# Bad Arguments for Credo Baptism



## terry72

Hello everyone, I have been a member here on this board for a few years now. I don't post very much but I do read a lot of the discussions. I was a credo-baptist when I joined the board, but have been a paedo-baptist for about a year now. I have always been strongly covenantal, so I would say that my embracing of paedo was just the natural outworking of that theology. What convinced me in large part was when I discovered just how bad my arguments were. Once my bad arguments were removed then I had nothing to prevent me from seeing the overwhelming evidence in scripture for covenant baptism. Below are three articles in which I discuss one particular argument for credo.

Insistent Use of Bad Arguments

Insistent Use of Bad Arguments Part 2

Insistent Use of Bad Arguments Part 3

My family and I are still members of our Baptist Church, but we have found an ARP church close to where we live and we have been visiting.

Blessings,
Terry


----------



## Kevin

God bless you brother. I pray that the ARP church will be a blessing to you and your family.


----------



## elnwood

There are many bad arguments on the paedobaptist side as well. See especially James White and Charles Spurgeon on "Let the children come to me."


----------



## Philip A

elnwood said:


> There are many bad arguments on the paedobaptist side as well. See especially James White and Charles Spurgeon on "Let the children come to me."



Also one of the worst credo arguments out there. Point out that Christ didn't baptize them (which any paedo worth listening to will agree with) and ignore the rest of the passage, especially the explicit statement that little children are a part of the kingdom!


----------



## elnwood

Philip A said:


> Also one of the worst credo arguments out there. Point out that Christ didn't baptize them (which any paedo worth listening to will agree with) and ignore the rest of the passage, especially the explicit statement that little children are a part of the kingdom!



It says "for the kingdom of heaven belongs to *such as* these." Matthew 19:14. It's not literal, it's figurative. See also the previous chapter in Matthew 18.

[bible]Matthew 18:2-4[/bible]


----------



## Kevin

elnwood said:


> It says "for the kingdom of heaven belongs to *such as* these." Matthew 19:14. It's not literal, it's figurative. See also the previous chapter in Matthew 18.
> 
> [bible]Matthew 18:2-4[/bible]



Don, do you mean to say that these little children are not in the kingdom? Or perhaps that no little children are in the kingdom?


----------



## Philip A

Kevin said:


> Don, do you mean to say that these little children are not in the kingdom? Or perhaps that no little children are in the kingdom?



Only those children that are *such as* adults. And when it comes to adults, the kingdom belongs only to those who are *such as* those who are excluded from it.  



elnwood said:


> It says "for the kingdom of heaven belongs to *such as* these." Matthew 19:14. It's not literal, it's figurative. See also the previous chapter in Matthew 18.



Yes, Don, I am familiar with that argument. If you search back far enough, you might even find the Baptist version of me using it right here on this same Puritanboard. And even though I find it somewhat comical now (see above), it's still not quite the same argument as "Children brought to Christ, and not the font", now is it? Which was the point of my original post; Spurgeon's argument here is laughable, because as Paul pointed out, it's an argument against a *caricature* of the paedobaptist argument.


----------



## Dieter Schneider

Kevin said:


> Don, do you mean to say that these little children are not in the kingdom? Or perhaps that no little children are in the kingdom?



Is the church identical with the kingdom of God?


----------



## Larry Hughes

Very good Terry, thanks for linking it up for us.

One of the best is on a Part III response to yours:

"It might sound harsh but it has become my understanding that if a person refuses to baptize an infant he or she does not understand the gift of salvation."

This is absolutely true, at the root of it all this is the problem, there's simply no way around it. It's not so much "harsh" sounding as a very very sad reality.

Blessings,

ldh


----------



## terry72

> One of the best is on a Part III response to yours:
> 
> "It might sound harsh but it has become my understanding that if a person refuses to baptize an infant he or she does not understand the gift of salvation."
> 
> This is absolutely true, at the root of it all this is the problem, there's simply no way around it. It's not so much "harsh" sounding as a very very sad reality.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> ldh



That comment came from a Luthren friend of mine that I chat with on paltalk. I have to say that I agree with it as well. 

One of the first things that changed in my thinking that was a step toward my embracing covenant baptism, was that I began to see that baptism is not my act of obedience, but rather it was God's act to mark out a people for himself in the new covenant. It is God saying, "These are my people and I am their God". I believe this is exactly why Peter stated what he did in Acts 10, "Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" Or in other words, God has placed these people in the covenant how dare we withhold the sign of covenant membership from them. So, I must say the same of my children, what right do I have to withhold from them the sign of the covenant when God himself has placed them in the covenant and declared himself to be not only my God but the God of my children as well.

Blessings in Christ,
Terry


----------



## elnwood

Kevin said:


> Don, do you mean to say that these little children are not in the kingdom? Or perhaps that no little children are in the kingdom?



None of the above. I'm saying that the text has nothing to do with whether those actual children, or children in general, are part of the kingdom of God, much less whether children of believers ought to be baptized.


----------



## elnwood

Philip A said:


> Only those children that are *such as* adults. And when it comes to adults, the kingdom belongs only to those who are *such as* those who are excluded from it.



Uh, speaking of caricatures of arguments ...  



Philip A said:


> Yes, Don, I am familiar with that argument. If you search back far enough, you might even find the Baptist version of me using it right here on this same Puritanboard. And even though I find it somewhat comical now (see above), it's still not quite the same argument as "Children brought to Christ, and not the font", now is it? Which was the point of my original post; Spurgeon's argument here is laughable, because as Paul pointed out, it's an argument against a *caricature* of the paedobaptist argument.



It's been said at least twice now that Spurgeon and Jame White's argument is against a caricature. Can someone explain why?


----------



## CalvinandHodges

*Childlike faith*

Greetings:

The Matt. 18 passage at worst states that "little children" can have faith. If your faith is to be like a little child's, then it must be that children can have faith.

But don't the baptists say that "Children are incapable of faith"? Both White and Spurgeon say so, and Piper too. So proud of their "biblicism" that they actually state things that are not Biblical!

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## Semper Fidelis

elnwood said:


> Uh, speaking of caricatures of arguments ...


But this is not a caricature. Please reflect more fully on what Phillip is pointing out if you accept the Baptist pre-supposition:

Either:

1. The little children have an adult-like faith and Christ is pointing out that toddlers are expressing an assensus and fiducia of the quality required for Baptistic profession to be used as example to the others.

or

2. Christ is using an example of those "in the flesh" as an example of the type of faith that adults should have "in the Spirit."

Case 1 is quite incredible and would require a great deal of eisegesis to conclude that children small enough to be taken into Christ's arms are confessing Christ as their Savior.

Case 2 makes no sense either. I've seen Baptists get sentimental about the type of trust that children have but Romans 8 doesn't allow for sentimentalism if you presume that all children are born in Adam. It doesn't say that children are the exception to the rule.

Thus, it matters not whether Christ is teaching on Baptism in this passage. The problem is what He says about the children and how He uses them as examples. Given Baptist pre-suppostions, it is nigh impossible to reconcile the theology of a toddler's status with their use as an object lesson.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

SemperFideles said:


> :
> 2. Christ is using an example of those "in the flesh" as an example of the type of faith that adults should have "in the Spirit."



Right. 



By the way, I have discussed this with you before, and others have responded to me, so I know why to paedo baptizes the infant. They are saying, "God will save you to the uttermost--- Obey God's Word"(quoted from Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan). So if this is the case, you honestly have no idea if they have come to saving faith, yet, you are saying God will save them. Without the spirit of God within you, you do not belong to Christ: "9However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him"(Rom 8:9), "14For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God"(Rom 8:14). Also, I will say that, until the childeren have the Spirit, they cannot be part of the covenant, "14For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.15For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, 'Abba! Father!'16The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God,17and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him"(Rom 8:14-17). Or would you be telling me that you do not have to be justified before God to partake in the covenant? Eph 2 tells us that before we came to saving faith, we were under the wrath of God: " 1And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 
2in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest." How can someone who is under the wrath of God, inherit a covenant made from God, without first having the His Spirit?


----------



## Philip A

elnwood said:


> It's been said at least twice now that Spurgeon and Jame White's argument is against a caricature. Can someone explain why?



I was referring mainly to Spurgeon's sermon "Children brought to Christ, and not the font", which caricatures paedobaptists as arguing that Christ actually baptized children in that passage. I know people that are utterly convinced on the basis of that sermon alone that such is a major plank of the paedobaptist position. This is utterly ridiculous. What you said earlier is true, there are some bad paedo arguments, but this is not one of them; I've never heard anyone argue that the children in that passage were brought to the font.

As for James White, I've no idea, you are the one that linked him with Spurgeon on that passage  I've met James a number of times, and I'm pretty sure he's smart enough to know that no paedo would make _that_ argument from the text.

As a side note, I remember reading T. E. Watson on that passage. He makes the same "case" Spurgeon does, and then takes a bunch of quotes out of context to bolster his argument. He ends with the argument "Whatever 'of such is the kingdom of heaven' means, no babies were baptized by Christ in this passage, therefore babies are not to be baptized." I kid you not!  At the time, I couldn't remember reading anything that bad, and that misrepresentative, since Dave Hunt. If you want to convince someone of paedobaptism, give them Watson's book


----------



## elnwood

CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings:
> 
> The Matt. 18 passage at worst states that "little children" can have faith. If your faith is to be like a little child's, then it must be that children can have faith.
> 
> But don't the baptists say that "Children are incapable of faith"? Both White and Spurgeon say so, and Piper too. So proud of their "biblicism" that they actually state things that are not Biblical!



I'm a Baptist, and I don't think children are incapable of faith. I have friends who came to faith as young as three. If White, Spurgeon and Piper say so (which I doubt), please post a citation.


----------



## elnwood

SemperFideles said:


> But this is not a caricature.



Philip said that Baptists think that there are no physical children in the Kingdom of Heaven. I do not know any Baptists who hold this position, thus I called it a caricature.



SemperFideles said:


> Please reflect more fully on what Phillip is pointing out if you accept the Baptist pre-supposition:
> 
> Either:
> 
> 1. The little children have an adult-like faith and Christ is pointing out that toddlers are expressing an assensus and fiducia of the quality required for Baptistic profession to be used as example to the others.
> 
> or
> 
> 2. Christ is using an example of those "in the flesh" as an example of the type of faith that adults should have "in the Spirit."
> 
> Case 1 is quite incredible and would require a great deal of eisegesis to conclude that children small enough to be taken into Christ's arms are confessing Christ as their Savior.
> 
> Case 2 makes no sense either. I've seen Baptists get sentimental about the type of trust that children have but Romans 8 doesn't allow for sentimentalism if you presume that all children are born in Adam. It doesn't say that children are the exception to the rule.



As I've noted above, I hold case 2. The idea is that children will have "child-like faith" in believing what their father teaches. So we, as adults, ought to trust and love our heavenly father! I think that Jesus is teaching the disciples how they ought to behave (with child-like faith) rather than informing them that physical children will be in heaven.


----------



## elnwood

Philip A said:


> I was referring mainly to Spurgeon's sermon "Children brought to Christ, and not the font", which caricatures paedobaptists as arguing that Christ actually baptized children in that passage. I know people that are utterly convinced on the basis of that sermon alone that such is a major plank of the paedobaptist position. This is utterly ridiculous. What you said earlier is true, there are some bad paedo arguments, but this is not one of them; I've never heard anyone argue that the children in that passage were brought to the font.
> 
> As for James White, I've no idea, you are the one that linked him with Spurgeon on that passage  I've met James a number of times, and I'm pretty sure he's smart enough to know that no paedo would make _that_ argument from the text.
> 
> As a side note, I remember reading T. E. Watson on that passage. He makes the same "case" Spurgeon does, and then takes a bunch of quotes out of context to bolster his argument. He ends with the argument "Whatever 'of such is the kingdom of heaven' means, no babies were baptized by Christ in this passage, therefore babies are not to be baptized." I kid you not!  At the time, I couldn't remember reading anything that bad, and that misrepresentative, since Dave Hunt. If you want to convince someone of paedobaptism, give them Watson's book



Oh. I wasn't referring to that Spurgeon sermon at all, as I've never heard it. It could be a caricature; I'd have to hear it. I was basing my comments on a legend in which he essentially said that this verse has nothing to do with baptism, and James White quoted the story in his recent debate on baptism.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Don,

Please harmonize this:


elnwood said:


> As I've noted above, I hold case 2. The idea is that children will have "child-like faith" in believing what their father teaches. So we, as adults, ought to trust and love our heavenly father! *I think that Jesus is teaching the disciples how they ought to behave (with child-like faith)*...


with this:

[bible]Romans 8:5-8[/bible]

You're telling me that a child who is of the flesh, who cannot please God, has the qualitative faith that is the examplar for the man of the Spirit?


Break: 

Andrew,

Pay attention here. This is a polemic. I am not on the horns of any dilemna because it is not _my_ premise that one is not of the Church until they express adult faith. I'm challenging the consequence of that faith here. Again, it is sentimental for Baptists to take away the ability of babes to have faith with one hand but to give it back with the next as Don has done but if one takes away faith then Romans 8 leaves Don no room to draw Conclusion 2 as he does.


----------



## elnwood

SemperFideles said:


> Don,
> 
> Please harmonize this:
> 
> with this:
> 
> [bible]Romans 8:5-8[/bible]
> 
> You're telling me that a child who is of the flesh, who cannot please God, has the qualitative faith that is the examplar for the man of the Spirit?
> 
> 
> Break:
> 
> Andrew,
> 
> Pay attention here. This is a polemic. I am not on the horns of any dilemna because it is not _my_ premise that one is not of the Church until they express adult faith. I'm challenging the consequence of that faith here. Again, it is sentimental for Baptists to take away the ability of babes to have faith with one hand but to give it back with the next as Don has done but if one takes away faith then Romans 8 leaves Don no room to draw Conclusion 2 as he does.



I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying at all. The passage is not talking about the children's personal saving faith, much less being professed to become part of the church, as you have accused Baptists of teaching. Thus, the Romans 8 passage has no relevance at all to what I have said.

The passage is talking about how a little child trusts his father (and mother, and other adults as well) implicitly, and has faith in them. I am not a father, but surely as a parent you understand what this means? A child is naturally trusting, so a parent has to warn children not to talk to strangers.

So a child trusts his father, so a person ought to have faith and trust in his heavenly Father. The former is a type of the latter. It is the latter that is saving faith by which one enters the kingdom of heaven, not the former.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

elnwood said:


> I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying at all. The passage is not talking about the children's personal saving faith, much less being professed to become part of the church, as you have accused Baptists of teaching. Thus, the Romans 8 passage has no relevance at all to what I have said.
> 
> The passage is talking about how a little child trusts his father (and mother, and other adults as well) implicitly, and has faith in them. I am not a father, but surely as a parent you understand what this means? A child is naturally trusting, so a parent has to warn children not to talk to strangers.
> 
> So a child trusts his father, so a person ought to have faith and trust in his heavenly Father. The former is a type of the latter. It is the latter that is saving faith by which one enters the kingdom of heaven, not the former.



I don't think _you_ understand what I'm challenging you with. I don't agree that a pagan child's faith in a pagan father is a model for Christian trust. This is a bare assertion on the text that you've repeated TWICE now and I'm asking you a second time to back that assertion up with Scripture and harmonize it with the passage cited. Romans 8 has everything to do with defeating your analogy if you assert it a third time.


----------



## elnwood

SemperFideles said:


> I don't think _you_ understand what I'm challenging you with. I don't agree that a pagan child's faith in a pagan father is a model for Christian trust. This is a bare assertion on the text that you've repeated TWICE now and I'm asking you a second time to back that assertion up with Scripture and harmonize it with the passage cited. Romans 8 has everything to do with defeating your analogy if you assert it a third time.



As I quoted before, Matthew 18:3-4 says "Unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of God. Whoever humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven."

Note that Jesus doesn't specify a believing child: he says, "children." The analogy is apt whether or not the child is saved or not.

A child's faith and humility, whether it be a pagan child or a believing child, is a model of a believer's faith and humility that leads to salvation.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

elnwood said:


> A child's faith and humility, whether it be a pagan child or a believing child, is a model of a believer's faith and humility that leads to salvation.



So we should understand Romans 8 as only applying to adults? You're either being disingenuous here in your response or are unwilling to tackle the difficulties of your bare assertions here. There is absolutely no Scripture that you can use to back up what you simply asserted here. What Christ says about that child does not permit you to eisegete the above.


----------



## Poimen

elnwood said:


> Oh. I wasn't referring to that Spurgeon sermon at all, as I've never heard it. It could be a caricature; I'd have to hear it. I was basing my comments on a legend in which he essentially said that this verse has nothing to do with baptism, and James White quoted the story in his recent debate on baptism.



http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0581.htm


----------



## elnwood

SemperFideles said:


> So we should understand Romans 8 as only applying to adults? You're either being disingenuous here in your response or are unwilling to tackle the difficulties of your bare assertions here. There is absolutely no Scripture that you can use to back up what you simply asserted here. What Christ says about that child does not permit you to eisegete the above.



Romans 8 applies to all humanity. I am not being disingenuous and I don't see any difficulties with reading Jesus' analogy as such.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Don,

I don't consider your use of Scripture here credible. I'll interact with Baptists who have a backbone on this issue.


----------



## smhbbag

> You're telling me that a child who is of the flesh, who cannot please God, has the qualitative faith that is the examplar for the man of the Spirit?



Yes, that is exactly what we are saying. And so does Jesus:

Luke 16:8



> 8And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: *for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.*



Jesus says: "Attn: believers, be like these children of the world in your stewardship....they're better than you at it sometimes"

How is that any different than him saying:

"Attn: believers, be like children (pagan or not), in your trust of your Father. They're often better at it than you are."


----------



## Semper Fidelis

smhbbag said:


> Yes, that is exactly what we are saying. And so does Jesus:
> 
> Luke 16:8
> 
> Jesus says: "Attn: believers, be like these children of the world in your stewardship....they're better than you at it sometimes"
> 
> How is that any different than him saying:
> 
> "Attn: believers, be like children (pagan or not), in your trust of your Father. They're often better at it than you are."



The steward spoken of is not even a child. Further, Christ is comparing the pagan's wisdom to "children of the light" (Jews) and how it excels theirs.

So now is your argument that we should be just a bit wiser than the Pharisees as Christians?

Very interesting theology on a Reformed board...


----------



## elnwood

SemperFideles said:


> Don,
> 
> I don't consider your use of Scripture here credible. I'll interact with Baptists who have a backbone on this issue.



And I'll interact with paedobaptists who do not insult me.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

elnwood said:


> And I'll interact with paedobaptists who do not insult me.



Read my thread about this very subject and do some self-examination. You haven't been insulted Don, you've been challenged and your feelings are hurt. You need to learn the difference.


----------



## MW

smhbbag said:


> Jesus says: "Attn: believers, be like these children of the world in your stewardship....they're better than you at it sometimes"
> 
> How is that any different than him saying:
> 
> "Attn: believers, be like children (pagan or not), in your trust of your Father. They're often better at it than you are."



I don't recall our Lord saying of the children of the world, "of such is the kingdom of heaven." Such an affirmation creates a world of difference between them.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

elnwood said:


> And I'll interact with paedobaptists who do not insult me.



Upon further examination, I repent of saying I would only interact with those who have a backbone on the issue. I should have chosen more careful and less incidiary language. Please forgive me.

That said, I don't find your treatment of the Scriptures credible here and I think you need to be more willing to engage the consequences of what you're saying. It makes absolutely no sense for Christ to use those _outside_ the Kingdom as a model for the type of faith that a person needs to receive Christ with. Nowhere is the pagan ever, ever, ever used as an example for saving faith. To brush this aside with a "...well pagan kids do it all the time..." is simply not credible in light of Romans 8.


----------



## gwine

SemperFideles said:


> Nowhere is the pagan ever, ever, ever used as an example for saving faith. To brush this aside with a "...well pagan kids do it all the time..." is simply not credible in light of Romans 8.


How about Rahab?


> Heb 11:31 By faith Rahab the prostitute did not perish with those who were disobedient, because she had given a friendly welcome to the spies.


Comments from JFB:


> Jos_2:8-21. The covenant between her and them.
> she came up unto them upon the roof and said — Rahab’s dialogue is full of interest, as showing the universal panic and consternation of the Canaanites on the one hand (Jos_24:11; Deu_2:25), and her strong convictions on the other, founded on a knowledge of the divine promise, and the stupendous miracles that had opened the way of the Israelites to the confines of the promised land. She was convinced of the supremacy of Jehovah, and her earnest stipulations for the preservation of her relatives amid the perils of the approaching invasion, attest the sincerity and strength of her faith.
> 
> 
> Heb 11:31 -
> Rahab showed her “faith” in her confession, Jos_2:9, Jos_2:11, “I know that Jehovah hath given you the land; Jehovah your God, is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath.”


Notice she says Jehovah your God, not Jehovah our God (although you and I both know that Jehovah is everyone's God.) Reading Joshua 2 gives me the impression that she was a pagan.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

gwine said:


> How about Rahab?
> 
> Comments from JFB:
> Notice she says Jehovah your God, not Jehovah our God (although you and I both know that Jehovah is everyone's God.) Reading Joshua 2 gives me the impression that she was a pagan.



I'm defining a pagan as a person "according to the flesh". Rahab clearly expresses confidence in Yahweh and is even commended in Hebrews for her _faith_. Rahab, Ruth, and a number of others are not pagans any more than you are in that you were brought near after being afar off.


----------



## satz

Terry,

I would like to comment on this portion from the post #3 you linked in your OP.



> For now I want to point out what I believe is being implied in this kind of question and how it speaks to understanding the use of the argument made from this verse and others like it. I want to suggest that when the first premise is stated in the argument, in the mind of the person using th argument “believers” is actually “believers only”. So, the argument would then look look this:
> 
> Premise 1. Baptism is for believers only.
> Premise 2. Infants are not believers.
> Conclusion 3. Therefore infants cannot be baptized.
> 
> The fallacy of this argument should be easy to spot for those who understand the proper use of argumentation. This is circular reasoning. The conclusion is assumed in the first premise and therefore the argument fails because it proves nothing. It is a mere unproven assertion at this point.



I am not sure why you say this would be a logical mistake, or why premise 1 is necessarily a example of circular reasoning. The Baptist is trying to make a statement about the nature of baptism. The very nature of baptism is that it requires a believer, just as the very nature of baptism is that it requires water. You might disagree that the premise can be proven from the bible, but I fail to see how this is an example of circular reasoning, or how this falls into the logical pitfall you addressed in your other posts.


----------



## smhbbag

Here's a question:

Are there really that many 5-point Baptists that accept premise 2? Is it common for them to reject the possibility of infant regeneration?

Because I can honestly say I've not heard of that.


----------



## smhbbag

> The steward spoken of is not even a child.



"The steward spoken of is not even a child?"   How can I even respond to that? 

I guess my point is entirely irrelevant, because here is what I did find:

*I quoted Jesus making a model for Christians out of wicked God-haters who cannot please God

AHA! But I couldn't find:

* Christ making a model for Christians out of wicked God-haters who cannot please God.....who are also really young!


----------



## Andrew P.C.

SemperFideles said:


> The steward spoken of is not even a child. Further, Christ is comparing the pagan's wisdom to "children of the light" (Jews) and how it excels theirs.
> 
> So now is your argument that we should be just a bit wiser than the Pharisees as Christians?
> 
> Very interesting theology on a Reformed board...



Rich, so you are saying that "the sons of light" are Pharisees? Seriously? That means we must change the meaning of every passage containing "sons of light".

Since I'm not an expositor here is something I did find:

"Most unbelievers are wiser in the ways of the world then believers("sons of light," Jn. 12:36; Eph 5:18) are toward the things of God." -Dr. John MacArthur


----------



## terry72

> Terry,
> 
> I would like to comment on this portion from the post #3 you linked in your OP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> For now I want to point out what I believe is being implied in this kind of question and how it speaks to understanding the use of the argument made from this verse and others like it. I want to suggest that when the first premise is stated in the argument, in the mind of the person using th argument “believers” is actually “believers only”. So, the argument would then look look this:
> 
> Premise 1. Baptism is for believers only.
> Premise 2. Infants are not believers.
> Conclusion 3. Therefore infants cannot be baptized.
> 
> The fallacy of this argument should be easy to spot for those who understand the proper use of argumentation. This is circular reasoning. The conclusion is assumed in the first premise and therefore the argument fails because it proves nothing. It is a mere unproven assertion at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure why you say this would be a logical mistake, or why premise 1 is necessarily a example of circular reasoning. The Baptist is trying to make a statement about the nature of baptism. The very nature of baptism is that it requires a believer, just as the very nature of baptism is that it requires water. You might disagree that the premise can be proven from the bible, but I fail to see how this is an example of circular reasoning, or how this falls into the logical pitfall you addressed in your other posts.
> __________________
> Mark Li
> International University Church
> New South Wales, Australia
> Reply With Quote
Click to expand...


Mark, thanks for the reply. I'm not necessarily saying that the syllogism itself is circular, but rather the argument is used in a "circular" way, or rather that it "begs the question". The statement in premise one is what is in dispute, therefore it is assumed without proof, therefore the conclusion "Infants cannot be baptized" does follow from the premises yes, but it follows from premise 1 which is assumed, so the argument is used in a circular fashion. It certainly begs the question. Now one can try to prove premise 1 through other arguments like the one discussed in part 1&2, but I think it is obvious that those kind of arguments are glaring fallacies. 

All I would be willing to grant is if premise one is true, "Believers only", then and only then does the conclusion, "infants cannot be baptized", would certainly follow, but premise one is not proven, only asserted and therefore the argument, as to it's use, fails, because it begs the question. And, of course, I am of the opinion that it cannot be proven from scripture, hence my first 2 articles on the subject.

Blessings in Christ,
Terry


----------



## smhbbag

> Rich, so you are saying that "the sons of light" are Pharisees? Seriously? That means we must change the meaning of every passage containing "sons of light".



I assumed he just had an odd formation of pronouns and was not, in fact, saying that. But it does make his question make more sense.

Now I'm wondering.


----------



## elnwood

SemperFideles said:


> Upon further examination, I repent of saying I would only interact with those who have a backbone on the issue. I should have chosen more careful and less incidiary language. Please forgive me.
> 
> That said, I don't find your treatment of the Scriptures credible here and I think you need to be more willing to engage the consequences of what you're saying. It makes absolutely no sense for Christ to use those _outside_ the Kingdom as a model for the type of faith that a person needs to receive Christ with. Nowhere is the pagan ever, ever, ever used as an example for saving faith. To brush this aside with a "...well pagan kids do it all the time..." is simply not credible in light of Romans 8.



Jesus is not saying "use pagan children as a model" in Matthew 18, he's saying to use children as a model of humility. You don't have to be a child of the covenant to show humility.

I've just about said all I have to say on this issue, and others have supported the discussion well, but I just wanted to say that I accept your apology and hope to have fruitful discussions in the future. Peace out.


----------



## B.J.

> Premise 1. Baptism is for believers only.
> Premise 2. Infants are not believers.
> Conclusion 3. Therefore infants cannot be baptized.




What I find interesting about this Baptist argument, which is the one I hear most often, is it forces the Baptist to exclude infants from the New Covenant. In which case, if they died in infancy, they would be in hell.

Of course, most Baptist dont believe that. I fact I don't know one that does. My closest Baptist friends believe God elects_ all_ infants. While others, like me when I was Baptist, believe you can't really know whether or not the are saved. However, neither option is open for Baptist who maintain the above syllogism for their case. I must confess, it was exhuasting being a Baptist.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Jeremy & Andrew:

Luke 16:


> 1Jesus told his disciples: "There was a rich man *whose manager was accused of wasting his possessions. 2So he called him in and asked him, 'What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your management, because you cannot be manager any longer.' *





> 8"The master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly. For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light. 9I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.
> 
> 10"Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. 11So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches? 12And if you have not been trustworthy with someone else's property, who will give you property of your own?
> 
> 13"No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money."
> 
> * 14The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus. 15He said to them, "You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of men, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valued among men is detestable in God's sight.*



"Children of the light" here refers to those in the Covenant but the specific comparison is the unfaithfulness of the steward (read Pharisee) and how at least this pagan was shrewder than the Pharisees.

Now that I'm through dealing with that, let me point out that it matters not in the least. If you weren't so hasty to prooftext you'd realize you hadn't found a single verse that dealt with what I stated:


> You're telling me that a child who is of the flesh, who cannot please God, has the qualitative faith that is the examplar for the man of the Spirit?


To which Jeremy stated that the shrewd man is an example of saving faith?

Not.

At best, the pagan is shown to be shrewder than those who are completely squandering what's been given them who are so blind that they can't see that they're going to have to give account. I would never argue that there are even pagans that far excel the civic righteousness of a believer but one needs to actually read and understand what the challenge is here or they embarass themselves.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

elnwood said:


> Jesus is not saying "use pagan children as a model" in Matthew 18, he's saying to use children as a model of humility. You don't have to be a child of the covenant to show humility.
> 
> I've just about said all I have to say on this issue, and others have supported the discussion well, but I just wanted to say that I accept your apology and hope to have fruitful discussions in the future. Peace out.



Well, even if you won't respond then maybe somebody else can cover up this bare assertion with Scripture. The idea that a person can be outside of Christ and show the humility and faith that is the _qualitative type_ of faith required for salvation needs more than just a statement unsupported by Scripture. A parable simply does not cut it. It begs the question in this case.


----------



## smhbbag

> To which Jeremy stated that the shrewd man is an example of saving faith?



If, after reading my posts, you genuinely believe that is what I am saying, then there is no further point in dialog on this one. I have been abundantly clear, and yet you continually misconstrue it.

My entire post hinged on the fact that he was NOT a believer. If he was a believer, my argument would be worthless. So no, I never said any such thing.


----------



## VictorBravo

The formulation strikes me as odd and defective:

Premise 1. Baptism is for believers only.
Premise 2. Infants are not believers.
Conclusion 3. Therefore infants cannot be baptized.

No doubt some Baptists use it, but I sure wouldn't. I think both premises are wrong. Alternatively, baptism can be said to be for those who express belief, but not necessarily for all believers (thief on the cross, for instance). And infants can believe (and be saved), yet are unable to express it.

Perhaps it is better stated:

1. Examples of Baptism in Acts indicate that the early practice of baptism was upon a clear expression of belief, either for an individual or for a household. (People proclaimed belief [even Simon], or the Holy Spirit descended upon the ones to be baptized indicating they believed [Acts 10:44-48], or we are simply told that they believed [Crispus and his household, Acts 18:8]).

2. In our day, we don't have the Holy Spirit telling us who believes, so we cautiously rely upon proclamation.

3. Infants, although they may in some way believe, do not generally proclaim that belief.

4. Therefore, following what seems to be a cautious application of the early church practice, we don't baptize infants.


I acknowledge hedging. For instance, I don't think I've demonstrated that the practices found in Acts are normative. I'm assuming that. Nevertheless, this seems to be where an honest defense of Credobaptism lies.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

smhbbag said:


> If, after reading my posts, you genuinely believe that is what I am saying, then there is no further point in dialog on this one. I have been abundantly clear, and yet you continually misconstrue it.
> 
> My entire post hinged on the fact that he was NOT a believer. If he was a believer, my argument would be worthless. So no, I never said any such thing.



Exactly so. You only underline the fact that your example did not answer my challenge. There are no pagans used as exemplars of faith. Your example was irrelevant to the discussion.

In case you forgot what you claimed:


> You're telling me that a child who is of the flesh, who cannot please God, has the qualitative faith that is the examplar for the man of the Spirit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that is exactly what we are saying. And so does Jesus...
Click to expand...


In other words, you were supposedly demonstrating to me that you had an example of precisely what I was claiming did not exist. 

You did not have an example and thank you for admitting that you failed to provide one.


----------



## terry72

> The formulation strikes me as odd and defective:
> 
> Premise 1. Baptism is for believers only.
> Premise 2. Infants are not believers.
> Conclusion 3. Therefore infants cannot be baptized.
> 
> No doubt some Baptists use it, but I sure wouldn't. I think both premises are wrong. Alternatively, baptism can be said to be for those who express belief, but not necessarily for all believers (thief on the cross, for instance). And infants can believe (and be saved), yet are unable to express it.
> 
> Perhaps it is better stated:
> 
> 1. Examples of Baptism in Acts indicate that the early practice of baptism was upon a clear expression of belief, either for an individual or for a household. (People proclaimed belief [even Simon], or the Holy Spirit descended upon the ones to be baptized indicating they believed [Acts 10:44-48], or we are simply told that they believed [Crispus and his household, Acts 18:8]).
> 
> 2. In our day, we don't have the Holy Spirit telling us who believes, so we cautiously rely upon proclamation.
> 
> 3. Infants, although they may in some way believe, do not generally proclaim that belief.
> 
> 4. Therefore, following what seems to be a cautious application of the early church practice, we don't baptize infants.
> 
> 
> I acknowledge hedging. For instance, I don't think I've demonstrated that the practices found in Acts are normative. I'm assuming that. Nevertheless, this seems to be where an honest defense of Credobaptism lies.



Hello, victor, how are you brother? I find your reply interesting, because while claiming that you would never use the same argument, you then proceed to do exactly that.

You said:


> 1. Examples of Baptism in Acts indicate that the early practice of baptism was upon a clear expression of belief, either for an individual or for a household. (People proclaimed belief [even Simon], or the Holy Spirit descended upon the ones to be baptized indicating they believed [Acts 10:44-48], or we are simply told that they believed [Crispus and his household, Acts 18:8]).



Your first premise looks like this:

1. The bible gives example of only believers being baptized.

Then you said:


> 2. In our day, we don't have the Holy Spirit telling us who believes, so we cautiously rely upon proclamation.
> 
> 3. Infants, although they may in some way believe, do not generally proclaim that belief.



Your second premise looks like this:

2. Infants don't meet the qualification of a believer as defined in premise 1.

Therefore you said:


> 4. Therefore, following what seems to be a cautious application of the early church practice, we don't baptize infants.



You conclusion from the first two premises looks like this:

Conclusion 3. Therefore Infants should not be baptized.


This is exactly the same "form" of argument, victor, and it fails for the same reasons. You are "begging the question" in your first premise. This is what is in dispute, i.e. believers only baptism.

But, besides that your conclusion cannot follow anyway, because what is positively true of "proclaiming believers" cannot be concluded negatively about Infants based on the fact that they do not "proclaim". You conclusion is false, because you are committing a logical fallacy.

You are still drawing negative conclusion when the category of premise 1 and the category of premise 2 are different, therefore your conclusion does not necessarily follow no more than in the following argument.

Premise 1. Squirrels have tails.
Premise 2. Dogs are not squirrels.
Conclusion 3. Therefore dogs don't have tails.

This is the categorical fallacy you are commiting along with your "begging the question".

Sorry, brother, but you must go back to square one and try again, because your "honest defense of Credobaptism" fails for the same reasons.

Blessings in Christ,
Terry


----------



## smhbbag

> Exactly so. You only underline the fact that your example did not answer my challenge. There are no pagans used as exemplars of faith. Your example was irrelevant to the discussion.
> 
> In other words, you were supposedly demonstrating to me that you had an example of precisely what I was claiming did not exist.
> 
> You did not have an example and thank you for admitting that you failed to provide one.




My only response:

http://www.rif.org/


----------



## VictorBravo

terry72 said:


> Hello, victor, how are you brother? I find your reply interesting, because while claiming that you would never use the same argument, you then proceed to do exactly that.
> 
> You said:
> 
> Your first premise looks like this:
> 
> 1. The bible gives example of only believers being baptized.
> 
> Then you said:
> 
> Your second premise looks like this:
> 
> 2. Infants don't meet the qualification of a believer as defined in premise 1.
> 
> Therefore you said:
> 
> You conclusion from the first two premises looks like this:
> 
> Conclusion 3. Therefore Infants should not be baptized.
> 
> 
> This is exactly the same "form" of argument, victor, and it fails for the same reasons. You are "begging the question" in your first premise. This is what is in dispute, i.e. believers only baptism.
> 
> But, besides that your conclusion cannot follow anyway, because what is positively true of "proclaiming believers" cannot be concluded negatively about Infants based on the fact that they do not "proclaim". You conclusion is false, because you are committing a logical fallacy.
> 
> You are still drawing negative conclusion when the category of premise 1 and the category of premise 2 are different, therefore your conclusion does not necessarily follow no more than in the following argument.
> 
> Premise 1. Squirrels have tails.
> Premise 2. Dogs are not squirrels.
> Conclusion 3. Therefore dogs don't have tails.
> 
> This is the categorical fallacy you are commiting along with your "begging the question".
> 
> Sorry, brother, but you must go back to square one and try again, because your "honest defense of Credobaptism" fails for the same reasons.
> 
> Blessings in Christ,
> Terry




Thanks for your cheerful reply, but I think you misstated my point. I don't say that infants are disqualified from the category of believers, but of "expressers."

We baptize "expressers", and I, at least, acknowledge that infants could be believers, just that we can't tell at that point without the Holy Spirit telling us.

I'm off for a long commute, but I'll be glad to discuss later.

Vic


----------



## terry72

> Thanks for your cheerful reply, but I think you misstated my point. I don't say that infants are disqualified from the category of believers, but of "expressers."
> 
> We baptize "expressers", and I, at least, acknowledge that infants could be believers, just that we can't tell at that point without the Holy Spirit telling us.
> 
> I'm off for a long commute, but I'll be glad to discuss later.
> 
> Vic



Enjoy your commute, vic, I'll go ahead a reply and maybe you can read it when you get back.

You have not helped your case. I understood your qualification "proclaimer/expresser", but for argument sake I'll grant you this. It still does not save your argument, it still commits the same fallacies of "begging the question" and the same categorical fallacy as well. it would look like this:

Premise 1. Those who proclaim their belief are to be baptized.
Premise 2. Infants cannot proclaim their belief.
Conclusion 3. Therefore infants cannot or should not be baptized.

This is still the same argument as:

Premise 1. Believers are to be baptized.
Premise 2. Infants cannot believe.
Conclusion 3. Infants cannot be baptized.

All you did was replace believer with expresser/proclamer....but the form is the same, and commits the same categorical fallacy. And if you state it this way:

Premise 1. Proclaimers only are to be baptized.
Premise 2. Infants are not proclaimers.
Conclusion 3. Therefore infants cannot be baptized.

This way it begs the question.

Sorry, vic, try again brother.

Blessings in Christ,
Terry

P.S. I say the following not just pick on vic, but this illustrates my point of hard hard it is to reconize bad arguments and it is even harder to stop using them. This is what I realized as a credo and therefore when I saw how bad my arguments were, I had no choice but to abandon my credo position.

Thanks, vic, for your interaction with me on this, I mean no disrespect to you. It;s just an honest disagreement.


----------



## Larry Hughes

Terry,

I think Vic was taking an honest stab at it. The point is the missing of the category mistake concerning the subjects.

There is yet another way to see the fallacy of this argument:

Premise 1: Believers are to be baptized
Premise 2: Infants are not believers
Ergo: Infants are not to be baptized

In order to be a valid argument form the subject of the Pr1 must be found in the predicate of Pr2. This provides the necessary link or bridging between the two premises to draw the conclusion between the subject of the second premise and predicate of the first premise. Otherwise it’s simply none sense.

E.g.:

Premise 1: All men (S1) are mortal (P1)
Premise 2: I (S2) am a man (P2)
Ergo: I (S2) am mortal (P1) – linked by the common S1 and P1. S1 is universal and P2 is a subset of S1.

Looking at the baptistic argument:

Premise 1: [Believers] (S1) [are to be baptized] (P1)
Premise 2: [Infants] (S2) [are not believers] (P2)
Ergo: [Infants] (S2) [are not to be baptized] (P3)

Here we easily can see that S1 and P2 are not the same and P2 is not a subset of S1.

Or:

Premise 1: All men (S1) are mortal (P1)
Premise 2: I (S2) am NOT a man (P2)
Ergo: I (S2) am NOT mortal (P1) – doesn’t follow.

That is to say a “all man” is not a “not man”. In fact a “not man” is the logical antithesis of a “man”, as in “being” and “not being” or “true” Vs. “false” follow similarly. It’s the most fundamental rule of logic. Thus, a “believer” and a “not believer” are not the same thing and as such they cannot draw the conclusion of S2 and P1 together.

To show it more ridiculous to make it HIGHLY obvious:

Premise 1: [Believers] (S1) [are to be baptized] (P1)
Premise 2: [Infants] (S2) [are FISH] (P2)
Ergo: [Infants] (S2) [are not to be baptized] (P3)

Though I what I’m about to go through does not prove the point because baptism is not “real” because the receiver has faith, but is objective visible Gospel and true and real because it has God’s name annexed to it, but perhaps it is the Baptist position. The issue of the receiver having or not really having faith is for all intensive irrelevant to the reality of baptism. Because we MUST see that the issue is not just a simple manner of logic, but an issue at the heart of the Gospel, where the devil ALWAYS means to attack. Only faith shows this.

What if we state it in more negatives:

Premise 1: [Unbelievers] (S1) [are to not be baptized] (P1)
Premise 2: [Infants] (S2) [are unbelievers] (P2)
Ergo: [Infants] (S2) [are to not be baptized] (P3)

You could put “unprofessors” in as well for “unbelievers”.

This shows at the HEART of credo doctrine on this it is not of faith but of sight, a theology of glory not of Cross.

Here the logic at least flows. But you have to accept a number of basics being applied to the premise:

1.	It still doesn’t answer the question about baptism being real due to the name of God and Gospel annexed into the water rather than the one having faith. It does the most damage here.
2.	It assumes, assumes mind you, infants cannot be believers.
3.	It assumes a differing covenant arrangement here and now. In other words it seeks subvert faith which is by its very nature eschatological and in the tension of suffering until by attempting to bring down “heaven” here and now, the regenerate church. Fundamentally it is EXACTLY the same mistake the Judiazers made, Rome made in “Christendom” and all forms of attempting to MAKE and FORCE the kingdom to be HERE right now in fullness. At the end of the day it damages faith, not helps it.

Thus, the real flaw is not the logic here (in this example), but it usurps the true reality of the Gospel in the water, for it is visible Gospel. We see this if we look at it this way:

Premise 1: [Unbelievers] (S1) [are to not receive the Gospel] (P1)
Premise 2: [Infants] (S2) [are unbelievers] (P2)
Ergo: [Infants] (S2) [are to not receive the Gospel] (P3)

Because in reality for infants of believers to NOT receive baptism is the same thing as saying they cannot receive the Gospel, but must muster up some “conversion experience” (theology of glory) to then later receive the merit of baptism.

At the end of the day the logic, that is human reason can only take the rebuttals so far. Only saving faith can reveal the real devilry at hand, subversion of Christ in the Sacraments. And that’s exactly what ends up happening. Because when we see Christ exampling infants as the kingdom of God, and the promise is to you and your infants, and true worship has been created by God through infants and etc…all sorts of sophisticated “stamping out” of the light of these Gospels must be made. Suddenly the promise is to the adjective modified “spiritual” children and so forth. You have to DO that to sustain the “doctrine”, else you are in trouble.

On the other hand when infants receive the Gospel in the water, we say to ourselves, “So that is what God is like…that is what receiving by faith REALLY means…His mercy is simply overwhelming.” 

At the point of the sacrament of baptism, it is at the end of the day, two different religions – I emphasize at the point of the sacrament of baptism this is so, not necessarily at the point of the naked Word preached.

Blessings,

Ldh


----------



## terry72

> In order to be a valid argument form the subject of the Pr1 must be found in the predicate of Pr2. This provides the necessary link or bridging between the two premises to draw the conclusion between the subject of the second premise and predicate of the first premise. Otherwise it’s simply none sense.


 Thanks, Larry, this is exactly the point I was trying to make. Thank you for stating it so clearly and concisely.

Blessings in Christ,
Terry


----------



## VictorBravo

(After I wrote what is below, I saw Larry's post. I thought it was pretty good too, but I think I have dealt with the infants are unbelievers issue. I probably won't have time to do anything more for a while.)

Terry, first off, I want to acknowledge that I agree with Paul Manata's statement of another fallacy:



Paul manata said:


> Here's another:
> 
> 1. The Bible says, "*all* who repent, are to be baptized."
> 
> 2. Therefore, *only* those who repent are to be baptised.



If that is all we have to go on, I agree it is fallacious.



terry72 said:


> Enjoy your commute, vic, I'll go ahead a reply and maybe you can read it when you get back.



Ugh. Seattle corridor on a Friday evening. At least I had a good and pleasant dinner with my wife. Even broke open some of my homemade 2006 vintage wine that I just bottled two days ago. Life is pleasant.



> You have not helped your case. I understood your qualification "proclaimer/expresser", but for argument sake I'll grant you this. It still does not save your argument, it still commits the same fallacies of "begging the question" and the same categorical fallacy as well. it would look like this:
> 
> Premise 1. Those who proclaim their belief are to be baptized.
> Premise 2. Infants cannot proclaim their belief.
> Conclusion 3. Therefore infants cannot or should not be baptized.
> 
> This is still the same argument as:
> 
> Premise 1. Believers are to be baptized.
> Premise 2. Infants cannot believe.
> Conclusion 3. Infants cannot be baptized.
> 
> All you did was replace believer with expresser/proclamer....but the form is the same, and commits the same categorical fallacy.



If that's all I did, then I would concede. But I think that is not all I did. The Edwards argument relied upon the assumption that infants can be saved, therefore either Premise 2 is wrong (infants can in fact believe) or the implicit "only" believers of Premise 1 is wrong. Edwards and you attack Premise 1 and grant Premise 2 (at least for the sake of argument). I attack Premise 2 and grant that it is possible that infants can believe. So the refutation of my formula is not valid on those grounds. 

I agree with what is stated here in the first link as well:


> Then frame the argument thus: – The Scriptures require faith and repentance of adults, in order to baptism; but as infants cannot have these, they are unfit subjects of that ordinance. Now it is a glaring sophism; with adults in one proposition, and infants in the other. Were I only to leave the argument thus, and say no more upon it, it would not be possible to save it from destruction; but since it is the only remaining half of the Baptist strength, I will examine it more at large.



There is indeed a category error here, because the initial premise does not exclude baptism for infants who fail to meet the requirements for adults. Fair enough.

The second link you provided is similar, and the syllogism is almost identical: 
1.Believers are to be baptized.
2. Infants cannot believe.
3. Therefore Infants are not to be baptized.
I have no problem with the discussion, as far as it goes. 

But I want to make sure you understand what I'm thinking so I'll treat the Mark passage:

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 
Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 

First, I'll state (but not use for discussion) that, contextually, it looks like this passage may be applicable to all persons who can demonstrate a response (I know, it says "creature", and I think there is something important there, but I leave that aside). If that is the case, the same argument used by you above applies: it is only talking about the category of adults and says nothing about infants. If it is not directed toward infants or others who cannot demonstrate belief (one way or another), then we cannot say that the last clause "he that believeth not shall be damned", applies to infants either. 

Setting that aside, I see 16:16 setting out at least three true statements:

1. If you believe and are baptized, you shall be saved.

2. If you do not believe, you will be damned, even if you are baptized.

3. No information is given about if you believe but are not baptized. It is left for elsewhere for this question to be answered. (And I think we agree it has been answered that unbaptized believers can be saved).

So I think Mark 16:16 says nothing on the question whether baptism should be restricted (or not) to certain people. At best, it implies that if you are a believer, baptism normally accompanies that condition.



> And if you state it this way:
> 
> Premise 1. Proclaimers only are to be baptized.
> Premise 2. Infants are not proclaimers.
> Conclusion 3. Therefore infants cannot be baptized.
> 
> This way it begs the question.



I suppose, I'm still trying to figure out why. If we take Premise 1 as given, I hope we can agree that the syllogism itself is valid. If not, I'm going have to really try to figure out what you are saying.

But I think (as set out in link 3 of your OP) you are saying that Premise 1, by including "only", is making an unwarranted assumption. Am I right?:


> (from link 3) For now I want to point out what I believe is being implied in this kind of question and how it speaks to understanding the use of the argument made from this verse and others like it. I want to suggest that when the first premise is stated in the argument, in the mind of the person using th argument “believers” is actually “believers only”. So, the argument would then look look this:
> Premise 1. Baptism is for believers only.
> Premise 2. Infants are not believers.
> Conclusion 3. Therefore infants cannot be baptized.
> Because in their minds they are assuming the conclusion in the first premise, i.e. “Believers only” they cannot see how that the conclusion does not follow.



But I'm not smuggling the premise "believers only" from the conclusion. Rather I'm gleaning from evidence an inference. I admit that the inference may well be faulty, but I get it from outside the syllogism: that is, from the expressed practices in Acts. And I acknowledged that it was a cautious premise at that.

It's sort of like the regulative principle. Under that, we don't do more than what God prescribes. I grant that there are legitimate issues about the scope of this principle, but the principle is accepted, even if question-begging. (Sort of like accepting the existence of God because the Bible, being the Word of God, tells us so).

Similarly:

We should obey God's commands as stated in the Bible.

The Bible commands us to baptize (all nations, even, after teaching them—OK, maybe that "after" is begging the question too).

Therefore we should baptize.

Circular? Of course. Invalid? No, I don't think so.

So, where are we? In some cases, begging the question is unavoidable. I admit Scripture doesn't say "you shall only baptize believers". But from that silence can we indiscriminately swing to the other end of the spectrum and baptize everyone, whether they believe or not? What about infants of nonbelievers? It seems a stretch to me—even though my mother told me that I was baptized as an infant and acknowledges that neither she nor my father ever proclaimed a belief in Christ.

I'll grant that Simon, in Acts 8:13, was baptized. Peter, later, seems to think he wasn't a believer. But even here, the event seems to establish a pattern of baptism based upon proclaimed belief..

Elsewhere we assume to get guidance from practices in Scripture, especially in Acts. Certainly the observance of the Lord's Day on the first day of the week is drawn primarily from such practices set out. 



> Sorry, vic, try again brother.
> 
> Blessings in Christ,
> Terry



Blessings to you as well. I appreciate the discussion. I'll keep on keeping these things in my heart.

Vic


----------

