# A Case for Infant Baptism for Reformed Baptists



## Robert Truelove (Jan 12, 2007)

The following is a proposal for what may sound to some like a more biblical articulation of some particulars of Covenant Theology as relates especially to infant baptism/membership. This view is proposed as an attempt to reconcile some of what I find to be valid objections some Reformed Baptists bring up over against a Reformed Paedobaptist understanding. 

One of the great difficulties in this admittedly intramural discussion are the differences in our Covenant Theology. While both Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists use many of the same terms, there are subtle but profound differences in the meanings.

For instance, a Presbyterian is going to make much more out of the unity of the covenants in his articulation of one 'covenant of grace' as it is administered under its different 'administrations'. Thus the biblical covenants tend to be downplayed as individual covenants and rather presented as 'administrations' of one 'Covenant of Grace'. This view of the covenants as 'administrations' of the 'Covenant of Grace' brings to focus the organic unity of the biblical covenants to such an extent that all that is stated in each of these covenants is seen as still being in force unless it is explicitly fulfilled or abrogated in a subsequent covenant.

Reformed Baptist's appear to say pretty much the same thing. However, the subtle difference in the understanding of the terms leads them in a different direction. For example, while Reformed Baptists tend to use the terms 'Covenant of Grace' and refer to the biblical covenants as 'administrations', they really do not see the covenants as 'administrations' in the same sense their Paedobaptist brethren do. From a practical observation, Reformed Baptists tend to look at the covenants as individual covenants with distinct institutions defined independently within each covenant. This leads to an understanding of a greater discontinuity between the covenants than seen by Paedobaptists. 

The outcome is that while Paedobapsists see the New Covenant as the fullest revelation of the Covenant of Grace (as its final administration), they see all of the biblical covenants as essentially the 'Covenant of Grace'. Reformed Baptists only see the New Covenant as itself essentially the 'Covenant of Grace' for all practical purposes. The prior covenants are related to it in that they point to it. 

What we have therefore is a term 'Covenant of Grace' that is understood in a subtly different way. This difference leads to a tremendous amount of confusion in the discussion between Paedobapists and Reformed Baptists and often leads to both sides talking past each other. It is with these things in mind that I propose another way of articulating a case for the inclusion of the children of believers in the covenant. In this thread I will attempt a series of arguments directed towards Reformed Baptists in which I am going to disengage from classical Covenant Theology and only speak with terms as directly found in the scriptures. This is all rough and unedited so please forgive the clunkiness. I am also open to critique as I am working on fine tuning (or changing where necessary) my arguments.


----------



## Robert Truelove (Jan 12, 2007)

According to Jeremiah 31, the New Covenant is distinctly different than the Old. It is 'not like the covenant I made with their fathers'. The Old Covenant was 'broken' and this New Covenant will be unbreakable because God will write His law on the hearts of each member of this New Covenant. 

While the Old Covenant did point to heart circumcision (regeneration) it did not promise it for its members. All of the promises for a new heart, or heart circumcision are ultimately fulfilled in the New Covenant. This means that everyone who lived before Christ were ultimately saved as members of the New Covenant.

In Hebrews 11 we read of the faithful in the Old Testament. After a long list of names we read the following…

"And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had provided something better for us, that <b>apart from us they should not be made perfect</b>." Hebrews 11:39&40

These saints were not saved under the terms of the covenant that was inaugurated in their day but through that which they promised; that which was fulfilled in the New Covenant. "Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” John 8:56

The significance of what I am pointing out here is that the unity of the covenants can also be established by looking backwards from the New to the Old. We hear so often that in Christ we are the true Israel of God; how we are grafted into the olive tree of the one people (Romans 11). We don't commonly have it pointed out to us how that 'apart from us' the old testament saints 'could not be made perfect'.

It all comes down to, under the Old or the New, whether or not one is in Christ (which is by faith alone). If one is in Christ, then one is the child of Abraham. If one is in Christ, then one is a TRUE member of the New Covenant. There is and has never been any other way to be a TRUE member of the New Covenant than by saving faith in Christ.

I am speaking of that which is TRUE. TRUE members of the New Covenant are all regenerate just as we read in Jeremiah 31, however is this the only way that Scripture deals with the concept of covenant membership? And here is the rub for my Baptist bretheren. 

Hebrews 6:1-8, 10:26-31 deals with the apostate. Here is a person who was not TRULY in the New Covenant. Jeremiah 31 does not apply to this person. Yet…he has 'tasted the heavenly gift', 'shared in the Holy Spirit', ' tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come', 'received the knowledge of the truth', and then ' spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace'.

The promise of Jeremiah 31 was never fulfilled in the life of the apostate. He was never TRULY in the New Covenant. God never gave him a regenerate heart. John confirms this when he says, "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us" 1 John 2:19.

In Hebrews 10:30, the Scripture calls the apostate one of God's people. "The Lord will judge his people." If the apostate was never TRULY in the New Covenant, which we maintain, then how can the Scripture here say that this person was one of Lord's people? Obviously we are dealing with the apostate's relationship to the covenant in a different sense than that which we see in Jeremiah 31. That there is a relationship cannot be denied because God calls this person one of 'his people'.

I submit that what we see here is a false brother. One who only had an external (as opposed to TRUE) relationship to the New Covenant (a relationship nonetheless) yet whose outward profession and baptism bound him to the Lord in covenant legally and thus brought down the curse of the covenant upon his own head. This means that his baptism was VALID. His baptism was true baptism, and brought him into the fold in a legal sense but since he did not have a TRUE relationship to the New Covenant, he was unable to keep it and thus brought the judgment upon himself. If his baptism was not valid, there would be no basis for the scripture to call him one of 'God's people'.

Thus there is no tension between "The Lord will judge his people" and "they went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us".

Along the same reasoning, there is no tension between the clear teaching of Jeremiah 31 and the fact that there are those who have a relationship to the New Covenant that is outside the context of Jeremiah 31. I do not have to do any gymnastics around the meaning of this text to establish the fact there is another relationship to the New Covenant that is not saving yet is a true relationship.

...

After some discussion I will move on to the implications of this upon infant baptism.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 12, 2007)

Who was the first to break the old covenant?


----------



## Herald (Jan 12, 2007)

Let me know when you attract some Baptists. This seems like it is going to be a Presbyterian feeding frenzy.


----------



## Robert Truelove (Jan 12, 2007)

EDIT: Perhaps it would be more profitable for me to just ask you what the point of the question is in relationship to the thread?



Scott Bushey said:


> Who was the first to break the old covenant?


----------



## Robert Truelove (Jan 12, 2007)

Hey look!!! It's a Baptist!!!  

Seriously, my primary intent is to interact with Reformed Baptists (and perhaps Presbyterians who think I might be out to lunch by giving too much away).

If you think anything I have articulated thus far is incorrect, I am all ears.



BaptistInCrisis said:


> Let me know when you attract some Baptists. This seems like it is going to be a Presbyterian feeding frenzy.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 13, 2007)

Robert,
I usually follow my nose when answering most posts; After I read this:



> According to Jeremiah 31, the New Covenant is distinctly different than the Old. It is 'not like the covenant I made with their fathers'. The Old Covenant was 'broken' and this New Covenant will be unbreakable because God will write His law on the hearts of each member of this New Covenant.



It made me think dispensationally on your behalf; I may be wrong, forgive me if so: I wanted to see when you believe the NC began for Gods people. That is why I asked the question. 

Trevor essentially answered the question: Adam was the first to break the Covenant of Works. The Mosaic is the C of W on stone. When the book of Hebrews speaks of the antiquated, it refers to this covenant, the C of W's. Hence, all Gods saints, the elect, were under the C of G after Adam's fall, specifically implemented in Gen ch 3. Justification for Gods elect has eternally been in place, outside of time in the 'Lamb slain before the foundation of the world', much like the elect and in time at Calvary or at the elects regeneration and conversion.


----------



## Robert Truelove (Jan 13, 2007)

I choose my terminology as such (the New Covenant is completely new) because I am addressing my post to Reformed Baptists. This is a major sticking point for most of the Reformed Baptists that I know. While they also maintain the continuity of the Covenants, the disconuity is stressed for the New Covenant.

I think much of this can come down to words and the different ways we use or stress them. I am perfectly willing to give my Reformed Baptist brothers the phrase 'the New Covenant is just that, NEW'. But as I said in my post, just because it is new and came in time with the coming of Christ, this does not mean that it's promises were not present before...all the way back to Gen 3. This is what I meant by using the text from Hebrews 11:39&40. 

When the scriptures say that they (the Old Testament saints) are not saved apart from us, I take that in a covenantal sense. They, looking forward, had the reality off the New Covenant fulfilled in themselves. They are New Covenant members, they are not 'apart form us' is this covenantal sense.

In this way, we can maintain the newness of the New Covenant and not appear to play games with the text while maintaining the organic unity of the prior covenants with the New Covenant. 

I could use tradional terms from Covenant Theology to shape my terms (demonstrate the unity of the covenants in the Covenant of Grace) but as I said, I am trying to avoid the terms due to confusion.



Scott Bushey said:


> Robert,
> It made me think dispensationally on your behalf; I may be wrong, forgive me if so: I wanted to see when you believe the NC began for Gods people. That is why I asked the question.
> 
> Trevor essentially answered the question: Adam was the first to break the Covenant of Works. The Mosaic is the C of W on stone. When the book of Hebrews speaks of the antiquated, it refers to this covenant, the C of W's. Hence, all Gods saints, the elect, were under the C of G after Adam's fall, specifically implemented in Gen ch 3. Justification for Gods elect has eternally been in place, outside of time in the 'Lamb slain before the foundation of the world', much like the elect and in time at Calvary or the elects regeneration and conversion.


----------



## Robert Truelove (Jan 13, 2007)

Brave man. Thanks for stepping in.  

Can you demonstrate your view from scripture that children are "UNDER the covenant administration by being under the administration of the visible covenant community". 

Also, you know literally what you stated is that children of believers are "UNDER the covenant administration by being under the covenant administration". The 'administration of the visible covenant community' is part of the administration of the New Covenant, not seperate from it. If I granted your wording however, how are the children of believers under the administration of the visible covenant community when they are not members of the church? They are outside of the discipline of the church.

Also, exactly how can they be under its administration without being in the covenant in some sense?

It is the 'some sense' that my post was trying to address. I agree with you that ANY outside of Christ are not TRULY in the New Covenant, but the arguement I used regarding the apostate proposed that there are those who are not TRULY in the covenant, yet are in some sense in it (legally)...More than just administratively under it (which doesnt quite make sense to me without the understanding of some sort membership). So much so that Scripture calls them as one of God's 'people' ('the Lord will judge his people')--and thusly I contended their baptism was valid.

If you can see that there is 'some sense' that unbelievers are in the covenant (for a time at least), your primary arguement that infants cannot be in the covenant because they are not in Christ topples. This does not establish the case for infant baptism but it removes a major obstacle.



trevorjohnson said:


> Hello;
> 
> The childen of believers are UNDER the covenant administration by being under the administration of the visible covenant community, but are not IN the covenant because only those IN Christ are in the Covenant.
> 
> ...


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 13, 2007)

> I choose my terminology as such (the New Covenant is completely new) because I am addressing my post to Reformed Baptists.



My Bad. I will back away from the keyboard. Sorry about the _knee-jerk_ reaction.

Not offended 

My Baptist friends, enjoy thyself.


----------



## larryjf (Jan 14, 2007)

Trevor,



> The Presbyterian appeals largely to the OT's long chain of continuity. The Baptist appeals to the majority of the NT examples which seem to show an expressed faith.


I would have to agree with this statement. That seems to be the crux of the matter between the two parties.

I notice that you say that Baptists appeal to the "majority" of NT examples. Does this mean that you do see some examples that lean toward paedobaptism?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 14, 2007)

larryjf said:


> Trevor,
> 
> 
> I would have to agree with this statement. That seems to be the crux of the matter between the two parties.
> ...




Larry,
I don't mean to ruin your party here in this thread, but I was told:



> I choose my terminology as such (the New Covenant is completely new) because I am addressing my post to Reformed Baptists.



I believe this thread is for RB's.


----------



## larryjf (Jan 14, 2007)

Sorry.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 14, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> Hey Larry...
> You can crash my party anytime you like!



Trevor,
I believe it was the wish of the author of this thread to address baptists only; he seemed to correct me in that when I posted (Unless of course I misunderstood him). Hence, with respect to the author, I believe the thread should be answered by baptists alone as to not cause this to turn into another paedo -vs- credo debate.

Thanks,

Scott


----------



## larryjf (Jan 14, 2007)

Trevor,

I appreciate your answer to my post.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Jan 16, 2007)

This article may prove usefull in understanding the baptist postion a little better.
http://publications.gospelstandard.org/article.asp?articleid=7the meaning of baptism


----------



## elnwood (Jan 16, 2007)

prespastor said:


> In Hebrews 10:30, the Scripture calls the apostate one of God's people. "The Lord will judge his people." If the apostate was never TRULY in the New Covenant, which we maintain, then how can the Scripture here say that this person was one of Lord's people? Obviously we are dealing with the apostate's relationship to the covenant in a different sense than that which we see in Jeremiah 31. That there is a relationship cannot be denied because God calls this person one of 'his people'.



I'm going to address the covenant-breakers issue.

The paedo argument is that In Hebrews 10 and other passages, the warnings are a) addressed to people in the New Covenant, and b) are real warnings. Thus, they assume that it must refer to Covenant children who never became believers. The credo argument I hold, that the warnings are hypothetical, are dismissed because they feel that the warnings have to be real to have any point.

I don't find the paedo argument persuasive. The warnings are addressed to everyone, not particularly to covenant children. Thus, the paedo has to allow that, for most of the addressed audience, that the warnings are hypothetical. So the argument "The warnings CAN'T be hypothetical" holds no weight to me.

Second, Hebrews 10 says the apostate "has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the covenant of grace." So for in order for a paedo to hold their position, they have to say that the apostate was sanctified by Christ's blood, and yet will not be ultimately be saved. I have a hard time believing that an unbeliever could be sanctified by Christ's blood, and this also seems to deny Limited Atonement.

Therefore, the best explanation to me is that the warnings are hypothetical, and that God uses warnings such as these to accomplish his means of sanctification and perseverance in his New Covenant people.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Jan 16, 2007)

elnwood said:


> Therefore, the best explanation to me is that the warnings are hypothetical, and that God uses warnings such as these to accomplish his means of sanctification and perseverance in his New Covenant people.



How about:

1. The warnings are REAL, but only have any serious meaning for the non-elect.

2. The warnings are REAL and are used to shake some of the complacent elect-but-not-yet-converted to faith.

3. The warnings are REAL and are one of the 'means of grace' which God uses to keep the elect persevering in faith.

Because any way you look at it, the elect who are actively working out their salvation (Phil. 2:12-13) don't have anything to worry about in regard to this warning.


----------



## jenney (Jan 23, 2007)

*I'm sorry this thread has died!*

Because I am really trying to relate to the paedo position. I've read a lot about it but I know I'm missing something because it seems obviously wrong to me and that is always a warning sign. 

There are too many brilliant Godly men on that side for me to think it is that obvious, and yet I can't understand it. I was looking forward to more of a discussion here because I wondered if my lack of understanding is due to my rb vocabulary!

I don't think I'll participate because I'm somewhat thin-skinned and I've felt hurt by what I've perceived as arrogance on the part of paedobaptists:
There is often the assumption that we credos are just backwoods bumpkins without any seminaries so we just can't comprehend the finer points of doctrine. Or we're branded dispensational arminians. Or we're seen as so blinded by the idea that "it just _can't_ mean infant baptism!" that we refuse to see the clear teaching of Scripture.

I'm afraid to even ask any questions because sometimes the tone seems so mocking towards us that I would rather avoid the scorn and derision.

But I really would like to read and understand the "other side" if for no other reason than to say I have thoroughly and honestly considered it.

So get back to talking, you guys!!!


----------



## elnwood (Jan 23, 2007)

Well, I think the author wanted it to address it just to credobaptists, and we answered, so I think that's why the thread died. There are plenty of other threads that have discussed the issue.

Personally, I'm still waiting to hear a counterargument to my proposition: if you hold the warnings in Hebrews are not hypothetical but referring to Covenant children, i.e. Hebrews 10:26-31, how can you defend Limited Atonement? It says that those people who fall away were sanctified by the blood of the covenant but trampled under foot the Son of God.


----------



## elnwood (Jan 24, 2007)

Paul manata said:


> Reformed baptist James White says that is was *Jesus* who is the referent of "sanctified by the blood of the covenant." That is, "trampled under foot the Son of God, and counted unholy the blood of the covenant that sanctified him [Jesus].



Do you have a citation for that?



Paul manata said:


> Anyway, if you have problems with that resolution take it up with reformed baptist heavyweight, James White.



James White isn't a Greek bible translation expert. He is a great defender of the faith in apologetics, but not in Greek translation. You are making an argument by authority, but it is not a good argument if your authority is not an expert in the area.

In constrast, the NKJV translators make it clear that they think that Jesus is not the referent by not capitalizing the adverb. The NKJV translators are more reliable as Greek experts than James White, hence my appeal to authority is stronger.



Paul manata said:


> But I don't even need that, the sanctified used here need not mean sanctified in a salvific sense.



So you think that Christ died for the non-elect in a non-salvific sense? Most would call that a denial of Limited Atonement.



Paul manata said:


> And, I don;t know any paedo's who say that this is referriong to covenant *children.* it's referring to non-elect members of the external covenant.



Granted.



Paul manata said:


> Lastly, it's not hypothetical. The author says that "The Lord *will* judge His people."



Right. His people, the elect, will be judged. And they will be judged righteous because they are found in Christ.

P.S. Slow down and check your spelling. In your haste to reply, you made a lot of typos.


----------



## jenney (Jan 24, 2007)

elnwood said:


> Well, I think the author wanted it to address it just to credobaptists, and we answered, so I think that's why the thread died. There are plenty of other threads that have discussed the issue.



Perhaps that is what happened. Are there really that few RBs here? hmm.

The other threads that have discussed the issue seemed like bullying to me. I think it was just that when you have a board discussing baptism that is 90% paedo, the credos might feel a little ganged-up on (to end my sentence with _two_ prepositions!) and I did, even though I wasn't even participating. This thread seemed to have potential to avoid that by addressing RBs specifically and thus reducing some of that effect.

But I guess that is the way it goes. I'll keep looking.

Thanks!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 24, 2007)

jenney said:


> ...when you have a board discussing baptism that is 90% paedo, the credos might feel a little ganged-up on...



Well, I'm sorry they feel ganged-up upon. This is a Reformed board and greater than 90% of Reformed Christians are paedo so Baptists are likely to be lonely on this issue. They would have good company on just about any other broadly Evangelical board at least.

Notice the byline under the Baptism forum. It is for those that want to *DEBATE and DISCUSS*. Sparks fly but I count many Baptists among my very close personal friends and I worship with them in Okinawa. If they want to know what I think about the fact that they exclude members of the visible Covenant then they can expect me to be very strident.

For what it's worth, my wife agrees that these discussions seem kind of mean. I don't think telling the truth always has to be done in a nice way as long as it's not done with disdain for your brother/sister.

So, to be nice, if people are a bit thin-skinned about reductio ad absurdum and other techniques that demonstrate logical folly (and are Biblical methodologies to do so) then they are warned, up front, that egos are likely to get bruised in here. You should search some of the old threads and see that the latest stuff is pretty tame.

For what it's worth, Don, it's good to have a Baptist step up and debate. It's been a while since we had one here to sharpen our arguments against.


----------



## elnwood (Jan 24, 2007)

I agree that the ESV is a better translation and uses a better text. But choice of Greek text has nothing to do with competency to translate (the individual translators probably didn't make the choice of the text anyway). Even a person who doesn't know any Greek can choose the correct text, and vice versa. You're confusing the issue.

That the ESV translators chooses not to use capitalization pronouns simply means they don't take a position on that text (unlike the NKJV translators), so it proves nothing.

Regardless, Matthew Henry, John Gill (whom you cited) and others take the view that it is the apostates who are sanctified by Christ's blood.



Paul manata said:


> Wrong. "His people" will be judged with a "fierce fire." Right after we read of the Lord judging these people, we read how terrible it is to fall into the hands of the living God.



The elect will be judged by fire as well.

[bible]1 corinthians 3:12-15[/bible]


----------



## B.J. (Jan 24, 2007)

Paul,
I thought you didnt have time to get in a long discussion debate about Baptism. Well maybe this isnt that long to you. I am enjoying it though.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 24, 2007)

elnwood said:


> Well, I think the author wanted it to address it just to credobaptists, and we answered, so I think that's why the thread died.



This is true; It was directed at Credo's solely. That is why I bailed form continuing my earlier discussion. In fact, this most recent set of posts by Don, Paul and Rich can be merged into the other thread, if anyone wants to do that. So, for the sake of prudent moderation, Paedo's hold thy tongue.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 24, 2007)

Paul manata said:


> Scott, I was going to hold my toungue, but Elnwood said he's still waiting to here a reply to his argument from limited atonement. So, I just had to jump in.



Thats fine Paul. I just don't want to derail the thread. You may qoute Don and open a new thread if you like.


----------



## Robert Truelove (Jan 25, 2007)

Sorry folks. I have been so busy lately it has been hard for me to get back to this thread. I'll try to get back to this soon.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 25, 2007)

prespastor said:


> Sorry folks. I have been so busy lately it has been hard for me to get back to this thread. I'll try to get back to this soon.



Wait! Scott said paedos aren't allowed in here!


----------



## jenney (Jan 25, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Well, I'm sorry they feel ganged-up upon.



Well, I'm not sure _they_ do. All I meant was that it might seem that way to me, as an outsider reading after the fact as opposed to a participant reading throughout the process.



> They would have good company on just about any other broadly Evangelical board at least.



My point, though, was trying to understand the "other" side and that would be hard to do on a board where everyone espouses my own view. Besides, the unfortunate thing about many evangelical boards is that many people don't know why they have the view they have. Many churches don't seem to teach basic hermeneutics, so their members don't have any idea how to even study to know what God has to say on a subject. (A woman on another board told me that Romans 9:20 was about being content with our own gifts and calling!) And, furthermore, it would seem that plenty of broadly evangelical boards include Presbyterians, Episcopalian/Anglicans, Lutherans, and Methodists, who all practice paedobaptism, so I might have good company in both camps!



> Notice the byline under the Baptism forum. It is for those that want to *DEBATE and DISCUSS*.


I'm not sure that "debate and discuss" means that sarcasm is appropriate, but I read it sometimes, as well as portrayal of credos as less logical thinkers or less willing to interact honestly with the texts, when it is possible that someone might hear all the arguments and still be honestly unpersuaded.



> So, to be nice, if people are a bit thin-skinned about reductio ad absurdum and other techniques that demonstrate logical folly (and are Biblical methodologies to do so) then they are warned, up front, that egos are likely to get bruised in here.


When I said I had a thin skin, I didn't mean that I couldn't stand when my argument was proven wrong. I meant I don't like sarcasm or the grand lumping of all Baptists into the dispensational-pretrib-alter call basket. It really isn't a good argument for the Scriptural support of paedobaptism to say something like, "mormons and JW's both practice credobaptism!" yet it's been done. At the puritanboard.



> You should search some of the old threads and see that the latest stuff is pretty tame.


I agree: it was the old stuff that convinced me I don't want to participate, just read others' posts and try to learn from them!

But I see that chiming in here got the thread bumped and maybe the OP will continue it.
here's hoping!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 25, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Wait! Scott said paedos aren't allowed in here!



Yea, that was dumb.  I didn't realize that the thread was started by a Presbyterian. Oh well, add that one to the archives of stupid statements by SB.  

Love the new tongue-goofy smiley!


----------



## elnwood (Jan 25, 2007)

Paul manata said:


> Elnwood,
> 
> The ESV (and other trnalations) don't capitalize *ANY* of the "h's."
> So, if we went to the better translation it wouldn't tell us anything about wether the he was Jesus or not.



Granted.  But Matthew Henry and John Gill (who must be reliable since you use cited him in an earlier argument, right?  ) say that the sanctification refers to the apostate, not to Christ himself. Which was the point.



Paul manata said:


> The elect will not be judged with "fury" and the juding you're referring to is not "terrible" and it does not "consume the adversary." Try again.



You're mixing up passages. Hebrews 10:26-27 is a hypothetical, "if we go on sinning ... there is an expectation of judgment and the fury of fire which will consume the adversaries."

Before you jumped to this verse, you were talking about the certainty that "God will judge his people" in Hebrews 10:30. But it does not say that with certainty God will consume his people.

The logic is as follows:
1) God will certainly judge his people.
2) If His people continue in sin (hypothetical)
3) they will be judged and consumed.

Where we differ is whether 2) is an empty set or contains New Covenant breakers.



Paul manata said:


> As for the rest of my post, I'll assume you grant those points.



Sure, if you want to artificially inflate your ego, go ahead. But I didn't leave any points unaddressed.


----------



## elnwood (Jan 25, 2007)

Paul manata said:


> No, that's alright. I already dismantled his objection.



Not really. I still object, so it's not dismantled.


----------



## Davidius (Jan 25, 2007)

elnwood said:


> Not really. I still object, so it's not dismantled.



The argument may or may not have actually dismantled but whether or not it was is definitely not contingent upon your objection.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 25, 2007)

jenney said:


> My point, though, was trying to understand the "other" side and that would be hard to do on a board where everyone espouses my own view. Besides, the unfortunate thing about many evangelical boards is that many people don't know why they have the view they have. Many churches don't seem to teach basic hermeneutics, so their members don't have any idea how to even study to know what God has to say on a subject. (A woman on another board told me that Romans 9:20 was about being content with our own gifts and calling!) And, furthermore, it would seem that plenty of broadly evangelical boards include Presbyterians, Episcopalian/Anglicans, Lutherans, and Methodists, who all practice paedobaptism, so I might have good company in both camps!


Right. But my point is that, on a _Reformed_ board, Baptists are always going to be in pretty small company - unless it's primarily for Reformed Baptists. Reformed Baptists rightly feel more comfortable theologically with Reformed Presbyterians and Dutch Reformed than they do with folks from Calvaray Chapel or Saddleback. That is, until we start discussing who the proper subjects of baptism are.



> I'm not sure that "debate and discuss" means that sarcasm is appropriate, but I read it sometimes, as well as portrayal of credos as less logical thinkers or less willing to interact honestly with the texts, when it is possible that someone might hear all the arguments and still be honestly unpersuaded.


And we believe they are incorrect and interpreting the text improperly and being less consistent with the Scriptures or we would be Reformed Baptists. The only other conclusion would be for us to say: Well if it's true for you then that's OK. I may get along with a Reformed Baptist but I still believe the cognitive rest they have on the subject in un-Biblical and I rest on the Scriptures. I would expect no less from the Baptists on the board for me.

Also, one of the methods that a person uses in a debate is a _reductio ad absurdum_. It is used in the Scriptures as well. It demonstrates the absurdity of a position by mocking the outcome of its logic followed through. As long as it's not a straw man then the fact that it "bites" is the point. It's supposed to shake the person up and get them to re-think. This is not an inconsequential issue after all. We really believe you guys have got this all wrong that you withold a birth right from your children. I expect no less passion from a Reformed Baptist on this issue if they believe in Truth.



> When I said I had a thin skin, I didn't mean that I couldn't stand when my argument was proven wrong. I meant I don't like sarcasm or the grand lumping of all Baptists into the dispensational-pretrib-alter call basket. It really isn't a good argument for the Scriptural support of paedobaptism to say something like, "mormons and JW's both practice credobaptism!" yet it's been done. At the puritanboard.


Yes. Both sides are guilty of this. I've even been guilty of it. I'm not going to defend it. There is a place for being uncomfortable however. What I appreciate about this place is that it's "safe". I can make mistakes here and learn from them and sharpen my arguments and repent when I'm a bonehead. It helps me in polite conversation when I'm actually among a body of believers that I'm celebrating the Lord's Supper with. Think of this place like a sandbox to refine your ability to defend something because most people don't know how to debate without getting emotional and this helps refine that out of you.



> I agree: it was the old stuff that convinced me I don't want to participate, just read others' posts and try to learn from them!
> 
> But I see that chiming in here got the thread bumped and maybe the OP will continue it.
> here's hoping!



Yeah, especially since Dad Bushey allowed me to post in here again!

I'm not trying to tell you that your concerns are completely unfounded but do try to look at them from a different angle. I am very strident in this board because I see myself as very sharply warning brothers and sisters of a serious danger in their theology. Maybe I'm a bulldog sometimes but I've gotten better at just challenging people and expressing my thoughts without always going for the jugular of the other guy.

In the end, however, don't ever think that this Baptism thing is a trivial thing and the stakes in this debate are pretty important.

In fact, they are _so_ important that I would venture to guess that your Church would not allow my son to commune at the Lord's Table with you until he is baptized as a Confessing adult. We may cause you Baptists some discomfort here but at least we don't bar you from membership or the Table of the Lord and say: "You are not a real Brother."


----------



## elnwood (Jan 26, 2007)

Paul, why are you so concerned about asserting your victory? You declare it over and over in every single post, and it seems to me that you are more concerned about "winning" the argument and humiliating your opponent than about understanding the other position and coming to the most biblical view.

It can often be edifying and enjoyable to discuss theology with brothers in Christ, and I often do, but I find your tone condescending and pugnacious such that I have no desire to continue this discussion.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 26, 2007)

elnwood said:


> Paul, why are you so concerned about asserting your victory? You declare it over and over in every single post, and it seems to me that you are more concerned about "winning" the argument and humiliating your opponent than about understanding the other position and coming to the most biblical view.
> 
> It can often be edifying and enjoyable to discuss theology with brothers in Christ, and I often do, but I find your tone condescending and pugnacious such that I have no desire to continue this discussion.



Don,

Paul took time to put forward arguments, which you never refuted.

Then when he attempted to answer and close any objections you accuse him of just trying to be right.

If you do not wish to *DEBATE* the issue then that is fine. Nobody is twisting your arm. But refrain from pretending you're taking some sort of moral high road in this fashion. To call a man's argument fallacious without offering any rebuttal is offensive to those of us who are seeking Truth.

If you believe Paul was harsh then I would prefer you just be magnanimous about it and say: "I concede the point although I wish you would be more edifying."


----------



## elnwood (Jan 26, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Don,
> 
> Paul took time to put forward arguments, which you never refuted.
> 
> ...



I did refute the arguments. It doesn't mean that you or Paul will be convinced by them, but if you read my posts, he did not post any argument that I have not addressed. So I have nothing more to say.

I do wish to debate, but I will only debate in a spirit of Christian gentleness and humility. I think Paul Manata's conclusion is incorrect, but I never called his argument fallacious (there's a difference).

I apologize if I offended you or anyone else by not continuing the discussion and giving another rebuttal. I am not trying to take the moral high ground, and I don't like being accused of doing so. I am being honest in what offends me, and the manner in which many paedobaptists on this board flippantly argue against credobaptists, including associating them with Arminians, dispensationalists, and even cults, offends me.

I have made this known many times, and rather than receiving apologies, the insults and accusations continue. I have better things to do with my time than continuing an argument with someone whom I believe holds me in contempt. So please pardon me if I do not wish to continue this discussion.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 26, 2007)

Roger Don.

Like I said, you don't _have_ to post. Where I have insulted you, I apologize. I do think you need to parse between being actually insulted in your _person_ and having your _position_ ridiculed. Those are different things though they might feel like the same thing.

I merely offered that you had not rebutted anything by merely claiming rebuttal. If you feel your job was satisfactory then we'll let the reader determine for themselves.


----------



## elnwood (Jan 26, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Roger Don.
> 
> Like I said, you don't _have_ to post. Where I have insulted you, I apologize. I do think you need to parse between being actually insulted in your _person_ and having your _position_ ridiculed. Those are different things though they might feel like the same thing.
> 
> I merely offered that you had not rebutted anything by merely claiming rebuttal. If you feel your job was satisfactory then we'll let the reader determine for themselves.



I accept your apology and your goodwill.

I do distinguish between being insulted personally (which has occurred) and having my position ridiculed (which has also occurred, obviously). The first, I think you would agree, is unacceptable, but the second I believe also to be unacceptable. I don't believe Christians ought to *ridicule* another Christian's position because it *is* insulting to the person.

There is a difference between "I think your position misunderstands the continuity of the covenant of grace" and "your position is ignorant, and held by Jehovah's Witnesses." There's a difference between "I don't think your post addressed this particular point" and "I peppered your argument with a plethora of bombs." There's a difference between "P.S. Check your spelling" (which I wrote to Paul because it would provide more clarity to his posts, and I was worried that he was posting in haste) and "You're such a bad speller. What kind of school did you go to?"

Granted, the line can be difficult to discern at times, but I have tried to the utmost to do the former, and not the latter. I do not want to needlessly offend any paedobaptists. God knows that many credobaptists have called paedobaptists "papists" and worse things, and I do not wish to carry on that tradition.

We are brothers and sisters in Christ, and while we can (and ought to) respectfully disagree in our deeply held positions, I don't think ridiculing the other position in a public forum is respectful to those who hold opposing views. There is room, of course, for mild jesting, but it frequently goes far beyond this, and we should not presume to jest with anyone unless we know that they won't take offense (and certainly not if we know they will or have taken offense).


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 26, 2007)

Unless anyone has anything left to say, I believe this one is done.......







Closing.


----------

