privately, and in the middle of the night, like Paul did with the Phillippian jailor, is it a legitimate baptism


 Yes, It is done in obediance to Christ, aND OUTWARD AND PUBLIC.



> Neither the 1689 nor the Westminster Standards ever argue that baptism is an "outward confession of an inner reality." Where do you find this teaching?


 I find it in the bible in all the baptism passages- who can forbid water to thses who have received the Holy Spirit as we have?


> Paedo-baptists categorically reject the idea that water baptism is being mentioned in the passages


 Actually I find just the opposite. Col 2 is the main Nt passage used trying to link water baptism to circumsicion.
You are one of the few Padeos I have seen own Romans 6 as speaking of Spirit baptism of the elect and saving union with Christ.
For proof download from sermonaudio all such sermons and make a list of who says what. I think you will see very quickly what i am saying to you.


> Most baptism (if not all these days) are performed privately in a church. How is this considered an outward confession?


 When you sprinkle an infant it is not. But with believers baptism they openly confess faith in Jesus.


> Baptism is not a confession of faith. It is a sacrament of initiation into the New Covenant


 your theology makes you say this- but clearly this is not consistent with what you say you beleve Romans 6 teaches,
ONly Spirit Baptism places anyone in the New Covenant, more later on.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

CharlieJ:

It is probably my miscopying that is the problem. Since I am in Colorado Springs right now - I will have to check on it later.

Puritan Covenanter:

Abraham *believed* God and it was accounted unto him as righteousness. He was of the true spiritual seed of Christ. Yet, God commanded him to give the sign of this spiritual covenant to the children of Abraham. These children could be of the true spiritual Seed of the Covenant - such as Isaac and Jacob. Or, they could not be of the true spiritual Seed of the Covenant - such as Ishmael and Esau. The command to place the sign of the Covenant upon the 8 day old infants was not a matter of their own personal faith - but the faith of the parent.

In the presentation that you made - what do I see?

I see a presentation on the true seed of Abraham. A teaching that only those who actually and truly believe on the Lord Jesus Christ can be counted among the elect. This is a teaching that no Calvinist Presbyterian would ever deny.

In the presentation that you made - what do I not see?

I do not see a command in the New Covenant forbidding the children of the seed of Abraham the sign of the Covenant. I see many commands in the New Covenant that state the ceremonial laws of Moses have been fulfilled, and are now not to be practiced:



> Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: *Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake,* Jer 31:31,32a


The covenant that Jeremiah is talking about is the Mosaic Covenant. This is confirmed by the Apostle Paul in Hebrews 8-10:



> Then Verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary. For there was a tabernacle made, the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the showbread, which is called the sanctuary, Heb 9:1-2


Who can doubt that Paul is talking about the Mosaic Covenant? Especially when one continues to read all the way through chapter 10 of Hebrews? The New Testament has given us clear commands regarding the ceremonial laws of Moses.

The inclusion of the children of the seed of Abraham was not a matter concerning the Mosaic ceremonial laws. It was given to Abraham hundreds of years before Moses was placed in a basket in the Nile river. Where is the clear command in the New Covenant that forbids the children of the seed of Abraham the Covenant sign?

It has always been the teaching of the Old Testament that those who have the same faith as Abraham are accounted among the true seed of Israel. This is especially noteworthy in the life of Ruth (a Moabitess) especially in the light of Deuteronomy 23:3. The faith of Ruth made her of the seed of Abraham, and not that of Moab.

The New Covenant has disanulled many things in the Old Covenant. The New Covenant has also sustained many things in the Old Covenant - like the Ten Commands for example. The Old Covenant teaches the same thing that the New Covenant does in regards to the seed of Abraham. There is no clear command in the New Covenant that denies the children of the seed of Abraham the New Covenant sign.

With that in mind I find the arguments of the credo-baptists excluding children from the New Covenant sign to be lacking. The practice of including children of believers in the Old Covenant has continued into the New Covenant without interruption.

The question might be asked: Where is the clear command to include children in the New Covenant? If the command was given to Abraham in the Old Covenant, and there is no abrogation of it in the New, then the command stands in the New Covenant. We find many helps in the New Testament concerning the families of believers receiving the sign of the Covenant based upon the profession of faith of one, or more, of the parent(s). The passages are so famous that I will simply refer to them by verse number and answer the objections (which seem specious) by the credo-baptist:

Acts 2:38-40 - What about those who are "afar off" asks the credo-baptist? Yes, the promises are given to them that believe and to their children. The context of Peter's statement is proof enough of this.

1 Cor 14:11 - What about the unbelieving spouse should we baptize him/her? Asks the credo-baptist. Yes, the unbelieving spouse is elligable for baptism is he/she wants. The question is concerning the child of a believing parent. If such a child is considered by God to be "holy" or a "saint" then how can you refuse such a child baptism? Covenant theology requires the child of a believing parent to be baptized.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Iconoclast said:


> Hi Rob,
> You asked the following:
> 
> 
> 
> If a baptism is done privately, and in the middle of the night, like Paul did with the Phillippian jailor, is it a legitimate baptism
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, It is done in obediance to Christ, aND OUTWARD AND PUBLIC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither the 1689 nor the Westminster Standards ever argue that baptism is an "outward confession of an inner reality." Where do you find this teaching?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I find it in the bible in all the baptism passages- who can forbid water to thses who have received the Holy Spirit as we have?
> 
> Actually I find just the opposite. Col 2 is the main Nt passage used trying to link water baptism to circumsicion.
> You are one of the few Padeos I have seen own Romans 6 as speaking of Spirit baptism of the elect and saving union with Christ.
> For proof download from sermonaudio all such sermons and make a list of who says what. I think you will see very quickly what i am saying to you.
> 
> 
> 
> Most baptism (if not all these days) are performed privately in a church. How is this considered an outward confession?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you sprinkle an infant it is not. But with believers baptism they openly confess faith in Jesus.
> 
> 
> 
> Baptism is not a confession of faith. It is a sacrament of initiation into the New Covenant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your theology makes you say this- but clearly this is not consistent with what you say you beleve Romans 6 teaches,
> ONly Spirit Baptism places anyone in the New Covenant, more later on.
Click to expand...


Hi:

Being in Colorado I do not have all of my Reformed commentaries with me, but I do have a few:

John Murray on Rom 6:



> ...The sequence of inference seems to be that if we were united with Christ Jesus in his death we must therefore have been buried with him ... The sum of verse 5 is, therefore, that if we have become identified with Christ in his death and if the ethical and Spiritual efficacy accruing from his death pertains to us, the we must also derive from his resurrection the ethical and Spiritual virtue which our being identified with him in his resurrection implies. These implications for us of union with Christ make impossible the inference that we may continue in sin that grace may abound, pgs. 217-219.


It is only by the work of the Spirit of God that water baptism becomes effectual to the true seed of Abraham. If that is what you are reading in the words of the paedo-baptists, then there is nothing wrong with that. As Calvin on Romans 6 points out:



> 3. Know ye not, etc. What he intimated in the last verse — that Christ destroys sin in his people, he proves here by mentioning the effect of baptism, by which we are initiated into his faith; for it is beyond any question, that we put on Christ in baptism, and that we are baptized for this end — that we may be one with him. But Paul takes up another principle — *that we are then really united to the body of Christ, when his death brings forth in us its fruit; yea, he teaches us, that this fellowship as to death is what is to be mainly regarded in baptism; for not washing alone is set forth in it, but also the putting to death and the dying of the old man. It is hence evident, that when we become partakers of the grace of Christ, immediately the efficacy of his death appears.* But the benefit of this fellowship as to the death of Christ is described in what follows ... Farther, it is not to the point to say, that this power is not apparent in all the baptized; for Paul, according to his usual manner, *where he speaks of the faithful, connects the reality and the effect with the outward sign*; for we know that whatever the Lord offers by the visible symbol is confirmed and ratified by their faith.* In short, he teaches what is the real character of baptism when rightly received.* So he testifies to the Galatians, that all who have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. (Galatians 3:27.) Thus indeed must we speak, as long as the institution of the Lord and the faith of the godly unite together; for we never have naked and empty symbols, except when our ingratitude and wickedness hinder the working of divine beneficence.


And, finally, Charles Hodge on Romans 6:



> The reference is not to the mode of baptism, but to its effect. Our baptism unites us to Christ, so that we died with him, and rose with him. As he died to sin, so do we; as he rose to righteousness and glory, so do we. The same doctrine concerning baptism, and of the nature of union with Christ, therein expressed is taught in Gal 3:27, and Col 2:12, pg 195.


Maybe I should have been more concise: The *mode* of water baptism is not being taught in these passages. The *effects* of the baptism by the Spirit is being taught.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

CalvinandHodges said:


> ....The question might be asked: Where is the clear command to include children in the New Covenant? If the command was given to Abraham in the Old Covenant, and there is no abrogation of it in the New, then the command stands in the New Covenant. We find many helps in the New Testament concerning the families of believers receiving the sign of the Covenant based upon the profession of faith of one, or more, of the parent(s). The passages are so famous that I will simply refer to them by verse number and answer the objections (which seem specious) by the credo-baptist:
> 
> Acts 2:38-40 - What about those who are "afar off" asks the credo-baptist? Yes, the promises are given to them that believe and to their children. The context of Peter's statement is proof enough of this.
> 
> 1 Cor 14:11 - What about the unbelieving spouse should we baptize him/her? Asks the credo-baptist. Yes, the unbelieving spouse is elligable for baptism is he/she wants. The question is concerning the child of a believing parent. If such a child is considered by God to be "holy" or a "saint" then how can you refuse such a child baptism? Covenant theology requires the child of a believing parent to be baptized.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> Rob



First off Paul does mention circumcision in the book of Galatians. It has been abrogated. 

It doesn't avail to anything. 


> (Gal 5:6) For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love....
> 
> (Gal 6:15) For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
> 
> (Gal 6:16) And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.



Concerning your comment on Acts you are forgetting to mention that there is a Promise to all. The promise of for the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. It is for all those menitioned in the context that they are called. So yes, the promise is for children if they repent. They may be elect and in Covenant with God and partakers of the promises of the Covenant if they Repent and are baptized. 



> (Act 2:38) Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
> 
> (Act 2:39) For *the promise *is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, as many as the Lord our God shall call.




Concerning your Corinthians passage I have a blog about that here.
Sanctification in 1 Corinthians 7:14 - The PuritanBoard

It answers your question. 


You seem to have missed the main point of the post I presented. Who is the Covenant head of the New Covenant and who are his offspring? 

Christ is the Covenant Head and His Covenant offspring are the elect. His covenant Children are his offspring by his work and regeneration. They are his offspring. They are His Covenant Children. 

Reread the post a bit more carefully. 

Your brother,
Randy


----------



## Herald

> Concerning your comment on Acts you are forgetting to mention that there is a Promise to all. The promise of for the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. It is for all those menitioned in the context that they are called. So yes, the promise is for children if they repent. They may be elect and in Covenant with God and partakers of the promises of the Covenant if they Repent and are baptized.



Randy, point of clarification. The promise of Acts 2:39 has nothing to do with children who come to faith in childhood; or for that matter the age of those who are "far off" when they finally come to faith. The emphasis is on "as many as the Lord shall call to Himself." It is a gross misinterpretation of the text to suggest that Peter was speaking of covenant blessings apart from personal faith in Christ (Randy, not that you were suggesting that). The promise of Acts 2:38, 39 is on the basis of repentance and faith -- in response to the effectual call of God. Any other interpretation collapses under it's own weight.


----------



## Laudante

*Let me see if I´m understanding correctly*

Randy and Bill:

I think that we all -paedos and credos- would perfectly agree that the blessings of the covenant are related with faith and repentance and nothing apart from it. But what the paedos understand is that the covenant consists on electing the children of elect parents, and producing in them, when the proper time arrives (and sometimes even from the beginning) the fruits of that election, that is, faith and repentance, and all the rest: regeneration, sanctification, etc. (Or, from God´s perspective if you prefer, the covenant consists on making elect saints born to elect parents). It could be discussed if this is the true meaning of Acts 2 and other passages -I now tend to believe it is, but not that this is the presbyterian interpretation. Now, you both say that only children who repent and baptize will be saved, and I agree, except when we are talking of children before the age of discernment. Actually, one of the motives that pushed me still more into the paedo side, after being in the oposite position for 15 years, was that I heard a pastor of a Reformed Baptist church telling a 3 year old boy that he would go to hell if he didn´t repent and be baptized by his own decision, even if he died at that age! If we take Isaiah 7 as a prophecy of Christ (and that´s what we should do of course), we know that even He couldn´t discern between good and evil when He was an infant (only because His divine nature so consented, naturally), so asking a three year old boy to discern more than what Christ did at his age sounds like a little too much. And besides, the words of that pastor contradict the LBCF as well (which is probably less consistent with the consequences of the Baptist view than the pastor). I believe more what W. Shedd says (paraphrasing): "For infants dying in the age before discernent, their baptism will be always a sure sign of their regeneration". Yes, it happens that children baptized in infancy backslide when grown up, but also adults baptized after a confession of faith often do so.

When a grown up baptized child comes to have faith and repentace, he is confirming his baptism and thus it becomes as valid as if it was performed after conversion. If he says: "I would baptize now if I weren´t baptized", then he is obeying God´s command just as the one who goes to be baptized. What matters is the disposition of the heart and the objective value of the sign of the covenant before God, not so much the "experience" of the rite. I, for example, was baptized as an adult, and I can tell you that the "experience" of my baptism in itself was far short from mystical. I didn´t "experienced" the death and resurrection of Christ through the rite, but rather through the path of the cross that began some time after the rite. And if someone says that my baptism wasn´t right because I didn´t "feel" anything (maybe due to the fact that I wasn´t prepared enough), then I would have had to baptize once again in each step of my growing process (which will end moments before my death). So confirming one´s baptism when conscious of its meaning, even if made in a moment of little or no conscience at all, is to make it valid. When a baptized child confirms his faith, he is not precisely entering into salvation, but simply confirming that he wants to be where he always was, and viceversa: when he backslides he is not "just" another sinner, but is a member of the church who renounces the privileges he had by birth, making the sign of the covenant applied to him a void sign, which is perhaps the first of the sins in his new chosen path. 

I´m I understanding correctly the doctrine, you paedo guys?

A very interesting (and difficult) issue that the paedos have had always in front is whether to accept the baptism of heretics, if it is made with the trinitarian formula. 

In Christ


----------



## Herald

Ricardo,

I'm not saying that the Acts 2 passage negates the paedo argument. My point is that that it is an exegetical stretch to use that passage to support anything else other than it's plain meaning, which is, the repentance of those whom God has called. It is a soteriological passage. If I were a paedo I would not point to this passage as a proof-text.


----------



## Laudante

Bill: 

To make sure I´m understanding your point:

Would you paraphrase Peter´s words as: "If you repent and are baptized, then you would be saved, and the promise is that everyone who does this same thing, for example your children and those that are affar off, will be equally saved like you"?

Just asking in order to understand better what you mean by a "soteriological" passage.

Thank you.


----------



## Herald

Ricardo,

Here is the passage:



> Acts 2:38-39 38 And Peter said to them, "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 "For the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself."


While faith is never mentioned by name, we know that it is indispensable from repentance. We also know that water baptism does not save, but the passage is saying to be baptized by water, independent from spiritual baptism, which is implied at the end of verse 38, "receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." In this case baptism would be the first step of obedience after believing the Gospel. The "promise" of verse 39, is two fold: 1. the forgiveness of sins ~and~ 2. the gift of the Holy Spirit. This promise cannot possibly be separated from repentance and faith; two things that require cognition. Therefore, the promise is for those who display repentance. These are the same as those that the Lord calls to Himself in verse 39.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Greetings men:

I assume that since you are not commenting on the OP, that you are then in full agreement with it?

Have you forgotten that there is no Biblical evidence for dipping in the whole Bible? That the very Greek word which specifically means _bapto_"to dip" is never used by the Holy Spirit to indicate baptism?

I mean no offense on this, but if you can only answer part of the presentation, then you have not answered paedo-baptism.

Randy:

Circumcision as it is a physical rite in the Church has been abrogated, but what circumcision meant has not been abrogated:

*For he is not a Jew which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.*

Are you going to deny this very truth of the Scriptures - a truth which was taught in the Old Testament?

Romans 4:11 completly contradicts the credo-baptist position:

*And he (Abraham) received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also.*

Ph 3:3 puts this beyond doubt:

*For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.*

When Paul talks negatively about circumcision he is speaking about the physical rite which can do nothing to regenerate the soul. When he is talking positively about circumcision he is speaking about the Spirit of God circumcising the heart:

*In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ, Col 2:11.*

If you, Randy, or anyone here, is not circumcised by the circumcision made without hands, then you are not a true believer in Christ. What is the circumcision made without hands but the Spirit of God regenerating the heart.

But the physical rite of circumcision was not given only to those who believe (like Abraham), but also to the children of Abraham 8 days old.

In the same fashion the rite of water baptism does not avail anyone unless it is united to baptism by the Spirit of God:

*Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, Acts 11:16.*

The New Covenant has changed the *rite* of entrance into the Church of God, *but it has not changed the meaning nor the recipients of it.* You will have to do better than simply pointing out that faith is necessary for the rite of water baptism to be effective.

You will have to provide a clear command from the Scriptures that the children of believers are not to be given water baptism.

Acts 2:38,39 - you are not looking at the pronouns correctly:

Peter said to *them* - "them" refers to the crowd that he is currently addressing:

The *promise* is to *you*, and to *your* children...

The word "you" in verse 39 refers to "them" in verse 38, so, then, what do we do with the word "your" that preceed the word "children" here? Does the word "your" refer to the children of those who respond positively to the Gospel call? We find Peter speaking to the Jews concerning the faith of Abraham, and we could paraphrase it this way:

*For the promise is to Abraham, and to the children of Abraham, and to those who are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.*

As the promises were given to Abraham when he believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness, and these promises were mediated to his infant children. Therefore, the promises are given to all who believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and these promises are mediated to the children of believers both near and afar off.

Abraham had to believe God *before* he was given the Covenant sign of circumcision, and his children (both elect and reprobate) were also given the sign of the Covenant.

You have to believe God *before* you are given the Covenant sign of baptism, and your children (both elect and reprobate) are also given the sign of the Covenant as well.

*If all Peter meant was that one had to believe the promises in order to receive baptism, then adding the phrase "your children" would make no sense. Because, "your children" would either be included in "you" or in "all who are afar off."*

1 Corinthians 7:14

The point that Paul is making here is the status of a believer's child in a mixed marriage. The unbelieving spouse is "sanctified" by the believer "else were your children unclean, but now they are holy."

I have read the blog post, but I do not see anything in Mr. Conner's argument that would forbid either the unbelieving spouse or the child water baptism. Here are some points concerning his statement:

1) He notes that there are two different Greek words to describe the unbeliving spouse (hengiastai), and the child of a believer (hagia). I am not sure that Strong's here is helpful (my Greek notes are back in Pittsburgh), but he does note that they are two different words. He identifies (hengiastai) as #37 (hagiazo) probably in a plural aorist tense, and deriving the meaning as "to make holy." (that would be consistent in an aorist tense). The word concerning the child is #40 (hagia) which means "to be holy." The differences in the meanings are obvious. If Paul wanted to refer to the unbelieving spouse *in the same fashion* as the child, then there is no rule in Greek for him to use two different words. In fact, since word order is not important in Greek, it would demand Paul to use one word to mean the same thing - if that was what he meant to write.

The difference is clear even in the English: "sanctified" means "to make holy" while "holy" means that one is holy.

Mr. Conner does not see that Paul is using two different words to describe two different people, and, thus, they should be treated differently:



> And why do some insist on calling the children "saints" (holy ones), but not the unbelieving parent? Since both are made holy by the believer, to make one a holy covenant member and not he other, and to baptise one and not he other is an inconsistency which renders this view point completely unacceptable.


We insist on it because the Bible insists upon it. Since we are to baptize disciples, and if an unbelieving spouse desires to be baptized (if he/she has never been baptized), then I would explain very carefully what the rite means, and so baptize him/her if he/she so desires.

2) Matthew Poole, writing in the 1600's, addresses this argument well:



> I rather think it signifies, brought into such a state, that the believer, without offence to the law of God, may continue in a married estate with such a yoke-fellow (unbeliever); and the state of marriage is a holy state, notwithstanding the disparity with reference to religion. _Else were your children unclean;_ otherwise he saith, the children begotten and born of such parents would be unclean, in the same state that the children of pagan parents are without the church, not within the covenant, not under the promise. In one sense all children are unclean i.e. children of wrath, born in sin, and brough forth in iniquity; but all are not in this sense unclean, some are within the covenant of grace, within the church, capable of baptism. _But now are they holy_ these are those that are called _holy_ not as inwardly renewed and sanctified, but relatively, in the same sense that all the Jewish nation are called _a holy people_ and possibly this may give us a further light to understand the term _sanctified_ in the former part of the verse. The unbelieveing husband is so far sanctified by the believing wife, and the unbelieving wife so far sanctified by the believing husband, that as they may lawfully continue in their married relation, and live together as man and wife, so the issue coming from them both shall be by God counted in covenant with him, and have a right to baptism, which is one of the seals of that covenant, as well as those children both whose parents are believers.


Jesus Christ is the Covenant Head of the Church. That does not disanull that families have covenant heads as well:

For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body, Ep 5:23.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Herald

> I assume that since you are not commenting on the OP, that you are then in full agreement with it?


Robert, no. I just got caught up in a rabbit trail. Sorry about that. I return the thread to it's rightful owner and exit stage left.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Herald said:


> I assume that since you are not commenting on the OP, that you are then in full agreement with it?
> 
> 
> 
> Robert, no. I just got caught up in a rabbit trail. Sorry about that. I return the thread to it's rightful owner and exit stage left.
Click to expand...


I would be interested in reading your objections to the OP.

Blessings brother!

Rob


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Rob,

If I am not mistaken you know full well what I think of circumcision of the heart as we have discussed Colossians 2:11,12 on this board many times in relation to baptism. 

I have a few blogs about it. 

An Exegetical Appraisal of Colossians 2:11-12 - The PuritanBoard

And you still are not addressing the Covenant Children of Christ. 

We have discussed the the Abrahamic Covenant and that it has two sides of it with promises, blessings, and cursing. It has a civil as well as spiritual side. And the sign in Romans 4 placed as a seal was a testimony of Abraham's faith and belief in those promises both civil and spiritual, Isaac and Ismael. In the case of Ishmael they were civil promises made to Abraham and not spiritual. The New Covenant in Christ is not civil but spiritual. His children are born from above and in the Everlasting Covenant which Esau was not included in the promises made to Abraham as his Covenant Head. All who are in union with Christ are in the Eternal Covenant of Grace. That wasn't so for the Abrahamic Covenant nor the Mosaic. 

As for 1 Corinthians and the languages I will leave you with Gill to comtemplate.



> 1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife,.... That is, "by the believing wife"; as the Vulgate Latin and Syriac versions read, and so it is read in some copies; and likewise in the next clause the same is read,
> 
> by the believing husband; this is a reason given by the apostle why they should live together. This cannot be understood of internal sanctification, which is never the case; an unbeliever cannot be sanctified by a believer in this sense, for such a sanctification is only by the Spirit of God; nor external sanctification, or an outward reformation, which though the unbelieving yoke fellow may sometimes be a means of, yet not always; and besides, the usefulness of one to another in such a relation, in a spiritual sense, urged as a reason for living together, in 1Co_7:16 nor merely of the holiness of marriage, as it is an institution of God, which is equally the same in unbelievers as believers, or between a believer and an unbeliever, as between two believers; but of the very act of marriage, which, in the language of the Jews, is expressed by being "sanctified"; instances almost without number might be given of the use of the word קדש, in this sense, out of the Misnic, Talmudic, and Rabbinic writings; take the following one instead of a thousand that might be produced (s).
> 
> "The man מקדש, "sanctifies", or espouses a wife by himself, or by his messenger; the woman מתקדש, "is sanctified", or espoused by herself, or by her messenger. The man מקדש, "sanctifies", or espouses his daughter, when she is a young woman, by himself or by his messenger; if anyone says to a woman, התקדשי, "be thou sanctified", or espoused to me by this date (the fruit of the palm tree,) התקדשי, "be thou sanctified", or espoused to me by this (any other thing); if there is anyone of these things the value of a farthing, מקודשת, "she is sanctified", or espoused, and if not she is not מקודשת, "sanctified", or "espoused"; if he says, by this, and by this, and by this, if there is the value of a farthing in them all, מקודשת, "she is sanctified", or espoused; but if not, she is not מקודשת, "sanctified", or espoused; if she eats one after another, she is not מקודשת, "sanctified", or espoused, unless there is one of them the value of a farthing;''
> 
> in which short passage, the word which is used to "sanctify", or be "sanctified", in the Hebrew language, is used to espouse, or be espoused no less than "ten" times. So the Jews (t) interpret the word "sanctified", in Job_1:5 he espoused to them wives; in the Misna, the oral law of the Jews, there is a whole treatise of קידושין "sanctifications" (u), or espousals; and in the Gemara or Talmud (w) is another, full of the disputes of the doctors on this subject. Maimonides has also written a treatise of women and wives (x), out of which might be produced almost innumerable instances in proof of the observation; and such as can read, and have leisure to read the said tracts, may satisfy themselves to their heart's content. Let it be further observed; that the preposition εν, which is in most versions rendered "by", should be rendered "in" or "to" or "unto", as it is in the next verse, and in many other places; see Mat_17:12 Col_1:23 if it be rendered in the former way, "in", it denotes the near union which by marriage the man and woman are brought into; if in the latter, it designs the object to which the man or woman is espoused, and the true sense and even the right rendering of the passage is this: "for the unbelieving husband is espoused to the wife, and the unbelieving wife is espoused to the husband"; they are duly, rightly, and legally espoused to each other; and therefore ought not, notwithstanding their different sentiments of religion, to separate from one another; otherwise, if this is not the case, if they are not truly married to one another, this consequence must necessarily follow; that the children born in such a state of cohabitation, where the marriage is not valid, must be spurious, and not legitimate, and which is the sense of the following words:
> 
> else were your children unclean, but now are they holy; that is, if the marriage contracted between them in their state of infidelity was not valid, and, since the conversion of one of them, can never be thought to be good; then the children begotten and born, either when both were infidels, or since one of them was converted, must be unlawfully begotten, be base born, and not a genuine legitimate offspring; and departure upon such a foot would be declaring to all the world that their children were illegitimate; which would have been a sad case indeed, and contains in it another reason why they ought to keep together; whereas, as the apostle has put it, the children are holy in the same sense as their parents are; that as they are sanctified, or lawfully espoused together, so the children born of them were in a civil and legal sense holy, that is, legitimate; wherefore to support the validity of their marriage, and for the credit of their children, it was absolutely necessary they should abide with one another. The learned Dr. Lightfoot says, that the words "unclean" and "holy" denote not children unlawfully begotten, and lawfully begotten; but Heathenism and Christianism; and thinks the apostle alludes to the distinction often made by the Jews, of the children of proselytes being born in "holiness", or out of it, that is, either before they became proselytes or after; but it should be observed, that though the word "holiness" is used for Judaism, yet not for Christianity; and besides, the marriages of Heathens were not looked upon as marriages by the Jews, and particularly such mixed ones as of a Jew and Gentile, they were not to be reckoned marriages; for so they say (y),
> 
> "he that espouses a Gentile woman, or a servant, אינן קידושין, "they are not espousals"; but lo, he is after the espousals as he was before the espousals; and so a Gentile, or a servant, that espouses a daughter of Israel, אין קידושיהן קידושין, "those espousals are no espousals";''
> 
> nor do they allow children begotten of such persons to be legitimate. This learned writer himself owns such a tradition, and which he cites (z),
> 
> "that a son begotten in uncleanness is a son in all respects, and in general is reckoned as an Israelite, though he is a bastard, הבן מן הגויה אינו בנו, "but a son begotten on a Gentile woman is not his son";''
> 
> all which are just the reverse of what the apostle is here observing; and who, it must be remarked, is speaking of the same sort of holiness of children as of parents, which cannot be understood of Christianity, because one of the parents in each is supposed to be an Heathen. The sense I have given of this passage, is agreeable to the mind of several interpreters, ancient and modern, as Jerom, Ambrose, Erasmus, Camerarius, Musculus, &c. which last writer makes this ingenuous confession; formerly, says he, I have abused this place against the Anabaptists, thinking the meaning was, that the children were holy for the parents' faith; which though true, the present place makes nothing for the purpose: and I hope, that, upon reading this, everyone that has abused it to such a purpose will make the like acknowledgment; I am sure they ought.
> 
> (s) Misn. Kiddushin, c. 2. sect. 1. (t) Vajikra Rabba, sect. 7. fol. 152. 1. (u) Massech. Kiddushin. (w) T. Bab. & Hieros. Kiddushin. (x) Hilch Ishot. c. 3. & 4. & 5. & 6. & 7. & 8. & 9. (y) Maimon. Hilch. Ishot, c. 4. sect. 15. (z) Maimon. Hilch. Issure Bia, c. 12. sect. 7. Vid. Ib. Hilch. Nechalat, c. 2. sect. 12.





CalvinandHodges said:


> You will have to provide a clear command from the Scriptures that the children of believers are not to be given water baptism.



Concerning a forbidding of infant baptism due to the issue that it is not mentioned as forbidden, I would refer you to examine Gospel Worship by Jeremiah Burroughs. Your argument of "the Scriptures there is no clear command from the Scriptures that the children of believers are not to be given water baptism, falls completely short by his discussion of Aaron's two sons when God took them for adding something to Woship that he commanded. 



> *Question.*What was there sin?
> *Answer.* Their sin was offering strange fire, for the text says that they offered strange fire which God had not commanded them. But had God ever forbidden it? Where do we find that God had ever forbidden them to offer strange fire, or appointed that they should offer only one kind of fire? There is no text of Scripture that you can find from the beginning of Genesis to this place where God had said in so many words expressly, "You shall offer no fire but one kind of fire." And yet here they are consumed by fire from God for offering strange fire.
> 
> Gospel Worship
> Jeremiah Burroughs
> pp. 8,9 Introduction



I do not see that the mode tears any argument down concerning who should be baptized. I also do not think that circumcision and baptism are identical signs. They are different Covenant signs. 

They both might represent life and death but one also signifies the death burial and resurrection of Christ and being place in union with him by faith which is preceded by the circumcision made without hands. One precedes the other as Rich Barcellos points out in his exegetical article on Colossians 2:11,12. 

Also here is Nehemiah Coxe on Circumcision and baptism.

Does Baptism Replace Circumcision? - The PuritanBoard


CalvinandHodges said:


> We find Peter speaking to the Jews concerning the faith of Abraham, and we could paraphrase it this way:
> 
> For the promise is to Abraham, and to the children of Abraham, and to those who are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.



If you want me to address the Acts passage more I will later. I find your answer falling short. I believe you are adding to the word of God with your paraphrase. Sorry if that bothers you but that is how I understand it. And yes, I know that places you in a bad situation if you are. It also places me in a bad situation if I am not seeing it correctly.


----------



## Herald

CalvinandHodges said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I assume that since you are not commenting on the OP, that you are then in full agreement with it?
> 
> 
> 
> Robert, no. I just got caught up in a rabbit trail. Sorry about that. I return the thread to it's rightful owner and exit stage left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would be interested in reading your objections to the OP.
> 
> Blessings brother!
> 
> Rob
Click to expand...


Robert,

I'm on my iPhone, so I can't do justice to the entirety of your OP. I will share some thoughts on your criticism of a credo defense solely predicated on the use of baptizo. In my humble opinion it is a weak argument to defend credo baptism based solely on mode. Confessional Baptists in general, and Reformed Baptists specifically, base their credo position on the spiritual aspect of the Abrahamic Covenant and its maturation under the New Covenant. In short, credo baptism is best defended within a covenantal context rather than an etymological context. Time doesn't allow me the luxury of unpacking the big picture, but better men than I (Connor, Malone, and Waldron) have written extensively on it.

Blessings.


----------



## Herald

P.S. Don't underestimate the credo position; thinking that it rises or stands based on mode. While Baptists believe mode is clearly taught in scripture, it is notthe impetus or foundation for credo baptism. As I said in my previous post, credo baptism is covenantally based.


----------



## Iconoclast

Rob, 
I just got online tonight here in central nebraska. Thanks for posting these three quotes as I also do not have access to my commentaries.
Lets look at what you posted,then I would like to show you what I have been speaking about in this thread.


> Hi:
> 
> Being in Colorado I do not have all of my Reformed commentaries with me, but I do have a few:
> 
> John Murray on Rom 6:
> 
> 
> Quote:
> ...The sequence of inference seems to be that if we were united with Christ Jesus in his death we must therefore have been buried with him ... The sum of verse 5 is, therefore, that if we have become identified with Christ in his death and if the ethical and Spiritual efficacy accruing from his death pertains to us, the we must also derive from his resurrection the ethical and Spiritual virtue which our being identified with him in his resurrection implies. These implications for us of union with Christ make impossible the inference that we may continue in sin that grace may abound, pgs. 217-219.
> 
> It is only by the work of the Spirit of God that water baptism becomes effectual to the true seed of Abraham. If that is what you are reading in the words of the paedo-baptists, then there is nothing wrong with that. As Calvin on Romans 6 points out:
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 3. Know ye not, etc. What he intimated in the last verse — that Christ destroys sin in his people,
> 
> 
> 
> he proves here by mentioning the effect of baptism, by which we are initiated into his faith; for it is beyond any question, that we put on Christ in baptism,
> 
> 
> 
> and that we are baptized for this end — that we may be one with him. But Paul takes up another principle — that we are then really united to the body of Christ, when his death brings forth in us its fruit; yea, he teaches us, that this fellowship as to death is what is to be mainly regarded in baptism; for not washing alone is set forth in it, but also the putting to death and the dying of the old man. It is hence evident, that when we become partakers of the grace of Christ, immediately the efficacy of his death appears. But the benefit of this fellowship as to the death of Christ is described in what follows ... Farther, it is not to the point to say, that this power is not apparent in all the baptized; for Paul, according to his usual manner, where he speaks of the faithful, connects the reality and the effect with the outward sign; for we know that whatever the Lord offers by the visible symbol is confirmed and ratified by their faith. In short, he teaches what is the real character of baptism when rightly received. So he testifies to the Galatians, that all who have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. (Galatians 3:27.) Thus indeed must we speak, as long as the institution of the Lord and the faith of the godly unite together; for we never have naked and empty symbols, except when our ingratitude and wickedness hinder the working of divine beneficence.
> 
> And, finally, Charles Hodge on Romans 6:
> 
> 
> Quote:
> The reference is not to the mode of baptism, but to its effect. Our baptism unites us to Christ, so that we died with him, and rose with him. As he died to sin, so do we; as he rose to righteousness and glory, so do we. The same doctrine concerning baptism, and of the nature of union with Christ, therein expressed is taught in Gal 3:27, and Col 2:12, pg 195.
Click to expand...

 
Rob, I thought we agreed that water baptism was not in view in Romans 6, yet these three men speak of it in these portions you post!

Calvin , in part says this- 


> he proves here by mentioning the effect of baptism, by which we are initiated into his faith; for it is beyond any question, that we put on Christ in baptism,


Rob he is speaking of water baptism;
1] the effect of water baptism,* by which we are initiated into his faith*
2] then he ascerts- "for it is beyond any question" that we *put on Christ in baptism*
Rob- this is exactly what I am talking about. We do not put on anything. The Spirit of God places us in Union with Christ, savingly.

He goes on to say this:


> and that we are baptized for this end — that we may be one with him.


 That we may? Maybe one day? Where in Romans 6 does it suggest "that we may"? It is actual, not potential in Romans 6, or the passage makes no sense. You cannot mortify sin in the power of the flesh, chapters 7 and 8 are going to explain this.
I have been given to understand that the language used here is Indicitives[who we are in Christ] followed by imperitives[ in light of who we are in Christ,now live accordingly] Am I mistaken with this?

Look at Calvins words in this section you posted;


> that when we become partakers of the grace of Christ, immediately the efficacy of his death appears



Paul is not saying when, at some future time. He is saying all who are justified as in 5:1-21 are *in*that condition already.

This is where the padeo position jumps back and forth and hides behind the language of- sign and thing signified.

The credo position accepts the language as it is.

Hodge is also speaking of water baptism. If you look back at our interaction I think you will see what I am pointing out. If you are home for another week, download some padeo sermons on this and see if what i said is not so.
Everyone sounds like those men in Acts 19, John's disciples- we have not even heard if there be any Holy Spirit.
Now when pressed for and explanation they of course will give the proper biblical response ,that of course the Spirit is essential here, but more often then not, they speak of water first.
Then go off on outward administration/visible church explanations. they have to, or they would be credos. 
Your answers to me earlier in the thread, do not seem consistent with these three quotes you offered. I have mostly Padeo commentaries in my Library, so I have read these things before and have learned to translate them into credo-eze Through the posts of many padeos in here I can see how they come to what they do logically. the system works, I am not sure it is the biblical pattern I see in the NT.
I do not see where we in the NT. get to go back and be OT.saints in effect.
There is a continuity-and yet a discontinuity from OTto Nt.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Greetings:

It looks like I am a little behind here. 

Randy:

I happened to have my copy of Gospel Worship by Burroughs, and so I was able to read what he wrote. You left out a significant portion at the end of your quotation:



> ... And so it may seem to have a reference to that Scripture in Exodus 29:43. There we have a Scripture which comes asnear to it as any I know of, "_there I will meet with the children of Israel, and the tabernacle shall be sanctified by My glory._" That's as much as saying, "I will be sanctified by those that come near Me." In those that come to worship Me in My tabernacle, I will be sanctified in all things that concern My worship. I will be sure to be sanctified there, Burroughs, Gospel Worship, pg. 6.


Burroughs has satisfied himself that the sons of Aaron should have known better based on Ex 29:43. Moses' answer to Aaron satisfied Aaron. Thus, it is clear that Aaron was aware that his son's performed an unlawful deed.

On page 13 Burroughs begins an explication of the Regulative Principle of Worship:



> The first note is this: That in God's worship there must be nothing tendered up to God but what He has commanded. Whatsoever we meddle with in the worship of God must be what we have a warrant for out of the Word of God.


There are matters indifferent concerning the Worship of God that are to be regulated by the prudence of men within the context of the general principles of Scripture - such as where, what time, and how long worship should last. But the Sacraments of the Lord do not fall within such bounds.

As far as Gill is concerned:

I do not see how the sanctification of a marriage between a believer and an unbeliever in any way, shape, or form blocks the baptism of the child in such a marriage. I believe that is the very point that Paul is responding to: What is the status of a child in a mixed marriage? The answer that he gives is that they are holy or saints.

You wrote:



> I do not see that the mode tears any argument down concerning who should be baptized. I also do not think that circumcision and baptism are identical signs. They are different Covenant signs.


I do not believe that circumcision and baptism are identical signs either. I do believe that they both point to the same spiritual meaning - the circumcision of the heart, or, the baptism of the Spirit. Circumcision of the heart was performed by the Spirit of God: That was Paul's clear meaning in Romans 2:29. Baptism of the Spirit is performed by the Spirit of God as well: That is Paul's clear meaning in Romans 6.

Though the outward signs are different - the spiritual meaning of both is equivalent.

I just read Nehemiah Cox' arguments on the blog you provided, thanks!

He is wrong in saying that "Circumcision was an ordinance of the old covenant and pertained to the law and therefore directly bound its subjects to a legal obedience."

Circumcision was given to Abraham almost 600 years before the Covenant of Moses. It was given *after* Abraham professed faith in Jesus Christ. Thus, during Old Testament times, it was an ordinance of the Gospel intended to convey to the Jews that their hearts needed to be circumcised, Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4.

Since I mentioned that I was paraphrasing the the Acts 2 passage I do not have any fear concerning the way I did so. As God knows I was trying to illustrate a point:

Abraham believed God, therefore, the believer was given the covenant sign as well as his children.

You (when you come to faith in Christ) are given the covenant sign as well as your covenant children:

The promise is to you (believers) and to your children (the children of believers) and to all who are afar off (believers and their children) as many as the Lord God shall call (all those who hear the Gospel call that Peter just gave as well as their children).

I think I have answered your post. If I missed something, then let me know.

Iconoclast:



> Rob, I thought we agreed that water baptism was not in view in Romans 6, yet these three men speak of it in these portions you post!



Water Baptism is not in view in these passages. What these learned men are saying is that Spirit Baptism makes Water Baptism legitimate. If one is not Baptized by the Spirit of God, then you can pour water on that person all day long, and it will not cleanse the soul.

Water Baptism *when it is united with Spirit Baptism*. That is what Hodge is saying:

_The reference is not to the mode of baptism (the rite of water baptism) but to its effect. Our baptism unites us to Christ..._

The Sacrament is a physical sign of the work of the Spirit of God uniting us to Jesus Christ. It only becomes effective when it is confirmed by our Spiritual Baptism (being born again, or, having our hearts circumcised).

The very point that these men are making is that only when the Spirit of God unites us to Christ, then does our water baptism become effective.

On this you have misread Calvin as well:



> 3. Know ye not, etc. What he intimated in the last verse — that Christ destroys sin in his people, he proves here by mentioning the effect of baptism, by which we are initiated into his faith; for it is beyond any question, that we put on Christ in baptism, and that we are baptized for this end — that we may be one with him.


Christ destroys sin in his people - Calvin writes - this starts at what water baptism symbolizes - union with Christ. What Calvin means by "the effect of baptism" is Spirit Baptism - which is only given to his people. When Spirit Baptism is given to the elect, then Water Baptism becomes legitimate.

I will have to look at the Greek when I get back to Pittsburgh, sorry. 

The problem with the credo position here is that this is the major verse that you use to defend your *mode* of Baptism. Romans 6 is not talking about the mode of Baptism - it is talking about the effects of Baptism which is union with Christ. From this effect water Baptism becomes legitimate, but there is no mention in Romans 6 of water Baptism.

From the credo position it has to refer to water baptism because that is where you get your dipping theology: "buried with him in baptism..."

I will point you to the middle part of post #21 in answer to the credo assertion that Water baptism is mentioned here.

Since you and I both agree that water baptism is not mentioned here, then how does this prove the mode of baptism as dipping?

1) Especially when Christ died on the cross - if we are "baptized into his death" then how does dipping illustrate his death on the cross?

2) Especially when Christ was not buried in a hole in the ground - if we are "buried with him in baptism" then how does dipping illustrate Christ being placed in a cave.

I submit to you that the Romans 6 and Colossians passages do not teach that water baptism represents to us the "death, burial, and resurrection" of Jesus Christ, but is teaching us that we need to be united, immersed, (_baptidzo_) to Jesus Christ.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Laudante

Thank you, Rob. 

I still don´t have the "thank" button! 

I´m understanding more and more clearly the paedo position, and I like it! 

I still believe that you underestimate a little the arguments of the credo, especially those about the mode. It´s not only Rom. 6 in which it is based. My first post here showed another way to point (I´m not saying definitely prove) to immersion as a posibility, based on the verb louo. 

At the end, I reduce the strongholds of credo-baptism to the civil issue which seems to be the main difference between both economies. The privileges of the new covenant are more directly related with personal faith than the benefits and privileges of the Mosaic covenant (though not necessarily the Abrahamic). The land, the civil justice benefits, the general economic welfare and military victories of the people of God applied then to all equally, believers and unbelievers, while in the NC it seems more like the benefits of it apply only to those on the faith, and it seems like the NT church is intended to be more "pure", like an assembly of saved men only. And yes, the church is not the tares and wheats field. It is the WORLD in the parable. The church is "the children of the kingdom". However, I have recently understood that the supposed difference between the church under the old economy and that under the new is merely an illusion, because in theory also Israel should be a perfectly pure and spiritual people like the NT church, and that´s why after commanding the execution of transgressors of the law, we are told that this is how "evil should be cast out from Israel". The circumcised children were expected to have faith, and the fact that a majority of them usually failed in this has nothing to do with a "failure" in the rite. The rite should be applied to all anyway, because it represented what Israel should have been, and not what she actually was. The same in the Christian Church. Infant baptism represents what the Church should be, not what she sometimes comes to be. And certainly what she should be is a covenant institution in which saved parents and their holy offspring enjoy the privileges thereof, until the lack of faith of any of these persons of the covenant makes necessary to remove their "citizenship" and take the "evil out of Israel", not by execution as in the old times, but by excomunication. 

Thanks


----------



## A.J.

Como esta, hermano? 

Just a quick comment. I disagree with your assertion here. 



Laudante said:


> *The land*, the civil justice benefits, the general economic welfare and military victories of the people of God *applied then to all equally, believers and unbelievers*, while in the NC it seems more like the benefits of it apply only to those on the faith, and it seems like the NT church is intended to be more "pure", like an assembly of saved men only.



It's not the case that the land applied to all of God's people equally whether believer or not. God Himself said that the the unbelieving inhabitants of the land (which Israel was to possess) were spewed out of the land because they had defiled it, and God would do to the Israelites just as He did to the unbelieving people of the land if His people would defile the same (Lev. 18:24; Num. 35:34). He warned the Israelites that they would surely perish in the land which they were entering to possess and that He would wipe them off the face of the earth if they would worship other gods and serve them (Deut. 5:32ff., 6:13-15, 8:19-20, 11:16-17, 28:15ff.). Paul explains that God destroyed most of His people in the wilderness (i.e., the first generation of the Israelites who came out of Egypt) because of their idolatry, sexual immorality and grumbling (1 Cor. 10:1ff). In fact, according to the author of Hebrews, the first generation (except Joshua and Caleb) did not enter the land (at all!) because of unbelief (Heb. 3). God's wrath upon the iniquity of His people and His punishment against them were also made manifest during the days of the judges, the kings and the prophets. Note for instance the story of the exile. 

The NT writers are clear that these happened as examples to us so that we may not imitate their [the Israelites'] example of disobedience and apostasy (1 Cor. 10:6). From the beginning, God has demanded repentance and faith, and obedience from His people (Deut. 10:16, 30:6).

Heb. 4:1-2 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. *For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them*: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.​
And besides, the land promise ultimately looked forward to the redeemed kosmos (Rom. 4:13). The patriarch Abraham looked for a city that foundations whose builder and architect is God (Heb. 11:8-16). Paul as well notes that Christ is ultimately the seed of Abraham and therefore those who are in Christ whether Jew or Gentile are the true heirs of the _Abrahamic_ promise (Gal. 3:16, 29). Believers are the true seed of Abraham. 

You need one more post, and the "thanks" button will appear. 

Blessings!


----------



## Laudante

Dear Albert:

You are completely right, and actually that is exactly what I intended to say. In the quote you take from me it really seems like I´m saying the contrary, but later I say that this is an illusion. Let me try to explain myself better this time.

What I was saying is that the classic credo-baptist argument (in which I believed for many years, until very recently), finds a difference between the Old and the New covenants in the points I mention, but I recently understood that this was a mere illusion, and the reasons I give, which you helped me expand (thank you), are that also in the Old dispensation Israel was suposed to be a body of believers and that those who failed were to be cast out, just like the church under the new dispensation. So our disagreement is also an illusion, probably caused by poor expression on my part. But nevertheless it is there in my last comment the key of my real intention. Let me quote myself:



> However, I have recently understood that the supposed difference between the church under the old economy and that under the new is merely an illusion, because in theory also Israel should be a perfectly pure and spiritual people like the NT church, and that´s why after commanding the execution of transgressors of the law, we are told that this is how "evil should be cast out from Israel".



You see? I´m saying the same that you, but in a poorer form.

Gracias


----------



## refbaptdude

A review of the book mentioned in the original post can be found at: 

What About Baptism? Martin Marprelate


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I believe my address to you concerning the Burrough's quote sufficiently addressed your question below. I do not see that your addition helped your argument in anyway as we differ on what baptism and circumcision mean and signify. I will explain more and repeat myself probably. 



CalvinandHodges said:


> You will have to provide a clear command from the Scriptures that the children of believers are not to be given water baptism.



I still believe the Jeremiah Burrough's quote sufficiently answered this. Specifically. 

I will have to note that I do not see a clear command in scripture to baptize children either. And I do not see that the two (baptism and circumcision) represent the same things as I have noted earlier. Two different Covenants. Two different Covenant heads. One is set up with promises concerning the seed and posterity. The Abrahamic is fulfilled in Christ (the seed). There are also different Covenant Children as I noted before. The first sign is a sign and seal of the righteousness of Abraham in his believing God, not necessarily the same for everyone of his physical posterity. That sign and seal had promises both with the elect and those who were not elect descendants of Abraham. Those promises were civil as well as spriitual and not necessarily interralated. We see that in Genesis 17 when we look at both Isaac and Ishmael. Ishmael was never included in the Everlasting Covenant of Grace. The second (Baptism) is a sign of being in Union with Christ. It is His spiritual children who are the focus in this Covenant. He is the Covenant head and it is His children who are participants of the sign signifying their Union in His death burial and resurrection *through the faith* of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.




> (Col 2:12) Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.





CalvinandHodges said:


> As far as Gill is concerned:
> 
> I do not see how the sanctification of a marriage between a believer and an unbeliever in any way, shape, or form blocks the baptism of the child in such a marriage. I believe that is the very point that Paul is responding to: What is the status of a child in a mixed marriage? The answer that he gives is that they are holy or saints.



So you believe that the unelect can be referred to as holy or saints in the same way that believers are? I have noted that. At least that is how I am understanding you. And we will definitely disagree on this point. I do not believe that God considers reprobates to be saints or holy in the same way that a believer is considered to be sanctified and holy. They are not. 

I believe that Paul is responding to the sanctity of the Marriage in 1 Corinthians 7 and pointing out that the marriage is right even if there are unbelievers in it and because it is right the spousal relations are considered to be right as well as the relationship with the children in contrast to the Old Covenant where God told the Isrealites to put away their foreign wives and children. God considers the relationships to be clean and the marriage sanctified as where in the old they were not clean or considered to be right. (See reference to Ezra 9 and 10:2,3)



> (Ezr 10:2) And Shechaniah the son of Jehiel, one of the sons of Elam, answered and said unto Ezra, We have trespassed against our God, and have taken strange wives of the people of the land: yet now there is hope in Israel concerning this thing.
> 
> (Ezr 10:3) Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law.



The unbelieving are not sanctified as a believer is in his union with Christ as baptism signifies. This passage is clearly not indicating that nor implying it. This passage is an indication that marriage is considered sanctified by God even if it is made up between a believer and an unbeliever. There is no mention of union with Christ or baptism in this passage. In fact I believe the opposite is true. There is encouragement for the believer to seek for the unbeliever's coming to Christ. There is a pronouncement of something considered to be clean and right in the eyes of the Lord just like Peter taking and eating unclean meat in his housetop experience. The New Covenant is different than the old in some respects. This is true concerning marriage and ceremonial laws. What was once an unclean practice is now considered to be clean or sanctified by God. 




CalvinandHodges said:


> You wrote:
> 
> 
> I do not believe that circumcision and baptism are identical signs either. I do believe that they both point to the same spiritual meaning - the circumcision of the heart, or, the baptism of the Spirit. Circumcision of the heart was performed by the Spirit of God: That was Paul's clear meaning in Romans 2:29. Baptism of the Spirit is performed by the Spirit of God as well: That is Paul's clear meaning in Romans 6.
> 
> Though the outward signs are different - the spiritual meaning of both is equivalent.
> 
> I just read Nehemiah Cox' arguments on the blog you provided, thanks!
> 
> He is wrong in saying that "Circumcision was an ordinance of the old covenant and pertained to the law and therefore directly bound its subjects to a legal obedience."



I think I have addressed some of this above. Concerning the last statement Coxe is referring to the truth. There are differences even in Abraham as I have noted above. Plus, Coxe was only referring to what St. Paul said in Galatians. Paul did say, "For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law." Galatians 5:3

I still think your interpretation and reading of Acts 2 is lacking but maybe we should stick to just a few items at a time.


----------



## Laudante

*The example of Ishmael used by both camps*

It´s interesting to see how both credo and paedo use the example of Ishmael as supporting them. Credos take it as: "You see? Circumcision cannot be the same that baptism, because even unbelievers received the former, whereas baptism is the sign of regeneration", and Paedos say: You see? It is appropriate to apply the sign of the covenant even if it later comes to happen that the kid was not a legitimate member of it." 

I recently changed from the first to the second position, because I understood (and this is exactly what my last exchange with Albert in this thread was about) that circumsicion was also supposed to represent regeneration (circumsition of the heart), just as much as baptism in the NT. Among all the passages Albert cited in proof of this, I could add one you yourself just provided, R. Martin: "For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law." Galatians 5:3

This means that circumsicion was never seen a a sign that "you are descendant of a righteous man", but as a sign that "you are a debtor to God because He was pleased to make you born in the covenant family; therefore you have to obey His law, have a pure heart, and keep to all that is required to continue in the covenant". Those who failed to do this were never lawfully entitled even to the civil benfefits you mention, and were usually excluded from the assembly sooner or later (or at least commanded to be so). I, too, believed for a number of years that the civil benefits were promised to all equally, and that circumsicion represented this, in oposition to the NT assembly and its sign --baptism--, which was composed only of the truly regenerate members. My standpoint changed when I understood that circumcision was intended for exactly the same purpose, and that carnal, unfaithful Israelites were never part of the covenant it represented --not even the civil one, as I just said, and still they were entitled to receive the mark on the foreskin. If they became righteous when grown up, the sign would be valid, otherwise not.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Laudante said:


> This means that circumsicion was never seen a a sign that "you are descendant of a righteous man", but as a sign that "you are a debtor to God because He was pleased to make you born in the covenant family; therefore you have to obey His law, have a pure heart, and keep to all that is required to continue in the covenant". Those who failed to do this were never lawfully entitled even to the civil benfefits you mention, and were usually excluded from the assembly sooner or later (or at least commanded to be so).



Well now, I will partially disagree with some of this assesment. If we look at Ishmael the promises still came true. The tighter restrictions concerning Covenant obligations came in the Mosaic Covenant. Abraham believed God and God fulfilled his promises concerning Ishmael. As I noted above he was excluded from the spiritual Everlasting Covenant mentioned in Genesis 17.

And to add to this I will reference Paul in Galatians. 



> (Gal 4:22) For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
> 
> (Gal 4:23) But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
> 
> (Gal 4:24) Which things are an allegory: *for these are the two covenants*; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
> 
> (Gal 4:25) For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
> 
> (Gal 4:26) But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
> 
> (Gal 4:27) For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
> 
> (Gal 4:28) Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
> 
> (Gal 4:29) But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
> 
> (Gal 4:30) Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
> 
> (Gal 4:31) So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.



Abraham had elements of the Covenant of Works and The Covenant of Grace in the Covenant that he is head of. In our Covenant Head (Christ) his children with whom he is united with are covered and have the Covenant of Grace only to look too. He fulfilled the Covenant of Works on their behalf. 


I really appeciate Gill on Romans 4:11.

For your edification, here it is.



> Rom 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision,.... Or "the sign circumcision", as the Syriac version reads it, and so the Alexandrian copy, and two of Stephens's; that is, Abraham received at the hands of God, the commandment of circumcision, which was a "sign" or token of the covenant; not of grace, but of that peculiar covenant God made with Abraham and his natural seed, concerning their enjoyment of the land of Canaan; and which was a distinctive sign or badge, which distinguished the posterity of Abraham from other people, and was also a typical one; not of baptism, for circumcision was peculiar to Abraham's natural seed, whereas baptism is not, but was administered to Gentiles as well as Jews; circumcision was confined to males only, not so baptism; circumcision bears no likeness to, nor any resemblance with baptism, *whereas there is always some likeness and agreement between the type and the antitype; besides, if this had been the case, circumcision would have ceased when baptism took place, whereas it is certain it did not, but continued in full force with the rest of the ceremonies until the death of Christ; and it is as certain, that "baptism" was administered and continued to be administered three or four years before that time; which fully demonstrates the falsehood of that assertion, that baptism succeeds or comes in the room of circumcision; whereas baptism was in full force before circumcision was out of date: but circumcision was a typical sign of Christ, as all the ceremonies of the law were, and of the shedding of his blood, to cleanse from all sin, original and actual, and also of the circumcision of the heart. And was, moreover, *a seal of the righteousness of faith; or which "sign" was "a seal"; and so it signifies the same as before; σημεια ουτω λεγουσι τας σφραγιδας, "signs, so they call seals", says Harpocratian (f), and "to be signed", he says, is used, "instead of being sealed": or it may be expressive of something else, as that circumcision was a seal, not for secrecy, but for certainty; it being a confirmation, not merely of the sincerity of Abraham's faith, but of his justifying righteousness, which was not his faith, but that which his faith looked to; and
> 
> which he had, both faith and righteousness,
> 
> yet being uncircumcised: whence it follows, that he was not justified by his circumcision, but by a righteousness which he had before he was circumcised, or otherwise his circumcision could not have been a seal of it: though this clause, "which he had, yet being uncircumcised", may be rendered, "which should be in the uncircumcision", that is, in the uncircumcised Gentiles; and the sense be, that circumcision was a seal to Abraham, and gave assurance to him that he should be the father of many nations in a spiritual sense; and that the righteousness of faith which he had, should also come upon, and be imputed to the uncircumcised Gentiles; and accordingly it may be observed, that this seal was continued in full force on his natural seed, until this promise began to take place, and then it was abolished: this seal was broken off when the middle wall of partition was broken down, and the word of righteousness and faith, or the Gospel preaching justification by the righteousness of Christ, was ordered to be published to the Gentile world. It may be inquired whether circumcision being called a seal, will prove that baptism is a seal of the covenant? I answer, that circumcision was only a seal to Abraham of a peculiar covenant made with him, and of a particular promise made to him, and was it to be admitted a seal of the covenant of grace, it will not prove baptism to be such; since, as has been observed, baptism does not succeed it in place, in time, and use; and could this be allowed that it succeeds it, and is a seal of the righteousness of faith, as that was, it can only be a seal to them that have both faith and righteousness, and not to them that have neither; it would only at most be a seal to believers. But, alas! not ordinances, but other things more valuable than they, are the seals of the covenant, and of believers; the blood of Christ is the seal, and the only seal of the covenant of grace, by which its promises and blessings are ratified and confirmed; and the Holy Spirit is the only earnest, pledge, seal, and sealer of the saints, until the day of redemption. The apostle uses the word "seal" concerning circumcision, it being a word his countrymen made use of when they spoke of it, thus paraphrasing on Son_3:8; they say (g),
> 
> "everyone of them was sealed, חתימת מילה, "with the seal of circumcision" upon their flesh, as Abraham was sealed in his flesh:''
> 
> that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that is, his circumcision was a seal unto him that he should be so, which explains and confirms the sense of the former clause; not a father of the uncircumcised Gentiles by natural generation, for so he was only the father of the Jews, but of them as they were believers; and not so called because he was the author of their faith, but because they have the same sort of faith he had:
> 
> that righteousness might be imputed to them also; not Abraham's faith and righteousness, nor their own, but the righteousness of Christ received by faith, which is unto all, and upon all them that believe, without any difference of Jew or Gentile. Now when the apostle styles Abraham the father of "all" believers, even of uncircumcised ones, he says no other than what the Jews frequently own. Says one (h) of them, speaking of the Ishmaelites;
> 
> "they are the seed of Abraham, who was ראש המאמינים, "the head of them that believe?"''
> 
> and says (i) another,
> 
> "Hagar might bring the firstfruits, and read, as it is said to Abraham, "a father of, many nations have I made thee", Gen_17:5; for he is אב לכל העולם כולו, "the father of the whole world", who enter under the wings of the Shekinah;''
> 
> and says the same writer elsewhere (k), having mentioned the above passage,
> 
> "they said in times past, thou wast the father of the Syrians, but now thou art "the father of the whole world"; wherefore every stranger may say this, "as thou hast sworn to our fathers", Mic_7:20; for Abraham was "the father of the whole world"; seeing, למד אמונה, "he has taught the true faith".''
> 
> The apostle reasons on what they themselves allow, to prove that the blessedness of justification comes not only upon the Jews, but upon the Gentiles also.
> 
> (f) Lexicon in Decem Rhetores, p. 266. Ed. Manssac. (g) Targum in Cant. 3. 8. (h) In Caphtor, fol. 121. 1. (i) Maimon. Hilchot Biccurim, c. 4. sect. 3. (k) Comment in Misn. Biccurim, c. 1. sect. 4. Vid. T. Hieros Biccurim, fol. 64. 1. & T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 13. 1. & Zohar in Gen. fol. 69.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I believe my address to you concerning the Burrough's quote sufficiently addressed your question below. I do not see that your addition helped your argument in anyway as we differ on what baptism and circumcision mean and signify. I will explain more and repeat myself probably.
> 
> 
> 
> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> You will have to provide a clear command from the Scriptures that the children of believers are not to be given water baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I still believe the Jeremiah Burrough's quote sufficiently answered this. Specifically.
> 
> I will have to note that I do not see a clear command in scripture to baptize children either. And I do not see that the two (baptism and circumcision) represent the same things as I have noted earlier. Two different Covenants. Two different Covenant heads. One is set up with promises concerning the seed and posterity. The Abrahamic is fulfilled in Christ (the seed). There are also different Covenant Children as I noted before. The first sign is a sign and seal of the righteousness of Abraham in his believing God, not necessarily the same for everyone of his physical posterity. That sign and seal had promises both with the elect and those who were not elect descendants of Abraham. Those promises were civil as well as spriitual and not necessarily interralated. We see that in Genesis 17 when we look at both Isaac and Ishmael. Ishmael was never included in the Everlasting Covenant of Grace. The second (Baptism) is a sign of being in Union with Christ. It is His spiritual children who are the focus in this Covenant. He is the Covenant head and it is His children who are participants of the sign signifying their Union in His death burial and resurrection *through the faith* of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Col 2:12) Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe that the unelect can be referred to as holy or saints in the same way that believers are? I have noted that. At least that is how I am understanding you. And we will definitely disagree on this point. I do not believe that God considers reprobates to be saints or holy in the same way that a believer is considered to be sanctified and holy. They are not.
> 
> I believe that Paul is responding to the sanctity of the Marriage in 1 Corinthians 7 and pointing out that the marriage is right even if there are unbelievers in it and because it is right the spousal relations are considered to be right as well as the relationship with the children in contrast to the Old Covenant where God told the Isrealites to put away their foreign wives and children. God considers the relationships to be clean and the marriage sanctified as where in the old they were not clean or considered to be right. (See reference to Ezra 9 and 10:2,3)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Ezr 10:2) And Shechaniah the son of Jehiel, one of the sons of Elam, answered and said unto Ezra, We have trespassed against our God, and have taken strange wives of the people of the land: yet now there is hope in Israel concerning this thing.
> 
> (Ezr 10:3) Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The unbelieving are not sanctified as a believer is in his union with Christ as baptism signifies. This passage is clearly not indicating that nor implying it. This passage is an indication that marriage is considered sanctified by God even if it is made up between a believer and an unbeliever. There is no mention of union with Christ or baptism in this passage. In fact I believe the opposite is true. There is encouragement for the believer to seek for the unbeliever's coming to Christ. There is a pronouncement of something considered to be clean and right in the eyes of the Lord just like Peter taking and eating unclean meat in his housetop experience. The New Covenant is different than the old in some respects. This is true concerning marriage and ceremonial laws. What was once an unclean practice is now considered to be clean or sanctified by God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> 
> I do not believe that circumcision and baptism are identical signs either. I do believe that they both point to the same spiritual meaning - the circumcision of the heart, or, the baptism of the Spirit. Circumcision of the heart was performed by the Spirit of God: That was Paul's clear meaning in Romans 2:29. Baptism of the Spirit is performed by the Spirit of God as well: That is Paul's clear meaning in Romans 6.
> 
> Though the outward signs are different - the spiritual meaning of both is equivalent.
> 
> I just read Nehemiah Cox' arguments on the blog you provided, thanks!
> 
> He is wrong in saying that "Circumcision was an ordinance of the old covenant and pertained to the law and therefore directly bound its subjects to a legal obedience."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I have addressed some of this above. Concerning the last statement Coxe is referring to the truth. There are differences even in Abraham as I have noted above. Plus, Coxe was only referring to what St. Paul said in Galatians. Paul did say, "For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law." Galatians 5:3
> 
> I still think your interpretation and reading of Acts 2 is lacking but maybe we should stick to just a few items at a time.
Click to expand...


Greetings:

PuritanCovenanter wrote:



> I still believe the Jeremiah Burrough's quote sufficiently answered this. Specifically.
> 
> I will have to note that I do not see a clear command in scripture to baptize children either. And I do not see that the two (baptism and circumcision) represent the same things as I have noted earlier. Two different Covenants. Two different Covenant heads. One is set up with promises concerning the seed and posterity. The Abrahamic is fulfilled in Christ (the seed). There are also different Covenant Children as I noted before. The first sign is a sign and seal of the righteousness of Abraham in his believing God, not necessarily the same for everyone of his physical posterity. That sign and seal had promises both with the elect and those who were not elect descendants of Abraham. Those promises were civil as well as spriitual and not necessarily interralated. We see that in Genesis 17 when we look at both Isaac and Ishmael. Ishmael was never included in the Everlasting Covenant of Grace. The second (Baptism) is a sign of being in Union with Christ. It is His spiritual children who are the focus in this Covenant. He is the Covenant head and it is His children who are participants of the sign signifying their Union in His death burial and resurrection through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.


Are you quoting from Burroughs? Or, is this your point?

In Covenant Theology it is an error to say that there are "two Covenant heads." That is Dispensationalism (with a capital "D"). There is only one Covenant head - Jesus Christ. Abraham was the "covenant head" of his family, and so was Ishmael, Issac, and Jacob, but when speaking of the "Everlasting Covenant" then there is only one Covenant head in both the Old Covenant and the New.

Abraham believed in Jesus Christ - though Abraham knew Jesus only as God.

Concerning your quote from Gill:

I like Gill. However, he tends to overthink his points. He wrote:



> I answer, that circumcision was only a seal to Abraham of a peculiar covenant made with him, and of a particular promise made to him, and was it to be admitted a seal of the covenant of grace, it will not prove baptism to be such; since, as has been observed, baptism does not succeed it in place, in time, and use; and could this be allowed that it succeeds it, and is a seal of the righteousness of faith, as that was, it can only be a seal to them that have both faith and righteousness,


If circumcision was only for the Abrahamic Covenant, then why was it carried into the Mosaic, and Davidic as well? I would argue that Circumcision was carried into the New Covenant also, and was replaced by Baptism. Thus, we find the Apostles making reference to the spiritual import of Circumcision (see previous post).

Gill's argument that Circumcision did not replace Baptism because there is an overlap in time is specious to say the best. The animal sacrifices continued in the Temple of Jerusalem until it was destroyed in 70 AD. Does that mean that the Sacrifice of Christ is of none effect? There is a time overlap. This hermeneutic of "time overlap" is nowhere found in the Scriptures. It is an invention by Gill to invalidate the idea that baptism takes the place of circumcison.

You are certainly free to believe this view of "time overlap" but it will not convince me unless you can prove such Biblically.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

CalvinandHodges said:


> Are you quoting from Burroughs? Or, is this your point?
> 
> In Covenant Theology it is an error to say that there are "two Covenant heads." That is Dispensationalism (with a capital "D"). There is only one Covenant head - Jesus Christ. Abraham was the "covenant head" of his family, and so was Ishmael, Issac, and Jacob, but when speaking of the "Everlasting Covenant" then there is only one Covenant head in both the Old Covenant and the New.
> 
> Abraham believed in Jesus Christ - though Abraham knew Jesus only as God.
> 
> Concerning your quote from Gill:
> 
> I like Gill. However, he tends to overthink his points. He wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I answer, that circumcision was only a seal to Abraham of a peculiar covenant made with him, and of a particular promise made to him, and was it to be admitted a seal of the covenant of grace, it will not prove baptism to be such; since, as has been observed, baptism does not succeed it in place, in time, and use; and could this be allowed that it succeeds it, and is a seal of the righteousness of faith, as that was, it can only be a seal to them that have both faith and righteousness,
> 
> 
> 
> If circumcision was only for the Abrahamic Covenant, then why was it carried into the Mosaic, and Davidic as well? I would argue that Circumcision was carried into the New Covenant also, and was replaced by Baptism. Thus, we find the Apostles making reference to the spiritual import of Circumcision (see previous post).
> 
> Gill's argument that Circumcision did not replace Baptism because there is an overlap in time is specious to say the best. The animal sacrifices continued in the Temple of Jerusalem until it was destroyed in 70 AD. Does that mean that the Sacrifice of Christ is of none effect? There is a time overlap. This hermeneutic of "time overlap" is nowhere found in the Scriptures. It is an invention by Gill to invalidate the idea that baptism takes the place of circumcison.
> 
> You are certainly free to believe this view of "time overlap" but it will not convince me unless you can prove such Biblically.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> Rob
Click to expand...


Hey buddy,

Rob, just let me say that I really appreciate ya discussing this with me. I sense that you are trying to learn what I am saying. I don't think you grasp what I believe very well and hope I can illumine you as to what this Particular Baptist believes. I think I have a pretty good handle on what Presbyterians and Covenant Paedo's believe. After discussing this with you a few times I think you would have a better understanding of what I believe. But I might be mistaken. Especially since you don't seem to understand what I think concerning 1 Corinthians 7 and sanctification and also concerning the topic of Covenant heads. 

BTW, here is a link where Rev Winzer and I discuss our distinctions concerning the Covenants administering the CofW and CofG. It is a little older and I might rephrase some of the things I said but it stands. 
http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/works-within-mosaic-covenant-24649/

Now,
You still didn't answer my question on sanctification and 1 Corinthians 7 that I presented in my last post. 

To answer your question concerning the Burroughs quote....
Yes, those were my thoughts in the last post. My first response was just to the point that I believed that Burroughs in the portion I quoted did answer your point quite to the point. Your addition did nothing for the argument in my estimation as I explained. 

Concerning my point of two Covenant heads.... When you accused me of Dispensationalism did you mean with a Capital "D" as in dispensational like Darby and Scoffield. They would be a Capital "D" in my opinion. That is the problem when you start accusing others of dispensationalism with a Capital "D". Others will here you saying something that you might not mean. I understand what you are saying when you accuse me of dispensationalism, I think. But I believe you are wrong to emphasise it so heavily as you do when you are addressing it towards me. Even Westministerians believe that dispensations is a good word. And I will work from Chapter 7 now to show you what I mean by different Covenant heads and how the Covenants were administered with continuity and discontinuity. ie. your dispensational accusation towards me. It might hold water and it might not. 



> VI. Under the gospel, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed, are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper; which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity and less outward glory, yet in them it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament. *There are not, therefore, two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations*.




You obviously must believe in different Covenant Heads. Even two of them at the very least which you accuse me of being a Dispensationalist with. There are Two Adam's. One is head of those represented under the Covenant of Works. The other Adam is the Lord from Heaven who is head of the Covenant of Grace. And there is only one Covenant of Grace not two as you seem to be accusing me of. I completely agree with the Westminster on that. 

At the same time a Covenant is made with someone concerning those placed under him and in his lineage and relationship. Everyone who was to dwell with Abraham had to abide in the Covenant of Circumsion in order to dwell with his family and clan. If they were not circumcised they were not under the leadership of Abraham and were cut off from his heritance and heritage. I do not believe that Christ is the Head of everyone who was included in the Covenant of Circumcision as Ishmael was not included in the Everlasting Covenant. He is head of the Covenant of Grace. But the Abrahamic Covenant was not solely the Covenant of Grace as many might assume. I also do not believe that circumcision was a sign of the Covenant of Grace although it was administered through it. It was what I would call a mixed Covenant. It also had elements of the Covenant of Works involved with it. ie. cutting off. In the pure Covenant of Grace one can not be cut off once they are in union with Christ. Also their were other promises that involved Abraham's posterity that didn't have elements pertaining to the Covenant of Grace. There were promises made concerning Ishmael that were given to Abraham even though it was plainly stated that Ishmael would not be included in the Everlasting Covenant. 

As a side note, not everyone who was included in the Covenant of Grace was included in the Covenant of Circumcision during the time of Abraham. I have discussed that elsewhere on the board. A few of the Patriarchs alive during Abraham's time, King Mel, and some in his Kingdom were not included in the Covenant of Circumcision. Some have debated whether Lot was circumcised. My point in saying this is to point out that circumcision is not necessarily purely the sign of the Covenant of Grace. 


The two Covenants that proceeded down into the Mosaic from Abraham that I referenced from Galatians contained both elements from of the Covenant of Grace and Works. It is not dispensational as in the Capital "D" you mention to think this way, but is very scriptural and written from the pen of Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I do believe the Abrahamic and Mosaic are subserviant to the CofG and CofW.



> *(Gal 4:22) For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
> 
> (Gal 4:23) But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
> 
> (Gal 4:24) Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
> *



I understand that the Abrahamic and Mosaic administer both the Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of Works. But in relationship the promises that were made to Abraham and the place that he was put in relationship to those under him made him a head of the Covenant concerning the promises that were made to him concerning his posterity and clan. And as I mentioned there are elements in that Covenant that do not pertain to the Covenant of Grace. They were promises made by Covenant that made him the fountain head of reception to some of those promises as they were fulfilled by God toward him. 

It is the same way with the Mosaic Covenant. There are elements in the Mosaic that were not specifically related to the Covenant of Grace. There were elements of the Covenant of Works in it that were administered by it also. 

Here is something that I would reference concerning Mosaic from Witsius.


> The edition is den Dulk Christian Foundation distributed by P&R, reprinted 1990. Vol. II, p. 186, Witsius says of the Mosaic Cov.,
> 
> 
> 
> "It was a national covenant between God and Israel... [It] supposed a covenant of grace. ...It also supposed the doctrine of the covenant of works... This agreement therefore is a consequent both of the covenant of grace and of works; but was formally neither the one nor the other... If any should ask me, of what kind, whether of works or of grace? I shall answer, it is formally neither: but a covenant of sincere peity, which supposes both."
Click to expand...


I believe the Mosaic is subservient to both the Covenants of Grace and Works. The Mosaic and Abrahamic administer the the Covenants for the elect and those who are not in a nationalist civil mode of relationship. So I am not being dispensational as you want to accuse me of. I am actually being very biblical and relying of some pretty big shoulders in my understanding. Nehemiah Coxe would be one of my biggest influences on this also.

I do not believe that circumcision was carried into the New Covenant because the New Covenant sign is representative of our Union with Chist's death, burial, and resurrection and our being in union with him in those. The only instances I see of men performing those things such as circumcision and sacrifices were to win the Jews and get them to see Christ. While I agree that the sacrifices were carried on into the New Covenant Era as well as circumcision I would have to say that both were to be forsaken by Christians as a means of salvation. In fact Paul says that circumcision avails nothing. It is gone with the Old. Paul doesn't make the argument that Galatians have been baptized and that is the New Covenant Circumcision. They are two different things entirely. In fact the author of Hebrews condemned the Old testament worship was as unbelief. Paul does warn the Galatians not to turn back to those weak and beggarly things. 



> *Gal 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? *



I still have to conclude that there are different Covenants that perform different things concerning promise and purpose in continuity and discontinuity. We are just arguing concerning the things that continue and those that don't. We are trying to discuss and distinguish the things that are New and those that are done away and dead because of what they are tied to. You tried to accuse me of being incorrect that circumcision was not tied to bondage of the law and that is wan't abrogated. Well I showed you that Paul did say that circumcision was abrogated and that it was tied to the law. You still have neglected to acknowledge that. You want to make the unholy unregenerate sound like they are holy the same way a regenerate person is who is in union with Christ. And you have neglected me on this. 
You have accused me of being dispensational with a BIG "D" which I believe is an unfair accusation. Others will read that in a wrong light I believe. All that I am affirming is what I see the Confession affirming along with those of my Confession of Faith. It is not dispsensational with a BIG "D". 

Rob, I like you. I have always enjoyed your challenges. I might be a half breed to you and not worthy of the name Covenanter. But that is who I am. I believe you would do better to try to understand what I think instead of making sweeping BIG "D" accusations. Name calling never advanced anyone in a discussion. And I believe you have improperly labelled me. Yes, I do believe in dispensations as does the Westminster. Maybe we differ on how much the terminology comes into play but I am no dispensationalist like those who are known by that name in theological terms today. 

Be Encouraged brother,
Randy


----------



## A.J.

Hello! 

John Gill's comments on Rom. 4:11 and his outright denial of the fact that baptism has come in place of circumcision do not do justice to the transition which took place during the time of the apostles. B.B. Warfield offers a more convincing explanation in his Polemics of Infant Baptism. 



> The change from baptism superinduced upon circumcision to baptism substituted for circumcision was slow, and never came until it was forced by the actual pressure of circumstances. The instrument for making this change and so -- who can doubt it? -- for giving the rite of baptism its right place as the substitute for circumcision, was the Apostle Paul. *We see the change* [from circumcision to baptism] *formally constituted at the so-called Council of Jerusalem, in Acts xv. Paul had preached the gospel to Gentiles and had received them into the Church by baptism alone, thus recognizing it alone as the initiatory rite, in the place of circumcision, instead of treating as heretofore the two together as the initiatory rites into the Christian Church*. But certain teachers from Jerusalem, coming down to Antioch, taught the brethren " except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses ye cannot be saved." Paul took the matter before the Church of Jerusalem from which these new teachers professed to emanate; and its formal decision was that to those who believed and were baptized circumcision was not necessary.
> 
> How fully Paul believed that baptism and circumcision were but two symbols of the same change of heart, and that one was instead of the other, may be gathered from Col. ii.11, when, speaking to a Christian audience of the Church, he declares that "in Christ ye were also circumcised "-- but how? -- "with a circumcision not made with hands, in putting off the body of the flesh," -- that is, in the circumcision of Christ. But what was this Christ-ordained circumcision? The Apostle continues: "Having been buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead." Hence in baptism they were buried with Christ, and this burial with Christ was the circumcision which Christ ordained, in the partaking of which they became the true circumcision. This falls little, if any, short of a direct assertion that the Christian Church is Israel, and has Israel's circumcision, though now in the form of baptism. Does the view of Paul, now, contradict the New Testament idea of the Church, or only the Baptist idea of the Church? *No doubt a large number of the members of the primitive Church did insist, as Dr. Strong* [a Baptist] *truly says, that those who were baptized should also be circumcised: and no doubt, this proves that in their view baptism did not take the place of circumcision. But this was an erroneous view: is represented in the New Testament as erroneous; and it is this exact view against which Paul protested to the Church of Jerusalem and which the Church of Jerusalem condemned in Acts xv. Thus the Baptist denial of the substitution of baptism for circumcision leads them into the error of this fanatical, pharisaical church-party!*[emphasis added]



In short, the Gentiles were not circumcised precisely because they have been baptized. The Jews who were also required to be baptized and were indeed baptized continued circumcision as a matter of custom.

It is argued that:



> Paul doesn't make the argument that Galatians have been baptized and that is the New Covenant Circumcision.



Actually, Paul does. The thing signified (i.e., the circumcision of the heart) by baptism is the same as that of circumcision (Col. 2:11-12; cf. Rom. 2:28-29) as Warfield also shows in the quotation above. Paul says (Gal. 3:26-29),

For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

For *as many of you as have been baptized into Christ* have put on Christ.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

And *if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed*, and heirs according to the promise.​
What does baptism have to do with Abraham to whom the covenant sign of circumcision was given? If baptism is not the sacramental equivalent of circumcision, then Paul's argument does not make sense. 

In a recent thread, Rev. Buchanan gives a concise explanation of the paedobaptist view of 1 Cor. 7:14. He notes that (all emphasis his): 



> The only question that 1Cor7:14 can legitimately be called to answer in the p-b debate is a "qualitative" question. That is to say, if only the "holy" may be baptized, then an infant or other minor child belonging to a believer possesses this quality. Or put differently, there certainly is no "unsanctifed" quality of such an infant that would rationally preclude a baptism.
> 
> If one asks then about the spouse and baptism, the proper response is: we have to go elsewhere to determine for any and all the proper recipients of baptism. Certainly, the text here doesn't say exactly the same thing about the spouse that it says about the child.
> 
> The relationship to the parent is the producer of this quality, however the quality "inheres" in the child--that is to say, it is _his _federal holiness. If some family-type connection to an unbeliever effected an unclean or unholy state then this could not be the case; but Paul says this IS the case (and implies that this is obvious, that they know this is the case).
> 
> The sanctifying strength of the indwelling HS is superior to the profaning strength of unbelief. It is the same power that could touch an heal the "untouchable" leper. For an ordinary man, such a touch would defile him; in Jesus' case his virtue overcomes the defilement and cleanses it.
> 
> There is an evident difference in the text between how the the spouse is spoken of, and how the child is so spoken. The unbelieving spouse is "sanctified" in the relation he or she bears to the believer. We should therefore say that the _spouse's_ federal holiness "inheres" in the *relationship* to the believer--it belongs to the relationship and not to him. Dissolve the relation, and the sanctity will evaporate.
> 
> The CHILD, on the other hand, is said to bear this quality not strictly in the parent but for himself. That is, neither unbelieving spouse is said to be "holy," but "is sanctified" (verbal idea); whereas the child is HOLY (substantive adjective). So, we should say that it isn't so easy to remove this federal holiness, since it is a factor of his person, and not an element of the relationship. But not being strictly a spiritual quality, a child of latter years (no longer "belonging" to the parent in exactly the same sense anymore) may well corrupt this holiness.



Thus the argument that says that the baptism of the children of the believing spouse would require the baptism of the unbelieving spouse is nowhere supported by the text. And further, even the children of validly married pagans are in fact "legitimate."

If anything, 1 Cor. 7:14 is an implicit proof for the inclusion of children of believers in the church.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

A.J. said:


> In short, the Gentiles were not circumcised precisely because they have been baptized. The Jews who were also required to be baptized and were indeed baptized continued circumcision as a matter of custom.
> 
> It is argued that:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paul doesn't make the argument that Galatians have been baptized and that is the New Covenant Circumcision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Paul does. The thing signified (i.e., the circumcision of the heart) by baptism is the same as that of circumcision (Col. 2:11-12; cf. Rom. 2:28-29) as Warfield also shows in the quotation above. Paul says (Gal. 3:26-29),
> 
> For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
> 
> For *as many of you as have been baptized into Christ* have put on Christ.
> 
> There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
> 
> And *if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed*, and heirs according to the promise.​
> What does baptism have to do with Abraham to whom the covenant sign of circumcision was given? If baptism is not the sacramental equivalent of circumcision, then Paul's argument does not make sense.
Click to expand...


His argument does make sense if baptism is not the sacramental equivalent of circumcision. First off did you notice that Everyone who is baptized puts on Christ. 



> (Gal 3:26) For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
> 
> (Gal 3:27) For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.



And this is set up in relation to what Paul says about Circumcision.



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




This is not true in the Covenant of Circumcision. From the beginning in Genesis 17 Jehovah told Abraham that Ishmael was not included in the Everlasting Covenant but he was included in covenant promises that pertained to Abraham in his physical posterity. I explained that above. Circumcision is not an exact replacement of baptism. Different Covenant head, different Covenant ties, and different circumcisions. One is of the heart the other is from the place physical posterity comes from. We enter into Baptism and are risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God. In Baptism we have Gospel obedience. In Circumcision Paul ascribes bondage to the law. Two different things. As noted above by Paul those who have been Baptized have put on Christ. Those who are tied to a Covenant of circumcision of posterity are tied to the law. They are different. 

Concerning Bruce's response to someone else concerning Sanctification and 1 Corinthians 7:14, it doesn't do it justice nor does it answer my last post and question to Rob.


The Covenant Head's offspring are the ones who should have the sign placed upon them. Christ's covenant Children are Spirtual. They are born from above and are in union with him. They are his offspring (Isaiah 8:18, 53:10, Hebrews 2:13) as noted in the above post.

The signs are not identical nor are the recipients.


----------



## Laudante

*The two covenants*

Martin (I hope this is a first name, otherwise, please correct me):

I did like your last post. I don´t think anyone would believe you are a BIG "D" guy. I´m sure you wouldn´t be here in that case, to begin with, so the accusation was out of place, as you say. 

I would just like to add some thoughts on the issue of the covenants. 

First, the covenant of works is not particularly related with the law of Moses, nor it is outside of it, but maybe in a slightly different sense of how you explained it. I believe that the covenant of works which was established on the creation of man, is still open until this very day. Let me try to explain myself before beginning to receive tomatoes in my face. 

The covenant of Works means that any human being is "entitled" according to divine justice, to be saved by his or her own works, inasmuch as he or she can keep THE WHOLE LAW. This was true in Adam´s time just as much as today. Moses says, and Paul confirms it, that everyone who would theorically keep the whole moral law can be saved (and we can infer that it would be apart from the atoning sacrifice of Christ). So the covenant of Works is, and has ever been, extant. But at the same time, it is only theoretical, since no man has the actual ability of doing that. Only in Christ it was fulfilled, for He merited not only his own "salvation", if you allow me to speak like that, but also ours. The only difference in the covenant of Works since it was opened in Adam until Moses is an increasing of the demands of it. In Adam´s time, the only action required to be "saved by works" was to avoid eating a given fruit. In Moses´ time those requirements were enlarged significantly. So the law of Moses is, in one sense, the requirement of the THEORICAL covenant of works, for the man who would THEORICALLY dare to try it, but for those who despair of saving themselves by works and invoke the covenant of grace, the law also fulfills an important role. It becomes the rule of conduct for them, not in order to be saved, but to please God. That is, those under the covenant of grace are also called to do works, as I think we all agree.

So in a strict sense, the covenant of works is still open, but in real terms, God has never confirmed a real covenant with aybody under works (except Christ, as I said), not even with Adam, since he broke it. So every real covenant, including of course the Abrahamic and the Mosaic, if it can be called a covenant at all between man and God, was the covenant of Grace. The circumcision was meant to represent that covenant of grace, not any covenant of works. When Paul relates the circumsicion with the law, seemingly in a sense of works, I believe he intended to express that those who wanted to continue circumcision in NT times were bound to continue with all the ceremonial law as well. And this is because, exactly as in the case of the Sabbath, in the circumcision rite there were both a ceremonial and a moral parts involved. The ceremonial pertained to the outward sign, while the moral to the inward meaning. In the Sabbath, the ceremonial part was the exact day to be observed, while the moral part was the observation itself. So in the NT the ceremonial part was done away, but the moral part was kept, changing the day in the case of the Fourth Commandment, and the mode of applying the sign of the covenant in the case of circumcision. But just like we have to do on Sunday what the Jews did on Saturday (according to the Bible, not to rabbinic tradition), we have also to do in baptism what the Jews did on circumcision. But if someone wants to keep the old shadowy form of the Jewish Sabbath or the Jewish circumcision, he is bound to do all the other ceremonial requirement of the OT, and this is precisely what Paul is saying. 

So in short, it is difficult to say that circumcision has to do with any covenant of works, In my humble opinion, especially considering that it was instituted upon Abraham´s faith, not for any works he could have done, or as a sign that he should try to save himself by works. Circumcision was a sign of God´s election and grace upon Abraham and his spititual offspring. His offspring according to the flesh was entitled to the rite simply because they were also called and supposed to be of the same faith of their father, that is, their spiritual offspring as well. The failure of some individuals to keep up to that level was not a failure of the covenant at all. You mention that someone could be cut off from this abrahamic covenant, and that this was a clear difference with the covenant of grace. But I rather tend to believe that those who were to be cut off never really belonged to the Abrahamic covenant at all, even if they seemed to for a while, just like the false members of the Christian church are there but not belong to her. And there are plenty of false members, unfortunately, both among paedo and credo baptists, just as there were among the natural progeny of Abraham. But they never belonged to any covenant with God, in the first place. They were, however, on the covenant family, and rightfully, until they showed the contrary. The same happens with the children of believers under the NT.


----------



## A.J.

Mr. Snyder,

No one said that the *signs* are identical. The cutting off of the foreskin of the flesh (circumcision) is _clearly different_ from the washing with water in the Name of the Trinity (baptism). What is identical is the *thing signified* by both. Both represent the circumcision of the heart (Col. 2:11-12; Rom. 2:28-29). A good argument can only be made against paedobaptism if the spiritual reality signfied by baptism is _in substance_ different from that of circumcision. 

I did notice Gal. 3:27. 

For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.​
What do you do with Simon the magician (Acts 8:9ff.) if as you say that "[e]veryone who is baptized puts on Christ"? Gal. 3:27 is extremely problematic for a position which denies sacramental union (cf. WCF 28:2).

Paul explains (Gal. 3:16-18), 

*Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made*. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, *And to thy seed, which is Christ*. 

And this I say, that *the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul*, that it should make the promise of none effect.

For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.​
So the law given 450 years later _does not annul_ (ESV) the promise (Gen. 17:7). A case for antipaedobaptism therefore must not only show that God has indeed abrogated His _command_ (Gen. 17:9-14) to include infants in His covenant community. It must also modify the implications of the _promise_. The promise *necessitated* the covenantal inclusion of infants. And Paul says in explicit terms that the promise is not (has not been) annuled (cf. Acts 2:38-39; 16:31)!

You rightly note that the elect are Christ's offspring (seed). In fact, this *is* the confessional Reformed position (LC Q&A 31). There is no disagreement on that. But saying that the elect are Christ's seed is different from saying that only those who profess that they are indeed elect should be baptized. You are arguing from what _is_ to what _ought_ to be.

Blessings,


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

AJ. 

We are going to disagree on Acts 2 pertaining to the Promise and it's beneficiaries. Those who are given the promises in Acts 2 are set in time present and forward. You, your children, those far off and as many as the Lord shall call. The promise has a specific. Repent and be baptized.... In order you, your children, those afar off, and as many as the Lord shall call, all must do something in order to receive something. The inclusion is the same for everyone. It is not a grandfather clause. It seems there must be some cognizant ability in this passage by all. It matters not about physical lineage or heritage any longer. We discussed this earlier in the thread. I do not see your conclusion that the promise necessitated the covental inclusion of infants. I believe you are assuming it by your presuppositions. 


The Covenant of Grace included in the Abrahamic Covenant pertained to the Seed as Paul mentions in Galatians. That is Christ. You are correct. The law cannot disannul that it was to be a fulfillment and it was fulfilled. The CofW in the CofAbraham can not disannul the CofG. Christ came in the Flesh. Baptism signify's more than circumcision does. You are putting way to much emphasis on circumcision and its meaning and you are flattening out the Covenants too much in my estimation to make them be equal and have the same meanings and representations. 

Concerning Simon. I can only say that even the Apostle's warned others to examine themselves. He really shouldn't be considered in the argument of infant Baptism because he made a cognizant decision for something. And that is the measuring stick, so to speak, by which one is to look. As Romans states. Confession is made unto salvation. We have discussed those false brethren concepts before. They are to be dealt with as 1 Cor 5 plainly tells us. 

Sorry but I am getting tired right now. 

Be Encouraged AJ. 

I would really prefer to keep dealing with Rob. He was the one I was discussing this with and I really don't want to rabbit trail.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Ricardo. 

I am not trying to avoid you. I do know that some believe the Mosaic to have a republication of the CofW in them and I also know probably most do not hold to this view. I can also reference others who believe more so that this is true, considering other factors, of the Abrahamic Covenant also. 

Good night. 

Like I said I was just hoping to discuss more with Rob. I don't want to Rabbit trail with others. Thanks.


----------



## Laudante

*More on the covenants*

I address this and any future post on this thread to everyone who participates in it and might be interested on what I´m saying, and not particularly to Randy, so that he won´t feel compelled to reply to it and alter his private debate with Robert. (Randy, I don´t feel offended, of course... I think it´s legitimate for you to answer only the posts you want to, but I also feel I can participate in this thread regardless of that. From now on, if you don´t answer my posts I won´t take it as if you are neither avoiding nor granting what I say, nor being discourteous with me, right?).

The law has different levels of intentions or uses. In one of these levels, yes, I would say it is a republication of the covenant of works. Paul says in Gal. 3:12: "However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM.”

This means that if someone, hypothetically, could practice everything that is on the law, he would be saved (even today). And Paul confirms that this is something completely apart from the covenant of grace, which operates through faith, when he says: "The law is not of faith". 

However, just the two preceding verses make us clear that all those who pretend to be saved that way fail and are under a curse, not because the offer to be saved by doing the law is not sincere, but because “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM” (Gal. 3:10).

If they could abide by all those things, they would be in a true agreement or covenant of works with God, but since original sin makes this impossible, and everyone is under original sin, we all know that "that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH” (Gal. 3:11).

All human beings who reject the mercy of God in Christ put themselves automatically into the covenant of works, and they fail it. It is in this sense that John says: "For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" (John 1:17). 

My point is that this is the only sense in which there is something like a sharp difference and even contrast between the Old and the New convenants, and this is the only sense in which the law seems to have tried to "hinder" the Abrahamic promise in Gal 3:17. But when we understand that the real intention of God with the Law was not to save persons by works, nor to put a perpetual curse on his people, but rather to lead people to despair in order that they might invoke the covenant of grace, we see that this latter was always in view in the giving of the Law. It is only that the issue is more clearly revealed in the NT than in the OT. So the Law becomes thus a means of grace and not a means of damnation, for those who recognize its true nature, while it remains perpetually a curse for those who fail to invoke mercy on view of our impossibility to fulfill her demands of holiness. "But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully" (1 Tim. 1:8). So the alleged contrast between dispensations is a mere illusion after all, and the real opposition is between the pharisees and the penitent tax collectors, both of which kinds have existed in OT as much as in NT times. 

I know that all this can be slightly off-topic, but at the end, the heart of the paedo vs. credo debate lies in the nature of the dispensations, more than with the rite in itself. I´m not saying that Randy or anyone else on this thread fails to understand all this, but I´m just trying to clarify how I understand covenant theology. Congruence with all this is what made me, personally, abandon a 15 year-old credobaptist position. I thought I could see everything clear as day when I was there, but recently something "made click" in my mind and I understood that both baptism and circumcision are signs of the covenant of grace, and that only the outward aspect of circumcision was typical, but the meaning and candidates are the same. I had always thought that the paedos had a rather too "earthly" view of the New Covenant, but later I understood that maybe it was I who was having a less "spiritual" view of the Old one, in the wrong aspect of it. I mean that, yes, without doubt the OT is more earthly or fleshly than the New, but NOT IN THE ASPECT OF WHO ARE ITS REAL MEMBERS and how they are saved, but only in the more rudimentary means of grace and teaching of the truths of the Gospel. The truth Paul asserts that "Not all Israel is Israel" doesn´t only apply to NT times. It had always been so. 

The only issue with which I am still dealing is why, if candidates are the same, now baptism should be applied to girls also. Maybe the answer is that another thing that changed is that the New covenant is more universal in scope. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." But girls and gentiles were also saved and "circumcised in the heart" under the old economy, so the sacrament was not applied to them? Well, gentiles that became proselytes were circumcised. I think the reason girls weren´t is clear. But I don´t know if a physical motive is the only one. If someone has good ideas on this, they´ll be more than welcome. 

In Christ,


----------



## CalvinandHodges

PuritanCovenanter said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you quoting from Burroughs? Or, is this your point?
> 
> In Covenant Theology it is an error to say that there are "two Covenant heads." That is Dispensationalism (with a capital "D"). There is only one Covenant head - Jesus Christ. Abraham was the "covenant head" of his family, and so was Ishmael, Issac, and Jacob, but when speaking of the "Everlasting Covenant" then there is only one Covenant head in both the Old Covenant and the New.
> 
> Abraham believed in Jesus Christ - though Abraham knew Jesus only as God.
> 
> Concerning your quote from Gill:
> 
> I like Gill. However, he tends to overthink his points. He wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I answer, that circumcision was only a seal to Abraham of a peculiar covenant made with him, and of a particular promise made to him, and was it to be admitted a seal of the covenant of grace, it will not prove baptism to be such; since, as has been observed, baptism does not succeed it in place, in time, and use; and could this be allowed that it succeeds it, and is a seal of the righteousness of faith, as that was, it can only be a seal to them that have both faith and righteousness,
> 
> 
> 
> If circumcision was only for the Abrahamic Covenant, then why was it carried into the Mosaic, and Davidic as well? I would argue that Circumcision was carried into the New Covenant also, and was replaced by Baptism. Thus, we find the Apostles making reference to the spiritual import of Circumcision (see previous post).
> 
> Gill's argument that Circumcision did not replace Baptism because there is an overlap in time is specious to say the best. The animal sacrifices continued in the Temple of Jerusalem until it was destroyed in 70 AD. Does that mean that the Sacrifice of Christ is of none effect? There is a time overlap. This hermeneutic of "time overlap" is nowhere found in the Scriptures. It is an invention by Gill to invalidate the idea that baptism takes the place of circumcison.
> 
> You are certainly free to believe this view of "time overlap" but it will not convince me unless you can prove such Biblically.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> Rob
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey buddy,
> 
> Rob, just let me say that I really appreciate ya discussing this with me. I sense that you are trying to learn what I am saying. I don't think you grasp what I believe very well and hope I can illumine you as to what this Particular Baptist believes. I think I have a pretty good handle on what Presbyterians and Covenant Paedo's believe. After discussing this with you a few times I think you would have a better understanding of what I believe. But I might be mistaken. Especially since you don't seem to understand what I think concerning 1 Corinthians 7 and sanctification and also concerning the topic of Covenant heads.
> 
> BTW, here is a link where Rev Winzer and I discuss our distinctions concerning the Covenants administering the CofW and CofG. It is a little older and I might rephrase some of the things I said but it stands.
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/works-within-mosaic-covenant-24649/
> 
> Now,
> You still didn't answer my question on sanctification and 1 Corinthians 7 that I presented in my last post.
> 
> To answer your question concerning the Burroughs quote....
> Yes, those were my thoughts in the last post. My first response was just to the point that I believed that Burroughs in the portion I quoted did answer your point quite to the point. Your addition did nothing for the argument in my estimation as I explained.
> 
> Concerning my point of two Covenant heads.... When you accused me of Dispensationalism did you mean with a Capital "D" as in dispensational like Darby and Scoffield. They would be a Capital "D" in my opinion. That is the problem when you start accusing others of dispensationalism with a Capital "D". Others will here you saying something that you might not mean. I understand what you are saying when you accuse me of dispensationalism, I think. But I believe you are wrong to emphasise it so heavily as you do when you are addressing it towards me. Even Westministerians believe that dispensations is a good word. And I will work from Chapter 7 now to show you what I mean by different Covenant heads and how the Covenants were administered with continuity and discontinuity. ie. your dispensational accusation towards me. It might hold water and it might not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously must believe in different Covenant Heads. Even two of them at the very least which you accuse me of being a Dispensationalist with. There are Two Adam's. One is head of those represented under the Covenant of Works. The other Adam is the Lord from Heaven who is head of the Covenant of Grace. And there is only one Covenant of Grace not two as you seem to be accusing me of. I completely agree with the Westminster on that.
> 
> At the same time a Covenant is made with someone concerning those placed under him and in his lineage and relationship. Everyone who was to dwell with Abraham had to abide in the Covenant of Circumsion in order to dwell with his family and clan. If they were not circumcised they were not under the leadership of Abraham and were cut off from his heritance and heritage. I do not believe that Christ is the Head of everyone who was included in the Covenant of Circumcision as Ishmael was not included in the Everlasting Covenant. He is head of the Covenant of Grace. But the Abrahamic Covenant was not solely the Covenant of Grace as many might assume. I also do not believe that circumcision was a sign of the Covenant of Grace although it was administered through it. It was what I would call a mixed Covenant. It also had elements of the Covenant of Works involved with it. ie. cutting off. In the pure Covenant of Grace one can not be cut off once they are in union with Christ. Also their were other promises that involved Abraham's posterity that didn't have elements pertaining to the Covenant of Grace. There were promises made concerning Ishmael that were given to Abraham even though it was plainly stated that Ishmael would not be included in the Everlasting Covenant.
> 
> As a side note, not everyone who was included in the Covenant of Grace was included in the Covenant of Circumcision during the time of Abraham. I have discussed that elsewhere on the board. A few of the Patriarchs alive during Abraham's time, King Mel, and some in his Kingdom were not included in the Covenant of Circumcision. Some have debated whether Lot was circumcised. My point in saying this is to point out that circumcision is not necessarily purely the sign of the Covenant of Grace.
> 
> 
> The two Covenants that proceeded down into the Mosaic from Abraham that I referenced from Galatians contained both elements from of the Covenant of Grace and Works. It is not dispensational as in the Capital "D" you mention to think this way, but is very scriptural and written from the pen of Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I do believe the Abrahamic and Mosaic are subserviant to the CofG and CofW.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that the Abrahamic and Mosaic administer both the Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of Works. But in relationship the promises that were made to Abraham and the place that he was put in relationship to those under him made him a head of the Covenant concerning the promises that were made to him concerning his posterity and clan. And as I mentioned there are elements in that Covenant that do not pertain to the Covenant of Grace. They were promises made by Covenant that made him the fountain head of reception to some of those promises as they were fulfilled by God toward him.
> 
> It is the same way with the Mosaic Covenant. There are elements in the Mosaic that were not specifically related to the Covenant of Grace. There were elements of the Covenant of Works in it that were administered by it also.
> 
> Here is something that I would reference concerning Mosaic from Witsius.
> 
> 
> 
> The edition is den Dulk Christian Foundation distributed by P&R, reprinted 1990. Vol. II, p. 186, Witsius says of the Mosaic Cov.,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe the Mosaic is subservient to both the Covenants of Grace and Works. The Mosaic and Abrahamic administer the the Covenants for the elect and those who are not in a nationalist civil mode of relationship. So I am not being dispensational as you want to accuse me of. I am actually being very biblical and relying of some pretty big shoulders in my understanding. Nehemiah Coxe would be one of my biggest influences on this also.
> 
> I do not believe that circumcision was carried into the New Covenant because the New Covenant sign is representative of our Union with Chist's death, burial, and resurrection and our being in union with him in those. The only instances I see of men performing those things such as circumcision and sacrifices were to win the Jews and get them to see Christ. While I agree that the sacrifices were carried on into the New Covenant Era as well as circumcision I would have to say that both were to be forsaken by Christians as a means of salvation. In fact Paul says that circumcision avails nothing. It is gone with the Old. Paul doesn't make the argument that Galatians have been baptized and that is the New Covenant Circumcision. They are two different things entirely. In fact the author of Hebrews condemned the Old testament worship was as unbelief. Paul does warn the Galatians not to turn back to those weak and beggarly things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Gal 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I still have to conclude that there are different Covenants that perform different things concerning promise and purpose in continuity and discontinuity. We are just arguing concerning the things that continue and those that don't. We are trying to discuss and distinguish the things that are New and those that are done away and dead because of what they are tied to. You tried to accuse me of being incorrect that circumcision was not tied to bondage of the law and that is wan't abrogated. Well I showed you that Paul did say that circumcision was abrogated and that it was tied to the law. You still have neglected to acknowledge that. You want to make the unholy unregenerate sound like they are holy the same way a regenerate person is who is in union with Christ. And you have neglected me on this.
> You have accused me of being dispensational with a BIG "D" which I believe is an unfair accusation. Others will read that in a wrong light I believe. All that I am affirming is what I see the Confession affirming along with those of my Confession of Faith. It is not dispsensational with a BIG "D".
> 
> Rob, I like you. I have always enjoyed your challenges. I might be a half breed to you and not worthy of the name Covenanter. But that is who I am. I believe you would do better to try to understand what I think instead of making sweeping BIG "D" accusations. Name calling never advanced anyone in a discussion. And I believe you have improperly labelled me. Yes, I do believe in dispensations as does the Westminster. Maybe we differ on how much the terminology comes into play but I am no dispensationalist like those who are known by that name in theological terms today.
> 
> Be Encouraged brother,
> Randy
Click to expand...


Thank you, Randy, for your kindness and patience with me.

Thank you also for explaining yourself. I thought we were talking about Jer 31:31ff and the Old/New Covenant distinctions. In this sense the distinctions are outward/physical - both the Old and New Covenants have the same head - Jesus Christ.

The "Old" Covenant here cannot be equated with the Covenant of Works, because the "Old" Covenant is a gracious Covenant made by God. It is an administration of the Covenant of Grace. My understanding of what you said was that the Covenant of Grace - represented by both the Old and New Covenants - had two different heads.

Now you tell me that you were speaking of the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace. Yes, I agree with you that Adam was the covenant head of the Covenant of Works, and Jesus is the Covenant head of the Covenant of Grace.

I agree with you about that, and my "accusation" of the capital "D" is withdrawn with my sincere apologies.

As far as the Burroughs quote goes: Your point was that Burroughs was saying that there was no command from God which prohibited the Sons of Aaron from offering the fire which they offered. However, when reading the rest of the passage it is clear that Burroughs was satisfied that the Sons of Aaron were doing something they were not supposed to do. Thus, the punishment of God was just.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

CalvinandHodges said:


> As far as the Burroughs quote goes: Your point was that Burroughs was saying that there was no command from God which prohibited the Sons of Aaron from offering the fire which they offered. However, when reading the rest of the passage it is clear that Burroughs was satisfied that the Sons of Aaron were doing something they were not supposed to do. Thus, the punishment of God was just.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> Rob



I agree that Burroughs was satisfied that the sons of Aaron were doing something they were not supposed to do. The punishment of God was just. The point Burrough's also makes is that there was no command to not offer strange fire. If they were doing something in ignorance it did not excuse them. Burrough's also makes the point that these young Priests were not vile men who were void of any integrity. They did something ignorantly and God said he would be sanctified in them. Thus, when they were punished their father Aaron had to say that God was just even though they might not have understood they were violating anything, even if there wasn't a negative command.

Rob, I might be a bit slow responding since the weekend is here. I get busy on the weekends so be patient with me brother if it seems I don't get back to the discussion right away. That is one reason I just want to discuss this with you. I am not trying to avoid others arguments. I just have so much time and need to stay focused so I probably won't be dealing with the other's arguments. I hope others take no offense. Thanks for understanding.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Greetings Randy:

I know what you mean when it comes to taking your time in replying - this past weekend I had to drive 6 hours to preach in Owego, NY. I had a great time, but it was quite draining.

To back up a bit I want to address something you said in post #80. You wrote:



> His argument does make sense if baptism is not the sacramental equivalent of circumcision. First off did you notice that Everyone who is baptized puts on Christ.


What kind of baptism are you referring to? The rite of Water Baptism, or, the Baptism of the Spirit? If you are referring to Water Baptism, then did Simon the Sorceror "put on Christ" when he was baptized? If he did, then what does that mean about the unbreakable covenant which cannot be broken?

In an earlier post you argued that circumcision was given as a civil ordinance to Israel - as part of the land promises. When you consider that strangers who were servants of the Jews were also to be circumcised, and they never inherited the land, then such an argument does not seem to hold water (pardon the pun).

What I would like to see from you, and from any Credobaptists, is a good Biblical argument that dipping is the only Mode of Christian Baptism. Can you adequately defend the statment in the 1689 Confession:



> Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance.


If you cannot defend dipping as the sole means of Baptism in the Bible, then how can anyone expect your arguments concerning Adults only to be Biblically valid? Being faithful over a little...

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Wow, I didn't notice you replied. 

In the remark where you site me I believe that we are referring to St. Paul in post 80.



PuritanCovenanter said:


> What does baptism have to do with Abraham to whom the covenant sign of circumcision was given? If baptism is not the sacramental equivalent of circumcision, then Paul's argument does not make sense.



His argument does make sense if baptism is not the sacramental equivalent of circumcision. First off did you notice that Everyone who is baptized puts on Christ. 



> (Gal 3:26) For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
> 
> (Gal 3:27) For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.



And this is set up in relation to what Paul says about Circumcision.



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




This is not true in the Covenant of Circumcision. From the beginning in Genesis 17 Jehovah told Abraham that Ishmael was not included in the Everlasting Covenant but he was included in covenant promises that pertained to Abraham in his physical posterity. I explained that above. Circumcision is not an exact replacement of baptism. Different Covenant head, different Covenant ties, and different circumcisions. One is of the heart the other is from the place physical posterity comes from. We enter into Baptism and are risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God. In Baptism we have Gospel obedience. In Circumcision Paul ascribes bondage to the law. Two different things. As noted above by Paul those who have been Baptized have put on Christ. Those who are tied to a Covenant of circumcision of posterity are tied to the law. They are different. [/QUOTE]

I believe Paul is writing about physical baptism here in a general sense concerning those who are considered children of God by faith in Jesus Christ. At least that is what the passage seems to indicate. If Simon the Sorcerer was a child of God by faith in Jesus Christ, he did. If not he only added to his condemnation in my estimation. I don't think you can make a for certain whether or not Simon was in Christ or not. History seems to reveal he was opposed to Peter. The key to the passage and the point I would direct you to is in verse 26. I don't think you can divorce verse 26 from 27.

Now concerning the slaves who had no inheritance in the land. I would point you to understand that had they not been circumcised they would have been cut off. They wouldn't be allowed to stay in the land nor dwell with Abraham, Isaac, or any of the Isrealites after their reluctance to be circumcised. So as long as they remained and were circumcised they were included as a part of the civil promise to serve and have habitation in the land. And they also might have been participants of the Covenant of Grace. But then again circumcision wasn't necessary for that. As we have discussed before on the PB. The Covenant of Circumcision was not purely the sign of the Covenant of Grace. 

Concerning Immersion? I think you are making a big jump here but I will refer you to John Calvin, Francis Territin, and Herman Witsius from another post I made . 



PuritanCovenanter said:


> Even though water baptism is not mentioned in Romans 6 the death, burial, and resurrection analogy is signified in the going down under the water and the resurrection is signified by coming up to newness of life, out of the water. That is some of the reasoning.
> 
> Let me leave you with a quote here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But whether the person being baptized should be wholly immersed , and whether thrice or once, whether he should be only sprinkled with poured water---these details are of no importance, but ought to be optional to churches according to the diversity of countries. Yet the word 'baptizo' means to immerse, and it is clear that the rite of immersion was observed in the ancient church.
> 
> John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, 4:15:19 (1320)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also in the footnotes of Fred Malones book 'The Baptism of Disciples Alone' on page xviv it is noted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See also Herman Wisius' and Francis Territin's discussions of mode of baptism in the early church. Both admit immersion was the practice, though they claim pouring and sprinkling also was practiced depending upon circumstances such as health or the availability of water.
> Economy of the Covenants 1:422-428
> Institutes of Elcentic Theology 3:381
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


The following post is also pretty revealing. 



refbaptdude said:


> Some additonal quotes concerning baptism by immersion:
> 
> What Non Baptists Have Said Concerning the Ancient Mode of Baptism
> 
> *Presbyterian*
> John Calvin -"The very word "baptize however, signifies to IMMERSE, and it is certain that IMMERSION was the practice of the ancient church."(Institutes of the Christian Religion, chp 15)
> 
> John Calvin’s commentary on the Gospel of John
> John 3:22-23
> 22. After these things came Jesus. It is probable that Christ, when the feast was past, came into that part of Judea which was in the vicinity of the town Enon, which was situated in the tribe of Manasseh. The Evangelist says that there were many waters there, and these were not so abundant in Judea. Now geographers tell us, that these two towns, Enon and Salim, were not far from the confluence of the river Jordan and the brook Jabbok; and they add that Scythopolis was near them. _*From these words, we may infer that John and Christ administered baptism by plunging the whole body beneath the water;*_ though we ought not to give ourselves any great uneasiness about the outward rite, provided that it agree with the spiritual truth, and with the Lord's appointment and rule. So far as we are able to conjecture, the; vicinity of those places caused various reports to be circulated, and many discussions to arise, about the Law, about the worship of God, and about the condition of the Church, in consequence of two persons who administered baptism having arisen at the same time. For when the Evangelist says that Christ baptized, I refer this to the commencement of his ministry; namely, that he then began to exercise publicly the office which was appointed to him by the Father. And though Christ did this by his disciples, yet he is here named as the Author of the baptism, without mentioning his ministers, who did nothing but in his name and by his command. On this subject, we shall have something more to say in the beginning of the next Chapter.
> 
> 
> *Lutheran*
> Martin Luther -" I could wish that the baptized should be totally IMMERSED according to the meaning of the word."
> 
> Philip Schaff -"IMMERSION and not sprinkling was unquestionably the original normal form of baptism. This is shown by the meaning of the Greek word and the analogy of the baptism of John which was performed in Jordan." (History of the Apostolic Church, p.568).
> 
> 
> *Roman Catholic*
> Cardinal Gibbons -"For several centuries after the establishment of Christianity baptism was usually conferred by IMMERSION; but since the 12th century the practice of baptism by infusion has prevailed in the Catholic church, as this manner is attained with less inconvenience than by IMMERSION (Faith of our Fathers p. 317)
> 
> *Methodist*
> John Wesley -commenting on Rom 6:4- "We are buried with Him- alluding to the ancient manner of baptism by IMMERSION (Explanatory notes Upon the New Testament, p. 376)
> 
> George Whitefield -commenting on Rom 6:4- "It is certain that the words of our text is an allusion to the manner of baptism by IMMERSION
> 
> *Episcopalians*
> Conybeare and Howson -commenting on Rom 6:4-":This passage cannot be undersood unless it is understood that the primitive baptism was by IMMERSION."





At the same time.... I am not as concerned about the mode. I believe I can defend it historically and scripturally but I do believe the Lord to be merciful and gracious who wouldn't break a bruised reed. And if someone is incapable of having immersion performed upon their Confession of Christ, I do believe that pouring will suffice in the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hay Randy:

I am sorry for being so long in answering - I had written presbytery exams to take, a paper to write for presbytery, and the new semester began! Thank you for your patience with me.

There is a Biblical distinction between the physical rite of circumcision and the spiritual applications of it. One can be physically circumcised, and, yet not have his/her heart circumcised:



> Romans 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
> 29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.


There is a promise of a land inheritance to those who are baptized as well - a New Heavens and a New Earth:



> 2 Pet 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.


This is not surprising to the paedo-baptist because we understand that Abraham viewed the land promises in the same way:



> Heb 11:9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:
> 10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.


There are land promises in the New Testament, and these are the same land promises that Abraham was looking for as well.

The example of Ishmael does not support your theory. Ishmael did not receive the same land promises as Isaac. Though God provided for Ishmael because of Abraham - the land was not given to Ishmael and his descendents, but to Isaac and his seed.

I agree with you that servants were allowed in the land because they were circumcized. The picture is that of cleanliness. As those on Earth, in Israel, are cleansed from their sin (circumcized), then those who are in Heaven are to be cleansed from their sin (by Grace through faith). If there are servants among the Jews who did not believe, then that only shows the imperfection of the physical rite - as it is with the physical rite of baptism.

The teaching of the New Covenant is that Baptism and Circumcision both signify the same thing: The Washing and Renewing of the Holy Spirit. This is demonstrated in many ways:

Circumcision is the *sign of the Covenant*: Acts 7:8 And he gave him the covenant of circumcision: and so Abraham begat Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth day; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat the twelve patriarchs.

Baptism is the *sign of the Covenant*: 1 Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Circumcision is a *seal*: Rom 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also.

Baptism is a *seal:* 1 Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Circumcision represents the New Birth: Romans 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Baptism represents the New Birth: Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

Circumcision represents the cleansing of the Heart: Deut 10:6 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.

Baptism represents the cleansing of the Heart: Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.

That there are differences between the Old and New Testament does not change the similarities. Otherwise, the sacrifice of Jesus Christ is of none effect, because the OT sacrifices were done with sheep, goats, birds, etc, and Jesus was a human male.

The things that circumcision represented spiritually are the same things that baptism represents spiritually.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hay Randy:
> 
> I am sorry for being so long in answering - I had written presbytery exams to take, a paper to write for presbytery, and the new semester began! Thank you for your patience with me.



No problem Rob.... I have a feeling you and I are going to take this thread into next year. I haven't read anything but the first few lines and just let it go at that. I will probably respond sometime next week anyways. In fact I kind of like it that way. We can respond intelligently and not off the cuff, so to speak. 

To bad 99% of the threads can't slow down and respond a bit more intelligently and with less emotion as ours appears to be doing. 

BTW, have you got my old RPCNA Pastor's book on William Symington yet. If not I will get you a copy. It is a very beautiful work that I believe the whole church of God could benefit from. I am reading it slowly. I started posting about it here. 

http://www.puritanboard.com/f18/william-symington-penman-scottish-covenanters-53418/

Sorry. I took it off topic but will respond later brother. 

Love ya,
Randy


----------

