# How to handle covenant baptism



## Larry Hughes (Jun 30, 2005)

This question is for those who have crossed this path or may have words of wisdom to the same.

My family and I (wife, two infants) are in the process of becoming members of a reformed PCA church. A wonderful place, they were huge to my wife and I during a trying time with our last baby 10 days in the NICU (a long story).

We have been visiting for a while and talking. And to make a long story short we've come to embrace the truth of Covenant including of our children in Scripture.

So, we intend after membership to have our children baptized. The issue is how do you handle other family members, specifically grandparents without raising a debate?

One set of grandparents will probablly listen well and have no problem. The other set are strongly baptistic, and I don't even mean reformed either. I fear a debate. We don't even see eye to eye in terms of "calvinism".

This won't stop us, but we wondered about how anyone might have handled this in terms of "do you invite them?" "Tell them, if so how?" 

Thanks in advance,

Larry


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jun 30, 2005)

You don't? Actually, we only told the one that would understand and my FIL, who is baptist, but reformed...he didn't come, didn't agree, but didn't throw a fit either. It was more a matter of being honest with him. We didn't say anything to the rest of the family as we would be considered heretics for doing so.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jun 30, 2005)

My wife and I plan to have our 3 daughters baptized within a few months, as well. And some members of my family will probably have a similar reaction. So it would be helpful to hear people's thoughts about how to share this with family members who are opposed to the idea.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 30, 2005)

Baptize _them_ too! That'll teach em!


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jul 1, 2005)

Its tough not too, because they make such a big deal, and rightly so, about other family members who profess and are baptized into the Baptist church. It kind of bothers my wife that our children will likely not have this internal family support.

She is leaning toward telling them and explaining it to them. I'm not, I remember our last calvin discussion and really just don't feel like raising a debate now.

Thanks, hoping to hear more.

Ldh


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 1, 2005)

Ask them which covenant is superior and why, according to their position, did Old Covenant children have more priveleges than New Covenant children.

The argument that professing members in New Covenant obey the law will not work because there are professing "christians" today who backslide.

Therefore, to follow Warfield, we must assume that the same benefits and privileges still apply to the children of believers


----------



## Arch2k (Jul 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> Its tough not too, because they make such a big deal, and rightly so, about other family members who profess and are baptized into the Baptist church. It kind of bothers my wife that our children will likely not have this internal family support.
> 
> She is leaning toward telling them and explaining it to them. I'm not, I remember our last calvin discussion and really just don't feel like raising a debate now.
> ...



Larry, 

I understand your hesitation to bring it up. I have similar circumstances with my family (with the calvinist issue anyway) in which many times we come together, debate occurs.

My outlook on it is that the issues ARE that important. Not that I think simply arguing in and of itself can change people's mind, but the Holy Spirit, working through the Word CAN change people's minds! 

That's part of the reformed (uh hum...christian) system, is that we realize that it isn't up to us to change people's mind, just to exhort, using the word of God, and tearing down their strongholds using logical arguments from God's word! That's what apologetics are all about.

Don't refrain from proclaiming God's word out of fear of losing the peace, but do it all in love with respect.

Jeremiah 6:14
They have also healed the hurt of My people slightly, Saying, "Peace, peace!' When there is no peace.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jul 3, 2005)

Jacob,

I never thought about that angle. That's a good simple starting point!


Jeff,

You are so right. I should remember that apologetics is my heart beat, coming from a atheistic/agnostic science background. That side of the family are Christians but they can be the kind that put tremendous not so good spiritual pressure on you. They are very very charismatic but in a wierd way - not your typical pentecostic that jumps around (they would ironically look at that as being wierd too) but kind of a mutated arminian-lingering anabaptistic, charismatic, gnostic Southern Baptist. It is the wierdest mixture of sectarian thinking under the label of SB I've encountered. It really is regional though because most, even non-reformed SB, would look at it as odd. They rely so much on "hearing God's voice" its hard to discuss with them. I wont even get into the demon chaser, casting out that my wife grew up under. Some of the stories she tells me!

To give you a feel for it - I would have more credibility in their eyes if I said, "The Lord spoke to me and told me xyz..." rather than, "Romans 1:1-17 says xyz..." I'm not being very hyperbolic either. Now if I dared to say for clarity, "You know Calvin/Luther commenting on Romans..." Then its over with - I'm a poor deceived ignorant boob believing a man's teaching (and in Calvin's case the devil incarnate, Luther might get cut a little slack because they are unaware of "Bondage of the Will") and not believing the Bible (which is code for the direct communication of the "Spirit"). The "Spirit" moving is always highest. Which from my view of their view is "my conscience and inner mind whom I call the spirit is directing me".

Thanks,

Larry


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Baptize _them_ too! That'll teach em!



Gabe, you slay me. Sometimes your brashness rubs me wrong and then other times I just role over cracking up.


----------



## Arch2k (Jul 3, 2005)




----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Baptize _them_ too! That'll teach em!





Some people baptize by sprinkling.

Some people baptize by dunking.


And some people just hold them under until they _really_ repent!


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 3, 2005)

Well, that would be fitting the immersion signification, would it not? Don't want to immerse someone into Christ and then take them back out of Christ!


----------



## smhbbag (Jul 3, 2005)

> Ask them which covenant is superior and why, according to their position, did Old Covenant children have more priveleges than New Covenant children.



As a Baptist, I would simply answer "The New Covenant is superior" and "Straw-man. I don't have to defend the "why's" of a position that I don't agree with."



> The argument that professing members in New Covenant obey the law will not work because there are professing "christians" today who backslide.



Where has any Reformed Baptist ever said this? I'm serious, because I have honestly never heard of such an argument. It's a ridiculous assertion.

[Edited on 7-3-2005 by smhbbag]


----------



## Puddleglum (Jul 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Well, that would be fitting the immersion signification, would it not? Don't want to immerse someone into Christ and then take them back out of Christ!



Um, the way the baptist argument goes is that going under shows your union with Christ in His death, and coming up shows your union with Christ in His resurrection. So, leaving them down wouldn't make any sense . . . though, if you want to take a humerous angle, immersing for 3 days could make sense!


----------



## smhbbag (Jul 3, 2005)

hahahahahaha, not much on the puritanboard makes me laugh, but that did. Thanks Jessica


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by smhbbag_
> 
> 
> > Ask them which covenant is superior and why, according to their position, did Old Covenant children have more priveleges than New Covenant children.
> ...



You got the first part of the question right and then ignored the second as irrelevant. It is highly relevant. Why are children of believers in the "better Covenant" denied the same status as those in the inferior covenant? 



> > The argument that professing members in New Covenant obey the law will not work because there are professing "christians" today who backslide.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Remember the context of the question asked. Larry Hughes had said:

_One set of grandparents will probablly listen well and have no problem. The other set are strongly baptistic, and I don't even mean reformed either. I fear a debate. We don't even see eye to eye in terms of "calvinism"._

Granted, most Reformed Baptists do not use that argument, but the people in question are not Reformed so I think it is a valid approach.

[Edited on 7--3-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 3, 2005)

Anyway, you skipped the conclusion in my argument, which I said:



> Therefore, to follow Warfield, we must assume that the same benefits and privileges still apply to the children of believers



Show me why New Covenant children (if we can even assume that they are in the New Covenant), or rather, children of New Covenant believers do not have this privilege.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 4, 2005)

> Show me why New Covenant children (if we can even assume that they are in the New Covenant), or rather, children of New Covenant believers do not have this privilege.



Jacob, Do you even know what the Reformed Baptist position is about children. 

I think I would try to focus on the fact that the children get to grow up in a godly home whether or not they ever become regenerate or not. It is a far cry from growing up in a Pagan home where who knows what goes on. 
I am not saying Malone is great or anything but who have you read concerning children and the New Covenant from a Reformed Baptist perspective? Maybe we ought to start a thread about the benefits of children baptized and children who are not baptized. Is one considered less in the sight of Jesus?


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Maybe we ought to start a thread about the benefits of children baptized and children who are not baptized. Is one considered less in the sight of Jesus?



Since baptists refuse to notice that circumcision and baptism both are signs and seals of the same thing, this argument will probably fall on deaf ears. But nevertheless, to answer your question, here goes:

If an infant failed to be circumcized in the Old Testament, then that infant was automatically considered a covenant breaker. 

Likewise, an infant who fails to be baptized is a covenant breaker.

(The same goes for adults, by the way . . . if a person confesses salvation in Christ, attends church, etc., and yet fails to be baptized, then that adult is sinning against God . . . breaking covenant with Him.)


Of course, now that I think about it, the above statements may not phase the baptists at all. After all, they *already* consider their children to be unregenerate, covenant-breaking pagans _anyway_.




[Edited on 7-4-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jul 4, 2005)

Randy has apoint; I'll admit there is a big gulf between the R. Bap. & every other Bap. out there, though most of the "Calvinistic" (& I use that term very generically here) SB would disagree. 

That is the RB come right to the brink of full blown Ref. Cov. theology as opposed to the general bap.

& many solid bap. do raise their children very faithfully - in my opinion "vitual" covenant people though they miss the point of the signs drastically.

But at the end of the day the doctrine of believers only leads the same way - baptism is primarily a "works", "my baptism", "my sign" hence the second baptisms of some people to "get the work right". It is a terribly wrong view of the sign, asa my wife's experience could attest.

L


----------



## Texas Aggie (Jul 4, 2005)

We know that a child can be born with the Holy Spirit (such as John the Baptist). A baby inside the mother's womb may in fact be a partaker of the New Covenant without making a "profession of faith."

Now, with that said, a fetus in the womb "œmay" have the Spirit (as indicated by the scripture). If that child is aborted or miscarried, there is no physical baptism at birth (except down the toilet or in the clinic's dumpster).

The water does not save.... the Spirit does. I am amazed at the legalism involved with such a basic principal of God. The commandment is to baptize as a physical representation of a spiritual application.

The question you must ask: Is my child a partaker of the New Covenant? The answer is: only if their name is written in the Book of Life from before the foundation of the world (which is something you can not determine).

How is this wrought in man? Matthew 3:11-12.

Baptize your babies if it makes you feel better... I see nothing wrong with this (it shows man and the devils how you, the parent, will raise the child as a covenant member). The sprinkling itself; however, will not save your child. Leave that to God.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> > Show me why New Covenant children (if we can even assume that they are in the New Covenant), or rather, children of New Covenant believers do not have this privilege.
> ...



I wish people would quote me in full. I had also said



> Remember the context of the question asked. Larry Hughes had said:
> 
> One set of grandparents will probablly listen well and have no problem. The other set are strongly baptistic, and I don't even mean reformed either. I fear a debate. We don't even see eye to eye in terms of "calvinism"."
> 
> Me: Granted, most Reformed Baptists do not use that argument, *but the people in question are not Reformed *  so I think it is a valid approach.



Who have I read? Wayne Grudem, Millard Erickson, shorter essays by Malone, whom I have seen in person. I was a Reformed Baptist until last year. I eagerly devoured Baptist Systematics as a Baptist. I am VERY familiar with the work done by Doug Phillips (mainly audio on this and I agree with a lot of points he made. In fact, it was RB's like Phillips who helped me make the switch.). 

Granted, it is a lot better than growing up in a pagan home, or even a nominal Christian home. In fact, give me an RB household any day over a modern Evanjellyfish household. Still, the sign of the covenant is not applied. Are they different in Christ's eyes? I don't think so. Still, the sign of the covenant (and all that it entails) is still not applied. At this point, we rehash the old debates.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Texas Aggie_
> 
> The water does not save.... the Spirit does. I am amazed at the legalism involved with such a basic principal of God. The commandment is to baptize as a physical representation of a spiritual application.
> 
> ...




straw man

Straw Man

STRAW MAN!


Who are you arguing against? To my knowledge, there is not one person on the puritanboard who thinks that baptism saves ANYBODY, whether adult or infant.

So why make the obvious comment that baptism will "not save your child"? Are you intentionally building a straw man just so you can knock it down?


We do not baptize our babies to make us "feel better". 

We baptize our babies because they are covenant members, and God commands that they be baptized. If they fail to be baptized, then they are in a state of covenant-breaking in that way.

Please stop arguing with straw men.


----------



## Texas Aggie (Jul 4, 2005)

Give me a break Joseph.... people do baptize their infants because it makes them feel better (this is a credo perspective). Is it a commandment... sure. You and I seem to have multiple disconnects because you read right through my posts.

I could also be insulting and accuse you of arguing with straw men because there is no thought (no brain) involved with some of these issues..... but I won't do that.

Legalism comes with Paedo vs. Credo and the amount of family strife involved. I'm just giving Larry something to argue his case to his credo relatives (didn't mean to strike a nerve with you).

Take a look at the other posts on this same subject.... you see the same thing over and over. The real issue lies with the covenant itself and how the parents are involved (especially for the benefit of their children). I would be more concerned about God visiting the iniquities to the third and forth generation because of sin.... not arguing with relatives over Paedo vs. Credo baptism.


[Edited on 7-5-2005 by Texas Aggie]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Texas Aggie_
> Give me a break Joseph.... people do baptize their infants because it makes them feel better (this is a credo perspective). Is it a commandment... sure. You and I seem to have multiple disconnects because you read right through my posts.
> 
> I could also be insulting and accuse you of arguing with straw men because there is no thought (no brain) involved with some of these issues..... but I won't do that.



So . . . you have determined that the early church fathers, the reformers, the puritans, and all modern paedobaptists have "no brain" involved regarding baptism. Astounding.




> _Originally posted by Texas Aggie_
> Legalism comes with Paedo vs. Credo and the amount of family strife involved. I'm just giving Larry something to argue his case to his credo relatives (didn't mean to strike a nerve with you).



If family strife should be avoided at all costs, especially in regard to baptism, then 100% of the church should still be paedobaptistic. It is the baptists of the 1500s that decided to introduce the novelty of credobaptism into the church. And there has been plenty of strife over it since then. And specifically in regard to this thread, the original post voiced concern over the fact that some *baptist* family members would probably be the ones to *cause* strife over the issue. 

The original poster did not say that he was going into the homes of his baptist relatives and demanding them to baptize their infants. He just wants to obey God's command to baptize HIS infant, and wants to know how to deal with the strife that the *baptists* in his family may cause.

So if you really want to avoid strife, why not encourage the whole church to just go back to the same paedobaptism it practiced for the vast majority of its history, so that there won't be any more "strife"?



> _Originally posted by Texas Aggie_
> Take a look at the other posts on this same subject.... you see the same thing over and over. The real issue lies with the covenant itself and how the parents are involved (especially for the benefit of their children). I would be more concerned about God visiting the iniquities to the third and forth generation because of sin.... not arguing with relatives over Paedo vs. Credo baptism.



Again, please keep this thread's original post in view. He's not want to go "argue" with his relatives. He wants help because he expects some of *them* to come try to argue with him.

Larry said, "I fear a debate". He did not say that he was looking for one. So if there is strife over this, it will be due to the baptists in his family.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 4, 2005)

> *"If Infant Baptism were not right, then for one thousand years there was no baptism and no Christian Church."*
> (Martin Luther, _Works of Martin Luther_, Vol. 1, p. 52)


----------



## Texas Aggie (Jul 4, 2005)

Whatever Joseph.... Larry has some ammo if the subject arises with his relatives. One who fears debate usually knows there will probably be one. You know that.

The comment of "straw men" was on your argumentation, not reformed doctrine. You just made my point.... and yes it is "astounding" you read through that post as well.

If you go back to my first post, you "may" see why it is perfectly fine for Larry to baptize his child and present this commandment to credo relatives (since he is concerned about debate). Not sure what all your fuss is about?


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jul 4, 2005)

Good quote Gabriel where did you find it in Luther's works? What exactly did he mean by it? I'm a bit slow a lot of times!!

The fear of debate. There are a few reasons why I fear the debate. Just to be clear. Perhaps I should have chosen better language.

First, I don't fear it because I'm a compromiser not at all. But I do want to keep some familial peace for the sake of my wife. We are going to be the waaaay outsiders on this issue trust me our brother-in-law is a SB pastor. And my poor wife grew up in re-baptism city and so confused.

If I go in guns slinging that will be a sign to them that I'm dead wrong, right or wrong, that's what will be perceived. 

Also, you'd have to understand what I'd be up against. These are the kind of baptist that would view "liturgy" as Roman Catholic based solely upon the term alone. Never mind the "non-liturgy" liturgy they pass out every sunday (a.k.a a church bulletin). A year ago I had to show them where "catechism" was in Scripture before they realized, "Hey, it's not RC". Imagine their surprise when I showed them the LBCF!

Also, if I hand them a book to at least "open" their minds to thoughts heretofore never considered - that would be "a man's teaching" - just like Calvinism was 4 years ago. Never mind the fact that their position was/is taught by mere men. I never understood this argument from the baptist side (some that is)? We can both see that men teach both positions and both claim from Scripture - so from a purely neutral stand point if I had to side with one man or another man and that alone (not that is what we should do but hypothetically to show the folly in this), the Lutheran, Reformed, Puritans have it hands down. But I digress too much.

There are two ways to be dispensational: 1. By confusing the theological Law/Gospel distinctions and 2. By confusing Covenants. Really both of these run parallel. None-the-less, they are deeply dispensational, Law and Gospel to them is more OT/NT not theological. And theological, at least in concept, Law and Gospel is pretty easy to grasp compared to Covenants along the same lines (CoW/CoG).

We, my wife and I, were debating on "do you tell them/invite them" to participate in something they would struggle with? At the end of the day I'm not going to delay it over this, as I told my wife my decission is final on my children - just wanting to approach it without a battle.

I do appreciate all the input!

Larry


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 4, 2005)

I can identify with all you could potentially be going through, Larry. Half of my family is Southern Baptist, ignorant, dispensational (ignorantly so) and fundamentalist/legalistic. The other half is Roman Catholic (the Italian side). I'm definitely at enmity with both camps, and neither of them are really that interested in doctrine, theology, or anything beyond the tamest milk of Scripture (like, for example.. Jesus is the Son of God... oooo!). It is frustrating because 1) I love them, but 2) I don't want to offend them or debate with them, especially grandparents and to a lesser extent my parents. Going home and visiting my parents' church is akin to Chinese water torture for me, especially during worship.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 4, 2005)

I have a question. I am not trying to be devisive. If a Child or adult is not a partaker in the Covenant of Redemption from time past, what covenant matters. What does the Covenant of Grace do for him if he or she will perish in there sin? Won't they only be more condemned because they forsake the truth that they were never predestined for?

oops, misspelled devisive

[Edited on 7-5-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> I have a question. I am not trying to be devicive. If a Child nor adult is a partaker in the Covenant of Redemption from time past, what covenant matters. What does the Covenant of Grace do for him if he or she will perish in there sin? Won't they only be more condemned because they forsake the truth that they were never predestined for?




These are the types of questions that lead me to cite:

*But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "œWhy have you made me like this?"* (Rom 9:20)


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 4, 2005)

In other words, God has a purpose in everything he does.

Why does God allow people in Baptist churches to make professions of faith, be involved in the church, and then fall away and end up in hell because their profession of faith was false and their credo-baptism ended up being worthless insofar as God's blessing and mercy is concerned?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I can identify with all you could potentially be going through, Larry. Half of my family is Southern Baptist, ignorant, dispensational (ignorantly so) and fundamentalist/legalistic. The other half is Roman Catholic (the Italian side).



Whoa! I am a quarter Italian and that side of my family is Roman Catholic (more vino, eh); and I did come from a dispie background on the other side. Are we related? BTW, your new avatar is hilarious.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Whoa! I am a quarter Italian and that side of my family is Roman Catholic (more vino, eh); and I did come from a dispie background on the other side. Are we related? BTW, your new avatar is hilarious.



We might be. Don't make fun of John Knox!  Did you not read about the Martini who was involved in the new-pope search recently? Relative of mine he is. Distant, thankfully.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 4, 2005)

> So . . . you have determined that the early church fathers, the reformers, the puritans, and all modern paedobaptists have "no brain" involved regarding baptism. Astounding.



Joseph,

From what I have read, and grant it it probably isn't as much as you have, the baptism of children is not truly mentioned in Church History until Origen and later. In those cases it was for the sake of the Child because of sickness or pending death from what I understand. It wasn't a common practice as thought by the peado's.
Yes I have read much of the Presbyterian arguments. I so longed to be in agreement with them on this issue.

I don't believe Monica baptized Augustine and Chrysostom wasn't baptized until 21 even though he was raised Christian. Now Grant it I am getting this info from Renihans book 'Antipaedobaptism in the thought of John Tombes', but I did know some of this stuff from other readings I have done. I wasn't raised reading the Trail of Blood. Meaning I am not a freaked out Baptist. I have been involved with Presbyterian's a whole lot more than Reformed Baptist.

Yes I believe the Reformers didn't reform enough concerning who is a New Covenant member and who should be Baptized. No I do not think they have no brains. I just believe they are mistaken as many people who are very intelligent are mistaken. Can you say Straw Man. Paedo baptism systematically makes sense to me if Children are considered New Covenant Members, and If the reference in Colosians 2:11.12 to Christ's death, burial, and resurrection and circumcision of the heart are the same thing. I just don't believe they are. I believe one has to do with regenerationa and the other has to do with being in Christ. 

Sincerely, Randy


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> ...



That was a no answer Gabe. 

Remember your post. 


Blah, Blah, Blah, ignore my post, blah, blah, blah.

The scripture doesn't apply here.

[Edited on 7-5-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> In other words, God has a purpose in everything he does.
> 
> Why does God allow people in Baptist churches to make professions of faith, be involved in the church, and then fall away and end up in hell because their profession of faith was false and their credo-baptism ended up being worthless insofar as God's blessing and mercy is concerned?



I believe this is another straw man answer Gabe.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 4, 2005)

Oh yea, Cool Avatar Gabe.

P.S. I am going to be gone for a few days camping so I am not necessarily bailing out on the discussion. Taking the boys to the lake for fishing and tubing. 

Be very Encouraged, Randy

[Edited on 7-5-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 4, 2005)

It isn't a straw man. It is a reflection of the same speculative inquiry that you have brought to the table regarding paedobaptism, only with credobaptism.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> > So . . . you have determined that the early church fathers, the reformers, the puritans, and all modern paedobaptists have "no brain" involved regarding baptism. Astounding.
> ...



That is generally true. From what I have read--granted not much--there was a credo mentality among some people. However, was the mentality similar to yours? That is a little harder to prove. If their mindset was similar to Augustine/Constantine, then it had to do with dealing with the ongoing effects of original sin rather than what an RB might argue for. Like, not having to deal with as many sins after baptism, etc.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> ...



Jacob,

Their mentality probably wasn't fully similar since there was a form of baptismal regeneration involved.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> It isn't a straw man. It is a reflection of the same speculative inquiry that you have brought to the table regarding paedobaptism, only with credobaptism.



I wasn't speculating. I did desire to hear your answer or thoughts in relation to the covenants. I do believe our works do matter. Just not in the face of salvation. You are assuming my speculation.

[Edited on 7-5-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 5, 2005)

I'm not assuming anything. I just find it to be an unnecessary speculation. It could be found in discussions of various doctrine. "Why would this happen?" or "What makes this so good?" or "Shouldn't it be like this?" No, it shouldn't be how we think it should be. It should be how God says it is.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 5, 2005)

> Jacob,
> 
> Their mentality probably wasn't fully similar since there was a form of baptismal regeneration involved.



That is what I was trying to say.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 5, 2005)

Martin, you should come visit my church sometime. It's about an hour from you. I drive an hour every week, anyhow, to get there (I live in Louisville).


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I'm not assuming anything. I just find it to be an unnecessary speculation. It could be found in discussions of various doctrine. "Why would this happen?" or "What makes this so good?" or "Shouldn't it be like this?" No, it shouldn't be how we think it should be. It should be how God says it is.



Like I said. I wasn't speculating. I was seriously wanting to know a paedo's answer based upon Covenant Theology. There are conclusions to be drawn from my questions and I wanted to know why paedos conclusions were the way they ended based upon the doctrines of the Covenants I asked about.

I am planning on attending your church so that I could meet you sometime. It will probably be in the Fall. I took my boy's to meet Roy Blackwood at 2nd RP last Spring.

[Edited on 7-5-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 5, 2005)

> If a Child or adult is not a partaker in the Covenant of Redemption from time past, what covenant matters. What does the Covenant of Grace do for him if he or she will perish in there sin? Won't they only be more condemned because they forsake the truth that they were never predestined for?



He was brought into the Covenant of Grace and given a more temporally-blessed and merciful life here on earth, according to God's undeserved mercy and grace, and for His unknown purpose. He was raised, hopefully, in a home that strived to preach the gospel to him on a regular occasion. He was separated, hopefully, from the ways of the heathens through the proper rearing of Godly parents. He was given everything he needed, from birth, to be able to profess faith in Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior.

However, according to and for God's purpose, He was not elect, and, despite these temporal blessings - which many, many, many in Israel of old enjoyed - his ultimate end is eternal death. Not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" will enter the kingdom of heaven.

Will he be more condemned for breaking the CoG? Yes, he will. This was the case in both the Old Testament and today. The promise and all of its eternal blessings only finally rest on those who are of faith. However, the promise is still manifested and made more readily available to the children of believers than to the children of heathens, because they are 1) Members of the CoG by birth, and 2) Set apart as holy to the Lord and for His service, by Godly parents. Since they are born into the covenant, the sign is applied to them.

That is about as much as we can say, based on Scripture, about this situation I believe. I still see it as unnecessary speculation, because the same thing happens in a Baptist Church all the time, and likely with more regularity in today's seeker-sensitive humanism.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> He was brought into the Covenant of Grace and given a more temporally-blessed and merciful life here on earth, according to God's undeserved mercy and grace, and for His unknown purpose. He was raised, hopefully, in a home that strived to preach the gospel to him on a regular occasion. He was separated, hopefully, from the ways of the heathens through the proper rearing of Godly parents. He was given everything he needed, from birth, to be able to profess faith in Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior.



I believe my boys are blessed with daily mercies here on earth. They are being raised in a home that strives to preach and live the gospel. They do not act like heathens. I teach them to Call upon God and have from birth. I read to them even when they couldn't understand. My walls are plastered with Scripture and reminders of God's grace and Kingdom. I know God has his hand on my son's lives. They are not a part of Nationalistic Isreal but I hope they will be a part of Spiritual Isreal. I believe to be a part of spiritual Isreal one has to be regenerate and placed in Christ. In other words....Circumcised with the circumcision done by God's hand and placed in Christ by His death, burial, and resurrection which is how I read Colossians 2:11,12. These things are done by God alone. Physical baptism is only a sign that this has happened. 

In other words they will be baptized upon their convictions when they own them for themselves. Unlike you I haven't seen a whole lot of professions fall away. Of Course my experience with the SBC wasn't long. Plus I haven't been involved with a lot of people who believed in easy believism or cheap grace. Good teaching will put that heresy away in any church. Covenant Theology is good for that but I also believe a Dispensational like John MacArthur has done a good job of refuting it also.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > Jacob,
> ...



This would say that the Presbyterian doctrine of baptism and the Historic Churches doctrine of baptism is not the same either. I am not sure how much this doctrine of baptismal regeneration had infiltrated the Church. Evidently Our mentality is probably closer to scripture than theirs even though we disagree on the subjects. 

My point was that I didn't believe Presbyterian's to be brain dead nor did I believe they had the Church Fathers on their side. I believe the arrival of the baptismal regeneration doctrine brought in the practice of infant baptism.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 5, 2005)

> They are not a part of Nationalistic Isreal but I hope they will be a part of Spiritual Isreal.



They are part of the visible Church by birth. Only the elect (the invisible Church) go to heaven. Christ separates the two at His parousia, we don't.




> I believe to be a part of spiritual Isreal one has to be regenerate and placed in Christ.



Preaching to the choir, buddy! :bigsmile:


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> I believe the arrival of the baptismal regeneration doctrine brought in the practice of infant baptism.



I believe you err at this point, then, my friend.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> ...



I know you do. And I understand why.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



Paul, that is only true if I am incorrect about when Infant Baptism started. We both will disagree on this probably but you can see what Jacob and I were discussing concerning the Church Fathers earlier in the thread.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Correct. But, furthermore Gabe, it is a notorious fallacy to argue from the origin of a belief to the beliefs falsehhod. It's called the genetic fallacy.



Agreed. However, in this case, I don't believe it is proper to assert that infant baptism grew out of a belief in baptismal regeneration. Nor do I believe it is proper to assert that infant baptism is wrong because some erroneously held to baptismal regeneration _along with_ infant baptism. There's two fallacies to be refuted at this point, in my estimation, depending on which one the Baptist wishes to choose, if they wish to choose one at all.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 5, 2005)

Gotta go camping in the morning....see ya in a few days...

Randy


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> I believe the arrival of the baptismal regeneration doctrine brought in the practice of infant baptism.



That statement is very amusing to me . . .

After reading up quite a bit on the early church fathers, I have become quite convinced, for a number of reasons, that _credobaptism_ was introduced into the church as a result of the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration.

If no one had ever invented the heresy of baptismal regeneration, I honestly don't think credobaptism would have ever made its way into the church.

This topic would probably make an interesting thread in its own right.


----------



## street preacher (Jul 5, 2005)

Regardless of how you handle this with your family you must stand on the truth of God's Holy Word. 

For the children who are baptised and reject the faith of our Lord, the waters of baptism are the waters of condemnation as is mentioned in 1 Peter about Noah and his family being baptised in the flood. In this case it is like those who heard Noah preach the gospel of Christ to them and they ignored him, and those waters were to their destruction in God's foreordained plan. But for Noah and his family they were for the saving of their souls, not for the cleansing of the flesh, but of a good conscience toward God. So for the first group it is a testimony of their judgment. For the second group it is a testimony of the faithfulness of God in all that He does in salvation and in all of the many aspects of the Covenant going back to Abraham.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jul 6, 2005)

> I believe the arrival of the baptismal regeneration doctrine brought in the practice of infant baptism.



Randy, 

Paul is right the genetic fallacy is still the genetic fallacy which attacks not the argument but who, how, where an argument originates. Just because Rome abused baptism and "œmade" it regenerative does not in the least disprove it validity. 

Nor does the abuse of a thing invalidate it. You do realize if I used your reasoning that circumcision should have been rejected somewhere between the OT and NT due to its abuse by some of the Jews. If this were true we´d have to cease all worship since all men abuse it. Cease using Scripture as God´s word since many abuse it. Well, you get the point.



> I have a question. I am not trying to be devisive. If a Child or adult is not a partaker in the Covenant of Redemption from time past, what covenant matters. What does the Covenant of Grace do for him if he or she will perish in there sin? Won't they only be more condemned because they forsake the truth that they were never predestined for?



Gab´s points in the quotation were these, I think: Neither you nor I can peer into the secret eternal will of God (CoR) to ascertain regeneration, nor question why He has ordained the means the way he has ordained them. You do realize that your question concerning baptism on this very matter could be posed to circumcision. To which Calvin actually did answer, "œLet them ask God as to why He has chosen to put them into His covenant"œ (paraphrased - ldh). Furthermore, the reverse is true concerning what you are saying. If I don´t put my children into God´s covenant as a believer (truster of God´s promises to be a God to me and my Children - for the promise is to you and your children and etc"¦), then is that not manifestly unbelief in God and Christ! I simply trust what God has revealed to be true and put them into covenant with Christ, that engenders faith not unbelief.

This is the grave error many baptist make in over emphasizing is somebody truly regenerate or truly saved. And this ends up guiding many not to Christ but to works and "œpurchasing" grace by their works. I theorize that the main reason that C. Finney"˜s (a Presbyterian.) new measures and alter calls were so easily adopted by "œbelievers only" churches and plaguing them today is that it naturally fit the same doctrine on baptism. Namely, "œI"˜ll do this thing, this work, and be saved"œ. That"˜s why re-aisle walking and re-baptisms go hand in hand, got to get the work right. It is why many many baptist terrorize themselves with multiple baptisms, because the sign doesn"˜t point to Christ and His redemptive promise anymore but to "œme and my exercise of faith"œ, which is fickled at best on its own. Even John Smyth terrorized at the end of his life and dying days wanted another dunk - now I ask you into what was Smyth putting his faith? It is a matter of practical application of the doctrine.



> After reading up quite a bit on the early church fathers, I have become quite convinced, for a number of reasons, that credobaptism was introduced into the church as a result of the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration.



Joseph is right on this point. It doesn´t argue positively for paedeo baptism but history seems to show this as an over reaction to Rome. It is quiet interesting to note that Luther, Calvin, Beza and the other reformers knew that the fire storm of the Reformation was "œjustification by faith alone" - meaning justified by Christ´s bearing of sin and imputing His righteousness to me and this received by faith that it itself is even given. In short the Gospel was the firestorm. The Gospel as Paul says is what Satan blinds men´s eyes to the most. This is where his rage and efforts are. Rome was the devils right punch to the Gospel. But when that began to fall post-Luther, then to throw the issue back off track came the left - the Anabaptist. Most of the Anabaptist said the "œchief blaspheme of Rome was, now get this, the baptizing of infants - not justification (the Gospel) but baptisms. In that view alone they turned baptism, a gospel sign, which was recaptured from Rome´s works sign view back into a law/works sign. Not that Rome was right in their view of baptism as it grew out of her denial of the Gospel, but baptism. This and a few other issues is what the so called "œcontinued" reformation was about. Both Rome and "œbelievers only" have one thing in common - they assign a one to one relationship to salvation and baptism.

If you don´t think it is a works sign in baptist thinking, then again I ask, why do many get rebaptized? Now, also again, this doesn´t in and of itself argue positively for infant baptism - that is found in the covenants - but it does scrutinize the internal structure of a "œbelievers only" position. Kind of like general apologetics; one effort is to tear down the false paradigms of the other side, then build up and defend the truth on the true side. it´s a duel effort.

Eg, show someone the logical inconsistency with the epistemological statement "œall truth is relative", then show them why truth can only be singular.

Larry


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> ...



I reread this Jacob. I believe the Credo mentality probably was similar. The paedo which I believe was developing was more based upon the idea of necessity. The imminent death or sickness of an infant or child. I also have some idea that baptismal regeneration was starting to emerge around the same time of paedo-baptism. I am not sure that infants were baptized because they were considered covenant children. I don't think there is any historical evidence this happened. Although I could be wrong.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> No Martin, that's not correct. It is *always* fallacious to conclude that the belief is false based on the origen of the belief. You can't just throw away rules of logic when you don't feel like using them.



I am not sure I understand what you are saying then Paul. I actually believe it is false based upon the scripture. Is that what you mean. I don't believe the origin which is false is a wrong place to start either. The origin can lead to why it is taught. Such as a felt need or emotional attachment or longing for some hope. The reason why anything is correct or wrong theologically is the scripture. 

I know Colossians 2:11,12 is one of the main verses that tie baptism and circumcision together. as I stated above. Paedo baptism systematically makes sense to me if Children are considered New Covenant Members, and If the reference in Colosians 2:11.12 to Christ's death, burial, and resurrection and circumcision made without hands are the same thing. I just don't believe they are. I believe the circumcision made without hands has to do with regeneration and that baptism has to do with being placed in Christ. They are not the same thing.

Oh yea, I am not saying they didn't believe in Covenant Theology. I just don't understand it to be as inclusive as you do. I only believe it to include those who the Covenant of Redemption applied to. Those who are spiritual Isreal.


[Edited on 7-8-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> I reread this Jacob. I believe the Credo mentality probably was similar. The paedo which I believe was developing was more based upon the idea of necessity. The imminent death or sickness of an infant or child. I also have some idea that baptismal regeneration was starting to emerge around the same time of paedo-baptism.



Actually, I would say that baptismal regeneration was starting to emerge around the time of _credo-baptism_. I believe that the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is what helped bring credobaptism into the church, unfortunately.



> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> I am not sure that infants were baptized because they were considered covenant children. I don't think there is any historical evidence this happened. Although I could be wrong.



Did any of the early church think covenantally, connecting Israel to the Church and/or connecting circumcision to baptism? Or was baptismal-regeneration merely the doctrine underlying their practice of paedobaptism?

I am concentrating mostly on the first 4 centuries of the church. I found the following info regarding the early church's view of Israel/Church and of circumcision/baptism:


1) 1st century: Clement appears to have ascribed to the church the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant.

2) 1st century: the author of the Epistle of Barnabus wrote that Israel's covenant now belongs to the Church.

3) 2nd century: Justyn Martyr clearly wrote (regarding Jer. 31) that the Church is the "true spiritual Israel".

4) 2nd century: in a fairly long paragraph, Justyn Martyr explicitly draws a link between circumcision and baptism. (I am surprised I haven't seen this on paedobaptistic websites that talk about early church history!)

5) 3rd century: Fidus explicitly connected circumcision to baptism, and Cyprian did not disagree. And a 66-man synod *unanimously* agreed that paedobaptism should not be put off until the 8th day, because the "8 day" part was fulfilled in Christ's resurrection on the "8th day" (Sunday). All seemed to agree that paedobaptism was correct, and that it was linked to circumcision.

6) 4th century: in at least two different places in his writings, John Crysostom draws an *explicit* link between circumcision and baptism.


That's just a brief overview . . . let me know if you want more detail about anything.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 8, 2005)

> Actually, I would say that baptismal regeneration was starting to emerge around the time of credo-baptism. I believe that the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is what helped bring credobaptism into the church, unfortunately.



This sounds like your opinion. I am not sure how you justify what you said because every baptism in the New Testament has the credo before the baptism. I will examine the other stuff and look into them. 

I still hold to what Colossians 2:11,12 does in relation to what is being said. The circumcision made without hands has to do with regeneration and that baptism has to do with being placed in Christ. They are not the same thing. They are two things that must exist in the Christian's life.

Plus I appreciate any references you could throw my way.

[Edited on 7-8-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> > Actually, I would say that baptismal regeneration was starting to emerge around the time of credo-baptism. I believe that the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is what helped bring credobaptism into the church, unfortunately.
> ...



Paedobaptists require a profession of faith before the baptism of an adult, just like Credobaptists do. A "Credobaptist" is by definition an "Anti-Paedobaptist". --- Thus, there is not even one "credobaptist" passage in the Bible. The credobaptist argument rests on silence.

The paedobaptist argument, however, rests on centuries of explicit covenantal inclusion throughout the Old Testament, which was never abrogated in the New Testament . . . in fact, it was confirmed!



> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> I still hold to what Colossians 2:11,12 does in relation to what is being said. The circumcision made without hands has to do with regeneration and that baptism has to do with being placed in Christ. They are not the same thing. They are two things that must exist in the Christian's life.
> 
> Plus I appreciate any references you could throw my way.



As I pointed out, even the early church was virtually unanimous in tying together circumcision and baptism.

I don't have the references handy, but I will try to remember to look them up again for you.

Just in general, you should be able to find the info I gave you in the "Ante-Nicene" early church fathers set of books. . . . You can buy it at not too high of a cost . . . or it may be at the library . . . or I think it may even be available online.



[Edited on 7-8-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 8, 2005)

In the references I made to a couple of the Church Fathers before. Infant Baptism didn't show up until later. So who is correct? Your ranting is overpowering but your words have not answered what Jacob and I discussed earlier. 

When I have more time I will give some quotes in Dr. Mike Renihan's book 'Antipaedobaptism in the thoughts of John Tombes' concerning the Justin Martyr theme you desire to show as evidence. I am only trying to find the truth and let it be known. I am not trying to be combative. I only pointed out the difference between Circumcision and baptism which you have only said the early church didn't see it that way a few Centuries later. Nice answer.

[Edited on 7-8-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 8, 2005)

Joe this looks like something to look into.



Baptism in the Early Church

Portion from the advertisement:
"Dr. Jim Renihan has written a very helpful Foreword where he says:"

"The present work is another foray into this historical battlefield. One might question its importance and validity -- is it simply another attempt at polemics, interpreting the primary source documents from a denominational perspective? Herein is its value. The authors, two internationally known and highly regarded classical scholars, members of paedobaptist churches, present a dispassionate examination of the problem, based on a careful treatment of the primary sources. They approach the issue from their area of specialty and expertise, through the discipline of classical historiography, not denominational polemics, and produce a work singularly authoritative . . . This is a helpful book. It demonstrates that believer's baptism did not simply appear after the apostolic era, but continued to be the accepted position for centuries. Infant baptism became part of the ecclesiastical practice gradually, apart from apostolic injunction. For this reason, it must be called into question, and rejected as a suitable practice for Christian churches."

[Edited on 7-8-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Joe this looks like something to look into.
> 
> 
> ...




Have you read the little books by Joachim Jeremias, regarding baptism in the first 4 centuries? They are quick reads and very helpful.

Also, William Wall wrote an excellent treatise on the history of baptism in the early church.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> ...



Joe,

I must admit, I haven't read those books. I have only read what Dr. Mike Renihan has written on John Tombes and his research into the Post Apostolic, Greek Fathers, and Latin Fathers. I have been taught it and discussed it for years. The last time I studied it was when I became a member of Trinity Presbyterian Church. I was really close to believing it scriptural. I just had problems with who is a Covenant member and now I don't see baptism and circumcision as being the same thing as I stated above concerning Colossians 2:11,12.

In the book Antipaedobaptism in the thought of John Tombes, John Tombes is refuting a Westminster Divine named Rev. Stephen Marshall.

Marshall mentions the groups of men I mentioned above and John Tombes in reply on Justin Martyr brings JM's letter into dispute and then quotes JM as believing that a child will obtain a better resurrection if he is baptized, whether or not the Child's parents are believers or not. The child not baptized would not obtain that good resurrection. It wasn't a matter of the Covenant of Grace. It was a benefit the baptism brought. This is in Chapter 6 (Historical Arguments) pages 140,141.

Of Course there is always a problem when one reads those who interpret the facts of History and don't check the sources themselves.
I have read good men who have missed the mark on things they quoted. I do find myself trusting Mike Renihan. 

I will read something new I promise. But I still have a major problem with circumcision and baptism being the same thing and who is considered a part of spiritual Isreal. I believe spiritual Isreal is the true church and one is either a part of it or they are not. The Covenant of Redemption has already determined that.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 11, 2005)

P.S. 

Joe, who do you believe is misrepresenting the Historical facts? Someone has to be. Do you believe the research Hendrik Stander and Johanes Louw has done is probably deficient? Having not read the resources you asked about and having read Dr. Renihans intro to the book Baptism in the Early Church, I am sure they probably are at odds. Which one do you think to be incorrect?


----------



## john_Mark (Jul 11, 2005)

In Chapter four of Baptism In The Early Church there is a qoute from Justin which can be found here.




> CHAP. LXI.--CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
> 
> I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. *Then they are brought by us where there is water*, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated......
> 
> And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the layer the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness. And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed.



Emphasis mine. I cut just a few lines out of the first paragraph which can be found in the link.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 11, 2005)

Sounds like ole Justin is off the mark a bit. Actually, according to Tombes the authenticity of the writing is in despute.


----------

