# Infant Baptism So Confusing



## interested_one (Apr 16, 2004)

Dear Board Members:

I have recently recieved a sermon done by my pastor 1996 concerning infant baptism. I am going to say that I am thoroughly confused on the topic. I understand that it must be important enough, if should cause such a wide divide in the Christian community. I wanted to post the his sermon and get your thoughts on it content. My pastor is a Reformed Baptist and I have been looking at infant baptism, but somehow I cannot seem to piece the thing together. I have been trying to understand the covenant theology and so maybe that is where my trouble is.... I am not sure:

:help:


Why We Do Not Baptize Infants
by Steven J. Cole
Genesis 17 &amp; other Scriptures

Since in our study of Genesis we have come to chapter 17,
which is one of the main Old Testament Scriptures used in the argument
for infant baptism, and since we have people who attend
our church from many denominational backgrounds, and since we
are having a baptism today, I thought it would be helpful to explain
why we do not baptize infants, but rather baptize by immersion
only those making a profession of faith in Jesus Christ.
Few subjects arouse more controversy among Christians than
that of baptism. The Quakers do not practice it at all. Lutherans,
Episcopalians, Orthodox Churches, and the Roman Catholic
Church officially hold that baptism is the direct means of regeneration
(the new birth). Since those churches baptize infants, they believe
that those babies are being saved through their baptisms. For
example, in a pamphlet titled, "Why Baptize Children?" Lutheran
theologian John Theodore Mueller writes, "... Holy Baptism is the
washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, by which
the new birth is wrought" (pp. 10-11, Concordia Publishing
House). Presbyterians baptize infants, but most of them stop short
of saying that baptized babies are saved. They view it as introducing
the children into the covenant community and as serving as the
sign and seal of the new birth, which it is hoped the child will enter
in the future as he grows up in that community.
I'll say at the outset that many of my favorite theologians held
to infant baptism. They were all men whose scholarship and godliness
far exceed my own. I find myself agreeing with much, for example,
that John Calvin writes about the meaning and significance
of baptism (Institutes, IV:XV &amp; XVI). But when he applies it to infants,
I think he is utterly inconsistent with himself and with
Scripture. While I strongly disagree with infant baptism, I think we
must be gracious and agree to disagree with those who hold that
view. But if anyone teaches that the new birth is conveyed through
water baptism, whether with infants or adults, he is teaching serious
heresy on that crucial point of doctrine. The Scripture is clear
2
that the new birth comes through faith in Jesus Christ alone (John
3:1-16).
First I want to set forth fairly the arguments in favor of infant
baptism; then I want to present why we do not baptize infants and
show what Scripture teaches about the meaning of baptism. It is
Scripture and not church tradition which is our authority on this
important matter.
WHY SOME CHURCHES BAPTIZE INFANTS:
The main argument for infant baptism is the connection between
circumcision in the Old Testament and baptism in the New,
especially as seen in the context of the covenant community. This
is sometimes buttressed with the example of Noah, whose entire
family entered the ark and was thus saved from the flood. First
Peter 3:20-21 connects Noah's flood with baptism. Also, in 1 Corinthians
10:1-2, Paul states that all Israel was baptized into Moses
in the cloud and in the sea. Since this included the children, it is
argued that they are proper subjects of baptism. But the main argument
is the continuity between circumcision in the covenant
community under the old covenant and baptism with us, who are
under the new covenant.
In Genesis 17:7 God makes it clear to Abraham that He is
establishing His covenant both with him and with his descendants
("seed") after him as an everlasting covenant. In verse 12, the Lord
stipulates that every male eight days old must be circumcised. An
uncircumcised male must be cut off from his people because he
has broken God's covenant (17:14). Thus the sign of the covenant
was commanded to be administered to infants. In Abraham's case,
he had already believed in God when the sign was performed; but
in Isaac's case, it was done before he was old enough to believe in
God's promise, with a view to his believing later.
In the New Testament, the apostle Paul states (Col. 2:11-12),
"And in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made
without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision
of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in
which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the
working of God, who raised Him from the dead." Thus he con3
nects circumcision with baptism, and so, it is argued, establishes
that baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign of the covenant.
Also, it is argued, the household baptisms recorded in the
New Testament (Acts 16:15, 33; 1 Cor. 1:16) surely included infants.
In 1 Corinthians 7:14, Paul refers to the children as "holy" or
"sanctified" in a marriage where one partner is a believer, which is
taken to mean that they are a part of God's covenant people, presumably
through baptism. The church fathers of the second and
third centuries argued for infant baptism as an apostolic tradition.
Since it is primarily a covenant sign and not a sign of faith on the
part of the one receiving it, it is argued that we should baptize our
infants into the community of faith where they will be exposed to
the other means of grace. These are the main arguments for infant
baptism as fairly as I can state them in the time allotted to me.
WHY WE DO NOT BAPTIZE INFANTS:
We do not baptize infants because baptism is a public
confession of faith in obedience to Christ.
The clear teaching of Scripture is that all who believe in Jesus
as Savior and Lord should be baptized in obedience to Him. The
New Testament order is always: The preaching of the gospel; faith
in the gospel; then, baptism. Never once is there an example of baptism
preceding faith as the norm to be followed. And there are no
examples or commands concerning the baptism of the infants or yet
unbelieving children of believing parents. Consider the following
verses from Acts, noting the order of belief first, then baptism:
2:41: ... those who had received his word were baptized; ...
8:12: But when they believed Philip preaching the good news
about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they
were being baptized, men and women alike.
8:36-38: And as they went along the road they came to some
water; and the eunuch said, "Look! Water! What prevents me
from being baptized?" [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."] 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.
4
While verse 37 [in brackets] lacks strong textual support in the
earliest Greek manuscripts, its insertion in later manuscripts shows
what the church held to be the necessary qualification for baptism.
10:44, 46b, 47, 48a: While Peter was still speaking these words
[the gospel], the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening
to the message.... Then Peter answered, "Surely no one
can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received
the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" And he ordered
them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
16:30-34: [The Philippian jailer asks Paul and Silas] "Sirs, what
must I do to be saved?" And they said, "Believe in the Lord
Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household. And
they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who
were in his house. And he took them that very hour of the
night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized,
he and all his household. And he brought them into his
house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having
believed in God with his whole household.
If any children were baptized that night, the text is clear that
they had believed. There is not a shred of support for infant baptism
here.
18:8: And Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the
Lord with his whole household, and many of the Corinthians
when they heard were believing and being baptized.
Thus the abundant testimony of the New Testament is that
faith in the Lord Jesus Christ precedes baptism.
What about the argument that infant baptism is the sign of the
New Covenant, just as circumcision was the sign of the Abrahamic
Covenant (based on Col. 2:11-12)? While there are some parallels
between the two signs, there are many differences. The sign of circumcision
was administered to the male, physical descendants of
Abraham in obedience to the specific command of God. But the
New Testament is clear that it is not the physical seed of Abraham
who are saved, but the spiritual seed (Rom. 4:16; 9:8; Gal. 3:7).
There simply is no command to administer baptism to the physical
seed of Christians, male or female. If baptism is the fulfillment of
circumcision, then just as circumcision was administered to the
5
physical descendants of Abraham in the age of type, so baptism
ought to be administered to the spiritual descendants of Abraham
in the age of fulfillment, namely, to believers. But Jesus made it
clear that the sign of the New Covenant is the Lord's Supper, not
baptism ("This cup is the new covenant in My blood ..." (1 Cor.
11:25).
Also, note that in Colossians 2 Paul is talking about believer's
baptism. He specifically states that baptism pictures being raised up
from spiritual death through faith in the working of God. The parallel
between baptism and circumcision concerns the picture of
dying to the flesh or old life so that we can live holy lives in Christ.
Paul is taking the spiritual meaning of circumcision and applying it
spiritually to believers, not physically to the baptism of believers'
children.
In 1 Peter 3:20-21, Peter makes it clear that he is not referring
to the physical act of baptism, but to what it symbolizes, namely,
appealing to God for a good conscience, which infants who are
baptized are not doing! In 1 Corinthians 10:1-2, Paul is applying the
experiences of Israel spiritually to the church. Just as not all who
came through the "baptism" of the Red Sea were right with God in
their hearts, as evidenced by their unbelief and immorality, so not
all who profess faith in Christ through baptism are necessarily regenerate.
If the Corinthians think that they can claim that their profession
of faith in baptism made them right with God, but continue
in their ungodly living, they are greatly deceived. The text does not
support infant baptism in any way; it's just not there.
Beyond this, we can argue that infant baptism is potentially
detrimental. If an adult mistakenly assumes (as it would be most
easy to do if brought up under this teaching) that because he was
baptized as an infant, he possesses salvation and is a member of
Christ's church, then he is sadly deceived on the most important
issue of all, eternal salvation! There is no grace imparted in the
physical act of baptism, apart from the faith of the one being baptized.
To count on one's baptism, whether as an infant or an adult,
as the basis for standing before God is to trust in a false hope.
Only personal faith in the crucified and risen Savior saves a person
from sin and hell. And to baptize an infant is to rob the person of a
very meaningful spiritual experience, namely, the public confession
6
of Christ in obedience to His command after one has come to
saving faith.
THE MEANING OF BAPTISM:
Baptism is a public confession of faith in Christ, done in obedience
to His command, and as such is a picture of what salvation
means. Baptism is important because Christ commanded it as a
part of the Great Commission: "Go therefore and make disciples
of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the
Son and the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19). If we neglect baptism, we're
disobeying our Lord. Since true faith always expresses itself in obedience,
those who have believed in Christ and have been properly
instructed about baptism will obey Christ by being baptized.
1) Baptism is the place where a believer publicly confesses Jesus Christ as
Savior and Lord and identifies with Christ and His church. In talking of
our need to follow Him, Jesus said, "If anyone wishes to come after
Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow
Me.... For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous
and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed
of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy
angels" (Mark 8:34, 38). Going forward or walking the aisle is not
the biblical way to initially confess Christ publicly; that came into
the church through a man of questionable theology and methodology,
namely, Charles Finney. Baptism is the biblical way to confess
faith in Christ.
The word "baptism" is a transliteration of the Greek word,
baptisma, and some related words which have the meaning of dipping
or immersing. Since the immersed object became totally identified
with the substance in which it was placed, the idea of identification
is central to the meaning of baptism. Jesus' baptism by John
publicly identified Him who was sinless with sinners in anticipation
of His death and resurrection as their sin-bearer. For us baptism
symbolizes our identification with Christ in His death, burial, and
resurrection; our identification with Christ's church; and, our
cleansing from sin.
2) Baptism symbolizes total identification with Christ in His death,
burial, and resurrection. This is Paul's point in Romans 6:3-4: "Or do
you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ
7
Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been
buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as
Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so
we too might walk in newness of life."
Technically, we were "baptized into Christ" through the baptism
of the Holy Spirit. This is the work whereby the Holy Spirit
places a person "in Christ" at the moment of salvation. So what
Paul refers to in Romans 6 is not water baptism itself, but what it
pictures, namely, the baptism of the Holy Spirit. At the instant we
believed, we became totally identified with Christ. His death became
our death, His burial our burial, His resurrection our resurrection.
Going under the water symbolizes death to our old way of
life; coming up out of the water pictures the beginning of a new
life, lived unto God, in Christ's resurrection power (see also, Col.
2:11-12).
3) Baptism symbolizes our identification with Christ's church. In 1
Corinthians 12:13, Paul states, "For by one Spirit we were all baptized
into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or
free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit." The main reference
here, as in Romans 6, is to the baptism of the Holy Spirit,
when He places the believer in Christ at the moment of salvation.
We become members of His body, the church. Water baptism
symbolizes our identification with the church which took place
spiritually at the moment of salvation. In the act of baptism, a person
publicly identifies himself with other Christians. He is saying,
"Now I'm one of them."
In our culture, with religious tolerance, water baptism isn't too
threatening. But in countries where Christians are persecuted, baptism
separates the true believers from the phonies. You open yourself
to persecution by being baptized. But even if we don't risk persecution,
baptism should represent that sort of bold, public identification
with the church.
4) Baptism symbolizes cleansing from sin. This is the point of 1 Peter
3:18-21 plus several other Scriptures. Cleansing is obviously a
main symbol of water. But it is not immersion in water (or sprinkling,
pouring) that cleanses the heart. Peter makes that very clear.
Water can only remove dirt from the flesh. It is the blood of Christ
8
which removes the filth from our hearts, because apart from the
shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins (Heb. 9:22).
Because baptism is done with water, and water symbolizes
cleansing, it is often mentioned in close connection with salvation.
In Titus 3:5, Paul refers to God's saving us "by the washing of regeneration
and renewing by the Holy Spirit." But in the immediately
preceding words he says that God saved us "not on the basis
of deeds which we have done in righteousness." The act of baptism
cannot save anyone.
The overwhelming testimony of Scripture is that salvation is
by grace through faith alone (Eph. 2:8-9). Both Romans and Galatians
deal extensively with the theme that we are justified (declared
righteous by God) through faith in Jesus Christ, not by any works
of righteousness. Many Scriptures affirm what Jesus stated, "... he
who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal
life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death
into life" (John 5:24). He told the dying thief on the cross, who
called out to Him in faith, that he would be with Him that very day
in Paradise (Luke 23:39-43). Obviously, the man was not baptized.
At the same time, Scripture is clear that genuine saving faith
results in obedience (Eph. 2:10; 2 Thess. 1:8, "obey the gospel").
Thus every true believer who is properly taught and who has opportunity
will be baptized in obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ.
But baptism is the result of salvation, not the means to it.
Immersion, sprinkling, and pouring are three common modes.
Some who practice immersion do it three times forward (once for
each person of the trinity). I don't believe that the mode of baptism
should be an issue worth dividing over.
But immersion is the meaning of the Greek word; it best represents
the biblical truths symbolized by baptism; and, it was the
method used in the early church. Immersion best represents the
truth of total identification with Christ that baptism symbolizes.
When the believer goes into the water, it pictures death (separation)
to his old way of life. When he comes out of the water, it speaks of
the fact that now he is raised to newness of life in Christ. Immersion
also pictures total cleansing from sin. While it ought to be
done in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt.
9
28:19), there is no indication that it requires three separate immersions.
Once under better symbolizes the fact that we are placed
into Christ once and for all by the Holy Spirit.
Conclusion
When Cortez landed at Vera Cruz in 1519 to begin his conquest
of Mexico with a force of only 700 men, he purposely set fire
to his fleet of 11 ships. His men on the shore watched their only
means of retreat sinking to the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico. With
no means of retreat, there was only one direction to move, forward
into the Mexican interior to meet whatever might come their way.
Some of you may have put your trust in Christ, but you're
leaving your ship anchored safely in the harbor in case you decide
to retreat. Baptism should be that act of setting fire to the ship. It's
a graphic reminder that you have left the old life and now are
committed to go ahead with Christ. If you know Christ as your
Savior but you've never been baptized, I urge you to do so as a
confession of your faith in obedience to Christ's command as soon
as possible.
If you've never trusted in Christ as Savior, I hope that you will
not think that because you have been baptized or that if you will
get baptized, it will get you into heaven. Eternal life is the free gift
God offers you based upon Christ's death on your behalf. You can
only receive it by faith in God's promise in Christ.



________________

I am not sure what to think. What a confusing dilemma.

Dylan

[Edited on 4-17-2004 by interested_one]


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Apr 17, 2004)

Let the child sit for about eight days then sprinkle. And He/she is ready to go


----------



## interested_one (Apr 17, 2004)

*My observations*

I was considering doing this. I was noticing first my pastor's not really into explaining much concerning the redemptive covenant and how that stems into the covenant of grace. Since I am a novice concerning covenant theology, I will not speculate to much on this subject. Also, I noticed from his email that he weighs heavily upon the arguments from silence. Now my questions are:

1) As a paedo-baptist are looking at the continuity of the covenant found throughout redemptive history still present in the covenant of grace concerning children? In other words we don't need positive affirmation because it would have been readily assumed by the early Christian community?

2) I am having a hard time understanding the link between circumcision and baptism.

3) Why does Luke even refer to the word &quot;household&quot; in Acts when talking of baptism?

4) Is it always found biblically that faith precedes baptism?

5) I was noticing the use of Colossians and its explanation of baptism being symbolization of Christ's death, does this have something to do with the baptism as a sign and seal of promise and curse? (I am not sure if I even understand this concept clearly yet) 

6) &quot;Presbyterians baptize infants, but most of them stop short of saying that baptized babies are saved. They view it as introducing the children into the covenant community and as serving as the sign and seal of the new birth, which it is hoped the child will enter in the future as he grows up in that community.&quot; Is this really the case?

These are just a few questions and I will read it over and post more in about an hour or so.

Dylan

[Edited on 4-17-2004 by interested_one]

[Edited on 4-17-2004 by interested_one]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 17, 2004)

If you begin wrong and start off from there, everything else will be wrong. That sermon is a case in point.


----------



## interested_one (Apr 17, 2004)

I wondering if you could explain this a little more in detail. I am not sure I understand. You wouldn't mind elaborating.


----------



## pastorway (Apr 18, 2004)

Take your time to study the issue as it does involve dealing with what the Bible says about the New Covenant and about what baptism signifies.

See if these help shed a little light on the matter for you:

Sermon transcript online - John MacArthur's Critique of Infant Baptism 

Articles online - Greg Welty's Critical Evaluation of Infant Baptism

Fred Malon's String of Pearls Unstrung

Sermons Online - 
James White on Infant Baptism

James White on Infant Baptism, Part 2

And be sure to read these articles from both sides of the baptism issue at The Threshold - http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/babtism.html 

Phillip


----------



## interested_one (Apr 18, 2004)

I am not sure if I still understand this what is being said here. I apologize for my seeming ignorance. I would like to understand. Could you work to clarify this further or refer me to some resources that my serve to educate me on this issue. I would greatly appreciate this.

Dylan

:book:


----------



## interested_one (Apr 18, 2004)

I am interested in the last concept that Scott was addressing. I know you were talking about 

[quote:eba279b3c1]
I'm sure Scott is referring to beginning with a basic principle of covenant theology. Very breifly: assume continuity unless otherwise abrogated. 
[/quote:eba279b3c1]

Is this were I should start to begin understanding the Paedo issue? Is this where my pastor would have gone wrong in providing explanation? What aspect of the covenant theology should one begin with to discuss the infant baptism issue or am I misconstruing what is being said?

Dylan


----------



## interested_one (Apr 18, 2004)

Or more clearly is there an apparent difference in the covenant theology that seperates the Baptist from the rest of its classic Reformers on this issue. I will undertake to read those articles provided by pastorway and provide questions I may have.

Thanks,
Dylan


----------



## Tertullian (Apr 18, 2004)

Interested One,

What Scott meant to say (I think) was that the Reformed credobaptist and Reformed paedobaptist have different conceptions of the &quot;Covenant of Grace&quot; and the &quot;greatness&quot; of the New Covenant and its High Priest... the Reformed paedobaptist argues that Christ is a great High Priest because he saves 51% or more of the people and their children that the Father appointed Him by oath to save... the Reformed credoBaptist simply argues that Christ is &quot;great&quot; savior because he gets all those whom is he appointed to save. These different paradigms about what the &quot;Covenant of Grace&quot; are ultimately are what lead the two groups to come to different conclusions though both sides are composed of people who are truely trying to discover what Scripture teaches upon the subject.

Tyler


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 18, 2004)

[quote:847305871b][i:847305871b]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:847305871b]
the Reformed paedobaptist argues that Christ is a great High Priest because he saves 51% or more of the people and their children that the Father appointed Him by oath to save... the Reformed credoBaptist simply argues that Christ is &quot;great&quot; savior because he gets all those whom is he appointed to save.[/quote:847305871b]

Tyler,

Could you please provide a reference as to anywhere where any paedobaptist theologian of any significance every said anything remotely like what you have stated here?

This is so far from the truth as to be laughable. It is as if I tried to convince people to be a paedobaptist by saying, &quot;you see, the credobaptist believes that if you eat cheerios, you are in the covenant of grace. The paedobaptist, however, believes that the Bible is the infallible word of God.&quot;

I hate to tell you, but the best source (Owen) and the next best dozen or so (Calvin, Berkhof, Turretin, Watson, etc) for the principle that Christ gets all those he is appointed to save are paedobaptists. 

Funny, we even have a Confession that says that:

[quote:847305871b]
WCF 8.5
The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience, and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, has fully satisfied the justice of His Father;a and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father has given unto Him.[/quote:847305871b]

Let's at least try and be accurate while being helpful.


----------



## Tertullian (Apr 18, 2004)

[quote:e89b40e450][i:e89b40e450]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:e89b40e450]
[quote:e89b40e450][i:e89b40e450]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:e89b40e450]
the Reformed paedobaptist argues that Christ is a great High Priest because he saves 51% or more of the people and their children that the Father appointed Him by oath to save... the Reformed credoBaptist simply argues that Christ is &quot;great&quot; savior because he gets all those whom is he appointed to save.[/quote:e89b40e450]

Tyler,

Could you please provide a reference as to anywhere where any paedobaptist theologian of any significance every said anything remotely like what you have stated here?

This is so far from the truth as to be laughable. It is as if I tried to convince people to be a paedobaptist by saying, &quot;you see, the credobaptist believes that if you eat cheerios, you are in the covenant of grace. The paedobaptist, however, believes that the Bible is the infallible word of God.&quot;

I hate to tell you, but the best source (Owen) and the next best dozen or so (Calvin, Berkhof, Turretin, Watson, etc) for the principle that Christ gets all those he is appointed to save are paedobaptists. 

Funny, we even have a Confession that says that:

[quote:e89b40e450]
WCF 8.5
The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience, and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, has fully satisfied the justice of His Father;a and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father has given unto Him.[/quote:e89b40e450]

Let's at least try and be accurate while being helpful. [/quote:e89b40e450]


Perhaps I have misunderstood- which point would you as a Reformed paedobaptist not agree with:

1) All children with Christian parents are in the New Covenant

2) Christ is appointed by God (Heb 5:5) to secure the &quot;promised inheritance&quot; to all those He is High Priest over and to Mediate Redemption (Hebrews 9:15)

3) Christ is the New Covenant High Preist (Heb 8:6)

4) some children with Christian parents will not be saved

I am sorry for saying that Reformed Paedobaptist do in fact deny that Christ fails to save perhaps it should have said given all their assumptions they are logicially lead to say that... but in fact do not say that. 

Tyler

[Edited on 4-18-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 18, 2004)

Tyler, 

In reading your past posts thus far, on more than this thread, I have to say that you ought to first understand what Paedobaptists do say, rather than trying to filter their understanding through your understanding. Even you post above is nonsensical. You simply do not understand the Paedo position at all.

Let me use a simple illustration to where you are at on this based from simply reading your posts - in Sunday School, as we are going over covenant Theology with former baptists, they are AMAZED at HOW MUCH actually has to be unraveled and reinterpreted before they could EVEN BEGIN thinking afresh at what the Scriptures says concerning covenants. In other words, in their own minds, when they systematically, slowly and carefully follow the Paedo line of thought (and that had NEVER happened on this board yet) they come to see that what they thought, and what they are thinking concerning these issues were entirely different. They were Amazed that so much has to be unraveled before they could start thinking clearly.

I am sure that of everyone i have read thus far on the board from a baptist position (except maybe grace2u) you are the most thoroughly confused in trying to articulate what &quot;I&quot; believe. I say that as a former Reformed Baptist minister.

Here is my suggestion: I would take O Palmer Roberston's book, &quot;The Christ's of the Covenants&quot; and do a little exercise just for your own personal edification. Summarize each chapter into 1 page. Then go back and reread your summary of what he said. Then, secondly, take Witsius and read it. Then summarize each chapter in Witsius. Then go back and reread your summary of that. now that may take a little time, but, if you are honest, you will see that what you have been posting, and what Paedos believe are entirely different.

it would useless to argue that point because what you have thus far posted is twisted in that respect. Also, this article will help as well - and it was written by a Baptist:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/ChristianWalk/DealWithThoseWhoDiffer.htm
&quot;How to Deal with Those who Differ From Us&quot; by Dr. Roger Nicole.


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 18, 2004)

[quote:16da233fed][i:16da233fed]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:16da233fed]
[quote:16da233fed][i:16da233fed]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:16da233fed]
[quote:16da233fed][i:16da233fed]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:16da233fed]
the Reformed paedobaptist argues that Christ is a great High Priest because he saves 51% or more of the people and their children that the Father appointed Him by oath to save... the Reformed credoBaptist simply argues that Christ is &quot;great&quot; savior because he gets all those whom is he appointed to save.[/quote:16da233fed]

Tyler,

Could you please provide a reference as to anywhere where any paedobaptist theologian of any significance every said anything remotely like what you have stated here?

This is so far from the truth as to be laughable. It is as if I tried to convince people to be a paedobaptist by saying, &quot;you see, the credobaptist believes that if you eat cheerios, you are in the covenant of grace. The paedobaptist, however, believes that the Bible is the infallible word of God.&quot;

I hate to tell you, but the best source (Owen) and the next best dozen or so (Calvin, Berkhof, Turretin, Watson, etc) for the principle that Christ gets all those he is appointed to save are paedobaptists. 

Funny, we even have a Confession that says that:

[quote:16da233fed]
WCF 8.5
The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience, and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, has fully satisfied the justice of His Father;a and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father has given unto Him.[/quote:16da233fed]

Let's at least try and be accurate while being helpful. [/quote:16da233fed]


Perhaps I have misunderstood- which point would you as a Reformed paedobaptist not agree with:

1) All children with Christian parents are in the New Covenant

2) Christ is appointed by God (Heb 5:5) to secure the &quot;promised inheritance&quot; to all those He is High Priest over and to Mediate Redemption (Hebrews 9:15)

3) Christ is the New Covenant High Preist (Heb 8:6)

4) some children with Christian parents will not be saved

I am sorry for saying that Reformed Paedobaptist do in fact deny that Christ fails to save perhaps it should have said given all their assumptions they are logicially lead to say that... but in fact do not say that. 

Tyler

[Edited on 4-18-2004 by Tertullian] [/quote:16da233fed]

I echo Matthew's statements. You really need to understand more what paedobaptists actually believe before you engage them. I say that for your own sake. Your arguments don't even get dealt with when you make such nonsensical statements.

For example, even the above is ludicrous. Let me sho you how this simplistic strawman argument &quot;devastates&quot; credobaptism in similar fashion:

1) All those who profess faith in Christ are given the sign of the New Covenant, baptism.

2) All those who profess faith in Christ and are baptized are in the new covenant.

3) Christ is appointed by God (Heb 5:5) to secure the &quot;promised inheritance&quot; to all those He is High Priest over and to Mediate Redemption (Hebrews 9:15)

4) Christ is the New Covenant High Preist (Heb 8:6)

5) some who profess faith and are baptized will not be saved

Therefore: from a baptistic perspective, Christ does not save all those that are given to Him and over which He is mediator.

Of course this is a silly argument, and the &quot;logical implications&quot; of it are absurd. No sound baptist would say the above. So see that what you have done is similarly absurd. If anything, it is Reformed theologians that have stood strongest for particular election and Christ's sufficiency of redeemer. The same certainly cannot be said in baptistic circles, but I would not want to insult my friend Phillip by placing him in the same place as Arminians.


----------



## luvroftheWord (Apr 19, 2004)

I would also add that no person ever died and went to hell because their mediator failed in their behalf, whether it be OT or NT. People die and go to hell because of unbelief, plain and simple.


----------



## interested_one (Apr 19, 2004)

*MacArthur's Sermon, Part I*

Ok, well. I was able to sum up John MacArthur's sermon, "A Scriptural Critique of Infant Baptism". Quite frankly I am disappointed with John MacArthur on his presentation of the paedo-baptist position. I noticed that a good portion of his sermon centered around what seemed like a straw man, this being his attempt at correlating Reformed Paedo-Baptists to the Roman Catholic church. Now I am going to say this, I greatly respect Pastor MacArthur for his ministry and his evangelistic spirit. In this case in point, I don't think that MacArthur dealt fairly or even directly with the issue. Since I am in agreement with Dr. McMahon that a good deal of paedo-baptist belief will stem from the covenant theology that they adhere to. I noticed this same issue brought up by Scott Bushey. 

It helped that MacArthur bulleted his sermon on five points of disagreement:

1. Point number one, and this ought to end the argument: infant baptism is not in Scripture. 

2. The second reason is really the other side of the issue. I don't believe in infant baptism because infant baptism is not Christian baptism. 

3. Third point, why I reject infant baptism: it is not a replacement sign for the Abrahamic sign of circumcision. 
4. Well, let me give you a fourth reason. I reject infant baptism because infant baptism is not consistent with the nature of the church.

5. One last point and I'll let you go. Infant baptism is not consistent with the gospel.

Now beginning with point number one, MacArthur proceeds to cite various theologians that have agreed that infant baptism is not explicitly taught in scripture (Schleiermacher, Curt Allen, Hegerbocker, B.B. Warfield). From there he makes mention of the Reformed view of the Regulative Principle. Now having considered this issue when "The Passion" came out, I don't think that it needs to be further dealt with, but MacArthur seems to be in agreement with its primary principle: &quot;If Scripture doesn't command it, it is forbidden.&quot; MacArthur seems to be calling the Reformed inconsistency on this issue, by stating: "And yet, if you go to Scripture, you cannot find one single solitary word about infant baptism-it's not in the Bible." It is interesting to note that MacArthur seems to then say that Paedo-baptists hold their doctrine based on "tradition" or "something outside the Bible". This idea is only further perpetuated after he explains the Roman Catholic church's view of two authority, namely, tradition and scripture. At this point is where I think that MacArthur has wrongly represented the Paedo-Baptists because he is accusing them of following the Roman Catholic church in this respect, however, I don't see the correlation and the lack of evidence to sustain this point is wanting. 
I was interested with MacArthur on the following statement:


[quote:cac06d4ace]

&quot;Now, it is also true that Scripture-they will bring this up-they'll say this, &quot;Yes, it's not in the Bible, but it's also true that Scripture no where forbids infant baptism." Now, if I can get into debate and we're going to debate that point, I think I can win. you're telling me that it's O.K. because it's not there? It should be an ordinance of the church because it's not there? Do you realize how much is not there? You could make an ordinance out of everything that's not there! I mean, just use your imagination and figure out where that could go. 

"That's nothing-that's nothing but an argument from silence which is no argument at all. It provides no basis for acceptance, certainly no basis for a mandate for infant baptism as some kind of ubiquitous, divinely-ordained ordinance that all children of believers or all children of church members ought to engage in. The fact that it is not there proves absolutely nothing-expect it proves that it's not valid. It certainly doesn't prove anything on it's behalf."

[/quote:cac06d4ace]

What a silly statement to make. I would have to wonder if MacArthur had read closely what he was saying here. The point of Paedo-Baptism being extra-biblical is clear because if you were to be a Paedo-Baptist the issue is in fact biblical, not extra-biblical, as MacArthur asserts and this solely stems from the Covenant theology. I would have liked to see MacArthur interact with the Covenant theology first and stating the Baptist view of the Covenant as it works throughout redemptive hisotry. This would have been helpful. I could also hear the Paedo-Baptist saying to the above quote: "Well, what about women taking communion, the Lord 's Day or tithing?" In point it would mean that we would have to closely examine how we look at these issues and how we came to their conclusions if we want to be consistent. Again I agree with Dr. MacMahon that Paedo-Baptists did not come to the conclusion alone through inference or even arguments from silence, but through exegesis stemming from their Covenant theology present in scripture.

Now since I have learned in philosophy that absence does not constitute the evidence of absence, I am hard pressed to even accept this first argument: infant baptism is not in Scripture. If we wanted to be tedious, the term Trinity is not in the text (yes, I know this is very extreme), still we would say that we could follow Scripture and see that the concept (the three-in-one) are stated implicitly throughout the Scripture. Now my question is to the qualification that we apply to the text to come to "infer" the doctrines we now hold though not explicitly stated. What criteria would the credo-Baptist accept based upon the implicit doctrine and its relation to the infant baptism? How far do we go? Likewise for the Paedo-Baptist, what criteria are you using to come to the conclusion of Paedo-Baptism? If the first argument stated is based upon what is and is not found explicitly throughout the Scriptures than wouldn't this also place into question the other doctrines we hold that are based off of implicit Scripture reference? Would we accept MacArthur's argument if it was stated: . Point number one, and this ought to end the argument: women are not allowed to take communion because it is not in Scripture. If it sounds absurd, why? Wouldn't the same claim leveled against infant baptism also qualify as absurd? Well, since I am getting tired. I will continue with making comment on his sermon tomorrow. 

Dylan 


:sleeping:


----------



## Tertullian (Apr 19, 2004)

[quote:0436fb3d3c][i:0436fb3d3c]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:0436fb3d3c]
I would also add that no person ever died and went to hell because their mediator failed in their behalf, whether it be OT or NT. People die and go to hell because of unbelief, plain and simple. [/quote:0436fb3d3c]

Then we must say that people go to heaven because of beleif and not because they have a mediator... but personally I think people go to hell because of sin and people get saved because they have a savior.

Tyler


----------



## Tertullian (Apr 19, 2004)

[quote:8627a5992a][i:8627a5992a]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:8627a5992a]
[quote:8627a5992a][i:8627a5992a]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:8627a5992a]

I echo Matthew's statements. You really need to understand more what paedobaptists actually believe before you engage them. I say that for your own sake. Your arguments don't even get dealt with when you make such nonsensical statements.

For example, even the above is ludicrous. Let me sho you how this simplistic strawman argument &quot;devastates&quot; credobaptism in similar fashion:

1) All those who profess faith in Christ are given the sign of the New Covenant, baptism.

2) All those who profess faith in Christ and are baptized are in the new covenant.

3) Christ is appointed by God (Heb 5:5) to secure the &quot;promised inheritance&quot; to all those He is High Priest over and to Mediate Redemption (Hebrews 9:15)

4) Christ is the New Covenant High Preist (Heb 8:6)

5) some who profess faith and are baptized will not be saved

Therefore: from a baptistic perspective, Christ does not save all those that are given to Him and over which He is mediator.

Of course this is a silly argument, and the &quot;logical implications&quot; of it are absurd. No sound baptist would say the above. So see that what you have done is similarly absurd. If anything, it is Reformed theologians that have stood strongest for particular election and Christ's sufficiency of redeemer. The same certainly cannot be said in baptistic circles, but I would not want to insult my friend Phillip by placing him in the same place as Arminians. [/quote:8627a5992a][/quote:8627a5992a]

Unfortunately the comparsion is not accurate because this premise is not the Reformed Baptist position:

[quote:8627a5992a]
2) All those who profess faith in Christ and are baptized are in the new covenant. [/quote:8627a5992a]

Reformed Baptist have never argued that those given baptism or proffesion of faith are placed in the New Covenant. Reformed credobaptist position would be this

1) All those whom God established a Covenant of Grace will be saved.

2) In the fullness of time Christ came and ratified this Covenant and established the New Covenant.

2) Christ is appointed by God (Heb 5:5) to secure the &quot;promised inheritance&quot; to all those He is High Priest over and to Mediate Redemption (Hebrews 9:15) 

3) Christ is the New Covenant High Preist (Heb 8:6) 

4) some children with Christian parents will not be saved but all those whom God established a Covenant of Grace with will be saved.

Now I noticed that though you accused me of misrepresenting your position again after I asked for clarification of your position... is it then really any surprise that I do not understand your position because when I ask for clarifiaction you just repeat I do not understand it... therefore hopefully to avoid futher misrepresentation on my part you could instruct me as towhich premise is not your position?


1) All children with Christian parents are in the New Covenant 

2) Christ is appointed by God (Heb 5:5) to secure the &quot;promised inheritance&quot; to all those He is High Priest over and to Mediate Redemption (Hebrews 9:15) 

3) Christ is the New Covenant High Preist (Heb 8:6) 

4) some children with Christian parents will not be saved 

Once again, I apologize again I do not think Reformed Paedobaptist are Pelegian or anything like that... I argue that it is a fact that Paedobaptist affirm that Christ is a great High Preist who does not fail but it logicially they cannot affirm that given their beleif that not everyone Christ is high Preist over is saved.

Tyler



[Edited on 4-19-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Tertullian (Apr 19, 2004)

[quote:8efada2b3d][i:8efada2b3d]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:8efada2b3d]
Tyler, 

In reading your past posts thus far, on more than this thread, I have to say that you ought to first understand what Paedobaptists do say, rather than trying to filter their understanding through your understanding. Even you post above is nonsensical. You simply do not understand the Paedo position at all.

Let me use a simple illustration to where you are at on this based from simply reading your posts - in Sunday School, as we are going over covenant Theology with former baptists, they are AMAZED at HOW MUCH actually has to be unraveled and reinterpreted before they could EVEN BEGIN thinking afresh at what the Scriptures says concerning covenants. In other words, in their own minds, when they systematically, slowly and carefully follow the Paedo line of thought (and that had NEVER happened on this board yet) they come to see that what they thought, and what they are thinking concerning these issues were entirely different. They were Amazed that so much has to be unraveled before they could start thinking clearly.

I am sure that of everyone i have read thus far on the board from a baptist position (except maybe grace2u) you are the most thoroughly confused in trying to articulate what &quot;I&quot; believe. I say that as a former Reformed Baptist minister.

Here is my suggestion: I would take O Palmer Roberston's book, &quot;The Christ's of the Covenants&quot; and do a little exercise just for your own personal edification. Summarize each chapter into 1 page. Then go back and reread your summary of what he said. Then, secondly, take Witsius and read it. Then summarize each chapter in Witsius. Then go back and reread your summary of that. now that may take a little time, but, if you are honest, you will see that what you have been posting, and what Paedos believe are entirely different.

it would useless to argue that point because what you have thus far posted is twisted in that respect. Also, this article will help as well - and it was written by a Baptist:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/ChristianWalk/DealWithThoseWhoDiffer.htm
&quot;How to Deal with Those who Differ From Us&quot; by Dr. Roger Nicole.
 [/quote:8efada2b3d]

Thank you... I will reread those work.

Tyler


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 19, 2004)

Tyler,

Why don't you begin by understanding the concept of covenant breaking or covenant curses. The Bible talks an aweful lot about this, but you seem to ignore it entirely. For those who break covenant, Christ mediates the curses of the covenant.

You could also read the dozen or so threads that I, Matthew, Paul, Craig and others have posted here with respect to who is in the covenant, and what that means. or you could read Calvin, Owen, Witsius or others as has been suggested. Or you could keep making nonsensical and foolish statements. Your choice.


----------



## kceaster (Apr 19, 2004)

*Dylan...*

I think you are beginning to see for yourself the keys to covenant theology.

In your studies, continue to look from front to back. Redemptive history didn't start in the NT. I think you see that. The front to back approach to the Scriptures will always give a proper perspective.

I grew up with two wayward and older sisters. Being the third child, I got a great deal of knowledge in this world about what not to do. They served as painful examples (their pain, not necessarily mine) of what happens to disobedient and willful children. I owe a great deal to their mistakes. I am glad to say that both are now in the household of faith. But they served as a tutor for me.

The same thing is true about the OT. We need to understand that first, before trying to understand the NT. It does not and should never be thought to overshadow the NT.

But if we would be Bereans, we need to know the OT, before we can confirm the truths of the NT. This is not to suggest that we may not understand any part of the Bible without prior knowledge, as in prerequisites. The only prerequisites to biblical understanding is the Holy Spirit's revelation and knowledge of the language we happen to be reading the Scriptures with. So, I don't want to sound like I'm saying that no one can understand anything in the NT, prior to reading and understanding the old. The Holy Spirit reveals the Word to us as He wills.

However, it is not without prudence that we should try to understand God's redemptive acts from the beginning, in order that we may know His grace more fully. The Holy Spirit has much to teach us, but we must follow the rules of understanding by Him. He uses means to illumine us. It is to our shame that we would ever think ourselves approved without reading the Scriptures in the way they have been assembled and providentially protected by our God.

God could have assembled the canon so that the first book was Paul's epistle to the Romans, for that is where most of the gospel of grace is clearly articulated.

But instead, He starts us at the beginning of redemptive history and expects us to learn of Him in that way. All who do this, have a cursory knowledge of God's covenant with man, to include Baptists. Where we must continue to strive is to see God's purpose, not from Pentecost forward, but from the garden forward. The first 4000 years of history are not without revelation.

It is rather like reading a summary of a textbook on any given subject. The author will use terminology, that having not read the rest of the book, we may not understand. It is crucial to our understanding that we begin at the foundation and learn brick by brick and course by course. The OT is therefore a kind of grammar for the NT.

I think the major hindrance to the Spirit's illumination is not presuppostions about the oracle of God, but the WRONG presuppostions. Reading from back to front seems like a good way to get the wrong presuppostion.

But for certain constructs to remain intact, like the radical discontinuity between the OT and the NT, back to front presuppositions are necessary, just as the Reformed covenantal contruct must be maintained by presuppositions derived by using a front to back approach.

So this issue is largely served by proper hermeneutics. Thus the division exists between the Reformed paedo-baptist and the credo (only) baptists. The former community uses a front to back approach, thus seeing the glorious continuity between the testaments. The latter community, using the back to front approach, will always be confused by the continuity and therefore conclude that there is not so much as the Reformed have suggested.

Continue to strive, Dylan. Read the Scriptures the way that seems most natural. He started with Genesis for a good reason.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Ianterrell (Apr 26, 2004)

&quot;Or you could keep making nonsensical and foolish statements&quot; - Fred


:thumbdown: Party Foul


----------

