# Why I have switched from Paedo to Credo



## AV1611

I have recently decided that the covenantal case for believer baptism is stronger than for paedobaptism. This came about after I wrote the following article:



> *Why Baptise Infants?
> 
> By Richard Sherratt*​
> Article 27 of our Articles of Religion states that “The baptism of young children is in any wise to be retained in the Church as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.” Because of this there will be times, I am sure, that we shall be asked by someone to give an account of this and explain why as Christians we baptize infants. I am convinced that in responding we ought to found our position squarely upon the eternal covenant of God.
> 
> *The Covenant of God*
> It is a glorious truth indeed that our God is a covenant God. In Genesis 17:7 God declares of himself “I will establish My covenant”. This gracious covenant that God establishes is founded in eternity and realised within history. It was made with Christ and with all the elect in him and is a relation of the most blessed communion and intimate friendship between the triune God and his chosen people in Christ Jesus (Revelation 3:20; 21:3). It is this unconditional covenant, this relation of friendship, that God establishes and he does so with believers and their children. Hence God says in Genesis 17:7 that “I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you”.
> 
> From the Old Testament we find that God has established his covenant with believers and their seed or, as Dutch Reformed theologian Herman Hoeksema puts it, ‘in the line of continued generations’ and that infants are included in the covenant of God. This is found in Genesis 17:7 in the phrase “I will establish My covenant between Me…and your descendants after you in their generations”. So as we look back into the Old Testament we find God’s covenant being realized in an unbroken line from Adam to Christ through Seth, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Israel, Judah and David.1 This continues in the New Testament hence St. Peter declares in Acts 2:39 that “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.”
> 
> *The Covenant Sign*
> Whilst God has established his covenant he has also instituted a sign and seal of this covenant so that those with whom the covenant is established are marked out as being in a covenant relation with God. These signs of the covenant have two parts as our Catechism teaches. Firstly an “outward and visible sign” and secondly “an inward and spiritual grace” signified thereby. Under the old dispensation the sign and seal of the covenant was circumcision and so when God established his covenant with Abraham and his seed he commanded “Every male child among you shall be circumcised” (Genesis 17: 10). This sign of circumcision, we are taught in Romans 4:11, was “a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised” i.e. that God justifies through faith alone. But if we look through the Scriptures we find circumcision signified much more that just this. It symbolised regeneration and confession of sin (Leviticus 26:40, 41), sanctification (Deuteronomy 10:16; Jeremiah 4:4) and the work of God in the heart filling it with love for God (Deuteronomy 30:6). Finally circumcision was a sign of God’s covenant to be the God of believers and their seed as is taught in Genesis 17:7-14 that “it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you.” The covenant sign of circumcision signified a spiritual grace and was properly a sacrament.
> 
> However Christ has taken away all bloody ordinances and circumcision has been fulfilled in baptism so now under the new dispensation baptism has replaced circumcision as the covenantal sign and seal. There is a direct parallel between circumcision and baptism. Titus 3:5 and 1 Peter 3:21 teach that baptism signifies regeneration and cleansing. Romans 6:4 teaches that it symbolises sanctification and Galatians 3:27-29 teaches that baptism signifies our being in the covenant of God as circumcision once did. Further Colossians 2:11-13 offers clear proof that circumcision and baptism are essentially the same in meaning.
> 
> This teaching is taught in both the Belgic Confession of 1561 and the Heidelberg Catechism of 1563. The Belgic Confession states that
> 
> "We believe and confess that Jesus Christ, who is the end of the law, has by His shed blood put an end to every other shedding of blood that one could or would make as an expiation or satisfaction for sins. He has abolished circumcision, which involved blood, and has instituted in its place the sacrament of baptism. By baptism we are received into the Church of God and set apart from all other peoples and false religions, to be entirely committed to Him whose mark and emblem we bear. This serves as a testimony to us that He will be our God and gracious Father for ever…Because baptism has the same meaning for our children as circumcision had for the people of Israel, Paul calls baptism the circumcision of Christ."2
> 
> The Heidelberg Catechism asks “Should infants, too, be baptized?” replying:
> 
> "Yes. Infants as well as adults belong to God's covenant and congregation…Therefore, by baptism, as sign of the covenant, they must be grafted into the Christian church and distinguished from the children of unbelievers. This was done in the old covenant by circumcision, in place of which baptism was instituted in the new covenant."3
> 
> Here we find it taught explicitly that “baptism has the same meaning for our children as circumcision had for the people of Israel” and so we safely conclude that the sign and seal of the covenant has changed from circumcision to baptism.
> 
> *A Covenant People and a Covenant Sign*
> That God has established a covenant has been shown above as has his institution of a sign of that covenant. God has commanded that those with whom he has established his covenant are marked with the covenant sign. This can be seen in Genesis 17:7-11 “I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after…Every male child among you shall be circumcised…and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you.” Because God establishes his covenant with believers and their seed so believers and their seed ought be marked out by the covenant sign. Therefore the argument that we maintain is that infants ought to be baptised because they are included in the covenant of God and baptism being the sign of the covenant it should be administered to infants.
> 
> *The Church of England and the Covenantal Argument*
> The question must now be asked as to how this covenantal position fits in with the teaching of the Church of England.
> 
> *1.* I showed previously that the covenant sign of circumcision signified a spiritual grace and as such was a sacrament. This is taught in the homilies saying that “And so was circumcision a Sacrament, which preached unto the outward senses the inward cutting away of the foreskin of the heart, and sealed and made sure in the hearts of the Circumcised the promise of GOD touching the promised seed that they looked for.”4
> 
> *2.* Our liturgy and Articles teach that through baptism infants become members of the visible covenant community. In the baptismal liturgy the minister urges the congregation to pray unto God that the infant that is to be baptized will be “received into Christ's holy Church” and after baptism the minister declares “We receive this Child into the congregation of Christ's flock” and that the infant has been “grafted into the body of Christ's Church”.
> 
> *3.* Archbishop Cranmer linked baptism with circumcision arguing, “the baptism of infants is proved by the plain scriptures. First, by the figure of the old law, which was circumcision. Infants in the old law were circumcised; ergo, in the new law they ought to be baptized. Again: infants pertain to God, as it is said to Abraham, “I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed after thee.””5 Notice here that Cranmer parallels baptism with circumcision and then argues along covenantal lines from Genesis 17.
> 
> We see here then that the covenantal case for infant baptism is consistent with the teaching of the Church of England.
> 
> *A Final Word*
> I began by asking how we should respond to someone asking why we should baptise infants. My answer has been that we show them that infants are included in the covenant and baptism is the sign of the covenant and it should therefore be administered to infants. In closing there are three brief points I wish to make:
> 1. We baptize infants not because they have faith or because we presume them to be regenerate but rather because of the promise of God to believers that he will be their God and the God of their children.
> 2. Whilst God has established his covenant with believers and their seed the covenant is truly made with believers and their elect seed only as St. Paul teaches in Romans 9:6.
> 3. Baptism does not justify rather it acts as a visible word testifying of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. It reminds us that we are, as our Catechism teaches, “by nature born in sin, and the children of wrath” and that it is only by the sovereign grace of God that we are saved.
> 
> ________________
> 
> 1. Hoeksema, H. (1997) _Believers and their Seed_, RFPA, pages 85-99
> 2. _Belgic Confession_, Article 34.
> 3. _Heidelberg Catechism_, Question 74.
> 4. _That Common Prayers and Sacraments ought to be ministered in a known tongue_
> 5. Cox, J. (1846) _Miscellaneous Writings and Letters of Thomas Cranmer_, Regent College Publishing pp. 60



The reason for this is thus:

The reason I began to see a need to reassess my view was that if indeed the Covenant of Grace was made with the elect alone then the covenant is made only with believers and their elect infants. Therefore accepting that elect infants are in the covenant should they be baptised? Now as far as I can work out there are two replies:

*1. *Yes they should be. But if this is the case then it must be pointed out that we do not actually know which of our seed, if any, are in fact elect. Therefore we would be baptising all the seed of believer's for the sake of the elect.

*2.* We ought to wait until they manifest their election by bringing forth the fruits of their election, these being repentance and faith amongst others, so demonstrating that they belong to the covenant and then baptise them. 

In addition to 1 I would question whether we should really be placing the sign and seal upon the reprobate albeit unknowingly? Ultimately however the issue boils down to circumcision and its parallel in baptism, which I continue to affirm. 

As a paedobaptist the case rested upon Genesis 17 and the idea that infants are included in the covenant. However I have come to see that the promises of that 'covenant of circumcision' can be understood as possessing both a letter and a spirit as is explained here:



> "That the covenant with Abraham," says Dr. Carson, "has a letter and a spirit, is not a theory formed to serve a purpose. It is consonant to every part of the Old Dispensation, and is the only sense that can harmonize it with the New Testament. The temple was the house of God, in the letter; believers are so in the spirit. To call any house the house of God, is as much below the sense which the same phrase has when it is applied to the church of Christ, as to call the nation of Israel the people of God, is below the sense which that phrase has when applied to the spiritual Israel. Besides, there are many things spoken about the house of God in the letter, in terms that can only fully suit the spirit. "I have surely," said Solomon, "built thee an house to dwell in, a settled place for thee to abide forever." The incongruity of supposing him, whom ?the heaven of heavens cannot contain,? to dwell in a house forever, as a settled habitation, is removed only by referring it to the spirit." "Christ?s body is the only temple of which this is fully true. God did not dwell in the temple built by Solomon forever." That temple ceased to exist twenty five centuries ago. "But in the spirit it is accomplished, in its utmost extent." In another place, the same distinguished writer observes : -"For the accomplishment of the grand purpose that all nations should be blessed in Abraham, he had three promises. First, a numerous posterity; which was fulfilled in the letter, to the nation of Israel. It was fulfilled in the spirit, by the divine constitution that makes all believers the children of Abraham." "The second was, that he would be a God to him, and his seed; which was fulfilled in the letter, by his protection of Israel in Egypt, his delivering them from bondage," and his subsequent dealings with that nation. "This promise is fulfilled in the spirit, by God?s being a God to all believers, and to them alone, in a higher sense than he ever was to Israel" as a nation. "The third promise was of the land of Canaan; fulfilled in the letter to Israel; and in the spirit fulfilled to the true Israel, in the heavenly inheritance," the possession of the Canaan above. "In accordance with this double sense of the covenant," "the typical ordinances, which exhibit the truths of the gospel in a figure, form one of the most conclusive evidences of Christianity, and present spiritual things to the mind, in so definite and striking a manner, that they add the greatest lustre to the doctrines of grace."


 (source)

The Abrahamic Covenant is not the Covenant of Grace but rather it is an administration of the one eternal Covenant of Grace. Now whilst the CofG is a unifying feature of both the Old and the New Testaments I believe that it is administered in various administrations through time and with progressive redemptive clarity. Therefore administrations of the one covenant of grace can vary and whilst we do faind unity throughout the Scriptures we must be careful not to find unity where there is non and so artificially create unity.

Spurgeon in his sermon entitled _CONSECRATION TO GOD—ILLUSTRATED BY ABRAHAM’S CIRCUMCISION_:



> It is often said that the ordinance of Baptism is analogous to the ordinance of circumcision. I will not controvert that point, although the statement may be questioned.
> But supposing it to be, let me urge upon every Believer here to see to it that in his own soul he realizes the spiritual meaning both of circumcision and Baptism, and then consider the outward rites—for the thing signified is vastly more important than the sign....“Well,” says one, “a difficulty suggests itself as to your views”—for an argument is often drawn from this chapter, “that inasmuch as Abraham must circumcise all his seed, we ought to baptize all our children.” Now, observe the type and interpret it not according to prejudice, but according to Scripture. In the type the seed of Abraham are circumcised.
> You draw the inference that all typified by the seed of Abraham ought to be baptized, and I do not quibble at the conclusion. But I ask you, who are the true seed of Abraham? Paul answers in Romans 9:8—“They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.” As many as believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, whether they are Jews or Gentiles, are Abraham’s seed. Whether eight days old in Divine Grace, or more or less—every one of Abraham’s seed has a right to Baptism. But I deny that the unregenerate, whether children or adults, are of the spiritual seed of Abraham. The Lord will, we trust, call many of them by His Grace—but as yet they are “heirs of wrath, even as others.” At such time as the Spirit of God shall sow the good seed in their hearts, they are of Abraham’s believing seed—but they are not so while they live in ungodliness and unbelief, or are as yet incapable of faith or repentance. The answering person in type to the seed of Abraham is, by the confession of everybody, the Believer. And the Believer ought, seeing he is buried with Christ spiritually, to prove that fact by his public Baptism in water, according to the Savior’s own precept and example.



Whilst the sign and seal of the covenant is to be administered to the seed of Abraham the seed of Abraham is Christ and the elect in him (*Gal 3:16, 29 *"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 if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.") and therefore only believers are to be baptised. And so the solution to the question, "accepting that elect infants are in the covenant should they be baptised?" is:

*2.* We ought to wait until they manifest their election by bringing forth the fruits of their election, these being repentance and faith amongst others, so demonstrating that they belong to the covenant and then baptise them. 

I hope that is clear


----------



## AV1611

trevorjohnson said:


> Hello brother;
> 
> As you continue to read, you might want to consider two books:
> 
> Paul King Jewitt (sic) "Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace" and the new book just out called "Believer's Baptism".



Thanks  I have _Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace_ and I will keep a look out for the other.


----------



## Ivan

Good post, Richard. Obviously I agree with you. Brace yourself though.

Question: Since you have become a credo, which church will you joined now?


----------



## AV1611

Ivan said:


> Good post, Richard. Obviously I agree with you. Brace yourself though.
> 
> Question: Since you have become a credo, which church will you joined now?



Thank you 

I will keep going to the church I currently go to simply because it is the best church around here. However my parent's pastor is leaving and so if they get a good chap then I may go there (http://www.bethelchurch.co.uk/) but they are not at all Reformed. 

This part of Cheshire is not a good place for churches plus I am unable to drive.


----------



## Ivan

AV1611 said:


> Thank you
> 
> I will keep going to the church I currently go to simply because it is the best church around here. However my parent's pastor is leaving and so if they get a good chap then I may go there (http://www.bethelchurch.co.uk/) but they are not at all Reformed.
> 
> This part of Cheshire is not a good place for churches plus I am unable to drive.



I did a little research to find out where Cheshire is.  Near Manchester and Liverpool, in northwest England, I see. Interesting, an ancient alternative name for Cheshire is "The Vision of Britain". I wonder where that came from? Of course, there is Lewis Carroll, hence "Cheshire Cats". 

I was wondering how far Manchester or Liverpool are from Cheshire and if you have a good railroad system to go to and fro.

I saw a photo of the Cheshire Cathedral. Do you happen to worship there? Beautiful countryside too. I'd be right at home there. I'd love to spend at least a year in Britain, England, Scotland, and Wales....Ireland too.


----------



## AV1611

Ivan said:


> I did a little research to find out where Cheshire is.  Near Manchester and Liverpool, in northwest England, I see. Interesting, an ancient alternative name for Cheshire is "The Vision of Britain". I wonder where that came from? Of course, there is Lewis Carroll, hence "Cheshire Cats".
> 
> I was wondering how far Manchester or Liverpool are from Cheshire and if you have a good railroad system to go to and fro.
> 
> I saw a photo of the Cheshire Cathedral. Do you happen to worship there? Beautiful countryside too. I'd be right at home there. I'd love to spend at least a year in Britain, England, Scotland, and Wales....Ireland too.



From Hartford Liverpool is around 45mins and Manchester (where I was born) is about an hour.

I have seen Chester Cathedral (I currently am working in Chester) but I worship at St. John's at the moment.


----------



## etexas

AV1611 said:


> Thank you
> 
> I will keep going to the church I currently go to simply because it is the best church around here. However my parent's pastor is leaving and so if they get a good chap then I may go there (http://www.bethelchurch.co.uk/) but they are not at all Reformed.
> 
> This part of Cheshire is not a good place for churches plus I am unable to drive.


Richard, please go to a Godly Bishop before you embrace this new position.


----------



## Ivan

I follow Jesus said:


> Richard, please go to a Godly Bishop before you embrace this new position.



Obviously, I have a credo position, but I think Max is right...if it's something you haven't already done.

BTW, St. John is a beautiful facility. I like the style of the building. Got a bit of the High Church in me. And the church looks lively too! I sensed from the website that it is a somewhat conservative, evangelical church.


----------



## KMK

Richard, I went down a similar path as you. As I have stated before on the PB, I earnestly desired to be a WCF Reformed Prsebyterian but when it came down to it I was not complelled by the paedo arguments. This is for similar reasons as yourself. 

I think it is always good advice to seek godly counsel. However, I do not agree with what seems to be the prevailing opinion on PB that this is a huge deal. If I were not pastoring a church, I would have no problem attending a good Presbyterian church. (Non-PCUSA, of course) I would have no problem with my pastor baptising infants because I believe that the Presbyterians have very good reasons for doing so. I rejoice that my Presbyterian brothers and sisters go to the Word of God as their only rule for faith and practice! Thank God for the Presbyterians! Where would we be in America without them? 

But if I am going to pastor or lead a church, then that church is going to have to be baptist because I could never baptize an infant myself. At some point, after much prayer and study, a young man such as yourself who has any calling to lead will have to make a decision about paedo/credo. You could literally spend the rest of your life studying the arguments of others to the exclusion of serving Him with your gifts. At some point all of us have to trust the Holy Spirit and make a decision.  

I appreciate your honesty and your courage for posting your position. I pray that the Lord is preparing you for service in His Kingdom as a leader, because as the Lord knows, we need them in this world. Baptist or Presbyterian it makes no difference to me! Lord of the Harvest, send labourers!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Herald

Funny...I have posted a few times on how I was so close to embracing the Covenant Theology position. I am not castigating C.T. at all. But I was close.


----------



## MW

AV1611 said:


> *2.* We ought to wait until they manifest their election by bringing forth the fruits of their election, these being repentance and faith amongst others, so demonstrating that they belong to the covenant and then baptise them.



I trust the great Shepherd of the sheep will lead you in paths of righteousness for His name's sake. But on the above point, not even adult converts in the NT were required to meet the stringent pre-requisites you have set for baptism.


----------



## Machaira

armourbearer said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I*2.* We ought to wait until they manifest their election by bringing forth the fruits of their election, these being repentance and faith amongst others, so demonstrating that they belong to the covenant and then baptise them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I trust the great Shepherd of the sheep will lead you in paths of righteousness for His name's sake. But on the above point, not even adult converts in the NT were required to meet the stringent pre-requisites you have set for baptism.
Click to expand...


Matthew,

Good point. Your comment reminded me of the "household" baptisms in Acts. It seems to me that these households didn't have much time in which to display much fruit of any kind.


----------



## Herald

armourbearer said:


> I trust the great Shepherd of the sheep will lead you in paths of righteousness for His name's sake. But on the above point, not even adult converts in the NT were required to meet the stringent pre-requisites you have set for baptism.



I agree with brother Matthew. The model is to believe and be baptized. Delaying baptism, even if done with good intentions, is not biblical.


----------



## VanVos

Great article Richard, my fellow Brit. I agree with you that true seed of Abraham is Christ and the elected in Him. I love Covenant Theology and I really tried to give the paedo position as much study as possible, but I found myself increasingly more convinced of the credo position. Thank God for our early reformed forefathers and their development of Covenant Theology, but I believe that we have in God providence a rectifying the paedo error in the LBF, but at same time maintaining the Covenantal hermeneutic. 

I’ll be praying for you to find a Reformed Baptist church Richard, there’s got one somewhere Cheshire 

God bless Jonathan


----------



## bookslover

armourbearer said:


> I trust the great Shepherd of the sheep will lead you in paths of righteousness for His name's sake. But on the above point, not even adult converts in the NT were required to meet the stringent pre-requisites you have set for baptism.



Matthew, what is the English translation of your Latin motto?


----------



## MW

bookslover said:


> Matthew, what is the English translation of your Latin motto?



It is the Latin version of "He must increase," etc. As a Latin quotation it admits of some embellishment, e.g., "It is becoming for That (well known) One to thrive, but for me to be diminished." May the Lord hasten it in His time!


----------



## Davidius




----------



## edb19

KMK said:


> Richard, I went down a similar path as you. As I have stated before on the PB, I earnestly desired to be a WCF Reformed Prsebyterian but when it came down to it I was not complelled by the paedo arguments. This is for similar reasons as yourself.
> 
> I think it is always good advice to seek godly counsel. However, I do not agree with what seems to be the prevailing opinion on PB that this is a huge deal. If I were not pastoring a church, I would have no problem attending a good Presbyterian church. (Non-PCUSA, of course) I would have no problem with my pastor baptising infants because I believe that the Presbyterians have very good reasons for doing so. I rejoice that my Presbyterian brothers and sisters go to the Word of God as their only rule for faith and practice! Thank God for the Presbyterians! Where would we be in America without them?
> 
> But if I am going to pastor or lead a church, then that church is going to have to be baptist because I could never baptize an infant myself. At some point, after much prayer and study, a young man such as yourself who has any calling to lead will have to make a decision about paedo/credo. You could literally spend the rest of your life studying the arguments of others to the exclusion of serving Him with your gifts. At some point all of us have to trust the Holy Spirit and make a decision.
> 
> I appreciate your honesty and your courage for posting your position. I pray that the Lord is preparing you for service in His Kingdom as a leader, because as the Lord knows, we need them in this world. Baptist or Presbyterian it makes no difference to me! Lord of the Harvest, send labourers!



I was raised Presbyterian and was never quite able to reconcile paedobaptism with Scripture. I had several discussions with my pastor regarding the subject at the time and while he held with infant baptism pastor was very understanding of my concerns and questions. I remember him telling me that there were a fair number of credobaptist members within the Presbyterian denomination, that I wasn't the only one who believed that way. 

When I encountered the Reformed Baptists as an adult it was like coming home - the Reformed doctrines I'd learned and loved as a youth plus credobaptism.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Good points Paul. You've reiterated these very points before.



> 2. We ought to wait until they manifest their election by bringing forth the fruits of their election, these being repentance and faith amongst others, so demonstrating that they belong to the covenant and then baptise them.



I think the conclusion of the matter demonstrates, yet again, that the argument for credo-baptism from this direction is misplaced. Again, election is not the test used by Baptists to baptize - profession is. 

As pointed out by other Baptists, you've now also created a bar for baptism for professors. Since the Church is looking for assurance of election to keep the sacrament from the reprobate then mere profession isn't good enough. You really need to go much further and put the person in a probationary status to assure yourself that his is not a faith of the character of the seed that falls on the path or among weeds. This is why some Particular Baptists insist on extremely long periods of observation and study before they'll baptize an individual. What, precisely, is the Scriptural bar for how elect a person must _seem_ before the Sacrament is to be applied to him or her? 

If you state that a mere profession is sufficient then the Parable of the Sower undermines the confidence you are placing in profession as a sign of election. If you state that profession and a probationary status is necessary then you are adding to the Scriptures that speak of (and evidence) immediate baptism of believers.

My suggestion to you as a new credo-baptist is my suggestion to all of them: abandon the argument for credo-baptism on the basis of a probability calculus to ensure election. For that matter, election has little bearing upon the issue of who ought to be baptized. That baptists continue to see the nature of the Covenant (as they see it) to bear upon the recipients of baptism is a perplexing one to me.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> I was raised Presbyterian and was never quite able to reconcile paedobaptism with Scripture.


 
I'm not picking on anyone, but, its interesting to me that no one ever says, "I was raised Presbyterian and was never quite able to reconcile _*Covenant Theology *_with Scripture." That would take too much work, but in reality, that is where the answer to all this acutally lies. Its not in baptism.


----------



## Herald

> ...election has little bearing upon the issue of who ought to be baptized.



Rich - we are in agreement. None of us know with certainty who is elect. The best of us are able to be fooled. Credo's believe that baptism is to be administered upon a credible profession of faith. Not a decision card prayer, but faith. I expect we would agree that is the model for adult conversions. If we could agree on that we can agree to disagree on our other baptismal differences.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Herald

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> I'm not picking on anyone, but, its interesting to me that no one ever says, "I was raised Presbyterian and was never quite able to reconcile _*Covenant Theology *_with Scripture." That would take too much work, but in reality, that is where the answer to all this acutally lies. Its not in baptism.



Matt - I'll give you that. I studied Covenant Theology. I even ordered and read your book (shamless plug!). I had to come to grips with the fact that I am not a Covenant Theologian according to the strict definition you lay out. I'm not a dispensationalist either, but we'll save that for another thread.

The issue of baptism's covenantal aspect cannot be removed from Covenant Theology. In my humble opinion it is a contingent aspect, not the sole pillar.


----------



## Romans922

I'll add on to that saying that 75% of Americans call themselves 'Christians'. Therefore, they should all be baptized due to their profession of faith.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

*Covenant Theology and Baptism*

Hay:

To all the Baptists out there - a question:

When the Bible tells us that a person is holy should we baptize that person or not?

The word hagia (holy) is also translated "saint" do the saints get baptized?

Thanks, in advance, for the answer,

Grace and Peace,

-CH


----------



## Herald

Paul manata said:


> Bill,
> 
> No doubt you *believe* that baptism should be administered upon a credible profession of faith, but where's the *argument.*
> 
> The conclusion: Therefore, only those who profess should be baptised.
> 
> What's your premise? Is it, "All who professed in the NT were baptised?"
> 
> That doesn't get you to your conclusion.
> 
> Is your premise, "A profession of faith is a more likely indicator of election?"
> 
> Where's the probability calculus? Actually, I'd think it low. What is the probability that the 2.4 (or so) billion people who profess faith in Jesus Christ are elect/saved? How many? I'd say it's around .4 or .5 (could be lower, sadly). But, you may say it is too hard to judge, and hence the probability is inscrutible. That is, we should remain agnostic about whether profession is high indicator of election.
> 
> Why is "being born to Christian parents" not just as high as "a profession of faith?" This is at least as high if the baptist grants that God works in families and that it is "a great blessing to be born in a Christian home." Even higher given what Scripture says, EZ. 37:25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and _their children, and their children's children_ for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.
> 
> Now, I have no problems with professions putting people in covenant with God, and hence receiving the sign, but the baptist must now let non-elect into the covenant. If the probability calculus cannot be given, this is the other option.
> 
> But from here you might as well be paedo. You may still say, though, that even though non-elect are in the covenant, one should still profess to get the sign. And here we come full circle. What is the argument for this? The falacious: "All those who professed were baptised, therefore, only those who profess should be baptised?"
> 
> I think you have a defeater for your beliefs if you don;t assume that non-elect are in the covenant, from there, though, the argument cannot be made for professors alone, and then couple that with positive arguments for the continued inclusion of our children, and the baptist position looks pretty bleek.



Paul - you're missing the point of my post to Rich. I was just looking for common ground, not a debate. I don't trivialize the differences between us (paedo vs. credo). How many threads are in archive that have expounded, ad nauseum, on this topic? I didn't gloat over Richard's OP. My attitude is not one of, "Aha! A paedo convert!" I would rather Richard's new found credo position be used of God to strengthen his faith and make him more like Christ. I pray it never becomes cause to bludgeon another saint over the head with whom he disagrees. May that be said of all of us.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Herald

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hay:
> 
> To all the Baptists out there - a question:
> 
> When the Bible tells us that a person is holy should we baptize that person or not?
> 
> The word hagia (holy) is also translated "saint" do the saints get baptized?
> 
> Thanks, in advance, for the answer,
> 
> Grace and Peace,
> 
> -CH



*Acts 8:36-38 36 And as they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, "Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?" 37 And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." 38 And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch; and he baptized him. *

I sometimes think the TR paedo's don't care too much for verse 37. The Ethiopian Eunuch believed and was baptized. He didn't believe and go through a new members course. He didn't believe and have to wait one year to prove his faith. He believed and was baptized. 

This passage is not an argument against paedo baptism, it is an argument for the baptism of professing believers. And let me intercept a question some may toss out. Wasn't Andrew and Apostle? Wouldn't he have known with certainty that the Ethiopian was saved? No. Verse 37 indicates he did not know for certain. Additionally, how can anyone know the condition of the heart? We can only measure evidences.

As far as those who are considered holy, they are part of the church and should be baptized.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dieter Schneider

So what are you doing in the Church of England?


----------



## Herald

Paul manata said:


> Wow, what an over emotional reaction.
> 
> Sorry for trying to press you on your points in a forum for "debate."
> 
> I pray that Christians will be able to defend and debate their position, be able to take criticism, and not call it "bludgeoning."
> 
> There were no ad hominems in my post. No sarcasm. No personal attacks of any kind. I think it's high time the baptists realize why they complain about my posts here.



Paul - take a step back and draw a deep breath. Please. I have no problem with debate. I also wasn't accusing you of bludgeoning (although I wondered whether you would take it that way). I made a very simple reply to Rich and you turned into cause for debate. I thought that was a reach. As far as complaining about your posts? I don't recall ever responding to any of your posts since my time here. At worse I am ambivalent. I tend not to frequent the baptism boards very often. Forgive me for being simplistic, but they are nothing more than preaching to the choir (In my humble opinion). They only serve to raise blood pressure.


----------



## Herald

Dieter Schneider said:


> So what are you doing in the Church of England?



Dieter, give Richard time.


----------



## Davidius

trevorjohnson said:


> Paul;
> 
> With the NT example, OT prophecy speaking of a better covenant and NT texts speaking of the greater blessings of this greater covenant it appears that baptists are not off their rocker to try to follow the clear examples given of baptizing a professor upon their profession.



How is it a "greater blessing" to hear that children, who were part of the visible Church for thousands of years, have been kicked out? 

And as far as "examples" go, shouldn't we interpret the narrative by the didactic? I know this issue comes up all the time but it's still one of the most bothersome ones for me when baptism is being discussed. Phillip telling the Ethiopian eunuch that he can be baptized if he believes is not didactic teaching. That sort of passage isn't intended to teach us about the nature or mode of baptism. And then the whole thing gets messy when we read about household baptisms because the baptist has already decided, because of one set of "examples," that only those who profess faith can be baptized, then applies this presupposition to other "examples" telling of the baptisms of people for whom there is no evidence of faith. It doesn't seem right to just choose one of many "examples," derive didactic teaching from it that isn't there, and then apply that to other "examples" which, on their own and apart from presuppositions, could go the other way.


----------



## Herald

Paul, what problem do you have with this post I made in reply to Rich?



> Rich - we are in agreement. None of us know with certainty who is elect. The best of us are able to be fooled. Credo's believe that baptism is to be administered upon a credible profession of faith. Not a decision card prayer, but faith. I expect we would agree that is the model for adult conversions. If we could agree on that we can agree to disagree on our other baptismal differences.



Do we not have common ground on the need for baptism for adult converts?


----------



## Dieter Schneider

How long is one supposed to stay in a sinking ship?


----------



## Herald

> And as far as "examples" go, shouldn't we interpret the narrative by the didactic? I know this issue comes up all the time but it's still one of the most bothersome ones for me when baptism is being discussed. Phillip telling the Ethiopian eunuch that he can be baptized if he believes is not didactic teaching. That sort of passage isn't intended to teach us about the nature or mode of baptism. And then the whole thing gets messy when we read about household baptisms because the baptist has already decided, because of one set of "examples," that only those who profess faith can be baptized, then applies this presupposition to other "examples" telling of the baptisms of people for whom there is no evidence of faith. It doesn't seem right to just choose one of many "examples," derive didactic teaching from it that isn't there, and then apply that to other "examples."



I would like to know the person who made this rule that there is no doctrinal value to narrative. Can someone point him out to me? One example:

*John 10:30 30 "I and the Father are one." *

Does the above passage not teach the diety of Christ?

When we read of the Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8) and the family of Corneilus (Acts 10), what are we to learn? We learn that once a person comes to faith in Jesus Christ, they are to be baptized. I cannot agree with this didactic litmus test, although I do agree that narrative and didactic cannot be in contradiction to each other.


----------



## Herald

Dieter Schneider said:


> How long is one supposed to stay in a sinking ship?



Dieter - usually when there is no more ship to stand on...just water. It happens to many of us. We hold on to what we believe even when the supporting structure of what we believe is crumbling around us.


----------



## Herald

> But, the points in my post still stand.



Paul, that's fair. I would expect nothing less.


----------



## Davidius

BaptistInCrisis said:


> I would like to know the person who made this rule that there is no doctrinal value to narrative. Can someone point him out to me? One example:
> 
> *John 10:30 30 "I and the Father are one." *
> 
> Does the above passage not teach the diety of Christ?
> 
> When we read of the Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8) and the family of Corneilus (Acts 10), what are we to learn? We learn that once a person comes to faith in Jesus Christ, they are to be baptized. I cannot agree with this didactic litmus test, although I do agree that narrative and didactic cannot be in contradiction to each other.



Bill,

I did not say that didactic teaching cannot exist within a narration. What is the context of Jesus making that statement? He was teaching. Was Phillip standing up to teach about the nature of baptism as it relates to various kinds of people or was he talking to one person who happened to be an adult who wasn't born into a covenant household? It's unfair for you to point to the eunuch and then to Lydia's household and assume that everyone in it believed when the text doesn't imply that at all. I can just as easily start with Lydia and therefore assume that Phillip's statement to the eunuch is one that only applies to adults. 

When I was studying all of this and stepped out of Acts for a while is when I really started to see this. Surely we can agree that the epistles are, by nature, didactic teaching. When I see Peter saying that Noah's entire family passing through the water is analogous to baptism I just think it's wrong for a baptist to explain that way because of presuppositions which have been derived from narrative.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

*Covenant Baptism*



BaptistInCrisis said:


> *Acts 8:36-38 36 And as they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, "Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?" 37 And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." 38 And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch; and he baptized him. *
> 
> I sometimes think the TR paedo's don't care too much for verse 37. The Ethiopian Eunuch believed and was baptized. He didn't believe and go through a new members course. He didn't believe and have to wait one year to prove his faith. He believed and was baptized.
> 
> This passage is not an argument against paedo baptism, it is an argument for the baptism of professing believers. And let me intercept a question some may toss out. Wasn't Andrew and Apostle? Wouldn't he have known with certainty that the Ethiopian was saved? No. Verse 37 indicates he did not know for certain. Additionally, how can anyone know the condition of the heart? We can only measure evidences.
> 
> As far as those who are considered holy, they are part of the church and should be baptized.



Hi Baptist in Crisis:

Paedo-Baptists do not deny that adult believers should be baptized. What we affirm is that the children of adult believers should be baptized as well.

This is because the Bible tells us that the children of adult believers are considered holy or saints:

*For the unbelieving husband is sanctified to the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified to the husband, else were your children unclean, but now they are holy (saints)*, 1 Cor. 7:14.

The Apostle uses two different words concerning sanctification in this passage. When he says the unbelieving spouse is sanctified to the other spouse he uses the greek word, _hagiazo_ which means "to make holy" and indicates a process of sanctification. However, when he refers to the children of believers he uses the word _hagios_ which is translated "holy" or, in reference to people, "saints."

We baptize the children of even one believing parent because the Bible tells us that they are considered saints, or, in accordance with your own words:



> As far as those who are considered holy, they are part of the church and should be baptized.



The argument is both simple and Biblical.

Grace and Peace,

-CH


----------



## Davidius

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi Baptist in Crisis:
> 
> 
> *For the unbelieving husband is sanctified to the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified to the husband, else were your children unclean, but now they are holy (saints)*, 1 Cor. 7:14.
> 
> The Apostle uses two different words concerning sanctification in this passage. When he says the unbelieving spouse is sanctified to the other spouse he uses the greek word, _hagiazo_ which means "to make holy" and indicates a process of sanctification. However, when he refers to the children of believers he uses the word _hagios_ which is translated "holy" or, in reference to people, "saints."



This can be added to the post I just made regarding the Baptist imposition of their narrative presuppositions on clear teaching in the epistles. Of course, 1 Cor 7:14, which clearly shows that the inclusion of infants in the visible Church has not been abrogated, will be explained away because of presuppositions derived from passages that were never meant to be used as exhaustive descriptions of the nature of baptism.


----------



## Herald

> Paedo-Baptists do not deny that adult believers should be baptized. What we affirm is that the children of adult believers should be baptized as well.



Richard - I know. That is the root of the disagreement.


----------



## panicbird

CalvinandHodges said:


> The Apostle uses two different words concerning sanctification in this passage. When he says the unbelieving spouse is sanctified to the other spouse he uses the greek word, _hagiazo_ which means "to make holy" and indicates a process of sanctification. However, when he refers to the children of believers he uses the word _hagios_ which is translated "holy" or, in reference to people, "saints."



I just want to interject something here. _Hagiazo_ and _hagios_ are not actually "two different words." _Hagiazo_ is the verbal form of _hagios_. They are from the same root (_hag_). Greek forms words based on roots. The two words have, fundamentally, the same meaning. Additionally, the Greek word is a perfect passive, which would not indicate a process, but a completed action.

I am not arguing against paedobaptism here. Rather, I just want to let you know that this is bad biblical argumentation for it.


----------



## Herald

> Was Phillip standing up to teach about the nature of baptism as it relates to various kinds of people or was he talking to one person who happened to be an adult who wasn't born into a covenant household?



David - all I know is that the Ethiopian was not a believer before Phillip came along. As soon as the Ethiopian believed by faith, he was baptized. I would say that Phillip's action defined his theology. Additionally, in my earlier post I did not claim this passage as an argument against paedobaptism. I was limiting its scope to an adult conversion.


----------



## Herald

> The Apostle uses two different words concerning sanctification in this passage. When he says the unbelieving spouse is sanctified to the other spouse he uses the greek word, hagiazo which means "to make holy" and indicates a process of sanctification. However, when he refers to the children of believers he uses the word hagios which is translated "holy" or, in reference to people, "saints."



These words you cited are one in the same. The only thing that is changed is the case ending.


----------



## Herald

panicbird said:


> I just want to interject something here. _Hagiazo_ and _hagios_ are not actually "two different words." _Hagiazo_ is the verbal form of _hagios_. They are from the same root (_hag_). Greek forms words based on roots. The two words have, fundamentally, the same meaning. Additionally, the Greek word is a perfect passive, which would not indicate a process, but a completed action.
> 
> I am not arguing against paedobaptism here. Rather, I just want to let you know that this is bad biblical argumentation for it.



Sorry Lon. I didn't see your post before I made mine. Kudos to you.


----------



## Davidius

BaptistInCrisis said:


> David - all I know is that the Ethiopian was not a believer before Phillip came along. As soon as the Ethiopian believed by faith, he was baptized. I would say that Phillip's action defined his theology. Additionally, in my earlier post I did not claim this passage as an argument against paedobaptism. I was limiting its scope to an adult conversion.



Sorry for the confusion, Bill. I never said that you were using these passages as an argument against paedobaptism. It was Trevor's post to which I was originally responding, where he said:



trevorjohnson said:


> Paul;
> 
> NT examples give us a picture of a chaotic time full of changes and the dawning of the New Covenant, prophesied in Jer 31 (already been through that line of thought). During which time only professors seem to be baptized. That right there is a strong argument for following NT stated practice, which is to only baptize professors. There is enough discontinuity to wonder a lot about the chillen's and when one wonders such, then the NT is a clearer place to pull our practice then Abraham's example.
> 
> With the NT example, OT prophecy speaking of a better covenant and NT texts speaking of the greater blessings of this greater covenant it appears that baptists are not off their rocker to try to follow the clear examples given of baptizing a professor upon their profession.



When you responded to my rebuttal of Trevor's comment I just kept arguing against what I had been arguing against in that rebuttal. I should have made it more clear that I wasn't imposing that view on you but was responding, from the very beginning, to what seemed like someone else's use of that argument.


----------



## CDM

Paul manata said:


> ...
> 
> *But, the points in my post still stand.*





BaptistInCrisis said:


> Paul, that's fair. I would expect nothing less.



Well how about addressing brother Paul's arguments then?



CalvinandHodges said:


> Hay:
> 
> To all the Baptists out there - a question:
> 
> *When the Bible tells us that a person is holy should we baptize that person or not?*
> 
> The word hagia (holy) is also translated "saint" do the saints get baptized?
> 
> Thanks, in advance, for the answer,
> 
> Grace and Peace,
> 
> -CH



To this post a Baptist responds:



> As far as those who are considered holy, they are part of the church and should be baptized.



For the unbelieving husband is sanctified to the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified to the husband,* else were your children unclean, but now they are holy* (saints), 1 Cor. 7:14.


----------



## Magma2

> Baptists will say that it is a "great advantage" being "born into a godly home." But why is this a great advantage? Because the child will more likely believe? But if the child believes then the child was elect, since this is ordained from the foundation of the world. And therefore we see that according to the baptist it is therefore "more likely" that children born in godly homes are elect. And for profession the baptist argues that though this is not a 100% indicator of election, a profession makes it "more likely" that one is elect. Perhaps they mean that "profession" is more more likely than "having the great advantage" of being born in a "godly home." But how is this "probability" discerned? Where are the calculations that go in to showing that "professions" are a more probably indicator of election than "the great advantage of being born in a godly home?" (Now, I suppose the baptists here can deny what they've claimed (even in this thread) about the "great advantage" of children being born in a godly home, but I'll suspect that they'll want to be intellectually honest and not prove that they don't have a "don't confuse me with the facts" type mindset.)



 
(Don't worry. It's not the end of the world. I agree with Paul on a number of issues, even if he's completely wrong when it comes to epistemology and thinks, even without argument, that knowledge is possible apart from Scripture. He did do a good job of showing why Baptists are irrational. If only he were as consistent and logical when doing epistemology).  

 in my opinion the credo Baptistic position better pictures Arminian soteriology which too is premised on the actions of men, in this case the need for a "profession" as if it were any real indicator of faith. Despite leaping in the womb, Baptists wouldn't even permit John to be baptized without a verbal profession. 

I suppose this is why "Reformed Baptist" always seemed to me to be a contradiction in terms. Not that I don't love Reformed Baptists, it's just they're inconsistent as far as what is being pictured in baptism.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

mangum said:


> Well how about addressing brother Paul's arguments then?
> 
> 
> 
> To this post a Baptist responds:
> 
> 
> 
> For the unbelieving husband is sanctified to the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified to the husband,* else were your children unclean, but now they are holy* (saints), 1 Cor. 7:14.



What if the kid's are 14 and 16 years old?


----------



## Blueridge Believer

Magma2 said:


> (Don't worry. It's not the end of the world. I agree with Paul on a number of issues, even if he's completely wrong when it comes to epistemology and thinks, even without argument, that knowledge is possible apart from Scripture. He did do a good job of showing why Baptists are irrational. If only he were as consistent and logical when doing epistemology).
> 
> in my opinion the credo Baptistic position better pictures Arminian soteriology which too is premised on the actions of men, in this case the need for a "profession" as if it were any real indicator of faith. Despite leaping in the womb, Baptists wouldn't even permit John to be baptized without a verbal profession.
> 
> I suppose this is why "Reformed Baptist" always seemed to me to be a contradiction in terms. Not that I don't love Reformed Baptists, it's just they're inconsistent as far as what is being pictured in baptism.




I don't think the baptist doctrine of baptism fits Arminian theology any better. Afterall, the largest Arminian, Pelagian cult in the world is paedobaptist. You're right though about the title reformed in the classical sense though. I believe calvinistic baptists are the only completely reformed group.


----------



## AV1611

Dieter Schneider said:


> So what are you doing in the Church of England?



The local congregation which I attend whilst not perfect (is anywhere?) is the best that I can get to at the moment.


----------



## AV1611

CalvinandHodges said:


> Paedo-Baptists do not deny that adult believers should be baptized. What we affirm is that the children of adult believers should be baptized as well.



Is not the foundation of the paedobaptist case founded upon Genesis 17:7?



> And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.



If so then how does verse 8 relate to you as a Christian?



> I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.



What of verse 6?



> I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.



Spurgeon:

“Well,” says one, “a difficulty suggests itself as to your views”—for an argument is often drawn from this chapter, “that inasmuch as Abraham must circumcise all his seed, we ought to baptize all our children.” Now, observe the type and interpret it not according to prejudice, but according to Scripture. In the type the seed of Abraham are circumcised. You draw the inference that all typified by the seed of Abraham ought to be baptized, and I do not quibble at the conclusion. But I ask you, who are the true seed of Abraham? Paul answers in Romans 9:8—“They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.” As many as believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, whether they are Jews or Gentiles, are Abraham’s seed. Whether eight days old in Divine Grace, or more or less—every one of Abraham’s seed has a right to Baptism. But I deny that the unregenerate, whether children or adults, are of the spiritual seed of Abraham. The Lord will, we trust, call many of them by His Grace—but as yet they are “heirs of wrath, even as others.” At such time as the Spirit of God shall sow the good seed in their hearts, they are of Abraham’s believing seed—but they are not so while they live in ungodliness and unbelief, or are as yet incapable of faith or repentance. The answering person in type to the seed of Abraham is, by the confession of everybody, the Believer. And the Believer ought, seeing he is buried with Christ spiritually, to prove that fact by his public Baptism in water, according to the Savior’s own precept and example.


----------



## jenney

Richard,
I appreciate your wrestling with this issue and coming to a place that holds your conscience despite the danger of criticism from brethren.

I'm amazed at the lack of understanding demonstrated on both sides in the debate most of the time. I read the criticisms of the credo view and think, "wait a minute! That's not what we believe! That's not what anybody said! Where does that twist come from!" but as I've studied paedobaptism for the past six months I've had the same issue with a lot of credobaptists as they attack paedobaptism. A lot of the attacking seems personal:
"You dispensationalists!"
"You Roman Catholics!"
"You Jehovah's Witnesses!"
"You Federal Visionists!"

One would think the debaters are seven year olds (except that my seven year old isn't allowed to be that rude). If it isn't discussed in a Christlike manner, then it is sin regardless of the "rightness" of the position. I'm so weary of trying to understand both sides when the issue is clouded by insults, offense, and intellectual pride (mine and other people's!). (I had a great conversation here with Wayne about baptism last week and he was not only really nice and patient with my questions, he even answered them without calling my children "heathen outside the covenant" the way one Presbyterian did once! David the Carolina Calvinist was very gracious in his replies, too. And my old friend Dawn, 5solasmom, was her usual gentle and encouraging self.)

~jen


----------



## Semper Fidelis

jenney said:


> Richard,
> I appreciate your wrestling with this issue and coming to a place that holds your conscience despite the danger of criticism from brethren.
> 
> I'm amazed at the lack of understanding demonstrated on both sides in the debate most of the time. I read the criticisms of the credo view and think, "wait a minute! That's not what we believe! That's not what anybody said! Where does that twist come from!"


Are you referring to this as a "general" problem or have you seen this in this thread? I haven't seen a single accusation that the Reformed Baptist position has been twisted here.



> but as I've studied paedobaptism for the past six months I've had the same issue with a lot of credobaptists as they attack paedobaptism. A lot of the attacking seems personal:
> "You dispensationalists!"
> "You Roman Catholics!"
> "You Jehovah's Witnesses!"
> "You Federal Visionists!"


Again, I'm not sure how this is germane to the discussion at hand. Again, this forum is not for the faint of heart. When Greg Welty months ago published an article and likened paedo-baptism to the Judaizing heresy (a denial of the Gospel), he was drawing a comparison to try to challenge paedo-baptists to see how there might be something defective in our thinking. I didn't think it was name-calling. I thought it was poor exegesis and challenged the article on where his reasoning, though sincere, went wrong. The same thing happens here.

Don't confuse arguments such as "...this is like an Arminian understanding in it's insistence on personal experience..." with saying "Reformed Baptists are Arminian".



> One would think the debaters are seven year olds (except that my seven year old isn't allowed to be that rude). If it isn't discussed in a Christlike manner, then it is sin regardless of the "rightness" of the position. I'm so weary of trying to understand both sides when the issue is clouded by insults, offense, and intellectual pride (mine and other people's!).


Are you going to offer up an argument here where a person has acted like a seven-year old and is guilty of this sin or are each of the paedo- and credo-baptists who have offered their perspectives heretofore supposed to believe this may be a blanket statement covering all of them?



> (I had a great conversation here with Wayne about baptism last week and he was not only really nice and patient with my questions, he even answered them without calling my children "heathen outside the covenant" the way one Presbyterian did once! David the Carolina Calvinist was very gracious in his replies, too. And my old friend Dawn, 5solasmom, was her usual gentle and encouraging self.)


I actually believe this is a very gentle and encouraging debate. A few misunderstandings have occurred but no insults have been lobbed.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Magma2

Blueridge reformer said:


> I don't think the baptist doctrine of baptism fits Arminian theology any better. Afterall, the largest Arminian, Pelagian cult in the world is paedobaptist. You're right though about the title reformed in the classical sense though. I believe calvinistic baptists are the only completely reformed group.



Not surprising, I disagree and for this simple reason; for the Baptist the sign and seal of a the spiritual reality pictured in baptism is premised FIRST on the response of men. As such, it is a denial of the reality that regeneration extends to even the womb and is not contingent upon our ability, even the ability to make a good profession. 

I'm asking you to just consider what is pictured. Don't get me wrong, I personally don't think Baptists are any more off the mark than those who use grape juice instead of wine in the Lord's Supper like they do in my church. If fellowship, warmth and intimacy is at least part of the picture painted in the Supper, those are hardly attributes one associates with Welches. OTOH, credo-baptism doesn't do what it's advocates claim and some of the implications are downright dangerous. Andrea Yeates (sp?) comes to mind.


----------



## Magma2

Paul manata said:


> That's why I've done a good job showing the irrationality of Scripturalism!




Perhaps if you stuck to Scripture alone when doing epistemology you'd be as successful as you are when answering Baptists.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

Magma2 said:


> Not surprising, I disagree and for this simple reason; for the Baptist the sign and seal of a the spiritual reality pictured in Baptism is premised FIRST on the response of men.  As such, it is a denial of the reality that regeneration extends to even the womb and is not contingent upon our ability, even the ability to make a good profession.
> 
> I'm asking you to just consider what is pictured. Don't get me wrong, I personally don't think Baptists are any more off the mark than those who use grape juice instead of wine in the Lord's Supper like they do in my church. If fellowship, warmth and intimacy is at least part of the picture painted in the Supper, that is hardly an attribute one associates with Welches. OTOH, credo-baptism doesn't do what it's advocates claim and some of the implications are downright dangerous. Andrea Yeates (sp?) comes to mind.




Ahh! An amiable disagreement.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

*different endings*



panicbird said:


> I just want to interject something here. _Hagiazo_ and _hagios_ are not actually "two different words." _Hagiazo_ is the verbal form of _hagios_. They are from the same root (_hag_). Greek forms words based on roots. The two words have, fundamentally, the same meaning. Additionally, the Greek word is a perfect passive, which would not indicate a process, but a completed action.
> 
> I am not arguing against paedobaptism here. Rather, I just want to let you know that this is bad biblical argumentation for it.



Hay panicbird:

The Greek endings change the meaning of the root word. To give an example in English:

Age: generally means a set period of time.

Ageless: generally means an indeterminate period of time, or, Eternity.

The change in the ending changes the meaning of the root word. "Sanctified" iindicates a process here: 

*also might be sanctified through the truth, John 17:19

among them which are sanctified by faith, Acts 26:18

being sanctified by the Holy Ghost, Rom. 15:16

them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, 1 Cor. 1:2*

There is no other way to explain the change in tense in 1 Cor. 14:7. If Paul wanted to express the same sentiment to both the unbelieving spouse and the believer's child he would have used the same word.

Thanks for pointing this out, though,

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## CalvinandHodges

*Genesis 17*



AV1611 said:


> Is not the foundation of the paedobaptist case founded upon Genesis 17:7?
> 
> 
> 
> If so then how does verse 8 relate to you as a Christian?
> 
> 
> 
> What of verse 6?
> 
> 
> 
> Spurgeon:
> 
> “Well,” says one, “a difficulty suggests itself as to your views”—for an argument is often drawn from this chapter, “that inasmuch as Abraham must circumcise all his seed, we ought to baptize all our children.” Now, observe the type and interpret it not according to prejudice, but according to Scripture. In the type the seed of Abraham are circumcised. You draw the inference that all typified by the seed of Abraham ought to be baptized, and I do not quibble at the conclusion. But I ask you, who are the true seed of Abraham? Paul answers in Romans 9:8—“They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.” As many as believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, whether they are Jews or Gentiles, are Abraham’s seed. Whether eight days old in Divine Grace, or more or less—every one of Abraham’s seed has a right to Baptism. But I deny that the unregenerate, whether children or adults, are of the spiritual seed of Abraham. The Lord will, we trust, call many of them by His Grace—but as yet they are “heirs of wrath, even as others.” At such time as the Spirit of God shall sow the good seed in their hearts, they are of Abraham’s believing seed—but they are not so while they live in ungodliness and unbelief, or are as yet incapable of faith or repentance. The answering person in type to the seed of Abraham is, by the confession of everybody, the Believer. And the Believer ought, seeing he is buried with Christ spiritually, to prove that fact by his public Baptism in water, according to the Savior’s own precept and example.



Hay:

You seem to be treating Genesis 17 as the only verse that paedo-baptists use. The point in question is not whether adult believers (who have never been baptized) should be baptized, but their children as well.

Genesis 17 sets up the idea that the outward manifestation of the Covenant of Grace is given to believers and their children. This theme is found through the whole OT. In the NT we have no clear command that the children of believers were not to be baptized. Also, the way the NT relates to the children of believers we are encouraged that the practice continued even though the administration changed:

Children of believers are considered holy, 1 Cor. 7:14.

Children of believers are considered members of the Kingdom of heaven, Matt. 19:14.

Children of believers inherit the promises, Acts 2:39.

Paul gives us an example of paedo-baptism, 1 Cor. 10:1ff.

How much more does one need?

Grace and Peace,

-CH


----------



## Herald

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Sorry for the confusion, Bill. I never said that you were using these passages as an argument against paedobaptism. It was Trevor's post to which I was originally responding, where he said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you responded to my rebuttal of Trevor's comment I just kept arguing against what I had been arguing against in that rebuttal. I should have made it more clear that I wasn't imposing that view on you but was responding, from the very beginning, to what seemed like someone else's use of that argument.



 

We're cool brother!


----------



## jenney

Rich,
I only meant to encourage Richard in the challenge of changing one's beliefs and announcing it publically. I didn't mean to say that people here in this discussion have been nasty. If you re-read what I wrote, it is of a very general nature and was only a response to his initial post. Am I out of line, etiquette-wise to reply to the OP, even if the discussion has moved on past it? I'm not asking in a rhetorical sense, I really mean it! 



> Are you referring to this as a "general" problem or have you seen this in this thread?


No. I mean in the literature I read.



> I haven't seen a single accusation that the Reformed Baptist position has been twisted here.


not twisted, but certainly not understood. a now-paedo friend of mine said that becoming a paedobaptist required her to think in a whole different way about the covenant and i think that paedos will have to try to think like we do if they want to understand our position. My experience thus far has been that there is no desire to understand our position because "it is wrong so why bother?"



> Again, this forum is not for the faint of heart.


I don't think calling someone a Roman Catholic for being a paedo or a JW for being a credo is Christlike. It doesn't mean I am faint of heart when I don't like those non-arguments being used as bludgeons. 

Again, I wasn't speaking to Richard of this debate or even of this forum, just the general response we (people, not baptists!) get when we change a previously-held view.



> When Greg Welty months ago published an article and likened paedo-baptism to the Judaizing heresy (a denial of the Gospel), he was drawing a comparison to try to challenge paedo-baptists to see how there might be something defective in our thinking. I didn't think it was name-calling. I thought it was poor exegesis and challenged the article on where his reasoning, though sincere, went wrong. The same thing happens here.


and if that were all that happened here, then it would be great. Unfortunately, what happens here often seems to come out of scorn and derision for the other view.



> Don't confuse arguments such as "...this is like an Arminian understanding in it's insistence on personal experience..." with saying "Reformed Baptists are Arminian".


I'm not.



> Are you going to offer up an argument here where a person has acted like a seven-year old and is guilty of this sin or are each of the paedo- and credo-baptists who have offered their perspectives heretofore supposed to believe this may be a blanket statement covering all of them?


I'm sorry I don't know what you mean here. I don't know if I'm not real bright, or what, but I'm not clear what you are asking me. I'm a pretty easy person to confuse, I guess! I really was thinking of the literature I've read and how hard it is to face the your former side when you say you've switched loyalties so I appreciate that he has the guts to do that.


> I actually believe this is a very gentle and encouraging debate. A few misunderstandings have occurred but no insults have been lobbed.


Well, terrif! Then as you were, sir. 

But I still appreciate Richard's willingness to speak out about his views after what has obviously taken much study, prayer and soul-searching because it is a hard place to be and there are strong feelings on both sides so that no matter which way one goes, there will be some unpleasant-ness.

I'm sorry if I offended you, Rich. I appreciate the stridency with which you will fight for the Truth (even though I disagree with your conclusions on baptism!) and stick to the issue in question as a practice of fair debate.

I'm sure that you love the same Savior I do (well, you know, as much as I can be sure your profession is true and you are among the elect  ) and that despite our differences we really agree on more in the faith than disagree. We just seem to come up in this same topic all the time. Maybe we should post more in the food forum?

all the best,


----------



## MW

Out of curiosity, how many of the non-paedobaptist advocates teach their children to pray (including the Lord's prayer), to read the Bible, comfort them with God's love, and generally bring them up IN the nurture and admonition of THE LORD? It appears to me, if you do, that you are bringing them up in the covenant of grace, and the only thing lacking is the official sign and seal.


----------



## Kevin Lewis

*Of Course we do...why wouldn't we?*

Scripture instructs us to do so. Don't you do that?

Do you teach your 5 year old to pray, to read scripture, etc. (but yet they may not be regenerated yet). How is this any different??


----------



## Herald

armourbearer said:


> Out of curiosity, how many of the non-paedobaptist advocates teach their children to pray (including the Lord's prayer), to read the Bible, comfort them with God's love, and generally bring them up IN the nurture and admonition of THE LORD? It appears to me, if you do, that you are bringing them up in the covenant of grace, and the only thing lacking is the official sign and seal.



Matt, check out this thread: *HERE*

It deals specifically with your question.


----------



## MW

Reformed-Kermit said:


> Scripture instructs us to do so. Don't you do that?
> 
> Do you teach your 5 year old to pray, to read scripture, etc. (but yet they may not be regenerated yet). How is this any different??



"*Our Father* which art in heaven."


----------



## MW

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Matt, check out this thread: *HERE*
> 
> It deals specifically with your question.



Over a hundred posts, Bill. Maybe you could summarise for me. And please call me what you're comfortable with, but I dislike Matt.


----------



## Kevin Lewis

*and??.....*



armourbearer said:


> "*Our Father* which art in heaven."


----------



## Herald

armourbearer said:


> Out of curiosity, how many of the non-paedobaptist advocates teach their children to pray (including the Lord's prayer), to read the Bible, comfort them with God's love, and generally bring them up IN the nurture and admonition of THE LORD? It appears to me, if you do, that you are bringing them up in the covenant of grace, and the only thing lacking is the official sign and seal.



Matt - this is one of my replies to a question similar to yours in the thread I just linked:





> *How does a Reformed Baptist nurture a child that is not in the Lord? If half are reprobate and half are elect then how does one nurture the reprobate ones?*
> 
> Technically speaking you cannot nuture something that is not alive. I am using the term nurture in reference to teaching. The unsaved child can be taught about God. The parent will not know the exact moment a child comes to faith. It is the parents prayer they will be used by God to proclaim the gospel to their children. Once a child does so evidence of repentance and faith true nuturing (according to the actual definition) can begin.


----------



## Herald

armourbearer said:


> Over a hundred posts, Bill. Maybe you could summarise for me. And please call me what you're comfortable with, but I dislike Matt.



I'm sorry for using the name Matt. I'll use Matthew. I didn't know your preference. Now I do.


----------



## MW

Reformed-Kermit said:


>



"and??" Either they are regarded as adopted into God's family or they are not.


----------



## Herald

Matthew - the point is that credo's (at least _this_ credo) believe that raising a child in the way of the Lord is a means of evangelism until the child comes to faith.


----------



## panicbird

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hay panicbird:
> 
> The Greek endings change the meaning of the root word. To give an example in English:
> 
> Age: generally means a set period of time.
> 
> Ageless: generally means an indeterminate period of time, or, Eternity.
> 
> The change in the ending changes the meaning of the root word. "Sanctified" iindicates a process here:
> 
> *also might be sanctified through the truth, John 17:19
> 
> among them which are sanctified by faith, Acts 26:18
> 
> being sanctified by the Holy Ghost, Rom. 15:16
> 
> them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, 1 Cor. 1:2*
> 
> There is no other way to explain the change in tense in 1 Cor. 14:7. If Paul wanted to express the same sentiment to both the unbelieving spouse and the believer's child he would have used the same word.
> 
> Thanks for pointing this out, though,
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> -CH




In English, you are correct: age and ageless mean different things. We are not discussing English, however. We are discussing Greek. And in the Greek language, words are formed off of roots. If you add a noun ending to the root (as in _hagios_), you have a noun. If you have a verbal ending (as in _hagiazo_), you have a verb. The root carries the basic meaning, and adding an ending does not change that. The root of both words (_hag_) has to do with holiness or being holy, set apart, or consecrated. The verb used in 1 Corinthians 7:14 is _hegiastai_, which is the perfect passive indicative form of the verb. It does not indicate a process, but a completed action with present results. If Paul had wanted to speak of a process, he would have used the present active indicative form. The examples you adduce do not prove your point either. In John 17:19, Jesus is saying that He sanctifies Himself so that those who believe in Him might be sanctified (perfect passive participle), not that they might enter a process of sanctification. Rather, He speaks of placing them in a state of holiness in the truth, not beginning them on a road to holiness. Acts 26:18 contains another perfect passive participle, which indicates a past action. It speaks of those who _have been_ sanctified, not of those who are being or are in the process of becoming sanctified. A different verb form would have been used if that was intended. Romans 15:16 is (guess what!) another perfect passive participle, indicating a completed action. He is saying that he wants his offering of the Gentiles to become acceptable, that is, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. If you were to translate the Greek according to your interpretation, you would have to say that Paul wants his offering to become acceptable, that is, be in the process of being sanctified, which makes no sense. Finally, 1 Corinthians 1:2 reads, literally, "To the church of God which is in Corinth, to those who _have been _sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints." Here you run into a problem. According to your interpretation, these people are in the process of being sanctified, but they are called _hagios_. It is the same class of people referred to by (what you would call) two different words.

Again, I am not arguing against paedobaptism here. It is just that your argumentation and use of Greek are bad. The grammar does not support you here. There are better arguments for paedobaptism and you should not junk up your argumentation with bad exegesis.


----------



## MW

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Matt - this is one of my replies to a question similar to yours in the thread I just linked:



Bill, you called me Matt again.  

Concerning your quotation, the Word says explicitly to bring them up IN the nurture and admonition of THE LORD. I say this with all due respect to yourself, but you do not have authority to qualify the Word of God in the way you have.


----------



## Herald

> Bill, you called me Matt again.



Matthew, that was before I read your last post! A thousand pardons.


----------



## Herald

armourbearer said:


> Concerning your quotation, the Word says explicitly to bring them up IN the nurture and admonition of THE LORD. I say this with all due respect to yourself, but you do not have authority to qualify the Word of God in the way you have.



I disagree with your assessment. Yes, we are to bring them up in the nuture and admonition of the Lord. I made that point a few times in the thread I provided you. But it is my firm opinion that an unregenerate child cannot appropriate the spiritual truth of God's word until they are born again (1 Cor. 2:14, Eph. 2:1). We follow God's command, but the word does not _spiritually_ profit them until they come to faith.


----------



## Kevin Lewis

*I agree with what Welty says here*

Couldn't agree more what Greg Welty (M.Div, Westminster Theological Seminary; B.A., UCLA) has stated so aptly in responding to Paedo's responses...

V. Paedobaptist Sentimentalism Examined

1) "Are you saying my covenant children aren't 'special'?" Baptists rightly respond with the words of Paul: "Just as it is written: Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" (Romans 9:13). Thus is God's testimony concerning these "covenant children." God may not love your "covenant children" any more or less than the general mass of unregenerate mankind. Your only assurance of God's love for them is if they specifically repent and believe the gospel, thus showing themselves to be chosen and loved by him from eternity. Any other view is pure presumption without Scriptural warrant. Isaac would have been presumptuous to write a letter to his newborn Esau in which he stated: "Dearest Esau, child of the covenant: Not only do I love you, but more importantly, God loves you as well!" Such a letter would have been contrary to Christian responsibility, and the God-ordained facts.(10)

2) "Are you saying that God won't hear the prayers of my four-year old covenant child?" Baptists rightly respond that God will always hear a prayer for conversion from anyone, young or old. God will also hear and answer any prayer which issues from a sincere, renewed heart. Of course, not all covenant children have sincere, renewed hearts (Ishmael? Esau? the sons of Korah? Eli's sons?). Therefore, parents can have confidence that God hears the prayers of their children to the extent that they have confidence that their children have renewed hearts, or that their children are praying for conversion. Besides, what has this to do with infant baptism? Did the covenant with Abraham involve a "promise" to hear the prayers of all the descendants of Abraham, simply because they were his descendants? Do we adopt infant baptism because it allows us to say comforting things about our children?

3) "How dare you baptists separate the children from their own parents in the covenant community! They are your own flesh and blood!" But paedobaptists do not include the spouse in the covenant community! And yet the term "flesh and blood" is more reminiscent of the marriage relationship than the parent-child relationship! "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh" (Genesis 2:24). Thus children are not "separated" any more from their parents on the baptist view, than the unbelieving spouse is "separated" from his or her spouse on the paedobaptist view. This question seems to imply that when baptist parents go to church, they leave their kids in the parking lot. Baptist parents also bring their children under the influence of preaching, catechizing, and family instruction. So what's the point?

4) "Now you say, as part of your so-called 'gospel,' that my children aren't in the covenant, and cannot receive the covenant sign. Is that 'good news'? No!" This kind of argument, inferring from a general notion of "expanded privileges" under the New Covenant a specific application to infant privileges, should have about as much force as the following pseudo-argument of a paedo-communionist to most paedobaptists: "You won't let my children partake of the covenant meal (Lord's Supper)? You are revoking the privileges they had under the Old Covenant with respect to the Passover! Is that 'good news'?" Thus, there is no paedobaptist "argument from expanded privilege" against the revoking of baptismal privileges for infants that cannot also be made for infant communion. Arguments like this have about as much force as any Jewish objection to the passing away of the types and shadows of the Old Testament. A much more relevant question would be: "What does God require of me under the New Covenant?" or "Who is in the New Covenant?"


----------



## jenney

armourbearer said:


> "and??" Either they are regarded as adopted into God's family or they are not.



Do you mean covenant children are adopted into God's family? Is that the same as the adoption spoken of in Romans 8:15?


----------



## MW

BaptistInCrisis said:


> I disagree with your assessment. Yes, we are to bring them up in the nuture and admonition of the Lord. I made that point a few times in the thread I provided you. But it is my firm opinion that an unregenerate child cannot appropriate the spiritual truth of God's word until they are born again (1 Cor. 2:14, Eph. 2:1). We follow God's command, but the word does not _spiritually_ profit them until they come to faith.



I am not sure what you mean by born again, but I fail to see how one can appropriate the spiritual truth of God's word whilst they are made to feel they are outside the kingdom of Christ.


----------



## MW

jenney said:


> Do you mean covenant children are adopted into God's family? Is that the same as the adoption spoken of in Romans 8:15?



No, it is the same as Rom. 9:4.


----------



## Herald

Reformed-Kermit said:


> Couldn't agree more what Greg Welty (M.Div, Westminster Theological Seminary; B.A., UCLA) has stated so aptly in responding to Paedo's responses...
> 
> V. Paedobaptist Sentimentalism Examined
> 
> 1) "Are you saying my covenant children aren't 'special'?" Baptists rightly respond with the words of Paul: "Just as it is written: Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" (Romans 9:13). Thus is God's testimony concerning these "covenant children." God may not love your "covenant children" any more or less than the general mass of unregenerate mankind. Your only assurance of God's love for them is if they specifically repent and believe the gospel, thus showing themselves to be chosen and loved by him from eternity. Any other view is pure presumption without Scriptural warrant. Isaac would have been presumptuous to write a letter to his newborn Esau in which he stated: "Dearest Esau, child of the covenant: Not only do I love you, but more importantly, God loves you as well!" Such a letter would have been contrary to Christian responsibility, and the God-ordained facts.(10)
> 
> 2) "Are you saying that God won't hear the prayers of my four-year old covenant child?" Baptists rightly respond that God will always hear a prayer for conversion from anyone, young or old. God will also hear and answer any prayer which issues from a sincere, renewed heart. Of course, not all covenant children have sincere, renewed hearts (Ishmael? Esau? the sons of Korah? Eli's sons?). Therefore, parents can have confidence that God hears the prayers of their children to the extent that they have confidence that their children have renewed hearts, or that their children are praying for conversion. Besides, what has this to do with infant baptism? Did the covenant with Abraham involve a "promise" to hear the prayers of all the descendants of Abraham, simply because they were his descendants? Do we adopt infant baptism because it allows us to say comforting things about our children?
> 
> 3) "How dare you baptists separate the children from their own parents in the covenant community! They are your own flesh and blood!" But paedobaptists do not include the spouse in the covenant community! And yet the term "flesh and blood" is more reminiscent of the marriage relationship than the parent-child relationship! "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh" (Genesis 2:24). Thus children are not "separated" any more from their parents on the baptist view, than the unbelieving spouse is "separated" from his or her spouse on the paedobaptist view. This question seems to imply that when baptist parents go to church, they leave their kids in the parking lot. Baptist parents also bring their children under the influence of preaching, catechizing, and family instruction. So what's the point?
> 
> 4) "Now you say, as part of your so-called 'gospel,' that my children aren't in the covenant, and cannot receive the covenant sign. Is that 'good news'? No!" This kind of argument, inferring from a general notion of "expanded privileges" under the New Covenant a specific application to infant privileges, should have about as much force as the following pseudo-argument of a paedo-communionist to most paedobaptists: "You won't let my children partake of the covenant meal (Lord's Supper)? You are revoking the privileges they had under the Old Covenant with respect to the Passover! Is that 'good news'?" Thus, there is no paedobaptist "argument from expanded privilege" against the revoking of baptismal privileges for infants that cannot also be made for infant communion. Arguments like this have about as much force as any Jewish objection to the passing away of the types and shadows of the Old Testament. A much more relevant question would be: "What does God require of me under the New Covenant?" or "Who is in the New Covenant?"



Kevin - you have articulated far better than I did. Kudos.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Reformed-Kermit said:


> Couldn't agree more what Greg Welty (M.Div, Westminster Theological Seminary; B.A., UCLA) has stated so aptly in responding to Paedo's responses...
> 
> V. Paedobaptist Sentimentalism Examined



That's ironic to me.

I find the way that Credo-Baptists treat their kids to be Sentimental and extra-Scriptural.

Bill pointed Rev. Winzer to this thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=19246

I was never able to find anyone to adequately defend the Reformed Baptist idea that they can assume discontinuity of Covenant relationship with their children while at the same time assuming continuity of nurture and admonition that were bound up in the Covenant principle.

I've yet to find a Baptist that can adquately account for this inconsistent discontinuity - perhaps you would like to pick that conversation where it left off and give a go at it.

Talk about sentimental: I still remember Martin Marprelate (his screen name when he posted here) who was "Baptist of Baptists". Even _he_ was lamely trying to defend the practice of infant dedications. 

Baptists calling Presbyterians sentimental with respect to their kids is a humongous kettle calling an itty bitty kettle black.


----------



## MW

Reformed-Kermit said:


> Couldn't agree more what Greg Welty (M.Div, Westminster Theological Seminary; B.A., UCLA) has stated so aptly in responding to Paedo's responses...
> 
> V. Paedobaptist Sentimentalism Examined
> 
> 1) "Are you saying my covenant children aren't 'special'?" Baptists rightly respond with the words of Paul: "Just as it is written: Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" (Romans 9:13). Thus is God's testimony concerning these "covenant children." God may not love your "covenant children" any more or less than the general mass of unregenerate mankind.



Of course we could say the same about any person that calls themselves a Christian, including Mr. Welty. But humility requires us to know our place as creatures, and not to exercise ourselves in matters too high for us, Ps. 131:1, and charity requires us to bear all things, believe all things, hope all things, and endure all things, 1 Cor. 13:7.


----------



## Herald

armourbearer said:


> I am not sure what you mean by born again...



Matthew, are you honestly telling me that you don't know what is meant by the term "born again?" 

[bible]John 3:3[/bible]


----------



## tellville

First, I want to say this has been an incredible thread. I have enjoyed it very much, both from the Credo's and Padeo's.



SemperFideles said:


> I was never able to find anyone to adequately defend the Reformed Baptist idea that they can assume discontinuity of Covenant relationship with their children while at the same time assuming continuity of nurture and admonition that were bound up in the Covenant principle.



Rich, I think your questions were _adequately_ answered in that thread. I think you just don't agree with them  I think possibly you disagree with our answers because you are looking for an answer that would work within the Padeo CT worldview. But I think we Baptists teach our kids not because of CT obligations per se, but rather teach our kids out of the obligations associated with being Christians.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> Out of curiosity, how many of the non-paedobaptist advocates teach their children to pray (including the Lord's prayer), to read the Bible, comfort them with God's love, and generally bring them up IN the nurture and admonition of THE LORD? It appears to me, if you do, that you are bringing them up in the covenant of grace, and the only thing lacking is the official sign and seal.



Rev. Winzer,

For several of the Baptists here, that is an accurate summary. If you read the thread that Bill pointed to you, there are some Baptists there who treat their children as if they can respond to the things of God. I even joked with Trevor that he is a paedobaptist in credobaptist clothing.

Honestly, that heartens me. I would hate to think of credo-Baptists consistently treating their childen as if they were unable to respond to the things of God. I consider it a blessing for their families that they are inconsistent on this point.

I almost detect in some a sense that they view their children exactly the same and the Covenant almost exactly the same but then when it comes to the sign, they want to wait to place it on the child as a mark of profession. That seems a smaller error to me. They're not even really denying the children the benefits of Church membership as their children are involved in Church life. 

This, in some ways, is what makes the cry so hollow to me that they need to preserve the rite of Baptism to make it special. Their baptized children are not now let into secret rooms of the Church they were once forbidden to enter. They are not suddenly introduced to Scriptures they were once untaught. They are not suddenly taught to pray because, heretofore, they were taught that Christ cannot mediate their prayers.

No, the rite is preserved so it can be a sign of that person's faith...


----------



## Herald

> I fail to see how one can appropriate the spiritual truth of God's word whilst they are made to feel they are outside the kingdom of Christ.



Matthew, I find your comment our of place in lieu of 1 Corinthians 2:14:

[bible] 1 Corinthians 2:14[/bible]

Until God regenerates a dead heart, no one is able to appropriate spiritual truth. It doesn't matter whether we are talking about an infant or a senior citizen.


----------



## MW

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Matthew, are you honestly telling me that you don't know what is meant by the term "born again?"



Bill, I know what I understand about regeneration, but I don't know what you mean by the term "born again." Obviously we have different understandings, because you think a person cannot be brought up in the nurture of the Lord without being born again, whereas I perceive that a person who is unregenerate might be well instructed and "not far" from the kingdom.


----------



## MW

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Matthew, I find your comment our of place in lieu of 1 Corinthians 2:14:
> 
> [bible] 1 Corinthians 2:14[/bible]
> 
> Until God regenerates a dead heart, no one is able to appropriate spiritual truth. It doesn't matter whether we are talking about an infant or a senior citizen.



We are speaking of our responsibility to them, not their ability with relation to what we teach them.


----------



## jenney

armourbearer said:


> No, it is the same as Rom. 9:4.



What's weird about that is that the point of the passage is that not all who are Israel are Israel. So to Israel belongs the adoption (and all) but children of the flesh are not necessarily part of it. Paul writes that the promises belong to the Israel as well (in the same verse) but not to those who are Israel by flesh, only to Israel by faith. So I would expect that adoption, too, is to those who are Israel by faith not flesh. Wouldn't my children then have to believe to be adopted in the Romans 9:4 sense?

Help me understand this.

jenney


----------



## MW

SemperFideles said:


> Honestly, that heartens me. I would hate to think of credo-Baptists consistently treating their childen as if they were unable to respond to the things of God. I consider it a blessing for their families that they are inconsistent on this point.



It heartens me too, Rich. That is why I think they have everything but the official sign and seal. What they do in their homes is not carrying over to church practice and vice versa.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

tellville said:


> First, I want to say this has been an incredible thread. I have enjoyed it very much, both from the Credo's and Padeo's.
> 
> Rich, I think your questions were _adequately_ answered in that thread. I think you just don't agree with them  I think possibly you disagree with our answers because you are looking for an answer that would work within the Padeo CT worldview. But I think we Baptists teach our kids not because of CT obligations per se, but rather teach our kids out of the obligations associated with being Christians.



Mark,

There is a difference between disagreeing with a thing and not receiving an answer for them. I never received an answer to this question:

Where is the _Scriptural warrant_ found that the nurture and admonition part of the Covenant of Grace continues for children of believers while their membership does not?

If you can point me to the answer then I will chalk it up to a mere disagreement.


----------



## edb19

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> I'm not picking on anyone, but, its interesting to me that no one ever says, "I was raised Presbyterian and was never quite able to reconcile _*Covenant Theology *_with Scripture." That would take too much work, but in reality, that is where the answer to all this acutally lies. Its not in baptism.



I don't say that because I don't believe covenant theology to be inconsistent with either Scripture or credobaptism. My Reformed Baptist church baptizes believers because covenant theology demands it.


----------



## MW

jenney said:


> What's weird about that is that the point of the passage is that not all who are Israel are Israel. So to Israel belongs the adoption (and all) but children of the flesh are not necessarily part of it. Paul writes that the promises belong to the Israel as well (in the same verse) but not to those who are Israel by flesh, only to Israel by faith. So I would expect that adoption, too, is to those who are Israel by faith not flesh. Wouldn't my children then have to believe to be adopted in the Romans 9:4 sense?
> 
> Help me understand this.
> 
> jenney



The apostle is saying that the adoption belongs in one sense to the children of the flesh, but in another sense only to the children of the promise. So far as the administration of God's covenant is concerned, all the children of the members of the visible church share the same promise of adoption. So far as the purpose of grace (which is the essence of the covenant) is concerned, only the elect are partakers of the spiritual blessing of adoption. Hence arises the classical reformed distinction between (but not separation of) the visible and invisible church. As the apostle goes on to explain, this distinction is manifested in the lives of the infants, Jacob and Esau.


----------



## Herald

> This, in some ways, is what makes the cry so hollow to me that they need to preserve the rite of Baptism to make it special.



Rich - I can't speak for others, but Baptism should not be preserved in order to make it special. I would rather glory in the work of Christ in saving sinners. Earlier in this thread I pointed out what I believe is the model for baptism: believe and be baptized. 

I believe there is an issue that many of us are missing. It seems to me that baptism is more of an issue for paedo's than it is for credo's. I have first hand knowledge of some Baptist churches delaying Baptism for nothing more than scheduling reasons. I say this to their shame! Instead of treating baptism as special (as you assert), it is seen as a bother. The point I am trying to make (dramatic stories aside) is that paedo's must emphasize the importance of baptism because of their view of the covenant. That is not a criticism, just a fact. I'm not even arguing against paedo baptism here, just underscoring the reason why baptism is so important to the paedo view. Conversely, the emphasis for credo's is on conversion with baptism _*immediately*_ following. I mention this as an explanation as to why so many Baptists seem ignorant or ill-informed regarding baptism. I am not saying they should be ill-informed, just providing my  as to why they may be.


----------



## tellville

[quote="SemperFidelesWhere] is the Scriptural warrant found that the nurture and admonition part of the Covenant of Grace continues for children of believers while their membership does not?[/quote]

This is what I meant when I said you are looking for an answer that conforms to your Padeo CT worldview, while we as Baptists answer the question more with our Christian obligations in mind, as opposed to CT in mind. 

1. If I have children, they have been given to me by the Lord. (Job 31:5, Jer 1:5, Ps 139:13, etc.)
2. I am a Christian. Anything the Lord entrusts me with, I should deal with in a Christian manner. (Matthew 25:14-30)
3. The Lord entrusts me with children, therefore I should deal with them in a Christian manner, regardless if they are reprobate or elect (something I can never know infallibly anyway). 

This, I would imagine, is the main logic behind the Baptist's point of view on how to raise their children.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Rich - I can't speak for others, but Baptism should not be preserved in order to make it special. I would rather glory in the work of Christ in saving sinners. Earlier in this thread I pointed out what I believe is the model for baptism: believe and be baptized.
> 
> I believe there is an issue that many of us are missing. It seems to me that baptism is more of an issue for paedo's than it is for credo's. I have first hand knowledge of some Baptist churches delaying Baptism for nothing more than scheduling reasons. I say this to their shame! Instead of treating baptism as special (as you assert), it is seen as a bother. The point I am trying to make (dramatic stories aside) is that paedo's must emphasize the importance of baptism because of their view of the covenant. That is not a criticism, just a fact. I'm not even arguing against paedo baptism here, just underscoring the reason why baptism is so important to the paedo view. Conversely, the emphasis for credo's is on conversion with baptism _*immediately*_ following. I mention this as an explanation as to why so many Baptists seem ignorant or ill-informed regarding baptism. I am not saying they should be ill-informed, just providing my  as to why they may be.



Bill,

I don't disagree that baptism is special. In the context of my comments, I was not arguing that Baptism is insignificant and not special. When my third child, Sophia, was born in March, we had to wait 9 months to get her baptized because we attend a Baptist Church out here. I wanted her baptized in the Church _she_ and her mother belong to in Temecula, CA. I hadn't realized how much I missed the sense of Covenant in that Church - knowing that the Church viewed my baby girl not merely as an obect of evangelism (certainly true) but also a member of a blessed Covenant community. I was simply overwhelmed that day.

Mind you I enjoy worshipping with my Baptist brethren here. I don't consider it drudgery. Yet to have a community of believers rejoice at the arrival of a child and say "...she is of us..." is something that I sorely miss. I still remember a few years ago, before children, we had a Sunday School time where all the members of the Church expressed their gratitude for things throughout the year. One boy, Nathan (5), stated: "I'm thankful that I'm growing up in a Christian home because my Mommy and Daddy didn't have that."

I started crying. It's not because I'm sentimental (though I can be sappy at times) but because that moment so profoundly captured the beauty of the Covenant. Nobody drilled him on theology. Nobody replied: "Well, Nathan, only if you're elect!" 

I simply rejoiced that I was called out of a home that wasn't Christian either and here was I, an unnatural branch, grafted into the Covenant family. I looked forward to having children that could thank God just like Nathan did. 

I state all these things not with the intention of saying that "Here is the great thing about being paedobaptist that you don't have..." because I know that some of you are treating your children the exact same way and they are experiencing all these blessings of being around the people of God week in and week out.

For the Paedobaptist, you see, being _identified with_ the Covenant community I just described with the promise from God that says: "Child, if you believe, then you shall be saved" _is what makes baptism special_. The sign not only identifies that the child belongs to the community but also promises to him all the benefits of the New Covenant if he believes.

On the contrary, the sign that the Baptists offer him is this: you already have the benefit of being in the Covenant community and all the nurture now let's add this sign that is primarily a response to your profession.

To me, one is very special while the other is relatively paltry.

I apologize for being so blunt but it is the reason why I find the paedobaptist view of Covenant and baptism far richer.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

tellville said:


> This is what I meant when I said you are looking for an answer that conforms to your Padeo CT worldview, while we as Baptists answer the question more with our Christian obligations in mind, as opposed to CT in mind.
> 
> 1. If I have children, they have been given to me by the Lord. (Job 31:5, Jer 1:5, Ps 139:13, etc.)
> 2. I am a Christian. Anything the Lord entrusts me with, I should deal with in a Christian manner. (Matthew 25:14-30)
> 3. The Lord entrusts me with children, therefore I should deal with them in a Christian manner, regardless if they are reprobate or elect (something I can never know infallibly anyway).
> 
> This, I would imagine, is the main logic behind the Baptist's point of view on how to raise their children.



You call it a Paedo CT worldview, I call it a request for sound exegesis. The above is anything but.

Point 1 makes my point: All those passages are commands to parents who have an obligation to their children according to the Word _because their children are in the Covenant_.

You want to borrow from Covenant language when it suits you so long as it doesn't mean what it meant when it was written. The reason why children have to obey in those passages is because they are in the Covenant and carry the obligations to do so in those passages. Those are reminders of things established.

What I asked, which you failed to answer, worldview or not, is to provide the basis for nurture apart from their Covenant membership. You cannot simply affirm a passage that applied to a category of child that was in the Covenant and apply it to a child outside of the Covenant and then accuse me of a paedo worldview.

Points 2 and 3 treat children as if they're no different than any other stranger along the way. Again, it does not get to the heart of the question. Let me re-state it again:

1. Children were in the CoG in the OT and commands to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord were ALL tied together with their Covenant membership.

2. Baptists want to offer that their children are still to be brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord but all the passages that command it are now abrogated with respect to the basis for it: Covenant membership

Where is the exegetical, didactic principal that establishes point 2. Simply going to a passage in the NT which you have determined, _a priori_, does not assume children are in the Covenant *begs the question*. 

"See, you say, Paul says to train them in the fear and admonition of the Lord."

"Fine," says I, "that's because they're in the Covenant. We expect he would be commanding them to because children have always been commanded to do so, because they're in the Covenant."

"No, they're not," you say, "Paul is expressing here that, even though they're not in the Covenant anymore, all those other passages that applied to Covenant members with respect to nurture and admonition now apply to them anyway."

I ask: "Where did you get all that from such a short passage?"


----------



## Herald

> I apologize for being so blunt but it is the reason why I find the paedobaptist view of Covenant and baptism far richer.



Forgive me for just quoting your last sentence. I read you whole post, but your last sentence encapsulates your position (In my humble opinion).

You may find this odd, but I agree with your last sentence. As much as the paedobaptism view has a theological component, it also has a familial component. I will not attempt to argue against the familial aspect. There is a strong familial aspect in our local fellowship. Granted it is not signified through baptism. It is initiated by faith in Christ and experienced by the love of the brethren. I find it just as rich and blessed as the experience in your church.


----------



## Herald

> I apologize for being so blunt...



Brother Rich, never a need to apologize for being direct. I would rather your considered opinions instead of beating around the bush.


----------



## tellville

> Mind you I enjoy worshipping with my Baptist brethren here. I don't consider it drudgery. Yet to have a community of believers rejoice at the arrival of a child and say "...she is of us..." is something that I sorely miss."


 
How do you know she is one of you though? Isn't that a little presumptuous? 




> I still remember a few years ago, before children, we had a Sunday School time where all the members of the Church expressed their gratitude for things throughout the year. One boy, Nathan (5), stated: "I'm thankful that I'm growing up in a Christian home because my Mommy and Daddy didn't have that."
> 
> I started crying. It's not because I'm sentimental (though I can be sappy at times) but because that moment so profoundly captured the beauty of the Covenant. Nobody drilled him on theology. Nobody replied: "Well, Nathan, only if you're elect!"


 
Well, in all honesty, only if he is elect will him growing up in a Christian home be something he is truly thankful for. 

But the reason why I would never say that to him after saying something like that is because: 
1. A statement like that is a sign of faith.
2. That truly is a beautiful moment you described. There is a time and place for theological discussion, the moment you described would not be it. 

A question I have to ask is this: I know many Baptists who found their adult Baptism a truly precious memory. If they had been infant baptised, that moment would never be with them. That's a tragedy. Thus, the Baptist view of Baptism is much richer because it is much more appreciated. 

But is the above paragraph "memory of my Baptism" really better if my Baptist arguments are false? No, just as your padeo memory wouldn't be if the padeo arguments were false.

Thank you for the post however. I really enjoy your posts


----------



## Semper Fidelis

tellville said:


> How do you know she is one of you though? Isn't that a little presumptuous?


Do you call any of the members of your Church "brother" or "sister"? Do you consider them to be in the Church? If you answer "Yes" to either then I consider your answer to be presumptuous on the same grounds.



> Well, in all honesty, only if he is elect will him growing up in a Christian home be something he is truly thankful for.


Really? So the wrath of God is not poured out on men for them not thanking Him for the blessings he provides.

I would also add that only a cold Calvinism thinks of fellow believers in this category.

Guess what Brother: Only if you're elect, will any of your joy of being in the Church be a blessing. I speak in this way only to shock because that is how repugnant such a statement is. Election is not to be used in such a manner.


> But the reason why I would never say that to him after saying something like that is because:
> 1. A statement like that is a sign of faith.
> 2. That truly is a beautiful moment you described. There is a time and place for theological discussion, the moment you described would not be it.


Except that you already tarnished that beauty. If I rejoiced with those that rejoiced and wept with those who wept only after a "...well they might be reprobate..." pause, then what kind of thoughts would I have constantly about my brothers and sisters in the Lord?



> A question I have to ask is this: I know many Baptists who found their adult Baptism a truly precious memory. If they had been infant baptised, that moment would never be with them. That's a tragedy. Thus, the Baptist view of Baptism is much richer because it is much more appreciated.
> 
> But is the above paragraph "memory of my Baptism" really better if my Baptist arguments are false? No, just as your padeo memory wouldn't be if the padeo arguments were false.


It has nothing to do with memories. The basis for the "specialness" of baptism was in the being joined to a Covenant community in which grace abounds. What I'm saying is that Baptist children already have that. Baptism doesn't signifiy Covenant community participation for them so that aspect cannot be considered something "special" about baptism. I'm not saying a Baptist can have no joy in their baptism but, for many, their baptism represents as much of what they did (a profession) as it does about what God has promised. What is signified to me is paltry.


----------



## tellville

SemperFideles said:


> Point 1 makes my point: All those passages are commands to parents who have an obligation to their children according to the Word because their children are in the Covenant.



Did you read the passages I quoted? I was just citing them as proof that God gives me children, not how I should raise them. <P.S., Given that I misquoted my Job passage, odds are you didn't read them  Just bugging you  >

Job 31:15, Jer 1:5, Ps 139:13 <all quotations from the NASB>

Job 31:15


> "Did not He who made me in the womb make him, And the same one fashion us in the womb?"



Jer 1:5


> "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."



Ps 139:13


> "For You formed my inward parts;You wove me in my mother's womb.



Then I put "etc." because there are many verses that talk about God creating us, and being sovereign over our creation in the womb. I didn't use these passages as examples of how I should raise my children, but rather that God is the one who entrusts me with Children. 



SemperFideles said:


> Points 2 and 3 treat children as if they're no different than any other stranger along the way. Again, it does not get to the heart of the question.



In a lot of ways they are not. The only difference between them and somebody else's children is that I have been entrusted with them. Are they more blessed because they are in my home? Anybody is more blessed when they hear the Word of God, even if the very Word they are hearing is condemning them. 



SemperFideles said:


> Where is the exegetical, didactic principal that establishes point 2. Simply going to a passage in the NT which you have determined, a priori, does not assume children are in the Covenant *begs the question*.



The master (God) entrusts his servants with talents. Those who dealt with them in a way pleasing to the Master were blessed, the one who didn't was cursed. The NT provides many passages suggesting (commanding in some instances) that those who are not Christians should be evangelized. Given that I have been directly entrusted with my children, I am obligated to evangelize them, otherwise I would not be caring for the talents (this case, my children) in a way that is pleasing to my master (God). 

Again, I am not basing my argument on CT per se (unlike you), but rather on my obligations as a Christian. This is truly why I do not think we are seeing eye to eye.

Thank you again for your charitable critiques.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

tellville said:


> Again, I am not basing my argument on CT per se (unlike you), but rather on my obligations as a Christian. This is truly why I do not think we are seeing eye to eye.
> 
> Thank you again for your charitable critiques.



OK. Then you never really dealt with my questions because I was speaking to people who were appealing to OT & NT passages that speak of raising children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. 

Your view is really too almagimized to deal with here but would be interesting for another discussion. Is this your formulation of your responsibility to your children after pulling together a few verses?

Thus, is it your contention that none of the verses in the OT regarding children now apply to New Covenant believers and that portions or Psalms and Proverbs are "interesting" from a historical view but bear no present relevance?


----------



## MW

tellville said:


> I didn't use these passages as examples of how I should raise my children, but rather that God is the one who entrusts me with Children.



Given that these OT references are regulative of the fact that your children are God's gift to you, will you acknowledge the regulative nature of those OT references which indicate that your children are God's children and a part of God's congregation? E.g., Ezek 16:21; Joel 2:16.


----------



## tellville

SemperFideles said:


> Do you call any of the members of your Church "brother" or "sister"? Do you consider them to be in the Church? If you answer "Yes" to either then I consider your answer to be presumptuous on the same grounds.



Technically, no  I go to a Chinese church, thus, we call everyone "Auntie" and "Uncle". Anyone who is our peer or below, we just call them by their name. 

But in seriousness, the only people who I call "brother" or "sister" in Christ are the people who at the very least proclaim Christ as their Lord and Saviour. Maybe it is presumptuous because I do not have infallible knowledge, but I think far less so then someone assuming an infant is regenerate without any sign whatsoever that they really are. 



tellville said:


> Well, in all honesty, only if he is elect will him growing up in a Christian home be something he is truly thankful for.





SemperFideles said:


> Really? So the wrath of God is not poured out on men for them not thanking Him for the blessings he provides.



No, His wrath is poured out on people who do not thank him for His blessings. What I am saying is that if he is not truly regenerate, then, at the end of the day, he will no longer be thankful of his Christian upbringing but rather will probably be spiteful towards it. (E.g. Richard Dawkins)(I'm not saying Dawkins is reprobate, for I do not know, but right now he serves well in my example)



SemperFideles said:


> I would also add that only a cold Calvinism thinks of fellow believers in this category.
> 
> Guess what Brother: Only if you're elect, will any of your joy of being in the Church be a blessing. I speak in this way only to shock because that is how repugnant such a statement is. Election is not to be used in such a manner.



In my last post (you wouldn't have seen it yet when you wrote this paragraph), I clearly state that a person is blessed by being under the Word, even if that same Word eventually condemns them. But your point is taken. I am constantly trying to strive to present my faith as warm and loving as my glorious Saviour has given it to me, but sometimes I do fail miserably. Forgive me.


----------



## tellville

SemperFideles said:


> OK. Then you never really dealt with my questions because I was speaking to people who were appealing to OT & NT passages that speak of raising children in the fear and admonition of the Lord.



Fair enough. 



SemperFideles said:


> Your view is really too almagimized to deal with here but would be interesting for another discussion. Is this your formulation of your responsibility to your children after pulling together a few verses?



I would say that my view, as to the responsibility to my children, has been formed by the principles behind these verses, yes. 



SemperFideles said:


> Thus, is it your contention that none of the verses in the OT regarding children now apply to New Covenant believers and that portions or Psalms and Proverbs are "interesting" from a historical view but bear no present relevance?



I would have to admit that they no longer _directly_ apply to children of people in the New Covenant. 

However, they do provide examples of what is the best way of raising ones child. So, yes, they do bear a present relevance. 



armourbearer said:


> Given that these OT references are regulative of the fact that your children are God's gift to you, will you acknowledge the regulative nature of those OT references which indicate that your children are God's children and a part of God's congregation? E.g., Ezek 16:21; Joel 2:16.



Yes, I would acknowledge that those OT references indicate that my children would have been considered God's children and a part of God's congregation within the OC community.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

tellville said:


> In my last post (you wouldn't have seen it yet when you wrote this paragraph), I clearly state that a person is blessed by being under the Word, even if that same Word eventually condemns them. But your point is taken. I am constantly trying to strive to present my faith as warm and loving as my glorious Saviour has given it to me, but sometimes I do fail miserably. Forgive me.


You have not offended me brother. I only pointed that out that you might learn to be more careful and consider how Paul uses election in the Scriptures. Election is a good thing but also fraught with dangers when we misuse it.

By the way, many of the members of my Church are Japanese so I'll call them by their name with a -san at the end. The ladies call my girls Anna-chan and Sophia-chan. It's a term of endearment for Japanese when they consider a child to be cute.

I love the cultures of Asia.


----------



## MW

tellville said:


> Yes, I would acknowledge that those OT references indicate that my children would have been considered God's children and a part of God's congregation within the OC community.



So when you used the other OT references to show that children are God's gift, were you indicating that they only would have been considered as such within the OC community?


----------



## tellville

[quote="armourbearer] So when you used the other OT references to show that children are God's gift, were you indicating that they only would have been considered as such within the OC community? [/quote]

I would say no, because nothing in the NT seems to suggest to me that God no longer has absolute sovereignty on the creation of my children. Thus, as you Presbyterian's like to say in reference to Baptism, I see no instance of abrogation of this theological principle. 

However, with placing the covenant sign on infants in the NC, I do see enough of an "abrogation" of the "covenant sing on infants" principle, even though I readily admit that no where does the NT say "And thou shalt not place the covenant sign on infants". But this is a discussion for another thread (and probably a million threads before this one!  )

Thank you Matthew for your thoughtful questions.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Paul manata said:


> Originally posted by *Jehovah*
> Exodus 20:12 Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long in the land which Jehovah thy God giveth thee.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally posted by *Jehovah*
> Ephesians 6:2 [Children] Honor thy father and mother (which is the first commandment with promise), 3 that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Rev Winzer and Paul,

Great points. I'm going to retire from trying to convince Mark. He's a young brother and I want to give him time to reflect on these things. It's not really fair for me to keep pressing him as he hasn't really considered some of these ideas fully.

Blessings,

Rich


----------



## Kevin Lewis

*Ha ha - Sentimentality*

Baptists calling Presbyterians sentimental with respect to their kids is a humongous kettle calling an itty bitty kettle black. quote from Rich.


Now that is kind of funny.


----------



## tellville

Thank you Paul for those verses. 



Yahweh said:


> 1Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER (which is the first commandment with a promise),3SO THAT IT MAY BE WELL WITH YOU, AND THAT YOU MAY LIVE LONG ON THE EARTH.
> 4Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.



I have a few questions from this verse:

1. Could an infant follow this command? 
2. Given that this appears to be a quote from the OT, is this an indication that the whole OT principle regarding children is being reconfirmed here? Is that inference demanded by the text? Or is it just the fourth commandment principle regarding children that is being reaffirmed here?
3. Does this verse _demand_ that I view my children coventally, or rather, that I should not provoke my my children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord?



SemperFideles said:


> Rev Winzer and Paul,
> 
> Great points. I'm going to retire from trying to convince Mark. He's a young brother and I want to give him time to reflect on these things. It's not really fair for me to keep pressing him as he hasn't really considered some of these ideas fully.



I understand that I am young (24). I also understand, that because I am young, I am bound to not be as wise as someone who has had much more time to think their position through. However, I would rather be shown the fool, and thus save me from folly, then to be just left in my folly. As I have been critiqued it has allowed me to reflect, be challenged, and to better understand your position and mine. Points I would have never thought on my own have now come to me because people far more wise then I have shown them to me through their questions and concerns. 

But, I will head your advice Rich, and refrain now from responding until I have spent more time reflecting on everything that has been said. 

Thank you Rich, Paul, and Matthew.


----------



## MW

tellville said:


> I would say no, because nothing in the NT seems to suggest to me that God no longer has absolute sovereignty on the creation of my children. Thus, as you Presbyterian's like to say in reference to Baptism, I see no instance of abrogation of this theological principle.



The concept of children as a gift goes beyond the mere fact of creation. In Deut. 28:18, a curse is pronounced upon the fruit of the body which refuses to hearken to the voice of the Lord. Children as a gift is indicative of a relation that has been established between God and His people. See Ps. 127:3, "Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward." This statement is set within the context of the Lord building the house, ver. 1. Further, Ps. 128, sets the blessing of the home within the context of the covenant community. Ver. 6, "Yea, thou shalt see thy children’s children, and peace upon Israel."

It is impossible to sever the OT affirmations from their covenantal context. If one refuses to acknowledge children are still in the covenant they have no basis for saying that their children are a gift from God.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Reformed-Kermit said:


> Baptists calling Presbyterians sentimental with respect to their kids is a humongous kettle calling an itty bitty kettle black. quote from Rich.
> 
> 
> Now that is kind of funny.



What do ya mean, funny? Let me understand this cause, I don't know maybe it's me, I'm a little messed up maybe, but I'm funny how? I mean, funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh... I'm here to amuse you? What do you mean funny, funny how? How am I funny?


----------



## panicbird

tellville said:


> I understand that I am young (24). I also understand, that because I am young, I am bound to not be as wise as someone who has had much more time to think their position through. However, I would rather be shown the fool, and thus save me from folly, then to be just left in my folly. As I have been critiqued it has allowed me to reflect, be challenged, and to better understand your position and mine. Points I would have never thought on my own have now come to me because people far more wise then I have shown them to me through their questions and concerns.
> 
> But, I will head your advice Rich, and refrain now from responding until I have spent more time reflecting on everything that has been said.
> 
> Thank you Rich, Paul, and Matthew.



I would like to commend you for your humility and wisdom, Mark. Many people (much older than you) would not be able to say this. I praise God for His work in your heart, and pray that He would guide you as you seek to understand His truth.


----------



## MW

panicbird said:


> I would like to commend you for your humility and wisdom, Mark. Many people (much older than you) would not be able to say this. I praise God for His work in your heart, and pray that He would guide you as you seek to understand His truth.



Yes, I agree.


----------



## Herald

> If one refuses to acknowledge children are still in the covenant they have no basis for saying that their children are a gift from God.



Based on what?

[bible] Romans 9:6 [/bible]

The _true_ children of the covenant are those that are the _real_ Israel. Believing Israel. I don't consider the children of paedo parents saved any more than I consider the children of credo parents saved, apart from faith. That said, I see no incongruity in Psalm 127:3 as far as credo parents and their children are concerned.


----------



## Barnpreacher

Mark,



> Originally Posted by *the Apostle Paul*
> 
> _Let no man despise thy youth._



God Bless!


----------



## MW

trevorjohnson said:


> That seems to be a fair assessment. The only change of words would be that _a child of baptist beleivers have all the benefits of sittung UNDER the administration of the covenant and are AMONG and IN THE MIDST of the covenant community._



May those children address God as "*Our Father*" together with the rest of the covenant community? Are they embraced as "brother" and "sister" accordingly? If so, they are treated as Christians, and who can forbid them the sign of baptism to seal their external privilege of adoption into God's family?


----------



## MW

BaptistInCrisis said:


> That said, I see no incongruity in Psalm 127:3 as far as credo parents and their children are concerned.



So I ask again, why does Ps. 127:3 have a regulative import on the NT church, but the references in Ezekiel and Joel do not, which indicate they are God's children and a part of God's congregation?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

trevorjohnson said:


> Rich, you wrote:
> 
> _For the Paedobaptist, you see, being identified with the Covenant community I just described with the promise from God that says: "Child, if you believe, then you shall be saved" is what makes baptism special. The sign not only identifies that the child belongs to the community but also promises to him all the benefits of the New Covenant if he believes.
> 
> On the contrary, the sign that the Baptists offer him is this: you already have the benefit of being in the Covenant community and all the nurture now let's add this sign that is primarily a response to your profession._
> 
> That seems to be a fair assessment. The only change of words would be that _a child of baptist beleivers have all the benefits of sittung UNDER the administration of the covenant and are AMONG and IN THE MIDST of the covenant community._
> 
> But any child, even if his parents are devil-worshippers have the promise to them, "Child, if you believe, then you shall be saved."
> 
> All the benefits of the New Covenant come upon all and any who believe.
> 
> What good does the sign do in addition (unless it be merely in simple obedience). It seems that a paedo has to believe that the rite of baptism DOES something in addition to mere identification.


Trevor,

I address that in the other thread. It is the difference between being in and among the people of God and among the preaching of the Word and the Sacraments as means of Grace.


Barnpreacher said:


> Mark,
> "Let no man despise your youth."
> God Bless!


To both Mark and Ryan,

If you read what I said, I honestly felt that it was unfair of me to stay in the fray with Mark. Rev. Winzer and Paul are like two battleships of Covenant theology and they didn't need my little Frigate to keep after Mark. I do not despise Mark in the least and I was only trying to give Mark a break from having to answer all 3 of us. I do believe he needed to consider some of the matters more fully and it was not meant in a pejorative but a brotherly sense.

I'm gratified that he appeared to take it that way.


----------



## Herald

armourbearer said:


> So I ask again, why does Ps. 127:3 have a regulative import on the NT church, but the references in Ezekiel and Joel do not, which indicate they are God's children and a part of God's congregation?



Matthew - in reading Ezekiel 16 in context, I still don't see a disconnect. God (through the prophet) is telling Israel that she came from near death and was blessed and established by God. This chapter shares similar themes with that of the Song of Solomon. You can almost see chapter 3 of Ruth when God says, *Ezekiel 16:8 8 "Then I passed by you and saw you, and behold, you were at the time for love; so I spread My skirt over you and covered your nakedness. I also swore to you and entered into a covenant with you so that you became Mine," declares the Lord God. * But keeping Romans 9:6 in mind, this covenant does not mean all of Israel were of faith. In fact, the Lord alludes to this in verses 15-24 when he details Israel's adulteries. 

When the Lord indicts Israel (vs. 20-21), He calls their children "Mine." Is the Lord saying these chidren are saved? Is their part in the covenant equal with being regenerate? No. These children belonged to God just as Israel belonged to God (vs. 8). 

Joel 2 is similar to Ezekiel in that the nation had played the harlot and was facing judgment. The very fact that Israel had turned her heart to other God's and abandoned the LORD their God is proof that not all were of faith. Did God have a covenant with Israel? Of course! Did Israel play the harlot, and Judah too? Again, of course! But did not Moses warn the nation of God's severe wrath for forsaking the LORD God (Deut. 28)? Because the nation was under covenant, the nation was called to repent. In Joel 2:16 the situation Israel faced was so desperate that all were called to repent. Indeed, in verse 3 the LORD tells the people, *...rend your heart and not your garments."* What was the LORD looking for? He was looking for the same Israel that Paul was describing in Romans 9.

Matthew, I am sure you will disagree with my exegesis, but please do not say that I have avoided the passages you asked about.


----------



## MW

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Matthew, I am sure you will disagree with my exegesis, but please do not say that I have avoided the passages you asked about.



Bill, please consult ver. 21 of Ezek. 16, "my children;" and ver. 16 of Joel 2, "gather the children, and those that suck the breasts." I am glad you see there is no disconnect in these passages. It should make it easier for you to acknowledge the regulative import of these principles for the NT.


----------



## Herald

armourbearer said:


> Bill, please consult ver. 21 of Ezek. 16, "my children;" and ver. 16 of Joel 2, "gather the children, and those that suck the breasts." I am glad you see there is no disconnect in these passages. It should make it easier for you to acknowledge the regulative import of these principles for the NT.



Matthew - help me out here. I would like you to finish this connect-the-dots excercise. Where in the N.T. are you going with this?


----------



## Ezekiel3626

SemperFideles said:


> What do ya mean, funny? Let me understand this cause, I don't know maybe it's me, I'm a little messed up maybe, but I'm funny how? I mean, funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh... I'm here to amuse you? What do you mean funny, funny how? How am I funny?


----------



## MW

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Matthew - help me out here. I would like you to finish this connect-the-dots excercise. Where in the N.T. are you going with this?



Bill, You assert that your children are a gift from God. You use a reference from the OT Scriptures to support it, Ps. 127. The OT reference understands they are a gift in the context of describing covenant blessedness. How do you continue to maintain your children are a gift, but not a covenant gift? Other OT passages, e.g., Ezek. 16:21, Joel 2:16, indicate that our children are God's children, and that they are a part of God's congregation. You are willing to accept the abiding validity of Ps. 127, divorced from its covenantal context, but you reject the abiding validity of Ezek. 16:21, and Joel 2:16. Why?


----------



## Herald

armourbearer said:


> Bill, You assert that your children are a gift from God. You use a reference from the OT Scriptures to support it, Ps. 127. The OT reference understands they are a gift in the context of describing covenant blessedness. How do you continue to maintain your children are a gift, but not a covenant gift? Other OT passages, e.g., Ezek. 16:21, Joel 2:16, indicate that our children are God's children, and that they are a part of God's congregation. You are willing to accept the abiding validity of Ps. 127, divorced from its covenantal context, but you reject the abiding validity of Ezek. 16:21, and Joel 2:16. Why?




Matthew - I have no problem answering your questions. Would answer the one I posed to you in the last post? Please support this in the N.T. Where is the connection(s)? I promise you that I'll answer you questions. The door does go both ways.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Paul manata said:


> Why should we look for "professors" if we don't think the New Covenant (which is made with the elect, remember) is made up of *only* believers/professors?



My question would be, since the new covenant is only for the elect, how do you know they are the elect? You must go back to what circumcision was, a *seal *of righteousness. How was one righteous before God? His faith made him righteous before God. Then he was circumcised.

But then you say, "Yes, but even God tells abraham to circumcise not himself but his decendants as well." But according to the new covenant we are "the sons of Abraham". How are we sons of Abraham, "through the promise". The promise cannot be made to those who are not the elect, but can only be made to those who are the elect, through Jesus Christ our Lord.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Again, statements like these are said:

"election is not the test used by Baptists to baptize - profession is. "

But you can not say, without a doubt, your child is part of the elect. To state that is to say you are God. I have said thise before, and will say it again, you cannot know anyone is elect unless they produce the fruits of an elect.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

*Thanks again*



panicbird said:


> In English, you are correct: age and ageless mean different things. We are not discussing English, however. We are discussing Greek. And in the Greek language, words are formed off of roots. If you add a noun ending to the root (as in _hagios_), you have a noun. If you have a verbal ending (as in _hagiazo_), you have a verb. The root carries the basic meaning, and adding an ending does not change that. The root of both words (_hag_) has to do with holiness or being holy, set apart, or consecrated. The verb used in 1 Corinthians 7:14 is _hegiastai_, which is the perfect passive indicative form of the verb. It does not indicate a process, but a completed action with present results. If Paul had wanted to speak of a process, he would have used the present active indicative form. The examples you adduce do not prove your point either. In John 17:19, Jesus is saying that He sanctifies Himself so that those who believe in Him might be sanctified (perfect passive participle), not that they might enter a process of sanctification. Rather, He speaks of placing them in a state of holiness in the truth, not beginning them on a road to holiness. Acts 26:18 contains another perfect passive participle, which indicates a past action. It speaks of those who _have been_ sanctified, not of those who are being or are in the process of becoming sanctified. A different verb form would have been used if that was intended. Romans 15:16 is (guess what!) another perfect passive participle, indicating a completed action. He is saying that he wants his offering of the Gentiles to become acceptable, that is, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. If you were to translate the Greek according to your interpretation, you would have to say that Paul wants his offering to become acceptable, that is, be in the process of being sanctified, which makes no sense. Finally, 1 Corinthians 1:2 reads, literally, "To the church of God which is in Corinth, to those who _have been _sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints." Here you run into a problem. According to your interpretation, these people are in the process of being sanctified, but they are called _hagios_. It is the same class of people referred to by (what you would call) two different words.
> 
> Again, I am not arguing against paedobaptism here. It is just that your argumentation and use of Greek are bad. The grammar does not support you here. There are better arguments for paedobaptism and you should not junk up your argumentation with bad exegesis.



Hay:

Sanctification is a process of being made holy - it is not to be confused with glorification. Though believers are set apart in this life it is clear that they are not fully sanctified until we reach heaven (unless you hold John Wesley's views).

An unbeliever cannot be "sanctified" in the same way that a believer can be sanctified. If the unbelieving spouse comes to faith in Christ, then he/she did so through the "sanctifying" influences of the believing spouse. If he/she does not, then it seems that the believing spouse at least had a controlling influence to reign in sin "sanctifying" the unbeliever. Otherwise their marriage would be unholy. It seems to me that the term "process" here best explains this relationship, maybe "influence" would be better?

I have not the time to reprint it, but I will refer you to Matthew Poole and Matthew Henry on this verse. Maybe I will be able to reprint it later, or, maybe you can give me your take on what they say?

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Andrew P.C. said:


> Again, statements like these are said:
> 
> "election is not the test used by Baptists to baptize - profession is. "
> 
> But you can not say, without a doubt, your child is part of the elect.


Whoever made that claim?



> To state that is to say you are God. I have said thise before, and will say it again, you cannot know anyone is elect unless they produce the fruits of an elect.



And _then_ you can say they are elect? Please explain how.

You really did miss the very specific refutation offered by Paul and myself. I don't know if you were in a rush and skimmed right over the presentation. Before we begin a "do loop" and try to re-explain what the comments you quoted by myself and Paul really argued, please take the time to re-read carefully and determine what is being argued.


----------



## Barnpreacher

> Originally Posted by *SemperFideles*
> _To both Mark and Ryan,
> 
> If you read what I said, I honestly felt that it was unfair of me to stay in the fray with Mark. Rev. Winzer and Paul are like two battleships of Covenant theology and they didn't need my little Frigate to keep after Mark. I do not despise Mark in the least and I was only trying to give Mark a break from having to answer all 3 of us. I do believe he needed to consider some of the matters more fully and it was not meant in a pejorative but a brotherly sense.
> 
> I'm gratified that he appeared to take it that way.
> _




Rich,

I read what you wrote. I don't doubt the spirit in which you wrote it at all, and I don't believe you were despising Mark. I was simply trying to edify the young man in light of the comment about his age. It was my way of encouraging him to stand his ground. After all, as you always say, these debates aren't for the faint of heart.

God bless!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Roger that brother. I just wanted to make sure you didn't think I had given unnecessary offense to the lad.


----------



## MW

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Matthew - I have no problem answering your questions. Would answer the one I posed to you in the last post? Please support this in the N.T. Where is the connection(s)? I promise you that I'll answer you questions. The door does go both ways.



Bill, you've already made the NT connection when you said the OT teaching that children are a gift of God continues into the NT. I believe the OT is a rule of faith and life as well as the NT. So do you, else you wouldn't have said children are a gift of God. As it stands, there is no disconnection.

The NT connection is clear from Eph. 1:1, "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus." Who are these saints and faithful ones? "Children, chap. 6:1. Hence, how are children to be treated? "In the nurture and admonition of the Lord." Again, Col. 1:2, "To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse." Who are included amongst these? "Children," chap. 3:20. Such was the acceptance of this principle amongst the churches that the apostle thought it was needful to address the question of mixed marriages in 1 Cor. 7, in order to confirm the sanctified status of the children of these marriages.


----------



## Herald

> Bill, you've already made the NT connection when you said the OT teaching that children are a gift of God continues into the NT. I believe the OT is a rule of faith and life as well as the NT. So do you, else you wouldn't have said children are a gift of God. As it stands, there is no disconnection.



This point was never in contention.




> The NT connection is clear from Eph. 1:1, "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus." Who are these saints and faithful ones? "Children, chap. 6:1. Hence, how are children to be treated? "In the nurture and admonition of the Lord." Again, Col. 1:2, "To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse." Who are included amongst these? "Children," chap. 3:20. Such was the acceptance of this principle amongst the churches that the apostle thought it was needful to address the question of mixed marriages in 1 Cor. 7, in order to confirm the sanctified status of the children of these marriages.



This _*is*_ in contention. Your link of Ephesians 1:1 and 6:1 is a leap I will not even attempt. You are trying to make the point that Paul is writing about children (Eph. 6:1) from a covenantal standpoint? Paul is writing about familal relationships. He is addressing every member of the nuclear family. This epistle is not a treatise on covenantalism. In Eph. 2:1 Paul calls these saints, "faithful in Christ Jesus." How can an unregenerate child be faithful? Unless, dear brother, you believe that children of the covenant are already regenerate. Honestly, this whole discussion will come into focus if that is your belief. I do not believe infants are regenerate in the absence of faith (Eph. 2:8-10). But I digress. In summary, just because Paul mentions children in Eph. 1:1 does not mean there is a covenantal connection with Eph. 1:1.

Since Colossians and Ephesians share the same theme, just insert my above comments here.

Matthew - I do believe that the gift of children in the O.T. is also a gift in the N.T. If there is a covenantal aspect to this gift, then where is the power of it in the absence of regeneration? In other words, covenant or not, children are not born saved. They must believe by faith. That means the condition of each child is the same at birth. That is my position.


----------



## tellville

I want to thank everyone for their encouraging comments. I am still very much enjoying reading the thread and all the threads on Baptism and Covenant Theology. I will continue to reflect on the things I read.

Don't worry Rich, I did not take offense.


----------



## MW

BaptistInCrisis said:


> This point was never in contention.



This is precisely what I am building on. You allow that children are a gift of God on the basis of an Old Testament affirmation which is made in the context of covenanted blessings. How do you strip away the covenanted blessings and still maintain that children are a gift. Do you have a NT warrant for it?



BaptistInCrisis said:


> This _*is*_ in contention. Your link of Ephesians 1:1 and 6:1 is a leap I will not even attempt. You are trying to make the point that Paul is writing about children (Eph. 6:1) from a covenantal standpoint? Paul is writing about familal relationships. He is addressing every member of the nuclear family. This epistle is not a treatise on covenantalism. In Eph. 2:1 Paul calls these saints, "faithful in Christ Jesus." How can an unregenerate child be faithful? Unless, dear brother, you believe that children of the covenant are already regenerate. Honestly, this whole discussion will come into focus if that is your belief. I do not believe infants are regenerate in the absence of faith (Eph. 2:8-10). But I digress. In summary, just because Paul mentions children in Eph. 1:1 does not mean there is a covenantal connection with Eph. 1:1.



Paul is addressing a church, and as such he regards them as saints and faithful. Within the context of the letter to this church he specifically addresses "children." He does not break in on his letter and say, Please tarry while I address some others who are not a part of you, and then write "Children." He writes to the children in the letter addressed to the church.



BaptistInCrisis said:


> Matthew - I do believe that the gift of children in the O.T. is also a gift in the N.T. If there is a covenantal aspect to this gift, then where is the power of it in the absence of regeneration? In other words, covenant or not, children are not born saved. They must believe by faith. That means the condition of each child is the same at birth. That is my position.



And all this applies as equally to adults, Bill.


----------



## govols

Interested to know what Spurgeon thought of Paedo / Credo baptism.


----------



## Herald

> This is precisely what I am building on. You allow that children are a gift of God on the basis of an Old Testament affirmation which is made in the context of covenanted blessings. How do you strip away the covenanted blessings and still maintain that children are a gift. Do you have a NT warrant for it?



Matthew - I am not at all pinning my argument on Psalm 125 alone. James writes:

[bible]James 1:17-18[/bible]

And good gifts are not limited solely to the righteous. 

[bible]Matthew 5:45[/bible]

[bible]Romans 1:20[/bible]

Why would God shower the unrighteous with good things, in this case children? Could it be that the elect of God are not limited to covenant families? Could it be that God's purpose is to call His elect even from the midst of the unrighteous? I believe God does both. He calls His elect from the midst of the righteous (what you would call a covenant family) and from the unrighteous. But the point is that good gifts, in this case children, are not attached solely to a covenant. Of course, I am supposing that children are a gift regardless of what type of family they are born into. 



> Paul is addressing a church, and as such he regards them as saints and faithful. Within the context of the letter to this church he specifically addresses "children." He does not break in on his letter and say, Please tarry while I address some others who are not a part of you, and then write "Children." He writes to the children in the letter addressed to the church.



I stand by my position. I see no covenantal aspect regarding children in either Ephesians or Colossians. 



> Originally Posted by BaptistInCrisis
> Matthew - I do believe that the gift of children in the O.T. is also a gift in the N.T. If there is a covenantal aspect to this gift, then where is the power of it in the absence of regeneration? In other words, covenant or not, children are not born saved. They must believe by faith. That means the condition of each child is the same at birth. That is my position.
> 
> _And all this applies as equally to adults, Bill._



I would hope so. Infants do grow up to be adults. Faith is necessary for salvation no matter what the age.

Summary:

Matthew - while I appreciate the exchange it only serves to emphasize the deep, systemic divide we have on this issue. As someone once told me, "It is what it is." In the other thread that Rich and I both referenced, it reached a point where the discussion just started regurgitating what was said earlier. I think we are approaching that point. There reaches a point where we have said our piece. I think I have said mine, unless you believe there is something new to add.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Paul manata said:


> Huh?
> 
> The new covenant is not only for the elect. I mean, you can assert that.
> 
> And, according to the new testament, the children of faith have always been the children of Abraham.
> 
> This didn't change in the NT.
> 
> Yet they still gave their physical offspring the sign.
> 
> Seems like your post refutes your position.
> 
> The "promise" cannot be made to those who are not elect, as you say, but yet non-elect and infants received the sign of this promise.
> 
> Your position refutes itself.



Paul, obviously you don't understand that the seal came after Abraham was justified.


----------



## satz

Rich,

I remember we had a short discussion on the logicality of Baptists claiming the OT promises and commands regarding child training while denying baptism to their children in the other thread you started. I have been thinking on the matter a bit since then. I am not claiming to have come up with anything revolutionary, but since some of the points were brought up in this thread I hoped to chime in a bit.

Regarding what you said in this thread:



> "See, you say, Paul says to train them in the fear and admonition of the Lord."
> 
> "Fine," says I, "that's because they're in the Covenant. We expect he would be commanding them to because children have always been commanded to do so, because they're in the Covenant."
> 
> "No, they're not," you say, "Paul is expressing here that, even though they're not in the Covenant anymore, all those other passages that applied to Covenant members with respect to nurture and admonition now apply to them anyway."
> 
> I ask: "Where did you get all that from such a short passage?"



I am not sure why you say we can’t get such a principle from the passage (I would not phrase the priciple exactly that way though). Paul is directly setting out the duties of members of Christian families here, and in doing so he refers back to an OT passage, so wouldn’t that indicate he is telling us the general principle still applies? regardless of what other changes have occurred in the transition between the Old and New Testament aren’t Paul’s words here enough to tell us that these particular things from the OT still apply?

I am also a little curious over your statement that that the command to teach our children is meaningless if they are not part of the covenant. I am not sure that necessarily follows. I wrote this in the other thread:



> I would also note that while I do not believe children are in covenant with God before faith in the same way as they would have been in the Old Testament – they are not considered church members from birth – but the relationship between parents and child is not something I believe is inherently tied up with God’s covenant with his OT people. So to be disobedient to one’s parents was a sin even for gentiles under none of the OT covenant obligations. Likewise parent’s obligation to their children is, I believe something tied up in the moral way God created the world and not restricted to any of the covenants between God and his people in the OT. Off course the specific detail that parents should raise their children to fear God is part of the covenantal obligations, but like I said, that is expressly repeated in the NT.
> 
> Consider also 1 Cor 7:14 “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.”
> 
> Firstly, I would not care in this thread to comment upon what I means for the children to be holy, but just to focus on the what it says about the spouse. To my knowledge, paedobaptists would not claim an adult, unbelieving spouse is in covenant with God simply by virtue of marriage to a Christian. But the verse says they are sanctified. So I would use this just to prove the logical point that it does matter that one is in a Christian family. To phrase it another way, in an earlier post on this thread you asked the question: where do you get this half-way kind of category (my langugue, not yours) where a Baptist child is not yet in covenant with God, yet God considers him special in some way such that the parents can call upon the promises and commands regarding child training. So I would use this verse to say such a proposition is not inherently inconsistent with the scriptures. But I would not use this verse to explain exactly what is a Baptist child’s standing before God. Again, I would go back to Eph 6- God tells his or her parents to bring him or her up the fear and nurture of the Lord.




If we ignore (just pretend for a moment) the question of whether or not our children are in covenant with God, what is wrong with this reasoning:

1) God commands me to raise my children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord

2) God tells me that circumcision, the ordinance that explicitly included infants, is no longer practiced in the New Testament.

3) God tells me baptism must have a profession of faith first (some will disagree I know)

If I believed all these things were true from the bible, why could I not bring up my children in a Christian manner while baptizing them at the time the bible tells me to (just grant me the point for the sake of argument). The logical details of whether they are in or out of the covenant, or what specific theological way to describe their relationship with God before their profession can be figured out later. But it is not necessary to figure out all those details to follow the commands of the New Testament with regards to family life.

For what its worth, I agree with this statement you made in another thread. 



> It wouldn't be enough for me to question the continuity of family solidarity in the Covenant.



I agree that the principle of family solidarity continues between Testaments. But I do not see the command to baptize infants, and am unconvinced by the attempts of link circumcision and baptism in a way that would support the infant baptism position.


----------



## etexas

Die post! What I need is a wooden stake!!!!!!!


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Paul manata said:


> Yeah, I do.
> 
> You obviously didn't get any of my points.
> 
> There, wasn't this a waste of two posts!
> 
> Next time, please offer a substantive rebuttal.



Lol. Well, interesting.

Hmm, anyways, I have stated what i stated and yet no one answers me. All I get back is "We've already stated stuff up in our posts" yet no one has answered my questions yet, including in their previous posts.

By the way, brother Paul, I didn't mean to attack you on that, next time i need to watch what i say knowing that the net doesn't fluctuate my voice.


----------



## Herald

I follow Jesus said:


> Die post! What I need is a wooden stake!!!!!!!


----------



## 5solasmom

BaptistInCrisis said:


> This _*is*_ in contention. Your link of Ephesians 1:1 and 6:1 is a leap I will not even attempt.



Laying aside the issue of "covenant children" altogether....these verses are dealing with _church members_. To argue against that seems a much bigger leap In my humble opinion. At the very least, it is clear that there were _children_ who were a part of the early church (if the aspect of _covenantal _status is rejected). I don't understand how that can be refuted.

The issue of covenantal status doesn't have it's basis in these verses or _any_ verses in the NT. They just further substantiate it (for lack of a better term) since there is no indication in either the OT or the NT that God has ceased dealing covenantally with believers and their children.


----------



## govols

5solasmom said:


> Laying aside the issue of "covenant children" altogether....these verses are dealing with _church members_. To argue against that seems a much bigger leap In my humble opinion. At the very least, it is clear that there were _children_ who were a part of the early church (if the aspect of _covenantal _status is rejected). I don't understand how that can be refuted.



So you are saying that the children were church members instead of just sitting with their parents listening? My children, except my 1 year old, sit with me and my wife yet they are not church members. Should they be?

Ephesians 1:1 addresses the saints, are our children considered that at such a young age?

What about being justified by faith, he is still addressing the church members, are the youngest children included too?


----------



## Magma2

Going back to Richard Sherratt’s original post for a moment:



> We ought to wait until they manifest their election by bringing forth the fruits of their election, these being repentance and faith amongst others, so demonstrating that they belong to the covenant and then baptise them.



Bill the “Baptist in Crisis” and Andrew have basically just repeated this theme. Yet, all seem to agree that bearing the sign of the covenant doesn’t make one a member of the covenant. I agree that the Covenant is with the elect alone. For what it's worth so does the WCF and so does Scripture. Genesis 17:21; “And as for Ishmael, I have heard you [Abraham]. Behold, I have blessed him [Ishmael], and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall beget twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation. _But my Covenant I will establish with Isaac_ [not with Ishamel]." 

So I agree with Bill that “The true children of the covenant are those that are the real Israel.”

However, God commanded the sign of the Covenant be administered to “every male among you” including Ishmael. How do you handle God’s command per Genesis 17? 

It appears to me this whole chapter destroys the contention that we “ought to wait until they manifest their election by brining forth the fruits of their election” as unfounded, unbiblical and arguably irrational. The outward administration of the Covenant extends to Ishmael and those of whom God’s Covenant was not established. I think it noteworthy that the command to administer the sign was given prior to God correcting Abraham concerning whom he thought the promise of the Covenant was given. Esau was circumcised along with Jacob, yet God hated the one and loved the other even from the womb. Was Isaac disobedient for circumcising them both? I don't see how? Should he have waited to see which of the twin boys "brought forth the fruits of their election?" I don't see why? So why can’t we conclude that Baptists are simply being disobedient by restricting the administration of the sign of the Covenant to professors only?

I think we all agree that all Israel is not Israel, just as all our children are not necessarily among the promised seed. If we also agree that baptism is the NT analogue of circumcision, then what happened so that the sign is no longer administered to believers and their seed and now all of a sudden to believers only? And, let’s be clear, despite all the talk about the “fruits of election,” you are NOT talking about believers at all, this is pure fantasy, but rather professors, and, I assume, those who lead lives which you approve. But, what makes a Baptist think that they have fewer hypocrites among their ranks (i.e., less chaff) than in paedobaptistic communions– even assuming this is a biblically warranted goal or intent of baptism?


----------



## Davidius

govols said:


> So you are saying that the children were church members instead of just sitting with their parents listening? My children, except my 1 year old, sit with me and my wife yet they are not church members. Should they be?



Yes.



govols said:


> Ephesians 1:1 addresses the saints, are our children considered that at such a young age?


We've already been over this in this thread, but yes, your children _are_ considered saints. The same word used for saints is used to describe them in 1 Corinthians 7:14.

[bible]1 Cor 7:14[/bible]



govols said:


> What about being justified by faith, he is still addressing the church members, are the youngest children included too?



The benefits of the covenant of grace have always been preached to the entire visible Church. Do you think that every adult member of the Ephesian congregation was regenerate? This is the same reason why in the Old Testament the entire nation of Israel could be called the "people of God" while only a few of them were elect and actually partook of the inward blessings of the Covenant of Grace that were described in the scriptures.


----------



## Herald

5solasmom said:


> Laying aside the issue of "covenant children" altogether....these verses are dealing with _church members_. To argue against that seems a much bigger leap In my humble opinion. At the very least, it is clear that there were _children_ who were a part of the early church (if the aspect of _covenantal _status is rejected). I don't understand how that can be refuted.
> 
> The issue of covenantal status doesn't have it's basis in these verses or _any_ verses in the NT. They just further substantiate it (for lack of a better term) since there is no indication in either the OT or the NT that God has ceased dealing covenantally with believers and their children.



Dawn - To be part of the church children must have come to faith in Christ, not just have been born into a "covenant family." Paul's instruction to children would have included all children capable of understanding the command, but I don't buy the reasoning that all children were part of the visible church. Regeneration is synonymous with becomeing part of the visible church In my humble opinion. But of course I would believe that. I'm a Baptist.


----------



## AV1611

CalvinandHodges said:


> You seem to be treating Genesis 17 as the only verse that paedo-baptists use. The point in question is not whether adult believers (who have never been baptized) should be baptized, but their children as well.
> 
> Genesis 17 sets up the idea that the outward manifestation of the Covenant of Grace is given to believers and their children. This theme is found through the whole OT. In the NT we have no clear command that the children of believers were not to be baptized. Also, the way the NT relates to the children of believers we are encouraged that the practice continued even though the administration changed



When I agreed with paedobaptism I recognised that whilst "households" were baptised that was not _conclusive_ proof for infant baptism. Rather in my post above to which you are replying I was trying to get your take on Genesis 17 especially the parts which are part of the Abrahamic Covenant but which are not part of what paedobaptists 

I WILL COME BACK AND REPHRASE...SISTER IS MUCKING AROUND AS I AM TYPING


----------



## 5solasmom

govols said:


> So you are saying that the children were church members instead of just sitting with their parents listening? My children, except my 1 year old, sit with me and my wife yet they are not church members. Should they be?
> 
> Ephesians 1:1 addresses the saints, are our children considered that at such a young age?
> 
> What about being justified by faith, he is still addressing the church members, are the youngest children included too?




David answered how I would have.


----------



## Davidius

5solasmom said:


> David answered how I would have.



Sorry for getting all up in your business.


----------



## 5solasmom

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Sorry for getting all up in your business.




Not at all brother! I appreciated it.


----------



## Magma2

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Dawn - To be part of the church children must have come to faith in Christ, not just have been born into a "covenant family." Paul's instruction to children would have included all children capable of understanding the command, but I don't buy the reasoning that all children were part of the visible church. Regeneration is synonymous with becomeing part of the visible church In my humble opinion. But of course I would believe that. I'm a Baptist.



The problem is with your scheme is that regeneration and faith are not synonymous. While all those who are regenerate have faith they're not the same thing. Similarly, professing faith is not synonymous with having faith. So if regeneration is pictured in baptism, and since infants may well be regenerate, then it follows that infants should be baptized. Also, regeneration is NOT synonymous with becoming part of the visible church, your opinion notwithstanding. I'm sure there are members even in your church who are not regenerate. Just a guess.


----------



## Herald

Sean, let's skip for the moment the assertion that infants who have not exercised faith are regenerate. We'll come back to that. I don't see how my statement that regeneration and faith are synonymous is fallacious. The faith I am referring to is saving faith, which takes places at or shortly following regeneration. I define regeneration as the sovereign act of God whereby He changes the condition of the heart so that a person may believe by faith. I believe the visible church is made up _*only*_ of regenerated individuals who have believed by faith alone. For me, end of story. 

Now, back to what you said:



> So if regeneration is pictured in baptism, and since infants may well be regenerate, then it follows that infants should be baptized.



Infants may well be regenerate? They either are or aren't. Which is it? If infants are regenerate, does this apply to covenant families and non-covenant families. If the answer is the former, I would label that belief as covenantal semi-Pelagianism. Somehow I can't seem to trivialize Romans 10:9,10 and Ephesians 2:8-10.


----------



## jenney

SemperFideles said:


> Thus, is it your contention that none of the verses in the OT regarding children now apply to New Covenant believers and that portions or Psalms and Proverbs are "interesting" from a historical view but bear no present relevance?



This is not the usual reformed baptist view. We do apply them because we think they are for all parents who want to raise their children as God demands us to. We don't think it is for children who have a special position with God, but, sort of like you see baptism:
it is the parents who have a special position with God.

You see the children's position as being special by the covenant, but we say their membership in the covenant isn't what determines how we are to train them, it is our membership in the covenant that does.

So, yes, the OT passages about child-rearing do indeed bear present relevance. I think it would be the rare reformed baptist who would say that. And more likely from one from a SBC church that is now calvinistic or from a NCT church that adheres to all nine of the ten commandments. 

~jenney


----------



## JohnV

If I may interject a different spin on things:

What if the problem is how we view God's respect for those for whom the elders open and close the doors, even though they cannot know who the elect are or aren't? 

Thusly: 

God and only God elects; 

God commissioned to the elders the keys to open and close the doors of the manifested church, and said He would respect their decisions; 

each believer (which includes each individual elder too) is called to believe. 

The credos put the emphasis on the third; the paedos put the emphasis on the first two. 

Does that help?


----------



## Magma2

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Sean, let's skip for the moment the assertion that infants who have not exercised faith are regenerate.



You mean exercising faith like leaping in the womb (Luke 1:41)? OK, I can wait.



> I don't see how my statement that regeneration and faith are synonymous is fallacious. The faith I am referring to is saving faith, which takes places at or shortly following regeneration.



Well, if faith takes place and is the result of regeneration, then it follows they're not the same thing. 



> I define regeneration as the sovereign act of God whereby He changes the condition of the heart so that a person may believe by faith. I believe the visible church is made up _*only*_ of regenerated individuals who have believed by faith alone.



Then not only do you have a view of baptism which is counter to the examples set in Scripture, but a doctrine of the visible church that is counter to Scripture as well. 

You might believe the visible church is made up only of regenerate individuals, but, again, that is counter to the plain teaching of Scripture. Jesus gives us a description of the visible church:



> "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed tares also among the wheat, and went away. But when the wheat sprang up and bore grain, then the tares became evident also."



I suppose Baptists are like the slaves in Jesus' parable who wanted gather up the tares and remove them from the field. Yet, the Master said; "No; lest while you are gathering up the tares, you may root up the wheat with them. Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn."

The visible church consists not of all true believers, but rather "all those throughout the world that profess the true religion" and it's not the case that all those who even profess the true religion actually believe it. You confuse the profession of faith with faith itself and the visible church with the invisible.



> For me, end of story.



Again, that might be the end of the story for you, but if you want your doctrines -- which is part of your profession of faith -- to comport with Scripture you've really just begun.  



> Infants may well be regenerate? They either are or aren't. Which is it? If infants are regenerate, does this apply to covenant families and non-covenant families. If the answer is the former, I would label that belief as covenantal semi-Pelagianism. Somehow I can't seem to trivialize Romans 10:9,10 and Ephesians 2:8-10.



I'm not asking you to trivialize Romans 10:9,10 or Eph. 2:8-10, just not to make these verses say more than they do. If you really want to be consistent in applying these verses in isolation to the rest of Scripture, I suppose you could use Rom. 10 to exclude mutes from the Kingdom too. The point is we don't know which infants are regenerate, but we do see in Scripture that God generally works through believers and their seed; their offspring. However, another point you miss is that the administration of the sign is not as strictly annexed to the thing signified as you presume. Otherwise, why would God command Ishmael and Esau, not to mention countless other unregenerate Jewish boys and men, to be circumcised? 

For what it's worth we don't know which adults are regenerate either and this is something none of us can validly infer even with a credible profession coupled with an exemplary life. That's because the act of faith, even the exercise of faith, often cannot be seen. Conversely, often what we consider to be fruits of genuine faith turn out to be anything but. Only God can see in a man's heart and I'm pretty sure Baptists weren't given any special gift in this regard.  

So, basically, Baptists are out to do the impossible and along the way have been disobedient to the commands and examples of Scripture as I've explained (see my longer post above).


----------



## Herald

> So, basically, Baptists are out to do the impossible and along the way have been disobedient to the commands and examples of Scripture...



Sean...funny...I was thinking the same thing about paedo's. Kudos to you for saying it first.


----------



## Davidius

BaptistInCrisis said:


> I believe the visible church is made up _*only*_ of regenerated individuals who have believed by faith alone. For me, end of story.



This doesn't make any sense to me. If the visible church is made up of regenerate individuals then you're saying that every single individual who is a member of a true church is regenerate. Do you really believe that? What happens when it turns out that someone wasn't truly regenerate after all?


----------



## Herald

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> This doesn't make any sense to me. If the visible church is made up of regenerate individuals then you're saying that every single individual who is a member of a true church is regenerate. Do you really believe that? What happens when it turns out that someone wasn't truly regenerate after all?



David - I suppose it is how you define terms. If by "visible church" you mean all that claim to be saved, then it is obvious that not all are saved. There are always goats in the midst of the sheep. When I use the term "visible church" I mean all true believers. Technically speaking a goat cannot be a sheep. The goat may dress as a sheep but can never be a sheep. A more appropriate term would probably have been "invisible church." If I applied the wrong term then I stand humbly corrected, but I think you now understand what I mean.

Thanks for pointing out the mix up in my terminology.


----------



## MW

Bill, All of the passages cited are referring to natural gifts, like food and clothing. When a paedobaptist says that children are a gift, they mean covenanted gift, so that children are literally the heritage of the Lord. This is a precious teaching which makes a world of difference in the raising of a child when it is believed and acted upon. I pray our only wise God will let you into this secret.



BaptistInCrisis said:


> Matthew - I am not at all pinning my argument on Psalm 125 alone. James writes:
> 
> [bible]James 1:17-18[/bible]
> 
> And good gifts are not limited solely to the righteous.
> 
> [bible]Matthew 5:45[/bible]
> 
> [bible]Romans 1:20[/bible]


----------



## etexas

I wish there was a smiley swallowing a bottle of sleeping pills.


----------



## Davidius

BaptistInCrisis said:


> David - I suppose it is how you define terms. If by "visible church" you mean all that claim to be saved, then it is obvious that not all are saved. There are always goats in the midst of the sheep. When I use the term "visible church" I mean all true believers. Technically speaking a goat cannot be a sheep. The goat may dress as a sheep but can never be a sheep. A more appropriate term would probably have been "invisible church." If I applied the wrong term then I stand humbly corrected, but I think you now understand what I mean.
> 
> Thanks for pointing out the mix up in my terminology.



No prob!  I was just confused, and thought that you surely meant to say "invisible church." It's all cleared up for me now.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Paul manata said:


> Andrew, I don't think you attacked me. I'm not offended by you or anything. I just thought you didn't deal with my posts. I interacted with your posts and showed them to be self-refuting. If you think otherwise, by all means, offer a reply, not a sentence which makes me have to guess wildly at the relevance of it with what I said.



You are right. 

I'll need more time


----------



## Semper Fidelis

*Call for closing comments*

This thread has gotten a bit too big to be useful at this point. If you have some closing thoughts then please add them. If there are strings that you wish to pick up in a new thread then you're welcome to do so.

I know I've been asked some questions upstream in this thread but that's the nature of time zones. Going back now after the conversation has flowed downstream wouldn't be very useful.

To Richard (the creator of this thread): If after this thread is closed, you wish to add any parting comments, let me know and I'll get them in there for you.

Blessings,

Rich


----------



## etexas

SemperFideles said:


> This thread has gotten a bit too big to be useful at this point. If you have some closing thoughts then please add them. If there are strings that you wish to pick up in a new thread then you're welcome to do so.
> 
> I know I've been asked some questions upstream in this thread but that's the nature of time zones. Going back now after the conversation has flowed downstream wouldn't be very useful.
> 
> To Richard (the creator of this thread): If after this thread is closed, you wish to add any parting comments, let me know and I'll get them in there for you.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> Rich


Rich RULES!!!


----------



## Herald

May our Lord use the discussion in this thread for His glory. I extend the right hand of fellowship to my brothers and sisters in Christ, regardless of which side of the debate they are on.


----------



## Davidius

BaptistInCrisis said:


> May our Lord use the discussion in this thread for His glory. I extend the right hand of fellowship to my brothers and sisters in Christ, regardless of which side of the debate they are on.


----------



## Herald

Paul manata said:


> it because the baptist says these "children" are only the "professing" children.
> 
> Hence
> 
> 
> 
> is just for professing children
> 
> and,
> 
> 
> 
> is just telling fathers how to treat their professing children.
> 
> 
> 
> It's all so complicated if you're a baptist



Congrats on your 5000th post!


----------



## Herald

I follow Jesus said:


> I wish there was a smiley swallowing a bottle of sleeping pills.



 Max, you're a hoot!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Great discussion everybody!


----------

