# Infant Baptism



## Tyrese

I have a quick question. I keep hearing that the Church has always practiced infant baptism. Is this true? and if so, whats some good material to read up on this? As a convinced Baptist I think its really important for me to be alittle more familiar with infant baptism. Thanks.


----------



## Constantlyreforming

I have two books to recommend, but I do not know if they are in print any longer. 

One is titled Sermons on the Mode and Subjects of Baptism by Joseph Lathrop. He was an early American pastor who was well published in the late 1700s through very early 1800s. If you can find this book in whatever form possible, it would be highly recommended as he draws from church history and Scripture to prove his points.








The other would be a book by W. Wall, published in 1707. He was the first (I believe) to set out to prove neither side, but to find all documentation to support baptism in any mode and put it into a single title. It's a massive work and I have waded through mine only a few hours, but the information is phenomenal. Here's the title page for you. If this could be made more readily available, I suppose that there would be a mass exodus of reformed believers leaving baptistic churches and headed over to where infant baptism is practiced. You can see that he deals with documents from the first four centuries. He also makes interesting observations regarding how the children and grandchildren of believers who lived during the time of Paul and Christ all practiced infant baptism, and you would have expected much in terms of letters and documentation correcting those who practiced infant baptism if it was really something that was contrary to the apostles' teaching. There is much more that is groundbreaking that I believe most current works do not touch on.


----------



## Constantlyreforming

Here looks to be an online document containing Wall's defense.

Full text of "The history of infant baptism : together with Mr. Gale's Reflections, and Dr. Wall's Defence"



see here to purchase one from Abe Books/

http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=william+wall&kn=baptism&sortby=1


----------



## Constantlyreforming

here is a summary of William Wall, via Wikipedia

*William Wall (6 January 1647 – 13 November 1728) was a British priest in the Church of England who wrote extensively on the doctrine of infant baptism. He was generally an apologist for the English church and sought to maintain peace between it and the Anabaptists.

He was born in Kent, got his BA from Queen's College, Oxford in 1667 and his MA in 1670. After ordination, he took the living in Shoreham, Kent, which he worked at until his death. According to his obituary in the Gentleman's Magazine in 1784, he was offered more lucrative positions, but he refused out of loyalty to his parish.

His contribution to theology came in the form of A History of Infant Baptism in 1705. David Russen had written an anti-Baptist tract entitled Fundamentals without Foundation in 1703, and this had been answered by the Baptist Joseph Stennett in An Answer to Mr. David Russen's Book in 1704. Wall, who knew and respected Stennett, consulted with him and then answered with A History of Infant Baptism. Wall was answered in turn by John Gale in Reflections on Mr. Wall's History in 1711. Wall's book was enormously successful. He cited numerous patristic sources for the practice of infant baptism and yet pleaded with his opponents not to allow such a minor point to tear the church apart. His work was expanded in a second edition in 1707 and a third edition of 1720. Oxford awarded him the Doctor of divinity degree in 1720 for the work, and John Wesley excerpted it in his own works on the question. Despite being the primary voice against Baptist causes, Wall was sincere in his wishes for unity, and he met with his opponent, Mr. Gale, in 1719.

Wall's wife, Catharine (née Davenant) died at the age of 48, and Wall himself died at an advanced age and was buried in his parish.*


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Tyrese,
Just understand that everyone comes to an evaluation of data points already armed with an approach. If the study of history shows us anything, it is that people with widely divergent starting points can interpret the same data in antithetical ways.

Some baptist-minded folks think the weight of historical data can be read in support of their views; or that the best evidence for infant baptism is too late, implying defection from a purer estate, etc. Ultimately, neither side in the debate is willing to grant "authority" to whatever can be gleaned from church tradition.

In the end, the root issue historically is: how disinterestedly am I prepared to judge not only the data, but my _approach_ to the data as well? That is, what are my deepest commitments that actually inform the direction and the manner in which I approach historic data? And how do my impressions/conclusions mesh with other negotiable and non-negotiable commitments in the area of theology? It is vital to have a good philosophy of history, and to have one that is properly in subordination to a good philosophy of theology.

We find similar questions related to the root hermeneutical issue (that is, handling the biblical data). The reason that baptists and non-baptists have different conclusions is in no small part the result of significant differences in understanding _how to read the Bible_.

Despite our differences (baptist and non-baptist), we are thankful that often we come to stand on and defend the same most-vital terrain (e.g. TULIP). But when you compare how we arrived there, it is clear that the two approaches are not the same; nor will our respective departure trajectories necessarily take us together to further, mutual-defense positions.



My point in all this is to say: it is of utmost concern that as you evaluate data, you go slowly enough to accurately judge the nature of the effects the data has on you as the evaluator. People who make uncritical leaps into studies of "new things" are too often unprepared for inevitable unsettling effects of their study. And the more unprepared they are, the more likely they are to find themselves unmoored from solid footing. This is often the case with sheltered kids who go off to the secular, atheistic-dominated university. They do not know how to evaluate contradictory data; they feel forced into either an anti-intellectual hardening their old positions (though unable to reconcile lots of new data); or jettisoning them in favor of the new paradigm they have just been confronted with (the irony being, they accept the new model with just as much blind dogmatism as the old, and often hold it with greater tenacity).

Your opinions could change, or stay the same with an examination of historical data on this topic. The really important thing is to know as much about why that might be, as about the facts themselves.


----------



## Marrow Man

The earliest direct testimony we have concerning infant baptism is from Tertullian (a negative voice), c. 200 A.D. It seems have been an accepted practice, at least by the north African churches, by 250 A.D. Here are some articles that discuss the issue to varying degrees:

The Prevalence and Theology of Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries, East and West

Infant Baptism in Early Church History by Dennis Kastens


----------



## Constantlyreforming

Good call. Way to be on your game.


----------



## michaelspotts

I hear you, Tyrese. I spent three and a half years attending a Reformed church (OURC) as a credo baptist. Thankfully, they were dear brothers and very kind to me. (Thank you, Dr. Clark!) During that time I read over 1500 pages of books—from Jewett to Calvin—for and against infant inclusion. Then it just clicked, not by way of studying baptism directly, but through growing in my understanding of the invisible / visible distinctions in the Church and the history of redemption. Most of my troubles, I now believe, had to do with talking past one another about terms like "covenant" and how we describe relationships to it. 

Back then, I took everything in an ultimate, eschatalogical sense. When I said "Christian" I meant one who was *definitely* regenerate, and so on. But Reformed people switch between describing people we *hope* are truly regenerate as part of "the Church" and those who are ultimately saved as "the Church". They distinguish the two in their minds, but not always in their speech, which can be confusing for a credo baptist who rightly fears any sign that true believers may be lost. However, this is the pattern of speech that Reformed people believe is scriptural.

I look back on my credo baptist days as being "eschatologically anxious", trying to pin things down in the here-and-now that only God knows and shall reveal at judgment, namely, exactly who is regenerate. Anyways...

Some resources that were helpful to me were:

Francis Schaeffer — On Baptism
John Owen — On Baptism
Warfield — Polemics of Infant Baptism

Here is something I wrote about my conclusions:
Infant Baptism: Bogus or Blessing

And finally, this book by J.V. Fesko is an excellent treatment of both the historical and theological arguments for child-inclusion in the visible covenant people of God:
Word, Water, and Spirit


----------



## R. Scott Clark

As far as I can tell, if we're just considering the post-apostolic church, there is relative silence until c. 200 AD (3rd century). The 2nd century evidence is ambiguous and scholars tend to interpret it according to their interpretation of the NT. Tertullian, however, clearly acknowledged the existence of infant baptism c. 200 in _De Baptismo_. Irenaeus, in _Adv Haer_. 3.39 might mention it but that's disputed. Cyprian required it in 250 in Ep. 64. Origen referred to it in his Homily on Luke 14. The big modern debate is between Aland and Jeremias and that was facilitated by Karl Barth's renunciation of infant baptism and adoption of the Baptist view.

For a biblical case see "A Contemporary Defense of Infant Baptism" and Dennis Johnson's essay, "Infant Baptism: How My Mind Has Changed" and a closely related essay On the New Covenant.


----------



## Don Kistler

William Wall's book shows pretty clearly that the "practice" of infant baptism was fairly standard in the early church. He cites Origen as having said that he was told by the Apostle John that Jesus baptized infants. 

The knock against some of the practices of infant baptism is that many of those who favored it believed in baptismal regeneration. That is a different discussion, however, from the question of "Did the early church practice it?" I believe Wall's books shows that to be the case.

It appears that this book is available for free at google.com/books.


----------



## Constantlyreforming

Don Kistler said:


> William Wall's book shows pretty clearly that the "practice" of infant baptism was fairly standard in the early church. He cites Origen as having said that he was told by the Apostle John that Jesus baptized infants.
> 
> The knock against some of the practices of infant baptism is that many of those who favored it believed in baptismal regeneration. That is a different discussion, however, from the question of "Did the early church practice it?" I believe Wall's books shows that to be the case.
> 
> It appears that this book is available for free at google.com/books.



excellent thoughts!


----------



## Tyrese

After thoroughly studying this issue ive come to a solid Baptist position because of the biblical evidence (which is the priority). Of course we all have differing beliefs, but I believe scripture is pretty clear on this topic. One thing im always careful of as a Baptist is saying that my paedobaptist brethren are in sin because they baptise there little ones. I only call sin what the Bible clearly calls sin. Although im a Baptist because my Bible tells me that I should ,history is still very interesting to me. Thanks for the recommendations, I will try to get copies of some of the material presented. Thanks.


----------



## Tyrese

@ Josh. The Westminster confession or the 1689 may give me the freedom to call infant baptism sin/not sin, but my Bible doesnt. I mean I could be wrong, but if God doesnt call somethig sin, than neither should I. I dont believe I have the authority to do so. Presbyterians are dear brothers that I wouldnt dare throw out of the kingdom. With that being said I cant wait to read the two documents presented by constantlyreforming. But again because of the lack of biblical evidence I highly doubt I will change views. I just really wanna read these.


----------



## Constantlyreforming

Tyrese said:


> @ Josh. The Westminster confession or the 1689 may give me the freedom to call infant baptism sin/not sin, but my Bible doesnt. I mean I could be wrong, but if God doesnt call somethig sin, than neither should I. I dont believe I have the authority to do so. Presbyterians are dear brothers that I wouldnt dare throw out of the kingdom. With that being said I cant wait to read the two documents presented by constantlyreforming. But again because of the lack of biblical evidence I highly doubt I will change views. I just really wanna read these.




I believe that we may have to make judgment calls on whether a sin is a sin if it is not in scripture, according to how the scriptures typify sin, combined with the nature of God and how He relates to man.




For instance, is it a sin for a man to _live with_ a man as a _life partner_, if he does not lie with a man in a sexual way as it is called sin in scripture? Yet they consider themselves to be married, soul mates, all the usual....yet avoid what the Bible considers to be blatant sin? 

This is an argument that was presented to me by a friend at one point.


----------



## anotherpilgrim

Don Kistler said:


> The knock against some of the practices of infant baptism is that many of those who favored it believed in baptismal regeneration.



This may be just for me, but reading the theology of the church fathers regarding infant baptism (as a whole from all the various fathers in the first 4-5 centuries), it's always seemed to me like they were basically trying to understand the theology behind a practice that was established and they were convinced was of apostolic origin. Almost as if they were sure of the 'what' (that it was practiced from apostolic times) but had a hard time understanding the 'why'. The various justifications for the practice, the introduction of the notion of baptismal regeneration, etc. all seemed to me to come from them trying to come to grips with the theological foundation.


----------



## jd.morrison

Here it is on Amazon.com: The History of Infant-Baptism, by W. Wall

Also don't forget A Treatise on Baptism, by Matthew Henry


----------



## hammondjones

Don Kistler said:


> He cites Origen as having said that he was told by the Apostle John that Jesus baptized infants.



That is interesting, though perhaps not admissible in court.


----------



## Tyrese

@ Constantlyreforming. You got me there. I think your right. I also had to think to myself that saying infant baptism is wrong, is almost the same thing as saying its a sin. I still try to be gracious about the matter.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Tyrese said:


> @ Constantlyreforming. You got me there. I think your right. I also had to think to myself that saying infant baptism is wrong, is almost the same thing as saying its a sin. I still try to be gracious about the matter.



I was a Confessional Baptist for 30 years. I defended the position vigourously during that time. The issue for me was Covenant Theology and the Covenant of Grace. It was also historical documents. I do not believe in Solo Scriptura. I believe in Sola Scriptura and there is a difference. 

The main question for me came down to does the Mosaic Covenant and all the other Covenants after the Covenant Works contain and element of the Covenant of works or are they purely an administration of the Covenant of Grace. Does the Mosaic Covenant operate similar to the New Covenant. How does Jeremiah 31 play into this situation. How does Leviticus 18:5 and Romans 10:5 relate? I believed that God started with the Covenant of Works and then the proceeding Covenants were mixtures of the Covenant of Works and Covenant of Grace till we get to the New Covenant. The New Covenant was purely the Covenant of Grace. I no longer understand that to be. I believe that the Mosaic Covenant is purely an administration of the Covenant of Grace and I have blogged about it a bit. 

If infant baptism is sin it is because it is a violation of the Regulative Principle of Worship. If it isn't than the WCF is correct in Chapter 28:5. 



> V. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.


----------



## Phil D.

Don Kistler said:


> He cites Origen as having said that he was told by the Apostle John that Jesus baptized infants.



Interesting...seeing that Origen lived from c.184-253 AD.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

hammondjones said:


> Don Kistler said:
> 
> 
> 
> He cites Origen as having said that he was told by the Apostle John that Jesus baptized infants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is interesting, though perhaps not admissible in court.
Click to expand...





Phil D. said:


> Interesting...seeing that Origen lived from c.184-253 AD.



That is interesting. Origen was kind of strange wasn't he? Maybe he had a Saul and Samuel experience.


----------



## Phil D.

For the sake of accuracy here is Wall's actual citation of Origen (_History of Infant Baptism_, 4th ed., 1:83):

For this also it was, that the church had from the apostles a tradition [or order] to give baptism even to infants; for they, to whom the divine mysteries were committed, knew that there is in all persons the natural pollution of sin, which must be done away by water. (_Commentary on Romans_)​
Several things are worth noting here.

1. Origen originally wrote his Romans commentary in Greek, of which only a few fragments are extant (none of which are originals). The various Latin renderings of his works for which earlier Greek copies are still available are notorious for containing obvious interpolations by their various translators. Beginning with Erasmus, virtually all modern textual scholars attribute the Latin version of Origen's Romans commentary as being, at best, a rather crude paraphrase of the original by the late 4th century Italian monk Rufinus.

2. The Latin word which Wall ascribed an alternate meaning of "order" is "_traditionem_."

3. The author of the text in question claimed that the reason the apostles had handed down this tradition was because the water of baptism washes away original sin.


----------



## Constantlyreforming

Phil D. said:


> 3. The author of the text in question claimed that the reason the apostles had handed down this tradition was because the water of baptism washes away original sin.




Because it is so very difficult to always understand what the early writers meant through some of their writings, I have always wondered if what was insinuated by "washes away original sin" is something far different....

just thinking out loud..


----------



## Kevin

I see what you did there.


----------



## Tyrese

@ Kevin. I never responded to that comment by Joshua because I think he knew the question I was asking. Maybe in the future I will need to be more specific to avoid any confusion.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

One of the things I was recently reflecting on is sort of the latent assumption we have that information traveled in the same manner that it does today. We have many media by which men and women and children throughout the world may learn about things very rapidly. Nevertheless, we know of many remote areas where information travels slowly and customs are still preserved for centuries.

Thinking about this weakens any argument that paedobaptism could suddenly appear on the scene of Church history without any indication that it was an innovation and contrary to Apostolic teaching. The argument that the Church began with the convictions of modern day antipaedobaptists and so quickly degenerated to include the baptism of infants does not square with the light of nature. It's not a Scriptural argument for paedobaptism but it does militate against any theory that it was an innovation because there is no historical record.

Now, some will counter that other doctrines were seemingly lost for some time but, avoiding particulars for the moment, stop and consider the difference between a doctrine and a visible practice. It is quite easy to forget _why_ certain things are performed but is nigh impossible to forget that there was once a time when we only baptized professors. Many, for instance, could not articulate the _why_ of wine during the Lord's Supper in the 19th Century but it did not go unnoticed for even a second when ministers started serving grape juice.

For good or ill, visible practices have a shelf life that long outlasts the why of their performance and I've never seen an adequate explanation for the universal practice of paedobaptism that squares with this reality combined with the fact that information traveled so slowly in the first couple of millenia of the Church's history.


----------



## timmopussycat

Don Kistler said:


> William Wall's book shows pretty clearly that the "practice" of infant baptism was fairly standard in the early church. He cites Origen as having said that he was told by the Apostle John that Jesus baptized infants.



Do you have a page number or quotation for that citation?


----------



## Stephen L Smith

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I was a Confessional Baptist for 30 years. I defended the position vigourously during that time.



Hi Randy, could you clarify. Are you a paedobaptist?


----------



## Don Kistler

I'm afraid I don't. It's been years since I read the work. I'm going on memory, which at my age is always suspect. 
I think I also read the same thing in Samuel Cradock's work "Knowledge and Practice," in the section in infant baptism.
But, again, I'm not able to give you a page number. And even if I did, it might be from a different edition than the one on
Google books. Sorry, guys.

I did find the material by Cradock, and here is a portion of it:

The fifth and last argument I shall bring for infant baptism shall be the practice of the church in ancient times and near to the apostolic time. And for proofs of this nature, I shall take my rise from the time of Augustine without looking lower, and so ascend toward the days of the apostles. First then for Augustine, who flourished about the year of Christ 410. He is positive and expressly for it, Epistle 3, ad Volusian. Somewhat before Augustine lived St. Jerome, anno 400, who is clearly for infants’ baptism, Epistle ad Laetam.
Before him lived St. Ambrose, about the year 370, who, speaking of the Pelagian heresies (who published among other things that the hurt which Adam did to his posterity was “example nontransit” rather by giv¬ing them such a bad example of disobedience than by conveying unto them any natural sinfulness), thereupon infers that if this were true it would prove a very nullifying of the baptism of infants.
We ascend now to Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, who lived in the 3rd century, about the year 250, who was as great a stickler for infant bap¬tism in his time as any who succeeded him. Epistle ad Fidum lib. 3 Epistle 8. “If,” he said, “remissions of sins are given to the greatest offenders, none of which, if they afterwards believe, are excluded from the grace of baptism, how much rather should infants be admitted to it, who being newly born have not sinned at all, save that they have contracted from Adam that original guilt followeth every man by nature.” Nor was this Cyprian’s opinion only, but the unanimous consent of 66 African bish¬ops convened in council by whom it was declared (as he there related) that baptism was to be administered as well to infants as men of riper years.
Before him lived Origen, about the year 220, who plainly tells us that the apostolic church accepted as tradition the baptism of infants, and further shows that it was administered to them in reference to original sin, which if it were not in infants the grace of baptism might be thought superfluous. And thus far we can go to show the ancient practice of the church concerning infant baptism.







timmopussycat said:


> Don Kistler said:
> 
> 
> 
> William Wall's book shows pretty clearly that the "practice" of infant baptism was fairly standard in the early church. He cites Origen as having said that he was told by the Apostle John that Jesus baptized infants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a page number or quotation for that citation?
Click to expand...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Stephen L Smith said:


> Hi Randy, could you clarify. Are you a paedobaptist?



Yes, I came to understand some things about the Covenants that I had never understood before. I was debating a paedo understanding that looked more like a Baptist theology concerning the Mosaic Covenant. I use to believe that the Mosaic Covenant and New Covenant were very different in substance and that the Mosaic had a works paradigm to it that the New Covenant didn't. After being challenged for a few years I came to understand that what I was debating against was Klineanism (teachings of Meredith Kline) and not Reformed Covenant Theology. Now Kline has the Covenant of Works down but I believe that his thoughts concerning the law and Gospel in the Mosaic are a bit off. If Kline was correct and that there is a works substance or Reinstatement (republication) of the Covenant of Works then I would still be a Baptist I think. But I do not think this any longer. The substance of the Mosaic and New Covenants are the same. Justification is by grace alone through faith alone in the Old and New Covenant and the blessings of that substance have not changed from the Old to the New. I also finally read Jeremiah chapter 31 in context with Jeremiah 32 as Paul Manata asked me to do years ago. And it all started to fit together just a bit more clearly. 

If you have any questions or challenges for me just email me Stephen. Puritancovenanter at msn dot com. 


I posted a blog about it here. 
http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/mosaic-covenant-same-substance-new-724/

And here is when I announced my change of view. 
http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/kline-works-merit-pardigm-70896/#post908561


----------



## timmopussycat

Semper Fidelis said:


> One of the things I was recently reflecting on is sort of the latent assumption we have that information traveled in the same manner that it does today. We have many media by which men and women and children throughout the world may learn about things very rapidly. Nevertheless, we know of many remote areas where information travels slowly and customs are still preserved for centuries.
> 
> Thinking about this weakens any argument that paedobaptism could suddenly appear on the scene of Church history without any indication that it was an innovation and contrary to Apostolic teaching. The argument that the Church began with the convictions of modern day antipaedobaptists and so quickly degenerated to include the baptism of infants does not square with the light of nature. It's not a Scriptural argument for paedobaptism but it does militate against any theory that it was an innovation because there is no historical record.
> Now, some will counter that other doctrines were seemingly lost for some time but, avoiding particulars for the moment, stop and consider the difference between a doctrine and a visible practice. It is quite easy to forget _why_ certain things are performed but is nigh impossible to forget that there was once a time when we only baptized professors. Many, for instance, could not articulate the _why_ of wine during the Lord's Supper in the 19th Century but it did not go unnoticed for even a second when ministers started serving grape juice



The problem we face in this area is that we most likely do not have written records of the full teachings of all the sub apostolic fathers in this area, let alone others and your observation rests on a couple of begged questions. 1) Such evidence we do have commences with the first explicit mention of IB is from Tertullian, an objector to the practice. Given that reality, it is certainly legitmate to hold that Tertullian may well be combatting a then-new or growing innovation in the churches. We simply don't know the broader context of his remarks. And if someone made a theological deduction from apparently sound premises that ib was scriptural it could have been taught with relatively minor notice in one or more locations very quickly. 




Semper Fidelis said:


> For good or ill, visible practices have a shelf life that long outlasts the why of their performance and I've never seen an adequate explanation for the universal practice of paedobaptism that squares with this reality combined with the fact that information traveled so slowly in the first couple of millenia of the Church's history.



Information travel in the Roman empire was not always slow. Somewhere in the PB archive is a thread dealing with the Nestorian controversy a poster noted that "The land speed of the postal system throughout the Roman empire is known to have been 50 miles/day and it is not at all unreasonable to posit that such news could have reached N in Lower Egypt within 50 days as the distance from Istanbul (Chalcedon) to Alexandria is about 1061 miles. From Alexandria to the present Aswan is about another 700 miles. The Thebaid area was a twenty mile wide strip along the Nile running from Abydos south to Aswan. So the maximum distance from Chalcedon to Nestorius in exile was 1800 miles or 36 days average travel time." For anybody wealthy enough to send mail by the imperial post, communications lag around the Mediterranean was about 1 month.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

timmopussycat said:


> Tertullian, an objector to the practice


Whenever I read appeals to Tertullian I see this as evidence of the perfect example of question begging for a position in desperate search of a historical record. Tertullian does not object to the baptism of infants so much as he suggests that it's better to wait until as late in life as possible. Why? Surely for the reasons of the modern antipaedopaptist, correct? No. Because it washes away sin and he reasons that it's better to wait until you've got more sins to wash away. Now, how precisely, does Tertullian count historically as a crypto-Baptist?

The fact of the matter is that the practice of infant baptism is _established_ historically with any writings we have among diverse cultures and locations that have no record of any controversy (save imagined controversy with Tertullian) over a practice viewed so inimical to the Sacrament as to invalidate it. You have failed to give any credible explanation to this. Once again we ought to expect some objection that remotely resembles objections to other heresies at the time. Any theory about how a practice universally existed and passes from memory in every region of the Church is an incredible story indeed.

As for the speed of communications, a one month speed is impressive but Christianity was not simply along the main thoroughfares. Even so, with communications being what they were, I still believe you're assuming that new ideas spread as modern times and this is simply not the case. Accepting your premise for a moment, however, where are all the letters? Where are the letters from the Churches disputing this because they distinctly remember the apostolic practice? Where are the letters of response? With the rapidity of communications you cite we should see a robust conversation from at least one Church.


----------



## timmopussycat

Semper Fidelis said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tertullian, an objector to the practice
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever I read appeals to Tertullian I see this as evidence of the perfect example of question begging for a position in desperate search of a historical record. Tertullian does not object to the baptism of infants so much as he suggests that it's better to wait until as late in life as possible. Why? Surely for the reasons of the modern antipaedopaptist, correct? No. Because it washes away sin and he reasons that it's better to wait until you've got more sins to wash away. Now, how precisely, does Tertullian count historically as a crypto-Baptist?
Click to expand...


There are two reasons why T may be properly cited in favour of the possibility of anti-paedobaptism. First that he can, in 200 AD, feel free to attack paedobaptism which argues that p. (or the theology behind it) may be a relatively recent innovation. Christians tend not to argue about things that are known to be apostolic. Second, the theology of paedobaptism he cites is definitely non scripturual. Those who want to argue that paedobaptism is apostolic might want to explain how and why the apostolic doctrine on the topic degenerated so quickly. And of course this last can't be done because as I said before the sub-apostolic writings we have are not the complete record of the teaching of the sub-apostolic church. 



Semper Fidelis said:


> The fact of the matter is that the practice of infant baptism is _established_ historically with any writings we have among diverse cultures and locations that have no record of any controversy (save imagined controversy with Tertullian) over a practice viewed so inimical to the Sacrament as to invalidate it.



The widespread knowledge of the practice that you refer to comes from post 250. The fact of the matter is that there is *no* clear mention of the practice of infant baptism in the literature until Tertullian and that was not an imagined controversy but a real disagreement. We simply have no record of the practice in any area of the church until then and it is only 50 years later with Cyprian’s letter that we get the next clear mention. And Cyprian is arguing about the appropriate time for carrying out the rite. It might be argued that not settling appropriate time by 250 suggests that the practice was rather novel. 



Semper Fidelis said:


> You have failed to give any credible explanation to this. Once again we ought to expect some objection that remotely resembles objections to other heresies at the time. Any theory about how a practice universally existed and passes from memory in every region of the Church is an incredible story indeed.


 
In the sub-apostolic literature we can see indications of the speed with which false teaching developed. To take but one example, compare the ideas of Ignatius about 115 concerning bishops with the NT picture of the role. Less than 50 years after Paul’s death and we find considerable distortion of his teaching. And it is from these 50 years that we have very very little surviving record of what the early church taught. We simply cannot say whether pb was apostolic or whether it originated as an error during these years.



Semper Fidelis said:


> As for the speed of communications, a one month speed is impressive but Christianity was not simply along the main thoroughfares.


 
You should know better than to make this erroneous observation. The mails ran from Rome through Corinth, Phillipi, Ephesus, along the trade routes through both South and North Galatia to Antioch and Jerusalem. We know that there were substantial Christian communities in all these places by 70 AD.



Semper Fidelis said:


> Even so, with communications being what they were, I still believe you're assuming that new ideas spread as modern times and this is simply not the case. Accepting your premise for a moment, however, where are all the letters? Where are the letters from the Churches disputing this because they distinctly remember the apostolic practice? Where are the letters of response? With the rapidity of communications you cite we should see a robust conversation from at least one Church.



Assuming that we should see a robust conversation in one church would be known to us if pb were an innovation presumes that we have records of all the controversies of the period, which we don't. It also presumes that the innovation was perceived as controversial when first introduced. It may not have been so. If the false teaching about the meaning of baptism had earlier developed, pb would not be perceived as that great an innovation as it is a logical extension of that error. Given the communications it would spread rapidly through the churches.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I have a few questions. Does anyone in the early Church actually come out and deny paedobaptism in the early writings? Do they call it unscriptural? It seems it was an accepted practice. For a practice to just appear without any questioning of its propriety seems odd. So I would conclude it was most likely a practice of the early Church. Tertullian has been discussed quite a bit on this forum. His arguments weren't against the practice as unscriptural it seems. It seems he would have people wait for baptism because of his belief in baptismal regeneration and the washing away of sins. He even thought unmarried people should wait until they were married. 

Pastor Tim Phillips posted the following in another thread. I believe it is enlightening. 



Marrow Man said:


> From Tertullian (from ch. 18 of _On Baptism_):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But they whose office it is, know that baptism is not rashly to be administered. "Give to every one who begs you," has a reference of its own, appertaining especially to almsgiving. On the contrary, this precept is rather to be looked at carefully: "Give not the holy thing to the dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine;" Matthew 7:6 and, "Lay not hands easily on any; share not other men's sins." If Philip so "easily" baptized the chamberlain, let us reflect that a manifest and conspicuous evidence that the Lord deemed him worthy had been interposed. Acts 8:26-40 The Spirit had enjoined Philip to proceed to that road: the eunuch himself, too, was not found idle, nor as one who was suddenly seized with an eager desire to be baptized; but, after going up to the temple for prayer's sake, being intently engaged on the divine Scripture, was thus suitably discovered— to whom God had, unasked, sent an apostle, which one, again, the Spirit bade adjoin himself to the chamberlain's chariot. The Scripture which he was reading falls in opportunely with his faith: Philip, being requested, is taken to sit beside him; the Lord is pointed out; faith lingers not; water needs no waiting for; the work is completed, and the apostle snatched away. "But Paul too was, in fact, 'speedily' baptized:" for Simon, his host, speedily recognized him to be "an appointed vessel of election." God's approbation sends sure premonitory tokens before it; every "petition" may both deceive and be deceived. And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary— if (baptism itself) is not so necessary — that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfil their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? The Lord does indeed say, "Forbid them not to come unto me." Let them "come," then, while they are growing up; let them "come" while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the "remission of sins?" More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! Let them know how to "ask" for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given "to him that asks." For no less cause must the unwedded also be deferred— in whom the ground of temptation is prepared, alike in such as never were wedded by means of their maturity, and in the widowed by means of their freedom— until they either marry, or else be more fully strengthened for continence. If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From Cyprian (the subject itself was debated at the Council of Carthage in 254):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Cyprian, Letters 64:2, A.D. 253).
> 
> "If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another" (ibid., 64:5).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also, Hippolytus (c. 215 A.D.):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16).
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## kvanlaan

Interesting. I have a Coptic friend that I've discussed this with, and they're pretty sold on infant baptism, since they basically say "well, St Mark told us to do this, this, and this while he was here, so we've done it for the last 2000-ish years." I find it hard to argue a counter-point on that.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

timmopussycat said:


> There are two reasons why T may be properly cited in favour of the possibility of anti-paedobaptism. First that he can, in 200 AD, feel free to attack paedobaptism which argues that p. (or the theology behind it) may be a relatively recent innovation. Christians tend not to argue about things that are known to be apostolic. Second, the theology of paedobaptism he cites is definitely non scripturual. Those who want to argue that paedobaptism is apostolic might want to explain how and why the apostolic doctrine on the topic degenerated so quickly. And of course this last can't be done because as I said before the sub-apostolic writings we have are not the complete record of the teaching of the sub-apostolic church.


Question begging. Once again Tertullian doesn't "attack" paedobaptism. He argues that being older is better due to the results of baptismal regeneration. He also recommends that people wait until after they're married to be baptized as well. I almost laughed out loud at the argument that Tertullian "feels free to attack" an established practice. You do know that Tertullian became a Montanist? Are you going to cite all of Tertullian's objections against orthodoxy as evidence that the Early Church didn't have settled the things he challenged? 



timmopussycat said:


> The widespread knowledge of the practice that you refer to comes from post 250. The fact of the matter is that there is no clear mention of the practice of infant baptism in the literature until Tertullian and that was not an imagined controversy but a real disagreement. We simply have no record of the practice in any area of the church until then and it is only 50 years later with Cyprian’s letter that we get the next clear mention. And Cyprian is arguing about the appropriate time for carrying out the rite. It might be argued that not settling appropriate time by 250 suggests that the practice was rather novel.


Yes, and we have pretty clear historical memory of things that happened 250 years ago. What's your point? That people didn't have any institutional memory back then because they're not as intelligent as we? Once again, question begging. Where is the single objection that this is novel? You have failed to produce the single witness.



timmopussycat said:


> In the sub-apostolic literature we can see indications of the speed with which false teaching developed. To take but one example, compare the ideas of Ignatius about 115 concerning bishops with the NT picture of the role. Less than 50 years after Paul’s death and we find considerable distortion of his teaching. And it is from these 50 years that we have very very little surviving record of what the early church taught. We simply cannot say whether pb was apostolic or whether it originated as an error during these years.


Again, question begging. I already dealt with this. There was still a practice of Bishops and Presbyters even into Augustine's day because of the institutional memory of a title and a practice even long after people forgot what that apostolic teaching was. There is even histoical record of the lament of the loss of the office of Presbyter by an ECF (though I can't find it). Where is the single early Church witness to antipaedobaptism other than assuming your conclusion and constructing theories to stand in for your witness?



timmopussycat said:


> You should know better than to make this erroneous observation. The mails ran from Rome through Corinth, Phillipi, Ephesus, along the trade routes through both South and North Galatia to Antioch and Jerusalem. We know that there were substantial Christian communities in all these places by 70 AD.


You should know better to read more carefully. Not all live near well traveled roads and we see examples even in the NT that news about Paul had not reached the Jews there years after the controversy erupted.



timmopussycat said:


> Assuming that we should see a robust conversation in one church would be known to us if pb were an innovation presumes that we have records of all the controversies of the period, which we don't. It also presumes that the innovation was perceived as controversial when first introduced. It may not have been so. If the false teaching about the meaning of baptism had earlier developed, pb would not be perceived as that great an innovation as it is a logical extension of that error. Given the communications it would spread rapidly through the churches.


Question begging. Once again, an innovation that nobody cares about enough in the whole Church so as to make an objection? We have epistles surviving from Clement chastising Corinth again over an issue that modern antipaedobaptists would consider inconsequential compared to the corruption of who is baptized. You claim that your antipaedobaptist views were once normative in Church history and I haven't met one yet who is ambivalent about whether infants are baptized. Within my lifetime I've seen them forget many things about the Christian faith but neither the notion of "much water" nor "disciple=professor" have faded in their sharpness in the least. In fact, that's about all that can be said to be remembered sharply among a wide swath. I know many who cannot distinguish between nearly every Christological heresy or articulate soteriological issues but they know that baptizing babies isn't right.

If you can convince yourself with such theories then so be it. Your theories actually continue to undergird the point I made in my first post. I will let the reader decide whether your theories are convincing (when you're not misrepresenting Tertullian's actual words).


----------



## Bill The Baptist

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Stephen L Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Randy, could you clarify. Are you a paedobaptist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I came to understand some things about the Covenants that I had never understood before. I was debating a paedo understanding that looked more like a Baptist theology concerning the Mosaic Covenant. I use to believe that the Mosaic Covenant and New Covenant were very different in substance and that the Mosaic had a works paradigm to it that the New Covenant didn't. After being challenged for a few years I came to understand that what I was debating against was Klineanism (teachings of Meredith Kline) and not Reformed Covenant Theology. Now Kline has the Covenant of Works down but I believe that his thoughts concerning the law and Gospel in the Mosaic are a bit off. If Kline was correct and that there is a works substance or Reinstatement (republication) of the Covenant of Works then I would still be a Baptist I think. But I do not think this any longer. The substance of the Mosaic and New Covenants are the same. Justification is by grace alone through faith alone in the Old and New Covenant and the blessings of that substance have not changed from the Old to the New. I also finally read Jeremiah chapter 31 in context with Jeremiah 32 as Paul Manata asked me to do years ago. And it all started to fit together just a bit more clearly.
> 
> If you have any questions or challenges for me just email me Stephen. Puritancovenanter at msn dot com.
> 
> 
> I posted a blog about it here.
> http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/mosaic-covenant-same-substance-new-724/
> 
> And here is when I announced my change of view.
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/kline-works-merit-pardigm-70896/#post908561
Click to expand...


Et Tu, Brute?


----------



## cajunhillbilly53

http://www.amazon.com/Infant-Baptis...TF8&coliid=I2NRPO5D1R9OYU&colid=1WYC0IT832BJ4 this is a good book on this issue


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Bill The Baptist said:


> Et Tu, Brute?



"Our object should not be to have scripture on our side but to be on the side of scripture; and however dear any sentiment may have become by being long entertained, so soon as it is seen to be contrary to the Bible, we must be prepared to abandon it without hesitation."
William Symington

I have sincerely lived my life with the attitude of William Symington's words. I have never really had a shift of major theological thought. In fact I became a Christian by reading the scriptures and I even believed John 15:16 the first time I read it. So I wasn't born an Arminian to become a Calvinist even. 

I have stabbed no one. LOL. I know there is life eternal and run towards it and try to lead others to it also. It is found in Messiah the Prince and in His Covenant of Grace. I think I have laid out openly my reasons and I haven't really been challenged by anyone since I have. I think I covered most of the basis that I use to argue. Bill, if you want to give a go at challenging my understanding I am most willing. I have openly given my reasons and why I think the Mosaic Covenant and New Covenant are the same in substance. That is why I was Reformed Baptist. I didn't think they were.


----------



## timmopussycat

Semper Fidelis said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are two reasons why T may be properly cited in favour of the possibility of anti-paedobaptism. First that he can, in 200 AD, feel free to attack paedobaptism which argues that p. (or the theology behind it) may be a relatively recent innovation. Christians tend not to argue about things that are known to be apostolic. Second, the theology of paedobaptism he cites is definitely non scripturual. Those who want to argue that paedobaptism is apostolic might want to explain how and why the apostolic doctrine on the topic degenerated so quickly. And of course this last can't be done because as I said before the sub-apostolic writings we have are not the complete record of the teaching of the sub-apostolic church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question begging. Once again Tertullian doesn't "attack" paedobaptism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is at the very least recommending against it giving reasons he believes support his stand. Such an approach is often described as an attack.
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> [He argues that being older is better due to the results of baptismal regeneration. He uses celibacy as an example. I almost laughed out loud at the argument that Tertullian "feels free to attack" an established practice. You do know that Tertullian became a Montanist? Are you going to cite all of Tertullian's objections against orthodoxy as evidence that the Early Church didn't have settled the things he challenged?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I do know, but his attack on p comes from the time before Tertullian joined the Montanists. And T’s later career says nothing about the validity of his objections to pb in the same way that Clark Pinnock’s later career does not nullify the case he made for scriptural inspiration while orthodox (i.e. 1971’s Biblical Revelation).
> 
> 
> 
> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> The widespread knowledge of the practice that you refer to comes from post 250. The fact of the matter is that there is no clear mention of the practice of infant baptism in the literature until Tertullian and that was not an imagined controversy but a real disagreement. We simply have no record of the practice in any area of the church until then and it is only 50 years later with Cyprian’s letter that we get the next clear mention. And Cyprian is arguing about the appropriate time for carrying out the rite. It might be argued that not settling appropriate time by 250 suggests that the practice was rather novel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and we have pretty clear historical memory of things that happened 250 years ago. What's your point? That people didn't have any institutional memory back then because they're not as intelligent as we? Once again, question begging. Where is the single objection that this is novel? You have failed to produce the single witness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, my point is not that people did not then have institutional memory, my point is that, given the relative paucity of their teaching that has survived, we cannot know exactly what the institutional memory of the early church was on this question either way. What we have is enough to cast suspicion on any sub apostolic teaching not clearly supported by scripture. The moment we presume, by the silence of tradition that we can know what the early church taught, presumes that what we have fairly represents the tradition and is unsound reasoning. We must not ascribe to tradition the idea that it must provide answers to all our theological questions – for that is an authority that properly belongs to Scripture alone.
> 
> 
> 
> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the sub-apostolic literature we can see indications of the speed with which false teaching developed. To take but one example, compare the ideas of Ignatius about 115 concerning bishops with the NT picture of the role. Less than 50 years after Paul’s death and we find considerable distortion of his teaching. And it is from these 50 years that we have very very little surviving record of what the early church taught. We simply cannot say whether pb was apostolic or whether it originated as an error during these years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, question begging. I already dealt with this. There was still a practice of Bishops and Presbyters even into Augustine's day because of the institutional memory of a title and a practice even long after people forgot what that apostolic teaching was. There is even histoical record of the lament of the loss of the office of Presbyter by an ECF (though I can't find it). Where is the single early Church witness to antipaedobaptism other than assuming your conclusion and constructing theories to stand in for your witness?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And as I pointed out, we cannot rely on the church’s institutional memory because is demonstrably errant.
> 
> 
> 
> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should know better than to make this erroneous observation. The mails ran from Rome through Corinth, Phillipi, Ephesus, along the trade routes through both South and North Galatia to Antioch and Jerusalem. We know that there were substantial Christian communities in all these places by 70 AD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should know better to read more carefully. Not all live near well traveled roads and we see examples even in the NT that news about Paul had not reached the Jews there years after the controversy erupted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> You are confusing two types of information transfer. What did not reach Rome quickly was the details of the charge against Paul. It is not difficult to see at least one reason why this could have happened: the Jewish leaders wouldn’t risk fanning the controversy by letting people outside Judea know the details.
> 
> But what we are considering is the speed with which a new Christian teaching might pass throughout the churches. In this case the senders would have been motivated to help their brethren and so things may have moved faster.
> 
> 
> 
> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming that we should see a robust conversation in one church would be known to us if pb were an innovation presumes that we have records of all the controversies of the period, which we don't. It also presumes that the innovation was perceived as controversial when first introduced. It may not have been so. If the false teaching about the meaning of baptism had earlier developed, pb would not be perceived as that great an innovation as it is a logical extension of that error. Given the communications it would spread rapidly through the churches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question begging. Once again, an innovation that nobody cares about enough in the whole Church so as to make an objection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how do you know that nobody made an objection? Tons of people may have objected but their objections may not have survived. We know that there was at least some objection to the practice and some critical details in administration were nailed down suspiciously late. This suggests that ib MIGHT have been an innovation. Certainly false teachings are not always met immediately with widespread decrying: the tradition records nobody other than Tertullian making an objection to the false theology behind IB that definitely infiltrated the church.
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have epistles surviving from Clement chastising Corinth again over an issue that modern antipaedobaptists would consider inconsequential compared to the corruption of who is baptized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure and it’s a good thing we do. Not only is Clement pointing out some bad church practices relative to an issue, Church unity, that too many underrate..
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim that your antipaedobaptist views were once normative in Church history and I haven't met one yet who is ambivalent about whether infants are baptized. Within my lifetime I've seen them forget many things about the Christian faith but neither the notion of "much water" nor "disciple=professor" have faded in their sharpness in the least. In fact, that's about all that can be said to be remembered sharply among a wide swath. I know many who cannot distinguish between nearly every Christological heresy or articulate soteriological issues but they know that baptizing babies isn't right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lot of the sharpness and party spirit around this question has to do with the abuses historically heaped by both sides upon each other from the time of the Anabaptists to the present. This environment may not have been present in the second century. If a false teaching on the nature of baptism had infiltrated the early church and won acceptance (and it demonstrably did in the case of the erroneous theory of baptism which Tertullian anchors his critique of ib upon), then ib could easily have spread, as a corollary without raising the kind of ire we often see today.
Click to expand...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

timmopussycat said:


> Such an approach is often described as an attack.



This doesn't sound like an attack. This calling it an attack is an obscuring of what is admonished. Some have taken his words and used them out of context I believe. They make it sound like he is against paedobaptism. It sounds like he has reservations and desire for holding off on immediate baptism but I don't think he is against it. He really isn't saying not to administer Baptism right away but that we should make sure we know what it entails and what the ramifications are. It seems like it is more of admonition than an attack on paedobaptism. His last line seems to reveal his motive for what he is thinking. Tertullian says, "*If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay*: sound faith is secure of salvation."



Marrow Man said:


> From Tertullian (from ch. 18 of _On Baptism_):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But they whose office it is, know that baptism is not rashly to be administered. "Give to every one who begs you," has a reference of its own, appertaining especially to almsgiving. On the contrary, this precept is rather to be looked at carefully: "Give not the holy thing to the dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine;" Matthew 7:6 and, "Lay not hands easily on any; share not other men's sins." If Philip so "easily" baptized the chamberlain, let us reflect that a manifest and conspicuous evidence that the Lord deemed him worthy had been interposed. Acts 8:26-40 The Spirit had enjoined Philip to proceed to that road: the eunuch himself, too, was not found idle, nor as one who was suddenly seized with an eager desire to be baptized; but, after going up to the temple for prayer's sake, being intently engaged on the divine Scripture, was thus suitably discovered— to whom God had, unasked, sent an apostle, which one, again, the Spirit bade adjoin himself to the chamberlain's chariot. The Scripture which he was reading falls in opportunely with his faith: Philip, being requested, is taken to sit beside him; the Lord is pointed out; faith lingers not; water needs no waiting for; the work is completed, and the apostle snatched away. "But Paul too was, in fact, 'speedily' baptized:" for Simon, his host, speedily recognized him to be "an appointed vessel of election." God's approbation sends sure premonitory tokens before it; every "petition" may both deceive and be deceived. *And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children.* For why is it necessary— if (baptism itself) is not so necessary — that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? *Who both themselves, by reason of mortality,* may fail to fulfil their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? *The Lord does indeed say, "Forbid them not to come unto me." *Let them "come," then, while they are growing up; let them "come" while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the "remission of sins?" More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! Let them know how to "ask" for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given "to him that asks." For no less cause must the unwedded also be deferred— in whom the ground of temptation is prepared, alike in such as never were wedded by means of their maturity, and in the widowed by means of their freedom— until they either marry, or else be more fully strengthened for continence. If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation.
Click to expand...


Maybe I am reading this incorrectly but I don't see where he is totally against it. It seemed necessary to baptize those on their death bed because of the implication that sin was forgiven and washed away. That was common thinking back then if I am not mistaken. Tertullian is just pleading for cautious understanding.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

timmopussycat said:


> He is at the very least recommending against it giving reasons he believes support his stand. Such an approach is often described as an attack.


When one is begging the question. He is also, therefore, _attacking_ adult baptism for the unmarried. Do you see this, also, as a buttress to your point or are you being selective?



timmopussycat said:


> Yes I do know, but his attack on p comes from the time before Tertullian joined the Montanists. And T’s later career says nothing about the validity of his objections to pb in the same way that Clark Pinnock’s later career does not nullify the case he made for scriptural inspiration while orthodox (i.e. 1971’s Biblical Revelation).


And because he supports your theory you are able to figure out which parts of his theology are stable ("attacks" on PB) and which are unstable (let's just ignore that baptismal regeneration stuff and silliness about telling the unmarried to wait to get baptized....)




timmopussycat said:


> No, my point is not that people did not then have institutional memory, my point is that, given the relative paucity of their teaching that has survived, we cannot know exactly what the institutional memory of the early church was on this question either way.


Consequently, any theories would be question begging, yes?

Oh, apparently not...



timmopussycat said:


> What we have is enough to cast suspicion on any sub apostolic teaching not clearly supported by scripture.


No, you have taken a few sentences without any other surrounding historical context, imported your theory on it and created an explanation for it al. This is not historical argument, it is question begging. As I stated before, the silence needs no explanation. When there is no contrary example, my Biblical conviction does not need to go searching for theories for its instant disappearance from the face of Christianity a little over a century after the death of the Apostles.


timmopussycat said:


> You are confusing two types of information transfer. What did not reach Rome quickly was the details of the charge against Paul. It is not difficult to see at least one reason why this could have happened: the Jewish leaders wouldn’t risk fanning the controversy by letting people outside Judea know the details.
> 
> But what we are considering is the speed with which a new Christian teaching might pass throughout the churches. In this case the senders would have been motivated to help their brethren and so things may have moved faster.


My point is merely that information did not travel quickly and, try as you might to assume that the Church would be motivated to spread the news of a new heresy quickly, your theory is fantastic.




timmopussycat said:


> And how do you know that nobody made an objection? Tons of people may have objected but their objections may not have survived. We know that there was at least some objection to the practice and some critical details in administration were nailed down suspiciously late. This suggests that ib MIGHT have been an innovation. Certainly false teachings are not always met immediately with widespread decrying: the tradition records nobody other than Tertullian making an objection to the false theology behind IB that definitely infiltrated the church.


Please do keep making these sorts of objections. They simply support the case of historical silence in need of a theory to explain. Can you please be more specific about the false theology behind IB that Tertullian was objecting to? Does Tertullian's correction of false theology convince you and your Church that you should not be baptizing the unmarried?


timmopussycat said:


> Sure and it’s a good thing we do. Not only is Clement pointing out some bad church practices relative to an issue, Church unity, that too many underrate..


But you had stated earlier that most people would simply "lay down" on the baptism issue as if it was immaterial. I did not state that Clement's letter was unnecessary or the issues unimportant. I really don't know if you are being deceptive or you are really unable to accurately read even a simple interaction with me but it was very clear what I meant. It seems to me that your education should allow you to follow my simple point and I would urge you to take greater care when responding. 



timmopussycat said:


> A lot of the sharpness and party spirit around this question has to do with the abuses historically heaped by both sides upon each other from the time of the Anabaptists to the present. This environment may not have been present in the second century. If a false teaching on the nature of baptism had infiltrated the early church and won acceptance (and it demonstrably did in the case of the erroneous theory of baptism which Tertullian anchors his critique of ib upon), then ib could easily have spread, as a corollary without raising the kind of ire we often see today.



Tim, I'll let you have the last word but let me close by noting that you have a single historical witness who is not only unstable as demosntrated by his departure from orthodoxy but unstable as demonstrated by several other things he affirms and denies in his urging the delay of baptism for infants, children, and pubescent teens. Even if we assume he hadn't gone off the deep end yet, you keep coming back to him because you have no place else to go. If you wish to continue to buttress your historical argument with this lone unstable witness then I'm happy to have you do so as it continues to make my initial point. Let the reader move his nose away an inch from the issue and he'd realize that your historical case has no substance and is an example of the kind of historical scholarship we would all scoff at if it was in the service of a liberal.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Et Tu, Brute?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Our object should not be to have scripture on our side but to be on the side of scripture; and however dear any sentiment may have become by being long entertained, so soon as it is seen to be contrary to the Bible, we must be prepared to abandon it without hesitation."
> William Symington
> 
> I have sincerely lived my life with the attitude of William Symington's words. I have never really had a shift of major theological thought. In fact I became a Christian by reading the scriptures and I even believed John 15:16 the first time I read it. So I wasn't born an Arminian to become a Calvinist even.
> 
> I have stabbed no one. LOL. I know there is life eternal and run towards it and try to lead others to it also. It is found in Messiah the Prince and in His Covenant of Grace. I think I have laid out openly my reasons and I haven't really been challenged by anyone since I have. I think I covered most of the basis that I use to argue. Bill, if you want to give a go at challenging my understanding I am most willing. I have openly given my reasons and why I think the Mosaic Covenant and New Covenant are the same in substance. That is why I was Reformed Baptist. I didn't think they were.
Click to expand...


I'm only kidding, Martin. We all have to live in truth as we understand it, and often our understanding of truth changes over time. You should be commended for following what you belive is truth and not remaining in your previous position out of pride. And no, I have no intention of challenging your position on baptism or anyone else. This debate is not going to be settled on this forum. Some of us are credobaptists and some of us are paedobaptists, but we are all brothers and we are all together on the Puritan Board. Let us live in peace.


----------



## timmopussycat

Tertullian said:


> *And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children.* _For why is it necessary— if (baptism itself) is not so necessary — that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? *Who both themselves, by reason of mortality,* may fail to fulfil their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? *The Lord does indeed say, "Forbid them not to come unto me." *Let them "come," then, while they are growing up; let them "come" while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the "remission of sins?" More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! Let them know how to "ask" for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given "to him that asks." For no less cause must the unwedded also be deferred— in whom the ground of temptation is prepared, alike in such as never were wedded by means of their maturity, and in the widowed by means of their freedom— until they either marry, or else be more fully strengthened for continence. If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation._


_. _



PuritanCovenanter said:


> This doesn't sound like an attack. This calling it an attack is an obscuring of what is admonished. Some have taken his words and used them out of context I believe. They make it sound like he is against paedobaptism. It sounds like he has reservations and desire for holding off on immediate baptism but I don't think he is against it. He really isn't saying not to administer Baptism right away but that we should make sure we know what it entails and what the ramifications are. It seems like it is more of admonition than an attack on paedobaptism. His last line seems to reveal his motive for what he is thinking.


 
To even recommend against what, on pb premises, was the then normal understanding of pb is, by definition, to be against the practice as it was then carried out 



PuritanCovenanter said:


> Maybe I am reading this incorrectly but I don't see where he is totally against it. It seemed necessary to baptize those on their death bed because of the implication that sin was forgiven and washed away. That was common thinking back then if I am not mistaken. Tertullian is just pleading for cautious understanding.


 
Whether you use the word attack or admonishment, the substance is the same, T. is recommending against infant baptism based on an unscriptural misunderstanding of Baptism that seems to have been common in his day.



Semper Fidelis said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is at the very least recommending against it giving reasons he believes support his stand. Such an approach is often described as an attack.
> 
> 
> 
> When one is begging the question. He is also, therefore, _attacking_ adult baptism for the unmarried. Do you see this, also, as a buttress to your point or are you being selective?
Click to expand...

 
His attack on other cases are based on and logical consequences of the same theological misunderstanding of baptism that his critique of ib evidences. 



timmopussycat said:


> Yes I do know, but his attack on p comes from the time before Tertullian joined the Montanists. And T’s later career says nothing about the validity of his objections to pb in the same way that Clark Pinnock’s later career does not nullify the case he made for scriptural inspiration while orthodox (i.e. 1971’s Biblical Revelation).





Semper Fidelis said:


> And because he supports your theory you are able to figure out which parts of his theology are stable ("attacks" on PB) and which are unstable (let's just ignore that baptismal regeneration stuff and silliness about telling the unmarried to wait to get baptized....)


 
No, what I said was that Christians TEND not to attack things KNOWN to be APOSTOLIC. (I should have used the word “practices” rather than things). IF the practice of IB was certainly known to be Apostolic by Tertullian, he would have been less likely to attack in this period. And note that even in his Montanist period he was holding, to a considerable extent, doctrines and practices that although apostolic, but that had since ceased (assuming the cessationist view of matters is correct). What T does is reason from an unbiblical theology of baptism which we must assume was then current.



timmopussycat said:


> No, my point is not that people did not then have institutional memory, my point is that, given the relative paucity of their teaching that has survived, we cannot know exactly what the institutional memory of the early church was on this question either way.





Semper Fidelis said:


> Consequently, any theories would be question begging, yes?
> 
> Oh, apparently not...



When the tradition is known to be errant, statements presuming certainties (either way) will be question begging. On the other hand, statements showing what the possibilities are may not be so considered.



timmopussycat said:


> What we have is enough to cast suspicion on any sub apostolic teaching not clearly supported by scripture.





Semper Fidelis said:


> No, you have taken a few sentences without any other surrounding historical context, imported your theory on it and created an explanation for it al. This is not historical argument, it is question begging. As I stated before, the silence needs no explanation. When there is no contrary example, my Biblical conviction does not need to go searching for theories for its instant disappearance from the face of Christianity a little over a century after the death of the Apostles.


 
The facts are these: ib is not mentioned clearly in the tradition until 200; when it is first mentioned it is mentioned in conjunction with an errant theology of baptism which proves that whatever the apostolic tradition on subject of baptism was, it was somehow corrupted between 70 and about 185. The good and necessary consequence of this reality is that is begging the question to assume that the rest of the baptism tradition (including the practice of ib) is accurate when we cannot test its accuracy. It may be accurate or it may not be and we simply don’t know which is correct. Presuming we can trust a tradition known to be errant in part, on the points where we cannot test it is to abandon the reformed doctrine of sola, not solo, scriptura in favour of a reformed traditionalism. 



timmopussycat said:


> You are confusing two types of information transfer. What did not reach Rome quickly was the details of the charge against Paul. It is not difficult to see at least one reason why this could have happened: the Jewish leaders wouldn’t risk fanning the controversy by letting people outside Judea know the details.
> 
> But what we are considering is the speed with which a new Christian teaching might pass throughout the churches. In this case the senders would have been motivated to help their brethren and so things may have moved faster.





Semper Fidelis said:


> My point is merely that information did not travel quickly and, try as you might to assume that the Church would be motivated to spread the news of a new heresy quickly, your theory is fantastic.


 
Information was known to travel quickly some of the time and slowly some of the time. You can’t pick an alternative because it is favourable to your case, you must look at the range of possibilities and allow for what is likely. If the errant doctrine of baptism T relies on was not initially perceived to be heretical, and it wasn’t because it was accepted as the norm in T's day, the question then becomes how fast would it likely have spread through the churches? We know the maximum speed of the Roman mails, let’s double that for private travellers, and allow another year’s delay from church to church (travelling teachers were known to circulate). While we could take 115 - the date of the first known corruption of apostolic teaching in the literature - as our start date, let’s be conservative and assume (hypothetically) that it started in, say Corinth, about 135. It would be in Rome and Philippi by 137, Ephesus by 139, Antioch by 140 and Jerusalem by 142. Since ib is a logical consequence of that doctrine, it would not be easily perceived as heretical. Assume that ib was first formulated in 145, it would have been known throughout the churches by 152 at the latest – a generation before 185.



timmopussycat said:


> And how do you know that nobody made an objection? Tons of people may have objected but their objections may not have survived. We know that there was at least some objection to the practice and some critical details in administration were nailed down suspiciously late. This suggests that ib MIGHT have been an innovation. Certainly false teachings are not always met immediately with widespread decrying: the tradition records nobody other than Tertullian making an objection to the false theology behind IB that definitely infiltrated the church.





Semper Fidelis said:


> Please do keep making these sorts of objections. They simply support the case of historical silence in need of a theory to explain. Can you please be more specific about the false theology behind IB that Tertullian was objecting to?



The errant theology of baptism T is relying on includes the ideas that a) that wb was essential for salvation: "Now God has ordered every one who worships Him to be sealed by baptism; but if you refuse, and obey your own will rather than God's, you are doubtless contrary and hostile to His will. But you will perhaps say, 'What does the baptism of water contribute towards the worship of God?' In the first place, because that which hath pleased God is fulfilled. In the second place, because, when you are regenerated and born again of water and of God, the frailty of your former birth, which you have through men, is cut off, and so at length you shall be able to attain salvation; but otherwise it is impossible. For thus hath the true prophet testified to us with an oath: 'Verily I say to you, That unless a man is born again of water, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.' Therefore make haste; for there is in these waters a certain power of mercy which was borne upon them at the beginning, and acknowledges those who are baptized under the name of the threefold sacrament, and rescues them from future punishments, presenting as a gift to God the souls that are consecrated by baptism. Betake yourselves therefore to these waters, for they alone can quench the violence of the future fire; and he who delays to approach to them, it is evident that the idol of unbelief remains in him, and by it he is prevented from hastening to the waters which confer salvation." (Clement, "Recognitions of Clement," Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 8, pg. 155) and b) that there are serious adverse consequences for the one who commits sins after baptism, so serious that baptism is best postponed. We see a hint of this in: “But the world returned unto sin; in which point baptism would ill be compared to the deluge. And so it is destined to fire; just as the man too is, who after baptism renews his sins.” (Tertullian, On Baptism, ch 8). This tradition known seems to have origninated in the following text which suggests that sinning after baptism could not be atoned for: "there is no other way [to obtain God's promises] than this-to become acquainted with Christ, to be washed in the fountain spoken of by Isaiah for the remission of sins, and for the remainder, to live sinless lives." (Justin Martyr, Trypho chap. 44) "For, if we do the will of Christ, we shall find rest; but if otherwise, then nothing shall deliver us from eternal punishment, if we should disobey His commandments. . . . [W]ith what confidence shall we, if we keep not our baptism pure and undefiled, enter into the kingdom of God? Or who shall be our advocate, unless we be found having holy and righteous works?' (Second Clement 6:7)



Semper Fidelis said:


> Does Tertullian's correction of false theology convince you and your Church that you should not be baptizing the unmarried?



No, for the same reasons you and your church would find that premise Scripturally unsound. My only reasons in citing this unbiblical theology of baptism is to point out that scripturally it is a corruption of Apostolic doctrine and that it entered the tradition undetected in the years 70 - 200. 



timmopussycat said:


> Sure and it’s a good thing we do. Not only is Clement pointing out some bad church practices relative to an issue, Church unity, that too many underrate..





Semper Fidelis said:


> But you had stated earlier that most people would simply "lay down" on the baptism issue as if it was immaterial. I did not state that Clement's letter was unnecessary or the issues unimportant. I really don't know if you are being deceptive or you are really unable to accurately read even a simple interaction with me but it was very clear what I meant. It seems to me that your education should allow you to follow my simple point and I would urge you to take greater care when responding.
> 
> The history of heresy shows plainly enough that some issues are immediately recognized as controversial and some are not, and in other case the full extent of the problem comes to light after many years. Please reread my posts. I am trying to say that there is good reason to show that the early church experienced a defective theology of baptism (quotations above) that held not only that wb was essential to salvation but that no sacrifice for sins was available for sins committed post baptism. Once this error was adopted, there is no good reason to object to ib except for those reasons T put forward. And, given the history of heresy, we cannot say that the doctrinal misunderstanding would immediately have been recognized as erroneous by some. That simply is not the case.
> 
> 
> 
> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of the sharpness and party spirit around this question has to do with the abuses historically heaped by both sides upon each other from the time of the Anabaptists to the present. This environment may not have been present in the second century. If a false teaching on the nature of baptism had infiltrated the early church and won acceptance (and it demonstrably did in the case of the erroneous theory of baptism which Tertullian anchors his critique of ib upon), then ib could easily have spread, as a corollary without raising the kind of ire we often see today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tim, I'll let you have the last word but let me close by noting that you have a single historical witness who is not only unstable as demosntrated by his departure from orthodoxy but unstable as demonstrated by several other things he affirms and denies in his urging the delay of baptism for infants, children, and pubescent teens. Even if we assume he hadn't gone off the deep end yet, you keep coming back to him because you have no place else to go. If you wish to continue to buttress your historical argument with this lone unstable witness then I'm happy to have you do so as it continues to make my initial point. Let the reader move his nose away an inch from the issue and he'd realize that your historical case has no substance and is an example of the kind of historical scholarship we would all scoff at if it was in the service of a liberal.
Click to expand...

 
And my last word is you are demonstrably relying on the early baptismal tradition as if it were inerrant when it demonstrably not.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

timmopussycat said:


> And my last word is you are demonstrably relying on the early baptismal tradition as if it were inerrant when it demonstrably not.


As I allowed the last word to be about support for your position and not to violate the 9th Commandment, I will respond with an admonition.

Nowhere have I relied on early baptismal tradition as if it were inerrant. This is a flat untruth and I will warn you not to spread lies such as these on this board. It is quite clear what I have stated and you are intelligent enough to discern these things. Again, either you are being deceitful or careless in your handling of others' words. Either way it will not be tolerated again.


----------



## Tyrese

Im amazed at how little I really know about baptism. After doing more thorough Biblical research on infant baptism, I am in an absolute state of confusion. In a strange way im begining to think you cannot hold to covenant theology w/o holding to infant baptism. I mean the unity between circumcision and baptism is overwhelming. Can some Reformed Baptist help me with this because I know you can be covenantal w/o holding to infant baptism.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian

Tyrese said:


> Im amazed at how little I really know about baptism. After doing more thorough Biblical research on infant baptism, I am in an absolute state of confusion. In a strange way im begining to think you cannot hold to covenant theology w/o holding to infant baptism. I mean the unity between circumcision and baptism is overwhelming. Can some Reformed Baptist help me with this because I know you can be covenantal w/o holding to infant baptism.



You may find this to be of some benefit: Defense of Infant Baptism by Gregg Strawbridge, Ph.D.

Blessings,
Mark

You edited your post and took out the request for parallel citations re: circumcision while I was posting this, but it still may be helpful.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Tyrese said:


> Im amazed at how little I really know about baptism. After doing more thorough Biblical research on infant baptism, I am in an absolute state of confusion. In a strange way im begining to think you cannot hold to covenant theology w/o holding to infant baptism. I mean the unity between circumcision and baptism is overwhelming. Can some Reformed Baptist help me with this because I know you can be covenantal w/o holding to infant baptism.



This might help you a bit. Founders Ministries | A Critical Evaluation of Paedobaptism


----------



## Tyrese

Bill The Baptist said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im amazed at how little I really know about baptism. After doing more thorough Biblical research on infant baptism, I am in an absolute state of confusion. In a strange way im begining to think you cannot hold to covenant theology w/o holding to infant baptism. I mean the unity between circumcision and baptism is overwhelming. Can some Reformed Baptist help me with this because I know you can be covenantal w/o holding to infant baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This might help you a bit. Founders Ministries | A Critical Evaluation of Paedobaptism
Click to expand...


@ Bill the Baptist. Thanks Bill that was awesome. That article pretty much addressed all of my questions. Its important for me to be able to be Reformed Baptist with confidence.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Tyrese said:


> @ Bill the Baptist. Thanks Bill that was awesome. That article pretty much addressed all of my questions. Its important for me to be able to be Reformed Baptist with confidence.



When I have some time I will address Dr. Welty's article. It is really a mess. I was a Reformed Baptist for 30 years. He makes some strange comments and is refutable. Most Baptist take Jeremiah out of context without even looking at the Chapters around it (read chapter 32 also) and import their understanding of the Mosaic with I find faulty in the first place. 

I will respond to the article with I get some time.


----------



## Tyrese

@ Bill the Baptist." Additionally, if circumcision allegedly has the same meaning as baptism, then two important questions need to be asked: Why institute a new sign? Why baptize those who had already been circumcised into the covenant community?" I think these are excellent questions that the author raises.


----------



## Marrow Man

Tyrese said:


> Why institute a new sign?



Because there was no longer the need for the shedding of blood? Sorry, but that is not an excellent question.


----------



## Tyrese

@ Pastor Tim. I think there good questions because they point to the fact that theres a difference.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I do not want to be disrespectful to an Elder, so please know that I am trying to tread cautiously. Dr. Welty is a very intelligent man and far superior in knowledge than I am. I am not claiming to be smarter but I think there are things he missed in this paper which he wrote years ago. 

My Critique of Dr. Welty's paper.
Founders Ministries | A Critical Evaluation of Paedobaptism


> Dr. Welty writes…
> “This paper was originally written to fill a primary need among the seminary interns and other young men at my church. My own experience has taught me that nondispensational, Calvinistic baptists are perpetually tempted to look over the fence of their small and often divisive camp and covet the ministry opportunities available in conservative Presbyterian circles. *Many have made this leap, and often do so because they simply don't have a deep, Scripturally-based conviction that the baptist view is correct.* Rather, they have absorbed their baptistic sentiments culturally and emotionally, and thus often lose them by the same means. Many have not been presented with an extended series of *biblical arguments* against infant baptism, a set of arguments which is at the same time consistent with their own nondispensational and Calvinistic perspective. So consider the following to be a resource for seminary and Bible students who want a quick, clear, and accessible summary of the leading reasons why Reformed Baptists (and all biblical Christians) ought not to embrace the doctrine of infant baptism.”


 
RMS (PuritanCovenanter)
This is not true of me. I was not raised in Church and I became a Christian by reading the scriptures in a Navy barracks near Virginia Beach, Virginia. I wasn’t even an Arminian. I read the four Gospels and found out Jesus was the Great I AM in John 8:58 and that He chose me in John 15:16. I was introduced to the Navigator Ministry on base and attended a Reformed Baptist church called Kempsville Chapel. I was instructed in baptism and understood the Reformed Baptist position for many years. You can read a lot of threads on this forum where I defended it up till last Summer. 



> Dr. Welty
> 
> Paedobaptists, while rightly affirming the fundamental and underlying _unity_ of the covenant of grace in all ages, wrongly press that unity in a way that distorts and suppresses the _diversity_ of the several administrations of that covenant in history.


RMS (PuritanCovenanter)
This is a matter of hermeneutics and I could charge Dr. Welty with wrongly stressing and making diversity in the administrations that truly aren’t there. And I believe it starts with the Abrahamic Covenant and Mosaic Covenant. 

In the past I used the same arguments that he used. I am convinced they are incorrect now that I have been referenced to the old Puritans such as John Ball's Treatise of the Covenant of Grace and some more recent writings by Pastors today. These arguments that I believe are incorrect are based on a concept that says the Mosaic Covenant has a Works paradigm in it and that it is a Reinstatement or Republication of the Covenant of Works. In other words the Mosaic Covenant has an element of the Covenant of Grace in it as well as an element of the Covenant of Works. The older theologians used the same language but didn’t define it the same way. I believe that Dr. Welty and Reformed Baptist have made the same errors. I have come to know that the Mosaic Covenant is purely a Covenant of Grace without a Covenant of Works attached to it. It is purely an administration of the Covenant of Grace. 

Here is a web page dedicated to the Mosaic Covenant that I found very helpful. https://sites.google.com/site/themosaiccovenant/

Dr. Welty then discusses some passages that he is convinced shows the differences between the New and Old Covenant. One is breakable and the other isn’t. 




> Dr. Welty
> First, _the New Covenant is an unbreakable covenant_. The very reason why God established this New Covenant with his people is because they broke the old one (v. 32)…. But according to Jeremiah, the covenant as administered in the New Covenant is not breakable by the covenantees.


 
RMS (PuritanCovenanter)
First off, In all due respect to the good Dr. Welty, his reason why God established the New Covenant is wrong. Where does Jeremiah truly say this? All that verse 32 says is that the New Covenant isn’t like the Covenant they broke. Well, let me first address the reason why God established a New Covenant. The New Covenant is explained in the book of Hebrews as a Better Covenant with better Promises because it has a Better Priest. The reason God made the New Covenant was to fulfill His promises He said He was going fulfill in the Old Covenant. Christ coming and fulfilling the Old Covenant Promises was why the new Covenant was established. It wasn't because of Israel breaking the Law but because Adam broke the Covenant of Works. This establishment of the New Covenant is promised all the way back in Genesis 3:15. The reason for the New Covenant is that we needed a perfect sacrifice. Messiah the Prince had to come and do the Father’s will by dying for our sins which the blood of animals couldn’t take away. So Dr. Welty is incorrect on the reason why God established this New Covenant. 

Now some take verse 32 to prove this Covenant is unbreakable. While I believe that is true concerning justification in both the Old and the New Covenant, (mind you I am speaking about justification) I am not so sure you can actually force that meaning on the text. The New Covenant isn’t like the Mosaic in a lot of ways. It is fulfillment of the shadows. It has the full substance of completeness as Christ said it is Finished. It will include both Jew and Gentile. But I don’t see where the text actually says this covenant is unbreakable like the Old Covenant is. Many a man have been baptized and promised to follow God and walked away from the faith breaking the Covenant they made with God. Just like the Old Testament saints. Those of us who are Elect and have a sincere faith in Messiah the Prince are preserved by Messiah the Prince the same in both Covenants. That is the same in both testaments. And if we don’t walk accordingly we shall suffer excommunication and hopefully restoration. But TULIP is the same in both the Old and New Covenants. 

I wrote a blog about how the New and Old Covenants are the same in substance. 
You can read it here. 
http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/p...ant-same-substance-new-not-according-mrt-792/

Anyways, I just hit point 1 and find it troubling. I hope others do also as I see big gaps in his claims and conclusions. I will address point 2 later.

(Jer 32:39) And I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever, *for the good of them, and of their children after them*:

(Jer 32:40) And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me.


----------



## Marrow Man

> @ Pastor Tim. I think there good questions because they point to the fact that theres a difference.



One's bloody and one's not. One can be administered to only males and one can be administered to both genders. Of course there's a difference.

But this has been acknowledged by Presbyterians. To assert otherwise is to attack a straw man. For example, Samuel Miller says:



> Yet, though baptism manifestly comes in the place of circumcision, there are points in regard to which the former differs materially from the latter. And it differs precisely as to those points in regard to which the New Testament economy differs from the Old, in being more enlarged, and less ceremonial. Baptism is not ceremonially restricted to the eighth day, but may be administered at any time and place. It is not confined to one sex; but, like the glorious dispensation of which it is a seal, it marks an enlarged privilege, and is administered in a way which reminds us that 'there is neither Greek nor Jew, neither bond nor free, neither male nor female, in the Christian economy; but that we are all one in Christ Jesus.


----------



## TylerRay

Tyrese said:


> @ Bill the Baptist." Additionally, if circumcision allegedly has the same meaning as baptism, then two important questions need to be asked: Why institute a new sign? Why baptize those who had already been circumcised into the covenant community?" I think these are excellent questions that the author raises.



The Apostle says they have essentially the same meaning:



> "In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead." -Col 2:11-12



Notice that "circumcision without hands" and a spiritual baptism are the same thing. Therefore, circumcision and baptism essentially represent the same things, so baptism is a suitable replacement for circumcision.

As Rev. Phillips noted, they are not the same in all ways; but there is a commonality in what they signify.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Tyrese said:


> @ Bill the Baptist." Additionally, if circumcision allegedly has the same meaning as baptism, then two important questions need to be asked: Why institute a new sign? Why baptize those who had already been circumcised into the covenant community?" I think these are excellent questions that the author raises.



While all these questions are interesting and important, they can all be answered. The one question that cannot be answered which has always puzzled me is this, if circumcision was such a big issue in the early church whereby the Judaizers were insisting that Gentile converts be baptized against an understandable backlash, so much so that Paul dedicates a good part of several of his letters to this topic (Gal.5) and so much so that the church convened the Jerusalem council to solve this problem, why then if baptism had replaced circumcision did none of the apostles simply solve this problem by stating that circumcision was unneccesary because it had been replaced by baptism? This solution is never offered by Paul or any of the other apostles to address a major problem to which this would have been a perfect solution. That, in my mind, is a serious problem for infant baptism. Theologically it makes perfect sense, and it is fruitless to argue against it in that fashion,but we just don't have any real evidence of the early church practicing it, and the issue with the Judaizers simply highlights this.


----------



## TylerRay

Bill The Baptist said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> 
> @ Bill the Baptist." Additionally, if circumcision allegedly has the same meaning as baptism, then two important questions need to be asked: Why institute a new sign? Why baptize those who had already been circumcised into the covenant community?" I think these are excellent questions that the author raises.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While all these questions are interesting and important, they can all be answered. The one question that cannot be answered which has always puzzled me is this, if circumcision was such a big issue in the early church whereby the Judaizers were insisting that Gentile converts be baptized against an understandable backlash, so much so that Paul dedicates a good part of several of his letters to this topic (Gal.5) and so much so that the church convened the Jerusalem council to solve this problem, why then if baptism had replaced circumcision did none of the apostles simply solve this problem by stating that circumcision was unneccesary because it had been replaced by baptism? This solution is never offered by Paul or any of the other apostles to address a major problem to which this would have been a perfect solution. That, in my mind, is a serious problem for infant baptism. Theologically it makes perfect sense, and it is fruitless to argue against it in that fashion,but we just don't have any real evidence of the early church practicing it, and the issue with the Judaizers simply highlights this.
Click to expand...


Bill,

I hope you know that that's no way to form a decisive argument. I could pose the same kind of question:
If the children of believers were included in the covenant in the OT, and not in the New, why did Jews who converted to Christ never have to be told that their children would no longer be in the covenant? Why was there no controversy over this question with the Judaizers? Why is it never explained to Jewish families that, after many generations of covenantal succession through families, their children would not be born into the covenant?

So both our observations about the silence of the apostles are interesting, but they aren't conclusive.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

TylerRay said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> 
> @ Bill the Baptist." Additionally, if circumcision allegedly has the same meaning as baptism, then two important questions need to be asked: Why institute a new sign? Why baptize those who had already been circumcised into the covenant community?" I think these are excellent questions that the author raises.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While all these questions are interesting and important, they can all be answered. The one question that cannot be answered which has always puzzled me is this, if circumcision was such a big issue in the early church whereby the Judaizers were insisting that Gentile converts be baptized against an understandable backlash, so much so that Paul dedicates a good part of several of his letters to this topic (Gal.5) and so much so that the church convened the Jerusalem council to solve this problem, why then if baptism had replaced circumcision did none of the apostles simply solve this problem by stating that circumcision was unneccesary because it had been replaced by baptism? This solution is never offered by Paul or any of the other apostles to address a major problem to which this would have been a perfect solution. That, in my mind, is a serious problem for infant baptism. Theologically it makes perfect sense, and it is fruitless to argue against it in that fashion,but we just don't have any real evidence of the early church practicing it, and the issue with the Judaizers simply highlights this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bill,
> 
> I hope you know that that's no way to form a decisive argument. I could pose the same kind of question:
> If the children of believers were included in the covenant in the OT, and not in the New, why did Jews who converted to Christ never have to be told that their children would no longer be in the covenant? Why was there no controversy over this question with the Judaizers? Why is it never explained to Jewish families that, after many generations of covenantal succession through families, their children would not be born into the covenant?
> 
> So both our observations about the silence of the apostles are interesting, but they aren't conclusive.
Click to expand...


You are correct that this is an argument from silence, and thus inconclusive, however it is not exactly the same as the example you gave. Circumcision and whether or not it should be continued is a huge topic in the New Testament. More pages are dedicated to this controversy than to virtually any other issue. It just seems to reason, if paedobaptist theology is correct, that this would have been brought up as a resolution to this issue. Again, clearly this is not conclusive, but it is a legitimate question.


----------



## Constantlyreforming

Bill The Baptist said:


> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> 
> @ Bill the Baptist." Additionally, if circumcision allegedly has the same meaning as baptism, then two important questions need to be asked: Why institute a new sign? Why baptize those who had already been circumcised into the covenant community?" I think these are excellent questions that the author raises.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While all these questions are interesting and important, they can all be answered. The one question that cannot be answered which has always puzzled me is this, if circumcision was such a big issue in the early church whereby the Judaizers were insisting that Gentile converts be baptized against an understandable backlash, so much so that Paul dedicates a good part of several of his letters to this topic (Gal.5) and so much so that the church convened the Jerusalem council to solve this problem, why then if baptism had replaced circumcision did none of the apostles simply solve this problem by stating that circumcision was unneccesary because it had been replaced by baptism? This solution is never offered by Paul or any of the other apostles to address a major problem to which this would have been a perfect solution. That, in my mind, is a serious problem for infant baptism. Theologically it makes perfect sense, and it is fruitless to argue against it in that fashion,but we just don't have any real evidence of the early church practicing it, and the issue with the Judaizers simply highlights this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bill,
> 
> I hope you know that that's no way to form a decisive argument. I could pose the same kind of question:
> If the children of believers were included in the covenant in the OT, and not in the New, why did Jews who converted to Christ never have to be told that their children would no longer be in the covenant? Why was there no controversy over this question with the Judaizers? Why is it never explained to Jewish families that, after many generations of covenantal succession through families, their children would not be born into the covenant?
> 
> So both our observations about the silence of the apostles are interesting, but they aren't conclusive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are correct that this is an argument from silence, and thus inconclusive, however it is not exactly the same as the example you gave. Circumcision and whether or not it should be continued is a huge topic in the New Testament. More pages are dedicated to this controversy than to virtually any other issue. It just seems to reason, if paedobaptist theology is correct, that this would have been brought up as a resolution to this issue. Again, clearly this is not conclusive, but it is a legitimate question.
Click to expand...


This could have been discussed, yet left out of scripture for a reason.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Constantlyreforming said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> 
> @ Bill the Baptist." Additionally, if circumcision allegedly has the same meaning as baptism, then two important questions need to be asked: Why institute a new sign? Why baptize those who had already been circumcised into the covenant community?" I think these are excellent questions that the author raises.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While all these questions are interesting and important, they can all be answered. The one question that cannot be answered which has always puzzled me is this, if circumcision was such a big issue in the early church whereby the Judaizers were insisting that Gentile converts be baptized against an understandable backlash, so much so that Paul dedicates a good part of several of his letters to this topic (Gal.5) and so much so that the church convened the Jerusalem council to solve this problem, why then if baptism had replaced circumcision did none of the apostles simply solve this problem by stating that circumcision was unneccesary because it had been replaced by baptism? This solution is never offered by Paul or any of the other apostles to address a major problem to which this would have been a perfect solution. That, in my mind, is a serious problem for infant baptism. Theologically it makes perfect sense, and it is fruitless to argue against it in that fashion,but we just don't have any real evidence of the early church practicing it, and the issue with the Judaizers simply highlights this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bill,
> 
> I hope you know that that's no way to form a decisive argument. I could pose the same kind of question:
> If the children of believers were included in the covenant in the OT, and not in the New, why did Jews who converted to Christ never have to be told that their children would no longer be in the covenant? Why was there no controversy over this question with the Judaizers? Why is it never explained to Jewish families that, after many generations of covenantal succession through families, their children would not be born into the covenant?
> 
> So both our observations about the silence of the apostles are interesting, but they aren't conclusive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are correct that this is an argument from silence, and thus inconclusive, however it is not exactly the same as the example you gave. Circumcision and whether or not it should be continued is a huge topic in the New Testament. More pages are dedicated to this controversy than to virtually any other issue. It just seems to reason, if paedobaptist theology is correct, that this would have been brought up as a resolution to this issue. Again, clearly this is not conclusive, but it is a legitimate question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This could have been discussed, yet left out of scripture for a reason.
Click to expand...


Very true.


----------



## au5t1n

The answer is simply that it wouldn't have solved the problem. Baptism does not replace or continue circumcision _as a ceremonial_. It serves the same function as a sign to the senses and seal to faith and in initiating disciples into the visible Church. However, circumcision as a ceremonial is _abrogated_ along with the rest of the ceremonials. The view that the General Assembly in Jerusalem was countering was the view that Gentiles must become Jews and observe the law of Moses to be saved, even though they had already received the Spirit and been solemnly admitted to Christ's church by baptism. This presented two points that needed to be made to the Judaizers:

1. That the ceremonial law of Moses is abrogated, its typical function having been fulfilled in history.
2. That one was never saved by keeping the law in the first place, but by faith.

Pointing out that baptism serves the same basic function and holds the same spiritual meaning as circumcision (which the Apostles did in fact do elsewhere) would not have solved the problems which the GA needed to address.


----------



## TylerRay

Austin, you may have just given the most sound bit of reasoning yet on the thread. Congratulations, and thank you.


----------



## au5t1n

TylerRay said:


> Austin, you may have just given the most sound bit of reasoning yet on the thread. Congratulations, and thank you.



 Thank you for your kind words.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I'm not prejudicing the discussion. It's fine to discuss these topics, even heatedly to disagree on the PuritanBoard. I appreciate the fact that this thread is a model of civility.

I am, however going to close the thread shortly, in the interest of topical fidelity--the original post having been answered, the author evidently pleased even of answers to his follow-up issues/questions.

Please feel free to carry on in a new (or old) thread, on the rabbit-trails from this one.


----------

