# Credobaptism and Paedobaptism: Difficult Questions to Answer.



## RobertPGH1981 (Feb 22, 2021)

Hello All,

A group of friends from both Presbyterian and Baptist circles are looking for an organized discussion around Paedo and Credo baptism. I thought it would be great to have a list of targeted questions to ask from both sides to answer. Some may be more difficult than others to answer. The questions would be used to drive definition and discussion. What questions would you ask to stump the opposition or create clarity in this type of forum. Here are a few ideas that I created off the top of my head:

1. Define the meaning of Baptism
2. How do you view the relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament
3. Who is included in the New Covenant?
4. What is the relationship between Circumcision and Baptism?
5. How would you interpret 1 Cor 7:14?
6. How would you interpret 1 Cor 10:1-4?

Thanks,

Rob


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 22, 2021)

Paedo


----------



## RobertPGH1981 (Feb 22, 2021)

Romans922 said:


> Paedo


Can't change the title now but thanks for pointing it out. Any suggestions for questions to drive good dialogue?


----------



## Ethan (Feb 22, 2021)

Would you sing Jesus loves me with your children and if so is it consistent with your views on baptism?
I've never tried to ask the question in an unbiased manner quite like this so its not the best but I do think it's something worth considering.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Matthew1344 (Feb 22, 2021)

1) Is baptism the sign for the local visible church?

2) Is (insert church name here) a local visible church?

3) Do you believe your children are part of (insert church body here)? [If "yes", move to question 4. If "no", ask why?

4) If they are part of (insert church name here), then should they be baptized? If "no", ask why. And be prepared for the gymnastics.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 22, 2021)

Matthew1344 said:


> And be prepared for the gymnastics.


As a former Reformed Baptist I did struggle with the question of why compel Children to come to church if they were not part of the covenant? Note Eph 6:1

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Feb 22, 2021)

Q: "How is the New Covenant better than the Old?" (Hebrews 8:6).

If they answer, "it is enacted on better promises", then ask, "what are those promises and how are they different and better than the promises of the Old Covenant"?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## deleteduser99 (Feb 22, 2021)

Ask how it is that John Owen held a covenant theology that Baptists really like but never made the jump himself.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## CovenantWord (Feb 22, 2021)

I have garnered the impression over the years that the fundamental difference between Baptists and Presbyterians is not so much the administration of baptism, but rather the understanding of the import of public worship, namely, a voluntary gathering of like-minded believers to worship God versus God's sovereign calling together of His people to worship Him. Each view of baptism is simply a logical conclusion therefrom. Perhaps, then, a revealing discussion could be stimulated by a question such as: How does your view of baptism reflect your view of the nature of public worship (or of the character of the Church)?

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## Taylor (Feb 22, 2021)

“Do you like being wrong?”

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## RobertPGH1981 (Feb 23, 2021)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Q: "How is the New Covenant better than the Old?" (Hebrews 8:6).
> 
> If they answer, "it is enacted on better promises", then ask, "what are those promises and how are they different and better than the promises of the Old Covenant"?



This is always part of the core argument for Baptists. Thanks for sharing.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 23, 2021)

Why does the New Covenant contain the covenant promises to Abraham, Moses, and David (Ezekiel 37)?

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Phil D. (Feb 23, 2021)

In my experience these kinds of exercises are rarely profitable, and sometimes unnecessarily hurtful. Too often they tend toward or devolve into a mere reiteration of simplistic talking points - which have already been responded to ad nauseam - and trying to come up with clever gotcha moments. Both Reformed paedos and credos plausibly base their positions on sound scriptural information. The differences are real and consequential, yet one should be very contemplative and conscientiously respectful in the way they are addressed.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## deleteduser99 (Feb 23, 2021)

Phil D. said:


> In my experience these kinds of exercises are rarely profitable, and sometimes unnecessarily hurtful. Too often they tend toward or devolve into a mere reiteration of simplistic talking points - which have already been responded to ad nauseam - and trying to come up with clever gotcha moments. Both Reformed paedos and credos plausibly base their positions on sound scriptural information. The differences are real and consequential, yet one should be very contemplative and conscientiously respectful in the way they are addressed.



Well said.

I posted in here not meaning to be taken too seriously. Probably not wise.

Good discussion means understanding and comprehending both sides competently. It’s at least respectful to those whom you disagree with, rather than immediately firing witty one-liners or trap questions. Those end up making one more defensive, and telling the other party you haven’t thought much or long about their position.


----------



## RobertPGH1981 (Feb 23, 2021)

RPEphesian said:


> Good discussion means understanding and comprehending both sides competently.



That really is the goal. The guys I am doing the study with are gracious and are only looking to understand the opposing sides view. After I spent some time trying to understand both views to me it comes down to the rules of interpretation. I am wrestling with both views at the moment and I newly started attending an RPCNA church near my house. Its something I genuinely want to understand better and need people from both sides to share in on their perspectives. many other men in my group are wresting with the same topics. So it won't turn into a Rhetorical battle of wits.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 23, 2021)

RobertPGH1981 said:


> After I spent some time trying to understand both views to me it comes down to the rules of interpretation.


That is, indeed, the case. The argument is not _fundamentally _that we are agreed on 90% of things, and one side or the other is simply "inconsistent" on the last ten percent. Wrong. That's a mistaken impression of the comparative situation. The historic moment that produced the LBC1689 notwithstanding, it is simply false to see it as a perfection or finishing of what the Reformation produced in the WCF.

The truth is: we find our way to some common "high ground" by different routes. We each arrive, and stake out our survey of the heights; but our respective starting points and landing zones have an impact on our results. We end up with *overlap*, (for which we can be thankful) and not simply following one another as we attend our perimeters and admire the views. "How did we get here?" is an integral part of what it is we've achieved.

I won't make a similar claim for the Baptist; I'll let one of them state their view. But for this Presbyterian, I believe the determination of proper subjects of baptism (adult, with or without his offspring) is properly a _theological conclusion. _The opposite idea would be, that one decides what should be done (for example based on observations of history or on examples/events in the Bible), and then supplies reasons and justification, even if drawn from acceptable authority. A theology of baptism in the Presbyterian context, systematically and biblically derived, produces the conclusion that certain adults and children should be baptized. Scripture-history is then compared for examples (which we think validates our expectation).

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## TheInquirer (Feb 23, 2021)

In my opinion, everything flows from what you believe is the nature and participants of the New Covenant.

Problem is most are very weak on covenant theology so you can get sidetracked on all kinds of issues without really understanding the core issue itself.

Added: agree with what Bruce said

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 23, 2021)

TheInquirer said:


> Problem is most are very weak on covenant theology so you can get sidetracked on all kinds of issues without really understanding the core issue itself.


This is an important point. My observation is that a number of Particular Baptists are quick to defend Believer's Baptism without first looking at ch 7 of the 1689 Baptist Confession. 


TheInquirer said:


> Added: agree with what Bruce said


Agreed? So you are now paedobaptist?


----------



## TheInquirer (Feb 23, 2021)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Agreed? So you are now paedobaptist?


Heh should have been more specific - was agreeing on his analysis of methodology on coming to our differing conclusions.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 24, 2021)

I found it interesting that nobody thought this question should be posed:

1. What is a disciple?

After all, it is disciples that we are commanded by Christ to baptize.

One needs to define thoroughly what a disciple is. While I agree there are differing understandings of Covenant Theology the Reformed Baptist assumes some things about the nature of what a disciple is.

For instance, there is nothing inherently different in the conviction that the CoG is made with Christ and, in Him, all the elect. 

Thus, what a disciple _is_ underlies the major differences. Presbyterians think the children of believers are disciples. Why do they think this and why do Baptists think they are not?

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 2


----------



## TheInquirer (Feb 24, 2021)

Semper Fidelis said:


> One needs to define thoroughly what a disciple is. While I agree there are differing understandings of Covenant Theology the Reformed Baptist assumes some things about the nature of what a disciple is.



I think the RB understanding of what a disciple is is intrinsically related to what we think the New Covenant is and who is in it. I would answer your question by saying that disciple = professing believer = those confessing to be a part of the New Covenant in Christ through their faith.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 24, 2021)

TheInquirer said:


> I think the RB understanding of what a disciple is is intrinsically related to what we think the New Covenant is and who is in it. I would answer your question by saying that disciple = professing believer = those confessing to be a part of the New Covenant in Christ through their faith.


This leads then to follow-up questions on whether a person is actually a disciple when you baptize them based on profession and, if false profession was made, were they ever a disciple. That's the point of why I ask the question.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Feb 24, 2021)

Well, the dictionary (Merriam Webster anyway) says that a "disciple" is a "*convinced* adherent of a school or individual".









Definition of DISCIPLE


one who accepts and assists in spreading the doctrines of another: such as; one of the twelve in the inner circle of Christ's followers according to the Gospel accounts; a convinced adherent of a school or individual… See the full definition




www.merriam-webster.com





Looks like Reformed Baptists get THAT one right.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 24, 2021)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Well, the dictionary (Merriam Webster anyway) says that a "disciple" is a "*convinced* adherent of a school or individual".
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm more interested in what it means to μαθητεύω or to be a μαθητής.

Not all who followed Jesus (and were denoted as μαθητής) were convinced nor were they adherents. Some of them left Him.


μαθητεύω (s. μαθητής) 1 aor. ἐμαθήτευσα, pass. ἐμαθητεύθην. 
① to be a pupil, with implication of being an adherent of the teacher
ⓐ intr., be or become a pupil or disciple (Plut., Mor. 832b; 837c; Ps.-Callisth. 2, 4, 4 τινί; Iambl., Vi. Pyth. 23, 104 μ. τῷ Πυθαγόρᾳ; schol. on Apollon. Rhod. Proleg. A a) τινί (Orig., C. Cels. 2, 9, 60) of someone (Ἰωσὴφ) ἐμαθήτευσεν τῷ Ἰησοῦ Joseph had become a disciple of Jesus Mt 27:57 v.l. Likew. as
ⓑ pass. dep. (Just., A I, 15, 6; Hippol., Ref. 1, 2, 16) μαθητεύομαι become a disciple τινί: (Ἰ.) ἐμαθητεύθη τῷ Ἰησοῦ Mt 27:57. γραμματεὺς μαθητευθεὶς τῇ βασιλείᾳ τ. οὐρανῶν a scribe who has become a disciple of the kgdm. of heaven or who has been trained for the kgdm. Mt 13:52 (γραμματεύς 2b). Abs. IEph 3:1. μᾶλλον μαθητεύομαι I am becoming a disciple more and more IRo 5:1. This gave rise to a new active form (B-D-F §148, 3; Rob. 800)
② to cause one to be a pupil, teach, trans. (AscIs 3:18 καὶ μαθητεύσουσιν πάντα τὰ ἔθνη καὶ πᾶσαν γλῶσσαν εἰς τὴν ἀν[ά]στασιν τοῦ ἀγαπ[η]τοῦ; Just., D. 53, 1 Χριστὸς … ἐμαθήτευσεν αὐτούς) make a disciple of, teach τινά someone Mt 28:19. ἱκανούς make a number of disciples Ac 14:21. Abs. ἃ μαθητεύοντες ἐντέλλεσθε what you command when you are instructing or winning disciples IRo 3:1.—ὑμῖν μαθητευθῆναι become your disciples, be instructed by you IEph 10:1 (cp. pres. subst. ptc. οἱ μαθητευόμενοι = οἱ μαθηταί Did., Gen. 69, 24; 245, 17; aor. ptc. αἱ δὲ τοῦ θεοῦ Χριστῷ μαθητευθεῖσαι ἐκκλησίαι Orig., C. Cels. 3, 29, 24; Πολύκαρπος … ὑπὸ ἀποστόλων μαθητευθείς Iren. 3, 3, 4 [Harv. II 12, 4]).—DELG s.v. μανθάνω. M-M. EDNT. TW. Sv.


μαθητής, οῦ, ὁ (s. μανθάνω; Hdt.+; ins; BGU 1125, 9 [I B.C.]; POxy 1029, 25. In LXX only in two places in Jer [13:21; 20:11], and then as v.l. of codex A; AscIs 3:17, 21; Philo, Joseph., apolog. exc. Ar.) gener. ‘learner, pupil, disciple’
① one who engages in learning through instruction from another, pupil, apprentice (in contrast to the teacher [Ath. 17, 3 μ. Δαιδάλου]; Did., Gen. 66, 25) Mt 10:24f; Lk 6:40 (TManson, The Teaching of Jesus, ’55, 237–40).
② one who is rather constantly associated with someone who has a pedagogical reputation or a particular set of views, disciple, adherent (Pla., Apol. 33a; X., Mem. 1, 6, 3; Dio Chrys. 11 [12], 5; Lucian, M. Peregr. 28 al.; Diog. L. 7, 7, 179; 8, 1, 3; 10, 11, 22; Iambl., Vi. Pyth. 35, 254 οἱ μ.; SIG 1094, 5f αὐτὸς καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ; Jos., Ant. 9, 68; 13, 289), oft. w. an indication of the pers. whose disciple one is, mostly in the gen. (Jos., C. Ap. 1, 176 Ἀριστοτέλους μ., Ant. 9, 33; 15, 3; Just., A I, 26, 4 τοῦ Σίμωνος; Tat. 39, 3 Ὀρφέως; Iren. 1, prologue 2 [Harv. I 4, 7] Οὐαλεντίνου; Theosophien 66 Φορφυρίου μ.).
ⓐ μ. Ἰωάννου Mt 9:14a; 11:2; 14:12; Mk 2:18ab; 6:29; Lk 5:33; 7:18f; 11:1; J 1:35, 37; 3:25. τ. Μωϋσέως 9:28b τῶν Φαρισαίων Mt 22:16; Mk 2:18c τοῦ Πολυκάρπου MPol 22:2; EpilMosq 1.
ⓑ esp. of the disciples of Jesus (of Paul: Orig., C. Cels. 1, 48, 70)
α. of the Twelve οἱ δώδεκα μ. αὐτοῦ his twelve disciples Mt 10:1; 11:1; οἱ ἕνδεκα μ. 28:16. οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ (or w. another gen. of similar mng.; cp. Just., A I, 67, 7 τοῖς ἀποστόλοις αὐτοῦ καὶ μαθηταῖς; Just., D. 53, 1 al.; Did., Gen. 38, 21; Orig., C. Cels. 2, 2, 10.—Yet it is somet. doubtful whether a particular pass. really means the Twelve and not a larger [s. β below] or smaller circle; EMartinez, CBQ 23, ’61, 281–92 [restricted to the 12, even in Mt 18]) Mt 8:21; 12:1; 15:2; Mk 5:31; 6:1, 35, 45; 8:27; Lk 8:9; J 2:2; 3:22 and oft. Also without a gen. (but freq. vv.ll. + αὐτοῦ) οἱ μ. Mt 13:10; 14:19; 16:5; Mk 8:1; 9:14; 10:24; Lk 9:16; J 4:31; 11:7f and oft.—LBrun, D. Berufung der ersten Jünger Jesu: SymbOsl 11, ’32, 35–54; SvanTilborg, The Jewish Leaders in Mt, ’72, 99–141; ULuz, Die Jünger im Mt, ZNW 62, ’71, 141–47; on the ‘beloved disciple’ of J 13:23 al. s. FFilson, JBL 68, ’49, 83–88; ETitus, ibid. ’50, 323–28; FNeirynck, The Anonymous Disciple in John 1: ETL 66, ’90, 5–37.
β. of Jesus’ disciples, male and female, gener. ὄχλος πολὺς μ. αὐτοῦ a large crowd of his adherents Lk 6:17; ἅπαν τὸ πλῆθος τῶν μ. the whole crowd of the disciples 19:37. οἱ μ. αὐτοῦ ἱκανοί a large number of his disciples 7:11 v.l. πολλοὶ ἐκ (v.l. om.) τῶν μ. αὐτοῦ J 6:66.—Papias (2:4).
γ. Even after Jesus’ resurrection those who followed him were called μ. (generations later, as Socrates is called the μ. of Homer: Dio Chrys. 38 [55], 3ff) οἱ μ. τοῦ κυρίου Ac 9:1; μ. Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ IMg 9:2 (opp. ὁ μόνος διδάσκαλος, who also had the prophets as his μαθηταί vs. 3; 10:1). Ac uses μ. almost exclusively to denote the members of the new community of believers (Just., D. 35, 2; s. Rtzst., Erlösungsmyst. 127f), so that it almost=Christian (cp. 11:26) 6:1f, 7; 9:19; 11:26, 29; 13:52; 15:10 al. τῶν μαθητῶν (without τινές) some Christians 21:16 (cp. X., Cyr. 1, 4, 20, An. 3, 5, 16; Herodas 2, 36 τῶν πορνέων; Polyaenus 5, 17, 2 καὶ ἦσαν τῶν Μακεδόνων).—καλοὶ μαθηταί IPol 2:1. Individuals (Aberciusins. 3: Ἀ., ὁ μ. ποιμένος ἁγνοῦ): Ananias Ac 9:10; Mnason 21:16b; Timothy 16:1.
δ. The martyrs (s. on μάρτυς 3) are specif. called μ. κυρίου MPol 17:3. Also absol. μ. IEph 1:2; ITr 5:2; IRo 5:3; IPol 7:1. As long as a Christian’s blood has not been shed, the person is only a beginner in discipleship (IRo 5:3), not a μαθητὴς ἀληθῶς Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ IRo 4:2.—For lit. s. on ἀπόστολος and s. also JWach, Meister and Jünger 1925; ESchweizer, Lordship and Discipleship, ’60, 464–66; GBornkamm, Bultmann Festschr., ’64, 171–91 (Mt 28:16–20)—B. 1225. DELG s.v. μανθάνω. M-M. TW. Sv.


Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., pp. 609–610). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 24, 2021)

Judas Iscariot was a disciple. Simon Magus. Ishmael was.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Feb 24, 2021)

Romans922 said:


> Judas Iscariot was a disciple. Simon Magus. Ishmael was.



Judas and Simon Magus, sure. How was Ishmael a disciple?


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 24, 2021)

Do you believe that a father who believed the covenant promises (Gospel), didn't teach his children the faith?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JH (Feb 24, 2021)

Romans922 said:


> Do you believe that a father who believed the covenant promises (Gospel), didn't teach his children the faith?


Does me preaching the gospel to an unbeliever make them a disciple?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 24, 2021)

You don't disciple your children?


----------



## JH (Feb 24, 2021)

Romans922 said:


> You don't disciple your children?


I was referring to your average Joe I come across every day


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 24, 2021)

Ishmael wasn't your average Joe was he? He was the son of a believer and in the eyes of the Lord, holy (1 Cor. 7:14).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JH (Feb 24, 2021)

Romans922 said:


> Ishmael wasn't your average Joe was he? He was the son of a believer and in the eyes of the Lord, holy (1 Cor. 7:14).


I agree. Now what about Joe Anybody? I'm genuinely asking, this is not meant to be a "got ya" question.


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Feb 24, 2021)

Jerrod Hess said:


> I agree. Now what about Joe Anybody? I'm genuinely asking, this is not meant to be a "got ya" question.


If Joe Anybody isn’t part of a believer’s household, he is not being discipled, and he’s not Covenantally sanctified.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## TheInquirer (Feb 25, 2021)

My point in answering was to show the connection between baptism, disciple and our understanding of Covenant Theology. I was hesitant to post as I figured it would get off into a debate that has been had hundreds of times on this board. 

OP, this is why it is so hard to have an organized discussion on the topic - you need a disciplined, respectful, and highly knowledgeable group of people to pull it off well. It's a complex topic with lots of moving parts.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Feb 25, 2021)

Romans922 said:


> You don't disciple your children?


While the short answer is "Yes, of course." It might be more accurate to say, as Baptists, we are endeavoring to "make disciples" of our children (Matt. 28:19).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Feb 25, 2021)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> While the short answer is "Yes, of course." It might be more accurate to say, as Baptists, we are endeavoring to "make disciples" of our children (Matt. 28:19).


Isn’t someone made a disciple by coming under the discipline and teaching and purview of the church? (It being the church that’s charged with discipleship and not parents per se.)

I know of professing Christians who aren’t joined to the visible church. It’s hard to think that they or their children fulfill the biblical definition of disciple.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Feb 25, 2021)

I am a student of Chinese in the sense that I like it and dabble in it when I get the time. That's student in a limited sense. But no one is grading me, and no one can certify my progress.

I am not a student in the same way as someone who retains a tutor, learns it in school, or in some other fashion comes under the direction of a teacher to whom he is accountable, and which teacher has an authoritative word on his progress.

You can disciple the unconverted or unchurched in a more limited sense; but it is not the same as one who is made accountable to the shepherds Christ has put in the church--pastors and elders--who are ultimately responsible for discipleship training and nourishing.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Feb 25, 2021)

Hello Rob,

First, I would add to your list of questions, How do you interpret these passages?, and, How do you see the relationship – if any – between them? :

*Col 2:11-13*: In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses

*Deut 30:6*: And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.​
Second, the crux of this issue really lies in the nature of the covenant(s) involved. Were there two covenants the LORD made with Abraham (as the 1689 Federalists believe, one with spiritual, and one with carnal or secular promises)? Or was there one Covenant of Grace running from Gen 3:15 to Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David to Christ?

Third, Why were both the regenerate and unregenerate commanded to be circumcised, and its corollary in the NT, why all the children of believers to be baptized in the New Covenant of Christ? [Answer: all were circumcised / baptized for the sake of the elect among them; and not all circumcised / baptized are elect.]

And fourth, what is the relationship between the Covenant of Grace, and the New Covenant?

Warning: there are differing views among paedobaptists, and a faulty paedo view only brings in confusion.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## TylerRay (Feb 25, 2021)

RobertPGH1981 said:


> Hello All,
> 
> A group of friends from both Presbyterian and Baptist circles are looking for an organized discussion around Paedo and Credo baptism. I thought it would be great to have a list of targeted questions to ask from both sides to answer. Some may be more difficult than others to answer. The questions would be used to drive definition and discussion. What questions would you ask to stump the opposition or create clarity in this type of forum. Here are a few ideas that I created off the top of my head:
> 
> ...


Add, 'Is the distinction between the visible and invisible church legitimate? Explain your answer.'

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 25, 2021)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> While the short answer is "Yes, of course." It might be more accurate to say, as Baptists, we are endeavoring to "make disciples" of our children (Matt. 28:19).


Then you’ll already know how one does that...

The verb “make disciples” is qualified by the 2 participles that show how you make disciples, namely 1) baptizing them and 2) teaching them.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## RobertPGH1981 (Feb 25, 2021)

Romans922 said:


> Then you’ll already know how one does that...
> 
> The verb “make disciples” is qualified by the 2 participles that show how you make disciples, namely 1) baptizing them and 2) teaching them.



I would add sending children to a public school is essentially making them disciples of whatever they're teaching. As young children they are very impressionable and if you have any concerns over public schooling its around poor teaching curriculum & discipleship.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Feb 25, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Isn’t someone made a disciple by coming under the discipline and teaching and purview of the church? (It being the church that’s charged with discipleship and not parents per se.)


Parents are to bring their children up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. But one does not become a disciple until they embrace Jesus Christ freely offered to them in the gospel and give themselves up to him in baptism and membership in some particular and orderly church of Jesus Christ, wherein they are to walk in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.


----------



## TylerRay (Feb 25, 2021)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Parents are to bring their children up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. But one does not become a disciple until they embrace Jesus Christ freely offered to them in the gospel and give themselves up to him in baptism and membership in some particular and orderly church of Jesus Christ, wherein they are to walk in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.


So someone can be in the παιδείᾳ (nurture) of the Lord without being a disciple? Strong defines παιδείᾳ as "discipline; training and education of children, hence: instruction; chastisement, correction."

Thayer defines it as follows. Does this not describe discipleship?

1. the whole training and education of children (which relates to the cultivation of mind and morals, and employs for this purpose now commands and admonitions, now reproof and punishment.
2. "whatever in adults also cultivates the soul, especially by correcting mistakes and curbing the passions"; hence,
a. instruction which aims at the increase of virtue: 2 Timothy 3:16.
b. according to Biblical usage chastisement, chastening (of the evils with which God visits men for their amendment): Hebrews 12:5 (Proverbs 3:11).

Note that they are not in the παιδείᾳ merely of their parents, but of the Lord; they're his disciples.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Feb 25, 2021)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Parents are to bring their children up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. But one does not become a disciple until they embrace Jesus Christ freely offered to them in the gospel and give themselves up to him in baptism and membership in some particular and orderly church of Jesus Christ, wherein they are to walk in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.


Yes, that seems to be the crux of the question; who do the Scriptures say is a disciple. Paul indiscriminately addressed the children of the church as disciples

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 25, 2021)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> But one does not become a disciple until they embrace Jesus Christ freely offered to them in the gospel and give themselves up to him in baptism and membership in some particular and orderly church of Jesus Christ, wherein they are to walk in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.


This is contrary to what we already know Scripture clearly teaches...Judas Iscariot was a disciple. 

Judas never embraced Jesus Christ freely offered to him in the gospel. He never walked in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. So your definition is false.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Feb 25, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Paul indiscriminately addressed the children of the church as disciples


He does not call them disciples but addresses the duty they have to their parents under the Law, which is universal and not limited to the children of believers.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Feb 25, 2021)

Romans922 said:


> This is contrary to what we already know Scripture clearly teaches...Judas Iscariot was a disciple.
> 
> Judas never embraced Jesus Christ freely offered to him in the gospel. He never walked in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. So your definition is false.


As the Baptist Confession states:

All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted.—BCF 26.2​
Judas was "visible saint" insofar as his profession of Christ and manner of life were in agreement. But he was never a saint indeed. He had a name that he was alive, but was really dead (Rev. 3:1). And when his true nature was revealed, he lost even the title of a disciple. This isn't difficult to understand.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Feb 25, 2021)

When Paul says, "And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord" (Eph 6:4), are not this nurture and admonition distinct aspects of discipling? And can it not commence very early on in infancy? When we, adults, are in such nurture and admonition under our Saviour, are such not aspects of His discipling us?

A mother disciplines and teaches wee infants – are there not gradations of discipling according to the capacity of the one being discipled? With the elect infant such will take; with the reprobate it will not, and in this latter the rebellion will manifest eventually.

When the apostle, by the Spirit of Christ, says, "Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right" (Eph 6:1), is this not applicable to all children, even those who cannot yet comprehend it fully?


----------



## Taylor (Feb 25, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Yes, that seems to be the crux of the question; who do the Scriptures say is a disciple. Paul indiscriminately addressed the children of the church as disciples





C. M. Sheffield said:


> He does not call them disciples but addresses the duty they have to their parents under the Law, which is universal and not limited to the children of believers.


Technically, Paul never addresses _anyone_ as a μαθητης. The word does not even occur outside of the Gospels and Acts. However, what Paul _does_ address children as is “saints” (Eph. 1:1, 6:1).

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Feb 25, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Paul indiscriminately addressed the children of the church as disciples





Taylor said:


> Technically, Paul never addresses _anyone_ as a μαθητης. The word does not even occur outside of the Gospels and Acts. However, what Paul _does_ address children as is “saints” (Eph. 1:1, 6:1).


My statement was in response to the one above.


----------



## Taylor (Feb 25, 2021)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> My statement was in response to the one above.


I know. That's why I responded to you both.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Feb 25, 2021)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> When Paul says, "And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord" (Eph 6:4), are not this nurture and admonition distinct aspects of discipling? And can it not commence very early on in infancy? When we, adults, are in such nurture and admonition under our Saviour, are such not aspects of His discipling us?
> 
> A mother disciplines and teaches wee infants – are there not gradations of discipling according to the capacity of the one being discipled? With the elect infant such will take; with the reprobate it will not, and in this latter the rebellion will manifest eventually.
> 
> When the apostle, by the Spirit of Christ, says, "Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right" (Eph 6:1), is this not applicable to all children, even those who cannot yet comprehend it fully?





Taylor said:


> Technically, Paul never addresses _anyone_ as a μαθητης. The word does not even occur outside of the Gospels and Acts. However, what Paul _does_ address children as is “saints” (Eph. 1:1, 6:1).


I have no qualms with saying that the children of believers are in a limited sense disciples and even "holy" (1 Cor. 7:14). But they are not the legitimate subjects of baptism unless or until they make a credible profession of faith (Mark 16:16; Acts 8:36-37, 2:41, 8:12, 18:8).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Andrew Hall (Feb 25, 2021)

I might've missed this in the replies, but two essential questions for me are, *"Of what covenant(s) is Christ the mediator?"* and *"For whom does Christ mediate in the new covenant / covenant of grace?"* 

Hebrews 8:6 says that Christ is the mediator of the new covenant (and _not _the old, since this is explicitly distinct and contrasted in this verse). This answers the question of whether or not the Mosaic covenant is to be equated with the covenant of grace. However, the real question is the relationship of the New to the Abrahamic, but this will force people to clarify their covenant theology. 

Secondly, if Christ is mediator of the new covenant, then this will bring up the issue of whether or not someone can be a nonbeliever yet a member of the new covenant--because if Christ is your federal head and mediator before God, then you cannot fail to be saved. Ergo, everyone for whom Christ mediates (e.g., members of the new covenant/covenant of grace) must be saved (and hence no admission of not-yet-believing children to the covenant). But that's me as a Baptist, and I recognize that WLC 31 was not written by Baptists. Either way, I think this question forces you to define the nature and extent of Christ's mediatorial role and federal headship, along with questions of covenant administration vs. covenant membership.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JH (Feb 25, 2021)

Andrew Hall said:


> I might've missed this in the replies, but two essential questions for me are, *"Of what covenant(s) is Christ the mediator?"* and *"For whom does Christ mediate in the new covenant / covenant of grace?"*
> 
> Hebrews 8:6 says that Christ is the mediator of the new covenant (and _not _the old, since this is explicitly distinct and contrasted in this verse). This answers the question of whether or not the Mosaic covenant is to be equated with the covenant of grace. However, the real question is the relationship of the New to the Abrahamic, but this will force people to clarify their covenant theology.
> 
> Secondly, if Christ is mediator of the new covenant, then this will bring up the issue of whether or not someone can be a nonbeliever yet a member of the new covenant--because if Christ is your federal head and mediator before God, then you cannot fail to be saved. Ergo, everyone for whom Christ mediates (e.g., members of the new covenant/covenant of grace) must be saved (and hence no admission of not-yet-believing children to the covenant). But that's me as a Baptist, and I recognize that WLC 31 was not written by Baptists. Either way, I think this question forces you to define the nature and extent of Christ's mediatorial role and federal headship, along with questions of covenant administration vs. covenant membership.


Do also bear in mind not every Baptist is 1689 Federalist. John Gill was explicitly one covenant, multiple administrations. 1689 Federalism does not have to be embraced to reject paedobaptism.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 25, 2021)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Judas and Simon Magus, sure. How was Ishmael a disciple?


I'm not poking here, just addressing the query plain and simple: Gen.18:19.

"For I have known him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him, that they keep the way of the Lord, to do righteousness and justice, that the Lord may bring to Abraham what He has spoken to him.”

The house of Abraham was nearly the complete church in the whole world at this moment. It was certainly the one location where the LORD was visibly establishing it, to the exclusion of other options. Men like Melchizedek, who seem to have been believers apart from Abraham (but who recognized the other's faith) were leaving the world taking their patriarchal-style ministries with them. Followers who were left behind them needed to gravitate to the house of Abraham and his seed.

What the LORD says simply is that Abraham knew his teaching (discipling) duty, and had been called to faith and ministry with this task in view. Ishmael becomes the sign of the unbelieving older brother who persecutes the church, a sign finding its NT fulfillment in the case of Christ and his seed. Gen.24:36, "And Sarah my master’s wife bore a son to my master when she was old; and to him he has given *all *that he has." Cf. 2Cor.1:20, "For *all* the promises of God in Him _are_ Yes, and *in Him* Amen, to the glory of God through us."


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Feb 25, 2021)

Hello C.M.,

You say, “they [children] are not the legitimate subjects of baptism unless or until they make a credible profession of faith”, although all you have proved is the command to baptize adults who have been given faith with a credible profession, with which I heartily agree.

As is obvious, little children cannot give a credible profession of faith, and their believing parent(s) cannot tell with certainty if they are regenerate until they do. The reason they baptize them in infancy is the continuity of the command of circumcision to Abraham with the New Covenant putting the same token of the Covenant of Grace on their infants. He circumcised and we baptize our infants in obedience to the command of Jehovah; we put the sign and seal on all the infants for the sake of the elect among them. “For the promise is unto [us], and to [our] children” (Acts 2:38, 39).
_____

Hello Andrew (@Andrew Hall),

With respect to the issue you bring up of nonbelievers being members of the new covenant (Post #53), I have this to say,

Those who were not of faith had neither _de facto_ (as a matter of fact) nor _de jure_ (as a matter of right) membership in the Old Covenant house of God. When the LORD spoke through Moses saying to the multitude of Israel, “Ye are the children of the Lord your God....For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth” (Deut 14:1, 2), He was not addressing those whose father was the devil, who were the reprobate, though they were among the house of Israel. What they had was an appearance of being the tekna Theou (children of God), but in fact rotten grapes on the vine of Israel. This is the purport of the apostle Paul’s making distinction between true and false Jews, being Israel or merely of Israel.

Will it be said that they were de facto members by virtue of their presence in the camp? And that they had the right to enter the temple to worship? They were imposters, known to God, and were considered by Him uncircumcised, as it is written: “For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh” (Ro 2:28), and, “The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord” (Prov 15:8), even his thoughts and prayer are abomination! (Prov 15:26; 28:9). No, their presence in the camp, and names on the scrolls of their tribes, are as vessels in a great house, some for use unto honor and some unto dishonor (2 Tim 2:20), some unto mercy, and some unto wrath, these latter “endured [by God] with much longsuffering” (Rom 9:22, 23). Just as the Jewish state of our day is an imposter “Israel”, so these reprobates were imposter Israelites. The Israel of God was holy.

The unbelievers within the house of Israel had membership neither by right nor by fact. They were tares among the wheat, or to switch metaphors, but chaff. So things did not change regarding membership in the New Covenant house of Israel. It was the same. Only those of faith are counted as the seed.

To assert that God makes a covenant—call it the Covenant of Circumcision, if you will—with the merely physical children of Abraham, is equal to saying that He makes a covenant with the seed of the serpent, with the reprobate. But this He does not do.​
(From a long discussion on this in an earlier thread)


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Feb 25, 2021)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> . . .all you have proved is the command to baptize adults who have been given faith with a credible profession. . .


That is all that can be proven by the Word of God. The Baptist Catechism (Q. 99) states it succinctly. . .

The infants of such as are professing believers are not to be baptized, because there is neither _command_ or _example_ in the holy scriptures, or _certain consequence from them_ to baptize such. (Exo. 23:13; Deut. 12:32; Prov. 30:6; Luke 3:7-8)​


----------



## JH (Feb 25, 2021)

How is a paedobaptist to interpret Acts 2:41? — "_Then they that gladly received his word were baptized"_

I ask because this is often _the_ passage referred to about the promises of the covenant, and reference to baptism. But the only people I see baptized in the text are those who believed. Genuine question, didn't want to start a whole 'nother thread.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 25, 2021)

Jerrod Hess said:


> How is a paedobaptist to interpret Acts 2:41? — "_Then they that gladly received his word were baptized"_
> 
> I ask because this is often _the_ passage referred to about the promises of the covenant, and reference to baptism. But the only people I see baptized in the text are those who believed. Genuine question, didn't want to start a whole 'nother thread.


Your words "I ask" make it seem like you are requesting a response in this thread, which is a mistake, I think.
If you want an answer to that Q, you should start another thread, so this one gets a little less derailed.
Otherwise, it's probably a good Q for "the list."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Feb 26, 2021)

C.M., you said, “there is neither command or example in the holy scriptures” – that is, if you disallow the continuance of the Abrahamic covenant – with a change in the sign and seal thereof (to allow women said seal) – in the New Covenant.

But *we are* Abraham’s seed, and our parents obey the command (and example) given him.

Gal 3:29, “And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.”

Col 2:11-12, “In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.”


----------



## TylerRay (Feb 26, 2021)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> As the Baptist Confession states:
> 
> All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted.—BCF 26.2​
> Judas was "visible saint" insofar as his profession of Christ and manner of life were in agreement. But he was never a saint indeed. He had a name that he was alive, but was really dead (Rev. 3:1). And when his true nature was revealed, he lost even the title of a disciple. This isn't difficult to understand.


Are you admitting that Judas was a disciple? I can't tell.

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on my response to your statement about our children being in the παιδείᾳ of the Lord (post #43).


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Feb 26, 2021)

I think the issue here is that "Judas and Simon Magus were disciples" (if true) don't actually prove the point you think they do.


----------



## Taylor (Feb 26, 2021)

I think a question that needs to be answered from a confessional standpoint is, “Why did the LBCF change ‘good and necessary consequence’ to ‘necessarily contained’ in WCF/LBCF 1.6?” The two phrases can’t mean the same thing, otherwise the change makes no sense. I think this question strikes at the heart of the debate, which is hermeneutics. Did the framers of the LCBF thus admit that pædobaptism is a necessary inference from Scripture? Perhaps not, but that change warrants some investigation.

Beyond this, one of the questions that convinced me of pædobaptism is: Why was there no initial revolt against such a change in the covenantal administration that now excluded children of believers? If, come Pentecost, all of the sudden the children of believers are excluded from the covenant, would there not have been outrage and questions? Yet we see nothing of the sort in Scripture or in history. Dabney deals with this question quite convincingly in his _Systematic Theology_. Of course, Scripture, not history, is our final authority, but given that

1) there was no such revolt,
2) pædobaptism, as far as I can tell, was very early and universally practiced,
3) covenantal continuity makes sense of the practice, and
4) exegetically pædobaptism fits quite comfortably,

I personally have enough to convince me of the practice.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 26, 2021)

Taylor said:


> I think a question that needs to be answered from a confessional standpoint is, “Why did the LBCF change ‘good and necessary consequence’ to ‘necessarily contained’ in WCF/LBCF 1.6?” The two phrases can’t mean the same thing, otherwise the change makes no sense. I think this question strikes at the heart of the debate, which is hermeneutics. Did the framers of the LCBF thus admit that pædobaptism is a necessary inference from Scripture? Perhaps not, but that change warrants some investigation.


I'm sure that the intention of the LBCF framers was to attempt (by language constraint) to do both the following:

1) to go beyond the limit of logical deduction (in some way), that is for example they put the ideas of "divine Trinity" in one acceptable category of reasonable conclusion from evidence; and that of "infant baptism" in another unacceptable category; the former would have the doctrine "necessarily contained," whereas the latter they would regard as _speculative._

2) to bear witness that they did not think infant baptism was a "necessary" deduction; they might allow it was deduced (not without resistance), and someone might think that deduction "good," but they did not. So, they made "necessary" into a kind of _sole criterion, _whereupon compulsion alone would justify such a doctrine. Hence, as all agreed adults should be baptized, that was "necessary," but as all did not agree that infants should, such a practice must not be.


----------

