# Question for/from Reformed Baptist



## Ranger (May 25, 2004)

As a true babe in terms of covenant theology (it is what I have always believed, just had never really studied it). Since I still struggle with the clear lack of infant/child baptisms in the New Testament, and since I do believe that baptism is a covenant symbol (seeing the ties to circumcision), then why could it not come after the spiritual birth of a believer and not the physical birth? If our regeneration brings about a new birth altogether, then why doesn't the baptism follow in the footsteps of circumcision in this fashion? Then it does proceed after believe and the receiving of the Holy Spirit as in Acts 10:43-47....just an idle thought from a true babe in this area.


----------



## Christopher (May 26, 2004)

Ranger, I am a Baptist and would agree with you in most of what you say. I s this a question for peados and not credos? The circumcision that the Believer recieves is the one applied to the heart at new birth. &quot;Water baptism is only intended for the individual who has received the saving benefits of Christ's atoning work and become his disciple. Therefore, in obedience to Christ's command and as a testimony to God, the Church, oneself and the world, a believer should be immersed in water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Water baptism is a visual demonstration of a person's union with Christ in the likeness of his death and resurrection. It signifies that his former way of life has been put to death and vividly depicts a person's release from the mastery of sin.&quot;


----------



## kceaster (May 26, 2004)

*Kyle...*

[quote:8a913f4ab0][i:8a913f4ab0]Originally posted by Ranger[/i:8a913f4ab0]
As a true babe in terms of covenant theology (it is what I have always believed, just had never really studied it). Since I still struggle with the clear lack of infant/child baptisms in the New Testament, and since I do believe that baptism is a covenant symbol (seeing the ties to circumcision), then why could it not come after the spiritual birth of a believer and not the physical birth? If our regeneration brings about a new birth altogether, then why doesn't the baptism follow in the footsteps of circumcision in this fashion? Then it does proceed after believe and the receiving of the Holy Spirit as in Acts 10:43-47....just an idle thought from a true babe in this area. [/quote:8a913f4ab0]

Perhaps we would do it this way. No doubt we have thought about believers baptism more in the last 400 years than all of the rest of redemptive history put together.

But, why did God command babes to be circumcised? That is the crux of the issue for me. This command was given and never abrogated. If there is any linkage between circumcision and baptism, then it only stands to reason that babes should be baptized.

However, there is a clearer command from Christ about the baptism of infants. That command is in the Great Commission. We are to make disciples, baptize them, and teach them. There is a logical order to what Christ is commanding here. There is also a parallel. The teaching of one's children as commanded by God through Moses was not abrogated either. This is discipleship, and discipleship is at the heart of Covenant Theology.

So, making disciples, we baptize them and teach them.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Ianterrell (May 26, 2004)

I agree Kevin. There is no abrogation of the promise for a believer and his/her household.


----------



## Christopher (May 26, 2004)

Kyle,
Before you dive into systematics by varrious camps I would encourage you to go to the source, the Bible and do a detailed study of Baptism in the NT and or circ. in the OT. To often we turn to secondary sources to do our thinking for us and are lazy in study. Let the Word make the first impression on your thinking. 
I for one think you will find that New Testament Baptism is for those who have repented and trusted in Christ. With that said let us all be assured this is not a subject that should get us hot or heated, nor should it consume our thoughts and study. Here is where it comes down to; here is where placed priority:
1Co 15:1 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 
1Co 15:2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you--unless you believed in vain. 
1Co 15:3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 
1Co 15:4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures

Make that your focus and consuming passion. All else is secondary.


----------



## kceaster (May 26, 2004)

*Christopher....*

[quote:9988dab3e8][i:9988dab3e8]Originally posted by Christopher[/i:9988dab3e8]
Kyle,
Before you dive into systematics by varrious camps I would encourage you to go to the source, the Bible and do a detailed study of Baptism in the NT and or circ. in the OT. To often we turn to secondary sources to do our thinking for us and are lazy in study. Let the Word make the first impression on your thinking. 
I for one think you will find that New Testament Baptism is for those who have repented and trusted in Christ.[/quote:9988dab3e8]

I am not going to automatically assume you meant anything towards what I posted. But, since you gave your opinion on what Kyle will find when he looks at the Scriptures, I shall reiterate my opinion as well.

I was not quoting any systematic when I said that the command to circumcise was given in the OT and was not abrogated in the NT. I was not quoting a confession or creed when I said that there is clear linkage between circumcision and baptism in Col. 2. I was not referring to anything other than Matthew 28 to state that disciples are to be baptized and taught.

None of these are inferences but can be clearly seen by the Scriptures alone.

I just wanted to make that clear.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Christopher (May 26, 2004)

KC, 
Calm down, brother and don't be defencive. I was not posting in reply to anyone. The peado/credo argument is not that big of a deal to me these days as is evedent, I hope, in what I posted last. My last post was a furtherance of my thoughts to my first post. I made mention of my view and what I think one will find when study of the Scriptures are made. Did I seek to back that up or make a long discussion of it? No. I was one sentence. Instead I sought to point to Jesus and His work as preiminant for the Christian. I am not here to try to dual credo/paedo with anyone. There is something far more important. To be sure, those are important doctrines but not one worthy of dividing the Body of the same Lord who bought both those call Baptists and those called Paedobaptists. That is foolishness. There is ONE body, His. &quot;What I mean is that each one of you says, 'I follow Paul,' or 'I follow Apollos,' or 'I follow Cephas,' or 'I follow Christ.' Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?&quot;


----------



## kceaster (May 26, 2004)

*Christopher....*

Didn't mean to defend. I only wanted to make it clear that I was using Scripture alone for the basis of what I posted.

Blessings,

KC


----------



## Christopher (May 26, 2004)

[quote:1054e41eab][i:1054e41eab]Originally posted by kceaster[/i:1054e41eab]
I only wanted to make it clear that I was using Scripture alone for the basis of what I posted.
[/quote:1054e41eab]

Knowing you, brother, your use of the Scripture as your source is always assumed by me and those who know you. Love ya.


----------



## Preach (May 27, 2004)

Randy Booth's book/tapes entitled &quot;Children of the Promise&quot; has been used of God to change many lives. I highly recommend it. I know three personal conversions, and a fourth is on the way (I anticipate), that came from listening to the tapes. You may purchase them from www.cmfnow.com


----------

