# Response to Questions Asked



## CalvinandHodges (Jun 18, 2008)

Hi:

On a different thread Jonathan Clemens asked of me a few questions. I started this thread because I did not wish to co-opt that particular thread. He wrote:



> C&H
> 
> I have some Q's about the your following statments. I'm new to the P boards, and don't have much experience with reformed folk... so I'm not much up on this baptism debate .
> 
> ...



These are good questions. In partial answer to your first objection I will quote from C.H. Spurgeon's Commentary on Matthew 19:13:



> We see how gentle was our King in the fact that anyone thought of bringing boys and girls to him. Their friends _brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them,_ and besow a blessing; and also lift up his hands to God, and pray for them. This was a very natural desire on the part of devout parents, and it showed much faith in the Lord's condescension. We feel sure that the mothers brought them, for still holy women are doing the same, pg. 264.


It seems to me that the great Credo-Baptist (CB) teacher has no complaint against the Paedo-Baptist (PB) view on this text here, and, in fact, agrees with it. What is more interesting is what he says on verse 14:



> The Lord is more lowly than his servants. He bids them cease to hinder the little children; he calls them to himself; he declares that they are the very kind of people of whom his heavenly kingdom is made up. _"Of such is the kingom of heaven"_ - this is the banner of the Sunday school. *Children, and those like them, may freely come into the kingdom of the Lord of heaven;* yea, these are the characters who alone can enter into that kingdom, pg. 264,265 bold mine.


I will restate what Spurgeon says here, "Children, and those like them, may freely come into the kingdom of the Lord of heaven." Spurgeon underlines this point by stating that this is "the banner of the Sunday School." In the passage in Mark the word "infants" is used as well as "children."

How do infants "freely come into the kingdom of the Lord of heaven"? We are told in the previous verse that their parents brought them to Jesus. If Children and infants of godly parents can be considered members of the Kingdom of Heaven, then how can you refuse water baptism. If they are members of the Kingdom of Heaven, then should they not then be accounted as members of the Kingdom here on Earth? Which is greater Heaven or Earth?

The PB view is that children and infants are talked about as being members of the Kingdom of God. The CB view is that Jesus is using some kind of metaphor to state that unless you receive the Kingdom like a child or infant, then you cannot enter the Kingdom of God. (It seems to me that if the CB view is all of what Jesus is talking about, then He is being unusually cruel to the godly parents who brought their children to Him to be blessed).

Spurgeon relieves the tension by saying that both views are correct. I agree with Spurgeon on this matter. The logic of Spurgeon's interpretation of this event favors the PB view that Children of godly parent(s) should be baptized.

This leads to your next objection concerning unbelieving spouses in 1 Cor. 7:14:



> If we baptize unbelieving children, should we not also baptize unbelieving spouses too?


No. There are many different responses to this.

1) Children and spouses are in different relations to each other. Children are under their parents decision-making process. A spouse can make decisions on his/her own.

2) Though the Greek words describing the unbelieving spouse being "sanctified" and the child of a believing parent as "holy" carry the same root word - they do not mean the same thing. The unbelieving parent is _hegiastai_ (Strongs, 37) or, "to make holy" by the believing parent. The child of the believing parent is "hagia" (Strongs, 40) or "holy" or "a saint." In reference to the unbelieving parent it is a ceremonial holiness. In reference to the child of a believing parent it is holiness - or being set apart. The use of the word "hegiastai" indicates an ongoing process:

a) In the Lord's prayer, Luke 11:2, "_Hallowed_ be thy name." Not only now, but forevermore "holiness" be ascribed to Your Name, c.f. John 12:28.

b) The gold of the Temple and the gift thereon, Mat. 23:17.

c) Jesus is "sanctified" by the Father, John 10:36.

d) The believer is being "separated" from the world, John 17:17, 19.

3) The question comes to mind as to why the Holy Spirit, through Paul, used two different words? If the same thing were intended for the unbelieving spouse as it was for the child, then should not the same word be used for both?

4) The word "else" here indicates that Paul is addressing a question concerning the child rather than the unbelieving parent:



> ...the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband, *else* were your children unclean, but now they are holy.


The rapid growth of the Christian church in the first century would produce an abundance of questions for the Apostles. Clearly, the question of mixed marriages (one Christian, one unbeliever) would be brought up, 1 Cor. 7:12,13. But Paul continues and writes about the status of their children. This is a clear indication that Paul, and the 1st Century Church, were not under the CB conviction of "Believers Only." Because, if the children are now to be considered outside of the New Covenant, then there would be no question or answer concerning their status in the Church. Or, Paul's answer would be something like this:

"Children of a believing parent must first come to faith before they can be considered holy."

There is no indication *anywhere* in the New Testament that the Church treated its children the way the CB position claims.

Grace and Peace,

-CH


----------



## MW (Jun 18, 2008)

CalvinandHodges said:


> I will restate what Spurgeon says here, "Children, and those like them, may freely come into the kingdom of the Lord of heaven." Spurgeon underlines this point by stating that this is "the banner of the Sunday School." In the passage in Mark the word "infants" is used as well as "children."



This is how one can have children in the kingdom but not in the kingdom: by creating a second level kingdom called "children's church."


----------



## Herald (Jun 18, 2008)

We have a children's church and I want it abolished.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jun 18, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> > I will restate what Spurgeon says here, "Children, and those like them, may freely come into the kingdom of the Lord of heaven." Spurgeon underlines this point by stating that this is "the banner of the Sunday School." In the passage in Mark the word "infants" is used as well as "children."
> ...



Is a "children's church" not an attempt to ignore the very weight of the Scripture passages in question?

Thanks,

-CH


----------



## Barnpreacher (Jun 18, 2008)

I got an invite to a meeting this weekend in my area that Don Fortner would be speaking at. I was somewhat intrigued and perhaps willing to go until I read this part of the announcement:



> Two separated nurseries are available for infants and toddlers age 4 and under. *We insist ALL children under the age of 4 be in the nursery*!


 (The bold was their emphasis, not mine.)

I hope they have a nice meeting.


----------



## Herald (Jun 18, 2008)

Actually, it's a babysitting service. Parents want to worship without distraction so they ship their kids into children's church.


----------



## Herald (Jun 18, 2008)

Barnpreacher said:


> I got an invite to a meeting this weekend in my area that Don Fortner would be speaking at. I was somewhat intrigued and perhaps willing to go until I read this part of the announcement:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm fine with the nurseries. The insisting part? I wouldn't go either.


----------



## MW (Jun 18, 2008)

CalvinandHodges said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > CalvinandHodges said:
> ...



I think it is. Imagine trying to recast the NT teaching of the kingdom so as to make it fit within this two-storey dimension. It is impossible. Almost like trying to make some passages refer to the church and others to the kingdom, as in dispensationalism.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 19, 2008)

For the record, Charles Spurgeon said of Mark 10: 13-16: THIS TEXT HAS NOT THE SHADOW OF THE SHADE OF THE GHOST OF A CONNECTION WITH BAPTISM. (emphasis his.) 

Here is the full text of his sermon: Children Brought to Christ, and Not to the Font


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 19, 2008)

Pilgrim said:


> For the record, Charles Spurgeon said of Mark 10: 13-16: THIS TEXT HAS NOT THE SHADOW OF THE SHADE OF THE GHOST OF A CONNECTION WITH BAPTISM. (emphasis his.)
> 
> Here is the full text of his sermon: Children Brought to Christ, and Not to the Font



Yes, but the idea that children can be in the eternal kingdom, but not in the visible church (and thus not entitled to the sign of entrance into the visible church) is not logical.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jun 19, 2008)

Pilgrim said:


> For the record, Charles Spurgeon said of Mark 10: 13-16: THIS TEXT HAS NOT THE SHADOW OF THE SHADE OF THE GHOST OF A CONNECTION WITH BAPTISM. (emphasis his.)
> 
> Here is the full text of his sermon: Children Brought to Christ, and Not to the Font



I agree, Baptism is not specifically mentioned in the text at all - probably because Jesus did not baptize anyone. 

What it does state is that children of believing parent(s) are considered members of the Kingdom of Heaven. This is a premise of an argument used by Paedo-Baptists to prove Baptism:

1) Children of believers are considered members of the Kingdom of Heaven.
2) Baptism indicates membership in the Kingdom of Heaven.
3) Therefore, Children of believers should be baptized.

Thanks for pointing this out.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jun 19, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> > For the record, Charles Spurgeon said of Mark 10: 13-16: THIS TEXT HAS NOT THE SHADOW OF THE SHADE OF THE GHOST OF A CONNECTION WITH BAPTISM. (emphasis his.)
> ...



You and I think too much alike - it is scary.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 19, 2008)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > Pilgrim said:
> ...


----------



## Herald (Jun 19, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> > For the record, Charles Spurgeon said of Mark 10: 13-16: THIS TEXT HAS NOT THE SHADOW OF THE SHADE OF THE GHOST OF A CONNECTION WITH BAPTISM. (emphasis his.)
> ...



Brother Daniel, the sign is for those who have believed. You know the Baptist stand on that. 

History is not without those who have enjoyed benefits of a thing without being identified with that thing. Citizenship is an imperfect example. If you legally immigrated to the United States you would be considered a legal alien. You could enjoy the some of the benefits of this country, but not all. You could not vote, own a handgun, hold public office etc. until you were naturalized. If you bring minor children with you they will enjoy limited benefits as well. It's an imperfect example because all analogies fail. 

We will baptize upon a credible profession of faith. It matters not whether the profession is made by a child or an adult. If it is credible baptism will be administered. I believe it is logical because I also believe Baptists have scriptural warrant. To go into that warrant now will just cover ground that has been tread on ad infinitum, ad nauseam.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 19, 2008)

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > Pilgrim said:
> ...



But again Bill you have to face the problem that infants can be part of the invisible church, but not part of the visible church.

For what it's worth, I believe that infants are not entitled to all privileges of the visible church - they are not allowed to take communion or vote in elections. But being members, they must be baptized, because the idea of an unbaptized church member is a contradiction in terms.


----------



## Herald (Jun 19, 2008)

Daniel, all of us would love to have all weak points of our arguments glossed over by ourselves or others. I think our respect for one another would increase exponentially if we were willing to call attention to our weak points. That's not commonplace in theological discussion because we are often centered on being right.

A question that Baptist needs to address is whether an infant or child is part of the visible church. Indeed, is the idea of a visible church a classic Baptist distinctive? I won't answer that right now because I'll have to plead ignorance. Allow me time to do my homework.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 19, 2008)

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Daniel, all of us would love to have all weak points of our arguments glossed over by ourselves or others. I think our respect for one another would increase exponentially if we were willing to call attention to our weak points. That's not commonplace in theological discussion because we are often centered on being right.
> 
> A question that Baptist needs to address is whether an infant or child is part of the visible church. Indeed, is the idea of a visible church a classic Baptist distinctive? I won't answer that right now because I'll have to plead ignorance. Allow me time to do my homework.



For what it's worth I rarely opine on baptism threads as I think that both sides can make an idol out of the doctrine. I do not know what has come over me recently.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jun 19, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel, all of us would love to have all weak points of our arguments glossed over by ourselves or others. I think our respect for one another would increase exponentially if we were willing to call attention to our weak points. That's not commonplace in theological discussion because we are often centered on being right.
> ...



Must have been that trip to Scotland


----------



## Houston E. (Jun 19, 2008)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> > For the record, Charles Spurgeon said of Mark 10: 13-16: THIS TEXT HAS NOT THE SHADOW OF THE SHADE OF THE GHOST OF A CONNECTION WITH BAPTISM. (emphasis his.)
> ...



As was stated in a previous thread though, would it not have to be children of disciples?


----------



## TheocraticMonarchist (Jun 19, 2008)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> On a different thread Jonathan Clemens asked of me a few questions. I started this thread because I did not wish to co-opt that particular thread. He wrote:
> 
> ...



Why not dedicate children to Jesus, and ask for His blessing? Is baptism the mode of Christ's blessing?




CalvinandHodges said:


> The PB view is that children and infants are talked about as being members of the Kingdom of God. The CB view is that Jesus is using some kind of metaphor to state that unless you receive the Kingdom like a child or infant, then you cannot enter the Kingdom of God. (It seems to me that if the CB view is all of what Jesus is talking about, then He is being unusually cruel to the godly parents who brought their children to Him to be blessed).
> 
> Spurgeon relieves the tension by saying that both views are correct. I agree with Spurgeon on this matter. The logic of Spurgeon's interpretation of this event favors the PB view that Children of godly parent(s) should be baptized.



Is it possible that both views are wrong, and that Jesus is telling them that they should humbly recieve the kingdome as they would humbly recieve a child?

What if Jesus, the Son of God, was using His kind and humble disply of blessing children as an object leson for the desciples?


DO WE HAVE A GREEK EXPERT IN THE HOUSE!? 



CalvinandHodges said:


> This leads to your next objection concerning unbelieving spouses in 1 Cor. 7:14:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sounds good to me .





CalvinandHodges said:


> The rapid growth of the Christian church in the first century would produce an abundance of questions for the Apostles. Clearly, the question of mixed marriages (one Christian, one unbeliever) would be brought up, 1 Cor. 7:12,13. But Paul continues and writes about the status of their children. This is a clear indication that Paul, and the 1st Century Church, were not under the CB conviction of "Believers Only." Because, if the children are now to be considered outside of the New Covenant, then there would be no question or answer concerning their status in the Church. Or, Paul's answer would be something like this:
> 
> "Children of a believing parent must first come to faith before they can be considered holy."
> 
> There is no indication *anywhere* in the New Testament that the Church treated its children the way the CB position claims.




I'll agree with you here too, I can't think of any, but are there any examples of infant baptism?

Perhaps God, knowing all things, though it best to only give us examples of believer's baptism for a reason.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jun 19, 2008)

TheocraticMonarchist said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> > Hi:
> ...



Acts 10


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 19, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > North Jersey Baptist said:
> ...



That would explain it; I am glad to be back in Ireland.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jun 20, 2008)

TheocraticMonarchist writes:



> Why not dedicate children to Jesus, and ask for His blessing? Is baptism the mode of Christ's blessing?


I thought that in quoting Spurgeon I was showing that your interpretation of the passage is valid - as well as that of the Paedo-Baptist.

Next, he writes:



> I'll agree with you here too, I can't think of any, but are there any examples of infant baptism?
> Perhaps God, knowing all things, thought it best to only give us examples of believer's baptism for a reason.


We can infer an example of infant baptism in the New Testament at 1 Cor 10:2. In referring to the Exodus Paul writes:



> And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.


What we infer is that there were infants among the (estimated) 2 million Jews who participated in the Exodus. They all ate the same spiritual meat, and they all drank from the Rock which is Christ. Yet, despite all of these blessings God was not pleased with some of them.

(One can also note the mode of "baptism" here - the Hebrews being rained (sprinkled) upon by the cloud, and, going through the Red Sea on dry land were probably sprinkled by the wind interracting with the water. Where is the "full immersion" that baptism is supposedly defined as?)

Grace and Peace,

-CH


----------



## TheocraticMonarchist (Jun 20, 2008)

*Acts 2:38-41*

_38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”_

Repentance has to do with baptism. Can an infant repent? This passage also shows us that God doesn't grant repentance to every child of a christian parent. Should we baptise reprobates? That doesn't seem scriptural does it?

_40 And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation.” 41 Then those who gladly[a] received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them._

hmm... We see that those being baptised gladly responded to the preaching of the gospel.

*Acts 8*

_
12 But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized. 13 Then Simon himself also believed; and when he was baptized he continued with Philip, and was amazed, seeing the miracles and signs which were done. _

Belief is recquired.

*Acts 8:35-38*

[I}35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him. 36 Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” 
37 Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” 
And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”[a]
38 So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.[/I]

Here we see an eagerness to be baptised by someone who just heard the gospel.


*Acts 9*

_17 And Ananias went his way and entered the house; and laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus,* who appeared to you on the road as you came, has sent me that you may receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 Immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he received his sight at once; and he arose and was baptized. *_*

Another Believers Baptism.

 Acts 10 

 44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. 45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. 
Then Peter answered, 47 “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.

These folk recieved the Holy Spirit belfore they were baptised.

Acts 18:8

8 Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.

Here we see Crispus and his houshold believing, along with many other Corinthians.


By reading the Scriptures it is very easy to come to the conclusion that one must be regenerated by God in order to be baptised. You must hear the gospel, recieve the Holy Spirit, repent, believe, and express an eagerness to be baptised. 

Conserative Presbyterians are kings when it comes to exposition. However, I am very concerned that corners are being cut in order to cling to this ancient tradition. 

The gospel has been once and for all delivered to the saints, is infant baptism a part of it? If so which epistle is it taught in? 

Surly Presbyterians must have a stronger argument than vauge inferences.*


----------



## TheocraticMonarchist (Jun 20, 2008)

I'd like to use this post to state where I'm coming from. I've been raised in a church that is not of a reformed tradition, but God, through a long chain of preordained events led me to reformed theology . I'm very happy with it, especialy with the doctrins of grace. However I still have a lot to learn and judge against the Scriptures.

I find infant baptism difficult because it goes against the concept I have been taught and what I see in the scriputres. I see Baptism as a sign of conversion to be given to all professing believers,as seen in the book of Acts. The Infant Baptists on the other hand define it a little differently.

Please answer the following questions form me.

1.) How is Baptism defined in the Scriptures?
2.) If it is not defined as a sign only given to professing believers why not?
3.) Why should we consider unbelieving children as a part of the kingdome?
4.) How is the kingdom defined in scripture?

Please use as much Scripture to answer these questions. Also, if you know of any good articles please post their links.

I'm willing to learn, but am proceeding wiht much caution. 

Any wise puratin may feel free to jump in . If anyone thinks of a question I need to ask let me know ;-)


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jun 20, 2008)

TheocraticMonarchist:

Paedo-Baptists do not deny that new believers in Christ should be baptized. Thus, we agree with all of the statements in the Bible concerning "Believe and be baptized." The Paedo-Baptist holds that the children of a believer/disciple should also be baptized as well.

I thought that I had shown that this is the case with the reference to Matthew 19:14. That even C.H. Spurgeon acknowledges that the passage is not simply talking about the character of those who enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, but that the children of those who believe are also considered members of the Kingdom of Heaven.

If you have no objection to this, then I do not see why you would argue that children, who are considered members of the Kingdom of Heaven by Christ Himself, should be refused baptism? Is the kingdom here on Earth greater than the Kingdom of Heaven? The statement that the children were not baptized in the presence of Christ is not valid - Christ did not baptize anybody.

As Paedo-Baptists we have a divine command to baptize our infants:



> And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, Gen 17:12a.


Circumcision, in the OT, was the sign of the New Covenant - the Covenant of Grace. In the NT the sign of circumcision has been substituted by the sign of baptism. Circumcision ceased in very much the same way as the Passover. We do not celebrate the Passover any longer, but the Lord's Supper. However, the very same principles that the Passover teaches are taught in the Lord's Supper. The law requiring believers (like Abraham) to apply the seal of the covenant of grace to their infant children was not typical of Christ nor his work, and was not fulfilled by Christ

Abraham believed God. He was then given the rite of circumcision. This rite was passed on to his household and his infant children. This is the pattern set for the New Testament: Abraham believed, he was circumcised, and his infant children were circumcised.

That circumcision is a sign of the same things as baptism is evidently proved:

1) It signifies purity of heart, Dt 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4; Rom 2:28,29.

2) It is a seal of the Covenant of Grace, Rm 4:11 - the very righteousness of Christ was given to the "unbelieving" children of believers.

3) They have the same object. Circumcision was the rite of initiation into the church under the OT. It was by this rite that men became Jews, Gn 17:14.

That the children of believers, like Abraham. are circumcised/baptized is good Covenant Theology. What then should we expect when it comes to the children of believers in the New Testament? If the children of believers are *forbidden* baptism, then we should have a divine command that validates the censure.

It is not enough to say that believers are baptized. We all agree that believers/Abraham were circumcised/baptized. What you need to show is positive evidence that the children of Abraham/believers were not circumcized/baptized.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## TheocraticMonarchist (Jun 21, 2008)

> Circumcision, in the OT, was the sign of the New Covenant - the Covenant of Grace. In the NT the sign of circumcision has been substituted by the sign of baptism.



Could you prove this with scripture?




> 1) It signifies purity of heart, Dt 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4; Rom 2:28,29.



Circumcision of the forskin was a symbol of circumcision of the heart... Baptism is a symbol of regeneration... 



> 2) It is a seal of the Covenant of Grace, Rm 4:11 - the very righteousness of Christ was given to the "unbelieving" children of believers.



This is heresy. Surly this isn't the common reformed stance! The righteousnes of Christ is only imputed the elect (i.e. those God has decided to save).

Paul does not support your position.

Romans 4:11

And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the *father of all those who believe*, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, 

Paul is speaking of Abraham being the 'father' gentiles who _believe_. 

Read the passage in context.




> 3) They have the same object. Circumcision was the rite of initiation into the church under the OT. It was by this rite that men became Jews, Gn 17:14.



Genesis 17:14

14 And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.” 

Unbelieving children are covenant breakers whether or not the are baptized. They are wicked, depraved, God hating, hell bound heathens. They are already cut off from the people of God whether or not they get their little head got wet. They must hear the gospel and by the grace of God, through faith in Jesus Christ be saved.

Do the Scriptures teach us that we are to live like Old Testament Jews? 

You must still present a solid scriptural case for equating baptism with water to ciricumcision of the forskin.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 21, 2008)

> This is heresy. Surly this isn't the common reformed stance! The righteousnes of Christ is only imputed the elect (i.e. those God has decided to save).



Note that Robert says it is _a seal_; not the actual righteousness of Christ.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 21, 2008)

CalvinandHodges said:


> TheocraticMonarchist:
> 
> Paedo-Baptists do not deny that new believers in Christ should be baptized. Thus, we agree with all of the statements in the Bible concerning "Believe and be baptized." The Paedo-Baptist holds that the children of a believer/disciple should also be baptized as well.
> 
> I thought that I had shown that this is the case with the reference to Matthew 19:14. That even C.H. Spurgeon acknowledges that the passage is not simply talking about the character of those who enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, but that the children of those who believe are also considered members of the Kingdom of Heaven.



Robert,

Spurgeon does *not* interpret the passage the way you do. Nowhere does he say that the children of those who believe are also to be considered members of the Kingdom of Heaven _simply on account of their parentage_ the way that you do. His point was about child evangelism and not discounting professions of faith from young children. Although the position is much rarer today, many Baptists in Spurgeon's day typically would not baptize children until they were in their late teens. (Likewise many Presbyterians, I think the Scots in particular, would not allow children to come to the table until they reached a similar age.)

By all means make a defense of your position, but leave misrepresentations of Spurgeon out of it.


----------



## TheocraticMonarchist (Jun 21, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> > This is heresy. Surly this isn't the common reformed stance! The righteousnes of Christ is only imputed the elect (i.e. those God has decided to save).
> 
> 
> 
> Note that Robert says it is _a seal_; not the actual righteousness of Christ.




It reads as follows:



> 2) It is a seal of the Covenant of Grace, Rm 4:11 - the very righteousness of Christ was given to the "unbelieving" children of believers.



It sounds to me as if Robert is saying that the very righteousness of Christ was given to unbelievers. I'll let him clarify.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 21, 2008)

TheocraticMonarchist said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > > This is heresy. Surly this isn't the common reformed stance! The righteousnes of Christ is only imputed the elect (i.e. those God has decided to save).
> ...



He means that *the sign and seal* is given to the recipients of baptism.


----------



## TheocraticMonarchist (Jun 21, 2008)

So the sign and seal is given to the infant, and not the righteousness of Christ? Is this the official infant baptist view?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 21, 2008)

TheocraticMonarchist said:


> So the sign and seal is given to the infant, and not the righteousness of Christ? Is this the official infant baptist view?



See WCF chapter 27:

II. There is, in every sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.

III. *The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them*; neither does the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that does administer it: but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receiver.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jun 21, 2008)

Hi TM:

I am using the word "given" you are using the word "imputed." Was the righteousness of Christ "given" to Simon the Sorcerer when he was Baptized? When you baptize someone you are giving them all of the promises contained therein. That they reject it through unbelief will count sorely upon them at the Last Day:

*Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite to the Spirit of Grace?* Hb 10:29.

The seal of the righteousness of Christ is not given *only* to those who profess faith in Christ. It is given to the infants of Abraham/believers. It is *effective* only to those who have true faith in Christ. Yet, who among us is going to say that "such and such" has true faith while "this other person" does not? Is this where Credo-Baptism leads you? If so, then you are violating what Jesus teaches in Mt 7:1,2.

Pilgrim:

Spurgeon's Commentary on Matthew was written late in his life, and is the product of his maturer reflections upon the text. (The sermon that you refer to was spoken in his youth) No where does Spurgeon say that Baptism is in view here. However, he does in fact admit that children of believers can be admitted into the Kingdom of Heaven:

*Children, and those like them, may freely come into the Kingdom of the Lord of Heaven.*

Spurgeon makes no difference between "children" and "infants" - especially given the fact that infants are mentioned in the parallel passage in Luke. Do you think that no infants were brought to Jesus? And if "children" can be admitted into the Kingdom of Heaven why not "infants"?

If you are going to tell me that "infants are incapable of faith" then where in Scripture does it so state? Such a belief is a false philosophy that is no where substantiated in Scripture.

TM writes:



> Unbelieving children are covenant breakers whether or not they are baptized. They are wicked, depraved, God hating, hell bound heathens. They are already cut off from the people of God whether or not they get their little head got wet. They must hear the gospel and by the grace of God, through faith in Jesus Christ be saved.


You are confusing the matters of the visible and invisible church. I will refer you to your own (1689) Confession of Faith chapter 26 sections 1,2 for a description of the visible and invisible Church.

All members of the visible church - whether circumcized (OT) or baptized (NT)- are under the Covenant of Grace. All of the promises are given to them, and they receive all of the blessings that the visible church can give. However, without true faith in Jesus they are not members of the invisible church. They have broken the promises of God given to them through the visible means of preaching, hearing, and the sacraments. They were instructed on the means of salvation, and knew what their duty was, but they never had the faith to embrace it.

So, why does this block infants of believers/disciples from being considered members of the Covenant of Grace? Since God has commanded us to receive infants, 8 days old, into the New Covenant, then where is the commandment that forbids infants from receiving the sacrament of baptism?

It is a pleasure to discuss these things with you,

-CH


----------



## swilson (Jun 21, 2008)

Baptism, from what scripture teaches, is an outward symbol of the faith and confession of/in Christ Jesus. Not a way into the New Covenant. I understand the historical thought on this, but let's go to scripture and look for baptism being anything but what people who profess Christ do. The visible church is always filled with thistles and chaff...this is sad, but true. We are to raise them in the ways of the Lord, but there is no covenant taught in NT scripture that states that a believers child has any hope of being saved in the future than a non-believers child - "I come not to bring peace, but a sword...family member will be divided against family member"....if there is a covenant to the children of saved parents, how does a child of unsaved parents get saved, and did he/she get saved through some "lower percentage" means, but the child baptised into "the coventant" had a better chance? Is this scriptural or traditional? Because, I'm leaning this to be very much traditional.....proof texts please?


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jun 22, 2008)

swilson said:


> Baptism, from what scripture teaches, is an outward symbol of the faith and confession of/in Christ Jesus. Not a way into the New Covenant. I understand the historical thought on this, but let's go to scripture and look for baptism being anything but what people who profess Christ do. The visible church is always filled with thistles and chaff...this is sad, but true. We are to raise them in the ways of the Lord, but there is no covenant taught in NT scripture that states that a believers child has any hope of being saved in the future than a non-believers child - "I come not to bring peace, but a sword...family member will be divided against family member"....if there is a covenant to the children of saved parents, how does a child of unsaved parents get saved, and did he/she get saved through some "lower percentage" means, but the child baptised into "the coventant" had a better chance? Is this scriptural or traditional? Because, I'm leaning this to be very much traditional.....proof texts please?



Hi:

The baptism of John was it from heaven, or from men?

-CH


----------



## TheocraticMonarchist (Jun 23, 2008)

I'm thinking back to all the problems the early church had with those jews who wanted to put the gentiles under the law, especialy with circumcision.

I don't think that the Apostles ever had in mind that baptism replaced circumcision.

Can you show me a strong textual case where the apostles equate circumcision of the forskin with water baptism?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 23, 2008)

Col 2:11 *In him also you were circumcised *with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 
Col 2:12 *having been buried with him in baptism,* in which you were also raised... 

The only way these verses do not connect baptism and circumcision as separate signs (in separate eras) pointing to the same thing is if "circumcision without hands" (i.e. "circumcision of the heart", Deut. 10:16) is not symbolized in the circumcision of the forskin.


----------



## InevitablyReformed (Jun 23, 2008)

CH,

You wrote this in an above post:

"So, why does this block infants of believers/disciples from being considered members of the Covenant of Grace? Since God has commanded us to receive infants, 8 days old, into the New Covenant, then where is the commandment that forbids infants from receiving the sacrament of baptism?"

Can you elaborate on this a little? Thanks in advance.

Daniel


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 26, 2008)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Col 2:11 *In him also you were circumcised *with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,
> Col 2:12 *having been buried with him in baptism,* in which you were also raised...
> 
> The only way these verses do not connect baptism and circumcision as separate signs (in separate eras) pointing to the same thing is if "circumcision without hands" (i.e. "circumcision of the heart", Deut. 10:16) is not symbolized in the circumcision of the forskin.




Extract from Pink's Divine Covenants



> "It is a mistake to suppose that baptism has come in the place of circumcision. As that which supplanted the Old Testament sacrifices was the one offering of the Saviour; as that which superseded the Aaronic priesthood was the high priesthood of Christ; so that which has succeeded circumcision is the spiritual circumcision which believers have in and by Christ.‘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’ (Col 2:11)- how simple! How satisfying! ‘Buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him’ (v12 ) is something additional: it is only wresting the Scriptures to say these two verses mean, ‘Being buried with Him in baptism ye are circumcised.’ No, no; verse 11 declares the Christian circumcision is ‘ made without hands’ and baptism is administered with hands! The circumcision ‘made without hands in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh’ has come in the place of the circumcision made with hands. The circumcision of Christ has come in place of the circumcision of the law. Never once in the New Testament is baptism spoken of as the seal of the New Covenant; rather is the Holy Spirit the seal (Eph 1:13; 4:30 )."


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 26, 2008)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Col 2:11 *In him also you were circumcised *with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,
> Col 2:12 *having been buried with him in baptism,* in which you were also raised...
> 
> The only way these verses do not connect baptism and circumcision as separate signs (in separate eras) pointing to the same thing is if "circumcision without hands" (i.e. "circumcision of the heart", Deut. 10:16) is not symbolized in the circumcision of the forskin.




Also Nehemiah Coxe here. Does Baptism Replace Circumcision? - The PuritanBoard



> Nehemiah Coxe, Covenant Theology: From Adam to Christ (Palmdale: Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2005, 140) A reprint of A Discourse of the Covenants that God Made with Men before the Law, 1681
> 
> Circumcision was an ordinance of the old covenant and pertained to the law and therefore directly bound its subjects to a legal obedience. But baptism is an ordinance of the gospel and (besides other excellent and most comfortable uses) directly obliges its subjects to gospel obedience. Therefore it is in this respect opposed to, rather than substituted in the place of, circumcision.
> 
> ...


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 26, 2008)

Right, Randy,
And of course the biblical names for things we CAN see and CAN'T see may be identical, but they have _nothing _to do with one another. Sure.

My answer to the question asked of me was direct to the point which was asked. As we have gone round and round on many times, the whole question of "which baptism" "and "which circumcision" is in view is really meaningless to me when we aren't addressing an historic baptism, but rather the theology of baptism.

We *deny *that the two circumcisions were fundamentally about two different things, just like we *deny *that the two baptisms are about two different things. But don't forget to drop the Barcellos quote in this thread too. Gotta get all the RBs to "represent." Three posts to one. You win.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 26, 2008)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Right, Randy,
> And of course the biblical names for things we CAN see and CAN'T see may be identical, but they have _nothing _to do with one another. Sure.



Shadows and fulfilment have nothing to do with each other? Circumsion of the flesh and Circumsion of the heart are two that have a link. One was a shadow and the other is the reality. Isn't that what the quotes just said? Maybe I am slipping.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jun 29, 2008)

InevitablyReformed said:


> CH,
> 
> You wrote this in an above post:
> 
> ...



Hi Daniel:

I am sorry that I have not answered sooner. This past week I was at the Synod of my denomination (RPCNA).

One of the reasons why I do not believe in Abortion is that I believe that the fetus is a human being. Thus, I believe that a fetus can think, feel and act. That he/she has all the reasoning capabilities of a human being.

Consequently, I believe that infants are capable of saving faith. I believe that the Bible teaches this when John the Baptist leapt in the womb of Elizabeth upon hearing the voice of Mary (who was pregnant with Jesus).

The matter also of the infant Jesus being the very Son of the Living God from conception is also relevant. Though Jesus grew in wisdom and honor before God and man it is a remarkable thing that a human infant can "contain" (if I can use that expression) the Divine Nature. If infants are incapable of faith, then how can the infant Jesus "hold" the Second Person of the Trinity?

If "Elect infants are regenerated" then they obviously are capable of saving faith.

What I find most curious is that Credo baptists have no Scripture that teaches their mantra, "Infants are incapable of faith." 

Where they get that, and why they are so militant about barring infants from the Kingdom of God where there is so much evidence to the contrary is beyond me.

Grace,

-CH


----------

